Before Abraham I am

[Johann]

But he will not address the point

He does not know what he is talking about

He thinks Arche appears in the Hebrew scriptures at Micah 5:2

and if he is quoting from the greek septuagint

from

the

beginning

,

from

the

days

of

eternity

.”

apo

archō

ek

ēmera

aiōn

Rick Brannan, Ken M. Penner et al., The Lexham English Septuagint (Second Edition.; Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2020), Mic 5:2.

There is simply no way he can escape Christ's pre-existence

and he will divert

Micah 5:2 (Hebrew Text):

וְאַתָּה בֵּית לֶחֶם אֶפְרָתָה צָעִיר לִהְיוֹת בְּאַלְפֵי יְהוּדָה מִמְּךָ לִי יֵצֵא לִהְיוֹת מוֹשֵׁל בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל וּמוֹצָאֹתָיו מִקֶּדֶם מִימֵי עוֹלָם

Word-by-Word Analysis and Morphology
וְאַתָּה (ve-attah)

Morphology: Conjunction וְ ("and") + אַתָּה (2nd person masculine singular pronoun, “you”)
Meaning: The verse begins with an address, “And you,” directed toward Bethlehem. This introduces Bethlehem Ephrathah as the subject.
בֵּית לֶחֶם (Bet Lechem)

Morphology: Proper noun (singular, feminine)
Meaning: “Bethlehem,” meaning "house of bread," identifies the town. Bethlehem is in the region of אֶפְרָתָה (Ephrathah), further specifying the locality in Judah.
אֶפְרָתָה (Ephrathah)

Morphology: Proper noun (feminine singular), a place-name
Meaning: Ephrathah, often associated with Bethlehem in Judah, emphasizes the town's humble status, which is further supported by the next phrase.
צָעִיר (tsa'ir)

Morphology: Adjective, masculine singular
Meaning: “Small” or “insignificant.” This term modifies Bethlehem, highlighting its lowly or humble stature among the "clans" of Judah, a theme common in prophecies where greatness emerges from unexpected places.
לִהְיוֹת (liheyot)

Morphology: Preposition לְ ("for") + infinitive construct of הָיָה (to be)
Meaning: “To be” or “for being.” This infinitive construct shows purpose, often used to describe a destined role or action. Bethlehem, though small, is designated for a significant role.
בְּאַלְפֵי יְהוּדָה (be-alfei Yehudah)

Morphology: Preposition בְּ ("among" or "in") + noun אַלְפֵי (plural construct of אֶלֶף, meaning "clans" or "thousands") + יְהוּדָה (proper noun, “Judah”)
Meaning: “Among the clans of Judah.” This phrase reinforces Bethlehem’s modest standing within Judah’s tribal structure.
מִמְּךָ (mimeka)

Morphology: Preposition מִן ("from") + 2nd person masculine singular suffix (“you”)
Meaning: “From you.” This emphasizes that from Bethlehem specifically, a ruler will arise, linking the prophecy to a specific lineage or origin.
לִי (li)

Morphology: Preposition לְ ("for") + 1st person singular suffix ("me")
Meaning: “For me,” expressing the ruler’s purpose to serve God directly. This pronoun implies divine commissioning, where the coming ruler is selected by God for His purpose.
יֵצֵא (yetze)

Morphology: Verb, Qal imperfect, 3rd person masculine singular of יָצָא (to go out, come forth)
Meaning: “Will come forth.” The imperfect aspect indicates a future action or a continuous quality. The ruler’s emergence is anticipated, suggesting that Bethlehem will produce this figure by divine orchestration.
לִהְיוֹת מוֹשֵׁל (liheyot moshel)

Morphology: Infinitive construct of הָיָה (to be) + participle מוֹשֵׁל (masculine singular of מָשַׁל, "to rule")
Meaning: “To be a ruler.” This describes the purpose of the coming one, signifying a leadership role with connotations of authority and governance over Israel.
בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל (be-Yisra’el)

Morphology: Preposition בְּ ("in" or "over") + proper noun יִשְׂרָאֵל ("Israel")
Meaning: “Over Israel.” This phrase completes the designation of rulership, indicating that the promised leader will have authority over Israel specifically.
וּמוֹצָאֹתָיו (u-motza’otav)

Morphology: Conjunction וּ ("and") + noun מוֹצָאֹת (plural construct form of מוֹצָא, “going forth” or “origins”) + 3rd person masculine singular suffix (“his”)
Meaning: “And his origins” or “and his goings forth.” This term can indicate an emergence or origin. In the plural form, it implies either multiple actions (his “goings forth”) or a sense of origin that is timeless, lending itself to an interpretation of continuous existence or ancient origin.
מִקֶּדֶם (miqqedem)

Morphology: Preposition מִן ("from") + noun קֶדֶם (“old” or “ancient”)
Meaning: “From of old” or “from ancient times.” This phrase suggests either ancient ancestry (linking to the Davidic line) or a concept of timeless existence.
מִימֵי עוֹלָם (mimei olam)

Morphology: Preposition מִן ("from") + noun יָמִים (construct plural of “days”) + noun עוֹלָם (“eternity” or “ancient times”)
Meaning: “From the days of eternity” or “from ancient days.” The term olam often implies timelessness, adding depth to the ruler's origins by extending them to ancient or even eternal times.

The syntax of Micah 5:2 places significant emphasis on the humble origins of the coming ruler, Bethlehem, while also attributing to this figure an origin that is rooted in ancient or timeless terms. Here’s how the verse can be understood:

Bethlehem Ephrathah, despite being small among the clans of Judah, will produce a ruler specifically for God’s purpose.
This ruler’s “goings forth” or “origins” are described as being “from of old” and “from ancient days,” terms that imply either a deep historical lineage (as in David’s line) or a hint of timeless preexistence.
The verse’s morphology and syntax allow for the interpretation that this ruler not only fulfills the lineage of David but also possesses an existence that spans beyond mere human history. The phraseology, particularly with miqqedem and mimei olam, holds a dual layer of meaning: it alludes both to a historical root (David’s line) and suggests a mysterious or even eternal nature, which later Christian readings connect to Jesus’ divine preexistence.

J.

