Answering Critics of the British-Israel (or Anglo-Israel) Belief:
A PRIMER IN UNDERSTANDING THE PROMISES OF GOD IN LIGHT OF ANGLO-ISRAEL TRUTH.
British-Israel, Fact or Fallacy?
by R.K. Phillips website here
British-Israel Answers its Critics
Home Page http://www.british-israel.ca/
See also British-Israelism utterly refuted...refuted! Click Here
Articles by Different Authors
Note: The purpose is to answer the critics on British-Israel, some "other" doctrines that are written in these articles do not necessarily reflect the beliefs of the British-Israel Church of God
Peter Salemi Answers Critics (Walter Martin, Grant Jeffery etc..) on British-Israel
There are many weak arguments against the so-called British-Israelite theory. We are going to go through them one by one and answer them. Some of these arguments come from different authors like Walter Martin, Grant Jeffery etc...
1) The first argument they make is that the Apostle Paul called himself a Jew as well as an Israelite, see Acts 22:3; Rom 11:1. From this they conclude that all Israelites including the lost ten tribes are all Jews.
Answer: The word "Jew" was applied in three ways. It referred to any descendant of the tribe of Judah. The word Jews in merely a nickname shortened for "Judahite," Judah, which is one tribe out of twelve. See Vines Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, pp.333-334. But the word "Jew" is also applied to anyone who refused to join the rebellion, when the twelve tribes split into two separate kingdoms., see i Kings 11 & 12. As it turns out parts of Benjamin and Levi joined the KINGDOM OF JUDAH, and the other tribes joined the KINGDOM OF ISRAEL. These two tribes joined the JEWS and they became Jews NATIONALLY not racially, because a Jews racially is only for Judah. Just like anyone who immigrates from Italy to Canada. Racially he is Italian NATIONALLY he is Canadian. So all Jews ARE Israelites, but not all Israelites are Jews.
The apostle Paul descended from the tribe of Benjamin, Nationally he was a Jew, he was a CITIZEN OF THE KINGDOM OF JUDAH [The Jews], RACIALLY However Paul was NOT a Jew. Alfred Lilienthal, a Jew confirms and expounds this very point in his book, What Price Israel: "The name Yehudi or Jew is used in the Old Testament to designate members of the tribe of Judah...as well as to denote CITIZENS OF THE KINGDOM OF JUDAH [Benjamin, Levi], particularly at the time of Jeremiah and under Persian occupation [See Esther 2:5]" (p.216 emphasis added).
The third way you can apply this term is religiously. People who were into the religion of Judaism.
2) In the book of Ezra, the captives of the House of Judah, returned to Palestine. Some people claimed that the ten tribe House of Israel was there because of the word "Israel" is mentioned more times than the word "Jew." So they attach this to mean that all of Israel all twelve tribes were there.
Answer: People tend to forget that all Jews are Israelites so why not call themselves after their ancestor Israel. The fact is all Israelites are not Jews as explained above. Not to mention all of Judah did not even return. The bulk of them stayed in Babylon and were there until the fall of the Parthian empire in the first and second centuries A.D. For a full explanation of this go to page on the books of Nehemiah and Ezra.
3) Some argue that in Ezra 6:17, he offered 12 he goats to God "according to the tribes of Israel." So people come to the conclusion that the ten tribes came back.
Answer: Weiland writes: "Why not? MY father in-law has the habit of always praying for absent family members during the blessing a meal time. Ezra was basically doing the same thing; he made an offering for all Israel, the two tribes present, and the remaining ten who were absent. To verify that this was an accepted practice one must simply turn to another sacrifice, which was made 208 years before Ezra offered this. This sacrifice was offered at a time when there was no question that the house of Judah and the house of Israel were not yet united..."(God's Covenant People p.15)
Also in the days of Elijah they made a sacrifice and set up stones. And like Ezra, it was "according to the number of the tribes of the sons of Jacob," (1 Kings 18:31), and the House of Judah, Benjamin, and some of Levi WAS NOT THERE. But they recognized them as God's people with the House of Israel! This is a weak argument.
4) Some argue that in the New Testament there was a woman named Anna of the tribe of Asher in Luke 2:36. This is their proof that all the twelve tribes were there in Palestine. Walter Martin in his book Kingdom of the Cults says that the Bible calls her a "Jewess." (p.316).
Answer: I searched the entire Bible, and i couldn't find the scripture that called Ann a "Jewess." But the most likely scenario of Anna and where she came from will be explained below.
5) People seem to think that the Epistle of James shows that the ten tribes and the Jews were one nation in James 1:1, "...To the twelve tribes scattered abroad, greetings"
Answer: In fact, this letter absolutely identify the where lost ten tribes are. Remember, the disciple were commissioned to go to the "lost sheep of the HOUSE OF ISRAEL" (Matthew 10:5). The ORIGINAL apostles Jesus said in the same verse were not go "in the way of the gentiles" that was Paul's commission, even though Peter opened the door to the gentiles, the Apostle Paul stepped through it and did his work among them. But notice Jesus said they were "lost" Now the letter of James was to the 12 tribes not churches. From James 4:1 we learn that "wars" were being waged "among you" James asked. "What wars are these"? No wars existed among the Jews until the outbreak, several years later, of the revolt against the Romans. These wars absolutely identify the lost ten tribes-the-lands which the Apostles Journeyed to. (see our Article Where Did the Original Apostles Go? for further details).
James wrote about 60 A.D. He was martyred two years later according to Josephus. World was at this time temporarily at peace-cowed by fear of the Roman army. Just prior to 60 A.D. only two areas were torn by war, and civil fighting. All one needs to do is look at military history for the period before and up to 60 A.D. The result will shock you! Those lands were the BRITISH ISLES AND THE PARTHIAN EMPIRE. The two places were have proved in this book are the lost ten tribes of Israel.
6) Some quote Acts 2:36, Peter's statement shows that the ten tribes were living in Palestine with the Jews and were Jews. "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ."
Answer: Yes, the House of Israel were there when Peter gave his speech at Pentecost, but they were not Jews, and they came from the Places of their origins on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem for the feast of Pentecost. Some of the House of Israel converted to Judaism and came to Jerusalem for the feast. Notice in the same Chapter who Peter was talking to, "And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven...Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,...Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes...Cretes and Arabians," (Acts 2:5, 9-11). Stephen Collins writes: "During the three years of Parthian rule over Palestine there would have considerable exchange of information between Jews and Parthians..." (p.243, LTTIF).
Proselytes were people who were non-Jewish in race, but converted to the religion of Judaism. Secular history shows of many Parthians converting to Judaism, "there is at least one record of a Parthian provincial king adopting Judaism, indicating that some Parthian rulers did acknowledge the God of the Bible. The presence of Parthian pilgrims at a Pentecost (Feast of Weeks) celebration in Jerusalem (Acts 2:9) confirms that a portion of Parthia's population also served the God of he Bible" (ibid, p.245). The racially Parthians came to Jerusalem to worship God in Jerusalem and were Part of the lost ten tribes of Israel. And at that time the Jews knew where the House of Israel were. Josephus wrote that the ten tribes were "beyond the river Euphrates" that was Parthia's territory. So when Peter was addressing the House of Israel, they were there, converted Parthians keeping the feast of weeks. Nothing shows that they were Jews racially and living in Palestine. Most likely Anna the prophetess of the tribe of Asher in the Gospel of Luke was part of the Proselytes of Parthia visiting Palestine.
7) The one argument that i find the funniest of all, is the prophecy used to describe Israel and Judah together. This scripture they use to show that Israel and Judah never really parted but were always together.
This prophecy is found in Ezekiel 37:15-28. It says that Ezekiel was to take two sticks in his hand, one for Judah and his companions, i.e Benjamin and Levi. The other for Ephraim and his companions, i.e. the other tribes of the house of Israel. Then they will be one in his hand.
