-->
@rosends
Different words do not necessarily mean a different meaning. You just have an agenda.
Can someone please explain where "I am" comes from in the understanding of Ex 3:14?
Posts
Total:
71
-->
@ethang5
So the words might be different, and have a known meaning, but the decision to abandon that known meaning and adopt another meaning to validate a later text makes sense to you? My process is to look at the words for what they mean. If that doesn't work for you, then you have an agenda which is driving you to change what the text states.
-->
@ethang5
@rosends
It is worth noting that tense relations are handled differently in all these languages.
I don't believe there necessarily is an agenda.
-->
@Mopac
That might be true, but the question then is "should we be looking at the tense relationship in the translation, or in the original?"
I can accept all sorts of agendas. I'm just trying to identify the one that pushes a translator to move from the literal. The only reasoning I can find stems from the later Greek text.
-->
@rosends
Truly, the oldest version of these scriptures that has survived is the Greek text. The form of Hebrew that the much later masoretic text is written in did not exist at the time the septuagint.
Technically, everyone is using a translation.
-->
@Mopac
There are two problems with that. The first is that the earliest versions of the text are from quotes of the text - we have talmudic reference to 3:14 which corroborates the Hebrew text that we have "eh'yeh asher eh'yeh" so unless you want to claim that 2000+ years ago, someone wrote something down inaccurately, you should rely on some baseline version.
The second is that since that time, no other tradition has claimed that the original was any different in that verse. If you ask the biblical scholar who translated from the Hebrew to another language what words were in the original, s/he will still say "eh'yeh asher eh'yeh" -- the change is IN the translation. No one would claim that the Hebrew source text is any different from what we have.
So if we are not working in translation, but looking at the Hebrew, then we have to justify a decision to change from the Hebrew meaning to a different meaning in another language.
Or, one could claim that the entire underlying Hebrew language as we speak it, teach it and explain it is a lie and/or a conspiracy.
-->
@rosends
...but the decision to abandon that known meaning and adopt another meaning to validate a later text makes sense to you?
I don't think the meaning changed. You do.
-->
@rosends
Don't we both agree that the name communicates that which always will be?
-->
@ethang5
I don't think the meaning changed. You do.
That's because I speak, read and understand the original. You don't.
-->
@Mopac
Don't we both agree that the name communicates that which always will be?
That idea does develop secondarily from the words, but words words say "I will be that which I will be" which might not, on the surface, point to that conclusion.
-->
@rosends
I don't think the meaning changed. You do.
That's because I speak, read and understand the original. You don't.
Lol. You're so humble! You didn't even mention you're omniscient! How else would you know what I know?
You think the meaning changed because you're driven by an agenda. The verb is "to be". The meaning is the same. The people who did the translation also spoke, read, and understood the original.
-->
@ethang5
I don't recall claiming omniscience so swing and a miss for you, but feel free to correct me if you read, speak and write Hebrew. Am I wrong in my statement or are you only going to respond to the fact that I made the statement and ignore its content?
The verb is eh'yeh, not "to be". It means, quite specifically, "I will be." If you think that that is the same as "to be" then you will come to a different conclusion. In English, "to be" is not the same as "I will be" and it is the same in Hebrew (to be is l'hiyot).
The people who did the translation also spoke etc the original and in other cases, they translated that word differently. So what drove their decision here? It didn't drive other people. If you don't know, then that's fine, but that's the question I'm asking.
I don't recall claiming omniscience so swing and a miss for you, but feel free to correct me if you read, speak and write Hebrew. Am I wrong in my statement or are you only going to respond to the fact that I made the statement and ignore its content?
I addressed it's contents. You graciously DID NOT say you were omniscient, yet you know what I dont't know.
The verb is eh'yeh, not "to be". It means, quite specifically, "I will be." If you think that that is the same as "to be" then you will come to a different conclusion. In English, "to be" is not the same as "I will be" and it is the same in Hebrew (to be is l'hiyot).
The verb is "be" no matter which language you're using to carry the meaning. The meaning did not change.
The people who did the translation also spoke etc the original and in other cases, they translated that word differently. So what drove their decision here?
Context
It didn't drive other people. If you don't know, then that's fine, but that's the question I'm asking.
And I have answered it 3 times now. But your agenda wants another answer.
-->
@ethang5
I addressed it's contents. You graciously DID NOT say you were omniscient, yet you know what I dont't know.
So I didn't say something that you then imputed to me. Got it. Meanwhile, I know Hebrew. Do you? If the answer is "no" then, yes, I know something you don't know.
The verb is "be" no matter which language you're using to carry the meaning. The meaning did not change.
Meaning isn't simply a function of root. "Car" is different from "cars," "ate" is different from "eat" and "is" is different from "will be." Tense matters in communication as if affects meaning. "The fish is alive" means something different from "the fish was alive" because the "to be" verb in each case is different.
