Approaches to Eschatology

Douggg

anytime rapture, non-dispensationalist, futurist
May 28, 2009
28,689
3,404
Non-dispensationalist
✟356,795.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
I agree. The Assyrian empire was north of the kingdom of Judah. So Sennacherib and his army would have marched from north to south to advance on Judah.



I agree. Each account has Sennacherib sending his army to Jerusalem from Lachish

2 Kings 18:17 And the king of Assyria sent the Tartan, the Rab-saris, and the Rabshakeh with a great army from Lachish to King Hezekiah at Jerusalem

2 Chronicles 32:9 After this, Sennacherib king of Assyria, who was besieging Lachish with all his forces, sent his servants to Jerusalem to Hezekiah king of Judah and to all the people of Judah who were in Jerusalem, saying

Isaiah 36:2 And the king of Assyria sent the Rabshakeha from Lachish to King Hezekiah at Jerusalem, with a great army


Do you know which side of Jerusalem they arrived at?
2 kings 18:17 And they went up and came to Jerusalem. When they arrived, they came and stood by the conduit of the upper pool, which is on the highway to the Washer’s Field.



There is a lot in the Bible that archeology has not found or corroborated yet, that doesn't mean we don't believe the Biblical account.



According to the Biblical account, in the 14th year of Hezekiah, Sennacherib captured all the fortified cities in Judah, with the exception being Jerusalem. No time frame is mentioned for how long it took for Sennacherib to conquer the fortified cities of Judah

Isaiah 36:1 In the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah, Sennacherib king of Assyria came up against all the fortified cities of Judah and took them.

2 Chronicles 32:1 After all these acts of faithfulness, Sennacherib king of Assyria came and invaded Judah. He laid siege to the fortified cities, intending to conquer them for himself.

2 Kings 18:13 In the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah, Sennacherib king of Assyria came up against all the fortified cities of Judah and took them


This correlates with Sennacherib's account of capturing 46 of Judah's fortified cities as well as villages, which were without number, near Jerusalem.

SennacheriAs for Hezekiah, the Jew, who did not submit to my yoke, 46 of his strong, walled cities, as well as the small cities in their neighborhood, which were without number,-by levelling with battering-rams (?) and by bringing up siege-engines (?), by attacking and storming on foot, by mines, tunnels and breaches (?), I besieged and took (those cities).

This also correlates with Josephus' history of Sennecherib. **Notice Josephus states tribe of Benjamin, which is where the 10 cities listed in Isaiah 10:28-32 are located

Antiquities of the Jews Book X chapter 1: It 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; and took all the cities of the tribe of Judah AND BENJAMIN by force.



Not following this logic. The bible states that King Sennacherib had captured all of the fortified cities of Judah except Jerusalem. My argument is that I believe that which the Bible states.



Couple issues with this argument:
1.) 3 days seems to be an assumption based on "at Geba they lodge for the night". This doesn't necessarily mean that this part of the prophecy takes place over 3 days.
2.) An assumption that a battle or siege was done at each city.


Isaiah 10:28-32 He has come to Aiath; he has passed through Migron; at Michmash he stores his baggage; they have crossed over the pass; at Geba they lodge for the night; Ramah trembles; Gibeah of Saul has fled.Cry aloud, O daughter of Gallim! Give attention, O Laishah! O poor Anathoth! Madmenah is in flight; the inhabitants of Gebim flee for safety. This very day he will halt at Nob; he will shake his fistat the mount of the daughter of Zion, the hill of Jerusalem.

Interesting to note, in the Aggadah, Sennacherib's army is recorded as resting at nob and raising a platform prior to attacking Jerusalem.
"After having previously conquered the rest of the world (Meg. 11b), Sennacherib equipped a massive army against Hezekiah, consisting of 45,000 princes, each enthroned in a golden chariot and accompanied by his ladies and courtesans, 80,000 warriors in coat of mail, 60,000 swordsmen, and numerous cavalry (Sanh. 95b). With this vast army Sennacherib marched on Judea in accordance with the disclosures of his astrologers, who warned him that he would fail to capture Jerusalem if he arrived too late. He rested at Nob and from a raised platform observed the Judean capital, which appeared weak and small to him. When his warriors urged him to attack, he bade them rest for one night before storming the city the next day. This delay spared Jerusalem since Saul's sin against the priests at Nob was fully expiated on that very day (Sanh. 95a)." Ginzberg, Legends, 4 (19475), 267–72; 5 (19463), 361–6.



From Pages 10-11 of Sennacherib's Campaign to Judah: new studies

"Needless to say, the annals are very biased. Because they were meant to exalt the Assyrian King, the scribes concealed or explained away certain facts which did not fit this picture. There were also problems of space. A lot of information has been omitted from annals and when one tries to reconstruct an event in all its from what remains, one can see how little they have told"

"another problem of the annals is their order. They seem to have been arranged chronologically, but there are cases in which a topical arrange was preferred. The main question is to what extent the chronological order of the annals have been disrupted. The question becomes most crucial for the Assyrian invasion of Philistia and Judah"


"a lot of information has been omitted from the annals". Sennacherib never mentions the path of the 46 fortified cities an neighboring villages he conquered. Thus, based on Sennacherib's annals it is impossible to determine the path that was taken to conquer the 46 fortified cities and un numbered villages of the kingdom of Judah


However, the Bible specifically states that he did take all the fortified cities of the kingdom of Judah. Thus, even though we do not know the path based on 2 kings 18-19, 2 Chronicles 32, or Isaiah 36-37, we do know that all the fortified cities were taken. And if we believe that he took all these cities, that would include those in Isaiah 10:28-32.




Correct, this contains the quote of Sennacherib attacking 46 fortified cities, as well as other un numbered villages. It's important to notice he never explicitly states the path he took to conquer those 46 fortified cities and un numbered villages. Nor does he mention all 46 names of the cities or un numbered villages.




Notice what I specifically stated in post #182: "It never says the path he took to destroy those 46 cities and small villages around Jerusalem, nor are the 46 cities and small villages named."

I stand by that statement. Sennacherib's prism never details the path he took to capture those 46 cities and un numbered small villages.

Do you have a specific quotes from the annals of Sennacherib that state the specific route that he took to capture those 46 fortified cities, as well as un numbered villages?



The biblical account never mentions the entire path he took. The biblical account simply states he took all the fortified cities of Judah in the 14th year of Hezekiah

2 Kings 18:13 In the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah, Sennacherib king of Assyria came up against all the fortified cities of Judah and took them.

And that Sennacherib sent an army from Lachish to Jerusalem.

2 Kings 18:17 And the king of Assyria sent the Tartan, the Rab-saris, and the Rabshakeh with a great army from Lachish to King Hezekiah at Jerusalem

The annals of Sennacherib do list a route that he took: He went from victory to victory: Sidon, Ammon, Moab, Edom, Ashkelon, Ekron, and Lachish fell before him.

But this route does not account for the taking of the 46 fortified cities and villages of Judah. Nor does this account for the Bible's claim that the took all the fortified cities in the kingdom of Judah. Additionally, according to the author of Sennacherib's Campaign to Judah: new studies, a lot of information was left out and the order of events that Sennacherib does list as happening in Judah and Philistia are questionable.




