brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

Bob LeChevalier lojbab at lojban.org
Sat Aug 31 02:00:06 EST 2002


"John Knight" <jwknight at polbox.com> wrote:
>"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab at lojban.org> wrote in message
>news:qblvmu8ed6rkev1pq3e15knu8ntpugaa7h at 4ax.com...
>> "John Knight" <jwknight at polbox.com> wrote:
>> >Israelites and jews are two completely different and separate people today,
>> >and they have been for several millennia.
>>
>> There are NO "Israelites" today.
>
>Where did they go?

They were "lost".  The northern kingdom was sent in exile to the place
where the Samaritans had lived, and, the Samaritans were returned in
their place and remain there until at least the time of Christ.
Josephus reports that the Samaritans attempted to adopted the worship
of the Lord, but that the returned exiles from the southern kingdom
did not accept them because they were not of the people of Israel,
from whence came the enmity that still existed at the time of Christ.

As described in the Holy Bible, the Israelites took foreign wives and
adopted the ways of the stranger, having already turned away from
celebrating the Passover and keeping the other commandments as far
back as Samuel.  The Northern kingdom was in exile over a hundred
years before Judah was conquered, and the Israelites had not place to
return to, since the Samaritans were there.  Thus the bulk of the
northern tribes dispersed into the Assyrian population.

ONLY the people who were led back to Jerusalem after the captivity,
who were Jews, Benjaminites, and Levites as described in Ezra and
Nehemiah and Jeremiah, and who then recommitted themselves to God and
put away their foreign wives and children, maintained an identity as a
distinct people.  The OTHERS were the ones who married Moabites and
Canaanites, and of course Assyrians.  They were a conquered people,
and like many ethnic groups that have been conquered by more powerful
neighbors over the year, they have ceased to exist.  Thus the ancient
"Israelites" can be found in the same place as the ancient Trojan, and
the Chaldeans, and the Phoenicians, and the Visigoths, and the
Cisserians and the ...: the dustbin of history.

The people who rededicated themselves to the God of Israel retained
the mantle of being God's chosen people.  Originally the Jews (tribe
of Judah), the Benjaminites, and the Levites, the fact that they all
lived in a place called Judea led to them ALL being called by
foreigners like the Greeks "Jews".

Here is where Josephus says that they went:
>Now as to Shalmanezer, he removed the Israelites out of their country,
> and placed therein the nation of the Cutheans, who had formerly
> belonged to the inner parts of Persia and Media, but were then called
> Samaritans, by taking the name of the country to which they were
> removed; but the king of Babylon, who brought out the two tribes,
> (17) placed no other nation in their country, by which means all
> Judea and Jerusalem, and the temple, continued to be a desert for
> seventy years; but the entire interval of time which passed from the
> captivity of the Israelites, to the carrying away of the two tribes,
> proved to be a hundred and thirty years, six months, and ten days. 

Here is what Josephus says that Cyrus said:
>(KING CYRUS TO SISINNES AND SATHRABUZANES SENDETH GREETING. 
>"I have given leave to as many of the Jews that dwell in my country as
> please to return to their own country, and to rebuild their city, and
> to build the temple of God at Jerusalem on the same place where it
> was before. I have also sent my treasurer Mithridates, and Zorobabel,
> the governor of the Jews, that they may lay the foundations of the
> temple, and may build it sixty cubits high, and of the same latitude,
> making three edifices of polished stones, and one of the wood of the
> country, and the same order extends to the altar whereon they offer
> sacrifices to God. I require also that the expenses for these things
> may be given out of my revenues. Moreover, I have also sent the
> vessels which king Nebuchadnezzar pillaged out of the temple, and
> have given them to Mithridates the treasurer, and to Zorobabel the
> governor of the Jews, that they may have them carried to Jerusalem,
> and may restore them to the temple of God. Now their number is as
> follows: Fifty chargers of gold, and five hundred of silver; forty
> Thericlean cups of gold, and five hundred of silver; fifty basons of
> gold, and five hundred of silver; thirty vessels for pouring [the
> drink-offerings], and three hundred of silver; thirty vials of gold,
> and two thousand four hundred of silver; with a thousand other large
> vessels. (3) I permit them to have the same honor which they were
> used to have from their forefathers, as also for their small cattle,
> and for wine and oil, two hundred and five thousand and five hundred
> drachme; and for wheat flour, twenty thousand and five hundred
> artabae; and I give order that these expenses shall be given them out
> of the tributes due from Samaria. The priests shall also offer these
> sacrifices according to the laws of Moses in Jerusalem; and when they
> offer them, they shall pray to God for the preservation of the king
> and of his family, that the kingdom of Persia may continue. But my
> will is, that those who disobey these injunctions, and make them
> void, shall be hung upon a cross, and their substance brought into
> the king's treasury." And such was the import of this epistle. Now
> the number of those that came out of captivity to Jerusalem, were
> forty-two thousand four hundred and sixty-two. 

