brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

John Knight jwknight at polbox.com
Tue Sep 17 18:22:09 EST 2002


"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab at lojban.org> wrote in message
news:tludouot89n3qn1g5f62iq797qodgdfifk at 4ax.com...
> "John Knight" <jwknight at polbox.com> wrote:
> >> I see many translations all of which use the word "nation" or
> >> "nations".  It is YOU, the LIAR that thinks that those translations
> >> are wrong and that they all should say "race".  But YOU are indeed a
> >> LIAR, speaking the words of the serpent, your master, who is the
> >> Prince of Lies.
> >
> >The Greek word "ethnos" is translated as follows by Strong's:
> >
> >G1484
> >???????
> >ethnos
> >eth'-nos
> >Probably from G1486; a race (as of the same habit), that is, a tribe;
> >specifically a foreign (non-Jewish) one (usually by implication pagan): -
> >Gentile, heathen, nation, people.
> >
> >So it can be both a "nation" and a "people".
>
> We know precisely what the word ethnos means, nincompoop.  It is used
> directly as an English word, both as itself and in its derivations:
> ethnologist and ethnic (group).  An "ethnos" is an "ethnic group",
> which means a group of people sharing a culture and heritage.
"Ethnos" is a Greek word, not an English word.  As this translation shows,
it means "race".

> Heritage means history more than it does genetics - DNA testing has
> been around for a couple of decades, but historically people have
> determined ethnicity primarily by what people SAY they are, and
> secondarily by who their documented parents are (which of course
> ignores adoption and bastardy and cuckoldry).
>

Who said anything about "heritage"?  "Ethnos" is Greek for "race".

> >But what is meant by "people"?  RACE, of course.
>
> Tribe, as the definition explicitly stated.

It equated "race" to "tribe", thus either English word would be appropriate.

>
> Caucasians are not a single "tribe".  Nor are orientals, nor are
> Amerinds, nor are Negroids.  Each of the "colors" is MANY tribes.
> Using the word "race" to translate "ethnos", especially when all the
> Biblical translations do NOT use the word "race", is to inject the LIE
> that the Bible is talking about something to do with skin color (i.e.
> the modern concept of "race".
>

Injecting the term "skin color" is a straw man argument which you set up
just so you could knock it down.  Not even the definition of "race" that you
provided mentions "skin color" as a criteria for "race", so why else would
you do this other than to have the opportunity to argue with yourself?

> >The following is an example of its use as "nation":
> >
> >John 11:51  And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that
> >year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;
> >John 11:52  And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather
> >together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.
> >
> >The "children of God" are the Israelites who were scattered among all
> >NATIONS,
>
> What a nincompoop.  You really love to ignore context, don't you.  Who
> said this?  It was not Christ.

Is your specialty today "straw man arguments"?  Who suggested that Christ
said this?  You?  Again, your argument is with yourself.

> >[46] But some of them went their ways to the Pharisees, and told them
>                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > what things Jesus had done.
> >[47] Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and
>                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles.
> >[48] If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the
> > Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.
> >[49] And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same
>           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all,
> >[50] Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die
> > for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.
> >[51] And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that
>           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;
>         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >[52] And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather
> > together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.
>
> The text in verse 51 makes clear that Caiaphas, who was a Pharisee
> (and therefore a Jew) was speaking not for himself BUT "for the
> nation" (i.e. the nation of Jews which he had the position to speak
> for.)
>

So you agree that "ethnos" also means "nation".  What a breakthrough.

> And thus we see that the "he" in verse 52 is Caiaphas, and that he is
> presuming in his role of high priest to speak for all of the children
> of God, repeating the formula "not for that nation only BUT"  Now
> clearly, by your nincompoop ideas, the Jew Caiaphas is NOT speaking
> for the "White Christian Israelites", so your interpretation makes no
> sense.
>

Wow.  Three straw man arguments in one post.  Whoever said anything about
this jew speaking for "White Christian Israelites"?  Only you.

> >but this is obviously not the same as the following, where it means
> >"people" or "race":
> >
> >Joh 18:33  Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called
> >Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews?
> >Joh 18:34  Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did
> >others tell it thee of me?
> >Joh 18:35  Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief
> >priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?
>
> Notice that Pilate is referring to the JEWISH nation, because he
> considers all the people of Judea to be Jews.

Notice that the word "nation" is translated from the Greek word "ethnos"
which you already acknowledged above also means "race".  To this very day,
the physical characteristics of jews and Israelites are so different that
it's impossible not to notice them, even after jews have spent billions of
dollars on face lifts and nose bobs in a futile attempt to look normal.

And you wonder why Pilate realized what a silly mistake he'd just made?

>  That is WHY he asks
> "Art thou King of the Jews?" and not "Art thou King of the White
> Christian Israelites?" (as if anyone in those days considered anyone
> to be an "Israelite".

