WordWolf

By taking a few sentences out of their context from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi WTH was able to suggest the opposite of the article. The evidence IS there. It's even IN THE ARTICLE. "The Jews who are Jews share genetics with the Jews who you say are not Jews, proving that Wierwille was wrong." Correct, Raf, and the proof is right in the SAME ARTICLE, if WTH was willing to read down to "ETHNIC DEFINITION" and didn't stop at the "RELIGIOUS DEFINITION" and pretend it spoke for CULTURAL and ETHNIC definitions as well. According to "ETHNIC DEFINITION", "Human geneticists have identified certain haplotypes in Y-Chromosome and mitochondrial studies that have high frequencies among Ashkenazai Jews, but not in the general European population." Hm, look at this-they CITE THEIR SOURCES. Imagine that! Further down, we see "DNA CLUES", which is the direct refutation of wierwille AND WTH. "A study of haplotypes of the Y chromosome, published in 2000, addressed the paternal origins of Ashkenazi Jews. Hammer et al found that the Y chromosome of most Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews was of Middle Eastern origin, containing mutations that are also common among Palestinians and other Middle Eastern peoples, but uncommon in the general European population. This suggested that the male ancestors of the Ashkenazi Jews could be traced primarily to the Middle East." It also addresses the other side, the mitochondrial DNA. "A 2006 study by Behar et al, based on haplotype analysis of mitochondrial DNA, suggested that about 40% of the current Ashkenazi population is descended matrilineally from just four women. These four 'founder lineages' were 'likely from a Hebrew/Levantine mtDNA pool' originating in the Near East in the first and second centuries CE." (More information pending as more studies are done...) If he looked at "POPULATION GENETICS", he'd see the list of genetic disorders that are more common in the Ashkenazi Jewish population. Genetic disorders, aka hereditary diseases, increase when you LIMIT THE GENETICS OF THE POPULATION. That there are any AT ALL is direct evidence that the population is NOT homogenous with the whole of society. If he'd just read thru "ETHNIC DEFINITION", he'd have seen that one of the concerns OF Ashkenazi Jews is the limited genetic variety as the result OF being what he claims they're NOT, and why artificial insemination cases AMONG the Ashkenazi Jews SPECIFICALLY seek out non-Jewish donors in an effort to avoid genetic disorders that Ashkenazi Jews are already prone to. Of course, he would have needed to evaluate the implications of what he read, which seems beyond the skills of our specialist at cutting and pasting. ===== BTW, the reason WTH is obviously not posting any refutation of the EVIDENCE AND EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY of the historical FACT that MILLIONS of JEWS were killed by NAZIS in WORLD WAR II in an attempt to deliberately kill Jews, is that he can't find any to cut-and-paste. So far, he's cut-and-pasted from Answers.com and Wikipedia. Neither of them has listed any nonsense indicating the Holocaust, aka the Shoah, never existed.

It helps to note he's just cutting and pasting lines from the wikipedia entry for "Ashkenazi Jews" right now. Without attribution, which means, of course, that he's plagiarizing their entry. As usual. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi If WTH actually wanted to LEARN about the Ashkenazi Jews, he could have just FINISHED READING THE ARTICLE HE COPIED FROM, rather than just picked out what he thought would defend his position. He might have noted that the rest of it REFUTED HIS POSITION in general, but quibbled over specifics.

ACTUALLY, we had a single discussion directly relevant to the HOLOCAUST and the FACTS of the HOLOCAUST themselves when you introduced a SECOND discussion into the mix.... on page 1. One might think you were trying to draw attention away from the main discussion and the irrefutability of the deaths of millions of Jews in WW II as systematically planned and executed by Nazi Germany....

