Jesus is Michael
- Thread starter Keiw
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
no one is good but God alone
is Jesus good?
you are going to have to answer that in your heart even if, in your carnal vanity, you want to save face and refuse to reply here.
go ahead and mock me if that's what you think is best.
I invite you to explain why you say capitalization is irrelevant. Neither Hebrew or Greek uses capital letters. In English we capitalize titles and names. So translators have to decide when a title or name is in the text to add the capital letters. They decided “I Am” is a title or name in Exodus 3:14 but not in John 8:58. Keep in mind sir that these translators were trinitarian yet their conscience did not allow them to twist this verse into a trinitarian support.
There are only 10 translators who make it look like Jesus is speaking nonsense. The other great majority of translators, who most if not all believe in the trinity, resist the temptation to leave off the pronoun to try to add a verse to support the otherwise scripturally anemic argument for the trinity.
My, the knots you people tie to stick to your doctrine of men. Jesus didn’t he was equal to his Father. He simply said God is his Father. No one but a trinitarian would think that the relationship of a father to a son implies being coequal and certainly not coeternal. The Jews never believed the Messiah was part of a triune god.
If you are going to base your belief in Jesus being equal to God on John 5:18, maybe you should include Jesus’ response in verse 19.
“Therefore, in response Jesus said to them: “Most truly I say to you, the Son cannot do a single thing of his own initiative, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever things that One does, these things the Son does also in like manner.”
Last edited:
Interestingly most if not all of those translators were trinitarians like you. They just saw the need to translate John 8:58 so it makes sense grammatically and in context instead of trying to create a trinitarian “proof” text. Good for them! Don’t be too concerned though. The majority of trinitarian translators did not exhibit such integrity.
Last edited:
Ronald Nolette
Well-Known Member
Well your use of sketchy scholars notwithstanding, ego eimi9 in John 8:58 is just complete improper grammar from the Author of grammar unless He was saying something very specific.
Teh pharisees understood this and tried to kill Him right there! Why? Because He said He was very very old? No, they would have laughed Him off as crazy, but as Jesus said this in Hebrew He would have said: אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה which is Yahweh!
My MY the twister game you play to deny the Word of God! John declared Jesus equal to god! Thomas declared Jesus the Lord of Him and the god of HIm and neither time was either rebuked.
Jesus in His humanity had a beginning. Jesus as God the son is eternal.
Before incarnating Himself as a man- Jesus existed as God in nature. He is not HIs Father, He is the Fathers eternal son! He is equal in essence but inferior in position or authority.
And I do! As the Son is God He will not do anything that is sin. He is perfect in righteousness as His Father! So He obeys HIs father willingly and lovingly for they have a perfect relationship!
GRACE ambassador
Well-Known Member
Amen! And to Complete The Triune GodHead, God, The Holy Spirit, Also
Doubly Humbled Himself "To Be Sent By Both The Father And The Son,"
In A Perfect Relationship!
Amen?
500 Plain And Clear Scriptures FOR JESUS Is Almighty God!
...Not "Michael, the archangel"...
GRACE And Peace...
tigger 2
Well-Known Member
.......
You do know that NT Greek IS koine Greek, do you not? (See the titles of the the quoted sources) Do you not see John 8:58 specifically cited in most of the quoted references? Perhaps if you read my post again with a little care you would find the errors in your response:
John 8:58 (post 409)
Those Jews had asked how Jesus could have possibly known Abraham who had died nearly 2000 years before. Jesus’ reply was obviously an explanation that he had been in existence even before Abraham had been born and was not merely an explanation of identity.
It is ludicrous to interpret this verse with the understanding that Jesus is using the personal name (“Jehovah”) or an exclusive title (such as “Most High” - Luke 6:35; Luke 1:32; Ps. 83:18 ASV, KJV) to identify himself: “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, Jehovah.” Or, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, the Most High.” So, the immediate context simply does not allow a “title of God” interpretation for the use of ego eimi in this verse!
The Jews had angrily implied that Jesus was a liar for claiming to be older than his apparent years. “You’re not even 50 years old and yet [you say] you have seen Abraham!” Jesus’ most likely response, then, would have been about his age --- his actual existence 1900 years before being born in Bethlehem (so that he actually could have “seen Abraham”). Therefore he would have said: “Before Abraham was even born, I existed.”
It would be more appropriate (although still clearly false), in light of the context, to show that the person whom the crowd is trying to identify at John 9:9 is claiming this “title” (ego eimi), for that is his reply to those who were questioning his identity (not his earlier existence) - see John 9:9 in any Interlinear New Testament.
