brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

Matthew Amsel matthew.amsel at mail.mcgill.ca
Thu Sep 12 23:49:33 EST 2002


forgetting for the moment that since they WERE in northern africa at the
time...

John Knight wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> The last thing in the world that an Israelite like Moses would, or
> COULD, do is marry a nigger, just as it's the last thing in the world
> that a respectable White man like Thomas Jefferson would ever have
> done.
> 
> So it's interesting how, and why, this passage has been so severely
> misinterpreted and misrepresented.
> 
> 
>      (KJV+)  And Miriam4813 and Aaron175 spoke1696 against
>      Moses4872 because5921, 182 of the Ethiopian3571 woman802
>      whom834 he had married:3947 for3588 he had married3947 an
>      Ethiopian3571 woman.802
> 
> 
> Most modern translators use "Cushite woman" rather than "Ethiopian
> woman".  Why?  Because the Holy Bible accounts that there were two
> different tribes called "Cushi".  One tribe of Cushi were descendants
> of Ham, and the other tribe were descendants of Jacob [read: they were
> Israelites].  The Cushi who were descendants of Ham lived in the area
> now known as Ethiopia, but the Cushi who was a descendant of Jacob
> lived in Judaea.
> 
> Under Israelite law, God would never have given an Israelite
> like Moses permission to marry a nigger.  Such a radical departure
> from Israelite law would have required far more than 16 paragraphs in
> Numbers 12.  The following is just one example of how Moses treated
> non-Israelites:
> 
>           Num 31:15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all
>           the women alive?
> 
>           Num 31:16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel,
>           through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass
>           against Jehovah in the matter of Peor, and so the
>           plague was among the congregation of Jehovah.
> 
>           Num 31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the
>           little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man
>           by lying with him.
> 
> 
> Can you even imagine what a hypocrite Moses would be if he wiped out
> all the Midianites after marrying a nigger?
> 
> John Knight
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "zaphod beeblebrox" <space at finalfrontier.net> wrote in message
> news:uo26181tqkfu53 at corp.supernews.com...
> > I invite you all to read Numbers 12. It's a short chapter. You'll
> enjoy it.
> >
> > Web
> >
> > "Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab at lojban.org> wrote in message
> > news:ajr1ouo8thppmno6dvbqi86n20kuhiohgl at 4ax.com...
> > | "John Knight" <jwknight at polbox.com> wrote:
> > | >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":
> > |
> > | No they did not usually do so, since Moses did not do so, David
> did
> > | not do so Solomon did not do so, and several other names
> Israelites
> > | did not do so.  Indeed the law in question was honored in the
> breach
> > | more than it was respected, which is why God kept punishing the
> > | Israelites.
> > |
> > | >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.
> > |
> > | But it wasn't.
> > |
> > | > 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.
> > |
> > | It appears to be so ONLY to you.
> > |
> > | >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":
> > |
> > | You are correct that "fornication" mean sex outside of marriage.
> > | Adultery means sex by a married person with someone they are not
> > | married to.
> > |
> > | >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?
> > |
> > | Lots of reasons.  Why do "regal", "royal", and "kingly" all 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,
> > |
> > | I see nothing repeated.
> > |
> > |
> > |
> > | >Here, "adultery" is translated from the Greek word "moicheia":
> > | >  G3430
> > | >  ????????
> > | >  moicheia
> > | >  moy-khi'-ah
> > | >  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:
> > |
> > | No.  It matches exactly the distinction between fornication and
> > | adultery in English.
> > |
> > | lojbab
> >



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list