Johnny Skeptic

It is preposterous because it would be of no benefit at all for Muslims if they rebuilt Babylon. The guy at the Muslim web site told you this, and most if not all other Muslims will tell you the same thing.

You haven't produced even on single Christian who agrees with you that they would give up Christianity if Babylon were to be rebuilt. Have you asked James Holding (I suggest that you send him a private message) and the pastor of your church about this? You have a minority view on this issue among Christians, but are you aware that this is the case? Are you not aware that most Christians know little or nothing about the Babylon prophecy? I was a fundamentalist Christian for over 35 years and I never heard of it.

Yes, let's do. You need to reasonbly prove that nomadic Arabs have never pitched their tents in Babylon and that shepherds have never grazed their flocks there. You are the claimant, so where is your proof?

In one of your posts you countered my "grazing of flocks" argument by mentioning that Babylon became a swamp, but in another post you refuted your own argument by mentioning the wild game park, which couldn't possibly have been founded in a swamp. There is no evidence that shepherds never grazed their flocks in Babylon prior to or subsequent to the founding of the wild game park.

Now Lee, you should know better than to try to pull something like this. The writer as the Muslim web site said the following:

My gracious, Lee. You must have read what he said. He said that if the OT says that Babylon will never be rebuilt, he "would hold that to be true." He is agreeing with you. Why would he want to disprove a prophecy that he believes is valid? It appears that the Muslim did not previously know about the Babylon prophecy, and it is obvious that he is quite intelligent and well-read, and it is also obvious that he is more than a match for you. I am quite certain that 99.9999999% of other Muslims haven't either, so how could they try to disprove a prophecy that they never heard of?

The reluctance that you mentioned on the part of Muslims and skeptics is actually your reluctance to admit that you know little about Islam, and little about how most Muslims and Christians would react if Babylon were to be rebuilt. This is a faith issue on your part, not a historical issue. Typical of fundamentalist Christians, you take the Bible at face value and attempt to force history to agree. Many if not most fundamentalist Christians have defended Bible prophecy "subsequent" to becoming Christians, not "prior" to becoming Christians. Initially, "Daddy told me so" is sufficient evidence for them to believe the Bible. This is especially true in third world nations. 90% of the people in South America are Roman Catholics.

If you had been taken from your parents at birth and raised by Muslims in Iraq, do you believe that you would be a Christian today? Why do you believe that God allowed the Gospel message to be spread by the grossly inefficient means of foot, horse, mule, camel, boat etc., which resulted in many millions of people over many centuries dying without ever having heard the supposedly most important message in history?

badger3k

Ok - I understand. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

John A. Broussard

How can there be any surprises if you know for sure what the bible is saying?

Johnny Skeptic

I simply must post again how the Muslim that Lee Merrill wrote to embarrassed him. The Muslim is quite articulate and comical. My thanks to Sauron for originally posting it. As the Muslim and Sauron said, Lee's knowledge of Islam is negligible. I believe that Lee will withdraw from this thread soon. It will be interesting to see if he formally withdraws or leaves without any explanation for doing so.

Obviously God has gone out of his way to make sure that all of his prophecies were written in such as way as to encourage dissent rather than discourage dissent.

I am still waiting for Lee to give us the names of some Christians who would give up Christianity if Babylon were to be rebuilt. He seems to be unaware how few Christians agree with him on a number of Bible topics.

Sauron

Doesn't really matter, lee.

1. If you admit to writing the opening post, there is even less excuse for you not knowing the contents of the verses that you included as part of your opening post. You quoted Isaiah 13:19 in your opening post, so you need to defend the claims found in that very same opening post.

2. Not only that, but you've been making other claims about 13:20 and 13:22 as well. Once you knowingly start adding extra claims to your statements, then you become responsible to defend them in addition to your original ones.

Each time you try and wriggle out of the problem you created, the knot only tightens a little more, lee....

It does more than address your point; it refutes it. The city was never anywhere close to desolation, so the prophecy (and your position) are both broken.

No, it was not. The definition was about the lack of presence of human beings. A tent city of 10,000 people would not be "desolate", even though the tents were barely acceptable for habitability. Many refugee camps right now are in that situation - no running water, 10 people to a tent, squalor, etc. But the refugee camp is not desolate.

On the other hand, a brand new city would be considered desolate, if it had zero inhabitants in it. Even though the buildings might be in tip-top shape, without people it would be a ghost town. In fact, there were several such cities in WW2 for scientists and engineering workers, such as the atomic bomb research work at Los Alamos. They were housed in excellent buildings with all the latest finery. But when the project was over and those workers all went home, the city was desolate -- even though the buildings were in perfectly habitable shape.

