|
I recently picked up a
copy of Michael Rood's, "The Pagan-Christian Connection
Exposed" so that I could read and review it, after being
told that it was a must read, and was full of essential
information for every believer.
The book is a paperback, and consists of one hundred twenty
three pages. One of the things that I noticed during my
initial perusal, was that it contained no footnotes at the
end to document any consulted sources used that were
historical, religious, scientific, archaeological or
otherwise, that may have been referenced in its writing.
There was a note in the intro pages stating that all
scripture was from the King James Version of the Bible,
"unless otherwise noted." I thought it rather odd that
Michael Rood would quote from the KJV in light of the fact
that it contains the word "Easter" (Acts12:4), which was one
of the words and holidays discussed by him that he was
attempting to expose as being pagan in origin. Because of what
appeared to be an apparent contradiction in standards, I
felt that this needed to be verified before proceeding any
further.
The first passage that I
checked was in the introduction on page XVI. Although the
passages were in quotes, and books and verses were cited at
the bottom of the page, upon examination, it appeared to be
a paraphrase of some combined passages, not KJV in origin. I
then went on to do this throughout the book. What I found
after reviewing all of the scripture passages quoted in the
book, was that there were a handful of KJV passages that were
correct in their entirety, and some passages that were
partially KJV with words omitted, altered or mixed with someone's own
paraphrase, possibly Michael's. There were also some
passages where I could not clearly identify the translation,
but they were not KJV. None of these variant passages
were "otherwise noted", with the exception of one, that was
labeled MIV. A similar situation had also occurred
a few years
back, in an earlier
book of Michael's titled, "The Mystery of Iniquity",
regarding the homogenous blending of scripture with some of
his own thoughts. I am not personally familiar with the
origins of the MIV translation he sometimes cited, and was
unable to find any information on it.
In many of the passages that contained partial quotes from
the KJV, Michael Rood most always substituted the word
Messiah for Christ. On page ninety, when referencing
Deuteronomy 12:30 he quoted a mixture of KJV and some other
version combining verse 30 and 31, inserting the names YHWH
and Elohim into the passage. These names appear in the
Hebrew text in verse 31, but do not appear in the KJV
translation. In the book, he explained that he
prefers to use the Hebrew term Mashiyach or Messiah, because
it refers to THE ONE that Moses spoke of when stating, "you
must listen to that prophet". He also went on to say
that the Greeks called all their gods Christos (Christ) from
adonis to zeus, and that it merely meant "anointed" and this
is why he preferred the name Messiah.
As an additional note, the
title of Mashiyach (#4899) appears in the Hebrew text thirty
nine times in the Hebrew Scriptures (OT). In the majority of
cases, it is translated as "anointed," and refers to priests
such as Aaron, or others who were anointed. It is
only translated from the Hebrew twice as Messiah. The Greek
equivalent for Mashiyach only appears in the New Testament
as Messias (#3323) on two occasions, both in the book of
John.
In the Greek version of the Hebrew Old Testament known
as the Septuagint (LXX), Mashiyach is rendered in the Greek
as Christos (#5547) all thirty nine times it appears in the
Greek OT text. This text was reportedly translated by
seventy Hebrew scribes into Greek for the library of Ptolemy
at Alexandria, and it has been stated that the initial
translation occurred a few centuries before the Messiah was
here on earth.
Michael emphasizes that he
is a Jewish follower of the Jewish Messiah, and therefore
prefers to use the name
YAHshua. It also appears that
Michael Rood is not very enamored with the name "Jesus". I
base my opinion on the fact that he refers to Jesus in two
separate chapters of his book rather flippantly as "His
Gentile nickname". It is interesting to note that Iesous
(#2424) is a transliterated Greek name from the Hebrew
Yeshua (#3442), which is the shortened form of Yehoshua
(#3091). When the scribes translated the Greek OT from the
Hebrew, in all instances where Yeshua or Yehoshua occurred
in the Hebrew text, it was rendered in the Greek OT text as
Iesous. The name Iesous was derived according to the rules that
govern Hebrew to Greek transliteration. I do not believe
that the name YAHshua can be transliterated to a Biblical
Greek name according to those same rules.
In his book, Michael Rood
recounted an experience that they had while filming a "man
on the street" interview in downtown Jerusalem on what he
referred to as the "Ben YAHuda pedestrian mall". He and his
crew looked for people specifically who were fluent in both
English and Hebrew to interview. They then asked them if all
Hebrew names had a meaning and if so, what was the meaning
of the name "Jesus?"
