D
Danno2281
Guest
Quite.
- Status
D
Dan_Parker
Guest
"Dan:
Ahh, now we are cooking with gas! The Hebrew’s concept of time was much different than the Greeks. Do you agree that the author of this Proverb would have considered the temporal terms temporally?
Dan:
Ahh, now we are cooking with gas! The Hebrew’s concept of time was much different than the Greeks. Do you agree that the author of this Proverb would have considered the temporal terms temporally?
D
Danno2281
Guest
A very simple statement, but first you must distinguish the differences between the Hebrew concept and the Greek concept. Then, of course, you have to distinguish between the Greek Parmedian versus Heraclitean concepts, but I’m game. Go for it.
D
Dan_Parker
Guest
Actually, since I don’t beleive Athens has anything to do with Jerusalem I would just need to survey the Hebrew Scriptures for references to time and determine if your concept of eternity is taught by any bible writers. I have found nothing that supports your view (argument from silence!) but I have found something that addresses the relationship between God and time.
NJB Psalm 90:1 Prayer Of Moses, man of God Lord, you have been our refuge from age to age. 2 Before the mountains were born, before the earth and the world came to birth,** from eternity to eternity you are God**. 3 You bring human beings to the dust, by saying, ‘Return, children of Adam.’ 4 A thousand years are to you like a yesterday which has passed, like a watch of the night.
While God’s view of time is not the same as ours, it is also certainly not presented as his being outside of time. It is noteworthy that God’s view of temporal time is presented in the same context and parallel to his being “from eternity to eternity.”
This conclusively militates against the view that God is outside of time.
D
Danno2281
Guest
It would depend upon who draws the conclusion. “I AM” indicates an ever present, and the ever present is not time bound.
D
Dan_Parker
Guest
I don’t see the words “I AM” in Psalms 90:1-4. Those are English words and not Hebrew. I am not sure what you mean by time bound, but certainly the expression ‘me olam ad olam’ (from eternity to eternity, NAB, NJB) indicates that there is no time when God did not exist. This is exactly the sort of expression that you would need with reference to the Son of God if you wish to prove that there was no time when the Son did not exist. I understand you don’t use temporal terms like this for God and the Son, but since the Hebrew text does use them, you will need to put up with me using them as well.
So, to which Hebrew text do you appeal for the words I AM with respect to proving your assertion regarding time and God?
D
Danno2281
Guest
You began the discussion of time with reference to the Hebrew mind, not the Hebrew text. Sadly, I left the seminary a year before I would have taken Hebrew (not sad that I left - sad that I had not taken Hebrew), so perhaps we can look at the Hebrew mind from a New Testament point of view. In Jn.9:58, Jesus says, "Ego eimi’, clearly attesting to an ever-present reality. What does the Hebrew say to you that makes this statement diferent from that of Ex.3:14 & 15?
D
Dan_Parker
Guest
The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament by Ludwig Koehler And Walter Baumgartner says for the verb hawah (Heb to be or to become) in the phrase eheyeh asher eheyeh at Ex 3:14: “I shall be who I shall prove to be Ex 3:14.”
Now lets note the inconsistency of bibles:
NAB Exodus 3:12 He answered, “I will be = eheyeh with you; and this shall be your proof that it is I who have sent you: when you bring my people out of Egypt, you will worship God on this very mountain.” 13 “But,” said Moses to God, “when I go to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ if they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what am I to tell them?” 14 God replied, "I am = eheyeh who** am. = eheyeh** " Then he added, “This is what you shall tell the Israelites:** I AM = eheyeh** sent me to you.”
I have highlighted the same verbal form of hawah in Ex 3:12-14. Note in verse 12 that it is rendered into the English future tense. Then in verse 14 it is rendered into the English present tense? Why the inconsistency? A number of translations are consistent in either the main text or a footnote:
*]"Or I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE " (1984 NIV footnote)
*]“I Will Be Who I Will Be,” replied God to Moses. [God then] explained, "This is what you must say to the Israelites: ‘I Will Be sent me to you.’ (Kaplan)
*]“I will be that I will be” (Leeser)
*]“I will become whatsoever I please.” (Rotherham)
*]“I-will-be-what-I-will-be” (Moffatt)
*]“I will be what I will be” (Byington)
*]“I SHALL PROVE TO BE WHAT I SHALL PROVE TO BE” (NWT)
*]“I shall continue to be what I have always been” (J. Wash. Watts.)
*]“I will be what I will be” (NEB)
*]“I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE” (RSV. margin)
*]“I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE” (ASV, margin)
*]“I will be what I will be” (The Revised English Bible, margin)
In the context of this passage Moses is asking for reassurance that God will be with him. Jehovah says he will be with him in verse 12, the first occurrence of ***eheyeh ***in the passage. Yahweh says he will be (eheyeh) with Moses.
There is no comparison to John 8:58. In the Hebrew the words are being used as a title. In John 8:58 the words EGW EIMI are not being used as a title. EIMI is the main verb of that sentence, not the subject.
In conclusion, the Hebrew lexicons, the syntax and the context don’t provide the view that 1) The term rendered “I AM” or “I will be” or “I will prove to be” has the sense being outside of time and 2) The Greek of John 8:58 bears no resemblance to the Hebrews of Ex 3:14.
EGW EIMI in John 8:58 also does not refer to an ever-present reality, but since you don’t provide any proof of it, I will leave it at that.
D
Danno2281
Guest
Nice try at an end run, but you failed to address my question. Let us begin with the Hebrew mind that translated the Torah into Greek. What did those Jews choose when faced with bringing out the meaning of those words in Ex.3:14-15? Ah, does that tell us anything abvout the Hebrew mind?
