A
A_Son_of_God
Guest
A person today claimed that Micah 5:2 proves that Jesus is God, because they stated that it says,
“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.”
What do you think? Does it prove that Jesus is God? Can you prove that Jesus is God from this statement? My argument is no. It doesn't, and the conclusion that it does is absurd. Here's why.
This is the quote from the KJV of 1611.
It is noteworthy that in 1611, the English language was very different to today's English. You will see a lot of people still using "Thee, thy, thou..." as though God himself speaks in Archaeic English. Even some translations of the Qur'an do this with the English language.
Well, God can choose to speak any language, but to hold the Bible in a dead language was the reason the apostasy spread so easily in the first place. Because it is a translation, the goal should be to present the message of the original language in the most accurate terms. Not a word for word translation, as that would just jumble sentences, and hence their meaning.
So I showed a link, from an online Bible study aid. Namely, studybible.info. If you click on the link, you'll see that it takes you to Micah 5:2 on there. It is an interlinear Bible as such, whereas the words that are used are represented as numbers, and you can click on the numbers, and see what the original word/s means.
But their response was "It's a JW link". What a close-minded comment!
First of all, they didn't look, as it isn't. But of itself, that mentality shows their true colours. Their way of begging off is to choose to lie about things, and strawman their way out of it. Cowardly, and not a debate. Like a little kid who calls someone a name, then runs away.
Secondly, if it WAS a "JW link", then they'd - if they had the truth, which they obviously don't - be able to demonstrate it by breaking it on down for us. But no, instead they ran away. I mean, it wasn't an encyclopedia, but a scripture. Fancy not being able to read a scripture.
Then again, maybe they are in Russia, as in Russia at present, the one who has chosen to rule over the land is currently banning Jehovah's Witnesses, and claiming they're terrorists, and that their Bible isn't a Bible. People who read the New World Translation, or look at information from Jehovah's Witnesses are potentially arrested and jailed, and have their property taken off them, as has been the case in Russia now for about 6 years in recent times. Still, the proof is in the pudding, as they say, but maybe this is why they were scared to read the thoughts of Jehovah's Witnesses, who don't worship Jesus, although they are Christians.
What annoyed me though, is while I was away, this person was lying about my beliefs to someone else while I wasn't there, like a little coward. Why not instead, try to teach the truth from their Bible that they claim? The answer is simple. Because they can't. They actually don't know. I mean, how focussed to specifically decide to firstly choose to attack me personally (I don't know this person, and they don't know me) instead of demonstrating from the Bible their side. Secondly, instead of just discussing in a debate room the actual point, they lied about me, and said I said things I didn't. Twisting things.
But this thread is put here because of their claim that I didn't answer it, so here's my answer to it.
If you have a look at the link here, it opens up an English translation, written over a Hebrew script. The English is a translation, like the KJV, but you'll notice above the Hebrew words, there are numbers. And in this instance, there are three numbers over the place where the KJV has "everlasting".
The numbers are H6924, H3117, and H5769. Look at all three, as all three of them come after the English translation below it.
The meanings are written underneath them, when you click on them. Beside the meaning, you'll also see a list of "First 30 of X occurences", and how the word has been translated in different places, as even in the KJV, the translators chose what seemed to suit at the time.
The number H5769, you will note is based on these two words combined - עלם עולם, and it has this explanation about the meaning of the word. "properly concealed, that is, the vanishing point; generally time out of mind (past or future), that is, (practically) eternity; frequentative adverbially (especially with prepositional prefix) always".
So, there is a potential for using the idea of eternity, but that is one out of three general ideas for what the word means, depending on the circumstances it appears in.
A deeper look is at those thirty first instances, and their meanings. Does the word get translated as "eternal" or "everlasting" every time? Let's look.
"To the age"
"Shall not always"
"Who were of old"
"That is with you, for perpetual"
"The everlasting"
"ever"
"For an everlasting"
"of the everlasting"
"To the age"
So no, they do not always mean "everlasting". And then we can question the language itself. "From everlasting". Is not "from" speaking about the past? Yet "lasting" is about the present and future? If I was to say something was lasting, it means it has so far lasted, but it may break down tomorrow. But "everlasting" is about the future. "It will last forever".
