By saying “ I AM” is Jesus saying that he is he is the God of the Bible?
I have listened to the argument about Jesus saying “ I AM” at John 8:58 and would really like to know how people are saying that this makes him God? Can you answer? (read first to save your time)
Jesus said at John 8:58 in answer to a question about his age, “Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, before Abraham was even born, I Am!"” or as some translations say ““I existed before Abraham was born!” The Complete Bible: An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed. So which is correct?
The way I have had it explained it that by saying he was the “I am” Jesus was indentifying himself with the God of the old testament at Exodus 3:14 where some translation say:
“God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.'"
But is this the correct translation for Exodus 3:14 ?
The Greek Septuagint is a Greek translation of the old testament and was around in Jesus’ day!
The Greek Septuagint is from around 200BC and gives us the Greek for Ex 3:14.So we can see that the Greek sepuagint renders this verse " And God spoke to Moses, saying, I am THE BEING; and he said, Thus shall ye say to the children of Israel, THE BEING has sent me to you." see it for your self at: http://www.ecmarsh.com/lxx/Exodus/index.htm OK so English translators decided to use " I am" instead of "THE BEING" and then tie it in with what Jesus said at Jo 8:58. Does this make it right. Lets look at the Greek at Ex 3:14 & John 8:58
The original Greek word for “I AM” in John 8:58 is ‘‘egw eimi’. You can refer this to any of the Greek NT such as The New Testament in the Original from any interlinear Greek/English translation.
Exodus 3:14 (Greek septuagint) here we see, the Greek words (egoo eimi ho oon) which means “I AM THE BEING”, or, “I AM THE EXISTING ONE”.
So in the Septuagint the Greek is "egoo eimi ho oon" the Greek “ego eimi” (I am) and the "ho" is the definate article "THE", "oon" meaning "BEING" so translating "I am the being", and the last part of Ex 3:14 is just "ho oon" translating "the being" the following link shows the correct translation: http://www.ecmarsh.com/lxx/Exodus/index.htm
Plus, it is not the "I Am"( egoo eimi) that God identifies himself to Israel, but as " The being "(ho oon) "that does. If you look at the last part of Ex 3:14 it says, “the being” (ho oon) sent me to you, “ego eimi” (I am) is NOT used in the last part of Ex 3:14.
OK so what about Hebrew, the language that it was written in:
In Hebrew it is "ehyeh asher ehyeh" and literally means “I will be what I will be”
The word Ehyeh is used a total of 43 places in the Hebrew Bible, where it is usually translated as "I will be"
Most English Bibles make a false theological distinction by translating the same word EHYEH as "I Am" at Exodus 3:14, after translating EHYEH as "I will be" just two verses prior to that, at Exodus 3:12. (look it up and you will see that “ehyeh” is translated as “I will be” in your bible, here it is “Vs 12 God answered, "I will be with you”
Now look up the other scriptures which use ehyeh and see how they are translated:
Genesis 26:3 (Jehovah: "I will be with you"
Genesis 31:3 (Jehovah: "I will be with you"
Exodus 3:12 (Jehovah: I will be with you"
Exodus 4:12 (Jehovah: "I will be with your mouth"
Exodus 4:15 (Jehovah: "I will be with your mouth"
Deuteronomy 32:23 (Moses: "I will be with you"
I am totally amazed at how in spite of all of the above some translators choose to translate "ehyeh asher ehyeh" as "I am what I am" can you explain why? It looks like an attempt by the translators to try and tie in Ex 3:14 with Jesus. If the term means "I will be" then translated it should read at Ex3:14 "I will be what I will be" which is similar to how the NWT renders it.
The very early Christian translators Theodotion and Aquila (ca. 140 A.D.) both translated this passage from the OT Hebrew ("and God spoke to Moses, saying, ehyeh asher ehyeh") as esomai hos esomai (Greek for "I will be who I will be"). – Found in Origen's Hexapla.
So the question is why change the translation of Ex 3:14 and make it say “I am what I am” in order to make it fit with John 8:58, when the original did not say that at Ex 3:14 ?
Who is going to take sides with the TRUTH? as this is something that is expected of us, that we teach the truth as God cannot accept what is false!
