Below is the links CNN and telegraph news about the Pope’s confession. I extracted some quotes below. For sure we can find some errors in the Pope’s new book Jesus of Nazareth -- The Infancy Narratives; despite of them, overall he has made many major confessions public about the date of Christ birth both in year and in day/month, December 25th is pagan, and how the current calendar was created and in error, and etc….

This is major news event.

CNN : Pope's book on Jesus challenges Christmas traditions

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/22/world/europe/vatican-pope-jesus-book/index.html

In "Jesus of Nazareth -- The Infancy Narratives," the pope says the Christian calendar is actually based on a blunder by a sixth century monk, who Benedict says was several years off in his calculation of Jesus' birth date.

…

The pope also looks at scholarly studies of the Bible, some of which have indicated for decades that the traditionally accepted birth date for Jesus is wrong, Speciale said.

…

The 176-page volume, which comprises a brief foreword, four chapters and an epilogue, traces Jesus' life up to the age of 12, when, according to the Gospels, he was presented by his parents in the Temple in Jerusalem, the Vatican said.

The initial worldwide print run is more than a million copies, it said, with the book released this week across 50 countries in Italian, German, Croatian, French, English, Polish, Portuguese and Spanish.

In the coming months, the book will be translated into 12 more languages for publication in 72 countries in total, the Vatican added.

The Vatican quotes Anthony Valle, a professor of theology, as saying the pope has been open to scientific inquiry in his own study of Jesus' life.

------------------------------------------------------
Jesus was born years earlier than thoughts, claims Pope

By Nick Squires, Rome
4:02PM GMT 21 Nov 2012

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion...laims-Pope.html

The entire Christian calendar is based on a miscalculation, the Pope has declared, as he claims in a new book that Jesus was born several years earlier than commonly believed.

The 'mistake' was made by a sixth century monk known as Dionysius Exiguus or in English Dennis the Small, the 85-year-old pontiff claims in the book 'Jesus of Nazareth: The Infancy Narratives', published on Wednesday.
"The calculation of the beginning of our calendar – based on the birth of Jesus – was made by Dionysius Exiguus, who made a mistake in his calculations by several years," the Pope writes in the book, which went on sale around the world with an initial print run of a million copies.
"The actual date of Jesus's birth was several years before."
The assertion that the Christian calendar is based on a false premise is not new – many historians believe that Christ was born sometime between 7BC and 2BC.
…
Dennis the Small, who was born in Eastern Europe, is credited with being the "inventor" of the modern calendar and the concept of the Anno Domini era.
He drew up the new system in part to distance it from the calendar in use at the time, which was based on the years since the reign of the Roman emperor Diocletian.
The emperor had persecuted Christians, so there was good reason to expunge him from the new dating system in favour of one inspired by the birth of Christ.
The monk's calendar became widely accepted in Europe after it was adopted by the Venerable Bede, the historian-monk, to date the events that he recounted in his Ecclesiastical History of the English People, which he completed in AD 731.
But exactly how Dennis calculated the year of Christ's birth is not clear and the Pope's claim that he made a mistake is a view shared by many scholars.
The Bible does not specify a date for the birth of Christ. The monk instead appears to have based his calculations on vague references to Jesus's age at the start of his ministry and the fact that he was baptised in the reign of the emperor Tiberius.
…
"There is no reference to when he was born in the Bible - all we know is that he was born in the reign of Herod the Great, who died before 1AD," he told The Daily Telegraph. "It's been surmised for a very long time that Jesus was born before 1AD - no one knows for sure."
The idea that Christ was born on Dec 25 also has no basis in historical fact. "We don't even know which season he was born in. The whole idea of celebrating his birth during the darkest part of the year is probably linked to pagan traditions and the winter solstice."

The Biblical narratives give enough names of historical characters that scholars have long realized Jesus was born before 1 A.D. It lines up pretty much with Jesus being born about 4 B.C. and baptized about 27 A.D. at the age of 30.

