---

It was perfectly clear that Israel,who had been dispersed for more than 700yrs,was much in jesus mind during his three years ministry upon earth,for many were the refrences to Israel made by him.As an example'let us turn to to the commission He gave to the twelve apostles inMatt.10:5-6."These twelve Jesus sent forth and commanded them saying.Go not into the way of the gentiles. and unto any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." these apostles were not to go to the Gentiles,nor to the Samaritans-who were the descendants of usurpers of Israel-"But to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."and they obeyed this command as far as possible.The only tribe they could reach which had any connection with Israel was Benjamin,and Benjamin as a tribe was won to allegiance to the lord.Benjamin had gone into captivity with Ju

---

N.H once said to a couple of different colour, that wanted to pair off,  "What will your children look like?"

Really nice stuff hey?

After talking with many people on and off this forum i have noted that when people read and hear about Brett Warrens discoveries on the errors of British Israelism, it does seem to go over there heads, and find in a bit hard to understand.I know i did at first. So in this post i hope to show it in a more simple form,that will make it a bit easy to understand.

Racism is not new. Adolf Hitler talked of an Aryan super-race that was destinted to rule the world. The Jews were an abstacle to Hitler's glorious vision. And so followed the extermination of Jews and other minorities of Europe, which was indisputably one of the darkest chapters of human history. And no unlike you hear from N.Hollins it had nothing to do with what the Jew's said about his blood be on us and our children! This statement came from  a few religious leader's of the day, and did not come from the heart of the Jewish people as a whole.

In about 720 B.C.E, Israel (the ten Northern Hebrew tribes) was defeated and exiled to Assyria. According to the Geelong Revival Center, these tribes never returned to Israel but become the Ten Lost Tribes, which became the Anglo-Saxon People, and came to Britain.

British Israelism began by a man called Richard Brothers, and his book called, A Revealed Knowledge of the Prohecies and Times( 1794) Brothers taught that the Anglo-Saxons were the Lost Ten Tribes. He said that the British, Americans, and other Anglo-Saxons were heirs to the promise given to Israel in Scripture. Consequentially, an Aboriginal, an African, a tribesman from Papua New Guinea would not be so blessed.

Its a real sad thing when Christains justify their racist attitudes through misuse and misunderstanding of the bible. In my time in the Geelong Revival Center i offen found that non
Anglo-Saxons somtimes found fellow Christains looking down on them simply because they were not White Israelites.

Did you know, God doesn't care about black or white? He looks at the heart!! Peter said about the Lord," I truly understand that God shows no Partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him" Praise be to God, it has nothing to do with race, it has everything to do with grace! So the British-Israel claims crumble when they come across the grace of God. Meanwhile, science and history put forward other reasons for showing why British-Israel is wrong.

The Encyclopedia Britannica says "The theory of British-Israelism rests on the premises which are deemed by scholars both theological and anthropological to be utterly unsound"

Morris Silverman, Assistant Professor of History at Yeshiva University, New York, agreed.In Time magazine, he noted, "The British-Israel theory is complete nonsense, as anyone with the slightest knowledge of history can tell"

Well lets look at racial types. If the Anglo-Saxons were really lost Israelites, we would expect them to be the same race. They should look like Israelites, have the same skin colors-basically, there should be a genetic connection. However in his book Races of Mankind: their Origin and Migration, Anthropologist Dr.Calvin Kephart, says that while the Anglo-Saxon people are ARYANS, the Hebrews are from the TURANIAN racial family. They are a completly different race!

IF the Anglo-Saxons were the Isralites, then they should have worshipped the Lord. Some British-Isreal authors make feeble attempts to show that the British Druids were ancient Hebrews, who worshipped the lord. Some say that Jesus went to Britain with his father, and preached to the lost sheep of Israel under the Old Covenant.However, as any history book will show someone who cares enough to research the matter, "The common God of the English people was Woden, the war-god...whom every tribe held to be the frist ancestor of its kings. The British were not Hebrews, but blue-painted Woden-worshipping barbarians!

So, if the British are not lost Isrealites, then who are they? Marcia Nichol ( Adelaide English History lecturer) said the first Celtic people were not Israelites, but could be traced to a group known as the Urn-Feild People, or Proto-Celts. They were called Urn-Field People because they cremated their dead and placed them in distinstive urn cemeteries. They were a Northern European people who began to appear from about 1300 B.C.E. and spoke a form of Celtic. Their Anglo-Saxon counterparts were descended from a central Asian plains culture who later migrated along the same route as the Beaker people, because of the food shortages. They were around long before Assyrians took the Israelites captive!

British-Isralists also miss an important teaching of Scripture. We don't need to look for Israel among the nations of the world! Israel of God is found today in the body of Christ. In the old covenant, fleshy Israel was Gods holy nation. In the new covenant, the body of christ is the chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's own people. Gods word tell's and expains that the blessing of Abraham are for this new spiritual Israel, not any particular race of today like u hear in the Geelong Revival Center.

British-Israel it is a dangerous doctrine. It stems from racism, or elitist thinking, leads to King James Bible only, it should have no place in a christain church. Perhaps those advocating British-Israel must heed the Scripture, "not to occupy themselves with myths and endless genealogies that promote speculations rather than the divine training that is know by Faith"

so in closing,

1. The Anglo-Saxons are not a Semitic race;
2. The English language is not Semitic, nor does it contain any hints of having a Hebrew heritage;
3. The Anglo-Saxons and Israelites had completely different customs and religions, and had no genetic connections.
4. There are no ancient records that indicate Britain has an Israelite history;
5. British-Israelism was invented by a man in 1794.
6. Scripture indicates that the real Israel of God is in the body of Christ;
7. British-Isrealism has very worrying Aryan Supremacy racist overtones;
8. But even if the theory was correct, God doesn't care about race or skin color. Acts 10v34-35

So there i hope that make's things a bit easy'a to understand. Any Geelong Revival Center people that read this and can prove that the things written here are false i would be more than happy to change my mind. Regards all.
wazza.

---

Sorry guys, i really have the expose BI bug! Hope its not to much! hehe.

---

debunk away ...

The idiomatic likenesses between English and Hebrew were noticed by Tyndale when he translated the scriptures. He said, "The properties of the Hebrew tongue aggreeth a thousand times more with the English than with the Latin. The manner of speaking is in both one, so that, in a thousand places, there needest not but to translate the Hebrew word for word." Canon Lyson found 5000 Hebrew roots in the English language ("Our British Ancestors"); other authorities put the figure still higher. The Welsh is so much like the Hebrew that the same syntax may be used for both. The old Saxon language is said to be eighty percent Hebrew. The oldest poems in the Celtic language are in the "Book of the Dun Cow" (1106 A.D.) and are "not unlike the poetical passages in the Old Testament" (5:626, Encyc. Brit. 11th).

Isaiah 28:11 says, "For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people" (Ephraim -- v.1). The Hebrew word for "stammering" here is "LAEG" but English reads left to right so it would be pronounced GAEL in English. GAELIC is not only the foundation of the English language, but is still spoken in its primitive simplicity in many places in Wales, Scotland and the north of Ireland. God does speak to us through the pages of the English Bible (28:13).

It is also interesting that Ephraimites couldn't pronounce the "h" in "Shibboleth" just as the modern English, especially the Cockney, can't pronounce it either.

