Anna

So far, we've used two "witnesses" to the timeline of Babylonian kings:
Berossus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berossus Royal Canon, sometimes called "Ptolemy's Canon" (a "king list" going back to the 8th century BC, and updated by various persons over the next centuries as they added successive new kings and their reigns to it). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_of_Kings It may also be of interest to note that scholars believe these two sources are independent of each other.
There is another famous king list, the Uruk King List which can be found translated into English here: Uruk King List - Livius and several other places. It completely covers the portion of kings in the chart below and then some additional kings, both before and after the ones shown below. It includes kings much further back into the Assyrian period. I'll list them below the chart, as copied from Livius. But first, this is what it does to our chart. It's another independent witness to the exact same evidence. It's in perfect harmony with Berossus and "Ptolemy."
 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 Nabopo-lassar N E B U C H A D N E Z Z A R II (reigned for 43 years) E-M Nerig- lissar N A B O N I D U S C Y R U S 16 17 18 19 20 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 1 2 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Timeline above confirmed by Berossus Timeline above confirmed by Royal Canon ("Ptolemy's") Nabopo-lassar N E B U C H A D N E Z Z A R II (reigned for 43 years) E-M Nerig- lissar N A B O N I D U S C Y R U S 16 17 18 19 20 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 1 2 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Timeline above exactly confirmed by the Uruk King List As copied from Livius.org below. The other side of this inscription continues beyond Cyrus, Cambyses, Darius, etc.):
1'note /MU 21\ [mAššur-bâni-apli] Aššurbanipal 21 years 668-631 2' ša-niš /m\Šamaš-šuma-ukîn Šamaš-šuma-ukîn at the same time 667-648 3' MU 21 mK[an-da]-la-an Kandalanu 21 years 647-627 4' MU 1 m dSîn2-šumu-lîšir2 Sin-šumliširnote 1 year 626 5' u m dSîn2-šarra-iš-ku-un and Sin-šar-iškûn Id. Id 6' MU 21 m dNabû-apla-usur Nabopolassar 21 years 626note-605 7' [M]U 43 m dNabû-kuddurî-usur Nebuchadnezzar [II] 43 years 604-562 8' [M]U 2 mAmîl-dMarduk Amel-Marduk 2 years 561-560 9' [MU] /3\ 8 ITI m dNergal2-šarra-usur Neriglissar 3 years, 8 months 559-556 10' [(...)]note 3 ITI mLa-ba-ši-dMarduk Labaši-Marduk [accession year] 3 months 556 11' [MU] /17?\ m dNabû-nâ'id Nabonidus 17? years 555-539 12' [MU x mK]ur-aš Cyrus [the Great] [x years] 539-530 13' [MU x mKambu-z]i-i Cambyses [II] [x years] 530-522 14' [MU x mDaria-m]uš Darius [the Great] [x years] 522-486  

We know that dates like 1513 BCE, 606 BCE, 587 BCE, 539 BCE, 70 CE (or AD), don't occur in the Bible, nor in the ancient astronomical diaries either. If we can pin a specific astronomical event to a record of any of Nebuchadnezzar's years, it would help. But we don't need those kinds dates yet. We can get them later.
The first thing we need to do is to figure out where the variously listed kings fit in our timeline relative to each other. If we knew the order of the kings in succession and knew how long they each ruled for, we could at least create a "relative" timeline.
So. To begin. Do ancient records provide an agreed upon list of kings, their order of succession, and the lengths of their rule?
Yes.
Do all ancient records agree?
No. (Most would argue that they agree in all the important areas, and minor disagreements are easily fixed, but we should still admit that not all records are 100% in agreement.)
So. Can we find two or three that do agree with each other, or perhaps even the majority of the records, in order to start a tentative timeline, and then deal with the disagreements later?
Yes. The most important of the ancient records from Babylon itself and from those who made use of Babylonian records for astronomical purposes all agree anyway (Babylonians, Persians, Greeks). We would expect the most accurate records to relate to works for predicting or understanding eclipses (for example) or various lunar cycles  and planetary movements. We know that certain types of astronomical phenomena were predicted in advance, or even known to be occurring even if invisible behind thick clouds, or because it occurred below the horizon, or invisible because some events relative to stars and planets could not be seen in the daytime. So  we should expect records accurate enough to be used to actually calculate and predict a future eclipse even if it would be invisible.
OK. So we'll put into our chart an example where two of these records agree with each other. For now, we'll pick the Royal King List that must have been available to Ptolemy's Almagest as a kind of "look-up table" and the writings of Berossus a Babylonian historian/priest from the Seleucid Period. They both agree on the following:
Nabopolassar        21 years Nebuchadnezzar  43 years Awel-Marduk         2 years Neriglissar             4 years [Labashi-Marduk  9 months]* Nabonidus            17 years So, we have two "witnesses" (so far) to the names, years, and order of succession for these kings, which I will place in the chart below. To save space and give us a fairly legible font size, I only put in the last few years of Nabopolassar's 21 year reign. And we haven't discussed the length of position of Cyrus reign yet, but both Berossus and the Royal King List give him 9 years starting immediately after the 17th year of Nabonidus.
So this, so far, becomes an 81-year span (arbitarily) from the 16th year of Nabopolassar up to the 9th year of Cyrus as King of Babylon. It might not be right, but it's a version that we can begin to test against the data to see if it holds up. E-M by the way, is short for Evil-Merodach (Awel-Marduk).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 Nabopo-lassar N E B U C H A D N E Z Z A R II (reigned for 43 years) E-M Nerig- lissar N A B O N I D U S C Y R U S 16 17 18 19 20 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 1 2 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9  
*Labashi-Marduk reigned only a few months, but we would NOT expect his name included in a timeline used for counting the number of years between any points on the timeline. And we definitely would not expect it to be included for any purposes related to astronomy calculations. That's because if a reign was so short that it started in a year already counted as "Neriglissar 4" and it ended before the start of "Nabonidus 1" then it should not be inserted because those full years were already counted. In fact, it would be considered a mistake then to include it in an astronomical reference, because it would have thrown off all calculations. predictions and cycles by a full year, making the entire king list worthless. In this case, Berossus, in the role of historian mentions him, but in the Royal King List used for astronomical purposes as a reference for Ptolemy's Almagest, for example, it should NOT be listed, and it wasn't.

