The Correct Translation of John 858 ldquoI amrdquo Or ldquoI have beenrdquo

(By Lesriv Spencer 8032010 Updated May 8 2014)

What is the correct translation of John 858 A consideration of which is the correct translation of John 858 is set forth herein and a list of alternate readings of John 858 is provided for those sincerely looking to increase their understanding of a much discussed scripture Bold underlines and brackets [ ] are mine unless otherwise indicated The same with italics outside of quotes Unless noted Bible citations are taken from the ubiquitous New International Version (NIV) Some other translations cited Contemporary English Version (CEV) English Standard Version (ESV) Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) Jerusalem Bible (JB) King James Version (KJV) New American Bible (NAB) New American Standard Bible (NASB) New International Readers Version (NIRV) New Jerusalem Bible (NJB) New Living Translation (NLT) New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) New World Translation (NWT) The Simple English Bible (SEB) and Todayacutes English Version (TEV) First listed the Greek original literal reading followed by three translations representative ofmany versions to this day I take full responsibility for translations done from foreign language sources cited in the article in case the reader finds an error of some sort To minimize any risk of transmitting the wrong message in translating from the original sourcesthe reader will find in many cases the original readings right below the English translation for comparison c 96 ldquo πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί rdquo - Greek (before Abraham to become i am ) c 405 ldquoantequam Abraham fieret ego sum rdquo ndash Latin Vulgate (before Abraham was i am )

1602 ldquoAntes que Abraham fuese yo soy rdquo - Reina-Valera (Before Abraham was I am ) 1611 ldquoBefore Abraham was I am rdquo - King James Version

What is the meaning of the Greek phrase ldquoegō eimirdquo

The Greek phrase ἐγὼ εἰμί (ldquoegō eimirdquo a pronoun ego and the verb eimi in the present indicative form) means in its simplest sense ldquoI amrdquo At first glance it looks like there is no reason to go further You have the Greek on one hand which reads ldquoI amrdquo Then you have an influential ancient Bible translation in Latin using the equivalent of that Add to that the many traditional versions showing the same reading at John 858 and it looks like any other rendering besides ldquoI amrdquo is uncalled for and illegitimate In fact this is exactly what some

Bible readers are claiming

Notwithstanding there is a bit more than meets the eye Greek as a language is quite different from English When a Greek speaker attempts to use a familiar Greek expression inEnglish or in some other language he or she will quickly find out that things have to be stated somewhat differently in the target language to make sense Those who try to make sense of an ultra-literal Greek interlinear translation such as the Concordant Greek Text which has the original NT Greek text and the English translation below it will likely end up frustrated And so it is with the Greek expression ldquoegō eimirdquo found in John 858 Though ldquoegō eimirdquo is generally translated ldquoI amrdquo as a legitimate translation some translators find it necessary in some contexts to render it differently in another language such as English to convey the right meaning Why is that so

One problem we have to deal with here is that Greek tenses frequently are time-indifferent except by implication from their relationship to their context Trying to equally match Greekand English tenses is a frustrating experience In fact some scholars avoid stressing the word ldquotenserdquo (ie ldquotimerdquo) in relation to biblical languages As grammarians Dana and Mantey pointed out decades ago ldquoTime is but a minor consideration in the Greek tensesrdquo (A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament p 177) And more recently David A Black adds ldquoUnlike English the most significant feature of tense in Greek is kind of action A secondary consideration of tense and one that applies only in the indicative mood is time of action But the essential signification of the Greek tense system is the kind of action ndash whether it is represented as ongoing finished or simply as an occurrencerdquo (Learn to Read New Testament Greek p 15) Scholars often speak of Hebrew and Greek as being ldquoaspectualrdquo languages unlike English which has only tenses (ldquoAspectrdquo ldquoA verbal categorization that focuses upon kind of action rather than time of action (ie tense)rdquo (Pocket Dictionary for the Study of Biblical Hebrew Todd J Murphy)

Thus there is no way to consistently translate the phrase ldquoegō eimirdquo in discussion in a strictlyliteral way because Greek is an aspectual language and English is not In other words the renderings ldquoI amrdquo and ldquoI have beenrdquo for ldquoeimirdquo to name one example could well be contextdepending just as literal as the other Bible translator N T Wright also noted ldquoBut as with all translations even within closely related modern European languages there are always going to be places where you simply cant do word by word To do so would be lsquocorrectrsquo at one level and deeply incorrect at another There is no lsquosafersquo option all translation is risky but its a risk we have to takerdquo (The Kingdom New Testament Preface p xii HarperCollinsPublishers 2011) Although Wright a trinitarian renders John 858 in the traditional way it is my opinion that John 858 is one of those ldquoplaces where you simply cant do word by wordrdquo and make the most sense of it In this essay I will attempt to show you why this is so

Furthermore although some erroneously believe that ldquoeimirdquo in John 858 should only be translated one way that is as it appears in popular versions others acknowledge that that is not the case A Greek expert explains that ldquoeimirdquo is ldquoa function word variously rendered am are is was were will be depending on requirements of English structure the resourcesof English permit numerous equivalent renderingsrdquo (The Concise Greek-English Lexicon of

the New Testament p 110 ndash Frederick William Danker) You can add the rendering ldquoI have beenrdquo to the list above as we will see What do scholars say of the syntax found in John 858

Some scholars have pointed out that Scriptures which have within their structure a particular idiom containing a Greek verb in the present tense with an expression of past time or an adverb in its construction can be rendered into a modern language such as English with a present perfect indicative form (ldquoI have beenrdquo ldquoI have existedrdquo) Other scholars have chosen instead to use a simple past tense (ldquoI wasrdquo ldquoI existedrdquo) in translation for the present verb ldquoeimirdquo at John 858 These Bible translators surely no less conscientious of Greek grammar than scholars who favor the ldquoI amrdquo rendering have translated taking into account the presence of the peculiar syntax found at John 858 Grammarian Kenneth L McKay refers to the idiom as ldquoExtension from Pastrdquo and it occurs when a present verb is ldquoused with an expression of either past time or extent of time with past implicationsrdquo (A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek 1994 41) This is the case with John 858 where the expression ldquoI amrdquo forms part of a Greek idiom structure ldquoprin Abraam genesthai egō eimi [Before Abraham to become I am]rdquo having an expression of past time in its statement This construction is not unique to John 858 appearing in other places as indicated below It also appears in the Septuagint (Genesis 3138 41 Exodus 410 2136 Judges 1617 Psalm 902 Luke 137 1529 John 149 Acts 1521)

Various scholars explain the syntax found in Scriptures such as John 858 thus (Some scholars may or may not specifically mention John 858 as an example of the idiom)

Greek ndash An Intensive Course ldquoWhen [the present is] used with expressions denoting past time the present is the equivalent of the English present progressive perfect πάλαι τοῦτο ποιῶ [palai touto poiō] I have been doing this for a long timerdquo (Hardy Hansen amp Gerald M Quinn New York Fordham University Press 1992 Page 731)

Winer ldquoSometimes the Present includes also a past tense (Mdv 108) viz when the verb expresses a state which commenced at an earlier period but still continuesmdasha state in its duration as Jno xv 27 ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς μετʼ ἐμοῦ ἐστέ [apʼ ar khēs metʼ e mou e ste] viii 58 πρὶν ᾿Αβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμι [prin A bra am ge nesthai e gō ei mi]rdquo ( A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament by G B Winer seventh edition Andover 1897 p 267)

Brooks amp Winbery ldquoPast and present are gathered up in a single affirmationthe full meaning is that something has been and still isrdquo (Syntax of New Testament Greek by James A Brooks amp Carlton L Winbery Lanham University Press of America 1979 [1988] 84 Idiom labeled as ldquoDurative Presentrdquo by the authors)

Wallace ldquoThe present tense may be used to describe an action that begun in the past continues in the present The emphasis is on the present time Note that this is different from the perfect tense in that the perfect speaks only about the results existing in the present time It is different from the progressive present in that it reaches back in time and usually if

not always has some sort of temporal indicator such as an adverbial phrase to show this past-referring element The key to this usage is normally to translate the present tense as an English present perfect hellip Luke 1529 τοσαῦτα ἔτη δουλεύω σοι [tosauta etē douleuō soi] I have served you for these many years 1 John 38 ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς ὁ διάβολος ἁμαρτάνει [ap archēs ho diabolos hamartanei] the devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (The Basics of New Testament Syntax by Daniel B Wallace pp 222-3 Italics and bold letters his Underline mine)

WW Goodwin ldquoThe present with πάλαι [palai] or any other expression of past time has theforce of a present and perfect combined as πάλαι τοῦτο λέγω [palai touto legō] I have longbeen telling this (which I now tell)rdquo (A Greek Grammar Section 1258 p 270)

J H Moulton ldquoThe Present which indicates the continuance of an action during the past and up to the moment of speaking is virtually the same as Perfective the only difference being that the action is conceived as still in progress It is frequent in the NT Lk 248 137 1529 Jn 56 8 58 (εἰμί) 1491527Ac 152126312 Co 12192 Ti 3152Pt 341 Jn 29 38rdquo (A Grammar of New Testament Greek by J H Moulton Vol III Syntax by Nigel Turner Edinburgh 1963 p 62)

Sanders and Masten ldquoTo describe a state continuing up to the present Greek uses the present tense where English uses the Perfect cf Jn 858rdquo (Harpers New Testament Commentaries p 158)

Burton ldquoThe Present of past Action still in Progress The Present Indicative accompaniedby an adverbial expression denoting duration and referring to past time is sometimes used in Greek as in German to describe an action which beginning in past time is still in progress at the time of speaking English idiom requires the use of the Perfect in such cases hellip Acts 1521Luke 1371529John 562 Tim 315rdquo (Syntax of Moods and Tenses in NT Greek by Ernest De Witt Burton p 10)

Smyth ldquoPresent of Past and Present Combined ndash The present when accompanied by a definite or indefinite expression of past time is used to express an action begun in the past and continued in the present The lsquoprogressive perfectrsquo is often used in translation Thus πάλαι θαυμάζω [palai thaumazō] I have been long (and am still) wonderingrdquo (Greek Grammar by Herbert Weir Smyth Section 1885 on verb tenses pp 422-423)

( ldquoThe Present of past Action still in Progressrdquo (See also An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek by CFD Moule Section v p 8 Cambridge) This same idiom is discussed in other grammars under the names ldquoDurative Presentrdquo ldquoExtension from Past Presentrdquo or ldquoProgressive Presentrdquo See Blass and Debrunner section 322 K L Mckay 1994 pp 41-42 A T Robertsons Grammar p 879 WD Chamberlains Grammar p 70 D A Black Its Still Greek to Me p 107 A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testamentby Dana and Mantey pp 182-3 Intermediate New Testament Greek by Richard A Young p111 A Concise Exegetical Grammar of New Testament Greek by J Harold Greenlee p 93

Classical examples are provided in Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek Verb by WW Goodwin p 9 26)

The scholars quoted above clearly show that the English present tense in such construction isnot equal to the Greek Present Therefore it would be a mistake to conclude that we have to take the basic sense of ldquoegō eimirdquo in John 858 and represent it word-for-word in our language to be accurate We must consider whether John 858 contains a temporal indicator that goes back in time in combination with a Greek ldquopresentrdquo verb Those seeking to prove apoint of ldquotimelessnessrdquo in ldquoeimirdquo should be reminded that Greek verb tenses of themselves do not indicate whether a subject in view is ldquoeternalrdquo or not

In point of fact the above biblical Greek syntax is carried over to modern Greek A modern Greek Grammar explains ldquoThe [Greek] present may also be used to refer to an action or situation that began in the past and continues in the present where English uses the perfect Παίρνω αυτό το φάρμακο από το 1999 [Pairnō auto to pharmako apo to 1999] Ive been taking this medicine since 1999rdquo (Greek An Essential Grammar of the Modern Language by David Holton Peter Mackridge and Irene Philippaki-Warburton p 121 2004) Take note how the authors take into account the Greek idiom and translate the verb pairno (1st person present indicative which basically means ldquoI am takingrdquo) using an English present perfect ldquoIve been taking this medicine since 1999rdquo

Consequently when Bible versions transfer the basic meaning ldquoI amrdquo into their translated text without considering the above syntax they could fail to convey the intended Greek meaning and end up with ungrammatical English as well (ldquoUngrammaticalrdquo because English present tense cannot start before a particular point in the pastrdquo) Oddly some free paraphrased and dynamic equivalent translations carry over this ldquoliteralrdquo reading of the passage right into their versions with no explanation whatsoever for breaking rules of English grammar Anyone doing translation work between two languages knows well that it is not always feasible or practical to translate word for word Otherwise the end product would be flawed unreadable material

Is Exodus 314 parallel to John 858

Some believe there is an asserted connection of Jesus at John 858 being identified with ldquoTheBeingrdquo or ldquoThe Existing Onerdquo of Exodus 314 In other words those who hold such view believe Jesus Christ is the ldquoJehovahrdquo or ldquoYahwehrdquo of the Old Testament At Exodus 314 the Septuagint a Greek translation from the Hebrew has the true God saying ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν [Egō eimi ho ōn] ldquoI am the The Beingrdquo or ldquoI am The Existing Onerdquo And linking to Exodus 314 many translations have Jesus saying at John 858 ldquoI amrdquo However did Christ really say at John 858 ldquoI am Jehovahrdquo ldquoI am The Beingrdquo or even ldquoThe I Amrdquo No he did not Those interpretations are traditionally read into the text

The use of ldquoeimirdquo at Exodus 314 in the Septuagint is used as a linking verb to the expression ldquoThe Beingrdquo or ldquoThe Existing Onerdquo not as an absolute predicate This is similar to as when David said ldquoI am (egō eimi) the one sinningrdquo (1 Chronicles 2117

LXX) Or when Jesus says (John 107) ldquoI am (egō eimi) the door to the sheeprdquo Or Peter (Acts 223) ldquoI am (egō eimi) a Jewrdquo In these three instances of ldquoeimirdquo as a connecting verb there is nothing in the words themselves suggesting eternity We also find an angel Gabriel using the same expression that Christ used at John 858 (Luke 119) Even Paul stated εἰμι ὅ εἰμι [eimi ho eimi] = ldquoI am what I amrdquo and by using those words he was by nomeans claiming he was God eternal (1 Corinthians 1510) Hence the use of ldquoeimirdquo of itselfcannot be used as a sound argument to bolster Christs deity

The meaning of ldquoeimirdquo must therefore be defined mainly from Bible context and not from any mysticism attributed to the word And strictly speaking John 858 does not even say whether Jesus is ldquoeternalrdquo or not All it says is that Jesus preceded Abraham in time and his existence extended to the present ldquoI have existed [since] before Abraham was bornrdquo (A New Translation by James Moffatt) The Bible does say that Christ is ldquosuperiorrdquo to angels but ldquosuperiorityrdquo does not demand ldquoeternityrdquo since someone can be ldquosuperiorrdquo to another without having the same age It should be pointed out that angels too existed way before Abraham came to be and still ldquoexistrdquo but nonetheless they were ldquocreatedrdquo by God (Genesis 62 Job 381-7 Psalm 1482 5) And of Christ it is said ldquoHe isthe firstborn of all creationrdquo (Col 115 ESV) Some in their attempt to disconnect Christ from lsquocreaturersquo status twist the meaning of this last statement but Christ himself said ldquoI have life because of him [God]rdquo (John 657 CEV)