Answer: Yes, Judah and Israel will be one nations again, the problem Is, WHAT'S THE TIME SETTING OF THIS PROPHECY? This is what these so-called scholars and critics have missed and its plain in the pages of your Bible. This happens at the SECOND COMING OF CHRIST.
Verse 24 says, "David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them." David has been dead for years. For him to rule he has to be resurrected. And when does the resurrection occur? At the second coming of Christ, see 1 Corinthians 15:23, 50-52; Rev 20:4-6.
Now Dr. Walter Martin clearly states in his book The Kingdom of the Cults, p.311 that this prophecy was fulfilled when the Jews returned to Palestine, after the Babylonian captivity. Problem is, was David, or Jesus for that matter, or even a descendant of David ruling over the Jews then? Absolutely Not! The Persian still ruled Palestine. They let the Jews return to their land, and the Jews had governors over the land. The Throne of David was NOT established. Ezekiel says that David shall rule over them "FOREVER." How can this prophecy be fulfilled, by David, Jesus, or any descendants of David, then or now? But the prophecy clearly says that David will rule forever. This can ONLY happen at the second coming of Christ when the tribes will be ruled by David forever. At this time prophecy says that David will rule over the House of Israel, not all the twelve tribes of Judah and Israel together. God said he would overturn it and root it out of Judah, and plant it in the House of Israel. For full details get our free booklet The Throne of David in Prophecy. God eve said at that time when the Jews came back that God would break the "brotherhood between Judah and Israel" (Zechariah 11:14). But at the second coming God says that "Ephraim shall not envy Judah, and Judah shall not vex Ephraim " (Isaiah 11:13). So clearly the time setting of this prophecy is at the second coming of Christ, when king David will rule over the House of Israel and Judah forever.
So since the time setting is at the second coming, this prophecy actually shows that at the time just before the second coming Judah and Israel are actually SEPARATE NATIONS AND NOT ONE NATION CALLED THE JEWS IN PALESTINE. This prophecy actually the opposite of what Walter Martin is trying to prove, "neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all:" (verse 22).
Grant Jeffery writes that in Ezekiel 37, "David" in that chapter means the "Messiah" and not David literally.
First, Jesus is never called David in the Bible. he is called "root" or offspring of David, or "branch of Jesse" but never "David." Jesus is called in the Old Testament "YHWH" Almighty God not David, see Jeremiah 23:5-6; 33:15; Zechariah 3:8; 6:12; 14:1-6; Acts 1:9-12; Isaiah 9:6-7.
Notice Zechariah 14:4. It says that Yahweh's feet will stand in that day on the "mount of Olives." When you compare that scripture to Acts 1:9-12 you read of Jesus ascending into heaven from the "mount called Olivet," and "he shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven." His feet lifted off the mount of olives anf when he comes his feet shall stand on the mount of olives. He is called YHWH in the old Testament, pointing to his Divinity. Human flesh he is called the root of daid offspring of David or branch of David, never David. David literally means David. Jeremiah says: "But they shall serve the LORD their God [Jesus], and David their king, whom I will raise up unto them." Who raises the Dead/ Jesus Christ, see John 5:25-29.
8) Grant Jeffrery in his book Coming Judgement of the Nations, he writes that the British can't be Israel because the British never circumcise their children the way the Jews did.
Answer: Talk about grasping at straws, just looking for an excuse not to accept the obvious. I guess Jeffery did not read the part in the Bible that shows how Israel disobeyed God, breaking his laws, that's why they got kicked out of the land in the first place, see 2 Kings 17:5-23. So why would they circumcise?
However, why is it that: "The great majority of North American males, as well as many boys in other parts of the world [British Commonwealth] are CIRCUMCISED soon after they are born" (ABC's of the Human Body, Reader's Digest, p.267, emphasis added).
9) Another quote from Jeffery's book, he quotes Hosea 3:4-5 about the children of Israel "abide many days without a king, and without a prince, and without a sacrifice, and without an image, and without an ephod, and without teraphim:" He says that Britain always had a king so Britain cannot be Israel.
Answer: Again your problem is, WHAT'S YOUR TIME SETTING? It plainly says, "Afterward shall the children of Israel return, and seek the LORD their God, and David their king; and shall fear the LORD and his goodness in the latter days." Notice its the latter days. And there are two other places in the bible with the same expression, Jeremiah 30:7-9 and Ezekiel 37. In Jeremiah 7-9 we see the time of Jacob's trouble which is the Great tribulation, and then in verse we read of the slavery of Israel, then verse 9 shows the rescue of Israel by YHWH and raising David their king. So when it says in Hosea that Israel won't have a prince or a ruler of their own, this will happen when? In the context of Hosea Jeremiah and Ezekiel, during the GREAT TRIBULATION. They will loose their government, the land and their freedom.
10) Of course people will accuse me of promoting the Master Race theory or White supremacy.
Answer: None sense! The only reason we have all these blessing is because Abraham kept God's commandments, Gen 26:1-5. God called Abraham, Abraham responded, and was justified by faith in Yahweh by keeping God's commandments.
11) Why were there Israelites in the land of Palestine in Josiah's time keeping the Passover if they got all taken away in the Assyrian captivity, see 2 Chronicles 35:17-18?
Answer: Stephen Collins writes: "The answer is simple. The 'Israelites' from the ten tribes 'who were present' in Palestine at the time of king Josiah's revival were Scythians were occupying everything from Palestine to Mesopotamia!
"For at least ten years, contingents of the ten tribes were present in Palestine and living in their formal tribal homelands [see 2 Chronicles 34:3-9]. This account makes clear that these members of the ten tribes of Israel were seperate and distinct from the tribes of 'Judah and Benjamin' (who constituted the nation of the Judah)...Secular history calls them 'Scythians' but the Bible instead refers them by their traditional Israelite names. After a number of years, they likely decided that Palestine was simply not worth the effort, and withdrew into Scythia...Herodotus records that the Scythians has an 'isolationists' attitude toward other nations. He recorded that the Scythians: 'dreadfully avoided he use of Foreign customs, and especially those of the Greeks...So careful are the Scythians to guard their own customs, and such are the penalties that they impose on those who take foreign over and above their own.
"The voluntary withdrawal of the Scythians from a a large conquered territory is consistent with the isolationism of the Scythians. The wanted to live in their own 'wide open spaces' and did not want the burden of ruling over nations and foreigners with unwanted customs and lifestyles" (Lost Ten Tribes...Found, Collins, pp.190-193). The Scythians OCCUPIED Palestine, but their HOMELAND was between the BLACK AND THE CASPIAN SEAS. There they returned an d stayed afterwards.
Notice how the Scythians and the Cimmerians were "Isolationists". This puts to rest the theories that they mixed among other peoples and are not pure Israelites. The Bible even says that Israel would "dwell alone" in the wilderness of this world, see Numbers 23:9, and shall not be "reckoned among the nations."
12) Some even claim that people who believe in British-Israel are “... give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith:” (1 Tim 1:4; Titus 3:9). Is this true?
Answer: First., the Bible is loaded with genealogies. All one has to do is look into the books of Genesis, Numbers, 1 Chronicles etc.. and even the New Testament Gosples to see all the genealogies of the people of Israel, and the world in Genesis. Doesn’t this contradict what Paul is saying? Absolutely Not!
