lee_merrill

Um, the way to show how the goalposts are not being moved, would be to show how the topic of discussion you are insisting on now is the same as the topic in the first post.

Regards,
Lee

Johnny Skeptic

[quote=LeeMerrill] Um, the way to show how the goalposts are not being moved, would be to show how the topic of discussion you are insisting on now is the same as the topic in the first post."

My first post was as follows:

I later expanded the references to include Isaiah 13:20, which is an important part of the multi-faceted Babylon prophecy since it addresses not only rebuilding, but also Arabs pitching tents and shepherds grazing their flocks, and Lee has been discussing the verse with me, so he cannot accuse me of changing the goalposts, and he has conveniently chosen not to reply to my post #77. He will have to either reply to my post #77 or lose a good deal of his credibility even among Christians at this forum.

Sauron

Except that you would be wrong. The topic is the same. I knew you would try to create such an excuse; that is why I pre-emptively addressed it in my post above. Blue, the color of repetition for lee

1. Not that referring back to the first post helps much anyhow. YOU are the one who is bringing in all these other claims about swamps, sheep, etc. So if you don't want to talk about those areas, then why are you bringing them up?

2. Finally, you aren't even defending your initial post. ISA 13:19 talks about Babylon's end being like Sodom and Gomorrah's end. You've totally failed to establish that. The prophecy is pretty clear here; yet history shows that Babylon's end was nothing like the (alleged) end for Sodom and Gomorrah.


Indeed. If lee_merrill had any real complaints about these other topics (sheep, tents, Arabs, etc.) then he sure failed to mention it, when he was busy asserting and responding on those very same topics earlier in the debate. In fact, he didn't start to cry foul until much later, when it became apparent that he was losing the argument on those points. That was when he switched tactics, and wanted us all to ignore those inconvenient inaccuracies in prophecy.

He isn't fooling anyone. :rolling:

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

It might be that I'm willing to discuss whether other verses have been fulfilled. It still needs to be shown that proving the fulfillment of Isa. 13:20 is part of the topic of the first post. I hold that it is not.

But as far as this other verse...

Sheep generally graze in pastures, wild game is usually not hunted in open sheep grazing pastures, that's not much of a challenge.

Well, I posted a message at TheologyWeb and at the BibleAndQuran Yahoo egroup, and will see what Muslims there might say in reply.

Well, this is silly. I have now resolved not to defend obvious points such as this any more, in this thread, for example, to try and show why sheep would not be pastured in a swamp, and so forth.

I am debating whether Babylon will be rebuilt or reinhabited in this thread, and this is a different topic. Surely the prophecy does not mean there must have been fire and brimstone rained down on Babylon.

But I have also decided that I will not get sidetracked anymore, no more chasing of rabbits...

It is, actually, though, I'm about to invoke my "no silly objection" amendment.

Why so, though? An assertion does not prove a point. So if these points are not established, the conclusion need not follow. But this again is incidental to the topic of the first post.

Yes, I agree, the fulfillment of the prophecy was to start right away.

Wasn't it you who has just changed his position on this point, though?

I did post those, actually, several verses that have that implication.

I couldn't forge a photocopy? I invoke my silly objection amendment. The Word commentary does indeed begin the chapter 14 section with the second half of 13:22.

This is a rabbit I shall not chase any further...

I agree that he probably did some rebuilding, Arrian even describes some rebuilding (when you quoted "built no more," were you remembering a verse from the Tyre prophecy?) the point here is that Alex had an intent to rebuild, to restore Babylon, and that he failed in his plan.

Then we know that there is nothing to know about Petra and Edom, for Petra did not exist when Edom was there, and again, someone should inform these folks at Brown University.

Then Petra doesn't mean the site called Petra? I don't think that follows.

That's fine if the Edomites didn't stay there forever, that also was prophesied, actually, that they would not stay in their homeland, even, and that they would disappear as a nation.

I suppose if one of your sources turns out to be incorrect, that would mean that you had been blatantly dishonest?

