Jack the Bodiless

Lee:
Saddam had to evict those people to build his palace there. So, yes, they were living on the site.
On the contrary: no reasonable person CAN deny that the prophecy has ALREADY failed.

It would have failed even if the site HAD been deserted when Saddam's builders moved in: because Babylon wasn't supposed to exist in Alexander's time either.

The reason you "aren't convinced" is because you have no intention of renouncing Christianity.

Helpmabob

Hi Sven - I am merely faithfully writing what I observe. This is an incorrect assessment of my knowledge of Jesus, I am afraid. If Jesus’ only testified on His own behalf, that would invalidate His testimony, but there is another who testifies on Jesus’ behalf – the Holy Spirit (see [Romans 7:7-13]). As well as the Bible, I know that which is revealed and confirmed by the Spirit. Importantly, I find they are in concordance. I think if you dispute this you are advising me what I do and don't know and can and can't appreciate. You're not a fascist are you Sven?

Hi Red Dave - What about the Pope?Not nonsense; I’ve given it a chance, and I really do think it is fulfilled prophecy. Y clearly don’t – and there is the crux with these particular prophecies: you can decide whether or not you will accept them.

Sven

Since you have no means to observe

they have not looked properly or earnestly enough, with the wrong motives

this excuse does not work at all.

:banghead:
You again cite words for your claim that you have more than words.

How do you "know" this? By reading words?

Do you mean revelation by the Holy Spirit and the words you read? Funny that we hear similar claims from Christians who do believe in different things, don't you think? Doesn't make that "knowlegde" at all, IMO. Knowledge is something which one arrives at automatically if one uses the same means.

Holy-fucking-strawman!
I'm pointing out that you've only words to know something about Jesus, and instead of correcting me by explaining what other means you have to know about him, you call me a fascist?

Johnny Skeptic

Message to Helpmabob: The following is a post that I just made at the EofG forum:


It is impossible for me to will myself to accept a being who never intends to offer parole to skeptics even after they have been in hell for trillions of years. Such a being is most certainly not merciful, and most certainly not worthy of being accepted.

One definition that the Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary gives for the word “mercy” is “Mercy implies compassion that forbears punishing even when justice demands it”. Using that apt definition as a basis, my revision reads “Mercy implies that God will not punish skeptics for all of eternity even though they have not done what he wanted them to do. Such a God would offer skeptics a parole after a specified period of time that he deemed to be appropriate”.

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

Would this be a dodge?

Here are my arguments about prophecy...

In the ruins? Yes? No, that need not mean they built their houses among the ruins of Babylon, and they could have been evicted if they lived nearby, which I consider more probable that they didn't build where the archaeologists would object, since they objected to Hussein's building project.

This is news to me!

Blessings,
Lee

Johnny Skeptic

Message to Lee Merrill: The following is from a Christian web site:

http://askelm.com/news/n060221.htm

The city is described in Isaiah 13:19 as “Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees’ excellency [pride].” This will be Babylon’s status just before its overthrow to destruction so complete that it will never be inhabited again: “neither shall it be dwelt [tabernacled] in from generation to generation” (Isaiah 13:20), not even by beasts (Isaiah 13:20–21; Jeremiah 50:12–13). That is definitely not the situation today, people and beasts (livestock) live at the ancient site of Babylon in the present day. They live there not just temporarily (which is what “tabernacled” means), but they live there permanently. Therefore, this prophecy of Isaiah chapter 13 has not yet occurred in history

The destruction of Babylon will begin with an attack from “great nations from the north” (Jeremiah 50:9, and no the United States is not north of Babylon according to any biblical understanding). A great drought will affect the waters around Babylon (Jeremiah 50:38). As Dr. Martin points out from Jeremiah 50:3, the land surrounding Babylon will also suffer desolation. The judgment, punishment, and destruction of Babylon will be completed by God (Revelation 18:8, 18:17–21). The kings (rulers) of the earth who have dealings with Babylon and will bemoan its destruction (Revelation 18:9).

Johnny: Some time ago, I read some Bible commentaries and other Christian sources that essentially said the same thing. I have yet to find any Christian source that agrees with you, but then again, your intention has been to avoid providing any corroboration from experts to support your arguments lest you embarrass yourself. If this were a college debate, you would lose hands down due to a complete lack of any corroborative evidence from experts.

The web site that I quoted mentioned Jeremiah 50:12-13. In the NIV, the verses read "your mother will be greatly ashamed; she who gave you birth will be disgraced. She will be the least of the nations - a wilderness, a dry land, a desert. Because of the Lord's anger she will not be inhabited but will be completely desolate. All who pass Babylon will be horrified and scoff because of all her wounds". Obviously, Babylon is not a wilderness and completely desolate.

Not at all. You are evasive, not me. I have asked you on numerous occasions what benefits Muslims would enjoy if they discredited the Babylon prophecy, but you have always refused to do so because you are well aware that there aren't any.

