Sauron

No one is asking you to do that. But if you're going to defend this prophecy, then you need to defend ALL of it -- not just a single part that tickles your fancy.

Because your approach is flawed, and your background insufficient.

"Defending a prophecy" means defending ALL of it. In order to defend this prophecy, you are going to have to look at ALL aspects of it -- not merely the one particular sub-claim that you like the best. If the prophecy has six separate claims, then in order to defend the prophecy you will need to address all six, and not fixate on just a single one. The entire prophecy rises or falls on the accuracy of all the various sub-parts that it contains.

If you can't keep up with all the threads that you've started, then that's hardly the fault of the skeptics. You accepted a challenge to formal debate - that means you might have to give up some time on those other threads. Apparently you bit off more than you could chew.

Why wouldn't shepherds go there, if it were a swamp? You've presented zero evidence that the two are incompatible. The only examples we need here are from you, showing that they are not compatible.

The kinds of statements you make tend to be the kind that only an expert shoudl be making. Instead of an expert, though, you're merely someone with zero information tossing out guesses. So you'll forgive me if I don't accept your speculation as acceptable.

Only a single sura? How strange. Earlier you had a very interesting claim. Care to show us how this one sura supports your previous claim?

I think they could very well be quite eager to disprove this prophecy by rebuilding Babylon.

Remembering, of course, that Muslims already believe the OT to be discredited, so they aren't going to expend any time or effort to prove something they already know is false.

1. In point of fact, that is not what Muslims believe. That's what you get for relying upon another collaborative weblog like Wikipedia for your source.

2. Muslims already believe the OT to be discredited. They also believe that particular truth is ALREADY undeniably clear. So again: they aren't going to spend any time or money trying to discredit a prophecy that already has 8 or 9 other fatal flaws in it already. Once the person is dead, it doesn't do any good to keep pumping bullets into the lifeless corpse.

This particular line of argument you keep returning to is not only strange, but the counterproof is self-evident: nobody spends time, money or resources proving something they already know to be true. Period, end of story.

No, it is not. A city can lose population from 1 million to 800,000. At no point in that process, however, did it ever even come close to "become desolate".

Yes, I did address your response. My comment above addresses your response *precisely*.

1. The phrase "Her days will not be prolonged" does not apply to Alex at all.
2. That phrase only comes into play AFTER Babylon has become desolate.
3. Babylon had not become desolate prior to Alexander.
4. Therefore Alex is not covered by that phrase, because the required desolation had not yet occurred.

You don't seem to understand what the word "desolate" means, lee. A desolation, by definition, is a complete event. It's like pregnancy: you can't be a little bit pregnant; either you are pregnant, or you aren't. A city is either desolate, or it isn't.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=desolate
And if the dictionary definition wasn't clear enough for you, we also have Isaiah. The text in Isaiah's prophecy makes it crystal clear the type and scope of the desolation: it was to be like "Sodom and Gomorrah". That is a nuclear destruction type of desolation - utter ruin and lifelessness.

* The dictionary definition contradicts your ridiculous line of reasoning.
* The language of the prophecy contradicts your line of reasoning.
* The simile examples of Sodom and Gomorrah refute your line of reasoning.

This is over, lee. You lost the point; accept it. Your cowardly attempt at trying to redefine "desolation" is a truly pathetic thing to watch.

What incredible dishonesty. The verse in question is IS 13:22:

And the wild beasts of the islands shall cry in their desolate houses, and dragons in their pleasant palaces: and her time is near to come, and her days shall not be prolonged.

The phrase is in direct reference to all the preceding woes and punishments that were listed in prior verses. It wraps up the section, and Isaiah tells his listeners that not only is all this going to happen, but it is near at hand. Unlike many prophecies that are far off, this one is going to happen soon - her days "will not be prolonged."

IS 14:4 does not indicate another view, lee. It's from a different part of the prophecy, and there is an intervening change of topic and subject between "days not prolonged" and this text in IS 14:4. You don't get to jump all around the book of Isaiah and connect up verses in any order you feel like, just to salvage your crippled argument.

This isn't a question of chronology; it's a question of the flow of the section. It says:

EVENT A
EVENT B
EVENT C
EVENT D

Then it closes the section by saying, "Her time is near at hand; her days will not be prolonged." The section JUST GOT THROUGH describing several events. Then it wraps up by stating that the events will happen quickly. A, B and C could happen at the same time. But the summary statement at the end ("days will not be prolonged") applies to ALL the preceding events.

