Addressing False Doctrines

This is the 16th and last critical review of the beliefs known collectively as British-Israel, and as with the first fifteen, we will address statements which W.H. Poole made in his book entitled Anglo-Israel Or, The British Nation: The Lost Tribes Of Israel (hereinafter A-I/BN). The purpose of this series is to confirm this belief system where it is correct and to give constructive criticism where it is in error. With this paper we will explore more of the topics which Poole addressed, and we’ll evaluate whether his premises are valid or flawed. We will start this session by quoting Poole on page 75:

“THE HARP.

“As to the unicorn, it is an un-English animal. It is probably the equicerous of Cuvier, or the hippelaphus of Aristotle. It was usually sculptured in profile, on bas-reliefs; its two horns, being erect, looked like one. On our standard it combines somewhat the figure of a horse and of an antelope or hind. These were both emblems of the Saxons. In this combination we have the horse of Dan, and the hind of Naphtali, see Genesis xlix, 21, ‘Naphtali is a hind let loose.’ (Dan is always seen on a fine looking horse, like King William, Prince of Orange in our day.)”

This is the 15th critical review of the beliefs known collectively as British-Israel, and as with the first fourteen, we will address statements which W.H. Poole made in his book entitled Anglo-Israel Or, The British Nation: The Lost Tribes Of Israel (hereinafter A-I/BN). The purpose of this series is to confirm such a belief system where it is correct and to give constructive criticism where it is in error. With this paper we will explore more of the topics which Poole addresses, and we’ll evaluate whether his premises are valid or flawed. We will start this session by quoting Poole on page 68:

“THE GIRDLE.

“4. The colonial possessions of Israel were to encircle both continents. Deuteronomy xxxii, 8, ‘When the Most High divided the nations he set the bounds of the people according to their inheritance.’ ‘The Lord’s portion is his people, Israel is the (measuring) rod of his inheritance.’ ‘He hath determined the bounds of their habitation’.”

My critique: As I have shown before, Poole has a habit of misquoting Scripture. Deut. 32:8 actually says: “When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.” To add to this, he didn’t identify from where he was quoting “He hath determined the bounds of their habitation.” The only passage that I could find that reads remotely like this is Acts 17:26, and to his credit, it does cross-reference with Deut. 32:8. Also, to Poole’s credit, the term “rod” is used along with the term “inheritance” at Psalm 74:2. To Poole’s discredit, an electronic search does not describe “rod” as “girdle”, “belt” or “circle”, let alone all three in any Hebrew or Greek word. Otherwise, I don’t disagree with his conclusions under this heading. Back to Poole:

“The ‘rod’ means girdle, belt, circle. So the possessions of Israel are to be so situated that they will bound, or encircle the other nations. Israel is to possess the ‘sides of the earth,’ the ‘coasts of the earth,’ the ‘ends of the earth,’ the ‘uttermost parts of the earth,’ the ‘uttermost boundaries of the everlasting hills.’ This could not be said of two nations. If, therefore, we find a nation holding this position, we find Israel.

This is the 14th critical review of the beliefs collectively known as British-Israel, and as with the first thirteen, we will address statements which W.H. Poole made in his book entitled Anglo-Israel Or, The British Nation: The Lost Tribes Of Israel (hereinafter A-I/BN). The purpose of this series is to confirm such a belief system where it is correct and to give constructive criticism where it is in error. With this paper we will explore more of Poole’s conclusions on topics he addresses and we’ll evaluate whether they are valid or flawed. We will start this session by quoting Poole on page 61, on the subject of Tara, where we left off in part #13:

“TARA.” (continued)

“In those early times much of the history of the nation was written in [the] poems of the country. As might be expected, the introduction of an Eastern princess became an inspiring theme. I cannot now quote from them, though there is much of interest in many of those I have on hand.

“Who has not heard ‘The Harp that [was] once in Tara’s Hall?’

“‘When a land rejects her legends

Sees but falsehood in the past,

And its people view their sires,

In the light of fools, or liars,

’Tis a sign of its decline,

And its splendors cannot last,

Branches, that but blight their roots

Yield no sap for lasting fruits.’

“In Ireland, county Fermanagh, four miles below Enniskillen there is a lake called Lough Erin. In this lake there is an Island, called Davenish, on which there is a round tower; connected with the tower is a very ancient cemetery. In that cemetery there are very ancient monuments, and in one corner of the cemetery there is a tomb hewn out of a solid rock. That tomb has from time immemorial been called ‘Jeremiah’s tomb.’ A gentleman, living in this city, says, ‘I have seen that tomb hundreds of times.’

“It is well known to historians that, for centuries, Ireland was the university for all Europe. There are, however, so many who do not know it, and who are not willing to admit the facts about the musical and literary character of Ireland at those times, I will quote from two or three impartial testimonies. Sir James McIntosh, says, ‘The Irish nation possesses genuine history several centuries more ancient than any other European nation possesses in its present spoken language.

