Matthew 28:18

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
unworthy of anyones attention

Hasn't your organisation's customized version of the Bible copped some serious and detailed criticism for its translation of "Jehovah" from author Associate Professor of Religious Studies, Jason BeDuhn?

Originally posted by FMF
Hasn't your organisation's customized version of the Bible copped some serious and detailed criticism for its translation of "Jehovah" from author Associate Professor of Religious Studies, Jason BeDuhn?

Wasn't he the same person who wrote about the accuracy of the New world translation as 'the most accurate translation' and 'a remarkably good translation'? As someone who is essentially Biblically illiterate despite spending an alleged twenty years as a 'Christian', how do you reconcile your statement?

Originally posted by checkbaiter
How did you come to that conclusion? Among all these other Gods, I alone am the true God YHWH.
The literal translation is as stated, 'I will be that I will be'. I think He wanted Moses to be clear on this.

From what I understand the Hebrew verb has two states, perfect state and imperfect state. (this will become important later) One denotes an action that is complete and the other an action that is incomplete or continuous. For example Genesis 1:1 we read 'God created...' the verb is in the perfect sate indicating that the action is complete and finished. At Genesis 2:2 we read, 'God proceeded to rest', the imperfect state indication that the action is ongoing.

At Exodus 3:14 we read from the Hebrew, ''Ey-yeh Asher Ey-yeh' Gods own self designation.

Leeser translates the text as, 'I will be that I will be', Rotherham, 'I will become whatsoever I please'. The New world translation, ' I will prove to be what i will prove to be' The Greek reads from the Septuagint, ' ego eimi ho on', literally 'I am the Being'. The Latin reads and this is probably the most interesting for its what forms the basis of the hugely influential King James version, it being based on the Latin Vulgate, 'ego sum qui sum, ' I am who I am'.

'Eh-yeh' comes from the Hebrew verb 'ha-yah' which means 'to become, prove to be', and in the clause at Exodus 3:14 is in the imperfect state, first person singular meaning, 'I shall become' or 'I shall prove to be', as reflected in the Leeser and Rotherham and NWT translations respectively. Thus the reference is not to Gods self existence but what he has in mind to become towards others.

The King James version being based on the Latin Vulgate of course reflects the Latin form and this is probably the reason why it fails to take these important nuances into account. I suspect also that is why these other translations also mimic the King James version.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Wasn't he the same person who wrote about the accuracy of the New world translation as 'the most accurate translation' and 'a remarkably good translation'? As someone who is essentially Biblically illiterate despite spending an alleged twenty years as a 'Christian', how do you reconcile your statement?

Are you aware of Jason BeDuhn's complete demolition of the JW's translation of the name "Jehovah"? You've cited him a few times. Have you read his appendix about this matter? As wiki says: BeDuhn highlighted cases of "...theological bias in the translation process, by which, he argues, contemporary Christian views are anachronistically introduced into the Bible versions upon which most modern English-speaking Christians rely."

The biggest example of this that he offered was what the JW organisation did to the Bible and its translation of "Jehovah". "[BeDuhn] said the introduction of the name "Jehovah" into the New Testament 237 times was "not accurate translation by the most basic principle of accuracy", and that it "violate[s] accuracy in favor of denominationally preferred expressions for God", adding that for the NWT to gain wider acceptance and prove its worth its translators might have to abandon the use of "Jehovah" in the New Testament." [wiki]

You must be aware of this. We've discussed it before.

Originally posted by FMF
Are you aware of Jason BeDuhn's complete demolition of the JW's translation of the name "Jehovah"? You've cited him a few times. Have you read his appendix about this matter? As wiki says: BeDuhn highlighted cases of "...theological bias in the translation process, by which, he argues, contemporary Christian views are anachronistically introduced into the Bible ...[text shortened]... "Jehovah" in the New Testament." [wiki]

You must be aware of this. We've discussed it before.

What do you think he meant by 'the most accurate translation?'.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes you tried this before and as was pointed out its a simple logical fallacy, why? because no one is disputing that the majority of English translations read i am that i am, what the actual claim is that they are not an accurate translation and simply citing them does not even address the point. If you cannot even understand what the point of conte ...[text shortened]... here for you jaywill? No one has stated or claimed that there is dishonest corroboration either.

