"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 5 of 12     «   Prev   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   Next   »
STEVEPHS

Registered:
Posts: 406
Reply with quote  #61 
Bro Thomas' view of America in the Herald 1853 is interesting in relation to the subject under consideration: -

Quote:

America is a 'new world' forming no part of the prophetic earth, which belongs exclusively to the old.   The world known to the ancients is the theatre on which is to be displayed the grand and marvellous events of the latter days which are to ultimate in bringing Europe, Asia, America etc in absolute subjection to the king of Israel.   The general declaration that "he shall be King over the whole earth," by implication foretells the conversion of these United States of North America into regal provinces of his Empire;  the consequent abolition of Republicanism, which is merely a provisional and temporary element of the Gentile eoonomy  —Editor of the Herald.
 
 

JimPhillips

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 924
Reply with quote  #62 

I'd guess this would be quite a stumbling block to those in the Wayfarers with the limited Kingdom theories.  To the rest of us, it is completely in harmony with bro. Thomas' teachings.

broBW

Registered:
Posts: 936
Reply with quote  #63 
The Prophetic Earth

In 1853 the Doctor writes:


Quote:
America is a 'new world' forming no part of the prophetic earth, which belongs exclusively to the old.   The world known to the ancients is the theatre on which is to be displayed the grand and marvellous events of the latter days which are to ultimate in bringing Europe, Asia, America etc in absolute subjection to the king of Israel.   The general declaration that "he shall be King over the whole earth," by implication foretells the conversion of these United States of North America into regal provinces of his Empire;  the consequent abolition of Republicanism, which is merely a provisional and temporary element of the Gentile economy  — The Herald 1853.


Later, in 1858 he writes:

Quote:

"It is then added as a contemporary event: ' Thou breakest the ships of Tarshish with an East wind'—(Ps xlvhi. 7). This implies' that the ships broken and scattered are a fleet in the Mediterranean, which would be exposed to a hurricane from the East. This will doubtless be the British Mediterranean fleet co-operating with the land forces against the Russian armies in the Holy Land. The pride of Britain, and probably of America, in maritime alliance with her against the common enemy of Constitutional government and liberty, will be laid low by the wreck of the most powerful and magnificent fleet that ever floated upon the Sea of Tarshish." "The Destiny of the British Empire," (The Herald 1858)


Questions: Five years after excluding the USA from the prophetical earth, does brother Thomas not include her "probably" in the prophetical earth by placing the American fleet in maritime alliance with the UK? Clearly, he has the UK as Tarshish. There is no doubt about that. However, by 1858 does he not, at least by implication,  have the USA operating as a young lion upon the prophetical earth? I realize that he does not declare here that the USA is a young lion. However, when he states that she is in maritime alliance with the UK the question has to be asked: In alliance for what purpose? and what is the time frame and extent of this partnership if not for the fulfillment of Ezekiel 38:13?
 
JimPhillips

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 924
Reply with quote  #64 
I don't know if it was intimated by bro. Steve, that this is what bro. Thomas meant, or not.  I certainly didn't take it that way. 
 
America, the land, is not a part of the prophetic earth.  I fully agree with that statement.  But this has nothing to do with whether or not the US is involved in the war in the Middle East at the time of the end. The Middle East is a part of the prophetic earth.  The nations, America included, will descend upon it, to contest for it.
 
America, the land, will be brought under the crown of Christ along with the rest of the world, as Jerusalem becomes the capital of the whole earth, not just the prophetic earth.  That is the point of bro. Thomas' interjection into the Colonel's article, from which bro. Steve quotes.
 
In 1853, there was a curious article called "The Coming Struggle."  An anonymous man had taken Elpis Israel and rewritten it to explain what was going to occur over the next 15 years, which was the time frame in which he saw the return of Christ.  Apparently the endeavor was very successful, its sales exceeding 73,000 pounds, sterling.
 
