Johnny Skeptic

If you are making a case that God predicts the future in order to demonstrate his power, that does not make any sense because God could do much more to demonstrate his power than he has done. Refusing to provide indisputable evidence could not possibly benefit God or anyone else. If God really wanted to help skeptics, he would provide them with more evidence. Of course, there is not a necessary correlation between power and good character. God does not have good character as judged by his own rules. May I ask what puts you in a position to judge that God is good, perfect, and infallible? It takes a perfect, infallible being to know one, and you are not one, and neither were the Bible writers.

There is nothing indisputable about Isaiah's claim that no Arab will ever pitch his tent in Babylon. Isaiah 13:19-20 give three ways to overturn the Babylon prophecy, rebuilding Babylon, a shepherd grazing his flock in Babylon, or an Arab pitching his tent in Babylon. Logically, overturning a prophecy that is easy to overturn discredits the Bible just as much as overturning a prophecy that is difficult to overturn. A lie is a lie regardless of how difficult it is to overturn.

Why should anyone trust your interpretation of the Babylon prophecy over the interpretation of most fundamentalist Christian experts? How is it that you have become able to know more than the vast majority of fundamentalist Christian scholars? Are you more intelligent or more spiritual than they are? Do you want to please God more than they do?

Johnny Skeptic

Message to Lee Merrill. Fortunately, that vast majority of people will take the word of experts over your own personal opinion. Consider the following:

William MacDonald's "Believer's Bible Commentary"

http://www.raptureready.com/rr-iraq.html

No rational person would trust you own personal opinion over the opinions of the vast majority of fundamentalist Christian scholars. You said that the truth does not depend upon a show of hands. While that is sometimes true, such as in Galileo's case, there are not any reliable ways for people to pick out people like Galileo in advance of their claims becoming accepted. Logic indicates that when in doubt, it is best trust a large consensus of experts, especially in the case of the Babylon prophecy since a sizeable consensus of experts of all major worldviews is against you.

Possibly most of all, your arguments regarding the Babylon prophecy are not valid because you have refused to deliver your challenge to the Iraqi government, who are the only people who have the authority to try to discredit the Babylon prophecy.

diana

Excuse me...are you implying only the destruction of Babylon was divine (and the rest was not)? Probably not. Thus, I'm curious how you went about deciding the source of the biblical prophecies were divine.

BTW...when you argue that the "astonishing" nature of the prediction proves it's divine, you imply that you approached the bible record from a neutral stance, one that was as skeptical of the biblical stories as of the Q'ran stories. Somehow, I doubt that's the case. Would you care to comment?

As opposed to a good guess (that can be corroborated through the disqualification of all comers)? How can you tell it's supernatural? What clues you off?

I'm seriously not following your reasoning here. Please help.

d

Johnny Skeptic

Message to Lee Merrill: Aren't you curious about what the Iraqi government would think about your challenge if they heard it? They are the only people whose opinions matter. What skeptics at this forum think about your challenge does not have anything to do with what the Iraqi government's position is. If you were to contact the Iraqi government, there is no doubt whatsoever that you would embarrass yourself.

-Jay-

What kind of an idiot prophet would make a prediction that "X will never happen" after "X", in point of fact, happened?

Your reliance on the "X will never happen" sort of prophecy is interesting. It's the easiest sort to reinterpret, like you're doing with Babylon.

Of course such a prophecy can be based on contemporary events. Any prophecy relating to the future fate of a conquering nation or the long term fate of the Jewish people necessarily has its roots in the Jewish situation at the time of its writing. You won't find a prophecy that doesn't have a connection to contemporary circumstances.

You have yet to provide an example of an indisputable prophecy that says "X will never happen". Babylon isn't it.

Now, Lee, once again. Please give an example of a prophecy that is neither:

A) a reasonable (if perhaps optimistic) extrapolation of contemporary events
B) an ex post facto writing about historical events that is styled to look like prophecy

Please don't repeat what sort of prophecy wouldn't fit in one of these. Give a concrete example.

While you're at it, please explain why there are no putative prophecies that don't reflect an ancient Near-Eastern worldview.

The overarching fact remains that there are no Biblical prophecies that relate to people, places, and events that weren't immediately relevant to the Biblical writers - Biblical prophecy reflects an ancient Near-Eastern understanding of the world.

The myopic nature of Biblical prophecy is a very telling strike against any sort of divine origin for it.

