Re: the Ancient of Days

Again, you miss that the footnote points out that the passage does not ONLY refer to David. And keep in mind that this one passage is not the totality of scriptural teaching on the eternal nature of the Messiah. Why do you insist on putting it in a vacuum, disregarding the rest of the Bible, to try to claim the Messiah was merely a man and not the eternal God?

I'll saythis one more time:

It is the KING Himself whose origins are ancient, not the king's ancestral line. David's "goings forth" may have been considered "days of old" to Micah, but this phrase can also be used to describe God Himself (who is eternal).

Again, it is the future (to Micah) King who would be from "days of old", not David or his line. For a King who was as yet unborn to have ancient origins is a clear illustration of the fact that the Messiah would both precede and follow David (see Matthew 22:45).

There are many other passages about the Messiah that you need to consider. Here are some good links on the nature of God:

http://www.allaboutgod.com/
http://preceptaustin.org/attributes_of_god.htm

Tweet