to fill in the gaps...
to fill in the gaps...
I see that only one paragraph of my response to the Zechariah issue is ever quoted... so as a gift, here is the rest of my response in the BRIII. I had provided more detail at another point in a thread outside the Battle, but unfortunately that thread appears to have been culled.....
First I will comment on Jerry’s misguided reliance on Zech. 12 and the important point that I made that he conveniently left out. He gets really excited over my statement that the decline of the Roman Empire can be dated to the destruction of Jerusalem and exclaims:
quote:
But Dee Dee,can´t you read? The Lord says that He will destroy the nations IN THAT DAY!!!
But Jerry can’t you read?? The battle described is fought on horseback. What part of that phrase is confusing?? The “horse” or the “back”?? Jerry seems to be insinuating that the phrase “in that day” indicates an immediate event (even within one literal day), not an event that can be understood over a period of time. Horsefeathers. The Bible shows great fluidity with the phrase “that day”. In fact the text in question (Zech. 12:9) merely says “in that day I will seek to destroy all the nations…” Other texts within Zechariah itself prove his wooden literalism to be nonsense. Zech. 2:11; 3:10;13:3-4; 14:8-9; 14:20-21 are passages which Jerry would take to be occurring over an entire “Millennium,” and yet this “thousand years” (in Jerry’s view) is called “that day.” Here are just some other Scripture references using “that day” which refer to a period of time Ex 13:8; Jdg 18:1; 1 Sam 18:18; Is 2:11, 4:2, 11:10, 17:7; Hos 2:16. He is once again gored on his own horn. That has got to hurt. And to really gut Zech. 12-14 from being of any usefulness to Jerry, Zech. 13:7-9 places this destruction of Jerusalem squarely within the first century when the Shepherd is struck. I am sure that Jerry will just try and shoehorn in a handy-dandy gap, but if he tries that I have another weapon in my arsenal
Jerry says,
quote:
But I say,why shouldn’t we take these verses literally?
Yes, Jerry why shouldn’t we believe that it is an ancient battle fought on horseback??
Wow, Jerry actually believes that a future battle against Jerusalem will be fought on horseback! Why aren’t the Palestinians building up a considerable cavalry if this the optimum way to attack the Jews?? This would be hysterical if Jerry weren’t actually serious. Will Jerry be consistent and also believe, according to Ezekiel 38 and 39, that “Russia” will also fight Israel on horseback with swords and shields (38:4), bows and arrows (39:3), and wooden javelins and spears (39:10)? Notice also that Israelites will not need to go out to the forests to gather wood (39:10). Really? How many Israelites do you think are doing that today?? And notice the targets of the enemy attack: silver, gold, and cattle (39:13). Does Jerry really think that anyone is interested in Israel’s livestock?? Where are the Cobra helicopters Jerry?
[sarcasm]Hmm, the Encyclopedia Americana is Jerry’s scholarly source to refute my statement on the decline of the Roman Empire? [/sarcasm] He claims that since Rome expanded in size it could not have been declining. Jerry’s simplistic rendering of complex vagaries of history would also be laughable if he were not serious. Noted historian Edward Gibbon documented that it was Rome’s expansion that was the beginning of its fall as follows, “But the decline of Rome was the natural and inevitable effect of immoderate greatness. Prosperity ripened the principle of decay; the causes of destruction multiplied with the extent of conquest; and, as soon as time or accident had removed the artificial supports, the stupendous fabric yielded to the pressure of its own weight.”
