Does Jesus have an origin? Why does the KJV try to hide that fact?

Some trinitarians tell us Micah 5:2 (or 5:1 in some versions) teaches that Jesus has always existed ("from everlasting" - KJV). And since only God has existed for all eternity, Jesus must be God!

But look at other trinitarian translations of Micah 5:2. (E.g., "O Bethlehem ..., from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days" - RSV, cf. JB, NEB, REB, NAB, NIV, AT, Mo, NRSV, NJB, Byington, and Young's.) Not only does this verse not teach that Jesus has always existed, it even speaks of his origin in very ancient times. (Origin: "a coming into existence" - Webster's New World Dictionary, 1973.)

Why would these trinitarian translations admit such a thing? Perhaps because it is difficult to honestly translate the Hebrew motsaah with a word that does not include this understanding. (Even when "goings forth" is the rendering, it appears it should also be with the understanding of "originating." For example, if we said "the command went forth from the King," we obviously mean the command originated with - or sprang from - the king! And when Micah 5:2 says of the Messiah: "O Bethlehem ..., from you shall come forth [the Messiah]," it can only mean that, in his earthly existence, he originated in Bethlehem!)

Obviously for so many respected trinitarian translators to choose this meaning ("origin") they must feel there is no other honest choice! The only meanings given by Gesenius for this word in his highly-respected Lexicon are "origin, springing" - #4163, Gesenius - cf. Micah 5:1 in The Jewish Publication Society's Bible translation, Tanakh.

And A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament gives the only meaning for this word as used in Micah 5 as "origin." - p. 187, Eerdmans.

It would make no sense to interpret this as meaning the Messiah's human origin springs from ancient times. We have just been told that in Micah's time the Messiah's human origin was to be a future event and would take place in Bethlehem. Also there are no humans who haven't sprung from the very first pair in ancient Eden. It would be ridiculous to make the point that the human Messiah came from ancient stock since every human has done so. It must mean that his pre-existence as a spirit person in heaven originated in very ancient times (as the very beginning of God's creation - Rev. 3:14; Prov. 8:22). The Bible Greek of the ancient Septuagint, in fact, at Micah 5:2 says: "and his goings forth were from the beginning [arkhe], from ancient days [aionos]."

The NIV Study Bible, in a footnote for Micah 5:2 explains: "origins...from of old. His beginnings were much earlier than his human birth."

BUT THE TRUE, ETERNAL GOD HAD NO BEGINNING!

It's also very important to examine Micah 5:4 where Jehovah is recognized as being the God of the Messiah! (The NIVSB tells us in a footnote for this verse that the LORD [`Jehovah'] here - the God of the Messiah - refers to "God the Father.")

Interesting question.

Checking at 'blueletterbible.org.

The translators of the KJV understood the Hebrew word used.

Examples are:

Gen 1:24 And God said , Let the earth bring forth3318 the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

Here living creatures are produced or originated upon the earth.

Gen 2:10 And a river went out3318 of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted , and became into four heads.

Here the river originated in Eden and upon leaving Eden it became 4 rivers.

Gen 4:16 And Cain went out3318 from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.

Context shows that Cain didn't originate, but left the presence of Jehovah, going to the land of Nod.

Gen 8:18 And Noah went forth3318 , and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him:

Again context helps us understand what Noah and his family did.

This brings us to Micah 5:2.

Were they trying to hide the fact that Jesus has an origin?

Yes, but I don't think it was on purpose.

The translators did believe the trinity. As Dr. BeDuhn has stated. "They weren't looking for truth, because they already believe what they thought was truth."

They were just translating the bible and because of their preconceived belief, read the latter meaning into the word.

.

The Easter Bunny has a long history. It was brought to America from Germany by immigrants in the Pennsylvania Dutch area. It has become an integral part of the American Easter tradition and has to a lesser degree been accepted in the UK. The Easter Bunny is usually considered to be a benevolent, vaguely supernatural creature that brings gifts to good boys and girls. Today these gifts are usually in the form of chocolate Easter eggs. The origin of the Easter Bunny probably goes back to the festival's connection with the pagan goddess Eostre. Eostre (sometimes spelt Oestre) was a fertility goddess from whom we derive the word "oestrogen" and she is closely associated with fertility symbols such as eggs. The rabbit is known as a highly fertile creature and hence an obvious choice for Easter symbolism. In fact the use of a rabbit is probably a mistake - the Easter "bunny" is more likely to be a hare, since it is the hare that is usually considered the sacred creature of Eostre. Hares have been considered sacred by many cultures including the ancient Egyptians who believed them to watch the moon during the night. Although hares and rabbits are related they are most definitely different creatures, as a certain Bugs keeps reminding us!

I do not see the significance. Both translations imply that the Messiah's origin was before his appearance in Israel. Both Jehovah's Witnesses and Christians believe this, so what is your point?

I thought one of the main issues between JWs and Christians was whether the spirit in Jesus was a created son of God or the begotten Son of God. This verse does not seem to address an issue of difference between the two groups.

I have noticed the same thing in other places, though I never thought about Micah 5:2 before. (Thanks!)

But other passages the KJV translates in a manner that makes the trinity appear to be true, whereas other passages that use the same Hebrew or Greek grammar and sentence structure as those, but are not related to the trinity, they translate correctly. I think I have even seen where you have mentioned a couple before, such as Exodus 3:12 & 3:14 use the same Hebrew phrase, but the KJV translates verse 12 correctly as "I will be" while they translate the same phrase in verse 14 as "I AM." (Upper case theirs.)

Anyone who claims WE translate the NWT to fit our beliefs is a hypocrite.

Check the time when the KJV you are used was translated. After having to suffer 13 weeks in learning the history of English language one thing that stood out to me is that words change, especially English words. So it's possible that 'goings forth' was probably understand as origin. If not then whatever you're saying is correct. :-D

well, that is not exactly true now is it? the word mowtsa'ah is indeed the word used in that passage, but this is not modern hebrew we are talking about but rather ancient hebrew.

in ancient hebrew the word mowtsa'ah which is translated in kjv as "going forth" actually directly translates to mean "family descent".

so the verse can be read like this " 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 family descent has been from of old, from everlasting."

what part of everlasting do you not understand. there is only one being who is everlasting and that would be God, so this is actually just another place where God lets us know that Jesus' family descent is from God and that he is indeed part of God since he is everlasting.

Do you Muslims not understand context? The word origin in the English language has 5 or 6 different meanings. The context or meaning of the word is how the word is used. In this case the word origin means what group you belong to not a starting point. This verse tells me Jesus belongs to the tribe of Judah. That's all.

Consider these facts:

1. The Masoritic text was deliberately altered, particularly the Prophecies related to the Messiah to make them less Messianic because of the large number of Jews Converting.

2. The NWT translation did rely heavily on the Masoritic

3. Corrupted text = corrupted translation.

So why should anybody take you seriously when you advertise you are using a corrupted translation?

Jesus was with God in God's kingdom. God sent Jesus to this world to teach the world about God's kingdom and how one can enter God's kingdom. Once again, Jesus lives in God's kingdom, after he finished the task assigned to him by God.