Let's stop interpreting for a while.

Covenant Heart said:

Assyria does not exist. That culture does not exist, nor can it never exist ever again. Even to raise up an empire like Assyria, it would not be Assyria but only a likeness of Assyria. Assyria is gone forever. Period.

Click to expand...

Your exegesis of Micah 5 is based on a possible interpretation of the words, but by your own admission, this is not the opinion of the majority of the translators. But this is not your main error. The passage of your post that I have quoted above is your main error. Less than a hundred years ago there were those saying similar things about Israel. The question is whether or not God has told us something will happen, not whether or not that something can reasonably be expected to happen.

Can you think of any prediction more likely to arouse scorn in the hearers that to say that a virgin would be with child, and his name would be called Immuanel? In human terms, this was impossible. But it happened. It is rank unbelief to say that something prophesied in scripture could not happen.

thereselittleflower said:

You have failed to establish that we are even looking at prophecy here to begin with . . . .


It is your INTERPRETATION that we are. . . however, the verbs used are in the IMPERFECT tense in the Hebrew, which has a WIDE RANGE of meaning.

Because this tense has a WIDE RANGE of meaning, in order to derive any particular meaning, you must INTERPRET.

Your interpretation has yet to be proven correct or accurate.

Your insistance that this is indeed a prophecy has yet to be proven correct or accurate . . . .


This is simply a statement of fact.

To accuse another of rank unbelief simply because they do not agree with YOUR PERSONAL interpretation of a passage where the verb tense used has a WIDE RANGE of possible meanings is something I would suggest you kindly reconsider and avoid in the future.


.

Click to expand...

I failed to make myself clear because I tried to answer two different posts in one of my own. I most certainly did not mean to accuse you of rank unbelief. I believe that your objection is most certainly legitimate, although I am persuaded that you are mistaken. My comment about rank unbelief was not about your comments, but about someone else's comment that the prophecy about Assyria was impossible because Assyria is gone, never to appear again.

The points you have raised will take me more time to answer fully. I am working on it. Please be patient.

In regard to Matthew Henry's comments on Isaiah 10, I am aware that most commentators have taken his view. The point of my post on Isaiah 10 was that details of this prophecy cannot possibly apply to Sennacherib's attack on Hezekiah.

lokt said:

But again, to answer the original ques, I believe "the Assyrian" has to be Syria. Not that this is the only reason for my conclusion, but why would'nt "the Assyrian" be Syria, the "King, (the Assyrian) of the North"?

Click to expand...

I agree with you that "the Assyrian is "the king of the North." But I do not agree that this is Syria. I am aware that most commentators call "the king of the North" Syria. In regard to ancient times, this is technically correct, but referring to it in this way masks his true identity. In the part of Daniel 11 that has already taken place, every reference to "the king of the South" was fulfilled by one of the Ptolemies, reigning out of Alexandria in Egypt. Every reference to "the king of the North" was fulfilled by one of the Selucids, reigning out of Antioch in Syria. So calling it Syria is technically correct. But "the king of the North" was the Selucid kingdom.

If you look up a map of the ancient Selucid empire and compare it with a map of the ancient (and much older) Assyrian empire, you will see that these two ancient empires ruled over the same area. There were a few differences around the edges, but the thickly populated regions ruled by both empires were identical.

As to who this king is today, I will not venture to guess. But as he is distinctly called "the Assyrian," I think we can be confident that he will be of Assyrian descent, and will probably arise somewhere in the northern part of present day Iraq.

lokt said:

Bw, good points and they make sense to me.
Btw, please bookmark these sites.
http://yadayahweh.com/ I personally believe this is the most salient work written since the Renewed Covenant. A very strong assertion, to be sure, but there are perspectives there I've never seen anywhere else.
It's rather comprehensive, ( a roundabout way of saying long), but imo it's a real eye opener.
Here is another add at the same site,
http://futurehistory.yadayahweh.com/
This is much lighter reading yet he too presents some very gutsy assertions. However, his assertions makes sense.
It will take awhile to read these, especially YadaYahweh. I'd be most interested in your evaluations at some later date once you've had the chance to read them. I believe you'll find them both well worth your time.
There are a couple of other on-line books there that you may find interesting.
One is "Prophet of Doom", an analysis/translation of the Qur'an, also written by Craig Winn who wrote YY.
Another called the "Owner's Manuel" is an analysis of the Talmud/Oral Law vs. Yahuweh's law. Both are excellant reading.

Click to expand...

I stopped searching this site whe I came to the words "the Bible is not the answer."

