why not just stick to the tried and true arguments that the society have already presented:
*** w89 3/15 21-2 Insight That Jehovah Has Given ***cant argue with that, can you? the dates don't work in prophetic fulfillment? they're confusing? well then, ignore them. rock-solid reasoning. in fact, why argue about chronology at all. just give the whole thing up. because its all a murky, shaky, fragmentary and speculative science anyways. i hesitate to even use the word 'science' - it's more like a bunch of opinion.
Secular historians, relying on their interpretation of what are in some cases fragmentary tablets unearthed by archaeologists, have concluded that 464 B.C.E. was the first year of the kingship of Artaxerxes Longimanus and that 604 B.C.E. was the first year of the kingship of Nebuchadnezzar II. If that were true, the 20th year of Artaxerxes would begin in 445 B.C.E., and the date of Jerusalem?s desolation by the Babylonians (in Nebuchadnezzar?s 18th regnal year) would be 587 B.C.E. But if a Bible student uses those dates when calculating the fulfillment of prophecy, he will simply be confused.
*** kc 187 Appendix to Chapter 14 ***As we all know, there is only one date in the whole of secular chronology before christ that is reliable, 539. but according to this notable scholar (very recently i might add) even this date, being a part of neo-babylon chronology, is only a provisional 'circa' date. why not take this argument to its logical conclusion? there is no way to state authoritatively when ANYTHING happened in the bible with precision. anyone who thinks they can has been deluded by this pseudo-science of opinion and 'worldy wisdom.' we have plenty of evidence for 1914 in the indisputable physical facts we have all seen with our own eyes since that date in the 'last days' of this old system. we have far much more evidence now than russell did in his day. we no longer need a chronological crutch to support this solid biblical prophecy. in doing away with all secular chronology once and for all, we can finally stop worrying about all kinds of annoying thorny discrepancies and breathe easier, knowing that the bible always triumphs when in comes to conflict with human wisdom.
Evidently realizing such facts, Professor Edward F. Campbell, Jr., introduced a chart, which included Neo-Babylonian chronology, with the caution: ?It goes without saying that these lists are provisional. The more one studies the intricacies of the chronological problems in the ancient Near East, the less he is inclined to think of any presentation as final. For this reason, the term circa [about] could be used even more liberally than it is.??The Bible and the Ancient Near East (1965 ed.), p. 281.
mox