Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 20 of 20
  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    666
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Hello L67
    You can forget all that you put in print and emboldened in red. You have given me the evidence that supports my case in the pdf document of Dubovsky.


    I am not accepting the bits of evidence you give me that do not clearly state the city of Damascus was destroyed.

    Here is a quote found on page 160 of the 18-page extraction from the book. 13. A close reading of Ann 23 indicates that Tiglath-pileser III won the battle in the field but was unable to capture the headquarters of the rebellion — Damascus (21). He destroyed the environs of Damascusand captured several cities in Southern Syria/Northern Transjordan.

    There you have confirmation of what I have been saying. This actually reads slightly different to what I read in that first article you sent me to, in which I thought it was Tiglath-pielser III who set up headquarters in Damascus. Anyway, this confirms, once again, the main city that was Damascus was NOT destroyed.

    All the best
    David
    Thank you for proving my point that you only want to confirm your bias. You are 100% dishonest in your approach to accepting evidence. In fact, you don't care about the truth at all. This is what Christians do. They take things out of context and twist words. That is exactly what you have done. You have been caught red handed. It's game over for you David.

    That quote is incomplete.

    b) Second Phase: first attack against Damascus and the conquest of Transjordan (13th palû) This part of the campaign is described in Ann 23 and Summ. 9 and 13. Aclose reading of Ann 23 indicates that Tiglath-pileser III won the battle in the field but was unable to capture the headquarters of the rebellion — Damascus(21). He destroyed the environs of Damascus and captured several cities in Southern Syria/Northern Transjordan.

    That was the second phase and the first attack against Damascus.

    There was a third phase and another attack on Damascus. Thank you again for showing how dishonest you are. I have shown beyond all doubt that Isaiah has been confirmed. I like have said many times you only care about confirming your dogmas. That is how we know you aren't dealing with any truth that might be in the Bible. You simply aren't open to anything that contradicts your dogmas. That is delusion in it's purest form.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace - Jimi Hendrix


  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    666
    And let me add this.

    EDIT This is on page 10

    First, Tiglath-pileser III did not attack the epicenters of the rebellion (Damascus and Samaria) in a direct confrontation at the very beginning of his intervention but aimed his first campaign (14th palû) at conquering Tyre and coastal Philistia. Such an unexpected strategy caught Tyre and coastal Philistia off guard and Tiglath-pileser III quickly gained a strong foothold on the Mediterranean coast(29). Since the Assyrian army leaned heavily on its chariotry and cavalry, the decision to attack the coastal region first took into consideration the fact that the flat coastal terrain would allow the fast advance of Assyrian troops. This would not have been the case, if Tiglath-pileser III had decided to move his army through Israelite hills.

    Only after this Blitzkrieg did Tiglath-pileser III venture on his first attack against the epicenter of the coalition — Damascus. After winning the field battle, he cut down the trees and captured 591 cities of the 16 districts of Damascus; however, he was unable to capture the Aramean capital. The strategy of cutting down the trees was well known in the ancient Near East and intended to cut off the rebels’food supply(30).


    He did attack the epicenter of Damascus and won. Case closed.
    Last edited by L67; 06-21-2013 at 12:57 PM.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace - Jimi Hendrix


  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by L67 View Post
    And let me add this.

    EDIT This is on page 10

    First, Tiglath-pileser III did not attack the epicenters of the rebellion (Damascus and Samaria) in a direct confrontation at the very beginning of his intervention but aimed his first campaign (14th palû) at conquering Tyre and coastal Philistia. Such an unexpected strategy caught Tyre and coastal Philistia off guard and Tiglath-pileser III quickly gained a strong foothold on the Mediterranean coast(29). Since the Assyrian army leaned heavily on its chariotry and cavalry, the decision to attack the coastal region first took into consideration the fact that the flat coastal terrain would allow the fast advance of Assyrian troops. This would not have been the case, if Tiglath-pileser III had decided to move his army through Israelite hills.

    Only after this Blitzkrieg did Tiglath-pileser III venture on his first attack against the epicenter of the coalition — Damascus. After winning the field battle, he cut down the trees and captured 591 cities of the 16 districts of Damascus; however,
    he was unable to capture the Aramean capital
    . The strategy of cutting down the trees was well known in the ancient Near East and intended to cut off the rebels’food supply(30).


