Details on How To Contribute to Brit-Am
http://britam.org/contribute-Brit-Am.html
Brit-Am Now no. 1543
The Lost Ten Tribes of Israel Movement
15 July 2010, 4 Ab 5770
Contents:
1. New Article and You Tube Video Clip
The Khazars
were NOT Turks!
2. TG Asks Questions and Makes Statements and is Replied to:
Khazars
and Scottish Picts;
Ashkenaz
and Jews; Hungarians and Khazars;
Converts
3. Joan Griffith: King Tut
Irish???
4. C.E.
Calahn:
H.W.
Armstrong and Stephen Collins
5. Jim Wright: Garner Ted Armstrong and his work
1. New Article and You Tube Video Clip
The Khazars
were NOT Turks!
http://britam.org/KhazarsNOTTurks.html
Extract:
The Khazars were Hebrews. The Khazars were not a Turkish group as is often
claimed. Yair Davidiy from the Brit-Am Ten Tribes Movement explains why the
Khazars were not Turkic.
The Ruling House of the Khazars was known as Ansa in Arabic and in another
Arabic source as Ayishai. Both these forms Ansa and Ayishai are considered the
equivalent as the Hebrew "Yishai" i.e. Jesse. The House of Jesse i.e. the
House of David.
2. TG Asks Questions and Makes
Statements and is Replied to:
Khazars
and Scottish Picts;
Ashkenaz
and Jews; Hungarians and Khazars;
Converts
TG wrote:
Re
The Khazars were from the Ten Tribes.
http://britam.org/KhazarsTenTribes.html
You are being imaginative again I see.
The art of a good argument, is of course supporting evidence to back up your
logic.
Where do you get this from,
Brit-Am said:
"The Khazars were also known as Agathyrsi and
according to Roman accounts a portion of the Agathyrsi crossed the sea and
became the Picts in Northern Scotland."?
Do you know what the problem with this is "
Brit-Am had said:
# Anti-Semites make use of the Khazars to attack the Jews,
Zionism, and the State of Israel. They say that the Khazars were a Turkish
Tribe who became Jewish and their descendants gave rise to all the Ashkenazic
Jews of Europe. The Jews are therefore impostors they say and not the People
of the Bible and have no ancestral claim to the Land of Israel. This is not
true. Even if it was true however it would not matter. #
Ashkenaz was a name given to the region of germanic migration in Europe as
used by Jews in Bavel [Babylon] c.2-3 century CE. Thats BEFORE Kazars ever
appeared! Any remaining Kazars, if they fled into Central Europe, would have
done so in Early Middle Ages, 1000 years later!
Kazars themselves claimed Turkic origins! There is evidence for this in
multiple sources. They were in fact the advanced tribes of a very large Turic
migration that the Ottomans were also a part of. The Uighurs of China today
were also part of this migration, but went East rather than West. A better
question remains, where did they all come from? You see, IF the Kazars did
convert to Judaism, and later fled into Central Europe, why are they not
genetically different to hereditary Jews? For that matter, why aren't other
East Europeans? Hungarians were also part fot he same migration, and at one
time were a subject tribe of the Khazars living in what is today Western
Ukraine. With the collapse of the Kazars they fled West, but they remain Turic.
Have you ever met a Hungarian? Until he/she starts speaking Hungarian, you
won't know where he/she is from....maybe even Ireland ;) One even sees blonds
and redheads among Hungarians, and not through intermarriage. Same is true for
most Turic tribes, just go to Turkey sometime.
This "The Bible allows the Jewish people to accept converts. Converts are
Jews. They have the same rights as everybody else (Exodus 22:20, Numbers
15:15, Ezekiel 47:22). They also have a right to the Land of Israel since God
promised it to the Israelite Nation as long as they acknowledge ONE GOD
(Genesis 17:8) and keep the Law (Leviticus 18:25)." is not true. Converts do
not have same halakhic rights, their children do. A convert is not a Levi or a
Kohen, and can not become a king.
I can say more, but this will do for now.
However, I know its falling on death ears since you are so set in your own
'world' that you can't hear reason.
TG
Brit-Am Replies:
Were have you been all this time TG? At least you seem just as pungent as ever.
Cant keep a good man down, can they?
Sergius a Romman writer commenting on Vurgil recorded the Agathyrsi moving to
Scotland and becoming Picts. Other sources also refer to this
and it would appear to receive some support from archaeological findings.
For details, See our book,
"The
Khazars.
Tribe 13"
http://www.britam.org/Khazarbook.html
We never said the Khazars were connected to Ashkenaz.
What does Ashkenaz have to do with it?
We mentioned the European or Ashkenazic Jews but they have little to do with
Ashkenaz!
In Medieval Times "Ashkenaz" was the name Jews came from Germany.
At one time many Jews dwelt in Alsace on the border of Germany or in Germany
itself. Then came the Crusades and other trouble and the Jews fled to the east.
In Eastern Europe they created new communities or became influential in existing
ones. Because they had come from what was considered "Ashkenaz" (i.e. Germany)
they were called Ashkenazim. No-one attributed to them any ancestral connection
to Ashkenaz as a person.
Similarly, Eastern Jews are often called "Sephardim" after Sepharad meaning
Spain. When the Jews were expelled from Spain they often went to the east. They
became a dominating element in Eastern Jewsih communities who adopted the
customs and forms of prayer the Spanish Jews (or "Sephardim") had brought with
them. Consequently the term "Sephardim" is sometimes applied to all of them even
though in many cases none of their ancestors ever had any contact with Spain
whatsoever.
See
Wikipedia,
Ashkenaz
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenaz
In the Bible, Ashkenaz
is Gomer's
first son, brother of Riphath
and Togarmah
(Gen. 10:3, 1 Chronicles 1:6), thereby a Japhetic descendant of Noah. A kingdom
of Ashkenaz
is called together with Ararat and
Minni
against Babylon (Jer.
51:27).
There is a theory that biblical
Askhenaz arose from
Ashkuz
(= the Scythians) by an old misread of (nun) for (vav).
Ashkenaz
is also regarded as the father of the Scythians,
Sarmatians,
and other Indo-Aryans, due largely to the use of the name "Ashkuz"
(Saka)
for the Scythians in Assyrian
Akkadian inscriptions. It may
also refer to the Phrygians, who according to Homer's Iliad settled around Lake
Ascania.
In rabbinic literature Ashkenaz
is believed to be the ancestor of the Germanic, Scandinavian and Slavic peoples,
probably due to the similarity of the names
Gomer
and German, and the similarity of
Ashkenaz
to the name of Ask, the first human male in Norse mythology, or
Aschanes
(Askanius),
mythological progenitor of the Saxons (see also:
Oisc
of Kent). For this reason,
Ashkenaz is the Medieval Hebrew
name for Germany.
Ashkenazi
Jews, also known as Ashkenazic
Jews or Ashkenazim (Standard Hebrew: sing. , pronounced [
ashkenazi],
pl. [ a shkenazim]
(this 'z' is pronounced as in English "zip", not German-fashion as "ts");
also Yehudei
Ashkenaz,
"the Jews of Ashkenaz"),
are descended from the medieval Jewish communities of the Rhineland.
Just for the record,
Ashkenaz was a son of Gomer. Gomer a son of Japhet son of Noah.
[Genesis 10:3] AND THE SONS OF GOMER; ASHKENAZ, AND RIPHATH, AND TOGARMAH.
Descendants of Ashkenaz are mentioned in the early Aramaic Translation of
Yehonatan and in Midrashim.
Peoples in northern Mesopotamia just to the south of the Caucasus area seem to
be intended.
Later Ashkenaz was identified with Germany though additional identifications of
Germany also existed.
The Khazars did not claim Turkic origins. This is a mistake.
See our article:
The
Khazars
were NOT Turks!
http://britam.org/KhazarsNOTTurks.html
The rest of your letter was a bit over my head or a bit confused or both.
Jewish DNA is different in more than 80% of the cases from that of East European
Gentiles. They may look similar but their DNA is quite different. Jewish DNA for
what it is worth is considered closest to that of North Italians and Italians in
the far south of Italy as well as that of Sardinia. Future studies may come up
with other results but this is what the bright boys are saying at present!
You are confusing Hungarians with Magyars. The Magyars were once subject to the
Khazars and Onogurs. The Magyars rebelled and fled to what is now Hungary. The
Magyars had been subject to the Khazar Onogurs. Onogurs means Ten Tribes. The
terms had become one of status and had been adopted by several groups in Central
Asia. [At one stage both Bulgars and Avars referred to themselves as Onogurs.]
The Onogurs who ruled over the Magyars were part of the Khazar Federation. [The
name "Hungary" derives from Onogur]. The Khazar-Onogurs were also known as
"White Ugrians" meaning Onogur Rulers whereas the Magyars were called Black Ugrians
meaning Onogur subjects. The name Magyars is a form of Maceri which is how their name
was also pronounced and is derived from Machir son of Manasseh. They received
this name from the Khazars who ruled over them and in Central Asia it was the
custom for subjects to take the name of their rulers. From the region of
southern Russia (and east of it) seven Magyar Tribes together with three Kabar
tribes rebelled against the Khazars and fled to Hungary. The origin of the
Kabars is not certain but they are often considered to be a branch of the
Khazars. We have our own explanation for that, but see our book, or remain in
doubt.
The Kabars may have settled in the Bihar region on the border of Romania and
Hungary. In Hungary the Magyars conquered Slavic and other peoples and imposed
upon them their language and aspects of their culture. At one stage Magyars
comprised ca. 40% of the Hungarian population. Later many of the Magyars were
killed off by other invaders, had lower birthrates, etc. Today it is estimated
that perhaps 13% of the Hungarian population is of original Mayar origin. Most
Hungarians however identify themselves as Magyars. They include the descendants of Slavs, Southern
Germans, and possibly also Jews who were assimilated amongst them.
Hungary is a very anti-Semitic country.
On the other hand Brit-Am has at least two exceptionally strong supporters of
Hungarian origin so there may be some Israelite elements still there or amongst those of them who migrated to North America, etc.
