brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

John Knight jwknight at
Thu Sep 12 13:09:03 EST 2002

"Joni Rathbun" <jrathbun at> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0209111622050.17151-100000 at
> On Wed, 11 Sep 2002, Cary Kittrell wrote:
> > "John Knight" <jwknight at> writes:
> > <
> > <
> > <"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab at> wrote in message
> > <news:clhsnu8jnudsb58deluu1qm035orc3vl58 at
> > <> "John Knight" <jwknight at> wrote:
> > <> >> And once again I state as "fact" according to your bible, this law
> > <> >> would have, had it been upheld, destroyed the lineage of Jesus,
> > <> >> was descended through both his mother and his "earthly" father
> > <> >> David and Bathsheba. David and Bathsheba married after an
> > <> >> affair resulted in pregnancy that couldn't be attributed to her
> > <> >> husband, Uriah. David ordered Uriah to the front lines where the
> > <> >> fighting was heaviest, to better the chance of him being killed in
> > <> >> battle.
> > <> >
> > <> >You completely and totally missed the point of the story, which is
> > <> >for a feminazi.  Bathsheba was an Israelite who had married a
> > <> >That's the "adultery" in the story.  The word "adultery" means "race
> > <> >mixing".
> > <>
> > <> What was this about adulterating dictionary definitions?  Is that
> > <> you think the commandment means "Thou shalt not commit adultery"?  Is
> > <> that what "adultery laws" you think that Gallup was asking people
> > <> about?
> > <
> > <Of course not.
> > <
> > <The jews who controlled the publishers gradually changed the definition
> > <"adultery" to the point that people now think "adultery" means sex
> > <of marriage rather than inter-racial marrying.  So their responses
> > <this new definition.
> > <
> > <The ORIGINAL language of the Holy Bible proves that it meant that those
> > <create little mamzers are to be stoned.
> > <
> >
> > Really?
> >
> > Isn't it a bit odd, then, that the shade of Hamlet Sr. (deceased) refers
> > to Claudius as "that adulterate beast", this for Claudius' having
> > screwed Hamlet Sr's wife?  Good white folks all, you'll observe,
> > the whitest in fact.  No little "mamzers" there.
> >
> > All this from a Willy "Quills" Shakespeare, a boy who knew a bit
> > about the language.  And this four centuries back.  And this at
> > a time, you may recall, when there weren't a whole lot of
> > Jews in England.
> >
> There are even earlier documented  uses of the term within a same
> context. See what the Oxford English Dictionary has:
> Somehow I find the Oxford more credible than John tho I suppose there
> may  be one or two who disagree with me on that.

The question isn't what the English word "adultery" meant in Shakespeare's time.  The question is what the original Hebrew word "naaph" meant, and what Christ meant when He referred to the Israelites.

The Holy Bible is the history of the Israelites' struggle for survival, all the way from Adam, to the scattered Twelve Tribes of Israel at the time Christ was born, to the descendants of the Israelites today.

Racial purity was so important to the Israelites that they "put away" their own children, when an Israelite married a non-Israelite.  It was so important to Christ that he continually admonished His Twelve Disciples to go only "to the lost sheep of the house of Israel":

"These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go
not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the  Samaritans enter
ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And  as ye
go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand."  Matthew 10:5-9

He said in reply, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." Matthew 15:24

Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and said about him, "Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom is no deceit!" John 1:47 

I ask then, Did God reject his people? May it never be! For I also am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin, Romans 11:1

"who are Israelites; whose is the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service, and the promises; of whom are the fathers, and from whom is Christ as concerning the flesh, who is over all, God, blessed forever. Amen", Romans 9:4-5

"Blessed be the Lord, the God of Israel," he said, "Because He has not forgotten His people but has effected redemption for them", Luke 1:68

With this emphasis on racial purity, it's inevitible that one of the most important ten laws to the Israelites would have been a proscription against intermarriage.  iow, it makes no sense that the Ten Commandments would have repeated the proscription against "coveting your neighbor's wife" twice, while completely ignoring this most important Israelite law, one that appears to be even more important than several of the other Ten Commandments.

This Oxford English Dictionary definition for "adultery" isn't convincing.  It raises more questions than it answers.  When the jews replied to Jesus' charge that they were not descendants of Abraham, they replied:  " We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God".  So it's clear that it's the word "fornication", not "adultery", which means to have sex outside of marriage, otherwise they would have said " We be not born of adultery; we have one Father, even God":




  From G4203; harlotry (including adultery and incest); figuratively idolatry: - fornication.

The jews above weren't claiming that they weren't born of harlotry.  They were making a direct reference to the state of the marriages of their ancestors.  So why would two different Greek words mean exactly the same thing?  If they did mean exactly the same thing, then why it wouldn it have been repeated twice in the following:

  Gal 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 

Here, "adultery" is translated from the Greek word "moicheia":




  From G3431; adultery: - adultery.

It's the word "porneia" which means "sex outside of marriage", which means the word "moicheia" must be a proscription against interracial marriages:
  Mat 5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. 

John Knight

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

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list