16 Oct 11
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSince you are a student of the Greek New Testament, you must be familiar with
Is your question concerned purely with the text and its translation based on an
accurate understanding of the grammatical form or is it of a theological nature?
I will be happy to answer any questions related to the former, i am uninterested in
the latter.
Will you admit that in this instance the translators of Christendom have demonstrat ...[text shortened]...
why are you evading these simple and self evident truths RJH. Fess up and free
your mind.
some of these books:
Syllabus for New Testament Greek Syntax (1900)
Bibliography of New Testament Greek (1903)
Short Grammar of the Greek New Testament (1908; Italian translation,
1910; German translation, 1911; French translation, 1911;
Dutch translation, 1912)
A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (1914)
Studies in the New Testament (1915)
The Minister and His Greek New Testament (1923)
An introduction to the textual criticism of the New Testament (1925)
Word Pictures in the New Testament (1932)
The above were written by Archibald Thomas Robertson, A.M., D.D.LL.D, Litt.D.,
Professor of New Testament Interpretation in the Southern Baptist Theological
Seminary of Louisville, Kentucky.
In the fifth volume of his "Word Pictures of the New Testament" he states the
following concerning "ego eimi" (I am) in coverning the Gospel of John:
"For unless ye come to believe." That I am he (hoti ego eimi). Indirect
discourse, but with no word in the predicate after the copula eimi. Jesus
can mean either "that I am from above" (verse 23), "that I am the one sent
from the Father or the Messiah" (7:18,28), "that I am the Light of the World"
(8:12, "that I am the Deliverer from the bondage of sin" (8:28, 31f., 36),
"that I am" without supplying a predicate in the absolut sense as the Jews
(Deut. 32:39) used the language of Jehovah (cf. Isa. 43:10 where the very
words occur hina pisteusete -- hoti ego eimi). The phrase ego eimi occurs
three times here (8:24, 28, 58) and also in 13:19. Jesus seems to claim
absolute divine being as in 8:58.
Did you get that? Profesor A.T. Robertson says, "Jesus seems to claim
absolute divine being as in 8:58."
That is the answer to my question that you refused to answer.
Why did the Jews pick up stones to throw at Him?
By Jesus claiming to be the absolute divine being by saying "I AM", which is
the divine name of God told to Moses in Exodus 3:14, the Jews were enraged
and were going to stone Jesus for blasphemy.
16 Oct 11
Originally posted by menace71It does under these circumstances:
The "a god became flesh" ??? does not make since at all
1) You are an organisation claiming to hold infallible truth
2) You have stated that Jesus is not God
3) You realise this is an issue as Jesus needs to be your saviour if you are to remain any semblance of Christian orthodoxy
4) You therefore proclaim 2 saviours - Jehovah and his "agent" Jesus
5) To overcome the many scriptures speaking of and prophesying of the deity of Christ you proclaim him "a god" (small 'g'😉
So you have translation of the Bible that contrary to all other Christian translations states "a god", or as robbie carrobie puts it "a god entity (whatever that is).
The real confusion starts for the JWs when they try to argue against the Trinity when they themselves have: Jehovah (God) plus Jesus (a god entity) and 2 saviours.
But hey, I'm just being a snake-muppet or whatever it is...
16 Oct 11
9 edits
Originally posted by RJHindswhat a piece of utter and complete nonsense. The construct that you mention has
Since you are a student of the Greek New Testament, you must be familiar with
some of these books:
Syllabus for New Testament Greek Syntax (1900)
Bibliography of New Testament Greek (1903)
Short Grammar of the Greek New Testament (1908; Italian translation,
1910; German translation, 1911; French translation, 1911;
Dutch translation, 1912)
A Gr us 3:14, the Jews were enraged
and were going to stone Jesus for blasphemy.
nothing to do with the construct at John 8:58. It has already been explained to you
that there are two tenses, not in isolation as you either fail to realise or dishonestly
ignore (probably the latter), for there is a preposition in John 8:58 which tells us
that. Do you understand? I refuse to believe that even you are so stupid to fail to
grasp that verifiable grammatical fact. 'I am', is not even proper English as has been
demonstrated, it refuses to acknowledged the Greek idiom, while your translators
have somehow managed to accept it elsewhere. Why is that? because they are
biased, that is why. You are simply not honest enough to admit it, that is all.
