Two Christians & A Jehovah's Witness Discuss Jesus' "I Am" Statements In John 8
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 лют 2025
- Thanks to Knieshia and Nick for their parts in this conversation!
[Teach YHWH]
/ @teachyhwh
[Where To Find Me]
Redd Apologetics on Twitter: x.com/reddapol...
Thanks again for having me on James! Really enjoy our time together.
Likewise, Nick! I enjoy the conversation greatly. :)
@reddapologetics
Hey James, I wanted to publicly apologize and make a correction on something I said today that was inaccurate. I mentioned you said in a past video that the LXX or Greek Septuagint is not always that accurate in its translation. It dawned on me it wasn’t you but someone else on your channel I was talking with on Proverbs 8:22 that the Greek Septuagint said create or made which he disagreed with. It was on your channel but realized it was not you. Again my sincerest apologies and if we ever talk again publicly I will also make this apology to you and those listening. It was unintentional. Please accept it.
Sincerely,
Nick 🤙🏼
@@NickHawaii No worries, Nick! All good! I appreciate your honesty and willingness to apologize. I know you weren't trying to misrepresent me. Totally understandable!
@ Thanks for accepting my sincere apology. Promise on a stack of bibles it was a mistake. Never would want to misrepresent anything you said. I had this on Knieshia’s channel too so anyone who watched the vid would know you never personally told me that. 😃🤙🏼
@ I appreciate you, Nick! :)
Soooo much wisdom in this! Just subscribed. 🔥 I also post Christian content!!
Host: "You can't get a past tense out of EGO EIMI". The present tense in Greek can function in a way that is best reflected by the present perfect in English. Grammarian Kenneth McKay describes this idiomatic use of the verb as the "Extension from Past" present, which occurs when a present tense verb is "used with an expression of either past time or extent of time with past implications." [1]. He understands EIMI at John 8:58 as an example of this idiom, and offers this excellent translation:
"I have been in existence since before Abraham was born."
McKay’s understanding of the Greek isn’t new, and sometimes when translators have broken away from committees and the unavoidable pressures such bodies sometimes exert out of allegiance to Church tradition, then they’ve offered renderings that attempt to capture the idiom.
Note a few examples:
“I existed before Abraham was born.” ~ Edgar J. Goodspeed
“I have existed before Abraham was born.” ~ James Moffatt
“I am here - and I was before Abraham!” ~ Catholic James A. Kleist, S.J. (In the footnote he claims that the utterance intimates eternity, but that’s not a necessary implication of the Greek).
“I most solemnly say to you, I existed before Abraham was born.” ~ Charles B. Williams, whose translation was called “…the best translation of the New Testament in English,” in part because it surpassed “…all other translators of the New Testament in bringing out the tense significance of the Greek verbs” (J. R. Mantey, comments on dust jacket).
“before Abraham came into existence, I existed.” ~ The Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains, by Louw and Nida,
All of these are fine attempts to capture the sense of the Greek, yet only McKay’s rendering truly does it justice, as only his rendering “…expresses a state which commenced at an earlier period but still continues…,” as George Benedict Winer put it [2], or “…which indicates the continuance of an action during the past and up to the moment of speaking…[which action is]…conceived as still in progress…,” as Nigel Turner put it [3].
Footnotes:
[1] A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek, p. 41
[2] A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament, Seventh Edition, p. 267
[3] A Grammar of New Testament Greek, Vol. III, Syntax, p. 62
Here to watch your awesome video brother!!!
Haha awesome! You may notice that you make an appearance. :)
@reddapologetics so I see 😏 hahah good working with you again brother
@TeachYHWH Likewise! Always a pleasure. :)
@TeachYHWH Thanks to you too Knieshia! Had a great time. 🤙🏼
@NickHawaii it was great!!!
This is taken from the book The Shadow of the Almighty: Father, Son and Spirit in Biblical Perspective (pp. 10-11):
"Notice that we do not have in v. 14 ANI ASHER ANI but a paranomastic use of the verb HAYAH. This suggests on
the one hand that we ought not to translate the phrase 'I am that I am' as if it were an ontological statement, a statement about God's being, but rather we seem to be being told something about God's activity or self-revelation in his activity. The focus then is not on God's being a self-contained, self-existent being . . . God then is not speaking
about what God is in the divine essence, but rather what Yahweh is or will be in relationship to his people--in his self-revelation."
