KING JAMES VERSION BIBLE VS. MODERN ENGLISH BIBLES

[KJV1611]

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!

You didn't reference or quote a single bible verse to back up your claim, so no I'm not going to take your word for it.

 

[KJV1611]

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

First off marginal notes are not part of the word of God. I'm asking the question because I want to know which version of Micah 5:2 the HCSB is presenting as the truth.


Secondly I'm trying to figure out if this is one those places where the "older more realiable manuscripts" contradict the othe other manuscript line.

 

[trofimus]

Still the Micah issue?

 

[KJV1611]

Still the Micah issue?

It has a new twist now... Jesus doesn't have an origin anymore, now it's his family tree that has an origin lol.

 

[trofimus]

I wonder why nobody posted what the Christian Old Testament says

Mic 5:1

ΚΑΙ σύ, Βηθλεέμ, οἶκος τοῦ ᾿Εφραθά, ὀλιγοστὸς εἶ τοῦ εἶναι ἐν χιλιάσιν ᾿Ιούδα· ἐκ σοῦ μοι ἐξελεύσεται τοῦ εἶναι εἰς ἄρχοντα ἐν τῷ ᾿Ισραήλ, καὶ αἱ ἔξοδοι [exodoi] αὐτοῦ ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς ἐξ ἡμερῶν αἰῶνος.

And thou, Bethleem, house of Ephratha, are few in number to be reckoned among thousands of Juda; Out of thee shall one come forth to me, to be a ruler of Israel; and his goings forth/goings from were from beginning, [even] from eternity.

His "exodoi" (plural of well known word "exodus") were from from beginning, from eternity (lit. ageous days).

Is this OK with you, KJV1769?

BTW, why is this verse so important?

 

[KJV1611]

I wonder why nobody posted what the Christian Old Testament says

Mic 5:1

ΚΑΙ σύ, Βηθλεέμ, οἶκος τοῦ ᾿Εφραθά, ὀλιγοστὸς εἶ τοῦ εἶναι ἐν χιλιάσιν ᾿Ιούδα· ἐκ σοῦ μοι ἐξελεύσεται τοῦ εἶναι εἰς ἄρχοντα ἐν τῷ ᾿Ισραήλ, καὶ αἱ ἔξοδοι [exodoi] αὐτοῦ ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς ἐξ ἡμερῶν αἰῶνος.

And thou, Bethleem, house of Ephratha, are few in number to be reckoned among thousands of Juda; Out of thee shall one come forth to me, to be a ruler of Israel; and his goings forth/goings from were from beginning, [even] from eternity.

His "exodoi" (plural of well known word "exodus") were from from beginning, from eternity.

Is this OK with you, KJV1769?

BTW, why is this verse so important?

It doesn't say Jesus had an orign so it looks good to me.... maybe it's inspired!
The importance is that Jesus didn't have an origin.

 

[trofimus]

It doesn't say Jesus had an orign so it looks good to me.... maybe it's inspired!
The importance is that Jesus didn't have an origin.

But such English translations do not say "origin", right? They all say "origins".

Which can be an important difference, IMHO.

---

Also, I do not see anything wrong on saying that the origin of Son is in Father But we were through this already...

 

[KJV1611]

But such English translations do not say "origin", right? They all say "origins".

Which can be an important difference, IMHO.

---

Also, I do not see anything wrong on saying that the origin of Son is in Father But we were through this already...

I agree the "s" makes a difference, the NIV is basically incomprehensible with it's wording. Reading the verse for exactly what it says, it says Jesus had multiple origins. Obviously the NIV isn't saying that but that's what the words say.

I really don't know what the NIV is trying to say, but I do know that the KJV and NASB are saying that the preincarnate Christ has been going forth since ancient times.

Micah 5:2 New International Version (NIV)

2 “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
though you are small among the clans[a] of Judah,
out of you will come for me
one who will be ruler over Israel,
whose origins are from of old,
from ancient times.”

 

[trofimus]

I agree, the NIV is basically incomprehensible with it's wording. Reading the verse for exactly what it says, it says Jesus had multiple origins. Obviously the NIV isn't saying that but that's what the words say.

I really don't know what the NIV is trying to say, but I do know that the KJV and NASB are saying that the preincarnate Christ has been going forth since ancient times.

Micah 5:2 New International Version (NIV)

[FONT=&][FONT=&]2 “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
though you are small among the clans[a] of Judah,
out of you will come for me
one who will be ruler over Israel,
whose origins are from of old,
from ancient times.”[/FONT]
[/FONT]

Its a prophetical verse and prophetical verses are hard to render or understand, they are not very clear, frequently.

For example Isaiah about satan, Is 53 about Christ... it can be found there, but still, its not said too clearly or precisely.

So, why is "not very clear" Micah a problem?

 

[KJV1611]

Its a prophetical verse and prophetical verses are hard to render or understand, they are not very clear, frequently.

For example Isaiah about satan, Is 53 about Christ... it can be found there, but still, its not said too clearly or precisely.

So, why is "not very clear" Micah a problem?

All I'm saying is that it's wrong. Vague or not, it's wrong in what it says.

 

[trofimus]

All I'm saying is that it's wrong. Vague or not, it's wrong in what it says.

Well, its unclear in NIV, NET, at least for us two, we do not know what "origins" mean.
Unclear does not mean automatically wrong.

