Johnny Skeptic

Yes indeed. Lee's first detailed post was his post #10. Part of it reads as follows:

I think that we at least need to give Lee some credit for posting at the Theology Web and at a Muslim web site. However, if he does not choose to comment on his findings, I will only accept cash from him from here on.

Lee's favorite debate topic is prophecy, but I am pretty sure that sooner or later he will lose interest in prophecy.

At a web site at http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...e/1_bible.html, Alex Matulich discusses and adequately refutes various Bible prophecies. Following are some excerpts from the article:

“The Bible does indeed contain many fulfilled prophecies. It contains both hits and misses, however, but Dr. (James) Kennedy doesn't say so. In this chapter he relies on a logical pitfall known as the ‘fallacy of composition’; i.e., assuming that a property shared by parts of something must apply to the whole. In other words, he implies that if some things in the Bible are demonstrably true, then that is sufficient reason for trusting the soundness of the entire book. Unfortunately the converse is equally valid, so this kind of ‘ammunition’ does not convince."

Obviously God has gone out of his way to make certain that not even one single Bible prophecy presents clear, unmistakable evidence of divine inspiration. If such evidence existed, surely a lot more people would end up in heaven and a lot less people would end up in hell. However, God will have none of that.

Now while God was prophesying against the enemies of the Jews in the Middle East, what in the world was he doing elsewhere? Oh yes, I know the answer. Since modern methods of transportation had not yet been developed, he had to stay home in the Middle East.

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

Oh dear. This was a verse to support the topic that was selected, the verse was not the topic, the topic was the topic. I am not going to apply myself to discussing whether Babylon was the jewel of the kingdoms, either, the pertinent part of the verse is the part that speaks to the chosen topic for the debate. I use the term "debate" loosely, here! For it seems this is not at all resembling a formal debate.

Well, I suppose that if 999 of them fall into disuse, then the city still would not be "becoming desolate." And the context of Isaiah, and the simile with Sodom has nothing to do with the interpretation here, and as far as the dictionary, I read: "Rendered unfit for habitation or use: the desolate cities of war-torn Europe," which presumably refers to the effects of bombs on the buildings on the cities, making the city desolate, as in the deterioration of the buildings at Babylon.

Well, the Lord says he will stretch out his hand, which could quite well involve the Greek army, and "you will be desolate" tells us nothing about the interval over which the city was to become desolate, and "her days will not be prolonged" would indeed have been overturned, if Alex had restored Babylon, as he had planned.

Well, this is simply untrue, here again are the verses:

Judges 5:6 In the days of Shamgar son of Anath, in the days of Jael, the roads were abandoned; travelers took to winding paths.

Judges 15:20 Samson led Israel for twenty years in the days of the Philistines.

Ezra 4:7 And in the days of Artaxerxes king of Persia, Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel and the rest of his associates wrote a letter to Artaxerxes.

And they are indeed about control, about rulers and judges, "in the days" referring to when they were ruling and judging.

Um, an inanimate object has control? No, I hold that "in the days" refers to people being in control, to the days when Babylonians ruled, in Babylon.

But the phrase in Jer. 51:26 is "desolate forever," so then Alex rebuilding some would only overthrow the prophecy if he had actually restored it, as he had been intending. "Not rebuilt or reinhabited," that is the point at issue.

Well, it says more than that, though: "Alexander the Great captured the city in 330 BC and planned to rebuild it and make it the capital of his vast empire, but he died before he could carry out his plans."

So he planned to rebuild it, and he failed.

Yes, "Little is known about the Edomites at Petra itself," that's just my point, this implies some (little) is known about the Edomites at Petra itself.

Well, yes, I did, it actually seems to prove my point, if I may say so.

What evidence, may I ask? I think it more likely they were visitors, as at the ruins in other areas of the world, people do not tend to live in the ruins themselves.

Well, perhaps that is why Sauron does not start threads! For then anyone could make counter-claims, and not need to prove them, as long as they maintained that all of Sauron's points were not yet proved.

But no one rebuilt it! That is the point, people do hold services in bombed-out churches. And a last recorded service does not mean services continued until then.

Do you have the Arrian book? That would be where I would recommend checking, he mentions a rebuilding attempt of a large temple.

Thank you! This is refreshing.

Yes, I think so.

Well, the village is an deduction made by others, but I expect those who were displaced did not live in the ruins of the city.