So "from everlasting" in modern English can not mean "from infinity", but more so gives the perspective of being that far back in the past, it is like looking at the horizon until it disappears. Not that it had no beginning, but that it is that far away.
So no, dotcom. "From everlasting" does not prove that Jesus is God. You may as well tell me that because the bell went "Ding dang dong", that means that Jesus is God, because it is just as abstract, and your conclusion is absurd.
And I'm looking forward to your explanation of Jesus' statement, "the Father is greater than I am." I would like to see how you can demonstrate this means that Jesus is equal to God, for my mathematics and logic classes taught me that
< and > are not =, and
we can be Jesus' brothers, but not God's brothers, and Jesus calls God his Father, but you claim Jesus is God. So you're God's brother?
I'm happy for you to prove it otherwise though.
*Point to note!
Currently, I am not one of Jehovah's Witnesses (mind you, I will be, and proudly so). But they teach the truth, and as I loathe false religion - I absolutely hate it - I will ONLY worship with them, as they practice the truth in harmony with the Christianity taught by Jesus, and not the political warmongering schemozzle that developed centuries later with Constantine. I don't hate people of other religions, as people are people. But the organisations that lie to people about God, and slander him to make him out as a monster by their teachings and actions, when it is clearly written down how it is, they are disgusting, and the prophecy about them being harlots and being devoured by the "eighth king, that springs from the seven" absolutely brings me joy!
Here are some other translations of that last verse from Micah 5:2, showing that not all of the Bible translators agree with dotcom's point of view.
New International Version - "whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.”
Amplified Version "His goings forth (appearances) are from long ago, From ancient days.”
Christian Standard Bible "His origin is from antiquity, from ancient times."
Common English Bible "His origin is from remote times, from ancient days."
Easy-to-read Version "His beginnings are from ancient times, from long, long ago."
Contemporary English Version "someone whose family goes back to ancient times."
Good News Translation "whose family line goes back to ancient times."
New World Translation "whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting."
“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.”
What do you think? Does it prove that Jesus is God? Can you prove that Jesus is God from this statement? My argument is no. It doesn't, and the conclusion that it does is absurd. Here's why.
This is the quote from the KJV of 1611.
It is noteworthy that in 1611, the English language was very different to today's English. You will see a lot of people still using "Thee, thy, thou..." as though God himself speaks in Archaeic English. Even some translations of the Qur'an do this with the English language.
Well, God can choose to speak any language, but to hold the Bible in a dead language was the reason the apostasy spread so easily in the first place. Because it is a translation, the goal should be to present the message of the original language in the most accurate terms. Not a word for word translation, as that would just jumble sentences, and hence their meaning.
So I showed a link, from an online Bible study aid. Namely, studybible.info. If you click on the link, you'll see that it takes you to Micah 5:2 on there. It is an interlinear Bible as such, whereas the words that are used are represented as numbers, and you can click on the numbers, and see what the original word/s means.
But their response was "It's a JW link". What a close-minded comment!
First of all, they didn't look, as it isn't. But of itself, that mentality shows their true colours. Their way of begging off is to choose to lie about things, and strawman their way out of it. Cowardly, and not a debate. Like a little kid who calls someone a name, then runs away.
Secondly, if it WAS a "JW link", then they'd - if they had the truth, which they obviously don't - be able to demonstrate it by breaking it on down for us. But no, instead they ran away. I mean, it wasn't an encyclopedia, but a scripture. Fancy not being able to read a scripture.
Then again, maybe they are in Russia, as in Russia at present, the one who has chosen to rule over the land is currently banning Jehovah's Witnesses, and claiming they're terrorists, and that their Bible isn't a Bible. People who read the New World Translation, or look at information from Jehovah's Witnesses are potentially arrested and jailed, and have their property taken off them, as has been the case in Russia now for about 6 years in recent times. Still, the proof is in the pudding, as they say, but maybe this is why they were scared to read the thoughts of Jehovah's Witnesses, who don't worship Jesus, although they are Christians.
