Sherman's "Prophecies"

Joseph Crea Joseph.Crea@worldnet.att.net
Thu, 4 Mar 1999 06:42:59 +0000 (00920551379, 19990304064259.DETH4827@LOCALNAME) 

Hello Dave!

At 10:35 PM 3/3/99 -0500, David Lee wrote:

>Hi Bakke! Hi Group!

>

>>>SHERMAN

>>>Prophecy #1. Micah 5:2

>>>"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."

>>>What is the probability of this prophecy being fulfilled by any one man?

>To

>>>determine this, the average population of Bethlehem from the time of Micah

>>>until now would need to be known, as well as the average population of the

>>>earth during the same time period. Stoner (Science Speaks, p. 101-102)

>came

>>>up with a ratio of 1 man in 280,000 has been born in Bethlehem. It may be

>>>expressed as 1 man in 2.8 x 105 was born in Bethlehem.

>>

>>BAKKE

>>Probably the most famous single "Messianic prophecy" in the OT.  Sherman

>>interprets it in the standard way of saying that it predicts that the

>>Messiah will be born in Bethlehem.  Unfortunately, I believe that the

>>usage "Bethlehem Ephratah" along with the other wording indicates that

>>this usage refers to a person and not to a place.  Since nobody in the

>>either Biblical genealogy of Jesus is named either Bethlehem or

>>Ephrathah, he couldn't have come "out of" any such person.  (Also, see 1

>>Chronicles 4:4, where someone named Ephratah is the father of

>>Bethlehem.)

>>Furthermore, since the Messiah, by definition, must come from Bethlehem,

>>it is pointless to calculate the ratio of human beings who have ever

>>been born there.  Nobody who *wasn't* born there would be eligible to be

>>the Messiah.  That makes this factor a given rather than Sherman's small

>>probability, but still doesn't support this verse as being a prophecy.

>

>DAVE

>   Good points Bakke! Sherman made a mistake presenting this as a prophecy

>fulfillment. I am sure Farrell with blow him out of the water on this.

>Cities, in hebrew, were feminine.Yet Bethlehem in this passage is masculine

>(if I remember Yoel correctly). That would demonstrate that the writer did

>not even have the city in mind but a person. 



CREA
    Yep, in Micah 5:3 "Bethlehem" is treated as a masculine proper noun and
the nominative "you" matches the gender, and according to  __Gesenius'
Hebrew Grammar__ [aka GKC] (section 122i) the names of towns and countries
are USUALLY regarded as feminine, since they taken to be the "mothers" of
their inhabitants. 
   Unfortunately, there's always an exception to broad generalizations, and
GKC points out that often the source of a place name originated in a
personal name which may be masculine, and thus such a place name may -- when
referring to the inhabitants, for example -- also be construed as masculine
(but even this rule has exceptions).  Ultimately the gender of the term
"Bethlehem" may, in and of itself, have little or no bearing on whether it
is a referent to a town or a person.  


With Mettaa,

Joseph Crea
<Joseph.Crea@worldnet.att.net>