• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

New World Translation: yea, or nay?

Pegg

Jehovah our God is One
The following is a comparison of 1 Peter 1:11 from a variety of known translations verses the NWT.


New International Version (©1984)
trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow.

NWT
They kept on investigating what particular season or what sort of [season] the spirit in them was indicating concerning Christ when it was bearing witness beforehand about the sufferings for Christ and about the glories to follow these.

You need to look carefully at the context of this verse.
Who is it speaking about? Its not speaking about Christians, or disciples of Christ.... it is speaking about the prophets of old.

“Concerning this very salvation a diligent inquiry and a careful search were made by the prophets ..."
how could the spirit of Christ be in the prophets when they did not know Christ?

This is why the verse in the NWT reads as “...They kept on investigating what particular season or what sort of season the spirit in them was indicating concerning Christ"
Jesus was not in the position of Messiah at that time. The only spirit which was motivating the Isrealites was the holy spirit of God Jehovah, their God. Jesus was the one who God was inspiring them to write about... so they could not have the 'spirit of Christ' inspiring them about himself.

The NWT is a translation that keeps verses like this in context to help the reader grasp the real meaning.
 
Last edited:

Pegg

Jehovah our God is One
a-Which DIR is this?
b-Your Greek is really poor. I believe we discussed this before.

Is Jesus really identifying himself by the title of “I Am” at John 8:58?

Who is the 'I AM'? The King James Version at Exodus 3:14 states: “God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM”?
So here the “I AM” is used as a title for God to indicate that he really existed and would do what he promised.
How the jews understood this phrase is explained by Dr J H Hertz in 'The Pentateuch and Haftorahs',“To the Israelites in bondage, the meaning would be, ‘Although He has not yet displayed His power towards you, He will do so; He is eternal and will certainly redeem you.’

And it is mostly rendered by Jews such as Rashi [a French Bible and Talmud commentator] ‘I will be what I will be.’”

Here is how some other translations render the verse in John 8:58 who adhere to the Jewish understanding of Exodus:

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 Jörg 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.


When you read the verse in such a way, it harmonizes perfectly with the verses where Jesus pre-human life is mentioned such as Colossians 1:15; Proverbs 8:22, 23, 30; Revelation 3:14.

And if you carefully read the context, you'll see that the Jews response to Jesus was to exclaim in vs 57 “you are not yet 50yrs old and you say you have seen Abraham?”
So they didnt take his words to mean that he was the same God identified at Exodus....they took him to mean that he had been alive for a lot longer then his age would have suggested. Again the NWT upholds the truthfulness of Gods word and identifies correctly the context of the passage.
 

Mark2020

Well-Known Member
Is Jesus really identifying himself by the title of “I Am” at John 8:58?
...
This was about Greek. None of what you said really matters.

You even have "I am" in your KIT, as can be seen in the links that I posted before. Here again:

jo558.jpg


For the Jewish interpretation, you might want to check the targums instead of what was said a thousand or two years later.

Targum of Palestine
And Mosheh said before the Lord, Behold, I will go to the sons of Israel, and say to them, The Lord God of your fathers hath sent me to you: and they will say to me, What is His Name ? What shall I say to them ? And the Lord said unto Mosheh, He who spake, and the world was; who spake, and all things were. And He said, This thou shalt say to the sons of Israel, I AM HE WHO IS, AND WHO WILL BE, hath sent me unto you. [JERUSALEM. And the Word of the Lord said to Mosheh, He who spake to the world, Be, and it was; and who will speak to it, Be, and it will be. And he said, Thus shalt thou speak to the sons of Israel, EHEYEH hath sent me unto you.] And the Lord said again unto Mosheh, Thus shalt thou speak to the sons of Israel, The God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Izhak, and the God of Jakob, hath sent me unto you. This is His Name for ever, and this is His Memorial to every generation and generation.
Targum of Onkelos
And Mosheh said before the Lord, Behold, when I am come to the sons of Israel, and say to them, The God of your fathers hath sent me to you, and they say to me, What is His name? what shall I say to them? And the Lord said unto Mosheh, EHEYEH ASHER EHEYEH. And he said, Thus shalt thou speak to the sons of Israel, EHEYEH hath sent me unto you.

