SoHiAllTheTime
Ex-Bluelighter
- Joined
- May 8, 2000
- Messages
- 5,043
Mods, i hope this post is ok for the forum. If it isnt please let me know and i will delete it. Thanks 
Ok, since there is such big discussion as to who said what and when they said it, i have decided to go back to the thread and repost EACH post given by myslef, dimmo, and PyschBlast. Here they are listed below in order, each post is broken upp by double lines. So for anyone who wants to read and see who was right or wrong feel free to settle the score once and for all by reading below:
PB;s first post on the issue:
From Micah:
"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."
The gospel of Matthew (2:5-6) claims that Jesus' birth in Bethlehem fulfils this prophecy. But this is unlikely for two reasons.
"Bethlehem Ephratah" in Micah 5:2 refers not to a town, but to a clan: the clan of Bethlehem, who was the son of Caleb's second wife, Ephrathah (1 Chr.2:18, 2:50-52, 4:4).
The prophecy (if that is what it is) does not refer to the Messiah, but rather to a military leader, as can be seen from verse 5:6. This leader is supposed to defeat the Assyrians, which, of course, Jesus never did.
It should also be noted that Matthew altered the text of Micah 5:2 by saying: "And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda" rather than "Bethlehem Ephratah" as is said in Micah 5:2. He did this, intentionally no doubt, to make the verse appear to refer to the town of Bethlehem rather than the family clan.5:2
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________
PB:
I withdraw my use of King Zedekiah. Not for the reason you say, but now I think it could be read as if God has said that the king would die peacefully as part of a covenant with the king, which the king then broke, resulting in God going back on his part of the covenant, too.
From Jeremiah:
34:17
Therefore thus saith the LORD; Ye have not hearkened unto me, in proclaiming liberty, every one to his brother, and every man to his neighbour: behold, I proclaim a liberty for you, saith the LORD, to the sword, to the pestilence, and to the famine; and I will make you to be removed into all the kingdoms of the earth.
...
34:21
And Zedekiah king of Judah and his princes will I give into the hand of their enemies, and into the hand of them that seek their life, and into the hand of the king of Babylon's army, which are gone up from you.
Alas, the skeptics annotated bible site seems to be a little over eager in identifying flaws.
~psychoblast~
--------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sohi’s first response:
"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."
The gospel of Matthew (2:5-6) claims that Jesus' birth in Bethlehem fulfils this prophecy. But this is unlikely for two reasons.
"Bethlehem Ephratah" in Micah 5:2 refers not to a town, but to a clan: the clan of Bethlehem, who was the son of Caleb's second wife, Ephrathah (1 Chr.2:18, 2:50-52, 4:4).
^About Bethlehem
Actually, The ancient name for Bethlehem was Ephrath. Genesis 35:19 So, Micah is referring to the city, and the coming Messiah.
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
PB
See, the passage refers to the kingdom, not the city. And people still live in the land that was Babylon.
As for the Bethlehem - person or city - what the fuck are you so cocky about? Did YOU go back and read the relevant passages? Because straight from the text, you cannot say for SURE that Micah meant the city and not the person. So your confidence is misplaces. I mean, look at the order of events:
1. Genesis:
35:15
And Jacob called the name of the place where God spake with him, Bethel.
35:16
And they journeyed from Bethel; and there was but a little way to come to Ephrath: and Rachel travailed, and she had hard labour.
35:17
And it came to pass, when she was in hard labour, that the midwife said unto her, Fear not; thou shalt have this son also.
35:18
And it came to pass, as her soul was in departing, (for she died) that she called his name Benoni: but his father called him Benjamin.
35:19
And Rachel died, and was buried in the way to Ephrath, which is Bethlehem.
2. First Chronicles:
2:50
These were the sons of Caleb the son of Hur, the firstborn of Ephratah; Shobal the father of Kirjathjearim.
2:51
Salma the father of Bethlehem, Hareph the father of Bethgader.
3. Micah (at issue):
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.
Now you want to sit here and tell me this is OBVIOUSLY a reference to the city Bethlehem and not the lineage of the person Bethlehem from reading these passages? Give me a break. I'll admit it is conceivable, but on the other hand, it is also possible Micah WAS refering to the person and not the city. What does it mean to say that Bethlehem was little among the "thousands of Judah?" Sound like a reference to a person, not a city. I mean, are you telling me there were THOUSANDS of cities in Judah around 1000 b.c.? I think not. But there were thousands of Jewish people. So it seems to refer to a Jewish person, not a Jewish city.
Yes, Bethlehem was a person. And then it was a place. And then Micah wrote about "Bethlehem" and, no, it is NOT clear that Micah was refering to the town. In context, it looks more like he was refering to the person. Like he was prophesying that the messiah would be from Bethlehem's lineage.
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dimmo:
Originally posted by psychoblast
Now you want to sit here and tell me this is OBVIOUSLY a reference to the city Bethlehem and not the lineage of the person Bethlehem from reading these passages? Give me a break. I'll admit it is conceivable, but on the other hand, it is also possible Micah WAS refering to the person and not the city. What does it mean to say that Bethlehem was little among the "thousands of Judah?" Sound like a reference to a person, not a city. I mean, are you telling me there were THOUSANDS of cities in Judah around 1000 b.c.? I think not. But there were thousands of Jewish people. So it seems to refer to a Jewish person, not a Jewish city.
Yes, Bethlehem was a person. And then it was a place. And then Micah wrote about "Bethlehem" and, no, it is NOT clear that Micah was refering to the town. In context, it looks more like he was refering to the person. Like he was prophesying that the messiah would be from Bethlehem's lineage.
Just a very brief post on this topic, before I add more to it later.
A lil info on Ruth,
B. Her Family (Ruth 1:2-4)
We know nothing of Ruth’s own family. She married Naomi’s son, Mahlon (Ruth 4:10). Her sister-in-law, Orpah, was married to Chilion, the younger son. Naomi’s family were Ephrathites. Ephrath was another name for Bethlehem. It is where Jacob’s wife, Rachel died giving birth to Benjamin. She is buried there. When Ruth married Boaz in Bethlehem, the women of the city pronounced blessings on her that she would be as famous as Rachel and be worthy to build the house of Israel (Ruth 4:11). Miraculously, God was providing that Ruth, a former pagan, would be inducted into the lineage of Christ and settled into the same village where He would be born thirteen centuries later.
That royal lineage, obviously includes King David, where he and his family comes from. Jesus was to be a part of that.
Ruth 4:11 They first prayed, "The Lord make the woman that is come into thine house like Rachel and like Leah, which two did build the house of Israel: and do thou worthily in Ephratah, and be famous in Bethlehem,"
1 Samuel 17:12 Now David was the son of an Eph'rathite of Bethlehem in Judah, named Jesse, who had eight sons. In the days of Saul the man was already old and advanced in years.
Also, PB, be careful of the quotes you are pasting, my additions in brackets:
1 Chronicles 2
50 These were the descendants of Caleb. The sons of Hur the firstborn of Ephrathah: Shobal the father of Kiriath Jearim (a city name), 51 Salma the father of Bethlehem (a ? name), and Hareph the father of Beth Gader(a city name). 52 The descendants of Shobal the father of Kiriath Jearim were: Haroeh, half the Manahathites, 53 and the clans of Kiriath Jearim: the Ithrites, Puthites, Shumathites and Mishraites. From these descended the Zorathites and Eshtaolites.
54 The descendants of Salma: Bethlehem, the Netophathites, Atroth Beth Joab, half the Manahathites, the Zorites, 55 and the clans of scribes who lived at Jabez: the Tirathites, Shimeathites and Sucathites. These are the Kenites who came from Hammath, the father of the house of Recab.
I believe the above is talking about places, not people. Shobal, the founder of (clan chief/captain/ruler), Kiriath Jearim. And so on. If you read the rest of the verses it becomes more clear.
Strong's definition of Father
1. father of an individual
2. of God as father of his people
3. head or founder of a household, group, family, or clan
ancestor
4. a) grandfather, forefathers -- of person
b) of people
5. originator or patron of a class, profession, or art
6. of producer, generator (fig.)
7. of benevolence and protection (fig.)
8. term of respect and honour
9. ruler or chief (spec.)
Strong's definition of Beth-gader = "house of the wall"
1. a place in Judah
The city..
1 Samuel 6:21
Then they sent messengers to the people of Kiriath Jearim, saying, "The Philistines have returned the ark of the LORD . Come down and take it up to your place."
Judges 18:12
On their way they set up camp near Kiriath Jearim in Judah. This is why the place west of Kiriath Jearim is called Mahaneh Dan [ 18:12 [ Mahaneh Dan ] means [ Dan's camp ] . ] to this day.
If you want to go by lineage, Jesus qualifies.
If you want to go by location, Jesus qualifies.
I must go home now, however, I will look at it a bit later.
dimmo
---------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------
PB:
Dimmo:
Well, I'd written a longer reply, then lost it, so I will briefly restate what I wrote:
On Bethlehem, I already conceded that the prophesy Matthew relies on is not a clear contradiction because it could be argued that Isaiah was refering to the city and not the man named Bethlehem. Though I think the reference to Bethlehem being chosen among "thousands" in the land (see text for exact phrase) makes it more probable it is a man, since there were not thousands of Jewish cities at the time (or ever?) but there were thousands of Jews. Nevertheless, it is not clear enough to keep fighting over.
So, anyway, it seems you are not reading my responses thoroughly.
Feel free to move on.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Dimmo:
Originally posted by psychoblast
Dimmo:
"Well, I'd written a longer reply, then lost it, so I will briefly restate what I wrote:
On Bethlehem, I already conceded that the prophesy Matthew relies on is not a clear contradiction because it could be argued that Isaiah was refering to the city and not the man named Bethlehem. Though I think the reference to Bethlehem being chosen among "thousands" in the land (see text for exact phrase) makes it more probable it is a man, since there were not thousands of Jewish cities at the time (or ever?) but there were thousands of Jews. Nevertheless, it is not clear enough to keep fighting over.
So, anyway, it seems you are not reading my responses thoroughly.
Feel free to move on."
PB, In order to satisfy your thirst for Biblical knowledge..
What person? Where is there a person named Bethlehem? You certainly didn't get that from 1 Chron 2:50. Where does the person named Bethlehem appear?
However, forgetting the imaginary person, as I said in my last post regarding Ephrathites, or the clan of Eprathah, Jesus DOES come from that lineage.
Here is something to help you with the 'among thousands'. Please tell me if it does/doesn't.
RSV Joshua 22:30 When the priest Phinehas and the chiefs of the congregation, the heads of the families of Israel who were with him, heard the words that the Reubenites and the Gadites and the Manassites spoke, they were satisfied
KJV Joshua 22:30 And when Phinehas the priest, and the princes of the congregation and heads of the thousands of Israel which were with him, heard the words that the children of Reuben and the children of Gad and the children of Manasseh spake, it pleased them
And this:
Numbers
1:2 Take ye the sum of all the congregation of the children of Israel, after their families, by the house of their fathers, with the number of their names, every male by their polls;
1:3 From twenty years old and upward, all that are able to go forth to war in Israel: thou and Aaron shall number them by their armies.
1:4 And with you there shall be a man of every tribe; every one head of the house of his fathers
which leads to...
Numbers 1:16
These were the renowned of the congregation, princes of the tribes of their fathers, heads of thousands in Israel.
If Jesus was to come from that lineage, he could have been born in Rome or anywhere else for that matter for the prophecy to be fulfilled.
Jesus was born in Bethlehem.
Scripture must be used to interpret scripture.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PB:
Dimmo:
First Corinthians
2:50
These were the sons of Caleb the son of Hur, the firstborn of Ephratah; Shobal the father of Kirjathjearim.
2:51
Salma the father of Bethlehem, Hareph the father of Bethgader.
You claim this refers to cities? The city of Hareph? The city of Bethgader? The city of Caleb? The city of Hur? The city of Ephratah? ARE YOU HIGH??? Start reading from First Corinthians Chapter 2, verse 1. It is clearly a listing of PEOPLE, not cities.
Your suggestion that there never was any person named "Bethlehem" is completely ignorant, and really shows just how superficial and untrustworthy your reasoning and/or knowledge concerning the Bible is.
~psychoblast~
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dimmo:
PB, your knowledge is poor, however I will try to help you.
1 Chron 2:50
These were the descendants of Caleb. The sons of Hur the first-born of Eph'rathah: Shobal the father of Kir'iath-je'arim, 51 Salma, the father of Bethelem, and Hareph the father of Beth-gader.
Lets break it down with definitions included.
Caleb is a person. Strong's 3612: Kaleb (kaw-labe'); perhaps a form of OT:3611, or else from the same root in the sense of forcible; Caleb, the name of three Israelites:
Hur is a person. Strong's 2354: Chuwr (khoor); the same as OT:2353 or OT:2352; Chur, the name of four Israelites and one Midianite:
Eph'rathah in THIS verse is a person. Strong's 672: 'Ephraath (ef-rawth'); or 'Ephrathah (ef-raw'-thaw); from OT:6509; fruitfulness; Ephrath, another name for Bethlehem; once (Ps 132:6) perhaps for Ephraim; also of an Israelitish woman:
Shobal is a person. Strong's 7732: Showbal (sho-bawl'); from the same as OT:7640; overflowing; Shobal, the name of an Edomite and two Israelites:
Kirjath-jearim is NOT the name of a person. Strong's 7157: Qiryath Ye` ariym (keer-yath' yeh-aw-reem'); or (Jer 26:20) with the article interposed; or (Josh 18:2 simply the former part of the word; or Qiryath `Ariym (keer-yath' aw-reem'); from OT:7151 and the plural of OT:3293 or OT:5892; city of forests, or city of towns; Kirjath-Jearim or Kirjath-Arim, a place in Palestine:
Salma is the name of a person. Strong's 8007: Salma' (sal-maw'); probably for OT:8008; clothing; Salma, the name of two Israelites:
Bethlehem is NOT the name of a person. Strong's 1035: Beyth Lechem (bayth leh'-khem; from OT:1004 and OT:3899; house of bread; Bethechem, a place in Palestine:
Hareph is a person. Strong's 2780: Chareph (khaw-rafe'); from OT:2778; reproachful; Chareph, an Israelite: -Hareph.
Beth-gader is NOT the name of a person. Strong's 1013: Beyth-Gader (bayth-gaw-dare'); from OT:1004 and OT:1447; house of (the) wall; Beth-gader, a place in Palestine:
Before I continue, some food for thought PB.
Micah 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah
If that was referring to a person, and Ephratah is a woman, that is incorrect. His name would be Bethlehem 'son of' Salma. They always take the name of the father!
Additionally, my Bible notes are as follows:
"The sons of Caleb... These were the descendants of Caleb." The list in this section is a mixture of personal and place-names; the phrase "father of" must often be understood as 'founder of' or 'leader of' a city." -- See Strong's definition of father in a previous post.
Originally posted by psychoblast:
Your suggestion that there never was any person named "Bethlehem" is completely ignorant, and really shows just how superficial and untrustworthy your reasoning and/or knowledge concerning the Bible is.
I hope you can admit, accept, and apologise when you're wrong; as you clearly are here.
Perhaps you would also like to admit just how superficial and untrustworthy your reasoning and/or knowledge concerning the Bible really is. Unfortunately, it is people like you that really give the Bible a bad name.