Again, the bible states Sennacherib took all the fortified cities of Judah. Sennacherib states he took 46 fortified cities, as well as an unnumbered amount of villages. Neither the books of Kings or Chronicles nor Sennecharib's annals tell us the route with which he took to conquer all of the cities of Judah (46 fortified cities, un numbered villages). All we know is that he did.



What has not been established is the path that Sennacherib took to conquer the 46 fortified cities and unnumbered villages that he claimed. What has not been established is the exact path that Sennacherib took to conquer ALL the fortified cities of the kingdom of Judah.

What has been established is that according to the Bible, Sennacherib took all the fortified cities of the kingdom of Judah.
That you and James wade through all those verses - leads to me to think Isaiah Assyrian is historic.

Differently, in Micah 5, that Jesus will be peace in the day of that Assyrian, it seems to indicate an end times factor.
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: claninja
Upvote 0

AbbaLove

Circumcism Of The Heart
May 16, 2015
2,488
760
✟119,587.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Could someone explain what a theologian means when he says, "l'm reform baptist (calvinism) when it comes to soteriology, but not eschatology." I understand what they imply when it comes to their belief of how one becomes among the "chosen/elect" (soteriology), but not sure of the implication of the eschatology (non-Calvinsim) part.
I think I would ask that question over here ....
Salvation (Soteriology)
probably more theologians there.
Like i explained, already understand the Soteriology part (which some refer to as the Order of Salvation).

Being that this thread is about eschatology (type of theology) had assumed that
Biblewriter could offer some insight in that the title of this thread is Approaches to Eschatology.

Perhaps, next year if it isn't too confusing to explain in this eschatology thread ;)
 
Upvote 0

Douggg

anytime rapture, non-dispensationalist, futurist
May 28, 2009
28,689
3,404
Non-dispensationalist
✟356,795.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Could someone explain what a theologian means when he says, "l'm reform baptist (calvinism) when it comes to soteriology, but not eschatology." I understand what they imply when it comes to their belief of how one becomes among the "chosen/elect" (soteriology), but not sure of the implication of the eschatology (non-Calvinsim) part.
Like i explained, already understand the Soteriology part (which some refer to as the Order of Salvation).

Being that this thread is about eschatology (type of theology) had assumed that
Biblewriter could offer some insight in that the title of this thread is Approaches to Eschatology.

Perhaps, next year if it isn't too confusing to explain in this eschatology thread ;)
I am thinking the person is saying he is reform baptist (also called Calvanistic Baptists) holding mostly to the five points of Calvanism - total deparavity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, perservation of the saints.

Perservation of the saints - the doctrine of once saved always saved, may be what the person is not agreeing with Calvin on, which Calvin maintains the impossibility of apostasy by the believer.

Which in eschatology, the study of the end times, there will be a great falling away (implied to be from the faith) from believing that Jesus is the savior in 2Thessalonians2, preceding the beginning of the Day of the Lord.

2Thessalonians2:3Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;


It will be like that if someone as a messianic, decided to depart Christianity to return to Judaism, because someone else shows up who appears to be the messiah instead. Or someone who is a baptist, is impressed the same way. That sort of thing is going to happen on a large scale.

There have been people leaving Christianity, denying Jesus for salvation, ever since the beginning of Christianity, the mystery of iniquity already at work.


______________________________________________________________________

To really know what the person (the theologian) meant, you would have to get the explanation from the person himself, or know the context in which he made the statement.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: AbbaLove
Upvote 0

Erik Nelson

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 6, 2017
5,117
1,649
46
Utah
✟347,045.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Matthew 24:48, "master away a long time"
Matthew 25:5, "long time in coming"
Matthew 25:14, "long journey"

"coming of the Son of Man" appears in 5 verses in the Olivet Discourse:

Matthew 24:27 [70 AD]
Matthew 24:30 [70 AD]
---
Matthew 24:37 [Final Judgement]
Matthew 24:39 [Final Judgement]
Matthew 24:44 [Final Judgement]

The language is almost identical in all 5 places, yet supposedly the first two apply to 70 AD, and the last three to Final Judgement ?

offer is that the first two verses apply "coming of the Son of Man" to "lighting storm clouds in heaven" [= Josephus' frightening vision of Angelic Hosts in storm clouds over doomed Jerusalem]

whereas the last three verses apply appear to describe the coming of the Son of Man all the way down onto earth




2 PETER 3 AND THE CONSUMMATION (2)

 
Upvote 0

BABerean2

Newbie
Supporter
May 21, 2014
20,614
7,484
North Carolina
✟893,665.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Could someone explain what a theologian means when he says, "l'm reform baptist (calvinism) when it comes to soteriology, but not eschatology." I understand what they imply when it comes to their belief of how one becomes among the "chosen/elect" (soteriology), but not sure of the implication of the eschatology (non-Calvinsim) part.

Dr. Leighton Flowers is a former "Calvinist" who speaks below on the problems with this man-made doctrine.


Like all man-made doctrines, Calvinism is exposed by the scripture that must be ignored to make it work.
God commands all men to repent.


Act_3:19 Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord,


Act_17:30 Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent,

When a Christian declares himself to be a "Dispensationalist, or "Reformed", or a "Calvinist" they are telling us that they must make the scripture conform to their man-made system of interpretation.
I have friends that do the above, but I still love them.

Tradition can be a tough thing to overcome.

.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: Erik Nelson
Upvote 0

food4thought

Loving truth
Supporter
Jul 9, 2002
2,929
725
50
Watervliet, MI
✟383,729.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Could someone explain what a theologian means when he says, "l'm reform baptist (calvinism) when it comes to soteriology, but not eschatology." I understand what they imply when it comes to their belief of how one becomes among the "chosen/elect" (soteriology), but not sure of the implication of the eschatology (non-Calvinsim) part.

Hi AbbaLove. Reformed theologians generally hold one of three differing views: Historical Pre-Millennialism, Post-Millennialism, and Amillennialism. Most of the Reformed people I have met were Amillennial, though. Here is a site I found which gives some information:

Eschatology Index at Reformed.org

Not all Calvinists are reformed, from what I understand, and there are Calvinists who hold to other views outside of the Reformed movement.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Biblewriter

Senior Member
Supporter
May 15, 2005
11,937
1,498
Ocala, Florida
Visit site
✟531,725.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
I agree. The Assyrian empire was north of the kingdom of Judah. So Sennacherib and his army would have marched from north to south to advance on Judah.



I agree. Each account has Sennacherib sending his army to Jerusalem from Lachish

2 Kings 18:17 And the king of Assyria sent the Tartan, the Rab-saris, and the Rabshakeh with a great army from Lachish to King Hezekiah at Jerusalem

2 Chronicles 32:9 After this, Sennacherib king of Assyria, who was besieging Lachish with all his forces, sent his servants to Jerusalem to Hezekiah king of Judah and to all the people of Judah who were in Jerusalem, saying

Isaiah 36:2 And the king of Assyria sent the Rabshakeha from Lachish to King Hezekiah at Jerusalem, with a great army


Do you know which side of Jerusalem they arrived at?
2 kings 18:17 And they went up and came to Jerusalem. When they arrived, they came and stood by the conduit of the upper pool, which is on the highway to the Washer’s Field.



