Before Anraham was, I AM

[Airaux]

I've looked at the various headings and don't know if this is the appropriate one in which to post, but I've selected this as seeming relevant.
I have a rocky history in Christianity and the Bible - I was not brought up in a religious household and encountered the Bible at about 26 years old. My "introducers" were member of "The Way" ministry - a Unitarian group. Throughout the years (I'm now 60), a big issue has been the Trinitarian/ Unitarian disagreement.
One specific element of this is the "I AM" passages. Trinitarians tend to cite the OT Ex. 3:14 instance and Jesus' Abraham reference.
However, I've read the Greek Septuagint version of Ex. 3:14 and am confused. It seems to me that the Ex. 3:14 verse says (slightly para-phrasing) "I am the (one/ being). Tell the sons of Israel 'The (one/ being) has sent you'" - not "I am has sent you". I'd be interested in hearing others' views on this subject.
Andrew.

 

[Halbhh]

I've looked at the various headings and don't know if this is the appropriate one in which to post, but I've selected this as seeming relevant.
I have a rocky history in Christianity and the Bible - I was not brought up in a religious household and encountered the Bible at about 26 years old. My "introducers" were member of "The Way" ministry - a Unitarian group. Throughout the years (I'm now 60), a big issue has been the Trinitarian/ Unitarian disagreement.
One specific element of this is the "I AM" passages. Trinitarians tend to cite the OT Ex. 3:14 instance and Jesus' Abraham reference.
However, I've read the Greek Septuagint version of Ex. 3:14 and am confused. It seems to me that the Ex. 3:14 verse says (slightly para-phrasing) "I am the (one/ being). Tell the sons of Israel 'The (one/ being) has sent you'" - not "I am has sent you". I'd be interested in hearing others' views on this subject.
Andrew.

There is a certain level of 'mystery' about God in that He is truly higher than our thinking can fully capture. The 'trinity' doctrine (which is not explicitly in the Bible, but an idea we draw from various scriptures to on one level help us remember God is deeper, or higher, than our thinking, and still has mystery to us, even while He comes down to meet us). Consider:

8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD.
9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.

Isaiah 55 ESV
(one of the most amazing and wonderful chapters in the Old Testament)

Here, it's not merely that God simply pardons what we might not. Instead, here, a higher thing is being pointed to -- that God truly is above our ability to encompass and fully understand. Instead of less than us, than our thinking, He is instead more than our thinking.

 

[Airaux]

There is a certain level of 'mystery' about God in that He is truly higher than our thinking can fully capture. The 'trinity' doctrine (which is not explicitly in the Bible, but an idea we draw from various scriptures to on one level help us remember God is deeper, or higher, than our thinking, and still has mystery to us, even while He comes down to meet us). Consider:

8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD.
9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.

Isaiah 55 ESV
(one of the most amazing and wonderful chapters in the Old Testament)

Here, it's not merely that God simply pardons what we might not. Instead, here, a higher thing is being pointed to -- that God truly is above our ability to encompass and fully understand. Instead of less than us, than our thinking, He is instead more than our thinking.

Thanks for your input.
I certainly get that God is above our level of understanding. However, people are citing the verses in Exodus and Jesus' words to claim that Jesus was identifying Himself as the "I am" in Exodus. I may well be missing something vital, but it seems the Greek Septuagint does not say "I am", as people claim.
Are you aware of something specific that explains this matter?

 

[Halbhh]

It seems to me that the Ex. 3:14 verse says (slightly para-phrasing) "I am the (one/ being). Tell the sons of Israel 'The (one/ being) has sent you'" - not "I am has sent you". I'd be interested in hearing others' views on this subject.
Andrew.

I'll only tell you my own thoughts, which I don't hold up as somehow better or definitive, but simply more like a personal experience. Keeping in mind how God is higher than our ability to encompass, and after checking on the accuracy of the translation:

'I AM.
אֶֽהְיֶ֑ה (’eh·yeh)
Verb - Qal - Imperfect - first person common singular
Strong's Hebrew 1961: To fall out, come to pass, become, be'
Exodus 3:14 God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.'"

