"They received the Word with all readiness of mind and searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so.  Therefore many believed."--Acts 17:11

Berean Christadelphians

Index

For Further Information Contact:  Jim Phillips

 
Berean Christadelphians
Register Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 4 of 12      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   Next   »
JimPhillips

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 924
Reply with quote  #46 

As you stated to bro. Bob, your suppositions concerning China and Russia are based on Christ’s return to be over 50 years away. I would suggest that this 50 year time frame not only is essential to your comments vis a vis Russia and China, but Britain as well. There is no natural way Britain can regain her position as Tyre, within the next 50 years.

I am not prepared to say who will be Tarshish 50 years from now, should time go on. As did bro. Thomas in his day, I believe we are now in the waning few years of the times of the Gentiles. But whether we are speaking of today, or 50 years from now, one point is clear. At the time of the end, there must be a Tarshish nation. That Tarshish nation must have certain prophetically defined characteristics, and those characteristics were correctly defined by bro. Thomas. Those prophetic facts are that at the time of the end, Tarshish will be the wealthiest nation and the greatest navy, which are two easily measurable prophetic traits. There are two others, such as the greatest trading nation, and that nation who spreads its protective wings over Israel. Today, these fact apply only to the US. 50 years from now, who knows?

You ask what if the nations change in relation to these facts. I would think the answer clear. If Russia should gain the naval ascendency, then we would not be at the time of the end. At the time of the end, the prophecy is clear. There must be a power in the earth which is both the greatest naval power and is hostile to Russia. This is not only shown prophetically in the types concerning the Tyre/Tarshish nation, but also in the second trumpet and the second vial. If the political scene changed to where Russia was king of the sea, then we are not at the time of the end. Bro Thomas wrote:

Quote:
In the previous chapters the reader has been conducted to the crisis that awaits the world at the conclusion of the time of the end. The two great powers of the day—namely, Gogue, the lord of the earth, and the Lion of Tarshish, the king of the sea, have been brought up in battle array in the region of the Dead Sea."–Elpis Israel, pg. 438

If time were to go on, and if I am (sadly) wrong about us now living in the waning years of the times of the Gentiles, then I acknowledge that another nation may rise which God will ordain to play Tarshish’s role in the final act. If China (or Australia, or India) became the most powerful navy, and if China (or Australia or India) became the world’s richest nation, and if China (or Australia or India) became Israel’s protectorate; then China (or Australia or India) would be Tarshish, and the entire prophetic picture would change. But today, China is an insignificant player on the world’s stage. She is so weak, she dares not even challenge the US for the possession of Taiwan, a few miles off her coasts. She has drunk the wine of the US/Tyrian harlot, to a greater extent than any nation, save Japan. As much as she may politically despise the US, she cannot oppose the US, without opposing her very economic existence.

STEVEPHS

Registered:
Posts: 406
Reply with quote  #47 
Continued ...

Bro Thomas in the following extract from the Herald specifically says that "America cannot be the protecting power" of the prophecy.   Your argument bro Jim hinges upon the current wealth and naval status of the US and on that basis you argue that Bro Thomas would take a different view if he were alive today.   Quotes such as this one, show that bro Thomas' identification of Tarshish was based upon several prophectic identifiers.   To say that bro Thomas would have believed differently today is contrary to what he here lays claim to.  
   
Quote:

 

In view, therefore, of this “consummation so devoutly to be wished" by Israel, and by all that love him for Messiah's sake, who shall judge among the nations sitting on the throne of his father David, Jehovah [Yahweh] makes proclamation by the prophet to the power which, in his providence, he has appointed as Israel's protector in the affair of their partial restoration to the land of their fathers, " which is the glory of all lands." This protecting nation is insular and maritime, having possessions " beyond the rivers of Khush." "Ho, to the land shadowing with wings!"—protecting with its power, as a bird protects its young under the shadow of its wings; " which is beyond the rivers of Khush"—not " the undiscovered land," but ' beyond the rivers" which water the tract of Asia, lying between the Tigris, Caspian Sea, and Persian Gulf, and known as Khushistan—the ancient Asiatic Ethiopia Now, Mr. Editor, if you take the bearings of the shadowing land lying beyond Khushistan, you will find that a line drawn in a northeasterly direction from Jerusalem, where Isaiah was when he made this prophetic invocation, will run through Khush, Afghanistan, and the Punjaub, and strike the Himalaya mountains, which bound the Anglo-Indian empire on the north.   This protecting nation, whose territorial empire is thus indicated, is the nation of the sea which cannot " send an ambassador" unless by sea. There is no exception to this fact; whereas in relation to the United States, its government can, if it please, send ambassadors overland to all the states of South America. British amambassadors cannot move from their sea-girt isle except by sea; and they are preeminently " swift messengers," being despatched for the most part in steamers.   Hence I conclude that the protecting power is-not America, but the maritime arm of Britain, whose Indian territory lies from Jerusalem “beyond the rivers of Khush," the preservation of whose ascendancy inllindoostan is entirely connected with the future destiny of the territory of David's kingdom; and the Jews, "the merchants of Tarshish and the young lions thereof," (see Ezek. xxxviii., 13.) under the Holy One of Israel, are the Cyrus and his hosts of their restoration in these latter days, even as the autocrat of all the Russia's is the modern Pharaoh, who shall rush like the rushing of mighty waters" against them, to his own discomfiture and utter destruction.

 



To be continued, Yahweh Willing.