The genealogies that Paul is speaking of, are not the Biblical genealogies, but are, “...found in Philo, Josephus and the book of Jubilees, by which the Jews traced the descent from the Patriarchs and their families, and perhaps also to Gnostic ‘genealogies’ and orders of aeons ans spirits. Amongst the Greeks, as well as other nations, mythological stories gathered around the birth and ‘genealogy’ of their heros [hence Paul’s reference to ‘fables’]. Probably Jewish ‘genealogical’ tales crept into the Christian communities” (Vines Expository Dictionary, p.262). Clearly these are not the Biblical genealogies Paul was speaking of. Josephus, “appeals to the priestly registers and is proud of the royal descent of his mother; he shows that even the priests residing in Egypt had their sons registered authentically in Jerusalem, so as to safeguard their priestly prerogatives (C. Apion., I, vii).” (The Cathloic Encyclopedia, under article “Genealogy”). Philo, “to the various stories and fables told about Moses and the Patriarchs” (ibid).
As for the Gnostics, “[These were] genealogies of spirits and aeons, as they called them, “Lists of Gnostic emanations” [ALFORD]. So TERTULLIAN [Against Valentinian, c. 3], and IRENÆUS [Preface]...Endless” refers to the tedious unprofitableness of their lengthy genealogies (compare Tit_3:9). Paul opposes to their “aeons,” the “King of the aeons (so the Greek, 1Ti_1:17), whom be glory throughout the aeons of aeons.” The word “aeons” was probably not used in the technical
sense of the latter Gnostics as yet; but “the only wise God” (1Ti_1:17), by anticipation, confutes the subsequently adopted notions in the Gnostics’ own phraseology. ” (JFB Commentary). So clearly, the Biblical genealogies is not meant in this passage.
13). Why is Hebrew Read Right to Left?
Direction of writing HEBREW is RIGHT to LEFT while ENGLISH is LEFT to RIGHT. Therefore critics argue that the English couldn't be Israelites. But the Anglo-Saxon tongue was largely an UNWRITTEN one prior to their settlement in Britain. Speaking of the "Alphabet and its Origin" at a meeting of the British Association in 1872, John Evans, F.R.S., F.S.A. says, "If the date which has been assigned to the famous 'Moabite stone,' of about 900 B.C., be correct, the correspondence in form between the archaic GREEK letters and those on the stone raises a strong presumption in favor of letters having been imported into Greece at the time when the PHOENICIAN alphabet was in that stage of development in which it occurs on the stone. Even the name of the alphabet preserves the memory of its PHOENICIAN origin, for Alpha and Beta, the names of the two letters from which the word is derived, are not really GREEK, but merely the Hellenized form of the PHOENICIAN (i.e. HEBREW) Aleph and Beth. The same is the case with the names of all the other GREEK letters down to Tau.... It must, however, be remembered, that the letters (of the Moabite Stone) are written from RIGHT to LEFT, or in the same manner as HEBREW, and not as is the case with us, from LEFT to RIGHT. In the early GREEK inscriptions it appears to have been a matter of INDIFFERENCE in which DIRECTION the letters were placed. In some the lines are alternately in EITHER DIRECTION; and this form of writing was known as Boustrophedon, or that which turned BACKWARDS and FORWARDS like an ox in ploughing.... The language of the HEBREW Scriptures may practically be regarded as the same as the PHOENICIAN" ("British Association Reports," 1872, Transactions, p.181 et seq.).
The Encyclopedia Britannica, 14th edition, vol.3, p.972, article "Boustro- phedon," says: "A term descriptive of a peculiar form of writing common among the early GREEKS. The direction of writing was alternately RIGHT to LEFT and LEFT to RIGHT in horizontal lines, or conversely, LEFT to RIGHT and RIGHT to LEFT. It was a transition between the earlier RIGHT to LEFT writing and the later LEFT to RIGHT style. The term was derived from two Greek words meaning "ox" and "to turn," from the resemblance of the writing to the winding course taken by oxen in ploughing."
Sir Charles Marston in The Bible Comes Alive says, "It will be seen, from the archaeological evidence cited in these pages, that the Israelites had, from the time of Moses onward, at least three alphabetical scripts. First, what is known as the SINAI HEBREW; next, what is known as PHOENICIAN HEBREW; and lastly, after the captivity in Babylon, what is known as the ASSYRIAN HEBREW." (p.8). "So far as is known at present, it would seem as though the SINAI HEBREW script usually reads from LEFT to RIGHT, like our own writing, while the PHOENICIAN HEBREW reads from RIGHT to LEFT, like modern Hebrew."
Professor Stephen Langdon, M.A., B.D., Ph.D., F.B.A., Professor of Assyriology at Oxford, wrote, in a letter to the "Times" on 5th October, 1935, with reference to the SINAI HEBREW inscription on the Lachish Red Bowl which had been published in that journal on 24th June, under the title "Antiquities from Lachish" by J.L. Starkey: "The inscription as published in the 'Times' should be INVERTED and read from LEFT to RIGHT; for this was the original direction of writing the SINAITIC script."
The Lacedemonians wrote GREEK from LEFT to RIGHT; yet they were Israelites (1 Maccabees 12:6-23). (by Harold Hemenway).
14)What about 1 Chronicles 9:1-3? It says, “So all Israel were reckoned by
genealogies; and, behold, they are written in the book of the kings of Israel:
and Judah was carried away captive to Babylon for their transgression.”
(American Standard Version)
“And the first inhabitants, who are in their possession, in their cities, of Israel, are the priests, the Levites, and the Nethinim.” (Young’s Literal Translation).
“And in Jerusalem dwelt of the children of Judah, and of the children of Benjamin, and of the children of Ephraim, and Manasseh;” Does this mean that Ephraim and Manasseh returned with the Jewish Babylonian exiles in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah?
Answer: First, Judah being mentioned as being taken away to Babylon for their sins of course here is added by the later editors of the Bible of course by Ezra. A reminder to people why they went into captivity.
Secondly, the phrase in verse 2, “the first inhabitants.” The word “first” does not mean the first people after the exile of Babylon to enter the land and possess it. When we look at the Strong’s and the true meaning of the word, we see a different meaning. “H7223 ree-shone’, ree-shone’ From H7221; first, in place, time or rank (as adjective or noun): - ancestor, (that were) before (-time), beginning, eldest, first, fore [-father] (-most), former (thing), of old time, past.” It means the “former” first inhabitants of the land not the latter first inhabitants of the land. And in the context of the whole chapter, it plainly shows the geneaologies of the former heads of the tribes before the exile. Kiel & Delitzsche Commentary of the Old Testament renders this passage the same as well, “And the former inhabitants which (lived) in their possessions in their cities were Israel, the priests, the Levites, and the Nethinim; and in Jerusalem there dwelt of the sons of Judah,” etc., the “former
inhabitants” can only be those who dwelt in their possessions before Judah was led captive into Babylon. This could hardly be misunderstood by any commentator,...[it] can only be understood of the pre-exilic inhabitants” (emphasis added).
Now in verse when it says in Jerusalem there dwelt “Ephraim and Manasseh,” this is meant by the “former inhabitants,” not the latter. And if you notice the geneaology, none of the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh is mentioned. Why? “...The reason of that is probably this, that only single families and individuals from among the latter [group, Ephraim and Manasseh] dwelt there, while the register only makes mention of the heads of the larger family groups in the population of Jerusalem.” The Heads of the main tribes are the ones mentioned they were in charge of that region. So in context this shows nothing of Ephraim and Manasseh coming back to the land in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah, but shows that Ephraim and Manasseh were its former inhabitants and were a minority in
15) Many Quote Acts 26:6-7 which says, "And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers: Unto which promise our twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and night, hope to come. For which hope's sake, king Agrippa, I am accused of the Jews." May believe from this scripture that The twelve tribes at the time of Paul all twelve tribes must have been in the promised land serving God.
Answer: At the time of Paul the Israelites were pagans scattered all over Europe, and even many of the Jews were not even believers in God or the Bible. Did the apostle Paul get it wrong? No! This is just a simple case of mistaken identity!
