Posted on 07/02/2010 6:56:08 PM PDT by Desdemona
The Onkelos Targum is a translation. That's what the word Targum means. In Hebrew, the original, God states that "I will be what I will become" [Ex 3:14], a future tense, and not I am who I am. Jesus says nothing even close to what God says in Ex 3:14. Ego eimi is not equivalent to Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh.
The Onkelos Targum is a translation. That's what the word Targum means. In Hebrew, the original, God states that "I will be what I will become" [Ex 3:14], a future tense, and not I am who I am. Jesus says nothing even close to what God says in Ex 3:14. Ego eimi is not equivalent to Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh.
Possibly. Not sure.
Ever been wrong? Could God change His mind about you? Have you ever changed your mind? Are you able to predict the future?
The Incommunicable Name was pronounced "Adonai," and where Adonai and Yhwh occur together the latter was pronounced "Elohim." After the destruction of the Second Temple there remained no trace of knowledge as to the pronunciation of the Name (see Jehovah). The commentators, however, agree as to its interpretation, that it denotes the eternal and everlasting existence of God, and that it is a composition of (meaning "a Being of the Past, the Present, and the Future"). The name Ehyeh () denotes His potency in the immediate future, and is part of Yhwh. The phrase "ehyeh-asher-ehyeh" (Ex. iii. 14) is interpreted by some authorities as "I will be because I will be," using the second part as a gloss and referring to God's promise, "Certainly I will be [ehyeh] with thee" (Ex. iii. 12). Other authorities claim that the whole phrase forms one name. The Targum Onḳelos leaves the phrase untranslated and is so quoted in the Talmud (B. B. 73a). The "I AM THAT I AM" of the Authorized Version is based on this view.
The Jews are extremely careful not to alter, erase or mistranslate a Name of God. This is why they often type "G_d" instead of "God" on the Internet - so that they don't accidentally erase a Name of God.
It is after all, a NAME OF GOD.
Breaking up the Name of God into individual phrases it looks like this:
Asher - could mean that, who, which, etc. depending on context.
Ehyeh - first-person singular imperfect form of hayah, to be which is usually translated "I will be."
If Exodus 3:12 were translated to English by that rule, it would look like this:
As a Proper NAME OF GOD it correctly translates and reduces to "I AM" in English:
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.' " - NIV
God said to Moses, 'I am he who is.' And he said, 'This is what you are to say to the Israelites, "I am has sent me to you." ' - New Jerusalem Bible
God said to Moses: I AM WHO AM. He said: Thus shalt thou say to the children of Israel: HE WHO IS, hath sent me to you. - Douay-Rheims
God said to Moshe, "Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh [I am/will be what I am/will be]," and added, "Here is what to say to the people of Isra'el: 'Ehyeh [I Am or I Will Be] has sent me to you.'" - Complete Jewish Bible
As soon then as he had said unto them, I am [he], they went backward, and fell to the ground. John 18:6
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. Revelation 1:8
Remember the former things of old: for I [am] God, and [there is] none else; [I am] God, and [there is] none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times [the things] that are not [yet] done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: - Isaiah 46:9-10
To God be the glory, not man, never man.
Likewise, John 8:58 is not without its own problems and variants. Some manuscripts show the verse in the past tense (I was) rather than in present imperfect (I am being). To use only one of myriad examples, Jason BeDuhn and Robert M. Bowman (2004-2005) debated this at length, and BeDuhn writes the following (emphasis added; also text in [] is my interpolation):
Thus, we have translational and contextual issues here, which have been "harmonized" over the centuries. The fact that Onkelos Targums retain the Ehyeh-Asher-Ehye in the (Hebrew) original is irrelevant, as its pronunciation and substitution in reading varied over time and language (Hebrew, Aramaic, etc.), and the perceived meaning changed from one rabbi to another. Thus we have issues not only with the Ehyeh-Asher-Ehye but with John 8:58 and the much controversial ego eimi phrase.