JimPhillips

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 924
Reply with quote  #48 
Hello bro. Steve, and thank you for this most recent contribution from the 1860 Herald, pg 208.

Quote:

Quotes such as this one, show that bro Thomas' identification of Tarshish was based upon several prophetic identifiers.



This is of course, true.  But you do realize, don't you, that the four points I continually raise to you from bro. Thomas' exposition, are among the prophetic identifiers used by bro. Thomas.  

This comment came from a letter to the editor of 1947.  Bro. Thomas makes a similar, but more reasoned argument in Elpis Israel the following year.

Quote:
 The decree has long since gone forth which calls upon the Lion of Tarshish to protect the Jews. Upwards of a thousand years before the British were a nation, the prophet addresses them as the power which at “evening-tide” should interest themselves in behalf of Israel. In view of this, “the time of the end”, he says, “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”; or, as it is expressed by another, “and they became like the chaff of the summer threshing-floors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them”; “Behold”, says the former prophet concerning Israel at this time, “at evening-tide 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”—referring, doubtless, to the overthrow and destruction of Gogue. Now, the invasion of their country by a spoiler at “evening-tide”, who robs them, implies their previous return. This finished colonization Isaiah styles, “a present unto the Lord of hosts of a people scattered and peeled”; for, speaking of “the time of the end”, he says, “In that time shall the present be brought unto the Lord of hosts of a people scattered and peeled … to the place of the name of the Lord of hosts, the Mount Zion”, But, then, the question returns upon us, by whom is the present to be made? The prophet answers this question in the first verse, saying, “Ho! to the land shadowing with wings, which is beyond the rivers of Khush: that sendeth ambassadors by sea, and on vessels of papyrus upon the waters, Go ye swift messengers, to a nation scattered and peeled, to a people terrible from this and onward: a nation meted out and trodden down, whose land the rivers (invading armies have spoiled.” Now, the geography of this passage points to the Lion-power of Tarshish as “the land shadowing with wings”. Taking Judea, where the prediction was delivered, as the place of departure, the word “beyond” points to the east; that is, running a line from Judea across the Euphrates and Tigris, “the rivers of Khushistan”, it passes into Hindostan, where “the Merchants of Tarshish, and its young lions”, rule the land.*
 
But the British power is still further indicated by the insular position of its seat of government; for the “sending of fleet messengers by the sea”, implies that the shadowing power is an islandstate. Ambassadors are sent from the residence of the Court, and if they proceed to their destination by sea, the throne of the power must be located in an island. The text, therefore, points to the north and east, to England and Hindostan, as the land shadowing Israel with its wings. To Britain, then, the prophet calls as the protector of the Jewish nation in the evening-tide trouble, and commands it to send its messengers in swift vessels because the crisis is urgent, and to plant Israel as “an ensign upon the mountains”; as it is written in another place, saying, “The Lord shall set an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.” EI 443

 
Obviously, between the letter to the editor and the writing of Elpis Israel, someone pointed out to bro. Thomas that sending ambassadors by sea, implied, did not necessitate, an Island state.  The prophet, as bro. Thomas pointed out, was in Jerusalem.  The Ambassadors he saw coming to cover Israel, had to come by sea. 
 
This necessitated the covering nation to not in any way be connected by land to Israel.  It did not necessitate an island nation.  Therefore he appropriately changed his language.
STEVEPHS

Registered:
Posts: 406
Reply with quote  #49 
Quote:

But the British power is still further indicated by the insular position of its seat of government; for the “sending of fleet messengers by the sea”, implies that the shadowing power is an islandstate. Ambassadors are sent from the residence of the Court, and if they proceed to their destination by sea, the throne of the power must be located in an island.

 
Between friends bro Jim, I'll take both implies and necessities.   The case he was making was for Britain being Tarshish based upon passages of prophecy - note what he says: "But the British power is still further indicated by the insular seat of government".   With Canada and South America being joined to the United States, one would have to really stretch a point to make a case that America fits into this prophecy.
 
 
dwolfe

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 53
Reply with quote  #50 
Wow...  This thread is making my eyes bleed!

Hello Friends, 

Its good to see Brethren so close as my desktop!

This is alot to digest at one sitting, so I will have to take a few views to get it all in, but this is what I think so far:

Jim is stating that he is not adamant that the US is, although stating a good case for the possibility.    The points given are not illogical  and are put together with linear thinking.

To say that England is currently, dont we have to assume that we will be waiting until a time when England actually fits the criteria given?  This seems like it would be a mistake.

As things are at this point in time  how can it be said that England is the protector of Israel?

Greatest trading power?

Strongest naval power?
 




__________________
Dan
JimPhillips

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 924
Reply with quote  #51 

Hello bro. Steve,

and thanks again for your thoughts.

Actually, I think the stretch to the point is that the prophet in Jerusalem has any interest in whether ambassadors to South America or Canada go by sea or otherwise. Bro. Thomas taught us how to read prophesy. The point of reference is always the location of the speaker, unless clearly stated to be different. This is the rule he eventually comes to for his understanding of this passage.

But I want you to think of what you are saying, bro. Steve. You have one reference, written in a letter to the editor in 1947, modified a year later and then not ever raised again, including in his greatest prophetic work of Eureka. In fact not only is the point never brought up again, but bro. Thomas translated the entire verse differently, six years later. (Herald 1853, pg 9-23.) In his translation, the term "ambassadors" is eliminated altogether, which he specifically points out, was a wrong usage.

