[randy]

Exodus 3:14 indicates "Ehyeh asher ehyeh, I am that I
am."...

[randy]

He is giving mankind a name of infinite deity, which is
what I've been
saying all along....
Jesus was expressing the same thing, whether it relates
to the divine name
"I am that I am" or not. The fact is, the context demands
that you
understand he is claiming eternal preexistence. "Before
Abraham was, I am."

[Shmuel] Yeshua could not be expressing the same thing,
when he did *not* say the same thing!

He was saying the same thing, yet not using the exact same
words.

[Shmuel continued]

How does one say "I am" in Hebrew?

[randy]

I'm not a Hebrew scholar. How about "ehyeh?"

[Shmuel] No, the English present tense verb, "am", is
not
translated into Hebrew. For example, if a Hebrew
speaker
wants to say "I am he", he would say "Anee hoo", which
is
literally "I he" in English. So, "I am" in English
would be
"Anee" in Hebrew.

[randy]

So you're claiming that the scholars have it wrong?

[Shmuel] ? I've never heard or read of any "scholar" who
knows the Hebrew language say anything different then I
just said.

I'm talking about the scholars who translated "ehyeh asher
ehyeh" into English, "I am that I am."

[randy]

I believe the claim of preexistence is equal to the claim
of origins in
eternity.

[Shmuel] Anything or any person who has an *origin* is
not eternal.
So your "origins in eternity" makes little or no sense.

If something begins in eternity, it means that something
that is eternal enters into time on a specific date.

None of the many others who "preexisted" Abraham were
eternal.

Are you talking about people who lived 2000 years after
Abraham?

Do you consider God's various messengers (angels) to be
eternal?
How many different eternal identities do you think there
are?

No, angels are not men. They can appear in the form of men,
but they aren't men.

[randy]

The man healed of his blindness did not claim to preexist
Abraham, as Jesus did.

[Shmuel] But this man did say literally "I am (ego eimi)"
just like Yeshua
did. No wonder you mixed up these two different speakers.

Jesus is the one who claim to be the "I Am" who preexisted
Abraham...
Joh 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto
you, Before Abraham was born, I am.

[Shmuel] You're misunderstanding my argument. I'm
pointing out that
the Septuagint does not translate "I am that I am" as "Ego
eimi (period
without a predicate nominative)". This Greek translation
does not give
God's name as "Ego eimi (I am)" by itself. Rather, we
find the whole
name given as "I am the Being (Ego eimi ho Hon)". Yeshua
never
claimed to be "Ego eimi ho Hon". Later idolaters made up
that lie.

I'm not a language expert, but it seems to me perfectly
legitimate that Jesus would not say "I am the Being," but
rather, "I am." The reason for this is context. Jesus was
declaring that "before Abraham was, I am." In this sense, "I
am the Being" does not seem necessary. Jesus is declaring
his eternal preexistence--not just a name. But his claim to
preexistence seems to reference God's own name, which also
declares eternal existence.

[Shmuel] In what verse in the Hebrew Bible (or a Greek translation)
do you suppose that God, the Creator, refers to Himself simply as
"I Am" without a predicate nominative?

[randy]

Exodus 3:14 indicates "Ehyeh asher ehyeh, I am that I am."
The assumption must be made that God is speaking of Himself, since He
is
offering His name. The word "ehyeh" is in the form of the first person
singular. Since the word is used twice God is asserting His existence
definitively and yet without qualification.

Since this is easily translated as "I am that I am," I don't
understand
your question. God is simply asserting His existence.

[Shmuel] Usually a Hebrew verb like "ehyeh" (with the imperfect
Hebrew tense indicating incomplete action) would be translated
into English as "I will be" (with the future tense rather than with
the present tense). But even if one insists on translating
this imperfect Hebrew verb into the English present tense
as "I am", it does not stand alone without a predicate nominative.
Rather, we read, "I will be whom I will be" or "I am whom I am".
In other words, God does not say simply, "I am (period)" or
"I will be (period)". The Creator does *not* refer to Himself
simply as "I am" in either the original Hebrew text or the Greek
translation of Exodus.

[Suzanne]

Exodus 3:14:
"And God saith unto Moses, 'I AM THAT WHICH I AM,' He saith
also, 'Thus dost thou say to the sons of Israel, I AM hath sent me
unto you.' " ~ Young's Literal Translation ~
--
Exodus 3:14:
"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." King James
--
I've seen "I AM THAT I AM"
and also "I AM WHICH I AM"
and also "I AM WHOM I AM"
and also "I will be whom I will be"
etc.
But according to these two scripture versions, when you
count in the tense, the mood, the usage, the suffixes, the
prefixes in Greek, which the Jews also translated this verse
into, you come up with the versions that are listed above.

