brain sizes: Einstein's and women's
lojbab at lojban.org
Thu Sep 5 22:48:58 EST 2002
"John Knight" <jwknight at polbox.com> 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?
>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.
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
>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