The method used by historians to calculate 539 BCE for the Fall of Babylon relies on 587 BCE being the date of the Destruction of Jerusalem and it relies on the lengths of reign of the Babylonian kings that the WTS does not accept. So it accepts the conclusion but does not accept the method employed to arrive at that conclusion.
You know i never thought of that arguement either. so they take off 70 years to get from 537 to 607 (i know i said add on before i get confused with bc sometimes and for get that the higher the number the longer ago it is) saying that secular history calculations are wrong and then they conveniantly ignore the fact that the tablets used to get that 537 rely on the tablets being correct with regards to 586/587 destruction? it gets better.
the problem is i could never use this stuff if i brought the subject up i'd be labelled aposate. can they df you when you havent associated for 3 years?