- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Hi D,
This is from Shimmer's post in another thread:
Another important feature of YLT is its treatment of the Hebrew word olam and the Greek word aion. These two words have basically the same meaning, and YLT translates them and their derivatives as “age” or “age-during”. Other English versions most often translate them to indicate eternality (eternal, everlasting, forever, etc). However, there are notable exceptions to this in all major translations, such as Matthew 28:20: “…I am with you always, to the end of the age” (NRSV), the word “age” being a translation of aion. Rendering aion to indicate eternality in this verse would result in the contradictory phrase “end of eternity”, so the question arises whether it should ever be so.
That is the word translated as “eternity” in the LXX rendering of Micah 5:2. So now we have the Hebrew saying “days of antiquity” and the Greek saying the exact same thing – according to Young. Young even shows how “eternity” cannot always be a correct translation of “aion” or Matt 28:20 would talk of the “END of eternity”.
We now have even more evidence that Micah 5:2 DOES talk of Jesus' “origin” or “beginning”……..but that “beginning” was NOT from “eternity”.
peace and love,
mikeHi Mike,
Quote I wish you wouldn't have…..I hate long posts.
and I “disklike” 5-6 posts directd towards me when it just could have been one post. oh well……….Quote “Beginning” is just a word that you guys like to play around with in a failed attempt to prove that Jesus had no beginning. But Micah 5:2 says he does, D.
what? you just mentioned that there are multiple beginnings.
I dont get your post. I just responded saying that in Job that the Bene-elohim shouted for joy on day 3.
which wasnt before the earth.
we are talking about the beginning of all creation. Your saying that the beginning is “within eternity” which wouldnt make sense.Quote Okay, say that if it helps you sleep at night. But it doesn't change the fact that Jesus DID have a beginning, while God has no beginning or end. He is from everlasting to everlasting and is never said to have an “origin” nor a “beginning”. Nor is He said to be the first of anyone else's works. And if Jesus was not always flesh, then there was a point where he BEGAN to exist as flesh. This was Jesus' fleshly “beginning”.
Jesus is also called the Beginning in Col 1:18. but it doesnt suggest that he was created within eternity.
He is from Eternity, working within finitity.
so Jesus had mulitple beginnigs? thats what your saying.
You want to focus the whole idea on one word but ignore the context that surrounds it. beginning within eternity is not possible, just how God is the Ancient of Days.
God also says he is the First and the Last, yet he is eternal?
how can he be First within what, if he always existed?
how can he be last? unless he is suggesting that he is eternal in the very same sentence.Quote Ah, but the original Hebrew doesn't poetically say “days of eternity”. It says “days of antiquity”, and in the other instances of the use of those words together in scripture, they refer to early world history. From NETNotes: Mic 5:25tn Heb “from the past, from the days of antiquity.” Elsewhere both phrases refer to the early periods in the history of the world or of the nation of Israel.
I know that Jesus had his beginning before the creation of the world, for it was created through him. But having “origins” from “days of antiquity” does not sound like “from everlasting to everlasting”, like his God is said to be.
And I suppose I know as much about “time” and “eternity” as you do……….NOTHING. We mere mortals like to imagine we have concepts like time and space all figured out. Just like years ago, mere mortals were convinced that the world was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth. Let's not try to prove our doctrines using the mere mortal scientific minds of today. Remember it was similar scientific minds that brought us the theory of evolution.
Let's just stick to what we know as fact and what we can decipher from scripture.
NETNOTES:
4 tn Heb “his goings out.” The term may refer to the ruler’s origins (cf. NAB, NIV, NRSV, NLT) or to his activities.
The note before you mention said that it had a possibility to mean his activities, which would change the meaning compeletly.
But again it does not say beginning.
here is the definition of the word in hebrew
mowtsa'ah
1) origin, place of going out from
Of origin is defined as coming out of some where, than its valid to interpret the verse as “he come out of eternity or antiquity.”
doesnt say he had a beginning, it doesnt say he was created.
Psalms74:12 But God has been my king from ancient times, performing acts of deliverance on the earth
God has always been King, or was there a time that he wasnt?My simple point about time and eternity, is that time is something we live in and its observable and obvious, where eternity is beyond us where time doesnt exist.