Your answer to this previously was a dodge then a Bible quote, followed by, I think, another Bible quote. None of these are particularly interesting or informative.

regards,

NinJay

Johnny Skeptic

Sure, if your interpretation of the Babylon prophecy is correct, but you cannot reasonably prove that your interpretation of the Babylon prophecy is correct, and that the interpretations of the vast majority of experts on both sides of the aisle are wrong. If an original premise is false, all subsequent arguments are not valid.

No rational God would ever choose to use questionable copies of copies of ancient texts as a primary means of communicating with people, and refuse to provide copies of the texts to hundreds of millions of people who died without having access to them. Inspiring and preserving texts presumes that whoever inspired and preserved them wants people to have access to them, not refuse to provide the texts to hundreds of millions of people who died without having access to them.

lee_merrill

Nope, indeed I meant the failure to rebuild Babylon. Failures.

Well, more attempts to rebuild Babylon, or attempts to reinhabit it would probably be fruitful along these lines.

I did at one point as a Christian believe there were errors in the Bible.

When something in the power of human ability cannot be done on multiple attempts, and we read "this can't be done" in the book.

Isaiah 41:26-29 Who told of this from the beginning, so we could know, or beforehand, so we could say, 'He was right'? No one told of this, no one foretold it, no one heard any words from you. I was the first to tell Zion, 'Look, here they are!' I gave to Jerusalem a messenger of good tidings. I look but there is no one--no one among them to give counsel, no one to give answer when I ask them. See, they are all false! Their deeds amount to nothing; their images are but wind and confusion.

Note also Hitler's attempt to destroy the Jewish nation, and the failure there, this also is expected if the prophecy that there will always be a Jewish nation is being backed up.

I have had people tell me in arguing this point that the Jewish people aren't Jewish. Really. Which shows the extremes people will go to in denying plain facts involved in an unacceptable conclusion.

Regards,
Lee

Johnny Skeptic

No, that would not be convincing enough since some fundamentalist Christian scholars believe that it would be a FULFILLMENT of Bible prophecy if Babylon was rebuilt. Consider the following:

http://www.raptureready.com/rr-iraq.html

The article says that "Some [Bible scholars] believe that [Babylon] will be rebuilt on the very real estate once occupied by ancient Babylon." I assume that you have appointed yourself as the sole arbiter of which Bible scholars are right.

You have not produced even one single FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIAN Bible scholar who agrees with your interpretation of the Babylon prophecy. If your challenge had any merits, surely at least one prominent Christian would be making it, but such is not the case. How do you account for that? Consider the following:

William MacDonald's "Believer's Bible Commentary"

As MacDonald and virtually all fundamentalist Christian Bible scholars know, you have misinterpreted the Babylon prophecy. We need something more convincing than you own uncorroborated personal opinion.

Isaiah 13:19-20 provides three ways to disprove the Babylon prophecy, rebuilding Babylon, a shepherd grazing his flocks in Babylon, and an Arab pitching his tent in Babylon. It would be quite easy for an Arab to pitch his tent in Babylon, and that has probably already happened many times. The amount of difficulty involved in overturning a prophecy is irrelevant. A lie is a lie whether it is difficult or easy to disprove.

Since skeptics do not have any authority to rebuild Babylon, or Edom, or any other ancient city, why are you issuing challenges to skeptics instead of to the governments of the countries where those cities are?

If a loving God exists, and wanted to communciate with humans, he would not use written records as a primary means of communicating with them. He would be tangibly present for everyone to see and talk with. As an analogy, if you had a flying pig, and you wanted people of your generation and all subsequent generations to believe that you had a flying pig, anyone who has just a modest amount of common sense knows that the best thing for you to do would be to tangibly show everyone of all generations that you had a flying pig. You would know that neither you nor anyone else would have anything to gain if you did not show your flying pig to everyone of all generations.

It would be best if God were to show up in person and issue challenges himself. Then no one could doubt that challenges had been made by a real live being. Doubt is not a good thing. If a God exists, doubt is not necessary. If no God exists, then obviously the writers of religious books had no choice except to claim that God requires faith. If a God exists, neither he nor anyone else has anything to gain from his refusal to provide more evidence. A loving God would want to help ensure that at many people as possible go to heaven and not to hell. In additional, a loving God would not play favorites regarding which evidence he shows which people. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. You have admitted this at the Evolution/Creation Forum, but regarding another topic. Another way of putting it is that in order to be fair, no person should be denied evidence that another person has been provided.

