Trying to understand something about the KJV

[rosends]

I have been trying to understand something about the KJV and I don't know if this is true of other translations -- I just found it to be puzzling. I have posted this elsewhere and not received any real explanation.

So if you are someone who understands how the KJV was crafted (whether or not you accept it as an authoritative version of the bible) I would appreciate an explanation

and

if the explanation is that the text is divinely inspired so the translation-interpretation is valid because of the spiritual nature of the text as a whole, that's fine -- I just want to know. If the answer requires faith that the KJV is right, regardless, and I don't have that faith, then then that's OK, but I just want to know if that was the thinking.

Here's the thing: there are often threads about Ex 3:14, which has in it something which people like to call the "name" of God. Whatever "name" means is immaterial. The point is that the text, in Hebrew, reads "eh'yeh asher eh'yeh." The KJV has

"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."

The Hebrew I know has "eh'yeh" as "I will be" not "I am" but I figured, hey, maybe the authors of the KJV knew Hebrew better than I do. So I looked for other instances where the word "eh'yeh" is used. In the 5 books of Moses, it is used 7 times, 3 of them being in 3:14.

The one right before is 3:12 which the KJV has as "And he said, Certainly I will be with thee" with the "I will be" as the translation of "eh"yeh.".

Ex 4:12 is, in the KJV, "Now therefore go, and I will be with thy mouth, and teach thee what thou shalt say."
again, "I will be"

Ex 4:15 also has "I will be":
"And thou shalt speak unto him, and put words in his mouth: and I will be with thy mouth, and with his mouth, and will teach you what ye shall do."

and the last phrase of Deut 31:23 has "I will be"
"And he gave Joshua the son of Nun a charge, and said, Be strong and of a good courage: for thou shalt bring the children of Israel into the land which I sware unto them: and I will be with thee."

So if the KJV, in 4 situations translates "eh'yeh" as "I will be" then why, in one particular verse, does it have "I am"?

I'm no Greek scholar but I looked in some online Greek versions of the Septuagint and they didn't point to "am" though some had "the Being".

If the answer is that the phrase (and even the word) is actually a name, so it must be treated differently, then why not treat it the way any other name is? Other names are not translated at all. Anglicized, maybe. Transliterated, certainly, but not translated.

The bottom line is that there seems to be an inconsistency in the translation and in the decision to translate it. Any insight appreciated.

 

[Estro Felino]

The KJV is directly translated from the Masoretic Text (Blomberg Bible)

I know Greek only...the phrase is ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν...where ὤν is participle of the verb to be .
εἰμι ὁ ὤν means I am him (the one) who is. or I am the one who will be

 

[rosends]

The KJV is directly translated from the Masoretic Text (Blomberg Bible)

I know Greek only...the phrase is ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν...where ὤν is participle of the verb to be .
εἰμι ὁ ὤν means I am him (the one) who is. or I am the one who will be

so the flaw would have been in the Greek before the KJV got there? In Greek, are "is" and "will be" represented identically?

 

[Earthling]

the NWT has a footnote which reads: “I SHALL PROVE TO BE WHAT I SHALL PROVE TO BE.” Heb., אהיה אׁשר אהיה (’Eh‧yeh′ ’Asher′ ’Eh‧yeh′), God’s own self-designation; Leeser, “I WILL BE THAT I WILL BE”; Rotherham, “I Will Become whatsoever I please.” Gr., E‧go′ ei‧mi ho on, “I am The Being,” or, “I am The Existing One”; Lat., e′go sum qui sum, “I am Who I am.” ’Eh‧yeh′ comes from the Heb. verb ha‧yah′, “become; prove to be.” Here ’Eh‧yeh′ is in the imperfect state, first person sing., meaning “I shall become”; or, “I shall prove to be.” The reference here is not to God’s self-existence but to what he has in mind to become toward others. Compare Ge 2:4 ftn, “Jehovah,” where the kindred, but different, Heb. verb ha‧wah′ appears in the divine name."

