You're never going to get a complete list of the neo-babylonian kings. You know why? Because the Organization has never bothered to provide a list.
There is no tenable chronology, but in the face of it all, nuts will still attempt to make sense of it.
Its all inherited anyways, and its just painful watching the society attempt to defend this inherited mess.
But notice how Scholar has consistently always ducked out of showing the neo-babylonian kings. You can't blame him. He's no better than those that "sent" him.
Just incidentally, my dad, an elder, privately admitted that 607 wasn't historically sustainable. But hey, 1914 or 1934 or whatever... it was all good to him. I just find it sad him comment about it: "You can't go around saying its wrong, because that would damage too many people's faith." A faith based on falsehoods. How sad.
ackack