Sauron

No, he was not. He was rebuilding selected items in the city, and adding new things (such as the harbour) that would help it serve as a capital city. Babylon was not "becoming" desolate"; not in the least bit - as the extended quotation from Michael Wood demonstrates.

However, the "not rebuilt again" part of the prophecy does not kick in until after the city of Babylon is first destroyed. A destruction of Babylon must precede the "not rebuilt". But that did not happen. There was no destruction of Babylon prior to Alexander. So he can't be trying to reverse the prophecy, because the prophecy had failed to even get started correctly.


Yes, Isaiah does imply that. The passage clearly indicates that the desolation is the result of the attack. Let me show it to you for the *third* time:


Not only does the straightforward reading point to an immediate desolation but here in v.22 we find more evidence. It point-blank says that Babylon's days "shall not be prolonged" - which eliminates any kind of long, drawn out slow decline to being uninhabited. Isaiah thus contradicts your interpretation.

Then you are not arguing in favor of a fulfilled prophecy. You are arguing in favor of an ambiguous prophecy. Do you realize that?

Incorrect. I was arguing that there is no evidence that the army came from that direction. So you could not toss it out there as a "what if" and try to use it as a rescue line for your crippled argument. Here is what I said, once again:

2. You have presented no evidence that the army came from that direction, so tossing it out as a convenient "what if" isn't going to work.

Incorrect on both points:

1. the burden of proof is on you, not me;
2. you also misquoted my statement

Which is not what you just said.

1. First you said "we don't know enough to decide".

2. Then you backpedaled and said that you DO know enough to decide that the prophecy is fulfilled. If you are defending the "never rebuilt or reinhabited" statement. You can't defend that statement as true, if you don't think you know enough to decide.

Make up your mind: which is it?


1. I said nothing about probability. I was merely answering your question "Why". Don't try to put words in my mouth, lee.

2. The fact that you think some action is improbable doesn't carry any weight here. What lee merrill finds probable (or not) is besides the point. You have no expertise in any of the subject areas in this discussion, and your intellectual integrity is highly questionable.

Sorry; not quite good enough. You entered a formal debate here on Infidels against Johnny Skeptic. That means that you're moving beyond your casual beliefs and will be asked to research your positions and have your references ready.

Are you saying that you didn't do any research before making your statements? I mean, you mentioned walls, and hanging gardens and palaces in particular. Did you do any research - in books or on the internet - to see if those items existed at Alexander's time or not? Or did you just throw out your assumptions?

Are you sure you are ready for this task you've given yourself?

In other words, you filled in the blanks with your own creative imagination, and tried to pass it off as evidence. Perhaps now you understand why nobody is willing to accept what you think is probable, or likely, or unlikely. Your personal judgement turns out to be quite wrong most of the time, and is highly flavored by how YOU want the argument to work out.

Even a little bit of thinking should have told you that rebuilding does not necessarily imply destruction. Ten years ago Buddy Cianci embarked on a program to rebuild the downtown core of Providence, RI. But it wasn't due to the downtown being destroyed. It was just ordinary wear and tear, and a lack of interest in the downtown. It needed a face lift, after years of being neglected. You should remember this story, because as this debate moves forward I'm going to beat you over the head with it several times.

1. A city's ramparts are one part of the city. A city's roads are another part of the city.

2. The ramparts are only one part of the defenses. The other parts were intact:
huge inner defence works, the main walls wide enough to drive four-horse teams along the top wall walks, the outer lines studded with massive bastions, berms and glacis of baked brick, surrounded by the Euphrates and a network of canals. In the northern sector, on the bank, there was a huge raised platform with immense moat walls reaching under the river to stop erosion.

The statement is about one part of the walls - not the entire defensive wall system, as I demonstrated above. And it certainly does not qualify as the wreck of a city that you tried to make us believe.

Well, in point of fact BOTH of those statements are my claim. And they are both true.

