brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

Bob LeChevalier lojbab at lojban.org
Fri Sep 13 23:18:13 EST 2002


"John Knight" <jwknight at polbox.com> wrote:
>"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab at lojban.org> wrote in message
>news:11c4ou0om43k0aflka48hoq2eijrfag02p at 4ax.com...
>> >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
>> >niggers.
>>
>> The name Cushi MEANS that they were black-skinned.
>
>Yes, if they were the Cushi who were descendants of Ham, then they were
>niggers.

That is what the word means, dummy: "black" or "dark".  Cush's name
MEANT that he was black, and Cushi was thus a son of black people.

>But Israelites weren't niggers--they were as pure as the driven snow:

No one named Cushi was white skinned.

>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
>Jacob:
>
>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.

Nonsense.  Jeremiah is writing about a time close to a thousand years
AFTER Jacob.

>It's equally  impossible that a jew could be a descendant of the
>Israelite named Cushi, because then these morons called "jews" would be
>only the descendant of ONE Israelite, who was one of hundreds of thousands or
>one of millions of Israelites.

Nonsense.  Jews are not descendants from only one person named Cushi,
though many of them ARE descended from one person named Jacob.

>> Why should they ALL necessarily be descendants of the one Cushi?
>
>IF this is the Cushi who was an ancestor to Jehudi,

There was not just one person called Jehudi.  EVERY man of Judah could
be called Jehudi.

>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,

The patriarch of the Jews was Judah.

>> >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,

Everything you say is a LIE, fed to you by the Prince of Lies.

>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"

Which is a valid translation.  An equally valid translation would be
"son of Judah", but since English has the perfectly good word "Jew"
for a son of Judah, that is the correct term.

>From Merriam-Webster:
>Main Entry: Jew 
>Pronunciation: 'jü
>Function: noun
>Etymology: Middle English, from Old French gyu, from Latin Judaeus, from Greek Ioudaios, from Hebrew YehudhI, from YehudhAh Judah, Jewish kingdom
>Date: 13th century
>1 a : a member of the tribe of Judah b : ISRAELITE
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>2 : a member of a nation existing in Palestine from the 6th century B.C. to the 1st century A.D.
>3 : a person belonging to a continuation through descent or conversion of the ancient Jewish people
>4 : one whose religion is Judaism 

Note that the oldest meaning of the word "Jew" is "member of the tribe
of Judah"

>There is ONE possible explanation for this "error" on your part,

I made no error.  YOU are the error.

>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).

No.  Because Jews (sons of Judah) were the vast majority of those
living in Judah.

>> >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
>"abominations" then?:

It doesn't.

>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
>a Hittite.

The point is that Jerusalem was not founded by Israelites, but had
been ruled prior to the coming of the Israelites by these other
tribes.  It was an abomination because of the religions that had been
practiced there, which were an abomination to God.

>Why would a mamzer be prohibited from the congregation of the LORD for ten
>generations?:
>
>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,
>Deuteronomy 23:2

Because God did not approve of bastardy

>> >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
>issues?

I see that you cannot answer my question intelligently.  YOU claim
that this one law is important to Christians, when Christians ignore
ALL the laws of the Old Testament with regularity, and most Christians
don't even recognize any more than the 10 commandments as being laws.

>You know absolutely nothing about the world around you except what you read
>that was written by jews,

I read plenty that was written by non-Jews, and I daresay I read a lot
more than you do.

>and you don't believe what's written by Christians.

I'm a Christian and I believe what I write.  You're a nincompoop and a
servant of the Prince of Lies, so I don't believe what you write.


>> >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 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
>>
>> But then later, He DID extend His commission for the disciples to go
>> to ALL nations.
>
>WHERE?

Mark 13:
>5] And Jesus answering them began to say, Take heed lest any man deceive you:
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>[6] For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
>[7] And when ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars, be ye not troubled: for such things must needs be; but the end shall not be yet.
>[8] For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be earthquakes in divers places, and there shall be famines and troubles: these are the beginnings of sorrows.
>[9] But take heed to yourselves: for they shall deliver you up to councils; and in the synagogues ye shall be beaten: and ye shall be brought before rulers and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them.
>[10] And the gospel must first be published among all nations.
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Luke 24:
>[36] And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
>[37] But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.
>[38] And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?
>[39] Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
>[40] And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.
>[41] And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?
>[42] And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.
>[43] And he took it, and did eat before them.
>[44] And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
>[45] Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,
>[46] And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:
>[47] And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>[48] And ye are witnesses of these things.

>Are you telling us that Jesus LIED, and then corrected that LIE?

No. Are you telling us that Jesus did not say those things which Mark
and Luke quote Him as saying?  Are you accusing the Bible of LYING?

It is quite simple.  While Christ was still alive, they were to preach
repentance unto the people of Israel (i.e. the Jews).  After his
resurrection, per verse 46 in Luke above, it was THEN appropriate to
preach to ALL nations.

>> 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.

You're a complete nincompoop.

>This is "sons of Yhudiy", not "sons of Yhudah".

False.  The words in Hebrew are NOT "sons of Yhudiy" but merely
"Yhudiy" which means "sons of Judah".

>Anglicized it is "sons of Judah", not "sons of Jehudi".

Correct.

>> 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,

Not that it is relevant to the question of whether the KJV was a
Jewish plot, but there are THREE Jewish synagogues within 4 miles of
Alhambra, and 16 within 10 miles.

>but we're still stuck with their infinitely STUPID ideas

The only ideas I've seen of that caliber are YOURS.


>> >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,

Both were names of MANY people

>with two entirely separate ancestries,

No.  The ancestry of Jehudi included Judah

 with two entirely distinct and separate descendants, who
>originally lived in two distinct and different geographical territories, who
>constantly warred with each other.

No.

>They could not possibly be one and the same.

Only someone with your abysmal reading comprehension thinks that
anyone believes that Jehudi (who are the Jews) is identical with Judah
which is the name of a person and of a land inhabited by his
descendants (who were named Jehudi).

>> 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
>research.

In other words, you cannot find a single quote that anyone but you
thinks that Kostler or any other jew claims the things you said.
>> >> 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.

>> >> 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 the
>> >final authority?
>>
>> The Bible.
>
>Christ.

And what source do we have for what Christ said OTHER THAN The Bible?

>The Holy Bible isn't a prescription for multi-culturalism.  It's exactly the
>opposite.

False.

>> >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?

No, I am calling YOU a LIAR, who perverts the law in service
to your father, the Prince of Lies.

>> 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.

Prove it.

lojbab



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list