Johnny Skeptic

Not necessarily if Josh McDowell disagrees will Lee. Reading McDowell's ETDAV is where Lee first got interested in the Bablyon prophecy. I will soon have a copy of the book, and I suspect that McDowells's comments about the prophecy will cause Lee to resign.

badger3k

I'm not so sure, although I know that my knowledge of McDowell is limited and that others have vastly more experience in that area.

Johnny Skeptic

I have four Bible commentaries. Regarding the Babylon prophecy, none of them mention anything even remotely resembling anything that Lee Merrill has said. Lee admits that his position is a minority position "even among Christians." That is simply not done in debates. That would be like me stating arguments regarding the Tyre prophecy that are not considered credible "even among skeptics." Lee's biggest problem was listening to "anything" that Josh McDowell has to say. McDowell has a good number of detractors "even among Christians."

Johnny Skeptic

Where is Lee Merrill?

John A. Broussard

He's taking the weekend off. But, to be sure he returns, I'll add the magic word to this post.

Babylon.

badger3k

Yeah, he said he would return Tuesday.

Sauron

You're a liar, lee. As Johnny's list of quotations clearly shows, you were not answering anyone; you were making your argument.

There were several parts to the prophecy. The downfall of the city (and the manner thereof) were the first part. Given the fact that the city of Babylon did not fall according to the conditions of the prophecy, then the question of its rebuilding (or even if it fails to ever be rebuilt) - well, none of it matters. If the demise of the city was not according to prophecy, then all the other parts of the prophecy are non-starters.

My how arrogant of you. You can't even read a simple quotation from the encyclopedia without twisting it up, and now you're telling us that what you mean is what the bible means?

Nice dodge. Folks, lee_merrill is trying to say that in order for Babylon to be rebuilt, it would have to be at at a similar scale with the rebuilding of Jerusalem. But is that what rebuilding actually means? Does the bible "mean" that, just because lee thinks that he "means" what the bible "means"? :rolling:

1. Apparently the bible uses "rebuilt" or "built again" the same way that everyone else. Scale is not relevant. Here we have an example of a small building being rebuilt:

CH2 33:3 For he built again the high places which Hezekiah his father had broken down, and he reared up altars for Baalim, and made groves, and worshipped all the host of heaven, and served them.

2, But was Babylon ever rebuilt? Of course it was - and lee_merrill knows it:

Ah, but you've already been informed of your error here as well. Babylon was rebuilt - by Cyrus II, then again by Alexander's men, and after Alexander's death his successors (the Diadochi, etc.) continued the work. Esagila was rebuilt and services continued into the 1st century AD.

1. Was it? Let's see the proof.

2. Why should Jerusalem be the model?

Johnny Skeptic

Regarding “it should not be just discussing the results of the question being decided one way or another,� who ever said otherwise? Sauron, Badger, John Broussard and I have discussed issues other than the results on a number of occasions. Lee was perfectly willing to discuss the results for weeks until he knew that he would have to concede defeat unless he changed the rules. In his very first argument in this thread, in his post #10 he said:

The exclamation point proves how interested Lee was in discussing the results.

Very good. Lee has agreed that if his own sources agree with me that discussing the perceived vested interests of Muslims and skeptics IS pertinent and acceptable, he will have to discuss it, which is exactly what he has already done for weeks, and quite willingly I might add.

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

Back from vacation...

Yet in this very article they say the archaeologists objected to Saddam building over ruins. Which is kind of odd, if these people had built over them first. I think they were in the area, and yet not in the ruins proper, and Saddam was, hence the objection.

But Chicago Stadium (I used to live in Chicago, too) is not a city...

Well, I meant that requirements need not be so exact. But if you want specific numbers, at least two blocks with a total of two miles of streets with houses along them, three temples similar to the ones we know were there once, if you wish me to define "similar," I would say as evaluated by at least 60% of the archaeologists who have published in Archaeology Review and who respond to a poll, where at least ten of them respond, at least 1,000 inhabitants, all on the former site of Babylon, and I would include rebuilding similar walls to those the city had, though that was not one of your questions. And "similar" would be as stated above.


Certainly Muslims and skeptics have an agenda, I only refuse to take and defend a position on what the result of a given outcome in this discussion might be. I claim that setting out to convince people, and refusing this opportunity, is inconsistent.

Actually, he doesn't say this, as far as I recall, but I'm glad you have a copy on order, I hope you found a place that has the first edition, as mentioned previously.

But let's focus on the points of the first post! Let's not spend all the time on discussing the probable results of various outcomes of the debate, that would be a pretty poor debate, and I think I could predict the results of such a debate quite easily! It would be quite meaningless, if all the discussion was about what people would think of the discussion.

Regards,
Lee

Johnny Skeptic

And what is that agenda? You have said many times, and I will post my 18 examples again if you wish, that the Muslim agenda is to discredit the discredit the Bible, and that they have a “golden opportunity� to do so by rebuilding Babylon anytime that they want to.

You mean that you refuse to “no longer� take and defend a position that you have taken on at least 18 occasions.

I ordered a first edition. I assume that McDowell “does� take the position that I mentioned, and that you got your now abandoned argument regarding the perceived vested interests of Muslims argument straight out of McDowell’s ‘Evidence That Demands a Verdict.’

But you discussed results and the perceived vested interests of Muslims on at least 18 occasions.

How could it be meaningless? On many occasions you predicted what the results would be if Muslims were to rebuild Babylon. You said that 1) Muslims have a golden opportunity to discredit the Bible by rebuilding Babylon anytime that they want to, that 2) so far, “reasonable people,� meaning you and a relative handful of people IN THE ENTIRE WORLD, have not been convinced that the Bible is not truthful, and that 3) if Muslims do not make such an attempt, you, and a relative handful of other Christians IN THE ENTIRE WORLD, will find them to be “inconsistent� if they do not make such an attempt.

Let us start this debate yet again. What in the world are you claiming? I have five Bible commentaries, including one whose general editor is noted Christian scholar and author F. F. Bruce. None of the commentaries state anything even close to resembling what you have stated. My housekeeper is a fundamentalist Christian. She used to be a missionary and a pastor’s wife. She has studied by Bible for decades, and she knows it much better than I do. I mentioned the Babylon prophecy to her and she said that she doesn’t know anything about it. I assume that such is the case among the vast majority of Christians and skeptics.

Lee, who are you trying to convince with your positions? Surely you must know that virtually no skeptic or Muslim IN THE ENTIRE WORLD would become a Christian based upon your positions. Would any Christian missionary or pastor use such an approach? Of course not. Regarding the relative handful of Christians IN THE ENTIRE WORLD who agree with your positions, you are preaching to the choir, in other words, to people WHO ARE ALREADY CHRISTIANS. Have you nothing better to do with your time?