I AM ...

by MOG 9 Replies latest watchtower bible

MOG

I did a little research (new american bible) on this, and i found that when Jesus calls himself "I AM" in John 8:58 and was to get stoned because he was putting himself equal to GOD, due because in Exodus 3:14, God tells moses "I AM sent you"...but in the JWbible it states this entirely different..

John8;58, and I AM is substituted for "I have been', then in Exodus 3;14, "I AM" is substituted for "I shall prove to be what i shall prove to be"..i have gone through several bibles again and again..and each one is the same in this accord, but not the jwbible..

it makes sense that I AM should be kept in place since jesus was being stoned for using that same phrase - confirmed by hurling of the stones, but then in Exodus in the JW, not even the same phrase in used...inconsistent

Off to read the history of I AM..this is a serious offense the way the manipulated these verses..
MOG

To add: compare these verses
Ezekiel 43:3

JWbible: Ezequiel talking" and it was like the appearance of the vision I had seen, like the vision that I saw when "I" came to bring the city to ruin"

"I" looks like he is saying himself but then you can say 'yeah i know he is talking about jehovah not himself'..and thats fine..the problem is that when you look at John 2:18, 19, Jesus says "I will raise it up - his body after death, his body" by using the JW bible this part of "I" can then be intepreted as JEHOVAH

now lets look at one other bible (and this is confirmed through 10 bibles (using biblegateway)

New American Bible

"the vision was like that what i seen when HE (here is GOD in HE) came to destroy the city"

still searching the truth..
Leolaia

I agree about the tortured translation, but I must point out that the phrase in John 8:58 (egó eimi) does not occur in passage you quoted from Exodus 3:14 LXX, wherein ho ón occurs instead, e.g. I am ho ón, and tell them that ho ón has sent you. The latter phrase means something more like "the one being" or "the one who is". The usage of egó eimi is actually closer to that in Deutero-Isaiah, where it is also applied to Yahweh:
Isaiah 43:10: "...hina gnóte kai pisteuséte kai sunete hoti egó eimi..."
John 8:24: "ean gar me pisteuséte hoti egó eimi..."
John 8:28: "...tote gnósesthe hoti egó eimi."
John 13:19: "...hina pisteuséte hotan genétai hoti egó eimi."
Another possible intertext with John 8:58 is Psalm 90:2 LXX, which has a contrast in tense: "Before the mountains came into existence (pro tou oré genéthénai) ... you are (su ei)".
MOG

thanks so much..I obviously have long ways to get to your level..anything on the Ezequiel passage??
Leolaia

If you check the references in the NWT, you will find that there is a textual discrepency in the verse:

"When I came," M; ThVg and six Heb. mss, "when he came"; T, "when I prophesied for making [the city] waste away."
Also the LXX and Symmachus are in accord with MT here. There is another discrepency later in the same verse where shcht is (mis)-read as mshch, giving rise to the khrisai "to anoint" of the LXX (such that he comes to anoint the city instead of destroying it).
MOG

Leolaia

thanks for this..i do have another question..how does the original scripture interpret John 2:19 about Jesus saying "I will raise it, meaning his body"..is this 'I WILL' the literal Greek translation. i looked at the Diaglott and its seems so...

also John 1:1..i notices in the Diaglott, there is the issue with "a god" from "GOD", but i thought there was no lower or uppercases in Greek.
here is an excerpt i found in regards to this John 1:1 scripture

the correct English translation is "...and the Word was God," not "and God was the word." This is because if there is only one definite article ("ho"="the") in a clause where two nouns are in the nominative ("subject") form ("theos" and "logos"), then the noun with the definite article ("ho"="the") is the subject. In this case "ho logos" means that "the word" is the subject of the clause. Therefore, "...the Word was God" is the correct translation, not "God was the Word.

Oh..one last thing..does the name YHWH or Jehovah (and other similiar names)exist in the New Testament?
rocky