People don't visit ruins? Especially when foreign photographers go there?

Proof, please?

Well, Xerxes burned Esagila and Etemenanki, the temples of Marduk (which "were considered to be the foundation of heaven on earth") in 476, and Alex commanded the rebuilding of Esagila, and yet it was not done. I think we may say these were substantial parts of Babylon, that went down right away, and never came back.

Regards,
Lee

cajela

Thanks, Sauron, but not me, I don't have the knowledge. I'm just a computer/biology geek. I'd be stuck with using google or my old high school ancient history text books, and they're mostly about Greece and Rome, and at least 30 years old, anyway. I just hang out here for the edjumacation.

And I have been educated to some extent - it's quite amazing, when you google Babylon, how much prophecy stuff is out there. It makes it hard to find the real archaology. Google scholar is a much better bet, of course.

Sauron

Too bad that none of the other verses have been fulfilled. Short discussion, that. :rolling:

And you would be wrong on that, as you are on so many other things.

1. Johnny defined the topic.
2. He expanded it.
3. You failed to object.
4. You engaged the new expanded topic in several of your own posts, even going as far as to make new, never-before-seen assertions.

Ergo, you have no room for whining.

Repeating your assertion again? That didn't work any of the past hundred or so times; why do you think it would work now? You've shown zero evidence that these two things are incompatible. The question to you remains:

Why wouldn't shepherds go there, if it were a swamp?

To which you've now added the claim that hunting wouldn't occur in a grazing area. Another interesting and fallacious claim. Care to support it with some evidence?

Your intellectual laziness rears its head again. You could have looked all this information up, lee - why post messages asking other people to feed you information? Are you an invalid? Apparently lee_merrill thinks that other people exist merely to spoonfeed him information.

Hint: Johnny Skeptic's question was about Iraqi motives. Posting a message in a Quranic study website isn't going to answer that. And posting a message at Theologyweb is certainly not going to give you an unbiased examination of the topic. But that isn't what you want anyhow, is it?

No, what you've done is declare these claims to be obvious when they are not. And you've done this, in order to get out of doing the work to support your claims. More intellectual dishonesty.

Bullshit. It is not a different topic. Johnny Skeptic's original post mentions ISA 13:19 by name:

The prophecy that Babylon will never be rebuilt or reinhabited (Isa. 13:19, Jer. 25:12, Jer. 51:26) has been and is being fulfilled, and this is a clear demonstration of God's supernatural power.

There; did you see it? :rolling: The verse in Johnny Skeptic's statement above actually says the following:

ISA 13:19 And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees' excellency, shall be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah.

So it is not a different topic. The comparison to Sodom and Gomorrah comes up in the first post that started this debate. You're just being intellectually dishonest -- again.

You must establish that the end of Babylon was "as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah". However you decide to approach that task is your own business. I don't think anyone expects fire and brimstone on Babylon. However, there is more to the comparison than just the mechanism of destruction. You'll need to show that the two scenarios had similar characteristics.

Ooh. Sounds like a lot of work, doesn't it? Not quite what you signed up for, I'll bet. :rolling:

It is not a sidetrack. It is a core part of Johnny Skeptic's first post. All you have to do is decide if you are going to address it or not.


No, it isn't. As demonstrated before:

The word used was "desolation". The dictionary puts that word in terms of human habitation and suitability for living beings not an assessment of the state of buildings. But in the end, it doesn't matter. The refutation is still the same. A city can have 1000 buildings. Then 150 of them fall into disuse and are no longer maintained. The city is not "becoming desolate".

To recap:

* The dictionary definition of the word;
* the context of Isaiah; and
* the simile examples of Sodom and Gomorrah

all these contradict your line of (ahem) reasoning.

You mean the little homemade amendment you think excuses you from supporting previous assertions? You're going to invoke *that* amendment? Ooooh, I guess THAT'LL teach us, won't it? :rolling:

You're in this mess by your own actions, lee. You shot your mouth off, and when people started pressing you for evidence, you did some handwaving and hoped no one would notice that you still haven't backed up your claims.

