British Israelism - an expose

David M. Williams' Theological Essays ^ | David M. Williams

[William Terrell]

Is there any explanation of the base set and comparasion criteria to verify accuracy?

[Destro]

Oh yea the website I mention was a scientific database with explanations of the data up the ying yang.

[William Terrell]

Well, page me when you find it.

[#3Fan]

Another silly one is Saxon = Isaac's son. This completely neglects the fact that, being Hebrew, the proper term would have been bin Yitzhak

Easily followed starting in the Assyrian tablets from Isaac, to Bit-Sakae, to Scythian, to Saxon.

[Destro]

Scytians are not Saxons. What crap are you shoveling?

[William Terrell]

A brief point. Don't we call Gernamy, Germany, but the Germans call it Deutschland and themselves Deutschlanders, like we call Nippon, Japan and the people Japanese? I believe there are many examples in history where people in one area did not call people in another area the same as they called themselves.

So just the difference in naming wouldn't be evidence one way or another.

[#3Fan]

Answered in post #24.

[Cronos]

Moot point -- however, the Romans couldn't have given them the name Saxon based on Isaac's son -- that's Germanic grammer. Latin would call it Son of Isaac, similar to Bin Yitzhak, something like Fils d'isaac.

Besides, Scyths were not Saxons

[Cronos]

The noun Gog is from the original tribal name, Magog, which gradually became Rosh, then Rus, and today is know as Russia.

Hilarious!!! Hey RC -- you should rename yourself GogConservative!! Isn't that silly? Can't believe people actually believe that stuff!

[topcat54]

Ping!

[jude24]

Interesting....

I suspect that British-Israelism derives itself from hyperdispensationalism.

(As an aside, just as we Calvinists should not have to defend themselves from the excesses of hypercalvinists, so dispensationalists should not have to defend themselves against the excesses of the crackpots.)

Here's why I think that: dispensationalism, even in its most level-headed, respectable form, holds that God has some special blessing accorded to Israel that is not accorded to all Christians. It's not difficult to imagine why some people would want to be able to identify themselves as Jews and thus be able to claim some of those special blessings.

Too bad the British-Israelites miss out on Galatians -- if you are Christ's, you are Abraham's seed and heirs of the promise.

[D Edmund Joaquin]

A lot of the British are Romans, therefore Kittim, therefore Esau.

[Destro]

I know what you are trying to say but it is pseudo science.

[HarleyD]

”Great Britain and the USA are believed to be the Anglo-Saxon ancestors of the tribes Ephraim and Manasseh…This theory was first put forward around the year 1519.”

Perhaps I’m missing something but if I remember correctly the USA became a country in 1776.

I've heard this chestnut once before. It’s built off scant Bible verses mixed up in a blender. It’s like saying Bozo the Clown is the Anti-Christ. (I was going to post this parody but thought better.)

This mistaken belief stems from the fact that England and the US were very prosperous nations during the late 1800s because God looked favorably on us as Christians. God never promise Christians will be prosperous with earthly wealth, only that He will provide for our needs.

Besides, are God’s blessings for Jews or for Christians?

[HarleyD]

Hmmmm…interesting point. I may be on thin ice here. I was thinking of Jeremiah 31:31-34:

Behold, days are coming," declares the Lord, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the Lord. “But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those day,” declares the Lord, “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

From the quote above God considered His covenant with the Jews broken but in His graciousness was willing to establish a “new covenant” which we know to be the giving of the Holy Spirit. There may be some blessings bestowed upon the Jews but my old mind is at a lost to think what. But certainly nothing after the "new covenent" and this "new covenent" had nothing to do with lost tribes which disappear before our Lord Jesus was on the scene.

[HarleyD]

It should be remembered that the house of Judah was far more faithful to God then the house of Israel. That's why they lasted more than 200 years after the house of Israel was taken into captivity. Why you would say the house of Israel received the blessing makes no sense considering their pagan ways from Solomon's son, Jeroborim who made golden calves to worship, on up.

These verses clearly state that God made a "new covenant" with BOTH the house of Judah and the house of Israel. Since Jeremiah was a prophet of Judah and the house of Israel by this time had already been taken into captivity, he seemed to know where the lost house of Israel was.