This is another critical review of the principal beliefs known as British-Israel, and in like manner, with this paper, 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 exposé is to praise such a belief system where it is correct and to give constructive criticism where it is in error.

With this third paper, I will show you an interesting observation made by W.H. Poole, on page 5, concerning the various ideas that people had in the 1800s as to where they thought the lost tribes of Israel had disappeared:

“There are several theories on record as to the locality where we may most reasonably look for the lost tribes of Israel.

“Rev. Joseph Wolf, in his journals, written between 1831 and 1834, says they are in China.

“The Rev. J. Samuels, in a work entitled ‘The remnant found,’ says, they are in the region of the Caspian Sea.

“Dr. Grant was of the opinion that the Nestorians are the lost ones.

“Sir William Jones says the Afghans have a superior claim.

“Mrs. Dixon says the Mexicans and the Peruvians are without doubt the ten tribes of Israel.

“Some say our North American Indians are the people we are looking for, others say the Karens of India, or the Gipsies of Southern Europe.

“Dr. Claudius Buchanan was satisfied that the greater part of the ten tribes are still to be found in the countries to which they were led captive.

“Now, while we cheerfully acknowledge the undoubted ability of those writers, and some of their theories are very plausible, we cannot accept their conclusions, because they all fail to harmonize with the word of the Lord in reference to his banished ones. We repudiate all theories that are antagonistic to the glorious promises of God to Israel.

This will be a long and varied dissertation, as Rip Van Winkle didn’t wake up suddenly, but rather it took quite a few a years. I’m not speaking of Washington Irving’s tale in The Sketch Book, where a Dutch villager, who, while out hunting in the Catskills fell asleep for twenty years, and awakened to find his world had entirely changed and himself forgotten. Our Rip Van Winkle is not the story of a single man, but that of the twelve lost tribes of Israel. Our Rip Van Winkle fell asleep about 720 B.C. and didn’t start waking up until around 1840 A.D. and is still yawning at the present time. That’s a total of 2560 years, awfully close to the predicted seven times punishment of 2520 years Yahweh inflicted on them, for 360 years equals a time.

Recently a lady from Los Angeles, California, donated to me her Israel Identity library. About four months before that, a lady from Indiana whose mother had died donated me her mother’s Israel Identity library. Among the books from the lady from California, one was entitled Anglo-Israel Or, The British Nation: The Lost Tribes Of Israel by W.H. Poole. It is a reprint of the original by Poole in 1879 (hereinafter A-I/BN). Inasmuch as Israel Identity was in its infancy at that time, there were many misconceptions on the topic. In some areas of the message of Israel Identity, it is amazing how far they had advanced in the short period from 1840 until 1879! The purpose of this exposé is to praise them where they were correct, and give them constructive criticism where they were in error. Of course, we cannot return to their time period to do this, but we can critique the writings they left behind. I doubt whether we could have managed as well as they had we lived during their time.

A Critical Review Of The Book, THE TWO CREATIONS 

As I explained in part #’s 1, 2, 3, 4, & 5, since the author didn’t use his own name, but instead used the pseudonym of “Gabriel”, I will continue to refer to the author as “alias-gabriel” whoever he happens to be. This alias-gabriel is quite a Scripture-twister as I demonstrated several times in this series. His flawed premise is that the “man” at Genesis 1:26-27 is a different person than the “man” at Genesis 2:7. I fully verified this idea to be in error as the Hebrew word for “man” in these passages is exactly the same in form and parts of speech.

With this paper it will be necessary to repeat a couple of very closely related short excerpts from alias-gabriel on page 2, inasmuch as he overlooked (or should I say ignored), a very important portion of Genesis chapter 1:

“Gen. 1:3-25 ... describes the order in which God [Elohiym] created the component parts of the universe – our earth, and the living beings that dwell on it. ... Before we move on to verses 27-28 of Genesis 1, it should be pointed out that verses 3-25 give a very definite order to the creation process. Each creative process helped sustain the next step of the creation.”

A Critical Review Of The Book, THE TWO CREATIONS 

As I explained in part #’s 1, 2 & 3, since the author didn’t use his own name but instead used the pseudonym of “Gabriel”, I will continue to refer to the author as “alias-gabriel”, whoever he happens to be. This alias-gabriel is quite a Scripture-twister, as I demonstrated in part #3, where he demanded that the “Adam” of Gen. chapter 3 was the Strong’s #119. As I explained in part #3, Strong’s #’s 119, 120, 121 & 122 are all the same identical Hebrew word, but represent different parts of speech. Strong’s #119 is a verb, hence alias-gabriel attempts to convince us that the verbal form of Adam is rather a separate and distinct noun! Since alias-gabriel claimed to have a Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance, he had absolutely no excuse for making such a claim, as Strong does not list a single entry for #119 under the words “Adam” or “man”. If that doesn’t classify one as running a pretzel-factory, I surely don’t know what it would take! Either Strong is lying, or it’s alias-gabriel, take your pick! And when alias-gabriel eats too many beans, J. Richard Niemela is one step behind, ready to sniff the exhaust!

