I would very much like to know the following regarding the origin (scriptural and otherwise) of certain nations if you could:
1. Kazakhstan/Mongolia/Turkmenistan/Uzbekistan (supposedly all Mongoloid): Are they part of Gog (?Russia) and Magog (?China)? [Gen. 10: 2; Ezek. 38, 39] Yes, Gog I would connect with Russia, but I do not know if Magog refers to China, but if not could it be referring more to Mongolia?
2. The Ishmaelites (Midianites – Gen. 37: 25–28 AMP) indwell Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran today, right? What other countries? In Exod. 18 mention is made of Moses’ father-in-law, Jethro – a Midianite priest! Who are Jethro’s descendents today if not Arabian? Attached is a paper I wrote a few years ago that addresses something called Two House Theology -in so doing it looks briefly at the issues you are touching on in your questions. There were members of all 12 tribes living both inside and outside the land at the time of Messiah. James knew where they were (James 1:1). The ten tribes were not lost as such and I have Jewish friends whose families left Iran or Iraq only in the last 50 years.
3. Turks are said to be descendents of the Philistines (Gen. 10: 6–14). Descendents of Cush and/or Nimrod (Gen. 10: 8; 1 Chron. 1: 10) are modern-day Ethiopians, not so? [Micah 5: 6 connects Nimrod to Assyria – some descendents are found in Iraq] Yes, could include ‘modern-day Ethiopeans’, but could it be somewhat broader and include modern-day Africans in general?
4. Why is it that in Gen. 10: 5 mention is made of different languages and nations, while the supposed origin of diverse languages occurred later, i.e. Gen. 11: 9. Or are these reports in chronological disorder? [The European Community – Modern Babylonia?] Gen. 10: 32 says: “and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood”, and yet this must have taken quite a long time to reach such a position. I would rather agree with you that these reports are not in chronological order. Other examples in Scripture could also be given, i.e. not in chronological order. The languages of Britain [Indo-European]—Saxon, English, Welsh, and Celtic [incl. Gaelic, Cornish, Breton, Manx]—have no affinity with the Hebrew [Afro-Asiatic]. – Horatius Bonar, D.D.
5. The Hittites are mentioned in Gen. 23: 5–7, where Abraham dwelled as a stranger in the land. Yet, his call for ethnic purity (Gen. 24: 3; 28: 6, 7) is profound. Later, Simeon and Levi actively endorsed this wish, though it was in defiance of Jacob’s heart (Gen. 34). Judah violated Abraham’s call, but God intervened, though only pertaining to the eldest sons (Gen. 38: 1–10; 1 Chron. 2: 3, 4). Isn’t it possible that the mingled remnant of Shelah remained in Judah (Jews) to this day, or have these genes possibly been taken up by the Palestinians or Asian Indians? By the way, who are the Hittites (Gen. 10: 15) today? I see they were driven out (Deut. 7: 1), although they provided sojournment to Abraham! Could the Hittites be closely associated with the Armenians (‘Syrians’ in KJV & AMP) today, i.e. if one tweaks the word ‘Arameans’ in NIV (1 Kings 10: 29; 2 Chron. 1: 17)? Regarding ethnic purity, yes, the Lord certainly started off this way, but when Israel became a nation of many Israelites, then the Lord allowed exceptions such as in Num. 31: 14–18 and Deut. 20: 14–18, where women ‘far off’ from Canaan could be married to male Israelites. Other similar scriptures could be given. What about Ruth and Uriah the Hittite and others?
6. Are modern Italians descendents of Romans in biblical times? In the Amplified Bible (Gen. 27: 41, footnote) it says that the Edomites and Amalekites descended from Esau (Gen. 36: 1–19; Exod. 17: 8; Num. 20: 17–21). Herod (?73–4 BC) is said to be of Esau’s creed (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 14: 1, Section 3), who ruled in Judaea under Caesar (Matt. 2: 16). As Herod was a Roman, couldn’t some Romans have been closely related to the Arabs (Ishmaelites) because of matriarch/s Mahalath/Basemath (Gen. 28: 8, 9; 36: 3)? Aren’t the Spaniards also related? What do you think? Regarding modern Italians it seems that Celtic Israel people attacked Rome in 390 BC and settled for 200 years in northern Italy, but many years later went westward into France and later to Britain... The occupation of Britain [Anglia/Albion] by certain tribes, who we now call the Aboriginal Caledonians, or Britons—long before the Ten Tribes were carried captive to Assyria, and who, therefore, could not be Israelites—is passed by. – Horatius Bonar, D.D.
7. How certain are we that the Israelites have abstained from intermarrying other peoples in the light of Gen. 46? Verse 10 reports on Simeon’s sons, among whom is a Canaanite descendent of dark complexion; Ham being the father of Canaan (Gen. 9: 18; Acts 13: 1). The same with Leah and Rachel who had many sons born to Jacob via their maidservants – possibly of foreign origin. In like manner, aren’t Manasseh (?USA) and Ephraim (?UK) from Egyptian descent (Gen. 46: 20)? About Israelites totally abstaining from intermarrying with other nationalities, see No 5 above. When you say ‘aren’t Manasseh (USA) and Ephraim (UK) from Egyptian descent’, I would reply by saying that the 12 Tribes of Israel were the persecuted people for four hundred years – not the Egyptians. But in Exodus 12: 38 ‘a mixed multitude’ of non-Israel people went out of Egypt with the 12 Tribes of Israel, but one law was to be for both the Israelites and the strangers in their midst – Num. 15: 13–16 [Gen. 43: 32]. The British, including the United States of America—which Anglo-Israelites are able to distinguish and identify as "Manasseh," in spite of the fact that their progenitors, who emigrated from England, were, according to them "Ephraimites," and that those original emigrants have since been mixed up with a flood of emigrants from all other races under heaven—are the descendants of Abraham, and particularly of the "lost" Ten Tribes! ... Then, finally, it not only robs the Jewish nation, the true Israel, of many promises in relation to their future by applying them to the British race in the present time, but it diverts attention from them as the people in whom is bound up the purpose of God in relation to the nations, and whose "receiving again" to the heart of God, after the long centuries of unbelief, will be as "life from the dead to the whole world." – David Baron
HOME (Back to Index)
Copyright © 2000, 2001, 2011, 2013 VWM.