Davvers

All

 

I have been given a subject in which I am asked to demonstrate as 'fact' that Britain is mentioned in the Bible.  I will be making it clear that identification of names in prophecy with nations today should never be considered as 'fact'. However, I've always struggled to convince myself that there is enough evidence to clearly identify Tarshish with Britain.

 

At a stretch I can get as far as seeing Tarshish as a naval power that verbally resists a northern invader but doesn't have the ability to stop it (based on Ezek 38), in the current climate that might be US and allies.

 

I've got some decent commentaries (Word, NICOT, Expositors) and Anchor Bible dictionary none of which present anything conclusive. Can anyone point me in the direction of any good Christadelphian or non-Christadelphian resources on this?

 

[Note: I've also posted this query on the Berea forum]

 

Ta

D

Has anyone done any research on the 5 kings and the 4 kings of Genesis 14 whose war resulted in Lot's captivity and rescue by Abram? Namely:

 

Amraphel (Shinar)

Arioch (Ellasar)

Chedorlaomer (Elam)

Tidal (Goiim)

 

v

 

Bera (Sodom)

Birsha (Gomorrah)

Shinab (Admah)

Shemeber (Zeboiim)

King of Zoar.

 

In particular info on the regions, historical confirmation of the relevant powers etc.  I'm pursuing investigation into some suggestions that they are names picked up from Babylonian history and added to the account during the exile/restoration period, possibly to emphasise the relevance of the Abram/Lot events to those returning from Babylon - not sure about it all yet, but if someone has some pre-canned work on it I will be more than willing to borrow it!

 

D

Looking into the background to the sign given to Ahaz in Isaiah 7:11-14 and I came across this in The Christadelphian 1957 by a certain H. Whittaker.

MATT. 1 : 23 : IS ISA. 7 : 14 REALLY A PROPHECY OF THE VIRGIN BIRTH?

a. Objections are usually that the Hebrew word there translated “virgin” simply means “a young woman of marriageable age”; and that the context of Isaiah 7 : 14 is purely historical, and has nothing whatever to do with Christ: how, it is asked, could the birth of a child 700 years later be in any sense a sign of divine help to desperate Ahaz faced with threat of invasion?

b. The first of these points need not be argued against, even though the truth of the statement is by no means sure. It may, however, be observed that the Septuagint translators some 150 or more years before Christ chose the Greek word for virgin to represent the Hebrew word in Isa. 7 : 14, although they can have had little idea of this prophecy relating to Messiah. There seems to have been no expectation amongst the Jews that Messiah would be born of a virgin.

c. The second point is met in the first instance by agreeing that Isaiah’s words had a local and immediate reference to Ahaz’ problem, with a fuller Messianic significance (the real significance) in days to come. This is a normal feature of Old Testament prophecy.

d. But the main point to be insisted on is that the context of the prophecy requires a Messianic application. Faithless Ahaz, fearful for the safety of his kingdom, should have rested in confidence on God’s promise to David (2 Sam. 7). Hence the implied rebuke in Isaiah’s words: “Hear ye now, O house of David”. More pointedly still, Isaiah bade the king ask a sign, concerning the promised Messiah! This is the idiomatic meaning of the words: “ask it either in the depth, or in the height above” (verse 11). In one passage after another these expressions are used with reference to the Messiah. See Gen. 49 : 25; Prov. 30 : 4; Deut. 30 : 2 (Rom. 10 : 6); Isa. 45 : 8; Psa. 85 : 11; Gen. 22 : 17; Zech. 8 : 12; Deut. 33 : 13.

I couldn't find any other source to corroborate the claim highlighted in bold above, has anyone heard of this before or seen any evidence for it? The quotes given in support don't seem to prove the idiom either.

Thanks D