3:14 και ειπεν ο θεος προς μωυσην εγω ειμι ο ων και ειπεν ουτως ερεις τοις υιοις ισραηλ ο ων απεσταλκεν με προς υμας
3:15 και ειπεν ο θεος παλιν προς μωυσην ουτως ερεις τοις υιοις ισραηλ κυριος ο θεος των πατερων υμων θεος αβρααμ και θεος ισαακ και θεος ιακωβ απεσταλκεν με προς υμας τουτο μου εστιν ονομα αιωνιον και μνημοσυνον γενεων γενεαις
'o wn seems to them to fill the bill, and they are at least as cognizant of the nuances of Hebrew as your sources.
As for Jn.8:58, it does not cease to refer to an ever-present reality because you wish it notr to (yeah, folks, ended with a preposition). Truth is independent of belief, and a present tense is still a present tense indicating that both before Abraham and now are the same present.
N
Nathan_Wagar
Guest
Sigh. I really wish I had a better grasp of ancient languages. I always want to dip into these conversations but know I’m out of my element… 
D
Danno2281
Guest
You are very welcome here. We are all learners, and the is almost certainly much that we can learn from you.Sigh. I really wish I had a better grasp of ancient languages. I always want to dip into these conversations but know I’m out of my element…
N
Nathan_Wagar
Guest
Yeah, well I do have my strengths, ancient languages just isn’t one of them. I recently signed up for online Greek lessons through the Bible, so we’ll see how that goes 
D
Dan_Parker
Guest
Danno2281:
Nice try at an end run, but you failed to address my question. Let us begin with the Hebrew mind that translated the Torah into Greek. What did those Jews choose when faced with bringing out the meaning of those words in Ex.3:14-15? Ah, does that tell us anything abvout the Hebrew mind?
3:14 και ειπεν ο θεος προς μωυσην εγω ειμι ο ων και ειπεν ουτως ερεις τοις υιοις ισραηλ ο ων απεσταλκεν με προς υμας
Dan:
Lets find out, shall we? While the words EGW EIMI are in the Greek, they are not used the same was as in John 8:58 and in fact in the Greek Septuagint they are not used at all as an expression of existence! They are used as a copulative. εγω ειμι ο ων (EGW EIMI hO WN) is literally 'I am the Being". Notice that ο ων (the Being) is the title in this rendering, and not εγω ειμι.
In John 8:58 Jesus does not say EGW EIMI hO WN (I am the Being). He uses the words EGW EIMI in a completely different way than in the LXX of Ex 3;14. EIMI is the main verb of the sentence, something I mentioned in my last post. The Greek is
PRIN ABRAAM GENESQAI EGW EIMI.
Lets break this down. The word PRIN is an adverb. This means that it modifies a verb. The main verb in the sentence is EIMI. Therefore PRIN modifies EIMI. PRIN forms a dependent clause which modifies EGW EIMI. The adverb is a part of speech that answers the question “when.” Before Abraham was born answers the when. The verb EIMI is thus governed by the PRIN clause.
In Greek this construction is called the Present of Past Action still in progress (PPA). Thus many bibles render EGW EIMI as other than I AM, which is unintelligible in English.
Lets look at some Jewish bibles, shall we?
Christ here states (1) that he “was” already “in existence” before Abraham “came into being”; and (2) that, since then he has always been, and “still is” in existence. The two statements, fused into one grammatical expression, stress the idea of continuity from before Abraham’s time down to the present moment, and intimate his eternity. The statement in Exod. 3:14 is different: “I am he whose essence it is to be.”
Thus this Catholic reference agrees that there is no link between Ex 3:14 and John 8:58. He says at best that this intimates (hints or suggests at) eternity. He says that it explicitly teaches that the time frame of Jesus existence was some time before Abraham all the way up to the time of his speaking. That is the PPA, the Present of Past Action Still in Progress. This bible has the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur.
Thus the words EGW EIMI don’t refer to an existence without the bounds of time since the PRIN clause governs EIMI. It is not timeless. In addition trying to link Ex 3:14 to John 8:58 is not tenable and certainly not to the LXX EGW EIMI hO WN. Jesus does not use the words hO WN at all in John 8:58. He uses EGW EIMI in an entirely different way and in a way that is bounded by time, the time of Abraham’s birth. At the most it can be said that he existed before Abraham was born. See examples in the bibles above, some of which are translated by Catholics such as Kliest and Lily.
Danno2281:
'o wn seems to them to fill the bill, and they are at least as cognizant of the nuances of Hebrew as your sources.
Dan:
To call someone The Being may reflect the Hellenization of those Jews but even then it does not help you. As for the nuances of Hebrew, see the NTs in Hebrew above.
Danno2281:
As for Jn.8:58, it does not cease to refer to an ever-present reality because you wish it notr to (yeah, folks, ended with a preposition). Truth is independent of belief, and a present tense is still a present tense indicating that both before Abraham and now are the same present.
Dan:
It never has referred to an ever present reality. I was hoping you might make an argument for this rather than merely assume your position. That is circular reasoning.
Nice try at an end run, but you failed to address my question. Let us begin with the Hebrew mind that translated the Torah into Greek. What did those Jews choose when faced with bringing out the meaning of those words in Ex.3:14-15? Ah, does that tell us anything abvout the Hebrew mind?
3:14 και ειπεν ο θεος προς μωυσην εγω ειμι ο ων και ειπεν ουτως ερεις τοις υιοις ισραηλ ο ων απεσταλκεν με προς υμας
Dan:
Lets find out, shall we? While the words EGW EIMI are in the Greek, they are not used the same was as in John 8:58 and in fact in the Greek Septuagint they are not used at all as an expression of existence! They are used as a copulative. εγω ειμι ο ων (EGW EIMI hO WN) is literally 'I am the Being". Notice that ο ων (the Being) is the title in this rendering, and not εγω ειμι.
In John 8:58 Jesus does not say EGW EIMI hO WN (I am the Being). He uses the words EGW EIMI in a completely different way than in the LXX of Ex 3;14. EIMI is the main verb of the sentence, something I mentioned in my last post. The Greek is
PRIN ABRAAM GENESQAI EGW EIMI.