 

[Runningman]

No I am not

Micah 5:2 (LEB) — 2 But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, too small to be among the clans of Judah, from you one will go out for me, to be ruler in Israel; and his origins are from of old, from ancient days.

there is no Greek here

and

his

origins

are

from

of

old

,

וְ

הוּא

מוֹצָאָה

מִן

קֶ֫דֶם

w

hû(ʾ)

mô·ṣā·ʾā(h)

min

qěʹ·ḏěm

C

RS3MS

NCFPC

P

NC-SA

1931

4163

4481

6924

from		ancient		days	.
מִן		עוֹלָם		1 יוֹם
min		ʿô·lām		yôm 1
P		NC-SA		NCMPC
4481		5769		3117

W. Hall Harris III et al., eds., The Lexham English Bible (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012), Mic 5:2.


There is nothing but your imagination in verse 4 denying pre-existence

Stop denying scripture

Focus Tom. We’re also talking about the Septuagint as well. His beginnings or origins are of old in Micah 5:2. He was created, he isn’t eternal, he is not the Creator, isn’t God, etc.

YHWH is his God in Micah 5:4. There’s your smoking gun that YHWH is the same exact person as the Father.

He said this:

Isaiah 44 (NIV)
24“This is what the Lord says—
your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb:
I am the Lord,
the Maker of all things,
who stretches out the heavens,
who spreads out the earth by myself,

That’s a checkmate buddy. Anything else?

 

[Johann]

Focus Tom. We’re also talking about the Septuagint as well. His beginnings or origins are of old in Micah 5:2. He was created, he isn’t eternal, he is not the Creator, isn’t God, etc.

YHWH is his God in Micah 5:4. There’s your smoking gun that YHWH is the same exact person as the Father.

He said this:

Isaiah 44 (NIV)
24“This is what the Lord says—
your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb:
I am the Lord,
the Maker of all things,
who stretches out the heavens,
who spreads out the earth by myself,

That’s a checkmate buddy. Anything else?

Nope-taking a verse here and there to "steel-man" your argument is not good exegesis. You can run to the LXX anytime you want.

Mic 5:2 (5:1) kaiG2532 CONJ suG4771 P-NS bEthleemG965 N-PRI oikosG3624 N-NSM touG3588 T-GSM ephratha N-PRI oligostos A-NSM eiG1510 V-PAI-2S touG3588 T-GSN einaiG1510 V-PAN enG1722 PREP chiliasinG5505 N-DPF ioudaG2448 N-PRI ekG1537 PREP souG4771 P-GS moiG1473 P-DS exeleusetaiG1831 V-FMI-3S touG3588 T-GSN einaiG1510 V-PAN eisG1519 PREP archontaG758 N-ASM enG1722 PREP tOG3588 T-DSM israElG2474 N-PRI kaiG2532 CONJ aiG3588 T-NPF exodoiG1841 N-NPF autouG846 D-GSM apG575 PREP archEsG746 N-GSF exG1537 PREP EmerOnG2250 N-GPF aiOnosG165 N-GSM

Micah 5:2 (NKJV):

"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."

The phrase "from everlasting" (מֵעוֹלָם, me`olam) indicates a timeless existence. The Hebrew term implies that the origins of the one being prophesied (understood as the Messiah) are beyond mere human beginnings, suggesting pre-existence rather than a created nature.

Micah 5:4 (NKJV):

"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."

The verse does mention YHWH as the God of the Messiah, yet this does not necessitate a denial of Jesus’ divinity. Rather, it highlights the functional relationship within the Godhead, where the Father and the Son relate to one another. The term "God" here can denote the authority and role of Jesus in His earthly ministry while maintaining His divine essence.
Exploring the Nature of God and Jesus
John 1:1-3 (NKJV):

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made."

This passage emphasizes the eternal nature of Jesus (the Word), affirming that He was not created but rather was present with God from the very beginning and is indeed God Himself. This aligns with the understanding that Jesus is the Creator, as all things were made through Him.

Addressing Isaiah 44:24
Isaiah 44:24 (NIV):

"This is what the Lord says—your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the Lord, the Maker of all things, who stretches out the heavens, who spreads out the earth by myself."

While this verse clearly emphasizes YHWH as the Creator, it is essential to recognize that New Testament writings affirm that Jesus shares in this divine creative work. Colossians 1:16-17 (NKJV) states:

"For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist."



This affirms the divinity of Jesus and His active role in creation, countering the idea that He is a created being.


In conclusion, the claim that Micah 5:2 or Isaiah 44:24 serves as a definitive argument against the divinity of Jesus can be effectively countered by emphasizing the biblical understanding of His eternal nature and creative role. While Micah highlights the relationship between the Father and the Messiah, it does not undermine the truth of Jesus' divinity as articulated in the New Testament. By presenting these scriptures, we affirm that Jesus is not merely a created being but is the eternal Son of God, fully divine and fully involved in the act of creation.

J.

 

[Runningman]

Nope-taking a verse here and there to "steel-man" your argument is not good exegesis. You can run to the LXX anytime you want.

Mic 5:2 (5:1) kaiG2532 CONJ suG4771 P-NS bEthleemG965 N-PRI oikosG3624 N-NSM touG3588 T-GSM ephratha N-PRI oligostos A-NSM eiG1510 V-PAI-2S touG3588 T-GSN einaiG1510 V-PAN enG1722 PREP chiliasinG5505 N-DPF ioudaG2448 N-PRI ekG1537 PREP souG4771 P-GS moiG1473 P-DS exeleusetaiG1831 V-FMI-3S touG3588 T-GSN einaiG1510 V-PAN eisG1519 PREP archontaG758 N-ASM enG1722 PREP tOG3588 T-DSM israElG2474 N-PRI kaiG2532 CONJ aiG3588 T-NPF exodoiG1841 N-NPF autouG846 D-GSM apG575 PREP archEsG746 N-GSF exG1537 PREP EmerOnG2250 N-GPF aiOnosG165 N-GSM

Micah 5:2 (NKJV):

"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."

The phrase "from everlasting" (מֵעוֹלָם, me`olam) indicates a timeless existence. The Hebrew term implies that the origins of the one being prophesied (understood as the Messiah) are beyond mere human beginnings, suggesting pre-existence rather than a created nature.

Micah 5:4 (NKJV):

"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."

The verse does mention YHWH as the God of the Messiah, yet this does not necessitate a denial of Jesus’ divinity. Rather, it highlights the functional relationship within the Godhead, where the Father and the Son relate to one another. The term "God" here can denote the authority and role of Jesus in His earthly ministry while maintaining His divine essence.
Exploring the Nature of God and Jesus
John 1:1-3 (NKJV):

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made."