There is a lot in the Bible that archeology has not found or corroborated yet, that doesn't mean we don't believe the Biblical account.



According to the Biblical account, in the 14th year of Hezekiah, Sennacherib captured all the fortified cities in Judah, with the exception being Jerusalem. No time frame is mentioned for how long it took for Sennacherib to conquer the fortified cities of Judah

Isaiah 36:1 In the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah, Sennacherib king of Assyria came up against all the fortified cities of Judah and took them.

2 Chronicles 32:1 After all these acts of faithfulness, Sennacherib king of Assyria came and invaded Judah. He laid siege to the fortified cities, intending to conquer them for himself.

2 Kings 18:13 In the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah, Sennacherib king of Assyria came up against all the fortified cities of Judah and took them


This correlates with Sennacherib's account of capturing 46 of Judah's fortified cities as well as villages, which were without number, near Jerusalem.

SennacheriAs for Hezekiah, the Jew, who did not submit to my yoke, 46 of his strong, walled cities, as well as the small cities in their neighborhood, which were without number,-by levelling with battering-rams (?) and by bringing up siege-engines (?), by attacking and storming on foot, by mines, tunnels and breaches (?), I besieged and took (those cities).

This also correlates with Josephus' history of Sennecherib. **Notice Josephus states tribe of Benjamin, which is where the 10 cities listed in Isaiah 10:28-32 are located

Antiquities of the Jews Book X chapter 1: It 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; and took all the cities of the tribe of Judah AND BENJAMIN by force.



Not following this logic. The bible states that King Sennacherib had captured all of the fortified cities of Judah except Jerusalem. My argument is that I believe that which the Bible states.



Couple issues with this argument:
1.) 3 days seems to be an assumption based on "at Geba they lodge for the night". This doesn't necessarily mean that this part of the prophecy takes place over 3 days.
2.) An assumption that a battle or siege was done at each city.


Isaiah 10:28-32 He has come to Aiath; he has passed through Migron; at Michmash he stores his baggage; they have crossed over the pass; at Geba they lodge for the night; Ramah trembles; Gibeah of Saul has fled.Cry aloud, O daughter of Gallim! Give attention, O Laishah! O poor Anathoth! Madmenah is in flight; the inhabitants of Gebim flee for safety. This very day he will halt at Nob; he will shake his fistat the mount of the daughter of Zion, the hill of Jerusalem.

Interesting to note, in the Aggadah, Sennacherib's army is recorded as resting at nob and raising a platform prior to attacking Jerusalem.
"After having previously conquered the rest of the world (Meg. 11b), Sennacherib equipped a massive army against Hezekiah, consisting of 45,000 princes, each enthroned in a golden chariot and accompanied by his ladies and courtesans, 80,000 warriors in coat of mail, 60,000 swordsmen, and numerous cavalry (Sanh. 95b). With this vast army Sennacherib marched on Judea in accordance with the disclosures of his astrologers, who warned him that he would fail to capture Jerusalem if he arrived too late. He rested at Nob and from a raised platform observed the Judean capital, which appeared weak and small to him. When his warriors urged him to attack, he bade them rest for one night before storming the city the next day. This delay spared Jerusalem since Saul's sin against the priests at Nob was fully expiated on that very day (Sanh. 95a)." Ginzberg, Legends, 4 (19475), 267–72; 5 (19463), 361–6.



From Pages 10-11 of Sennacherib's Campaign to Judah: new studies

"Needless to say, the annals are very biased. Because they were meant to exalt the Assyrian King, the scribes concealed or explained away certain facts which did not fit this picture. There were also problems of space. A lot of information has been omitted from annals and when one tries to reconstruct an event in all its from what remains, one can see how little they have told"

"another problem of the annals is their order. They seem to have been arranged chronologically, but there are cases in which a topical arrange was preferred. The main question is to what extent the chronological order of the annals have been disrupted. The question becomes most crucial for the Assyrian invasion of Philistia and Judah"


"a lot of information has been omitted from the annals". Sennacherib never mentions the path of the 46 fortified cities an neighboring villages he conquered. Thus, based on Sennacherib's annals it is impossible to determine the path that was taken to conquer the 46 fortified cities and un numbered villages of the kingdom of Judah


However, the Bible specifically states that he did take all the fortified cities of the kingdom of Judah. Thus, even though we do not know the path based on 2 kings 18-19, 2 Chronicles 32, or Isaiah 36-37, we do know that all the fortified cities were taken. And if we believe that he took all these cities, that would include those in Isaiah 10:28-32.




Correct, this contains the quote of Sennacherib attacking 46 fortified cities, as well as other un numbered villages. It's important to notice he never explicitly states the path he took to conquer those 46 fortified cities and un numbered villages. Nor does he mention all 46 names of the cities or un numbered villages.




Notice what I specifically stated in post #182: "It never says the path he took to destroy those 46 cities and small villages around Jerusalem, nor are the 46 cities and small villages named."

I stand by that statement. Sennacherib's prism never details the path he took to capture those 46 cities and un numbered small villages.

Do you have a specific quotes from the annals of Sennacherib that state the specific route that he took to capture those 46 fortified cities, as well as un numbered villages?



The biblical account never mentions the entire path he took. The biblical account simply states he took all the fortified cities of Judah in the 14th year of Hezekiah

2 Kings 18:13 In the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah, Sennacherib king of Assyria came up against all the fortified cities of Judah and took them.

And that Sennacherib sent an army from Lachish to Jerusalem.

2 Kings 18:17 And the king of Assyria sent the Tartan, the Rab-saris, and the Rabshakeh with a great army from Lachish to King Hezekiah at Jerusalem

The annals of Sennacherib do list a route that he took: He went from victory to victory: Sidon, Ammon, Moab, Edom, Ashkelon, Ekron, and Lachish fell before him.

But this route does not account for the taking of the 46 fortified cities and villages of Judah. Nor does this account for the Bible's claim that the took all the fortified cities in the kingdom of Judah. Additionally, according to the author of Sennacherib's Campaign to Judah: new studies, a lot of information was left out and the order of events that Sennacherib does list as happening in Judah and Philistia are questionable.




Again, the bible states Sennacherib took all the fortified cities of Judah. Sennacherib states he took 46 fortified cities, as well as an unnumbered amount of villages. Neither the books of Kings or Chronicles nor Sennecharib's annals tell us the route with which he took to conquer all of the cities of Judah (46 fortified cities, un numbered villages). All we know is that he did.



What has not been established is the path that Sennacherib took to conquer the 46 fortified cities and unnumbered villages that he claimed. What has not been established is the exact path that Sennacherib took to conquer ALL the fortified cities of the kingdom of Judah.

What has been established is that according to the Bible, Sennacherib took all the fortified cities of the kingdom of Judah.

You arguments are contradictory. One of the contradictions is that you argue that Sennacherib must have captured all these cities because he "took all the fortified cities of Judah," yet you also argue that the cities along the path mentioned in Isaiah 10:28-32 are in Benjamin.