And I have answered it 3 times now. But your agenda wants another answer.
Your answer is that the meaning wasn't changed. That is because you think "is" and "will be" mean the same thing. That's your understanding. You still could answer my actual question of what drove the translator who chose not follow the decision of other translators (and his own translation elsewhere) in this one case. Or maybe you can't. The facts speak for themselves. A particular word is translated in this one verse as something different from what it is translated as in other instances within a particular overall text. Therefore, there must be a reason. I have yet to see an answer other than "to make it connect to the Greek text of John."
The issue is as follows --
The Hebrew word "eh'yeh" is a first person, singular, future tense conjugation of the to-be root. It translates as "I will be."
Anyone can go into google translate and just copy this word into the Hebrew side and see what comes up in English
אהיה
Not only are there translations of the text of Ex 3:14 that translate it as "I will be" (as early as Tynesdale's translation) but even the KJV, which uses the "I am" translation for Ex 3:14 uses "I will be" for the exact same word in 3:12, 2 verses earlier. Therefore a choice was made in 3:14 to translate the word in a way different from the literal meaning of the word, shifting the tense from future to present in this one case.
I'm just trying to understand what directed the translators of the KJV to do that in this particular verse (and not elsewhere) if not to connect it to the text of John 8.
I addressed it's contents. You graciously DID NOT say you were omniscient, yet you know what I dont't know.
So I didn't say something that you then imputed to me. Got it.
Sure, like my Not saying I didn't understand the original, but you "imputed" to me. I used deductive reasoning, for how else would you know what I know?
Meanwhile, I know Hebrew. Do you? If the answer is "no" then, yes, I know something you don't know.
Because omniscience.
The verb is "be" no matter which language you're using to carry the meaning. The meaning did not change.
Meaning isn't simply a function of root.
No one said it was.
And I have answered it 3 times now. But your agenda wants another answer.
Your answer is that the meaning wasn't changed. That is because you think "is" and "will be" mean the same thing.
No. You take them out of context and insist they mean something different. Of course they do when hung on a clothes line. As used in the verses in question, the meaning they convey is the same.
That's your understanding.
It also happens to be a simple fact.
You still could answer my actual question of what drove the translator who chose not follow the decision of other translators (and his own translation elsewhere) in this one case.
Context.
Or maybe you can't.
I suspect until I agree with you, I won't be a"able" to.
The facts speak for themselves. A particular word is translated in this one verse as something different from what it is translated as in other instances within a particular overall text. Therefore, there must be a reason. I have yet to see an answer other than "to make it connect to the Greek text of John."
You have yet to see an answer you like that fits your agenda other than "to make it connect to the Greek text of John."
Sure, like my Not saying I didn't understand the original, but you "imputed" to me. I used deductive reasoning, for how else would you know what I know?
I used deductive reasoning. So far you have yet to tell me that my reasoning led to an incorrect conclusion.
No one said it was.
You wrote, "the verb is be" when, in fact, the verb is "I will be" so by reducing that to "be" you have relied only on the root.
You take them out of context and insist they mean something different. Of course they do when hung on a clothes line. As used in the verses in question, the meaning they convey is the same.
I am using them IN context. I have provided the context. In Ex 3:12 and 3:14, the word is the same but the translation is different. You say "the meaning they convey is the same" but they are translated differently. If the meaning is the same, why not translate them the same? What meaning do you think is conveyed by the shifted translation and why do you think that?
What do you see as the context which drives the change in tense in the translation of 3:14 but not, for example, 3:12? In the verse, the words aren't explained, nor do they have a grammatical impact on the rest of the words, so what context are you positing? You have yet to provide any explanation for what exists, in this case, that drives a change in the tense from the translation of the same word elsewhere. You have yet to explain any context which would require the change in tense or why other translators wouldn't then be affected by that same context. You haven't cited any actual meaning that required the change.
I have no agenda other than understanding. I have presented one possible explanation (accord with John) but will be happy with any other that has more of a basis than my imagination. I welcome any explanation that you can provide that accounts for the word, the verse and the context of the translation. I don't have one and will be more than comfortable if no one can provide one because ultimately, it doesn't matter to me. I'm curious and seeking to be taught.
By the way, separate question -- you snipped my comment. I had written "That is because you think "is" and "will be" mean the same thing. That's your understanding."
You quoted the "That's your understanding" part and responded with
It also happens to be a simple fact.
Are you saying that it is a simple fact that "you think "is" and "will be" mean the same thing"?
-->
@rosends
Forever Be
I don't think there is really any conflict between the Greek and the Hebrew.
In either language, contemplating the meaning of this name reveals a great deal.
