The Destruction of Damascus and Israel

Isaiah 17 is the "Damascus will become a ruinous heap" passage.

Has anyone ever noticed that in the same chapter Israel is destroyed?

If the U.S. does intervene, I see two possible bad scenarios.

1. Months ago I said that my fear was that if Assad knows he's going down, he could launch all of his chemical weapons toward Israel. He has nothing to lose.

2. Those weapons may be still be launched toward Israel even if Assad doesn't do it if they end up into the hands of the wrong rebels.

No matter what we do with this complicated issue there's no pleasing everyone. The region could ignite the region in a war, and just one mistake by the U.S., or even no mistake at all, would likely bring Islamic terror attacks across the globe.

What do you think about this???

Isaiah 17:1 ¶The burden of Damascus. Behold, Damascus is taken away from being a city, and it shall be a ruinous heap.
2 The cities of Aroer are forsaken: they shall be for flocks, which shall lie down, and none shall make them afraid.
3 The fortress also shall cease from Ephraim, and the kingdom from Damascus, and the remnant of Syria: they shall be as the glory of the children of Israel, saith the LORD of hosts.
4 And in that day it shall come to pass, that the glory of Jacob shall be made thin, and the fatness of his flesh shall wax lean.
5 And it shall be as when the harvestman gathereth the corn, and reapeth the ears with his arm; and it shall be as he that gathereth ears in the valley of Rephaim.
6 ¶Yet gleaning grapes shall be left in it, as the shaking of an olive tree, two or three berries in the top of the uppermost bough, four or five in the outmost fruitful branches thereof, saith the LORD God of Israel.
7 At that day shall a man look to his Maker, and his eyes shall have respect to the Holy One of Israel.
8 And he shall not look to the altars, the work of his hands, neither shall respect that which his fingers have made, either the groves, or the images.
9 ¶In that day shall his strong cities be as a forsaken bough, and an uppermost branch, which they left because of the children of Israel: and there shall be desolation.
10 Because thou hast forgotten the God of thy salvation, and hast not been mindful of the rock of thy strength, therefore shalt thou plant pleasant plants, and shalt set it with strange slips:
11 In the day shalt thou make thy plant to grow, and in the morning shalt thou make thy seed to flourish: but the harvest shall be a heap in the day of grief and of desperate sorrow.
12 ¶Woe to the multitude of many people, which make a noise like the noise of the seas; and to the rushing of nations, that make a rushing like the rushing of mighty waters!
13 The nations shall rush like the rushing of many waters: but God shall rebuke them, and they shall flee far off, and shall be chased as the chaff of the mountains before the wind, and like a rolling thing before the whirlwind.
14 And behold at eveningtide trouble; and before the morning he is not. This is the portion of them that spoil us, and the lot of them that rob us.

ChristRoseFromTheDead said:

Isaiah 17 prophesies events that happened over 2500 years ago when the Assyrians conquered Damascus.

Don't believe the lying false prophets; it has nothing to do with today.

Click to expand...

I disagree because Damascus is the oldest inhabited city in the world, it was never completely destroyed, and it never ceased to exist. Isaiah says...

Damascus is taken away from being a city, (which means it will cease to exist)...and it shall be a ruinous heap. (Which means it will be completely destroyed)
Damascus never became a ruinous heap and is still a city today!

Isaiah was written between 701 and 681 B.C. Damascus was partially destroyed "prior to that" by the Assyrians in 732 B.C.
This cannot be a prophecy about the Assyrian invasion of Damascus because Isaiah prophesied that Damascus would become a ruinous heap about 32 years AFTER the Assyrian invasion of Damascus!

If this is a prophecy about the Assyrian Invasion of Damascus that means Isaiah is a false prophet.

ChristRoseFromTheDead said:

People get so hung up on language. You IMO are reading what you want to see into the text.

From Gill

Behold, Damascus is taken away from being a city; a kingdom, as the Targum; it was the head of one, but now its walls were demolished, its houses pulled down, and its inhabitants carried captive; this was done by Tilgathpilneser king of Assyria, 2Ki 16:9 it had been a very ancient city, see Gen 15:2 and the head of the kingdom of Syria, Isa 7:8, and though it underwent this calamity, it was rebuilt again, and was a city of great fame, when destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar, Jer 49:24 after which it was raised up again, and was in being in the apostle's time, and still is, Act 9:22, 2Co 11:32.