"Ego eimi" simply means "I am" (always in present, nowhere in past/present perfect), throughout the whole bible.
 
Last edited:

Mark2020

Well-Known Member
You need to look carefully at the context of this verse.
Who is it speaking about? Its not speaking about Christians, or disciples of Christ.... it is speaking about the prophets of old.

“Concerning this very salvation a diligent inquiry and a careful search were made by the prophets ..."
how could the spirit of Christ be in the prophets when they did not know Christ?

This is why the verse in the NWT reads as “...They kept on investigating what particular season or what sort of season the spirit in them was indicating concerning Christ"
Jesus was not in the position of Messiah at that time. The only spirit which was motivating the Isrealites was the holy spirit of God Jehovah, their God. Jesus was the one who God was inspiring them to write about... so they could not have the 'spirit of Christ' inspiring them about himself.

The NWT is a translation that keeps verses like this in context to help the reader grasp the real meaning.

Rather it is the other way round.
The NWT changes the meaning and context according to their doctrine.
This should be clear by now.
Here is the Westcott and Hort text (remember?):
(1 Peter 1:11 [WHNU])
εραυνωντες εις τινα η ποιον καιρον εδηλου το εν αυτοις πνευμα χριστου προμαρτυρομενον τα εις χριστον παθηματα και τας μετα ταυτα δοξας

(1 Peter 1:11 [NIV])
trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow.

πνευμα χριστου: the Spirit of Christ

Once again, compare the Kingdom interlinear to the NWT

1pet111.jpg

 
Last edited:

Mark2020

Well-Known Member
...such as Colossians 1:15; Proverbs 8:22, 23, 30; Revelation 3:14.
For proverbs, I already showed you the manipulation of the NWT.
For the rest, you can read this from the complete word study dictionary:

πρωτότοκος
prōtótokos; gen. prōtotókou, masc. noun from prṓtos (G4413), first, and tíktō (G5088), to bear, bring forth. Firstborn, preeminent.
(I) Particularly the firstborn of a mother (Mat 1:25; Luk 2:7). It also includes the firstborn of animals (Sept.: Gen 27:19, Gen 27:32; Exo 12:12, Exo 12:29).
(II) Of the saints in heaven, probably those formerly highly distinguished on earth by the favor and love of God, such as patriarchs, prophets, apostles (Heb 12:23; Sept.: of Israel, Exo 4:22).
(III) Prōtótokos is applied to Christ in Luk 2:7, "And she brought forth her firstborn son." Here the word carries none of the theological load which it bears elsewhere when used of Christ. Jesus is simply identified as the first child born to Mary. To be sure, this was no ordinary birth. As the Scripture records Mary's conception was wrought by the Holy Spirit and God Himself was the Father of this child (Luk 1:26-35). So in this text the word is quite ordinary and means simply firstborn.

(IV) Prōtótokos is a theologically significant title used of Christ in five NT passages.
(A) Rom 8:29, "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren." The predetermined goal of salvation for those whom God foreknew is stated to be conformity (súmmorphos [G4832]) to the image (eikṓn [G1504]) of God's Son. The stated purpose of this task is that the Son might be (eis tó eínai [eis {G1519}, unto, for; tó {G3588}, the; eínai {G1511}, to be], in order to be) the firstborn among many brothers. Prōtótokos presents Christ as the preeminent or ranking member of the group. Interpreters have viewed the emphasis as falling upon either the phrase "among many brothers" or the word "firstborn." If the former, then the upshot of Paul's words is that God predestined the elect to glory so that they might share in the inheritance allotted to Christ as God's Son. That is, God desired to include with Christ a host of other but lesser heirs, brothers among whom Christ would stand as preeminent. However, this misses the point of the passage which stresses not the number of the elect but the astonishing goal of their salvation-conformity to the very image of the Son Himself. The latter emphasis seems most fitting. The conformity of sinners into the glorious image of God's Son places Christ in a position of preeminence and glory among them. The ultimate goal of salvation, the glory of God, is thus achieved. Yet, some find it is difficult to understand how the conformity of God's elect would serve to bring about Christ's position as firstborn. How is it that the salvation of sinners makes Christ the firstborn? Is He not so upon His own merit and in consideration of His own character? It can be replied that the effect in view is not one that has reference to Christ Himself or the Father's estimation of Him. Rather, the effect has reference to Christ before man. God's design in original creation was to reflect His glory in man and the world. The fall of Adam defaced the imago Dei and consequently God's preeminence among humanity was lost. Salvation is the restoration of man to His original purpose. Therefore, since the salvation of sinners restores the divine image in man, Christ cannot but be exalted and made preeminent among them.