Sometime in the distant past one of you Jehovah Witnesses said that all these renderings represent some conspiracy to propagate a heretical error. That is unlikely.

Maybe you wouldn't claim that now, which would be wiser.

The varied translations are not all the same but they all seem to amount to something so similar. That point is addressed.

The suspicion that all these kinds of translations were because of vast conspiracy WAS voiced in the distant past here by one of you Jehovah's Witnesses.

You like my old tag name jaywill? I still use it over on another Forum - www.evcforum.net in the Bible Study room. I haven't posted in awhile. Since you prefer jaywill I thought I might as well tell you where I am still using that id.

Originally posted by sonship
Sometime in the distant past one of you Jehovah Witnesses said that all these renderings represent some conspiracy to propagate a heretical error. That is unlikely.

Maybe you wouldn't claim that now, which would be wiser.

The varied translations are not all the same but they all seem to amount to something so similar. That point is addressed.

Th ...[text shortened]... nce you prefer [b]jaywill I thought I might as well tell you where I am still using that id.[/b]

There is denominational bias in translation This is a fact. To what extent that bias exists and why is the interesting part. You can determine if you read the text above addressed to checkbaiter why the translation, 'I am that I am', is inaccurate. I have consistently pointed out during my time here on this forum what translational bias is and why it exists. I retract nothing. Does it represent a dishonesty on the part of the translators? That remains a matter of conjecture.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
From what I understand the Hebrew verb has two states, perfect state and imperfect state. (this will become important later) One denotes an action that is complete and the other an action that is incomplete or continuous. For example Genesis 1:1 we read 'God created...' the verb is in the perfect sate indicating that the action is complete and fin ...[text shortened]... account. I suspect also that is why these other translations also mimic the King James version.

"From what I understand..."

Try understanding Proverbs 3:5

Originally posted by galveston75
We know that a judge may give a policeman the authority to apply the laws of the land to it's subjects, they hopefully understand that.

Unlikely, as it's not true.

A policeman's authority stems from the Government enacting laws to grant them that authority. Ditto the judges.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
What do you think he meant by 'the most accurate translation?'.

Was he referring to your organisation's translation of the word "Jehovah"? Obviously not. Have you not read the appendix of his book where he deals with the issue?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
unworthy of anyones attention

Who's attention? 😉

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
The statement from Exodus 3:14 does not refer to Gods self existence.

With reference to his prehuman existence, Jesus said to unbelieving Jews: “Before Abraham ever was, I Am.” (John 8:58, Jerusalem Bible) Did Jesus thereby identify himself as being Jehovah? Did not God tell Moses, “‘I Am who I Am. This’ he added ‘is what you must say to the sons ...[text shortened]... eir renderings. For example, An American Translation reads: “I existed before Abraham was born!”

The statement from Exodus 3:14 does not refer to Gods self existence.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think it certainly does. Seeing this probably depends on your own heart. The Exodus 3:14 really identifies God as all that matter and is ultimately real.

Do you believe that Jehovah God is all that finally matters and is ultimately the Most Important One of all existence ? If so then you should have no problem with seeing God summing it all up by saying "I am that I am" . And the point is even more made by God when He says to tell them that "I AM" has sent Moses.


With reference to his prehuman existence, Jesus said to unbelieving Jews: “Before Abraham ever was, I Am.” (John 8:58, Jerusalem Bible) Did Jesus thereby identify himself as being Jehovah?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes. Jesus, was saying that He was that God Who spoke to Moses. That is why they immediately took up stones to stone Him to death for what they considered blasphemy.


Did not God tell Moses, “‘I Am who I Am. This’ he added ‘is what you must say to the sons of Israel: “I Am has sent me to you”’”?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Jews of John chapter 8 grasped what the man younger than 50 years old was saying. As darkened as they were otherwise, they knew what it meant for Jesus to say "Before Abraham was, I Am." .

The fact of the matter is that I personally know from experience that Jesus is the "I AM". I don't need to be able to translate ancient Hebrew.

I would have to add my witness that Jesus is God. You know He told His disciples that they would be His witnesses - Witnesses of Jesus Christ -

" ... and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and unto the uttermost part of the earth." (Acts 1:8b)

Whether you realize it or not, the organization of the Jehovah's Witnesses use a title that is really a euphemism. What the underlying and sole purpose is theologically, is to witness AGAINST the incarnation of God as a man.

