brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

John Knight jwknight at
Sun Aug 25 12:01:43 EST 2002

"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab at> wrote in message
news:b7qfmug5357g474hr2237v82fl2kb8v7om at
> "John Knight" <jwknight at> wrote:
> >Eve was deceived by "Nachash", who was a person, not a snake.  The
> >description of this person as a snake was a figure of speech then just as
> >is today:  i.e., "he's a real snake".
> If some of the Bible is figurative, then all of it could be, and it
> can mean damn near anything someone wants it to mean.

No, it can't.  The figurative parts of the Holy Bible are clearly
identified.  The geneanlogy of Adam wasn't figurative.

> >Nachash's deception was to convince Eve that he was "the LORD".
> The Bible does not say that he claimed to be "the LORD".

The Holy Bible claims that Eve claimed that she was "beguiled" by Nachash,
and that she received a child, Cain, from "the LORD".

> >Gen 4:1  And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bore Cain,
> >said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.
> You keep trying to ignore the first 6 words of the sentence in that
> verse.  Adam was the father; this is the exact same wording used in
> 4:25.

Why did Even claim that "I have gotten a man from the LORD" when she bore
Cain, but no such thing when she bore Abel and Seth?

> >Gen 4:2  And she again bore his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of
> >sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.
> >
> >Gen 4:25  And Adam knew his wife again; and she bore a son, and called
> >name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of
> >Abel, whom Cain slew.
> >
> >Note the very important difference between the way the conception of Cain
> >and the conceptions of Abel and Seth are described.
> Not different at all.  The difference is in the name that she chose.
> The word Cain was derived from the word meaning "gotten".

"Not different at all.  The difference is"?

Let's try that again:  "Not different at all.  The difference is"?

So is it, or is it not, different?

> And having made me look up in Strong's, we find that the word has two
> uses in the Bible.
> >1. eldest son of Adam and Eve and the first murderer having murdered
> > his brother Abel n pr gent Kenite = "smiths"
> >2. the tribe from which the father-in-law of Moses was a member and
> > which lived in the area between southern Palestine and the mountains
> > of Sinai
> So by the logic you have been using that names always indicate
> descent, Moses married a descendant of Cain, and hence was not an
> Israelite, and thus your whole fictional edifice falls apart.

You bet.  This doesn't even deserve a response.

> >Cain was from "the LORD", and thus never appears in Adam's genealogy.
> Cain doesn't appear in the genealogy because his genealogy was not
> considered important to the people of the Old Testament.  If they had
> listed the complete genealogy, by the 4th or 5th generation, the
> entire book would have been full.  They don't list the other sons and
> daughters of Adam either, merely that he had other sons and daughters
> (Gen. 5:4)

But the Holy Bible DOES list the genealogy of Cain--and the point is that it
is not the genealogy of Adam.

> >Both Abel and Seth were conceived by Adam and do appear in his genealogy.
> Abel does not appear in the genealogy in Genesis 5
> >Who is "the LORD"?  Certainly not God, who is always referred to as "the
> >LORD God".
> Every instance in Genesis 4, and several others in Genesis, use just
> "the LORD" (Strongs H3068) without "God". If you assert that this was
> instead referring to Satan, then you get a most peculiar Bible story.

"The LORD" Eve was referring to was Nachash, not the LORD God.

Why do you think the distinction is there? Why have two different phrases
for God?  Throughout Genesis, "the LORD" and "the LORD God" are references
to different entities.

> >These are two different entities.
> So you are asserting that there is some other reference in the Bible
> for Yahweh/Jehovah besides God?

There are many different Hebrew words which are all translated as "God", but
that's exactly the opposite from this example.  In this example, Eve
believes Nachash is "the LORD", and she always refers to God as "the LORD

> >The jews claim to be descendants of the Canaanites,
> They claim to be the descendants of Abraham.

And Christ called them LIARS, descendants of a LIAR, "and the father of it",
for making that claim.

> >Not all races of the world are descendants of Adam.
> The Bible does not support this claim, and 264 million Christians
> think that you are wrong about this.

This is precisely the source which does support this, and the only reason
any of these 264 million Christians might "think that [this is] wrong" is
because they're flooded daily by jewish LIES.

> > Only the White Race is.
> The Bible says nothing to suggest that the descendants of Adam are of
> any particular skin color.


>From H119; ruddy, that is, a human being (an individual or the species,
mankind, etc.): - X another, + hypocrite, + common sort, X low, man (mean,
of low degree), person.

To show blood (in the face), that is, flush or turn rosy: - be (dyed, made)
red (ruddy).

The reference to "ruddy" means that Adam and his descendants can blush,
which is something that many races, like the jews and niggers, can't.  Why?
Because jews and niggers aren't descendants of Adam:

Gen 2:7  And the LORD3068 God430 formed3335 (853) man120 of the dust6083
of4480 the ground,127 and breathed5301 into his nostrils639 the breath5397
of life;2416 and man120 became1961 a living2416 soul.5315

John Knight

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list