Some other uses of ego eimi which may be found in any interlinear Greek-English New Testament are Matt. 26:22, 25; Acts 22:3; Acts 26:29; Acts 27:23. Also, if you have the Greek Septuagint Bible you might examine these uses of ego eimi: 2 Kings (2 Samuel in Hebrew scriptures) 2:20; 15:26; Is. 6:8.
To be continued
Last edited:
tigger 2
Well-Known Member
John 8:58 post continued:
Another reason for the different renderings of John 8:58 by these trinitarian scholars is based on the NT Greek grammar. There are a number of reasons why a present tense verb in NT Greek (such as ego eimi) may be rendered properly in a different tense in English (see Introduction to the Gospel of John in The NIV Study Bible, 1985 ed.). It is difficult to say exactly which reason was used by the various translators of the trinitarian Bibles quoted above. However, it appears that the highly respected trinitarian scholar Dr. James Moffatt may have translated in accordance with the reason cited by the Watchtower Society in its footnote to John 8:58 in the 1969 edition of the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures: “(ego eimi) [is] after the a’orist infinitive clause [‘before Abraham to become’] and hence properly rendered in the perfect tense [‘I have been’].”
A Grammar of New Testament Greek, by J. H. Moulton, Vol. III (by Nigel Turner), p. 62, Edinburgh, 1963, comments specifically on this meaning at John 8:58:
“The present [tense] which indicates the continuance of an action during the past and up to the moment of speaking is virtually the same as perfective, the only difference being that the action is conceived of as still in progress.... It is frequent in the NT: Lk 2:48, 13:7... John 5:6, 8:58 (eimi), 14:9 ... 15:27” - T&T Clark, 1963.
G. B. Winer (“the great Greek grammarian of the 19th century” - Wallace) also tells us:
“Sometimes the Present includes also a past tense (mdv. 108), viz. when the verb expresses a state which commenced at an earlier period but still continues, - a state in its duration as, Jno. xv. 27 [Jn.15:27]..., viii. 58 [Jn 8:58].” - A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament, Andover, 1897, p. 267.
Blass and Debrunner also list the following as NT instances of present tense verbs indicating the duration of an act up to and including the present: Lk 13:7; 15:29; Jn 8:58 (eimi); 15:27 (este); 2 Cor. 12:19. - p. 168 (#322), A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, University of Chicago Press, 1961.
Trinitarian A. T. Robertson also agrees with this understanding of the Greek present tense. He calls it “The Progressive Present” and tells us that such a present tense verb often
“has to be translated into English by a sort of ‘progressive perfect’ (‘have been’)...” - p. 879, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research.
Even A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament by trinitarians Dana and Mantey confirms this understanding:
“b. The present [tense] approaches its kindred tense, the perfect, when used to denote the continuation of existing results [D&M’s emphasis in italics]. Here it refers to a fact which has come to be in the past, but is emphasized as a present reality, as we say, ‘I learn that you have moved’ (that is, information has come to me in the past which I now possess). ....
“To say that this use is ‘present for perfect’ (Gildersleeve: Syntax, p. 87) is not accurately representing the case. It does approach quite closely the significance of the perfect [tense], but stresses the continuance [D&M’s emphasis] of results through present time which the perfect [tense] would not do, for the perfect stresses existence of results but not their continuance. [The ‘perfect indefinite tense’ in English, however, as we have seen, does allow for such an understanding of continuance - T2.] To say [manthano auton elthein], ‘I learn that he has gone,’ has a force which is approximated only by ... ‘I have learned that he has gone’.
“c. Sometimes the progressive present [tense] is retroactive in its application, denoting that which has begun in the past and continues into the present. For the want of a better name, we may call it the present of duration. This use is generally associated with an adverb of time [as ‘from the beginning’ in Jn 15:27 and ‘before Abraham came into existence’ in John 8:58 which both act as ‘adverbs of time’ - T2], and may best be rendered by the English perfect. [Examples of this usage as given by Dana and Mantey are Jn. 15:27 (literally in the NT Greek: ‘from beginning with me you are’ and usually rendered into English as: ‘you have been with me from the beginning’ - RSV); Lk. 13:7; 2 Cor. 12:9 - T2].” - pp. 182, 183, The Macmillan Company, 30th printing, 1965. [material in brackets has been added by me]
Another NT scholar who verifies this is Kenneth L. McKay.