Notice the English "Rabbit" comes from the Hebrew "ARNBiT" (hare), the R and A reversed, the "Adder" from "ATaR" (to encircle), the "Kitten" from "QuiToN" (a little one), "Camel" from "GeMeL" (camel) and "Elephant" and "Antelope" from "ELePH" (ox). "Steer" from "SHOOR" (ox). "Giraffe" from "GaRaPH" (the neck), "Pig" from "PiGGuL" (abomination), "Snipe" from "INSOP" (water-fowl), the letters shuffled, "Dove" from "DOoB" (to murmur). "Sparrow" from "ZaPPOR" (sparrow). "Pelican" from "PeLeG" (a stream). "Raven" and "Robin" come from "OReB" (raven), "Crow" or "Rook" from "QRAW" (to call), "Egret" from "EGORT" (a crane), "Crane" from "GaRaN" (a throat), "Gull" from "GUL" (to move in a circuit), "Swallow" from "SaLO" (quail), "Osprey" from "PeRoS" (eagle), the S put in front, "Eagle" from "AKuL" (a devourer). "Fish" from "NePHeSH" (living creature), "Crab" from "AQRaB" (Scorpion), "Whelk" and "Leech," if we shuffle the letters, from "ELQ" (to adhere), "Haddock" from HaDDoQ" (a thorn), "Crayfish" from "ECVIS" (spider), "Wasp" from "AZB" (pain), "Moth" from "MOT" (little), "Worm" from "ORM" (naked). "Locust" from "LoQueSH" (to consume), "Gnat" from "NaD" (to fly), "Buzz" from "ZEBUB" (fly), "Shrub" from "ZhRuB" (to limit), "Berry" from "PeRi" (fruit in general), "Fruit" from "FRuCH" (to bud or blossom), "Branch" from "BRaCH" (to reach across), "Bark" from "BOOK" (to roll round), "Gum" from "GaM" (to join together), "Ash" from "AZH" (tree), "Elm" from "ALoN" (an oak), "Cypress" from "GOPHeR" (wood of Noah's ark), "Holly" from "HoLLeL"(pierces"), "Juniper" from "JuPeR" (sharp points), "Brush" from "BRuSH" (Fir), "Cedar" and "Citrus" and "Nectar" from QueTaR" (perfume), "Mistletoe" from "MaSL-TOH" (Lord of misrule). "Crocus" from "CRoCuM" (Saffron herb), "Nettle" from "NeTtO" (plant), "Squash" from "QuaSHA" (Cucumber), "Onion" from "OIN" (eye), "Cabbage" from "QaBaZH" (to gather together), "Turnip"and "Parsnip" from "NiB" (a plant), "Barley"from "BaR" (corn) plus "LaeH" (weary), "Lemon" and "Melon" from RIMMON (Pomegranate),"Peach" from "NePeCH" (citron) and "Raspberry" from "RaSP" (a red-hot coal). (For many more similarities, see English Derived From Hebrew by R. Govett

the above poster just cut and pasted from this site : http://www.british-israel.us/19.html

the same site that says " Gomer gave his name to the Khmer Empire of Cambodia , Magog became the Moguls of Mongolia , Javan is Japan, Tiras became the "red" Thracians and Etruscans who are known today as American Indians" and  "God uses GERMANS to spank disobedient nations."  Arpachshad became the Chaldeans (Babylonians) in Italy" and "Because Isaac's sons are the Saxons. They are the white peoples of the United States, Canada, Great Britain, Scandinavia, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa" http://www.british-israel.us/15.html

hmm didn't the Saxons come from Saxony  in Germany?

Also to keep the law this site recomends this " Snip two vertical scissor-cuts into your T-shirt or boxer shorts, attach the TASSELS using the alligator clips included, and hang them inside or outside your pants. If you prefer to not use the alligator clips, untie each of the four slip knots and tie them around four of your belt loops or in specially created holes. The TASSELS, BLUE or VIOLET thread, and T-shirt or shorts should all be 100% cotton (Deut.22:11). http://www.british-israel.us/10.html

in the above post the poster forgot to cut and paste this part  from http://www.british-israel.us/19.html :

Isaiah 28:11 says, "For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people" (Ephraim -- v.1). The Hebrew word for "stammering" here is "LAEG" but English reads left to right so it would be pronounced GAEL in English. GAELIC is not only the foundation of the English language, but is still spoken in its primitive simplicity in many places in Wales, Scotland and the north of Ireland. God does speak to us through the pages of the English Bible (28:13).

---

in the above post the poster forgot to cut and paste this part from http://www.british-israel.us/19.html :Isaiah 28:11 says, "For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people" (Ephraim -- v.1). The Hebrew word for "stammering" here is "LAEG" but English reads left to right so it would be pronounced GAEL in English. GAELIC is not only the foundation of the English language, but is still spoken in its primitive simplicity in many places in Wales, Scotland and the north of Ireland. God does speak to us through the pages of the English Bible (28:13).

---

I would like to know why if the Irish are the descendants are the lost tribes of Israel they no longer observe Kosher dietary rules - the one that I have met were all  pretty keen on bacon!

DTM

reply to deep throat mole

Irish Legend

Have you ever seen the Walt Disney movie: Darby O'Gill and the Little People ? If you haven't, it is a good idea to rent it. About fifteen minutes into the film there is a scene which accurately depicts much of the Irish legend surrounding: the 'wishing' well , the harp of David, the horn of David, the throne with the ' birthstones ' of the twelve tribes of Israel, the Stone under the throne, the Pot of Gold , the ' little people '; all these symbols are a part of Irish legend, and they are in the film.

---

http://www.hollins.edu/undergrad/religion/religcrse.htmlol

---

For so many years i heard N. Hollines say the Jews were half breeds and not real Jew's.How is one to respond to the anti-Semitic presentation like what N.Hollins says? Well now that i am aloude to look into things and find out the truth with out getting kicked out! its easy enough, since the argument is without substance, as can easily be shown by simply looking at a few passages in the Bible.  Following the Babylonian captivity, all descendents of Abraham are referred to as Jews.  The origin of the term "Jew" is certainly as a reference to the largest tribe of the nation of Israel, Judah; but by the post-exilic period, it came to be used as a general term for all Israelites, regardless of tribe.  Consider the following points:

• Paul is called a Jew in Acts 21:39

• Jesus is called a Jew in John 4:9.

• Peter is called a Jew in Acts 10:28

• Mordecai was called a Jew in Esther 2:5

It is clear that both Paul and Mordecai, for instance, are not from the tribe of Judah, but of Benjamin.  It is certainly not the case that the Greek word translated Jew merely means Judean and that a person living in Judea would be considered a Judean regardless of his ethnicity.  As a simple example of this, consider Acts 18:2:

There he met a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, who had recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had ordered all the Jews to leave Rome. Paul went to see them,

Aquila is a native of Pontus.  Where's that?  It is a province in what is today northern Turkey, which is not anywhere near Judea.   In Acts 18:24 we learn of a Jew named Apollos, who is a native of Alexandria. That's in Egypt, not Judea.

One finds the term Jew being used frequently in the New Testament as a contrast to Gentile: for instance in Acts 10:28, Romans 1:16, or  Romans 2:9, just as examples.

In Romans 11:1 Paul makes the point that he is an Israelite, descended from Abraham, and of the tribe of Benjamin, and yet, as we've already seen, both he and others were quite insistent that he was a Jew.

            The quotations from the Israeli Ministry of Foreign affairs are being given a very odd twist by the anti-Semites; it seems obvious that the Israelis are in no way trying to imply that Jewish people and the ancient Israelites are different people, except in terms of where they live from a chronological standpoint.  They are simply explaining that the modern usage of the term Israeli is ordinarily applied to citizens of Israel, regardless of ethnicity, while Israelite is used for Jewish people in the Bible, and Jew is a general term that can be used for Jewish people living anywhere, including in Israel today.  They are not trying to argue that Jews are not descended from the Israelites of the Bible.  They are simply discussing where and when Jewish people are living and what terms might be applied.  Only an idiot would think they are arguing that they are not descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, especially if one bothers to pay a little more attention to what they say, rather than to create specious arguments based on semantic games, dependent upon pulling a few quotes out of their broader context.  After all, consider this section taken from the Declaration of Israel's Independence, announced by David Ben-Gurion in Tel Aviv on May 14, 1948:

The land of Israel was the birthplace of the Jewish people. Here their spiritual, religious and national identity was formed. Here they achieved independence and created a culture of national and universal significance. Here they wrote and gave the Bible to the world.