I'm sure I could find more of this.

Isaiah began to prophesy no later than the year of King Uzziah's death, approx. 740 BC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzziah). That was 8 years before Damascus was destroyed by the Assyrians.

I think your dates are off.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't trust Wiki about any of the dates. My experience with this when researching these kind of things is that dates are often everywhere and people often make up their own dates to fit their beliefs.

The dates range between 740 and 680 B.C.

Most put the date of Isaiah's book around 700 B.C. This is a list of sites that I found in just a few minutes that date the book around 700 B.C.

I only found one or two that dated it otherwise.

http://www.datingtheoldtestament.com/excerpt2.htm

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/When_was_the_Book_of_Isaiah_written

http://www.gotquestions.org/Book-of-Isaiah.html

http://www.biblestudytools.com/isaiah/

http://www.wels.net/sites/wels/files/Isaiah%201-39.pdf

Even if the book was dated before the Assyrian invasion of Damascus, that doesn't negate the fact that Damascus never ceased from being a city or that it was never completely destroyed.

ChristRoseFromTheDead said:

It ceased being the city it was and became a vassal of the Assyrian empire. You're trying to read something into the text that is not there.

Click to expand...

It did not cease from being the city "it was" if it's still exist and still called Damascus today. Since the Assyrians took it over then, and it still exist today, that alone means it's a city that hasn't yet ceased!

And it was never completely destroyed even if the Assyrians let someone be a vassal.

And you're trying to tell me that I'm reading something into the text that isn't there???

ChristRoseFromTheDead said:

According to your logic, Jerusalem didn't cease to exist after the Romans conquered it, depopulated it of it's inhabitants, and renamed it, because they brought in new people to live there.

When a city is conquered and depopulated it is no more. The Assyrians were notorious for depopulating conquered areas. They conquered and depopulated Israel, and it was no more. But according to your logic it still was because people were still living there.

Click to expand...

None of this is according to my logic. That's according to your logic because you said it and we are not talking about Jerusalem..

It's according to historical facts and the inspired Word of God. Damascus was never depopulated because it's called the oldest continuously inhabited city on Earth! That alone debunks your beliefs! It was called Damascus then and it's called Damascus today!

I have a hard time to believe your still making an argument about this.

ChristRoseFromTheDead said:

Jerusalem was completely destroyed, yet is has been continuously inhabited until this day. It's name was changed, yet it is now called Jerusalem. Babylon was completely destroyed, but it is still called Babylon today. Damascus was conquered and destroyed, yet people have remained there to this day, and it is called Damascus. So your points are meaningless.

You are trying to read into the prophecy your own interpretation. Where does it say in the prophecy that people won't dwell there? It doesn't. That is something you are reading into the prophecy for your own ends.

Also, the prophecy limits itself to a time when those in Israel would seek it out as a place of refuge (Isaiah 17:3).

Furthermore, Damascus wasn't just a city. It was a kingdom; and it ceased to exist after the Assyrians conquered it.

Again, you are trying to read into Isaiah 17 what you want to see...

Click to expand...

After this reply. It's senseless to argue this any more.

Also, the prophecy limits itself to a time when those in Israel would seek it out as a place of refuge (Isaiah 17:3).

Click to expand...

WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT JERUSALEM!!!

You say that but why haven't you attempted to prove it in any way?

Where does it say in the prophecy that people won't dwell there?

Click to expand...

You're the one saying that it was depopulated! Not me! The text is as simple as it gets!

Damascus is taken away from being a city,....

That means it's no longer a city........WHY!!!

it shall be a ruinous heap.........completely destroyed!!!

Furthermore, Damascus wasn't just a city. It was a kingdom; and it ceased to exist after the Assyrians conquered it.

Click to expand...

Damascus was conquered by several other empires. It goes back more than 6000 years and still exist today. With that being said this is my last reply about this part of the debate unless you come up with a miracle.

10 Interesting Facts About Damascus, Syria

Here are 10 interesting facts that’ll help you learn more about the city of Damascus in Syria.

