Science is a false God

[It Aint Necessarily So]

there's no two ways about it: Bible prophecies are not of natural origin.

Biblical prophecy is what is called low quality prophecy: Vague, nonspecific, trivial, written after the fact, or self-fulfilling. For high quality prophecy, try science. Does prophecy of that quality indicate that scientists have godlike omniscience.

you're opposed to pregnant mothers murdering their children

Yes. Aren't most people? I mean, except the god of the Old Testament. Dashing babies against rocks is immoral, even if you think the commandment comes from a good god.

So, prophecies spoken hundreds of years earlier were fulfilled in exact detail thus proving that the Bible is of, not human, but divine origin!

Proof is what convinces. Biblical prophecy is low quality, and therefore not convincing.

Didn't you insinuate that anyone could be moral without God?

One can be more moral if he disregards biblical morality and instead chooses to decide what is moral using the rational ethics of secular humanism, which is based entirely on applying reason and compassion to the problem of implementing a system that most facilitates the most satisfaction as people define it. You won't get that out of an ancient book written by people who didn't know where the rain came from.

permit me to inquire, if I may, have you ever been assessed for ASD?

You need a new shtick. This wasn't clever or funny the first time you posted, and didn't improve with your incessant repetition of it.

But what happens when that innate moral sense gets mangled beyond all recognition as in the case of those like you who approve of expectant mothers murdering their children? What then?

Are you referring to abortion? Legal abortion is performed on embryos or fetuses, not children. Nor is it murder. If your appeal against legal abortion requires you to lie, you must not have an honest argument to offer in its place.

Confess: You have been instructed to object to abortion and have complied. Your objection is entirely based on dogma, which is why we see it almost exclusively in the religious. If we were talking about something like murdering actual babies, you would find widespread agreement across all demographics. But when the topic is abortion, it's pretty much just the people subjected to religious indoctrination.

How is that not baby murder?

You'd need both a baby and an act of murder to have baby murder. With legal abortion, all you have is a conceptus and lawful homicide..

On what objective moral basis do you dare condemn Jesus's actions as immoral?

You need to lose the word objective. There is nothing objective about morals or morality.

Who made you God Almighty?

I did. Unless we allow others to usurp the role from us, we are all the gods of our own lives in the sense that we determine what is moral. Others might insist we submit to some ancient commandments, but we decline.

After creating the first human pair, our Almighty Creator dictated that sexual relations between a man and a woman can only be within the bonds of matrimony.

Not too interested in what people say that an unseen god told them to tell me. As indicated elsewhere, the autonomous, self-actualized citizen makes these judgments for himself.

Humanity's nemesis, Satan the Devil, we are informed, "was a murderer when he began

According to the Bible, its god is orders of magnitude more lethal a killer than his red buddy: Old Testament Murder Count: God Vs. Satan

When Jesus is speaking of pride he's referring to egotism, arrogance, haughtiness, excessive self-esteem; an irrational sense of superiority with respect to one’s abilities

Ring any bells for you?

millions of children would not be murdered by their mothers who don't want them or children wouldn't suffer growing up without their mother or father in a dysfunctional single-parent home.

Then it must be a good idea to force women to serve as incubators for the state and to deliver babies they don't want and may well resent. How can that turn out badly?

As Voltaire put it, “Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.”

That's why I tend to stay away from faith-based systems of thought. Have you seen the Christian doctrine? It involves a deity that thought that it could improve the human race by drowning most of it and starting over, but using the same breeding stock. D'oh! Guess what? We're still sinners. I don't think one needs omniscience to see that that plane was doomed to failure.

evil is an objective moral value

Evil is not a value of any kind.

It's also a word I don't use because of its religious connotation as some kind of objectively existing principle either disembodied or in the form of a master demon. Malice is the word I use, since it carries no religious baggage.

the irrefutable argument for God's necessary existence

It's been refuted. It's one of the worst arguments I've ever heard, the ultimate in non sequiturs. How does one get from concluding that the world had a beginning to the claim that its source must not only be conscious, but also be uncaused, "beginningless, spaceless, immaterial, timeless, unchanging, omnipotent good personal being." And how did the multiverse hypothesis get ruled out. Answer: It didn't.

