John 1:1, the word was "a god."

[onewithhim]

Does anyone here have the list of Bible versions that say of John 1:1c "the word was a god"? I know there are several.

[Difflugia]

The Septuagint of Exodus 3:14 has God say ego eimi ho on, "I am the being, or "I am the one that exists." Plainly, ego eimi functions here exactly like it does with all speaking characters throughout the Bible, as a first person pronoun subject, followed by the be-verb, to which a predicate noun is attached. God does not say "I am I Am," he says "I am the Being." "I am" sets up the title or identification God uses of himself, it is not itself that title.

I'm with you so far.

Separating "I am" off as if it were meant to stand alone is an interpretive sleight-of-hand, totally distorting the role the phrase plays in the whole sentence, either in the Greek Septuagint version of Exodus 3:14

Sure. Up until this point, I'd agree with you. The "interpretive sleight-of-hand" belongs to the author of John's Gospel himself, though.

or in John 8:58. There is absolutely nothing in the original Greek of John 8:58 to suggest that Jesus is quoting the Old Testament here.

This is where you've overplayed your bluff and are just wrong, showing your lack of understanding of Greek and the theologies of Second Temple Judaism and early Christianity. Philo of Alexandria treated the ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν of the Septuagint's Exodus 3:14 as an epithet for God or divinity (depending on exactly which of his works you read). John's Gospel is full of word play and this passage is no exception. John's language makes it clear that he knew exactly what he was saying:

πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί—"before Abraham had been born/created, I am."

John's use of language here is layered. The verb γενέσθαι is aorist, past, infinitive of γίνομαι. γίνομαι means "to come into being" when referring to living things. Aorist infinitive is used within a narrative to mean something that happened within the narrative, but before the current timeframe of the narrative. The narrative reference point here is within the story that Jesus is telling "the Jews" through his answers to their questions: Abraham rejoiced (aorist) that he would see (aorist) Jesus' day. Now, Jesus is saying that Abraham came into being before Jesus' day, but even before then, "I am!"

Greek is extraordinarily nuanced. If Jesus was intending to say that he was born (or whatever) before Abraham was, then the straightforward way to do that would be to use first person, singular, past perfect, indicative, ἐγὼ γέγονα: "Before Abraham began to exist, I had begun to exist."

If Jesus had meant to say that he had no beginning and had always existed, he would have used the first person, singular, imperfect, active, indicative. I've already told you multiple times what that is, but it's ἐγώ ἦν: "Before Abraham began to exist, I existed.

John didn't choose either of these, though. He chose to use first person, singular, present, active, indicative: "I am!" This is not proper grammar. If it were Mark, I might believe that it's just for style; Mark uses terrible grammar all over the place. It's not Mark, however, but John. John was not only extremely literate in Greek, but his Greek also shows Semitic influence; John was multilingual. If we assume for the moment that John is recounting a historically accurate discourse between Jesus and "the Jews," then John is taking something that Jesus said in Aramaic, translating it into Greek that has a grammatical error, but is nonetheless something intended to be immediately understood by Greek readers of his Greek story. He used two different verbs, but if he meant what you want him to, would have used only one. John is trying to tell us something very specific about what Jesus said in a way that Greek-reading, Jewish Christians of the Diaspora would understand.

Finally, as if that weren't enough, John incorporates a number of philonic elements into his theology, so it goes almost without saying that he was familiar with Philo's works. We have here, then, a literary reference to a white whale in an appropriate metaphorical context by an acknowledged fan of Melville, but you're bending over backwards to argue that it's all coincidence and refers to a regular, old, whale.

Despite this, your claim is that there's "absolutely nothing" that ties this to Exodus 3:14 and yet you don't seem to be making the claim ironically. To put it most charitably banally, your statement is profoundly untrue.

The majority of translations recognize the idiomatic uses of "I am"(such as John 13:19 and John 18) and properly integrate the words into the context of the passages where they appear.

And the majority of scholars recognize John's repeated placement of ego eimi on the lips of Jesus is part of an overall theological statement that culminates in 8:58:

The climax of all that Jesus has said at Tabernacles comes in the triumphant proclamation by Jesus of the divine name, "I AM," which he bears (see App. IV). In viii 12 he had opened this third scene of the Tabernacles discourses with "I am the light of the world"; the concluding "I AM" of vs. 58 represents an inclusion. No clearer implication of divinity is found in the Gospel tradition, and "the Jews" recognize this implication.—Raymond Brown, AYB John 1-12, p. 367

What does it say when even the villains of the story understand what you deny?

and produce a sentence that makes no sense in English.