As to the Dec. 25 -- that is a pagan date.
But then paganism has counterfeited the whole idea of the virgin birth for centuries etc. so that is not proof refuting information on Jesus birth.


There is a mathematical way to try to understand when Jesus was born.

Zacharius (John the Baptist's father) was serving in the temple during the course of Abia. (Luke 1:5) He is told by an angel that his wife would have a son. (1:13) Elizabeth conceives shortly after. (1:24) Six months later the angel tells Mary she will conceive. (1:26,36) Mary stays with Elizabeth for three months till John is born. (1:56) Jesus is born six months after John the Baptist.

So when was Zacharias in the temple?
Well there are TWO possibilities.

The priests of the 8th course of Abia served in the 10th week (end of May/June) as well as the 34th week (late Sept/Oct). So adding at least two weeks for conception to occur John was probably born either in March (around Passover time) OR early in July.

Add six months to that would place Jesus birth either in
September (the seventh month of the Jewish calendar) OR late December (about the time the world celebrates Christ's birth.)

Church tradition rather consistantly favors the latter date.
Saying the angel appeared to Zacharias during Yom Kippur (Sept/Oct) and John was born in the month of Tammuz (June/July) placing Jesus birth on the 9th of Tevet (end of December)

Tradition?


But what about the shepherds and sheep?

But what about the Pope's confessing this? Isn't it out of character? Wouldn't we expect that the RC would keep this continually hidden?

Isnt' this huge? It has an impact on the biggest holiday celebrated in most parts in the world -- PLUS on the calendar -- PLUS the exposure that the RC hid this from us for centuries.

What about the shepherds?
They were watching the sheep.

That's one of the most interesting parts.

Micah, the Jewish prophet who foretold the Messiah's birth in Bethlehem, also prophesied, "And you, O Tower of the Flock (in Hebrew, Migdal Eder), the stronghold of the daughter of Zion, unto you shall it come, even the first dominion; the kingdom shall come to the daughter of Jerusalem" (Micah 4:8).

So here Micah foretells that the Messiah, who embodied the hope of the Kingdom, "was to be revealed from Migdal Eder - 'the Tower of the Flock'."

Close by where the Bethlehem shepherds were that night was the tower known as Migdal Eder, the "watch-tower of the flock." This was the station where shepherds brought their flocks destined for sacrifices in the Temple.
The shepherds who kept them were men who were specifically trained to take care of these lambs destined for sacrifice.
Jesus, the lamb of God, was born in Bethlehem, the area where the sacrificial lambs were raised!

It's also interesting (if you do a little research) that around bethlehem, the shepherds did watch their sheep at night in the "winter" months. It was in what we call winter when the rains came and the hills turned green affording good grass for the sheep on otherwise desert like hills. The shepherds took the sheep out to the hills and being too far from town would not return to the fold, but watch them at night.

I'd be more surprised if the pope insisted that Christ was born between 1 BC and 1 A.D.
All historians I've read agree that the Historical evidence points to Christ being born a few years earlier.

_|_, if the papacy blatantly acknowledges sunday isn't the Sabbath and they have the power to change it, what's any big deal over christmas?

Is that true? Do sheep roam the fields at night eating grass there at the end of December today?

Is the tower of Migdal Eder still there today?
Are there special flocks raised for temple sacrifice there today?
Can we impose average modern practices on ancient times?


Since Luke 2:8 says shepherds were in fields at Christ’s birth, some assume Christ wasn’t born in December. However, this objection is without merit as some have indictated that Jewish Mishnah indicts that flocks were kept in fields near Bethlehem even in the winter. The shepherds "Abiding in the field" (KJV) is the Greek verb agrauleo, "live out of doors."

Take a thoughtful look at this study:
http://bible-truth.org/BirthPlaceofJesus.html

A study of Jewish history is bringing out a very interesting revelation concerning the birth place of our Savior.
There was actually a tower, named in Micah's prophecy, which stood north of Bethlehem and about 4 miles south of Jerusalem where the sacrificial lambs were born and cared for. The sheep were kept outside year round, the ewes being brought into the tower only for birthing.

