Jehovah is very happy with 607 BCE because it pays attention to prophecy ...
Another unsubstantiated assertion, Neil.
... and that is what distinguishes us from apostates, scoffers and higher critics is that they do not value prophecy nor are they lovers of God's Word.
Ad hominem fallacy as well as generalization.
The date 607 BCE is correct because it works, it succeeds, it began the Gentile Times ending in 1914 CE.
Unsubstantiated assertion which has been proven erroneous on countless occasions.
Yes you can use an imperfect chronology for indeed all chronologies are not perfect or infallible for it is simply working with the best data available and with an appropriate methoidology you have BINGO, a chronology.
Yes we use all the of the avaialble data to calculate and validate 607 BCE both in terms of its chronology and its historicity. You must remember that chronology is simply the framework of history so all of the pieces must fit together.
Exactly! 'All of the pieces must fit together.' So you cannot utilize a secular chronology to "firmly establish" a WTS date if the secular chronology is out by 20 years. End of story.
Your chronology is flawed on many counts, the methodology is prone to error, it trivializes or ignores the seventy years, indifferent to prophecy and theology and its history is also flawed. The result is no precise calender year for the Fall.
On the contrary, it takes into account the biblical and secular testimonies and comes up with a potential margin of error of 1 year (depending on how Neb's reign is counted in the Bible) rather than the WTS' 20 years.
Yes, Young resolved the problem to his satisfaction that 587 BCE was the most likely suspect but even up to the present it has not overtaken 586 BCE championed by more serious scholars.
So Young isn't as serious a scholar as the the ones who favor 586? Is that what you're saying?! You impudent monkey! One thing I do know - he's a 1000 times the scholar you are and then some. At least you admit that 587 is the most likely suspect according to his method.
Also, do not forget it was scholar who drew attention to his research on this forum. You should say Thanks, scholar!
Actually, it was Carl Olof Jonsson from ChannelC who drew your attention to his research in the first place. You should say, Thanks, COJ!