brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

Bob LeChevalier lojbab at lojban.org
Wed Aug 28 04:55:59 EST 2002


"John Knight" <jwknight at polbox.com> wrote:
>> This has nothing to do with the question of whether it refers to geneology
>> or geography.
>> You have claimed that Strongs says that it is a geneological reference.
>This
>> is a lie. Strongs says that it is a geographical designation.
>
>No, I said the Holy Bible says that.

The Bible does NOT say that.  Provide a Bible citation for "Judea is a
geographical designation".

>What difference does it make what
>Strong's says if it conflicts with the Holy Bible?

The Bible does not say what the words of the Bible *mean*.  The Bible
is not a dictionary.

>> The origin of the word had the meaning residdent of Judea; by new testament
>> times it was used to refer to any Hebrew; as was the word Israelite.
>
>Absolutely not.

Absolutely so.

>You cannot produce one shred of Scripture from the Holy
>Bible which supports this statement, and you know it.

The Bible contains almost no information on the origin of words
(exceptions being a few names like Cain).  Thus it neither supports
nor contradicts any statements on word origins.  Instead one must
study ancient Hebrew and ancient Greek texts, of which we have many.

>> > hmmm, maybe, but the important point is that no other race in Judaea except
>> > "jews" were ever called "jews".
>>
>> Jew is a regional/cultural/religious term. It has nothing to do with race.
>> By the way. When you put the "s" on Jew; there are a whole list of words in
>> Strongs which are translated Jews.
>
>It is also a racial term.

Only when you use it.

>To this very day, jews are a race, and a religion, by their own admission.

Ah, but you say that the Jews are liars, so you cannot use their
statements as evidence.  Show us where the Holy Bible says "Jews are a
race, and a religion".

>The Knesset is now testing the DNA of
>"jews" who come to Israel seeking the "right of return" to make sure they're
>jewish enough.

You've said this, but never proven it.  

Meanwhile, show us where it says tin the Holy Bible that "The Knesset
is now testing the DNA of "jews"".  After all, Jews are liars and so
are all the media, and the only thing that can be believed is the Holy
Bible.

>This is what the jews claim, isn't it?  But it's a LIE. In not a single
>passage in the Holy Bible will you find an Israelite of the Tribe of
>Benjamin or the Tribe of Judah referred to as a "jew".

All of the reference in the Bible to Jews are to Israelites of the
Tribe of Benjamin or the Tribe of Judah.  Prove that they are NOT.

>They are always
>differentiated from jews by being referred to as Israelites (which of course
>is what they were).

They are NOT always differentiated.  The two words mean the same
thing, except when "Israelites" are used to refer to the peoples of
the other tribes of the Kingdom of Israel.

>> The Talmud is the older set of interpretave laws which were incorporated
>> into the later Mishnah. Three terms were used interchangably to refer to the
>> people following this religious tradition: Jews, Israelites and Hebrews.
>
>If the Talmud does this, then it conflicts with the Holy Bible,

No it doesn't, because the Holy Bible ALSO uses the words
interchangeably.  You cannot argue otherwise.  Your argument that they
are not because different words are used in different places is
circular.

>It's a LIE for the jews to claim that Abraham
>or Moses were "jewish patriarchs".  They were Israelite patriarchs.

False.

It is a LIE for you to claim that you are anything but a nincompoop.

>> They do not just "sound alike"; they are forms of the same word. They refer
>> to the same people.
>
>How could two different words with two different Strong's numbers refer to
>the SAME people?

Easily.  Just as one can refer to "Californians" as "Americans".  Just
as one can refer to "English" as "British"

>How could Israelites and jews have been the same race then
>if they're such radically different RACES now?

They are NOT "radically different RACES now"  They are the same people
now, just as they were then.

>Not even most jewish writings agree with that argument,

But you say that Jews are liars, so you cannot use what they say as
support for your arguments.

>particularly not the Talmud, which claims
>that Jesus was the illegitimate son of a Roman soldier who was hanged on a
>tree for blasphemy and is now boiling in hot excrement.

Which has nothing to do with the fact that the Israelites and the Jews
are the same people.

>Do you REALLY think that the authors of the Holy Bible could possibly be the
>*same* race who wrote the Talmud?

All of us are members of the same race, the human race, except YOU.

lojbab



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list