Cannot defend the Trinity

Yes, but my understanding of Exodus 3:14 and John 8:58 is mainly based upon the context, rather than the Hebrew and Greek itself, an area which I suggest that you fail to understand.

Humility is a sign of a true Christian.
Apparently you have no humility, if you think that anyone who disagrees with your ignorant nonsense "fails to understand".
You have an overinflated view of yourself.

I also rely on those more knowledgeable in languages to help.

And how do you know that what they are telling you is accurate?
You only believe them because you have CHERRY-PICKED those who already agree with your view, so they tell you what you want to hear, and they have "scholarship".

Sorry, but you've failed "Critical Thinking 101".


I am now 77 years old and missed my opportunity to learn these languages.

Excuses, excuses.
It's sad that you don't understand your limits.
If you don't know Greek, you have no basis for making bogus claims about it.

But I am happy with what I have presented to you,

So you are happy with bankruptcy.
Good for you.

And you are happy with RUNNING AWAY from Isa. 9:6, John 1:1, 20:28, Acts 20:28, Rom. 9:5, Phil. 2:5-6, Col. 2:9, Tit. 2:13, Heb. 1:8, 2 Pet. 1:1, and countless other passages.

I will be happy to quietly wait for Jonathan (En Hakkore) to interact with you,

He has no desire for such, and neither do I.
Perhaps you should try to learn not to dig such a deep hole in your ignorance that you have to summon others to bail you out.

"Help me, Obi Wa...." (Sorry)
"Help me En Hakkore... You're my only hope!"
Pathetic.

and possibly learn more about your profound understanding of Koine Greek and Hebrew.

Of course, I never CLAIMED to have a "profound understanding of Koine Greek and Hebrew".
That is simply evidence that you don't pay attention to what you read (which proves your claims are worthless), and maybe the Greek and Hebrew "scholars" you appeal to aren't nearly as "qualified" as you seem to think they are.

Otherwise I think I have finished discussing with you.

Yeah, you've made that false claim once already.
Why should I believe you?

It's too bad that in your 77 years of life, you never learned to believe God's word:

Isa. 9:6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given;
and the government shall be upon his shoulder,
and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 20:28 Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!”

Acts 20:28 Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.

Rom. 9:5 To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.

Phil. 2:5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,

Col. 2:9 For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily,

Titus 2:13 waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,

Heb. 1:8 But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,
the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.

2Pet. 1:1 Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:
 
Greetings again Theo1689,
He has no desire for such, and neither do I. "Help me En Hakkore... You're my only hope!" Pathetic.
On the basis of this comment then I suggest that it would not be prudent for me to continue with my request to Jonathan (En Hakkore), partly because you do not seem to be interested in or receptive to listen to his perspective. I thought that I would possibly gain some insight from his studies. I certainly do not accept all of his theology, but I respect some of his language skills. I will leave it to him to decide if he wants to make ANY comments, in a similar way that all the threads on these forums are open to any member. In your list I have given a few comments on John 1:1 and John 20:28.

Kind regards
Trevor
 
Last edited:
If I were you I would be insulted and annoyed that he expects you to rescue him, instead of him learning how not to dig himself into a hole in the first place, and learning to be able to argue his own position, instead of trying to count on others to do it for him.
Clearly we have different ideas about the responsibilities that those with expertise have toward those who don't have it... and we all lack expertise in many areas. If asked politely I am generous with my time and knowledge. The parallel you draw with the Crowder/Klein/Seder incident has nothing to do with the situation here... there was no baiting on Trevor's part and I am certainly not in cahoots with him --- I have no more use for his theology than I have for Latter-day Saint theology. A better though not perfect parallel would be when Diane, CARM administrator before she passed, asked for my help in her debate with a radical feminist who was building an argument using the Hebrew of Genesis 2 and citing some obscure scholarship. Should I have been insulted and told Diane to go learn Hebrew so she could dig herself out of the hole she was in? The thought never crossed my mind... I shelled out over $100 of my own money to secure the obscure edited volume and then proceeded to mop the floor with her opponent on the point of Hebrew under discussion, this despite the fact my overall position as an egalitarian liberal Christian was closer to the feminist's than to Diane's.

