"John Knight" <jwknight at polbox.com> wrote:
>> The King James version of the Holy Bible contains NO Hebrew writing
>> whatsoever. It is written entirely in English.
>>It's a "Hebrew writing".
The KJV is NOT a Hebrew writing. It is an English writing.
>It was written by Hebrews.
The KGV was written by several dozen Englishmen in the early 1600s.
>The English version is just one of 75 different languages
The Bible has been translated into far more languages than 75, but
those other translations are NOT the King James Version, are not based
on the King James Version, do not have the same errors as the King
James Version, and in many places say something that would be
understood differently than is the King James version, and those
translations are ALSO not in ancient Hebrew.
>You're so Ameri-centric that you can't even grasp what the word "Hebrew" means, can you?
I am quite aware what "Hebrew" means. I also suspect that I know more
about Hebrew than you do (I seem to know more about any topic than
YOU, but that is because you are an ignorant nincompoop, rather than
any particular virtue of mine).
>> >Wrong. There are 771 references in the KJV to "Judah",
>>>> Wrong. There are many more references to Judah. All of the
>> references to Judea, to Jews, and other similar words are also
>> references to Judah. That is because in Hebrew, the "different words"
>> are really "different forms of the same word".
>>And why didn't you produce just ONE example of Holy Scripture where a member of the Tribe of Benjamin who lived in Judaea was ever referred to as a "jew"?
ALL of the references to Jews as a mass refer to them among others.
The priests of the Temple (e.g. Caiaphas) were called Jews by both
Christ and Paul, and were members of the Tribe of Levi, that being the
key requirement to be a priest of the Temple.
>Because you cannot? Because they were always referred to as Israelites?
False.
>There were Edomites living in Judaea who claimed to be descendants of Abraham
Give their names.
>It's impossible for them to have been Semites
They were all Semites. All of the peoples indigenous to that region
are Semites.
>or Hebrews if they weren't descendants of Abraham,
False. The Hebrews were descendants of Eber.
>and the notion that they could have been Israelites is even more remote.
No it isn't, and your notions of what is remote, are what is remote.
>> >Not one single instance of "Yhudiy" or "Ioudaios" is ever translated as
>> >"Judah". It's always translated as "jew".
>>>> Since "Jew" means "descendant of Judah", just as "Yhudiy" means
>> "descendant of Yehudah", that is a valid translation. This in no way
>> proves that the words have different meanings.
>>The Holy Bible always makes a distinction between them, so why don't you?
The Holy Bible does NOT make a distinction between them. It uses two
nearly synonymous words in different places. If I say the King of
Sweden is "kingly" and the Queen of England is "regal", I am using two
nearly synonymous words. I am NOT "making a distinction between them.
>> >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".
>>>> I don't believe that anyone in the Bible is referred to as a
>> "descendant of 'Jehudi'". That is NOT what "Yhudiy" means.
>>Every instance of the Hebrew word ?????? which is anglicized as yehu^di^y is translated to the English word "jew", every time, no exceptions.
If so, that does not support your case, since the Hebrew word means
"descendant of yehu^da^h"
>Every instance of the Hebrew word ??????which is anglicized as yehu^da^h is translated to the English word "Judah", every time, no exceptions.
So?
>Every instance of the Hebrew word ???? which is anglicized as yehu^d is translated to the English word "Judea", every time, no exceptions.
So?
>The only confusion here is YOU.
You must be looking in a mirror.
>Look carefully in the Holy Bible. All Israelites were descendants of Jacob, who was a grandson of Abraham, who was a descendant of Eber, who was a descendant of Shem. This means that all Israelites are Hebrews and Semites.
>But Yehudi was NOT a descendant of Shem,
Yes he was, because his name MEANS "descendant of Judah".
>because he was a descendant of the Cushi
He was the descendant of someone named "Cushi" not "the Cushi". he
was also the grandson of 7 other people, whose names were not given in
the Bible, but were sufficiently of the house of Judah that he was
given the name that meant that he was a descendant of Judah.
In any event, The Jews are not descendants of this person named
Jehudi, just as the tribe of Judah is not descended from any of the
others named Judah in the Old Testament besides the son of Israel.