Being it was based upon his work, bro. Thomas rewrote the little work for his magazine, correcting the person where necessary.  He made 312 corrections to the 32 page pamphlet.  But he let this stand:
 

Quote:

Talk of America and Britain going to war! the thing is incredible; nature forbids it, and the Bible forbids it, too. When they do fight it will be on one side, and against a common foe; but they have a far different battle to fight in these coming years, than the sword or cannon can accomplish. The great moral contest of spiritual freedom and social morality must be sustained, and the cause must unite them and us in a hearty bond of brotherhood. A people must be presented to the Lord, that his domain may be populated when the time to establish the kingdom shall come; and Britain with her sons is called on to cherish and protect them.--Herald September 1853, pg 11. 

 

Hence any notion that bro. Thomas did not foresee any American participation in the time of the end, even in 1853, would not be accurate.  The anonymous writer spoke of the Old Lion of England, with her two stalwart sons, the US and Australia at its side.  Australia also, would not be a part of the prophetic earth, but bro. Thomas did not rule them out as a participant with Britain, at the end.

STEVEPHS

Registered:
Posts: 406
Reply with quote  #65 
Hi bro Bob, and thanks for your question:

Quote:
  Questions: Five years after excluding the USA from the prophetical earth, does brother Thomas not include her "probably" in the prophetical earth by placing the American fleet in maritime alliance with the UK?


There is a difference between what is prophetically predicted and what will probably happen, wouldn't you agree?    Note that bro Thomas does not declare that he has changed his mind, or altered his position, merely that the US will probably be aligned to Tarshish at the time of the end.  

Bro Steve
broBW

Registered:
Posts: 936
Reply with quote  #66 
Quote:
There is a difference between what is prophetically predicted and what will probably happen, wouldn't you agree?    Note that bro Thomas does not declare that he has changed his mind, or altered his position, merely that the US will probably be aligned to Tarshish at the time of the end.   -bro Steve


Thank you, brother Steve.  So, if I follow you, the USA has no direct role in the fulfillment of Ezekiel 38:13 - that her part, if any, would be incidental. Is this correct?
STEVEPHS

Registered:
Posts: 406
Reply with quote  #67 
The following is taken from the Herald 1858 by Bro Thomas: -
 
Quote:

.. "Sheba and Dedan, and the Merchants of Tarshish, with all the young lions thereof." This points out the countries in the east where the power is to be sought for; it also indicates the character of the power; and where in the north it is to be found. It is a merchant power like that of Tyre, "whose merchants were princes, and her traders the honorable of the earth." "The young lions of Tarshish, Dedan, and Shcba," or " thereof," is a phrase which informs us that the power established in those lands is represented by a Lion. This is the symbol of the Tarshish power in the latter days, as the Frog is of the French, or the Eagle of Austria. We look then to Sheba or Aden, and to Tarshish or India, and inquire "What is the symbol of the power in the ascendant there ?" The answer is " a Lion"—the Lion-power of England, or the Lion of the north.

 

Bro Thomas consistently uses a range of identifiers to indentify the Tarshish power of the latter days, to include, geographical position, historical trading position, producer of tin and the Lion symbol of England.  The following is a picture of a huge Lion Statue in Trafalgar Square in London.

 

Trafalgar Square Lion, London

 

 

STEVEPHS

Registered:
Posts: 406
Reply with quote  #68 
Thank you bro Bob for another question:-

Quote:
So, if I follow you, the USA has no direct role in the fulfillment of Ezekiel 38:13 - that her part, if any, would be incidental. Is this correct?


In at least two places in his writings bro Thomas says that America could not be Tarshish.   He further says in the last article I referenced that America was not part of the old prophetical world.

However, bro Thomas says on more than one occasion that America will be an ally of Britain at the time of the end.   I personally believe that Australia and Canada are more fitting "young lions" in terms of them once being a part of the commonwealth and the term "young lions" fitting in terms of them gaining independance from the mother lion last century.  We know that a young lion is a powerful, strong and virile creature, who has been taught by its mother to hunt and devour and so they learn to become independant.   On this basis, it seems fitting that America should be considered a young lion too, as America is one of Britain's closest allies, certainly today.  