Paul when he was speaking of the hope, he was speaking of HIS HOPE, and HE was the one serving God day and night, not the 12 tribes. You must look at it in its context and subject. The New Bible Commentary says, "Paul maintained that it was because of his hope in what God has promised our fathers that he was on trial that day, namely the hope and belief that God raises the dead" (p.1104). The subject was Paul's belief in that hope. Let's look at the scripture again. "
"And now I [Paul] stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers [Abraham Isaac and Jacob]:
"Unto which promise our twelve tribes, [I, Paul] instantly [Earnestly] serving God day and night, hope to come. For which hope's sake, king Agrippa, I [Paul] am accused of the Jews.
"Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that God should raise the dead?" (Acts 26:6-8).
It was Paul serving God day and night, not the Israelites. Some of the Jews did not even believe in the resurrection, see Matthew 22:23. The hope in the resurrection, the hope of the Messiah's promised to come to save Israel, and raise Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the Kingdom of God was the reason why Paul was doing the work of God, the whole reason for his ministry. Many have mistaken this to mean the Israelites were serving God day and night, but really its Paul who was for the hope to come
This booklet has proven that the House of Israel, the lost ten tribes of Israel are the USA, Britain, the Commonwealth of Britain, and the peoples of North western Europe. This alone proves that God exists. That he is true to his promises, and he means what he says. May all the House of Israel realize who they are and repent and return to Almighty God.
A Rebuttal To The Worldwide News Article
By Mr. Ralph Orr Entitled
United States And Britain In Prophecy
by Steven M. Collins
he December 19, 1995, issue of The Worldwide News contained an article by Mr. Ralph Orr on the subject of the United States and Britain in Prophecy. That article rejected a long-standing belief of the Worldwide Church of God that the people of the United States of America and Great Britain are primarily descended from the Israelite Tribes of Manasseh and Ephraim. The errors in that article demand a scholarly response.
Mr. Orrs article raises some legitimate issues which deserve detailed answers; however, it also contains arguments which are misleading and/or inaccurate. Mr. Orrs article opens with a red herring: an attempt to equate Anglo-Israelism with racism. He states: The scriptures proclaim a grace-based, not a race-based message. I quite agree. However, the old WCG, and its major offshoots, never included Anglo-Israelism in any race-based message of salvation. I can recall no instance in which the Worldwide Church of God (WCG), or its offshoots, proclaimed that you had to be an Israelite to be saved, which is what Mr. Orrs statement implies.
The old WCG had large international ministries to reach people in nations which were regarded as non-Israelite. There were extensive efforts to preach Gods Word to Spanish-speaking nations in Latin America, the Philippines, etc., and many black brethren were welcomed into the Churches of God (non-Israelite racial origin was no barrier to Church membership). Furthermore, the WCG (and its major offshoots) have never been criticized as anti-Semitic (i.e., anti-Jewish). Indeed, we have identified Jews as the modern House of Judah, and have sought positive relationships with members of the Jewish faith.
Mr. Orrs article mistakenly implies that any attempt to understand the Biblical origins of modern nations is racist. The whole purpose of the WCGs effort to identify the origins of modern nations, was for purposes of understanding Biblical prophecies! Since the Bible identifies nations by their Biblical names (i.e., Israel, Judah, Assyria, etc.), one must first identify which modern nations are descended from these ancient nations, in order to apply ancient prophecies to the modern world. There was (and is) nothing racist about this effort.
Mr. Orr also states that some came to believe our message was race-based, not grace-based, and that some found the Anglo-Israel belief in The United States and British Commonwealth in Prophecy as excuse enough, not to repent of racism. He cites no specific examples to support these statements, and (based on the WCGs inclusion of all races into its membership) it is apparent that anyone reacting in the manner ascribed by Mr. Orr was simply not paying careful attention to the Churchs message. Lets examine some facts about Anglo-Israelism.
In the late nineteenth century, many in Great Britain recognized that the prophecies about Ephraim had come to pass in the blessings given to the British Empire. This belief (British-Israelism) was even held by influential people. Col. J. C. Gawler, Queen Victorias Keeper of the Crown Jewels, wrote two British-Israel publications entitled, Our Scythian Ancestors Identified with Israel, and, Dan, the Pioneer of Israel.l However, was British-Israelism racist as Mr. Orr implies? Consider this quote from one of their nineteenth century booklets entitled: Jeshurun . . . An Elementary Paper on our British Israelite Origin, which stated:
Opponents accuse us of vaunting our Israelitish origin as a precious gift of salvation by inheritance. A great error! The fact is, the study is only valuable to those who receive and acknowledge the gift of Christ as the only Mediator through whom we obtain salvation.2 (Emphasis not added.)
That British-Israelite writer shared Mr. Orrs rejection of race-based messages of salvation. As this quote indicates, the British-Israelites were horrified by the allegation that they taught a salvation by race concept. It is easy to misunderstand a message. Even the Apostle Pauls teachings had been so woefully misunderstood by some, that he issued a strong denial that his message included a rejection of Gods Old Testament laws, Romans 3:31.
Anglo-Israelism was also present in nineteenth century America. In 1857, a pastor named F. E. Pitts gave a two-day presentation advocating Anglo-Israelism to a joint session of the U.S. Congress! Can you imagine such an event occurring in modern, nihilistic America? Ironically, Pastor Pitts was an antimonarchist who was hostile to Britains royal family (as his messages make plain).3
Anglo-Israelism should be evaluated strictly on its merits. In any discussion of whether the ten tribes of Israel both exist and are identifiable in the modern world, we must first objectively determine what the Bible (Gods Word) teaches on the subject. Many modern Christians believe that we are living in the Biblical latter days which will immediately precede the return of Jesus Christ. The old WCG (and its main offshoots) shared this belief with many Protestant, evangelical denominations.
In Genesis 49, Jacob (Israel) was inspired to prophesy that all the tribes of Israel would be present among the nations on earth during the latter days. This prophecy offers many clues to assist people in identifying Israelite nations in the latter days (this infers God knew that by the time the latter days arrived, the tribes of Israel would be hidden from world awareness, and such clues would be needed). Based on very divergent prophecies about the traits and locations of the latter-day tribes of Israel, it is clear the Bible is speaking of separate nations (or ethnic groups). This is consistent with the prophecy in Ezekiel 37:15-28, that the house of Judah and the house of Israel (the so-called lost ten tribes) would not be reunited until after the Messianic kingdom is established (i.e., David is prophesied to be their joint king when the dead are resurrected). These latter day prophecies make it clear that while modern Jews can be the house of Judah, they cannot possibly include the house of Israel during the latter days. Therefore, if we are guided by a literal interpretation of the Bible, we must look for the ten tribes of Israel among the non-Jewish nations of the world.
Many modern Christian denominations unknowingly call God a liar when they teach that the lost ten tribes have died out, or cant be identified, because the Bibles inspired prophecies say otherwise! Also, the New Testament affirmed the inspired nature of Old Testament prophecies. Jesus Christs statement in Matthew 5:17, Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets, affirms not only the Old Testament laws of God, but its prophecies as well! Some regard Paul as a liberal, but he wrote in II Timothy 3:16: All scripture [including prophecies!] is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine. . . . The Apostle Peter added:
We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed . . . no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit, II Peter 1:19-21.
It is vital to notice Paul and Peters words: all scripture and of the scripture. They were speaking about (and validating) the canonized Hebrew Scriptures with which they were familiar (i.e., the Old Testament). Peter specifically affirmed that the early Church accepted Old Testament prophecies as divinely inspired! Therefore, we have established that in any discussion of the ten tribes of Israel, the early New Testament Church accepted the Old Testament prophecies about them as inspired and binding.
