that verse that you are using is not translated as 'I AM' by all translators for good reason. We have discussed that verse earlier in this thread.
The mere fact that it is translated by Most as IAM, is indicative of the fact that the authors understood it to convey that meaning. this coupled with all the other facts in scripture concerning Jesus as God make it to clear that Jesus was indeed God
Responses to Bismikaallahuma
I AM WHAT I AM [Part 2]
Sam Shamoun
This is the second part of our rebuttal to this article. If you have not done so yet, please read Part One first.
The authors continue:
Analysis of 'B' Mark
LXX (the last part of Exodus 3:14):
|ho oon = o wn| I AM
|apestalken = apestalken| hath sent me
|metros umas = me proV umaV| unto you.
compare this with John 8:58:
John 8:58:
|prin = prin| before
|Abraam = Abraam| Abraham
|genethai = genesQai| was (or 'came into being')
|egoo eimi = egw eimi| I AM.
Observation:
It is clear that the Greek word that has been used by LXX for "I AM" in "I AM hath sent me unto you" (Exodus 3:14) is 'ho oon' and not 'egoo eimi' as in John 8:58. So they are two different words and have two different meanings, and thus there is no connection between Exodus 3:14 and John 8:58.
RESPONSE:
As we have already conclusively demonstrated in Part One of our rebuttal, Exodus 3:14 refers to the Angel of Yahweh who is actually the preincarnate Christ. Therefore both Exodus 3:14 and John 8:58 have a direct bearing on the person and nature of Christ.
Furthermore, the authors are simply wrong by stating that the words ho on and ego eimi have different meanings, since the context shows that both phrases point to God’s timeless existence, as we shall shortly demonstrate.
TAM
'I Am What I Am' or 'I Am The Being'?
Exodus 3:14 (LXX) uses egw eimi o wn (egoo eimi ho oon) which means "I AM THE BEING", or, "I AM THE EXISTING ONE". The Greek word 'Oon' (wn) is translated several times in the New Testament as 'being', refer to:
Luke 3:23:
And Jesus himself, when he began to teach, was about thirty years of age, being (wn) the son.....
John 7:50:
Nicodemus saith unto them (he that came to him before, being (wn) one of them)
John 10:33:
...and because that thou, being (wn) a man, makest thyself God.
So egw eimi o wn (egoo eimi ho oon) should be translated as "I AM THE BEING" not "I Am what I AM". This attempt (evidence of divinity of Jesus Christ) cannot be sustained because the expression in Exodus 3:14 is different from the expression in John 8:58. This is another proof that throughout the Christian Greek scriptures God and Jesus are never identified as being the same person.
RESPONSE:
It never seems to have dawned on the authors that just because the two expressions are different doesn’t necessarily mean that they are different in meaning. As we shall shortly demonstrate, both expressions are basically synonymous in meaning since they point to the timeless existence of the Lord Jesus Christ. The authors themselves have noted that ego eimi ho on can be translated as "I AM THE EXISTING ONE."
The authors then make the following erroneous claim:
TAM
C) From the above conclusion we know that the expression at John 8:58 is quite different from the one used in Exodus 3:14. That is why the various translators of the New Testament had translated John 8:58 into many ways and had not stick to merely translating it to "I AM":
1869: "From before Abraham was, I have been." The New Testament, by G. R. Noyes.
1935: "I existed before Abraham was born!" The Bible-An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed.
1965: "Before Abraham was born, I was already the one that I am." Das Neue Testament, by Jrg Zink.
1981: "I was alive before Abraham was born!" The Simple English Bible.
1984: "Before Abraham came into existence, I have been." New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.
1999: "The truth is, I existed before Abraham was even born!" New Living Translation by Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.
This is the same with translations from the ancient New Testament manuscripts:
Fourth/Fifth Century (Syriac-Edition): "Before Abraham was born, I have been." A Translation of the Four Gospels From thesyriac of the Sinaitic Palimpsest, by Agnes Smith Lewis, London, 1894.
Fifth Century (Curetonian Syriac-Edition): "Before ever Abraham come to be, I was." The Curetonian Version of the Four Gospels, by F. Crawford Burkitt, Vol. 1, Cambridge, England, 1904.
Fifth Century (Syriac Peshitta-Edition): "Before Abraham existed, I was." The Syriac New Testament Translated Into English From the Peshitto Version, by James Murdock seventh ed., Boston and London, 1896.
