Ten Tribes Studies (6 December, 2012. 22 Kislev, 5773)
Contents:
1. Note on Israeli Pioneers: Correction and Request
2. Trevor Barnes:Â Need to Use Reliable Translations of the Bible
3. Daniel from Spain Asks about Finding Israelites in Other Places.
4. Yair Davidiy: Need to Decide on the Truth.
5. Globetrotter: Grammatical and Translational Points on Genesis 37:29
6. Debi Fields:Â The USA Shows Symptoms of Ephraim.
7. The Name Monash means Manasseh? A New Insight?
1. Note on Israeli Pioneers: Correction and Request
J. wrote:
Hello Mr. Davidiy,
The following link from newsletter #1970 (BATR-10 Brit-Am Tribal Researches at the bottom of the page) doesn't work
Brit-Am Reply:
Shalom,
It should be:
http://hebrewnations.com/features/batr/btr10.html
If you have not have told us we would not have known and many others would not have seen what they wished to.
These things happen and we thank people like yourselves who let us know about them.
God bless you
Yair
We have just begun reading a just released work,
"Rebels in the Holy Land.
Mazkeret Batya - An Early Battleground for the Soul of Israel " by Sam Finkel, Israel, 2012.
The author is a friend and neighbor of ours.
The book tells the story of a religious township first set up by eleven pioneer Jewish settlers in the 1880s when Palestine was ruled by the Turks.
When I was in the IDF I met one of the descendants of the first eleven pioneers. He was then a legal officer and he voluntarily helped me out of a very difficult situation. He displayed courage, enterprise, initiative, empathy, and individuality. In a way he too was a hero and showed himself a worth descendant of his ancestor.
I have just begun to read the work and later may write a review of it.
Anyway, these early settlers and those who came after them encounter fantastic difficulties and hardships day by day.
They believed in what they were doing and in the end one may say they succeeded.
We in Hebrew Nations should learn from them.
We are all in this together. Each one should do what they can.
Brit-Am/Hebrew Nations is in need of funding. Since our last recent appeals the situation has improved.
We still however have a little further to go and we have to get there.
All those who can help us in any way are requested to do.
We believe that this work is that of the Bible message. Whoever helps us shall be blessed for doping so.
May the God of Israel bless all of you.
Yair Davidiy
on behalf of Brit-Am/Hebrew Nations
====
====
2. Trevor Barnes:Â Need to Use Reliable Translations of the Bible
Re: Brit-Am Now no. 1970: Ten Tribes Studies
Hello Yair,
Maybe Bill Rasmussen is already familiar with different translations of the Bibles nowadays because of the fact that he highlighted a meaningful translation.The NIV, that is the New International Version-commonly known as the New International Per-version Bible amongst serious scholars is probably the easiest to read in its simplicity,unfortunately it is so far off the truth when explaining or trying to explain the House of Judah, the House of Israel and Israel/Jacob as a whole, ver mind other topics or names,etc..In some verses they get it right,but in the next chapter,or sometimes in the same chapter a couple verses away from each other they don't define them as separate.
Lastly the Amplified Bible is somewhat too flowery with all it's adjectives,which I am sure a lot of readers enjoy,but need to be careful that new students can lose the "strength" of the true meaning.There is a very important observation of the NIV and has been put on the net that it has 64 000 (sixty four thousand) words missing in it.Please let your readers know to get rid of that Bible yesterday.The KJV is probably the most accurate if you don't mind the old English,or opt at least for the NKJV Bible.
Bless you
trevor barnes.
====
====
3. Daniel from Spain Asks about Finding Israelites in Other Places.
Dani  Alavarez <danieulate@yahoo.es> wrote:
Shalom Steve:
There are tons of theories about different Jews or Israelites in general scattered all over the world like the Lemba, Mizoram Jews, Igbo/Heebo. Aparently Igbo/Heebo is the corrupted name for Hebrew. That's maybe why some Black African slaves thought of being Israelite. Many Black Americans are descended of them therefore many would have Hebrew blood.There is said there are 32 millions crypto jews latin america(plenty to overcome Arabs).The Japanese(or just the Hata clan) as a whole may be indeed Hebrews. In Israel the Druzes are rightwing Likud voters. In the M. East there some ethno-regious groups which may be Crypto-Jewish: Alevis, Alawites, Kurds, Berbers, Mandaeans, Druzes, Yazidis...(Maybe big pockets of the Lost Ten Tribes never went to Western Europe) If Syria gets divided into ethno-religious independent States after its civil war as well as Turkey this may make a new Federation of Greater Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates and accomplish the Promised Land given to Jacob/Israel. How about the claim that the "Palestinians" are actually Jewish that never went out of the Holy Land(or at least came back before XIX Century's Zionism or Main Zionism)? That might be revolutionary if the Palestinians join in mass Judaism again. Here are the links:
Palestinians are Jews (Discovering that the so called "Palestinians" are as Jewish as the Sephardic & Askenazic)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMCmUz7Z-9E
Japanese(at least Hata clan) are jewish
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhlkuGwEecY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uVVrePl9e8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pt5oHPNuLh0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flf5yx2IBrs&feature=endscreen&NR=1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_lcY1MIPmI
Other possibe Jewish/Israelites:
http://www.aramaic-dem.org/English/Daniel_Bart/Explaining_Pan-Jewish_Nationhood.htm
Hurrah for Israel !
Daniel, Pamplona, Spain
====
Brit-Am Reply:
Daniel Shalom,
If you look around our web-site (www.britam.org) and its excellent on-site search-engines and Index you will find many of the claims you brought up quoted and refuted.
In short some of your claims are remote possibilities concerning Lost Jews, some are baseless fantasies, and others are simply mistakes grounded in wishful thinking.
We concentrate on searching for the Lost Ten Tribes according to Biblical Sources as confirmed by Rabbinical Studies and Secular fields of study.
The Lost Ten Tribes are amongst certain western peoples.
That is where they are to be found.
Whosoever wishes to be true to the Bible must look for them where the Bible says they are.
Sorry if I disappoint you,
Yair
====
====
4. Yair Davidiy: Need to Decide on the Truth.
We still get queries from Ephraimites wanting to come to live in Israel.
It is time for all of you to decide whether or not you agree that the Lost Ten Tribes are where Hebrew Nations says they are.
Do you agree with us?
If you do, this is the message we have an obligation to spread.
All other considerations, at least for the time being, should be considered secondary.
Not only should they be considered secondary but also diversionary and divisive. Let us stick to the point and make it known.
This is what needs to be done and what we have an obligation to do: Spread and deepen the message as to who and where the Ten Tribes really are.
You need to help Hebrew Nations spread the message.
Without your help we cannot function and we believe we are needed for this cause.
Your help is what is needed to enable us to do what we can.
====
====
5. Globetrotter: Grammatical and Translational Points on Genesis 37:29
RE: Brit-Am Now no. 1970: Ten Tribes Studies
Shalom Yair
In response to Bill Rasmussen's post you wrote "Some Christian commentaries say the verse should be read: THY DWELLING SHALL BE [far away from] THE FATNESS OF THE EARTH: I do not know the source of this explanation and it does not fit the Hebrew as I understand it."
Of the various versions cited by Bill, the KJV (along with the NKJV, 21C, ASV, YLT, DT -- which all have an affinity with the KJV) appears to be the most accurate. Other 'modern' translations tend to be more eclectic, and include the Greek Septuagint (LXX) and other variant texts as sources.
Now although the LXX uses the phrase 'apo tes piotetos tes ges' (roughly: 'from/away from the fatness/richness of the earth') the Brenton translation of the LXX renders the text as "thy dwelling shall be OF the fatness of the earth" - so, in that translation, the Hebrew and 'Greek' are in agreement, albeit the actual Greek is tending toward a different 'sense'.
The KJV translators also used the Vulgate (Jerome's Latin translation of the LXX) as one of their sources. Coupled with that, Latin was the language of law, of scholars and of the clergy. Indeed the KJV (from which a number of other English translations 'emanated') replaced the Vulgate as the English Reformation gathered momentum.
Now in Latin, as in English, a noun can have various cases viz. Nominative (or Subjective, i.e. "the man came"), Accusative (or Objective, "he came to the man"), Genitive (or Possessive "the man's house"/"the house of the man") -- then two cases not found in English -- Dative ("to the man", in the sense of 'relative to the man'), and Ablative ("from/away from" or "of the man" -- where "of" is in the sense of 'relating to but separate from' or 'out of' rather that 'possessed by'). BTW, these explanations are not all-encompassing, and sometimes propositions used with them nouns change the sense or make the sense clearer.