That letter which Josephus quotes from no longer exists.  We do have
extant text from Cyrus which confirms the story, mentioning neither
Israelite nor Jew:

>From The Kurash Prism: (539 BC)
>I am Kurash [ "Cyrus" ], King of the World, Great King, Legitimate
> King, King of Babilani, King of Kiengir and Akkade, King of the four
> rims of the earth, Son of Kanbujiya, Great King, King of Hakhamanish,
> Grandson of Kurash, Great king, King of Hakhamanish, descendant of
> Chishpish, Great king, King of Hakhamanish, of a family which always
> exercised kingship; whose rule Bel and Nebo love, whom they want as
> king to please their hearts. When I entered Babilani as a friend and
> when I established the seat of the government in the palace of the
> ruler under jubilation and rejoicing, Marduk, the great lord, induced
> the magnanimous inhabitants of Babilani to love me, and I was daily
> endeavoring to worship him.... As to the region from as far as Assura
> and Susa, Akkade, Eshnunna, the towns Zamban, Me-turnu, Der as well
> as the region of the Gutians, I returned to these sacred cities on
> the other side of the Tigris the sanctuaries of which have been ruins
> for a long time, the images which used to live therein and
> established for them permanent sanctuaries. I also gathered all their
> former inhabitants and returned them to their habitations.
> Furthermore, I resettled upon the command of Marduk, the great lord,
> all the gods of Kiengir and Akkade whom Nabonidus had brought into
> Babilani to the anger of the lord of the gods, unharmed, in their
> former temples, the places which make them happy.

Josephus reports that most of the Jews remained behind in Cyrus's
kingdom, unwilling to give up their property.  He gives details of who
returned:
>10. And thus did these men go, a certain and determinate number out of
> every family, though I do not think it proper to recite particularly
> the names of those families, that I may not take off the mind of my
> readers from the connexion of the historical facts, and make it hard
> for them to follow the coherence of my narrations; but the sum of
> those that went up, above the age of twelve years, of the tribes of
> Judah and Benjamin, was four hundred and sixty-two myriads and eight
> thousand (6) the Levites were seventy-four; the number of the women
> and children mixed together was forty thousand seven hundred and
> forty-two; and besides these, there were singers of the Levites one
> hundred and twenty-eight, and porters one hundred and ten, and of the
> sacred ministers three hundred and ninety-two; there were also others
> besides these, who said they were of the Israelites, but were not
> able to show their genealogies, six hundred and sixty-two: some there
> were also who were expelled out of the number and honor of the
> priests, as having married wives whose genealogies they could not
> produce, nor were they found in the genealogies of the Levites and
> priests; they were about five hundred and twenty-five: the multitude
> also of servants that followed those that went up to Jerusalem were
> seven thousand three hundred and thirty-seven; the singing men and
> singing women were two hundred and forty-five; the camels were four
> hundred and thirty-five; the beasts used to the yoke were five
> thousand five hundred and twenty-five; and the governors of all this
> multitude thus numbered were Zorobabel, the son of Salathiel, of the
> posterity of David, and of the tribe of Judah; and Jeshua, the son of
> Josedek the high priest; and besides these there were Mordecai and
> Serebeus, who were distinguished from the multitude, and were rulers,
> who also contributed a hundred pounds of gold, and five thousand of
> silver. By this means therefore the priests and the Levites, and a
> certain part of the entire people of the Jews that were in Babylon,
> came and dwelt in Jerusalem; but the rest of the multitude returned
> every one to their own countries. 

This is reported as the actual count of Zorobabel, and the numbers are
certainly detailed as if they came from some actual document.

