You wrote: I'm waiting too.
I think we will be waiting a very long time.
How long has Alan F has been waiting for scholar to respond to his post which proved that the Jews' returned home from Babylon in 538 BC, a year earlier than the Watch Tower Society says they did?
The fact of the matter is, the questions I asked "Scholar" can not be honestly answered by any JW. To answer these questions honestly a JW would have to admit that the only reason the Watch Tower Society accepts the date 539 BC for the accession year of Cyrus ( as established indirectly by Strm Kambys 400 ) and rejects the year 587/6 BC for the year of Babylon's destruction of Jerusalem ( as established in a much more direct way by VAT 4956 ) is that doing so allows them to hold on to their Daniel 4 interpretation.
As we know, this interpretation says that 2,520 years passed between the year of Jerusalem's destruction ( "607 BCE" according to the Watch Tower Society ) and the year of Christ's invisible return ( "1914" according to the Society ). Of course the Society needs this interpretation so they can continue to maintain that shortly after Christ invisibly returned he appointed them over all his belongings.
The only reason the Society tells us that the astronomical dating for "the 7th year of Cambyses" found in Strm Kambys 400 is trustworthy and implies that the astronomical dating for "the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar" found in VAT 4956 is not trustworthy is because to do otherwise would demolish their Daniel 4 interpretation and with it their only claim to spiritual authority over the lives of Jehovah's Witnesses.
The fact that the Watch Tower Society has chosen to accept as accurate the astronomical dating contained in Strm Kambys 400 and has chosen to not accept as accurate the astronomical dating contained in VAT 4956 has nothing to do with one document being considered by historians to be more reliable than the other. For both are considered to be equally trustworthy. And, since we are able to date Jerusalem's destruction in a much simpler and more direct way using VAT 4956 than we are able to do by using Strm Kambys 400, it makes much more sense for us to do so by using VAT 4956 than by using Strm Kambys 400.
These things being so, and I suspect "Scholar" knows that they are so, I didn't really expect Scholar to answer my questions. I was only trying to get him to face the fact, and make any "lurkers" here aware of the fact, that the Society has been far less than honest when dealing with this subject matter.