"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message news:tludouot89n3qn1g5f62iq797qodgdfifk@4ax.com...
> "John Knight" <jwknight@polbox.com> wrote:
> >> I see many translations all of which use the word "nation" or
> >> "nations".  It is YOU, the LIAR that thinks that those translations
> >> are wrong and that they all should say "race".  But YOU are indeed a
> >> LIAR, speaking the words of the serpent, your master, who is the
> >> Prince of Lies.
> >
> >The Greek word "ethnos" is translated as follows by Strong's:
> >
> >G1484
> >???????
> >ethnos
> >eth'-nos
> >Probably from G1486; a race (as of the same habit), that is, a tribe;
> >specifically a foreign (non-Jewish) one (usually by implication pagan): -
> >Gentile, heathen, nation, people.
> >
> >So it can be both a "nation" and a "people".
>
> We know precisely what the word ethnos means, nincompoop.  It is used
> directly as an English word, both as itself and in its derivations:
> ethnologist and ethnic (group).  An "ethnos" is an "ethnic group",
> which means a group of people sharing a culture and heritage.
"Ethnos" is a Greek word, not an English word.  As this translation shows, it means "race".

 

> Heritage means history more than it does genetics - DNA testing has
> been around for a couple of decades, but historically people have
> determined ethnicity primarily by what people SAY they are, and
> secondarily by who their documented parents are (which of course
> ignores adoption and bastardy and cuckoldry).
>

Who said anything about "heritage"?  "Ethnos" is Greek for "race".

> >But what is meant by "people"?  RACE, of course.
>
> Tribe, as the definition explicitly stated.

It equated "race" to "tribe", thus either English word would be appropriate.

 

>
> Caucasians are not a single "tribe".  Nor are orientals, nor are
> Amerinds, nor are Negroids.  Each of the "colors" is MANY tribes.
> Using the word "race" to translate "ethnos", especially when all the
> Biblical translations do NOT use the word "race", is to inject the LIE
> that the Bible is talking about something to do with skin color (i.e.
> the modern concept of "race".
>

Injecting the term "skin color" is a straw man argument which you set up just so you could knock it down.  Not even the definition of "race" that you provided mentions "skin color" as a criteria for "race", so why else would you do this other than to have the opportunity to argue with yourself?

 

> >The following is an example of its use as "nation":
> >
> >John 11:51  And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that
> >year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;
> >John 11:52  And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather
> >together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.
> >
> >The "children of God" are the Israelites who were scattered among all
> >NATIONS,
>
> What a nincompoop.  You really love to ignore context, don't you.  Who
> said this?  It was not Christ.

 

Is your specialty today "straw man arguments"?  Who suggested that Christ said this?  You?  Again, your argument is with yourself.

 

> >[46] But some of them went their ways to the Pharisees, and told them
>                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > what things Jesus had done.
> >[47] Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and
>                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles.
> >[48] If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the
> > Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.
> >[49] And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same
>           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all,
> >[50] Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die
> > for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.
> >[51] And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that
>           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;
>         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >[52] And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather
> > together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.
>
> The text in verse 51 makes clear that Caiaphas, who was a Pharisee
> (and therefore a Jew) was speaking not for himself BUT "for the
> nation" (i.e. the nation of Jews which he had the position to speak
> for.)
>

So you agree that "ethnos" also means "nation".  What a breakthrough.

 

> And thus we see that the "he" in verse 52 is Caiaphas, and that he is
> presuming in his role of high priest to speak for all of the children
> of God, repeating the formula "not for that nation only BUT"  Now
> clearly, by your nincompoop ideas, the Jew Caiaphas is NOT speaking
> for the "White Christian Israelites", so your interpretation makes no
> sense.
>

Wow.  Three straw man arguments in one post.  Whoever said anything about this jew speaking for "White Christian Israelites"?  Only you.

 

> >but this is obviously not the same as the following, where it means
> >"people" or "race":
> >
> >Joh 18:33  Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called
> >Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews?
> >Joh 18:34  Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did
> >others tell it thee of me?
> >Joh 18:35  Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief
> >priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?
>
> Notice that Pilate is referring to the JEWISH nation, because he
> considers all the people of Judea to be Jews.

Notice that the word "nation" is translated from the Greek word "ethnos" which you already acknowledged above also means "race".  To this very day, the physical characteristics of jews and Israelites are so different that it's impossible not to notice them, even after jews have spent billions of dollars on face lifts and nose bobs in a futile attempt to look normal.

