Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | I am Who I am in New Testament | John 8:24 | Morant61 | 234502 | ||
Greetings Andy! Let's address this point in more detail. First of all, could you share with us your language background? The reason I ask is because many people who have not been trained in Greek or Hebrew (or really any other language than their native language) tend to view translation as simply taking one definition and plugging it into the text anytime a certain word is used. But this doesn't work! Allow me to illustrate. Take the English word 'level'. It can be a noun referring to the horizontal condition of a surface, a tool used to ensure that a surface is level. It can refer to rank or position in a game. It can even be a verb and refer to the acting of making something level, or the attaining of a new rank. My point is that words are fluid and varying contexts and combinations affect the meaning. So, a unique translation is not necessarily a bad thing or wrong. However, a unique translation is not necessarily correct either. So, how about Ex. 3:14. Consider the evidence for this translation. 1) The most basic meaning (according to Strong's) of the verb is 'to exist' or 'to be'. It also has a lot of other meaning depending upon the context. The translation 'I am who I am' does justice to the root meaning of the verb. So, it is not a far stretch. As you mentioned in an earlier text there are some other possibilities. Some view the verbs as future, "I will be who I will be." But, the basic meaning is "I am." By the way, this is not the only place in the Old Testament where this verb is translated as "I am." It is also translated this way in Ps. 31:12, Ps. 71:7, Ps. 88:4, Ps. 102:6, and Ps. 102:7. These are just the examples I found in the KJV of the Psalms. Thus, the translation "I am" is not really far stretched at all. It holds true to the basic meaning of the verb and is actually translated in that manner several times in the Old Testament. 2) A further piece of evidence is the LXX translation itself. You contend that Ex. 3:14 was stretched to make a connection between it and John 8:58, but the Jewish scholars who translated the Hebrew for the LXX did so before Jesus ever uttered these words. They translated Ex. 3:14 as, "I am He who is". I always try to translate a definitive participle as 'He who..." Their translation differs from Ex. 3:14 in that they could have just translated it as "I am who I am", but they maintain the concept of eternal existence that is at the heart of Ex. 3:14. Clearly, they had no Christological axe to grind. It is also clear that while Jesus did not use the entire phrase 'I am who I am', He was definitely alluding to it. It is also clear from the reaction of the Jewish leaders that they understood Him to be alluding to it. After all, one does not try to kill someone for simply stating that they exist. :-) Well, I have to run now my friend! I look forward to our discussion. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
2 | One thread? | John 8:24 | Andy S. | 234522 | ||
Hey Tim, The verses you gave me where the verb is translated as "I am" is not the same exact verb used in Exodus 3:14. The verb in these verses is ha-yi-ti (sorry, I'm not good with putting "accents" on my letters). It seems to me you have slowly gone from a position of Jesus definitely claiming the divine title of Yahweh to him just "alluding to it". So I think you definitely understand my position that participles and Titles don't mix. My God is an all-powerful God and if He wanted me to believe that Jesus was claiming the divine name of God then the Septuagint would read, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, 'I AM (ego eimi) has sent me to you'". Instead the LXX reads, "He who is/the being (HO ON) has sent me to you". Or I would be convinced if John 8:58 read, "before Abraham was born, He who is/The being (HO ON). Tim, exact words are included in titles and titles are specific. Our president of the United States is not called president in some states and master in others. My all-powerful God would not allow there to be any question or controversy concerning a verse that deals with salvation (John 8:24). Especially if this is the only verse in the whole New Testament that supposedly makes it a requirement to believe Jesus is Yahweh. So I made my argument concerning this and I don't think there is much you can say to convince me otherwise unless you find the Septuagint Servetus is talking about that has "ego eimi" in the place of "ho on". Now let's look at the circumstantial evidence. You say Jesus is "alluding" to the Divine Title and my circumstiantial evidence is verse 25 when the Jews ask Him "Who are you?" This sure doesn't sound like Jesus is claiming the Divine Title