The basis of the entire problem has finally come out. I came arguing about potatoes and you answered with an argument about watermelons.
Your argument is that Sennacherib never took the path listed in Isaiah 10:28-32. You argued that this was a fact. However, your theory cannot be proven as fact based on current evidence.
My point, from the very beginning, has been whether or not the path by which Sennacherib invaded the kingdom of Hezekiah corresponded to the invasion path defined in
Isaiah 10:28-32.
We are not given the details of the invasion path from either Biblical or Secular records. We Know, that according to sennacherib he entered Judah from Ekron, which is located exactly West of Jerusalem. From this point we have no idea the path that he took to conquer 46 fortified cities and an unumbered amount of villages.
You imagine that this passage describes operations within the nation after an invasion had become an accomplished fact. But this is erroneous. For the path defined in
Isaiah 10:28-32 begins at the northern edge of the ancient kingdom of Judea and ends at Jerusalem. So I have been discussing this as an invasion path, and I contend that this is an obvious conclusion, reached by almost every scholar that has analyzed it.
Once Sennacherib's army entered Judah, his invasion path to conquer 46 fortified cities and an un numbered amount of villages is unknown.
T
he path given in Isaiah 10:28-32 doesn't end at Jerusalem. It ends at Nob, where he shakes his hand at Jerusalem.
Isaiah 10:31-32 There go the people of Madmenah, all fleeing.The citizens of Gebim are trying to hide.
The enemy stops at Nob for the rest of that day. He shakes his fist at beautiful Mount Zion, the mountain of Jerusalem.
Josephus records Sennacherib taking cities in both the tribe of Judah AND the tribe of Benjamin. the 10 cities listed in Isaiah 10:28-32 were located in the tribe of Benjamin.
Antiquities of the Jews Book X chapter 1It was now the fourteenth year of the government of Hezekiah, King of the two tribes; when the King of Assyria, whose name was
Sennacherib, made an expedition against him, with a great army; a
nd took all the cities of the tribe of Judah and Benjamin by force.
What is known is that Senncherib invaded Judea by coming south along the seacoast, through the land of the Philistines, and entered Judea on its southwestern border.
According to Sennacherib, he entered the kingdom of Judah after Ekron. Ekron is located directly west of Jerusalem. So it wouldn't be the southwest border he entered from, but the northwest border of the kingdom of Judah, directly west of Jerusalem.
Sennacherib's prism Column 3
I approached Ekron and slew the governors and nobles 9who had rebelled, and 10hung their bodies on stakes around the city. The inhabitants 11who rebelled and treated (Assyria) lightly I counted as spoil. 12The rest of them, who were not guilty of rebellion 13and contempt, for whom there was no punishment, 14I declared their pardon. Padi, their king, 15I brought out to Jerusalem, 16set him on the royal throne over them, and 17imposed upon him my royal tribute.
18As for Hezekiah the Judahite, 19who did not submit to my yoke: forty-six of his strong, walled cities, as well as 20the small towns in their area,
From the point of entry we are given NO details of his path to conquer 46 fortified cities and un numbered villages WITHIN the kingdom of JUDAH
The account in
Isaiah 10:28-32 describes a totally different invasion, in which the attacker will enter the kingdom, not on its southwestern border, but near the center of its northern border. And then advancing on Jerusalem by traveling south along the mountainous ridge at the center of the nation. This invasion path is totally different from the one Sennacherib followed.
Isaiah 10:28-32 doesn't mention how the attacker enters the kingdom of Judah. Aiath is not at the edge of the border, thus it is not impossible for Sennacherib's army to have traveled east to Aith and descended south. However, this cannot be proven as there are no details of the path sennacherib's took to conquer 46 foritified cities WITHIN the kingdom of Judah. All we know is that he did conquer all/46 fortified cities and un numbered villages within the kingdom of Judah.
You have been arguing about what Sennacherib did after he reached the southern portion of the kingdom, seemingly pushing a totally baseless theory about him having first conquered the southern region, then having gone back to the northern edge of the kingdom, and from there having returned along this path to Jerusalem.
My argument is that Sennacherib entered Judah from the northwest border after ekron, directly west of Jerusalem. From there we have no Idea which path he took to conquer all/46 fortified cities and un numbered villages.
My argument is that you cannot state it as FACT that Sennacherib's army never went through the cities listed in Isaiah 10:28-32. You may believe your evidence points to your opinion, but it is inappropriate to state it is a fact based on the current evidence we have.
But there is absolutely zero Biblical, historical, or archeological basis for such a theory.
Outside of Isaiah 10, there is zero biblical evidence of the path that Sennacherib took to conquer all of the fortified cities of the kingdom of Judah. THere is zero secular evidence of the path Sennacherib took to conquer the 46 fortified cities and un numbered villages of Hezakiah's kingdom. THis has been my point the whole time. It cannot be proven, it is not known FACT. So to say it is a fact that Sennacherib never went through the cities mentioned in Isaiah 10:28-32 is false.
Do you have sources for your archaeological argument?
And your argument about the word "all" is no more logically sound. You have admitted that the Hebrew word translated "all" is not necessarily absolute. Yet you keep insisting that this time it is absolute, even after you have admitted that the scriptures plainly declare that this time it was not absolute. For the scriptures themselves explicitly say that there was an exception to this usage of the word "all."
and your argument that all requires a qualifier to be absolute is false, as there are many scriptures where all does not have a qualifier and is still absolute. My argument is simply how do we determine whether all is absolute or not without the presence of a qualifier. I argued context and specificity using scripture passages to back up my argument. What is your argument?
