British Israelism - an expose

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

[HarleyD]

I don't mean to sound like I'm rebuking you if you believe in the inspired word of God. Your post to me seemed to indicate that you did not. You are certainly more of a pleasure to converse with then some here. I know at times I come off sounding terse. Unfortunately that is my writing style and this media.

If we agree that the Northern Tribe settled in Assyria at least for the time being then we have to consider what happened AFTER Judah was led away into captivity and RETURNED to Jerusalem. This is laid out in Ezra and Nehimiah. Please consider the following:

Ezr 6:21 The sons of Israel who returned from exile and all those who had separated themselves from the impurity of the nations of the land to join them, to seek the LORD God of Israel, ate the Passover.

Ezr 8:18 According to the good hand of our God upon us they brought us a man of insight of the sons of Mahli, the son of Levi, the son of Israel, namely Sherebiah, and his sons and brothers, 18 men;

Neh 1:6 let Your ear now be attentive and Your eyes open to hear the prayer of Your servant which I am praying before You now, day and night, on behalf of the sons of Israel Your servants, confessing the sins of the sons of Israel which we have sinned against You; I and my father's house have sinned.

Neh 2:10 When Sanballat the Horonite and Tobiah the Ammonite official heard about it, it was very displeasing to them that someone had come to seek the welfare of the sons of Israel.

Neh 8:17 The entire assembly of those who had returned from the captivity made booths and lived in them. The sons of Israel had indeed not done so from the days of Joshua the son of Nun to that day. And there was great rejoicing.

There are far many more verses about the "return" of the sons of Israel in Ezra and Nehimiah. This is NOT dogma. It is historical fact as laid out in the scriptures.

[Zack Attack]

If we agree that the Northern Tribe settled in Assyria at least for the time being then we have to consider what happened AFTER Judah was led away into captivity and RETURNED to Jerusalem. This is laid out in Ezra and Nehimiah. Please consider the following:

No doubt there were members of all tribes connected to Judah...and some of Judah who joined unto Israel. Just like in the civil war, some Confederates were northern sympathizers with the south and some southerners joined to the north.

Yet something else also happened after the return of the Babylonian exile. Israel had already been given their papers of divorce, now the brotherhood is being broken.

Zech 11:14 Then I cut asunder mine other staff, even Binders, that the brotherhood between Judah and Israel might be broken.

The house of Israel was settled in Assyria, not really captive but as land tenants. Many became very successful there and remained. Many eventually left and as Hoshea says Israel was swallowed up among the nations.

Yet even during the time of the Apostles, the house of Israel was still dispersed as James states in the intro to his epistle. Even Yeshua says "I am sent only for the lost sheep of the house of Israel." Why? They were those who had been divorced from covenant and must be redeemed by a kinsman. Judah was never divorced, not because they didn't err just as bad as Israel, but because the promise was that Messiah would come through the lineage of David.

Essentially, we know that this great ingathering has not taken place since the prophets describe it as a day that shall be exceeding great, that when Judah and Israel are united, never again shall they be driven from the land and that they shall all know YHWH. Blessings

[Zack Attack]

just a "my screen didn't refresh bump".

[HarleyD]

Sorry Floyd, we’re not getting anywhere with this conversation.

I've pointed to 2 Kings 17-18 to show you where Israel settled but you say not all settled there although you’ve offer no historical evidence nor scriptural references. I’ve offered numerous quotes from Nehemiah and Ezra saying the sons of Israel returned and you said the meaning has changed although Neh 9:2 clearly says “The descendants of Israel” not “the descendants of Judah”. Nehemiah and Ezra don’t make this distinction and offered up passages of Bible verses to support this claim but you ignore what is offer saying that “We have to do better than just throw Bible verses at each other like throwing bumper stickers.” Seems to me I’m the one throwing out the verses and you’re the one finding excuses-any-excuse.

I don't play these types of games. There's not enough space or time for me to do a thorough examination of Ezra and Nehemiah or the history of the northern tribe here. In none of your writings do I see any Biblical support for your theory nor have you offered any. You’ve alluded to Hosea 1:10-11 which tells of Judah and Israel coming together but I’m not sure how this relates to the USA. All my references you dismissed biblical authors as having "fanciful" interpretations or you’ve question the validity of scripture themselves even though all scripture is inspired by God.

Surprisingly enough, you don’t seem to have a problem with the validity of Herbert Armstrong.

[Cronos]

I'm saying it's reasonable and evidentuary to theorize that the NK ended up in Europe.

Not really -- around 700 B.C. europe was mostly barbaric -- including Greece. The Isrealites came from civilised lands in the middle east. To move into Europe would mean confronting those barbaric tribes -- the easiest route for them would be back south to Israel. The next easy route would be by sea across the Persian Gulf to Oman or India (South India's Bene Israelies). Europe would have been too dangerous and not logical at all.

[Cronos]

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

I wonder, are you trying to be sarcastic? The Brits AREN'T Romans. The Welsh, Cornish and Manx may have Roman Blood in them, but the English don't and neither do the Scots or Irish, unless you count Roman blood through the French

[Cronos]

Monty!!!

[Cronos]

It’s absurd to think there was some type of special blessing to the ten tribes of Israel. They never lived a godly life from day one. And Israel was never lost as we can see from 2 Kings 17-18. Someone seemed to know where Israel went.

Well put. I think all of this searching for whether we are descended from ISraelites or not deviates from Christ's message -- he came for ALL people: Jews and Gentiles. This dogma seems to teach that those not descended from Israel are doomed -- and that would include Christian Copts, Ethiopians, Europeans, Asians, native Americans etc.