Did you get that? Profesor A.T. Robertson says, "Jesus seems to claim
absolute divine being as in 8:58."
this is not based on the text at all, nor can it be demonstrated grammatically nor can
it be derived from Jesus very simple Greek idiomatic statement. Its nothing but a
statement of dogma. I told you i am uninterested in your dogma, i am interested in
what the text states. Do you understand, i do not accept your dogmatic excuses for
presenting a bias. Its simply dishonest and lacks integrity. Jesus is claiming
nothing of the sort. I can read the Greek text, you cannot, i know what the
grammatical construct is, you do not, that is why all you can do is cite second hand
opinions to support your dogma. You really dont know anything in this regard. I
know this because you do not realise that there is a greater grammatical construct
at John 8:58 than the present tense of the verb, 'to be', with which you have tried to
base your ill informed argument and you know the worst part, your professor
friend probably knows it too, if he knows anything about Greek as you claim.
You have answered nothing, you have dishonestly tried to evade answering
anything. It comes as no surprise, i have yet to meet a trinitarian yet that was
honest.
16 Oct 11
3 edits
the whole idea that John 8:58 corresponds to exodus 3:12 is fatally flawed. In fact 'i
am that i am', as is translated in the KJ version is not even a proper translation
itself, why? because the Greek text of the Septuagint, from which this idea is based
does not say, 'i am that i am', it states and i quote, Exodus 3:14
'ego eimi ho on', literally, I am the being or I am the one that exists and that is
before we have even examined the Hebrew, so on a purely lexical basis, any
correlation to be drawn is simply false. God does not say i am that I am, he states,
' I am the being, or i am the one who exists'. Separating 'I am', off as if it has any
kind of significance on its own distorts the whole sense. there is not any evidence
that Jesus was even quoting from this verse, never mind applying it to himself. Its a
nonsense to suggest otherwise, as an examination of the text has revealed.
An examination of the Hebrew at exodus 3:14 goes even further to dismiss this
myth, for it states, ’Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh, where it is to be noted that the Hebrew
verb hayah, from which the word Ehyeh is drawn, does not mean simply “be.”
Rather, it means “become,” or “prove to be.” The reference here is not to God’s
self-existence but to what he has in mind to become toward others. So even though
it is erroneously translated as 'i am that i am', we can demonstrate from examining
the text, both the Greek Septuagint and the Hebrew text that any idea of a
correlation between John 8:58 and exodus 3:14 is both linguistic and grammatic
twaddle. Bet they dont tell you that at trinitarian snake college.
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/exo3.pdf
16 Oct 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieProfessor A.T. Robertson is much more qualified in translating the Greek
what a piece of utter and complete nonsense. The construct that you mention has
nothing to do with the construct at John 8:58. It has already been explained to you
that there are two tenses, [b]not in isolation as you either fail to realise or dishonestly
ignore (probably the latter), for there is a preposition in John 8:58 which tells us ...[text shortened]... nything. It comes as no surprise, i have yet to meet a trinitarian yet that was
honest.[/b]
language than Professor BeDuhn or either of us. His statements recognizes
that "ego eimi" standing alone is correct Greek as well as correct English.
Who are you to say otherwise since you have provided no reason that the
Jews felt Jesus deserved stoning. The text does not make sense otherwise.
I have spoke American English from a child and I am now 67 years old
and remember responding to anothers request to do something with, "I am."
You may never use it in British English, but I am sure it can be used alone
in American English. However, it does not mean the same as it meant to
the Jews as Professor A.T. Robertson pointed out and as they demonstrated
by their actions.
16 Oct 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieno, but then I don't condemn others because they use the "wrong" name, nor do I claim that my denomination is the sole arbitor of truth....
Do you object to the fact the Jesus is pronounced with a J, no, well then you have no
case.
