In addition, if we look to the Bible, my favorite and I believe infallible source, our readers know that we teach all races are included along with Israel. For example, I clearly taught the multi-racial nations Israel would become under British realm (and by extension, American): In the mountain of the height of Israel will I plant it: and it shall bring forth boughs, and bear fruit, and be a goodly cedar: and under it shall dwell all fowl of every wing; in the shadow of the branches thereof shall they dwell. (Ezekiel 17:23).

So you see, the Bible does not teach that racism we are accused of, either. And those who claim we do are putting words into our mouths (and that is something so easily done and assumed when trying to make another look bad). For those who think we do, look over this entire site and truly become educated what we teach. Let's continue on with the article:

In about 720 B.C.E., Israel (the ten Northern Hebrew tribes) was defeated and exiled to Assyria (2Kings 15:29; 16:6). According to sensationalists, these tribes never returned to Israel but became the 'Ten Lost Tribes'. Many peoples have, at times, claimed descent from these Lost Tribes......

The first part of this paper states the so-called origin of British-Israelism. Perhaps the most observable form can be traced to recent history, but in reality the idea that lost tribes were in Britain for example goes much farther back. Around 1800, a manuscript was found by a Frenchman (an enemy of the British no less) by the name of Sonnini. This "Sonnini Manuscript", otherwise known as the apocryphal Acts 29, is an old document that clearly states the lost tribes going to Britain. Source, the book: Did the Apostle Paul Visit Britain? R. W. Morgan In that book is the copy of Acts 29 that says, "And Paul, full of the blessings of Christ, and abounding in the spirit, departed out of Rome, determining to go into Spain, for he had a long time proposed to journey thitherward, and was minded also to go from thence to Britain. For he had heard in Phoenicia that certain of the children of Israel, about the time of the Assyrian captivity, had escaped by sea to the Isles afar off as spoken by the prophet Esdra, and called by the Romans-- Britain.' Here is an independent link to a site that quotes the same manuscript: http://www.keyway.ca/htm2001/20010316.htm. I like what the people on that site said about this manuscript, that we should not add to the Word of God. Nevertheless, they seemed open to its historical contents with no specific ax to grind regarding this manuscript in my opinion--- in other words, balanced without being too pushy about it. Their point, and mine, was that somebody long beforehand got this idea that some Israelites ended up in Britain. In addition, if one were to look over our site here, we showed countless times where the Bible claims they went. However, if it clearly spelled out the name "Britain", then that would make Hosea's prophecy in error when he called Israel "not my people" if God blew their cover, so-to-speak. In other words, enough hints in prophecy for insightful people but stopping short of actually saying it.

By the way, before I forget, the reference to Ezra in the Sonnini Manuscript is no doubt to the II ESDRAS 13 passage, or one similar. This book, which was included in the King James Bible translations at one time, and considered inspired by some, CLEARLY speaks of the end-time return of the lost tribes. Obviously they were SEPARATED from Judah STILL until Messiah rejoined them. In addition, it speaks of them being in another land until then, certainly not a little disorganized tribe here or another one there from a national perspective, but a LARGE population instead. And one other noteworthy comment here. Long before any of the so-called British-Israelite nuts were on the scene, various people mentioned the Israelite connection to royalty and the people of the British isles.

Again, regarding the origin of British-Israelism, the writer of the article appeals to the insanity of the supposed originator. The implication is that if he is insane, then so is the doctrine. Sorry. That's not a true correlation. Then the author brings up the racism issue again. Well, I agree with what the article said there. If there are any "British-Israelite" racists out there, then we should pray for them indeed. But let's not throw out the baby with the bath water. Otherwise, I already dealt with the rascist issue--- yet this keeps coming up over again. Inadequacies and abuse have NOTHING to do with proving or disproving a doctrine and I am unsure why it is presented as if is does. This adds no substance to the argument other than a subtle form of name-calling.

Did you know, God doesn't care about black or white, the outside? 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" (Acts 10:34-35). 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.

Well, actually, the Bible teaches BOTH race and grace, otherwise, why are there people known to the world as "Jews", or "God's people"? But nobody seems offended by that--- only if Anglo-Saxons also make that claim they seem to be. On this site here at eternalthroneofdavid, we clearly teach the importance and relationship of race and grace. Grace, open to ALL, comes from Judah. Race and it's (birthright) blessings goes to Israel, not so that they are superior, but as a RESPONCIBILITY to be a light and blessing to the rest of the fallen world and bring to them GRACE in Christ. The reason they are blessed is because God had promises to keep to the Patriarchs and he made the Israelites for a purpose. Frankly, I never saw such a stubborn bunch, certainly not superior, just human like everyone else.

