They say the same thing. You just don't understand early modern English. Stop attacking the NIV. Even if you could prove another translation had major errors it doesn't validate your cult-belief in the KJV.
KING JAMES VERSION BIBLE VS. MODERN ENGLISH BIBLES
- Thread starter KingJamesVersionBibleOnly
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
They say the same thing. You just don't understand early modern English. Stop attacking the NIV. Even if you could prove another translation had major errors it doesn't validate your cult-belief in the KJV.
Again this whole thing started with my quote of Micah 5:2 and your response.
And I stand by what I actually said, not with your erroneous interpretation of what I said!
Here's what I think the verse says:
A future ruler of Israel will come out of Behtlehem. That same future ruler has been going forth since the old times (before Micah) even from evelasting (eternity).
Can you expain how I got this wrong?
Last edited:
That might be the correct interpretation of that passage, but do you know for sure?
Also, if other translations have opted for an apparently different approach to that passage, it generally means it is a tough passage to interpret from a meaning perspective, or it is tough to translate unambiguously into English, or both!
Until one knows what the original language manuscripts say it is impossible to say....
Do you really suffer from memory loss?
Again you ignore posts that you made accusing me incorrectly just a few back from this one.....
Unbelievable!
What is really Unbelievable! is the continued sparring with the KJVO cultic types in their disingenuity, misnomers, cover-ups, denials of fact, slanderous remarks, self-righteous condemnation of MV users, &c, &c, &c...and to do it day after day expecting a differing result. They will never concede unless God opens their eyes. Huge waste of time.
There's nothing tough about that passage, the Geneva bible interpretted it correctly
Micah 5:2 1599 Geneva Bible (GNV)
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 been from the beginning and from everlasting.
Wycliffe had no trouble interpretting it.
Micah 5:2 Wycliffe Bible (WYC)
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.
It has always been rendered the same in English until Wescot and Hort came around.... Maybe some new fragment was found in the dead sea scrolls that puts Jesus as having an origin I don't know why they changed it.
Maybe you could add a little substance to your remarks. What misnomer, denial of fact or slanderous remarks are you referring to?
There is the quote from your post!
Making a false accusation!
And, you repeated it despite me providing an exact explanation of what I meant!
So, I suggest you stop playing games....
What you are most definitely speculating about is what the original manuscripts said!
This is not about what your interpretation of the verse is.
It is about whether it is correctly translated...
Is your veiw that both versions say the same thing but use different words? Is this your stance or no?
This is an irrelevant question.
I would first want to know what was the correct translation, if any...
And the only to know is get the low-down from the original language manuscripts!
I could care less what the originals said, the originals were written for Greek speakers 2000 years ago.
Here's one reason.
Micah 5:2 King James Version (KJV)
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.
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.”
This ONLY shows a difference in wording between two translations!
It DOES NOT prove your claim that the KJV is with out error, or inspired.
This is ESPECIALLY so, since you cannot compare to the manuscripts to check if ANY of the translators got it right!
Your approach here is hopelessly ILLOGICAL!
thousands clans[a] The Hebrew (eleph) can properly translate either way.
goings forth origins The Hebrew (Mohtsawohteer) literally means family ties.
from everlasting from ancient times The Hebrew (Ohlam) can properly be translated either way.
Looking at the issue: On God's side Jesus has no family ties; He is eternal.
On Mary's side Jesus indeed has family ties; and while they are indeed ancient they are not humanly speaking eternal.