Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 12 of 12 FirstFirst ... 289101112
Results 111 to 116 of 116
  1. #111
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Hello L67

    Quote Originally Posted by L67 View Post
    It certainly does. Tiglath-pileser III destroyed 592 cities of 16 districts of Damascus. I will post the evidence here so you can't miss it. http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/saao/a...ntries/israel/

    Here is a 18 page report that documents the historicity of it all. http://www.biblicalstudies.ru/OT/Dubovsky.pdf
    While I read this document which will take some time, please answer this question two posts ago which you have not answered;
    I left out the question which I could have given you in my previous reply to you as to whose has the right to Jerusalem, which God will give. (Eze 21:27) I will overturn, overturn, overturn, it (Jerusalem): and it shall be no more, until he come whose right it is; and I will give it him. Who is this talking about or when has Jerusalem been given to anyone?
    You are making the removal of three kings comparable with the overturning or destruction of Jerusalem in which the temple was destroyed in the process. No matter the number of times Jerusalem is overturned and is likely to be overturned again, this will be a continuing situation until the times of overturning come to an end. So then there are several questions to answer; 1. When has all possible future over turnings of Jerusalem ceased? 2. Who will be given the right to Jerusalem? 3. When is the right to Jerusalem going to be given?

    I look forward to your answers.


    David

  2. #112
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by L67 View Post
    It certainly does. Tiglath-pileser III destroyed 592 cities of 16 districts of Damascus. I will post the evidence here so you can't miss it. http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/saao/a...ntries/israel/

    Here is a 18 page report that documents the historicity of it all. http://www.biblicalstudies.ru/OT/Dubovsky.pdf
    OK I have read the article and extracted references to Damascus to save our readers having to trawl through 18 pages.

    Here is what I have copied:
    Tiglath-pileser III’s Campaigns in 734-732 B.C.
    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).

    Moreover, 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 (3); 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).

    Who succeeded Rezin in Damascus is not mentioned in the Bible;
    however, the Bible does not exclude the possibility that Aram lost its
    independence and was turned into an Assyrian province

    SUMMARY
    The aim of this article is to investigate Tiglath-pileser III’s campaigns against the
    Levant in 734-732 B.C. The campaigns can be divided into three phases. In the
    first phase, the Assyrians conquered Tyre and the coast. In the second phase, they
    defeated Syrian troops in battle, conquered Transjordan and made a surprise
    attack on the Arabian tribes. In the last phase, they conquered Damascus, Galilee
    and Gezer. In the second part of this article, the author investigates the logistics
    of these campaigns and at the end the author evaluated the consequences of the
    Assyrian invasion in terms of human and material losses and the administrative
    reorganization of the region.
    The conclusion of all this is that City of Damascus was conquered but it was not destroyed as were the 591 other cities in the region of Damascus. Damascus appears to have been left in tact and had become for a short time the headquarters of Tiglath-pileser III


    In addition, this is what Schofield writes in in notes to do with Isaiah 17:1.
    There was a near fulfilment in Sennacherib’s approaching invasion, but vv 12-14 look forward also to the final invasion and battle. See Armageddon, Rev 16:6 and 19:7
    The conclusion is that the City of Damascus did not become a ruinous heap and Isaiah's prophecy has not been fulfilled. Only the region of Damascus was weakened.

    David

  3. #113
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    666
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post


    The conclusion of all this is that City of Damascus was conquered but it was not destroyed as were the 591 other cities in the region of Damascus. Damascus appears to have been left in tact and had become for a short time the headquarters of Tiglath-pileser III
    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.


    Read it for yourself. http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/saao/a...ntries/israel/


    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    In addition, this is what Schofield writes in in notes to do with Isaiah 17:1.

    The conclusion is that the City of Damascus did not become a ruinous heap and Isaiah's prophecy has not been fulfilled. Only the region of Damascus was weakened.
    That is NOT the conclusion supported by evidence and history. Isaiah is NOT future. To think Isaiah is future is to ignore the overwhelming evidence that Isaiah was speaking of the OT times.

    Also like I proved above you only cherry picked what you wanted to confirm. Damascus was utterly destroyed. The Annals of the Assyrians says the destruction was so great that it looked like "like hills over which the flood had swept".

