Yes, Babylon was judged and a judgement against Babylon in 539 was shown for Babylon in 539 with its Fall as was prophesied by Ezekiel, Isaiah, Jeremiah and others. But we are talking here about a specific Jeremaic prophecy at 25:12 which specifically foretells not the Fall of Babylon but its destruction. You must get the facts right and not twist a text to support a 'pet theory'. This verse is most emphatically about destruction, its end in the sands of history rather than its demise as a world power.
You still ignore the facts, and it is obvious to all that it is you with the 'pet theory' that completely ignores the facts of the matter. Again you try to misdirect the issue to the finality of the matter, though your assertion does nothing to suggest that 537 is a valid date for beginning such a period of judgement. You ignore the simple fact that the calling to account of Babylon's king which marked the beginning of the judgement definitely occurred in 539. You minimize the account of Daniel that specifically indicates the judgement of Babylon's king, the progeny of Nebuchadnezzar, to whom all the nations had been in servitude until that time.
It is very important matter of exegesis as to whether verses 11 or 12 are in combination or seperate in context. These verses are shown as separate paragraphs in most Bibles which indicates that transalators regard the contents of both verses as separate issues. Further the major technical commentaries on Jeremiah state that these are separate and different contexts. Verse 11 ends the oracle against Judah and verse 12 begins the oracle against Babylon and the Foreign Nations. Exegesis is about context and the context disproves your specious reasoning.
I did not argue about whether the verses are to be understood in combination. Within the scope of whether Jeremiah 25:12 supports the 70 years ending in 537, it does not matter whether verses 11 and 12 are considered separately or not. Irrespective, the 70 years cannot end after 539.
Jeremiah referred to the land of Chaldea or the territory of Babylon so the reference in this verse is to the kingship, the city and the land, all would receive a desolation or permanent destruction over time. Whether the land was called Chaldea after 539 means little here because the land of Babylon is what is referred.
It makes no sense to say that after 70 years the king of Babylon would be judged, and then apply that judgement to a non-Babylonian king who emancipated the Jews 2 years after having brought judgement upon the king of Babylon. In any case, there are still inhabitants today in parts of what was called Chaldea. It could be said of any location that eventually it will be destroyed. There is nothing prophetic about that.
The verses of Jeremiah 27:6,7 is simply a prophecy of the end of Babylonian rulership at 539 and proves that dynasty ended, it has nothing to do with the permanent demise of Babylon as described by Jeremiah at 25:12. Of course such a end was important because it was this that brought the release of the exiles thus ending also the prophesied 'seventy yeras' which also led to the destruction of Babylon so all of these events are 'links in a chain'. That is why one must read all of the book of Jeremiah because it contains one embracing prophecy.
You ignore the "embracing prophecy" of Jeremiah in preference for the Society's dogma. Jeremiah was commissioned as a "prophet to the nations" (Jer 1:4,10), and he was specifically used to pronounce judgement on "the nations" (Jer 1:14-16). You acknowledge that 25:12 is an oracle against Babylon, but then in the next breath try to suggest that the calling to account of the king of Babylon refers to a non-Babylonian king in some whimsical metaphorical fashion applied in 537.
I have never in my five years of posting on these subjects ignored the fact that Judah served Babylon for seventy years. Have I not long and persistently argued that the seventy years was a period of servitude for seventy years, exiled in Babylon for seventy years whiclst the land of Judah was totally desolated for seventy years. This period rran from the Fall in 607 until the Return in 537 as described, confirmed and foretold by Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezra, Zechariah and Josephus. You must pay close attention and wake up to yourself. The Medo-Perians were not Babylonians but they assumed the rulership of Babylon or kingship so even during those final coupl;e of years the exiles were still subject to the King of Babylon as foretold.
You have certainly "long and persistently argued," but I haven't seen you be right yet on any major point. You contritely accept the crumblike compliments such as those offered by AnnOMaly for the smallest of correct comments, because none of your main points are valid. You cling to the year 537 for the return of the Jews as if it were an established fact, and you ignore the clear and obvious fact that Daniel explicitly said that the days of Babylon's kingdom had been "numbered" and "finished", the king was "weighed", and the kingdom "divided", all in 539. It is ignorant in the extreme to deny that these events related specifically to the judgement of Babylon's king indicated at Jeremiah 25:12. (Even the NWT has a cross-reference to Jeremiah 25:12 on Daniel 5:26).
Jeremiah plainly states that the desolation of judgement in 25:12 began after the seventy yeras was fulfilled which could only be in 537 which is two years after the fact of the Fall of Babylon. That is what Jeremiah says explicity.
There is no rational basis for your claim that this "could only be in 537". You have no actual proof that the Jews returned in 537. The simple fact is that nations were serving Babylonian kings until they weren't. There was no king of Babylon after 539. Babylon lost its indepedence as a kingdom, and Babylon became part of the domain of Medo-Persia.
You ignore what displeases you preferring the crazy and ignorant interpretations of apostates and higher critics. You are blind and are misled by the blind.
I know you like to believe this because it strengthens your faith in delusions. However, as I have told you previously, I arrived at my own conclusions based on the Bible initially and then had them confirmed by external sources.