KING JAMES VERSION BIBLE VS. MODERN ENGLISH BIBLES

[MarcR]

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?

I have enough training in Hebrew to look at a verse and determine what it means. I am quite unconcerned with what other translators have done; since it does NOT change what is in the Hebrew text.

Words do NOT change meanings because people misuse them!!!

Before Copernicus realized that the world is round; everyone thought it was flat. one man was correct and everyone around him was WRONG. No matter how many people use a word improperly its meaning does not change.

The ONLY exception to this principle is that when large numbers of native speakers of a language consistently use a word in a new way over 20-30 years, the new usage may become accepted as correct. Mistranslations can NEVER accomplish this!

 

[Dino246]

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.

The KJV has "goings forth"... which is also plural.

Scripture says that Christ came from Bethlehem, Egypt and Galilee (among others). Which is His point of origin? The reality is that the word "origins" is sufficiently broad in its range of meaning that saying it only means His "ultimate point of origin" or even that He has an "ultimate point/time of origin" is not warranted.

 

[graceNpeace]

It was only after I went to bed last night that it occurred to me that the word "origin" is not limited as a reference to time, but it is also properly used as a reference to place - as in mathematics where a graph must have an origin (a starting place) to be valid.
The NIV uses the word "origin" in Micah with exactly this reference to place in mind.

I am pleased that several others have picked up on this already.
With this understanding it is clear that BOTH the NIV and the KJV are expressing the same thing!
The only question remaining is whether this is a correct rendering of the Hebrew....

 

[KJV1611]

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?

I think the NIV gets it right in many places but it has it's fair share of screw ups.

 

[KJV1611]

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

All pre W and C bibles that I have looked at agree that Micah is talking about the preincarnate Christ so I just don't see how you can say there has been no departure. Do you know of any pre W and C examples of that view?

 

[KJV1611]

I have enough training in Hebrew to look at a verse and determine what it means. I am quite unconcerned with what other translators have done; since it does NOT change what is in the Hebrew text.

Words do NOT change meanings because people misuse them!!!

Before Copernicus realized that the world is round; everyone thought it was flat. one man was correct and everyone around him was WRONG. No matter how many people use a word improperly its meaning does not change.

The ONLY exception to this principle is that when large numbers of native speakers of a language consistently use a word in a new way over 20-30 years, the new usage may become accepted as correct. Mistranslations can NEVER accomplish this!

Do you think the NASB got this wrong also?

Micah 5:2 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

2 “[a]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.
[b]His goings forth are from long ago,
From the days of eternity.”

b - Micah 5:2 Or His appearances are from long ago, from days of old

 

[KJV1611]

The KJV has "goings forth"... which is also plural.

Scripture says that Christ came from Bethlehem, Egypt and Galilee (among others). Which is His point of origin? The reality is that the word "origins" is sufficiently broad in its range of meaning that saying it only means His "ultimate point of origin" or even that He has an "ultimate point/time of origin" is not warranted.

Yes the KJV has it plural because Jesus went forth as the Burning Bush, the Captain of the Host, the Angel of the Lord, Melchizadec and I'm sure many other appearances that I'm not aware of.... His multiple goings forth have been from ancient times, from everlasting.

 

[KJV1611]

I just noticed that HCSB says Jesus' origin is from antiquity but add footnote to say "His GOING OUT". Anyone know why they footnoted it that way? So which is correct, His "origin" or His "going out"? Why couldn't they make up their minds on which it should be?

Micah 5:2 Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)

2 [a]Bethlehem Ephrathah,
you are small among the clans of Judah;
One will come from you
to be ruler over Israel for Me.
His origin[b] is from antiquity,
from eternity.[c]

Footnotes:

1. Micah 5:2 Mc 5:1 in Hb
2. Micah 5:2 Lit His going out
3. Micah 5:2 Or from ancient times

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

Michoh 5 Orthodox Jewish Bible

2 (5:1) But thou, Beit-lechem Ephratah, though thou be little among the Alphei Yehudah (Thousands of Yehudah), yet out of thee shall He [Moshiach] come forth unto Me [Hashem] that is to be Moshel Yisroel; whose goings forth (i.e. origins) have been mikedem, (from everlasting; see Chabakuk 1:12), mimei olam (from the days of eternity).

 

[MarcR]

Do you think the NASB got this wrong also?

Micah 5:2 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

2 “[a]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.
[b]His goings forth are from long ago,
From the days of eternity.”

b - Micah 5:2 Or His appearances are from long ago, from days of old

Quite definitely!!

 

[KJV1611]

Quite definitely!!

So your Hebrew skills are better than the KJV and the NASB translators? Please forgive me but I find that quite hard to believe.

 

[KJV1611]

Michoh 5 Orthodox Jewish Bible

2 (5:1) But thou, Beit-lechem Ephratah, though thou be little among the Alphei Yehudah (Thousands of Yehudah), yet out of thee shall He [Moshiach] come forth unto Me [Hashem] that is to be Moshel Yisroel; whose goings forth (i.e. origins) have been mikedem, (from everlasting; see Chabakuk 1:12), mimei olam (from the days of eternity).

