GENESIS 22:17 / NOT A PROMISE GIVEN TO THE JEWS

As a Brit I would REALLY like to see the official geneology chart you refer to.I'd also like to know where it came from - or in other words what makes it "official" ?Another question I have is that in such thing as inheritance and lines of succession it is very often the case that the succession is through the male line (for example although Prince Charles is first in line to the throne because he is the oldest child of the Queen he would still be the heir even if he been born AFTER Princess Anne - because he is the oldest male child). Does this apply to the "Pharez line of Judah" ?The reason I ask of course is that the male line of the current Royal Family is only British back to Edward VII, the son of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg Gotha (or something like that - definitely German at any rate).The more I think about this the more questions pop into my head. For example, what is regarded as the "Royal House of Britain". As I understand it the thrones of England and Scotland were seperate until Queen Anne - in fact they were distinct countries who just happened to share a monarch. This shared monarchy itself hadn't existed until James I of England - who (as everyone who did history at school in my day knows) was James VI of Scotland.I guess I'll just have to wait with bated breath until the chart is posted and then take it from there.

and in Message 164 (my emphasis in both quotes)WILLOWTREE, I'd like to know on what basis your chart is 'official' ?There is certainly nothing like your information on the site (http://www.royal.gov.uk) pointed to by Lindum in an earlier reply. As this is the official website of the British monarchy I would have thought we would find proof of your claim here - or at least the claim itself would be stated.

For the THIRD time of asking - what makes your lineage chart 'official' ?I've put this question in a reply by itself so it doesn't get lost in the chatter. Please have the simple courtesy to give a straightforward answer to a straightforward question. Now to reply to your post proper...

Errr - no. I simply observed that if your claim is true then I would have expected it to be stated and probably substantiated on the official website. What is unreasonable about this view ?To be honest, prior to seeing your claim I hadn't really even thought much about the lineage of the Windsors beyond what I was taught in history in school. In fact, prior to discovering these forums I was only vaguely aware of this Hebrews in Britain stuff - to the extent that I was expecting the lineage chart to be based on the throne of England rather than the bloodline of QE II. This was because you mentioned that everyone who had occupied the throne was descended from David. We English regularly make the mistake of equating "British" with "English" (apologies to Brian if he's following this !), so I was originally thinking in terms of the Stuarts, Tudors, Plantagenets etc. Obviously this was my mistake, but I'm just trying to show that I don't have the preconceived views you seem to be ascribing to me. All except where the 'official' chart comes from I'm afraid I don't understand what you are trying to say - what is not so ? You can of course substantiate this assertion ? Have you discussed this with Prince Charles, or at least somebody in or connected to the Royal Family - if not then can you give a reference to an interview or book etc. where such a person states this ?

From Message 164 : I'm simply asking for the evidence that you have the official genealogy chart of the Royal House of Britain.You made the claim, it is only fair you substantiate it, correct it* or withdraw it.* I suspect you don't have the official chart - but you do have one which you believe has been properly researched and so has enough supporting evidence to be defended if people challenge it. If so, why didn't you just say so rather than making me ask for the proof at least four times ?

From Message 172Thanks for the answer WILLOWTREE - it wasn't clear (to me at least ) that this book was your 'official' source.Now I know this it allows me to answer one of your questions, even though it was addressed to Amlodhi rather than me (and despite the fact you probably intended it to be rhetorical !).In Message 178 you asked Well the answer is that Covenant Publishing is the publishing arm of the British-Israel-World Federation and the Rev. WMH Milner wrote a variety of books/pamphlets for them (the BIWF). So your source is inextricably linked with British Israelism. This doesn't mean that it is necessarily wrong of course

I found some more info about Tea-Tephi which you may already know about and decided against mentioning it (as there is no real attempt to back up their claims), but I thought I'd mention it anyway.A couple of Australian ex-members of something called Revival Centers International quote the same Greg Doudna article you did but go a little further and claim to identify the BI proponent who invented Tea-Tethi (see article here).They then go even further and state that the British-Israel-World Federation admitted in 2001 that Tea-Tethi never existed. They give a link to a scanned BIWF article which didn't work for me, but I did a bit of digging around on their site and found it here. You may find that the picture is too small to read - if you doubly click on it a sizing icon will appear which allows you to scale it up.I pointed out to WT in Message 194 that her genealogy source was written by a member of the BIWF and was published by their printing arm. If they really have stated that Tea-Tephi never existed then it seems to me this whole David to QE II claim is going to go down the crapper...

WILLOWTREE, I contend in this post that the information supplied by you in support of the claim that the British Royal Family lineage can be traced back to King David can be shown to be incorrect and so your claim is refuted. Furthermore this refutation is completely unconnected to the agenda, beliefs, history or motives of British Israelism.There are three points to my argument :

1. The key evidence you have used to support the Davidic lineage claim is the genealogy chart in the book you referenced in Message 172
   ​
   Source: "The Illustrious Lineage of the Royal House of Britain"

   ​

   AVCTORE GV. M. H. MILNER A.M., S.G.R.Soc., I.V.Adsoc.
   LONDON MCMXXIII
   Covenant Publishing, London, 1902
   ​
   Covenant Publishing, London is the publishing arm of the British-Israel-World Federation (just as an FYI, if you go to their website you will find they moved to the north of England in late 2003).
   ​
   IMPORTANT NOTE : the beliefs of the British-Israel-World Federation are not relevant to my contention that the lineage claim has been refuted.
   ​
2. If any entry in the chart is shown to be false the line of descent from King David to Queen Elizabeth II is broken and the claim will be refuted.
   ​
   You stated in Message 175 that the genealogy chart supplied by Primordial Egg in Message 170 is another version of the chart you base your claim on.
   ​
   Entry 50 in the genealogy chart is Tea Tephi.
   ​
3. In Message 195 I linked to an article and image which says that in 2001 the British-Israel-World Federation stated that Tea Tephi never actually existed.

So to summarise :

• In the early 20th. Century the British-Israel-World Federation produced a genealogy chart showing an unbroken line of descent from King David to the British monarch.
  ​
• This chart is central to the claim currently under investigaton that the Britsh Royal family descend from the Hebrews.
  ​
• In the early 21st. Century the British-Israel-World Federation state that Tea Tephi, one of the links in the genealogy chart, never existed.

Let's be very clear about this - the organisation which orignally produced the lineage chart have stated it is incorrect. One more time - the people who originally produced the chart have said one of the entries in it is flat WRONG - the person never existed.If the genealogy chart is wrong then the whole claim is refuted. QED.In the interests of fairness I will make two final points. This refutation will itself be refuted if someone can show that the scanned image linked to above is not, in fact, from the British-Israel-World Federation. As Amlodhi has pointed out in Message 196 there are attempts to fill the 'missing link' created by Tea Tethi never having existed. The validity of these alteratives would have to be investigated on their own merits and are outside the scope of this post.

Hi Amlodhi,

quote:

---

Good to hear from you MangyTiger, I hope you stick around for awhile.

---

Thanks. I'm planning to stay around for as long as there are interesting discussions to follow !Generally I'm just a lurker (I'd been on the site for a couple of months before the Royal Family claim flushed me into the open) as I don't have the technical knowledge necessary to contribute much to either evolutionary biology or religous threads. The only reason I jumped in here was that I was intrigued by the 'Royal Family descended from David' claim. I was vaguely aware that there was such a claim floating around but this was the first time I'd seen it asserted with the claim of evidence to back it up. I figured that if somebody made such an astonishing claim they would have some pretty strong evidence to substantiate it - and then I saw the genealogy chart

Hi WILLOWTREE. Remember I am only talking about the claim that the lineage of the current Royal Family can be traced back from the current Queen to King David - not the closely related but nevertheless distinct claim that the general population of Britain are the descendants of the ten lost tribes.For the specific claim about the lineage of the Royal Family the cornerstone of any substantiation must be a genealogy chart of the Queen. Without one there is no proof. Other supporting evidence can of course be brought in from any source, but ultimately if you can't prove her genealogy then the claim to have proven the line of descent from King David fails. In the context of the specific claim that the Queen is descended from King David I do not believe this is relevant. It is only relevant to the claim about the general British population. This 'ridiculous criteria' is valid for the specific claim that it can be proven that the Queen is descended from King David. To prove that one specific person is descended from another specific person you must, by definition, be able to list the parent to child relationships of everyone inbetween.The analogy you draw with refuting the Theory Of Evolution if one fact is proved incorrect is not a good one IMO. I feel that your analogy would be valid if I was claiming to refute the 'Brits are the children of the lost tribes' claim by showing just one of yor pieces of evidence to be wrong. My bad - I apologise. I will try and work out what I screwed up and fix it later.
[Added in edit - I clicked on the links in that message and they worked for me, so I have no idea what the problem was when you tried](emphasis added by me)You need to re-read the article. What it is saying is that the name Tea exists in the annals and the name Tephi exists in the annals BUT THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE. Two people, one called Tea and one called Tephi are both referenced in the annals, but there is no reference to Tea Tephi. Tea Tephi is a made up person - made up from the names of two totally different people. What I actually said in Message 204 was :

quote:

---

Furthermore this refutation is completely unconnected to the agenda, beliefs, history or motives of British Israelism.

---

The use of the BIWF in my challenge is for three reasons :

• The BIWF 'created' Tea Tephi from two other people
• The BIWF produced the genealogy chart which contains Tea Tephi
• The BIWF have admitted they created Tea Tehpi

Note that the agenda, motives, beliefs etc. of the BIWF are completely irrelevant to the above points. Exactly why one of the members created the myth of Tea Tephi and other members subsequently propgated it is neither here nor there - all that matters is that it happened.It would not matter if instead of BIWF in the above list it was some other organisation. As long as the same organisation is involved in all three points I think it makes a compelling case that Tea Tephi never existed. She is a myth.If Tea Tephi never existed the claimed line of descent from King David to the current Queen is broken. I stand by my contention that your claim has been refuted.This message has been edited by MangyTiger, 09-05-2004 07:50 PM

quote:

---

You are simply asserting contrary to the evidence.

---

Actually I see it as I'm simply asserting evidence to the contrary Seriously, this is just a quick reply to let you know I probably won't get chance to reply for a few days at least - but I will when I can.

quote:

---

WTF!! I thought Bill Gates was Satan's representive on earth?

---

No no no - Bill Gates IS Satan.

If there was a smiley to indicate bowing down and saying "We're not worthy" I would have used it here...You are the clearly the new Dark Lord Of Wackery and should henceforth be addressed by this noble and historic title

At the moment I only have time to scan the forums to keep up to date and post quick replies, but Amlodhi is correct.If you follow the links in my message Message 195 the assertion is that Tea and Tephi are two seperate people. They both exist in the annals, although Tephi is only mentioned briefly.My key point is that "Tea Tephi" as described in the lineage chart provided does not exist. She was created by a member of the British-Israel-World Federation. This organisation has since admitted the error they created and propogated.Talking solely about the claim that the British Royal Family is descended from King David, there is a break in the supplied lineage and so the claim is refuted.I hope this clears up any ambiguity I may have inadvertantly created

Duplicate post deleted.This message has been edited by MangyTiger, 09-11-2004 08:14 PM