‘scholar’:
Would it not be funny to watch people like Jeffro if current scholarship abandoned 586 or 587 BCE in favour of 607 BCE which validates 1914 CE as the birth of God's Kingdom.
1. The preponderance of evidence positively identifies 587 BCE as the correct year. 2. If it were discovered that 607 BCE were the correct year (despite this not being plausible at all), assuming it were based on reliable evidence it wouldn’t bother me as I have no superstitious vested interest in 587 BCE (though the post-exilic compiler of Leviticus connects paying off sabbaths with a period of 49 years). 3. 1914 would remain a coincidental contrivance as just one of many years posed by Adventists for ‘something’ to happen. JWs would be left quietly ignoring the fact that there was no sudden change in world events in October of 1914, tediously remarking that something significant happen in that year. It would not be validated as a reliable doctrinal position as Babylon’s 70 years of dominance were explicitly said to end when Babylon was called to account and explicitly didn’t mean exile (Jeremiah 27:8-11).