mindovermyth

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

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


Fascinating stuff. I could take any modern city, New York, London, Paris and predict that it will be gone within 1,400 years with very good statistical chance of being correct. AVERAGE lifetime of cities is far shorter than 1,400 years, is it Merril's contention that Babylon lasted THIS LONG due to the prophecy? .

Johnny Skeptic

Oh, like the Tyre prophecy?

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

Then if everyone in the world does not know about this prophecy, that invalidates the prophecy? Just because somebody, somewhere, hasn't ever read it?

Well, you were asking why they built instead in Baghdad, and this is probably why, in my estimation, and I'm not saying this is supernatural, it's just the reason I would say they built in Baghdad.

I'm not sure what you mean here, though, are you implying that the probability or improbability of another prophecy affects the probability of this one?

Yes, but destructions of cities are usually quicker, much quicker, and cities don't usually last for nearly so long! Like what you said. Thus making it improbable.

But improbable or not, all you have to do is rebuild it, to discredit Scripture in a dramatic way! Why is there such reluctance to attempt this? That is what I wonder...

Regards,
Lee

Johnny Skeptic

Your second paragraph is irrelevant becasue it is highly unlikely that any ancient Babylonians knew about the propehcy. Even if they did know about it, there is no reason to assume that they would have wanted to disprove it. Disproving written or oral prophecies that were written or spoken by Jews was not likely on the agenda of ancient Babylonians. What was more likely on their agenda was finding the best location for rebuilding Babylon. The location of ancient Baghad was deemed to be a better location. It is just that simple. The Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia 2005 says that "On March 16, 597 BC, he (Nebuchadnezzar II) captured Jerusalem and took Jehoichin, king of Judah, and many of his people captive to Babylonia He was subsequently troubled by major revolts in Babylonia (565 BC) and in Judah (588-587 BC), which were vigorously punished; many more Jews were exiled to Babylonia." Now I ask you Lee, assuming that the ancient Babylonians knew about the prophecy, why would they have been interested in disproving a prophecy made by a group of people that Nebuchadnezzar demolished? Since Christianity is the largest religion in the world today, and since historically there has been a lot of hostility between Muslims and Christians, some Muslims might be interested in disproving the Babylon prophecy, but not even a remote comparison can be made between the significance of today's Christians and the significance of ancient Jews. You claimed that God prevented the rebuilding of Babylon at the original location in both ancient times and in modern times. You have a modest case regarding modern times, but you have no case at all regarding ancient times.

badger3k

Yeah. Of course, the other "problem" I see is that Lee keeps claiming he will give up his faith if he can be convinced in the failure of the prophecy. However, he is not willing to give up his faith, and will not be conivinced no matter how much evidence is shown. His whole position is inherently dishonest, and that's sad. His faith prevents him from evaluating the evidence on its own, instead it is filtered through his preconceptions and in most cases tossed aside. Cognitive dissonance doesn't begin to describe it. :huh:

Johnny Skeptic

I agree with you that Lee would not give up Christianity if Babylon was rebuilt, and that he knows he wouldn't. He has stated that today, Muslims could rebuild Babylon and disprove the Bible, and he asked why they have passed up such a golden opportunity. Well, if most Christians would publically state that they agree with Lee and would give up Christianity if Babylon was rebuilt (which of course they wouldn't, and he knows it), I am quite certain that a coalition of Muslim nations, atheists, agnostics and other groups of people who oppose Christianity would all get together to fund and rebuild Babylon. In their opinion, it would be a bargain regardless of the financial cost. I would donate $10,000 to such a project myself.

Lee cannot possibly win this debate. There is no evidence that any ancient Babylonians knew about the prophecy, and even if they did, it is highly unlikely that discrediting a single Jewish prophecy would have been on their agenda. To the Babylonians, the best way to discredit Jews was to beat them up, and there was a whole lot of that going on.

If Babylon had been rebuilt, would the majority of Jews have given up Judaism? Of course not. Since it is complicated for us to figure out the prophecy even today, few if any ancient Jews would have been able to figure it out. Given a choice between discrediting a single Jewish prophecy and beating up on Jews, which would the Babylonians have chosen to do? Beating up on Jews of course. Nebuchadnezzar II did plenty of that.