That is that overall purpose behind the label "Jehovah's Witness". You are involved in a group whose goal is to REBEL against Jehovah's incarnation as the man Jesus.

Why do they torture the Scripture to make Jesus to be Michael the angel ? It is to rebel against Yahweh or Jehovah or YHWH.

You offer God adoration because of a paradise garden existence on earth. But God wants His Son to be exalted in your worship. You rebel against that to offer to God what you in your unbelief want to offer instead. This is like Cain offering his self chosen opinion and not being received.

But to the immediate point - Jesus was persecuted because He claimed to be God become a man.

I know your arguments which I anticipate.


(Ex. 3:14, Je) Many translations use the expression “I Am” both at John 8:58 and Exodus 3:14. But do both texts express the same thought?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The question could be some kind of leading one. The point to note is that the Gospel writer and close disciple John faithfully recorded that this saying of Jesus to the Jewish crowd was the last straw that provoked them to execute Him for blasphemy.

"Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, Before Abraham came into being, I am.

So they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus was hidden and went out of the temple." (John 8:58,59 RcV)

The phrase "SO THEY ... picked up stones to throw at Him" indicates a cause and effect scenario that amounts to them obeying in their minds what God commanded in Leviticus 24:16.

"And the one who blasphemes the name of Jehovah shall surely be put to death; all the assembly shall surely stone him.

The sojourner as well as the native, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death."

What they did not see was that as He SAID He was God, He lived and acted as that God.

No. We know that they do not because at Exodus 3:14 the Greek Septuagint Version (the translation that was often quoted by the apostles in the first century C.E.) reads, e·go´ ei·mi´ ho Ohn´, “I am the Being.” This is quite different from the simple use of the words e·go´ ei·mi´ (I am) at John 8:58. The verb ei·mi´, at John 8:58, is evidently in the historical present, as Jesus was speaking about himself in relation to Abraham’s past. Numerous translators indicate this in their renderings. For example, An American Translation reads: “I existed before Abraham was born!”
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What you point out here is not that conclusive to outweigh the significance of the crowd's reaction. Adjusting the phrase in English here or there doesn't help you to diminish the Gospel of John's central message - The man Jesus was God become a man. And we can have divine and eternal life in His name.

The Recovery Version's translation was seen above, including the rendering "Before Abraham came into being ...".

Incidentally, the same power of the statement "I AM" John records when the mob went to seize Him before the crucifixion.

When they said that they sought Jesus the Nazarene He said I am and they fell to the ground at the power of His proclamation.
Receive the revelation. He really was the I AM of Exodus.

" ... Whom do you seek? They answered Him, Jesus the Nazarene. He said to them, I am. ... When therefore He said to them, I am, they drew back and fell to the ground.

Then again He asked them, Whom do you seek? And they said, Jesus the Nazarene." ( See John 18:4-8)

Everything John wrote was purposeful, meaningful, and highly significant. Here again the MAN Jesus is the self proclaiming God. And only by God's permission could they take Him for execution. The power of His Person was the power of the incorruptible and unconquerable Eternal God.

You should get out of that organization that is in rebellion against God in incarnation. Meet in your own home with one or two or three people who have seen the truth.

You should leave them and tell them that you have seen that you are called to be a witness of Jesus the I AM Who became our Lord and Savior (Acts 1:8). Your joy would be made full by joining the fellowship of the apostles with the Father and the Son.

Originally posted by sonship
... Your joy would be made full by joining the fellowship of the apostles with the Father and the Son.

You obviously are unaware of what Jesus mean but the disciples 'joy would be made full', and your statement is the most basic lie and false teaching of your version of the Christian doctrine.

The real followers of Christ know this statement from the mouth of Jesus himself represents the truth:

As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love. If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love. These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full. (John 15:9-11 KJV)

To abide in Christ and for his followers joy to me made full the followers need only to obey the commandments of Christ.

Nobody needs to join your false doctrine fellowship that denies the most basic teachings of Christ which is to follow him.

Originally posted by FMF
Was he referring to your organisation's translation of the word "Jehovah"? Obviously not. Have you not read the appendix of his book where he deals with the issue?

Why don't you tell us what he meant by 'the most accurate translation'.