:)

My hope here, is not to "debate" John8:58 in support of the deity of Christ, but for my fellow Trins to put forth a cooperative effort to form a solid argument like no other.

I'll dig up some primary opposing views and post them below.

well, I have always undertood the present verb to be (ego eimi) instead of the expected aorist to go back to Exodus 3:14. It is apparent that Christ is not merely claiming to have existed before Abraham, but rather autonomous, self-existence.

My two cents.

Rock on, trinitarians :rockon:

Bible Translations that render 'ego eimi' in John8:58 as "I AM" [caps mine for emphasis]:

"Yes indeed! Before Avraham came into being, I AM!"
[Jewish New Testament translated by D.H.Stern]

"Truly, Truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM"
[English Standard Version (ESV)]

"In all truth I tell you, before Abraham ever was, I AM"
[The New Jerusalem Bible (NJB)]

"Very truly I tell you, before Abraham was, I AM"
[New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)]

"I tell you the truth, Jesus answered, 'before Abraham was born, I AM!"
[New International Version (NIV)]

"Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I AM."
[New American Standard Bible (NASB)]

"Jesus said to them, 'I assure you:, before Abraham was, I AM"
[Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)]

"Jesus replied, I assure you most solemnly I tell you, before Abraham was born, I AM"
[The Amplified Bible (AMP)]

"Jesus told them, "Amen, amen, I am telling you, if Abraham had
never been born, I AM [the One] who Comes [the Omnipresent God]!"
[The Disciples New Testament, Aramic Version translated by Victor Alexander]

"Jesus said to them, “I tell you the solemn truth, before Abraham came into existence, I AM!”
[The NET Bible]

'Jesus les dijo: De cierto, de cierto os digo: Antes que Abraham fuese, yo soy (I AM).'
[Santa Biblia]

[The Message -Peterson]
[New Century Version]
[Wesley's New Testament]
[JB Phillips New Testament]
[American Standard Version (ASV)]
[New American Bible]
[Analytical Literal Translation (ALT)]
[Bible in Basic English (BBE)]
[Contemporary English Version (CEV) ]
[Darby]
[DouayReimsBible] [Weymouth New Testament]
[Good News Translation (GNT)]
[God's Word (GW)]
[International Standard Version (ISV)]
[Literal Translation of the Holy Bible]
[King James Version (KJV)]
[Modern King James Version (MKJV)]
[21st Century King James Version (KJ21)]
[American King James Version (AKJV)]
[World English Translation]
[Webster]
[Young's Literal Translation (YLT)]
[The New Testament, Recovery Version]
[Concordant Literal New Testament 1926]
[The New English Bible]
[The Modern Reader's Bible - Moulton]
[The Living Oracles New Testament (LO)]
[The Common Edition: New Testament (Common)]

Additional translations:

[Berkeley Version] [Norlie's Simplified New Testament] [New Testament in Modern English (Montgomery)] [Wuest's Expanded Translation] [New Testament (Swann)] [Aldine Bible] [Four Gospels (C. C. Torrey)] [Confraternity Version, Four Gospels (Rieu)] [New Testament (Knox)] [Anchor Bible] [Rotherham] [Holy Bible in Modern English (Fenton)] [Better Version (Estes)] [Sacred Writings (A. Campbell)] [New Easy-to-Read Version] [New Testament for the New World]

On an interesting note the Jewish Publication Society Bible (JPS) renders Exodus 3:14 as thus:

"And God said unto Moses: 'I AM THAT I AM'; and He said: 'Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel: I AM hath sent me unto you.'

The Jerusalem Targum:

¶.Exodus 3:14...And the Word of YHWH [Cf. John1:1-3; 1John1:1-2; Rev19:13] said to Moses: "I am He who said unto the world 'Be!' and it was: and who in the future shall say to it 'Be!' and it shall be." And He said: "Thus you shall say to the children of Israel: 'I Am' has sent me to you." [Cf. John8:58]

James White material on this is very useful for he rightly points out that one cannot go straight from John to Exodus, but one must make a pit stop in the LXX of Isaiah.

I may as well point out that the following argument is what I'm looking to use as an outline for objections. It's certainly not the most thorough of "refutations", but it will work for the present:

http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/egweimi.htm

I'll start with his first reply:

Matt Slick of Christian Apologetics and Research Ministries (CARM):

Excerpt from his article which can be found here:

http://www.carm.org/jw/john8_58.htm

<begin cite>-

The Jehovah's Witnesses and John 8:58

"Jesus said to them: "Most truly I say to you, Before Abraham came into existence, I have been" (New World Translation).