True. Flocks of sheep may not roam in the heart of New York city today, but that doesn't mean they didn't at that location in the past.

So, maybe I should have asked, regarding the climate and not modern practices, could sheep roam the fields at night eating grass there at the end of December? Is it possible?

Where was Moses buried? Answer that, and I'll believe you may know when Jesus was born.


Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

The first evidence of the Christmas feast is from Egypt, referenced to the Catholic Encyclopedia, 1911.





Were flocks and shepherds out in the rain?

But a bigger question is, Would Augustus require the citizens to return to their native lands in the middle of the winter and rainy season?

Clearly the city of Jesus' birth was Bethlehem as Micah 5:2 prophesied and as the Gospels of Matthew, Luke and John confirm. (See Matthew 2:1,5-6,8,16; Luke 2:4,15; John 7:42) "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." (Micah 5:2)

This tower at Bethlehem is first mentioned in Genesis 35:21, "And Israel journeyed, and spread his tent beyond the tower of Edar" ("tower of Edar" - Migdal Edar).

Jacob brought his family to Edar (the tower) and there Rachel died after delivering her son, Benjamin. She was buried there in Ephratah which is Bethlehem" (Gen. 35:19).

Later, when the temple in Jerusalem was in operation, this tower was also the place ewes were safely brought to give birth to the lambs. In this sheltered building/cave the priests would bring in the ewes which were about to lamb for protection.

According to Edersheim in "The Life And Times Of Jesus The Messiah," in Book 2, Chapter 6, states, "This Migdal Edar was not the watchtower for the ordinary flocks that pastured on the barren sheep ground beyond Bethlehem, but it lay close to the town, on the road to Jerusalem. A passage from the Mishnah (Shekelim 7:4) leads to the conclusion that the flocks which pastured there were destined for Temple sacrifices."

So the fields outside of Bethlehem became the place where a special group of shepherds raised the lambs that were sacrificed in the Temple. The tower was maintained as a ceremonially clean stable for a birthing place for these lambs. The surrounding fields was where shepherds grazed the flocks.

These shepherds customarily kept their flocks outdoors twenty-four hours a day every day of the year, it was only the ewes that were brought inside to deliver their lambs. These lambs had to be carefully cared for during the first few days of their lives, because they must not have any blemish.

We don't know the exact date when Jesus was born -- but there are clues in scripture which make the "season" we focus on Christ's birth, not the day quite possible to be the time when He was born.


Where was Moses buried?

Deut. 32:49-50 Get thee up into this mountain Abarim, unto mount Nebo, which is in the land of Moab, that is over against Jericho...And die in the mount whither thou goest up.

So even though we don't know the exact spot, we do know the location.
Of course Moses isn't buried there any more, as he was resurrected and taken to the heaven.

Dedication,

Read some more and you'll learn some more. For starters, Moses wasn't buried on mount Nebo. I don't believe that the Christmas season is when Jesus was born either.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Now, I wonder how the person who completed the last chapter in the book of Deut. after Moses death, would know anything beyond the point that I quoted? Moses goes up the mountain ALONE, following the directions given him. He dies, and the Lord takes his body and buries it in a valley in Moab.

But what difference does it make? Moses isn't in any grave. Christ resurrected him and took him to heaven.

As to believing Christ was born in the Christmas season -- that's totally up to you.
I simply showed from scripture the two most likely times when He was born and one of them was late December/early January.

It is possible that He was born during the Christmas season, (late December to early January)

That's an interesting question, but there's no need to question the source of Inspiration. We can accept it as fact. Since Moses was not buried where he died, and since there must have been a great many valleys in Moab, there's no way of telling where he was buried. The surest thing we have is that it was not on a mountain.

Regarding Christmas and the nativity, it's almost the surest thing we have that Christ was not born at that time either. I think it most likely that He was born in September.