You have no interest in the Trinity debate, and I have no interest in interaction with, you...
Very well, I will direct my feedback to Trevor and will expect no further engagement from you...

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 
Clearly we have different ideas about the responsibilities that those with expertise have toward those who don't have it... and we all lack expertise in many areas.

Blah blah blah...

If asked politely I am generous with my time and knowledge.

I remember passing over your comments when you were active here previously... Seeing you puffing up your own pride, and boasting about yourself, is causing me to begin to remember why.

The parallel you draw with the Crowder/Klein/Seder incident has nothing to do with the situation here...

I believe it is perfectly accurate and appropriate.

The thought never crossed my mind... I shelled out over $100 of my own money to secure the obscure edited volume and then proceeded to mop the floor with her opponent on the point of Hebrew under discussion,

I'm really not interested in hearing you boast about your over-inflated opinion of yourself.

Very well, I will direct my feedback to Trevor and will expect no further engagement from you...

Well, you can "expect" whatever you want. I always reserve the right to respond to anything that I feel it is appropriate to respond to. I consider it incredibly slimy on your part that your initial response was to be "not interested" in discussing the Trinity, but now once you errantly ASSUME I'm going to be silent, all of a sudden you're super-interested in responding.
 
I remember passing over your comments when you were active here previously... Seeing you puffing up your own pride, and boasting about yourself, is causing me to begin to remember why.

I'm really not interested in hearing you boast about your over-inflated opinion of yourself.
I find that those struggling with hubris are often among the first to project it onto others while making their own puffed-up claims. For example, early on in this thread you stated here that, unlike your interlocutor, you could read Koine Greek. Being able to work your way around a critical text with the help of lexical and grammatical sources does not mean you can read Greek texts. Reading implies a certain competency level and, unless you've made significant improvements since the summer, this claim appears to be an exaggerated one... or have you forgotten the rookie mistake you made in your exegesis of Luke 3:23 while attempting to resolve the conflict between it and Matt 1:16? Then again, perhaps you can read biblical Greek after all, but in this particular case you didn't even bother to consult the text under discussion in your NA28, thus evidencing an even sloppier exegesis than I originally gave you credit for. In any case, don't confuse boasting with confidence... I post with assurance because I have the requisite linguistic skills to back it up. Yours, on the other hand, I'm not so sure about...

I believe it is perfectly accurate and appropriate.
Your belief on the matter is irrelevant... you provided a hasty and poor parallel.

Well, you can "expect" whatever you want. I always reserve the right to respond to anything that I feel it is appropriate to respond to.
The scare quotes around "expect" are certainly appropriate since my earlier comments were rhetorical, knowing your penchant for these kinds of side shows... but I guess you missed that (see further below). In any case, here you are, right on cue throwing a handful of manure from, to use some of your own colorful language, a smelly pile of cow dung.

I consider it incredibly slimy on your part that your initial response was to be "not interested" in discussing the Trinity, but now once you errantly ASSUME I'm going to be silent, all of a sudden you're super-interested in responding.
Slimy? LOL! Your summary of my brief participation thus far is skewed. Now here is what I actually said in response to Trevor:

I'll check out the posts you mention after Christmas festivities are over and see if Theo has anything to add and/or wants my input. I have no interest in the Trinity debate, but can certainly comment on the pertinent texts with respect to what is or is not an acceptable translation into English as I have passed competency exams in Hebrew and Greek (as well as Aramaic) at the graduate and post-graduate levels.

