lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

That is why we can reserve a hotel in Babylon? But "rebuilding" is not "rebuilt". Which references prove there is a city at the site of Babylon now?

Well, then, I pick 1,000, that is my number for a minimum to have a nation, so no, two people is not a nation.

Well, this was a thread about whether there are valid prophecies in the Bible.

I have tried to make a case for that in other threads, some of them in this forum.

I trust them because I've found what they say to be dependable, in various ways.

Deuteronomy 18:20-22 But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death." You may say to yourselves, "How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the Lord?" If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.

This clearly requires accurate prediction of the future, as a principle qualification of a prophet.

Um, isn't that a prediction?

Regards,
Lee

spin

Obviously, the point of the prophet's statements are lost on you, lee_merrill. You're too busy turning him into the sideshow fortuneteller.

That's the problem of understanding what is being talked about. What's going to happen is not unrelated to the time of the prophecy. The prophet is dealing with that present in which he lived. Consider Isaiah 7:14, the young woman, (lmh not virgin btwlh (despite the LXX's translation error), who was with child, hrh, before her child is old enough to intend right from wrong, events will happen in Judah regarding the kingdom of Ahaz. This is ripped from its context and, voila', a "prophecy" is created, misunderstanding the context and the content of the words.

I included the notion of "going to do" in the explanation because "going to do" is related to the narrative present of the speaker, "going to do" is relative to then. It's not a universal prediction that you can dissociate from the initial context. The trouble is that initial context often gets lost, so the prophet's words can be reinterpreted and obfuscated.


spin

Sauron

1. Ah, dishonesty again. "Reserving a hotel" is not the criterion. Unlike you I have actually read this prophecy. It says:

ISA 13:20 It shall never be inhabited, neither shall it be dwelt in from generation to generation

And yet we have:
* photos of a palace rebuilt by Saddam
* photos of children from the site, and
* photos of additional support buildings in the area.

You lose.

2. I notice that you dodged the point about Alexander rebuilding. Wise move, since you couldn't support your argument earlier.

"Rebuilt" is not the criterion. Again, maybe you should crack open that bible that you (claim to) revere so much:

JER 51:26 And they shall not take of thee a stone for a corner, nor a stone for foundations; but thou shalt be desolate for ever, saith the LORD.

It must really suck to have a skeptic beat you over the head with your own bible, huh? :rolling:

Johnny Skeptic

I'll pick two people, and there is nothing at all unusual about two descendants of any ancient people being around today. If God was really wanted to protect the Jews, he wouldn't have let them lose numerous battles to the Philistines and spend generations in captivity in Egypt, not that that ever happened. In addition, he would have prevented Titus from invading Jerusalem in 70 A.D., he would have prevented Trajan from killing 500,000 Jews early in the 2nd century, he would have prevented Hitler from killing six million Jews, and he would have prevented modern Israel from ending up as basically a police state.

All of the descendants of all peoples still survive today. It couldn't possibly be any other way as long as people have babies. Some of the descendants are better organized that others. So what? You are impressed with kind of protection that God provided the Jews, but history clearly shows otherwise.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to Lee Merrill: The Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia 2005 says "Ezekiel, major prophetic book of the Old Testament, attributed to the prophet Ezekiel (flourished 597-571 BC). Although the prophet was probably [probably is not good enough, Lee] responsible for most of the text, the book (particularly chapters 40-48) gives clear indications of later editing or compiling by his disciples." In other words, Lee, you lose hands down. Some later editing and compiling is obvious, but what about possible editing and compiling that is not obvious?

Jayrok

Lee,

If it is true that Babylon will never be inhabited or rebuilt, and it was destroyed after the 70 years of exile (Jer 25:12), which means this is already in the past... does that make Revelation's (Rev 18) claim that Babylon will fall an event that really happened in the distant past?

If Revelation is still a future event, then something is wrong with one of these bits of scripture. Apparently Babylon will indeed be repopulated and thrive as a city, if God will destroy it once again in the end times. If this is the case, then the OT prophesy of Babylon being destroyed forever after the 70 years is false.

lee_merrill

But the name "Babylon" seems to be descriptive instead of geographical in the book of Revelation, though, here is a reference to geography, though:

Revelation 17:9 This calls for a mind with wisdom. The seven heads are seven hills on which the woman sits.

And the seven hills would most naturally refer to Rome, thus if there is any geography here, it is Rome in Italy.

Regards,
Lee

Johnny Skeptic

Message to Lee Merrill: I am ready to falsify the part of the Babylon prophecy about Arabs pitching their tents if you will provide reasonable proof to skeptics that the Christian Church will become significantly smaller if the attempt is successful, and if you will provide reasonable proof to Muslims that U.S. foreign policy towards Muslims will change if the attempt is successful.

You are good at making challenges, but how good are you at accepting them? I challenge you to find at least two historians at leading universities such as Yale, Harvard, Brown, Cornell, Princeton, or Stanford who agree with your attempt to correlate Alexander's and Saddam's failed attempts (in your opinion) to rebuild Babylon with divine intervention. The historians must have Ph.D.'s in ancient history and be full professors.

I also challenge you to find at least one professor and Wheaton College, and one professor at Dallas Theological Seminary, who agree with your attempt to make said correlation. Is it your position that it is not necessary for you to back up your assertions with corroborative sources? YOU HAVEN'T EVEN QUOTED ONE SINGLE FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIAN SOURCE. If you can't even find corrobation from your fellow fundamentalist Christians, how in the world do you expect to convince anyone else of your positions?

Does Deuteronomy 13 not say that bad people can predict the future too? In addition, even if God can predict the future, what does that tell us about his nature? The correct answer is, nothing at all.

The following is from the thread on the destruction of Tyre:

bekeleven

False prophesies:
Gen 2:17
Gen 5:5
Gen 46:4
Gen 47:28
Joshua 8:28
Neremiah 7:32
2 Kings 22:20
2 Chronicles 35:23-24
2 Samuel 7:16
...Also a no. Don't get me started on contradictions. Honestly, the bible is in no way infalliable, even internally, as shown by these examples.

Jayrok

So you agree that Patmos John was describing what God will do to the Roman empire (or better yet, what John hoped God would do to the romans)... and this whole event occured already in the past?

That wouldn't seem to sit very well with the multitude of Christians who are futurists and believe this all will play out at the end times.

Since you believe that most of Revelation has already occured, what's going on now? Is Satan bound in the pit?

Since we are talking about prophecies, what is the status of Ezekiel's temple? it never came to pass. And if Revelation is winding down, the prophecy is that God's holy city Jerusalem will descend out of the clouds and God and Jesus will dwell there forever. There is no temple or sacrifice, since Jesus is the temple.

So if this is the case, then wouldn't that make Ezekiel's temple a failed prophecy by default? His vision is that there will be daily sin sacrifices to the Lord. If Jesus paid that price once and for all, then there is no room for Ezekiel's temple to come to pass. Thus, making it a false prophecy. Wouldn't you agree?

And if Ezekiel's temple does come to pass after all, then what does that say about the message of the NT, where Jesus is the once and for all sin sacrifice for mankind?