850

"Brit-Am Now"-850
Contents:
1. Ephraimite Duties
2. Cherie Koch: White Africans and Black Whitemen
3. THANK YOU
4. JERRY GARLEB: The Use of the Bow and Ephraim
5. David Jackson: Miriam and the Importance of Family
6. Don Brown: Question on Abinoidism
7. Peter Castro-Solomon: Israelite Blood in North and South America
8. Jonathan Tillotson: Brit-Am Concerns
9. Dennis McGinlay: Inbuilt Variety from time of Creation

1. Ephraimite Duties
Remember
"The Duties of Ephraim"
http://www.britam.org/Questions/QuesJoseph.html#DUTIES

2. Cherie Koch: White Africans and Black Whitemen
From: "C. Koch" <cheriekoch@hotmail.com>
To: "Yair Davidiy" <yair@britam.org>
Subject: PRIDE & PREJUDICE?? --------- [DNA] News item: the Yorkshire man
with  African A1 DNA - surname is REVIS

For those who insist on racial prejudice, it's a little difficult to
classify and categorize people based upon physical appearance.   You have
some white Caucasian types with African DNA, and let's not forget that many
African-Americans have European Y-DNA (20-30%??) when they test for their
roots.

CK

Here's an article forwarded from a DNA/genealogy list I'm on:

------------------
Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 12:02 PM
Subject: [DNA] News item: the Yorkshire A1 surname is REVIS


We'll know that genetic genealogy has entered mainstream status when people
are no longer astonished to find that a Y or mtDNA result doesn't
necessarily
correlate with a phenotype!

http://tinyurl.com/27xa2r


3. THANK YOU
From: ColonialTheologicalSeminaryTM
<americanhistory_kingjames_bible@yahoo.com>
Subject: Fwd: The Bible Speaks Against Color Prejudice

DEAR YAIR : THANK YOU FOR THE VERY FRANK MANNER IN WHICH YOU PRESENTED THIS
ARTICLE . WE SHOULDN'T BE SURPRISED AS MERE MORTALS THAT OUR THOUGHTS ARE
NOT PERFECT IN ONE ANOTHER'S SIGHT . BUT OUR GUIDANCE UNDER GOD CAN LEAD TO
MUCH PROGRESS AND GRACE. THE PROGRESS , THE EARNEST ATTEMPT TO MAKE
PROGRESS AND THE CONSTANT PROTECTION OF THE LORD'S GRACE IS WHAT IS
IMPORTANT AT DAY'S END . WE SHOULDN'T BE BASHFUL ABOUT TRYING TO MAKE
PROGRESS . TAKE CARE AND GOD BLESS .

4. JERRY GARLEB: The Use of the Bow and Ephraim
From: Jerry Garleb <mcatak@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: "Brit-Am Now"-849
#3. Bob Davis: "Bows" Indicate Ephraim?

Yair,

With all due respect, I have to disagree slightly with Bob Davis' comments
in "Brit-Am Now" #849 that the Normans after 1066 recruited bowmen from
among the Saxons, etc., or at least put a different slant on what he said.
Actually, the Normans defeated the axe-wielding Saxons at Hastings with
such niceties as showers of arrows from among the Norman archers, the
Normans using archers in massed groups as opposed to the normal Saxon use
at the time of a few archers used as "snipers."  Harold, the Saxon leader,
was killed by a Norman arrow to the eye according to most sources at
Hastings. The bow had wide spread use in Europe (for example among Magyar
and other raiders who ravaged Europe from their base in Hungary and further
east and used the old "scourge" of horse-mounted archers as did their
Mongol cousins to defeat more heavily armored and slower opponents, such as
the Germans, for example) and the Vikings were universally users of the bow
in battle as well as in hunting.  That doesn't even begin to address the
prominence of the bow in military usage by the Turks who threatened much of
eastern Europe for centuries, right up to the gates of Vienna, and for many
years held distance records with their Turkish composite bows as opposed to
the more simple English longbow which cast an arrow a long distance, but
not as far as a Turkish bow would. The bow did not apparently hold much
prominence in English military thinking until generally around the 1200s
and was the introduction of not the Saxons but the Welsh and/or the Vikings
and their Norman cousins, most of whom may have descended from the various
migrating Hebrew tribes (not speaking here of the Turks and Magyars, but
the various Viking groups, Welsh, Saxons and so forth).  Also, I don't
think the Normans would have encouraged wide-spread expertise with the bow
right after 1066 by the Saxons, not wanting to create a military presence
in England from among their recently defeated enemies (the Saxons, etc.)
and somewhat oppressing the Saxon population in England for some time after
the Battle of Hastings in 1066.  A good overview of the use of the bow in
England and to some extent in Europe can be found at
http://www.regia.org/SaxonArchery.htm and of the Battle of Hastings at
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/1066malmesbury.html .

Basically, both of the groups represented at Hastings probably had some
earlier Hebrew connections, but to imply that the Saxons might have been
the Ephraimites because of the use of the bow seems to be a bit of a
stretch, given the Pictish-Celtic-Saxon-Angle-Jutish-Danish-Norwegian and
other sources involved in the make-up of the population of Britain and the
fact that the bow was used throughout Europe at the time in one way or
another, either for hunting or for war.  As the first site, above, points
out, examples of European bows, even the English longbow, do not exist for
the most part, because they were wood and tended to disintegrate or be used
for other purposes when they weakened, whereas axe heads, swords, etc.,
being of iron, lasted in greater numbers to this day.  The English adopted
the bow's use in combat from "bad experiences" with the Welsh, Norman and
Viking use of the same weapon, not because of any pronounced successes by
the Saxons with the same weapon.  The typical picture of the Saxon "hordes"
is not one of a group of archers but of axe-wielders heavily plodding in
formation. The Normans, by contrast, relied upon massed archers and
flanking cavalry, among other "weapons systems" and the Saxons learned from
the Welsh the value of the bow when trying to invade Welsh territory.  See
the above sites for discussion of same.  I do not mean to be super-critical
of Bob's contention but I believe that the fact that the Saxons did
occasionally use the bow, but not in massed formations, is not a good
indicator that they were somehow connected to Ephraim...at least in my
humble opinion.

JERRY GARLEB
mcatak@verizon.net

5. David Jackson: MIriam and the Importance of Family
From: david jackson <djackson22@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: "Brit-Am Now"-849

Yair,
I also see a racial application in Numbers 12, but from a somewhat different
perspective.  Aaron and Miriam were rebuked for their presumptive comments
against Moses.  Moses had greater revelation than they and they should not
have said they were equal to him in this regard.  This was their primary
transgression, I believe.

Their comments about his wife appear to me to be a pretext for attaining
equal authority to their brother.

Whiteness is characteristic of the dead flesh of leprosy and there is a
certain poetic justice in Miriam becoming deathly white after she improperly
spoke against Moses for marrying a dark woman.

Curiously, only Miriam was stricken.  Aaron then interceded to Moses on her
behalf, while simultaneously acknowledging his own sin.  This seems to have
had the effect of manifesting their love for each other.  Had both Aaron and
Miriam been stricken, and had Moses intervened without Aaron's selfless
request for mercy toward their sister, it would have set Moses apart from
them instead of drawing them together.

Rather than teaching the unimportance of family, and by extension racial,
relations, this passage affirms that they endure.  If Moses was outside the
law in marrying the Cushite I cannot say, but it did not end his inclusion
within his own family or the Almighty's plans.

David Jackson
Keller, Texas

6. Don Brown: Question on Abinoidism
donbrown <donbro8729@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>I have a friend that is an albino , is he being punished his parents are
>white and they all are Christian
>Definition a person or animal that has little or no coloring matter in
>skin,hair,and eyes they can come white or black
>people? WHAT IS YOUR ANSWER
>BY THE WAY THERE IS MORE THAN ONE IN THE FAMILY

Answer:
We said that
Miriam was temporarily punished by having her hand turn "leprous" and as
"white as snow".
She was punished  by being turned "super-white" as if to say
but that does not mean that being white is a punishment. On the contrary.
Color provides protection against the sun when needed whereas lack of color
enables the
rays of the sun to penetrate in climates where this is needed.
In some desert areas blond hair may somehow provide protection against sun
stroke.
This may be why, it is said, that those Australian Aborigines who tend to
have blond hair
are the ones inhabiting desert areas.
The same may apply to the Berbers in North Africa who  sometimes look blond
and are blond but it is claimed have their blondness triggered off by a
different gene
from what causes the same effect in Europeans.
It is a complicated issue.
All white skin and blond hair etc may be considered a degree of albinoism
in so much
as the fair color is effected by relative lack of pigmentation rather
than a specifically different pigment.
Albinoism in the medical sense however is a pathological condition in which
much too little
melanin (pigment) has been activated.
I would not consider this a punishment any more than other defect one is
born with is a punishment.
Worse things happen.  We are now entering the field of punishment and reward
and how one enters the world etc which involves theological and
philosophical considerations beyond our
field.

7. Peter Castro-Solomon: Israelite Blood in North and South America

From: peter castro-solomon <castro-solomon@hotmail.co.uk>
Subject: RE: "Brit-Am Now"-849

Hi Yair

I have read that   in ancient Israel a dark complexion was considered a
symbol of beauty (Shir haShirim [Song of Solomon] 1:5-8) - that is why some
Rabbis interpret that the term "Kushite" applied to Moshe's wife did not
refer to her nationality but it was a way to say that she was too
beautiful- what's your opinion on this?

Another point is if red hair and blue eyes were common among the Israelites
why does the Torah make reference to the appearance of a few individuals
who had these features i.e. Esau, David, Joseph- it is reasonable to attest
that these features were rare. In addition because someone has reddish hair
(David) doesn't mean they are white- red/ blond hair appears in non -white
peoples like aboriginals.

Sephardim [Eastern or Spanish Jews] may be the remnants of the exiles of
Jerusalem (Judah)  and some families (Abravanel) claim descent from king
David. It is quite rare to see blond haired blue -eyed Sephardim. I do
believe that many people in North and South America may have Israelite
blood, however this is  most likely due to the Spanish Inquisition and the
expulsion of the Jews from Spain. Notable figures such as Fidel Castro have
admitted marrano (Jewish) ancestry.

8. Jonathan Tillotson: Brit-Am Concerns
From: Jonathan Tillotson <jon_tillotson@yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: Re: "Brit-Am Now"-849
#2. Raymond Fulford: Brit-Am Should Stay on Topic

Good morning,

Regarding Raymond Fuller's remarks. Yes, I can agree that these matters are
somewhat off topic..especially with regard to the purely
historical-academic task of amassing and presenting and sharing evidence of
the twelve tribes amongst already interested parties

However, I wonder whether questions concerning racial sensitivity and
Theology should always be consciously excluded, especially if Brit am is
concerned to spread its message. Whatever criticism can be made regarding
the ideology underlying political correctness it is nevertheless well
meaning and ethically sound in so far as it opposes Racial hatred and
bigotry. It should not, I think, be forgotten that the very idea of a
chosen people, especially since the time of the Nazis can sound racist in a
fascist way to many people on a superficial reading. Therefore there is a
need for Brit-Am to clarify its understanding of choseness and its stance
if it wishes to negotiate around a knee jerk suspiciousness that would
otherwise close people's minds to the question of the enduring significance
of Israel and, moreover, the idea that there is more to Israel than the
Jewish people. Added to this must be considered the fact that much
non-Jewish Identity teachings have to varying degrees been both
anti-Semitic and white triumphalist in the past. Some no doubt are still
like this. Again, if Brit am wishes to move out of the margins of thought
and into some kind of mainstream positioning it will, I suspect, to face
this reality and respond to it.

Regarding Theology, while this can, I can see, potentially be divisive, it
will nonetheless always be a background issue so long as the two religions
of Christianity and Judaism remain in their current form, and so long as
Ephraimites are primarily Christian and Jews primarily Jewish in their
theology. So this might as well be acknowledged. The danger as I see it
exists mostly if one side or the other seeks to imperiously convert the
other side against their will. So long as this intent is eschewed what can
be the danger of the two faiths held by the two Houses of Israel learning
from one another -especially if this can lead to an overcoming of ignorance
and prejudice between the two faiths which in the past may have damaged
inter-Israelite relations.

Anyway, I can agree that these issue should by no means be central.
  Again, if Brit am wishes to move out of the margins of thought and into
some kind of mainstream positioning it will, I suspect, need to face this
reality and respond to it.

Best wishes

Jonathan

9. Dennis McGinlay: Inbuilt Variety from time of Creation
From: dennis mcginlay <dennis.mcginlay@virgin.net>
Subject: Re: "Brit-Am Now"-849
Dear Yair
Re. Race and colour.

It's simple really. God made man, plants and animals with a capacity for
variety. What God has made is good. Therefore, no argument.
Shalom
Dennis McGinlay


Publications
NOW INDEX