Sauron

Ah, moving the goalposts again?

1. First, the prophecy says that Nebuchadnezzar would destroy the city. After much waffling and hand-waving, you were forced to admit that failed.
2. So you tried to sneak in Alexander, even though the wording of the prophecy does not allow for another conqueror.
3. But I showed that Alexander not only inherited a city in very good shape, but that he also rebuilt sections of it.
4. The you tried to waffle on the wording of the prophecy, ignoring other failures and pretending to focus only on ISA 13:20:

ISA 13:20 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.

5. So we allowed that little game for awhile, but another poster pinned you down on what would constitute "rebuilding". You gave an answer.

6. We satisfied that answer with examples, as well as showed how another part of the prophecy ("never inhabited") was invalidated with photographic evidence.

1. We satisfied the definition you gave. Now you want to cheat and change the definition. Again. Besides, if the bible says that no rebuilding of the city will happen, then the prophecy is invalidated if *any* rebuilding goes on.

2. All cities fall. The fact that Alexander's rebuilding and Saddam's rebuilding didn't last perfectly intact for a million years is just the natural course of history. You get no points there.

Except that:

1. The Babylon prophecy has already been disproved on at least 6 other grounds;

2. Babylon was rebuilt twice - by Alexander and by Saddam;

3. You cannot give any evidence that accepting your silly challenge would change the minds of any christians, or convince them to give up christianity - thus skeptics have no incentive to take up your challenge;

4. When presented with photographic evidence of the failure of the prophecy, you still remained in denial - given your own behavior, why should anyone waste money rebuilding Babylon? For fundamentalist christians there is no such thing as undeniable proof: they can always find some excuse or wiggle room that allows them to deny it - just as you have done.

How about focusing on the entire Babylon prophecy, instead of just the one part you enjoy the most? I mean, the prophecy explicitly claims that Babylon's fall would be like the fall of "Sodom and Gomorrah". Yet that didn't happen. In point of fact, the prophecy makes these claims:

• Babylon to be like Sodom and Gomorrah (ISA 13:19)
• Never inhabited again (JER 51:26; ISA 13:20)
• Tents will not be placed there by Arabs (ISA 13:20)
• Sheepfolds will not be there (ISA 13:20)
• Desert creatures will infest the ruins (ISA 13:21)
• Stones will not be removed for other construction projects (JER 51:26)
• The ancient city will not be frequently visited (JER 51:43)
• Covered with swamps of water (ISA 14:23)

So instead of a shotgun approach where you try to answre questions about 5 or 6 prophecies -- and do a piss poor job of it -- how about focusing on ALL the aspects of a single prophecy?

Smart move.

Yes, and you lost that battle as well. Moreover, "many nations" belongs with the Tyre prophecy, not with the Babylon prophecy. You're so confused you can't even keep your handwaving excuses straight.

Sauron

The same thing applies to cities and kingdoms, you know. Which has been one of the skeptics' arguments all along. It's also nice that you yourself provided a nice little invalidation of your very own claims about the fall of Tyre and Babylon

"As far as you know of." Well that's certainly reassuring.

Given how little you know about ancient history, military tactics, near eastern civilization, or mideast culture, why should anyone rely upon lee_merrill's knowledge?

And given how frequently you have been caught red-handed inserting a guess or an unresearched assertion into this discussion, when what you really needed was proof -- why should we take this claim at face value?

You have no credibility here, lee. You can't expect anyone to accept your assertions as though they were reasonable.

Then God should have helped Nebuchadnezzar destroy Tyre. Instead, God was forced to give Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar instead.

EZE 29:18 Son of man, Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon caused his army to serve a great service against Tyrus: every head was made bald, and every shoulder was peeled: yet had he no wages, nor his army, for Tyrus, for the service that he had served against it:

EZE 29:19 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will give the land of Egypt unto Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon; and he shall take her multitude, and take her spoil, and take her prey; and it shall be the wages for his army.

EZE 29:20 I have given him the land of Egypt for his labour wherewith he served against it, because they wrought for me, saith the Lord GOD.

Only that prophecy failed as well - Nebuchadnezzar never entered Egypt.

1. Skeptics have issued multiple challenges to you. You have taken up zero of them. Why should we bother to take up your challenge, when you dont' return the courtesy?

2. Why should anyone take up your challenge, since:
(a) The Babylon prophecy has already been disproved on at least 6 other grounds;

(b) Babylon was rebuilt twice - by Alexander and by Saddam;

(c) You cannot give any evidence that accepting your silly challenge would change the minds of any christians, or convince them to give up christianity - thus skeptics have no incentive to take up your challenge;

(d) When presented with photographic evidence of the failure of the prophecy, you still remained in denial - given your own behavior, why should anyone waste money rebuilding Babylon? For fundamentalist christians there is no such thing as undeniable proof: they can always find some excuse or wiggle room that allows them to deny it - just as you have done.

Probably because you have such a well-established reputation as someone who frequently offers claims without any proof to back them up.

Character and credibility DO matter, lee_merrill. Which is bad news for you, since you apparently lack both.

Wads4

Why look for a general composite argument against all alleged prophecies all at once?-is it not sufficient to refute them one by one? I would have thought that an unbiased Martian coming across Isaiah's reference to " a virgin shall conceive", and noting that "virgin" is an inaccurate translation of "young woman",and in any case refers to contemporary events in his time,-- and seeing that a son shall be born called Emmanuel,-and that this Isaiah lived around 700 BC, --would find it quite stretching things to conclude that it referred to someone called Jesus who would be born 700 years later. Why prophesise 700 years ahead of the alleged event for heavens sake?
When I was working as a Doctor not long ago I had a Portuguese patient whose first name was Jesus. Perhaps Isaiah was referring to him, and his coming to live in Jersey from Madeira. In fact this particular Jesus failed to keep his first appointment and had to re-book; I remember suggesting at the time that it might be his second coming! A so-called atheists answer to an argument is merely one that is made without presupposing the truth of scripture, but actually considering what the facts of the case might be.Because it begs the question,-assumes what needs to be proved, and also shifts the burden of proof;--if you think a vague non-specific apparent prophecy refers to a real specific event, then you have to prove that to our satisfaction.That is true, -but then the conclusion should be that the case for a genuine prophecy is unproven,-and therefore we cannot assume a prophecy has been fulfilled.Prophecies are neither proved nor disproved,--but the rational default position is that clairvoyant foretelling of the future is itself generally improbable and not proven. To prophecy and then get the name wrong, and use a faulty translated text, with an unreasonable long time-gap before the alleged prophesied event occurs,--all adds up to something which is very suspect indeed.

Wads4

"Originally Posted by Columbo
There is no way an atheist can scientifically approach a Godly matter."

God is unfalsifiable-so it is not a scientific matter.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to Lee Merrill: Please reply to my post #80.