brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

Bob LeChevalier lojbab at lojban.org
Sun Aug 25 16:36:20 EST 2002


"John Knight" <jwknight at polbox.com> wrote:
>"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab at lojban.org> wrote in message
>news:b7qfmug5357g474hr2237v82fl2kb8v7om at 4ax.com...
>> "John Knight" <jwknight at polbox.com> 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 it
>> >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.

Christians disagree as to which parts are figurative.  The genealogy
of Adam almost certainly WAS figurative.  The several hundred year
lifespans could have been the lengths of tribal dynasties, for
example.  The creation story is likewise figurative, as is the flood
and indeed most of Genesis.  You may disagree, but you are no more
right than I am.

>> >Gen 4:1  And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bore Cain, and
>> >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?

Because Cain's name was based on the word for "gotten".  Abel and
Seth's names were based on other ideas, so she did not say the same
thing.  Genesis is just giving the origin of their names.  It is
probably figurative that Eve used those words.

Besides, Cain was at that point a baby, so the man that she had gotten
from the Lord was Adam.

>> >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?

You have a problem reading?  Do I have to spell everything out in 3rd
grade English for you?

There is no difference in the way the conception of Cain, Abel, and
Seth are described.  There is a difference in the name that Eve chose
for each baby, and each name is given with its differing etymology.
Names are given after the baby is born, and not at conception..

>> 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.

Nor does most of the baloney you write.  This shows how silly your
wordplay based on Strongs is.

>> >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.

Of course it is.  The genealogy of ones children is part of ones own
genealogy.

The Bible gives a genealogy for the descendants of Cain, and a
genealogy for the descendants of Seth.  Seth's descent was the
important one, since it is the one through which the Hebrew people
descended.

>> >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.

The word used is the SAME word used for all other instances of "the
LORD" in Genesis.  If one means Nachsash, then they all must mean
Nachsash, and Genesis is almost totally a story about Satan and not
about God.

>Why do you think the distinction is there?

What distinction? The Hebrew word is the same in each case.

>Why have two different phrases for God?

Ever heard of poetry?  The KJV is considered one of the more poetic of
Bibles.  But the Hebrew word is the same in each case, so the
differences are a figment of the translation and not the Biblical
story itself.

Genesis 4:  Every one of the following says "the LORD" and not "the
LORD God".
>[9] And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper?
>[10] And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground.
>[11] And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand;
>[12] When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.
>[13] And Cain said unto the LORD, My punishment is greater than I can bear.
>[14] Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.
>[15] And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.
>[16] And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.
...
>[26] And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.

Genesis 6:
>[1] And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
>[2] That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
>[3] And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
>[4] There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
>[5] And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
>[6] And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
>[7] And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
>[8] But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

You say:
>Throughout Genesis, "the LORD" and "the LORD God" are references to different entities.

And I reply:  Then Genesis 6:6-7 wherein the Lord repents and says
that he will destroy man that he created, is a reference to a
different entity from Genesis 2:7-8
>[7] And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
>[8] And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

and that is pure nonsense.

If you want to play word games, though, be forewarned.  The "God" of
Genesis 1 is written in Hebrew as "Elohim", which is a plural - the
original Hebrew translated literally says that "the Gods created the
heavens and the earth".  Also found in differing parts of Genesis are
the words "Adonai" and "Yahweh" (which English speakers sometime say
as "Jehovah" because the ancient Hebrew texts do not include the
vowels).  Thus if different words mean different entities, then the
God or gods who did the creation were not the one(s) who teh rest of
the Bible is about.

>> >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
>God".

You have no evidence that she believes Nachash is "the LORD", and she
does not.  In Genesis 3:13, she refers to "the serpent" (and Genesis
3:14-15 make no sense if the serpent were other than a serpent).

And in Genesis 4:25, the only other place where Eve mentions God, she
says
>[25] And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.

not "the LORD God", but just "God".  Is that another entity beside
"the LORD God" and "the LORD"? 

You speak nonsense, as usual.

>> >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.

And I call you a LIAR, because you falsely say that they claim to be
descendants of the Canaanites.

>> >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.

Christians have never believed other than this, unless they have
chosen to believe that the whole story of Adam is figurative.

>> > Only the White Race is.
>>
>> The Bible says nothing to suggest that the descendants of Adam are of
>> any particular skin color.
>
>Adam:
>
>H120
>???
>'a^da^m
>aw-dawm'
>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.
>
>H119
>???
>'a^dam
>aw-dam'
>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,

I see you like using etymologies when they suit you, but ignore them
when they don't.  But I'm now checking every one of your references to
Strongs, since you've been caught lying.  So here:
> Strong's Number:   0120  
>Original Word Word Origin 
>~da from (0119) 
>Transliterated Word TDNT Entry 
>'adam TWOT - 25a 
>Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech 
>aw-dawm'      Noun Masculine  
> 
> Definition 
>1. man, mankind 
>a. man, human being 
>b. man, mankind (much more frequently intended sense in OT) 
>c. Adam, first man 
>d. city in Jordan valley 

The word "Adam" itself does not mean "ruddy" but is derived from
H0119, which appears nowhere in Genesis.

>Strong's Number:   0119  
>Original Word Word Origin 
>~da of unknown derivation 
>Transliterated Word TDNT Entry 
>'adam TWOT - 26b 
>Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech 
>aw-dam'      Verb  
> 
> Definition 
>1. to be red, red 
>a. (Qal) ruddy (of Nazarites) 
>b. (Pual) 
>  1. to be rubbed red 
>  2. dyed red 
>  3. reddened 
>c. (Hiphil) 
>  1. to cause to show red 
>  2. to glare 
>  3. to emit (show) redness 
>d. (Hithpael) 
>  1. to redden 
>  2. to grow red 
>  3. to look red 

>King James Word Usage - Total: 10 
>dyed red 5, red 4 ruddy 1 

and we see that H119 is less associated with blushing than it is with
glaring (which any race can do), and the actual usages in the KJV are
never translated as "blushing".

And we see that you've lied again.

>which is something that many races, like the jews and niggers, can't.

Why would you think that they can't blush?  Especially since as you
often note, many Jews are of Khazar descent, and Khazars were white,
and indeed from the Caucasus region.

>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

That doesn't support you in the least, nincompoop.

Indeed, as you claimed elsewhere, they are descendants of Ham, and Ham
was the son of Noah, and Noah was a descendant of Adam.  So you've
been caught lying again.  Loser.

lojbab



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list