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sohi:
WOW! PB, seriously, he has you here man. Just admit your wrong and we ont tell anyone
"Perhaps you would also like to admit just how superficial and untrustworthy your reasoning and/or knowledge concerning the Bible really is. Unfortunately, it is people like you that really give the Bible a bad name."
^That was so good it neededto be said again...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
PB:
Dimmo:
I'm really not insisting that there WAS a person named Bethlehem. All I'm saying is that you are really misguided to insist there could not have been, to insist that the ONLY possible and reasonable interpretation of each use of the word "Bethlehem" in the Bible is a reference to a town.
I still stand by my position that the use of the word Bethlehem is AMBIGUOUS on whether it was meant as a person or town. You have still not explained the "thousands" reference, at a time when there were not thousand of Jewish towns.
Also, you seem not to have gone further to consider First Chronicles Chap 2, verse 54:
2:51
Salma the father of Bethlehem, Hareph the father of Bethgader.
2:52
And Shobal the father of Kirjathjearim had sons; Haroeh, and half of the Manahethites.
2:53
And the families of Kirjathjearim; the Ithrites, and the Puhites, and the Shumathites, and the Mishraites; of them came the Zareathites, and the Eshtaulites,
2:54
The sons of Salma; Bethlehem, and the Netophathites, Ataroth, the house of Joab, and half of the Manahethites, the Zorites.
See, we have a second referenct to Bethlehem, still ambiguous. Yes, both references COULD be talking of cities and not people. You COULD refer to some one as the father of a city (verse 51), you COULD even refer to a city as the son of some one (verse 54). But then again, maybe it was a person?
I admitted a few posts back that it is UNCLEAR to me whether these references are to a person or place. I pointed out some reasons to think it was a person, which you have still not adequately explained away. And I stand by that. If I were insisting that these references to Bethlehem were CERTAINLY references to a person, I would have to back down and apologize. You have certainly posted some good stuff to suggest that the verse 51 reference, at least, is to a city. Albeit it is a little trickier to try applying that to verse 54.
Nevertheless, you seem to be avoiding the real issue. The challenge in this thread was to prove the Bible wrong. Me and many other posters gave dozens of examples of contradictions, absurdities and inaccuracies in the Bible. SoHi responded to my one example of King Zedekiah, which I then abandoned as an example of biblical falsehood. You or SoHi also responded to my original assertion that Matthew mistook Micah as refering to Bethlehem a city when it was a reference to a person. In response, I ALSO abandoned that example, conceding that it was ambiguous whether it was a man or city.
Now you spend all this time, over and over, trying to debate whether Micah was refering to a man or city... But why? What does that have to do with disproving (or proving) the Bible? I've conceded it is not an example that disproves the Bible. I will not concede that Micah could ONLY have been talking about a city. But, really, the bottom line is that this is all some insignificant side debate that has nothing to do with the purpose of this thread.
So, I will reiterate as I have said in both of my last 2 posts on this: I concede Micah could be refering to a city, but I will not concede Micah was definitely talking about a city. And to extend this to First Chronicles, I also concede that coudl be refering to a city, but again I do not think that is obvious or proven or definite. You make a point on the "father of" reference could be to a city, but what about the "son of" reference? I can't recall ever hearing of a city referred to as the "son of" some one.
Another source:
Further evidence that Micah was referring to a person, not a town, comes from the editors of the NIV, RSV, and NAB. Here is how the NIV translates that Micah verse: "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans (or, rulers) of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel..." (Micah 5:2) This verse strongly suggests that Micah did not mean that the savior would be born a town called Bethlehem, but that he would come from the either the clan of Ephratah, or from the man called Bethlehem Ephratah.
Micah refers to the "thousands of Judah" (in the Kings James Version), which Matthew may have thought meant "thousands of towns in Judah". Is it possible there were thousands of towns in Judah in 800 BC? In order to justify the use of the word "thousands" to describe anything, how many would there have to be? Three thousand, or more? There are only about 50-100 towns or villages in that area today. Is it believable that there were thirty times as many towns and villages in Judah 2800 years ago, when the population of that region was vastly less than it is today? Or is it more likely that Micah was referring to clans and not towns?
... Micah is talking about a person who will save them from the Assyrians. Nineveh, the capital of Assyria, was destroyed and Assyrian power ceased to exist 606 years before Jesus was born. Thus, if the savior prophesied by Micah really did come, he would have to have done so six centuries before the birth of Jesus. Also, the adversaries of the Hebrews at the time of Jesus were not the Assyrians. It was the Romans, not the Assyrians, who ruled the land of Judah during the lifetime of Jesus. Even if Micah's prophecy had referred to a saviour freeing Israel from the Romans, it could not have applied to Jesus, who never lifted a finger against them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
PB:
Oh, to close out this issue, I now think (but still agree it is ambiguous) that Micah was NOT refering to the town of Bethlehem, nor to a person named Bethlehem, but to a clan named Bethlehem:
(from http://www.messiahtruth.com/micah.html)
III. Analysis of the Passage (translated from Hebrew):
To help facilitate the analysis, the correct translation of Micah 5:1 is separated into two segments:
Segment A
Micah 5:1A – And you, Bethlehem Ephratah - you should have been the lowest amongst the clans of Judah – from you [he] shall emerge for Me, to be a ruler over Israel;
Segment B
Micah 5:1B – and his origin is from old, from ancient days.
Segment A and Segment B will now be separately analyzed.
Analysis of Segment A
Micah 5:1A – And you, Bethlehem Ephratah - you should have been the lowest amongst the clans of Judah – from you [he] shall emerge for Me, to be a ruler over Israel;
The name Bethlehem, in the original Hebrew is (beit-lehem), which literally means House of Lehem [ (lehem) means bread, or (generic) food]. Therefore, the title (beit-lehem) may refer either to the town or to a clan with the name (lehem). In the case of Micah 5:1, the reference is to a clan. How can one determine this?
The first clue is found in the opening phrase of the verse, where the Hebrew is (veatah beit-lehem ephratah). The term (veatah) has the components (ve), the preposition and, and (atah), the pronoun you for the 2nd-person, singular, masculine gender. Thus, (veatah) translates as and you, using the 2nd-person, singular, masculine gender pronoun (the KJV has but you in Micah 5:2; note, however, how the KJV translators correctly render this phrase as And thou in Mt 2:6!). The rest of the phrase in Segment A is also cast in a 2nd-person, singular, masculine gender conjugation. Following this term (veatah) is the phrase (beit-lehem ephratah), where (ephratah) or, alternatively, (ephrat), is an alternate name for the town of Bethlehem in Judah in the Hebrew Bible, as seen from the following example:
Genesis 35:19(KJV) - And Rachel died, and was buried in the way to Ephrat (ephrat), which is Bethlehem (beit-lehem).
In the Hebrew Bible, singular pronouns, such as (atah), you, are often used interchangeably in both the singular and plural context. In the case of Micah 5:1, (atah) is a singular compound entity, a specific clan, so that the context is the [plural, masculine] you. Though the singular usage is the most common one, the plural application occurs as well (e.g., Exod 33:3, Deut 9:6). Therefore, the one being addressed here in Micah 5:1 is (beit-lehem), which is the name of a family, or clan, residing in the town of (ephratah), Ephratah, i.e., in the town of Bethlehem. According to this analysis, perhaps a more accurate version of Segment A (and, thus, Micah 5:1) would be:
Micah 5:1A – And you, House of Lehem [from] Ephratah - you should have been the lowest amongst the clans of Judah – from you [he] shall emerge for Me, to be a ruler over Israel;
In the expression (bealphei yehudah), amongst the clans of Judah, contains a plural possessive construct of the Hebrew term (eleph), (alphei), which is used in the context of clans of …. The most common application of (eleph) in the Hebrew Bible is a thousand, which is its general meaning. However, there are instances in the Hebrew Bible where (eleph) is used in reference to a portion of a tribe, i.e., a clan or family. Micah 5:1 is one of these cases, and others are found at Numbers 31:5, Deuteronomy 33:17, Joshua 22:14, Judges 6:15, and 1 Samuel 10:19, 23:23. It is interesting to note that most translators (both Jewish and Christian) are consistent in their (mis)translation of this word in all but one of these instances, the one at Judges 6:15, where the term (alpi) [1st-person, singular conjugation of the noun (eleph)] is correctly translated as my family. Although, in general, it is not a serious contextual discrepancy when using a thousand in place of a clan in the above mentioned places, the correct context in Micah 5:1 is that the reference is to a [particular] clan from the town of Bethlehem. This case is further supported by the fact that members of a clan are frequently referred to by the name of the clan, often derived from the name of its progenitor, as is seen from the following example:
Numbers 3:27 - And of Kohath, the Amramite family, and the Izharite family, and the Hebronite family, and the Uzzielite family; these are the Kohathite families.
Regarding someone from the Bethlehemite clan [ (beit-ha'lahmi)], the Hebrew Bible has passages such as the following:
1 Samuel 16:1 - And the L-rd said to Samuel, "Until when will you mourn for Saul, that I have rejected him from reigning over Israel? Fill your horn with oil, and go, I will send you to Jesse the Bethlehemite [ (beit-ha'lahmi)], for I have found among his sons a king for Me.
Another reference in the Hebrew Bible is even more explicit:
1 Samuel 17:12 - And David was the son of this man from Ephrat [ (ephrati)] of the House of Lehem [ (mi'beit-lehem)] in Judah, whose name was Jesse, and he had eight sons; and the man, who was elderly in Saul's time, was among the [respected] men.
In the Hebrew language, which has no neuter gender, i.e., a separate Hebrew word for it does not exist, cities and towns are assigned the feminine gender. So, if it were the town of Bethlehem being addressed in Micah 5:1, the opening term would have been (veat), such as in Jeremiah 50:24 and elsewhere, the components of which are (ve), the preposition and, and (at), the Biblical form of the pronoun you for the 2nd-person, singular, feminine gender. Consequently, (veat) translates as and you, with the 2nd-person, singular, feminine gender pronoun. Understanding this difference is essential for the correct reading of this verse!
The KJV translators, lacking the required level of proficiency of the Hebrew language, did not recognize that a certain clan, the House of Lehem, is being addressed in Micah 5:1[2]. Rather, from the sources they used, one of which was most likely the Christian LXX (that which Christians mistakenly call the Septuagint), it appeared to them that the town of Bethlehem is being addressed here. Consequently, they characterize Bethlehem as a small and insignificant town from the territory of Judah, in an introductory phrase to the prophecy. Namely, that in spite of its insignificance, the town will be the birthplace of the promised Messiah.
However, since it is the clan, the House of Lehem, and not the town, that is being addressed here by Micah, it does not matter in which town the Messiah will be born; rather, it is the clan, the family, that is significant! The phrase in Segment B, "and his origin is from old", simply means the Messiah will come from a family with a long lineage.
How can one learn more about the particular clan to which this verse refers? The ancestry of the known members of the clan is a good place from which to start the investigation, and it leads to a woman named Ruth, a Moabitess, who is among the ancestors of King David. Ruth was married to one of the two sons Elimelech and Naomi, a family that hailed from Bethlehem.
A famine in Judah forced Elimelech to take his family to a place that had food, and they wound up in the Land of Moab. Originally, Elimelech and Naomi’s plan was to go to Moab just to wait out the famine, but they then decided to remain there, a decision that eventually led to tragic consequences. Elimelech and Naomi's two sons, Killion and Mahlon (Ephrathites from House of Lehem [Ruth 1:2]), married Gentile women, Orpah and Ruth, respectively. Elimelech and his two sons died while the family was in Moab, leaving the three women, Naomi, Orpah, and Ruth, as widows. Naomi made plans to return alone to her home in the Kingdom of Judah, and she instructed her two daughters-in-law to go back to their people, the Moabites. Orpah approached her mother-in-law, kissed her goodbye and left. Ruth came over to Naomi, held on to her and did not let go. Ruth informed Naomi that she was coming with her; and even though Naomi attempted to dissuade her from returning to the famine in Judah, Ruth insisted and said to her:
Ruth 1:16-17 – (16) … Do not entreat me to leave you, or to desist from following you; for wherever you go, I will go; and where you lodge, I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your G-d is my G-d; (17) Wherever you die, will I die, and there will I be buried; the L-rd may do so to me, and so may He continue, for [only] death will separate me from you.
From Ruth's declaration of her intentions to Naomi when she says, “…For where you go, I will go; where you lodge, I will lodge; your people are my people, and your G-d is my G-d;…”, it is understood that she converted to Judaism. But Ruth, a person of outstanding character, had a problematic ancestry – she was a Moabite woman. This is what the Torah instructs the Israelites about a Moabite:
Deuteronomy 23:4 - An Ammonite [ (ammoni)] and a Moabite [ (mo'avi)] shall not enter into the congregation of the L-rd; even the tenth generation shall never enter into the congregation of the L-rd.
In other words, Ammonites and Moabites were prohibited from ever converting to Judaism. Note, however, that in the Hebrew text, the terms (ammoni) and (mo'avi) are used, terms that translate as an Ammonite (male) and a Moabite (male), respectively. The corresponding terms for a female, as used in the Hebrew Bible are, (ammonit) and (mo'avit) [or (mo'avi'yah)].
The reason for the prohibition is stated immediately following it:
Deuteronomy 23:5-6 – (5) Because they did not greet you with bread and water on the way, when you left Egypt, and because he [Moab] hired Balaam the son of Beor from Pethor in Aram Naharaim against you, to curse you. (6) But the L-rd, your G-d, did not want to listen to Balaam. So the L-rd, your G-d, transformed the curse into a blessing for you, because the L-rd, your G-d, loves you.
And this is repeated at a much later time by Nehemiah:
Nehemiah 13:1-2 – (1) On that day the Book of Moses was read to be heard by the people; and it was found written therein that an Ammonite [ (ammoni)] and a Moabite [ (mo'avi)] may not enter into the congregation of G-d forever; (2) Because they did not come to meet the people of Israel with bread and with water, and [instead] hired Balaam against them, to curse them; and our G-d turned the curse into a blessing.
Considering this prohibition, how was Ruth the Moabitess able to "… enter into the congregation of the L-rd…"? How could she become the ancestor of the greatest king of the Jewish people, King David? The Sages explain in the Babylonian Talmud (Tractate Yevamot, 76b; Tractate Ketubot, 7b) that this prohibition applies only to Ammonite and Moabite men, and not to women. This is because only a man was expected to leave his house and bring food and drink to the traveler; a woman was not expected to do that for obvious reasons. Thus, the interpretation of the law (Deut 23:4), which had to be rendered by ten elders, that the prohibition on becoming one of the assembly of the L-rd, i.e., to be admitted into the community of Israel, applied only to Ammonite and Moabite men and not to Ammonite and Moabite women. This clarified the law, and enabled Boaz to marry Ruth the Moabitess. So, the (beit-lehem) clan, with a history marred by Ruth's ancestry of a nation that was excluded from Judaism, is characterized by the phrase, "you SHOULD HAVE BEEN the LOWEST amongst the CLANS of Judah", in Segment A. This phrase reflects the uneasiness people may have had even with King David, whose great-grandmother was a Moabitess. Yet, the fact is that out of this clan rose the greatest king of Israel, and the promise is made that the Messiah will also come from it.
