Sauron

Then its' not like Sodom and Gomorrah. It's just a temporary emptiness, which is not like Sodom and Gomorrah at all. And worse, it's a result which is not supported by the prophecy.

By the way - where did you get the idea that you could interpret a "never more" prophecy as only being 15 years?

1. I would not take it that way, since the prophecy is more detailed and specific than that.

2. But neither your intentionally lax version of the prophecy, nor my more faithful version, ever happened.

And in point of fact, Babylon was a huge, thriving city in the time of Alexander. No rebuilding necessary; it was already busting out the seams and a major metropolis. All of which contradicts the prophecy, by the way.

And since Babylon sits several hundred miles inland, your claim that Alexander wanted to make it a harbor is preposterous. By the way, your link above to answers.com does not support any such claim. No support for the claim of a "harbor", and no support for the other claim of mysterious death during reconstruction.

That would appear to be a problem for your argument as well as your credibility. :rolling:

Which is irrelevant, since Babylon continued as a city and a place of habitation for 14 centuries after the prophecy in question was uttered.

Stupid idea. If bible believers want to say that the prophecy is true, then they need to prove it. Skeptics aren't under any obligation to try and invalidate it.

Johnny Skeptic

In one of my previous posts I said "there is no evidence that any Old Testament Babylonians knew about the prophecy." Lee loses the debate on this point alone. I also said "Regarding enemies of Christianity living today who are aware of the prophecy, Iraqis being the most pertinent example, they have many arguments at their disposal for discrediting Christianity (in their opinions) that preclude the need of trying to rebuild an ancient city of four square miles in a location where they don’t want to rebuild it. It is reasonable to conclude that the location of ancient Baghdad was deemed to be a better location for ordinary reasons that were sensible to the builders."

There are historical precedents of capital cities being moved to other locations rather than rebuilding them. One such example is ancient Persepolis. Darius moved the capital from Pasargadae to Persepolis.

Sven

I think you misunderstood Lee. He did not mean that people will live there again after 5-15 years, but that people have to live there for us to be allowed to call Babylon "inhabitated". This is presumably based on my question in the EoG thread how long, in his opinion, people have to live there. Interestingly, in the other thread, he threw around even more numbers, from 4 to 20 years. Apparently it's very difficult for him to pick one.

Johnny Skeptic

As I said in a previous post, I told Lee Merrill in an e-mail "It cannot logically be ruled out that the people back then might have simply preferred to build the major city of Baghdad in another location rather than rebuild the city of Babylon in the same location." Lee replied "Except they also tried to rebuild on the same location!" Now it will be quite interesting to see Lee try to back up that claim. The building of ancient Baghdad a few dozen miles away was essentially the rebuilding of the ancient city of Babylon in another location. Lee needs to reasonably prove that the location of the city of ancient Babylon was a much better location than the location of the ancient city of Baghdad in the opinions of the builders of ancient Baghdad, which of course is impossible.

Sauron

Be careful. All this talk of "prove", "back up", and "demonstrate" might scare lee_merrill off.

Johnny Skeptic

Hi Sauron. I wouldn't be surprised if Lee gets tired of this thread pretty soon. Whenever he loses interest in this thread, which might be quite soon, I will challenge him to debate another prophecy of his choice. Lee has enjoyed debating prophecy here and at the Theology Web for some time, but I predict that he will eventually realize that it ain't so easy.

Regarding the Tyre prophecy, if you want to enjoy some humor at the expense of James Holding, please visit http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...t=56417&page=1. The url is a thread that I recently opened at the Theology Web titled 'James Holding's article on the Tyre prophecy is fraudulent.' Holding's absurd replies and evasiveness must have embarrassesed him even in the opinions of some Christians.

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

Well, these are assertions, which must be proved.

This is more to the point! Certainly the desolation of Babylon was similar not in the way they were destroyed, but in the total desolation, and the "uninhabited forever" need not have started with the capture of the city by Medo-Persia, why does he imply this? Media is actually north-east of Babylon, so I think "north" would do, especially if the army came from that direction, which might have happened, and how does he know that more than a remnant sought the Lord, or returned to Zion? Surely there would have been a desire to return, and there are even indications of a general turning to the Lord in the latter prophetical books, and in the accounts of the return of the exiles. And Jer. 51:58 does not say the Medes and Persians will break the walls, and burn the gates, indeed, "The Lord will destroy Babylon" (Jer. 51:55).