Fifth Century (Georgian-Edition): "Before ever Abraham come to be, I was." The Old Georgian Version of the Gospel of John, by Robert P. Blake and Maurice Briere, published in "Patrologia Orientalis," Vol. XXVI, fascicle 4, Paris, 1950.
Sixth Century (Ethiopic-Edition): "Before Abraham was born, I was." Novum Testamentum... Aethiopice (The New Testament in Ethiopic), by Thomas Pell Platt, revised by F. Praetorius, Leipzig, 1899.
Conclusion
The theory of divinity of Jesus through the word "I Am" has not been supported by convincing evidence, so it cannot stand to the scrutiny. Even many of the Gospels as well as the most ancient manuscripts did not use "I AM" in John 8:58, and therefore the word "I AM" in John 8:58 cannot be used as a proof of divinity for Jesus, it is without foundation and a very shaky one at best.
RESPONSE:
First, the reason why different translations of John 8:58 have different renderings has nothing to do with the Septuagint’s rendering of Exodus 3:14. Rather, it has to do with the context of John 8:58. Scholars have noted that the use of ego eimi in the context of John 8:58 is to highlight past existence that continues to the present moment. This is known as PPA, or present of past action still in progress, or simply as EP, extension from past idiom.
The Lord Jesus was claiming to have been in existence prior to the creation of Abraham, and that this existence was continuous.
The different renderings of John 8:58 are attempts to best express the force of the Greek construction in the target language. Yet herein lies the problem, namely the problem of the limitations of the English language. Reformed Christian Scholar and Apologist, Dr. James R. White comments on this problem:
"Allegedly many of these translations are viewing the phrase as what Dr. A. T. Robertson called a ‘progressive present.’ There are many instances in historical narrative or conversation where the Greek will use a present tense verb that is best rendered in English by the perfect tense. John 15:27 would be a good example: ‘because you have been with me from the beginning.’ The verb is in the present tense, but the context makes it clear that it is in reference to both the past and the present. Robertson notes that this is a common idiom in the New Testament, though he also adds the fact that, in his opinion, John 8:58 is ‘absolute’ and should be rendered as such (which he always does in his works). It should also be noted that it is the deficiency of the English that is to blame for the rendering-to place weight on the meaning of the English perfect tense when rendering the Greek present tense in this way would be in error." (White, The Forgotten Trinity- Recovering the Heart of Christi an Belief [Minneapolis MN; Bethany House Publishers, 1998], p. 97; bold emphasis ours)
We therefore see that the authors’ claim that the different readings, both ancient and modern, somehow prove their point to be simply erroneous. The Greek MSS are unanimous that ego eimi is the original rendering. The different translations are simply trying to best explain the meaning of ego eimi in the target language in which John’s Gospel has been translated.
Furthermore, in their haste to try and disprove any connection between Exodus 3:14 and John 8:58 the authors overlooked two essential points. First, the authors overlooked the fact that in the context of John 8:58 Jesus was contrasting Abraham’s creation with his timelessness. In other words, the Lord Jesus was claiming that the reason why Abraham was able to see Jesus is because, unlike Abraham, Jesus was not created and therefore has always existed. Note the context:
"‘Most assuredly, I say to you, if anyone keeps My word he shall never see death.’ Then the Jews said to Him, ‘Now we know that You have a demon! Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and You say, "If anyone keeps My word he shall never taste death.’ Are You greater than our father Abraham, who is dead? And the prophets are dead. WHO DO YOU MAKE YOURSELF OUT TO BE?’ Jesus answered, ‘If I honor Myself, My honor is nothing. IT IS MY FATHER WHO HONORS ME, of whom you say that He is your God. Yet you have not known Him, but I know Him. And if I say, "I do not know Him," I shall be a liar like you; but I do know Him and keep His word. Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.’ Then the Jews said to Him, ‘You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?’ Jesus said to them, ‘Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was (genesthai- came into being), I AM.’ Then they took up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by." John 8:51-59 NKJV
Notice here that Abraham is said to have come into existence (genesthai) whereas Jesus simply is (ego eimi). Noted Christian scholar and apologist Robert M. Bowman Jr., in his response to Jehovah’s Witnesses, notes:
"What is it about this contrast between genesthai and eimi that has led to such a solid consensus throughout the centuries among biblical scholars that the words contrast created origin with uncreated eternal existence? BY ITSELF, of course, the word eimi does not connote eternal preexistence. However, placed alongside genesthai and referring to a time anterior to that indicated by genesthai, the word eimi (or its related forms), because it denotes simple existence and is a durative form of the verb to be, stands in sharp contrast to the aorist genesthai which speaks of ‘coming into being.’ It is this sharp contrast between being and becoming which makes it clear that in a text like John 8:58 eimi connotes eternality, not merely temporal priority. (Bowman, Jehovah's Witnesses Jesus Christ &The Gospel of John [Baker Book House; Grand Rapids, MI, 1995], p. 114; bold and capital emphasis ours)
