mata leao

sven you are an i...., i think you are scared. sven, I see no rebuttal from you only ridicule. Is that the best you can do? Anthony Flew, meet Mr. Sven.....

Sven

Bye bye :wave:

Johnny Skeptic

Upon what evidence do you base your claim that the supposed predictions in Ezekiel 26 were written before the events, and your implication that the version of the supposed prophecy that we have today is the same as the original version?

Boro Nut

No. This prophesy would seem to be saying no Arab would pitch his tent there, sort of in the tent pitching sense, with distinct connotations of ever.

He could piss off back to his penthouse suite after he'd pitched it for all the prophecy cares. He can't pitch someone else’s tent though. That is right out. Or get someone to pitch his for him. I admit you've got us on those ones. Apart from that you’re shafted all ends up.

And as this is the bible remember, this can clearly be taken to mean tent and all it’s kind, which to me covers anything from an oversized cardigan to a mobile home.

Boro Nut

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

How did I fuss about the definition of inhabitants, though? As I recall, I said that there is only their word for this, and they might have been tempted to prick Saddam, as indicated now in the reluctance of lawyers to be his defense attorney, and I wonder why the archaeologists didn't protest when people built their houses there, when they did protest when Saddam built his buildings? I also think it unlikely that people would set up house in the middle of some ruins.

Quite so, I subscribe to all of this. What would overturn the prophecy is for Babylon to be destroyed and then rebuilt, that would overturn it. And you may try!

Actually, I think it's pretty clear why I issued this challenge (as above, to Jack!). If you or someone else wants to disprove the claim that Scripture is inspired and "cannot be broken," rebuild Babylon! That would accomplish your purpose.

Well, why so? This seems to be referencing a common practice, of nomads pitching tents as they move about, and this passage says they will not do that in Babylon.

Regards,
Lee

Johnny Skeptic

Accomplish what purpose? Purpose implies expected results, does it not? What beneficial results would skeptics and Muslims enjoy if Babylon were to be rebuilt? Do you accept challenges unless you have prior evidence that if your attempts are successful that you will enjoy substantial benefits? Of course you don't, but you dishonestly challenge skeptics and Muslims to do what you yourself will not do.

As I told you in my previous post, I will repost the following argument from my previous post every time that you make a post. Here it is again, and I predict that you will conveniently refuse to reply to it as always:

Every time that you refuse to reply to the preceding arguments, you embarrass yourself even more. Evasizeness is not an admirable quality for someone who claims to be a Christian. You have had no problem making hundreds of detailed posts in a number of threads over many months, both here and at the Theology Web, but you have shown that whenever you get into trouble, you immediately become evasive and refuse to answer questions. I used to think that you are a good debater, but now I know otherwise. Honest people are never evasive. You have run away from a number of threads in this forum, and now you are attempting to redeem yourself in this thread. I assure you that that will be impossible since I will repost the same arguments every time that you make a post, and you are well aware that my arguments in the preceding paragraph are irrefutable. Thanks for the entertainment. This is great fun.

Jack the Bodiless

...And yet they did, thereby further breaking the already-broken prophecy.

If you wish to argue otherwise, inssiting that the whole thing was staged by the Evil Atheist Conspiracy or whatever: then you are clearly beyond reason. NOTHING will ever convince you. If Arabs pitched some tents in Babylon: the photos were faked. Even if you saw then with your own eyes: they were non-Arab EAC agents disguised as Arabs.
Contradicting yourself in two consecutive sentences? If you "subscribe to all of this", then you're ADMITTING that the complete destruction and subsequent rebuilding of Babylon would NOT invalidate the prophecy (according to you). You would simply argue that the prophesied PERMANENT destruction hasn't happened yet.
This purpose is already accomplished. Scripture is not inspired: it IS broken: it is ALREADY shattered in pieces. Why should we seek to break what is already broken?

Johnny Skeptic

Tsk tsk, and ahem. Skeptics and Muslims are wondering why Lee continues to refuse to tell them what beneficial results they would enjoy if their attempts to rebuild Babylon are successful. Lee knows that there wouldn't be ANY significant beneficial results, including the fact that the U.S. WOULD NOT adopt a more favorable foreign policy towards Muslims, and he knows that easy to conduct research could easily verify these facts. Regarding U.S. foreign policy towards Muslims, one quick call to the U.S. State Department is all that Lee has to do, but you can bet that he won't do it because he is well aware that he would embarrass himself. In addition, the undecided crowd, who by the way ARE NOT attempting to discredit the Bible, and who are the ONLY group of people that Lee has any chance at all to influence, are wondering the same thing. Further, even a good number of fundamentalist Christians are wondering the same thing. Lee would NEVER accept a challenge unless he believed that he would enjoy beneficial results if his attempt was successful, and yet he challenges skeptics and Muslims to do what he is not willing to do.

As I have said before, I have never debated a fundamentalist Christian who used arguments that are unpopular among the vast majority of fundamentalist Christians. Since Lee can't even sell his arguments to the vast majority of fundamentalist Christians, the odds of him influencing anyone else would be much less, but that does not deter Lee. He would probably never play the lottery, but lottery odds are exactly what he is confronting in his attempts to convince people of his arguments regarding the Babylon prophecy. I assume that there are more members in the Flat Earth Society than there are who accept Lee's arguments. He loves to make challenges, but he never accepts them when he knows that he will embarrass himself. I challenge him to produce one single professor with a Ph.D. from Wheaton College or Dallas Theological Seminary who agrees with his arguments. If Lee challenges me to produce a professor from those schools who agrees with my position, I will accept his challenge, but only if he accepts mine. It is a given that Lee will not accept my challenge. How much more fair can I possibly be? I am willing to consult exclusively fundamentalist Christian sources. Lee would never be willing to consult exclusively skeptic sources. Lee is not a historian, and he seems to be unaware that his own personal opinions are quite insignificant to virtually any reader. I am not a historian either. That is why I prefer to bring trained, educated experts into these discussions, but Lee will have none of that, and for obvious reasons. Has Lee ever heard of a bibliography? Obviously not.

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

Erm, did they, now? This is a mere assertion, and I say by way of reply, "And yet they didn't!" But this gets us nowhere, I really need to hear your response to these points in order to advance the discussion.

No, I said that would invalidate the prophecy. Quite specifically.

No, I hold that it was indeed been destroyed, and that now all that is needed to overthrow the prophecy is to rebuild this city. Haven't I been saying just this, constantly, over and over?

Well, as I keep asking Johnny, why are you posting then, trying to convince people that the Bible is not inspired? Your job is done, and you keep doing it?

Well, as I keep asking Johnny, why are you posting, then?

Regards,
Lee

John A. Broussard

You, as a Christian, have specified several times what rebuilding Babylon would consist of.

Let's assume that you were consistent in your specifications, and that Babylon were indeed rebuilt according to those specs.

I would assume then that you would say, "Yup. I lose. The prophecy was in error."

Just about then another Christian could spring up and say, "No. Babylon never looked that way. This isn't Babylon. It has to meet the following specifications in order to be Babylon..."

So the whole debate would have to go on, wouldn't it?

Can you see what I'm driving at? Why are you, of all people, the final arbiter of what Babylon has to consist of?

Please give the matter some thought.