Lets break this down. The word PRIN is an adverb. This means that it modifies a verb. The main verb in the sentence is EIMI. Therefore PRIN modifies EIMI. PRIN forms a dependent clause which modifies EGW EIMI. The adverb is a part of speech that answers the question “when.” Before Abraham was born answers the when. The verb EIMI is thus governed by the PRIN clause.
In Greek this construction is called the Present of Past Action still in progress (PPA). Thus many bibles render EGW EIMI as other than I AM, which is unintelligible in English.
Lets look at some Jewish bibles, shall we?
- The Living Scriptures (Messianic Version): “I was in existence before Abraham was ever born.”
- The Authentic New Testament, Schonfield: “I existed before Abraham was born.”
- The New Testament in Hebrew, Delitzsh: Before Abraham was, I have been."
- The New Testament in Hebrew, Salkinson & Ginsberg: “I have been when there had as yet been no Abraham.”
- Biblia Sagdrada, Roman Catholic: “Before Abraham existed, I was existing.”
- The New Testament, Klist & Lilly: “I am here-and I was before Abraham.”
Christ here states (1) that he “was” already “in existence” before Abraham “came into being”; and (2) that, since then he has always been, and “still is” in existence. The two statements, fused into one grammatical expression, stress the idea of continuity from before Abraham’s time down to the present moment, and intimate his eternity. The statement in Exod. 3:14 is different: “I am he whose essence it is to be.”
Thus this Catholic reference agrees that there is no link between Ex 3:14 and John 8:58. He says at best that this intimates (hints or suggests at) eternity. He says that it explicitly teaches that the time frame of Jesus existence was some time before Abraham all the way up to the time of his speaking. That is the PPA, the Present of Past Action Still in Progress. This bible has the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur.
Thus the words EGW EIMI don’t refer to an existence without the bounds of time since the PRIN clause governs EIMI. It is not timeless. In addition trying to link Ex 3:14 to John 8:58 is not tenable and certainly not to the LXX EGW EIMI hO WN. Jesus does not use the words hO WN at all in John 8:58. He uses EGW EIMI in an entirely different way and in a way that is bounded by time, the time of Abraham’s birth. At the most it can be said that he existed before Abraham was born. See examples in the bibles above, some of which are translated by Catholics such as Kliest and Lily.
Danno2281:
'o wn seems to them to fill the bill, and they are at least as cognizant of the nuances of Hebrew as your sources.
Dan:
To call someone The Being may reflect the Hellenization of those Jews but even then it does not help you. As for the nuances of Hebrew, see the NTs in Hebrew above.
Danno2281:
As for Jn.8:58, it does not cease to refer to an ever-present reality because you wish it notr to (yeah, folks, ended with a preposition). Truth is independent of belief, and a present tense is still a present tense indicating that both before Abraham and now are the same present.
Dan:
It never has referred to an ever present reality. I was hoping you might make an argument for this rather than merely assume your position. That is circular reasoning.
D
Danno2281
Guest
Dan:
Lets find out, shall we? While the words EGW EIMI are in the Greek, they are not used the same was as in John 8:58 and in fact in the Greek Septuagint they are not used at all as an expression of existence! They are used as a copulative. εγω ειμι ο ων (EGW EIMI hO WN) is literally 'I am the Being". Notice that ο ων (the Being) is the title in this rendering, and not εγω ειμι.
In John 8:58 Jesus does not say EGW EIMI hO WN (I am the Being). He uses the words EGW EIMI in a completely different way than in the LXX of Ex 3;14. EIMI is the main verb of the sentence, something I mentioned in my last post. The Greek is
PRIN ABRAAM GENESQAI EGW EIMI.
Lets break this down. The word PRIN is an adverb. This means that it modifies a verb. The main verb in the sentence is EIMI. Therefore PRIN modifies EIMI. PRIN forms a dependent clause which modifies EGW EIMI. The adverb is a part of speech that answers the question “when.” Before Abraham was born answers the when. The verb EIMI is thus governed by the PRIN clause.
In Greek this construction is called the Present of Past Action still in progress (PPA). Thus many bibles render EGW EIMI as other than I AM, which is unintelligible in English.
Lets look at some Jewish bibles, shall we?
Christ here states (1) that he “was” already “in existence” before Abraham “came into being”; and (2) that, since then he has always been, and “still is” in existence. The two statements, fused into one grammatical expression, stress the idea of continuity from before Abraham’s time down to the present moment, and intimate his eternity. The statement in Exod. 3:14 is different: “I am he whose essence it is to be.”
Thus this Catholic reference agrees that there is no link between Ex 3:14 and John 8:58. He says at best that this intimates (hints or suggests at) eternity. He says that it explicitly teaches that the time frame of Jesus existence was some time before Abraham all the way up to the time of his speaking. That is the PPA, the Present of Past Action Still in Progress. This bible has the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur.
Thus the words EGW EIMI don’t refer to an existence without the bounds of time since the PRIN clause governs EIMI. It is not timeless. In addition trying to link Ex 3:14 to John 8:58 is not tenable and certainly not to the LXX EGW EIMI hO WN. Jesus does not use the words hO WN at all in John 8:58. He uses EGW EIMI in an entirely different way and in a way that is bounded by time, the time of Abraham’s birth. At the most it can be said that he existed before Abraham was born. See examples in the bibles above, some of which are translated by Catholics such as Kliest and Lily.
Danno2281:
'o wn seems to them to fill the bill, and they are at least as cognizant of the nuances of Hebrew as your sources.
Dan:
To call someone The Being may reflect the Hellenization of those Jews but even then it does not help you. As for the nuances of Hebrew, see the NTs in Hebrew above.
