John 8:58

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you mean the personal pronoun (I) with the verb to be in the present tense (am), hardly, there are numerous instances of it elsewhere and you dont see them falling over themselves to display their religious bias,

'I am the shepherd', 'I am the vine', all from the book of John. Is there some strange grammatical significance within these verses th ...[text shortened]... which is not that accurate usually,

'I was in existence before Abraham was born'.

I'm back !!!

But I need to go out and mow the lawn so I am not going to say much now. However, let's suppose you are correct with your translation. Then now will you answer my question as to why Yahshua (Jesus) said the following?

"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad."

Where did this happen in scripture? What does this mean?

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
I'm back !!!

But I need to go out and mow the lawn so I am not going to say much now. However, let's suppose you are correct with your translation. Then now will you answer my question as to why Yahshua (Jesus) said the following?

[b]"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad."

Where did this happen in scripture? What does this mean?

The Instructor[/b]

dont know, this thread is about John 5:58 and your religious bias, mow the lawn and stuff some grass in the side of your turnip head, did you see the wizard of Oz about a brain?

Originally posted by RJHinds
I'm back !!!

But I need to go out and mow the lawn so I am not going to say much now. However, let's suppose you are correct with your translation. Then now will you answer my question as to why Yahshua (Jesus) said the following?

[b]"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad."

Where did this happen in scripture? What does this mean?

The Instructor[/b]

what was the name of the military base you live near?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
before Abraham came to be, I am - John 8:58

I have cited this as yet another example of blatant religious bias. That the translators know of exactly the same Greek idiomatic construct elsewhere in scripture and translate it accordingly is self evident, yet they suddenly forget to do so when it comes to Christ . Added to this are vain and sometimes religious bias.

Knowing this is one thing, getting them to admit it is quite another.

You know what, even if you are completely correct about this scripture, you a still a member of a pernicious, dangerous, socially disfunctional religious sect.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
dont know, this thread is about John 5:58 and your religious bias, mow the lawn and stuff some grass in the side of your turnip head, did you see the wizard of Oz about a brain?

So you don't know, huh? That tells me a lot about how little you know about God and Yahshua (the Son of God and Yah's salvation to mankind).

Yahshua said, "I have come in My Father’s name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, him you will receive. "

(John 5:43 NKJV)

Abrahman received Him and believed Him and it was counted to Him as righteousness the same as it will be for us, if we believe in Him. (Genesis 15 and Romans 4)

HalleluYah !!! Praise the LORD! Glory be to God! Holy! Holy! Holy!

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
So you don't know, huh? That tells me a lot about how little you know about God and Yahshua (the Son of God and Yah's salvation to mankind).

Yahshua said, "I have come in My Father’s name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, him you will receive. "

(John 5:43 NKJV)

Abrahman received Him and believed Him and it was counted ...[text shortened]... Him.

HalleluYah !!! Praise the LORD! Glory be to God! Holy! Holy! Holy!

The Instructor

gee if you only had a brain.

Verse 58. - The reply of Jesus to this taunt is one of the most surprising and baffling kind on any hypothesis of our Lord's consciousness being limited as that of all other of the sons of men. He gives the solemn emphasis of the Αμὴν ἀμὴν once more - Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was born (came into being), I am.

Abraham came into existence by birth (the Vulgate translates, Antequam fierat Abraham Ego sum): I am. Numerous attempts have been made to explain this climacteric utterance on some humanistic theory. The contrast is very remarkable between γενέσθαι and εἰμι. Jesus Christ declared his own timeless existence to have been in his consciousness before Abraham came into being at all. The "I am" reminds us repeatedly, when used by Jesus, of the "I AM THAT I AM" of Exodus 3:14, and the "thou art" of Psalm 90. (89:2, LXX.); Psalms 102:28. His human consciousness gave utterance to the awful depths of the eternal Ego.

Living Bible's paraphrase just confirms the pre-existence of Christ and nothing more. That paraphrase, better sounding English, in no way denies that Christ is uncreated eternal God who existed before Abraham and every other living being.

Living Bible's rendering does not prove another God was created beside Jehovah who was before Abraham. That is what JWs want to prove.

Greek fonts do not print here. The numbers are Greek letters.

... ἐγὼ εἰμί (ver. 12) brought out their angry unbelief, but this excites their murderous assault. We have to observe that this remarkable expression does not stand alone. St. John had reasons for saying "that the Word was with God, and was God. and was made flesh" (John 1:1, 3, 14). If Jesus, in his Divine consciousness, had never elsewhere spoken of having had a being before his manifestation (John 6:46, 62; John 17:5), of having taken part with the Father from the beginning (John 5:17), of being "one with the Father" (John 10:30, 33), of being greater than the temple or the sabbath, as being the Object of the eternal love in coming down from heaven, in laying down his life that he might take it again (John 10:17, 18); and if the language of the apostles (Hebrews 1:1, 2; Colossians 1:17; Revelation 1:18) had not entirely prepared our mind for the data on which such conclusions rested, a generation before this Gospel was reduced to form, we might join the effort to resist such a claim as that of eternal pre-existence. But the whole tenor of the Gospel and the entire New Testament teaching are seen, more and more, to turn upon this fundamental position - that in Christ dwells all the fulness of the Godhead, that he had life in himself, and eternity, and that the manhood has not only been lifted to the highest place in human remembrance, but to the midst of the throne.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
before Abraham came to be, I am - John 8:58

I have cited this as yet another example of blatant religious bias. That the translators know of exactly the same Greek idiomatic construct elsewhere in scripture and translate it accordingly is self evident, yet they suddenly forget to do so when it comes to Christ . Added to this are vain and sometimes religious bias.