It makes no sense in Greek, so why should it in English?

It is Jesus' claim to be superior to Abraham and to have a superhuman longevity, NOT a claim to a divine self-designation, that enrages his audience.

Obviously.

To the contrary, it is Jesus' claim to a timeless existence without beginning and identification of himself with the Voice from the burning bush that most enrages his audience of Jehovah's Witnesses. Who do you think would be more disappointed: John, because you didn't appreciate his clever wordplay, or Jesus, because you're so cavalier about denying his words?

[onewithhim]

The Septuagint of Exodus 3:14 has God say ego eimi ho on, "I am the being, or "I am the one that exists." Plainly, ego eimi functions here exactly like it does with all speaking characters throughout the Bible, as a first person pronoun subject, followed by the be-verb, to which a predicate noun is attached. God does not say "I am I Am," he says "I am the Being." "I am" sets up the title or identification God uses of himself, it is not itself that title.

I'm with you so far.

Separating "I am" off as if it were meant to stand alone is an interpretive sleight-of-hand, totally distorting the role the phrase plays in the whole sentence, either in the Greek Septuagint version of Exodus 3:14

Sure. Up until this point, I'd agree with you. The "interpretive sleight-of-hand" belongs to the author of John's Gospel himself, though.

or in John 8:58. There is absolutely nothing in the original Greek of John 8:58 to suggest that Jesus is quoting the Old Testament here.

This is where you've overplayed your bluff and are just wrong, showing your lack of understanding of Greek and the theologies of Second Temple Judaism and early Christianity. Philo of Alexandria treated the ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν of the Septuagint's Exodus 3:14 as an epithet for God or divinity (depending on exactly which of his works you read). John's Gospel is full of word play and this passage is no exception. John's language makes it clear that he knew exactly what he was saying:

πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί—"before Abraham had been born/created, I am."

John's use of language here is layered. The verb γενέσθαι is aorist, past, infinitive of γίνομαι. γίνομαι means "to come into being" when referring to living things. Aorist infinitive is used within a narrative to mean something that happened within the narrative, but before the current timeframe of the narrative. The narrative reference point here is within the story that Jesus is telling "the Jews" through his answers to their questions: Abraham rejoiced (aorist) that he would see (aorist) Jesus' day. Now, Jesus is saying that Abraham came into being before Jesus' day, but even before then, "I am!"

Greek is extraordinarily nuanced. If Jesus was intending to say that he was born (or whatever) before Abraham was, then the straightforward way to do that would be to use first person, singular, past perfect, indicative, ἐγὼ γέγονα: "Before Abraham began to exist, I had begun to exist."

If Jesus had meant to say that he had no beginning and had always existed, he would have used the first person, singular, imperfect, active, indicative. I've already told you multiple times what that is, but it's ἐγώ ἦν: "Before Abraham began to exist, I existed.

John didn't choose either of these, though. He chose to use first person, singular, present, active, indicative: "I am!" This is not proper grammar. If it were Mark, I might believe that it's just for style; Mark uses terrible grammar all over the place. It's not Mark, however, but John. John was not only extremely literate in Greek, but his Greek also shows Semitic influence; John was multilingual. If we assume for the moment that John is recounting a historically accurate discourse between Jesus and "the Jews," then John is taking something that Jesus said in Aramaic, translating it into Greek that has a grammatical error, but is nonetheless something intended to be immediately understood by Greek readers of his Greek story. He used two different verbs, but if he meant what you want him to, would have used only one. John is trying to tell us something very specific about what Jesus said in a way that Greek-reading, Jewish Christians of the Diaspora would understand.

Finally, as if that weren't enough, John incorporates a number of philonic elements into his theology, so it goes almost without saying that he was familiar with Philo's works. We have here, then, a literary reference to a white whale in an appropriate metaphorical context by an acknowledged fan of Melville, but you're bending over backwards to argue that it's all coincidence and refers to a regular, old, whale.