In giving us his exposition from his new translation, he deals with the US as a potential nation spreading its wings over Israel, but dismisses them, not because they could send ambassadors to South America by land, but because the US (at that time) had no position in that land (beyond the rivers of Cush.) Of course today, the United States controls the very land in question, and has a mighty army sitting beyond those waters, to the chagrin of the world.

But to the question between us, note that the argument you retain (that the ambassadors being sent by sea had to come from an island nation) has no part in his updated translation. Here is the relevant section:

Quote:
"Which sendeth by sea," hshlch byym, pronounced hassholaiach byyom. The wing of the land, or its dominion, being so wide-spreading from tip to tip, it is obliged to communicate with its possessions under their shadow, "by sea." This character in the text shows that the overshadowing land is a maritime power. It is neither Austria, Russia, nor Turkey; because they do not correspond with their possessions by sea; neither is it France, or the United States; because their wings do not stretch beyond to the Tigris and Euphrates.

Here. he recognizes that the US could be the covering nation, except for thier political strength at that time. 

Now, while his teaching concerning the ambassadors from an island state is a one time event in his exposition, throughout his many expositions, he continually makes the point that the Tarshish power will be the King of the Sea. He makes the point in Destiny, Elpis Israel, Eureka, and his final published work, Daniel. He even alludes to it, in his detailed translation of Isa 18. Note that the following is primarily a quote from the Bishop of Rochester, but bro. Thomas affirms that the Bishop has caught the prophets meaning correctly.

Quote:
The Bishop of Rochester had some idea that there was something figurative connected with his "bulrush-vessels," expressive of the fleetness of the shadowing lands’ marine; but as he had never seen a steamship, the fleetness of his bulrush vessels was confined to their fast sailing. "If the country spoken to," says he, "be distant from Egypt, vessels of bulrush are only used as an apt image, on account of their levity, for quick sailing vessels of any material. The country, therefore, to which the prophet calls, is characterised as one which, in the days of the completion of this prophecy, shall be a great maritime and commercial power, forming remote alliances, making distant voyages to all parts of the world, with expedition and security, and in the habit of affording protection to their friends and allies." Thus much the bishop saw even from erroneous premises. He rightly conjectured from the prophet’s reference to the sea and surface of waters, that he was addressing a maritime, and not a continental, power; and as it is to bring a people to Mount Zion as a present to the Namebearer of Jehovah enthroned there, which no maritime power hath ever done yet, he concluded that the call was to a pre-eminent naval power of the latter days.

This is bro. Thomas’ consistent teaching concerning Tarshish. The preeminent naval power of the latter days. The king of the sea. The greatest fleet ever to sail on the sea of Tarshish. The Lord-ship of the sea and of its coasts. The maritime power of the world. All these you discard, but hold on to notions in a letter to the editor, later abandoned.

And I have no problem with you doing that, if that is what you believe. Nor do I try to suggest what bro. Thomas would or would not believe if he were alive today. These are the points I make. Bro. Thomas believed Britain was the modern Tarshish of his day. He reached this conclusion by locating all the prophetic clues pertaining to Tarshish, and listing them. He showed how Britain in his day, matched, (or was poised to match,) every one of those clues If we took the prophetic clues pertaining to Tarshish listed by bro. Thomas in the mid 19th century, and we look to see what nation fits every one of those clues today, the only possible conclusion based upon bro. Thomas’ exposition, is that the US is the modern Tarshish of the 21st century. Further, I explain how it was that Britain fell from her role as Tarshish, so that it became Scripturally necessary that the mantle had to be picked up by another nation (through her abandoning of her most important role as Tarshish, the protector of Israel.)

That is what I’m saying. If you hold to the notion that Britain is Tarshish, you are holding the conclusions of bro. Thomas, while abandoning the exposition of bro. Thomas.

Jim

JimPhillips

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 924
Reply with quote  #52 
Looking this evening, of what I wrote this morning, I realized that I failed to completely document my argument.  Here are the missing data.

I pointed out that bro. Thomas' translation of Isa 18 did not include the term "Ambassadors," but failed to show that translation.  Here it is, from Isa. 17:12-18:7.  The highlighted phrase below replaces the phrase "That sendeth ambassadors by the sea, even in vessels of bulrushes upon the waters,." All the quotes come from Herald 1853, May
Quote:

Hark! A multitude of many peoples making an uproar as the noise of seas. Hark! A tumult among peoples, roaring as a tumult of mighty waters; they rage against peoples like a roar of many waters: but HE shall rebuke him, and he shall flee afar off; and He shall chase him as the chaff of the mountains before the wind, and as stubble before the whirlwind.  Behold also at evening time sudden destruction; and before dawn he is not. This is the portion of our spoilers, and a lot for them who scatter us.

Ho! Land of widely o’ershadowing wings extending from beyond to rivers of Cush; which sendeth by sea whirling things even upon vessels of fleetness on the surface of waters!  Go swiftly, ye fleet messengers, to a nation carried away and oppressed; to a people terrible from this and onward; a nation prostrate and trodden down, whose lands rivers have spoiled.

All the inhabitants of the world, and dwellers of the earth, at the lifting up of an ensign on the mountains, shall tremble, and at the sounding of a trumpet, shall hear. For thus said Jehovah to me, I will be still (yet in my dwelling place I will be without fear) as dry heat impending lightning, as a cloud of dew in the heat of harvest. For before harvest as the perfecting of fruit when sour grapes are ripening, there shall be a blossom: and He will cut (it) off as vine-shoots by pruning hooks, and luxuriant twigs are lopped away. They shall be left together for the carrion-bird of the mountains, and the wild beast of the land; and the bird of prey shall destroy upon it, and every wild beast of the land shall ravin upon it.