I'm not sure what point your making, are you saying that Jesus had an origin? Or Jesus' earthly family tree is from the days of eternity.... What are you saying?

 

[dcontroversal]

I find it hilariously sad that men will worship a work of men that is compared to other versions, copied verbatim word for word from other translations and flat twisted and skewed because of religious affiliation......

For when your Highnesse had once out of deepe judgment apprehended, how convenient it was, That out of the Originall sacred tongues, together with comparing of the labours, both in our owne and other forreigne Languages, of many worthy men who went before us, there should be one more exact Translation of the holy Scriptures into the English tongue; your MAJESTIE did never desist, to urge and to excite those to whom it was commended, that the worke might be hastened, and that the businesse might be expedited in so decent a maner, as a matter of such importance might justly require.

 

[KJV1611]

I find it hilariously sad that men will worship a work of men that is compared to other versions, copied verbatim word for word from other translations and flat twisted and skewed because of religious affiliation......

For when your Highnesse had once out of deepe judgment apprehended, how convenient it was, That out of the Originall sacred tongues, together with comparing of the labours, both in our owne and other forreigne Languages, of many worthy men who went before us, there should be one more exact Translation of the holy Scriptures into the English tongue; your MAJESTIE did never desist, to urge and to excite those to whom it was commended, that the worke might be hastened, and that the businesse might be expedited in so decent a maner, as a matter of such importance might justly require.

Some of us believe that God inspired the KJV translators to write exactly what they wrote. What's hilarious about that? Just asking.

 

[John146]

I find it hilariously sad that men will worship a work of men that is compared to other versions, copied verbatim word for word from other translations and flat twisted and skewed because of religious affiliation......

For when your Highnesse had once out of deepe judgment apprehended, how convenient it was, That out of the Originall sacred tongues, together with comparing of the labours, both in our owne and other forreigne Languages, of many worthy men who went before us, there should be one more exact Translation of the holy Scriptures into the English tongue; your MAJESTIE did never desist, to urge and to excite those to whom it was commended, that the worke might be hastened, and that the businesse might be expedited in so decent a maner, as a matter of such importance might justly require.

Do us KJB believers worship the Bible? Of course not. we do not pray to it as we do to Jesus Christ. We do not preach that "the Bible saves" but that Jesus saves. We gladly mark notes all over their Bibles, though none would dare to do so to Jesus Christ.


There is not even enough evidence to mistakenly believe that King James Bible believers worship the Bible. Therefore, the charge is unfortunately born of malice not sincerity.

 

[dcontroversal]

Some of us believe that God inspired the KJV translators to write exactly what they wrote. What's hilarious about that? Just asking.

Because the view that God inspired false teachers totally contradicts God inspiring HOLY MEN....not to mention the fact that GOD does not inspire men to copy verbatim and or compare to other translations that came before......the very premise totally contradicts the word inspiration, how, who and method...and I fully expect you to reject this absolute truth!

 

[dcontroversal]

Do us KJB believers worship the Bible? Of course not. we do not pray to it as we do to Jesus Christ. We do not preach that "the Bible saves" but that Jesus saves. We gladly mark notes all over their Bibles, though none would dare to do so to Jesus Christ.


There is not even enough evidence to mistakenly believe that King James Bible believers worship the Bible. Therefore, the charge is unfortunately born of malice not sincerity.

yeah not hardly and the above accusation belies the actual truth on the ground...The truth is evident when MEN will proclaim that JESUS preached out of the King JAMES, state that PAUL used the KING JAMES and exclude the original, inspired languages in favor of a book that STATES clearly that it was COPIED, COMPARED and JUST ANOTHER ENGLISH version.....so please....do not falsely accuse me of my motive and or sincerity when I have heard this rigmarole pushed, proclaimed and crammed down the throats of new converts by morally superior LINGUISTS who really have no true insight into what they are even saying...and this comes from ONE who uses a KING JIMMY........

 

[preston39]

Immersion in water is symbolic of immersion in the word of God.

Ephesians 5:26 King James Version (KJV)

26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

K....

No way.

 

[SovereignGrace]

My pastor, who LOVES the KJV(but he’s not a KJVO) said that Easter was not correct in Acts 12:4.

#FWIW
#FYI

 

[Dino246]

I just noticed that HCSB says Jesus' origin is from antiquity but add footnote to say "His GOING OUT". Anyone know why they footnoted it that way? So which is correct, His "origin" or His "going out"? Why couldn't they make up their minds on which it should be?

Micah 5:2 Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)

2 [a]Bethlehem Ephrathah,
you are small among the clans of Judah;
One will come from you
to be ruler over Israel for Me.
His origin[b] is from antiquity,
from eternity.[c]

Footnotes:

1. Micah 5:2 Mc 5:1 in Hb
2. Micah 5:2 Lit His going out
3. Micah 5:2 Or from ancient times

How does this represent a different issue than the marginal notes in the 1611 KJV?