Johnny Skeptic

But what makes this doctrine valid? You are calling upon the Bible to be its own witness. That will simply not do. The New Testament admits that tampering with the texts is possible. Revelation 22:18-19 say “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.� If tampering with the texts were not possible, there would have been no need for the warning.

2 Peter 1:20-21 is talking about ORIGINAL Scripture, not REVISED Scripture, and we do not know what Isaiah originally said.

In my thread that is titled 'Tampering with the texts is possible', judge said:

SaintCog said:

Regarding the accuracy of presidential polls, the Gallup organization has proven you wrong on numerous occasions.

Classic example according to whom? Today, most people DO have telephones. Would you care to try again? Surely you must have some other examples, but then again, maybe you don’t.

Consider the following:

http://www.tipponline.com/


Final Certified Results Reveal TIPP as the Most Accurate Pollster of Election 2004

An analysis of the presidential election's final certified results shows that TIPP's daily tracking polls proved to be the most accurate in terms of predicting the winner and his margin of victory.

Among the four national daily tracking polls, TIPP came closest to projecting Bush's actual margin of victory (2.1% projected vs. 2.5% actual).

TIPP also outperformed a field of 11 other national, non-tracking pre-election polls, coming within just four-tenths of a percentage point to predicting Bush’s actual margin of victory (2.1% projected vs. 2.5% actual).

TIPP predicted the winner of the election in several pre-election venues, including CNBC’s Kudlow and Cramer and in the pages of Investor’s Business Daily.

“We developed strong tracking metrics and voter models that allowed us to accurately predict the election's outcome,� said Raghavan Mayur, president of TIPP. “These metrics enabled us to minimize error and capture trends as they developed. We had our finger on the pulse of America throughout all of its palpitations.�

Is .4% accurate enough for you, Lee? It is patently absurd for you to compare today’s polling methods with the methods that were used during Rossevelt’s time.

Actually, time for you to produce evidence why it should be reinhabited. I was unable to access the poll at the Theology Web. Readers, have any of you been able to access it? Lee, please post the url to the poll. Are the 20% who said that they would give up Christianity available for questioning? Will you please invite them to come to this forum and participate in this thread? I am suspicious of your poll, and I predict that it will be found to be fraudulent. I also predict that polls that I will conduct will show that no more than 1% of fundamentalist Christians would give up Christianity is Babylon were to be rebuilt.

You said that “taking good surveys indeed is difficult,� and yet you conducted a survey at the Theology Web, so it was difficult, right? Do you believe that the results of your poll are valid? How many people did the 20% consist of? Is it your position that the 20% is a credible representative sampling of the worldwide Christian community, or of the U.S. Christian community?

Please conduct another poll at the Theology Web, and give us the url, and ask the following question: If one Arab were to pitch his tent for one night in Babylon, would you give up Christianity? You once said that that would be sufficient reason for you to give up Christianity. Isaiah 13:20 says “It shall never be inhabited, neither shall it be dwelt in from generation to generation: neither shall the Arabian pitch tent there; neither shall the shepherds make their fold there.� The verse contains three separate claims, and invalidating any one of them invalidates all of them. If a good number of Christians at the Theology Web say that they will give up Christianity if one Arab were to pitch his tent for one night in Babylon, I will personally try to have this easy task accomplished. I have sufficient funds for such an endeavor.

The people who you need to convince the most are the Iraqis. They own Babylon, and only they can attempt to rebuild it, or allow someone else to attempt to rebuild it, or allow an Arab to pitch his tent in Babylon. You must poll the Iraqi people in order to find out if the majority of them would vote to allow Babylon to be rebuilt. The greater the number of Christians who would give up Christianity if Babylon were to be rebuilt, and/ or if one Arab (or a few dozen Arabs if you wish) were to pitch his tent in Babylon, the more interested the Iraqis would be in attempting to accomplish either or both tasks, so the more evidence that you can provide them, the more willing they will be to accept your challenge. It is quite embarrassing for you that so far, you have not convinced even one single Iraqi. The Iraqis would be even much more interested if you would provide evidence that if either or both attempts were successful, the U.S. would adopt a friendly foreign policy towards Muslims. One quick telephone call to the U.S. State Department could settle this issue, but of course you do not wish to embarrass yourself by doing so.

