Twelve Tribes of Israel info & research thread

[A Freeman]

Is the leader of your cult English?

No. He's not of this world.

 

[Lisa]

No. He's not of this world.

Lol

 

[Robin]

There are literally at least six dozen "marks" in Scripture describing who the true PEOPLE Israel will be during the end-times.

NONE of those descriptions fit anyone other than the English-speaking nations of the world, almost all of which are either currently under British rule, or were formerly under it.

The absurdity in not simply looking at the available Scriptural evidence to make an honest evaluation, is breathtaking, particularly all of the racial garbage that's now being thrown around.

In truth, we are spiritual-Beings that are temporarily "locked" inside of these human-animal bodies we see in the mirror. It's the human animal exteriors that have skin color, NOT the spirit-Beings (Souls) inside of them. Just like it's the car that has the exterior paint color, NOT its driver.

If some dignitary was due to arrive in a white car, should the security team at the arrival point not be informed of the car color because it might discriminate against the other cars that are different colors? If so, how would they recognize the dignitary's car, so they could protect it? Sit around and argue their opinions on what color it might be? That's how ridiculous this is.

The true people Israel were NEVER meant to be a "master race". They were meant to be a demonstration people, as they promised to be, to show the world how wonderful it is to live by our Creator's Perfect Law of Liberty.

But that didn't happen, because Israel instead wanted to be like the nations around it, and have a king (1 Samuel 8), which God allowed, even though it was a rejection of Him (free-will). And later, God promised king David that he would never want (lack) a man (descendant) to SIT upon his throne (Jer. 33:17, Psalm 89:34-36) - meaning the Davidic Israel throne is still in existence today, and MUST be ruling over a company/multitude/commonwealth of nations (Gen. 35:11, Gen. 48:16-19).

No other kingdom in the world fits that description other than the United Kingdom of Great Britain.

And the word "British" itself is NOT an English word; it's a Hebrew word that means "people of the Covenant", i.e. the people Israel.

The British went out into the world to the West, East, North and South in exactly that order, to colonize what is today the U.S., Australasia, Canada and South Africa, as prophesied.

Genesis 28:14 And thy seed shall be as "the dust of the earth", and thou shalt spread abroad to the West (U.S.A.), and to the East (Australasia), and to the North (Canada), and to the South (Africa): and in thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed.

Look for all of the clues that describe the people Israel in Scripture. THEN look at the color the human animal bodies which fit the descriptions of TRUE Israel, instead of working at it from the other direction, with nothing but prejudicial conjecture. In that manner one can trace the hand of God working throughout history to establish His Unique "Horn" Kingdom here on Earth, the reigns of which are to be given to Christ - SOON.

We have God's Word on it.

The Truth about the British Monarchy

The Truth about the British Coat of Arms

The Truth about the Current-day Whereabouts of the Tribes of Israel

The Truth About Teia Tephi, Princess of Gibraltar and Ireland

The Truth About the Stone of Destiny, aka the Lia Fail

The Truth About Glastonbury and Joseph of Arimathaea

The Truth about the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse and the Two Witnesses

Yeah, you're right . . . . It can't be about colour considering the ancient Britons were apparently DARK-SKINNED and not pale like it's modern inhabitants lol. Also the modern race of Brits were never enslaved -if the British are the true Israelites it was most likely the natives and not the people living there now.

And I have tried explaining the problematic linguistics behind their reasoning but here if anyone is interested. Regarding the British Israelism movement's founder:

"Of course, any beginning Hebrew student could tell you that “man of the covenant” in Hebrew is ish brit and not brit ish, but the British Israelites were never a group to be deterred by even the simplest facts. (Richard) Brothers himself died in a lunatic asylum, and his disciples, while not necessarily as unbalanced as he was, were no less delusory in their beliefs. And yet, like many delusions, these beliefs live on not only among the uneducated but also among those who should know better. Since Brothers’s time, there have been repeated attempts by so-called scholars to argue for a historical Hebrew-English connection. Those attempts continue sporadically to this day. As recently as 1989, for example, a Yeshiva University English professor named Isaac Elchanan Mozeson published his Dictionary That Reveals the Hebrew Source of English. Itcontaining 5,000 English words of alleged Hebrew origin, such as English “abash” and Hebrew bushah (shame), English “evil” and Hebrew avel (evil deed), English “lick” and Hebrew likek (lick), and so on.
Such lists, needless to say, are meaningless. The great majority of their similar-sounding words are coincidental convergences such as can be found in any two languages. These words have nothing intrinsic to do with each other, as can be shown easily by using etymological analysis. “Abash,” for instance, derives, via French, from Latin batare, “to gape,” while “evil” goes back to early Germanic ubilaz, “exceeding the limit,” from Indo-European upo, “up” or “over.”
Moreover, even when a Hebrew and an English word are truly related, this relationship can nearly always be explained by borrowing in one direction or the other."

Is British Ish Brit?

Rabbi Samuel Silver of Boca Raton, Fla., has a short question: “Is ‘British’ related to brit?” I take it that this question is tongue in cheek. The claim that “British” comes from the Hebrew words brit (or “covenant,” familiar to many of you in its Ashkenazic form of bris, a circumcision) and...

www.google.com

 

[bible_student]

Yeah, you're right . . . . It can't be about colour considering the ancient Britons were apparently DARK-SKINNED and not pale like it's modern inhabitants lol. Also the modern race of Brits were never enslaved -if the British are the true Israelites it was most likely the natives and not the people living there now.

And I have tried explaining the problematic linguistics behind their reasoning but here if anyone is interested. Regarding the British Israelism movement's founder:

"Of course, any beginning Hebrew student could tell you that “man of the covenant” in Hebrew is ish brit and not brit ish, but the British Israelites were never a group to be deterred by even the simplest facts. (Richard) Brothers himself died in a lunatic asylum, and his disciples, while not necessarily as unbalanced as he was, were no less delusory in their beliefs. And yet, like many delusions, these beliefs live on not only among the uneducated but also among those who should know better. Since Brothers’s time, there have been repeated attempts by so-called scholars to argue for a historical Hebrew-English connection. Those attempts continue sporadically to this day. As recently as 1989, for example, a Yeshiva University English professor named Isaac Elchanan Mozeson published his Dictionary That Reveals the Hebrew Source of English. Itcontaining 5,000 English words of alleged Hebrew origin, such as English “abash” and Hebrew bushah (shame), English “evil” and Hebrew avel (evil deed), English “lick” and Hebrew likek (lick), and so on.
Such lists, needless to say, are meaningless. The great majority of their similar-sounding words are coincidental convergences such as can be found in any two languages. These words have nothing intrinsic to do with each other, as can be shown easily by using etymological analysis. “Abash,” for instance, derives, via French, from Latin batare, “to gape,” while “evil” goes back to early Germanic ubilaz, “exceeding the limit,” from Indo-European upo, “up” or “over.”
Moreover, even when a Hebrew and an English word are truly related, this relationship can nearly always be explained by borrowing in one direction or the other."

Is British Ish Brit?

Rabbi Samuel Silver of Boca Raton, Fla., has a short question: “Is ‘British’ related to brit?” I take it that this question is tongue in cheek. The claim that “British” comes from the Hebrew words brit (or “covenant,” familiar to many of you in its Ashkenazic form of bris, a circumcision) and...

www.google.com

Lol, just like the "original" Swedes? Are you stupid? What do you think, did these supposed original inhabitants of those rainy and snowy isles all decide to get on boats after having had it with the weather? Did they all get together and decide to head south, and not leave any trace of them having been there and having been the original inhabitants of the cold northern lands, but packed up all to make a clean break towards the south in search of warmer and more temperate climates? Come on, Robin, you know that would be ridiculous to think and makes no sense. Will you believe anything that a rabbi tells you? Please, try to think it through and apply some logic before making posts.