Nonsense. See the above.

That's a different usage of "days". It means "in the times of", or "in the era of" as in "in colonial days". It does not indicate anything about control; it was merely a way to designate time. The clear context also indicates this.

So? The prophecy says that BOTH will happen: Babylon will be made desolate, and the oppression will end. But you chose to defend the desolation part.

Lee, in a debate a person takes a well-defined position, states their claims, and presents their proof. Instead, you've tossed out your speculations, backpedaled and dissembled when asked for evidence, and tried desperately to shift the burden of proof. You've fulfilled neither the letter, nor the spirit, of true debate here.

As for the specific comment you made above above - it changes nothing. You are still trying to have it both ways: you want to say that the prophecy is fulfilled, but you also are trying to say that we are "not being able to decide either way." It can't be both. And I remind you: if you're going to defend a prophecy with multiple parts (or sub-prophecies), then you need to defend all of it.

Wrong. The prophecy failed for many, many reasons - at least a half-dozen. But I am not arguing any direction for the army's approach. I am TELLING YOU that you have presented zero evidence for a northward approach. And until you do present such evidence, you cannot introduce your silly speculation into the argument.

I am also TELLING YOU that Media is not north of Babylon, so the prophecy point-blank fails on that particular claim.

I've already stated my position. I'm just waiting on your reading comprehension to catch up to the current state of the debate.

Because you are the one making the first claim, not I. You do understand that point, don't you?

FIRST CLAIM - FIRST PROOF.


No, my statement does stand. Unfortunately, yours does not. I made no mistakes in my statement about Babylon. Trying to say otherwise just to make yourself feel better is bogus.

Red herring. I don't have to be infallible in order to be right, and for you to be wrong.

No. But unlike you, I do not read extra content into my sources, or let my imagination fill in the blanks. You do those particular tricks all the time. And then it becomes my job to catch you red-handed, I suppose.

Yes. His plans were to make it his capital. Those plans failed. But that does not mean that none of his reconstruction work ever got off the ground. Those are two entirely different statements.

No, he failed in making it his capital.

1. If you want to claim that the other temples were in disrepair, then you need to prove that -- you don't get to insinuate it.

2. Ramparts are not temples. You cannot assume anything about the status of temples, based upon the status of ramparts. The two constructions served entirely different functions and were in totally different parts of the city.

Except that your source does not say he failed in rebuilding. It says he failed in making it his capital.

I didn't have to say that. I quoted Britannica, and they said it.

Your habit of trying to score points from semantic quibbling is getting old, lee.

Which doesn't change the point. Arrian gives you no information on Alexander's motives.

Sauron

Incorrect. This is a commonly quoted fantasy, but it has no basis in history. From my document on Babylon:

The idea of a religious feast on the night of the attack is also garbage. Oh yes, there was a feast. But the attack did not coincide with it. Again, from my document. There are references to other bits of research in the document. It is important to understand the nature of the New Year's festival as well as the role of the king, in order to have the proper historical appreciation of these events:

So not only is this story of the midnight capture pure nonsense, but there is contradictory evidence against such a scenario. (Note: there is also one other bit of contradictory evidence that I left out here; I'm saving it for such a time as I decide to publish these documents. )

Except as we have pointed out nineteen times already, the prophecy is already invalidated a half-dozen other ways. I wouldn't spend even one dime proving that Paris is the capital of France. Nor would I spend any money proving what I already know about the Babylon prophecy: it failed.

I didn't ask you to repeat your unfounded speculation.

I asked you to show me evidence that muslims have this as part of their agenda.

Evidence -- do you have any, or don't you?

I'll deal with this separately.

I 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.

No more speculations, please. No one here is interested in them.

Sauron

Again we have a prime example of lee_merrill quoting something he does not understand, and mistakenly thinking it supports his argument. When, in fact, it does not. I'm going to explain this to you slowly. See if you can follow this the first time, so I don't have to repeat it a dozen more times.

1. During the time in question -- Isaiah's prophecy, second half of the 8th century BCE -- the people who eventually would build the stone city of Petra did not live in that area. The Nabatean Arabs were in Midian. They would not arrive in the area around Petra for several more centuries to come. Britannica:

The Assyrian texts are the first to refer to the Nabataeans, who at this time occupied the land south and east of Edom (ancient Midian). After the fall of Assyria, the Moabites and Ammonites continued to raid Judah until the latter was conquered by the Neo-Babylonians under Nebuchadrezzar II. Little is known of the history of Jordan under the Neo-Babylonians and Persians, but during this period the Nabataeans infiltrated Edom and forced the Edomites into southern Palestine.

