Ten Tribes Studies (5 January 2016, 24 Tevet, 5776)
Contents:
1. New Article. Dan and Ireland.
"Into the Mystic: The Quest for the Tribe of Dan" by Dr. Richard Griffith
2. Stephen Phillips: The Tribe of Asher in Sweden
3. Paul Porter: Some Difficult QuestionsÂ
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
1. New Article.
Dan and Ireland
"Into the Mystic: The Quest for the Tribe of Dan" by Dr. Richard Griffith
http://hebrewnations.com/articles/tribes/dan/ireland2.html
Extract:
The Irish soldiers,"Wild Geese", that fled Ireland for centuries would distinguish themselves in the American Revolution and Civil War, and also in wars of national liberation around the globe. At home the Irish would engage in a centuries long guerrilla warfare culminating in the 1916 uprising, a fulfillment perhaps of the prophecy of the manner of warfare employed by the tribe of Dan, with the Irish biting at the heels of the British empire. The Irish also would be known for their quest and involvement in the administration of justice. In the United States and abroad the Irish would be overly represented in the legal profession, police forces, unions, and civil rights movements.
If the above is correct then it is time for modern researchers to renew this quest and to highlight these remarkable possible connections. The serpent's trail lends itself to visual depiction and the quest for national justice on the part of Dan to the oppression so many have experienced in this world. The last part of the prophecy for Dan echoes a cry made by many peoples in this world. "I look for your deliverance, O Lord."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
2. Stephen Phillips: The Tribe of Asher in Sweden
Re: Brit-Am Now no. 2551
http://hebrewnations.com/features/now11/2551.html
#4. Orjan Svensson: Scania as New Canaan in relation to surrounding areas
Shalom Yair
I cannot comment on Blekinge, but a Germanic tribe known as Ahelmel anciently settled in and around what is today known as Halmstad in Sweden. Ahelmel is a metathesis of Malchiel, this being one of sons of Asher. It is quite possible that the name Mlehim mentioned by Orjan Svensson is another variant spelling of this same name. Metatheses were far more common than most academics would like to admit. It would be helpful if Orjan was a bit more specific about his source for this name as I cannot find anything to validate his claim.
Regards,
Steve
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
3. Paul Porter: Some Difficult Questions
Dear Mr Davidiy,
I came across this site four weeks ago and l have found the articles very interesting. The content and related topics are presented in a professional manner that aids digesting the narrative in a logical way. Given the complexities undertaken, this certainly does merit praise!
I have yet to read your books but l am currently awaiting delivery of my first order and looking forward to reading it.
In the meantime, l have read most of the available material on offer on the Brit-Am website.
I am a reader of world history with a particular interest in the origin of the people of the British Isles (especially relating to Northumbria/ Durham/ Cumbria/ Yorkshire). It was this search that led me to this connection. Also, l have always been puzzled as to why a small island nation of people (British Isles) 'punched' way above its weight on the world stage. Britain's emergence upon the world stage is truly amazing given that any rational argument levelled at such an event ever happening could maybe only be described as a blessing! British endeavour has left an indelible mark on the thread of history.
The subject matter that compels me to write to you today concerns the relationship between Ephraim and Manessah during the past 100 years ( relatively speaking). If l can accept the conjecture postulated that Great Britain is Ephraim and that the USA is Manessah, then it would logically follow that this relationship should be examined in both scripture and politics.
My own research into the history of these two nations over the past 100 years has NOT been as amiable as presented by some of the articles available to read on this site. It is maybe common knowledge that this relationship has been fractious going back further in history but in the context of my enquiry to yourself, l wish to direct your attention specifically to the period encompassing WW1, WW2 to the present.
I think it is only reasonable to research both country's foreign policy in relation to the World and assess where there was mutual agreement. It is my considered opinion that with the exception of a few, American politicians were hostile in respect of Great Britain. The Empire that Britain acquired was frankly viewed as something evil and that had to go! This outlook was reflected by the wider American public as amongst politicians and authors alike.