As for the statement you are worried about - yes, that one is still true as well. The city was point-blank the biggest and richest city in the world. And it held that status, EVEN WITH the various problems that I noted. It was able to function as the number 1 city at the center of the world, in spite of all those things. So there was no rebuilding necessary. That doesn't meant that there weren't some good projects that someone like Alexander could do - there were several such projects. But none of them were critical or necessary for the city to run and serve as a major metropolis. After all, if they were truly critical building projects, then Babylon would have been forced to fix them herself -- or risk the pre-eminent rank and status.

But such was not the case. Most of the projects that Alexander picked to build were specifically chosen to win him favor among his new subjects, and make them adjust to the idea of having him as the new ruler. A tactic of winning over the new people by showering them with gifts an attention - the same tactic used by Cambyses II, Darius, and Cyrus, I might add.

No, rebuilding was *not* necessary. The fact that someone (Alexander) chose to rebuild is not proof that the rebuilding was necessary. The city was functioning as the #1 city in the world, even without fixing broken parts.

Yes it does.

Yes it is. Restoring landmarks would be improvement. To use a modern example, a Restoration Society that goes around fixing up historic homes is doing improvements for the city or the town.

No it doesn't. All cities have areas that are not in perfect shape. Babylon was no exception. Finding a neighborhood that is run down does not refute a general statement made about the general state of the overall city.

1. They were landmarks.
2. You're guessing again. You have no idea how long the landmarks had been crumbling.

You're handwaving, lee merrill. I have a clear and detailed statement that demonstrates just what an affluent and thriving metropolis that Babylon was during Alexander's time. And instead of admitting your mistake, you're trying to say that because some landmarks were crumbled, then the entire city can be classified as run down.


The dictionary definition of glamour does not support your claim that glamour refers to nostalgia about a past glory. You're being intellectually dishonest again; trying so hard to win the argument that you're making up new definitions for words already in the English language.

Obviously you've never been there. The ruins at Athens are not glamorous.

Yes, I saw the quote several times already. There is nothing in the quote, however, that proves your claim that Alexander set out to conquer Babylon with the goal of rebuilding that city already in his mind. For all we know, he could have decided to make it a capital after he finished the conquest. Or, one of his advisors or generals could have suggested it to him. Alexander could have been thinking in his tent, during the siege of Persepolis or the conquest of India, and thought "Hey! Babylon would make a great capital." The Encarta reference does not support your claim.

What is more, the available evidence suggests that the decision to make Babylon a capital came later in Alexander's life, after the conquest of Babylon and not before it.

1. That quote also does not support your claim that "Alexander's stated purpose of going to Babylon was to rebuild it." The quote only talks about one particular shrine, the shrine of Bel. It is not talking about the entire city, which was your claim.

2. Arrian was born 400 years after Alexander died. So his works are not, in fact, eyewitness accounts. We do, however, have eyewitness accounts from Ptolemy, Aristobulus, the fleet admiral Nearchus, the helmsman Onesicritos, and Baeton from the bematists (surveyors). Other eyewitness accounts included Callisthenes of Olynthos and Cleitarchus. These various fragments of eyewitness testimony have been compiled ito in a compendium, by the way. Arrian used some of this, but he was not a forensic investigator. And obviously he could not cross-examine the source, or ask for clarifications, either. The goal of history 2000 years ago is not necessarily the same as the goal of history today.

3. Finally, Arrian is known to have highly idealized his telling of Alexander's life, in the perfect warrior mode. What's more, the exact kind of information that you want -- motives and intent of Alexander -- are precisely the kinds of things that Arrian left out of his text. Britannica:

Arrian was clearly a great admirer of his hero but was obsessed by the purely military aspect of the story he was telling. There is little to enlighten us about Alexander's motives for conquest or his ideal of the creation of a united world. The work, however, does contain some fine pieces of descriptive writing, such as the account of the siege and capture of Tyre in Book Two.

So Arrian is to be taken with a grain of salt, and Arrian does not help you get at the motives and intent of Alexander's conquests - the exact point you need to prove in your argument. :rolling:

We know that the prophecy of Babylon falling did not come to pass, and that the prophecy is discredited on several different points.