Exiled from Palestine, the Jewish people remained faithful to it in all the countries of their dispersion, never ceasing to pray and hope for their return and the restoration of their national freedom.

Impelled by this historic association, Jews strove throughout the centuries to go back to the land of their fathers and regain their statehood....

            Jewish people do not argue that they are not descendents of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.  They do not argue that they are not descended from the ancient Israelites.  Quite the opposite; they are consistent in identifying themselves as the descendents of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and the people of ancient Israel, the Israelites. 

---

Reply to : popeWazza2ndReply to : Anonymoushttp://www.hollins.edu/undergrad/religion/religcrse.htmlolFor so many years i heard N. Hollines say the Jews were half breeds and not real Jew's.How is one to respond to the anti-Semitic presentation like what N.Hollins says? Well now that iam aloude to look into things and find out the truth with out getting kicked out! itseasy enough, since the argument is without substance, as can easily be shown by simply looking at a few passages in the Bible.Following the Babylonian captivity, all descendents of Abraham are referred to as Jews.That's what I saw too. Isaiah 48:1 is a clear indication that the people called Israel came from Judah and verse 2 that theyare called Zionists.I went through Isaiah carefully and all the verses suppos

---

Yep next thing you will hear from the GRC is that Paul and Peter had a picture of the union jack on thier underpants!

But no really, i caint beleive that for 16 years i was told the BI myth and did not even look into it for myself. I heard more about BI, than what i did about Jesus. BI is a god in the grc, and people know more about this god, than the LIFE and TEACHING  of JESUS CHRIST. I truley can say that i really didn't know who Jesus was when i left the GRC, and nether do most people in the Geelong Revival center.

reply to deep throat mole

Pope Wazza wrote:

<Irish Legend

Have you ever seen the Walt Disney movie: Darby O'Gill and the Little People ? If you haven't, it is a good idea to rent it. About fifteen minutes into the film there is a scene which accurately depicts much of the Irish legend surrounding: the 'wishing' well , the harp of David, the horn of David, the throne with the ' birthstones ' of the twelve tribes of Israel, the Stone under the throne, the Pot of Gold , the ' little people '; all these symbols are a part of Irish legend, and they are in the film. >

Does it mention why, if they are of Jewish descent, they eat a lot of bacon?

ooohhh, of all the notions held by the GRC i have to say that i find the whole BI idea to be the most laughable.

It is this notion (more than any other) that is predicated on the idea that people will go to extraordinary lengths to prove a ridiculous and tenuous point.  To this end, I refer to the post which set out to 'prove' that English has an incontravertable linkage to Hebrew by (as the author presumably thought) 'authoritatively' linking an English word to a similar Hebrew word, either as a direct translation or as some tenuous linkage to some very remote root word.

There are two points i wish to raise.

The first is, that anyone can, with a sufficiently large enough leap of fantasy, link one idea to another; in this case, the lineal descent of Hebrew into English. That is to say, if i were to stand on one leg, squint, and drink copious amounts of alcohol, i could probably prove to you that English was in fact directly related to the ancient lost language of Gibberese, from the similarly ancient and lost tribe of the Gibbers, located somewhere in a galaxy far, far away, possibly right in the back seat of your own consciousness.

To be honest, though, the linguistic parallels, as tenuous proofs as they are, pall into insignificance when faced with the far greater question of; 'so if all this tripe about English being a blueprint for the Anglo-Saxons being the Chosen People (how stupid it sounds in black and white!)is TRUE,  what is God going to do about it?'

 I raise this point because the whole idea of BI is surely predicated on fact that their must be plenty of Anglo-Saxons to fulfil the destiny laid out in front of them, as evidenced by the striking similarity between Hebrew and English which is clearly, as so cleverly asserted above, an obvious blueprint for Chosen Peopleness.  Because i would be the last to assert with any confidence (despite the evidence of my blue eyes, dismayingly pale and freckly countenance) that i have blood that is sufficiently blue, red and white enough to be one of God's chosen people. Who knows what colored, foreign contributors have swum in the deep end of my- or anyone's- gene pool? All those with natural white blonde hair, porcelain complexions and bright, cornflower blue eyes please stand up! And anyway, i used to live in the UK; and i can tell you that even in this cradle of Anglo-Saxon-ness they might be hard pressed to find someone there who displays all the correct bloodlines, given that England's national dish is now officially (legitimately!) the curry.

And really, as far as i am concerned, bloodlines are no prerequisite for greatness- the current royal family, bless their cotton socks, are filled with all sorts of doubtful skeletons in the closet as well as being, by all accounts, largely very dim. These fine specimens are the direct, lineal descendants of the people that God dutifully put in charge of us to lead us out of the howling wilderness to assert our chosen-ness? Something a bit wrong there.

Ah, British Israelism. The Great White Hope. Or, in the case of most 'Anglo-Saxons' the Great White/pinkish/reddish/yellowish/olivey/brownish Hope.

---

Reply to : Feisty [Anonymous]ooohhh, of all the notions held by the GRC i have to say that i find the whole BI idea to be the most laughable.It is this notion (more than any other) that is predicated on the idea that people will go to extraordinary lengths to prove a ridiculous and tenuous point. To this end, I refer to the post which set out to 'prove' that English has an incontravertable linkage to Hebrew by (as the author presumably thought) 'authoritatively' linking an English word to a similar Hebrew word, either as a direct translation or as some tenuous linkage to some very remote root word.There are two points i wish to raise.The first is, that anyone can, with a sufficiently large enough leap of fantasy, link one idea to another; in this case, the lineal descent of Hebrew into English. That is to say, if i were to stand

---

I just found this very good post from a anon on the Jeremiah/Tephi  coming to England myth  in another room, and thought I post it here.

 No References!

In preparation for the writing of this article, and several others on the royal house of Britain, I searched out and read literally DOZENS of books written by British Israelites in order to more accurately understand the BASIS for the Jeremiah/Tea Tephi legend so eloquently penned by Herbert Armstrong. I also consulted primary and secondary sources on the Irish and Scottish annals.

To my surprise I found that the British Israelite books all REPEAT the same Tea Tephi story (with slight variations), each aggressively claiming that the story is found in the ancient annals. In my research I have NOT FOUND a single British Israelite book that actually gives a REFERENCE to WHERE in the Irish and Scottish annals the supporting material may be found! Armstrong's booklet does not nor does Joseph Allen's earlier book on the subject.

As also discovered by Greg Doudna (former Ambassador College student, now with the Department of Near Eastern Studies at Cornell University), "they all seem to draw from previous British Israel writings. They speak so confidently it sounds like there must be something in the annals to which they refer. The NAMES mentioned in the Tea Tephi legend appear in the annals, true enough, but I have discovered they are TOTALLY DIFFERENT PERSONS IN THE ANNALS than the BritishIsrael legend makes them out to be. The annals simply don't say what the British Israel literature, or the Worldwide Church of God, SAY they say. It is a LEGEND that someone somewhere within British Israel circles began, stated it as fact, and it has been repeated as fact within British Israel circles ever since, down to the present day in which the Worldwide Church of God repeats it to millions. It may make an interesting story, but IT IS COMPLETELY FABRICATED." (Afterward on British Israelism, p. 121).

I have to echo Greg Doudna in his discoveries: There is absolutely NO FOUNDATION in the Irish and Scottish annals for the story of Jeremiah and Tea Tephi! NONE of the dozens of British Israelite books I have read give quotations from the annals themselves, or cite chapter and verse in the annals. They simply ASSERT, in a convincing style, that these things are so. Frankly, I was not aware how BASELESS these assertions were until I researched all the literature for myself.


from:- www.fwselijah.com/con1.htm

anon

Reply to : Revivals Blood

When reading this try and keep in mind the Isreal you read , is not England and its off shoots, but the current day Jews.

God Has Rejected Israel?