With this paper, we’ll see more of the mishandling of Scripture which alias-gabriel wittingly or unwittingly perpetrates. I am going to quote a portion from this book on page 2, and as you read it, you may not at first see the significance of what he is promoting, after which I will expose his agenda:

“Gen. 1:3-25 ... describes the order in which God [Elohiym] created the component parts of the universe – our earth, and the living beings that dwell on it. The English word God used in the Bible comes from the Hebrew word Elohiym. From Gen. 1:1 through Gen. 2:3 this name appears as the entity doing the creating. ‘Elohiym,’ has a plural meaning, which means the interaction_. of the Godhead. Knowing this, helps explain the meaning of verse 26 ...”

A Critical Review Of The Book, THE TWO CREATIONS 

This is the second part of a critical review. As I explained in part #1, since the author didn’t use his own name but instead used the pseudonym of “Gabriel”, I will continue to refer to the author as “alias-gabriel”. And since this book has been distributed to a number of people, even if I discover who the actual author is, I will continue to use this pseudonym so the reader can recognize the book to which I refer. To foster ones own agenda by using the name of “Gabriel” is nothing new, for Mohammed did likewise to promote his false doctrine, and should wave a red flag! In part #1, I showed where the author made many serious errors using flawed reasoning, rather than discovering the true context of the various Biblical passages. In this issue, I will continue to show more of these tragic miscalculations. The reader should be informed that alias-gabriel is an insidious no-Satan, no-devil advocate. I would also remind the reader that I have addressed this same no-Satan subject with a series of six brochures entitled Mark Downey’s Phony No-Satan Dogma.

To get started with this second paper on this critical review of alias-gabriel, and his tirade, I will cite a passage on pages 115-116 in Appendix E, “Job And Satan”:

“The word ‘Satan’ is a Hebrew word, signifying ‘to oppose, to be an adversary.’ The word ‘Satan’ is translated by our English translators ‘adversary,’ ‘withstand,’ ‘resist,’ and also transliterated as ‘Satan,’ in many places in the Bible.

If you have not read brochure #’s 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 by this same title, you need to get copies in order to fully understand this one. In my possession I have two small pamphlets; one entitled Satan Dispelled by Kalamos (whoever that is), and the other The Bible Devil And Satan Defined (again anonymous). The first was republished from a publication entitled Lucifer Scrutinized, Satan Dispelled, by Christian Research, 279 Spring St., Eureka Springs, AR, 72632, and distributed by America’s Promise, P.O. Box 5334, Phoenix, AR, 85010. The latter is distributed by the inheritors of America’s Promise, located now at P.O. Box 157, Sandpoint, ID, 83864, and also Col. John R. Niemela, Ret., 1776 Wainwright Dr., Reston, VA, 20190.

The whole assumption of the “no devil” doctrine is based on the conjecture that the “flesh” is the devil. To show you this, I will quote excerpts from The Bible Devil And Satan Defined, pages 2, 10, 11, 12, 17 & 18:

“But once it is recognized that the devil relates to sin, and that sin comes from within, it will be acknowledged that the atoning blood of Jesus is a powerful weapon to defeat and destroy it! It defeats the power of sin by providing the means of forgiveness; it conquers death through the promise of a resurrection to life eternal  ... Though the devil basically relates to human nature, or the lusts of the flesh, it is manifested in various forms ... The ‘devil’ against which he warned them constituted the pagan, social and political world which was ruled by the flesh ... They were men of flesh, being dominated by its lusts, and therefore the progeny of the devil ... We have shown that the devil relates to the sinful tendencies of the flesh ... Immortal life in the Kingdom of God to be set up on earth ... is the hope set before us. To attain unto it we must conquer the devil, or sin in the flesh.” According to this supposition, simply look into a mirror and you are looking at a devil! I’ll bet you didn’t know that, did you? Neither did I!

As I demonstrated in brochure #’s 1, 2 & 3 by this same title, Mark Downey and all his cronies professing this same erroneous theory of “no-Satan” have little comprehension of the various parts of speech in English, Greek or Hebrew. In #1 of this series, I found it necessary to give the reader a general refresher course in the various parts of speech in English. The one for which I didn’t have space to do it justice was the Greek and Hebrew Substantive, and it is even more important than all I discussed in the first paper. In that paper, I showed you how Mark Downey falsely claimed that the name “Satan” was a pronoun.

Downey might influence others who don’t have the resources to examine the validity of his inaccurate conjectures. In my computers I have what is called the Libronix Digital Library System. In that system there are several Bible versions. But the principal books in that collection are two versions of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27th ed., of which one is an interlinear. The interlinear has four lines, the top being the Greek text. Under the Greek text is the Greek equivalent in English letters. The third line is a translation by McReynolds from the NA27 Greek. The bottom, or fourth line, is an abbreviated code for each Greek word and the part/s of speech it represents. But the LDL user doesn’t even have to check what the abbreviation depicts, as all one need do is place the cursor near the Greek word and at the bottom of the screen, just above the task bar, is a non-abbreviated readout of each part of speech. Therefore, I can go to any word in the New Testament and instantly determine its grammatical status. Not only do I have the NA27 by which to consult the Greek of the New Testament, but I also have four different Septuagint Greek texts to refer to, and I can check the grammatical status of every word in the Old Testament.

For instance, all I need do to determine the grammatical status of “Satan” at Rev. 12:9 is to go to the NA27 and place the cursor on Satan, and the grammatical readout that I get is “noun: masculine, singular, nominative”. I can go a step further and right-click and a window appears, and I can select “Selected Reference: noun: masculine, singular, nominative”, and every word with that same grammatical status will appear in light blue print throughout the entire New Testament, and all I have to do is scroll through it and it will show every word that is “noun: masculine, singular, nominative”. And if there is no Satan, as Downey insinuates, better than 90% of the people mentioned in the Bible didn’t exist either, including Yahshua Christ Himself!

As I demonstrated in brochure #1 by this same title, Mark Downey and all his cronies, professing this same erroneous theory of “no-Satan” theology, are sadly lacking an understanding of the parts of speech in English and have little comprehension of the grammatical rules of both Hebrew and Greek. Yet in their deplorable ignorance, they pretend they are authorities on the subject. By proclaiming that the term “Satan” is a pronoun, as Downey did, he clearly exposes his appalling, lethargic mentality. If you don’t already have Mark Downey’s Phony No-Satan Dogma, #1, you should get a copy to examine his gross error for yourself.

It is my opinion that what motivates Downey to promote a “no-Satan” position is to undermine the truth of Genesis 3:15. For if he can manipulate Scripture to somehow make it appear that Satan is but a figment of the imagination, he can falsely argue that there is no such thing as “the seed of the serpent”. What are Downey and his ilk going to do with Romans 16:20, where Paul said to them: “And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Prince Yahshua Christ be with you.”

This is already history, for when Titus and the Roman army besieged Jerusalem in 70 A.D., the Romans represented “the seed of the woman” and the bad-fig-jews represented “the seed of the serpent” of Genesis 3:15, for which see Dan. 9:26. It takes a total imbecile to deny that this historical event was not a conflict between the two seeds of Genesis 3:15. Moreover, it was a physical bruising of a physical people, and not a figment of someone’s imagination! If the great Mark Downey is so god-almighty intelligent, let him point to the event Paul was alluding to when he said: “And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly.”

On October 4, 1996, I went to Louden, Tennessee, to the Piney Ruritain Community Center for the Feast Of Tabernacles. There was a speaker there by the name of Scott Vaught who was teaching that Yahshua-Christ was of the Tribe of Ephraim rather than the Tribe of Judah. Ever since that time, I have been trying to find the origin of that theory. I have recently discovered from where it emerged. Little did I imagine that its origin is to be found in the “Jewish” Talmud, and that the more famous “Jewish” Cabbalists throughout history have been, and are still, its greatest adherents.

As many of you already know, I have gone to great lengths to steer people away from Eugene (Buddy) Johnson’s venom along this line, for Buddy picked up the ball from Scott Vaught and started running with it and is disseminating it all over the country. I’m not going to waste a lot of time, but give you the documentation I have on this ignominious, heretical prevarication which has its origin from of the very pits of hell!

A friend of mine sent me a small 4"x6", 32 page booklet entitled The Jewish Tradition Of Two Messiahs written by staff writer Kevin Williams of the “RBC Ministries.” While the author uses the usual nominal churchianity rhetoric like “Jew” and “Gentile”, nevertheless, his is a scholarly treatise with documentation to back up his subject. He demonstrates on page 16 how some Jews differentiate between a “suffering” Messiah and a “conquering” Messiah, which is typically a “Jewish” line-of-thought. Unable to reconcile both a “suffering” and a “conquering” Messiah in one being, some of them decided that there must be two.

This is the fourth in a series on this subject. We are going to start this paper quoting excerpts of a letter from a Mr. Buddy Johnson, P.O. Box 2284, New Tazewell, TN, 37824, to William Finck. William had sent lengthy letters to both Russell Walker, 11055 Jefferson Highway, Madisonville, VA, 23958, and Mr. Johnson, dated 25th March, 03 and 22nd April, 03. In these two letters, William Finck challenged Johnson and Walker on many aspects of their flawed premise concerning the Ephraim-Scepter Heresy. Mr. Johnson started his letter thusly: “The first issue is that of Birthright. Frankly after this issue there [sic. are] no others of the same magnitude.” I cannot answer for Finck, but I would have replied: “Is not the Scepter of equal ‘magnitude’ to the birthright?”

Mr. Johnson proceeds to quote three different dictionaries on the word “birthright”, and completely ignores any definition of the word “Scepter”! Mr. Buddy Johnson seems to have a one-track mind headed for nowhere. Then at paragraph 5 on page 1, Johnson makes an arrogant, unqualified statement: “The simple undisputed fact is that both Joseph and later Ephraim had the birthright. It is undisputed that Yahshuah [sic] was given the birthright and that he not only owns the earth but the fullness thereof. Yashuah [sic] would have had to have descended from Joseph and Ephraim to be given the birthright. This argument is simultaneously so simple and so comprehensive in its depth that it is not even be [sic] up for discussion.”