Genesis 2:4 footnote reads: “Jehovah.” Heb., יהוה (YHWH, here vowel-pointed as Yehwah′), meaning “He Causes to Become” (from Heb., הוה [ha‧wah′, “to become”]); LXXA(Gr.), Ky′ri‧os; Syr., Mar‧ya’; Lat., Do′mi‧nus. The first occurrence of God’s distinctive personal name, יהוה (YHWH); these four Heb. letters are referred to as the Tetragrammaton. The divine name identifies Jehovah as the Purposer. Only the true God could rightly and authentically bear this name."

 

[rosends]

the NWT has a footnote which reads: “I SHALL PROVE TO BE WHAT I SHALL PROVE TO BE.” Heb., אהיה אׁשר אהיה (’Eh‧yeh′ ’Asher′ ’Eh‧yeh′),

Does the NWT, in any of the other situations where the Hebrew word "Eh'yeh" is used translate it as "I shall prove to be"? 4:12 and 4:15 have "I will be with you"

God’s own self-designation; Leeser, “I WILL BE THAT I WILL BE”; Rotherham, “I Will Become whatsoever I please.” Gr., E‧go′ ei‧mi ho on, “I am The Being,” or, “I am The Existing One”; Lat., e′go sum qui sum, “I am Who I am.”

So this is the moment of transition, from "will be" to "I am" -- is there a reason that the translator would make this switch?

’Eh‧yeh′ comes from the Heb. verb ha‧yah′, “become; prove to be.”

Hayah simply means "was".

Here ’Eh‧yeh′ is in the imperfect state, first person sing., meaning “I shall become”; or, “I shall prove to be.” The reference here is not to God’s self-existence but to what he has in mind to become toward others.

Which is exactly my question. If the reference is to the future, why use an English form in the present? The NWT resolves this by staying in the future, but adds in concepts like "prove to be" or "choose" neither of which is part of the raw verb form.

 

[Earthling]

Does the NWT, in any of the other situations where the Hebrew word "Eh'yeh" is used translate it as "I shall prove to be"? 4:12 and 4:15 have "I will be with you"

See here. I cut and pasted it, but decided to just give the link instead. It explores the similarity between John 8:58 and Exodus 3:14 in the Hebrew, Septuagint, and Greek.

So this is the moment of transition, from "will be" to "I am" -- is there a reason that the translator would make this switch?

Egó eimí means “I am.” ho Ōn, means “The Being,” or, “The One who is.”

Hayah simply means "was".

Why do you say that?

Which is exactly my question. If the reference is to the future, why use an English form in the present? The NWT resolves this by staying in the future, but adds in concepts like "prove to be" or "choose" neither of which is part of the raw verb form.

The Emphasised Bible, by Joseph B. Rotherham, renders Exodus 3:14 as follows: “And God said unto Moses, I Will Become whatsoever I please. And he said—Thus shalt thou say to the sons of Israel, I Will Become hath sent me unto you.” The footnote on this verse says, in part: “Hayah [the word rendered above ‘become’] does not mean ‘to be’ essentially or ontologically, but phenomenally. . . . What he will be is left unexpressed—He will be with them, helper, strengthener, deliverer.” Thus the reference here is not to God’s self-existence but, rather, to what he has in mind to become toward others.

 

[rosends]

See here. I cut and pasted it, but decided to just give the link instead. It explores the similarity between John 8:58 and Exodus 3:14 in the Hebrew, Septuagint, and Greek.

I read through it. It seems to lay the question at the feet of John in section 20 as John uses Greek Egó eimí. So no answer.

Why do you say that?

Because I have been studying and speaking Hebrew for over 40 years.

The other stuff is pure interpretation which must then be faith driven, as it is not supported linguistically.

 

[Earthling]

I read through it. It seems to lay the question at the feet of John in section 20 as John uses Greek Egó eimí. So no answer.


Because I have been studying and speaking Hebrew for over 40 years.

The other stuff is pure interpretation which must then be faith driven, as it is not supported linguistically.

When I say why do you say that it's a polite way of asking to show why you came to that conclusion other than you say you have studied and spoken Hebrew for over 40 years. And, ancient Hebrew?

 

[rosends]

When I say why do you say that it's a polite way of asking to show why you came to that conclusion other than you say you have studied and spoken Hebrew for over 40 years. And, ancient Hebrew?

Yes, ancient Hebrew, along with modern Hebrew. I will ask you a question:
The claim was that the word hayah is defined as

"ha‧yah′, “become; prove to be.”