So to say that one year passed in eternity would be a fallacy.Quote Obviously D. All things came to be THROUGH him.
Than thats a fallacy.Quote I agree and have been arguing this exact point to JA and WJ. It is also used for any “general time period”.
Ok so what are you using “yown” in reference to represent what point in your arguement?Quote Scriptures say he was both “begotten” by his God and the “beginning of the creation” by his God. So……YES!
As i said before, he is from eternity or from ancient days doesnt mean he had a beginning.Quote Really? “I have waited for all eternity for you to finally answer my posts on this thread.” It's a poetic and metaphoric way of saying “a long flippin' time”. And don't forget, it is the LXX writers to poetically used “eternity” to express the Hebrew “antiquity”. They were both saying that Jesus had his BEGINNING a long time ago.
Thats a exageration.
the LXX also says within the first defintion “origins” along side beginning.
arche 1) beginning, origin
ek 1) out of, from, by, away from
And also the very next word expresses the context, or the meaning that he is “coming out from”
Which doesnt mean that he had a beginning.
And in hebrew its expressed as Origins as well.
And if we are going to take the LXX as most important evidence, than it safe to say it meant only eternity.
aion
1) for ever, an unbroken age, perpetuity of time, eternity
In Hebrew Orgins is again
mowtsa'ah 1) origin, place of going out from
So even in the Greek LXX he is saying “Beginnings/orgins coming out from days of Eternity”If your stating that the greek “Eternity” is expressed only as something poetitic to express “antiquity” in hebrew, cant i also do the Vise versa, and say that the
greek “arche” means actually “origin” as it means in hebrew. Isnt that also part of the poetitic rhyming?Quote Well then, receive this: Acts 4:24 NIV
24When they heard this, they raised their voices together in prayer to God. “Sovereign Lord,” they said, “you made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and everything in them.They start their prayer to “GOD” and attribute the creation solely to Him. But how do we know they didn't mean the “Father/Son” God? From the way they finish the same prayer:
30Stretch out your hand to heal and perform miraculous signs and wonders through the name of your holy servant Jesus.”
Scripture NEVER says we have “Creators” or that Jesus himself actually created anything.
Ok your confusing me on what you believe.
You just said before This
you Said:Quote I know that Jesus had his beginning before the creation of the world, for it was created through him.
Lets but the whole Jesus is God or not aside.
Scritpure is clear that Jesus did create, whether through or by or soley, he did something he created and life sustains by him.
So I dont get it, can you clarify what you mean.
You keep on mentioning the Father/Son duo, Notice they didnt say father, nor the Son. Paul and John are the ones who gave us the ideas that Jesus particpated within creation.
Again now back on the subject, I do believe they are one and the same, so it wouldnt matter either way.
Look here is your problem when your referring to what i believe, you keep on stating things like there is no “Creatorssssss”
and i agree i believe there is only ONE Creator, but not a duo, but ONE God.
You keep on thinking on the terms of your belief but not on mine. You think of them as seperate persons, I dont.
So when you state there is not more than one creator, is Fine with me. I believe the Lord is Echad.Quote Yet He had a one on one relationship with Adam, called Abraham His friend, and spoke to Moses “face to face”. He had special relationships with all of the Prophets and David and Solomon. It seems to me that God was well known to certain individuals before Jesus came as flesh. And I never said anyone knew EVERYTHING about God
With Adam of course.
With Moses partially, Moses asked to see him, God said you couldnt handle it.
Yes and Yes, speacial relationships but not as Father.
Known as God but not as the Father.
He is unknowable, as in we cannot approach him in that speacial relationship as our “abba” father, which is the relationship that we all seek.
To know everything would kill us.Quote The focus SHOULD be that Micah 5:2 CLEARLY says Jesus had a BEGINNING.
Actualy it clearly says he is from Eternity.Sorry it took so long to write back,
been having a hard time.Much love,
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 15 2010,07:50) Hi D, This is from Shimmer's post in another thread:
Another important feature of YLT is its treatment of the Hebrew word olam and the Greek word aion. These two words have basically the same meaning, and YLT translates them and their derivatives as “age” or “age-during”. Other English versions most often translate them to indicate eternality (eternal, everlasting, forever, etc). However, there are notable exceptions to this in all major translations, such as Matthew 28:20: “…I am with you always, to the end of the age” (NRSV), the word “age” being a translation of aion. Rendering aion to indicate eternality in this verse would result in the contradictory phrase “end of eternity”, so the question arises whether it should ever be so.