These scholar trinitarians are admitting that Exodus 3:14 is not saying "I am that I am." I forgot to mention that the work was penned by Ben Witherington III and Laura M. Ice.
Host: (Paraphrasing) "Jehovah's Witnesses tend to lean into the roles and forget the natures." Right, which is the biblical approach. As the late Larry Hurtado rightly pointed out before he died:
"So, how can we say that 'ontological' categories don’t appear to be operative in earliest Christological texts? Negatively, there is the absence of the sort of philosophical terms that make their appearance in subsequent Christian texts. Positively, the Christological statements that we do have in NT texts seem to me to express claims more of a relational and transactional nature." (See his blog comment on September 26, 2016 entitled "Chronology and Ontology").
The Biblical approach to describing Jesus is to articulate both His nature and His roles. Even Jehovah's Witnesses recognize that the Bible has much to say about the nature of Jesus. We just disagree on what that nature is.
My point is that there's an emphasis on roles that overtakes the emphasis that the Bible also gives to His divine nature. So we end up with conversations about how a verse can't be saying that Jesus is God because Jesus says that the Father is greater than Him. We have to embrace the Biblical teaching on both the nature and the roles of Christ.
@@reddapologetics As the late Larry Hurtado pointed out, the biblical language is primarily relational and transactional, not ontological. The obsession with ontology came later, when the Jewish texts came to be interpreted by people from a later time and very different intellectual and social-cultural 'place.'
Regarding Exodus 3:14, Professor S.R. Driver, no little Hebrew scholar, wrote:
“it denotes, in Delitzsch’s words, not the idea of inactive, abstract existence, but the active manifestation of existence. Secondly, the imperfect tense used expresses not a fixed, present state (‘I am), but action, either reiterated (habitual) or future, i.e. either I am won’t to be or I will be.”
Quote from The Book of Exodus (Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges), 1918, Camb. UP, 40.
Good point!
In its commentary to Exodus 3:14, the JPS Tanakh, Jewish Study Bible, Oxford Edition states:
"God's proper name disclosed in the next verse is YHVH (spelled yod-heh-vav-heh. In Heb., in ancient times, the "vav" was pronounced "w"). But here God first tells Moses its meaning; ehyeh-asher-ehyeh, probably best translated as "I will be what I will be" meaning: "My nature will become evident from my actions."
@@NickHawaii Now compare that to Revelation 1:4, 8 "Him who is, and who was, and who is to come,..." I think the NWT references Ex 3:14. John separates "He who is,..." from Jesus.
@@AndrewCorban
Hi Andrew,
Start with Rev 1. Verse 8 says he is “the one who is and who was and is coming.” Now back peddle and read 4-5. What do we see? It speaks of the one who is and was and is coming and then it says AND Jesus Christ. What does that make us think?
@
And verse 6. Who is the God of Jesus again? That would be Exodus 3:14 and 15. Jehovah the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob. What does Acts 3:13 say Jesus is in relation to the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob again?
@@NickHawaii yes my point, they are not the same. But my main point is that I think John in his use of the “one who was, who is, and who is coming” is referencing Ex 3:14 and as the simple context of Rev demonstrates Jesus is not identified as the “one who was, who is…”
There are a number of problems with the claim that "I Am" is God's name, based on Ex. 3:14.
Firstly, the Hebrew at Ex. 3 has ehyeh, and a friend of mine took the time to look up every instance he could find of ehyeh with the pronoun, and the inescapable conclusion is that “I AM” is not a good translation. Notice that Ex. 3:14 is sandwiched between Ex. 3:12 and 4:12, and in both of the other texts it is rendered “I will be” not “I AM.” Moreover, it is rendered “I will be” or “I should be” or “I shall be” or “I would be” in the majority of such texts in which it appears (Ex. 3:12; 4:12; 4:15; Duet. 31:23; Jos. 1:5; 3:7; jdg. 6:16; 11:9; 1 Sa. 18:18; 23:17; 2Sa. 7:14; 15:34; 16:18; 16:19; Isa. 3:7; 47:7; Jer. 11:4; 24:7; 30:22; 31:1; 32:38; Ez. 11:20; 14:11; 34:24; 36:28; 37:23; Hos. 1:9; Zec. 8:8; etc.).
It seems that Trinitarian translators mistranslate ehyeh at Ex. 3:14, perhaps because they want to establish a connection between Jn. 8:58 and Ex. 3:14, where no such connection seems to exist.
