"Brit-Am Now"-943
Contents:
1. Steve Coneglan: Subject: NZ and Oz
2. Question on "Feeling Welcome" and Re-unification
3. Questions on Bohemians, Faris of Lebanon, and Tea Tephi
4. Andrew: "Keep 'em coming"
5. Brit-Am News
####################################################


1. Steve Coneglan: Subject: NZ and Oz
re "Brit-Am Now"-940
#1. Craig Blackwood: Comparisons between Australians and New  Zealanders

Greetings Yair!

Great to see the discussion in recent posts concerning New Zealand and Australia. I treasure the contributions made by yourself, Shaul and Craig over the last week or two. They certainly give subscribers a greater picture of who we Kiwis and Aussies are. We may not be the most prominent of the tribes of Israel today, but in many things I feel we are leaders.

Recently, Craig has brought a wealth of information to the table, and I think this is tremendously important. The personal insights, experiences and value judgments that we each have tell us as much about who we are as does the historical record and the Biblical narrative. I noticed that one of Craig's posts immediately followed the recent rugby test between New Zealand and Australia, in which us Kiwis managed to reverse the result from a few weeks prior. I'm glad Craig mentioned the rugby, as I see it as being the quintessential Israelite sport, for many reasons. Indeed, Australia seems to excel at all sports, with New Zealand not far behind.

I enjoyed the background information Craig gave regarding the colonisation of NZ and Oz. There are differences, and these are important. Oz was, of course, a penal colony. And NZ, as Craig poignantly remarks, was settled largely by those who had missed out on the family birthright. Both these observations are of extreme interest, as they are a possible pointer to Oz being Simeon, and NZ being Reuben. Craig also notes the big brother attitude that exists between Aussies and Kiwis, which is most certainly there. I wonder if the reason us Kiwis get a bit resentful of the Aussies at times is because we are Reuben, the older brother, and they are Simeon, the younger yet far more forceful brother, as it was in Scripture. Is it the role reversal that subconsciously bugs us Kiwis? Please note that this is only a moot point, as I haven't as yet attempted to present my case that NZ might conceivably be Reuben.

Craig makes good points about Kiwis' ability as sailors, and our attraction to the water. While a Zebulunite was the first European to discover NZ, it is not true to say we have much of a Dutch population. They didn't feature at all prominently in early migration to NZ. I think the symbol of water ties us more to Reuben than any other tribe. He is the son of the turbulent waters (Genesis 49:4), and his brigade emblem was referred to by Balaam when the latter prophesied that his seed would be in many waters (Numbers 24:7), these being the waters of the South Pacific(?).

This last prophecy is worth pausing on. Reuben's brigade emblem figured a man pouring water. This symbol harmonises with the idea of colonisation. Both Reuben and Simeon were in the southern section of the encampment, and, along with Gad, travelled under this great banner. I strongly contend that the Scots are to be understood as Gad today. Could it be that all three tribes now have representation in the South Pacific? Both NZ and Oz have major Scottish immigrant populations. Moreover, the flags of both NZ and Oz feature mainly the colour blue, officially representing water. The Aussie flag has six stars, and the Kiwi flag has four stars, with stars symbolic of seed, among other things. At Genesis 46:9,10 we learn that Simeon had six sons, while Reuben had four sons. Is there anything in this symbolism on the two flags? His seed, indeed, being in many waters?

Like Craig, I identify NZ with Joseph. I also identify Oz with Joseph. But I do so with Genesis 48:5 as the guiding principle. I believe Israel put Joseph in charge of Reuben and Simeon prophetically. These two natural firstborn sons of Israel were, I believe, to be found as part of Joseph, the inheritor of the birthright. Indeed, Ephraim (British Joseph) brought Simeon to Australia in chains once Manasseh (American Joseph) had gained independence (see Genesis 42:24). Prior to American independence, North America had been Britain's penal colony. Hence, there is a very close connection between the recent history of Manasseh and Simeon, which yet continues with official Australian support of America in the war on terror. By way of contrast, NZ was, as Craig says, colonised by the second son who had missed out on the inheritance back home. Sounds very much like Reuben, who was passed over for the birthright in favour of Joseph. And when it comes to Joseph, Ephraim was placed before Manasseh. In Scripture, this is symbolised by the crossed arms and hands of Jacob-Israel, which are found today on the NZ and Australian flags both in the Union Jack, and in the stars, which in each case are described officially as signifying the Southern Cross constellation.

Both Kiwis and Aussies excel at farming, and lead the world in sheep-keeping and in wool products. This is entirely in keeping with the southern tribes of Reuben, Simeon and Gad, who were the sheep-keepers of all the twelve tribes (Numbers 32; 1 Chronicles 4:39-43; and 1 Chronicles 5:18-22). Some points of interest from these verses concern the roles of Gad and Manasseh. When Manasseh (American Joseph) gained independence from Ephraim (British Joseph), Gad (Scotland) was already officially in union with Ephraim (Great Britain). From Joseph, East Manasseh was the primary sheep-keeping tribe. Perhaps this branch of Joseph-Manasseh relates to Simeon, and is found in Australia today, whereas Ephraim relates more to Reuben and New Zealand(?).

Craig notes - and I agree fully with him on this - that Kiwis are racially tolerant, tend to negotiate, try to reason, and are more patient than Aussies, who, he says, are less racially tolerant, and more likely to resort to force. These same words could just as easily be used to describe the differences between Reuben and Simeon. Reuben was definitely the merciful one of all Joseph's brothers, the only one who tried to reason and negotiate in defence of Joseph's life (Genesis 37:19-22,29,30; Genesis 42:21,22). Simeon was infinitely more forceful than Reuben, and far less racially tolerant (Genesis 34:25,26). I wonder if Craig's reference to the everpresent Aussie baiting of Kiwis, specifically the sheep jokes, is a veiled racial memory of Reuben's disgraceful act in lying with Bilhah(?).

I welcome the thoughts of others on the subject of Kiwis and Aussies. If anyone has something to add, please do! As yet I haven't made a case for Reuben being New Zealand, but in the past I have submitted several evidences for why I believe Simeon to be Australia (see "Brit-Am Now" - 777). When my time is freed up, I will endeavour to write up my case for NZ being Reuben. This does not mean that Reuben is not to be found elsewhere. He might well also be in France, or some other place. My contention is that he is predominantly to be found in NZ, alongside Simeon, who is predominantly in Oz; this in fulfillment of what I believe Jacob really meant with his prophetic utterance at Genesis 48:5.

God bless you, Yair,

Stephen Coneglan

####################################################
2. Question on "Feeling Welcome" and Re-unification
 

From: Juan
Subject: Shalom!!!!


Shalom Yair,

I just want to make a comment on some discussions you have posted on your
website.

First of all I want you to know that I see a lot of truth on the research
you have done and that I do believe most of the conclusions you have come
up with. I've been reading about the discussion on Judah and Ephraim, and
the conflicts between both brothers.

The main point I will like to emphasize here is simple: When God created
man he wanted man to obey him, after that when God gave the Torah to the
people of Israel (the 12 tribes) He did that with the only purpose of
giving them His will, he was giving Israel the manual to live according to
His will, so they could be His people and He could be their God.
Additional to this, the idea was that Israel be the instrument that would
be an example to the nations and that eventually would make the nations to
ask for the ways of Yaacov and join Israel in their obedience of the Torah
(God's will). God loves human kind, and He choose Israel as a redemption
instrument, to bring all nations to obey him, that is, obeying the Torah.

The way I see it, when someone feels the need to reunite with Israel, to
their beliefs and most important to the Torah, he should be welcome, since
the Torah states that we (as Israel) have to welcome and love any
foreigner that wants to join us, leave his pagan ways and obey God.

shalom to everybody

Juan
"That which you would hate done to yourself, don't do unto others"...

Shalom, sorry for the delay in answering.
In principle you are right but matters are not so simple.
We have proofs and criteria as to who belongs to Israel.
http://www.britam.org/criteria.html
http://www.britam.org/Proof/ProofsIntro.html
All these however apply more to entire bodies of people and not so much to the
individual.
No-one as a private person can really provide proof acceptable to others that they are descended from the Lost
Ten Tribes.
Based on Brit-Am evidence etc one can advance sound reasonings that one most likely
IS of Hebrew origin. This should be acceptable to all those who agree with Brit-Am
but at the moment that is not an overwhelming majority.
As we have said many times the message of Brit-Am needs to be spread much more
before anything along the desired direction can take place.
In the meantime we can each find our own way, improve ourselves, and perhaps help Brit-Am to
fulfil its task.
God bless you
Yair Davidiy

####################################################
3. Questions on Bohemians, Faris of Lebanon, and Tea Tephi
 

Shalom Yair Davidy!

Question 1;
I have some ancesters named Boehm or Beem who came from the Saxony Germany area.
However, as I researchhed this name, I found that the Boehm or Beem surname came was given to this people because they were Bohemian.  When I researched where the Bohemians came from, it said from the tribe of Boii or galli boii in northern Italy.  However, they were not Italian, but wanderers.  The original spelling that they were called when they left northern Italy and made their way into Saxony near Silesia, was Boehemum which sounds a lot like Benjamin.  Is it possible that they could be decendants of the tribe of Benjamin and migrated from Israel into northern Italy?  This group was against the Romans and fought them. Could they be from Benjamin?

Second question is this;
I have relatives named Farris and I recently found other spellings of this name include Pharez which I know is from the tribe of Judah.  These Farris' may have come from Scotland originally or England but I don't know.  Someone on a genealogy site said that there were many people in Lebanon with this surname.  However, my ancestors were not Lebanese.
I wondered, since many Jews went into Lebanon to hide during invasions, if this name Farris originated with the tribe of Judah, and came from the Middle East into Scotland and England.  Do you know if Farris is connected to Pharez in the Bible?

Third Question
My ancestry goes back supposedly to the early Kings of Scotland and Ireland through a line name Irvin or originally Eryvine in Scotland.  I found that King Duncan l is supposed to be from this line of Eryvine's.  In looking up his line, it goes back on genealogical charts to Zedekiah's daughter who left with Jeremiah into Egypt and from there across the Sea to Ireland.  I do not know if this is a true story or not, but this chart shows all the names of all the Kings going back to her Tamar or Tea Tephi.
This could be a mythological story but I have no way of knowing.
Have you ever heard this, or do you know if the early Kings of Scotland go back to this person?  G-d had promised Jeremiah his life, but there is no more record of where he went.

Thanks for your help, Shalom Kim Ballard

Answers:
Concerning the Celtic Boii who gave their name to Bologna in Italy, Bohemia in Czechia, and Bavaria in Germany more research needs to be done and is worth doing.
In our book "The Tribes" we have made some tentative identifications.
http://britam.org/the-Tribes.html
We have also established Criteria with which we work to determine who is or is not
of Israelite descent.
http://www.britam.org/criteria.html
http://www.britam.org/Proof/ProofsIntro.html
We are always open to new ideas and additional possibilities.
To take your suggestion concerning a Benjaminite identification
seriously we would require much more evidence.

Faris is an Arab name found throughout the Arab world as far as I know.
I know not its origin or meaning.

Regarding Tea Tephi post an entry in our Brit-Am Web Site
Search Engine
http://britam.org/SearchEngines.html
You will probably get hundreds of answers since we have dealt with this subject on numerous
occasions.
Steven Collins believes in it.
I am not so sure and still fail to see its significance.
If it is true it means according to DNA that good old Tea may have been a great-great-[ad infinitum]
grandmother of mine.

David had millions of descendants and if we are counting both male and female lines
and switching from one to the other probably tens (or hundreds) of Millions.
In fact if we do not care about direct lines of descent may be nearly ALL of us today
have some portion of David in them, at least in theory.

####################################################
4. Andrew: "Keep 'em coming"
Subject: Re: Psalms 79

In a message dated 7/29/2007 12:21:07 AM Central Daylight Time, britam@netvision.net.il writes:
<<No matter when they may claim the Psalms were written everyone agrees
that Psalms such as these date from before the destruction of the
Second Temple.
Onl;y after the Second Temple were verses such as these really
pertient and descriptive.



Yair,

    The kind of Scriptural authenticity presented above is exactly the kind of medicine those of us who want to believe need. Keep 'em coming.

Andrew
 ####################################################
    5. Brit-Am News
(a) Your beloved Brit-Am Director, Yair Davidiy, had (of all things)
an attack of gout.
Gout is popularly depicted as a rich man's disease associated with
people like Alexander the Great and Henry-viii and with rich food and drink.
[Is there something somebody is not telling us?]
Seriously,  gout also attacks poor people and may be caused by genetic predisposition,
stress, and too much of certain kinds of foods some of which (fish, honey, etc)
are normally considered healthy.
Anyway according to the Wikipedia article on the subject gout is supposed to leave as suddenly
and as completely as it arrived, -until its next visit.
We are feeling better now than we were last week and hopefully within a day or so will be back
to our old healthy vibrant self.
(b) The web-site this month will probably register an average number of 1,900 visits per day or close to it.
The increase is due in part to a "rucus" caused by our articles on DNA.
(c) They who ordered our new books should be receiving them about now or not too far away from now.
Please send your reactions.
The books look good and contain important information.
"Role to Rule. The Task of Joseph" reads well and has an innovative reader-friendly format
we are pleased with.
Book orders seem to be almost standing still.
People are not ordering books.
They are also not sending us offerings.
WE NEED BOTH.
Brit-Am has much to offer please help Brit-Am to keep doing what it can.
God bless you all
Yair Davidiy