TD
I’m ABSOLUTELY appalled that you have the audacity to suggest that Jerome may have had a deeper understanding of the ancient language than what I do.
So what do YOU think, are you inclined to think that simply because the translator of the Vulgate is “reputed” to be familiar with the source language that he understood it perfectly, and was above making mistakes? Was Jerome infallible with his translation thoughout? Did Jerome even have a full understanding of the Bible that he translated? Do you suppose that there have been respected modern-day translators that have disagreed with Jerome on some point or another as to translation? Another thing: Isn’t it true that oftentimes translators have to rely upon the context as an aid for knowing precisely how to translate certain words? And, what’s more, isn’t that proven to be the case in the tempest at sea example, as well as others? … Wasn’t the word used in those examples simply seismos? And yet it was obviously not an earthquake, was it!
You implied that there might be other objections that could be raised. What would those be in your estimation? Please elaborate.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thirdson
You make an interesting point about "seismos" but TD's question on the Latin Vulgate needs to be addressed.
Well ADDRESS it, my man. What are you waiting on … the moon to turn to blood? YOU can do it just as easily as ole Friday can. Why do I have to do everything?
Other places seismos is used in Greek apear to be earthquakes by the context of the passage as at Acts 16:26 and Rev 11:13.
Well, Thirdson, Acts 16:26 is an example of a seismos that affected the “foundations” of the jail in which Paul and Silas were imprisoned. Although most translations (NWT included) attribute what happened to an earthquake having occurred, no mention is made in the Greek text of the earth itself having quaked. Nor was such mandatory in order to make possible the results described. Unquestionably, God, the source of the seismos, is capable of shaking foundations without first needing to cause an earthquake to accomplish it. Again, there was no “earthquake” -- only a shaking (seismos). You might find it interesting that the Diaglott translated this seismos as “a shaking”, and in its right hand column called it -- not an earthquake -- but a “concussion”. It reads: “And suddenly there was a great concussion, so as to shake the foundations of the prison; and all the doors were opened, and the fetters of all were loosed.”
Insofar as the text you refer to at Revelation 11:13, the idea of a concussion fits as well as the thought of an earthquake.
There has been a long history of translation of the Bible which would agree with that conclusion.
A long history of translation of the Bible don’t mean diddly squat, Thirdson. And you really should know that, since today’s translators are able to boast of having identified and eliminated hundreds of errors that earlier translators had committed.
In addition, seismos doesn't just mean shaking but more literally a commotion either of the air (gales) or the ground (earthquakes). The "shaking" of Matt 8:24 is variously translated as storm or tempest and as "agitation in the sea" (NWT).
I came back to correct myself here after I gave more thought to what you said. Yes you're right, but it should be understood that the word seismos of itself has nothing whatsoever to do with the identity of what shook. The identifying word in the text is “sea”. Notice: “Now, look! a great agitation (seismos) arose in the sea, so that the boat was being covered by the waves.” The same is true in the example of the incident involving Paul and Silas, the identifying word is the word “foundation”. Again the same holds true with regards to the text of Matthew 27:51, the identifying word being the word “earth”. Note: “… and the earth [yn] shook [seismos], and the rocks were split.”
That’s why that when it comes to the text of Matthew 24:7 one has to look for the word or words in the context that identifies what is supposed to have shaken. In that particular case it was the nations themselves, on an international scale (nation against nation and kingdom against kingdom = international). So we see that in each case there was a word that served as an identifier.
This is what Bible commentator J. A. Seiss, author of The Apocalypse had to say on page 152 of his book. He discusses this word, seismos, in connection with its use in Revelation 6:12. It goes as follows:
“I saw when he had opened the sixth seal, and there was a great shaking.” The common version [KJV] says earthquake, but the original word (seismos) is not so limited and specific. Though usually rendered earthquake, it denotes quakings in general, and is often used for any sudden and violent shaking in any part of the world. In the following verse it is applied to the shaking of the fig tree. Matthew employs it to express tempestuous commotion of the air and sea (8:24); and in the Greek translation of Joel (2:10), it is used to denote violent disturbances in the heavens. In the form of a verb, it signifies to shake, toss, agitate, -- whether the things shaken be the earth, the air, the sea, the sky, or anything else. -- Joseph Seiss
Well, gentlemen, I’m gonna retire for the night … it’s getting quite late. This will have me sleeping ‘till noon again tomorrow. In the meantime don’t trip over your Bibles.
Later,
Friday