Consider your "irrefutable" argument refuted - again.

The Canaanites were evil and deserved to die for their evil.

Genocide? This is biblical ethics, and why so many of us reject it. It's brutal.

With each interaction I grow more and more concerned.

Ask your doctor if Abilfy is right for you.

Consciousness, memory, planning, dreaming and other aspects of the human experience most certainly do transcend our physical self.

To borrow one of your favorite responses, Prove it.

 

[Maximilian]

Biblical prophecy is what is called low quality prophecy: Vague, nonspecific, trivial, written after the fact, or self-fulfilling.

Incorrect.

Case in point, Edom as a nation was prophesied to become like Sodom and Gomorrah, desolated for all time. (Jer 49:7-22; compare Isa 34:9-15.) This began to see its fulfillment about the middle of the sixth century B.C.E., under the Babylonian king Nabonidus.


According to C. J. Gadd, a scholar of Babylonian history and literature, the troops of Nabonidus that conquered Edom and Tema included Jewish soldiers. Commenting on this, John Lindsay wrote: “Thus, in part at least, the words of the prophet found a fulfilment when he wrote of Yahweh saying ‘I will lay my vengeance upon Edom by the hand of my people Israel’ (Ezek. 25.14). We have also a partial fulfilment of the words of Obadiah who said that Edom’s ‘allies’, ‘confederates’, ‘trusted friends’ would ‘deceive’, ‘prevail against’ and ‘set a trap under’ them. Here we may see a reference to the Babylonians who, although in the days of Nebuchadrezzar were willing to allow them a share in Judah’s loss, under Nabonidus curbed once and for all the commercial and mercantile ambitions of Edom (cf. Obad. 1 and 7).”—Palestine Exploration Quarterly, London, 1976, p. 39.


The book of Malachi, written some 100 years after the campaign into Edom by Nabonidus, relates that God had already made Edom’s “mountains a desolated waste and his inheritance for the jackals of the wilderness.” (Malachi 1:3) The Edomites were hoping to return and rebuild their devastated places, but they would not be successful.—Malachi 1:4.


By the fourth century B.C.E. the Nabataeans were inhabiting the Edomite territory, and the Edomites were never able to return. Instead, they found themselves in the Negeb to the S of Judah. The Edomites moved as far N as Hebron, and eventually the southern part of Judah became known as Idumea. According to Josephus, John Hyrcanus I subjugated them sometime between 130 and 120 B.C.E. and compelled them to accept Judaism. (Jewish Antiquities, XIII, 257, 258 [ix, 1]; XV, 253, 254 [vii, 9]) Thereafter they were gradually absorbed by the Jews, and following the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E., they ceased to exist as a people.—Obadiah 10, 18


From a rational and objective perspective, how do you explain Jeremiah and Isaiah's ability to specifically and accurately predict events hundreds of years in advance? How do you explain the fact that not one of the Bible's many highly specific prophecies has ever been wrong?


Here's another example: History records that Babylon took the Jews into captivity. Yet, about 40 years before this happened Jeremiah foretold it. Isaiah predicted it some 150 years before it happened. He also foretold that the Jews would return from captivity. So did Jeremiah, saying that they would be restored to their land after 70 years.—Isaiah 39:6, 7; 44:26; Jeremiah 25:8-12; 29:10.


This return was made possible by the overthrow of Babylon by the Medes and Persians in 539 B.C.E. It was foretold by Isaiah nearly 200 years before it happened, and by Jeremiah about 50 years before it occurred. Jeremiah said that the Babylonian soldiers would put up no fight. Both Isaiah and Jeremiah foretold that Babylon’s protecting waters, the river Euphrates, “must be dried up.” Isaiah even gave the name of the conquering Persian general, Cyrus, and said that before him “the gates [of Babylon] will not be shut.”—Jeremiah 50:38; 51:11, 30; Isaiah 13:17-19; 44:27; 45:1.