This passage emphasizes the eternal nature of Jesus (the Word), affirming that He was not created but rather was present with God from the very beginning and is indeed God Himself. This aligns with the understanding that Jesus is the Creator, as all things were made through Him.

Addressing Isaiah 44:24
Isaiah 44:24 (NIV):

"This is what the Lord says—your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the Lord, the Maker of all things, who stretches out the heavens, who spreads out the earth by myself."

While this verse clearly emphasizes YHWH as the Creator, it is essential to recognize that New Testament writings affirm that Jesus shares in this divine creative work. Colossians 1:16-17 (NKJV) states:

"For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist."

View attachment 1045

This affirms the divinity of Jesus and His active role in creation, countering the idea that He is a created being.


In conclusion, the claim that Micah 5:2 or Isaiah 44:24 serves as a definitive argument against the divinity of Jesus can be effectively countered by emphasizing the biblical understanding of His eternal nature and creative role. While Micah highlights the relationship between the Father and the Messiah, it does not undermine the truth of Jesus' divinity as articulated in the New Testament. By presenting these scriptures, we affirm that Jesus is not merely a created being but is the eternal Son of God, fully divine and fully involved in the act of creation.

J.

Nonsense. How can we have a talk about anything if you won’t accept the truth about the Greek word for beginning being in Micah 5:2? I know we disagree theologically, but we need a beginning point to meet on the common ground of facts. You can agree a word exists in the text without agreeing with my point. This is just standard scholarly honesty.

So let’s address your apparent rejections of reality systematically. For the record, do you find the word for beginning or origin in the Septuagint of Micah 5:2? Yes or no is fine.

 

[Johann]

Nonsense. How can we have a talk about anything if you won’t accept the truth about the Greek word for beginning being in Micah 5:2? I know we disagree theologically, but we need a beginning point to meet on the common ground of facts. You can agree a word exists in the text without agreeing with my point. This is just standard scholarly honesty.

So let’s address your apparent rejections of reality systematically. For the record, do you find the word for beginning or origin in the Septuagint of Micah 5:2? Yes or no is fine.

I'm not falling for this, you take a verse here and there-a little bit of this and a little bit of that, out of context, to steel man your arguments.

Besides, you are in ERROR already by saying Messiah is a "created being" and I have shown you from the Scripture that is not the case.
And here you go with ANOTHER question?

J.

 

[Runningman]

I'm not falling for this, you take a verse here and there-a little bit of this and a little bit of that, out of context, to steel man your arguments.

Besides, you are in ERROR already by saying Messiah is a "created being" and I have shown you from the Scripture that is not the case.
And here you go with ANOTHER question?

J.

Johann, relax buddy. You risk losing control of this conversation if you can't even roll with it. There is nothing to fall for. Since you won't engage this topic without bombing it with huge posts unrelated to the point, I will just go into lecture mode so it will at least help someone.

Here is Micah 5:2 in the Greek Septuagint. I have bolded and colored the word archē below for convenience.

καὶ σύ Βηθλεεμ οἶκος τοῦ Εφραθα ὀλιγοστὸς εἶ τοῦ εἶναι ἐν χιλιάσιν Ιουδα ἐκ σοῦ μοι ἐξελεύσεται τοῦ εἶναι εἰς ἄρχοντα ἐν τῷ Ισραηλ καὶ αἱ ἔξοδοι αὐτοῦ ἀπ᾽ἀρχῆς ἐξ ἡμερῶν αἰῶνος

This means Jesus has a beginning or origin. It means he isn't God.

As I have already stated elsewhere, I invite you and @TomL to check this on your own. In Micah 5:2, some versions say "whose goings forth" which gives the wrong idea of activity and is a bad translation at least. At worst it is perverse. However, this is all but rejected by the Greek on this same verse. This is why Micah 5:2 is plain and clear about Jesus having a beginning, not being eternal, etc.

Here's the NIV and let's see if it makes better sense to you now.

Micah 5
2“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
though you are small among the clans a of Judah,
out of you will come for me
one who will be ruler over Israel,
whose origins are from of old,
from ancient times.”

 

[TomL]

Johann, relax buddy. You risk losing control of this conversation if you can't even roll with it. There is nothing to fall for. Since you won't engage this topic without bombing it with huge posts unrelated to the point, I will just go into lecture mode so it will at least help someone.

Here is Micah 5:2 in the Greek Septuagint. I have bolded and colored the word archē below for convenience.

καὶ σύ Βηθλεεμ οἶκος τοῦ Εφραθα ὀλιγοστὸς εἶ τοῦ εἶναι ἐν χιλιάσιν Ιουδα ἐκ σοῦ μοι ἐξελεύσεται τοῦ εἶναι εἰς ἄρχοντα ἐν τῷ Ισραηλ καὶ αἱ ἔξοδοι αὐτοῦ ἀπ᾽ἀρχῆς ἐξ ἡμερῶν αἰῶνος

This means Jesus has a beginning or origin. It means he isn't God.

As I have already stated elsewhere, I invite you and @TomL to check this on your own. In Micah 5:2, some versions say "whose goings forth" which gives the wrong idea of activity and is a bad translation at least. At worst it is perverse. However, this is all but rejected by the Greek on this same verse. This is why Micah 5:2 is plain and clear about Jesus having a beginning, not being eternal, etc.

Here's the NIV and let's see if it makes better sense to you now.

Micah 5
2“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
though you are small among the clans a of Judah,
out of you will come for me
one who will be ruler over Israel,
whose origins are from of old,
from ancient times.”

You left off

ἐξ ἡμερῶν αἰῶνος

and

his

goings

out

are

from

the

beginning

,

from

the

days

of

kai

autos

odos

apo

archō

ek

ēmera

eternity	.”
aiōn

Rick Brannan, Ken M. Penner et al., The Lexham English Septuagint (Second Edition.; Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2020), Mic 5:2.

Micah 5:2 (LES2) — 2 And you, O Bethlehem, house of Ephrathah, you are very small to be in the thousands of Judah, from which for me one will come out to be for a ruler of Israel, and his goings out are from the beginning, from the days of eternity.”

 

[Runningman]

You left off

ἐξ ἡμερῶν αἰῶνος

and

his

goings

out

are

from

the

beginning

,

from

the

days

of

kai

autos

odos

apo

archō

ek

ēmera

eternity	.”
aiōn

Rick Brannan, Ken M. Penner et al., The Lexham English Septuagint (Second Edition.; Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2020), Mic 5:2.