I don't know what translation you are using. Let's say, the NWT.

The word "hayah" is in some other places, textually (in fact, without prefixes, it is found approx 283 times in the Tanach, at least 34 in the 5 books of Moses). Here are some:
Gen 3:1
Gen 4:20, 21
Ex 1:5
Ex 39:9
Num 20:2

The NWT has, for each of those "was." If the definition you rely on does not list "was" and yet the translation does, what conclusion would you come to?

And by the way, how is your ancient Hebrew? I can bring up all sorts of texts in the Hebrew if you would like.

 

[RabbiO]

When I say why do you say that it's a polite way of asking to show why you came to that conclusion other than you say you have studied and spoken Hebrew for over 40 years. And, ancient Hebrew?

I take it you are not aware that rosends is an Orthodox rabbi.

 

[Earthling]

Yes, ancient Hebrew, along with modern Hebrew. I will ask you a question:
The claim was that the word hayah is defined as

"ha‧yah′, “become; prove to be.”

I don't know what translation you are using. Let's say, the NWT.

The word "hayah" is in some other places, textually (in fact, without prefixes, it is found approx 283 times in the Tanach, at least 34 in the 5 books of Moses). Here are some:
Gen 3:1
Gen 4:20, 21
Ex 1:5
Ex 39:9
Num 20:2

The NWT has, for each of those "was." If the definition you rely on does not list "was" and yet the translation does, what conclusion would you come to?

And by the way, how is your ancient Hebrew? I can bring up all sorts of texts in the Hebrew if you would like.

Actually, I've been waiting for you to acknowledge that what the issue here is not exactly what you say. The issue is ’Eh‧yeh′ comes from the Heb. verb ha‧yah′, “become; prove to be.” Here ’Eh‧yeh′ is in the imperfect state, first person sing., meaning “I shall become”; or, “I shall prove to be.”

So here we go with the nonsensical favorite of the Hebrew scholar, Hebrew tenses and the Waw Conservative. It's just stupid.

 

[rosends]

Actually, I've been waiting for you to acknowledge that what the issue here is not exactly what you say. The issue is ’Eh‧yeh′ comes from the Heb. verb ha‧yah′, “become; prove to be.” Here ’Eh‧yeh′ is in the imperfect state, first person sing., meaning “I shall become”; or, “I shall prove to be.”

So here we go with the nonsensical favorite of the Hebrew scholar, Hebrew tenses and the Waw Conservative. It's just stupid.

Now, your source of definition has eh'yeh as I shall become, but the translations change it to something else. You have yet to address the disconnect. The fact that hayah is a past tense of to-be (along with other things) and that there is no vav in the case of either hayah or eh'yeh makes your bringing that up not so relevant.

If you have no answer to the underlying question, the shift from what the definition of the word is to the translation chosen, then I'm not sure why you have anything else to comment on. But I do appreciate that you call me a Hebrew scholar. What are your bona fides in the field?

 

[Earthling]

I take it you are not aware that rosends is an Orthodox rabbi.

It means nothing to me. No more than if he were the Pope. Can he pronounce the name of God? Does he have a superstitious need to preserve the tetragramaton when he sees it in print? Did he buy into the traditions of men, influenced by Greek philosophy?

On the issue in question the Twenty-Four Books of the Holy Scriptures, by Rabbi Isaac Leeser, gives the following: “And God said unto Moses, I WILL BE THAT I WILL BE: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I WILL BE hath sent me unto you.” Is Leeser orthodox? What does orthodox mean to me? Infallibility? No.

Is the subject the term I am? Or the word was? Is it being suggested by orthodoxy that these terms imply something significant, and if so, what and why?

 

[Earthling]

Now, your source of definition has eh'yeh as I shall become, but the translations change it to something else. You have yet to address the disconnect. The fact that hayah is a past tense of to-be (along with other things) and that there is no vav in the case of either hayah or eh'yeh makes your bringing that up not so relevant.

If you have no answer to the underlying question, the shift from what the definition of the word is to the translation chosen, then I'm not sure why you have anything else to comment on. But I do appreciate that you call me a Hebrew scholar. What are your bona fides in the field?