1. I know what you meant.
2. My point still stands.
3. Neither Rome nor Jerusalem fell quickly.
4. Yet both phrases "the fall of Rome" and the "fall of Jerusalem" are found in our language.

Therefore this ridiculous method of proving your case by relying on a turn of phrase is busted from the very start. Your claim is about history. You need to use history to prove a historical claim, not English turns of phrase.

People also say "something's rotten in Denmark". That doesn't prove that Denmark smells bad. They also say "The Holy Roman Empire" - but it was neither Holy, nor Roman.

Sheesh - you really should have caught yourself before posting such ridiculous bullshit.

By calling it a "long, slow decline" -- how else?

And my point is that you are wrong. The history of those cities shows a slow decline, not a rapid one - as you claimed. Again: you can't use a turn of phrase to prove a claim about history. You need to use history, to prove a historical claim.

You're creative in your laziness, I'll give you that.

Your website author is one man, putting up his own thoughts on history. read his bio:
http://www.fsmitha.com/details2.htm

He's not a historian; more of a tumbleweed, actually. What's more, the specific claims he makes in his article are wrong. Rome saw a sllow decline. Britannica shows a decline lasting over three centuries. Also note the red text, which directly contradicts your home-made webpage claim:

Next to Jerusalem.

Which does not prove that Jerusalem fell quickly. Jerusalem's fall began with the Roman occupation and took two centuries to complete.

No, it refers to the same thing that "fall of Jerusalem" and "fall of Rome" refer to. You don't get to change things around for Babylon, merely because your argument is in trouble.

From a historical standpoint, a desolation could easily take that long. It depends upon the historical context. And in an age without modern warfare, things just happened more slowly.

But from the prophetic standpoint, this shouldn't have happened. The prophecy indicated that the desolation would be immediate. But it wasn't. Just one more reason why the prophecy failed.

Yes it does. See the above re-quotation of the Isaiah prophecy, as well as the accompanying explanation about "shall not be prolonged."

I know where Petra is at. But you brought up Petra in the context of prophecy. Petra has nothing to do with prophecy.

Yes your point is plain.
It's also plain that you refuse to read my response: the prophecy is already proven wrong for other reasons. No need to spend a penny to prove something that we already know.

We don't have to argue about this for reasons already stated. The prophecy has already failed for a number of other reasons. So there is no reason to spend a single penny proving something that is already known to be a fact.

I also would not spend a penny to test out the theory that Paris is the capital of France. That fact is already established, and does not need proving any longer. Same situation here.

This point is so clear and so obvious that I cannot believe that you are missing it. Am I not clear? Is there anyone reading this thread - even among the lurkers - who doesn't get my point? Speak up, because I want to be sure that I'm not being overly hard on lee. If this point is unclear to a number of people, then I'll try to find another way to phrase it.

But right now, this just looks like another attempt by lee merrill to ignore answers he doesn't like, and repeat the question over and over.

Aegeri

I've understood everything you've written so far and I know virtually nothing on this particular topic.

John A. Broussard

Excellent analysis and well documented.

However....don't you sometimes feel you are using a sledge hammer to swat a fly?

Lee will be back, not only with Babylon, but with Tyre, with miraculous limbs being grown by god, with forever biblical prophesies that predicted the Holocaust, with god's cure of his sore back, etc.

But some good comes out of it--in this instance a well thought out rundown of the fate of Babylon.

Johnny Skeptic

The prophecy said that Babylon will never be rebuilt. In my previous post I said "The Babylon prophecy can never be fulfilled unless the earth is destroyed, thereby making rebuilding it impossible. As long as the earth is still here, what has not happened yesterday or today might very well happen tomorrow. Past failures need not rule out future successes." I recently discussed this with a brilliant Christian that I know who is in law school at Cornell University. She made all A's in high school, all A's in college and has made all B+'s in the first two years of law school. She told me that out of 100 students, only two made A's. When I told her about my argument that the prophecy can never be fulfilled as long as the earth is here, she immediately agreed with me.