Because that is the context and flow of the verses.

JER 51:25 Behold, I am against thee, O destroying mountain, saith the LORD, which destroyest all the earth: and I will stretch out mine hand upon thee, and roll thee down from the rocks, and will make thee a burnt mountain.

JER 51:26 And they shall not take of thee a stone for a corner, nor a stone for foundations; but thou shalt be desolate for ever, saith the LORD.

On the contrary. JER 51:26 was *another* verse that Johnny Skeptic mentioned in his original post. Apparently you didn't read the verses that Johnny Skeptic mentioned, before starting this debate. Intellectually sloppy.


That is not only what the *prophecy* discusses, however. It isn't talking merely about the start, it's also talking about the culmination of the prophecy. Which is why it says "her days will not be prolonged." If the prophecy started, yet took 1500 years to carry out to the final end, then Babylon's days would be VERY MUCH prolonged. Which would, of course, contradict the prophecy.

Not I - my position has been the same since my first post. It is you, however, who is trying to ignore the context of the verse, as well as the point-blank statement that "her days will not be prolonged."

No, you posted several verses that show the phrase being used as a way to mark time or eras of history, as in the phrase "during Shakespeare's days." You did not prove that the usage was connected with control.


Moreover, you posted ZERO verses that show the phrase being used to connote control, when the subject is a city (an inanimate object).

Doubtful. If your forgery skills are as bad as your research and debate skills, I think your forgery would easily be discovered.

Invoke your homemade nursery rhyme all you want; it changes nothing. You were the first one to open up a claim that the chapters were not divided correctly; I didn't do that. But now that you've opened up such a claim, it's fair game for others to question that claim and demand proof of it.

And as predicted, as soon as that happens, you back off and create some excuse why you don't have to support your claim. All the while continuing to repeat said claim, and expect us to accept it. If you really beleived this was an off-topic point, then you wouldn't keep making the claim; you would table the point and move on. But that isn't what you do, is it? No - you claim that you don't have to support the statement because it's a tangent -- yet you continue to make the claim.

Games and intellectual dishonesty - lee_merrill's hallmark. Hopefully some of the lurkers here -- and anyone who comes over from Theologyweb or BibleandQuran -- will see your behavior and realize how bankrupt literalist apologetics really are.

But wait a few minutes, and you trot out this claim again (or some other claim) and expect us to accept it.

Then when we challenge it, you'll -- big surprise -- declare it a "rabbit" again and decide that you don't have to support it.

No, I was thinking of JER 51:26 -- unlike you, I have actually read the prophecies about Babylon.

You are confusing "the point" with "your claim."

Except you have no proof of that. Your Encarta quotation only says that Alexander failed to make it his capital. Eight years went by between the time Alexander took Babylon and when he died. Your interpretation is not only ridiculous, but it beggars the imagination.

Ah, such rampant disingenousness and intellectual chicanery. As Gandhi once said "I almost became a Christian, until I met one." He must have been talking about people like you, lee_merrill.

In point of fact, there is an intersection between Petra and Edom - the Edomites lived in the geographical area (Sela) that would one day become Petra. But they did not live there *while* it was Petra, the stone city. This is well-known, and it is also known to Brown University. And since you're being totally thick-headed, let's look at the Brown University quote again, to show everyone how you're deliberately twisting their statement:

Little is known about the Edomites at Petra itself, but as a people they were known for their wisdom, their writing, their textile industry, the excellence and fineness of their ceramics, and their skilled metal working.

But since it also says:

According to tradition, in ca. 1200 BCE, the Petra area (but not necessarily the site itself) was populated by Edomites and the area was known as Edom ("red").

Then clearly Brown University is not saying that *nothing* is known about those Edomites. It merely says "little is known".