My intention to comment was never contingent on your participation... whether I directed my comments to you (as Trevor seemed to want) or to him, however, certainly was --- the decision to go with the latter, which I posted here, was in response to your curt dismissal "I have no interest in interaction with you" --- of course, what this actually means, given your ongoing interaction with me, is your reticence about something entirely different, namely engagement with me on the Greek and Hebrew texts in question. My rebuttal to your aforementioned exegetical error (which can be found here) was followed by a chorus of crickets as you vanished from the thread. So please don't make me laugh trying to insinuate I've given myself license to become "super-interested" here now that you declared your own desire not to participate (at least not with me)... what I wind up posting will be about proper translation of the pertinent texts into English, as I stated quite plainly before your little side show began, and there will be nothing in my comments about the Trinity --- it will be an analysis of the raw data from a perspective disinterested in the outcome of the particular debate you and others are having.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 
For example, early on in this thread you stated here that, unlike your interlocutor, you could read Koine Greek. Being able to work your way around a critical text with the help of lexical and grammatical sources does not mean you can read Greek texts.

Wow.... Thank you for the personal attack.
I don't "work [my] way around a critical text with the help of lexical and grammatical sources".

I know it, and God knows it.
And if you want to attack that because you can't defend your theology, you will have to answer to God for that.

Thank you for CONTINUING to remind me why I by and large ignored your worthless posts.

Reading implies a certain competency level and, unless you've made significant improvements since the summer, this claim appears to be an exaggerated one...

And we have ZERO reason to believe your "exaggerated claims" that you have allegedly passed "competency exams" in Hebrew and Greek. Hey, if you want to play that stupid and childish game, it works both ways...

In any case, don't confuse boasting with confidence...

100% agreed.
I'm not stupid enough to confuse your worthless boasting with "confidence".


Your belief on the matter is irrelevant...

As is yours.

Kind regards,
Jonathan

I love the hypocrisy!
Insult after insult after insult...

Yet you apparently meant those childish insults with "kind regards".
Good to know...

Goodbye.
 
Thank you for the personal attack.
I called into question your ability to read Greek texts based on some evidence of this -- you made a blunder in your interpretation of Luke 3:23, one easily avoidable if you could read it in Greek. Like I also said, but you ignored or missed in your haste to pop off a response, it's possible you can read Greek, but on this particular occasion didn't bother to consult your NA28, which was just sloppy exegesis then. This was documented for everyone to see by a link to the thread in question... it's not my problem if you're embarrassed by that performance and now try to deflect with misplaced accusations of personal attack.

And we have ZERO reason to believe your "exaggerated claims" that you have allegedly passed "competency exams" in Hebrew and Greek.
Who is this "we" you speak of? :unsure: Evidence of my competency in biblical Hebrew and Greek is all over this forum and has been for many years... people come to me for my input because of that, including the former administrator of this forum!

Hopefully you stick to that and this little side show you started can finally come to an end...

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 
I called into question your ability to read Greek texts based on some evidence of this -- you made a blunder in your interpretation of Luke 3:23,

To throw your words back in your face, "Oh, the hubris!"
You really have an overinflated opinion of your own ego, don't you?

Like I said, I have no need to defend myself to anyone, let alone YOU.
God knows I'm telling the truth.
I know I'm telling the truth.
And if you want to call me a liar, you will have to answer to your Creator (at which point I'm not even sure you believe in Him!)

Like I also said, but you ignored or missed in your haste to pop off a response, it's possible you can read Greek,

No, I didn't "miss" it.
It was your slimy attempt to cover all your bases because you KNOW your accusation was false.

it's not my problem if you're embarrassed by that performance and now try to deflect with misplaced accusations of personal attack.

I'm not "embarrassed" by anything.
YOU are the one making the false accusations, not me.
You should be ashamed of yourself.

Evidence of my competency in biblical Hebrew and Greek is all over this forum and has been for many years... people come to me for my input because of that, including the former administrator of this forum!

Wow... Blowing your own horn again...
You REALLY have an overinflated opinion of your ego, don't you?

Hopefully you stick to that and this little side show you started can finally come to an end...

*I* started?!

You just proved that YOU are the one who isn't paying any attention.
I wasn't the one who "summoned" you because of digging a hole too deep.
That was your buddy "Trevor".

Obviously you have no clue what you're talking about.

Kind regards,
Jonathan

Ah yes.... More childish insults, sent with "kind regards".
 