It should be noted too, that bro Thomas frequently draws out attention to Ezekiel 38 with reference to "Sheba, Dedan, the merchants of Tarshish and the young lions thereof" being a combined mighty force.   To my mind, the prophecy calls for a 'combined' might.  The prophet does not just refer to Tarshish, rather Sheba, Dedan and the young lions as well.  


STEVEPHS

Registered:
Posts: 406
Reply with quote  #69 
In his remarks, bro Jim consistently makes the claim that there are four or five consistent unique identifiers (greatest naval power, greatest merchant nation, richest nation and protector of Israel) and it is virtually these alone which identify the "Tarshish" power.    I have made the point here that there are a range of identifiers bro Thomas uses.   In section 3 of Elpis Israel, having spent several pages identifying the ancient countries mentioned in Ezekiel 38 which are with Russia at the time of the end, he turns his attention to Tarshish.    If bro Jim's criteria was accurate, and this is the whole thrust of bro Jim's argument, then surely we could expect bro Thomas to turn his attention immediately to these identifiers when asking the question 
 
Quote:

But what is the lion-power of which Ezekiel speaks?"  

 
Instead of turning his attention to the greatest, richest etc, he says:
 
Quote:

To ascertain this we must direct our attention to the countries named in connection with "the young lions.

 
The quote says  (and please note the indentifiers one through three): -
 
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."  (Identifier no. 1) Of these, Sheba and Dedan are districts of Arabia. The men of Dedan are in the list given by Ezekiel of the traders in the Tynan fairs. The Dedanim carried thither the ivory and ebony which they procured from "the many isles" to the eastward, and "precious clothes for chariots." Sheba carried the "chief of all spices, precious stones, and gold." Dedan and Sheba were those parts of Arabia which lay convenient to the ivory, gold, precious stones, and spice countries of Africa and India. The Sultan of Muscat now rules the country of Dedan; while the British have planted their standard on the soil of Sheba, at Aden, the Gibraltar of the Red Sea, and key of Egypt. Victoria may therefore be said to be the Queen of Sheba, who may possibly live to lay her crown and treasures at the feet of the "greater than Solomon," and to fall back into the ranks of "the common people;" and, if not a prisoner of State (Psa. 149:8), to sink at least into an undistinguished member of the community. The British power, then, is the lion-power of Sheba.   As to Tarshish, there were two countries of that name in the geography of the ancients. Jehoshaphat built ships at Eziongeber, a port of the Red Sea, that they might sail thence to Tarshish. Now it will be seen by the map that they could only sail southward towards the straits of Babelmandeb, from which they might then steer east, or north for India. As they did not sail by compass in those days, but coastwise, they would creep round the coast of Arabia, and so make for Hindustan. They might have sailed southward again along the coast of Africa instead of to India; but it is not likely they did, as the commerce of the time was with the civilized world, and not the savage ...

 

