KING JAMES VERSION BIBLE VS. MODERN ENGLISH BIBLES

[KJV1611]

Brown Driver Briggs, Gesenius, Kittle, and Zodhiates all agree that in Mic 5:2 [Mic 5:1 in the Tenach] (Mohtsawohteer) means family ties.

May I ask who’s family ties don’t go all the way back to Adam?

 

[KJV1611]

From Micah 5:2

מוֹצָאָה mowtsa'ah [Phrase] whose goings forth

Lexicon :: Strong's H4163 - mowtsa'ah


מוֹצָאָה
Transliteration
mowtsa'ah
Pronunciation
mō·tsä·ä' (Key)
Part of Speech
feminine noun
Root Word (Etymology)
From מוֹצָא (H4161)
Dictionary Aids


KJV Translation
The KJV translates Strong's H4163 in the following manner: draught house (1x), goings forth (1x).
Outline of Biblical Usage [?]
origin, place of going out from


origin


places of going out to or from


privy


Strong’s Definitions
מוֹצָאָה môwtsâʼâh, mo-tsaw-aw'; feminine of H4161; (marg.; compare H6675) a family descent; also a sewer:—draught house; going forth.



מוֹצָאָה

Why do you put more stock in James Strong’s opinion than the 40 something men that translated the KJV?

 

[KJV1611]

Different older bible views on Micah 5:2.

[h=1]Micah 5:2 1599 Geneva Bible (GNV)[/h][FONT=&quot]2 And thou Bethlehem Ephrathah art [a]little to be among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me, that shall be the ruler in Israel: whose [b]goings forth have beenfrom the beginning and from everlasting.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][h=4]Footnotes:[/h]

1. Micah 5:2 For so the Jews divided their country that for every thousand there was a chief captain: and because Bethlehem was not able to make a thousand, he calleth it little, but yet God will raise up his captain and governor therein: and thus it is not the least by reason of this benefit, as Matt. 2:6.
2. Micah 5:2 He showeth that the coming of Christ and all his ways were appointed of God from all eternity.

[/FONT]

 

[KJV1611]

Wycliffe version.

[h=1]Micah 5:2 Wycliffe Bible (WYC)[/h][FONT=&quot]2 And thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, art little in the thousands of Judah; he that is the lordly governor in Israel shall go out of thee to me (but he who shall be the ruler, or the governor, in Israel shall go out of thee to me); and the going out of him is from [the] beginning, from (the) days of everlastingness.[/FONT]

 

[KJV1611]

Bishops Bible

[TABLE="class: bibletable bibletable18"]
[TR]
[TD="class: ref, align: right"]5:2[/TD]
[TD]And thou Bethlehem Ephrata art little among the thousandes of Iuda, out of thee shal he come foorth vnto me which shalbe the gouernour in Israel, whose out going hath ben from the beginning, and from euerlasting[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

 

[KJV1611]

Luther bible translated by google translate.

And you Bethlehem Ephrata, who are small among the cities of Judah, out of you shall come to me, who is LORD in Israel, which was the beginning from the beginning and from eternity.​

 

[KJV1611]

It seems to me that was a split in Christianities views on this issue. Any ideas on why people see it differently now?

 

[Musicus]

You agree that Jesus is eternal, that's good but the NIV says Jesus had an origin. Instead of deflecting the question and going to the "original language", please show me where the KJV says Jesus has an origin.

You made the statement that both versions say the same thing just using different words, where does the KJV say Jesus had an orgin?

No, it doesn't. It says "originS". The KJV says "goings forth". So? When you start a journey you do what? You "go forth". You started FROM somewhere, an "origin", in this case originS, plural. It does NOT mean Jesus came into existence. If it somehow meant that, how is it he came from more than one place? How do you get Jesus came into existence from one place out of this?

 

[MarcR]

May I ask who’s family ties don’t go all the way back to Adam?

The verse only speaks of the families of Judah

 

[KJV1611]

No, it doesn't. It says "originS". The KJV says "goings forth". So? When you start a journey you do what? You "go forth". You started FROM somewhere, an "origin", in this case originS, plural. It does NOT mean Jesus came into existence. If it somehow meant that, how is it he came from more than one place? How do you get Jesus came into existence from one place out of this?

