The Assyrian

Biblewriter posted in message #40:

This is nothing but pointless argument.

Click to expand...

We shouldn't argue (2 Corinthians 12:20), but simply
discuss the reasons why we believe what we do about
what the scriptures teach (1 Peter 3:15). As long as
we remain focused on the scriptures (2 Timothy 4:2),
then the discussion cannot but bear some good fruit
(Isaiah 55:11, 2 Timothy 3:16).

Biblewriter posted in message #40:

I will again post:

The Path of the Assyrian

This map shows the path the Assyrian will follow as
he approaches Jerusalem (as described in Isaiah
10:28-32).
http://www.holy-word.org/judeahmap.jpg

Click to expand...

The keyword there is "will", which the scriptures
do not necessarily support, for Sennacherib could
have already fulfilled all of Isaiah 10:5-34
(including Isaiah 10:28-32) during his invasion in
Isaiah chapters 36-37.

Biblewriter posted in message #40:

The path defined in Isaiah 10:28-32 covers a distance
of about eight miles, from Aiath to Nob, ending
withing sight of Jerusalem, only about a mile and a
half from the walls. In this passage we are very
specifically told that this path will be followed by
"the Assyrian," for he is the subject of this
chapter, and both verses 28 and 32 specifically call
the one who does this "he." He is not alone, for in
verse 29 his army is called "they." But this very
distinction between "they" and "he" is significant,
as is every detail in the Bible.

Click to expand...

"Sennacherib king of Assyria" (Isaiah 36:1) would
certainly qualify as "the king of Assyria" (Isaiah
10:12b), and Sennacherib and his army (or an
expeditionary portion of it led by him) could have
taken the path defined in Isaiah 10:28-32 as part of
the invasion of Isaiah chapters 36-37.

Biblewriter posted in message #40:

Of particular note is that when Sennacherib attacked
Judah in Isaiah 36 and 37, he never came to Jerusalem,
remaining at Lachish, which is about thirty miles
southwest of Jerusalem (a very long distance in those
days.) But the path described in Isaiah 10 is from
the opposite direction, from the North. Instead of
coming Himself, Sennacherib sent an officer called
"the Rabshekeh" to Jerusalem. (Isaiah 36:2, 37:4)
While the Rabshekh was at Jerusalem Sennacherib left
Lachish and went to Libnah. (Isaiah 37:8)

Click to expand...

Actually, nothing in the Bible or history requires
that when Sennacherib attacked Judah in Isaiah
chapters 36-37 he never came to Jerusalem. Isaiah
10:28-32 could have simply been a preliminary scouting
trip so that Sennacherib could get a sense of the lay
of the land before setting up a siege around Jerusalem.
The bulk of his army could have continued along the
coast, and then settled upon laying siege at Lachish,
where Sennacherib could have joined up with them. He
could have then sent messengers back to Jerusalem to
try to terrify Jerusalem into surrender (Isaiah
36:2-20; cf. 36:19-20 and 10:9-11) so that he wouldn't
have to actually return and lay siege to it.

Biblewriter posted in message #40:

... you think it should be obvious to any
unprejudiced person that these two passages describe
the same event. I answer that this is indeed true if
the passages are only considered superficially, But
when the details are carefully considered, nothing
but prejudice could keep anyone from realizing that
they deal with different events.

You imagine that you have demonstrated that none of
the evidence I presented proves that Isaiah 10 is not
speaking of Sennacherib. The truth is that you have
only denied that this evidence is significant. You
have failed to produce even one item of evidence to
back up this claim. "It is obvious" is neither
evidence nor proof, but that is the only evidence you
have presented, and it is the only evidence you can
present, because, even though it may seem obvious to
you, it is not correct.

Click to expand...

It hasn't been proven that it isn't correct. Different
details don't require that two descriptions of the same
event must be two different events, otherwise we would
have to say that 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 and
1 Corinthians 15:51-53 must be referring to two
different events, for 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17
makes no mention of the living in the Church been
changed into immortality at the second coming, while
1 Corinthians 15:51-53 does.

Of course, we can take a step back and consider that
maybe 1 Corinthians 15:51-53 just adds a detail which
is not included in 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17, just as
Isaiah 10:28-32 could have added a detail which is
not included in Isaiah chapters 36-37.

Evidence is ultimately not significant if it fails
to prove one's point. And in the case of the
comparison of Isaiah 10:5-34 and Isaiah chapters
36-37, simple common sense and logic backs up the
claim that there is no positive evidence, much less
proof, that Isaiah 10:28-32 cannot possibly have added
a detail which is not included in Isaiah chapters 36-37.

There are no contradictions between Isaiah 10:5-34 and
Isaiah chapters 36-37, and there are enough parallels
between them that Isaiah chapters 36-37 could very
well have been the fulfillment of Isaiah 10:5-34.
For example, "Sennacherib king of Assyria" (Isaiah
36:1) fulfills "the king of Assyria" (Isaiah 10:12b);
his boasting in Isaiah 36:19-20, 37:13 fulfills his
boasting in Isaiah 10:9-11; and God's defeating of
him in Isaiah 37:35-37 fulfills God's defeating of
him in Isaiah 10:12b,18-19.

There's really no scriptural or historical reason to
insist that Isaiah chapters 36-37 could not possibly
have been the fulfillment of Isaiah 10:5-34, so
there's really no scriptural or historical reason to
insist that Isaiah 10:5-34 has yet to be fulfilled
in the future.