"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab at lojban.org> wrote in message
news:djvnmu0b1qs41h1frdbln6gmnmo0rb3fij at 4ax.com...
> "John Knight" <jwknight at polbox.com> wrote:
> >"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.
>> The King James version of the Holy Bible is not an authority on
> ancient Hebrew, nor does it assert to being so.
It's the most widely spread Hebrew writing ever, and it's primary connection
to jews is through words like the following:
"you brood of vipers", they will be "thrown into the fire", "hypocrites!",
"babbling like pagans", "wicked", "adulterous", "Ninevah will ... condemn
[you]", "you break the command of God", "teachings are but rules taught by
men", "will be pulled up by the roots", "blind guides", "blind man", "guard
against ... the teachings of the Pharisees and Sadducees", "you yourself do
not enter ... the kingdom of heaven", "blind fools", "blind men", "Blind
Pharisee", "you are like whitewashed tombs", "you are the descendants of
those who murdered the prophets", "you snakes", "condemned to hell",
"Pharisees ... rejected God's purpose for themselves", "you foolish people",
"you are like unmarked graves", "you build tombs for the prophets, yet it
was your forefathers who killed them", "will be held responsible for the
blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the
world"
>> >There are 23,000 translational errors in the King James Bible. But this
> >isn't one of them.
>> How would YOU know? What are your credentials in Hebrew translation,
> such that YOU would know which bits are errors and which are not?
>> >The KJV translators always translated the words "Yhudiy"
> >or "Ioudaios" into the English word "jew", and nothing else.
>> That is because it is the correct translation. But the Hebrew word
> means "patronymic of Judah".
>
Wrong. There are 771 references in the KJV to "Judah", and in every
instance, they are translated from the Hebrew word "yehu^da^h" or the Greek
word "Ioudas".
Not one single instance of "Yhudiy" or "Ioudaios" is ever translated as
"Judah". It's always translated as "jew".
The Hebrew word "Yhudiy" appears 86 times, and it's translated as "jew" each
and every time.
The Greek word "Ioudaios" appears 190 times, and it's translated as "jew"
each and every time.
No matter how many times the jews LIE, there is never any confusion in the
Holy Bible between the descendants of "Judah" and the descendants of
"Jehudi".
> >hmmm, maybe, but the important point is that no other race in Judaea
except
> >"jews" were ever called "jews".
>> There WAS no other race in Judea of note (remember that the Israelites
> killed all the natives when the entered the Promised Land). Judea was
> the place where the descendants of Judah lived.
You're going in circles. The descendants of Judah were ISRAELITES, not
jews. It was ONLY the descendants of Jehudi who were jews.
Just because they sound the same to your feeble brain is no reason you can't
make the distinction. Is it?
>> >> . 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",
which
> >makes them a race.
>> That does not make them a "race".
Here's Webster:
Race
RACE, n. [L. radix and radius having the same original. This word coincides
in origin with rod, ray, radiate, &c.]
1. The lineage of a family, or continued series of descendants from a parent
who is called the stock. A race is the series of descendants indefinitely.
Thus all mankind are called the race of Adam; the Israelites are of the race
of Abraham and Jacob. Thus we speak of a race of kings, the race of Clovis
or Charlemagne; a race of nobles, &c.
Having the common ancestor Jehudi is the DEFINITION of race.
btw, Webster is wrong about "the race of Adam", because jews aren't of that
race.
>> >It's true that only "jews" preached or practiced the
> >Mishnah (which later became the Talmud, 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.
>> Yes, Judah.
No, Jehudi. Notice the different spelling?
No?
Who would ever expect you to make that distinction?
>> >No. "Yhudah" and "Yhudiy" are two different people born in two very
> >different territories with two very different types of descendants,
>> False. Judah (Yhudah) was a name for individuals. Yhudiy was a name
> for descendants of the patriarch named Yhudah.
>
Judah was one of the patriarchs of the Twelve Tribes of Israel, and his
descendants were known as Israelites.
It was descendants of Yhudiy who were a DIFFERENT race who were called
"jews".
Two different patriarchs. Two different races. Reared in two different
geographical territories. The jews DID attempt to take over the Temple of
Jerusalem, which has always been their claim to fame, but the Israelites
built it, and defended it, and it belongs to the Israelites, not the jews.
> >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.
>> The genealogy says nothing to contradict the Jews being descendants of
> Judah.
>>> lojbab
The Holy Bible disagrees with you. hmmm, it's such a tough choice. Who
should we believe? A "liberal" who "feels" strongly both ways that school
prayer was banned and that school prayer was not banned--or the Holy Bible?
John Knight