Danno2281:
As for Jn.8:58, it does not cease to refer to an ever-present reality because you wish it notr to (yeah, folks, ended with a preposition). Truth is independent of belief, and a present tense is still a present tense indicating that both before Abraham and now are the same present.
Dan:
It never has referred to an ever present reality. I was hoping you might make an argument for this rather than merely assume your position. That is circular reasoning.
Danno: Dan, you can’t eat your cake and have it. Either you are going to argue the Greek from the Greek text, or you are looking for something else. If you want to cite Kliest-Lily"s footnote to use in your argument,then accept the whole of the footnote: “Christ here states (1) that he “was” already “in existence” before Abraham “came into being”; and (2) that, since then he has always been, and “still is” in existence. The two statements, fused into one grammatical expression, stress the idea of continuity from before Abraham’s time down to the present moment, and intimate his eternity.
You say that Jesus” expression is “bounded by time, the time of Abraham’s birth.” What the case is atually is that there is** NO** boundary placed upon the statement because it does not speak from Abraham’s birth, but from before, undefined in time, that birth
It delights me that you recognize the copulative function in Exodus; let’s look at what is joined. EGO is joined to o WN, the One Who Exists, the Being. We can now forget all those 12 translations of your previous post, because we know what the Hebrew mind is trying to say, agreed?
We are not here bound by any reference to time, only an eternal present, the One Who Exists The Greek text tells me this in no uncertain terms.
Lets find out, shall we? While the words EGW EIMI are in the Greek, they are not used the same was as in John 8:58 and in fact in the Greek Septuagint they are not used at all as an expression of existence! They are used as a copulative. εγω ειμι ο ων (EGW EIMI hO WN) is literally 'I am the Being". Notice that ο ων (the Being) is the title in this rendering, and not εγω ειμι.
In John 8:58 Jesus does not say EGW EIMI hO WN (I am the Being). He uses the words EGW EIMI in a completely different way than in the LXX of Ex 3;14. EIMI is the main verb of the sentence, something I mentioned in my last post. The Greek is
PRIN ABRAAM GENESQAI EGW EIMI.
Lets break this down. The word PRIN is an adverb. This means that it modifies a verb. The main verb in the sentence is EIMI. Therefore PRIN modifies EIMI. PRIN forms a dependent clause which modifies EGW EIMI. The adverb is a part of speech that answers the question “when.” Before Abraham was born answers the when. The verb EIMI is thus governed by the PRIN clause.
In Greek this construction is called the Present of Past Action still in progress (PPA). Thus many bibles render EGW EIMI as other than I AM, which is unintelligible in English.
Lets look at some Jewish bibles, shall we?
- The Living Scriptures (Messianic Version): “I was in existence before Abraham was ever born.”
- The Authentic New Testament, Schonfield: “I existed before Abraham was born.”
- The New Testament in Hebrew, Delitzsh: Before Abraham was, I have been."
- The New Testament in Hebrew, Salkinson & Ginsberg: “I have been when there had as yet been no Abraham.”
- Biblia Sagdrada, Roman Catholic: “Before Abraham existed, I was existing.”
- The New Testament, Klist & Lilly: “I am here-and I was before Abraham.”
Christ here states (1) that he “was” already “in existence” before Abraham “came into being”; and (2) that, since then he has always been, and “still is” in existence. The two statements, fused into one grammatical expression, stress the idea of continuity from before Abraham’s time down to the present moment, and intimate his eternity. The statement in Exod. 3:14 is different: “I am he whose essence it is to be.”
Thus this Catholic reference agrees that there is no link between Ex 3:14 and John 8:58. He says at best that this intimates (hints or suggests at) eternity. He says that it explicitly teaches that the time frame of Jesus existence was some time before Abraham all the way up to the time of his speaking. That is the PPA, the Present of Past Action Still in Progress. This bible has the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur.
Thus the words EGW EIMI don’t refer to an existence without the bounds of time since the PRIN clause governs EIMI. It is not timeless. In addition trying to link Ex 3:14 to John 8:58 is not tenable and certainly not to the LXX EGW EIMI hO WN. Jesus does not use the words hO WN at all in John 8:58. He uses EGW EIMI in an entirely different way and in a way that is bounded by time, the time of Abraham’s birth. At the most it can be said that he existed before Abraham was born. See examples in the bibles above, some of which are translated by Catholics such as Kliest and Lily.
Danno2281:
'o wn seems to them to fill the bill, and they are at least as cognizant of the nuances of Hebrew as your sources.
Dan:
To call someone The Being may reflect the Hellenization of those Jews but even then it does not help you. As for the nuances of Hebrew, see the NTs in Hebrew above.
Danno2281:
As for Jn.8:58, it does not cease to refer to an ever-present reality because you wish it notr to (yeah, folks, ended with a preposition). Truth is independent of belief, and a present tense is still a present tense indicating that both before Abraham and now are the same present.
Dan:
It never has referred to an ever present reality. I was hoping you might make an argument for this rather than merely assume your position. That is circular reasoning.
Danno: Dan, you can’t eat your cake and have it. Either you are going to argue the Greek from the Greek text, or you are looking for something else. If you want to cite Kliest-Lily"s footnote to use in your argument,then accept the whole of the footnote: “Christ here states (1) that he “was” already “in existence” before Abraham “came into being”; and (2) that, since then he has always been, and “still is” in existence. The two statements, fused into one grammatical expression, stress the idea of continuity from before Abraham’s time down to the present moment, and intimate his eternity.
You say that Jesus” expression is “bounded by time, the time of Abraham’s birth.” What the case is atually is that there is** NO** boundary placed upon the statement because it does not speak from Abraham’s birth, but from before, undefined in time, that birth
It delights me that you recognize the copulative function in Exodus; let’s look at what is joined. EGO is joined to o WN, the One Who Exists, the Being. We can now forget all those 12 translations of your previous post, because we know what the Hebrew mind is trying to say, agreed?
