Johnny Skeptic

y post #138 was lengthy, so for Lee Merrill's convenience, if he wishes to he is welcome to reply to the following shorter version instead of replying to the longer version:

1 - There is no evidence that a large percentage of Christians would give up Christianity if Babylon were to be rebuilt, or even 10% of Christians for that matter.

2 - There is no evidence that the majority of Muslims believe that if Babylon were to be rebuilt that a large percentage of Christians would give up Christianity, or ever 10% of Christians for that matter.

3 - There is no evidence that Muslims want to discredit the Babylon prophecy. The Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia 2005 says “Islam recognizes the divine origins of the earlier Hebrew and Christian Scriptures and represents itself as both a restoration and a continuation of their traditions. Because of this, the Qur’an draws on biblical stories and repeats many biblical themes. In particular, the stories of several biblical prophets appear in the Qur’an, some in a condensed form; other stories, such as those of Abraham, Moses, and Jesus, are given in elaborate detail and even with subtle revisions of the biblical accounts.�

4 - There is no evidence that if another attempt to rebuild Babylon failed that even 1% of skeptics would give up skepticism.

5 - As the claimant, Isaiah said that Arabs would never pitch their tents in Babylon, and that shepherds would never graze their flocks there, but the only reasonable proof of that would be records of eyewitness testimonies every ten years from the time of the destruction of Babylon through to the present. Even if testimonies favorable to the prophecy had been made, no written records survive from that far back. It is not up to skeptics to disprove the prophecy. They do not need to claim that the prophecy has not been fulfilled. All that skeptics need to do is to be agnostic on the issue.

John A. Broussard

But you've already admitted that several times, so why do you keep defending other verses in your bible?

Remember those cud chewing rabbits, the sun standing still????????????

Johnny Skeptic

Is Andrew Criddle one of those reasonable people? Is Roger Pearse one of those reasonable people? Is Gakusei Don one of those reasonable people? Is James Holding one of those reasonable people? Is the pastor of Lee's church one of those reasonable people? I can't wait for Lee to speak to these people and be forced to tell them that they are not reasonable people.

Sauron

No, it implies that they believe that they have already discredited the bible, and therefore have no need to do that any further.

No, they give the same reason for that which christians give, when asked why all muslims don't become christian: christians who don't believe the evidence are simply evil and self-deluded. The problem is not with the evidence; it is with the hearts of the christians; they are deliberately darkened and refuse to see the truth.

Funny how distasteful your own arguments sound, when used by others to contradict you.

No, the matter at hand is your claim that muslims ought to want to take up your childish challenge.

In the general case of the bible -- they feel they have 101 (or more) reasons why the bible is ALREADY wrong - so muslims have no reason to take up your silly challenge.

In the specific case of Babylon -- you have no evidence that they disgree with the prophecy, so again -- muslims no reason to take up the challenge.

And in the case of skeptics -- the Babylon prophecy failed for 8 or 9 other reasons. The facts show that the Isaiah prophecy has ALREADY been invalidated by PAST events. That is why nobody should spend a dime to rebuild Babylon: the disproof happened in 539 BCE, when the city peacefully changed hands to the Persians, contrary to prophecy. Multiple other disproofs happened over the following centuries.

I wouldn't spend any time or money proving that Paris was the capital of France, either.

So in all three of the cases in question, there is no need or motivation to take up your lame challenge.

Given your towering ignorance of the Quran, how could you possibly know if that were true or not?

*sigh* Hard to believe you are really so dense, lee.

In the general case of the bible -- the muslims believe they already have such evidences - 101 of them in fact. Yet the christians still stubbornly cling to their apostasy and polytheism. One more evidence won't convince them, if the previous 101 did not.

In the specific case of Babylon - the muslims wouldn't try to rebuild Babylon, because they agree with the prophecy. Why would they try to invalidate a prophecy that they agree with? That would be like asking christians to try to rebuild Babylon, just to see if God really meant what he said: how many christians do you think would take up that challenge? I think most of them woudl consider it blasphemous and "tempting God".

Not true.