Passages such as Matthew 21:43 are presented to support the contention that the role of ethnic Israel is over and that the church is the new "nation," the spiritual Israel. However, to conclude that this verse teaches permanent rejection of Israel applies the text beyond what can be supported by the the broader context of Matthew. Other passages in Matthew and beyond speak of a future restoration of national Israel when the nation repents and turns to the Messiah (Mt. 19:28; 23:39; Acts 1:6; Rom. 11:25-27).

This is the biblical teaching of St. Paul. St. Paul in Romans 9, 10 and 11 presents what I call in my latest book, Jerusalem Countdown, "God's position-paper on the Jewish people."

In Romans 9, Paul states that this three-chapter section is exclusively about the Jewish people. He continues that theme in the 10th chapter, and in Chapter 11 writes in the first verse that "God has not cast away Israel." This statement by St. Paul is the absolute death knell of "replacement theology."

Something that is cast away disappears forever. Israel is alive. Israel is thriving. Israel is growing. Israel and the Jewish people have not been cast away by God! Paul makes the statement that "God has not cast away Israel" twice. Romans is a post-Calvary document in which St. Paul states, in 11:5, "even so at this present time there is a remnant [a surviving group of Jewish people] according to the election of grace." That means very simply that there are Jewish people right now who have favor with God by the election of grace.

What is going to happen when Jesus comes back? Every Christian believes that Jesus Christ is the messiah. The Jewish people do not believe that. In that regard we have to agree to disagree. I say to my rabbi friends: "You don't believe it; I do believe it. When we're standing in Jerusalem, and the messiah is coming down the street, one of us is going to have a very major theological adjustment to make. But until that time, let's walk together in support of Israel and in defense of the Jewish people, because Israel needs our help."

Replacement theology teaches that the Church has replaced Israel. In replacement theology, you [the Jews] have no future in the economy of God. Replacement theology falsely teaches that the Church has taken the place of the Jewish people. The Jewish people are no longer in the economy of God, according to this teaching, which places the Church as God's centerpiece.

There are fewer and fewer [evangelical leaders who subscribe to replacement theology] as time goes along. They are seeing, finally, the error of replacement theology. The vast majority of evangelicals do not believe in replacement theology. Evangelicals believe that Israel has a Bible mandate to the land, a divine covenant for the land of Israel, forever. That the Jewish people are chosen of God and are the apple of God's eye. That Christians have a Bible mandate to be supportive of Israel and the Jewish people, to demonstrate to the Jewish people what they have not experienced from Christianity for 2,000 years... the love of God.

Reply to : Anonymous

Thought you might find this deluded direct quote from N. Hollins interesting.

"Brittish Israel is one of the foundations of the church and our salvation. It is just as important as receiving the Holy Spirit. " - Noel Hollins

"So if the BI teaching is found at the very least to be very questionable, one of the very foundations of Noel's work is in doubt. If BI can be proven to be outright falsehood then Noel's church has lost it's foundation and therefore reason to exist. The stakes are very high indeed for poor Noel."

-Brett Warren

---

Reply to : AnonymousThought you might find this deluded direct quote from N. Hollins interesting."Brittish Israel is one of the foundations of the church and our salvation. It is just as important as receiving the Holy Spirit." - Noel Hollins"So if the BI teaching is found at the very least to be very questionable, one of the very foundations of Noel's work is in doubt. If BI can be proven to be outright falsehood then Noel's church has lost it's foundation and therefore reason to exist. The stakes are very high indeed for poor Noel."-Brett Warren

---

I see that the British Israel theology has been brought to the table. I also see that a lot of negativity has been generated because of the confusion brought about because of overly zealous British-Israel enthusiasts who have chosen to fill in the historical gaps with borrowings from mythology and speculation. There are many schools of beliefs concerning 'BI' and many of the more well adjusted factions do not hold an anti-semitic or supremist idealogy such as the one presented by Mr Noel Hollins and his mentors.

True 'BI' stands for the reconciliation of Joseph and Judah and strives to bring the recognition of this truth to Judah and to make these truths worthy of consideration in the eyes of Jews, potentially interested intellectuals, and descendants of Israelites in general. I endeavor to redress the damage caused by the the British-Israelist attitude of many fundamentalist churches and Revival groups such as the GRC.

If I may comment on the subject and invite discussion then that would be an indulgence I would be eager to pursue. I'm not interested in converting people to any religion since Judaism does not encourage conversion and such a step is not required from the Lost Ten Tribes. I would like to concentrate on spreading the message of Hebraic Ancestry and recognition of the need for reconciliation. I base such beliefs on the literal truth of the Bible and belief in the Bible. In our generation this is the main point of all beliefs and it reflects a common denominator with which all those who believe in scripture may identify. At the least the starting point and boundary lines should be clear.

There is no doubt that the Geelong Revival Centre has bastardised much of the gospel but like all successful cults they have a sliver of truth shrewdly wrapped in lies - more's the pity. I believe that that the Lost Ten Tribes of the Northern House of Israel's descendants are to be found in the Anglo-Saxon-Celtic and kindred peoples of today. As I am sure we all believe in the whole Bible we must therefore believe the Covenants made between God and Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Israel) are everlasting and the British nation plays an important part of God's plan.

Israel was to spread abroad to the West, East, North and South. "And thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth, and thou shalt spread abroad to the west, and to the east, and to the north, and to the south: and in thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed." (Gen. 28:14)

Israel was to have a David King. "For thus saith the Lord; David shall never want a man to sit upon the Throne of the House of Israel." (Jer. 33:17) The people of the Jews do not have a king... It can be shown that the Royal House of Britain is descended from King David. Further, the British Monarchs are anointed in the same way as Zadok the Priest anointed the Kings of Israel.

Israel to be defended by God, could not be defeated. (Num. 24:8,9) This was clearly seen in World Wars I and II and looking through our history, in many other great battles such as the Spanish Armada, Trafalgar and Waterloo.

I would like to publicize evidence concerning the possible Davidic descent of some Royal Houses in Europe. The available proofs are historically verifiable and stronger in their import than what has been proposed heretofore by the simplistic efforts of the Revival churches. Please feel free to ask any questions or querie any of the verses I have quoted.

Regards Craig

Israel to be defended by God, could not be defeated. (Num. 24:8,9) This was clearly seen in World Wars I and II and looking through our history, in many other great battles such as the Spanish Armada, Trafalgar and Waterloo.

------------

Craig,

I argue your above point.  Have you seen the size of British Umpire before WWII and after WWII.  Just have a look.  The victors of WWII were Russians as their territory and power increased as a result of WWII.  Both Germany and Britain were loosers of WWII, their territory and power had reduced dramatically. 

Reply to: Anonymous

---

I argue your above point. Have you seen the size of British Umpire before WWII and after WWII. Just have a look. The victors of WWII were Russians as their territory and power increased as a result of WWII. Both Germany and Britain were loosers of WWII, their territory and power had reduced dramatically.

---

Hello friend, I'm sure you mean the size of the British Empire, unless you contest the size of their cricketing judges. Pardon the berevity, but spelling typos can be very funny. I think you are relating victory with the amount of land seized by modern nations, and that is certainly your right. I, however, see a much bigger picture then land mass.

The British Saved Mankind and Delivered the Jews from Destruction!

Let me explain and widen the scope a tad.

The British remained unconquered and the only determined unbeaten opponent of the Germans, from the beginning of the War until its
end, was Great Britain and Her Dominions. At one stage Britain (and her "daughter" Dominions) stood alone against the victorious conquering Germans. The British could have made a separate peace on favorable terms with Germany but even if the British Government had wanted to (and it did not) the British people would not accept anything less than continued struggle for complete victory. The anti-Jewish policies of the Nazis even from before the beginning of the War was the major single factor in turning
British public opinion against Germany. The USA actively supported Britain on the material level turning itself into one vast hinterland-producing area for the British effort. The USA and Russia after being attacked joined Britain against Germany. Ultimately Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and Canada, together with the USA and USSR, defeated Germany and the German allies, Italy, Croatia, Hungary, Rumania, and the Baltic States. Despite everything, those Jews who did survive owe their lives, in a sense, to the Allies' victory.

