badger3k

So ultimately you want to show that the Bible is true, even if there are parts that, in your own words, aren't (the so-called inconsequetial parts of the prophecies that did not come true). The Babylon prophecy is ALL of those little parts, together. You can try to defend them all, point by point, but unless they ALL came true (past tense - notice that), then the prophecy has NOT been fulfilled. All this partial argument is is BS. All or nothing, Lee. And if that is your belief, then this one point will mean that EVERYTHING else in the Bible must be untrue. I always wonder at the false dichotomy that literalists paint themselves into, but we've seen it time and again.
Other points on the Babylon prophecy than on a thread about the Babylon prophecy? If you are merely arguing ONE POINT, then you cannot state in any way that the prophecy has been fulfilled, since the others have not been discussed. If you want to discuss that way, perhaps someone who cares can start individual threads for each and every point, then have a thread that ties it all together - but isn't that what a thread on prophecy is supposed to do already? All people here are doing is saving space. So, please, address all those little points that have to be 100% accurate for the entire prophecy to be considered fulfilled.

Johnny Skeptic

That is not what I meant. What I meant was just because Babylon has not been rebuilt so far need not rule out a reasonable possibility that it mgiht be rebuilt in the future. What has not happened in the past by no means guarantees what will not happen in the future. It is not logical for you to judge what humans in the future will not accomplish based upon what they have not accomplished in the past. Every succeeding generation of humans accomplishes many things that were not accomplished by past generations of humans, many things that were previously considered to be impossible, many of which were considered to be much more impossible than rebuilding Babylon.

The NASB translates Isaiah 13:20 “it will never be inhabited or lived in from generation to generation; Nor will the Arab pitch his tent there, Nor will shepherds make their flocks lie down there.�

Pitching a tent is much different than inhabiting. To inhabit means to establish residence, but pitching a tent does not necessarily indicate a long term stay, and it usually indicates a short term stay. Today, nomadic Arab tribes still do just that. In addition, today, just like in ancient times, shepherds still sometimes graze their flocks in areas where they do not live, and at the end of the day they move their flocks back to where they live. Such might easily have been the case regarding the area of the ruins of ancient Babylon. In fact, the shade provided by the ruins might easily have attracted shepherds for their own sakes and for the sake of their flocks. I have often seen cattle standing under a shade tree during the hottest part of the day.

Sauron

1. So you're a Koranic scholar now as well, lee? In addition to being a master of ancient near eastern empires? Expert in ancient siegecraft, iron age navigation, and geology? Is there anything you won't pretend to know about, in order to keep your argument from sinking?

If you think you have indexed all references to Babylon in the Koran, please cite the chapter and verse here. Good luck.

2. Regarding Muslims and their view of Babylon - "You think they could be eager" - what is your evidence that they care? How many Muslims have you talked to? Which schools of religious thought have you investigated to arrive at that conclusion? What texts have you looked at that might indicates such a desire? Oh, here: let me help you answer those questions: none, none and none. Until you get off your lazy ass and do some research, no one cares what you think. To date, you've shown that you use your imagination to fill in the blanks between your very meager data points.

It isn't "pretty evident" at all. It's just another one of your spur-of-the-moment assertions that you substitute for research. In point of fact, you are wrong about what Muslims believe.

1. Why should they? As far as they are concerned, the bible was discredited long ago.

2. Instead of Muslims posting here, how about you getting off your lazy ass and learning what they have to say? Or would that be too much trouble for you?

Going through a decline is not "becoming desolate." Nor was a slight decline what the prophecy called for. It was the LARGEST city in the world, lee. When are you going to stop trying to turn a giant into a dwarf?


No, you do NOT agree with that statement, lee. You have forgotten what you said earlier in the debate.

*sigh* Here we go again. You are too intellectually lazy to remember your own positions in this debate. So I not only have to (a) refute your homemade claims, I also have to (b) keep track of your positions because you're too lazy to do it yourself. I certainly hope the lurkers are observing how thorough the skeptic position is, and how starved for intellectual horsepower the bible literalist position is.

