- This topic has 6 voices and 15 replies.
-
Posts
-
I know the Old Testament said it was to extend to the Euphrates River, but historically I don't think it ever got near that far. How big did the ancient kingdom of Israel get? Also, if God did promise the Israelites a kingdom that would span the breadth of Mesopotamia, why did it not happen? (This is more theological I know, but I'm curious what some think as an aside to the main topic).
I dont think it ever extended beyond the current limits of Israel plus small parts of Western Jordan.As to why its not bigger, I wont call God a liar but a minor people like the Hebrews were actually fairly lucky they managed to control any territory to call a kingdom at all. The only reason they did is because of its location. Israel is not exactly prime real estate. That is why the two big ancient civilizations were along the Nile Valley and in the Tigris-Euphrates basin. That is where the water was. The Jordan barely provides enough water today and it was even worse in ancient times because the methods used then were much less efficient.
This map may cast some light on the subject….
Yes that map indicates the maximum extent of the Davidic/Solomonic kingdoms. I'm curious as to why God promised more yet it was never achieved (at least historically). Did the Israelites fall out of favor with God in some way that forced Him to reduce their kingdom's size? I've always wondered about this.
God's Will.What humans can do against God's will ?Except if the source itself is biased, this is perhaps about Internal criticism: historical reliability.
Let's really get this stirred up with this little diversion.
Okay we've dealt with this topic from a secular perspective. Now from a theological perspective……The reason that Israel has never reached the Euphrates River is because it's an end time prophecy. During the Millennial Kingdom, Israel will be a much bigger nation once again ruled by David. Israel, Egypt, and Syria will be drastically different during that time. I'm too lazy to look up the verses on this right now. But I do remember God especially talking about Egypt being reconciled to Him and one of his favorite nations like the "apple of His eye" or something like that.
That is not theological it is millennial, which is a subsection of theology. The only people that take millennial prophecy seriously are those that expect the rapture to happen in the near-future. They are more likely to try and bring some of the catastrophes of the rapture about in order to hurry God along than they are to apply rigorous thought to what God is trying to tell us. They are more focused on the next life than trying to apply Christ's message in this one.
That is not theological it is millennial, which is a subsection of theology. The only people that take millennial prophecy seriously are those that expect the rapture to happen in the near-future. They are more likely to try and bring some of the catastrophes of the rapture about in order to hurry God along than they are to apply rigorous thought to what God is trying to tell us. They are more focused on the next life than trying to apply Christ's message in this one.
I disagree. They are looking for the rapture, but few that I know of are expecting it to happen within a set period, although many want it to happen soon. They do not want to bring destruction purposely...it's the opposite actually....they want to preach the Gospel so that as many as possible will be saved (wish I was a better Christian and did that 🙁 ) Many born-agains are just realistic about the state of the world and the state of humanity. We know we cannot change the inevitable. It's the liberal la-la-landers who think they can change the state of man...and they try to do it without God. Best of luck to them, because it's not going to happen. As far as being focused on the next life...isn't that the whole idea of being a Christian? Being focused on teh eternal rather than the here and now? Many fundamentalists, myself included, believe eternal life starts from the day you're saved, not after you die.
I am NOT trying to start a theological debate. I just think that the question of why God did not end up giving Israel as big a historical kingdom as he promised is one we cannot know the answer to until we are standing in front of Him and can ask. I am also not talking about evangelical Christians in general, they are mostly people that are just full of faith and not millennial zealots. I was more talking of the Davidian type of people.ANy theological debate is pure speculation and will depend on the individual Christian community to which a person belongs, which guarantees lively debate. I probably should have just passed and not posted anything. I am uncomfortable with theological debates because they spiral out of control so quickly. People tend to get intolerant and defensive very quickly when they feel their faith is being attacked or questioned. That was not the intent of my post.I am actually in the middle of writing a paper about a topic I abhor right now so may have been a little too curt in my original post.
I didn't feel you did that at all. I think the Davidians are a minority anyway, so they have little effect on global politics. It just seems that many people blame fundamental Christians for problems because they say some of the same things as you do. You weren't being offensive or curt at all, I was just expressing my disagreement. Donnie and I disagree over Israel, yet we are both pre-millenialists. I think Israel is not what she could have been because she disobeyed the Abrahamic covenant and all her blessings went to the church, the new Israel. God's promises to Israel were with conditions, God's promise to the Church is without condition. I am just a strong believer in the acceptance of Christ…doesn't matter if you are Jew or Gentile, if you reject Christ, you're all in the same boat. Theological debates cn be productive as well as instructive, but I prefer doing that with someone of another faith rather than one who is of another sect of Christianity, because then things can get ugly.
Theological debates cn be productive as well as instructive, but I prefer doing that with someone of another faith rather than one who is of another sect of Christianity, because then things can get ugly.
Believe me, it does not matter whether they are of another faith or another Christian denomination. Rare is the person that can talk about faith without getting offended when their personal faith is derided or they think it being derided. I generally refuse to debate faith at all, I will acknowledge mine and discuss it with people that ask but I tend to not proselytize very much because it is so off-putting. Faith is definitely one of those areas where personal perception sets the tone of the discussion. I quickly apologized because I have noticed that I tend to be perhaps too blunt sometimes and cause offense when I did not intend to. It is something I need to work on, apparently I don't write as clearly as I would like to.
As an author of a prophecy novel myself, I don't take offense. Ken, I understand your position on Israel a lot better now, and realize you are not alone, in fact there are many out there who think modern Israel is a counterfeit. I'm not going to get into that discussion because it is better suited for CL than here. I probably shouldn't have even touched on the subject in my last post. Scout is correct though, it is impossible to really prove anything in this regard because scriptural interpretations are so ambiguous to begin with.Phid, as a Catholic what is your opinion of the rapture? I thought Catholic doctrine says that Antiochus Epiphanes fulfilled the prophecies of the abomination of desolation which would mean there is no future Antichrist or Rapture etc... Is this correct?
Is there anyone who says the Muslim's dome of the rock fulfilled the abomination of desolation prophecy? Sometimes I think that.
%20980x1427.jpg){kind=link}