As I have told you on a number of occasions, Deuteronomy 13 says that bad people can predict the future too, so the character of a predictor is the issue, not whether or not he can predict the future. It is my position that God’s character is suspect. I will be happy to debate this issue with you in a new thread. How about it? THE CHARACTER OF GOD IS IN FACT THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE IN THE ENTIRE BIBLE, EVEN MORE FUNDAMENTAL THAN THE RESURRECTION.

About a week ago, I started a thread at the GRD forum that it titled ‘Is God consistently good and protective’? A skeptic named reddhedd aptly said:

That's one of the worst bits, IMO. I had a bi-polar alcoholic dad; the stress was enormous. Never knowing what would set him off, never knowing what to say. One day, what was said or done was fine, even amusing. The next day, the exact same thing would cause a meltdown, complete with screaming, hitting, and throwing things. That's one of the worst bits, IMO. I had a bi-polar alcoholic dad; the stress was enormous. Never knowing what would set him off, never knowing what to say. One day, what was said or done was fine, even amusing. The next day, the exact same thing would cause a meltdown, complete with screaming, hitting, and throwing things. I remember the awful feeling in my stomach, going home, looking for messages in everything. How was the truck parked? Was the front door open? Where were his jacket and keys? Anything that might give me clues as to what to do, how to act, when I saw him.

Seems to me like biblegod is guilty of inciting that sort of fearful, stressed behavior through its very inconsistency. Maybe that's why so many people with dysfunctional home lives are either drawn to, or repelled by, xtianity. It's familiar, and that's either comfortable, or terrifying.

I initially went for comfortable, until I realized that I was repeating destructive relationship patterns.
Funny, how I've met so many women from f*cked homes, who look for the same type of guy, be it a husband or a god, that resembled dear old dad.�

Lee, if a human father were able to prevent his son from being killed by a natural disaster but refused to do so, and also failed to tell you why, you would immediately consider him to be a detestable person. Why do you not judge God by the same standard?

What gives God the right to rule? Does might always make right, or only in cases where a mighty being has promised BY HUMAN PROXIES to provide you with a comfortable eternal life? Do you really care who provides you with a comfortable eternal life, or whether he is perfect, whether he is all-powerful? Of course you don’t. If you had cancer, and a cure were available, you most certainly could not care less who provides you with a cure.

Even if Jesus did rise from the dead, there is no logical correlation that can be made between the ability to rise from the dead and goodness. If Elvis Presley rose from the dead and claimed that he died for the sins of mankind, would you worship him based solely upon that evidence? Of course you wouldn’t. The point is, even if Jesus did rise from the dead, what ELSE did he do? Do you have any evidence at all that 1) his shed blood and death actually remitted the sins of mankind, that 2) he was conceived by the Holy Spirit, that 3) he was born of a virgin, that 4) he never sinned, and that 5) he actually said most or all of what the Gospels writers said that he said? Well of course you don’t. Do you have any non-Biblical evidence at all that Jesus healed people. First hand or second hand testimony would be best. Do you have any documented medical evidence that God has ever performed a miracle healing for you? You once said that personal experience is a necessary part of your beliefs? Did you mean tangible experiences, spiritual/emotional experiences, or both?

There is in fact not ANY credible evidence that God owes you anything at all, and that he has EVER promised anyone a comfortable eternal life. That would be in keeping with his bi-polar personality. Since God IS NOT consistently good and protective now, why would he ever want to be any different?

lee_merrill

Hi Johnny,

Well, once a person accepts the Bible as God's word, then they accept such statements as valid! It's part of being an evangelical Christian, the first part (which you are certainly trying to disprove!), and then the second part follows.