    Therefore your conclusions are still wrong.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace - Jimi Hendrix


  4. #114
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    666
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Hello L67


    You are making the removal of three kings comparable with the overturning or destruction of Jerusalem in which the temple was destroyed in the process. No matter the number of times Jerusalem is overturned and is likely to be overturned again, this will be a continuing situation until the times of overturning come to an end. So then there are several questions to answer; 1. When has all possible future over turnings of Jerusalem ceased? 2. Who will be given the right to Jerusalem? 3. When is the right to Jerusalem going to be given?


    Hey you are the one who said Jerusalem will be overturned a third time. I'm simply telling you that Jerusalem was already overturned 3 times. You would have to say Jerusalem will be overturned a fourth time. So right there your view is FALSE. There is no evidence of a future overturning in any scripture.

    Let me also remind you of your words again. If we consider sieges only, then Wikipedia lists many sieges but these were not overturnings in the sense the people were led away capitive from Jerusalem.

    I proved this point thoroughly. Why do you refuse to acknowledge it?


    Another view to look at it is that God was simply doing to destroy Jerusalem thoroughly, which he did. Other translations of the Bible don't even use the word overturn. 25 “‘You profane and wicked prince of Israel, whose day has come, whose time of punishment has reached its climax, 26 this is what the Sovereign Lord says: Take off the turban, remove the crown. It will not be as it was: The lowly will be exalted and the exalted will be brought low. 27 A ruin! A ruin! I will make it a ruin! The crown will not be restored until he to whom it rightfully belongs shall come; to him I will give it.’

    Plus, we know God was talking to Zedekiah in these verses. He was the last king to rule , until Jesus come to rightfully claim the throne, like God had promised. Jesus is on the throne NOW. There is no future implications of thousands of years in any of these verses.

    Whether I am correct on everything or not is debatable, but we know for certain your view is false.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace - Jimi Hendrix


  5. #115
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Hello L67

    Quote Originally Posted by L67 View Post
    Hey you are the one who said Jerusalem will be overturned a third time. I'm simply telling you that Jerusalem was already overturned 3 times. You would have to say Jerusalem will be overturned a fourth time. So right there your view is FALSE. There is no evidence of a future overturning in any scripture.
    The phrase; "overturn, overturn, overturn.." I have taken to mean three overturnings and I accept that if this is a figure of speech there could be more or less than three. You seem to indicate by your evidence there has been more than three.

    Quote Originally Posted by L67 View Post
    Let me also remind you of your words again. If we consider sieges only, then Wikipedia lists many sieges but these were not overturnings in the sense the people were led away capitive from Jerusalem.

    I proved this point thoroughly. Why do you refuse to acknowledge it?
    I just do not accept your evidence is strong in light of what I have quoted from the very websites you sent me to. I have gone searching for more evidence and unless you can show me a time line that has been compiled by Preterists to compare with many other time lines I found, then from all the chronological time lines I have found, there is agreement to the fall of Jerusalem by the Babylonian invasion under Nebuchadnezzar resulting in destruction of some on Jerusalem and in particular the temple. The second time is in AD 70 by the Romans and again it is the temple that was destroyed in the sense that the temple does not exist today and had not been rebuilt. We also learn from the first invasion by Nebuchadnezzar that the city walls were ruined (not destroyed utterly) and that they had to be repaired.


    Quote Originally Posted by L67 View Post
    Another view to look at it is that God was simply doing to destroy Jerusalem thoroughly, which he did.
    The city was ruined, but not destroyed as was the city of Sodom by comparison, if you are going to use the word destroy. The "word" destroy in the context of Jerusalem is not appropriate, though parts of the city might have been destroyed, and that is not saying that the whole city was destroyed.

    Quote Originally Posted by L67 View Post
    Other translations of the Bible don't even use the word overturn. 25 “‘You profane and wicked prince of Israel, whose day has come, whose time of punishment has reached its climax, 26 this is what the Sovereign Lord says: Take off the turban, remove the crown. It will not be as it was: The lowly will be exalted and the exalted will be brought low. 27 A ruin! A ruin! I will make it a ruin! The crown will not be restored until he to whom it rightfully belongs shall come; to him I will give it.’
    Now you have made my point and the word "ruin" could be used and if this word is used, then it has negated your argument that "Jerusalem was destroyed thoroughly".