Secondly, even in the LXX, which has the present tense “I am,” it doesn’t say “I am that I am” but rather “I am the being” or “I am the one who is.”
The LXX reads:
και ειπεν ο θεος προς μωυσην εγω ειμι ο ων και ειπεν ουτως ερεις τοις υιοις ισραηλ ο ων απεσταλκεν με προς υμας
Notice the words εγω ειμι ο ων, which mean “I am the being” or “I am the one who is,” and not “I am that I am.” Also notice the words, ο ων απεσταλκεν με προς υμας, which mean “the being has sent me to you” or “the one who is has sent me to you,” and not “I AM has sent me to you.”
Brenton’s translation of the text in the LXX reads:
“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.”
The New English Translation of the text in the LXX reads:
“And God said to Moyses, ‘I am The One Who Is.’ And he said, ‘The One Who Is’ has sent me to you.”
If Jesus wanted to claim to be the God who spoke to Moses at Ex. 3 and had the LXX in mind, he probably would have said something like this:
αβρααμ γενεσθαι εγω ειμι ο ων = Abraham came to be, I am the being (or Abraham came to be, I am the one who is)
Instead, he said this:
πριν αβρααμ γενεσθαι εγω ειμι
Thirdly, as it stands, the Greek we find at John 8:58 fits a known Greek idiom that grammarian Kenneth McKay calls the “Extension from Past,” which occurs when a present test verb is “used with an expression of either past time or extent of time with past implications.” (A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek: An Aspectual Approach), p. 41, 42
McKay offers this excellent rendering of Jesus’ words at John 8:58:
“I have been in existence since before Abraham was born.”
If we accept McKay’s observation that verse 58 is an example of the Extension from Past idiom (and I see no reason why we shouldn’t), then Jesus’ response (a) makes perfect sense, (b) constitutes a contextually-appropriate response in light of the question posed, and (c) would have constituted a stoning offense if untrue.
Notice how the pieces fall in place under McKay’s view:
Verse 56 - Jesus: “Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.”
Verse 57 - Opponents: “You are not yet fifty years old,” they said to him, “and you have seen Abraham?”
Verse 58 - Jesus: “The truth is, I have been in existence since before Abraham was born!”
Jesus’ opponents inferred from his statement in verse 56 that Jesus had personally observed (firsthand) Abraham rejoice over seeing his day. Jesus’ opponents construed his stupendous claim to be a blasphemous lie, which is why they picked up stones to stone him. Jesus presented himself as God’s living, breathing power of attorney, and to utter a lie while fulfilling his commission as God’s agent would make God a liar. Why? Because as God’s agent, his words were God’s words, legally. Now that would be construed as blasphemous, especially by those who already sought his death!
Hello! Thanks for the comment!
None of what you're saying changes the fact that Jesus responded to the Jew's question about His age with, "before Abraham was born (past tense completed action), ego eimi" (present tense). It seems to me that John could have used the imperfect tense to articulate Jesus existing in the past if that was the point. That is how John describes the logos in John 1:1. So I see no reason to assume that the "ego eimi" in John 8:58 should function as an "extension from the past".
And while I recognize that the LXX isn't explicitly saying "I am who I am", "ego eimi" is still how the LXX identifies God as He speaks in Exodus 3:14. And “I am who I am” or “I will be who I will be” are proper ways to translate the Hebrew in Exodus 3:14. "Ehyeh" is in the imperfect tense which means it can refer to incomplete, ongoing, or repeated action. To reference one of the verses you included in your list, Deu 31:23 renders "Ehyeh" as "I will be". So there's no reason to assume that "I will be" is not a proper translation of "Ehyeh" in Exodus 3:14.
So it makes sense that Jesus, in using such a grammatically odd phrase, is referencing Exodus 3:14 as He spoke to the Jews. I'll also add that Jesus' use of "ego eimi" was clearly a pattern in John that was meant to create emphasis around His identity. Why should we assume that John 8:58 was not a continuation of that pattern?
God bless!
@@reddapologetics Hi Redd, you said: "It seems to me that John could have used the imperfect tense to articulate Jesus existing in the past if that was the point."