Answers & Comments
Verified answer
At John 8:58, Jesus was actually illustrating how long he has existed. Some claim that the New World Translation is "purposely mistranslated in order to fit their beliefs". However, it is actually the other way around. Many so-called trinity 'proof'-texts such as this one has been tailored in many Bibles to fit Trinitarian's beliefs.
Many Bible versions render John 8:58 this way: "Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am."
And Ex. 3:14 this way: "God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM." And he said, "Say this to the people of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'"
(Because of this, Trinitarians often refer to this as 'proof' that Jesus is the Hebrew GOD of the O.T.)
But are the words "I am" supposed to be God's name? Even if it were so, would it make sense in John 8:58 for Jesus to say the equivalent of, "Most assuredly I say to you, before Abraham was...JEHOVAH?!?"
Looking at the context, the correct phrasing of this sentence should be "I was" instead of "I am" when used after the word "before." Also in verse 57, the question to which Jesus was replying had to do WITH AGE, not identity.
During the exchange with the Jews leading up to John 8:58, NOWHERE DOES JESUS CLAIM TO BE GOD. And as we've already seen, the words "I am" at John 8:58 (including the blatant unwarranted use of capitalization) is not only inaccurate but nonsensical.
Several translations phrase John 8:58 the correct way by which Jesus was actually illustrating how long he has existed. One, for instance:
"Jesus answered, "The truth is, I EXISTED BEFORE ABRAHAM WAS EVEN BORN!" (NLT)
Besides that, numerous TRINITARIAN authorities even have to admit that "I am" in Ex. 3:14 is not even correct and should be rendered more like "I will Be" (the MEANING OF God's name rather than God's personal name itself...Jehovah):
Encyclopedia Britannica:
"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.
For much more, see:
I AM (John 8:58 / Ex. 3:14) - Links to Information
http://searchforbibletruths.blogspot.com/2010/07/i...
John 8:58
http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101989276#s=64...
I am not certain whether you are asking or putting forth your belief!
As Peter so wisely said, prophecy is of no private interpretation,
and i also know that neither is speaking about the Logos of Our
Lord Jesus the Christ.What i am saying is that there are two types
of people putting forth their belief, 1. the ones who are led by the
Holy Spirit and are called Christians and 2. those who follow their
intelligence.
If you put yourself at the scene of John 8,58. you will perceive that
Jesus was prepared for a confrentation with the Jews. First, He was
alone and He did not want to put His flock in a dangerous position.
The Jews surrounded Jesus as it was their way of instilling fear into
their intented victiml. They had already used this strategy, when they
circled Jesus and demanded that He tell them who He was. Now if
Jesus said , I am a being just as you are a being, there would be no
reason to hurl stones at Him. They previously accussed Jesus of making
Himself equal with God, this was not new.Almost all Jews will purport
that you can prove anything by using the bible.In other words you cant
manage to find Truth without Theos. Why are there so many churces,
isen't it because of people like you who managed to find a following for
their beliefs? The True nature of Jesus cannot be found in a grammar book,
no that is not how Moses and Abraham,ect. got to know the I Am, in the
burning bush.The jews deny the miracles of Jesus and His Divinity. I was
saved because i found Grace in the eyes of Elohyim, there is no other Way.
If you are amazed with the translation of Eyheh.... i am equally amazed with
the Watchtower's removal of the word worship. e.g. let all the angels worship
Jesus, to obeiasance which if you look up in the Hebrew, you will see also means
worship.
The question is not whether this is grammatically correct. The real issue is that
if you know that Jesus is equal with the Father, then you know that He is Jehovah
and you know that He is the same as the One who spoke to Moses in the burning
bush, for Jesus does not change, He is the same today, yesterday and forever.
You have an English translation of a Greek Vulgate text which is trying to describe events a hundred years earlier where the people spoke Aramaic.
If any person had clearly implied that that person was God they would be dead fast - stoned or beaten to death. So no, no-one ever said that in public in that time and place.
Another thing to consider is this: Some will point to Genesis where it says "Let us make God in our image" but the word us is plural and denotes two beings. Jesus is the firstborn of all creation. He was up in Heaven with God and he created everything else with the power given to him by God. So in a sense they both created everything. That is why it says "Let us make man in our image." It doesn't mean they are one and the same."