    Quote Originally Posted by L67 View Post
    Plus, we know God was talking to Zedekiah in these verses. He was the last king to rule , until Jesus come to rightfully claim the throne, like God had promised. Jesus is on the throne NOW. There is no future implications of thousands of years in any of these verses.
    And now you have done exactly what the JWs did when Jesus did not return in 1914 and switched from making earth the place of Christ's throne and moved it to Heaven. That is not "levelling the playing field", it is removing it. Jesus is sat at God's right hand next to God's throne and this is not necessarily sitting on his own throne, which according to scripture will be in Jerusalem on the earth.

    Quote Originally Posted by L67 View Post
    Whether I am correct on everything or not is debatable, but we know for certain your view is false.
    Your view is certainly debatable and I accept that my view is debatable, but you are wrong to draw a conclusion that my view is false until all the evidence is in. You might equally be at fault which would make your view false. We should not expect anyone to believe what we say on the basis that we call the other person's opinion false. We shall have to leave it to readers to decide. If you have no more evidence, then we can leave it at that.

    This goes to show that in resolving our differences of opinion about different subjects, there ought to be a priority to the subjects discussed. For example, the return of Jesus physically, or not, is more important than the number of overturnings or times of ruin of Jerusalem. If Jesus is to stay in Heaven, there is no need for Jerusalem to exist (but it does). If Jesus is to return to the earth, then it is necessary for Jerusalem to exist. The existence of Jerusalem does not determine whether Jesus stays in Heaven or returns, but the return of Jesus to come determines that Jerusalem must exist.

    I do not recall you giving me an answer to; "what is the hope of Israel"? when asked previously and maybe in another thread. I will ask the question here and you can give me your answer. The Apostle Paul was taken in chains to Rome and Paul said; (Acts 28:20) for the hope of Israel I am bound with this chain. Paul believed in the same hope of the Jews even though his belief concerning the Son of God was different to how he had been brought up as a Pharisee and now he was in direct opposition to the Pharisees. Nevertheless, the hope of Israel, as also expressed by the disciples as Jesus was about to ascended to heaven, and also about which the disciples were seeking signs while with Jesus on the Mount of Olives, is all speaking of the same hope. Jesus did not say they were wrong to expect the hope of Israel to be fulfilled. So when and how is the hope of Israel to be fulfilled? Make this the subject of a new thread if you will and start off by explaining; what is the hope of Israel?


    All the best

    David
    Last edited by David M; 05-15-2013 at 01:27 AM.

  6. #116
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    666
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Hello L67

    The phrase; "overturn, overturn, overturn.." I have taken to mean three overturnings and I accept that if this is a figure of speech there could be more or less than three. You seem to indicate by your evidence there has been more than three.
    I never said there was more than three. Where did you get that idea?

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    I just do not accept your evidence is strong in light of what I have quoted from the very websites you sent me to. I have gone searching for more evidence and unless you can show me a time line that has been compiled by Preterists to compare with many other time lines I found, then from all the chronological time lines I have found, there is agreement to the fall of Jerusalem by the Babylonian invasion under Nebuchadnezzar resulting in destruction of some on Jerusalem and in particular the temple. The second time is in AD 70 by the Romans and again it is the temple that was destroyed in the sense that the temple does not exist today and had not been rebuilt. We also learn from the first invasion by Nebuchadnezzar that the city walls were ruined (not destroyed utterly) and that they had to be repaired.
    David you are changing your argument. You said these were not overturnings in the sense the people were led away capitive from Jerusalem.

    I thoroughly proved this. People were led away at all three overturns. Now you want to shift your argument. Your argument has no consistency. You need to acknowledge this and then refute it with evidence. Just asserting it is meaningless. You accept Daniel taken captive as the first overturning. But you ignore the other overturnings and go right to 70AD in order to fit your future third overturning. That is simply picking and choosing what you want to believe to confirm your beliefs.