And you wonder why Pilate realized what a silly mistake he'd just made?

>  That is WHY he asks
> "Art thou King of the Jews?" and not "Art thou King of the White
> Christian Israelites?" (as if anyone in those days considered anyone
> to be an "Israelite".

Since the Holy Bible is all about Israelites, and since the term "Israelite" is used throughout the Holy Bible, and since Paul said "I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin", it would appear that your aversion to the word is the looming prospect that you must ultimately recognize Israelites as a RACE.

Why else would you deny Holy Scripture like this?

 

>
> >Joh 18:36  Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom
> >were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be
> >delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
> >
> >Pilate obviously wasn't referring to a country when he said "thine own
> >nation".  He was simply presuming that Jesus was the same RACE as the jews,
> >and Jesus PROVED that He was NOT by reminding Pilate that if He had been a
> >jew, the jews certainly wouldn't have been demanding He be crucified.
>
> That is NOT what he said to Pilate.  He said that if he were a king,
> his servants would fight.  There have been MANY kings that have been
> killed by their subjects.

Christ wasn't killed by His "subjects".  He was killed by the JEWS, who were His "subject's" arch enemies and had been for millennia.

 

>
> >1Peter 2:9  But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy
> >nation, a peculiar people; that ye should show forth the praises of him who
> >hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light
> >
> >In this Scripture, "generation" is translated from "genos" which means
> >"stock":
> >
> >G1085
> >??????
> >genos
> >ghen'-os
> >From G1096; "kin" (abstractly or concretely, literally or figuratively,
> >individually or collectively): - born, country (-man), diversity,
> >generation, kind (-red), nation, offspring, stock.
> >
> >So this is clearly a different use of "ethnos" than "nation".
>
> People of a nation or tribe or ethnos were presumed to share common
> ancestry.
>

You can't even read your own definitions, which show that you've got this exactly backwards.

First, it must be established that a "people" have a common ancestor. Only THEN can they be considered to be of the same "stock".  Nothing is "presumed" here (other than your false statement, that is).  Using the term "genos" and "ethnos" in the same sentence to refer to the same people is proof enough that the connotation of "ethnos" is "race" rather than "nation".

 

> >The reference to "peculiar [ethnos]" must mean "peculiar race".
>
> Not in the sense of skin color.  But merely in the sense of
> "ethnicity".
>

Beep.  Straw Man Argument Alert.  Straw Man Argument Alert.
This is your fourth one.  Who's talking about "skin color".  This "sense of ethnicity" you mention is just a futile attempt to avoid mentioning the big r-word: RACE.

 

> >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.
> >
> >Hence the long race of Alban fathers come.
> >
> >2. A generation; a family of descendants. A race of youthful and unhandled
> >colts.
> >
> >3. A particular breed; as a race of mules; a race of horses; a race of
> >sheep.
>
> I have no idea what dictionary you pulled this from.  Here is
> Mirriam-Webster:
> >Main Entry: 3race
> >Function: noun
> >Etymology: Middle French, generation, from Old Italian razza
> >Date: 1580
> >1 : a breeding stock of animals
> >2 a : a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock b
> > : a class or kind of people unified by community of interests,
> > habits, or characteristics <the English race>
> >3 a : an actually or potentially interbreeding group within a species;
> > also : a taxonomic category (as a subspecies) representing such a
> > group b : BREED c : a division of mankind possessing traits that are
> > transmissible by descent and sufficient to characterize it as a
> > distinct human type
> >4 obsolete : inherited temperament or disposition
> >5 : distinctive flavor, taste, or strength
>
> Meaning 2a is the one associated with ethnos.  The Jews are an
> "ethnos".  Christians are NOT an "ethnos".
>

Oh, MAN!  All this time you've argued that jews are NOT a race, and now you're arguing that they ARE?  Are you starting to feel strongly both ways again?

Are you a closet "RACIST"?  Have you been a "RACIST" all along, knowing that jews are a RACE, but not wanting the world to know?

Yes, of course, jews are "meaning 2a", which means RACE.  They are also "meaning 3c", which also means race, but we'll let you ponder this alarming admission first.