If the cities were in Benjamin, they were not cities of Judah. But even at that, you still miss the point of my argument. My point on the word "fortified" was that ten fortified cities cannot have even been possibly captured in only three days. We are not told that any the cities along this route were fortified. So the fact that he took "all the fortified cities" does not even imply that he ever even bothered with these cities.

And, even while you differentiate between Judah and Benjamin, you add to the scriptural account by claiming it says Sennacherib took "all the fortified cities of the kingdom of Judah." The word "kingdom" is not in the Biblical account. But you add it here to avoid the fact that your own argument would mean that Sennacherib did not conquer these particular cities.

Even Sennacherib's account differentiated between "fortified cities" and "surrounding villages."

Also, your argument contains a linguistic error. In both Hebrew and Greek, as in English, the word "all" has to be qualified to make it absolute. In English, to make the word "all" absolute, we have to add a word, saying "absolutely all." In Greek, they added a syllable, changing "pas," (all) to "hapas," (absolutely all.) And in Hebrew the word "kol," (all) was doubled to "kol kol," (absolutely all.) So, even as the word "all" in English does not necessarily mean "absolutely all," so its equivalents in both Hebrew and Greek also do not necessarily mean "absolutely all." And even your own argument recognizes this fact. For as you have repeatedly stressed the word "all," you have also repeatedly stated that there was an exception to that very all. The exception you have stated is the city of Jerusalem. But you make the rank assumption that this was the only exception to the word all, and this is something that no scripture says or even implies.

Again, you argue about "annals" not being "in chronological order" as if that was even significant to this discussion. The seven monuments left by Sennacherib about his campaign against Hezekiah were not "annals."

Further, you are citing from a reference on "legends" as if it were even thought to be a historical document.

And you are denying two things from the written record. The first of these is that Isaiah 10:2-32 gives a daily progress, even after not only quoting, but even highlighting in red, the words, "This very day he will halt at Nob." And second, you are denying that Sennacherib's account stated his path as he invaded the region. He not only listed the cities he conquered as he entered the region, he listed them in the geographical order of their locations, from north to south. So, even as Isaiah 10:28-32 gives a distinct path, so does the "clay prism of Sennacherib," and the six other basically identical monuments left by Sennacherib.

So it is pointless to argue that you are "just believing what the Bible says." You are desperately trying to make the Bible appear to say something it does not say, while at the same time pretending that it does not say what it actually says.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

AbbaLove

Circumcism Of The Heart
May 16, 2015
2,488
760
✟119,587.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
In Relationship

Dr. Leighton Flowers is a former "Calvinist" who speaks below on the problems with this man-made doctrine.
As previously mentioned i understand the theology behind reform baptist (calvinist TULIP theology). I've also previously listened to both of these lengthy Youtubes: Leighton Flowers interviewing Andy Stanley and Dr. Michael Brown (Messianic Christian) interviewing Andy Stanley (Southern Baptist) before posting in this forum. Bottomline is that i believe both Calvinism and Arminianism exist as a kind of amalgamation of theologies under the New Covenant.

So, again for the second or third time i'm aware of today's form of calvinism soteriology 101, but my reason for posting was to find out more about reform calvinist eschatology.

It's been thought that reform calvinist theology has become a rather trendy approach by pastors for seeker-sensitive Christians. Was trying to get some clarification on today's form of calvinist eschatology ... whether it leans more toward Premillennialism or Amillennialism (or whatever) within the newer trendy form of seeker-sensitive [reform] Calvinism. Some might suggest that new [reform] Calvinism is returning to its 16th century 'eschatology' roots in some respects because it's a better fit with the seeker-sensitive approach. Or has it become a sort of amalgamation of Premillennialism and Amillennialism, if that is even possible? It always seems that the more time marches on the more doctrines evolve.
 
Upvote 0

BABerean2

Newbie
Supporter
May 21, 2014
20,614
7,484
North Carolina
✟893,665.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
As previously mentioned i understand the theology behind reform baptist (calvinist TULIP theology). I've also previously listened to both of these lengthy Youtubes: Leighton Flowers interviewing Andy Stanley and Dr. Michael Brown (Messianic Christian) interviewing Andy Stanley (Southern Baptist) before posting in this forum. Bottomline is that i believe both Calvinism and Arminianism exist as a kind of amalgamation of theologies under the New Covenant.

So, again for the second or third time i'm aware of today's form of calvinism soteriology 101, but my reason for posting was to find out more about reform calvinist eschatology.

It's been thought that reform calvinist theology has become a rather trendy approach by pastors for seeker-sensitive Christians. Was trying to get some clarification on today's form of calvinist eschatology ... whether it leans more toward Premillennialism or Amillennialism (or whatever) within the newer trendy form of seeker-sensitive [reform] Calvinism. Some might suggest that new [reform] Calvinism is returning to its 16th century 'eschatology' roots in some respects because it's a better fit with the seeker-sensitive approach. Or has it become a sort of amalgamation of Premillennialism and Amillennialism, if that is even possible? It always seems that the more time marches on the more doctrines evolve.

Please allow me to apologize for asking you to watch something you have already seen.
I appreciate you taking the time to watch.
That is a rare gift on this forum.

Most "Reformed" hold to the Amill perspective, while a few are premill.

Below is Pastor Steve Gregg's perspective of Revelation chapter 20.
In my humble opinion it is the best thing I have seen on the subject.


Pastor John G. Reisinger's book "New Covenant Theology & Prophecy" may be helpful.

Pastor Reisinger declared himself to be a "Calvinist", even though he later rejected Reformed Covenant Theology and became a proponent of New Covenant Theology.

https://www.amazon.com/Covenant-Theology-Prophecy-John-Reisinger-ebook/dp/B00AWU9IX8/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1546361007&sr=8-1&keywords=New+Covenant+Theology+&+Prophecy

.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: AbbaLove
Upvote 0

AbbaLove

Circumcism Of The Heart
May 16, 2015
2,488
760
✟119,587.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Reformed theologians generally hold one of three differing views: Historical Pre-Millennialism, Post-Millennialism, and Amillennialism. Most of the Reformed people I have met were Amillennial, though.
Do you think this is the result of the seeker-sensitive strategizing by pastors who are more concerned about increasing the size of their congregation than its quality?
Here is a site I found which gives some information:

Eschatology Index at Reformed.org
Very helpful, Thanks ... is there one in particular that is more popular with seeker-sensitive reform baptist seminaries that now refer to themselves as non-denominational evangelical college.
Not all Calvinists are reformed, from what I understand, and there are Calvinists who hold to other views outside of the Reformed movement.
Is this possibly an example of interpreting the gospel in an attempt to satisfy the seeker-sensitive "elect" along with whatever religious seminary indoctrination a young pastor has bought into?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

AbbaLove

Circumcism Of The Heart
May 16, 2015
2,488
760
✟119,587.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
In Relationship

We should conform our viewpoint to God's Word, instead of conforming God's Word to our viewpoint.
Over 30 years ago i made the comment in an FEC/EFC Bible class, "We should allow His Word to study us instead of studying the Word to defend our theology." A medical doctor sitting behind me quickly made the following comment, "That's just a play on words." And so my perceived 2 cent comment was quickly shot down.