RUN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A question has risen about the true meaning of Micah 5:5-6. Most translators render this passage essentially as follows:

“When the Assyrian comes into our land,
And when he treads in our palaces,
Then we will raise against him
Seven shepherds and eight princely men.
They shall waste with the sword the land of Assyria,
And the land of Nimrod at its entrances;
Thus He shall deliver us from the Assyrian,
When he comes into our land
And when he treads within our borders.”
(Micah 5:5-6 NKJV)

But a few translators render this same passage to read:

“If the Assyrians come into our land
and tread upon our soil,
we will raise against them seven shepherds
and eight installed as rulers.
They shall rule the land of Assyria with the sword,
and the land of Nimrod with the drawn sword;
they shall rescue us from the Assyrians
if they come into our land
or tread within our border”
(Micah 5:5-6 NRSV)

The essential language of the New King James Version is given in King James Version, the American Standard Version, the Douay-Rheims Version, the English Standard Version, God’s Word to the Nations, the Holman Christian Standard Bible, the New Living Translation, the Revised Standard Version, the Good News Translation, and the translations by J. N. Darby and Robert Young. The language is strengthened in the International Children’s Bible - New Century Version and the New Century Version.

The essential language of the New Revised Standard Version is found in The Message, the Contemporary English Version, the New Jerusalem Bible, and perhaps a few others. This rendering is indeed the opinion of a minority of the translators, but it is a possible rendering of the Hebrew, if these sentences are taken by themselves.

The central difference between these renderings lies in the Hebrew word ki. This Hebrew word occurs more than 1200 times in the Old Testament. Of these more than 1200 occurrences, it is rendered more than 60 different ways in the King James translation. (The only translation for which such data is readily available.) Of these more than 60 readings, it is rendered as because a full third of the times it occurs, as when a fifth of the times, and as if 14% of the times. Thus we see that it is indeed possible to translate this word if in this passage, but that is far from the most common meaning of the word.

So we must address the question of why the vast bulk of the translators concluded that this word means when in this passage, rather than if. Very few of us would pretend to have sufficient knowledge of Hebrew to decide which group of translators did the best analysis of the individual sentences. We can only observe that the vast majority of them rendered ki as when in this passage. But an extensive knowledge of Hebrew is not required to legitimately address the context of this passage.

In addressing the context of a passage we need to consider two arenas. We need to first consider the passage’s immediate surroundings, and then what the rest of scripture says about the same subject.

In regard to this passages’ immediate surroundings, we first notice the following:

“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
Though you are little among the thousands of Judah,
Yet out of you shall come forth to Me
The One to be Ruler in Israel,
Whose goings forth are from of old,
From everlasting.” (Micah 5:2 NKJV)

There can be no doubt that this is a distinct prophecy concerning future events. We know this happened exactly as written, and this scripture is cited in Matthew 2:5-6 and John 7:42. Likewise for the last clause of the preceding verse: “They will strike the judge of Israel with a rod on the cheek.” (Micah 5:1 NKJV) This is exactly what happened as recorded in Matthew 27:30 and Mark 15:19.

From this we go on to the third verse:

“Therefore He shall give them up,
Until the time that she who is in labor has given birth;
Then the remnant of His brethren
Shall return to the children of Israel.”
(Micah 5:3 NKJV)

Because of their refusal to accept “the judge of Israel”
“He shall give them up.” But for how long were they to be given up? “Until the time that she who is in labor has given birth.” When that has happened, “Then the remnant of His brethren Shall return to the children of Israel.” We see this giving up, and the length of time it will last, in Matthew 25:37-39, where Jesus said: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! See! Your house is left to you desolate; for I say to you, you shall see Me no more till you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!’”

The rest of the chapter up to the passage in question is a description of Israel’s future greatness and peace.

“And He shall stand and feed His flock
In the strength of the Lord,
In the majesty of the name of the Lord His God;
And they shall abide,
For now He shall be great
To the ends of the earth;
And this One shall be peace.”
(Micah 5:4-5 NKJV)

(I have included the first clause of verse 5 here instead of with the rest of verse 5 because most modern translations divide the text this way.)

So we see that in Micah 5 every verse up to the passage in question contains a clearly stated prophecy concerning the future. But what of the part that comes after it? We read:

“Then the remnant of Jacob
Shall be in the midst of many peoples,
Like dew from the Lord,
Like showers on the grass,
That tarry for no man
Nor wait for the sons of men.
And the remnant of Jacob
Shall be among the Gentiles,
In the midst of many peoples,
Like a lion among the beasts of the forest,
Like a young lion among flocks of sheep,
Who, if he passes through,
Both treads down and tears in pieces,
And none can deliver.
Your hand shall be lifted against your adversaries,
And all your enemies shall be cut off.”
(Micah 5:7-9 NKJV)

Here we find a clearly stated prophecy about the military strength of “the remnant of Jacob” at the time under discussion. But now the tone of the prophecy changes:

“‘And it shall be in that day,’ says the Lord,
‘That I will cut off your horses from your midst
And destroy your chariots.
I will cut off the cities of your land
And throw down all your strongholds.
I will cut off sorceries from your hand,
And you shall have no soothsayers.
Your carved images I will also cut off,
And your sacred pillars from your midst;
You shall no more worship the work of your hands;
I will pluck your wooden images from your midst;
Thus I will destroy your cities.
And I will execute vengeance in anger and fury
On the nations that have not heard.’”
(Micah 5:10-15 NKJV)

Here we have, instead of the future blessing of Israel, its future judgment. We know from many other scriptures that severe judgment will precede the time of blessedness.

