Johnny Skeptic

Are you not aware that Persians live in Iran, not in Iraq? According to a web site at http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohisto...pages/651.html, "Arabs constitute the majority in Iraq and the second largest group of Iraqi migrants to Chicago."

At any rate, even if you were right that Persians live in Iraq, it would be easy to import some Arabs from other places. Of course, you already knew that, which invites the question "Why did you make a ridiculous argument like that?" I've got it, you wanted to be evasive in spite of the fact that you know that Arabs are as easy to find as Jews are, but your evasive tactic did not work.

Would you like to acknowledge that Persians live in Iran, not in Iraq, and that you were already well aware that even if Persians lived in Iraq, it would be a simple matter to import to Iraq one of the hundreds of thousands if not millions of Arabs who live in many countries in the world?

There is no doubt that Isaiah 13:19-20 give three ways to overturn the Babylon prophecy, rebuilding Babylon, a shepherd grazing his flock in Babylon, or an Arab pitching his tent in Babylon. Logically, overturning a prophecy that is easy to overturn discredits the Bible just as much as overturning a prophecy that is difficult to overturn. A lie is a lie regardless of how difficult it is to overturn. Only an ignorant person would climb a mountain when he could take a single step and accomplish the same task.

If God really wanted to issue challenges, he would know that the very best way to do that would be tangibly, in person, in front of everyone in the world. If the God of the Bible does not exist, his methods would never complement his goals, which is the case.

What evidence do you have that the Tyre prophecy predated the events?

What evidence do you have that God inspired Isaiah to write Isaiah 13:19-20?

That is obviously false since about three fourths of the people in the world dispute that the Bible predicts the future. What would not be indisputable would be if the Bible had predicted when and where a number of natural disasters would occur. Why wouldn't God do that? By the same token, if God wants people to believe that intelligent design exists, why doesn't he show up and demonstrate that intelligent design exists? Why does God always refuse to provide the most indisputable kinds of evidence, especially if heaven and hell are really at stake? How does that behavior benefit God or anyone else?

If your challenge had any merits, surely at least one prominent Christian in the world would have publically issued the challenge, but that has not happened? Why is that?

lee_merrill

My point is that this would conclusively establish that very view, that the Bible does not predict the future.

Did you mean this would be indisputable? But such are predicted.

"This is what the Sovereign Lord says: Are you not the one I spoke of in former days by my servants the prophets of Israel? At that time they prophesied for years that I would bring you against them. This is what will happen in that day: When Gog attacks the land of Israel, my hot anger will be aroused, declares the Sovereign Lord. In my zeal and fiery wrath I declare that at that time there shall be a great earthquake in the land of Israel. The fish of the sea, the birds of the air, the beasts of the field, every creature that moves along the ground, and all the people on the face of the earth will tremble at my presence." (Eze. 38:17-20)

It's pretty clear, when people try and restore Babylon and fail, people such as Alexander the Great and Saddam, both of whom could impose their will.

Obviously my challenge has no merits!

But I think it stands on its own terms--and I also think we are done here, or at least I am, having said my say on this topic...

Best wishes to everyone,
Lee

Sheshonq

This is the THIRD time this point has been raised in this thread. Lee, do you plan to address it?

Also, the OT text says nothing about Arabs being the only ones who would never re-inhabit Babylon. It just says "never inhabited". That includes anyone - Persian, Arab, Chinese, or Mexican. Your attempt to narrow it down to just Arabs seems like a ploy to avoid dealing with evidence that the city was actually reinhabited later on.

...did a massive makeover of Babylon, before making it a capital city. That alone should invalidate your 'prophecy' about never rebuilding, and no on inhabiting Babylon.

diana

First, let's touch on the points I made--just for fun--that you didn't deign to respond to:
- There's no guarantee anyone will ever win the lottery, if that even matters here (but you thought it did), just like there's no guarantee Babylon will never be "inhabited" to the point that lee merrill himself must finally admit it is, in fact, inhabited.
- I'd have been happier with a forthright admission, but I'm pretty happy with your implication that the only way to tell the difference between improbable prediction and prophecy is assumption of the conclusion that God exists.

I've attempted to sum up your logic:

1. Scripture says X will happen.
2. God--a divine source--inspired scripture.
3. "Prophecy" is prediction by a divine source.
4. [Through special circumstances, redefinitions and probably special pleading, you determine that] X has happened.
Therefore,
X was a prophecy.

Did I miss anything? Congratulations. Since the primary purpose of prophecy is to prove God, you're committed classic circular reasoning.

Have you compared your prophecies to those of all those other divine books?

As has been pointed out to you ad nauseum, it has been broken. However, you are apparently loaded with defense mechanisms:
- "Inhabited" can mean lots of different things, and any of those that disprove the "prophecy" clearly were not meant by God
- Something about Arabs not being Persian, although what the holy hell that has to do with the weight of green beans on Everest I have no idea
- We aren't talking about Tyre. OK?!
- etc.

All of which serve the purpose of keeping you from having to deal with the clear facts of the case. (I understand. You aren't ready.)

I see. You're saying, in essence, the translators and possibly the writers themselves got it wrong? What Isaiah meant to say was: Hunh. I never read it quite like that before.

It's pretty simple. OT prophecies--and all "prophecies" I've ever encountered for that matter--are open-ended predictions. The adherent to the faith reads "X will happen" and notes that it hasn't happened yet, and thus excuses its unfulfillment. At the same time, he will look at "Y won't happen" prophecies" and rejoice that Y has not happened.

