spin

Au contraire lee_merrill, it is highly entertaining to see just how far you are willing to fly in the face of evidence and concoct the most bizarre excuses to try to not falsify your misguided understanding of Hebrew prophecy. Keep it up. :rolling:


spin

Awmte

The incredible hubris of this statement astounds one. So God considers lee_merrill's cold more important than the lives of the victims of Katrina? Might one request that lee_merrill pray for other peoples' lives when he next converses with God? :devil3:

Boro Nut

But that is a classic example of truly fulfilled prophecy. The prophecy only says he had to ride on a donkey. Only the Messiah himself could therefore ride on two donkeys. You couldn't make that up. Only Matthew could be stupid enough to make that up in mistranslation whilst filled with the Holy Spirit.

Look at it this way. There is no doubt in my mind that Jesus had not the first inkling of any foreknowledge of the prophecy. Only the general populace realised it had been fulfilled the minute he entered the gate. Jesus would have been too busy studying the prophets all his life to pick up on this general snippet of information.

Also, donkeys had not been invented at the time of the prophecy, only asses. So if Jesus had simply got his ass into gear and gone to Jerusalem nobody would have batted an eyelid. But that's not what he did. He actually parked his ass on two donkeys and then went to Jerusalem. How amazing is that? He probably changed them into wine when he got there too. He certainly turned them into a cul-de-sac. Sac was an old word for wine and Cul is probably French for a barrel or something. You may not agree that he was the Lamb of God sent to earth for the remission of all our sins or even existed, but knowing his donkey exploits you can't deny he was God's only begotten Son who sacrificed himself on the cross to save us from damnation.

Boro Nut

lee_merrill

Well, speaking of hubris, how do you know that it was just a cold that I was healed from? And how do you know I do not pray for other peoples' lives?

Regards,
Lee

Awmte

Considering the fact that you claim your prayers are generally efficacious, one might infer from the lives lost that you either did not pray for them or your claims about the power of prayer are false.

Sorry for the derail, folks. We now return you to your regular scheduled evasions. :wave:

pharoah

You've got to learn to read between the lines! You don't really think that Jesus rode two donkeys at once, do you? Just think about it, all those healings, the water into wine trick, the walking on water masterpiece, the dude was a travelling magician with a bit of homespun philosophy thrown in for good measure. His disciples were part of his circus troupe. Naw, he didn't ride into town on two donkeys, he was standing on two donkeys, sort of an ancient version of the tightrope walker. I'll even bet that he did some flips and cartwheels atop those donkeys as he neared town.

Sauron

However, your interpretation requires:

* re-writing the prophecy;
* adding new players and actors;
* ignoring other players, and
* turning a blind eye to other failures in the text.

If a person is allowed that much flexibility, then the prophecy is meaningless. You can edit, change, and stretch it to be a recipe for biscuits if you wanted to.

But you already knew that, of course. This is just more of your stalling tactics and games.


Not surprising, considering that your argument was an utter embarrassment.

Ah, lee - is it your convenient bad memory at work, or are you lying again?

1. Jidejian does not say the city was ruined.

2. You also deliberately misquote and misrepresent Jidejian about Renan. I already corrected you several times. Let's repeat it here, so the audience can see your dishonesty in action:

Jidejian obviously felt the need to point out that Renan's field work explorations were not sicentific in nature. Jidejian says that this is what Renan thought. But then she is only commenting upon Renan's opinion, which is 150 years out of date. Moreover, she also points out:

Renan published in 1864 the results of his excavations at Tyre, Sidon, Jebeil (Byblos) and Aradus. Although the scientific method of modern day archaeology was not applied in his day, Mission de Phenicie has preseved interesting information for the historian and archaeologist.

In point of fact, the destruction in 1291 was very bad, but the city was not totally demolished. And as we all know -- and as the many photos have shown -- Tyre was rebuilt, thus invalidating the "built no more" prophecy.

And here

The logic mistake you made is pretty appalling. If Renan had made a historical mistake about the events of 13th century Tyre, that implies zero about Renan's accuracy on the state of the city when he saw it five centuries later. How laughable. That is like saying if we have a modern American who believes a mistake about the history of the settling of Boston, that somehow implies that they are mistaken about the current state of the city of Boston. Nonsense. And yes, this really isn't relevant to the discussion - but I wanted to point out the logic mistake, because it's pretty elementary, and yet you didn't correct yourself before posting.

The Tyre that Renan saw was not in the same state as the Tyre that was ransacked in the 13th century anyhow. Tyre had been expanded under the Ottomans.

It isn't professional for an archaeologist or a historian to do a character assassination. So Nina does caution about his conclusions. That is why she specifically tells the reader that Renan was a good guy, but not operating with modern methods of archaeology.

1. Who says there aren't such people now? Just because the flags change doesn't mean that the people suddenly vanished. If you think those ethnic groups have totally vanished, that's an interesting argument - let's see your proof.

2. "Jew" is now more a cultural and religious term than a question of bloodline anyhow. Jews have done what every other group in history has done - intermingled with the surrounding peoples. Originally Hebrews were physically like other Semitic ethnic groups, which don't normally have blone hair, blue eyes, red hair, freckles - yet many Jews do.


Nonsense. You are the one claiming your interpretation is correct. You need to validate your interpretation before expecting anyone else to lift a finger.

Probably because it's a temptation hard to resist. The Tyre prophecy is such fertile ground for mistakes and failures.

Unfortunately, that would not be scripturally correct. God does not give information to false prophets.

"But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken?

When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that [is] the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, [but] the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him."

Referring us to the archives does no good, if the answer in the archives is wrong as well. So given that fact, would you care to try again?