Damascus is actually the capital and largest city of Syria. It is also the oldest continuously inhabited city in the world.
The old city of Damascus is completely surrounded by ramparts.
The inhabitants of Damascus are called “Damascenes”.
Damascus is also known as “The City of Jasmin”.
Syrians are well-known for their very popular string cheese!

The city is only 50 miles from the Mediterranean Sea.
There are many coffeehouses in Damascus where Arabic coffee and tea is served, and hookah is readily available.
In 1946, Syria won its full independence from France.
Due to the limited number of official bus stops, buses usually stop wherever a passenger needs to get on or off.
There are several towns in the United States also called Damascus; such as Damascus, Oregon with over 9,000 residents.
http://damascusblog.wordpress.com/2010/02/19/10-interesting-facts-about-damascus-syria/
__________________________________________________________________________________
History
Located in a strategic gap commanding the Barada River and transdesert routes, Damascus has been inhabited since prehistoric times and is reputedly the oldest continuously occupied city in the world. There was a city on its site even before the time (c.2000 ) of Abraham. Damascus was probably held by the Egyptians before the Hittite period (2d millennium ) and was later ruled by the Israelites and Aram. Tiglathpileser III made it (732 ) a part of the Assyrian Empire. From the 6th to the 4th cent. it was a provincial capital of the Persian Empire until it passed (332 ) without a struggle to the armies of Alexander the Great.
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/entry/Damascus

Good, go away. It gets really annoying trying to point out to someone that what they read in the text is what they want to see in the text, and consequently read into the text. The prophecy mentions nothing about Damascus being depopulated, yet you insist that it must be for the prophecy to be fulfilled. That's called reading your interpretation into the text.

Click to expand...

I didn't mean I was going away. What I meant was that I'm done this aspect of it....The fact that Damascus has been in existence, and still exist today....and that it has never become a ruinous heap, is so clear that it's useless to cover that aspect of the discussion any longer. But here I am again defending the simple truth about it!

I'm not the one who used the word depopulated. YOU DID!
I'm just saying what the text say's. That it will cease being a city and that has never happened because it's still a city today and has been for over 6000 years! It has never been completely destroyed by anyone. If it was completely destroyed by the Assyrians then there would not have been a Vassal king put in power.

Regarding your insistence that Damascus must become a ruinous heap, here is a translation form the Septuagint.

THE WORD AGAINST DAMASCUS. Behold, Damascus shall be lifted up from cities, and shall be for a downfall; Isaiah 17:1

And here is a literal translation form the Hebrew:

A burden of Damascus. Behold, Damascus being taken away from a city, and she becomes a fallen place of rubbish. Isaiah 17:1

Click to expand...

How is a literal translation determined??? BY YOU!

That's not a literal translation.

The word taken away means to depart, be removed, or come to an end. Damascus has never come to an end for it still exist today.
This is the word ruinous (used 3 time in scripture) and heap. (Used once in scripture in Isaiah 17)

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=H4654&t=KJV


http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=H4596&t=KJV

I can go to the interlinear but see that it'll be a waste of time. You'll never change your mind about this.

The city-kingdom of Damascus is fallen and is no more; it was destroyed completely by the Assyrians. A plain and simple explanation that fits the context.

Click to expand...

If a city is no more then it no longer exist. What problem are you having accepting this??? OH! I know! You would have to admit you're wrong! That's the problem!

Did you forget??? The Assyrians took Damascus 32 years before Isaiah prophesied the fall of Damascus in Isaiah 17!

Remember I said,
Isaiah was written between 701 and 681 B.C. Damascus was partially destroyed "prior to that" by the Assyrians in 732 B.C.

This cannot be a prophecy about the Assyrian invasion of Damascus because Isaiah prophesied that Damascus would become a ruinous heap about 32 years AFTER the Assyrian invasion of Damascus!
If this is a prophecy about the Assyrian Invasion of Damascus that means Isaiah is a false prophet!

You're completely oblivious to the sense of scripture, and that Isaiah was prophesying against a dominant power of his time and region, that was to suffer the same fate at the hands of the Assyrians as the kingdom of Israel was. Instead you, like many other false witnesses, declare that he was speaking about something totally unrelated and totally unknown to him, and totally outside the context of the prophecy, in order to serve your own soulful lusts and ignorance that masquerade as Christian diligence.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the false accusations. That's a common thing that comes from people who don't take kindly to being debunked!
WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT ISRAEL!