This passage is all about King David's ancestry, with the Messiah being but a "by-product" of it. This fact is even confirmed by the rendition in The New Jerusalem Bible (a Christian translation), whose translators state the following in a footnote to this verse (Micah 5:2; only the relevant portion of the footnote is being quoted here):
“Micah is thinking of the ancient origin of the dynasty of David, Rt 4:11,17,18-22; 1 S 17:12. The evangelists later interpreted this passage as a prophecy of Christ’s birthplace.”
In other words, while this passage does not rule out the town of Bethlehem as being the Messiah's birthplace, as could be any other place, the notion that it is his birthplace was introduced later, in the New Testament, as an interpretation by the Gospel writers.
B. Segment B
Micah 5:1B – and his origin is from old, from ancient days.
The fact that Segment A of Micah 5:1 voids the positive identification of Bethlehem as the Messiah's birthplace, creates a serious problem for the Church. This problem is compounded by the closing phrase in the Hebrew text in Segment B, (mi'y'mei olam), from ancient days.
Micah, who was a contemporary of the prophets Amos, Hosea, and Isaiah, and of King Hezekiah (around 730 B.C.E.), states something special here, namely, that the origin of the Messiah would be from Bethlehem, from the long ago past, from ancient days. However, this statement conflicts with Christian theology, since Jesus is considered as having been around since the beginning of time, since before the Creation, and the expression from ancient days does not satisfy this condition. To "rectify" this problem, many Christian translators simply replace ancient days with days of eternity, or everlasting, or days of time indefinite (see, e.g., KJV, NAS, NWT). How can one determine who is telling the truth?
The Hebrew expression (yemei olam), ancient days, is used in Micah 5:1 with the preposition (mi-), from, as (mi'y'mei olam), from ancient days. Table III.B-1 shows all six instances in the Hebrew Bible of the expression (yemei olam), ancient days, including its combinations with various prepositions. Also shown in the table are the respective renditions of these expressions in the KJV.
Table III.B-1 – KJV renditions of the expression (yemei olam) in the Hebrew Bible
Hebrew
Pronunciation
#
Reference
Correct Translation
KJV Rendition
ye-ME-i o-LAM
2
Isaiah 63:9,11
the days of old
the days of old
kiy-ME-i o-LAM
3
Amos 9:11;
Micah 7:14;
Malachi 3:4
as in days of old
as in the days of old
miy-ME-i o-LAM
1
Micah 5:1[2]
from ancient days
from everlasting
Note that the expression is correctly translated in the KJV in five out of the six cases as days of old, which is synonymous with ancient days, yet at Micah 5:2 it is rendered as from everlasting. What could have motivated the KJV translators to render the same expression correctly in all but one place, the one exception being at Micah 5:2, which speaks of the Messiah? Could it be that replacing from ancient days with from everlasting in this passage would "harmonize" this Old Testament prophecy with Christian theology? Did the KJV translators engage here in an act of "pious fraud"?
For the sake of completeness and fairness, it should be noted that, in contrast to the KJV (and several other Christian Bibles), some Christian translators have correctly rendered this phrase, e.g., NAB, NIV, NRSV, RSV, The New Jerusalem Bible, among others.
SoHi and Dimmo: You still insist that I MUST apologize and admit this refers to a town called Bethlehem?
LOL!
~psychoblast~
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dimmo:
Poor PB, defiant to the end
Originally posted by psychoblast
Dimmo:
I'm really not insisting that there WAS a person named Bethlehem. All I'm saying is that you are really misguided to insist there could not have been, to insist that the ONLY possible and reasonable interpretation of each use of the word "Bethlehem" in the Bible is a reference to a town.
I still stand by my position that the use of the word Bethlehem is AMBIGUOUS on whether it was meant as a person or town. You have still not explained the "thousands" reference, at a time when there were not thousand of Jewish towns.
I made a post on the 'thousands'. Scripture clearly shows what it is talking about.
Here is something to help you with the 'among thousands'. Please tell me if it does/doesn't.
RSV Joshua 22:30 When the priest Phinehas and the chiefs of the congregation, the heads of the families of Israel who were with him, heard the words that the Reubenites and the Gadites and the Manassites spoke, they were satisfied
KJV Joshua 22:30 And when Phinehas the priest, and the princes of the congregation and heads of the thousands of Israel which were with him, heard the words that the children of Reuben and the children of Gad and the children of Manasseh spake, it pleased them
And this:
Numbers
1:2 Take ye the sum of all the congregation of the children of Israel, after their families, by the house of their fathers, with the number of their names, every male by their polls;
1:3 From twenty years old and upward, all that are able to go forth to war in Israel: thou and Aaron shall number them by their armies.
1:4 And with you there shall be a man of every tribe; every one head of the house of his fathers
which leads to...
Numbers 1:16
These were the renowned of the congregation, princes of the tribes of their fathers, heads of thousands in Israel.
If Jesus was to come from that lineage, he could have been born in Rome or anywhere else for that matter for the prophecy to be fulfilled.
Jesus was born in Bethlehem.
Scripture must be used to interpret scripture.
Btw, you never did tell me if that helped?
Or maybe this will help:
Mic 5:2
5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, [though] thou be {b} little
among the thousands of Judah, [yet] out of thee shall he
come forth unto me [that is] to be ruler in Israel; whose
{c} goings forth [have been] from of old, from everlasting.
(b) For so the Jews divided their country that for every
thousand there was a chief captain: and because
Bethlehem was not able to make a thousand, he calls it
little. But yet God will raise up his captain and
governor in it: and thus it is not the least by reason
of this benefit. \\See Geneva "Mt 2:6"\\
(c) He shows that the coming of Christ and all his ways were
appointed by God from all eternity.
http://www.ccel.org/g/geneva/notes/Micah/5.html
Now to Chronicles, again, you don't even read what they are talking about. Tsk tsk. Research!
Also, you seem not to have gone further to consider First Chronicles Chap 2, verse 54:
See, we have a second referenct to Bethlehem, still ambiguous. Yes, both references COULD be talking of cities and not people. You COULD refer to some one as the father of a city (verse 51), you COULD even refer to a city as the son of some one (verse 54). But then again, maybe it was a person?
You're right, you can have 'sons of' as a nation. Sons of Israel etc appears many times.
1 Chron 2:54 'The Sons of' Strong's 1121: ben (bane); from OT:1129; a son (as a builder of the family name), in the widest sense (of literal and figurative relationship, including grandson, subject, nation, quality or condition, etc., [like OT:1, OT:251, etc.]):
1 Chron 2:54-55
54 The descendants of Salma:
Bethlehem, the Netophathites, Atroth Beth Joab, half the Manahathites, the Zorites,
HOW CAN YOU UNDERSTAND! HEHEHE! It's damn near laughable. Infact I DID laugh.
The Netophathites are inhabitants of Netophah. Sounds like the 'national' sense to me.
Atroth, the house of Joab IS A PLACE IN PALESTINE!
AND SO ON........
I admitted a few posts back that it is UNCLEAR to me whether these references are to a person or place. I pointed out some reasons to think it was a person, which you have still not adequately explained away. And I stand by that. If I were insisting that these references to Bethlehem were CERTAINLY references to a person, I would have to back down and apologize. You have certainly posted some good stuff to suggest that the verse 51 reference, at least, is to a city. Albeit it is a little trickier to try applying that to verse 54.
Yes your reasoning for believing it was a person is pretty much based solely on 'Though I think the reference to Bethlehem being chosen among "thousands" in the land (see text for exact phrase) makes it more probable it is a man, since there were not thousands of Jewish cities at the time (or ever?) but there were thousands of Jews.'
Which I have shown you the context of that being used. And now, as you can see, in verse 54 it is not tricky at all. Infact it's too easy.
Nevertheless, you seem to be avoiding the real issue. The challenge in this thread was to prove the Bible wrong.
Yes, and when you make a false claim, you can admit it. Especially after questioning my knowledge when you are WRONG that it is not a person, are YOU HIGH??
I will not concede that Micah could ONLY have been talking about a city. But, really, the bottom line is that this is all some insignificant side debate that has nothing to do with the purpose of this thread.
I'm asking you to concede it ISN'T a person. Because you are flat out wrong. Probable my arse mate.
So, I will reiterate as I have said in both of my last 2 posts on this: I concede Micah could be refering to a city, but I will not concede Micah was definitely talking about a city. And to extend this to First Chronicles, I also concede that coudl be refering to a city, but again I do not think that is obvious or proven or definite. You make a point on the "father of" reference could be to a city, but what about the "son of" reference? I can't recall ever hearing of a city referred to as the "son of" some one.
See my answer further up, if you've read the Bible at all, surely you've heard of 'Sons of Israel' Seriously, if you wish to take part in discussions such as this, I really think that you should at least study what you are writing about. You have such little knowledge, I fear that these discussions are useless.
In regards to your next post with the link
http://www.messiahtruth.com/micah.html
Here is some of what I have said on this topic thus far:
Originally posted by dimmo
A lil info on Ruth,
B. Her Family (Ruth 1:2-4)
We know nothing of Ruth’s own family. She married Naomi’s son, Mahlon (Ruth 4:10). Her sister-in-law, Orpah, was married to Chilion, the younger son. Naomi’s family were Ephrathites. Ephrath was another name for Bethlehem. It is where Jacob’s wife, Rachel died giving birth to Benjamin. She is buried there. When Ruth married Boaz in Bethlehem, the women of the city pronounced blessings on her that she would be as famous as Rachel and be worthy to build the house of Israel (Ruth 4:11). Miraculously, God was providing that Ruth, a former pagan, would be inducted into the lineage of Christ and settled into the same village where He would be born thirteen centuries later.
That royal lineage, obviously includes King David, where he and his family comes from. Jesus was to be a part of that.
Ruth 4:11 They first prayed, "The Lord make the woman that is come into thine house like Rachel and like Leah, which two did build the house of Israel: and do thou worthily in Ephratah, and be famous in Bethlehem,"
1 Samuel 17:12 Now David was the son of an Eph'rathite of Bethlehem in Judah, named Jesse, who had eight sons. In the days of Saul the man was already old and advanced in years.
If you want to go by lineage, Jesus qualifies.
If you want to go by location, Jesus qualifies.
However, forgetting the imaginary person, as I said in my last post regarding Ephrathites, or the clan of Eprathah, Jesus DOES come from that lineage.
If Jesus was to come from that lineage, he could have been born in Rome or anywhere else for that matter for the prophecy to be fulfilled.
Jesus was born in Bethlehem.
And what does your link say?
As was demonstrated in the analysis, the town of Bethlehem was the place from which King David's family originated, and this prophecy speaks of Bethlehem as the Messiah's place of origin, though not necessarily his place of birth. The Hebrew text clearly states that the Messiah's ancestors came from Bethlehem.
It does NOT talk about persons. It talks about clans, AS I HAVE.
It talks about Ruth, etc, just as I have. It says Jesus could have been born anywhere for that prophecy to be fulfilled, just as I have.
Yes you should apologise, for that fact that you doubt my knowledge in the Bible, tell me its this imaginery person that you keep referring to that IS NOT A PERSON.
Clearly you have NO IDEA about the Bible.
YOU ARE NOT FIT TO DISCUSS THE BIBLE, if you can't even grasp simple verses, it is useless.
I really believe that a 'prove the Bible wrong' thread requires SOME KNOWLEDGE OF THE BIBLE.
It isn't a matter of 'Oh , 1 Chron 2:50 says 'father' of Bethlehem! HA HA. Bible Wrong Me Right!'
I await your reply.
Edit: I believe those with almost no knowledge of the Bible, as has been shown here should depart this thread. Errors DO need to be corrected, and unfortunately, if you have no knowledge of the Bible there is going to be a lot of them. PB, we aren't going to just sit by and let you put a cloud over the Holy Bible.
I would welcome your departure from this thread, on the grounds that you have insufficient knowledge to participate.
How can one sit down and point out errors in something to which they are not even familiar with themselves?
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dimmo:
In regards to Matthew 16:28
Originally posted by psychoblast:
"This is a clear statement that Jesus would come again with his angels within the lifetime of at least some of his listeners. That did not happen. Case closed. "
Woah woah.. slow down there cowboy.. lets take a look.
Matthew 16:15-17:13
15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" 16 Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17 And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." 20 Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ.
21 From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised. 22 And Peter took him and began to rebuke him, saying, "God forbid, Lord! This shall never happen to you." 23 But he turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me; for you are not on the side of God, but of men."
24 Then Jesus told his disciples, "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. 25 For whoever would save his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. 26 For what will it profit a man, if he gains the whole world and forfeits his life? Or what shall a man give in return for his life? 27 For the Son of man is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay every man for what he has done. 28 Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."
Matthew 17
17:1 And after six days Jesus took with him Peter and James and John his brother, and led them up a high mountain apart. 2 And he was transfigured before them, and his face shone like the sun, and his garments became white as light. 3 And behold, there appeared to them Moses and Eli'jah, talking with him. 4 And Peter said to Jesus, "Lord, it is well that we are here; if you wish, I will make three booths here, one for you and one for Moses and one for Eli'jah." 5 He was still speaking, when lo, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and a voice from the cloud said, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him." 6 When the disciples heard this, they fell on their faces, and were filled with awe. 7 But Jesus came and touched them, saying, "Rise, and have no fear." 8 And when they lifted up their eyes, they saw no one but Jesus only.
9 And as they were coming down the mountain, Jesus commanded them, "Tell no one the vision, until the Son of man is raised from the dead." 10 And the disciples asked him, "Then why do the scribes say that first Eli'jah must come?" 11 He replied, "Eli'jah does come, and he is to restore all things; 12 but I tell you that Eli'jah has already come, and they did not know him, but did to him whatever they pleased. So also the Son of man will suffer at their hands." 13 Then the disciples understood that he was speaking to them of John the Baptist.
NIV Study Notes: There are two main interpretations of this verse. 1. It is a prediction of the transfiguration, which happened a week later, and which demonstrated that Jesus will return in his Father's glory (16:27).
2. It refers to the Pentecost and the rapid spread of the gospel described in the book of Acts. The context seems to favour the first view. See 2 Peter 1:16
Matt 16:28 is widely believed to be the prediction of the transfiguration six days later.
A users summary to the above verses:
The context of this passage starts about here: "Peter...build My church" [keep reading] "whoever wishes to save his life must lose it" [keep reading] "days later...the transfiguration" [keep reading] "the disciples fell on their faces were afraid...and understood He was talking to them about John the Baptist", i.e. the 12 disciples then understood that John was the forerunner of the Messiah--Yahshua (or Jesus and He came to be called later).
So, first is a promise of the coming kingdom; next we have instructions on how to be a disciple; a statement that some of the Christ's current disciples would be alive and see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom; then we have Yahshua shining, talking to dead men, a voice from nowhere, the prostration and fear of the disciples; and lastly the disciples understanding the John was symbolically Elijah, the forerunner of the Messiah, thus they understood Yahshua really was the Son of God.
--prophecy of His church/kingdom #1
instructions on how to be of the kingdom #2
Assurance some of them seeing the coming or start of the kingdom #3
Yahshua appearing angelic, talking to dead men, invisible vocal confirmation/approval/instruction about Him (proof of kingship) #4
Prostration and fear (further proof of kingship)#5
Understanding (yet further proof of kingship) #6
They understood that they just saw Him coming in His kingdom and some of them were there and alive when it happened. This was the beginning of the church, God's spiritual kingdom on earth, of which Christ is the King.
here
2 Peter 1:16-21 seems to indicate that.
16 We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." 18 We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.
19 And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
Mark 9 says the same as above, note the word 'power' also.
