Micah 5:2

You would have to go back to the original languages and check not only the words specifically, but also the grammar. Is it referring to Christ, or to the City. It also could be referring to the jewish family line into which Jesus was born, which also was not eternal. The difference is probably in the underlying texts, and that is an ongoing point of contention. Have you checked the footnotes in any of the MVs, many times alternate renderings are included there, in the interest of intellectual honesty.

 

Micah 5:2 [KJV1769]

But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little
among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall
he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel;
whose goings forth have been from of old,
from everlasting. F16

------------------------------------------
FOOTNOTES:
F16: everlasting: Heb. the days of eternity

The "Heb." indicates a variant reading among the
Old Testament Hebrew language sources.

 

The ESV does say, "origin." Which to me would indicate a "original" starting point. Jesus never was started, he has "always" been here, from old to everlasting. I believe that the KJB has the better text here.

Superdave, the originals are lost, therefore we cannot go back to them as you requested. However, we have the next best thing, if not better, the King James Bible.

 

RaptureReady:Superdave, the originals are lost, therefore we cannot go back to them as you requested.

But we DO have the oldest mss still extant.


However, we have the next best thing, if not better, the King James Bible.

It's certainly not better than the originals. And we now have better translations than the KJV.

 

Micah 5:2(NASB)2“But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Too little to be among the clans of Judah,From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel.His goings forth are from long ago,From the days of eternity.”

The NASB and KJV are very clear in this verse. I personally don't think ancient was a good word to be used in the ESV and NIV in this passage.

This is an example of why a variety of translation are good to have.

KJVOist attack anything that is not the KJV even if a modern translation like the NASB are more conservative in presenting the deity of Christ: 2 Peter 1:1 for example.

 

RaptureReady, tho original archetype from the hand of the KJV translators was lost circa 1647, we cannot go back to it. However we have the next best thing, the reconstructed TR from whence it was translated, The Scrivener 1894/95 Textus Receptus.

Also, it appears that in the year 1611 two distinct editions of the KJV were published each with errors and readings peculiar to itself.

Found in the public domain at http://www.bible-researcher.com/kjvhist.html

HankD

[ July 20, 2004, 10:33 AM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

But are not the originals.

Since we do not have the originals, how do you know? How are the new translations better? They add and remove from the KJB. Most modern versions come from W/H, two guys, whereas the KJB had over 50 men. I just 50 men over 2 anyday.

BTW, just because a mss is older, it does not make it better.

God bless,
R&R

 

But RR, if you believe that the English words rather than (or as well as) the Hebrew and Greek of the KJV of the Bible were inspired by the Holy Spirit, what difference does the number of "guys" which He used make?

Secondly, did the Holy Spirit inspire the English words of the Geneva or Bishop's Bible? If not why not? If not, does that mean the English speaking people were as orphans and did not have the Word of God untill 1611?

HankD

 

Sorry, but that is incorrect. "Heb" indicates the literal meaning of the Hebrew words as opposed to the word choices of the translators. The Hebrew reads "from the days of eternity." The only variant close to the word in question is found in the phrase "one shall come forth" where the words "for me" are added in Hebrew manuscript 8HevXII and reflected in the LXX. The LXX reads "from days of the age" which is the common Greek phrase relating to "eternity."

This is not a textual variant but rather a translational choice regarding the best way to translate the somewhat ambiguous Hebrew phrase. I prefer "eternity" or "everlasting" to the other readings simply because it best preserves the Hebrew reading, even though it might also be confusing.

But, when we study the Hebrew contrasts, and place the reading in context, we find that the meaning is pretty clear. The future Ruler of Israel, Who springs from eternity, is contrasted to the degradation of the judge of verse 1. The judge was publicly humiliated and smitten and is contrasted with the Ruler Whose glory stems from eternity and Who will Rule with great power and glory.

Also it should be pointed out that the smallness of Bethlehem is being contrasted to the Greatness of the Ruler. The natural smallness of Bethlehem and the exalted position to which it would rise due to it being the place of the birth of Messiah.

 

RaptureReady, you are comparing apples and oranges. The Greek New Testament of Westcott and Hort, which most modern versions are based on, was the work of just two men. But the Greek New Testament of Erasmus, which the KJV is based on, is the word of just ONE man!

It looks to me that, if your logic really applies, then you should prefer the WH to the TR!

 

Originally posted by robycop3:
But we DO have the oldest mss still extant.

RaptureReady:But are not the originals.

But they ARE what God willed for us to have.


robycop:It's certainly not better than the originals. And we now have better translations than the KJV.

Since we do not have the originals, how do you know?

Same way you claim the KJV's better.


How are the new translations better?

For one thing, they're in current English.


They add and remove from the KJB.

No, they don't. The various KJV editions add & remove from the AV 1611. To add or remove from the KJV, they'd hafta be KJV editions. If they're different versions, they don't affect the KJV whatsoever.


Most modern versions come from W/H, two guys,

Better read the title pages of some of these newer versions a little more closely.


whereas the KJB had over 50 men. I just 50 men over 2 anyday.

Originally, 54 men were contacted about serving on the committee, and 47 ended up actually participating. and numbers don't mean anything in this context. Too many cooks can spoil the broth.

Last time I had 50 people over, I was left with a monumental mess to clean up, & an empty fridge.

BTW, just because a mss is older, it does not make it better.

Nor worse.

 

57 were contracted to begin the work but 3 died prior to the work beginning. Another 10 either died or left prior to the completion and publication in 1611, including the Archbishop Richard Bancroft.

 

Duh! 50 Holy Spirits out weighs 2 Holy Spirits anyday. Just having fun, sorry.

I don't know, I am contending for the King James Bible.

 

RaptureReady, you are comparing apples and oranges. The Greek New Testament of Westcott and Hort, which most modern versions are based on, was the work of just two men. But the Greek New Testament of Erasmus, which the KJV is based on, is the word of just ONE man!

It looks to me that, if your logic really applies, then you should prefer the WH to the TR! </font>[/QUOTE]I was not talking about the TR. I was talking about the King James Bible.

 

RR, So in other words the fact that Lockman used more scholars on the NASB (not to mention scholars who believe much more like us than the KJV translators) means that you should prefer the NASB?

 

It kills me when the MVers use this argument. Of course they had the Word of God, it just wasn't perfect. We believe about the pre-KJV era the same thing as you believe about right now.

The trouble is that you would have us still orphans. Still without the perfect word of God. Always without it. Always orphans.

Lacy

 

Can you show a biblical basis for "contending" for a translation of scripture? Especially when that "contending" often involves the denigration of other faithful translations?

 

It kills me when the MVers use this argument.</font>[/QUOTE] Why? Because it is absolutely valid? I can imagine why that would pain you greatly.

According to who or what? You? Your stretched version of hyper-dispensationalism?

Actually you don't. I believe that we have the "perfect" Word of God now and that they did then. Perfect- "Lacking nothing essential to the whole; complete of its nature or kind." Source: Dictionary.com

None of the faithful versions lack anything essential and the whole of the mss evidence certainly doesn't.

Nope. Simply reject your unbiblical, unsubtantiated, mythology for what it is.