Although many Bible commentators explain Gods words at Exodus 314 as the New American Standard Bible rendered it ldquoI AM WHO I AMrdquo other scholars accept another explanation such as the one found in The International Bible Commentary ldquoThe translation lsquoI will be what I will bersquo (cf NIVfn) is also possible and would make even more explicit the suggestion that Gods character would be disclosed as events unfoldedrdquo (FF Bruce GeneralEditor) Another reference work The Expositors Bible Commentary (Abridged Edition) points out the following as well ldquoThe Hebrew seeks the significance character quality and interpretation of the name Therefore what they needed to know was lsquoWhat does that name mean or signify in circumstances such as we are inrsquo rdquo So even when scholars use ldquoI Amrdquo intheir explanations of Exodus 314 others see the phrase as indicative of Gods will toward his people Thus other translators provide an alternate more accurate reading either in the main text or in their footnotes

ldquoI Will Be What I Will Berdquo (Modern Spelling Tyndale-Coverdale) ldquoI Will Become whatsoever I pleaserdquo (Joseph Bryant Rotherham) ldquoI will be what I will berdquo (The Bible in Living English Steven T Byington) ldquoI WILL BE THAT I WILL BErdquo (Leeser Old Testament 1853) ldquoI shall come to be just as I am coming to berdquo (Concordant Literal Version) ldquoI-will-be-what-I-will-berdquo (A New Translation by James Moffatt) ldquoI shall be that I shall berdquo (Julia Smith Translation) ldquoEHYEH ASHER EHYEH I will be-there howsoever I will be-thererdquo (The Five Books [of Moses by Everett Fox)ldquoI SHALL PROVE TO BE WHAT I SHALL PROVE TO BErdquo (NWT)ldquoI Will Become What I Choose to Becomerdquo (NWT 2013)

See also The Anchor Bible (William HC Propp) and the The Stone Tanach (Artscroll Mesorah)

In the Hebrew original the above words pronounced by God Almighty are in the ldquoimperfectrdquostate of the verb which communicate ldquoincompletenessrdquo or ldquofuturerdquo activity Interestingly the Hebrew word ייי( ה ה( ה איא (ehyeh) appears in Exodus 312 just two verses away and there many Bible translations render it unlike what they do in Exodus 314 as future action ldquoI will be with yourdquo reflecting the imperfect state of the verb here indicative of Gods intended involvement with his people (Compare with other occurrences of the word in Joshua 15 Judges 616 1 Samuel 2317 2 Samuel 714 1534 1618 1 Chronicles 1713 Isaiah 477 and Jeremiah 114 where ehyeh is commonly translated as ldquofuturerdquo action) This brings up the question Why do this in Exodus 312 and the other places but not in verse 14

Charles R Gianotti (Dallas Theological Seminary) points out this very thing ldquoSignificantlymost interpreters translate ייי( ה ה( ה איא [ehyeh] in Exodus 312 as future (ie I will be [ehyeh] with yoursquo) Yet two verses later why should not the same translation sufficerdquo Gianotti adds ldquoThe future in this case can indeed refer to future activity or effectiveness of YHWH It should be observed that even Aquila (AD 130) noted for his lsquoslavishly literal translationrsquo translated the tense as futurerdquo Gianotti says that ldquoin light of the imperfect form ייי( ה ה( ה איא [ehyeh] used in Exodus 314rdquo translating ייי( ה ה( ה איא [ ehyeh ] as most English versions do assuming a present tense meaning is ldquo unjustifiedrdquo (ldquoThe Meaning of the Divine Name YHWHrdquo Bibliotheca Sacra 142 January-March 1985) Reflecting a similar understanding the NWT 1984 Reference Edition adds the following footnote ldquoThe reference here is not to Gods self-existence but to what he has in mind to become toward othersrdquo

The Septuagint reading ldquoI am The Beingrdquo at Exodus 314 does not represent the best translation possible from the Hebrew It is odd indeed that many Bible translators choose to follow the Greek Septuagint in verse 14 rather than the original Hebrew Text Trinitarian advocate James R White PhD (from Alpha amp Omega Ministries) noted ldquoIt is true that many go directly to Exodus 314 for the background but it is felt that unless one first establishes the connection with the direct quotation of ego eimi in the Septuagint the connection with Exodus 314 will be somewhat tenuousrdquo

Could it be then that modern translators want to advance ehyeh as a title or name ldquoI Amrdquo to express self-existence and hence make the connection to the ldquoI Amrdquo of Jesus in John 858 as it appears in traditional versions If so such translators could be guilty of asserting the Trinity doctrine on their readers Although James White sees a connection between John 858 and the ldquoI am [he]rdquo sayings in Isaiah he has this to say of the supposed connection between John 858 and Exodus 314 ldquoIt could fairly be admitted that an immediate and unqualified jump from the ego eimi of John 858 to Exodus 314 is unwiserdquo (ldquoPurpose and Meaning of lsquoEgo Eimirsquo in the Gospel of John In Reference to the Deity of Christrdquo)

Likewise Edwin D Freed Professor Emeritus of Religion Gettysburg College contends that ldquothe meaning of the sentence [at John 858] in the mind of the writer was ldquoBefore

Abraham was I the Christ the Son of God existedrdquo (ldquoWho or what was before Abraham inJohn 858rdquo Journal for the Study of the New Testament 17 1983 52-59) Professor Freed thus sees no connection of Jesus statement in John 858 with that of Jehovah (Yahweh) at Exodus 314 But what about the ldquoI amrdquo sayings appearing in the books of Isaiah and John Are they not connected somehow

Is rsquoani-hursquo in Isaiah parallel to egō eimi in John

At times there are biblical statements made where both God and Christ use similar languageThis is not surprising when one considers the role Christ plays in Gods purpose The Bible tells us that Christ is ldquothe image of the invisible God the firstborn of all creationrdquo (NASB) ldquothe radiance of Gods glory and the exact representation of his beingrdquo (Colossians 115 Hebrews 13) ldquoAnd God has put all things under the authority of Christ and he gave him this authority for the benefit of the churchrdquo (Ephesians 122 NLT) Anyone seeking salvation must therefore put faith in lsquothe name which was given by God to mankindrsquo ldquoJesus Christrdquo ldquoto the glory of God the Fatherrdquo ldquoWhoever believes in the Son has eternal life but whoever rejects the Son will not see life for Godrsquos wrath remains on themrdquo (John 336 Philippians 21011) In all God still is in control and just as lsquoChristians belong to Christrsquo ldquoChrist belongs to Godrdquo says the Word (1 Corinthians 113 323 NASB)

In the Old Testament God appears on several occasions using the Hebrew phrase א( הוא נני־ אא (rsquoani-hursquo) which literally means ldquoI ndash herdquo but sometimes translated ldquoI amrdquo or ldquoI am herdquo (Isaiah 414 428 4310 13 464 4812 526) It also appears in Deuteronomy 3239 David a human also used that expression in 1 Chronicles 2117 (Hebrew הוא )ה נני־ אא (ani-huacute- ldquoI am herdquo) Septuagint ἐγώ εἰμι (ldquoegō eimirdquo) Although many argue that there is a connection between Christs statements in the NT and those of God in the OT there is no certainty of those interpretations Even if there was some connection in the ldquoI amrdquo statements would that prove that the identity of the speaker is the same in each case Not really

In the Bible when God made some men powerful and blessed them with his spirit in a sensethey became like ldquoa godrdquo since they ldquorepresentedrdquo God (Exodus 71 Psalms 8216 John 1033-36) Having others referred to in similar language to that of God is no conclusive proofof ldquoequalityrdquo with God An example of this can be seen when a ldquomanrdquo (perhaps Solomon) became ldquokingrdquo of Israel was addressed literally in divine terms ldquoYour throne God forever and everrdquo (Psalm 456) Obviously this human king was not the One True God Not surprisingly some Bible translators work around this literal reading and make it read where it says something like ldquoYour throne is like Gods thronerdquo (Jewish Publication Society) OrldquoYour divine throne endures for ever and everrdquo (Revised Standard Version) Or ldquoYour throne is from Godrdquo (New Jerusalem Bible) Or ldquoGod has enthroned you for all eternityrdquo (Revised English Bible)

Even when translators render the passage literally they explain it in such a way that makes it clear that Solomon was not God For instance the NIV of 2011 has this footnote ldquoHere the king is addressed as Godrsquos representativerdquo Nonetheless when such reference is made of

Jesus Christ (as in Hebrews 18) the same translators may now insist those similar words areldquoproofrdquo of Christs ldquodeityrdquo A good example of this is found in the NET Bibles footnotes Although Jesus accepted being ldquoone greater than Solomonrdquo he never claimed to be God the Father (Matthew 1242) Significantly to Jesus ldquoGodrdquo was someone else

In the Bible is not rare to read frequent references and comparisons of faithful men with Jesus Christ ndash Abraham Jacob Moses David Solomon Jonas and John the Baptist (John 853 412 Deuteronomy 1815 Hebrews 33 Psalm 1101 Matthew 927 2245 124142 Mark 17 Luke 117 72628) Whats more Jesus is compared to ldquoangelsrdquo (Hebrews 14513) Should we take this to mean that men and angels are somehow identical to Jesus Christ True some of these references show that Jesus Christ is above them But we should take the superiority of Christ over them in the same way that we rightly accept Jesus own words indicative of his relative position to the Father ldquoThe Father is greater than Irdquo (John 1428 2031)

Accordingly the ldquoI amrdquo or ldquoI am herdquo expressions pronounced by God and Jesus Christ found in both the Old and New Testaments must be understood within their proper context From the beginning of mans history God provided a way for mankinds deliverance Jesus was prophetically the center of this magnificent expectation For eons of time mankind waited for the One (Messiah) who would deliver them from bondage Nevertheless when hedid appear on the earthly scene most people ignored and rejected the real Messiah because they were expecting politically speaking a quick deliverance from the Roman yoke

However God had something else in mind ndash deliverance was still ahead It was now the time to call attention to the fact that Christ their (future) ldquosaviorrdquo was in their midst Jesus did his part by words and by action (miracles etc) He called attention to who he really was ldquothe Son of Godrdquo and told others that he was ldquothe Christrdquo (or the ldquoMessiahrdquo) (John 42526 Matthew 1615-17 2663-68) Related to the subject one expression Jesus used on various occasions was this one ldquoI amrdquo or ldquoI am herdquo words understood by those brought up in trinitarian doctrine to attest Jesus equality with God (John 426 620 824 28 858 1319 185-6 8) However the phrase was sometimes used as a simple self-identification like ldquoIt is Irdquo or ldquoI am Jesusrdquo At other times when questioned by doubters Jesus used it to get the point across that lsquohe was the one [and not someone else]rsquo the promised ldquoSaviorrdquo ldquothe Son of manrdquo ldquothe Son of Godrdquo ldquothe Messiahrdquo

At no time did Jesus ever claim he was a ldquoGod-manrdquo or ldquoGod in the fleshrdquo (John 316) Those thoughts are foreign to Scripture Remember that Scripture teaches that lsquoGod was with Jesusrsquo just as we are told that lsquoGod was with Josephrsquo son of Jacob Scripture does not say that Jesus was God made flesh It was lsquothe Wordrsquo the Son of God who was with God in the beginning the One who lsquobecame fleshrsquo not God (Acts 79 1038 John 11 114) Christendom has distorted Scripture to the point that ldquoChristianrdquo followers cannot determine this plain truth A misunderstanding of John 11 and 1 Timothy 316 has greatly contributed to this error Further below you will find links where those verses are considered in detail

It was through Jesus death that God reconciled sinful people to himself Hence the ldquoI amrdquo

or ldquoI am herdquo sayings of Jesus need not be directly linked to those uttered by God before the time of Christ Jesus was sent by God on a saving mission as a representative of God With good reason he declared unambiguously that ldquoherdquo was (and not some other) ldquoGods Sonrdquo the promised ldquoMessiahrdquo The Jesus sayings ldquoI amrdquo or ldquoI am herdquo in some cases would confirm at most that ldquothere is no other name under heaven that has been given to men in which we must be savedrdquo (Acts 4 12) It was lsquoGod who resurrected Jesus from among the deadrsquo and it was God who lsquogave mankind the namersquo that saves people (Acts 410)

Thus the ldquoI amrdquo sayings of the New Testament were certainly pronounced in a different setting than those in the Old Testament Not to be overlooked the One using the ldquoI amrdquo or ldquoI am herdquo expressions in the OT is described unequivocally as lsquoAlmighty Godrsquo lsquothe only True Godrsquo with maximum ldquopowerrdquo and ldquoauthorityrdquo to send a ldquosubordinaterdquo to an extraordinary mission (Daniel 714 John 1316 537) The glorified Christ is never described in the same way as God was in Old Testament times as he always appears throughout the NT subordinated to God Still Christ is ldquothe wayrdquo to the Father and salvation (John 146) We are therefore commanded to recognize his lsquoGod-given authorityrsquo so ldquothat all may honor the Son just as they honor the Fatherrdquo (Matthew 2818 John 2031 523) Jesus is then the ldquomediatorrdquo between God and mankind (1 Timothy 25) A grand privilege that is

What does the context of John 858 indicate

Some Bible readers see Jesus in the context of John chapter 8 not only saying in idiomatic fashion that he lsquowas [already] alive before Abraham was born (SEB)rsquo and still lsquoisrsquo but also that he was identifying himself as ldquothe Son of Manrdquo ldquothe Messiahrdquo This is a reasonable assumption as well One of the Jews questions was ldquoWho do you think you arerdquo (John 853) In John 824 28 1319 Matthew 2754 and Mark 1460-64 the function or position ofChrist as the ldquoSon of Godrdquo ldquoSon of Manrdquo and ldquothe Christrdquo all come through

The statement (or question) Jews made to Jesus prior to verse 58 was ldquoYou are not yet fifty years old and you have seen Abrahamrdquo Logically Jesus answered the question of his age of his long existence and additionally was perhaps asserting his ldquomessiahshiprdquo as well in harmony with the question Jews had posed earlier in verse 53 This may be one reason a fewtranslators render or note John 858 not as ldquoI amrdquo but rather ldquoI am herdquo some to suggest Christ is God while others do so emphasizing his messianic role The second interpretation fits better with Scripture In the list of alternate readings of John 858 below you will find that rendering as well However the key issue in this text is Jesus existence from past to present Unlike other verses in John (82428) where ldquoeimirdquo is used (in the sense of ldquoI am herdquo ie ldquothe Son of Godrdquo ldquothe Messiahrdquo) in verse 58 the matter of ldquoidentityrdquo is secondaryto the key issue of his existence In the sum of things it should be noted that ldquoindefiniterdquo existence is not equal to ldquoeternalrdquo existence

