Micah 5:2 in the NIV

>>Where in the world did the NIV team get origins from?>>

KJV Micah 5:2 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.

NIV Micah 5:2 "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans 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."

We can only second guess the NIV translators unless someone with inside information knows the reason for the choice of words of this passage.

My guess is that they viewed this passage as speaking of the two natures of Christ:

human: out of Bethlehem he shall "come forth".

Deity: eternally begotten of the Father:
"whose origins are from of old, from ancient times"

However the use of "origins"-"from ancient times" vs "goings forth"-"from everlasting" can be viewed as the NIV weakening the doctrine of the eternality of Christ and His unique and eternal relationship of begotteness with the Father.

The NIV wording would allow for a kind of JW view of Christ (pre-existence of His incarnation but not necessarily an eternal pre-existence)

Does this relate to what you are asking?


HankD

[ September 30, 2001: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HankD:
&gt;&gt;Where in the world did the NIV team get origins from?&gt;&gt;

We can only second guess the NIV translators unless someone with inside information knows the reason for the choice of words of this passage.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I already gave the reason for this earlier in this thread. It is what the word means and in context, it is completely consistent with the rest of the text. There is no two natures or weakening of the eternality of Christ. It has simply to do with what the text says.

 

&gt;&gt;I already gave the reason for this earlier in this thread. It is what the word means and in context, it is completely consistent with the rest of the text. There is no two natures or weakening of the eternality of Christ. It has simply to do with what the text says.&gt;&gt;

Dear Pastor Larry,

My answer was a direct reply to the direct question presented by Chris Temple not a critique of what your answer is/was.
However, since you have mentioned it, you did show that it had one of two meanings "origins" or "goings forth".

I did post the LXX translation of the word which supports the "goings forth" choice (exodoi).

This choice is also supported by some early church fathers such as Theodoret (for instance):

"Not God only but also Man; Man as sprung from Judah after the flesh and born in Bethlehem; and God as existing before the ages. For the words “Out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be Ruler,” shew his birth after the flesh which has taken place in the last days; while the words “Whose goings forth have been of old, from everlasting” plainly proclaim His existence before the ages"

Roberts, Alexander and Donaldson, James, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series: Volume III, 1997.

And some contemporaries such as Charles Surgeon:

"His goings forth as our Surety were from everlasting. Pause, my soul, and wonder! Thou hast goings forth in the person of Jesus “from everlasting.” Not only when thou wast born into the world did Christ love thee, but his delights were with the sons of men before there were any sons of men. Often did he think of them; from everlasting to everlasting he had set his affection upon them. What! my soul, has he been so long about thy salvation, and will not he accomplish it? Has he from everlasting been going forth to save me, and will he lose me now?".
Spurgeon, Charles H., Morning and Evening, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1995.

I prefer the KJV (and others) of "goings-forth" and "everlasting".

HankD

 

I am slightly persuaded to the translation of the NASB/KJV but I can see the legitimacy of either. Even in the case of the NASB/KJV rendering, it does not necessarily imply eternality although it certainly can. It is not clear exactly what the meaning is though I think either rendering is an accurate and theologically correct rendering.

Didn't mean to appear as if I was jumping on you. Please accept my apologies if it sounded that way.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HankD:
And some contemporaries such as Charles Surgeon:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did he get a new occupation???

 

RE:Charles Surgeon

&gt;&gt;Did he get a new occupation??? &gt;&gt;

Well, he does rightly divide the word of God
(although he wasn't a dispensationalist).

Just wanted to be sure we were on the same page (so to speak).

HankD

[ September 30, 2001: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

Oh, also Pastor Larry,

No need to apologize, but, on the other hand, I do appreciate your Christian concern.

And I do enjoy your posts.
Well, for the most part

HankD

[ October 01, 2001: Message edited by: HankD ]