Micah 5:2

Boith robycop, and pastor Larry have already given good answers, here, IMO. ANd better than I could have done, given I know no Hebrew. But the underlying, albeit sub silento, assumption is really no different from the usual "same old, same old".

Ed

 

Ccrobinson: //Anyway, I've heard preaching about Micah 5:2 and how the NIV translation of the verse changes doctrine. It does seem to show that the NIV is saying that Jesus Christ had an origin, meaning that he wasn't from everlasting, and thus, is not God. If so, this is a problem, obviously. It seems like a pretty good point to me, but I'm not ready to throw out the NIV just yet.

What say you?//

The only people I've found who think the NIV 'changes doctrine' are
IFBs. Since when do IFBs get to tell other denominations what their
doctrine is? The way I read IFB Doctrine, not even another IFB
Church can tell this IFB church what doctrine to follow?

BTW, Google has a much better search engine than Baptist Board
has. So if one Googles for "Micah 5:2" (both words together) and
results from 'baptistboard.com" only, one finds the following two
discussions on BB of Micah 5:2 :

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=12243&page=2

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=17179&page=3

In both these examples, it is an Indepentent Baptist person who
first mentions that the NIV has been 'changing doctrine'.
This Micah 5:2 argument is a lame strawman created for the amusement
of of certain Independent Baptist persons who don't have
enough to keep themselves busy.

It isn't even a smart doctrine, for it assumes that some other
group of Christians are so stupid as to build their doctrine on
one reading of one translation??? Make your
main doctrines about major repeated concepts in the Bible

 

You are correct that these issues are well documented. the position you are arguing for has been shown to be wrong. It is a heart issue, as you say. Will you repent of your attacks on the Word of God?

 

We differ on what we call the word of God - Though some modern versions may contain some of the words of God after all I've read, seen, and observed my conscience will not allow me to call the modern versions the word of God.

 

You are welcome.

I noticed in another search that the 2003-2005 Version
material is in archives for each year. Plus there is no version
forum for non-Baptists so the Version topics tend to get scattered.
(And to boot: Google sometimes still has the topic in their
space (use "cached" ) after BB has discarded it.

 

The fact that you and I differ is not the issue. The fact is that you differ with the Word of God. The KJV that you hold exclusively to does not say what you say. You have added to it and attacked the word of God.

The fact that your conscience will not allow you to call good translations "the word of God" means that your conscience needs to be retrained in biblical doctrine. Jesus called versions other than the KJV the Word of God; Paul did; Peter did; John did; the church historically has. It is you who are out of line with orthodoxy.

 

Amen, Pastor Larry -- Preach it.

And the opposite of 'orthodoxy' is 'heterodoxy'.
And this particular heterodoxy constitutes a 'paradox'.

I looked for awile to see if the prophecy of Micah 5:2 (and
it's context) was fulfilled in Christ Jesus. I could not find
it mentioned in the New Testament. One could make quick work
of this whole topic if one noted where the scripture of Micah 5:2
is shown in the New Testament to be fulfilled in Christ.

 

Right there is much of the problem! Many rely on self to make determination that only one single Bible version can be the word of God. You should be listening to the Holy Spirit and not to your own conscience. The word of God is found in several legitimate English Bible translations. "Some of the words of God" labelling should be reserved for such translations as the NWT, the CWT and the JST - not for legitimate Bible versions like the NIV, the NASB and the NKJV.

 

Would you mind showing me how you listen to the Holy Spirit in cases like these here? Thanks

 

Amen, Brother Keith M -- Preach it! :thumbs:

 

"That we do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, … containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God."
Preface to the KJV [LINK]

 

Let's ruffle some feathers shall we?

The main way I listen to the Holy Spirit is by taking what I think or read or hear and comparing it with a King James Bible - If it lines up then my duty is to obey it.

Your way Keith sounds very mystical, almost new age, - how can we check out your "listenings and results"?

 

As Messianic prophecies, as I understand it, often appear to almost be bereft of context, some [and there are three in the passage below, (Isa. 7:14; Hos. 11:1; Mic. 5:2), that come to mind] almost just 'appear' without warning, and o'out of context', so to speak, but I believe your question is answered in Matt. 2:1-8, cp. Lk. 2:4-16. Luke does not mention Micah's 'prophecy' per se, but does reference Bethlehem in Judea, (aka Judah or Ephrathah), which is itself significant, for there were two Bethlehems in that day, the second being Bethlehem Zebulon, which was larger and better known at that time, and which was actually only about eight miles from Nazareth in Galilee.

Interestingly I found this out. The tiny village of Bethlehem had two interpretations as to the name: To the world, it was literally 'the ash-heap', for that is how they saw this place they deemed so small, worthless, and insignificant, yet so revered in God's eyes. But to God, it was 'the House of Bread' where, Jacob had buried his love, Rachel, after she died giving Birth to Benjamin; where Salmon had taken his bride from Jericho, Rahab, where Boaz winnowed the grain, loved, redeemed, and married Ruth; where Jesse's son David tended the flocks; and from whence David's son, Yeshua Hammashiah, the Lord Jesus Christ, who was the Living bread, was to be born, in His plan.

Ed

 

On what basis do you choose the KJV as the comparison standard? For three-fourths of church history, you would have been unable to follow the Spirit by this means, and in the majority of the world you would be unable to use this means.

 

It would appear that you must be better informed, and more attuned to the Holy Spirit, than the KJV translators - excuse me- I mean revisers - whom you are paying supposed homage to, witness the post of Deacon and the link he thoughtfully provided. http://www.kjvbibles.com/kjpreface.htm The ones who did the work do not have the same opinion as you. Why should one think yours to be an improvement?

Personally, the main way I listen to the Holy Spirit (at least as to understanding the written word) is by taking what I think or read or hear and comparing it with a New King James Version Bible [There is no such thing as a King James Bible, but a King James Version, (or better King James/Authorized Version, actually.)] - If it lines up (with the NKJV), then my duty is to obey it.

Can you explain the difference?

I must have missed it somewhere. Why is your choice any better than mine?

And FTR, why the deafening silence to my previous post where I answered your grief/gripe of Point #1 over the Names and Titles of Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ? I'm still waiting for a response, but don't really expect one. And FTR, how was that germane to Micah 5:2, in the first place? I saw none of the words/names, neither "Lord", Jesus" nor "Christ" used (or omitted or shortened) in that verse (neither KJV, NIV, NASB, Darby, nor NKJV). Or did I merely miss it, and it was "between the lines" and words the Holy Spirit caused to be recorded?

Oh yeah - are your 'feathers ruffled' enough yet? BTW, your way sounds very mystical, hence almost "new age" to me, as well, regardless of how loudly you are protesting it is "from old". Ho can we check out your "listenings and results"?

And Pastor Larry is basically correct in his assessment, that this approach is very excluding to the majority of peoples, and for some six thousand years, or so, of human history, and specifically nearly three fourths of "church history".

Ed

 

1. Good question - On the basis of:
a. The fruits in history - how has God used it in the lives of the average Joe, missionaries, preachers, and writers, etc.
b. How it treats the major doctrines, especially the Lord Jesus Christ.
c. Finally, by faith

2. Prior to 1611 I would take by faith the translations that came from Asia Minor (Egypt) and again judge them by the points in #1

 

Based on:
a. The fruits in history - how has God used it in the lives of the average Joe, missionaries, preachers, and writers, etc.
b. How it treats the major doctrines, especially the Lord Jesus Christ.
c. Finally, by faith