    He did attack the epicenter of Damascus and won. Case closed.
    Hello L67
    The part you highlighted is confirming the fact that Tiglath-pileser III destroyed the environs of Damascus, but not the city itself, which had its own fortress wall surrounding it. The Aramaean capital was outside Damascus, and was not captured so this has to be understood. Now accepting T-p attacked the walled city of Damascus and eventually captured it, this does not mean he destroyed the fabric of the city. We read elsewhere that he set up his headquarters in Damascus and I will accept that. It is by no means clear that the capital at the heart of Damascus (similar to the City of London as opposed to London) was destroyed; the evidence suggests it was not. The fact remains the that the heart of city of Damascus was not destroyed. And so, if finally conquered and the headquarters of Tiglath-pileser III set up there, the main city survived. Even if the people had been overthrown and put to death and taken captive, the main City of Damascus survived and this is what this argument is about.


    David

    PS I have found another article on Wikipedia which states:
    As a result, Tiglath-Pileser sacked Damascus and annexed Aram.[3] According to 2 Kings 16:9, the population was deported and Rezin executed. Tiglath-Pileser also records this act in one of his inscriptions
    Ok, so if Damascus was eventually taken as this would suggest, the word "sacked" does not mean the fabric of the city was destroyed rather it means that the contents of the city were taken. This is not surprising. So then at the conclusion of all this, allowing for the fact that the city was taken, the people killed or taken captive and led off, does not say the fabric of the city was destroyed. This is in keeping with the fact that T-p set up his HQ there. Unlike Sodom & Gomorrah which the remains can be seen today, the City of Damascus was not destroyed even if its people who are the heart of the city were finally taken away. Those people were replaced and the city continues to this day.
    Last edited by David M; 06-22-2013 at 05:04 AM.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    666
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Hello L67
    This is ridiculous when you post yet another quote in which you claim to win your argument and the very words you quote do not say what you want them to say. You put massive words in red and miss out the following words;
    No, you're just too stubborn to admit your wrong. And you are.



    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    The part you highlighted is confirming the fact that Tiglath-pileser III destroyed the environs of Damascus, but not the city itself, which had its own fortress wall surrounding it. The Aramaean capital was outside Damascus, and was not captured so this has to be understood. Now accepting T-p attacked the walled city of Damascus and eventually captured it, this does not mean he destroyed the fabric of the city. We read elsewhere that he set up his headquarters in Damascus and I will accept that. It is by no means clear that the capital at the heart of Damascus (similar to the City of London as opposed to London) was destroyed; the evidence suggests it was not. The fact remains the that the heart of city of Damascus was not destroyed. And so, if finally conquered and the headquarters of Tiglath-pileser III set up there, the main city survived. Even if the people had been overthrown and put to death and taken captive, the main City of Damascus survived and this is what this argument is about.
    You don't even know what you're talking about. You have changed your argument from its original form.

    This is your original argument. http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/show...3987#post53987 I can only say this is an extremely short-sighted understanding of scripture which does not take into account all of scripture including the Old Testament prophets which said many things that have not happened. Have you answered the question; When did Damascus become a "ruinous heap"? Please tell me when that happened.

    I thoroughly proved that. The Annals of the Assyrians confirms that as does the 18 page document from Dubovsky. Now you are trying to say just the main city of Damascus. You're full of crap. It's dishonest of you to operate this way.

    I also have never said once that the main city of Damascus was destroyed. That is what YOU have tried to make this argument so you can confirm your dogmas.

    I'm glad you admit that the Aramaean capital was outside of Damascus. So your point is invalid. The Arameans never had a unified nation; they were divided into small independent kingdoms across parts of the Near East, particularly in what is now modern Syria. After the Bronze Age collapse, their political influence was confined to a number of Syro-Hittite states, which were entirely absorbed into the Neo-Assyrian Empire by the 8th century BC. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arameans


    My point from the get go is that Damascus was left a ruinous heap and the city lost its independence. History confirms both and Isaiah is fulfilled. I mentioned this way back on 5-13-13 . Damascus was destroyed. The Annals of the Assyrians confirms this. You also didn't read the link very well. Page 12:

    Tiglath-pileser III destroyed 591 cities of 16 districts of Damascus (Ann 23:16’-7’). Ann 18 and 24 mention a total of 13,520 deportees (36); however, their fragmentary status does not allow specifying where the deportees came from. These numbers do not include the captured soldiers mentioned in Ann 23:6’-7’. Biblical sources mention the deportation from Ijon, Abel-beth-maacah, Janoah, Kedesh, Hazor, Gilead, Galilee, and the land of Naphtali (2 Kgs 15,29). The Chroni- cler’s account mentions the deportation of the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half-tribe of Manasseh (1 Chr 5,26) and the deportation of Beerah, the chieftain of the Reubenites (1 Chr 5,6).

