I was doing a word search on google and this book popped up. After reading the reviews on it I think I might order it. I was wondering if anyone else has read it yet.
TS
I saw that on Amazon too after finding a random link to it. I haven't bought it, but it's gotten good reviews. ^_^
QuoteIsaiah 45:22-25
22 Look to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other.
23 I have sworn by Myself, the word is gone out of My mouth in righteousness and shall not return, that unto Me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear [allegiance].
24 Only in the Lord shall one say, I have righteousness (salvation and victory) and strength [to achieve]. To Him shall all come who were incensed against Him, and they shall be ashamed.
25 In the Lord shall all the offspring of Israel be justified (enjoy righteousness, salvation, and victory) and shall glory.
Dear brother Texas Son
I agree wholeheartedly with the sound advice given by Tim.B quoted above.
Jerome, whoever he was, was a mere man and as such made one hell of a mess (pardon the pun) of things for which we are left to suffer now. As has been proven down the whole history of mankind from Noah to the present time, but man is stupid he prefers to follow fellow man, like Jerome, rather than God. It seems he will never learn to trust God and not his own understanding. "TRUST IN THE LORD WITH YOUR WHOLE HEART AND DO NOT LEAN ON YOPUR OWN UNDERSTANDING." (Pro.3-5). Do this my brother and leave Jerome where he is, in the grave, causing no further trouble. You will be nearer to God and richer in pocket by so doing.
That is my advice and it is in agreement with brother TimB. In fact leave all books authored by man well alone and trust God, He is big enough and He WILL provide all your needs as He is doing mine.
Love is of God....... Love is God....... This comes to all in love
Roy (UK)
You can read a selection of 30 page on the link below. Should give a good impression of the book.
http://books.google.nl/books?id=_XRn7QuMAwMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Jerome+Conspiracy&num=100&hl=en#PPP1,M1
And 64 pages:
http://thejeromeconspiracy.com/pdf/The_Jerome_Conspiracy.pdf
I maybe will order it, however Jerome himself is said to have been an universalist.
Latin aeternum (eternal) and saeculum (age) might have been synonyms, so Jerome might have not willfully twisted scripture.
Yep. To know for sure we should look in a dictionary of that time. In modern dictionaries means get added without stating at what date the meaning was added.
We had this/similar chat in this post starting at #7
http://www.tentmaker.org/forum/index.php?topic=3881.msg42512#msg42512
I got the book after reading the free chapters. I've read it about three times now and I spotted an error in it regarding a verse that the author claims Jerome lied about. I won't say what it is to see if anyone else spots it. I also checked out some of the 'differences' between the Setuagint and our usual Bible translations and I didn't come across anything earth shatteringly different, so I'm not sure if this book is hyped up or what other errors may be in. What is very frustrating is that the author has not allowed a 'feedback' to him on his web site.......
Hi Cat,
Did you read the first or second edition?
I don't know if the second edition is just a new batch of books or also fixed some errors.
A not so raving review as show on the site:
http://www.amazon.com/Jerome-Conspiracy-Second-Michael-Wood/product-reviews/1440100152/ref=cm_cr_dp_hist_1?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&filterBy=addOneStar (http://www.amazon.com/Jerome-Conspiracy-Second-Michael-Wood/product-reviews/1440100152/ref=cm_cr_dp_hist_1?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&filterBy=addOneStar)
QuoteThe Jerome Conspiracy
Second Edition
The Universal Hope Edition
I've got the second edition. I've just read the review. I actually liked the fictional story although it was a bit lame and everything turned out just perfectly, so that part won't be to everyone's taste. It gets you thinking about lots of good stuff so I don't regret buying it, but I wish I could contact the author to check a few things...
Thanks for the reviews and info folks. I think I may have to order this one.
If I'm not mistaken Jerome was responsible for the Latin Vulgate. Is there any examples of him using his own translation in error?
Another question: why do we suppose that from the very first few centuries after Christ did God allow man to corrupt His Word? How is man truly supposed to seek God out if they don't even realize there is a problem with their version of Scripture?