The Greek historian Herodotus explained that Cyrus actually diverted the flow of the Euphrates and “the river sank to such an extent that the natural bed of the stream became fordable.”Thus, during the night, enemy soldiers marched along the riverbed and entered the city through gates that had been carelessly left open. “Had the Babylonians been apprised of what Cyrus was about,” Herodotus continued, “they would have made fast all the street-gates which [were] upon the river . . . But, as it was, the Persians came upon them by surprise and so took the city.”Actually, the Babylonians were involved in drunken revelry, as the Bible explains, and as Herodotus confirms. (Daniel 5:1-4, 30) Both Isaiah and Jeremiah foretold that Babylon would eventually become uninhabited ruins. And that is what happened. Today Babylon is a desolate heap of mounds.—Isaiah 13:20-22; Jeremiah 51:37, 41-43.


Cyrus also restored the Jews to their homeland. Why would he do such a thing? The Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary explains, "Cyrus, according to Josephus, heard of this prophecy of Isaiah delivered so long before; hence he was induced to do that which was so contrary to Oriental policy, to aid in restoring the captive Jews and rebuilding their temple and city."


Indeed, over two centuries before, Jehovah had foretold of Cyrus: “All that I delight in he will completely carry out.” (Isaiah 44:28) True to prophecy, after 70 years Cyrus returned the captives to their homeland, in 537 B.C.E. (Ezra 1:1-4) An ancient Persian inscription, called the Cyrus Cylinder, has been found that clearly states the policy of Cyrus to return captives to their homelands. “As to the inhabitants of Babylon,” Cyrus is recorded as having said, “I (also) gathered all their (former) inhabitants and returned (to them) their habitations.”



Isaiah made a further startling prediction regarding Babylon:

“She will never be inhabited.” (Isaiah 13:19, 20) ​

To predict permanent desolation for a sprawling city occupying a strategic location was bold indeed. You would normally expect that such a city would be rebuilt if ruined. Although Babylon lingered on for a while after its conquest, Isaiah’s words eventually came true. Today the site of ancient Babylon “is flat, hot, deserted and dusty,” reports Smithsonian magazine.


It is awesome to contemplate the magnitude of Isaiah’s prophecy. What he foretold would be the equivalent of predicting the exact manner in which a modern city, such as New York or London, would be destroyed 200 years from now and then emphatically stating that it would never again be inhabited.


Now, from a rational, unbiased, objective perspective, how do you explain Isaiah's ability to specifically and accurately predict events hundreds of years in advance?

 

[Maximilian]

Yes. Aren't most people?

No. According to the WHO, 56,000,000 babies are murdered by their mothers annually: Preventing unsafe abortion

 

[Maximilian]

One can be more moral if . . . chooses to decide what is moral using the rational ethics of secular humanism, which is based entirely on applying reason and compassion to the problem of implementing a system that most facilitates the most satisfaction as people define it.

Really? Just how precisely do empathy or compassion impose any moral duties upon us?

How does empathy or compassion hold us accountable for our moral decisions and actions?


After all, if morality is just a matter of personal opinion, why should you act morally, especially when it conflicts with your yens?

 

[Maximilian]

You need a new shtick. This wasn't clever or funny the first time you posted, and didn't improve with your incessant repetition of it.

You misapprehend. Contemporary research shows that individuals with ASD have cognitive processing styles which hamper human spirituality while the Neurotypical have all inherited a variety of biological predispositions for spirituality, hence my query. Disqus - Square Pegs, Round Holes

 

[Maximilian]

Legal abortion is performed on embryos or fetuses, not children. Nor is it murder.

If a fetus isn't a person then neither are you.

It logically follows, then, that if snuffing the life of an innocent fetus isn't murder then killing you just because isn't murder either . . .

So much for Humanism . . .

 

[Maximilian]

With legal abortion, all you have is a conceptus and lawful homicide..

And everything Hitler did in Germany was lawful . . .

 

[Maximilian]

There is nothing objective about morals or morality.

Are you truly incapable of distinguishing between good and evil?

 

[Maximilian]

I did.

So, Narcissist . . . got it . . .

Are you a psychopath too?

 

[Maximilian]

Then it must be a good idea to force women to serve as incubators for the state and to deliver babies they don't want and may well resent.

You don't believe in personal responsibility . . I get it . . .