Behavior like the above is precisely why you have been justly labelled as intellectually dishonest - you knew EVERY bit of what I just posted here. But instead of acting responsibly like an honest, interested debater, you once again tried to score points with semantic quibbles. Which, as usual, didn't work because I was willing to put in the energy and time to lead you back through the discussion and show you where you were misquoting the citation -- which you already knew, of course.

What you think is irrelevant, since the evidence shows that you'll twist anything you can to keep up your quibble-fest. Brown Univ says that there is good evidence for Edomite habitation in the Petra area, but not so good evidence for habitation in the exact spot where the stone city would one day be built. And no - "Petra" means the stone city only. The area around the stone city is not Petra, any more than the area around the Washington Monument is the same thing as the Washington Monument.

They were *never* in the stone city. IT didn't exist when they were there.

Hm. Well, since the Edomite capital was at Bozrah, not Petra, your summation doesn't work. So -- as usual -- you'll have to support these new assertions about prophecy you just made; we aren't taking them at face value. Are you ready to do so? Are you up to the challenge? It's a lot of work, lee - are you ready?

Hint: now would be a good time to invoke your homemade declaration. :rolling:

Ah. Lying about what I said as well, are you?

My statement above - the one about you being dishonest -- was in reference to the text that you conveniently clipped out when you quoted me. And what was that text? It was the extended quotation from Brown University that mentioned FIVE TIMES that Petra was a Nabatean city, and not an Edomite one.

So my statement about your dishonesty had nothing to do with your reliance upon McDowell. Now, if I wanted to characterize that particular situation, I would have used totally different language. I mean, I would have pointed out your intellectual laziness and lack of intellectual rigor in selecting your sources. :rolling:

1. These were not foreign photographers. They were US military.

2. Iraqis don't have a lot of money or extra resources to spend to be running around ruins at the moment. In case you missed it, Iraq has been at war and the economy and standard of living have been ruined.

3. If you think these kids and Iraqi adults were visitors, then by all means prove it. But the evidence suggests that they were local kids whose families lived at the site.

So at the end, we're right back where we started: you have a claim which you need to prove. How long are you going to make the audience wait, lee?

As soon as you provide proof for the dozens of claims you've entered into this thread, then at that time you'll be in a position to demand proof from others. He who claims first, has first burden of proof. The rule hasn't changed just because you hoped it would.

Which does not refute my statement. Darius and Alexander both rebuilt parts of Babylon, after the prophecy said "her days would not be prolonged."

Except you have no proof for that, either. If Alexander commanded the rebuilding to start, and his orders were not carried out, then you'll need to prove that. The evidence suggests that building was started.

Or perhaps you mean finished? Oh, well - Esagila was not finished during Alexander's time, of course. It was a large project. It wasn't finished until 280 BCE:

http://www.livius.org/ba-bd/babylon/babylon.html

Building activity related to the Esagila is mentioned in several cuneiform sources and continued as late as the early 280's, when the Seleucid crown prince Antiochus used his elephants to remove the debris (text).

And religious services at Esagila continued until the 1st century, under Mithridates:
http://www.angelfire.com/tx/tintirbabylon/persian.html
Esagila's last recorded service, 93 b.c.e.

But livius.org indicates a longer period, 1st century CE, for these services. Feeling the heat yet, lee? :Cheeky:

1. No, you can try to *prove* that if you like, but we cannot say it. Especially given the mistakes you made about Esagila in the section immediately above.

2. Even if your claim were true, it would not help your argument since there were dozens and hundreds of other temples, and the city was in perfect working order when Alexander arrived. That is a contradiction to any claim of being a desolation.

3. In summation, Babylon was the premier city of the planet; it was the New York City of the ancient near east. And it was like that during Alexander's time - a key point. Only a deceptive christian literalist (is there any other kind?) could twist the largest and grandest city of the world and make it out to be a desolation.

cajela

I think we can allow a pass on the banner and the dragons. But never rebuilt and never inhabited seems pretty clear. As I understand it, it was inhabited continuously up to some point around 1400 AD? (Sorry, I'm too lazy to review the thread for dates.) And at some time after that a village grew up, that had to be moved when Saddam did his building works - he built a palace, possibly didn't live in it himself, but I bet some servants and housekeepers did. And now there's a military base there. Inhabited. Check.