And if you want to call me a liar, you will have to answer to your Creator
For the record, I have nowhere called you a liar... and if I did so I'd have to answer to the moderators first because that would be a personal attack. What I have done is provide evidence (your blundered exegesis of Luke 3:23) that leads me to believe you cannot read Koine Greek texts... clearly you think you can, but that might simply mean you're operating with a low standard for what constitutes reading knowledge of an ancient language.

It was your slimy attempt to cover all your bases because you KNOW your accusation was false.
I included both options because I'm not an omniscient being... unlike you who here presumes to divine my inner thoughts. :rolleyes:

*I* started?!

You just proved that YOU are the one who isn't paying any attention.
I wasn't the one who "summoned" you because of digging a hole too deep.
That was your buddy "Trevor".

Obviously you have no clue what you're talking about.
The side show did not start when Trevor quoted my comments on the Exodus text (that's clearly on topic and central to the topic of this thread), but when you interjected yourself back into the thread here after claiming you had no interest in interacting with me, slinging nothing but mud. My responses have been calm and cordial, yours not so much... and you keep coming back after claiming you will disengage. I'll do you a favor and pull the plug... last word in this off-topic sub-thread is yours if you want it.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 
Greetings again Theo1689,
Very well, I will direct my feedback to Trevor
I decided that I should read the thread conducted by elpis on the " ... Understanding of the meaning of the Yahweh name" which started on December 5th 2002. I decided to read the posts where you interacted with elpis, and you conveniently gave a different title to each of your posts, and this to some extent indicates the orderly sequence through the subject and they usually come in pairs:
Post #37 En Hakkore Greetings elpis
Post #40 elpis Greetings En Hakkore

Post #41 En Hakkore Derivation, Context and Hebrew Text
Post #44 elpis RE: Derivation, Context and Hebrew Text (reference to Exodus 4:12, Exodus 3:6)

Post #48 En Hakkore Semantics, Speculations and Significance
Post #51 elpis RE: Semantics, Speculations and Significance (reference to Exodus 4:12,15, Deuteronomy 31:23, Joshua 1:5, 3:7, Judges 11:9, 2 Samuel 7:14, 1 Chronicles 28:6, Jeremiah 31:1, Ezekiel 34:24 in support for the future tense meaning of "I will be" for "ehyeh".
My Comment: The above references are new to me, but these additional references give strong support to the "I will be" rendition.

Post #53 En Hakkore The LXX of Exodus 3:14
Post #54 elpis RE: The LXX of Exodus 3:14

Post #55 En Hakkore The Septuagint
Post #58 elpis RE: The Septuagint

Post #60 En Hakkore Peculiar
Post #62 elpis Who Peculiar?
Post #63 En Hakkore Agreeable

Post #64 En Hakkore John 8:56-59
Post #65 elpis RE: John 8:56-59
Part of this post by elpis:
"The LXX (Brenton's translation) reads as follows:
"And God spoke to Moses, saying, I am (ego eimi) THE BEING (ho on); and he said, Thus shall ye say to the children of Israel, THE BEING (ho on) has sent me to you."
I have put the Greek transliteration in parentheses after the relevant phrases.

It is clear from this passage that God's "name" according to the LXX is "ho on" (the being), NOT "ego eimi" (I am). The words "Ego eimi" (according to the LXX) introduce who God is ie God's name "ho on". It is "ho on" who has sent me to you, NOT "ego eimi" who has sent me to you. It therefore cannot be the case that Jesus is quoting the LXX to prove that he is Yahweh. The words "ego eimi" are just the commonly used phrase, "I am".

As I pointed out before, the LXX is not a good translation of the Hebrew."

My Comment: The above is a clear explanation of the inadequacy of the LXX and that John 8:58 is not quoting from the LXX of Exodus 3:14.

I need to have a rest now from this post (possibly a few days as I am "attending" a Zoom Bible School from the UK) and will read the Posts after #65. I appreciate what I have learned from considering both your and elpis' exposition. I think elpis gives a different perspective to what I have stated earlier in this thread, as I have tried to maintain "I am he" for John 8:58.

