Requested Rebuttal to Graphics Claiming Jesus is Jehovah

KingdomRose

New member
I was asked to respond to Graphics claiming to show that Jesus is Jehovah, by Musterion. I will answer those claims, one by one, and will try to answer before my post is deleted, as happened yesterday. I'll have to break up my answer into several posts so that I won't get kicked off the forum because of overstaying my time on a post (?).

The first specific topic is: I AM

The King James Version and many other versions render Jesus' statement at John 8:58 as "before Abraham was, I am." This actually flies in the face of the rules for translating Greek into good English, as Bratcher (who translated the Good News Bible[TEV]) would have to agree, as he set forth three necessary rules in a statement of his own:

"At least it can be agreed that any translation, in order to be considered good, should satisfy 3 requirements:
1) It should handle textual matters in an informed and responsible way.
2) Its exegesis of the original texts should be theologically unbiased.
3) Its language should be contemporary, and it should conform to normal English usage." (1978, pp.115-116)

With these things in mind, we can look at John 8:58. We can see right off that the way it is translated in the KJV and other versions, "normal English usage" has not been honored. The way that Biblical texts are usually translated has not been carried through on this verse.

The Greek reads: prin Abraam genesthai ego eimi.

It is fine idiomatic Greek. It can be rendered straightforwardly into English by doing what translators always do with Greek, namely, rearrange the word order into normal English order and adjust things like verbal tense complementarity into proper English expression. (See BeDuhn, Truth in Translation, p.104.) Note: These steps of translation are necessary because Greek and English are not the same language and do not obey the same rules of grammar. Greek has more flexibility with word order than English does, and it can mix verbal tenses in a way that English can't. Yet the rules of translation are ignored by many versions when they translate John 8:58. They present a verse with mangled word order; utterly ungrammatical and syntactically strained!

As one scholar brought out: Because Greek idioms are different from English idioms, translators do not translate these expressions word-for-word, but rather convey the meaning of the Greek idiom in proper, comprehensible English. At least that is what they are supposed to do. (BeDuhn, p. 105)

It is ungrammatical English for something referred to with a present "am" to occur earlier in time than something described with a past "came to be." Normally, if we want to refer to an event before one already in the past, we would use a perfect tense: "He had put on his boots before he went out into the snow." In John 8:58, since Jesus' existence is not completed past action, but ongoing, we must use some sort of imperfect verbal form to convey that. Therefore the correct rendering of John 8:58 is: "I have been since before Abraham came to be."
 

KingdomRose

New member
To continue:

"I have been since before Abraham came to be" is as close as we can get to what the Greek says in our own language if we pay attention to ALL parts of the sentence. The Living Bible, for example, coordinates the two verbs in John 8:58 according to proper English syntax, and that accurately reflect the meaning of the Greek idiom. Most other translations fail to do this.

So why do we have such a mess of translation at John 8:58 by most versions? As BeDuhn brings out: "Someone at some point noticed that this perfectly ordinary combination of the first person pronoun 'I' and the present tense verb 'am' just happens to read the same as what God says to Moses in the KJV at Exodus 3:14." It's quite silly, actually, because that verse in Exodus can be translated in other ways than "I Am." Three other translators render it like so:

1) Leeser: "I Will Be That I Will Be"
2) Rotherham: "I Will Become Whatsoever I Please"
3) NWT: "I Shall Prove To Be What I Shall Prove To Be"

Not "I Am." So the rendering of that verse does not necessarily have to be "I am." Can you see Jesus saying, "Before Abraham was born, I Will"???
 

KingdomRose

New member
Continuing.

So we are beginning to see how the argument for Jesus quoting Exodus 3:14 can be taken apart.