If I explain dmiller's post, (as I am now), I am perforce offering my opinion as to its contents and the MEANING of said contents. My opinion, by definition, is my OWN opinion (unless I'm just parroting what vpw/someone said). My opinion is therefore my own PERSONAL opinion, or, to put it differently, my PRIVATE opinion. I don't think dmiller went far afield on this one. I dunno, Shellon. ricky made some claims and Georgio gave counter-examples from PERSONAL TESTIMONY. I suspect the PERSONAL TESTIMONY he gave is "what's going on" in the incidents and locations he's mentioning. Looks like "what's going on" to me.... (Emphasis mine.)

I trust and respect you, and will play by the rules you require, but I reserve the right to disagree on a case-by-case basis with you. When she spoke on her own experience, she spoke for herself. That was not made an issue. When she took HER experience, and extrapolated from it, she expressed an opinion. Had she applied it to SOME people, she almost certainly would have gotten a caveat, that is "of course there are lots of people this did NOT apply to, and this should not be used to claim it was true of all people by anyone seeking to tar VICTIMS-whom this does NOT apply to." However, she made no attempt to limit the scope of her claim- which means she was saying "this was true for me, and is true for everyone". When she said "it was true for me", that limits the room for disagreement. As soon as someone applies a rule to EVERYONE, that's tantamount to inviting disagreement. Watch the difference between these 2 statements. "I didn't vote for him. I know he's a crook." and "I didn't vote for him. Everybody who didn't vote for him knows he's a crook." How about "I work full-time. I feel the taxes on big business should cover all the government's expenses so that citizens should not have to pay tax." and "I work fill-time. Everyone who works full-time feels that taxes on big business should cover all the government's expenses so that citizens should not have to pay tax." In both cases, I'd expect the exceptions to begin replying immediately. The reason I usually don't get this complaint about MYSELF is that I try to avoid "all-encompassing" words and expressions, by suggestion, implication or direct statement. There will almost ALWAYS be exceptions to ANY generalization. I also often reread before I hit the "Add Reply" button. Some people would be surprised how much that one step would improve one's posts. This was an exception case. The attitude is "protect the victims."Always was in the GSC (in my experience, since after ezboard, anyway), and remains so today, for the usual suspects. Why did they all react? This post went at cross-purposes to that, and suggested that the VICTIMS were not VICTIMS, but willing participants in ALL CASES. Why be surprised that was challenged? Frankly, I didn't join in because it was already said. ============= Entirely different situation. I saw no reason to react the way some people did. I didn't join in on that one because I saw no reason to agree or prolong the digression. I wouldn't blame them for not returning, but I don't see the reason for running them off, either. The people I'd recommend running off go after posters in an antagonistic fashion, and neither of those posters did anything of the kind. Nor did they even warrant any sort of warning or caution. Watch their posts? Sure. Watch mine while you're at it. Always a good idea. Posting with civility beats the alternatives.

I've run into a number of Christians who don't lose sleep over the issue. Then again, I've also had one scream at me in the street. So, I'd call that "a mixed bag of responses." Offhand, I think that's about as extreme a set of responses as I could expect-indifference vs screaming in public. ====== Frankly, I suspect the TRUE answer might be in NEITHER position as stated, but somewhere in the middle. (A corollary to Ockham's Razor states that if NONE of the possible answers FULLY explain something, then all of them are WRONG.)

Fine with me-take it, Chas!

One of the myspace guys DID say that twi would answer if asked but no one asked. That was incorrect for several reasons. One, people asked. Lots of posters here asked. Two, they were not given straight answers. Answers were actually questions-"Why do you want to know?" or accusations "Why are you questioning God's One True Ministry?" "Questioning twi is doing the devil's work", et al.

Not quite... Correct....

NuqDaH yuch daPol?