[Shmuel] I said nothing regarding the questionable *English*
translations you are using here for Exodus 3.14. Rather, I spoke
regarding "the original Hebrew text" and "the Greek translation
of Exodus". In this translation we read, "And God spoke to
Moses, saying, 'I am the Being'; and he said, 'Thus shall you
say to the children of Israel, "The Being" has sent me to you".

Shmuel....you do not have "the original Hebrew text."
We have never found it yet. All that you have is copies.
The original is, or at least was, in the ark of the Covenant.
You also don't know the ancient Hebrew that the text is
written in. So why are you being so smug about what
you think the Hebrew is? Why are you so insistant that
the English translators didn't know anything while you
think that you know so much? One of the oldest of the
texts is the Greek Septuagint. Not only that, Shmuel,
you claim what you do, but are unaware that others who
are Jewish claim theirs is the right way, and they do not
all agree with what you are saying. You also claim by
your words to know more than all the other translators
that translated the Bible into English.

[Suzanne continued]

HOWEVER, the passage in the Bible where Jesus says
"I AM" that we have been talking about, the New Testament
says that when they heard him use that term, they took up
stones in order to stone him. Now you can say all you want
to that it's this mood, this tense, that usage, but for it to say
following what he said that they took up stones with which
to stone him....that shows right there, that these people, all
of whom did speak Greek, since it was the common language
in that day, did understand that the term Jesus/Yeshua was
using meant that he was saying that he is God. Otherwise,
there would be nothing in what he said out of the ordinary,
and someone would not want to stone someone just for
speaking ordinary words. But since they were picking up
stones to stone him with, that settles the matter. They knew
that he was referring to himself as being God.
--
John 8:58-59:
58. "Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you,
Before Abraham was, I am.
59. Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid
himself, and went out of the temple, going through the
midst of them, and so passed by."

[Shmuel] Apparently Yeshua did not get a chance to defend
himself against the false charge of blasphemy this particular
time. But you need to read his defenses made against
the false charge of blasphemy other places in the book of John.

I need to read them? Shmuel, I've read them hundreds of
times. I grew up reading them.

In chapter five, for example, he defends himself against
the charge by saying, "...the son can do nothing of himself...".
And, "I have come in my Father's name...". He did not
come in his own co-equal, co-eternal name (as so many
falsely claim today); rather, he came in the name of
his Creator Who (he admitted) is far greater than he (as
we read in other chapters). [10.29 and 14.28] Yeshua
was *not* claiming equality with his Creator as some
falsely charged then and many falsely claim today.

He is saying that he came in the authority of God Almighty,
Shmuel. He lay aside his "glory" when he came to earth
to be born inside of a human baby. Later, as he was going
to go to heaven, he asked God to restore unto him the glory
that he had previously had. In other words, by coming to
earth to be born a baby, he lay down his throne, his power,
his glory. He allowed himself to be limited to the flesh.
John 17:5:
"And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self
with the glory which I had with thee before the world was."

Do you also agree with the other false charge brought against
him in the book of John that he was breaking the Shabbat
when he healed people?

No, he was not breaking the Sabbath to do that. He explained
when they went through the cornfield, too, when someone
accused them of working on the Sabbath because they picked
corn on the sabbath, that the people had become legalistic in
their interpretation of the law, beyond what it's meaning
originally was. He said that the Sabbath was made for man,
not man for the Sabbath. In other words, the person accusing
them of breaking the Sabbath was the one that was wrong.
In another group, a very sweet Jewish lady told us that she
didn't think she could go to the synagogue any more on
Saturday. I asked her why. She said that driving her car
would be work. I said, "I am a Christian, and if I lived near
you, even though you are Jewish, if you didn't have a way
to get to your place of worship, I would take you myself
in my car." She replied, "That is very nice of you, but you
see, I could not let you do that." I asked why. She replied,
"If I let you do that, then I would be guilty of causing you
to sin." Now, she meant well, and she knew that I did, too.
But she was ultra legalistic about what the Bible says.
Well, Jesus was pointing this out to the people, that what
they were supposed to believe what is written in the Torah,
they should look to understand the heart of the law, and
not a (then) modern corruption of it.