Of the ten tribes, Josephus records the following: "Wherefore, there are but (only) two tribes in Asia and Europe subject to the Romans, while the TEN TRIBES are beyond Euphrates till now (A.D. 70 or so) and are an immense multitude, and not to be estimated by numbers" (Josephus: Book 11, Chapter 5, para. 2).

Much more material could be produced, but let one more testimony suffice. On 26th June, 1950, the following letter was addressed to the Chief Rabbi of Britain:


Dear Sir,

May I ask for replies to the following questions:

1. Do the Jews, as generally known, represent the whole twelve tribes of Israel?

2. Does the State of Israel in Palestine constitute a union of the Northern and Southern Kingdoms as a united Israel?

Yours faithfully, C.H.L.I.


The following reply was received a few days later, being the official opinion of the Chief Rabbi.


Dear Sir,

I refer to your letter of the 26th ult. The Jews of today do not represent the whole of the twelve tribes. What happened to the ten tribes who occupied Northern Palestine in Bible times is not definitely known. Various theories have been propounded. Modern Jewry is considered as being descended from the ancient tribe of Judah, and to a lesser extent, the tribe of Benjamin.

Yours truly,

Signed J. H. Taylor, Sec.

 

[Robin]

Lol, just like the "original" swedes? Are you stupid? What do you think, did these supposed original inhabitants of those rainy and snowy isles all decide to get on boats after having had it with the weather? Did they all get together and decide to head south, and not leave any trace of them having been there and having been the original inhabitants of the cold northern lands, but packed up all to make a clean break towards the south in search of warmer and more temperate climates? Come on, Robin, you know that would be ridiculous to think and makes no sense. Will you believe anything that a rabbi tells you? Please, try to think it through and apply some logic before making posts.


Of the ten tribes, Josephus records the following: "Wherefore, there are but (only) two tribes in Asia and Europe subject to the Romans, while the TEN TRIBES are beyond Euphrates till now (A.D. 70 or so) and are an immense multitude, and not to be estimated by numbers" (Josephus: Book 11, Chapter 5, para. 2).

Much more material could be produced, but let one more testimony suffice. On 26th June, 1950, the following letter was addressed to the Chief Rabbi of Britain:


Dear Sir,

May I ask for replies to the following questions:

1. Do the Jews, as generally known, represent the whole twelve tribes of Israel?

2. Does the State of Israel in Palestine constitute a union of the Northern and Southern Kingdoms as a united Israel?

Yours faithfully, C.H.L.I.


The following reply was received a few days later, being the official opinion of the Chief Rabbi.


Dear Sir,

I refer to your letter of the 26th ult. The Jews of today do not represent the whole of the twelve tribes. What happened to the ten tribes who occupied Northern Palestine in Bible times is not definitely known. Various theories have been propounded. Modern Jewry is considered as being descended from the ancient tribe of Judah, and to a lesser extent, the tribe of Benjamin.

Yours truly,

Signed J. H. Taylor, Sec.

Yeah that doesn't hold up with the DNA evidence I already posted in this thread which you are free to look at. Or just Google Chedder Man. The invaders SLAUGHTERED or assimilated natives. Also who said the Jews currently in Israel are the whole representation of Israel? No one. And please . . . I'd refrain from calling anyone else stupid considering the refutations already made against most of the diatribe in this thread. Look, if what I posted was wrong then just debunk it with links that are NOT from Jah and that's fine.

 

[A Freeman]

Yeah, you're right . . . . It can't be about colour considering the ancient Britons were apparently DARK-SKINNED and not pale like it's modern inhabitants lol. Also the modern race of Brits were never enslaved -if the British are the true Israelites it was most likely the natives and not the people living there now.

And I have tried explaining the problematic linguistics behind their reasoning but here if anyone is interested. Regarding the British Israelism movement's founder:

"Of course, any beginning Hebrew student could tell you that “man of the covenant” in Hebrew is ish brit and not brit ish, but the British Israelites were never a group to be deterred by even the simplest facts. (Richard) Brothers himself died in a lunatic asylum, and his disciples, while not necessarily as unbalanced as he was, were no less delusory in their beliefs. And yet, like many delusions, these beliefs live on not only among the uneducated but also among those who should know better. Since Brothers’s time, there have been repeated attempts by so-called scholars to argue for a historical Hebrew-English connection. Those attempts continue sporadically to this day. As recently as 1989, for example, a Yeshiva University English professor named Isaac Elchanan Mozeson published his Dictionary That Reveals the Hebrew Source of English. Itcontaining 5,000 English words of alleged Hebrew origin, such as English “abash” and Hebrew bushah (shame), English “evil” and Hebrew avel (evil deed), English “lick” and Hebrew likek (lick), and so on.
Such lists, needless to say, are meaningless. The great majority of their similar-sounding words are coincidental convergences such as can be found in any two languages. These words have nothing intrinsic to do with each other, as can be shown easily by using etymological analysis. “Abash,” for instance, derives, via French, from Latin batare, “to gape,” while “evil” goes back to early Germanic ubilaz, “exceeding the limit,” from Indo-European upo, “up” or “over.”
Moreover, even when a Hebrew and an English word are truly related, this relationship can nearly always be explained by borrowing in one direction or the other."

Is British Ish Brit?

Rabbi Samuel Silver of Boca Raton, Fla., has a short question: “Is ‘British’ related to brit?” I take it that this question is tongue in cheek. The claim that “British” comes from the Hebrew words brit (or “covenant,” familiar to many of you in its Ashkenazic form of bris, a circumcision) and...

www.google.com

Absolutely ridiculous. Based on your so-called linguistic problems, it would be impossible to translate any Hebrew into English, as Hebrew is read from right to left and English is read from left to right.

What a desperate and pathetic attempt on your part to avoid having to address the facts, i.e. the EVIDENCE found in SCRIPTURE describing the true people Israel in unmistakable detail. How do you explain away the PROMISE that God made to David about the Davidic Throne of Israel? How do you explain away that the NAME Israel was given to the sons of Joseph - Ephraim and Manasseh? Where is the nation and the company/multitude/commonwealth of nations of the people Israel today? What other nations controlled the (sea) gates of their enemies besides Great Britain and the United States? Where do you think Ephraim and Manasseh are today?

What actual EVIDENCE is there that the British were ever dark-skinned? Or, as @bible_student mentioned, the Swedes? Sweden is a country that is often blanketed in snow during the winter months, as are some of the parts of Britain, particularly the northern parts of the country.

Isn't dark-skin an adaption of the body to the effects of prolonged exposure to intense sunlight in the hotter climates? Isn't fairer skin the exact opposite? Is Britain a hot climate? Are you starting to see how ridiculous your arguments against the truth really are?

If you have any actual DNA evidence of any of your false claims, please let everyone know. And please let us know where you were able to find original DNA samples from Jacob/Israel's children, i.e. Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, Asher, Issachar, Zebulun, Joseph and Benjamin, to use as a basis for the DNA comparison. Otherwise, you are simply providing your personal opinion which isn't even worth two-cents.

Conjecture will NEVER be the same as evidence, no matter how hard people try to make it so. Evidence tells the truth. Conjecture is often, if not always based upon lies (Gen. 6:5). We all have the free-will to choose between good-truth and evil-fiction, so please learn the difference between the two so you can learn to choose WISELY.