    Sorry you misread. Damascus was totally destroyed.

    Also Damascus was NOT left in tact. Israel was left intact.



    In 732 BC, the kingdom of Damascus lost its independence and existence, its holdings carved up into Assyrian provinces. Israel, on the other hand, was allowed to survive, albeit reduced to a fraction of its former size and cut off from the sea. Tiglatpileser put it under the rule of a new king, Hoshea, chosen to serve as a loyal executor of Assyrian interests.

    Israel's northern territories came under direct Assyrian rule. The newly established province of Megiddo centred around the city of the same name and included also the coastal regions with the harbour of Dor.


    http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/saao/a...ntries/israel/





    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    PS I have found another article on Wikipedia which states: Ok, so if Damascus was eventually taken as this would suggest, the word "sacked" does not mean the fabric of the city was destroyed rather it means that the contents of the city were taken. This is not surprising. So then at the conclusion of all this, allowing for the fact that the city was taken, the people killed or taken captive and led off, does not say the fabric of the city was destroyed. This is in keeping with the fact that T-p set up his HQ there. Unlike Sodom & Gomorrah which the remains can be seen today, the City of Damascus was not destroyed even if its people who are the heart of the city were finally taken away. Those people were replaced and the city continues to this day.



    See if you weren't so stubborn in confirming your dogmas you would have seen I said this back on 5-13-13.

    After Tiglath-pileser III destroyed 591 cities of 16 districts of Damascus this happened.

    In 732 BC, the kingdom of Damascus lost its independence and existence, its holdings carved up into Assyrian provinces. Israel, on the other hand, was allowed to survive, albeit reduced to a fraction of its former size and cut off from the sea. Tiglatpileser put it under the rule of a new king, Hoshea, chosen to serve as a loyal executor of Assyrian interests.

    Israel's northern territories came under direct Assyrian rule. The newly established province of Megiddo centred around the city of the same name and included also the coastal regions with the harbour of Dor.


    Isaiah is fulfilled. Period. You have been wrong since 5-13. You have changed your argument and have still failed to prove your point. It has all been documented.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace - Jimi Hendrix


  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by L67 View Post
    No, you're just too stubborn to admit your wrong. And you are.





    You don't even know what you're talking about. You have changed your argument from its original form.

    This is your original argument. http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/show...3987#post53987 I can only say this is an extremely short-sighted understanding of scripture which does not take into account all of scripture including the Old Testament prophets which said many things that have not happened. Have you answered the question; When did Damascus become a "ruinous heap"? Please tell me when that happened.

    I thoroughly proved that. The Annals of the Assyrians confirms that as does the 18 page document from Dubovsky. Now you are trying to say just the main city of Damascus. You're full of crap. It's dishonest of you to operate this way.

    I also have never said once that the main city of Damascus was destroyed. That is what YOU have tried to make this argument so you can confirm your dogmas.

    I'm glad you admit that the Aramaean capital was outside of Damascus. So your point is invalid. The Arameans never had a unified nation; they were divided into small independent kingdoms across parts of the Near East, particularly in what is now modern Syria. After the Bronze Age collapse, their political influence was confined to a number of Syro-Hittite states, which were entirely absorbed into the Neo-Assyrian Empire by the 8th century BC. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arameans


    My point from the get go is that Damascus was left a ruinous heap and the city lost its independence. History confirms both and Isaiah is fulfilled. I mentioned this way back on 5-13-13 . Damascus was destroyed. The Annals of the Assyrians confirms this. You also didn't read the link very well. Page 12:

    Tiglath-pileser III destroyed 591 cities of 16 districts of Damascus (Ann 23:16’-7’). Ann 18 and 24 mention a total of 13,520 deportees (36); however, their fragmentary status does not allow specifying where the deportees came from. These numbers do not include the captured soldiers mentioned in Ann 23:6’-7’. Biblical sources mention the deportation from Ijon, Abel-beth-maacah, Janoah, Kedesh, Hazor, Gilead, Galilee, and the land of Naphtali (2 Kgs 15,29). The Chroni- cler’s account mentions the deportation of the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half-tribe of Manasseh (1 Chr 5,26) and the deportation of Beerah, the chieftain of the Reubenites (1 Chr 5,6).

