BRITISH-ISRAEL ANSWERS:
#1 - "The Kingdom of the Cults"

OLD OBJECTIONS RESURFACE AD NAUSEAM
By Douglas C. Nesbit, B.A.

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. Certainly, while some have written questions concerning certain British-Israel assertions, I am not aware that any authority responsible for preparing or reviewing a publication setting out to oppose our work has ever asked us for an authoritative statement in order to include a balanced rebuttal in the document.

One particularly widespread example of this repetitious nonsense has for many years appeared in a chapter of a work called "Kingdom of the Cults" by the late Dr. Walter Martin, of which a copy of the forty-sixth printing, (April, 1992), resides among the books on your Editor's shelves. The passages in question appear in a section which addresses the views of the late Herbert W. Armstrong, who was not in the mainstream of British Israel teaching, although he adopted some of our work and adapted this to his purposes.

As we have recently had a chance to review yet another work which makes use of some of the same objections, it seemed that some further attempt ought to be made to lay to rest, once and for all, at least some of the objections which Dr. Walter Martin repeated.

Richard Brothers, reputed by Dr. Martin to have originated Anglo-Israel (British-Israel) theory, is dated by Martin at 1757-1824 (These dates are corroborated in the Encyclopaedia Judaica - Article "Brothers, Richard" - Editor).
He did know of the concept. So did Sir Francis Drake, and John Foxe the writer of "Foxe's Book of Martyrs", about two centuries earlier, for a letter penned by Drake to Foxe in 1587 now rests as Harleian manuscript 167, folio 104, in the British Library, The British Museum.
Drake's Letter to John Foxe (Author, "Foxe's Book of Martyrs") 31.4KDRAKE'S LETTER
In it, Drake wrote the word Israel in place of the word England, not feeling the necessity to explain the substitution! Other evidences from Elizabethan times verify this knowledge.

Even earlier, in 1320, The Arbroath Declaration preamble (q.v. under "The B.I.W.F. Thesis" - Editor) indicates knowledge of the same origins for the Scots.

Dr. Walter Martin, himself, at least had the decency to place on record these words: "The most vocal proponents of the Anglo-Israelic (sic) system of Biblical interpretation in North America were James Lovell of Fort Worth, Texas, and Howard Rand of Destiny Publishers. The teachings of these men and their followers are comparatively innocuous and free from serious doctrinal error.
However Dr. Martin continues in the words: The chief harm results from the appeal to nationalism with its accompanying vanity and the two-fold way of salvation which some advocates have implied ... ." [Underlined by Editor]

Now we must, at once take issue with the suggestion cloaked in that last statement which might indicate to any casual reader unacquainted with our literature or views through genuine British-Israel sources that such a teaching of "two entrances", if not universal, is common enough among British-Israelites to form a widely held doctrine by their advocates. To this suggestion, your Editor can only state that we, of the British-Israel-World Federation, never have held or expounded such a doctrine of a "two-fold way of salvation" in any form whatsoever! As far as British Israel teaching is concerned, one can search high and low, and to my knowledge never come upon the slightest hint of this highly heretical viewpoint. We of the British-Israel-World Federation continually expound the full requirement that followers MUST, as individuals, come to a completely personal relationship with Jesus Christ as NO other doorway to the Redemption of Israel and to Salvation of "whosoever will" is possible outside of Him and His divine work on The Cross. Even the slightest suggestion that things are otherwise, we consider a smear which amounts to a blatant lie and as such it ought to have no place in any discussion or review of our position by a Christian of Dr. Martin's academic background.

After a brief (and inadequate) introductory summary statement concerning the tenets of British Israel, Walter Martin continued: There are two principal areas in which the Anglo-Israel theory must either stand or fall. They are, first, the question whether any tribes were lost, and therefore later reappeared as the British and American nations; second, there is the question of whether or not it is possible, in either the Old or New Testaments, to teach that "Israel and Judah are not two names for the same nation. They were and still are, and shall be until the Second Coming of Christ, two separate nations. The House of Judah always means Jew....the term applies only to those of the House of Judah. There are no exceptions in the Bible!" [Underlining above supplied by Editor] [A footnote records that "this quotation is taken from Herbert W. Armstrong,Where Are the Ten Lost Tribes?, Pasadena, CA: Ambassador Press, n.d., p. 8."]

Walter Martin states "Rather than become bogged down in an attempt to interpret Anglo-Israel chronology and methodology in the Old Testament, we have elected to let one of the greatest Hebrew scholars of the Christian church, Dr. David Baron, an Englishman, answer the first question. It should be remembered that Dr. Baron's answer is substantiated in every detail by scholars of the Old Testament, whether or not they are Christian."

Here again, Dr. Martin is not being quite completely truthful. Dr. David Baron was a converted Jew, who wrote pamphlets before, and about the time of, the First World War, and who, from the description presented by one writing in The Banner of Israel of October 24, 1906, "is very jealous for the Jews, and tries to prove they are the only 'covenant' people because of their Jewish origins... ." Thus he apparently favoured the assumption of a Jewish claim to pre-eminence, a fact which does not convey the sense of a completely dis-interested and scholarly evaluation in approach, which is the assumption conveyed by the word "Englishman" used by Dr. Martin.

Now it is also important to realise that in attacking British-Israel views, i.e. "Anglo-Israel", Walter Martin here puts up as one of two fundamental targets to be demolished a quotation, not of a British-Israel source, but of a person whose works would not be approved as displaying the standard of scholarship demanded by British-Israel authorities.

However, that being clearly understood, let us comment upon both of the above "principle areas" which Dr. Martin considers vulnerable targets.
The House of Judah did include those who were tribesmen of Judah, Benjamin and some of Levi after the split of the House of Israel from the sovereignty exercised by Solomon's son, Rehoboam, and there were some who remained within the walls of Jerusalem of that House of Judah when the Assyrian, Sennacherib, swept away those 200,150 of the fenced cities of Judah mentioned in Sennacherib's Prism, (now in the British Museum), to join the deported Northern Tribes in Assyrian captivity.

That there was indeed a total deportation of the entire Israelite population from Northern Israel (Galilee) by the Assyrians has recently been evidenced in an article entitled "ISRAEL IN EXILE", written by Ziv Gal, chief archaeologist of the northern district for the Israel Antiquities Authority, and a past director of the Hecht Museum at the University of Haifa, and printed in the May/June, 1998 issue of the Biblical Archaeology Review.

This situation ought to have been clear to Bible Students such as Dr. Martin simply from the fact that those foreigners known as Samaritans, who were brought in later from other areas of the Assyrian Empire to occupy the lands vacated by the deported tribesmen of Northern Israel had to send back to the Assyrian king, to ask that a priest familiar with "the God of the land" be returned to teach them of the prescribed religious duties to protect them from lions which had evidently invaded the vacated territory (II Kings 17:24-27)! Had Israelites remained at home in any great numbers, there would not have been space for these Samaritans, nor would they have been invaded by the lions.

Admittedly there may have been some few individuals or families of Northern Israel visiting Jerusalem, and caught there by the invasion of their homeland. These would thus find themselves sheltering among those in the besieged capital. Such a situation might form one possible explanation for the presence of a family whose descendant, Anna, the Prophetess of the Tribe of Aser, appears in the New Testament.

Incidentally, later, Dr. Walter Martin states as a crushing finale that "Anna the Prophetess was 'of the tribe of Aser' (Israel), but she is called 'a Jewess' of Jerusalem... ." Now this is not honest scholarship. Whatever a person may decide about the status of "Anna, a prophetess, daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser," she is most certainly NOT CALLED "a Jewess" in Luke 2:36, which is the only reference to her in the entire New Testament. To confound "prophetess" with "Jewess" is unforgivable in a work which seeks to use such a statement to heap scorn upon the Biblical teachings of British-Israel. Check it out in the AV or in the Greek! A person holding "four earned degrees" and holding "a doctorate in the field of Comparative Religions" ought to be far more careful than this, indeed quite precise in fact, when proclaiming such statements in argument against the religious views of others.

Let us return to the examination of Dr. Martin's statements and quotations of Dr. David Baron. Alluding to his view of a combined twelve-tribed Judaism as a diaspora, Dr. Baron supposes "they all looked to Palestine and Jerusalem as their center. They felt they were of the same stock, stood on the same ground, cherished the same memories, grew up under the same institutions, and anticipated the same future. They had one common center of worship in Jerusalem, which they upheld by their offerings; and they made pilgrimages thither annually in great numbers at high festivals." Dr. Baron is here describing the Jewish element alone in the New Testament world. His suppositions bear little or no relationship to the realities in regard to the experiences of the Northern Tribesmen of Israel after the Assyrian captivities. The vast majority of both the Northern Tribes of Israel and also those taken from Judah whom the Assyrians captured, were never termed "Jews"! That term, as shown by Josephus, Bk. XI, ch. V, v.7, is correctly applied only to those who returned from the later Babylonian captivity which formed the nation in Judea under Zerubbabel, Ezra and Nehemiah, following their release from Babylon.

Josephus, in fact, confirms the thesis of the departure of those of the Assyrian captivity, whom he calls "the ten tribes" away beyond the Euphrates, and even beyond the reach of the expanding Roman Empire and area of influence, which was, in his day, on the way to taking control of all the areas beyond the River Euphrates to which the Israelites had previously been deported, and where they had temporarily stayed. He states in "Antiquities Of The Jews", Book XI, Chapter V, Section 2, that, upon receiving the epistle from "Xerxes, king of kings" Esdras had sent a copy of it to all those of his own nation (Jews - descendants of the Southern Kingdom of Judah)" that were in Media. And when these Jews had understood what piety the king had towards God, and what kindness he had for Esdras, they were all greatly pleased; nay, many of them took their effects with them, and came to Babylon, as very desirous of going down to Jerusalem; but then the entire body of the people of Israel remained in that country; wherefore there are but two tribes in Asia and Europe subject to the Romans, while the ten tribes are beyond the Euphrates till now, and are an immense multitude and not to be estimated by numbers." [Underlining by the Editor]

Incidentally, in passing, it ought to be noted that, diametrically opposed and completely contrary to the David Baron statement that "The name of 'Jew' and 'Israelite' became synonymous terms from about the time of the captivity.", Josephus is here quite clearly stating the tribal distinction between them without feeling the need for further explanation as to the two entities, so it must clearly have been common knowledge to all who read his words in his own time, and this was set down in the Antiquities, in about A.D. 93, some 18 years after he had completed the Jewish War, and so it occurred quite a number of hundreds of years after the time Baron sets for the confusion of the terms "Jew" and "Israel" by their amalgamation! The New Testament is also firm in the designation of Northern Israelitish Tribal entities. For example, Paul knew the tribal descent of his own family from Benjamin and, like Josephus in a later generation, Zacharias was certainly aware of his priestly descent, as was his wife, Elizabeth, "of the daughters of Aaron" (Luke 1:5). Anna the Prophetess knew her Tribal origins in Aser. Mary and Joseph had genealogic record of royal descent (Matthew 1:1-17, Luke 1:27, 3:23-38). Nor was Herod's lineage in doubt! The Danoi (Greeks) of Sparta were aware of their lineage out of Dan, by their preservation of the name, as were others who boasted of their descent from Abraham, and Paul assured the Corinthians of their Israelitish descent. Christ's disciples certainly knew the whereabouts of all "the lost sheep of the house of Israel", for it was only to these that they were sent in Matthew 10:6! Note here that the term is not "to Israel" as a unit, collectively, but to "THE HOUSE OF Israel", which is a term reserved specifically for, and designating only, the Northern Ten Tribed Nation. The word translated "lost" (Gk. apollumi) does not refer to being unknown as to location, according to Vine's Expository Dictionary, but as to their spiritual destitution and alienation from God, which was the lot of the Northern Tribes. Baron describes the "diaspora" he had in view as, in effect, being well focussed on God!

This difference in attitude between those of the Jews in Babylon and the descendants of the Ten Tribes far to the north and following the east wind (i.e. going westward) is not surprising. (Hosea 12:1 says "Ephraim ... followeth after the east wind... .") The Northern Tribes had a distinct sense of identity separate from the House of Judah, with whom they had on occasion been at war. (The first mention of the word "Jews" in the AV Bible occurs in II Kings 16:6, where the Jews are at war against Israel.) While the House of Judah had remained with the Davidic Monarchy and the Temple worship in Jerusalem until only a single generation before the return from Babylon, and their interest was still capable of being aroused by the nostalgic prospect of a return to land, Temple, and sovereignty, the Northern Tribes had been separated from both Monarchy and Temple in Jerusalem for far longer, and moreover they had lost their homeland in Northern Israel about two centuries before this. They knew that their former occupancy of the Promised Land was not possible as foreigners now occupied, and for many years had settled in, that countryside.

Indeed, still later, another bond, that of racial kinship itself, had been weakened when John Hyrcanus led the Jews against "Mount Seir" (the Edomites) to the south, and forced their conversion into Judaism, and thus, by the next generation or so, they were in command of the nation when Jesus Christ was born, although they were not Israelites at all! Herod was half Edomite (Idumaean is the Greek term) and half Samaritan, proven by the fact that he was forbidden to enter the inner precincts of the Temple for which he had spent so much money on refurbishment!

DID NORTHERN TRIBES JOIN THE JEWS WHEN BABYLON SUCCEEDED ASSYRIA?

The prophesied unity of Israel and Judah, being "two sticks" together in one hand is to be accomplished when Judah walks to Israel, not the reverse. Deuteronomy 33:7 says "And this is the blessing of Judah: and he said, Hear, LORD, the voice of Judah, and bring him unto his people: let his hands be sufficient for him; and be thou an help to him from his enemies." Jeremiah 3:18 says "In those days the house of Judah shall walk with the house of Israel, and they shall come together out of the land of the north to the land that I have given for an inheritance unto your fathers."

When the Scottish King James VI became James I of Great Britain, he, knowing of the royal descent from King David, and considering that his situation was the fulfilment of this prophecy, and given that the Scots were Judahites while England was Ephraim (Northern Israel), signed his name "Jac", a shortened form of "Jacques", a form derived out of "Jacob" and issued a gold coin called a "Jacobus."

After quoting about four pages of small print from Dr. Baron, Walter Martin states "Dr. Baron's brilliant and thorough refutation cannot be improved upon. And excerpts from this personal letter which he addressed to a Christian, perplexed by Anglo-Israelite perversions of history and Biblical interpretation, remain a classic, and the letter has never been refuted by Anglo-Israelites." [Emphasis added by Editor]

Now if these statements were in a personal letter and the letter has never been refuted, is this not twisting words? Every argument put forth in the letter has been more than adequately answered by British-Israel writers of a former generation! Out of the pages of the bound annual volumes of the British-Israel Weekly called "The Banner of Israel", we find these: on October 24, 1906, (30 column inches), October 31, 1906 (31 column inches), August 2, 1916, (16 column inches), August 9, 1916 (13 column inches), August 23, 1916 (19 column inches), and September 6, 1916 (11 column inches), H. A. Marchant gave answer to David Baron. On June 7, 1916 (16 column inches), and June 14, 1916 (21 column inches) M. Vincent Cox gave answer. On October 18, 1916, (15 column inches) Benjamin Wallace gave answer to David Baron. The length of the printed matter of all these answers is perhaps too much to transpose to the web page at this time, but they are available, should sufficient interest in them be aroused. Others who picked up Baron's arguments were likewise rebutted: "Banner of Israel" 14 August, 1918, August 21, 1918, August 28, 1918, September 18, 1918, September 25, 1918, October 2, 1918, October 9, 1918, October 16, 1918, and so on. So it is altogether quite misleading, to state, as does Walter Martin, "...the letter has never been refuted by Anglo-Israelites."

We may conclude this short review and commentary by placing some items before the reader.

"JEW" AND "ISRAELITE": A CLARIFICATION

First, we ought to state that we have no problem with any Biblical reference which terms true Jewish descendants of Jacob "Israelites." Of course they were Israelites! The Bible often calls them such. But this in no way indicates the reverse - that all Israelites were (or are) "Jews"! To put the argument in more modern terms, all Welsh may be "British", yet not all British are Welsh, as any Englishman or Scotsman might quickly explain. Again, we might continue, all true genealogical descendants of Jacob among Jewry are of the tribes of Judah, Benjamin or Levi, (confirmed by letters from the Office of The Chief Rabbi in London, England, the first dated November 18th, 1918 and the second dated 4th July, 1950, following World War II) but not all who descend from Judah are necessarily Jews.

The House of King David is given its own designation as a House, separated from the House of Judah for purposes of subsequent history and prophecy (II Samuel 7:11). This means that Jesus Christ, being thus descended through Mary, is likewise to be called "Son of David", rather than "Jew." It is also highly misleading in racial terms, particularly today, to term Him a "Jew" as many Khazars have been proselytized into Jewry, and thus the term conveys a totally incorrect racial impression of an "Israelite" of His day. As He condemned the "traditions of the elders", the basis of Talmudic religion, He certainly ought not to be assigned the label "Jew" on account of a religious connotation.

Further, seeing that the lineage of Pharez was granted the headship in Judah, many Judahites of the Zarah-Judah branch had left soon after the Exodus (perhaps even prior to this) for parts across the ocean, carrying with them their tribal insignia, the Red Hand, couped at the wrist, now found in Northern Ireland and parts of Scotland.

Also, while many of Judah were taken captive in the Assyrian deportations, only those who went through the Babylonian captivity were subsequently called "Jews" upon the return of a remnant thereof. Even the Benjamites of Galilee were distinct from the Jews. John 7:1 says "After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews (Gk. ioudaioi) sought to kill him (Christ)." So distinctive was the Galilaean speech that Peter was thus singled out as a Galilaean follower of Jesus (Matthew 26:73). How, then, can Jesus be correctly termed a "Jew"?

DO TWELVE SACRIFICIAL ALTARS SIGNAL THE BODILY PRESENCE OF ALL TWELVE TRIBES?

Ezra's sin offering (Ezra 6:17), speaking of 12 he goats, according to the number of the tribes of Israel, which were offered on behalf of the 12 tribes, and the 12 bullocks likewise offered (Ezra 8:35), no more argue for the presence of the Northern Tribes at these ceremonies, than the twelve stones of the altar, designated as representing the twelve tribes of Israel, on which Elijah prepared the sacrificial offering on Mount Carmel, argue for the House of Judah's presence where, in fact, only the Northern Tribes were present (I Kings 18:31).
"Elijah" - Oil painting by Douglas C. Nesbit B.A. © 1988

AMOS PROPHESIED DESTRUCTION OF NORTHERN ISRAEL'S KINGDOM, NOT THE WHOLE NATION

Using Amos 9:8-10, ("Behold, the eyes of the Lord GOD are upon the sinful kingdom, and I will destroy it from off the face of the earth; saving that I will not utterly destroy the house of Jacob, saith the LORD. For lo, I will command, and I will sift the house of Israel among all nations, like as corn is sifted in a sieve, yet shall not the least grain fall upon the earth. All the sinners of my people shall die by the sword, which say The evil shall not overtake nor prevent us.) Martin states "We learn from this prophecy that as a kingdom, the ten tribes were to suffer destruction and their restoration would never be realized."

Now that is a perverse distortion, for if we read a few verses further on, (verses 14, 15) we find "And I will bring again the captivity of my people of Israel, and they shall build the waste cities, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them. And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them, saith the LORD thy God." Obviously, God would destroy the (non-Davidic) line of monarchy out of Northern Israel, but not the national entity, which would be brought by various tribal paths, ("sifted among all nations"), to a homeland where, under Jeremiah's commission of The LORD, (Jeremiah 1:10 and Ezekiel's riddle, Ezekiel 17:22-24), the Davidic Monarchy had been transferred in advance to await their arrival.

We must comment with regard to the footnoted statement which says that "Dr. Henry Hedyt of the American Board of Mission to the Jews has a letter from the Office of the Lord Chamberlain which states that no known reason exists why any assertion should be made that Her Majesty Quen Elizabeth was crowned Queen of Israel. It goes on to say that she is demonstrably not the Queen of Israel and cites a portion of the Coronation Service in which the Queen took the oath. He also has a letter from Brigadier Wieler, the Resident Governor of the Tower of London, which states clearly that in the Tower of London and in the Public Records Office no ancestral chart is known which substantiates the claim, 'Yes, on the throne of England reigns a daughter of David, a dynasty that has ruled Ireland, Scotland and England for over 2500 years!'" [Emphasis by the Editor]

This sort of misleading half-truth is typical of the kind of argument which opponents of British-Israel are sometimes given to putting about. Let us examine it in detail! The statement "There is no known reason why an assertion should be made ..." is not proof that the fact does not exist. It just announces that an assertion is not required! In fact, evidence does exist. British and Commonwealth serving officers' sword blades are, and have been for generations, etched with the Star of David adjacent to the hilt, in symbolic commemoration of the fact that they serve the House of David, as expressed today in the British Monarchy. The Coronation Service is replete with Israelitish symbols such as the presentation of a copy of the Bible (Deuteronomy 17:18), The Coronation Stone (Jacob's Pillow), The Crown of St. Edward bears the Gem Stones listed for the High Priest's Breastplate in its circlet marking the wilderness encampment of Israel, and above all are the arching bands, representing the four leading tribes of Israel on the four sides of the square Camp, topped by the Cross as representative of Christ ruling over the world, an indication in symbol of The Pillar of Fire and Cloud over the Tabernacle. The bracelets, ring (signet) and staff of Judah are symbolized in the ceremony to attest the genealogical affirmation of unquestioned descent from that Patriarch (Genesis 38:18 and 25-26), and the under-robe worn by the Monarch is the white robe of Israel's Priesthood. The anointing is of similar type to that used in ancient Israel. "God Save The King (or Queen)" is the reflection of the cry mentioned in Scripture (I Kings 1:39). The Genealogical charts are not kept in the Tower of London, nor in The Records House. The Chart prepared for Elizabeth I, a scroll approximately 22 yards long, is kept on display (a portion at a time) in Hatfield House, Herts., north of London, while Queen Victoria's Chart (which was at Windsor Castle) was later moved to the British Library. To seek them elsewhere and then proclaim their non-existence is not being truthful. It reminds me of an early comic strip in which the lead character is searching about at night under a street lamp. Asked why, he replies "I lost a coin." To the question "Where did you lose it?" the reply came back "Up the street, but its too dark there to see it, so I'm looking for it here where I can see to look for it!"

CORONATION STONE: GEOLOGY AND HISTORY

The Coronation Stone is not sandstone of "Scottish origin", for its history goes back through a succession of previous resting places in the British Isles, and the traditions bring its history from much earlier times. Briefly, the list includes these locations:
1. Its source: Its dimensions relate quite closely to the common cubit used in the Middle East in Biblical times, and hence indicate it to have started as a half-formed building stone, probably from the outcrop about 15 miles distant from Luz (Bethel), to which a perfect geological match has been established using the chips resulting from repairs made in Scotland after it was stolen in 1950. (An old British-Israel video contains a comparison of microscopic photos of samples of Coronation Stone, and Bethel area outcrop, showing the granular textures for comparison. Geologic opinion was that the two samples could have come from the same stone!)
2. Luz (Bethel), where Jacob used it as his pillow, on the night of the vision of "Jacob's Ladder" (Genesis 28:10-22). Doubtless it had rested in a quarry there, having been set aside for some imperfection in the eyes of the stone masons.
3. Egypt, where it was placed in the care of Joseph's descendants by Jacob (Genesis 49:24).
4. The Exodus through the Sinai wilderness (I Corinthians 10:4) at which time, the famous iron rings, now worn paper-thin, must already have been stapled into it, and used in carrying it on a pole.
Stone of Israel, painting by Douglas C. Nesbit, B.A."Stone of Israel" - Oil Painting by Douglas C. Nesbit, B.A. © 1986
5. Horeb (Mount Sinai), where it was struck by Moses while The LORD stood upon it (Exodus 17:6) to provide water for Israel (Psalms 78:15-16, 105:41, 114:8).
"The Smitten Rock" Painting by Douglas C. Nesbit, B.A. ©: 1990 (18.573K)

6. Rephidim when Moses was supported sitting upon it, as the battle between Israel and Amalek raged below.
7. Kadesh, where the great sin of Moses was to strike it a second time, rather than speak to it, to bring forth water. (This broke the type to antitype prophetic match to Christ's two forthcoming Advents.)
8. Shechem (Judges 9:6).
9. Jerusalem (II Kings 11:13-14, II Chronicles 23:13).
10. Spain and Ireland (Tara), as prophetically indicated in Ezekiel 17:22-24, and Jeremiah 1:10.
Painting "Tamar Tephi" by Douglas C. Nesbit, B.A. © 1978
11. Island of Iona. (St. Columba is reputed to have rested his head upon it when he died.)
12. Dunstaffnage in Western Scotland.
13. Scone in Eastern Scotland.
14. Westminster Abbey.
15. Edinburgh, Scotland, where it now rests (1998).

LANGUAGE CHANGES: ARYAN LANGUAGE BEGAN IN PERSIA, WHERE ISRAEL WAS PLACED

In "The Atlas of Ancient and Classical Geography" (Everyman's Library, No. 451), pp. 58-59 the word ARIANA stretches across the nation today called IRAN, while a province displays the name ARIA. The dictionary definition of the word "ARYAN" in reference to peoples and language points us to this location for its origin. (Chambers's Twentieth Century Dictionary) The "Aryan" language traits in European languages doubtless received these characteristics at least in part, during the sojourne there of Israel as deported captives required to learn the language prevalent among their captors.

Dr. Martin sneers at the possibility that "British" can be connected to "berith" (covenant) and "ish" (man), stating of this "It is sufficient to point out that... the Hebrew words berith and ish literally mean "covenant and man," not "men of the covenant"... . This insertion of the word "and" in English puts the interpretation in question into a different frame, because British-Israel does not necessarily insist on more than the prophetically significant fact, using the interpretation "men of the covenant," or "Covenant Man" and simply points out the curious fact that these two segments of the Country's name are each an Hebrew word, as the two Hebrew words individually translate.

As for Hebrew and Anglo-Saxon tongues having "as much in common as do Chinese and Pig-Latin." this is not the view of the Jewish linguist Isaac Elchanan Mozeson, who teaches English at Yeshiva University. He has written "The Word, The Dictionary That Reveals The Hebrew Source of English" (ISBN 0-933503-44-X). The ancient Welsh language contains many traces of Hebrew.

SOME MINOR COMMENTS

The Bible sometimes treats of BOTH HOUSES of Israel in combination, but this does not indicate their fusion.
Consider the Parable of the potter (Northern Israel), (Jeremiah 18), in contrast to the parable of the shattered pot (The Jerusalem Leadership just prior to the Babylonian captivity) (Jeremiah 19).
Consider Ezekiel's prophetic dramatization, (Ezekiel 4:4-6) bearing the iniquity of Israel for three hundred and ninety days, and then for Judah, forty days, (a day for a year) lying on his one side and then the other.
This indicates DIFFERENT DESTINIES for the two houses. Dr. Baron insists on making the terms "Israel" and "Jew" synonymous; a confusion which cannot be true because they have different destinies prophetically, down the centuries. He insists that many present day unfoldings of prophetic marks must, instead, await a future fulfilment in the millennium for consumation whereas they are plainly discerned as already fulfilled historically if one correctly designates the players on the stage of history, and thus knows where to look.

RETURN TO CONTENTIOUS QUESTIONS, DEBATABLE PROPOSITIONS AND SERIOUS ANSWERS
RETURN TO B.I.W.F. HOME PAGE