Replies

yosemitest If you're asking me "Do I believe that the Americans who came from Great Britain, the Anglo-Saxons, are physical descendants of the Lost Tribes of Israel?"

then my answer is "Yes. I do."

That was my question. Thank you for answering it

The reason I asked is that the physical, genetic descent is quite incorrect -- if one is to argue spiritual descent, then yes, but genetic descent -- Anglo-Saxons are Aryanic not Semitic...

I glanced through the "US and Britain in prophecy" and there are errors:

The great world powers of our time have been, and are, the United States, the Soviet Union, Great Britain, Germany, France, and other Western European nations -- straight away, this forgets that Britain and France are declining fast and this list does not include Japan or China or India
It quote Daniel 12:8-10 and then purports to be the ones who can understand. Earlier ages also had those who claimed to be the ones who understood, so this statement is tenous at the very least
the booklet states that most of the Assyrians, with those Israelite slaves, had migrated from ancient Assyria northwest toward Europe. -- utterly false:
1. Firstly, Assyrian practise was not take an ethnic group to be enslaved by rather to transport them to the opposite end of their empire -- and in this case it was to Mesopotamia on the borders with Elam, not to the north-west
2. Secondly, Assyrians were Semites just as were the Babylonians and the Israelites. Assimilation was not difficult as the language and ethnicities were similar. Modern day Iraqis have this northern Israeli tribe blood
3. Thirdly -- no, the Assyrians did not head north-west. There are Assyrians until today in Iraq
4. Fourthly -- in the 5th century, to the north west of Assyria there was still the Persian Empire. Persia ran a close, tight bureaucracy and didn't allow such migrations without central permission -- none of the Satraps would allow that
5. Fiftly -- to the north-west of Assyria were the Armenian and Hittite descendants including Lydians and others and the Georgians had been controlling the Caucasian passes for millenia (think Argos)
So, this entire statement is false
The "Lost tribes" are not lost -- many came back and intermixed with Judeans, other stayed in Iraq or Syria
They were not "Lost from view" in Daniels day -- read Sirach and you'll see that the intermixing of these semites with other semites was noted
then "neither Britain nor the United States became great powers until the nineteenth century" -- that is false. In the case of Britain they were a great power from the time of the war of Austrian succession in 1757 when they defeated the French in Europe, North America and India and their navy was dominant through the world. Also, England had not been a "minor nation" in Europe since the 1400s -- remember that the English defeated the French in the 100 years war and then were pushed back -- but then truly speaking there was no differentiation between England and France at that time
"white, English speaking peoples" -- most of the English speakers are right now not Anglo-Saxons, not even in the US...
National greatness promised Israel - Yet the Jews never received it -- and here starts the anti-semitic nature of British-Israeliness. The Jews did receive it -- from Judaism sprouts Christianity...
"Britain has been almost overnight stripped of her colonies and her possessions -- source of her wealth" -- hardly overnight, the move to dominion started in the late 1800s and the first Indian war of Indepdendence was in 1858. Also, Britain still has the 6th largest economy, even 60 years after devolving power to its economies
from your link Yet we must face the astounding fact that our white, English-speaking peoples -- not the Jews -- have inherited the national and physical phases of these promises -- again the anti-Semitism and I disagree with the phases mentioned
Birthright never given to the Jews -- sorry, disagree with this too
On page 41 your pamphlet claims that the commonwealth "peoples descended from Abraham" -- err... no. The Anglo-Saxons are of the Tuetonic branch of Indo-Europeans/Aryans. The peoples also include brown peoples like Indians who are still Aryans -- in fact the bulk of the population of the commonwealth was this.
"Esau refer generally to the Turkish nation" -- err.. no, the Turkic peoples were not even in the Biblical consciousness and the Edomites/Idumeans were converted to Judaism by Judas Maccabees and they were defenders of Jerusalem in AD 70, heavily integrated with the Jews. Herod was also an Idumean...
And the biggest whopper of them all, so far on page 106 History shows the descendants of Zarah became wanderers journeying to the north within the confines of the Scythian nations ehtier descendants later migrating to Ireland in the days of King David wow, what a whopper. nothing of the sort happened. The Scytian tribes were led by Irani speaking peoples and included Turkic, Slavic and Germanic elements, no Semitic at all
"The Hebrew term for covenant would be pronounced Brit" -- so then the people of Brittany in France are also the anointed people?
Drop the I from Isaac and you have Saacson -- wow, that's a twister. yet the Saxon confederation not a tribe per say and it was originally called by Ptolemy as the "Aviones" -- the Saxones was an error which the Romans then retained calling one district litus Saxonium -- and your link says that the Anglo-Saxons are not linked to the Saxons in Germany -- wrong again