because this would be a stupid question. Jesus obviously told them who He was by claiming the Title of Yahweh. Now let's look at your circumstantial evidence. You say the reaction of the Jewish leaders points to Jesus "alluding" to the Divine Title. You're using the word "alluding" so we can't say for sure he is claiming to be Yahweh but because the Jews picked up stones to stone Him for blasphemy this seals the deal. But couldn't the Jews be stoning Him for claiming He is the Son of God. Take a look at John 19:7. The context of John chapter 8 is Jesus "alluding" to being the Son of God (8:16,18,19,28,38,40,42,49,54). Also, why did the Jews ask Him 2 chapters later, "How long will You keep us in suspense? If You are the Christ, tell us plainly (John 10:24)". Why would they be asking this? Didn't Jesus claim He was Yahweh in 8:58? And Tim, don't you find it suspicious that the charge against Jesus at his Trial was that He was the Son of God and not the One True God incarnate? I also find it interesting that Iranaeus who was discipled by Polycarp who was discipled by John interpreted John 8:58 to just mean that Jesus existed before Abraham (ccel.org fragment LII). He said nothing that Jesus was claiming the Divine Title of Yahweh. And Tim, why did the council of Nicea last two months. Shouldn't the debate over Jesus' deity have lasted 2 minutes. Athanasius would have pointed to John 8:58 and said, "Debate is over"! I find it extremely interesting reading through the early church fathers (before 325 A.D.)on ccel.org that I find no evidence that Jesus claimed the Divine Name of Yahweh. I gave you a couple of things to think about. Hey Tim, it seems like our posts are overlapping into the same subject. You can respond to both of mine that I gave you but then would you like to just have one thread? God Bless and Happy Thanksgiving! Andy |
||||||
3 | One thread? | John 8:24 | Morant61 | 234533 | ||
Greetings Andy! Happy Thanksgiving to you too my friend! You raise a number of points in this post. I will try to address them all. 1) Strong's number 1961. It is the same verb used in the Psalms, but it does appear to be pointed differently. I don't have the resources here to find out why. So, I'll have to dig some more on that point. 2) LXX: 'Ego eimi' is used in the LXX, but they follow it with the participial form of 'eimi'. So, it ends us reading 'ego eimi ho on'. This was their attempt to capture the same meaning in Greek. 3) Exact titles: Ex. 3:14 actually disproves your contention about exact titles. :-) In the first part of the verse, God says, "I AM WHO I AM". But, in the second part of the verse, God says, "This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.' " So, God Himself didn't even use the exact title in the save verse. 4) Alluding: I think you are reading more in to my use of the term than I intended. What I am trying to say is that 'I am' is a normal verb than everyone used hundreds of times a day. One could say, "I am tired", ect.... But, Jesus used it in a way that does not make sense in normal usage and in a way that would call the hearers attention back to Ex. 3:14. Did they understand exactly who He was? No! Otherwise, they would not have killed Him. But, they understood from His statements that He was claiming something no mere mortal man could possible claim. This is why I used to word 'alluding'. Like many of Jesus' teachings, one could always dig deeper into the meaning of what He was saying. The evidence is there for those who are willing to dig. Unfortunately, the Jewish leaders were not willing to dig deeper. 5) Context: While Jesus certainly mentions His Father in John 8, nowhere in that chapter does He use the phrase 'Son of God'. But, in 8:58 Jesus uses the 'I am' statement, and immediately they pick up stones to stone Him. So, I hold that the contextual evidence is strongly in favor of Jesus claiming to be God. 6) Church fathers and the Council of Nicea: My concern in what Scripture says, not what the church fathers said. At best, their statements (or lack of statements) are anecdotal evidence. As for the Council of Nicea, the length of time had nothing to with people not accepting the Deity of Christ, as only two Bishop rejected His Deity. The length of time had to do with the careful hammering out of the proper wording to express what the Church believed about the nature of Christ. We could condense to one thread! Have a great day my friend. I have to run. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
4 | One thread? | John 8:24 | Andy S. | 234540 | ||
THIS THREAD HAS MOVED TO THE FEED ENTITLED "DIE IN YOUR SINS". THIS DISCUSSION HAS OVERLAPPED AND THIS 2 DIMENSIONED DIALOGUE HAS BECOME 1 DIMENSIONED. THESE ISSUES WILL BE DISCUSSED MORE IN THE THREAD ENTITLED "DIE IN YOUR SINS". | ||||||