So 42,462 men over the age of 12 from the tribes of Benjamin and
Judah, and 40,742 women and children, 74 Levites, 128 Levite singers,
110 porters, 392 priests, 7337 servants, 245 singing men and women.
There were all of 662 who "said they were of the Israelites" but could
not produce genealogies, and 525 of those were expelled because they
had also married wives who had no genealogies.  So it appear that 137
"Israelites" from the other tribes returned to Judah.

This is reasonably consistent with the approximately 10,000 men who
had been taken into captivity a few generations before by
Nebuchadnazzar.

As confirmation that the people of Judah in the time of the Assyrians
were called Jews, we have the following proclamation by Sennacharib
from 701 BC:
>From The Sennacherib Prism 
>In my third campaign I marched against Hatti. Luli, king of Sidon,
> whom the terror-inspiring glamor of my lordship had overwhelmed, fled
> far overseas and perished.... As to Hezekiah, the Jew, he did not
> submit to my yoke, I laid siege to his strong cities, walled forts,
> and countless small villages, and conquered them by means of
> well-stamped earth-ramps and battering-rams brought near the walls
> with an attack by foot soldiers, using mines, breeches as well as
> trenches. I drove out 200,150 people, young and old, male and female,
> horses, mules, donkeys, camels, big and small cattle beyond counting,
> and considered them slaves. Himself I made a prisoner in Jerusalem,
> his royal residence, like a bird in a cage. I surrounded him with
> earthwork in order to molest those who were his city's gate. Thus I
> reduced his country, but I still increased the tribute and the
> presents to me as overlord which I imposed upon him beyond the former
> tribute, to be delivered annually. Hezekiah himself, did send me,
> later, to Nineveh, my lordly city, together with 30 talents of gold,
> 800 talents of silver, precious stones, antimony, large cuts of red
> stone, couches inlaid with ivory, nimedu-chairs inlaid with ivory,
> elephant-hides, ebony-wood, boxwood and all kinds of valuable
> treasures, his own daughters and concubines. . .

Note that Israel was taken into captivity a full 162 years before the
Jews were restored to Jerusalem.   A good 8 generations, plenty of
time for a people that has not made a supreme effort to keep their
history to lose their identity as a people, given that so many of the
Jews had lost their faith during a mere 49 years in Babylon.

Note that it took almost a century to rebuild Jerusalem.  Ezra and
Nehemiah are dated at around 445BC, some 90 years after the return of
the exiles.

>If jews and Israelites were the "same", as you claim, then how did the
>Israelites separate themselves from the jews and just evaporate?

They were separated by being taken away into captivity over a hundred
years before the people of Judah, by the Assyrians, who replaced them
in their land and never allowed them to return.  The southern tribes
DID return from their captivity after about 50 years.  Their land had
been left vacant by the Babylonians.

>Most of the 2 billion Christians today are the direct descendants of the
>Twelve Tribes of Israel.

Pure horsepucky.

>NONE of the jews are considered to be Israelites,

The Bible and the records of the ancient Assyrians and of Josephus all
agree that you are WRONG (as usual).

>because of the Israelite law which never evaporated. 

The law did not "evaporate", but the practice of the law ceased for
all but the southern tribes.

>> >Most of the White Races of the world are descendants of the Israelites,
>>
>> Pure nonsense with no scriptural basis.
>
>Prove it.

Done.  Far better than you could even prove your fairy tales.

>> Prove that ANY jew claims to be a descendant of Ashkenaz.
>>
>http://biblebelievers.org.au/13trindx.htm

I see nothing in that book that says that says that any Jew claims to
be a descendant of Ashkenaz, as opposed to a dweller in the land
called Ashkenaz (where some Jews undoubtedly went during the Jewish
diaspora).  Notice BTW that Khazaria occupies the northern side of the
Caucasus - the Khazarians would therefore be "Caucasians".  Oops.
There went another theory.

>> You've been told time and again that Ashkenazi refers to the ritual
>> that they practice and not to their ancestry (though usually
>> traditions are passed down in families, they are really more
>> geographical in nature), and the Ashkenazi practices are those of the
>> land of Ashkenaz or Northern Europe.
>
>So a moron "liberal" repeating something time and time again doesn't change
>a single word in the Holy Bible no matter how many times you repeat a LIE,
>does it?