 

[KoncreteMind]

I find it a ittle disingenuous that you first asserted that the bible said they looked similar and now you play on implication of silence on the part of Joseph's brothers . . . But anyway, you do realise ancient Egypt was a racially diverse place right? No one even knows for certain what they exactly looked like. Herodotus, for example, referred to the Egyptians as melanchroes. That term is sometimes translated as “black-skinned,” but Herodotus typically used a different word to describe people from further south in Africa, suggesting that “dark-skinned” is more appropriate. He also compared Egyptian skin to that of the people of Colchis, in the Southern Caucasus. The Egyptians typically painted representations of themselves with light brown skin, somewhere between the fair-skinned people of the Levant and the darker Nubian people to the south. Plus they themselves intermarried with people right across the colour spectrum as well. Even the aristocracy was racially integrated. Princesses from the Levant joined the Egyptian nobility for example. So Tzipporah mistaking him as an Egyptian doesnt prove anything -it was probably due to cultural designations like clothing or grooming style that marked him as Egyptian . . . Which technically he was. And where are they compared as similar to Ethiopians? You said that too.

The problem is, the only one you should be having a Q and A with is the OP. This is his thread. With me, you should be having a conversation that flows together. And what I mean is you keep asking for proof of everything. And thats fine, but when I provided proof or sources for the pics of the black people in America before the slave trade, what did you say to it? Nothing. You just skipped over it.

Herodotus straight up said that the Egyptians were black skinned with wooly hair so Im not sure why you're bringing him up. You cant really get much clearer than that. Now after his time, Egypt was invaded and became more racially diverse. But not as much in his time and definitely not in the time of Moses. And Moses was misidentified as an Egyptian by a Midianite woman furthering my point that appearance wise, they looked similar. You can put a white person in a kimono, but nobody's going to confuse him for a Japanese person. So Joseph's family going up to Egypt and seeing someone of their own family and not thinking twice about why he looked like them and not the Egyptians (because they looked similar) furthers my point that Israel/Egypt were dark skinned nations that looked similar.

Spoiler

And Cushites, Egyptians, Ethiopians, Canaanites ALL came from the same family, and ultimately Ham. That is biblically speaking. So yes, they looked similar to each other. Then the Zondervan comes and writes that Ham is a progenitor to the dark skinned races but NOT the negro. Obviously including the negro in the "dark skinned" category but not the "Ham's descendants" that included EGYPT. So where does that leave the negro? Shem or Japheth?

I was referring to North Americans which I thought was obvious enough. What's your proof that the so-called Indian Americans came from Asia and were not the true natives? Can you provide any evidence outside of citation-less pictures at all? I never said the South Americans were brought over from Africa if you read what I said properly lmao where did you get that from? Seriously do you read what people say to you or just rewrite their arguments so you can counter them? I'm referring to the Transatlantic Slave Trade. And is the "negro" race not considered dark-skinned? That's why I asked what the distinction was for.

Wait but you "give a crap" about geography remember? Last I checked, those murals were found in Mexico which is in North America. And how are murals citation less when its the inhabitants that drew them?' Those are murals in America of black people before the slave trade ever happened. Whats your response to THAT? And now black South Americans are actually South Americans but black North Americans are Africans?

As far as Native Americans and Asia, look up Native America/Siberia and you tell me what you find.

If you reread what it said he kept on using the words ruddy and fair as proof of white skin. Which I was arguing against. Ruddy means red - the actual Hebrew doesn't say whether or not it's a dark or brownish colour btw.


Yes it is hard for people who give a crap about geography and history to just accept that its easy to "put together". If you can't provide an explanation for how America truly is the holy land despite not ever being under Roman rule, or it's lack of proximity to many places mentioned in the bible . . . Then this whole theory of yours falls flat. I'm only asking you to provide a proper explanation ironing out those problems. If you've spent so much time looking into it then it shouldn't be a problem.

Agree or disagree, his position is based than more than skin color. Thats just what you're focusing on but he provided more things to support his position of who he believes the Israelites are than just ruddy/fair skin. Thats what I meant. You dont know what their red is either but I was just pointing out to HIM that English people chose a dark reddish/brown color so him using that to match up with "fair" skin makes no sense.

Do you really "give a crap" about history and geography simply because you believe the exact history as you were taught in public schools and dont do any deeper research into it? And like I said you should be having a Q and A with the OP, not me. We should be having a convo. So whats your response to what I said about Colombus and Spain ejecting Jews at the same time as he took a voyage to the Americas? Which came after he said he was going to be on a conquest to conquer Jerusalem? Which is the time where we're told he was looking for India but the land of (modern) India was called Hindustan? Which came before he thought he found the garden of Eden upon touching down in the Americas? Why would these things happen if the promised land was right by Europe in the middle east? Heck before the so called jews chose the middle east as their homeland, they were going to choose Zimbabwe or some country in Africa. These are things that lead me to questioning the worldview you're taught in your schools. So jump off from here before putting up another hoop you want me to jump through with the Romans. Why dont these things mean anything to someone potentially question the world view we were taught?

There were Egyptian artifacts found in the grand canyon linked to the descendant of Zapthnath, which if you read the bible, was the Egyptian name of Joseph. And the Grand Canyon has pyramids in areas that are made off limits to the general public :

Spoiler

View attachment 29667

History as taught in public isnt what actually happened. But you're not even American/from the west right? So maybe you're just coming from a different POV..

 

[KoncreteMind]

The talmudic people like to do that, calling others cattle except for themselves. I deleted it later, to give you the benefit of the doubt. The white south africans (mostly Dutch and British descent but also mixed with other descents) are suffereing almost every curse stated in Deuteronomy 28 right now, many of them are losing their farms and homes or their lives and being hijacked, raped and often tortured to the point of death, or old white people being burnt with hot clothing irons, just to hurt them, etc. (it's truly horrible) and it is gradually starting to happen to others too. It may soon start to be like that in the USA as well, or in other ways, and some of the curses are already starting to happen again there too in many places. Look at all the homeless on the streets of American cities. Look at all the tent cities that are cropping up and growing in size. That's happening now; what do you think it is going to be like when (not if, but when) the economy crashes again and THIS time, it won't be possible to bail the economy out, so they can kick the can down the road a bit longer. What do you think will happen? It will get ugly. You can't keep borrowing money from the banksters at interest (usury) and expect the economy to survive; it cant'. A coming systemic crash is a mathematical certainty.

It also happened to to them already in the past because they have always been part of the Israelites who went captive into Assyria (the 10 Tribes - the majority of Israel, not the Jews, not Judah). They are currently having a homeless epidemic, while God is making China, Russia and Iran stronger and stronger, so that they will defeat the UK & USA in WW3 and win the war, to punish Israel (UK & USA). Then slavery will follow again, for those who have survived the war.

It will get worse and worse until the UK & USA are defeated in the upcoming WW3 against Russia and China.
http://jahtruth.net/horse.htm

Except I compared white AND black people to the COLOR of an animal. So who is it you're saying Im being racist against?

And you mean the white South Africans who descend from the people who did the exact same thing to the black Africans when they first got there in the 1600s? Those guys? What foreign nation (like Deuteronomy 28 says) is oppressing them over there?

 

[UnderAlienControl]

Underaliencontrol: Until people realize that in neocon terms, Ukraine is just code for Israel east, they won't get it. I'm pretty sure it was neocon David Frum who stated to Bill Maher on Real Time that the plan per Ukraine vis a vis Russia was that "We are going to try to pry it away from them without upsetting them too much." Pry it away for whom?

