Why, I imagine so! Do you contend that the modern day members of Tribe Judah are the only surviving Israelites that can claim Abraham's covenant? 
But I submit that my more inclusive definition of "Jews" as allowable anytime after the Exodus, or indeed anytime after the birth of Isaac, is...(drum roll)..
BOTH MORE WIDELY ACCEPTED AND USED BY EDUCATED SPEAKERS AND WRITERS IN AMERICA TODAY...and also (drum roll) PREFERRED BY MOST JEWS, JEWISH SCHOLARS, AND RABBIS THEMSELVES, today,..over your more restrictive definition.
Just so you don't get the idea that anything more than that mere dictionary quibble is involved, I have no problem. I know what your posts mean, and I think you know very well what mine mean.
But in my own lifetime some cultists have taken your (perhaps merely semantic) contention and run 100 or more yards the wrong way for a touchdown, and that is what I am avoiding by using the more inclusive and consistent term as widely as I can.
Remember, ALL of our English language is much newer than even the most RECENT possible date for inception of the use of the word "Jew." You say 500 BC, I say 2000 BC, English hardly goes back more than 600 yrs without requiring translation into our tongue. That makes the whole squabble seem rather childish, doesn't it?
"My" definiton of Jew is a simple one, it is purely historic, and based on a clear historic trail. I have no interest in cultural, political or other claims proffered for whatever reason.
>But I submit that my more inclusive definition of "Jews" as allowable anytime after the Exodus, or indeed anytime after the birth of Isaac, is...(drum roll)..
>BOTH MORE WIDELY ACCEPTED AND USED BY EDUCATED SPEAKERS AND
WRITERS IN AMERICA TODAY...and also (drum roll) PREFERRED BY MOST JEWS,
JEWISH SCHOLARS, AND RABBIS THEMSELVES, today,..over your more restrictive
definition.
I submit that definition is utterly irrelevent. What Jewish politicans desire is based on "what can I steal", not on anything historic. The attempt to pollute the word ISRAELITE by narrowing it to include only Jews is a clear attempt at name theft.
>But in my own lifetime some cultists
I do resent your implication as it is a personal attack and without foundation. However, Cult, in it's practical application simply means "anyone who does not think as I do". Does that make you a cultist?
> You say 500 BC, I say 2000 BC, English hardly goes back more than 600 yrs without requiring translation into our tongue. That makes the whole squabble seem rather childish, doesn't it?
Not at all. I am not squabbling, merely reciting history. If that offends you, I really am sorry. It is not my intention to offend.
BTW, I do understand what you are referring to, and simply assure you that the dislaimer at the head of my FR PROFILE means what it says.
Why, I imagine so! Do you contend that the modern day members of Tribe Judah are the only surviving Israelites that can claim Abraham's covenant?