The Holy Bible says NOTHING about what Jews who lived AFTER the Holy
Bible was written would call themselves.

>Gen 10:1  Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and
>Japheth: and unto them were sons born after the flood.
>
>Gen 10:2  The sons of Japheth; Gomer, and Magog, and Madai, and Javan, and
>Tubal, and Meshech, and Tiras.
>
>Gen 10:3  And the sons of Gomer; Ashkenaz, and Riphath, and Togarmah.

So what?  We've established that Ashkenaz was not of the line of
Abraham.  Now you have to establish that the Khazars (and thus the
Jewish Khazars) are of the line of Ashkenaz.  You can't from the
Bible, because the Khazars did not exist in the time of the Bible.
That area was overrun by tribe after tribe after tribe, coming west
from the eastern steppes.  The Khazars showed up AFTER Attila the Hun,
and after the Bulgars.

http://ussr.boom.ru/English/006.html
>The Khazars were a Turkic people, who had wandered from Asia to Europe
> after the Huns in the second half of the 4th century. They took the
> steppes between the lower Volga and the Caucasus Mountains in
> possession. Like most of the contemporary nomads they made their
> living from husbandry and pillaging expeditions to the Byzantine and
> Persian possessions in Transcaucasia. Later, after 560 they submitted
> to so-called Turkish, and after its collapse in the end of the 6th
> century - Western Turkish, Khaganate. About the middle of the 7th
> century that realm also began to decline; that was when the
> independent Khazar Khaganate emerged. Its capital was in Semender on
> Terek, close to the Caspian Sea. The Khazar state quickly grew in
> power, and subordinated new lands and tribes, among others the
> Bulgars, who by then had already had their own state-tribal
> organization on the coasts of the Sea of Azov. 

So the Khazars were just another Turkish tribe, the Turkish peoples
having been distributed over the entire region from the edge of China
into the Balkan states over the millennium after Christ lived.

>Note that Ashkenaz was a son of Gomer, a grandson of Japheth, a
>greatgrandson of Noah, and thus his descendants could NOT be descendants of
>Shem [read: Semites], nor Eber [read: Hebrews], nor Abraham, nor Jacob
>[read: Israelites].
>
>Yes?  or no?

But there is no record who his descendants were.  At best we know
where the ancient Hebrews thought that Ashkenaz had settled, by the
fact that it is associated with some region far to the north of
ancient Israel.  But that area had no stable population for millennia.
It was a land of nomads of innumerable tribes.

>> >Exactly who said "Israelites ... would never think of miscegenation"?
>>
>> You have.
>
>Not only did I directly refer you to the Holy Scripture (A bastard shall not
>enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall
>he not enter into the congregation of the LORD, Deuteronomy 23:2)

But you have nothing but YOUR words that the Jews were considered
Deuteronomic bastards.  Whereas I have the Holy Bible which says that
the Jews were part of the congregation of the Lord in the time before
the exile.  And we have an inscription from Sennacherib wherein he
says that Hezekiah, the ancestor of Jesus Christ was the king of the
"Jews", and numerous biblical quotes cited in the last couple of days
to show that the people of the tribe of Judah were called Jews
starting from the period of the captivity of Israel.

Furthermore, note a few lines below regarding the Edomites (Deut
23:7-8)
>[7] Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite; for he is thy brother: thou shalt
> not abhor an Egyptian; because thou wast a stranger in his land.
>[8] The children that are begotten of them shall enter into the
> congregation of the LORD in their third generation.

Thus even if the Jews were Edomites (which they weren't - that is your
fairy tale, not the Bible's), their grandchildren COULD enter into the
congregation of the LORD, and they were considered "brother" not
"stranger".  That is stated as an exception to the 10 generation rule.
And sure enough Ruth's great grandson was David.

>that
>describes what shall happen to the bastards who are the product of that
>miscegenation that you claim that I denied the Israelites engaged in,

But that DID happen.  It was the Israelites as an entire people, who
abandoned the ways of the Lord, and were carried away into captivity,
never to reappear.  Only the 2 and a fraction tribes of the southern
kingdom survived, and they no longer called themselves, nor were
called by others "Israelites", but rather at times either "people of
Israel" or "Jews.

