Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Johnny Skeptic · 08-04-2005, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeeMerrill

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 would 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 prove all this before you can call Babylon "inhabited."

Tsk, tsk indeed. Isaiah 13:20 says "It shall never be inhabited, neither shall it be dwelt in from generation to generation: neither shall the Arabian pitch tent there; neither shall the shepherds make their fold there." Now really, Lee, when is the last time you heard of some Boy Scouts pitching a tent in one location for five, ten or fifteen years? Even today, nomadic Bedouins pitch tents in desert areas of the Middle East and northern Africa, and on a transitory basis, most certainly not for years. Bedouins never "inhabit" any area.

Regarding "You have to prove all this before you can call Babylon 'inhabited,'" why should we skeptics bother with the issue of the rebuilding of Babylon when the issues of Arabs pitching their tents and shepherds grazing their flocks are much more difficult for you to deal with?

lee_merrill · 08-04-2005, 08:25 PM

Hi everyone,

Quote:

Sauron: 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.

I wrote the opening post, Johnny was quoting me...

Quote:

Lee: Well, I suppose that if 999 of them fall into disuse, then the city still would not be "becoming desolate."

Sauron: 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.

This does not, however, answer my point, it does not even address it...

Quote:

Desolation has to do with human habitation, not the status of buildings.

Wasn't the definition about habitability, though? "Suitability for living beings" implies more than just the presence of those beings! That implies dwellings, I would say.

Quote:

Lee: 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...

Sauron: Missing the point again. The "won't be built again" part does not start until the desolation is finished and is a done deal.

But the point was about "her days will not be prolonged," not about no rebuilding. Yes, the context refers to desolation, but that doesn't mean that every point in the passage is about desolation, or must start after desolation is complete.

Quote:

Lee: and "her days will not be prolonged" would indeed have been overturned, if Alex had restored Babylon, as he had planned.

Sauron: "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.

Well, let's continue to discuss places where a similar phrase is used, your conclusion is premature, until we know what "the days of" typically meant.

Quote:

Sauron: You have no evidence that Alexander failed to restore Babylon. Repetition is not proof. Your only citation from Encarta does not support that claim.

I'm getting rather astonished that you refuse to admit the obvious meaning of this quote!

"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."

How this cannot mean that Alex failed to restore Babylon escapes me. If I may quote Sauron here, "Sorry, you've just waved your hands, gone in a big circle and repeated your original unfounded claim." Which I apply to Sauron...

Quote:

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."

Well, you picked a different phrase! "All the days" is different than "in the days," and the one instance you mentioned with "in the days" ("And he judged Israel in the days of the Philistines twenty years") indeed, indicates control, not merely the presence of numerous Philistines.

Quote:

Sauron: Moreover, you posted ZERO verses that show the phrase being used to connote control, when the subject is a city (an inanimate object).

Lee: Um, an inanimate object has control?

Sauron: No, of course it doesn't. But that's what your homemade theory requires; it's just an outcome of your newest assertion above.

Well no, I hold that "her days" refers to the people ruling, not to the buildings. Perhaps you missed this point, but you quoted this very statement right after this!

Quote:

Lee: No, I hold that "in the days" refers to people being in control, to the days when Babylonians ruled, in Babylon.

Sauron: 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.

Well, here is an even more similar reference:

Psalm 72:7 In his days the righteous will flourish; prosperity will abound till the moon is no more.

Which is clearly talking about the time when the king being discussed, is ruling. Here is another such reference:

Jeremiah 23:6 In his days Judah will be saved and Israel will live in safety. This is the name by which he will be called: The Lord Our Righteousness.

Now "his days" can also mean a length of time, but "her days" is contrasted with this next verse:

Isaiah 14:1 The Lord will have compassion on Jacob; once again he will choose Israel and will settle them in their own land. Aliens will join them and unite with the house of Jacob.

Which must mean that this does not refer to buildings they live in, even "the house of Jacob" means the people, and their being a free people, dwelling in their land, with control there.

Quote:

Lee: 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.

Sauron: 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.

The problem here is that Petra is a rock cliff, though, so Edomites "at Petra itself" would mean living in a rock city.

Quote:

Sauron: 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.

Lee: What evidence, may I ask?

Sauron: 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.

But alas, this provides no evidence that they lived at the site.