 

> Meaning 3c is the one usually intended for "race" when referring to
> "whites" and "blacks", and has NOTHING to do with "ethnos".
>

My, your fifth straw man argument.  Nobody but you is arguing "whites" "blacks", "skin color", etc.  We're talking about the definition of race which YOU posted.

"Ethnos" is the Greek word for "race", according to Strong's.  It doesn't specify which subsection of "race" it refers to, does it?  So where do you get this idea that "Meaning 3c ... has NOTHING to do with 'ethnos'"? 

Out of thin air, actually, because this is precisely what it does mean.  "Ethnos" is a broad term which means a number of things, as already mentioned above.

 

John Knight

On September 13, 2002, "Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message news:11c4ou0om43k0aflka48hoq2eijrfag02p@4ax.com...

> >> When foreigners adopted the ways of Israel NOT
> >> through force, but by realization that the Lord was God, and kept the
> >> covenant of Moses, then they were regardless racial birth inheritors
> >> of the covenant.  And the Lord explicitly SAYS this in a passage I
> >> quoted to you a couple of days ago.
> >
> >Absolutely not.  You could not have quoted any such thing, because it
> >doesn't exist.  Here's what Christ said about Israelites:
> >
> >He said in reply, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of
> >Israel." Matthew 15:24
> >
> >"These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go
> >not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the  Samaritans enter
> >ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And  as ye
> >go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand."  Matthew 10:5-9
>
> But then later, He DID extend His commission for the disciples to go
> to ALL nations.
>

"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message news:tasinusmm4fllj3j2nt22hicurjegjo12u@4ax.com...

> "John Knight" <jwknight@polbox.com> wrote:
> >> Please, then, allow me: John falls into a noticibly distinct group --
> >> nominal Christians who are nowhere near ready to go in for all
> >> that Jesus stuff -- mercy and charity and self-sacrifice and
> >> loving those who hate you -- they're by temperament far more
> >> comfortable with the Old Testament ambiance, all that smiting
> >> and abominating and all-around tribalistic xenophobia.  Reflexively
> >> exclusive, not inclusive, by nature, they look about for something to
> >> support their us-vs-them tendencies, and it's obvious where that's
> >> to be found.  Only problem: YWH clearly wasn't talking to us.
> >> As a matter of fact, YWH spends a great deal of time warning the
> >> Chosen against the likes of us.  So what's a bigot to do when
> >> faced with such roaring cognitive dissonance? 
> >>
> >> You've seen the answer to that.  Not pretty, is it?
> >>
> >> -- cary
>
> >Sooo, you want to stick to the "New Testament" and throw out the
> > "Old", cary?  Why exactly would that be?  Would you mind explaining
> > that?  No?
>
> Can't understand English as usual, nincompoop?  Cary said quite
> clearly that it was YOU who seemed to be insisting on the Old
> Testament rules that YOU (and almost all of the 2 billion Christians,
> barring only those such as the Jews for Jesus) do not keep.
>

 

 

So, here we are, back to you "feeling strongly both ways" again, eh, lojbab?

 

Once again, your argument is with yourself, not with White Christian Israelites. 

 

Cary says:  "they're by temperament far more comfortable with the Old Testament ambiance", and you, a "liberal", then "interpret" this to mean exactly the opposite:

 

Do you ever get embarassed when you make these 180 degree contradictory statements?  Or do you just not know that you do this?  Are you this STUPID, or this much pre-programmed?

 

Cary is accusing White Christian Israelites of sticking too close to the Old Testament, and you "interpret" this to mean that he's accusing Israelites of NOT "insisting on the Old Testament rules".

 

Do you even notice that your "difference of opinion" is with yourself?

> >Now comes Harvard educated Noel Ignatiev, an academic at Harvard's W.E.B.
> >DuBois Institute for African-American Research. Dr. Ignatiev is the founder
> >of a journal, Race Traitor, which has as its motto, "treason to whiteness is
> >loyalty to humanity."
> >
> >The journal's purpose is "to abolish the white race."
>
> A sound idea.  There is no such thing as the "white race" except in
> the minds of certain nutcases who seek a racial explanation of
> everything.
>
> It appears that Dr. Ignatiev is attempting to provoke controversy and
> make a name for himself and his ideas through his provocative
> expression.
>
> I can't say that I support him, but I don't think he is "wrong" is the
> way the nincompoop is always "wrong".
>

 

Are you "feeling strongly both ways", again?