[["Kenneth L. McKay graduated with honours in Classics from the Universities of Sydney and Cambridge. He has taught Greek in universities and theological colleges in Nigeria, New Zealand, and England. Mr. McKay retired from the Australian National University in 1987, after teaching there for 26 years. His articles on ancient Greek syntax in various journals and his book on classical Greek Attic, Greek Grammar for Students, have helped draw attention to the aspectual functions of the verb in Greek from the time of Homer to well beyond that of the New Testament."-back cover of the book A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek, An Aspectual Approach.]]
McKay said in his book, A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek, An Aspectual Approach:
"Tense...4.2.4. Extension from Past. When used with an expression of either past time or extent of time with past implications (but not in past narrative, for which see 4.2.5), the present tense signals an activity begun in the past and continuing to the present time: Luke 13:7...Lu 15:29....Jn 14:9 [Tosouton khronon meth muoon eimi]..have I been with you so long...? ; Ac 27:33...Jn 8:58 [prin Abraam ego eimi], I have been in existence since before Abraham was born...."
Another reason for the different renderings of John 8:58 by these trinitarian scholars is based on the NT Greek grammar. There are a number of reasons why a present tense verb in NT Greek (such as ego eimi) may be rendered properly in a different tense in English (see Introduction to the Gospel of John in The NIV Study Bible, 1985 ed.). It is difficult to say exactly which reason was used by the various translators of the trinitarian Bibles quoted above. However, it appears that the highly respected trinitarian scholar Dr. James Moffatt may have translated in accordance with the reason cited by the Watchtower Society in its footnote to John 8:58 in the 1969 edition of the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures: “(ego eimi) [is] after the a’orist infinitive clause [‘before Abraham to become’] and hence properly rendered in the perfect tense [‘I have been’].”
A Grammar of New Testament Greek, by J. H. Moulton, Vol. III (by Nigel Turner), p. 62, Edinburgh, 1963, comments specifically on this meaning at John 8:58:
“The present [tense] which indicates the continuance of an action during the past and up to the moment of speaking is virtually the same as perfective, the only difference being that the action is conceived of as still in progress.... It is frequent in the NT: Lk 2:48, 13:7... John 5:6, 8:58 (eimi), 14:9 ... 15:27” - T&T Clark, 1963.
G. B. Winer (“the great Greek grammarian of the 19th century” - Wallace) also tells us:
“Sometimes the Present includes also a past tense (mdv. 108), viz. when the verb expresses a state which commenced at an earlier period but still continues, - a state in its duration as, Jno. xv. 27 [Jn.15:27]..., viii. 58 [Jn 8:58].” - A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament, Andover, 1897, p. 267.
Blass and Debrunner also list the following as NT instances of present tense verbs indicating the duration of an act up to and including the present: Lk 13:7; 15:29; Jn 8:58 (eimi); 15:27 (este); 2 Cor. 12:19. - p. 168 (#322), A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, University of Chicago Press, 1961.
Trinitarian A. T. Robertson also agrees with this understanding of the Greek present tense. He calls it “The Progressive Present” and tells us that such a present tense verb often
“has to be translated into English by a sort of ‘progressive perfect’ (‘have been’)...” - p. 879, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research.
Even A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament by trinitarians Dana and Mantey confirms this understanding:
“b. The present [tense] approaches its kindred tense, the perfect, when used to denote the continuation of existing results [D&M’s emphasis in italics]. Here it refers to a fact which has come to be in the past, but is emphasized as a present reality, as we say, ‘I learn that you have moved’ (that is, information has come to me in the past which I now possess). ....
“To say that this use is ‘present for perfect’ (Gildersleeve: Syntax, p. 87) is not accurately representing the case. It does approach quite closely the significance of the perfect [tense], but stresses the continuance [D&M’s emphasis] of results through present time which the perfect [tense] would not do, for the perfect stresses existence of results but not their continuance. [The ‘perfect indefinite tense’ in English, however, as we have seen, does allow for such an understanding of continuance - T2.] To say [manthano auton elthein], ‘I learn that he has gone,’ has a force which is approximated only by ... ‘I have learned that he has gone’.
