brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

John Knight jwknight at polbox.com
Wed Aug 28 13:38:23 EST 2002


"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab at lojban.org> wrote in message news:6v7pmusq44mg49bal4r1l30nesuo6u8otc at 4ax.com...
> "John Knight" <jwknight at polbox.com> 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.

It's a "Hebrew writing".  It was written by Hebrews.  The English version is just one of 75 different languages that this Hebrew writing has been translated into.

You're so Ameri-centric that you can't even grasp what the word "Hebrew" means, can you?

> >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 why didn't you produce just ONE example of Holy Scripture where a member of the Tribe of Benjamin who lived in Judaea was ever referred to as a "jew"?  Because you cannot?  Because they were always referred to as Israelites?

There were Edomites living in Judaea who claimed to be descendants of Abraham (but NOT Israelites), and Christ told them that they were actually descendants of the devil, who was a liar and the father of it.  It's impossible for them to have been Semites or Hebrews if they weren't descendants of Abraham, and the notion that they could have been Israelites is even more remote.

> >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.
> 

The Holy Bible always makes a distinction between them, so why don't you?

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

Every instance of the Hebrew word   ?????? which is anglicized as yehu^di^y is translated to the English word "jew", every time, no exceptions.  Every instance of the Hebrew word   ??????which is anglicized as yehu^da^h is translated to the English word "Judah", every time, no exceptions.

Every instance of the Hebrew word ???? which is anglicized as yehu^d  is translated to the English word "Judea", every time, no exceptions.

The only confusion here is YOU.


> 
> >> 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.
> 

Look carefully in the Holy Bible.  All Israelites were descendants of Jacob, who was a grandson of Abraham, who was a descendant of Eber, who was a descendant of Shem.  This means that all Israelites are Hebrews and Semites.

But Yehudi was NOT a descendant of Shem, because he was a descendant of the Cushi who were descendants of Ham, a brother of Shem.  This is an entirely separate genealogy.  No descendant of Ham could be a Semite, a Hebrew, a child of Abraham, nor an Israelite.

Jews today have done DNA studies and proven that they contain 20% Negroid blood.  This is because of their being descendants of the Cushi, who today are the Negroid jews in Ethiopia.

Not only did descendants of Judah and descendants of Jehudi live in different territories, have different ancestors and customs and religions, and war with each other for millennia, but they were an obviously different race.

> >not
> >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.
> 

Which ignores the simple fact that these are two different Hebrew words with two different Strong's numbers which represent two conflicting races who warred with each other for millennia.

This is just exactly like saying Greece and grease "show patronymic forms" which is proof that all Greeks are in the oil business.



> 
> >> >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
> >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.
> 

The word "race" is a far more accurate description of these separate peoples who never intermarried, who lived in different geographical areas, and who had two entirely different patriarchs:  Judah, and Jehudi [read: Yhudiy].

> >> >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.
> 

This is your ONLY correct statement.  All descendants of Jacob, whether of the Tribe of Judah, or the Tribe of David, were called Israelites.

NONE of the descendants of Yhudiy were ever called Israelites, because they were jews.

> >It was descendants of Yhudiy who were a DIFFERENT race who were called
> >"jews".
> 
> There is nothing in the Bible about descendants of Yhudiy.  There are
> only references to Yhudiy, which are descendants of Judah.
> 


And of course you cannot find a single bit of Holy Scripture to support this statement, can you?

The Holy Bible is very specific about these terms.  If you believe this is the case, then certainly you should be able to find at least ONE example, right?

But you cannot, so you are dead wrong, yet again.

John Knight
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://iubio.bio.indiana.edu/bionet/mm/neur-sci/attachments/20020828/b02cb9d3/attachment.html


More information about the Neur-sci mailing list