John A. Broussard

And you said you'd produce a host of others who would testify to its having happened.

What amazes me is how little publicity this grand event generated. I realize it isn't of as great a significance as Niniveh being rebuilt or Ur being destroyed, but just imagine the impact of a simple prayer bringing about the growth of a missing finger--the photographs, the TV appearances, the front page of the National Inquirer!!

Why didn't the good gentlemen who remembered this event not have written a paper about it? Surely he would have gotten a Pulitzer.

Enough of this. Sorry for interrupting this fascinating thread on what happened in the Middle East thousands of years ago.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to Lee Merrill: In part of my previous post I said:

To that I add that when I once told you that you cannot reasonably prove that Arabs have never pitched their tents in Babylon, you said that I cannot reasonably prove that Arabs have pitched their tents in Babylon. First of all, you are the claimant, so I don't have to prove anything. Second of all, I have accepted your challenge to invalidate the Babylon prophecy. If I invalidate any part of the prophecy, I have invalidated all of it.

Sauron

No, that comes about as a result of examining your claims. If you claim A, then you must address topics related to A. You put yourself into this bind, lee -- nobody else did it to you.


1. His point is already defended.

2. He is challenging you to do a survey because you never produce any sources or evidence for your claims.

No, you avoid the key points you don't have answers for, and focus on repeating yourself over and over again. That isn't "answering the main points"; that's just dodging and weaving.

Why should anyone bother with your childish challenge?

Both the Tyre prophecy as well as the Babylon prophecy can easily be disproven by examining the claims of the prophecy, and then comparing against history. Since they both fail on at least a half-dozen different grounds, there is no need to examine any further. And also no need to take up your silly challenge. When something has been disproven 6, 7, 8 or 20 times, why in the world would anyone think it necessary to disprove it again?

Of course, this has already been explained 50 times to you. You deliberately ignore it because it's the only argument you have right now. If you were to abandon it, you'd be admitting your position was a total failure.

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

What is your position, may I ask? It seems your post was full of questions, not statements.

Well doesn't saying "The only prophecies that make any difference are the ones that can be reasonably proven to have been written before the fact, and that can be reasonably proven not to have been lucky guesses" mean the Tyre prophecy is invalid if it was written after the fact? You are not trying to invalidate it by saying it didn't happen, rather, you are trying to invalidate it by saying Ezekiel cheated, and pretended he had made a prediction.

That would be fine, yes, I agree, have Arabs pitch their tents there, or shepherds rest their flocks there...

Regards,
Lee

Sauron

His position is that you haven't proved your claims. It's natural that his post was full of questions, since your statements have been vague and you have refused to support your position.


Johnny made a general observation that applies to *any* prophecy. That is not the same as taking a position on the specific Tyre prophecy. Your reading and logic are both faulty.

Why should he? Johnny has nothing to prove. You are the one who claimed the prophecy was fulfilled. Burden of proof still rests on your shoulders - try as you might to shift it off.

Johnny Skeptic

My position is that there is no evidence that the majority of Muslims believe that if they rebuilt Babylon that the Christian Church would become a good deal smaller than it is today, and even more importantly there is no evidence that the majority of Muslims believe that if they rebuilt Babylon that U.S. foreign policy towards them would change. It is also my position that there is no evidence that skeptics believe that if Babylon were to be rebuilt that the Christian Church would become a good deal smaller than it is today.

I will tell the professors about your claim that you will give up Christianity if some Arabs pitch their tents in Babylon. They should find that to be quite amusing. I will also provide the professors with a link to this thread so they and their students can see how you have been embarrassing yourself.

I am not saying that Ezekiel cheated. I am saying that there is no evidence that he didn’t cheat, that there is no evidence that he wrote the prophecy, and that there is no evidence that the prophecy was ever stated by anyone or written down by anyone until centuries after Ezekiel died. What you need to do regarding all prophecies is to reasonably prove authorship and dating. The Dead Sea Scrolls is the oldest living Bible. They were not written until centuries after Ezekiel died. That left plenty of time since Ezekiel’s death for a fraudulent prophecy to have been made up. I am not saying that the prophecy is fraudulent. What I am saying is that there is no evidence that it is not fraudulent. In short, we cannot be reasonably certain what happened one way or the other.

After further consideration, although I am quite certain that I could pay some Arabs to pitch their tents in Babylon, why should I do so? Would the Christian Church become considerably smaller if the attempt were successful? If so, where is your evidence? If not, why should I make the attempt?

Jack the Bodiless

Jayrok has made an interesting observation, on this thread:

According to the Book of Revelation, Babylon will fall.

...So, Babylon WILL rise again (according to the Bible), in order to fall.

So, no part of the original prophecy survives. Babylon never really fell in the manner originally prophesied, Babylon has been rebuilt in the past, modern Babylon has been re-inhabited (by Lee Merrill's stipulated 1,000 people, according to HIS article)... and the Bible itself says that Babylon will rise again, contradicting the supposed "permanent" destruction.

...So why bother to try to persuade an Arab to pitch a tent there?

I cannot think of a more comprehensively defeated "prophecy"!

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

The name "Babylon" seems to be descriptive instead of referring to the site of the ancient city, in the book of Revelation, though:

Revelation 17:9 This calls for a mind with wisdom. The seven heads are seven hills on which the woman sits.

And the seven hills would most naturally refer to Rome, thus if there is any geography here, it is Rome in Italy.

Rebuilding does not mean rebuilt, though! These are not the same concepts. And the 1,000 people claimed to be displaced, could it be that they were tempted to make Saddam seem the total villain here? And I would continue to ask why the archaeologists did not object to these people building on the site, if they objected to Saddam building there. Surely if they were no afraid to object to Saddam himself building there, they would have also have been willing to object to people building there prior to that.

Well, I don't necessarily disagree! What I insist on is that it is inconsistent to try and show the Tyre prophecy is invalid, and not the Babylon one, when a quite clear way is available to overturn the Babylon prophecy, no need to argue about history!

Not with the Babylon prophecy! For it is still falsifiable today, just by rebuilding it. Thus it doesn't matter if Isaiah really wrote it, or when.

Well, why are you arguing that other prophecies are invalid, I wonder? And yet seeming reluctant to clearly contradict this one, with a building shining in the sun, undeniably invalidating it.

Regards,
Lee

noah

Lee you're turning around and over doing all kins of somersaults here proving nothing to anyone in the process. In fact, you contradicted yourself here and don't seem to know it. You stated that a buiding, one building, would invalidate the prophecy:


Yet, you seem to be holding out for the rebuilding of all of Babylon here:

So which is it Lee? Will you settle for the completion of one building or are you going to insist on the rebuilding of all of Babylon?


Best,

Noah

Johnny Skeptic

So you concede defeat on the Tyre prophecy, right?

How would falsifying the Babylon prophecy benefit Muslims and skeptics? Would the size of the Christian Church decrease significantly? Would U.S. foreign policy towards Muslims change?

[quote=JS] After further consideration, although I am quite certain that I could pay some Arabs to pitch their tents in Babylon, why should I do so?]

Which other prophecies are you referring to?

I am not reluctant at all if you can provide reasonable proof that the size of the Christian Church will decrease significantly if the attempt is successful, and you need to provide Muslims with reasonable proof that U.S. foreign policy towards them would change if the attempt is successful. You just made a challenge that the city should be rebuilt, but in another post you agreed that Arabs pitching their tents would falsify the prophecy. Arabs pitching their tents would be the means that I would choose to falsify the prophecy, and I am ready to pay some Arabs to do so as soon as you provide the reasonable proof that I asked you for.