"How is man truly supposed to seek God out if they don't even realize there is a problem with their version of Scripture?"
How long after the death of Jesus the word started to spread on a large scale?
After printed books I guess. To use part of your words:
"How is man truly supposed to seek God out if they don't even realize God exists?"
So millenia have passed without God attempting/ordering to spread His word.
In that light I'm not suprised He allows corrupted versions.
Quote from: Texas Son on July 09, 2009, 04:36:36 AM
Thanks for the reviews and info folks. I think I may have to order this one.
If I'm not mistaken Jerome was responsible for the Latin Vulgate. Is there any examples of him using his own translation in error?
Another question: why do we suppose that from the very first few centuries after Christ did God allow man to corrupt His Word? How is man truly supposed to seek God out if they don't even realize there is a problem with their version of Scripture?
I don't know about Jerome using his 'own translation' but I've just spotted what seems to be another blatant 'error' of Michael Wood's: He claims that Jerome deliberately mistranslated 'aionios' for the latin 'aeturnum' instead of 'seculorum', although Jerome conveniently 'properly' translates it so at Eph 3:11. I've just checked this verse in the Greek and on
http://biblelexicon.org/ephesians/3-11.htm : the Greek word is 'aion', not 'aionios', hence why Jerome would have used 'seculorum' here and not 'aeturnum'. If I've looked this up wrongly and am in error then please show me. If not, then I fail to see how Michael Wood is not aware of this distinction, if he is as thorough at spotting 'conspiracies' as he makes out.
The other 'error' I spotted was where Wood claims that Jerome lied about the verse: 'he shall be called a Nazarene'. Jerome claimed this was not in the Septuagint and I cannot find it in the Septuagint either:
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/07-judges-nets.pdf
Wood says ''this phrase was never missing from the Septuagint in the first place! It is found in Judges 13:5.'' The word 'Nazarene' is not found there but rather 'Nazarite' which I believe is an entirely different word. According to Wood, Jerome claimed it was in the Hebrew text, which again I cannot find, so Wood seems to right about that point:
http://biblelexicon.org/judges/13-5.htm
I wonder why Jerome would 'lie' about this, when other scholars could have checked this verse in the available Hebrew manuscripts?? If I'm wrong on these matters then I hope someone shows me where.
On your second point, it does seem 'strange' that our Bibles today may convey a way different message to what the original message intended, and so we're being led a wild goose chase. :dontknow:
Matthew 2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.
3480 Nazwrai/oj Nazoraios {nad-zo-rah'-yos}
Meaning: Nazarite = "one separated" 1) an inhabitant of Nazareth 2) a title given to Jesus in the NT
Judges 13:5 For, lo, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and no razor shall come on his head: for the child shall be a Nazarite unto God from the womb: and he shall begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines.
Meaning: 1) consecrated or devoted one, Nazarite 1a) consecrated one 1b) devotee, Nazarite 1c) untrimmed (vine)
Looks like Nazarite can mean Nazarene -> set apart/devoted to God.
Quotethe Greek word is 'aion'
The plural form.
I've been checking out the difference between Nazarene and Nazarite and I found this:
''In English, the town (Nazareth) and the vow in Numbers (Nazarite), seem to be similar. But in Hebrew they are two totally different words. The town, transliterated, would be: Nats-raht. While the vow would be: nah-zear.
It becomes very clear then, that what the Gospels are doing is not making Jesus out to be the 'vow taker' but 'the Branch' for the meaning of Nazareth is 'branch,' a very powerful messianic title used by a number of prophets: ''
http://www.seedofabraham.net/naz.html
I don't understand your reference to the plural of 'aion'?? :mshock:
QuoteI don't understand your reference to the plural of 'aion'??
It's not age but ages. Two different Greek words.
Quote"In English, the town (Nazareth) and the vow in Numbers (Nazarite), seem to be similar. But in Hebrew they are two totally different words. The town, transliterated, would be: Nats-raht. While the vow would be: nah-zear.
Sorry I lost track now.