Despite this, your claim is that there's "absolutely nothing" that ties this to Exodus 3:14 and yet you don't seem to be making the claim ironically. To put it most charitably banally, your statement is profoundly untrue.

The majority of translations recognize the idiomatic uses of "I am"(such as John 13:19 and John 18) and properly integrate the words into the context of the passages where they appear.

And the majority of scholars recognize John's repeated placement of ego eimi on the lips of Jesus is part of an overall theological statement that culminates in 8:58:

The climax of all that Jesus has said at Tabernacles comes in the triumphant proclamation by Jesus of the divine name, "I AM," which he bears (see App. IV). In viii 12 he had opened this third scene of the Tabernacles discourses with "I am the light of the world"; the concluding "I AM" of vs. 58 represents an inclusion. No clearer implication of divinity is found in the Gospel tradition, and "the Jews" recognize this implication.—Raymond Brown, AYB John 1-12, p. 367

What does it say when even the villains of the story understand what you deny?

and produce a sentence that makes no sense in English.

It makes no sense in Greek, so why should it in English?

It is Jesus' claim to be superior to Abraham and to have a superhuman longevity, NOT a claim to a divine self-designation, that enrages his audience.

Obviously.

To the contrary, it is Jesus' claim to a timeless existence without beginning and identification of himself with the Voice from the burning bush that most enrages his audience of Jehovah's Witnesses. Who do you think would be more disappointed: John, because you didn't appreciate his clever wordplay, or Jesus, because you're so cavalier about denying his words?

Exactly what words of Jesus do Jehovah's Witnesses deny?

[Difflugia]

Exactly what words of Jesus do Jehovah's Witnesses deny?

πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί

So, I take it you have no response to anything else I wrote?

[Capbook]

[Replying to placebofactor in post #86]
Nearly all (600?) Bibles falsely translate YHWH as "LORD." Only a very few attempt to translate (or transliterate) it as Yahweh or Jehovah. Does that make the false translations true because they are in the vast majority? Notice Ps. 83:18 in the KJV.

The KJV used the Latinized of the Tetragrammaton, but there are still versions of the Bible that used the personal name of the Father in its original.

(TS2009) Psa 83:18 And let them know that You, Whose Name is יהוה, You alone are the Most High over all the earth.

[Capbook]

Way back in the day copyists copied the Scriptures carefully, word-for-word. Yet there was just as much of a chance of being corrupted by a copyist then as with the more recent texts.

And that proves my point that its advantageous to rely on older manuscripts, especially when recent scholarship decide to label it as the original wordings like the P66 and P75, results of their exhaustive study.

That doesn't prove your point. I said that there is as much of a chance of being corrupted in the earlier mss as the more recent ones. When was John 8:58 changed to "before Abraham was I Am" from "before Abraham I have been"? Was that in the old mss or new ones?

These are the Bible translations that aims to maintain the highest degree of accuracy to original languages based on older manuscripts and others through exhaustive study. If you see Strong numbers in each word, it means it is from the original wordings of Greek or Hebrew.
And it proves that the original Bible word is "I am". (Not I have been) Paraphrased always changed it when it is about Jesus, Arians heavy used of thought for thought translations.

I beg to differ. Jesus wouldn't have used such sloppy Greek. He clearly said "I have been." There is no paraphrasing there except in your version of "I Am." You condemn paraphrasing and yet your examples are rife with it.

They are not paraphrase translations. See below Westcott and Hort rendered the last phrase of John 8:58 as "I am", that is not a translation, it is original Greek of the New Testament.

(Greek NT WH+) ειπεν G3004 V-2AAI-3S  αυτοις G846 P-DPM  ιησους G2424 N-NSM  αμην G281 HEB  αμην G281 HEB  λεγω G3004 V-PAI-1S  υμιν G4771 P-2DP  πριν G4250 ADV  αβρααμ G11 N-PRI  γενεσθαι G1096 V-2ADN  εγω G1473 P-1NS  ειμι G1510 V-PAI-1S 


(NASB+) Jesus G2424  said G3004  to them, “Truly G281 , truly G281  I say G3004  to you, before G4250  Abraham G11 N1 was born G1096 ,  N2 R1 I am G1510 .”

[onewithhim]

And that proves my point that its advantageous to rely on older manuscripts, especially when recent scholarship decide to label it as the original wordings like the P66 and P75, results of their exhaustive study.

