brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

John Knight jwknight at polbox.com
Thu Sep 5 20:19:55 EST 2002



"Dan Holzman" <holzman at panix.com> wrote in message news:al6gp3$6co$1 at panix1.panix.com...
> In article <87gd9.44099$Ic7.3389487 at news2.west.cox.net>,
> John Knight <jwknight at polbox.com> wrote:
> >
> >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.
> 
> I love it when you come back with a response like this.  You're the
> only one who doesn't realize it's a concession that I'm right and
> you're wrong.
> 

Not a chance.  Let's review that again:

I 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".
> >

You replied:
> > 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"
> >
> 

I replied:
> 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.
> 


The point is that your statement was almost believable.  But then you threw in the nonsensical word "prepend", which was a reminder that the person making an almost valid point was a jew.  From that point forward, we needed to remember not to take anything you say at face value.  It's correct that the Hebrew word for "son" is "ben", and that the Holy Bible describes genealogy this way--but when a jew says something that almost sounds correct, you need to look in your pocket to see what's missing.

The word "ben" is not a jewish word, nor a yiddish word, nor a Khazarian word--it's a Hebrew word, and you jews don't and cannot comprehend Hebrew words or concepts.  It was the Israelites who were the Hebrews who wrote most of the Holy Bible, whereas jews wrote the Talmud, an exact antipole to the Holy Bible.  Even though both of us thought you made a valid point, the only reason is that I momentarily forgot that you've never written an entire paragraph that ever made sense.  So what didn't make sense about this one?

You claim that both Moredecai and Jehudi were Israelites, but the Holy Bible and 2 billion Christians disagree with you.  Why do they disagree with you?

You disagree that the Holy Bible uses "ben" to describe immediate children as well as descendants, right?  Your disagreement is based on your claim that "ben" is interchangeable with "begat", or that "ben" means son and never descendant, right?

That's wrong.

Look at the difference between the way "ya^lad" [read: begat] and "be^n" [read: son] are used in the following Holy Scripture:

Gen 5:28 And Lamech3929 lived2421 a hundred3967 eighty8084 and two8147 years,8141 and begot3205 a son:1121 


begat
H3205

???

ya^lad

yaw-lad'

A primitive root; to bear young; causatively to beget; medically to act as midwife; specifically to show lineage: - bear, beget, birth ([-day]), born, (make to) bring forth (children, young), bring up, calve, child, come, be delivered (of a child), time of delivery, gender, hatch, labour, (do the office of a) midwife, declare pedigrees, be the son of, (woman in, woman that) travail (-eth, -ing woman).

son
H1121

???

be^n

bane

>From H1129; a son (as a builder of the family name), in the widest sense (of literal and figurative relationship, including grandson, subject, nation, quality or condition, etc., (like H1, H251, etc.): - + afflicted, age, [Ahoh-] [Ammon-] [Hachmon-] [Lev-]ite, [anoint-]ed one, appointed to, (+) arrow, [Assyr-] [Babylon-] [Egypt-] [Grec-]ian, one born, bough, branch, breed, + (young) bullock, + (young) calf, X came up in, child, colt, X common, X corn, daughter, X of first, + firstborn, foal, + very fruitful, + postage, X in, + kid, + lamb, (+) man, meet, + mighty, + nephew, old, (+) people, + rebel, + robber, X servant born, X soldier, son, + spark, + steward, + stranger, X surely, them of, + tumultuous one, + valiant[-est], whelp, worthy, young (one), youth.


The word "be^n" also means "grandson" and even "nation", and even "subject", but it always appears in the KJV as the English word "son".  You have to see the context to know which it is, and it's clear from the context that Jehudi was a descendant, and not a great-grandson, of the Cushi.  There's no other way to write this in Hebrew, other than the way it was written in the Holy Bible.


Robert "ya^lad" Daniel and Robert "be^n" Daniel are not interchangeable with each other.  The first, "ya^lad", refers directly to one's child, but the second, "be^n" (when it's not used in conjunction with "ya^lad") usually means "descendant".

So you jews are wrong when you claim the following:

  in the Hebrew form would say "Daniel ben Robert ben Stan ha Levi" or "Daniel, son of Robert, son of Stan the Levite"

This is not Hebrew.  It may be Yiddish, not it's not Hebrew.  

John Knight
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://iubio.bio.indiana.edu/bionet/mm/neur-sci/attachments/20020906/061b3ee8/attachment.html


More information about the Neur-sci mailing list