Could I follow up on my previous thoughts further adding a little more information on the subject of British victory and also touch on the subject of other nations bowing down to the sons of Joseph? An especially graphic example is to be found in the Armistice followed by the humiliating Treaty of Versailles at the end of the First World War in 1918. When Germany was forced to bow down to Great Britain and the United States of America, as well as to France.

At the end of World War II, after the hard-won victory of the Allied Forces over Germany and Japan in 1945, the greater part of the world's population was subject to either the British Empire or the United States of America. During World War II the British Marines wore a badge depicting half the globe, whereas the American Marines wore a similar badge that pictured the other half. Between them these two brother nations-in-arms controlled much of the world either as colonies, protectorates, or occupied territories. Nations such as Germany, Austria, Italy and Japan ?bowed down to them'. Yet, surprisingly, the allied Anglo-Saxon brothers in arms in their hard won victory demonstrated the most extraordinary mercy towards their conquered and vanquished enemies. Without knowing it, they exhibited one of the key characteristics of their forefather Joseph.

The World's Only Superpower!

At the end of World War II America and Great Britain were in possession of the greatest collection of military hardware and power the world has ever seen in all of its recorded history. In the D-Day invasion of Normandy an awesome armada of over 5,000 warships sailed from British ports to the Normandy beaches. At the close of the war America had no fewer than 122 aircraft carriers with which she was able to project her awesome might. Thus when the power of the British Empire began to wane after the Second World War, a new Anglo-Saxon military superpower arose to take her place. Britain's brother, Manasseh, the American fellow Israelite people, had already come to her rescue twice in both world wars, and both times her intervention saved the day.

Reply to : Anonymous  At the end of the WW's the borders of diffrerent countries were redefined by the Allies, particularly GB.

Without these redefinitions, I wonder if we would have the Palestinian crisis or the tragedy that happened in Yugoslavia to name just two.

Playing God with people's countries and drawing lines on maps has disasterous consequences. We only have to look north of Australia to PNG and West Papua where we just handed it over to Indonesia. Also East Timor.

The great democratic dream of America and GB is not appropriate for ALL countries.

British Isrealism is a crock of shit and is suited to red necks and right wingers.

Why is Anglo Saxondom superior to the Greek or Italian culture or any other culture for that matter?  It is superior in the minds of those who WANT it to be, not because it ACTUALLY is !

Cheers,

Glad

---

"The British Saved Mankind and Delivered the Jews from Destruction"It is partialy correct- though the reasons for their involvment were not because of the Jews. The Jews benifited from the Alies winning.Hitler was in favor of Jews emigrating out of Germany and Austria, however America and Great Britain had strict laws regarding Jews imigrating to their countriesAmerica had no real stance on the Jews treatment in Germany in the 1930's, in fact on December 17, 1942, the Allies issued a condemnation of Nazi atrocities against the Jews. Prior to this there is no official stance by the governemnts regarding treatment of the Jews."Conferences held in Evian, France (1938) and Bermuda (1943) to solve the refugee problem did not contribute to a solution. At the former, the countries invited by the United States and Great Britain were told that no country wo

---

---

Hi let's get this right there is no confusion here this BI stuff is just wrong.Look at the language, if GB is decended from Israel how come english is nothing like Hebrew?There are many language groups english is Germanic from the indo european group and hebrew is semetic from the afro asiatic group of languages, they are nothing alike. Have a look for yourself don't trust what some guy at the front is telling you.

---

I assure you my alien friend, there is no 'guy' at the front of me telling me any such things of his own. I appreciate that many souls here have had the disprivilage of a hierachal system dictating doctrine to them. That is no reason to reject or remain ignorant on matters out of hurt and bitterness. It is perfectly natural to flinch at what I am saying but I only wish to engage in biblical possibilities. You are entirely free to discard anything you wish.

Before we write things we should put things in perspective and not get emotional. I think we all still live in the same reality. Nor, should we say we are something or imply I belong to any groups when I clearly do not. Because people who have some knowledge about what you are arguing about can see through your approach and nobody will take you seriously after they read your first paragraph! To all readers I would ask that you please oblige me in a discourse free of vulgarisms and profanity.

Consistancies between the Hebrew tribes and the northern tongues are well documented, in fact, but rather than fill up our space here I would direct you to the following website for more information http://britam.org/tongues.html It is rather easy to cast off the data but fortunately the data remains.

In addition if we look at the Jewish population presently in the world it is easy to see where Jews have prospered and obtained power and influence. Jews living among the nations born of the UK have done the best physically and financially then anywhere else on the planet other then Israel itself. Jews, have added to the fabric of the British colonies and their input into our societies cannot be measured. Proof is in the pudding and I ask anyone to challenge the fact and show proof where Jews have done better in the world then amongst the people of UK ancestry.

Regards

---

OH Please Craig, what has any of this got to do with the Gospel of Christ??? Nothing!!! Britain this, the Yanks that, this is a very muddy interpretation of bible prophesy, next BI pushers will be telling us the apostle Paul and Peter had a picture of the union Jack on there underpants! Please read my part 1,2,3 posts on BI and you should be able see that's BI is nothing more than a fantasy. BI pushers use a verse here and there to build there theories. But they completely ignore the verse's before and after. Making a very poor foundation. There's no need to try and educate us here that are from the Hollins camp about the poms or yanks. We are just about experts on there history. Noal would shovel it down our throats week in and week out! I came out of the GRvival centers not really knowing much about the life and teaching of Christ. But I sure knew alot about the twisted BI message, that is that full of lies and gross error is laughable!

---

I am a little perplexed at your first statement but I have been building an appreciation of your stance on the 'BI pushers' as you see them. You truly find all parts of the concept to be anti-christos. More's the tragedy, and It is after reading through the writings on this forum that I have been moved to defend the sovreign bloodline and hopefully redress the damage done by Revival church leaders over the last fifty years. They have taken some basic truths and merged them with the writings of 'cowboy theologists' to produce a creedo that is offensive, anti-semetic and laughable at best.

I will try to address much of what you have eroneously written off as fantasy, because as you have vigorously illustrated many times the waters have truly been laced with misdirection and malady. Their foundation, as you say, is truly erroneous and many of the sources you have quoted them citing have tarnished the British heritage heavily. It is not my place, but I would apologise for the extremists who have gone to many and varied fanciful lengths of guesswork and mythology to fill in the gaps that surely do happen in any study of history and ancient times.

I aim to promote three Rs ( Research, Revelation, Reconciliation) concerning the Lost Ten Tribes. We can discuss Biblical aspects of our Research ONLY with they who accept the authority of the Bible. It is not my task to argue with people concerning the truth of the Bible as that is not my calling. I will leave that to other authorities, such as you, who are more qualified in this area than I and are more than willing to take up the challenge. Those who do not believe in the Divine Authority of the Bible may discuss with me the "secular" aspects of my research but I  also make it clear that for the Israelite peoples to survive they need to return to Biblical values.

Regards Craig

---

No chance! More like and un-biblical infatuations of men."That is no reason to reject or remain ignorant on matters out of hurt and bitterness."The day the truth was revealed to me about the lies of BI was a real turning piont in my walk with the Lord. I hate to think of the wasted hours i spent on it, only find out the lost ten tribes was only a myth and lie.rb.

---

Perhaps I am wasting my time here? Do you wish to discuss the topic or throw glib comments at my feet? I have been and always will be civil with this matter and do not wish to rouse spite.

I will persist a few more days to see if anyone is interested in challenging the idealogies that have festered into deceit. No doubt it must a topic that is interesting or at least intriguing if it all suddenly reappeared in this, the GRC discussion board?

Is there anyone learned on the matter that would like to discuss the bible verses I quoted in my original message?

---

Playing God with people's countries and drawing lines on maps has disasterous consequences. We only have to look north of Australia to PNG and West Papuawhere we just handed it over to Indonesia. Also East Timor.The great democratic dream of America and GB is not appropriate for ALL countries.British Isrealism is a crock of shit and is suited to red necks and right wingers.

---

I do not think it will serve anyone well to use profanity or name calling, but I do welcome your contribution to the discussion. You see, England, above all the nations, has the matchless record of not having lost a war of any note been invaded or subjugated by foreign troops. Over the centuries England has had her setbacks and lost many a battle, but the fact remains that she has never lost a war. On occasions she would lose the first, the second and maybe even the third round in a war against her enemies, but she never lost the last round. Sometimes she won the war only to let her gains slip later on, as in the case of WWII. At other times she won the war only to subsequently lose the peace, but even so, she never lost a war.

"And the remnant of Jacob shall be amongst the Gentiles, in the midst of many peoples, like a lion among the beasts of the forest, who, if he passes through, both treads down and tears in pieces, and none can deliver. Your hand shall be lifted against your adversaries, and all your enemies shall be cut off" (Micah 5:8-9).

This prophecy has come true for the English nation, as the English people have never lost a war of note since the Norman Conquest by William the Conqueror in 1066. But it can established that these Normans were family; they were Israelites of the same stock as the English. Micah's prophecy forms an intrinsic part of the ?Birthright' of the English, and the prophetic promise is that England's enemies shall be ?cut off'! 

"Cursed be everyone who curses you and blessed be those who bless you" (Genesis 27:28-29).

Thus when England was attacked it would automatically bring a divine curse upon the aggressor. This can be seen in many of England's most decisive battles, where divine Providence seemed to play a most decisive role, such as in the defeat of the Spanish Armada, the miraculous escape from Dunkirk, the defeat of Rommel at the battle of El Alamein, and the D-Day invasion onto the Normandy beaches in 1944, to name but a few.

As the children of Israel were singing to the Lord with great joy, celebrating the victory he had given them over the awesome armies of Pharaoh, they sang:The LORD is a MAN OF WAR; the LORD is his name. Pharaoh's chariots and his army he has cast into the sea. You blew with Your wind, the sea covered them; they sank like lead in the mighty waters" (Exodus 15:3-4&10.

Only One Exception! - and how interesting it is!

In nine centuries of victories in war there was just one exception! Britain did not win the American War of Independence. Remember, Jacob the great Patriarch of Israel passed on the ?Blessing of the Birthright' to his grandsons, Ephraim and Manasseh, jointly. The plain fact is the two sons of Joseph were both to inherit the Birthright. They were to remain together for a considerable time and then finally they were to separate, one to become a ?Company' or ?Commonwealth' of nations and the other a Great nation. Notice how in Genesis 48 Jacob first addressed both of the sons of Joseph together. Then finally he spoke to them separately. Manasseh, the elder son was to become a single GREAT nation, and Ephraim, the younger son a Company, or Commonwealth of nations.

When Jacob laid his right hand upon the head of Ephraim, he said his seed would be the greater of the two and become a multitude of nations (Genesis 48:19).  Jacob then went on to say that Manasseh would also be great, but all the same, he set Ephraim, who was the younger son of Joseph, before Manasseh, the elder son. The whole implication of this is that Ephraim would come to greatness first and that Manasseh's time of greatness would come later on. This is the exact sequence of events that the record of history confirms in every way.

Despite their defeat by the Americans the British then went on to build the greatest empire the world had ever seen. Nevertheless, to only lose one war in nine hundred years is a most extraordinary record for any nation to be able to claim.

I respectfully welcome any feedback on this topic if you would care to oblige my idulgance of this or any other British-American topic.

Regards Craig

---

That info you pointed me to did not convince me. Are you a pom? you seem to love England

---

I think it obvious I have a deep respect for England, but not in the sense that it, or the Americas, have any vestage over other nations. It would be quite naive to think anyone could be convinced of a new belief without careful consideration, mindful study and precious time, so of course I would not expect to turn your thinking around with a few scant website links. I appreciate you taking the time to follow said links and will post some other work here for your scrutiny and pleasure.

There are certainly enough linguistic similarities between Hebrew and Swedish to engage any studious students. Please allow me to directly quote the work of some notable Phoneticists:

"English, Frisian, Dutch, Flemish, High and Low German, Danish, Swedish, Norwegian, and Icelandic, as well as the extinct languages of Gothic, Old Norse, Old Saxon, and others, comprise one of the Indo-European groups of languages commonly called Germanic. On a broader scale, the Germanic branch of languages shares many features in common with the Italic, Greek, Celtic, Slavonic, Indo-Iranian, and other Indo-European language groups. However, linguists have also found linguistic elements in the Germanic languages which are foreign to other Indo-European languages. For instance...approximately one-third of all vocabulary entries in the etymological dictionaries dealing with Germanic languages are of an unknown origin. Likewise, the mystifying phenomena known as the Germanic sound shifts and the incursion of gemination are not to be explained from an Indo-European linguistic perspective.
While the causes of these pecularities remain unexplained within the framework of Indo-European linguistics, the purpose of this study is to point out that similar phenomena are to be found in the Semitic languages, and that these similarities parallel most closely the linguistic properties of Hebrew."

?Terry Marvin Blodgett in the introduction to "Phonological Similarities in Germanic and Hebrew", Department of Languages, The University of Utah, December 1981.

Mr. Blodgett in his dissertation points out that similar verb conjugations exist in Hebrew and in Germanic languages. For example he writes: "The Hebrew verb barah 'to flee, bring oneself to' produces the following conjugated forms: barahta, baraht, berahtem, berahten, jivrah. These compare well with Gothic forms of briggan 'to bring': br?ta, br?ts, brahtam, brachten (G), gebracht (G)."

In a subsequent chapter Mr. Blodgett then goes on to show that there exist similarities between the vowel systems of Hebrew and Germanic as well. Concerning Ablaut he writes for example that the "series in Hebrew barech, hivriach, barach, beroach, baruch (pass. pres.) compares with German brechen, bricht, brach, gebrochen, Broch, while, at the same time, the Hebrew forms hivrijach, barech, barachta, jivrach compare with German bringen, (Old Frisian brenga), brachte, gebracht." Most of these similarities are summarized by Mr. Blodgett in a table that has been reproduced below:

Hebrew (barach)    German (brechen)    German (bringen)       
barach (3rd)    brach (1st and 3rd)           
barachtij (1st)    ...............................    brachte (1st and 3rd)       
baracht (2nd)    brach(s)t (2nd)    brachte(s)t (2nd)       
barachnu (1st pl.)    brechen (1st, 2nd, 3rd pl.)           
berachten (2nd pl.)    ...............................    brachten (1st, 2nd, 3rd pl.)       
beroach (inf.)    gebrochen           
jivrach (imperf.)    ...............................    gebracht       
barech (pi'el, inf.)    brechen (inf.)    bringen (k=g, pi'el=i)       
hivrijach (hif'ijl causitive)    bricht (E=break with diphthong)    bringt

From this table it can be seen that there are similarities both in vowels and in the inflectional endings. Corresponding similarities, as pointed out by Mr. Blodgett, can be seen in many other verbs as well, and when verbs in other Germanic languages are compared with Hebrew. For example if inflectional endings are studied it can be seen that in older or more solemn Swedish the ending -o often occurs in plural forms, similar to 3rd person plural in Hebrew. Thus for example the sentence "They came." can be translated to "De kommo." when translating to Swedish. The Swedish inflectional verb endings -te, -en (used for plural forms in older Swedish, e.g. "I kommen." means "You come.") and -na also are similar to Hebrew inflectional endings.

Further, concerning Umlaut (vowel modification) Mr. Blodgett writes that it "is common to both Hebrew and Germanic, but not to Indo-European. Umlaut occurs when the vowel of a final syllable influences the pronunciation of the stem vowel."

Finally, apart from the above mentioned similarities and various other similarities that Mr. Blodgett discusses, there exist also several lexical similarities between Hebrew and Germanic languages. In the below table are listed examples of Swedish and Hebrew words that are very similar in both form and meaning.

Swedish
 amma (= "nurse")
Hebrew
אמא ('??) (= "maid-servant", basically same meaning in Biblical and Modern Hebrew.)
 
Swedish
barka (= "to run", e.g. in the expression "barka iv?".)
 Hebrew
ברח (b?ah) (= "to run away" etc., basically same meaning in Biblical and Modern Hebrew.)

Swedish
 bur (= "son", a dialect word. Burr, i.e. "the son", according to old Scandinavian mythology was father of the ?ir Odin, Vile and V?. The word "barn" (= "child") is probably related.)
Hebrew
 בר(bar) (= "son", originally an Aramaic word. It is used in the expression ?? ? (bar mitsv?).)

 Swedish
b?ga (= "to quaff" etc., in the expression "b?ga i sig". In Scania they say "b?a".)
Hebrew
 בלע (b?a? (= "to swallow", "to devour" etc.)

 Swedish
datte (= "breast", a Scanian dialect word.)
Hebrew
 דד (dad) (= "breast")
 
Swedish
denna (= "this")
Hebrew
 דנא (den?) (= "this", "these", an Aramaic word.)
 
Swedish
fegher (= "destined to die", an Old Swedish word that corresponds to the modern word "feg" (= "cowardly").)
Hebrew
 פגר (peger) (= "dead body", "corpse")

Swedish
fjuka (= "to whirl round in the air", said about snowflakes, down, sand.)
Hebrew
 פיח (p?ah) (= "a powder" (as easily puffed away), i.e. ashes or dust. In Modern Hebrew the meaning of the word is "soot".)
 
Swedish
f?il (= "cord", "strap", an old dialect word, corresponding to the word "fetill" in Icelandic.)
Hebrew
 פתיל (p??l) (= "thread")
 
Swedish
gadder (= "grating", "lattice", an Old Swedish word that corresponds to the modern word "galler", most probably the word "j?er" which occurs in Swedish place-names is related.)
Hebrew
 גדר (g??) (= "fence")
 
Swedish
gammal (= "old")
Hebrew
 גמל (g?al) (= "to ripen", "to mature")
 
Swedish
g?en (= "handful", an old Swedish dialect word.)
Hebrew
 חופן (h?en) (= "handful")
 
Swedish
halka (= "slipperiness")
Hebrew
 חלק (halaq) (= "slippery" etc.)
 
Swedish
heder (= "honour", "glory", "splendour" etc. In modern Swedish the word is mainly used to connote "honour".)
Hebrew
 הדר (hadar), ??(heder) (= "honour", "glory", "splendour" etc.)
 
Swedish
kojsa (= "ewe", a Gotlandic dialect word.)
Hebrew
 כבשה (kibs?), ?? (kibs?) (= "ewe")
 
Swedish
kreta (= "to carve")
Hebrew
 חרת (ch?at) (= "to engrave")
 
Swedish
k?a (= "goblet", "cup")
Hebrew
 כוס (k?) (= "cup" etc. In Modern Hebrew the word means mainly "glass".)
 
Swedish
k?e (= "jaw")
Hebrew
 חיק (h?) (= "palate", "cavity of the mouth". According to Gesenius the meaning in Biblical Hebrew is "the palate with the corresponding lower part of the mouth, the internal part of the mouth, the jaws".)
 
Swedish
lacka (= "go", "walk", e.g. in the expression "Det lackar mot jul.".)
Hebrew
 הלך (h?ak) (= "to walk")
 
Swedish
mage (= "belly")
Hebrew
 מעיה (m??) or ??(m?eh) (= "belly" etc. in Biblical Hebrew.) [Can sound similar when pronounced correctly]
 
Swedish
Mim (a water-spirit in old Scandinavian mythology)
Hebrew
 מים (mieyim) (= "water")
 
Swedish
nagga (= "to notch" etc.)
Hebrew
 נגע (n?a? (= "to smite" etc.)
 
Swedish
n?a (= "to reach after something", a dialect word.)
Hebrew
 נגע (n?a? (= "to reach" etc.)
 
Swedish
oj (= "alas")
Hebrew
 אוי ('?y) (= "alas")
 
Swedish
om (= "if", corresponding to the word "em" in Old Norse.)
Hebrew
 אם ('?) (= "if")
 
Swedish
rackla (= "to walk around", an old dialect word.)
Hebrew
 רכל (r?al) (= "to go about" ? (1) for purposes of traffic. ? (2) for the sake of slandering, whence ?? slander.)
 
Swedish
ragla (= "to reel")
Hebrew
 רעל (r?al) (= "to reel", "to tremble" etc., in Biblical Hebrew.)
 
Swedish
r?e (= "spittle", an old dialect word.)
Hebrew
 רוק (r?) (= "spittle")
 
Swedish
r?p (= "quarter of a year", a dialect word.)
Hebrew
 רביע (reba? (= "a fourth (part or side)")
 
Swedish
se (= "to see". Related are the words sia, sikt and syn.)
Hebrew
 שאוה (???) (= "to look" etc., in Biblical Hebrew. In Modern Hebrew the word means "to notice", "to pay attention" etc.)
 
Swedish
sjuda (= "to seethe")
Hebrew
 זוד (z?d) (= "to seethe", in Biblical Hebrew.)
 
Swedish
ski? (= "prudence", "insight", "conciousness" etc. in Old Swedish. The corresponding modern word, sk?, mainly means "reason".)
Hebrew
 שכל (s?el) (= "intelligence", "prudence", "sense", "understanding" etc.)
 
Swedish
sl? (= "blackthorn")
Hebrew
 סילון (?ll?n) (= "thorn", "brier", in Biblical Hebrew.)
 
Swedish
str? (= "stream")
Hebrew
 זרם (zerem) (= "stream" etc.)
 
Swedish
svacka (= "depression")
Hebrew
שוחה (??h?) (= "ditch", "pit")
 
Swedish
s?k (= "sack")
Hebrew
 שק(saq) (= "sack")
 
Swedish
s?e (= "buttock" etc.)
Hebrew
 שתה (??h?) (= "seat", "buttock", corresponding to ? (??h) in Modern Hebrew.)
 
Swedish
tjur (= "bull")
Hebrew
שור (??r) (= "bull", "cow", "ox")
 
Swedish
tom (= "empty")
Hebrew
 תם (t?am) (= "to come to an end", "to come to the full", "to be all gone", "to be all here", "to be wasted" etc., in Biblical Hebrew.)
 
Swedish
tova (ihop sig) (= "to ravel", "to tangle")
Hebrew
 תאיא (t??) (= "to spin")
 
Swedish
tunna (= "barrel")
Hebrew
 תנא (tene') (= "basket")
 
Swedish
tur (= "turn" etc.)
Hebrew
 תור (t?r) (= "turn" etc.)
 
Swedish
yssja (= "to shift colours", a dialect word related to the Icelandic word "ysia", which means "fire" and "ash".)
Hebrew
 אש ('?) (= "fire")
 
Swedish
?sja (= "forge" (where the smith's fire is))
Hebrew
 אש ('?) (= "fire")
 
Swedish
?(= "island", corresponding to the Icelandic word "ey".)
Hebrew
 אי ('ie) (= "island", "coast-land")
 
Swedish
?er (= "property", "wealth", "happiness" in Old Swedish, corresponding to the Icelandic word "au?".)
Hebrew
 אשר ('?er) (= "happiness"),

עשר (??er) (= "wealth", "riches")
 
Swedish
?er (= "over")
Hebrew
 עבר (?bar) (= "to cross over" etc.

---

There are certainly enough linguistic similarities between Hebrew and Swedish to engage any studious students. Please allow me to directly quote the wo

---

 

Dear Craig,

that really was a waste of forum space.

Did you know the Apostle Paul said there were no lost ten tribes in his time?

Please read Acts 26 verse 7.

Notice that all 12 tribes were know and not lost. The 12 tribes obviously includes the ten.

Paul is saying that the ten tribes were recongnised and were religuosly serving God under the OT law.

Now according to your "Brittish Israel teachers" when Paul wrote this the ten tribes were already lost and where pagan Anglo Saxons.

The BI writers and  Paul both can't be right?

Who do you beleive? BI writers or the Apostle Paul?

 

RB

 

---

that really was a waste of forum space.Did you know the Apostle Paul said there were no lost ten tribes in his time?Please read Acts 26 verse 7.Notice that all 12 tribes were know and not lost. The 12 tribes obviously includes the ten.Paul is saying that the ten tribes were recongnised and were religuosly serving God under the OT law.

---

Is space a problem on your forum? One does have needs to grasp a knowledge of bible history and lineage to grasp the folds it. See what was intimated concerning members of other tribes in the Book of Ezra and the writings of Nachmanides. There were members of the other tribes (apart from Judah, Benjamin, and Levi) amongst the People of "Judah" but they were a minority. A historical Midrash ("Seder Olam") says that in the Second Temple Period eighty per cent of the "Jewish" people belonged to the Tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and Levi. The remaining twenty per cent was comprised of minority representatives of all the other Tribes.

After the Assyrian Exile those remnants of the Ten Tribes who remained or somehow or other returned comprised a small minority amongst Judah. They were a minority of their tribal numbers and subservient to Judah. Their tribal expression in biblical terms was to be achieved in the main body of their tribe who were in exile alongside the rest of the Ten Tribes. The majority portion of these tribes remained in exile and were to lose awareness of their identity.

A person addressing a body of Jews could refer to all the twelve tribes present since chances were that in a large group of "Jewish" people would be found some representatives of each tribe. Also such an address has symbolic value. On the other hand amongst the exiled Ten Lost Tribes were to be found representatives of Judah. Nevertheless the Bible on the whole distinquishes between the entities of "Judah" and "Joseph" and relates to the dominant element in each body.

---

A person addressing a body of Jews could refer to all the twelve tribes present since chances were that in a large group of "Jewish" people would be found some representatives of each tribe. Also such an address has symbolic value. On the other hand amongst the exiled Ten Lost Tribes were to be found representatives of Judah. Nevertheless the Bible on the whole distinquishes between the entities of "Judah" and "Joseph" and relates to the dominant element in each body.

---

OF please Craig that is a twist and you know it. Paul was speaking to the whole 12 tribes.

Would to God you would show the same love, zeal and passion for the teachings of Christ and seeing people walk in that new life of the, than you do for BI. ( Not saying you are as i dont know you)  But tell your pommy story's to the newly saved christains in the underground church in china, or where ever, what do you think there responce  would be to BI? Nothing. Because it means nothing to them.  I have found BI to be nothing more than a diversion from the glory and teaching from Gods word. And yes "all" people from my old cult who where right into BI where so because of infactuation!

If you really would like to know the truth of the "many" myths of the BI message the book below is very informative to the truth.

22 used & new from $7.45 Have one to sell?       NEW LIST! Learn more. Share your own customer images Search inside another edition of this book Are you the publisher or author? Learn how Amazon can help you make this book an eBook.     The Mythic Past: Biblical Archaeology and the Myth of Israel (British Commonwealth, United States, United Nations, 1993) (Hardcover) by Thomas L. Thompson "Saul's election and rise to power over Israel: his fall from grace; mad king Saul whose depressions are soothed by David the inspired musician of..." (more) Key Phrases: population transference, elohe shamayim, patch agriculture, Bronze Age, Dead Sea, Iron Age (more...) (25 customer reviews)     Availability: Available from these sellers. 22 used & new available from $7.45 Also Available in: List Price: Our Price: Other Offers: Paperback $19.00 $19.00 40 used & new from $9.69

I fear you're evading my replies but I understand that it's natural to raise one's back up when core beliefs are put through a test. I would encourage you to address my previous points before we proceed onto the new. I noticed some mocking towards Prince Charles in a nearby thread and wondered what it is about the man you find 'laughable'. Should the current heir to the throne look like a Greek Collosus? Did Jesus look like a Fabio type figure or was he rather ordinary to look at?

If I may, and thus far no one has asked me to stop, I would like to refer to my original post and seek comment on the following verse, and yes I know by the size of your last font that my presence here is unwelcome. Nevertheless, I would like to finish what I started by bringing up the second of my three verses:

Israel was to have a David King. "For thus saith the Lord; David shall never want a man to sit upon the Throne of the House of Israel." (Jer. 33:17)

The people of the Jews do not have a king... It can be shown that the Royal House of Britain is descended from King David. Further, the British Monarchs are anointed in the same way as Zadok the Priest anointed the Kings of Israel. I would be more than curious to hear your thoughts.

Regards Craig

---

Paul was speaking to the whole 12 tribes.

Would to God you would show the same love,zeal and passion for the teachings of Christ and seeing people walk in that new life of the,than you do for BI.

---

Dear Mr Blood, Indeed Paul was speaking to the 12 tribes, but I won't repeat myself as 'space' is precious to you on your forum (forgive again my berevity). I refer you back to my recent post on that subject.

I do not see to detract from Christianity. I am not involved in the pros and cons concerning Christianity one way or the other. I try not to offend Christians. Christianity as far as I am concerned is a tool of Divine Providence for drawing the Lost Tribes back to their roots and for making them acquainted with Biblical concepts. Christianity fulfils a needed role. I see no substitute for Christianity in this era and therefore do not encourage anti-Christian sentiment.

As for your concern for the rest of the world, the Twelve Tribes of Israel were the Chosen People. This includes both the two to three Tribes of Judah and the Ten Tribes of "Israel" and Joseph. In the End Times all people will benefit from the Messianic Age. A person of non-Israelite descent who attaches themselves to either Judah or Joseph will be identified with them.

[Ezekiel 47:22] AND IT SHALL COME TO PASS, THAT YE SHALL DIVIDE IT BY LOT FOR AN INHERITANCE UNTO YOU, AND TO THE STRANGERS THAT SOJOURN AMONG YOU, WHICH SHALL BEGET CHILDREN AMONG YOU: AND THEY SHALL BE UNTO YOU AS BORN IN THE COUNTRY AMONG THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL; THEY SHALL HAVE INHERITANCE WITH YOU AMONG THE TRIBES OF ISRAEL.
Non-Israelites who have settled amongst us, identified with us and shared our trials and tribulations alongside us will be considered as the same as us. They will be part of whatsoever Tribe of Israel they have dwelt amongst.

There is however no obligation for non-Israelites to identify with Israel. They may equally well obtain salvation by living a rightous life as they are.
This is not racist, just reality.

For my Alien friend I would recommend another website - http://britam.org/language.html

---

If I may, and thus far no one has asked me to stop, I would like to refer to my original post and seek comment on the following verse

---

Well frakking stop then! I personally couldn't give a toss, I think that's the message people are trying to give you, and I couldn't be bothered replying to your pompous ass anyway... your freaking arrogant language makes Ian Thomason sound like Steve Irwin (RiP). Get to your bloody third point as quickly as possible and stop flooding the board. It's pissing me off... mostly because I haven't got the bloody inclination or knowledge to rebut your stuff.

You can piss off too illegal alien - dobbers aren't welcome.

Poms and British Israel... both are pains in the butt... sheeesh...

---

I fear you're evading my replies but I understand that it's natural to raise one's back up when core beliefs are put through a test. I would encourage you to address my previous points before we proceed onto the newThe people of the Jews do not have a king... It can be shown that the Royal House of Britain is descended from King David. Further, the British Monarchs are anointed in the same way as Zadok the Priest anointed the Kings of Israel. I would be more than curious to hear your thoughts.

---

well In fact Craig, the Scriptures confirm that the royal lineage of David is no longer ruleing, and this will last for a long time.