Sven

Interesting. By following Lee's logic, it would not have been possibly to demonstrate a spherical Earth until we developed space travel.

Apart from this claim being totally bullshit, this actually provides a nice analogy for his faulty logic in general:
For hundreds of years before we developed space travel, evidence after evidence has accumulated that the Earth is spherical. At the time we developed it, nobody needed the pictures from space any more as refutation of a flat Earth, everybody (without a theological axe to grind such as the Flat Earth society) was already convinced that it isn't flat.
Exactly the same with Babylon: We have already that much evidence against this prophecy that nobody even needs it to be rebuilt (apart from some people with a theological axe to grind such as Lee).

The analogy works even further: The Flat Earth society wasn't even convinced by pictures from space. The same way Lee will also not be convinced if Babylon indeed would be rebuilt. Sure, he claims he will, but does anyone really believe him? A faith-based worldview simply can not be challenged by any outside evidence as long as one isn't willing to let it through once presupposition that one simply can not be wrong.

So, once again, Lee's claims backfired. And once again, he'll fail to admit it.

Sven

We already knew that he's kind of masochistic - or why else does he still post in this thread? :rolling:

Johnny Skeptic

Well, Lee, what do you have to say about this?

Lee, you have said on a number of occasions that Muslims and skeptics have vested interests in rebuilding Babylon. That claim has been a major part of your arguments.

In part of your opening post you said the following:

Does this not have to do with the perceived vested interests of Muslims? Not only have you not reasonably proven that Muslims want to discredit the Babylon prophecy, but I told you in another post that even if Muslims did want to discredit the Babylon prophecy they would not attempt to do so because they are well aware that for all practical purposes the Christian Church would still be as large as it is today. So, your “people have tried to rebuild Babylon and they have failed� argument is patently absurd.�

I also told you that even if the Iraqis gave skeptics permission to rebuild Babylon, skeptics would not attempt to do so because, like Muslims, they are well aware that if they did rebuild Babylon, for all practical purposes the Christian Church would still be as large as it is today. In addition, most skeptics would no doubt much prefer to spend the large amount of money that it would take to rebuild Babylon to contest Christianity in other ways that they deem would be much more productive. Lee, I could easily produce ten skeptics who agree with me, but can you produce just one skeptic who disagrees with me? I can easily produce ten Christians who disagree with you, but can you produce just one Christian who agrees with you? Let me put it another way. I believe that I can produce ten Christians who disagree with you for every one Christian who you can produce who agrees with you.

[quote=JohnnySkeptic] Hence, he has admitted that if Babylon were to be rebuilt, most Christians WOULD NOT give up Christianity. Therefore, most Christians DO NOT HAVE a perceived vested interested in having Babylon rebuilt.

I meant to say “Hence, he has admitted that if Babylon were to be rebuilt, most Christians WOULD NOT give up Christianity. Therefore, most [Muslims] DO NOT HAVE a perceived vested interested in having Babylon rebuilt.� Do you claim otherwise?

You will not be able to get away with this, Lee. The perceived vested interests of Muslims and skeptics have been a big part of your arguments, and you have been embarrassed on both counts. Proper debate etiquette requires that you back up what you claim. You are being evasive, but no skeptic has been evasive.

If the prophecy was easy to defend, you wouldn’t be trying to avoid discussing the perceived vested interests of Muslims and skeptics. Regarding “I picked the prediction that Babylon will never be rebuilt or reinhabited,� Isaiah 13:20 also mentions Arabs pitching tents and shepherds grazing their flocks, and you said “I agree that I cannot prove that shepherds never grazed their flocks there, thus I focus on ‘never rebuilt or reinhabited, which is easier to verify.� You have refuted your claim in another post where you basically said that so far, the Babylon
prophecy has held up pretty well so far. “Cannot prove� and “has held up pretty well so far� do not favorably correlate with one another, and in fact oppose one another.

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.� A while back you said that you added the verse to your pertinent Scripture references regarding the Babylon prophecy. The verse makes three separate claims. You tried to defend the second and third claims, but you had difficulty with that so you retreated to attempting to defend the first claim. That won’t work. The verse makes three separate claims, and you must defend all of them. Even your defense of the first claim fails because you have failed to produce any evidence at all that Muslims and skeptics have a perceived vested interest in rebuilding Babylon.

