sundin13 said:
You are introducing your own contexts into the scripture. There is no requirement for decomposition that I see in the scripture. It only states that there was a wound that looked to be fatal, but had healed. Further, it is impossible to state for certain how literal this is to be. Looking for interpretations of this verse, the first I found speculated that this is a reference to the fall and rebuild of the Roman Empire. I'm not sure what you are trying to imply by bringing up the further context implying that this individual is a leader of a region of the world, even assuming that this inference is true. And btw, going by the contexts you provided, it is not necessary for this individual to be a leader of a region of the world. This individual could be bestowed power, or raise a non-state army (ala terrorist groups), or further, this could be a metaphor and not be meant literally. Perhaps "war" is not a literal war of armies, but a spiritual or ideological conflict. |
Actually, not only is there no requirement for decomposition, if the account was literal, there would not be any significant decomposition. The scripture claims he was killed and returned three days later. If his return was bodily (debateable), it would not yet have decomposed, which tends to take several weeks if, as the Bible claims, he was in a covered area.