Mr. Orrs article indicates that the new WCG has lost its faith in the literal interpretation of the Bible. This is a common view in many secular churches. If the WCG no longer accepts the Bible as the infallible word of God, it should openly say so instead of picking and choosing which parts of the Bible it accepts and which parts it rejects.
Mr. Orr asserts the New Testament takes a strikingly different approach than that of Anglo-Israelism. Really? We have seen that Jesus Christ, Paul, and Peter, all affirmed the divinely inspired content of all Old Testament prophecies (including those about the tribes of Israel). There is no strikingly different approach in the New Testament approach of Jesus Christ, Peter, or Paul, regarding prophecies about the ten tribes, so Mr. Orrs statement is either misleading or factually incorrect. Is Mr. Orr repudiating Biblical prophecy, or is he still attacking the false notion that Anglo-Israelism is Racist?
Mr. Orr does make a valid point when he states: when reading Anglo-Israelite literature, one notices that it generally depends on folklore, legends, quasi-historical genealogies and dubious etymologies. I, too, have read Anglo-Israelite literature based on this kind of weak evidence. Folklore and legends may actually come to a right conclusion, but such evidence is admittedly too weak to convince either scholars or skeptics on the subject. However, it must be realized that in the nineteenth century, British-Israelite writers were governed by very different literary conventions. Prior to the general acceptance of evolutionary mythology, the Bible was held in such high esteem that if writers could find support for their conclusions in the Bible, they felt no need for the support of documented secular sources. Today, the situation is reversed: scholars do not accept anything in the Bible unless it is supported by secular evidence.
Mr. Orr continues: Rarely . . . are the disciplines of archeology, sociology, anthropology, linguistics, or historiography applied to Anglo-Israelism. His point, while not completely applicable to Anglo-Israelite literature, is true in some cases. However, historical evidence for Anglo-Israelism does exist! British-Israelite publications in the nineteenth century contained considerable hard evidence which was never included in the WCG literature on the subject. Additionally, the modern scientific community has discovered much new evidence concerning Israelite history, which was not available to the nineteenth century writers. However, one has to search diligently through secular sources to find this evidence, because it is not discussed in a Biblical context.
Let us now examine a supposed conflict in the Bible which Mr. Orrs article discussed. He notes that II Kings 17:18 states (regarding the removal of the ten tribes from Israel when Samaria fell): only the tribe of Judah was left. The fall of Samaria was approximately 721 B.C.4 Mr. Orr correctly notes that at face value, the verse appears to say that only the tribe of Judah escaped captivity. Yet he does not take this scripture literally because during the reign of King Josiah of Judah (circa 639-608 B.C.5), II Chronicles 34:9 states Josiah collected donations to repair the Temple from the people of Manasseh, Ephraim, and the entire remnant of Israel. Indeed, verse 6 adds that Naphtalites and Simeonites were also then present in Palestine!
Faced with this apparent contradiction, Mr. Orr resorts to the typical rationalizations used by minimalists and apologists in various Christian denominations. While the specifics vary, their responses always have the bottom line conclusion that you cant take the Bible literally. Jesus Christ himself might say to such people: O ye of little faith. . . . Let us examine a combination of Biblical and secular evidence to demonstrate that there is no conflict here, and that both sections of the Bible are historically true and can be taken literally.
The supposed conflict is this: How can the Bible say all the tribes of Israel (except Judah) were removed from Palestine in 721 B.C., but also assert that significant numbers of the ten tribes were again present in Palestine by Josiahs reign a century later? Notice first that II Kings 17:18 does not prophesy: no Israelites will ever return to Palestine. It only asserts that none of the ten tribes were present in Israel in the year 721 B.C., just after the Israelite capital of Samaria fell.
The answer to the supposed conflict is partially found in Mr. Orrs own article. He observes: Fundamental to the Anglo-Israel argument is the belief that all significant parts of the house of Israel went into captivity. Biblical and archeological scholars harbor serious doubts about the accuracy of this view. This statement reveals Mr. Orr has not widely read available Anglo-Israel literature. For example, Col. Gawlers nineteenth century publication (mentioned earlier) conclusively makes the case that many Israelites did not go into captivity! To assert that it is fundamental to the Anglo-Israel argument that all significant parts of the house of Israel went into captivity is simply not true. Indeed, the solution to our apparent contradiction lies in the fact that they did not!
Col. Gawlers writings also belie another myth that the detractors of Anglo-Israelism like to spread: that all Anglo-Israel adherents are anti-Jewish. Col. Gawler wrote that Jews attended the meetings of the nineteenth century British-Israelites and credits a Jewish gentleman of great learning6 for directing him to Jewish historical sources which confirmed that many Israelites escaped the Assyrians and settled independently in a new location.
Col. Gawler noted that the medieval geographer, Abraham Ortelius, recorded that, when the kingdom of Israel fell, many of the ten tribes migrated to Tartary and took the name Gauthei because they were very jealous of the glory of God.7 Gawler also cited Armenian historians who noted that a large mass of Israelites migrated (through Armenia) into Tartary. Tartary was a region near the Black Sea (which later became a springboard for the huge migrations of the Goths into Europe in the third to sixth centuries A.D.). Another medieval Jewish writer is quoted as asserting these migrating Israelites evaded the calamity [of an Assyrian captivity], going off with their flocks and turning nomads, and that the chief or prince whom they appointed could muster 120,000 horse and 100,000 foot.8 With a military escort of almost a quarter-million men, it is clear the escaping Israelites could easily have numbered well over one million people.
In II Esdras 13:39-46, there is an account that a large group from the ten tribes of Israel escaped the Assyrians and journeyed for one- and-one-half years to a place called Arzareth. This passage (in an apocryphal book) records that these Israelites were determined to keep their statutes which they had not kept in their own country, and adds the Most High held back the waters of the Euphrates River so they could escape the Assyrians. Here again we see an account that the Israelites who escaped captivity were in a repentant state of mind. Does the Bible support this view? Yes!
In II Chronicles 28:5-8, we read of a war between Israel and Judah just decades before the fall of Samaria, in which God gave the victory to the Israelites who killed 120,000 Jewish soldiers, and were leading 200,000 Jews into captivity in Israel. Clearly, the house of Israel still had a very sizeable population at that time. Loaded with much spoil, the victorious Israelites were met by a prophet (Obed) who gave them a warning from God not to carry their Jewish brethren into captivity. The house of Israel had long spurned Gods prophets, but verses 13-15 record the elders of Ephraim heeded this prophet. Indeed, they gave back all the spoil to the captive Jews, fed and clothed them, and gently assisted the feeble to make the journey back to Judah. Interestingly, this account indicates the elders of Israel made this decision to bend over backwards in obeying God without any input from their king.
A few years later when Samaria fell, II Kings 17:24-31 records the Assyrians had to repopulate the land of Israel with foreigners because the land was abandoned. Verse 25 (the Lord sent lions among them) implies the land had been depopulated for so long that it had reverted to the wild. The cuneiform texts of the Assyrian kings claim that when Samaria fell, only 27,290 people were taken captive9 (a very paltry total considering that only a few years previously the Israelites had slain and taken captive hundreds of thousands of Jews). The Assyrians made no claim of taking the rest of the Israelite nation captive at that time.