>In order for Mordecai to have been a jew and to have had one Israelite
>great-grandfather, there MUST have been miscegenation between an Israelite
>and a jew.

No, because since the Jews were Israelites, it was not miscegenation.
You cannot assume your conclusion and then claim that as proof.  That
is nincompoop logic.

>> But they did NOT put away products of miscegenation EXCEPT at one
>> particular point when Ezra and Nehemiah told them to after the exiles
>> returned to Jerusalem (at which point the Israelites who returned to
>> Jerusalem were called "Jews").  They had been practicing miscegenation
>> for generations while in exile and probably before they went into
>> exile.
>
>These are just a few examples of when the Israelites upheld their law--and
>for most of the last several thousand years, the vast majority of them HAVE
>upheld the law.

Provide quotes from the Bible which show that Israelites upheld their
law from the time of Samuel until the time of the captivity.  Did not
David, their king, commit adultery and murder?  Was he stoned or
otherwise put to death as per the laws of Israel?  

And time after time the kings of Judah rid the land of the idols and
the high places.

Now look at Deuteronomy 7:
>[1] When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou
> goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the
> Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites,
> and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations
> greater and mightier than thou;
>[2] And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou
> shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no
> covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them:
>[3] Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou
> shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto
> thy son.
>[4] For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may
> serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against
> you, and destroy thee suddenly.
>[5] But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars,
> and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn
> their graven images with fire.

God commanded that they UTTERLY DESTROY the heathens including the
Amorites and the Canaanites.  He said not to make marriages, or they
would "turn away thy son from following me".
So will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, AND DESTROY YOU
SUDDENLY.

Now look what Ezra 9:1 says a thousand years later:
>[1] Now when these things were done, the princes came to me, saying,
> The people of Israel, and the priests, and the Levites, have not
> separated themselves from the people of the lands, doing according to
> their abominations, even of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the
> Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the
> Egyptians, and the Amorites.

So what did God do to the Israelites: he DESTROYED THEM.

Only the small number of Jews, Benjaminites, and Levites who had
maintained separation and rededicated themselves to the Lord were
spared.

>The few who didn't were suitably punished,

They weren't a few - they were the entire populace of Israel for
centuries.

>Where's your proof?  For what reason would Israelites completely abandon
>God's Law when it had served them so well for thousands of years.  Where in
>the Holy Scripture is this STUPID claim supported?

In numerous places throughout Kings and Chronicles, with supporting
references in the prophets.

For example 1 Kings 15
>[11] And Asa did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, as did
> David his father.
>[12] And he took away the sodomites out of the land, and removed all
> the idols that his fathers had made.
>[13] And also Maachah his mother, even her he removed from being
> queen, because she had made an idol in a grove; and Asa destroyed her
> idol, and burnt it by the brook Kidron.
>[14] But the high places were not removed: nevertheless Asa's heart
> was perfect with the LORD all his days.

1 Kings 22
>[45] Now the rest of the acts of Jehoshaphat, and his might that he
> shewed, and how he warred, are they not written in the book of the
> chronicles of the kings of Judah?
>[46] And the remnant of the sodomites, which remained in the days of
> his father Asa, he took out of the land.

Asa drove the sodomites out of the land.  Yet some still remained for
Jehosophat.  Asa removed the idols, but not the high places.  Did he
follow Deuteronomy 5:7? No.



Why did they?  Well, why did Pharoah ignore the plagues? Because
people are stupid and stubborn at times.  You read 2 Samuel 11 and
tell us why David broke the commandments and committed both adultery
and murder, despite "God's Law having served them so well for
thousands of years".

Perhaps because keeping God's Law was HARD WORK and not pleasurable.
Perhaps because the people perhaps did not think that God's Law had
served them so well as we think it does.

>The jews started out as mongrels.  They have never been a pure race, because
>they were an admixture of descendants of Cain and Canaanites (who may be one
>and the same), Cushites [read: Negroids of Ethiopia], Amorites, Edomites,
>Moabites, Ashkenazis, and a whole host of other races which the Israelites
>prohibited miscegenation with.

Obviously not, since Ruth, the Moabitess was the great grandmother of
David.

>They didn't kill an Israelite who married a foreign woman--they merely
>exiled the children and the foreign wives.