I wasn't referring to you as the Hebrew scholar, I was referring to Hebrew scholars in general. I don't have any bona fides in the field, but I don't have to take your word for anything any more than you have to me. The thought that a believer in the Bible, such as myself, is dependent upon the fallible word of an orthodox rabbi is, frankly, repulsive to me. Just as repulsive, I would dare say, my own fallible understanding would be to you.

If you have a point other than that I suggest you get to it or leave it alone.

 

[rosends]

Yes, Leeser was what we would call Orthodox, and he knew enough Hebrew to translate eh'yeh as "I will be". So I'm not sure what you are trying to prove.

http://www.jewishpress.com/sections...ather-of-torah-judaism-in-america/2017/01/25/

 

[rosends]

I wasn't referring to you as the Hebrew scholar, I was referring to Hebrew scholars in general. I don't have any bona fides in the field, but I don't have to take your word for anything any more than you have to me. The thought that a believer in the Bible, such as myself, is dependent upon the fallible word of an orthodox rabbi is, frankly, repulsive to me. Just as repulsive, I would dare say, my own fallible understanding would be to you.

If you have a point other than that I suggest you get to it or leave it alone.

I don't recall citing the word "infallible." That was your word. You just might want to recognize that people who have reached a certain level of educational approbation by others have a background of study that makes them reasonably informed, at least moreso than someone who has not studied.

I also wouldn't use the word "repulsive." I don't know why you would impute that to anyone else.

 

[Earthling]

I don't recall citing the word "infallible." That was your word. You just might want to recognize that people who have reached a certain level of educational approbation by others have a background of study that makes them reasonably informed, at least moreso than someone who has not studied.

I also wouldn't use the word "repulsive." I don't know why you would impute that to anyone else.

What are we talking about?

 

[Neuropteron]

I have been trying to understand something about the KJV and I don't know if this is true of other translations -- I just found it to be puzzling. I have posted this elsewhere and not received any real explanation.


The bottom line is that there seems to be an inconsistency in the translation and in the decision to translate it. Any insight appreciated.

.............

The purpose of Bible translation, is to take thoughts of God, originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, and put them into the common languages of today.
However no translation is inspired.
If they were no revisions would ever have been made.

So many changes have been made,in the KJV that the Committee on Versions (1851-56) of the American Bible Society found 24,000 variations in six different editions .
One of the major reasons the KJV is so widely accepted is its kingly authority. There seems little doubt that, had not a king authorized this version, it would not today be venerated as though it had come direct from God. Does this kingly authority give a translation special benefits?
No, the fact that King James authorized a Bible translation does not make it the exclusive version that the Author of the original Bible approves. In fact, kingly authorization, instead of great benefits, has brought serious disadvantages.

In many respects the beliefs of King James adversely affected the Bible translation called after his name. The translators, feeling somewhat bound to favor the king, were obliged to color the translation with the king' s notions of predestination and kingly rights, as well as with others of the kings ideas.

Additionaly KJV was not translated from the Heb,Gr, but from Latin and is more or less a copy of other existing Bibles of the time suchs as the Bishop's Bible.
Many do not consider the KJV as being a good tool for getting the thoughts of God.

be well

 

[TrueBeliever37]

The fact that hayah is a past tense of to-be (along with other things) and that there is no vav in the case of either hayah or eh'yeh makes your bringing that up not so relevant.

Hi rosends,

Isn't hayah a Hebrew verb meaning to exist or to be? Therefore eh'yeh would mean I will be, or I will exist? Please explain why you are saying hayah is a past tense of to-be.

Are you saying eh'yeh would mean (or also mean) I will have existed?

With asher having so many possible words to choose from, what seems to be the best way to translate the meaning of the phrase to you?

 

[rosends]

Hi rosends,

Isn't hayah a Hebrew verb meaning to exist or to be? Therefore eh'yeh would mean I will be, or I will exist? Please explain why you are saying hayah is a past tense of to-be.

Are you saying eh'yeh would mean (or also mean) I will have existed?

With asher having so many possible words to choose from, what seems to be the best way to translate the meaning of the phrase to you?

hayah is the past tense form of "to be" (to be, itself, would be lihyot). Eh'yeh is the first person, singular, future (I will be) but hayah is the second person, masculine singular past ([he] was).

For "asher" I like (at least here) "that which" or even just the relative pronoun.