I have seen the phrase used to point to God. I can't find a source/explanation for the phrase other than the KJV, but the KJV seems inconsistent in how it translates the corresponding Hebrew word (in Judges 6:16, as one example, it translates the same word "will be"). So what is the source for the decision to use "I am" in Ex 3:14? Is it in order to connect to the John 8:58 use of the word "eimi" in the Greek?
Can someone please explain where "I am" comes from in the understanding of Ex 3:14?
Posts
Total:
71
-->
@rosends
When we translate from the Greek(The Orthodox Church prefers the Septuigint to the Masoretic text), what comes out in English is "The Eternally Existing One" as far as the name of God.
I Am That I Am, Eternally Existing One, etc.
They are all different ways to translate the name of God which I believe is most clearly articulated in English as "The Ultimate Reality".
In English versions of our liturgies, we say at one point, "Christ The Existing One" which could easily be translated into English as "Christ the I Am".
-->
@Mopac
Understood -- but what are you translating from? The John text was in the Greek and its use of "eimi" makes "I am" sensible. But for the Exodus text, why use "I am"?
I just took a look at the Septuagint online -- it seems to have a very strange construction of Ex 3:14 -- it translates the first verb form as "I am" (though I still don't know why) and not the second verb form. I found this summary online:
In fact, the Septuagint (ancient Greek translations of the OT, widely used by early Jews and Christians) did not translate the second אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה in Exodus 3:14 as ἐγώ εἰμι, but rather as ὁ ὢν, “the one who is.”
So this just compounds my confusion. Why would the Septuagint use the phrase "I am"? (There seems to be some argument over whether what we have as the LXX is reliable anyway.)
-->
@rosends
The King James is translated from the masoretic text, which the Orthodox church tends to not use.
It wouldn't be appropriate to translate the name as "will be", as God is eternal. Pre-eternal even.
I Am That I Am communicates that God Is what Is. What truly Is. Reality in the truest sense. That is why I personally believe that "The Ultimate Reality" better communicates the intended meaning.
Who is God? The Truth is God. This is very distinct when compared to the pagans who worship forces of nature and created things as gods.
-->
@rosends
That word even in Greek communicates existence.
IS
AM
These words are all forms of "exist".
-->
@Mopac
So the choice to translate the word into the present tense was an interpretation to capture what the translator thought the text was pointing out even as it ran contrary to what the text said? (this also does beg the question why anyone who doesn't prefer the Sept in general would subscribe to an interpretation from the Sept over the Masoretic text, and why the KJV would do exactly that in this case)
-->
@rosends
The King James is a really old translation. Protestants prefer the masoretic text, that is why all their bibles are translated from it.
How do you think exodus 3:14 should be translated?
-->
@Mopac
I think Tynesdale did a good job with it, "Then sayde God vnto Moses: I wilbe what I wilbe: ad he sayde, this shalt thou saye vnto the children of Israel: I wilbe dyd send me to you"
-->
@rosends
How do you think this changes things?
At least in the Greek, what seems to be conveyed is absolute existence.
What about "I will be what I will be" would be different from "I am that I am"?
-->
@Mopac
What about "I will be what I will be" would be different from "I am that I am"?
Good question. I have 2 answers:
1. Honesty -- keeping with a consistent translation and following rules not subject to a spot change. The word means "I will be" so to pick this one moment and change it to "I am" seems dishonest, or at least, a matter of interpretation, and not translation.
2. The idea of "will be" indicates an eternal presence, not a current status. God is saying he will always continue to be. This is a reassurance that no matter what happens, GOd will still be there. I'm not sure why this is replaced with a statement about the "right now." How can any mortal or limited being now what it will be into the infinite future? And yet we all know that we are what we are. I would much rather a promise of continued and future divinity.
-->
@rosends
I am not a protestant, but I think that even protestants understand the "I Am that I Am" to be a statement of eternally existing rather than simply a "right now".
To defend the translators a little bit here, all translations are to some extent interpretations.
-->
@Mopac
Sure, they all are -- but transparency in that interpretive mode is helpful. Saying how someone understands the statement allows one to turn that right back -- you had said in post #4, "It wouldn't be appropriate to translate the name as "will be", as God is eternal." And I might then say "I think that ______ understand "I will be that which I will be" to be a statement of eternally existing" so nothing is gained by mistranslating it.
-->
@rosends
It seems that both translations can be interpreted to mean what is meant, and both translations can be interpreted to mean what isn't meant.
The important thing to note is that God is, was, and always will be.
-->
@Mopac
I understand -- I'm just wondering why, if the end result is interpretation, anyone would start by mistranslating the text (or if there is some parallel text which validates this particular translational choice).
-->
@rosends
You have your tradition to help interpret these passages.
It is moreso an issue for the protestants who take it on themselves to interpret individually. "Sola scriptura" opened up a big can of worms, as they have to constantly deal with the godless using scripture as a weapon against them. Besides that, there are thousands and thousands of these protestant and protestant descended churches that do not really share the same beliefs. They do not have what we call "Holy Tradition".
Orthodox Christians do not have this problem, because we habe what we call "Holy Tradition". If an unbeliever attempts to use scripture against us as a weapon, all we have to say is "That isn't what the church teaches".
-->
@Mopac
Thanks -- and you have given me much to think about. I'm (as I guess you can gather) still stumped why anyone would, knowing that the line has to be interpreted to make it fit an understanding) mistranslate it and then interpret the mistranslation, instead of just interpreting it as written, to the same end. Thanks again.