2. At that same time, the Edomites had a capital. Its name was Bozrah, or Bosrah. It is referred to thus in the bible.

3. Then during the Persian period, the Nabateans moved into the area, and pushed the Edomites into south Palestine. That area will eventually be called Idumea in Roman times, after the Edomites.

3. The Nabateans, controlling the trade routes, become rich. They used that money to eventually built a stone city, CENTURIES AFTER ISAIAH'S PROPHECY WAS UTTERED.

4. The target of the prophecy was EDOM, not PETRA. So rebuilding Petra has nothing to do with the prophecy against Edom.

From my document on Petra/Edom:

So the Brown University quote does you no good. Yes, the Edomites were there around Petra - but when they were there, the stone city did not exist. And it wasn't even called "Petra" then; the name of the small village was called Sela. What's more, their capital was not Petra (Sela); their capital city was Bosrah. A picture:
http://jbrubaker.com/israel/gallery0...source/34.html

Bozrah, modern-day Buseira. The capital of Edom in antiquity. See Obadiah 2-4.


And a commentary from the New King James Version Bible:
http://newkingjamesversion.com/books/jeremiah_5.html

49:7-22 The oracle against Edom is closely related to the Book of Obadiah and to portions of the oracle against Babylon (ch. 50). The territory of Edom extended from the Wadi Zered (modern Wadi al-Hasa) in the north to the Gulf of Aqaba in the south. The capital city was Bozrah, modern Buseira about twenty-five miles southeast of the Dead Sea. Strife between Israel and Edom dates to the conflict between Jacob and Esau. The oracle is based upon the events leading up to and following the Babylonian invasion of Judah, during which Edom took the opportunity to move into the Negeb region in southern Judah, eventually dominating the region south of Hebron by the end of Nebuchadnezzar's reign.

They even give tours there:
http://www.archaeologicaltrs.com/me_nabat.html

Sunday, Monday, October 30 & 31: AMMAN: We return to Amman, stopping en route to visit the recently excavated Edomite capital, Buseira, which possessed at least one large temple or palace. We will arrive at the Marriott Amman Hotel with time to relax before our Turkish Airlines flight to New York, departing early Monday morning.

So go ahead and quote the Brown University page, lee. Quote it a dozen times if you like. It does not contradict my statement earlier, repeated for your benefit below:

the capital of ancient Edom was not Petra at all; it was Bozrah, modern day Buseirah in Jordan. Petra was the capital of the Nabatean Arabs, a group of people who didn't even exist in that area at the time that the prophecy was uttered.

And since the prophecy in question was directed against Edom, not against Petra and not against Nabateans, then your silly idea of rebuilding Petra wouldn't prove anything to anybody.

What good would that do? Brown did not confuse Petra with Edom; Brown got it right. McDowell got it wrong. And you misunderstood the Brown citation. If anyone needs to be corrected here, it's you and McDowell.

You're the one who is constantly making the first claim, lee. You toss out your claims and speculations and then expect us to react to them as if they were actual evidence. Fat chance.

I realize that you're intellectually lazy and don't want to do any research, but if you're gong to stick your neck and out make these assertions then other people are going to ask you to put up, or shut up.

Apparently that makes you uncomfortable.

I'm sure that badger3k, cajela, or Johnny Skeptic will open such a thread. Then we can watch you tap-dance on that subject as well. :rolling:

Sauron

Then maybe you *should* find out all this first, before making statements about it?

No, that is not what happened. Not a bad guess, but the reality was different. Of course, you could just stop guessing, and go find out instead. If only you weren't so intellectually lazy.

Incorrect. You were first claimant; the first burden of proof falls on your shoulders. Johnny Skeptic owes no proofs, until you first back up your claims. I know you must understand that concept now; I've beat it into your head throughout the Tyre thread, as well as this one here. Therefore, the only possible reason why you still try to wiggle out of this is because you are dishonest, intellectually lazy, or both.

