Addressing False Doctrines

Nord Davis Right & Wrong on "The Queen of the South", #6

Category: 

Although the syllable “shem” is in the Hashemite family name of King Hussein of Jordan, it is no sign that he qualifies for any rank, if indeed he is a descendant of Abraham! We find a concise genealogical record of the Hashemite family on the Internet at:

kinghussein.gov.hash_inhtmljo/http://wwwtro:

“The Hashemite royal family is interwoven into the life of Jordan, having established the modern state in 1921. It is impossible, therefore, to understand the fabric of Jordan’s modern history without some knowledge of the royal family. The Hashemites, or “Bani Hashem,” are descendants of the Arab chieftain Quraysh, a descendant of the Prophet Ismail, himself the son of the Prophet Ibrahim (Abraham). Quraysh first came to the holy city of Mecca during the second century CE. The first generation of Quraysh to rule the city came six generations later, when Qusayy bin Kilab ascended to the leadership of Mecca in the year 480 CE. The name ‘Hashem’ is actually that of Qusayy’s grandson, who was the great-grandfather of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). The Hashemites are thus the direct descendants of the Prophet through his daughter Fatima and her husband Ali bin Abi Talib, who was also the Prophet’s paternal first cousin and the fourth caliph of Islam.”

Nord Davis Right & Wrong on "The Queen of the South", #5

Category: 

With this fifth paper, I will first show the reader that Nord Davis developed an undeserving congenial stance toward king Hussein of Jordan as being a pureblooded Shemite. Secondly, I will present the real facts to the contrary. First, here’s Nord’s scenario:

Desert Shield, pt. 5, “The Men of Nineveh”, Nord Davis:

“Friday, January 11th was the Islamic weekly holy day, and all government agencies are closed. Most stores are closed, but there are enough Christian Arabs so that Friday presents no problem for the tourist. Frustrated because of the shortage of time until Bush’s deadline of the 15th, we decided to take a tour of the Dead Sea. What is there to learn from this ancient landmark? I stood on the shore of the Dead Sea and looked at the Zionist-occupied ‘west bank’. What is so strange in the way this place feels? It is peaceful, yet ominous. I told my feelings to my instructor and he asked me if I knew what was at the bottom of the Dead Sea. I did not know. What is at the bottom of any lake, which is really all the Dead Sea is? The ancient cities of Sodom and Gomorrah lie at the very bottom after a volcano in southern Syria erupted and spewed forth rock and lava to dam up the Jordan River and flood the cities once and for all. For thousands of years, those filthy rotten cities have been soaking in brine and still they are not cleansed!

Nord Davis Right & Wrong on "The Queen of the South", #4

Category: 

With this fourth paper, it will be demonstrated that Nord Davis, not having all the pieces to the puzzle, developed a flawed point of view. Had he the documentation that Mohammed’s mother was a jewess, I am quite sure he would not have taken it upon himself to approach king Hussein of Jordan. Because of this, we have to question much of what he wrote in his part #3 of Desert Shield. Nevertheless, much of what he teaches, I agree with. To nail down securely the fact that Mohammed’s mother was a bad-fig-jew, I found another witness on the Internet at:

sdadefend.com/History/jihad3.htm

“The Origin Of Jihad, The Legacy Of Mohammed

“Although his mother, Amina, was a Jewess who had been converted to Christianity, we do not know the kind of instruction she had given the boy before she died, when he was six. Yet it must have been a fair amount; for Mohammed’s dictations, as later compiled into the Koran, contain many things which parallel information in the Old Testament (although less in the New). At any rate, it is likely that his Christian mother had been the strongest religious influence in his formative years.”