...But there was also a Tarshish to the north west of Judea. This appears in the case of Jonah, who embarked at Joppa, now Jaffa, on the  Mediterranean, to flee unto Tarshish from the presence of the  Lord." It is evident he must have sailed westward. It is not exactly known where the western Tarshish was situated.  It was a country, however, not a city, whose "merchants" frequented the lyrian fairs.  Addressing Tyre, the prophet says, 'Tarshish was thy merchant by reason of the multitude of all kinds of riches; with silver, iron, tin, and lead, they traded in thy fairs." These metals are the products of Britain (identifier no. 2), celebrated by the Phoenicians as Baratanac, or "the land of tin," as some construe it.  The merchandise of the northern Tarshish, and of the eastern, identifies Britain and India with the two countries of that name; and Sheba and Tarshish in the prophecy of Gogue are manifestly indicative of the Lion-power of the Anglo-Indian empire.   But, in corroboration of this, I remark further, that the lion-power is represented also as a merchant power (idenifier no. 3), in the words, "the Merchants of Tarshish shall say unto Gogue." Having ascertained the geography of Tarshish, it is easy to answer the question, Who are its merchants? This inquiry will admit of but one answer, namely, the British East India Company, which is both the merchant and ruler of the elephant-tooth country of the east. But the association of "the young lions of Tarshish" with the ''merchants of Tarshish," makes this still more obvious; for it represents the peculiar constitution of the Anglo-Indian government. As everyone knows, this government is neither purely a merchant-sovereignty, nor a purely imperial one like that of Canada, but a combination of the two. The Honorable Company has no power in Canada, but, with its imperial partner, the firm is omnipotent in India. Now the imperial member is represented in the prophet by "young lions:" that is, the lion is chosen to represent the imperial British power, as the Ram and the Goat, the self-chosen emblems of the nations, were adopted to symbolize that of the Persians and Macedonians.


 
It is very clear to me that bro Thomas uses a wide range of identifiers to mark out "Tarshish of the latter days".    Bro Thomas writes pages of material in Elpis Israel, Exposition of Daniel, Eureka, Heralds etc showing us how to indentify Tarshish and in these writiings he dedicates considerably more pages to showing how the ancient world, geography, land of tin, Lion symbol, historical trading ties etc etc are there as clear identification markers for us than he does on showing how the greatest naval, greatest merchant power etc are the unique identifiers referred to by bro Jim.    
 
Please note above all else, that he not only consistently identifies Britain with Tarshish using these wide range of identifiers, but he also specifically says in two instances that America could not be Tarshish, and in a third, that America was not part of the old world upon which prophecy rests.  
 
How strange it would be that 99% of the nations could be indentified in prophecy for 1500 years or more concerning the approaching crisis, with the exception of one.   This means that some of the prophets themseves would have been able to identify the geographical territories mapped out, with the exception of the US, a nation born circa 400 years ago, and whose power has only played a significant role in the world in the last 60 years.

 
Bro Steve

broBW

Registered:
Posts: 936
Reply with quote  #70 
Thank you, bro Steve. I want to be certain that I am understanding you correctly. Your view is that the USA is one of the "young lions." Yes?
STEVEPHS

Registered:
Posts: 406
Reply with quote  #71 
Hi bro Bob.
 
In reference to your question:
 
Quote:

I want to be certain that I am understanding you correctly. Your view is that the USA is one of the "young lions." Yes?

 

my reply was:

 

Quote:

On this basis, it seems fitting that America should be considered a young lion too, as America is one of Britain's closest allies, certainly today.  

 

Just to be clear, it is my understanding of bro Thomas' writings that he believed that there would be a close alliance, a close relationship, between Tarshish and America in the time of the end.   Clearly, this was Roberts' view and bro Growcott's too.   So yes, I believe America is one of the young lions.

 

Bro Thomas says in the Herald 1852:

 

Quote:

This partition, however, will not be permanent. The three parts will be reduced continently to two. Britain will lose her imperial ally with all his conquests of the third part, with perhaps a small exception besides the Roman Arabia. France and the rest of the ten kingdoms become Dragonic Horns; and Britain is left to carry on the war as she best can. She will certainly lose Egypt, Palestine, and Syria; also Libya and Ethiopia, which are to be at the steps of the king of the north. The ambition of Russia and Austria will be to possess themselves of the “sacred localities” of Israel’s land, and to overthrow Britain. Their fury will be great—Daniel 11: 44, but though they will take possession of Jerusalem they will find it “a burdensome stone,” and “a cup of trembling”—Zechariah 12: 2-3. Their hosts will be discomfited and cut to pieces, so that only “one sixth part” shall escape from the land to tell the news of their irreparable defeat—Ezekiel 39: 2. Their hatred of Israel and the Tarshish power will be their ruin. Lured on by the retreat of the British from Egypt and Syria, the Imperialists will flatter themselves that the East will soon be theirs without a rival! But they know not the thoughts of God. In their case pride will assuredly precede a fall—even the fall of the Imperial Image on the mountains of Israel’s land—Ezekiel 39: 4; Daniel 2: 45; 11: 45; 8: 25.

