You seem to be arguing with me while agreeing with me. It's kinda weird.

We must be talking past each other.

The letter "I" in Hebrew/Greek was used for the "J" sound. I said there was no "J," which I believe is true.

When Wycliff made the first translation into English, he made up a word that did not exist (in English). That word became "jew" but that word is also misused in the modern English versions of the Bible.

It is used to describe certain people living in the Roman province of Judea who were NOT of Israelite blood.

Jesus called them out on this isssue.

This helps us understand who they were/are.

They are called today "Jew." If calling them by their name is an insult, then so be it. Maybe they have earned it.

The language of the Old Testament was Hebrew.

Yiddish is a modern perversion of Hebrew.

If we go back 1,000 years or so, the people who did the translations were under immense pressure to MISTRANSLATE.

That is because the Roman Catholic Church WAS Christianity for a long time. They had THEIR OWN doctrines.

Notice, there is no pope in the Bible. Catholiscism took over Christianity and created their own doctrines, whether or not they agreed with the Bible.

If anyone, including a transcriber, said or wrote anything that was against church doctrine, they were guilty of heresy, and could be burned alive at the stake.

Therefore, it should be common sense to understand that many translators MIGHT have made some false translations to appease the pope and the cardinals, etc., even if they knew the Bible's original texts said something different.

This is what lead to "jew" being used in the modern English Bibles to describe people who have since been mislabeled as "God's Chosen People."

I can see you have not read my comment on voat

Actually, I did, but your point about the jews was not clear.

My understanding is this:

Judah = Son of Jacob/Israel, and patriarch of the Judahites, which is part of the Israelite family tree

Judahite = A direct descendent of Judah, the man (his sons and daughters, grandsons and granddaughters, etc.).

Judean = A person resident in the Roman province of Judea, at the time of the Roman Empire, when Jesus was alive; not necessarily a Judahite or Israelite, but merely one who resides in this particluar Roman province.

Jew = A word created more than 1,000 years later, to describe these Judeans, since the Hebrew and Greek words used "I" to make the "J" sound, and that did not work for the English translation that Wycliff was doing.

Why you seem to think that "jew" is necessarily a derogatory word is not clear, though maybe they have earned such a distinction with their horrific behavior over the centuries.

After all, you don't get kicked out of 100+ countries over 1,000+ years for no reason.

You seem to be arguing with me while agreeing with me. It's kinda weird.

We must be talking past each other.

The letter "I" in latin was used for the "J" sound. I said there was no "J" in latin, and that is true.

When Wycliff made the first translation into English, he made up a word that did not exist (in English). That word became "jew" but that word is also misused in the modern English versions of the Bible.

It is used to describe certain people living in the Roman province of Judea who were NOT of Israelite blood.

Jesus called them out on this isssue.

This helps us understand who they were/are.

They are called today "Jew." If calling them by their name is an insult, then so be it. Maybe they have earned it.

The language of the Old Testament was Hebrew.

Yiddish is a modern perversion of Hebrew.

If we go back 1,000 years or so, the people who did the translations were under immense pressure to MISTRANSLATE.

That is because the Roman Catholic Church WAS Christianity for a long time. They had THEIR OWN doctrines.

Notice, there is no pope in the Bible. Catholiscism took over Christianity and created their own doctrines, whether or not they agreed with the Bible.

If anyone, including a transcriber, said or wrote anything that was against church doctrine, they were guilty of heresy, and could be burned alive at the stake.

Therefore, it should be common sense to understand that many translators MIGHT have made some false translations to appease the pope and the cardinals, etc., even if they knew the Bible's original texts said something different.

This is what lead to "jew" being used in the modern English Bibles to describe people who have since been mislabeled as "God's Chosen People."

I can see you have not read my comment on voat

Actually, I did, but your point about the jews was not clear.

My understanding is this:

Judah = Son of Jacob/Israel, and patriarch of the Judahites, which is part of the Israelite family tree

Judahite = A direct descendent of Judah, the man (his sons and daughters, grandsons and granddaughters, etc.).

Judean = A person resident in the Roman province of Judea, at the time of the Roman Empire, when Jesus was alive; not necessarily a Judahite or Israelite, but merely one who resides in this particluar Roman province.

Jew = A word created more than 1,000 years later, to describe these Judeans, since the Hebrew and Greek words used "I" to make the "J" sound, and that did not work for the English translation that Wycliff was doing.

Why you seem to think that "jew" is necessarily a derogatory word is not clear, though maybe they have earned such a distinction with their horrific behavior over the centuries.