The Jehovah's Witnesses deny that Jesus is God. So, when it comes to translating and interpreting Bible verses that show the deity of Jesus, the JW's will go to great lengths to support their false presupposition. Sometimes they will even translate verses in a way that is not consistent with biblical grammar and context. In the Jehovah's Witness Bible, known as the New World Translation (NWT), John 8:58 is a verse that they have translated in a manner deliberately consistent with their theology.

Following is the verse in context from the NASB.

In John 8:56-59 says, "'Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.' 57The Jews therefore said to Him, 'You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?' 58Jesus said to them, 'Truly truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.' 59Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself, and went out of the temple." (All Bible quotes are from the NASB)

-<end cite>

The following is an excerpt from a reply given to the above from Heinz Schmitz, a prominent online apologist representing the Jehovah's Witnesses:

http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/egweimi.htm

<begin cite>-

Reply: Did you know that the 1960, 1973 NASB also has "I have been" as a variant reading in the margin.

[ 8< img snipped ]

If the NASB translators accepted the NWT rendering, perhaps their work is not consistent with "biblical grammar and context" either.

-<end cite>

I was a little curious as to this, so I decided to ask the Lockman foundation myself. Here below is the response I received:



Thank you for contacting The Lockman Foundation and for your interest in this issue. We truly appreciate you taking the time and interest in responding to the JW rebuttal.

In searching our files for information on the subject, I have found two files with responses written by our translators:



As it happens, the John 8:58 note is one of those that has undergone needed revision. The translation “I have been” was originally given simply as a smoother, more grammatically correct (in English) rendering, and in a different context such an alternative might be fine. Unfortunately, we learned that members of the “Jehovah’s Witnesses” cult was using this alternative reading to argue their view that Christ did not exist eternally in the past. In effect then, the note was being misused to support heresy. It might have been good to have the note say instead, “I always have been,” but even this might be misused somehow, so the translators thought it best to simply delete the note. The Greek is a simple present tense that does not by itself carry the implication of eternal existance, but it is clear that Jesus is doing something special with it from the fact that He extends the present-tense force of “I am” into the distant past by adding “before Abraham”. Indeed, we believe that He is using the eternal “I am” of Ex. 3:14. Interestingly, the “Witnesses” attempt to refute this by arguing that in the Greek Old Testament (called the LXX), the “I am” is rendered “the one being” or “the one who is”. In point of fact, the words that Jesus uses are a very literal translation of the original Hebrew “I am,” so much so that they are grammatically awkward. This strongly indicates that He is applying the “I am” of Ex 3:14 to Himself.



It is true that early NASB’s had the “I have been” note, and it is most regrettable if Jehovah’s Witnesses claim any kind of support from that for their falsehoods about Christ. The purpose of the note was to suggest an alternative that was better English, not to diminish the deity or eternal existence of the Son of God. The note was eventually deleted, when it became clear that it could be misinterpreted to void the force of “I am” in connection with Ex 3:14.



I hope this information is helpful in your project. If you have any other questions, please feel free to contact us again.



In His Service,

The Lockman Foundation

Robertson's Word Pictures of the NT:

Joh 8:58 -
Before Abraham was (prin Abraam genesthai). Usual idiom with prin in positive sentence with infinitive (second aorist middle of ginomai) and the accusative of general reference, “before coming as to Abraham,” “before Abraham came into existence or was born.”
I am (ego¯ eimi). Undoubtedly here Jesus claims eternal existence with the absolute phrase used of God. The contrast between genesthai (entrance into existence of Abraham) and eimi (timeless being) is complete. See the same contrast between en in Joh_1:1 and egeneto in Joh_1:14. See the contrast also in Psa_90:2 between God (ei, art) and the mountains (gene¯the¯nai). See the same use of eimi in Joh_6:20; Joh_9:9; Joh_8:24, Joh_8:28; Joh_18:6.

>

I myself agree that the parallel between the following two passages is stunning:

Before the mountains were brought forth, Or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, Even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God. [ASV]

Before the mountains existed, and before the earth and the world were formed, even from age to age, Thou art. [Brenton's LXX]

Afterall, the Jews asked a question in relation to "seeing Abraham" and the "age of Jesus". In light of the above, the response is obviously that of eternal existence.

Joh 8:57 The Jews therefore said unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?

In reply to the above question, Jesus replies:

Joh 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was born, I AM.

I am not an experienced exegete, nor am I a temporal physicist (if there is such a thing), but I am seeing something here which I had always dismissed as non-understood awkwardness.

