Sunday, February 14, 2010

British-Israelism Utterly Refuted....REFUTED!

BY The British-Israel Church of God

In addition to my argument section in my Book The USA & British in Prophecy. We have notice some various website with their detailed refutation of the doctrine of British-Israelism (The doctrine that the Anglo-Saxon and Celtic related peoples are the lost ten tribes of Israel). On this web page we will refute any of these claims that it is a false doctrine, or that it is cultic and or racist in any way.
Web pages of refutations are:
Many link Hebert W Armstrong with this doctrine or they say "he popularized it." In whatever way they want to describe it, we will focus on the British-Israel Doctrine and not the doctrines of the World Wide Church of God. I want to make that distinction clear. Many critics of this doctrine believe that it is racist, Imperialistic, and has no biblical or historical foundation whatsoever. These claims are made simply because of bias for so-called orthodox Christianity. Many churches are not willing to give up their precious doctrines for new truth, or just the simple truth of the Bible. They will defend them no matter how wrong it is. The other is ignorance of the evidence that plainly shows the truth of British-Israelism. This is an important Biblical doctrine for the Watchman work, and also for the Covenant promises which are made to the house of Israel and Judah Jeremiah 31:31; Hebrew 8. Does this exclude the gentiles? Absolutely not! Converted to Christ, they are "Abraham's seed" and heirs to the promise Galatians 3:29. Now we will deal with each refutation from these website one by one.
One more quick note, none of these objections to the British-Israel truth are new. These Arguments have been around for at least a century now, so what we are dealing with is nothing out of the ordinary. Douglas C. Nesbit, of the British-Israel World Federation writes, "Many objections raised against aspects of our British Israel Thesis have long since received more than adequate answers by British Israel exponents; answers which were, in fact, formulated more than a generation ago when those objections first appeared. However, the circulation of these objections continues unabated, with no regard to the clarity of our answers, to the point at which one almost grows weary of repeating them! It seems quite obvious to your editor that those who continue to canvass these attacks upon British-Israel teaching among pastors and members of the public are either dishonest purveyors of falsehood, or totally inadequate in scholarship, for they have never, as far as we know, even looked at the answers prepared by British-Israel writers in rebuttal. (Article "OLD OBJECTIONS RESURFACE AD NAUSEAM" British-Israel Web site, emphasis added).
1. The Origin of British-Israelism
Both websites and others claim that the origin of British-Israelism came from a "madman" Richard Brothers. They claim, "he was admitted to a mental asylum, where he remained for eleven years...Brother's taught that the Anglo-Saxons were the 'Ten Lost Tribes of Israel'. He said that the British, Americans, and other Anglo-Saxons were heirs to the promises given to Israel in Scripture."
Answer: Yes Brothers did know of the concept but HE WAS NOT THE ORIGINATOR OF IT. This knowledge of England being Israel was common in his time and actually goes back centuries before Brothers was even born. Thomas Ransom writes, "Since some of our opponents assert that it was a mentally unbalanced lieutenant of the British Navy. Richard Brothers, who discovered British-Israel Truth (he lived 1757-1824) we propose to give evidence that proves it was known centuries before he was born. Therefore. to make Brothers. the founder of British-Israel beliefs, is about as sensible as making Halley the creator of the Comet that bears his name.
"In Brothers' day we find that such intellectual giants as Alexander Cruden. Rev. John Wilson. and Dr. Abbadic of Amsterdam firmly, believed in our Israelitish identity. Cruden, in the preface of his famous Concordance in the earlier editions of his work, 1736, addressed a letter to King George III, drawing his attention to the very pious life of King Hezekiah of Judah. He closed this letter expressing the hope that George III might prove to be a Hezekiah TO OUR BRITISH ISRAEL. This is not in the later editions. WHY?
"In 1723. Dr. Abbadic of Amstcrdam. said to be the greatest scholar of his day, wrote four volumes setting forth his beliefs that the Ten Gothic Tribes that entered Europe were the Ten Tribes of Israel. He said. "Unless the Ten Tribes had flown into the air, or plunged into the depths of the earth they must be sought for and found in the North West. in Great Britain." (The Covenant Report, p.11, emphasis his and Mine). In Brothers' Day  AND BEFORE, this knowledge was already around and common place among scholars. Brothers' could of easily taken this knowledge that was common around Britain and its colonies and twisted it, like so many people do even today. To say Brothers' originated this doctrine is totally false, by why do they continue to teach this? In this article by Thomas Ransom he quotes scholars, kings, Barons and Rabbi that all attest to the British-Israel Truth.
2. The Historical Argument
Many opponents of British-Israel claim you cannot prove British-Israel in History or the Bible. Using the Bible as part of the historical record as well they should. The Bible is the best kept historical record of the people called Israel, as well as the New Testament church. Can you prove Biblically and historically that the British are Israel?
Let's quote first the arguments from the web sites to see why they think you cannot prove it from the Bible:
