I would very much like to get opinions on this subject. I'll provide several verses from the King James Version of the Bible, and I ask you to give me feed-back.
Jesus' words:
1) "Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise." (John 5:19)
2) "My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me." (John 7:16)
3) "Neither came I of myself, but he sent me." (John 8:42)
He replied, after the Pharisees accused him of making himself God:
4) "Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the SON of God?" (John 10:36)
5) "For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say....Whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak." (John 12:49,50)
6) To his Father in prayer: "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God , and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." (John 17:3)
7) "I ascend unto my Father, and your Father, and to my God, and your God." (John 20:17)
To John in the Revelation:
8) "Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God..." (Revelation 3:12)
Do these quotations show that Jesus was NOT God?
Do YOU believe that he claimed to be God?
JESUS IS NOT GOD
Moderator: Moderators
-
onewithhim
- Savant
- Posts: 11093
- Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2015 7:56 pm
- Location: Norwich, CT
- Has thanked: 1574 times
- Been thanked: 465 times
-
onewithhim
- Savant
- Posts: 11093
- Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2015 7:56 pm
- Location: Norwich, CT
- Has thanked: 1574 times
- Been thanked: 465 times
Post #61
That is the punch line if you want to go along with a false premise. Jesus in no way was saying that he was God---"I Am." First of all, Exodus doesn't even say "I Am." Bible translators have rendered those words in Exodus 3:14 as "I Will Be What I Will Be," (Leeser)or "I Will Become Whatever I Please" (Rotherham), or "I Will Be There Howsoever I Will Be There" (Everett Fox). So you have translators who give a totally different meaning to "'Ehyeh 'Asher 'Ehyeh," and not "I Am."NoReligionPlease wrote: John Chapter 8 is an important chapter and is be read and understood as a single discourse that is divided into five sections:
Section 1 – Jesus goes to Mount Olive and is tempted by confronting him with the adulterous woman he didn’t dispute but asked the one who was without sin to cast the first stone. No one would lift a stone and all left.
Section 2 - I Am the Light of the World and you are not.
Section 3 - The Truth Will Set You Free – He tells the believing Jews to continue in his word. But tells those who want to kill him that their Father is the Devil and not Abraham and that “Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin� which goes back to the adulterous woman confrontation.
Section 4 – No Abraham is our Father but it is your Father who is the Devil.
Section 5 - Before Abraham Was, I Am – Verse 58 is the punch line to this whole discourse.
Did Jesus say "Before Abraham was born, I WILL"?? See how silly that is? But that is how many translators see it, and it is pretty easy to see, to understand, that Jesus was not claiming to be YHWH.
Having said that, John 8:58 ,as translated by the KJV and others that have followed it, has been deemed an ungrammatical and syntactically strained sentence with mangled word order. It is the translators' job to make the sentence follow good grammar rules as set forth for the English language, and there can be no room for sloppy word order problems. Jesus spoke fine, proper Greek, and the translation of such must be fine and proper.
What he really said was: "Since before Abraham came to be, I HAVE BEEN."
The Jews, who, incidentally, were wrong in their accusing him of claiming to be God, were, in fact, upset with him because he was seeming to belittle Abraham, their adored forefather. They just wanted to stir up those around so that they could diminish Jesus' popularity. They even accused him of having power from the Devil! Were they right about that? (John 7:48,52) They didn't hate him because he supposedly claimed to be God; they wanted to kill him because he was exposing them as frauds and hypocrites.
So, no, Jesus was not referring to Exodus 3:14 when he said what he said at John 8:58.
.
-
NoReligionPlease
- Newbie
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2020 3:56 pm
Exo 3:14 Hebrew grammar vs John 5:8 Greek grammar
Post #62Exo 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM1961 V‑Qal Imperf 1cs THAT (better translation - WHO) I AM H1961 V‑Qal Imperf‑1cs : and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM H1961 V Qal Imperf 1cs hath sent me H7971 V Qal Perf 3ms | 1cs unto you.
H1961 - הָיָה (Verb Qal Imperfect 1 person common singular) - hayah (haw-yaw): to fall out, come to pass, become, be
In Biblical Hebrew the Imperfect conjugation is used generally to describe actions that are not completed or continuous action that occur in the present or future.
H7971 - שָ�לַח (Verb Qal Perfect 3 person, masculine, singular | common singular) shalach (shaw-lakh'): to send.
In Biblical Hebrew a Perfect verb is normally used to describe actions that have occurred in the past or actions that are seen as completed (even in present or future time).