Mark 9:1 And he said to them, "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power."
What did Peter say, 'told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ'
And then there is this, which relates to the coming of the end of age:
Matt 24:3-8
3 As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. "Tell us," they said, "when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?"
4 Jesus answered: "Watch out that no one deceives you. 5 For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Christ,' and will deceive many. 6 You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. 7 Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. 8 All these are the beginning of birth pains.
And again..
Matthew 24:30-41
36 "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. 37 As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39 and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 40 Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. 41 Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left.
Now the Greek word 'coming' in bold in the above passages is 'Parousia', which means presence.
Strong's 3952: parousia (par-oo-see'-ah); from the present participle of NT:3918; a being near, i.e. advent (often, return; specifically, of Christ to punish Jerusalem, or finally the wicked); (by implication) physically, aspect:
KJV - coming, presence.
The coming in Matthew 16:28 uses the Greek word erchomai:
Strong's 2064: erchomai (er'-khom-ahee); middle voice of a primary verb (used only in the present and imperfect tenses, the others being supplied by a kindred [middle voice] eleuthomai (el-yoo'-thom-ahee); or [active] eltho (el'-tho); which do not otherwise occur); to come or go (in a great variety of applications, literally and figuratively):
KJV - accompany, appear, bring, come, enter, fall out, go, grow, X light, X next, pass, resort, be set.
This does not appear to, nor is it thought to, represent the end of the world.
Additionally, as said above, 'They understood that they just saw Him coming in His kingdom and some of them were there and alive when it happened. This was the beginning of the church, God's spiritual kingdom on earth, of which Christ is the King'.
Are we looking perhaps for a physical Kingdom? Is there a spiritual Kingdom as well? Well lets take a look.
One off the top of my head:
Luke 17:20-21
20 Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, 21 nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of God is within you."
Some food for thought:
God’s Kingdom: Spiritual Kingdom Now? Physical Kingdom Later? or Both?
There are many verses about the “Kingdom of God”, or the “Kingdom of Heaven” (as Matthew refers to it). Some clearly show a distant event, something that people will enter into later—when some of the fathers have risen from the dead. But there are also scriptures that speak of the Kingdom being presently existing. The “Gospel of the Kingdom” was preached at the time of the Apostles all the way through to our day. Even though many have predicted a literal return of Christ during those times, which turned out to be false, the gospel of the kingdom being available now was also preached, and its message received.
The following study was made by searching the Bible for verses about the Kingdom. I did not consult any other reference works to bias me about what the Kingdom of God is. Many verses about the Kingdom of God equally make sense if the kingdom of God is either present or future, so I did not include them. When more than 1 of the 4 Gospels had the same account, I included it once.
Spiritual Kingdom Now Verses
In those days John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness of Judea, and saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!” (Matt 3:1–2)
From that time Jesus began to preach and to say, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt 4:17)
Then Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the gospel of the kingdom [how could the kingdom be “good news” if it were not to be implmented for another 2000 years?], and healing every sickness and every disease among the people. But when He saw the multitudes, He was moved with compassion for them, because they were weary and scattered, like sheep having no shepherd. Then He said to His disciples, “The harvest truly is plentiful, but the laborers are few. Therefore pray the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into His harvest” (Matt 9:35–3 .
And as you go, preach, saying, “The kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt 10:7).
Assuredly, I say to you, among those born of women there has not risen one greater than John the Baptist; but he who is [present tense, not future] least in the kingdom of heaven is [present tense] greater than he. And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent take it by force (Matt 11:11–12).
But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, surely the kingdom of God has come upon you (Matt 12:2 .
He answered and said to them, “Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven [the complete nature of it was not fully known], but to them it has not been given” (Matt 13:11).
When anyone hears the word of the kingdom, and does not understand it, then the wicked one comes and snatches away what was sown in his heart. This is he who received seed by the wayside (Matthew 13:19).
Another parable He put forth to them, saying: “The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and sowed in his field, which indeed is the least of all the seeds; but when it is grown it is greater than the herbs and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and nest in its branches” (Matt 13:31–32).
And I will give to thee the keys of the reign [kingdom] of the heavens, and whatever thou mayest bind upon the earth shall be[,] having been bound in the heavens, and whatever thou mayest loose upon the earth shall be[,] having been loosed in the heavens (Matt 16:19, YLT).
At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” Then Jesus called a little child to Him, set him in the midst of them, and said, “Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children [something they could do in this life through the Holy Spirit], you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven” (Matt 18:1–4).
For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard (Matt 20:1). [The Kingdom is compared to the hiring working, and the payment (judgment) at the end.]
…Assuredly, I say to you that tax collectors and harlots enter [present tense in Greek!] the kingdom of God before you (Matt 21:31).
But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in (Matt 23:13).
Then the kingdom of heaven shall be likened to ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom (Matthew 25:1). [Notice that the Kingdom is likened to the entire story, not just to the groom (Christ) returning.]
For the kingdom of heaven is like a man traveling to a far country, who called his own servants and delivered his goods to them (Matt 25:14). [In this lengthy “parable of the talents”, the servants left behind to do the Master’s work are clearly part of the Kingdom.]
And He said to them, “Assuredly, I say to you that there are some standing here who will not taste death till they see the kingdom of God present with power” (Mark 9:1). [This verse may have been fulfilled in the “transfiguration” that immediately follows in this chapter, or the pouring out of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2), is also possible.]
“To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.” When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” And from then on no one dared ask him any more questions (Mark 12:33–34).
After this the Lord appointed seventy-two others and sent them two by two ahead of him to every town and place where he was about to go… “And heal the sick there, and say to them, ‘The kingdom of God has come near to you’” (Luke 10:1, 9). [The works that these 72 men did, without Jesus physically present, were part of the Kingdom.]
The law and the prophets were until John. Since that time the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is pressing into it (Luke 16:16).
Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, “The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is within you.” Then He said to His disciples, “The time is coming when you will long to see one of the days of the Son of Man, but you will not see it. Men will tell you, ‘There he is!’ or ‘Here he is!’ Do not go running off after them. For the Son of Man in his day will be like the lightning, which flashes and lights up the sky from one end to the other” (Luke 17:20–24). [This passage illustrates both aspects of the kingdom of God. The first cannot be seen by observation, the latter part will be obvious to everyone.]
Jason has harbored them, and these are all acting contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying there is another king—Jesus (Acts 17:7). [Jesus is presently King.]
And he [Paul] went into the synagogue and spoke boldly for three months, reasoning and persuading concerning the things of the kingdom of God. But when some were hardened and did not believe, but spoke evil of the Way before the multitude, he departed from them and withdrew the disciples… (Acts 19:8–9). [The Kingdom of God is the main subject of three-moths teaching and appears to be synonymous with a way of life here.]
For the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit (Rom 14:17). [We can have these things now.]
But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord wills, and I will know, not the word of those who are puffed up, but the power. For the kingdom of God is not in word but in power. What do you want? Shall I come to you with a rod, or in love and a spirit of gentleness? (1Cor 4:19–21).
He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love (Col 1:13).
Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is (1Jn 3:2).
[In conclusion, it seems that the first century Israelites looked for a physical Kingdom to depose the Romans, but Christ said it would not happen at that time. Rather, He is choosing leaders for His Kingdom now and letting them use some of the benefits of it now, but His Kingdom will be inherited yet in the future
Physical Kingdom Later Verses
Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven (Matt 5:19–20).
And I say to you that many will come from east and west, and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven (Matt 8:11).
Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears to hear, let him hear! Again, the kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and hid; and for joy over it he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field. Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant seeking beautiful pearls, who, when he had found one pearl of great price, went and sold all that he had and bought it (Matt 13:43–46).
Therefore the kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants (Matt 18:23). [The rest of this parable emphasizes on settling accounts and judment—largely in the future, but judgement is begining now on God’s household 1Pet 4:17.]
The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who arranged a marriage for his son, (Matt 22:2). [While the wedding is certainly a future event, the parable does not compare the Kingdom only to the wedding, but to the entire process of arranging it.]
And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come (Matt 24:14).
Then the King will say to those on His right hand, “Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world” (Matt 25:34).
And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, rather than having two eyes, to be cast into hell fire (Mark 9:47).
Assuredly, I [Jesus] say to you, I will no longer drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God (Mark 12:25).
Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent council member, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, coming and taking courage, went in to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus (Mark 15:43).
There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, and yourselves thrust out. They will come from the east and the west, from the north and the south, and sit down in the kingdom of God (Luke 13:28–29).
Now when one of those who sat at the table with Him heard these things, he said to Him, “Blessed is he who shall eat bread in the kingdom of God!” (Luke 14:15).
Now as they heard these things, He spoke another parable, because He was near Jerusalem and because they thought the kingdom of God would appear immediately. Therefore He said: “A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom and to return. So he called ten of his servants, delivered to them ten minas, and said to them, ‘Do business till I come.’ But his citizens hated him, and sent a delegation after him, saying, ‘We will not have this man to reign over us.’ And so it was that when he returned, having received the kingdom, he then commanded these servants, to whom he had given the money, to be called to him, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading” (Luke 19:11–15). [Verse 11 shows no literal kingdom would appear right away, but Christ went on to explain that His servants would be doing His work till He returns. His return is pictured as “receiving the kingdom”, (like the inheritance promised to believers).]
Then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. Now when these things begin to happen, look up and lift up your heads, because your redemption draws near… So you also, when you see these things happening, know that the kingdom of God is near (Luke 21:27–28, 31).
For I [Christ] say to you, I will no longer eat of it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God… For I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes (Luke 22:16,1 .
He [Joseph] had not consented to their decision and deed. He was from Arimathea, a city of the Jews, who himself was also waiting for the kingdom of God (Luke 23:51).
Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God”… Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (John 3:3, 5).
Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here.” Pilate therefore said to Him, “Are You a king then?” Jesus answered, “You say rightly that I am a king. For this cause I was born, and for this cause I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice” (John 18:36–37).
So when they met together, they asked him, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?” He said to them: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth” (Acts 1:6– . [Note that the phrase is “kingdom to Israel”, not “Kingdom of God”. Christ said they would not know the times, but seemed to affirm that the coming of the Holy Spirit would be the part of the Kingdom that they would experience.]
Strengthening the souls of the disciples, exhorting them to continue in the faith, and saying, “We must through many tribulations enter the kingdom of God” (Acts 14:22).
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God (1Cor 6:9–10).
Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power (1Cor 15:24).
Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does corruption inherit incorruption (1Cor 15:50).
Envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God (Gal 5:21).
For this you know, that no fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God (Eph 5:5).
And Jesus, which is called Justus, who are of the circumcision. These only are my fellowworkers unto the kingdom of God, which have been a comfort unto me (Col 4:11, KJV). [The Greek preposition eis, translated “unto” here means going toward, not already in.]
Listen, my beloved brethren: Has God not chosen the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him? (Jms 2:5).
Then I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, “Now salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of His Christ have come, for the accuser of our brethren, who accused them before our God day and night, has been cast down” (Rev 12:10). [A future time.]
here
The spiritual Kingdom to be internalised:
Col 1:24-28
24 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church, 25 of which I became a minister according to the divine office which was given to me for you, to make the word of God fully known, 26 the mystery hidden for ages and generations but now made manifest to his saints. 27 To them God chose to make known how great among the Gentiles are the riches of the glory of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.
^Specifically verse 27.
1 Cor 3:16
16 Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and that God's Spirit lives in you?
In regards to Matthew 16:28, again, a small extract:
You might object that verse 27 speaks of a coming and that verse 28 elaborates on that coming. If these verses were the only Scripture we had, I would agree that it is a toss-up as to whether it belongs with Matthew 16:24-27 or Matthew 17:1-13. Matthew 16:28-17:13, however, is not the only Scripture that we have. Simon Peter and the others kept their secret until after Jesus rose from the dead. Peter then wrote about it in His second letter.
For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (2 Peter 1:16-21 AV)
This is Peter’s narrative of what he saw on the Mount of Transfiguration. In verse 16 he affirms to his audience that he was not telling them a tale when he told them about the power and coming of Jesus. He was an eyewitness of His majesty. It is noteworthy that the Greek word translated "coming" in verse 16 is our favorite word, parousia. Peter associates the term parousia with the Mount of Transfiguration event. Matthew 16:28 states that some of the disciples would not taste death until they saw the Son of Man coming in His kingdom. Mark 9:1 states that some of the disciples would not taste death until they saw the kingdom come with great power. Peter writes that he was not telling a tale when he made known to his audience the power and coming of Jesus. There you have it. If we allow Scripture to interpret Scripture, we see that Matthew 16:28 and Mark 9:1 are time statements which were fulfilled at the Mount of Transfiguration.
These verses were also fulfilled in a broader sense in the Gospel preaching of the Kingdom by Jesus and His disciples. Consider the following verses:
From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. (Matthew 4:17 AV)
Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel. (Mark 1:14-15 AV)
And heal the sick that are therein, and say unto them, The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you. (Luke 10:9 AV)
Even the very dust of your city, which cleaveth on us, we do wipe off against you: notwithstanding be ye sure of this, that the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you. (Luke 10:11 AV)
If we believe these verses as they are written, then I think it is safe to say that Matthew 16:28 and Mark 9:1 were fulfilled also in the preaching of the Gospel of the kingdom. This preaching was authenticated with miracles of great power:
Luke 4:36 Then they were all amazed and spoke among themselves, saying, "What a word this is! For with authority and power He commands the unclean spirits, and they come out." (emphasis mine)
Luke 5:17 Now it happened on a certain day, as He was teaching, that there were Pharisees and teachers of the law sitting by, who had come out of every town of Galilee, Judea, and Jerusalem. And the power of the Lord was present to heal them. (emphasis mine)
Since Matthew 16:28 and Mark 9:1 are parallel passages which are two different accounts of the same event, we would have to say that Jesus must have been (1) seen coming by His disciples in (2) a display of power for these two verses taken together to be literally fulfilled. That fits the first parousia, because both of these requirements were fulfilled in it. However, the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD does not meet both of these criteria, because history does not record that Jesus was at any time literally seen during that event.
Here is the conclusion of the matter. Is Matthew 16:28 a time statement? The answer is yes. Is it a time statement for the second parousia? The answer is no. Is it a time statement for AD 70? The answer is no. The answer is that it is a time statement for events that happened during the first parousia, most notably the Mount of Transfiguration event.
here
That's all I have to say about that for now.
Take care out there, it's a jungle!
dimmo
Case closed?
Case reopened.
Come to think of it PB, who are you to 'Case closed' anything relating to the Bible? Remember Bethlehem, the imaginary person
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
PB:
I disagree that Matthew related a reference by Jesus to the fact that some of his prophets would see him talk to God in a little while. That is not quite the same as, "There are some here who shall not taste death before they see the coming of the Son of Man" or whatever he said. Especially since YOUR post includes verses in which that exact phrase "coming of the Son of Man" or whatever (I don't want to take the time to go back and look) was used, in other places, specifically to refer to Jesus' second coming.
But, while I don't agree that your interpretation is necessarily correct, I accept that you have shown that biblical defenders can twist the words to mean something that is not necessarily false. Much like God's simple words that Adam would die the day he ate the apple were twisted by SoHi to mean that Adam would become mortal and sinful on the day he ate the apple. And so I similarly surrender the Matthew verse for that same reason, in deference to the fact that I see that once you figure out a twisted meaning that saves the Bible from falsity, you will not abandon it and we must move to the other examples of contradictions I posted.