Thanks again ... Amillennial for whatever reasoning seems to be a better fit with calvinist theology. Maybe, that's what he (being reform baptist) meant (not amillennial) as most baptists are premillennial.

Typical of religious Churchianity. Biblewriter wants the floor so it's all his. Thanks guys for your informative replies. :)
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: BABerean2
Upvote 0

food4thought

Loving truth
Supporter
Jul 9, 2002
2,929
725
50
Watervliet, MI
✟383,729.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Do you think this is the result of the seeker-sensitive strategizing by pastors who are more concerned about increasing the size of their congregation than its quality?

I wasn't aware that the Reformed movement had descended into the seeker-sensitive mentality.
Very helpful, Thanks ... is there one in particular that is more popular with seeker-sensitive reform baptist seminaries that now refer to themselves as non-denominational evangelical college.

Seeker-sensitive churches rarely delve into eschatology with any depth, so I am unsure.
Is this possibly an example of interpreting the gospel in an attempt to satisfy the seeker-sensitive "elect" along with whatever religious seminary indoctrination a young pastor has bought into?

I wouldn't know... I suppose the church and seminary background would have a strong influence, but there are many Amillennial churches that are not seeker-sensitive.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: AbbaLove
Upvote 0

claninja

Well-Known Member
Jan 8, 2017
5,647
2,189
indiana
✟298,136.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You arguments are contradictory. One of the contradictions is that you argue that Sennacherib must have captured all these cities because he "took all the fortified cities of Judah," yet you also argue that the cities along the path mentioned in Isaiah 10:28-32 are in Benjamin.

My argument is that Sennacherib took all the fortified cities of the kingdom of Judah. This would include the cities of the tribe of Judah AND the tribe of Benjamin. So no, my argument is not contradictory. You are creating an argument to make it look as if my argument is contradictory.

Even Josephus recognized that Sennacherib took all the cities of the kingdom of Judah, as he includes the tribe of BENJAMIN:
Antiquities of the Jews Book X chapter 1: It 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; and took all the cities of the tribe of Judah AND BENJAMIN by force.


What's not described in either 2 kings 18 or Sennacherib's prism is Sennacherib's path in conquering ALL/46 fortified cities in the kingdom of Judah. All we know is that he did in fact conquer ALL/46 fortified cities and un numbered amount of villages in the kingdom of Judah.


If the cities were in Benjamin, they were not cities of Judah.

If the cities were in Benjamin, the cities were in the kingdom of Judah.

Notice, Ramah, located in the tribe of Benjamin, was considered part of Judah.
2 Chronicles 16:1 In the thirty-sixth year of Asa's reign, Baasha king of Israel went up against Judah and fortified Ramah to prevent anyone from leaving or entering the territory of Asa king of Judah.


But even at that, you still miss the point of my argument. My point on the word "fortified" was that ten fortified cities cannot have even been possibly captured in only three days. We are not told that any the cities along this route were fortified. So the fact that he took "all the fortified cities" does not even imply that he ever even bothered with these cities.

Ramah was a fortified city.

2 Chronicles 16:1 In the thirty-sixth year of Asa's reign, Baasha king of Israel went up against Judah and fortified Ramah to prevent anyone from leaving or entering the territory of Asa king of Judah.



Isaiah 10:28-32 Assyria has entered Aiath and passed through Migron,
storing supplies at Michmash. They have crossed at the ford: “We will spend the night at Geba.”
Ramah trembles; Gibeah of Saul flees. Cry aloud, O daughter of Gallim!

Listen, O Laishah! O wretched Anathoth! Madmenah flees;
the people of Gebim take refuge. Yet today they will halt at Nob,
shaking a fist at the mount of the Daughter of Zion,

My point on the word "fortified" was that ten fortified cities cannot have even been possibly captured in only three days.

This argument for Isaiah 10:28-32 has several issues:
1.) This assumes all 10 cities are fortified, when they may not have been.
2.) This assumes the passage is about 3 days, when it may not be
3.) This assumes a battle was fought at each of the 10 cities, when there may not have been.

And, even while you differentiate between Judah and Benjamin, you add to the scriptural account by claiming it says Sennacherib took "all the fortified cities of the kingdom of Judah." The word "kingdom" is not in the Biblical account. But you add it here to avoid the fact that your own argument would mean that Sennacherib did not conquer these particular cities.

I agree that the word kingdom is not found in 2 kings 18:13. But neither is tribe. So how do we interpret Judah? is it talking about the tribe or the kingdom. Can you provide evidence that it means tribe?

Was king Hezekiah only the king of the tribe of Judah or does King of Judah mean king of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin?
2 kings 18:14 So Hezekiah king of Judah sent word to the king of Assyria at Lachish, saying, “I have done wrong; withdraw from me, and I will pay whatever you demand from me.” And the king of Assyria exacted from Hezekiah king of Judah three hundred talentsc of silver and thirty talentsd of gold.


Again, even Josephus recognized that the kingdom of Judah was meant as he includes all the cities of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin were taken

Antiquities of the Jews Book X chapter 1: It 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; and took all the cities of the tribe of Judah AND BENJAMIN by force.


Also, your argument contains a linguistic error. In both Hebrew and Greek, as in English, the word "all" has to be qualified to make it absolute. In English, to make the word "all" absolute, we have to add a word, saying "absolutely all."

This is simply not true. Notice God created ALL (KOL) living creatures that move. Kol in is not qualified in this case. And we know that God DID create ALL living creatures.
Genesis 1:21 So God created the great sea creatures and all (kol) living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.


Here is a case where your argument works. God states all plants yielding seed on the face of are for food. But we know that the tree of knowledge of Good and evil was not to be eaten as food.


Genesis 1:29 And God said, “Behold, I have given you all (kol) plant yielding seed that is on the face of all (kol) the land, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food.


So how should we interpret "all" in 2 kings 18:13? I lean toward every. as the context is with regards to the fortified cities. I believe that Sennacherib took ALL the fortified cities of the kingdom of Judah, with exception of Jerusalem, as scripture CLEARLY states.


And in Hebrew the word "kol," (all) was doubled to "kol kol," (absolutely all.) So, even as the word "all" in English does not necessarily mean "absolutely all," so its equivalents in both Hebrew and Greek also do not necessarily mean "absolutely all.

Sure, that would help my argument. But as we can see from scripture, kol does not need a qualifier to mean literally all.

For as you have repeatedly stressed the word "all," you have also repeatedly stated that there was an exception to that very all. The exception you have stated is the city of Jerusalem.

Correct because scripture states so. Notice scripture doesn't mention any other city as not being taken.

But you make the rank assumption that this was the only exception to the word all, and this is something that no scripture says or even implies.

Scripture only mentions that Jerusalem wasn't taken. It doesn't mention that any other city in the kingdom of Judah wasn't taken in Hezekiah's 14th year, so sure, it's an assumption based on what scripture actually states.

You on the other hand make the assumption that not ALL the fortified cities of the Kingdom of Judah were captured. With the exception of Jerusalem, can you provide any scripture of other cities in the kingdom of Judah not being taken?