Ok, enough. The article you posted is pretty wrong to anyone with a knowledge of history -- do read on the migrations of the Germanic peoples and the Indo-European family tree and also on the facial bone structural differences between Aryans and Semites. The English are not Semites...

You know when you've reached true information, because it'll leave you satisfied. -- yes, I am satisfied that God's Grace is to all and that the English are an Aryanic people not a Semitic and also that British-Israeliism and it's anti-Jewish nature is utterly false.

Theological claims that assert a racial lineage

As with Judaism, British Israelism asserts theologically related claims of a genetic link to the early Israelites. As such, it is based on a genealogical construct. This belief is typically confined to the geo-political status or the prophetical identity of the nation, not to the individual's superiority or salvation status with God.

Due to the diverse structure of the movement, other elements of its belief and its key doctrines may be embraced by individual adherents. British Israel theology varies from the conventionally Protestant Christian. More extreme forms include the Christian Identity Movement, which has some historic roots in British-Israelism^[31] The core belief of British Israelism is that the Anglo-Saxon peoples of Britain and Northern Europe have a direct genetic connection to the Ancient Israelites mentioned in the Bible. Most British Israel movements believe that personal, individual salvation is open to all people.

[edit] Compatibility with present-day research findings

[edit] Lack of consistency with modern genetic findings

Human genetics does not support British Israelism's notion of a close lineal link between Jews and Western Europeans. Genetic research on the Y-chromosomes of Jews has found that Jews are closely related to other populations originating in the Middle East, such as Kurds, Turks, Armenians and Arabs, and concluded that:

Middle Eastern populations...are closely related and...their Y chromosome pool is distinct from that of Europeans. (Nebel, 2001.)^[32]

Y-DNA Haplogroups J2 and, to a lesser extent, J1 are most commonly identified in Jewish people, which is in contrast to Western Europeans. The more distant Haplogroup R1b is the most commonly identified in Europeans.^[33]^[34]^[35]^[36]

[edit] Research standards

Critics of British Israelism note that the arguments presented by promoters of the theory are based on unsubstantiated and highly speculative amateur research. Tudor Parfitt, author of The Lost Tribes: The History of a Myth, states that the proof cited by adherents of British Israelism is "of a feeble composition even by the low standards of the genre." (Parfitt,2003. p. 61.)^[37]

[edit] Historical linguistics

Proponents of British Israelism claim numerous links in historical linguistics between ancient Hebrew and various European place names and languages.^[39]^[40] As an example; proponents claim that “British” is derived from the Hebrew words “Berit” and “Ish”, and should therefore be understood as “Covenant Man”. Critics, however, argue that these words have other roots and that this interpretation of the Hebrew is incorrect.^[41] Another example is Rhys' assertion of equivalence between Cymry and Cimmerian, which is at odds with the generally accepted derivation of Cymry from an earlier Celtic form *kom-broges, meaning "people of the same country"; only the modern form of the word looks similar.^[42]^[43] Yet another example is the alleged connection between the 'Tuatha Dé Danann' and the Tribe of Dan. Secular sources indicate that the true root of this phrase is the 'People of the Goddess Danu'.^[44] Other links are claimed, but cannot be substantiated and contradict the findings of academic linguistic research. This shows conclusively that English belongs to the Indo-European language family and is unrelated to Hebrew, which is a Semitic language of the Afro-Asiatic language family. “No trace of the slightest real connection can be discovered” between English and ancient Hebrew. (Greer, 2004. p74.)^[45]^[46]