Do we understand what "idiomatic use" means? It is the way that people speaking one language might use an expression that would not be able to be translated word-for-word into another language. As BeDuhn has said: "The majority of translations recognize idiomatic uses of 'I am,' and properly integrate the words into the CONTEXT of the passages where they appear. Yet when it comes to John 8:58, they suddenly forget how to translate." (BeDuhn, p.109)

Why do the Pharisees get enraged at what Jesus says? Do they really think he is claiming to be God? No. The fact is that it is Jesus' claim to be superior to Abraham, and to have a longer life-span than any other human being that gets their knickers in a twist. NOT a claim to be God. His argument is that he has seniority over Abraham, and so by the standards of Jewish society, he has greater authority than Abraham. The Jewish religious leaders were overly proud of their being descendants of Abraham, and to suggest that someone had more authority than Abraham would logically get them upset. They did, after all, enjoy the laudation of men and the higher position that they put themselves in. (See Matt.chapter 23.)

Another point that can't be left out: Just a few verses beyond what Jesus says at John 8:58, there is presented a story about a blind man that was healed by Jesus. At John 9:9 the formerly blind man answers his neighbors that he is indeed the man that Jesus healed; he uses the exact same words that Jesus used---ego eimito indicate, "I am he." Taking the context into consideration, that would be a correct rendering. Let's really concentrate on these words, ego eimi. Jesus said them and the blind man said them. If those words, when said by Jesus, signify that Jesus is God, then the blind man is also God. Another way to put it: If ego eimi is NOT a divine self-proclamation by the blind man, then it cannot be such a claim from the mouth of Jesus just a few verses earlier.

Should we assume that the majority of versions are correct and the "odd" ones are at fault? We must check all translations against the original Greek to make a fair assessment, and the assumption that the majority are correct can be seen to be wrong.

In conclusion, the last word to be said on this matter is what McKay (1996, p.302) says about it: "John 8:58 would be most naturally translated 'I have been in existence since before Abraham was born,' if it were not for the obsession with the simple words 'I am.'"
 

Apple7

New member
So we are beginning to see how the argument for Jesus quoting Exodus 3:14 can be taken apart.


Is Jesus quoting God the Father in Mark 12:26?

Mark 12:26,
But concerning the dead, that they are raised, have you not read in the book of Moses, as God spoke to him at the Bush, saying, "I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob"?




No.

He is quoting Himself, God the Son, as thus…



Exodus 3.1 - 6

And Moses was feeding the flock of his father-in-law Jethro, the priest of Midian. And he led the flock behind the wilderness and came to the mountain of The Gods, to Horeb. And Malek Yahweh appeared to him in a flame of fire from the middle of a thorn bush. And he looked, and behold, the thorn bush was burning with fire, and the thorn bush was not burned up! And Moses said, I will turn aside now and see this great sight, why the thorn bush is not burned up. And Yahweh saw that he turned aside to see, and Elohim called to him from the midst of the thorn bush, and said, Moses! Moses! And he said, Behold me. And He said, Do not come near here. Pull off your sandals from your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground. And He said, I am the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face, for he feared to look upon The Gods.


These verses tell us plainly that Moses both saw and spoke with Malek Yahweh (i.e. God the Son) in the midst of the fire.

Observe that the Triune God occupies the Mount (Moses came to the mountain of all The Gods ‘Ha- Elohim’), as the terms Yahweh, Elohim, Malek Yahweh & Ha- Elohim (literally all The Gods!) are used interchangeably.

Who occupied the burning bush?

• Malek Yahweh
• Yahweh
• Elohim
• The Gods (Ha Elohim)
 

Apple7

New member
Consider these passages from Exodus…

And Elohim spoke to Moses and said to him, I am Yahweh. And I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as El Shaddai (God Almighty), and by My name, Yahweh, I have not been known to them. (Exo 6.2 – 3)


Here, we have the astounding revelation by the Triune God that the patriarchs did not know Him by His name, Yahweh.

If they did not know Him by His name, Yahweh, then what did they know Him by?

They knew Him by El Shaddai (God Almighty), The Son (Gen 17.1, 28.3, 35.11, 43.14, 48.3, 49.25).

Malek Yahweh, El Shaddai, also the Son, revealed to Moses that He was ‘I AM’ and Yahweh (Exo 3.14 – 15, 6.3).

The Triune God has always held one name. Even the NT confirms that the Father, Son & Spirit share the same singular name (Mat 28.19).
 

KingdomRose

New member
Is Jesus quoting God the Father in Mark 12:26?

