IT is not true that all the, ten tribes of Israel were carried into the Assyrian captivity; some of them escaped: those that were carried captive and those that escaped are both' directed by Scripture to the same meeting point of " the isles" (Isa. Ixvi. 19). We are not told the names of the tribes that escaped, but most reasonable suppositions would point to those of Dan and Simian. These two tribes were to the south of the land, near to Egypt, and had the Mediterranean sea coast for their borders. The men of Dan were the great shipowners of Israel, hence Dan had the facilities for escape. " Why did Dan remain in ships ?" The territory of Benjamin completely, overlapped` and protected Dan and Simian. Benjamin was at that time part of the kingdom of Judah. The King of Assyria was not at war with Judah, therefore could not touch Dan and Simeon without going through- the territory of Judah. It is doubtful whether he would have been able to do this. So that, in many' senses, these two tribes would have the opportunity for flight. it is not likely that Dan, having the means of escape, would leave Simeon behind, and it is utterly, impossible for Israel to be anywhere at the present time without `Dan being united with them ; therefore, to find the tribe of Dan is virtually the same as finding the whole tribes of Israel.

THE IDENTITY is a very remarkable one. We have ample evidence of the tribe of Dan settling' in Ireland about the period of the Assyrian captivity. This is a matter of history and can be claimed as another historical link. The Tuatha Danian did this, which is no other than the Tribe of Dan, whose early marks exist to this day in the names of places given by them, which are purely Hebrew, such as "Dan Sobairse," pronounced Dan Sovarke, or Dan Swerick, near Carrick Fergus, and shown in Ptolemy's map of Ireland, and which is literally Hebrew for Dan's resting-place, Dan's habitation; whereas, Dan Sovar - also Hebrew-means Dan in exile. It is also a historical fact that with the Tuatha de Danna both the Hebrew language and words were introduced into the North of Ireland, and as there was no other Tribe of Dan who could introduce the Hebrew, it clearly follows that this must have been the Israelitish Tribe of Dan, and as at the same time another people can be traced to have settled on the West Coast of Scotland, who also introduced very many Hebrew words, therefore must have had, intercourse with the' East; and as the people gradually migrated southwards, ultimately settling in Wales, and from whom the Welsh are the veritable descendants, and who, to this day, retain a vast number of purely Hebrew, words, `gives us the more than probability, as the Tribe of Dan is clearly traced, that the Welsh people may come out as identical with the Tribe of Simeon, settling on the eastern coast, while Dan took the western coast, that the tribeships might remain separated, by virtue of the custom of their nationality. The ethnology of the Welsh clearly prove that they cannot claim to be the descendants of the Ancient Britons in any other light than that of being the first of the Israelitish Tribes who arrived in Great Britain, making their debut with Dan about B.C. 720 ; whereas, it can be proved that the other tribes did not arrive until A.D. 449. There are many reasons that prove the Welsh people could not possibly have had, their cradle in Britain, which shall be advanced in due order. The great thing to be maintained here is, that having proved ourselves to be allied with the Tribe of Dan, we must be the other Tribes of Israel, because Dan could never be allied with a Gentile people. To find Dan, as we have done, is, the same as finding Israel.

The Advance-Decline Line As A Tool In Technical Market Analysis

Save Toquam Stamford, Connecticut Board of Education

Metro Washington DC Local Politics

New York City Politics

Hudson County Politics