Nord Davis Right & Wrong on "The Queen of the South", #3

Category: 

There may be some who are wondering whether or not I have permission to reproduce large portions of Nord Davis’ Desert Storm [DS] and his fifteen Star Wars lessons, but on page 49 of Desert Storm, he points out that his publication is not copyrighted and may be reproduced freely, as long as he is given credit. My object is to set the record straight, as Nord was forging political alliances with Canaanites which are forbidden by Israelite law, based upon a couple of his flawed premises, making it hazardous for the rest of us. By-and-large, I approve of much of what Nord taught, especially on Two Seedline. With that said, I will continue with Davis on page 47:

Desert Shield, “Jonah’s Sign”, part 2, by Nord Davis:

“We have had evidence that an American involvement in war was being planned for the Middle East since 1985. Our Northpoint intelligence sources were supplying us with bits and fragments of data pointing strongly in that direction for the past three years. For instance, one of our Team Members is Capt. Ted Jablonski, who was an officer on the SS Austral Rainbow, TAK 1005. This is a private, merchant marine cargo ship whose ownership can be traced back to the Bush Family. There are twelve such vessels that are sister ships in the same corporation. As early as three years ago, these ships were loaded with tank ammunition, medical and food supplies, and thousands of other items necessary to wage a ground war in the desert. These ships were anchored at Diego Garcia, an island off the Persian Gulf, waiting for the ‘incident’ that would bring America into a war there. We knew that the Bush Administration had asked the Pakistan Government if they could station 50,000 troops there in early July and were refused by the lady President. We also knew that the tensions between the various Middle Eastern nations were at an all-time high and that there were conflicting loyalties, hidden animosities going back for generations, and the everpresent dichotomy between Islam and Zionism with the local Christian populations siding with Islam and the western Christian populations siding with the Zionist cause. To most of the world, these riddles are cloaked in deliberate confusion, and any solutions offered are at once suspect or dismissed. We also know that the American Government is openly and officially on the Zionist side and promoting the Zionist agenda.

Nord Davis Right & Wrong on "The Queen of the South", #2

Category: 

So the reader can understand my motive for writing this series of papers, it is absolutely necessary for one to have all of the issues so one will come to a proper conclusion of my purpose. While Nord did quite well in many areas of his teachings, there are a couple of places where he fell into error, which we are all capable of. With this series, I will address two places where he didn’t perform his usual good scholarship: (1) he used the wrong Hebrew word to support the Biblical “beast of the field”, and (2) he misidentified king Hussein of Jordan as being pureblooded, whereas the king was related to Mohammed whose mother was a bad-fig-jewess of the Cain satanic seedline.

In order to do a critical review of how he came to these erroneous conclusions, I will reproduce in this and future issues his three part essay entitled:

Desert Shield, “Jonah’s Sign”, part 1, by Nord Davis:

“An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas ...”

Merits & Shortcomings of British-Israel, Part #16

Category: 

This is the 16th and last critical review of the beliefs known collectively as British-Israel, and as with the first fifteen, we will address statements which W.H. Poole made in his book entitled Anglo-Israel Or, The British Nation: The Lost Tribes Of Israel (hereinafter A-I/BN). The purpose of this series is to confirm this belief system where it is correct and to give constructive criticism where it is in error. With this paper we will explore more of the topics which Poole addressed, and we’ll evaluate whether his premises are valid or flawed. We will start this session by quoting Poole on page 75:

“THE HARP.

“As to the unicorn, it is an un-English animal. It is probably the equicerous of Cuvier, or the hippelaphus of Aristotle. It was usually sculptured in profile, on bas-reliefs; its two horns, being erect, looked like one. On our standard it combines somewhat the figure of a horse and of an antelope or hind. These were both emblems of the Saxons. In this combination we have the horse of Dan, and the hind of Naphtali, see Genesis xlix, 21, ‘Naphtali is a hind let loose.’ (Dan is always seen on a fine looking horse, like King William, Prince of Orange in our day.)”

Merits & Shortcomings of British-Israel, Part #15

Category: 

This is the 15th critical review of the beliefs known collectively as British-Israel, and as with the first fourteen, we will address statements which W.H. Poole made in his book entitled Anglo-Israel Or, The British Nation: The Lost Tribes Of Israel (hereinafter A-I/BN). The purpose of this series is to confirm such a belief system where it is correct and to give constructive criticism where it is in error. With this paper we will explore more of the topics which Poole addresses, and we’ll evaluate whether his premises are valid or flawed. We will start this session by quoting Poole on page 68:

“THE GIRDLE.

