brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

Bob LeChevalier lojbab at
Tue Sep 17 21:26:23 EST 2002

"John Knight" <jwknight at> wrote:
>"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab at> wrote in message
>news:tludouot89n3qn1g5f62iq797qodgdfifk at
>> >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".

It means "a race (as of the same habit)", thereby pointing out WHICH
definition of "race" applies: the one pertaining to a people with
common habits or customs.  It does NOT mean "genetic race", and ethnos
has NOTHING to do with genetics.  That, as you noted, is "genos"

>> 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".

False.  It is Greek for "nation" which is one meaning of "race".

Here is a proper quote from Strong's BTW, since you've been caught
LYING about what Strong's says.

>Strong's Number:   1484  
>Original Word Word Origin 
>e[qno? probably from (1486) 
>eth'-nos      Noun Neuter  
> Definition 
>1. a multitude (whether of men or of beasts) associated or living together 
>  a. a company, troop, swarm 
>2. a multitude of individuals of the same nature or genus 
>  a. the human family 
>3. a tribe, nation, people group 
>4. in the OT, foreign nations not worshipping the true God, pagans, Gentiles 
>5. Paul uses the term for Gentile Christians 
> King James Word Usage - Total: 164 
>Gentiles 93, nation 64, heathen 5, people 2 

The word it is derived from, 1486

>e[qw a root word 
>eth'-o      Verb  
> Definition 
>1. to be accustomed, used, wont 
>2. that which is wont 
>3. usage, custom 

And we see clearly from both words that ethnos is about shared
customs, not about lineage/genetics.

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

No it didn't.  It equated ethnos to ONE sense of race and ONE sense of

> thus either English word would be appropriate.

No, because as you have proven, "race" can be easily misused in

Comparison.  You can "run" a computer or a washing machine.  The word
"run" equates to "operate" in that context.  But that equation is
limited ONLY to those contexts.  A surgeon doesn't "run" a patient,
and a track star doesn't "operate" a race.

>> 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?

It doesn't need to.  Here is the definition again:

I have no idea what dictionary you pulled this from.  Here is
>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 

Skin color is the most common trait used to characterize a distinct
human type.  Most people, including you usually, use "race" with
meaning 3c.  "ethnos" specifically in limited to meaning 2b, whereas
"genos" is associated with meaning 2a.

>> >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
>> 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?

Well YOU of all people seem unlikely to interpret the passage as it is
intended:  that Caiaphas, as high priest of the Jews, is claiming to
speak for the "children of God" who are the JEWS.  

You either have to convolute the language in some way or you have to
claim that Caiaphas and the Bible are lying in claiming that he speaks
for the "children of God", but in the latter case you cannot then use
the passage as evidence for your mistranslation of ethnos, since if
Caiaphas as a Jew is a liar as you claim, then one cannot trust any of
his words to mean what you think they mean.

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

I never denied that it meant "nation", in the archaic 17th century
sense.  It does not mean "race", in the sense that people normally use

Mirriam Webster on nation:
>Main Entry: na·tion 
>Pronunciation: 'nA-sh&n
>Function: noun
>1 a (1) : NATIONALITY 5a (2) : a politically organized nationality (3)
> : a non-Jewish nationality <why do the nations conspire -- Psalms 2:1
> (Revised Standard Version)> b : a community of people composed of one
> or more nationalities and possessing a more or less defined territory
> and government c : a territorial division containing a body of people
> of one or more nationalities and usually characterized by relatively
> large size and independent status
>3 : a tribe or federation of tribes (as of American Indians)

and nationality:
>Main Entry: na·tion·al·i·ty 
>Pronunciation: "na-sh&-'na-l&-tE, "nash-'na-
>Function: noun
>Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
>Date: 1691
>1 : national character
>3 a : national status; specifically : a legal relationship involving
> allegiance on the part of an individual and usually protection on the
> part of the state b : membership in a particular nation
>4 : political independence or existence as a separate nation
>5 a : a people having a common origin, tradition, and language and
> capable of forming or actually constituting a nation-state b : an
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^     ^^
> ethnic group constituting one element of a larger unit (as a nation ) 

And notice that they use "ethnic group" in the definition of

>> 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.