After all, you don't get kicked out of 100+ countries over 1,000+ years for no reason.

You seem to be arguing with me while agreeing with me. It's kinda weird.

The letter "I" in latin was used for the "J" sound. I said there was no "J" in latin, and that is true.

When Wycliff make the first translation into English, he made up a word that did not exist (in English). That word became "jew" but that word is also misused in the modern English versions of the Bible.

It is used to describe certain people living in the Roman province of Judea who were NOT of Israelite blood.

Jesus called them out on this isssue.

This helps us understand who they were/are.

They are called today "Jew." If calling them by their name is an insult, then so be it. Maybe they have earned it.

The language of the Old Testament was Hebrew.

Yiddish is a modern perversion of Hebrew.

If we go back 1,000 years or so, the people who did the translations were under immense pressure to MISTRANSLATE.

That is because the Roman Catholic Church WAS Christianity for a long time. They had THEIR OWN doctrines.

Notice, there is no pope in the Bible. Catholiscism took over Christianity and created their own doctrines, whether or not they agreed with the Bible.

If anyone, including a transcriber, said or wrote anything that was against church doctrine, they were guilty of heresy, and could be burned alive at the stake.

Therefore, it should be common sense to understand that many translators MIGHT have made some false translations to appease the pope and the cardinals, etc., even if they knew the Bible's original texts said something different.

This is what lead to "jew" being used in the modern English Bibles to describe people who have since been mislabeled as "God's Chosen People."

I can see you have not read my comment on voat

Actually, I did, but your point about the jews was not clear.

My understanding is this:

Judah = Son of Jacob/Israel, and patriarch of the Judahites, which is part of the Israelite family tree

Judahite = A direct descendent of Judah, the man (his sons and daughters, grandsons and granddaughters, etc.).

Judean = A person resident in the Roman province of Judea, at the time of the Roman Empire, when Jesus was alive; not necessarily a Judahite or Israelite, but merely one who resides in this particluar Roman province.

Jew = A word created more than 1,000 years later, to describe these Judeans, since the Hebrew and Greek words used "I" to make the "J" sound, and that did not work for the English translation that Wycliff was doing.

Why you seem to think that "jew" is necessarily a derogatory word is not clear, though maybe they have earned such a distinction with their horrific behavior over the centuries.

After all, you don't get kicked out of 100+ countries over 1,000+ years for no reason.

You seem to be arguing with me while agreeing with me. It's kinda weird.

The letter "I" in latin was used for the "J" sound. I said there was no "J" in latin, and that is true.

When Wycliff make the first translation into English, he made up a word that did not exist (in English). That word became "jew" but that word is also misused in the modern English versions of the Bible.

It is used to describe certain people living in the Roman province of Judea who were NOT of Israelite blood.

Jesus called them out on this isssue.

This helps us understand who they were/are.

They are called today "Jew." If calling them by their name is an insult, then so be it. Maybe they have earned it.

The language of the Old Testament was Hebrew.

Yiddish is a modern perversion of Hebrew.

If we go back 1,000 years or so, the people who did the translations were under immense pressure to MISTRANSLATE.

That is because the Roman Catholic Church WAS Christianity for a long time. They had THEIR OWN doctrines.

Notice, there is no pope in the Bible. Catholiscism took over Christianity and created their own doctrines, whether or not they agreed with the Bible.

If anyone, including a transcriber, said or wrote anything that was against church doctrine, they were guilty of heresy, and could be burned alive at the stake.

Therefore, it should be common sense to understand that many translators MIGHT have made some false translations to appease the pope and the cardinals, etc., even if they knew the Bible's original texts said something different.

This is what lead to "jew" being used in the modern English Bibles to describe people who have since been mislabeled as "God's Chosen People."

I can see you have not read my comment on voat

Actually, I did, but your point about the jews was not clear.

My understanding is this:

Judah = Son of Jacob/Israel, and patriarch of the Judahites, which is part of the Israelite family tree

Judahite = A direct descendent of Judah, the man (his sons and daughters, grandsons and granddaughters, etc.).

Judean = A person resident in the Roman province of Judea, at the time of the Roman Empire, when Jesus was alive; not necessarily a Judahite or Israelite, but merely one who resides in this particluar Roman province.

Jew = A word created more than 1,000 years later, to describe these Judeans, since the Hebrew and Greek words used "I" to make the "J" sound, and that did not work for the English translation that Wycliff was doing.

