“”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.