Lee puts great emphasis on the Babylon prophecy, but no one looking for a world view would ever become a Christian based solely or largely upon the Babylon prophecy. I was a fundamentalist Christian for over 35 years, and during that time I never heard the prophecy discussed, nor did I even know about it until these debates began. Bible prophecies fall into two categories, 1) events and 2) non-events. The prediction that Tyre would be defeated falls into category 1. The supposed prediction that a messiah would come also falls into category 1. The Babylon prophecy falls into category 2, the non-event, never will happen category. Lee once told me in an e-mail that attempts to rebuild Babylon were events, but the prophecy did not say that attempts to rebuild Babylon would not happen, only that it would not be rebuilt, and the prediction would be a non-event prophecy whether or not attempts to rebuild Babylon were ever made. I suggest that Lee open a new thread about an event based prophecy. He tried that with the Tyre prophecy, but I doubt that he was pleased with the results. Maybe that is why he retreated to discussing non-event based prophecies.

What this all gets down to is the simple fact that Lee's presuppositionalism did not originate with the Babylon prophecy. In fact, I suspect that when he first became a Christian he had never heard of it. So, for Lee the Babylon prophecy is merely a symptom of his preexisting suppositionalism. He needs to tell us upon what Scriptures his preexisting suppositionalism is based.

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

Yes, I agree, rebuilding it now, however, would invalidate it immediately.

They accept some of the details, but not all of them, as in the Koran substituting Ishmael for Isaac on Mount Moriah, their claim is indeed that all the Bible has been corrupted, and the Koran is what it really was originally. There is also only one (quite incidental) reference to Babylon in the Koran, so indeed, I think they could very well be quite eager to disprove this prophecy by rebuilding Babylon.

Yes, I agree, it is...

So if I predict some incident next week, and yet don't tell absolutely everybody right away, that invalidates my prophecy? We know about it now, why does some elapsed time make any difference?

What if I predict an earthquake? Would the earth need to know about it, to make it be a valid prophecy?

I think it's pretty evident that Muslims would be glad to discredit the Bible. But they are welcome to join the discussion, and post here...

Unless it might still be true! Just because an idea is popular or unpopular doesn't prove it true or untrue, either way.

The quote indicates that it had declined, though, does it not?

Well, I agree, this other aspect of the prophecy was not my point.

And other readings are possible too, so this does not decide the question.

Her days were not prolonged, though, for the kingdom ended abruptly, and did not return, that could also be what was meant, as here:

Isaiah 14:4 You will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon: How the oppressor has come to an end! How his fury has ended!

No, I'm arguing a specific point, that Babylon will never be rebuilt or reinhabited, and the other points in the various prophecies about Babylon are incidental to my argument here. Some of these other points are not decidable either way, which I think we should all recognize, and focus on the ones that are more decidable.

Well, why were you defending the person who said the "from the north" aspect of the prophecy was disproved, then? If you defend such a claim, you are claiming by implication that what you are defending is true. The claim I am defending is that we don't know enough to decide this.

Why is this unclear, may I ask? I am defending the opening statement, that is what is done in a debate, I am not setting out to prove every aspect of every prophecy about Babylon. I do think we know enough to decide whether Babylon has been rebuilt or reinhabited, and that is the point of the debate.

The point is to show that your view is probable, though, if your view here is improbable, I shall not be convinced.

I was wrong, it was not completely ruined, and also some rebuilding was needed, so Sauron was wrong, too.

Well, there's no rebuilding necessary at the ruins of Athens, either, if we value them as relics of an ancient culture. The point is that Alexander set about to restore some ruined parts of the city, as part of making Babylon his capital, and he failed, as the prophecy had predicted.

There was a major temple that was down, and doesn't the quote you gave indicate a loss of status? "Babylon had seen better days." As does "crumbling landmarks."

I got this from your quote, actually: "Some landmarks were crumbling after the Persian occupation."

Then people go there to see boring ruins?

