British Israelism: A Royal Mess

Apparently, I was a traitor to my country and my gender when I slept in a few Saturdays ago instead of getting up to watch the royal wedding between Prince Harry and Yankee Meghan Markle. I later saw that I had missed hours of chatter between my girlfriends - the dress, the flowers, the royal lip bite... I guess I shouldn't be surprised. No matter how old we girls get, deep down, we still want to be a princess...

What did surprise me, however, was the number of Church of God members who got up at 6:00 on a Saturday morning to watch the event.

Let me repeat that, in case you missed it.

DOZENS OF FAITHFUL SABBATH KEEPERS SET THEIR ALARMS TO GET UP EARLY TO WATCH THE ROYAL WEDDING ON TELEVISION ON THE SABBATH.

Given that, growing up, I was expected to turn off my favorite TV show mid-skit at sunset Friday, I was more than a little shocked to see people openly broadcasting their decision to watch.

So how was it that these proud, faithful Sabbatarians were not seeking their own pleasure on the Sabbath? Because, of course, it was an important event in the timeline of The Church!

Wait, what?

According to Herbert W Armstrong, the founder of the organization that has splintered into today's Churches of God, the British people are descended from the "lost" Hebrew tribe of Ephriam. This theory, known as British-Israelism, also claims that Americans are descended from Manasseh and many European nations descended from the other "lost" tribes. Most of the COG splinters still believe and promote British Israelism today.

Coronation chair with the Stone of Destiny.

Further, Armstrong taught that the British throne is the fulfillment of God's promise that David would never fail to have a descendant on the throne of Israel. As COG legend had it, David's "true" throne departed Israel when the prophet Jeremiah and his daughter, Tea-Tephi, took Jacob's pillar stone to Ireland and buried it in Hill Tara. The stone later traveled to Scotland,
and then down to England, where it is known as the Stone of Scone/Stone of Destiny, and the royals still use it as part of their coronations. So, as heirs, Prince Charles and Prince William must be descendants of David. And if his father and brother are, well, Henry must be, too.

(Wait a minute. Descendants of David would be from the tribe of Judah, not the tribe of Ephriam. So is the British royal family descended from Judah or Ephriam? I'm so confused!) 

Don't overthink this, Martha! The British monarchs are descended from Hebrew tribes and sit on the throne of David. Who could be more Jewish, er, Ephriam-ish (?) than the British royals? And we, as Americans, are their brothers, also descended from the Hebrew tribes. It's our DUTY to watch this wedding! It would be like missing a major moment in family history, or a family wedding. We CAN'T have that! (Warning: Don't EVEN get me started on the way Sabbath weddings have played out in my family).

No. I maintain that we NEED to overthink this. If neither one jot nor tittle claims what the COGs claim it means, then it's our DUTY to analyze this point. So, is there any way to find out whether princes William and Henry, AKA Harry, are really descended from any of the tribes of Israel? It's an important question, since we're flirting with Sabbath-breaking at the very least. Is there any way to test Armstrong's theory?

Well, there is, thanks - unfortunately - to the turbulent relationship and well-publicized extramarital exploits of Prince Charles and the late Princess Diana. The royals, tabloids and British DNA testing companies have been rehashing that topic for more than a decade. After all, if William and Harry were not sired by Charles, Prince of Wales, then they are not heirs to the throne. And if they were, then they share his royal blood and his DNA. And, if they and Charles are descended from the tribe of Ephraim, they should share genetic markers with those who have Jewish DNA.

After all, didn't God Himself tell David that his descendants would never lack a man " to sit on the throne of Israel? (1 Kings 2:4 and 9:5). Those who believe in British Israelism say that the throne of David still exists in the form of the British monarchy, so if anyone should have DNA evidence that they're related to other Hebrews, it's the royal family, right?

Let's not get the cart before the horse, though.

(Again, please don't discount DNA evidence because it is a product of science and scientists, who are frequently atheists. DNA evidence is not speculation about what happened millions of years ago. It's largely performed using tissue like hair, cheek swabs and blood samples from living humans (or tissue left on confirmed, authentic artifacts, mummies, and in some cases frozen human remains) and is considered reliable enough that it's admissible in court.

Princess Diana and Hewitt in 1989

First of all, though he's far from the heir apparent, Prince Harry IS Prince Charles' son, as is his brother William. It was rumored for years that Harry might have been fathered by army officer Major James Hewitt, with whom Diana admitted she had an affair. But that affair started when Harry was three years old - Harry was born in September 1984 and Diana
didn't meet Hewitt until 1986. Charles himself confirmed he was Harry's father before the young prince went away to school at Eton in 1995.

Still, when it comes to the throne, one can't be too careful. Apparently, Prince Philip, Queen Elizabeth's husband insisted upon a DNA test, according to the  Agence France-Presse, which proved Harry was Charles' son. As if that wasn't enough, the former News of the World tabloid was reported to have obtained and tested a lock of hair from Harry and determined he was not Hewitt's son.

Prince Harry/James Hewitt

Now, the royals have not released DNA test results - presumably, it would be beneath them. But you'd better believe if something were found to be amiss, we would know about it, and the royal succession would have been changed. This is the kind of stuff over which the War of the Roses and the Hundred Years War were fought. Tabloids and DNA companies have run their own tests, reportedly on samples from the princes, and demonstrably on their cousins, and their findings have never been challenged. While parents, children and siblings do not have identical DNA, they are usually close, so we'll take a look at the results for Prince William, since he the one most discussed as the presumed heir to the throne.

Historical quirks like Hundred Years War and King Henry VIII mean that royal lineage has been documented very well. The late William Addams Reitwiesner, a well-known historian, has calculated Williams' ancestry as about 57 percent British and Irish, 39 percent French and German, 3 percent Eastern European, 1 percent Scandinavian, less than 1 percent South Asian (During the British colonization of India, Diana's great-great-great-great grandfather had a child with an Indian woman), and less than 1 percent... Middle Eastern! But before you get all excited, that Middle Eastern DNA is Armenian and comes from the maternal side, not the paternal side, which, in this case, are the genes that would correspond with the "throne of David" claim.

Now let's get a little more specific. While William's DNA test has never been released to the public, that of his father's patrilineal cousin has. While that may not sound like a big deal, among royals, it is. Here's why: some geneticists actually consider "royal" to be a specific ethnic subset in Europe because of the shared languages, culture and genetics. Until very recently, the only acceptable marriage partner for a royal was another royal. Because of all the intermarrying between cousins to maintain thrones across Europe, the genetics of the "royal" class are both painstakingly documented and relatively stable since the time of Charlemagne. In this case, the cousin who was tested was Nicholas II, the last emperor of Russia.  His body was tested after being found in the mass grave his family was thrown into after the Russian Revolution. The genetic results matched those from his blood-stained shirt kept in a museum in Osaka, Japan following an assassination attempt in the same city.