Which doesn't help you any. If there aren't people living there now, then where did the children come from? There are other photos in that website photo tour that show local Iraqis with Marines, walking about in the ruins. Where did those local Iraqis come from? There are also pictures of rebuilding that occurred in Babylon. I think you just shot your own argument in the foot, lee. :rolling:

You've yet to prove that.

Johnny Skeptic

You most assuredly did not, and I await your replies.

You said the following:

“Yes, I agree, prophecies in Scripture are often fulfilled in several completely different ways (Isa. 7:14, is another such example), and this would make them more evidently supernatural, and this does not require all the fulfillments to happen at once.�

I replied as follows:

“There is in fact nothing evidentially supernatural about the Babylon prophecy at all. The only part of the prophecy that has been fulfilled is the part that it would be destroyed, which could easily have been written after the fact. (You did not reply to that point, Lee.) As long as the earth is here, the part of the prophecy that says that Babylon will never be rebuilt can never be fulfilled. Unless that happens, there is always a chance that a future generation will be able to accomplish what a past generation could not accomplish. Each succeeding generation has its own desires and abilities, and you need not limit the possible accomplishments of future generations based upon the accomplishments of past generations. (You did not reply to that point either, Lee.) The part of the prophecy that mentions God’s final judgment upon mankind has not been fulfilled.� (Since the prophecy is a multi-stage prophecy, not a single prophecy, it can never be fulfilled until all of it is fulfilled. There is nothing at all unusual about a city being destroyed, and there is nothing at all unusual about a city not being rebuilt in a swamp.)

Regarding your claim that prophecies in Scripture that are often fulfilled in several completely different ways “are more evidently supernatural, and this does not require all the fulfillments to happen at once,� the truth is in fact exactly the opposite. The late Bobby Riggs, who was a tennis player, once bet on himself to win the singles, doubles and mixed doubles at Wimbledon. He had to win all three to get any money. He was not the top ranked player in the world at that time in singles, doubles or mixed doubles, and I don’t think that he had ever won a Wimbledon title is singles, doubles or mixed doubles. The odds were prohibitive against him, but he succeeded and won a lot of money. If he had only bet on himself to win the singles, the doubles or the mixed doubles, as opposed to winning all three, the odds would have much greater that he would succeed. The same goes for the Babylon prophecy. It is much more probable that it would have been destroyed, just like many other cities and empires, than that it would be destroyed, never be rebuilt, and eventually culminate in Jesus’ final judgment of mankind. Even after Bobby Riggs had won the singles, he still had a long way to go, and even after he won the doubles, it was far from being certain that he would win the mixed doubles.

Regarding your claim that many people have tried and failed to rebuild Babylon, many tennis players have tried to win the grand slam in tennis. Only a few of them have succeeded, but only one player, Rod Laver, has won two grand slams. Many experts predict that no tennis player will ever do that again. It is unlikely, but it still might happen. Jack Nicklaus never won four consecutive grand slam gold tournaments. Tiger Woods won four consecutive grand slam golf tournaments, but not in on calendar year. Many experts predict that no golfer will ever do that again, and evern more so within a calendar year.

The issue of prophecy would be much different if God had a proven track record. For instance, if he had predicted that John Kennedy would become president of the U.S. before he was even born, and it came true, then he would have a proven track record. Predicting centuries before Alexander was born that he would conquer Tyre would be a similar situation. If God exists, then obviously he has gone out of his way to encourage dissent rather than to discourage dissent. If he does not exist, then obviously no Bible prophecy was divinely inspired.

In a previous post I said the following:

“If Babylon had not become a swamp, why do you rule out a reasonable possibility that it would have been rebuilt?� You never answered my question.

Are you claiming that God prevented Babylon from being rebuilt, or that he was predicting what he knew would happen in the future without his direct involvement?

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

And that means I have to show that a banner was really raised on a bare hilltop? As in Isaiah 13? Now you are insisting that I defend every point in the three passages I mentioned, and if Johnny had intended me to defend a prophetic passage, he should have said "pick a prophetic passage and defend it." Instead, in the first post, we set out to discuss the following:

"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."

Johnny: I invite Lee to present his opening arguments.

Which then implied to me that this was the topic that was to be discussed, and now I am discussing it. Requests for me to discuss some other topic will from now on be referred to the first post in this thread.

This seems to me, self-evident, swamps are not good grazing ground.

Why then are you spending time in this thread, may I ask?

I meant a decline via disintegration in walls and buildings, though.

It does if he tries to prolong them!