But the point is that it's difficult (as exemplified by this poll that missed sampling representatively). I don't say it can't be done! Or that Gallup doesn't do it well. It only takes some careful thought and planning.

I double-checked the link, and it does seem to work, I'm not sure why you cannot seem to access it.

I am! I'm half of that 20%.

It seems you are moving the goalposts here, though. You had said that "Even if I were to concede that a poll among all of the members of YOUR OWN CHURCH was a representative sampling, you would still lose and you know it."

So I presented my best efforts, if you now were to concede that this is representative (note, only the possibility need be considered!), then it would seem I wouldn't lose here.

And now what evidence do you have that the poll at Tweb was fraudulent? What exactly are you saying? That I voted twice? I need more specifics.

No, it wasn't difficult, because I didn't try and get a representative sample. That is not so easy! And it is you who seemed to be saying you would consider such a poll valid, not me.

I have addressed this, though! This probably refers to nomadic Arabs using the site at Babylon at a stop on their travels. For example, I could say "no major league baseball player will ever hit a home run in Charlotte!" Now that evokes a baseball field, and a pitcher, and a game, and so forth. This would not be just a statement about one batter and one fence and a ball going over it.

Well I have addressed this, too! Please check my previous replies.

But you now have your poll, and evidence that it would have an impact to rebuild Babylon, even on the terms you had laid down. So why do you pursue other topics such as the thread you have just mentioned that you opened, do you have a survey about effectiveness there?

Just rebuild or reinhabit Babylon, that will accomplish your purpose, and in a clear and convincing way.

Regards,
Lee

Johnny Skeptic

Acceptance does not reasonably prove validity. Most people used to accept that the earth was flat, and they were all wrong. The point is not that you believe that Isaiah spoke for God regarding the Babylon prophecy, but WHY you believe that he spoke for God?

.4% accuracy should be more than adequate to convince anyone that your arguments are not credible. You said that the election decades ago was a classic example of a faulty poll, but I just showed you that today’s polling methods would not have made the same mistake, and that today’s representative samplings are quite accurate. If a poll predicted that 95% of Christians would not give up Christianity if Babylon were to be rebuilt, and the poll was only off by .4%, that would not be sufficient to convince Muslims to make the attempt. If a poll predicted that 95% of Christians would give up Christianity if Babylon were to be rebuilt, would you refuse to use the poll as evidence? If your answer is yes, I will not believe you.

But I asked you to post the url, but you didn’t. Why not? How many Christians participated in the poll? What was the question? What are some of their names?

I am! I'm half of that 20%.[/quote]

Are you saying that only you and one other Christian answered yes?

But you didn’t conduct a poll among all of the members of your church, or among any them at all. Is that correct?

You have not presented your best efforts. It would be simple for you to conduct a poll at your church, but you refused to do so. Why is that?

How many Christians at the Theology Web said that they would give up Christianity if Babylon were to be rebuilt?

Then what are your criteria for disproving the prophecy regarding Arabs pitching their tents in Babylon?

You conveniently avoided replying to the following from my previous post:

Skeptics, Christians, and Muslims all have opinions about the Babylon prophecy, but permission to attempt to rebuild Babylon can only come from the government of Iraq. They would not accept your challenge without sufficient evidence in advance that if their attempts were successful, they would enjoy substantial benefits that appealed to them. That is the way that challenges work. The challenger must convince the challengee in advance that if his attempts are successful, he will enjoy substantial benefits that appeal to him (the challengee). So far, you haven’t produced even on single Iraqi who is willing to accept your challenge. Why don’t you contact the Iraqi embassy in Iraq and tell them about your challenge? They might will be willing to pass on your challenge to a government official in Iraq.