To counter my argument, you should easily be able to produce scripture from 2 kings 18 or 2 chronicles 32 that list other cities besides Jerusalem that were not taken. Otherwise, we can see that you to make assumptions as well. However, your assumption would be based on the absence of scripture, while my assumption is based on what scripture states.

Again, you argue about "annals" not being "in chronological order" as if that was even significant to this discussion

The author of the book you quoted made that argument.

From Pages 10-11 of Sennacherib's Campaign to Judah: new studies

"Needless to say, the annals are very biased. Because they were meant to exalt the Assyrian King, the scribes concealed or explained away certain facts which did not fit this picture. There were also problems of space. A lot of information has been omitted from the annals and when one tries to reconstruct an event in all its from what remains, one can see how little they have told"


"another problem of the annals is their order. They seem to have been arranged chronologically, but there are cases in which a topical arrange was preferred. The main question is to what extent the chronological order of the annals have been disrupted. The question becomes most crucial for the Assyrian invasion of Philistia and Judah"


The seven monuments left by Sennacherib about his campaign against Hezekiah were not "annals."

From the university of Chicago:
"Therefore, when the University of Chicago through its oriental institute came into possession of a splendid six-sided prism containing the final edition of Sennacherib's royal annals" https://oi.uchicago.edu/sites/oi.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/shared/docs/oip2.pdf


From Wikipedia
"Sennacherib's Annals are the annals of the Assyrian king Sennacherib. They are found inscribed on a number of artifacts, and the final versions were found in three clay prisms inscribed with the same text: the Taylor Prism is in the British Museum, the Oriental Institute Prism in the Oriental Institute of Chicago, and the Jerusalem Prism is in the Israel Museum in Jerusalem.

The annals themselves are notable for describing his siege of Jerusalem during the reign of king Hezekiah"

Sennacherib's Annals - Wikipedia

Further, you are citing from a reference on "legends" as if it were even thought to be a historical document.

I agree that is a reference on legends. But it shows what Hebrews might have believed about sennacherib:

After having previously conquered the rest of the world (Meg. 11b), Sennacherib equipped a massive army against Hezekiah, consisting of 45,000 princes, each enthroned in a golden chariot and accompanied by his ladies and courtesans, 80,000 warriors in coat of mail, 60,000 swordsmen, and numerous cavalry (Sanh. 95b). With this vast army Sennacherib marched on Judea in accordance with the disclosures of his astrologers, who warned him that he would fail to capture Jerusalem if he arrived too late. He rested at Nob and from a raised platform observed the Judean capital, which appeared weak and small to him. When his warriors urged him to attack, he bade them rest for one night before storming the city the next day. This delay spared Jerusalem since Saul's sin against the priests at Nob was fully expiated on that very day (Sanh. 95a). That night, which was the eve of Passover, the entire army was annihilated when Hezekiah and the people began to recite the Hallel Psalms (Ex. R. 18:5). The death of the Assyrians occurred when the angels permitted them to hear the ḥayyot ("celestial beings") sing praises to God (Sanh. 95b). Their souls were burnt, although their garments remained intact (Ex. R. 18:5). Sennacherib and his two sons were among the few survivors. On his return to Assyria, Sennacherib found a plank which was part of Noah's ark and made it an object of worship. He vowed that if he prospered in his next ventures he would sacrifice his sons to it. His sons overheard this vow and put him to death (Sanh. 96a). They fled to Kardu where they released the many Jewish captives there. With them they marched to Jerusalem and became proselytes. The well-known scholars *Shemaiah and *Avtalyon were the descendants of these two sons of Sennacherib (Git. 57b; Targ., II Kings 19:35, 37).


And you are denying two things from the written record. The first of these is that Isaiah 10:28-32 gives a daily progress, even after not only quoting, but even highlighting in red, the words, "This very day he will halt at Nob."

You seem to believe Isaiah 10:28-32 takes place over 3 days. I simply stated this is an assumption on your part. Please show where it states this is 3 days.

There is nothing in here that requires the time frame to be 3 days.
Isaiah 10:28-32 Assyria has entered Aiath and passed through Migron, storing supplies at Michmash. They have crossed at the ford: “We will spend the night at Geba.” Ramah trembles; Gibeah of Saul flees. Cry aloud, O daughter of Gallim! Listen, O Laishah! O wretched Anathoth! Madmenah flees;
the people of Gebim take refuge. Yet today they will halt at Nob, shaking a fist at the mount of the Daughter of Zion,



And second, you are denying that Sennacherib's account stated his path as he invaded the region. He not only listed the cities he conquered as he entered the region, he listed them in the geographical order of their locations, from north to south. So, even as Isaiah 10:28-32 gives a distinct path, so does the "clay prism of Sennacherib," and the six other basically identical monuments left by Sennacherib.

Never denied Sennacherib's account. I simply stated that Sennacherib's account does not go into detail of the path of his conquering the 46 fortified cities and un numbered villages of Judah.

I asked if you could specifically provide quotes from sennacherib's account detailing his path of conquering SPECIFICALLY these 46 fortified cities and un numbered villages, but you have not yet done so.

So it is pointless to argue that you are "just believing what the Bible says." You are desperately trying to make the Bible appear to say something it does not say, while at the same time pretending that it does not say what it actually says.

What a hypocritical statement.

It appears we disagree on how to interpret "all" and "Judah" in this passage. I believe "all" to be all, and Judah to be the kingdom of Judah. You appear to believe "all" is not all and Judah is the tribe not the kingdom.

2 Kings 18:13 In the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah, Sennacherib king of Assyria came up against all the fortified cities of Judah and took them



 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

YeshuaFan

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2018
3,003
996
63
Macomb
✟56,324.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Dr. Leighton Flowers is a former "Calvinist" who speaks below on the problems with this man-made doctrine.


Like all man-made doctrines, Calvinism is exposed by the scripture that must be ignored to make it work.
God commands all men to repent.


Act_3:19 Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord,


Act_17:30 Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent,

When a Christian declares himself to be a "Dispensationalist, or "Reformed", or a "Calvinist" they are telling us that they must make the scripture conform to their man-made system of interpretation.
I have friends that do the above, but I still love them.

Tradition can be a tough thing to overcome.

.
Actually, we Calvinists would say that our theology derives form the same theology espoused by Apostle Paul and Jesus themselves in the Bible!
Reformed Baptists like myself hold to Calvinism as how the Lord saves us lost sinners as per the scriptures, but do not see the Second Coming as most Calvinists do, as A Mil, but as Pre Mil!
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

claninja

Well-Known Member
Jan 8, 2017
5,647
2,189
indiana
✟298,136.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
That you and James wade through all those verses - leads to me to think Isaiah Assyrian is historic.

I agree. I believe Isaiah 10:24-32 was fulfilled when Sennacherib invaded and conquered all the fortified cities of Judah and then had his army destroyed by an angel of the Lord.

Differently, in Micah 5, that Jesus will be peace in the day of that Assyrian, it seems to indicate an end times factor.

I agree that Micah 5 has fulfillments for the end of the ages.