    Sorry you misread. Damascus was totally destroyed.

    Also Damascus was NOT left in tact. Israel was left intact.



    In 732 BC, the kingdom of Damascus lost its independence and existence, its holdings carved up into Assyrian provinces. Israel, on the other hand, was allowed to survive, albeit reduced to a fraction of its former size and cut off from the sea. Tiglatpileser put it under the rule of a new king, Hoshea, chosen to serve as a loyal executor of Assyrian interests.

    Israel's northern territories came under direct Assyrian rule. The newly established province of Megiddo centred around the city of the same name and included also the coastal regions with the harbour of Dor.


    http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/saao/a...ntries/israel/










    See if you weren't so stubborn in confirming your dogmas you would have seen I said this back on 5-13-13.

    After Tiglath-pileser III destroyed 591 cities of 16 districts of Damascus this happened.

    In 732 BC, the kingdom of Damascus lost its independence and existence, its holdings carved up into Assyrian provinces. Israel, on the other hand, was allowed to survive, albeit reduced to a fraction of its former size and cut off from the sea. Tiglatpileser put it under the rule of a new king, Hoshea, chosen to serve as a loyal executor of Assyrian interests.

    Israel's northern territories came under direct Assyrian rule. The newly established province of Megiddo centred around the city of the same name and included also the coastal regions with the harbour of Dor.


    Isaiah is fulfilled. Period. You have been wrong since 5-13. You have changed your argument and have still failed to prove your point. It has all been documented.
    Hello L67
    It does not take much for you to express abusive language which is uncalled for. OK perhaps in addition to the quote about Damascus becoming a ruinous heap, I should have quoted what preceded those words which said; Damascus is taken away from being a city, If all that is left is a runinous heap, then that certainly qualifies the words preceding and that all resemblance of a city had been taken away. That has simply not happened to Damascus the capital of the region of Damascus.

    I am not being stubborn, I am being factual. I will admit to jumping the gun in my previous post and not reading to the very end of the 18-page document. I stopped short of the third campaign in which Tiglath-pileser III defeated the resistance in the city of Damascus.

    The conclusion at the end of the article confirms that the city remained and T-p set up temporary headquarters there. At the end of the article, the spoils of war are listed and the colateral damage is listed. All is says about the city of Damascus is that the outer walls were torn down;
    Captured cities
    [URUx]-ha-a-da-ra – Rezin home city; city of Kurus≥s≥a,
    Sama and Metuna; 591 cities of 16 districts of
    Damascus (Ann 23:16’-7’; 18:3’; 24:3’);
    Damascus was captured and its walls were torn down
    (2 Kgs 16,9).
    15 citi[es …] (Ann 18:12’)
    GALILEE (demolished)
    16 districts of Bit-[Humri] (Ann 18:3’; 24:3’); URUKu-
    […] (Ann 18:5’); Hinatuna = biblical Hannathon (Ann
    18:5’); [Ya]tbite = biblical Jotbah (Ann 18:6’); URUSa-
    ¢xÜ-[…] (Ann 18:6’) = either Khirbet Saruna or Khirbet
    Semuniye (Tell Shimron); Aruma = Rumah (Ann
    18:7’); Marum = either bibl. Merom or Madon/Maron
    (Ann 18:7’).
    Ashtaroth was captured (Tadmor, Inscriptions, fig. 11);
    That is not surprising for T-p to gain access to the city and overthrow its inhabitants. As for the city and its buildings, there is nothing said about them and it is acceptable to presume that since if was not a ruinous heap that T-p could set up his headquarters (temporary seat) there.
    In this phase Tiglath-pileser III turned finally against Damascus,
    captured it, and executed Rezin (2 Kgs 16,9). Then he established his
    temporarily seat there and received the homage of the vassal rulers
    (Ahaz’s visit to Damascus 2 Kgs 16,10).
    That really is it. The region of Damascus we can agree was destroyed. You disagree and go against all the evidence that the city of Damascus was not destroyed and did not become a ruinous heap. You are not accepting that fulfilment could according to the prophecy still take place. Damascus as I have said quoting another source says it is the one of oldest cities in history and has continuously traded. The city changed hands but the infrastructure was there for life to continue in the city and for the city to be recognized as a city. Its status of being called a city had not been taken away. Until it becomes a total ruinous heap, then that situation has not changed.