That is the word translated as “eternity” in the LXX rendering of Micah 5:2. So now we have the Hebrew saying “days of antiquity” and the Greek saying the exact same thing – according to Young. Young even shows how “eternity” cannot always be a correct translation of “aion” or Matt 28:20 would talk of the “END of eternity”.
We now have even more evidence that Micah 5:2 DOES talk of Jesus' “origin” or “beginning”……..but that “beginning” was NOT from “eternity”.
peace and love,
mike
Ok than now lets interpret the scriptures than.
“Olam” doesnt always mean everlasting- agreed.
I learned that a few months ago.So your sayings or the notes is saying that it refers that Jesus will be with us until the end of Time or the end of age (what age) or is it just poeticaly saying he will be with us forever?
since there is no end of eternity… woulndt that be a metaphorical way of saying never ending?Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Oct. 16 2010,19:51) NETNOTES:
4 tn Heb “his goings out.” The term may refer to the ruler’s origins (cf. NAB, NIV, NRSV, NLT) or to his activities.
The note before you mention said that it had a possibility to mean his activities, which would change the meaning compeletly.
But again it does not say beginning.
here is the definition of the word in hebrew
mowtsa'ah
1) origin, place of going out from
Of origin is defined as coming out of some where, than its valid to interpret the verse as “he come out of eternity or antiquity.”
doesnt say he had a beginning, it doesnt say he was created.
Psalms74:12 But God has been my king from ancient times, performing acts of deliverance on the earth
God has always been King, or was there a time that he wasnt?
Hi D,But the LXX DOES use the word “beginning”. That is how these 70 Greek speaking experts in the Jewish Law understood “goings forth”.
But even if we go with “activities”, it clearly implies that there was a “starting point” to Jesus' activities, and therefore a “starting point” for Jesus.
And if you use “place of going out from”, the verse then says that “place” was from antiquity……..not Jesus.
And while God has been our King from ancient times, He couldn't very well be the King of makind before there was any mankind to be King over, right? Isn't this the point you yourself make about God being a “healer”?
peace and love,
mikeQuote (SimplyForgiven @ Oct. 16 2010,19:51) If your stating that the greek “Eternity” is expressed only as something poetitic to express “antiquity” in hebrew, cant i also do the Vise versa, and say that the greek “arche” means actually “origin” as it means in hebrew. Isnt that also part of the poetitic rhyming?
What exactly do you think “origin” means here?
Is there anything or anyone you know of whose ORIGIN was from a different time than their BEGINNING? It means the same thing, and it is only your desire to make Jesus into God that drives you to come up with nonsensical things to imply it means something else.mike
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Oct. 16 2010,19:51) Ok your confusing me on what you believe
Okay, let me clarify for you what the scriptures plainly say. God created everything ALONE. God chose to create everything ALONE……THROUGH Jesus.Never is Jesus said to be our “Creator”, nor are there any scriptures that say we have “Creators”.
God is our Creator, and He did it THROUGH Jesus.
mike
SF:
Quote Again now back on the subject, I do believe they are one and the same, so it wouldnt matter either way.
How does your “they are one and the same” theory fit in with the prayer in Acts 4?Acts 4:24 NIV
24When they heard this, they raised their voices together in prayer to God. “Sovereign Lord,” they said, “you made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and everything in them.They start their prayer to “GOD” and attribute the creation solely to Him. But how do we know they didn't mean the “Father/Son” God? From the way they finish the same prayer:
30Stretch out your hand to heal and perform miraculous signs and wonders through the name of your holy servant Jesus.”
How does that prayer imply they are “one and the same” D? How does it imply that we have “Creators”?
peace and love,
mikeQuote (SimplyForgiven @ Oct. 16 2010,19:59) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 15 2010,07:50) Hi D, This is from Shimmer's post in another thread:
Another important feature of YLT is its treatment of the Hebrew word olam and the Greek word aion. These two words have basically the same meaning, and YLT translates them and their derivatives as “age” or “age-during”. Other English versions most often translate them to indicate eternality (eternal, everlasting, forever, etc). However, there are notable exceptions to this in all major translations, such as Matthew 28:20: “…I am with you always, to the end of the age” (NRSV), the word “age” being a translation of aion. Rendering aion to indicate eternality in this verse would result in the contradictory phrase “end of eternity”, so the question arises whether it should ever be so.