For example: Christ appeared at the end of the ages

Hebrews 9:26 But now He has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of Himself.

And Micah 5:2,4 was clearly fulfilled at the birth of Christ in Bethlehem:

Micah 5:2,4 But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are small among the clans of Judah,
out of you will come forth for Me One to be ruler over Israel, whose origins are of old,
from the days of eternity. He will stand and shepherd His flock in the strength of the LORD, in the majestic name of the LORD His God. And they will dwell securely, for then His greatness will extend to the ends of the earth.

Matthew 2:5
In Bethlehem in Judea,” they replied, “for this is what the prophet has written: ‘But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah, for out of you will come a ruler
who will be the shepherd of My people Israel .
 
Upvote 0

AbbaLove

Circumcism Of The Heart
May 16, 2015
2,488
760
✟119,587.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
In Relationship
So it is pointless to argue that you are "just believing what the Bible says." You are desperately trying to make the Bible appear to say something it does not say, while at the same time pretending that it does not say what it actually says.
Doesn't that pretty much sum up the 'religious theology' of men that oftentimes does more to confuse than bring clarity, order, unity and peace within the 'body of Christ' (1 Corinthians 12:12 and Ephesians 4:14).

The OT (in comparison to the NT) is pretty literal ... thus we should favor the dispensational perspective. That said we are well aware of the levels/layers of allegory) within literal OT passages that provide a glimpse into future events yet to occur (eschatology in a manner of speaking) ...

In 1 Kings 11:30-32, Ahijah tears his new cloak into twelve pieces, ten of them symbolizing the northern kingdom ... a future event. In the NT Yeshua says that His sent mission is to the lost sheep of Israel which most interpret literally as the northern kingdom (Matthew 15:24-28).

Is it possible that even Yeshua didn't have a complete revelation of His role as the sacrificial Lamb of God (Luke 22:41-43), and that His Mission to the "lost sheep" would be cut short? And yet He must have known His real mission being familiar with Isaiah 53. And yet we think we have the correct understanding as to which approach to eschatology is the correct approach? Why everyone doesn't favor a dispensational approach (compared to divergent theologies) is rather mind boggling. Me thinks it's in man's fallen nature to debate and argue, trying to impress others with their intellectual prowess, even if they favor a dispensational approach.

Isn't it the divergent doctrines of intellectual theologians that have caused the divisiveness that exists within Christianity? Isn't this the same problem that existed among the religious Jewish elite at the time of Christ? And yet after nearly 2000 years theologians can't yet agree on their eschatology. After 12 pages hopefully the result is clarity and unity on what's most important ...

 
Upvote 0

Biblewriter

Senior Member
Supporter
May 15, 2005
11,937
1,498
Ocala, Florida
Visit site
✟531,725.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
What's not described in either 2 kings 18 or Sennacherib's prism is Sennacherib's path in conquering ALL/46 fortified cities in the kingdom of Judah. All we know is that he did in fact conquer ALL/46 fortified cities and un numbered amount of villages in the kingdom of Judah.

This, as I previously pointed out, is erroneous. Sennacherib stated his path in the same way the path is stated in Isaiah 10:28-32, by listing the cities in the order of their geographic locations.


Isaiah 10:28-32 Assyria has entered Aiath and passed through Migron,
storing supplies at Michmash. They have crossed at the ford: “We will spend the night at Geba.”
Ramah trembles; Gibeah of Saul flees. Cry aloud, O daughter of Gallim!

Listen, O Laishah! O wretched Anathoth! Madmenah flees;
the people of Gebim take refuge. Yet today they will halt at Nob,
shaking a fist at the mount of the Daughter of Zion,



This argument for Isaiah 10:28-32 has several issues:
1.) This assumes all 10 cities are fortified, when they may not have been.
2.) This assumes the passage is about 3 days, when it may not be
3.) This assumes a battle was fought at each of the 10 cities, when there may not have been.


1) I never even so much as implied that all 10 of these cities were fortified. I have been denouncing you for implying that.
2) I am saying it was to be accomplished in only three days because that is what the prophecy states.
3) I did not state that a battle was fought at each city. I pointed out that your argument would require that.

This is simply not true. Notice God created ALL (KOL) living creatures that move. Kol in is not qualified in this case. And we know that God DID create ALL living creatures.
Genesis 1:21 So God created the great sea creatures and all (kol) living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Here is a case where your argument works. God states all plants yielding seed on the face of are for food. But we know that the tree of knowledge of Good and evil was not to be eaten as food.


Genesis 1:29 And God said, “Behold, I have given you all (kol) plant yielding seed that is on the face of all (kol) the land, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food.


So how should we interpret "all" in 2 kings 18:13? I lean toward every. as the context is with regards to the fortified cities. I believe that Sennacherib took ALL the fortified cities of the kingdom of Judah, with exception of Jerusalem, as scripture CLEARLY states.




Sure, that would help my argument. But as we can see from scripture, kol does not need a qualifier to mean literally all.


I did not say that kol required a qualifier to mean literally all. I said that it required a qualifier to make it absolute. In English, we also sometimes use the word all as absolute, even without a qualifier. But without the qualifier, in either language it does not NECESSARILY mean absolutely all unless a qualifier. So your argument that the meaning is absolute in this case is manifestly baseless. for there is no qualifier making it necessarily absolute.

Correct because scripture states so. Notice scripture doesn't mention any other city as not being taken.



Scripture only mentions that Jerusalem wasn't taken. It doesn't mention that any other city in the kingdom of Judah wasn't taken in Hezekiah's 14th year, so sure, it's an assumption based on what scripture actually states.

an argument based on an s=assumption is no argument at all.

You on the other hand make the assumption that not ALL the fortified cities of the Kingdom of Judah were captured. With the exception of Jerusalem, can you provide any scripture of other cities in the kingdom of Judah not being taken?
I neither stated nor implied any such thing.
To counter my argument, you should easily be able to produce scripture from 2 kings 18 or 2 chronicles 32 that list other cities besides Jerusalem that were not taken. Otherwise, we can see that you to make assumptions as well. However, your assumption would be based on the absence of scripture, while my assumption is based on what scripture states.
I neither stated nor implied that any scripture suggests that Sennacherib never came to these ten cities. I pointed out that archeology shows that no Assyrian armies came there.


I agree that is a reference on legends. But it shows what Hebrews might have believed about sennacherib:


I have already demonstrated, not what the Hebrews MAY HAVE thought abut this passage, but what they actually said about it, that it remained to be fulfilled in the future.


You seem to believe Isaiah 10:28-32 takes place over 3 days. I simply stated this is an assumption on your part. Please show where it states this is 3 days.
There is nothing in here that requires the time frame to be 3 days./quote]

Highlighted in red boldface from your very loose translation:
Isaiah 10:28-32 Assyria has entered Aiath and passed through Migron, storing supplies at Michmash.
They have crossed at the ford: “We will spend the night at Geba.Ramah trembles; Gibeah of Saul flees. Cry aloud, O daughter of Gallim! Listen, O Laishah! O wretched Anathoth! Madmenah flees;
the people of Gebim take refuge. Yet today they will halt at Nob, shaking a fist at the mount of the Daughter of Zion,





What a hypocritical statement.