Then I want to be reading the verse as part of the whole flow of the passage, and then it's the sense of meaning that comes across then, that way, and it's for me a sudden moment of feeling awe, at verse 14. For me, it's like God is saying He is existence or the basis of existence itself, the very ground of being, of all that exists. That is, anything that exists, exists through Him. He is the origination of existence, that there is anything, that there is something, instead of nothing -- but more, He is the existence. These are just some wordings trying to communicate the sense of it that hits me as I read it. The whole separate question of trinity is from the New Testament, such as especially from the Gospel of John, beginning right at the start, but also again later. He was/is God, and He was with God, both. Both at once. It's back to the 'mystery' -- something higher than our ability to encompass in a way.

 

[Airaux]

I don't speak Hebrew - and even if I did, it's another thing to speak it well enough and be a native speaker to get the exact idea and subtle nuances of the passage, so I can't get anything from the Hebrew that others may be may be correctly getting. I intend going back to Exodus and looking further back in the text to get more context.
But I CAN say that in the Greek Septuagint with English translation, it DOES say "Tell the sons of Israel '(The one/ being)' has sent you", rather than 'I AM has sent you'.
I'm not saying that's conclusive, but I AM confused about this apparent anomaly.
I don't have Internet access at home, so I have to use public facilities when I can. If you'd like, we could talk about this or other Christian matters, but I want to make known that circumstances may be such that I won't be able to respond quickly.

 

[Halbhh]

I don't speak Hebrew - and even if I did, it's another thing to speak it well enough and be a native speaker to get the exact idea and subtle nuances of the passage, so I can't get anything from the Hebrew that others may be may be correctly getting. I intend going back to Exodus and looking further back in the text to get more context.
But I CAN say that in the Greek Septuagint with English translation, it DOES say "Tell the sons of Israel '(The one/ being)' has sent you", rather than 'I AM has sent you'.
I'm not saying that's conclusive, but I AM confused about this apparent anomaly.
I don't have Internet access at home, so I have to use public facilities when I can. If you'd like, we could talk about this or other Christian matters, but I want to make known that circumstances may be such that I won't be able to respond quickly.

Hey, I didn't say it above yet -- Welcome to Christian Forums, Airaux. Glad you came here. Certainly feel free to message me anytime also. I'm on here somewhat unpredictably, but usually often in most weeks.

 

[Airaux]

Halbhh: Thanks. Maybe we'll be like ships occasionally passing each other in the night.
I'll be here in the library for another roughly 20 minutes, if you'd like to further speak.
I'd be interested in hearing what part of the world you're from.

 

[Halbhh]

Halbhh: Thanks. Maybe we'll be like ships occasionally passing each other in .the night.
I'll be here in the library for another roughly 20 minutes, if you'd like to further speak.
I'd be interested in hearing what part of the world you're from.

From Oklahoma/Texas mostly, and most of my life, and living in the Midwest for many years lately. You?

 

[Monna]

Welcome, Airaux, to the Forums.
Am not quite sure about what you are actually wondering about ... because ... you refer to the Unitarian/ Trinitarian question, and then pick up on the (English) singular form of the verb to be - I Am, as used in Genesis and as refered to by Jesus.

I am not a Hebrew scholar either and do not claim my understanding of this phrase or verse is correct, but ... when I consider God as God - the Mind that encompasses all knowledge, understanding, and wisdom, that predates (!) time and creation, that is the source of life and all existence - I get the sense that He is telling Moses - "no name as you think of names, is sufficient; my name is beyond all human names, no name as you know names will convince the people, just know this, and tell the people this, that the very source and sustainer of BEING, of existence, of becoming, has sent you." The context of course in Genesis, is the collective birth of the nation, as a nation, and its existence independent of the Egyption Pharoah. Jesus refers to this specific event and conversation and claims the same value content of the "name" - which the Pharisees found blasphemous, of course.

In terms of the unitarian/trinitarian issue, this explanation (whether right or wrong) helps me deal with the limitations of language in needing a singular or plural form. (In Genesis 1, the plural form, I believe, is used "let US make man in our own likeness.") What does speak to me "against" a unitary God, is His nature as Active Love. I have difficulty conceving of a unitary being exhibiting by its inherent nature the description of love given in 1 Cor 13:4-7. If it is God's inherent nature, it must have been eternal. When I consider a dual or a trinitarian being, I find "room" for the active expression of love before the foundation of the world. And when I have accepted this, a lot of other scriptures become more consistent and understandable to me.