I Am That I Am
This has always come across to be as a stern rebuff, - never mind what my name is, just do as you are told, I'll be whomever I want to be.
-->
@rosends
Yes. And you could add - Mind your own business who I am - never mind what my name is, just do as you are told, I'll be whomever I want to be.
-->
@rosends
Seems the qualified and religious educated theist have chosen given you a wide berth, rosends. But you're not too surprised are you.
I like Lawrence Gardner's take on the - I am who I am - quote in his wonderfully well researched book - Genesis of the Grail Kings.
...but the KJV seems inconsistent in how it translates the corresponding Hebrew word...
Because translations come from meaning, not words, and words get their meaning from context, not just the dictionary.
-->
@ethang5
Words get a variety of levels of meanings, some denotative and some connotative. Choosing one definition or meaning in one context and another in a different context could make sense if it could be defended as not arbitrary, grounded in some precedent or persuasive context. The choice then, for the KJV to use a different tense in this one verse, has to be somehow justified. As Tynesdale shows, it is not an historical context. As the Hebrew grammar indicates, it is not a linguistic context. The only explanation seems to be using the later Greek wording of a different text to justify going back and changing the meaning of the Hebrew so that it agrees with the later Greek.
-->
@rosends
It is understood to connotate a constant. Assuming a tense within the constraints of time is thought to be the mark of an inferior translation, and "I am" does not invite the reader to construe according to a conventional wisdom regarding time constraints.
-->
@Conway
"Assuming a tense within the constraints of time is thought to be the mark of an inferior translation, and "I am" does not invite the reader to construe according to a conventional wisdom regarding time constraints. "
I'm not sure I understand this. Why is the present tense not an indicator of time constraints while "I will be" is? If the latter might be seen as not indicating present identity, then the former makes no indication of future identity.
But regardless, you are starting with the connotation that is "understood" which puts the theological horse before the cart, letting the understanding (which must be developed elsewhere) drive the translation here.
-->
@rosends
It simply says I AM, and yet "tense" is the connotation that you started with. This sort of conversation is exactly why English speakers might prefer it.
-->
@Conway
But the Hebrew doesn't translate as "I am" so there is a choice being made in the translation to impose a different tense on the text. The Hebrew is "eh'yeh" which is a basic to-be verb form meaning "I will be". The future tense is built in to the verb form in the Hebrew.
-->
@rosends
Assuming a tense within the constraints of time is thought to be the mark of an inferior translation, and "I am" does not invite the reader to construe according to a conventional wisdom regarding time constraints.I'm not sure I understand this. Why is the present tense not an indicator of time constraints while "I will be" is? If the latter might be seen as not indicating present identity, then the former makes no indication of future identity.
In English, "Am" is more neutral in this regard than "will be", and at certain times they can be used interchangeably.
"I am going to church next Sunday" "I will be going to church next Sunday" - - They both mean the same exact thing.
"I am sorry" "You will be sorry" - - They have different meanings. - - One says that I am sorry, and the other conveys that you are not yet sorry, but you will be.
But the Hebrew doesn't translate as "I am" so there is a choice being made in the translation to impose a different tense on the text. The Hebrew is "eh'yeh" which is a basic to-be verb form meaning "I will be". The future tense is built in to the verb form in the Hebrew.
This is one of the few parts I'm familiar with in Hebrew, not that I know enough to have a say in how it should be translated. Lets say I could though. Maybe we might have to consider that there's a level of nuance anticipated by English speakers when the future tense is used in their language that might not exist as such in the original language. One of my bibles actually translates this, "I am/will be what I am/will be".
-->
@Conway
In English, "Am" is more neutral in this regard than "will be", and at certain times they can be used interchangeably."I am going to church next Sunday" "I will be going to church next Sunday" - - They both mean the same exact thing."I am sorry" "You will be sorry" - - They have different meanings. - - One says that I am sorry, and the other conveys that you are not yet sorry, but you will be.
I would suggest that both "am" and "will be" are neutral indicators of time. To read in probability requires tone of voice or external, non-linguistic cues. I'm the absence of those, why choose one over the other?
Maybe we might have to consider that there's a level of nuance anticipated by English speakers when the future tense is used in their language that might not exist as such in the original language. One of my bibles actually translates this, "I am/will be what I am/will be".
But that nuance is a matter of human expectation driven by outside influences. The understanding of the phrase from the Hebrew actually hinges on the use of the future tense -- the explanation for the phrase from over 2000 years ago is summarized as " “I will be” with them in this predicament “what I will be” with them in their subjugation by other kingdoms. " To move this to the present tense is a move away from the nuance brought about by the specific use of the future tense.
-->
@rosends
Words get a variety of levels of meanings, some denotative and some connotative. Choosing one definition or meaning in one context and another in a different context could make sense...
Exactly.
...justify going back and changing the meaning of the Hebrew so that it agrees with the later Greek.
I don't think the meaning was changed.
-->
@ethang5
I don't think the meaning was changed.
But the Hebrew has a particular meaning as evidenced by the particular words chosen. To "translate" it into a different tense is to change that meaning and opt for another. This happens often in translation, following some set of external rules (linguistic/semantic, historical etc.) I'm just trying to identify the external agenda which drives this change in tense. It seems that something is invoked in the Greek, so the earlier Hebrew has to be translated away from its literal meaning to conform to the later, Greek idea.