Johnny Skeptic

You can’t get away with this, Lee. Regarding
“that is again not what is done in a debate, to discuss the results of the discussion turning out one way or the other,� that is in fact what you have been doing all along. Consider the following:

From post #10:

That does not compare favorably with your comment “that is again not what is done in a debate, to discuss the results of the discussion turning out one way or the other.�


From post #37:

That does not compare favorably with your comment “that is again not what is done in a debate, to discuss the results of the discussion turning out one way or the other.�

That does not compare favorably with your comment “that is again not what is done in a debate, to discuss the results of the discussion turning out one way or the other.�

From post #45:

That does not compare favorably with your comment “that is again not what is done in a debate, to discuss the results of the discussion turning out one way or the other.�

From post #50:

That does not compare favorably with your comment “that is again not what is done in a debate, to discuss the results of the discussion turning out one way or the other.�

That does not compare favorably with your comment “that is again not what is done in a debate, to discuss the results of the discussion turning out one way or the other.�

From post #55:

That does not compare favorably with your comment “that is again not what is done in a debate, to discuss the results of the discussion turning out one way or the other.�

That does not compare favorably with your comment “that is again not what is done in a debate, to discuss the results of the discussion turning out one way or the other.�

From post #110:

That does not compare favorably with your comment “that is again not what is done in a debate, to discuss the results of the discussion turning out one way or the other.�

From post #129:

That does not compare favorably with your comment “that is again not what is done in a debate, to discuss the results of the discussion turning out one way or the other.�

That does not compare favorably with your comment “that is again not what is done in a debate, to discuss the results of the discussion turning out one way or the other.� In addition, since you have admitted that “those who are reasonable� are a very small group of people, of what significance are the opinions of a very small group of people? The Flat Earth Society is a very small group of people. In their opinions, people can prove that the earth is round anytime they want to, and that missed opportunities to prove such a claim would fail to convince reasonable people, in other words, people who believe that the earth is flat, that the earth is round.

From post #137:

That does not compare favorably with your comment “that is again not what is done in a debate, to discuss the results of the discussion turning out one way or the other.�

That does not compare favorably with your comment “that is again not what is done in a debate, to discuss the results of the discussion turning out one way or the other.�

From post #146:

That does not compare favorably with your comment “that is again not what is done in a debate, to discuss the results of the discussion turning out one way or the other.�

From post #152:

That does not compare favorably with your comment “that is again not what is done in a debate, to discuss the results of the discussion turning out one way or the other.�

From post #189:

That does not compare favorably with your comment “that is again not what is done in a debate, to discuss the results of the discussion turning out one way or the other.�

Regarding “So a clear contradiction to Scripture, in a test like this, would be quite a prize,� are you now saying the rebuilding of Babylon would not be quite a prize for Muslims and skeptics, and that the results of the discussion turning out one way or the other don’t make any difference? Now if the results turning out one way or the other don’t make any difference, will you please tell me why we are having these discussions? Will Josh McDowell agree with you that “that is again not what is done in a debate, to discuss the results of the discussion turning out one way or the other�? I am pretty sure that I can get Dr. Robert Price to contact Josh McDowell. If McDowell will disagree with you and say that discussing the results turning out one way or the other IS appropriate, AND IS IN FACT THE ENTIRE POINT OF DISCUSSING THE BABYLON PROPHECY, will you then concede defeat?

Sauron

However, there have already been numerous reasons posted why the Babylon prophecy failed. You have yet to address those, preferring to pretend they don't exist while you lead everyone down a dead-end canyon over this silly "rebuild Babylon" idea you have.

As for muslims, you've already been told that they will not attempt to disprove a prophecy unless:

CONDITION 1. they disagree with the prophecy; and

CONDITION 2. they believe that disproving the prophecy would have an actual effect on christians; i.e., by making them reject their own bible.

Neither of these two conditions has been satisfied here. So you are chasing your own tail by continuing to insist on it.

Johnny, badger, everyone else - let's keep draggin lee back to these two conditions, no matter how much he kicks and screams. By presenting them in a clear, repeatable formula, perhaps we can either (a) beat it through his thick head, or (b) sufficiently corner him that he can no longer pretend to misunderstand the point being made.

Utter hogwash.

The muslim in question said nothing of the kind. Here are the two threads in question:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biblea.../message/56149
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biblea.../message/56152

In neither thread did he make any such admission. As might be expected. Now if you have private email that you want to introduce into the debate, fine. But you have to introduce the entire email, not just bits and pieces of it. You see, lee, your honesty is not very trustworthy. Given that, we will want to see the muslim's actual words, and not your accidentally/on purpose rephrasings of his position.

Sauron

The 101 contradictions is the same list that we've seen before. There is nothing particularly islamic about the list; it's more of a short skeptic's compilation:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biblea.../message/56149

Sauron

Of course they know that. But that isn't their purpose. Once again, your ridiculous evangelical misunderstanding of islam shows its head. If you actually knew what islam says about the bible, then you'd realize the reason why.

It has nothing to do with consistency. As usual, you're clueless and determined to remain that way. As I said above:

The answer's been given to you three or four times already. Muslims disagree with parts of the bible but not all of it. Of course, you won't read or acknowledge the answer this time either, so we're doomed to repeating it for you at least 10 or 20 more times.

Boy, I sure hit the nail on the head when I said we were doomed to repeat it for our resident expert-in-denial.