 

[Maximilian]

According to the Bible, its god is orders of magnitude more lethal a killer than his red buddy

You're not making any sense. Whom has Jehovah God ever murdered?

 

[Maximilian]

How does one get from concluding that the world had a beginning to the claim that its source must not only be conscious, but also be uncaused, "beginningless, spaceless, immaterial, timeless, unchanging, omnipotent good personal being." And how did the multiverse hypothesis get ruled out.

Are you asking because you actually want to learn or are you just in love with the sounds of your echo chamber?

 

[sooda]

Incorrect.

Case in point, Edom as a nation was prophesied to become like Sodom and Gomorrah, desolated for all time. (Jer 49:7-22; compare Isa 34:9-15.) This began to see its fulfillment about the middle of the sixth century B.C.E., under the Babylonian king Nabonidus.


According to C. J. Gadd, a scholar of Babylonian history and literature, the troops of Nabonidus that conquered Edom and Tema included Jewish soldiers. Commenting on this, John Lindsay wrote: “Thus, in part at least, the words of the prophet found a fulfilment when he wrote of Yahweh saying ‘I will lay my vengeance upon Edom by the hand of my people Israel’ (Ezek. 25.14). We have also a partial fulfilment of the words of Obadiah who said that Edom’s ‘allies’, ‘confederates’, ‘trusted friends’ would ‘deceive’, ‘prevail against’ and ‘set a trap under’ them. Here we may see a reference to the Babylonians who, although in the days of Nebuchadrezzar were willing to allow them a share in Judah’s loss, under Nabonidus curbed once and for all the commercial and mercantile ambitions of Edom (cf. Obad. 1 and 7).”—Palestine Exploration Quarterly, London, 1976, p. 39.


The book of Malachi, written some 100 years after the campaign into Edom by Nabonidus, relates that God had already made Edom’s “mountains a desolated waste and his inheritance for the jackals of the wilderness.” (Malachi 1:3) The Edomites were hoping to return and rebuild their devastated places, but they would not be successful.—Malachi 1:4.


By the fourth century B.C.E. the Nabataeans were inhabiting the Edomite territory, and the Edomites were never able to return. Instead, they found themselves in the Negeb to the S of Judah. The Edomites moved as far N as Hebron, and eventually the southern part of Judah became known as Idumea. According to Josephus, John Hyrcanus I subjugated them sometime between 130 and 120 B.C.E. and compelled them to accept Judaism. (Jewish Antiquities, XIII, 257, 258 [ix, 1]; XV, 253, 254 [vii, 9]) Thereafter they were gradually absorbed by the Jews, and following the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E., they ceased to exist as a people.—Obadiah 10, 18


From a rational and objective perspective, how do you explain Jeremiah and Isaiah's ability to specifically and accurately predict events hundreds of years in advance? How do you explain the fact that not one of the Bible's many highly specific prophecies has ever been wrong?


Here's another example: History records that Babylon took the Jews into captivity. Yet, about 40 years before this happened Jeremiah foretold it. Isaiah predicted it some 150 years before it happened. He also foretold that the Jews would return from captivity. So did Jeremiah, saying that they would be restored to their land after 70 years.—Isaiah 39:6, 7; 44:26; Jeremiah 25:8-12; 29:10.


This return was made possible by the overthrow of Babylon by the Medes and Persians in 539 B.C.E. It was foretold by Isaiah nearly 200 years before it happened, and by Jeremiah about 50 years before it occurred. Jeremiah said that the Babylonian soldiers would put up no fight. Both Isaiah and Jeremiah foretold that Babylon’s protecting waters, the river Euphrates, “must be dried up.” Isaiah even gave the name of the conquering Persian general, Cyrus, and said that before him “the gates [of Babylon] will not be shut.”—Jeremiah 50:38; 51:11, 30; Isaiah 13:17-19; 44:27; 45:1.