>who were descendants of Ham, a brother of Shem. This is an entirely separate genealogy. No descendant of Ham could be a Semite, a Hebrew, a child of Abraham, nor an Israelite.
False.
>Jews today have done DNA studies and proven that they contain 20% Negroid blood.
There is no identifier of "Negroid blood". It looks the same as any
other blood. Those commonly identified as black are more prone than
most to sickle-cell anemia, but sickle-cell anemia is not a marker for
Negroid blood since people can have it without having such blood.
>This is because of their being descendants of the Cushi, who today are the Negroid jews in Ethiopia.
False.
>Not only did descendants of Judah and descendants of Jehudi live in different territories,
There is no discussion in the Bible of descendants of Jehudi. Those
who are called "yhudiy" translated "Jews", are in the Hebrew described
as descendants of Judah, since that is what the word means.
They lived in the same place, because they were the same people.
>> >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.
>>>> No. The reason is that ancient Hebrew grammar modifies words in
>> exactly that way to show patronymic forms. Just as English shows
>> patronymics as "John" and "Johnson", and Russian forms patronymics
>> "Alexander" and "Alexanderovich", ancient Hebrew formed patronymics
>> "Yhudah" and "Yhudiy". We know this NOT ONLY from the Bible, but from
>> the OTHER texts of ancient Hebrew that remain.
>>Which ignores the simple fact that these are two different Hebrew words
They are not "two different Hebrew words".
>with two different Strong's numbers
So? Strong's numbers refer to Hebrew spellings, not to Hebrew words.
The Hebrew concept of "different word" is not the same as the English
one. "Theatre" and "Theater" are the same word in English, but some
unabridged dictionaries will give separate listings for each, with one
referring to the other. Strong's likewise lists 3064 and 3065
separately with one referring to the other.
>This is just exactly like saying Greece and grease "show patronymic forms" which is proof that all Greeks are in the oil business.
No it isn't.
>> That is NOT the definition of race used elsewhere in the discussion.
>> Use clear terms, in this case "lineage" is a more accurate term.
>>The word "race" is a far more accurate description of these separate peoples who never intermarried,
False, since "race" has nothing to do with purity of marriage, except
in the mind of racists like you.
>who lived in different geographical areas, and who had two entirely different patriarchs: Judah, and Jehudi [read: Yhudiy].
There is no Biblical or other source that indicates that anyone named
"Jehudi" was the patriarch of a race. No one would assume that all
people named "John" are members of the same race and descendants of
John the Baptist.
>> >Judah was one of the patriarchs of the Twelve Tribes of Israel, and his
>> >descendants were known as Israelites.
>>>> No Israelites were the descendants of Israel, and included members of
>> ALL 12 tribes.
>>This is your ONLY correct statement. All descendants of Jacob, whether of the Tribe of Judah, or the Tribe of David, were called Israelites.
There was no distinct "Tribe of David". He and his descendants were a
part of the tribe of Judah, and thus were Jews.
>NONE of the descendants of Yhudiy were ever called Israelites,
We know nothing about descendants of Yhudiy. All we know about are a
peoples *named* Yhudiy.
>> There is nothing in the Bible about descendants of Yhudiy. There are
>> only references to Yhudiy, which are descendants of Judah.
>>And of course you cannot find a single bit of Holy Scripture to support this statement, can you?
Every use of the word Yhudiy in the Holy Scripture supports this
statement, since that is what the word means.
>The Holy Bible is very specific about these terms.
The Holy Scripture is NOT "very specific" about terms.
You still have not answered whether you believe that
"Elohim", the female plural Gods of Genesis 1, is the same God as "the
LORD God" of Genesis 2, which is the same God as "the LORD" (Yahweh)
of Genesis 4, 5, 6 etc. After all, by your logic, one is translated
"God" and the other is translated "the LORD God" and one is translated
as "the LORD" so they must all be different things.
>If you believe this is the case,
I don't believe that the Holy Bible is very specific about the terms,
no.
>then certainly you should be able to find at least ONE example, right?
The above is one example where the Holy Bible is NOT specific about
the terms, but uses multiple words for Someone who we perceive as the
same God.
lojbab
