The Brit-Am Rose
rose
Symbol of United Israel


Brit-Am Now no. 1149
Date 13 May 2008, 8 Iyar 5768
Contents:
1. Claim that the Amerindians and Chinese are Canaanites and Brit-Am Reply
2. David Browning: The Hebrew "
Matteh" and its European Derivatives
3. Brit-Am Secular Proofs:
Israelite Consciousness and Biblical Place Names in the USA


rose
Publications

Brit-Am
Discussion Group
Contact
Contents by Subject Research
Revelation
Reconciliation


Contribute
Site Map
Contents in Alphabetical Order
Search
This Site


1. Claim that the Amerindians and Chinese are Canaanites and Brit-Am Reply
Edward Bradbrooke <rabbikimchi@hotmail.com> wrote:
RE: Brit-Am Now no. 1148
#1. Amerindians From Israel? New Evidence?
http://britam.org/now/1148Now.html#Amerindians

 

The Amerindians are Canaanim, and so are the Chinese a branch of Canaan. The Sinites/Sinim are the Chinese as per Genesis 10.
 
The Philistim/Philistines are a branch of Mizraim-Egypt.
 
As for the claim of Israelite origins of the Amerindians? Prove it.
 
If you do a comparison of languages, or philology, many of the First Nations - Original Peoples of Canada and the United States of America are directly related to the Ural Altaic languages. Simply put, they are Turkish in origin. This would then explain why the Canaanim spread abroad from the mountains of Ararat after the Great Deluge in the Days of Noah.
 
Please DO NOT use the term "Aboriginal." The prefix "Ab" means "Not". So, to call the First Nations Peoples "Aboriginal" is outright lying out of simple stupidity and ignorance of the English language.
 
It's like saying "Abnormal" is normal. It is no wonder why the Courts interpret only those things spelled out on the Documents in accordance with normal English Grammar procedures.
 
I hate to see the English language get more twisted to suit the Establishment. Then the masses follow suit, because of the misguided leadership.



================================================
Brit-Am Reply:
The idea that the Amerindians are Canaanites has been raised in the past.
This is an interesting possibility but available information links the majority of them with East Asia and with the Peoples of Japhet. These possibilities do not nullify the probability of there having been some elements of Hebrew origin amongst them. The Chinese in our opinion also descend from Japhet and perhaps are included in the descendants of Magog. They too may also include other elements as suggested from time to time in various postings of ours. The identification of China as "Sin" and therefore its people as "Sinites" appears to be fairly recent. In Modern Hebrew China is called "Sin". We identifiy the Sinites with the Australian Aborigines and the Land of Sinim (Isaiah 49) from where a portion of the Lost Ten Tribes are to return as Australia.
See:
"Land of Sinim. The Lost Ten Tribes and Australia"
The Australian Aborigines are related to Primitive Peoples remnants of whom are to be found in Southern Arabia, India, China, and East Asia, and perhaps also in South America. There are indications that they originally emerged from China before the present-day Chinese occupied most of it, and such is the opinion of several researchers.
In this case, the two explanations could be both correct.
The Land of China was indeed first settled by the "Sinim" and therefore may be referred to as "Sin" (which is NOT a Biblical Term but a modern one) but these people later moved on the whole to Australia and therefore Australia in referred to as "Land of Sinim".
We never said that the Amerindians had Israelite origins but rather that some Israelites probably settled amongst them.
These is a vast literature on this subject. Even if one wishes to dismiss all the various claims concerning the Hebrew origins of some of the North Amerindians as wishful-thinking on the part of enthusiasts some of the proofs will still remain.
See our articles,
Amerindians
 Steven Collins: The Ten Commandments in America?

We repeat however that our major emphasis is that the Lost Ten Tribes are to be found as distinct identifiable entities expressing their Israelite destiny amongst peoples of West European origin. This includes North America amongst whom the Northern Amerindians and their descendants are now also to be found.
This is our emphasis and this is the point we are prepared to debate upon.
This is Brit-Am.
Experience shows that debating other matters is liable to quickly develop into unnecessary distraction.
 By "the Ural Altaic languages" you mean those of East Asia especially the East Siberian area.
Historically the Turks did emerge from this region and spoke such a language.
Our understanding however is that originally there was a group of peoples including the Togarmah (Tilgarimmu), Cumans (Kummanu), and Hittites in the area of what is now East Turkey. Elements from this region migrated (or were expelled by the Assyrians) to Central Asia and Mongolia where they intermixed with Nordic and Mongolian peoples and received a "Turkish" (in modern terms)-type language. They then returned and conquered what is now Turkey imposing their newly-acquired language and culture on the inhabitants all of whom became the "Turks" of Turkey.

The etymology of the English word "aborigine" is given in 'The American Heritage Dictionary' as derived
<<From  Latin "Aborigines", probably an alteration of some tribal name, reshaped by folk etymology as if derived from "ab origine",  "from the beginning".
If The American Heritage Dictionary is correct it would mean that you are mistaken but this does not affect our field of interest at the moment one way or the other.




2. David Browning: The Hebrew "Matteh" and its European Derivatives
From: "dave-browning@suddenlink.net" <dave-browning@suddenlink.net>
Subject: Re: Brit-Am Now no. 1145

Dear Yair, et al,

I wanted to add to Ope Tuslapsi <opetuslapsi@yahoo.com>'s post concerning the Hebrew word MATTEH.

Interestingly enough, i recently did a study of the etymology of the word "tribe" looking for links back to the Semetic tongues. Most of the Germanic (European, English etc) words have no direct link to the Hebrew "Matteh" even though it is these words we find the translators using in place of the Hebrew (ROD of anger, STAFF of bread, SCEPTOR) in our English Bibles.
***
Etymologies:

The Hebrew word MATTEH is translated into the english words "tribe" [182], "rod" [52], "staff" [15], "staves" [1], and "tribe + HSN04294" [1]; 149 times in the bible.

"MATTEH". [Mem Tet Hey] HSN [Hebrew Strongs Number] 04294 has these allusions in the Hebrew

Lexicon; 1) staff, branch, tribe; a) staff, rod, shaft; b) branch (of vine); c) tribe, 1) company led by chief with staff (originally). It has also been translated to "scepter" and "spear"

The root of MATTEH (a noun) is NATAH (a verb) [Nun Tet Hey] HSN 05186 which is a primitive root with the Scriptural allusions: 1) to stretch out, extend, spread out, pitch, turn, pervert, incline, bend, bow; a) (simple action - active voice), 1) to stretch out, extend, stretch, offer; 2) to spread out, pitch (tent); 3) to bend, turn, incline, a) to turn aside, incline, decline, bend down; b) to bend, bow; c) to hold out, extend (fig.) b) (simple action - passive voice) to be stretched out; c) (casual action - active voice); 1) to stretch out; 2) to spread out; 3) to turn, incline, influence, bend down, hold out, extend, thrust aside, thrust away. According to Gesenius's Lexicon as a plural adjective it alludes to "descending. coming down".
http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/
Lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H5186&version=KJV

***

It occurs to me, that originally the MATTEH, was a handy stick or branch, a shepherd would select to aid in the herding of the flock. Indeed, it seems its earliest concept was that of a vine, or branch of a tree...it was associated with "growing", or living things "flora". As the Shephard continued using this tool, and as his/her skill with it increased in "leading the flock", they would become an authority figure (at least in the old pastoral-nomadic culture from which Israel came), hence the MATTEH in Scripture is found with authority, either giving or receiving.

Yet as one looks at all the words and all the languages involved (in our concern, i.e. lost tribes) it seems there is nothing close... that this very important concept did not arrive in Europe in any tangible relational form, except for this:

mace (1)
Vulgar Latin *mattea (cf. It. mazza, Spanish. maza "mace"), from Latin mateola "a kind of mallet." The L. word probably is cognate with Sanskrit. matyam "harrow, club," Old Church Slavonic motyka "mattock," Old High German medela "plow."
"heavy metal weapon with a spiked head," 1297, from O.Fr. mace "a club, scepter,"
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Mace
So we can easily trace and see how the ancient Hebrew word did survive in the barbarian tongues, yet its intimate meaning according to the old Shephard's experience did not, except perhaps in medieval prose, i think Shakespeare uses "mace" as an authority symbol somewhere...but don't hold me to that. In any event, this transformation from the Shephard's STAFF, to the Governor's PLOW reflects what was happening to the tribes as they penetrated further into Europe and went from nomadic warriors to farmers.

Its simply amazing, which is the point of this post, how, no matter how you look at it, so much of the original tongue of Scripture finds its way to Us, the barbarians (Germanic tribes-yet often subtly as in Ope Tuslapsi's family's name) by unexplainable means, unless we have an intimacy with that tongue that is by in large unaccepted, or unknown.

The very alphabet we teach our first graders, and use, or try to *smile*, ourselves is obviously and almost explicitly based on the original language of Scripture... don't you find that simply amazing, and more importantly telling? There's something going on here that can only be explained if the Germanic tribes origins are in an extremely intimate association to the Lost Tribes, the Lost Sons of Jacob.

If you use that premise, then reality begins to make sense. The Barbarians are the perfect, shux, only logical candidates for the lost tribes, all the data revealing this is overwhelming. No rational, thinking person, who is uninhibited in their status, or explorations of possibility will not deny this, as the facts are laid before them, in their endless array.



3. Brit-Am Secular Proofs:
Israelite Consciousness and Biblical Place Names in the USA
http://www.britam.org/Proof/secular/ListofSecularProofs.html
National Characteristics
http://www.britam.org/Proof/secular/National.html
includes
National Affinity with Judah or lack of it.
Existence of Israelite Consciousness
An example of Israelite Self-Identification would be the large number of Hebrew place-names in the USA. A list of these names and an analysis from the point of view as to which Israelite Tribes they are associated with is to be found (State by State) at:
Biblical Place Names in America
http://britam.org/names.html





Brit-Am is the "still small voice" that contains the truth.
[1-Kings 19:12] AND AFTER THE EARTHQUAKE A FIRE; BUT THE LORD WAS NOT IN THE FIRE: AND AFTER THE FIRE A STILL SMALL VOICE.

PREVIOUS ISSUES


Security Cameras, Florida, USA.
security cameras