Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Bobzammel · 04-11-2003, 03:58 PM

In the book of Micah, it's stated that a great ruler will rule over Israel-from Bethlethem, the city where David also originated from. This is stated to be fufilled in the Gospels.
However, once again it appears we have a faulty fufillment. Not in the passage itself, but in the following passage; in which the ruler(Referred to as "He" although some translations such as NSRV turn it to "We" or "They") will defend Israel from the Assyrians. Since Assyria was a dead empire long before the time of the Gospels, this does not make sense for a number of reasons.
Also as for the ruler being "ancient"--this most likely refers to the Davidic bloodline, which was pretty old by then. The bloodline in other passages is also referred to as ancient but in those passages clearly does not refer to a pre-existing entity.
It is probably likely that the king in question was probably Hezekiah or some contemporary...

GarColga · 04-11-2003, 07:25 PM

Can't find a reference right now, but I remember reading that in Hebrew, place names are always feminine. In Micah, 5:2 specifically, the Bethlehem referred to is masculine meaning it refers to a person, probably the Bethlehem found in 1 Chronicles. So if that is true, there is no messianic prophecy by any stretch of the imagination.

Magus55 · 04-11-2003, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by GarColga
Can't find a reference right now, but I remember reading that in Hebrew, place names are always feminine. In Micah, 5:2 specifically, the Bethlehem referred to is masculine meaning it refers to a person, probably the Bethlehem found in 1 Chronicles. So if that is true, there is no messianic prophecy by any stretch of the imagination.

No thats quite wrong. I saw analysis on the Bethlemen prophecy and indepth study showed it was referring to the city, not the person ( although, don't remember where the article was, and if you don't believe me all well).

WinAce · 04-11-2003, 10:26 PM

FYI, This is the article Magus referred to.

Magus55 · 04-11-2003, 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by WinAce
FYI, This is the article Magus referred to.

Thanks ) Although, im guessing you don't agree with that explanation?

GarColga · 04-12-2003, 09:06 AM

The person who wrote that article doesn't give any indication that he has ever read the scripture in the original language.

All the analysis being done is of the scripture after having been translated, and it seems to me that the distinction between feminine and masculine aspects of a word written in Hebrew would be something that might be lost in translation.

Bobzammel · 04-12-2003, 09:09 AM

Well, even if it does refer to the city, there is still the tricky thing about the Assyrians-which I have yet to see a decent refutation of by apologists.

Asha'man · 04-12-2003, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bobzammel
Well, even if it does refer to the city, there is still the tricky thing about the Assyrians-which I have yet to see a decent refutation of by apologists.

Not to mention that Jesus doesn't seem to have ever ruled over Israel.

Magus55 · 04-12-2003, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bobzammel
Well, even if it does refer to the city, there is still the tricky thing about the Assyrians-which I have yet to see a decent refutation of by apologists.

What do you mean?

Magus55 · 04-12-2003, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Asha'man
Not to mention that Jesus doesn't seem to have ever ruled over Israel.

Thats an end time prophecy.

04-11-2003, 03:58 PM	#1
Bobzammel Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Boston Posts: 276	The Bethlehem prophecy In the book of Micah, it's stated that a great ruler will rule over Israel-from Bethlethem, the city where David also originated from. This is stated to be fufilled in the Gospels. However, once again it appears we have a faulty fufillment. Not in the passage itself, but in the following passage; in which the ruler(Referred to as "He" although some translations such as NSRV turn it to "We" or "They") will defend Israel from the Assyrians. Since Assyria was a dead empire long before the time of the Gospels, this does not make sense for a number of reasons. Also as for the ruler being "ancient"--this most likely refers to the Davidic bloodline, which was pretty old by then. The bloodline in other passages is also referred to as ancient but in those passages clearly does not refer to a pre-existing entity. It is probably likely that the king in question was probably Hezekiah or some contemporary...

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-11-2003, 07:25 PM	#2
GarColga Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Boise, Idaho, USA Posts: 57	Can't find a reference right now, but I remember reading that in Hebrew, place names are always feminine. In Micah, 5:2 specifically, the Bethlehem referred to is masculine meaning it refers to a person, probably the Bethlehem found in 1 Chronicles. So if that is true, there is no messianic prophecy by any stretch of the imagination.

04-11-2003, 10:26 PM	#4
WinAce Beloved Deceased Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Carrboro, NC Posts: 1,539	FYI, This is the article Magus referred to.

04-12-2003, 09:06 AM	#6
GarColga Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Boise, Idaho, USA Posts: 57	The person who wrote that article doesn't give any indication that he has ever read the scripture in the original language. All the analysis being done is of the scripture after having been translated, and it seems to me that the distinction between feminine and masculine aspects of a word written in Hebrew would be something that might be lost in translation.

04-12-2003, 09:09 AM	#7
Bobzammel Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Boston Posts: 276	Well, even if it does refer to the city, there is still the tricky thing about the Assyrians-which I have yet to see a decent refutation of by apologists.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.