1. Items #1 and #2 were included in the verses YOU mentioned in YOUR opening statement;

2. YOU introduced these arguments specifically in the debate YOURSELF

They are part of the debate - that was YOUR doing, YOU made them part of the debate by YOUR own actions. A little late to be trying to backtrack on that now, isn't it? :rolling:

He doesn't have to. You are the claimant here, not Johnny.

Translation: you are in over your head and would dearly love to avoid any work. But at the same time, you don't want to admit that your claim has failed.

So now you want to "agree to disagree", and hope everyone forgets about the fact that your claims about sheep and shepherds have all been shredded by now.

Oh, really? And you base this statement upon ---- what, exactly?

Your exposure to muslims? You have next to none.
Your study of the Quran? Also none.
Your examination of modern islamic thought? Zero there as well.

Once again, you fill in the blanks of your knowledge with your overactive fundamentalist imagination. The claim above (that Muslims believe the Bible wherever it does not differ from the Qur'an) is accurate. You simply didn't know about it, and are having a hard time working it into your Amway sales pitch for the Babylon prophecy. So you're now attempting to ignore it, because it's messing up your carefully practiced spiel.

Incorrect - it does not imply that.
Incorrect - it does not imply that, either.

Ok, then let's see the "many examples" you think exist. Also give the sura and/or hadith to support your claims that they are contrary to muslim beliefs.

No, you're just realizing that I've shot down every one of your claims so far, and that I am not going to take your guesses as evidence. Defending your position means you either have to do a lot more work than you're used to. Either that, or you need to create some kind of phony excuse to exit the debate. You chose to do the latter.

You need an environment where you can make a claim, but walk away from it scot-free when it doesn't hold up. You won't find that environment here. I'm persistent and relentless when it comes to holding you accountable for the statements you make - apparently, that rubs you the wrong way. You don't like being held accountable for your words; a fine christian you are. :rolling:

Lee, whether you respond or not is irrelevant. I will still respond to you; I have no problem with dissecting an opponent that doesn't fight back. And I suspect that other participants in the thread will pick up my points as well, and use them against you. And, of course, the lurkers will continue to see what a transparently dishonest debater that you are.

All in all, not a bad situation for my side of the debate. :thumbs:

Johnny Skeptic

Since Lee Merrill told me in an e-mail that he will be making a reply in this thread soon, following are my revised arguments regarding the Babylon prophecy:

The perceived vested interests of Christians, Muslims and skeptics regarding the rebuilding of Babylon are quite important for purposes of these debates. Regarding the perceived vested interest of Christians, in response to an e-mail that I sent Lee Merrill recently, he said “I have never said this prophecy is prominent among Christian apologetics. I do think it is a strong argument, and why it is not more prominent, well, I don't know, and I'm setting out to remedy that (in my opinion!) defect.�

Consider the following:

Now readers, as I previously showed, Lee told me in an e-mail “and why it IS NOT more prominent (among Christians), well, I don't know.� Regarding “Thus a quite clear overturning of a Biblical prophecy would convince many such people, meaning those who are reasonable,� by Lee’s own admission his views on the Babylon prophecy ARE NOT prominent among Christians. Hence, he has admitted that if Babylon were to be rebuilt, most Christians WOULD NOT give up Christianity. Therefore, most Christians DO NOT HAVE a perceived vested interested in having Babylon rebuilt.

Regarding the perceived vested interest of Muslims, the Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia 2005 says that Muslims believe that some earlier Hebrew and Christian Scriptures are sacred. The Muslim who Lee contacted confirmed this by telling him that if Isaiah said that Babylon would not be rebuilt, then he holds that to be true. If Lee contests these facts he still loses because even if Muslims believed that the prophecy is not valid, there is no evidence that they believe that if Babylon were to be rebuilt that a sizeable majority of Christians would give up Christianity. Therefore, there is no evidence that Muslims would have a perceived vested interest in rebuilding Babylon even if they believed that the prophecy is not valid.

