Replies

Can “ego eimi”, which is present tense be properly translated as “I existed” or “I have been” or something similar? Yes, it can.

Yes, of course (John 9:14), but there is a source that argues ego eimi in John 8:58 can be translated as future tense:

What Yeshua actually meant was, "Before Abraham comes into being (at his resurrection unto eternal life), I will." Confirmation of this understanding comes to us from Figures of Speech Used in the Bible by E.W. Bullinger, pgs. 521,522. Under the heading "Heterosis (Of Tenses)," subheading "The Present for the Future," he writes, "This is put when the design is to show that some thing will certainly come to pass, and is spoken of as though it were already present." He then lists some examples such as Mt.3:10b, "therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is [shall be] hewn down;" and Mk.9:31a, "For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is [shall be] delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day." Included among this list of examples of Heterosis is Jn.8:58. In other words, although properly written, "Before Abraham comes to be, I am," with "I am" in the simple present tense, the meaning points to the future, "Before Abraham comes to be, I will."

The source then addresses the issue of Abraham's existence

Some people believe this verse should be translated, "Before Abraham existed, I existed." However, neither Greek verb is in the perfect tense (past tense). "Was" is in the aorist tense and "am" is in the present tense. Let's look a little closer at "was." Concerning the aorist tense, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament by Dana and Mantey says, "It has time relations only in the indicative, where it is past and hence augmented." The verb ginomai (was) is in the infinitive, not the indicative. Therefore it should not be translated in the past tense. This same reference says of the infinitive, "The aorist infinitive denotes that which is eventual or particular, ..." Abraham will eventually resurrect which is why the Greek uses the aorist infinitive. The meaning is, "Before Abraham comes to be" not "Before Abraham was (or existed)."

So, he is arguing that in this case ego eimi can not be translated a past, "eternal present," or simple present, but as future!

Incidentally, the same source argues (quite interestingly I must say) from Psalm 2:7 that Jesus is not the YHWH of Exodus 3:14:

And what does Yahweh say in Ps.2:7? "I will declare the decree: Yahweh hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee." Yahweh is the Father of Yeshua. Yeshua is the Son of Yahweh. Yeshua is not Yahweh and the Son is not the Father. Therefore, Yeshua (the Son of Yahweh) cannot be the I AM (Yahweh). That alone should be sufficient to discredit the belief that Yeshua was claiming to be the "I AM." But let's look into the matter a little farther.

I think the source is substituting interpretation for translation. His argument hangs upon “The verb ginomai (was) is in the infinitive, not the indicative.”

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.