And you please check my previous replies. I can play this game too. You have never adequately attempted to defend the nature of God. In addition, you have never provided documented medical evidence of your questionable miracle healings. It would only take you a short time to restate your position, or to quote some of your previous posts, but I predict that you will refuse to do so. You are just like bfniii. Whenever he knows that he will embarrass himself by restating or quoting his previous arguments, he conveniently refuses to do so. I told him that that is not courteous, and that I am always will to restate or quote my previous arguments. Dedicated, committed, capable, and courteous debators are always willing to engage in extended debates, and to restate and quote their previous arguments. You are willing to engage in extended debates, including restating and quoting your previous arguments, and on occasion the arguments of your opponents, but only when you believe that you won’t embarrass yourself. Your thread on the Tyre prophecy is a good example. You made numerous posts over a number of months, but your attempts to defend the nature of God have been quite brief by comparison, obviously because you do not want to embarrass yourself. All other topics are secondary to the topic of the nature of God, which just so happens to be the most difficult topic for Christians to debate. You are well aware of this fact, hence your frequent evasiveness.

Your poll most certainly will not convince the Iraqi government, and only they have the authority to accept your challenge.

But why do some Christians believe that Isaiah was speaking for God and not for himself regarding the Babylon prophecy? The Bible indicates that tampering with the texts is possible. Revelation 22:18-19 say “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.� If tampering with the texts were not possible, there would have been no need for the warnings. Further evidence is the fact that you yourself believe that Roman Catholics have added to the Bible, adding further proof that tampering with the texts is possible. So much for Biblical inerrancy.

lee_merrill

Hi Johnny,

I am convinced on other grounds (such as fulfilled prophecy) that Scripture is supernatural, and reliable, and so I trust these other statements. Like when you believe a reporter! Why do you believe a reporter on the nightly news? Or a book by a scientist? The same process is at work in both cases.

Yes, they are being more careful today.

Well, I would need to know who took the poll, before I believed they had a representative sample.

I posted a link, but here is the URL: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ad.php?t=66173

No, but two people answered that they would give up Christianity.

Well, have you conducted a poll to show me that if I conduct this other poll, it will be effective?

Well, it's more difficult, I would expect that if nomadic Arabs typically used this site as a stopping grounds in their travels, that would overturn it. But it's more undeniable if you build buildings, and have permanent inhabitants, so that is why I focus on rebuilding or reinhabiting.

Well, I am not so motivated to disprove Scripture! Why don't you be the one to contact them?

But that is not the topic of this thread. Let's stay on-topic...

Regards,
Lee

John A. Broussard

Really?

You mean reporters are trusted because their prohecies come true?

Your arguments become stranger every day, lee.

Johnny Skeptic

But what is "the Bible." What qualifies the Babyon prophecy as being a part of the Bible? I am not aware of even one single Bible prophecy that indicates divine inspiration.

Then why did you bring up a poll that took place many decades ago when you just admitted that present polling methods are much better? .4% is very accurate. A poll of Christians that would be accurate to within .4% would accurately show what percentage of Christians would give up Christianity if Babylon were to be rebuilt. Why don't you pick a fundamentalist Christian church to poll and I will pick a fundamentalist church to poll? What could be more fair than that? Sure you wouldn't want to liberal Christian churches to be polled since you already know that virtually no liberal Christian would give up Christianity if Babylon were to be rebuilt.

How about the Barna Research Group? They are a highly respected evangelical polling organization? If they conducted a poll, would you accept the results no matter what the results were?

I don't understand what you mean? How many people replied to your poll? How many said that they would give up Christianity if Babylon were to be rebuilt, and how many said that they would not give up Christianity if Babylon were to be rebuilt?

I don't need to. You must convince the Iraqis that it would be worthwhile for them to rebuild Babylon, and they have not found your efforts to be convincing in your attempts to convince them to attempt to rebuild Babylon.
If you won't conduct polls and contact the U.S. State Department, how do you expect to convince the Iraqis that it would be worthwhile for them to rebuild Babylon?

No it wouldn't.

