"John Knight" <jwknight at polbox.com> wrote:
>> > Look in the Holy Bible where Yehudiy's are referred to no less than 200
>> > times, and members of the Tribe of Judah are referred to no less than 700
>> > times. Never once will you find these two different "birth groups" [in
>> the
>> > "liberal" lexicon] confused with each other. The following is just one
>> > example:
>> >
>> > Jer 40:11 Likewise when all the Jews that were in Moab, and among the
>> > Ammonites, and in Edom, and that were in all the countries, heard that the
>> > king of Babylon had left a remnant of Judah, and that he had set over them
>> > Gedaliah the son of Ahikam the son of Shaphan;
>>>> <snipped a repeat of stuff nobody else can corroborate>
>>>> Just one question. Are you a Jehovah's Witness or some other splinter
>> group? Because nobody's concordance nor Bible contains this word, other
>> than yours.
>>>> JW's and other offshoots rewrite their Bibles slightly; they aren't true to
>> the "mainstream" KJV translation. You have to be looking at a Bible from a
>> splinter group....
>>>> ...of course, we've already abundantly determined that you are a splinter,
>> all by yourself.
>>Ah, another demonstration of "women's intuition", eh?
>>You're batting a 100 so far. 100% incorrect. You haven't made a single
>valid point in your life, have you?
>>Following are 14 different translations of Jeremiah 36:14, most of which are
>credible, some of which are accepted as the final Word of God, and not a
>single one of which supports your suggestion that this is the narrow
>"opinion" of "Jehovah's Witness or some other splinter group", a "Bible
>from a splinter group", or some other wayward "religion":
>(KJV+) Therefore all3605 the princes8269 sent7971 (853) Jehudi3065 the
>son1121 of Nethaniah,5418 the son1121 of Shelemiah,8018 the son1121 of
>Cushi,3570 unto413 Baruch,1263 saying,559 Take3947 in thine hand3027 the
>roll4039 wherein834 thou hast read7121 in the ears241 of the people,5971 and
>come.1980 So Baruch1263 the son1121 of Neriah5374 took3947 (853) the
>roll4039 in his hand,3027 and came935 unto413 them.
Note Jehudi H3065.
>Count them. How many of them support your "opinion"? NONE?
>>How did we know that you'd be DEAD WRONG, once again?
Actually you are wrong. None of the versions you quoted had
"Yehudiy", which was the name you used in the prior post. The name
used in most of these is Jehudi, and only by reference to Strongs or
some other tie back to the Hebrew Bible can one find something like
what you wrote (which is actually a transliteration).
>It's easy. "Women's intuition". It works every time. It's called
>"negative knowledge".
>>Let's look at Jeremiah 40:11 and see if any version supports your point:
>(KJV+) Likewise1571 when all3605 the Jews3064 that834 were in Moab,4124 and
>among the Ammonites,1121, 5983 and in Edom,123 and that834 were in all3605
>the countries,776 heard8085 that3588 the king4428 of Babylon894 had left5414
>a remnant7611 of Judah,3063 and that3588 he had set6485 over5921 them (853)
>Gedaliah1436 the son1121 of Ahikam296 the son1121 of Shaphan;8227
This has Jews from H3064 which as I've posted from Strongs is the
patronymic form of H3063, which this same passage translates as
"Judah". The Jews are therefore CLOSELY tied to Judah, as in
"descendants of Judah".
http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=3064
Oh, and to spare us your silly argument about Cushi, who apparently
was black
>http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=03570&version=
>Strong's Number: 03570
>Original Word Word Origin
>yXwk the same as (03569)
>Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
>Kuwshiy None
>Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
>koo-shee' Proper Name Masculine
>> Definition
>Cushi = "their blackness"
>1. an ancestor of Jehudi (Jer. 36.
>>2. the father of the prophet Zephaniah (Zep. 1.
And we look up the last reference:
(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.
And your silly theory requires that the king of Judah not be an
Israelite, and furthermore that the Biblical prophet Zephaniah was not
an Israelite (and furthermore wasn't black). Obviously the ancient
people of Judah did not consider themselves bound by your racial
purity rules.
>Nope. Wrong again.
Yes, you are. Aren't you. Nincompoop.
lojbab