You've done nothing to prove your beliefs. The historical data proves you're wrong. The simple words in the simple text proves you're wrong.
Every resource I look at say's Assyria took Damascus in 734-732 BC. And that chapters 1-39 of the book of Isaiah was written around 701 BC.

Here's a link to a guy named Wayne. I've read some articles by him before and I think he's good. You should check his site.

Isaiah 17 is a chapter that contains a prophecy about the total destruction of the city of Damascus and several other Mideast locations. Damascus is considered one of the oldest continuously inhabited cities in the world, if not the oldest, so the prophecy appears to be unfulfilled as of the time of this writing. Many people believe the events of Isaiah 17 will be some of the next prophetic events to occur. Some speculate that Damascus will be nuked by Israel when the events of Isaiah 17 transpire. Given the ongoing turmoil within Syria and the ongoing tension between Israel and Syria, it would be useful to examine when the events of Isaiah 17 might be fulfilled.

• I will attempt to pinpoint the general timeframe when the events of Isaiah 17 will transpire in this article.

Isaiah 17 opens with the words “the burden of Damascus”, which indicates that Damascus is the subject of a troublesome prophecy. The troublesome nature of the prophecy is immediately revealed with verse 1 describing the city of Damascus as "a ruinous heap". In addition, Aroer (a city located in modern day Jordan) and Ephraim (northern Israel) are also described as desolate and forsaken. Other places in Syria will likely be impacted as well as Isaiah mentions “the remnant of Syria”.

• Isa 17:1 The burden of Damascus. Behold, Damascus is taken away frombeing a city, and it shall be a ruinous heap.
• Isa 17:2 The cities of Aroer are forsaken: they shall be for flocks, which shall lie down, and none shall make them afraid.
• Isa 17:3 The fortress also shall cease from Ephraim, and the kingdom from Damascus, and the remnant of Syria: they shall be as the glory of the children of Israel, saith the LORD of hosts.

Before continuing it should be noted that some believe that Isaiah 17 has application to the eighth century B.C. when the Assyrian army attacked Syria and northern Israel. However, verse 1 describes Damascus being desolated to the extent that it is “taken away from being a city”. This level of desolation does not appear to have occurred yet, so perhaps Isaiah 17 is a chapter with multiple applications with its ultimate fulfillment in the future.

The cause(s) of Damascus’s desolation is not explicitly stated in Isaiah 17:1-3, but Jeremiah 49:23-27, a passage that potentially has end time implications, suggests that Damascus may be target of a military invasion.

• Jer 49:23 Concerning Damascus. Hamath is confounded, and Arpad: for they have heard evil tidings: they are fainthearted; there is sorrow on the sea; it cannot be quiet.
• Jer 49:24 Damascus is waxed feeble, and turneth herself to flee, and fear hath seized on her: anguish and sorrows have taken her, as a woman in travail.
• Jer 49:25 How is the city of praise not left, the city of my joy!
• Jer 49:26 Therefore her young men shall fall in her streets, and all the men of war shall be cut off in that day, saith the LORD of hosts.
• Jer 49:27 And I will kindle a fire in the wall of Damascus, and it shall consume the palaces of Benhadad.

Isaiah 17:4-6
Isaiah 17:4-6 appears to provide the circumstances surrounding the general timeframe when Damascus will become a ruinous heap.

• The connection between Isaiah 17:1-3 and Isaiah 17:4 onward is established in Isaiah 17:3-4. The glory of Damascus and the glory of the remnant of Syria at that time are compared to the glory of the children of Israel in verse 3 while verse 4 expands on the glory of Jacob/Israel at that time. “(3) The fortress also shall cease from Ephraim, and the kingdom from Damascus, and the remnant of Syria: they shall be as the glory of the children of Israel, saith the LORD of hosts. (4) And in that day it shall come to pass, that the glory of Jacob shall be made thin, and the fatness of his flesh shall wax lean”.