I am not interested in what Arabs typically did. I am interested in what Arabs are able to do today. Isaiah 13:20 says "It shall never be inhabited, neither shall it be dwelt in from generation to generation: neither shall the Arabian pitch tent there; neither shall the shepherds make their fold there." The verse has four parts, and discrediting one part would discredit them all. You conveniently chose the hardest parts, but I chosen the easier parts. Arabs pitching their tents in Babylon would be quite easy to accomplish, and that would be undeniable proof that the prophecy had been overturned. The prophecy said NEVER, so even one single instance of an Arab pitching his tent in Babylon would discredit the prophecy.

You are motivated to prove Scripture, so why don't you contact them? It is you who brought up the Babylon prophecy in the first place, not me, so you must have been trying to prove Scripture. I have told you on a number of occasions that the undecided crowd ARE NOT trying to disprove Scripture, and they are your MAIN audience, MOST CERTAINLY NOT COMMITTED SKEPTICS LIKE ME, but you always refuse to tell them why you won't back up your claim that skeptics and Muslims are missing a golden opportunity to discredit the Bible by rebuilding Babylon. You made a challenge to skeptics and Muslims to rebuild Babylon, but you have NEVER provided any evidence at all that they would enjoy substantial benefits if Babylon were to be rebuilt.

If an Iraqi or a Muslim from some other country asked you what benefits Muslims would enjoy if Babylon were to be rebuilt, what would you tell him? Logically, the challenger must convince the challengee that if he makes an attempt he will enjoy substantial benefits if his attemtps are successful. The kinds of evidence that Muslims would be most interested in is that the Christian Church would become sifnificantly smaller, and even more importantly that the U.S. would adopt a friendly foreign policy towards Muslims. Regarding the latter, a brief telephone call or a letter to the U.S. State Department would settle that issue. Would you like to contact the U.S. State Department? If you would like for me to contact them, please write a brief letter and I will send it to them in your name.

The nature of God is definitely relevant. Deuteronomy 13 says that bad people can predict the future too, so the issue is not who can predict the future, but what the character of the predictor is. I submit that the character of the God of the Bible is questionable because he is bi-polar, and in ways that are very harmful to humans. A good example of this is that he frequently refuses to prevent natural disasters, but usually cures the common cold, and never restores lost limbs. By human standards this is not competent and rational behavior. God must explain his behavior to my satisfaction or I will not accept him. Why are you so sure that God will provide you with a comfortable eternity? There is no evidence that he has ever publically promised to do that. He doesn't owe you anything. Why would he eventually want to change his bi-polar ways and become consistently good, loving, and protective?

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

No, I mean that reporters are trusted because we have concluded on various grounds, and from their past record, that they are trustworthy.

I don't understand, are you asking why books were chosen to be in the Bible? If you want to overturn Christianity, just make the assumption that the Bible as it is sold in bookstores today is what needs to be overturned, I would say.

Because a mistake like this illustrates the point that it is difficult to do good polls.

Because those churches might not be representative of Christianity at large.

Sure, I would expect they would do a good job.

10 replied, 2 said they would give up Christianity, and 2 said they would no longer consider the Bible to be without errors, and the rest said that they would still hope that the Bible would be vindicated, and wait.

Then why do you need a poll to convince you that rebuilding Babylon will be effective?

I don't mind if you attempt this, I have said this before, yet I also point out that buildings and permanent inhabitants are more undeniable. You get what you pay for...

Well, a failure is not a proof, it is more evidence, yet it will never be a proof. The only proof would be if an attempt here succeeded.

They would accomplish a good deal in their attempts to discredit Christianity's claim to having the only true Scripture. Unaccountably, people seem to be balking at such an opportunity...

I agree that this is important! But that is still not the topic of this thread, this was about whether Babylon can be rebuilt or reinhabited, if not, then we certainly need to find out what God is like, if indeed he is preventing this.

