Leolaia,
Objectively looking at the preponderance of the evidence together, one can readily conclude decisively that 607 BC cannot be right; there's just too much evidence. You can't cherry-pick the things you like that support your chronology and then dismiss the rest for no other reason than it conflicts with your chronology. That's not how history works. The Society claims that it's just a coincidence and secular records are unreliable. These are records that reflect contemporaneous daily life, from many different quarters (not just the Egibi family), and they all agree on the same "errors". History is about assessing probabilities, and it is the height of bias to prefer an analysis that produces such an implausible mass of coincidental errors to one that makes perfect sense of the preponderance of the evidence.
I could use the next thirty years of my life researching in your field of study and sharpenning my writing skills, but I could never match the substance and the form of your writing. Thanks. Can I use this paragraph in a letter to some prominents "friends" of a congregation and make it look as my own paragraph by replacing a word with a synonym here and there.