Regarding the perceived vested interest of skeptics, if the Iraqis gave skeptics permission to have Babylon rebuilt, the vast majority of skeptics would not be interested in doing so. This can easily be confirmed by polling skeptics who are members of this forum and members of the Apologetics 301 forum at the Theology Web, and by polling skeptics elsewhere on the Internet and in person. So, skeptics do not have a perceived vested interest in rebuilding Babylon.

I have never claimed that Arabs did pitch their tents in Babylon, and that shepherds did graze their flocks there, but as the claimant Isaiah asserted that Arabs would never pitch their tents in Babylon, and that shepherds would never graze their flocks there. The only reasonable proof of that would be records of eyewitness testimonies say every ten years from the time of the destruction of Babylon through to the present. Even if testimonies favorable to the prophecy had been made, no written records survive from that far back.

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

I take it you are trying to convince people by posting here, though, without worrying very much about any projected results.

I agree that Muslims do not believe this, by and large. Which is why I have mentioned this to them. Only their reply was that they believe in the Bible. Only I don't think that they do, for they do not seem to be defending seeming contradictions! This seems similar to the skeptic's insistence that the refutation of the Bible is already complete. I find the skeptics' refutations incomplete, though, as exemplified here.

Well, they want to discredit the Bible! Though they do revere it, they also publish "101 contradictions" and so forth, so I expect an opportunity for them to clearly show a contradiction would be appropriate for this purpose, as it would be for the skeptics.

They may refuse, of course! I shall not think them consistent, however, if they do.

Well, fine, the reason I post here is to win over, not a percentage, but individuals.

I agree that I cannot prove that shepherds never grazed their flocks there, thus I focus on "never rebuilt or reinhabited," which is easier to verify.

Unless they set out to disprove the Bible, and refuse this golden opportunity! Then I will wonder if they think God really might prevent them, if they attempt the "disproof by rebuilding."

I don't seem to recall admitting the Bible was mistaken in these instances! And let us notice as well that you have a claim to complete perfection, in your view of naturalism:

"Mr. McCabe thinks me a slave because I am not allowed to believe in determinism. I think Mr. McCabe a slave because he is not allowed to believe in fairies. But if we examine the two vetoes we shall see that his is really much more of a pure veto than mine. The Christian is quite free to believe that there is a considerable amount of settled order and inevitable development in the universe. But the materialist is not allowed to admit into his spotless machine the slightest speck of spiritualism or miracle. Poor Mr. McCabe is not allowed to retain even the tiniest imp, though it might be hiding in a pimpernel." (G.K. Chesterton)

I must say we are not having a debate! The topic at hand is whether Babylon has been rebuilt or reinhabited, since it became desolate, not whether I must tell a given person he is unreasonable. Actually, I shall do just that! Johnny, you are being ... unreasonable. Would you say it would be reasonable to believe the Bible had a supernatural aspect to it, if many attempts now were made to rebuild Babylon, and all of them failed? Will you take a survey of skeptics, to see how many would acknowledge "This is the finger of God," and call them unreasonable if they did not do so?

But this is all quite off-topic...

Regards,
Lee

Johnny Skeptic

Lee Merrill did not reply to my most recent post, which was my post #145, so I am reposting it here. I will include replies to some of Lee’s comments from his most recent post.

The perceived vested interests of Christians, Muslims and skeptics regarding the rebuilding of Babylon are quite important for purposes of these debates. Regarding the perceived vested interest of Christians, in response to an e-mail that I sent Lee Merrill recently, he said “I have never said this prophecy is prominent among Christian apologetics. I do think it is a strong argument, and why it is not more prominent, well, I don't know, and I'm setting out to remedy that (in my opinion!) defect.�

Consider the following:

Now readers, as I previously showed, Lee told me in an e-mail “and why it IS NOT more prominent (among Christians), well, I don't know.� Regarding “Thus a quite clear overturning of a Biblical prophecy would convince many such people, meaning those who are reasonable,� by Lee’s own admission his views on the Babylon prophecy ARE NOT prominent among Christians. Hence, he has admitted that if Babylon were to be rebuilt, most Christians WOULD NOT give up Christianity. Therefore, most Christians DO NOT HAVE a perceived vested interested in having Babylon rebuilt.