Micah 5:2 (LES2) — 2 And you, O Bethlehem, house of Ephrathah, you are very small to be in the thousands of Judah, from which for me one will come out to be for a ruler of Israel, and his goings out are from the beginning, from the days of eternity.”

Did you see my post. I provided you with the Greek from the LXX Septuagint. Do you see what I am talking about now?

Here's a link to where I saw it on Blue Letter Bible.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lxx/mic/5/1/s_898001

 

[Johann]

Nonsense. How can we have a talk about anything if you won’t accept the truth about the Greek word for beginning being in Micah 5:2? I know we disagree theologically, but we need a beginning point to meet on the common ground of facts. You can agree a word exists in the text without agreeing with my point. This is just standard scholarly honesty.

So let’s address your apparent rejections of reality systematically. For the record, do you find the word for beginning or origin in the Septuagint of Micah 5:2? Yes or no is fine.

I'm not falling for this, you take a verse here and there-a little bit of this and a little bit of that, out of context, to steel man your arguments.

Besides, you are in ERROR already by saying Messiah is a "created being" and I have shown you from the Scripture that is not the case.
And here you go with ANOTHER question?

J.

Johann, relax buddy. You risk losing control of this conversation if you can't even roll with it. There is nothing to fall for. Since you won't engage this topic without bombing it with huge posts unrelated to the point, I will just go into lecture mode so it will at least help someone.

I am relaxed and very much IN control @Runningman-you want to prove, unsuccessfully, that Yeshua had a beginning-a created being, which is error. Now you want to "pin" me with Micah 5.2?

וְאַתָּה בֵּית-לֶחֶם אֶפְרָתָה, צָעִיר לִהְיוֹת בְּאַלְפֵי יְהוּדָה--מִמְּךָ לִי יֵצֵא, לִהְיוֹת מוֹשֵׁל בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל; וּמוֹצָאֹתָיו מִקֶּדֶם, מִימֵי עוֹלָם. 1 But thou, Beth-lehem Ephrathah, which art little to be among the thousands of Judah, out of thee shall one come forth unto Me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth are from of old, from ancient days.

Already shown you the morphololgy and syntax on this-or aren't you interested in the exegesis of this verse already given to you?


John 1:1-2 (NKJV)
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God."

Syntax and Grammar Analysis:

"In the beginning" (Ἐν ἀρχῇ, En archē): The phrase suggests a time frame that encompasses the genesis of all creation. It is crucial that

"beginning" here does not imply a starting point for the Word but rather denotes the context in which the Word existed eternally.

"Was" (ἦν, ēn): This imperfect verb form indicates continuous existence in the past, reinforcing that the Word (Jesus) existed continuously from that point onward without a defined beginning.

I'll pause here for a moment and ask you-do you know what an "Imperfect verb is?" @Runningman?

"With God" (πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, pros ton Theon): This prepositional phrase indicates a relational aspect that emphasizes distinct personhood within the Godhead while maintaining unity.

"And the Word was God" (καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος, kai Theos ēn ho Logos): The use of the article ho before "Logos" distinguishes the identity of Jesus as the Word while equating His essence with God, emphasizing that He is not a created being but is, in fact, fully God.
2. Colossians 1:17 (NKJV)
"And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist."
In the beginning (en archēi). Archē is definite, though anarthrous like our at home, in town, and the similar Hebrew be reshith in Gen_1:1. But Westcott notes that here John carries our thoughts beyond the beginning of creation in time to eternity.

There is no argument here to prove the existence of God any more than in Genesis. It is simply assumed. Either God exists and is the Creator of the universe as scientists like Eddington and Jeans assume or matter is eternal or it has come out of nothing.


Was (ēn). Three times in this sentence John uses this imperfect of eimi to be which conveys no idea of origin for God or for the Logos, simply continuous existence.

You agree @Runningman?
This alone would debunk your whole theory-right?

Quite a different verb (egeneto, became) appears in Joh_1:14 for the beginning of the Incarnation of the Logos. See the distinction sharply drawn in Joh_8:58 “before Abraham came (genesthai) I am” (eimi, timeless existence).


The Word (ho logos). Logos is from legō, old word in Homer to lay by, to collect, to put words side by side, to speak, to express an opinion. Logos is common for reason as well as speech. Heraclitus used it for the principle which controls the universe. The Stoics employed it for the soul of the world (anima mundi) and Marcus Aurelius used spermatikos logos for the generative principle in nature. The Hebrew memra was used in the Targums for the manifestation of God like the Angel of Jehovah and the Wisdom of God in Pro_8:23. Dr. J. Rendel Harris thinks that there was a lost wisdom book that combined phrases in Proverbs and in the Wisdom of Solomon which John used for his Prologue (The Origin of the Prologue to St. John, p. 43) which he has undertaken to reproduce. At any rate John’s standpoint is that of the Old Testament and not that of the Stoics nor even of Philo who uses the term Logos, but not John’s conception of personal pre-existence. The term Logos is applied to Christ only in Joh_1:1, Joh_1:14; Rev_19:13; 1Jn_1:1 “concerning the Word of life” (an incidental argument for identity of authorship). There is a possible personification of “the Word of God” in Heb_4:12. But the personal pre-existence of Christ is taught by Paul (2Co_8:9; Php_2:6.; Col_1:17) and in Heb_1:2. and in Joh_17:5. This term suits John’s purpose better than sophia (wisdom) and is his answer to the Gnostics who either denied the actual humanity of Christ (Docetic Gnostics) or who separated the aeon Christ from the man Jesus (Cerinthian Gnostics). The pre-existent Logos “became flesh” (sarx egeneto, Joh_1:14) and by this phrase John answered both heresies at once.


With God (pros ton theon). Though existing eternally with God the Logos was in perfect fellowship with God. Pros with the accusative presents a plane of equality and intimacy, face to face with each other. In 1Jn_2:1 we have a like use of pros: “We have a Paraclete with the Father” (paraklēton echomen pros ton patera). See prosōpon pros prosōpon (face to face, 1Co_13:12), a triple use of pros. There is a papyrus example of pros in this sense to gnōston tēs pros allēlous sunētheias, “the knowledge of our intimacy with one another” (M.&M., Vocabulary) which answers the claim of Rendel Harris, Origin of Prologue, p. 8) that the use of pros here and in Mar_6:3 is a mere Aramaism. It is not a classic idiom, but this is Koiné, not old Attic. In Joh_17:5 John has para soi the more common idiom.
And the Word was God (kai theos ēn ho logos).