(B) The word prōtótokos is also used in relation to God's creation referring to Christ's supremacy over it. Jesus Christ cannot be both creator and creature. In Col 1:15 He is placed above His creation when He is called prōtótokos pásēs ktíseōs (pásēs, gen. fem. of pás [G3956], every; ktíseōs, gen. of ktísis [G2937], creation or creature), "the firstborn of every creature," or better still, "the one preeminent over all creation" (a.t.). The next verse makes it adequately clear, "For by him were all things created," meaning that He Himself is not part of creation (cf. Joh 1:3). The meaning approximates that of the noun archḗ (G746), beginning, which means either objectively the first effect, the first created thing, or subjectively the first cause, the source of creation. In Rev 3:14 the noun archḗ in the phrase hē archḗ tḗs ktíseōs toú Theoú is intended to identify Jesus as the first cause or source of creation and not as the first object of creation. Jesus Christ is consequently the archḗ, the ruler over all.
(C) In Col 1:18 we have the use of both archḗ and prōtótokos together in regard to the resurrection. "And he [Christ] is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning [archḗ], the firstborn [prōtótokos] from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence." As stated II, B above, archḗ means the first cause. Hence, archḗ in the clause "who is the beginning [i.e., principle cause or originator]," is parallel to prōtótokos in the clause "firstborn of all creation" in Col 1:15 Both of these expressions assert Christ's supremacy and preeminence over creation. Why then does Paul add that Christ is the "firstborn from among the dead?" Is this not redundant? Not at all. While it should suffice to say that Christ is the firstborn of the entire universe without qualification (heaven / earth, visible / invisible), a question may arise regarding the order of things in the new creation, that is, those things cleansed of sin and renewed by redemption. Recall that the Colossian church was being threatened by incipient gnosticism. In an effort to explain the presence of sin in the universe, this movement taught that the material universe was created by a kind of lesser god and not the highest essence of deity. God was a plē̄́rōma (G4138), a fullness, from whom a succession of lesser beings, called aeons, emanated. The spiritual purity of these beings diminished with each lower order of their existence. Finally, an aeon far enough removed from the origin (archḗ) of deity created the material universe. The gnostics taught that Christ was only one of these aeons. If Paul then says that Christ is the creator of such a universe, some might therefore believe that surely He could not sustain any relation to the new creation. So Paul must say that Christ is supreme in redemption as well as in creation. All this is so that Christ might have "preeminence," the pres. part. prōteúōn from prōteúō (G4409), to be first, to have the preeminence. Prōteúōn is used only in Col 1:18 and indicates not an acquired right to be ruler, preeminent, but an inherent right by virtue of His nature, He, being the creator, deserves to have the preeminence. "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made" (Joh 1:3). The pres. tense indicates permanence and perpetuity. He is always preeminent.
(D) In Heb 1:6 we have another reference to Christ as prōtótokos, "And again, when he bringeth in the first begotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him." In this verse and Rev 1:5 (KJV) prōtótokos is translated "first begotten." Heb 1:6 refers to the Second Coming of the Lord Jesus into the inhabited world (oikouménē [G3563]). As angels were present at His ascension so will they be at His return and must worship Him then. Christ's preeminence is cosmic. He is exalted over even the highest order of celestial creatures.
(E) The last verse where prōtótokos is used of Christ is Rev 1:5 and it follows the idea of Col 1:18 discussed IV, C.
Deriv.: prōtotókia (G4415), the rights of the firstborn.
And if you carefully read the context, you'll see that the Jews response to Jesus was to exclaim in vs 57 “you are not yet 50yrs old and you say you have seen Abraham?”
I hope you try to read it without being biased.

And for Col 1:16, remember how the NWT inserts [other] from nowhere, as in the youtube video that I posted on the previous page.
 