It was with reticence that the USA got involved with WW1. At that time, American public opinion both within the home and within the Senate was that the war was a European problem and not something that the USA should involve itself in. This isolationist mentality l can empathize with and certainly would not criticize American society for this viewpoint. The USA did eventually enter this war after much deliberation which was crucial in bringing the conflict to an end.
It was after this war that the British Empire truly began to decline. The war had a huge impact on Britain both economically and as a military power. British politics at that time was facing the reality that the Empire was too large to support.It was at this time that the USA truly began to emerge as the next superpower. The USA benefited commercially during WW1 and Britain was now in a weaker state owing millions of dollars to the USA in the form of loans that it would struggle to pay. I couldn't help but notice some American commentators at that time were positively gloating at the imminent demise of the British Empire.
At this point, l would prefer to go directly to WW2. I accept that l am skipping much of the history between these two junctions. I will also accept that l am not referencing my source material which l would do if l was presenting an historical record of facts. Whilst l am alluding to the historical facts, l am offering my opinion based on my own research. I believe that your are an erudite scholar who can form his own opinion on the subject matter.
Referring back to WW2, the USA was again reticent on involving itself in another war in Europe. Whilst F.D.R. was certainly sympathetic to the plight of Britain at that time and wished to help, much of the American Congress did not share his view. F.D.R. did undertake to draft some early resolutions through Congress to aid Britain without success. Churchill certainly was humiliated in Washington in the early stages of the war and the disclosure that Britain was bankrupt also fell on deaf ears! The Lend-Lease articles that F.D.R. proposed to Congress offered aid to Britain whilst offering succor to those within the American political system that did not wish to extend any help to Britain whatsoever. At the risk of sounding a little ungrateful , l would hardly describe the release of fifty mothballed US navel vessels in exchange for leasing territories within the Caribbean from British control ( Ephraim leasing his birthright?) as a good deal for Britain. These vessels were needed to shore up the R.N. after the fall of France. Britain feared invasion and it is, in my view, why Churchill took the monumental decision to scupper the French fleet.
It was a combination of organisation, radar, the aerial capability of Hurricane and Spitfire aircraft and the pilots who flew them that prevented the Nazis from invading Britain. It is also fair to say that the seas around the British Isles played no small part in this crucial victory.
It was the Japanese decision to attack the American fleet in Pearl Harbour that jolted American reticence to come to the aid of his 'brother'.
The "Special Relationship " is often used when referencing British /USA relations today.. I can accept that it was indeed Puritan Protestant Christians who left these shores ( England) who went on to establish thirteen colonies on the east coast of America with considerable help from some of the native people's to survive the hard winters that birthed a new nation. However, l am equally mindful that every July fourth, America reminds itself that it won a war against tyranny ( the British crown) and celebrates this event with a passion. I am merely pointing out that there is No brotherly love shown here!
With reference to Ephraim and Manessah, l did not come across a scripture that said that one brother would take a portion of the birthright from the other.Â
Given the enormous consequences of both WW1 and WW2 in relation to both Israel and Judah in the world today, why was there no apparent mention of this in Scripture?
I would appreciate your viewpoint on this.Â
In closing, l have attempted to proffer my opinion in a rational way. I stress that though you may not agree with me, l am confident in my assertion that the historical facts reflect my viewpoint even though l have presented from a pro British position.
Yours sincerely,
Paul Porter.
===============================
Brit-Am Preliminary Reply:
Shalom,
Your e-mail was quite interesting. It has touched on several complex issues.
(a) You are saying that the USA did not really act with the necessary fraternal characteristics we would have expected. The interplay between the USA and Britain may be that of Ephraim and Manasseh but you find it difficult to encompass.
(b) You also ask why does Scripture not relate to WWs 1 and 2 and the State of Israel?
We hope to prepare an article on these matters.
Meanwhile if any of our readers wish to add their comments and insights they are welcome to do so.