By exact and careful language John denied Sabellianism by not saying ho theos ēn ho logos. That would mean that all of God was expressed in ho logos and the terms would be interchangeable, each having the article.

The subject is made plain by the article (ho logos) and the predicate without it (theos) just as in Joh_4:24 pneuma ho theos can only mean “God is spirit,” not “spirit is God.” So in 1Jn_4:16 ho theos agapē estin can only mean “God is love,” not “love is God” as a so-called Christian scientist would confusedly say.

For the article with the predicate see Robertson, Grammar, pp. 767f. So in Joh_1:14 ho Logos sarx egeneto, “the Word became flesh,” not “the flesh became Word.” Luther argues that here John disposes of Arianism also because the Logos was eternally God, fellowship of Father and Son, what Origen called the Eternal Generation of the Son (each necessary to the other). Thus in the Trinity we see personal fellowship on an equality.
Robertson.


Syntax and Grammar Analysis:
"Before all things" (πρὸ πάντων, pro pantōn): The preposition pro signifies precedence in time, denoting that there was nothing that existed before Him, thus affirming that He had no beginning.
"In Him all things consist" (ἐν αὐτῷ τὰ πάντα συνέστα, en autō ta panta sunestēken): The present active indicative form of the verb sunistēmi implies that all created things are sustained by Him, further reinforcing the idea that He is the source of all existence rather than a product of it.
3. Revelation 1:8 (NKJV)
"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, says the Lord, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."

Syntax and Grammar Analysis:
"Alpha and the Omega" (Ἀλφα καὶ Ὠ) (Alphā kai Ō): These terms signify the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet, symbolizing completeness and eternity, asserting that Jesus encompasses all of time and existence.

"The Beginning and the End" (Ἀρχὴ καὶ Τέλος, Archē kai Telos): Similar to the above, these terms reinforce the idea that Jesus is the ultimate source of all creation and not bound by time.

"Who is and who was and who is to come" (ὁ ὤν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος, ho ōn kai ho ēn kai ho erchomenos): This triadic structure emphasizes His eternal presence, past existence, and future return, illustrating that He transcends time.

Your theory debunked brother.

J.

 

[TomL]

Did you see my post. I provided you with the Greek from the LXX Septuagint. Do you see what I am talking about now?

Here's a link to where I saw it on Blue Letter Bible.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lxx/mic/5/1/s_898001

I quoted from the septuagint - The Lexham English Greek Septuagint

Micah 5:2 (LES2) — 2 And you, O Bethlehem, house of Ephrathah, you are very small to be in the thousands of Judah, from which for me one will come out to be for a ruler of Israel, and his goings out are from the beginning, from the days of eternity.”

You stopped at Arche and left off the rest from the days of eternity

Here is Brenton's English septuagint

Micah 5:2 (Brenton LXX En) — 2 And thou, Bethleem, house of Ephratha, art few in number to be reckoned among the thousands of Juda; yet out of thee shall one come forth to me, to be a ruler of Israel; and his goings forth were from the beginning, even from eternity.

And Rhalf's

Micah 5:2 (Brenton LXX En) — 2 And thou, Bethleem, house of Ephratha, art few in number to be reckoned among the thousands of Juda; yet out of thee shall one come forth to me, to be a ruler of Israel; and his goings forth were from the beginning, even from eternity.

and

Swete's Septuagint

ABP ▾

HEB ▾

A Ruler from Bethlehem
1νῦν ἐμφραχθήσεται θυγάτηρ ἐμφραγμῷ, συνοχὴν ἔταξεν ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς, ἐν ῥάβδῳ πατάξουσιν ἐπὶ σιαγόνα τὰς πύλας τοῦ Ἰσραήλ.
2Καὶ σύ, Βηθλέεμ οἶκος Ἐφράθα, ὀλιγοστὸς εἶ τοῦ εἶναι ἐν χιλιάσιν Ἰούδα· ἐξ οὗ μοι ἐξελεύσεται τοῦ εἶναι εἰς ἄρχοντα τοῦ Ἰσραήλ, καὶ ἔξοδοι αὐτοῦ ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς ἐξ ἡμερῶν αἰῶνος.

all show his pre-existence

 

[TomL]

Focus Tom. We’re also talking about the Septuagint as well. His beginnings or origins are of old in Micah 5:2. He was created, he isn’t eternal, he is not the Creator, isn’t God, etc.

YHWH is his God in Micah 5:4. There’s your smoking gun that YHWH is the same exact person as the Father.

He said this:

Isaiah 44 (NIV)
24“This is what the Lord says—
your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb:
I am the Lord,
the Maker of all things,
who stretches out the heavens,
who spreads out the earth by myself,

That’s a checkmate buddy. Anything else?

You do know the septuagint is not inspired?

Try harder

John 1:1–3 (KJV 1900) — 1 IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.


Hebrews 1:8–12 (LEB) — 8 but concerning the Son, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, and the scepter of righteous is the scepter of your kingdom. 9 You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; because of this God, your God, has anointed you with the olive oil of joy more than your companions. 10 And, “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the works of your hands; 11 they will perish, but you continue, and they will all become old like a garment, 12 and like a robe you will roll them up, and like a garment they will be changed; but you are the same, and your years will not run out.”

Colossians 1:16 (KJV 1900) — 16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:


Seems that YHWH is the pre-incarnate Word i.e. Jesus Christ

 

[TomL]

Johann, relax buddy. You risk losing control of this conversation if you can't even roll with it. There is nothing to fall for. Since you won't engage this topic without bombing it with huge posts unrelated to the point, I will just go into lecture mode so it will at least help someone.

Here is Micah 5:2 in the Greek Septuagint. I have bolded and colored the word archē below for convenience.

καὶ σύ Βηθλεεμ οἶκος τοῦ Εφραθα ὀλιγοστὸς εἶ τοῦ εἶναι ἐν χιλιάσιν Ιουδα ἐκ σοῦ μοι ἐξελεύσεται τοῦ εἶναι εἰς ἄρχοντα ἐν τῷ Ισραηλ καὶ αἱ ἔξοδοι αὐτοῦ ἀπ᾽ἀρχῆς ἐξ ἡμερῶν αἰῶνος

From your own post we see what you left off

ἐξ ἡμερῶν αἰῶνος

You employ tools you do not understand

 

[MTMattie]

Nonsense. How can we have a talk about anything if you won’t accept the truth about the Greek word for beginning being in Micah 5:2? I know we disagree theologically, but we need a beginning point to meet on the common ground of facts. You can agree a word exists in the text without agreeing with my point. This is just standard scholarly honesty.