Last edited:

Mark2020

Well-Known Member
Christ is the begotten Son of God. Begotten not made. I know you disagree. In the old testament Christ was quite active. He is the Word of God after all. It was his spirit that indwelt those prophets...
That's nice.
Allow me to add this:
Note from my quote from the Targum in a previous post:
And the Word of the Lord said to Mosheh, He who spake to the world, Be, and it was; and who will speak to it, Be, and it will be. And he said, Thus shalt thou speak to the sons of Israel, EHEYEH hath sent me unto you.
And as I wrote before, the translation must be Spirit of Christ because of the particular use of the nominative and genitive forms used. God resists the proud but gives grace unto the humble.
Even the Kingdom Interlinear, published by the WT, has "Spirit of Christ" (the image is in a previous post). Comparing the Kingdom interlinear with the NWT should be enough to expose the NWT.
 
Last edited:

Pegg

Jehovah our God is One
This was about Greek. None of what you said really matters.
You even have "I am" in your KIT, as can be seen in the links that I posted before. Here again:

jo558.jpg

ok, now I know you dont understand what the interlinear translation is. The left hand side is not a 'translation' in the sense that it is made into readable english....english in the grammatical construct that we use

The left hand side is 'word for word' greek to english...no changes are made to it so it hasnt been translated into 'readable english'. If you look at the actual 'translation into english grammar' on the right hand side you'll see they have translated 'before Abraham to become I am' as "before Abraham came into existence, i have been"

Now if you want to really analyze this, you need to go to Exodus and see what the hebrew expression is there and compare the expression of Jesus to see if they are the same expression.

ʼEh‧yeh′ ʼAsher′ ʼEh‧yeh′... that is what the hebrew expression in Exodus is.

ʼEh‧yeh′ is from the Hebrew verb ha‧yah′ and means “become; prove to be.” God was telling Moses that he would prove to be whatever he needed to be to help the Isrealites. The King James renders Exodus 3:14 simply as “I AM”... but its quite wrong in that it doesnt mean 'i am'

For the Jewish interpretation, you might want to check the targums instead of what was said a thousand or two years later.

Targum of Palestine
Targum of Onkelos


"Ego eimi" simply means "I am" (always in present, nowhere in past/present perfect), throughout the whole bible.
"What is His Name ? What shall I say to them ? And the Lord said unto Mosheh, He who spake, and the world was; who spake, and all things were. And He said, This thou shalt say to the sons of Israel, I AM HE WHO IS, AND WHO WILL BE (ʼEh‧yeh′ ʼAsher′ ʼEh‧yeh′), hath sent me unto you.

God identified himself by the bolded phrase.
In hebrew the phrase is ʼEh‧yeh′ ʼAsher′ ʼEh‧yeh′ The targums render that phrase as "I am He who is and who will be"
In greek, the same phrase is 'E‧go′ ei‧mi ho on' (᾿Εγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν)
But the phrase of Jesus at John 8:58 is different, it is: e‧go′ ei‧mi′

Its not the same expression so Jesus was not identifying himself as God.


 

Mark2020

Well-Known Member
ok, now I know you dont understand what the interlinear translation is. The left hand side is not a 'translation' in the sense that it is made into readable english....english in the grammatical construct that we use
The left hand side is 'word for word' greek to english...no changes are made to it so it hasnt been translated into 'readable english'. If you look at the actual 'translation into english grammar' on the right hand side you'll see they have translated 'before Abraham to become I am' as "before Abraham came into existence, i have been"
γενέσθαι (genesthai) is an infinitve, that's why it is "to become" in the interlinear.
πρὶν = before
πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι is translated "before Abraham was (or came to existence)", there's no problem with that.
But ἐγὼ εἰμί (ego eimi) is in present tense, and there's nothing to change this, so it should be left as is (I am). As I said NOWHERE in the bible is it translated past/ present perfect. ALWAYS present.

εἰμί is present active indicative, it has to be translated in present tense.
Check for yourself:
John 8:58 Greek Texts and Analysis

You will note that the English verbs in the interlinear aren't just infinitive, they are in proper tenses.