Does your denomination teach that Jehovah is most likely not the real name of God? Quite the contrary I believe. Yet we teach that Jesus was Yeshua, and the correct pronunciation is less important than the fact that he is God incarnate
16 Oct 11
Originally posted by RJHindsi dont care what you say about your professors friend, if he fails to recognise that
Professor A.T. Robertson is much more qualified in translating the Greek
language than Professor BeDuhn or either of us. His statements recognizes
that "ego eimi" standing alone is correct Greek as well as correct English.
Who are you to say otherwise since you have provided no reason that the
Jews felt Jesus deserved stoning. The text does not make se ...[text shortened]... the Jews as Professor A.T. Robertson pointed out and as they demonstrated
by their actions.
there is a greater grammatical construct at John 8:58 than the simple present tense
of a verb in isolation, if he fails to recognise that the Greek of the Septuagint at
Exodus 3:14 is not the same as the Greek at John 8:58 and if he fails to recognise
that the Hebrew of Genesis 3:14 is not the same as that of John 8:58 then he
doesn't know what he is talking about. I have read one book on New testament
Greek and i can tell the difference, but then again, i dont have a religious dogma to
try to find from a text where none exists, do I.
Once again let it be noted that you have completely failed to address any of the
points grammatical , textual or linguistic points that were put to you and insist on
citing some theological basis to support your dogma, an action which you have
attempted throughout this saga! You could have saved yourself the humiliation RJH
if you will simply admit that dogma has guided such attempts at mistranslation and
the wrong portrayal of verb tenses, but nooo, you cannot do it, and now you are
attempting to state that it conceivable under American English, a bastardisation
itself? is this some kind of joke? Do they teach that at snake seminar? Next time
you cite a dogma, make sure you know what the Greek and Hebrew verses state,
otherwise you'll be roasty toasty before you can say, 'before roasty was, toast , i am'
.
16 Oct 11
1 edit
Originally posted by DowardFirst of all , i am uninterested in your dogma, its not supported by the Greek text,
no, but then I don't condemn others because they use the "wrong" name, nor do I claim that my denomination is the sole arbitor of truth....
Does your denomination teach that Jehovah is most likely not the real name of God? Quite the contrary I believe. Yet we teach that Jesus was Yeshua, and the correct pronunciation is less important than the fact that he is God incarnate
nor the Hebrew for that matter, i am interested in what the text actually says, not
your dogma, regardless of where it came from or how it was formed, If you want
to establish a theological point, make sure its rooted in the original language. Do I
make myself clear?
our denomination teaches that no one knows the exact pronunciation of the divine
name, for it has been lost in antiquity. Is that understood?
Our stance may be summed up by the following,
“This name [Jehovah]has now become more naturalized in our vocabulary, and
cannot be supplanted.”—Theologie des Alten Testaments (Theology of the Old
Testament). - Professor Oehlerus, thus for centuries the form Jehovah has been the
internationally recognized way to pronounce God’s name, and people who hear it
instantly recognize who is being spoken about.
16 Oct 11
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobiehttp://biblelexicon.org/exodus/3-14.htm
i dont care what you say about your professors friend, if he fails to recognise that
there is a greater grammatical construct at John 8:58 than the simple present tense
of a verb in isolation, if he fails to recognise that the Greek of the Septuagint at
Exodus 3:14 is not the same as the Greek at John 8:58 and if he fails to recognise
that th
otherwise you'll be roasty toasty before you can say, 'before roasty was, toast , i am'
.
Notice down below it has the following in the blue area:
I AM
hayah (haw-yaw)
to exist, i.e. be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a
mere copula
or auxiliary)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THAT I AM
hayah (haw-yaw)
to exist, i.e. be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a
mere copula
or auxiliary)
We know that the correct vowel to use is "a" and not "e" because God's
name has been preserved in "praise the Lord" which in Hebrew is
"halleluYAH".
I have done little study in Hebrew and can only point out what Lexicons say
about the meaning and grammer construction and have no real convincing
proof that it should not be translated the way it appears in most Holy Bibles.
That is "I AM THAT I AM" and "I AM".
But I still say the translation should agree with the rest of the text. The Jews
were not concerned with how old Jesus was as the JW's claim, but Who He
claimed to be. Jesus was responding to what is written in John 8:52-53
which reads:
Then the Jews said to Him, “Now we know that You have a demon! Abraham
is dead, and the prophets; and You say, ‘If anyone keeps My word he shall
never taste death.’ Are You greater than our father Abraham, who is dead?
