brain sizes: Einstein's and women's
jwknight at polbox.com
Fri Sep 13 14:57:36 EST 2002
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab at lojban.org> wrote in message
news:11c4ou0om43k0aflka48hoq2eijrfag02p at 4ax.com...
> "John Knight" <jwknight at polbox.com> wrote:
> >Read the posts. Read the Holy Bible. Nobody ever claimed that there
> >weren't two different Cushi described in the Holy Bible.
> Then it is pure BS on your part that we have any reason to know which
> Cushi are Israelites and which are not.
> >The point you studiously ignore is that it's impossible that Moses would
> >have married the Cushi who were descendants of Ham, because they were
> The name Cushi MEANS that they were black-skinned.
Yes, if they were the Cushi who were descendants of Ham, then they were
But Israelites weren't niggers--they were as pure as the driven snow:
Zep 1:1 The word of the LORD which came unto Zephaniah the son of Cushi,
the son of Gedaliah, the son of Amariah, the son of Hizkiah, in the days of
Josiah the son of Amon, king of Judah.
If you trace this genealogy back to Jacob, you'll see that this Cushi WAS an
Israelite, and was born at least 18 generations after Jacob.
This is an entirely different Cushi than the following, who was born before
Jer 36:14 Therefore all the princes sent Jehudi the son of Nethaniah, the
son of Shelemiah, the son of Cushi, unto Baruch, saying, Take in thine hand
the roll wherein thou hast read in the ears of the people, and come. So
Baruch the son of Neriah took the roll in his hand, and came unto them.
> >It's equally impossible that a jew could be a descendant of the
> >Israelite named Cushi, because then these morons called "jews" would be
> >the descendant of ONE Israelite, who was one of hundreds of thousands or
> >of millions of Israelites.
> Why should they ALL necessarily be descendants of the one Cushi?
IF this is the Cushi who was an ancestor to Jehudi, then it would be only
the descendants of one Israelite of thousands [read: Jehudi] who were jews.
Not all descendants of Cushi, but only the descendants of Jehudi. This is
ludicrous, and impossible
Ham had 3 other sons besides Cush:
Gen 10:6 And the sons of Ham; Cush, and Mizraim, and Phut, and Canaan.
The patriarch of the jews, Jehudi, was a descendant of only one son, Cush,
through the Cushi who were Cush's descendants who lived in what is now
It would be only the descendants of Cush, not the other three sons, who were
jews. And it would be only descendants of Jehudi, and no other descendants
of Cush, who would be jews.
The exception would be intermarriage between the different descendants of
these patriarchs, which probably happened often
> >What would that do to your claim that 30% of the population were jews, as
> >ridiculous as it already is?
> The claim I and most other Christians make is that ALL of those who
> returned from exile were of the tribe of Judah and Benjamin and Levi.
> Originally, only the tribe of Judah were called Jews, but eventually
> all of those in the land of Judah came to be called Jews, because the
> word in Greek for Judean and Jew and son of Judah is the same.
This is a LIE, lojbab, and you should KNOW this by now. Every time you
repeat this LIE, it shall be corrected:
There are 276 references to "jew" in the Holy Bible, and EVERY instance of
the following Greek word is translated as the English word "jew":
There are 1,533 references to "Judah" in the Holy Bible, and EVERY instance
of the following Greek word is translated as "Judah":
Of Hebrew origin [H3063]; Judas (that is, Jehudah), the name of ten
Israelites; also of the posterity of one of them and its region: - Juda
(-h, -s); Jude.
There are no exceptions.
There is ONE possible explanation for this "error" on your part, which is
that the KJV translators used "jewry" for the following:
Feminine of G2453 (with G1093 implied); the Judaean land (that is, judaea),
a region of Palestine: - Juda.
But not even Strong's agrees, as Strong's properly translates it as "The
Judaean land", and almost all other translators use "Judaea":
Luk 23:5 And1161 they3588 were the more fierce,2001 saying,3004 He stirreth
up383 the3588 people,2992 teaching1321 throughout2596 all3650 Jewry,2449
beginning756 from575 Galilee1056 to2193 this place.5602
(BBE) But they became more violent than before, saying, He has made trouble
among the people, teaching through all Judaea from Galilee to this place.
This would be just like you claiming that the United States is "jewry", even
though jews are only 1.9% of the population (and 95% of the problems).
> >> >Why do you think they would have made an exception for Ruth?
> >> They didn't. Therefore the law was not what you have claimed that it
> >The law never changed.
> Correct. Therefore the law was never what you claim that the law was.
> It is only your perversion of the law that leads to there being any
> issue with Ruth. The standard interpretation of the law described in
> the Bible has no problem with miscegenation so long as the people
> married convert to following the covenant of Moses and Abraham.
Why would the Holy Bible refer to miscegenation with other races as
Eze 16:2 Son of man, cause Jerusalem to know her abominations,
Eze 16:3 And say, Thus saith the Lord GOD unto Jerusalem; Thy birth and thy
nativity is of the land of Canaan; thy father was an Amorite, and thy mother
Why would a mamzer be prohibited from the congregation of the LORD for ten
A [mamzer] shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his
tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD,
> >It's still law to this very day. To the 2 billion
> >Christians in the world, it's more important than ever:
> No it isn't. MOST of the laws in the Old Testament are ignored by
> Christians. Do you celebrate Passover? Do you avoid pork? Do you not
> mix meat and dairy products?
Aren't you the same person who claims that there is no Caucasian Race, or
that there is no race at all, or the you feel strongly both ways about most
You know absolutely nothing about the world around you except what you read
that was written by jews, and you don't believe what's written by
> >A [mamzer]
> Christians don't accept your misinterpretation of the word.