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

Actually, the Encyclopedia Britannica takes my earlier statement of position # 2, possibly #3. I would not expect a secular encyclopedia to go "all the way" to #4 here, since they do not have faith and have no interest in justifying the Bible. However, even they go past point #1 which ironically the author who quotes it takes. Proof? Let's see. I have here a child's encyclopedia Britannica (even kids should know this much). Ah, yes, here it is: In 722 BC the Kingdom of Israel was conquered by Assyrians, who led the ten tribes into captivity. The fate of these tribes is unknown. They are called the "Lost Ten tribes" of Israel. (Britannica Junior, vol. 8 p.209 1960 ver.) So, for sure, anyone who is against lost tribes teaching must abandon position #1 (the author's position) if we are to use the encyclopedia Britannica.

OK folks, Let's start out with Professor Morris Silverman of Yeshiva University. (No, I will not bash him, review his sex life, or whatever to prove him wrong like I often have to tolerate, but...) We see this heavyweight scholar and feel safe to say that we can be rest assured British-Israelism is wrong because such a prestigious university with such a knowledgable scholar would not even think of promoting this ignorant British-Israel doctrine in any way, shape or form. Not by history, not by language, and not by any other manner. That's what we are led to believe here, right? Well, we have another Hebrew scholar. His name is Dr. Isaac Elchanan Mozeson who gives over 5,000 English words with a Semitic origin. He believes that the Hebrew and English language are "profoundly connected". I wonder what the critics of British Israelism think of that? So what? Who is this guy? They may wonder. After all, what better source than Yeshiva University? Well, of all places, Dr. Isaac Elchanan Mozeson graduated from Yeshiva University, obtained his doctorate at New York University, and returned to teach English and language studies at none other than, Yeshiva University (Oh the horrors!). Hmmmm. Interesting. And I was led to think they would have kicked such a guy out. Notwithstanding, this learned man also put out the famous encyclopedia "The Word: The Dictionary That Reveals The Hebrew Source of English." Now I'll be fair where fair is due. I do not know the position that the man takes on British-Israelism. Of course British-Israelites use him as a connection, if I may play the devil's advocate for a moment here and think like those who do not accept British-Israelism. What is noteworthy, is while the critics of British-Israelism scoff at lingusitic associations, this scholar appears to prove them. British Israelites think that the language connection is a very strong one and use it to prove the connection of the races. What if Dr. Mozeson really meant all languages have a common origin that can trace us back to Adam and Eve (as opposed to trying to prove British-Israelism)? Well? Can our critics now say, "Aha! We got you now! It does not prove the British came from the Hebrews!"? Well, if so, then language does not prove anything to the contrary, either, because different societies could have a connection, or then again, they may not. Here is a link to this scholar, and four others who make similar claims (both past and present times): http://www.ensignmessage.com/archives/hebrew1.html.