There you go again insisting that your criteria for disproof of the Bible, and I suppose Josh McDowell’s as well, should be accepted as the standard criteria that everyone else must adhere to. Lee, YOU AND JOSH MCDOWELL DON’T RUN THE WORLD. What you believe is inconsistent is completely irrelevant. You have admitted that YOUR OWN views are inconsistent with what most Christians believe about the Babylon prophecy.

Let me state restate this as simply as I can: IN THE OPINIONS OF MUSLIMS AND SKEPTICS, THE BIBLE HAS ALREADY BEEN ADEQUATELY DISCREDITED HUNDREDS OF TIMES, AND MUSLIMS AND SKEPTICS ARE WELL AWARE THAT IF BABYLON WERE TO BE REBUILT THAT FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH WOULD STILL BE JUST AS LARGE AS IT IS TODAY. As the Muslim told you, “Siemplimente! Kapish?�

By the way, what about my request to you that you invite the Muslim to debate you here or at his web site?

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

Then having evidence that the earth is flat must be parallel with evidence that Babylon is rebuilt. No, I don't think it is...

I said sheep probably were not grazed there, and I need not say Babylon is "probably not rebuilt." It is indeed, not rebuilt, though people have tried to rebuild it.

Actually, it is not. My argument is that it is not and has not been rebuilt, though it should have been rebuilt (humanly speaking), by Alex, or by Saddam Hussein.

Well, why do they post 101 Bible contradictions, if they are not trying to discredit the Bible? That is what I wonder.

I have officially withdrawn any projection of the results of this debate, or of people rebuilding Babylon, or trying to do this, and failing. I make no claim or prediction here! It is not important to the point at issue, and the point at issue is whether Babylon can be rebuilt, if we try to rebuild it, and why Alex and Saddam failed to do this.

Well, you all are actually evading the question of the very first post! I am withdrawing my claim, in order to discuss the issue that was supposed to be the subject of the debate. Let's not get sidetracking trying to predict what people will think of this discussion, what people will think about this issue now or in the future.

Now I am being scolded for not changing topics! No, let's discuss Biblical predictions, not my predictions, such as they may have been.

Well, no, I was willing to discuss other aspects here, but I also want to discuss the main issues. When the focus becomes exclusively on the sheep, and I've said all I can say about these sheeps, then it's time to return to the main issue.

Well, no, I must defend the points in the first post. That is how a debate is done! You specify the statement to debate, and then you debate it. Not every statement in every verse that is mentioned, the verses were quoted to show that Scripture indeed predicts Babylon will never be rebuilt or reinhabited, and then the debate should be about those points.

Well, I do know that is your statement here, and I realize that you are not trying to convince yourselves!

The point is if you try and convince other people that the Bible is unreliable, and then pass up an clear opportunity to show an error in it, then you, and they, are being inconsistent. That is my point here.

Well, in a debate, you debate the person you challenged, you don't generally tell him to find another opponent.

Regards,
Lee

badger3k

Gee, Lee, maybe to show that they HAVE ALREADY DISCREDITED the bible? Or at least the parts they disagree with? Notice the past tense? Can you realise that once something has been discarded as useless, most people do not hang on to it. Just because you have this problem does not mean most other people do not. When I was a kid, I believed in Santa Claus. Then I found out he didn't exist. Funny thing - I don't need to see any more evidence, nor would I go out of my way to show that Santa is fake to other people. It's not worth my time or effort - it is an already-discredited idea. So, Santa is discredited and I have no need to continually disprove the idea of Santa. Does that make any sense to you?

To relate it to the "101 reasons". Let's say that I wanted to show people that the idea of Santa was false. I could post 101 reasons why Santa Claus is a myth. That is for other people - my "converts", hopefully. It doesn't mean that I have any more need to disprove Santa - what is one more reason? So, why should I continue to try to disprove Santa based on one tiny, insignificant idea? Why should a muslim try to disprove something that is already disproven?

Do you continually seek to disprove Santa?

You have yet to show one scrap of evidence that muslims are continually seeking to disprove of something they already consider disproven.

