"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab at lojban.org> wrote in message
news:iig6nu0os9bkq98idt3r59vf2ca87rirg7 at 4ax.com...
> "John Knight" <jwknight at polbox.com> wrote:
> >And for making that excellent point.
> >"northern portion of Denmark, still known today as Jutland, actually
means
> >'land of the Jews'"
>> Since it comes from an Old Norse word starting JOT, this remains pure
> folk etymology.
>> >The only problem with this meaning of Jutland is it confounds the meaning
> >and difference between Hebrews and Jews.
>> Ah, yes. That is a problem for your theories. They contradict.
>
There's no conflict in the Holy Bible. It's clear as a bell.
The confusion comes about when the jews get involved in "translating" it.
They obviously did a GREAT job on the KJV translators, but fortunately it's
extremely easy to flush out the jewish LIES.
http://christianparty.net/kjv.htm
> >There were a number of other errors like this in those posts about the
Irish
> >link to the Israelites, and they seem to all stem from a serious
translation
> >error in the KJV.
> >
> >The effect of this translation error, wherein both the Hebrew word
"Yehud"
> >and the Greek word "Ioudaia" were translated as "Jewry", was to give the
> >FALSE impression, once again, that members of the Tribe of Judah or
> >residents of Judaea were ever known as "jew".
>> The problem is that if the Israelites were not the Jews, and the
> Israelites were the ones who went to Denmark (and they were the tribe
> of DAN nonetheless per your other silly folk history site, why did it
> come to be named after the Jews OR JUDAH LONG BEFORE THE KJV WAS
> TRANSLATED - not that the Danes would have cared about an English
> language translation).
>> Face it: your nincompoop theory is so full of contradictory holes that
> there is no hope for it (or you).
You keep forgetting that the Holy Bible has been translated into 73 TIMES as
many other languages as the English language. I have a copy of the Holy
Bible which was never touched nor influenced by the KJV translators, and the
differences are astounding, and very revealing.
The Danish letter which is the first letter of "Jutland" sounds like a cross
between a "j" and a "y", but Americans can't even begin to pronounce it.
Denmark didn't need to sit around and wait for England to invent a "j" so
they could name "Jutland" because they got it straight from their direct
ancestors, the Israelites.
>> >Furthermore, about the last place on the Earth where we'd expect to find
> >jews is Denmark, which is a country blessed with more than 92% Christians
> >(which is why they scored much higher than us in TIMSS and have a higher
> >actual family income and standard of living than us).
>> Some other turkey said:
> >In addition, Cymry, the name borne by the people of Wales to this day, is
> >identical with the name given to the Israel captives by the Assyrians.
> >Likewise, the Persians, who overthrew the Babylonian empire, always
referred
> >to the Israelites as Sacae; the Saxons are descended from this people.
>> This is so hilarious that it is sad. Wales was settled by the Celts
> before the Assyrians took over Israel.
It's doubtful that we've got enough empirical evidence yet to confirm these
timeframes, since faulty "carbon dating" screwed up so many REAL estimates
of when the Assyrians took the Israelites into captivity.
You also seem to have missed the point about most Israelites leaving Judaea
and going west [read: Spain, France, Ireland, and other points], long before
the Assyrians got there.
You also ignored the point that there was a lot of interraction between the
peoples of the Baltic, Ireland, and Israel, back and forth, by the seafaring
predecessors to the Vikings who had similar ships.
iow, there's no reason to believe that the Celts and the Israelites didn't
have identical ancestors.
But there are MANY reasons to believe that Israelites [read: the Holy Bible]
and jews [read: the Talmud] are from completely different planes );
John Knight