 

Do you feel strongly that he has "A sound idea", as well as feeling strongly that you "can't say that [you] support him"?

 

You just DID say that you support him by saying that he has a sound idea.

 

How can one mind become so confused?

 

Do you have any idea how? 

 

It's called "jewish brainwashing".  You can't even identify a "White Race" at the same time that you claim that it's "a sound idea" to abolish what you don't think exists, because the jews feed you, their good little Pavlov Doggie, an electronic biscuit whenever you repeat these intentionally conflicting, inflammatory, ridiculous, and confusing statements.

"Jet" <thatjetnospam@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:3D353D8F.8A736C4B@yahoo.com...

>
>
> Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> >
> > "John Knight" <johnknight@usa.com> wrote:
> > >Believe me, Parse, you don't need algebra or calculus to calculate the
> > >statistical average for American girls in TIMSS math.  Even adjusting for
> > >guesses doesn't require anything but some very basic probability theory.
> > >
> > >It's as simple as this:
> > >
> > >If you're asked a question which has four multiple choice answers, and you
> > >haven't got a clue what the answer is, what is the probability of getting a
> > >correct answer  Since you have once chance in four of getting the right
> > >answer, your probability is 0.25.  If you guess on two questions, your
> > >probability is .5, and three it's .75, and four, it's 1.0.
> > >
> > >In other words, over the long run, or over millions of test takers, guessing
> > >on such a question will yield 25% correct answers, or conversely, every
> > >fourth answer will be correct.
> >
> > This makes the assumption that those who know nothing guess randomly.  IN
> > reality, we don't know that people guess randomly when faced with a test
> > question they do not understand.  Indeed, we know that they do not.
> >

 

Wrong.  Dead wrong.  You could make that argument about one question, but when the pattern is repeated over and over again, then you can detect a pattern:  American girls scored lower on many questions than if they'd just guessed because they didn't have a clue about what the answer was.  Many of these questions had zero misses [read: 0% failed to provide an answer at all], which means you're nuts to even hint that "Indeed, we know that they do not"  "guess randomly".

 

The ONLY time you could apply that argument is when a large percentage of them answered correctly, but even then, if 0% failed to respond at all, then some of them HAD to guess.

> > But the assumption becomes totally meaningless if in fact they know
> > SOMETHING.  If 100% of them know something, but not enough to solve the
> > problem, then it is quite plausible that 100% of them will get the answer
> > wrong.  Thus someone knowing Newtonian physics perfectly will get the wrong
> > answer on a question that uses special relativity theory.  A good test
> > designer will know that the Newtonian approximation is a likely error, and
> > will include that answer among the incorrect alternatives.
>
> Then the article makes the shockingly stupid conclusion that NONE of the
> girls who got the answer right understood the problem!
>

 

If guessing on a multiple choice question would yield 25% correct, but American girls only got 5% correct, then how would YOU calculate how many of them understood the problem

> >
> > >No algebra.  No calculus.  A bit of probability theory, and you already know
> > >that 25% of all students will get the correct answer if they only *guess* on
> > >a four part multiple choice question.
> >
> > But you have no evidence that any kid "guessed" on any problem.
> >
> > >Now here's the hard part:
> > >
> > >Question H04 on TIMSS had four multiple choice answers, so you would think
> > >that no country or age group or race or sex would answer less than 25% of
> > >them correct, right
> >
> > Wrong.  I would think that if the question were difficult and well designed,
> > that this would be quite possible.
> >
> > >How do you think that's possible
> > >
> > >You can probably figure this out with no knowledge of algebra or calculus,
> > >and you already know all the probability theory that might be needed, so
> > >what is your explanation
> >
> > I've given an explanation, and mine explains how on question D12, both boys
> > and girls in the US scored less than 17% and South Africans scored only 6.4%
> > correct.
>
> Isn't it odd that someone who is harping on math ability doesn't seem to
> realize that 17 and 6 are both lower than 25 :)
>
> J

 

What's your point, J  Who exactly do you think made the point that getting 17% correct on a four part multiple guess problem is a lower score than if everyone just guessed

 

What part of that don't you understand (other than the typical and infinitely STUPID statement by lojbab that no students guessed)

 

John Knight

"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message news:7hmbjukf7qep55vfv5384b1abvf2cta56j@4ax.com...