“c. Sometimes the progressive present [tense] is retroactive in its application, denoting that which has begun in the past and continues into the present. For the want of a better name, we may call it the present of duration. This use is generally associated with an adverb of time [as ‘from the beginning’ in Jn 15:27 and ‘before Abraham came into existence’ in John 8:58 which both act as ‘adverbs of time’ - T2], and may best be rendered by the English perfect. [Examples of this usage as given by Dana and Mantey are Jn. 15:27 (literally in the NT Greek: ‘from beginning with me you are’ and usually rendered into English as: ‘you have been with me from the beginning’ - RSV); Lk. 13:7; 2 Cor. 12:9 - T2].” - pp. 182, 183, The Macmillan Company, 30th printing, 1965. [material in brackets has been added by me]
Another NT scholar who verifies this is Kenneth L. McKay.
[["Kenneth L. McKay graduated with honours in Classics from the Universities of Sydney and Cambridge. He has taught Greek in universities and theological colleges in Nigeria, New Zealand, and England. Mr. McKay retired from the Australian National University in 1987, after teaching there for 26 years. His articles on ancient Greek syntax in various journals and his book on classical Greek Attic, Greek Grammar for Students, have helped draw attention to the aspectual functions of the verb in Greek from the time of Homer to well beyond that of the New Testament."-back cover of the book A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek, An Aspectual Approach.]]
McKay said in his book, A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek, An Aspectual Approach:
"Tense...4.2.4. Extension from Past. When used with an expression of either past time or extent of time with past implications (but not in past narrative, for which see 4.2.5), the present tense signals an activity begun in the past and continuing to the present time: Luke 13:7...Lu 15:29....Jn 14:9 [Tosouton khronon meth muoon eimi]..have I been with you so long...? ; Ac 27:33...Jn 8:58 [prin Abraam ego eimi], I have been in existence since before Abraham was born...."
Ronald Nolette
Well-Known Member
YOu do know that Jesus was Jewish and with the Jews He would have spoke Hebrew right? John was written in Greek but the Spoirit moved him from the recollections of what he heard in Hebrew.
If God wished to convey in HIs Word that jesus "already was" He would have written : Ήμουν ήδη. (imoun edi) not ego eime.
Sorry your argument fails. And all your reasoning's fall short. The Jews knew the name of God as "I am". If Jesus meant any othetr term to just show He was older than Abraham there were plenty of ways God would have inspired John to say it other than "ego eimi or in the Hebrew "ey-yah".
There is no i am that i am in the Hebrew language. Its a trinity mistranslation. Every one on earth who can speak Hebrew will tell you that fact. I will be what i will be is the correct translating from Hebrew.
Ronald Nolette
Well-Known Member
Well I will tell that to the Jewish Messianic believer who is a native speaker- He will get a good chuckle from your watchtower indoctrination.
Depending on construct with all those nice hebrew tenses voices etc. It can be rendered as will be. An example, I will be going to Egypt but I am here is not eh-yah, because it is an indefnite. If a definite is in the sentence then its construct would be different and it would be required to be read: I am going to Egypt three days from now!
The watchtower has no Hebrew scholars. Teh big wigs know that but keep you in the dark!
Actually i looked it up online to be sure. Its truth. Same with Elohim, the Hebrew rule = never plural for the true God.
tigger 2
Well-Known Member
Ehyeh in Ex. 3:14 and the rest of the Pentateuch
Strong’s #1961 does not give the meaning of ehyeh (one of many forms of the ‘be’ verb, hayah), but, instead, the meaning of the overall form (including ehyeh) of the ‘be’ verb hayah.
Ehyeh itself is always rendered as “I will be” in the rest of the writings of Moses (see below).
“Nevertheless, Exod. 3 does not appear to give a new name for the first time but the explanation of a name known already [YHWH] but now identified as the saving God of Israel....” - The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, p. 69, Vol. 2, Zondervan, 1986.
In its commentary on Exodus 3:14,15, the JPS Tanakh, Jewish Study Bible, Oxford Edition states:
"14: God's proper name disclosed in the next verse is YHVH (spelled yod-heh-vav-heh. In Heb., in ancient times, the "vav" was pronounced "w"). But here God first tells Moses its meaning; ehyeh-asher-ehyeh, probably best translated as "I will be what I will be, …. 15: The LORD: The Heb states God’s name, YHVH, (meaning, according to v. 14): “He Will Be.” - Oxford University Press, 2004.
Notice how ehyeh was translated at Ex. 3:14 in the following Bibles: Moffatt’s translation - “I WILL BE”; Byington’s - “I WILL BE”; Rotherham’s - “I WILL BECOME.” In addition were the following alternate readings in footnotes: American Standard Version - “I WILL BE”; NIV Study Bible - “I WILL BE”; Revised Standard Version - “I WILL BE”; New Revised Standard Version - “I WILL BE”; New English Bible - “I WILL BE”; Revised English Bible - “I WILL BE”; Holman Christian Standard Bible - "I WILL BE"; Living Bible - “I WILL BE”; Good News Bible - “I WILL BE.”
