AnnOMaly
Post 1105
Jeremiah clearly indicates that Nebuchadnezzer destroyed Jerusalem in his 18 th year and 19th year or in his 18th regnal year and in his 19th accession year as explained in Insight On The Scriptures, Vol.2. p. 481, see article NEBUCHADBEZZER.
This means that our chronology as developed by the 'celebrated WT scholars is not dependent on calendrical problems that follow from a 'regnal-based' methodology as opposed to a superior 'event-based methodology. The 18th/19th year problem has and currently causes much vexation for scholars, WT critics and apostates who devilishly try to disprove 607 BCE in favour of the controversial 586/87 BCE scenaio.
So if you do agree with the above then do not make your problem my problem because the regnal years of ANebuchadnezzer have little do with the determination of 607 BCE as expalined in WT publications.
Your big problem is how to interpret this regnal data and determine precisely what Year Jerusalem fell in Nebuchadnezzer'e reign, Was it 586 or 587 BCE?
The foregoing comments renders your chart of mischief useless so there is no need for me to comment on that piece of stupity.
Regarding your debates with Furuli your comments demean you and are irrelevant because Furuli has always invited constructive criticism and if a competent scholar finds his hypothesis or research in need of improvement or correction then Furuli will listen to this. As far as I know Furuli has not yet received much scholarly review but I will ring him for a update. The only amateur who has responded to Furuli is of course Carl Jonsson but Furuli has dealt with his views competently.
scholar JW