Mark 12:26,
But concerning the dead, that they are raised, have you not read in the book of Moses, as God spoke to him at the Bush, saying, "I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob"?




No.

He is quoting Himself, God the Son, as thus…



Exodus 3.1 - 6

And Moses was feeding the flock of his father-in-law Jethro, the priest of Midian. And he led the flock behind the wilderness and came to the mountain of The Gods, to Horeb. And Malek Yahweh appeared to him in a flame of fire from the middle of a thorn bush. And he looked, and behold, the thorn bush was burning with fire, and the thorn bush was not burned up! And Moses said, I will turn aside now and see this great sight, why the thorn bush is not burned up. And Yahweh saw that he turned aside to see, and Elohim called to him from the midst of the thorn bush, and said, Moses! Moses! And he said, Behold me. And He said, Do not come near here. Pull off your sandals from your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground. And He said, I am the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face, for he feared to look upon The Gods.


These verses tell us plainly that Moses both saw and spoke with Malek Yahweh (i.e. God the Son) in the midst of the fire.

Observe that the Triune God occupies the Mount (Moses came to the mountain of all The Gods ‘Ha- Elohim’), as the terms Yahweh, Elohim, Malek Yahweh & Ha- Elohim (literally all The Gods!) are used interchangeably.

Who occupied the burning bush?

• Malek Yahweh
• Yahweh
• Elohim
• The Gods (Ha Elohim)

Sorry. Jesus is referring to the Father, Jehovah. He never claims that he is the Father.
 

KingdomRose

New member
The Father and the Son do not "share one name." You are really stretching it. The Father is JEHOVAH. The Son is JESUS. The H.S. isn't even named in Scripture because it is a FORCE, not a Person.
 

Apple7

New member
In conclusion, the last word to be said on this matter is what McKay (1996, p.302) says about it: "John 8:58 would be most naturally translated 'I have been in existence since before Abraham was born,' if it were not for the obsession with the simple words 'I am.'"


And Moses said to HaElohim (i.e. all the Gods), Behold, I shall come to the sons of Israel and say to them, The God of your fathers has sent me to you; and they will say to me, What is His name? What shall I say to them? And Elohim said to Moses, I AM THAT I AM; and He said, You shall say this to the sons of Israel, I AM has sent me to you. And Elohim said to Moses again, You shall say this to the sons of Israel, Yahweh, The Elohim of your fathers, The Elohim of Abraham, The Elohim of Isaac, and The Elohim of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is My Name forever, and this is My memorial from generation to generation. (Exo 3.13 - 15)

Interestingly, The NT ‘I Am’ statements have their genesis in the OT.

Observe that Moses speaks to ‘HaElohim’ (literally, all the Gods), named as the singular Yahweh.

This is borne-out by the three successive ‘I Am’ statements, and the quintessential thrice repetition of The God of Abraham, The God of Isaac, and The God of Jacob – clearly indicating The One Triune God.
 

Apple7

New member
Sorry. Jesus is referring to the Father, Jehovah. He never claims that he is the Father.

No one, but you, ever claimed that Jesus was The Father.

Where do you keep coming up with this false assertion in the first place?

If you believe it to be true then prove it through scripture...
 

Apple7

New member
The Father and the Son do not "share one name." You are really stretching it. The Father is JEHOVAH. The Son is JESUS. The H.S. isn't even named in Scripture because it is a FORCE, not a Person.


Wrong.


Mat 28.19

πορευθεντες ουν μαθητευσατε παντα τα εθνη βαπτιζοντες αυτους εις το ονομα του πατρος και του υιου και του αγιου πνευματος

Then having gone, disciple all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

This passage contains arthrous substantives connected via kai which indicates distinction and separate referents.

However, while distinction is made between the referents, each has the same singular name.

Three Persons in one Being.

This same singular name of three persons’ baptism is the same as the Aaronic blessing in which the singular name of Yahweh is repeated three times (Num 6.22 – 27).

Separate and yet the same, The Trinity.
 

Apple7

New member
KR: ‘The Son is The Father according to The Trinity.’

Apple7: ‘No, He is not.’