This is a pertinent point! This is also refreshing. Now the palace was considered to have not been really used, apparently it was a showcase, but not what most people would think of as inhabited, like a city, and there is not a military base there, in the sense of the base nearby where I live, at Fort Bragg, NC. Soldiers in tents, there temporarily, again, not what people generally mean by an inhabited city.

Yes, that would be fine, though (it's 1 AM here), I'm rather busy this week.

Yes, that is my position.

The more, the merrier, you may contact Dallas seminary, Trinity seminary in Chicago, Wheaton college in Chicago, all of them and more...

I believe that God controls all events in the world, so this swamp was no accident. But regardless, let's say that the prophecy in such times was probable, we would not expect the city to be rebuilt, as you said. Now it is not a swamp, so then the prophecy becomes improbable, in such times, such as now, when you or someone else can rebuild it.

It seems the Muslims are reluctant to insist that the Qur'an is correct when it conflicts with the Bible! That is an odd position for a Muslim to take, and I shall press this point, for I think it is quite against a basic principle in Islam.

Regards,
Lee

Johnny Skeptic

:love: Isaiah 13:20 says “She will never be inhabited or lived in through all generations; no Arab will pitch his tent there, no shepherd will rest his flocks there.� It is that latter part of the verse that defeats your arguments. I think that even a good number of Christian scholars will agree with me that it can reasonably be interpreted “Arabs will never pitch their tents there, and shepherds will never graze their flocks there.�
You must produce evidence that Arabs have never pitched their tents in Babylon, and that shepherds have never grazed their flocks there, both prior to and subsequent to when there was a wild game park. Even if the land had not been suitable for shepherds to graze their flocks, that still leaves open a reasonable possibility that wandering nomadic Arabs occasionally pitched their tents there.

I predicted their reluctance, and it was in fact a given. Muslims and almost all of the Christians in the world are well aware that if Babylon were to be rebuilt, only a relative handful of Christians would give up Christianity. Therefore, Muslims would have nothing whatsoever to gain from rebuilding Babylon, or for that matter from sending Arabs to pitch their tents there or from sending shepherds to graze their flocks there.

I expect that Lee’s request will not be answered, or that if it is answered no one will agree with him. What I suggest that Lee do is send a private message to James Holding and ask him for his opinion on this matter. In addition, I suggest that he ask some members of his church what their opinions are on this matter. Further, I will contact Dallas Theological Seminary and Liberty University.

Regarding Lee’s comments “It seems the Muslims are reluctant to insist that the Qur'an is correct when it conflicts with the Bible! That is an odd position for a Muslim to take, and I shall press this point, for I think it is quite against a basic principle in Islam,� he is actually attempting to explain the basic principles of Islam to Muslims. What he does not realize is that even if he is right he still loses because for purposes of these debates it doesn’t matter what the basic principles of Islam actually are, but rather how Muslims interpret the principles. All Muslims will oppose Lee, not just the ones who he contacted.

Sauron

Oh, please. What a load of grade-A bullshit.

1. First you introduce these items (sheep, grazing, etc.) into the discussion.
2. You make rather exorbitant statements and claims. Given your customary laziness, of course, you provide zero support for the statements.
3. Predictably, you get challenged on them.
4. Finding yourself backed into a corner and unable to support your statements, you try to rule out your claims and narrow the discussion to the original post from Johnny Skeptic.
5. But you didn't look carefully enough - the original post from Johnny contains the verse in question, with the claims in question. You tried to escape from the noose you made for yourself, but you wound up tightening the knot instead.
6. Now having painted yourself into another corner, you want to ignore the verse in the original post and pretend the debate only covers the comment in the original post.

The opening statement in a debate is like a contract: you need to read all of it, and if it makes refeernces to other items or verses, they become part of the opening statement. So it's really too bad that you didn't read carefully enough, lee. But you don't get to re-define the parameters of how a debate is traditionally conducted merely because you were too lazy and careless to read the entire opening post. How utterly lame and pathetic.

We are being far more formal about it than you are. You have:

• refused to support your claims with sources;
• tried several times to shift the burden of proof to others, when you yourself are the claimant here;
• tried to change the topic of the debate in the middle of the debate, after it has already started;
• just here above tried to re-define how a debate is conducted, merely to cover up for the fact that you failed to read the opening post carefully enough;
• exhibited a total lack of professionalism from the very first day of this debate

It is as I've always said - you aren't sincere about any of this; it's just a game you like to play.

1. "Becoming desolate" doesn't count. It has to already *be* desolate.
2. The city never approached desolation, so your answer is off-the-mark.