Ok, now to answer your ridiculous question, although I am well aware that you will not comply with my request to tell us what benefits Muslims will enjoy if they discredit the Babylon prophecy. You are not comparing apples to apples. You issued a challenge to MUSLIMS, but as far as I know, you are discussing your challenge EXCLUSIVELY with SKEPTICS. On the other hand, I issue challenges to Christians frequently, and I approach THEM, not some third party to whom I did not issue the challenges. You speak for Muslims, but you never invite any of them to this forum. If I issued a challenge to Muslims, I would invite them to this forum, and I would circulate my challenge to them worldwide on the Internet. You have made it clear that you do not wish for Muslims to know about your challenge.

I read your comments, but they are are not sufficient regarding the Babylon prophecy. Please answer the following questions that I plan to send to Wheaton College:

1 - Do you believe that Muslims are missing a golden opportunity to discredit the Babylon prophecy?

2 - Are you not missing golden opportunities to widely circulate your challenge among Muslims?

3 - You frequently speak for Muslims, but why haven't you invited any Muslims to this forum to let them speak for themselves?

4 - I said “But you need to ask Muslims specifically about the prophet Isaiah”. You replied “Not if the Qur'an restores the Bible, then all that the Qur'an doesn't say, was added by man, and really needs to be refuted”. Why must you insist on speaking for Muslims instead of letting them speak for themselves? Do they not have a right to reply to your challenge? Is it possible that you have misinterpreted what the Koran says? Do you consider yourself to be an expert on the Koran? Is it your intention not to involve Muslims in these discussions, the very people to whom you issued your challenge?

5 - If your challenge is a valid challenge, why isn't one single well-known Christian widely publicizing the challenge?

6 - Do you know of any Bible commentaries that agree with your arguments?

7 - Do you know of any fundamentalist Christian scholars who agree with your arguments?

8 - Do you know of any church pastors who agree with your arguments?

9 - If Babylon were rebuilt, would you give up Christianity?

10 - If Arabs were to pitch their tents in Babylon, would you give up Christianity if you were certain that Arabs had pitched their tents in Babylon?

11 - If Babylon were to be rebuilt, do you believe that the size of the Christian church would decrease in size at least one tenth of one percent?

12 - If Babylon were to be rebuilt, do you believe that the U.S. would adopt a friendly foreign policy towards Muslims?

I suspect that you will not clearly answer my questions. If such is the case, it doesn't really matter because I am going to invite some well-prepared Muslims to this forum to debate you, and I am going to contact Wheaton College within a week. If you refuse to answer my questions, I will go back and find some of your previous arguments in this thread and send them to Wheaton College. If the Muslims who I contact want to debate you at their web sites, will you debate them at their web sites? If you refuse to debate them at their web sites, which I predict that you will, I will be a go-between between you and them. It will be quite entertaining to see you arguing with well-prepared Muslims and fundamentalist Christians scholars. Please be advised that I will contact at least four fundamentalist Christian colleges, not just Wheaton college. What other three fundamentalist Christian colleges do you recommend that I contact? I want to discredit you with your own sources. You have already said in the past that you like Wheaton College.

As I have told you before, I always have my "ace in the hole" argument, namely my "nature of God argument". I frequently debate the nature of God at the GRD forum and the EofG forum. I am quite certain that you will refuse to debate the nature of God with me at one of those forums, but I thought that I would issue a challenge to you anyway. Even better, how about a moderated debate on the nature of God?

Sauron

And you were rebutted in that other thread as well. You simply waited a few weeks, ignored the rebuttal, posted the same crap all over again. Creationist tactic, used on ancient history topics. Not surprising.

1. Saddam's building plan (a) was destructive and (b) hadn't been there for decades. These people were living in the ruins, making use of them - not bulldozing them.

2. You have presented no evidence that archaeologists have been silent about other people living in the ruins. You merely asserted it, as usual.

3. In point of fact, ladies and gentlemen, lee_merrill's depth of experience in archaeology is so shallow and selective that he really can't state with any authority what archaeologists have -- or have not -- protested in the past. What he really should have said was "After perousing the 2 or 3 christian websites that agreed with my position..." :rolling:


They were in the ruins, as the photos clearly show. Your "probably" doesn't cut it here, any more than it has in the past.

*sigh*

1. Babylon was never destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar, as the prophecy requires.

2. Babylon was indeed rebuilt - as I thrashed you with in the other thread.

3. We have photographic and historical evidence that people have re-inhabited parts of it.

Game. Set. Match.

Only a desperate bible literalist with his eyes closed and both fingers stuck in his years could say otherwise.