At that time a present shall be diligently brought to Jehovah of armies, a people carried away and oppressed even of a people terrible from this (time) and onward; a nation prostrate and trodden down, whose land rivers have spoiled; to the dwelling-place of the NAME of Jehovah of armies, Mount Zion. Herald, May 1853, pg 9-10

 

I stated that in bro. Thomas explanation of his translation, he focused on how this was effecting the prophet in Jerusalem.  This is not concerning South America.

Quote:

The prophet’s exclamation evidently arises from a different cause in each case. In the first, he is like one who catches the sound of some distant uproar, and that he may discern more perfectly what is to do, exclaims with a listening ear, Hark! What is that? Having ascertained the nature of the tumult, he turns to the standers by, and says, “It is the multitude of many peoples making an uproar as the noise of seas.”  There is great sublimity in this. The prophet in Jerusalem upwards of 2500 years ago, being “in the spirit,” hears the loud-sounding uproar of nations, rushing from far distant realms to battle in Israel’s land, in the eventide of Gentile times. “Hark!” says he, “do you hear that roar of mighty waters?” It is the last conflict of the nations ere the dawn of Israel’s glory. I hear them approach the Holy City. Onward, and nearer still they come! The roar is terrible.  The flood no barrier heeds: our land is deluged, and the city falls before it. But O, the majesty and power of Israel’s King! I see him robed in glory and might, and hurling sudden destruction upon the foe! He pursues the enemy, and overtakes them. They cry, but there’s none to save them, even to Jehovah, but he answers them not. How terrible the chace! He beats them small as the dust before the wind, and tramples them in the fury of his power!  Thus doth he tread the winepress alone, and bring down the strength of the destroyer to the earth. Compare Psalm 18: 37-42, with Isaiah 63: 3-6, and the text before us. ibid pg 10

 

I think that is all I left out.

 

Jim

STEVEPHS

Registered:
Posts: 406
Reply with quote  #53 

Thank you bro Jim for your quotes on 'ambassador'.  I came across many of these myself a few days ago and are very interesting indeed.

 

It is also interesting to note that in bro Thomas' further exposition on the verse he says again that it could not have been referring to the US:

 

Quote:

It is neither Austria, Russia, nor Turkey; because they do not correspond with their possessions by sea; neither is it France, or the United States; because their wings do not stretch beyond to the Tigris and Euphrates.

 

 

The more I've looked at articles by the pioneers on Ezekiel 38, the more I realise also that the protecting power of the Jews in the latter days is a combined power of many nations.  He says in the Herald: -

 

Quote:

Now, this maritime power can be no other than Tarshish; for its mission is the same. 

"Surely, the coasts shall trust in me, and the ships of Tarshish foremost (in the front, before any other power) to bring thy sons from far, Ï Zion, their silver and their gold with them, unto the Name of Yahweh thine Elohim, even to the Holy One of Israel, because he hath glorified thee"—Is. lx. 9

 

From these and other considerations we conclude that the power within the limits of the Holy Land, which in the latter days, and previous to the advent of the King of Israel, extends the shield of its protection over the Jews against their spoiler, is that of " Sheba and Dedan, the merchants of Tarshish, and the young lions thereof;" which, planting itself on Edom, Moab, and Amraon, is the latter day return of the last two from captivity, which are then prepared for the manifestation of all demanded by the burdens, and not anciently fulfilled.

 

From this then it must be noted (and bro Thomas repeats this in several places) that if Tarshish is Britain or the US, it will not be their protective force alone that will be in the Med, rather a combined force of Sheba, Dedan, Tarshish and young lion countries.

 

I understand the points you are making bro Jim regarding bro Thomas' consistent criteria, but my point is that the clues or identifiers you mention are a part of the criteria to be used, not the sum total of the criteria to be used.   When you read Destiny of the British Empire, Expo of Daniel, Elpis Israel, Heralds etc, he goes to great lengths to show Britain as the Tarshish, frequently without making any mention at all of the identifiers you repeatedly draw our attention to.   In Elpis Israel he says:

 

Quote:

But what is the lion power of which Ezekiel speaks?  To ascertain this we must direct our attention to the countries named in connection with "the young lions" ... The British power is the lion-power of Sheba.

 

As to Tarshish, there were two countries of that name in the geography of the ancients .... India .... These products point to India as the Eastern Tarshish.

 

But there was also a Tarshish to the north-west of Judea ... it is not known exactly where the western Tarshish was situated.  It was a country, however, not a city, whose "merchants" frequented the Tyrian fairs ... all kinds of riches, with silver, iron, tin, and lead they traded in thy fairs ...  These metals are the products of Britain..."

 

 

My point is that bro Thomas applies Tarshish to Britain in many different ways, not just the three or four tests that bro Jim refers to.   I am not saying that those tests are not relevant, they are significantly relevant, but so are the other identifiers.   We cannot make the case that we agree with his "exposition" if we don't embrace all of it.   We cannot take three of the criteria and throw away a whole lot more.    

 

The other striking thing to me is that Britain in the 1800's and early part of the 1900's "perfectly" fitted all of the prophetical requirements.   In other words, we can tick "all" of the boxes, even down to the British "lion" symbol.  It seems odd to me that you cannot tick all of the boxes when applying it to the US.   Even the 21 point criteria I raised initially cannot all be applied to the US.