We are not here bound by any reference to time, only an eternal present, the One Who Exists The Greek text tells me this in no uncertain terms.
D
Danno2281
Guest
Dan:
Lets find out, shall we? While the words EGW EIMI are in the Greek, they are not used the same was as in John 8:58 and in fact in the Greek Septuagint they are not used at all as an expression of existence! They are used as a copulative. εγω ειμι ο ων (EGW EIMI hO WN) is literally 'I am the Being". Notice that ο ων (the Being) is the title in this rendering, and not εγω ειμι.
Danno: Good. They join EGO and 'o WN. The Speaker is Being, without any qualification of time or anything else.Your supposition that this represents a Hellenization changes nothing, except to indicate that you are uncomfortable with the rendering
In John 8:58 Jesus does not say EGW EIMI hO WN (I am the Being). He uses the words EGW EIMI in a completely different way than in the LXX of Ex 3;14. EIMI is the main verb of the sentence, something I mentioned in my last post. The Greek is
In Greek this construction is called the Present of Past Action still in progress (PPA). Thus many bibles render EGW EIMI as other than I AM, which is unintelligible in English.
Danno: Unintelligible only if you discount the possibility of eternal existence, which possibility Christians most certainly do not discount, but rather affirm. The evidence of the text should determine what you discount, but you are bringing your position to the text and only that makes it unintelligible. The question is: What does the text say?.
Now lets look at Catholic bibles:
Christ here states (1) that he “was” already “in existence” before Abraham “came into being”; and (2) that, since then he has always been, and “still is” in existence. The two statements, fused into one grammatical expression, stress the idea of continuity from before Abraham’s time down to the present moment, and intimate his eternity. The statement in Exod. 3:14 is different: “I am he whose essence it is to be.”
Thus this Catholic reference agrees that there is no link between Ex 3:14 and John 8:58. He says at best that this intimates (hints or suggests at) eternity. He says that it explicitly teaches that the time frame of Jesus existence was some time before Abraham all the way up to the time of his speaking. That is the PPA, the Present of Past Action Still in Progress. This bible has the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur.
Danno: Look at your statements about what Kliest-Lilly says, and then go back and look at what is actually said. The statements “stress” the idea of continuity from before Abraham to the present, i.e. no temporal distinction between the two, exactly what both the simple present and the PPA designate. The reaction of the Judeans makes it quite clear that they understood.
Thus the words EGW EIMI don’t refer to an existence without the bounds of time since the PRIN clause governs EIMI. It is not timeless. Danno: Non sequitur. It removes the boundary of time! If a boundary were wanted “since” would have been used, but “before” is open-ended, without boundary. In addition trying to link Ex 3:14 to John 8:58 is not tenable and certainly not to the LXX EGW EIMI hO WN. Jesus does not use the words hO WN at all in John 8:58. He uses EGW EIMI in an entirely different way and in a way that is bounded by time, the time of Abraham’s birth. At the most it can be said that he existed before Abraham was born. See examples in the bibles above, some of which are translated by Catholics such as Kliest and Lily.
Danno2281:
'o wn seems to them to fill the bill, and they are at least as cognizant of the nuances of Hebrew as your sources.
Dan:
To call someone The Being may reflect the Hellenization of those Jews but even then it does not help you. As for the nuances of Hebrew, see the NTs in Hebrew above. Dano:See my first comment.
Danno2281:
As for Jn.8:58, it does not cease to refer to an ever-present reality because you wish it notr to (yeah, folks, ended with a preposition). Truth is independent of belief, and a present tense is still a present tense indicating that both before Abraham and now are the same present.
Dan:
It never has referred to an ever present reality. I was hoping you might make an argument for this rather than merely assume your position. That is circular reasoning.
Danno: Whether a simple present or a PPA the structure denies any change. The same condition persists. What was present before is present now and has remained present. It is the same present. That is what the text clearly says.
Lets find out, shall we? While the words EGW EIMI are in the Greek, they are not used the same was as in John 8:58 and in fact in the Greek Septuagint they are not used at all as an expression of existence! They are used as a copulative. εγω ειμι ο ων (EGW EIMI hO WN) is literally 'I am the Being". Notice that ο ων (the Being) is the title in this rendering, and not εγω ειμι.
Danno: Good. They join EGO and 'o WN. The Speaker is Being, without any qualification of time or anything else.Your supposition that this represents a Hellenization changes nothing, except to indicate that you are uncomfortable with the rendering
In John 8:58 Jesus does not say EGW EIMI hO WN (I am the Being). He uses the words EGW EIMI in a completely different way than in the LXX of Ex 3;14. EIMI is the main verb of the sentence, something I mentioned in my last post. The Greek is
In Greek this construction is called the Present of Past Action still in progress (PPA). Thus many bibles render EGW EIMI as other than I AM, which is unintelligible in English.
Danno: Unintelligible only if you discount the possibility of eternal existence, which possibility Christians most certainly do not discount, but rather affirm. The evidence of the text should determine what you discount, but you are bringing your position to the text and only that makes it unintelligible. The question is: What does the text say?.
Now lets look at Catholic bibles:
- Biblia Sagdrada, Roman Catholic: “Before Abraham existed, I was existing.”
- The New Testament, Klist & Lilly: “I am here-and I was before Abraham.”
Christ here states (1) that he “was” already “in existence” before Abraham “came into being”; and (2) that, since then he has always been, and “still is” in existence. The two statements, fused into one grammatical expression, stress the idea of continuity from before Abraham’s time down to the present moment, and intimate his eternity. The statement in Exod. 3:14 is different: “I am he whose essence it is to be.”
Thus this Catholic reference agrees that there is no link between Ex 3:14 and John 8:58. He says at best that this intimates (hints or suggests at) eternity. He says that it explicitly teaches that the time frame of Jesus existence was some time before Abraham all the way up to the time of his speaking. That is the PPA, the Present of Past Action Still in Progress. This bible has the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur.