Here is what Michael reported:
"The responses were
priceless. First, the startled look on their faces as they
perceived that they were being put on the spot regarding a
religious issue. Many of those that we interviewed were
orthodox Jews. Then the verbal stumbles that exhibited
their desire to give an accurate answer to a very
difficult, if not impossible question.
Finally the truth came
out as they struggled for the right words to
express..."Nothing! The name "Jesus" doesn't mean anything
in the Hebrew language- Jesus is not a Hebrew name." One
gentleman suggested that Jesus must have been a Mexican,
because there are hundreds of thousands of Mexicans who
are named Jesus, but not a single Jew in the history of
the world has ever been named "Jesus!" Out of the mouth of
babes..." (page 77-78)
Maybe Michael's next
question should have been, "What do the names Isaiah,
Jeremiah, John, Joshua, Joel, James, Jude or Judah mean in
Hebrew?" He would have gotten the same answer. Nothing,
because they are also transliterated names that appear in
our English Bibles.
If he had explained to
them the etymology of the name Jesus (English-Jesus>Latin-Iesus>Greek-Iesous>Hebrew-Yeshua/Yehoshua) then they might have given him a
different answer. Maybe Michael Rood would
have been better served if he went on some scholarly Hebrew
and Greek language forums, where people are versed in
etymological understanding and posed his same questions
there. Or better yet, since Michael is now living in
Jerusalem, a quick visit with the noted Dead Sea Scrolls and
Septuagint (LXX) scholar
Emmanuel Tov
at Hebrew University
might be beneficial in his language research. Michael might
want to ask him why the Hebrew scribes in every instance,
transliterated Yehoshua and Yeshua to Iesous over two
hundred times, and Mashiyach to Christos all thirty nine
times that it appears in the Septuagint (LXX). He might also
want to inquire if transliterating the Hebrew names to the
Greek diminished the original meaning of the Hebrew name,
when read in the Greek by the Hellenic Jews living in
diaspora throughout the ancient Roman Empire.
But an even simpler solution,
would be to go to the inspired Scriptures, and he would have
found:
Matthew 1
21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call
his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their
sins.
With just a simple
concordance search for the name Jesus found in the above
passage, we clearly find the meaning:
Greek for 2424
of Hebrew origin 03091
Jesus = "Jehovah is salvation"
1) Jesus, the Son of God, the Saviour of mankind, God
incarnate
If he had asked the people
on the streets of Jerusalem what Yehoshua meant, they would
have given Michael Rood a similar answer to what is found in
the concordance. The difference being, that they would have
substituted Adonai (LORD) or HaShem (the Name) for what is
written in the Hebrew Scriptures as Yod-Hey-Vav-Hey (YHVH),
which is rendered in the English Concordance as "Jehovah".
It appears that what Michael Rood has done, is to completely
set aside the study of etymology, and then attempted to set
up a situation where he could achieve the answer that he
required to support his theology. This is akin to
controlling the input on an experiment in an attempt to
achieve a desired controlled outcome. Maybe while on the
streets of Jerusalem, Michael would have been better off
asking the people that he interviewed, "Slikha-- eyfo rkhov
ben YAHudah? (excuse me, where is ben YAHudah street?).
The pronunciation "YAHudah"
may have gotten him a few strange looks from those he
questioned. Ben YEHuda they certainly would have recognized,
as that is the correct pronunciation. Or maybe he should
have ask them who
YAHshua was? They would have recognized
the name Yehoshua as the one who followed Moses, who led the
children of Israel into the promised land, the one we call
Joshua in our English Bibles. If he said YAHshua, they may
have thought that he was asking them who is salvation (yasha
or yaw-shah') with a peculiar sounding pronunciation, since
no such Hebrew name occurs in the Hebrew scriptures.
By the statements that I have seen Michael Rood make, and
the pronunciations that he uses, I find some of his language
scholarship open to question.
In his teaching, "The Oracles of God & The Road to
Emmanus", Michael Rood, while filming inside the shrine
of The Book in Jerusalem, and standing in front of the
Aleppo Ben Asher Codex which is written in Hebrew stated:
"The scriptures are the
written oracles which were committed to Israel's keeping.
To this very day, amidst a myriad of translations of the
Bible, there still remain only three Hebrew texts from
which all other Hebrew texts have been painstakingly
copied. The oldest is the Ben Asher codex which is housed
here in the shrine of the Book in Jerusalem. The Hebrew
text of the Torah, is still in the exact order that it was
thirty four hundred years ago, when Moses penned every
letter by revelation."