In fact, ego eimi (which is a simply "I am") appears all over the New Testament and is never confused with the name of God. But in the Septuagint version of the Exodus 3:14 God is quoted as saying "ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν" (ego eimi ho on), that is I am the Being/Existence. It is the ho on that is missing in John 8:58, which is why there is reason to think something is not kosher with this verse. The ho on (Ο ΩΝ) is the equivalent of the Hebrew tetragrammaton (YHWH) which is why it appears on most icons of Jesus in his halo of later years.
But, as noted, the early church fathers did not make a connection between John 8:58 and Exodus 3:14. The ho on was missing in the former. So, no matter how you turn it around, what Jesus says in John 8:58 doe snot correspond to Hebrew Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh, not to the Septuagint version of Exodus 3:14.
doe snot=does not
54Jesus answered, `If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing; it is my Father who is glorifying me, of whom ye say that He is your God; 55and ye have not known Him, and I have known Him, and if I say that I have not known Him, I shall be like you -- speaking falsely; but I have known Him, and His word I keep; 56Abraham, your father, was glad that he might see my day; and he saw, and did rejoice.' 57The Jews, therefore, said unto him, `Thou art not yet fifty years old, and Abraham hast thou seen?' 58Jesus said to them, `Verily, verily, I say to you, Before Abraham's coming -- I am;' 59they took up, therefore, stones that they may cast at him, but Jesus hid himself, and went forth out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.
Alamo-girl's interpretation is simply backed up by the context. The leaders' reaction to Jesus' words, and the words themselves, suggest Jesus intentionally provoked them.
And then we have the man born blind story of chapter 9:
35Jesus heard that they cast him forth without, and having found him, he said to him, `Dost thou believe in the Son of God?' 36he answered and said, `Who is he, sir, that I may believe in him?' 37And Jesus said to him, `Thou hast both seen him, and he who is speaking with thee is he;' 38and he said, `I believe, sir,' and bowed before him.
Jesus received WORSHIP from a man who had believed Jesus' own words about HIS being the Son of God.
"I AM" indeed.
But please remember that you and I come from polar opposite epistemological positions (how we know what we know and how certain we are that we know it.)
The revelations of God - as in the Torah and indeed all of Scripture - are certain to me. A thing is true because God said it.
By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. - Psalms 33:6
The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. [There is] no speech nor language, [where] their voice is not heard. Psalms 19:1-3
And before someone suggests that the Scriptures are merely the words of historical figures, I testify here and now that the words of God are alive, they are spirit and life. The words of men are not and thus we know the difference.
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life. - John 6:63
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: - John 10:27
Why do ye not understand my speech? [even] because ye cannot hear my word. John 8:43
Likewise, that the early Church fathers did not discern the connection between these passages is irrelevant to me.
And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. Exodus 3:14
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. John 8:58
As soon then as he had said unto them, I am [he], they went backward, and fell to the ground. John 18:6
Remember the former things of old: for I [am] God, and [there is] none else; [I am] God, and [there is] none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times [the things] that are not [yet] done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: - Isaiah 46:9-10
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. - Genesis 1:1
These [are] the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, - Genesis 2:4
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. John 1:1-4
Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] he might have the preeminence. For it pleased [the Father] that in him should all fulness dwell; And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, [I say], whether [they be] things in earth, or things in heaven. Colossians 1:15-20
God's Name is Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh which is to say in my native language, His proper Name is I AM.
Roman Catholic apologists have a really difficult time with the fact that these United States were patterned after the Presbyterian form of government of Calvin's Geneva.
And rather than deal with the present corruption in their own church, which is the topic of this thread, they prefer to try to deflect the discussion onto anything but the obvious sins of the RCC priestcraft and the magisterium's complicity in those sins.
If you're waiting for a Protestant to defend any crime, albeit the Salem witch trials or any misdeeds of a Protestant pastor, you'll have a long wait.