Kind regards
Trevor
 
Last edited:
For the record, I have nowhere called you a liar... and if I did so I'd have to answer to the moderators first because that would be a personal attack. What I have done is provide evidence (your blundered exegesis of Luke 3:23) that leads me to believe you cannot read Koine Greek texts... clearly you think you can, but that might simply mean you're operating with a low standard for what constitutes reading knowledge of an ancient language.

You truly have no clue what you’re talking about, but God does, so if you want to continue trash talking me, that’s all on you.

You DID in fact call me a "liar", but there are slimy ways of doing it to try to get around the rules. You truly should be ashamed of yourself.

It's also truly sad that you are defending ignorant people who have ZERO knowledge of the Greek, yet throw it around anyway to try to sound impressive, as your friend has done. I'd LIKE to believe you have some working knowledge of the Greek, but if you actually DID, you would KNOW that "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing", and "a little knowledge of Greek is a VERY dangerous thing".

I can read Greek, even if you don't want to believe it, and I know enough Greek to know I don't know nearly as much Greek as I should. But it is those who know NOTHING of the Greek, who (as you yourself describe) depend on "lexicons" and other "helps", to try to twist the Greek to try to make it say something it NEVER says, and these same people who are ignorant of the Greek try to claim that true scholars are WRONG, and they (in their own ignorance) are "right". And you DEFEND and SUPPORT these people!

Do you know what I've learned? The more Greek I learn, the more I realize that the true Greek scholars know EXACTLY what they are doing. Yet you are promoting "elitisim" and "false narrative" by supporting ignorant apologist who have no clue what they're talking about.

The fact of the matter is that the answer to every theological question is NOT to "immediately go back to the Greek". It's simply a slimy debate tactic to try to intimidate others who have no clue what they're talking about.

And Trevor attempted it, and failed miserably.
Which is why he had to call in YOU for "help".

Yet it is interesting that you didn't PROVIDE him with any help, you decided only to personally attack me.

The side show did not start when Trevor quoted my comments on the Exodus text (that's clearly on topic and central to the topic of this thread), but when you interjected yourself back into the thread here after claiming you had no interest in interacting with me, slinging nothing but mud.

On the contrary... I was COMPLETELY respectful to you, explaining that Trevor was trying to orchestrate this artificial interaction that neither of us was interested in, simply because HE found himself over his head, and HE needed bailing out.

I never promised I wouldn't respond.
I NEVER would do any such thing. I don't understand the arrogance of people who think they can control (ie. censor) whether others respond or not. I ALWAYS reserve my right to respond, or not respond, at every opportunity. I don't censor myself, and I don't allow idiots to try to censor me.

But even though YOU initially indicated that you weren't interested in discussion, once you found out I didn't particularly like the idea (and thank you for proving why, since you offer nothing but insults and personal attacks), suddenly you decided you WOULD respond (with nothing but insults and mud-slinging).

And that's slimy tactics.

My responses have been calm and cordial, yours not so much...

No, my initial response was cordial, and all your responses have been worthless mudslinging.

You insult, and then sign off, "kind regards".
Double standards much?

and you keep coming back after claiming you will disengage.

Bearing false witness is a sin.
It's sad that you have NO care about God, or His word.
I NEVER claimed I would "disengage".
You should be ashamed of yourself.

I'll do you a favor and pull the plug...

At this point, I would never believe ANYTHING you say about ANYTHING.

Kind regards,
Jonathan

Yes, insults and mud-slinging with "kind regards".
 
Last edited:
I decided that I should read the thread conducted by elpis on the " ... Understanding of the meaning of the Yahweh name" which started on December 5th 2002.
Was it really that long ago? I guess it must have been... was still a youngin' in my twenties then. :cool:

I decided to read the posts where you interacted with elpis, and you conveniently gave a different title to each of your posts, and this to some extent indicates the orderly sequence through the subject and they usually come in pairs...
Ah yes, I remember the post title feature of the forums way back then... indeed, I did avail myself of it to keep discussions organized.