Matthew is written in Greek.
What I quoted is the translation according to Strong linked to KJV.
According to Strong Nazarite=Nazarine
QuoteIt becomes very clear then, that what the Gospels are doing is not making Jesus out to be the 'vow taker' but 'the Branch' for the meaning of Nazareth is 'branch,' a very powerful messianic title used by a number of prophets: "
The
untrimmed vineCompanion Bible:
QuoteFor, lo, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and no razor shall come on his head: for the child shall be one separate unto Elohim from the womb: and he shall begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines."For, lo, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and no razor shall come on his head: for the child shall be one separate unto Elohim from the womb: and he shall begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines."
There are some differences in the translations and in the word defenitions.
Checking out your link now:
Matthew 2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.
It gets very interesting when we read John 19:19 which is: 'Pilate also wrote an inscription and put it on the cross. It was written, 'Jesus the Nazarene, the King of the Jews.' It can equally be translated like this: 'Jesus My Branch, the King of the Jews.'
That means that according to that article Nazarene=branch
Judges uses the term Nazarite. The defenition of Nazarite is untrimmed vine (a branch)
Some IMO Nazarite=Nazarene=Branch=the One set aside
All purely based on English translations because I can't read Hebrew.
Hi WhiteWings :bigGrin: Thanks for checking these things. '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'. So Michael Wood was either being dishonest himself to claim Ephesians 3:11 contains 'aionios' when the manuscript from the link I provided shows it as 'aion'. Do you see what I mean? :mshock: or he wasn't careful to check the exact words like we are doing. This is how it seems. Maybe I am wrong. I'm not that observant and things usually go over my head but I just happened to check this claim of Wood's and voila- he seems to be mistaken.
Now to the Nazarene/Nazarite comparison. When you google this, you get many articles. This one I found interesting as a $1000 reward was offered: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/115
But this short article seems to explain it the most convincingly (well to me anyway): http://www.learnthebible.org/nazarene.html
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? :bgdance:
Quote'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.
QuoteI 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...
QuoteNow 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/115
The verse isn't discussing the title of Jesus. Just where He lived. So the meaning is "irrelevant"
QuoteWhat, 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:
QuoteNow 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...
You are quite right in what you are saying. Please don't misunderstand my intentions. The whole point of Wood's book is that he has unearthed a conspiracy. If the points I've mentioned are somewhat dishonest (intentional or not) on Wood's part then it does make you wonder on the rest of his claims and whether the conspiracy is actually 'his'. :winkgrin: It doesn't really matter to me about the Nazarene/Nazarite connection. Both 'understandings' are plausable. It's the way Wood has made a big 'deal' out of it in a sneaky way almost.
One good thing about this book is that it has got me checking stuff. I'm presently checking out this whole 'aionios' 'conspiracy', and I am rather concerned that I'm not finding leading Greek scholars who seem to support UR's view of this word. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong places. :mblush: Anyhow, I'm going onto a nother subject which may already exist somewhere on here. Bye for now........... :gangel:
Quote from: Cat on July 21, 2009, 11:04:18 PM
One good thing about this book is that it has got me checking stuff. I'm presently checking out this whole 'aionios' 'conspiracy', and I am rather concerned that I'm not finding leading Greek scholars who seem to support UR's view of this word. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong places. :mblush: Anyhow, I'm going onto a nother subject which may already exist somewhere on here. Bye for now........... :gangel:
Make sure you don't mix up current definition with the definition from that time.
Another aproach is to start from the Hebrew OT. Then compare with the LXX to see how people from that time translated Hebrew to Greek. In that case you need leading Hebrew scholars to define the Hebrew words.