That is the word translated as “eternity” in the LXX rendering of Micah 5:2. So now we have the Hebrew saying “days of antiquity” and the Greek saying the exact same thing – according to Young. Young even shows how “eternity” cannot always be a correct translation of “aion” or Matt 28:20 would talk of the “END of eternity”.
We now have even more evidence that Micah 5:2 DOES talk of Jesus' “origin” or “beginning”……..but that “beginning” was NOT from “eternity”.
peace and love,
mike
Ok than now lets interpret the scriptures than.
“Olam” doesnt always mean everlasting- agreed.
I learned that a few months ago.So your sayings or the notes is saying that it refers that Jesus will be with us until the end of Time or the end of age (what age) or is it just poeticaly saying he will be with us forever?
since there is no end of eternity… woulndt that be a metaphorical way of saying never ending?
No, it's saying that the Greek word translated as “eternity” cannot really mean “eternity”, for eternity has no “end”. Therefore, in the Hebrew, Micah 5:2 says Jesus' origins are from days of antiquity. And in the Greek, it says Jesus' beginning was from days of antiquity.So, unless you can explain why 70 Greek speaking experts in the Hebrew Law came up with “beginning” when it really meant “activities”, you are on the losing end of this one.
And unless you can LOGICALLY explain how “origin” means anything else than “beginning”, you will have to at one point put your own wishes aside and come to grips with what the scriptures actually teach.
peace and love,
mikeHi D,
I'm on my third time through the scriptures and am currently in Acts. I just found a couple more verses about who did the creating.
Acts 14:15 NIV
15″Men, why are you doing this? We too are only men, human like you. We are bringing you good news, telling you to turn from these worthless things to the living God, who made heaven and earth and sea and everything in them.Now knowing you a little bit, I'm sure your mind is saying, “they are one and the same, so big deal”, right? Okay then, what about this following one?
Acts 17 NIV
24″The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands.31For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead.”
Verse 31 seems to clearly distinguish the God who created the world from the “man” He has appointed to judge the world, right?
peace and love,
mikeMike and SF,
Jesus had a beginning. That much is clear. At what exact point Jesus came into being is not clear, because it does not matter, exactly.
God is One. There is none other like him.
If God is One, and He is, then Jesus cannot have existed, as God existed, from Eternity, no beginning, no end.
Mike, SF is right in that you say that Jesus is presented at one time as being 'from eternity' and at another time you say, 'This day'…'a day'!
It cannot be both 'A Day' AND 'From Eternity'.
There is nothing in Scriptures that speaks concerning God talking to Jesus – 'from eternity'. You present that as a plainly refutable and unsupportable argument.
Your signature verse, 'Micah 5:2' speaks of the one to be ruler in Israel whose goings forth have been from of old, from eternity' (NKJV).
In this version there is no mention of 'day' although 'days' is used in 5:10 and 4:6 and 4:1, but just take that as interpreted, an argument could take up more storage space than could be held in planet Jupiter.
The use of both 'of old' and 'everlasting' shows that the reference is figurative for 'from his beginning'.
Further more, and even simpler…
God is one…yes, back to that.God is one and He became, became, yes, became a Father, became a Father when He gained a son…for the Son is what makes one a Father and one is not a Father until and unless one has a son. But the one becoming…means that there was a point when he was not, then afterwards was, a father, and there was a point when the son was not but then afterwards, was.
JA:
Quote Mike, SF is right in that you say that Jesus is presented at one time as being 'from eternity' and at another time you say, 'This day'…'a day'! It cannot be both 'A Day' AND 'From Eternity'.
Ah, but your argument is with scripture, not me. For scripture PLAINLY says this ruler's “BEGINNINGS are from DAYS of ETERNITY”. So tell scripture that it can't be both.JA, you and I both know that Jesus wasn't from “eternity” like his God, yet at the same time we also both know that his beginning had to be before “days”, since all things were created through him. My post at the top of the previous page where I quoted Shimmer's info shows that the word translated as “eternity” in Micah 5:2 most likely means an age long ago. So how about the “days” thing, JA? Whether or not the KJV includes the word, it IS in both the original Hebrew text and the Septuagint – the LXX being what the disciples themselves considered as “Scripture”.
