@DisillutionedJW:
The first two paragraphs seem like we are in agreement. Let me try to pick out the places of disagreement.
As result I began seeing that the idea of Jerusalem and Judah being in servitude for 70 years (or very close to that number of years) ...
From this, I see you are OK with the idea of the seventy years being a round number. Ok, fine. It's definitely not a perapective JWs are fine with. But if you are OK with this, then you can agree that the seventy years of servitude ends in 539 (v12), but begins in 607.
... is consistent with both the Bible and history and science (archaeology) and approximately with the date of 606 BCE, and that stunned me and greatly impressed me. After that, when I read Jamieson's commentary which gave the interpretation of Jerusalem's servitude having begun in 606 BC .. I thought its reasoning made a great deal of sense, and displayed no "tortured logic" in that matter.
Note: the comment about "tortured logic" wasn't directed specifically at you or Jamieson. Rather, the authority of commentaries in general.
It also got around the issue of the fact that Jerusalem's destruction happened in the year 587 BCE (plus of minus one year) and revealed that the WT's reasoning about he the year 607 BCE (originally the year 606 BC) had some degree of logic and suitability to it. Regarding the idea of the Bible having prophesied that Judah would be desolate (instead of in servitude) for specifically 70 years, I don't recall any verses saying such, however I have not looked to see if there are any say such verses. In the past I might have read such verses, but I don't remember having read such. I do remember that the WT says that the Bible says that Jerusalem and Judah would be (and/or was) desolate for specifically 70 years, but I am not certain that view of the WT is correct. I am not 'defining the "desolation" referred to in v18 as more of a soft desolation, like a vassal or servitude.' I am not defining "desolation" as meaning "servitude"; to me they have very different meanings. I am not equating 70 years of servitude with seventy years of desolation. Likewise I don't see the Jamieson commmentary (which I quoted from) referring to the 70 years as soft desolation or any other desolation. That which I quoted from in it, in regards to the seventy years, is stated by the commentary as referring to the years of servitude and of captivity. I don't see it as saying the desolation as having lasted 70 years. It specifically says "Jeremiah's seventy years of the captivity begin 606 B.C., eighteen years before the destruction of Jerusalem ...."
And here is where we differ. The commentary says the 70 years is defined as "the years of servitude and captivity." Then it proceeds to call it "Jeremiah's years of captivity" - applying it to the the time when the first exile/captivity took place. So, it really sounds like Jamieson is saying (and you are agreeing) the 70 years pertains strictly to Judah's captivity, except he's willing to acknowledge that there were three separate waves of exile.
But Jeremiah says 70 years of servitude of nations, specifically all the nations round about (v9). So why limit this to one nation? What are you reading there that let's your eyes see 'nations' and yet reduce it to one 'nation'?
Then there's this again:
The plain sense of Jeremiah 25:29 says the calamity begins (starts) first with Jehovah's city (namely Jerusalem) and Judah and proceeds to gentile nations.
"See, I am beginning to bring disaster..." is not the same as saying Babylon will "start with" Jerusalem.
Seventy years of servitude, vassalage, to Babylon of many nations. One of which was Judah, but the rule of Babylon is the 70 years.
Hence 29:10 - "When seventy years have been completed for Babylon..."
The emphasis of the 70 years is always Babylon. Not just Nebuchadnezzar, Babylon. It's 70 years of Babylonian rule. And 25:12 makes it really clear because when the 70 years is up, Babylon falls ( in that order ).
Though Assyria was conquered by Nebuchadnezzar II of Babylon before the year 606 BCE, Nebuchadnezzar II was not yet king at that time. Nebuchadnezzar II conquered Assyria while Nebuchadnezzar's father was king of Babylon.So? I don't see where the 70 years is attributed specifically to Neb. It's "for Babylon".
I think the rest of your posts veered away into different topics. So I'll leave it here.