> "John Knight" <johnknight@usa.com> wrote:
> >> Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> >> > "John Knight" <johnknight@usa.com> wrote:
> >> > >Believe me, Parse, you don't need algebra or calculus to calculate the
> >> > >statistical average for American girls in TIMSS math.  Even adjusting for
> >> > >guesses doesn't require anything but some very basic probability theory.
> >> > >
> >> > >It's as simple as this:
> >> > >
> >> > >If you're asked a question which has four multiple choice answers, and you
> >> > >haven't got a clue what the answer is, what is the probability of getting a
> >> > >correct answer  Since you have once chance in four of getting the right
> >> > >answer, your probability is 0.25.  If you guess on two questions, your
> >> > >probability is .5, and three it's .75, and four, it's 1.0.
> >> > >
> >> > >In other words, over the long run, or over millions of test takers, guessing
> >> > >on such a question will yield 25% correct answers, or conversely, every
> >> > >fourth answer will be correct.
> >> >
> >> > This makes the assumption that those who know nothing guess randomly. IN
> >> > reality, we don't know that people guess randomly when faced with a test
> >> > question they do not understand.  Indeed, we know that they do not.
> >> >
> >
> >Wrong.  Dead wrong.  You could make that argument about one question, but
> >when the pattern is repeated over and over again, then you can detect a
> >pattern:  American girls scored lower on many questions than if they'd just
> >guessed because they didn't have a clue about what the answer was.  Many of
> >these questions had zero misses [read: 0% failed to provide an answer at
> >all], which means you're nuts to even hint that "Indeed, we know that they
> >do not"  "guess randomly".
> >
> >The ONLY time you could apply that argument is when a large percentage of
> >them answered correctly, but even then, if 0% failed to respond at all, then
> >some of them HAD to guess.
>
> You have no logical basis to conclude that *any* kid guessed on *any*
> question of TIMSS.  There is *no* statistical basis on which to conclude
> same.  The number not responding is totally irrelevant.
>

 

Wrong, wrong, and wrong.

> The best evidence for guessing (which would not prove it, but it would be
> evidence) would be if all of the answers, correct and incorrect, were chosen
> with equal frequency within the expected margins to support a "random"
> selection.  This would among other things require one to know how many girls
> selected each answer, and those numbers are not published - only the numbers
> for all American kids.  A couple of questions have approximately equal
> distribution among the 4 answers, but not many.  And guessing does not
> explain instances where more than half of each gender got the question
> correct, nor D12 where fewer than 17% got the question correct.
>

 

Wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong.

> >> Then the article makes the shockingly stupid conclusion that NONE of the
> >> girls who got the answer right understood the problem!
> >
> >If guessing on a multiple choice question would yield 25% correct, but
> >American girls only got 5% correct, then how would YOU calculate how many of
> >them understood the problem
>
> You can't.  There is no data available to make such a calculation, and since
> TIMSS was not trying to measure "understanding the problem", there is no
> reason to fault them for not providing such data (Even if we had a clear
> definition of what you mean by "understood the problem")

 

Man, you're batting a thousand.  Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong.
>
> >> Isn't it odd that someone who is harping on math ability doesn't seem to
> >> realize that 17 and 6 are both lower than 25 :)
> >
> >What's your point, J  Who exactly do you think made the point that getting
> >17% correct on a four part multiple guess problem is a lower score than if
> >everyone just guessed
> >
> >What part of that don't you understand (other than the typical and
> >infinitely STUPID statement by lojbab that no students guessed)
>
> You haven't explained how 17% or 6% correct is even possible on a multiple
> choice problem given the assumptions you made about guessing. This disproves
> your assumptions about guessing.
>
> lojbab

 

Wrong and wrong.

 

Well, now, it's clear as a bell what it is about "liberals" that they're so incapable of thought, discussion, debate, logic, or even basic communication, and always feel compelled to resort to ad hominems and character assassination.

 

You're literally uneducable, lojbab.  There's obviously nothing anyone can teach you about it at this moment in your life, and I doubt if there ever was a time when you were capable of learning it.

 

There may not be one other person on this feminized forum who does comprehend that you managed to 14 LIES or false statements into 4 short paragraphs, but that's exactly what you did.

 

This was classic.  I *really* appreciate that belly laugh.  Whoever could have guessed that your posts are some of the best comedy around!

 

John Knight

"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message news:jggfju8p9umfcarpct4ma1f2u4b1kllugo@4ax.com...