John A. Broussard

So even if we have a thriving metropolis built there with skyscrapers, over a million inhabitants calling themselves Babylonians, a mayor, an airport, dozens of mosques, synagogues and temples, but no wall--then no Babylon.

Now, I understand.

Sven

Yes. According to these standards, no town was rebuilt ever. Which makes the prophecy, well, meaningless.

Johnny Skeptic

I look forward to seeing Lee Merrill try to deal with my previous post, especially the following:

Sauron

Already responded:

1. The same article that lee is using also tells us that 1000 people had to be moved to make room for Saddam's palace. Which point-blank destroys lee_merrill's claim of no inhabitants there. But notice the dishonesty and chicanery: lee has to deliberately turn a blind eye to parts of this very same article, in order to avoid contradicting his own argument.

2. The fact that archaeologists protested Saddam building on top of ruins does not contradict the statement that there were people living there. The ancient complex of Babylon was large. No one said that the entire area was inhabited. But some if it was, as your own article clearly states. And just for the record, archaeologists also don't like when people move in and live on top of ruins, either. That situation is also going on in Angkor Wat, and archaeologists have appealed to the authorities to remove the people in the name of history.

Oh, please. You're quite specific and detailed in the rigorous standards you ask other people to achieve for their arguments. But when it comes to your own positions, you've never offered ANYTHING that even approaches such level of detail. Always trying to shift the burden to *anyone*except yourself, eh, lee?

If anyone needed evidence that lee_merrill is not really interested in the discussion, but merely posting to get a reaction -- well, this is the best evidence yet.

A truly ridiculous position. The actions of muslims/skeptics *depends* upon their perception of the outcome. So you can't say "no comment" on the given outcome, and simultaneously claim that muslims/skeptics are inconsistent.

But then you proceed to try and label them as inconsistent for not taking up your silly challenge - which only makes sense if you have personally taken a position on what the given outcome would be.

Fine. Then stop trying to make statements about muslims/skeptics that DEPEND upon that outcome. Your problem is that you don't want to defend your earlier positions, but you also don't want to give up those positions either. It's a hypocritical double-standard.

Why am I not surprised.

Johnny Skeptic

Yes indeed.

Absolutely. The point is, inconsistent TO WHOM? Obviously, to a very small group of Christians in the ENTIRE WORLD who agree with Lee. About 0.0000001% who agree might even be an exaggeration.

I asked Lee to restate his current position. That should be fun.

badger3k

Then why did he displace these people? He took over land they were living on to build his palace. You also seem to ignore the fact that people do live among ruins all the time.

Edit - Sauron adressed this as well, but I wanted to add that we do not have evidence that archaeologists did not object to the people living there (as in Angkor Wat, as Sauron noted numerous times).
Backtrack much? Maybe you should read what you wrote, Lee, before you decide to change the goalposts too soon. You said an area of 2 city blocks would be sufficient to meet your needs. Nothing about a stadium, or a city. Your requirements were for a thousand people living in an area of two city blocks. Does this mean that you are changing your own definitions again, merely because it looks like you don't like the fact that they were met?

You already gave your specifics, and when presented with evidence, you want to change them. Typical, and it's what we expect from a dishonest individual. You have a citation for this Archaeology Review information, or is that information going to change as well? From your post, it seems Archaeology Review is a supporter of fulfilling the Babylon Prophecy, something I am rather doubtful of, so please, let's see the original source, Lee, so we can verify this for ourselves.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to Lee Merrill:

Lee, I would appreciate it if you would reply to my longer post that I made several days ago. Possibly the best part of my post was the following:

To that I will add that I am quite certain that not one out of a thousand people who are looking for a world view would be the least bit impressed with you arguments, that is, assuming that such people have any idea what in the world you are talking about, and that would take a lot of assuming. Can you imagine what a person who was looking for a world view would think if he read all of the posts in this thread? Why don't you try it out? Find a person who is looking for a world view and invite them to come to this thread? I'll go you one better. Invite a CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN FROM YOUR OWN CHURCH CONGREGATION to come to this thread.

I would embarrass myself if I held a postion that only a relative handful of skeptics held, but obviously you don't mind embarrassing yourself. It is no accident that even though this thread has had thousands of views and hundreds of replies, not one single Christian has come to help you. How about at the Theology Web? Have you asked the Christians there if they would give up Christianity if Babylon were to be rebuilt? I have asked you on a number of occasions to send James Holding a private message about the Babylon prophecy. Why haven't you done so?

Sauron

Badger3k, I believe you're misunderstanding what lee meant here. Lee does not have any such citations. Instead, wha he is suggesting for us here is what it would take for him to admit that the rebuilding was "similar" to Babylon. What standard is he asking us to meet, in order for any hypothetical rebuilding attempt to qualify as "similar"?

We need to get:

* 60% of the published archaeologists from Bib Arch Review;
* who respond to a poll;
* where at least ten of them respond,
* to agree that it has been rebuilt, and it must include
* rebuilding similar walls to those the city had earlier

Then if we did all the above, he would consider it "similar". In other words:

* an extremely tight standard;
* far more detailed and aggressive than he himself has ever aspired to meet with his numerous assertions and posts;
* a standard that would be logistically difficult - to acquire such data;
* with all the work on the skeptic's back and none of it on lee_merrill's back;

In other words, typical disingenuous bullshit from the resident game player.

And of course, this would still leave him with wiggle room at the very end, because he can still argue about whether the walls are truly "like Babylon's" or not. Most people wouldn't attempt such chicanery, but this is lee_merrill. I mean after all - if he can claim with a straight face that Tyre was secretly submerged without anyone knowing it, then is there *anything* he wouldn't try to claim with a straight face? If he thought it would help him avoid admitting failure and drag the debate out a little more?

Sven

Doesn't he rather mean 60% out of the ten who respond (i.e. 6 people)? His wording is not clear - as usual. Would it make not that tight.

Johnny Skeptic

In his 'Believer's Bible Commentary,' William MacDonald says the following:

"There are certain difficulties connected with the prophecies of the destruction of Babylon, both the city and the country (Isa. 13:6-22) 14:4-23; 21:2-9; 47:1-11; Jer. 23:12-14; 50; 51). For examples, the capture of the city by the Medes (Isa. 13:17 in 539 B.C. did not result in a destruction similar to that of Sodom and Gomorrah (Isa. 13:19); DID NOT LEAVE THE CITY UNHABITED FOREVER [emphasis mine], Isa. 13:20-22); was not accomplished by a nation from the north - Medo-Persia was to the east - (Jer. 50:3); did not result in Israel or more than a remnant of Judah seeking the Lord or returning to Zion (Jer. 50:4, 5); and did not involve the breaking fo the walls and burning of the gates (Jer. 51:58).

"When we come to a difficulty like this, how do we handle it? First of all, we reaffirm our utter confidence in the Word of God. If there is any difficulty, it is because of our lack of knowledge. [Of course, that doesn't apply to Lee Merrill, at least according to Lee Merrill], But we remember that the prophets often had a way of merging the immediate future and the distant future without always indicating any time signals. in other words,a prophecy could have a local, partial fulfillment and a remote, complete fulfillment. That is the case with Babylon. Not all the prophecies have been fulfilled. Some are still future."