Danno: Look at your statements about what Kliest-Lilly says, and then go back and look at what is actually said. The statements “stress” the idea of continuity from before Abraham to the present, i.e. no temporal distinction between the two, exactly what both the simple present and the PPA designate. The reaction of the Judeans makes it quite clear that they understood.
Thus the words EGW EIMI don’t refer to an existence without the bounds of time since the PRIN clause governs EIMI. It is not timeless. Danno: Non sequitur. It removes the boundary of time! If a boundary were wanted “since” would have been used, but “before” is open-ended, without boundary. In addition trying to link Ex 3:14 to John 8:58 is not tenable and certainly not to the LXX EGW EIMI hO WN. Jesus does not use the words hO WN at all in John 8:58. He uses EGW EIMI in an entirely different way and in a way that is bounded by time, the time of Abraham’s birth. At the most it can be said that he existed before Abraham was born. See examples in the bibles above, some of which are translated by Catholics such as Kliest and Lily.
Danno2281:
'o wn seems to them to fill the bill, and they are at least as cognizant of the nuances of Hebrew as your sources.
Dan:
To call someone The Being may reflect the Hellenization of those Jews but even then it does not help you. As for the nuances of Hebrew, see the NTs in Hebrew above. Dano:See my first comment.
Danno2281:
As for Jn.8:58, it does not cease to refer to an ever-present reality because you wish it notr to (yeah, folks, ended with a preposition). Truth is independent of belief, and a present tense is still a present tense indicating that both before Abraham and now are the same present.
Dan:
It never has referred to an ever present reality. I was hoping you might make an argument for this rather than merely assume your position. That is circular reasoning.
Danno: Whether a simple present or a PPA the structure denies any change. The same condition persists. What was present before is present now and has remained present. It is the same present. That is what the text clearly says.
D
Dan_Parker
Guest
Dan:
Lets find out, shall we? While the words EGW EIMI are in the Greek, they are not used the same was as in John 8:58 and in fact in the Greek Septuagint they are not used at all as an expression of existence! They are used as a copulative. εγω ειμι ο ων (EGW EIMI hO WN) is literally 'I am the Being". Notice that ο ων (the Being) is the title in this rendering, and not εγω ειμι.
Danno: Good. They join EGO and 'o WN. The Speaker is Being, without any qualification of time or anything else.Your supposition that this represents a Hellenization changes nothing, except to indicate that you are uncomfortable with the rendering
Dan:
I am not uncomfortable with it. It is an interpretation of the Hebrew, not a literal rendering of the Hebrew.
I said:
In John 8:58 Jesus does not say EGW EIMI hO WN (I am the Being). He uses the words EGW EIMI in a completely different way than in the LXX of Ex 3;14. EIMI is the main verb of the sentence, something I mentioned in my last post. The Greek is
In Greek this construction is called the Present of Past Action still in progress (PPA). Thus many bibles render EGW EIMI as other than I AM, which is unintelligible in English.
Danno: Unintelligible only if you discount the possibility of eternal existence, which possibility Christians most certainly do not discount, but rather affirm. The evidence of the text should determine what you discount, but you are bringing your position to the text and only that makes it unintelligible. The question is: What does the text say?.
Dan:
Rendering EGW EIMI as I AM in John 8:58 is unintelligible regardless of ones interpretation. In English the PPA is not rendered with the present tense. It is not like Greek where the present tense form can accommodate this syntax.
Now lets look at Catholic bibles:
Christ here states (1) that he “was” already “in existence” before Abraham “came into being”; and (2) that, since then he has always been, and “still is” in existence. The two statements, fused into one grammatical expression, stress the idea of continuity from before Abraham’s time down to the present moment, and intimate his eternity. The statement in Exod. 3:14 is different: “I am he whose essence it is to be.”
Thus this Catholic reference agrees that there is no link between Ex 3:14 and John 8:58. He says at best that this intimates (hints or suggests at) eternity. He says that it explicitly teaches that the time frame of Jesus existence was some time before Abraham all the way up to the time of his speaking. That is the PPA, the Present of Past Action Still in Progress. This bible has the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur.
Danno: Look at your statements about what Kliest-Lilly says, and then go back and look at what is actually said. The statements “stress” the idea of continuity from before Abraham to the present, i.e. no temporal distinction between the two, exactly what both the simple present and the PPA designate.
Dan:
I read Kliest-Lilly quite thoroughly before I posted. They describe the PPA. The two statements are " ‘I am here’ (ie EGW EIMI) " and “I was before Abraham.” When they say there is continuity between these two time periods they describe the PPA. There rendering reflects the PPA.
I had said:
Thus the words EGW EIMI don’t refer to an existence without the bounds of time since the PRIN clause governs EIMI. It is not timeless.
Danno: Non sequitur. It removes the boundary of time! If a boundary were wanted “since” would have been used, but “before” is open-ended, without boundary.
Dan:
No it does not remove the boundary of time. That is absurd. They render this as a classic PPA and describe the classic PPA.
Here are what Greek grammars say on this syntax:
Lets find out, shall we? While the words EGW EIMI are in the Greek, they are not used the same was as in John 8:58 and in fact in the Greek Septuagint they are not used at all as an expression of existence! They are used as a copulative. εγω ειμι ο ων (EGW EIMI hO WN) is literally 'I am the Being". Notice that ο ων (the Being) is the title in this rendering, and not εγω ειμι.
Danno: Good. They join EGO and 'o WN. The Speaker is Being, without any qualification of time or anything else.Your supposition that this represents a Hellenization changes nothing, except to indicate that you are uncomfortable with the rendering
Dan:
I am not uncomfortable with it. It is an interpretation of the Hebrew, not a literal rendering of the Hebrew.