~psychoblast~
Ok, since there is such big discussion as to who said what and when they said it, i have decided to go back to the thread and repost EACH post given by myslef, dimmo, and PyschBlast. Here they are listed below in order, each post is broken upp by double lines. So for anyone who wants to read and see who was right or wrong feel free to settle the score once and for all by reading below:
PB;s first post on the issue:
From Micah:
"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."
The gospel of Matthew (2:5-6) claims that Jesus' birth in Bethlehem fulfils this prophecy. But this is unlikely for two reasons.
"Bethlehem Ephratah" in Micah 5:2 refers not to a town, but to a clan: the clan of Bethlehem, who was the son of Caleb's second wife, Ephrathah (1 Chr.2:18, 2:50-52, 4:4).
The prophecy (if that is what it is) does not refer to the Messiah, but rather to a military leader, as can be seen from verse 5:6. This leader is supposed to defeat the Assyrians, which, of course, Jesus never did.
It should also be noted that Matthew altered the text of Micah 5:2 by saying: "And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda" rather than "Bethlehem Ephratah" as is said in Micah 5:2. He did this, intentionally no doubt, to make the verse appear to refer to the town of Bethlehem rather than the family clan.5:2
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________
PB:
I withdraw my use of King Zedekiah. Not for the reason you say, but now I think it could be read as if God has said that the king would die peacefully as part of a covenant with the king, which the king then broke, resulting in God going back on his part of the covenant, too.
From Jeremiah:
34:17
Therefore thus saith the LORD; Ye have not hearkened unto me, in proclaiming liberty, every one to his brother, and every man to his neighbour: behold, I proclaim a liberty for you, saith the LORD, to the sword, to the pestilence, and to the famine; and I will make you to be removed into all the kingdoms of the earth.
...
34:21
And Zedekiah king of Judah and his princes will I give into the hand of their enemies, and into the hand of them that seek their life, and into the hand of the king of Babylon's army, which are gone up from you.
Alas, the skeptics annotated bible site seems to be a little over eager in identifying flaws.
~psychoblast~
--------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sohi’s first response:
"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."
The gospel of Matthew (2:5-6) claims that Jesus' birth in Bethlehem fulfils this prophecy. But this is unlikely for two reasons.
"Bethlehem Ephratah" in Micah 5:2 refers not to a town, but to a clan: the clan of Bethlehem, who was the son of Caleb's second wife, Ephrathah (1 Chr.2:18, 2:50-52, 4:4).
^About Bethlehem
Actually, The ancient name for Bethlehem was Ephrath. Genesis 35:19 So, Micah is referring to the city, and the coming Messiah.
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
PB
See, the passage refers to the kingdom, not the city. And people still live in the land that was Babylon.
As for the Bethlehem - person or city - what the fuck are you so cocky about? Did YOU go back and read the relevant passages? Because straight from the text, you cannot say for SURE that Micah meant the city and not the person. So your confidence is misplaces. I mean, look at the order of events:
1. Genesis:
35:15
And Jacob called the name of the place where God spake with him, Bethel.
35:16
And they journeyed from Bethel; and there was but a little way to come to Ephrath: and Rachel travailed, and she had hard labour.
35:17
And it came to pass, when she was in hard labour, that the midwife said unto her, Fear not; thou shalt have this son also.
35:18
And it came to pass, as her soul was in departing, (for she died) that she called his name Benoni: but his father called him Benjamin.
35:19
And Rachel died, and was buried in the way to Ephrath, which is Bethlehem.
2. First Chronicles:
2:50
These were the sons of Caleb the son of Hur, the firstborn of Ephratah; Shobal the father of Kirjathjearim.
2:51
Salma the father of Bethlehem, Hareph the father of Bethgader.
3. Micah (at issue):
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.
Now you want to sit here and tell me this is OBVIOUSLY a reference to the city Bethlehem and not the lineage of the person Bethlehem from reading these passages? Give me a break. I'll admit it is conceivable, but on the other hand, it is also possible Micah WAS refering to the person and not the city. What does it mean to say that Bethlehem was little among the "thousands of Judah?" Sound like a reference to a person, not a city. I mean, are you telling me there were THOUSANDS of cities in Judah around 1000 b.c.? I think not. But there were thousands of Jewish people. So it seems to refer to a Jewish person, not a Jewish city.
Yes, Bethlehem was a person. And then it was a place. And then Micah wrote about "Bethlehem" and, no, it is NOT clear that Micah was refering to the town. In context, it looks more like he was refering to the person. Like he was prophesying that the messiah would be from Bethlehem's lineage.
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dimmo:
Originally posted by psychoblast
Now you want to sit here and tell me this is OBVIOUSLY a reference to the city Bethlehem and not the lineage of the person Bethlehem from reading these passages? Give me a break. I'll admit it is conceivable, but on the other hand, it is also possible Micah WAS refering to the person and not the city. What does it mean to say that Bethlehem was little among the "thousands of Judah?" Sound like a reference to a person, not a city. I mean, are you telling me there were THOUSANDS of cities in Judah around 1000 b.c.? I think not. But there were thousands of Jewish people. So it seems to refer to a Jewish person, not a Jewish city.
Yes, Bethlehem was a person. And then it was a place. And then Micah wrote about "Bethlehem" and, no, it is NOT clear that Micah was refering to the town. In context, it looks more like he was refering to the person. Like he was prophesying that the messiah would be from Bethlehem's lineage.
Just a very brief post on this topic, before I add more to it later.
A lil info on Ruth,
B. Her Family (Ruth 1:2-4)
We know nothing of Ruth’s own family. She married Naomi’s son, Mahlon (Ruth 4:10). Her sister-in-law, Orpah, was married to Chilion, the younger son. Naomi’s family were Ephrathites. Ephrath was another name for Bethlehem. It is where Jacob’s wife, Rachel died giving birth to Benjamin. She is buried there. When Ruth married Boaz in Bethlehem, the women of the city pronounced blessings on her that she would be as famous as Rachel and be worthy to build the house of Israel (Ruth 4:11). Miraculously, God was providing that Ruth, a former pagan, would be inducted into the lineage of Christ and settled into the same village where He would be born thirteen centuries later.
That royal lineage, obviously includes King David, where he and his family comes from. Jesus was to be a part of that.
Ruth 4:11 They first prayed, "The Lord make the woman that is come into thine house like Rachel and like Leah, which two did build the house of Israel: and do thou worthily in Ephratah, and be famous in Bethlehem,"
1 Samuel 17:12 Now David was the son of an Eph'rathite of Bethlehem in Judah, named Jesse, who had eight sons. In the days of Saul the man was already old and advanced in years.
Also, PB, be careful of the quotes you are pasting, my additions in brackets:
1 Chronicles 2
50 These were the descendants of Caleb. The sons of Hur the firstborn of Ephrathah: Shobal the father of Kiriath Jearim (a city name), 51 Salma the father of Bethlehem (a ? name), and Hareph the father of Beth Gader(a city name). 52 The descendants of Shobal the father of Kiriath Jearim were: Haroeh, half the Manahathites, 53 and the clans of Kiriath Jearim: the Ithrites, Puthites, Shumathites and Mishraites. From these descended the Zorathites and Eshtaolites.
54 The descendants of Salma: Bethlehem, the Netophathites, Atroth Beth Joab, half the Manahathites, the Zorites, 55 and the clans of scribes who lived at Jabez: the Tirathites, Shimeathites and Sucathites. These are the Kenites who came from Hammath, the father of the house of Recab.
I believe the above is talking about places, not people. Shobal, the founder of (clan chief/captain/ruler), Kiriath Jearim. And so on. If you read the rest of the verses it becomes more clear.
Strong's definition of Father
1. father of an individual
2. of God as father of his people
3. head or founder of a household, group, family, or clan
ancestor
4. a) grandfather, forefathers -- of person
b) of people
5. originator or patron of a class, profession, or art
6. of producer, generator (fig.)
7. of benevolence and protection (fig.)
8. term of respect and honour
9. ruler or chief (spec.)
Strong's definition of Beth-gader = "house of the wall"
1. a place in Judah
The city..
1 Samuel 6:21
Then they sent messengers to the people of Kiriath Jearim, saying, "The Philistines have returned the ark of the LORD . Come down and take it up to your place."
Judges 18:12
On their way they set up camp near Kiriath Jearim in Judah. This is why the place west of Kiriath Jearim is called Mahaneh Dan [ 18:12 [ Mahaneh Dan ] means [ Dan's camp ] . ] to this day.
If you want to go by lineage, Jesus qualifies.
If you want to go by location, Jesus qualifies.
I must go home now, however, I will look at it a bit later.
dimmo
---------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------
PB:
Dimmo:
Well, I'd written a longer reply, then lost it, so I will briefly restate what I wrote:
On Bethlehem, I already conceded that the prophesy Matthew relies on is not a clear contradiction because it could be argued that Isaiah was refering to the city and not the man named Bethlehem. Though I think the reference to Bethlehem being chosen among "thousands" in the land (see text for exact phrase) makes it more probable it is a man, since there were not thousands of Jewish cities at the time (or ever?) but there were thousands of Jews. Nevertheless, it is not clear enough to keep fighting over.
So, anyway, it seems you are not reading my responses thoroughly.
Feel free to move on.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Dimmo:
Originally posted by psychoblast
Dimmo:
"Well, I'd written a longer reply, then lost it, so I will briefly restate what I wrote:
On Bethlehem, I already conceded that the prophesy Matthew relies on is not a clear contradiction because it could be argued that Isaiah was refering to the city and not the man named Bethlehem. Though I think the reference to Bethlehem being chosen among "thousands" in the land (see text for exact phrase) makes it more probable it is a man, since there were not thousands of Jewish cities at the time (or ever?) but there were thousands of Jews. Nevertheless, it is not clear enough to keep fighting over.
So, anyway, it seems you are not reading my responses thoroughly.
Feel free to move on."
PB, In order to satisfy your thirst for Biblical knowledge..
What person?
Where is there a person named Bethlehem? You certainly didn't get that from 1 Chron 2:50. Where does the person named Bethlehem appear?However, forgetting the imaginary person, as I said in my last post regarding Ephrathites, or the clan of Eprathah, Jesus DOES come from that lineage.
Here is something to help you with the 'among thousands'. Please tell me if it does/doesn't.
RSV Joshua 22:30 When the priest Phinehas and the chiefs of the congregation, the heads of the families of Israel who were with him, heard the words that the Reubenites and the Gadites and the Manassites spoke, they were satisfied
KJV Joshua 22:30 And when Phinehas the priest, and the princes of the congregation and heads of the thousands of Israel which were with him, heard the words that the children of Reuben and the children of Gad and the children of Manasseh spake, it pleased them
And this:
Numbers
1:2 Take ye the sum of all the congregation of the children of Israel, after their families, by the house of their fathers, with the number of their names, every male by their polls;
1:3 From twenty years old and upward, all that are able to go forth to war in Israel: thou and Aaron shall number them by their armies.
1:4 And with you there shall be a man of every tribe; every one head of the house of his fathers
which leads to...
Numbers 1:16
These were the renowned of the congregation, princes of the tribes of their fathers, heads of thousands in Israel.
If Jesus was to come from that lineage, he could have been born in Rome or anywhere else for that matter for the prophecy to be fulfilled.
Jesus was born in Bethlehem.
Scripture must be used to interpret scripture.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PB:
Dimmo:
First Corinthians
2:50
These were the sons of Caleb the son of Hur, the firstborn of Ephratah; Shobal the father of Kirjathjearim.
2:51
Salma the father of Bethlehem, Hareph the father of Bethgader.
You claim this refers to cities? The city of Hareph? The city of Bethgader? The city of Caleb? The city of Hur? The city of Ephratah? ARE YOU HIGH??? Start reading from First Corinthians Chapter 2, verse 1. It is clearly a listing of PEOPLE, not cities.
Your suggestion that there never was any person named "Bethlehem" is completely ignorant, and really shows just how superficial and untrustworthy your reasoning and/or knowledge concerning the Bible is.
~psychoblast~
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dimmo:
PB, your knowledge is poor, however I will try to help you.
1 Chron 2:50
These were the descendants of Caleb. The sons of Hur the first-born of Eph'rathah: Shobal the father of Kir'iath-je'arim, 51 Salma, the father of Bethelem, and Hareph the father of Beth-gader.
Lets break it down with definitions included.
Caleb is a person. Strong's 3612: Kaleb (kaw-labe'); perhaps a form of OT:3611, or else from the same root in the sense of forcible; Caleb, the name of three Israelites:
Hur is a person. Strong's 2354: Chuwr (khoor); the same as OT:2353 or OT:2352; Chur, the name of four Israelites and one Midianite:
Eph'rathah in THIS verse is a person. Strong's 672: 'Ephraath (ef-rawth'); or 'Ephrathah (ef-raw'-thaw); from OT:6509; fruitfulness; Ephrath, another name for Bethlehem; once (Ps 132:6) perhaps for Ephraim; also of an Israelitish woman:
Shobal is a person. Strong's 7732: Showbal (sho-bawl'); from the same as OT:7640; overflowing; Shobal, the name of an Edomite and two Israelites:
Kirjath-jearim is NOT the name of a person. Strong's 7157: Qiryath Ye` ariym (keer-yath' yeh-aw-reem'); or (Jer 26:20) with the article interposed; or (Josh 18:2 simply the former part of the word; or Qiryath `Ariym (keer-yath' aw-reem'); from OT:7151 and the plural of OT:3293 or OT:5892; city of forests, or city of towns; Kirjath-Jearim or Kirjath-Arim, a place in Palestine:
Salma is the name of a person. Strong's 8007: Salma' (sal-maw'); probably for OT:8008; clothing; Salma, the name of two Israelites:
Bethlehem is NOT the name of a person. Strong's 1035: Beyth Lechem (bayth leh'-khem; from OT:1004 and OT:3899; house of bread; Bethechem, a place in Palestine:
Hareph is a person. Strong's 2780: Chareph (khaw-rafe'); from OT:2778; reproachful; Chareph, an Israelite: -Hareph.
Beth-gader is NOT the name of a person. Strong's 1013: Beyth-Gader (bayth-gaw-dare'); from OT:1004 and OT:1447; house of (the) wall; Beth-gader, a place in Palestine:
Before I continue, some food for thought PB.
Micah 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah
If that was referring to a person, and Ephratah is a woman, that is incorrect. His name would be Bethlehem 'son of' Salma. They always take the name of the father!
Additionally, my Bible notes are as follows:
"The sons of Caleb... These were the descendants of Caleb." The list in this section is a mixture of personal and place-names; the phrase "father of" must often be understood as 'founder of' or 'leader of' a city." -- See Strong's definition of father in a previous post.
Originally posted by psychoblast:
Your suggestion that there never was any person named "Bethlehem" is completely ignorant, and really shows just how superficial and untrustworthy your reasoning and/or knowledge concerning the Bible is.
I hope you can admit, accept, and apologise when you're wrong; as you clearly are here.
Perhaps you would also like to admit just how superficial and untrustworthy your reasoning and/or knowledge concerning the Bible really is. Unfortunately, it is people like you that really give the Bible a bad name.
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sohi:
WOW! PB, seriously, he has you here man. Just admit your wrong and we ont tell anyone
"Perhaps you would also like to admit just how superficial and untrustworthy your reasoning and/or knowledge concerning the Bible really is. Unfortunately, it is people like you that really give the Bible a bad name."