The Encyclopedia Britannica had this to say on this subject:
“The writer of Exodus 3:14-15 ... explains it [the meaning of God’s name] by the phrase EHYEH asher EHYEH (Ex. iii., 14); this can be translated ‘I am that I am’ or more exactly ‘I am wont to be that which I am wont to be’ or ‘I will be that which I will be.’” - p. 995, 14th ed., v. 12.
Although it takes some effort to further check out the meaning of ehyeh, it is worth it. With a good Hebrew-English Interlinear Bible you can prove to yourself that ehyeh should be translated “I will be” (or a similar rendering) at Ex. 3:14.
In contrast to the paucity of evidence for an “I am” interpretation of ehyeh you will find that all of the books of Moses (the Pentateuch), including Exodus, of course, and the book of Joshua always use ehyeh to mean “I will be.” The list of all uses of ehyeh in the writings of Moses can be found below. Check out the various translations of these scriptures. A Hebrew interlinear will back up what I have listed.
2 Samuel 7:14 in the annotated list is quoted in the New Testament scriptures at Hebrews 1:5. Notice that when ehyeh (2 Sam. 7:14) was translated into the NT Greek by the inspired Bible writer at Heb. 1:5, he didn’t write ego eimi (“I am”) but ego esomai (“I will be”)! (Esomai is also used at 2 Sam. 7:14 in the Septuagint, the ancient Greek OT,)
Ezekiel 11:20 in the list is also quoted in the NT at Heb. 8:10. Ehyeh in Ezekiel 11:20 is translated as "I will be," of course, and the quoting of this word by the NT writer in Heb. 8:10 is esomai ("I will be") not ego eimi (“I am”). (Ego esomai is used at Ezek. 11:20 in the Septuagint also.)
Conversely, the trinitarian United Bible Societies and trinitarian scholar Delitzsch both translated the Greek “I will be” of Rev. 21:7 into the Hebrew ehyeh. - See their Hebrew New Testaments.
Not only is ehyeh overwhelmingly translated “I will be” instead of “I am,” but in the vast majority of these instances you will find Jehovah speaking and declaring his “power and enduring presence with [his people]” precisely as was explained above in the New Bible Dictionary statement explaining ehyeh at Ex. 3:14 !
The trinitarian Today’s Dictionary of the Bible, 1982, Bethany House, pp. 330-331, says of Ex. 3:14 -
“It has been rendered, ‘I WILL BE that I WILL BE’ as an indication of God’s sovereignty and immutability” and “the translation ... that probably comes closest to the intention of God at this point is, ‘I will be there’.”
Also see the strongly trinitarian standard reference The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Eerdmans, 1984 printing, Vol. 2, p. 1254 (#3), p. 1266 (#5), and p. 1267 (#9), and the trinitarian A Dictionary of the Bible, Hastings, Vol. 2, pp. 199, 200, Hendrickson Publ., 1988 printing.
The clear testimony of the evidence shows that Ex. 3:14 incorrectly translates ehyeh as “I am” in some trinitarian Bible translations, and that it should be rendered as something closer to “I will be.”
(Also take special note of the fact that all other uses of ehyeh found in the first five books [by Moses] always use ehyeh to mean "I will be"!)
Exodus 3:14: Verse in question - see above.
Now look up all the other scriptures which use ehyeh in the rest of Moses’ writings and see how they are translated:
Genesis 26:3 (Jehovah: "I will be with you" NRSV)
Genesis 31:3 (Jehovah: "I will be with you" NRSV)
Exodus 3:12 (Jehovah: I will be with you" NRSV)
Exodus 4:12 (Jehovah: "I will be with your mouth" NRSV)
Exodus 4:15 (Jehovah: "I will be with your mouth" NRSV)
Deuteronomy 31:23 (Moses: "I will be with you" NRSV)
Exodus 3:14 is incorrectly rendered as “I am” (and even capitalized) in many trinitarian translations. One may disagree, but, in all honesty, he should at least admit that the evidence is not in his favor.
Strong’s #1961 does not give the meaning of ehyeh (one of many forms of the ‘be’ verb, hayah), but, instead, the meaning of the overall form (including ehyeh) of the ‘be’ verb hayah.