Knowing this is one thing, getting them to admit it is quite another.

The Greek transliterated to English letters in John 8:58 is "Ego eimi" and translated "I AM." However, your example in John 14:9 gives only "eimi" in the Greek and is missing "Ego". So you are saying that "eimi" is literally "I am." So perhaps "Ego eimi" has a more personal meaning than you are willing to give it.

I think your two examples are not the same as John 8:58 and therefore fail to prove the translation of John 8:58 is wrong in versions like the NKJV.

The Instructor

Originally posted by stellspalfie
what was the name of the military base you live near?

I live about 1 mile from Fort Gordon, Georgia. I was an Instructor at the signal school there when I retired from the US Army.

The Instructor

Originally posted by sonship

Verse 58. - The reply of Jesus to this taunt is one of the most surprising and baffling kind on any hypothesis of our Lord's consciousness being limited as that of all other of the sons of men. He gives the solemn emphasis of the Αμὴν ἀμὴν once more - [b] Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was bo ...[text shortened]... the highest place in human remembrance, but to the midst of the throne.

Where did you get this commentary on John 8:58?

The Instructor

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
gee if you only had a brain.

I doubt if a brain would do me any good against you JWs because you would just keep getting amnesia.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
Where did you get this commentary on John 8:58?

The Instructor

Pulpit Commentary

http://pulpit.biblecommenter.com/john/8.htm

Originally posted by sonship

Verse 58. - The reply of Jesus to this taunt is one of the most surprising and baffling kind on any hypothesis of our Lord's consciousness being limited as that of all other of the sons of men. He gives the solemn emphasis of the Αμὴν ἀμὴν once more - [b] Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was bo ...[text shortened]... the highest place in human remembrance, but to the midst of the throne.

absolute nonsense, there is not a single iota in the entire verse which demonstrates that 'Jesus Christ declared his own timeless existence', none. Its is a religious bias seeking to impose itself on scripture which has led you and your equally biased commentators to say that there is.

You will now of course answer the question of why you have translated the verse the way you have to support that bias which i have demonstrated with reference, knowing that the exact same Greek construct exists elsewhere and yet is translated differently than the verse at John 8:58. Shall i tell you why? religious bias seeking to impose itself onto scripture,

You, your translators are thoroughly scurrilous in this regard for after having been exposed you still cling to the neo platonic extra biblical paganism which formed the bias.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The Greek transliterated to English letters in John 8:58 is "Ego eimi" and translated "I AM." However, your example in John 14:9 gives only "eimi" in the Greek and is missing "Ego". So you are saying that "eimi" is literally "I am." So perhaps "Ego eimi" has a more personal meaning than you are willing to give it.

I think your two examples are not t ...[text shortened]... the translation of John 8:58 is wrong in versions like the NKJV.

The Instructor

http://interlinearbible.org/john/14-9.htm

Originally posted by sonship
Pulpit Commentary

http://pulpit.biblecommenter.com/john/8.htm

Jesus Christ declared his own timeless existence - neo platonists

Dear reader, what the neo platonist is declaring is that Chrsit has always existed, despite the fact that the idea has no support linguistically from any text. Again their religious bias is self evident when we examine not only their reasons but their biased translation. No finer an example do we have than Colossians 1:15. Is it merely an attempt to impose a bias onto scripture or another example of their willingness to mislead others by slight of hand and tampering with verb tenses? judge for yourselves.

(Colossians 1:15) He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation. New World Translation of the Holy scriptures

Before Colossians 1:15, the expression 'the firstborn of' occurs upwards of 30 times in the Bible, and in each instance that it is applied to living creatures the same meaning applies, the firstborn is part of the group. 'The firstborn of Israel' is one of the sons of Israel, 'the firstborn of Pharaoh' is one of Pharaoh’s family, 'the firstborn of beast', are themselves animals. What, then, causes the neo platonist to ascribe a different meaning to it at Colossians 1:15? Religious bias, blatant, obvious and inexcusable.

let us take a look at an attempt by the neo platonist to obscure the implicit meaning of the sacred text.

The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation - NIV

Here the translators have replaced the 'of', from the phrase 'first-born of all creation', with the term 'above', in a somewhat dishonest attempt to imply that Christ is not actually part of the creation, but distinct from it. Does this imposition have any basis from the text, never on your life, why? because the term 'over', can no way be derived from the Greek genitive article meaning, 'of'. What you have then dear friends is a translation which makes this addition on the basis of doctrine rather than mere language, the same reason why they translate John 8:58 as they do.

Why must they obscure the implicit meaning of the text in this way? They have a religious bias, extra Biblical, which seeks to insidiously and covertly impose itself onto the sacred text, judge for yourselves whether these things are not self evident.