Sauron

No, they are *responses* to those who assert that the prophecy was fulfilled -- people such as you, lee_merrill. THAT is the first assertion here. And it is yet to be proved. I realize you think that the critics ought to do all the work here, but that tactic isn't going to work here any more than it did on the Tyre discussion.

1. The desolation of Babylon was *not* similar to the alleged destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah; in fact, it was totally opposite;

2. Capture of the city starts the desolation - "he" does not imply that; Isaiah implies that:

1. I do not think that "northeast" would do. Given the location of Medea in relation to Babylon, it would have been more correct to say "from the east" instead of "from the north".

2. You have presented no evidence that the army came from that direction, so tossing it out as a convenient "what if" isn't going to work.

3. Moreover, the Medeans didn't take Babylon anyhow; it was the Persians, who cannot in any way be described as being "north" of Babylon.



1. There is no evidence that this happened.

2. Speculating about a "desire to return" doesn't cut it - what you need is proof that this part of the prophecy came true;

3. If you think there are indications of such a return connected to this Babylon event in any of the prophetic books, then cite chapter and verse. Do some actual *work*, lee_merrill.

Well who do you think would actually do the physical labor of breaking the walls down, Lee? Moreover, the preceding verses in Jer 51 talk about all the other events and indicate that human actors would be doing the physical labor. So yes, it must be the human armies doing the action.

You tried this same trick in the Tyre prophecy; it didn't work there, either. Let's refresh your memory.

Ezekiel clearly and plainly lays out in Ch 26 that this is God's punishment, but that God is using Nebuchadnezzar to carry it out for him. It is as if Ezekiel were painting God as the general, sending his captain, Nebuchadnezzar, to carry out his military orders. In such a scenario, it's perfectly reasonable for the general to say "I did such-and-such", because he gave the order. And it's also reasonable for the captain to say "I did such-and-such", because the captain actually carried it out.

Same principle applies here.

But the problems with the prophecy don't go away.

1. Regardless of size, this refutes the "uninhabited" part;
2. I saw no evidence from you that this was a "desert camp" anyhow

Which means that any statements about flooding or swamps are just stating the obvious and hardly constitute prophecy.

Incorrect.

Sure it would. The same city would be rebuilt, on the same site. Most cities that are rebuilt are forced to rebuild on top of previous cities. I think Jerusalem, for example, has some 30+ layers of previous building underneath the current city.

1. The fact that they were living there *at all* invalidates the prophecy.

2. Moreover, there were people living there for fifteen centuries after the prophecy said that it would be uninhabited.

1. "Presumably" you'd be wrong.
2. You don't get to presume your conclusions around here anyhow.

An irrelevant distinction, without any purpose other than to derail the thread. See the rebuttal above, with blue text from the Tyre thread for the response.

And what process did you use, to arrive at your "broad estimate" and "range"?

Wrong, wrong and also wrong. From my document on the Babylon prophecy:

The quote above is from the award-winning PBS writer and series author, Michael Wood in the companion book to the PBS series on Alexander. The proper citation is: Wood, Michael. In the Footsteps of Alexander the Great. University of California Press. Copyright 1997. Page 92.

So your claims about the walls, gardens, palaces etc. not being present when Alexander conquered the city are just more asserted bullshit on your part, lee.

PS - I have a 93 page document dedicated to the flaws in the Babylon prophecy. No - you may not read it. But you should be aware that I have already researched this thoroughly. :rolling: :rolling: :rolling:

The city did not need to be rebuilt. Alexander was going to improve the city, in order to make it usable as a capital. But the extended quotation above proves that the city was in excellent shape already.

No. Your source talks about a harbor at Hormuz and at the mouth of the Indus. So - predictably - the harbor would have been on the coast, not several hundred miles inland at the city of Babylon. Use some common sense.

I'm not disputing that Alexander died there. I already know that. But your assertion was for a mysterious death during reconstruction. That is the part that has no evidence. Your own source indicates that he died during feasting and preparations for invading Arabia.

On the contrary. It makes it a poor example of prophecy, since all empires and cities eventually fall.

And since the prophecy indicates that the lack of habitation is occurring as a result of the invasion, I *do* mind that the alleged fulfillment took 14 centuries.

The bible track record on fulfilled prophecy is already badly discredited. Why would I want to spend money to prove what has already been established?

No, the point is clear: the job of proving the prophecy is on your back, not on the back of skeptics.