And the prophets are dead. Who do You make Yourself out to be?”
Did you get that - "Who do You make Yourself out to be?”
Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was,
I AM.”
In John 8:24 Jesus says, "I said therefore to you, that you shall die in your
sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you shall die in your sins."
(The "He" is an addition and is not in the Greek. It says, "I am" - ego eimi) "😉
16 Oct 11
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindswhat a pile of he haw, your wasting my time RJH with your theological dogma, i told
http://biblelexicon.org/exodus/3-14.htm
Notice down below it has the following in the blue area:
I AM
hayah (haw-yaw)
to exist, i.e. be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a
mere copula
or auxiliary)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THAT I AM
hayah (haw-yaw)
to exist, i.e. be or be He" is an addition and is not in the Greek. It says, "I am" - ego eimi) "😉
you i am uninterested, not the Septuagint nor the Hebrew means, I am, its an
inaccurate translation and to use to as support for your dogma is a waste of time.
Looking up lexical meanings in isolation is a nonsense, why? because we do not
translate in a lexical manner, unless of course your a snake trinitarian and wish to
support a dogma while on the one hand ignoring it and on the other hand recognising it.
.
16 Oct 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHeed His words or you shall die in your sins.
what a pile of he haw, your wasting my time RJH with your theological dogma, i told
you i am uninterested, not the Septuagint nor the Hebrew means, I am, its an
inaccurate translation and to use to as support for your dogma is a waste of time.
Looking up lexical meanings in isolation is a nonsense, why? because we do not
translate in a lexi ...[text shortened]... h to
support a dogma while on the one hand ignoring it and on the other hand recognising it
.
Final warning.
16 Oct 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieyou are no position to tell me what I may or may not post. I have posted no Dogma but rather widely accepted doctrine. It is you and the other heretic here that post unsubstantiated dogmatic drivel here.
First of all , i am uninterested in your dogma, its not supported by the Greek text,
nor the Hebrew for that matter, i am interested in what the text actually says, not
your dogma, regardless of where it came from or how it was formed, If you want
to establish a theological point, make sure its rooted in the original language. Do I
make mys ...[text shortened]... to pronounce God’s name, and people who hear it
instantly recognize who is being spoken about.
I'm sure God will be happy to know that his name has been changed because its has been "more naturalized" in our vocabulary. Your teachings are inconsistent with Biblical revelations.
16 Oct 11
Originally posted by RJHindsi have no objection to Christ's words, as they appear in the Greek text, its snake
Heed His words or you shall die in your sins.
Final warning.
translators and dogmatic born again evangelical Christians that i have trouble with,
especially when they are loath to admit their dogma and how it has imposed itself on
translation.
(Romans 14:4) . . .Who are you to judge the house servant of another? To his own
master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for Jehovah can make him
stand.
16 Oct 11
3 edits
Originally posted by Dowardi am simply making myself clear, because clearly you people have , how can i say
you are no position to tell me what I may or may not post. I have posted no Dogma but rather widely accepted doctrine. It is you and the other heretic here that post unsubstantiated dogmatic drivel here.
I'm sure God will be happy to know that his name has been changed because its has been "more naturalized" in our vocabulary. Your teachings are inconsistent with Biblical revelations.
this, difficulty understanding the difference between a one dimensional dogmatic
approach based on your preconceptions with regard to the nature of the Christ and
what is actually written in the Hebrew and Greek texts.
Heretic? Lol, why dont you set up an inquisition, you could prod me with a sharp stick
while RJH gets the fire ready.
Whether God is happy i cannot see how you know? are you in direct contact with
him? do tell? Does he appear to you when your in a trance like state? were you on
the road to Damascus and did a light blind you? do tell.
I have supported every one of my assertions with a linguistic and/or grammatical
reference, making you assertion of 'unsubstantiated drivel', quite inaccurate, but
then again, accuracy was never really your strong point, was it.
suck it up dowy me ol son and welcome back, where were you, on a pilgrimage to
some ancient shrine to seek a cure for your dogma?