KR: ‘This is what the watch tower has always told me.’

Apple7: ‘Then the watch tower is wrong.’

KR: ‘But…but…..but.’

Apple7: ‘Now…if you want to believe that The Son is The Father…..then go find some support scripture for your worldview. Until then, you have been mis-informed.’
 

Apple7

New member
It is fine idiomatic Greek. It can be rendered straightforwardly into English by doing what translators always do with Greek, namely, rearrange the word order into normal English order and adjust things like verbal tense complementarity into proper English expression. (See BeDuhn, Truth in Translation, p.104.) Note: These steps of translation are necessary because Greek and English are not the same language and do not obey the same rules of grammar. Greek has more flexibility with word order than English does, and it can mix verbal tenses in a way that English can't. Yet the rules of translation are ignored by many versions when they translate John 8:58. They present a verse with mangled word order; utterly ungrammatical and syntactically strained!

As one scholar brought out: Because Greek idioms are different from English idioms, translators do not translate these expressions word-for-word, but rather convey the meaning of the Greek idiom in proper, comprehensible English. At least that is what they are supposed to do. (BeDuhn, p. 105)

It is ungrammatical English for something referred to with a present "am" to occur earlier in time than something described with a past "came to be." Normally, if we want to refer to an event before one already in the past, we would use a perfect tense: "He had put on his boots before he went out into the snow." In John 8:58, since Jesus' existence is not completed past action, but ongoing, we must use some sort of imperfect verbal form to convey that. Therefore the correct rendering of John 8:58 is: "I have been since before Abraham came to be."


'In his convoluted criticism of the straight-forward translation of John 8:58, BeDuhn claims (p. 104) that Jesus’ words[“prin Abra’am genesthy eggo eimi”] (“Before Abraham came into being, I am”) “is fine, idiomatic Greek”. This is factually, linguistically and historically not the case. Jesus’ words sound just as odd in Greek as they do in English, and that was part of the impact of what he said. (See discussion of this in chapter 11 of this book.)
Lest it be thought that here I am, myself, making an unsubstantiated claim, I will quote from no less an authority than Dr Larry Hurtado, Professor Emeritus of New Testament Language, Literature and Theology at the University of Edinburgh. Dr Hurtado writes:
“it is as strange-sounding and mysterious in Greek as it is in literal translation.”76
Either BeDuhn here reveals a faulty knowledge of Greek or he is presenting one of his regular claims that are unsubstantiated by the facts or even go against the evidence. He here rejects the evaluations of the world’s leading experts in Koiné Greek.'

Ref: A review of Dr. Jason BeDuhn's "Truth in Translation"...by Trevor R Allin
 

Apple7

New member
Thus...as we can easily see...it is rather easy to dismantle KR's so-called 'arguments'.

She even defaults to selectively quoting from the watch tower propaganda material which uses bogus 'scholars', of which, are NOT even accepted in secular academic organizations.

What a desperate move...:rotfl:
 

musterion

Well-known member
I was asked to respond to Graphics claiming to show that Jesus is Jehovah, by Musterion. I will answer those claims, one by one, and will try to answer before my post is deleted, as happened yesterday. I'll have to break up my answer into several posts so that I won't get kicked off the forum because of overstaying my time on a post (?).

The first specific topic is: I AM

The King James Version and many other versions render Jesus' statement at John 8:58 as "before Abraham was, I am." This actually flies in the face of the rules for translating Greek into good English, as Bratcher (who translated the Good News Bible[TEV]) would have to agree, as he set forth three necessary rules in a statement of his own:

"At least it can be agreed that any translation, in order to be considered good, should satisfy 3 requirements:
1) It should handle textual matters in an informed and responsible way.
2) Its exegesis of the original texts should be theologically unbiased.
3) Its language should be contemporary, and it should conform to normal English usage." (1978, pp.115-116)

With these things in mind, we can look at John 8:58. We can see right off that the way it is translated in the KJV and other versions, "normal English usage" has not been honored. The way that Biblical texts are usually translated has not been carried through on this verse.

The Greek reads: prin Abraam genesthai ego eimi.