No.
5 Keep this mental attitude in YOU that was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God. 7 No, but he emptied himself and took a slave’s form and came to be in the likeness of men. 8 More than that, when he found himself in fashion as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient as far as death, yes, death on a torture stake. 9 For this very reason also God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every [other] name, 10 so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground, 11 and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.
Ohilippians 2:5-11
That is a mistranslation of that verse. It doesn't even make any ENGLISH sense. It should read "before Abraham was, I was." But even if you were to use that scripture as is, the logic that this proves Jesus to be his father, Jehovah, simply does not compute. As God's first created son ... by Jesus own acknowledgement at John 3:16, he WAS in heaven before Abraham was ever born... even long before Adam and Eve.
No -
Jesus[the Son] and God[the Father] are the I AM that I AM of Ex3:14 -
They call to Abraham[Gen22:11] 'Abraham, Abraham'
They call to Jacob[Gen46:2] 'Jacob, Jacob'
They call to Moses[Ex3:4] 'Moses. Moses'
They call to Samuel[1Sam3:10] 'Samuel, Samuel'
They call to a nation[Isa65:1] 'Here I AM, here I AM'
They call to Saul[Acts9:4] 'Saul, Saul'
Jesus[the Light{Gen1:3]of the world] and God[the Father] are the 'Us' of Gen1:26, 3:22, 11:7 and of Isaiah6:8 and the 'We' and 'Our' of John3:11
Jesus and God are One[Jn3:10] as the bible is one book but They are not one and the same as the O.T. is not the N.T.
See also Isaiah57:15 and Ps89:29
and Gen41:32
“If that [Septuagint] version had retained the word [Jehovah], or had even used one Greek word for Jehovah and another for Adonai, such usage would doubtless have been retained in the discourses and arguments of the N. T. Thus our Lord, in quoting the 110th Psalm 110:1, instead of saying, ‘The Lord said unto my Lord,’ might have said, ‘Jehovah said unto Adoni.’” Proceeding on this same basis (which evidence now shows to have been actual fact) he adds: “Supposing a Christian scholar were engaged in translating the Greek Testament into Hebrew, he would have to consider, each time the word Κύριος occurred, whether there was anything in the context to indicate its true Hebrew representative; and this is the difficulty which would arise in translating the N. T. into all languages if the title Jehovah had been allowed to stand in the [Septuagint translation of the] O. T. The Hebrew Scriptures would be a guide in many passages: thus, wherever the expression ‘the angel of the Lord’ occurs, we know that the word Lord represents Jehovah; a similar conclusion as to the expression ‘the word of the Lord’ would be arrived at, if the precedent set by the O. T. were followed; so also in the case of the title ‘the Lord of Hosts.’ Wherever, on the contrary, the expression ‘My Lord’ or ‘Our Lord’ occurs, we should know that the word Jehovah would be inadmissible, and Adonai or Adoni would have to be used.” (Synonyms of the Old Testament, 1897, p. 43) It is on such a basis that translations of the Greek Scriptures (mentioned earlier) containing the name Jehovah have proceeded. Outstanding, however, in this regard is the New World Translation, used throughout this work, in which the divine name in the form “Jehovah” appears 237 times in the Christian Greek Scriptures. As has been shown, there is sound basis for this.
Early Use of the Name and Its Meaning. Exodus 3:13-16 and Ex 6:3 are often misapplied to mean that Jehovah’s name was first revealed to Moses sometime prior to the Exodus from Egypt. True, Moses raised the question: “Suppose I am now come to the sons of Israel and I do say to them, ‘The God of your forefathers has sent me to you,’ and they do say to me, ‘What is his name?’ What shall I say to them?” But this does not mean that he or the Israelites did not know Jehovah’s name. The very name of Moses’ mother Jochebed means, possibly, “Jehovah Is Glory.” (Ex 6:20) Moses’ question likely was related to the circumstances in which the sons of Israel found themselves. They had been in hard slavery for many decades with no sign of any relief. Doubt, discouragement, and weakness of faith in God’s power and purpose to deliver them had very likely infiltrated their ranks. (Note also Eze 20:7, 8.) For Moses simply to say he came in the name of “God” (ʼElo·him′) or the “Sovereign Lord” (ʼAdho·nai′) therefore might not have meant much to the suffering Israelites. They knew the Egyptians had their own gods and lords and doubtless heard taunts from the Egyptians that their gods were superior to the God of the Israelites.