Within the context of chapter eight (8) of John Jesus makes statements which mark clear differences with his Father God When reading over the next few paragraphs keep in mind that the Bible condemns two-faced personalities and speaking out with a forked tongue

Jesus himself spoke out against hypocrisy so he only spoke ldquotruthrdquo

In John 826 Jesus told the Jews that he was ldquosentrdquo by his Father and that lsquohe speaks the things that he hears from the one who sent himrsquo That lsquohe does nothing on his own initiativersquo (NASB) That lsquohe isrsquo ldquothe Son of Manrdquo and lsquospeaks just what the Father taught himrsquo (V 28)

Jesus stated a simple but significant truth ldquoNo servant is greater than his master nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent himrdquo (John 1316) With this principle in mind here are some questions to ponder about How could Jesus be ldquosentrdquo if he himself was ldquoGodrdquo Why was Jesus lsquonot able to do anything on his own initiativersquo if he was ldquoall-mightyrdquo In verse 29 Jesus says that lsquothe One who sent him has not left him alone and that he always did what pleased the Fatherrsquo Why would Jesus Christ say at all lsquoI always do what pleases him who sent mersquo If Jesus was ldquoGodrdquo why would he find it important enoughto mention whether he was left ldquoalonerdquo or not Does God need ldquocompanionshiprdquo as humans do Why would anybody have to ldquoteachrdquo Jesus anything if he was all-knowingrdquo

Also Jesus applied the title ldquoSon of Manrdquo to himself numerous times a term which Jews considered a title of the promised ldquoMessiahrdquo not of ldquoGodrdquo In addition the Bible book of Numbers 2319 tells us that ldquoGod is not a man that he should lie ldquonor a son of man that he should change his mindrdquo Nonetheless Christ precisely adopted this very same expression (ldquoSon of Manrdquo) before others with no regrets Furthermore did God have to become ldquoa manrdquo to save humankind when the Bible explicitly says that lsquoGod sent his only-begotten Sonrsquoto save the worldrsquo (John 316 NASB 1 John 414) Who is distorting the full picture here

In verse 40 John reports that the Jews lsquowere determined to kill Jesus because they didnt want to accept the word and truth that Jesus as a man [Greek anthropon] spoke having it received from Godrsquo How could Christ speak of himself as lsquoa man receiving truth from Godrsquowhen seconds later according to Trinitarians he would be using a ldquotitlerdquo claiming to be ldquoGodrdquo in effect contradicting everything he had been saying until then None of these statements would make sense if Jesus himself was the Supreme God as many believe

What would Jesus gain by claiming before the world that he lsquocould not do anything on his own initiativersquo that lsquohe always did what pleased the Fatherrsquo and that he only spoke just what the Father who sent him lsquotaughtrsquo him And shortly afterwards change his message altogether and claim as we are asked to believe that Christ was the ldquoGodrdquo of the Old Testament by the sole act of pronouncing the ldquoI amrdquo divine ldquotitlerdquo Does this lsquodouble personalityrsquo approach make any sense to a Christian who is taught to only believe ldquothere is but one God the Fatherrdquo (John 530 1 Corinthians 86) No wonder there are a good number of Bible translators including Trinitarians who disagree with the traditional view of John 858

Does the Jews reaction in John 859 prove Jesus Christ had claimed to be ldquoGodrdquo

Shortly before his death Jesus was taken before the Sanhedrin the high court of the Jews to

face false charges by people who wanted him dead Please take note of the charges brought up in Marks account (1460-64) which says

60 Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus ldquoAre you not going to answer What is this testimony that these men are bringing against yourdquo 61 But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer Again the high priest asked him ldquoAre you the Messiah the Son of the Blessed Onerdquo 62 ldquoI amrdquo said Jesus ldquoAnd you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heavenrdquo 63 The high priest tore his clothes ldquoWhy do we need any more witnessesrdquo he asked 64 ldquoYou have heard the blasphemy What do you thinkrdquo They all condemned him as worthy of death

In view of the events of Mark 1460-64 and considering the context of John chapter 8 it is clear that the Jews rejected Jesus claim of him being ldquothe Messiahrdquo and of being lsquogreaterrsquo than Abraham They were also rejecting the idea that he was ldquofrom aboverdquo ldquothe Son of Mansitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heavenrdquo of the heavenly vision (John 823) In their view that was enough to charge him with blasphemy since they could not imagine any ldquomanrdquo making such claims

C K Barrett rightly noted that the Jews reaction in verse 59 ldquodoes not mean that Jesus had claimed to be Godrdquo (The Gospel According to St John 2d ed Philadelphia Westminster Press 1978 352) And Professor Emeritus William Loader noted ldquoThe text need mean no more than I am and was in existence before Abraham still a majestic unique claim but not anallusion to the divine namerdquo (The Christology of the Fourth Gospel Structures and Issues Revised 2d ed New York Lang 1992 48)

Even before Jesus spoke the ldquoegō eimirdquo words in John 858 the Jews had already sought to kill Jesus (John 719 837) And for what ldquocrimerdquo This lsquoJesus claimed the truth he taughtcame from Godrsquo (John 716 840) This is vastly different from lsquoJesus alledgedly claiming a divine title equating him with God at John 858rsquo Since then all sorts of religious leaders have claimed as well that ldquowhat they teach others comes from Godrdquo and not from them Does that make them ldquoequalrdquo to God

Because Jesus often lsquocalled God his Fatherrsquo the Jews wrongly concluded that he was ldquomaking himself equal to Godrdquo (John 51819) However Jesus quickly set the matter straight when he called himself Gods ldquoSonrdquo (nine times in chapter 5 alone) an expression never applied to ldquoGodrdquo in Scripture (Matthew 2663-64) The Jews even claimed Jesus was ldquobreaking the Sabbathrdquo and further of being ldquoa Samaritan and demon-possessedrdquo (John 518 848) Were they right Absolutely not Thus wrong perceptions of Jews in Jesus time - like Jesus claiming equality with God - are truly a shaky foundation to base modern interpretations The Jerusalem Bible has this to say ldquoThe claim of Jesus to live on the divine plane (v 58) is for the Jews blasphemy for which the penalty is stoning Lv 2416rdquo I see the JB accepting the claim that Jesus possessed some mode of ldquodivine existencerdquo (as suggested by the Spanish edition of JB ldquoBiblia de Jerusaleacutenrdquo) but avoiding a direct reference of Christ

claiming to be God or that he was claiming ldquoeternalrdquo existence in the verse And former Professor Kenneth L McKay said ldquoThe claim to have been in existence for so long is in itself a staggering one quite enough to provoke the crowds violent reaction [in v59]rdquo (ldquo lsquoI amrsquo in Johns Gospelrdquo p 302) Hence those who claim the charge of blasphemy involved Jesus claim of being ldquoGodrdquo are wrong for Jesus never claimed to be ldquoThe Supreme Beingrdquo but only ldquoGods Sonrdquo (John 31718)

Weeks later after the incident of John chapter 8 but related to the topic of discussion in John 1030-36 we read that the Jews misunderstood Jesus words ldquoI and the father are onerdquo (John 10 30) So they wanted to stone him for it but Jesus told them

33 ldquoWe are not stoning you for any good workrdquo they replied ldquobut for blasphemy because you a mere man claim to be Godrdquo 34 Jesus answered them ldquoIs it not written in your Law lsquoI have said you are ldquogodsrdquorsquo [Psalm 826] 35 If he called them lsquogodsrsquo to whom the word of God camemdashand Scripture cannot be set asidemdash 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said lsquoI am Godrsquos Sonrsquo ( Other versions translate the Greek word here for ldquoGodrdquo without the article either as ldquogodrdquo or ldquoa godrdquo Besson Torrey NWT Mace Luther 1545 Diaglott Tomanek Andy Gaus New English Bible)

Notice that Jesus Christ under duress had another golden opportunity to once and for all disclose publicly that he was ldquoGodrdquo But he did not do so The argument itself that Jesus employed shows that he could legitimately claim lsquodivine originrsquo without being identified as one-and-the-same God with his Father

Less than a year later AFTER the encounter with the Jews of John chapter 8 and before his death Jesus told his closest disciples in his farewell speech that they lsquoshould rejoice he was going away to the Father because the Father was greater than he wasrsquo (John 1428) And in his final prayer in proximity with his disciples he prayed to God that lsquothey may know his Father the only true God and Jesus Christ whom he has sentrsquo (John 173 ) God never needs to pray to anyone Shortly after Jesus died and was resurrected by God but before returning to his Father Jesus said to Mary Magdalene ldquoDo not hold on to me for I have notyet ascended to the Father Go instead to my brothers and tell them lsquoI am ascending to my Father and your Father to my God and your Godrsquo rdquo (John 2017)

Does it make sense to have Jesus claim equality with God by employing a divine title (ldquoI Amrdquo) before unbelieving Jews as Trinitarians claim and then have Jesus later assure his closest and faithful ones that lsquohis Father and his Godrsquo was also lsquothe Father and God of everyone elsersquo In fact Jesus disciples were clearly in a privileged position in regards to Christian teaching Jesus Christ had previously said to his disciples that he would explain lsquoall thingsrsquo to them privately whereas to others he would only speak in lsquoparablesrsquo or lsquocomparisonsrsquo (Matthew 1311 Mark 411 33 34) An explicit lsquodivine titlersquo directed at lsquounbelievingrsquo Jews is certainly no parable and would run counter to his own stated principles

Anyways Jesus Christ wanted other Christian followers to understand the special

relationship he had with the Father ldquoBut go to my followers and tell them this lsquoI am going back to my Father and your Father I am going back to my God and your Godrsquo rdquo (Easy to Read Version) This simple message is so different from the convoluted one commonly expounded by Trinitarians in their philosophical speculations

Between the time of the encounter between the Jews and Jesus in John ch 8 and the farewelldiscourse of our Lord Jesus Christ of later (chapters 14-17) not once did Jesus say he was ldquoGodrdquo Christ never spoke with a forked tongue Therefore Bible translators who do not claim Jesus was using a divine title at John 858 and provide renderings agreeing with the words of John 173 and 2017 are in the correct

Scriptures with similar syntax to John 858

Thus when faced with certain idiomatic expressions as the one found in John 858 the translator often has to ask himself How would someone normally express such statements in our language I will cite six (6) Scriptural examples that are similar in syntax to John 858 Genesis 3138 LXX 1 John 38 Luke 248 John 56 2 Corinthians 1219 and John 1527 All six Scriptures have present tense verbs AND an expression of past time or extent of time with past implications within its structure Lets see how these Scriptures compare with John 858 in our discussion

1st Example (Genesis 3138 LXX) ταῦτά μοι εἴκοσι ἔτη ἐγώ εἰμι μετὰ σοῦ - Greek These mine twenty years I am with you

Jacob after leaving Haran disputes with his father-in-law Laban over missing personal idols which Laban claimed were stolen by Jacob Jacob had no idea Rachel had stolen them In defense Jacob proceeded to mention several things he had done through the years on Labansbehalf ldquoThese twenty years I am with yourdquo (The Apostolic Bible Polyglot LXX 2006)ldquoThese twenty years of mine I was with yourdquo (A New English Translation of the Septuagint ldquoNETSrdquo 2007)ldquoThese twenty years have I been with theerdquo (The Holy Orthodox Bible LXX 2006)ldquoThese twenty years I have been with yourdquo (The Orthodox Study Bible LXX 2008)ldquoThese twenty years of mine have I been with theerdquo (Orthodox England LXX 2009)ldquoI have spent with you twenty of my years [Jai passeacute avec toi vingt de mes anneacutees]rdquo (La Septante [LXX] translated by Pierre Giguet)ldquoThese twenty years have I been with theerdquo (Sir Lancelot CL Brenton LXX)ldquoThese twenty years that I have been with theerdquo (Charles Thomson LXX)

Aside from the interlinear reading of the literal Apostolic Bible Polyglot other translators of the Septuagint (LXX) render a present indicative verb ldquoegō eimirdquo (I am) preceded by an expression of time with past implications (ldquoThese twenty yearsrdquo) with present perfect

indicative forms (ldquoI have beenrdquo) while one translation (NETS) uses a simple past form (ldquoI wasrdquo) A modern Greek translation Η Αγία ΓραφήmdashΜετάφραση Νέου Κόσμου has ldquoήμουνrdquo (Literally ldquoI wasrdquo) in this text A likely reason for that as a modern Greek Grammar pointsout is that for the verb lsquoto be (είμαι)rsquo ldquoThere are only two sets of tense forms in Greek present and past (imperfect)rdquo (op cit An Essential Grammar p 126 Sec 67) Hence they could not have used here a perfect tense form for the verb lsquoto be (eimai)rsquo But in English the Bible Society responsible for the Greek and English translations of the Hebrew portion of the Bible used instead ldquoI have beenrdquo at Genesis 3138 in the English edition because a present perfect is available in the language for the verb

Another interesting tidbit is the fact that the original Hebrew text here lacks a verb in the declaration namely ldquoThis twenty year I with-yourdquo (The Hebrew-English Interlinear ESV Old Testament Crossway) Well how do translators deal with this issue Overall like this with the perfect indicative ldquoI have been with you for twenty years nowrdquo A few versions use the imperfect instead lsquoI wasrsquo such as the Wycliffe Bible and the Lexham English Bible Rarely do translations use a ldquopresentrdquo here the exceptions being Youngs and Concordant literal translations So why do the overwhelming number of translators prefer tosupply a perfect tense here for the missing verb in the Hebrew Its simple There is a temporal indicator going to the past in the text namely lsquoThese twenty yearsrsquo

Now when the LXX translators proceeded to translate the Hebrew words of Genesis 3138 into Greek they cleverly used a well known vivid idiom available in classical Greek where a verb in the present tense is combined with an indicator of past time In this syntax the ldquopast and present are gathered up in a single affirmationrdquo (op cit Brooks amp Winbery) Modern English translators usually resort to the present perfect in this construction as shown aboveSo too John 858 reveals an expression of past time with a present verb in its statement and the NWT is one translation that is consistent with this construction both in Genesis 3138 and John 858

For the following I will use the Wescott and Hort Greek text for reference

2nd Example (1 John 38)

ὅτι ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς ὁ διάβολος ἁμαρτάνει - Greek because from beginning the devil is sinning