That Jesus existed in the past wasn't the *whole* point of Jesus' reply with respect to the sense of the verb, though. As grammarians such as Kenneth L. McKay, George Benedict Winer, and Nigel Turner have pointed out, in Greek a present tense verb could be used in contexts in which it “…expresses a state which commenced at an earlier period but still continues…,” as Winer put it [1], or “…which indicates the continuance of an action during the past and up to the moment of speaking…[which action is]…conceived as still in progress…,” as Turner put it [2]. Both Winer and Turner list John 8:58 as an example of this usage. As McKay pointed out, present tense verbs that fit this idiom appear in contexts in which they are "used with an expression of either past time or extent of time with past implications," just as we have at John 8:58 [3].
Interestingly, McKay doesn't just list John 8:58 as an example of this usage, but he offers a superlative rendering as well:
"I have been in existence since before Abraham was born."
We need to keep in mind that ancient Koine grammar isn't modern English grammar, yet the translation process involves conveying the sense of the Greek in good English. The meaning that Winer and Turner describe is best expressed in English with the present perfect "I have been." English renderings such as "I am," "I existed," or "I was" only capture a piece of the verbal meaning, but not the entire verbal meaning, while the present perfect captures it all.
Here's how Google AI described the present perfect:
"The 'present perfect' is a verb tense in English that describes an action that started in the past and continues to have relevance in the present, often indicating an experience up to the current moment."
Sound familiar? That essentially reiterates exactly what both Winer and Turner described with respect to EIMI at John 8:58.
Footnotes:
[1] A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament, Seventh Edition, p. 267
[2] A Grammar of New Testament Greek, Vol. III, Syntax, p. 62
[3] A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek, p. 41
Interesting discussion but maybe bring in leading scholars when it comes to translations and historical context of the passages being referenced. Bart Ehrman for example. Many scholarly views of John would say it came much later and has a very specific bias on the gospel story which would speak to the evolution of the early church.
I left Christianity years ago but love the discussion. Takes me back to my Bible college days.
Now if we could only finally figure out how many angels fit on a pin head!
@nick - this discussion is just painful to watch. James in his opening referenced Ex 3:14 and claims that God said “EGW EIMI” which is not the complete story. In English as in Greek, “I am” functions as a grammatical cópula with a predicate that is either explicit or implied. YHWH never said I AM as James claims. The Greek reads EGW EIMI HO ON, or I am the Being. Nick, if you just stick to Ex 3:14 James’ argument crumbles at its base. Also, not sure if you pointed out that the blind man exclaims EGW EIMI in John 9:9 - I guess he was using the title of being God.
Hello! So I'm working on a follow-up video about my shift in position on what the ego eimi statements in John are referring to. I agree after further study that the Septuagint rendering of Exodus 3:14 is likely not the direct reference of John. However, I've come to see that the appropriate connection is Isaiah's repeated use of "ego eimi" in reference to YHWH in places like Isaiah 41:4, 43:10 and 46:4. One could also consider Deu 32:39. I do believe that Jesus ultimately claims to be the same God as Exodus 3:14. I just now see that it's not the direct reference.
It's a very fair point that the Septuagint gives us, "I am the being/I am the being one", making the Septuagint rendering of Exodus 3:14 not the likely reference for John. However, I would add that YHWH does refer to Himself as "I AM" (or "I Will Be" if you like) in the Hebrew rendering of Exodus 3:14. I see no reason to assume we have to apply another translation there. But once again, probably not John's reference.
Regarding the blind man, with him we don't have a guy claiming to be the Son of Man, who can do miracles, and who is repeatedly referring to Himself as "ego eimi" in a way that begs the question of who He is. The blind man was only saying he was the beggar being referred to. It's a natural place for a human to say, "I am he". So I think the context is quite different. My argument is not that the words "ego eimi" (without a predicate) have to be a reference to the Old Testament at all times, and that no other human has ever referred to themself that way. It's that Jesus' repeated use of the phrase as an identity statement (with its various applications and effects on those around Him), paired with a similar pattern of claims from God in the Old Testament indicates that Jesus is drawing a connection and making a claim to divinity.
God bless!
@@reddapologetics James, I appreciate your willingness to re-evaluate your stance on John 8:58 and Exodus 3:14. I want to acknowledge your honesty that you bring to the discussion -- thank you. I also recognize your appeal to Isaiah’s use of EGW EIMI, but I believe there are significant contextual issues with assuming that Jesus’ statements in John 8 are an automatic claim to divinity.
Now that Exodus 3:14 is off the table, let's deal with the **immediate context** of John 8:58 -- and the other "I am" sayings of Jesus in the preceding verses.
