John 8:58

before Abraham came to be, I am - John 8:58

I have cited this as yet another example of blatant religious bias. That the translators know of exactly the same Greek idiomatic construct elsewhere in scripture and translate it accordingly is self evident, yet they suddenly forget to do so when it comes to Christ . Added to this are vain and sometimes ludicrous attempts to justify the translation ranging from references to atheists to simply citing reams of biased translations. Here are some other examples of the same construct.

John 14:9, literally from the Greek, 'for this much time with you, I am'.

translated as, 'have I not been with you so long', - NIV

John 15:27, from the Greek, 'from the beginning with me, you are',

translated as, 'for you have been with me from the beginning'.- NIV

Both of these passages demonstrate exactly the same grammatical construct as John 8:58 yet ask yourself dear reader why the translators of these texts knowingly translate the text accurately into English in the above two citations and yet suddenly forget to do so, when it comes to Jesus, in the verse at John 8:58, The answer, religious bias.

Knowing this is one thing, getting them to admit it is quite another.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
before Abraham came to be, I am - John 8:58

I have cited this as yet another example of blatant religious bias. That the translators know of exactly the same Greek idiomatic construct elsewhere in scripture and translate it accordingly is self evident, yet they suddenly forget to do so when it comes to Christ . Added to this are vain and sometimes ...[text shortened]... religious bias.

Knowing this is one thing, getting them to admit it is quite another.

More strawmen. I got to go to bed now. Be back with you in about 6 to 8 hours with more instruction if you are lucky.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
More strawmen. I got to go to bed now. Be back with you in about 6 to 8 hours with more instruction if you are lucky.

The Instructor

the only straw man here is you, see if you can get a brain on your way to see the wizard of Oz.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
before Abraham came to be, I am - John 8:58

I have cited this as yet another example of blatant religious bias. That the translators know of exactly the same Greek idiomatic construct elsewhere in scripture and translate it accordingly is self evident, yet they suddenly forget to do so when it comes to Christ . Added to this are vain and sometimes ...[text shortened]... religious bias.

Knowing this is one thing, getting them to admit it is quite another.

isnt it something to do with 'ego' being used with 'eimi'?

'eimi' is used in different tenses but 'ego eimi' is gods name and the exact words used by jesus in john 8:58. isnt this why the jews reacted violently towards him?

what do you chaps translate it as?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
isnt it something to do with 'ego' being used with 'eimi'?

'eimi' is used in different tenses but 'ego eimi' is gods name and the exact words used by jesus in john 8:58. isnt this why the jews reacted violently towards him?

what do you chaps translate it as?

you mean the personal pronoun (I) with the verb to be in the present tense (am), hardly, there are numerous instances of it elsewhere and you dont see them falling over themselves to display their religious bias,

'I am the shepherd', 'I am the vine', all from the book of John. Is there some strange grammatical significance within these verses that prevents them from rendering the text as, 'shepherd, I am', or 'vine, I am', as they have done with John 8:58? Hardly, what it is, with John 8:58 is a display of religious bias, blatant, obvious and inexcusable.

we render the text, rather interestingly as,

(John 8:58) Jesus said to them: “Most truly I say to you, Before Abraham came into existence, I have been.”

which is kind of like a half way house, it recognises the relationship between the verb tenses and gives the idea that Chrsit was talking of his pre human existence rather than some unsubstantiated and unsupported idea of self revelation that he is God, but still sticks rather conservatively to the Greek idiom rather than the English with a somewhat awkward rendering.

the best i have found is the Living Bible , which is not that accurate usually,

'I was in existence before Abraham was born'.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you mean the personal pronoun (I) with the verb to be in the present tense (am), hardly, there are numerous instances of it elsewhere and you dont see them falling over themselves to display their religious bias,

'I am the shepherd', 'I am the vine', all from the book of John. Is there some strange grammatical significance within these verses th which is not that accurate usually,

'I was in existence before Abraham was born'.

'I was in existence before Abraham was born'.

This too, is ambiguous. Being "born" might not be the beginning of "existence", for anyone, even for Abraham. This would fit with some Eastern strains of religion, particularly those that consider (1) reincarnation/transmigration of souls or (2) all existent beings as manifestations of the One.

Alan Watts:

"This is It
and I am It
and You are It
and so is That
and He is It
and She is It
and It is It
and That is That.

(He attributes this saying to James Broughton)

Anyone who talked like this could be interpreted by a traditional personal-God religion modeled after a paternalistic society, as usurping God's place.

robbie, I've given you my take on this verse.

You risk more than you know continuing on like this.

Changing the meaning is one thing, but defending your indefensible act is another.

Accusing God of bad grammar is really beyond the pale. Maybe if you put aside your own vanity and actually open your heart to what God is saying here, you might decide that God really does know what He's doing after all.

Here's the passage for all to see, despite your desecration of the text.

" Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself?
Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God:
Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying.
Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw [it], and was glad.
Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
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." -- John 8:53-59, KJV

Originally posted by JS357
'I was in existence before Abraham was born'.

