"Zayton" <zayton at bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:bFRa9.78437$%v4.3261133 at e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com...
>> "John Knight" <jwknight at polbox.com> wrote in message
> news:KJOa9.13985$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.
When the Holy Bible and Strong's conflict, the Holy Bible wins.
Strong's is useful, but it's not the final Word, by any means.
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > 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 Not according to your own, outdated, King James based source.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.
No, I said the Holy Bible says that. What difference does it make what
Strong's says if it conflicts with the Holy Bible?
>> > > >
> > > > 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.
>
Absolutely not. You cannot produce one shred of Scripture from the Holy
Bible which supports this statement, and you know it.
> > >
> > > 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.
It is also a racial term. To this very day, jews are a race, and a
religion, by their own admission. The Knesset is now testing the DNA of
"jews" who come to Israel seeking the "right of return" to make sure they're
jewish enough. Do you think DNA tests their religion, or their race?
> >
> > > . 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.
> .
This is what the jews claim, isn't it? But it's a LIE. In not a single
passage in the Holy Bible will you find an Israelite of the Tribe of
Benjamin or the Tribe of Judah referred to as a "jew". They are always
differentiated from jews by being referred to as Israelites (which of course
is what they were).
> 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.
>
If the Talmud does this, then it conflicts with the Holy Bible, and the Holy
Bible becomes the authority. It's a LIE for the jews to claim that Abraham
or Moses were "jewish patriarchs". They were Israelite patriarchs.
> 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.
>
How could two different words with two different Strong's numbers refer to
the SAME people? How could Israelites and jews have been the same race then
if they're such radically different RACES now? Not even most jewish
writings agree with that argument, particularly not the Talmud, which claims
that Jesus was the illegitimate son of a Roman soldier who was hanged on a
tree for blasphemy and is now boiling in hot excrement.
Do you REALLY think that the authors of the Holy Bible could possibly be the
*same* race who wrote the Talmud?
John Knight