Certainly, I agree, but a desert camp is not a city, that is what I meant.

They're pretty probable! And also the ruins seem to have largely become buried, probably due to lots of silting, thus this also makes it less likely that this site could be said to be rebuilt. Building on top of 40 feet of dirt on top of ancient Babylon might not be construed as rebuilding Babylon.

We have their story that they were dislocated, now we must try and understand how long they were there, whether it was long enough and extensive enough to say it was reinhabited.

Presumably they don't live in the ruins! I expect they live nearby, and not among the ruins of the city, per se.

Did we miss the part where the Lord says he is coming, as well as the army, to destroy the whole country? And "her time will not be prolonged" most probably refers to the invasion about to come, where the time of Babylonian rule ended immediately, "her time" meaning the people, and then the city would also become desolate, similarly.

I meant that this should be a broad estimate, yet somewhere in this range. We simply don't know how long these people were there, or even whether their tale of Saddam's deed is unembellished.

I agree that this was not so accurate, this is what happens when an opening statement has to be made in 15 minutes! But I meant that the part I was defending was that these characteristic parts would not return, so I should have said "implying" instead of "meaning."

But not the walls, and not the gardens, and not the palaces! Alex was making it his capital, and embarked on this project, and failed.

Well, that is not important to my argument, so fine, there was no harbor, though indeed, it seems there was.

Well, Arrian says that is indeed where Alexander died, as this link states, and MSN Encarta speaks of his rebuilding project here.

I don't mind if the complete fulfillment took a very long time. That makes it more improbable that it was chance!

Sure, you are under no obligation, but here is a golden opportunity to discredit the Bible, and you turn up your nose at it? Just rebuild Babylon, or motivate the Muslims to rebuild it, and lots of people would consider that a real invalidation of Scripture, and become skeptics. Or Muslims. But not holding to Scripture, quite a prize for the skeptical cause.

Why would ignorance of a prophecy invalidate the prophecy, though? That is what I am wondering...

Yes, and yet Saddam tried to rebuild the ancient city, on its original site.

Well, I think Babylon may well have been underwater, which then would indicate another site as a better option.

Regards,
Lee

Johnny Skeptic

Regarding "Why would ignorance of a prophey invalidate the prophecy, though?," Lee has actually answered his own question with "Sure, you are under no obligation, but here is a golden opportunity to discredit the Bible, and you turn up your nose at it? Just rebuild Babylon, or motivate the Muslims to rebuild it, and lots of people would consider that a real invalidation of Scripture, and become skeptics. Or Muslims. But not holding to Scripture, quite a prize for the skeptical cause." In order to discredit the Bible, you first have to know what is in the Bible, and there is no evidence that any ancient Babylonians knew about the prophecy. There weren't any Muslims until after 550 A.D.

Regarding "Well, I think Babylon may well have been underwater, which then would indicate another site as a better option," I am surprised that Lee mentioned this because unless he can reasonably prove that if Babylon was underwater it was not due to natural causes, he has refuted his own argument. Who would have wanted to rebuild Babylon if it was underwater? Even if Babylon was not underwater, there is no reason not to assume that the builders of ancient Baghdad decided to rebuild Babylon about 35 miles away for perfectly ordinary reasons. There are certainly precedents of the moving of capital cities. A good example is that Darius moved the capital of the Achaemenid dynasty to Persepolis from Pasargadae.

badger3k

Uh -oh - I sense the "Tyre Defense" in action. What is this fetish Lee has for cities sinking underwater?

Johnny Skeptic

Well, I am reasonably certain that within a few months, Lee Merrill will become "tyred" of debating any prophecy. I mean really, how many prophecies do skeptics have to discredit in order to show Christians that Bible prophecy is not of any value to them? If Lee could foretell the future, and if he wanted to let other people know that he could fortell the future, he most certainly would not be as vague about it as God was, or rather as vague about it as the uninspired Bible writers were.