    All the best
    David

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    666
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Hello L67
    It does not take much for you to express abusive language which is uncalled for. OK perhaps in addition to the quote about Damascus becoming a ruinous heap, I should have quoted what preceded those words which said; Damascus is taken away from being a city, If all that is left is a runinous heap, then that certainly qualifies the words preceding and that all resemblance of a city had been taken away. That has simply not happened to Damascus the capital of the region of Damascus.
    Fair enough. I'll try to choose my words more carefully.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    I am not being stubborn, I am being factual. I will admit to jumping the gun in my previous post and not reading to the very end of the 18-page document. I stopped short of the third campaign in which Tiglath-pileser III defeated the resistance in the city of Damascus.
    You are NOT being factual at all. You haven't just jumped the gun and not read the entire document but you only pick the bits that suit you. I will show that below.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    The conclusion at the end of the article confirms that the city remained and T-p set up temporary headquarters there. At the end of the article, the spoils of war are listed and the colateral damage is listed. All is says about the city of Damascus is that the outer walls were torn down; That is not surprising for T-p to gain access to the city and overthrow its inhabitants. As for the city and its buildings, there is nothing said about them and it is acceptable to presume that since if was not a ruinous heap that T-p could set up his headquarters (temporary seat) there.
    That is NOT the conclusion. Your interpretation of Isaiah ins WRONG. It was NOT just about one city in Damascus. There is a much bigger picture than just Isaiah 17. Let's go over this carefully.

    Isaiah is prophesying during the time when Syria and Israel (northern 10 tribes) have made a confederacy against Judah (southern kingdom).

    You can read about how Judah was fearful because of this confederacy. These two countries were going to gang up on Judah.

    Isaiah 7:1-9 7 Now it came to pass in the days of Ahaz the son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, king of Judah, that Rezin king of Syria and Pekah the son of Remaliah, king of Israel, went up to Jerusalem to make war against it, but could not prevail against it. 2 And it was told to the house of David, saying, “Syria’s forces are deployed in Ephraim.” So his heart and the heart of his people were moved as the trees of the woods are moved with the wind.

    3 Then the Lord said to Isaiah, “Go out now to meet Ahaz, you and Shear-Jashub[a] your son, at the end of the aqueduct from the upper pool, on the highway to the Fuller’s Field, 4 and say to him: ‘Take heed, and be quiet; do not fear or be fainthearted for these two stubs of smoking firebrands, for the fierce anger of Rezin and Syria, and the son of Remaliah. 5 Because Syria, Ephraim, and the son of Remaliah have plotted evil against you, saying, 6 “Let us go up against Judah and trouble it, and let us make a gap in its wall for ourselves, and set a king over them, the son of Tabel”— 7 thus says the Lord God:

    “It shall not stand,
    Nor shall it come to pass.
    8 For the head of Syria is Damascus,
    And the head of Damascus is Rezin.
    Within sixty-five years Ephraim will be broken,
    So that it will not be a people.
    9 The head of Ephraim is Samaria,
    And the head of Samaria is Remaliah’s son.
    If you will not believe,
    Surely you shall not be established.”’”



    Isaiah 8:5-13 The Lord spake also unto me again, saying,

    6 Forasmuch as this people refuseth the waters of Shiloah that go softly, and rejoice in Rezin and Remaliah's son;

    7 Now therefore, behold, the Lord bringeth up upon them the waters of the river, strong and many, even the king of Assyria, and all his glory: and he shall come up over all his channels, and go over all his banks:

    8 And he shall pass through Judah; he shall overflow and go over, he shall reach even to the neck; and the stretching out of his wings shall fill the breadth of thy land, O Immanuel.

    9 Associate yourselves, O ye people, and ye shall be broken in pieces; and give ear, all ye of far countries: gird yourselves, and ye shall be broken in pieces; gird yourselves, and ye shall be broken in pieces.

