TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Thu Nov 04, 2021 11:03 am This is as good evidence of a Biblical event confirmed by an extra – Biblical source as you could wish. The Bible and the Assyrian records agree that Sennacherib attacked the coalition, smashed Babylon, clobbered Egypt and demolished Lascheish (or Laschish) after a siege and then …well I’d always credited that there was a siege of Jerusalem as Isaiah said. It may be that Sennacherib sent a surrender demand to Hezekiah backed up by an army. Sooner or later, Hezekiah gave in and paid tribute. Bot sources, Bible and Assyria, agree that.
To me, this is the bulk of the story. If you accept these as historically factual, then I pretty much rest my case.
So either God or mice had demolished that army…why did he submit? True, Sennacherib still had his army investing Limnah and could have taken it to Jerusalem. Sure, he might have been afraid his army would suffer the same fate as the one he’d sent under his messengers, but if so, why did Hezekiah submit? If The Lord has smit one army it could smite another.
Not sure I see the sequence of events the same as you. Hezekiah gave the tribute to Sennacherib while he was at Lachish and before he attacked Jerusalem.
2 Kgs 18:13-17
13 Now in the fourteenth year of king Hezekiah did Sennacherib king of Assyria come up against all the fenced cities of Judah, and took them.
14 And Hezekiah king of Judah sent to the king of Assyria to Lachish, saying, I have offended; return from me: that which thou puttest on me will I bear. And the king of Assyria appointed unto Hezekiah king of Judah three hundred talents of silver and thirty talents of gold.
15 And Hezekiah gave [him] all the silver that was found in the house of the LORD, and in the treasures of the king’s house.
16 At that time did Hezekiah cut off [the gold from] the doors of the temple of the LORD, and [from] the pillars which Hezekiah king of Judah had overlaid, and gave it to the king of Assyria.
17 And the king of Assyria sent Tartan and Rabsaris and Rab-shakeh from Lachish to king Hezekiah with a great host against Jerusalem. And they went up and came to Jerusalem.
None of his army was “smitten by God” yet when Hezekiah gave the tribute.
Hezekiah just gave in and paid tribute – which both sources agree – that was the reason Sennacherib marched away.
Yes, both sources agree Hezekiah paid tribute. Hezekiah paid what Sennacherib demanded to not attack Jerusalem. But, even though he got what he demanded, he still attacked Jerusalem anyways.
And even if it was a camp disease, or mice, why does God have to have anything to do with it? I know – it’s Biblical apologist spin again.
No more than insurance companies also “spinning” things and say things happen because of an “act of God”.
They think that perfectly natural occurrences can’t be proven to not have God behind it (even though the evidence is against it) and that leaves the God -claim intact. But rationally, if there is a natural explanation (disease or mice) there is no reason to suppose God in the first place.
I don’t believe they knew what happened to the Assyrian army. But, even if it was a plague or some natural cause, God could’ve been the secondary cause of it. And so it’s fine for them to attribute the cause to God.
I do think God did have a hand in destroying the Assyrian army while at Jerusalem. If Jerusalem fell, I personally think that would’ve been the end of Judah as a nation, and the end of the Jewish race. And there would be no Jesus or Christianity. But, that’s just my opinion.
The point is that even true events, places and persons in the Bible do nothing to validate the God -claim.
I would disagree. It would make the Bible stand out among other religious texts and also confirm the reliability of the Bible.
To make it quite clear, even if some events in the Bible are true but naturally explainable events, there is no more reason to suppose a god behind it than in finding your car keys. You may say that you are only making a case for some true events in the Bible (even if no reason to suppose a miracle) but if so, such a discussion is proper to the history forum, not here. This is about the God -claim, essentially.
I don’t think you can have it both ways. I offer natural explanations and then you say it must have a spiritual explanation. And if I offer a spiritual explanation, then it’s rejected because it’s not a natural explanation.