 

 

JimPhillips

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 924
Reply with quote  #54 

Hello bro. Steve,

I appreciate your mentioning that the clues I have been listing, are in fact, from bro. Thomas.   

Quote:
I understand the points you are making bro Jim regarding bro Thomas' consistent criteria, but my point is that the clues or identifiers you mention are a part of the criteria to be used, not the sum total of the criteria to be used.


I've been writing on this subject now, for 20 years, bro. Steve, and I don't think your quote is accurate. There are only five clues that bro. Thomas uses to uniquely identify Tarshish. If there were more, I think they would have been brought to my attention by now.

The five clues are:

  • Tarshish must be the greatest Naval nation.
  • Tarshish must be the greatest trading nation.
  • Tarshish must be the richest nation.
  • Tarshish must be the protector of Israel.
  • Tarshish must have young lions

Products like tin, or the state having to reside outside the Holy Land do not uniquely identify Tarshish, anymore than one could say the lack of apes and peacocks disqualify a nation from being Tarshish. This is socratic reasoning. The old:

  • The oak is a big tree.
  • The tree I'm looking at is a big tree, ergo...
  • The tree I'm looking at is an oak.

Well...no, not necessarily. But this really is your argument:

  • The ships of Tarshish carried tin to Tyre.
  • There is (actually was) tin in Britain. ergo...
  • Britain is the ship of Tarshish.

But bro. Thomas points out that tin was available in places other than Britain. He lists Spain as a source of tin, for instance from Tartessus (which he called the island of Tarshish.) So tin carried in a ship is an identifier, but not a unique identifier as to the land of Tarshish.

Now, it is important to Tyre that she receives the vast sum of tin from the world, and it is important that the Ships of Tarshish bring it to her. But Tarshish does not need to be the producer. To this end I note:

Quote:
An econometric model of the world tin economy using a disaggregated supply/demand approach with a market clearing equation for prices is described. Six developing countries, Malaysia, Bolivia, Indonesia, Thailand, Nigeria, and Zaire, produce approximately 70 percent of the world tin output. Consumption of tin is concentrated in developed countries. The United States is the single most important tin consuming country with a 25 percent share of total world consumption.--Source: The World Bank, Documents and Reports


As an aside, this picture is actually more in harmony with the ancient Tyre/Tarshish relationship to tin.  The settlements on the sea of Tarshish to the north of Tyre (that is, the Greek Isles) were slowly subjected to a fairly peaceful migration from the Myceans, from what would today be southern Russia.  The Myceans mined tin in their ancestral home, and brought it to the Minoans, who carried it to Tyre, as the ancient Ships of Tarshish.  Note that the ancient Tarshish did not mine tin, but traded in it, much as the US does today.

Curiously, the Minoan society was destroyed by the great volcano at Thera, which allowed the Mycean/Russian culture to become victorious over the Minoans/Tarshish.  This volcano sunk the Minoan vessels, and destroyed their ports.  Could such an explosion again be the great east wind which destroys the Tarshish fleet and its coasts, allowing the antitypical Myceans/Russians their (this time) short term victory?

But back to your clues.  Most of the 21 clues you mention are similar in nature to the discussion concerning tin.  They are relevant, but fit many nations, and as such, are not uniquely Tarshish. 

But perhaps more important to our discussion is this comment you make:
Quote:

The other striking thing to me is that Britain in the 1800's and early part of the 1900's "perfectly" fitted all of the prophetical requirements.


Why do you think this is relevant?  The Tarshish of bro. Thomas has these characteristics when Russia invades.  That is what makes Armaggedon so spectacular.  The defeat of the greatest naval power of all time, and Israel's most loyal covering of all time, is what makes Israel's position so desparate. 

You say that we must accept all of bro. Thomas' exposition.  Bro. Thomas has no place in his exposition for either an impotent or historical Tarshish.  The battle for Israel is a battle between the world's two giants. 

Again to your point that we must accept all of bro. Thomas' exposition, and you reference his remarks concerning the US not having a position "beyond the rivers of Cush."  How can you harmonize bro. Thomas' statement with what is in existence today?  The US has a great and mighty army in the very region described by the prophet, and in the very spot where bro. Thomas observed in his day, they had no representation of any sort.  Further, the US has a president-elect, Barach Obama, who has promised to escalate the war in that region, by repeating the surge that defeated Iraq, in neighboring Afghanistan.

Would anyone today, with a straight face, make the argument that Britain insisted upon the invasion of Iraq, and convinced its young lions to go along with them?  Or would they not rather argue that the war in Iraq was a war demanded by the US, and the American allies, except Canada, supported her.

Clearly, Canada fell out of line in refusing to back the American Iraq policy.  Has Britain punished Canada for this action?  I'm asking because I don't know the answer.  But the US definitely has.  Ask our brethren who are farmers.  One animal came down with hoof and mouth disease, and the US shut down Canadian agriculture for several years.  It was payback for Iraq, and no one on either side of the border had any questions about it.  The following quote from the Washinton Post would have been quite typical of the connection people made between the US banning Canadian goods, and the lack of Canadian support in Iraq:
Quote:

Bush gave no ground publicly on trade disputes over beef and lumber and received no public commitment of further Canadian help in Iraq. A communique issued Tuesday by the two leaders did not mention Iraq.

"We discussed a number of contentious issues," said Martin, who listed disagreements over Canadian cattle and softwood lumber. "I expressed our frustration."