Basically, when tracing patrilineal ancestry, scientists study the Y-chromosome to determine a person's haplogroup - those with whom they share a common ancestor. This is pretty solid science - Y-chromosomes have been demonstrated to stay relatively stable over thousands of years. And in this case, we not only have DNA samples from the family but also a list of pretty much everyone (of genetic significance) in the family for more than a thousand years.

Nicholas II

Nicholas II's Y-chromosome haplogroup was found to be R1b, which is not a surprise, because it's a pretty common DNA haplogroup in Europe. In case you care, the common patrilineal ancestor between Nicholas II and Prince Charles was Frederik I, King of Norway and Denmark from 1524-1533. Whose line is known from the time of Elimar I, the first count of Oldenberg, a Saxon who ruled in what's now northern Germany from 1101 to 1108 A.D. Anyway, short story long, no one has released William's DNA results, but thanks to the multiple tragedies that befell poor Nicholas, we know that there's roughly a 97.2 percent chance that William's haplogroup is also R1b.


But we know this for sure: even if, somehow, William's DNA falls in that 2.8 percent margin of error, it's still in R haplogroup family. We have the man's genealogy traced practically back to the 700's A.D., and it's pretty much a mix of British, Germanic, French, Scottish, Armenian, Scandanavian and one lady from India.

So why do we care? Because, honestly, apart from what I'm about to say here, I don't. It is difficult to overstate how little I care about the lineage of the British royals. Except for this one point:

Brits and Americans primarily belong to the R1b haplogroup - which, as I already stated, is the most common one in western Europe. You see many variations on that theme - an R1a, an R1b1a2-M (M indicates Eurasian lineage). But you know what you don't see, at least among those who claim to be British, Irish, French and Danish? You don't see a J, at least in most individuals who don't claim Jewish ancestry.

Both Palestinian Jews and Arabs belong to the J haplogroup. This makes sense, since scripture specifically states that Jews and Arabs both descended from Abraham. Genetic research is able to trace a common father between Jews and Arabs even several generations before Jacob, the father of the Twelve Tribes of Israel.

So if Brits descended from related Hebrew tribes, you would expect to see genetic markers for the J haplogroup on their Y chromosomes. You would especially expect to see these genetic markers in the royal gene pool; in those whose lineage is relatively documented,; whose genetics haven't changed all that much over the centuries; in those who are allegedly descendants of David and sit on the throne of David.

But you don't. DNA evidence shows that R and J are two entirely different ethnic groups; groups who do not share a common ancestor. At least not, in all likelihood, until about the time of the Ark, which was at least 750 years before the birth of Abraham.

So why don't you see those genetic markers? Maybe it's because British Israelism was not a divine revelation, but a lie peddled by a false prophet. Or even worse, a lie peddled by a false prophet who plagiarized the theory.

Armstrong taught over and over and over again that the claims made by British-Israelism were divinely revealed to him, and were the key to understanding Bible prophecy. Without this "vital key", he taught, no one could understand where Israel is today, and thus no one could understand how prophecy was going to play out. But British Israelism been debunked, over and over again. Is it any wonder that his prophecies failed, and that those who continue building on this foundation are crumbling?

Simon Abney-Hastings outside his home in Australia.

So, should we be getting out our DNA kits and start looking for the true heir to David's throne? Perhaps it's Simon Abney-Hastings, an Australian textile worker who's the direct descendant of the royal Plantagenet line that lost power during the War of the Roses.

No. We know which ancestor of David's currently reigns, and it's the best one possible. Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior, sits on His throne today. Though different translations muddy the meaning, many believe that God told David he would always have descendants to sit on the throne - in distinction to Saul, whose line had been cut off and later died out due to his disobedience. Jesus was physically David's descendant, and we know He ascended to heaven and took His throne. As usual, Armstrong's doctrines distract and detract from Jesus Christ - the Way, the Truth and the Life. The author and finisher of our faith. The only means through which we can approach the Father. Our only hope.  The Bible makes it clear that salvation only comes by grace through faith in the shed blood of Jesus, but Armstrong wove a tangled web of religious practices he claimed we must follow to remain in God's grace. Many in the splinters of the Worldwide Church of God are still caught in that web today.

As for me, I care about as much about royal lineage as I did before I started this post. After all, Titus 3:9 tells us:

But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless.  

Armstrong and those who keep his teachings alive must have missed that one. Makes you wonder what else they might have missed.

************
It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )
Acts 17:11
************

Dear COGWA: You're Still Not Israelites

I'm not the most sentimental gal in the world, but I've always had a soft spot for Sarmatians. Maybe it's because they rhyme with "dalmatians," which are undeniably cute, even to a tomboy like me. Maybe it's because, up until a few years ago, I believed they were my ancestors. Females are allowed to be indecisive, right?

Anyway, when I saw that COGWA just posted an article today discussing artifacts excavated from the tomb of a Sarmatian noblewoman,  I just HAD to read it:

"This past summer, an amazing discovery was made near Rostov-on-Don, a Russian port city on the north coast of the Black Sea," wrote COGWA blogger Erik Jones. "Archaeologists were excavating the 2,000-year-old tomb of a Sarmatian noblewoman. To their surprise, among the artifacts discovered in the tomb was an object they never expected to be there: a carnelian seal engraved in ancient Hebrew!"

Jones posits that archaeologists will probably explain away this discovery as an example of trade in the ancient world.

"But could there possibly be more to it?," he asks. "In fact, it is very possible that this discovery sheds light on an even greater ancient mystery."

Jones goes on to explain that this astounding finding supports COGWA's teaching, carried over from the theories of Herbert W Armstrong, that the "lost" 10 tribes of Israel migrated west and eventually settled in Europe and the United States of America.

Oh, THAT'S right. Now I remember why I like the Sarmatians so much. It's because they and their Scythian cousins totally ruin Armstrong's theory on the lost 10 tribes, also known as British Israelism.

Jones, COGWA and other Armstrong-inspired groups claim that the Scythians descended from the lost 10 tribes of Israel. The Sarmatians pushed the Scythians out of the Black Sea region into continental Europe.