Here's the recap. Almost the entire New Testament was written first in (Koine) Greek. We're debating whether some of the Gospels were in Aramaic first, but everything else is pretty solidly documented as Greek first. vpw said it was first in Aramaic-specifically the Palestinian Aramaic dialect used in Palestine (duh). Twi used the EASTERN Aramaic dialect for research- specifically the Peshi++a text, which featured Estrangelo script. IIRC, the sole reference to any of this was one mention in the Orange Book which makes several errors concerning the historical documents of Scripture, but DID correctly identify "Estrangelo" as a lettering style and not a dialect. However, vpw never reinforced this anywhere else, so the entire corps (excepting a few in the research dept) all learned it wrong- that "Estrangelo Aramaic" was a dialect like "Eastern" or "Palestinian." ===== Those of you who wonder what lcm taught should go back and re-listen to his old tapes. Tape 1055: "Believing Images of Victory" was the one where he said "I'd like to close in Romans, chapter 8, reading the entire chapter, in Estrangelo Aramaic." *waits while audience chuckles* As you can tell from the structure of the sentence, (and the following one, where he suggests Bernita might actually do this later), lcm was pretty clear that "Estrangelo" wasnt just a style of writing, because that would NOT affect reading it ALOUD.

I just wanted to add a few things. A) I recommend this book heartily, particularly the 3rd edition mentioned here. B) I bolded the part that mentions what Mark and I said, that is, that part of the gospels was probably written first in Aramaic. My position is not based on "twi said it", but partly on looking around OUTSIDE twi. I found a copy of "the Aramaic Origin of the 4 Gospels" in my college's library, back when. (The thing looked old and dog-eared, and I don't know if it's been reprinted since the 1950s or earlier.) If that is true-that at least one of the Gospels was written first in Aramaic, it explains certain problems with the text that are resolved if they were just a mis-read from Aramaic. (The camel/rope thing, and the Samaritan/devil thing.) I've never seen evidence to support a position that "the New Testament was written first in Aramaic", unless you count "vpw said it, I believe it" as "evidence".

I can tell you how I'd feel NOW-with my CURRENT mindset- if I was at a meeting with all the Christians I'd want to meet currently living- if lcm was there. (I can make a hypothetical based on CURRENT mindset.) I would just avoid him, neither approaching nor acknowledging him unless I ended up face-to-face with him. I'd care about others, but be indifferent to him. Anything else, I'll have to wait and see.

"I have misjudged you." "Join the club. We've got jackets." "They just want to give us their blessing." "Oh, great! Now I need their blessing?" "Well, if you want to be part of this family, yes." "Who said I want to be part of this family?" "Uh, YOU did? When you married me?" "Well, THERE's some find print for you." "Working hard, or hardly working?" "Today, I repay my debt." "You got a puppy? All I got in my room was shampoo." "...we are in pursuit of a white bronco..." "..Whatever happens, I must not cry...you cannot make me cry..."

I disagree about "in twi." Remember, getting yourself out of twi, for some of us, was 20 minutes and the bum's rush out the door. However, getting twi out of YOURSELF can take YEARS. (And for a few of us, it will take divine intervention to finish the job.)

Millions of people-some Jews, some not-were killed horribly for the "crime" of existing. Your lack of humanity will cripple you all your life- until you overcome it, possibly thru having your life destroyed, and receiving compassion from the "lesser" Christians you scorn. Once again, you think incorrectly.We actually examined the evidence, the testimony, and so on. Ever meet someone who was THERE, who was tattooed with one of the numbers, and listened to them? I have. On the other hand, you're ready to believe the most ridiculous notions, discard the most ironclad of evidence, all on the say-so of a man who's been proven to lie, exaggerate, and do sloppy research all the time. Make up your mind-I thought they supposedly controlled all the money. The US was SOLELY responsible for the current Israel? I'm sure the other Europeans who fought in World War II would disagree with you. In fact, I'm sure the Russians-who fought the Nazis long before we did-would disagree strongly. In some areas of Russia, they lost 75% of their population during World War II. You've never heard that, I'm sure. There are villages with markers for that to this day. So, you'd prefer the holocaust have been allowed to continue until all Jews were killed? Largely where they are now, just more persecuted,with Middle Eastern countries vowing to obliterate them. You're discarding all proof of the numbers-including the records the Nazis themselves kept-all because vpw said so, right? You might try thinking for yourself. It's underestimated.

