'Aion' is indeed in the plural, but it is still a noun and we know that the noun aion can be translated to convey a period of time, UNLIKE it's adjective 'aionios' which always seems to be translated as 'eternal' or 'everlasting'.
I don't know what going on either that's why I made just a very brief remark.
I can't prove my following claim. I just remeber an article about it. The meaning of English words change.
For example hel (unseen/covered) changed mean into ET hell.
History played the same trick on the Latin version of eternal. What once was meaning age-during turned into eternal. So we need to observer extreme caution making claims about the meaning of words based on modern dictionaries.
I just happened to check this claim of Wood's and voila- he seems to be mistaken.
Like all research some points teh researcher is extremely sure about; other less sure.
I would think that only the extremly sure items are used as PR...
Now to the Nazarene/Nazarite comparison
I checked it out and for me it measn the same. You disagree. That's fine because my conclusion isn't in the extremely sure catagory to start with.
If the 5 minutes Googling and my understanding of Hebrew outclasses what Wood has researched on that word....
The only good place to 'store' that book is in the fireplace.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/115The verse isn't discussing the title of Jesus. Just where He lived. So the meaning is "irrelevant"
What, then, is Matthew's meaning? The text is saying simply this: Jesus lived in Nazareth not because the prophets had said that He would live in that specific city, but in order to fulfill additional specific things that the prophets had said about Him. Lenski has done an excellent job of explaining this point:
Now lets suppose there is a legitimate connection between the two terms (which I don't believe there is), Michael Wood would surely notice during his research, that 'Nazarite' and 'Nazarene' are 'different' and would surely have checked them out, like we are doing. He would then see that Jerome was not being dishonest in his approach to this particular difference. Does that sound reasonable?
Cat, let me start saying that being wrong can just mean 'being wrong'. Not every mistake has ill intend.
I checked out the links you gave me. I checked Strongs and quoted from it. And we come to different conclusions.
My conclusion is honest. I'm sure yours is too. Possibly the same can be said about Wood and Jerome.
The both of us have exatly the same sources to check. Not so for Wood and Jerome. Both can be right with the data they had availble to their research.
Plus are Jeromes writings authentic. A good (I think) exmple is teh Bible by William Tyndale. He was executed as a heretic (see signature of WillieH) The church editted out the heretic words. King James is partly based on the editted Tyndale work. There are reports that whole of Mathew 16 (I think) is added lateron.
Buyer beware...