After reading the above quote, I
reflected on this passage from the Torah:
Deuteronomy 34
5 And Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the land
of Moab, according to the word of the LORD. 6 And He
buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, opposite Beth-peor.
But no man knows of his grave to this day. 7 And Moses was
a hundred and twenty years old when he died. His eye was
not dim, nor had he lost any of his natural strength. 8
And the sons of Israel wept for Moses in the plains of
Moab thirty days. And the days of weeping and mourning for
Moses were ended.
Did Moses write his own
obituary, or was Michael Rood's recollection of what is
actually written in the Torah, and the details of who penned
“every letter” a little cloudy? I ask this question in light
of the fact that Michael Rood is billed as a Jewish scholar
and theologian, and Biblical historian.
If Michael Rood does know
Hebrew as he alludes, and if he took the time to examine the
pointed Hebrew in the Ben Asher text, he would have learned
two very important items that would be useful in his
teaching. The first being, that Yod-Hey-Vav-Dalet-Hey, as it
is written in the text hundreds of times, complete with the
vowel pointings (nikud)
of the scribes, would be pronounced as YEHuda (yeh-hoo-daw'),
not "YAHuda" (YAH-hoo-daw') as he pronounces it.
Secondly, if he were to
examine where Yod-Hey-Vav-Hey (YHWH) appears in the
Hebrew text,
with the same nikud that was "painstakingly" written by the
faithful scribes, if read as written it would most likely be pronounced as Yehowah.
YHWH is not found pointed as Yahweh in any Hebrew
text, and Michael's associate Nehemiah Gordon
could most likely confirm this for him. This brings up
another interesting observation.
If Michael Rood feels that
the Hebrew scribes were faithful copyists as he has stated,
then why would he try to tarnish their good names, by
promoting the corrupt
Shem Tov Matthew
a text that scholars have analyzed as being a
medieval
Hebrew copy
from a Latin text, while ascribing that it was a
direct descendant of an original Hebrew text as he has
recently done?
I noticed
that on the back cover of his latest book, that he is
referred to as a "bearded Israeli". This was a surprise to
me, because I had recalled him stating in an earlier
teaching on his interpretation of Zechariah 5 titled
"Zechariah's Thermonuclear War", that he was raised on an
orchard somewhere in Michigan. This is what he stated:
“Growing up
on an orchard in Michigan, I know what a peck of apples
looks like - whether it is in the old wooden basket with
wire handles, or in a white paper sack with nylon handles.
A peck, like an ephah, is a measurement – it is a
container. But this is a container that flies! It is a
flying container that is 34.3 feet long and it is 5.5 feet
in diameter and it is going to destroy all of those who
are outside of God’s will in the land of Israel.“
In the next paragraph on the back
cover, it refers to him as is "Jewish scholar and
theologian". In the earliest version of his book "The
Mystery of Iniquity", before he had made revisions as he
did in his latter versions, in chapter five under the title
"Return to sender", Michael Rood stated this:
"The called out, or
church, has taken on a new dimension since Pentecost.
Those who looked forward to the coming Messiah, and those
who look back at the Messiah who came, are both "in
Christ". He will raise them together at the first
resurrection, on the day of The Lord Jesus Christ. The
faithful in Israel anticipated the resurrection. Moses and
David will share in the honor of reigning with Jesus in
his millennial kingdom. By grace, we Gentiles will share
in the same victory." [bolding added]
I found the above
information about Michael being raised in Michigan, and the
statement of “we Gentiles” from Michael's earlier book, to
be of interest since he is continually reminding his readers
to "leave your modern, western gentile mentality behind". On
one of his earlier teaching tapes titled Doctrine of the
Nicolaitains he stated “I belonged to a cult, I grew up
in a cult, the Baptist church”. It has also been reported
that Michael was leadership in The Way International before
he began to pursue his “Hebrew roots”.
In his latest book, he
refers to the dangers associated with “gentile”
interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures, such as “Western
Gentile Christian fabrication” (pg 40) and warns us that if
the reader does not understand the feasts that “...the
Gospels will remain shallow and confusing to the western
Gentile reader” (pg 96) while “...the book of Revelation
will remain an indecipherable time warp continuum to the
Gentile Christian mind” (pg 120). These are interesting
statements considering that by his own admission, Michael
was raised as a Western Gentile Christian , who is now
attempting to teach his readers from a “Hebrew, or Jewish
perspective” as a “Jewish Scholar and Theologian”. In his
book, he also stated “We are going to let the Jews interpret
the Scriptures that the Jews have written...and on the
bottom corner margin of the final page in this book I have
reserved ample room for the Gentiles to interpret all of the
Scriptures that the Gentiles have written!” (page 69) If the
reader reviews the above statements and admissions by
Michael Rood, one might consider whether Michael should in
fact be teaching or interpreting the Scriptures, based on
Michael's own standards and qualifications as defined by him
in his above statements and guidelines.