Saddam's buildings at Babylon have refuted both the prophecy, as well as your claims in the other thread.

Ah. The lee merrill dance - shall we do it again?

1. The prophecy is already overturned a half-dozen other ways; no need to do it again;

2. Especially since you cannot provide any evidence whatsoever that christians would give up their religion if Babylon was rebuilt.

3. The invalidation of the prophecy is already undeniable - and yet, you deny it anyhow. You were presented with photographic evidence that the prophecy was overturned, and yet you deny it.

Given the limitless ability of christians (like yourself) to deny anything that conflicts with their religion, there is no such thing as "undeniable proof" when it comes to bible literalists.


Except you never clear the brush, lee. Johnny and I both have outstanding questions and rebuttals that you consistently fail to address.

For example, take your tired, limp challenge about rebuilding Babylon. You repeat it, even though the specific three points I made above have already decisively refuted it.

Decisively.

So either deal head-on with these three points, or just accept your defeat like a man and move on to the next topic. There is underbrush here for sure; but you are creating it, not clearing it away.

Smart move. You can't seem to defend a single aspect of even one prophecy; I can't imagine the whirlwind of ad hoc claims that would come out of you examining 10 such full-blown prophecies.

Oh, no. The prophecies themselves were defeated long ago. Mindllessly repeating your bad arguments is what has the attention of skeptics.

Watching you do this over and over again has taken on a fascination; it's like a car wreck with lots of bent metal and blood everywhere - you *want* to look away and keep driving, but you feel strangely compelled to watch the gory scene anyhow.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to Lee Merrill: I am still ready to try to invalidate the Babylon prophecy by trying to get some Arabs to pitch their tents in Babylon if you will first provide proof that the Christian Church will become substantially smaller if the attempt is successful, and/or if you will get the U.S. State Department to say that if some Arabs pitch their tents in Babylon, the U.S. will adopt a more favorable foreign policy towards Muslims as a result. Otherwise, why should the attempt be made? If the Koran predicted that a certain city would not be rebuilt, would you attempt to rebuild it without a reasonable expectation that if the attempt were successful a good percentage of Muslims would give up believing in the the Koran? Of course you wouldn't.

I have told you before that I can easily produce a lot of fundamentalist Christians who will not give up Chritianity if Babylon were to be rebuilt. I challenged you on more than one occasion to produce even a few Christians who will give up Christianity if the Babylon prophecy is invalidated, but you have consistently refused to accept my challenge, and quite conveniently I might add, even though you frequently make challenges yourself, which I have in fact accepted. I am willing to back of my assertions with research, but you are not willing to back up your assertions with research. Why is that? Do you actually believe that you can influence anybody at all by making numerous completely uncorroborated assertions?

You have been unable to accurately date the Tyre propehcy, will means that you lose hands down. Without an accurate date, the other aspects of the prophecy are completely irrelevant. Hindsight is an excellent way to make accurate prophecies, is it not?

Regarding "there will always be a Jewish people," I predict that there will always be a Muslim people. So what? Muslims are much more numerous than Jews are, even though Jews got over a 2500 year head start.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to Lee Merrill: I am still ready to try to invalidate the Babylon prophecy by trying to get some Arabs to pitch their tents in Babylon if you will first provide proof that the Christian Church will become substantially smaller if the attempt is successful, and/or if you will get the U.S. State Department to say that if some Arabs pitch their tents in Babylon, the U.S. will adopt a more favorable foreign policy towards Muslims as a result. Otherwise, why should the attempt be made? If the Koran predicted that a certain city would not be rebuilt, would you attempt to rebuild it without a reasonable expectation that if the attempt were successful a good percentage of Muslims would give up believing in the the Koran? Of course you wouldn't.

I have told you before that I can easily produce a lot of fundamentalist Christians who will not give up Christianity if Babylon were to be rebuilt. I challenged you on more than one occasion to produce even a few Christians who will give up Christianity if the Babylon prophecy is invalidated, but you have consistently refused to accept my challenge, and quite conveniently I might add, even though you frequently make challenges yourself, which I have in fact accepted. I am willing to back of my assertions with research, but you are not willing to back up your assertions with research. Why is that? Do you actually believe that you can influence anybody at all by making numerous completely uncorroborated assertions?

Regarding "there will always be a Jewish people," I predict that there will always be a Muslim people. So what?

What in the world are you talking about? I never said that prophecy was written after Alexander defeated the island settlement. My arguments in fact assume that the prophecy was written before Alexander defeated the island settlement. What indicates to you that Alexander’s defeat of the island settlement was part of the prophecy? I am not aware that you have answered this question before in any debates with me. It seems as if your entire argument about dating depends on Alexander. If such is the case, then I will tell you in advance that I will ask you to provide expert corroboration from at least several sources. Your own personal assertions are of no value whatsoever unless you also provide expert corroboration, which you seldom do because you do not want to embarrass yourself.

Not at all. If I claim that I have accurately predicted the future, my predictions would not have any credibility at all unless I could reasonably prove that I made them before the fulfillments occurred.

I shouldn’t have discussed other aspects. The issue of accurate dating is all that is needed to prove that nothing about the Tyre prophecy indicates divine inspiration.

Yes, and I will certainly go on repeating my arguments about the dating of the Tyre prophecy.

That is in fact an appropriate description of fundamentalist Christians. You have never even come close to successfully defending even one single Bible prophecy.

It doesn’t matter what you were healed from. All that we skeptics are asking for is reasonable proof that God healed you. Do you have it? Are you not aware that unusual healings also happen to atheists, agnostics, the followers of other religions, and even to wild animals?

Johnny Skeptic

It is not just skeptics. The vast majority of liberal Christians do not defend the Babylon prophecy and the Tyre prophecy.