[edit] Scriptural interpretation

Adherents of British Israelism cite various scriptures in support of the argument that the Northern Israelite Tribes were lost. Critics argue that British Israelists misunderstand and misinterpret the meaning of these scriptures.^[38]^[47]^[48]

One such case is the distinction that British Israelists make between the “Jews” of the Southern Kingdom and the “Israelites” of the Northern Kingdom. They believe that the Bible consistently distinguishes between the two groups. Critics counter that many of these scriptures are misinterpreted because the distinction between “Jews” and “Israelites” was lost over time after the captivities.^[47]^[49] They give examples such as the Apostle Paul, who is referred to as both a Jew (Acts 21:39) and an Israelite (2 Corinthians 11:22) and who addressed the Hebrews as both “Men of Judea” and “Fellow Israelites”. (Acts 2:14,22.) (Greer, 2004. p22)^[47] Many more examples are cited by critics.

British Israelists believe that the Northern Tribes of Israel were “lost” after the captivity in Assyria and that this is reflected in the Bible. Critics disagree with this assertion and argue that only higher ranking Israelites were deported from Israel and many Israelites remained.(Dimont, 1933. p5)^[48]^[49] They cite examples after the Assyrian captivity, such as Josiah, King of Judah, who received money from the tribes of “Manasseh, and Ephraim and all the remnant of Israel”, (2 Chronicles 34:9) and Hezekiah, who sent invitations not only to Judah, but also to northern Israel for the attendance of a Passover in Jerusalem. (2 Chronicles 30) (Dimont, 1933.)^[48] (Note that British Israelites interpret 2 Chronicles 34:9 as referring to "Scythians" in order to fit with their theory.)

British Israelism states that the Bible refers to the Lost Tribes of Israel as dwelling in “isles”, (Isaiah 49:1,3) which they interpret to mean the British Isles. Critics assert that the word “isles” used in English-language bibles should more accurately be interpreted to mean “coasts” or “distant lands” “without any implication of their being surrounded by the sea.” (The Jewish Encyclopedia, 1901. Vol.1, page 600.) For example, some English translations refer to Tyre as an ‘isle’, whereas a more accurate description is that of a ‘coastal town.’ (Greer, 2004. p25)^[47]

Another is the issue of identity of the Samaritans (an ethno-religious group of the Levant), mentioned in the Gospels, who believe their descent is from a group of Israelite inhabitants who have connections to ancient Samaria from the beginning of the Babylonian Exile up to the time of Christ.

[edit] Historical speculation

British Israelism rests on linking different ancient populations. This includes links between the "lost" tribes of Israel, the Scythians, Cimmerians, Celts, and modern Western Europeans such as the British. To support these links, adherents claim that similarities exist between various cultural aspects of these population groups, and they argue that these links demonstrate the migration of the "lost" Israelites in a westerly direction. Examples given include burial customs, metalwork, clothing, dietary customs, and more.^[50] Critics argue that the customs of the Scythians and the Cimmerians are in contrast with those of the Ancient Israelites.^[48]^[51] Further, the so-called similarities and theories proposed by adherents are contradicted by the weight of evidence and research on the history of ancient populations. It does not provide support for the purported links.^[52]

[edit] Ideology

Parfitt suggests that the idea of British Israelism was inspired by numerous ideological factors, such as the desire for ordinary people to have a glorious ancestral past, pride in the British Empire, and the belief in the "racial superiority of white Anglo-Saxon Protestants".^{[39]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Israelism#Compatibility_with_present-day_research_findings}