That wasn't what I was trying to prove, though, the MSN Encarta quote does clearly state that Alex had a purpose to rebuild Babylon, and that was my point.

But "Alexander had proposed to restore it" is in the account before he reaches Babylon. And MSN Encarta says Alex "planned to rebuild it," thus at least part of this plan was in his mind before he came there, and I think it probable that more than just one building was in mind at that time.

Which is why you were quoting him in the Tyre discussion? I agree that what people write about history has to be sifted.

Babylon did not fall? The city was taken in a night, and all these other points may be discussed, too, but in another thread, please. This thread is for two specific predictions.

I mention this as evidence, not proof, though.

It doesn't depend on the rate at which cities fall? Generally more quickly than (actually) 1700 years, I would say.

Me, either. Babylon is now not rebuilt, and it would be indisputably an invalidation of Biblical prophecy if it were to be rebuilt, so this is not a theory that there will be another rock star next decade. The theory is that there won't be.

Actually, I find the prophecy about Babylon reason to believe the Bible.

Regards,
Lee

Johnny Skeptic

Why must yesterday’s and today’s failures automatically rule out what might happen in the future? Logically, the future cannot be reliably predicted based upon the past and the present. For example, many existing track and field records were deemed impossible a thousand years ago, and even a hundred years ago, but they happened. In ancient times, the vast majority of people predicted that man would never fly, but it happened. The lesson is that the abilities of past and present humans need not necessarily limit the abilities of future humans.

But easily over 99.9999% of people would not become Christians based solely, largely or even partly upon the Babylon prophecy, and even most Christians know little or nothing about it, and few Christian scholars or pastors ever mention it, so by all means, please feel free to be a rare exception to the rule.

Consider the following Scriptures from the KJV:

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

ISA 13:20 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.

Verse 20 does not say that Babylon will never be rebuilt. It says that it will never be inhabited. There is a big difference between the two.

The NIV translates verse 20 as “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.� The NASB says “it will never be inhabited or lived in from generation to generation; Nor will the Arab pitch his tent there, Nor will shepherds make their flocks lie down there.�

Now Lee, are you going to claim that it would be difficult for Iraqis to discredit the Bible by inhabiting the site of the city of ancient Babylon, which was about four square miles, for say one week, in a tent city, which would discredit the prophecy, and/or by sending some shepherds with their animals to stay there with their flocks for a week, which would also discredit the prophecy?

Lee, would you like for me to contact some major Bible commentaries and see if they agree with you? I am quite certain that none of them will agree with you. I am in frequent touch with Dr. Robert Price, and I am sure that he will be glad to contact some commentaries for me.

Johnny Skeptic

Lee Merrill has been saying that some Muslims would like to rebuild Babylon in order to credit the Babylon prophecy, but he hasn't produced any such evidence stated by Muslims themselves. He assumes to know what Muslims themselves have never stated. In the opinions of Muslims, and in the opinions of the majority of the rest of the people in the world, the Bible has already been discredited many times over.

Why should we limit the discussions to what the Muslim agenda are? I am an agnostic. If the cost of rebuilding Babylon was 25 billion dollars, and if I was worth 100 billion dollars, and if I got permission from the Iraqi government to rebuild Babylon, would I do so? Absolutely not. Such would probably be the case regarding every atheist and agnostic in the world. If I wanted to spend 25 billion dollars to discredit Christianity, the money would be much better spent in a variety of other ways. I am quite certain that even most fundamentalist Christians would agree.

Johnny Skeptic

A friend of mine is a college professor. He has masters degrees in philosphy and humanities. He has a 173 IQ and he scored 760 out of 800 on the SAT, including a perfect score in the verbal portion. He is a past member of MENSA. He took some graduate courses in religion and he heads a campus skeptic society. When I told him about Lee Merrill's arguments regarding Muslims wanting to rebuild Babylon in order to discredit the Bible, he said that Lee is grossly mistaken. He told me that Muslims revere a good deal of the Old Testament, for example part of the story of Abraham, and that they have no interest whatsoever in promoting or discrediting Bible prophecy. He suggested that I send e-mails to some Muslim websites and post my findings. I plan to do so today or tomorrow.

