Scholar pretendus, I noticed that you've put your foot in it big time with your claim about Jeremiah 25:12, so I decided to disembowel your claims again. You said:
: Jeremiah 25:12 most emphatically has nothing to say that would date it to 539 for its judgement against Babylon could only commence after the years ended with the Return of the Exiles in 537.
First, nothing whatsoever in the text says anything about a "Return of the Exiles", much less a return of exiles in a specific year. This is trivial to show, by quoting the passage in question (NASB):
11 This whole land will be a desolation and a horror, and these nations will serve the king of Babylon seventy years. 12 'Then it will be when seventy years are completed I will punish the king of Babylon and that nation,' declares the LORD, 'for their iniquity, and the land of the Chaldeans; and I will make it an everlasting desolation.'
The passage doesn't even speak of the Jews, although previous passages show that the Jews were among "these nations" that verse 11 specifically mentions. Clearly, "these nations" were to serve the king of Babylon for 70 years, and that servitude certainly did not end when the Jews returned to Jerusalem in 538 B.C.
Your claim is demonstrably false.
But here is your royal screwup:
: Your theory here is simply impossible. The text clearly associates the judgement against Babylon with the desolation of Babylon and its land which did not happen in 539 BCE.
Very good! The judgment is associated with Babylon alright. But a judgment of desolation did not come for more than another 900 years, because the city was inhabited at least through the 4th century A.D. For this reason alone, it's ridiculous to claim that verse 12 applies to a judgment so far in the future that no one would care, some 1000 years in the future with respect to Jeremiah's audience. Obviously then, Jeremiah's prophecy was intended to be fulfilled upon Babylon in a way that no one living at the time could deny.
The language connecting verses 11 and 12 proves this point. After verse 11 states that "these nations will serve the king of Babylon seventy years", verse 12 directly connects the end of that servitude with the punishment of the king of Babylon: "THEN it will be when seventy years are completed I will punish the king of Babylon." In other words, it was to be right "then", or "at that time", as soon as the 70 years were over, that the king would be punished. And not just the king, of course, but the nation.
How was the king of Babylon punished? Nabonidus, the primary king, was deposed. Belshazzzar, the second ruler in the kingdom, was killed.
How was the nation punished? It lost its empire and its primacy in the region and was replaced by the kingdom of the Persians and the Medes.
To claim that these things were not a punishment is beyond stupid, and a clear case of special pleading.
It's also easy to see that a complete desolation of Babylon occurring some 900 years after its fall in 539 is consistent with the words of Jeremiah: the fall in 539 began a long, slow decline that ended with complete desolation nearly a millennium later.
In view of the above, scholar pretendus, it's clear that your claim that my "theory here is simply impossible" is more smoke and mirrors designed to throw yourself off from the simple fact that the McFadzen Hypothesis is completely unbiblical.
I will also point out that the McFadzen Hypothesis is at odds with that of Mommy Watchtower here, since the latter's only discussion of the matter claimed that the punishment upon the king of Babylon was not the city's desolation a millennium after Jeremiah's prophecy, but the fact that the king of Babylon in 537 B.C., poor old Cyrus, was commissioned by God to allow the Jews to return home. So, scholar pretendus, by publicly advancing a "different doctrine" than Mommy's, you've made yourself an apostate in her eyes.
A further point: you continue to ignore the absolutely clear words of Jeremiah 27:6, 7. Here God says (NASB):
6 Now I have given all these lands into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, My servant, and I have given him also the wild animals of the field to serve him. 7 All the nations shall serve him and his son and his grandson until the time of his own land comes; then many nations and great kings will make him their servant.
This is clearly speaking of Nebuchadnezzar and his dynasty -- not some minor city officials who presided over Babylon's final abandonment a millennium later. This passage is completely consistent with, and complementary to, Jeremiah 25:11, 12. In fact, it leaves no room at all for the ridiculous special pleadings engaged in by the likes of you, Rolf Furuli and Mommy Watchtower.
Each bit of verse 7 was completely fulfilled in 539 B.C.: "All the nations" round about Judah served Nebuchadnezzar's dynasty until that dynasty ended in 539; at that time, "the time of his own land" came for it to be judged and punished by its being conquered by a foreign power; at that time, "many nations and great kings" made "him their servant" by subjugating Nebuchadnezzar's dynasty.
To claim that Nebuchadnezzar's dynasty was not thoroughly punished, or called to account, in 539 B.C. is beyond stupid, and a clear case of special pleading.
To ignore this fact is to engage in gross scholastic dishonesty.
Jeremiah 27:6, 7, then, clearly proves that Jeremiah 25:12 can refer only to the demise of Nebuchadnezzar's dynasty in 539 B.C.