Quote:

Sauron: And religious services at Esagila continued until the 1st century, under Mithridates.

Lee: But no one rebuilt it! That is the point...

Sauron: "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?

Building activity means it was rebuilt? These conclusions again do escape me.

Quote:

Sauron: If Alexander commanded the rebuilding to start, and his orders were not carried out, then you'll need to prove that.

Lee: Do you have the Arrian book? That would be where I would recommend checking...

Sauron: Why should I be the one to check this?

Because you are the expert? And have studied this thoroughly? Only it seems you have not.

Quote:

It's your claim, lee - do your own research.

Actually, I mentioned this partly because I have read what he says. I am also wondering if you have his book, that was another part of the reason for my question. Can you supply the quote here?

Quote:

Lee: Well, the village is an deduction made by other...

Sauron: No, it's a statement of fact.

Well.

Quote:

Sauron: 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.

But Iraq is not a base like Fort Bragg, that is what I meant. It's a bivouac, from all appearances. And various sources I have read said that the palace was not apparently, really used, such as our favorite web site in this thread.

Quote:

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...

I agree, that would be easier! I expect this refers to nomadic Arabs using the area as a stop on one of their routes, which should be fairly easy to arrange.

Quote:

I wonder if any marines are of arab descent...

Too cute! I would expect that this, again, refers to nomadic Arabs.

Quote:

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

That's a good point! Now the left part seems to be a shed of sorts, so might this instead be a storage area? But it's not clear...

Quote:

Sven, doing a Lee imitation: 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".

Well, if you want me to pick some exact number, I will sign up for 1,000 people for five years. So there!

Quote:

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

Sauron is claiming two refutations, not just one! I shall leave this as an exercise for the reader...

Regards,
Lee

Johnny Skeptic · 08-04-2005, 09:16 PM

Well, Lee Merrill completely ignored replying to my post #101, he completely ignored commenting on the beating that the writer at the Muslim web site gave him, and he has not produced even one single Christian from the Theology Web or his church who says that they will give up Christianity if Babylon is rebuilt.

The following is from my previous post:

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeeMerrill

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 would 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 prove all this before you can call Babylon "inhabited."

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

Tsk, tsk indeed. Isaiah 13:20 says "It shall never be inhabited, neither shall it be dwelt in from generation to generation: neither shall the Arabian pitch tent there; neither shall the shepherds make their fold there." Now really, Lee, when is the last time you heard of some Boy Scouts pitching a tent in one location for five, ten or fifteen years? Even today, nomadic Bedouins pitch tents in desert areas of the Middle East and northern Africa, and on a transitory basis, most certainly not for years. Bedouins never "inhabit" any area.

Regarding "You have to prove all this before you can call Babylon 'inhabited,'" why should we skeptics bother with the issue of the rebuilding of Babylon when the issues of Arabs pitching their tents and shepherds grazing their flocks are much more difficult for you to deal with?

As the claimant, Lee must reasonably prove that nomadic Arabs have never pitched their tents in Babylon, and that shepherds have never grazed their flocks there. Regarding the game park that Lee mentioned, why should anyone rule out the possibility that shepherds grazed their flocks in Babylon prior to or subsequent to the founding of the animal park.

Unless Lee will reply to this post, he will lose what little credibility that he has left.

One of the most preposterous parts of Lee's arguments, although they are all preposterous, is "people have tried to rebuild Babylon and failed." There is most certainly no one trying now, nor is there any reason at all for them to attempt to do so.

Sven · 08-05-2005, 04:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Tsk, tsk indeed. Isaiah 13:20 says "It shall never be inhabited, neither shall it be dwelt in from generation to generation: neither shall the Arabian pitch tent there; neither shall the shepherds make their fold there." Now really, Lee, when is the last time you heard of some Boy Scouts pitching a tent in one location for five, ten or fifteen years? Even today, nomadic Bedouins pitch tents in desert areas of the Middle East and northern Africa, and on a transitory basis, most certainly not for years. Bedouins never "inhabit" any area.

Regarding "You have to prove all this before you can call Babylon 'inhabited,'" why should we skeptics bother with the issue of the rebuilding of Babylon when the issues of Arabs pitching their tents and shepherds grazing their flocks are much more difficult for you to deal with?