I need to have a rest now from this post (possibly a few days as I am "attending" a Zoom Bible School from the UK) and will read the Posts after #65. I appreciate what I have learned from considering both your and elpis' exposition. I think elpis gives a different perspective to what I have stated earlier in this thread, as I have tried to maintain "I am he" for John 8:58.
Alright, enjoy the short sabbatical and Zoom class... I should have my comments posted by the time you get back --- I'm certain my position on these passages has changed at least a bit in the past nineteen years.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 
Greetings again Jonathan (En Hakkore),
Alright, enjoy the short sabbatical and Zoom class... I should have my comments posted by the time you get back --- I'm certain my position on these passages has changed at least a bit in the past nineteen years.
The studies are suitable live for the UK and US audiences, but not for the Australians and NZs as it would be after midnight. They are broadcast and participated in live on Zoom, but I have to download the slightly clipped You-tube copy, without the personal Zoom breakout participation after the study. The advantage is I can stop and replay, especially if I nod off half way through, which is happening sometimes. I listened to the 3rd study this evening on 2 Samuel 23:1-7 on David's Last (Inspired) Words, and this passage should be challenging to your Hebrew skills as there is a range of opinion as to the translation of these verses. I understand Hebrew poetry can be difficult. I will have to check and write down all of the translation that the speaker suggested, and it is different to some aspects that I had previously considered to be correct. He mainly relied on one respected Hebrew scholar, which is typical in our fellowship as few are good at Hebrew. We did have one UK member in our meeting for a while and he started a class on Hebrew, but he moved on after a short time. He preferred to read straight from his Hebrew (only) Bible when reading and discussing the OT. I prefer one aspect of the KJV on 2 Samuel 23:1-7 to some modern translations that have almost the opposite sense for a particular verse. I spoke on these verses when I was about 25, but it was at what we call a Mutual Improvement Class with only one or two senior brethren trying to train a few of the young members. I never became a consistent speaker in our meetings. In recent years I have only spoken on Psalm 8 and Isaiah 12 also with a brief overview of Isaiah's prophecy.

I hope what I wrote and summarised from elpis' thread is a sufficient indication of what I understand: 1. Exodus 3:14 should be "I will be". 2. The LXX is a poor translation of Exodus 3:14. 3. John 8:58 is not quoting the LXX rendition of Exodus 3:14. I have yet to really consider what you and elpis discussed on the meaning of John 8:58 and this may affect my present view on this. I will be interested in any additional or altered input.

Kind regards
Trevor
 
Greetings again Jonathan (En Hakkore),

The studies are suitable live for the UK and US audiences, but not for the Australians and NZs as it would be after midnight. They are broadcast and participated in live on Zoom, but I have to download the slightly clipped You-tube copy, without the personal Zoom breakout participation after the study. The advantage is I can stop and replay, especially if I nod off half way through, which is happening sometimes. I listened to the 3rd study this evening on 2 Samuel 23:1-7 on David's Last (Inspired) Words, and this passage should be challenging to your Hebrew skills as there is a range of opinion as to the translation of these verses. I understand Hebrew poetry can be difficult. I will have to check and write down all of the translation that the speaker suggested, and it is different to some aspects that I had previously considered to be correct. He mainly relied on one respected Hebrew scholar, which is typical in our fellowship as few are good at Hebrew. We did have one UK member in our meeting for a while and he started a class on Hebrew, but he moved on after a short time. He preferred to read straight from his Hebrew (only) Bible when reading and discussing the OT. I prefer one aspect of the KJV on 2 Samuel 23:1-7 to some modern translations that have almost the opposite sense for a particular verse. I spoke on these verses when I was about 25, but it was at what we call a Mutual Improvement Class with only one or two senior brethren trying to train a few of the young members. I never became a consistent speaker in our meetings. In recent years I have only spoken on Psalm 8 and Isaiah 12 also with a brief overview of Isaiah's prophecy.

