Posted on 07/02/2010 6:56:08 PM PDT by Desdemona
“Young’s literal has it right with the exception of his parenthetical addition where he, too, tries to smooth it out.”
I don't know what you mean by “smooth it out” but there's a reason why Young's is called ‘Literal’. The addition of “he” brings the literal Greek closer to English while keeping the literalness. He is not translating ego eimi as a name or title or any such thing.
It is not a reply. They did not say anything to Jesus to which He replied.
It is a response to their fear, and the literal response makes perfect sense in the context of the Gospel of John. The response is “I AM!”
He’s walking on WATER for Pete’s sake (pun intended.)
:>)
Saying he was with the Father is one thing; saying he is the same God of Ex 3:14 is not the same.
The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are One God. And they are different Persons
Different and lesser is not the same. Jesus says that he one but also that he is lesser than the Father.
The Father is not begotten. Jesus is the only begotten Son of the Father...In the beginning was the Word
John 1:1 says nothing about begetting, but rather states that "in the beginning [sic]" the Word (not the Son) was towards God and was God. Rather verse 1:14 seems to suggest that the only-begotten Son referrs to Jesus and not the eternal Word prior to incarnation.
You claim that God never says anything like that, i.e. I AM. To the contrary...I am Alpha and Omega...
That's not the same as just I AM (both cpaitalized).
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
He says no such thing in Hebrew or in Greek. Only in your English language Bible.
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. – John 8:58
You don't get it, do you?
As soon then as he had said unto them, I am [he], they went backward, and fell to the ground. – John 18:6
Another one of John's transparencies. If that is so, then why did they have to get false witnesses to testify against Jesus in front of Sanhedrin? They had witnesses right there and then!!!
Besides, you don't think they would have arrested him if they believed he was God, do you?
Remember the former things of old: for I [am] God, and [there is] none else; [I am] God, and [there is] none like me...
I am God and just I am are not one and the same thing. You are pulling at straws. Angel Gabriel says ego eimi (I am) Gabriel! Does that mean he is God?
Yes, 14:9, sorry.
However, It IS “I am” wherever it shows up
Ego eimi is "I am" (subject and predicate" not God's holy name).
But "I AM" doesn't exist anywhere in the Bible as a title, except apaprenlty in English Bibles. The ego eimi/eimi ego is never a title in Greek.
That is irrelevant. You need to show that his data are not true.
Bultman’s heresy involved rejection of the deity of Christ and of the resurrection. Therefore, it does matter.
But the indicative would declare something Jesus viewed or stated as so without question, ‘Abraham came to be, existed, was produced, generated’.
So Aorist, indicative, middle voice.
“Incidentally, the same source argues (quite interestingly I must say) from Psalm 2:7 that Jesus is not the YHWH of Exodus 3:14:”
It's a good point but i didn't follow his argument any further. A Catholic might argue the same thing but for quite different reasons.
We have shown you verse after verse that is justification. If there were “no” justification, we wouldn’t be proposing it. We’re both honest people without an agenda. We have been taught a literate, word-by-word approach to translation, and we’ve gone word-by-word. “Egw Eimi” means “I am”. That is a 1st person singular verb of being with an emphatic 1st person singular pronoun.
“It is I” on the other hand would be something with “eivai”.
You need a third person singular verb of being to arrive at “it is” and I believe that’s “eivai”
“”It is I” on the other hand would be something with “eivai”.
You need a third person singular verb of being to arrive at “it is” and I believe that’s “eivai””
Actually it's “einai”, the letter that looks like a “v” is really like English “n”.
John uses the word three times and it is is translated as “was”, “there (be)”, and “to be”.
It's what's called an infinitive form. “to be or not to be” is a good example.
“Egw Eimi” means “I am”. That is a 1st person singular verb of being with an emphatic 1st person singular pronoun.”
Ummm..Close but no banana. “ego” is nomitive, it names something, i.e., “I”.
“eimi” is in the indicative mood, the speaker views it as fact. He is certain he “am” and John 9:9 “ego eimi”, is grammatically the exact form of John 8:58 “ego eimi”.
But what an “emphatic” pronoun is I don't know.
“We have been taught a literate, word-by-word approach to translation, and we’ve gone word-by-word.”
That word-for-word is fine in an interlinear but we want to know what the writer meant and that is the ultimate purpose of translation. Words transmit ideas and it the ideas of another language we want not just the words.
Here is a literal word-for-word translation of a verse from John:
“Not yet one for in hidden any is doing and is seeking he in boldness to be if appear yourself to the system.”
Is that clear enough? Or do you want to know what he meant, which will not be literal or word-for-word?
It's what John wrote, word-for-word.
“We have shown you verse after verse that is justification. If there were “no” justification, we wouldn’t be proposing it.”
That sounds like, “It's so ‘cause I say it's so and if it weren't I would not have said it”.
I trust and believe everyone but I still don't take checks or candy from strangers.
“We’re both honest people without an agenda.”
And I've not suggested otherwise. Having a viewpoint and vigorously defending it doesn't make a person dishonest or colour their motives in my opinion, even if I think them in error. It's not personal with me and I don't get hurt feeling. Irritation? o.k., that I do, but it's not personal and I don't expect others to take it that way either.
Maybe the problem is Catholisism?
That's why I used the v, and why I also use the w.
I looked it up.
3rd person singular is: esti(v)
3rd person singular would be: it is
1st person singular is: eimi (I am)
His arguments regarding John's Gospels have nothing to do with that. I invite you to show that he says on that subject is wrong. Origen was a Christological heretic, yet he still forms the bulwark of early Christian apologetics.
yet he still forms the bulwark = yet he doesn’t form a bulwork
Bultman considered everything about Christianity to be myth, kosta. In sum, he taught that none of it happened...except that some guy was killed by the Romans.
He sure as heck isn’t gonna think Jesus is the “I am”. In fact, he considered the “I am” to be myth, too.
His scholarship is simply irrelevant.
That seems to be unavoidable in just about any translation, at least to some extent. The nature of the language pretty much dictates that.
So Aorist, indicative, middle voice
The mood is infinitive, cyc.
A Catholic might argue the same thing but for quite different reasons.
I lost you there. Why? Acts 13:33; also Heb 1:5, 5:5 has it; also it is found in a Markan variant used at Jesus' baptism. This was the basis for the Adoptionists to argue that Jesus became divine and was an ordinary human prior to that. Catholic theology would reject that, arguing that the Word was eternally begotten of the Father.
Of course a cursory reading of the entire Psalm 2 makes it clear that it has nothing to do with Jesus.
His beliefs are irrelevant. His argument was not about his beliefs or about "I am" but that John's Gospel was interpolated and he gives concrete, verifiable data, to support his claim. If you think his data are flawed, please provide evidence showing all the concrete examples he lists are wrong.
His flaws are beyond my desire to expound on. Many have commented on the Gospel of John, and many of them find peculiar sequencing. Some even suggest he is telling a THEOLOGICAL story....gasp....rather than a CHRONOLOGICAL story.
That, however, only heightens the rationale behind Alamo’s insistence that “I am” is used by Jesus in John to call attention to His Divine nature.
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.