Johnny Skeptic

A challenge implies a perceived beneficial result of accomplishing the challenge on the part of the challengee, does it not? If so, then you must reasonably prove that Muslims and skeptics believe that it would be beneficial for them to rebuild Babylon. No one ever makes a challenge to someone unless they believe that the challengee has a perceived vested interest in accomplishing the challenge. It would be absurd to challenge someone to do something that they felt was not of any benefit to them.

The members of the Flat Earth Society, a reasonable equivalent of your very small minority position among Christians regarding the Babylon prophecy, continue to issue challenges to the scientific community to refute their claim that the earth is flat, and they maintain, just like you do regarding the Babylon prophecy, that because the scientific community refuses to add to the numerous reasons that they already have for maintaining that the earth is round, the scientific community is inconsistent, and that the scientific community is missing golden opportunities to prove that the earth is round. Your mention that photos from outer space is sufficient evidence that the earth is round has been “flatly� rejected by the Flat Earth Society. Contact them and see for yourself.

Lee, just like Josh McDowell, you are being a bully by insisting what the criteria of disproving the Bible that Muslims and skeptics must use in order to discredit the Bible.

If you continue to be evasive, I am pretty sure that I will be able to contact Josh McDowell through Dr. Robert Price and get McDowell’s opinion of your arguments. And, as I have asked you to do on a number of occasions, please contact James Holding and ask him for his opinion on these matters. Or, if you prefer, please give me the name of a Christian college, university or seminary whose opinion you would trust. Please don’t be evasive and ask me to pick one. I want you to pick one.

In oral and written debates between Christian and skeptic scholars, it is considered to be inappropriate not to cite corroborative evidence from expert sources. Assertions made without corroboration from expert sources are quite rare, as well they should be. I don’t mind at all if the only corroborative expert sources that you use are Christian sources, of course, not handpicked by you, but a general consensus among expert Christian sources. You would definitely object if I wanted to use only skeptic expert corroborative sources, but I make no such objection regarding you using exclusively Christian expert corroborative sources in the case of the Babylon prophecy. By all means, please DO use exclusively Christian expert corroborative sources. I have offered you a golden opportunity that skeptics seldom make to Christians.

In ‘The Rise of Christianity,’ Rodney Stark makes a lot of assertions, but his bibliography is twenty pages long. On the other hand, your bibliography is conspicuous by its absence.

I know what you are up to, Lee, and so do the other skeptics. You have chosen not to involve expert Christian and skeptic corroborative sources because you know that you will embarrass yourself even more than you already have, EVEN IF YOU USED EXCLUSIVELY CHRISTIAN SOURCES.

Just like the members of the Flat Earth Society, you can continue to make assertions that are held only by a very small minority of the people in the world, but how many people do you expect to convince with your assertions? You have said that in your opinion, the Babylon prophecy is sufficient reason for a person to become a Christian, but can you produce even one single person who became a Christian solely, OR EVEN PARTLY for that matter, because of the Babylon prophecy? It is easy for you to claim that the Babylon prophecy is sufficient reason for a person to become a Christian, but no one would believe you if you claimed that you would have become a Christian solely, or even partly for that matter, because of the Babylon prophecy. You said that you would give up Christianity if Babylon were to be rebuilt. Do you know of ANY other Christians who would give up Christianity if Babylon were to be rebuilt?

Jack the Bodiless

Why are you still including "reinhabited" when it is so clearly obvious that the site has been inhabited or reinhabited since the prophecy was made?

Why would the actual situation regarding the inhabitation of Babylon be "a clear demonstration of God's supernatural power"? Are you saying that only God's supernatural power is allowing you to disregard Babylon's inhabitants?

Sven

Hey, Jack, bored of one apologetist (sp?), looking for another? :Cheeky:

Sauron

I wonder if crickets have re-inhabited Babylon.

I'm just asking, because lee_merrill isn't around, and all I hear on this thread are crickets......

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

Well, sure, but that's not what you debate.

Well, Wheaton College or Trinity University or Moody Bible Institute in Chicago are ones I am familiar with, any of these would be fine, as would Gordon-Conwell Seminary in the area where I live now, in North Carolina, or Dallas Theological Seminary in Texas.

One primary assertion I have is that Babylon is not inhabited, and is not rebuilt, despite attempts to do just that. Saddam Hussein, I think, is pretty undeniably stopped from his rebuilding project. For my bibliography, I present the local newspapers!

Because the archaeologists protested Saddam rebuilding on ruins! Now if there were buildings there already, and inhabitants, why this protest?

Regards,
Lee

Sauron

Ah. Playing games again? It is *part* of your position in the debate, however. So it is fair game to question it.

1. You want to claim that the challenge ought to be taken up by skeptics and muslims.
2. That means you believe that a benefit exists to those two groups if they would just take up the challenge.
3. But the two groups in question do not believe that there is any such benefit to it.
4. Therefore, they will not attempt it. You see, it goes back to something you've been told before (as usual). There are conditions that have to be met:

CONDITION 1. they disagree with the prophecy; and

CONDITION 2. they believe that disproving the prophecy would have an actual effect on christians; i.e., by making them reject their own bible.