So “days” most definitely IS there, yet we know Jesus was before any “day” that we know of. What to do? Apparently, and like I've repeatedly said, “days” can be – and in this case obviously is – used to mean “a general time period”. Do you agree?
JA:
Quote God is one and He became, became, yes, became a Father, became a Father when He gained a son…for the Son is what makes one a Father and one is not a Father until and unless one has a son.
Agreed, but WHEN did this happen? You think it was after Jesus was raised, although Jesus called himself “the only begotten Son of God” before that time. And I wonder how you reconcile your view against this scripture:Hebrews 1:2 NIV
but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.Who is “HIS SON” that Paul is speaking of? Why not “ONE OF HIS SONS”? And how could the universe be made through “HIS SON” if “HIS SON” wasn't “HIS SON” until he was raised? You see JA? Even before the universe was made, Jesus was already distinguished as something more than any other “son of God” because he is the ONLY one through whom all other things (including the other “sons of God”) came to be:
John 1:3 NIV
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.peace and love,
mikeQuote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 16 2010,22:05) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Oct. 16 2010,19:51) NETNOTES:
4 tn Heb “his goings out.” The term may refer to the ruler’s origins (cf. NAB, NIV, NRSV, NLT) or to his activities.
The note before you mention said that it had a possibility to mean his activities, which would change the meaning compeletly.
But again it does not say beginning.
here is the definition of the word in hebrew
mowtsa'ah
1) origin, place of going out from
Of origin is defined as coming out of some where, than its valid to interpret the verse as “he come out of eternity or antiquity.”
doesnt say he had a beginning, it doesnt say he was created.
Psalms74:12 But God has been my king from ancient times, performing acts of deliverance on the earth
God has always been King, or was there a time that he wasnt?
Hi D,But the LXX DOES use the word “beginning”. That is how these 70 Greek speaking experts in the Jewish Law understood “goings forth”.
But even if we go with “activities”, it clearly implies that there was a “starting point” to Jesus' activities, and therefore a “starting point” for Jesus.
And if you use “place of going out from”, the verse then says that “place” was from antiquity……..not Jesus.
And while God has been our King from ancient times, He couldn't very well be the King of makind before there was any mankind to be King over, right? Isn't this the point you yourself make about God being a “healer”?
peace and love,
mikeQuote Hi D, But the LXX DOES use the word “beginning”. That is how these 70 Greek speaking experts in the Jewish Law understood “goings forth”.
And they also use Origins along side with it according to the LXX.Quote But even if we go with “activities”, it clearly implies that there was a “starting point” to Jesus' activities, and therefore a “starting point” for Jesus.
That would be a conjecture. It would be implying that just because Jesus started to be “active” in finite space, thats when he started, but we dont know if he has activities in “infinite” space.
Just because he take action in the beginning of time doesnt mean he was created at that time. You cant just say well just because I started to accomplish my purpose of being a firefighter at 36 years old thats the day i was born?Quote And if you use “place of going out from”, the verse then says that “place” was from antiquity……..not Jesus.
I dont get it?Quote And while God has been our King from ancient times, He couldn't very well be the King of makind before there was any mankind to be King over, right? Isn't this the point you yourself make about God being a “healer”?
Lol, You know mike , I knew very well you were going to mention that. It depends what you define as king?
a Healer is a solution to Pain, so is a father is to a Son.
Cause and effect situation.
But Kings is under interpretation of Royality and Authority.
The Rights to Rule and to Execute His will.
Do you believe it falls along the same line?Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 16 2010,22:11) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Oct. 16 2010,19:51) If your stating that the greek “Eternity” is expressed only as something poetitic to express “antiquity” in hebrew, cant i also do the Vise versa, and say that the greek “arche” means actually “origin” as it means in hebrew. Isnt that also part of the poetitic rhyming?
What exactly do you think “origin” means here? Is there anything or anyone you know of whose ORIGIN was from a different time than their BEGINNING? It means the same thing, and it is only your desire to make Jesus into God that drives you to come up with nonsensical things to imply it means something else.mike
Mike… you made like 4 posts to me…
I dont understand how do you want me to respond?
you want me to respond to per post, that you decide to branch off or… what?Anyways….