ʼEh‧yeh′ is from the Hebrew verb ha‧yah′ and means “become; prove to be.” God was telling Moses that he would prove to be whatever he needed to be to help the Isrealites. The King James renders Exodus 3:14 simply as “I AM”... but its quite wrong in that it doesnt mean 'i am'
Actually it does mean "I AM"
Exodus 3:14 Hebrew Texts and Analysis

Even in the LXX, the first ʼEh‧yeh it is "Ego eimi" (I am)


In greek, the same phrase is 'E‧go′ ei‧mi ho on' (᾿Εγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν)
But the phrase of Jesus at John 8:58 is different, it is: e‧go′ ei‧mi′
Its not the same expression so Jesus was not identifying himself as God.
Actually "on" in "ho on" (in the LXX) is the present participle of the same verb "eimi". It literally means "I am The Being"
It has the same meaning as "I AM" in the absolute sense.
Anyway Jesus was referred to as "ho on" in Revelation.
 

Mark2020

Well-Known Member
I performed a search now on "εγω ειμι" ("Ego eimi" ) in the NT.
I got 47 hits.

In the NWT it is always translated either as "I am" or "It is I".
ONLY in John 8:58 was it rendered "I have been"

I think this shows how biased this translation is.

Not to mention the rendering of θεος (without article) in John 1:1c, which I discussed here:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/121296-john-1-1-anarthrous-theos-big.html
The same word (θεος) without article was rendered many times God in other locations even in the NWT.
 

Pegg

Jehovah our God is One
I performed a search now on "εγω ειμι" ("Ego eimi" ) in the NT.
I got 47 hits.

In the NWT it is always translated either as "I am" or "It is I".
ONLY in John 8:58 was it rendered "I have been"

I think this shows how biased this translation is.

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 Jörg Zink.
1981: “I was alive before Abraham was born!” The Simple English Bible.

Fourth/Fifth century Syriac “before Abraham was, I have been”
A Translation of the Four Gospels from the Syriac of the Sinaitic Palimpsest,

Fifth Century Curetonian Syriac “before ever Abraham came to be, I was” The Curetonian Version of the Four Gospels by James Murdock, seventh
ed., Boston and London, 1896.

Fifth Century “before Abraham existed, I was”
Syriac Pe****ta—Edition: The Syriac New Testament Translated into English
from the Pe****to Version,by James Murdock, seventh ed., Boston and London, 1896.

Fifth Century “before Abraham came to be, I was”
Georgian—Edition: “The Old Georgian Version of the Gospel of John,” by Robert P. Blake and Maurice Brière, published in Patrologia Orientalis, Vol. XXVI, fascicle 4, Paris, 1950.

Sixth Century “before Abraham was born, I was”
Ethiopic—Edition: Novum Testamentum . . . Æthiopice (The New Testament . . . in
Ethiopic), by Thomas Pell Platt, revised by F. Praetorius, Leipzig, 1899.

As you can see in the above list, there are MANY translators who render the verse in this way...the NWT is certainly not biased.
 

Pegg

Jehovah our God is One
γενέσθαι (genesthai) is an infinitve, that's why it is "to become" in the interlinear.
πρὶν = before
πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι is translated "before Abraham was (or came to existence)", there's no problem with that.
But ἐγὼ εἰμί (ego eimi) is in present tense, and there's nothing to change this, so it should be left as is (I am). As I said NOWHERE in the bible is it translated past/ present perfect. ALWAYS present.

No, it is not always present. There are many instances in the NT where the same construction signifies an 'ongoing' state of duration.

A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament, by G. B. Winer, seventh edition, Andover, 1897, p. 267, says: “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 ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς μετʼ ἐμοῦ ἐστέ [apʼ ar‧khes′ metʼ e‧mou′ e‧ste′], viii. 58 πρὶν ᾿Αβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμι [prin A‧bra‧am′ ge‧ne′sthai e‧go′ ei‧mi].”

εἰμί is present active indicative, it has to be translated in present tense.
Check for yourself:
John 8:58 Greek Texts and Analysis

A Grammar of New Testament Greek, by J. H. Moulton, Vol. III, by Nigel Turner, Edinburgh, 1963, p. 62, says: “The Present 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 as still in progress . . . It is frequent in the N[ew] T[estament]: Lk 2:48 1:37 . . . 15:29 . . . Jn 5:6, 8:58 . . . ”
.
 