The prime minister urged an end to American "time delays," saying the U.S. ban on certain Canadian cattle products because of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or mad cow disease, "has been studied to death."

Bush said he had asked for an expedited decision on whether to lift the ban. But a senior administration official, briefing reporters later on condition of anonymity, said a decision on beef was months away and the lumber dispute was "eternal."  


Well, its not that it was to be eternal.  It was to be till this young lion submitted to the dominant male of the pride.  Lions are not subtile beasts.

The US President-elect Obama has already threatened to demand changes in NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement) in which he will demand further concessions from the young lion to the north.  It is clear that the US has every intention of bringing this rebellious lion back into the fold.

Jim
STEVEPHS

Registered:
Posts: 406
Reply with quote  #55 
I have this evening received an email from a brother who has recently viewed the posts on Tarshish.   Thought I'd share his thoughts with you: -
 
Quote:
 
On Tarshish, we have to see an antagonist power to Russia in the last days, which is also a merchant power and has associated with it young lions (former colonial powers), and an alliance with Arab countries anciently called Sheba and Dedan (southern Arabia).  This is all obvious from Ezk.38.13.  Bro Thomas identified this power with Britain (see Elpis Israel Pt 3).  This power would also help the Jews (Is.18), styled the land of overshadowing wings which sendeth ambassadors by the sea in vessels of whirling things (coal or oil fired turbines which came in in the 19th Century in the British navy and merchant vessels, and was a British invention).  History shows that this help to "a nation scattered and peeled" (the Jews), was admininstered by Britian, which then had an empire stretching beyond the rivers of Kush (Nile and Euphrates). 
 
After WW2 Britain lost its martitime power to America (a former colony or 13 colonies represented on the US flag the stars and stripes (13)).  This doesn't alter the scriptural status as seen by Bro Thomas in the 1850's.  Britain still exerts a tremendous influence in world affairs.  It is America's closest ally and with the other commonwealth powers constitutes the King of the South alliance or the Anglo Tarshish allince for the time of the End, and the battle of Armageddon.    
 
Your Berean friend talks of Hilary Clinton and Sarah Palin in terms of the antitypical Sheba but this is guess work.  The British Queen Elizabeth 2, fits the type of the Queen of Sheba, her name means ELI Sheba.  She has an iconic status in the world due to the (providential) longevity of her reign, and will in all probability be the one who submits her crown to Christ at his coming (Pslm 72). 
 
Britain is now building up its navy once again with 2 big carriers and several Type 45 destroyers the most modern warships in the world. 
 
This is briefly how I see it.
 
 
 
broBW

Registered:
Posts: 936
Reply with quote  #56 
bro Steve:

Thank you for your kind post of 11/01/08 at 04:06 PM. I am following this exchange with great interest.

JimPhillips

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 924
Reply with quote  #57 

Thank you bro. Steve, for posting the input you received from your friend.

One thing upon which I agree with the writer completely, is that my remarks vis a vis Senator Hillary Clinton and Governor Sarah Palin were completely speculative in nature. They are clearly labeled as such. The point of this post was to get input on whether or not the prophetic term "daughter of Tyre" required a woman to be in authority at the time of the end. As I stated, I’m not at all convinced this is the case. But if it is the case, then Governor Palin is certainly an interesting woman on the world’s stage. She believes the Bible is literally true, including the Genesis account of creation. She believes that Christ will return to rule the earth in her lifetime. She believes in the sanctity of life. She is absolutely despised by the secularists, both in this country and abroad.

The saying in this country among those who consider themselves politically conservative, is that the US had to go through a disastrous four years of Jimmy Carter to get to Ronald Reagan. It may have to go through four years of Barach Obama to get to Sarah Palin. Whether or not this is true, I can’t even begin to speculate. It appears to me that President-elect Obama is quite capable of fulfilling all that is required of the US at the time of the end.

I would point out that my speculation concerning these American leaders are no less speculative than the writer's reference to Queen Elisabeth. In fact I would argue my speculation is far closer for many reasons, the least of which is the fact that Britain would have to be able to claim the title of Tyre, for Queen Elisabeth to be its daughter. We have discussed the fact that Tarshish has moved across the Mediterranean, and I have shown deductively, that this was the case. There is no need for deductive reasoning pertaining to Tyre. Bro. Thomas names the historical locations of the Tyrian city, and its westward progression.

Secondly, if Christ came tomorrow, would there be enough time left in the life of the 82 year old figure head, to reach the prophetic period where Tyre’s daughter is there with a gift. She must live through whatever time we have remaining, through the resurrection/judgment, and through the Angel’s march till he resides in Jerusalem. This is not a brief period. It would not be unreasonable to imagine this period to extend to forty years.

Finally, what authority would the queen have to bestow the gifts from a British-Tyre upon her? The Queen is iconic, but only in the celebrity sort of way. The British people have removed all power from her. They left her with the trappings of monarchy, but with no authority. How long has it been since the Queen has interjected herself into international affairs?

Pertaining to our Tarshish discussion, your friend has reintroduced arguments we have already dealt with. The writers position is that young lions are colonies, which may be the case, but was not the position of bro. Thomas as I have already demonstrated. Next, the case is made that Tarshish is Britain for historical reasons, but no evidence to support this position is given. Again, the Tarshish of bro. Thomas’ writings was the King of the Sea. This is what makes the Armageddon war so spectacular. The greatest power on earth colliding with the greatest navy ever to set sail. It is what makes Israel’s final position so desperate, as their greatest benefactor and covering shield of all time, is defeated in her defense. This is not a war of what used to be, but collision of giants who are.  