    10 Take counsel together, and it shall come to nought; speak the word, and it shall not stand: for God is with us.

    11 For the Lord spake thus to me with a strong hand, and instructed me that I should not walk in the way of this people, saying,

    12 Say ye not, A confederacy, to all them to whom this people shall say, A confederacy; neither fear ye their fear, nor be afraid.

    13 Sanctify the Lord of hosts himself; and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread.



    King = Rezin
    Country = Syria
    Capitol = Damascus

    confederate with

    King = Pekah (Remaliah's son)
    Country = Israel
    Capitol = Samaria

    Isaiah 8:7-8 tells us of the mighty flowing river who will decimate them all, which is the Assyrian Empire to the east of Syria. Isaiah prophesies in Isaiah 17 about the destruction of Damascus, the idea of Rezin's defeat and the defeat of the entire nation of Syria is in view.

    We can see this fulfilled in 2 Kings 16 2 Kings 16


    16 In the seventeenth year of Pekah the son of Remaliah Ahaz the son of Jotham king of Judah began to reign.

    2 Twenty years old was Ahaz when he began to reign, and reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem, and did not that which was right in the sight of the Lord his God, like David his father.

    3 But he walked in the way of the kings of Israel, yea, and made his son to pass through the fire, according to the abominations of the heathen, whom the Lord cast out from before the children of Israel.

    4 And he sacrificed and burnt incense in the high places, and on the hills, and under every green tree.

    5 Then Rezin king of Syria and Pekah son of Remaliah king of Israel came up to Jerusalem to war: and they besieged Ahaz, but could not overcome him.

    6 At that time Rezin king of Syria recovered Elath to Syria, and drave the Jews from Elath: and the Syrians came to Elath, and dwelt there unto this day.

    7 So Ahaz sent messengers to Tiglathpileser king of Assyria, saying, I am thy servant and thy son: come up, and save me out of the hand of the king of Syria, and out of the hand of the king of Israel, which rise up against me.

    8 And Ahaz took the silver and gold that was found in the house of the Lord, and in the treasures of the king's house, and sent it for a present to the king of Assyria.

    9 And the king of Assyria hearkened unto him: for the king of Assyria went up against Damascus, and took it, and carried the people of it captive to Kir, and slew Rezin.

    10 And king Ahaz went to Damascus to meet Tiglathpileser king of Assyria, and saw an altar that was at Damascus: and king Ahaz sent to Urijah the priest the fashion of the altar, and the pattern of it, according to all the workmanship thereof.


    Isaiah 7-8 shows Isaiah prophesying during the reign of Ahaz. Here in II Kings 16 we see Ahaz on the throne in Judah, and the destruction of Damascus in just the sense that Isaiah prophesies in Isaiah 17.

    The city ceased to be a city when the people were taken captive and the king was slain.

    The 18 page document all ties in with the Bible perfectly. It is absolutely WRONG to think that this could possibly be a future fulfillment, when we have concrete evidence it already occurred.

    Here is two quotes from the 18 page document that sums up the Biblical prophecy.

    Aram lost its independence and was annexed to Assyria. and

    The Assyrians left behind them not only ruined cities but also the monuments recalling their sovereignty.




    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    That really is it. The region of Damascus we can agree was destroyed. You disagree and go against all the evidence that the city of Damascus was not destroyed and did not become a ruinous heap. You are not accepting that fulfilment could according to the prophecy still take place. Damascus as I have said quoting another source says it is the one of oldest cities in history and has continuously traded. The city changed hands but the infrastructure was there for life to continue in the city and for the city to be recognized as a city. Its status of being called a city had not been taken away. Until it becomes a total ruinous heap, then that situation has not changed.

    All the evidence is on my side David. It confirms Damascus was left a ruinous heap. It confirms Damascus was taken away from being a city. It ties in with Biblical prophecy perfectly.

    You are focusing only on one city, while you ignore the entire picture.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace - Jimi Hendrix


  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by L67 View Post

    All the evidence is on my side David. It confirms Damascus was left a ruinous heap. It confirms Damascus was taken away from being a city. It ties in with Biblical prophecy perfectly.

    You are focusing only on one city, while you ignore the entire picture.
    Hello L67
    It would be good to hear another opinion on this matter from someone who has read both our evidence and can make an unbiased opinion.