And:
"He (Jesus) chose the term THAT WOULD MOST STRONGLY CONTRAST the created origin in time of Abraham with his own timeless eternality, the present tense verb eimi... Thus, had Jesus wished to say what JWs understand him to have saidthat he merely existed for a long time before Abrahamhe could have said so by saying, ‘Before Abraham came into existence, I was,’ using the imperfect tense emen instead of the present tense eimi. (This point was made by Chrysostom and Augustine, and reaffirmed by such Reformers as Calvin, and is also a standard observation found in most exegetical commentaries on John and never, to this author’s knowledge, disputed in such works.) Such a statement would have left open the question of whether or not Jesus had always existed, or whether (like the angels) he had existed from the earliest days of the universe’s history. Or, had he wished to make it clear that (as JWs believe) he had himself come into existence some time prior to Abraham, he could have said so by stating, ‘Before Abraham came into existence, I came into existence’ (by using the first person aorist egenomen instead of eimi), or perhaps more simply, ‘I came into existence before Abraham.’ Having said neither of these things, but rather, having chosen terms which went beyond these formulations to draw a contrast between the created and the uncreated, Jesus’ words must be interpreted as a claim to eternality." (Ibid., pp. 115-116; bold and capital emphasis ours)
(NOTE- For a listing of scholarly reference works endorsing Bowman’s conclusions we recommend our earlier article.)
In light of the preceding considerations, for Christ to claim to be timeless essentially means that he is eternal. Yet for Christ to be eternal means that he is Yahweh God, since only Yahweh is eternal. In other words, Christ being eternal makes him the Existing One (ho on) of Exodus 3:14!
Second, the authors failed to note the connection between Jesus’ I AM sayings with the I AM sayings of Yahweh as recorded in the OT. Note the following verses:
"See now that I myself am He! There is no god besides me. I put to death and I bring to life, I have wounded and I will heal, and no one can deliver out of my hand." Deuteronomy 32:39
Behold, behold that I AM he (ego eimi), and there is no god beside me: I kill, and I will make alive: I will smite, and I will heal; and there is none who shall deliver out of my hands. Deuteronomy 32:39 LXX
"‘All the nations gather together and the peoples assemble. Which of them foretold this and proclaimed to us the former things? Let them bring in their witnesses to prove they were right, so that others may hear and say, ‘It is true. You are my witnesses,’ declares the Lord, ‘and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me. I, even I, am the Lord, and apart from me there is no savior. I have revealed and saved and proclaimedI, and not some foreign god among you. You are my witnesses,’ declares the Lord, ‘that I am God. Yes, AND FROM ANCIENT DAYS I AM HE. No one can deliver out of my hand. When I act, who can reverse it?" Isaiah 43:9-13
All the nations are gathered together, and princes shall be gathered out of them: who will declare these things? Or who will declare to you things from the beginning? Let them bring forth their witnesses, and be justified; and let them hear, and declare the truth. Be ye my witnesses, and I too am a witness, saith the Lord God, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know, and believe (hina gnote kai pisteuseete), and understand that I AM he (ego eimi): before me there was no other God, and after me there shall be none. I am God; and beside me there is no Savior. I have declared and have said; I have reproached, and there was no strange god among you: ye are my witnesses that I am the Lord God, even from the beginning; and there is none that can deliver out of my hands: I will work, and who shall turn it back? LXX
"I, even I, am he who blots out your transgressions, for my own sake, and remembers your sins no more." Isaiah 43:25
I, even I, am he (ego eimi ego eimi - I AM I AM) that blots out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and thy sins; I will not remember them. LXX
"Even to your old age and gray hairs I am he, I am he who will sustain you. I have made you and I will carry you; I will sustain you and I will rescue you. To whom will you compare me or count me equal? To whom will you liken me that we may be compared?" Isaiah 46:4-5
I AM he (ego eimi); and until ye shall have grown old, I AM he (ego eimi): I bear you, I have made, and I will relieve, I will take up and save you. To whom have ye compared me? see, consider, ye that go astray. LXX
"I, even I, am he who comforts you. Who are you that you fear mortal men, the sons of men, who are but grass," Isaiah 51:12
I, even I, am he (ego eimi ego eimi - I AM I AM) that comforts thee: consider who thou art, that thou wast afraid of mortal man, and of the son of man, who are withered as grass. LXX
"Therefore my people will know my name; therefore in that day they will know that it is I who foretold it. Yes, it is I." Isaiah 52:6
Therefore shall my people know my name in that day, for I AM he (ego eimi) that speaks. LXX
In this last passage, the Greek can be read, "that ego eimi is the one who speaks," so that ego eimi functions as the name by which God will be known on the day of the Lord.