This is the 13th critical review of the beliefs known collectively as British-Israel, and as with the first twelve, we will address statements which W.H. Poole made in his book entitled Anglo-Israel Or, The British Nation: The Lost Tribes Of Israel (hereinafter A-I/BN). The purpose of this series is to support this belief system where it is correct and to give constructive criticism where it is in error. With this paper we will explore more of the topics which Poole addresses and we’ll evaluate whether the premises are valid or flawed. We will start this session by quoting Poole on page 54; a continuation on the topic of “Language” where we left off in part #12 of this series:

“LANGUAGE. [continued]

“Professor E.W. Bird says, ‘In regard to the assumption that the Anglo-Saxon is Aryan, and one with the Germanic, Teutonic and Latin family of tongues, we deny that the evidence is conclusive of the facts assumed. We assert, on the contrary, that the Anglo-Saxon, in grammatic [sic, -al] structure and idiomatic texture, differs materially from the so-called cognate German, or Aryan languages. The truth rather seems to be that English is a Shemitic tongue, which has long been in contact with Aryan tongues, and has thereby suffered a large transfusion of verbal roots and dialectic forms. It exhibits just such a transformation as one would expect Hebrew would have sustained by subjection to the domination of the Aryan tongues, during a period of more than thirteen centuries. The Saxons, if Hebrews, were, during that long period, migrating slowly westward across the Aryan territories of Europe from their Shemitic centre; and their language, while it tenaciously retains its Hebrew grammatic [sic. -al] and idiomatic structure, besides a really large number of Hebrew roots, has adopted, as it was sure to do, the very considerable amount of Aryan verbal roots and dialectic forms we know to exist in it. This we believe to be the true theory of the affinity of the Anglo-Saxon with the Teutonic, or Germanic language, erroneously assumed to be its foundation. Such affinity of language as exists is proof of contact not of affinity of race’.”

My critique: I’m not sure here whether or not Poole is attempting to exclude the Germans as Israel by language, but on page 52 he seems to include the Teutons. Back to Poole:

“Ptolemy’s map of Ireland, there are several names of places given in the old Hebrew form. On the spot, where, on our maps we have Carrickfergus, he had Dan-sobarce, Dan’s refuge, or resting-place, and there stands the ruins of a fortress of immense strength. The name Tara is a pure Hebrew name, which means the Two Tables. The grave of Tephi, the Hebrew princess, is not called a grave in the acceptation of the usual word, as was Sarah’s, which is called Kavar, but it is called Mergech, the repository, or receptacle. In the ‘Early Irish Antiquities Archaeological, vol. vii,’ Governor Pownall says, ‘My surprise was great when I found in Buxtorf that ‘Fodhan Morain’ was the Chaldee name for Urim and Thummim. Not satisfied with Buxtorf, I wrote to the learned Rabbi Heideck, now in London, his answer was satisfactory, and contained a dozen quotations from various Talmud commentaries. In short my friend the Rabbi will have it, that none but Jews or Chaldees could have brought the name or the thing to Ireland.’ The name Jodhan Morain occurs very often in the early Irish literature. How came all this Hebrew to find its way into our language?”

This is the 12th critical review of the beliefs known collectively as British-Israel, and as with the first eleven, we will address statements which W.H. Poole made in his book entitled Anglo-Israel Or, The British Nation: The Lost Tribes Of Israel (hereinafter A-I/BN). The purpose of this series is to support such a belief system where it is correct and give constructive criticism where it is in error. With this paper we will explore more of the topics which Poole addresses and we’ll evaluate whether they are valid or flawed. We will start this session by quoting Poole on page 47:

“NAMES TO IRELAND.

“I have noticed those Islands of Britain, as named in the Bible, called the ‘Isles of the West.’ The Isles of Tarshish, Javan, and Earsland or Arsareth, we find other names given to at an early day, they were called ‘Yarish,’ a Hebrew word, which means the land of the sun setting, or the land afar off, this name comes very near the word Irish.”

My critique: It is difficult to identify any particular place as “Tarshish” in the Bible, and from the Internet to identify “Javan” with Britain, and almost impossible to identify “Earsland” with anything in the world, and for “Arsareth” I could find no other than 2 Esdras 13:45 in the KJV Apocrypha in the Libronix Digital Library! Now back to Poole where he does a little better:

“The Phoenecians [sic], or men from the country of Palms, who were the first traders to these Islands called them ‘Baratanac,’ the land of tin, from this name comes our word Britannia. The Phoenecians [sic] also called them ‘Ibernae,’ the farthest off land. To them Ireland was the farthest off land: they knew nothing of America. From this name Iberne came our Hibernæ. In the days of Grecian conquest the names of all those places were changed; those Islands were called ‘Skotee,’ which means ‘the land of the sun setting,’ from this name by the ordinary changes, we have Skuthes, or wanderers, and Scuthei, Scuthe, Scuit, Scuithan, Scythian, Scote, Scot, Scottish, Scotland. The Greeks also called those islands ‘Cassisterides [sic Cassiterides],’ from Cassisteros [sic Cassiteros], the name given to tin: the tin islands.

This is the 11th critical review of the collective beliefs known as British-Israel, and as with the first ten, we will address statements which W.H. Poole made in his book entitled Anglo-Israel Or, The British Nation: The Lost Tribes Of Israel (hereinafter A-I/BN). The purpose of this series is to confirm such a belief system where it is correct and to give constructive criticism where it is in error. With this paper we will explore more of the topics which Poole addresses, and we’ll evaluate whether they are valid or flawed. We will start this session by quoting Poole on page 38:

“THE NEW NAME.

“We will now look around us for our Saxon ancestors and see if we can find any links connecting our fathers with those wanderers in the country and cities of the Medes. Where did this large body of enterprising men go to? Where did our Saxon ancestors come from?

“Dr. Abbadie, Amsterdam, in 1723, said, ‘Unless the ten tribes have flown into the air, or have been plunged to the centre of the earth, they must be sought for in the North and West, and in the British Isles.’

“First, as to the name, ‘Saxon,’ the dictionaries say, it comes from ‘Seaxe,’ a short sword; but short swords, or long knives, were in use thousands of years before we hear of any such word as Saxon.

This is the 10th critical review of the collective beliefs known as British-Israel, and as with the first nine, we will address statements which W.H. Poole made in his book entitled Anglo-Israel Or, The British Nation: The Lost Tribes Of Israel (hereinafter A-I/BN). The purpose of this series is to confirm such a belief system where it is correct and to give constructive criticism where it is in error. With this paper, I will not be as critical as I have been in the previous nine, although there are a few places where I feel that I should interrupt in order make corrections. We will start this session by quoting Poole on page 33:

“NEW EXPERIENCE.

“The Prophet Jeremiah also tells us of a new experience which Israel would love to tell after their return. It would greatly help many of us to get a new experience; that old one is worn nearly threadbare, xvi, 14, 15 :

“‘Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that it shall no more be said, The Lord liveth, that brought up the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt. But, The Lord liveth, that brought up the children of Israel from the land of the north, and from all the lands whither he had driven them: and I will bring them again into their land that I gave unto their fathers.’

“And xxiii, 5-8: ‘Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice to the earth. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS. Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that they shall no more say, The Lord liveth, which brought up the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt. But, the Lord liveth, which brought up and which led the seed of the house of Israel out of the north country, and from all countries whither I had driven them; and they shall dwell in their own land.’

This is the 9th critical review of the principal beliefs known as British-Israel, and as with the first eight, we will address statements which W.H. Poole made in his book entitled Anglo-Israel Or, The British Nation: The Lost Tribes Of Israel (hereinafter A-I/BN). The purpose of this series is to confirm such a belief system where it is correct and to give constructive criticism where it is in error. With this paper, I will start by quoting from pages 30-33, where he rambles on and on in an attempt to contrast what he terms “the Jews” (his bad guys) against Israel (his good guys). As I have stated several times before, W.H. Poole was unable to distinguish the difference between the racially pure Judahites and the racially-mixed Canaanite-jews. As we go along, I will break in at times to voice my objections. Now to W.H. Poole:

“‘And I will bring again the captivity of my people of Israel, and they shall build the waste cities, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them. 15 And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them, saith the Lord thy God.’

“The Jews were ‘pulled up’ out of their land and have been away from it for 1,800 years.”

My Objection!: Just who is W.H. Poole referring to here; the true Judahites or the Canaanites pretending to be of Judah? It makes a lot of difference! If Poole is referring to true Judah, it would consist of German, Irish and Scottish people in all of the places to where they have migrated, and that’s a lot of people! Plus, many of the Romans were of the tribe of Zerah-Judah. When W.H. Poole speaks of “1,800 Years”, he can be referring only to the Canaanite-jews from the time of Titus when he laid siege to Jerusalem! Back to Poole:

“Before the second return Israel is to be a vast multitude, as the sands and stars for number, Hos. i, 10. The Jews were, at most, only a few thousands. When Israel returns the second time, there is to be a grand union with Judah, Jeremiah iii, 13:

“‘In those days the house of Judah shall walk with the house of Israel, and they shall come together out of the north to the land that I have given for an inheritance unto your fathers.’

“It is to be a united return, then ‘Ephraim shall not envy Judah and Judah shall not vex Ephraim’.”

This is the 8th critical review of the principal beliefs known as British-Israel, and as with the first seven, we will address statements which W.H. Poole made in his book entitled Anglo-Israel Or, The British Nation: The Lost Tribes Of Israel (hereinafter A-I/BN). The purpose of this series is to confirm such a belief system where it is correct and to give constructive criticism where it is in error. With this paper, I will start quoting Poole on page 28:

“IRELAND NOT MISSIONED FROM ROME.

“Gildas says, ‘The sun of the gospel first illumined the Island before the defeat of Boadicea.’

“Many of our modern writers give far too much credit to Rome when they say that she missioned England and Ireland. Those Islands had the pure worship of God before the Romans sent their agents. The Irish Church was the last to submit to the claims of the Roman Pontiff. She held firm by the Asiatic customs.