Jeffro
For most practical purposes this isn’t so important. But when dealing with dishonest people like ‘scholar’ who will try to convince other readers that the actual year for the destruction of Jerusalem is imprecise, the fact that the Bible identifies a specific year is significant. Decision table analysis rules out 586. However, various sources still say 586 due to a) misunderstanding the relevant dating systems or b) repeating the traditional dating without making any analysis at all. Additionally, some sources simply use the notation ‘587/586’ because Nisan-based dating spans part of both years, even though the relevant events occurred in 587.
---
It is a bit like this Jeffro that when a JW critic is critical and very dogmatic that 607 BCE is incorrect then a WT apologist can legitimately as the question if 607 BCE is incorrect for the fall then what date is correct? Now if the response does not give a definitive date then how does a reasonable person conclude that the date 607 BCE is wrong.. So, the onus is on you and fellow critics to come up with a definitive date as either 588, 587 or 586 BCE. Now if that can not be done then there remains a problem with the METHODOLOGY. So get your side right before being critical of another position.
You are simply relying on the Decision Tables analysis proposed by Rodger Young and in that very same article, he raises the issue of METHODOLOGY and his analysis is merely a fabrication and it stinks.
Now you say that scholars who prefer 586 have some sort of misunderstanding about the dating system but such scholars would argue that it is the proponents of 586 that have got it wrong. Further, there are scholars who sit on the fence by arguing for 586/587 but this is still imprecise whereas the 'celebrated' WT scholars have long held to the precise date of 607 BCE based on a simple METHODOLOGY and Biblical Interpretation.
scholar JW