Badran

Veteran Member
Premium Member
***Mod post***

This thread has been moved to the Scriptural Debates forum.
 

Mark2020

Well-Known Member
No, it is not always present. There are many instances in the NT where the same construction signifies an 'ongoing' state of duration...
Then try to disprove me...
Where else is "Ego eimi" translated in a tense other than present?


A Grammar of New Testament Greek, ...
Daniel B. Wallace. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics - Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament

[FONT=&quot]The text reads: [/FONT]πρὶνἈβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί[FONT=&quot] (“before Abraham was, I am”). On this text, Dennis Light wrote an article in defense of the New World Translation in the Bible Collector (July-December, 1971). In his article he discusses [/FONT]ἐγὼ εἰμί, [FONT=&quot]which the New World Translation renders, “I have been.” Light defends this translation by saying, “The Greek verb eimi, literally present tense, must be viewed as a historical present, because of being preceded by the aorist infinitive clause referring to Abraham’s past” (p. 8). This argument has several flaws in it:
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](1) The fact that the present tense follows an aorist infinitive has nothing to do with how it should be rendered. In fact, historical presents are usually wedged in between aorist (or imperfect) indicatives, not infinitives.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](2) If this is a historical present, it is apparently the only historical present in the NT that uses the equative verb [/FONT]εἰμί[FONT=&quot]. The burden of proof, therefore, lies with one who sees [/FONT]εἰμί[FONT=&quot] as ever being used as a historical present.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](3) If this is a historical present, it is apparently the only historical present in the NT that is in other than the third person.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The translators of the New World Translation understand the implications of [/FONT]ἐγὼ εἰμί[FONT=&quot] here, for in the footnote to this text in the NWT, they reveal their motive for seeing this as a historical present: “It is not the same as [/FONT]ὁ ὠν̀[FONT=&quot] (ho ohn[/FONT] ́[FONT=&quot], meaning ‘The Being’ or ‘The I Am’) at Exodus 3:14, LXX.” In effect, this is a negative admission that if [/FONT]ἐγὼ εἰμί[FONT=&quot] is not a historical present, then Jesus is here claiming to be the one who spoke to Moses at the burning bush, the I AM, the eternally existing One, Yahweh (cf. Exod 3:14 in the LXX, [/FONT]ἐγὼ εἰμι ὁ ὤν[FONT=&quot]).[/FONT]
Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament:
[FONT=&quot]Before Abraham was[/FONT][FONT=&quot] ([/FONT]πρινἈβρααμγενεσθαι[FONT=&quot] [prin Abraam genesthai]). Usual idiom with [/FONT]πριν[FONT=&quot] [prin] in positive sentence with infinitive (second aorist middle of [/FONT]γινομαι[FONT=&quot] [ginomai]) and the accusative of general reference, “before coming as to Abraham,” “before Abraham came into existence or was born.” I am ([/FONT]ἐγωεἰμι[FONT=&quot] [egō eimi]). Undoubtedly here Jesus claims eternal existence with the absolute phrase used of God. The contrast between [/FONT]γενεσθαι[FONT=&quot] [genesthai] (entrance into existence of Abraham) and [/FONT]εἰμι[FONT=&quot] [eimi] (timeless being) is complete. See the same contrast between [/FONT]ἐν[FONT=&quot] [en] in 1:1 and [/FONT]ἐγενετο[FONT=&quot] [egeneto] in 1:14. See the contrast also in Psa. 90:2 between God ([/FONT]εἰ[FONT=&quot] [ei], art) and the mountains ([/FONT]γενηθηναι[FONT=&quot] [genēthēnai]). See the same use of [/FONT]εἰμι[FONT=&quot] [eimi] in John 6:20; 9:9; 8:24, 28; 18:6.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
Bernard, A critical and exegetical commentary on the Gospel according to St. John :
πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί[FONT=&quot], i.e. “before Abraham came into being, I AM.” The contrast between the verbs [/FONT]γίγνεσθαι[FONT=&quot] and [/FONT]εἶναι[FONT=&quot] is as unmistakable as it is in Ps. 90:2, [/FONT]πρὸ τοῦ ὄρη γενηθῆναι[FONT=&quot] … [/FONT]ἀπὸ τοῦ αἰῶνος ἕως τοῦ αἰῶνος σὺ εἶ[FONT=&quot], “before the mountains came into being … from age to age THOU ART.” Of God it could not be said that He “came into being” or “became,” for He IS. Cf. 1:18 and Col. 1:17 for this absolute use of [/FONT]εἶναι[FONT=&quot]; see also on 1:1. It has been pointed out already that [/FONT]ἐγὼ εἰμί[FONT=&quot] used absolutely, where no predicate is expressed or implied, is the equivalent of the solemn [/FONT][FONT=&quot]אֲנִי־הוּא[/FONT][FONT=&quot], I (am) He, which is the self-designation of Yahweh in the prophets. A similar use of the phrase is found at 13:19. It is clear that Jn. means to represent Jesus as thus claiming for Himself the timeless being of Deity, as distinct from the temporal existence of man. This is the teaching of the Prologue to the Gospel about Jesus (1:1, 18); but here (and at 13:19) Jesus Himself is reported as having said I (am) He, which is a definite assertion of His Godhead, and was so understood by the Jews. They had listened to His argument up to this point; but they could bear with it no longer. These words of mystery were rank blasphemy (see 10:33), and they proceeded to stone Him.[/FONT]
 