At the end of the short discussion, the writer addresses the British Navy. Some time ago now, I posted this on this web site, from the Daily Telegraph. The first paragraph is quite interesting in demonstrating the difference between Tarshish, and her lions.

Quote:
The total number of ships could be cut from 103 to just 50

Ministers have drawn up confidential proposals to slash the number of ships in the Royal Navy, The Sunday Telegraph can disclose.

The Ministry of Defence has produced a plan to decommission five warships from next April, which would reduce the Navy's capability to the level where it could carry out only "one small-scale operation".

Separate documentation from inside the department suggests that the total number of ships in the Navy and Royal Fleet Auxiliary could fall from the present level of 103 to 76 in 2017 and only 50 in 2027 — a reduction of more than half.

The information has been supplied in an email from a whistleblowing official inside the MoD, who has given details of a row between senior officials in the department and Andy Burnham, the Treasury Chief Secretary, over the allocation of money to the MoD over the next three years.

Britain is not rebuilding her navy. She is modernizing certain aspects of it, and the cost of doing so is much more than she can bear. The result is that she is dismantling her navy to afford a few modern ships.

The aircraft carriers your friend mentioned, are the Queen Elisabeth II, and the Prince of Wales. The QE II is not scheduled for completion till 2014. Construction of the Prince of Wales has not begun. It is expected to be completed by 2016. The vessel the QE II will replace, The Invincible, has already been decommissioned. So Britain sits today with but two small carriers.

What Britain is currently calling aircraft carriers, the US calls "Assault Vessels." These vessels displace around 20,000 metric tons, and carry a small load of vertical or short take off and landing aircraft, with helicopters. Britian has two. The US has 10 such vessels, with another under construction ranging, in size between the Invincible class, and the Queen Elisabeth II class.

The Queen Elisabeth II will be larger than the Invincible Class, displacing around 65,000 metric tons when fully loaded. She was originally designed to be a true deep water carrier, carrying true fighter aircraft like the American carriers, but these plans were discarded due to cost. It will carry only short take off and landing (called STOLV) planes, making it a large and impressive assault vessel, but not a true deep water carrier. These vessels will be fueled with carbon products. This means they must be refueled every seven days. Britain elected against the nuclear powered vehicles which require no refueling, due to cost. Note that this is the kind of concession you make, when you know you are not taking your vessels far away into war zones.

By way of contrast, besides the eleven assault carriers I mentioned, the US currently floats 11 true blue water carriers. A twelfth is under construction. A new class has already been designed, and construction on the first of these will start soon. These all, when loaded, displace around 100,000 metric tons. They carry true fixed winged aircraft, which is the only way to project power into a region. They are all nuclear powered.

Your friend mentioned the six new destroyers. These are the Daring Class vessels. Three have been built. Two are scheduled for launch in 2011, the final in 2012. Besides the three Daring Class in operation, she floats 9 Sheffield Class Destroyers. By way of contrast, the US currently floats 50 destroyers, with ten under construction.

The modern cruiser, or battle cruiser as it is sometimes called, is the vessel that replaced the old battleship. This is the vessel that floats into port to attack a land mass. Britain has none, and plans to build none. The US, by contrast, has 22 such vessels.

I point out these differences for several reasons. First to show that Britain is not serious about rebuilding her navy. She is in fact, declining her navy. Second, my point is that what is being constructed is for the defense of Britain, not because she ever plans to go defend Israel. Finally, I think it is hard for brethren to grasp the gap between the two navys. As you said previous, you felt Britain is the second most powerful navy in the world. That sounds impressive. And, well, yes, maybe she does; but like the rest of the nations of the world except the US, it has only built a navy that can account for its own defense.

In reading the so called experts on the web, they argue that Japan is the second greatest navy in the sea of Japan. Britain is the second greatest navy in the British Channel. Russia has the second greatest navy in the Baltic. But the preeminent navy in all those places, is the US.

I came across this little factoid, which may help put all this in perspective. The US has 73 acres of flight deck on the ocean today. The rest of the world combined, has 15.

Jim

STEVEPHS

Registered:
Posts: 406
Reply with quote  #58 
Quote:

I came across this little factoid, which may help put all this in perspective. The US has 73 acres of flight deck on the ocean today. The rest of the world combined, has 15.


Thanks bro Jim for your latest. 

Out of interest, do you know why many other avid Bro Thomas students such as bro Bud Banter and Bro Dale Lee agree with bro Growcott that Britain remains the Tarshish of prophecy?  

Another question I have is this.   The fact that the US currently has a navy five times greater than the rest of the world put together according to what you quote, which you make the case from the writings of bro Thomas as you interpret and understand them, puts America as the Lion power of Tarshish, why are Sheba, Dedan and the young lions in the region of the med with her?   If her might is so great in the latter days, and she maintained this ratio of power and capability, what need would there be for support?

Another point, if the case is as simple as "Tarshish = richest, greatest etc", why did bro Thomas go to such great lengths in Elpis Israel and his other books to show the Tarshish of Scripture?  

Bro Steve
JimPhillips

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 924
Reply with quote  #59 
Hello bro. Steve,

Some of these are hard questions, and not particularly related to the subject before us.  But I will try to answer them as best as I can.
Quote:

Out of interest, do you know why many other avid Bro Thomas students such as bro Bud Banter and Bro Dale Lee agree with bro Growcott that Britain remains the Tarshish of prophecy? 