If we continue on, Dr. Silverman compares racial characteristic types of the British to the Jewish people expecting the British to "have the same skin colours - basically, there should be a genetic connection." And he goes on to compare the Aryans vs. the Turanian racial characteristics. Let me simplify this--- he expects the British to have darker skins, being shorter and fatter with big noses like any good Jewish person ought to have. Hey, he said it more scholarly than that, but in a nutshell that's what this professor is really saying, let's be honest here. And if British ought to be that way, then certainly, certainly Jews? Right? OK everyone out there. Every Jewish we know is that way? Right? There's no fair-skinned Jew. None have blond hair, or is tall. And everyone of them gets their noses whacked if we close the doors behind us too fast. Of course I'm being facetious here. Think people, what this guy just said. I can hardly believe this coming from a scholar. "Well, over the years the Jews adapted to their surrounding regions with whatever race they lived in since they were scattered." a critic may reply. And this cannot happen to the Israelites, too? "Well then, they are too inter-bred to be qualified to be Israelites!" they may retort. Same for the Jews. Sorry. Yes, the Jews retained enough of a common denominator to be recognized as Jews, just as enough British, Americans, etc. are recognizable, but a person's specific genealogy may vary giving them vast racial differences when in fact they could have a common ancestor. We do not even need a scholar to prove that point, but here's an encyclopedia link regarding racial and cultural groups of Jews: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/judaism/FAQ/07-Jews-As-Nation/section-2.html but this is obvious from everyday living--- and this in itself should suffice in answering this racial issue, but I have more to say. Let's talk about genetics. Or more specifically, genealogy. British-Israelites teach, as I do, that the British are mainly from the tribe of Joseph, and his son Ephraim, for example. The Jews are from a different tribe of Judah. Therefore, if what the British-Israelites and I say is true, we would not expect the genetics of racial characteristics of the British and Jewish people to necessarily match close. Why is that? The reason is because although Judah is in the family tree with Joseph, Judahites are not in Joseph's pedigree. The same works with medical knowledge. A doctor is concerned more with your pedigree than your family relations from other branches. Now, I'm being overly simplistic here with the assumption that each lineage stayed within their own people only, but the author is making that assumption, so let's just so that's the general case for illustration. Let's use an example starting with Jacob. Let's say he was Russian. Judah came from Leah, so lets call her Chinese. Joseph came from Rachael who we shall compare to a Spaniard. Now, Joseph had his kids Ephraim-Manasseh in Egypt, so for simplicity's sake, we'll just keep his wife Egyptian. Look at the picture below of the pedigree.

Of course I am only using nationalities to prove the genetic differences. Joseph was a half brother to Judah. Then Joseph married again to an Egyptian priestess making his kids half Egyptian, and so forth. As the chart shows, if we compare the different women's genetics to nationalities, we see in a relatively short time that Joseph's children and Judah's children only have a fractional component in common. That much is indisputable genetics based on genealogy. Therefore, as Jews themselves have varied racial characteristics (and yet people believe their claim to their father Abraham), the lost Israelites can have a varied racial background. This does not PROVE the British are from Israel, I realize, but one cannot DISPROVE it either, and anyone who thinks so can join the British-Israel nut Brothers in my opinion (who I want nothing to do with since he gave the teaching a bad rap).

And this brings up one other point, in the event that our author critic solely meant past racial characteristics instead of present. As the article link already shown, NOBODY can say for sure how Abraham, Isaac or Jacob looked. However, we can look to Biblical clues. In Genesis 12:11 Sarah (Abraham's wife) was described as a fair woman to look upon. Even more interesting is the description of King David in I Samuel 17:42 who was described as "ruddy and of a fair countenance". Likewise, King Solomon in the Song of Solomon 5:10 is "ruddy". If the region was populated with the supposed darker-skinned people surrounding Israel, I could see why Sarah would stick out as a different kind of woman. I could also see why that Philistine would despise King David

We should also consider language. If the Anglo-Saxons were really from Israel, then we would expect them to speak a form of Hebrew, wouldn't we? At least, English should have some connection with Hebrew. However, The Jewish Encyclopedia says "English is a branch of the Aryan stock of languages, and has no connection with Hebrew".

I just dealt inadvertently with the language issue when talking about race and genealogy--- I supplied the names of five reputable scholars. I find it interesting that this article just in passing says that the "Jewish Encyclopedia" says so-and-so and not expand on it, as if to say, "It says so, so it must be true." Again, depending on which Jewish person one asks, I suppose we can find a scholar with no trouble disagreeing with this. A blanket answer and solution to this issue is not an answer at all, so I will not spend any more time on this point.

We will look now at religious opinions. If the Anglo-Saxons were the Israelites, then they should have worshipped the Lord. Some British-Israel authors make feeble attempts to show that 'the British Druids were ancient Hebrews', who worshipped the Lord. Some say that Jesus went to Britain, to preach to the 'lost sheep of Israel' under the Old Covenant. However, as any British 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 first ancestor of its kings". The early British were not Hebrews, but blue-painted Woden-worshipping barbarians!

