Taking the 70 years figuratively is a valid approach and some scholars interpret it that way. The 70 years for Tyre is a case in point. But you know I was just being playful with you.
Regarding the WTS quote on Tyre, the point I was hoping you'd go away with was that the 70 years represented Babylon's greatest domination with different nations coming under that domination at different times. Just as the WTS/GB see it that way because Tyre only came under Babylonian domination sometime AFTER Jerusalem's destruction and their starting point for the 70 years, it can also be understood the same way with the conventional chronology and a starting point of 609 BCE.
Why no mention of a father anywhere in any scripture if the 70 year servitude, figurative or literal, started with Neb's father?
Because when the prophecy was given, Nabopolassar was already dead and Jeremiah was warning the people of the time about how they should behave toward the Babylonian power. By the way, there is an issue with which king Jeremiah was addressing (see 27:3 and the continuation of the prophecy in 28:1). Certainly, Nabopolassar was long dead by Zedekiah's reign and Jeremiah needed to neutralize a rebellion brewing among the surrounding nations trying to throw off or break the Babylonian yoke. They could not be attempting to break a yoke that didn't yet exist for them.
(Jeremiah 28:10, 11) At that Han·a·ni′ah the prophet took the yoke bar from off the neck of Jeremiah the prophet and broke it. [Cf. Jer. 27:2] And Han·a·ni′ah went on to say before the eyes of all the people: "This is what Jehovah has said, 'Just like this I shall break the yoke of Neb·u·chad·nez′zar the king of Babylon within two full years more from off the neck of all the nations.'" . . .
So you've just admitted that the servitude of the nations Jeremiah prophesied against had not yet begun by the beginning of Jehoiakim's rule ...
No I didn't admit that. See above. The context shows that the nations were wanting to throw off that yoke of servitude they were under. Jeremiah is urging them to put it on and submit.
... Jehoiakim's rule, which according to secular chronology began in 608 B.C.E. However, this contradicts the argument that the 70 year servitude had begun with the defeat of Assyria in 609 B.C.E. one year earlier.
I don't see how the timing of Jehoiakim's accession to the throne contradicts the timing of Assyria's defeat and the beginning of the 70 year servitude. A non-sequitur. Anyway, Jehoiakim began to reign about the Fall of 609 BCE.
Well it is only after Zedekiah's death that the temple of Jerusalem is destroyed and that the 70 year servitude of the nations (including Jerusalem) would begin.
You can't seem to get past this fallacy. The 70 years servitude of the nations was not dependant on Jerusalem and its temple being destroyed. Jerusalem and its temple could have continued on quite happily until Persia came along and the nations would still have served Babylon 70 years, thus fulfilling prophecy.
'"... For, look! it is upon the city upon which my name is called that I am starting off in bringing calamity, and should YOU yourselves in any way go free of punishment?"'
So the calamity of Babylon would be brought upon the nations after Jerusalem's desolation. That was the starting point of everything.
'Calamity' is not limited to razing a city to the ground. According to the Bible's dating, and piecing in what we know from history, we can deduce that the battle of Carchemish occurred before the Jer. 25 prophecy, right? Then, was not the crippling defeat of Egypt a calamity?
(Jeremiah 46:1, 2, 10) This is what occurred as the word of Jehovah to Jeremiah the prophet concerning the nations: For Egypt, concerning the military force of Phar′aoh Ne′cho the king of Egypt, who happened to be by the river Eu·phra′tes at Car′che·mish, whom Neb·u·chad·rez′zar the king of Babylon defeated in the fourth year of Je·hoi′a·kim the son of Jo·si′ah, the king of Judah ...
... "And that day belongs to the Sovereign Lord, Jehovah of armies, the day of vengeance for avenging himself upon his adversaries. And the sword will certainly devour and satisfy itself and take its fill of their blood, for the Sovereign Lord, Jehovah of armies, has a sacrifice in the land of the north by the river Eu·phra′tes. ...
It can be argued, therefore, that Egypt felt the full force of God's wrath before Jerusalem did.
And what about the siege of 597 BCE, where Jehoiachin and the royal family were forced to surrender and, along with "all Jerusalem," were taken into exile - 18,000 according to 2 Kings 24 - as well as having the temple virtually stripped of its sacred treasures? Was that not a calamity?
Moreover, does not the fact that Nebuchadnezzar himself appointed a puppet king of his own choosing further demonstrate that the kingdom of Judah was already in servitude to Babylon BEFORE the city was destroyed 11 years later?
Dan. 1:1f indicates that Judah's servitude to Babylon began in Jehoiakim's 3rd regnal year, when he besieged the city, took some temple treasures and some nice, young nobles back to Babylon. This would have been when Nebuchadnezzar swept through Palestine after Carchemish.
It's also worth noting that Ashkelon was reduced to rubble at the end of 604 BCE, Nebuchadnezzar's 1st year (Babylonian Chronicles). That city's calamity began long before the same fate befell Jerusalem.
So can you see how your insistence that 'calamity' = 'Jerusalem's destruction' = 'the start of the nations' 70 year servitude' doesn't fit with the scriptural and historical facts?