No, I don't.  I keep hoping eventually someone will explain it in such a manner as will withstand cross examination.  I think it would be most unfair for me to speculate on why a brother believes the things he does related to prophesy.  This would be particularly true of bro. Bud Banta, whose funeral I attended yesterday.  He and I loved each other till his death, though we never agreed on this.  He can no longer defend himself, and I will never speculate on what may have been his motive.  Also, the projection of motive would make fair evaluation of the views I hear, impossible.

Bro. Bud asked me to exhort in his place last Sunday in Lampasas, so the last exhortation he heard from the platform was taken from Daniel 4 and mostly focused on the fact that the return of Christ is at the door.  It turned out to be very true for him.  May it be the same for us.

At the cemetery where bro Bud was laid to rest, it was noted that the local towns people were concerned that the little graveyard was being filled up by Christadelphians.  I told them that they should tell the townsfolk not worry.  We won't be needing it much longer, so they can have it back, soon.

Quote:

The fact that the US currently has a navy five times greater than the rest of the world put together according to what you quote,...


Perhaps I haven't been as clear as I should be.  The "five times" refers to the amount of acreage in air craft carrier deck, the US holds over the rest of the world.  The Air Craft carrier is the principle vessel by which power is projected.  This figure shows that the US built carriers with the intention of projecting its power on the world. 

Note in bro. Thomas' exposition that the whirling or whizzing things, were on the fleet vessels.  Bro. Thomas felt this referred to the power drives of the steamers, which later brethren modified to the propellers.  Might these be the planes themselves, on the fleet vessels, the prophet saw?

But the US navy is not five times larger than the rest of the world combined.  It is actually the same size as the rest of the whole world combined.  Roughly 50% of all the world's military expenditure, is made by the US.  This is the same figure as would have been true for Britain in the second half of the 19th Century.

Quote:
...which you make the case from the writings of bro Thomas as you interpret and understand them, puts America as the Lion power of Tarshish, why are Sheba, Dedan and the young lions in the region of the med with her?   If her might is so great in the latter days, and she maintained this ratio of power and capability, what need would there be for support?


Of course first and foremost, the things that happen, occur because the hand of God wills them to be so.  God rules in the kingdom of men, and all things which happen, happen because God directs them.

I think we are close enough to the time of the end, to speculate further, as how God caused the things to be.  The Shi'ite Moslems in the north, are in religious war with the Sunni (including the Wahhabi sect  of Sunni) of the south.  The northern states are more populous, and generally speaking more powerful.  This has caused the southern states of Sheba and Dedan to seek an alliance to protect them from the Northern Arab States.

The US, who has viewed their principle job in the world since becoming Tarshish to be the protection of Israel, embraced the chance to intervene between these hostile Arab states.  They forced peace treaties on Sheba and Dedan with Israel, as the price of taking up positions of force against the Northern Arab states.  Now they have awarded Sheba and Dedan with great armaments, and have done so with the blessings of Jerusalem.  Any observer from the world who says they could have foreseen this, is lying.  But Christadlephians who recognize the US as Tarshish, foresaw it.

Finding it politically inconvenient to go to the battle alone, the US has demanded that her young lions obey the call to battle, bringing Britain and Australia into the fight, almost getting India to commit (who I believe shortly will commit, as US/Pakistan relations deteriorate under President-elect Obama who has threatened war on Pakistan for their hiding of Osama Bin Laden) and punishing the rebellious lion in Canada.

There is much to this story yet to be written and observed.  I would speculate that in the true preparation for Armageddon, the US and Britain will stand together, politically estranged from the rest of the world.  If I were to speculate the reason for this, I would speculate that US and Britain (and probably India) will come out of the world wide recession we are entering faster, and in much better shape than the world, enlisting the hatred of the world.

Quote:
Another point, if the case is as simple as "Tarshish = richest, greatest etc", why did bro Thomas go to such great lengths in Elpis Israel and his other books to show the Tarshish of Scripture? 
 

I must not understand the question.  That Tarshish had to be the "richest, greatest etc.", is the argument bro. Thomas made in Elpis Israel and his other books to show the Tarshish of Scripture.  I'm not sure I would classify it as "such great lengths."  It was really a pretty simple argument.  He exhibited the characteristics of ancient Tyre/Tarshish, and transposed them onto the nation that shall have those identical characteristics at the time of the end.

In doing so, he warned his generation that there is a Tyre/Tarshish state extant, and that they should be ready for Christ's return.  I do the same thing.

Jim
broBW

Registered:
Posts: 936
Reply with quote  #60 
Thank you, bro Steve:

One thought on the following excerpt from your post of 11/01/08 at 04:06 PM:

Quote:
In other fellowships, the same group of American-Tarshish supporters are the same group who have evolved the idea that the Arabs are the people to conquer Israel at the time of the end!   Why?   Because they are aligning present day events and economic positions with how things will unfold prior to Armageddon. -bro Steve


This, in my view, is non-sequitur. Because a brother believes latter-day Tarshish to be the USA, it does not necessarily follow that he, consequently, will fall into the Arab error as appears to be the intimation.  None of the brethren whom I know personally, who believe the American-Tarshish connection, also believe in the Arab theory - a notion born decades ago through the writings of HA Whittaker in his books, The Time of the End and The Revelation: A Biblical Approach - books that are rejected by us all.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you are saying. If so, a clarification would be appreciated.


Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.