Really, either back up your claims or stop parading them about as if they have any meaning.

Johnny Skeptic

It is in fact the main issue. Alex and Saddam are irrelevant. You have said that TODAY, Muslims and skeptics want to discredit the Bible, and that they have a golden opportunity to do so by rebuilding Babylon. Your problem is that Muslims and skeptics wouldn’t try to rebuild Babylon unless they believed that it would be of benefit for them to do so. The only possible ways that it would be of benefit for them to do so would be if the number of Christians in the world decreased significantly, and much more importantly if the foreign policies of Western nations, primarily the United States, became more favorable to Muslims. Do you wish to claim that either or both would be the case if Babylon were to be rebuilt?

The best possible way for me to win these debates would be to use exclusively Christian sources. If you will not concede defeat, that is what I intend to do from now on. I have done so in the past at the Theology Web with excellent results. I am willing to contact scholars at Liberty University, CBN University, Oral Roberts University, Dallas Theological Seminary and Indiana Wesleyan University. In addition, I am willing to contact several colleges of your choosing, and several pastors of your choosing. How about it, Lee? I enjoy this kind of research quite a lot.

Even if you never concede defeat, if most of the Christian sources who I contact agree with my arguments, your reputation will become more compromised than it already is, even among most Christians.

Sven

Everybody heard this nice whoosing sound of Lee entirely missing my points?

No. The pictures from space are the parallel to rebuilding Babylon. And I explained that they are unnecessary

Sauron

Ah, lee. Sven was saying that even before space travel, there was already a mountain of evidence that the earth was *not* flat. Therefore space travel wasn't necessary to prove it.

In like fashion, there is already a mountain of evidence that the Babylon prophecy has failed miserably. Therefore rebuilding Babylon is not necessary to prove it.

And in like fashion, there are still some people who can't accept evidence that contradicts their emotionally held beliefs. Which is why there are some flat-earth kooks who think the Apollo missions were all staged by Hollywood. Just like there are some nutjob fundamentalists who think that the Babylon prophecy is still valid, in spite of the historical, archaeological and textual evidences aagainst it.

But you knew all this already - you deliberately pretend to miss the point, so that you can try and avoid the checkmate you see coming for you.

No, that is not what you said. Apparently you think that nobody is going to double check your past postings to see if you are changing your story - you underestimate the Great Eye.

Here is *actually* what you said:

Really this point is quite clear, sheep don't belong in swamps.

During the (possibly extended) times when Babylon was a swamp, sheep would not be grazed there. Please don't ask me again to prove that sheep would not be taken to a swamp for grazing, this point should be self-evident.


There was no "probably" involved at all. You took *definite and unambiguous* positions here.

But you have provided:

• no evidence of sheepfolds being absent;
• no evidence of when Babylon became a swamp;
• no evidence for *how long* that might have been, or if/when it ended;
• no evidence for tents either being there, or being absent;

Moving along to the next claim...

Ah, but you've already been informed of your error here as well. Babylon was rebuilt - by Cyrus II, then again by Alexander's men, and after Alexander's death his successors (the Diadochi, etc.) continued the work. Esagila was rebuilt and services continued into the 1st century AD.


It was rebuilt by Alexander's men - as I pointed out to you before:

2. You have no evidence that Alexander failed to restore Babylon. Repetition is not proof. Your only citation from Encarta does not support that claim. It merely says that he failed to make it his capital - which is an entirely different claim. There were eight or nine years between (a) the time Alexander took Babylon, and (b) the time he died. During that time, his construction plans were being implemented.

EIGHT OR NINE YEARS, lee. Between the time that Alexander started the rebuilding of Babylon in 331 BCE and the time he died in 323 BCE. Are you really trying to claim that NOTHING GOT DONE during those eight years? Because if you are, you will need to present proof. Your intentional misunderstanding of the Encarta citation is a far cry from being proof.

1. You switched claims here. Johnny Skeptic said that muslims did not want to discredit the Babylon prophecy. You changed the topic to discrediting the bible. Not the same.

2. As for why muslims published the 101 reasons list - no reason to wonder about it. 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.

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.