As for converts, you have a point.
We overstated the case. It could be a little more complicated than we stated.
This however does not really matter. Most Jews are not converts. In addition,
many of those who are converts actually descend from Jews or from the Ten
Tribes.
3. Joan Griffith: King
Tut
Irish???
King Tut Scottish?
How far can DNA theories stretch?
http://heritage-key.com/blogs/ann/king-tut-scottish
-how-far-can-dna-theories-stretch
Hi,
David Rohl has said in a video of one of his presentations that
Solomon must have married King Tut's widow, which I suggested to you
awhile back. If there was a family connection of some kind, all the
more reason Solomon might have found her acceptable and vice versa.
I've often wondered why Abraham etc went running to Egypt -- there
should have been other places they could have gone. `
They did not have to be specifically related to Abraham et al, but to
the people from whom they came (and returned to for obtaining wives).
The fact that Abraham married his sister and that the Egyptian royalty
did the same might be a link toward such a relationship. Apparently
the idea was to keep the lineage pure, like a breeding program. lol,
that looks odd in print, but it is what it is: something much more
important to the ancients than it is to us today.
The genetics of the Pharaohs changed now & then, as some are known to
be negroid and some are of light complexion. Now the genetics relate
Tut to the Scots-Irish! That does not mean the genetics of the ruled
people changed--just that of the rulers.
Hope this is not too confusing. The link above regarding the genetics
of King Tut info is just toooo inspiring-- :)
Joan
4. C. E.
Calahn:
H.W.
Armstrong and Stephen Collins
REGARDING H.W. Armstrong and his teaching about the ten lost tribes . I
also was a member and deacon for 17 years of his church . He had some things
right and his basic knowledge came from Joseph's Birthright and Judah's Scepter
by Rev. J.H. Allen , Destiny Publishers , Merrimac , Mass . Historically it is a
correct view and those who deny " The Ten Lost Tribes " are either ignorant or
have an agenda . The truth about the promise given to Abraham , Issac , and
Jacob show God's plan for mankind is going as He outlined it for us . However it
is a major blow to the evolution theory . Stephen Collins, The Lost Ten Tibes
Found , Israel's Lost Empires , The Origins and Empire of Ancient Israel and
Parthia and excellent references . C.E. Calahn
5. Jim Wright: Garner Ted Armstrong and
his work
From: Jim Wright <lumberguy2003@yahoo.com>
Re: Brit-Am Now no. 1542
Greetings Yair -
I often see people mention HW Armstrong's writings regarding the Lost Tribes,
but I haven't seen anyone mention his son, Garner Ted Armstrong's book.
HW Armstrong had some errors in his book, and he didn't use many sources - (none
if you read an early version).
But I have been putting out the Challenge for over 20 years for anyone to show
error or falsehood in Garner Ted's book, he documents every fact with reputable
sources it is concise and to the point, and is in my opinion the single best
source of info on the subject.
Your work is much more in depth and covers more than just Joseph, and is a 1000
times more extensive.
But as far as putting the entire matter into a nutshell his book is the best -
in my opinion.
And no one has been able to show any error or falsehood in the 20 years I have
been putting out the challenge - except he labeled a verse 2 Samuel when it
should have said 1 Samuel, and that error was corrected by his son Mark as soon
as I brought it to his attention.
Here is the link:
http://www.garnertedarmstrong.org/pubs/europe.htm
You are a researcher, and it is the nature of research to get into
theory and conjecture.
Garner Ted Armstrong as a servant of The LORD stuck with only hard verifiable
facts, and he wasn't too proud to use numerous outside sources, or to include an
extensive Bibliography - a major, major problem with his dad and his book.
Anyhow I will use this opportunity to issue the friendliest of challenges to you
to show error or falsehood in his book.
Bet you can't do it
But if anyone could - it would be you!!
Many Blessings on you, your family and your work -
Jim Wright
================================================
================================================
Brit-Am Reply:
We avoid criticizing the works of others in this field especially
when their viewpoint on the subject is compatible with our own.
I saw the work by Garner Ted some time ago.
Most of the works we have come across emanating from positive sources are worth
while. Each has its own attributes and advantages.
Different approaches suit different types.
Personally I think our work "Origin" is under-appreciated.
http://britam.org/origin.html
This work, "Origin", is not too long (only 124 pages of text and illustration),
easy-to-read, and comprehensive.
It deserves to be read more.
To Make an Offering to
Brit-Am:
http://www.britam.org/contribute-Brit-Am.html
Pleased with what you read'
The Brit-Am enterprise is a Biblical work.
God willing, they who assist Brit-Am will be blessed.
Brit-Am depends on contributions alongside purchases of our publications
Click Here to make an offering.
Click Here to view our publications.
|
'It is impossible to rightly govern the
world without
God or the Bible.'
George Washington
Brit-Am is the "still small voice" that contains the truth.
[1-Kings 19:12] AND AFTER THE EARTHQUAKE A FIRE; BUT THE LORD WAS NOT IN THE
FIRE: AND AFTER THE FIRE A STILL SMALL VOICE.
Home