I looked up 'olam' in a 'on line' Hebrew Bible and they translate it the same as us (everlasting, eternal) (By 'us' I mean mainstream Christian scholars/translators). I wonder why the Jews who aren't swayed by our NT 'understandings' also make the same mistake..... I'll check some more Jewish sources to see if this is true generally. The plot thickens................ :mshock:
Cat,
Few quick quotes and links.
http://www.tentmaker.org/books/time/index.html
http://www.growthingod.org.uk/AeonRelm.htm
http://www.ocis.net/~rmckay/forever.html
QuoteIn Leviticus, 23:37–41, they were ordered to celebrate the seven-day Khag of
Tabernacles because it was "a µl[ tqj (khoquth olam),"9 i.e., a world-age lasting
statute.10 The Khag of Weeks is also specifically referred to in the Torah as
a "khoquth olam (world-age lasting statute)."11
thanks for the links WhiteWings. I shall check them out later today. :thumbsup:
I've had a look at the links and they seem to saying what a lot of other sites say. The problem I have though, is that the people who write these articles don't appear to be experts in NT Greek or OT Hebrew. So it is possible they are relaying the same information which might originate with people who want these words to mean something else in order to support the belief in UR. Has anyone got any sites or sources that support the UR understanding of 'owlam' and 'aionios' which are from 'experts' in the languages? I've come across an online Tanach, and yet again, they are translating 'owlam' as 'everlasting' or 'perpetual'. I've emailed them about this and I'll continue to research this. :bigGrin: I'll let you know if they come back to me......
Cat,
Some logical thinking goes a long way too.
Exodus 21:6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever/owlam.
=> slaves don't live forever
Jeremiah 7:7 Then will I cause you to dwell in this place, in the land that I gave to your fathers, for ever/owlam and ever/owlam
=> multiple owlams/eternities?
There are many more similar verses; but I think the above two prove that owlam does not (always) mean eternal.
Referring to time past literally from olam(מֵעוֹלָם and מִן הָעוֹלָם). These phrases occur at least 20 times, a sample of which I will quote, using typical standard translations:
I have kept silent for a long time (Isaiah 42: 14).
Mighty men which were of old (Gen 6: 4).
From everlasting to everlasting, you are God (Psalm 90: 2) (as below)
You are from everlasting (Psalm 93: 2).
They were the inhabitants of the land from ancient times (1 Sa 27: 8).
From ancient times your fathers lived beyond the River (Joshua 24: 2).
It is an ancient nation (Jer 5: 15).
All the above are translations of the same Hebrew phrase from olam, but clearly the length of time varies. The shortest is the length of time Isaiah had kept silent. The longest is the length of time that God has been God!
Quote from: WhiteWings on July 22, 2009, 09:14:25 PM
Cat,
Some logical thinking goes a long way too.
Exodus 21:6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever/owlam.
=> slaves don't live forever
Jeremiah 7:7 Then will I cause you to dwell in this place, in the land that I gave to your fathers, for ever/owlam and ever/owlam
=> multiple owlams/eternities?
There are many more similar verses; but I think the above two prove that owlam does not (always) mean eternal.
I absolutely agree. I wonder why these verses are translated that way when common sense dictates a different word?
Anyhow, I've come across this amazing website called 'Ancient Hebrew Research Centre' http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/1_about.html
I must give credit to the author of the 'mercifultruth' website as he directed me to it a while ago and I'd only glanced at it fleetingly to say the least. Here is a very interesting article about 'olam' from it:
http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/27_eternity.html
I just need to find something similar for 'aionios' now :laughing7:
Quote from: Cat on July 22, 2009, 10:13:49 PM
I just need to find something similar for 'aionios' now :laughing7:
Maybe have that Cat... :laughing7:
It may look like I sidetracked the thread from Greek to Hebrew.
The Sepurgint/LXX is a Greek translation from the Hebrew OT.
So my thought is this:
a] Find forever/eternal/world in the English OT
b] Look up that verse in the LXX and see what Greek word is used.
c] Look up the Hebrew word.
Then you sorta double checked the meaning of the verse. Using Hebrew and Greek word definitions.
If you like you can write to the Jewish Times: http://www.mesora.org/
Every month they answer questions from readers. Always in a friendly way by a Rabbi.
I have all the magazines and I'm 90% sure I've read an article about owlam in on of the mags.
I search for you but haven't found it yet.