So let’s address your apparent rejections of reality systematically. For the record, do you find the word for beginning or origin in the Septuagint of Micah 5:2? Yes or no is fine.

Just tossing into the pot.

Everlasting should do it.... "And Whose goings forth [are] from of old from everlasting."

Hebrew

◄ Micah 5:2 ►

Text Analysis Go to Parallel Hebrew Strong's Hebrew English Morphology 859 [e] וְאַתָּ֞ה wə-’at-tāh But you Conj-w | Pro-2ms בֵּֽית־ bêṯ- in Prep 1035 [e] לֶ֣חֶם le-ḥem Bethlehem N-proper-fs 672 [e] אֶפְרָ֗תָה ’ep̄-rā-ṯāh, Ephrathah N-proper-fs 6810 [e] צָעִיר֙ ṣā-‘îr little Adj-ms 1961 [e] לִֽהְיוֹת֙ lih-yō-wṯ [Though] you are Prep-l | V-Qal-Inf 505 [e] בְּאַלְפֵ֣י bə-’al-p̄ê among the thousands Prep-b | Number-mpc 3063 [e] יְהוּדָ֔ה yə-hū-ḏāh, of Judah N-proper-ms 4480 [e] מִמְּךָ֙ mim-mə-ḵā [Yet] out of you Prep | 2ms לִ֣י lî to Me Prep | 1cs 3318 [e] יֵצֵ֔א yê-ṣê, shall come forth V-Qal-Imperf-3ms 1961 [e] לִֽהְי֥וֹת lih-yō-wṯ the one to be Prep-l | V-Qal-Inf 4910 [e] מוֹשֵׁ֖ל mō-wō-šêl Ruler V-Qal-Prtcpl-ms 3478 [e] בְּיִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל bə-yiś-rā-’êl; in Israel Prep-b | N-proper-ms 4163 [e] וּמוֹצָאֹתָ֥יו ū-mō-w-ṣā-’ō-ṯāw and Whose goings forth [are] Conj-w | N-fpc | 3ms 6924 [e] מִקֶּ֖דֶם miq-qe-ḏem from of old Prep-m | N-ms 3117 [e] מִימֵ֥י mî-mê from Prep-m | N-mpc 5769 [e] עוֹלָֽם׃ ‘ō-w-lām. everlasting N-ms

 

[civic]

You then are denying what scholars and commentators have held. You are basically going into court and saying "do not follow the majority of evidence, follow what i believe." and if Christ's deity were easily debunked, it would not have taken hold. We are waiting for you to debunk Christ's nature in the Godhead.

Ditto

 

[civic]

Just tossing into the pot.

Everlasting should do it.... "And Whose goings forth [are] from of old from everlasting."

Hebrew

​

​

​

◄ Micah 5:2 ►

​

Text Analysis Go to Parallel Hebrew Strong's Hebrew English Morphology 859 [e] וְאַתָּ֞ה wə-’at-tāh But you Conj-w | Pro-2ms בֵּֽית־ bêṯ- in Prep 1035 [e] לֶ֣חֶם le-ḥem Bethlehem N-proper-fs 672 [e] אֶפְרָ֗תָה ’ep̄-rā-ṯāh, Ephrathah N-proper-fs 6810 [e] צָעִיר֙ ṣā-‘îr little Adj-ms 1961 [e] לִֽהְיוֹת֙ lih-yō-wṯ [Though] you are Prep-l | V-Qal-Inf 505 [e] בְּאַלְפֵ֣י bə-’al-p̄ê among the thousands Prep-b | Number-mpc 3063 [e] יְהוּדָ֔ה yə-hū-ḏāh, of Judah N-proper-ms 4480 [e] מִמְּךָ֙ mim-mə-ḵā [Yet] out of you Prep | 2ms לִ֣י lî to Me Prep | 1cs 3318 [e] יֵצֵ֔א yê-ṣê, shall come forth V-Qal-Imperf-3ms 1961 [e] לִֽהְי֥וֹת lih-yō-wṯ the one to be Prep-l | V-Qal-Inf 4910 [e] מוֹשֵׁ֖ל mō-wō-šêl Ruler V-Qal-Prtcpl-ms 3478 [e] בְּיִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל bə-yiś-rā-’êl; in Israel Prep-b | N-proper-ms 4163 [e] וּמוֹצָאֹתָ֥יו ū-mō-w-ṣā-’ō-ṯāw and Whose goings forth [are] Conj-w | N-fpc | 3ms 6924 [e] מִקֶּ֖דֶם miq-qe-ḏem from of old Prep-m | N-ms 3117 [e] מִימֵ֥י mî-mê from Prep-m | N-mpc 5769 [e] עוֹלָֽם׃ ‘ō-w-lām. everlasting N-ms

Amen but they make eternal have a different meaning when it comes to the Son, it only means eternal when it’s the Father. A foundation built upon sinking sand. All non Christian beliefs change the meaning of biblical words to support their heresies.

 

[Johann]

Amen but they make eternal have a different meaning when it comes to the Son, it only means eternal when it’s the Father. A foundation built upon sinking sand. All non Christian beliefs change the meaning of biblical words to support their heresies.

Correct-Olam doesn't mean olam. Not what the Bible says though.

J.

 

[civic]

Correct-Olam doesn't mean olam. Not what the Bible says though.

J.

Yes its a different dictionary, different vocabulary, different meaning, different Jesus, different God, different gospel, different salvation etc.....

From the late Dr Walter Martin


VOCABULARY AND SEMANTICS OF CULTS by Dr Walter Martin

“We believe in salvation through Jesus Christ”
Who is Jesus Christ?

“We worship God, too!”
Who is God?

“We believe in salvation by grace through faith”
But what is their exact criteria for my salvation?

“We believe in the trinity…”
Define “Trinity”

Define “evil”, “sin”, “atonement”

“Well, that’s what we believe, too! We agree!” and they will use the Bible
Define your terms!


Examples: Gnostics, Mormons, JW’s, Christian Scientists, Scientologists


“Well, that’s YOUR interpretation!”
No, it is what the text says here, in its context!