Helpmabob

Hi Sven - Obviously I have only observed a fraction of a % of the attitudes fostered and the comments made by a tiny fraction of a % of those who do not believe. But it remains my observation from that which I have seen. I can accept that you will not buy this empirical evidence as a workable excuse though.I now it might be confusing to try to understand scientifically, but the Spirit is different from printed words, as the verses (Romans 7:7-13) suggest.Okay. Shall we therefore agree to differ on that point – we have both made our position clear? It is a shame, because it is a highly salient point in this discussion: without the Spirit it is impossible to appreciate spiritual prophecy.

Hi Johnny Skeptic – In that sentence, replace sceptics with ‘sinners who have rejected God’s grace’ and see how it scans. Have you tried looking at this from as many different perspectives as possible? God’s mercy has been and will be shown - in the person of Jesus. I am a big sinner, but I am promised this forgiveness – such gracious mercy. I have never counted, but I suspect that in the Old Testament there as many mentions of God’s righteous anger being shown as His mercy. Expect there to be wrath as well as mercy. These matters are serious - don’t put God to the test.

Johnny I enjoy our discussions and I guess I would like you if I knew you personally, but one thing I notice about you: you attack God directly, rather more than my rambling comments (which are sometimes admittedly lacking) about God. Take care.

Johnny Skeptic

Actually, any being, whether good or evil, who has sufficient power, is able to enforce rules of his own choosing, but that does not necessarily mean that he is worthy of worship, or that people with principles and morals are able to accept him.

Romans 9:18 says “Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.” One of the definitions that Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary gives for the word “mercy” is “Mercy implies compassion that forbears punishing even when justice demands it”. Using that apt definition as a basis, my revision reads “Mercy implies that God will not punish skeptics for all of eternity without parole even though his justice demands it.” My position is that the most unmerciful act possible would be for a being to send people to hell for all of eternity without parole.

I will not and cannot accept a God who refuses to eventually offer skeptics a parole. I do not have any choice is the matter. My principles and morals compel me to reject God. God endorses favoritism and eternal punishment without parole. I reject favoritism and eternal punishment without parole. I am not able to will myself to endorse favoritism and eternal punishment without parole. If God wishes to impose impossible conditions upon me, that is his choice, but I do not have any choice in the matter. Do you have a choice whether or not to endorse murder, theft, and lying based upon promised rewards and punishments, and to love a being who demands that you endorse those practices or you will go to hell? How are murder, theft, and lying any worse than favoritism and eternal punishment without parole?

You said “Expect there to be wrath as well as mercy. These matters are serious - don’t put God to the test”. Are you by any chance a fan of Pascal’s Wager? Pascal's Wager has had exactly the reverse effect than what he intended it to have. The more unforgiving and unmerciful God is, the more impossible it becomes for people with principles and morals to accept him. You can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar, but based upon what Roman’s 9:18 says, and based upon God’s refusal to reveal himself to everyone beyond any doubt, God is only interested in catching a limited number of flies. That alone is reason enough for people with principles and morals to reject him, and in fact, such people do not have any choice in the matter.

To what extent will you abandon your principles and morals based upon promised rewards and threats? If you are married, would you approve if your wife endorsed favoritism towards her children? If her children were drowning, would she not do everything that she was able to do to save them all?

I recently made the following post at the existence of God forum:

lee_merrill

Perhaps all skeptics do not agree on their conclusions either?

Though I have repeatedly stated that they would then discredit the Bible, which it seems you are also trying to do.

But my question was why you try and discredit the Bible without an assurance that if you make your case, at least 1% of the Christians will give up their belief? This reply does not answer my question here.

I'm tempted not to answer all these questions (there are more than 12 here!) if you will simply proceed along these lines, which would save me some time here.

But here are my replies: 1) Yes 2) Muslims can find these forums, I also issued a challenge as you know in one forum with Muslims 3) I don’t know many Muslims, actually 4A) Because I think I understand the Muslim position somewhat 4B) Yes, they may certainly reply 4C) It is possible I am mistaken 4D) I am not an expert on the Koran 4E) I would be glad for Muslims to be involved 5) I have no idea 6) No I don’t 7) No 8) No 9) Yes 10) I don’t know 11) I don’t know.

Johnny, you really tend not to discuss the issue at hand, instead you tend to raise a thousand other questions, as indicated by these questions here, the topic of the thread is prophecy, and whether there are any solid fulfilled prophecies, so let’s stick to that subject, please.

How does Sauron know they were living in the ruins, and the archaeologists didn’t mind people building houses on their treasures?

Are you asserting they weren’t silent? But not hearing an objection indicates no objection, but I am not saying it’s certain they did not object, only that it’s probable.

But they don’t, actually, from what I remember. Sauron asserts what is not in the picture (where are the residences pictured within the ruins?) which is perhaps astonishing, after him taking up the whip on the same subject for others.

Where does it say Neb destroys Babylon? Are we again confusing Babylon with prophecy about Tyre?

Alas, it seems rebuilding means rebuilt, in your book, but the two are not the same.

Regards,
Lee