I hope what I wrote and summarised from elpis' thread is a sufficient indication of what I understand: 1. Exodus 3:14 should be "I will be". 2. The LXX is a poor translation of Exodus 3:14. 3. John 8:58 is not quoting the LXX rendition of Exodus 3:14. I have yet to really consider what you and elpis discussed on the meaning of John 8:58 and this may affect my present view on this. I will be interested in any additional or altered input.
Alright, I'm participating in a few other threads, including a commitment to in-depth response before this one... I should be able to have my comments posted here within a day or two.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 
I hope what I wrote and summarised from elpis' thread is a sufficient indication of what I understand: 1. Exodus 3:14 should be "I will be". 2. The LXX is a poor translation of Exodus 3:14. 3. John 8:58 is not quoting the LXX rendition of Exodus 3:14. I have yet to really consider what you and elpis discussed on the meaning of John 8:58 and this may affect my present view on this. I will be interested in any additional or altered input.
You have neatly summarized this into three issues, which I will address in turn... the first two in this post and the third in a post either later today or tomorrow:

1. Translation of the divine self-declaration in Exod 3:14
The pertinent clause in MT of Exod 3:14 reads as follows:
אהיה אשר אהיה
Manuscript fragment 4QGen-ExodA is extent for most of this clause and reveals no variant (Ulrich 32). The middle word is the relative pronoun (HALOT 1.98-99) and the other two words are the same, the Qal imperfect first person singular form of the verb היה (to be). The Hebrew verbal system revolves around the concept of completed (perfect) or incomplete (imperfect) action... context determines what English tense best captures the intended meaning. The two choices in the present case of these imperfects are (1) future, which "describes an action anticipated or announced" (Arnold and Choi 58) or (2) progressive, which "indicates action that is underway or continuing as the writer or speaker describes it" (ibid 58). Most major translations elect for the second, possibly under the influence of tradition, and translate either "I am that I am" (KJV) or "I am who I am" (NKJV, NASB, NAB, NRSV). The NRSV footnotes both to the progressive alternative "I am that I am" and the future alternative "I will be that I will be". Other translations aim less for formal equivalence and try to capture the essence: "I am he who is" (NJB); "I am; that is who I am" (NEB). Finally, the JPS leaves the clause as a transliteration of the Hebrew (Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh) and footnotes that the meaning is uncertain, listing several possibilities: "I am that I am", "I am who I am", "I will be what I will be", etc. Indeed, even sticking to formal equivalence, one could mix and match the future and progressive possibilities: "I am who I shall be" or "I shall be who I am" (Sachs 246).

Evaluation:
The divine self-disclosure is enigmatic with no exact parallels to help adjudicate. I think, however, that the best case can be made for a future rendering... this is the conclusion of the annotator for the translation of Exodus in the Jewish Study Bible: "Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh [is] probably best translated as 'I Will Be What I Will Be," meaning, 'My nature will become evident from My actions'" (Tigay 111). Indeed, there is a forward-looking focus in the surrounding context: "I will send you to Pharaoh..." (v10), "I will be with you..." (v 12), "you will worship God..." (v12), "you will say..." (vs14,15), "I will bring you up out of the misery of Egypt..." (v17), "they will listen to your voice..." (v18), "you will go to the king of Egypt..." (v18), "I will stretch out my hand..." (v20), "I will strike the Egyptians..." (v20), "I will give this people favor..." (v21), "you will plunder the Egyptians" (v22). All of these verbs are imperfects or converted imperfects... of critical significance is אהיה in verse 12, which is identical to the verbs in the divine self-declaration, and here it is almost always translated "I will be" or "I shall be" (NEB is the singular exception of the aforementioned translations, placing "I am" in line but footnoting "or, I will be"). Other forward-looking action associated with disclosure of the divine name is found in Exod 33:19 where "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion" is found with a near identical pattern as that found in 3:14 --- that is, an imperfect first person singular verb + relative pronoun + imperfect first person singular verb with the relative clause marked as a direct object.

2. The Greek (LXX) translation of Exod 3:14
The pertinent clause is rendered in LXX as follows:
εγω ειμι ο ων
A number of manuscripts omit the clause plus the και ειπεν following resulting in the reading "And God said to Moses: 'Thus shall you say to the sons of Israel, "The One Who Is has sent me to you."'" This reflects a later abridgement with no serious claim to being the earliest form of Greek Exodus here. The clause itself translates into English literally as "I Am the Being", which is rendered more colloquially in NETS as "I Am the One Who Is". The translator identified the general profile of Greek Exodus as one of word-for-word equivalence, but with some examples of expansion, abridgement or variant order (Perkins 43). The translations of Aquila and Theodotion are notable for their reversion to not only formal equivalence vis-à-vis the original Hebrew text but one that understands the imperfect verb with a future sense: εσομαι {ος} εσομ[αι].

