LeeT
I see you as choosing a particular interpretation of Biblical history. Others seem to have little difficulty in arriving an interpretation which conforms to their understandings of both the Bible and history or even to arrive at an inconclusive conclusion.
How would you go about testing whether a particular interpretation of historically related Biblical text is accurate? Surely you'd expect it to be in conformity with well arrested secular evidence or have a compelling case for why the secular record is in error
------
WT scholars have in our publications showed great accuracy to Biblical history which undergirds sound Chronology. In short, WT publications have shown competence in this field and this was well tested when I did that online course on the Rise and Fall of Jerusalem. Most other historians have-not demonstrated that same competence as shown by their failure to discuss the seventy years as definite historical period.
The current understanding of Neo- Babylonian Chronology has its own difficulties and I believe that the missing seven years of Nebuchadnezzer is a significant factor in Neb's overall reign of 43 years. My trust is firmly rooted in the Bible History concerning that period rather than whatever information is contained in the many thousand clay tablets or other artefacts. Further, we have the Babylonian gap of twenty years which must be resolved when comparing Bible Chronology with neo-Babylonian Chronology, So, WT critics have two problems to solve namely the Gap of twenty years and Neb's missing years hich will continue to be of some embarrassment for them.
scholar