I am not sure what is meant be the phrase "eternal existance", but when I first saw it, I simply interpreted it as the fact that the Godhead always has existed and always will exist. I am not certain if this is definition does "eternal existance" justice, but this is how I understood it. This is where my confidence in posting an original take on the text wavers; I am not sure whether or not "eternal existance" already accepts this idea.

My idea:

The verse appears, in most of the versions that IronMetro posted, w/ the phrase, "I AM(!)". In addition to this implying the deity of Christ, and in addition to this implying that Jesus existed before Abraham, it may imply something deeper and more empowering than it would seem.

In a former post, IronMetro gave us the Lockman Foundation's response to the former NASB's rendering of "ego eimi" as "I have been" as a way of putting Jesus' words into a more English-friendly phrasing. They stated that a better rendering would have perhaps been, "...I have always been."

I believe that even this more explicative rendering might have lost something. I believe that Jesus may have made the phrasing sound awkward for a reason. He may have been luring us to understand a greater truth.

If the prase had been rendered, "...I have always been!", then we would be able to understand that, before Abraham, Jesus existed. However, the important difference here is that Jesus didn't say that he "existed" before Abraham. He says that he "exists" before Abraham! That he is presently existing, at that moment before Abraham was born! Now, I conceded that this is simply an idea that I have gotten from this scripture and that it is not necessarily a fact. However, does it not make sense?!? I mean, think of it, this was not a one-time thing as is shown in the following passages:

Before the mountains were brought forth, Or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, Even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God. [ASV]

Before the mountains existed, and before the earth and the world were formed, even from age to age, Thou art. [Brenton's LXX]

(sorry, I don't know the references. These passages appeared in IronMetro's last post)

Jesus phrased it this way for a reason. I believe that this may be the truth that he was trying to communicate. Humbly, I admit that this recent understanding of mine has some dangerous implications on some of my other beliefs, namely mild Open-View Theism. So, as such, I am going to pray about this, kick it around a little and look for some more similar scriptures.

As I stated earlier, I don't know whether this idea is readily accepted in "eternal existence" or any other ideology for that matter. I may very well be saying something that many people are well aware of. For me, this is a new idea. I didn't know if anyone else had heard or thought of it being expressed in this verse or not so I thought that I would introduce it here first before I went to public with it.

Love and Respect

And here I was thinking this thread was pruned. I suppose I could post a few excerpts from Ethelbert's book on 'ani hu' here in a few days.

God bless

Iron Metro,

I think that one of the BEST arguments for saying that in John 8:58, that "I am," meant exactly what it meant when God first said it to Moses in Exodus, is this:

The JEWS clearly understood what Jesus was saying, for they took up stones to stone Him. They KNEW that Jesus was in fact claiming to be YWHH.

Another argument you can use to show that Jesus is, in fact, YHWH, is the verses in Isaiah:

Isa 44:6, Thus saith the LORD (YHWH) the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD (YHWH) of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God. (KJV)

Then go to Revelation:

Rev 1:11, Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last:
(KJV)

Rev 2:8 And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive;
(KJV)

There can, of course, be ONLY one First, and ONLY one Last. In Isaiah, YHWH says that HE is the First & the Last. In Revelation, Jesus says that HE is. They are both right, for they are both YHWH.

In Matthew, Jesus tells Satan:

Matt 4:10, Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. (KJV)

He was paraphrasing a verse in Deuteronomy:

Deut 6:13-14, Thou shalt fear the LORD thy God, and serve him, and shalt swear by his name.
14Ye shall not go after other gods, of the gods of the people which are round about you; (KJV)

Yet In Hebrews:

Heb 1:6, And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
(KJV)

So, Jesus quotes a verse to Satan, that only the LORD (YHWH) shall be worshipped. Yet Hebrews says, "Let all the angels of God worship him." Therefore, the angels of God would NEVER worship Christ, UNLESS He was YHWH.

In His Service,
Steve

If the biblical creation record is true, I was created when Christ created Adam.

I did not have conscious existence then. Neverthless, I was created then. The Sabbath looks backward to a FINISHED work.

If Christ was literally begotten of God way before the incarnation, consider the above as a parallel.

My literal lineage traces back to Adam. Christ's literal lineage traces back to God.

Thus, if I was created in Adam and before my birth was in the loins of Adam, it is accurate to say that Jesus ALWAYS WAS, in the bosom of His Father, previous to being literally begotten on Him.

This "model" of the relationship between God and His Son works MUCH better than the Trinitarian model, in my opinion.