In John 8:24, Jesus says, "unless you believe that I am (EGW EIMI), you will die in your sins." If "EGW EIMI" were meant as a divine title, the audience would have recognized it instantly. However, their response in John 8:25 is telling: "Who are you?" This shows that they did not immediately understand "EGW EIMI" as a reference to Yahweh, but instead as a claim requiring clarification. If Jesus were explicitly invoking Isaiah’s EGW EIMI statements about Yahweh, why did His audience fail to react accordingly? If "EGW EIMI" in John 8:24 was an unmistakable divine claim, why does the audience respond with "Who are you?" instead of outrage or worship?
This is why I raised the issue about the blind man in John 9:9, who uses the exact same phrase, "EGW EIMI", to identify himself. There is no theological significance in his usage, nor does anyone interpret it as a claim to deity. If "EGW EIMI" inherently signified Yahweh’s identity, why does John allow an ordinary man to use the phrase without issue in the same locus of text as John 8:58?
When John wants to make a direct connection to Isaiah, he does so explicitly, as in John 12:41, where he says, "Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory and spoke about him." Yet, John does not make such a statement in John 8. This absence is significant. We need to be careful not to force connections that are not explicitly stated. When we attempt to create links where none are directly made, we risk becoming like the slaves in Plato’s Allegory of the Cave-mistaking shadows for substitutes of reality. If John intended a clear allusion, it would be made explicit rather than inferred. Otherwise, we are left constructing theological conclusions based on implications rather than concrete statements.
@@reddapologetics Lastly, James I think you're pigeon holing egw eimi and assuming that since eimi is in the present tense that the sense/usage is *always* in the present tense. Smyth in his Greek Grammar documents multiple usages of present tense verbs that refer to actions that OCCURED IN THE PAST AND CONTINUE UP TO THE PRESENT -- these are instances of "progressive presents." See his Grammar on page 442 and note 1885.
“I, Am” is not a name.
Certainly not God’s name.
God told us his name in Ex 3:15 and it’s YeHoVaH or JeHoVaH in English.
Well Exodus 3:14 clearly has God telling Moses to refer to Him as "Ehyeh" when speaking to the Sons of Israel. However you want to translate that, it's a name.
"Such a translation [in English] as 'I am what I am' appears to be ruled out completely by the fact that the verbs [in Hebrew] here are imperfects. 'I am' is the normal translation of the Hebrew perfect, not an imperfect..." -J.Wash Watt, Professor of Old Testament, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, 1930-1968, A Distinctive Translation of Exodus With An Interpretive Outline, 1977, pp 140-141.
"The translation 'I am' [in English] is doubly false: the tense is wrong, being present; and the idea is wrong, because am [in such an incorrect translation] is used in the sense of essential existence. .." A. B. Davidson, "The Theology of the Old Testament" in The International Theological Library, 1920, page 55
@@NickHawaiiI wouldn’t even go to the Hebrew. The argument that James is attempting to construct relies on the usage of the Greek LXX and the Greek NT - it’s doesn’t add up. It’s not the same. Wrong number - that person doesn’t live here! YHWH does not call himself EGW EIMI in Ex 3:14 - case closed.
There seems to be a piece missing from this dialog. It appears to be from the mindset that there can only be one deity. The idea that a Son of God, (more precisely a Paradise Creator Son of God, Michael of Nebadon), could be a sub-deity, if you will, doesn't seem to get any play. God is eternal, and can (and does) create other beings who are also eternal, such as a Son of God. Jesus (Micheal) is an eternal being, as in "before Abraham was, I am." John 8:58 That does not make him "the God", the big guy on the Central Isle of Paradise. But he is, from our perspective, "our God." He is the sovereign ruler of our local universe of Nebadon. [He incarnated in the likeness of will creatures in our universe a number of times, including as the Archangel Michael. His last one was as Jesus, the Son of Man. This he had to do in order to earn his sovereignty as well as to understand us from our point of view.] And, he did give us the Spirit of Truth, (a very deity kind of thing to do).
Understand that the apostle John, being a mere mortal, had no way of distinguishing between the two, other than by Jesus referring to his father as being God... "Our Father, who art in heaven..." meaning God is both his father and ours.
A divine revelation called the Urantia Book, clears all these misconceptions up.
Hello! How would one substantiate that the Urantia Book (which, from what I understand, was an anonymously written book which was published in the 1950s) is divinely inspired?