The definition of the Rabbi was something like: hidden time.
Like unknow duration. And that seems to line up perfectly with the few verses I quoted above.
So for me it's certain that aion and owlam mean a time of varying duration. I think it's very hard to deny that.
But that knowledge won't help you much. You can prove it can last from days to (moses din't speak) to teh age of teh mountains.
But surely some ET will say: You are completely right Cat, the duration varies, and in this verse about hell it means for ever....
Quote from: Cat on July 22, 2009, 10:13:49 PM
There are many more similar verses; but I think the above two prove that owlam does not (always) mean eternal.
That's hard to say for sure:
a] Their knowledge of Hebrew was not perfect. (I always wonder why OT translators are never Jews...)
b] They biased. (Denonibation)
c] An attempt to make the Bibkle easier to understand.
d] Figure of speech.
Example of d.
WhiteWing: Cat how often do you read the Bible?
Cat: Every Saturday evening.
You are not correct. You won't be reading in a 100 years...
Did you lie? Or did you just use a the same words millions of other English speaking people use?
Most sane people will understand you are not claiming to read after you dead. The limitation is clear and accepted.
But in religion.... that limitation is removed in certain contexts.
That's why IMO translations should be a literal as possible.
The English OT translation is already missing half of the information so lets not wreck the remaining half with (well intended) alterations.
:2c:
Quote from: WhiteWings on July 22, 2009, 10:33:13 PM
But surely some ET will say: You are completely right Cat, the duration varies, and in this verse about hell it means for ever....
Or they may say the comparison of 'life' to 'punishment' doesn't imply
different ideas of time. If the 'life' Jesus promises stretches off into a distant point we can't comprehend with our finite minds, then the punishment (which I believe is not conscious punishment) also stretches into a incomprehensible time period.
It's been suggested that 'aionios' doesn't mean 'age- during' but rather 'pertaining to an age' which surely is not in keeping with it's Hebrew counterpart 'olam'. We have seen that 'olam' is referring to 'time' but time we aren't always aware of, or that we can measure. (I hope that is right). If we take Habbakuk 3:6 and those 'everlasting hills' and we treat 'owlam' like 'aionios' and say 'the hills pertaining to the age' that doesn't seem to make sense. So is 'aionios' a word about 'time' and to our understanding 'varying lengths of time' or is it a word about belonging to a certain time period? :dontknow:
(I've got some scriptures which were sent to me by a ET Christian which seem to refute UR. I'll post a new thread to discuss them. Look out for it. :bigGrin:
QuoteIt's been suggested that 'aionios' doesn't mean 'age- during' but rather 'pertaining to an age' which surely is not in keeping with it's Hebrew counterpart 'olam'. We have seen that 'olam' is referring to 'time' but time we aren't always aware of, or that we can measure.
It's a bit how you look at it Cat.
If I say to you: Cat it will last a while.
Do you know how long it lasts? 10 minutes? 10 hours? A week?
I've shown verses owlam has very duration.
Similar verses can be found for aion(ios).
Same for the word Yom which is translated as day in the creation account. I can also mean very long times.
I mentioned that a Rabbi defines Owlam as 'mystery time'
The article you mentioned speaks about time being on the horizon.
We can check and prove the duration of all yoms, aions and owlams besides the ones of the afterlife.
We can prove most because most of them are history for us. We know when the slave died. We know when the everlasting kingdom of a king ended. But for the people living in that owlam is was unclear. On the horizon. A mystery.
And that is what binds yom, owlam and aion. The duration is unknow. Only Father/Son/HS know the end of an owlam. You can guess the remaining duration of the aion-of-Cat. But you can't give an exact date. Unlike when you speak for example of a well defined period like second.
I've just come across this amazing series and in episode 11, it starts talking about 'Nazarene and Nazarite', which we were discussing earlier in this thread. It's really interesting and is here if anyone wants to check it out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qae9J5rotbE&feature=related
:bigGrin:
p.s
give it a minute or so as it's still talking about the previous episode's topic at the beginning.