The apostle John warns Christians not to carry on sin for those who make a practice of sin originate from the Devil who has sinned from the beginning For this purpose the Son of God was revealed that he might undo the works of the Devil The text above contains an expression of past time (ldquofrom beginningrdquo) with a present verb (is sinning) very much likeJohn 858 How do translators deal with this passage Lets see

ldquofor the devil sinneth from the beginningrdquo (Rheims New Testament)ldquofor the devil sinneth from the beginningrdquo (KJV)

ldquofor the devil has sinned from the beginningrdquo (New King James Version)ldquofor the devil has sinned from the beginningrdquo (NASB)ldquobecause the devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (Interlinear Mounce)ldquofor the Devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (Riverside NT Ballantine)ldquobecause the devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (NIV)ldquobecause the devil has sinned from the beginningrdquo (NAB)ldquosince the devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (Jay E Adams)ldquowho has been sinning since the beginningrdquo (NLT)ldquofor the devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (NRSV)ldquosince the devil has been a sinner from the beginningrdquo (NJB)ldquobecause the devil has been sinning from the very beginningrdquo (J G Anderson)ldquofor the devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (ESV)

ldquothe devil was a sinner from the firstrdquo (Ronald A Knox New Testament)

Some translations transfer the Greek present to their English versions as if the English and Greek ldquopresentrdquo in such construction were the same thing It is not The end result is ungrammatical English Would you say in contemporary English ldquoFrom the beginning of class the boy sleepsrdquo Not Doctor Richard A Young points out ldquoTo say that the devil is sinning from the beginning does not make sense in English English translations therefore employ the present perfectrdquo (Intermediate New Testament Greek page 111)

The renderings above ldquohas sinnedrdquo and ldquohas been sinningrdquo are present perfect and present perfect progressive indicative forms The word ldquowasrdquo is a simple past tense Just as in 1 John 38 some translators in John 858 have rendered a present tense with an expression of past time in its construction with a present perfect ldquoI have beenrdquo

3rd Example (2 Corinthians 1219)

Πάλαι δοκεῖτε ὅτι ὑμῖν ἀπολογούμεθα ndash Greek Long ago you are thinking that to you we are making defense

Paul finds himself having to defend his apostolic authority and vindicating his record as superior in hardship endured for Christ and loving concern for congregations In simpler words Paul was telling them ldquoAll this time have you been thinking that Ive been speaking up for myself No Ive been speaking with God as my witness Ive been speaking like a believer in Christ Dear friends everything I do is to help you become strongerrdquo (NIRV)

In the literal reading above we have an adverb of time with past implications (Palai) followed by two Greek verb forms (ldquodokeiterdquo amp ldquoapologoumethardquo) in the present indicativetense The book Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek Verb by William Watson Goodwin explains ldquoThe Present is often used with expressions denoting past time especially πάλαι [palai] in the sense of a perfect and a present combinedrdquo (Section 26 p 9) How do translators render these in English Some carry over the present tense into the English text producing unconventional English Others cognizant of issues presented here

do a better job at it See below for a sample

ldquoHave you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves before yourdquo (The Comprehensive New Testament 2008)ldquoI hope you donacutet think that all along weacuteve been making our defense before yourdquo (The Message Eugene H Peterson)ldquoHave you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves to yourdquo (NIV)ldquoIt may seem to you that all this time we have been attempting to put ourselves in the rightrdquo (Bible in Basic English)ldquoAll this time you have been thinking that we have been pleading our own cause before yourdquo (NJB)ldquoHave you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves to yourdquo (CEV)ldquoHave you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves before yourdquo (Revised Standard Version) ldquoPerhaps you think that all along we have been trying to defend ourselves before yourdquo (TEV)ldquoHave you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves to yourdquo (ESV)ldquoYou have thought all along that we were defending ourselves to yourdquo (HCSB)ldquoHave you been thinking all this time that we have been defending ourselves to yourdquo (NET Bible)

ldquoYou have been thinking all along that it was to you we were making our defenserdquo (The Bible in Living English Steven T Byington)

The above translations use present perfect (and perfect progressive) forms or past progressives to bring out the proper sense of the original into our language Can anyone rightfully claim that it is improper for these Bible versions to translate this text as they have done in English

4th Example (Luke 248 Wescott and HortNestle early editions Greek text)

ὁ πατήρ σου καὶ ἐγὼ ὀδυνώμενοι ζητοῦμέν σε - Greek The father of you and I being pained we are seeking you Here the context (vv 42-48) speaks of Jesus (12 years old) being left behind unwittingly in Jerusalem by his parents they went back searching in distress for three days before finding him When they finally found him they spoke the words above

ldquoYour father and I have been looking for you anxiouslyrdquo (Revised Standard Version)ldquoYour father and I in agony of mind have been searching for yourdquo (Williams NT)ldquoYour father and I have been anxiously looking for Yourdquo (NASB 1971)ldquoYour father and I have been searching for you in great distressrdquo (Riverside NT)

ldquoHere have your father and I been searching anxiously for yourdquo (Hugh J Schonfield)ldquoYour father and I have been looking for you have been very anxious rdquo (Goodspeed)ldquoYour father and I have been looking for you We have been very troubledrdquo (Bible in Worldwide English)ldquoYour father and I have been looking for you in distressrdquo (Richmond Lattimore)ldquoYour father and I have been searching for you in great distressrdquo (Twentieth Century NT) ldquoThy father and I have sought thee distressedrdquo (Darby Bible Translation)

ldquoThy father and I sought thee sorrowingrdquo (American Standard Version)

ldquoThy father and I in anguish were seeking theerdquo (The Emphasized Bible 3rd edit based on Wescott and Hort by Joseph B Rotherham)ldquoThy father and I were seeking thee sorrowfulrdquo (W B Godbey N T 1902)ldquoThy father and I were seeking Thee sorrowingrdquo (A S Worrell N T 1904)ldquoYour father and I were anxiously looking for yourdquo (World English Bible)

The words ldquowe are seeking yourdquo are in the present indicative tense however since an expression of time is used indicating action going on for days (ldquoafter three daysrdquo v 46) translators find it necessary to use either the present perfect (ldquohave beenrdquo ldquohave soughtrdquo) or simple past (ldquosoughtrdquo) or past progressive (ldquowere seekingrdquo) indicative forms to express in English what the Greek says in the ldquopresentrdquo Various Greek texts have instead of the ldquopresentrdquo found in the Westcott amp Hort Text above an ldquoimperfectrdquo verb form Both forms are frequently rendered with an English present ldquoperfectrdquo Compare with Youngs Literal Translation which also uses a past progressive indicative form ldquowere seekingrdquo and the Spanish Reina-Valera Revisada which rendered an imperfect verb form appearing in the Received Text with a present perfect indicative (ldquohemos buscadordquo) Is this another reason why many translators have rendered the Greek present ldquoegō eimirdquo preceded by an adverbial modifier in its clause at John 858 with perfective or past forms in English

5th Example (Juan 56)

καὶ γνοὺς ὅτι πολὺν ἤδη χρόνον ἔχει - Greek and having known that much already time he is having

This is an account of an invalid man who for 38 years had been sick and was now being cured by Jesus The Greek in this clause does not make his illness clear however the context does Take note of the expression of time used with past implications mixed with a present indicative verb ldquohe is havingrdquo For this to make any sense in our language it has to be modified When Jesus saw this sick man lying there

ldquoand knew that he had been now a long time in that caserdquo (KJV italics theirs) ldquoand knowing that he had been ill a long timerdquo (Revised English Bible)ldquoand knew he had been in that condition for a long timerdquo (NJB)ldquoand knew that he had been sick for a long timerdquo (World English Bible)ldquoand knew that he had been sick for a long timerdquo (Godacutes Word)

ldquoand knew how long he had been illrdquo (Living Bible)ldquoand knew he had already been there a long timerdquo (HCSB)ldquoand he knew that the man had been sick for such a long timerdquo (TEV)ldquoand knew that he had been in this state a long timerdquo (Confraternity Version)ldquoand finding that he had had a long time of itrdquo (S T Byington) ldquoand knew that he had been sick for a long timerdquo (Jay E Adams)ldquoand he knew that he had been waiting for a long timerdquo (George M Lamsa Peshitta) ldquoand knew that he had been now a long timerdquo (Rheims New Testament)

ldquoand knowing that he was [in that state] now a great length of timerdquo (J N Darby Translation Brackets his)

Once again we see translators having to use mostly perfective forms (ldquohad beenrdquo ldquohad hadrdquopast perfects) and one with a simple past ldquowasrdquo even though they are translating a present tense verb ldquohe is havingrdquo This shows that translators adapt their renderings whenever is necessary to convey the right meaning into the target language It is thus possible to render ldquoeimirdquo at John 858 with a form other than a present tense such as a present perfect Those who say that it can not be done or should not be done just need to look again at the evidenceobjectively

6th Example (John 1527 Wescott amp Hort)

ὅτι ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς μετʼ ἐμοῦ ἐστέ ndash Greek that from beginning with me you are

These words spoken by Jesus evidently refers to the beginning of his ministry when he chosehis closest disciples They were eyewitnesses of all the things God did through Christ duringhis ministry (Acts 121)

ldquobecause ye have been with me from the beginningrdquo (KJV) ldquobecause you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (NAB)ldquofor you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (Christian Community Bible)ldquobecause you are the men who have been with me from the very beginningrdquo (Heinz Wldquobecause you have been with me from the firstrdquo (New English Bible) [ Cassirer)ldquobecause you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (Godacutes Word Translation) ldquofor you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (NIV)ldquobecause you have been with me from the firstrdquo (Weymouth New Testament)ldquobecause you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (NRSV)ldquoyou that have been with me from the beginningrdquo (The Four Gospels EV Rieu)ldquobecause youacuteve been with Me from the beginning of My ministryrdquo (The Clear Word)ldquofor you have been with me from the firstrdquo (J B Phillips Modern English)ldquobecause you have been with Me from the beginningrdquo (HCSB) ldquothat you were with me from the startrdquo (21st Century New Testament)ldquofor you were with Me from the beginningrdquo (New Berkeley Version Revised Edition)

ldquobecause you were with me from the beginningrdquo (Mark Heber Miller)ldquobecause you were with me from the very beginningrdquo (SEB)

This scripture with the plural form of ldquoeimirdquo (este) is very similar to John 858 Again within its structure there is an expression of past time and a verb in the present indicative form (este) just as there is in John 858 A Grammar of New Testament Greek says ldquoThe reader may be reminded of one idiom which comes out of the linear idea the use of words like πάλαι [palai ldquolong agordquo] with the present in a sense best expressed by our perfect Thus in 2 Co 1219 lsquohave you been thinking all this timersquo or Jn 1527 lsquoyou have been with me from the beginning [ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς]rsquo hellip The durative present in such cases gathers up past and present time into one phraserdquo (A Grammar of New Testament Greek Vol 1 Prolegomena by JH Moulton p 119) As previously noted this Grammar specifically refers to John 858 as an example of this idiom

And here in John 1527 there is a connection of Jesus disciples [creatures as they are] that ldquowererdquo with him ldquofrom the beginningrdquo Obviously Jesus was making no reference to his disciples sharing ldquoeternityrdquo with him The disciples all had a beginning The logical conclusion is that Jesus was simply saying to them lsquoYou have been with me from the start of my ministryrsquo Hence there is no need to read ldquoeternityrdquo into the expression ldquoI amrdquo anymore that we should read ldquoeternityrdquo from Jesus words at John 1527 lsquoYou are with me from the beginningrsquo Neither grammar nor the context justifies reading more into these Scriptures than what they actually say

In fact the six (6) instances cited above (Genesis 3138 LXX 1 John 38 2 Cor 1219 Luke 248 John 56 John 1527) and John 858 as well all have an expression of past time or an extent of time with past implications (ldquoThese twenty yearsrdquo ldquoLong agordquo ldquoafter three daysrdquo Lk 246 ldquomuch already timerdquo ldquofrom [the] beginningrdquo ldquoBeforerdquo etc) AND present verbs in their sentences or nearby within the context and are commonly rendered with present perfect (some with past perfects) or simple past (or past progressive) forms in English translations If we apply this pattern to the translation of John 858 it would mean that renderings such as ldquoI have beenrdquo (present perfect) and ldquoI wasrdquo (simple past) are not only acceptable in translation but actually more ldquosuitablerdquo in application Can this really be done Not only can it be done it makes for a ldquobetterrdquo English translation

In regards to Jesus John 858 simply tells us that Jesus lsquowas alive before Abraham was bornrsquo (SEB) and that his existence continued up to the moment of his speaking to them Just as it is not proper English to say ldquoFor three days we are seeking yourdquo (Greek literal reading of Luke 248) or ldquobecause from the beginning with me you arerdquo (John 1527) it is no less proper English to say in John 858 ldquoBefore Abraham was born I amrdquo These readings should only appear in extremely literal interlinear translations which basically render the Greek word-by-word and not in standard idiomatic English translations Let me illustrate If a man advanced in age for example had his work history and experience questioned by co-workers in comparison to his younger son and employee Abe would he say in reply ldquoBefore my son Abe was born I am [the one fit for the job]rdquo No that does not sound right In English he could say it in various ways

ldquoI have been an experienced worker since before my son Abe was bornrdquo ldquoI have been what I am since before my son Abe was bornrdquo ldquoI was fit to work and fully active before my son Abe was ever bornrdquo ldquoI was already experienced in many jobs before Abe ever came to berdquo ldquoI have been a master worker way before my son Abe came to liferdquo ldquoBefore Abe was born I already was life and job experiencedrdquo etc

The point is that in English normally we include a present perfect tense whenever there is a reference to the past extending to the present or a past tense of some form whenever we go back in time The same with John 858 There is no justification in English to insist using a present verb form (which is not equal to the Greek present when combined with a past expression) in an unwarranted attempt to convey ldquoeternityrdquo as ldquopaddingrdquo to the Trinity doctrine a doctrine adopted AFTER the Christian era Worse it is disingenuous to accuse other translators (who have chosen to render ldquoegō eimirdquo at John 858 with an English present perfect or past tense) of scholastic dishonesty when the very same translations honored by these detractors do so in other places where the ldquodeityrdquo of Christ is not in play asshown in the samples provided above

An example of this double standard can be seen as well when scholars such as Dr Julius Mantey harshly criticizes the NWT for the rendering ldquoI have beenrdquo at John 858 but keeps quiet when other translators do similarly and even states or pretends that no other reputable translator would ever translate it that way He dared not criticize his former Greek teacher Charles B Williams who produced his own Bible translation Dr Mantey once wrote the following of Dr Williams translation ldquoWilliams translation considering all the factors is the most accurate and illuminating translation in the English languagerdquo And how does this ldquomost accurate translationrdquo render John 858 As follows ldquoI existed before Abraham was bornrdquo Here Dr Williams known for his Greek command used a simple past tense (ldquoI existedrdquo) as translation for the Greek present Julius Mantey certainly did not find Williams version of John 858 a ldquoshocking translationrdquo ldquoI existedrdquo is quite different from the translation Dr Mantey so passionately defended (ldquoI amrdquo)

