lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

Well, no, it was my main answer! Because that was the main question you were raising. Yet it is not what a debate is supposed to be about, it should not be just discussing the results of the question being decided one way or another. Instead, we should attempt to decide the question! This really is quite obvious...

Yes, I did, but that was "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" in the first edition, which I think is now out of print.

What I mean is what the Bible means! We have specific accounts of rebuilding the temple in Jerusalem in the book of Ezra, and rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem in Nehemiah, and rebuilding other buildings there as well. So I would say if what was done there were to be done at Babylon, I would say it was quite certainly rebuilt.

As far as answers, more than a block or two of houses, and a variety of buildings, but mainly the prominent buildings, such as the temples. I wouldn't count tents as rebuilding, and as far as inhabitants, say a thousand or so, there were about 3,000 initially in Jerusalem in Nehemiah's day (Neh. 11). Some sort of mayor or government would be nice, but I wouldn't insist on that. The city must be on the former site, and I don't know if ziggurats were part of ancient Babylon, if they were, a few of those would be appropriate. The area of the city, if at all possible, should be the same as the former area, that was the case in the restoration of Jerusalem, apparently. The inhabitants do not have to be Babylonians, the city just has to be reinhabited, and an army base (like Ft. Bragg in NC where I live, not an army camp) would fill the bill, as far as reinhabiting the city.

I'm not sure what you mean, though, and I can't seem to find a reference to deliverance in this thread, either...

Regards,
Lee

P.S. I will be vacationing until Tuesday or so, adios for now...

John A. Broussard

Rest assured that no warnings will ever stop lee from talking about Babylon, Tyre, Petros, or whatever.

badger3k

I wanted to hopefully be the first to point out that we have fulfilled one part of Lee's requirements (at least):

"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."

So, we have our thousand inhabitants.

Edit - I may be wrong, but I think an area as large as five football fields might be larger than two city blocks (especially if we use Chicago city blocks, where I grew up - five football fields easily exceeds that measurement).

John A. Broussard

You have, of course, completely ignored the point I made. "Unfortunately, this is all meaningless unless you define--specifically and in detail--what you (or your interpretation of the bible) means by rebuilding."

Note that I said, "specifically and in detail."

You hedged on just about every one of the points you listed. Is it a block or two? About 3,000 includes how many, exactly? What is it being "nice" if there were a mayor?...and on and on.

In other words, there is no way of putting your prophecy to a test, because you'll just keep moving the goal posts.

Have fun.

John A. Broussard

You can't win. He said "more than a block or two of houses" which could mean three blocks or three hundred blocks.

badger3k

But the same wiggle-room he leaves can also work against him if we apply the pressure. He specified the minimum, and we have it on record, so if he tries to raise the bar, that's just one more strike against any credibility he might have left (yeah, I know how much that is...). If the buildings covered an area that exceeds a block or two, that counts as habitation.

edit - but yeah, if we count a win as Lee conceding, then no one will ever win against him. However, I think for most people, we've won already. Although there is no call for a "mission accomplished" banner.

Second edit - I found out someone else who shares Lee's debating style: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=134919

Sven

You are (not hopefully) actually the third citing this. It was Lee who linked to the article originally to make his point (that Hussein failed to rebuild it), but somehow managed to miss this refutation of the prophecy, and still dodges it.

We need now more blows. This is just as settled as the fact that the prophecy failed.

Johnny Skeptic

Lee, here is one of your most recent arguments:

You said that Saddam Hussein WANTED to rebuild Babylon, did you not? Since he wanted to rebuild Babylon, did he not have a achieving a BENEFICIAL RESULT in mind? You have said many times (I gave 18 examples in a previous post) that Muslims WANT to discredit the Bible, and that they can attempt to discredit the Bible by rebuilding Babylon anytime that they WANT to, and that if they refuse to try to rebuild Babylon you will not find them to be consistent. Here is what you said:

Actually, Lee, it is you who are not consistent. You retracted your previous arguments about the Muslim and skeptic agenda when you got into trouble. Do you now claim that Muslims and skeptics have no agenda?

Is it still your position that Muslims are not consistent? Regarding your claim that Muslims want to discredit the Bible, Muslims do not want to discredit the entire Bible. Do you claim otherwise?

Has or has not the issue of the discreditation of the Bible been one of you main arguments for a number of weeks?

Do you have a copy of the book? If so, please post what McDowell said. If you don’t have a copy, I may have a copy somewhere. If I don’t have a copy, I am certain that I can obtain a copy.

Lee, is there ANYONE who you personally know who agrees with your arguments? Why do you continue to refuse to ask James Holding and the pastor of your church for their opinions of your arguments? I plan to contact the colleges that you mentioned in the near future.

I must say that I have lost all of my respect for you. It is no accident that you do not have ANY support from Christians here or at the Theology Web.

Johnny Skeptic

Lee Merrill said that he got interested in the Babylon prophecy when he read the first edition of Josh McDowell's 'Evidence That Demands a Verdict,' or as Jeff Lowder more aptly titles it in his rebuttal of the book 'Evidence That Demands a Refund.' I have a copy on order. Lee ought to post McDowell's comments, but if he refuses to do so, I am pretty sure that when I post McDowell's comments, Lee will concede defeat. McDowell will likely agree with my arguments, AND LEE'S OWN PREVIOUS ARGUMENTS AS WELL. Lee abandoned his previous position regarding motives and results when he got into trouble, but I am pretty sure that that is not what McDowell says. McDowell likely says what Lee used to say, that Muslims have a golden opportunity to discredit the Bible anytime that they want to. In other words, McDowell will likely indicate that contrary to what Lee NOW says, the issues of motives and results ARE pertinent to these debates, and in fact ARE the very foundation of these debates.

Edit: I just found a really neat web site at
http://www.prophecynet.com/showthread.php?p=22381
that is devoted exclusively to prophecy. I am going to register as a member. Among other topics, the Babylon prophecy is being debated.

badger3k

True, but what I meant was the first to respond after Lee posted his criteria.

It might work eventually. After a long time Lee dropped out of the genocide and Tyre discussions, so he might do that here too - that's about as close to settled as it will get, and Lee will still continue to claim the prophecy has come true.