I think the situation that was raised was that of: "a fairly successful method of keeping people in a state of anticipation".
You are familiar with the scriptures that urge Christians to be in a state of anticipation. I don't think I need to quote them all here. 
Of course I do not think mistakes are from God or Jesus. But they obviously allowed them. 
By whatever misguided means this state of anticipation was achieved throughout decades by the organization is not the question here. The fact is it was achieved and still is being achieved. No one can accuse the JWs of not being "on the watch". 
 

They are doing that; through the scriptures
I do not think that.

Yes, I think that's the idea.

Yes, I think that's the idea.

The whole point is that anyone can do whatever they want. 
Only if a person wants to serve Jehovah, then they must abide by his rules. They must hate what Jehovah hates. 
This is why it can be said that JWs are neutral with respect to what the world does. But they are definitely not neutral with respect to what the congregation does.

The only message I know of is the message of the Good News and salvation for all those who want to live under God's Kingdom.
Are you calling God a liar then? Are you saying God's Kingdom won't come? I find that disturbing.

"As President of the United States, George Washington proclaimed the first nationwide thanksgiving celebration in America marking November 26, 1789, "as a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favours of Almighty God"  wikipedia.
As you know, Jehovah's Witnesses don't need a special day to thank God. They do this every day. They definitely don't need George Washington to tell them when to do it.
As for eating turkey on that day, there's nothing wrong with that of course. Jehovah’s Witnesses can eat turkey any day they want.

Yes. It's natural for every generation to want to live to see all the good promises fulfilled in their lifetime. With the right attitude, this should not be a disturbing thing to anyone, at best. At worst, it is a disappointment when it doesn't happen and can make you downhearted temporarily. With the wrong attitude it can make people angry and throw out the baby with the bath water.

Seems certain people will soon claim that JWs started the pandemic.  Christians were blamed also for the fire of Rome.  Seems it will soon get to things like that.  We seem to be going back to the Dark Ages.

“Is it still a God dishonoring sin to eat turkey on Thanksgiving day?”
From the turkey’s standpoint, yes.
 

I suspect they would still be allowed the opportunity to pay taxes. She's not thinking it through if she really thinks that voting is "buying" the governments services. Most people think they are buying representation by paying taxes and they therefore vote as a way to try to manipulate the government to have the best chance of representing their own interests in how that tax money is spent. Yet, here we have a group of people who pay taxes but are not clamoring for special favors that one party offers over another.
Also, having only partisan people among your government workers results in many problems. There are times when you really can't trust partisan people to tell you the truth about what is happening in their government departments. The USA has begun to have this trouble for last couple decades, especially. And in this last election, one party is supposed to be always untrustworthy when it comes to counting votes (in the eyes of the other party). A leader should be happy to have neutral, non-partisans in government jobs. Taken to the extreme, every time a new party comes to power, it could also end up meaning that all persons of the other party must now lose their jobs and training and efficiency must always start at the bottom again.
There is a danger in this type of rhetoric which is probably a kind of "populist trial balloon" to see how much attention it will get her. It might be designed to get attention only because it seems outrageous to most, and she will add other things as she thinks of them if any of these get her some "airtime." I suspect she has picked this one (perhaps it's already one of many such issues) only because of a personal grudge against a particular relative's conversion (or a Witness' grudge against her for getting into politics, or a specific doctrine that she doesn't like. Or she's seen something negative in the news about Witnesses.
She is probably hoping that it gets some attention, but it isn't likely to gain her enough. The two major parties are leading with the current president running again, and a past present running again. 99.9% chance that it ends up being one of those two.

