brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

Bob LeChevalier lojbab at
Thu Sep 5 22:48:58 EST 2002

"John Knight" <jwknight at> wrote:
>You claim that both Moredecai and Jehudi were Israelites,


>but the Holy Bible and 2 billion Christians disagree with you.

The Holy Bible and 2 billion Christians DO agree with him.  You are
the odd one out.  Very odd.

> Why do they disagree with you?

They don't.

>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?

It hardly matters, since all patrilineal descendants of the tribe of
Benjamin are members of the tribe of Benjamin.

>That's wrong.

You are wrong.

>From H1129; a son (as a builder of the family name),

Therefore a "ben" of a Benjaminite is a Benjaminite

> in the widest sense (of literal and figurative relationship, including grandson, subject, nation, quality or condition, etc., (like H1, H251, etc.): [...]

>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.

I am far more likely to trust the KJV translators than to trust the
nincompoop transmogrifier.

>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. 

You haven't a clue how Hebrew works.


More information about the Neur-sci mailing list