AnnOMaly
Post 469
True, Furuli's tabulation could be considered secondary evidence but is drawn from ancient historical sources and as Furuli states in the introduction for the Chapter 4: Old Chronological Accounts Of The New Babylonian Kings the following: "This is important because the modern model of the New Babylonian and Persian chronology was not constructed on the basis of Babylonian sources, but rather on the basis of secondary ot tertiary sources from other places." (Furuli,2003,1:66) One such source id Ptolemy's Canon which admits any reference to the reign of Labashi Marduk.
There is certainly plenty of archaeological evidence availkable but much of it has yet to be deciphered and interpreted by scholars and is a work in progress even though "Of the more than 8000 dated New Babylonian tablets that have been published, most agree with the traditional chronology" (ibid.231).
You arrogantly accuse celebrated WT scholars of 'flawed interpretations' but their critics cannot agree on any definite interpretation for the seventy years which in our opinion falsifies traditional chronology. A careful survey of the literature in published journals on the seventy years and comments in major technical Bible commentaries proves that there is no such definitive interpretation of this biblical period. So your accusation is rather ignorant and foolish.
scholar JW