    Also the first invasion of Nebuchadnezzar was in 605BC. It was in 587BC that Nebuchadnezzar broke through the city walls. This was the third time he invaded Jerusalem.


    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    The city was ruined, but not destroyed as was the city of Sodom by comparison, if you are going to use the word destroy. The "word" destroy in the context of Jerusalem is not appropriate, though parts of the city might have been destroyed, and that is not saying that the whole city was destroyed.
    You're grasping at straws here David. Destroyed does NOT mean that everything was leveled. This is what destroy means : to ruin the structure, organic existence, or condition of <destroyed the files>; also : to ruin as if by tearing to shreds <their reputation was destroyed>
    2
    a : to put out of existence : kill <destroy an injured horse>
    b : neutralize <the moon destroys the light of the stars>
    c : annihilate, vanquish <armies had been crippled but not destroyed — W. L. Shirer>


    Every single one of those definitions describes the invasions by Nebuchadnezzar So you are wrong the word "destroy" is very appropriate.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Now you have made my point and the word "ruin" could be used and if this word is used, then it has negated your argument that "Jerusalem was destroyed thoroughly".
    Actually it doesn't negate my argument. It strengthens it. Because the word "destroy" actually confirms my evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    And now you have done exactly what the JWs did when Jesus did not return in 1914 and switched from making earth the place of Christ's throne and moved it to Heaven. That is not "levelling the playing field", it is removing it. Jesus is sat at God's right hand next to God's throne and this is not necessarily sitting on his own throne, which according to scripture will be in Jerusalem on the earth.
    I have done no such thing. Christ throne was NEVER an earthly throne. We have been over this may times David. Jesus is on Davids throne NOW in heaven like God said. God said after the resurrection he would seat Jesus on the throne.

    There is nothing according to scripture that says Jesus throne will be an earthly one in Jerusalem. That view has no biblical relevance. You have never presented any verses that even come close to supporting that assertion.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Your view is certainly debatable and I accept that my view is debatable, but you are wrong to draw a conclusion that my view is false until all the evidence is in. You might equally be at fault which would make your view false. We should not expect anyone to believe what we say on the basis that we call the other person's opinion false. We shall have to leave it to readers to decide. If you have no more evidence, then we can leave it at that.
    But the difference is with my view I present historical evidence. You have presented nothing but your own assertions.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    This goes to show that in resolving our differences of opinion about different subjects, there ought to be a priority to the subjects discussed. For example, the return of Jesus physically, or not, is more important than the number of overturnings or times of ruin of Jerusalem. If Jesus is to stay in Heaven, there is no need for Jerusalem to exist (but it does). If Jesus is to return to the earth, then it is necessary for Jerusalem to exist. The existence of Jerusalem does not determine whether Jesus stays in Heaven or returns, but the return of Jesus to come determines that Jerusalem must exist.
    But the overturnings are important to your beliefs. Because you even said you believe Jerusalem will be overturned a third time. So you have built more beliefs on that one verse.

    Your view of Jerusalem is irrelevant to scripture. I am 100% sure of that. We have been over this David. There is a moutain of evidence that proves Jesus will not be an earthly king in Jerusalem.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    I do not recall you giving me an answer to; "what is the hope of Israel"? when asked previously and maybe in another thread. I will ask the question here and you can give me your answer. The Apostle Paul was taken in chains to Rome and Paul said; (Acts 28:20) for the hope of Israel I am bound with this chain. Paul believed in the same hope of the Jews even though his belief concerning the Son of God was different to how he had been brought up as a Pharisee and now he was in direct opposition to the Pharisees. Nevertheless, the hope of Israel, as also expressed by the disciples as Jesus was about to ascended to heaven, and also about which the disciples were seeking signs while with Jesus on the Mount of Olives, is all speaking of the same hope. Jesus did not say they were wrong to expect the hope of Israel to be fulfilled. So when and how is the hope of Israel to be fulfilled? Make this the subject of a new thread if you will and start off by explaining; what is the hope of Israel?
    Ok, I'll save it for another thread.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace - Jimi Hendrix


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
  •