Micah 5:2

That is exactly what the NIV says and means. And most other modern versions allude to this also.

Because these modern versions support the deity in other places doesn't make it right to create doubts in Mic. 5:2 and in other places.

Bottom line - your assessment of the NIV there is right. But others will surely disagree.

 

The Hebrew word rendered 'goings forth' in the KJV & 'origins' in later versions is mowtsa'ah, which indeed can mean 'origins'.

AND...

'Goings forth' often meant 'origins' in archaic English.

Now, I'm not suggesting anything in the line that Jesus had an origin...I'm just reminding you of what the Hebrew says, and what it means in English.(Note: That same Hebrew word can mean 'privy' in English!)

 

The point of Micah 5:2 is about Christ's lineage as a king being old, as in back o the time of David, which is the whole point in the verse. He is David's son and goes back to the time of David.

This should be helpful.

The charge that the NIV or other MVs compromise the doctrine of Christ is clearly misguided. It does no such thing.

 

Isn't MV usually used to refer to the NT, and the Greek as opposed to the OT and the Hebrew/Chaldee? Your usage is technically correct, but somewhat unusual, I would think. Especially since there seems to be far more controversy over the various Greek texts than over the Hebrew/Chaldee. Translation is well another question.

Ed

 

Incredible

2 Tim 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine;

 

Rebuke a fool in his folly lest he be wise in his own eyes. Proverbs 26:5
*****************************************************
Do not rebuke a fool lest you be like unto him. Proverbs 26:4

I think we’ve crossed a line.

Rob

 

You are correct. People who do not endure sound doctrine will grasp at the foolish notion that the NIV compromises the doctrine of Christ. It is unfortuate that in this age with so many resources readily available we still have people who refuse to believe.

Quite Frankly, Bunyan, what you should do is interact with the material posted. Can you explain any of it? Do you understand it? Do you even care?

But Rob is right ... We have probably crossed the line here.

 

My point was that if folks can’t see that:
1. Demoting the title of the Lord Jesus Christ to just: Jesus, Lord, Christ, Lord Jesus, He, etc. on a regular basis…
2. Changing him, Jesus, etc. to the new age “One” on a regular basis…
3. Making Christ have an origin – Mic 5:2…
4. Taking the variations of the word worship out…
And other changes…

If folks do not have a problem with just those on Christ alone then yes, ‘For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine;” fits.

And yes, we have probably crossed the line a bit but I was seeking to make a general assessment and at least I didn’t call you a fool like Deacon called me. :laugh:


God bless :wavey:

 

The question is why do you have a problem with people who believe our translations should say what the original author wrote and intended to say? Every single one of your points is based on your assumptions that are not founded.

Micah 5:2 does not give Jesus an origin in the NIV. You simply need to understand what was being said. That is why I posted what I did. And you have yet to interact with it. Why? Are you scared that it is right? Why not compare other places where a similar phrase is used? Why not look at the context of Micah 5:2?

that is the task of exegesis. Exegesis is not about comparing what something says with the KJV.

It seems to me that it is you who will not endure sound doctrine. When you came face to face with it, you didn't interact with it; you rejected it.

 

Bunyan makes 4 "charges," plus "others..."

Then, when given some good material on charge #3, ignores it, because he has no valid answer.

So then, he red-herrings the thread, with other unfounded arguments that aren't even germane to the original post, which he is now ignoring...

Sheesh.

 

OK, is Jesus from everlasting or ancient times?

You can deduce the "origens" but one cannot deny He is from everlasting without doctrinal error.

 

"The question is why do you have a problem with people who believe our translations should say what the original author wrote and intended to say?"

So now the question becomes was God inspiring Micah or did God reject what He inspired Micah to write and re-inspired McCabe to correct Micah?

 

If you and others cannot see these and other changes after all that has been written by Burgon, Hills, Reagan, JJRay, Clark, Dr. Ruckman, Riplinger, etc. and the many websites documenting and explaininig these changes, (for the facts and documentation has been presented for all to view and study) then it is no longer an intellectual issue ...it has become a heart issue.

Carry on...

Good day -

 

Such an impressive list of writers!

Problem is, not one of them has a clue what they're talking about. If you and others cannot see truth after all that has been written refuting the errant positions of these writers, then there is no hope that you wsill understand the truth that God's word is God's word in its various English translations. Those who promote the KJVO position reject the truth of the intellectual argument and make it a "heart issue."

 

When you boil it down, "all these websites" are carbon copies of just a few deceived folk.

Not to mention that among your list you have a nutbag such as Ruckman, or a liar/fraud such as Riplinger. That doesn't help credibility if one depends on them.

I've noticed that you don't seem to stay around in these discussions for long...particularly when an opposing viewpoint is well-made and just might erode your belief that God's word is only in the KJV for us. Why not stick around and discuss, rather than leaving just when things get interesting?

 

Or a self-appointed judge who has nothing but his opinion to perform legislation?:tonofbricks:

 

Where did the discussion on Micah go?

Sounds like we are back to the same petty squabbles between individuals.

Come on fellas, lets keep the discussions on track and act like mature believers.

 

You have to be kidding (or either are extremely mislead) about point number one, for you surely cannot be serious. Peter three times calls Him "Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ" (II Pet. 1:11; 2:20; 3:18 - NKJV) which would surely seem to be a 'greater title' than you ascribe to Him. Both Paul and Peter call Him "God and (our) Savior Jesus Christ." (Tit. 2:13; II Pet.1:1 - NKJV)
However all the NT writers, each and every one, at some points refer to a shortened version of this title, even less than you are referring. In none of the gospels is the 'full title" ascribed, out of 81 times this title is given in its supposed fullness. In the NT, Lord Jesus is found 115 times; Jesus Christ is found 187 times; Christ Jesus is found 58 times; Lord Christ is found 1 time; Jesus is found 942 times; Lord is found 567 times, and Christ is found 559 times. He is found ove 2000 times, although not always referring to Jesus, certainly. Sorry, the numbers simply does not add up.

I agree that your statement crosses the line. No matter from whom it originated.

Ed

 

Sorry, C4K. You posted while I was composing.

Ed