According to these passages Yahweh can say that he is the I AM because:
He gives life
He sustains and delivers
No one can deliver out of his hands
He is from ancient of days
He forgives and blots out sins
He alone declares the future and brings it to pass
He comforts his people
Compare Yahweh’s claims with the claims of the Lord Jesus:
"For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it I tell you the truth, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear THE VOICE OF THE SON OF GOD and those who hear will live. For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son to have life in himself... Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear HIS VOICE and come outthose who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned." John 5:21, 25-26, 28-29
"And when evening came, his disciples went down to the sea,and having entered into the boat, they were going over the sea to Capernaum, and darkness had already come, and Jesus had not come unto them,the sea also - a great wind blowing - was being raised, having pushed onwards, therefore, about twenty-five or thirty furlongs, they behold Jesus walking on the sea, and coming nigh to the boat, and they were afraid;and he saith to them, I am [he] (ego eimi), be not afraid;they were willing then to receive him into the boat, and immediately the boat came unto the land to which they were going. John 6:16-21 Young’s Literal Translation
The Greek MSS are unanimous that ego eimi is the original rendering. The different translations are simply trying to best explain the meaning of ego eimi in the target language in which John’s Gospel has been translated.
Peg this rendering, IAM is more consistent with the context as the author points out. Simple pre-existence does and is not coveyed
To much consensus Peg and to many original language specifics for it to be ambiguous
Jesus teaching was based on who the father was. So why do you assume that John is only speaking about Jesus in Revelation. Considering revelation is a vision about the fulfillment of all that God promises, why would John leave the God that Jesus preached about out of the picture?
The assumption is that in Revelations both God and Christ are being spoken about, they are used interchangably, thats the point Peg. Its God which is being refrenced in the nature of Christ at times, with clear indications that he and the father are one as God.
if you could simply understand that the terms Father and Son have more specifically to do with his incarnation. There is simply God Peg, the terms father and Son are anthropomorphic, when applied to God in his eternal existence, there is no father and son, there is only God
If however, God chooses to represent the image of a father and Son throught eternity as it was on earth and as Stephen saw it, he certainly can, that is his choice. But one thing is certain, there is, was and only be God MANIFESTED in these fashions.
The only thing in existence is SPIRIT, the rest is representation, manifestation and reorganization of that material. It is no feat for God to sustain its existence forever, once reorganized or manifested ibn some other form than exact spirit. But the point is he could at an instant return it to its original Spirit form if so chose
Peg argumentation can be a fine art, think about how you are contradicting yourself.
First you say God is a Spirit and that no man has ever seen God, then you imply that Stephen for example saw Jesus standing beside God. if he saw Jesus standing beside God peg then he saw God as well. This would contradict that no man has ever seen God at any time.
If you reply to this is that it was a manifestation of God or vision of God, then it would follow that God could have accomplished the samething in Gen 18, to which you disagree, that it was an angel representing God.
Not at all Peg.
Peg, Sits, Stands, etc are anthro expressions. God in the form of Jesus became or was manifested (born literally) as God Son in a human form. Before this there was simply God, he was simply God
sits at the right hand, whether visible to someone like angels. or to men in visions or OUTRIGHT, is an expression of recievership, ownership and DESIGNATION. The writers can make these kinds of statements because God humbled himself and took on the form of a servant, yet he was still God. He CHOSE to do this for mankind
here is an example. "I will give to you Peter the KEYS to the kingdom", not literal metal objects, just ownership and recievership
You've heard the expression, "Ive got your back". this expression can have menaing whether I am in the persons presence or not
It is amazing that every single deatail concering who and what Christ was (God)and what he did, is wrapped up in just a few words in a single verse. Phil chapter 2. the whole plan is visible and explainable in just a couple of verses.
The the rest of the OT and NT only support further then expressions and contentions advocated in that passage
™ Version 4.2