“4. The colonial possessions of Israel were to encircle both continents. Deuteronomy xxxii, 8, ‘When the Most High divided the nations he set the bounds of the people according to their inheritance.’ ‘The Lord’s portion is his people, Israel is the (measuring) rod of his inheritance.’ ‘He hath determined the bounds of their habitation’.”

My critique: As I have shown before, Poole has a habit of misquoting Scripture. Deut. 32:8 actually says: “When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.” To add to this, he didn’t identify from where he was quoting “He hath determined the bounds of their habitation.” The only passage that I could find that reads remotely like this is Acts 17:26, and to his credit, it does cross-reference with Deut. 32:8. Also, to Poole’s credit, the term “rod” is used along with the term “inheritance” at Psalm 74:2. To Poole’s discredit, an electronic search does not describe “rod” as “girdle”, “belt” or “circle”, let alone all three in any Hebrew or Greek word. Otherwise, I don’t disagree with his conclusions under this heading. Back to Poole:

“The ‘rod’ means girdle, belt, circle. So the possessions of Israel are to be so situated that they will bound, or encircle the other nations. Israel is to possess the ‘sides of the earth,’ the ‘coasts of the earth,’ the ‘ends of the earth,’ the ‘uttermost parts of the earth,’ the ‘uttermost boundaries of the everlasting hills.’ This could not be said of two nations. If, therefore, we find a nation holding this position, we find Israel.

Merits & Shortcomings of British-Israel, Part #14

Category: 

This is the 14th critical review of the beliefs collectively known as British-Israel, and as with the first thirteen, we will address statements which W.H. Poole made in his book entitled Anglo-Israel Or, The British Nation: The Lost Tribes Of Israel (hereinafter A-I/BN). The purpose of this series is to confirm such a belief system where it is correct and to give constructive criticism where it is in error. With this paper we will explore more of Poole’s conclusions on topics he addresses and we’ll evaluate whether they are valid or flawed. We will start this session by quoting Poole on page 61, on the subject of Tara, where we left off in part #13:

“TARA.” (continued)

“In those early times much of the history of the nation was written in [the] poems of the country. As might be expected, the introduction of an Eastern princess became an inspiring theme. I cannot now quote from them, though there is much of interest in many of those I have on hand.

“Who has not heard ‘The Harp that [was] once in Tara’s Hall?’

“‘When a land rejects her legends

Sees but falsehood in the past,

And its people view their sires,

In the light of fools, or liars,

’Tis a sign of its decline,

And its splendors cannot last,

Branches, that but blight their roots

Yield no sap for lasting fruits.’

“In Ireland, county Fermanagh, four miles below Enniskillen there is a lake called Lough Erin. In this lake there is an Island, called Davenish, on which there is a round tower; connected with the tower is a very ancient cemetery. In that cemetery there are very ancient monuments, and in one corner of the cemetery there is a tomb hewn out of a solid rock. That tomb has from time immemorial been called ‘Jeremiah’s tomb.’ A gentleman, living in this city, says, ‘I have seen that tomb hundreds of times.’

“It is well known to historians that, for centuries, Ireland was the university for all Europe. There are, however, so many who do not know it, and who are not willing to admit the facts about the musical and literary character of Ireland at those times, I will quote from two or three impartial testimonies. Sir James McIntosh, says, ‘The Irish nation possesses genuine history several centuries more ancient than any other European nation possesses in its present spoken language.

Merits & Shortcomings of British-Israel, Part #13

Category: 

This is the 13th critical review of the beliefs known collectively as British-Israel, and as with the first twelve, we will address statements which W.H. Poole made in his book entitled Anglo-Israel Or, The British Nation: The Lost Tribes Of Israel (hereinafter A-I/BN). The purpose of this series is to support this belief system where it is correct and to give constructive criticism where it is in error. With this paper we will explore more of the topics which Poole addresses and we’ll evaluate whether the premises are valid or flawed. We will start this session by quoting Poole on page 54; a continuation on the topic of “Language” where we left off in part #12 of this series:

“LANGUAGE. [continued]

“Professor E.W. Bird says, ‘In regard to the assumption that the Anglo-Saxon is Aryan, and one with the Germanic, Teutonic and Latin family of tongues, we deny that the evidence is conclusive of the facts assumed. We assert, on the contrary, that the Anglo-Saxon, in grammatic [sic, -al] structure and idiomatic texture, differs materially from the so-called cognate German, or Aryan languages. The truth rather seems to be that English is a Shemitic tongue, which has long been in contact with Aryan tongues, and has thereby suffered a large transfusion of verbal roots and dialectic forms. It exhibits just such a transformation as one would expect Hebrew would have sustained by subjection to the domination of the Aryan tongues, during a period of more than thirteen centuries. The Saxons, if Hebrews, were, during that long period, migrating slowly westward across the Aryan territories of Europe from their Shemitic centre; and their language, while it tenaciously retains its Hebrew grammatic [sic. -al] and idiomatic structure, besides a really large number of Hebrew roots, has adopted, as it was sure to do, the very considerable amount of Aryan verbal roots and dialectic forms we know to exist in it. This we believe to be the true theory of the affinity of the Anglo-Saxon with the Teutonic, or Germanic language, erroneously assumed to be its foundation. Such affinity of language as exists is proof of contact not of affinity of race’.”

My critique: I’m not sure here whether or not Poole is attempting to exclude the Germans as Israel by language, but on page 52 he seems to include the Teutons. Back to Poole:

“Ptolemy’s map of Ireland, there are several names of places given in the old Hebrew form. On the spot, where, on our maps we have Carrickfergus, he had Dan-sobarce, Dan’s refuge, or resting-place, and there stands the ruins of a fortress of immense strength. The name Tara is a pure Hebrew name, which means the Two Tables. The grave of Tephi, the Hebrew princess, is not called a grave in the acceptation of the usual word, as was Sarah’s, which is called Kavar, but it is called Mergech, the repository, or receptacle. In the ‘Early Irish Antiquities Archaeological, vol. vii,’ Governor Pownall says, ‘My surprise was great when I found in Buxtorf that ‘Fodhan Morain’ was the Chaldee name for Urim and Thummim. Not satisfied with Buxtorf, I wrote to the learned Rabbi Heideck, now in London, his answer was satisfactory, and contained a dozen quotations from various Talmud commentaries. In short my friend the Rabbi will have it, that none but Jews or Chaldees could have brought the name or the thing to Ireland.’ The name Jodhan Morain occurs very often in the early Irish literature. How came all this Hebrew to find its way into our language?”

Merits & Shortcomings of British-Israel, Part #12

Category: 

This is the 12th critical review of the beliefs known collectively as British-Israel, and as with the first eleven, we will address statements which W.H. Poole made in his book entitled Anglo-Israel Or, The British Nation: The Lost Tribes Of Israel (hereinafter A-I/BN). The purpose of this series is to support such a belief system where it is correct and give constructive criticism where it is in error. With this paper we will explore more of the topics which Poole addresses and we’ll evaluate whether they are valid or flawed. We will start this session by quoting Poole on page 47:

“NAMES TO IRELAND.

“I have noticed those Islands of Britain, as named in the Bible, called the ‘Isles of the West.’ The Isles of Tarshish, Javan, and Earsland or Arsareth, we find other names given to at an early day, they were called ‘Yarish,’ a Hebrew word, which means the land of the sun setting, or the land afar off, this name comes very near the word Irish.”

My critique: It is difficult to identify any particular place as “Tarshish” in the Bible, and from the Internet to identify “Javan” with Britain, and almost impossible to identify “Earsland” with anything in the world, and for “Arsareth” I could find no other than 2 Esdras 13:45 in the KJV Apocrypha in the Libronix Digital Library! Now back to Poole where he does a little better:

“The Phoenecians [sic], or men from the country of Palms, who were the first traders to these Islands called them ‘Baratanac,’ the land of tin, from this name comes our word Britannia. The Phoenecians [sic] also called them ‘Ibernae,’ the farthest off land. To them Ireland was the farthest off land: they knew nothing of America. From this name Iberne came our Hibernæ. In the days of Grecian conquest the names of all those places were changed; those Islands were called ‘Skotee,’ which means ‘the land of the sun setting,’ from this name by the ordinary changes, we have Skuthes, or wanderers, and Scuthei, Scuthe, Scuit, Scuithan, Scythian, Scote, Scot, Scottish, Scotland. The Greeks also called those islands ‘Cassisterides [sic Cassiterides],’ from Cassisteros [sic Cassiteros], the name given to tin: the tin islands.

Merits & Shortcomings of British-Israel, Part #11

Category: 

This is the 11th critical review of the collective beliefs known as British-Israel, and as with the first ten, we will address statements which W.H. Poole made in his book entitled Anglo-Israel Or, The British Nation: The Lost Tribes Of Israel (hereinafter A-I/BN). The purpose of this series is to confirm such a belief system where it is correct and to give constructive criticism where it is in error. With this paper we will explore more of the topics which Poole addresses, and we’ll evaluate whether they are valid or flawed. We will start this session by quoting Poole on page 38:

“THE NEW NAME.

“We will now look around us for our Saxon ancestors and see if we can find any links connecting our fathers with those wanderers in the country and cities of the Medes. Where did this large body of enterprising men go to? Where did our Saxon ancestors come from?

“Dr. Abbadie, Amsterdam, in 1723, said, ‘Unless the ten tribes have flown into the air, or have been plunged to the centre of the earth, they must be sought for in the North and West, and in the British Isles.’

“First, as to the name, ‘Saxon,’ the dictionaries say, it comes from ‘Seaxe,’ a short sword; but short swords, or long knives, were in use thousands of years before we hear of any such word as Saxon.

Merits & Shortcomings of British-Israel, Part #10

Category: 

This is the 10th critical review of the collective beliefs known as British-Israel, and as with the first nine, we will address statements which W.H. Poole made in his book entitled Anglo-Israel Or, The British Nation: The Lost Tribes Of Israel (hereinafter A-I/BN). The purpose of this series is to confirm such a belief system where it is correct and to give constructive criticism where it is in error. With this paper, I will not be as critical as I have been in the previous nine, although there are a few places where I feel that I should interrupt in order make corrections. We will start this session by quoting Poole on page 33:

“NEW EXPERIENCE.

“The Prophet Jeremiah also tells us of a new experience which Israel would love to tell after their return. It would greatly help many of us to get a new experience; that old one is worn nearly threadbare, xvi, 14, 15 :

“‘Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that it shall no more be said, The Lord liveth, that brought up the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt. But, The Lord liveth, that brought up the children of Israel from the land of the north, and from all the lands whither he had driven them: and I will bring them again into their land that I gave unto their fathers.’

“And xxiii, 5-8: ‘Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice to the earth. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS. Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that they shall no more say, The Lord liveth, which brought up the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt. But, the Lord liveth, which brought up and which led the seed of the house of Israel out of the north country, and from all countries whither I had driven them; and they shall dwell in their own land.’

Merits & Shortcomings of British-Israel, Part #9

Category: 

This is the 9th critical review of the principal beliefs known as British-Israel, and as with the first eight, we will address statements which W.H. Poole made in his book entitled Anglo-Israel Or, The British Nation: The Lost Tribes Of Israel (hereinafter A-I/BN). The purpose of this series is to confirm such a belief system where it is correct and to give constructive criticism where it is in error. With this paper, I will start by quoting from pages 30-33, where he rambles on and on in an attempt to contrast what he terms “the Jews” (his bad guys) against Israel (his good guys). As I have stated several times before, W.H. Poole was unable to distinguish the difference between the racially pure Judahites and the racially-mixed Canaanite-jews. As we go along, I will break in at times to voice my objections. Now to W.H. Poole:

“‘And I will bring again the captivity of my people of Israel, and they shall build the waste cities, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them. 15 And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them, saith the Lord thy God.’

“The Jews were ‘pulled up’ out of their land and have been away from it for 1,800 years.”

My Objection!: Just who is W.H. Poole referring to here; the true Judahites or the Canaanites pretending to be of Judah? It makes a lot of difference! If Poole is referring to true Judah, it would consist of German, Irish and Scottish people in all of the places to where they have migrated, and that’s a lot of people! Plus, many of the Romans were of the tribe of Zerah-Judah. When W.H. Poole speaks of “1,800 Years”, he can be referring only to the Canaanite-jews from the time of Titus when he laid siege to Jerusalem! Back to Poole:

“Before the second return Israel is to be a vast multitude, as the sands and stars for number, Hos. i, 10. The Jews were, at most, only a few thousands. When Israel returns the second time, there is to be a grand union with Judah, Jeremiah iii, 13:

“‘In those days the house of Judah shall walk with the house of Israel, and they shall come together out of the north to the land that I have given for an inheritance unto your fathers.’

“It is to be a united return, then ‘Ephraim shall not envy Judah and Judah shall not vex Ephraim’.”

Merits & Shortcomings of British-Israel, Part #8

Category: 

This is the 8th critical review of the principal beliefs known as British-Israel, and as with the first seven, we will address statements which W.H. Poole made in his book entitled Anglo-Israel Or, The British Nation: The Lost Tribes Of Israel (hereinafter A-I/BN). The purpose of this series is to confirm such a belief system where it is correct and to give constructive criticism where it is in error. With this paper, I will start quoting Poole on page 28:

“IRELAND NOT MISSIONED FROM ROME.

“Gildas says, ‘The sun of the gospel first illumined the Island before the defeat of Boadicea.’

“Many of our modern writers give far too much credit to Rome when they say that she missioned England and Ireland. Those Islands had the pure worship of God before the Romans sent their agents. The Irish Church was the last to submit to the claims of the Roman Pontiff. She held firm by the Asiatic customs.

Merits & Shortcomings of British-Israel, Part #7

Category: 

This is the 7th critical review of the principal beliefs known as British-Israel, and as with the first six, we will address statements which W.H. Poole made in his book entitled Anglo-Israel Or, The British Nation: The Lost Tribes Of Israel (hereinafter A-I/BN). The purpose of this series is to confirm such a belief system where it is correct and to give constructive criticism where it is in error. With this paper, I will start quoting Poole on page 22:

“TOM PAINE.

“It is a most dangerous thing to misinterpret the word of the Lord on any point. The poor, misguided Tom Paine fell into the common error of looking at the Jews as the house of Israel, and as being one with them, and he states boldly in his writings, that he was led into infidelity, because he saw in the circumstances and condition of the Jews that they never could verify the glorious promises God made to Israel.”

Poole is correct that, it is a most dangerous thing to misinterpret the word of Yahweh on any point. On the other hand, early British-Israel is guilty of misinterpreting many passages of Scripture, as has been demonstrated in the first six parts of this thesis. I’m not completely condemning these early pioneers in Israel Identity, as their eyes were not entirely opened to the truth during their lifetime. Nor do I condemn Tom Paine entirely for his infidelity, for surely he had good reason to criticize the “Jews” as he evidently saw many uncertainties concerning them in the Bible. Had there only been someone around during the lifetime of Tom Paine to have explained to him the striking difference between a racially pure Judahite and a Canaanite-jew, no doubt Tom Paine would have had a very different perspective. Surely we can’t fault Tom Paine for not wanting to worship a Canaanite-jew!

Merits & Shortcomings of British-Israel, Part #6

Category: 

This is the 6th critical review of the principal beliefs known as British-Israel, and as with the first five, we will address statements which W.H. Poole made in his book entitled Anglo-Israel Or, The British Nation: The Lost Tribes Of Israel (hereinafter A-I/BN). The purpose of this series is to praise such a belief system where it is correct and to give constructive criticism where it is in error. In the final third of part 5 of this series, we were beginning to encounter a subject where British-Israel is in great error, but space did not allow it to be addressed in that paper, so we will do it in this issue. That subject was under the subtitle “Union Promised”. In his book A-I/BN, W.H. Poole quoted Ezekiel 37:16-28 on pages 18-19 thusly, and I will amend it from the KJV:

“16 Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel his companions: 17 And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall become one in thine hand. 18 And when the children of thy people shall speak unto thee, saying, Wilt thou not shew us what thou meanest by these? 19 Say unto them, Thus saith Yahweh singular-Elohim; Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his fellows, and will put them with him, even with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they shall be one in mine hand. 20 And the sticks whereon thou writest shall be in thine hand before their eyes. 21 And say unto them, Thus saith Yahweh singular-Elohim; Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the heathen, whither they be gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them into their own land: 22 And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all: 23 Neither shall they defile themselves any more with their idols, nor with their detestable things, nor with any of their transgressions: but I will save them out of all their dwellingplaces, wherein they have sinned, and will cleanse them: so shall they be my people, and I will be their singular-Elohim. 24 And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them. 25 And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, even they, and their children, and their children’s children for ever: and my servant David shall be their prince for ever. 26 Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them: and I will place them, and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore. 27 My tabernacle also shall be with them: yea, I will be their singular-Elohim, and they shall be my people. 28 And the heathen shall know that I Yahweh do sanctify Israel, when my sanctuary shall be in the midst of them for evermore.”

Merits & Shortcomings of British-Israel, Part #5

Category: 

This is the 5th critical review of the principal beliefs known as British-Israel, and as with the first four, we will address statements which W.H. Poole made in his book entitled Anglo-Israel Or, The British Nation: The Lost Tribes Of Israel (hereinafter A-I/BN). The purpose of this series is to confirm such a belief system where it is correct and to give constructive criticism where it is in error.

In part 4, I cited W.H. Poole on pages 10-11 where he was trying to draw a contrast between the house of Israel and the house of Judah. In doing so he confused the pureblooded covenant Judahites with the impostor race-mixed Canaanite-jews. In fact, this is the main flaw wrongly perceived by British-Israel. With this paper, we’ll pick up where we left off in part 4:

“The territory Israel left was colonized by strangers, and a teacher sent back to instruct them, 2 Kings xvii. 27. The territory of the Jews remained vacant, or occupied only by a few poor, Jer. xl. 7.”

My Objection!: The “vacant territory” here is not a curse against, nor does it besmirch Judah. The “few poor” Kenite-Edomite-Canaanites left in Judaea does not establish a blot upon the character of the pureblooded covenant Judahites taken captive to Babylon! Surely W.H. Poole is grasping at straws!

Merits & Shortcomings of British-Israel, Part #4

Category: 

This is another critical review of the principal beliefs known as British-Israel, and likewise with this paper we will address statements by W.H. Poole in his book entitled Anglo-Israel Or, The British Nation: The Lost Tribes Of Israel (hereinafter A-I/BN). The purpose of this exposé is to praise such a belief system where it is correct and give constructive criticism where it is in error. So far, our criticism has been mostly negative, but with the following quotation taken from pages 6 & 7, our criticism will be highly favorable and praiseworthy. If we are going to convey our Israel Identity message to other people, I would suggest that one should take note of all the Scripture passages used here by Poole on this occasion and memorize them, for they are outstanding!:

“ISRAEL LOST

“The Word of God clearly intimates that Israel would lose their identity, their land, their language, their religion and their name, that they would be lost to themselves, and to other nations lost. Deut. xxxii. 26, ‘I will scatter them into corners, I will make the remembrance of them to cease from among men.’ Isa. viii. 17, ‘The Lord hideth his face from the house of Jacob.’ Isa. xxviii. 11, He was not any more to speak to them in the Hebrew tongue; but ‘by another tongue will I speak unto this people.’ They shall no more be called Israel, He will call them by another name. Isa. lxii. 2, ‘And thou shalt be called by a new name which the mouth of the Lord shall name.’ Isa. lxv. 15, ‘The Lord shall call his servants by another name.’ Psalm lxxxiii. 4, ‘The name Israel shall be no more in remembrance.’ ‘And ye shall lose, or leave, your name, and the Lord shall call his servants by another name.’ Isa. xl. 27, ‘Why sayest thou O Jacob! and speakest O Israel! my way is hid from the Lord, and my judgment is passed over from my God?’

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - Addressing False Doctrines