brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

John Knight jwknight at polbox.com
Tue Sep 3 23:38:28 EST 2002


"Dan Holzman" <holzman at panix.com> wrote in message
news:al3spa$clp$1 at panix2.panix.com...
> In article <W3dd9.43929$Ic7.3324656 at news2.west.cox.net>,
> John Knight <jwknight at polbox.com> wrote:
> >
> >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".
>
> What John fails to understand (it is left as an exercise to the reader
> whether he choose to fail to understand it or is merely profoundly
> ignorant) is that there is a difference between relating a geneology
> and giving someone's full name.
>
> To use myself as an example, someone giving my geneology in Biblical
> terms would say "Stan begat Robert, Robert begat Daniel," prepending
> my Grandfather's ancestors as far back as they were wanting to go.
> Someone giving my name in the Hebrew form would say "Daniel ben Robert
> ben Stan ha Levi" or "Daniel, son of Robert, son of Stan the Levite"
>

It's easy to lapse into a state where one forgets that he's dealing with a
STUPID jew, and actually takes a paragraph or two of yours seriously.

But then a non-Heb, not-English word like "prepend" comes along and reminds
us that we're dealing with one of  "god's chosen" who doesn't have to follow
any silly laws or rules, particularly grammatical and spelling rules.

Thanks for the reminder.


> It is also worth noting that John is very selective aboout which "ben"
> he decides is figurative instead of literal -- he has nothing
> putatively derogatory to say about "Nethani'ahites" or
> "Shelemi'ahtes."  Once again, it is clear that John started with a
> conclusion, and then looked for data to fit it, discarding the rest.
>

Are you agreeing or disagreeing that "ben" means descendant?

Whether it means son or descendant, neither are figurative uses of the word
"ben", so the point isn't whether or not it's literal.  The point is that
the context suggests that Yehudiy was a descendant rather than a
great-grandson of the Cushi.

How can you claim that this is "discarding the rest", when all the
possibilities were presented and analyzed?

> >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"?
>
> This position relies on the notion that the descendants of this one
> fellow being the Jews rather than those of Judea, which is as
> unfounded as everything else you've posited.

It was YOU who posited that Jehudi was a descendant of the Israelite named
Cush rather than the descendants of Ham who were known as Cushi.

Of course it's unfounded.  Almost everything you jews say is unfounded.

Since you've presented no other plausible alternatives, the only conclusion
can be that Yehudi was a descendant of Ham, just as posted.
>
> While we're on the topic of things you're completely off-base about --
> the folks at www.britishisrael.org are completely wrong about Hebrew
> not having vowels.  God's name is given out as YHVH precisely because
> the witholding of the vowels keep people from knowing the Ineffable
> Name.  So much for taking every "Den" "Don" "Din" and "Dun" and
> turning it into "Dan"
>

We already know why you jews don't want to use vowels around Christians,
because a rabbi took the time to explain it, so you can quit the charade,
Holzman.

John Knight





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list