I apologize to anyone coming here thinking this is a futher discussion of NWT. It's a continuation of the discussion with scholar on 539/587/607. The only connection to the thread is that the scholarship behind the NWT has been identified with the scholarship behind the promotion of 607. This may have a bearing on the trustworthiness of their scholarship.
scholar,
Let's both of us try to do this with an open mind and without evading the main issues. What I'm trying to get at, scholar, is simply that the JWs would be standing on slightly firmer ground if they could point out that there are scholarly reasons for accepting 539 for reasons that are stronger than those they have used to support 587/6. I'm sure you'd agree with that statement, and probably have looked for such evidence. If you've found any such evidence, this would actually help your case a little bit in the eyes of JWs and exJWs, too. You have implied that such reasons do exist when you said: "I can assure that the lines of evidence for the acceptance of 539 and 586/7 are not identical. I have no problem accepting 539 but 586/7 is plainly stupid."
You did seem to say once that a weakness of secular scholarship was implied with the choice of 587 OR 586, but I think you understand that this is merely an accommodation of the two possible choices for the destruction event based, in no small part, on trying to merge it with Bible evidence which could allow for either of two years. But I agree that this argument could be a start. So I am trying to take it to the next possible level. If there is a scholar who accepts 539 and yet sees a possible range of not just 1 year (12 months) but say 3 years, or even 5 years, it might make an impact. It doesn't get us to 607, but we could look at whether these proposed adjustments tend to get us closer to, or farther from 607.
Naturally, since you clam 30 years' of study in chronology, and sign your name "scholar" and say 586/7 is clearly stupid, we would expect some reasons, any reasons. You said: "Let me assure that I am happy and secure in the knowledge that 607 is the only date that agrees with biblical and secular evidence. It is impossible to accept the other candidates but if you can then that is your choice."
That's quite a statement, if you can't back it up with anything specific. I finished re-reading the Aid book article on Chronology last night. Tonight, I'll re-read Jonsson's GTR reference per your recommendation. So far I've only skimmed the Insight article but will read it before Friday to see what else it offers.
But if you had a specific scholarly authority in mind, please tell me. We've already established that the WTS argument is simply that: 1) 539 is the accepted starting point. 2) 607 is 68 years before 539 and 68 is close enough to work out a 70 year desolation. We've also already established that Jonsson clearly believes that 587/6 is at least as well attested to with secular chronology as 539. So I'm afraid you've lost me as to which lines of evidence for 539 to look at in these sources.
So far your references have shown me exactly what you implied they wouldn't show me: that the lines of evidence for 539 are exactly of the same type as the lines of evidence for 587/6. (Accepting certain astronomical calculations and accepting the regnal lengths of certain kings.) So far there is no type of evidence for or against 587/6 that would not be just as applicable for or against 539. There is no justification for accepting an astronomical or regnal calculation that helps one over the other.
So again I ask you: Can you give me one line of evidence for 539 that is different from a line of evidence for 587/6? If you can't then you are admitting that a "scholar's" 30 years of study in the field of chronology cannot support 607 over 587/6. Until such evidence is found and shared the Watchtower's credibility is being incredibly damaged.
Gamaliel