The Greek historian Herodotus explained that Cyrus actually diverted the flow of the Euphrates and “the river sank to such an extent that the natural bed of the stream became fordable.”Thus, during the night, enemy soldiers marched along the riverbed and entered the city through gates that had been carelessly left open. “Had the Babylonians been apprised of what Cyrus was about,” Herodotus continued, “they would have made fast all the street-gates which [were] upon the river . . . But, as it was, the Persians came upon them by surprise and so took the city.”Actually, the Babylonians were involved in drunken revelry, as the Bible explains, and as Herodotus confirms. (Daniel 5:1-4, 30) Both Isaiah and Jeremiah foretold that Babylon would eventually become uninhabited ruins. And that is what happened. Today Babylon is a desolate heap of mounds.—Isaiah 13:20-22; Jeremiah 51:37, 41-43.


Cyrus also restored the Jews to their homeland. Why would he do such a thing? The Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary explains, "Cyrus, according to Josephus, heard of this prophecy of Isaiah delivered so long before; hence he was induced to do that which was so contrary to Oriental policy, to aid in restoring the captive Jews and rebuilding their temple and city."


Indeed, over two centuries before, Jehovah had foretold of Cyrus: “All that I delight in he will completely carry out.” (Isaiah 44:28) True to prophecy, after 70 years Cyrus returned the captives to their homeland, in 537 B.C.E. (Ezra 1:1-4) An ancient Persian inscription, called the Cyrus Cylinder, has been found that clearly states the policy of Cyrus to return captives to their homelands. “As to the inhabitants of Babylon,” Cyrus is recorded as having said, “I (also) gathered all their (former) inhabitants and returned (to them) their habitations.”



Isaiah made a further startling prediction regarding Babylon:

“She will never be inhabited.” (Isaiah 13:19, 20) ​

To predict permanent desolation for a sprawling city occupying a strategic location was bold indeed. You would normally expect that such a city would be rebuilt if ruined. Although Babylon lingered on for a while after its conquest, Isaiah’s words eventually came true. Today the site of ancient Babylon “is flat, hot, deserted and dusty,” reports Smithsonian magazine.


It is awesome to contemplate the magnitude of Isaiah’s prophecy. What he foretold would be the equivalent of predicting the exact manner in which a modern city, such as New York or London, would be destroyed 200 years from now and then emphatically stating that it would never again be inhabited.


Now, from a rational, unbiased, objective perspective, how do you explain Isaiah's ability to specifically and accurately predict events hundreds of years in advance?

The book of Isaiah had two authors many years apart. The last 26 chapters are completely different in style.

 

[blü 2]

“The word of Jehovah has been the cause of insults and jeering all day long.

I am not going to make mention of him,

And I will speak no more in his name.” -Jeremiah 20:8, 9​

As a result of struggling with indifference, rejection, as well as persecution while proclaiming Jehovah’s judgments, Jeremiah likely felt that he did not really have the strength to carry on. Yet, Jehovah utilized his strength against such inclinations, enabling Jeremiah to keep going.

"But in my heart it became like a burning fire shut up in my bones,

And I was tired of holding it in;

I could no longer endure it.

Jehovah was with me like a fearsome warrior.


That is why those persecuting me will stumble and will not prevail.

They will be put to great shame, for they will not succeed.

Their everlasting humiliation will not be forgotten.

But you, O Jehovah of armies, are examining the righteous one;

You see the innermost thoughts and the heart.

Let me see your vengeance on them,

For to you I have committed my legal case.

Sing to Jehovah! Praise Jehovah!" -Jeremiah 20:9, 11-13​

Jehovah thus "fooled" Jeremiah by employing him to achieve what the prophet himself believed he could not accomplish.

That is some outstanding cherry picking, though, lol

I won't bother arguing.

“The word of Jehovah has been the cause of insults and jeering all day long.

I am not going to make mention of him,

And I will speak no more in his name.” -Jeremiah 20:8, 9​

As a result of struggling with indifference, rejection, as well as persecution while proclaiming Jehovah’s judgments, Jeremiah likely felt that he did not really have the strength to carry on. Yet, Jehovah utilized his strength against such inclinations, enabling Jeremiah to keep going.

"But in my heart it became like a burning fire shut up in my bones,

And I was tired of holding it in;

I could no longer endure it.

Jehovah was with me like a fearsome warrior.


That is why those persecuting me will stumble and will not prevail.

They will be put to great shame, for they will not succeed.

Their everlasting humiliation will not be forgotten.