Moses’ question was a meaningful one. God’s reply in Hebrew was: ʼEh·yeh′ ʼAsher′ ʼEh·yeh′. Some translations render this as “I AM THAT I AM.” However, it is to be noted that the Hebrew verb ha·yah′, from which the word ʼEh·yeh′ is drawn, does not mean simply “be.” Rather, it means “become,” or “prove to be.” The reference here is not to God’s self-existence but to what he has in mind to become toward others. Therefore, the New World Translation properly renders the above Hebrew expression as “I SHALL PROVE TO BE WHAT I SHALL PROVE TO BE.” Jehovah thereafter added: “This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, ‘I SHALL PROVE TO BE has sent me to you.’”—Ex 3:14
Additional thoughts...There are many indications that Jesus was not Almighty and he never claimed to be. He always spoke to his Father in Prayer...In Fact....Jesus made HIS FATHER'S NAME KNOWN! NOT HIS OWN! He told his disciples to pray about the Father's name. Almost everyone knows the Our Father Prayer (And how it starts out) and they should think about this seriously.
Here it is for you in a few different translations and NOTE, he IS talking about his Heavenly Father Jehovah...NOT himself......
Matthew 6:9
English Standard Version (ESV)
9 Pray then like this:
“Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name.[a]
Footnotes:
Matthew 6:9 Or Let your name be kept holy, or Let your name be treated with reverence
The expression I am, though in the present tense, is clearly designed to refer to a past time. Thus, in Psalm 90:2, "From everlasting to everlasting thou art God." Applied to God, it denotes continued existence without respect to time, so far as he is concerned.
We divide time into the past, the present, and the future. The expression, applied to God, denotes that he does not measure his existence in this manner, but that the word by which we express the present denotes his continued and unchanging existence. Hence, he assumes it as his name, "I AM," and "I AM that I AM," Exodus 3:14. Compare Isaiah 44:6; Isaiah 47:8.
There is a remarkable similarity between the expression employed by Jesus in this place and that used in Exodus to denote the name of God. The manner in which Jesus used it would strikingly suggest the application of the same language to God.
The question here was about his pre-existence.
The objection of the Jews was that he was not 50 years old, and could not, therefore, have seen Abraham. Jesus replied to that that he existed before Abraham. As in his human nature he was not yet 50 years old, and could not, as a man, have existed before Abraham, this declaration must be referred to another nature; and the passage proves that, while he was a man, he was also endowed with another nature existing before Abraham, and to which he applied the term **********(familiar to the Jews as expressive of the existence of God)
I AM; and this declaration corresponds to the affirmation of John Joh 1:1, that he was in the beginning with God, and was God. This affirmation of Jesus is one of the proofs on which John relies to prove that he was the Messiah John 20:31, to establish which was the design of writing this book.
Terry, let the scriptures speak for themselves. Stop flipping words updside and backwards after being transliterated and interpolated from language to language. The audience of Jews he was speaking to would have understood what he was saying based on how the context of "I AM" meant to them at that time.
The bible is complete or it is not. Choose. Jesus taught with simple illustrations no? The WTS acknowledges this. So why does the WTS have to make everything so complex that no one can understand it without a multi-page document in front of them?
Take your Watchtower goggles off and just read. You might be surprised to see how much more simple the scriptures are to "get"
@ ELIJAH - interesting you have made a strawman argument agianst the trinity and use the encyclopdedia britannica to support your strawman. Hey, why don't you look up the destruction of Jerusalem by Babylon in that same encyclopedia and see what year it says? Are they right then too? Of course not!! Secular sources are only right when they agree with the WTS right? LOL. you people are all the same.
John 8:58 Is not proof Jesus is God .
As the first of Gods creations & it was to Jesus God said ...let us create....Jesus was just confirming he was created before Abraham .
I AM is not a statement Jesus is God ,it's just another desperate attempt by people trying anything to prove a false doctrine true ,it appears they need to clasp at straws.