brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

John Knight jwknight at
Tue Sep 3 20:10:14 EST 2002

"Dan Holzman" <holzman at> wrote in message news:al199q$kt7$1 at
> In article <PcUc9.40897$Ic7.3031092 at>,
> John Knight <jwknight at> wrote:
> >
> >Jer 36:14  and all the heads send unto Baruch, Jehudi son of Nethaniah, son
> >of Shelemiah, son of Cushi, saying, `The roll in which thou hast read in the
> >ears of the people take in thy hand, and come.' And Baruch son of Neriah
> >taketh the roll in his hand and cometh in unto them,
> >
> >
> >Note that Jehudi was a son [read: descendant] of the Cushi:
> Note John's sleight of hand here -- trying to convince you that
> "Cushi" here refers to a tribe called Cush, rather than an individual
> named Cushi. 

If there's any "sleight of hand" here, it was by the KJV translators who always translated the Hebrew word "be^n" [Strong's 1121] as "son", when it actually means nation or flock [as in "descendant"].  But they never translated this as "descendant", even though it's obvious that the Holy Bible deals a lot with descendants.  "Son" often should have been "descendant".

Even Mordecai's genealogy may have been a reference to ancestors rather than immediate relatives, because when immediate relatives are described, the Holy Bible usually specifies "begat".

> The first flaw with this belief is linguistic -- if the intent had
> been to say that he was of the tribe of Cush, his name would have been
> given as "Jehu'di the son of Nethani'ah, the son of Shelemi'ah,
> a Cushite" instead of "son of Cushi" (Compare with "Mor'decai,
> the son of Ja'ir, the son of Shim'e-i, the son of Kish, a Benjamite");

Or, it could have been just like saying "he was a grandson of Pushkin who was the son of niggers".

The words "Cushi", "Cushites", and "Ethiopian (-s)" are all patronymics from Cush.

Note from the "(-s)" that "Cushi" is also the plural of "Ethiopian".

Either "the niggers" or "niggers" would be just as correct as saying either "the Cushi" or "Cushi".

> The second is scriptural -- Cushi is mentioned elsewhere in the
> geneologies:
> Zephaniah 1:1  The word of the LORD which came unto Zephani'ah the
> son of Cushi, the son of Gedali'ah, the son of Amari'ah, the
> son of Hizki'ah

If you trace this particular Cushi's genealogy back in the Holy Bible, you will find that he was born 18 generations after Jacob, by which time there would have been hundreds of thousands or even millions of Israelites.  So if this is the correct "Cushi", the one from whom Jehudi was a descendant, then "jews" WOULD have been Israelites, right?


But then why would one obscure Israelite born more than 18 generations after Jacob, who was one of perhaps millions of Israelites, have been given the "honor" of having his descendants referred to as "jews"?

What would be the point?

It would mean that "jews" were only one out of every million Israelites, which makes "jews" an even smaller percentage of Judaea than the already small percentage they are believed to have been.

> Nehemiah 10:17 mentiones "Hiski'jah" as one of the "Chiefs of the
> people"  This may or may not be the same fellow.
> Cushi is also mentioned as an individual in the following passages:
> 2 Samuel 18:21-23
> Then said Jo'ab to Cushi, Go tell the king what thou hast seen.
> And Cushi bowed himself unto Jo'ab, and ran.  Then said Ahim'a-az
> the son of Zadok yet again to Jo'ab, But howsoever, let me, I pray
> thee, also run after Cushi. And Jo'ab said, Wherefore wilt thou
> run, my son, seeing that thou hast no tidings ready?  23  But
> howsoever, said he, let me run. And he said unto him, Run.  Then
> Ahim'a-az ran by the way of the plain, and overran Cushi.
> 2 Samuel 18:31-33
> And, behold, Cushi came; and Cushi said, Tidings, my lord the king:
> for the LORD hath avenged thee this day of all them that rose up
> against thee.  And the king said unto Cushi, Is the young man
> Ab'salom safe? And Cushi answered, The enemies of my lord the king,
> and all that rise against thee to do thee hurt, be as that young
> man is.  And the king was much moved, and went up to the chamber
> over the gate, and wept: and as he went, thus he said, O my son
> Ab'salom! my son, my son Ab'salom! would God I had died for thee,
> O Ab'salom, my son, my son!
> Thus falls the deciet underpinning all of John's arguments based on
> Cushi the Israelite.
> >Note that Cush was a descendant of Ham.
> Note that Cush is not Cushi.  

Note that Cushi is patronymic from Cush:




Patronymic from H3568; a Cushite, or descendant of Cush: - Cushi, Cushite, Ethiopian (-s).

> Also note that there is more than one Cush in the Bible:
> The Seventh Psalm was written "concerning Cush the Benjamite".
> (
> Nor is there any way John can have made this mistake honestly.  Cushi
> is great grandfather of someone mentioned in Jerimiah -- long, long
> after any children of Ham would have died of old age.

Except that he was a descendant of the race called Cushi, and not the great- grandson of a person named Cushi.

John Knight

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list