(Note “hath sent me� is in the Prefect tense because it is a completed action so you can compare with the imperfect tense in H1961)
This Hebrew verb and its grammar correspond with the Greek in John 5:8.
Both Hebrew and Greek are inflected languages. The inflections are the detailed grammar that maps the relationships between words in a verse or sentence not found in English. So some general training in these two languages helps one understand the English Bible much better.
H1961 - הָיָה (Verb Qal Imperfect 1 person common singular) - hayah (haw-yaw): to fall out, come to pass, become, be
In Biblical Hebrew the Imperfect conjugation is used generally to describe actions that are not completed or continuous action that occur in the present or future.
H7971 - שָ�לַח (Verb Qal Perfect 3 person, masculine, singular | common singular) shalach (shaw-lakh'): to send.
In Biblical Hebrew a Perfect verb is normally used to describe actions that have occurred in the past or actions that are seen as completed (even in present or future time).
(Note “hath sent me� is in the Prefect tense because it is a completed action so you can compare with the imperfect tense in H1961)
This Hebrew verb and its grammar correspond with the Greek in John 5:8.
Both Hebrew and Greek are inflected languages. The inflections are the detailed grammar that maps the relationships between words in a verse or sentence not found in English. So some general training in these two languages helps one understand the English Bible much better.
-
onewithhim
- Savant
- Posts: 11093
- Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2015 7:56 pm
- Location: Norwich, CT
- Has thanked: 1574 times
- Been thanked: 465 times
Re: Exo 3:14 Hebrew grammar vs John 5:8 Greek grammar
Post #63[Replying to post 62 by NoReligionPlease]
Could you comment further on the post, #61, please? Perhaps explain exactly why, in your own words, that you disagree. That would simplify things for my old brain.
.
Could you comment further on the post, #61, please? Perhaps explain exactly why, in your own words, that you disagree. That would simplify things for my old brain.
.
-
onewithhim
- Savant
- Posts: 11093
- Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2015 7:56 pm
- Location: Norwich, CT
- Has thanked: 1574 times
- Been thanked: 465 times
Post #65
I Am (ego eimi)
From my personal in-depth study of the 'I Am' trinity 'proof':
http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com ... art-1.html
Dr. Walter Martin, the much-heralded trinitarian “cult-buster,� has been quoted as publicly declaring that
“there is no rule or precedent in Greek syntax to allow a present [tense] to equal a perfect [tense].� (Cf. KOTC, p. 89.)
However, 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 [perfect tense], 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 - RDB.] 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’ - RDB], 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 - RDB].� - pp. 182, 183, The Macmillan Company, 30th printing, 1965. [material in brackets has been added by me]
Kenneth L. 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...."
Perhaps even more surprising is this admission by hyper-trinitarian NT Greek scholar, Daniel B. Wallace:
A. Extending-from-Past Present (Present of Past Action Still in Progress)
1. Definition
The present tense may be used to describe an action which, begun in the past, continues in the present. ....
.... It is different from the progressive present in that it reaches back in time and usually has some sort of temporal indicator, such as an adverbial phrase [such as ‘before Abraham came into existence’], to show this past-referring element. Depending on how tightly one defines this category, it is either relatively rare or fairly common.
2. Key to Identification
The key to this usage is normally to translate the present as an English present perfect. [And the presence of a ‘temporal indicator, such as an adverbial phrase, to show this past-referring element.’] Some examples might not fit such a gloss, however. [Wallace’s examples include Luke 13:7; Luke 15:29; John 5:6; 1 Jn 3:8.] - pp. 519-520, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Zondervan, 1996. [As in all other cases, bracketed material and emphasis are added by me.]
Some NT Greek Grammars which acknowledge the "durative" or "progressive" present tense wherein the present tense verb [such as eimi] is understood to be continuing and, hence, may be properly rendered into English as a present perfect tense [such as "I have been"]:
Blass & DeBrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, #322.
Brooks & Winberry, Syntax of New Testament Greek, p. 84.
Ernest De Witt Burton, Syntax of Moods and Tenses in N.T. Greek, #17
Dana & Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, p. 182-183
William W. Goodwin, Greek Grammar, p. 270, #1258, 1900 ed.