^That was so good it neededto be said again...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
PB:
Dimmo:
I'm really not insisting that there WAS a person named Bethlehem. All I'm saying is that you are really misguided to insist there could not have been, to insist that the ONLY possible and reasonable interpretation of each use of the word "Bethlehem" in the Bible is a reference to a town.
I still stand by my position that the use of the word Bethlehem is AMBIGUOUS on whether it was meant as a person or town. You have still not explained the "thousands" reference, at a time when there were not thousand of Jewish towns.
Also, you seem not to have gone further to consider First Chronicles Chap 2, verse 54:
2:51
Salma the father of Bethlehem, Hareph the father of Bethgader.
2:52
And Shobal the father of Kirjathjearim had sons; Haroeh, and half of the Manahethites.
2:53
And the families of Kirjathjearim; the Ithrites, and the Puhites, and the Shumathites, and the Mishraites; of them came the Zareathites, and the Eshtaulites,
2:54
The sons of Salma; Bethlehem, and the Netophathites, Ataroth, the house of Joab, and half of the Manahethites, the Zorites.
See, we have a second referenct to Bethlehem, still ambiguous. Yes, both references COULD be talking of cities and not people. You COULD refer to some one as the father of a city (verse 51), you COULD even refer to a city as the son of some one (verse 54). But then again, maybe it was a person?
I admitted a few posts back that it is UNCLEAR to me whether these references are to a person or place. I pointed out some reasons to think it was a person, which you have still not adequately explained away. And I stand by that. If I were insisting that these references to Bethlehem were CERTAINLY references to a person, I would have to back down and apologize. You have certainly posted some good stuff to suggest that the verse 51 reference, at least, is to a city. Albeit it is a little trickier to try applying that to verse 54.
Nevertheless, you seem to be avoiding the real issue. The challenge in this thread was to prove the Bible wrong. Me and many other posters gave dozens of examples of contradictions, absurdities and inaccuracies in the Bible. SoHi responded to my one example of King Zedekiah, which I then abandoned as an example of biblical falsehood. You or SoHi also responded to my original assertion that Matthew mistook Micah as refering to Bethlehem a city when it was a reference to a person. In response, I ALSO abandoned that example, conceding that it was ambiguous whether it was a man or city.
Now you spend all this time, over and over, trying to debate whether Micah was refering to a man or city... But why? What does that have to do with disproving (or proving) the Bible? I've conceded it is not an example that disproves the Bible. I will not concede that Micah could ONLY have been talking about a city. But, really, the bottom line is that this is all some insignificant side debate that has nothing to do with the purpose of this thread.
So, I will reiterate as I have said in both of my last 2 posts on this: I concede Micah could be refering to a city, but I will not concede Micah was definitely talking about a city. And to extend this to First Chronicles, I also concede that coudl be refering to a city, but again I do not think that is obvious or proven or definite. You make a point on the "father of" reference could be to a city, but what about the "son of" reference? I can't recall ever hearing of a city referred to as the "son of" some one.
Another source:
Further evidence that Micah was referring to a person, not a town, comes from the editors of the NIV, RSV, and NAB. Here is how the NIV translates that Micah verse: "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans (or, rulers) of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel..." (Micah 5:2) This verse strongly suggests that Micah did not mean that the savior would be born a town called Bethlehem, but that he would come from the either the clan of Ephratah, or from the man called Bethlehem Ephratah.
Micah refers to the "thousands of Judah" (in the Kings James Version), which Matthew may have thought meant "thousands of towns in Judah". Is it possible there were thousands of towns in Judah in 800 BC? In order to justify the use of the word "thousands" to describe anything, how many would there have to be? Three thousand, or more? There are only about 50-100 towns or villages in that area today. Is it believable that there were thirty times as many towns and villages in Judah 2800 years ago, when the population of that region was vastly less than it is today? Or is it more likely that Micah was referring to clans and not towns?
... Micah is talking about a person who will save them from the Assyrians. Nineveh, the capital of Assyria, was destroyed and Assyrian power ceased to exist 606 years before Jesus was born. Thus, if the savior prophesied by Micah really did come, he would have to have done so six centuries before the birth of Jesus. Also, the adversaries of the Hebrews at the time of Jesus were not the Assyrians. It was the Romans, not the Assyrians, who ruled the land of Judah during the lifetime of Jesus. Even if Micah's prophecy had referred to a saviour freeing Israel from the Romans, it could not have applied to Jesus, who never lifted a finger against them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
PB:
Oh, to close out this issue, I now think (but still agree it is ambiguous) that Micah was NOT refering to the town of Bethlehem, nor to a person named Bethlehem, but to a clan named Bethlehem:
(from http://www.messiahtruth.com/micah.html)
III. Analysis of the Passage (translated from Hebrew):
To help facilitate the analysis, the correct translation of Micah 5:1 is separated into two segments:
Segment A
Micah 5:1A – And you, Bethlehem Ephratah - you should have been the lowest amongst the clans of Judah – from you [he] shall emerge for Me, to be a ruler over Israel;
Segment B
Micah 5:1B – and his origin is from old, from ancient days.
Segment A and Segment B will now be separately analyzed.
Analysis of Segment A
Micah 5:1A – And you, Bethlehem Ephratah - you should have been the lowest amongst the clans of Judah – from you [he] shall emerge for Me, to be a ruler over Israel;
The name Bethlehem, in the original Hebrew is (beit-lehem), which literally means House of Lehem [ (lehem) means bread, or (generic) food]. Therefore, the title (beit-lehem) may refer either to the town or to a clan with the name (lehem). In the case of Micah 5:1, the reference is to a clan. How can one determine this?
The first clue is found in the opening phrase of the verse, where the Hebrew is (veatah beit-lehem ephratah). The term (veatah) has the components (ve), the preposition and, and (atah), the pronoun you for the 2nd-person, singular, masculine gender. Thus, (veatah) translates as and you, using the 2nd-person, singular, masculine gender pronoun (the KJV has but you in Micah 5:2; note, however, how the KJV translators correctly render this phrase as And thou in Mt 2:6!). The rest of the phrase in Segment A is also cast in a 2nd-person, singular, masculine gender conjugation. Following this term (veatah) is the phrase (beit-lehem ephratah), where (ephratah) or, alternatively, (ephrat), is an alternate name for the town of Bethlehem in Judah in the Hebrew Bible, as seen from the following example:
Genesis 35:19(KJV) - And Rachel died, and was buried in the way to Ephrat (ephrat), which is Bethlehem (beit-lehem).
In the Hebrew Bible, singular pronouns, such as (atah), you, are often used interchangeably in both the singular and plural context. In the case of Micah 5:1, (atah) is a singular compound entity, a specific clan, so that the context is the [plural, masculine] you. Though the singular usage is the most common one, the plural application occurs as well (e.g., Exod 33:3, Deut 9:6). Therefore, the one being addressed here in Micah 5:1 is (beit-lehem), which is the name of a family, or clan, residing in the town of (ephratah), Ephratah, i.e., in the town of Bethlehem. According to this analysis, perhaps a more accurate version of Segment A (and, thus, Micah 5:1) would be:
Micah 5:1A – And you, House of Lehem [from] Ephratah - you should have been the lowest amongst the clans of Judah – from you [he] shall emerge for Me, to be a ruler over Israel;
In the expression (bealphei yehudah), amongst the clans of Judah, contains a plural possessive construct of the Hebrew term (eleph), (alphei), which is used in the context of clans of …. The most common application of (eleph) in the Hebrew Bible is a thousand, which is its general meaning. However, there are instances in the Hebrew Bible where (eleph) is used in reference to a portion of a tribe, i.e., a clan or family. Micah 5:1 is one of these cases, and others are found at Numbers 31:5, Deuteronomy 33:17, Joshua 22:14, Judges 6:15, and 1 Samuel 10:19, 23:23. It is interesting to note that most translators (both Jewish and Christian) are consistent in their (mis)translation of this word in all but one of these instances, the one at Judges 6:15, where the term (alpi) [1st-person, singular conjugation of the noun (eleph)] is correctly translated as my family. Although, in general, it is not a serious contextual discrepancy when using a thousand in place of a clan in the above mentioned places, the correct context in Micah 5:1 is that the reference is to a [particular] clan from the town of Bethlehem. This case is further supported by the fact that members of a clan are frequently referred to by the name of the clan, often derived from the name of its progenitor, as is seen from the following example:
Numbers 3:27 - And of Kohath, the Amramite family, and the Izharite family, and the Hebronite family, and the Uzzielite family; these are the Kohathite families.
Regarding someone from the Bethlehemite clan [ (beit-ha'lahmi)], the Hebrew Bible has passages such as the following:
1 Samuel 16:1 - And the L-rd said to Samuel, "Until when will you mourn for Saul, that I have rejected him from reigning over Israel? Fill your horn with oil, and go, I will send you to Jesse the Bethlehemite [ (beit-ha'lahmi)], for I have found among his sons a king for Me.
Another reference in the Hebrew Bible is even more explicit:
1 Samuel 17:12 - And David was the son of this man from Ephrat [ (ephrati)] of the House of Lehem [ (mi'beit-lehem)] in Judah, whose name was Jesse, and he had eight sons; and the man, who was elderly in Saul's time, was among the [respected] men.
In the Hebrew language, which has no neuter gender, i.e., a separate Hebrew word for it does not exist, cities and towns are assigned the feminine gender. So, if it were the town of Bethlehem being addressed in Micah 5:1, the opening term would have been (veat), such as in Jeremiah 50:24 and elsewhere, the components of which are (ve), the preposition and, and (at), the Biblical form of the pronoun you for the 2nd-person, singular, feminine gender. Consequently, (veat) translates as and you, with the 2nd-person, singular, feminine gender pronoun. Understanding this difference is essential for the correct reading of this verse!
The KJV translators, lacking the required level of proficiency of the Hebrew language, did not recognize that a certain clan, the House of Lehem, is being addressed in Micah 5:1[2]. Rather, from the sources they used, one of which was most likely the Christian LXX (that which Christians mistakenly call the Septuagint), it appeared to them that the town of Bethlehem is being addressed here. Consequently, they characterize Bethlehem as a small and insignificant town from the territory of Judah, in an introductory phrase to the prophecy. Namely, that in spite of its insignificance, the town will be the birthplace of the promised Messiah.
However, since it is the clan, the House of Lehem, and not the town, that is being addressed here by Micah, it does not matter in which town the Messiah will be born; rather, it is the clan, the family, that is significant! The phrase in Segment B, "and his origin is from old", simply means the Messiah will come from a family with a long lineage.
How can one learn more about the particular clan to which this verse refers? The ancestry of the known members of the clan is a good place from which to start the investigation, and it leads to a woman named Ruth, a Moabitess, who is among the ancestors of King David. Ruth was married to one of the two sons Elimelech and Naomi, a family that hailed from Bethlehem.
A famine in Judah forced Elimelech to take his family to a place that had food, and they wound up in the Land of Moab. Originally, Elimelech and Naomi’s plan was to go to Moab just to wait out the famine, but they then decided to remain there, a decision that eventually led to tragic consequences. Elimelech and Naomi's two sons, Killion and Mahlon (Ephrathites from House of Lehem [Ruth 1:2]), married Gentile women, Orpah and Ruth, respectively. Elimelech and his two sons died while the family was in Moab, leaving the three women, Naomi, Orpah, and Ruth, as widows. Naomi made plans to return alone to her home in the Kingdom of Judah, and she instructed her two daughters-in-law to go back to their people, the Moabites. Orpah approached her mother-in-law, kissed her goodbye and left. Ruth came over to Naomi, held on to her and did not let go. Ruth informed Naomi that she was coming with her; and even though Naomi attempted to dissuade her from returning to the famine in Judah, Ruth insisted and said to her:
Ruth 1:16-17 – (16) … Do not entreat me to leave you, or to desist from following you; for wherever you go, I will go; and where you lodge, I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your G-d is my G-d; (17) Wherever you die, will I die, and there will I be buried; the L-rd may do so to me, and so may He continue, for [only] death will separate me from you.
From Ruth's declaration of her intentions to Naomi when she says, “…For where you go, I will go; where you lodge, I will lodge; your people are my people, and your G-d is my G-d;…”, it is understood that she converted to Judaism. But Ruth, a person of outstanding character, had a problematic ancestry – she was a Moabite woman. This is what the Torah instructs the Israelites about a Moabite:
Deuteronomy 23:4 - An Ammonite [ (ammoni)] and a Moabite [ (mo'avi)] shall not enter into the congregation of the L-rd; even the tenth generation shall never enter into the congregation of the L-rd.
In other words, Ammonites and Moabites were prohibited from ever converting to Judaism. Note, however, that in the Hebrew text, the terms (ammoni) and (mo'avi) are used, terms that translate as an Ammonite (male) and a Moabite (male), respectively. The corresponding terms for a female, as used in the Hebrew Bible are, (ammonit) and (mo'avit) [or (mo'avi'yah)].
The reason for the prohibition is stated immediately following it:
Deuteronomy 23:5-6 – (5) Because they did not greet you with bread and water on the way, when you left Egypt, and because he [Moab] hired Balaam the son of Beor from Pethor in Aram Naharaim against you, to curse you. (6) But the L-rd, your G-d, did not want to listen to Balaam. So the L-rd, your G-d, transformed the curse into a blessing for you, because the L-rd, your G-d, loves you.
And this is repeated at a much later time by Nehemiah:
Nehemiah 13:1-2 – (1) On that day the Book of Moses was read to be heard by the people; and it was found written therein that an Ammonite [ (ammoni)] and a Moabite [ (mo'avi)] may not enter into the congregation of G-d forever; (2) Because they did not come to meet the people of Israel with bread and with water, and [instead] hired Balaam against them, to curse them; and our G-d turned the curse into a blessing.
Considering this prohibition, how was Ruth the Moabitess able to "… enter into the congregation of the L-rd…"? How could she become the ancestor of the greatest king of the Jewish people, King David? The Sages explain in the Babylonian Talmud (Tractate Yevamot, 76b; Tractate Ketubot, 7b) that this prohibition applies only to Ammonite and Moabite men, and not to women. This is because only a man was expected to leave his house and bring food and drink to the traveler; a woman was not expected to do that for obvious reasons. Thus, the interpretation of the law (Deut 23:4), which had to be rendered by ten elders, that the prohibition on becoming one of the assembly of the L-rd, i.e., to be admitted into the community of Israel, applied only to Ammonite and Moabite men and not to Ammonite and Moabite women. This clarified the law, and enabled Boaz to marry Ruth the Moabitess. So, the (beit-lehem) clan, with a history marred by Ruth's ancestry of a nation that was excluded from Judaism, is characterized by the phrase, "you SHOULD HAVE BEEN the LOWEST amongst the CLANS of Judah", in Segment A. This phrase reflects the uneasiness people may have had even with King David, whose great-grandmother was a Moabitess. Yet, the fact is that out of this clan rose the greatest king of Israel, and the promise is made that the Messiah will also come from it.
This passage is all about King David's ancestry, with the Messiah being but a "by-product" of it. This fact is even confirmed by the rendition in The New Jerusalem Bible (a Christian translation), whose translators state the following in a footnote to this verse (Micah 5:2; only the relevant portion of the footnote is being quoted here):
“Micah is thinking of the ancient origin of the dynasty of David, Rt 4:11,17,18-22; 1 S 17:12. The evangelists later interpreted this passage as a prophecy of Christ’s birthplace.”