The following website raises pertinent points in this regard:

http://christmasxmas.xanga.com/395124709/item/

The major points are these:

1) Most everyone agrees that the months of greatest precipitation in Palestine were the winter-spring months.
2) Three of the winter months have frost in Israel.
3) Snow can fall during those times, especially December-January.
4) Shepherds would not be out on the hills in such weather. They traditionally brought their sheep into the folds during the winter months, leaving the hills by mid-October.
5) No Roman governor would have asked the citizens to travel for a census over such muddy or icy roads.
6) The inn in Bethlehem would have been full at one of the feast times, such as the feast of tabernacles (Septemberish). (Bethlehem was but a short distance from Jerusalem.) A Roman governor may well have capitalized upon such a time of gathering to conduct his census.

Anyhow, the link above quotes from many well-known sources and Bible commentaries. There's no reason to push for the Christmas date of Jesus' birth, is there? Why should we fancy that date?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

If we are of the type of those in Constantine's day trying to justify it.

I did not until I read the instructions of Ellen G White. Is it not safe for us to follow her counsel any more?

None of these points disqualifies the season.
We already found out that sheep kept by the "tower of the flock" were outside year round. The ewes being brought in only to lamb.

GreenC:
5) No Roman governor would have asked the citizens to travel for a census over such muddy or icy roads.

Response:
That is mere assumption. Now, I agree, Christ could also have been born end of Sept/beginning October. However, a Roman governor could ask the people to travel anytime he wanted. And winter is a time when the people weren't doing that much else.


GreenC.
6) The inn in Bethlehem would have been full at one of the feast times, such as the feast of tabernacles (Septemberish). (Bethlehem was but a short distance from Jerusalem.) A Roman governor may well have capitalized upon such a time of gathering to conduct his census.

Response:
Bethlehem was just a small village -- probably had only one inn. So it won't take much to fill it.

Remember that everyone had to go to the city of their fathers for the censes. This wasn't a call for everyone to come to Bethlehem. (or Jerusalem) So feast time would have been very difficult -- many of the people would have had to report in cities far from Jerusalem and won't have been able to attend the feast.
So I don't see how it would be "capitalizing" on a gathering when it was asking people to travel in all directions.


GreenC.
Anyhow, the link above quotes from many well-known sources and Bible commentaries. There's no reason to push for the Christmas date of Jesus' birth, is there? Why should we fancy that date?

Response:
The issue is -- are we more righteous by denouncing it when it COULD have been the season.
Is it right to put people on a guilt trip because they remember Christ's birth in a special way during this season?

This discussion was suppose to be about the Pope's confession. Not about when Jesus was born. I think we're getting out of topic a bit.

I did read something interesting concerning the 25th of December being the potential date of Jesus conception. Which would bring us to His birth 9 months later on the first day of Trumpet in the Fall Feast. Then at exactly one year from his date of conception... the 3 wise kings came to worship him which would fall on the 25th of December. This person that presented this, had extensively use scripture and historical records. I'll see if I can find that study.

Is there another discussion already started about the date of the birth of Jesus and related issues? If not, maybe we should open one.

I don't see December 25th even being a potential date of the birth of Christ.

I didn't say that it was a potential date for the birth, but for His conception. It takes 9 months for the birth afterwards. Therefore, it would place his birth during the fall feast(around end of September beg. of october). We know the wise men didn't see a newborn baby, so it is possible that they found him Dec 25th when he was 3 months old.

The wise men may have found him when He was 3 months old?

That's a new thought that I never heard before.

Interesting.

Zacharius (John the Baptist's father) was serving in the temple during the course of Abia. (Luke 1:5) He is told by an angel that his wife would have a son. (1:13) Elizabeth conceives shortly after. (1:24) Six months later the angel tells Mary she will conceive. (1:26,36) Mary stays with Elizabeth for three months till John is born. (1:56) Jesus is born six months after John the Baptist.

So when was Zacharias in the temple?
Well there are TWO possibilities.

The priests of the 8th course of Abia served in the 10th week (end of May/June) as well as the 34th week (late Sept/Oct). So adding at least two weeks for conception to occur John was probably born either in March (around Passover time) OR early in July.