Kenneth L. McKay, A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek
C. F. D. Moule, An Idiom Book of N.T. Greek, p. 8
J. H. Moulton (Nigel Turner), A Grammar of New Testament Greek, Vol. 3, p. 62
Wesley J. Perschbacher, NT Greek Syntax, p. 284-285
A. T. Robertson, Grammar of the Greek NT in Light of Historical Research, pp. 879-880
Herbert Weir Smyth, A Greek Grammar For Colleges, #1885
Gerald L. Stevens, NT Greek, p.78
Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 519
G. B. Winer, A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament, p. 267.
Richard Young, Intermediate New Testament Greek, pp. 111-112
Brooks/Winbery, Syntax of New Testament Greek, pp. 84-85
From my personal in-depth study of the 'I Am' trinity 'proof':
http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com ... art-1.html
Dr. Walter Martin, the much-heralded trinitarian “cult-buster,� has been quoted as publicly declaring that
“there is no rule or precedent in Greek syntax to allow a present [tense] to equal a perfect [tense].� (Cf. KOTC, p. 89.)
However, 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 [perfect tense], 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 - RDB.] 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’ - RDB], 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 - RDB].� - pp. 182, 183, The Macmillan Company, 30th printing, 1965. [material in brackets has been added by me]
Kenneth L. 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...."
Perhaps even more surprising is this admission by hyper-trinitarian NT Greek scholar, Daniel B. Wallace:
A. Extending-from-Past Present (Present of Past Action Still in Progress)
1. Definition
The present tense may be used to describe an action which, begun in the past, continues in the present. ....
.... It is different from the progressive present in that it reaches back in time and usually has some sort of temporal indicator, such as an adverbial phrase [such as ‘before Abraham came into existence’], to show this past-referring element. Depending on how tightly one defines this category, it is either relatively rare or fairly common.
2. Key to Identification
The key to this usage is normally to translate the present as an English present perfect. [And the presence of a ‘temporal indicator, such as an adverbial phrase, to show this past-referring element.’] Some examples might not fit such a gloss, however. [Wallace’s examples include Luke 13:7; Luke 15:29; John 5:6; 1 Jn 3:8.] - pp. 519-520, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Zondervan, 1996. [As in all other cases, bracketed material and emphasis are added by me.]
Some NT Greek Grammars which acknowledge the "durative" or "progressive" present tense wherein the present tense verb [such as eimi] is understood to be continuing and, hence, may be properly rendered into English as a present perfect tense [such as "I have been"]:
Blass & DeBrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, #322.
Brooks & Winberry, Syntax of New Testament Greek, p. 84.
Ernest De Witt Burton, Syntax of Moods and Tenses in N.T. Greek, #17
Dana & Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, p. 182-183
William W. Goodwin, Greek Grammar, p. 270, #1258, 1900 ed.
Kenneth L. McKay, A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek
C. F. D. Moule, An Idiom Book of N.T. Greek, p. 8
J. H. Moulton (Nigel Turner), A Grammar of New Testament Greek, Vol. 3, p. 62
Wesley J. Perschbacher, NT Greek Syntax, p. 284-285
A. T. Robertson, Grammar of the Greek NT in Light of Historical Research, pp. 879-880
Herbert Weir Smyth, A Greek Grammar For Colleges, #1885
Gerald L. Stevens, NT Greek, p.78
Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 519
G. B. Winer, A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament, p. 267.
Richard Young, Intermediate New Testament Greek, pp. 111-112
Brooks/Winbery, Syntax of New Testament Greek, pp. 84-85
-
onewithhim
- Savant
- Posts: 11093
- Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2015 7:56 pm
- Location: Norwich, CT
- Has thanked: 1574 times
- Been thanked: 465 times
Post #66
[Replying to post 65 by tigger2]
"I have been" is a much more reasonable rendering, taking into consideration as well that Exodus 3:14 doesn't have to be translated as "I Am," but rather "I Will." Therefore, whoever tried to line up what Jesus said with what God said to Moses was out of his element. God didn't even say "I Am"!
And people always miss the fact that, in a few verses further on, in chapter 9, the man who was blind said "ego eimi".....so if saying those words means that a person is God, then the man who was blind is also God. (John 9:9)
.
"I have been" is a much more reasonable rendering, taking into consideration as well that Exodus 3:14 doesn't have to be translated as "I Am," but rather "I Will." Therefore, whoever tried to line up what Jesus said with what God said to Moses was out of his element. God didn't even say "I Am"!
And people always miss the fact that, in a few verses further on, in chapter 9, the man who was blind said "ego eimi".....so if saying those words means that a person is God, then the man who was blind is also God. (John 9:9)
.
