Regarding 586 BCE rather than 587 BCE for the destruction of Jerusalem, I have seen scholarly sources for both years and I have seen scholarly sources which say "587/586" BCE (in the case of the latter I sometimes get the impression that the sources are saying the siege/destruction began in 587 BCE and was completed in 586 BCE). As a result, I don't know which precise year the destruction was completed in. Furthermore, it is not important to me know whether it was in 587 BCE instead of 586 BCE, or vice versa. I am not quibbling about a difference of only one year about a historical event which took place more than 2,500 years ago.
My opinion in very many matters unfortunately is probably very easily swayed. For example when I read a science article making a claim, such as in regards to cosmology, physics, and the scientific assessment of fossils pertaining to evolution (including the dating of fossils), I tend to readily believe/accept what the article says. Such is typically the case (unless the science article contradicts some other scientific source I read, or contradicts something which I already strongly consider to true and/or unless something seems suspicious to me in the article) until I read a different science article which contradicts something the other article said. [After all, I am no scientist and no expert in science (nor in virtually all other subjects and fields of study). I thus consider the scientists to be far more qualified in their fields than I am in those same fields.] When I discover competing views of scientists on a particular matter/topic, I then reevaulate my former conclusion on that particular matter/topic. Often times as a result of such I become uncertain as to what to believe on the details of the topic.