But you, O Jehovah of armies, are examining the righteous one;

You see the innermost thoughts and the heart.

Let me see your vengeance on them,

For to you I have committed my legal case.

Sing to Jehovah! Praise Jehovah!" -Jeremiah 20:9, 11-13​

Jehovah thus "fooled" Jeremiah by employing him to achieve what the prophet himself believed he could not accomplish.

That is some outstanding cherry picking, though, lol

Four posts in reply to one of mine? You just don't get it, do you.

Have a nice day.

 

[Maximilian]

Evil is not a value of any kind.

Thing is, neurotypical human beings do not deem sex slavery, pedophilia, the gunning down of helpless little children, brutality, democide, gang rape, racism or even serial homicide as merely socially improper conduct, like, say, picking your nostrils at the dinner table. Much rather, these jolt, outrage as well as horrify. They’re confronted as morally abominable facts -as undeniable acts of evil. (This is why, since time immemorial, even the most primitive cultures, regardless of their spiritual values, enforced laws and regulations against homicide and various other acts of evil.)


On the flip side, love, equality or self-sacrifice are more than just socially useful acts, like, say, bringing a lady roses on a first date. Rather, these are regarded as good moral facts; conduct which is actually good.

Which begs the question, are you neurotypical or do you suffer from ASD?

 

[Maximilian]

Genocide? This is biblical ethics, and why so many of us reject it. It's brutal.

You're not suggesting that, for instance, the genocide of Triads, Nordicists, Zetas, Baasskaps, MS-13s, Jihadists, Mungikis, Bloods, Yakuzas, Bratvas, Nazis and other such evil peoples would be morally wrong, are you?

 

[sooda]

Incorrect.

Case in point, Edom as a nation was prophesied to become like Sodom and Gomorrah, desolated for all time. (Jer 49:7-22; compare Isa 34:9-15.) This began to see its fulfillment about the middle of the sixth century B.C.E., under the Babylonian king Nabonidus.


According to C. J. Gadd, a scholar of Babylonian history and literature, the troops of Nabonidus that conquered Edom and Tema included Jewish soldiers. Commenting on this, John Lindsay wrote: “Thus, in part at least, the words of the prophet found a fulfilment when he wrote of Yahweh saying ‘I will lay my vengeance upon Edom by the hand of my people Israel’ (Ezek. 25.14). We have also a partial fulfilment of the words of Obadiah who said that Edom’s ‘allies’, ‘confederates’, ‘trusted friends’ would ‘deceive’, ‘prevail against’ and ‘set a trap under’ them. Here we may see a reference to the Babylonians who, although in the days of Nebuchadrezzar were willing to allow them a share in Judah’s loss, under Nabonidus curbed once and for all the commercial and mercantile ambitions of Edom (cf. Obad. 1 and 7).”—Palestine Exploration Quarterly, London, 1976, p. 39.


The book of Malachi, written some 100 years after the campaign into Edom by Nabonidus, relates that God had already made Edom’s “mountains a desolated waste and his inheritance for the jackals of the wilderness.” (Malachi 1:3) The Edomites were hoping to return and rebuild their devastated places, but they would not be successful.—Malachi 1:4.


By the fourth century B.C.E. the Nabataeans were inhabiting the Edomite territory, and the Edomites were never able to return. Instead, they found themselves in the Negeb to the S of Judah. The Edomites moved as far N as Hebron, and eventually the southern part of Judah became known as Idumea. According to Josephus, John Hyrcanus I subjugated them sometime between 130 and 120 B.C.E. and compelled them to accept Judaism. (Jewish Antiquities, XIII, 257, 258 [ix, 1]; XV, 253, 254 [vii, 9]) Thereafter they were gradually absorbed by the Jews, and following the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E., they ceased to exist as a people.—Obadiah 10, 18


From a rational and objective perspective, how do you explain Jeremiah and Isaiah's ability to specifically and accurately predict events hundreds of years in advance? How do you explain the fact that not one of the Bible's many highly specific prophecies has ever been wrong?


Here's another example: History records that Babylon took the Jews into captivity. Yet, about 40 years before this happened Jeremiah foretold it. Isaiah predicted it some 150 years before it happened. He also foretold that the Jews would return from captivity. So did Jeremiah, saying that they would be restored to their land after 70 years.—Isaiah 39:6, 7; 44:26; Jeremiah 25:8-12; 29:10.