When Dr Mantey talks about the NWT he says the rendering ldquoI have beenrdquo at John 858 cannot be justified and calls it ldquodishonestrdquo That rule does not apply to Williams translation does it Williams did not translate John 858 in the same way Mantey would have liked (ldquoI amrdquo) Not only that the Grammar itself that Dr Mantey co-authored with Dr Dana A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament states under ldquoThe Progressive Presentrdquo (called ldquoExtension from Pastrdquo by McKay) ldquoSometimes the progressive present is retroactivein its application denoting that which has begun in the past and continues into the present For the want of a better name we may call it the present of duration This use is generally associated with an adverb of time and may best be rendered by the English perfect ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς μετʼ ἐμοῦ ἐστέ Ye have been with me from the beginning Jn 1527 See also Lk137 2 Cor 129 [19]rdquo (Pages 182-83 Emphasis added)

Even though Julius Mantey has stated when referring to the NWT that ldquoI have beenrdquo is not a proper translation and even ldquodishonestrdquo at John 858 he clearly states in his Grammar (of

Scriptures with similar syntax to John 858) ldquoThis use is generally associated with an adverb of time and may best be rendered by the English perfect [such as ldquoI have beenrdquo which in fact is associated with an adverb of time in John 858]rdquo A likely reason for Dana ampManteys strong reluctance for not including John 858 as an example of the idiom discussed on page 183 may have to do with the fact that as ldquotrinitariansrdquo they oppose the idea of Jesus existence having lsquobegunrsquo in the past even though John 858 perfectly fits with the ldquoProgressive Presentrdquo idiom being discussed in their Grammar as acknowledged by other grammarians Hence their objection is truly a ldquotheologicalrdquo one rather than Greek grammaritself arguing in their favor as Mantey and some others have implied since a Greek present or an English perfect does not demand ldquoeternityrdquo at all from the subject

Consequently many religious individuals who focus solely on the basic meaning (of ldquoegō eimirdquo as ldquoI amrdquo) out of the context of the particular ldquoidiomrdquo used at John 858 end up missing the thrust of Jesus words and fall prey to misleading interpretations Doctor Kenneth L McKay taking into account all of these issues comes up with this excellent translation for John 858 ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo (A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek SBG 5 New York Peter Lang 1994 p42) If we objectively consider the material above we will not insist in connecting Jesus at John 858 with the God Jehovah of Exodus 314 (which many attempt to do but cannot be sustained) Instead we will focus on the simple message conveyed by Jesus words at John 858 which is in harmony with the totality of Scripture ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo (McKay) The rendering ldquoI have been in existencerdquo by itself does not rule out either the concept of ldquoeternityrdquo or the ldquocreationrdquo of Jesus Christ A Committee of Bible translators came up with the following translation which may not be the best choice but considering the issues involved is better than the traditional rendering of ldquoI amrdquo ldquoI was alive before Abraham was bornrdquo (The New Testament in Plain English)

(The following scholars are members of the Bible Translation Committee of The New Testament in Plain English which approved this last reading ldquoI was aliverdquo instead of ldquoI amrdquo(Dr Stanley L Morris chairman FW Gingrich Ph D a renown Greek lexicographer Jack P Lewis Ph D CH Accord Th D Clyde M Woods Ph D ST Kan Ph D Gary T Burke Ph D Milo Hadwin D Min)

I submit their names and their credentials here as an example because it is often asserted vigorously that no intelligent or highly qualified scholar would ever produce a translation other than ldquoI amrdquo As noted above and as the list of alternate readings (at the end of this essay) of John 858 shows many done by highly qualified people this is simply not true Usually those making statements of that sort are doing so based on emotional and theological not philological reasons Furthermore by not disclosing other valid viewpoints or by dismissing how other qualified Bible translators deal with this scripture they are undermining their own credibility as well

At this time you are welcome to briefly go over the list of Alternate Readings to John 858 at

the end before moving on to the second part of this essay

_____________________________

Should we ignore the evidence of all those translations listed at the end that differ in John 858 from the traditional versions What then are all these translators seeing at John 858 that moved them to render this text differently They surely must be aware of the resistance they would encounter by translating it by the various forms they used Still they must have had the firm conviction that both the Greek text and the context supports their understanding of this scripture They likely see a Jesus making no identity connection with his Father Godbut rather see a Jesus simply expressing his indefinite existence with no suggestion of eternity in focus Neither is Jesus stating here that he is the God of Old Testament times To understand it that way would be to read into the text more than what it says Taking some clues from the context of the chapter some scholars additionally see Jesus insinuating his ldquomessiahshiprdquo as if saying ldquoI am he [the Messiah]rdquo This is very likely In fact The LivingBible renders John 824 thus ldquoThat is why I said that you will die in your sins for unless you believe that I am the Messiah the Son of God [ἐγώ εἰμι] you will die in your sinsrdquo

Is ldquoegō eimirdquo a title or another name of God

The use of ldquoeimirdquo at John 858 is frequently used as a ldquoproof textrdquo of Jesus deity A noted Trinitarian scholar AT Robertson a Baptist even refers to ldquoegō eimirdquo as ldquothe absolute phrase used of Godrdquo likely indicating the verb conveys ldquotimeless beingrdquo an implication that ldquoeimirdquo here does not require anything else to complete the meaning of the phrase thus conveying ldquoeternal existencerdquo as well as being an actual name for God Some individuals have given plenty of publicity to Robertsons statement as absolute truth But his statement is not ldquotruthrdquo at all It is faulty interpretation which many people have fallen prey to Grammar and theology do not always make the best mix True Robertsons credentials as a scholar are impressive nevertheless credentials does not truth make Besides some other equally bright scholars disagree with him Lets illustrate the folly of those advocating a divine title at John 858 by way of addition (Or substitution if you will) as some suggest

ldquoBefore Abraham was born I am Eternalrdquo ldquoBefore Abraham was born I am Jehovahrdquo ldquoBefore Abraham was born I am eternally Godrdquo

First of all the above hypothetical translations are just as ungrammatical as the simple ldquoI amrdquo reading of most versions An English present tense cannot start before a definite point in the past This can be seen in the following two examples

1 ldquoBefore the US Iraq war I am a soldierrdquo 2 ldquoThree journalists are kidnapped in Nepal since the start of 2007rdquo

What is the correct way to express these statements in English Analyze it for a second and

provide an answer if you will

Notably if ldquoeimirdquo was used to convey eternal existence what is the point of using an expression of past time at all in the clause Moreover the context of previous verses (vv 48-57) clearly indicates that Jesus is speaking of God as a separate entity See below

49 ldquobut I honor my Father and you dishonor merdquo 50 ldquoI am not seeking glory for myself but there is one who seeks it and he is the

judgerdquo54 ldquoIf I glorify myself my glory means nothing My Father whom you claim as your

God is the one who glorifies me 55 ldquoThough you do not know him I know him If I said I did not I would be a liar like you but I do know him and obey his wordrdquo Thus if Jesus meant he himself was the ldquoJehovahrdquo of the Old Testament as Trinitarians claim what would be the rationale behind Jesus directing all distinction and glory to lsquothe Father Godrsquo as a distinct individual as he did in the previous verses and then a few words later abruptly change his argumentation by claiming he is that very same One who lsquoreceives obedience from his own wordrsquo lsquoseeking his own honor and gloryrsquo because he himself is ldquoGodrdquo Confusing is it not To accept this abrupt change of character on Jesus part would be not ldquoa mysteryrdquo but flat out ldquoa deceptionrdquo of big proportions since Jesus himself warned against pretending to be one thing and acting as another (Matthew 62-5 2313-36)

Are we are supposed against all logic to accept these ldquotrinitarianrdquo assumptions instead of a simple alternative which really answers the Jews question about lsquohow could Abraham ldquoseerdquoJesus day if he was not yet 50 years oldrsquo (ldquoI have been in existence since Abraham was bornrdquo)

The obsession with the simple words ldquoI amrdquo have led to many faulty assumptions ldquoI amrdquo issuch a common expression in our language even to this day that words such as ldquoegoismrdquo ldquoegotismrdquo etc (derived from the Greek ldquoegordquo) are considered common words in English dictionaries Everyone uses the phrase ldquoI amrdquo at times Think of any big corporation or powerful organization of your choice for a moment Would you conclude that the two most powerful individuals of this one prestigious organization must be identical in every way solely because they are heard equally saying to others in their common speech ldquoI am thisrdquoor ldquoI am thatrdquo etc

In Bible times humans too used common pronouns The verb eimi (ldquoI amrdquo) itself or forms of it appears more than two thousand times (2000x) in the New Testament alone Additionally the word ldquoegōrdquo appears over seventeen hundred times (1700x) in the NT And those numbers do not include the Septuagint totals Do all occurrences of the word then imply ldquodivinityrdquo in each case Of course not It may be more significant when God or Christ use the expression because of who they are but does it really mean that both God and Christ share the same identity Or that everyone who uses the phrase ldquoI amrdquo does so with divine pretensions Does it really mean that everyone using the phrase are ldquoequalrdquo The

answer is obvious is it not

Lets bear in mind that when God sent Jesus Christ as His representative to a most crucial assignment multiple biblical prophecies were pointing to Christ as the promised Messiah that would free mankind from its moribund condition It is logical then that when the time came for Jesus Christ to show up on earth he would somehow communicate to others that ldquoherdquo and not some other human claiming to be the Messiah was Gods instrument in bringing everlasting relief to human misery Hence he could rightly say any or all of the following ldquoI am (this)rdquo ldquoI am (that)rdquo ldquoI am he [the promised Messiah]rdquo or ldquoI am Gods Sonrdquo Should we expect anything less

The fact is that the words ldquoI amrdquo are not exclusive to God and Christ It should be noted that a man who was born ldquoblindrdquo also used the same expression (John 99) The Greek here says ldquoekeinos elegen hoti Egō eimirdquo (ldquoThat one kept saying that I amrdquo) AT Robertson cites John 99 as one of five parallels to the use of egō eimi in John 858 (Word Pictures in the New Testament Vol V p 159) The phrase here comes at the end of the clause with no explicit predicate James White who upholds the traditional reading admits ldquoThis last instance [John 99] is similar to the sayings as Jesus utters them in that the phrase comes at the end of the clause and looks elsewhere for its predicaterdquo The same could be said of John 1527 Some argue that ldquoeimirdquo in John 858 is ldquoabsoluterdquo but do not do so with John 99 or John 1527 Theology may be a factor in this Previously we saw how Jacob a man according to the Septuagint used the words ldquoegō eimirdquo Other instances in Scripture of creatures using those words would not prove they were part of a ldquoGodheadrdquo Context then ultimately dictates how ldquoeimirdquo should be translated According to John when Jesus was pressed he only claimed to have been alive way before Abraham was born and that he simply was ldquothe Christrdquo ldquothe Son of Manrdquo and ldquothe Son of Godrdquo

There is something else to keep in mind in regards to the meaning of ldquoeimirdquo And it is what grammarian Stanley Porter indicated ldquoSometimes the verb [eimi] is used on its own as a verb of existence Perhaps the best-known example of this is the following John 858rdquo (Fundamentals of New Testament Greek by Stanley E Porter section 753 72) AT Robertson adds ldquoThe verb εἰμί [eimi] hellip Sometimes it does express existence as a predicatelike any other verb as in ἐγὼ εἰμί [egō eimi] (Jo 858) and ἡ θάλασσα οὐκ ἔστιν ἔτι [hē thalassa ouk estin eti = ldquothe sea not is yetrdquo] (Rev 211) Cf Mt 2330rdquo (A Grammar of theGreek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research Nashville Tenn 1934 p 394)

What does this mean The examples mentioned by Robertson in addition to John 858 give us an idea of what this implies It is so strange that the two examples Robertson provided forcomparison with John 858 seems to contradict his ldquotimeless beingrdquo view on ldquoeimirdquo He cited a portion of Revelation 211 where the Greek literally says ldquoAnd the sea not is yetrdquo In other words ldquoThe sea does not exist any morerdquo Amplified Bible ldquoThere no longer existed any seardquo Curiously various versions render the present verb ldquoisrdquo (a form of ldquoeimirdquo) with an imperfect ldquowasrdquo (Cf KJV NIV NAB NRSV) Obviously ldquothe seardquo in this vision is [was] not ldquoeternalrdquo

And in Matthew 2330 the other text provided by Robertson in his comparison with John 858 the Greek word-for-word says ldquoIf we were in the days of the fathers of usrdquo which inmodern English would be ldquoIf we had lived in the days of our forefathersrdquo Other versions ldquoIf we had beenrdquo (Rheims NT) ldquoIf we had been livingrdquo (NASB) ldquoIf we had been existing in the days of our fathersrdquo (Jonathan Mitchell NT) The full NIV text reads ldquoAnd you say lsquoIf we had lived in the days of our ancestors we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophetsrsquo rdquo

It is clear from this comparison that the words of Matthew 2330 ldquoIf we wererdquo (a form of ldquoeimirdquo) in the text is used as an equivalent for ldquoliferdquo or ldquoexistencerdquo In the heavenly vision of Rev 211 lsquothe sea ceased to existrsquo And the generation of people which Jesus spoke about and their ancestors all died ceased to exist If we apply these two examples to John 858 given by Robertson with the meaning either of life or existence for ldquoeimirdquo then it wouldbe equally acceptable to translate ldquoI amrdquo as ldquoI existrdquo or ldquoI liverdquo Many translators reflect this very same understanding as the submitted list of alternate readings of John 858 show ldquoI existrdquo or ldquoI existed even before Abraham was bornrdquo Or ldquoI was alive before Abraham was bornrdquo (The Simple English Bible)

Although some may not see much semantic difference between Jesus saying ldquoI amrdquo or ldquoI existrdquo the two expressions communicate something very different to many readers ldquoI amrdquo is generally associated by Trinitarians as a title used by God or as another name for God Onthe other hand ldquoI existrdquo simply conveys ldquoliferdquo or ldquoexistence Barnabas Lindars points out that ldquoegō eimirdquo in John 858 ldquocannot be regarded as a title because it requires the meaning lsquoI am in existencersquordquo (ldquoThe Son of Man in Johannine Christologyrdquo in Christ and the Spirit in the New Testament In Honour of Charles Francis Digby Moule eds B Lindars and S Smalley Cambridge Cambridge University Press 1973) (Since an English present tense cannot start before a definite point in the past this would mean that we can incorporate Lindars valid observation and translate it into contemporary English like this ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo exactly as Dr McKay proposed)

Some in their eagerness to equate Christ with God accuse translators who render ldquoegō eimirdquo in John 858 with renderings other than ldquoI amrdquo pointing to all occurrences of this expression in the New Testament or in Johns Gospel where allegedly these translators do not follow the same ldquorulerdquo when translating ldquoegō eimirdquo in John 858 as they do elsewhere where they translate it with a present indicative form What they dont tell you or fail to understand is that in John 858 ldquoegō eimirdquo without a predicate AND with an expression of time with past implications in its sentence structure provides an ldquoidiomrdquo which is quite different from those other instances of ldquoeimirdquo Thats right an idiom (where present and past is combined) found equally at home in classical biblical and modern Greek which many translators convey into our language with the English present perfect at various places Consequently one cannot merely go by how the phrase ldquoegō eimirdquo is used elsewhere in the NT without taking into account the fact that John 858 displays an ldquoidiomrdquo in its structure Not doing so would be dishonest John the Baptist had said of Christ in John 130 ldquoA man is coming after me who ranks before me because he existed [Lit was] before merdquo (JB)