Ehyeh itself is always rendered as “I will be” in the rest of the writings of Moses (see below).
“Nevertheless, Exod. 3 does not appear to give a new name for the first time but the explanation of a name known already [YHWH] but now identified as the saving God of Israel....” - The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, p. 69, Vol. 2, Zondervan, 1986.
In its commentary on Exodus 3:14,15, the JPS Tanakh, Jewish Study Bible, Oxford Edition states:
"14: God's proper name disclosed in the next verse is YHVH (spelled yod-heh-vav-heh. In Heb., in ancient times, the "vav" was pronounced "w"). But here God first tells Moses its meaning; ehyeh-asher-ehyeh, probably best translated as "I will be what I will be, …. 15: The LORD: The Heb states God’s name, YHVH, (meaning, according to v. 14): “He Will Be.” - Oxford University Press, 2004.
Notice how ehyeh was translated at Ex. 3:14 in the following Bibles: Moffatt’s translation - “I WILL BE”; Byington’s - “I WILL BE”; Rotherham’s - “I WILL BECOME.” In addition were the following alternate readings in footnotes: American Standard Version - “I WILL BE”; NIV Study Bible - “I WILL BE”; Revised Standard Version - “I WILL BE”; New Revised Standard Version - “I WILL BE”; New English Bible - “I WILL BE”; Revised English Bible - “I WILL BE”; Holman Christian Standard Bible - "I WILL BE"; Living Bible - “I WILL BE”; Good News Bible - “I WILL BE.”
The Encyclopedia Britannica had this to say on this subject:
“The writer of Exodus 3:14-15 ... explains it [the meaning of God’s name] by the phrase EHYEH asher EHYEH (Ex. iii., 14); this can be translated ‘I am that I am’ or more exactly ‘I am wont to be that which I am wont to be’ or ‘I will be that which I will be.’” - p. 995, 14th ed., v. 12.
Although it takes some effort to further check out the meaning of ehyeh, it is worth it. With a good Hebrew-English Interlinear Bible you can prove to yourself that ehyeh should be translated “I will be” (or a similar rendering) at Ex. 3:14.
In contrast to the paucity of evidence for an “I am” interpretation of ehyeh you will find that all of the books of Moses (the Pentateuch), including Exodus, of course, and the book of Joshua always use ehyeh to mean “I will be.” The list of all uses of ehyeh in the writings of Moses can be found below. Check out the various translations of these scriptures. A Hebrew interlinear will back up what I have listed.
2 Samuel 7:14 in the annotated list is quoted in the New Testament scriptures at Hebrews 1:5. Notice that when ehyeh (2 Sam. 7:14) was translated into the NT Greek by the inspired Bible writer at Heb. 1:5, he didn’t write ego eimi (“I am”) but ego esomai (“I will be”)! (Esomai is also used at 2 Sam. 7:14 in the Septuagint, the ancient Greek OT,)
Ezekiel 11:20 in the list is also quoted in the NT at Heb. 8:10. Ehyeh in Ezekiel 11:20 is translated as "I will be," of course, and the quoting of this word by the NT writer in Heb. 8:10 is esomai ("I will be") not ego eimi (“I am”). (Ego esomai is used at Ezek. 11:20 in the Septuagint also.)
Conversely, the trinitarian United Bible Societies and trinitarian scholar Delitzsch both translated the Greek “I will be” of Rev. 21:7 into the Hebrew ehyeh. - See their Hebrew New Testaments.
Not only is ehyeh overwhelmingly translated “I will be” instead of “I am,” but in the vast majority of these instances you will find Jehovah speaking and declaring his “power and enduring presence with [his people]” precisely as was explained above in the New Bible Dictionary statement explaining ehyeh at Ex. 3:14 !
The trinitarian Today’s Dictionary of the Bible, 1982, Bethany House, pp. 330-331, says of Ex. 3:14 -
“It has been rendered, ‘I WILL BE that I WILL BE’ as an indication of God’s sovereignty and immutability” and “the translation ... that probably comes closest to the intention of God at this point is, ‘I will be there’.”
Also see the strongly trinitarian standard reference The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Eerdmans, 1984 printing, Vol. 2, p. 1254 (#3), p. 1266 (#5), and p. 1267 (#9), and the trinitarian A Dictionary of the Bible, Hastings, Vol. 2, pp. 199, 200, Hendrickson Publ., 1988 printing.
The clear testimony of the evidence shows that Ex. 3:14 incorrectly translates ehyeh as “I am” in some trinitarian Bible translations, and that it should be rendered as something closer to “I will be.”