It's true that the Sarmatians dominated and eventually displaced the Scythians from the Black Sea region, likely in the 2nd century B.C. But we aren't talking about a clash of cultures here. We are talking about a tribal rivalry. The Scythians and Sarmatians were closely related. Sarmatians even spoke Scythian.

What's more, we know that the Scythians were not related to Western Europeans. Oh yeah? How can you say that? What did you do? Dig up some Scythians and test their DNA?

In a word, yes. Not me, personally. But essentially, that's what happened. Tombs containing Scythian warrior bodies have been discovered in the Mongolian-Alatia mountains. Researchers excavated more than twenty tombs containing frozen and mummified human remains. Artifacts and possessions buried within them identified them as Scythians.

DNA testing proves that Scythians are closely related to the Sarmatians. Who, incidentally, worshiped fire, not Yahweh, according to the source Jones cited. And Sarmatians are Persians - Iranians. The Human Genome Project has determined that Palestinian Jews are and Arabs are related. While Persian DNA was a bit more diverse, likely due to the region being at the crossroads of ancient societies, testing showed many Persians came from the same genetic background as the Jews and Arabs. Which is in no way connected to the most prevalent genetic backgrounds in Western Europe. It's true that some Persians did migrate west into Europe. They were the predecessors of the Slavic peoples.

Please don't disregard these scientific findings just because they came from the same guys who brought you evolution. This is not biased scientists looking for the missing link. This is very specific research, done on a specific portion of human DNA, from actual people with proven ethnic and national origins who are walking the earth today. Or, at least, they were walking the earth during the Human Genome Project. Project research also included DNA gleaned from tribal artifacts and intact bodily remains. This scientific evidence is solid enough that it would be considered "proof in a modern court of law."

Jones' source promises to keep up with the Hebrew Seal mystery. We can be sure that COGWA will be checking in and using any discoveries to promote its failed theory of British Israelism. And you can be sure that we will be keeping an eye on COGWA.

For more information on the Human Genome Project and the disproven theory of the lost 10 tribes, please read our post, "Happy Thanksgiving, from my Gentile Family to Yours!".

************
It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )
Acts 17:11
************

Happy Thanksgiving, From My Gentile Family to Yours!

I've always loved Thanksgiving. The emphasis on gratitude, the blessings of great food and the family togetherness. What a God-focused time! And in a post-1995 Church of God family, it's one of the few occasions when everyone is guaranteed to be gathered.

But there's always that point in the meal where the conversation inevitably devolves into politics. You know, the issues where the COGs are emotionally invested, yet believe abstaining from punching a ballot-card keeps them righteous and pure. Anyway, I know you've all been there. The discussion turns to how the United States is going to hell in a hand basket. Abortion. Socialized medicine. Gay marriage. One of these three laments is sure to follow:

a. Well, Americans are just like their forefathers, the Israelites, stubborn and refusing to follow God. What do you expect?

b. See, it's all happening, just like Mr. Armstrong said it would!

or, the ever popular

c. If only the people of the United States knew who they really were!

These conversations are only a microcosm of nearly every COG item ever published about Thanksgiving. I have yet to see a Thanksgiving article that doesn't include British Israelism - the theory that the majority of the United States is physically descended from the ancient Israelite tribe of Manasseh (and also that Britain is descended from Ephraim, and that many Western European nations are descended from the other "lost" tribes). What would a good discussion on Herbert W Armstrong's fruit and teachings be without a post on how British Israelism has been completely dis-proven?

Armstrong alleged that Israel and Judah are not two names for the same nation - they were two separate nations, and always will be, until Christ's return:

"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."
-Herbert Armstrong, Where are the Lost 10 Tribes, p. 8

Perhaps he never read Luke 2:36-38, which says that Anna the Prophetess was from the tribe of Asher, yet called her a Jewess of Jerusalem. And if the tribes left Palestine well before Christ's birth, and were already settling in Europe, how did Jesus send the twelve disciples to the "lost sheep of the house of Israel" in Matthew 10:6? Sounds like He knew where they were - within reasonable walking distance! Jesus repeats this phrase in Matthew 15:24, where He says He "was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." Note that Jesus never left Palestine. And then there's Peter, who ended his Acts 2 Pentecost address by proclaiming his message to "all the house of Israel" (verse 36). This language is inclusive - Peter didn't follow up that he was speaking to the Jews as well.

Those who have gone before me at As Bereans Did have done some amazing work untangling the Biblical case against British-Israelism. Rather than rehash this ground, I will direct you to their articles and focus here on how modern genetic research has completely overturned Herbert W Armstrong's apple cart. We'll also take a look at the "inspiration" behind HWA's theories.

For past ABD posts about British Israelism, please visit the following:

The US & Britain; In Prophecy? Pt.1 of 2
The US & Britain; InProphecy? Pt. 2 of 2
True History of the True Church??
Flurry's Follies
More COG Theological Ancestry
The Genesis Prophecies

Pack's Proofs on Peter's Pontificate

And now, without further adieu...

DNA research has proven Jews do not share a common ancestor with Americans and Brits

Do not disregard this finding just because it came from the same guys who brought you evolution. This is not scientists looking for the missing link. This is very specific research, done on a specific portion of human DNA, from actual people with proven ethnic and national origins who are walking the earth today. Or at least they were walking the earth during the Human Genome Project. It also included DNA gleaned from tribal artifacts and intact bodily remains. This scientific evidence is solid enough that it would be considered "proof in a modern court of law." For more information about the Human Genome Project, please click here.

In the portion of the project I'm discussing here, scientists examined the Y chromosome to determine a person's haplogroup - those with whom they share a common ancestor. (If you want to get more technical, which I don't, scientists test Single Nucleotide Polymorphism mutations on the Y chromosome to determine haplogroups). The Y chromosome has been demonstrated to be stable over thousands of years.

Palestinian Jews belong to the J haplogroup, as do the the Arabs. This makes sense, since scripture specifically states that Jews and Arabs both descended from Abraham. So research is able to trace a common father between Jews and Arabs even several generations before Jacob, the father of the 12 Tribes of Israel.

In contrast, Brits and Americans primarily belong to the haplogroup R1b1a2-M269. The haplogroup R1b is the most common one in Western Europe. More than 100 million Western European men belong to this haplogroup.

An Oxford University study further broke down the genetic mapping in the British Isles. The Romano-Britons (the region's original Celtic inhabitants who lived when the Roman Empire fell in Britain, in the 4th century AD) were found to be closely related to the modern inhabitants of France and Ireland. In contrast, the invading Anglo and Saxon tribes were Germanic. They are believed to have come to Britain at the request of the Celtic warlord Vortigern, who wanted help in defeating rival Celtic tribes like the Picts. They came, invaded and eventually took over the country.