As discussed above, historical sources indicate the escaping Israelites migrated north of Armenia into the Black Sea region. Many ancient historians note that the Black Sea region thereafter acquired the names of Iberia and Scythia (the Sacae). Genesis 21:12 prophesied that Abrahams seed would be known by the name of Isaac, and since ancient Hebrew deleted vowels, Isaacs name is present in the root consonants of Sac or Saac. The Sacae Scythians kept the name of Isaac in their tribal name, fulfilling the prophecy of Genesis 21:12. Iberia preserved the name of the Hebrews namesake Eber, and, importantly, Iberian kings bore the name of Phares. The Roman historian Tacitus mentions Iberia and their kings named Pharesmanes,10 as does the famous British historian George Rawlinson.11
King David had been promised by God that his seed would never lack a man sitting on the throne of the house of Israel, Jeremiah 33:17. Some Israelites who migrated to the Black Sea had kings named Pharesmanes, and Phares was the lineage from which King David was born, Matthew 1:3-6. This strongly argues that the Israelites who migrated to the Black Sea abandoned their old king to the Assyrians and selected a prince from the house of David to be their new king. Why else would they proclaim the name Phares in their dynastic name? There is much more evidence that Davidic kings ruled over other Asian Israelites as well, but the above will suffice for this article.
Greek historians indicate that the Black Sea Israelites (now called Sacae Scythians) were obedient to prominent Old Testament laws. Herodotus notes they avoided swines flesh12, and scrupulously avoided foreign idols and religious customs.13 Herodotus recorded that a Scythian king (with the Israelite name: Saulius) executed a prominent Scythian for participating in a Greek festival honoring the mother goddess, and a Scythian king was even executed for participating in an idolatrous religious celebration.14 By no means did all Scythians exhibit Israelite customs. The Turanian Scythians, for example, were not related to the Sacae Scythians, and their tribes exhibited some bizarre customs. When discussing Scythians, one must be careful to determine which Scythians tribes are being discussed, because not all of them were Israelite.
The Bible supports the thesis that many of the ten tribes resettled in the Caucasus/Black Sea region. In the reign of King Hezekiah of Judah (soon after Samaria fell), II Kings 19:37 states that Sennacherib, the king of Assyria, was assassinated by his sons who sought safety by fleeing to the land of Ararat. When fleeing for their lives, these assassins would go to an area which was so anti-Assyrian that they would be certain to receive asylum. They fled to the region of Ararat (the Caucasus/Black Sea region) where refugees of the ten tribes had established a new homeland. The anti-Assyrian Israelites would surely give refuge to assassins of an Assyrian king, and the fact these assassins fled to Ararat is consistent with historical records that Israelites had migrated to that region.
The Bible also confirms that the Israelites who fled to the Black Sea experienced at least a limited revival in serving the God of Israel. In Jeremiah 3:11-12, God sent a message to the ten tribes of Israel via Jeremiah in about 620 B.C. (100 years after Israel had been removed from Palestine). Gods message was:
. . . backsliding Israel hath justified herself more than treacherous Judah. Go and proclaim these words toward the north, and say, Return thou backsliding Israel, saith the Lord . . . .
Did Gods use of the word return mean return to God, return to Palestine, or both? Whatever the intent, history records the Israelites did return to Palestine at that time! While the above quote was not a glowing tribute to the ten tribes spiritual condition, God nevertheless acknowledged that they were clearly more obedient to God at that time than the tribe of Judah. Also, He directs Jeremiah to address his message to the ten tribes: to the north. If He was addressing Israelites carried captive to Assyria, God would have said to the east. Draw a line straight north of Jerusalem (where Jeremiah was) and you will come exactly to the Black Sea region of the Sacae Scythians.
Were the ten tribes of Israel lost a century after the fall of Samaria? Obviously not! God himself sent a message at that time via the prophet Jeremiah to the free Israelites near the Black Sea.
What does this have to do with the supposed conflict raised in Mr. Orrs article? That will now be answered, but it was first necessary to establish the Israelite origin of the Sacae Scythians before any sense could be made of what follows.
Secular historians record that (circa 625-605 B.C.) the Scythians poured out of the Black Sea/Caucasus region to invade the regions to the south. Their armies marched in the direction of Assyria and Palestine. The Scythian armies who marched to Assyria devastated Assyrias homeland. The Encyclopaedia Britannica states simply: Nineveh was captured and destroyed by the Scythian army . . . and the Assyrian empire was at an end.15 However, the Scythian army that marched into Palestine was peaceful as they continued to Egypt (which avoided an invasion by paying tribute to the Scythians). Herodotus notes that while the Scythians also conquered Media and took possession of all Asia, they marched into Palestine, doing no harm to anyone.16
Harpers Bible Dictionary records that this massive Scythian presence in Palestine occurred in the reign of King Josiah (639-608 B.C.),17 and during the ministry of the prophet Jeremiah (who had sent Gods message to the ten tribes which said return). The Scythian invasions clearly exhibit motives that confirm their Israelite origin. By conquering Media, they liberated the Israelites held captive in the cities of the Medes, and by destroying the Assyrian Empire, they exacted revenge for the Assyrian destruction of the old kingdom of Israel. [Interestingly, while the Assyrians drove the ten tribes out of Palestine, we can now know that the ten tribes of Israel ultimately destroyed Assyria and its empire.]
If the Scythians had been marauding nomads from the steppes (a common assumption of history books), they would have looted Palestine and Judah as well. However, Herodotus account of their presence in Palestine indicates a friendly/protective occupation. This makes sense when we understand the Sacae Scythians recognized the Jews as a brother tribe. Even the Bible acknowledges the Scythian presence in Palestine during Josiahs reign, in the very passage to which Mr. Orr points as a Bible contradiction! The Greeks called the Black Sea Israelites Sacae or Scythians, however, the Bible called them by their Israelite tribal names because the Jews still recognized the Scythians as Israelite tribes! That is why II Chronicles 34-35 records King Josiah issuing donations and Passover invitations to people of Manasseh, Ephraim, Naphtali, Simeon, and Israel. King Josiah was, in fact, interacting with the Sacae Scythians who had just recently reoccupied their old tribal lands! These passages are powerful Biblical proof that the Sacae Scythians were the ten tribes of Israel! Precisely when Greek history records that the Sacae Scythians had poured into Palestine, the Bible states many of the ten tribes of Israel were again present in the land.
II Chronicles 34:6 records that the ten tribes of Israel had reoccupied their old homelands with mattocks. While the Scythians attacked Assyria with swords, they occupied Palestine with agricultural tools! The ten tribes apparently intended to reclaim and resettle the old kingdom of Israel. However, history records they decided to return to their new Black Sea homelands within a few decades. Werner Keller states the Scythians returned to the Black Sea region within ten years18, while Herodotus records they remained in the Mideast 28 years before returning.19
The events of King Josiahs reign take on new meaning when it is realized that the more devout ten tribes of Israel had reoccupied Palestine during his reign! King Josiahs spiritual reform of Judah began in the eighth year of his reign, II Chronicles 34:1-3. What motivated him to do this? The eighth year of his reign was 623 B.C., about when the Sacae Scythians (the ten tribes of Israel) reoccupied Palestine. He began to destroy pagan idols and images even though he did not recover the book of the law until at least ten years later (verses 3-15). Who taught him how to please the God of Israel? The Scythian Israelites! Jeremiah records the Israelites were closer to God at that time, and Herodotus wrote the Scythians avoided unclean meat and forbid the use of idolatrous images.20
After 10-28 years, the Israelites mostly returned to the north after discovering that Palestine was no more a land of milk and honey. It had been occupied by foreigners (brought in by Assyrians) for a century, and was now undesirable compared to the Israelites Black Sea region. However, a few Israelites likely stayed in Palestine, accounting for limited contingents of Israelites being present in future generations. After the Scythian Israelites left Palestine, a city in the old tribal territory of Manasseh (Beth-Shan) was renamed Scythopolis21 in honor of the Scythians who had liberated Palestine from Assyrian domination. The city was still named Scythopolis when it was one of the cities of the Decapolis22 in which Jesus walked, Mark 7:31.