MOG....
Look at: http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/newworldtranslation/home.htm there you will some answers .... about the NWT and differences when comparing it to other translations...
But if you download the watchtower library 2007 and install it you can find all answers that you want/need .... (normally that is only for JW that are baptized only...) in the forum you surely can find...
Ex 3:14 :....
***
cl chap.1 pp.9-11"Look! This Is Our God"***
The
Meaning of God’s Name
7
Jehovah chose his own name, one rich in meaning. "Jehovah" literally means "He Causes to Become." True, he brought all things into existence. That in itself is an awe-inspiring thought. But is that the point of God’s name? Moses evidently wanted to learn more. You see, the divine name was not new. People had been using it for centuries. Really, in asking God’s name, Moses was asking about thepersonrepresentedbythename. In effect, he was saying: ‘What can I tell your people Israel about you that will build their faith in you, that will convince them that you really will deliver them?’
8
In response Jehovah explained the meaning of his name. He said to Moses: "I shall prove to be what I shall prove to be." (Exodus 3:14) Many Bible translations here read: "I am that I am." But the careful rendering in the NewWorldTranslation shows that God was not merely affirming his own existence. Rather, he was teaching Moses—and by extension all of us—what that name implies. Jehovah would "prove to be," or cause himself to become, whatever was needed in order to fulfill his promises. J. B. Rotherham’s translation pointedly renders this verse: "I Will Become whatsoever I please." One authority on Biblical Hebrew explains the phrase this way: "Whatever the situation or need . . . , God will ‘become’ the solution to that need."
9
What did that mean to the Israelites? No matter what obstacle loomed before them, no matter how difficult the predicament in which they might find themselves, Jehovah would become whatever was needed in order to deliver them from slavery and bring them into the Promised Land. Surely that name inspired confidence in God. It can do the same for us today. (Psalm 9:10) Why?
10
To illustrate: Parents know how versatile and adaptable they must be in caring for their children. In the course of a single day, a parent may be called upon to act as a nurse, a cook, a teacher, a disciplinarian, a judge, and much more. Many feel overwhelmed by the wide range of roles they are expected to fill. They remark upon the absolute faith put in them by their little ones, who never doubt that Daddy or Mommy can make the hurt better, settle all disputes, fix any broken toy, and answer whatever question pops into their endlessly inquisitive minds. Some parents are humbled and occasionally frustrated by their own limitations. They feel woefully inadequate to fill many of these roles.
11 Jehovah too is a loving parent. Yet, within the framework of his own perfect standards, there is nothing he cannot become in order to care for his earthly children in the best possible way. So his name, Jehovah, invites us to think of him as the best Father imaginable. (James 1:17) Moses and all other faithful Israelites soon learned that Jehovah is true to his name. They watched in awe as he caused himself to become an unbeatable Military Commander, the Master of all natural elements, a peerless Lawgiver, Judge, Architect, Provider of food and water, Preserver of clothing and footgear—and more.
12 So God has made his personal name known, has explained its meaning, and has even demonstrated that the meaning is true. Unquestionably, God wants us to know him. How do we respond? Moses wanted to know God. That intense desire shaped Moses’ life course and led him to draw very close to his heavenly Father. (Numbers 12:6-8; Hebrews 11:27) Sadly, few of Moses’ contemporaries had the same desire. When Moses mentioned Jehovah by name to Pharaoh, that haughty Egyptian monarch retorted: "Who is Jehovah?" (Exodus 5:2) Pharaoh did not want to learn more about Jehovah. Rather, he cynically dismissed the God of Israel as being unimportant or irrelevant. That outlook is all too common today. It blinds people to one of the most important of all truths—Jehovah is the Sovereign Lord.
Ez 43:3 .... it looks that in the handwritten copies sometimes there are "variations" or little different used words ... so we do not need always worrie about all diffent (little) possibilities/meanings .... but a better expanation follows next:
***w73 6/1 pp.350-351 Questions From Readers***
Does not John2:19 indicate that Jesus would resurrect himself?—U.S.A.
As evident from the context, John 2:19 pertains to the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. We read: "Jesus said to them: ‘Break down this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.’ Therefore the Jews said: ‘This temple was built in forty-six years, and will you raise it up in three days?’ But he was talking about the temple of his body. When, though, he was raised up from the dead, his disciples called to mind that he used to say this; and they believed the Scripture and the saying that Jesus said:"—John 2:19-22.
It should be noted that, in telling about the fulfillment of Jesus’ statement, the Bible does not say ‘he raised himself up from the dead,’ but "he was raised up from the dead." Other scriptures clearly show that God was the One who resurrected his Son. The apostle Peter told Cornelius and his relatives and close friends: "God raised this One up on the third day." (Acts 10:40) Hebrews 13:20 speaks of God as the One "who brought up from the dead the great shepherd of the sheep with the blood of an everlasting covenant, our Lord Jesus." And, in his letter to the Romans, the apostle Paul wrote: "If, now, the spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he that raised up Christ Jesus from the dead will also make your mortal bodies alive through his spirit that resides in you." (Rom. 8:11) Accordingly, Jesus Christ simply could not have meant that he would raise himself up from the dead.
Jesus, however, did know that he was going to die and be resurrected. On another occasion he told unbelieving scribes and Pharisees: "A wicked and adulterous generation keeps on seeking for a sign, but no sign will be given it except the sign of Jonah the prophet. For just as Jonah was in the belly of the huge fish three days and three nights, so the Son of man will be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights." (Matt. 12:39, 40) Having this advance knowledge about his death and resurrection, Jesus, in a predictive sense, could speak of ‘raising up the temple of his body.’ Since he foretold it, it was just as if he was going to do it. This might be illustrated with Ezekiel 43:3, where the prophet Ezekiel states: "I came to bring the city [Jerusalem] to ruin," that is, by foretelling its destruction. Ezekiel as an exile in Babylon had no part in actually destroying Jerusalem; that was done by the Babylonians. But his prophecy, being divinely inspired, made it as good as done. (Compare also Jeremiah 1:10.) Similarly, Jehovah God resurrected his Son, but Jesus could speak of doing so in a prophetic sense.
Moreover, God’s will, charge or command respecting his Son was that he die and be restored to life. Jesus willingly surrendered his life in harmony with his Father’s purpose. Jesus could therefore raise up the temple of his body in the sense that he had the authority to receive life again.
On the third day God commanded Jesus to rise from the dead, and he did so by accepting or receiving life at his Father’s hand, by God’s authority. Along with life as a spirit Son, he received the right to perfect human life that, by dying in full innocence, he had not forfeited. This merit of his human sacrifice he thereafter presented to his Father in heaven. (Heb. 9:11-14, 24-28) This is in agreement with Jesus’ words at John 10:17, 18: "The Father loves me because I lay down my life, to receive it back again. No one has robbed me of it; I am laying it down of my own free will. I have the right to lay it down, and I have the right to receive it back again; this charge I have received from my Father."—NewEnglishBible.
About john 1:1
***tip.28 What About Trinity "ProofTexts"?*** ViolatingaRule?
SOME claim, however, that such renderings violate a rule of Koine Greek grammar published by Greek scholar E. C. Colwell back in 1933. He asserted that in Greek a predicate noun "has the [definite] article when it follows the verb; it does not have the [definite] article when it precedes the verb." By this he meant that a predicate noun preceding the verb should be understood as though it did have the definite article ("the") in front of it. At John 1:1 the second noun (the·os´), the predicate, precedes the verb—"and [the·os´] was the Word." So, Colwell claimed, John 1:1 should read "and [the] God was the Word."
But consider just two examples found at John 8:44. There Jesus says of the Devil: "That one was a manslayer" and "he is a liar." Just as at John 1:1, the predicate nouns ("manslayer" and "liar") precede the verbs ("was" and "is") in the Greek. There is no indefinite article in front of either noun because there was no indefinite article in Koine Greek. But most translations insert the word "a" because Greek grammar and the context require it.—See also Mark 11:32; John 4:19; 6:70; 9:17; 10:1; 12:6.
Colwell had to acknowledge this regarding the predicate noun, for he said: "It is indefinite ["a" or "an"] in this position only when the context demands it." So even he admits that when the context requires it, translators may insert an indefinite article in front of the noun in this type of sentence structure.
Does the context require an indefinite article at John 1:1? Yes, for the testimony of the entire Bible is that Jesus is not Almighty God. Thus, not Colwell’s questionable rule of grammar, but context should guide the translator in such cases. And it is apparent from the many translations that insert the indefinite article "a" at John 1:1 and in other places that many scholars disagree with such an artificial rule, and so does God’s Word.
MOG

