AnnOMaly
Post 1106
If you had bothered to read the Insight article your would have learnt that 60y BCE was marked by the 11th year of the Zedekiah's reign and the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzer's reign if counting from his accession year or his 18th regnal year. Nebuchadnezzer began his first regnal year in Nisan, 624 BCE preceeded by his accession year in 625 BCE see Insight, p. 480. Thus the matter of the 18th/19th of Nebuchadnezzer is easily resolved by the 'celebrated WT scholars.
I notice that you conveniently avoided addressing the issue of fixing a precise date for the Fall of Jerusalem because you simply do not and cannot know. Your chronology like that of many othersecular chronologies is compromised by methodology and your methodology fails you when you most need it. Our chronology devised by the clebrated WT scholars works because of our methodology and interpretation of the Bible so we know the precise calender year of the Fall of Jerusalem in 607 BCE.
It appears that you are having triuble in understanding the terms that scholar invented: Event-based chronology versus Regnal-based chronology. The former term describes the methodology of WT biblical chronology and the latter describes the methodology of most secular chronologies which rely too much on calendation at the expense of accurate history. I can explain this further if you require.
Regarding the ongoing debate between Furuli and Jonsson typified in the Catastrophism Review website I will phone Furuli this week to get his side of the story as your comments are too biased and useless. Furuli is a very competent scholar and I know from my conversations with him that he is on top of this debate.
scholar JW