I have ignored no facts if I have then list such facts. What I have done is listen and read what the texts say not what you want them to say. The verse does not day that the calling to account for Babylon began in 539 with the Fall. That is your interpretation. What the text says is that after the fulfilling of the seventy years(537 BCE) Babylon would be called to account by being made a desolate place. These things did not happen in 539 but after 539, long after 539 BCE. I agree that with its Fall in 539 it was called to account and received judgement which was also foretold by the prophets that Babylon would be punished by falling to Cyrus but this specific prophecy 25:12 foretells not its fall but its permanent destruction. BIG difference which eludes the apostates.
"What the text says" hey? Like Jehoiakim's 3rd year actually being his 11th year? Like "all these nations round about" actually meaning just Judah? Your lies are evident. You continue to ignore the specific judgement that Babylon's king would be called to account after the 70 years. This part of the prophecy cannot be given the wishy-washy fulfilment that you would have us believe, particularly in view of the fact that Daniel specifically indicates the judgement of Babylon's king.
In order to understand verse 12 one must see it in context and the context are all of the verses prior and sunsequent to verse 12. Now, the context demands that the seventy years ended with the Return and not the Fall of Babylon.
The context demands no such thing. Nations served the king of Babylon until they didn't. The return of the Jews had no bearing on whether other nations were serving Babylon, so your alleged interpretation is completely meaningless.
It makes perfect sense to apply that specific judgement of desolation of Babylon after the Return for two reasons : FIRSTLY, the Jews were no no longer captive to Babylon, they were now a free people in their own homeland. SECOND, Babylon must also receive her judgement of a long and permanent nature as fortold by the prophets which meant her permanent desolation. Such a context including all of Jeremiah shows that he foretold not only the Fall of Babylon but its eventual desolation as with all of the other foreign nations which have all been buried in the sands of history.
Your first explanation ignores the actual application of the 70 years, which were of nations serving Babylon. Your second explanation lacks weight, only having an open-ended application which ignores the clear events recorded by Daniel. You do know that people still live in 'Chaldea' don't you?
In my long posting history I have presented main points and have dealt with all opposing arguments from the best and brightest of apostates including Alan F and I will continue to do so. 537 BCE is a well established date with no other serious conmpetitors for if there were then the Jonsson hypothesis would have flagged the matter. Daniel's comment about Babylon being weighed was fulfilled with its fall in 539 but he makes no reference in that chapter to the seventy yearr so your 'red herring' argument is false. Such a Fall in 539 is only related to 25:12 in the sense that it was foretold that she would fall and Jeremiah said in verse 12 that she would be desolated.
Though you have responded to opposing arguments, you haven't really dealt with them in any true sense. Your points are weak and easily disproved. Your logic is shameful, and any reasoning ability you may possess is overshadowed by your tenacious desire to cling to your precious dogma. 537 is not established at all let alone well. The only 'proof' the Society has is some purely conjectural reasoning that Cyrus made his pronounced right at the end of his second year, though it is exceedingly more likely that the Jews returned in 538. Daniel says that Babylon's days had been numbered. The only reference for numbering Babylon's days is the 70 years. Then Daniel says that Babylon's king was being weighed, called to account, and on that night he was killed. There is no later judgement of a Babylonian king, and it is obscenely ignorant to deny that the verses are related.
Well if the Jews did not return in 537 then pray tell what year did they return? Here again this date is not seriously challenged by scholars. Jonsson says little about the matter except for a footnote with two muted sources. There was a king of Babylon after 539 and this was first Darius followed jointly by Cyrus for starters.
They returned in 538. But this has already been explained to you in detail by AlanF - you just don't want to acknowledge the facts. The complementary accounts of Ezra and Josephus confirm that 538 is the only possible year for it to have occurred.