You dont understand Mike, your using the “excuse” that Eternity is something poetitic, than if you can do that, than i Might as well do the very same thing.Thats the point.
and that In Hebrew, it means to “come out from” not that your born somewhere.Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 16 2010,22:14) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Oct. 16 2010,19:51) Ok your confusing me on what you believe
Okay, let me clarify for you what the scriptures plainly say. God created everything ALONE. God chose to create everything ALONE……THROUGH Jesus.Never is Jesus said to be our “Creator”, nor are there any scriptures that say we have “Creators”.
God is our Creator, and He did it THROUGH Jesus.
mike
Scriptures never speak of Creators-Correct,did God create alone?- correct
Here is the problem with your belief mike.
Is that i believe them to be one and the same which would compelete the two requierements listed above.But scriptures directly state that Jesus created, whether through or by, but that would suggest that God did not create alone.
Your saying that God created the builder to build for himself and sustain everything in the household with all authority to do so, yet God is solely the creator and the builder is what?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 16 2010,22:20) SF: Quote Again now back on the subject, I do believe they are one and the same, so it wouldnt matter either way.
How does your “they are one and the same” theory fit in with the prayer in Acts 4?Acts 4:24 NIV
24When they heard this, they raised their voices together in prayer to God. “Sovereign Lord,” they said, “you made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and everything in them.They start their prayer to “GOD” and attribute the creation solely to Him. But how do we know they didn't mean the “Father/Son” God? From the way they finish the same prayer:
30Stretch out your hand to heal and perform miraculous signs and wonders through the name of your holy servant Jesus.”
How does that prayer imply they are “one and the same” D? How does it imply that we have “Creators”?
peace and love,
mike
God is a title, it says soverighn Lord.
We must do everything Through Jesus Christ as he mandated in HIS name.
The Shoe still fits.I never said we have Creators, i said we have one Creator.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 16 2010,22:27) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Oct. 16 2010,19:59) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 15 2010,07:50) Hi D, This is from Shimmer's post in another thread:
Another important feature of YLT is its treatment of the Hebrew word olam and the Greek word aion. These two words have basically the same meaning, and YLT translates them and their derivatives as “age” or “age-during”. Other English versions most often translate them to indicate eternality (eternal, everlasting, forever, etc). However, there are notable exceptions to this in all major translations, such as Matthew 28:20: “…I am with you always, to the end of the age” (NRSV), the word “age” being a translation of aion. Rendering aion to indicate eternality in this verse would result in the contradictory phrase “end of eternity”, so the question arises whether it should ever be so.
That is the word translated as “eternity” in the LXX rendering of Micah 5:2. So now we have the Hebrew saying “days of antiquity” and the Greek saying the exact same thing – according to Young. Young even shows how “eternity” cannot always be a correct translation of “aion” or Matt 28:20 would talk of the “END of eternity”.
We now have even more evidence that Micah 5:2 DOES talk of Jesus' “origin” or “beginning”……..but that “beginning” was NOT from “eternity”.
peace and love,
mike
Ok than now lets interpret the scriptures than.
“Olam” doesnt always mean everlasting- agreed.
I learned that a few months ago.So your sayings or the notes is saying that it refers that Jesus will be with us until the end of Time or the end of age (what age) or is it just poeticaly saying he will be with us forever?
since there is no end of eternity… woulndt that be a metaphorical way of saying never ending?
No, it's saying that the Greek word translated as “eternity” cannot really mean “eternity”, for eternity has no “end”. Therefore, in the Hebrew, Micah 5:2 says Jesus' origins are from days of antiquity. And in the Greek, it says Jesus' beginning was from days of antiquity.So, unless you can explain why 70 Greek speaking experts in the Hebrew Law came up with “beginning” when it really meant “activities”, you are on the losing end of this one.
And unless you can LOGICALLY explain how “origin” means anything else than “beginning”, you will have to at one point put your own wishes aside and come to grips with what the scriptures actually teach.
peace and love,
mike
If eternity doesnt really Eternity
Than Beginning doesnt really mean beginning,Either way if there is no end in Eternity, than he comes from somewhere without end. Peotitic no?
the NET notes says “activities” not I.
