[
Replying to post 20 by PinSeeker]
I absolutely did not. I said Assyria invaded Israel. Israel would have had to have won and then invaded Assyria for that to happen, and neither is what occurred. You thinking or asserting that I said that is absolutely astounding.
You left out what I said after "You did", which would give readers the reason why I said it. The reason why I said you did is because you are saying Micah 5 came true...which would require Israel to have, in some way, conquered Assyria.
Since now you are agreeing with me that this hasn't happened, then Micah 5 has not come true.
LOL! No, the Israelites were taken captive and assimilated into the Assyrian Empire. Good God. And actually, they were placed in Babylon, which was ruled by the Babylonians.
I'm not God, so I don't know why you keep calling me that...
Anyway, what do you think happened to the land of Israel once the Israelite people were taken captive and placed in Babylon? Did the Assyrians just go back to their own lands? Did the Assyrians not exercise any sort of control or influence over the lands of Israel?
That's right. He only related the word of God to the Israelites. That's what Biblical prophecy is. Biblical prophecy is not prediction of the future, Riko.
This here is important. So biblical prophecy is NOT prediction of the future. Glad I got that in writing.
So why is it Christians say there are prophecies in the Bible, things that foretold the future? I get statements like this all the time. Here's Matt Slick from Carm.org talking about the Bible and prophecy
https://carm.org/prophecy-bible-and-jesus
" If just one prophecy failed, then we would know that God is not the true God because the creator of all things, which includes time, would not be wrong about predicting the future."
Or how about Answers in Genesis?
https://answersingenesis.org/is-the-bib ... -prophecy/
"Accurate predictions of future events that have virtually no probability of occurring by coincidence are spectacular precisely because they seem so suprahuman."
"Critics of the Bible, for instance, have squirmed over the prophetic insights of Daniel, the sixth-century BC Jewish prophet in Babylon. With eye-opening precision, Daniel interpreted two sets of dreams, one by a pagan ruler (chapter 2) and the other by the prophet himself (chapter 7), thereby forecasting the entire course of Middle East history over the next five centuries."
Or how about the Roman Catholics?
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12473a.htm
" Understood in its strict sense, it means the foreknowledge of future events, though it may sometimes apply to past events of which there is no memory, and to present hidden things which cannot be known by the natural light of reason."
You sir, are literally the first Christian I've come across who takes the view that prophecies in the Bible are not predictions of the future.
Is there any reason why you have (to my knowledge) never before made this distinction? Have you debated Biblical prophecies with others and informed them that you treat them not as predictors of the future?
Once again: MICAH. DID. NOT. PREDICT. ANYTHING.
So why is it that when I debate other Christians, they point to Micah 5 as a prophecy, a predictor of the future, and say this is what Jesus did? They say things to the tune of "Micah predicts the messiah will be born in Bethlehem, and that's where Jesus indeed was born!"
Micah told the Israelites that the Assyrians would invade, because God told him to tell them that. He told them that. The Assyrians invaded.
So then the author of Micah saw the future (relative to his point in time of course), or was told of the future by God. Knowledge of then future events was being passed on.
So why describe Micah as not predicting the future?
Micah told the Israelites that God's promises were still true, that God would send the Messiah back, because God told him to tell them that. He told them that. Jesus hasn't yet returned, but He most definitely will.
Where in Micah is there mention of a second coming of the Messiah? Even if there is in fact one, shouldn't this count as a prediction of the future?
But -- one more time -- Micah was not and is not predicting anything. He was merely relating to the Israelites -- and to us -- WHAT GOD SAID.
Is your hang up that I say "Micah predicted" instead of saying "God predicted"? If so, I can sorta understand, I too value precision in my writings.
Yeah, you "see" wrongly.
Well then, this argument becomes pointless then, doesn't it? Apparently, from what you say, what I see, the text that is on the page in front of me, the references to Israelites sending military officers is NOT what it says. You see something different, and somehow, for some reason, you think that what YOU see is correct, and that what I see is wrong.
However...how is what I see wrong?
The seven shepherds and eight leaders of men (again, not merely 15 people, but "enough" and "more than enough" men to accomplish the task) are the Medes and Babylonians,
Who wouldn't have been acting in any way for Israel, or under their command or influence. You even admitted that the Bablyonians took the Israelites to Bablyon...so how is this in any way reflective of what Micah says? Where's the part about Israel sending military commanders?
What God said would happen indeed happened.
I've already asked whether the Babylonians were in some way sent by Israel, you said no, so how is this fulfilling what God said via Micah would happen? Are you content with a "prophecy" that is only partly fulfilled?
The Assyrians were never under Babylonian rule, but driven out.
You sure? Maps of the Assyrian Empire overlap (for the most part) with maps of the Neo-Babylonian Empire