Good! I'm glad we are getting to the religious part (i.e., the Bible) because that is what I feel most comfortable with, and also the most important. I am going to say this much for any critic out there who has not figured this much: We been over race, we been over language, and we been over genealogy, and whatnot. I think it's safe to say that one can find a scholar that can prove or disprove anything. Not much in the academic world is accepted as absolute. However, we can start out by faith and rightly dividing the Word of God and ask ourselves what GOD teaches about Israel. From that, we can pick up evidence that correlates with what the Bible says (not that it proves or disproves anything per se) and supplements the faith starting position of the Bible. Everyone with me so far? And that's the position this eternalthroneofdavid site has been taking all along. Here's the Bible story and evidence (by faith)--- here's the tangible evidence we found---- connection made. The strong statements we make are meant to be taken as fact based on if the Bible says so and therefore the evidence on its own may provide very little clues in and of itself without that foundation.

The crux of this statement is that if the lost tribes are found anywhere, they should be religious like the Jews and/or worshipped the Lord. I wonder where the author got that idea? Let's just check that one out by the Bible regarding the reason they were cast out of the land to begin with:

For so it was, that the children of Israel had sinned against the LORD their God, which had brought them up out of the land of Egypt, from under the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and had feared other gods, And walked in the statutes of the heathen, whom the LORD cast out from before the children of Israel, and of the kings of Israel, which they had made. And the children of Israel did secretly those things that were not right against the LORD their God, and they built them high places in all their cities, from the tower of the watchmen to the fenced city. And they set them up images and groves in every high hill, and under every green tree: And there they burnt incense in all the high places, as did the heathen whom the LORD carried away before them; and wrought wicked things to provoke the LORD to anger: For they served idols, whereof the LORD had said unto them, Ye shall not do this thing. (II KINGS 17:7-12)

Could that include Woden, either at that time or later? As for the Druids, that antedates the lost tribe migrations. As we teach here on this site, there were waves of migrations. Even if the ten tribes did not go to Britain and nearby regions, the Druids were already there, so that has no bearing on this at all.

We might also have a look at 'manners and customs'. By reading through a few history books, you will notice the complete difference between the Israelites and Anglo-Saxons on these points. The Israelites were reputable in battle (Deuteronomy 21:10-13), while "The [Saxon] name became a synonym for piracy and barbarism". The Israelites were buried at death (Saul the one exception - 1Samuel 31:8-13), while the Anglo-Saxons used cremation. The Israelites would not eat pigs (Leviticus 11:4-8; Deuteronomy 14:7, 8), while "it is possible that during Anglo-Saxon times pigs greatly outnumbered all other domestic animals and were the basic component of the agricultural economy". Clearly, some major differences here.

And again, in line with the previous answer, one cannot expect that the exiled Israelites would retain their "manners and customs" perfectly, some maybe (enough to make a connection), but not all. We clearly teach on this site and the sources we quote who believe as we do that the Israelites would lose their identity to both themselves and others so that they would appear as "not my people" as Hosea says. If we did not teach this, then I could see a problem here, but we do. The author forgot to add one other thing---- circumcision (ouch!). Again, I would not expect them to practice the Law of God if their disobedience thereto was the reason for being cast out to begin with! In addition, based on this logic, one could argue that the original colonists here to the United States did not come from Britain because we now drive on the right side of the road, British on the left. We circumcise our little boys. British recently have not. Speaking of Anglo-Saxons using cremation, they actually both buried and cremated their dead. A reader to this author's criticism would have one believing that they only cremated them--- a misleading point. Go to British Archeology, no 10, December 1995 article called "Finding Britons in Anglo-Saxon graves". This article, by Dr. Heinrich Harke is quite interesting--- certainly the Anglo-Saxons had graves in addition to cremation. I find it quite interesting that he also makes a point so overlooked by novices who would take our critic's article to heart, as if a few simple statements can be made about Anglo-Saxons that "prove" they are not the lost tribes. As Dr. Heinrich pointed out at the very start of this article saying that: "There can be few peoples whose ethnic origins are so fraught with historical problems as those of the English." And I can attest to the Scottish and Irish as well. Well, us "lost tribes" folks know why the English have one of the most complicated past--- that's because we believe they were the lost Israelites, and as such underwent many changes so that as God said, they would be "not my people". Thus, we can see how society changes in a relatively short time even amongst the same people.

So, if the British are not lost Israelites, then who are they? I had the opportunity of listening to Adelaide English History lecturer, Marcia Nichol, discuss this. According to her, the first Celtic people were not Israelites, but could be traced to a group known as the 'Urn-Field People', or 'Proto-Celts'. They were called 'Urn-Field People' because they cremated their dead and placed them in distinctive 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 food shortages. They were around long before Assyrians took the Israelites captive!