Desolation is ALWAYS about the lack of human beings. Your attempt at derailing the discussion with another one of your semantic quibbles has only made the situation for your claims worse - and further exposed the basic intellectual dishonesty that runs through all your postings.

No, that wasn't the point. You are mixing the two verses up again. Here are the verses I quoted above; let's see if you can get it the 3rd or 4th time without further prompting, hmm?

JER 51:25 Behold, I am against thee, O destroying mountain, saith the LORD, which destroyest all the earth: and I will stretch out mine hand upon thee, and roll thee down from the rocks, and will make thee a burnt mountain.

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.

Get it that time? The "won't be built part" doesn't kick in, until after the LORD has made Babylon a desolation.

There is no need to "continue to discuss" it. You tried to create some fictitious connection between "days" and control; I used your own bible to show you that no such connection exists. I have proven my point, and disproved your claim. This game of stalling is over.

The obvious meaning is only that he failed to make it his capital. Again:

Encarta does not say that Alexander's building campaign failed 100% in rebuilding. It only says that he died before he could carry out his plan to make it a capital.

There were EIGHT YEARS between the time that Alexander started the rebuilding of Babylon in 331 BCE and the time he died in 323 BCE. Are you really trying to claim that NOTHING GOT DONE during those eight years? Because if you are, you will need to present proof. Your misunderstanding of the Encarta citation is a far cry from being proof.

1. Because it doesn't SAY that. It says he failed to make it his capital. You have no evidence that Alexander failed 100% in rebuilding. All we know is that he died. If Alexander only finished 75% of his building, or 50%, or even 10% -- that still constitutes rebuilding. Which invalidates the prophecy.

2. Because it requires a belief that eight years went by without any rebuilding accomplished by Alexander - a totally ridiculous idea.

You are, once again, filling in the missing data with your assumptions and imagination. We've already told you numerous times that isn't acceptable. If you want to prove that no rebuilding occurred under Alexander, you're going to need prove EXACTLY that. All you have is a one-line quote from Encarta that you are deliberately distorting -- and then asking us to share in said distortion.

And let's not forget the facts here:

1. In Alexander's time the city was filled with hundreds of temples:
The city has ten quarters, each with its own gate, twenty-four great boulevards, forty-three temples of the great gods, 900 chapels of lesser gods and hundreds more neighbourhood shrines.

2. The city itself was in splendid shape; the largest and most affluent city in the ancient world;

3. This was not a city anywhere near the state of "desolation". By lee merrill's dishonest standard, that means that New York City is a desolation -- or "approaching a desolation", to use his deceptive phrasing -- because the Twin Towers were destroyed. It would require deliberately ignoring all the other signs of power, wealth, economic and political activity, etc. in the city, and obsessively focusing on the loss of just one single landmark. Anyone who said that about NYC was a "desolation" because of the Twin Towers being destroyed ould be rightly considered to be a nutjob. Same situation here.


You try to apply it to me, except the difference is that I have given evidence where you only give wave after wave of what-if scenarios.

Ah, I see. OK, that was my mistake.

However, you also picked a different phrase. The phrase you fixated on is "in the days of". However, the phrase about Babylon says "her days". They are not the same. What is sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander.

1. Sorry; that phrase is different from "in the days of".

2. Not that it much matters; your theory about that phrase referring to control or ruling *still* isn't correct:

Gen 26:1 And there was a famine in the land, beside the first famine that was in the days of Abraham.

More proof that the phrase is used to mark epochs of time, not to show control.

"More similar" doesn't count. It has to be an exact match; that's what we found out above, when you rejected the verses I offered because the phrase was different. So your examples must be exact matches, too. You can't have it both ways - even though I anticipate you'll try your damnedest.

Which basically means that your little rule of thumb is not reliable. The phrase can mean more than one thing.

No, it isn't. The next verse is a change of topic, away from Babylon and on to Israel.

Nonsense There is no discussion or even hint of control in 14:1. It doesn't even use the phrase of your bogus theory "in the days of". You're reaching WAAAAY out here. And considering that the phrase "her days shall not be prolonged" immediately follows a discussion of destruction and desolation, the meaning is clear: it speaks to the lifespan of the city, which Isaiah says is going to be very short.

Note - "Must mean"? Please. The only reason it "must mean" that is because you want to sell that interpretation hard, and cover up the lack of evidence to support the interpretation.