ESV, ASV, NASB, KJV, NHEB, JPS Tanakh aj. have "goings", which can be probably interpreted as you say.

Then, there are some specific translations like:
"origin" - CSB, HCSB
"existence" - ISV
"family" - CEV, Good News


---

It seems to me that this place is probably hard to translate/interpret from Hebrew. So its very difficult to say what is wrong or right.

 

[KJV1611]

Well, its unclear in NIV, NET, at least for us two, we do not know what "origins" mean.
Unclear does not mean automatically wrong.

ESV, ASV, NASB, KJV, NHEB, JPS Tanakh aj. have "goings", which can be probably interpreted as you say.

Then, there are some specific translations like:
"origin" - CSB, HCSB
"existence" - ISV
"family" - CEV, Good News


---

It seems to me that this place is probably hard to translate/interpret from Hebrew. So its very difficult to say what is wrong or right.

I'm starting to see that most people don't believe EXACTLY what the words say in any bible anyway. From what I've seen, most people twist the words to mean whatever they want them to mean.

A good example is - "origins" is the right word but "origins" is talking about His family origins. This completely denies what the text actually says in the NIV.

These same people will also try to say that "goings forth" means family origin. I'm coming to the conclusion that true bible study and discussion is not possible here.

 

[John146]

I'm starting to see that most people don't believe EXACTLY what the words say in any bible anyway. From what I've seen, most people twist the words to mean whatever they want it to mean.

A good example is "origins" is the right word but "origins" is talking abou His family origins and this completely denies what the text actually says in the NIV.

These say people will also try to say that "goings forth" means family origin. I'm coming to the conclusion that true bible study and discussion is not possible here.

This is why bible versions do not matter because right words do not matter.

 

[trofimus]

I'm starting to see that most people don't believe EXACTLY what the words say in any bible anyway. From what I've seen, most people twist the words to mean whatever they want it to mean.

A good example is "origins" is the right word but "origins" is talking abou His family origins and this completely denies what the text actually says in the NIV.

These say people will also try to say that "goings forth" means family origin. I'm coming to the conclusion that true bible study and discussion is not possible here.

I think that you simply expect everybody to use the same Bible as you and to understand it in the same way and to have the same opinions...

I do not think its possible. Church is a huge organism of individual different members. It makes the final symphony God loves so much. Any symphony needs different tones. We are individuals. If somebody sees "family" in that verse, it does not matter as long as they have the right faith about Christ.

 

[KJV1611]

I think that you simply expect everybody to use the same Bible as you and to understand it in the same way and to have the same opinions...

I do not think its possible. Church is a huge organism of individual different members. It makes the final symphony God loves so much. Any symphony needs different tones.

I just expect everybody to believe the words of whatever bible they read.

 

[KJV1611]

I'm headed to work. see ya later on.

 

[trofimus]

I just expect everybody to believe the words of whatever bible they read.

I understand, but to believe words does not automatically mean "to take everything literally".

I believe words that Peter is a rock. I do not take it literally, but I must use my brain/opinions to process it in some figurative way. And this can vary between various individuals.

If somebody thinks that Micah 5:2 means family, it does not mean he does not believe Micah 5:2, but simply that he interprets the verse differently, having different opinions, information or experiences than you have.

 

[John146]

I understand, but to believe words does not automatically means "to take everything literally".

I believe words that Peter is a rock. I do not take it literally, but I must use my brain/opinions to process it in some figurative way. And this can vary between various individuals.

If somebody thinks that Micah 5:2 means family, it does not mean he does not believe Micah 5:2, but simply that he interprets the verse differently, having different opinions, knowledge or experiences than you have.

I understand what you are saying, but there can be only one right interpretation. God meant what He said and said what He meant. Two separate and distinct interpretations does not mean both are right. It could be that both are wrong.

 

[trofimus]

I understand what you are saying, but there can be only one right interpretation. God meant what He said and said what He meant. Two separate and distinct interpretations does not mean both are right. It could be that both are wrong.

I am not sure whether only one intepretation can be right.

For example "En arché én ho Logos" - In the beginning was the Logos".

Logos can have many interpretations (yes, it means Jesus, but I am talking about why the term Logos is used) and many of them can be right.

One of sign of inspiration is that the text has many layers. That its not only about first plan surface reading.

---

Also, you must realize that we are not talking about God´s intepretation of Bible, but our intepretation of Bible. It will never be perfect and it will always differ.

Even you cannot find a common ground with the KJV1611, even though you two should have the same faith, being both KJV only.

So... what is your complain about?

 

[graceNpeace]

I am not sure whether only one intepretation can be right.

For example "En arché én ho Logos" - In the beginning was the Logos".

Logos can have many interpretations (yes, it means Jesus, but I am talking about why the term Logos is used) and many of them can be right.

One of sign of inspiration is that the text has many layers. That its not only about first plan surface reading.

---

Also, you must realize that we are not talking about God´s intepretation of Bible, but our intepretation of Bible. It will never be perfect and it will always differ.

Even you cannot find a common ground with the KJV1611, even though you two should have the same faith, being both KJV only.

So... what is your complain about?

But the different interpretations you are referring to are not in opposition - they are complementary....
That is NOT the same as two opposing interpretations where both cannot possibly can correct simultaneously!