"It is very interesting to observe how the Anglo-Israelist connects the two. For instance, one of their chief texts for a "scriptural intimation" and "strong historical proof" is Gen. 48:1820: "And Joseph said unto his father, not so, my father: for this is the firstborn; put thy right hand upon his head. And his father refused, and said, I know it, my son, I know it: he also shall become a people, and he also shall be great: but truly his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his seed shall become a multitude of nations. And he blessed them that day, saying, In thee shall Israel bless, saying, God make thee as Ephraim and as Manasseh: and he set Ephraim before Manasseh.""And here is the "intimation"—Ephraim should be called "great" and Great Britain is called Great, therefore Great Britain is Ephraim! On the other hand Manasseh must have a place in the picture, so the United States is Manasseh. That is the very hub of their British-Anglo-Saxon-Israel claim—that Great Britain is Ephraim and the United States is Manasseh. But the whole argument is based upon misquotation. The passage does not say that "Ephraim shall be called great"—it says that "his younger brother shall be greater than he"—that is, Ephraim should be "greater" than Manasseh," which could only mean, according to this theory that England is greater than the United States! Does lend-lease furnish "strong historical proof" on this point? How do Americans like that slant? Really, what might have happened to great Ephraim if little Manasseh had not come to the rescue? He would have been sunk! The theory furnishes very good British propaganda but, without reflecting on the imperial greatness of Britain or the national pride of America, if the glory of either is the hope of Israel it is a mighty poor affair." (Bible.Ca).
 Interesting, talk about misquotation, and not adhering to the entire text. Where he gets these quotes from I have no Idea, all my British-Israel books do not interpret the texts that way. Although there are some groups that do believe Ephraim is the USA and Manasseh is Ephraim by a misunderstanding of Deut 33:17, most British-Israelites believe that Ephraim is Britain and Manasseh is the USA.
Notice what the Bible says, "and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth.
"And when Joseph saw that his father laid his right hand upon the head of Ephraim, it displeased him: and he held up his father's hand, to remove it from Ephraim's head unto Manasseh's head.
"And Joseph said unto his father, Not so, my father: for this is the firstborn; put thy right hand upon his head.
"And his father refused, and said, I know it, my son, I know it: he also shall become a people, and he also shall be great: but truly his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his seed shall become a multitude of nations.
Gen 48:20 And he blessed them that day, saying, In thee shall Israel bless, saying, God make thee as Ephraim and as Manasseh: and he set Ephraim before Manasseh." (Gen 48:16-20).
Plainly the Bible says, that "they" (Ephraim and Manasseh) shall " grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth." They were to be spread all over the world. Then it says that Manasseh "shall become a people." (Strong's # 5971 "Nation). And Manasseh "SHALL BE GREAT." Not Ephraim, but Manasseh was to be "Great." Ephraim would become "greater than he [Manasseh]," and  "his seed shall become a multitude of nations." Is this rocket science? No!
Manasseh= A Great People [Nation]
Ephraim= Greater than Manasseh, and a Multitude of Nations
Now where do you find in the world today to "brother" nations, one a great 'company" or multitude of nations and the other a great "nation"? The USA and the British Commonwealth fit this Biblical prophecy.
Was Britain Greater than the USA? Yes! Britain colonized a lot more territory, had a larger army, more commerce and trade, it ruled the seas for hundreds of years. So why is the USA greater than Britain today as the only superpower? The website forgot to quote the latter end of verse 20. "he set Ephraim before Manasseh." Ephraim was to become great FIRST, then Manasseh. God "set" Ephraim to get the blessings first as world power, then Manasseh. History shows that Britain was the global power up til the First world war, then the USA took over as world power. So historically you can apply this prophecy to the USA and the British. But can you historically trace the people of the USA and British to Ephraim and Manasseh. God said in the Prophecy 'his seed" meaning his descendants would become a company of nations. Yes we can.
In his excellent Book, the Tribes by Yair Davidy, a Jew, he actually traces the tribes of Israel, from the Exile of Assyria with old maps by Ptolemey, and others, and traces them step by step to Scandinavia and the British-Israel. The Tribal names of Israel that we find in the book of Numbers he also traces in these migrating tribes in Europe to the Israelites of the Bible.
The Ephraimites and Manassites settled in Iran -Eran Bacteria and other places in Assyria. These peoples known as the Sacae-Saxons, migrated to the British Isles and the 'Anglos" that came from East Angla of Assyria actually came from the Hebrew name for Ephraim "AEGLAH" the "bull-calf" (Jeremiah 31:18) " have surely heard Ephraim bemoaning himself thus; Thou hast chastised me, and I was chastised, as a bullock [Aeglah] unaccustomed to the yoke: turn thou me, and I shall be turned; for thou art the LORD my God."  Manasseh settled in west Britain as the Mercia, the name after "Machir" son of Manasseh Gen 50:23). These peoples colonized the USA and other that Yair Davidy traces to Manasseh colonized the USA as well. His book is online for detailed information on the lineage of the British and American peoples traced back to Ephraim and Manasseh (Tribes by Yair Davidy for booklet). So historically you can trace these peoples to these two tribes. So it makes our nations biblically and Historically ISRAEL!