> >shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his
> >tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD,
> >Deuteronomy 23:2
> >Israelite and jewish law are different, to this very day.
> Only in your perverted mind.
Preserving one's race can't be viewed as even remotely "perverted". Being a
mamzer or a race traitor certainly is.
> >To be a jew
> >requires only that the mother be a jew, but to be an Israelite requires
> >parents to be Israelites.
> To be a Jew, one must keep the covenant of Abraham and Moses.
> Non-Jews who do so are accepted as converts regardless of their
> parentage. Thus said the Lord.
> >> When foreigners adopted the ways of Israel NOT
> >> through force, but by realization that the Lord was God, and kept the
> >> covenant of Moses, then they were regardless racial birth inheritors
> >> of the covenant. And the Lord explicitly SAYS this in a passage I
> >> quoted to you a couple of days ago.
> >Absolutely not. You could not have quoted any such thing, because it
> >doesn't exist. Here's what Christ said about Israelites:
> >He said in reply, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of
> >Israel." Matthew 15:24
> >"These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go
> >not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans
> >ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as
> >go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand." Matthew 10:5-9
> But then later, He DID extend His commission for the disciples to go
> to ALL nations.
Are you telling us that Jesus LIED, and then corrected that LIE?
Is this your charge?
> >> >Descendants of Judah are never referred to as jews in any place in the
> >> >Bible, because they were Israelites.
> >> They are referred to as Jews, because the Hebrew word for a descendent
> >> of Judah is precisely the word which is translated as "Jew".
> >Just because you keep repeating the same old tired jewish LIE is no
> >for you to believe that it will some day come true.
> Just because you keep repeating the same nincompoop lie, fed to you be
> the Prince of Lies, is no reason for you to believe that it will some
> day come true.
> >The ONLY word the Hebrew word "Yhudah" was ever translated into, even by
> >KJV translators, was "JUDAH".
> That is because that is a correct translation of the word.
> >The ONLY word the Hebrew word "Yhudiy" was ever tranlsated into, even by
> >KVJ translators, was "JEW".
> That is because that is a correct translation of the word.
> BUT the fact that we KNOW how Hebrew works, we know that it is not the
> ONLY translation of the word. And we KNOW that the sons of Judah have
> been called by the word translated as "Jews" ever since the time of
> the exile. "Jews" just happens to be the English word meaning "sons
> of Judah".
You're a complete mental retard. This is "sons of Yhudiy", not "sons of
Yhudah". Anglicized it is "sons of Judah", not "sons of Jehudi".
> >The KJV translators DID translate the Hebrew word "yhud" and the Greek
> >"ioudaia" to mean "jewry" on three different occasions, but now modern
> >translators have corrected that error and translate it as "Judah".
> >Whether or not this was an intentional "error" is something it would
> >be nice to know.
> Noting that the KJV was translated when Jews were not in England, you
> should have little to fear of a Great Jewish Plot.
There are no jews in this neighborhood, but we're still stuck with their
infinitely STUPID ideas and laws.
> >> >Yes, the country was known as "Judea" [or Judaea], and most of the
> >> >Israelites who lived there were known as "Judah", because they were
> >> >descendants of Judah, but there were also Israelites of the Tribe of
> >> >Benjamin (like Paul), as well as jews who were descendants of Jehudi.
> >> >Holy Bible never confuses Judah with Jehudi.
> >> Because the one refers to the other.
> >And I repeat: "The Holy Bible never confuses Judah with Jehudi."
> Why should it? One means the son of the other. We don't confuse
> "John" and "Johnson" either.
Judah and Jehudi were two different people, with two entirely separate
ancestries, with two entirely distinct and separate descendants, who
originally lived in two distinct and different geographical territories, who
constantly warred with each other.
They could not possibly be one and the same.
> >> >No. By both Hebrew and Israelite law, mamzers born of an adulterous
> >> >marriage with non-Hebrews or non-Israelites had to be put away.
> >> >way that jews could have legally been either. Besides, most jews
> >> >claim to be descendants of Ashkenaz,
> >> No they don't. You have yet to come up with a quote that Kostler
> >> claims that Jews are descendants of Ashkenaz, much less that any other
> >> Jew does.
> >It's certainly not White Christian Israelites making this claim, because
> >it's most likely yet one more jewish LIE.
> The ONLY person making the claim, so far as we know is YOU. So this
> statement means that you are not a White Christian Israelite. But
> then we already knew that.
You've been given all the links. If you don't believe them, do your own
> >> This from the guy who just posted agreeing with the claim that Paul
> >> was a false prophet and that therefore most of the New Testament is
> >> not scriptural.
> >If what Christ spoke conflicts with what Paul wrote, who do you think is
> >final authority?
> The Bible.
> >> >Disagreed. You WANT Christ's ancestry to be impure,
> >> You want it to be pure
> >Of course. And the Holy Bible proves that it is.
The Holy Bible isn't a prescription for multi-culturalism. It's exactly the
> >It proves that jews are
> >just what Christ claimed they are: LIARS, father of LIES, and MURDERERS.
> That is a reference to people like YOU, who pervert the law in service
> to your father, the Prince of Lies.
Are you calling Christ a LIAR again?
> >Of the 2 billion Christians in the world, how many do you think agree
> >you "liberals", feminazis, and jews? Three? One percent? Two percent?
> >Probably not even one.
> On the question of whether the Jews are the people of Judah and the
> chosen of Abraham as described in the Old Testament, I suspect 99.99%.
As far as managing to uphold ideas and "principles" which the vast majority
of Americans disagree with, you're batting a 1.0.
You're just as far off with this one as you are with the rest.
More information about the Neur-sci