That doesn't prove your point. I said that there is as much of a chance of being corrupted in the earlier mss as the more recent ones. When was John 8:58 changed to "before Abraham was I Am" from "before Abraham I have been"? Was that in the old mss or new ones?

These are the Bible translations that aims to maintain the highest degree of accuracy to original languages based on older manuscripts and others through exhaustive study. If you see Strong numbers in each word, it means it is from the original wordings of Greek or Hebrew.
And it proves that the original Bible word is "I am". (Not I have been) Paraphrased always changed it when it is about Jesus, Arians heavy used of thought for thought translations.

I beg to differ. Jesus wouldn't have used such sloppy Greek. He clearly said "I have been." There is no paraphrasing there except in your version of "I Am." You condemn paraphrasing and yet your examples are rife with it.

They are not paraphrase translations. See below Westcott and Hort rendered the last phrase of John 8:58 as "I am", that is not a translation, it is original Greek of the New Testament.

(Greek NT WH+) ειπεν G3004 V-2AAI-3S  αυτοις G846 P-DPM  ιησους G2424 N-NSM  αμην G281 HEB  αμην G281 HEB  λεγω G3004 V-PAI-1S  υμιν G4771 P-2DP  πριν G4250 ADV  αβρααμ G11 N-PRI  γενεσθαι G1096 V-2ADN  εγω G1473 P-1NS  ειμι G1510 V-PAI-1S 


(NASB+) Jesus G2424  said G3004  to them, “Truly G281 , truly G281  I say G3004  to you, before G4250  Abraham G11 N1 was born G1096 ,  N2 R1 I am G1510 .”

The translation is sloppy. Let's look at John 9:9 which follows 8:58. The words in verse 9, ego eimi are heard from the mouth not of Jesus, but of a blind man cured by Jesus. He uses the words to say, "I am he." If anyone needs proof that ego eimi doesn't have to be a quote from the Old Testament, and is not reserved as a title for God, here it is.

If ego eimi is not the man proclaiming that he is divine, then it cannot be such a proclamation in the mouth of Jesus just a few verses earlier. But is the blind man also God? He used the exact same words that Jesus used. According to your perception of ego eimi, he is also God.

For the rest of us, we see in John 9:9 a clear example of the idiomatic use of the expression ego eimi in Greek speech. Is there a bias that has interfered with the work of the translators in rendering 8:58 as "I Am"? I think that is a fair statement, especially in the light of the blind man's response and also the many times ego eimi is used in common Greek speech.

[Difflugia]

ego eimi is used in common Greek speech

It absolutely was not.

It is, in fact, incredibly rare in Greek literature, including works that incorporate dialog or oration. The search engine at Perseus Tufts excludes both ἐγώ and εἰμι, so I couldn't search on them there, but I downloaded ten texts that I considered representative:

• Aeschylus, Agamemnon
• Homer, Iliad
• Homer, Odyssey
• Plato, The Republic
• Plato, Euthydemus, Protagoras, Gorgias, Meno
• Josephus, The Wars of the Jews
• Josephus, The Life of Josephus
• Josephus, Against Apion
• Plutarch, Caesar
• Chariton, Callirhoe

Of those ten texts, there was a single occurrence of ἐγώ εἰμι (in Euthydemus, Loeb 297b). In the New Testament, it only appears in John. In the Septuagint, it's a semitism that arose because certain translators were better at Hebrew than Greek and rendered an overly literal translation that represents neither contemporary Greek speech nor Greek literature. Because the vast majority of occurrences are God speaking about Himself (Genesis 17:1, Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ θεός σου, "I am your God!"), it came to be considered a theological statement among Diaspora Jews.

John's Greek is literarily sophisticated. Given John's polished grammar and the contexts in which he uses ἐγώ εἰμι, it's extremely likely that every appearance is a theological statement. In Greek literature, nearly all cases of εἰμι appear without the explicit subject, because the verb form makes it unnecessary. John, however, includes it six times in his short narrative, five of which are spoken by Jesus. I'm inclined to think that it's an intentional theological counterpoint when the former blind man said it, but it hardly matters. A statement that appears hundreds of times in the Septuagint when God references himself, almost never in other Greek literature (a single time in ten works spanning hundred of years), but appears six times in John is overwhelmingly likely to be there on purpose.