    I appreciate the point you make about a city ceasing when the people are taken out of it and there is no population dwelling there. This was not entirely the case. As far a the records show and no commentary makes this point that Damascus at no time remained unoccupied. Yes, the city changed hands and T-p set up his headquarters there and that would have included his troops staying there.

    Once T-p vacated Damascus, people would occupy the city once again (not those who were taken away). The actual city which is made of its buildings continued and those buildings were then occupied by a different people.

    I am talking of only this one city. Maybe I should have changed the title to include the word "city" as distinct from the region. I agree the region was destroyed, but I argue from the evidence you supplied that the evidence does not say the city was destroyed; only; "its (outer) walls were torn down".

    Unless, someone else can shed some more light on the history of Damascus that we have not presented, then I say we are done and we have nothing new to add.

    All the best
    David

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    666
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Hello L67
    It would be good to hear another opinion on this matter from someone who has read both our evidence and can make an unbiased opinion.
    I am NOT stating my opinion on this. I am posting FACTS. You have done nothing like that. All you have done is change your argument. Isaiah totally confirms everything I have said. Why don't you try refuting Isaiah?


    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    I appreciate the point you make about a city ceasing when the people are taken out of it and there is no population dwelling there. This was not entirely the case. As far a the records show and no commentary makes this point that Damascus at no time remained unoccupied. Yes, the city changed hands and T-p set up his headquarters there and that would have included his troops staying there.
    You are making this up. Isaiah never mentions anything you are saying. Read this: Aram lost its independence and was annexed to Assyria

    Let's see what Independence means: Independence is a condition of a nation, country, or state in which its residents and population, or some portion thereof, exercise self-government, and usually sovereignty, over the territory. The opposite of independence is a dependent territory.

    Here is what annexed means: to incorporate (territory) into the domain of a city, country, or state:

    Damascus losing its independence and being annexed to Assyria is exactly what Isaiah was talking about. Damascus ceased to be a city as Isaiah saw it. There is no disputing that.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Once T-p vacated Damascus, people would occupy the city once again (not those who were taken away). The actual city which is made of its buildings continued and those buildings were then occupied by a different people.
    What's your point? Isaiah never said it would be permanent. That is your false interpretation.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    I am talking of only this one city. Maybe I should have changed the title to include the word "city" as distinct from the region. I agree the region was destroyed, but I argue from the evidence you supplied that the evidence does not say the city was destroyed; only; "its (outer) walls were torn down".
    I know what you are talking about. But you changed your argument after I proved you wrong. And your assertions still aren't correct because you never dealt with Isaiahs own words leading up to Isaiah 17.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Unless, someone else can shed some more light on the history of Damascus that we have not presented, then I say we are done and we have nothing new to add.
    No offense David, but I don't recall you presenting anything. All I have gotten from you is your interpretation.

    You need to deal with Isaiah chapters 7 and 8 that lead to chapter 17. You think the Bible is the inerrant word that trumps anything. Well I have the inerrant word on my side. Even if you think the evidence isn't totally complete you still have to explain how Isaiah speaking of those times could apply to today. And there is no doubt he was speaking of those times because he mentions the king of Assyria by name. And then we have confirmation that Damascus did cease to be a city as Isaiah saw it and Damascus was destroyed. You have to explain all this David.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace - Jimi Hendrix


  9. #19
    Unregistered Guest

    Damascus Destroyed???

    I am not a professor and do not hold any degrees of higher learning, but I am a big fan of common sense. Typically if one was to assert that something was "destroyed" then that may preclude that it has been wiped from existence, only to be remembered in ancient histories and texts like the Annals of the Assryians. If it was destroyed then that text would be some proof that it ever existed at all, being relegated to a site for archaleogists to apply their craft of discovering the world as it once was but is no longer. I would purpose that the very existence of Damascus to this day would be fairly strong proof that it was not destroyed in Isaiah's time. I have not verified this personally with my own two eyes but take it on faith in the authority of other sources that Damascus still exists, even if it happens to be embroiled in a civil war that threatens its very existence and possible future destruction.


    just my point of view,
    Jared K. Matthews.

  10. #20
    Unregistered Guest
    'And shall no more be called a city'

    No matter how many times it has been ransacked, it has been rebuilt.
    Clearly Isaiah is shown a time when the destruction is final.
    Never to be a city again.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •