brain sizes: Einstein's and women's
zayton at bellsouth.net
Wed Aug 28 14:17:24 EST 2002
"John Knight" <jwknight at polbox.com> wrote in message news:zM8b9.17796$Ic7.1541913 at news2.west.cox.net...
"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.
*Not _the King James Version_, which is the subject of the Sentence above.
The English version is just one of 75 different languages that this Hebrew writing has been translated into.
*And one of these versions of a translation into English, The King James Version, is the subject of the sentence to which you respond that "It's the most widely spread Hebrew writing ever."
You're so Ameri-centric that you can't even grasp what the word "Hebrew" means, can you?
*a Hebrew is an Israelite, a Jew.
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"?
"Now there was a Jew in Susa, the capital whose name was Mordecah, the son of Jair, son of Shimei, son of Kish, a Benjaminite,...."
Because you cannot?
*But John, I just did.
Because they were always referred to as Israelites?
Really, John? You keep saying this. Why don't you produce Just one example of Holy Scripture which says this?
Because you can't?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Neur-sci