Add six months to that would place Jesus birth either in
September (the seventh month of the Jewish calendar) OR late December (about the time the world celebrates Christ's birth.)

The purpose is not to convince anyone of a specific date, as the date is not given in inspiration, but rather to show that there is evidence that the end of December or beginning of January is one of the possible times.

The idea some like to promote that people were ordered to go to their city of birth during a festival time is not really practical. It would have ruined the festival as people had to travel to the place of their birth (or origins) to be taxed, and for many that was NOT necessarily to Jerusalem. They couldn't be in both places at once.

Seems more reasonable that Caesar Augustus would order such a command at a time when there was no harvest or festival to attend to.

But what is even more meaningful to me is the following:

Micah, the Jewish prophet who foretold the Messiah's birth in Bethlehem, also prophesied,

So here Micah foretells that the Messiah, who embodied the hope of the Kingdom, "was to be revealed from Migdal Eder - 'the Tower of the Flock'."

What and where is this “tower of the flock”.
It is just outside of Bethlehem on the way to Jerusalem.
Migdal Edar was the watchtower that guarded the Temple flocks that were being raised to serve as sacrificial animals in the Temple. These were not just any flock and herd. The shepherds who kept them were men who were specifically trained for this royal task. They were educated in what an animal, that was to be sacrificed, had to be and it was their job to make sure that none of the animals were hurt, damaged, or blemished." These lambs were apparently wrapped in "swaddling cloth" to protect them from injury and also used to wrap the Lord Jesus.

Thus, with the establishment of Temple worship in Jerusalem, the fields outside of Bethlehem became the place where a special group of shepherds raised the lambs that were sacrificed in the Temple. Unlike other shepherds, these shepherds kept these flocks outside year round, only the birthing ewes were brought into the tower where the new born lambs were carefully tended.

When we study the symbolism of the sacrificial types, "Migdal Edar", (the tower of the flock) at Bethlehem is the perfect place for Christ to be born. He was born in the very birthplace where tens of thousands of lambs, which had been sacrificed to prefigure Him. God promised it, pictured it, and performed it at "Migdal Edar". It all fits together, for that's the place where sacrificial lambs were born! Jesus was born in Bethlehem, at the birthing place of the sacrificial lambs that were offered in the Temple in Jerusalem which Micah 4:8 calls the "tower of the flock."

The problem with that view is that it is not talking about the birth of Christ. Look carefully at the text once again:

"In that day, says the Lord,
I will assemble the lame,
I will gather the outcast
And those whom I have afflicted;
I will make the lame a remnant,
And the outcast a strong nation;
So the Lord will reign over them in Mount Zion
From now on, even forever.

And you, O tower of the flock,
The stronghold of the daughter of Zion,
To you shall it come,
Even the former dominion shall come,
The kingdom of the daughter of Jerusalem."

Notice that Micah is prophesying about the REIGN of the Messiah, not his birth. And then he says:

"And you, O tower of the flock (the stronghold of the daughter of Zion), to you shall it come ..."

Jesus is called THE TOWER of the flock and also THE STRONGHOLD of the daughter of Zion (i.e. THE HEAD of the Church). Notice the parallelism to explain meaning of THE TOWER. To him was going to come something. And what was that something going to be? "Even the former dominion shall come, the kingdom of the daughter of Jerusalem."

The prophecy has nothing to do with the birth of Christ, but his status within the Church. He is that strong tower and that stronghold and that abiding rock.

////

And I suppose this verse just a couple verses down from Micah 4:8 also is NOT talking about Christ's birth according to you???




These verses are speaking of the coming of the Messiah and that includes His birth.

The parallels are obvious;




Christ was coming to deliver them --
He would come to Bethlehem to the Tower of the flock as the LAMB of God.

But of course they didn't want that kind of a king. The clues were there but most didn't see it.

Unfortunately, Micah 4:8 is not saying the same thing as 5:2. Read it again, carefully.