Mark2020

Well-Known Member
And by the way, since you mentioned ancient translations:

(John 8:58 [CopticB]) ⲡⲉϫⲉ ⲓ̅ⲏ̅ⲥ ⲛⲱⲟⲩ ϫⲉ ⲁⲙⲏⲛ ⲁⲙⲏⲛ ϯϫⲱ `ⲙⲙⲟⲥ ⲛⲱⲧⲉⲛ ϫⲉ `ⲙⲡⲁⲧⲉ ⲁⲃⲣⲁⲁⲙ ϣⲱⲡⲓ `ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ⲡⲉ
`ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ⲡⲉ: I am (Horner)

(John 8:58 [CopticS]) ΠΕϪΕ ΙΗСΟΥС ΝΑΥ ϪΕ ϨΑΜΗΝ ϨΑΜΗΝ ϮϪШ ΜΜΟС ΝΗΤΝ ϪΕ ΕΜΠΑΤΕ ΑΒΡΑϨΑΜ ϢШΠΕ ΑΝΟΚ ϮϢΟΟΠ.
ΑΝΟΚ ϮϢΟΟΠ: I am being (Horner)

(John 8:58 [Pe****ta]) ܐܡܪ ܠܗܘܢ ܝܫܘܥ ܐܡܝܢ ܐܡܝܢ ܐܡܪ ܐܢܐ ܠܟܘܢ ܕܥܕܠܐ ܢܗܘܐ ܐܒܪܗܡ ܐܢܐ ܐܝܬܝ ܀
ܐܢܐ ܐܝܬܝ : I AM (Younan's interlinear)
 

Mark2020

Well-Known Member
but it does prove that many scholars have chosen to translate it the same way and it also proves that your view is one sided.
Not really.
Half of your what you gave were translations of the pe****ta. And I showed you how it should be translated.
The coptic is very clear though.
But you sure have ignored too many points other than the "I AM"
 

Pegg

Jehovah our God is One
Not really.
Half of your what you gave were translations of the pe****ta. And I showed you how it should be translated.
The coptic is very clear though.
But you sure have ignored too many points other than the "I AM"

a good tranlsator takes the context into consideration when translating... those who dont end up with a sentence that does not make any sense.

Just look at the context of the verse, look at the response given to Jesus by the jewish leaders 'you are not yet 50 years old and how have you seen Abraham?'

the context should guide the translator to produce a sentence in harmony with what is being spoken. It is clear that the writer understood that Jesus was claiming to have been in existence back in Abrahams time which is why the jews responded in the way they did.
 

Mark2020

Well-Known Member
a good tranlsator takes the context into consideration when translating... those who dont end up with a sentence that does not make any sense...
Rather a good translator doesn't change the meaning to suit their own doctrine.
It does make sense if you understand it.
 
Top