In other words, while this passage does not rule out the town of Bethlehem as being the Messiah's birthplace, as could be any other place, the notion that it is his birthplace was introduced later, in the New Testament, as an interpretation by the Gospel writers.
B. Segment B
Micah 5:1B – and his origin is from old, from ancient days.
The fact that Segment A of Micah 5:1 voids the positive identification of Bethlehem as the Messiah's birthplace, creates a serious problem for the Church. This problem is compounded by the closing phrase in the Hebrew text in Segment B, (mi'y'mei olam), from ancient days.
Micah, who was a contemporary of the prophets Amos, Hosea, and Isaiah, and of King Hezekiah (around 730 B.C.E.), states something special here, namely, that the origin of the Messiah would be from Bethlehem, from the long ago past, from ancient days. However, this statement conflicts with Christian theology, since Jesus is considered as having been around since the beginning of time, since before the Creation, and the expression from ancient days does not satisfy this condition. To "rectify" this problem, many Christian translators simply replace ancient days with days of eternity, or everlasting, or days of time indefinite (see, e.g., KJV, NAS, NWT). How can one determine who is telling the truth?
The Hebrew expression (yemei olam), ancient days, is used in Micah 5:1 with the preposition (mi-), from, as (mi'y'mei olam), from ancient days. Table III.B-1 shows all six instances in the Hebrew Bible of the expression (yemei olam), ancient days, including its combinations with various prepositions. Also shown in the table are the respective renditions of these expressions in the KJV.
Table III.B-1 – KJV renditions of the expression (yemei olam) in the Hebrew Bible
Hebrew
Pronunciation
#
Reference
Correct Translation
KJV Rendition
ye-ME-i o-LAM
2
Isaiah 63:9,11
the days of old
the days of old
kiy-ME-i o-LAM
3
Amos 9:11;
Micah 7:14;
Malachi 3:4
as in days of old
as in the days of old
miy-ME-i o-LAM
1
Micah 5:1[2]
from ancient days
from everlasting
Note that the expression is correctly translated in the KJV in five out of the six cases as days of old, which is synonymous with ancient days, yet at Micah 5:2 it is rendered as from everlasting. What could have motivated the KJV translators to render the same expression correctly in all but one place, the one exception being at Micah 5:2, which speaks of the Messiah? Could it be that replacing from ancient days with from everlasting in this passage would "harmonize" this Old Testament prophecy with Christian theology? Did the KJV translators engage here in an act of "pious fraud"?
For the sake of completeness and fairness, it should be noted that, in contrast to the KJV (and several other Christian Bibles), some Christian translators have correctly rendered this phrase, e.g., NAB, NIV, NRSV, RSV, The New Jerusalem Bible, among others.
SoHi and Dimmo: You still insist that I MUST apologize and admit this refers to a town called Bethlehem?
LOL!
~psychoblast~
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dimmo:
Poor PB, defiant to the end
Originally posted by psychoblast
Dimmo:
I'm really not insisting that there WAS a person named Bethlehem. All I'm saying is that you are really misguided to insist there could not have been, to insist that the ONLY possible and reasonable interpretation of each use of the word "Bethlehem" in the Bible is a reference to a town.
I still stand by my position that the use of the word Bethlehem is AMBIGUOUS on whether it was meant as a person or town. You have still not explained the "thousands" reference, at a time when there were not thousand of Jewish towns.
I made a post on the 'thousands'. Scripture clearly shows what it is talking about.
Here is something to help you with the 'among thousands'. Please tell me if it does/doesn't.
RSV Joshua 22:30 When the priest Phinehas and the chiefs of the congregation, the heads of the families of Israel who were with him, heard the words that the Reubenites and the Gadites and the Manassites spoke, they were satisfied
KJV Joshua 22:30 And when Phinehas the priest, and the princes of the congregation and heads of the thousands of Israel which were with him, heard the words that the children of Reuben and the children of Gad and the children of Manasseh spake, it pleased them
And this:
Numbers
1:2 Take ye the sum of all the congregation of the children of Israel, after their families, by the house of their fathers, with the number of their names, every male by their polls;
1:3 From twenty years old and upward, all that are able to go forth to war in Israel: thou and Aaron shall number them by their armies.
1:4 And with you there shall be a man of every tribe; every one head of the house of his fathers
which leads to...
Numbers 1:16
These were the renowned of the congregation, princes of the tribes of their fathers, heads of thousands in Israel.
If Jesus was to come from that lineage, he could have been born in Rome or anywhere else for that matter for the prophecy to be fulfilled.
Jesus was born in Bethlehem.
Scripture must be used to interpret scripture.
Btw, you never did tell me if that helped?
Or maybe this will help:
Mic 5:2
5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, [though] thou be {b} little
among the thousands of Judah, [yet] out of thee shall he
come forth unto me [that is] to be ruler in Israel; whose
{c} goings forth [have been] from of old, from everlasting.
(b) For so the Jews divided their country that for every
thousand there was a chief captain: and because
Bethlehem was not able to make a thousand, he calls it
little. But yet God will raise up his captain and
governor in it: and thus it is not the least by reason
of this benefit. \\See Geneva "Mt 2:6"\\
(c) He shows that the coming of Christ and all his ways were
appointed by God from all eternity.
http://www.ccel.org/g/geneva/notes/Micah/5.html
Now to Chronicles, again, you don't even read what they are talking about. Tsk tsk. Research!
Also, you seem not to have gone further to consider First Chronicles Chap 2, verse 54:
See, we have a second referenct to Bethlehem, still ambiguous. Yes, both references COULD be talking of cities and not people. You COULD refer to some one as the father of a city (verse 51), you COULD even refer to a city as the son of some one (verse 54). But then again, maybe it was a person?
You're right, you can have 'sons of' as a nation. Sons of Israel etc appears many times.
1 Chron 2:54 'The Sons of' Strong's 1121: ben (bane); from OT:1129; a son (as a builder of the family name), in the widest sense (of literal and figurative relationship, including grandson, subject, nation, quality or condition, etc., [like OT:1, OT:251, etc.]):
1 Chron 2:54-55
54 The descendants of Salma:
Bethlehem, the Netophathites, Atroth Beth Joab, half the Manahathites, the Zorites,
HOW CAN YOU UNDERSTAND! HEHEHE! It's damn near laughable. Infact I DID laugh.
The Netophathites are inhabitants of Netophah. Sounds like the 'national' sense to me.
Atroth, the house of Joab IS A PLACE IN PALESTINE!
AND SO ON........
I admitted a few posts back that it is UNCLEAR to me whether these references are to a person or place. I pointed out some reasons to think it was a person, which you have still not adequately explained away. And I stand by that. If I were insisting that these references to Bethlehem were CERTAINLY references to a person, I would have to back down and apologize. You have certainly posted some good stuff to suggest that the verse 51 reference, at least, is to a city. Albeit it is a little trickier to try applying that to verse 54.
Yes your reasoning for believing it was a person is pretty much based solely on 'Though I think the reference to Bethlehem being chosen among "thousands" in the land (see text for exact phrase) makes it more probable it is a man, since there were not thousands of Jewish cities at the time (or ever?) but there were thousands of Jews.'
Which I have shown you the context of that being used. And now, as you can see, in verse 54 it is not tricky at all. Infact it's too easy.
Nevertheless, you seem to be avoiding the real issue. The challenge in this thread was to prove the Bible wrong.
Yes, and when you make a false claim, you can admit it. Especially after questioning my knowledge when you are WRONG that it is not a person, are YOU HIGH??
I will not concede that Micah could ONLY have been talking about a city. But, really, the bottom line is that this is all some insignificant side debate that has nothing to do with the purpose of this thread.
I'm asking you to concede it ISN'T a person. Because you are flat out wrong. Probable my arse mate.
So, I will reiterate as I have said in both of my last 2 posts on this: I concede Micah could be refering to a city, but I will not concede Micah was definitely talking about a city. And to extend this to First Chronicles, I also concede that coudl be refering to a city, but again I do not think that is obvious or proven or definite. You make a point on the "father of" reference could be to a city, but what about the "son of" reference? I can't recall ever hearing of a city referred to as the "son of" some one.
See my answer further up, if you've read the Bible at all, surely you've heard of 'Sons of Israel' Seriously, if you wish to take part in discussions such as this, I really think that you should at least study what you are writing about. You have such little knowledge, I fear that these discussions are useless.
In regards to your next post with the link
http://www.messiahtruth.com/micah.html
Here is some of what I have said on this topic thus far:
Originally posted by dimmo
A lil info on Ruth,
B. Her Family (Ruth 1:2-4)
We know nothing of Ruth’s own family. She married Naomi’s son, Mahlon (Ruth 4:10). Her sister-in-law, Orpah, was married to Chilion, the younger son. Naomi’s family were Ephrathites. Ephrath was another name for Bethlehem. It is where Jacob’s wife, Rachel died giving birth to Benjamin. She is buried there. When Ruth married Boaz in Bethlehem, the women of the city pronounced blessings on her that she would be as famous as Rachel and be worthy to build the house of Israel (Ruth 4:11). Miraculously, God was providing that Ruth, a former pagan, would be inducted into the lineage of Christ and settled into the same village where He would be born thirteen centuries later.
That royal lineage, obviously includes King David, where he and his family comes from. Jesus was to be a part of that.
Ruth 4:11 They first prayed, "The Lord make the woman that is come into thine house like Rachel and like Leah, which two did build the house of Israel: and do thou worthily in Ephratah, and be famous in Bethlehem,"
1 Samuel 17:12 Now David was the son of an Eph'rathite of Bethlehem in Judah, named Jesse, who had eight sons. In the days of Saul the man was already old and advanced in years.
If you want to go by lineage, Jesus qualifies.
If you want to go by location, Jesus qualifies.
However, forgetting the imaginary person, as I said in my last post regarding Ephrathites, or the clan of Eprathah, Jesus DOES come from that lineage.
If Jesus was to come from that lineage, he could have been born in Rome or anywhere else for that matter for the prophecy to be fulfilled.
Jesus was born in Bethlehem.
And what does your link say?
As was demonstrated in the analysis, the town of Bethlehem was the place from which King David's family originated, and this prophecy speaks of Bethlehem as the Messiah's place of origin, though not necessarily his place of birth. The Hebrew text clearly states that the Messiah's ancestors came from Bethlehem.
It does NOT talk about persons. It talks about clans, AS I HAVE.
It talks about Ruth, etc, just as I have. It says Jesus could have been born anywhere for that prophecy to be fulfilled, just as I have.
Yes you should apologise, for that fact that you doubt my knowledge in the Bible, tell me its this imaginery person that you keep referring to that IS NOT A PERSON.
Clearly you have NO IDEA about the Bible.
YOU ARE NOT FIT TO DISCUSS THE BIBLE, if you can't even grasp simple verses, it is useless.
I really believe that a 'prove the Bible wrong' thread requires SOME KNOWLEDGE OF THE BIBLE.
It isn't a matter of 'Oh , 1 Chron 2:50 says 'father' of Bethlehem! HA HA. Bible Wrong Me Right!'
I await your reply.
Edit: I believe those with almost no knowledge of the Bible, as has been shown here should depart this thread. Errors DO need to be corrected, and unfortunately, if you have no knowledge of the Bible there is going to be a lot of them. PB, we aren't going to just sit by and let you put a cloud over the Holy Bible.
I would welcome your departure from this thread, on the grounds that you have insufficient knowledge to participate.
How can one sit down and point out errors in something to which they are not even familiar with themselves?
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dimmo:
In regards to Matthew 16:28
Originally posted by psychoblast:
"This is a clear statement that Jesus would come again with his angels within the lifetime of at least some of his listeners. That did not happen. Case closed. "
Woah woah.. slow down there cowboy.. lets take a look.
Matthew 16:15-17:13
15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" 16 Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17 And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." 20 Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ.
21 From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised. 22 And Peter took him and began to rebuke him, saying, "God forbid, Lord! This shall never happen to you." 23 But he turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me; for you are not on the side of God, but of men."
24 Then Jesus told his disciples, "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. 25 For whoever would save his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. 26 For what will it profit a man, if he gains the whole world and forfeits his life? Or what shall a man give in return for his life? 27 For the Son of man is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay every man for what he has done. 28 Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."
Matthew 17
17:1 And after six days Jesus took with him Peter and James and John his brother, and led them up a high mountain apart. 2 And he was transfigured before them, and his face shone like the sun, and his garments became white as light. 3 And behold, there appeared to them Moses and Eli'jah, talking with him. 4 And Peter said to Jesus, "Lord, it is well that we are here; if you wish, I will make three booths here, one for you and one for Moses and one for Eli'jah." 5 He was still speaking, when lo, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and a voice from the cloud said, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him." 6 When the disciples heard this, they fell on their faces, and were filled with awe. 7 But Jesus came and touched them, saying, "Rise, and have no fear." 8 And when they lifted up their eyes, they saw no one but Jesus only.
9 And as they were coming down the mountain, Jesus commanded them, "Tell no one the vision, until the Son of man is raised from the dead." 10 And the disciples asked him, "Then why do the scribes say that first Eli'jah must come?" 11 He replied, "Eli'jah does come, and he is to restore all things; 12 but I tell you that Eli'jah has already come, and they did not know him, but did to him whatever they pleased. So also the Son of man will suffer at their hands." 13 Then the disciples understood that he was speaking to them of John the Baptist.
NIV Study Notes: There are two main interpretations of this verse. 1. It is a prediction of the transfiguration, which happened a week later, and which demonstrated that Jesus will return in his Father's glory (16:27).
2. It refers to the Pentecost and the rapid spread of the gospel described in the book of Acts. The context seems to favour the first view. See 2 Peter 1:16
Matt 16:28 is widely believed to be the prediction of the transfiguration six days later.
A users summary to the above verses:
The context of this passage starts about here: "Peter...build My church" [keep reading] "whoever wishes to save his life must lose it" [keep reading] "days later...the transfiguration" [keep reading] "the disciples fell on their faces were afraid...and understood He was talking to them about John the Baptist", i.e. the 12 disciples then understood that John was the forerunner of the Messiah--Yahshua (or Jesus and He came to be called later).
So, first is a promise of the coming kingdom; next we have instructions on how to be a disciple; a statement that some of the Christ's current disciples would be alive and see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom; then we have Yahshua shining, talking to dead men, a voice from nowhere, the prostration and fear of the disciples; and lastly the disciples understanding the John was symbolically Elijah, the forerunner of the Messiah, thus they understood Yahshua really was the Son of God.
--prophecy of His church/kingdom #1
instructions on how to be of the kingdom #2
Assurance some of them seeing the coming or start of the kingdom #3
Yahshua appearing angelic, talking to dead men, invisible vocal confirmation/approval/instruction about Him (proof of kingship) #4
Prostration and fear (further proof of kingship)#5
Understanding (yet further proof of kingship) #6
They understood that they just saw Him coming in His kingdom and some of them were there and alive when it happened. This was the beginning of the church, God's spiritual kingdom on earth, of which Christ is the King.
here
2 Peter 1:16-21 seems to indicate that.
16 We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." 18 We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.
19 And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
Mark 9 says the same as above, note the word 'power' also.
Mark 9:1 And he said to them, "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power."