Not if someone tries to reverse the process, and restore Babylon to its former glory.

Well yes, and then all desolations all happen immediately?

So once Isaiah takes up a topic, he cannot refer to it again, anywhere else in his book? This is typical of Hebrew prophecy, by the way, to have repeated discourses about a given prediction.

Isaiah 13:22 Hyenas will howl in her strongholds, jackals in her luxurious palaces.

Wouldn't this occur most naturally after her days had ended, though?

Isaiah 13:20 She will never be inhabited or lived in through all generations...

Surely we cannot place this verse as being completed before verse 22.

Well, would this be a claim to some expertise in Hebrew? What grammar or commentary would support your view?

Word Biblical Commentary even places the second half of verse 22 as beginning the next chapter, not as completing chapter 13, and chapter 14 is describing the restoration of the rule of Israel, thus there is a contrast between Babylon's rule ending, and Israel's rule being restored, thus "her days" does not mean a time interval, as would also seem to be indicated by other typical usages, such as the ones quoted above.

How does it fail, though? It does not say that Media is north of Israel.

You do seem to be shifting what you are defending, though. This part of the prophecy cannot be said to have failed unless you have specific evidence that the army did not come from the north.

I am presenting arguments, and you are claiming you do not have to present any arguments or evidence for a counter-claim!

This, by the way, is a first claim ("the one who makes the first claim is the only one who has to defend his view"), what proof do you have, that a person making a counter-claim is not required to bring supporting evidence or argument?

It seems you do claim infallibility, I must say.

But that was not the point at issue, here was the claim: "you have no evidence that Alexander failed 100% in rebuilding." And I do have such evidence, and Sauron indeed is not infallible, it would be healthy for you to admit that (as I have said previously), if only to yourself.

And how does this show that the legend is wrong? Some accept it as historical, thus it may reasonably be considered to be, well, historical.

If it didn't exist, I wonder why it had a name, though.

Well, first we need to understand what that little is that these people at Brown mean, when they say we know little about Petra and Edom. Which implies that Petra was around in Edom's time, by the way.

From outside the ruins of Babylon? That would be what I would consider to be the case. People don't live in the ruins of the temples at Athens.

The point I make in response is that the rest of the prophecy can easily be disproved, at any time! By rebuilding the city. And this prophecy of destruction could not have been written after it happened, for this was only completed about 1400 A.D.

And again, I reply that you can rebuild it, we do not have to wait for some other agent, or to review what other agents might or might not do. And people have tried, and failed, and this indicates more than a lucky guess.

Well, I meant that this does not require all the fulfillments to happen simultaneously in time. Certainly they must all happen eventually.

Yes, so then it's improbable, every much so, and the prophecy about Babylon is even more improbable, yet in a different sense. For the people who tried to rebuild Babylon really could have done so, this wasn't like winning two grand slams in tennis. And yet they failed.

Well, if it did become a swamp, I don't think we need to speculate on what would have happened if it did not.

I would say God prevented this, given the attempts by people quite capable of rebuilding it...

Regards,
Lee

Johnny Skeptic

Regarding “Babylon had been used as a wild game park for the amusement of numerous Persian dignitaries,� in the NIV, Isaiah 13:20 reads “She will never be inhabited or lived in through all generations; no Arab will pitch his tent there, no shepherd will rest his flocks there.� 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?

All of your arguments have been regarding the inhabiting of Babylon, meaning the rebuilding of Babylon, but the verse also mentions Arabs never pitching tents there, which might easily have happened. Archaeologists could confirm that Babylon has not been rebuilt, but neither they nor anyone else could ever confirm that Arabs have never pitched their tents there and that flocks have never been grazed there.

Is it not reasonably possible that at some time prior to the wild game park shepherds grazed their flocks there for days, months or years, thereby invalidating the prophecy? Is it not also reasonably possible that the wild game park might have eventually become closed, or raided and destroyed by poachers, resulting in it being vacated and then used by shepherds to graze their flocks, thereby invalidating the prophecy? You are the claimant. I don’t have to prove anything. You have to reasonably prove that shepherds have “never� grazed their flocks in Babylon at “any� time since Babylon was destroyed, and that Arabs have "never" pitched their tents there at "any" time since Babylon was destroyed, and there is no way that you can do that.