The above is an example of how a careful reconciliation of secular history and Biblical historical accounts mutually verify the accuracy of the Bible! What Mr. Orr regards as a conflict is, in fact, no conflict at all. Since the accounts are factually and literally true, the many rationalizations utilized by Mr. Orr to put new meanings on the terms Judah and Israel are moot.
Mr. Orr is correct in stating: The Bible records that Jews and Israelites were still living side by side in the days of the early Church, but he errs in asserting that it was because Israelites were joined to the house of Judah. Mr. Orrs assumption is contradicted by Josephus, a contemporary of the early Church. Josephus states that during the time of the early Church:
There are but two tribes in Asia and Europe subject to the Romans, while the ten tribes are beyond Euphrates till now, and are an immense multitude, and not to be estimated by numbers.23 (Emphasis added.)
Josephus makes it quite clear that the two tribes . . . subject to the Romans were Judah and Benjamin, and that the ten tribes of Israel were still in Asia during the days of the early Church. Ezra 1 and Nehemiah 11 also confirm that only Judah and Benjamin had returned to Judea and (with Levi) became the ancestors of the Jews of Roman Judea. Note also that Josephus did not regard the ten tribes as lost during the 1st century A.D. He even names the Euphrates River as one of their borders. It is important that Josephus recorded that the ten tribes population had grown very immensely in Asia; it confirms the Israelites had not disappeared or died out. Indeed, it confirms the Biblical prophecy of Hosea 1:6-10 that God would make the ten tribes of Israel too numerous to count after He removed them from Palestine.
At the time of Josephus, the Euphrates River had long been the recognized border between the Roman and Parthian Empires. Josephus euphemism, beyond Euphrates, was tantamount to saying the ten tribes were in Parthia. Parthia was an immense Asian Empire, which stretched from the Euphrates River to India. Historians have long recognized that the Parthians (who fought many wars with Rome) were fellow tribesmen of the Sacae Scythians.24 There is an immense volume of evidence that the Parthian Empire was ruled by the ten tribes of Israel, but there simply is not space enough to examine that evidence in this article.
During the time of Jesus Christ and the early Church, there was a long period of detente between the Roman and Parthian Empires during which extensive travel and trade between the two empires took place. The Wise Men from the east, Matthew 2:1, who brought gold, frankincense and myrrh to the young Jesus were Parthians (Magi and Wise Men were the official titles of Parthias priests and nobility).25 Acts 2:9 states that Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia . . . and Asia, were present in Jerusalem to keep the Feast of Weeks. All the above named regions were part of Parthias Empire. Verse 10 states these devout people were Jews and proselytes (i.e., non-Jews). The non-Jews were Israelites from the Parthian Empire, and Peter openly called them men of Israel when he addressed them, Acts 2:22. Mr. Orr mistakenly puts a different meaning on Peters comment, but Peter (like Josephus) knew the many Parthians in his audience were Israelites, and addressed them as such.
Because Parthian merchants, pilgrims, and diplomats could travel freely in Roman Palestine at the time of Christ, there were many Israelites present in Judea throughout the time of Christ, especially (as Acts 2 confirms) during the Annual Holy Days.
Sadly, the arguments in Mr. Orrs article are consistent with those of Biblical minimalists and apologists, people who have lost their faith in a literal interpretation of the Bible, and therefore apologize for it. As we can see, no apologies for the Bible are needed; its historical accounts can be taken literally!
There is a valid challenge which needs to be made to those who oppose Anglo-Israelism. If they claim to be Christians who believe the Bible is the inspired word of God, then they should accept Hosea 1 and Genesis 49, which prophesy that the ten tribes of Israel would have huge populations after their captivity and will be present and identifiable among the nations during the latter days. If they do not agree with the Anglo-Israel identifications of which modern nations are Israelite, they should offer their own alternative identifications for the modern ten tribes of Israel. If a person really believes the Bible is Gods literal word, they will offer such alternatives. Those who cannot (or will not) offer alternatives, reveal that they dont really believe in a literally-true Bible. They are simply wasting our time.
In conclusion, there is abundant evidence that Biblical historical accounts are literally true, and that the United States of America and Britain are the modern descendants of the Israelite tribes of Manasseh and Ephraim (space did not permit a discussion of that subject in this article). There is also much historical evidence that the ten tribes of Israel can be traced in all parts of their history from the fall of Samaria till the present.
The author of this article has spent many years researching evidence about the tribes of Israel, and this information has been published in 1996 in a major book, The Lost Ten Tribes of Israel. . . Found! It is 440 pages long. This book contains the information offered in this article and much, much more. It examines the subject of the ten tribes of Israel from a historical, linguistic, archeological, and anthropological basis. It traces the empires, migrations, and histories of the ten tribes from the time of King David until the present. It not only documents the whereabouts of the tribes of Israel in the modern world, but also documents that the Israelites ruled major empires at several stages of their history. After reading The Lost Ten Tribes of Israel...Found! you can believe in Anglo-Israelism (and the veracity of the Bible) not in spite of the scientific evidence, but rather because of it! This book is based on hard evidence, not folklore and legend.
If you are interested in a scientific documentation of the history and modern locations of the ten tribes of Israel, you may order a copy of this excellent book. See ordering information below.
(Steve Collins plans additional books documenting further evidence of the identity of the Lost Ten Tribes of Israel.)
1. Our Scythian Ancestors Identified with Israel, and Dan...the Pioneer of Israel, Col. J.C. Gawler, were published by W.H. Guest of London, England in 1875 and 1880, respectively.
2. Jeshurun..., Mrs. E.C. Daubenay, published by W.H. Guest, London, p. 7.
3. The U.S.A. in Bible Prophecy, F.E. Pitts, originally published in 1862, now printed by Hoffman Printing Co., Muskogee, OK.
4. Harpers Bible Dictionary, Samaria, p. 895.
5. Ibid, Josiah, p. 510.
6. Gawler, Our Scythian Ancestors Identified with Israel, p. 9.
7. Ibid, p. 9.
8. Ibid, p. 9.
9. The Bible as History, Werner Keller, p. 246.
10. The Annals of Imperial Rome, Tacitus, Books VI, XI-XIV.
11. The Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy, George Rawlinson, pp. 231-270, 320-321.
12. The History, Herodotus, 4.63.
13. Ibid, 4.76.
14. Ibid, 4.76-80.
15. Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1943 Ed., Vol. 2, Babylonia and Assyria, p. 857.
16. The History, Herodotus, 1.104-105.
17. Harpers Bible Dictionary, Josiah, p. 510.
18. The Bible as History, Werner Keller, p. 273.
19. The History , Herodotus, 1.106.
20. Ibid, 4.76-80.
21. The Bible as History, Werner Keller, p. 273.
22. Harpers Bible Dictionary, Beth-shan, p. 109, and Decapolis, p. 215.
23. Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus, XI, 2.
24. The Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy, George Rawlinson, p. 19, and The Scythians, Tamara Rice, p. 45.
25. The Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy, George Rawlinson, p. 85.
|Your British-Israel Questions and ABCOG's Answers|
|Question: The "ancient Irish annals" to which the
B.I theoreticians refer, do not exist. At least, no one has ever found them (this has been
pointed out by the .... Ministries).
Reply: The "Annals" of Irish History (Annals of Ulster, Annals of the Four Masters, etc.) are only reliably historical from 1,000 A.D. onwards. All material relating to time periods before the time of St. Patrick (430 A.D.) is legend. Poor copying of manuscripts and alternative possible translations complicate matters. Irish legend is not conclusive, only suggestive.