Since the Holy Bible is all about Israelites, and since the term "Israelite"
is used throughout the Holy Bible, and since Paul said "I say then, Hath God
cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of
Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin", it would appear that your aversion to
the word is the looming prospect that you must ultimately recognize
Israelites as a RACE.

Why else would you deny Holy Scripture like this?

>
> >Joh 18:36  Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom
> >were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be
> >delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
> >
> >Pilate obviously wasn't referring to a country when he said "thine own
> >nation".  He was simply presuming that Jesus was the same RACE as the
jews,
> >and Jesus PROVED that He was NOT by reminding Pilate that if He had been
a
> >jew, the jews certainly wouldn't have been demanding He be crucified.
>
> That is NOT what he said to Pilate.  He said that if he were a king,
> his servants would fight.  There have been MANY kings that have been
> killed by their subjects.

Christ wasn't killed by His "subjects".  He was killed by the JEWS, who were
His "subject's" arch enemies and had been for millennia.

>
> >1Peter 2:9  But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy
> >nation, a peculiar people; that ye should show forth the praises of him
who
> >hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light
> >
> >In this Scripture, "generation" is translated from "genos" which means
> >"stock":
> >
> >G1085
> >??????
> >genos
> >ghen'-os
> >From G1096; "kin" (abstractly or concretely, literally or figuratively,
> >individually or collectively): - born, country (-man), diversity,
> >generation, kind (-red), nation, offspring, stock.
> >
> >So this is clearly a different use of "ethnos" than "nation".
>
> People of a nation or tribe or ethnos were presumed to share common
> ancestry.
>

You can't even read your own definitions, which show that you've got this
exactly backwards.

First, it must be established that a "people" have a common ancestor. Only
THEN can they be considered to be of the same "stock".  Nothing is
"presumed" here (other than your false statement, that is).  Using the term
"genos" and "ethnos" in the same sentence to refer to the same people is
proof enough that the connotation of "ethnos" is "race" rather than
"nation".

> >The reference to "peculiar [ethnos]" must mean "peculiar race".
>
> Not in the sense of skin color.  But merely in the sense of
> "ethnicity".
>

Beep.  Straw Man Argument Alert.  Straw Man Argument Alert.
This is your fourth one.  Who's talking about "skin color".  This "sense of
ethnicity" you mention is just a futile attempt to avoid mentioning the big
r-word: RACE.

> >Race
> >RACE, n. [L. radix and radius having the same original. This word
coincides
> >in origin with rod, ray, radiate, &c.]
> >
> >1. The lineage of a family, or continued series of descendants from a
parent
> >who is called the stock. A race is the series of descendants
indefinitely.
> >Thus all mankind are called the race of Adam; the Israelites are of the
race
> >of Abraham and Jacob. Thus we speak of a race of kings, the race of
Clovis
> >or Charlemagne; a race of nobles, &c.
> >
> >Hence the long race of Alban fathers come.
> >
> >2. A generation; a family of descendants. A race of youthful and
unhandled
> >colts.
> >
> >3. A particular breed; as a race of mules; a race of horses; a race of
> >sheep.
>
> I have no idea what dictionary you pulled this from.  Here is
> Mirriam-Webster:
> >Main Entry: 3race
> >Function: noun
> >Etymology: Middle French, generation, from Old Italian razza
> >Date: 1580
> >1 : a breeding stock of animals
> >2 a : a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock b
> > : a class or kind of people unified by community of interests,
> > habits, or characteristics <the English race>
> >3 a : an actually or potentially interbreeding group within a species;
> > also : a taxonomic category (as a subspecies) representing such a
> > group b : BREED c : a division of mankind possessing traits that are
> > transmissible by descent and sufficient to characterize it as a
> > distinct human type
> >4 obsolete : inherited temperament or disposition
> >5 : distinctive flavor, taste, or strength
>
> Meaning 2a is the one associated with ethnos.  The Jews are an
> "ethnos".  Christians are NOT an "ethnos".
>

Oh, MAN!  All this time you've argued that jews are NOT a race, and now
you're arguing that they ARE?  Are you starting to feel strongly both ways
again?

Are you a closet "RACIST"?  Have you been a "RACIST" all along, knowing that
jews are a RACE, but not wanting the world to know?

Yes, of course, jews are "meaning 2a", which means RACE.  They are also
"meaning 3c", which also means race, but we'll let you ponder this alarming
admission first.

> Meaning 3c is the one usually intended for "race" when referring to
> "whites" and "blacks", and has NOTHING to do with "ethnos".
>

My, your fifth straw man argument.  Nobody but you is arguing "whites"
"blacks", "skin color", etc.  We're talking about the definition of race
which YOU posted.

"Ethnos" is the Greek word for "race", according to Strong's.  It doesn't
specify which subsection of "race" it refers to, does it?  So where do you
get this idea that "Meaning 3c ... has NOTHING to do with 'ethnos'"?

Out of thin air, actually, because this is precisely what it does mean.
"Ethnos" is a broad term which means a number of things, as already
mentioned above.

John Knight





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list