It appears we disagree on how to interpret "all" and "Judah" in this passage. I believe "all" to be all, and Judah to be the kingdom of Judah. You appear to believe "all" is not all and Judah is the tribe not the kingdom.

[/QUOTE]
I pointed out that, without a qualifier, the word all can never be assumed to be absolute. And you yourself admitted that is is not necessarily absolute. So in cases where there is no qualifier, it is utter nonsense to argue that all means absolutely all. In the case of whether the kingdom or the tribe of Judah is meant, I actually believe the kingdom was meant. But it is adding to scripture to claim that in this case, it meant the kingdom, rather than the tribe. For the text does not make plainly make that distinction.

But the text of Isaiah 10:28-32 plainly sets forth a specific path, and a daily schedule along that path. Yet you are unwilling to admit this.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

claninja

Well-Known Member
Jan 8, 2017
5,647
2,189
indiana
✟298,136.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
This, as I previously pointed out, is erroneous. Sennacherib stated his path in the same way the path is stated in Isaiah 10:28-32, by listing the cities in the order of their geographic locations.

Great, then show me were in Sennacherib's prism he explicitly lays out his path for conquering SPECIFICIALLY the 46 fortified cities and un numbered villages of Hezekiah's kingdom. So far you have not provided this evidence.

1) I never even so much as implied that all 10 of these cities were fortified. I have been denouncing you for implying that.

Neither did I say all 10 cities were fortified. However, I have shown, at least one of the cities was fortified

2 Chronicles 16:1 In the thirty-sixth year of Asa's reign, Baasha king of Israel went up against Judah and fortified Ramah to prevent anyone from leaving or entering the territory of Asa king of Judah.

Thus if all fortified cities of the kingdom of Judah were taken by Sennacherib, that would include Ramah, one of the cities in Isaiah 10:28-32. That means that Sennacherib's army was, in fact, near the cities listed in Isaiah 10:28-32.

2) I am saying it was to be accomplished in only three days because that is what the prophecy states.

Where does the prophecy state 3 days?

3) I did not state that a battle was fought at each city. I pointed out that your argument would require that.

This assumes that your assumption of the 3 days is the correct time frame.

My argument doesn't require that. There is a lot of fleeing done, thus Sennacherib could have easily conquered some of the cities without a fight.
Maybe he didn't conquer all of them, but simply passed by or through them. The text isn't specific.

Isaiah 10:29-31 They have crossed at the ford: “We will spend the night at Geba.”
Ramah trembles; Gibeah of Saul flees. Cry aloud, O daughter of Gallim! Listen, O Laishah!
O wretched Anathoth! Madmenah flees; the people of Gebim take refuge.

I did not say that kol required a qualifier to mean literally all. I said that it required a qualifier to make it absolute. In English, we also sometimes use the word all as absolute, even without a qualifier. But without the qualifier, in either language it does not NECESSARILY mean absolutely all unless a qualifier. So your argument that the meaning is absolute in this case is manifestly baseless. for there is no qualifier making it necessarily absolute.

It doesn't require a qualifier to make it absolute. there is no qualifier on the 'all' in genesis 1:21 and yet it is absolute as God did create absolutely all living things that move.

Genesis 1:21 So God created the great sea creatures and ALL (KOL) living thing that moves, with which the waters teemed according to their kinds, and every bird of flight after its kind. And God saw that it was good.

I believe it absolute based on context: the specificity of the type of cities: fortified. ALL fortified cities, with the exception of Jerusalem, were taken by Sennacherib.

2 kings 18:13 In the fourteenth year of the reign of Hezekiah, Sennacherib king of Assyria attacked and captured all the fortified cities of Judah

an argument based on an s=assumption is no argument at all.

So in other words no, you can't provide scripture to support your assumption that not all of the fortified cities, with the exception of Jerusalem, were taken.

I neither stated nor implied any such thing.

Wait, so now you do believe that all the fortified cities of the kingdom of Judah were conquered by Sennacherib?

I neither stated nor implied that any scripture suggests that Sennacherib never came to these ten cities.

Wait, so do you or do you not believe that Sennacherib's army came to the 10 cities listed in Isaiah 10:28-32? I thought this whole discussion is because you don't believe Sennacherib came to these 10 cities?

I pointed out that archeology shows that no Assyrian armies came there.

There is a lot of things in the Bible that Archeology has yet to corroborate, but we still believe the Biblical account.

I have already demonstrated, not what the Hebrews MAY HAVE thought abut this passage, but what they actually said about it, that it remained to be fulfilled in the future.

Maybe I missed that part. What post # did you demonstrate that ancient Hebrews actually said about Isaiah 10:28-32 remaining yet to be fulfilled?

I pointed out that, without a qualifier, the word all can never be assumed to be absolute. And you yourself admitted that is is not necessarily absolute. So in cases where there is no qualifier.

Correct, there are clear times when All means absolutely all and there times when all doesn't mean absolutely all. While a qualifier can help, it is not required. What determines the meaning of "all", whether absolute or not, is the context. And because the text is very specific with the types of cities (fortified) I believe the evidence points to absolutely all of the fortified cities.

For example did absolutely all the Egyptians come to Joseph. Most likely not. Most likely it would have been the representatives of the Egyptian families. the All is associated with Egyptian. Now if it said all the male Egyptians came to Joseph I would argue that is more specific and thus more evidence that the all is absolute.
Genesis 47:15 And when the money was all spent in the land of Egypt and in the land of Canaan, all (kol) the Egyptians came to Joseph and said, “Give us food. Why should we die before your eyes? For our money is gone.”

Is the all in the case of the 1st born of Egypt dying absolute? I believe so based on the specificity: first born. Notice there is no qualifier with all.
Exodus 12:12 For I will pass through the land of Egypt that night, and I will strike all (kol) the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and on all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments: I am the Lord.

In the case of whether the kingdom or the tribe of Judah is meant, I actually believe the kingdom was meant. But it is adding to scripture to claim that in this case, it meant the kingdom, rather than the tribe. For the text does not make plainly make that distinction.

So then what was the point of claiming my argument was "contradictory", if you also, like me, believe the Judah in this context consists of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin?

But the text of Isaiah 10:28-32 plainly sets forth a specific path, and a daily schedule along that path. Yet you are unwilling to admit this.

I never disagreed with the path set in Isaiah 10:28-32. I believe it fulfilled with Sennacherib's army. I disagreed with your time frame of 3 days. If this is in fact a day by day time frame, why wouldn't it be 2 days? Only one night is mentioned?


Isaiah 10:28-32
Day 1:
Assyria has entered Aiath and passed through Migron,

storing supplies at Michmash. They have crossed at the ford: “We will spend the night at Geba.”

Day 2:
Ramah trembles; Gibeah of Saul flees. Cry aloud, O daughter of Gallim! Listen, O Laishah!

O wretched Anathoth! Madmenah flees; the people of Gebim take refuge. Yet today they will halt at

Nob, shaking a fist at the mount of the Daughter of Zion, at the hill of Jerusalem.
 
Upvote 0