BRITONS

A contender for first place in HWA's awkward linguistic arguments was the claim that the name "British" came from the Hebrew word for "covenant man." The Hebrew word for "covenant" is beriyth or berith, and the word for "man" was iysh or ish.

"In the original Hebrew language vowels were never given in the spelling. So, omitting the vowel "e" from beriyth but retaining the 'I' in its anglicized form to preserve the 'y' sound, we have an anglicized Hebrew for covenant, brit. The Hebrews, however, never pronounced their 'h's'... so the Hebrew word for 'covenant' would be pronounced it its anglicized form as brit. And the word for 'covenant man' or 'covenant people,' would therefore be simply 'Brit-Ish.' And so, is it mere coincidence that the true covenant people are called the 'British'? And they reside in the 'British Isles."
-Herbert W Armstrong, United States and the British Commonwealth in Prophecy, p. 95-96.

Simply? Huh? There is nothing simple about that twisted mess of a theory.

Understand that all Israelites were "covenant people". Why is it, then, that none of them, not a single one, call themselves "Berith Ish"? Dan doesn't call themselves Berith Ish. Judah doesn't call themselves Berith Ish. Manasseh doesn't call themselves Berith Ish. The Saxons don't call themselves Berith Ish. Not in the least.

The whole British name came from the Britons - the Celtic tribes whom the German Anglo-Saxons pushed out. In case you missed it, I shall reiterate. The Brits are Celts and the Anglo-Saxons are Germans. They are two completely different people groups. Their DNA was tested and neither are Hebrew, let alone one single Hebrew tribe of Ephraim. The word British comes from the Celtic tribe of Britons and the English suffix "-ish", which means "belonging to." It doesn't mean "covenant man." It means "belonging to the tribe of Britons".

So according to British Israelism, who would be the real "covenant people"? The Celtic tribes who gave the British Isles their name, or the Anglo-Saxons who pushed them out? It can't be both. It's likely actually neither, but it definitely can't be both.

And what about the other non-Briton Celts in the Isles? For instance, the Welsh, Irish, Scots, Picts, and others. Are they Ephraim, too? You should be aware that all of these Celtic groups, including the Britons, were already on the Isles while the northern ten tribes were still in Palestine. Before Tigleth-Pileser III subjugated Israel, the Celts were already established on the Isles. And this is well before the prophet Jeremiah. It is simply impossible that these groups populated the Isles centuries before the exile into Assyria - and - that they migrated there centuries later because of the exile. It can't be both.

SAXONS

HWA would have us believe the Saxons are genetically descended from Ephraim and Manasseh on rock solid proof like this:

"They were descended from Isaac, and therefore are Isaac's sons. Drop the 'I' from "Isaac" (vowels are not used in Hebrew spelling), and we have the modern name "Saac's Sons," or as we spell it in shorter manner, "Saxons"!
-Herbert W Armstrong, The United States and Britain in Prophecy, p. 95-96

Vowels weren't written, but they were pronounced. We aren't talking here about how Isaac was spelled, where the "I" was already dropped, but how it was pronounced, where vowels are never dropped. Dropping the I makes no sense. Think about it. If vowels are dropped when spoken, then why was the "A" pronounced? The "A" was not written any more than the I was. If dropping vowels from spelling means dropping vowels from pronunciation, why are there any vowels pronounced? Why isn't Isaac pronounced "Sc"? Claiming that the "I" was simply dropped inadvertently would have been one thing. But you see, claiming the "I" was dropped because it wasn't written makes the opposite of sense.

What happens when you drop a vowel from pronunciation? It's gone forever. The truth is, one does not drop vowels in spoken Hebrew.

Herbert Armstrong also tried to skirt the issue of the Saxons being a Germanic tribe in his 1980 version of the USBC booklet, where he claimed the Anglo-Saxons are an entirely different people from the "Old Saxons," who still live in Germany.

Um. Ok.

So where did the migrating Saxons come from? The Anglo-Saxons are a combination of two of the tribes, the Angles and the Saxons, that took over the Britons' land after the fall of Rome, after Vortigern's fateful invitation. The Anglo-Saxon designation is actually more of a politico-religious label than an ethnic designation. They were all Germanic "barbarians". That's where the Saxons of the Anglo-Saxons came from. From the "Old Saxons," who were just plain old Saxons until the ones who migrated to the Isles and joined the Angles needed to be differentiated from the ones who stayed in Germany. They aren't Hebrew, they are Germanic - also known as Teutonic - the very people that HWA said were Assyrian. There is no Hebrew "Saxon" and Germanic "Old Saxon", there is only Teutonic "Saxon". They are all the same tribe of people. And this doesn't even address the Angles.

The Angles were just another closely-related Germanic barbarian tribe along with the Saxons. The name England comes from the Angles, as do several place-names in England (eg. East Anglia). They migrated to central and northeastern England from the Jutland peninsula in the northernmost area of Germany and the southernmost area of Denmark. Denmark? You would expect them to be from the tribe of Dan, then, not Ephraim. But they are neither Dan nor Ephraim. They are Germanic.

SCYTHIANS

But wait! Maybe the "Saxons" of the Anglo-Saxons descend from the Scythians, whom the United Church of God and other COGs assert suddenly appeared on the world scene just after Israel's lost 10 tribes disappeared?

Well, the nomadic Scythian tribe does appear to have colonized in Eurasia north of the Black Sea, around parts of Russia and the Ukraine. So at least that much is true. But are they the displaced 10 tribes? Most everyone else believes they descended from Sarmatian tribes like the Alans. Don't worry, I've never heard of them, either. But the Sarmatians were Persian - like the Iranians, who are fiercely proud of their non-Arab heritage. If they aren't genetically related to the Arabs, then they aren't genetically related to the Jews, either.

"But," you may interject, "we don't have Scythians today to test. So isn't UCG's theory just as good anyone else's?" Not really. Because we do have Scythian DNA, thanks to the discovery of tombs containing Scythian warrior bodies in the Monglian-Alatai mountains.
From 2005 to 2007, researchers from the Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona worked together with French and Mongolian researchers to excavate more than twenty tombs. Many of the tombs contained frozen and mummified human remains of soldiers buried with their horses, artifacts and possessions, which identified them as Scythians.

GENTILES!

So am I telling you these Saxons, whom Herbert W Armstrong claimed were Israelites, are actually from the nation he labeled as Assyria, the Israelites' mortal enemy? IF the Germans are Assyrians, then yes. Yes I am. However, even if they are not Assyria (and DNA seems to support the idea that they are not) then they are still Gentiles through and through. Assyria or no, either way they are Gentiles.

Even the COGs themselves seem to support this thinking - in December and April, when they gleefully bash the Christmas and Easter traditions we got from our Germanic European ancestors. How is it that the rest of the year we are descended from Israel?

The Angles and the Saxons are German and therefore Gentiles. The Britons and Scots and Irish are Celts and therefore Gentiles. The Roman conquerors were primarily Gentiles. The Gauls were Celts and Gentiles. The Franks are Germanic and Gentiles. The Goths were primarily Germanic and Gentiles. The Vikings, among whom are the Norsemen and Swedes, are Gentiles. The Slavic peoples of Eastern Europe and Russia are Gentiles. The seemingly unstoppable Huns who ravaged Europe are Gentiles. The Moors, who for centuries controlled the Iberian Peninsula where Spain and Portugal are today, are Gentiles. And you most likely are, too, if your descendants came from Europe and up into the British Isles.

ORIGINS

How can this be? Didn't God specifically reveal these things to Herbert Armstrong, His end-time prophet? Funny you should mention that. The theory that the British people descended from Israel has been around since at least 1649, when John Sadler (who had nothing to do with any proposed COG ancestry) published his pamphlet "The Rights of the Kingdom."

The teaching gained more traction as put forth by Richard Brothers, an 18th Century lieutenant in the British Royal Navy who claimed to have his first call from God in 1790 (he also had nothing to do with any proposed COG ancestry). On May 12, 1792, he wrote to the king and other heads of state, warning them he would declare the imminent fulfillment of Daniel 7 on May 17. He later proclaimed the king would die and the crown would be given to him; he then was committed to Newgate Prison in London.

Brothers was eventually released and went on to pen 15 books, most arguing for an Israelite ancestry for the English people. Two of the titles included "A Correct Account of the Invasion" and "Conquest of This Island by the Saxons." Brothers attracted numerous followers thanks to his mixed record of political predictions. He talked some into selling their property so they could come with him when he built his New Jerusalem, on both sides of the Jordan River, 1795. The government later committed him to the Bethlehem Royal Hospital, England's first asylum for the mentally ill. He was once again released in 1806 and died twenty years later, his New Jerusalem unbuilt.

Undeterred by the failures of the past, historian John Wilson built on Brothers' theoretical foundation, publishing a book version of his "Lectures on Our Israeltish Origin" in 1840. Then the theory crossed the pond when preacher William Miller, from whom the COGs descended, encouraged his followers to read books by Wilson and others. By 1876, five editions of Wilson's book had been published.

Just before Wilson's fifth edition was printed, Edward Hind issued his "Identity of the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel with the Anglo-Celto-Saxons," which explained the basics of British-Israelism. Hine, also the editor of a magazine called The Banner of Israel, sold more than 250,000 copies of his book.
Remember how we dealt earlier with the Germanic Angles and Saxons, and the Celts. They are not the same peoples, yet Gentiles all.

You can read more about Brothers, Wilson and Hind here.

As I discussed in a previous post, John Harden Allen published his book, Judah's Sceptre and Joseph's Birthright, in 1902. There is compelling evidence to believe Herbert Armstrong plagiarized large portions of this book in his United States and the British Commonwealth in Prophecy, which was published in 1954. (See our article, "This Has All Happened Before" for more details. And you can compare excerpts from both books here).

G. G. Rupert, an Adventist pastor who greatly influenced Herbert Armstrong, also espoused British Israelism. Many in the COG community accept this fact, including "cogwriter" Bob Thiel, who admits that Rupert and others who crossed paths with HWA espoused forms of British Israelism. Herbert Armstrong fell into the same error by extracting the man yet perpetuating his failed teachings. (As an aside, Rupert was also was a major force in popularizing the idea of the Yellow Peril - the idea that the "yellow" "oriental" races would invade the United States. Some may look at the current economic conditions in the world and say that Rupert was right, the "yellow races" have invaded the United States! But, no. No they haven't. Rupert stated exactly what he meant, and none of it has come to pass as he said. He was not right).

CLOSING

Simply put and in summary, the teaching that Americans, Brits and Western Europeans are descended from the "lost 10 tribes" of Israel is wrong. Disproven. Unbiblical. Unhistorical. Created by false prophets and perpetuated by false prophets. God did not divinely reveal it to Herbert Armstrong. HWA was hundreds of years late in even making the claim.

Armstrong taught over and over and over again that this blatantly false set of claims is the key to understanding Biblical prophecy. He said no one can understand prophecy without this "vital key". Without the vital key of British-Israelism no one could understand where Israel is today, and thus no one could know how prophecy was going to play out. But British-Israelism is false and all predictions made using it have come to nothing.

With a starting point like that, is there any wonder that his predictions of the future failed, and more importantly, the very foundation of his understanding of Biblical prophecy altogether have failed? And continue to fail to this day? The COGs still attempt to build on this same foundation to this very day. No wonder at all that relying on Armstrong's inaccurate foundation has led the COGs to think the Apostles and even Jesus were confused about prophecy. Is it good, oh sought after by God, to claim that the Bible is wrong in order to defend your prophetic missteps, as the UCG has done? Wouldn't it be better to just let those assumptions go?

I certainly don't blame anyone for being drawn in by Herbert Armstrong's teachings about British Israelism back in the days of the Radio Church of God or Worldwide Church of God. Especially in the hopes that doing so would help you escape the Great Tribulation. We didn't have the benefit of things like the Human Genome Project, Google, or hindsight about HWA's 200+ failed prophecies. But now you have a choice. You can either check out the links and consider the evidence, or you can stick your fingers in your ears and ignore what I've said.

I'm sorry if you're disappointed that you're probably a Gentile. But guess what? I have good news!

In Christ, there is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, neither male, nor female. Jesus loved you enough to suffer and die on the cross for you, whether you are Jewish, Kenyan, Greek, Irish, Japanese or American. He is the means through which God promised Abraham that the whole earth will be blessed. He is the descendant of David who sits on the throne forever. Don't worry about who is descended from whom, or which ethnic group has inherited whose blessings when. His grace was sufficient for Paul, and it's more than enough for you, too. Avoid those genealogies; they are useless (TIT. 3: 9). So when you sit down this Thanksgiving and give thanks, be sure to thank God for the greatest blessing of all - salvation by grace through faith in the shed blood of Jesus. That's better than any special "gnosis" about prophecy, even better than the undeniable blessing of being born of an American. His grace was sufficient for Paul, and can be for you, too.

God bless you all, and have a Happy Thanksgiving!

************

It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; ) Acts 17:11

************

The US & Britain;InProphesy? Pt. 2 of 2

Once Herbert had established in the minds of his follower the Idea that the US, Britain, Canada, Australia and others, are Israel, he could begin to introduce alleged prophesies of destruction as, pertaining to the present, and to these countries.

Deut 28 is called the blessings and curses chapter. And if you read it you might note that once the curses part starts, there is nothing about a mid punishment reprieve. As a matter of fact the text repeats that the curses continue until Israel is destroyed. Example; Deut 28:48 “therefore in hunger and thirst, in nakedness and dire poverty; you will serve the enemies the LORD sends against you. He will put an iron yoke on your neck until he has destroyed you.”

I recall hearing this next verse in church as a kid; it and others created a profound dread of the future, and a sense of utter hopelessness. Deut 28:64 “Then the LORD will scatter you among all nations, from one end of the earth to the other. There you will worship other gods—gods of wood and stone, which neither you nor your fathers have known. 65 Among those nations you will find no repose, no resting place for the sole of your foot. There the LORD will give you an anxious mind, eyes weary with longing, and a despairing heart. 66 You will live in constant suspense, filled with dread both night and day, never sure of your life.” I was taught that these things would be in my future; that the USA was going to go into national captivity.

Elevating ones speculation to the level of dogma seems to be a legacy of Herbert, now being carried on by his disciples, such as; Ron Weinland, Rod Meredith, Gerald Flurry, etc.

Israel went into captivity, and according to Herbert they were blessed again 2500 years later in a whole new land, only to sin and be cursed all over again. Ho.11:8 disagrees, 8 “My heart is changed within me; all my compassion is aroused. 9 I will not carry out my fierce anger, nor will I turn and devastate Ephraim. For I am God, and not man— the Holy One among you. I will not come in wrath. 10 They will follow the LORD; he will roar like a lion. When he roars, his children will come trembling from the west. 11 They will come trembling like birds from Egypt, like doves from Assyria. I will settle them in their homes," declares the LORD.” After the captivity God has compassion, and does what? Bless them on the North American continent? No, he settles them in their home. Again notice Jer30:3 “The days are coming,' declares the LORD, 'when I will bring my people Israel and Judah back from captivity and restore them to the land I gave their forefathers to possess,' says the LORD.”

Herbert used every prophecy sent to Israel and applied them to the USA and Britain, admitting that they had been fulfilled in what historically happened to Israel (both the Northern Kingdom and Judah). He continually hammered on the biblical principle of duality, which is entirely extra-biblical, so there are no references to refute. Yes, there are two comings of Jesus; there’s the physical house of Israel and the church. But a principle that prophecy is fulfilled twice, that’s unsupported supposition.

After reading “Every Prophecy of the Bible,” by John F. Walvoord, I came away unequivocally aware that; prophecy is usually very straight forward; its symbolism, when used, is explained; or when not explained, metaphoric material is essentially clearly evident.

Clarity doesn’t provide a basis for a cult to draw a following where gnosis does. Inserting arcane meanings into everything, cultivating suspense, makes for a better story. Herbert was a conspiracy theorist. Herbert spun such a captivating tale, always nurturing a sense of mystery that appeals to the suspicion and cynicism lurking in peoples’ minds.

The pushing forward of prophecy claiming 90 percent of it applies to the end time is based on shallow arguments like; “The prophets prophesied after Israel went into captivity, so the prophecies couldn’t have been for them in their day.” Josephus the Jewish historian said in the first century, “Yet the Ten Tribes who are beyond the Euphrates till now, are an immense multitude, whose numbers cannot be estimated." (Antiquities 11:5:2:133)

I’m confident Ezekiel knew where Israel was, and could deliver the message he wrote, when God told him to; Ez2:3 “He said: "Son of man, I am sending you to the Israelites, to a rebellious nation that has rebelled against me.” It’s pure conjecture to presume the prophets message was waiting for the “end times, but to Herbert, it was fact.

It’s almost amusing how the ones who read Ezekiel 5 claiming it’s referring to the USA don’t mention that God is no longer addressing Israel (Northern Kingdom) .By their theory, The USA is Israel, but this is addressed to Jerusalem. They say the USA is first in punishment, but this says it’s Jerusalem, and Israel thereafter. Ez5:11 "Now, son of man, take a sharp sword and use it as a barber's razor to shave your head and your beard. Then take a set of scales and divide up the hair. 2 When the days of your siege come to an end, burn a third of the hair with fire inside the city. Take a third and strike it with the sword all around the city. And scatter a third to the wind. For I will pursue them with drawn sword. 3 But take a few strands of hair and tuck them away in the folds of your garment. 4 Again, take a few of these and throw them into the fire and burn them up. A fire will spread from there to the whole house of Israel.” God is speaking to the people of Jerusalem. Just read Josephus’ horror story of the fall of the city (Wars of the Jews – Books 5 & 6); these things have already occurred. The only way one could apply this to a latter day Israel is via the so called “principle of duality,” which again is a fabrication. There is one punishment. Ez5:8 “I myself am against you, Jerusalem, and I will inflict punishment on you in the sight of the nations. 9 Because of all your detestable idols, I will do to you what I have never done before and will never do again.”

The preceding verse was addressed to Judah, but earlier I quoted Ho 11:8-11 which addresses Israel, and the following addresses both; Ez34:11 “For this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I myself will search for my sheep and look after them. 12 As a shepherd looks after his scattered flock when he is with them, so will I look after my sheep. I will rescue them from all the places where they were scattered on a day of clouds and darkness. 13 I will bring them out from the nations and gather them from the countries, and I will bring them into their own land. I will pasture them on the mountains (This is referring to geography not governments, note; ravines and grazing) of Israel, in the ravines and in all the settlements in the land. 14 I will tend them in a good pasture, and the mountain heights of Israel will be their grazing land. There they will lie down in good grazing land, and there they will feed in a rich pasture on the mountains of Israel. 15 I myself will tend my sheep and have them lie down, declares the Sovereign LORD. 16 I will search for the lost and bring back the strays. I will bind up the injured and strengthen the weak, but the sleek and the strong I will destroy. I will shepherd the flock with justice.” The bible has set a precedence of being straight forward, but Herbert’s disciples create confusion by claiming such verses to be entirely metaphoric, thus “spiritualizing” clear meaning into the netherworld of ambiguity.

These doom and gloom promulgators rarely dwell long on the verses showing that the next appearance of God is to save. There is one punishment and then God saves; Micah5:3 “Therefore Israel will be abandoned (no recess) until the time when she who is in labor gives birth and the rest of his brothers return to join the Israelites 4 He will stand and shepherd his flock in the strength of the LORD, in the majesty of the name of the LORD his God. And they will live securely, for then his greatness will reach to the ends of the earth. 5 And he will be their peace.” Again, I repeat, nowhere is there any verse that speaks of a reprieve in the middle of the punishment. It lasts until Jesus comes.

I have vivid memories of the silent sober audience hearing from the pulpit about the death that shall befall us, quoting Isa6:10 “Make the heart of this people calloused; make their ears dull and close their eyes.” (‘See how true this is’, says Armstrong’s disciples, ‘very few hear our true gospel.’) “Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and turn” (turn to disciples of Herbert, according to them) “and be healed." 11 Then I said, "For how long, O Lord?" And he answered: "Until the (“US?”) cities lie ruined and without inhabitant, until the houses are left deserted and the fields ruined and ravaged, 12 until the LORD has sent everyone far away and the land is utterly forsaken. 13 And though a tenth remains in the land (What we call Palestine), it will again be laid waste, (the ‘again’ is still in this time frame, not in the distant future). But as the terebinth and oak leave stumps when they are cut down, so the holy seed will be the stump in the land."

The land is Israel (Palestine), and nothing says the stump grows back into a tree just to be cut back down again. After a tenth is all that remains in Palestine, they’re whittled down again until they become a stump. The word “again” doesn’t mean 2600+ years later, but until there is nothing left but a stump. History records this all to have occurred. Also the calloused state of mind remains until their punishment is complete. But today’s prophets of Armstrong are still crying out; “God’s word says the USA and Britain will be destroyed leaving only a tenth alive.” How many more kids have to grow up like I did, living in fear or terror of shadows, because their parents buy into this kind of claptrap.

What makes seeing God as the angry avenger, easier than seeing him as the loving Sheppard? Why not dwell on the post punishment mode of God, and nurture a healthy mind? Isa40:11 “He tends his flock like a shepherd: He gathers the lambs in his arms and carries them close to his heart; he gently leads those that have young.” But this doesn’t keep people in fear, and people without fear can’t be controlled.

From my earliest years I heard, “the great tribulation is coming; Israel will be destroyed, and Israel is us.” Whether the purpose of the preachers of this darkness is to create terror or not; the indiscriminate spreading of their errors has that effect.

After believing their misconceptions most of my life, only detailed study could free my mind from the prison of terror. Nothing is as I was taught.

Even the “tribulation” is something other than what was always presented. It has more to do with the following; Zech12:9 “On that day I will set out to destroy all the nations that attack Jerusalem.” The fact is that even God’s wrath is an act of salvation, but this is a whole other study.

Take a peek at pictures we grew up with; Armstrongism: Beware Of False Prophets

You may also be interested in:

Is Germany Assyria as taught by Herbert and his disciples? A bit weighty, but enlightening: Assyrian Identity
For those of us who suffered at the hands of the WCG, this is a well know experiment exposing The perils Of Obedience

The US & Britain; In Prophesy? Pt.1 of 2

By CW (Contributing Writer)

I can barely imagine how the world must have looked to other kids my age as I was growing up. What I saw, I saw through a dark cloud of gloom. I saw, hanging over everyone’s head, the indiscriminate annihilation of virtually everyone in a grizzly blood bath by invading armies, followed by the burning, searing, element-melting nuclear holocaust that Herbert Armstrong so vividly described. On top of the tension of my Old Covenant authoritarian home, and the “us against all the outsiders” paranoia; this specter haunted my every waking moment. From Herbert’s perspective, most of the prophecies about Israel’s destruction were both, for the end times, and talking about my home, the USA. I was taught that we were Manasseh, the birthright tribe of the lost house of Israel, and the British Commonwealth was the tribe of Ephraim. I was taught Herbert’s hybrid version of British Israelism.

The theory of British Israelism goes way back before the times of King Henry VIII. Most experts on British Israelism agree, the theory was promoted by theologians to justify the break of the Church of England from the Roman Catholic Church.

“In its simplest form, British-Israelism claims that the British people are the descendants of the Northern Kingdom of Israel, deported, initially, by Tiglath Pilezer III, king of Assyria, when he launched an invasion of the Kingdom of Israel in 740 B.C.E., and later by the successor of Shalmaneser V, Sargon II, who destroyed its capital city, Samaria, in 721 B.C.E.” Excerpt from JUSTIFICATION FOR AN EMPIRE

What early proponents used for justification of authority, mutated in America, and Herbert, among others, connected prophesies of Israel’s demise, and applied them to the current time. Herbert continued promoting the idea that the British throne is of the line of King David of Judah. He cited ancient Irish legends as fact, and referred to non-existent annals of written history, as in this excerpt from United States and the British Commonwealth in Prophecy (henceforth ‘USBP’); “Then, in 569 B.C. (date of Jeremiah's transplanting), an elderly, white-haired patriarch, sometimes referred to as a "saint," came to Ireland. With him was the princess daughter of an eastern king and a companion called "Simon Brach," spelled in different histories as Breck, Berech, Brach, or Berach. The princess had a Hebrew name Tephi -- a pet name -- her full name being TEA-TEPHI.”

Funny thing is no legitimate scholar can find these annals. You can read more about this at the following link; JEREMIAH IN IRELAND--FACT OR FABRICATION?

I have such vivid memories of the voice of HWA booming through the house. This would have been the early sixties. He always spoke with such authority, and over the years his arguments became familiar. Quoting the Hebrew made him sound like the wise sage as he presented his argument that both, Gen. 12:2 and Gen. 48:19 say, “many nations” in a prophesy that he said “could only be fulfilled by the USA, and Britain.” When making his case about the blessing of Ephraim and Manasseh He pointed out ad nauseam the Hebrew word ‘gowy’ in the first, but did not bother to mention that gowy is not used in the latter, rather; ‘am and male maw-lay, as we will see below.

God promised Abraham; Gen 12:2 “I will make you into a great nation (H1471 gowy; nation)”, and 17:4 “You will be the father of many nations” (H1471). 17:6 “I will make nations of you, and kings will come from you.” OK, But what’s the connection to the USA? Herbert believed that what Jacob told his children, were prophesies of what kind of nations they would become in the last days, before the return of Jesus, and thus, believed the promises to Abraham needed to have a physical manifestation before that time. He would ask, “How could God leave the most blessed nation on earth out of prophesy?”

Herbert’s ‘proof’ started with (KJV) Gen 49:1 “And Jacob called unto his sons, and said, “Gather yourselves together, that I may tell you that which shall befall you in the last days.” To Herbert, any time the term, “the last days,” was used, it meant; “The time just before Jesus’ return.” The word translated, “the last days,” is (H319 achariyth; the last, or end, hence the future). It doesn’t say; “end times or days.” It’s an idiom for the future, and an example of Herbert jumping to conclusions.

Thus, Herbert decided that the following applied to the “end times;” (KJV) Gen 48:19 This is where Israel is adopting the sons of Joseph and crosses his hands putting his right hand on the head of the younger son. Joseph objected…; 19 “And his father refused, and said, I know it, my son, I know it: he also shall become a people, and he also shall be great: but truly his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his seed shall become a multitude of nations.” Herbert claimed, “This is a description of the British Empire and the US” (as do his disciples today - such as: Ron Weinland, Rod Meredith, Gerald Flurry,David Pack...); but Herbert didn't do his home work.

The verse I just quoted when read from the interlinear (the original Hebrew or Greek) reads: “He shall be a people,”H5971 (‘am; a people, as a congregated unit; spec. a tribe as those of Israel) “and shall become great. But his younger brother shall become greater than he, and his seed shall become the (fullness of the nations.)”(H4392 Male maw-lay; full, filling, fullness).

Herbert said it meant, (his famous); “a nation and a company of nations.” Nothing is said about becoming a separate nation, let alone a group of nations. The next scripture puts this into context; Gen 48:20 (Interlinear) “And he blessed them in that day, saying, in you shall Israel bless, saying, may God make you like Ephraim and like Manasseh.” They were blessed to the point that, nations of the day had reason to envy them. Look at a bible map of Israel during its pre-captivity days. Manasseh had two large parcels of land on either side of the Jordan River. They had the birthright, thus, were given a double portion exactly as per Deut 21:17 “… the firstborn by giving him a double share… The right of the firstborn belongs to him.”

Followers of Herbert say, “Either the nations promised to Abraham are here in the world today, or God lied, and God can’t lie,” but read Isa 60:21, it tells of these very things promised to Abraham being fulfilled in a much more amplified way;
21 “Then will all your people be righteous and they will possess the land forever. They are the shoot I have planted, the work of my hands, for the display of my splendor. 22 the least of you will become a thousand, the smallest a mighty nation. I am the LORD; in its time I will do this swiftly.”

That’s an enormous promise that happens when all the people are righteous. This is obviously yet to come. So why believe that the ‘Kings and nations’ promised to Abraham must be present now?

Zech 10:4 From Judah will come the cornerstone, from him the tent peg, from him the battle bow, from him every ruler.” If every ruler comes from Judah, then the Promise to Abraham will be fulfilled, in that; not just rulers come from him, but every ruler. And these rulers come through Jesus, in light of what He said in Rev 3:21; “To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne;” and what Gal 3:7 says about those who believe; 7 “Understand, then, that those who believe are children of Abraham.

As his disciples do to this day, Herbert relied equally on; text supposed to prove the line of descent of the English royal family from the house of David, and other texts that claimed to reveal the identity of Britain and the United States, as mutually supporting his claim that they are of Israelite origin.

Herbert claimed that the throne of David would be maintained without a break from David’s time, until Jesus returned to claim the throne. His proof was (NIV) 2Sam 7:12 “When your days are over and you rest with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, who will come from your own body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with the rod of men, with floggings inflicted by men. 15 But my love will never be taken away from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. 16 Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me; your throne will be established forever.” Herbert claimed that this could only be King Solomon because of the line:” When he does wrong, I will punish him with the rod of men, with floggings inflicted by men.”

On pg. 21 of the USBP, Herbert speaks of a, “self professed scholar’ who makes some “ridiculous statement” to “reject this important truth.” Herbert could condescend to the “ignorant” while failing to show any scholarship himself. If he had looked at the original language for, “when he does wrong, I will punish him " he would have seen; “When he sins,” is derived from a single word; (H2399 chet: a crime or it’s penalty). Then, “I will punish him,” is derived from the single word; (H3198 yakach),which does mean to correct, but can also mean to convict. So I ask you; who for sin (chet) is convicted (yakach), and is a physical descendant of David whose kingdom will last forever? Who was convicted of crimes he didn’t commit and was punished to death with the rod of men? This seems more consistent with the bibles pivotal message; Jesus, but more proof is needed to confirm the choice of words.

Herbert conveniently avoided a verse that is virtually a duplicate of (NIV) 2Sam 7:12-14; 1Chron16:11-14, v11 “When your days are over and you go to be with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, one of your own sons, and I will establish his kingdom. 12 He is the one who will build a house for me, and I will establish his throne forever. 13 I will be his father, and he will be my son. I will never take my love away from him, as I took it away from your predecessor. 14 I will set him over my house and my kingdom forever; his throne will be established forever.” Does God set Solomon over his house forever, or Jesus? The verses in 2Samual and 1Chronicles are talking about the same thing.

Herbert pointed out that when the name Israel is used in scriptures, it doesn’t necessarily mean Judah, he’d say with an exasperated tone, "Israel and Judah were no longer one kingdom after 2Chron 10." He was right about this, therefore when Israel is addressed, it may include Judah, but it definitely means the tribes of the Northern Kingdom (all the other tribes).

How then could he reason around Ho 3:4 “For the Israelites will live many days without king or prince, without sacrifice or sacred stones, without ephod or idol”. (This is the situation until when?) 5 “Afterward the Israelites will return and seek the LORD their God and David their king. They will come trembling to the LORD and to his blessings in the last days.” If England is Israel, it should have no king.

Herbert claimed a king of the Davidic line would always rule over at least part of Israel. This verse disagrees, as does the next example; Ez21: 25 "O profane and wicked prince of Israel, whose day has come, whose time of punishment has reached its climax, 26 this is what the Sovereign LORD says: Take off the turban, remove the crown. It will not be as it was: The lowly will be exalted and the exalted will be brought low. 27 A ruin! A ruin! I will make it a ruin! It will not be restored until he comes to whom it rightfully belongs; to him I will give it.” Both these verses tell us that there will be a long period of time without a king over Israel that only ends when Jesus returns.