...and sang the song IN the Blues Brothers movie, as well. I once saw a Betty Boop cartoon posted online, featuring this song and a VERY young Cab Calloway shown singing it briefly before the cartoon proper began. Your turn, wasway.

I think they didnt have anything else useful to add at the moment beyond what they already posted, so they didn't add anything not-useful. :)

I'm very happy for you, but you're probably thinking of the wrong title and artist.

vpw parroted George Lamsa on the subject. Lamsa is the one who pushed the "Aramaic first" position. This was advantageous to Lamsa, as he put forth he was THE Aramaic expert, which would make himself THE Bible expert. For Lamsa, I think this was a deliberate attempt to inflate his own importance. vpw was NEVER a good researcher. His "best work" was photocopies of the work of others, and often the deeper things showed a lack of understanding of what he was copying. (That's why his definition of "word of knowledge" is INCORRECT, despite being derived from Leonard's definition, which IS correct.) So, when Lamsa made a convincing-sounding case for Aramaic, vpw lifted Lamsa's claims entirely. If vpw had done his own research, he would have seen that his own claims of the earliest texts being from the FOURTH century were off by at least 200 years, as was known at least 20 years before he put this error in writing. See, in Bullinger's time, (a century ago), such a claim would fly. The last century, however, has seen many new manuscripts come to light, and the dates of the earliest texts now can reach VERY far back, compared to what was available before then. So, I think it was LAZINESS and BAD RESEARCH. ==== Another possibility-which is not exclusive, BOTH may be true- was that it was what he WANTED to say, since it was the opposite of what the establishment was saying. Remember that twi was marketed as counter-establishment and counter-culture, back when. Making a case that sounds convincing and says most Christians are WRONG was right up vpw's alley.

Actually, while it is true that Estrangelo is the script the Aramaic was written in, twi taught that the NT was originally written in "Estrangelo Aramaic", said as if that was a specific dialect of Aramaic, like Palestinian Aramaic (which was spoken in Jesus' time) or Eastern Aramaic (which twi used for their books.) twi taught that the ENTIRE NT was originally written in Aramaic FIRST, and translated to Greek later. Most evidence shows that the Greek came first for the NT, with the possible exception of the Gospels. Mark's answer that at least one Gospel (Matthew) was written first in Aramaic, and at least one Gospel (Luke) was written first in Greek, makes a lot of sense to me, and helps explain disparate POVs from people who actually studied the stuff.

Both. This is not dissimilar to the example in pfal that vpw gave. (Sometimes he had a valid point.) He claimed someone said there was a disparity in a census, where one verse said the Israelite army had a certain number of men, and a different verse said the Israelite army had a smaller number of VALIANT men. Both verses were using different criteria for a count- one of all the men in the army (including conscripts), and one for the army regulars and veterans. The point is a LITTLE clearer when looking at the NASB rendering of some of the verses. Genesis 7:2,3. "You shall take with you of every clean animal by sevens, a male and his female, and of the animals that are not clean, two, a male and his female; also of the birds of the sky, by sevens, male and female, to keep offspring alive on the face of all the earth." All animals were collected in PAIRS. Most animals were collected as ONE PAIR. "Clean" animals and birds were collected as SEVEN PAIRS. Myself, I find it curious that modern shipbuilders confirm the ratio for the Ark's dimensions to be close to optimal for the design of a ship. If this was simply one man's invention, he's a BRILLIANT guesser. Of course, all of you may believe whatever you wish.

"He took her down to Chinatown And showed her how to kick the gong around"

"I have misjudged you." "Join the club. We've got jackets." "They just want to give us their blessing." "Oh, great! Now I need their blessing?" "Well, if you want to be part of this family, yes." "Who said I want to be part of this family?" "Uh, YOU did? When you married me?" "Well, THERE's some find print for you." "Working hard, or hardly working?" "Today, I repay my debt." "You got a puppy? All I got in my room was shampoo."

She's a KILLER, QUEEN. (Queen) :)