(Also take special note of the fact that all other uses of ehyeh found in the first five books [by Moses] always use ehyeh to mean "I will be"!)
Exodus 3:14: Verse in question - see above.
Now look up all the other scriptures which use ehyeh in the rest of Moses’ writings and see how they are translated:
Genesis 26:3 (Jehovah: "I will be with you" NRSV)
Genesis 31:3 (Jehovah: "I will be with you" NRSV)
Exodus 3:12 (Jehovah: I will be with you" NRSV)
Exodus 4:12 (Jehovah: "I will be with your mouth" NRSV)
Exodus 4:15 (Jehovah: "I will be with your mouth" NRSV)
Deuteronomy 31:23 (Moses: "I will be with you" NRSV)
Exodus 3:14 is incorrectly rendered as “I am” (and even capitalized) in many trinitarian translations. One may disagree, but, in all honesty, he should at least admit that the evidence is not in his favor.
tigger 2
Well-Known Member
Exodus 3:14. Those Bible translators who follow the King James tradition translate Ex. 3:13-15 like this:
"13) And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? What shall I say unto them? 14) And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM; and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel I AM hath sent me unto you. 15) And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, Jehovah, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations." - ASV (compare JB; LB; and NEB)
First, we need to note that the original manuscripts (and all copies for many hundreds of years thereafter) had no punctuation and no capitalization (for both Old Testament Hebrew and New Testament Greek). So the only reason "I AM" is capitalized in modern Bibles is that many modern translators believe it should be considered a title or name for God.
The two main points to be made about Exodus 3:14 in the original Hebrew are: (1) the word sometimes translated "I AM" in English is not the name of God but merely an explanation of the meaning of his only personal name ("Jehovah" - English form; "Yahweh" - possible Hebrew form), and (2) translating that Hebrew word (ehyeh) as "I Am" is probably incorrect.
You can see the truth of point #1 by carefully examining Ex. 3:13-15. Especially when you see a translation that honestly translates God's name in Ex. 3:15 as "Yahweh" or "Jehovah" (not "LORD"). Notice where God used the word "name" in Ex. 3:15 and what it refers to. (Compare Ps. 83:16, 18 - "fill their faces with shame; that they may seek thy name, O LORD [mistranslation of "Jehovah" - see ASV] .... That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth." - King James Version.)
The New Bible Dictionary, Douglas (ed.), 1962, pp. 478, 479, published by Eerdmans, explains it well:
"Strictly speaking, Yahweh [or `Jehovah' in traditional English form] is the only `name' of God .... Elohim [the Hebrew word translated `God' in English] says, `this is my name for ever' (Ex. 3:15). Yahweh [Jehovah], therefore, in contrast with Elohim [`God'], is a proper noun, the name of a person .... He [Moses] inquires, `when ... the children of Israel ... shall say, what (mah [in Hebrew]) is his name? What shall I say unto them?' (Ex. 3:13). The normal way to ask a name is to use the [Hebrew] pronoun mî; to use mah invites an answer which goes further, and gives the meaning (`what?') or substance of the name.
[[For an example of this, see Ex. 13:14 in the NIV Interlinear Hebrew-English Old Testament. Mah, exactly as in Ex. 3:13, clearly has this meaning and is even translated in the NRSV; RSV; REB; NAB; NJB; JB; NIV as "what does this mean?" Perhaps an even better parallel is the use of mah at Ezekiel 37:18 where mah is rendered as "what you mean" in KJV; NASB; RSV; NRSV; REB; NAB; NJB; JB; NIV; etc. Also carefully examine the use of mah at Gen. 37:10; Ex. 12:26; Deut. 6:20; 29:24; Josh. 4:6, 21; 1 Sam. 4:6, 14; 15:14; Ezek. 17:12; 18:2]]
"This helps to explain the reply, namely, `I AM THAT I AM'; and He said, `Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM [ehyeh] hath sent me unto you' (Ex. 3:14). By this Moses would not think that God was announcing a new name, nor is it called a `name'; it is just the inner meaning of the name Moses [and the Israelites already] knew. We have here a play upon words; `Yahweh' is interpreted by ehyeh. M. Buber translates `I will be as I will be' and expounds it as a promise of God's power and enduring presence with them in the process of deliverance.[15] That something like this is the purport of these words, which in English sound enigmatical, is shown by what follows, `Yahweh [`Jehovah'] the God of your fathers .... this is my name for ever' (15). The full content [meaning] of the name comes first, the name itself follows." (The New Bible Dictionary, 2nd ed., Douglas, 1982, Tyndale House, p. 430, is nearly identical to the above quote also.) - [Material in brackets and emphasis added by me – T2.]