John 858 is in harmony with those words Furthermore some attempt to use the reading of Psalm 902 in the Septuagint as ldquoevidencerdquo that John 858 is rendered correctly in the popular versions But a closer analysis of this verse shows notable differences between the two verses making such comparison untenable With good reason a considerable number ofscholars have chosen to break from tradition in their rendering of John 858

If critics of alternate readings of John 858 are not candid enough to admit some of the very issues mentioned here and hide the fact that many scholars do hold a different interpretation and no less academic at that should we consider their diatribes of any worthy import It is ldquowishful thinkingrdquo for someone to believe that John 858 is directly connected to Exodus 314 rather than any real evidence (which is lacking) confirming their eager interpretations Remember even Dr James White a well known Trinitarian advocate admitted ldquothat an immediate and unqualified jump from the ego eimi of John 858 to Exodus 314 is unwiserdquo

Besides a theological tendency can be seen when they focus as some do on undermining the reputation of one Bible translation (NWT) when there are actually numerous versions from different religions dealing with the same controversial Scriptures in a similar manner This is very much like politicians who ignore the failings of their own party but are quick to lsquodemonizersquo their opponents (Matthew 73)

Is the Kingdom Interlinear ldquoproofrdquo the NWT is wrong at John 858

A criticism has been made of a Watchtower Society publication (The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures ldquoKITrdquo) which contains the Greek text and underneath it a word-by-word translation in English and on the right side of the page the modern New World Translation Well at John 858 this publication renders the Greek phrase being discussed here egō eimi word-for-word as ldquoI amrdquo and in the right column the NWT shows the reading ldquoI have beenrdquo This difference have led some to severely criticize the NW translators of ldquoincompetencerdquo ldquoinconsistencyrdquo and even of ldquodishonestyrdquo The critics say something like this ldquoThey have backed themselves into a corner where they cant escape their mishandling of the Greek textrdquo or something of that sort Amazingly these critics in their condemnations hardly ever mention the dozens of translators who translate the same way or similarly to the NWT as the submitted list shows So much for honesty

Those who engage in such tactics are not being forthcoming Why say that Besides dismissing how other translators deal with John 858 they also distort known facts for the WT Society have made it clear that the publication of this Greek Bible is to help the Bible student determine the basic sense of the Greek and have stated that the translation on the right column (the NWT) is a modern way of expressing the thoughts transmitted by the Greek text There are many factors to consider when using such publications

Even other interlinear publications warn of seeming discrepancies For instance The Zondervan Parallel New Testament in Greek and English says in its Foreword ldquo[I]t is a good thing to bear in mind that you cannot always either give an English equivalent for a Greek word or expression or even always render the same Greek verb word by the same

English onerdquo Another interlinear the New Greek-English Interlinear New Testament by Brown and Comfort and edited by J D Douglas explains ldquoIt is difficult to translate one language into another on a word-for-word basis because each language has its own syntax grammatical constructions and idioms that are difficultmdashif not impossiblemdashto replicate literally in another languagerdquo (Emphasis added) This statement is so true of the text in discussion (John 858) in regards to its syntax and particular idiom Often critics of the NWT hide this fact Why Is it religious bias at work

I will give the reader a few examples of an available interlinear translation which has the Greek main text and a literal sublinear translation below the Greek by Professor Paul R McReynolds and on the right column for comparison the reader can study the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) a popular translation in academia Observe how the two can differ

McReynolds Mat 21 ldquomagiciansrdquo NRSV ldquowise menrdquo John 118 ldquoonly born Godrdquo ldquoGod the only Sonrdquo Mat 243 ldquosign of the your presencerdquo ldquothe sign of your comingrdquo Mathew 522 ldquothe gehenna of the firerdquo ldquothe hell of firerdquo John 1319 ldquoI amrdquo ldquoI am herdquo John 149 ldquoI amrdquo ldquoHave I beenrdquo John 1527 ldquoyou arerdquo ldquoyou have beenrdquo 2 Peter 24 ldquobeing sent to Tartarusrdquo ldquobut cast them into hellrdquo Luke 1113 ldquowill give spirit holy tordquo ldquowillgive the Holy Spirit tordquo John 2022 ldquotake spirit holyrdquo ldquoReceive the Holy Spiritrdquo Acts 24 ldquofilled all of spirit holyrdquo ldquofilled with the Holy Spiritrdquo

( Paul R McReynolds is professor of Greek and New Testament at Pacific Christian College in Fullerton California USA He also contributed to the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia)

Some of the readings from the right column above (NRSV) are acceptable others are not See if you can detect in the right column above those translation renderings with a theological tendency that deviate from the literal readings from the left column McReynoldson the left does an excellent job of transmitting the Greek sense Even the most popular Bible versions do not adhere consistently to the base texts The NRSV and a host of other Bible versions add their own religious interpretation throughout Scripture just as much as the NWT if not more but hardly anyone complains of this transformation of Scriptures eventhough it leads to error Why Simply because the NRSV represents more of a ldquomajorityrdquo view than the NWT does But in truth majority or minority views do not correspond equallyto ldquoaccuraterdquo or ldquoinaccuraterdquo results

In the text discussed the KIT can appropriately show the basic sense rendering of ldquoI amrdquo for the Greek ldquoegō eimirdquo in the left column and alternately show the reading ldquoI have beenrdquo in the right column as a contemporary way of expressing in English the particular Greek clause with its ldquoidiomrdquo in John 858 as explained throughout this article a rendering which has

scholarship support When the Greek ldquoegō eimirdquo appears in an idiom-less structure it can rightfully be translated as ldquoI amrdquo as most versions do including the NWT Hence there is no contradiction between the two translations

Dr McKay argues that Jesus response in John 858 ldquowould be most naturally translated lsquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrsquo if it were not for the obsession with the simple words lsquoI amrsquo rdquo (Kenneth L McKay ldquolsquoI amrsquo in Johns Gospelrdquo Expository Times 1996 p 302) I take the author as saying that ldquoI have been in existencerdquo for ldquoeimirdquo is a better translation than ldquoI amrdquo but the [religious] obsession for the simple words ldquoI amrdquo in their quest to elevate Christ to Gods level does not allow people to see that The thing is that Christ lsquoalways pleased the Fatherrsquo and was fully satisfied with being lsquolesserrsquo than him (John 829 1029 1428 177813) Why not accept him as he is

Hence it is poor scholarship to forward the idea that an entity must be God Almighty himselfby the sole fact of using a divine sounding phrase when other Bible individuals are found using the same expression in Scripture The ldquocontextrdquo is the determining factor Not only must we take into account the context surrounding a chapter or book of the Bible but also what the whole Bible teaches on a given person or subject

What does the Bible teach about Jesus

That Christ ldquowas in the beginning with Godrdquo (John 12) At the announcement of his birth on earth the angel Gabriel told Mary that she will give birth to someone ldquogreatrdquo and ldquoholyrdquo and that one will be called ldquoSon of the Most Highrdquo and ldquoSon of Godrdquo (Luke 132 35) Trinitarians may claim that ldquoSon of Godrdquo is equivalent in meaning to ldquoGodrdquo It is a claim with no foundation If there was any truth to the claim then the ldquoHoly Spiritrdquo would also be called Son of God But no The fact is that other living creatures are called ldquosons of Godrdquo (Job 21) Never is ldquoGodrdquo or ldquoholy spiritrdquo ever called ldquoSon of Godrdquo in Scripture Only Jesus Christ is called ldquothe Son of Godrdquo with the article Why

By Christ lsquobecoming obedient [to God] until deathrsquo during the course of his earthly life lsquoGod highly exalted Him and graciously gave him a name which is above every other name that at the name of Jesus every knee should bendto the credit of God the Fatherrsquo (Hebrews58 Philippians 28-11 21st Century New Testament)

ldquo[Christ] has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God with angels authorities and powers made subject to himrdquo (1 Peter 322 NRSV) Still in heaven Christ receives knowledge information revelation from God and transmits it to other creatures (Revelation11) Though the glorified Christ is described as ldquoKing of kingsrdquo and ldquoLord of lordsrdquo he is specifically called ldquoThe Word of Godrdquo (Revelation 191316 NRSV) The night before his death he ldquoprayedrdquo to his Father and called him ldquothe only true Godrdquo and made this petition ldquoFather glorify me in your own presence [Greek beside yourself] with the glory that I hadin your presence [Greek beside you] before the world existedrdquo (John 175 NRSV) (ldquoalongside yourselfrdquo ST Byington) Again God never has to ldquoprayrdquo to anyone Ever

Well then if Jesus Christ expressed this one final ldquowishrdquo in prayer to be ldquoin the presence ofrdquoldquobesiderdquo ldquoalongsiderdquo his Father which he himself called ldquothe only true Godrdquo why should we for the sake of tradition insist with the belief that Jesus ldquomustrdquo somehow be that ldquotruerdquo God the One sitting at the center of Gods throne instead of ldquobesiderdquo God (Mark 1619) Christ did not ask to sit at Gods throne Christ was fully content with the premise of being alongside God And that is what actually happened Mark tells us ldquoSo then the Lord Jesus after he had spoken to them was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of Godrdquo (Mark 1619 NRSV Note Some ancient manuscripts omit this verse) The NIV Study Bible notes the significance of lsquositting at the right hand of Godrsquo ldquoA position of authority second only to Godsrdquo Being in ldquoa position of authority second only to Godsrdquo is something no one should ever say of God for he is always ldquosupremerdquo At no time does God relinquishes his supremacy Someone who holds a position of authority second to God cannot be identical to God Take note too that in this account of Mark chapter 16 or the oneat John chapter 17 there is no mention of a third party of a ldquoGodheadrdquo No ldquoHoly Spiritrdquo is in sight The fact is that the glorified Christ in heaven continues to call his Father ldquomy Godrdquo(Revelation 312)

As ldquoSon of Godrdquo and always lesser and subject to God it is illogical to think Christ would purposely usurp titles and rights that only belonged to lsquohis God and Fatherrsquo (John 1428 Matthew 2023 John 2017 Acts 17) Jesus Christ taught others to only worship the Father God (Matthew 410 John 42324) ldquoAnd we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the worldrdquo (1 John 414) If so the thought that Christ would usethe words ldquoI amrdquo as a title to identify himself as ldquothe true Godrdquo is incongruous Jesus made it clear that he would only seek the glory ldquothat comes from the one who alone is Godrdquo (John850 54 544)

In this Satan controlled world it is not that difficult to get entangled with human taught intricate philosophies which obscure the simple Christian doctrine (John 1231 2 Cor 44) Hence the need for caution at the time of defending popular traditional views which clash with the monotheistic approach of Bible writers

Consequently those who teach that Christ is Almighty God find themselves in conflict with the Scriptural record The submitted list of alternate readings of John 858 shows that there are a considerable number of scholars who not only understand the subject correctly but alsokeenly grasp that whatever Jesus said on the matter has to harmonize with both the context of John chapter 8 and the rest of the Scriptures as well

What is the correct translation of John 858

Is it ldquoI amrdquo ldquoI wasrdquo ldquoI am herdquo or ldquoI have beenrdquo After analyzing the Greek phrase ldquoegō eimirdquo the context and the various possible ways the expression can be translated in English I think it is best to render the Greek with an English present perfect Adding a smallelement such as ldquosincerdquo to the statement as McKay does below satisfies all contextual and grammatical requirements of the passage Doing so does not qualify as ldquointerpolationrdquo

A second choice a simple past tense can perhaps be used in translation where the context allows since it is grammatically correct but it is generally used of activity confined to the past so the message may be distorted Unless that is the simple past is interpreted as ldquoimperfectiverdquo with current relevance How so In support of Jesus deity many frequently cite John11 There in the text a simple past tense ldquowasrdquo is applied to ldquothe Wordrdquo three times in English versions Does that mean ldquothe Wordrdquo is no more or that it was permanentlycut-off from existence at some point Of course not The context of the whole gospel of John shows that Christ is fully pertinent in Christian lives

Scholars choosing a past tense for ldquoeimirdquo (ie ldquoI wasrdquo ldquoI existedrdquo etc) at John 858 may also have in mind what John the Baptist said as a precursor of Jesus Christ ldquoA man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was [ldquoexistedrdquo JB] before merdquo Surely John the Baptist did not mean that Jesus existence was done away with His own words show thatJesus life was very much relevant and would continue to be so Translators have no issue whatsoever in applying a past tense (ldquowasrdquo ldquoexistedrdquo) at John 11 and 130 in their English versions So why would they at John 858 Perhaps because it would mean that they wouldhave to do away with the premise of a ldquodivine titlerdquo in their argumentation of which is claimed clinches Jesus identity with Gods own As shown above Revelation 211 a presentverb a form of ldquoeimirdquo is rendered by some versions with a past tense ldquowasrdquo Obviously Bible translators have no problem in translating some present tense verbs with past tenses or with present perfects But most object to it at John 858 likely for theological reasons

As stated in the beginning of this essay the English ldquopresentrdquo and the Greek ldquopresentrdquo in certain contexts do not correspond exactly in meaning because in Greek ldquotimerdquo is a secondary factor That being the case the choice of English tense does not have to match theGreek conjugation per se to be faithful to the Sacred Text When one considers the specific idiom found in John 858 and the semantic implications of both the Greek and English ldquopresentrdquo one can see that the rendering ldquoI amrdquo though popular does not nearly represent the best translation possible in the English language ldquoContextrdquo often plays a more importantrole in determining the correct translation Overall though it is best to render the Greek expression with an English present perfect since it conveys clearly a more present relevancythan a past tense would

That said John 858 is a good example where a Greek transliteration may not be the best choice to communicate the right message effectively in our times The translation of ldquoI amrdquo has its place in extreme English literal translations which show the basic sense of the Greek such as those Interlinear translations mentioned above Also it can rightfully be used in many Scriptures where the context calls for it as when the sentence structure lacks the Greekldquoidiomrdquo discussed throughout this writing as might be the case with most occurrences of ldquoeimirdquo

Here listed in my opinion are the translations which come closest to the Greek thought presented by the particular ldquoidiomrdquo found in John 858 Dr Kenneth L McKay comes up with the correct translation

1 ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo - Kenneth L McKay A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek (SBG 5 New York Peter Lang 1994) p42

(Kenneth L McKay graduated with honours in Classics (with an interest in the Greek of theNT) from the Universities of Sydney and Cambridge He has taught Greek in universities and theological colleges in Nigeria New Zealand and England Mr McKay retired from the Australian National University in 1987 after teaching there for 26 years)

Other translations below come close to McKays rendering and are thus favored over the traditional rendering which is widely misunderstood

