Details on How To Contribute to Brit-Am
http://britam.org/contribute-Brit-Am.html

Brit-Am Now no. 1543
The Lost Ten Tribes of Israel Movement
15 July 2010, 4 Ab 5770
Contents:
1. New Article and You Tube Video Clip
The
Khazars were NOT Turks!
2. TG Asks Questions and Makes Statements and is Replied to:
Khazars and Scottish Picts; Ashkenaz and Jews; Hungarians and Khazars; Converts
3. Joan Griffith: King
Tut Irish???
4.
C.E. CalahnH.W. Armstrong and Stephen Collins
5. Jim Wright: Garner Ted Armstrong and his work


rose

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


Contribute
Site Map
Contents in Alphabetical Order
Search
This Site


1. New Article and You Tube Video Clip
The
Khazars were NOT Turks!
http://britam.org/KhazarsNOTTurks.html
Extract:
The Khazars were Hebrews. The Khazars were not a Turkish group as is often claimed. Yair Davidiy from the Brit-Am Ten Tribes Movement explains why the Khazars were not Turkic.

The Ruling House of the Khazars was known as Ansa in Arabic and in another Arabic source as Ayishai. Both these forms Ansa and Ayishai are considered the equivalent as the Hebrew "Yishai"  i.e. Jesse.  The House of Jesse i.e. the House of David.




2. TG Asks Questions and Makes Statements and is Replied to:
Khazars and Scottish Picts; Ashkenaz and Jews; Hungarians and Khazars; Converts

TG wrote:
Re
The Khazars were from the Ten Tribes.
http://britam.org/KhazarsTenTribes.html

You are being imaginative again I see.

The art of a good argument, is of course supporting evidence to back up your logic.

Where do you get this from,
Brit-Am said:
"The Khazars were also known as Agathyrsi and according to Roman accounts a portion of the Agathyrsi crossed the sea and became the Picts in Northern Scotland."?

Do you know what the problem with this is "


Brit-Am had said:

# Anti-Semites make use of the Khazars to attack the Jews, Zionism, and the State of Israel. They say that the Khazars were a Turkish Tribe who became Jewish and their descendants gave rise to all the Ashkenazic Jews of Europe. The Jews are therefore impostors they say and not the People of the Bible and have no ancestral claim to the Land of Israel. This is not true. Even if it was true however it would not matter. #


Ashkenaz was a name given to the region of germanic migration in Europe as used by Jews in Bavel [Babylon] c.2-3 century CE. Thats BEFORE Kazars ever appeared! Any remaining Kazars, if they fled into Central Europe, would have done so in Early Middle Ages, 1000 years later!

Kazars themselves claimed Turkic origins! There is evidence for this in multiple sources. They were in fact the advanced tribes of a very large Turic migration that the Ottomans were also a part of. The Uighurs of China today were also part of this migration, but went East rather than West. A better question remains, where did they all come from? You see, IF the Kazars did convert to Judaism, and later fled into Central Europe, why are they not genetically different to hereditary Jews? For that matter, why aren't other East Europeans? Hungarians were also part fot he same migration, and at one time were a subject tribe of the Khazars living in what is today Western Ukraine. With the collapse of the Kazars they fled West, but they remain Turic. Have you ever met a Hungarian? Until he/she starts speaking Hungarian, you won't know where he/she is from....maybe even Ireland ;) One even sees blonds and redheads among Hungarians, and not through intermarriage. Same is true for most Turic tribes, just go to Turkey sometime.

This "The Bible allows the Jewish people to accept converts. Converts are Jews. They have the same rights as everybody else (Exodus 22:20, Numbers 15:15, Ezekiel 47:22). They also have a right to the Land of Israel since God promised it to the Israelite Nation as long as they acknowledge ONE GOD (Genesis 17:8) and keep the Law (Leviticus 18:25)." is not true. Converts do not have same halakhic rights, their children do. A convert is not a Levi or a Kohen, and can not become a king.

I can say more, but this will do for now.

However, I know its falling on death ears since you are so set in your own 'world' that you can't hear reason.

TG



Brit-Am Replies:

Were have you been all this time TG? At least you seem just as pungent as ever. Cant keep a good man down, can they?
Sergius a Romman writer commenting on Vurgil recorded the Agathyrsi moving to Scotland and becoming Picts. Other sources also refer to this
and it would appear to receive some support from archaeological findings.
For details, See our book,
"The Khazars. Tribe 13"
http://www.britam.org/Khazarbook.html

We never said the Khazars were connected to Ashkenaz.
What does Ashkenaz have to do with it?
We mentioned the European or Ashkenazic Jews but they have little to do with Ashkenaz!
In  Medieval Times "Ashkenaz" was the name Jews came from Germany.
At one time many Jews dwelt in Alsace on the border of Germany or in Germany itself. Then came the Crusades and other trouble and the Jews fled to the east. In Eastern Europe they created new communities or became influential in existing ones. Because they had come from what was considered "Ashkenaz" (i.e. Germany) they were called Ashkenazim.  No-one attributed to them any ancestral connection to Ashkenaz as a person.
Similarly, Eastern Jews are often called "Sephardim" after Sepharad meaning Spain. When the Jews were expelled from Spain they often went to the east.  They became a dominating element in Eastern Jewsih communities who adopted the customs and forms of prayer the Spanish Jews (or "Sephardim") had brought with them. Consequently the term "Sephardim" is sometimes applied to all of them even though in many cases none of their ancestors ever had any contact with Spain whatsoever.

See Wikipedia, Ashkenaz
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenaz
In the Bible,
Ashkenaz is Gomer's first son, brother of Riphath and Togarmah (Gen. 10:3, 1 Chronicles 1:6), thereby a Japhetic descendant of Noah. A kingdom of Ashkenaz is called together with Ararat and Minni against Babylon (Jer. 51:27).

There is a theory that biblical
Askhenaz arose from Ashkuz (= the Scythians) by an old misread of (nun) for (vav). Ashkenaz is also regarded as the father of the Scythians, Sarmatians, and other Indo-Aryans, due largely to the use of the name "Ashkuz" (Saka) for the Scythians in Assyrian Akkadian inscriptions. It may also refer to the Phrygians, who according to Homer's Iliad settled around Lake Ascania.

In rabbinic literature
Ashkenaz is believed to be the ancestor of the Germanic, Scandinavian and Slavic peoples, probably due to the similarity of the names Gomer and German, and the similarity of Ashkenaz to the name of Ask, the first human male in Norse mythology, or Aschanes (Askanius), mythological progenitor of the Saxons (see also: Oisc of Kent). For this reason, Ashkenaz is the Medieval Hebrew name for Germany.

Ashkenazi Jews, also known as Ashkenazic Jews or Ashkenazim (Standard Hebrew: sing. , pronounced [ ashkenazi], pl. [ a shkenazim] (this 'z' is pronounced as in English "zip", not German-fashion as "ts"); also Yehudei Ashkenaz, "the Jews of Ashkenaz"), are descended from the medieval Jewish communities of the Rhineland.

Just for the record,
Ashkenaz was a son of Gomer. Gomer a son of Japhet son of Noah.
[Genesis 10:3] AND THE SONS OF GOMER; ASHKENAZ, AND RIPHATH, AND TOGARMAH. 
Descendants of Ashkenaz are mentioned in the early Aramaic Translation of Yehonatan and in Midrashim.
Peoples in northern Mesopotamia just to the south of the Caucasus area seem to be intended.
Later Ashkenaz was identified with Germany though additional identifications of Germany also existed.

The Khazars did not claim Turkic origins. This is a mistake.
See our article:      
The Khazars were NOT Turks!
http://britam.org/KhazarsNOTTurks.html


The rest of your letter was a bit over my head or a bit confused or both.
Jewish DNA is different in more than 80% of the cases from that of East European Gentiles. They may look similar but their DNA is quite different. Jewish DNA for what it is worth is considered closest to that of North Italians and Italians in the far south of Italy as well as that of Sardinia. Future studies may come up with other results but this is what the bright boys are saying at present!

You are confusing Hungarians with Magyars. The Magyars were once subject to the Khazars and Onogurs. The Magyars rebelled and fled to what is now Hungary. The Magyars had been subject to the Khazar Onogurs. Onogurs means Ten Tribes. The terms had become one of status and had been adopted by several groups in Central Asia. [At one stage both Bulgars and Avars referred to themselves as Onogurs.] The Onogurs who ruled over the Magyars were part of the Khazar Federation. [The name "Hungary" derives from Onogur]. The Khazar-Onogurs were also known as "White Ugrians" meaning Onogur Rulers whereas the Magyars were called Black Ugrians meaning Onogur subjects. The name Magyars is a form of Maceri which is how their name was also pronounced and is derived from Machir son of Manasseh. They received this name from the Khazars who ruled over them and in Central Asia it was the custom for subjects to take the name of their rulers. From the region of southern Russia (and east of it) seven Magyar Tribes together with three Kabar tribes rebelled against the Khazars and fled to Hungary. The origin of the Kabars is not certain but they are often considered to be a branch of the Khazars.  We have our own explanation for that, but see our book, or remain in doubt.
 The Kabars may have settled in the Bihar region on the border of Romania and Hungary. In Hungary the Magyars conquered Slavic and other peoples and imposed upon them their language and aspects of their culture. At one stage Magyars comprised ca. 40% of the Hungarian population. Later many of the Magyars were killed off by other invaders, had lower birthrates,  etc. Today it is estimated that perhaps 13% of the Hungarian population is of original Mayar origin. Most Hungarians however identify themselves as Magyars. They include the descendants of Slavs, Southern Germans, and possibly also Jews who were assimilated amongst them.
Hungary is a very anti-Semitic country.
On the other hand Brit-Am has at least two exceptionally strong supporters of Hungarian origin so there may be some Israelite elements still there or amongst those of them who migrated to North America, etc.

As for converts, you have a point.
We overstated the case. It could be a little more complicated than we stated. This however does not really matter. Most Jews are not converts. In addition, many of those who are converts actually descend from Jews or from the Ten Tribes.




3. Joan Griffith: King Tut Irish???

King Tut Scottish? How far can DNA theories stretch?

http://heritage-key.com/blogs/ann/king-tut-scottish
-how-far-can-dna-theories-stretch


Hi,

David Rohl has said in a video of one of his presentations that Solomon must have married King Tut's widow, which I suggested to you awhile back. If there was a family connection of some kind, all the more reason Solomon might have found her acceptable and vice versa. I've often wondered why Abraham etc went running to Egypt -- there should have been other places they could have gone. `

They did not have to be specifically related to Abraham et al, but to the people from whom they came (and returned to for obtaining wives). The fact that Abraham married his sister and that the Egyptian royalty did the same might be a link toward such a relationship. Apparently the idea was to keep the lineage pure, like a breeding program. lol, that looks odd in print, but it is what it is: something much more important to the ancients than it is to us today.

The genetics of the Pharaohs changed now & then, as some are known to be negroid and some are of light complexion. Now the genetics relate Tut to the Scots-Irish! That does not mean the genetics of the ruled people changed--just that of the rulers.

Hope this is not too confusing. The link above regarding the genetics of King Tut info is just toooo inspiring-- :)

Joan



4. C. E. CalahnH.W. Armstrong and Stephen Collins

REGARDING H.W. Armstrong and his teaching about the ten lost tribes . I also was a member and deacon for 17 years of his church . He had some things right and his basic knowledge came from Joseph's Birthright and Judah's Scepter by Rev. J.H. Allen , Destiny Publishers , Merrimac , Mass . Historically it is a correct view and those who deny " The Ten Lost Tribes " are either ignorant or have an agenda . The truth about the promise given to Abraham , Issac , and Jacob show God's plan for mankind is going as He outlined it for us . However it is a major blow to the evolution theory . Stephen Collins, The Lost Ten Tibes Found , Israel's Lost Empires , The Origins and Empire of Ancient Israel and Parthia and excellent references .  C.E. Calahn




5. Jim Wright: Garner Ted Armstrong and his work
From: Jim Wright <lumberguy2003@yahoo.com>
Re: Brit-Am Now no. 1542

Greetings Yair -
 
I often see people mention HW Armstrong's writings regarding the Lost Tribes, but I haven't seen anyone mention his son, Garner Ted Armstrong's book.
 
HW Armstrong had some errors in his book, and he didn't use many sources - (none if you read an early version).
 
But I have been putting out the Challenge for over 20 years for anyone to show error or falsehood in Garner Ted's book, he documents every fact with reputable sources it is concise and to the point, and is in my opinion the single best source of info on the subject.
 
Your work is much more in depth and covers more than just Joseph, and is a 1000 times more extensive.
 
But as far as putting the entire matter into a nutshell his book is the best - in my opinion.
 
And no one has been able to show any error or falsehood in the 20 years I have been putting out the challenge - except he labeled a verse 2 Samuel when it should have said 1 Samuel, and that error was corrected by his son Mark as soon as I brought it to his attention.
 
Here is the link:
 
http://www.garnertedarmstrong.org/pubs/europe.htm

You are a researcher, and it is the nature of research to get into theory and conjecture.
 
Garner Ted Armstrong as a servant of The LORD stuck with only hard verifiable facts, and he wasn't too proud to use numerous outside sources, or to include an extensive Bibliography - a major, major problem with his dad and his book.
 
Anyhow I will use this opportunity to issue the friendliest of challenges to you to show error or falsehood in his book.
 
Bet you can't do it
 
But if anyone could - it would be you!!
 
Many Blessings on you, your family and your work -
 
Jim Wright
 ================================================
================================================
Brit-Am Reply:
We avoid criticizing the works of others in this field especially when their viewpoint on the subject is compatible with our own.
I saw the work by Garner Ted some time ago.
Most of the works we have come across emanating from positive sources are worth while. Each has its own attributes and advantages.
Different approaches suit different types.
Personally I think our work "Origin" is under-appreciated.
http://britam.org/origin.html
This work, "Origin", is not too long (only 124 pages of text and illustration), easy-to-read, and comprehensive.
It deserves to be read more.




To Make an Offering to Brit-Am:
http://www.britam.org/contribute-Brit-Am.html






rose

Pleased with what you read'
The Brit-Am enterprise is a Biblical work.
God willing, they who assist Brit-Am will be blessed.
Brit-Am depends on contributions alongside purchases of our publications

Click Here to make an offering.
Click Here to view our publications.






'It is impossible to rightly govern the world without
God or the Bible.'
  George Washington




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

PREVIOUS ISSUES


Security Cameras, Florida, USA.
security cameras



The Lifestyle Doctor
Doctor


Home