I said:
In John 8:58 Jesus does not say EGW EIMI hO WN (I am the Being). He uses the words EGW EIMI in a completely different way than in the LXX of Ex 3;14. EIMI is the main verb of the sentence, something I mentioned in my last post. The Greek is
In Greek this construction is called the Present of Past Action still in progress (PPA). Thus many bibles render EGW EIMI as other than I AM, which is unintelligible in English.
Danno: Unintelligible only if you discount the possibility of eternal existence, which possibility Christians most certainly do not discount, but rather affirm. The evidence of the text should determine what you discount, but you are bringing your position to the text and only that makes it unintelligible. The question is: What does the text say?.
Dan:
Rendering EGW EIMI as I AM in John 8:58 is unintelligible regardless of ones interpretation. In English the PPA is not rendered with the present tense. It is not like Greek where the present tense form can accommodate this syntax.
Now lets look at Catholic bibles:
- Biblia Sagdrada, Roman Catholic: “Before Abraham existed, I was existing.”
- The New Testament, Klist & Lilly: “I am here-and I was before Abraham.”
Christ here states (1) that he “was” already “in existence” before Abraham “came into being”; and (2) that, since then he has always been, and “still is” in existence. The two statements, fused into one grammatical expression, stress the idea of continuity from before Abraham’s time down to the present moment, and intimate his eternity. The statement in Exod. 3:14 is different: “I am he whose essence it is to be.”
Thus this Catholic reference agrees that there is no link between Ex 3:14 and John 8:58. He says at best that this intimates (hints or suggests at) eternity. He says that it explicitly teaches that the time frame of Jesus existence was some time before Abraham all the way up to the time of his speaking. That is the PPA, the Present of Past Action Still in Progress. This bible has the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur.
Danno: Look at your statements about what Kliest-Lilly says, and then go back and look at what is actually said. The statements “stress” the idea of continuity from before Abraham to the present, i.e. no temporal distinction between the two, exactly what both the simple present and the PPA designate.
Dan:
I read Kliest-Lilly quite thoroughly before I posted. They describe the PPA. The two statements are " ‘I am here’ (ie EGW EIMI) " and “I was before Abraham.” When they say there is continuity between these two time periods they describe the PPA. There rendering reflects the PPA.
I had said:
Thus the words EGW EIMI don’t refer to an existence without the bounds of time since the PRIN clause governs EIMI. It is not timeless.
Danno: Non sequitur. It removes the boundary of time! If a boundary were wanted “since” would have been used, but “before” is open-ended, without boundary.
Dan:
No it does not remove the boundary of time. That is absurd. They render this as a classic PPA and describe the classic PPA.
Here are what Greek grammars say on this syntax:
- E. D. Burton in, "Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek:, section 17, “The Present Indicative, accompanied by an adverbial expression denoting duration and referring to past time, is sometimes used in Greek to describe an action which, **beginning in past time, is still in progress at the time of speaking. English idiom requires the use of the Perfect in such cases.” **
- G.B Winer in, “A Treatise of the Grammar of the New Testament Greek”, p. 334, "Sometimes the present tense includes a preterit when the verb indicates a state which commenced at an earlier period but still continues Jo viii.58"
- Sanders and Masten , in "Harper’s New Testament Commentaries:, p. 158, "To describe** a state continuing up to the present**, Greek uses the present tense (EXEI) where English uses the Perfect; cf. John viii.58 "
- **J. H. Moulton and N. Turner **in “A Grammar of New Testament Greek”, p. 62, "The Present which indicates the continuance of an action during the past and up to the moment of speaking Jn 8 58 "
Continue to Kliest-Lily - John 8:58: Ex 3:14 and time Part 2 of 2
D
Dan_Parker
Guest
Continued from Kliest-Lily - John 8:58: Ex 3:14 and time Part 1 of 2
Dan:
In addition trying to link Ex 3:14 to John 8:58 is not tenable and certainly not to the LXX EGW EIMI hO WN. Jesus does not use the words hO WN at all in John 8:58. He uses EGW EIMI in an entirely different way and in a way that is bounded by time, the time of Abraham’s birth. At the most it can be said that he existed before Abraham was born. See examples in the bibles above, some of which are translated by Catholics such as Kliest and Lily.
Danno2281:
'o wn seems to them to fill the bill, and they are at least as cognizant of the nuances of Hebrew as your sources.
Dan:
To call someone The Being may reflect the Hellenization of those Jews but even then it does not help you. As for the nuances of Hebrew, see the NTs in Hebrew above.
Dano:See my first comment.
Dan:
See my reply.
Danno2281:
As for Jn.8:58, it does not cease to refer to an ever-present reality because you wish it notr to (yeah, folks, ended with a preposition). Truth is independent of belief, and a present tense is still a present tense indicating that both before Abraham and now are the same present.
Dan:
It never has referred to an ever present reality. I was hoping you might make an argument for this rather than merely assume your position. That is circular reasoning.
Danno: Whether a simple present or a PPA the structure denies any change. The same condition persists. What was present before is present now and has remained present. It is the same present. That is what the text clearly says.
Dan:
Yes, the text and Kliest-Lily both say that there is a continuous conditions (ie the existence of the Son) from a time that is from before when Abraham was born until the time of his speaking.
I am a bit surprised you don’t cringe at this temporal language being used of the Son. If as you assert the Son existed in eternity with the Father in the absence of time, then why does Jesus merely tell the Jews he merely existed from before Abraham was born?
In conclusion you started this little foray into John 8:58 because Ex 3:14 does not prove your point. Kliest-Lily, contra you, says the two passages have nothing to do with one another. Do you now accept this?
Dan:
In addition trying to link Ex 3:14 to John 8:58 is not tenable and certainly not to the LXX EGW EIMI hO WN. Jesus does not use the words hO WN at all in John 8:58. He uses EGW EIMI in an entirely different way and in a way that is bounded by time, the time of Abraham’s birth. At the most it can be said that he existed before Abraham was born. See examples in the bibles above, some of which are translated by Catholics such as Kliest and Lily.