I would like to know why they would mention that though.because Origins means “coming out from” and beginnings means “an act of entering into a circumstance
or where anything begins, the first occurence”Mike,
I simply see micah 5:2 as main evidence that Jesus will come from bethelham and he is the long awiated messiah, the saviour of the World, Immanuel (God with us) that was foretold to come. I do not believe that this scripture suggests that he has a beginning.
If anythign the scripture suggests that his beginnings will take place in Bethleham.
however it does not correct it self, it says he is orginaly from eternity, not of old.Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 16 2010,23:53) Hi D, I'm on my third time through the scriptures and am currently in Acts. I just found a couple more verses about who did the creating.
Acts 14:15 NIV
15″Men, why are you doing this? We too are only men, human like you. We are bringing you good news, telling you to turn from these worthless things to the living God, who made heaven and earth and sea and everything in them.Now knowing you a little bit, I'm sure your mind is saying, “they are one and the same, so big deal”, right? Okay then, what about this following one?
Acts 17 NIV
24″The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands.31For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead.”
Verse 31 seems to clearly distinguish the God who created the world from the “man” He has appointed to judge the world, right?
peace and love,
mike
Yet we know that Christ Created, and we very will know that He will Judge the world.Your trying to distinguish them as seperate persons where i do not.
Mike your making alot of posts,
Make either a really long post or something else man because this is ridcuulousLet's cut to the chase here D. NETBible is an admittedly trinitarian web-site. If there was ANY viable evidence of “goings forth” actually meaning “activities”, they would not have even mentioned that it could mean “beginning”. For to do so would deliver an immediate death blow to the trinity by implying that “God #2” had a “beginning”. They know that the LXX and all the expert evidence supports “beginning” or “origin” – which mean the same thing here – so they added the “activities clause” to gain a little “reasonable doubt” for people like you who are so hell-bent on Jesus being God that you would buy into anything at all that keeps that dream alive.
The Hebrew “yalad” means “brought forth – as in childbirth”. So “goings forth” is like saying “the bringing forth of him”. In other words, it says that Jesus was “brought forth” a long time ago. That is why it is translated as “origin” and “beginning” almost always – because the experts agree that is what is meant.
Think about it D. The entire “Jesus is God” doctrine hangs on “beginning” versus “activities” in Micah 5:2. NETNotes admits it could mean “beginning”, so where does that leave the trinity and other such doctines? It means you're hanging your whole “Jesus is God” doctrine on the fact that there is a small chance Micah 5:2 means “activities”.
Okay, let's say for argument's sake that it does mean “activities”. God's “activities” are not from “days of antiquity”, they are from everlasting. Why would “Jesus-God's” activities have a “starting point”? Did he exist from eternity, but not perform any “activities” until a certain time? That's hard to swallow, man.
About the Greek word “aion” being translated as “eternity”, what Young was saying is that it is the same word used by Jesus when he said he would be with us until the end of “aion”. And that would mean Jesus will be with us until the “END of eternity”. But “eternity” has no “end”, so the Greek word “aion” is mistranslated when it is rendered as “eternity”. It really means “eons” or whatever…………but NOT “eternity”.
Therefore, if we were to solve the dilemma we're having the same way the early church fathers did – by using what the NT writers considered “Holy Scripture” – we'd be done by now and you'd have a new understanding of scripture as a whole. The LXX was considered “Scripture” by the NT writers and used to solve scriptural disagreements by the early church fathers. So let's use it for this disagreement, okay?
The LXX says Jesus' “BEGINNING” was from days of “eons ago”. And if Jesus had a beginning at all, then he is NOT God. And if he is NOT God, then he is one of the things that exist in heaven that scripture says God CREATED.
Look D, even if you have Micah 5:2 your own way, you still have to deal with Micah 5:4, which says:
Micah 5:4 (New International Version)
4 He will stand and shepherd his flock
in the strength of the LORD,
in the majesty of the name of the LORD his God.
And they will live securely, for then his greatness
will reach to the ends of the earth.Jesus will rule in the STRENGTH and MAJESTY of the NAME of YHVH………….HIS GOD! How does this knowledge fit in with your understanding?
peace and love,
mike
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