Leaked report: Israel acknowledges Jews in fact Khazars; Secret plan for reverse migration to Ukraine

From the blog of Jim Wald at The Times of Israel

blogs.timesofisrael.com

 

[Robin]

Absolutely ridiculous. Based on your so-called linguistic problems, it would be impossible to translate any Hebrew into English, as Hebrew is read from right to left and English is read from left to right.

What a desperate and pathetic attempt on your part to avoid having to address the facts, i.e. the EVIDENCE found in SCRIPTURE describing the true people Israel in unmistakable detail. How do you explain away the PROMISE that God made to David about the Davidic Throne of Israel? How do you explain away that the NAME Israel was given to the sons of Joseph - Ephraim and Manasseh? Where is the nation and the company/multitude/commonwealth of nations of the people Israel today? What other nations controlled the (sea) gates of their enemies besides Great Britain and the United States? Where do you think Ephraim and Manasseh are today?

What actual EVIDENCE is there that the British were ever dark-skinned? Or, as @bible_student mentioned, the Swedes? Sweden is a country that is often blanketed in snow during the winter months, as are some of the parts of Britain, particularly the northern parts of the country.

Isn't dark-skin an adaption of the body to the effects of prolonged exposure to intense sunlight in the hotter climates? Isn't fairer skin the exact opposite? Is Britain a hot climate? Are you starting to see how ridiculous your arguments against the truth really are?

If you have any actual DNA evidence of any of your false claims, please let everyone know. And please let us know where you were able to find original DNA samples from Jacob/Israel's children, i.e. Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, Asher, Issachar, Zebulun, Joseph and Benjamin, to use as a basis for the DNA comparison. Otherwise, you are simply providing your personal opinion which isn't even worth two-cents.

Conjecture will NEVER be the same as evidence, no matter how hard people try to make it so. Evidence tells the truth. Conjecture is often, if not always based upon lies (Gen. 6:5). We all have the free-will to choose between good-truth and evil-fiction, so please learn the difference between the two so you can learn to choose WISELY.

For anyone interested in reading full linguistics debunking (which should be pretty obvious considering the directional borrowings are a SINGLE reasons as to why Hebrew scholars would deny a connection like that):

Britain

A blog about the etymology of Hebrew words and phrases and how they relate to English and other languages.

www.balashon.com

I've already posted the link to the genetic study done on the first supposed Britons. Feel free to look at that too. You bring up scripture to somehow link the British monarchy with David's throne but what about the rest of scripture? Where were the British assimilated into other nations? They were colonists. When were the British ever enslaved and taken for bondsmen and women?

 

[Robin]

And thats fine, but when I provided proof or sources for the pics of the black people in America before the slave trade, what did you say to it? Nothing. You just skipped over it.

Actually . . . I asked for a source. I wanted to see what website they came from and you didn't give me anything. So what was I supposed to comment about it?

Herodotus straight up said that the Egyptians were black skinned with wooly hair so Im not sure why you're bringing him up. You cant really get much clearer than that.

I brought up Herodotus because he specifically made distinctions between Egyptians and other groups of Africans like the Ethiopians. Seeing as we were discussing how similar they all looked.

Now after his time, Egypt was invaded and became more racially diverse. But not as much in his time and definitely not in the time of Moses.

How do you know this?

And Moses was misidentified as an Egyptian by a Midianite woman furthering my point that appearance wise, they looked similar. You can put a white person in a kimono, but nobody's going to confuse him for a Japanese person. So Joseph's family going up to Egypt and seeing someone of their own family and not thinking twice about why he looked like them and not the Egyptians (because they looked similar) furthers my point that Israel/Egypt were dark skinned nations that looked similar.

Spoiler

You do realise that Egyptians were ethnically diverse because of their proximity to other nations right? The first pic for example is tagged as a Nubian Egyptian. Not an example of the everyday native. And again, It was most likely because of cultural distinction. If there were people of varying shades who could occupy even positions of power or influence in Egypt then it makes sense that no one would think twice of someone who did not necessarily look Egyptian being one by nationality.

And Cushites, Egyptians, Ethiopians, Canaanites ALL came from the same family, and ultimately Ham. That is biblically speaking. So yes, they looked similar to each other. Then the Zondervan comes and writes that Ham is a progenitor to the dark skinned races but NOT the negro. Obviously including the negro in the "dark skinned" category but not the "Ham's descendants" that included EGYPT. So where does that leave the negro? Shem or Japheth?

Okay that makes sense. Is the Zondervan the most authoritative source on this? Also, who do you exactly describe as a "negro"? Only American blacks? North American black people specifically? Or any negroid race including those in Sub Saharan Africa?

Wait but you "give a crap" about geography remember? Last I checked, those murals were found in Mexico which is in North America. And how are murals citation less when its the inhabitants that drew them?' Those are murals in America of black people before the slave trade ever happened. Whats your response to THAT? And now black South Americans are actually South Americans but black North Americans are Africans?

My bad, I thought you said they were South American murals. There's more to ethnicity than similar skin colour Koncrete. Do you think North and South American natives were the same group of people just because they may have shared a similar skin colour?

As far as Native Americans and Asia, look up Native America/Siberia and you tell me what you find.

So even if their ancestors originated in Euroasia for wherever they came from, if they were the first settlers then do they not still count as the original natives? Unless there's some proof of a different people occupying American that predates them?

Do you really "give a crap" about history and geography simply because you believe the exact history as you were taught in public schools and dont do any deeper research into it? And like I said you should be having a Q and A with the OP, not me. We should be having a convo. So whats your response to what I said about Colombus and Spain ejecting Jews at the same time as he took a voyage to the Americas? Which came after he said he was going to be on a conquest to conquer Jerusalem? Which is the time where we're told he was looking for India but the land of (modern) India was called Hindustan? Which came before he thought he found the garden of Eden upon touching down in the Americas? Why would these things happen if the promised land was right by Europe in the middle east? Heck before the so called jews chose the middle east as their homeland, they were going to choose Zimbabwe or some country in Africa. These are things that lead me to questioning the worldview you're taught in your schools. So jump off from here before putting up another hoop you want me to jump through with the Romans. Why dont these things mean anything to someone potentially question the world view we were taught?

There were Egyptian artifacts found in the grand canyon linked to the descendant of Zapthnath, which if you read the bible, was the Egyptian name of Joseph. And the Grand Canyon has pyramids in areas that are made off limits to the general public :

Spoiler

View attachment 29667

History as taught in public isnt what actually happened. But you're not even American/from the west right? So maybe you're just coming from a different POV..

If you can provide actual sources for what you're saying is what I'm asking. Or am I just supposed to trust that what you say is true because you did the research and everyone else should just believe it? So do you reject history as was taught but accept the newer findings such as the potentially different origin of native Americans despite the institutions providing both sets of information coming from the same hand? Those are interesting points but I keep asking for REFERENCES. Not a hoop for you to jump through but a basic requirement if you're gonna make statements against established history (which is dodgy as I already mentioned but that doesn't mean you just jump on a theory someone gives on the internet with no sources provided). If you think I'm just swallowing mainstream history then give me something, somewhere to start looking. Books, articles, idk. And the question about the geography is a basic one if you believe the biblical account of events. There would have to be an explanation for Jerusalem being under Roman rule, or the Hellenistic influence in the NT. As it stands, Jerusalem being in America doesn't allow for that unless there is something you can show that I don't know to even hint at something different. It's not a trick question, it's just a question.