The phrase “in that day” appears in Isaiah 17:4, which in an end time context refers to the Day of the Lord. The appearance of this phrase suggests the destruction of Damascus will likely occur around the approximate time of the Day of the Lord. Furthermore, Isaiah 17:4-6 indicates that the “glory of Jacob” will be greatly diminished to a small remnant, which is indicative that the events of Isaiah 17 will occur in the latter portion of the end times when Jacob’s population will indeed be greatly diminished.

http://prophecyproof.blogspot.com/2013/04/isaiah-17-pinpointing-timing-of.html

This is a perfect example why it's pointless to have a discussion with you. I already explained that Isaiah began prophesying no later than the year King Uzziah died, which was no later that 740 BC, and possibly as early as 759 BC.

Click to expand...

That's why I just assume get away from this aspect of the discussion. The verse is quite simple and clear!

Behold, Damascus is taken away from being a city, and it shall be a ruinous heap.

The words "In that day" in verse 4 and 9 is a reference to the time around the "Day of the Lord!"
4 And in that day it shall come to pass, that the glory of Jacob shall be made thin, (time of Jacob's trouble) and the fatness of his flesh shall wax lean.

9 ¶In that day shall his strong cities be as a forsaken bough, and an uppermost branch, which they left because of the children of Israel: and there shall be desolation.
Verse 9 appears to attribute the desolation of Damascus to Israel! NOT THE ASSYRIANS!


Your dates are flawed. In just a matter of minutes I found on the first two pages of Google, (as well as in my bible), four links that agree with the dates around 700BC. Here they are again.
http://www.datingthe...om/excerpt2.htm
http://wiki.answers...._Isaiah_written
http://www.gotquesti...-of-Isaiah.html
http://www.biblestudytools.com/isaiah/
http://www.wels.net/...Isaiah 1-39.pdf

In the year that king Uzziah died I (Isaiah) saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple. Isaiah 6:1
Damascus was destroyed by the Assyrians in 732 BC, which was at least 8 years after Isaiah began prophesying.

Click to expand...

Most prophecies are not given just a few years in advance. It's not very prophetic for someone to say a certain country will become a ruinous heap when the invading army is at your neighbors doorstep! There are 5 times more links that date Isaiah's book between 701-682 than anything else. Most who date it incorrectly are preterist!

Damascus was taken around 732 BC. Isaiah was written between 701 to 682 BC. In my experience in the research of OT prophecies, I've found that Christian's pay very little attention to dates. They've made several errors by disregarding them. And some historians, esp. Domitian, have made several mistakes.

Yet you persist in presenting false information as if it is truth (like the above dates you mentioned).

Click to expand...

Other than you're false accusations you've proven nothing.

I persist in discovering the truth and in refuting your false information!

Carry on with your falsehoods...

Click to expand...

Those types of comments always come from someone who has been debunked and who don't like being proven wrong on a public forum. You can't admit that your wrong.

jst5 said:

Unless someone has a another Bible than I have...there is no way Isaiah 17 has been filled at any point in history...unless someone thinks the Bible is flawed?

Behold, Damascus is taken away from being a city, and it shall be a ruinous heap.I see "In that Day" used three or four times....so Isaiah is talking about a event that ends Damascus from being a city or "taken away"..not will be "taken away" then giving back.Anyone wanna show me where in the Bible is says Demascus is "given back"?

The Hebrew word for taken away is laqach"to be taken away, be removed,to never be again" Hebrew word for ruinous is natsah "desolate,to be no more, causatively, to lay waste"
From Websters taken away"to never be,to get into one's possession by force, skill, or artifice, especially" ruinous"destructive,no more,disastrous, devastating"

Isaiah reads like a end times event....and I'll take a prophet of God's word for it...if Isaiah says Demascus will be laqach..then it will never again be.Damascus has been attacked many times...as of 2013 it's yet to be laqach..not really much to debate about that..unless you view Isaiah as a false prophet.

Click to expand...

Good post jst5,

To say that the destruction of Damascus is prophecy fulfilled makes Isaiah a false prophet because you can't prophesy about something that has already happened. Don't get into saying things like, "unless someone thinks the Bible is flawed?" It's our perception and understanding that's flawed. Not the bible.

There are several mistakes in every translation of the bible but those mistakes are made by the translators.