Ephraim and Manasseh - Do you think they are England and America?

[u crank]

The idea that Ephraim and Manasseh are England & America is a belief that stems from British Israelism (also called Anglo-Israelism). This theory started in England in the 17th century and spread to America with English colonists.

In the latter half of the 19th century, a guy named Edward Hine moved to America and began to promote the idea that Americans were the lost tribe of Manasseh, whereas England was the lost tribe of Ephraim.

There were others who have promoted this but the most well known one recently was Herbert W. Armstrong, founder and former Pastor General of the Worldwide Church of God.

The central tenets of British Israelism have been refuted by evidence from modern genetic, linguistic, archaeological and philological research.

As Steve said,

The original ten tribes did not become America, England or any other country. They were absorbed into the surrounding populace and ceased to exist as an entity. Their descendants are still out there, some of them anyway.

Nothing magical, mystical or fascinating about it. It's the way empires have always worked.

I would have to agree.

Edit. Sorry Tribesman, didn't see your post.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by u crank

The idea that Ephraim and Manasseh are England & America is a belief that stems from British Israelism (also called Anglo-Israelism). This theory started in England in the 17th century and spread to America with English colonists.

In the latter half of the 19th century, a guy named Edward Hine moved to America and began to promote the idea that Americans were the lost tribe of Manasseh, whereas England was the lost tribe of Ephraim.

There were others who have promoted this but the most well known one recently was Herbert W. Armstrong, founder and former Pastor General of the Worldwide Church of God.

The central tenets of British Israelism have been refuted by evidence from modern genetic, linguistic, archaeological and philological research.

I've never heard of this. However, having done some reading just now, it would seem that Tribesman is correct in that British Israelism does have some ties to the Christian Identity movement.

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

I've never heard of this. However, having done some reading just now, it would seem that Tribesman is correct in that British Israelism does have some ties to the Christian Identity movement.

Yea, Tribesman made the right connection. The Christian Identity movement holds the view that modern Jews are not at all Israelites nor Hebrews, but something else. An excellent excuse for anti Semitism. That dog and pony show still draws a crowd.

As Sgt. Antonio Espera in HBO's series 'Generation Kill' like to say, "White man's gotta rule the world."

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Simmy

Then this flies in the face of biblical prophecy.
The 10 tribes were taken into captivity and moved out of their land.
If they didn't become what the Bible says they would, then the Bible is in complete error and should be declared false. No other way around it.

Does the Bible say that those tribes would become England and America?

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Simmy

So those in the position to dictate would have you believe.
Archaeology can in not way prove it. They can't even prove the theory of evolution. The NGS did a study of the DNA of thousands of people from New York and could only conclude that we all came from the same source.
Would that be Adam and Eve or Evolution? They couldn't tell!
People will tell you what they want you to believe.

Acutally, the genetic study found a lack of Haplogroups J2 and J1, which are common in Israeli and Jewish ancestery, but a large amount of group R1b, which is a common in Europeans. Sorry, but the science just doesn't support your claims.

I would say this is incorrect. It either stands or falls on it's own merits.
I mean, when you say Christian do you mean Protestant or Catholic or something in between? The churches can not agree on what the bible says, so the best conclusion is to go with what the bible says.

Read for yourself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Israelism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Identity

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Simmy

Then this flies in the face of biblical prophecy.
The 10 tribes were taken into captivity and moved out of their land.
If they didn't become what the Bible says they would, then the Bible is in complete error and should be declared false. No other way around it.

I'm sorry but biblical prophecy is subject to interpretation. I have read the Bible and I have yet to see the words 'America or England'.

I would say this is incorrect. It either stands or falls on it's own merits.
I mean, when you say Christian do you mean Protestant or Catholic or something in between?

It really doesn't matter. The Christian Identity movement uses the word 'Christian'. Lots of organizations do but it doesn't mean they are Christian. These people are basically white supremacists. To be more exact, anti Semites.

So those in the position to dictate would have you believe.
Archaeology can in not way prove it.

I would have to say that there are many Christians, myself included, who do not believe that Ephraim and Manasseh are England and America. But it is just an opinion. As most interpretations are. If you believe it and wish others to believe it then you have to supply some proof.

What matters is: is the Bible, not men, correct in what it says?

I would have to say that it is correct. It is the interpretation of men that is highly suspect. And I think that this is one of those cases.

[geetrue]

Originally Posted by u crank

I'm sorry but biblical prophecy is subject to interpretation. I have read the Bible and I have yet to see the words 'America or England'.



It really doesn't matter. The Christian Identity movement uses the word 'Christian'. Lots of organizations do but it doesn't mean they are Christian. These people are basically white supremacists. To be more exact, anti Semites.



I would have to say that there are many Christians, myself included, who do not believe that Ephraim and Manasseh are England and America. But it is just an opinion. As most interpretations are. If you believe it and wish others to believe it then you have to supply some proof.



I would have to say that it is correct. It is the interpretation of men that is highly suspect. And I think that this is one of those cases.

First let me say that I am not against any of you, but only wish to add to your knowledge and understanding and my slant on the bible.

With that said, I believe in the inspired word of God as written:

1 Corinthians 14:26-28 NKJ
Whenever you come together, each of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation. 
Let all things be done for edification.

27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, let there be two or at the most three, each in turn, and let one interpret.

28 But if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in church, and let him speak to himself and to God.

2 Peter 1:19-20 NKJ

19 And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place,
until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts;

20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation,

21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

If interpretation of the word of God is of interest to you may I suggest reading:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Here are fifteen principles along with specific exercises that will sharpen your skills in interpreting the Bible:

http://bible.org/seriespage/interpreting-bible

When interpretive disagreement occurs, it is usually because of faulty or inconsistent methods of interpretation (hermeneutics). Some people, for instance, impose their own preconceived notions upon the pages of Scripture instead of allowing Scripture to speak for itself. But when the basic principles of interpretation are put into practice, most difficulties disappear.

Simmy said;
Well you can see the study that was done. It is a National Geographic program. I put much more stock in them then I do Wikipedia.

You have relied on the most anti-creation publisher out there, as far as I know NGS doesn't even believe in Jesus being deity ...

I may be wrong of course that is possible, but they do include a lot of Darwin theories in their pages

Wiki like everything else in life you have to discern and learn

Wikipedia is probably the worst place to get information.

Depends how you use it, like any book you need to also check the sources it is using.
Since you are referencing a book can you tell us which of the hundreds of different versions you are referencing, then can you provide the sources that book is taken from?

Christian Identity people have no connection to the bible that I know of.

Tell that to the church of Jesus Christ(Christian).
They even add(christian) to their name to avoid any possible confusion.

They have nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Since the subject in hand is the lost tribes and theories connecting them to the US&UK then they have everything to do with the subject in hand as its part of their version of "christianity".

There are so many things that would indicate the connection if one takes the time to look. But again, I only brought it up as a point of interest, nothing more.

Connections was it?
You seem to be running from connections, but you should take the time to look as it is interesting.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Simmy

Wikipedia is probably the worst place to get information.

Not at all. If you're looking for entry level information on a subject, it's a great place to go. Certainly good enough of a source for a message board topic.

It can be written by anyone with a computer, Most colleges and universities prohibit students from using it as a source because it is full of mistakes, and subject to change from day to day.

That may have been true in the past, but things are changing.

http://www.usnews.com/education/best...ege-classrooms

I could go into Hendrix's bio and claim I am his brother.

And it will be removed within minutes.

Someone else might remove it, but it is subject to all kinds of inaccurate material.

Ah, now we're hedging our bets here are we?

You're attacking the source, not the argument. That is an ad hominem logical fallacy and a way of changing the subject without actually ever addressing the claim. Weak sauce, man. Weak sauce.

[Takeda Shingen]

Yep, what mookie said. And I can tell you for a fact that colleges do permit wikipedia use for secondary sources. It is, as mookie also said, certainly good enough for an internet forum. You, Simmy seem to be more interested in discrediting any source or study that contradicts your views. The bottom line is that British Israelism and Christian Identity are linked, and that the science does not match the claims. I am sorry that you are unhappy with that, and you are free to continue to claim otherwise, but it does not render your views any more true.

[Hottentot]

No.

In other news: Finland is the oldest country in the world and was inhabited by giants before men. This is proven by the large boulders we have littered around the country. The giants liked bowling and targeted trees with them.

Also, in case you weren't aware of it, Finnish is the root language from which all the other languages in the world have developed. How else do you explain that the British word for their capital "London" closely resembles the Finnish word "Lontoo" meaning the same place?

[Dowly]

^ LOL, can't argue with that logic.

[Hottentot]

The hilarious reality there, Dowly, is that I didn't come up with those arguments myself. Instead they were actual thoughts proposed by the nationalists of the 19th century. The same people who studied the Bible very thoroughly and came to the conclusion that the Finns are direct descendants of Abraham.

I think I don't need to elaborate the point of that post any further.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Hottentot

I think I don't need to elaborate the point of that post any further.

I wish you would, though. That was fun.

[Hottentot]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I wish you would, though. That was fun.

As per your request, Steve, though it wasn't anything deeper than life. The original post to me didn't make much sense and frankly seemed to have an in-built idea that the world revolves around the English speaking world (could have been my imagination as well, but that was the initial impression I went by). So I instead offered an alternative theory of the world revolving around Finland, which didn't make any more sense either.

And as I said, neither of those "arguments" I proposed were my own. They were serious science to people who advocated them in the name of the 19th century Finnish nationalism. Even if I didn't mention it in that post, the Bible was a huge source for these folks as well. After all, they firmly believed (like most people back then in here) that the Bible contained the truth about the early history of the world among other things, and therefore it was only logical to try to find out how the newly formed Finnish people were related to Abraham. And unsurprisingly they managed to "find out" that the answer is: "directly", because it's of course the best answer you can get.

Lots of things can be proven. While that may have not been the original intention of this thread, still the original question to me wasn't much different from asking "are Finns descended from Abraham" or "Is Finnish the original language spoken before the Babel".