“Nevertheless, Exod. 3 does not appear to give a new name for the first time but the explanation of a name known already but now identified as the saving God of Israel....” - The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, p. 69, Vol. 2, Zondervan, 1986.
"13) And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? What shall I say unto them? 14) And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM; and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel I AM hath sent me unto you. 15) And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, Jehovah, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations." - ASV (compare JB; LB; and NEB)
First, we need to note that the original manuscripts (and all copies for many hundreds of years thereafter) had no punctuation and no capitalization (for both Old Testament Hebrew and New Testament Greek). So the only reason "I AM" is capitalized in modern Bibles is that many modern translators believe it should be considered a title or name for God.
The two main points to be made about Exodus 3:14 in the original Hebrew are: (1) the word sometimes translated "I AM" in English is not the name of God but merely an explanation of the meaning of his only personal name ("Jehovah" - English form; "Yahweh" - possible Hebrew form), and (2) translating that Hebrew word (ehyeh) as "I Am" is probably incorrect.
You can see the truth of point #1 by carefully examining Ex. 3:13-15. Especially when you see a translation that honestly translates God's name in Ex. 3:15 as "Yahweh" or "Jehovah" (not "LORD"). Notice where God used the word "name" in Ex. 3:15 and what it refers to. (Compare Ps. 83:16, 18 - "fill their faces with shame; that they may seek thy name, O LORD [mistranslation of "Jehovah" - see ASV] .... That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth." - King James Version.)
The New Bible Dictionary, Douglas (ed.), 1962, pp. 478, 479, published by Eerdmans, explains it well:
"Strictly speaking, Yahweh [or `Jehovah' in traditional English form] is the only `name' of God .... Elohim [the Hebrew word translated `God' in English] says, `this is my name for ever' (Ex. 3:15). Yahweh [Jehovah], therefore, in contrast with Elohim [`God'], is a proper noun, the name of a person .... He [Moses] inquires, `when ... the children of Israel ... shall say, what (mah [in Hebrew]) is his name? What shall I say unto them?' (Ex. 3:13). The normal way to ask a name is to use the [Hebrew] pronoun mî; to use mah invites an answer which goes further, and gives the meaning (`what?') or substance of the name.
[[For an example of this, see Ex. 13:14 in the NIV Interlinear Hebrew-English Old Testament. Mah, exactly as in Ex. 3:13, clearly has this meaning and is even translated in the NRSV; RSV; REB; NAB; NJB; JB; NIV as "what does this mean?" Perhaps an even better parallel is the use of mah at Ezekiel 37:18 where mah is rendered as "what you mean" in KJV; NASB; RSV; NRSV; REB; NAB; NJB; JB; NIV; etc. Also carefully examine the use of mah at Gen. 37:10; Ex. 12:26; Deut. 6:20; 29:24; Josh. 4:6, 21; 1 Sam. 4:6, 14; 15:14; Ezek. 17:12; 18:2]]
"This helps to explain the reply, namely, `I AM THAT I AM'; and He said, `Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM [ehyeh] hath sent me unto you' (Ex. 3:14). By this Moses would not think that God was announcing a new name, nor is it called a `name'; it is just the inner meaning of the name Moses [and the Israelites already] knew. We have here a play upon words; `Yahweh' is interpreted by ehyeh. M. Buber translates `I will be as I will be' and expounds it as a promise of God's power and enduring presence with them in the process of deliverance.[15] That something like this is the purport of these words, which in English sound enigmatical, is shown by what follows, `Yahweh [`Jehovah'] the God of your fathers .... this is my name for ever' (15). The full content [meaning] of the name comes first, the name itself follows." (The New Bible Dictionary, 2nd ed., Douglas, 1982, Tyndale House, p. 430, is nearly identical to the above quote also.) - [Material in brackets and emphasis added by me – T2.]
“Nevertheless, Exod. 3 does not appear to give a new name for the first time but the explanation of a name known already but now identified as the saving God of Israel....” - The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, p. 69, Vol. 2, Zondervan, 1986.
Ronald Nolette
Well-Known Member
No what you see is a basic definition answer. There ismore than that. go to a Hebrew Parsing guide.
Elohim is the Plural noun. It is a plurality of majesties.
Similar threads