Briefly, you do NOT agree with my statement, for the following reasons:

1. We were talking about Alexander. I told you that he didn't restore the entire city.

2. You tried to claim that this OK, because it was by prophetic design:
and for him to have restored it would have overturned the prophecy that "her days will not be prolonged."

3. I just told you above that your conclusion was wrong. The "not built again" part of the prophecy didn't kick in, until AFTER there had first been a destruction of Babylon.

4. In Alexander's time, however, there had not yet been any such destruction of Babylon. So the "not built again" part does not apply yet. Alexander couldn't have overturned the prophecy, because he was too *early* - the city hadn't endured any such destruction.

It amazes me that you expect others to keep track of your arguments. Maybe you expect others to wipe your ass as well.

Incorrect. Other readings are not possible, because the context is clear. In addition, the text in Isaiah point-blank says that "her days shall not be prolonged." It doesn't get much clearer than that.

(Unless your a bible literalist, in which case I suppose the phrase leaves miles of wiggle room, doesn't it? :rolling

How lame and pathetic of you, lee_merrill. An outrageous attempt to twist the text. The preceding verses tell us in crystal-clear detail what was going to happen to Babylon.

• Their bows also shall dash the young men to pieces;
• they shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb;
• their eyes shall not spare children.
• Babylon, shall be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah.
• 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.
• wild beasts of the desert shall lie there
• their houses shall be full of doleful creatures
• owls shall dwell there
• satyrs shall dance there.
• the wild beasts of the islands shall cry in their desolate houses
• dragons in their pleasant palaces:

All these things happen BEFORE it says "her days shall not be prolonged." Does the above all sound like a simple transition from independent kingdom to a vassal state? Don't be absurd. The picture painted above is not murky or imprecise at all. It certainly didn't happen, but it's extremely clear and precise.

Note to lurkers: I am continually amazed at how intellectually dishonest that bible believers can be with other people, and even with themselves - to create such a transparently bogus interpretation, merely to save their interpretation from the junk heap. Oh, well.

So "days not prolonged" is not a reference to a kingdom ending; the very idea is desperate and an obvious attempt to rescue your argument. Babylon endured a peaceful transition of power, to Cyrus II in 539 BCE. There was no violent taking of the city. Babylon not only endured after this prophecy, but it prospered.

Pretend you were talking about a person and you said "His/her days will not be prolonged". bUT then all you do is convert that person from a free citizen into a slave. Would that fulfill the threat that "their days would not be prolonged"? Of course not. They would still be alive, even as a slave. it does not fulfill the threat made about that person.

Which does not support your point.

1. It is talking about the destruction and utter wasteland of the city, which Isaiah had prophesied in the preceding chapter.

2. Moreover, in that very same 14th chapter of Isaiah it repeats the message of utter destruction, thus clarifying the small snippet of text you tried to quote out of context.

ISA 14:19 But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch, and as the raiment of those that are slain, thrust through with a sword, that go down to the stones of the pit; as a carcase trodden under feet.
ISA 14:20 Thou shalt not be joined with them in burial, because thou hast destroyed thy land, and slain thy people: the seed of evildoers shall never be renowned.
ISA 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.
ISA 14:22 For I will rise up against them, saith the LORD of hosts, and cut off from Babylon the name, and remnant, and son, and nephew, saith the LORD.
ISA 14:23 I will also make it a possession for the bittern, and pools of water: and I will sweep it with the besom of destruction, saith the LORD of hosts.

You are thus caught trying to twist the text of your own bible. How does it feel to get caught red-handed doing so, by a nonbeliever? :rolling:

Incorrect. You were previously arguing that we could not for a fact that the prophecy was fulfilled. Your own text above says "not being able to decide either way." Are you really that lazy or dishonest, that you cannot even remember your own statements?

Now you apparently want to argue the opposite point: that we *can* know that the prophecy is correct. Just so I'm clear: how long do you plan to hold this position, before jumping back to the other viewpoint?

Then maybe you should stop trying to make claims about the other points. Apparently so many points is obviously too confusing for you to keep track of.