BREAKING THE LANGUAGE BARRIER

The cults capitalize on the almost total inability of the average Christian to understand the subtle art of redefinition in the realm of biblical theology.

The average non-Christian cult owes its very existence to the fact that it has utilized the terminology of Christianity, has borrowed liberally from the Bible (almost always out of context), and sprinkled its format with evangelical clichés and terms wherever possible or advantageous. Up to now this has been a highly successful attempt to represent their respective systems of thought as "Christian."

On encountering a cultist, then, always remember that you are dealing with a person who is familiar with Christian terminology, and who has carefully redefined it to fit the system of thought he or she now embraces.


Whenever a Christian encounters a cultist, certain primary thoughts must be paramount in his mind:
(1) He must strive to direct the conversation to the problem of terminology and maneuver the cult adherent into a position where he must define his usage of terms and his authority, if any, for drastic, unbiblical redefinitions, which are certain to emerge;
(2) the Christian must then compare these "definitions" with the various contexts of the verses upon which the cultist draws support of his doctrinal interpretations;
(3) he must define the words "interpretation," "historic orthodoxy," and standard doctrinal phrases such as "the new birth," "the Atonement," "context," "exegesis," "eternal judgment," etc., so that no misunderstanding will exist when these things come under discussion, as they inevitably will;
(4) the Christian must attempt to lead the cultist to a review of the importance of properly defining terms for all important doctrines involved, particularly the doctrine of personal redemption from sin, which most cult systems define in a markedly unbiblical manner;
(5) it is the responsibility of the Christian to present a clear testimony of his own regenerative experience with Jesus Christ in terminology which has been carefully clarified regarding the necessity of such regeneration on the part of the cultist in the light of the certain reality of God's inevitable justice. It may be necessary also, in the course of discussing terminology and its dishonest recasting by cult systems, to resort to occasional polemic utterances. In such cases, the Christian should be certain that they are tempered with patience and love, so that the cultist appreciates that such tactics are motivated by one's personal concern for his eternal welfare and not simply to "win the argument."

Summary

Looking back over the picture of cult semantics, the following facts emerge.

1. The average cultist knows his own terminology very thoroughly. He also has a historic knowledge of Christian usage and is therefore prepared to discuss many areas of Christian theology intelligently.
2. The well-trained cultist will carefully avoid definition of terms concerning cardinal doctrines such as the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the Atonement, the bodily resurrection of our Lord, the process of salvation by grace and justification by faith. If pressed in these areas, he will redefine the terms to fit the semantic framework of orthodoxy unless he is forced to define his terms explicitly.
3. The informed Christian must seek for a point of departure, preferably the authority of the Scriptures, which can become a powerful and useful tool in the hands of the Christian, if properly exercised.
4. The concerned Christian worker must familiarize himself to some extent with the terminology of the major cult systems if he is to enjoy any measure of success in understanding the cultist's mind when bearing a witness for Christ.



Chapter 3 - The Psychological Structure of Cultism

First and foremost, the belief systems of the cults are characterized by closed-mindedness. They are not interested in a rational cognitive evaluation of the facts. The organizational structure interprets the facts to the cultist, generally invoking the Bible and/or its respective founder as the ultimate source of its pronouncements. Such belief systems are in isolation; they never shift to logical consistency. They exist in what we might describe as separate compartments in the cultist's mind and are almost incapable of penetration or disruption if the individual cultist is completely committed to the authority pattern of his organization.
(from Kingdom of the Cults, Copyright © 1997 The Estate of Walter Martin.)

hope this helps !!!

 

[TomL]

Amen but they make eternal have a different meaning when it comes to the Son, it only means eternal when it’s the Father. A foundation built upon sinking sand. All non Christian beliefs change the meaning of biblical words to support their heresies.

The Septuagint translates with aionios also used to denote eternal duration.

 

[TomL]

Micah 5:2? Yes or no is fine.

Why do you stop there?

Micah 5:2 (KJV 1900) — 2 But thou, Beth-lehem 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.

Your denial of pre-existence is refuted

 

[Runningman]

I'm not falling for this, you take a verse here and there-a little bit of this and a little bit of that, out of context, to steel man your arguments.

Besides, you are in ERROR already by saying Messiah is a "created being" and I have shown you from the Scripture that is not the case.
And here you go with ANOTHER question?

J.

I am relaxed and very much IN control @Runningman-you want to prove, unsuccessfully, that Yeshua had a beginning-a created being, which is error. Now you want to "pin" me with Micah 5.2?

וְאַתָּה בֵּית-לֶחֶם אֶפְרָתָה, צָעִיר לִהְיוֹת בְּאַלְפֵי יְהוּדָה--מִמְּךָ לִי יֵצֵא, לִהְיוֹת מוֹשֵׁל בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל; וּמוֹצָאֹתָיו מִקֶּדֶם, מִימֵי עוֹלָם. 1 But thou, Beth-lehem Ephrathah, which art little to be among the thousands of Judah, out of thee shall one come forth unto Me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth are from of old, from ancient days.

Already shown you the morphololgy and syntax on this-or aren't you interested in the exegesis of this verse already given to you?


John 1:1-2 (NKJV)
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God."

Syntax and Grammar Analysis:

"In the beginning" (Ἐν ἀρχῇ, En archē): The phrase suggests a time frame that encompasses the genesis of all creation. It is crucial that

"beginning" here does not imply a starting point for the Word but rather denotes the context in which the Word existed eternally.

"Was" (ἦν, ēn): This imperfect verb form indicates continuous existence in the past, reinforcing that the Word (Jesus) existed continuously from that point onward without a defined beginning.

I'll pause here for a moment and ask you-do you know what an "Imperfect verb is?" @Runningman?

"With God" (πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, pros ton Theon): This prepositional phrase indicates a relational aspect that emphasizes distinct personhood within the Godhead while maintaining unity.

"And the Word was God" (καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος, kai Theos ēn ho Logos): The use of the article ho before "Logos" distinguishes the identity of Jesus as the Word while equating His essence with God, emphasizing that He is not a created being but is, in fact, fully God.
2. Colossians 1:17 (NKJV)
"And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist."
In the beginning (en archēi). Archē is definite, though anarthrous like our at home, in town, and the similar Hebrew be reshith in Gen_1:1. But Westcott notes that here John carries our thoughts beyond the beginning of creation in time to eternity.

There is no argument here to prove the existence of God any more than in Genesis. It is simply assumed. Either God exists and is the Creator of the universe as scientists like Eddington and Jeans assume or matter is eternal or it has come out of nothing.