Yes, it does. According to legend, Sodom and Gomorrah were desolate - no one lived there after the destruction. And in the bombed out areas of Europe, the same thing: no one lived there after the destruction. Desolation has to do with human habitation, not the status of buildings. You still keep missing that point - deliberately so.

Missing the point again. The "won't be built again" part does not start until the desolation is finished and is a done deal. God says "I am going to destroy you, and the destruction will be so complete that no one will ever want to build here again." That is the context of the verses.

Sorry, you've just waved your hands, gone in a big circle and repeated your original unfounded claim. Which entitles me to repeat the refutations:

1. "Her days will not be prolonged" speaks about the lifespan of the city before falling to the judgement and destruction mentioned in the verses immediately preceding those words. Any situation where the city lived for 1500 years before finally becoming desolate is inconsistent with that phrase. Therefore, your intentionally dishonest interpretation does not work.

2. You have no evidence that Alexander failed to restore Babylon. Repetition is not proof. Your only citation from Encarta does not support that claim. It merely says that he failed to make it his capital - which is an entirely different claim. There were nine years between the time Alexander took Babylon, and the time he died. During that time, his construction plans were being implemented.

No, what I said is quite true; the phrase indicates how time was marked. And by the way: repeating the verses does not prove your point *about* those verses. In the first place, the verses you have cited here have a different phrasing from the prophecy in Isaiah. Your verses all say "in the days of". But that isn't what Isaiah says; he says "her days." "In the days of" is not the same as "her days." When attached to a possessive, there is no indication of rulership:

In addition, there are several other verses where your construction "in the days of" actually is used, but there is no king or ruler associated with them:

So it is just as I said: the phrase you fixated on is similar to "in the days of Shakespeare", or "in the days of the horse and buggy." It is used to indicate a time period. What's more, the phrase you fixated on isn't even the same phrase that Isaiah uses. So your ridiculous little derailment doesn''t work, for not one, but TWO good reasons. :rolling:

No, of course it doesn't. But that's what your homemade theory requires; it's just an outcome of your newest assertion above. Don't blame me when your pet theories have silly conclusions; you should have thought them through more carefully.

Except that:

1. the phraseology in Isaiah is different;
2. the phrase "in the days" does not indicate control; and
3. the context of the verse makes it clear that "her days" refers to the city's lifespan before the promised destruction - it is not referring to control at all.

Incorrect. You have no evidence that Alexander failed to restore Babylon. We know he failed to finish out his plans and make it his capital. But that says nothing about how far he got with the restoration part of his project. You're trying to build an entire argument based on a half-sentence in a citation. And as usual, you are filling in the blanks of missing data with your assertions and imaginations. Does not work. :rolling:

Moreover, the city was not in decline. It was still the largest, most spectacular city in the world. It was the NYC of the ancient near east.

That would be impossible, since 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. Blue text to show where your creative interpretation was already explained and refuted:

n point of fact, there is an intersection between Petra and Edom - the Edomites lived in the geographical area (Sela) that would one day become Petra. But they did not live there *while* it was Petra, the stone city. This is well-known, and it is also known to Brown University. And since you're being totally thick-headed, let's look at the Brown University quote again, to show everyone how you're deliberately twisting their statement:

Little is known about the Edomites at Petra itself, but as a people they were known for their wisdom, their writing, their textile industry, the excellence and fineness of their ceramics, and their skilled metal working.

But since it also says:

According to tradition, in ca. 1200 BCE, the Petra area (but not necessarily the site itself) was populated by Edomites and the area was known as Edom ("red").

Then clearly Brown University is not saying that *nothing* is known about those Edomites. It merely says "little is known".

The Brown citation is from an archaeology website. They are discussing the physical site of the city itself.

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.

But we haven't. So this little diversion isn't going to work either, lee.

OH, I'm sure you'll always "say so", since what you say has little connection to reality. But what was just posted *refutes* your position. But you knew that it refuted you all along; you just pretended otherwise.

More games from lee merrill.....

Already answered. Blue again:

1. These were not foreign photographers. They were US military.

2. Iraqis don't have a lot of money or extra resources to spend to be running around ruins at the moment. In case you missed it, Iraq has been at war and the economy and standard of living have been ruined.

3. If you think these kids and Iraqi adults were visitors, then by all means prove it. But the evidence suggests that they were local kids whose families lived at the site.