This doesn't mean I understand the Triune God.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Hello and welcome to CF (though it looks like you joined originally some time before).

Hopefully you will get good answers here. I'm waiting for an appt and don't have access to a lot of my resources, but I can tell you that "I am" is something drenched with meaning among ancient Christianity.

What it might be more helpful to mention is that we believe in fact that God is ONE - One Being. The Essence (what God is) is singular. There is only one. However, we of course understand as God has revealed Himself as three distinct, co-equal, and co-eternal Persons - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

That doesn't "make sense" from a human perspective because for us, there is no such possibility of being a single being with three persons. Nor are we a single kind limited to only three. There simply is no human equivalent.

It helped me a great deal to understand as expressed in the Creed - that the Son is "eternally being begotten" of the Fathet and that the Holy Spirit is "eternally being breathed" by the Father. It is a dynamic, forever happening way of relationship.

Yet there is a single Divine Essence - has always been, will always be. Nothing created can ever take on that Essence and "become God". He is forever and unique in His Being.

There are lots of passages of Scrupture that can be discussed relating to this. I would caution you firstly not to ever take a passage in isolation and derive doctrine from it. (And the second caution is an administrative one - I know you need to discuss and ask questions, but be careful that you don't debate against belief in the Holy Trinity - even as a "devil's advocate" for the sake of discussion - outside of the Christianity and World Religions subforum, because that's against the rules at CF and I don't want to see folks get in trouble. )

 

[mark kennedy]

I've looked at the various headings and don't know if this is the appropriate one in which to post, but I've selected this as seeming relevant.
I have a rocky history in Christianity and the Bible - I was not brought up in a religious household and encountered the Bible at about 26 years old. My "introducers" were member of "The Way" ministry - a Unitarian group. Throughout the years (I'm now 60), a big issue has been the Trinitarian/ Unitarian disagreement.
One specific element of this is the "I AM" passages. Trinitarians tend to cite the OT Ex. 3:14 instance and Jesus' Abraham reference.
However, I've read the Greek Septuagint version of Ex. 3:14 and am confused. It seems to me that the Ex. 3:14 verse says (slightly para-phrasing) "I am the (one/ being). Tell the sons of Israel 'The (one/ being) has sent you'" - not "I am has sent you". I'd be interested in hearing others' views on this subject.
Andrew.

When Jesus tells them 'before Abraham was I AM', he is invoking the divine article. That was the covenant name for God. Just ask yourself, why did they want to stone him? Because he said God existed before Abraham or he knew Abraham because he existed as God before Abraham.

The Trinity exists as a formal doctrine because of Jesus' claims of deity. C.S. Lewis sums the situation pretty well. Jesus is either Lord, a liar or a lunatic. The fact that Jesus xlaimed to be God is undeniable, if he didn't actually bellieve and wasn't he lied. If he did believe it he was, and wasn't?, he was nuts, someone akin to a man claiming to be a poached egg.

 

[Airaux]

Because of the number of people responding and amount of different points made, I decided to address each person separately. I hope there isn't a word limit!
Halbhh: I'm from Wales, Britain.
Monna: I don't get your first point about the Trini-Uni issue. I am far from an expert on the OT, but I'm not aware of any relevant Genesis text(s) - the quote I cited was Exodus 3:14 (one often cited to link Jesus' "Before Abraham was" quote) in the Greek Septuagint. There, unless I've somehow missed something essential, it says (possibly somewhat paraphrased, from memory) "I am the (one/ being). Tell the sons of Israel 'The being has sent you' - not 'I AM has sent you'.
I'd be interested in reading where Jesus "claims the same value of the name" - in Exodus 3:14 or elsewhere, if you could supply source(s).
Anastasia: Thanks. Yes - I did join some time ago. Yesterday, I had some questions and didn't realise I'd joined this particular site until I tried to register.
Re "I AM" - I'm aware that this has been a topic of debate for 2,000 years. If you've read my input in this thread, you've read my citing of Exodus 3:14 from the Greek Septuagint. Unless I've missed something, it seems to clearly say "I am the (one/ being). Tell the sons of Israel 'The one/ being) has sent you' - not 'I AM has sent you'.
I certainly agree there's a potential danger in taking a small piece of text in isolation and building a doctrine from it. It's important to put things in the overall context of the Bible. Throughout the decades, I've been wary of this and very cautious not to do it.
I've read the home pages of this site to try to find out about and abide by the rules. I may be confused by the sections and sub-sections. I'll try to abide by the rules.
My aim is not to argue for or against a doctrine, but to find truth.
mark kennedy: I only have a scant knowledge of the OT and you may be aware of relevant text(s) I don't know about. I'd be interested in reading any such text(s) you could supply me with.
The only one I know of is Exodus 3:14. I'd particularly like to know what you think of the Greek Seoptagint text I quoted.
The truth of Jesus' Deity has been argued for millennia, both sides apparently having, at least on prima facie consideration, SOME Bible-based backing.