What annoyed me though, is while I was away, this person was lying about my beliefs to someone else while I wasn't there, like a little coward. Why not instead, try to teach the truth from their Bible that they claim? The answer is simple. Because they can't. They actually don't know. I mean, how focussed to specifically decide to firstly choose to attack me personally (I don't know this person, and they don't know me) instead of demonstrating from the Bible their side. Secondly, instead of just discussing in a debate room the actual point, they lied about me, and said I said things I didn't. Twisting things.
But this thread is put here because of their claim that I didn't answer it, so here's my answer to it.
If you have a look at the link here, it opens up an English translation, written over a Hebrew script. The English is a translation, like the KJV, but you'll notice above the Hebrew words, there are numbers. And in this instance, there are three numbers over the place where the KJV has "everlasting".
The numbers are H6924, H3117, and H5769. Look at all three, as all three of them come after the English translation below it.
The meanings are written underneath them, when you click on them. Beside the meaning, you'll also see a list of "First 30 of X occurences", and how the word has been translated in different places, as even in the KJV, the translators chose what seemed to suit at the time.
The number H5769, you will note is based on these two words combined - עלם עולם, and it has this explanation about the meaning of the word. "properly concealed, that is, the vanishing point; generally time out of mind (past or future), that is, (practically) eternity; frequentative adverbially (especially with prepositional prefix) always".
So, there is a potential for using the idea of eternity, but that is one out of three general ideas for what the word means, depending on the circumstances it appears in.
A deeper look is at those thirty first instances, and their meanings. Does the word get translated as "eternal" or "everlasting" every time? Let's look.
"To the age"
"Shall not always"
"Who were of old"
"That is with you, for perpetual"
"The everlasting"
"ever"
"For an everlasting"
"of the everlasting"
"To the age"
So no, they do not always mean "everlasting". And then we can question the language itself. "From everlasting". Is not "from" speaking about the past? Yet "lasting" is about the present and future? If I was to say something was lasting, it means it has so far lasted, but it may break down tomorrow. But "everlasting" is about the future. "It will last forever".
So "from everlasting" in modern English can not mean "from infinity", but more so gives the perspective of being that far back in the past, it is like looking at the horizon until it disappears. Not that it had no beginning, but that it is that far away.
So no, dotcom. "From everlasting" does not prove that Jesus is God. You may as well tell me that because the bell went "Ding dang dong", that means that Jesus is God, because it is just as abstract, and your conclusion is absurd.
And I'm looking forward to your explanation of Jesus' statement, "the Father is greater than I am." I would like to see how you can demonstrate this means that Jesus is equal to God, for my mathematics and logic classes taught me that
< and > are not =, and
we can be Jesus' brothers, but not God's brothers, and Jesus calls God his Father, but you claim Jesus is God. So you're God's brother?
I'm happy for you to prove it otherwise though.
*Point to note!
Currently, I am not one of Jehovah's Witnesses (mind you, I will be, and proudly so). But they teach the truth, and as I loathe false religion - I absolutely hate it - I will ONLY worship with them, as they practice the truth in harmony with the Christianity taught by Jesus, and not the political warmongering schemozzle that developed centuries later with Constantine. I don't hate people of other religions, as people are people. But the organisations that lie to people about God, and slander him to make him out as a monster by their teachings and actions, when it is clearly written down how it is, they are disgusting, and the prophecy about them being harlots and being devoured by the "eighth king, that springs from the seven" absolutely brings me joy!
Here are some other translations of that last verse from Micah 5:2, showing that not all of the Bible translators agree with dotcom's point of view.
New International Version - "whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.”
Amplified Version "His goings forth (appearances) are from long ago, From ancient days.”
Christian Standard Bible "His origin is from antiquity, from ancient times."
Common English Bible "His origin is from remote times, from ancient days."
Easy-to-read Version "His beginnings are from ancient times, from long, long ago."
Contemporary English Version "someone whose family goes back to ancient times."
Good News Translation "whose family line goes back to ancient times."
New World Translation "whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting."