Now let's take a look at this line of reasoning from
"Another "intimation" which is substituted for an argument is found in the expression "a great nation" or a "multitude" of nations, which Israel should become. But that is surely farfetched, especially since the same thing is said of Ishmael in Gen. 17:20 and Gen. 21:18. Since Ishmael should also become "a great nation" and a "multitude" also, it could be that Englishmen are Ishmaelites instead of Israelites!" (Bible.Ca). No Absolutely Not! Others have no problem applying this to the Arabs. Why does this person have a problem applying the prophecies of Israel to the British? This is a stupid argument.
 Here is another stupid argument:
 "The British-Israelists assert that "multitude" of people means a "company of nations," and Great Britain is a "company" of nations—therefore Great Britain is Ephraim. But why pick on Britain ? Babylonia, Persia, Grecia and Rome were all a company of nations. Cyrus the Great said that God had given to him all the kingdoms of the earth—2 Chron. 36: 23. Allowing that interpretation any company of nations could be selected to be Ephraim and thereby become Israel." (Bible. Ca).
The British had colonies under British rule and formed by the British, and its population was the British people. It was not the same as Roman or Babylonian rule, where the nations already existed and the Romans or Babylonians ruled over them. Not to mention, the Romans and Babylonians are NOT DESCENDANT FROM ISRAEL. Arguments like this demonstrates the desperation of these authors simply because they just do not want to believe in the Truth of Almighty God. They do not want to give up there precious doctrines knowing that they are in error and don't want to give them up and will do anything to defend them.
 Notice another dumb argument.
"But if the expression "his seed" should become "a multitude" of peoples or nations, means Britain, it would of necessity embrace her dominions, for Britain alone is not a "company" of nations. Here the Anglo-Israelist objects—for his theory calls for Anglo-Saxons only. And it is a known fact that Britain's "company" of nations are not Saxons. And those who are England's Saxons are a mixture of Celts, Normans, Picts, Gauls, and even the German Teutons. They all once occupied the whole of Great Britain and amalgamated with the Scots with Germans at the head of it. What a mongrel Israel!
"The actual truth of that matter is that there is more Teutonic blood in king George of England than there is Saxon blood. The house of Este, one of the oldest houses in Italy, married into the houses of Brunswick and Hanover, from which descended the English kings and their line of sovereigns. The house of Hanover is German. It was during the World War I that England changed the house of Hanover into the house of Brunswick, but it remains a fact nevertheless that their line of sovereigns is mixed with Italian and German to a predominating extent. It follows as an irresistible conclusion that the throne of England is in the family of king George and not in the ten tribes of Israel.
"If the British-Israel argument on the "company" of nations is correct, we have British Israel with black and yellow Ephraim; for if they deny that Britain's dominions are the ten tribes also, they have no point on Great Britain's "company of nations" as the "multitude" from Ephraim's seed." (Bible.Ca, emphasis added).
This centuries old argument keeps cropping up and no matter how many times its answered, they continue to use this argument to show we are not Israel because Britain is a mixed race. This is simply not true.
First of all, are the Anglo-Saxons of a German Teutonic stock? In a 1915 article "Are We Cousins to the Germans?" Sir Arthur Keith wrote that "the Briton and German represent contrasted and opposite types of humanity" (The Graphic, Dec. 4, p. 720). He explained, "The radical difference in the two forms leaps to the eye. In the majority of the Briton--English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish--the hinder part of the head, the occiput, projects prominently backwards behind the line of the neck; the British head is long in comparison with its width" (p. 720).

Keith then pointed out that "in the vast majority of Germans," the back of the head is "flattened"--indicating "a profound racial difference. Even in the sixteenth century, Vesalius, who is universally recognized as the 'father of Anatomy,' regarded the flat occiput as a German characteristic.... He came, rather unwillingly, to the conclusion that the vast majority of modern German people differed from the British, Dutch, Dane and Scandinavian in head form.

No comments: