By Liaf
The last message took an actual debate speech directed against the Lost Tribes teaching and I answered each and every point Scripturally with only casual mention of extra sources. Of course as many of us know, people will take Scripture and make it say anything they want to deny the sound teaching about the Lost Tribes simply because they apparently do not want to know (or you to know) about them. I'm not sure what the threat is. I guess my only vice in all this is that I get quite agitated at times when others refuse to listen to or acknowledge truth that smacks one in the face. Be that as it may, since Scriptural proof does not faze them, I will cite additional proof outside the Bible (but can be supported by the Bible).
There are seven things I want to present in this message that correlates with Bible teaching about the house of Israel. Many of these subjects we've already dealt with on this site. However, this message becomes a nice new 'index' if you will that easily points out these previous messages. Thus, I will not elaborate in great detail on each point, but rather place links to messages I already created. The seven items are:
This is by no means an exhaustive list. There are other items I can think of such as heraldry, but I find that given we accept the general region of the Lost Tribes, we can use that to identify specific tribes in accordance with the latter chapters of Genesis. Keep in mind I am only a knowledgeable and avid reader of this stuff--- no means an expert. Considering this, I feel I am doing a pretty good job at answering the critics. And if a layman can do that, all the more the experts (such as Capt who spent 40+ years in the archeological field). With this being said, let me elaborate on each point:
1. Archeological discoveries
The findings I have in mind are objects such as the Behistun Rock, many lost (and recovered) Assyrian record tablets (cuneiform tablets) identifying the Israelites as people of other names, the black obelisk, stone monuments, dolmens, and the like, and an array of smaller items (vases, pottery, weapons, etc.). Once the connection between the Israelites and other names can be established, it is a matter of historical accounts attesting to their migratory location. I touched on this subject briefly in my Migrations II message. Nevertheless, if you want very detailed archeological information, I'd recommend following the links to get Capt's books. I find that Capt both experienced AND presents the material well. His presentations follow what most archaeologists say on the subject.
2. Linguistic association
Shame on me. I never really did any message on linguistic associations. What brought this to mind was one of my students asked me if there was any. I mentioned Ogham but I was not well versed in that subject (I guess in the same manner I was not the best language student :-) ). However, critics of the Lost Tribes say that the English for example read left-to-right whereas the Jews read right-to-left. Again, they start with the assumption that Israelites are Jews and therefore should have similar mannerisms (in spite of the fact that they would lose their identity). Nevertheless, there are some similarities that come out indicating a Hebrew origin but diverse enough so that the connection may not be overtly obvious unless it is approached by an expert (makes sense to me since God did not want the Israelites to remember their identity). One "interesting" example is the word "LiaFail" (Jacob's Pillar coronation stone) is a palindrome. Coincidence? Also, I've brought out the obvious similarities between the names of the peoples and the Hebrew language (such as 'Saxon' and 'British') in our Migrations II message (link supplied above). Again, Capt deals with this language subject in his books in far greater detail. In addition, one of my students lent a "secular" book to the student who asked about the language, which from her description of the book claims that there was a Hebrew connection. This becomes interesting since a secular source has no ax to grind regarding pushing the doctrine about Lost Tribes. Oftentimes this is the case with books or secular programs on television which made the Hebrew connection with various migrations (e.g. the television documentary I mentioned about the Manassi). These were NOT British Israelite researchers. They were merely looking for the Lost Tribes amongst certain tribes of people in the general region of Israel's supposed captivity.
3. Historical mention
This is often disputed because the skeptical critics seemingly cannot find the so-called 'legends' and 'annals' that are quoted pertaining to the Lost Tribes by supporters (in other words, that's a way of saying the pro-Lost Tribes people are dreaming them up). But I will give one excellent example of a historical heavyweight that is often quoted. His name was Josephus. On our free online book, Judah's Scepter/Joseph's birthright, Mr. Allen quotes Josephus several times. Do a "find" search on this book to see the various places Josephus is mentioned. However, I will give one excellent and clear example (i.e. a quote) that Josephus believed there were lost tribes. Mr. Allen's book has the following noteworthy comment and quote:
Josephus tells us of an epistle which was written by Xerxes, the son of Darius, at the time when the Jews were getting ready to leave Babylon, and sent to Esdras (Ezra) which was the cause of great rejoicing among them. He speaks of the effect it had upon them, as follows: "So he read the epistle at Babylon to those Jews that went there, but he kept the epistle itself, and sent a copy of it to all those of his own nation that were in Medea. And when these Jews had understood what piety the king had toward 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 (A. D. 95), and are an immense multitude, and not to be estimated by numbers."
Of course the Bible clearly stated only two tribes, along with a band of Levites returned from the Babylonian captivity (Ezra 10:9). Anti-Anglo's will try to nullify this clear statement in God's Word by saying that offerings were made for ALL twelve tribes (therefore they had to be there, the 'reasoning' goes). However, what they do not consider is that the Law demanded itself to be carried out a certain way, and that included offerings representative for all twelve tribes whether they were there or not. Needless to say, God was severe when man would 'fine tune' it to apply to his own needs. The very fact that the Anti-Anglo's would carry out the Law to fit only two tribes when God demanded for all twelve shows they are following the devices of their own hearts (and I'd try to duck the next lightning bolt if I was standing near the likes of them).
4. The Apocrypha
This is even more eye-opening. The Apocrypha was considered inspired by some people and did you know that back in the time of the King James rendition of the Bible it was punishable by a year in prison if the Apocrypha was NOT included? Don't quote me on that "year" timeframe because I heard that years ago by another reputable preacher--- I believe my memory is serving me correctly. The point is that there was a penalty for not including it back then with the rest of the Bible. Let's look at two CLEAR passages. The first one is VERY CLEAR, and the second passage is EVEN CLEARER (so don't ask me how the Catholic theologians deny the Lost Tribes). The first passage is about the Spartans back in the days of the Maccabees when Jonathan, the High Priest, sent letters of friendship and alliance to the Rome and others. This passage was to the Spartans (ancient Greek city of Sparta in I Macc. 12):
This is a copy of the letter which Jonathan wrote to the Spartans: [6] "Jonathan the high priest, the senate of the nation, the priests, and the rest of the Jewish people to their brethren the Spartans, greeting. [7] Already in time past a letter was sent to Onias the high priest from Arius, who was king among you, stating that you are our brethren, as the appended copy shows. [8] Onias welcomed the envoy with honor, and received the letter, which contained a clear declaration of alliance and friendship.
To which they answered:
[20] "Arius, king of the Spartans, to Onias the high priest, greeting. [21] It has been found in writing concerning the Spartans and the Jews that they are brethren and are of the family of Abraham. [22] And now that we have learned this, please write us concerning your welfare; [23] we on our part write to you that your cattle and your property belong to us, and ours belong to you. We therefore command that our envoys report to you accordingly."
Perhaps critics would argue as to why all the Lost Tribes weren't there IF they did exist. I find that ridiculous. We (and many scholars versed in the migrations of Israel) noted that Israel migrated in waves over various periods of time. We had the pre-Abrahamic migrations, those from Zarah, some from Dan, even more from the vast body from the house of Israel, and even these split going various routes. These are all some examples. The point I'm making is that there were colonies of Israel out there. In this case, they found out who they were as indicated by the text. If only people of this nation would open their eyes in a similar manner. The second passage I want to point out is the famous passage from II Esdras. "Esdras" was the Greek name for Ezra. Obviously either Ezra, or whoever 'penned' his name believed in the Lost Tribes (and the implication is also whoever 'penned' Ezra's name believed that Ezra acknowledged their existence). You see, these apocryphal passages smack in the faces of those who vehemently argue that ALL ISRAEL was present in the return from the Babylonian captivity just because they offered twelve sacrifices for ALL ISRAEL. Well, let's see what Ezra says as he describes his version of the Armageddon battle and the return of Israel in the last days:
[39] And as for your seeing him [Christ] gather to himself another multitude that was peaceable, [40] these are the ten tribes which were led away from their own land into captivity in the days of King Hoshea, whom Shalmaneser the king of the Assyrians led captive; he took them across the river, and they were taken into another land. [41] But they formed this plan for themselves, that they would leave the multitude of the nations and go to a more distant region, where mankind had never lived, [42] that there at least they might keep their statutes which they had not kept in their own land. [43] And they went in by the narrow passages of the Euphrates river. [44] For at that time the Most High performed signs for them, and stopped the channels of the river until they had passed over. [45] Through that region there was a long way to go, a journey of a year and a half; and that country is called Arzareth [which means another land]. [46] "Then they dwelt there until the last times; and now, when they are about to come again, [47] the Most High will stop the channels of the river again, so that they may be able to pass over. Therefore you saw the multitude gathered together in peace.
Need I quote more? The only way out of these clear passages is to simply say that these passages were "not inspired" and as such sweep them under the rug. However, even if they were NOT canonized, doesn't it at least bother any anti-Anglo's out there as to why all this stuff was mentioned?? No. I guess it does not. Lights out. Don't buck or ask questions or you're going to hell.
5. Mannerisms
I stated that I would address the strange custom of Halloween. You see, King Jeroboam of the house of Israel initiated a substitute feast of the Tabernacles on the 15th day of the eighth month. For those of you who know your astronomy and Hebrew calendars, this feast took place at FULL MOON during the time of the year that we celebrate our Halloween. Click on this word Halloween to take you to this article about that pagan feast and its origins (and thus our connection to the house of Israel).
6. Units of Measure
This will not faze a skeptic. And due to the precise nature of mathematics I find that utterly amazing. But as the objective mind will observe, the 'English system' has been mysteriously held onto by this great nation of ours and it relates to the ancient so-called 'Egyptian' and Hebrew units. Ask any evangelist or other hell-fire preacher what the length of a Hebrew cubit was. He will tell you about 18 inches. Ask what capacity the Hebrew bath held and he will say about 5.8 gallons. To quote a Bible footnote I have pertaining to Solomon's sea (laver) for the temple (I Kings 7):
"This gigantic laver for the priests' washing was ten cubits or about 14.5 feet.... It contained 2000 baths which was about 5.8 gallons."
Three other, yet different, Biblical sources I have available to the common man all say essentially the same. "What does this have to do with Lost Tribes?" Well, I want to mention TWO points about measurement in general. First of all, those critical of the Lost Tribes teaching claim that it is based on mistaken Biblical interpretations and cheap-shot archeology. Yet, I will show that the same ones who criticize the belief in the Lost Tribes cannot even get their historical math (or geometry) straight. The second point is that given we know the Hebraic origin of the measurements, it seems to me that the societies using them probably have a relationship to Israel.
Critics scoff at the evidence we use to support the existence of the Lost Tribes, but these same critics will proclaim a gross mathematical error pertaining to measurement. "Why is that an issue?" you may ask. The issue becomes important because while the anti-Anglo people filter all through the Lost Tribes evidence for validity and truth (which they do not believe it has), they do not bother to straighten out their own falsehood which is verifiable by a simple ten-dollar store calculator and a little geometric knowledge. Therefore, if they do not care to correct their error, then the implication is that the issue is not about what is right or wrong (or verifiable or not), but the issue is believing in whatever fits into a preconceived set of beliefs. In other words, the interest is not in truth. You do not have to be a theologian to get this right. You do not have to be a wise and well-versed historian. Why, a schoolboy can figure this one out.
The Kings passage describing Solomon's semi-spherical laver was very precise. If a cubit was 18", then all our schoolboy has to do is calculate the cubic inch capacity of this semi-sphere. The formula is : (2/3)(PI)(R3). Once he has the cubic inch volume, all he has to do is convert that to gallons (which is 231 cubic inches to a gallon) and then to "baths" (which is supposedly 5.8 gallons to a bath). What does he get? His answer will be somewhat less than 1000 baths!! But the Scripture says 2000 baths!! Some may argue it was cylindrical shaped. So what? That only increases the volume by 50% at best. That's still only 1500 baths!! You can read more about this specific calculation in our Sacred Measurement part two series (but I would read all of the series to get the full story). A critic may quip it took two thousand baths was because Solomon's laver must have been leaky if they do not like to face my mathematics. No. I think it's their theology that "does not hold water".
Along this same line, the so-called "unscientific" inch has a definite relationship to the polar radius of the Earth in the same manner the centimeter relates to the circumference of the Earth. The Pyramid is based on this polar measurement as was the ancient Hebrew sacred cubit (as coined by Sir Isaac Newton). Make sure you read the other sacred measurement series (all found in Liaf's 2001 index on the home page). In addition, you can get an excellent overview of the PYRAMID and how that relates to measurement. Since we can show that length, area and capacity of the English system is related to the size of the Earth, the Great Pyramid's measure, and the Hebrew measurements (e.g. the tabernacle) in the Old Testament, the strong implication is that this unit of measurement stayed with the people of Israel manifesting itself as what we now call the English system of measure. If nothing else, this fascinating relationship of the inch-to-centimeter ratio being about an 8/PI ratio stops the mouths of the critics and opens the mouths with amazement of those mathematically inclined. My indisputable claim is that if we derived a unit of measure based on the polar radius of the Earth, we'd have imperceptibly different yardsticks, land acreage, and volume capacities. One would have to be callous not to at least take a second look and at best, would take a lot of explaining to do as to why there are so many "coincidences".
7. The Line of Israel
While on the topic of geometry and mathematics, I "discovered" an interesting "coincidence" regarding the direction of the migrations of Israel. Perhaps there are some other Lost Tribes folks that are aware of this, but I have never heard it taught in the manner I present it. However, I find this hard to believe that nobody knows about the "line of Israel" as I call it (of course I can't expect the anti-Anglo folks to know about it--- they probably do not even have a good sense of direction amongst other things). I probably reinvented the wheel (as I inadvertently reinvented spherical trigonometry when I needed to calculate stellar positions). All Lost Tribes ministries will tell you that Isaiah 49 claims that Israel is in the Northwest direction in the isles (of Britain) and that the land of Sinim is the southern land of Australia. Well, I found that mathematics verified what they have been verbally saying in a far greater manner than I ever expected. If some would face Northwest while in the land of Israel and march in a straight line (magical soldiers who can march over land and sea) towards Britain, but continue onward in the same straight line, they would cross the Atlantic and come across the Eastern United States and Canada. In other words, Israel, Britain and the United States and Canada are on the same line and direction from the land of Israel. Once our soldiers arrived in America, if they did an about face and returned toward the direction they came, they'd be marching toward the Northeast--- both Britain and Israel are in that direction from the Eastern coasts of the United States and Canada. In addition, once our soldiers arrived back in Israel, if they kept marching in the same straight line heading generally Southeast (opposite of what they started when going towards the isles), they'd pass just South of Australia (Sinim), the largest habitable landmass opposite side of the Earth. These are all lands associated with the colonization of Israel. Check out the message on the Line of Israel for maps and a perspective on what I am saying. This will not convince a skeptic that we are from Israel, but since Britain and the United States (and Canada too) are indisputably in the Northwest direction (and Israel is Northeast from America), we must respectfully add that IF the British and Americans are not from the Lost Tribes, then we must be displaced and be replaced by the real Israelites (whoever they may be) SINCE THESE LANDS PERFECTLY FIT THE DESCIPTION IN ISAIAH 49 and these are the lands the Israelites would return from in the end times. Of course, the 2520 years punishment already ended, and if God did not settle the Israelites by now, He never will. Therefore, this realization pertaining to the British and Americans in the lands described by Isaiah 49 is one more piece of evidence as to who we are.
Well, there you have it--- some more objective evidence about Lost Tribes supported by history, writings, quotes, discoveries, and precise mathematics. And don't get me started on the topic of heraldry. I been very busy the last three weeks answering the arguments against Anglo-Israelism and I will need a break for awhile. There is only one way I can see around all this evidence---- one must have a very large broom and a large hole under the carpet to sweep all this evidence into the basement. That is, if the basement is large enough to hide all this evidence.