 

[A Freeman]

You bring up scripture to somehow link the British monarchy with David's throne but what about the rest of scripture?

There are at least six dozen descriptions of the true people Israel throughout Scripture that leave no doubt about how to recognize them. Some have already been posted; others will follow.

Where were the British assimilated into other nations? They were colonists. When were the British ever enslaved and taken for bondsmen and women?

Yes. The first time in Egypt, where all 12 of the tribes were enslaved, and the second time the British were taken into slavery was in Assyria, c. 722 BC.

The third time is coming soon, to the Russians and Chinese, when the U.S. and U.K. LOSE WW3.

US’ and UK’s choices on war strategies and the Ruler of the universe’s protection | VT Foreign Policy

www.veteranstoday.com

 

[KoncreteMind]

Actually . . . I asked for a source. I wanted to see what website they came from and you didn't give me anything. So what was I supposed to comment about it?


I brought up Herodotus because he specifically made distinctions between Egyptians and other groups of Africans like the Ethiopians. Seeing as we were discussing how similar they all looked.


How do you know this?


You do realise that Egyptians were ethnically diverse because of their proximity to other nations right? The first pic for example is tagged as a Nubian Egyptian. Not an example of the everyday native. And again, It was most likely because of cultural distinction. If there were people of varying shades who could occupy even positions of power or influence in Egypt then it makes sense that no one would think twice of someone who did not necessarily look Egyptian being one by nationality.


Okay that makes sense. Is the Zondervan the most authoritative source on this? Also, who do you exactly describe as a "negro"? Only American blacks? North American black people specifically? Or any negroid race including those in Sub Saharan Africa?


My bad, I thought you said they were South American murals. There's more to ethnicity than similar skin colour Koncrete. Do you think North and South American natives were the same group of people just because they may have shared a similar skin colour?


So even if their ancestors originated in Euroasia for wherever they came from, if they were the first settlers then do they not still count as the original natives? Unless there's some proof of a different people occupying American that predates them?


If you can provide actual sources for what you're saying is what I'm asking. Or am I just supposed to trust that what you say is true because you did the research and everyone else should just believe it? So do you reject history as was taught but accept the newer findings such as the potentially different origin of native Americans despite the institutions providing both sets of information coming from the same hand? Those are interesting points but I keep asking for REFERENCES. Not a hoop for you to jump through but a basic requirement if you're gonna make statements against established history (which is dodgy as I already mentioned but that doesn't mean you just jump on a theory someone gives on the internet with no sources provided). If you think I'm just swallowing mainstream history then give me something, somewhere to start looking. Books, articles, idk. And the question about the geography is a basic one if you believe the biblical account of events. There would have to be an explanation for Jerusalem being under Roman rule, or the Hellenistic influence in the NT. As it stands, Jerusalem being in America doesn't allow for that unless there is something you can show that I don't know to even hint at something different. It's not a trick question, it's just a question.

The problem is you already asked for a source, then when you got it, said nothing. Then when I press, you say (in a roundabout way) "well you gave me the actual source of the depiction (the artist) and not a random website that posted the depiction the source drew"... And thats your excuse for not saying ANYTHING about me posting the source like you asked. You should be able to see why I dont want to simply jump ahead everytime you seek to when theres things I have already said that you havent said anything towards. Before going to Rome (and we can go there and the Greeks before that if you want) why dont you address why I think the promised land in the bible isnt in the Middle East? If you need to see some of the reasons, they're in the end of my last post. If you need sources for any of it, then google it? I mean I said it in a straightforward way that can be easily researched. Do it and call my bluff instead of trying to jump ahead to Rome, which as I said, we can get to along with Greece.

And I have to repeat, Herodotus, who YOU brought up, said the Egyptians were dark skinned and had wooly hair. Theres no debate to be had after that especially when it was you who brought him up. You know why he made a distinction? Because all "black" people arent the same.

Spoiler

Two different and distinct groups of people. Yet bring them over to the west, have them lose the accent, and they're "black". So just because you can distinguish between an Egyptian and Ethiopian, doesnt mean they werent by western standards, "black". Especially since nations sprung up from TRIBES/FAMILIES. Which leads to the Zondervan saying that Ham fathered the Egyptian, Ethiopian/Kushite, and Canaanite came from Ham but not the negro. I'll ask you again, who did the so called negro come from that other dark skinned nations like Egypt, Canaan and Ethiopia didnt come from? I'll give you a hint, its either Shem or Japheth.

My bad, I thought you said they were South American murals. There's more to ethnicity than similar skin colour Koncrete. Do you think North and South American natives were the same group of people just because they may have shared a similar skin colour?

Well no, you thought that Mexico was in South America. Which is fine, as I dont expect someone who isnt from the West to be 100% about American geography. Im just pulling your chain for that "give a crap about history and geography" line yet when I bring up the discrepancy we're taught about Colombus looking for India at a time the India of today was called Hindustan, you say that if I cant explain Rome my whole theory falls flat.

And since you're not from the West, then I dont expect you to understand that the only early Americans we're presented as being here when settlers came are the Mongloid/asian/straight hair ones. Here in the west, we're not presented with the ones that had dreadlocks or Afros or dark/black-like skin even though there are depictions from that time period showing early Americans looking just like that. So if theres nothing to be seen there and they're not black, then why arent we in the west presented these images? In your opinion of course that hopefully doesnt include a plea to prove something about Rome before addressing whats already in the thread.

 

[Robin]

The problem is you already asked for a source, then when you got it, said nothing. Then when I press, you say (in a roundabout way) "well you gave me the actual source of the depiction (the artist) and not a random website that posted the depiction the source drew"... And thats your excuse for not saying ANYTHING about me posting the source like you asked. You should be able to see why I dont want to simply jump ahead everytime you seek to when theres things I have already said that you havent said anything towards.

I ask because how am I supposed to take for granted that what you share is actually verified and in line with what you say about it? The one picture you shared for example I found somewhere else and was listed as a Nubian Egyptian who look very different to Levantine Egyptians.

Before going to Rome (and we can go there and the Greeks before that if you want) why dont you address why I think the promised land in the bible isnt in the Middle East?

I do address it by asking the first question that pops up in my mind when you talk about it. And that is the lack of Greco-Roman historical presence in America. It's not looking for an attempt to refute what you're saying, it is interesting but that's the first question I have about it that will pop up sooner or later if someone follows a Abrahamic worldview. What do you want me to say about it when that question is the primary reason why I don't believe you right off the bat?

If you need to see some of the reasons, they're in the end of my last post. If you need sources for any of it, then google it? I mean I said it in a straightforward way that can be easily researched. Do it and call my bluff instead of trying to jump ahead to Rome, which as I said, we can get to along with Greece.

I ask you because most sites I've seen that talk about uncovering "true" history tend to be the BHI sort steeped in ethnocentric and racist philosophy toward non-blacks. Its hard for me to take those seriously so I've asked YOU to share whichever sources you got them from because they're most likely to be free from ideological rhetoric and actually have proper proof.

And I have to repeat, Herodotus, who YOU brought up, said the Egyptians were dark skinned and had wooly hair. Theres no debate to be had after that especially when it was you who brought him up. You know why he made a distinction? Because all "black" people arent the same.

Spoiler

Two different and distinct groups of people. Yet bring them over to the west, have them lose the accent, and they're "black". So just because you can distinguish between an Egyptian and Ethiopian, doesnt mean they werent by western standards, "black". Especially since nations sprung up from TRIBES/FAMILIES. Which leads to the Zondervan saying that Ham fathered the Egyptian, Ethiopian/Kushite, and Canaanite came from Ham but not the negro. I'll ask you again, who did the so called negro come from that other dark skinned nations like Egypt, Canaan and Ethiopia didnt come from? I'll give you a hint, its either Shem or Japheth.

Well yes but the whole point was that the Egyptians, Canaanites, Ethiopians etc looked the same. "Black" and "white" are reductive modern constructions. Even with the pics you posted, they would most definitely not be confused for one another. I can answer that if you tell me why the Zondervan is the most authoritative source on which racial categories descended from which of Noah's sons and who you classify as "the negro". Again just american blacks? African negroid groups from further south or west? As to your point about ancient Egyptians not being racially diverse in antiquity and my point about them being heterogeneous before Herodotus:

From the tomb of "Hetpet" which has the architectural style and the decorative elements of the Fifth Dynasty (so around the 25th and 24th centuries BC).

Well no, you thought that Mexico was in South America. Which is fine, as I dont expect someone who isnt from the West to be 100% about American geography. Im just pulling your chain for that "give a crap about history and geography" line yet when I bring up the discrepancy we're taught about Colombus looking for India at a time the India of today was called Hindustan, you say that if I cant explain Rome my whole theory falls flat.

Because bringing up another discrepancy doesn't change yours. Even if the names were changed the effects on culture should still be there. There should be some kind of remnant of the Romans and Greeks in America.

And since you're not from the West, then I dont expect you to understand that the only early Americans we're presented as being here when settlers came are the Mongloid/asian/straight hair ones. Here in the west, we're not presented with the ones that had dreadlocks or Afros or dark/black-like skin even though there are depictions from that time period showing early Americans looking just like that. So if theres nothing to be seen there and they're not black, then why arent we in the west presented these images? In your opinion of course that hopefully doesnt include a plea to prove something about Rome before addressing whats already in the thread.

I really don't know . . . Keeping a monopoly on white supremacy maybe? That seems to be a hallmark of colonists. But there's more to it than claiming the slave trade was fabricated. Do you believe the slave trade was fabricated? Exaggerated to a certain degree?

 

[A Freeman]

Where is the Throne of David today? According to God, it will NEVER lack a descendant of David to sit on it IN Israel.

If you wish to continue looking everywhere else but where the Bible actually tells us to look, then you will continually argue over meaningless nonsense, instead of learning the truth about who the TRUE people Israel really are, and where they are located today.

God's Promise to David is absolute. It is eternal. The prophecies describing Israel in the end-times are likewise certain.

There is no other monarchy in existence today that rules over "a nation and a company of nations", except for the British monarchy. So it is a complete waste of time to argue over what color/colour the Israelites were, as we already know the British and Commonwealth countries, including America, Ireland, Scotland, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, South Africa, Northern France, Celtic Spain, Belgium, the Baltic and Scandinavian states and Gibraltar are Israel, i.e. all of the English-speaking nations of the world, ARE the people of the Covenant: the people Israel.

Add to this the Coronation Stone, aka the Lia Fail, Stone of Destiny, the Bethel Stone and Jacob's Pillar/Pillow Stone, which is to be Christ's Throne here on Earth, and upon which all of the kings and queens of Israel have been been coronated, and we have not only the positive identification of the true people Israel, but also of the Stone.

These are the facts, and they are irrefutable.

 

[bible_student]

Except I compared white AND black people to the COLOR of an animal. So who is it you're saying Im being racist against?

And you mean the white South Africans who descend from the people who did the exact same thing to the black Africans when they first got there in the 1600s? Those guys? What foreign nation (like Deuteronomy 28 says) is oppressing them over there?

They are all (all people in SA) being oppressed by the rich, who sit at the top and are really in control of the country but doing so from behind the scenes, to be able to exploit it (along with the people) to be able to keep obtaining South Africa's vast mineral wealth, diamonds, etc.

Deut. 28:37 And thou shalt become an astonishment, a proverb, and a byword, among all nations where the "I AM" shall lead thee.

 

[KoncreteMind]

I ask because how am I supposed to take for granted that what you share is actually verified and in line with what you say about it? The one picture you shared for example I found somewhere else and was listed as a Nubian Egyptian who look very different to Levantine Egyptians.

No clue on what you’re talking about here. What’s clear is that you asked for a source and received it yet said nothing about it. Which to me shows that you're trying to get a "gotcha!" moment and not here to have a convo. And that’s especially made clear when you bring up the Levantine Egyptians in reference to a post that was referencing you asking for a source to an Inca painting.

I do address it by asking the first question that pops up in my mind when you talk about it. And that is the lack of Greco-Roman historical presence in America. It's not looking for an attempt to refute what you're saying, it is interesting but that's the first question I have about it that will pop up sooner or later if someone follows a Abrahamic worldview. What do you want me to say about it when that question is the primary reason why I don't believe you right off the bat?

Sooner or later huh? Well I already said later and that we could discuss what has been brought to the table first.You want to jump ahead to refuting America, but how about starting at the premise that its not in the Middle East? You you should be answering why Colombus was over here looking for Israel/Jerusalem. Why he took a Hebrew interpreter with him on his voyage. Why Spain kicked out all the Jews at the same time of his voyage. Why when the modern Jew was trying to get a homeland they were going to place their homeland in Africa. And more that I put in earlier posts. Scratch focusing on where exactly the promised land is. Why was Colombus and company not looking to the Middle East? Why isnt there ONE map with "Israel" on it before the 1800s/1900s?

Well yes but the whole point was that the Egyptians, Canaanites, Ethiopians etc looked the same. "Black" and "white" are reductive modern constructions. Even with the pics you posted, they would most definitely not be confused for one another. I can answer that if you tell me why the Zondervan is the most authoritative source on which racial categories descended from which of Noah's sons and who you classify as "the negro". Again just american blacks? African negroid groups from further south or west? As to your point about ancient Egyptians not being racially diverse in antiquity and my point about them being heterogeneous before Herodotus:

Who said that the Zondervan is or isn’t the most authoritative source? It’s on you to to give your opinion as to why what they’re saying is or isn’t legitimate. If you feel they’re wrong then why don’t you (wo)man up and say that and say why you say that? You keep asking questions but where are your answers? Every time I ask you a question you return with more questions and it’s because you don’t have the answers (sway lol).

You tell me who you classify as Negro then explain what you think the Zondervan was referring to when they said the negro was not from Ham like other dark skinned (i.e. African) races? OR explain why what they're saying is incorrect or whatever your view on it is. Stop passing off the buck to me and actually say something yourself...

From the tomb of "Hetpet" which has the architectural style and the decorative elements of the Fifth Dynasty (so around the 25th and 24th centuries BC).

View attachment 29835
View attachment 29836
View attachment 29837


Because bringing up another discrepancy doesn't change yours. Even if the names were changed the effects on culture should still be there. There should be some kind of remnant of the Romans and Greeks in America.

Lets go back then. Biblically speaking, Egypt was a person (Mitzrayim). Now are you saying Mitzrayim the person was black, white, or something else? Because biblically speaking, an Egyptian is ONLY a person who comes from the person "Egypt" (Mitzrayim) just as an Israelite is someone who comes from Israel/Jacob. You can move to Egypt but biblically speaking, since thats what this thread is dealing with, it doesnt make you an Egyptian.

I really don't know . . . Keeping a monopoly on white supremacy maybe? That seems to be a hallmark of colonists. But there's more to it than claiming the slave trade was fabricated. Do you believe the slave trade was fabricated? Exaggerated to a certain degree?

It was definitely exaggerated when they present EVERY black person in N and S. America as coming over on slave ships despite their being pictures and DESCRIPTIONS of black indians being in America when the modern European went there.

Btw it has nothing to do with "white supremacy" (doesnt exist). It has to do with the Israelites and keeping them from recognizing who they are, because when they do and turn back to the Creator, well:

Deuteronomy 30
when you and your children return to the Lord your God and obey him with all your heart and with all your soul according to everything I command you today, 3 then the Lord your God will restore your fortunes[a] and have compassion on you and gather you again from all the nations where he scattered you. 4 Even if you have been banished to the most distant land under the heavens, from there the Lord your God will gather you and bring you back. 5 He will bring you to the land that belonged to your ancestors, and you will take possession of it. He will make you more prosperous and numerous than your ancestors. 6 The Lord your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live. 7 The Lord your God will put all these curses on your enemies who hate and persecute you.

All they're doing is trying to prolong the inevitable.

 

[KoncreteMind]

They are all (all people in SA) being oppressed by the rich, who sit at the top and are really in control of the country but doing so from behind the scenes, to be able to exploit it (along with the people) to be able to keep obtaining South Africa's vast mineral wealth, diamonds, etc.

Deut. 28:37 And thou shalt become an astonishment, a proverb, and a byword, among all nations where the "I AM" shall lead thee.

Huh? I thought we were talking about the Dutch Afrikaans? Their ancestors went to South Africa and did the Africans there in the same manner as they're being done now. This being after having an apartheid system set up there that put the indigenous Africans at the bottom of their society. Who's oppressing who?

And yall need to cut it out the the David/Royalty connection. let me know the last/first time you heard the royal family ackownledge the Creator and His laws. Then, when you fail to do that, let me know which one of the countries they have control over observes the Torah. Then, when you also fail to do that, go to Deuteronomy 28 and read Israel's fate when they obey (vs 1-15) and when they disobey (vs 16-end). The people you're calling Israelites are being BLESSED despite DISOBEYING the Torah.

 

[Robin]

No clue on what you’re talking about here. What’s clear is that you asked for a source and received it yet said nothing about it. Which to me shows that you're trying to get a "gotcha!" moment and not here to have a convo. And that’s especially made clear when you bring up the Levantine Egyptians in reference to a post that was referencing you asking for a source to an Inca painting.

Okay let's take it back. I ask for sources to the pictures because I want to know whether or not they are legitimate. I brought up the Nubian Egyptian mural because you posted it as a depiction of an Egyptian when it was a sub-clssification of a non-native. And this was important considering what we were discussing about similar appearance and whatnot.

Sooner or later huh? Well I already said later and that we could discuss what has been brought to the table first.You want to jump ahead to refuting America, but how about starting at the premise that its not in the Middle East? You you should be answering why Colombus was over here looking for Israel/Jerusalem. Why he took a Hebrew interpreter with him on his voyage. Why Spain kicked out all the Jews at the same time of his voyage. Why when the modern Jew was trying to get a homeland they were going to place their homeland in Africa. And more that I put in earlier posts. Scratch focusing on where exactly the promised land is. Why was Colombus and company not looking to the Middle East? Why isnt there ONE map with "Israel" on it before the 1800s/1900s?

How am I supposed to answer any of that? My premise isn't to "refute" anything you've said. This isn't even a debate. This was you bringing up a theory and me questioning you on it. I'm only asking questions about this premise of yours. If you can't make a connection to fix the Roman discrepancy then just admit it. All I did was ask a question lol about why I doubt this theory. Though if you gave me a few references/links to read up on this stuff like I keep asking then maybe we could get somewhere eh?

Who said that the Zondervan is or isn’t the most authoritative source? It’s on you to to give your opinion as to why what they’re saying is or isn’t legitimate. If you feel they’re wrong then why don’t you (wo)man up and say that and say why you say that? You keep asking questions but where are your answers? Every time I ask you a question you return with more questions and it’s because you don’t have the answers (sway lol).

I am not the one trying to prove anything. I ask about the Zondervan only to determine who decided on the classification. There are sociological/anthropological scholars that term ALL African natives as negroes (which then goes back to the native American theory). That's why I was asking you what you refer to by negro. I'm not trying to disprove anything, I initially started asking questions because I found this interesting but if you're going to get defensive about it then I'd rather drop it.

You tell me who you classify as Negro then explain what you think the Zondervan was referring to when they said the negro was not from Ham like other dark skinned (i.e. African) races? OR explain why what they're saying is incorrect or whatever your view on it is. Stop passing off the buck to me and actually say something yourself...

I don't know and this is your premise. There are a number of different ways to go about this but most classify them as any group belonging to the negroid race. I'm asking you to clarify so I can know what and who exactly you're taking about here.

Lets go back then. Biblically speaking, Egypt was a person (Mitzrayim). Now are you saying Mitzrayim the person was black, white, or something else? Because biblically speaking, an Egyptian is ONLY a person who comes from the person "Egypt" (Mitzrayim) just as an Israelite is someone who comes from Israel/Jacob. You can move to Egypt but biblically speaking, since thats what this thread is dealing with, it doesnt make you an Egyptian.

What does this have to do with anything? Egypt from what we've been able to glean was less preoccupied with race and skin tone than they were nationalism. Obviously indigenous people would have a specific look that marks them as natives but at the time it clearly didn't mean that skin colour was the determining factor of being "Egyptian". At least not to them. Foreigners could join the higher ranks of society and even marry into the royal family so this whole issue comes back to cultural signifiers being a more likely hint to national identity. Let me ask it this way: if Moses or Joseph were dressed up in Egyptian regalia and groomed according to their cultural prescripts, then even if their skins were vastly different, would Tzipporah or his brothers really refer to either of them as "Israelites" or whatever other race . . . Despite clearly holding Egyptian authority?

It was definitely exaggerated when they present EVERY black person in N and S. America as coming over on slave ships despite their being pictures and DESCRIPTIONS of black indians being in America when the modern European went there.

But approximately how much of the current black American population do you think are not African then?

Btw it has nothing to do with "white supremacy" (doesnt exist). It has to do with the Israelites and keeping them from recognizing who they are, because when they do and turn back to the Creator, well:

Deuteronomy 30
when you and your children return to the Lord your God and obey him with all your heart and with all your soul according to everything I command you today, 3 then the Lord your God will restore your fortunes[a] and have compassion on you and gather you again from all the nations where he scattered you. 4 Even if you have been banished to the most distant land under the heavens, from there the Lord your God will gather you and bring you back. 5 He will bring you to the land that belonged to your ancestors, and you will take possession of it. He will make you more prosperous and numerous than your ancestors. 6 The Lord your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live. 7 The Lord your God will put all these curses on your enemies who hate and persecute you.

All they're doing is trying to prolong the inevitable.

So do you think that the "native" Americans constitute the full twelve tribes of Israel?

 

[bible_student]

Huh? I thought we were talking about the Dutch Afrikaans? Their ancestors went to South Africa and did the Africans there in the same manner as they're being done now. This being after having an apartheid system set up there that put the indigenous Africans at the bottom of their society. Who's oppressing who?

