There is no comparison between Daniel 1:1 and Jeremiah 25;1 except as a figment of your imagi nation. There is no data that connects these two texts nor is there any historical coincidence. Your theory about the accession/nonaccession year system is simply one of many interpretaions that scholars have sought to harmonize the 'third year' of Daniel 1:1 but as I have said before repeatedly to you that in Jehoiakim's third regnal year he was a vassal to Necho and it was not until his fourth regnal year that Nebuchadnezzer began ruling, this was his accession year. The following year at Nisan began his first regnal year in 624 BCE. Therefore the third year mentioned in Daniel was a third year of his kingship as a vassal to Nebuchadnezzer which proved to be his last year and the eight year of Nebuchadnezzer as Josephus agrees.
There is of course a clear connection between Daniel 1:1 and Jeremiah 25:1, which is much simpler than the Society's bizarre rendition which ignores the meaning of the original text, but this has already been explained at lengh in previous threads. Yes, genuine scholars seek to harmonize facts. Conversely, the Society does not seek to harmonize anything - it just ignores and attempts to discredit everything (specifically, all of the facts) that does not fit its interpretations. Your conjectural correlation of Jehoiakim's third year to his actual eigth is based purely on a deliberate misinterpretation of Daniel 1:1. You allege that Josephus agrees. In Antiquities of the Jews, Chapter 6, Josephus says that "in the fourth year of the reign of Jehoiakim, one whose name was Nebuchadnezzar took the government over the Babylonians." (Obviously Daniel, in Babylon, using the accession-year system, would render this as Jehoiakim's third year.) Josephus continues "when Nebuchadnezzar had already reigned four years, which was the eighth of Jehoiakim's government over the Hebrews, the king of Babylon made an expedition with mighty forces against the Jews, and required tribute of Jehoiakim, and threatened upon his refusal to make war against him." Nebuchadnezzar didn't appoint Jehoiakim as a vassal king, he demanded a tribute from him. Jehoiakim's initial 'refusal' wasn't a refusal to be king, but a refusal to pay tribute. There is no room here to suggest that Nebuchadnezzar began ruling in some additional god-appointed fashion, nor that anything other than Jehoiakim's typical reign is being discussed. Josephus does not support the Society's view at all. In his 11th year as king, Jehoiakim stopped paying tribute, and Nebuchadnezzar killed him.
The absence of exiles for Neb's acc year or first regnal year is indeed compelling evidence that no deporation took place. To base an argument upon the absence of facts or evidence is reckless and foolish. Your arguments concerning the deportations is nonsense and is not even used in the Jonsson hypothesis so if it had any validity at all , Jonsson would have exploited those facts to his advantage.
You ridicule me for agreeing with Jonsson, then you ridicule me for not agreeing with Jonsson.
Still waiting on your Neo-Babylonian chronology sans 20-year gap - until then the Society's interpretation is "reckless and foolish"