That's not making your case Biblewriter. That's someone's interpretation on Isaiah 10:28-32.
The map shows the actual locations of the cities named. And the path is drawn through them in the exact order in which Isaiah 10:28-32 mentions them, plainly showing that they do indeed describe a path. And the words "that day" in verse 32 plainly shows that the Holy Spirit's intention was to show the time order in which these cities would be reached.
My point is that the passage doesn't call this "the path Assyria took" (though that's possible), but even moreso, your statement that "And no ancient Assyrian king ever attacked Jerusalem by following the path defined in Isaiah 10:28-32.", does not have to be recorded to be true. 2 Kings 17:5 is sufficient, because it says:
5 Then the king of Assyria invaded the whole land and went up to Samaria and besieged it three years.
You are simply refusing to admit what I have already pointed out, that this was said of an attack upon a different nation. This was said about an attack by Assyria on
ISRAEL, not
JUDAH. When the subject is
ISRAEL, the term "the whole land"
does not apply to Philistia, Babylon or Judah. It only means
ISRAEL.
One thing I have looked at is that 2 Kings 18 makes a good case for Isaiah 10:28-32 because Sennacherib has besieged the whole region, took Samaria and dispersed them, and returned to Jerusalem. That will have him coming from the north.
There are two errors in your conclusion here. One is that the only way to take a fortified city is to lay siege to it. You cannot take ten cities in three days by laying siege to them. That takes time. A second one is that the Hebrew word translated all in 2 Kings 18:13 is "kol." this word means "all" in a general sense, like we often use the word all. But it does not necessarily mean absolutely all. In Exekiel 36:10, it is repeated to make the meaning absolutely all. The scriptures themselves say that after that was said, Jerusalem had not been conquered, and Sennacherib was laying seige to Lachish, and them moved on to Libnah. So we see that there were at least three fortified cities that had not been taken at the time this was said. The scriptures plainly show that this word "all" did not mean "absolutely all."
I hold that based on the total reading of 2 Kings 15-19 and 2 Chronicles 28-32 we have more than enough evidence that Isaiah 10 was fulfilled. It doesn't have to utter "word for word" for it to be fulfilled, especially when Isaiah is prophesies to King Hezekiah and it ends God's use of Assyria. (Isaiah 36 & 37)
To think this Isaiah 10 is future in light of Assyria's attack of the "whole land" is ridiculous.
2 Kings 15 speaks of Assyria's attack by Assyria on Menahem, King of
ISRAEL, not
JUDAH.
2 Kings 16 speaks of an attack on Judah by
REZIN, KING OF SYRIA, not by
ASSYRIA.
2 Kings 17 speaks of an attack by Assyria on Hoshea, king of
ISRAEL, not
JUDAH.
2 kings 18:9-11 speaks of an attack by Shalmaneser, king of Assyria, against
ISRAEL, not
JUDAH, in the
fourth to the sixth years of Hezekiah.
2 Kings 18:13-37 and all of 2 Kings 19 speaks of an attack by Sennacherib on Hezekiah, king of Judah in the
fourteenth year of Hezekiah. So there is zero possibility that the Assyrians came to Jerusalem from Samaria.
For the Assyrian attack on Hezekiah was by a different Assyrian king, five years after the end of the attack on Samaria.
And as I observed earlier,
2 Kings 18:17 very clearly says that when the Assyrians actually came to Jerusalem, they came from Lachish, which is south of Jerusalem, not north of it, as are ALL the cities mentioned in Isaiah 10:28-32.
2 Chronicles 28 does not speak of an attack by Assyria at all. It speaks of an ill advised covenant between Ahaz, king of Judah and Tiglath-Pileser, king of Assyria. But when the Assyrians came, they only distressed Ahaz, and did not help him.
2 Chronicles 29 speaks of an attack on Hezekiah, king of Judah, by Sennacherib, king of Assyria.
2 Chronicles 30 and 31 say nothing about any attacks by anyone.
and finally, 2 Chronicles 32 speaks of Hezekiah,s preparations for the attack that had been previously recorded in chapter 29.
The only other places where attacks by Assyria are mentioned in all of the Bible are:
1 Chronicles 5, which speaks of the Assyrian attack on
ISRAEL, not
JUDAH.
Isaiah 20, which speaks of an attack by Sargin, king of Assyria, on Ashdod, a city of the Philistines.
Isaiah 36-38, which speak of the attack on Hezekiah, king of Judah, by Sennacherib, king of Assyria.
Jeremiah 50, which speaks (in the past tense) of the attack on
ISRAEL, not
JUDAH.
Hosea 10, which speaks of the Assyrian attack on
ISRAEL, not
JUDAH.
Micah 5, which speaks of an attack by Assyria on Judah, answered by a counter attack by Judah on Assyria. This has unquestionably not ever happened.
Psalm 83, which names Assyria among a large confederacy of attackers against Judah, including Assyria. There was no attack by such a confederacy mentioned, even once, in any of the historical records in the Bible. So this also has to be future.
I went through all this exercise to conclusively prove that the general overrunning of the entire area that you are alleging never happened at all.
There is zero record in the scriptures of any attack on Judah by any Assyrian king before Sennacherib. Not even one. Sennacjherib attacked because Hezekiah had repudiated the ill advised covenant between Ahaz and Tiglath-Pileser. And that is the
ONLY Assyrian attack on Judah mentioned anywhere in the historical scriptures.
The gross errors that have filled your arguments here are a simple and obvious example of the error of just lookng at the scriptures in an overall approximate way, without even bothering to study them "line by line." For if you had done that, you would have known that the scriptures simply do not say what you are claiming they say.
http://www.christianforums.com/users/111190-albums5246-44872/