Even if a God exists, it is a given that he does not care whether or not people believe that he can predict the future. If he did, he knows that he could easily show up, make an indisputable prediction, and make it come true. Similarly, if the God of the Bible exists, and wants people to believe that intelligent design exists, he would show up and demonstrate that it exists. Wouldn't that be much more convincing than anything that Christians could come up with? Well of course it would. The incredible, odd, and unexplained situation that we have is that God only wants people to believe that intelligent design exists if another human being convinces them to believe that it exists. That would mean that God cares more about some people choosing to TRY to convince other people to believe that intelligent design exists than he cares about how many people BELIEVE that it exists. That does not make any sense. The same argument applies to people who need food. James says that if a man refuses to give food to a hungry person, he is vain, and his faith is dead. Now why do fundamentalist Christians suppose that God inspired James to write that? Surely not to ensure that everyone would have enough food to eat because God refused to give food to hundreds of thousands of people who died of starvation in the Irish Potato Famine. This means that God only wants hungry people to have food if other people give them food. Simply stated, God cares more about HOW people get enough food to eat than he cares about people HAVING enough food to eat. Stated another way, God cares more about METHODS than he cares about RESULTS. It is not very likely that a loving, moral God exists who acts like that.

Since there is not a necessary correlation between power and goodness, you will need a lot more evidence than God's power to make a good case for Christianity.

Why do people believe what they believe? Kosmin and Lachman wrote a book that is titled "One Nation Under God." The authors provide a lot of documented research that shows that in the U.S., the chief factors that determine religious beliefs are family, geography, race, ethnicity, gender, and age. I would like to add time period to that list, meaning which century a person is born in. In the U.S., a much higher percentage of women become Christians than men. That means that God discriminates against men. A much smaller percentage of elderly skeptics become Christians than younger people. That means that God discriminates against elderly skeptics. The Microsoft Encarta Deluxe Edition 2004 says that "The overwhelming majority of the Syrian population is Sunni Muslim." Obviously, God discriminates against children who are raised by Muslim parents. Regarding the spread of the Gospel message in the first century, God discriminated against people who lived far away from Palestine by refusing to tell them about the Gospel message. Of course, it should be obvious to everyone that none of that is true. No loving God would act like that because acting like that could not possibly be necessary towards the achievement of worthy, fair, and just goals.

Paul says that it is not surprising that Satan masquerades as an angel of light. Logically, it would not be any more surprising if God is masquerading as an angel of light.

Will you please tell us what you believe God is trying to accomplish?

Some of this post is not directly related to Bible prophecy, but all of this post relates indirectly to the validity of Christianity.

Johnny Skeptic

But there was not any Jewish nation for Hitler to destroy. A nation has a specific territory and a government. In addition, Hitler was trying to destroy lots of people, not just Jews. If God wanted to protect Jews, he would have protected them from the Philistines, Nebuchadnezzar, the Egyptians, and Titus. In the early part of the second century, Titus went to Palestine to put down a Jewish uprising and killed 500,000 Jews. With friends like God, who needs enemies?

The New Testament basically says that God rewards those who diligently seek him. The vast majority of Jews have rejected Christianity. There is no way that God is going to favor people like that.

I said:

You replied:

I replied:

You believe that Jews are God's chosen people. Chosen for what, may I ask?

Old Testament Jews were deceived by God. They expected the messiah to be a genetic descendant of David, and they did not get one.

By the way, inspiring and preserving texts indicates that whoever inspired and preserved them wants people to have access to them. As it was, hundreds of millions of people died without hearing the Gospel message because God refused to tell them about it. If the God of the Bible does not exist, it is a given that the Gospel message would have been spread entirely according to the existing secular means of communcation, travel, printing, and translation of a given time period, and that those means would have unfairly favored people who lived closer to Palestine.

spin

If you ruly and truly believed it was a genuine meaningful prophecy, you should be amazed. But as it is so unamazing, I can understand why you're not nor is it amazing. You're simply misreading a poet's curse as a prophecy. As a prophecy it was neither stunning nor particularly timely, in that it took Babylon half a millenium to dry up. If I said to you, "may your gonads drop off," would you be amazed that in less that 100 years that will be the case? Your reaction should be like mine towards the so-called Babylon prophecy. (And if you're awake, please use a waving smilie.)

You somehow assume that there may be something supernatural involved. You have to demonstrate that rather than assume it.

(The reason why nobody has interest in Babylon is that there is no commercial reason to rebuild there. If you think you could make a commercial success rebuilding Babylon then go for it. Prove yourself wrong.)


spin