>>11062409

>>11062424

Etymology of the word "jew"

Contrary to what most people believe Shakespeare never saw the word "Jew" nor did he ever use the word "Jew" in any of his works, the common general belief to the contrary notwithstanding. In his "Merchant of Venice," V, III, I, 61, first published in about 1600, Shakespeare wrote as follows "what is the reason? I am a Iewe; hath not a Iewe eyes?"

In Samuel Johnson's English Dictionary of 1755 and 1756 words beginning with "I" and the new letter "J" are interspersed. There is no listing for the word "Jew" in either his 1755 or 1756 editions although "To Judaize" is defined as "To conform to the manner of the Jews" in both.

The corrected re-issue of the 1933 edition of The Oxford English Dictionary lists the first published usage of the word "Jew" in:

Sheridan's 1775 play, "The Rivals," Act II, Scene I, "She shall have a skin like a mummy, and the beard of a Jew."

1653 Greaves' "Seraglio," 150. "In the King's Seraglio, the sultanas are permitted to employ divers Jewes-women about their ordinary occasions". And,

1700 Bishop Patrick's Commentary on Deuteronomy 28:37, "Better we cannot express the most cut-throat dealing, than thus, you use me like a Jew".

The earliest version of the New Testament in English from the Latin Vulgate Edition is the Wiclif, or Wickliff Edition published in 1380. In the Wiclif Edition Jesus is there mentioned as One of the "iewes." That was the 14th century English version of the Latin "Iudaeus" and was pronounced "hew-weeze," in the plural, and "iewe" pronounced "hew-wee" in the singular.

The 1841 English Hexapla contains six English translations of the New Testament arranged side by side for easy comparison and reference. The six English translations are: The Wycliffe version of 1380 (the first English Scripture, hand-copied prior to Gutenberg's invention of the printing press in 1455), The Tyndale version of 1534-1536 (the first English printedScripture), and Cranmer's Great Bible of 1539 (the first Authorized English Bible). Continuing across each right-hand page is: The Geneva "1557" translation actually completed in 1560, (the English Bible of the Protestant Reformation), The Rheims 1582 (the first Roman Catholic English version), and the 1611 King James First Edition.

In the 1380 Wiclif Edition in English the Gospel by John XIX.19, reads "ihesus of Nazareth kyng of the iewes." Prior to the 14th century the English language adopted the Anglo-Saxon "kyng" together with many other Anglo-Saxon words in place of the Latin "rex" and the Greek "basileus." The Anglo-Saxon also meant "tribal leader."

In the Tyndale Edition of the New Testament in English published in 1525 Jesus was likewise described as One of the "Iewes."

>>11062514

In the Coverdale Edition published in 1535 Jesus was also described as One of the "Iewes." Also in the Coverdale Edition the Gospel by John, XIX.19, reads "Iesus of Nazareth, kynge of the Iewes."

In the Cranmer Edition published in 1539 Jesus was again described as One of the "Iewes."

In the Geneva Edition published in 1540-1557 Jesus was also described as One of the "Iewes."

In the Rheims Edition published in 1582 Jesus was described as One of the "Ievves."

In the King James Edition published in 1611, also known as the Authorized Version, Jesus was described again as one of the "Iewes." The forms of the Latin "Iudaeus" were used which were current at the time these translations were made.

The word "Jew" does not appear in any of these Bibles. Jesus is referred to as a so-called "Jew" (which He was not) for the first time in the New Testament in the 18th century editions in the English language of the 14th century first translations of the New Testament into English. The first Bibles in which the word "Jew" first appears are:

1729 Daniel Mace New Testament is the first Scripture to contain the word "Jew", here in Romans 2:13 - 3:21.

1750 Douai newly revised and corrected by Richard Challoner according to the Clementin edition of the Scriptures, The Holy Bible translated from the Latin Vulgate, first published by the English College at Doway, Anno 1609.

1752 Douai newly revised and corrected by Richard Challoner according to the Clementin edition of The New Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Translated out of the Latin Vulgate, first published by the English College of Rhemes, Anno 1582

1755 Wesley, New Testament with Explanatory Notes by John Wesley

1769 Benjamin Blayney modernised the spelling, punctuation, and expression of the 1611 edition of the Authorised or King James Bible.

1770 Worsley New Testament or New Covenant of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ translated from the Greek with notes by John Worsley.