The issue about the Muslim agenda is still unresolved. This is not just about the Muslim agenda, but also the Iraqi agenda. Muslims live in many nations, but Iraq is a sovereign nation, and only it decides what its agenda are. You made an assertion what the Iraqi agenda are, but am I correct that you haven't spoken with any of them? If you cannot produce any testimonies from Muslims to back up your assertion, then I will assume that you have conceded defeat.

If the Iraqis rebuilt Babylon, which would be impossible at this time due to the military conflicts there, what would be in it for them? You said that if Babylon were to be rebuilt, you would give up Christianity. However, you place much too much importance on your own view of the prophecy. Do you actually believe that the majority of the Christians at the Theology Web would give up Christianity if Babylon were to be rebuilt? If so, please open a thread there on the topic and I promise you that you will embarrass yourself. What about the majority of Christians? Surely, liberal Christians would not give up Christianity, and there are tens of millions of them. Do you actually think that the majority of fundamentalist Christians would give up Christianity if Babylon were to be rebuilt? If so, if you are a fundamentalist Christian, I suggest that you poll eveyone in the church that you attend and post the results.

Sauron

Is that part of the prophecy? If so, then yes -- you do have to show that. It isn't our fault that you tried to focus on a single part of a prophecy, and didn't pay attention to the fact that the prophecy had multiple parts.

You made a bad assumption, and now you want the rest of us to share it. Don't hold your breath. You've been corrected several times -- by people other than me -- on this point. The prophecy has to be defended in all its points.

Your argument is transparently lame. It is similar to this scenario:

1. Assume that someone prophesied that John Doe would die as a result of being struck by lightning, and that it would happen quickly, and there would be no helping John; it would be a tragic death with no rescue.

2. Instead, John lives another 30 years and finally dies from totally inoperable lung cancer.

You're trying to argue that because John died, and because it was tragic and inoperable, then the prophecy was fulfilled. Then we point out that - Wait a minute! The fundamental characteristic of the prophesy (death by lightning, not cancer) simply didn't happen! So then you backpedal like a coward and complain that you only want to focus on one part of the prophecy: a tragic death. And we're supposed to ignore all the circumstances that lead to his death, because you can't handle dealing with so many details at one time. Please.

Which is merely your admission of failure. You cannot defend the prophecy, unless you can get your audience to agree to ignore the obvious flaws and pretend like they aren't there.

Your first post? You think that we're going to be thrown off your trail just because you point us back to your first post? Oh, please - give us a break. As we have seen -- and as you yourself admitted -- you did a pretty poor job of defining your initial debate proposition in the first post. It was so bad that you had to amend it several times and correct it. So pointing us back to that initial post doesn't help the debate, nor does it assist your argument.

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?

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.

No one accepts what you think is "self-evident". Your speculation is not proof. Let's all remember that this thread, and the Tyre thread, are littered with ridiculous statements that you thought were "self-evident". Then you also thought archaeologists would use dynamite around sensitive dig areas. Given your pathetic track record on such things, you'll excuse us if we insist on proof.

The question stands:

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

To demonstrate the bankruptcy of thinking exhibited by people like yourself.


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.

No it does not apply to Alex, for reasons already stated. Blue again, since you never get the point through your thick head until the first 10 or 15 repetitions. Pay attention to the really big text:


1. The phrase "Her days will not be prolonged" does not apply to Alex at all.
2. That phrase only comes into play AFTER Babylon has become desolate.
3. Babylon had not become desolate prior to Alexander.
4. Therefore Alex is not covered by that phrase, because the required desolation had not yet occurred.


If they try that before the desolation occurs, then the "built no more" part of the prophecy doesn't apply; it doesn't kick in, until there is a desolation in place *first*.

Strawman. It isn't called a desolation until the city is emptied of people. For Babylon the "won't rebuild" part does not kick in until there is a desolation in place at the site of Babylon.

Truly stupid question - playing games again, I see.

The context of this passage shows that the subject has changed. Twice, in fact. So whether Isaiah can, or cannot, refer to a topic again is totally besides the point. The fact is that he did not do so, in these two chapters 13 and 14.

Keep squirming, lee. :rolling:

No, what is typical is to have the same prophecy repeated, but have the focus of the discussion be different.

* In the first section of the Isaiah prophecy, the subject was Babylon, the city.
* Then it switches and talks about Israel for several verses.
* Then it switches again, and talks about the king of Babylon.