2 ldquoI have existed before Abraham was bornrdquo - A New Translation by James [ Moffatt - DD DLitt Glasgow Oxford 3 ldquoBefore Abraham came into existence I have beenrdquo - New World Translation 4 ldquoBefore Abraham came into being I have existedrdquo - The Documents of the [New Testament G W Wade London 5 ldquoFrom before Abraham was I have been rdquo - The New Testament by George [ R -Noyes DD Boston USA6 ldquoBefore Abraham was born I have already been rdquo - The Unvarnished New [Testament Andy Gaus Boston7 ldquoI existed even before Abraham was bornrdquo - The concise Gospel and the Acts [Logos International Christopher J ed Christianson Plainfield NJ8 ldquoI already was before Abraham was bornrdquo ndash Worldwide English New Testament [ Derby UK ________________________________

COMMENTS

Also compare the following translations

Nytt liv (1907 Norwegian)A Biacuteblia Viva (1981 Portuguese)O Novo Testamento Vivo (1974 Portuguese)Le Livre Nouveau Testament (1980 eacuteditions Farel French)Η Καινή Διαθήκη των Τεσσάρων Καθηγητών (ΚΔΤΚ Greek) (The New Testament of the Four Teachers The translation was made and approved (1921981) by the Holy Summit Church of Greece The English title of the project is The New Testament in Modern Greek Athens Greece) Η Αγία Γραφή Παλαιά και Καινή Διαθήκη (ΝΔΜ Greek) Ελληνική Βιβλική Εταιρία Αθήνα [Athens] 1997 (The Bible Old and New Testament Greek Biblical Company - London 1997) ΚΔΛΖ ΛΧ (Other Greek Versions expressing the same idea as translations on the list)___________________

ldquoI was rdquo Note on 1987 translation from Italian main list l Vangelio di Giovanni (El Evangelio de Juan [ldquoThe Gospel of Johnrdquo] with imprimatur) by J Mateos and J Barreto noted on John 858 (as translated by Teodora Tosatti p 387 Cittadela Editrice 1982) that the temporal relationship expressed by the Greek ldquoprin eimi [BeforeI am]rdquo can be translated into Italian ldquoprimaero [BeforeI was]rdquo (Translation from Italian to English mine)__________________

Comment on 1993 ΟІ ΧΡΙΣΤΙΑΝΙΚΕΣ ΓΡΑΦΕΣ Απόδοση από τη Μειάφράση Νέου Κόσμου which is a modern Greek translation of the New World Translation of the ChristianScriptures Unlike most Bible Versions which are published in only one language or a few atmost the NWT is available in dozens of languages based mainly on their English translationbut obviously taking into account other factors in the process such as the original Bible text the peculiarities of their recipient local languages and their targeted audiences in their respective countries

It is obvious though that other NWT translation editions closely followed the English text of the NWT and at the same time their translation teams had enough latitude to offer their own unique renderings at times expressing in their native languages what they see in in the Inspired Text Having said that it is interesting to see how they approached their translation of John 858 from their English translation back into [modern] Greek

The translation team was acutely aware of the basic sense of ldquoegō eimirdquo as ldquoI amrdquo and how those simple words are misconstrued by religionists to say something more than Jesus intended Taking into account the syntax of John 858 as stated throughout this document the translation team who worked on the modern Greek version faced a few options

First they had the option to go back to ldquoegō eimirdquo using the modern Greek equivalent ldquoΕγώ ειμαιrdquo (I am) as it reads in the Vamvas version which they did not Or they could haveexpressed their NWT English choice of ldquoI have beenrdquo with their modern Greek equivalent of ldquoέχο υπάρξει [I have existed]rdquo Thirdly they could have gone with ldquoI wasrdquo (ldquoεγώ ήμουνrdquo) as some of their French and Italian Bible editions have done in the past or even with ldquo[εγώ] υπήρξα [I existed])rdquo Or they could have provided some other unique rendering It is obvious they wanted to stick closely to the Greek text but given the common misconceptionssurrounding ldquoegō eimai (I am)rdquo in mainstream churches the translation team chose to use ldquoεγώ υπάρχωrdquo (a present indicative form in the Greek) which means basically ldquoI existrdquo but in the presence of an expression of past time in John 858 the sense is ldquoI have existedrdquo Thus ldquoBefore Abraham came into existence I have existedrdquo ( The verb είμαι [ldquoto berdquo] in modern Greek has no forms for the perfect tense It borrows the forms from the verb υπάρχω [ldquoI existrdquo] The Greek and English ldquoperfectsrdquo are not exact equivalents either)

The reader is reminded here as noted earlier that modern Greek keeps up with the Koineacute Greek ldquopresentrdquo idiom A modern Greek grammar Greek A Comprehensive Grammar explains ldquoThe present tense is also used in constructions where English would use the perfect continuous ie where the verb expresses a continuous state or habitual event that

has lasted since a certain point in the past and is continuing up to (and including) the presentrdquo The authors provide two examples where a present verb is used with a past time indicator and where they translate using an English perfect as explained ldquoI have been living[Μένω] in this house for three years nowrdquo And ldquoI have been reading [Διαβάζω] this newspaper since 1984rdquo (Greek A Comprehensive Grammar by David Holton Peter Mackridge amp Irene Philippaki-Warburton Revised by Vassilios Spyropoulos p 294 Second edition 2012)

Ten years after the NWT-Greek Edition was released another modern Greek translation was published with the following rendering at John 858 ldquoΣας βεβαιώνω πως πριν να γεννηθεί οΑβραάμ εγώ υπάρχωrdquo which in English would be ldquoI assure you that I have existed since before Abraham was bornrdquo (Literally ldquoI assure you that before could be born the AbrahamI exist [not ldquoΕγώ ειμαιrdquo]rdquo The Holy Bible in Todays Greek Version 2003 Greek Bible Society Interestingly the original English version of 1976 had ldquoI Amrdquo) Also a Spanish Bible conveys a similar thought ldquoYo existo desde antes que existiera Abrahamrdquo [Translation ldquo I exist since before Abraham existedrdquo] (La Biblia - Versioacuten Popular 2nd edition Sociedades Biacuteblicas Unidas 1983)

_________________________________________________________

The Clear Word The translators quoted in this article represent various religious faiths some are Catholic some are Protestant Others are Unitarians Jehovahs Witnesses Jewish Adventists etc and they represent countries the world over One of these translators is a Seventh-Day Adventist who worked on The Clear Word Jack J Blanco ThD As a Seventh-Day Adventist who supports the Trinity doctrine Blanco translated verses to make Jesus ldquoequalrdquo to God in every way

He renders John 11 ldquoHe is the Word of God and is equal with Godrdquo He shows Jesus at Philippians 25-7 as ldquoequal with Godrdquo and describes him as lsquoacting the part of a servantrsquo At John 1428 he completely omits the reference that lsquothe Father is greaterrsquo than Christ But here at John 858 in answer to the question the priests and leaders asked concerning Abraham lsquoseeingrsquo his day Jesus answered according to Dr Blanco ldquoBecause I existed before Abraham was even bornrdquo Thus Dr Blanco makes no connection as others do that Christ is the ldquoI amrdquo of Exodus 314 which according to some would indicate that Jesus is the Jehovah of the Old Testament What he sees in this account is that Jesus already lsquoexisted before Abraham didrsquo and thus Abraham was able to lsquoseersquo his day (John 856) To this we must add another likely element included in Jesus response to the Jews as wellone of simple identification as ldquothe Christ [Messiah]rdquo and ldquoSon of manrdquo Why is it then that manywho support the Trinity doctrine find it hard to understand Jesus statement correctly at John 858 Could it be that they are letting non-Scriptural influence and perhaps the weight of themajority view dictate their understanding of this Scripture

For a consideration of other subjects by the same author check below

For a discussion of Acts 286 Whose blood

httpwwwscribdcomdoc231244155Acts-20-28-Whose-blood

For a discussion of Colossians 116 (ldquoall other thingsrdquo) see

httpwwwscribdcomdoc205841269Colossians-1-16-Is-the-expression-all-other-things-a-proper-rendition

For a consideration on the subject of the Trinity click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc160286056Does-the-Trinity-ever-make-sense

For a full consideration of John 11 click the following link httpwwwscribdcomdoc34916458The-correct-translation-of-John-1-1

For a brief consideration of John 11 with additional citations click here httpwwwscribdcomdoc50330864John-1-1-List-of-Alternate-Readings

Did the NW translators know any Greek click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc48234022Did-the-New-World-Translation-Committee-Know-Greek

For a consideration of John 173 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc57772552John-17-3-E28098Taking-in-knowledge-of-E28099-God-and-Jesus

For a consideration of 1 Timothy 316 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc76927834Was-God-manifested-in-the-flesh-1-Timothy-3-16

For a consideration of Exodus 225 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc38676458Exodus-2-25-And-God-took-notice-Does-God- care-about-us

For a consideration of John 114 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc35002730John-1-14-Jesus-full-of-grace

For a consideration of Translation Differences-Questions and Answershttpwwwscribdcomdoc59484457Translation-Differences-Questions-and-Answers

In Spanish

Para una consideracioacuten de otros temas vea los siguientes enlaces

Para una consideracioacuten de Colosenses 116 ldquotodas las otras cosasrdquo vea

httpwwwscribdcomdoc209601066Colosenses-1-16-C2BFEs-la-traduccion-E2809Ctodas-las-otras-cosasE2809D-apropiada

Para una consideracioacuten de ldquoiquestAcaso tiene sentido la Trinidadrdquo

httpwwwscribdcomdoc173779117C2BFAcaso-tiene-sentido-la-Trinidad

Para un consideracioacuten de Juan 11 vea el siguiente enlace

httpwwwscribdcomdoc35899788Traduccion-correcta-de-Juan-1-1-Lista-de- lecturas-alternativas

Para el tema iquestSabiacutean griego los traductores de la TNM vea el siguiente enlace

httpwwwscribdcomdoc51623596C2BFSabia-griego-el-Comite-de-la-Traduccion-del-Nuevo-Mundo

Bible readers are claiming

Notwithstanding there is a bit more than meets the eye Greek as a language is quite different from English When a Greek speaker attempts to use a familiar Greek expression inEnglish or in some other language he or she will quickly find out that things have to be stated somewhat differently in the target language to make sense Those who try to make sense of an ultra-literal Greek interlinear translation such as the Concordant Greek Text which has the original NT Greek text and the English translation below it will likely end up frustrated And so it is with the Greek expression ldquoegō eimirdquo found in John 858 Though ldquoegō eimirdquo is generally translated ldquoI amrdquo as a legitimate translation some translators find it necessary in some contexts to render it differently in another language such as English to convey the right meaning Why is that so

One problem we have to deal with here is that Greek tenses frequently are time-indifferent except by implication from their relationship to their context Trying to equally match Greekand English tenses is a frustrating experience In fact some scholars avoid stressing the word ldquotenserdquo (ie ldquotimerdquo) in relation to biblical languages As grammarians Dana and Mantey pointed out decades ago ldquoTime is but a minor consideration in the Greek tensesrdquo (A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament p 177) And more recently David A Black adds ldquoUnlike English the most significant feature of tense in Greek is kind of action A secondary consideration of tense and one that applies only in the indicative mood is time of action But the essential signification of the Greek tense system is the kind of action ndash whether it is represented as ongoing finished or simply as an occurrencerdquo (Learn to Read New Testament Greek p 15) Scholars often speak of Hebrew and Greek as being ldquoaspectualrdquo languages unlike English which has only tenses (ldquoAspectrdquo ldquoA verbal categorization that focuses upon kind of action rather than time of action (ie tense)rdquo (Pocket Dictionary for the Study of Biblical Hebrew Todd J Murphy)

Thus there is no way to consistently translate the phrase ldquoegō eimirdquo in discussion in a strictlyliteral way because Greek is an aspectual language and English is not In other words the renderings ldquoI amrdquo and ldquoI have beenrdquo for ldquoeimirdquo to name one example could well be contextdepending just as literal as the other Bible translator N T Wright also noted ldquoBut as with all translations even within closely related modern European languages there are always going to be places where you simply cant do word by word To do so would be lsquocorrectrsquo at one level and deeply incorrect at another There is no lsquosafersquo option all translation is risky but its a risk we have to takerdquo (The Kingdom New Testament Preface p xii HarperCollinsPublishers 2011) Although Wright a trinitarian renders John 858 in the traditional way it is my opinion that John 858 is one of those ldquoplaces where you simply cant do word by wordrdquo and make the most sense of it In this essay I will attempt to show you why this is so

Furthermore although some erroneously believe that ldquoeimirdquo in John 858 should only be translated one way that is as it appears in popular versions others acknowledge that that is not the case A Greek expert explains that ldquoeimirdquo is ldquoa function word variously rendered am are is was were will be depending on requirements of English structure the resourcesof English permit numerous equivalent renderingsrdquo (The Concise Greek-English Lexicon of

the New Testament p 110 ndash Frederick William Danker) You can add the rendering ldquoI have beenrdquo to the list above as we will see What do scholars say of the syntax found in John 858

Some scholars have pointed out that Scriptures which have within their structure a particular idiom containing a Greek verb in the present tense with an expression of past time or an adverb in its construction can be rendered into a modern language such as English with a present perfect indicative form (ldquoI have beenrdquo ldquoI have existedrdquo) Other scholars have chosen instead to use a simple past tense (ldquoI wasrdquo ldquoI existedrdquo) in translation for the present verb ldquoeimirdquo at John 858 These Bible translators surely no less conscientious of Greek grammar than scholars who favor the ldquoI amrdquo rendering have translated taking into account the presence of the peculiar syntax found at John 858 Grammarian Kenneth L McKay refers to the idiom as ldquoExtension from Pastrdquo and it occurs when a present verb is ldquoused with an expression of either past time or extent of time with past implicationsrdquo (A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek 1994 41) This is the case with John 858 where the expression ldquoI amrdquo forms part of a Greek idiom structure ldquoprin Abraam genesthai egō eimi [Before Abraham to become I am]rdquo having an expression of past time in its statement This construction is not unique to John 858 appearing in other places as indicated below It also appears in the Septuagint (Genesis 3138 41 Exodus 410 2136 Judges 1617 Psalm 902 Luke 137 1529 John 149 Acts 1521)

Various scholars explain the syntax found in Scriptures such as John 858 thus (Some scholars may or may not specifically mention John 858 as an example of the idiom)

Greek ndash An Intensive Course ldquoWhen [the present is] used with expressions denoting past time the present is the equivalent of the English present progressive perfect πάλαι τοῦτο ποιῶ [palai touto poiō] I have been doing this for a long timerdquo (Hardy Hansen amp Gerald M Quinn New York Fordham University Press 1992 Page 731)

Winer ldquoSometimes the Present includes also a past tense (Mdv 108) viz when the verb expresses a state which commenced at an earlier period but still continuesmdasha state in its duration as Jno xv 27 ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς μετʼ ἐμοῦ ἐστέ [apʼ ar khēs metʼ e mou e ste] viii 58 πρὶν ᾿Αβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμι [prin A bra am ge nesthai e gō ei mi]rdquo ( A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament by G B Winer seventh edition Andover 1897 p 267)