You almost think that she would use her talents to root out villainy and solve a few problems in her country instead.

What they are saying is that the final attack (that prompts Armageddon) is not made up of separate attacks.
 
I don't know. But regardless who the attacks come from, they are usually because JWs do not compromise Bible principles. 
As for the inquiry into CSA, it is usually the intention of the inquiring institution to help establish better policies, to protect children, not to ban or persecute Jehovah's Witnesses. As you know, this involves many other establishments, not just JWs. So I would say this would not be considered an attack. Some of the advice was considered very good advice and JWs have taken that advice on board, as long as it did not go against Bible principles. 

It will always be in the name of whatever the abusers are involved in. 
But we are molded by our experiences, and that is a very bad one. One might almost say “Thanks for sharing.” It lends an insight.

It is by no means unusual for parents to yell at their children. It might not be the norm, but it is common. Back in the day, it was by no means unusual for parents to “beat” their children, especially in the form of spankings. Nothing was more unremarkable. 
I am the only Witness in my family. You have to go back almost to Noah to find another. My dad’s father was so harsh that his oldest son determined he would not be like him, and did not discipline his kids at all. Believe me when I tell you, there were some hell-raisers among them. 
My dad did not swear off discipline. Spanking was not uncommon, and a belt was sometimes used. “Just wait till your father gets home,” my outmaneuvered mom would say. She’d rat on me the second he walked through the door, and then it was one bad experience for me. But this was routine among families—I think more common than not. “Spare the rod and spoil the child”—it was as common for people to say that as the pledge to the flag.
Sometimes parents were just doing their best to raise kids, trying to forestall bad habits. Sometimes they were abusive themselves. Sometimes they were working through their own issues. It is good to forgive. It leads to a healthier life. And yes, it goes the other way as well. But you can’t control what another does. You can only control what you do.
I remember Cora, decades ago, tearing into a newspaper editor after he’d run a story of some felon and had taken pains to highlight a Witness connection. “You would never have done that were he Catholic or Lutheran,” she said. The fellow reflected, “You’re right,” he said, “we wouldn’t,” and apologized to her. 
There are a lot of damaged people around. 

If you do not teach your children values, it does not mean that they grow up free and unencumbered and, when of age, select their own values from the rich cornucopia of life. 
No. All it means is that someone else will teach them

I didn't say anything about the ARC being a good role model. It merely helped us to see areas where we could improve. 
Yes, the WT did react to the suggestions of the ARC. I know because I listened to the whole thing, I heard the suggestions, and I could see those exact suggestions were being implemented in the 2016 WT study, and the "Child protection" packet on the website. This had never been done before the ARC inquiry. There was never one place accessible to everyone outlining our policies regarding child protection. It was always in articles here and there, and in letters to the elders. Never in one place like this. Now everyone can be on the same page. The changes that were made were changes suggested by the ARC.
Of course not. The old advice was good advice. But it lacked in certain areas, and those areas were identified in the ARC hearing. After the 2016 WT study article, many brothers and sisters were extremely grateful for it.

I don't know anything about that. All I know is that after ARC, we published the child protection packet on our website, and had WT study articles discussing child sexual abuse in the congregation,  something that had not been done before....

Possible. Jehovah has used "worldly" authorities before to put his people on the right track. Regarding the protection, and handling of child sexual abuse, the ARC has definitely helped us to make clearer and transparent information available to all in the congregation, not just the elders. 

What they are saying is that the final attack (that prompts Armageddon) is not made up of separate attacks.
 
I don't know. But regardless who the attacks come from, they are usually because JWs do not compromise Bible principles. 
As for the inquiry into CSA, it is usually the intention of the inquiring institution to help establish better policies, to protect children, not to ban or persecute Jehovah's Witnesses. As you know, this involves many other establishments, not just JWs. So I would say this would not be considered an attack. Some of the advice was considered very good advice and JWs have taken that advice on board, as long as it did not go against Bible principles. 

"E-Tell is believed by some scholars, led by Prof. Rami Arav of the University of Nebraska in Omaha, to have been Geshur’s capital and is also thought to have been, centuries later, the village of Bethsaida, which features prominently in the New Testament. "
...
"The preliminary analysis of the pottery dates the fort to the early Iron Age, specifically the 11th or 10th century B.C.E., Tzin says. This, according to the biblical chronology, would have been the time of the great united Israelite monarchy of David and Solomon, and Geshur is mentioned several times in the holy text in connection to this kingdom. For example, King David is said to have married Maakah, the daughter of the king of Geshur (2 Samuel 3:3) and it was to there that their son Absalom was exiled after killing his brother Amnon (2 Samuel 13:23-39)."
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-massive-3-000-year-old-fort-of-biblical-geshur-found-in-israeli-golan-1.9303547

I choose to ignore the content without the "You've chosen to ignore content by ........."    You can try that one too 😄  You don't have to read everything you see in front of your eyes,. But then you are in the wrong forum, if you ignore posters here, in the JW open, then you might as well not be here 😄