The "her days shall not be prolonged" comment applied to the city of Babylon - the same topical block section in which that verse is found. You cannot rip that verse out of context and attach it to another section about the king of Babylon, merely because your argument is on life support.

All the more reason to believe that this isn't prophecy at all, just predicting the natural course of events.

Pay attention. I already told you - v22 applies to (and summarizes) the items that came before it. It is an indicator of *how long the wait will be* for all these other things to start coming to pass. Is this a far off prophecy? Or is it for the immediate future?

Of course, you already know all this. You're just doing your normal routine here: having already lost the point several posts ago, you're sifting through the charred wreckage of your argument, trying to scavenge a few morsels of dignity from semantic quibbles.

Since you were the one who first claimed that "days" referred to control, you owe the rest of us your sources and commentaries first. Let us know when you're ready.

Unfortunately, this isn't good enough. You'll need to show the actual page of the Word Biblical Commentary. Considering how you have let your imagination fill in the blanks with other sources you have mis-used, we'll need to see the actual comments made by the author -- not your regurgitated summary. So you need to provide a link, supply a photocopy, etc. if you want to enter this claim into evidence.

And if you want to support a claim that the chapters are mis-numbered or that the verse belongs to another chapter, you'll need some Jewish scholars to support that viewpoint. Given their greater familiarity with the textual caretaking for Isaiah, no such claim should even be tolerated without proper support from the Jewish community.


Israel? What does Israel have to do with this? We're talking about Babylon, not Israel. And you're changing your tune again. Earlier you tried to say:

2. The prophecy speaks of the Media is actually north-east of Babylon, so I think "north" would do, especially if the army came from that direction, which might have happened,

Since Media is not north of Babylon, then "north" cannot do.

Not at all. I'm merely holding you accountable for things you have tried to claim -- which causes you to squirm like a country pig. :devil3:

Read carefully - OK, at least try:

1. The prophecy failed because Media is not north of Babylon. (It also failed because the Persians, not the Medes, attacked Babylon - but that's another thread);

2. Your particular attempt to rescue the prophecy -- by speculating that the army might have come from the northerly direction - fails, because you have presented zero evidence to support that homemade speculation. So you don't get to use it. Again: until you get off your lazy, game-playing ass and prove that the army approached from the north, then you can't introduce that speculation into the debate.

No, you are presenting speculation. And when you're asked for evidence, you try to shift the burden of proof away from yourself.

No, it is not. It is the rules of engagement for a debate. He who claims first, has first burden of proof. That does not need to be proven, because it is not a claim. It's a fact - and it's part of how the debate is administered.

Maybe you should spend less time trying to change the debate rules to favor your intellectual laziness, and more time researching your claims to see if they are supportable in the first place.

No, I merely claim to be right in this debate. And I state that you are wrong. That isn't a claim of infallibility, especially since you tend to be wrong much more often.

Yes it was. You tried to claim that the Encarta quotation indicated that no rebuilding occurred under Alexander. But Encarta does not claim that. I explained above why Encarta does not claim that.

No, you do not - as explained above. Encarta does not say that Alexander's building campaign failed 100% in rebuilding. It only says that he died before he could carry out his plan to make it a capital.

There were EIGHT YEARS between the time that Alexander started the rebuilding of Babylon in 331 BCE and the time he died in 323 BCE. Are you really trying to claim that NOTHING GOT DONE during those eight years? Because if you are, you will need to present proof. Your misunderstanding of the Encarta citation is a far cry from being proof.

Repeat:
I merely claim to be right in this debate. And I state that you are wrong. That isn't a claim of infallibility, especially since you tend to be wrong much more often.

Because:

1. there is no supporting evidence for the claim where we would most expect to find them -- in the sources that were closest to the events;

2. we know that both Herodotus and Xenophon included folk stories and legends about Cyrus, in their writings, accepting them as fact without hesitation

3. there is contradictory evidence outlined from my paper

Uh, wrong. That is not how "historical" gets decided.

By your feeble standard, if someone accepts leprechauns as real, then leprechauns may reasonably consider to be well, real.


ARe you stupid or just playing more games? What are you referring to? You wonder why *what* had a name?

* The thing that didn't exist was the stone city - the same thing you were babbling that you wanted to see someone try to rebuild;
* The village called Sela did exist, but it wasn't a capital city for anyone -- not for Edomites, nor for Nabatean Arabs;
*Petra didn't receive the name "Petra" until years later, from the Greeks.

