Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Can you be more specific, please?
This is where Jesus uses the specific Deific title for Himself.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Can you be more specific, please?
In the new testament is where Jesus uses Deific title for himself. Is there anyone on the forum yet who does not know that, do you think?This is where Jesus uses the specific Deific title for Himself.
There are Jewish translations that use "I am" and I even "I was". See my earlier post.Are you kidding? Any differences in translation can cause huge differences in interpretation. I've seen Christian authorities make stands on "I am" and Judaism authorities make stands on "I will be". Since these two religions are so different, there is obviously a large difference in meaning.
While translations can make a large difference in some cases, this is not one of them. The meaning is basically the same, and there is no definitive right or wrong here.Are you kidding? Any differences in translation can cause huge differences in interpretation. I've seen Christian authorities make stands on "I am" and Judaism authorities make stands on "I will be". Since these two religions are so different, there is obviously a large difference in meaning.
The note wasn't correct though. I don't know Modern Hebrew, and thus my translation was not coming from such. It was coming from my knowledge of Biblical Hebrew. Looking at the translation from Robert Alter, while he uses I will be instead of I am, he acknowledges that there is an argument for both, as well as for other translations.I could quote Lord Sacks (Rabbi Jonathan Sacks who served for over 20 years as Chief Rabbi of the United Synagogue, the largest Orthodox synagogue community in Great Britain [Haredi congregations are not members]) that anyone who understands biblical Hebrew knows that
אהיה אשר אהיה is future tense, but I won't.
Tumah has, not surprisingly, correctly noted, "The reason why you are coming up with different translations is because Biblical Hebrew is different from Modern Hebrew. Modern Hebrew uses past, present and future. Biblical Hebrew uses the perfective and imperfective aspects and relies on contextual clues to determine whether it was past present or future. So this phrase can be interpreted in a number of ways many of which are found in various Jewish texts."
In this instance, I go with future tense, guided by the quote two verses back that begins - ויאמר כי אהיה עמך
The note wasn't correct though
Do you know how God called himself on the Bible, I've heard it's "Yaveh", but do you know where it came from or what does it mean?
Yahveh is the unique name for God. Well, you can pronounce it in a more modern way (cause most of us don't speak an ancient Hebrew). I could compare in some English translations, that most common is used name "Jehovah". It comes from original 4 Hebrew letters (Jews used to omit vowels in ancient Hebrew language).
(Jews used to omit vowels in ancient Hebrew language).
God said "I am", meaning, "I exist". He gave no name. The Jews took "I am" and used that as His name.
God has never given His name because once it's revealed it would spread like wildfire across the multi-verse. To beings in heaven giving a name provides a great deal of information, where you come from and what you've experienced. To humans, God's name would just be a name. To the beings in heaven the amount of information conveyed would be overwhelming.
This is where Jesus uses the specific Deific title for Himself.
Ex. 3:15 "This is what you shall say to the children of Israel, 'YHWH the G-d of your fathers... this is My Name...'"God said "I am", meaning, "I exist". He gave no name.
Ex. 3:14 "...so shall you say to the children of Israel, 'EHYH (I will be), sent me to you'"The Jews took "I am" and used that as His name.
Ex. 3:15 "This is what you shall say to the children of Israel, 'YHWH the G-d of your fathers... this is My Name...'"
Ex. 3:14 "...so shall you say to the children of Israel, 'EHYH (I will be), sent me to you'"
Its almost like you never even read the book.
With all due respect, I think you miss the point. You can choose toIt's almost like I never read the book? Oh, you mean the book that says the Jews chose to worship a golden calf over God? Do you mean the book that says that we should pay a ransom on the census? How did the Rabbi's get the money to God? Or, did they spend the money on nice robes and nice furnishings for their elaborate rooms?
Do you mean the book that says I should sacrifice my best animal on the steps of the temple? How did the Rabbi's get the animal to God? Or, did the temple assistants prepare the animal for that nights meal? That's why they wrote in their books that it has to be the best of the flock and not the sickly ones. But, of course, that rule came from God, right?
How come you don't put to death those who violate the sabbath anymore? How come you don't put to death those who commit adultery? I mean it's in the book, you read that part of the book, haven't you?
It's almost like you never studied primitive cultures and you don't know that writing things down in a book gave it power over the people because most people couldn't read back then. You could put whatever you wanted in the book, the people didn't know one way or the other whether it was from God or the Rabbi.
With all due respect, I think you miss the point. You can choose to
a) reject the divinity and authority of a text
b) impute motives and sociological imperatives on your understandings of ancient cultures
but your fault was in making two claims which were not in line with what the text says:
1. A statement of what God's name is
2. The basic translation of the word Ehyeh.
With all due respect, I think you miss the point. You can choose to
a) reject the divinity and authority of a text
b) impute motives and sociological imperatives on your understandings of ancient cultures
but your fault was in making two claims which were not in line with what the text says:
1. A statement of what God's name is
2. The basic translation of the word Ehyeh.