Hey Johnny, you do realize that it was me writing this, just imitating Lee's usual style?

Johnny Skeptic · 08-05-2005, 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sven

Hey Johnny, you do realize that it was me writing this, just imitating Lee's usual style?

Oops, I goofed, Sven. I compliment you on your imitation. I found it unusual for who I thought was Lee to say tsk, tsk. I found it to be amusing.

Lee has lost every single aspect of these debates. Isaiah 13:20 is his biggest problem. It is no accident that he never mentioned it in his opening group of Scripture references. He knows very well that the verse mentions Arabs pitching their tents and shepherds grazing their flocks, and his intention was to keep the rebuilding of Babylon as the topic of the debates. Of course, even if the debate was only about the rebuilding of Babylon, Lee still easily loses since his "people can discredit the prophecy anytime they want to by rebuilding Babylon" argument has been demolished at the Muslim web site. If Babylon were to be rebuilt, how would Christians react? Well, if Lee is honest, he would give up Christianity, but he definitely wouldn't have much company.

Lee assumes that God would not have allowed the Bible to contain errors, but the texts say otherwise. Revelation 22:18-19 say "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." If tampering were not possible, there would have been no need for the warnings. Today, it would be quite simple for skeptics to alter the Bible and travel to remote areas are pass off their imitations as the real thing. The same would have been true for skeptics living in other eras. Of course, there is no such thing as the real thing. The Bible has been "revised" many times.

badger3k · 08-05-2005, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Oops, I goofed, Sven. I compliment you on your imitation. I found it unusual for who I thought was Lee to say tsk, tsk. I found it to be amusing.

Lee has lost every single aspect of these debates. Isaiah 13:20 is his biggest problem. It is no accident that he never mentioned it in his opening group of Scripture references. He knows very well that the verse mentions Arabs pitching their tents and shepherds grazing their flocks, and his intention was to keep the rebuilding of Babylon as the topic of the debates. Of course, even if the debate was only about the rebuilding of Babylon, Lee still easily loses since his "people can discredit the prophecy anytime they want to by rebuilding Babylon" argument has been demolished at the Muslim web site. If Babylon were to be rebuilt, how would Christians react? Well, if Lee is honest, he would give up Christianity, but he definitely wouldn't have much company.

Lee assumes that God would not have allowed the Bible to contain errors, but the texts say otherwise. Revelation 22:18-19 say "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." If tampering were not possible, there would have been no need for the warnings. Today, it would be quite simple for skeptics to alter the Bible and travel to remote areas are pass off their imitations as the real thing. The same would have been true for skeptics living in other eras. Of course, there is no such thing as the real thing. The Bible has been "revised" many times.

It just occurred to me - when they say "add unto these things", does that include adding things that aren't there and making things up so that it "says" what someone wants it to say? If so, then there should be a lot of plague victims.

Johnny Skeptic · 08-05-2005, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Oops, I goofed, Sven. I compliment you on your imitation. I found it unusual for who I thought was Lee to say tsk, tsk. I found it to be amusing.

Lee has lost every single aspect of these debates. Isaiah 13:20 is his biggest problem. It is no accident that he never mentioned it in his opening group of Scripture references. He knows very well that the verse mentions Arabs pitching their tents and shepherds grazing their flocks, and his intention was to keep the rebuilding of Babylon as the topic of the debates. Of course, even if the debate was only about the rebuilding of Babylon, Lee still easily loses since his "people can discredit the prophecy anytime they want to by rebuilding Babylon" argument has been demolished at the Muslim web site. If Babylon were to be rebuilt, how would Christians react? Well, if Lee is honest, he would give up Christianity, but he definitely wouldn't have much company.

Lee assumes that God would not have allowed the Bible to contain errors, but the texts say otherwise. Revelation 22:18-19 say "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." If tampering were not possible, there would have been no need for the warnings. Today, it would be quite simple for skeptics to alter the Bible and travel to remote areas and pass off their imitations as the real thing. The same would have been true for skeptics living in other eras. Of course, there is no such thing as the real thing. The Bible has been "revised" many times.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bagder3k

It just occurred to me - when they say "add unto these things," does that include adding things that aren't there and making things up so that it "says" what someone wants it to say? If so, then there should be a lot of plague victims.