I'm not sure what the NIV is trying to say, maybe there was something wrong with the Hebrew copies they were translated from.... I'm not sure. If it's taken as written, which is the way I take all scripture, the NIV is suggesting that Christ had multiple origins.

Maybe it's like MarcR was saying and the NIV is talking about it's talking about Jesus' family history. I don't know what the NIV is trying to say but I know the KJV is saying that the preincarnate Christ was in the world before he came in the flesh.

 

[KJV1611]

The verse only speaks of the families of Judah

Any ideas on what led to the departure of Christianities views on this being the preincarnate Christ going forth from old times?

 

[MarcR]

Omitting the "missing words" leads to a contradiction, not to mention an untruth, within the word of God.

This is unarguably true. However the omission is in the Hebrew text. It is NOT the translators' omission.

Most translations include a footnote explaining that words appear to be missing without altering the text

 

[MarcR]

Dude I KNOW Jesus did not have an origin, I'm not speculating on anything.

goings forth can not be justified in the Hebrew text! the Hebrew word Mohtsawohteer means family ties; and is very well communicated in the word origins. This is not questioning Jesus' eternal existence. This is looking to Mary's lineage.

 

[MarcR]

Any ideas on what led to the departure of Christianities views on this being the preincarnate Christ going forth from old times?

There has been no departure. Mica was simply not addressing the subject in chapter 5.

 

[Redleg]

Brown Driver Briggs, Gesenius, Kittle, and Zodhiates all agree that in Mic 5:2 [Mic 5:1 in the Tenach] (Mohtsawohteer) means family ties.

I was curious about your opinion on the rendering of Micah 5:2 in the King James Bible and let's say the NIV. The way it is rendered in the NiV, is it superior to that of the KJV?

 

[MarcR]

I was curious about your opinion on the rendering of Micah 5:2 in the King James Bible and let's say the NIV. The way it is rendered in the NiV, is it superior to that of the KJV?

Good question:

I don't think that superiority is an issue I think that selection of a Bible translation is more a matter of taste.

I was addressing claims of unique inspiration for the KJV and was doing so only because other translations were being called corrupt.

I personally use the KJV and consider it the most beautiful and most literary translation available; but I cannot justify claims of special inspiration.

Welcome to CC.

 

[KJV1611]

goings forth can not be justified in the Hebrew text! the Hebrew word Mohtsawohteer means family ties; and is very well communicated in the word origins. This is not questioning Jesus' eternal existence. This is looking to Mary's lineage.

Your justification is based on what a person or group of people thought a 3000 year old word meant and as you've mentioned in the past, word meanings change over time. Besides, I haven't found any pre W and C commentaries that express that very strange view of Micah 5:2 have you?

 

[KJV1611]

There has been no departure. Mica was simply not addressing the subject in chapter 5.

I posted several older bibles and none of them view that verse in that way.

 

[Redleg]

Good question:
Welcome to CC.

Thanks...............

 

[Musicus]

I'm not sure what the NIV is trying to say, maybe there was something wrong with the Hebrew copies they were translated from.... I'm not sure. If it's taken as written, which is the way I take all scripture, the NIV is suggesting that Christ had multiple origins.

Maybe it's like MarcR was saying and the NIV is talking about it's talking about Jesus' family history. I don't know what the NIV is trying to say but I know the KJV is saying that the preincarnate Christ was in the world before he came in the flesh.

Well, what I know is that all the major bibles say Jesus always was and always will be. NIV says that all over the place, so I don't get myself hung up and worked up because I don't fully understand verses like this one. But whatever this verse means, it is not that Jesus had a beginning, of that I am sure. I would say the interpreters made a so-so choice in wording, as they sometimes do.

I'm glad there is more than one version, so I can compare, and led by Holy Spirit I get what God wants me to get. I don't expect to ever understand everything in the bible while I'm on Earth, this fleshly chapter of life is too short. To be honest, I don't really trust my own interpretation of the written Word just by itself 100%, no matter the version, because I'm human and prone to mistakes, even when Holy Spirit is my guide, cuz I don't always listen, ya know?