What did Peter say, 'told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ'
And then there is this, which relates to the coming of the end of age:
Matt 24:3-8
3 As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. "Tell us," they said, "when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?"
4 Jesus answered: "Watch out that no one deceives you. 5 For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Christ,' and will deceive many. 6 You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. 7 Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. 8 All these are the beginning of birth pains.
And again..
Matthew 24:30-41
36 "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. 37 As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39 and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 40 Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. 41 Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left.
Now the Greek word 'coming' in bold in the above passages is 'Parousia', which means presence.
Strong's 3952: parousia (par-oo-see'-ah); from the present participle of NT:3918; a being near, i.e. advent (often, return; specifically, of Christ to punish Jerusalem, or finally the wicked); (by implication) physically, aspect:
KJV - coming, presence.
The coming in Matthew 16:28 uses the Greek word erchomai:
Strong's 2064: erchomai (er'-khom-ahee); middle voice of a primary verb (used only in the present and imperfect tenses, the others being supplied by a kindred [middle voice] eleuthomai (el-yoo'-thom-ahee); or [active] eltho (el'-tho); which do not otherwise occur); to come or go (in a great variety of applications, literally and figuratively):
KJV - accompany, appear, bring, come, enter, fall out, go, grow, X light, X next, pass, resort, be set.
This does not appear to, nor is it thought to, represent the end of the world.
Additionally, as said above, 'They understood that they just saw Him coming in His kingdom and some of them were there and alive when it happened. This was the beginning of the church, God's spiritual kingdom on earth, of which Christ is the King'.
Are we looking perhaps for a physical Kingdom? Is there a spiritual Kingdom as well? Well lets take a look.
One off the top of my head:
Luke 17:20-21
20 Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, 21 nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of God is within you."
Some food for thought:
God’s Kingdom: Spiritual Kingdom Now? Physical Kingdom Later? or Both?
There are many verses about the “Kingdom of God”, or the “Kingdom of Heaven” (as Matthew refers to it). Some clearly show a distant event, something that people will enter into later—when some of the fathers have risen from the dead. But there are also scriptures that speak of the Kingdom being presently existing. The “Gospel of the Kingdom” was preached at the time of the Apostles all the way through to our day. Even though many have predicted a literal return of Christ during those times, which turned out to be false, the gospel of the kingdom being available now was also preached, and its message received.
The following study was made by searching the Bible for verses about the Kingdom. I did not consult any other reference works to bias me about what the Kingdom of God is. Many verses about the Kingdom of God equally make sense if the kingdom of God is either present or future, so I did not include them. When more than 1 of the 4 Gospels had the same account, I included it once.
Spiritual Kingdom Now Verses
In those days John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness of Judea, and saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!” (Matt 3:1–2)
From that time Jesus began to preach and to say, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt 4:17)
Then Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the gospel of the kingdom [how could the kingdom be “good news” if it were not to be implmented for another 2000 years?], and healing every sickness and every disease among the people. But when He saw the multitudes, He was moved with compassion for them, because they were weary and scattered, like sheep having no shepherd. Then He said to His disciples, “The harvest truly is plentiful, but the laborers are few. Therefore pray the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into His harvest” (Matt 9:35–3 .
And as you go, preach, saying, “The kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt 10:7).
Assuredly, I say to you, among those born of women there has not risen one greater than John the Baptist; but he who is [present tense, not future] least in the kingdom of heaven is [present tense] greater than he. And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent take it by force (Matt 11:11–12).
But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, surely the kingdom of God has come upon you (Matt 12:2 .
He answered and said to them, “Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven [the complete nature of it was not fully known], but to them it has not been given” (Matt 13:11).
When anyone hears the word of the kingdom, and does not understand it, then the wicked one comes and snatches away what was sown in his heart. This is he who received seed by the wayside (Matthew 13:19).
Another parable He put forth to them, saying: “The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and sowed in his field, which indeed is the least of all the seeds; but when it is grown it is greater than the herbs and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and nest in its branches” (Matt 13:31–32).
And I will give to thee the keys of the reign [kingdom] of the heavens, and whatever thou mayest bind upon the earth shall be[,] having been bound in the heavens, and whatever thou mayest loose upon the earth shall be[,] having been loosed in the heavens (Matt 16:19, YLT).
At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” Then Jesus called a little child to Him, set him in the midst of them, and said, “Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children [something they could do in this life through the Holy Spirit], you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven” (Matt 18:1–4).
For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard (Matt 20:1). [The Kingdom is compared to the hiring working, and the payment (judgment) at the end.]
…Assuredly, I say to you that tax collectors and harlots enter [present tense in Greek!] the kingdom of God before you (Matt 21:31).
But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in (Matt 23:13).
Then the kingdom of heaven shall be likened to ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom (Matthew 25:1). [Notice that the Kingdom is likened to the entire story, not just to the groom (Christ) returning.]
For the kingdom of heaven is like a man traveling to a far country, who called his own servants and delivered his goods to them (Matt 25:14). [In this lengthy “parable of the talents”, the servants left behind to do the Master’s work are clearly part of the Kingdom.]
And He said to them, “Assuredly, I say to you that there are some standing here who will not taste death till they see the kingdom of God present with power” (Mark 9:1). [This verse may have been fulfilled in the “transfiguration” that immediately follows in this chapter, or the pouring out of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2), is also possible.]
“To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.” When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” And from then on no one dared ask him any more questions (Mark 12:33–34).
After this the Lord appointed seventy-two others and sent them two by two ahead of him to every town and place where he was about to go… “And heal the sick there, and say to them, ‘The kingdom of God has come near to you’” (Luke 10:1, 9). [The works that these 72 men did, without Jesus physically present, were part of the Kingdom.]
The law and the prophets were until John. Since that time the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is pressing into it (Luke 16:16).
Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, “The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is within you.” Then He said to His disciples, “The time is coming when you will long to see one of the days of the Son of Man, but you will not see it. Men will tell you, ‘There he is!’ or ‘Here he is!’ Do not go running off after them. For the Son of Man in his day will be like the lightning, which flashes and lights up the sky from one end to the other” (Luke 17:20–24). [This passage illustrates both aspects of the kingdom of God. The first cannot be seen by observation, the latter part will be obvious to everyone.]
Jason has harbored them, and these are all acting contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying there is another king—Jesus (Acts 17:7). [Jesus is presently King.]
And he [Paul] went into the synagogue and spoke boldly for three months, reasoning and persuading concerning the things of the kingdom of God. But when some were hardened and did not believe, but spoke evil of the Way before the multitude, he departed from them and withdrew the disciples… (Acts 19:8–9). [The Kingdom of God is the main subject of three-moths teaching and appears to be synonymous with a way of life here.]
For the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit (Rom 14:17). [We can have these things now.]
But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord wills, and I will know, not the word of those who are puffed up, but the power. For the kingdom of God is not in word but in power. What do you want? Shall I come to you with a rod, or in love and a spirit of gentleness? (1Cor 4:19–21).
He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love (Col 1:13).
Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is (1Jn 3:2).
[In conclusion, it seems that the first century Israelites looked for a physical Kingdom to depose the Romans, but Christ said it would not happen at that time. Rather, He is choosing leaders for His Kingdom now and letting them use some of the benefits of it now, but His Kingdom will be inherited yet in the future
Physical Kingdom Later Verses
Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven (Matt 5:19–20).
And I say to you that many will come from east and west, and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven (Matt 8:11).
Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears to hear, let him hear! Again, the kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and hid; and for joy over it he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field. Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant seeking beautiful pearls, who, when he had found one pearl of great price, went and sold all that he had and bought it (Matt 13:43–46).
Therefore the kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants (Matt 18:23). [The rest of this parable emphasizes on settling accounts and judment—largely in the future, but judgement is begining now on God’s household 1Pet 4:17.]
The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who arranged a marriage for his son, (Matt 22:2). [While the wedding is certainly a future event, the parable does not compare the Kingdom only to the wedding, but to the entire process of arranging it.]
And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come (Matt 24:14).
Then the King will say to those on His right hand, “Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world” (Matt 25:34).
And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, rather than having two eyes, to be cast into hell fire (Mark 9:47).
Assuredly, I [Jesus] say to you, I will no longer drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God (Mark 12:25).
Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent council member, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, coming and taking courage, went in to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus (Mark 15:43).
There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, and yourselves thrust out. They will come from the east and the west, from the north and the south, and sit down in the kingdom of God (Luke 13:28–29).
Now when one of those who sat at the table with Him heard these things, he said to Him, “Blessed is he who shall eat bread in the kingdom of God!” (Luke 14:15).
Now as they heard these things, He spoke another parable, because He was near Jerusalem and because they thought the kingdom of God would appear immediately. Therefore He said: “A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom and to return. So he called ten of his servants, delivered to them ten minas, and said to them, ‘Do business till I come.’ But his citizens hated him, and sent a delegation after him, saying, ‘We will not have this man to reign over us.’ And so it was that when he returned, having received the kingdom, he then commanded these servants, to whom he had given the money, to be called to him, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading” (Luke 19:11–15). [Verse 11 shows no literal kingdom would appear right away, but Christ went on to explain that His servants would be doing His work till He returns. His return is pictured as “receiving the kingdom”, (like the inheritance promised to believers).]
Then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. Now when these things begin to happen, look up and lift up your heads, because your redemption draws near… So you also, when you see these things happening, know that the kingdom of God is near (Luke 21:27–28, 31).
For I [Christ] say to you, I will no longer eat of it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God… For I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes (Luke 22:16,1 .
He [Joseph] had not consented to their decision and deed. He was from Arimathea, a city of the Jews, who himself was also waiting for the kingdom of God (Luke 23:51).
Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God”… Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (John 3:3, 5).
Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here.” Pilate therefore said to Him, “Are You a king then?” Jesus answered, “You say rightly that I am a king. For this cause I was born, and for this cause I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice” (John 18:36–37).
So when they met together, they asked him, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?” He said to them: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth” (Acts 1:6– . [Note that the phrase is “kingdom to Israel”, not “Kingdom of God”. Christ said they would not know the times, but seemed to affirm that the coming of the Holy Spirit would be the part of the Kingdom that they would experience.]
Strengthening the souls of the disciples, exhorting them to continue in the faith, and saying, “We must through many tribulations enter the kingdom of God” (Acts 14:22).
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God (1Cor 6:9–10).
Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power (1Cor 15:24).
Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does corruption inherit incorruption (1Cor 15:50).
Envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God (Gal 5:21).
For this you know, that no fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God (Eph 5:5).
And Jesus, which is called Justus, who are of the circumcision. These only are my fellowworkers unto the kingdom of God, which have been a comfort unto me (Col 4:11, KJV). [The Greek preposition eis, translated “unto” here means going toward, not already in.]
Listen, my beloved brethren: Has God not chosen the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him? (Jms 2:5).
Then I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, “Now salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of His Christ have come, for the accuser of our brethren, who accused them before our God day and night, has been cast down” (Rev 12:10). [A future time.]
here
The spiritual Kingdom to be internalised:
Col 1:24-28
24 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church, 25 of which I became a minister according to the divine office which was given to me for you, to make the word of God fully known, 26 the mystery hidden for ages and generations but now made manifest to his saints. 27 To them God chose to make known how great among the Gentiles are the riches of the glory of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.
^Specifically verse 27.
1 Cor 3:16
16 Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and that God's Spirit lives in you?
In regards to Matthew 16:28, again, a small extract:
You might object that verse 27 speaks of a coming and that verse 28 elaborates on that coming. If these verses were the only Scripture we had, I would agree that it is a toss-up as to whether it belongs with Matthew 16:24-27 or Matthew 17:1-13. Matthew 16:28-17:13, however, is not the only Scripture that we have. Simon Peter and the others kept their secret until after Jesus rose from the dead. Peter then wrote about it in His second letter.
For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (2 Peter 1:16-21 AV)
This is Peter’s narrative of what he saw on the Mount of Transfiguration. In verse 16 he affirms to his audience that he was not telling them a tale when he told them about the power and coming of Jesus. He was an eyewitness of His majesty. It is noteworthy that the Greek word translated "coming" in verse 16 is our favorite word, parousia. Peter associates the term parousia with the Mount of Transfiguration event. Matthew 16:28 states that some of the disciples would not taste death until they saw the Son of Man coming in His kingdom. Mark 9:1 states that some of the disciples would not taste death until they saw the kingdom come with great power. Peter writes that he was not telling a tale when he made known to his audience the power and coming of Jesus. There you have it. If we allow Scripture to interpret Scripture, we see that Matthew 16:28 and Mark 9:1 are time statements which were fulfilled at the Mount of Transfiguration.
These verses were also fulfilled in a broader sense in the Gospel preaching of the Kingdom by Jesus and His disciples. Consider the following verses:
From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. (Matthew 4:17 AV)
Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel. (Mark 1:14-15 AV)
And heal the sick that are therein, and say unto them, The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you. (Luke 10:9 AV)
Even the very dust of your city, which cleaveth on us, we do wipe off against you: notwithstanding be ye sure of this, that the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you. (Luke 10:11 AV)
If we believe these verses as they are written, then I think it is safe to say that Matthew 16:28 and Mark 9:1 were fulfilled also in the preaching of the Gospel of the kingdom. This preaching was authenticated with miracles of great power:
Luke 4:36 Then they were all amazed and spoke among themselves, saying, "What a word this is! For with authority and power He commands the unclean spirits, and they come out." (emphasis mine)
Luke 5:17 Now it happened on a certain day, as He was teaching, that there were Pharisees and teachers of the law sitting by, who had come out of every town of Galilee, Judea, and Jerusalem. And the power of the Lord was present to heal them. (emphasis mine)
Since Matthew 16:28 and Mark 9:1 are parallel passages which are two different accounts of the same event, we would have to say that Jesus must have been (1) seen coming by His disciples in (2) a display of power for these two verses taken together to be literally fulfilled. That fits the first parousia, because both of these requirements were fulfilled in it. However, the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD does not meet both of these criteria, because history does not record that Jesus was at any time literally seen during that event.
Here is the conclusion of the matter. Is Matthew 16:28 a time statement? The answer is yes. Is it a time statement for the second parousia? The answer is no. Is it a time statement for AD 70? The answer is no. The answer is that it is a time statement for events that happened during the first parousia, most notably the Mount of Transfiguration event.
here
That's all I have to say about that for now.
Take care out there, it's a jungle!
dimmo
Case closed?
Case reopened.
Come to think of it PB, who are you to 'Case closed' anything relating to the Bible? Remember Bethlehem, the imaginary person
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
PB:
I disagree that Matthew related a reference by Jesus to the fact that some of his prophets would see him talk to God in a little while. That is not quite the same as, "There are some here who shall not taste death before they see the coming of the Son of Man" or whatever he said. Especially since YOUR post includes verses in which that exact phrase "coming of the Son of Man" or whatever (I don't want to take the time to go back and look) was used, in other places, specifically to refer to Jesus' second coming.
But, while I don't agree that your interpretation is necessarily correct, I accept that you have shown that biblical defenders can twist the words to mean something that is not necessarily false. Much like God's simple words that Adam would die the day he ate the apple were twisted by SoHi to mean that Adam would become mortal and sinful on the day he ate the apple. And so I similarly surrender the Matthew verse for that same reason, in deference to the fact that I see that once you figure out a twisted meaning that saves the Bible from falsity, you will not abandon it and we must move to the other examples of contradictions I posted.
~psychoblast~
Last edited:
