Thursday, October 8, 2015

Isaiah 17, past or future?

I've been on the Isaiah 17 is about modern Syria's political turmoil bandwagon since before it was a Bandwagon, as far back as at least 2004 saying it on IMDB message boards.  I was with it before it was popular.

But I've read an article that makes important points arguing that it is already fulfilled.  The people behind this article might be Preterist in general which I would disagree with, I'm not very familiar with the site.

What's important is how the "it can't be already fulfilled" arguments are strongly linked to a Translation error that has it's origin in the Septuagint.  Because I've argued that the Septuagint is a problem before.  [And now I would argue Aion doesn't mean forever either.]

I certainly agree that Damascus won't cease to be a City "forever" since Ezekiel 47&48 clearly has Damascus existing in the New Heaven and New Earth.  Babylon is the only City permanently destroyed forever, and Edom the only entire nation.

And what is pointed out here about the "Day of the LORD" terminology can be good for weakening the flawed logic of Post-Tirbbers and Pre-Wrathers and others who want to garble the chronology of Revelation.  And those who insist that day must be a literal 24 Hour day.

That Isaiah 13 is in the future is something I will not be shaken on however.

What I don't get is this article not addressing how the end of the Chapter describes a FAILED invasion of Israel by the nations, not the Northern Kingdom's fall.

Indeed the second half of the Chapter has everything sounding rather Millennial to me.  I've talked before about how I don't view the Millennium as a Utopia.  Also my view that there is more time between the end of the Millennium and the Gog and Magog invasion then most people assume.

No comments:

Post a Comment