1. In 4:8, Jesus IS CALLED "the tower of the flock".
2. In 5:2 Jesus COMES OUT OF "Bethelem Ephrathah".

He is called "the tower of the flock" which is IN "Bethlehem Ephrathah". See? It does not say that he was born in the tower, but is THE TOWER in Bethlehem. He is "the stronghold of the daughter of Zion" (4:8) who proceeds out of Israel (5:2). There is a difference.

///

I differ from your opinion.\

Migdal Eder, literally "Tower of Eder" is a place.
It is mentioned several times in Jewish writings.
It was an actual, literal tower. A watch tower with space on the first floor that was used as "stable" where specially trained shepherds raised sacrificial lambs, during the temple era.
It was located close to Bethlehem on the way to Jerusalem.

Another mention of the tower in the Bible is in Genesis 35:21
"Israel [Jacob] journeyed on, and pitched his tent beyond the tower of Eder"

Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus, the Messiah, interprets Micah 4:8 as a prophesy indicating that the Messiah would be revealed from the "tower of the flock" (Migdal Eder) which is connected with the town of Bethlehem, southeast of Jerusalem.

The deliver and king will come to the Tower of the Flock-- the Messiah, who embodied the hope of the Kingdom, "was to be revealed from Migdal Eder - 'the Tower of the Flock'."

It does NOT say HE is the tower in Bethlehem
These are two different verses -- parallel verses
Announcing the coming of the Messiah

Look to Bethlehem (the town the Messiah will come from)
Look to the tower (the specific location where He will come)

LOOK CAREFULLY, read and understand the vision:

"And you, O tower of the flock,
The stronghold of the daughter of Zion,
To you shall it come,
Even the former dominion shall come,
The kingdom of the daughter of Jerusalem."

1. In line 1, who is "O tower of the flock"?
2. In line 3, who is "you" and what is "it"?

Don't you see that TO the tower was going to come dominion? Not that the Lamb was going to come to the tower, but the Lamb was going to be like the tower and to him the former dominion was going to come.

Do I have to teach you English now? Be not stubborn, nor be haughty. See that I speak righteousness to you and not falsehood; for false prophets will surely die.

////

Are you claiming to be a prophet, and everyone who does not agree with you is stubborn and a false prophet?

WOW!!!

I'm sorry but that is not a convincing argument -- indeed it sounds like it is coming from a haughty person!



As to the English --

4:6 In that day, saith the LORD, will I assemble her that halteth, and I will gather her that is driven out, and her that I have afflicted;

Yes, this is talking about the coming of the Messiah --


4:7 And I will make her that halted a remnant, and her that was cast far off a strong nation: and the LORD shall reign over them in mount Zion from henceforth, even for ever.

The kingdom, as Jesus explained in many of His parables began when Christ was accepted and reigned in the heart and minds of the people, this was "the first dominion, and must take place before the glorious kingdom which is still future.
It was this first kingdom of the heart and mind where the Lord gathers His people.

Examples:
"The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: ....
"The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed,...
"Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened unto a certain king, which would take account of his servants. ....


Indeed Christ is the promised KING!





4:8 And thou, O tower of the flock, the strong hold of the daughter of Zion, unto thee shall it come, even the first dominion; the kingdom shall come to the daughter of Jerusalem.

This is the verse in question.

To what will this "kingdom of grace" come?
It comes to the "tower of the flock --
It comes to the daughter of Jerusalem.

It is Christ's coming that BRINGS the kingdom to the people.
This is the promise of the coming king --

By coming to the "Migdal Eder" the very place where the lambs were born and raised for the sacrificial services prefiguring HIM, -- the REALITY came -- bringing the reality of salvation which is only through His sacrificial death, by which the kingdom of grace comes to the people.



4:9 Now why dost thou cry out aloud? [is there] no king in thee? is thy counsellor perished? for pangs have taken thee as a woman in travail.


Why are they crying --
They are crying because they weren't experiencing this kingdom. They were crying because of the darkness of sin, and they were experiencing the terrible results of their sin and there seemed NO HOPE --

4:10 Be in pain, and labour to bring forth, O daughter of Zion, like a woman in travail: for now shalt thou go forth out of the city, and thou shalt dwell in the field, and thou shalt go [even] to Babylon; there shalt thou be delivered; there the LORD shall redeem thee from the hand of thine enemies.