I believe (based on some things I was told) that it was the Freemasons and Illuminati people who set all of that up, perhaps as an experiment and/or as part of their long term plans. Today they have the "Afrikanerbond" there (used to be called the Broederbond) who uses lots of Illuminati symbolism. South Africa has always been about the natural resources and it still is. It's basically the Oppenheimer family that owns SA and some of the Rothschild family are also there in the Cape, making wine. They don't want the Dutch Afrikaners to be there (who came looking for a new life and freedom and who tried to make peace and live peacefully along with the black tribes that they encountered; South Africa was still sparsely populated when they arrived; and there is documentary proof of this that survives to this day) and along with the British elites have demonized them.

Just look at how "their" media is allowed to openly mock them, while the farm murders and gruesome deaths are totally real:

(That little song ^ is a Rothschild production).

I was also told, that the black on white farm murders there are being done by black mercenaries who are being PAID to go and do the murders, etc... and in case you may be wondering, no, it's NOT black people who are paying them to do it.. will just leave it at that.

And yall need to cut it out the the David/Royalty connection.

They know they are descended from David. Queen Victoria had a chart made, showing their lineage all the way back to David that was displayed in (I believe was, but could be mistaken) Windsor Castle (?). Someone may be able to show it;

let me know the last/first time you heard the royal family ackownledge the Creator and His laws.

At Elizabeth Battenberg's fraudulent Coronation:

J for Justice - Elizabeth 2 Go

jforjustice.net

Then, when you fail to do that,

I didn't fail, see above.

let me know which one of the countries they have control over observes the Torah.

They don't, because they have gone away from God's Laws in favour of observing their own man-made legislation in order to be able to rip everybody off and make themselves richer, while everyone else gets poorer and poorer. Sound familiar?

Then, when you also fail to do that, go to Deuteronomy 28 and read Israel's fate when they obey (vs 1-15) and when they disobey (vs 16-end). The people you're calling Israelites are being BLESSED despite DISOBEYING the Torah.

They have been blessed for a long time, because of the Promise to Abraham, but that Promise has now been fulfilled and so it has run out, and they are as a result going to be punished by losing WW3, against the Chinese and Russians:

From the Gibraltar Messenger:
"...However, relying on the UK or the USA in the long-term is foolish, because, for their and your defiance of God, and rejection of the Sovereignty of Christ, they are going to lose WW3, as is prophesied in Revelation 11 about the Two Witnesses - Britain and America - the TRUE Israel. Log on to JAHTruth.net/horse; and JAHTruth.net/britca. You are Israelites too: JAHTruth.net/gibfg: and JAHTruth.net/britspan.

Christ, not Elizabeth, is your rightful Sovereign.

God has always defended them and you, until now, because of His Promise to Abraham, but that promise has already been fulfilled, so has now run out, and He is going to punish them and you for your idolatry, and defying Him, rejecting Christ as your King, breaking His Commandments and your Covenant with Him, to be His demonstration people to the rest of the world, about how wonderful it is to live under His Commandments and Perfect Royal Law of Liberty, and His Blessings that accompany obedience. Log on to -JAHTruth.net/abraham; and JAHTruth.net/blescur.

During the previous two World Wars and previous wars, He sank the Spanish Armada that Sir Francis Drake mopped-up after, and gave the British and Americans the best weapons' technology with which to defeat their enemies, but now He is giving it to Russia, China and Iran instead, so that they will win WW3, and the UK and USA will lose.

Look at the Joint Strike Fighter F35 piece of ridiculously expensive junk, and compare it to the amazing Russian and Chinese planes. The American designer of the F15 and F16 has said that the F35 is the worst plane the US has ever designed, and the F22 is not much better. See this weblink: sploid.gizmodo.com/the-designer-of-the-f-16-explains-why-the-f-35-is-such-1591828468.

Here's what the UK Daily Express wrote about it: www.express.co.uk/news/uk/547086 /RAF-s-150million-stealth-fighter-jet-could-shut-down-after-overheating-fears.

Here's what the impartial Australians have said: www.youtube.com/watch?v=27qdB1D0s9M.

N.B. Unbiased American report: www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNRMO70Hw0s.

Americans Have Spent Enough Money On A Broken Plane To Buy Every Homeless Person A Mansion

Further reading: The F-35 Wont Be Able To Fire A Shot Until 2019 Due To The Latest Problem

Snowden leak: Snowden leak reveals massive size of F-35 blueprints hack by China

See also: New US fighter jet on course to becoming "one of history's biggest white elephants"

No, the F-35 Cant Fight at Long Range, Either - Stealth fighter cant see, shoot or survive: https://medium.com/war-is-boring/no-the-f-35-can-t-fight-at-long-range-either-5508913252dd

Here is almost an admission by the Americans that they will lose: sputniknews.com/world/20150412/1020791573.html

The F-35 Just Catches on Fire Sometimes - And the Pentagon knew that for years: https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-f-35-can-just-catch-on-fire-sometimes-eecce430792b"

After Shocking Failures, F-35 Could be Long Gone by New Defense Chief: http://sputniknews.com/military/20150713/1024535149.html

F-35 Fighter Jet More Problematic and Costly than Ever Imagined - Air Force Secretary:http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/07/30/f-35-fighter-jet-more-problematic-and-costly-than-ever-imagined-air-force-secretary

US May Forget About Air Supremacy With F-35: Future Belongs to Russian Jets: http://sputniknews.com/military/20150816/1025799961.html

Indian Air Force 'beats RAF 12-0 in training exercise' - using Russian-designed jets: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/indian-air-force-beats-raf-120-in-training-exercise--using-russiandesigned-jets-10444466.html

There's also the ridiculously expensive USN stealth ship that some say they dare not take out to sea, because it would capsize and sink.

Then there's the recent incident in the Black Sea, where the latest Aegis Class missile destroyer, the USS Donald Cook (Donald Sitting Duck would be more appropriate) was left helpless by a single unarmed Russian SU-24 tactical fighter-bomber, that disabled all its defenses and teased and mocked the crew; who were mucking themselves; by flying over it 12 times, showing that it could easily have sunk it, and them. Many of the sailors then resigned from the US Navy. See www.voltairenet.org/article185860.html.

Russias New Super Weapon Can Switch Off Electronics On Guided Missiles: http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=118271

This doesn't even countenance the amazing Russian Sunburn Onyx/Yakhont supersonic anti-ship missiles and Shkval torpedoes. See: www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/moskit.htm and www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/shkval.htm.

All about Russia's Newest Advanced Stealth Fighter - Documentary: http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=117041

Here's China's equivalent of Russia's most deadly fighter jet: http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=114770

Another independent opinion - The U.S. Navy is Risking Everything on a Fatally Flawed Technology: http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=116422

When WW3; that the banksters are desperate to start; gets underway, Then what will you do? See: JforJustice.net/banksters.

If you want to survive, you NEED to study, digest, and LIVE: "The Way home or face The Fire" -thewayhomeorfacethefire.net, the title of which is self-explanatory, and become a light to the World, in fulfillment of the vision that a lady from the Bethel church had, twenty years ago. The vision she was given was of a large diamond (Christ - the Light of the World) in Gibraltar giving off a beautiful light, but with leaves continually falling over it (Him), trying to cover it (Him) up, until it (He) finally threw off those leaves and lit up the whole world from Gibraltar.

Russian Stealth-Fighter Sukhoi T-50
Your ONLY hope, as We've been telling you, is to stop your idolatry and start to listen and do as you have been commanded to do by God, and return to His Law, if you want His protection, because the UK and USA will be defeated, and unable to help even themselves, never mind you. No-one else is going to be able to help you. No-one! See JAHTruth.net/horse..."

Gibraltar Messenger