Regards,
Lee

Johnny Skeptic

Yes.

The entire Bible is not the issue here, just the Babylon prophecy. Why do you consider the Babylon prophecy to be a part of the original texts. Revelation chapter 22 indicates that tampering with the original texts is possible. In your opinion, Roman Catholics have added to the original texts. So much for Biblical inerrancy, and so much for your uncorroborated claim that the Babylon prophecy is a part of Scripture. You do not have any evidence that Isaiah was speaking for God and not for himself.

The Bible admits that tampering with the original texts is possible. Revelation 22:18-19 say “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.� If tampering with the texts were not possible, there would have been no need for the warnings. In your opinion, Roman Catholics have added to the original texts. So much for Biblical inerrancy, and so much for the Babylon prophecy.

A mistake like what? The relatively recent poll that I mentioned that was only off by .4%, or the poll that you mentioned that was over 50 years old?

You are not telling the truth. You are well aware that it would be difficult for you to find one single liberal Christian who would give up Christianity if Babylon were to be rebuilt. Did you find more than one Christian at the Theology other than yourself who would give up Christianity if Babylon were to be rebuilt?

Since you are the claimant, it is up to you to ask then to conduct a poll. Of course, you and I could easily conduct a representative sampling of our own. We could contact the headquarters of every Christian denomination in the U.S. with over 500,000 members. I’ll tell you what, for every one church headquarters that you contact, I will contact two. How about it?

Which two? I need names and e-mail addresses.

But would that evidence convince the Iraqis to attempt to rebuild Babylon?

I don’t need a polls, but you do. How else could you convince the Iraqis to accept your challenge. They want reasonable proof that the Christian Church would become substantially smaller, and more importantly, that the U.S. would adopt a friendly foreign policy towards Muslims. Do you have that evidence. The way that challenges work is that the challenger must provide the challengee with sufficient evidence that if his attempts are successful, he will enjoy substantial benefits. You haven’t done that. Why not? Surely you would never accept a challenge unless the challengee provided you with sufficient evidence that you would enjoy substantial benefits if your attempts were successful.

It is just as easy to observe Arabs pitching their tents in Babylon as it is to observe a rebuilt Babylon. If you convince the Iraqis that they will enjoy substantial benefits if Arabs were to pitch their tents in Babylon, I assure you that the attempt would immediately be successful. They might even attempt to rebuild Babylon, but only if you provide them with good evidence that they will enjoy substantial benefits if their attempts are successful.

I told you that if you will write a letter to the Iraqi government with your challenge, I will send it to them in your name. Where is your letter?

You cannot speak for the Iraqis. They must speak for themselves. Unaccountably, you seem to be balking at taking the opportunity to demonstrate to the Iraqis that you are serious about your challenge. You made a challenge, but remarkably, you have never contacted the challengees, the Iraqis. This is unprecedented as far as I know, making a challenge to someone but never delivering it to them. Regarding “they would accomplish a great deal,� how do you plan to convince the Iraqis of this assertion? What do you mean by “a great deal�? What research do you base this assertion on? Have you conducted polls? Have you contacted the U.S. State Department? The latter would be simple matter, but everyone knows that you will not contact the U.S. State Department. If you want me to contact the U.S. State Department, just write them a letter and I will deliver it to them in your name. The Iraqis will expect much more evidence than just your say so. You wouldn’t dare contact them with your shabby “evidence.�

As you learned first hand from the Muslim who embarrassed you, and who you conveniently refused to engage in any further dialogues with, Muslims do want to discredit the Bible, and the rapid growth rate of their church proves that they have have done an excellent job of that, but they do not have any desire to overturn the Babylon prophecy. Islam has over one billion adherents, and it is growing a faster than Christianity is. In addition, Christianity had a 600 year head start.

Your knowledge of Islam is at an elementary school level. You frequently attempt to speak for Muslims, skeptics, and Christains, but you have been consistently wrong on all counts. You are well-known for making all kinds of preposterous and outlandish assertions without providing any corroboration whatsoever.