Why you seem to think that "jew" is necessarily a derogatory word is not clear, though I maybe they have earned such a distinction with their horrific behavior over the centuries.

You seem to be arguing with me while agreeing with me. It's kinda weird.

The letter "I" in latin was used for the "J" sound. I said there was no "J" in latin, and that is true.

When Wycliff make the first translation into English, he made up a word that did not exist (in English). That word became "jew" but that word is also misused in the modern English versions of the Bible.

It is used to describe certain people living in the Roman province of Judea who were NOT of Israelite blood.

Jesus called them out on this isssue.

This helps us understand who they were/are.

They are called today "Jew." If calling them by their name is an insult, then so be it. Maybe they have earned it.

The language of the Old Testament was Hebrew.

Yiddish is a modern perversion of Hebrew.

If we go back 1,000 years or so, the people who did the translations were under immense pressure to MISTRANSLATE.

That is because the Roman Catholic Church WAS Christianity for a long time. They had THEIR OWN doctrines.

Notice, there is no pope in the Bible. Catholiscism took over Christianity and created their own doctrines, whether or not they agreed with the Bible.

If anyone, including a transcriber, said or wrote anything that was against church doctrine, they were guilty of heresy, and could be burned alive at the stake.

Therefore, it should be common sense to understand that many translators MIGHT have made some false translations to appease the pope and the cardinals, etc., even if they knew the Bible's original texts said something different.

This is what lead to "jew" being used in the modern English Bibles to describe people who have since been mislabeled as "God's Chosen People."

I can see you have not read my comment on voat

Actually, I did, but your point about the jews was not clear.

Judah = Son of Jacob/Israel, and patriarch of the Judahites, which is part of the Israelite family tree

Judahite = A direct descendent of Judah, the man (his sons and daughters, grandsons and granddaughters, etc.).

Judean = A person resident in the Roman province of Judea, at the time of the Roman Empire, when Jesus was alive; not necessarily a Judahite or Israelite, but merely one who resides in this particluar Roman province.

Jew = A word created more than 1,000 years later, to describe these Judeans, since the Hebrew and Greek words used "I" to make the "J" sound, and that did not work for the English translation that Wycliff was doing.

Why you seem to think that "jew" is necessarily a derogatory word is not clear, though I maybe they have earned such a distinction with their horrific behavior over the centuries.

You seem to be arguing with me while agreeing with me. It's kinda weird.

The letter "I" in latin was used for the "J" sound. I said there was no "J" in latin, and that is true.

When Wycliff make the first translation into English, he made up a word that did not exist (in English). That word became "jew" but that word is also misused in the modern English versions of the Bible.

It is used to describe certain people living in the Roman province of Judea who were NOT of Israelite blood.

Jesus called them out on this isssue.

This helps us understand who they were/are.

They are called today "Jew." If calling them by their name is an insult, then so be it. Maybe they have earned it.

The language of the Old Testament was Hebrew.

Yiddish is a modern perversion of Hebrew.

If we go back 1,000 years or so, the people who did the translations were under immense pressure to MISTRANSLATE.

That is because the Roman Catholic Church WAS Christianity for a long time. They had THEIR OWN doctrines.

Notice, there is no pope in the Bible. Catholiscism took over Christianity and created their own doctrines, whether or not they agreed with the Bible.

If anyone, including a transcriber, said or wrote anything that was against church doctrine, they were guilty of heresy, and could be burned alive at the stake.

Therefore, it should be common sense to understand that many translators MIGHT have made some false translations to appease the pope and the cardinals, etc., even if they knew the Bible's original texts said something different.

This is what lead to "jew" being used in the modern English Bibles to describe people who have since been mislabeled as "God's Chosen People."

I can see you have not read my comment on voat

Actually, I did, but your point about the jews was not clear.

Judah = Son of Jacob/Israel, and patriarch of the Judahites, which is part of the Israelite family tree

Judahite = A direct descendent of Judah, the man (his sons and daughters, grandsons and granddaughters, etc.).

Judean = A person resident in the Roman province of Judea, at the time of the Roman Empire, when Jesus was alive; not necessarily a Judahite or Israelite, but merely one who resides in this particluar Roman province.

Jew = A word created more than 1,000 years later, to describe these Judeans, since the Hebrew and Greek words used "I" to make the "J" sound, and that did not work for the English translation that Wycliff was doing.

Why "jew" is necessarily a derogatory word is not clear, though I do believe they have earned such a distinction with their horrific behavior over the centuries.