Totally wrong. All of the points are decide-able; the prophecy fails on all points. I'm not having any problems keeping the points separate; however, you apparently are having difficulties. So I guess the only question here is how many do you want to debate.

Learn to read. I merely
1. pointed out that your made-up scenario was not proven so you could not introduce it into the debate.

2. informed you that Media was not north, so the prophecy failed for that reason as well.

Because you are jumping back and forth between two positions that are exactly opposite.

First we can't know; but now, I guess we can.
Oops; we can't know -- but wait! lee thinks we can!
Nope; can't know for sure. Whoops! Oh, yes we can!

Oh, please.

1. You are not defending the opening statement; you are shot-gunning comments all over the topic area. And when responses are given to you, what do you do? Ignore them, and repeat your previous assertions.

2. You included scriptures in your opening statement that clearly did not come to pass, so you'll have to defend them as well -- since they are part of your opening statement, after all. Right?

3. Your opening statement also referred to Sodom and Gomorrah. Babylon's fall did not resemble S & G in any way, shape or form.

Your opening statement is on life support.

No, it isn't. You haven't yet proven that Babylon fell according to prophecy. Until you do that, then you're a long way from any conclusions about rebuilding or reinhabiting.


Nice edit job on my comment. Fortunately I'm much better with remembering the context than you would like.

In the above exchange,
1. we were talking about people living in the ruins of ancient Babylon.
2. You didn't believe it.
3. I told you that it's actually fairly common.
4. You then asked if I thought it was probable -- a totally pointless question, because probability doesn't matter.

I don't *have* to show that it's probable. Your claim was that you didn't believe it was going on. I don't care what you believe, nor do I have to show that such activity is probable. Not my job; I don't give a flying rip. You took the strong affirmative position in this debate that Babylon was not inhabited. It is up to YOU to show that such actions are (a) not going on, and/or (b) improbable.

1. You were more than wrong. You were guilty of gross negligence on the topic. The precise statement in question was about only *one* part of the city needing repair - the ramparts on the defensive walls. That does not translate to the entire city needing repair. Which neatly contradicts the claim you were trying to sell to the audience.

2. Wrong? Nonsense. I was not wrong; my statement stands. No need to try and make yourself feel better with some feel-good pretense that "oh, well everyone got something wrong in the debate." I certainly did not make a mistake here.

Bogus comparison. (Note: do these little discrepancies in your analogies ever bother you, lee? Apparently not).

Athens long ago passed into the realm of antiquity; during the time of Alexander, Babylon was still vibrant and the largest city in the world. However, we aren't talking about preserving culture. We're talking about what it takes for a major city to function. In that respect, Babylon did not need any critical rebuilding.

1. That is not the point. You're trying to wave your hands really quickly and pretend that none of the contradictory evidence matters. It doesn't work that way, sorry to tell you.

2. Alexander found a city that was bustling, the center of the world, that needed some repairs to certain areas, but was still economically powerful and politically vibrant. That reality -- all by itself -- nullifies the Isaiah prophecy about what woulld happen to Babylon.

3. In order for the city to function as a world class center of economy and power, absolutely ZERO building was necessary. How do I know that? Because the city was ALREADY functioning as precisely that: a world class center of economy and power. It would have been IMPOSSIBLE for Babylon to fill such a role, if some mandatory rebuilding was left undone.

4. Next, you have no evidence that Alexander failed 100% in rebuilding. All we know is that he died. He might have completed 50% or 80% or 95% of the rebuilding projects.

5. Finally, I remind you of what I said above:

In Alexander's time, however, there had not yet been any such destruction of Babylon. So the "not built again" part does not apply yet. Alexander couldn't have overturned the prophecy, because he was too *early* - the city hadn't endured any such destruction.

SO FUCKING WHAT?

1. It was ONE temple - out of hundreds. Repeat quotation for the intentionally stupid:

The city has ten quarters, each with its own gate, twenty-four great boulevards, forty-three temples of the great gods, 900 chapels of lesser gods and hundreds more neighbourhood shrines.