 

Politicals in this country imagine that Britain will be overthrown by the Continental League of European despots, unless aided by the United States in the approaching contest. This is a great mistake. The British power, old as it is, will endure as long as this Confederacy. Britain cannot fall until her mission is accomplished. Energised of God, she has withstood the world in arms, and will doit again. She has wealth enough, and men will not be wanting. She will gain many victories, and experience many defeats; still she will carry on the war until Christ appears to conquer for God, and for himself and people. We rather think that the policy of the Union will change. Kosshuth will convert the people who are fond of “glory,” and they will choose an intervention policy which their “servants” must carry out. It is quite possible, therefore, that an alliance will be formed, as much desired by America as Britain. Be that as it may, Christ will judge them both, and that power will fare the best which yields most promptly to his commands, and shows the most favour to his people Israel.

 

 

Bro Steve

broBW

Registered:
Posts: 936
Reply with quote  #72 
bro Steve:

Thank you for taking the time to go through this teaching point-by-point, and for supplying needed clarifications. Thanks to bro Jim as well. For some of us, this is one of the more difficult areas of the Word to understand, and I'm sure brethren and sisters are appreciative of the insight you brethren have provided on both views.




JimPhillips

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 924
Reply with quote  #73 

Thank you for your thoughts, bro. Steve.

I do not deny there are other identifiers for Tarshish used by bro. Thomas, than the five I have listed. The point I make, is that the five I have listed are "unique" identifiers. That it, they can only refer to one nation/city. The other identifiers, such as the very few you mention, have many possible conclusions. The United States is easily (and in fact, today, uniquely) included in all the identifiers you list from bro. Thomas. Britain cannot be considered in any of the identifiers I list from bro. Thomas. Can you not see this difference? Lets look at the three you list.

Quote:
1. "To ascertain this we must direct our attention to the countries named in connection with "the young lions." (Identifier no. 1) Of these, Sheba and Dedan are districts of Arabia. The men of Dedan are in the list given by Ezekiel of the traders in the Tynan fairs."

Bro. Thomas made the case that in his day, the British Standard flew over Sheba. Now, can you make the case that today, the British Standard flies over Sheba? It is not hard to argue that it is the American Standard that now unfurls in the Shebean sky, because there is a huge American military base in Sheba. Twice in the last 14 years, the existence of Sheba was threatened, and the US intervened on her behalf. Sheba owes its very existence to the US, and the US has armed her to the teeth. The US also has several naval bases in Sheba, and she has as many major war vessels surrounding Sheba, as Britain has war vessels. And the US exacted a price from Sheba, that she make peace with Israel; and she made peace. Now, I await your proof that Sheba is dependent on Britain, subservient to Britain, or even is aware that Britain exists.

Quote:
2. Addressing Tyre, the prophet says, 'Tarshish was thy merchant by reason of the multitude of all kinds of riches; with silver, iron, tin, and lead, they traded in thy fairs." These metals are the products of Britain (identifier no. 2), celebrated by the Phoenicians as Baratanac, or "the land of tin," as some construe it. The merchandise of the northern Tarshish, and of the eastern, identifies Britain and India with the two countries of that name; and Sheba and Tarshish in the prophecy of Gogue are manifestly indicative of the Lion-power of the Anglo-Indian empire.

You have missed the identifier here, and gone to the conclusion. The identifier is "Tarshish was thy merchant by reason of the multitude of all kinds of riches, with silver, iron, tin and lead, they traded in thy fairs." The conclusion was that the metals are products of Britain. You have the question reversed. And I have pointed out many times (and you have never disputed to me) that bro. Thomas identified many nations around the Mediterranean which dealt in tin. Britain, certainly among them. And America today, is the greatest trader in tin, as I have already exhibited to you, and which you have not refuted.