Never mind the fact that the muslim in the discussion point-blank told you that he does NOT disagree with the Babylon prophecy. So apparently you want him to disprove a prophecy that he says he AGREES with. That's the weird, twisted outcome of stubbornly defending a mistaken premise in the light of contradictory facts, lee.

Nonsense. Your first claim involved Isaiah 13:19. The skeptics have whittled away at that for pages, to the point where you were forced to change the scope of what you are willing to talk about because you can't defend your opening post.

But now lee wants to return to the opening post, which contained the verse from Isaiah. To refresh the reader, the verse says:

ISA 13:19 And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees' excellency, shall be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah.

So lee: are you now telling us that you are going to prove that Babylon's demise was like Sodom and Gomorrah's? I asked that several times before, and you never offered any comparison. Are you prepared to do so now?

But then you have to withdraw your broken idea about why muslims ought to try rebuilding Babylon.

No, lee. Don't even try that tactic. You're being scolded for opening that can of worms and then failing to defend it and/or admit your mistake.

YOU were the one who started the claim about the perceived vested interests of muslims and skeptics. You want to wave your hands, change topics, and refocus the debate - without ever admitting that you made a mistake or defending the clami about perceived interests. You want to *use* that claim again and again, but when you're asked to defend it, you pretend that doing so would be off-topic.

Lee, in a debate when someone can't prove their point, proper debate etiquette is to admit that inability and withdraw the claim. You're clearly trying to withdraw the claim, but you haven't admitted the failure to support it yet.

And here again we see you trying to have it both ways: you want to refocus the debate and ignore the sheep claim -- but you can't do that until you resolve the status of the sheep claim. Do you admit that you cannot defend it? Or are you just trying to sweep your failure under the rug and hope nobody sees that?

Lee, in a debate a person takes a well-defined position, states their claims, and presents their proof. Instead, you've tossed out your speculations, backpedaled and dissembled when asked for evidence, and tried desperately to shift the burden of proof. You've fulfilled neither the letter, nor the spirit, of true debate here. We are being far more formal about it than you are. So trying to lecture us on what constitutes proper debate behavior is a little ironic, considering how little such behavior you've exhibited. It is as I've always said - you aren't sincere about any of this; it's just a game you like to play.

1. We understand your point.
2. We have always understood your point.
3. Your point is still wrong.
4. Muslims will not try to disprove a part of the bible that they don't have any problems with.

By the way: I thought you said above that you weren't going to try and defend any outcomes of rebuilding Babylon. Make up your mind.

That's just a dodge and you know it. Johnny Skeptic was talking about starting a new debate. Why aren't you willing to do that?

lee_merrill

Well, this is a continuing misunderstanding. I agree that they and you believe your own conclusions. The point is that you all are trying to convince other people! That is the point.

Now when someone posts a list of 101 contradictions, and then refuses an opportunity to show an undeniable contradiction, in the process of trying to convince other people, I call that inconsistent.

Well, I don't need to speculate on why they (and the skeptics) are trying to convince others that the Bible is not what Christians think it is. I only have to observe that they do this, for whatever reason.

That would be fine with me...

Regards,
Lee

badger3k

You still don't understand, do you. They have no need for ONE MORE contradiction. Why should they? Do you think you need to send an expedition to the North Pole to search for Santa's Workshop, since that would be one more proof that Santa doesn't exist? Would you be willing to put up the money and time for such an effort, or would you just ignore it as a fools errand?

The only contradiction seems to be between you and reality. Not only for the reason I list, but for the reason Johnny Skeptic keeps hammering on (hoping one time it will make it through) - the fact that even if the Babylon Prophecy was disproven to your satisfaction, it would not affect anyone's views. Again, would you spend time and money to do something that would have absolutely no effect, and prove nothing to yourself or others since it is already disproven?

Since you seem to feel this is the case, please mount an expedition to the North Pole, and I will eagerly await your findings. Please hurry, though, we don't have all day. I hope I am correct in thinking that you do not believe in Santa Claus, and if so, by your logic, you need to continually disprove it. So, hurry up. Best go in the Summer, and you are losing time. :wave:

To summarize, once again - no one except Lee thinks that following Lee's idiosyncratic ideas of proof about Babylon would make any sense or serve any purpose, beyond giving Lee more goalposts to move.