"John Knight" <jwknight at polbox.com> wrote in message
news:KJOa9.13985$Ic7.1311299 at news2.west.cox.net...
>> "Zayton" <zayton at bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:%Kwa9.3723$Hd4.1902875 at e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com...> >
> > "John Knight" <jwknight at polbox.com> wrote in message
> > news:_Tta9.10583$Ic7.1069024 at news2.west.cox.net...> > > Thank you for that reply.
> > >
> > > Throughout the entire Holy Bible, the English word "jew" is always
> > > translated from the Hebrew word "Yhudiy" or the Greek word "Ioudaios"
> > > (Strong's 3065 and 2453, respectively). There are no exceptions.
> >
> > Strongs geves the meaning of word 3065 as "an Israelite"!
> > It lists 2453 as meaning either a Jew _in a geographical sense_ or a
> Judean.
>> Precisely.
>> But this is disputed by the actual Word of God in the Holy Bible.
>> You cannot find a single instance in the Holy Bible that supports this
> statement by Strong.
YOU cited Strongs as an authority; and lied about what it said.
>>> > >
> > > It is not a reference to geography--it is always a reference to
> genealogy.
> >
> > Not according to your own, outdated, King James based source.
>> There are 23,000 translational errors in the King James Bible. But this
> isn't one of them. The KJV translators always translated the words
"Yhudiy"
> or "Ioudaios" into the English word "jew", and nothing else.
This has nothing to do with the question of whether it refers to geneology
or geography.
You have claimed that Strongs says that it is a geneological reference. This
is a lie. Strongs says that it is a geographical designation.
> > >
> > > ONLY when a "Yhudiy" or "Ioudaios" lived in Judaea would they be
> referred
> > to
> > > by the English word "jew"
The origin of the word had the meaning residdent of Judea; by new testament
times it was used to refer to any Hebrew; as was the word Israelite.
> >
> > No. According to your own sources, the opposite relationship is true.
only
> > when a Jew lived in Judea would the writers of the received text use the
> > word Ioudaious to describe them.
> >
>> hmmm, maybe, but the important point is that no other race in Judaea
except
> "jews" were ever called "jews".
Jew is a regional/cultural/religious term. It has nothing to do with race.
By the way. When you put the "s" on Jew; there are a whole list of words in
Strongs which are translated Jews.
>> > . But no other races in Judaea were ever called
> > > "jews",
> >
> > No race is ever called Jews. Jew Israelite or Hebrew are used to name a
> > religious, cultural or national grouping; not a race.
>> Incorrect. It's only descendants of "Yhudiy" who are called "jews",
No This is anolther silly lie. It was originally the residents of the
southern kingdom who were called Jews but by the time of the writing of the
New Testament, the term had been generalized to refer to all Hebrews. Its
menaing is identical to that of the term Israelite.
.
which
> makes them a race. It's true that only "jews" preached or practiced the
> Mishnah (which later became the Talmud,
The Talmud is the older set of interpretave laws which were incorporated
into the later Mishnah. Three terms were used interchangably to refer to the
people following this religious tradition: Jews, Israelites and Hebrews.
and is commonly known now as
> "Judaism"), and that no other race ever did, but the words "Yhudiy" and
> "Ioudaios" refer to one specific patriarch.
>>> >
> > particularly not the Israelites who were members of the Tribe of
> > > Judah or the Tribe of Benjamin who are known to have lived in that
area
> at
> > > the time.
> >
> > But John, according to your own source the Judeans, the tribes of Judah
> and
> > Benjamin ARE the "Jews". Look at the words, John: "Jew", "Judah",
"Judea"
> > Listen to their sounds. They are forms of the same word. The group for
> which
> > you want to reserve the name Israelite, and distinguish from the "Jews",
> are
> > the very source of the term Jew.
> > >
> >
>>> No. "Yhudah" and "Yhudiy" are two different people born in two very
> different territories with two very different types of descendants, and
just
> because they sound the same or are next to each other in Strong's doesn't
> alter the carefully described genealogy of the Holy Bible, at all.
They do not just "sound alike"; they are forms of the same word. They refer
to the same people.
>> This is graphically represented at
>http://christianparty.net/noahgenealogy.htm to make it easier to follow.
> There are links to other graphs which concur with this graph, namely
because
> they were drawn from the same Holy Bible.
>> If you find an error, please let me know and it will be corrected asap.
>> John Knight
>>>>>>