If you want to take it from a scientific perspective that's fine, but don't intersperse your points with religious prophecies. If you want to take it from a religious perspective, that's also fine, and it's a pernicious dogma as I stated above

[Cronos]

Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.

Which of the worlds great population groups today do you believe are the children of Israel as promised above?

Indians or Chinese? !!!

[Cronos]

VEry, veryyy well put: "Which of the worlds great population groups today do you believe are the children of Israel as promised above?"

None. Both Jews and Gentiles who believe in the Lord Jesus are children of the promise. We're called Christians and our homeland is not of this world.

[Cronos]

Only huge groups of people like the Asians, Africans, Arabs, Indians and Caucasians meet the test. But Asians are not Israelites. Africans and Indians are not Israelites. Arabs may be Semites but they make no claim to being Israelites and trace their roots specifically away from Jacob-Israel. That leaves only the Caucasians. Jews classify themselves as Caucasians which gives us a launching point to find their cousins who may reasonably be expected to look a lot like them.

You've made a mistake: CAucasians = Indo-Europeans + Semites. SEmites = Jews + Arabs. Indo-European = Indians, Iranis, Europeans.

[Cronos]

If a large random sample of these self-acknowledged Israelites are given American/European haircuts and clothes and mingled into the crowds on the streets of New York City who do these people who classify themselves as Caucasians most look like?

Look at the Yemeni Jews, the Egyptian Jews etc. who did NOT move to Europe when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem. These look like Southern Arabians and are dark skinned. tHese are what Biblical Jews would have looked like -- paler than the Egyptians, but not as fair as Iranis. tHeir features are clearly depicted on the carvings in Assyrian structures depicting the captivity


And Another of King Jehu bowing before Shalmaneser


all details from here

[Cvengr]

The Tubol and Rus extensions make more sense than Samaria to Samurai extension.

The Japanese word is read Sa-mu-rai, whereas the root of the former is Sam-a-ri-a. Completely different etymologies.

The closest I could summise, without justification, would be maybe a foreigner enters Japanese culture, describes his history in his language and the host country attempts to translate the foreign word into their language. Of course, Japan isn't known for receiving foreigners before the last 2 centuries very amicably, let alone in the status of 'Samurai'. This is also confirmed by Japanese history. From http://www.campusprogram.com/reference/en/wikipedia/s/sa/samurai.html#Etymology%20of%20Samurai we read:

The word samurai has its origins in the pre-Heian period Japan when it was pronounced saburai, meaning servant or attendant. It was not until the early modern period, namely the Azuchi-Momoyama period and early Edo period of the late 16th and early 17th centuries that the word saburai became substituted with samurai. However, by then, the meaning had already long before changed.

A different etymologu is provided for Samaria from the same website:

"Samaria (Hebrew Shomron) is a term used for the mountainous Northern part of the West Bank. In modern times, the name "Samaria" is most often used by Zionists. Others prefer to use the collective name "West Bank" rather than "Judea and Samaria".

[Cronos]

Both Kings and Chronicles are well known by scholars to have "fanciful" interpretations of other things as well, and many internal conflicts.

FAnciful??? you say the Bible is "fanciful"? You can either accept all of it as true or you can say it it "fanciful". That is your choice. However, to flip-flop and accept some parts because it suits your argument and disregard others because they don't is disingenuous.

[Cronos]

Kings is treated as scripture, inspired by God. This is the same criteria used for the letters by the Apostles and the Gospels. If they are NOT inspired by God, they are NOT present in the Bible -- like the Acts of THomas are Not. You cannot disregard some books and state that they are not scripture, not accurate.

[Cronos]

heading mostly to the north and west at the time of this writing

they could so easily have headed east, or broken up and headed north, south , east and west. On what basis do you make the supposition that:

1. They "escaped"
2. They stuck together as a united tribe
3. They did not head off in groups of different tribes into China, South East Asia, America, russia, Africa, Europe?

[Cronos]

I am not willing to blindly and unthinkingly accept the idea that they were, and even so their writing is subject to interpretation

that is the crux of the problem -- the Bible is either wholly inspired or it is not. One cannot chop and change scripture when it pleases one.

[Cronos]

The phrases "sons of Israel", "children of Israel", "Israelites" etc have slightly different but very specific meanings in the Bible as a function of the time in which they are used. Meanings do change with time, and with context.

You can't chop and change and make your own interpretations at each stage. Sons of Israel means the entire 12 tribes, not just Judah. ALL returned and were united under the Maccabbees. Were they a large number? YES. Were they as numerous as the sands of the sea -- if you take it factually, there are trillions of grains of sand on ANY beach -- all of humanity who have ever lived would never be equal to that number. If you take it metaphorically, then, YES, the numbers that returned from Exile were large, very large (in those times, a city would be large if it had a few thousand inhabitants)

[Zack Attack]

You can't chop and change and make your own interpretations at each stage. Sons of Israel means the entire 12 tribes, not just Judah.

Actually, sons or children of Israel can mean all 12 tribes, or just the northern kingdom of Israel, or even several other possible uses.

Jer 50:4 "In those days and at that time," declares YHWH, "the sons of Israel will come, both they and the sons of Judah as well; they will go along weeping as they go, and it will be YHWH their God they will seek.

ALL returned and were united under the Maccabbees.

This just does not fit prophesy. When they are united, they shall never be uprooted again and all shall know YHWH. One King shall be over them all. This ingathering is a day and time prophesied to be so great, that it would greatly overshadow Moses and the exodus from Egypt. Such a day certainly has never happened.

Blessings