Painting a Bullseye on Damascus? (Dispensational Caucus)

>>Actually, when you say that there’s something in an article and it turns out not to be true but you continue to claim it, then it WOULD be your job to prove your point.<<

Here are my posts to you.

• Friday, February 25, 2011 8:35:53 PM • 50 of 80
CynicalBear to what’s up
>>The original city (Damascus) is still destroyed.<<

Show me from scripture where. Remember that it had to remain a place where sheep grazed.

• Friday, February 25, 2011 9:03:47 PM • 52 of 80
CynicalBear to what’s up
Just go read the site that was posted in 33. You’re going to lose that argument with most people.

• Friday, February 25, 2011 9:28:55 PM • 59 of 80
CynicalBear to what’s up

Maybe scanning has been your problem? Don’t be angry with me if I don’t put a lot of stock in the opinion of someone who only scans.

• Friday, February 25, 2011 9:50:35 PM • 66 of 80
CynicalBear to what’s up
Nah, I find that once someone has made up there mind it’s pretty much made up.

• Friday, February 25, 2011 10:56:05 PM • 78 of 80
CynicalBear to what’s up; circlecity; GiovannaNicoletta

>>and I’m waiting for you to prove your point.<<

That’s not my job. You see, when it comes to God talking to people, His Holy Spirit is the one that speaks to the heart. I could never do that. I find that when I try to convince someone of something I get in God’s way. When God has someone in a place I’m not going to take that person out of it. I’m supposed to just introduce the concept. Just ask Him to point you in the right path and He will always take you where you need to be. He knows better where you need to be. I’d just get in His way.

Now, would you please tell me in which one of those I said “there’s something in an article” that turned out not to be true? It’s becoming obvious to me that your excuse of “scanning” is really covering a problem with either reading or reading comprehension.

Just go read the site that was posted in 33. You’re going to lose that argument with most people.

Your implication was that the article would address my "argument".

When I pointed out that I didn't see my argument addressed you implied that it was an issue of "scanning" rather than posting the actual information from the article which would address my argument, even though you had ample opportunity to do so.

Disingenuous to say the least.

>> Your implication was that the article would address my "argument".<<

My implication? My implication? You have got to be kidding…..or delusional….or completely projecting your thoughts into someone else’s writing. Read my statement again.

“Just go read the site that was posted in 33. You’re going to lose that argument with most people.”

Do you see the “most people” in there? My “implication” was that most people read that and begin to see something different then your take on the subject. I could care less what your “argument” is. I was pointing to why people believe what they believe. You have convinced me that it’s your reading comprehension.

I could care less what your “argument” is.

Yes, that is fairly clear now.

My “implication” was that most people read that and begin to see something different then your take on the subject

Really? When the point I made is not even addressed in the article? Doubt it.

You’re going to lose that argument

Why even point me to a site that doesn't address "that argument"? Strange.

However, the explanation is "Giovanna-denying" and that appears to be what is bothering you.

Yeah. Okay. I need the date when the Isaiah 17 prophecy was fulfilled and I also need the Scripture where God says that once that prophecy has been fulfilled and Damascus was a "ruinous heap", deserted, with animals living there, with the city completely ceasing to exist, that it would then be rebuilt several times, and people would continue to live there. I need that Scripture and the date when Damascus ceased being a city for you to have any credibility.

This is in no way "Bible-denying" no matter how many times you sneer and contemptuously ridicule. This is not "twisting" Scripture as you claim. On the contrary, it is a clear reading of the text...it seems that YOU may be be the one twisting here. It is a fact that the Damascus OF THAT DAY is now under the soil in ruins. Sorry, to burst your fact-denying bubble, but that is true.

As long as you can't give me the date when Damascus was destroyed, uninhabited, and ceased being a city, since the Bible tells us that this will be a specific and momentous event, and as long as you can't give me the Scripture which tells us that Damascus will be destroyed, and deserted but will be rebuilt several times, then you are denying and re-defining Scripture and have no credibility. Simple as that.

And other Bible translators didn't know Hebrew? Gimme a break.

Yeah, other Bible translators didn't know Hebrew. Here's a few examples in the KJV alone:

Genesis 1:2 should read "And the earth became without form . . . ." The word translated "was" is hayah, and denotes a condition different than a former condition, as in Genesis 19:26.
Genesis 10:9 should read " . . . Nimrod the mighty hunter in place of [in opposition to] the LORD." The word "before" is incorrect and gives the connotation that Nimrod was a good guy, which is false.
Leviticus 16:8, 10, 26 in the KJV is "scapegoat" which today has the connotation of someone who is unjustly blamed for other's sins. The Hebrew is Azazel, which means "one removed or separated." The Azazel goal represents Satan, who is no scapegoat. He is guilty of his part in our sins.
II Kings 2:23, should be "young men," not "little children."
Isaiah 65:17 should be "I am creating [am about to create] new heavens and new earth . . . ."

I'll stick with what the native speakers say the verse should be.

Thank you for the link, RC! I will check it out.

That particular translation could very well be the reason why Damascus is destroyed.

There is also this passage in Amos:

"...For three transgressions of Damascus, and for four, I will not turn away the punishment thereof..." (Amos 1:3)

That Scripture in Amos is frequently referenced concerning the coming judgment on Damascus. Many are aware that Syria has attacked Israel in three major wars since Israel became a nation again in 1948:

The War of Independence
The 6 Day War
The Yom Kippur War

Could it be that Syria will actually attempt a 4th time to do great harm to Israel and in turn be dealt this extreme judgment from the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob?

With Iranian warships docked in Syria now, and Syria giving missiles to Hezbollah, and terrorists training in Syria - it would appear that Syria is readying itself for another war with Israel.

This could also be the reason Damascus is destroyed - like Amos wrote - four strikes and they're out.

It seems Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and several minor prophets pronounce a series of woes/oracles on core group of cities/empires which always included Syria and/or Damascus. Whether various events have already fulfilled or partially fulfilled some prophecies concerning these antagonists I certainly believe there is future fulfillment in store for each of these empires/countries. The recent (and certainly future) turmoil in Egypt supports this. Such a near-far aspect to prophecy is quite common in scripture in that there is a near, short term fulfillment but still a farther off, long term, fulfillment to be had. We see this in Daniel and especially in the Olivet discourse where much of Christ's prophecy applies to both the fall of Jerusalem (short term) and eschatological, end time events.

I agree.

The prophecy about the Abomination of Desolation is a perfect example.

The Abomination of Desolation occurred in 168 BC, not 70 AD, and the Greek Emperor Antiochus Epiphanes was in charge. It is a model of what will happen again in the mid-point of the Tribulation.

The event itself will be recognized because of its similarity to its first occurrence. That’s the purpose of dual fulfillment. The first fulfillment is always incomplete and confirms the fact that another fulfillment is coming. The first fulfillment is called a partial fulfillment for that reason. There are a dozen or more prophecies that either have already had dual fulfillments or will have.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.