Was (ēn). Three times in this sentence John uses this imperfect of eimi to be which conveys no idea of origin for God or for the Logos, simply continuous existence.

You agree @Runningman?
This alone would debunk your whole theory-right?

Quite a different verb (egeneto, became) appears in Joh_1:14 for the beginning of the Incarnation of the Logos. See the distinction sharply drawn in Joh_8:58 “before Abraham came (genesthai) I am” (eimi, timeless existence).


The Word (ho logos). Logos is from legō, old word in Homer to lay by, to collect, to put words side by side, to speak, to express an opinion. Logos is common for reason as well as speech. Heraclitus used it for the principle which controls the universe. The Stoics employed it for the soul of the world (anima mundi) and Marcus Aurelius used spermatikos logos for the generative principle in nature. The Hebrew memra was used in the Targums for the manifestation of God like the Angel of Jehovah and the Wisdom of God in Pro_8:23. Dr. J. Rendel Harris thinks that there was a lost wisdom book that combined phrases in Proverbs and in the Wisdom of Solomon which John used for his Prologue (The Origin of the Prologue to St. John, p. 43) which he has undertaken to reproduce. At any rate John’s standpoint is that of the Old Testament and not that of the Stoics nor even of Philo who uses the term Logos, but not John’s conception of personal pre-existence. The term Logos is applied to Christ only in Joh_1:1, Joh_1:14; Rev_19:13; 1Jn_1:1 “concerning the Word of life” (an incidental argument for identity of authorship). There is a possible personification of “the Word of God” in Heb_4:12. But the personal pre-existence of Christ is taught by Paul (2Co_8:9; Php_2:6.; Col_1:17) and in Heb_1:2. and in Joh_17:5. This term suits John’s purpose better than sophia (wisdom) and is his answer to the Gnostics who either denied the actual humanity of Christ (Docetic Gnostics) or who separated the aeon Christ from the man Jesus (Cerinthian Gnostics). The pre-existent Logos “became flesh” (sarx egeneto, Joh_1:14) and by this phrase John answered both heresies at once.


With God (pros ton theon). Though existing eternally with God the Logos was in perfect fellowship with God. Pros with the accusative presents a plane of equality and intimacy, face to face with each other. In 1Jn_2:1 we have a like use of pros: “We have a Paraclete with the Father” (paraklēton echomen pros ton patera). See prosōpon pros prosōpon (face to face, 1Co_13:12), a triple use of pros. There is a papyrus example of pros in this sense to gnōston tēs pros allēlous sunētheias, “the knowledge of our intimacy with one another” (M.&M., Vocabulary) which answers the claim of Rendel Harris, Origin of Prologue, p. 8) that the use of pros here and in Mar_6:3 is a mere Aramaism. It is not a classic idiom, but this is Koiné, not old Attic. In Joh_17:5 John has para soi the more common idiom.
And the Word was God (kai theos ēn ho logos).

By exact and careful language John denied Sabellianism by not saying ho theos ēn ho logos. That would mean that all of God was expressed in ho logos and the terms would be interchangeable, each having the article.

The subject is made plain by the article (ho logos) and the predicate without it (theos) just as in Joh_4:24 pneuma ho theos can only mean “God is spirit,” not “spirit is God.” So in 1Jn_4:16 ho theos agapē estin can only mean “God is love,” not “love is God” as a so-called Christian scientist would confusedly say.

For the article with the predicate see Robertson, Grammar, pp. 767f. So in Joh_1:14 ho Logos sarx egeneto, “the Word became flesh,” not “the flesh became Word.” Luther argues that here John disposes of Arianism also because the Logos was eternally God, fellowship of Father and Son, what Origen called the Eternal Generation of the Son (each necessary to the other). Thus in the Trinity we see personal fellowship on an equality.
Robertson.


Syntax and Grammar Analysis:
"Before all things" (πρὸ πάντων, pro pantōn): The preposition pro signifies precedence in time, denoting that there was nothing that existed before Him, thus affirming that He had no beginning.
"In Him all things consist" (ἐν αὐτῷ τὰ πάντα συνέστα, en autō ta panta sunestēken): The present active indicative form of the verb sunistēmi implies that all created things are sustained by Him, further reinforcing the idea that He is the source of all existence rather than a product of it.
3. Revelation 1:8 (NKJV)
"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, says the Lord, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."

Syntax and Grammar Analysis:
"Alpha and the Omega" (Ἀλφα καὶ Ὠ) (Alphā kai Ō): These terms signify the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet, symbolizing completeness and eternity, asserting that Jesus encompasses all of time and existence.

"The Beginning and the End" (Ἀρχὴ καὶ Τέλος, Archē kai Telos): Similar to the above, these terms reinforce the idea that Jesus is the ultimate source of all creation and not bound by time.

"Who is and who was and who is to come" (ὁ ὤν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος, ho ōn kai ho ēn kai ho erchomenos): This triadic structure emphasizes His eternal presence, past existence, and future return, illustrating that He transcends time.

Your theory debunked brother.

J.

It's still there in Micah 5:2 in the LXX.

καὶ σύ Βηθλεεμ οἶκος τοῦ Εφραθα ὀλιγοστὸς εἶ τοῦ εἶναι ἐν χιλιάσιν Ιουδα ἐκ σοῦ μοι ἐξελεύσεται τοῦ εἶναι εἰς ἄρχοντα ἐν τῷ Ισραηλ καὶ αἱ ἔξοδοι αὐτοῦ ἀπ᾽ἀρχῆς ἐξ ἡμερῶν αἰῶνος

Nothing has been debunked. Are you trying to debunk the existence of "ἀρχῆς" in Micah 5:2? It's irrefutable that it exists there. Honest translation of this word refers to the origin or beginning. So Jesus has a beginning point according to Micah 5:2 and "going forth" would be considered a spurious translation not supported by the body of Scripture as a whole or the language. For example, if Jesus pre-existed and was going forth we would expect to see that all of the Old Testament. There is zero, zip, zilch, nada about Jesus saying or doing anything in the Old Testament under any known name.

So at a pre-existence "as God" is completely out of the question. I am more of the mindset that since Jesus is a human then he most likely pre-existed in God's plan and foreknowledge, but not as a literal being. Remember, you're wanting to prove Jesus pre-existed yet you present an argument bankrupt of any proof because as far as Scripture goes it doesn't support your premise. It supports my premise.