God Bless,

Tony (o2)

I fail to see this "the great I am" connection.

With regards to John 8:58.

As even the Lockman foundation admits: "The translation “I have been” was originally given simply as a smoother, more grammatically correct (in English) rendering..."

The use of two tenses in a single clause does not allow for the typical translation of "before Abraham was, I am." The PPA that is present here makes it a more accurate rendering to say I have been.

Further, the majority of translation do not even render EGW EIMI as a proper name (all capitals). Consider the following examples of different translations and how they render it:

(NIV) "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" Prior existence
(NASB) Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am." Prior existence
(NLT) John 8:58 Jesus answered, "The truth is, I existed before Abraham was even born!" Prior existence
(KJV) Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. Prior existence
(NKJV) Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM." Proper Name
(AMP) Jesus replied, I assure you, most solemnly I tell you, before Abraham was born, I AM. Proper Name
(RSV) Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am." Prior existence
(KJ21) Jesus said unto them, "Verily, verily I say unto you, before Abraham was, I am!" Prior existence
(WE) John 8:58 Jesus answered, `I tell you the truth. I already was before Abraham was born.' Prior existence
(YLT) Jesus said to them, `Verily, verily, I say to you, Before Abraham's coming -- I am;' Prior existence
(DARBY) Jesus said to them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. Prior existence
(ASV) Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was born, I am. Prior existence
(Twenty) "In truth I tell you," replied Jesus, "before Abraham existed I was." Prior existence
(Webster) Jesus said to them, Verily, verily, I say to you, Before Abraham was, I am. Prior existence
(Weymouth) "In most solemn truth," answered Jesus, "I tell you that before Abraham came into existence, I am." Prior existence
(Rotherham) Jesus said unto them-Verily, verily, I say unto you: Before, Abraham, came into existence, I, am. Prior existence
(Murdock) Jesus said to them: Verily, verily I say to you, That before Abraham existed, I was. Prior existence
(Montgomery) "In solemn truth I tell you," answered Jesus, "that before Abraham came into existence, I am." Prior existence
(LO) Jesus answered, Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am. Prior existence

I think of particular interest as well is Williams' translation: "I existed before Abraham was born." This is the translation that Dr. Julius Mantey calls, "the most accurate and illuminating translation in the English language."

What really does all this show? Simply that the grammar at John 8:58 does not have EGW EIMI functioning as a proper name. Rather, it is a Present of Past Action.

Looking at Exodus 3:14 we find that EHYEH ASHER EHYEH translated as I AM WHAT I AM to be a poor translation as well. Consider, just two verses back in Exodus 3:12 the same Hebrew word EHYEH is translated as I WILL BE almost universally.

On this verse, Rabbi Jordan D. Cohen comments with regards to translation: "Often translated as "I Am Who I Am," the phrase is more accurately translated as "I Will Be That Which I Will Be." The people will come to know God through their unfolding experiences together."

The Interpreter's One-Volume Commentary on the Bible: "the best rendering is 'I will be as I will be.'"

With regards the LXX, it actually reads EGW EIMI hO ON, which translates literally as I am THE BEING. Thus, we render the LXX Ex 3:!4 as "And God spoke to Moses, saying, I am THE BEING; and he said, Thus shall ye say to the children of Israel, THE BEING has sent me to you."

Thus, again, there is no connection found here with John 8:58. We can be assured that if Jesus was trying to use EHYEH ASHER EHYEH as a name for himself in John 8:58, he would have done so. However, EHYEH ASHER EHYEH is not the same thing as the Greek EGW EIMI hOS EGW EIMI. Rather, he would have said EGW ESOMAI hOS EGW ESOMAI

With regards to ANI HU, we find that ANI HU is not even a word-for-word equivalent to EGW EIMI. Rather, ANI = I and HU = HE. Really, if a connection is to be made between ANI HU in Isaiah and EGW EIMI and John 8:58, there must be a REASON to make such a connection. You cannot do so simply because you want to.
-Tony

Hey TSmith!,

Powerful post!

I learned a lot!

Thanks!

Tony (o2)!

Matt Slick of Christian Apologetics and Research Ministries (CARM):

Matt Slick is too prideful to even answer questions that prove the idea of Yehoshua being the true God in error, but that is okay, I haven't asked him my main questions, so I am not included on his avoidance list. As for FARM (False Apologetics & Research Ministries), is not a good place to hang around, you will start picking up the false teachings Matt Slick presents.

I will respond on John 8 since people these (as if they changed their deceptive ways) days just cannot stick to context when it comes to Yehoshua having discussions.