Which, of course, is the difference between Protestants and Roman Catholics. Protestants denounce sin, knowing all men are fallen. Roman Catholics hide sin because they deny the extent of the Fall and thus presume men can save themselves by their own good works. This massive error then leads them to wrongly believe some men are more than men; they are "another Christ."
As Orwell noted, "Some pigs are more equal than others."
Let's see who this Doyle fellow was. He was an unmarried Englishman who lived 150 years ago who wrote about American history. Wonder if his crusty English perspective was perhaps a little "skewed" against those rebellious Colonies?
Also, the three Quakers were charged with heresy. For a little perspective, let's see what early Quakers really believed...
Acceptance of any document as valid for doctrine, i.e. Tao Te Ching, Koran, etc. (Society of Friends)...""Some, but not all Quakers, view the doctrine of Jesus' and the virgin birth as nonessential and not accepted as fact...
Sounds like heresy to me.
But I do appreciate these many opportunities to learn the truth, to put history into perspective, to understand what went on in the past and what is going on in the present. Roman Catholic errors provide a wealth of riches to learn by default.
Negative. We have shown that the Calvinist colonies were originally patterned after Calvin's Geneva and that their murderous zeal had to be tempered with the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution. As a matter of fact, Calvin's Geneva and the Calvinist colonies especially the Puritan colonies were brutal theocracies. You have kept on talking about religious freedom, but the fact is that most of the original colonies had a decreed religion. I don't know what parallel universe would ever claim otherwise. You have rejected an official account from the state government of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, so I suppose that there is very little that will make an impression on you.
So it is okay to have religious tolerance only for those who believe exactly as the Reformed do and make it into law? Nice. You are consistent, anyway.
We will have to file it away under Calvinist meanings of English words and phrases: religious freedom in the Reformed lexicon means that one must be a 5-point TULIP believer and it is good and holy to persecute to the death anybody who doesn’t believe it. Got it. Thanks.
In context, dear xzins, the Pharisees were angry with Jesus becuase in their eyes he was saying that he knew Moses, not that he is equivalent to God. That is clear from John 8:57
In other words they were angry with him for lying. Simple as that. Nowheere in the Greek text does Jesus say he is God.
The way Jesus expresses himself (ego eimi) in John 8:58 is not equivalent either to ehyer (I shall become) in the Masoretic Hebrew, or to to the LXX Greek ο ων [ho on] (the existence), in Exodus 3:14, because it's missing the essential ho on.
In other words, simple ego eimi without the ho on is just "I am" and not the sacred name of God in Greek. Ego eimi is found all over the NT (over 1,600 times) without it ever being confsued with the sacred name of God, which is ο ων and which is not mentioned in John 8:58.
And then we have the man born blind story of chapter 9...Jesus received WORSHIP from a man who had believed Jesus' own words about HIS being the Son of God.
Naurally. The Gospel of John was written at the very end of the first century precisely for that purpose. In the historical context the timing of John's Gospel was no coincidence, but a dire necessity: Christianity needed to establish divine authority for itself, independent of Judaism. Christians were shortly before that thrown out of the synagogues, declared heretics and their books publicly rejected by official rabbinic Judaism.
Christianity could no longer derive its authority from Judaism unless it established that Jesus was not just the anointed (Jewish) human messiah but rather the God of Israel himself! John's entire Gospel is a project for accomplishing that goal. So, such tales as you mention in John 9 are perfectly expected in that work.
That doesn't show, however, that (grammatically or otherwise) the word "ego eimi" (I am) is equivalent to "ego eimi ho on."
you are denying the obvious intent of all the stories preceding and following the text in question. it is a basic principle of hermeneutics. Nothing I can do about that except take it into account when reading your positions.
who did Jesus say was “before” Abraham?
Is this a trick question? Himself, of course.
case closed, really, by the context
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.