Evaluation:
If one is judging the Greek translator in terms of formal equivalence to the Hebrew, the LXX of Exod 3:14 is a poor translation. The relative pronoun has been ignored altogether, the first verb has been rendered as a present active indicative first person singular with an explicit subject and the second verb as an articulated present active participle in the nominative singular masculine case. It cannot be said that, as a unit, this translation reflects well the underlying Hebrew and it is noteworthy that only ο ων is taken up in the second half of the verse as parallel to the divine name disclosed in the following verse. That is, εγω ειμι serves to introduce the name such as we see in Exod 7:5 where the verbless Hebrew clause אני יהוה is translated with εγω ειμι κυριος (= I am {the} Lord) rather than being an intrinsic part of the divine identity. While εγω ειμι is the only element that might correspond formally to the Hebrew, the case was made above this is probably not the best understanding of אהיה, which is supported by the noted revisions of Aquila and Theodotion with the future middle indicative first person singular form εσομαι. If, however, the translator is allowed flexibility to capture something of the essence of the divine self-disclosure, the rendering is not particularly deviant in connecting the deity to some sort of boundless existence and, indeed, LXX was an influence on the NJB translation cited above in its own dynamic rendering of the Hebrew.

Kind regards,
Jonathan


Bibliography:
Arnold, Bill T. and John H. Choi. A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Cambridge University Press, 2003)
Coogan, Michael D. (ed.) The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books (Augmented Third Edition; Oxford University Press, 2007)
Elliger, K. and W. Rudolph (eds). Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (5th ed.; Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1997)
Koehler, Ludwig and Walter Baumgartner (eds). The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Study Edition; 2 vols; Brill, 2001)
Perkins, Larry J. "To the Reader of Exodus" in A New English Translation of the Septuagint and the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included under That Title, edited by Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright (Oxford University Press, 2007)
Sachs, Gerardo. "Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh." Jewish Bible Quarterly 38.4 (2010) 244-46
Tigay, Jeffrey H. "Exodus" in The Jewish Study Bible, edited by Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler (Oxford University Press, 2004)
Ulrich, Eugene (ed.) The Biblical Qumran Scrolls: Transcriptions and Variations (Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 134; Brill, 2010)
Wevers, John William (ed.) Exodus (Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum: Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum 2.1; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991)
 
Greetings again Jonathan (En Hakkore),
Jewish Study Bible: "Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh [is] probably best translated as 'I Will Be What I Will Be," meaning, 'My nature will become evident from My actions'" (Tigay 111). Indeed, there is a forward-looking focus in the surrounding context:
I appreciate your explanation and evaluation. As well as the immediate context, Exodus 6:1-8 also takes up the theme of what Yahweh would accomplish with regard to His Name Yahweh in bringing Israel out of Egypt and into the Land. The same pattern is found in Genesis 15:7 where the Yahweh Name is associated with Abraham being brought out of Ur to inherit the land, and then the covenant is made to bring Israel out of Egypt to inherit the land. It is in remembrance of this covenant that God reveals Himself as the God of Abraham in Exodus 3:6-8 who would bring Israel out of Egypt to bring them into the land flowing with milk and honey. A similar pattern is seen in the future, the association of the Name Yahweh in bringing the Israelites out of the nations and into the Land "and ye shall know that I am Yahweh" Ezekiel 20:38, and also accompanied by similar judgements on the nations "Thus will I magnify myself, and sanctify myself; and I will be known in the eyes of many nations, and they shall know that I am Yahweh" Ezekiel 38:23.

Kind regards
Trevor
 
I appreciate your explanation and evaluation.
No worries... I am still working on the third point (on which I should warn you we are not in agreement). I should be able to post it at some point within the next couple of days... sorry for the delay.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 
Back
Top