 

[Joy]

MOD HAT ON

This Thread has Moved
From Traditional Theology
To Controversial Christian Theology

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[eleos1954]

When Jesus tells them 'before Abraham was I AM', he is invoking the divine article. That was the covenant name for God. Just ask yourself, why did they want to stone him? Because he said God existed before Abraham or he knew Abraham because he existed as God before Abraham.

The Trinity exists as a formal doctrine because of Jesus' claims of deity. C.S. Lewis sums the situation pretty well. Jesus is either Lord, a liar or a lunatic. The fact that Jesus xlaimed to be God is undeniable, if he didn't actually bellieve and wasn't he lied. If he did believe it he was, and wasn't?, he was nuts, someone akin to a man claiming to be a poached egg.

Exodus 3

Moses at the Burning Bush
…13Then Moses asked God, “Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is His name?’ What should I tell them?” 14God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” 15God also told Moses, “Say to the Israelites, ‘The LORD, the God of your fathers—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob—has sent me to you.’ This is My name forever, and this is how I am to be remembered in every generation.…

Before Abraham I AM ... therefore claiming himself to be God , this is what they took exception to

 

[mark kennedy]

Exodus 3

Moses at the Burning Bush
…13Then Moses asked God, “Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is His name?’ What should I tell them?” 14God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” 15God also told Moses, “Say to the Israelites, ‘The LORD, the God of your fathers—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob—has sent me to you.’ This is My name forever, and this is how I am to be remembered in every generation.…

Before Abraham I AM ... therefore claiming himself to be God , this is what they took exception to

Exactly, but if your just familar with the English there is no real way of appreciating that. Most of the time the covenant name for God is simply translated 'LORD', all caps. Then you see 'I AM THAT I AM', wondering what on earth that means.

His enemies knew. On the cross Jesus cries out, My God, My God, why have you forssaken me. That sounds like he is withour hope, in utter dispair, he's not, he is quoting a prayer of deliverance. His enemies understood, they say lets wait and see if God comes. Sometimes I think his enemies understand him better then believers, not really but...

 

[BCsenior]

I would just like to add that ...
many spiritual entities existed before Abraham,
so John 8:58 is not all that impressive to me!

IMO, a better single proof text for the Deity of Jesus is:
"If you don't believe that I AM, you will die in your sins!" (John 8:24)
(Nothing follows "I AM" in the Greek manuscripts ... no "He" or "he", etc.)

 

[Der Alte]

Thanks for your input.
I certainly get that God is above our level of understanding. However, people are citing the verses in Exodus and Jesus' words to claim that Jesus was identifying Himself as the "I am" in Exodus. I may well be missing something vital, but it seems the Greek Septuagint does not say "I am", as people claim.
Are you aware of something specific that explains this matter?

The Hebrew OT reads
ויאמר אלהים אל־משׁה אהיה אשׁר אהיה ויאמר כה תאמר לבני ישׂראל אהיה שׁלחני אליכם׃
I have highlighted the questioned words, the English transliteration is "ehyeh 'sher ehyeh" The word "ehyeh," which means "I am," not "the being," occurs twice.
Here is the English translation in the 1917 Jewish Publication Society translation by native Hebrew speaking Jewish scholars.

Exo 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.'​

I think that should settle the question. The LXX is an incorrect translation.

 

[Der Alte]

I would just like to add that ...
many spiritual entities existed before Abraham,
so John 8:58 is not all that impressive to me!...

The error here is none of the other supposed entities were standing there saying, nor could they say, "before Abraham was I am." Note that statement is in the present tense. As Jesus stood there He was in the present tense before Abraham.
Jesus did not say "Before Abraham was I was." [past tense.]