@@reddapologetics that also applies to every other so-called divinely inspired literature. As far as I'm aware there is no verified and reliable way of doing that. It always comes down to taking it on faith, of accepting it anyway, even when there are no good reasons for doing so.
@@reddapologetics - Good question. But given our status as being at the bottom of the totem pole, "substantiation" is a difficult task.
There are places where it states various facts that have been corroborated. E.g., the angel Solonia (the voice in the Garden) tells us that there were two brick walls separating the Garden of Eden from the mainland (now Syria), and using sonar and other underwater scanning equipment, those two walls have been found, so we 'know' where the first Garden was. It also claims there are tablets under water in the Persian Gulf dating back 500,000 years that have 7 rules of behavior on them. Presumably at least one of them will eventually be found. It discusses the movements of the continents prior to the acceptance of tectonic plates. And these are but a few examples. The Urantia Fellowship's website contains many derivative works along these lines. www.urantiabook .org/ [spaces added to keep Google happy]
For myself, many places where I read it gave me 'truth vibes' if you will... but taken as a whole, my reasoning when along these lines:
1) the book was never advertised and yet was clearly a very labor intensive work, suggesting it was not created for the purpose of making money, (not your typical human tendency);
2) the Urantia Foundation, which first published the book, is likewise a non-profit enterprise;
3) the contents of the book are internally consistent, unlike the Bible, or any other product of human creation (e.g., the Harry Potter books), and the language is such that high intelligences were behind it's authorship. The term "anonymous" is true from a human standpoint, although each paper indicates which celestial being wrote it. When the Foundation attempted to renew their copyright, they were unable to do so given the lack of a human author.
“I, Am” or “I, am” is a trinitarian biased mistranslation.
It’s past-present tense.
It’s speaking of the past right up to the present.
Many scholars and translators have recognized this, including Edgar Goodspeed, and have translated John 8:58 as “I have been” or similar.
Regardless, the question asked to Jesus was not about identity, it was about existence.
How he could not yet be 50 years old and has seen Abraham.
Even if Jesus existed before Abraham, that doesn’t necessarily mean he existed as Almighty God.
Are you saying that "ego eimi" is always "past-present tense"? Or is it just because of the context?
I would agree that the Jews were asking about age, but Jesus responded with an identity claim that also answered their question of why He was there before Abraham. And His use of "ego eimi" as an identity claim was already a trend in John 8. But you're saying that in verse 58 Jesus switched to only referring to His existence by making this grammatically odd statement which involves a present tense verb now becoming a "past-present tense" verb. I see no reason to look at it that way.
Thanks for the comment! God bless!
@@reddapologetics
My friend Edgar Foster who knows Koine Greek when asked wrote: “I would like to say politely that the aorist has a different verbal aspect than the present does, but the once-for-all-time view of the aorist has been dispelled. The aorist portrays time as a whole and is the default tense in Greek: aspect theorists refer to the aorist tense-form as "perfective" aspect, but the present is imperfective aspect if I'm not mistaken. Pluperfects are stative.”
Another brother friend of mine Steve who knows biblical languages well wrote:
“There is a clear distinction between the aorist and the present tense.
The reason why John didn't use the aorist participle is because it would have meant at some point Christ's life would have come to an end, and then wouldn't exist anymore.
So he used the present tense participle, not only to denote past tense existence, but present tense and future tense existence as well.”
@NickHawaii Hi Nick! So I wouldn't necessarily expect the aorist to be used here either. I think that the implication of a completed action in the past wouldn't seem appropriate for the situation. As I may have I noted on the stream, when John is describing the logos in John 1:1, he uses "ēn" (was) which is in the imperfect tense, which expresses a continuous action with no implication of a point of origin. And I would assume that we both understand that the logos exists continuously and presently. John felt comfortable using the imperfect in that context, so I would see it as a natural option in John 8:58 if the point was merely to describe Jesus' existence.
Now obviously there is a difference here in the sense that John is quoting Jesus, not articulating his own thoughts. But my point is that there are other ways that we could expect John to articulate past tense existence that is continuous, if that is what Jesus was trying to say.
@
Thanks for your shared thoughts as always. Just one or 2 thoughts today.
The word “was” like the other "be" verbs, simply shows existence. It obviously does not indicate the length of that existence.
