brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

John Knight johnknight at
Wed Sep 18 14:36:51 EST 2002

Bob LeChevalier <lojbab at> wrote in message news:<s8kfou4terj443sp0q2e7beab4d50bkskd at>...
> "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"

The standard definitions of the word "ethnos" INCLUDE all of these
definitions of race, plus "people", "nation", "gentile", and
"heathen".  These usages are inclusive, not exclusive.

You have no way of knowing when an "ethnic group" EXCLUDES a race of
some kind, and in fact you probably can't even cite an example of an
"ethnic group" which isn't defined by RACE.  Israelites are a RACE
because they are all descendants of Jacob, jews are a race because
they're presumbaly all descendants of Jehudi, Asians are a race
because they all have a common ancestor, Arabs are a race because
they're all descendants of Ishmael.

Yes, they're all "ethnic groups", but they ALL know that the most
important part of their identity and pride is their RACE.

Even niggers are proud of some great nigger in the sky.

> >> 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".

Remember Strong's?  "ethnos eth'-nos Probably from G1486; a race ..."?

It's right in front of you, yet you pretend it's not.  Why?

> 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) 
> >Ethnos 
> >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
> >1486  
> >e[qw a root word 
> >Etho 
> >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.

Which ignores that the most important of all "shared customs" is
having a common ancestor, which means being of a similar RACE.

> >> >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
> tribe.
> > thus either English word would be appropriate.
> No, because as you have proven, "race" can be easily misused in
> English.
> 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.

When the word "ethnos" is used intermittently to mean "people",
"nation", "gentile", and "heathen", we know precisely what the sense
of the word is, and that sense is "race".  When it's used in the very
same sentence as "genos" to describe exactly the same people, then we
know that it's a reference to the RACE of the people being described.

You can NEVER prove that the most important characteristic of an
"ethnic group" is NOT its 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
> 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 
> 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.

You INTENTIONALLY missed the point.  YOU injected the term "skin
color" into a definition that YOU provided that does NOT include "skin
color" as a definition of "race".

This is the straw man argument that has YOU, and nobody else, totally

It's not necessary for STUPID jews [though I repeat myself] to look
like niggers for them to be a RACE by the very definition YOU

> >> >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?
> 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.

It is precisely the evidence you need to see that the Holy Bible DOES
explain exactly how jews LIE.

Yes, Caiaphas DID claim that jews were "children of God"--and it was
BECAUSE of him and his fellow criminals that Jesus Christ was
crucified for NO cause, even after Pilate said "I see no fault in

> >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
> "race"

Are you going to accept the DICTIONARY definition for race that YOU
provided, or are you now going to slither away to some other corner
and whine that nobody ever goes by dictionary definitions, again?

Using YOUR dictionary definition, "skin color" is NOT a criteria for
"race", and these STUPID jews [though I repeat myself] are a RACE.

BUT--this doesn't meant that they're "White", because genetic evidence
shows them to be 20-25% nigger, according to a jew "scientist"

> 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
> >2 archaic : GROUP, AGGREGATION
> >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
> "nationality"

And notice that by YOUR dictionary definition, "a people having a
common origin" are a RACE.

> >> 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
> admitting.

You LIE!

But what's new.

I never even hinted that I believe a single word a jew ever wrote or
spoke, and Caipahs is only one of a million of jew LIES.

> 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".

Caiaphas was so upset that Christ discovered the big jew LIE that he
demanded that Pilate crucify Christ to shut Him up.

What else do you need to see the difference between Israelites like
Christ and jews like Caiaphas?

> >> >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
> habit"

But the definition of "race" that YOU provided INCLUDES "nation"!!!!!!

Look at it again!!

> >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 

Physical characteristics are NOT excluded, particularly when those
physical characteristics are what determines "ethnicity".

John Knight

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list