: Pathetic excuses are all that you have
Not at all. It's provable that the Bible's "chronology" of the Hebrew kings is self-contradictory and inconsistent.
: despite the fact that WT chronology from earliest times have had no problem in presenting an intelligent, cohererent list of kings for the Divided Monarchy.
LOL! They never were able to present such "an intelligent, cohererent list of kings" until the 1940s, when Freddie Franz jettisoned a good bit of the older teachings, swept various problems under the rug, and presented a whitewashed version of "chronology" that simply ignored the problems that real scholars have long been concerned with. Not a single real scholar has accepted Watchtower chronology -- for the simple reason that it's self-inconsistent, fails to account for everything in the Bible, and contradicts known facts.
One example of the incorrect older chronological claims involves the question of whether there was a period of 430 or 530 years in a critical area of their claimed OT chronology. According to Freddie, it was the former number, whereas the Watchtower had been using the latter number until Freddie changed the teaching. Since the chronology was wrong by 100 years -- by the Watchtower Society's own admission in changing it -- your claim is demonstrated to be false. And you know that it's false, which simply proves once again that you're a liar.
: It is problematic for other scholars because of methodology and failure to take the historicity of the Bible seriously.
It is problematic for Watchtower writers because of methodology and failure to take the internal inconsistencies of the Bible seriously.
: Besides there are other non-Witness chronologists who make made such a list such as Thiele, Hayes, Hooker, Bright, Cogan and Tadmor.
I only know about Thiele, and he was honest enough to admit that there were unsolved problems -- which he listed and acknowledged in various works including The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings. He still had to jump through hoops to come up with anything resembling a coherent chronology -- and of course, other scholars have pointed out what he couldn't explain and have come to their own conclusions. And of course, almost any of such scholars could point out all sorts of inconsistencies in Watchtower claims.
Sweeping errors under the rug doesn't result in good chronology, non-scholar.