What do you mean by plague victims? The words "add" and "take away" have to mean adding texts that were not originally there and removing what was already there. The writer was basically saying "Do not tamper with these texts in any way or God will punish you." The problem for Christians here is that no decent Christian would want to tamper with the texts, and from a Christian viewpoint, skeptics who tamper with the texts are already going to hell for being skeptics regardless of whether they tamper with the texts or not.

badger3k · 08-05-2005, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

What do you mean by plague victims? The words "add" and "take away" have to mean adding texts that were not originally there and removing what was already there. The writer was basically saying "Do not tamper with these texts in any way or God will punish you." The problem for Christians here is that no decent Christian would want to tamper with the texts, and from a Christian viewpoint, skeptics who tamper with the texts are already going to hell for being skeptics regardless of whether they tamper with the texts or not.

The plagues are what "God will add to him" who tampers with the text. What I was wondering if the people who read things into the text that aren't there and who add information to get to their desired conclusion are "tampering" with the text (at the very least, with the meaning of the text). If that were the case, and the Bible were true, I suspect a lot of fundies would be covered in locusts and frogs. Is that clearer - sorry if I didn't state it clearly.

Other than that, I'd argue that "decent Christians" have already tampered with it (aka King James, Protestants removing books, etc), which renders the whole thing moot IMO. I'm not sure what you mean by saying that this tamper-proofing is a problem for Christians, though. Can you explain further - I think I'm missing something.

Johnny Skeptic · 08-05-2005, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by badger3k

The plagues are what "God will add to him" who tampers with the text. What I was wondering if the people who read things into the text that aren't there and who add information to get to their desired conclusion are "tampering" with the text (at the very least, with the meaning of the text). If that were the case, and the Bible were true, I suspect a lot of fundies would be covered in locusts and frogs. Is that clearer - sorry if I didn't state it clearly.

Whether the texts are speaking figuratively or not, the message is clear. They essentially mean "Don't be a messin' with these here texts or you will be punished."

Quote:

Originally Posted by badger3k

Other than that, I'd argue that "decent Christians" have already tampered with it (aka King James, Protestants removing books, etc), which renders the whole thing moot IMO. I'm not sure what you mean by saying that this tamper-proofing is a problem for Christians, though. Can you explain further - I think I'm missing something.

What I mean is that decent Christians would not knowingly tamper with the texts. The majority of fundamentalist Christians believe that the copies that we have today accurately represent the originals, and that of course includes Lee Merrill, which is why I brought this up in the first place.

lee_merrill · 08-05-2005, 08:18 PM

Hi everyone,

Quote:

Johnny: One of the most preposterous parts of Lee's arguments, although they are all preposterous, is "people have tried to rebuild Babylon and failed."

Well, how is this preposterous? I think it's quite true, and you may make the attempt, as well, many people would be convinced (though some would certainly deny the implication, but aren't you basically trying to convince reasonable people?) if you succeed.

Quote:

Lee has lost every single aspect of these debates. Isaiah 13:20 is his biggest problem. It is no accident that he never mentioned it in his opening group of Scripture references.

It actually was an accident, verse 20 is much stronger that verse 19 about Babylon never being reinhabited or rebuilt, I have updated my verse list for future reference. So yes, let's include this verse, and discuss what it says.

Quote:

Of course, even if the debate was only about the rebuilding of Babylon, Lee still easily loses since his "people can discredit the prophecy anytime they want to by rebuilding Babylon" argument has been demolished at the Muslim web site.

Well, it hasn't, actually, for they said they didn't want to attempt this, not that rebuilding Babylon would not discredit the prophecy. Those are two different points, and I think their reluctance is parallel to the reluctance of the skeptics here to advocate rebuilding, and for the same reason.

Acts 5:39 "... but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You might even be found to be fighting against God!" So they took his advice...

Quote:

If Babylon were to be rebuilt, how would Christians react? Well, if Lee is honest, he would give up Christianity, but he definitely wouldn't have much company.

I would really rather have the truth, though, than be in good company, and yet pretending.

Quote:

Badger: does that include adding things that aren't there and making things up so that it "says" what someone wants it to say? If so, then there should be a lot of plague victims.

The plagues in Revelation are future, though, as far as I can tell. There will be some surprises, for sure! People who thought they were in will be out, and vice versa, John 16:2...

Regards,
Lee

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.