Thanks Rocky..of all the bibles i have seen, and even those that have John 1:1 as "a god", that those who translated them, at best to my knowledge, believe that Jesus was GOD with the exception of the Watchtower..unfortunately, what i am feeling at this moment, i do not trust any ONE translation and this lends itself as to why the Qu'ran points back to this, how men have corrupted THE BOOK(the bible).. why does the Watchtower believe in jesus dying on a stake? when even they use the Diaglott as a ref back, has CRUXIFICATION. Luke 23:33. They superimpose it as IMPALED HIM??
Narkissos

Welcome MOG.
The parallel between John 2:19 (where the active sense of egerô, "I will raise," is unmistakable) and 10:17f has often been noted, but the NWT is a little misleading in translating lambanô in the latter by "to receive" (which is, of course, essential to the Watchtower theology). Actually, in this context, the verb would be better translated by "to take":An "authority" or "right" (exousia) to receive makes much less sense than a right to take (v. 18). Another famous parallel to the use of tithèmi and lambanô in 10:17f is found in 13:4-12: Jesus lays off his robe to wash his disciples' feet and then takes it again.
StAnn

MOG, I'm going to quote a couple of paragraphs from an excellent book called Scripture: Nourished by the Word by Margaret Nutting Ralph, Ph.D., Loyola Press. From Chapter 5, beginning with page 98:
"John's Gospel is full of 'I Am' statements made by Jesus. Each of these statements is high Christology in that each is claiming that Jesus is God. 'I Am' is an allusion to the name that God revealed to Moses at the burning bush: 'I Am who Am.' Each time Jesus is pictured making an 'I Am' statement, John is claiming Jesus' divinity and his oneness with God the Father.
"John was not claiming that the words he attributed to Jesus in his Gospel were words that the historical Jesus said. Rather, John placed on Jesus' lips long theological sermons that explained the truths that the Church understood at the end of the first century. These long theological discourses reinforced the Christology that was taught at the intentional level of John's allegories."
The author goes on to review the story of the Wedding at Cana and the subsequent conversation with Nicodemus and John's account of Jesus' passion and death.
This book is inexpensive (less than $10) and available on Amazon.com. I highly recommend it.

I AM ...

Share this