According to an Astronomy magazine, the description of "part of the sun obscured" in A.D. 689 is definitely an eyewitness account of the eclipse of Friday, 3 July A.D. 688. This event was recorded in three separate annals, the Chronicon Scotorum, the Annals of Tigernach and the Annals of Ulster. The narrow band of annularity went through N. Ireland, the Island of Iona and all the way to Archangel, Russia, but there is no record of it outside Celtic sources. Tigernach, who died in 1088, was abbot of Clonmacnoise and reputed to be "the most accurate and most ancient prose chronicler of the northern nations."
|Question: I hope you don't think I am mocking
British-Israelism, which I consider a very valuable theory, an ideal building block for
those that are interested in prophecy. However, I think that there is no way that the
claim that America is Manasseh can stand.
Reply: As for the identification of the USA with Manasseh, there is no stronger case for any other nation. Either the USA is Manasseh, or this prophecy is yet to be fulfilled, or it will never be fulfilled because it has been superseded (as some claim). Some claim that the USA is a multitude of "nations" (states) and so corresponds to Ephraim. The Pledge of Allegiance contradicts this sophistry.
|Question: By preaching that the USA and British Commonwealth
are modern-day descendants (as nations) of Joseph's sons Manasseh and Ephraim aren't you
propagating the racist views of neo-Nazis such as the "Christian Identity"
Reply: We propagate God's truth as best we understand it. We vehemently oppose racism, anti-Semitism and everything else that is opposed to Christian love and fellowship. We preach that modern-day Jews are national descendants of Judah. (Of course, every Jew is not a physical descendant of Judah, but that did not matter in Biblical times nor does it today). Similarly many other modern-day nations are national descendants of the other sons of Jacob (Israel).
|Question: Did any British realize that their blessings came
from God, and take seriously their responsibility to use their blessings in His service?
Here is an excerpt from a sermon entitled "True Imperialism", delivered by John H. Jowett, London, ca. 1900. Printed as Chapter 2 of "Apostolic Optimism", London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1901
|Question: Is the Blarney Stone part of the Stone of destiny?
Reply: Blarney Castle was built in 1446 by Dermot Lá MacCarthy. It stands on a rock high above the River Martin most probably on the site of a Norman fortress. Blarney Castle is a magnificent building set in lovely grounds, and has breathtaking views from the top. This Castle is famous for the Blarney Stone, a piece of limestone, apparently of the same type as the rest of the Castle, (but the story is that the current Blarney Stone is a fake, substituted for the real one.)
According to one story, Cormac MacCarthy received half of the Stone of Scone in gratitude for his support of Robert Bruce's troops at the Battle of Bannockburn in 1314. It was set into the castle keep just below the battlements and came to be called the Blarney Stone. But King Edward I of England took the Stone of Scone to London 18 years earlier. (But legend says Edward I took a fake to London.)
There is no mention of its magical properties until early 19th century. It is said that anyone who kisses the Blarney Stone will receive the gift of eloquence. To do so involves hanging head-first over the castle wall, the legs firmly held by two strong men. The orgin of the legendary power of the stone is a mystery. One tale tells of a king of Munster who saved a witch from drowning. In return she promised that if he kissed the stone he would have such a persuasive tongue that his subjects would obey his every command.
|Question: The Stone of Destiny was stolen by Scots in 1950 ,
can you tell me what day that took place.
The Stone of Destiny was soon recovered after that theft, but it was recently returned to Scotland and is now in Edinburgh Castle, see www.aboutscotland.com/stone/destiny.html. I have not been able to obtain exact details of the 1950 theft. You could contact: http://www.alba.org.uk/liafail.html.
"Seven centuries after Edward the First marched triumphantly out of Scotland with the ancient symbol of Caledonian nationhood effectively tucked under his arm, the Stone of Destiny has crossed the border again, receiving an emotional homecoming in Edinburgh. The sandstone slab, also known as the Stone of Scone, was the seat for all Scottish kings. But in 1296, the English King Edward the First ordered it be seized and taken south, where it has been held since at Westminster Abbey. The Stone was incorporated into the English - now British - throne, and from the 13th century, kings and queens have been crowned on it.
"The fact that the Stone was not being returned to its natural home in Scone, a little north of Perth, is irksome to the Scots. Instead, it will be housed alongside the Honours of Scotland - effectively, Scotland's Crown Jewels - in Edinburgh Castle. Historians are rumbling that the Stone will never rest easy there "as it has no connection with Edinburgh at all". The Scottish Office responds briskly that it would be impossible to install the necessary level of security at Scone Palace, as it continues to be used as a private home by the Earl of Mansfield. So Edinburgh Castle it is, with all the trimmings that go with it. It is an emotional moment for Scots, at home and abroad.
"But while we might feel a satisfying glow that the Stone has come back to Caledonia, we will also find time for a wee grin as well. For the Stone came back in 1950, thanks to some daring young students from Glasgow University, who sneaked into Westminster Abbey in London and nicked it on Christmas morning. There were roadblocks set up across England; border patrols were stationed at the main crossings into Scotland; yet still the Stone made it north to Glasgow. For a moment, these thirsty students carried it out of the car and placed it on the bar of the Arlington Pub whilst they took a quick pint. Some historians argue the Stone should be displayed here, instead of Edinburgh! Within two weeks, the game was up, and the police were tipped off that the Stone could be found at Arbroath Abbey. The students, under enormous pressure, had decided to hand it back. Or did they? Stories abound across Scotland that the students had a replica made, and THAT was the one the police picked up in 1951. The "real" Stone, depending on which story you believe, is in a stonemason's yard in the west end of Glasgow, or part of the portal at a church in Dundee.
"Experts are studying the Stone to see if it needs any restoration work done
before going on public display on November 30, 1996, St. Andrew's Day. And perhaps one of
the first visitors will be the one who quietly knows the truth, passed down from father to
son over the centuries. Perhaps this visitor knows that King Edward was the one who was
cheated; that he stole the wrong Stone; that the Stone of Destiny, the real Stone of
Scone, remains, to this day, on the Isle of Iona..."
"While standing and looking at the Jacobs Stone for a long period of time in
Westminster Abbey, a curator of the museum, a lovely older woman, inquired about my
prolonged interest in the stone. I told her a little bit about our unusual theological
ideas about the stone, at which she surprised me in knowing of the USBC theory quite well.
Apparently every COG person who has ever been there has laid the theory on her, as well as
others. I asked her if there are any unusual legends or facts about the stone. She said
that there is a legend that the stone can actually SPEAK! It is said that if a usurper to
the thrown attempts to be crowned on the chair that the stone will "Groan and
Moan" and cry out "NO!!!" It is stated that this has happened on at least a
couple of occasions, although the last was supposedly several hundred years ago."
[There is a similar legend about the stones of the 2nd Temple, which, according to Jewish legend, cried out at least 3 times against blatant injustice. It may have been to this that Jesus referred when He said: "The very stones would cry out."]
"I remember two years ago geochemical analysis of the stone of Scone indicated
that the rock was a (pelitic) schist that has geochemical signature particular to Scotland
(the highlands!?) and not of origin in the land of Palestine."
In Jacob's Pillar, p.53, E. Raymond Capt writes, "Dean Stanley, one-time custodian
of the Stone , in his book Memorials of Westminster Abbey, sums up its historical
importance in these words; "It is the one primevel monument which binds together the
whole Empire . The iron rings, the battered surface, the crack which has all but rent its
solid mass asunder, bear witness of the English Monarchy -- an element of poetic,
patriarchal, heathen times... carries back our thoughts ... a link which unites the Throne
of England to the traditions of Tara and Iona".
Sixty Anglo-Israel Difficulties Answered
Chiefly from the Correspondence of the late
compiled by his daughter.
London: S. W. Partridge and Co., 9, Paternoster Row. 1877
John Wilson, 1877. Sixty Anglo-Israel Difficulties Answered