The Jewish nation was about to experience the destruction of their country by Babylon. Many would die and the rest taken captive into Babylon. But Micah is telling them -- there is hope!
They would be brought back to their land, and the Messiah WOULD be born and bring in the kingdom of Grace --

and yes, those who enter into that kingdom, will ultimately enjoy the glorious kingdom established after sin is forever banished.

LOOK CAREFULLY, read and understand the vision:

"And you, O tower of the flock,
The stronghold of the daughter of Zion,
To you shall it come,
Even the former dominion shall come,
The kingdom of the daughter of Jerusalem."

1. In line 1, who is "O tower of the flock"?
2. In line 3, who is "you" and what is "it"?

Just answer the two simple questions, that's all.

///

I think we are entering the battle of the different Bible versions here. Your version completely changes the meaning of the verse.

But first notice:



Notice the personification of a PLACE in both passages.

To you Bethlehem
To you Tower of the Flock

The YOU (or thou) in both cases refers to a place -- a literal place.
The town of Bethlehem and the tower that was used as the place where the temple animals were raised for the sacrificial rituals.


Then the translation you are using changes "first" to "former"
but is that correct? They didn't need Christ to come to earth to restore the former sinful dominion that they had before Babylon's invasion.

BUT they did need Christ, the Son of God, to come to offer them the first dominion of the kingdom of grace. The hope of salvation, to open wide the door so they could boldly approach the throne of grace and receive pardon and promise of eternal life in the kingdom of glory.

Then your version changes the whole meaning:

from
"the kingdom shall come to the daughter of Jerusalem."
to
"The kingdom of the daughter of Jerusalem"

Your translation gives a completely different rendering of the text implying that the former kingdom of the daughter of Jerusalem will be given to the "tower of the flock".

Whereas the KJV shows that a Savior would come and bring a first kingdom TO the daughter of Jerusalem.

So the question is == which translation do I accept?

I'll stick to the translation of the KJV


To you oh tower of the flock (you = the tower, the place where the REALITY -- the true Lamb of God will be born, -- will come)
to you it shall come (it = salvation through the Lamb)
The kingdom of grace will come TO the daughter of Jerusalem.

"Then the translation you are using changes "first" to "former""

Does the English ever allow "the former" to be "the first"?


And since you are talking English here, and not manuscripts, what should it say and why?

"Former" means it happened earlier. It was. True it could mean what first happened will happen again.
If we go back all the way to what Adam lost in the garden of Eden.



It's true Christ came to restore the dominion lost by Adam.
But there was also a new, first kingdom, that Christ established at His first coming. A kingdom that people need to be citizens in, to qualify to partake in the final restoration of the lost dominion.



People needed Christ, the Son of God, to come to ratify the kingdom of grace. The kingdom of grace which was ratified at the cross. Without it, Christ's victory to regain the dominion would be of no hope to mankind. The kingdom of grace is the hope of salvation, to open wide the door so they could boldly approach the throne of grace and receive pardon and promise of eternal life in the kingdom of glory.


The kingdom of God?s grace is now offered to everyone, as day by day hearts that have been full of sin and rebellion yield to the sovereignty of His love. But the full establishment of the kingdom of His glory will not take place until the second coming of Christ to this world.
The lost dominion won't be re-established until then. But Christ came to earth to ratify the kingdom of grace. That has been established!

That night just over 2000 years ago, the Creator of the universe left the realms of glory and came to this dark world, in it's darkness. Matt. 4:16 The people which sat in darkness saw great light; and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death light is sprung.

Like the little lambs born in the tower, just outside of Bethlehem, for the sole purpose to be sacrificed in Jerusalem. Yet their blood could never actually take away sin. So the Lamb of God was born, to die the greatest sacrifice, to take away our sin. Bringing light and life.

Got to watch the text in those new versions..