I will now edit my post as follows:

At a Muslim website at http://www.sultan.org/ the following links are available:

The Holy Quran the Main Source in Islam (PDF) (Recitation & Translation)
7 Reasons to Read the Glorious Quran
Who Wrote The Quran? (PDF)
Lord's Words
Islam FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions)
What is Islam? Who is Allah? What is the Quran? (Audio)
God Concept In Islam
Introduction for Non Muslims
Introducing Islam
Introduction to Islam
Understanding Islam and Muslims
A Brief Illustrated Guide To Understanding Islam
Islam Is ... (Islamic Mp3 Audio)
Statistics of the Muslims' population around the World
Muslims in the West and around the world today
The Purpose of Creation
The Origin of Life - an Islamic Perspective
Why were we Created?
Purpose of life... Where did we come from? Where are we going? (Audio)
Discover Islam
Discover Islam (IslamWay)
Islam: A Mercy for All Nations
Real Islam Website
Some Benefits of Islam & Islam's Features
Why Islam?
Islam the Perfect Religion
Your Way to Islam: by Dr. Mohammad Al-Ashqar
Islam: The True Religion (By Bilal Philips) Audio
Explore & Discover & Be Convinced That Islam Is The truth !
Why Should You Be A Muslim (By Dawud Adib)
Why do Muslims think that Islam is true ? Is there any factual basis ?
How can we be certain that Islam is the only infallible Truth?
Islam! - The Modern Alternative - Why Islam is good for you
The True Religion
Why are so many women converting to Islam ?

The opening statements read as follows:

Discover Islam - The Fastest Growing Religion in the World

Learn about The Real Islam

Correct your information about Islam,

The Misunderstood Religion

Now I would like to ask Lee Merrill if after reading the preceding he thinks that Muslims are going to roll over and play dead when he tells them that in spite of all of their other arguments for Islam and against Christianity they feel that they need to rebuild Babylon in order to discredit the Bible, and that God is preventing them from doing so.

badger3k

See, Lee, this is where (and why) everyone calls BS. You have to argue that the ENTIRE prophecy came true or it didn't. There are no "partial fulfilled prophecies". IF even ONE part doesn't come true, then it has failed. You can't pick-and-choose what part of the prophecy has to come true for it to be true. It's an all-or-nothing proposition. If I made a prophecy that says that the Cubs will win the next World Series and that the manager of the team would die in his sleep the same day, and they won but he didn't die, then that is not a fulfilled prophecy. It failed.

It's all those "incidental" points that ARE part of the prophecy that has to be met that keep tripping you up, because you want to ignore the necessary parts. That's dishonest.

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

Well, yes, and I think people are well able to rebuild Babylon nowadays, and Alexander could have done so in his day.

I agree, the implication that it will never be rebuilt comes from other verses:

Jeremiah 51:26 "No rock will be taken from you for a cornerstone, nor any stone for a foundation, for you will be desolate forever," declares the Lord.

I would say a more extended stay would be required to call this "Babylon reinhabited," maybe 5 or 10 or 15 years, but Arabs with flocks there, as a matter of course, would also invalidate it.

That would be fine...

I actually this this would be a very clear way to discredit the Bible, to rebuild Babylon, or Petra, and there are many Muslims with lots of resources, who have this as their agenda.

Islam does revere the Bible, and they also say it has been corrupted, and that the Koran restores the original version (as the Mormons say of their book, as well), thus they (and the Mormons, come to think of it) would indeed have an interest in proving such a point.

I actually have to argue that the entire Bible is true or it isn't! But this is too much ground to cover, so I pick a specific point, and try and defend that.

I agree, and I am willing to defend the other points too, but in another thread. I hope you all will not insist that I attempt to show that a banner was really raised on a bare hilltop (Isa. 13:2), though, only the points that can be potentially verified, that are critical to the prophecy, need be discussed.

Regards,
Lee