Danno2281:
'o wn seems to them to fill the bill, and they are at least as cognizant of the nuances of Hebrew as your sources.
Dan:
To call someone The Being may reflect the Hellenization of those Jews but even then it does not help you. As for the nuances of Hebrew, see the NTs in Hebrew above.
Dano:See my first comment.
Dan:
See my reply.
Danno2281:
As for Jn.8:58, it does not cease to refer to an ever-present reality because you wish it notr to (yeah, folks, ended with a preposition). Truth is independent of belief, and a present tense is still a present tense indicating that both before Abraham and now are the same present.
Dan:
It never has referred to an ever present reality. I was hoping you might make an argument for this rather than merely assume your position. That is circular reasoning.
Danno: Whether a simple present or a PPA the structure denies any change. The same condition persists. What was present before is present now and has remained present. It is the same present. That is what the text clearly says.
Dan:
Yes, the text and Kliest-Lily both say that there is a continuous conditions (ie the existence of the Son) from a time that is from before when Abraham was born until the time of his speaking.
I am a bit surprised you don’t cringe at this temporal language being used of the Son. If as you assert the Son existed in eternity with the Father in the absence of time, then why does Jesus merely tell the Jews he merely existed from before Abraham was born?
In conclusion you started this little foray into John 8:58 because Ex 3:14 does not prove your point. Kliest-Lily, contra you, says the two passages have nothing to do with one another. Do you now accept this?
D
Danno2281
Guest
Danno: Whether a simple present or a PPA the structure denies any change. The same condition persists. What was present before is present now and has remained present. It is the same present. That is what the text clearly says.
Dan:
Yes, the text and Kliest-Lily both say that there is a continuous conditions (ie the existence of the Son) from a time that is from before when Abraham was born until the time of his speaking.
I am a bit surprised you don’t cringe at this temporal language being used of the Son. If as you assert the Son existed in eternity with the Father in the absence of time, then why does Jesus merely tell the Jews he merely existed from before Abraham was born?
In conclusion you started this little foray into John 8:58 because Ex 3:14 does not prove your point. Kliest-Lily, contra you, says the two passages have nothing to do with one another. Do you now accept this?
These posts have become unmanageable, so let’s try taking one point at a time and responding to each point in serarate posts.
You seem to have a serious problem with the word “before.” If I talk about “before the Europeans came to these shores,” that is an open ended statement. The only temporal considerarion is what follows “before.” In the example, the year 450 AD is included, and the year 5747 BC and any concept that antedates the mentioned tiime, “time immemorial.” “Before Abraham” is not temporally restrictive excep insofar as it does not include what comes after the “before.” Why should I cringe? The Judeans understood full well what was meant. You don’t seem to.
D
Danno2281
Guest
D
Danno2281
Guest
*]E. D. Burton in, "Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek:, section 17, "The Present Indicative, accompanied by an adverbial expression denoting duration and referring to past time, is sometimes used in Greek to describe an action which, beginning in past time, is still in progress at the time of speaking. English idiom requires the use of the Perfect in such cases." **
]G.B Winer in, “A Treatise of the Grammar of the New Testament Greek”, p. 334, "Sometimes the present tense includes a preterit when the verb indicates a state which commenced at an earlier period but still continues Jo viii.58"
]Sanders and Masten , in "Harper’s New Testament Commentaries:, p. 158, "To describe a state continuing up to the present, Greek uses the present tense (EXEI) where English uses the Perfect; cf. John viii.58 "
*]**J. H. Moulton and N. Turner **in “A Grammar of New Testament Greek”, p. 62, "The Present which indicates the continuance of an action during the past and up to the moment of speaking Jn 8 58 "
As you can see, there is no thought here of a time period which is unbounded as in eternity in view. Kliest-Lily does not say that. They say it suggests it. Of course after refuting a favorite proof-text for Trinitarians they need to provide some solace.
Continue to Kliest-Lily - John 8:58: Ex 3:14 and time Part 2 of 2
Danno:Let’s look at a structure that indicates a temporal clause "from…to ', This is, in Burton’s words: "accompanied by an adverbial expression denoting duration and referring to past time, is sometimes used in Greek to describe an action which, beginning in past time, is still in progress at the time of speaking. English idiom requires the use of the Perfect in such cases." Now where would I find such a structure? Oh, in Psalm 90! “From everlasting to everlasting You are God.” Pray tell what English idiom requires the perfect tense in this?
]G.B Winer in, “A Treatise of the Grammar of the New Testament Greek”, p. 334, "Sometimes the present tense includes a preterit when the verb indicates a state which commenced at an earlier period but still continues Jo viii.58"
]Sanders and Masten , in "Harper’s New Testament Commentaries:, p. 158, "To describe a state continuing up to the present, Greek uses the present tense (EXEI) where English uses the Perfect; cf. John viii.58 "
*]**J. H. Moulton and N. Turner **in “A Grammar of New Testament Greek”, p. 62, "The Present which indicates the continuance of an action during the past and up to the moment of speaking Jn 8 58 "
As you can see, there is no thought here of a time period which is unbounded as in eternity in view. Kliest-Lily does not say that. They say it suggests it. Of course after refuting a favorite proof-text for Trinitarians they need to provide some solace.
Continue to Kliest-Lily - John 8:58: Ex 3:14 and time Part 2 of 2
Danno:Let’s look at a structure that indicates a temporal clause "from…to ', This is, in Burton’s words: "accompanied by an adverbial expression denoting duration and referring to past time, is sometimes used in Greek to describe an action which, beginning in past time, is still in progress at the time of speaking. English idiom requires the use of the Perfect in such cases." Now where would I find such a structure? Oh, in Psalm 90! “From everlasting to everlasting You are God.” Pray tell what English idiom requires the perfect tense in this?
- Status