Quote:
3. ...remark further, that the lion-power is represented also as a merchant power (idenifier no. 3), in the words, "the Merchants of Tarshish shall say unto Gogue." Having ascertained the geography of Tarshish, it is easy to answer the question, Who are its merchants? This inquiry will admit of but one answer, namely, the British East India Company, which is both the merchant and ruler of the elephant-tooth country of the east. But the association of "the young lions of Tarshish" with the ''merchants of Tarshish," makes this still more obvious; for it represents the peculiar constitution of the Anglo-Indian government. As everyone knows, this government is neither purely a merchant-sovereignty, nor a purely imperial one like that of Canada, but a combination of the two. The Honorable Company has no power in Canada, but, with its imperial partner, the firm is omnipotent in India. Now the imperial member is represented in the prophet by "young lions:" that is, the lion is chosen to represent the imperial British power,

So, here we have the lion power identified as a merchant power. I agree. But this is not a unique identifier, except as it is included in the unique identifier, that the Tarshish power shall be the greatest trading nation. Certainly, you are not defending the notion that the Eastern Tarshish was, as bro. Thomas said, the British East India Company, are you?" This company was dissolved shortly after bro. Thomas’ death (1874) and therefore can in no way be regarded as Tarshish, or a young lion.

Is this not powerful evidence that your arguments concerning the historical position of Tarshish cannot be sustained? There is no historical relationship between Britain and India, to which bro. Thomas could possibly be referring. Nor does bro. Thomas allege one. He is in reference to this company which existed briefly as a shining star in his day.

If this were not the case, you would be able to explain to me how this company has anything to do with the plus 1500 years you argue for, when it had no existence prior to the 1600s? And in fact, the relationship for which bro. Thomas refers (of a merchant and civil power) did not even exist till 1773. So in effect, it was an historical blurb of 101 years. Yet because bro. Thomas was focused on Christ’s return in his lifetime, and because the British East India was a powerful entity in his lifetime, he saw this company for that brief moment, as relevant to the prophesy.

This is, and always will be the flaw in the "England is Tarshish" theory. To sustain that argument, one must somehow make the argument that bro. Thomas is speaking historically, when it is crystal clear he is in reference to current events. And that argument cannot be made, because his own historical references contradict the idea that Britain is the historical Tarshish, as I have abundantly exhibited.

Quote:
Please note above all else, that he not only consistently identifies Britain with Tarshish using these wide range of identifiers, but he also specifically says in two instances that America could not be Tarshish, and in a third, that America was not part of the old world upon which prophecy rests.

This is not disputed. The basis for the reasoning is disputed. You ignore the basis for the reasoning entirely, and cling to the conclusion. Why? He identified Britain as Tarshish because Britain fit all (not just some,) of the clues he developed from Scripture, in his lifetime. Your argument is that we should dispense with his Scriptural reasoning and Scripturally derived clues, and yet cling to his conclusions which are now contradicted by the very clues he developed.

You note that he said twice that America cannot be Tarshish. I pointed out to you that on the basis of the first, he completely changed his translation and never brought that translation forward again. You remarked that this was interesting. To sustain the second, bro. Thomas said America had no presence "beyond the rivers of Cush." I asked if you thought bro. Thomas would make that argument today, with an American army sitting in the very area indicated by the Prophet? You have not answered.

On the third, point, you simply read what bro. Thomas was talking about wrong. I recommend rereading the Colonel’s article, and how bro. Thomas’ comment fits into that place, and you will see the intent.

Quote:
How strange it would be that 99% of the nations could be identified in prophecy for 1500 years or more concerning the approaching crisis, with the exception of one.