-->
@Mopac
The statement "I will be that which I will be" is a promise of future and continued existence whereas "I am that which I am" is a statement of current identity with no content pointed to the future. There is nothing in "I am" which is "forever."
Now, could the "forever" be read into the "I am"? I think so, yes, but then the question is "why shift the tense, requiring that the future part be an interpretation when, as written, the future part was the explicit meaning?"
I think one can get to the same place, but with additional steps and I'm wondering what prompted the choice to add those steps in. The Eh'yeh in 3:12 is έσομαι in the Greek (I will be) but the same Hebrew verb in 3:14 is translated as εγώ ειμι (I am). So there is a conflict in 3:14 with the Hebrew, and with 3:12 with the Greek. I'm just hoping that the change wasn't capricious and someone can explain the process for it.
-->
@rosends
He who always was, is, and will be.
There is no real conflict between the Hebrew and Greek.
The septuagint was translated by Jews. I am sure they wanted to make the most accurate translation possible.
-->
@rosends
The septuagint is by the way, translated from pre masoretic texts.
-->
@Mopac
That may or may not be true.
Discussions like this https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/34203/what-parts-of-the-septuagint-are-and-are-not-reliable
and statements like this makes https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/demdfr/is_the_septuagint_more_reliable_than_the_masoretic/f32evn0?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3
seem to cast a shadow over that. And the fact that the language in 3:14 is quoted in the talmud which dates to earlier than the manuscripts of the MT but confirms them indicates that the words as we have in the Hebrew today are authentic.
But just to understand your argument -- you are saying that the possibility is that the Hebrew we have in the current text is wrong, and that, pre-MT, the text of 3:14 was different so the particular translation of 3:14 into Greek might not be at odds with 3:12? That would also be claiming that the 3:14 text had a completely different grammar and structure as the second half would read "the being sent me to you" which would make no comment about "forever"
-->
@rosends
I certainly believe that the septuagint is translated from earlier texts, but I mention this to point out that the Septuagint is not a translation of the masoretic text. No other reason. The masoretic text itself is not written in the original language, especially not in the case of the language of the books of Moses.
I am not trying to make this a comparison between these two texts, the masoretic and the septuagint, so much as I am making an acknowledgemment of the reality that these are both translations. In some cases, clearly translating from different texts.
We know The Name though. That is the important thing. What have I tried to do my whole time spent on this forum? Since the start, I have pointed to The Name. The Ultimate Reality is God, The Supreme Being. The Truth. That is The One True God. I say, contemplate what this truly means, and abandon the superstition of atheism.
At least on this forum, conversation seems to be roadblocked at "Does God exist". So, this seems to be my function.
-->
@Mopac
I think that there is certainly room for discussion of the title -- the four letter structure in the Hebrew (often reduced to "yhwh" or something like that) is actually a creation designed to incorporate the 3 to-be tense words into one (past, present and future all mixed together) so it is THAT name which indicates the "forever" sense of God.
Judaism begins with the injunction to know God at this very moment, so the infinity of God is expressed in the belief that he will continue into the future which explains both the future tense of the verbs in Ex 3:14 and the more esoteric title for God, "ein sof" which means "has no end."
While we use words like "name" I fear that peoplpe might misunderstand this and think of the human, personal name. God has titles and labels but not a personal name.
-->
@rosends
The unexpressible and Uncreated being expressed through the medium of creation.
It's impossible.
There has to be revelation.
-->
@Mopac
That's the constant tension of language and of trying to express the infinite through the finite. That's an essential problem which Jewish mysticism deals with. God, limiting himself in this world.
-->
@rosends
True enough. That is the situation we find ourselves in.
That is why things look the way they do. It is something that Orthodox Christianity at its core addresses. We have a lot in common, enough to certainly have a conversation about these things.
-->
@Mopac
I find that I know some things about Christianity as a whole, but less about the theological distinctions which separate the specific sub-groups. Judaism has similar subgorupings but fewer of them, and it is my job to keep those straight...
Where does "I am" come from?
Do we forget that God is omniscient? We're talking a conversation between Moses and God that occurred in the 15th century BCE, and then over 2,000 years since Christ's ministry. 3,500 years. Do we ignore that there has been a cry in the world since the beginning of man, almost, that God simply isn't, and no adjectives needed to further qualify the claim of unbelievers? The claim rages today. In God's omniscience, what else would be a valid argument against such a claim? Since God is [again, no adjective necessary], therefore, "I AM." And true to his discussion with God, Moses, in spite of his misgivings of personal worth, demonstrated effectively enough that an extant God will overcome a man who just thinks he is. Pharaoh met his assumed match, and discovered quite to his distress, that he was the one lacking the "I AM... God."
-->
@fauxlaw
that tells me where, ideologically, the concept comes from, but not where in the course of translating the text, the choice to use those words INSTEAD of what is written, comes from.