This too, is ambiguous. Being "born" might not be the beginning of "existence", for anyone, even for Abraham. This would fit with some Eastern strains of religion, particularly those that consider (1) reincarnation/transmigration of souls or (2) all existent beings as manifestations of the One.

Alan Watts:
...[text shortened]... is It
and It is It
and That is That.

(He attributes this saying to James Broughton)

but its not a statement of revelation that Christ is God, is it, its a reference to a pre human existence.

Originally posted by Suzianne
robbie, I've given you my take on this verse.

You risk more than you know continuing on like this.

Changing the meaning is one thing, but defending your indefensible act is another.

Accusing God of bad grammar is really beyond the pale. Maybe if you put aside your own vanity and actually open your heart to what God is saying here, you might decide ...[text shortened]... out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by." -- John 8:53-59, KJV

No i am not accusing God of anything, I am accusing you and your translators of religious bias and I have demonstrated that bias with fact, you on the other hand prefer mere unsubstantiated opinion.

If you want to take the matter further, fine by me, but be warned, you will be educated.

Quoting a biased text to support a bias is what? that is correct circular and illogical reasoning. Why as I have pointed out, does a discrepancy exist, using the exact same structure elsewhere, between your translation of John 5:58 and other passages which include the personal pronoun I and the verb to be, in the present tense (am), why dont you tell the forum why instead of havering on about irrelevancies.

Meh, who am I kidding, I'll tell them, RELIGIOUS BIAS.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
No i am not accusing God of anything, I am accusing you and your translators of religious bias and I have demonstrated that bias with fact, you on the other hand prefer mere unsubstantiated opinion.

If you want to take the matter further, fine by me, but be warned, you will be educated.

Quoting a biased text to support a bias is what? that ...[text shortened]... d of havering on about irrelevancies.

Meh, who am I kidding, I'll tell them, RELIGIOUS BIAS.

"Meh, who am I kidding, I'll tell them, RELIGIOUS BIAS"


dont you suffer from exactly the same thing? do you ever disagree with anything your elders say? nope.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
[b]"Meh, who am I kidding, I'll tell them, RELIGIOUS BIAS"


dont you suffer from exactly the same thing? do you ever disagree with anything your elders say? nope.[/b]

I am prepared to admit that I am religiously biased, these people are not.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I am prepared to admit that I am religiously biased, these people are not.

well knock me down with a feather!!!! are my eyes deceiving me? did you just admit to being religiously biased!!! are you okay? did you bang your head or something?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
but its not a statement of revelation that Christ is God, is it, its a reference to a pre human existence.

I think it can be taken as a reference to a metaphysical level of existence in which we all participate, in a way that can be understood as referring to a single entity that Eastern traditions might call the All. But the statement can be mistaken as a claim of personal godhood in the Western sense of god.

My own speculation is that Jesus spent some time in the Eastern traditions and got used to occasionally speaking in their ways, which can be misconstrued so easily by the West.

Alan Watts goes on, saying "Myth, then, is the form in which I try to answer when children ask me those fundamental metaphysical questions which come so readily to their minds:

"...God also likes to play hide-and-seek, but because there is nothing
outside God, he has no one but himself to play with. But he gets over
this difficulty by pretending that he is not himself. This is his way of
hiding from himself. He pretends that he is you and I and all the people
in the world, all the animals, all the plants, all the rocks, and all the
stars. In this way he has strange and wonderful adventures, some of
which are terrible and frightening. But these are just like bad dreams,
for when he wakes up they will disappear.
"Now when God plays hide and pretends that he is you and I, he does
it so well that it takes him a long time to remember where and how he
hid himself. But that's the whole fun of it—just what he wanted to do.
He doesn't want to find himself too quickly, for that would spoil the
game. That is why it is so difficult for you and me to find out that we
are God in disguise, pretending not to be himself. But when the game
has gone on long enough, all of us will wake up, stop pretending, and
remember that we are all one single Self—the God who is all that there
is and who lives for ever and ever."

http://selfdefinition.org/zen/Alan%20Watts%20-%201966%20-%20On%20The%20Taboo%20Against%20Knowing%20Who%20You%20Are.pdf

How easily a monotheistic mind can misconstrue, "...we are all one single Self—the God who is all that there is and who lives for ever and ever" .

Originally posted by stellspalfie
well knock me down with a feather!!!! are my eyes deceiving me? did you just admit to being religiously biased!!! are you okay? did you bang your head or something?

yes i did, why should that surprise you. I can admit it, but getting these others to fess up, well!

Originally posted by JS357
I think it can be taken as a reference to a metaphysical level of existence in which we all participate, in a way that can be understood as referring to a single entity that Eastern traditions might call the All. But the statement can be mistaken as a claim of personal godhood in the Western sense of god.

My own speculation is that Jesus spent some time in all one single Self—the God who is all that there is and who lives for ever and ever" .

hmmm or in your case perhaps i should say ohmmmmmm 😛