In the NASB we see in Rev. 17:8 - "The beast that you saw was [ἦν], and is not, and is about to come up out of the abyss"
You and I wouldn’t think that beast always existed in eternity or making it equal to God.
There are so many more uses of "was" in the Bible which clearly show that the word seldom, if ever, denotes eternal existence, but are clearly shown to be describing a point in time or a period of time which had a beginning.
I also asked a friend of mine who knows Hebrew if it was true that “am” is not a word in the Hebrew.
He wrote me this:
“That is correct, in order for אני to work when translating from Hebrew to English, you must insert the auxiliary word "am."
Very interesting to me. And this may be true in Arabic but I have not confirmed.
@@reddapologetics
The translation at John 1:1c, “…and the Word was God” is wrong and it’s not really debatable.
The far majority of scholars recognize, grammatically, this is a qualitative translation, not definite.
Including Trinitarian scholars such as Bruce Metzger and William Barclay.
John was not numerically identifying the Word as the same God he is with.
They never asked if he was God. They asked if he was the son of God or the messiah.
He said before Abraham was I am.
He is not using the devine name.
In Hebrew, the saying son of man means a man around 50 considered to be wise enough to be a son of man. It's a term meaning to act like a grown man.
It's really simple to understand.
If jesus was saying he is God, he would have said it an obvious way.
Yes some trinitarian scholars have admitted that they believe that Jesus' statements at John 8:56 and 8:58 are statements proclaiming himself to be the Messiah.
Trinitarian scholar William Barclay said this in his popular Daily Study Bible Series:
"So when Jesus said that Abraham had seen his day, he was making a deliberate claim that he was the Messiah. He was really saying 'I am the Messiah Abraham saw in his vision.' " page 35, The Gospel of John, Vol. 2 and the footnote for John 8:56 in The New Oxford Annotated Bible.
One thing i found out is that in Aramaic, there isn't a direct way to say i am, so if jesus was speaking Aramaic with the council he would have likely used Greek or Hebrew to substitute I am. As the others would have known either language Greek or Hebrew.
And if he did use Aramaic he might have said I-I which isn't a canotation to God.
And in Greek if he was saying the tetrgramaton he would likely say ego eimi ho on. Or In Hebrew eyeh asher eyeh.
@NickHawaii
Could there be a middle ground? Could Jesus have use the term I AM, referring to the fact that he appeared as YHWH back in the Old Testament? There seems to be some instances in the New Testament where scripture about YHWH are also referring to Jesus. I personally believe that Jesus is our God, but he is also the only begotten Son of God. We can still worship Jesus Christ because His father has given him all authority and everything else should worship him but he is still not greater than his father. I understand the problem is that there is only one God, but could it be that he is our God but not the Almighty God??
Just a note on where my views are coming from: I’m a recently faded jw. I’m trying to find out what I believe the Bible teaches without relying on the interpretation of the governing body. I hope Nick continues to get involved with this discussion as it’s really helpful to hear the viewpoint of a well educated Jehovah’s Witness.
@@Peps1975
Thanks for your comment. Always ask yourself who am I united with as 1 Corinthians 1:10? Who have love among themselves and the fruits Jesus is looking for. What group of Christians are really no part of this world and fulfilling Matthew 24:14.
@@NickHawaii Thanks for replying, Nick. Yes, I agree that the organization has many loving people in it, but I’m not sure they are any more loving than people in general (though, of course, there are many wicked people out there too). I stopped going to the meetings about 18 months ago after deciding to do a research project into 1914. For the first time in my life, I realized that it’s just an interpretation. I know that is obvious for many but At 48 years of age and raised in the truth, I had previously accepted it as a clear Bible teaching, like the ransom. That realization has really made me question everything. Thanks for your reply nick
Pep
I had never really read the Bible in context. I’d just worked my way through along with everyone else in the Thursday meetings. Im beginning to see Context is so important. It changes so many ideas I once believed. Sorry I know this is completely off topic
@
I wouldn’t worry about Bible chronology or any other thing we might struggle with. The main thing is we recognize that Jesus is the head of the congregation and who is doing what him and his Son want us to do. Listen to what the sprit says through the congregations. (Revelation 2:29) People who try to go it alone I see usually never are happy or are doing the grand commission Jesus said would get done. We need one another. The world is not that loving. Not even close to what we have. Jesus said what he said for a reason. He told us not to be part of it but he gives us something to be part of. Stay strong and close to Jehovah, his Son and people. Let’s keep each other in our prayers.