Neither of these two conditions has been satisfied here.

So as far as this debate goes, you are stuck in the mud. You don't get to claim that such a benefit exists, without justifying that claim. If you can't successfully justify this assumption of yours, then you can't use it as part of your argument. Your entire argument rests on it.

Except that you've been told otherwise. Five times now:

Ah, but you've already been informed of your error here as well. Babylon was rebuilt - by Cyrus II, then again by Alexander's men, and after Alexander's death his successors (the Diadochi, etc.) continued the work. Esagila was rebuilt and services continued into the 1st century AD.

Which does not help your argument. Babylon did not fall according to the specifics of the prophecy. And Babylon was rebuilt at various times in history.

So sadly for you, Saddam is irrelevant. The Babylon prophecy was proven false centuries before Saddam was ever born. That prophecy was "overturned" (as you put it) in 539 BCE when the city did not fall to the Medes as predicted. Everything else since then has just added to the reasons why the prophecy is a failure.

Ladies and gentlemen, notice the trademark dishonesty of lee_merrill.

A. Johnny's question put the timeframe as "since the prophecy was made". That means "since the 6th century BCE." Lee's response about the current situation is not only an inaccurate description of the modern day situation, but it also fails to address the same timeframe as Johnny mentioned.

B. The answer to lee's question was already given to him:
1. Well, the first thing I note is more proof that the site was inhabited:
The four-storey palace extends across an area as large as five football fields. Villagers told news media that a thousand people were evacuated to make way for this emblem of Saddam Hussein's power.

2. Second, the article does not say that it was uninhabited. It merely says "little evidence". But "little evidence" is not "zero evidence". In fact, "little evidence" indicates that some small amount of evidence WAS found. Ironic how your own standards of proof come back to bite you in the ass, isn't it?

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.

C. And thirdly, 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.

Johnny Skeptic

But that is exactly what you did over a number of weeks. It was in fact your main argument. Here is the proof:

Now Lee, I just gave you 18 examples that took place over a number of weeks that contradict “Well, sure, but that's not what you debate.�

But Lee, you said that Saddam Hussein WANTED to rebuild Babylon. You have admitted that Muslims and skeptics DO NOT want to rebuild Babylon at this time. I remind you that even if Muslims and skeptics did want to rebuild Babylon, they wouldn’t do so because they are well aware that for all practical purposes the Christian Church would be just as large as it is today, and much more importantly, U.S. foreign policy would be exactly the same as it is today.

If the colleges that you mentioned disagree with your arguments, will you concede defeat? I will be happy to contact all of them. In addition, as I have told you before, I am pretty sure that I can contact Josh McDowell through Dr. Robert Price. Did you get interested in the Babylon prophecy from reading one of Josh McDowell’s books or articles? If so, I want to read the book or article and find out exactly what McDowell’s position is.

John A. Broussard

You might save a lot of time and avoid a lot of confusion by answering my earlier post. I'll repeat it here for your benefit.

Unfortunately, this is all meaningless unless you define--specifically and in detail--what you (or your interpretation of the bible) means by rebuilding.

If houses, how many? How big do the buildings have to be? If tents, how many? If number of inhabitants, how many? Will they have to have a mayor? If not, what kind of government? Where must it be located, exactly? Zigurrats? What size area must it cover? Do the inhabitants have to be Babylonians? If the U.S. army builds a base there, does that qualify? There are a lot more details needed!!!!

This is, of course, your major problem, lee. Unless a hypothesis is clearly defined and well-delimited, ad hoc excuses for failure become all too easy.

infidelguy

OMNG, the last two posts are clear bombshells. I think I heared Lee's Computer explode.

This is really great stuff.

Lee if you return, you must address these last two points that were brought up. Please explain what you mean by 'rebuilt' and what would qualify as 'habitation'.

I should warn you however, any explanation you give will most certainly HAVE to be non-biblical. This would of course prove that you are making up stuff on the spot.. and you'd have too.. because the Bible just isn't as clear on this prophecy as you believe. Which, of course, makes the prophecy useless.

Sorry guys I just had to warn him.

--

In reason,

Reggie Finley Sr
The Infidel Guy
http://www.infidelguy.com

Johnny Skeptic

Well it that don't beat all, folks. In one of my previous posts I showed where Lee did exactly that at least EIGHTEEN TIMES over a number of weeks. In his current arguments he says that Saddam Hussein tried to rebuild Babylon and failed. That argument indicates A PERCEIVED BENEFICIAL RESULT, but whenever I use THE VERY SAME ARGUMENT regarding the fact that today, Muslims and skeptics DO NOT WANT to rebuild Babylon, which he admits is the case, he says "but that's not what you debate."

In typical dictatorial fashion, Lee attempts to change the rules a the drop of a handkerchief whenever he gets into trouble. That is simply dishonest, and it is a detestible tactic from someone who claims to be a Christian.

Lee has mentioned his personal "deliverance" from somethiing. What were you talking about, Lee.