they NEVER mention specifically what it is that "apostates" actually sayI always wondered about that too. I always thought that they should have nothing to fear from a close examination of their teachings. Unless, of course, that they were lying and knew it. To my knowledge, the only attempt they ever made to refute "apostate" claims was in the appendix of the "Let Your kingdom Come" book. Here's an excerpt from it that I thought was quite funny. It's on page 187 paragraph 2. It's part of their attempt to support their 607 B.C.E. date. My attention was drawn to this by Karl Olof Jonsson's book, "The Gentile Times Reconsidered".
However, no historian can deny the possibility that the present picture of Babylonian history might be misleading or in error. It is known, for example, that ancient priests and kings sometimes altered records for their own purposes. Or, even if the discovered evidence is accurate, it might be misinterpreted by modern scholars or be incomplete so that yet undiscovered material could drastically alter the chronology of the period.
Hmmm, so we're supposed to believe that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 B.C.E., just because it supports their 1914 and 1919 dates. All on the basis of yet undiscovered material that could alter the chronology in their favor.
If I would have paid a little more attention to what I was reading when I first came in contact with Jehovah's Witnesses, I might have picked up on this and avoided 20 years of crap.