My point is that might does not make right. Even if God can prevent Babylon from being rebuilt, and prevent Arabs from pitching their tents there, what would that prove about his character? Is all that you are concerned about is God’s power? Even if you were to win this particular battle over God’s power, you will lose the battle over his character. If the Devil were able to predict the future (Deuteronomy 13 says that bad people can predict the future too) and prevent people from accomplishing certain tasks, for example the restoration of lost limbs, would you worship him? Of course not.

Jack the Bodiless

Lee:
The thread Inerrantists: please demonstrate that ANY part of the Bible is "divinely inspired" is currently sinking into oblivion because no Christian has presented such a demonstration.
SO, already you're preparing an escape hatch just in case we present Arabs pitching their tents in Babylon. But you've forgotten that the "inhabitants" escape has already been closed...
And yet you deny them anyhow.
And it did: Babylon was/is inhabited. So why do you call it "proof" if you won't accept it anyhow?
The "balking" is YOURS, Lee.
Obviously he isn't, or Babylon would be uninhabited.

This is like playing whack-a-mole. You will change your requirements as often as needed, and will resort to outright denial whenever you're backed into a corner.

Johnny Skeptic

It most certainly is not. Reporters and scientists are available for personal consultations, but God in not available for personal consulations. Reporters do no claim to be inerrant, but you claim that the Bible is inerrant. Reporters do not claim that their writings are inspired, but you claim that the writings of Isaiah are inspired.

There is not one single prophecy in the Bible that clearly indicates divine inspiration. You have been embarrassed in one thread after another for years at this forum and at the Theology Web.

Deuteronomy 13 says the bad people can predict the future too, so it is not a question of who can predict the future, but of who has good character. I submit that the God of the Bible is bi-polar and frequently exhibits poor character, creating Hurricane Rita and diverting it to New Orleans being a good example.

By the way, the Iraqis are still waiting for you to tell them why they should accept your challenge to rebuild Babylon, or the much easier task of having Arabs pitch their tents there. Your personal sayso has no credibility whatsoever with the Iraqis. If you sent them your challenge, they would laugh at you, just like the Muslim did that embarrassed you. Just like bfniii, you frequently make challenges, but you seldom if ever accept them. You try to put all of the burden of proof upon skeptics and Muslims and excuse yourself of providing any proof whatsoever of anything, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS YOU WHO FIRST BROUGHT UP THE BABYLON PROPHECY, AND EVEN THOUGH IT WAS YOU WHO MADE A CHALLENGE, FOR SOME UNKNOWN REASON YOU NEVER DELIVERED IT TO THE CHALLENGEE. This is unprecedented as far as I know.

Please be advised that every time that you issue a challenge to Muslims and skeptics, I will issue you a challenge. As I have told you before, the undecided crowd ARE NOT trying to discredit the Bible, and they want to know why you will not back up your claim that skeptics are Muslims are missing a golden opportunity to discredit the Bible.

THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU, MOST CERTAINLY NOT SKEPTICS. THE BIBLE IS FULL OF INITIAL, PRIMARY ASSERTIONS FROM COVER TO COVER. HE WHO ASSERTS FIRST MUST PROVIDE EVIDENCE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT FIRST, JUST LIKE PLAINTIFFS IN COURT TRIALS. I HAVE NEVER CLAIMED HOW THE UNIVERSE GOT HERE, BUT YOU HAVE. I DID NOT CLAIM THAT THE TYRE PROPHECY WAS NOT DIVINELY INSPIRED, BUT YOU DID.

You have said that personal experiences are a necessary part of your belief system, so we need to debate that topic. If you fail to make convincing arguments regarding your personal experiences, then you lose by default regarding prophecy. I submit that you are afraid to defend your personal experiences even though you said that they are a necessary part of your belief system. You have learned from personal experience that pickins ain't so easy here at this forum.