Sounds actually like it's been pretty continously inhabited. A short period of "desolation" perhaps, but that's not what the prophecy claims. Without massive twisting, the plain interpretation is that Babylon will fall, and that will happen soon relative to the time of the prophecy, and forever after that fall it will be desolate. Yet it didn't fall then and didn't become desolate then. Seems pretty well wrapped up to me.

Sauron

Update:

When lee posted to BibleandQuran, looking for someone to help out his argument on Muslims wanting to rebuild Babylon to disprove the Bible, I don't think he expected this response:

Which is precisely what I told him:

can't speak for the book of Mormon, but you're totally incorrect about the Koran. That is not what Islam means when it says that it is the true word of Allah. And since the Koran does agree with the OT on several points, the challenge to you is still not answered. You need to prove that Muslims believe the bible is wrong on this precise point. Muslims agree with Christians and Jews on very many things. So it is not a foregone conclusion that they would disagree here.

Ah, lee. If only you had done what I told you to do, and gone to research this yourself. But that isn't your way, is it?

:rolling: :wave: :Cheeky:

Johnny Skeptic

There is no might about it. You have been willingly discussing Isaiah 13:20 ever since I first brought it up. Are you not aware that I could easily open a new thread on Isaiah 13:20?

It is indeed much of a challenge. A possible preexisting sheep pasture might easily have become a wild game park. You said “usually,� but the prophecy says “never.� There is a difference you know. The wild game park is only one issue. That happened centuries after Babylon was destroyed. You still need to reasonably prove that Arabs have “never� pitched their tents there and that sheep have “never� grazed there, meaning not only prior to the game park, but subsequent to the game park as well.

You are quite clever, but we skeptics can be quite clever too. I asked you “Is it your position that God prevented shepherds from grazing their animals in Babylon, but allowed wild game to graze there? What is the difference?� Just leave out the “What is the difference?� and please answer my question.

Now that should be fun. I can’t wait to see what James Holding, Salvationfound, Mountain Man and Jason have to say about the matter. I suggested in a previous post that you ask some of the members of the church that you attend as well. Please do so and be sure to include discussing this issue with your pastor and youth pastor as well. And of course, please be sure to ask some liberal Christians as well, that is, if you believe that they are Christians. I will be happy to contact the Christian college or seminary of your choice regarding this matter. Which one do you recommend?

Not only will the Christians at the Theology Web embarrass you, but Muslims will as well.

I was a fundamentalist Christian for over 35 years, and I assure you that I wouldn’t have given up Christianity if Babylon had been rebuilt, or for that matter if sheep had grazed there or if Arabs had pitched their tents there.

You never anticipated that sheep, Arabs and Babylon becoming a swamp would become a part of these debates, did you? Archaeologists could verify that Babylon has not been rebuilt, but neither they nor anyone else could ever prove that Arabs have never pitched their tents there and sheep have never grazed there.

Do you believe that God caused Babylon to become a swamp? If so, that is an assertion that you would need to back up. If not, then your “people have tried to rebuild Babylon and failed because God prevented them from doing so� argument won’t work since no one would ever try to build or rebuild a city in a swamp.

Sauron

Well, lee_merrill's request at TheologyWeb has gone unanaswered.

His request at BibleandQuran has been shot down with people asknig him questions such as:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biblea.../message/56073

And of course, lee is nowhere in sight. Having been informed that ISA 13:20 was part of the initial post and he would have to defend it, he's decided to duck out of sight.

I expect he'll wait a week or two, and then pop up again here -- or on some other bulletin board; he frequents several of them -- and repeat the same claims, oblivious to the fact that they were disproved here.