This brings us to the end of Micah 5. We have seen that the entire chapter except the passage in question is distinctly stated prophecy concerning the future. Why would the Holy Spirit have included a boast concerning a potential threat in the midst of such a prophecy? Such an idea rebels against reason. But if the passage in question is also a clearly stated prophecy concerning the future, this clearly fits the pattern of the rest of the chapter.

Thus I conclude that the immediate context clearly indicates that Micah 5:5-6 should be translated as a prophecy concerning the future, not as a boast. But what about the context of the rest of scripture?

In the rest of the Bible, there is not even one passage that contain a boast similar to Micah 5:5-6. We find the way the LORD treats boasts in Isaiah 9:

“All the people will know—
Ephraim and the inhabitant of Samaria—
Who say in pride and arrogance of heart:
‘The bricks have fallen down,
But we will rebuild with hewn stones;
The sycamores are cut down,
But we will replace them with cedars.’
Therefore the Lord shall set up
The adversaries of Rezin against him,
And spur his enemies on,
The Syrians before and the Philistines behind;
And they shall devour Israel with an open mouth.
For all this His anger is not turned away,
But His hand is stretched out still.”
(Isaiah 9:9-12 NKJV)

We see that the language of this passage does not even resemble that of Micah 5:5-6. Here, the fact that is a boast is stressed as “pride and arrogance of heart.”

So we see that if Micah 5:5-6 is a boast, it would be the only such boast in scripture and it would be treated differently than the way the Holy Spirit dealt with other boasts. But what about the traditional translation of this passage? Such a prophecy not only fits the balance of the chapter, it harmonizes completely with the many other prophecies about “the Assyrian.”

Where do we find “the Assyrian” in unfulfilled prophecy? In addition to Micah 5, we find him or his country by name in Isaiah 7, Isaiah 10, Isaiah 14, Isaiah 30, Isaiah 31, and Nahum1-3. In Isaiah 7 we find Assyria and Egypt attacking at the same time. This has never happened. In Isaiah 10 we find his path described in detail. No Invader has ever followed this path. In Isaiah 14, after the Assyrian is destroyed, we find another invader that is a descendant or the first invader. In Isaiah 30, we find the Assyrian destroyed by fire. This has never happened. In Isaiah 31 we find his young men becoming slaves. This has never happened. And Nahum 1-4 we find a complete end to affliction when he is destroyed. This most certainly has not yet happened.

So we see that the translation of the Hebrew word ki as when in Micah 5:5-6 fits the contexts of both the rest of that chapter and of the rest of prophetic scripture, while the translation of this word as if poorly fits the rest of the chapter and makes this a unique statement, unlike anything else in scripture. So even without extensive knowledge of Hebrew, it is possible to judge that the overwhelming majority of the translators have correctly rendered ki as when, rather than as if in this passage.

The book of Nahum begins:
"The burden against Nineveh"
(Nahum 1:1 NKJV)

The immediate response of most students is that this prophecy deals only with the ancient destruction of Nineveh. It is thus commonly dismissed as of little current interest. But Nineveh is still there. We hear about it quite regularly in the daily news. Only the news people do not call it by its ancient name. The modern city of Mosul, the center of action in the current war in Iraq, is on the site of ancient Nineveh. And if you check the information readily available on the internet, you will find that the largest concentration if modern day Assyrians is in the immediate neighborhood of Mosul. So we see that this prophecy, far from dealing only with ancient times, deals with the very center of modern day fighting.

We first need to notice the eleventh verse of this first chapter: "From you comes forth one Who plots evil against the Lord, A wicked counselor." In the last chapter this wicked individual is called the "king of Assyria." (Nahum 4:18) So we see that this again deals with "the Assyrian."

But we need to notice the ninth and twelfth verses of Nahum 1. "What do you conspire against the Lord? He will make an utter end of it. Affliction will not rise up a second time." (Nahum 1:9 NKJV) and the last part of verse 12 says "Though I have afflicted you, I will afflict you no more."

After Nineveh was destroyed in ancient times, affliction most certainly rose up again, and the Lord's promise of verse 12, "Though I have afflicted you, I will afflict you no more." has still not been fulfilled. So we see that this prophecy deals with the future, as well as with the past.

This is the last prophecy in the Bible that names Assyria, but not the end of what the Bible says about this unquestionably future character. In coming posts I plan to demonstrate that he is the desolater that attacks Judah (which is now called Israel) in the prophecies of Daniel.