2. The Twin Towers fell on 9/11. But New York City went right on, and retained its status in the world. Apparently the Twin Towers were not critical to NYC functioning as the major center of economic and cultural power that it is.

3. Bill Gates used to be worth $60 billion. Now he's only worth $43 billion. Does that mean that his empire is crumbling?

Are you getting it yet, lee?

What an idiotic attempt to rescue a stupid argument.

Yes, but that only says *some*. You were doing what you always do: taking a statement about one item, and trying to make it apply to all such items. Which is intellectually dishonest and unethical.

A truly stupid question. The opposite of "glamorous" is not "boring". There are many things that aren't glamorous at all, but are still very interesting. You think the only reason that someone might go to see ruins is because they are glamorous? No, of course you don't think that -- you're only asking such an asinine question because your argument is in trouble and you're trying to find a way to patch it up.

People go to see them, but not because they are "glamorous", lee. You fucked up - you tried to create a new definition for "glamorous", but the dictionary didn't help you. So now you're casting about, trying to find some ridiculous example that you can use to plug the hole in the leaky argument.

Repeat:
There are crumbling landmarks in Athens right now. And in Boston. And in London. But no one would say that those cities needed rebuilding, merely becuase "some landmarks" were crumbling.

The Encarta quote does NOT say what you claim. Your claim was that Alexander set out to conquer Babylon with the purpose of making it his capital. Encarta does not say that, although you're huffing and heaving and trying your hardest to make it say that.

At some point Alexander did want to make Babylon his capital. But you have presented no evidence that "some point" was when he started his military campaign.

1. So what? "Before he reaches Babylon" covers a lot of territory. Alexander could have decided to restore the shrine when he was only 10 days away from Babylon. Your claim is much different. You claimed that he started out on the conquest of Babylon with such a goal in mind. That would have been months or years before then.

2. Alexander's purpose here only covers the shrine of Bel. Therefore, you cannot simply try to spread that over the entire argument and assume that he had the same designs for the entire city. There were special circumstances surrounding the shrine of Bel which did not hold true for the city in general. No - I will not tell you what those special circumstances were. You will have to get off your lazy ass and find out for yourself.

1. Before he came there does not mean that he set out with that purpose in mind. Alexander had been in the field conquering for many months or years prior to arriving at Babylon.

2. *Yawn* What you think is probable doesn't count. You have no experience in this subject matter, and the history of your posts shows that you are intellectually dishonest and will twist text whenever you need to do so. Because of that, what you think is not admissible in this discussion. If you can't prove what you believe, don't bore us with your newest special pleading.

1. I was quoting him on military tactics. Which is precisely what Britannica said was Arrian's speciality.

2. You tried to quote him about Alexander's motives. Which is precisely what Britannica said Arrian was nearly useless for.

Reading comprehension - an amazing concept.

No. It was not.


It isn't even evidence. The available evidence says that the phrase you were clinging to is not reliable for the purpose you tried to use it for.

1. Historically long and short declines are both possible. It depends upon the unique circumstances.

2. The prophecy says it would be immediate, and at the hands of the Medians. Neither claim ever came to pass.

2. No one cares "what you would say". If you want to make claims about how fast or slow cities have fallen, then you'll have to prove your case. You don't get any free claims around here.

Except that you are pretending that any invalidation of the prophecy would be in the future. As usual, you have it backwards. It is because Paris has ALREADY been designated the capital of France as a PAST event, no one needs to spend any money to prove that fact.

In like fashion, 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.


That's because facts are only minor inconveniences to you.

Sauron

1. Why should muslims bother? They believe the bible is already discredited - no need to spend even a penny to prove what they already know.

2. Can you show some evidence that muslims have discrediting the Babylon prophecy "as their agenda"? No; I didn't think you could.

3. Petra has nothing to do with this. I don't know why you keep bringing up Petra.

Prove that they believe the bible is wrong on this precise point. For all you know, they might agree with the bible on this point.

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

I agree! Only I can't address every point in Scripture all at once. I was invited to pick a prophecy to defend, and I picked this one. Why may I not do this? If you want to invite me to defend another point, please do so, and as I have time, I will do my best to address that, too, as I am actually doing in other threads here.

I agree again! I am not trying to defend every point in each prophetic passage about Babylon, I am not defending that the prophecy, meaning all the points in, say, Isaiah 13, have been fulfilled, I have a more specific point to defend in this debate thread, I was asked to do so.

I agree yet again, this is not what I am defending either, do please ... read my opening statement.

Not while it was a swamp, though! And we would need to have examples of Arab shepherds really doing this.

Well, it seems if I make any statement at all, I must be claiming to be an expert! But I do have an online copy of the Koran, and a quick search points out one reference (Surah 2:202: "The blasphemers were, not Solomon, but the evil ones, teaching men magic, and such things as came down at Babylon to the angels Harut and Marut"), this does not require being an expert to do this.

Well, Muslims actually do believe that the Koran is the original version of the Bible, and that the Bible has been corrupted, as described here, for instance, and they would be eager to make this undeniably plain to people, as would the Mormons.

But going through a decline is at least a bit of becoming desolate, contrary to your former statement, which said it was not in the least bit becoming desolate.

But you have not addressed my response, which is that "Her days will not be prolonged" is what prevents Alex from rebuilding the city. It then doesn't matter whether the desolation is complete, that is my response.

Well, you had said the context makes your view clear, and this is context, that indicates another view than the one you are proposing:

Isaiah 14:4 you will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon: How the oppressor has come to an end! How his fury has ended!

Then every statement in a prophecy must follow a temporal sequence? Then we must hold that "neither shall the Arabian pitch tent there," must occur in time before "wild beasts of the desert shall lie there," which must then be followed next by "owls shall dwell there," and so on. But this is not probable at all that a sequence in time is meant by each successive statement, this is not the way to read such a passage.

But it fits if "her days" refers to the time of their control, as in these statements:

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.

But the oppression ending would end when the oppressors were conquered, not when the city became desolate, so my point is not erased if destruction of the city is prophesied here as well.

Well, again, and again! I am defending my opening statement, "Babylon will never be rebuilt or reinhabited," that is what is done in a debate, and that is what I am doing.

So then if the prophecy failed, you are indeed arguing that the army did not in any way come from the north! Or is it that you are instead only arguing that there is no evidence that the army came from that direction? These are two different points, and you need to pick one, and defend that.

But why is it that when you say I am incorrect, I am the only one who has to defend his view? You are saying the prophecy failed, are you not? Why do you not have to defend this? This question has come up before, when you said the one who makes the first claim is the one who has to defend their point, and the one who makes a counter-claim, does not.

Well, in fact, it doesn't, neither does mine. You are not infallible, are you claiming this, may I ask?

Are we ignoring the encyclopedia again, though? MSN Encarta holds that "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 failed in rebuilding, as the prophecy implied he would.

So all the other temples were in splendid shape? How do we know this? Let us remember the ramparts in some disrepair, as well, as shown by the quote that you posted here.

That really doesn't matter to my argument, though, I can cede this point, that's fine, the critical part of what I was saying was that Alex tried to rebuild it (whenever he may have made this decision), and failed, as the prophecy indicated he would.

However, you did not say "Arrian is to be taken with a grain of salt except on military tactics." And the reason Arrian is notable is because of his history of Alex, not because of his analysis of military tactics, his primary reason for being mentioned is because his is the earliest history of Alex's campaigns: "Such is the importance of Alexander that [Arrian] will not hesitate to challenge the great historians [not military tacticians!] of Greece" (Penguin edition, Introduction, p. 18).

Well, it was, by all indications, as we read (for example) here:


Actually, I'm saying you may invalidate this now! That is the main point, that we don't have to argue about this, just rebuild the city, or rebuild Petra, and then I will agree that the Bible is incorrect, and become a skeptic, and argue on the other side.

I expect they would be motivated to clearly disprove Scripture, that is a pretty safe assumption. Mormons, too, would be glad of such an opportunity.