You did actually, though obviously you weren't realizing what you were

You said:
>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, but this is obviously not the same as the following,

And of course for you "Israelites" are all "White Christian
Israelites" because they are all pure as the driven snow.  Thus
Caiaphas  under YOUR interpretation of the words "children of God",
and your normal horseshit pulled out of strange orifices, was speaking
for the "White Christian Israelites".

>> >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".

No I did NOT "acknowledge" that it means race. I was willing to accept
your quote of Strong's (which I shouldn't - I keep forgetting that you
edit or doctor the Strong's definitions, since the online Strong's
says nothing like what you say) which allowed 
"a race (as of the same habit), that is, a tribe".  That is NOT a one
word equivalent - you cannot use "race" without the "as of the same

>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.

But physical characteristics have NOTHING to do with ethnos 

>>  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,

The above passage is all about Jews, and indeed the Bible is far more
about Jews than it is about Israelites, since Israelites are only
rarely mentioned after Chronicles, whereas Jews are.

>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",

He also said that he was a Jew.  But you ignore that when it suits
>Acts 21:39
>But Paul said, I am * a man which am a Jew of Tarsus, a city in
> Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city: and, I beseech thee, suffer me to
> speak unto the people. 
>Acts 22:3
>I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia,
> yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught
> according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was
> zealous toward God, as ye all are this day. 

And Paul said that Peter was a Jew as well
>Ga 2:14
>But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth
> of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a
> Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why
> compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews ? 

BTW, have fun explaining these verses:
>Ro 1:16
>For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of
> God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and
> also to the Greek. 

>Ro 10:12
>For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same
> Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. 
>Ga 3:28
>There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there
> is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 
>Col 3:11
>Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision,
       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all. 

(Note, BTW, that Paul has EXPLICITLY contradicted the covenant of
Moses which YOU agreed still applies: that God has commanded
circumcision of those who follow the covenant)

>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?

YOU are the LIAR who denies Holy Scripture, who speaks the LIES of
your father the Prince of Lies and Serpent of Eden.

>> >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.

Then your word twisting makes no sense, since Pilate asked whether he
was King of the Jews, and not King of the Israelites?  If you weren't
telling a LIE, Christ could have simply condemned the Jews and said
they were not his people, in which case Pilate would have had no
reason to listen to Caiaphas.

>> >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":

Here is the correct Strong's definition for that word:
gevno? from (1096) 
ghen'-os      Noun Neuter  
1. kindred 
  a. offspring 
  b. family 
  c. stock, tribe, nation 
     1. i.e. nationality or descent from a particular people 
  d. the aggregate of many individuals of the same nature, kind, sort 
King James Word Usage - Total: 21 
kind 5, kindred 3, offspring 3, nation 2, stock 2, born 2, diversity
1, misc. 3 

>> 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.

False because as you can see "genos" can also merely mean people of
the same kind or sort., because of the presumption that similarity
meant common ancestry.  The "generation" has in common that they are
"chosen" which is sufficient for 1d.

>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


>> >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.

Because the HOLY BIBLE does not use the word "race" because its use in
that context would be WRONG.

>Yes, of course, jews are "meaning 2a", which means RACE.  They are also
>"meaning 3c", which also means race,

No they aren't, because they accept conversions who are not
descendants, because Askenazi and Sephardic and Ethiopian Jews do not
have common and distinguishing traits.

>"Ethnos" is the Greek word for "race", according to Strong's

No it isn't because you are using a doctored version of Strong's which
in fact you never actually cite.

My cite BTW for ethnos is

>It doesn't specify which subsection of "race" it refers to, does it? 

YOUR Strong's definition did, with its parenthetical note.  The
above-cited version of Strongs does not in fact mention "race" at all.

>So where do you
>get this idea that "Meaning 3c ... has NOTHING to do with 'ethnos'"?

>From the dictionary.

>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.

But it doesn't mean what YOU want it to mean, which is something
having to do with genetic descent.


More information about the Neur-sci mailing list