Amalek was already destroyed. I Chronicles 4:43 says all the remaining members of Amalek were wiped out. Most people don't learn Chronicles so they are not aware of this.
If your point is that Haman is an Agagite and therefore he's a descendant of Amalek, that supposition is definitely false as Chronicles contradicts it. Nowhere does the book of Esther (Megillah) nor any other book in the Bible define the term Agagite to mean a descendant of Amalek. The idea that Agagite is related to Amalek first appears with Josephus, but it's not of biblical origin. Amalek is long dead.
If your point is that Haman is an Agagite and therefore he's a descendant of Amalek, that supposition is definitely false as Chronicles contradicts it. Nowhere does the book of Esther (Megillah) nor any other book in the Bible define the term Agagite to mean a descendant of Amalek. The idea that Agagite is related to Amalek first appears with Josephus, but it's not of biblical origin. Amalek is long dead.
Amalek was already destroyed. I Chronicles 4:43 says all the remaining members of Amalek were wiped out. Most people don't learn Chronicles so they are not aware of this.
If your point is that Haman is an Agagite and therefore he's a descendant of Amalek, that supposition is definitely false as Chronicles contradicts it. Nowhere does the book of Esther (Megillah) nor any other book in the Bible define the term Agagite to mean a descendant of Amalek. The idea that Agagite is related to Amalek first appears with Josephus, but it's not of biblical origin. Amalek is long dead.
If your point is that Haman is an Agagite and therefore he's a descendant of Amalek, that supposition is definitely false as Chronicles contradicts it. Nowhere does the book of Esther (Megillah) nor any other book in the Bible define the term Agagite to mean a descendant of Amalek. The idea that Agagite is related to Amalek first appears with Josephus, but it's not of biblical origin. Amalek is long dead.