The fascinating story of how we got the Bible in its present form actually starts thousands of years ago, as briefly outlined in this Timeline of Bible Translation History. As a background study, we recommend that you first review the discussion of the Pre-Reformation History of the Bible from 1400BC to AD1400, which covers the transmission of the Scripture through the original languages of Hebrew and Greek, and the 1,000 years of the Dark & Middle Ages when the Word was imprisoned in Latin. The starting point in this discussion of Bible history, however, is the advent of the Scripture in the English language with the "Morning Star of the Reformation," John Wycliffe.

source: http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/jew.htm

>>11062543

There is not now nor was there ever an equivalent letter "j" in the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet. Nor is there any Hebrew letter that carries even an approximate sound of the consonant letter "j." Neither is there a letter 'j' in the Greek alphabet. As regards proof of the letter 'J' not being in Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek alphabets, James Strong's Exhaustive Concordance has the Hebrew and Greek alphabet preceding each respective dictionary therein. Also, there are various grammars, etc., which show the alphabet of these languages, and there is no letter equivalent to "J" in either Hebrew or Greek even today. "J," the tenth letter and seventh consonant in the English alphabet, is the latest addition to English script and has been inserted in the alphabet after "I," from which it was developed. Petrus Ramus (1515-1572) is credited as the first to distinguish I and J as representing separate sounds. Not until the middle of the 17th century did the use of "j" as an initial become universal in English books.

>>11062568

That's the thing about deception as a culture, everything of the culture becomes a walking contradiction. "Hypocrites"

When everything is based on Man and his Word, everything is only as solid as the air he breathes.

>>11062586

>I'm saying English had a word for Jews - with a J.

I was a bit off, but 1769 is the first appearance of the word "Jews" with a "J"

that can only be in English as, well, this is English.

Beyond that, if you care to really know the etymology of the word http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/jew.htm

that's everything you could ever hope to uncover on it.

jews invented Jews just like they invent everything else, by pure bullshit.

>>11062795

it is a bit odd how ego-driven the SEALs are but they definitely go through BUDS in Coronado and a shitload of training afterward. Odd how few people even know what Force Recon is or even the younger generation not know of Delta Force.

>>11062808

>Dr. Joan Donovan

aka: Fat Sister

>>11062833

>most civilians and the shit they don't go through

You mean the sheep they're created to protect?

What kind of asshole would detest innocence?

>>11062831

sauce your claim that he didn't sauce it

>>11062856

That's not ego, that's pride.

I've always believed the military should be a place for broken Men to become a part of a bigger structure and find a place. I'm not saying it should be ONLY for these types, but these types don't have a home in society anywhere else. They also don't seek the approval of anyone outside of their structure. That's the part I don't understand with the SEALS, they seem to seek outsider approval. It's odd.

>>11062915

khazar milkers

>>11062905

I think a lot of stolen valor civilians utilize the SEAL moniker, as well.

Like that Bilzarian guy that's not on the lam (lamb?) for tax evasion.

>>11062936

>not

*now

>>11062912

>What's your opinion on what happened

Project Monarch Gene Transcription.

Ie: Clones

>>11062912

>Project Monarch Gene Transcription

here:

PURPOSE

The US department of Defense's original plans to research the Mind control phenomena was to determine psychological and chemical formulas providing the US with the "perfect" espionage agent. This quickly evolved into planning the "production" of the perfect soldier… government worker…slave.

However, German SS officer/occultist Himmler's research development scientists sent this search "for the "Manchurian Candidate" off in another direction … PSYCHOLOGICAL GENETIC ENGINEERING.

It was determined that "absolute" mind control could be realized through specific tortures of the intended transgenerational Victim …from the moment of birth!

Armed with this deadly research, a collection of "dedicated psychiatrists" from Germany, Italy, and the US, a new but ancient form of mind-control was reborn through Project Monarch.

Modern science had simply unraveled the occult cryptic so called "magikal" secrets of mind control…to spawn a new generation of "superior beings"…who could NEVER ASK WHAT THEIR COUNTRY COULD DO FOR THEM…BUT ONLY WHAT THEY COULD DO FOR THEIR COUNTRY.

source: http://outpost-of-freedom.com/operatio.htm

>>11062947

I wish that was an offer

wait wut…

>>11063024

>They are attempting to clone the Antichrist is the answer

yeah this is an odd string to pull.

The Smithsonian has done mountains of work to conceal the existence of "Giants" which were commonly referred to in the 1800's as we would today refer to, say, ostriches.

>>11063040

POTUS retweeted her drop

That's really all we need to know about it.

Now I'll just admire milkers

>>11063075

>antisemitism

Arabs are fine

it's the Replacists we don't like

They call themselves jews.

>>11063106

they litterboxy-kitty are!

>>11063033

Being brutally honest…

I've done worse.

>>11063129

>a tranny wife

My theory on it is that there is something in the clone process that doesn't allow for the seamless replication of the female Chromosome XY pair. I think a bit of that extra l gets in there.

>>11063134

> Like it or not Jews were Gods chosen people.

Not chosen for athletic ability

Or mannerism

Or sincerity

Or… or… or…