Maybe you should ask God to give you some initiative and instill within you a sense of honesty - that way you could be an equal partner in this debate, instead of just changing the topic and playing other games. I must say that I have not been impressed with your christianity in this debate. Given your lack of straightforward dealing with the skeptics here, apparently your version of christianity doesn't have very high standards of personal integrity.

Just a thought.

Doesn't work. As I said above:

Then your whole theory about why muslims should want to rebuild Babylon falls apart. That theory is based upon your projection of one of the results of rebuilding Babylon: convincing people or discrediting the bible.

But if you're unwilling to support your claim of such an outcome, then you need to withdraw your broken theory behind the claim as well.

Next we see lee try again to shift the burden of research...

You have the NERVE to tell someone else to do their own homework? After you've continually tossed out assumptions, what-if scenarios, and handwaves? Talk about someone needing to take their own advice!

Except that the two conditions stated earlier have not been satisfied yet:

CONDITION 1. they disagree with the prophecy; and

CONDITION 2. they believe that disproving the prophecy would have an actual effect on christians; i.e., by making them reject their own bible.

Johnny Skeptic

Yes indeed, that is exactly what Lee's theory was all along until he realized that he would have to concede defeat unless he completely abandoned his position. He is debating a position that is a minority position EVEN AMONG CHRISTIANS. Now if that don't beat all.

By reasonable people Lee means Christians who hold his very small minority position. What he is actaully saying is that the vast majority of Christians, who definitely disgree with him, are not reasonable people. I am sure that James Holding will not appreciate being called unreasonable. I am assuming that Holding will not agree with Lee's position. I have asked Lee on a number of occassions to send Holding a private message at the Theology Web, but he continues to conveniently refuse to do so.

The best debators always seek to use a majority consensus whenever possible, but of course Lee Merrill is not in that category. He prefers to debate a minority position, a tactic that is always a loser. Christians frequently say "a majority of scholars maintain that ............" They seldom say "a minority of scholars maintain that ........"

It is no accident that not even one single Christian is supporting Lee in these debates. He couldn't pay Andrew Criddle, Roger Pearse or Gakusei Don to defend his positions. I am quite certain that no Christian at the Theology Web would agree with Lee's position either. His minority position is analogous to President Bush debating positions that are not popular even among Republicans.

Johnny Skeptic

I must say that Lee Merrill has changed his position so many times that I have no idea what his position is at this time. Lee, please pretend that this debate is just starting and make your opening statement.

lee_merrill

That would be fine!

The prophecy that Babylon will never be rebuilt or reinhabited (Isa. 13:19-20, Jer. 25:12, Jer. 51:26) has been and is being fulfilled, and this is a clear demonstration of God's supernatural power.

This is what I will defend.

And challenging people to rebuild Babylon is quite pertinent to this point, for this should reasonably be able to be accomplished, this is within the ability of many various groups today, and if they set out to do this, knowing what they are doing, because they have this prophecy in view, and if they fail (yet again!), this makes it even more likely that supernatural power is at work, which (I would say) supports the above point.

Regards,
Lee

John A. Broussard

Unfortunately, this is all meaningless unless you define--specifically and in detail--what you (or your interpretation of the bible) means by rebuilding.

If houses, how many? How big do the buildings have to be? If tents, how many? If number of inhabitants, how many? Will they have to have a mayor? If not, what kind of government? Where must it be located, exactly? Zigurrats? What size area must it cover? Do the inhabitants have to be Babylonians? If the U.S. army builds a base there, does that qualify? There are a lot more details needed!!!!

This is, of course, your major problem, lee. Unless a hypothesis is clearly defined and well-delimited, ad hoc excuses for failure become all too easy.

Sauron

Except that:

1. that isn't what the prophecy actually says. You want to focus on one part of it ,and ignore the rest because you don't have any rebuttal to the facts of history. Your argument similar to this scenario:

Assume that someone prophesied that John Doe would die as a result of being struck by lightning, and that it would happen quickly, and there would be no helping John; it would be a tragic death with no rescue.

Instead, John lives another 30 years and finally dies from totally inoperable lung cancer.

You're trying to argue that because John died, and because it was tragic and inoperable, then the prophecy was fulfilled. Then we point out that - Wait a minute! The fundamental characteristic of the prophesy (death by lightning, not cancer) simply didn't happen! So then you backpedal like a coward and complain that you only want to focus on one part of the prophecy: a tragic death. And we're supposed to ignore all the circumstances that lead to his death, because you can't handle dealing with so many details at one time. Please.


2. Babylon was rebuilt - by Cyrus II, by Alexander, and then by his successors (the Diadochi, etc.), which is all contrary to your claims;

3. The photographic evidence contradicts you. We have pictures of families and children at the site of Babylon indicates that Babylon has been re-inhabited, and despite several posts of what-ifs and handwaving, you have still failed to address this.

No, it is not, for reasons already stated:


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

2. 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.

3. 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.

Moreover:


There are conditions that haven't been satisifed, lee. As for muslims, you've already been told that they will not attempt to disprove a prophecy unless:

CONDITION 1. they disagree with the prophecy; and


CONDITION 2. they believe that disproving the prophecy would have an actual effect on christians; i.e., by making them reject their own bible.

Neither of these two conditions has been satisfied here.

Sauron

Lee's entire argument relies on the vagueness of his position. It allows him to change positions on the fly, create irrelevant tangents, and generally de-focus the debate.

Make no mistake - he enjoys being slippery. He absolutely is not going to allow himself to be pinned down to a particular viewpoint. That would remove his wiggle room and force him to actually defend a point of view.