There is certainly a wealth of secular materials available that relate in various ways to the reconstruction of Neo-Babylonian chronology but I disagree that such materials have replaced the status and importance of Ptolemy' Canon.
I can agree with the above statement, I think - that Ptolemy's canon is still important. But I still disagree with your earlier statement that, "this material is the bedrock for Neo-Babylonian chronology with all other subsequent lines of evidence built upon this document. It is the basis or framework for interpretation of material relevant to any king for that period," because the wealth of secular materials is independent of Ptolemy's canon.
All of this other material is subject to interpretation and has not solved the many problems in establishing the reliability of such chronology. For example, there is a twenty gap between such chronologies and biblical chronology as established by celebrated WT scholars.
Where is the 20 year gap between secular and Biblical chronology? I don't see any. You do know that if you introduce an extra 20 years into the Babylonian chronology, you create problems in synchronizing other Scriptures?
And do you, for example, believe Strm Kambys 400 is part of the material subject to interpretation?
In addition, there is the omission of imporatnt events during the reign of Nebuchadnezzer ie, the seven years absence from the throne which compromises the accuracy of all this so called evidence.
Only if you insist they are years. The Aramaic word also means 'period' or 'time of duration.' Compare Dan. 3:15 where the word clearly does not mean year. If not years, the seven times can more easily be fitted in to Nebuchadnezzar's reign. I'm not surprised history doesn't (as far as we know) record Nebuchadnezzar's madness. It would be a huge embarrassment for such an eminent ruler.
The Bible is the only reliable guide in establishing events in biblical history and it works very nicely because one can go right back to the time of Adam,
Humm. You're either terribly naive or ... not as clued up on Bible history and chronology as you claim.
The reason why it works is because careful Bible Students have used an event-based methodology which eliminates the many problems arising from a regnal-based methodology.
What are the problems with regnal-based methodology and how does an event-based methodology eliminate those problems? Give me an example.
Certainly, Young arrives at a conclusion which is 587 but he is yet to convince the rest of scholarship of the certainty of 587 for the Fall. I believe despite his sincerity that his efforts are doomed to failure.
OK. Maybe, maybe not. But the bigger problem is how to convince the scholarly community that 607 was the Fall in the face of no evidence.
There is no imaginary twenty years because the Bible speaks most definitely of seventy years and not of your imaginary 'fifty years' which is required if one were to follow your hypothesis.
Now this is where correct interpretation comes into play.
As Sir Robert Anderson said (as quoted in Walvoord's commentary of Daniel), "The failure to distinguish between the several judgments of the Servitude, the Captivity and the Desolations, is a fruitful source of error in the study of Daniel and the historical books of Scripture."
This is where the WTS falls down, unfortunately.
As I have said our chronology is simple, elegant and correct and you cannot prove otherwise.
You have been given plenty of proof otherwise. You just wish to ignore it.
When you have some certainty about a precise date for the Fall then you can boast but until then you should continue to research the matter.
Give me some proof for a 607 Fall, and I'll consider it. Until then, I shall go where the evidence leads, i.e. 587.
Dogmatism without certainty is pure arrogance and stupidity.
I wholeheartedly agree. Proponents of the 607 dogma never cease to amaze me on that score.