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I've looked at the various headings and don't know if this is the appropriate one in which to post, but I've selected this as seeming relevant.
I have a rocky history in Christianity and the Bible - I was not brought up in a religious household and encountered the Bible at about 26 years old. My "introducers" were member of "The Way" ministry - a Unitarian group. Throughout the years (I'm now 60), a big issue has been the Trinitarian/ Unitarian disagreement.
One specific element of this is the "I AM" passages. Trinitarians tend to cite the OT Ex. 3:14 instance and Jesus' Abraham reference.
However, I've read the Greek Septuagint version of Ex. 3:14 and am confused. It seems to me that the Ex. 3:14 verse says (slightly para-phrasing) "I am the (one/ being). Tell the sons of Israel 'The (one/ being) has sent you'" - not "I am has sent you". I'd be interested in hearing others' views on this subject.
Andrew.

Hello Airaux and welcome to CF! Members have posted some good responses.
Who cannot but be awestruck by The great "I AM", as I have been since 1st reading the Bible thru in 2003
I actually have a thread on it, but being that it is about 12 yrs old if any are interested, I may have to go back and "tune it up".

Genesis 1:2 and Hebrew word "Hayah" question
Sep 28, 2007

Exodus 3:
12 And He is saying: "That I Shall Be/01961 hayah with thee, and this for thee the-Sign that I sent thee in to bring forth you the people out of Egypt. Ye shall serve The-'Elohiym on this Mountain.'
13 And- Mosheh -is-saying to The-'Elohiym" Behold! I coming to sons of Yisra'el and I say to them, 'Elohiym of your fathers, He sends me to you'.
And they have said to me, 'What Name of Him'? What shall I say to them"?
14 :And 'Elohiym is saying to Mosheh, "I-shall-be/01961 hayah who I-shall-be/01961 hayah". And-He saying "Thus you shall say to sons of Yisra'el, 'I-shall-be/01961 hayah, He-sent-me unto-you'".

John 8:
57 Said then the Judeans towards Him, "Fifty years, not as-yet thou are having, and Abraham thou has seen?'
58 Jesus said to them "Verily, verily, I am saying to ye, before Abraham's to be becoming/generated/genesqai <1096> (5635) --I<egw> AM being<eimi 1510>"
eipen autoiV o ihsouV amhn amhn legw umin prin abraam genesqai egw eimi

Revelation 21:6
And He said to me:" it-hath-become/gegonen <1096> (5754). [Reve 16:17]
I<egw> AM<eimi 1510> the alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the End.......
kai eipen moi gegonen egw eimi to a kai to w h arch kai to teloV egw tw diywnti dwsw ek thV phghV tou udatoV thV zwhV dwrean


01961 hayah {haw-yaw} a primitive root [compare 01933]; TWOT - 491; v
1) to be, become, come to pass, exist, happen, fall out 1a) (Qal) 1a1) ----- \7 1a1a) to happen, fall out, occur, take place, come about, come to pass 1a1b) to come about, come to pass 1a2) to come into being, become 1a2a) to arise, appear, come 1a2b) to become 1a2b1) to become 1a2b2) to become like 1a2b3) to be instituted, be established

1096. ginomai a prolongation and middle voice form of a primary verb;
to cause to be ("gen"-erate), i.e. (reflexively) to become (come into being), used with great latitude (literal, figurative, intensive, etc.):--

1510. eimi i-mee' the first person singular present indicative; a prolonged form of a primary and defective verb; I exist (used only when emphatic):-

Revelation Chapter 1 Verses

 

[Airaux]

Der Alter: Thanks for that post.
I'd seen that in the LXX and though it was probably accurate. I've come across it being lauded as authoritative. It's said that Paul used it in preaching and it's argued that he coined the word "arsenokoites" (homosexuals) from "arsen" and koitas" in (I think) Leviticus. 'Though it has also been argued - by Steven Anderson and probably others - that what we consider the LXX today is not the one Paul used and was compiled by a "heretic" at a later time, who, conversely, used the NT to produce the LXX we have today.
I had even suspected the "I AM" reference in Ex. 3 was being deliberately misrepresented by people with an agenda.
It seems, from what you've said, that the LXX is wrong on this point.
I intend looking further into it.