How silly. No it isn't; where the hell did you get that idea? Petra is a rock city build by the Nabateans. It didn't even get the name "Petra" until the Greeks saw it and gave it that name.

No, it means just as I said:


Petra was not built until AFTER the Edomites had already been pushed out. The Brown website refers to finding evidence of Edomites using the same real estate -- the site -- but at a previous time in history, a time BEFORE the building of the stone city. A time when the name of the area was Sela. And as usual, the Brown citation clearly shows what this fact. The Brown citation is from an archaeology website. They are discussing the physical site of the city itself.

And lest anyone forget the reason you are on this little side-trip with another quibble -- you screwed up the Petra/Bozrah identification. Repeating:

The capital of Edom was not Petra; it was Bozrah. So nothing about Petra impacts the prophecy about Edom. You failed to realize that, because you chose poor quality sources for your information; i.e., Josh McDowell. Understandably embarrassing - you went out on a limb in a public forum, and made a colossal mistake. Now you want to steer the audience away from that first class blunder by focusing on Petra, and ignoring the misidentification mistake -- hoping that the audience will forget it.

Excuse me? I don't have to prove that. You are the claimant here, not I. You need to prove that these families and children at the site are not living there. The only data points we have at the moment are:

1. photos of families and children there at the site of Babylon - a strange place for them to be, if it is allegedly uninhabited as you claim;

2. a knowledge that Iraq is in economic shambles, which implies that these Iraqis in the photos cannot afford to spend money they don't have by taking tourist trips to these ruins, thus suggesting again that they live there and are not tourists at all;

Given these data points, the available evidence points more strongly to them them living there, than any other conclusion.

Most facts manage to escape you,though; there's hardly anything astonishing about that. :rolling:

1. The position you are defending says that no rebuilding would take place. The cuneiform text says that it did.

2. We also know that there were religious services carried out at the temple. Apparently the rebuilding was sufficient to allow for the temple to become functional once again. That outcome supposedly was barred by the prophecy; yet it happened anyhow.

Game, set, match.

1. I *have* studied this thoroughly, unlike you.

2. You're trying to change the subject again, because you're not up to the task.
* YOU are the one who needs to prove that Alexander's orders to rebuild the city were not carried out.
* It is part of YOUR argument, not mine.
* Therefore YOU need to look it up to see if that actually happened; not me.

No, what you've read is snippets of Arrian that were quoted (usually out of context) on bible prophecy websites, and from people like McDowell. You have not read Arrian himself.

I mean - who do you think you're kidding, lee? You're too lazy to look up things on the internet, where it's at your fingertips and you can use a search engine. And you want us to believe that you've actually read Arrian (or even extended portions of Arrian)?

Asked and answered already. I'm not doing any of your homework for you, lee. Get off your lazy dishonest ass, go out and look it up yourself.

THe comparison is between:

(1) Saddam's troop quarters at the Babylon palace and
(2) Ft Bragg.

You claimed that Saddam's base was not like Ft Bragg. Present the evidence.

What appearances? You have presented no such "appearances". Still waiting on evidence.

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?

Babylon was on trading routes for 1500 years after the prophecy of desolation was uttered. So this part has already "been arranged" - the prophecy failed.

Huh? I'm not claiming two refutations. I'm pointing out that your ad hoc claims about Islam have been refuted by two different groups of people: (1) skeptics and (2) muslims.

Maybe if you "exercised your reading" a little more carefully, you wouldn't make such obvious mistakes.

Sauron

It's preposterous because

1. you haven't proven that anyone has tried and failed;

2. you haven't given any reason why someone would *want* to try and do this, considering the other failures in the Babylon prophecy have already sunk the boat


You're a liar, lee. That is not what he said. Let's see it again:

As a Muslim, I believe in the truth of the prior scriptures and if the OT says that Babylon will never be rebuilt, then I would hold that to be true.


And another poster apparently knows you pretty well:

However, it now seems that your interest is in proving the Quran errant by the circuitous route of proving the Bible true where it seems to differ with the Quran.

It is interesting that were the city of Babylon rebuilt despite the finality you attach to the Biblical misinterpretation, its reality would be quickly denied to maintain Christian faith by peculiar logic. To satisfy Christian apologetics one would have to restore the city with the original material, specific buildings and equally impossibly, the original dates of existence. One is familiar with Christian excesses for supporting the indefensible.

Yeah, sure. We believe that. You claim to love the truth, yet you tell some pretty whopping big lies.