I had not looked at his
previous book for quite some time so I wanted to do a
comparison, and found that much of the information that he
attempts to put forth is common to both books. I was quite surprised to find Michael using the
terms "church", "Jesus", "The Lord Jesus Christ", and other
similar terms throughout his earlier writing, which it
appears that he has now has an aversion to. Looking back
to, "The Mystery of Iniquity", and an additional
teaching that he later released about Zechariah 5 titled, "Zechariah's
Thermonuclear War", I found some of his assertions
questionable in his interpretation of the Hebrew scriptures. This was in reference to the word
rendered in the English text as "woman" and his substitution
of it with the word meaning "fire". He had stated that by
reading the passage utilizing an alternate vowel pointing,
that it could be translated as an offering made by fire.
Here is what he stated:
"That is the moment that
I knew that this had come by revelation, and not by my
mind. I was not smart enough to know this, nor did I have
the tools in my hand to figure it out. ‘Aisha - fire
offering’ and ‘Isha - woman’ are the same consonants in
Hebrew - the context determines the meaning. The Karaites
in the middle ages who developed the Masoretic text, used
the vowel point that interpreted this word as ‘woman’
because they too had no idea of it’s prophetic
significance. A fire offering in a flying container that
incinerates buildings throughout Israel did not make any
sense a thousand years ago – but neither did an evil woman
in a lead lidded basket! For over 1,000 years, every
translation of the Hebrew Scriptures on the planet has
been derived from the same Karaite Masorah – with the same
dot under the Aleph – a dot that did not exist in the
original text. From that same text, every translation, in
every language has been resultant."
It appears that his
reasoning for doing the word substitution, was based on his
belief that the Masoretic scribes who he referred to as
Karaite, may have incorrectly pointed the text because they
did not understand the true meaning of the passage. I
remembered that I also had some questions about the
calculations that he used in this teaching a few years back,
and if he had based his equations on the dimensions of an
actual Biblical ephah, and a Biblical cubit. I say this because it was not clear to me how he
could have possibly arrived at his dimensions, which he
proposed as being a nuclear missile. Update: For
further discussion on Zechariah's Thermonuclear War please
see:
Michael Rood Teachings 2
>Changing the
Word of God, Old Testament: Zechariah's Thermonuclear War
Some other topics that Michael discusses in "The
Pagan-Christian Connection Exposed", are the
Karaites and their importance,
and how when he and his wife were married, that they entered
into a traditional Karaite covenant to observe the feasts of
"Yahweh" according to their biblical method of marking time.
He explains how his
Astronomically and Agriculturally Corrected Biblical
Hebrew Calendar (AACBHC) helps to accomplish this, and he
also touches a bit on
biblical astronomy. He
discusses the archaeological find of Noah's Ark and the
work of Ron Wyatt. He also
briefly discusses the time that he spent in the
U.S. Marines, and at times
seems to exhibit some almost anti government sentiment as he
refers to the American public school system as "government
public re-education centers" and "government re-education
day camps".
Michael Rood expounds his
theories on Sodom and Gomorrah, and he discusses the
obelisks that can be found in Washington D.C. and other
places. He proposes that they represent the image of the
uncircumcised penis of nimrod who is described as the father
of babylonian sun god worship, and also how christmas tree
ball ornaments are symbolic of the testicles of the sun god
ra. In his book, he discusses the babylonian fertility
goddess Ishtar and her association to rabbits and eggs,
while referring to her as Easter. He also discusses his
perceived errors of the "Christian" church of today while he
attempts to associate it with Sodom and Gomorrah, and the
other cultures that practiced the mystery religions.
After
reviewing this book, I will now place it in the same box
with the many other sacred name bibles, and sacred
name-Hebrew roots books that I have been given over the
years. Many of them were lacking any footnotes to
substantiate their claims, and were based on conjecture and
extra-biblical supposition that was not scripturally
provable. There were some things presented in Michael Rood's
book that can be proven factual, and you can read many of
those same facts in the encyclopedia at your local library.
In the encyclopedia they will most likely be footnoted
to aid in your further research.
This is my opinion based on what I have learned, what I
understand, and what I believe. As always, I would recommend
that everyone research all that I have discussed, and prove
it for yourself.
For we are told:
1Thessalonians 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
Higher Truth
|
