A Broken Key: The Case Against British Israelism–Part Three

Looks tidy--but where's the evidence?

In the first installment of this series we explored the origins and history of the wider British Israelism (BI) movement up to the time when Armstrong got involved. The next part was devoted to the story of Armstrong’s personal attempt to make a name for himself in the movement as well as his peculiar contributions to and promotion of the BI myth itself. In this final part we will briefly lay out a strong case against British Israelism that will reveal it as preposterous nonsense.

The many proponents of British Israelism throughout history have offered up several lines of reasoning in support of their theory: arguments from prophecy (i.e., circular arguments), arguments from folklore, arguments from etymological parody and arguments from amateur speculation. We will address the last three of these approaches one by one and cursorily dispatch them. (We will completely ignore the first strategy, as there is no such thing as prophecy.) We will then offer up arguments and evidence that directly militate against the conclusions of BI mythologists, who may be said to be entitled to their own absurd opinions; however, they are not entitled to their own facts.

It should be clarified at the outset that there are two types of British Israelism. One is mystical and one makes claims that can be falsified. We are not interested in the mystical superstition concerning a “spiritual” lineage from alleged “Lost Tribes” and specific nations extant today. To argue for or against such propositions would be as foolish as debating whether the Celestial teapot is brewing Earl Grey or Darjeeling. Our concern is wholly with the falsifiable claims of the other type of British Israelism, which maintains an ethnic (i.e., genetic) legacy for Israel in the United States and Britain. Of course Armstrongism takes (and largely depends upon) this latter view, which Armstrong referred to as a “promise of race”. (If he had foreseen the advent of haplogroup population genetics he might not have been so cocky in his borrowed assertions–but then, he never was much of a prophet.)

So, let’s get started debunking the arguments used to support this pseudo-historical myth…

Arguments from Folklore

One of the most cherished canards in the British-Israelite arsenal is the legend of the Stone of Scone’s transport from the land of the Hebrews to Ireland and its identification with an apparently similar artifact of Biblical folklore, Jacob’s Pillar Stone. The Stone of Scone folk history has the “prophet” Jeremiah carrying this El cult relic across Europe to Ireland, where it subsequently continued in its utility as a coronation stone, only now, ostensibly, in the service of Israelite royals in Ireland.

You know the story. From there the stone was “overturned” a few times under Yahweh’s watchful guidance (for some cryptic, symbolic reason that I don’t care about) and eventually ended up in Scotland. None of this is original with Armstrong, mind you. This tall tale was not whispered in his ear by Jesus while he was stacking wood for pennies. No, it has been handed down from undereducated father to intellectually abused son for generations in Scotland, and has been a mainstay of the BI mythos for centuries. As a nationalistic yarn it is relatively harmless, of course, but many take it deadly seriously.

But the problem with revering such fanciful narratives (romantic and useful though they may be) is that they are supported by exactly zero evidence. Many such arguments from folklore are brandished with blithe confidence by proponents of BI, but it should be pointed out that if we are to accept them as persuasive then we are reason-bound to accept other gems of folklore that are equally factual–for example, (just to keep up the Irish theme) that Ireland has no snakes because St. Peter banished them. The truth is there never were any snakes in Ireland.

Similarly, Jacob’s Pillar Stone was never in Ireland (or Scotland), either. Geological study of the Stone of Scone shows it to be of a type of rock native to the immediate vicinity of Scone and geographically limited to the British Isles.

You like that? We’re just getting started…

Arguments from Etymological Parody

A favorite trick of BI promoters is to concoct puns out of ancient and modern place names and other words in a hilarious attempt at making them appear connected linguistically. Thanks to BI, we former believers now have little philological jokes running around in our heads: Isaac minus the i plus sons equals Saac’s sons, i.e. Saxons LOL! That’s how easy it is to establish an etymological connection for the BI enthusiast (and for such morons, this is in turn how easy it is to establish ethnic continuity).

It shouldn’t be lost on the astute reader, though, that for such connections to be valid, two things must be true: (1) modern English must be linguistically descended from ancient Hebrew (more on this later) and (2) the non-Hebrew word in question (Saxon, in this case) must actually mean what it is purported to mean! As you can probably guess, the Old English Saxon (derived from Late Latin Saxonem, itself derived from proto-Germanic sakhsan–which, incidentally, is not directly related to Assyrian, so don’t ask!) has nothing to do with the modern English word sons, much less (infinitely less, it could be said) with the ancient Hebrew Isaac. Saxon is attested to the 14th Century CE and meant, literally, “swordsmen”. See that? Not Saac’s sons, but swordsmen.

The formulation Saac’s sons is an absurd fantasy in every conceivable way. Compounding the dubious nature of the mythological etymology of Saxon is the proposed dropping of the initial i in Isaac. This more than anything reveals its originator as a likely duplicitous fraud. The reason given for dropping the i is that the Hebrew script does not include vowels. That is, the Hebrews didn’t write their vowels. But didn’t they speak them? Of course they did! And why dispense with the initial vowel and not the others? In any case, the original Hebrew word for Isaac (i.e., yishaq) doesn’t begin with a vowel, but a consonant–one that, it should be noted, doesn’t sound anything like the s in Saxon.

The answer to why these facts go undeclared by the ones promoting this nonsense is that they are fatal to the poorly manufactured etymologies they wish to foist off on their followers. Instead of referring to the thankless work of real etymologists, these dunces just make shit up! They’re trying to fool you, in some cases as they have fooled themselves and in some cases duplicitously. And if you are still not sure this kind of reasoning is indeed idiotic nonsense, let me provide an apt quote that will drive the point home.

To argue for Hebrew etymological connection on the basis of phonic similarity in English is to build a philological citadel on the foundation of a pun…if Edinburgh proves that Dan was in Scotland, then the Danikil tribe of North Africa are Danites as well. Other traces are Manasseh in Manchuria, Ham in Birmingham, Asher in Asia, Simeon in Siam and Korah in Korea. Armstrongite philology enjoys the intellectual stature of Mother Goose (Samuel R. Chambers. The Plain Truth About Armstrongism, 164-5).

Arguments from Amateur Speculation

The next class of argument we will cover is the argument from amateur speculation. British Israelism is chock-full of these. They all fail for the same reason arguments from folklore fail: no evidence. They also fail for another, special reason, namely, that speculations about the modern-day identity of Israel’s “lost tribes” are manifold. The Anglo-Saxon variant is merely one among many–all of which are characterized by the same non-objectivity and sub-standard research (if any at all)–and many are obviously mutually exclusive.

From India to Japan, from the Chiang Min people of China to the Cherokee Nation of North America, many regions and peoples have been put forward as remnants of the apocryphal exile of the tribes. All of these hypotheses are based on mere speculation, usually motivated by a religiously endowed confirmation bias. If we are to accept British Israelism on the thin stuff offered by its promoters, then we should be willing to accept Sino-Israelism, for example, on the same irrational basis.

To get a feel for how ludicrous these speculative hypotheses can be, we will briefly mention one example that is conducive to BI (or would be if it were supported by something other than hot air). This is the proposed Israel-Scythian connection. The whole argument here apparently rests on the fact that the Scythians were first mentioned in Assyrian records at roughly the same time as that of the supposed disappearance of the Northern House of Israel. Not a very strong argument, to say the least.

Such a connection would be convenient to BI because the Scythian peoples are thought to be associated with the Celts. However, those who argue for Scytho-Israelism must necessarily ignore the wide cultural, linguistic and genetic disparities between the Israelites and the Scythians. Legitimate scholarship regarding the Scythians reveals the Israelite-Scythian connection as pseudo-historical bunk, an unsupported ad-hoc hypothesis concocted for the purpose of manufacturing an ethnic continuity where none exists. Another case of British Israelists just making shit up. That’s why it can only be found kicking around pro-BI echo chambers, instead of being debated in academic journals. It is amateur speculation, conceived by amateurs who already believe BI for consumption by amateurs who already believe BI. It is a British-Israelist circle jerk, a baseless fantasy–just like the larger hypothesis it was (poorly) designed to support.

The Evidence Speaks

If one were to protest that none of this so far positively refutes the identification of the US and Britain as Israelite in origin, that we have merely debunked some (indeed, only three!) of the tenets of BI, that one would be technically correct. But what’s funny about this is that’s all they have! These species of arguments are their case. That’s it! And they are exactly the kinds of arguments that constitute neither proof nor even weak support for their position. To support their position in any meaningful way they would need evidence from, say, legitimate historiography, linguistics and genetics. And it just so happens that there is a wealth of information available from those fields that speaks to the question of BI. And this evidence does directly refute it–effectively decapitating what we have already cut off at the knees.

What we have done so far has been to provide the reader with clearly logical ways of dealing with the various classes of arguments used in any attempt to defend British Israelism. We have shown that BI proponents are merely relying on made up shit (arguments from folklore), making shit up about the life-history of certain words (arguments from etymological parody) and making shit up about ethnology (arguments from amateur speculation). We have not covered every particular, nonsensical statement because we don’t need to. You can discover for yourself that each individual argument for BI is vulnerable to the type of critical thinking displayed in the few examples we have pinned down here. As Ralph Orr put it in his paper dealing with a Biblical refutation of BI:

When reading Anglo-Israelite literature, one notices that it generally depends on folklore, legends, quasi-historical genealogies and dubious etymologies. None of these sources prove an Israelite origin for the peoples of northwestern Europe. Rarely, if ever, are the disciplines of archeology, sociology, anthropology, linguistics or historiography applied to Anglo-Israelism…Why this unscientific approach? This approach must be taken because to do otherwise is to destroy Anglo-Israelism’s foundation. Those who apply scientific disciplines and the principles of sound historiography to this subject eventually come away disbelieving the theory.

So, we have seen that the kinds of arguments offered in support of BI do not work. But we are not yet finished. We will now do a bit of what Orr speaks about: we will “apply scientific disciplines…to this subject” for the purpose of making a positive case against BI. That is, not only can we demonstrate that BI has no good arguments to support it, we can demonstrate further that its conclusions are positively not true. After all, just because apparent grade-school drop-outs are not capable of defending a position, it doesn’t mean the position is counter-factual. As we shall see, though, the evidence is not merely silent when it comes to BI–it speaks volumes.

We will cover only three areas of expertise, each of which alone yields evidence enough to sink BI completely. These disciplines are history, linguistics and genetics.

Exhibit A: The Historical Record

Thus far we have been considerably lenient in allowing BI its basic assumption that the 10 tribes comprising the “House of Israel” were deported en masse from the region of their origins, and were thereby “lost” to history. This allowance has not afforded the myth much in the way of defense anyway, and now the time for leniency is at an end. We will now examine the Lost Tribes premise to see if it has any merit, or if, instead, it will prove to be fatal to BI. For if the tribes were not lost to begin with, then they never were available to be found in the British Isles–or anywhere else.

Firstly, this “theory” (scare quotes to indicate the loosest sense of the word is intended) originated as nothing more than a religious fable, and therefore suffers from the same weaknesses as the argument from folklore discussed above. The whole notion of the 10 “lost” tribes was spawned by Biblical and Talmudic “prophetic” or “apocalyptic” literature (read “religio-political scam”), not ethnology. So, again, those who already believed in 10 lost tribes went looking for ways to confirm their bias (at least in their own minds)–and from this navel contemplation come the various forms of amateur speculation we have all grown accustomed to witnessing in BI literature. Note that none of these propositions are based on a pursuit of truth through objective and honest study, but rather on a need to find what one is looking for–the same way one might see a dragon in the noisy structure of a cloud if she or he were prompted in advance to look for one. The religious tradition of “ten lost tribes” primed the BI pump, so to speak, and the amateur pseudo-ethnologists of the genre merely followed the preconceived trajectory it produced. If it hadn’t been for those traditional preconceptions, we would not even be discussing BI.

Now for some facts.

  1. The tribe of Judah was not the only one left. The Hebrew word for “tribe” (shebet) can also be translated “scepter”, which has the meaning of “political standard”. Pro-Lost Tribes references to the passage in 2 Kings 17:18 assume that it means only the people of Judah remained in the region after the Assyrians deported “all Israel”. But this assumption is not warranted. It could very well mean that, of the “Two House” dual polity that had evolved in the region, only one (the Southern Kingdom of Judah) remained after the aristocratic classes of the Northern Kingdom had been decimated by the successive deportations by Assyrian kings. And, as we shall see, a deportation of the elites (and not the entire population) is as far as the available facts and reason will allow us to go. In fact, the records indicate that only a portion of the people from Ephraim, Gad, Manasseh, Naphtali and Reuben were exiled and that they were taken to known locations, namely, Gozam, Nineveh and Media (i.e., they were not “lost”). We have no evidence that anyone from any other tribe was taken into captivity.
  2. “Israel” does not mean what Armstrong thinks it means. We must bust another Lost Tribes assumption regarding Biblical language. The phrase “all Israel” or “Israel” is often a kind of hyperbole: many times it is in fact only referring to a section of the population–usually the military. This is a common occurrence, and in many cases it would produce amusing logical impossibilities if it were interpreted the way Lost Tribes enthusiasts must do in 2 Kings 17:18. One example is in 2 Samuel: when “every man of Israel” departs from David to follow Sheba instead, one of the party of David, Joab, goes “through all the tribes of Israel” to raise an army against Sheba. These apparently exhaustive phrases are clearly intended to be interpreted in a parochial way.
  3. Select elites were removed and replaced by foreigners, while the population at large remained as a subjugated people. Assyria had a policy of resettlement that was instituted for the purpose of eliminating the political cohesiveness of the nations they conquered. That is, they were not interested in merely relocating their problems; they were interested in destroying their problems. The Lost Tribes myth necessitates a relocation (and subsequent unaccountable misplacement) of an intact nation. These BI naifs would have us believe that the dread and masterful Assyrians, after defeating the nation of Israel, would waste precious resources scraping Samaria of all inhabitants and transferring all of this potential for social upheaval politically intact directly into the heart of their empire. The logistics of such a mass relocation alone would leave any reasonable person doubting its possibility. But its inefficiency is even more convincing. After all, the Assyrians had a more realistic and effective alternative: just take captive the elites and replace them with foreigners. This is an efficient way to destroy a nation: the ruling class is unavailable to the people and vice versa. It is also an efficient way to improve one’s own empire with a great influx of foreign talent, skill and knowledge. And from both Biblical and secular sources we find that this is exactly how things were done in the Ancient Near East–and it was certainly how the Assyrian resettlement policy was conceived and carried out. Through such a program of assimilation and colonization the national identity of the Northern Kingdom of Israel was destroyed, and the tribes constituting its people were not in any sense “lost”, because they were not exiled as tribes, but as select individuals and their families. The numbers recorded for the deportations are a fraction (about one-tenth to one-sixth) of the population estimates for 8th Century Samaria (the region from which the exiles were taken–and supposedly emptied of original inhabitants according to Lost Tribes myth). It is likely that the 27,290 referred to by Sargon II were taken only from the capital city, and the archeological evidence seems to indicate that this was the approximate number of people that inhabited just this one city. In addition, ample evidence from both archeology and scripture indicates that a subjugated Israelite population remained after the resettlement was complete. For just one of many scriptural examples, take the reference in 2 Chronicles 30:1 to a Passover invitation from Hezekiah “to all Israel and Judah…also to Ephraim and Manasseh.” What were these tribes still doing hanging around there? Shouldn’t they have been on their way “north and west” to become “a great nation and company of nations”? There are many more instances where the tribes of the defunct Northern Kingdom are mentioned associating with the inhabitants of Judah, when the Lost Tribes theory would have the former off in faraway lands morphing into Scythians or some such nonsense. Archeological evidence includes analysis of pottery from the stratum corresponding to the relevant time period, which shows a mixture of foreign, Mesopotamian styles and a preponderance of the Palestinian tradition carried over from older strata.

A relocation of elites--deported to known locales--does not constitute a "lost" but intact nation.

Considering these facts, it seems unlikely to say the least that (1) all the inhabitants of the Northern Kingdom were removed and that (2) they subsequently retained their tribal associations in exile long enough to (3) recapitulate themselves in the form of modern nations, without anyone knowing it except uneducated enthusiasts of Victorian Era pop-pseudo-ethnology with a basis in religious tradition. These three assertions progressively stretch credulity until it finally breaks with that final zinger. And a disbelief in the Lost Tribes hypothesis represents a cardinal death knell for British Israelism. But this sweet music continues…

Linguistics Takes the Stand

The claim is often made by British-Israelists that modern English is descended from ancient Hebrew, and they will usually provide examples of words that they have ignorantly decided sound similar enough to establish such a connection. This is a natural ad hoc rationalization: since their purpose is to defend an Anglo-Saxon destiny for their apocryphal Lost Tribes, they would want to present a picture of Hebrew gradually evolving into the modern languages of Northern Europe (although one may wonder: if Hebrew evolved into English, why is there still Hebrew?). Alternatively, they will also claim that the exiled Israelites lost their native tongue in captivity. Some may even wish to have it both ways, and may be just competent enough not to see the problem with that.

But is there any legitimate evidence from the discipline of linguistics that supports either (both?) of these views?


Now that we have gotten that out of the way, let’s discuss what linguistics tells us about the evolution of these two languages.

Firstly, Hebrew and English are about as far apart as two languages can be, both in terms of morphology and history. Hebrew is a Semitic language, while English is a Germanic language. The Germanic languages are but a branch on the Indo-European family tree, which diverged from Proto-Indo-European sometime after 3700 BCE. The Indo-European phylogeny looks like this:

You can see English if you squint; it’s way up there in the upper left. Hebrew, you’ll note, is nowhere in sight. That’s because it’s off on its own family tree. Yeah, a completely different family. The Semitic languages are proposed to have begun splitting off from a reconstructed Proto-Semitic about the same time as Indo-European languages got their start (4th millennium BCE). The proliferation eventually took this form:

So, what this demonstrates is that English and Hebrew are not even distant cousins. If we go back beyond the 4th millennium BCE to the next possibility of a common ancestor tongue (i.e., proto-language), things get a lot murkier. But our best bet is a proposed family called the Nostratic languages. These may have begun to differentiate off of Proto-Nostratic into several branches (including both the Afroasiatic, the progenitor of the Semitic languages, and the Indo-European branches) at around 8,000 BCE.

So, even if there is a relationship between English and Hebrew it is only through a common ancestor so remote as to be shrouded by the dust of 10,000 years of linguistic evolution. That is to say that even if Hebrew is related to English, the relationship is not nearly as immediate as BI demands. For the proponents of British Israelism would have English evolving directly from Hebrew (i.e., that Hebrew is the mother-tongue to English!), when the serious study of comparative linguistics can barely show that English and Hebrew may be related only by virtue of their sharing the same great-great-great-great-grandmother-tongue (and I think I left out a few greats). By way of weak analogy, they are related the same way I’m related to Stephen Flurry (shudder) or, more to the point, this guy (which is a thousand times cooler).

So what? How does this disprove BI? Couldn’t the Israelites have just forgotten their language during their exile? Maybe they started speaking those Indo-European tongues instead? Nope. Their captors spoke Akkadian, another Semitic language. Even those Israelites who were deported to Median cities would have, at worst, had to learn a different Semitic language: Medean. We’re still nowhere near Indo-European languages.

For a little perspective on the difference in distribution between these two language groups, watch the somewhat exciting video below, which covers the expansion of the Semitic family…

…and now contrast this with the spread of Indo-European languages in the following diagram.

Notice that these Indo-European languages are not only linguistically separate from the Semitic tongues, they are geographically disparate in their ranges and expansions (except for a relatively short period during which Arabic spread northeast as a result of Muslim conquest–but by this point, the Indo-European languages had already long ago been differentiated). There is a good reason for this disparity: the Indo-European peoples and the Semitic peoples are not closely related genetically.

DNA Testifies

The final nail in the coffin for British Israelism was delivered only recently, starting in 1997 with the Y chromosome research of Michael Hammer. Since that time, the fields of genetic genealogy and haplogroup population genetics have exploded, to the point where we now have maps of the genetic history of the world.

Here’s how it works.

What is being analyzed are variations in DNA sequence called single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs, pronounced “snips” by the apparently very cute researchers who look for them). SNPs are passed down from generation to generation intact and thereby become markers of particular lineages. Those who have descended from the same ancient groups of people will share the same SNP markers. These ancestral lines have been classified into haplogroups. A haplogroup is all the haplotypes that share a single common ancestor, and these lineages can be traced back multiple thousands of years.

To put it another way, say Genghis Khan was born with a unique mutation in his DNA sequence (a SNP). All his descendants will now have that same mutation. So, if you get tested and that SNP is found, you are in the same haplogroup as Genghis Khan. And that wouldn’t be too shocking if you live in the area he came from, since eight percent of the men there (about 16 million people) are apparently descended from him.

Now we can look at the distribution of the various haplogroups that have been discovered to see whether descendents of the Israelites can be found in the British Isles, or whether those people instead came from somewhere else (the map below is meant to be representative of the global distribution before 1500 CE).

The two relevant lineages are haplogroup J and haplogroup R. The SNP markers of the former, J, are found most predominantly among speakers of Semitic languages in the Levant. J is the haplogroup most strongly associated with Israelite ancestry, while representatives of haplogroup R are found almost exclusively in Europe and Asia, where Indo-European languages flourished. The most recent common ancestor between haplogroups J and R is haplogroup IJK, which split off into IJ (progenitor of J) and K (progenitor of R, via K(xLT), via P) some 45,000 years ago. That’s long before the Hebrews coalesced into a discernible collection of tribes out of the Canaanite hill people from which they descended–long before there were Canaanites to descend from. We’re talking the Stone Age, here; I mean, this was before agriculture–before the extinction/absorption of Neanderthals! That’s how incredibly long ago these two haplogroups diverged from a common ancestor. They are about as unrelated as you can get within the same species.

Now, did you notice from the map that haplogroup J is nonexistent in the British Isles? The descendants of the Israelites did not end up there. Case closed.

So we see that the genetic evidence follows fairly closely the linguistic evidence, and both confirm what the historical evidence suggests: that the Israelite exiles were not removed (and did not migrate) far from where they were taken to by the Assyrians–certainly not to the British Isles. Taken together these evidences present an ironclad case against British Israelism.

Oh, SNAP! This Key Broke!


What? I didn’t even hit it that hard!

Armstrong asserted that British Israelism is the “key” to understanding Bible “prophecy” because so many of those “prophecies” refer to “Israel” rather than the modern nation in which he found himself proselytizing. Well, since we’ve proved beyond any reasonable doubt that the United States and Britain are not the “modern-day nations of Israel”, we have also proved that these passages referring to Israel cannot by any leap of logic be considered to be referring to the United States and/or Britain (or any other modern nation). The mythological “key” of Bible “prophecy” is therefore BROKEN! It is not available for Armstrongists to “unlock” the Bible for the purpose of promoting sadistic fantasies about national destruction and eating babies.

In other words, there’s no such thing as a fucking “soon coming Tribulation”, except in the pea-sized brains of morons and pious frauds who have a hard-on for reading their fantasies into Iron Age propaganda from a book full of superstitious myths. This nonsense has no connection with reality. Now, stop worrying and enjoy your goddamn life.


Recommended reading: The Plain Truth About Armstrongism, by Richard R. Chambers.


24 thoughts on “A Broken Key: The Case Against British Israelism–Part Three

  1. This is the most amazing article yet on this topic! I’m totally blown away.

    The research is brilliant. The presentation is superb.

    You’ve outdone yourself.

    And now, having said that, the whole of Armstrongism will probably just ignore you because this article just absolutely RUINS their base core foundation entirely! There is nothing left. If you add the fact that their church history is pure myth and also completely disprovable, all of Armstrongism falls — there is no more reason for anything Herbert Armstrong taught.

    People make the claim that we should respect Herbert Armstrong because he “taught us the truth”. We got it from him, so we should respect him. The problem with that perspective is that what Herbert Armstrong taught was 99% lies and his prophecies (except the one about Ethiopia in World War II) have all failed. He was a complete con man — and not an educated one at that.

    Now, you have wiped away every excuse. Armstrongism can be no more… if people are logical and scientific. If people accept proof, they can no longer accept Armstrongism. Herbert Armstrong insisted from the 1950s onward that people had to accept British Israelism before they could become members of the Radio Church of God.

    Unfortunately, “Armstrong Delusion” pretty much covers it: People rely on raw emotion instead of logic. If they used logical discipline they could stop paying those three tithes (no tithing was ever required for wages in Scripture — what you earned, you kept — except for the government and other thieves). It’s just so much easier to wallow in lies, so the Armstrongists continue their laps in the perverse cesspool of psychotic deceptions at the shallow end of the gene pool.

    Careless they are — or worse — some of them are probably telling themselves, “I’ll look into it some day”. Maybe they could go off into Scientology. Or maybe join with the cult who believe that people living inside the Earth at the core fly out the North Pole in Flying Saucers. It’s all the same, as long as there is a faction that keeps the Sabbath and Holydays.

    That is no reflection on your most excellent work: It’s their problem.

    Thank you so much for the effort. I appreciate it very greatly.

  2. Gee, I dunno. I gotta go ask Gerald Flurry. He said he was descended from King David. He never showed us the family tree but That Prophet wouldn’t lie. HWA also said he was descended from King David. He never showed us the family tree either but God’s Apostle wouldn’t lie. Talk about making shit up. We never thought anyone could make so much shit up and get away with it; and that’s how they got away with it!

  3. Don’t confuse Flurryites with the facts; their minds are made up. They read HWA’s plagiarized book and have been severely instructed not to waver (doubt and wavering is sin, although it is the mark of an open mind) and try to reprove what they already “proved.” Of course they “know” that “nobody can refute it” because the ministers says so, though they have never read much if anything from those who refute it.

    I think I would rather be related to Satan than Stephen Flurry.

      • Why waste good booze money (and time) on doing Y-chromosome testing when if we were to use the bible, then John 8:44 says: “You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it.”?

        Jello-shots all around on me!!

  4. Regarding busting the myth of the Stone of Scone, I already know how they will refute your claims. According to your linked newspaper report: “…In December 1950, a group of Scottish nationalists staged a daring raid on Westminster Abbey to steal back the stone. After 15 weeks the stone was found dumped at Arbroath Abbey and returned to London. No charges were ever brought. …” – http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article567998.ece

    Those of us who have a good memory will remember a sermon by Flurry in which he aluded that perhaps the stone that was found was not the real stone. There was even rumblings about one Gary Rethford (digression: if there is one thing I miss about him is his wonderful playing of the bag-pipes in a kilt: splendid! I do hope that his and his wife’s health have improved) being commissioned to research into this disappearance of the stone and where the real one is. Of course GRF would not have a fake stone under the throne at the end of the 3.5yrs in a place of safety!)

    So, “of course”, the geological research on the stone was done on a fake stone and not the lia-fail that Jeremiah and Tea-Tephi brought across the isles! But I am sure the “prayer rock” from HWA that is gathering moss somewhere in Edmond right now will one day end up being the true lia-fail that disappeared in 1950 and somehow wound up at the right spot amongest the very elect. Ok, ok. I know that is very improbable based on the dates, but we all know its not beneath the Armstongites to concot such a story and pass it off as divine truth with a straight face!!

    • You’re right, of course. I remember that, too. But I decided not to dignify such a ridiculous just-so story with any sort of denial. The only thing that can be said about it is that it is just as factual (if not as implausible) as the Stone of Scone legend itself. In fact, Flurry and crew aren’t the first to have posited this ad hoc rationalization. It has become a part of the official myth. So, even with this soft-headed dodging of hard evidence, all they’ve done is to continue to fail at providing any valid support for the myth. After all, even if it is true that the stone tested was not the original, that does not in any way suggest that the true Stone of Scone originated in Palestine. The burden of proof is on the proponents of this fantastic tale, and they have done nothing to shoulder it. This unsupported hedge is just another example of myth-pushers making shit up. It’s all they know how to do, apparently.

      • hey fag: yo wiki refz ain’t breakin’ any key…cite reel skowlars & skowlarly primary sauces..gci orr bi analz ain’t cuttin’ it. fu

        cat “A Broken Key–blah–blah–blah.html” | grep wiki

        en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot is brewing Earl Grey
        en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup he might not have been so
        en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_%28deity%29 cult relic across Europe
        en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Red_Sandstone native to the immediate
        en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythians regarding the Scythians reveals the records indicate
        en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_genealogy#History of Michael
        en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-nucleotide_polymorphism (SNPs,
        en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup . A haplogroup is all the
        en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J_%28Y-DNA%29 and haplogroup R
        en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R_%28Y-DNA%29 . The SNP markers

  5. Pingback: We Get Mail–A Matrilineal Argument for British-Israelism? « Armstrong Delusion

  6. Good job Casey — I was sucked into the British Israel thing many years back. Was I stupid, and ignorant, and making shit up too. Well, I would like to think not. I know of the people I rubbed shoulders with did not strike me as stupid, far from it. Many were highly educated and held very lucative positions with various companies, one bein IBM. I was aquainted with a CEO that was following the Armstrongs. It all sounded pretty good when comparing promises made to a certain people and then seeing the paralells in the rise of British colonialism and American expansion. The characteristics seemed to match. I question much of this teaching, however, seeing biblical reference directed at the people of Israel that would destroy the idea that either Britian or USA are of Israeli decent. I did express my suspiocions way back then and was pretty much ignored. Then I came up with a couple of other objections concerning other doctrines and i was politely asked to leave — so I did.

    I realize you think all of this us a bunch of bunk, or “shit made up”. But I see the underlying reason for this teaching and why it became such a popular doctring of the Armstrong organization, and was accepted without question. This doctrine became a doctrine of necessity — this doctrine was the backbone to teaching the restoring of the Old Covenant made with Israel. This meant the Old Covenant Laws belonged to the Brits and the Americans and all prophetic statements were then also applied to them. Within these Covenant Laws is one very important law, the Law of Tithing. The Armstrong Church taught that we, as Israel, were obligated to pay “tithes”. You know, I am sure, the “tithe” is ten percent of ones income, but with Israal it is actually a thirty percent tax. You see, the Armstrong Church was collecting twenty percent from the faithful. The otheer ten percent was to be set aside for when the member would attend the Feast of Tabernacles, one of the seven Feast days the Israelites were to keep — meaning the USA and British peoples and other races of Europe. It’s always about the money, isn’t it? Sad but true.

    I understand this is a site for atheist and for some strange reason atheist are interested in this kind of thing. If I were and atheist I would ignore all these things I think are silly, or “shit made up”. I found this blog while looking for some alternate views on the British israel thing. Yeah, seems odd, Atheist so into bashing old dead guys and obsolete doctrines.

    You presented a very compelling article and for me, I would be very supicious of joining the Armstrongs, son or Father — No disrepect, but both the father and son are dead. I know there are many splinter groups, mostly harmless, but maybe you could go after them for keeping the ledgend alive? Anyway, good job. One last thing, I know you don’t go for any of the Bible stuff but there is a warning to Christians in the New Testament writings concerning this very thing of claiming to be Jews/Israel that goes unheeded by those teaching this doctrine. Please premit me to quote, with you premission —

    (Rev 3:9) I will make those who are of the Church of Satan, who claim to be Jews though they are not, but are liars– .

    Interesting, no? Peace to you Casey

  7. Ignoring what seems to be your propensity for unnecessary vulgar offense, it it worth noting that your linguistic counter argument may not be as strong as you seem and you seem also to misunderstand that for british israelism as a whole to be true it need not be the case that every theory proposed by a proponent of British israelism be followed jot for jot. On the matter of linquistics, proto-germanic underwent a simplification of conjugation of verbs, declension of nouns and adjectives characteristic of foreigners learning a language without the mastery of a speaker who learned the language when they were young. It is thought by some linguists that certainly some group of foreigners migrated to a significant extent that proto-germanic was altered as a result. It is loosely hypothesized due to a similarity between semitic languages and germanic languages in the conjugation of verbs across tense and some other similarities which since I am not a linguist do not fully comprehend, that the group which migrated is if semitic origin. Of course the semitic group proposed are Phoenicians due to their advanced naval technology and trade ventures. Anyway it seems that much of what you sat to thwart the unfounded claims of British israelism is too much dogma for science if it is able to progress.

    • “Ignoring what seems to be your propensity for unnecessary vulgar offense”

      Mentioning it is not ignoring it. Are you offended? I don’t care.

      “you seem also to misunderstand that for british israelism as a whole to be true it need not be the case that every theory proposed by a proponent of British israelism be followed jot for jot.”

      I don’t misunderstand that. What is “British Israelism as a whole”? Tell me what that is and I’ll debunk it for you.

      “It is thought by some linguists…”

      Which ones? Cite a source.

      “…that certainly some group of foreigners migrated to a significant extent that proto-germanic was altered as a result.”

      Even assuming you can support this claim with evidence, so what? Can you further demonstrate that this apocryphal group were representatives of one of the so-called “Lost Tribes”? The ancient world was incredibly diverse, having behind it far more than the mere four thousand years or so of cultural, linguistic, and ethnic evolution you crackpots allow for. This group, assuming it existed, could have been any one among thousands of geographically proximate tribes, probably Finnish, and most likely Indo-European at any rate. The Germanic substrate hypothesis itself, which proposes a creole between proto-Germanic and some non-Indo-European substrate, and may in fact be what you are referring to (and which is hardly mainstream anyway), prefers to identify one or another neolithic or older cultures–not anyone as outlandish (or as recent!) as Israelites displaced by Assyrians into Germanic-speaking lands (a displacement that never happened in the first place). It’s too absurd even to think about.

      “It is loosely hypothesized…”

      Again, by whom? Cite a source so I may determine whether you are interpreting their conclusions correctly and, additionally, whether those conclusions are in any sense valuable.

      “a similarity between semitic languages and germanic languages in the conjugation of verbs across tense and some other similarities which since I am not a linguist do not fully comprehend, that the group which migrated is if semitic origin.”

      Again, cite a source. As far as I know, the consensus of historical linguists bearing on the subject of language families is hardly controversial and does not support any such relationship between proto-Germanic and anything that can be remotely described as Semitic. These are language families separated by tens of thousands of years of linguistic history, spoken by cultures separated by multiple thousands of years of archaeological and genetic evidence. How many times am I going to have to rest my case?

      • sumbudi saizd: โ€œIt is loosely hypothesizedโ€ฆโ€

        yo fsaizd: “Again, by whom? Cite a source so I may determine whether you are interpreting their conclusions correctly”

        FU saiz: googole diss santance dmbazz, “A large number of observations for logical consistency with theoretical predictions can suffice in place of experiments.”

        Lern to reed schientifik payperz. All yo shitations in yo webtrazhz arhh meere sujextions, und pussible maybezes. Een da fhinall analzizs yu hav nho prhooffe.

        FU saiz: qoud erat demonstrandum tu yu confounded weekeepeedyaaa skowlar ๐Ÿ™‚

  8. hey fag: yo wiki refz ain’t breakin’ any key…cite reel skowlars & skowlarly primary sauces..gci orr bi anal ain’t cuttin’ it. fu

    cat “A Broken Key–blah–blah–blah.html” | grep wiki

    is brewing Earl Grey
    he might not have been so
    cult relic across Europe
    native to the immediate
    regarding the Scythians reveals the records indicate
    of Michael
    . A haplogroup is all the
    and haplogroup R
    . The SNP markers


  9. Casey, were you or your family once part of HWA’s or Flurry’s church? What religious affiliation do you associate with today? Or, are you an athiest?

  10. Hi,

    I think from the way you present things is that you were once part of Armstrongism – and were deeply shocked when you realised that much of what Herbert Armstrong taught was not supported in any visible way and/or viable way.

    I should say at this point that I was ‘sucked in’ by not so much Herbert Armstrong but by Garner Ted.

    As a youth of probably about slightly before age 15 I began to Listen to the World Tomorrow program.

    In fact I still have ‘black and white’ copies of the Plain Truth – that might well be ‘collectors’ editions as they go as far back as 1962.

    But, of course, who would want to collect them, except – Church members of any of the Splinter groups.

    My son actually brought the whole collection from My parent’s original home in Melbourne to my current location – as he was in mostly in charge of disposing of years of accumulated ‘stuff’ – all 60 odd years worth.

    I had forgotten all of that collection was stored under the house in an old dysfunctional deep freezer unit.
    So my son not knowing the value of many things actually discarded some really good stuff and kept what he thought might be valuable which unfortunately his selection of some stuff turned out to be Junk – but nevertheless he didn’t do too bad a job overall – as my time was taken up in full time care of my aged and bedridden mum – so had no choice but to delegate the moving job to him.

    What I’m still unable to decide is if any of that collection is of any real value – but I don’t intend to re-read any of it – so that point would remain academic, so to speak – or more precisely – irrelevant. ๐Ÿ˜‰

    I don’t know how much space is available in this comment section – so I’ll try to keep it short. ๐Ÿ˜‰

    I didn’t realise until probably for at least a year, that Herbert Armstrong even existed – because all I did was listen to Garner Ted’s program which was on a New South Wales [Australian] radio station and, used to fade in and out – but apparently there were no other radio stations in Victoria at that time – airing the World Tomorrow Program – so at first I never wrote for any of the written material on offer.

    I have a funny story to relate regarding my mum listening to Garner Ted and then Later Herbert Armstrong.

    I once asked her, in my somewhat foolish, youth – ‘why do you listen to the World Tomorrow program along with me’ – and her answer was – as any loving mum’s would be and, I quote: ” To make sure the ‘Old Boy’ doesn’t brainwash you”.

    Well, apparently, she didn’t listen ‘closely’ enough – because the ‘inevitable’ happened.

    However, there are some ‘mitigating’ circumstances that led me into a different direction, but those came later.

    Neither of my Parents were religiously oriented and for that matter – neither was I.

    My Dad, was an avowed or declared atheist and mum at best, neutral. So I was never taught anything about God whatsoever – from either parent. Both mum and dad were good parents however and dad a hard worker- holding down two jobs for most of his life – to be the ‘good provider’ for his family that he was.

    Both parents however, regarded the bible, as they often said, ‘just’ a book written by ‘mere’ men and basically, as such – total bullshit. [ not their exact words, but close enough]

    Now, to cut an otherwise long story short [ if possible] what happened in my life at a relatively young age – in my teens was two things:

    1. I attempted or began to attend several church meetings on Sabbath days – when I later found out there was local church in Melbourne a few suburbs away from my family home – but after a few meetings began to realise that nobody was taking any notice of me – not that that particularly bothered me – as I’m not really a crowd type person – but their attitude was seemingly more ‘stand-offish’ than I would have expected in a church environment – the only person that ever spoke to me in several weeks was the car park attendant.

    2. A cousin of mine was attending a uniquely Australian Pentecostal Church [ by ‘unique’ I mean it had no ‘parent church’ in the USA, i.e the usual ‘home’ of ‘evangelistic’ type churches ]

    The cousin explained when I asked her what her church was like that it was warm and friendly and everyone was welcome. The problem being – she was absolutely right. It was a ‘huge’ contrast to the WWCG n that I was immediately made to feel part of ‘their’ family.

    The problem then being , that I was already indoctrinated [i.e. brainwashed] to a certain degree with the usual no Christmas/pagan holiday ‘point of view’ and was already contributing financially to the WWCG through becoming a ‘co-worker’ – just a basic ten percent however, as I began to attend the ‘family church’ and was eventually, over the course of a year Baptised into that Church – by full immersion I might add.

    Which is actually an ‘integral’ part of my particular story – when I made ‘contact’ later – with ‘David Pack’s’ group.

    What happened with the Pentecostal church attendance – after only one year – was that my future wife came along and of course her simple faith wasn’t compatible with any church’s as it turned out – as she never attended one, as far as I know, but was brought up in a girl’s school related to a religious group – but she didn’t ‘follow’ a religion – as such.

    So…. for 23 years of a very happy marriage… until she got breast cancer that travelled all over her body until it killed her – I happily contributed ten percent of my income to the WWCG – but my church attending days were over and I haven’t set foot in one since leaving that pentecostal church – except for funerals and weddings.

    In 1994 when my wife died, I went into extreme grief and could barely function for several years – but I had to eventually as I had to boys 9 and 14 who were also similarly devastated at the loss of the ‘real’ ray of sunshine in our lives, but for a time religion meant little to me, once again.

    I never lost my belief in God, however, but that too was growing dim – until A man Who I’d never met – on the internet, who fielded a question I sent to Bible study.org – showed me much more about what was ‘actually’ in the bible – in the way of prophecy than I’d ever thought possible.

    We stuck up a long lasting friendship and are still close friends to this day – even though continents apart.

    He lives in the USA. But, however, had a former HWA church background and so we began to compare notes and started our own studies together from then until 2012. None of which, is based on ‘any’ of HWA’s teachings whatsoever.

    The ‘short version’ is we began to study biblical prophecy together and almost immediately I saw that much of what H. W. Armstrong taught was ‘way off’ target and especially his interpretation of Ezekiel Chapter 5 where he stated that the 12th verse was applicable to America in the USA and Britain in prophecy books of which I had a few different versions as they were updated over the years.

    In verse 5 however it states the entire prophecy was for Jerusalem and therefore the Jews only.

    Thinking that David Pack’s group was the most ‘logical’ place to start, I naturally wanted to share with them [when I made ‘first’ contact with them] a number of things the two of us had discovered together – because some of what we were discovering was quite startling and not like anything any church teaches – Saturday or Sunday varieties whom I just label as ‘Christendom’ – for want of a better term – these days – because what many teach doesn’t even bear any resemblance to what is ‘actually’ in the OT prophetic books – nor the book of Revelation.

    What started out cordially with David Pack’s group – quickly ‘devolved’ on their part into an argumentative state where I had the ‘head honcho’ of their theology department and their chronology department [ I never even knew churches had those ;)] saying all kinds of negative things and at one point was told my baptism didn’t count, was invalid and, that if I wanted to ‘join’ their church I’d have to be baptised by ‘their’ ministry.

    What was the biggest shocker for me was that I was also told that a ‘co-worker’ was no part of the church whatsoever – so 23 years of paying ‘first’ tithe I guess according to HWA’s notions of a co-worker was sort of then …. a complete waste of money.

    So I said in the end thanks but no thanks – I no longer want to join your church.

    I figured I’d already wasted 23 years worth of money that could be better spent – so why would I want to waste any more. ๐Ÿ˜‰ I couldn’t possibly, honestly, contribute 1 cent to a church headed by the megalomaniac David Pack seems to be.

    Next up, after David Pack was the next most ‘logical’ choice to show ‘a church’ some of the amazing ‘things’ we were finding out for ourselves and how interrelated all biblical prophecy is – we even came up with our own ideas relating to the USA and Britain – but I won’t cover any of that here – it’s a little involved as it relates to how each prophet’s work ties into or parallels each other prophet’ books and, subsequently fits human ‘secular history’ perfectly.

    Besides I understand that you no longer believe that prophecy is valid – well that’s OK – I’m not forcing what we found on anyone and am not making any money – whatsoever – but just publishing the results of our research and our findings on a small blogger site of little to no consequence in the bigger scheme of things.

    Anyway, to end this tale – I wrote about some of my more recent findings on the prophecy of 12th chapter of the book of Revelation and posted it via email to the United Church of God.

    I was one again seeking to ‘join’ another ‘Church of God’ – actually against the better judgement of my friend in the USA – who told me bluntly that a couple of old farts like us with no standing or authority of any kind would never be listened to – and unfortunately he was absolutely right.

    The worst part for me though – was that my friend was assumed to be the writer of ‘my work’ and was unfairly attacked by the representative of that church – ‘verbally’ of course and – I was warned that for my part I would have to answer to God – for what I’d written – as it couldn’t possibly be true.

    But the thing is… I don’t write anything at all without that understanding ‘already’ in place – and I really didn’t need to be told what already knew – i.e, it is a very great responsibility to….. get ‘things’ right.

    Clay, my USA ‘partner in crime’ was at that time still writing Jointly with me as ‘a team’ and cross checked and double checked every thing I wrote – but I’m writing Solo these days due to Clay shutting down our small website around 2012 and he stopped writing after that so I started looking into writing at a blogger site instead – as I’m a complete novice at making any kind of website and not the least bit technically minded.

    The irony, is that If that representative from the UCG hadn’t been so belligerent to both Clay and me – I most likely would not still be researching and writing about the stunning things I’m still coming across in the prophetic books.

    The upshot of me writing about my ‘adventures’ with the churches of God – is that I think you my have actually ‘thrown the baby out with the bathwater’- as the old saying goes, so to so to speak – in dismissing ‘real’ biblical prophecy as being invalid – because quite understandably – there’s so much ‘bullshit’ floating around, ‘masquerading’ as biblical prophecy, that yes – ‘all of it’ has given the bible a bad name – from an atheist’s point of view.

    I fully understand the atheist’s point of view and I’ve always had, as long as I can remember – the ability to see ‘both’ sides of any question.

    Which is probably why my dad and I never had any real issues with one another’s opposite outlooks on life.

    Apologies for taking so much space – but today of course is Christmas day and I don’t celebrate it and neither did my dad – but for very different reasons – so I thought I’d simply take the time to give you a slightly different ‘perspective’ to what I’ve seen at your website.

    You know, as bad as the Armstrong’s seem to have been – and it’s all there in black and white [and some colour] – the apostle Paul wrote quite an intriguing statement ….that never ceased to amaze me…. regarding how and by whom and what motives the Gospel was being preached in his days:

    5 Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will:

    16 The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds:

    17 But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel.

    18 What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.

    Conclusion to my little foray and or intrusion into your ‘very well done’ website:

    Herbert Armstrong, or rather Garner Ted, in my particular case – whether even partly right or ‘totally’ wrong – and for ‘unknown’ or at least unprovable reasons and ‘true motives’ – preach – ‘the Gospel of the Kingdom of God’ and, therefore, did indeed ‘introduce’ me to my God.

    So I’m in agreement with Paul, in as much as – I’m not the least bit ‘disappointed’ with that introduction and who delivered it to me or for what reasons is largely insignificant. ๐Ÿ˜‰

  11. Hi again,

    I just wanted to ask you, regarding the DNA side of things – if you had any info on Egypt. I meant to ask about that – but forgot – you do seem to have done some research into that area though.

    My research ranges far and wide these days because the reality is that America, if indeed America was Manasseh as J. H. Allen claimed [and HWA ] – it gets no mention in prophecy relating to our future and only a very slight mention in the book of Revelation in regard to the 144,000 mentioned there.

    Apologies for the few Typo’s I made in my other comment as I don’t have anyone to ‘double check’ my work these days – even though I do send my USA friend copies of the research and extraordinary ‘things’ I’m still finding out in all the prophetic books of the bible.

    Herbert never mentioned much that I can see about Joseph’s 2 sons Ephraim and Manasseh being half Egyptian. So that might be one factor that those two tribes may have diluted DNA – but since the DNA thing, which I admittedly don’t understand at all, seems to be more dependent on the male side of the equation – that may be irrelevant.

    The reason I’m asking is that ‘Ephraim’ features ‘very prominently’ in the prophecies I’m currently writing about.

    I’ve found that Zechariah is actually a ‘very key’ prophet – even though regarded by Jewish and secular scholars as a ‘minor’ prophet – showing an extraordinary amount of ‘detail’ about a ‘modern day’ siege of Jerusalem and its eventual outcome.

    Zechariah, chapter 9 for example, opens with this rather remarkable prophecy about modern day Damascus:

    “The burden of the word of the Lord in the land of Hadrach, and Damascus shall be the rest thereof: when the eyes of man, as of all the tribes of Israel, shall be toward the Lord.”

    All the ‘eyes of man’ are certainly on the ‘Syrian crisis’ at the moment.

    But what I found, rather interestingly, is what is shown later down in that prophecy regarding Ephraim:

    ‘”10 And I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim, and the horse from Jerusalem, and the battle bow shall be cut off: and he shall speak peace unto the heathen: and his dominion shall be from sea even to sea, and from the river even to the ends of the earth.”

    That verse is clearly relating to the Jerusalem’s ‘King’ coming to Jerusalem in verse 9.

    But if that verse wasn’t intriguing enough what is shown a few verses later – certainly is:

    “13 When I have bent Judah for me, filled the bow with Ephraim, and raised up thy sons, O Zion, against thy sons, O Greece, and made thee as the sword of a mighty man.

    14 And the Lord shall be seen over them, and his arrow shall go forth as the lightning: and the Lord God shall blow the trumpet, and shall go with whirlwinds of the south.

    15 The Lord of hosts shall defend them; and they shall devour, and subdue with sling stones; and they shall drink, and make a noise as through wine; and they shall be filled like bowls, and as the corners of the altar.

    16 And the Lord their God shall save them in that day as the flock of his people: for they shall be as the stones of a crown, lifted up as an ensign upon his land.”


    Whoever Ephraim is – they are apparently going to be ‘at war’ with modern day Greece at some point.

    It’s extremely hard to figure out how that could come about in modern times – because it’s clearly showing Judah, i.e. modern day Israeli’s – also at war with Greece and being ‘supported’ by ‘Ephraim’.

    This prophecy is actually ‘paralleling’ Isaiah chapter 11 fairly closely, because, Isaiah’s chapter 11 shows a ‘modern day captivity’ of modern day Israel – and ‘which’ nations take The Israeli’s…. captive:

    “10 And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.

    11 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea.”


    Although, from memory, I think HWA associated Assyria with Germany – but the research I’ve done in the past few years shows that ‘particular’ Middle Eastern Land has no relation to Germany whatsoever – but Assyria ‘does’ relate to where quite a few of the Israelites, i.e. those that were not Jews/Judah were taken captive ‘to’ – in Isaiah’s day and age.

    I attempted to find out ‘where’ most of those lands listed verse 11 of Isaiah 11 are in today’s world – in relation to modern nations and, interestingly enough Shinar relates to modern day ‘Iran’. Primarily, because ‘Whoever’ Ephraim is in modern times – ‘They’ are shown a little later in both Isaiah’s 11th chapter and Zehariah’s 9th chapter to have a ‘large part’ or role to play – in ‘rescuing’ modern Day Israelis from a ‘modern captivity’ of the Jews.

    If you look up each of those lands and their origin in various Wikipedia articles, Assyria might very well equate with the Ancient ‘Medes’ of Babylonian times and the prophetic accounts show at least some Israelite captives were taken further North of what is, modern Day, Iran – as well as some being taken to the Caucasus regions – which are in modern day Georgia. [The former Russian satellite country – not the American state of Georgia. lol.]

    Why I’m researching all this ‘actual’ biblical prophecy is ‘precisely’ because of the ‘confusion’ generated by Herbert Armstrong’s teachings – and those two ‘Churches of God’ I encountered that were openly hostile to both Clay and I for no ‘apparent’ reason.

    Interestingly enough – instead of ‘patiently’ explaining where Clay and I were wrong in our researches of nearly a decade ago – they chose hostility instead – which is very unbecoming of any ‘real’ Christian I would think. Try as they might and, did, however – they were indeed ‘unable’ to refute any of what we were showing them.

    So it was in fact, their ‘hostility’ that ‘sparked’ my ‘further research’ for the past few years, since 2012.

    Be that as it may, Zechariah has not only an interesting, but somewhat Cryptic prophecy about Shinar – i.e. ‘possibly’ modern day, Iran – showing it to be totally evil – But, also, Zechariah’s 14th chapter parallels the 11th chapter of Isaiah’s ‘captivity’ of ‘modern day Israeli’s/Judah/Jews’ – up to verse 2 – and, a subsequent ‘rescue’ from that modern day captivity – from verses 3 to 5.

    So the ‘possibility’ of modern Iran taking modern day Israeli’s captive is….. not that far fetched.
    Plus, all those lands mentioned in Isaiah 11:11 are indeed Middle Eastern Lands ‘surrounding’ Jerusalem and the modern nation of Israeli’s – and all of those related ‘Parallel’ prophecies – fit ‘perfectly’ – Zechariah’s depiction of a ‘modern siege’ of Jerusalem in Chapter 12, thus:

    “2 Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people round about, when they shall be in the siege both against Judah and against Jerusalem.

    3 And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it.”


    What intrigued me about this prophecy in Zechariah 12 is what is written at the end of this part of the prophecy about God seeking to ‘destroy all the modern nations’ that are apparently going to be attacking ‘modern Day Israel’ because it too fits with later parts of Isaiah 11 and Zechariah 9 not to mention some other prophecies of Jeremiah’s also – which are a little too long to cover here – that also feature Ephraim and/or Joseph’s descendants. And, All biblical prophecies, including the book of Revelation – show to one degree or another – this ‘destruction of Modern Nations’ [Possibly UN backed] that fight against Jerusalem at some point in our future and just as oddly the Jews with the aid of ‘Ephraim’ apparently ‘win’ in the end:

    “8 In that day shall the Lord defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the Lord before them.

    9 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.”

    The ‘parallels’ in Zechariah 9 and Isaiah 11 as follows showing Ephraim’s involvement:

    Zechariah 9

    “13 When I have bent Judah for me, filled the bow with Ephraim, and raised up thy sons, O Zion, against thy sons, O Greece, and made thee as the sword of a mighty man.
    14 And the Lord shall be seen over them, and his arrow shall go forth as the lightning: and the Lord God shall blow the trumpet, and shall go with whirlwinds of the south.”

    Isaiah 11 [ showing some kind of conflict or disagreement between modern day Jews and modern Day Ephraim – curiously enough, in verse 13]

    And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.

    13 The envy also of Ephraim shall depart, and the adversaries of Judah shall be cut off: Ephraim shall not envy Judah, and Judah shall not vex Ephraim.

    14 But they shall fly upon the shoulders of the Philistines toward the west; they shall spoil them of the east together: they shall lay their hand upon Edom and Moab; and the children of Ammon shall obey them.

    15 And the Lord shall utterly destroy the tongue of the Egyptian sea; and with his mighty wind shall he shake his hand over the river, and shall smite it in the seven streams, and make men go over dryshod.

    16 And there shall be an highway for the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria; like as it was to Israel in the day that he came up out of the land of Egypt.

    So…. these are just some of the ‘things’ I would have liked to discuss ‘reasonably’ – with the Leaders of those two Churches I came into contact with – because I felt some if not all of the research Clay and I were doing a decade ago – was relevant to our modern age important therefore – as to what may really happen in our future – not the prophetic ‘garbage’ that was being put out by followers of Mr Armstrong.

    If you indeed follow a particular ‘leader’ any leader – ‘whoever’ they might be and – not God – then like lemmings you may indeed fall over ‘precipice’ somewhat – blindly ๐Ÿ˜‰

    You are of course as your disclaimer says at liberty to edit out or remove any scriptures quoted.

    I understand your views in that regard and where they are coming from – as you believe as stated – that prophecy doesn’t exist.

    But consider this prophecy also from Isaiah that is paralleled in the book of Revelation:

    Isaiah 30 [Since when in ‘recorded’ History has the sun ‘ever’ been several times brighter than normal and the moon as bright as the sun?] None of this has…. ‘anything’ to do with British Israelism – in fact.

    “25 And there shall be upon every high mountain, and upon every high hill, rivers and streams of waters in the day of the great slaughter, when the towers fall.

    26 Moreover the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold, as the light of seven days, in the day that the Lord bindeth up the breach of his people, and healeth the stroke of their wound.

    27 Behold, the name of the Lord cometh from far, burning with his anger, and the burden thereof is heavy: his lips are full of indignation, and his tongue as a devouring fire:

    28 And his breath, as an overflowing stream, shall reach to the midst of the neck, to sift the nations with the sieve of vanity: and there shall be a bridle in the jaws of the people, causing them to err

    30 And the Lord shall cause his glorious voice to be heard, and shall shew the lighting down of his arm, with the indignation of his anger, and with the flame of a devouring fire, with scattering, and tempest, and hailstones”

    Revelation ‘s parallel prophecy:

    “8 And the fourth angel poured out his vial upon the sun; and power was given unto him to scorch men with fire.

    9 And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over these plagues: and they repented not to give him glory.”


    The book of Revelation as does Zechariah’s prophecies – in chapters 12 &14 – shows ‘Two’ battles being fought in our future ,i.e. the one in Chapter 16 of Revelation – the infamous Battle of Armageddon. [Verse 16] and the one Revelation 19:11-21 all of which equates very well with or closely to Isaiah’s depictions in his prophecies of a time when there is ‘a great slaughter’ when the ‘towers Fall’. [Isaiah 30:25 above.]

    If Revelation 19’s chapter is not describing a great slaughter at the Time of the second Battle depicted in Zechariah 14’s opening and closing verses then I’d stop writing altogether.

    But …..since they ‘are’ describing battles in ‘our’ future – very obviously – i.e. one of ‘Man against man’ and then one of ‘man against God’ – I’m compelled to write about what I see in prophecy, because I believe, those prophesied battles are of ‘concern’ to any thinking human being.

    It doesn’t matter whether or not anyone is willing to take notice of what I write …. that’s not my concern.

    My main motivation is actually, similar to yours – [but not quite ๐Ÿ˜‰ – simply because of the areas and/or subjects I’m dealing with and writing about at my blogger site] i.e. – The ‘actual’ truth – of what is ‘really’ written in prophecy – is my main concern and, as far as I can see – British Israelism as such – doesn’t even come into the picture at all – However ‘Ephraim’ as seemingly, a ‘separate’ national identity – to the Jews – very much ‘does’ come into the prophetic picture.

    Now, the main reason I am researching what I do research – is because I discovered over a decade ago when Clay and I were researching what we did at that time – is that ‘none’ of what is described in actual biblical prophecy – is seemingly directed ‘at’ either Britain and/or its Commonwealth countries….. or America.

    Which, I would think, is ‘actually’ Good News of a sort.

    But – if prophecy doesn’t exist – then I guess we have only bad news to look forward to in the future – because the world in general is not looking too ‘rosy’ at this point in time – in world History.

Say anything you want. We do.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s