No they didn't.  Until after the captivity.

>There may have been plenty of
>Israelites who followed their families into exile, but it's obvious that the
>vast majority of Israelites managed to preserve TWELVE different and
>distinct races [read: tribes] for many centuries, right through to the time
>of Christ, all the way to Russia.

No they didn't.  There is NO record of the other tribes either in the
Bible or in history, after the Assyrians conquered Israel.

>Just because they were dispersed from Israel doesn't mean that they
>miscegenated with foreign women.

The Bible says that they did.

>To this very day, White Races like the
>Russians, the Danes, the Germans, the French, the English, the Irish (many
>of whom are the descendants of Christ's mother, Mary), the Scottish, all the
>way to the US and Australia, and even parts of Africa and South America,
>have done an excellent job of protecting and preserving the White Race.

Yet there was no such thing identified as the "white race" until the
last few hundred years.

>It's alarming enough that 4% of the population in states like California
>report that they're "mixed-race" [read: products of miscegenation], but even
>in California, half of the population is still pure White Christian
>Israelites.

That is how many REPORT it.  Many more do NOT.

>The jews and Israelites in the Holy Bible are absolute antonyms.

Only in your nincompoop dreams.

>Ezr 5:1  Then the prophets, Haggai the prophet, and Zechariah the son of
>Iddo, prophesied unto the Jews that were in Judah and Jerusalem in the name
>of the God of Israel, even unto them.

So much for them not being of the congregation of the Lord.  The
prophets prophesied to them.  Not to Israelites.

>
>Neh 1:2  That Hanani, one of my brethren, came, he and certain men of Judah;
>and I asked them concerning the Jews that had escaped, which were left of
>the captivity, and concerning Jerusalem.
>
>Jer 40:11  Likewise when all the Jews that were in Moab, and among the
>Ammonites, and in Edom, and that were in all the countries, heard that the
>king of Babylon had left a remnant of Judah, and that he had set over them
>Gedaliah the son of Ahikam the son of Shaphan;
>
>Jer 40:12  Even all the Jews returned out of all places whither they were
>driven, and came to the land of Judah, to Gedaliah, unto Mizpah, and
>gathered wine and summer fruits very much.
>
>Dan 5:13  Then was Daniel brought in before the king. And the king spoke and
>said unto Daniel, Art thou that Daniel, which art of the children of the
>captivity of Judah, whom the king my father brought out of Jewry?
>
>Note this last word "jewry" is one of the most serious of the
>mistranslations in the KJV:
>
>Per ISBE:
>
>Jewry
>
>ju?´ri, jo?o?´ri: In Dan_5:13 the King James Version, where the Revised
>Version (British and American) has "Judah"; in the New Testament, in two
>places in the King James Version, Luk_23:5; Joh_7:1, where the Revised
>Version (British and American) has correctly "Judaea" (Ioudai?a) (which
>see).
>
>Per Strong's:
>
>H3061
>?????
>yehu^d
>yeh-hood'
>(Chaldee); contracted from a form. corresponding to H3063; properly Judah,
>hence Judaea: - Jewry, Judah, Judea.
>
>It's easy enough for the KJV translators to get tripped up over this Hebrew
>word "yhud" because it sounds so similar to "Yhudiy".

It is the same Hebrew word.

>But they ARE two separate and distinct Hebrew words.

You wouldn't know a separate Hebrew word if it bit you.

>Just because they
>sound similar is NO reason to believe that one is derived from the other,

Strongs says that they did, all of the other Hebrew scholarship said
that they did.  Aramaic likewise has the same pattern.

>any more than you'd have a reason to believe that "sands" and "sans" are
>derived from each other.

Obviously you haven't a clue about linguistics.  It has NOTHING to do
with "sounds alike".

>You can see from the above that the the English words "Judah" and "jew",
>which are the Hebrew words "Yhudah" and "Yhudiy", appear in the very same
>paragraphs.  If they were one and the same, why would they switch in the
>same paragraph from one to the other?  The point is that they are obviously
>DIFFERENT words describing very different people who had very different
>ancestors.

Because one is the place and the tribe, and the other is the people
who lived in the place and who were members of the tribe.  The
difference is the same as the difference between "America" and 
"Americans", which is not the same as comparing "sands" and "sans".

lojbab



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list