Yet.

The open-endedness of the venture gives him an out, doesn't it? "X will come true someday"--faith--and "Y has come true" (also faith, as you've demonstrated). I just require some consistency. If you acknowledge that the "prophecy" that Jesus will return is unfulfilled (because it hasn't happened yet, eternity stretching before us as it is), then you must equally acknowledge that the Babylon prophecy is just as unfulfilled (because it is about forever, and eternity stretches before us).

You chose the "conclusive" choice. Thank you for taking a stand. I ask now only that you be consistent.

d

Johnny Skeptic

But that would still be a matter of personal opinion. If God predicted when and where some natural disasters would occur, personal opinion would not be a factor. It is a question of how much God really wants people to believe that he exists, and how much he wants people to go to heaven and not to hell.

But you know that what I meant was predictions that had been made and had already come true. Not only that, but by "when and where," I meant an exact date, and an exact place. The Bible does not contain any predictions that are that exact.

But that is not indisputable in the opinions of billions of people. On the other hand, if the Bible had predicted exact dates and locations of some natural disasters that had come true, that would be indisputable to most people.

The logical conclusion is that if a God exists, it is his desire to always refuse to provide indisputable evidence.

But it is not clear to billions of non-Christians, and it would not have been clear to you if you had been raised 500 years ago in China by Buddhist parents. Logically, a moral God would want to provide evidence that was indisputable in the opinions of most people, not only in the opinions of about one fourth of the people in the world.

If you wanted to convince as many people as possible to believe that you exist, and to know what your agenda are, you would appear tangibly to as many people as possible because you know that tangible, firsthand evidence is the very best kind of evidence.

Then why did you make it?

But everyone who has an opinion on anything makes the same claim. One goal of a loving God would be to replace opinion with fact as much as possible. No rational person would dispute that 2+2=4. If the Bible had predicted the exact dates and places of some natural disasters that have occured, most people would consider it be be a fact that no human could have made the predictions.

Why does God always refuse to make tangible, firsthand personal appearances to everyone in the world?

And quite conveniently I might add.

It is worth noting that I beat you ON YOUR OWN TERMS. I showed that even if your interpretation of the Babylon prophecy is correct, if an Arab pitches his tent in Babylon (Isaiah 13:19-20), which would be easy to do, the prophecy would be discredited.

You falsely claimed that rebuilding Babylon would be more convincing than an Arab pitching his tent in Babylon. I told you that a lie is a lie no matter how easy it is to discredit. And we are again with the word "convincing," which is a variation of the word "opinion," and of the word "indisputable." A God would not have any trouble at all producing all kinds of evidence that would leave no doubt in the opinion of any mentally competent person that no human would have been able to produce the evidence. It is as simple as that.

By the way, my arguments also apply to intelligent design. If God really wanted people to believe that intelligent design exists, it is reasonable to assume that he would show and and demonstrate that it exists.

-Jay-

I've got to say that Lee's "argument" constitutes perhaps the most stunning alloy of goalpost-shifting, creative interpretation of words, and circular logic that I've ever seen.

Wow. Just...wow.

regards,

NinJay

Johnny Skeptic

Not only that, but Lee refused to produce one single FUNDAMENTALIST Christian source that agrees with him. In addition, Lee exclusively discusses his challenge with skeptics in spite of the fact that he knows that skeptics do not have any authority to rebuild Babylon. No rational person would ever deliver a challenge to people who have not authority to accept it. Lee knows that if he delivered his challenge to the Iraqi government, who are the challengees, they would laugh at him. Further, regarding an Arab pitching his tent in Babylon, Lee said "overturning such a prophecy would be more difficult to verify (they have to be Arabs, not Persians!), which is why I focus on ways to overturn the prophecy that would be indisputable," when in fact, Persians live in Iran, not in Iraq, and in spite of the fact that Arabs constitute the majority in Iraq, and in spite of the fact that even if Iraq was predominantly Persian, it would be a simple matter for at least one Arab out of hundreds of thousands if not millions of Arabs in the world to come to Iraq and pitch his tent in Babylon. Therefore, Lee did not tell the truth when he said that "overturning such a prophecy would be more difficult to verify (they have to be Arabs, not Persians!). What is difficult about finding one single Arab? That would be as difficult as finding a Jew, and Lee would surely agree that is would be easy to find a Jew.

Of course, if a God was really interested in making challenges, it is reasonable to assume that he would show up in person and deliver them himself. If I was immortal, and wanted to issue challenges to people who would be alive thousands of years in the future, I would hang around and issue the challenges in person, especially if issuing the challenges would keep some people from spending eternity in hell without parole.

Cege

In hopes that I'm staying on topic of the OP, I'll offer that I heard a sermon recently that included the claim that a star was prophesied to be part of the coming of the Messiah, referencing Numbers 24:17:
"I see him, but not now;
I behold him, but not near.
A star will come out of Jacob;
a scepter will rise out of Israel.
He will crush the foreheads of Moab,
the skulls of all the sons of Sheth.

It was meant to relate the star in Numbers to the star seen by the magi as reported in gMatthew, but how can that be an accurate "prophecy" fulfilled by the reported birth of Jesus?

I see the word "star" there, but what of the scepter rising? The crushed foreheads of Moab and the skulls Sheth's sons? I don't understand how only one sentence can be isolated to be a prophecy of the messiah when the others in context don't apply.

diana

Yes. Well stated.

d