Do you not remember bro. Roberts’ note that I quoted to you concerning Babylon? Babylon has moved. In fact lots of the nations have moved. Failure to recognize this is what has led those who walk by sight and not by faith, to focus on the Arabs, such as you suggested I was doing earlier. Magog and Gomer specifically have moved.

Quote:
This means that some of the prophets themselves would have been able to identify the geographical territories mapped out, with the exception of the US, a nation born circa 400 years ago, and whose power has only played a significant role in the world in the last 60 years.

Those same prophets could not have identified Britain either. Surely you do not forget that fundamental to the argument that Britain was the ancient Tarshish, in spite of the lack of historical data that Britain was ever considered Tarshish by anyone, is the notion that the Phoenicians kept the location of Tarshish a hidden secret.

But the prophets did know who Tarshish was. They were the greatest naval power on the Mediterranean, the greatest trading nation on the Mediterranean, and Israel’s protector.

Jim

JimPhillips

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 924
Reply with quote  #74 
Hello bro. Bob,

Quote:

For some of us, this is one of the more difficult areas of the Word to understand,


What do you think it is which makes this subject difficult?  It seems to me you have only two real options. 

  • Either you accept the conclusions of bro. Thomas, and reject the exposition. 
  • Or you accept the exposition and reject the conclusion. 
Bro. Steve is making a valiant effort to try and find some middle ground.  He has determined to accept the conclusion, so we are in the midst of a discussion whereby he is trying to exhibit which part of bro. Thomas' exposition we are to accept, and which part we are to reject, and why.  

I think his next argument is going towards the word counts surrounding the various identifiers.  I hope he is doing the research, because the work sounds tedious to me.  And I think "Tarshish is the defender of Israel," will win the word count battle anyway.  It takes lots of words to explain Isa. 18, not because the matter is difficult, but because the KJ translators made such a mess of the chapter to start with.

But at the end of this discussion, the situation will remain the same.   He will have to reject the five most identifiable features of the latter day Tarshish in bro. Thomas' exposition, to hold to bro. Thomas' conclusion.  

Or, he will have to conclude that we are not in the latter days, and something must happen for Britain to rebuild her navy and economy, as distinct and exceptional from the world.  Certainly Prime Minister Gordon Brown's suggestion yesterday for a universal tax policy was not a good step in that direction. 

So again, what makes this subject difficult?

Jim

broBW

Registered:
Posts: 936
Reply with quote  #75 
Quote:
What do you think it is which makes this subject difficult? - bro Jim


Good morning, bro Jim:

Thank you for the question.

Some of us do better in the "meat of the word" areas than others. A growth process commences at baptism. A few of us will never get much beyond the first principles simply because we haven't the capacity to do so. However, "to whom much is given, much is required." Those of us who have the potential to grow into the deeper areas of the Word must do so - but even then we may will struggle trying to grasp certain teachings, especially the minutia.

What is called for is patient education - such as we have seen here - to guide those of us who are still learning in this particular area. Both you and bro Steve have presented very good cases. Where such has been done there is opportunity for education and growth.

At the outset, I stated that either view is satisfactory because the all- important latter day alignment of nations remains intact. I still believe this. However, both you and Steve have reminded us all of things in the Scriptures and in brother Thomas' exposition that we may have forgotten. The mind is, indeed, a leaky vessel. Even though I can live with either view, given this proper education I am weighing which is more solid and, Lord willing,  will proceed accordingly.

99.9% of the time, though study,  I will endorse brother Thomas' conclusions. What, therefore,  makes the subject difficult? For me, the challenge is one brother staying almost entirely with brother Thomas as written, while the other carries the Doctor's exegesis to a logical present-day application. Those of you who are presently up to speed on the Tyre-Tarshish teaching may consider it to be somewhat elementary.  This is not a criticism. It is completely understandable. However, for those of us who are still grappling with the pro and cons, such will continue to prompt questions and provide much to chew on.


Again, thanks to you and Steve for this helpful exchange.


Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation: