The Hebrew word translated 'kingship' in Daniel 1:1 means much more than 'reign' as commonly translated. The word malkut means much more than reign but inn fact refers to, royal power, dominion, kingship, royal digity etc. Or more properly the office of ruling with a stronger emphasis on the activity of ruling. So this word means much more than reign which at its base denotes a period of time. The NWT is quite unique in recoginizing the distint meaning of this word. I am not saying that this word means vassalship but rather the use of kingship changes the focus of a period to nature of Jehoiakim' reign which historically was one ofa vassal to foreign over the length of 11 years. As one referenc you can consult DOTTE,1997, Vol.2, pp.956-65.
Yes, the word also shares its meaning with words that are synonyms of 'reign' (not sure how that helps your point). Yes, it means reign as a noun regarding the period time for which one reigns (not sure how that helps your point either). Occasionally the NWT renders it as 'kingship' but not always. In any case, in other translations it is obvious when 'reign' is used as a noun rather than a verb (still not sure how this helps your point). If you are translating the Hebrew word to either 'reign' or 'kingship', the original word is not changed, and there is simply nothing in the original word to suggest vassalship. Your point merely demonstrates that the Society wants it to refer to vassalship-ness-ment or some other crazy Society word.
You talk about the logical reading of the text which you use to adopt a form of reckoning but if the text is not accurately translated then your argument. Additionall, Jewish scholars and Josephus do not support your exegesis but are in harmony with WT scholars.
You're suggesting that the text is not properly translated in some bibles, yet the word 'reign' is generally understood by English speakers as a noun to indicate the time for which someone reigns. It is unclear what point you really think you have here. Josephus says in Against Apion (Book 1, Chapter 21) "Nebuchadnezzar, in the eighteenth year of his reign, laid our temple desolate, and so it lay in that state of obscurity for fifty years; but that in the second year of the reign of Cyrus its foundations were laid, and it was finished again in the second year of Darius." In the same work, in Chapter 19, he says that Jerusalem "was desolate during the interval of seventy years" though this does not necessitate the entirety of the period. Also, he doesn't actually say that Jerusalem was completely uninhabited. I'm not sure which Jewish scholars you are referring to, but I don't know of any that agree that the 70 years started in 607, so you would discount their interpretations anyway.
I do not accept your dating for the first deportation in Daniel 1:1 regardles of how prestigious the source is. The only prestigious source is God;s Word and it does not accept your theories.
My dating is based on the bible. There is simply nothing in the verse to indicate vassalship.
Of course when you say your source is 'God's Word', what you mean is 'God's Word as interpreted by the Watchtower Society'. This is because they are supposed to be the 'Faithful and Discreet Slave'. However the supposed identification of that class is derived from interpretations contingent upon 1914 which in turn is contingent upon 607. (To be more specific, Revelation 11:2-3 mentions periods of 42 months and 1260 days (both 3½ years). The Watchtower Society applies this period literally, from October 1914 to the beginning of 1918, after which they apply the 3½ days of Revelation 11:11 figuratively, identifying these periods with the preaching work during World War I followed by a period of imprisonment of early Watchtower Society members in 1918. It is after their release from prison in 1919 that it is believed that they were approved as Jesus’ ‘slave class’.) So it is quite clear why you so doggedly defend 607.
There is no evidence that Nebuchadnezzer too captives in the early period of his reign for the records only indicate this happened in his seventy or eight year of his reign.
You claim to rely solely on the bible, yet you ignore Daniel 1:1 which states that captives were taken in Jehoiakim's third year (accession year system) in 605BC. But if you really want to talk about evidence, give me the names and reigns (sorry, 'kingships') of the kings for the missing 20 years according to the Society's interpretation with the supporting evidence.