Because the Bible says Edom will not rebuilt, so if the capital of Petra is rebuilt, that would also be a clear contradiction of Scripture, in the broad sunlight, and undeniable, and you would find many people becoming skeptics, myself among them.

If the Koran doesn't say this, then the prophecy must be a corruption, for the Koran (and the book of Mormon) is held to be the original version, restored. And anyone should be able to rebuild Babylon, or Petra, if God did not really say they would be desolate forever, this would be a telling point in their favor.

Regards,
Lee

Johnny Skeptic

I don't need to read your opening statement. This is really quite simple. You have said that the Babylon prophecy has been fulfilled, but I told you that the prophecy can never be fulfilled as long as the earth is here. A similar analogy is that if Isaiah had predicted that it would never rain in desert A, even if so far it has never rained in desert A, the prophecy could never be fulfilled as long as the earth is here. No one can ever logically claim what will never happen in the future based upon what has not happened in the past, but when you claim that the Babylon prophecy has been fulfilled that is exactly what you are doing.

No, you are the claimant here, and you need to provide proof that shepherds did not do this. Similarly, if Isaiah had predicted that it would never rain in desert A, I would not need to provide proof that it rained in desert A. Rather, you would need to provide proof that it has never rained in desert A. When was Babylon a swamp?

starling

I prophecy that Armageddon will never happen, and Jesus will never return. That proves that I can see the future, because Armageddon has not happened, and Jesus has not come back (if he was ever here in the first place). Every second that passes without the coming of the biblical doom of the world is a clear demonstration that my prophecies are more powerful than God's. By your argument, I just proved the son of God, and the wacky Revelations prophet to both be bald faced liars. Jews will never return to Israel either, because they haven't returned to Israel yet--oh wait, never mind.

Johnny Skeptic

Regarding Isaiah 13:20, the 'NIV Bible Commentary, general editor F. F. Bruce,' William MacDonald's 'Believer's Bible Commentary,' 'The Interpreter's One-volume Commentary on the Bible,' and the 'Baker Commentary on the Bible,' all say that the destruction of Babylon was not only literal regarding Babylon's destruction in ancient times, but also symbolic of God's final judgment of mankind, which of course has not occured. If Lee Merrill wishes I can quote them all. I know how stubborn Lee Merrill can be. It will be fun to see him argue with four Bible commentaries. If Lee will not concede defeat, I will ask Dr. Robert Price to contact several Bible commentaries and several leading Christian scholars of Lee's choosing. Bob often conducts research for me. What about it, Lee?

badger3k

Lee, why do you lie? You seem unable to look at the real problem.

You want to prove that a prophecy came true and was fulfilled. You CANNOT do that when you only look at one part of it. Unless EVERY part is fulfilled, then it is NOT a fulfilled prophecy. There are no "partial" prophecies that were fulfilled. That's what I mean by "all or nothing".

How hard is that to understand?

You want a different thread for every point in the prophecy so that you can prove that ALL of them came true? That's pretty sad - if you can't argue for every point on one thread, why would arguing every point on multiple threads be any easier? If you want to argue one point, then you cannot claim that a prophecy has come true based on ONE POINT.

Since you seem to agree with me, then you should immediately state whether or not you do believe the prophecy came true in all points or not - think carefully, for if you do believe it came true, then you have to defend ALL points, not just the ones you want to. Since you also admit that many cannot be said to have come true, the idea of a fullfilled prophecy is BS.

So which is it Lee?

cajela

I'm amused that the claim that Babylon will never be inhabitated is
a) not verifiable
b) easily falsifiable
and
c) HAS been falsified. As per Saddam moving 1000 inhabitants of Babylon out of the way to build that palace...

Sad. I'm quite sure that if, for some bizarre reason, we were to commit archaeological atrocities and rebuit Petra, lee_merril would NOT turn sceptic. He would turn around and say "Well, Petra is just one place, it's not all of Edom, and anyway it's not exactly the same as it was so it's not really rebuilt..." After all, it's just as undeniable as a village of 1000 people on a site that "will never be inhabited". I don't see any problem with lee continuing to deny the undeniable.