It is fine idiomatic Greek. It can be rendered straightforwardly into English by doing what translators always do with Greek, namely, rearrange the word order into normal English order and adjust things like verbal tense complementarity into proper English expression. (See BeDuhn, Truth in Translation, p.104.) Note: These steps of translation are necessary because Greek and English are not the same language and do not obey the same rules of grammar. Greek has more flexibility with word order than English does, and it can mix verbal tenses in a way that English can't. Yet the rules of translation are ignored by many versions when they translate John 8:58. They present a verse with mangled word order; utterly ungrammatical and syntactically strained!

As one scholar brought out: Because Greek idioms are different from English idioms, translators do not translate these expressions word-for-word, but rather convey the meaning of the Greek idiom in proper, comprehensible English. At least that is what they are supposed to do. (BeDuhn, p. 105)

It is ungrammatical English for something referred to with a present "am" to occur earlier in time than something described with a past "came to be." Normally, if we want to refer to an event before one already in the past, we would use a perfect tense: "He had put on his boots before he went out into the snow." In John 8:58, since Jesus' existence is not completed past action, but ongoing, we must use some sort of imperfect verbal form to convey that. Therefore the correct rendering of John 8:58 is: "I have been since before Abraham came to be."

Christ said He is "I AM."
 

musterion

Well-known member
Continuing.

So we are beginning to see how the argument for Jesus quoting Exodus 3:14 can be taken apart.

Do we understand what "idiomatic use" means? It is the way that people speaking one language might use an expression that would not be able to be translated word-for-word into another language. As BeDuhn has said: "The majority of translations recognize idiomatic uses of 'I am,' and properly integrate the words into the CONTEXT of the passages where they appear. Yet when it comes to John 8:58, they suddenly forget how to translate." (BeDuhn, p.109)

Why do the Pharisees get enraged at what Jesus says? Do they really think he is claiming to be God? No. The fact is that it is Jesus' claim to be superior to Abraham, and to have a longer life-span than any other human being that gets their knickers in a twist. NOT a claim to be God. His argument is that he has seniority over Abraham, and so by the standards of Jewish society, he has greater authority than Abraham. The Jewish religious leaders were overly proud of their being descendants of Abraham, and to suggest that someone had more authority than Abraham would logically get them upset. They did, after all, enjoy the laudation of men and the higher position that they put themselves in. (See Matt.chapter 23.)

Another point that can't be left out: Just a few verses beyond what Jesus says at John 8:58, there is presented a story about a blind man that was healed by Jesus. At John 9:9 the formerly blind man answers his neighbors that he is indeed the man that Jesus healed; he uses the exact same words that Jesus used---ego eimito indicate, "I am he." Taking the context into consideration, that would be a correct rendering. Let's really concentrate on these words, ego eimi. Jesus said them and the blind man said them. If those words, when said by Jesus, signify that Jesus is God, then the blind man is also God. Another way to put it: If ego eimi is NOT a divine self-proclamation by the blind man, then it cannot be such a claim from the mouth of Jesus just a few verses earlier.

Should we assume that the majority of versions are correct and the "odd" ones are at fault? We must check all translations against the original Greek to make a fair assessment, and the assumption that the majority are correct can be seen to be wrong.

In conclusion, the last word to be said on this matter is what McKay (1996, p.302) says about it: "John 8:58 would be most naturally translated 'I have been in existence since before Abraham was born,' if it were not for the obsession with the simple words 'I am.'"

What JW source did you copy all this from? The voice of it is not your usual voice.
 

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Christ said He is "I AM."
Yeppers.
They thought He was looney for saying He was before Abraham.
Lunacy was not a stoning offense.
So there was more to what Jesus said than just being looney about His age.
There was something so offensive in His words that they deemed it a stoning offense.
 

musterion

Well-known member
Yeppers.
They thought He was looney for saying He was before Abraham.
Lunacy was not a stoning offense.
So there was more to what Jesus said than just being looney about His age.
There was something so offensive in His words that they deemed it a stoning offense.

JW slaves don't care. They have to obey the Watchtower to the letter or they burn up and are destroyed at the final judgment.
 
Top