brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

Bob LeChevalier lojbab at
Wed Aug 28 05:33:15 EST 2002

"John Knight" <jwknight at> wrote:
>> The King James version of the Holy Bible is not an authority on
>> ancient Hebrew, nor does it assert to being so.
>It's the most widely spread Hebrew writing ever,

The King James version of the Holy Bible contains NO Hebrew writing
whatsoever.  It is written entirely in English.

> and it's primary connection
>to jews is through words like the following:
> "you brood of vipers", they will be "thrown into the fire", "hypocrites!",
>"babbling like pagans", "wicked", "adulterous", "Ninevah will ... condemn
>[you]", "you break the command of God", "teachings are but rules taught by
>men", "will be pulled up by the roots", "blind guides", "blind man", "guard
>against ... the teachings of the Pharisees and Sadducees", "you yourself do
>not enter ... the kingdom of   heaven", "blind fools", "blind men", "Blind
>Pharisee", "you are like whitewashed tombs", "you are the descendants of
>those who murdered the prophets", "you snakes", "condemned to hell",
>"Pharisees ... rejected God's purpose for themselves", "you foolish people",
>"you are like unmarked graves", "you build tombs for the prophets, yet it
>was your forefathers who killed them", "will be held responsible for the
>blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the

Those out of context snips are not ancient Hebrew, but English.
Furthermore, the English is a translation from Greek, not from Hebrew,
because the people who wrote the New Testament did not speak Hebrew.

>> >There are 23,000 translational errors in the King James Bible.  But this
>> >isn't one of them.
>> How would YOU know?  What are your credentials in Hebrew translation,
>> such that YOU would know which bits are errors and which are not?
>> >The KJV translators always translated the words "Yhudiy"
>> >or "Ioudaios" into the English word "jew", and nothing else.
>> That is because it is the correct translation.  But the Hebrew word
>> means "patronymic of Judah".
>Wrong.  There are 771 references in the KJV to "Judah",

Wrong.  There are many more references to Judah.  All of the
references to Judea, to Jews, and other similar words are also
references to Judah.  That is because in Hebrew, the "different words"
are really "different forms of the same word".

>and in every
>instance, they are translated from the Hebrew word "yehu^da^h" or the Greek
>word "Ioudas".

That is likely to be the correct translation of that form of the
Hebrew word.

>Not one single instance of "Yhudiy" or "Ioudaios" is ever translated as
>"Judah".  It's always translated as "jew".

Since "Jew" means "descendant of Judah", just as "Yhudiy" means
"descendant of Yehudah", that is a valid translation.  This in no way
proves that the words have different meanings.

>No matter how many times the jews LIE, there is never any confusion in the
>Holy Bible between the descendants of "Judah" and the descendants of

I don't believe that anyone in the Bible is referred to as a
"descendant of 'Jehudi'".  That is NOT what "Yhudiy" means.

>> There WAS no other race in Judea of note (remember that the Israelites
>> killed all the natives when the entered the Promised Land).  Judea was
>> the place where the descendants of Judah lived.
>You're going in circles.  The descendants of Judah were ISRAELITES,

No.  The people of the kingdom of Israel were Israelites, the
descendants of Israel.  The descendants of Judah were Jews.  The
descendants of Eber were Hebrews.  But all descendants of Judah were
also descendants of Israel, and all descendants of Israel were
descendants of Eber, and since all other peoples other than the Jews
abandoned their heritage, all three words came to mean the same thing.

>jews.  It was ONLY the descendants of Jehudi who were jews.
>Just because they sound the same to your feeble brain is no reason you can't
>make the distinction.

No.  The reason is that ancient Hebrew grammar modifies words in
exactly that way to show patronymic forms.  Just as English shows
patronymics as "John" and "Johnson", and Russian forms patronymics
"Alexander" and "Alexanderovich", ancient Hebrew formed patronymics
"Yhudah" and "Yhudiy".  We know this NOT ONLY from the Bible, but from
the OTHER texts of ancient Hebrew that remain.

>> >Incorrect.  It's only descendants of "Yhudiy" who are called "jews", which
>> >makes them a race.
>> That does not make them a "race".
>Here's Webster:
>RACE, n. [L. radix and radius having the same original. This word coincides
>in origin with rod, ray, radiate, &c.]
>1. The lineage of a family, or continued series of descendants from a parent
>who is called the stock. A race is the series of descendants indefinitely.
>Thus all mankind are called the race of Adam; the Israelites are of the race
>of Abraham and Jacob. Thus we speak of a race of kings, the race of Clovis
>or Charlemagne; a race of nobles, &c.
>Having the common ancestor Jehudi is the DEFINITION of race.

Yhudiy had the common ancestor Yhudah.

That is NOT the definition of race used elsewhere in the discussion.
Use clear terms, in this case "lineage" is a more accurate term.

>btw, Webster is wrong about "the race of Adam", because jews aren't of that

Only in your imagination.

>> >It's true that only "jews" preached or practiced the
>> >Mishnah (which later became the Talmud, and is commonly known now as
>> >"Judaism"), and that no other race ever did, but the words "Yhudiy" and
>> >"Ioudaios" refer to one specific patriarch.
>> Yes, Judah.
>No, Jehudi.  Notice the different spelling?

There is no evidence that Jews are the descendants of someone named
Jehudi.  There is evidence that they are the descendants of someone
named Judah.

>> >No.  "Yhudah" and "Yhudiy" are two different people born in two very
>> >different territories with two very different types of descendants,
>> False.  Judah (Yhudah) was a name for individuals.  Yhudiy was a name
>> for descendants of the patriarch named Yhudah.
>Judah was one of the patriarchs of the Twelve Tribes of Israel, and his
>descendants were known as Israelites.

No  Israelites were the descendants of Israel, and included members of
ALL 12 tribes.

>It was descendants of Yhudiy who were a DIFFERENT race who were called

There is nothing in the Bible about descendants of Yhudiy.  There are
only references to Yhudiy, which are descendants of Judah.

>Two different patriarchs.

There are NOT two different patriarchs, only one.  People in the Bible
named Jehudi were likewise descendants of someone named Judah.

>Two different races.


>Reared in two different geographical territories.


>The jews DID attempt to take over the Temple of
>Jerusalem, which has always been their claim to fame, but the Israelites
>built it, and defended it, and it belongs to the Israelites, not the jews.

Actually, what is left of it belongs to the Israelis, who are
primarily Jews and Moslems.

>> >and just
>> >because they sound the same or are next to each other in Strong's doesn't
>> >alter the carefully described genealogy of the Holy Bible, at all.
>> The genealogy says nothing to contradict the Jews being descendants of
>> Judah.
>The Holy Bible disagrees with you.

The Holy Bible does NOT disagree with me.  The words of the Holy Bible
MEAN what I described, and hence the Holy Bible COULDN'T disagree with


More information about the Neur-sci mailing list