Quote - Jeremiah's prophecy herein is addressed to five surrounding nations of Judah and including the nation of Judah that they could escape Jehovah's judgement by submitting in servitude to the then reigning king, Nebuchadnezzer - End quote
If you think there were only FIVE, then read Jeremiah 25:17-29!
Quote - Jeremiah's texts of the seventy years are applicable to Judah alone - End quote
[Jeremiah 25:11... and
these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years]
[Jeremiah 25:17 And I proceeded to take the cup out of the hand
of Jehovah and to make all the nations drink to whom Jehovah had sent me]
Quote - There is simply no basis, in fact, to claim that the 70 years for Judah ended in 539 BCE or began in the fuzzy date of 609 BCE. - End quote
The basis is that the 70 year servitude for the nations (including Judah) was to be in subjection to Babylon.
Were the nations (including Judah) in subjection to Babylon when Assyria was still the 2nd world power?
No there were not, even Babylon itself would have been in subjection to Assyria.
Were the nations (including Judah) in subjection to Babylon when Babylon was the 3rd world power?
YES they were!
Were the nations (including Judah) in subjection to Babylon when
Babylon was overthrown by the Medes and the Persians? (Medo/Persia then became the 4th world power.)
No they were not!
You have read in the WTS excerpts that I cited that the 70 years 'represents the period of
Babylonia’s greatest domination" and that that "domination ended for Babylon in 539 when Babylon
was overthrown by the Medes and the Persians". Therefore the servitude for the nations
(including Judah) to be in subjection to Babylon had to be during the time of Babylon's greatest domination period as the 3rd world power which is the time period that the WTS says represents the 70 years, which is 609 - 539.
How is it that you say 609 is a fuzzy date? The WTS clearly state that the 70 years represents the period of
Babylonia’s greatest domination and that that domination ended for Babylon in 539. What is fuzzy about adding 70 years to 539 and arriving at the year 609?