Not that I ever believed you were honestly confused.


We already know what the folks at Brown mean. The only person with any questions is you, lee. In chronological order:

1. Edomites occupied the area around Petra (Sela) at that time. But the stone city had not yet been built.
2. Then Nabateans moved in, pushing the Edomites out.
3. Finally, these same Nabateans built the stone city.

The Brown citation is talking about point #1. In fact, the Brown citation isn't even sure that Edomites ever lived at the site of Petra (Sela):

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").

Now all that remains is to watch you twist and squirm to try and evade the uncomfortable conclusion that you are wrong.

No, it just demonstrates that you don't know how to read, and you will try to quibble all the way to the grave of your argument. I gave you several citations demonstrating that Petra was not around in Edom's time. And in fact, if you bothered to read more than a single page of your own citation from Brown University you would have seen this as well:

http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Ant...le/temple.html

The Great Temple contains eclectic exquisite art and architecture from the Nabataean period and demonstrates that the values of the Nabataeans of Petra during this period who felt that aesthetic decoration of structures with frescos and architectural sculpture was sufficiently significant on which to expend time, money and energy. This blending of different cultures is seen in this palatial building and its precinct with the use of elephant heads, frescos, elegantly carved pilasters and capitals. There is a high level of skill and technology possessed by her builders as well as the high level of organized government that would be needed to plan the building of this monumental structure. The Great Temple is one of the key sites in the Nabataean Petra, and it is a significant site for our knowledge of the development of Petra. The lives of the Nabataeans were influenced by a unique blend of cultures. The study of the Great Temple is essential to the understanding of many different aspects of the archaeology of Petra. Such an interpretation when considered in relation to what is known about other Nabataean sites can effectively enrich the web of knowledge we possess regarding both Petra and the people whose lives ultimately created it. Each of our seasons of excavation has proved to be provocative and propitious as many questions were raised and many extraordinary artifacts were recovered.

Any more attempts at arguing that this was an Edomite, instead of a Nabatean stone city? :rolling:

This is why no one trusts your arguments, lee. You're blatantly dishonest in a debate. Let's also not forget the key point here: you mis-identified Edom with Petra, just like your mentor Josh McDowell did.

Interesting claim. Let's see the proof. At the moment, we have photographs of adults and children in Babylon. They appear to live there. I can see no reason for children to be there, if they didn't live there.

We've already done this dance before.

1. People in the third world *do* live in ruins; this is happening at Angkor Wat right now, for example;
2. What happens at Athens is irrelevant - Greece is not a 3rd world country;
3. Your argument isn't even logical - just because people don't live in ruins in Britain, for example, does not prove that they don't live in ruins someplace else in the world;

Why should anyone bother? The prophecy has been disproved a half-dozen other ways.

1. No need to rebuild it.
2. Other people have tried and succeeded.

Interesting speculation. No evidence, however, so it isn't admissable in the debate.

Oh, and by the way: other people have rebuilt Babylon besides Alexander. Darius and Xerxes both rebuilt sections of Babylon. So we have three rulers after Nabonidus that had construction programs going in Babylon.

lee_merrill

Well, if I may quote one "Killer Mike" in another thread: "They like to move the goal posts in the middle of the game. Here's an analogy: if your football team were to drive 100 yards on the football field and score a touchdown, they would simply move the goal posts back another 100 yards and let you drive another 100 yards. If you then drove 200 yards for a touchdown, they would once again move the goals posts back another 100 yards and say "not good enough". If you somehow managed to drive 300 yards for that touchdown, well you guessed it, they would simply move the goal posts back even further, so so on."

"So even if your football could managed to drive 1000 yards, you would never get to score a touchdown. That is in a creationists football stadium."

Actually, I'm not, I'm trying to show that one aspect of several prophecies has been, and is being fulfilled.

Actually, I meant Johnny's first post, the post that started this whole thread, I refer you back to there...

That's all I have time for, for now.

Regards,
Lee

Sauron

Don't bother. No one is moving the goalposts. You simply thought you could play touch in an all-tackle league. Then you feign surprise when it doesn't work out that way and you get roughed up.

1. But you deliberately ignore the causation and the other sub-parts of the prophecy.

2. Even your defense of this one part of the prophecy has not worked. Where is your comparison that shows the alleged similarities between (a) Babylon and (b) Sodom and Gomorrah?

No problem. Come back when you're better prepared. :thumbs: