Date:  Thu Jun 20, 2002  11:52 am

1.

Subject: Re: "Brit-Am Now"-36: Dankenbring

Dear Mr. Davidi;
I believe that who is Great Britain and who is the U.S in terms of Menneshe
and Ephraim; are as you say. The main influence of a migrating people and
caring with them the "blessing of the tribes" as G-d gave them and that they
are irrevocable.
At the sametime, I also see that G-d works in dividing, multiplying,
transforming and making one again. Example in point many of my "wild
enthusisatic" Emphramite friends" under the tutilege of the Holy Torah are
being transformed, they are becoming more refined, orderly, a new dignity in
upon them and how they treat others, while maintaining enthusiasm for G-d and
His word. Like lightening rods. A rod is formed and ordered but has has a
great fire and punch as well.
So all the "lost tribes" will be rolled up into two houses, remember David
and Jonatan's covenant, and then finally when Messiah comes one house the
"House of Elohim". I see with many other duties of Messiah; He'll show us
which of the 12 gates to walk through.
I am so thankful for the great faithfulness of the tribe of Judah in carrying
out G-d's Word; that we may have you all to help us gain further
understanding.
We must always remember much of today's great ruckus in the world is the
affect of G-d's great transformation of a people who were not His people into
people now His people. Can you imagine the great turbulence during the
creation week?
The most important thing to me of the Brit Am message is:
1) additional proof that G-ds' word is real, His promises are true
2) to remember to bless everyone who knows they may be a hidden Israelite;
and I don't want to incur a curse
3) great understanding of the turbulence in the world today
A very famous Rabbi said, If you understand the 7 day creation week; you can
understand the 7th millenium.
Love, Health, Safety and Indurance To All
Ms. Jan

2.
From: Steven Collins <scollins@l...>
Subject: Ephraim and Manasseh

Shalom Yair,
After reading the article from Bill Dankenbring asserting that Ephraim =
the USA and Manasseh = the British, I thought I'd respond as I believe the
evidence supports an identification that the USA is primarily Manasseh and
the British are primarily Ephraim.
I respect Bill Dankenbring's views and I'm very familiar with his arguments
on the subject. We have respectfully disagreed on this subject for years.
At the outset, I'd like to put the issue in perspective. In discussing the
tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh in the latter days, Genesis 49 makes
absolutely no distinction at all between the two tribes; it simply (and
jointly) calls them "Joseph" in Gen. 49:22-26. So, whichever way one views
these modern identifications, it makes no difference in their respective
roles in prophecy. What befalls the one will also befall the other.
Now let's look at biblical and historical evidence.
When Jacob/Israel blessed Ephraim and Manasseh, Joseph was displeased that
his father put his right hand on the younger son, Ephraim, and the left
hand on Manasseh, his oldest son. Joseph knew the right hand symbolized
the greater blessing and he thought that it should go to his oldest son.
However, Israel said it was God's will that Ephraim would be "set before"
Manasseh (Gen. 49:20). In view of this, Ephraim should receive the greater
blessing and receive it "before" Manasseh.
In world history, the British Empire dominated world geopolitics for
centuries. It also dominated the oceans for centuries with its powerful
navy. In comparison, the USA has been dominant in world politics only
since WW-2 (a period of mere decades). When one looks at this "blessing" in
a broad, historical perspective, it is easily seen that the British
dominated world geopolitics for much, much longer than the USA ever has!
Also, the British received their blessing first ("before") the USA even as
Ephraim's blessing was "before" Manasseh's.
Ephraim dominated the Parthian Empire, which bore the names of the clans of
Ephraim among its founding groups. Its brother empire, Scythia, was
dominated by the Massagetae (Manasseh). The eagle (and the war sign of a
clump of arrows) was one of the primary heraldic symbols of the
Scythians/Massagetae. The eagle symbolism was not nearly as evident in
Ephraim/Parthia. Therefore, the eagle and clump of arrows symbolism
identifies Manasseh, not Ephraim. These symbols are clearly identified with
the USA.
Also, we need to apply literally the prophecy that Ephraim would become a
"multitude or fullness" of nations. The British Empire included a number
of genuinely sovereign "nations," in a real, literal sense. Besides Great
Britain, fellow British nations included Canada, Australia, New Zealand,
South Africa and the former Rhodesia. The larger British Commonwealth also
included dozens of other real "nations" in its membership. In contrast,
the USA has been one, single, sovereign nation throughout its existence.
It involves considerable linguistic circumlocution to identify the 50
American states as "nations" in any literal sense. None of the 50 states
are sovereign in their own right, and none of them consider themselves to
be sovereign nations. No other nation in the world recognizes any US state
as a "nation" in any sense of the word. The states are simply regional
sections within an overall American "nation." This strongly identifies the
USA as Manasseh because Gen. 48:19-20 prophesied Manasseh would become "a
people" (one nation) but Ephraim would become "a multitude of nations."
The British Empire fulfilled the prophecy about Ephraim as the British
people founded a group of real and distinct "British" nations. Indeed, God
may have guided the outcome of the American Civil War to ensure that the
USA would remain as one nation as Manasseh was not to be split into a
multitude of nations, like Ephraim. Our American pledge of allegiance
recognizes the reality of America being "one nation, under God,
indivisible..." God's prophecies are literal and real! America is "one
nation" with 50 states, not 50 nations.
Also, when Jacob/Israel blessed Ephraim and Manasseh, there were already
twelve tribes of Israel (Joseph was one of them). When Jacob/Israel's
blessing divided Joseph into two tribes, it is clear that the placement of
his right hand on Ephraim's head made Ephraim the prime inheritor of the
blessing and Manasseh the secondary inheritor of the blessing. This,
inevitably, retained Ephraim as the 12th tribe (the dominant blessing) but
it "grandfathered in" Manasseh as a new 13th tribe. I agree with Bill
Dankenbring on the importance of the number 13 being indelibly stamped on
the USA, which began with 13 colonies. I make that same point in my book.
However, the biblical blessing of Jacob indicates Manasseh will be the
tribe linked to the number 13!
Deuteronomy 33:17 is often used by those who want to link Ephraim to the
USA, but this verse actually supports identifying Ephraim as the British
Empire at its height, not the USA at its (current) height. Let's look at
the arithmetic! This verse cannot possibly mean that God intended
Ephraim's population to be ten times that of Manasseh! If that were the
case, Manasseh would be no more than a minor tribe among the Israelite
tribes. Also, the two tribes were given equivalent, closely-linked
blessings in Genesis 48, there is no hint whatsoever in the prophecy that
Ephraim would be given ten times the portion of Manasseh's blessing! Also,
if we look at biblical censuses in Numbers 1 and 26, we see that while
Ephraim's population was somewhat larger than Manasseh's after the tribes
left Egypt, the tribe of Manasseh had a substantially larger population
than Ephraim when they entered the Promised Land (Number 26). This was
reflected in the reality that Manasseh received a much larger territorial
allotment than Ephraim in the Promised Land. But was there any time in the
Bible (or history) that either tribe had a 10-1 advantage over the other in
population? Never! Nor was any such lopsided population advantage ever
prophesied in the Bible for either of the "brother" tribes.
While the USA is much larger in population than the UK, analysis reveals
the differential is much less than one would at first assume. One also has
to add the populations of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and part of South
Africa to that of the UK to get an approximation of Ephraim's population.
Also, the USA's actual "Manassehite" population is considerably smaller
when one deducts (A) the population of those groups with non-Israelite
ethnic backgrounds and (B) regional pockets whose ancestries are Israelite,
but apparently from a tribe other than Manasseh.
However, when Deut. 33:17 is understood to be a prophecy about the
respective sizes of the future EMPIRES of Ephraim and Manasseh, the
prophecy can be seen as having been literally fulfilled in world events.
The saying used to be that "the sun never sets on the British Empire!" The
British dominated a vastly larger population of people in their Empire than
the USA ever did in its overseas possessions. Britain dominated half of
North America, all of Australia, much of Africa and the sub-continent of
India in its Empire, all of which was governed from its European homeland
in the British Isles. Deut. 33:17 is a prophecy about the number of people
to be "pushed together to the ends of the earth" by each tribe. It does
not say "Ephraim will have ten times the population of Manasseh. If that
meaning was intended by the prophecy, then it failed (!) as Ephraim has
never outnumbered Manasseh by a 10-1 margin in history (indeed, the most
recent biblical census on the tribes in Numbers 26 indicated that it was
God's will to make Manasseh the more populous tribe). However, if this is
a prophecy about the population of nations to be dominated by each tribe in
its Empire, then it has literally been fulfilled. With its dominion over
India alone in its Empire, the British controlled an empire which was 10-1
bigger in population than America's direct "empire" ever was.
Since God's "covenant" was primarily on the tribe of Joseph, and Ephraim
was the prime inheritor of the blessing, the word "covenant" should
identify who is Ephraim! And so it does. The word "Brit-ish" in Hebrew
means "Covenant Man."
Also, in the divided kingdom of Israel, the capital city was Samaria,
located in the tribe of Ephraim's territory. The Kings of Israel always
were seated in the territory of Ephraim, the leading tribe! Based on this
clear historical/ biblical precedent, we should expect the modern monarchy
to be seated in the modern tribe of Ephraim! And so it is! The Kings of
England reign from modern Ephraim (Westminster Palace in London) just as
they did in ancient Ephraim. Ancient Manasseh never hosted a monarchy and
never indicted any desire to do so! Manasseh does not have a
pro-monarchial trait like Ephraim. Indeed, modern Manasseh (the USA) was
founded in a desire to not be subject to or host to any king! Ephraim is
the pro-monarchy tribe and that nation is unmistakably Great Britain in the
modern world. It is the British which are loyal to "the Royal Family," not
the Americans.
There is more that could be said on this subject, but I think the above is
more than enough to confirm the identifications of the USA as primarily
Manasseh and the British as primarily Ephraim.
Steve Collins