Regarding the perceived vested interest of Muslims, the Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia 2005 says that Muslims believe that some earlier Hebrew and Christian Scriptures are sacred. The Muslim who Lee contacted confirmed this by telling him that if Isaiah said that Babylon would not be rebuilt, then he holds that to be true. If Lee contests these facts he still loses because even if Muslims believed that the prophecy is not valid, there is no evidence that they believe that if Babylon were to be rebuilt that a sizeable majority of Christians would give up Christianity. Therefore, there is no evidence that Muslims would have a perceived vested interest in rebuilding Babylon even if they believed that the prophecy is not valid.

Regarding the perceived vested interest of skeptics, if the Iraqis gave skeptics permission to have Babylon rebuilt, the vast majority of skeptics would not be interested in doing so. This can easily be confirmed by polling skeptics who are members of this forum and members of the Apologetics 301 forum at the Theology Web, and by polling skeptics elsewhere on the Internet and in person. So, skeptics do not have a perceived vested interest in rebuilding Babylon.

I have never claimed that Arabs did pitch their tents in Babylon, and that shepherds did graze their flocks there, but as the claimant Isaiah asserted that Arabs would never pitch their tents in Babylon, and that shepherds would never graze their flocks there. The only reasonable proof of that would be records of eyewitness testimonies say every ten years from the time of the destruction of Babylon through to the present. Even if testimonies favorable to the prophecy had been made, no written records survive from that far back.

Following your own same line of reasoning, if the prophecy had ten parts and only one part was reasonably provable, you would say “I agree that nine out of ten parts cannot reasonably be proven, thus I focus on ‘the one part that can be reasonably proven.’� Is that correct, Lee?

Then they have no perceived vested interest in rebuilding Babylon, right?

You are more than welcome to contact the Muslim at the Muslim web site again (he asked where you were, remember?), so why don’t you go tell him that Muslims “do not seem to be defending seeming contradictions.� That Muslim is quite precocious, and I assure you that he is more than a match for you. Would you like to invite him to this forum to debate you in a moderated debate? If not I will invite him here myself. Now that would be fun, at least for the Muslim and the skeptics at this forum. At any rate, as I said previously, “………even if Muslims believed that the prophecy is not valid, there is no evidence that they believe that if Babylon were to be rebuilt that a sizeable majority of Christians would give up Christianity. Therefore, there is no evidence that Muslims would have a perceived vested interest in rebuilding Babylon even if they believed that the prophecy is not valid.

As usual, Lee, you attempt to make up all of the rules of the game and insist what the criteria of disproof must be for Muslims and skeptics. You can’t parade in here like a dictator and get away with telling Muslims and skeptics what they must do in order to discredit the Bible. What entitles you to have that right? What you think is consistent is completely irrelevant. In the opinions of Muslims and skeptics, they are consistent.

You said that Muslims “do not seem to be defending seeming contradictions,� which you have by no means reasonably proven (I am quite certain that the Muslim will debate you anytime that you want to), but the Secular Web has about 22 articles on Bible contradictions, about 165 articles on Biblical inerrancy, and hundreds of other articles that criticize the supposed inspiration of a number of Bible prophecies.

John123

like jesus being the son of ALLAH?
The Qur'aan refutes this claim in numerous verses.

Johnny Skeptic

Now that is a gross understatement.

Well, at least that includes Lee and Josh McDowell.

Lee is obviously completely unaware that the vast majority of Christians are wondering why it is prominent to him and Josh McDowell. One good way for any Christian to get into trouble is to accept "anything" that Josh McDowell has to say. Even a lot of fundamentalist Christians, including James Holding, often criticize McDowell's writings. McDowell does have at least one talent. He refutes himself much better than any skeptic ever could.

John A. Broussard

Then, I am mistaken. Could you clarify your stand on these issues.

Is the bible mistaken when it says the sun stood still?

Is the bible mistaken when it says rabbits chew their cud?

If the bible is not mistaken in these instances, then why does the bible say that the sun stood still and that rabbits chew their cud?

Thank you.