It does seem pointless to add to what has already been said here. But I thought it worthwhile to add some points, purely from the Bible itself. Jeremiah wrote that only about 4,000+ people were actually taken as captives. I'm pretty sure Jerusalem had more than 4,000 people living there. That alone tells you that Jerusalem was not quite as utterly desolated as the WTS makes it appear--thus also indicating that the utter destruction of the city and rendering it a total wasteland was unnecessary for Jeremiah's prophecies to be fulfilled.
Consider also that Jeremiah foretells in chapter 25 that "all THESE NATIONS", plural, "must serve the king of Babylon seventy years." This prophecy had to do with far more than just Jerusalem. The Society takes this verse out of its context and forces its own ideas onto it, when any individual who is capable of basic reading comprehension would never have drawn the conclusion that this prophecy was about Jerusalem alone. There were several nations involved, and in order for it to fit all of them comprehensively--plus the fact that Jehovah would punish Babylon right after these seventy years were over--we'd have to find a date where Babylon reasonably holds control over the areas Jeremiah prophesied against.
I posted on that jehovahs-judgment.co.uk issue before--this understanding requires us to believe Daniel travelled backwards in time a year--to a time when even by JW logic he wasn't even IN Babylon yet to interpret Nebuchadnezzar's dream. (By JW logic, Daniel was taken to Babylon in the third year of Jehoiakim's vassalage to Nebuchadnezzar, yet Daniel is interpreting Nebuchadnezzar's dream in the SECOND year. Quite impossible unless we recognize that it was actually just plain Jehoiakim's fourth year of reign, which was the first year of Nebuchadnezzar, when Daniel was taken captive [Jeremiah 25:1].) Anytime we have to master time travel to understand the Bible, you know something's fishy.
Present any evidence from the Watchtower--specific source--to change Jerusalem's destruction from 606 to 607. Just prove that alone, and demonstrate that the Society respects the facts. If you can't even find a scholarly source that names 606 as the date, how can you find MORE evidence to move this date, which is absent from historical sources, one year backwards? This, I'd like to see.