What leads you to think that Babylon was underwater - other than an absurd fascination with cities sinking underwater?

Sauron

Oh, please. Thus making your assertion bullshit.

1. Lee, demonstrate that the destruction of cities is "usually quicker." Asserting it will not suffice.

2. Since all cities eventually fall, then the longer a city lasts, the more likely it is that it will fall. The longer a person lives, the greater their chances of dying, since all people eventually die. A person who is 95 years old has a greater chance of dying than someone who is 12 years old. Since the fall of Babylon was inevitable, predicting the obvious about Babylon is not prophecy.

Scripture is already badly discredited; no extra work is necessary to establish that fact. The task at hand is for you to rescue scripture from the state of being discredited, if you can.

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

Why does this matter either way, though? The point at issue is the validity of the prophecy, not which people have known about it.

Yes, I agree, that was what I was trying to say on both these points.

And your tossing out a "what if" from another direction won't work, either! We just don't know enough to decide if this part of the prophecy was fulfilled or not.

Well, again, I can't prove it, and you cannot disprove it, so let's move on.

Remember Jericho! Or Sodom. God is not restricted to using people in every instance.

I wasn't saying Babylon was a desert camp! Please listen, I am only saying that "city" means something other than a desert camp.

So then why did you ask this question of me?

Sauron: "What leads you to think that Babylon was underwater - other than an absurd fascination with cities sinking underwater?"

Sauron said so! Maybe you will believe Sauron.

I agree, and the city I live in is quite possibly on top of some ancient city, and did they rebuild that ancient city when they constructed Raleigh, NC? I would say not.

Well, that is their claim, and now we are insisting on validating all claims, are we not? And why do they not also mention destruction of their homes, if that happened, too?

The prophecy didn't specify how long the desolation would take, though.

Why would they be living in the ruins in Babylon?

I was indeed wrong about what was there at that time. But it seems we missed this part:

"The towering burned brick ramparts, though now old and crumbling, still 'gleamed like burnished bronze' in the autumn sunlight..."

Implying rebuilding was needed. And this part:

"Some landmarks were crumbling after the Persian occupation: the great temple Etemenanki (where the Amran shrine stands today in a walled garden) was decrepit and in need of renovation."

Implying rebuilding was needed! And the MSN Encarta reference (which was somehow skipped in your response) said Alex embarked on ... rebuilding!

Well, I'm not sure how thorough your research has been! You need to reread your document, in at least two places, and also read and respond to the MSN article.

It actually says it was not in excellent shape: "Babylon had seen better days, but it was still probably the biggest and most glamorous city in the world." It seems the glamour was to some degree, remembering what used to be.

Part of his stated purpose of going to Babylon was to rebuild it, and he did not carry out his plan, so that is all I meant. Maybe he didn't do any reconstruction, that is not a necessary part of my argument here.

Why are you spending energy posting here, may I ask, if you would be unwilling to spend any money or energy on rebuilding this city?

The expression is generally "the fall of Rome, the fall of Jerusalem, the fall of Carthage," and so forth, not "the falling of Rome," etc. Our very language about destruction of cities indicates that the fall of a city is usually quick enough to use a metaphor of a person falling, instead of "the sickness and long terminal illness of Rome," and so forth.

Well, yes, I agree, and thus a city lasting so long is improbable, that is just my point.

By the way, you can also rebuild Petra! That would also be as clear a refutation as rebuilding Babylon. And if you don't want to be involved, just mention this to other people such as the Muslims. I think I will do this myself. I expect they would be glad of the opportunity...

Regards,
Lee

Johnny Skeptic

It most certainly does matter either way. You continue to try to divert attention away from the past to the present, but it won't work. You say that Muslims would like to discredit the Bible today if they were able to, but there weren't any Muslims until around 600 A.D., and there is no evidence that any ancient Babylonians knew about the prophecy, and there is no evidence that if they had known about it they would have been interested in discrediting a single Jewish prophecy.

You said "The point at issue is the validity of the prophecy." I will agree with you for the sake of argument that the prophecy came true, but that doesn't help your arguments at all. Without any divine inspiration at all, people could have predicted that any particular ancient city would never be rebuilt, and a good deal of the time they would have been right. Surely you must know that there are plenty of existing ruins besides the ruins of ancient Babylon. Visiting various ancient ruins is quite popular in many parts of the world.