On Feb 28, 9:44 pm, ""@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(1Wit) wrote:
> KJV Micah 5:2 .... 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." The word
> used here for "going forth" actually means, family descent. H4163
"Going forth" is
> the root word of the word "family descent." "Old" is the front part or
fore part.
> H6924. Everlasting is "owlem" H5769. The vanishing point. There are two
vanishing
> points, or time out of mind. One before Adam, at the first or fore part,
the other is
> at the end. You have no knowledge previous to Adam, and you have no
knowledge after
> the end. The last part of this verse said his family descent was from
the first part
> in the day of the vanishing point. Basically saying, Jesus was a
descendant of Adam.
> This verse was "twisted" to make it look like Jesus pre-existed. This
was not a glitch
> or a simple mistake. This was a deliberate falsification of the text.
Not quite...
Mimkha li yetze lihyot moshel beyisrael
Umotza'othav miqedem, miyemey olam
This is my Hebrew transliteration...
The 1999 JPS [Jewish Publication Society] translation calls it this
way:
>From you one shall come forth to rule Israel for me
One whose origin is from of old, from ancient times
The verb yatza means to go out/emerge from... it is an extremely common
verb in Hebrew; kshechayyim yatza bebeto... when Hayyim left his house....
It doesn't actually mean family descent, though it can be used like
that in the sense of something being taken out...
This is a very common mistake of those that don't know Hebrew... But the
language is highly contextual with a fairly limited biblical
vocabulary being used to articulate lots of meanings. In other words,
the words don't have just one meaning. That doesn't mean you can make
them mean whatever you want, but you need to consider them in their
contexts linguistically. There is simply no way one can impose this to
mean only family descent.
Likewise qedem... it can mean front, but in the sense of before. It is
before things, therefore in front. But it can also, referring to time,
mean a time before
Second, I might propose that you would consider a VERY common Hebrew
poetic device: parallelism, whereby 2 lines are used to say the same
thing in a slightly different way.
While olam can certainly mean everlasting, it's not safe to apply it
to only the future. It is used lots of times speaking obviously of the
ancient:
Amos 9:11 "I will build it [the fallen booth of David] firm as in the
days of old [yemey olam]"
Malachi 3:4 "Then the offerings of Judah and Jerusalem shall be
pleasing to the Lord as in the days of yore [yemey olam], and in the
years of old."
The context of those verses tells us that olam cannot be a future
everlasting, but a "time long past"
The dual phrasing in the last verse: "as in the days of yore and in
the years of old" brings me to another point-
I think the author here is using the common Hebrew parallelism to
reinforce what he has already said:
Whose origin is from of old
.....................from ancient times
Notice that both phrases use the preposition mi... from
.... its not "from x to y" as you have translated it, but parallel
phrases to reinforce from ancient.
I'll also note that all my translations are from the JPS... where there
would be no bias to twist the scriptures and accommodate a messianic
attribution to Jesus. Sorry, but your translation or understanding of
it simply isn't the way the Hebrew is understood. This is not a glitch
or a falsification, it is the way the Hebrew reads. Even the JPS
translates it in line with the KJV.
> Every letter in the Hebrew script has a meaning. In the early Archaic
Paleo script
> they used pictographs. The first letter "Aleph" is a consonant and is
translated in
> the Aramaic script as an "A" or an "E." Not so with the Paleo script. In
the Archaic
> Paleo Hebrew it is represented by an ox head which meant, strength,
mighty, or
> powerful. Exo 3:14. And God said unto Moses, eHYeH asher eHYeH. This
verse would
> have predated the Aramaic script. This name would have been known to
Jesus. Asher
> means "that's" or "that is" or "who is".
This does not exclude the script being used primarily as letters, even
if the letters had a simultaneous pictographic reference.
> The Archaic Paleo script had no vowels and did not use consonants
> to imply vowels, like the later Aramaic does.
Really?????
Try applying that little rule to all the other words that start with
Aleph or Ayin.. or yod, vav and het for that matter since those are
regularly used for vowels too.
In fact, let's apply your rule to the very verse you quoted and see if
it holds up. And I'm going to be generous and keep in some of the yods
and hets even though they aren't pronounced and are used in this very
passage just like you say shouldn't happen.
VaYoMeR eLoHiM eL-MoSHe eHYeH aSHeR eHYeH, VaYoMeR KoH ToMaR eL BNeY
yiSRaeL - eHYeH SHeLaCHNi eLeyHeM
The first word vayomer is from the Hebrew amar to say, but according
to your rule, we'd have to remove the aleph, likewise in the third
word el- which is written the same way as the word God, but context
tells us it means "to" in the sense of directed towards...
Likewise the word asher would have to drop its aleph..
Even the name Israel would need to drop both the yod at the start and
the aleph in the middle to accommodate your rule, since they are both
used as vowels.
|