1. What you think is irrelevant, since the evidence shows that you'll twist anything you can to keep up your quibble-fest.

2. People do live in ruins.

Except that I start many threads. Your lack of investigation is showing. As usual. But I never open threads without having all my arguments carefully ready, and all my sources at my fingertips. In that respect, you and I are polar opposites.

1. No, that is your claim. Aid it is incorrect. It was rebuilt. Already gave you this reference; guess I have to do it again:
http://www.livius.org/ba-bd/babylon/babylon.html

In 331, the Macedonian conqueror Alexander the Great, who was fighting a war against the Persians, captured Babylon (text). Later, he intended to make the city his residence, and he ordered several building projects, like a large river port, a theater, and a reconstruction of the Etemenanki. Building activity related to the Esagila is mentioned in several cuneiform sources and continued as late as the early 280's, when the Seleucid crown prince Antiochus used his elephants to remove the debris (text).

Did you get it that time? :rolling:

Why should I be the one to check this? It's your claim, lee - do your own research. Don't ask others to do it for you.

Sauron

No, it's a statement of fact.

Incorrect on all counts.

1. Saddam had several palaces. He rotated among them. During the times when he was not there the palaces were still staffed with people.

2. Military bases are inhabited. Fort Bragg has permanent housing for service members.

Since these are your claims, lee, why do you expect others to do the legwork to support them?

Oh, and you might want to know: Dallas Theological Seminary was the source for most of Josh McDowell's shoddy research in "Evidence that Demands a Verdict", chapter 11, Prophecy Fulfilled in History. I might also point out that in the latest printings of that book, most of that chapter was left out - apparently McDowell had been embarrassed into removing it.

So good luck with Dallas Theological Seminary, lee. :rolling:


Tsk, tsk. Assuming your conclusion again? :huh:

You have no proof that the Quran conflicts with the bible on this point. And if you remember, that is precisely why you posted on those other two boards - to find out if that was the case, or not. So you cannot assume this to be true.

Except you don't know diddly-squat about Islam, lee. You made all sorts of claims about Islam, only to discover that the reality was just as I told you. Given that fact, I suspect that your continued attempts to "press the point" will only result in more embarrassment for yourself. But go ahead - you make a fine example of a christian.

cajela

Just a thought - lee wants Babylon to be rebuilt to invalidate the prophecy. But since the prophecy actually says "no arab will pitch a tent there", surely an arab pitching a tent there would be enough. That wouldn't be too hard to arrange That would be funny. I wonder if any iidb members in Iraq would be willing.

Or actually, possibly more directly, check this out - this guy says: "The Marines have set up their two-man tents inside the palace. All windows were vandalized prior to the Marines arriving. Marines sleep in tents at night to limit the mosquito exposure. Malaria is an epidemic in this area." I wonder if any marines are of arab descent


BTW, here's Saddam's palace in Babylon. Doesn't that look like a house in the foreground? Saddam's palace

Sven

[lee]
Tsk, tsk, cajela, you don't know if someone lives there in the house. Maybe he just build it and forgot it later.

And even if some people live there, some is certainly not enough to call Babylon "inhabited". It have to be at least 10, 100, 621, 299, or 1 000 000 people to call it so (I don't have to
give a definitive number, it's just that you get the idea).

And these people have to live there for say five, or ten, or fifteen years

You have to proof all this before you can Babylon "inhabited".
[/lee]

Lee will never conceed this. Even if people did as he calls for and rebuild Babylon today, and let 100 000 people live there, he would resort back to his claims in the Tyre thread, that it have to be Babylonians who have to reinhabit it - or some similar bullshit.

Sauron

I'ts only getting worse for lee over at BibleandQuran.

Thus demonstrating why I insisted that lee prove that muslims would care to rebuild Babylon. Since Islam agrees with Christianity on many points, it is not a foregone conclusion that muslims would disagree on this point.

Also notice that lee's muslim opponent has already spotted lee's habit of ignoring answers that are given to him, in favor of repeating his initial claim.

Here we see Lee gets thrashed some more:

So basically lee has been refuted by by skeptics AND muslims. Must be tough being lee_merrill. :rolling:

rickP

Johnny, is this typical of Holding? I have never seen such childish and rude behaviour. He couldn't write a sentence without calling you, dumdum, twit, stupid, slack jawed, etc... He sounded like a spoiled, petulant child. And constantly threatens to tell on you. Who is this guy?

Toto

This is typical of Holding at his worst. He is capable of better performance.

Introduction to Holding