Again the author seemingly springs a surprise on the reader by effectively saying--- the indigenous population was there long before the exiled Israelites arrived--- as if to imply this is not known or addressed by British-Israelites. Well, it was. Again, my favorite archeologist, E. Raymond Capt in his book "Stonehenge and Druidism" addressed this very well. In fact, his historical review of these very same people integrally fit in with the migrations of Israel--- I was quite intrigued at the complexity of it all. The story is far too long to elaborate in detail here, I would encourage the critics to read it AND to check Capt's additional and numerous resources and artifacts. In a nutshell, the migrations involved fusing of the Israelites with the original inhabitants and displacements. One culture picked up some manners of the next, and so forth.

But what about the ancient writings? True, some point to early English legends to show that Israelites came to Britain. But this is quite deceptive. The legends contain little, if any, real history. Sometimes, they are even misquoted to prove the British-Israel viewpoint! Irish Historian Sean O'Faolain says, "We do not read the literature as it was originally created. The Christian scribes and the patriotic ficto-historians have freely altered the original records and the traditional lore to suit their own ends ... Myth and history, dreams and facts, are forever inextricably commingled". Because of this, James Campbell, in his book The Anglo-Saxons, describes the early British legends as "largely romance". So, these spurious texts cannot prove British-Israelism.

Our author critic quickly dismisses the admission that some legends support the idea that Israelites came to Britain. However, he is just referencing "legends" and I cannot comment in detail on that because I am not certain to which ones he is referring to. However, I can attest to the fact that there are more than just legends floating around. Various landmark objects there including their locations have been connected all through the time to Jesus and Joseph or Arimathea coming to Britain (remember what Jesus said about going to the lost sheep of the house of Israel). I won't bother taking the time to speculate which legends the author is talking about for this reason and just give my readers reference to E. Raymond Capt's book called "The Traditions of Glastonbury." There are a lot of "legends" in that book enough to keep our critic entertained for the night. And since Capt is an archaeologist, lots of pictures (tangible evidence) can be found in that book, too. What I can say as I did in my other messages, even if these legends are like rumors, I tend to listen to such rumors. I found in life they always have basis in fact (as opposed to somebody creating them out of thin air). Created stories or lies would quickly die out due to contradictions that arise. My point: Whether the legends are fully true or not, we must ask ourselves what inspired them to be circulated to begin with---- indeed, as I already shown, apocryphal writings suggest Israel ended up in Britain.

As for the true destiny of the Israelites, the inspired writings are our best source. British-Israelites distinguish between the 'Jews' and 'Israelites' - and this has some basis.........

The real fate of many of these Israelites was probably death. The Lord carried out his promise to destroy many of the faithless Hebrews remaining in Assyria (Deuteronomy 28:15, 36, 48, 61; Amos 9:4, 9, 10). As the Time magazine states, "there is no mystery about the fate of the Ten Tribes. Most of those exiled to Media died of harsh treatment; the Assyrians were the Nazis of their day".

I won't comment on TIME magazine's article. I cannot seem to find that 1953 reference. No, it is not that simple to judge the fate of Israelites because the article claimed that. This is just my intuition speaking, but I get this hunch that there is more to that article than what's being quoted--- maybe an article quoting someone who said that (and maybe there was a contrary point not mentioned). As for the fate of Israelites being death, yes, I am sure that happened to many of them, but GOD'S WORD says He would keep them! Period! Basically, he wrapping up his article by quoting Scripture that "proves" both Jews and Israelites were the same. On this site, and others, that was adequately answered, and thus beating a dead horse. However, if Israelites were rejoined with the Jews several centuries BC, then that would have been the rejoining of the two sticks in Ezekiel 37. Just read that chapter--- nothing that glorious has occurred yet! In addition, let's quote Flavious Josephus, a trusted ancient historical source about the lost tribes during the NEW TESTAMENT timeframe:

...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." (Antiquities of the Jews - Book XI Chapter 5).

British-Israelists 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 God's holy nation (Exodus 19:6). In the New Covenant, the body of Christ is the "chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's own people" (1Peter 2:9; Romans 9:6). Galatians 3:13-14, 16, 29 explains that the blessings of Abraham are for this new spiritual Israel, not any particular race of today. So, the real rock of Israel is not the Lia Fail, but Jesus Christ!