For the rest of us, we see in John 9:9 a clear example of the idiomatic use of the expression ego eimi in Greek speech. Is there a bias that has interfered with the work of the translators in rendering 8:58 as "I Am"? I think that is a fair statement, especially in the light of the blind man's response and also the many times ego eimi is used in common Greek speech.

Can you tell me where I can find these "many times" that ἐγώ εἰμι appears in common Greek speech? Maybe I just missed them.

[Bible_Student]

ego eimi is used in common Greek speech

It absolutely was not...

The phrase Ego eimi holds no mystical significance within the Scriptures.

John 9:8 Then the neighbors and those who formerly used to see that he was a beggar began to say: “This is the man who used to sit and beg, is it not?” 9 Some were saying: “This is he.” Others were saying: “No, but he looks like him.” The man kept saying: “Ego eimi.”

It is simply a Trinitarian myth, akin to numerous other tales that stem from the philosophical concepts they've sought to weave into the sacred scriptures since the advent of Catholicism in human history.

[tygger2]

[Replying to Bible_Student in post #108]

These translations (most by trinitarians) render ego eimi at John 8:58 as:

(1) “I HAVE BEEN” - alternate reading in 1960 thru 1973 reference editions of NASB
(2) “I HAVE BEEN” - The New Testament, G. R. Noyes
(3) “I HAVE BEEN” - “The Four Gospels” According to the Sinaitic Palimpsest, A. S. Lewis
(4) “I HAVE ALREADY BEEN” - The Unvarnished New Testament
(5) “I HAVE EXISTED” - The Bible, A New Translation, Dr. James Moffatt
(6) “I EXISTED” - The New Testament in the Language of Today, 1964 ed., Beck
(7) “I EXISTED” - An American Translation, Goodspeed
(8) “I EXISTED” - The New Testament in the Language of the People, Williams
(9) “I EXISTED” - New Simplified Bible
(10) “I WAS IN EXISTENCE” - Living Bible
(11) “I WAS ALIVE” - The Simple English Bible
(12)“I WAS” - Holy Bible - From the Ancient Eastern Text, Lamsa
(13)“I WAS” - Young’s Literal Translation of the Holy Bible, 1st ed. (Also see Young’s Concise Critical Commentary, p. 61 of “The New Covenant.”).
(14) “I WAS” - The Syriac New Testament, Jas. Murdock
(15) “I WAS” - H. T. Anderson
(16) “I WAS” - Twentieth Century New Testament
(17) "I EXISTED" - New Living Translation (NLT)

[Bible_Student]

[Replying to Bible_Student in post #108]

These translations (most by trinitarians) render ego eimi at as:

(1) “I HAVE BEEN” - alternate reading in 1960 thru 1973 reference editions of NASB
(2) “I HAVE BEEN” - The New Testament, G. R. Noyes
(3) “I HAVE BEEN” - “The Four Gospels” According to the Sinaitic Palimpsest, A. S. Lewis
(4) “I HAVE ALREADY BEEN” - The Unvarnished New Testament
(5) “I HAVE EXISTED” - The Bible, A New Translation, Dr. James Moffatt
(6) “I EXISTED” - The New Testament in the Language of Today, 1964 ed., Beck
(7) “I EXISTED” - An American Translation, Goodspeed
(8) “I EXISTED” - The New Testament in the Language of the People, Williams
(9) “I EXISTED” - New Simplified Bible
(10) “I WAS IN EXISTENCE” - Living Bible
(11) “I WAS ALIVE” - The Simple English Bible
(12)“I WAS” - Holy Bible - From the Ancient Eastern Text, Lamsa
(13)“I WAS” - Young’s Literal Translation of the Holy Bible, 1st ed. (Also see Young’s Concise Critical Commentary, p. 61 of “The New Covenant.”).
(14) “I WAS” - The Syriac New Testament, Jas. Murdock
(15) “I WAS” - H. T. Anderson
(16) “I WAS” - Twentieth Century New Testament
(17) "I EXISTED" - New Living Translation (NLT)

You consistently provide us with various translations of the same verse, allowing us to learn and share these insights with others.

This helps ensure that people do not form doctrines based on phrases from particular versions that stray from the true intentions of the inspired author.

Please continue your excellent work. I truly appreciate it.