NEWSPAPER CONTROVERSY.

Southland Times, Issue 21288, 8 January 1931, Page 3

NEWSPAPER CONTROVERSY.

To the Editor.

Sir,—An interesting situation has arisen. The local British-Israelites are not so much concerned about debate as that I may be prevented from writing any further about British-Israelism. First the Rev. Pritchett asked that he might put the Scripture arguments in four letters; then 8.1 asked that he might put them in three letters; now he is willing to halve that number and will let me write the closing letter if only you 'will close the matter. Ido not agree to “debate” at all, no matter in how many letters. I adhere to the original plan of compelling an opponent to prove his case on the ground of fact. It rests entirely with you as editor whether and how Bri-tish-Israelites write letters on the Scripture arguments. In the recent correspondence on certain well-ascertained and important facts that could be dealt, with apart, from Scripture interpretation, all that I wanted was that there should be ho reference to Scripture except insofar ns it was in itself a statement of fact.. This was granted and the controversy was duly ended. Your columns, I take it, were then open again, and are subject to your rules as to public interest, policy, etc., and those rules would apply to 8.1. with regard to his letters on the Scripture argument. I have pointed out what an extended statement might mean. All I can say is that I would not waste my time in any such debate or controversy. Ido not say that it is utterly impossible to discuss Scripture in the Press, but I think it would be hard and that the order of reference would need to be most explicit. Supposing 8.1. was allowed to put the Scripture argument in four or forty letters, that would not affect my position; I should reply that all the Scripture he had put forward either could not be reconciled with certain established recognized facts upon which I should ask him to submit to cross-examination, or could not be sustained because it depended upon assumptions that he had put forward as facts, and whose existence I should require him first to prove. My purpose is wherever possible to open the eyes of the public to the British-Israel disregard of facts. It is to be deplored that men and women should accept as true such ridiculous statements as are made in the interests of Bri-tish-Israelism. If that “gospel” is so true how is it that those who hold it arc afraid to be questioned about it in public ? Why should the Rev. Pritchett suggest that the discussion of the “historic chapter seven” Was' frivoloiis when a British-Israel book states ’ tha't tb examine the earliest historical link first is most important ? Why was he afraid to answer my questions? He came down to settle the matter, why did he not see it through? He suggested that there were local British-Israel-ites as well able as he to deal with these ‘matters, then why ano they afraid to answer, questions on fact ? I think it is certainly of sufficient public interest that it should be shown how ridiculous and impossible are the so-called “modern identifications.” Here is one that was reported to me the other day. It is said of Israel that “Kings shall be thy nursing fathers and their queens thy nursing mothers” Isa 49.23. A representative of BritLsh-Israei-ism claimed this of the Anglo-Saxon race and said that in America many of the old negro servants and mammies who look after the children are descended from slaves of royal blood who actually tended the children in the early days. But, I have been concerned not with the modern identifications but with the one at the fountain head of the mischief as set forth in the “historic chapter seven.” I have discovered another exceedingly, .remarkable statement therein just as remarkable as the imaginary prolonged course of the R. Euphrates and I propose to reveal it in a further letter.—l am, etc., FRANK SAMPSON.