This return was made possible by the overthrow of Babylon by the Medes and Persians in 539 B.C.E. It was foretold by Isaiah nearly 200 years before it happened, and by Jeremiah about 50 years before it occurred. Jeremiah said that the Babylonian soldiers would put up no fight. Both Isaiah and Jeremiah foretold that Babylon’s protecting waters, the river Euphrates, “must be dried up.” Isaiah even gave the name of the conquering Persian general, Cyrus, and said that before him “the gates [of Babylon] will not be shut.”—Jeremiah 50:38; 51:11, 30; Isaiah 13:17-19; 44:27; 45:1.


The Greek historian Herodotus explained that Cyrus actually diverted the flow of the Euphrates and “the river sank to such an extent that the natural bed of the stream became fordable.”Thus, during the night, enemy soldiers marched along the riverbed and entered the city through gates that had been carelessly left open. “Had the Babylonians been apprised of what Cyrus was about,” Herodotus continued, “they would have made fast all the street-gates which [were] upon the river . . . But, as it was, the Persians came upon them by surprise and so took the city.”Actually, the Babylonians were involved in drunken revelry, as the Bible explains, and as Herodotus confirms. (Daniel 5:1-4, 30) Both Isaiah and Jeremiah foretold that Babylon would eventually become uninhabited ruins. And that is what happened. Today Babylon is a desolate heap of mounds.—Isaiah 13:20-22; Jeremiah 51:37, 41-43.


Cyrus also restored the Jews to their homeland. Why would he do such a thing? The Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary explains, "Cyrus, according to Josephus, heard of this prophecy of Isaiah delivered so long before; hence he was induced to do that which was so contrary to Oriental policy, to aid in restoring the captive Jews and rebuilding their temple and city."


Indeed, over two centuries before, Jehovah had foretold of Cyrus: “All that I delight in he will completely carry out.” (Isaiah 44:28) True to prophecy, after 70 years Cyrus returned the captives to their homeland, in 537 B.C.E. (Ezra 1:1-4) An ancient Persian inscription, called the Cyrus Cylinder, has been found that clearly states the policy of Cyrus to return captives to their homelands. “As to the inhabitants of Babylon,” Cyrus is recorded as having said, “I (also) gathered all their (former) inhabitants and returned (to them) their habitations.”



Isaiah made a further startling prediction regarding Babylon:

“She will never be inhabited.” (Isaiah 13:19, 20) ​

To predict permanent desolation for a sprawling city occupying a strategic location was bold indeed. You would normally expect that such a city would be rebuilt if ruined. Although Babylon lingered on for a while after its conquest, Isaiah’s words eventually came true. Today the site of ancient Babylon “is flat, hot, deserted and dusty,” reports Smithsonian magazine.


It is awesome to contemplate the magnitude of Isaiah’s prophecy. What he foretold would be the equivalent of predicting the exact manner in which a modern city, such as New York or London, would be destroyed 200 years from now and then emphatically stating that it would never again be inhabited.


Now, from a rational, unbiased, objective perspective, how do you explain Isaiah's ability to specifically and accurately predict events hundreds of years in advance?

Daniel was never in Babylon.. The Book of Daniel was written about 165 BC.. Years and years after the Babylonian exile.

The second part of Isaiah differs in style from the work of First Isaiah, and was written by an anonymous author during the Babylonian Exile, more than a hundred years after the death of First Isaiah. To distinguish this author, he is often referred to as Second Isaiah or as Deutero-Isaiah.

 

[Maximilian]

To borrow one of your favorite responses, Prove it.

Psychedelics, Meditation, and Self-Consciousness
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19420889.2015.1041696

Enjoy!

 

[Maximilian]

Guess what? We're still sinners.

So you acknowledge the reality of sin but not good or evil? How?

 

[ecco]

God does not tolerate evil so, sooner or later, all who are evil will answer to him. That's what I'm saying.

God does not tolerate evil so, sooner or later, all who are evil will answer to him. That's what the JW preaches.