[continued from previous message]   
      
   >> > > > partial aspects that fit near the defined prophecy, will they   
   protected   
   >> > > > those   
   >> > > > that were aware, were not the actual fulfillment.   
   >> > >   
   >> > > Presumably, Isaiah's "prophecy" was written before Damascus was   
   >> > > rebuilt.   
   >> >   
   >> > You have had that discussion with others about that prophecy, but you   
   >> > dismissed the words of the Bible to accept a supposition of man who had   
   not   
   >> > the ears to hear what was written.   
   >>   
   >> What was the name of the person with whom I supposedly had this   
   >> discussion? I don’t recall who all, but it was only a few months back.   
   >>   
   >> > > > > > For instance, if you see the city of Damascus totally destroyed   
   in one   
   >> > > > > > night, as described in the Bible, I don’t see what else is left   
   before   
   >> > > > > > the   
   >> > > > > > Tribulation. Plus there is a viable chance that that is the   
   trigger.   
   >> > > > >   
   >> > > > > Some scholars see the destruction of Damascus as a prophecy which   
   was   
   >> > > > > fulfilled by the destruction of Damascus by Assyria in the 8th   
   century   
   >> > > > > BCE. No "time of tribulation" in the modern world needed for any of   
   >> > > > > it.   
   >> > > >   
   >> > > > Some mistaken ones did, no doubt, but the prophecy never occurred to   
   the   
   >> > > > full   
   >> > > > discription of it such as to it was fully there when night fell and   
   the   
   >> > > > next   
   >> > > > morning it was gone, plus it will never be inhabited again was not   
   >> > > > fulfilled.   
   >> > >   
   >> > > So where does the Bible say that Damascus would never be rebuilt, or   
   >> > > that it fell over night?   
   >> >   
   >> > You were given those scriptures before, would there be any difference if   
   you   
   >> > heard them again?   
   >>   
   >> When did that supposedly happen?   
   >   
   >They were mentioned as you were arguing about them.   
      
   As I was arguing about them?  You said it had happened *before* that!   
      
   >> > Aren’t you diametrically opposed to the Bible, what it is   
   >> > and what it stands for. the Bible is for understanding, not a point of   
   >> > argument.   
   >>   
   >> I'm opposed to people not properly understanding the Bible, which is   
   >> true about most Christians.   
   >   
   >Interesting, and why would you declare such a thing?   
      
   Maybe I wasn't clear enough:  Most Christians don't understand the   
   Bible properly -- that's what I'm opposed to.  An example would be   
   Jesus predicting that his generation would see his return after his   
   death -- Christians twist that to mean it wasn't the *generation* that   
   would see it, but he Jewish *race* that would see it.   
      
   See how that does violence to Scripture, in the name of conservative   
   exegesis?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)