-
onewithhim
- Savant
- Posts: 11093
- Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2015 7:56 pm
- Location: Norwich, CT
- Has thanked: 1574 times
- Been thanked: 465 times
Post #67
Folks have nothing more to say about the OP? Surely that is an excellent way to get into an important discussion about the relationship between the Son of God and God.
.
.
-
onewithhim
- Savant
- Posts: 11093
- Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2015 7:56 pm
- Location: Norwich, CT
- Has thanked: 1574 times
- Been thanked: 465 times
-
Difflugia
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3819
- Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
- Location: Michigan
- Has thanked: 4103 times
- Been thanked: 2437 times
Post #69
John's Jesus is quoting the Septuagint.
Ex 3:14 in the Septuagint reads:
"Where's the second half of the Exodus 3:14 quote?"
I'm glad I asked! The phrase � ὢν (usually translated as "the one who is") appears in John six times and each time it refers either to Jesus or to someone bearing witness to God (1:18, 3:31, 6:46, 8:47, 12:17, 18:37). For John, Jesus was the Logos, the divine Word of God, that bore witness out of the burning bush to Moses.
Incidentally, the phrase only appears seven more times in the entire New Testament. It shows up twice in Paul's epistles (Ro 9:5, 2Co 11:31), each time referring to Jesus or God. The other three are in Revelation (1:4, 1:8, 4:8, 11:17, 16:5), where it is always part of the formula "who is and who was" when referring to God.
It's not a common phrase and is plausibly a reference to Exodus 3:14 every single time it appears.
Ex 3:14 in the Septuagint reads:
In English:καὶ εἶπεν á½� θεὸς Ï€Ï�ὸς Μωυσῆν λÎγων Ἐγώ εἰμι á½� ὤν· καὶ εἶπεν οὕτως á¼�Ï�εῖς τοῖς υἱοῖς ἸσÏ�αήλ Ὁ ὢν ἀπÎσταλκÎν με Ï€Ï�ὸς ὑμᾶς.
The important part is that regardless of how Hebrew should be translated into Greek or how either one should be translated into English, the translators of the Septuagint translated the Hebrew �ֶֽהְיֶ֖ה �ֲש�ֶ֣ר �ֶֽהְיֶ֑ה as Ἐγώ εἰμι � ὤν. The subject and verb of that sentence in Greek is Ἐγώ εἰμι, the same Greek words Jesus used in John 8:58:And God spoke to Moses, saying "I am 'The Is.'" And he spoke, "Say it this way to the sons of Israel: '"The Is" has sent me to you.'"
Since the very next thing the crowd did was pick up stones to stone Jesus, they apparently heard it that way, too. I do, however, realize that by apologist rules, the two statements are completely unrelated. They were probably about to stone him because they didn't like his hair or tunic or something.Ï€Ï�ὶν ἈβÏ�αὰμ γενÎσθαι á¼�γὼ εἰμί
"Where's the second half of the Exodus 3:14 quote?"
I'm glad I asked! The phrase � ὢν (usually translated as "the one who is") appears in John six times and each time it refers either to Jesus or to someone bearing witness to God (1:18, 3:31, 6:46, 8:47, 12:17, 18:37). For John, Jesus was the Logos, the divine Word of God, that bore witness out of the burning bush to Moses.
Incidentally, the phrase only appears seven more times in the entire New Testament. It shows up twice in Paul's epistles (Ro 9:5, 2Co 11:31), each time referring to Jesus or God. The other three are in Revelation (1:4, 1:8, 4:8, 11:17, 16:5), where it is always part of the formula "who is and who was" when referring to God.
It's not a common phrase and is plausibly a reference to Exodus 3:14 every single time it appears.
-
onewithhim
- Savant
- Posts: 11093
- Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2015 7:56 pm
- Location: Norwich, CT
- Has thanked: 1574 times
- Been thanked: 465 times
Post #70
[Replying to post 69 by Difflugia]
Please read the previous posts on that subject. Rotherham, Leeser, the NWT and Everett Fox are just 4 of many who say that Ex.3:14 is "I Will" rather than "I Am."
Jesus was not quoting part of Exodus 3:14. That has more or less been established here. Now do you have something else to add to the discussion that would be up-building?
.
Please read the previous posts on that subject. Rotherham, Leeser, the NWT and Everett Fox are just 4 of many who say that Ex.3:14 is "I Will" rather than "I Am."
Jesus was not quoting part of Exodus 3:14. That has more or less been established here. Now do you have something else to add to the discussion that would be up-building?
.