Sauron

It amazes me how lee just flings out claims and statements about areas of knowledge that he has no fucking clue about. Ancient maritime navigation, archaeology, geology, ancient near eastern siege warfare, islam, etc. Anytime lee needs to fill in one of the many gaps in his evidence, he just tosses a claim out, even if he doesn't have a nickel's worth of background in the subject matter. He tries to pretend that it doesn't matter because they're just opinions - but they're NOT opinions. They are claims. And as such, claims need to be proven. I don' know why he thought that opinions were acceptable anyhow; opinions don't count as evidence in a debate. :huh:

I knew lee was going to self-destruct on the Islam claim from the very start. I guess I should have told him that my formal education (one of my bachelor degrees) was in Arabic Lang & Lit, with a concentration in Quran and hadith. I assumed he had read other posts of mine and might know that already. Apparently he didn't.

He frequents several online groups, so he'll just recycle the same arguments elsewhere.

I was hoping lee would invite some of his fellow church members to view this thread. Maybe even get them to participate. I suspect that they would not be impressed with his performance in the debate, however. They're probably embarrassed to be associated with him. I have to wonder if he's like that in real life; arguing a point to the 20th degree, when it was obvious at the 2nd or 3rd degree that he was hopelessly incorrect.

Oh, and sorry that it's taken me so long to respond. I had a total computer meltdown two days ago. I've been rebuilding my system ever since. And no, lee - I am not going to provide you with evidence that it was "rebuilt".

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

I suppose that is why the person responding to my question posted 101 Bible contradictions from a Muslim web site? Because they are not trying to disprove the Bible?

I not only have to prove my point, I also have to measure the effect if I am incorrect? That is not typically part of a debate, my job, as I see it, is to try and prove this point.

Well, I have mentioned some of this already. During the (possibly extended) times when Babylon was a swamp, sheep would not be grazed there. Please don't ask me again to prove that sheep would not be taken to a swamp for grazing, this point should be self-evident. If you and Sauron are really having difficulty seeing this point, I don't see how we can have any sort of reasonable discussion.

Then in the time when Babylon was not a swamp, Josh MacDowell quotes Floyd Hamilton ("The Basis of Christian Faith") as reporting that "there are various superstitions current among the Arabs that prevent them from pitching their tents there, while the character of the soil prevents the growth of vegetation suitable for the pasturage of flocks," and Nora Kubie ("Road to Nineveh") is quoted as saying that "not a blade of grass would grow in the peculiar soil."

Well, yes, I don't insist that it was always a swamp, and I do expect that people would choose a more challenging venue than a pasture as their hunting grounds.

Well, again, this is a different point than the one at issue, do please read what I said! For my response will be the same. As far as this different point, I don't mind if Muslims believe the Bible! But it would seem they are trying to disprove it, as are the skeptics, until I present this very straightforward way to disprove it! Then it seems they are not so enthusiastic, for some reason.

That is what I am doing, I am defending the claims in the opening post, and not all the points in each verse, some of the points in these verses are incidental to the topic of the debate. Why not be like Cajela, and say that I need not prove a banner was raised on a hilltop? That is incidental to the topic in the first post.

This does not, however, answer my point, it does not even address it...

Here was the definition you gave me: "The dictionary puts that word in terms of human habitation and suitability for living beings." And this is not simply the presence or absence of people.

But the point was about "her days will not be prolonged," not about no rebuilding, you are still making points about no rebuilding.

Well, you can claim victory, and so can I, but that does not establish our conclusions. I think I should stop discussing with you now, Sauron, for the second time in two threads, I wish you well, but it seems you are quite prone to making assertions, and repeating yourself, so I think my time would be more profitably spent reading other posts here and elsewhere...

Regards,
Lee

cajela

Actually, no-one has demanded proof of the banner. There's no point quibbling over trivia when the evidence that Babylon lasted a long time & even after its decline was rarely uninhabited is so strong.

However, in a small note or two of trivia:
1) the picture I linked to shows green stuff in it. So much for 'the character of the soil prevents the growth of vegetation suitable for the pasturage of flocks," and Nora Kubie ("Road to Nineveh") is quoted as saying that "not a blade of grass would grow in the peculiar soil."'

2) A swamp does not rule out grazing (nor game parks, Johnny, especially if the game is wild ducks.). Also, grazing land does not prevent hunting - try telling that to the British farmers who got pissed off about their land being ridden over by fox-hunters.

Sven

Umm, sorry, Sauron - you may note that I brought up exactly this in the former discussion on Babylon (in EoG). Lee already has invented some BS to wriggle out of this inconvenient citation, he merely has to quote himself here.