Talk:Gentile/Archives/2011/September

Mormons don't call Jews "Gentiles"
Hi all. It's actually not true that Mormons call Jews "gentiles." Most Mormons don't use the "gentile" terminology at all, but those who do usually specifically exclude "Jews" from that category. So in the dictionary of these few Mormons, the world is divided into "Mormon," "Jew," and "Gentile." Again, though, the vast majority of Mormons wouldn't use "gentile" at all unless referring to non-Jews, just as most English speakers would use the word. SLCMormon

Indeed, the word "gentile" is hardly ever used by Latter-day Saints anymore, except in discussions of scripture. Das Baz, aka Erudil 19:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Muggles
Rowling's witches and wizards call non-magical people "Muggles," and this is another parallel to "Gentiles." Das Baz, aka Erudil 19:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Gentiles as soulless servants
Aren't Gentlies the soulless servants of Jews, the winemakers and janitors or something like that according to the Hebrew Bible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.11.163.56 (talk) 05:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

No, that is total nonsense. It is anti-Semitic slander. Nowhere in in the Hebrew Bible, or anywhere else, is it said that Gentiles are "soulless" or soul-less. Das Baz, aka Erudil 19:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Nowhere in the Bible or Talmud does it say that Gentiles are supposed to be servants or janitors. What the Talmud does say is that "The righteous of all nations have a share in the World to Come." In other words, the souls of righteous Gentiles go to Paradise. Das Baz, aka Erudil 16:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Blacks are never...
refered to as Gentile in the Bible.

--Vehgah 02:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Really? Your point is...? Paul B 08:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Hebrews, The Kemet, and Ethiopians were virtually indestinguishable back then. Only Romans and Greeks where called gentile. --Vehgah 04:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hebrews, Ethiopians and Egyptians were visually distinguished by the Egyptians themselves, who typically portrayed Caananites as very pale skinned and Nubians as very dark, with themselves in the middle (see Book of Gates). Tut's cane depicts enemies of the Egyptians as very pale on one side and very dark on the other. The Bible is also full of colour-related language which is largely consistent with this. The notion that only "white" people were gentiles is not easy to support from the text itself, but can be got from it by convoluted interpretation. However, the word goy/gentile is clearly used several times in Genesis to refer to Semitic people, including Jacob and Esau in Rebecca's womb. "Romans and Greeks" do not really figure in the Hebrew bible at all, only in the NT, which is in Greek, so goy never appears. The KJV "gentile" is typically a translation of the Greek word "ethnoi".


 * If this theory derives from from Afrocentrist writer or African-American religious ideology it might be notable enough for inclusion on that basis, if you can give the source. However, it's also worth adding that this view has also been embraced by Christian identity white supremacists (who argue that the NT advocates converting only "Judeans and Gentiles" = white people ). Paul B 09:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Linguists believe that the Semitic Languages originated in Africa. Das Baz, aka Erudil 16:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. The Afro-Asiatic group in general probably did, however. Still, it's irrelevant whether it did or not. Paul B (talk) 18:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

That African peoples are close relatives of the Israelites is very relevant to the discussion at hand. Das Baz, aka Erudil 17:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * No it isn't, firsly because the ancient Israelites knew nothing about genetics and secondly because it isn't true. In any case the assertion is meaningless. "African peoples" comprises a vast, genetically diverse population most of which is about as unrelated to Israelites as to anyone else. In fact almost all non-African peoples are more closely related to one another than Africans are to each-other. See Genetic_history_of_Europe and  Paul B (talk) 18:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Not only the Afro-Asiatic group in general, but the Semitic group in particular, originated in Africa, according to Historic Linguistics. Das Baz, aka Erudil 18:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * There is no such consensus at all. See Semitic languages. Paul B (talk) 16:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no unanimity about any matter of historical linguistics, but the African origin of Semitic languages is a well-supported hypothesis. Das Baz, aka Erudil 17:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I fail to the relevance of this. It has nothing to do with race. Proto-Semitic grew from a variant of Afro-Asiatic. It may have first evolved in the Nile Delta or the Levant or Ethiopia. We don't really know. The distinction between Africa and Asia is a human construct. In reality it's just land extending, or one river or sea no different from others. It is meaningless to make generalised statements about "African peoples" being close relative of Isrealites. It's just as meaningful to say "European people" or "Asian People" are. Indeed more so, according to geneticists. Everyone came from Africa originally. Paul B (talk) 17:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

That's right, ultimately we all are Africans. So this is very relevant, as it applies to all of us. And language and "race" are not as closely connected as too many people think. I am just trying to get facts and ideas clear. I am not pushing any particular agenda. Das Baz, aka Erudil 22:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)