Thus there arises the possibility of confusion from Latin to English between the Genitive and Ablative cases of the noun. In other words, does "of the man" mean "possessed by the man" (like a piece of land) or 'out of the man' (like a thought or the generation of children). Then juxtapose the English "of" (in the sense of "out of" or 'from') with "away from", and the Ablative can be translated "away from the man".
In Jerome's Vulgate translation, the Greek 'apo tes piotetos tes ges' becomes the Latin 'in pinguedine terrae' (there are no definite/indefinite articles in Latin, they have to be understood from the context). Here 'terrae' (of [the] earth) is the Genitive/Possessive case of the First Declension noun 'terra' (earth/the earth). In Latin the cases are denoted by the endings e.g. 'a, -am and 'ae, in first declension nouns. Had Jerome intended 'from/away from' in relation to the earth, he would have used the Ablative case of the noun, i.e. 'terra' (where the ending is the same as the Nominative and Dative cases). Hence Jerome is expressing both possession of and procession from 'terra' -- which seems to agree more with the Hebrew.
Therefore, when we revert to the translated English text of Gen 37:9 (through the Latin, from the Greek) we can get the two different senses: 1) "of [or out of] the fatness of the earth" and 2) "away from the fatness of the earth". Clearly, the former is correct.
Another source for the KJV translators was William Tyndale's 16th century translation. Tyndale translated the Old Testament directly from Hebrew. (For his efforts he was convicted of heresy, strangled and burned at the stake, at the behest of Henry VIII in 1536, whose divorce Tyndale opposed. Within 4 years, at the same king's behest, four English translations of the Bible were published - all based on Tyndale's.) Tyndale rendered this text as 'thy dwellynge place shall haue of the fatnesse of the erth' - i.e. the habitation of Esau shall 'have' OF the fatness of the earth.
My suspicion, therefore, is that the 'away from' rendering has partly to do with the concept and translations of their own time, and perhaps partly to do with translators reading an interpretation into the text.
However I am not a linguistic scholar, and this explanation is largely from my 1st year Latin class and the 'darker' vaults of my mind, some, 50 years ago, plus what I have learned in Greek and Hebrew since. So if anyone more qualified than I would like to develop the point further, or indeed refute it, please feel free.
Regards
John
====
====
6. Debi Fields:Â The USA Shows Symptoms of Ephraim.
From: Debi Fields <debi.fields@yahoo.com>
Subject: Ephraim, Mannaseh....which is which?
You left an invitation on your page that if we have anything to add to the discussion about the Ephraim/Mannaseh discussion, to say so here.
I just finished a presentation for local congregation on the hidden tabernacle of Moses in the wilderness of the USA. All the natural elements and components of the first tabernacle are hidden in the geography, natural resources and synchronistically placed landmarks of the United States. It doesn't happen in any other country on Earth but the United States. Not anywhere. At all.
I will be happy to send you my information when I get the video edited next week.
In the meantime, I find it odd that I do not see the fact that America rebelled against England based on TAXES, and that is what separated the two countries in the first place. Just as the 10 northern tribes rebelled against the House of Judah over what amounts to 'taxation', is it not fair to say that Ephraim, the LEADER of the 10 northern tribes, having instigated war the first time against the leaders over taxes, would repeat the pattern later during the Revolutionary War against England, and what they thought was unfair taxation? And it wasn't very many years when the United States would once again repeat the "North/South" rebellion in it's very own land, either. (Some people say slavery was the issue, but the truth is, it was about money more than anything else.)
I've gone back and forth over this myself; first Mannaseh, then Ephraim. Because of ALL the prophecies directed to Ephraim specifically, and finally, as of September 11, 2001, I think it's time to put the discussion permanently to rest.
Rabbi Jonathan Cahn wrote the book "The Harbinger" this past year, based on his perception of God's judgment on America during 9/11. It is absolutely true that the various and coincidental events surrounding 9/11 happened ONLY in America (the bricks are fallen, but we will rebuild with hewn stone, the sycamores are felled but we will replace them with cedars). This happened on American soil, per Isaiah 9:10, but it is in the two preceeding verses that God lays the final key into place:
The Lord sent a word against Jacob,
And it has fallen on Israel.
9 All the people will know, even
Ephraim and the inhabitant of Samaria.
Who say in pride and arrogance of heart:
10 “The bricks have fallen down,
But we will rebuild with hewn stones;
The sycamores are cut down,
But we will replace them with cedars.â€
That happened in America. Only America. "Ephraim and Samaria", spoke these words more than once out of the mouths of leaders, and even acted out precisely the entire scripture to a "T". Out of Jacob/Israel, is the "nation" upon which that "word" of judgment fell. Didn't happen in England, Scotland, Wales, Holland, Switzerland, etc. I simply do not think that now...after 9/11 corresponds with Israelite prophetic parallels to the very WORD..., that there can be any more dissension and discussion of "Who is Ephraim"? This should settle it for anyone who is not a die-hard with idols in his heart ,that America cannot be Mannaseh. America HAS "Mannaseh" components, but as a whole, leads the rest of the 10 into the last days as Ephraim.
Debi Fields
"When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at will change."
Brit-Am Reply:
Interesting points. Perhaps you should have read more of the numerous articles on this subject available from our web sites?
We agree that in our day the USA contains a good portion of all the Tribes.
The Sages said that in the End Times elements from Gilead of Manasseh would lead the way for the Ten Tribes to return.
The USA is refers to as "America" and America means Ha-Macheri i.e. Sons of Machir the first born son of Manasseh.
England means Land of the Angles; Angle is another form for Aegel which was a nick-name for Ephraim. It means bull-calf.
We have lot and lots of other points of similar nature proving our case identifying the USA with Manasseh and Britain with Ephraim.
We think people with other views should address what we say on the subject.
If they disagree then they should explain why.
====
====
7. The Name Monash means Manasseh? A New Insight?
 In our series on Esau/Edom that we are still continuing both through articles and YouTube clips it will be found that we mention quite often the fact the Edom came to be dominant amongst German elites and that Joseph was destined to be the major adversary of Edom. This will help us confirm even further the identity of Joseph with the English-speaking nations.
http://www.britam.org/Edom/EsauContents.html
http://hebrewnations.com/articles/bible/esau.html
Recently we recalled the contribution of General John Monash to the Allied Victory on World War-1
See:
BHR-93.
#3. How Jewish General John Monash Leading Australian Troops Helped Greatly to Win WW1.
Monash in effect shares some of the credit for the final defeat of the German forces which incidentally included those of the Austro-Hungarian and Turkish Empires.
The Turkish Empire was in fact as much as Islamic-Arabic as Turkish. We thus had Ishmael under the Turks and Esau under the German-Prussians and Austro-Hungarians aligned against Joseph meaning Britain and her offshoots and the USA. Reuben in France and Benjamin in Belgium were also of importance. The involvement of Britain was at least partly due to the defence of Belgium.
This foreshadows the final showdown when Ishmael and Edom combine against Israel and Judah.
Incidentally the contribution of Australia (as wll as that of Canada) was very important in World War 1. Australia suffered from ore casualties in the field than the USA. Australian troops under Monash (and others)Â may have made the finally determinative influence on the entire event.
Recently, my friend of more than thirty years, David Steiner, pointed out that the name Monash is in effect a form of the name Manasseh.
[In Hebrew Manasseh is pronounced as Manasheh and the name Monash in Germany was originally pronounced like the Ashekanazic Hebrew pronunciation of Manashe.] The father of Monash had the surname Monasch (in German pronounced like the English Monash) which means Manasseh and the maiden name of his mother was Manasse which is also a form of Manasseh.
# His parent's original home was close to where the German general Erich Ludendorff was born. Ludenforff together with Hindenburg became effectively the leader of the German armed forces, Monash of the Austrlian. The parents of Monash migrated to Australia two years before Monash was born. If they had have remained in Germany Monash being Jewish would hardly have been allowed to become an officer let alone Supreme Commander.
Manasseh was the son of Joseph.
One of the characteristics of Joseph is his ability to defeat Esau/Edom.
It is true that Monash himself was Jewish and therefore from Judah (unless descended from those of Joseph who at some stage had attached themselves to Judah).
The Australians are (or were) mainly an offshoot of the British Isles (with more than 20% from southern Ireland) and we identify them with Ephraim.
Did Monash bearing the name Manasseh and being Jewish yet heading the forces of Ephraim represent a future re-union of Judah with Joseph?
In Biblical Studies names have significance.
Perhaps there is something in the above observations of importance?
We may develop the theme a little more and write an article about it.
Insights and observations from our readers will also be welcome.
Any point used by us will be accredited to its source.
Apart from being only fair and honest and sound policy it is also a directive from the Sages and we try to stick to it.