Why did they want to stone him?

Originally posted by tomtom232
gene'sqai is an infinitive. It has a wide range of meaning such as become, origin, created, happened, etc.
The subject of an infinitive will be in the accusative case; in this sentence
the subject is Abraham.
So what we have is a little noun phrase, which comes out to "Abraham’s coming forth" or "Abraham’s birth." pri.n therefore is governing this no g forth", or "I AM before the birth of Abraham." Namely, I existed prior to Abraham.

exactly, Christ is referring to his pre-human existence, couldn't have said it better
myself. Well actually i could have, but you know, modesty prevents and al that.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
how would you know, you cant read Greek and you are therefore in no position to
judge anything, all you can in fact do is compare one translation with another, you
have no way of knowing whether all are accurate or none, have you. It doesn't of
course stop you make outrageous claims on the basis of your ignorance though, does
it.

Everything spewing from your mouth is born of ignorants. You talk a lot, but say nothing except what the Watchtower allows.

We don't need to be Greek scholars. The real Greek scholars have written hundreds of books about the scriptures. We have concordances and lexicons, expository dictionaries and interlinear Bibles galore. Every Greek word has been translated into English in all its nuances for everyone to see.

The Bible is clear, simple and easy to understand. If it isn't, its because folks like you make it your business to confuse the clear meaning of scripture.

2 Tim 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

You don't have a clue.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
sorry i am uninterested in your dogma, i thought i made it plain. Tell it to someone that
cares. You have no way of knowing why the Jews threatened to throw stones a him,
which they did on numerous occasions, nor can any be derived from the text, the
rendering makes it quite clear that Christ was referring to his pre human existence,
not to any claim that he was God as has been erroneously assumed and on the
flimsiest of grounds.

Numerous? The reaction of throwing stones only happened two other times. If you had read my post you would see that I stated this.

Dogma? I'm not even Christian, Robbie.

No way of knowing? It is in the context... There is no way of knowing God even exists in the bible without realizing the context of the words.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
exactly, Christ is referring to his pre-human existence, couldn't have said it better
myself. Well actually i could have, but you know, modesty prevents and al that.

There is not much difference between your translation
and what is being argued here. As a matter of fact, you probably would argue that in English your translation is better suited.
However, the problem with the PPA is that it does not fully grasp the full range of e;stin in either biblical Greek or philosophical Greek.
There is an existential sense of the word eivmi'Å, and if this is the sense in which Christ is speaking it would mean that he is not just talking about him being simply before Abraham and still existing up to the point of speaking.
He is saying that he eternally existed before Abraham and will continue to exist forever and beyond.

You can argue if that is a claim to diety or not but those are the facts.

Originally posted by josephw
Everything spewing from your mouth is born of ignorants. You talk a lot, but say nothing except what the Watchtower allows.

We don't need to be Greek scholars. The real Greek scholars have written hundreds of books about the scriptures. We have concordances and lexicons, expository dictionaries and interlinear Bibles galore. Every Greek word has been tran ...[text shortened]... needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

You don't have a clue.[/b]

take it to the bitchin forum spanky or tell your hairdresser, if you still have any. I know
you dont know how to evaluate one translation from another yet somehow you are an
expert are telling us what is accurate and what is not, what does that make you?
prejudiced and bigoted, but we knew that already. Now if you dont mind i have better
things to do than read your drivel, its not Dasa that should be banned its imbeciles like
you.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
why is it so hard for you to look at the text objectively for it has been demonstrated on
numerous occasions that Christ is not even quoting from Exodus, that the Greek of the
Septuagint does not read I AM, that the Hebrew does not read I AM, that the Greek
text does not support a rendering of I am? that the only reason that it has any
sign ...[text shortened]... cheeks and walking around on your hands. Your ignorance in this matter is truly
astounding.

The Jews asked Him, "Who do you think you are? He responded, "I AM"
identifying Himself with the name God gave to Moses. This was considered
to be blasphemy and worthy of stoning by the Jews, since He, being a man,
was making Himself out to be God. They did not ask him how old He was
and would not have tried to stone Him for simply stating He was older than
Abraham.

Originally posted by sumydid
I don't mind us all delving deep into the Scriptures, in their original texts, and trying to come away with the actual meaning. However, we all are (well, most of us I guess) all laypeople. Hmmm.. maybe I should get my clanleader involved here. He translates Scripture as a matter of profession.

In any event, the rational, reasonable discussion among br ...[text shortened]... calling, and boasts about his knowledge... that's the stuff that we shouldn't make time for.

I agree with what you're saying sumydid.

Matthew 11:12 - And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.

And then there's this forum. 😉

Originally posted by tomtom232
There is not much difference between your translation
and what is being argued here. As a matter of fact, you probably would argue that in English your translation is better suited.
However, the problem with the PPA is that it does not fully grasp the full range of e;stin in either biblical Greek or philosophical Greek.
There is an existential sense o ...[text shortened]... rever and beyond.

You can argue if that is a claim to diety or not but those are the facts.

on the basis of the text alone, it is clear that Christ is referring to his pre-human
existence, all else is mere opinion and supposition.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The Jews asked Him, "Who do you think you are? He responded, "I AM"
identifying Himself with the name God gave to Moses. This was considered
to be blasphemy and worthy of stoning by the Jews, since He, being a man,
was making Himself out to be God. They did not ask him how old He was
and would not have tried to stone Him for simply stating He was older than
Abraham.

no he did not say i am, he stated that he existed before Abraham you zoob. Exodus
does not even say I am, does it. The Greek of the Septuagint does not even say i am ,
does it.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
take it to the bitchin forum spanky or tell your hairdresser, if you still have any. I know
you dont know how to evaluate one translation from another yet somehow you are an
expert are telling us what is accurate and what is not, what does that make you?
prejudiced and bigoted, but we knew that already. Now if you dont mind i have better
things to do than read your drivel, its not Dasa that should be banned its imbeciles like
you.

Classic. Don't address the issues, sidetrack away from the truth. You're in denial.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
on the basis of the text alone, it is clear that Christ is referring to his pre-human
existence, all else is mere opinion and supposition.

Do we not all have a pre-human existence?
If so, then how can he be before Abraham unless he is claiming that he has been forever and will be forever?

Originally posted by josephw
Classic. Don't address the issues, sidetrack away from the truth. You're in denial.

i dont deny you dont know how to evaluate a translation yet somehow think your
qualified to term one inaccurate, tell me, how did you evaluate its accuracy. There that
should shut you up for being the phoney that you are.

Originally posted by tomtom232
Do we not all have a pre-human existence?
If so, then how can he be before Abraham unless he is claiming that he has been forever and will be forever?

i didnt have a prehuman existence. How is it that you are saying that Christ existed
forever and ever when clearly Colossians 1:15 states that he was the first-born of all
creation.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no he did not say i am, he stated that he existed before Abraham you zoob. Exodus
does not even say I am, does it. The Greek of the Septuagint does not even say i am ,
does it.

John 8:58 - Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

Jesus didn't say "I am"?

Not in the Greek the Watchtower allows you to read.

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.

Doesn't say "I am" in Exodus either does it?

Man, are you goofy.

Originally posted by josephw
John 8:58 - Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

Jesus didn't say "I am"?

Not in the Greek the Watchtower allows you to read.

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.

Doesn't say "I am" in Exodus either does it?

Man, are you goofy.

i know what the translations states, i want to know how you know these translations are
accurate, you dont, do you? in fact you have no way whatsoever of knowing if these
translations are accurate, do you, yet, you think it clever to state that one is
inaccurate, tell me how you evaluated these translations as to their accuracy? This should be good.