Brooks amp Winbery ldquoPast and present are gathered up in a single affirmationthe full meaning is that something has been and still isrdquo (Syntax of New Testament Greek by James A Brooks amp Carlton L Winbery Lanham University Press of America 1979 [1988] 84 Idiom labeled as ldquoDurative Presentrdquo by the authors)

Wallace ldquoThe present tense may be used to describe an action that begun in the past continues in the present The emphasis is on the present time Note that this is different from the perfect tense in that the perfect speaks only about the results existing in the present time It is different from the progressive present in that it reaches back in time and usually if

not always has some sort of temporal indicator such as an adverbial phrase to show this past-referring element The key to this usage is normally to translate the present tense as an English present perfect hellip Luke 1529 τοσαῦτα ἔτη δουλεύω σοι [tosauta etē douleuō soi] I have served you for these many years 1 John 38 ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς ὁ διάβολος ἁμαρτάνει [ap archēs ho diabolos hamartanei] the devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (The Basics of New Testament Syntax by Daniel B Wallace pp 222-3 Italics and bold letters his Underline mine)

WW Goodwin ldquoThe present with πάλαι [palai] or any other expression of past time has theforce of a present and perfect combined as πάλαι τοῦτο λέγω [palai touto legō] I have longbeen telling this (which I now tell)rdquo (A Greek Grammar Section 1258 p 270)

J H Moulton ldquoThe Present which indicates the continuance of an action during the past and up to the moment of speaking is virtually the same as Perfective the only difference being that the action is conceived as still in progress It is frequent in the NT Lk 248 137 1529 Jn 56 8 58 (εἰμί) 1491527Ac 152126312 Co 12192 Ti 3152Pt 341 Jn 29 38rdquo (A Grammar of New Testament Greek by J H Moulton Vol III Syntax by Nigel Turner Edinburgh 1963 p 62)

Sanders and Masten ldquoTo describe a state continuing up to the present Greek uses the present tense where English uses the Perfect cf Jn 858rdquo (Harpers New Testament Commentaries p 158)

Burton ldquoThe Present of past Action still in Progress The Present Indicative accompaniedby an adverbial expression denoting duration and referring to past time is sometimes used in Greek as in German to describe an action which beginning in past time is still in progress at the time of speaking English idiom requires the use of the Perfect in such cases hellip Acts 1521Luke 1371529John 562 Tim 315rdquo (Syntax of Moods and Tenses in NT Greek by Ernest De Witt Burton p 10)

Smyth ldquoPresent of Past and Present Combined ndash The present when accompanied by a definite or indefinite expression of past time is used to express an action begun in the past and continued in the present The lsquoprogressive perfectrsquo is often used in translation Thus πάλαι θαυμάζω [palai thaumazō] I have been long (and am still) wonderingrdquo (Greek Grammar by Herbert Weir Smyth Section 1885 on verb tenses pp 422-423)

( ldquoThe Present of past Action still in Progressrdquo (See also An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek by CFD Moule Section v p 8 Cambridge) This same idiom is discussed in other grammars under the names ldquoDurative Presentrdquo ldquoExtension from Past Presentrdquo or ldquoProgressive Presentrdquo See Blass and Debrunner section 322 K L Mckay 1994 pp 41-42 A T Robertsons Grammar p 879 WD Chamberlains Grammar p 70 D A Black Its Still Greek to Me p 107 A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testamentby Dana and Mantey pp 182-3 Intermediate New Testament Greek by Richard A Young p111 A Concise Exegetical Grammar of New Testament Greek by J Harold Greenlee p 93

Classical examples are provided in Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek Verb by WW Goodwin p 9 26)

The scholars quoted above clearly show that the English present tense in such construction isnot equal to the Greek Present Therefore it would be a mistake to conclude that we have to take the basic sense of ldquoegō eimirdquo in John 858 and represent it word-for-word in our language to be accurate We must consider whether John 858 contains a temporal indicator that goes back in time in combination with a Greek ldquopresentrdquo verb Those seeking to prove apoint of ldquotimelessnessrdquo in ldquoeimirdquo should be reminded that Greek verb tenses of themselves do not indicate whether a subject in view is ldquoeternalrdquo or not

In point of fact the above biblical Greek syntax is carried over to modern Greek A modern Greek Grammar explains ldquoThe [Greek] present may also be used to refer to an action or situation that began in the past and continues in the present where English uses the perfect Παίρνω αυτό το φάρμακο από το 1999 [Pairnō auto to pharmako apo to 1999] Ive been taking this medicine since 1999rdquo (Greek An Essential Grammar of the Modern Language by David Holton Peter Mackridge and Irene Philippaki-Warburton p 121 2004) Take note how the authors take into account the Greek idiom and translate the verb pairno (1st person present indicative which basically means ldquoI am takingrdquo) using an English present perfect ldquoIve been taking this medicine since 1999rdquo

Consequently when Bible versions transfer the basic meaning ldquoI amrdquo into their translated text without considering the above syntax they could fail to convey the intended Greek meaning and end up with ungrammatical English as well (ldquoUngrammaticalrdquo because English present tense cannot start before a particular point in the pastrdquo) Oddly some free paraphrased and dynamic equivalent translations carry over this ldquoliteralrdquo reading of the passage right into their versions with no explanation whatsoever for breaking rules of English grammar Anyone doing translation work between two languages knows well that it is not always feasible or practical to translate word for word Otherwise the end product would be flawed unreadable material

Is Exodus 314 parallel to John 858

Some believe there is an asserted connection of Jesus at John 858 being identified with ldquoTheBeingrdquo or ldquoThe Existing Onerdquo of Exodus 314 In other words those who hold such view believe Jesus Christ is the ldquoJehovahrdquo or ldquoYahwehrdquo of the Old Testament At Exodus 314 the Septuagint a Greek translation from the Hebrew has the true God saying ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν [Egō eimi ho ōn] ldquoI am the The Beingrdquo or ldquoI am The Existing Onerdquo And linking to Exodus 314 many translations have Jesus saying at John 858 ldquoI amrdquo However did Christ really say at John 858 ldquoI am Jehovahrdquo ldquoI am The Beingrdquo or even ldquoThe I Amrdquo No he did not Those interpretations are traditionally read into the text

The use of ldquoeimirdquo at Exodus 314 in the Septuagint is used as a linking verb to the expression ldquoThe Beingrdquo or ldquoThe Existing Onerdquo not as an absolute predicate This is similar to as when David said ldquoI am (egō eimi) the one sinningrdquo (1 Chronicles 2117

LXX) Or when Jesus says (John 107) ldquoI am (egō eimi) the door to the sheeprdquo Or Peter (Acts 223) ldquoI am (egō eimi) a Jewrdquo In these three instances of ldquoeimirdquo as a connecting verb there is nothing in the words themselves suggesting eternity We also find an angel Gabriel using the same expression that Christ used at John 858 (Luke 119) Even Paul stated εἰμι ὅ εἰμι [eimi ho eimi] = ldquoI am what I amrdquo and by using those words he was by nomeans claiming he was God eternal (1 Corinthians 1510) Hence the use of ldquoeimirdquo of itselfcannot be used as a sound argument to bolster Christs deity

The meaning of ldquoeimirdquo must therefore be defined mainly from Bible context and not from any mysticism attributed to the word And strictly speaking John 858 does not even say whether Jesus is ldquoeternalrdquo or not All it says is that Jesus preceded Abraham in time and his existence extended to the present ldquoI have existed [since] before Abraham was bornrdquo (A New Translation by James Moffatt) The Bible does say that Christ is ldquosuperiorrdquo to angels but ldquosuperiorityrdquo does not demand ldquoeternityrdquo since someone can be ldquosuperiorrdquo to another without having the same age It should be pointed out that angels too existed way before Abraham came to be and still ldquoexistrdquo but nonetheless they were ldquocreatedrdquo by God (Genesis 62 Job 381-7 Psalm 1482 5) And of Christ it is said ldquoHe isthe firstborn of all creationrdquo (Col 115 ESV) Some in their attempt to disconnect Christ from lsquocreaturersquo status twist the meaning of this last statement but Christ himself said ldquoI have life because of him [God]rdquo (John 657 CEV)

Although many Bible commentators explain Gods words at Exodus 314 as the New American Standard Bible rendered it ldquoI AM WHO I AMrdquo other scholars accept another explanation such as the one found in The International Bible Commentary ldquoThe translation lsquoI will be what I will bersquo (cf NIVfn) is also possible and would make even more explicit the suggestion that Gods character would be disclosed as events unfoldedrdquo (FF Bruce GeneralEditor) Another reference work The Expositors Bible Commentary (Abridged Edition) points out the following as well ldquoThe Hebrew seeks the significance character quality and interpretation of the name Therefore what they needed to know was lsquoWhat does that name mean or signify in circumstances such as we are inrsquo rdquo So even when scholars use ldquoI Amrdquo intheir explanations of Exodus 314 others see the phrase as indicative of Gods will toward his people Thus other translators provide an alternate more accurate reading either in the main text or in their footnotes

ldquoI Will Be What I Will Berdquo (Modern Spelling Tyndale-Coverdale) ldquoI Will Become whatsoever I pleaserdquo (Joseph Bryant Rotherham) ldquoI will be what I will berdquo (The Bible in Living English Steven T Byington) ldquoI WILL BE THAT I WILL BErdquo (Leeser Old Testament 1853) ldquoI shall come to be just as I am coming to berdquo (Concordant Literal Version) ldquoI-will-be-what-I-will-berdquo (A New Translation by James Moffatt) ldquoI shall be that I shall berdquo (Julia Smith Translation) ldquoEHYEH ASHER EHYEH I will be-there howsoever I will be-thererdquo (The Five Books [of Moses by Everett Fox)ldquoI SHALL PROVE TO BE WHAT I SHALL PROVE TO BErdquo (NWT)ldquoI Will Become What I Choose to Becomerdquo (NWT 2013)

See also The Anchor Bible (William HC Propp) and the The Stone Tanach (Artscroll Mesorah)

In the Hebrew original the above words pronounced by God Almighty are in the ldquoimperfectrdquostate of the verb which communicate ldquoincompletenessrdquo or ldquofuturerdquo activity Interestingly the Hebrew word ייי( ה ה( ה איא (ehyeh) appears in Exodus 312 just two verses away and there many Bible translations render it unlike what they do in Exodus 314 as future action ldquoI will be with yourdquo reflecting the imperfect state of the verb here indicative of Gods intended involvement with his people (Compare with other occurrences of the word in Joshua 15 Judges 616 1 Samuel 2317 2 Samuel 714 1534 1618 1 Chronicles 1713 Isaiah 477 and Jeremiah 114 where ehyeh is commonly translated as ldquofuturerdquo action) This brings up the question Why do this in Exodus 312 and the other places but not in verse 14

Charles R Gianotti (Dallas Theological Seminary) points out this very thing ldquoSignificantlymost interpreters translate ייי( ה ה( ה איא [ehyeh] in Exodus 312 as future (ie I will be [ehyeh] with yoursquo) Yet two verses later why should not the same translation sufficerdquo Gianotti adds ldquoThe future in this case can indeed refer to future activity or effectiveness of YHWH It should be observed that even Aquila (AD 130) noted for his lsquoslavishly literal translationrsquo translated the tense as futurerdquo Gianotti says that ldquoin light of the imperfect form ייי( ה ה( ה איא [ehyeh] used in Exodus 314rdquo translating ייי( ה ה( ה איא [ ehyeh ] as most English versions do assuming a present tense meaning is ldquo unjustifiedrdquo (ldquoThe Meaning of the Divine Name YHWHrdquo Bibliotheca Sacra 142 January-March 1985) Reflecting a similar understanding the NWT 1984 Reference Edition adds the following footnote ldquoThe reference here is not to Gods self-existence but to what he has in mind to become toward othersrdquo

The Septuagint reading ldquoI am The Beingrdquo at Exodus 314 does not represent the best translation possible from the Hebrew It is odd indeed that many Bible translators choose to follow the Greek Septuagint in verse 14 rather than the original Hebrew Text Trinitarian advocate James R White PhD (from Alpha amp Omega Ministries) noted ldquoIt is true that many go directly to Exodus 314 for the background but it is felt that unless one first establishes the connection with the direct quotation of ego eimi in the Septuagint the connection with Exodus 314 will be somewhat tenuousrdquo

Could it be then that modern translators want to advance ehyeh as a title or name ldquoI Amrdquo to express self-existence and hence make the connection to the ldquoI Amrdquo of Jesus in John 858 as it appears in traditional versions If so such translators could be guilty of asserting the Trinity doctrine on their readers Although James White sees a connection between John 858 and the ldquoI am [he]rdquo sayings in Isaiah he has this to say of the supposed connection between John 858 and Exodus 314 ldquoIt could fairly be admitted that an immediate and unqualified jump from the ego eimi of John 858 to Exodus 314 is unwiserdquo (ldquoPurpose and Meaning of lsquoEgo Eimirsquo in the Gospel of John In Reference to the Deity of Christrdquo)

Likewise Edwin D Freed Professor Emeritus of Religion Gettysburg College contends that ldquothe meaning of the sentence [at John 858] in the mind of the writer was ldquoBefore

Abraham was I the Christ the Son of God existedrdquo (ldquoWho or what was before Abraham inJohn 858rdquo Journal for the Study of the New Testament 17 1983 52-59) Professor Freed thus sees no connection of Jesus statement in John 858 with that of Jehovah (Yahweh) at Exodus 314 But what about the ldquoI amrdquo sayings appearing in the books of Isaiah and John Are they not connected somehow

Is rsquoani-hursquo in Isaiah parallel to egō eimi in John

At times there are biblical statements made where both God and Christ use similar languageThis is not surprising when one considers the role Christ plays in Gods purpose The Bible tells us that Christ is ldquothe image of the invisible God the firstborn of all creationrdquo (NASB) ldquothe radiance of Gods glory and the exact representation of his beingrdquo (Colossians 115 Hebrews 13) ldquoAnd God has put all things under the authority of Christ and he gave him this authority for the benefit of the churchrdquo (Ephesians 122 NLT) Anyone seeking salvation must therefore put faith in lsquothe name which was given by God to mankindrsquo ldquoJesus Christrdquo ldquoto the glory of God the Fatherrdquo ldquoWhoever believes in the Son has eternal life but whoever rejects the Son will not see life for Godrsquos wrath remains on themrdquo (John 336 Philippians 21011) In all God still is in control and just as lsquoChristians belong to Christrsquo ldquoChrist belongs to Godrdquo says the Word (1 Corinthians 113 323 NASB)

In the Old Testament God appears on several occasions using the Hebrew phrase א( הוא נני־ אא (rsquoani-hursquo) which literally means ldquoI ndash herdquo but sometimes translated ldquoI amrdquo or ldquoI am herdquo (Isaiah 414 428 4310 13 464 4812 526) It also appears in Deuteronomy 3239 David a human also used that expression in 1 Chronicles 2117 (Hebrew הוא )ה נני־ אא (ani-huacute- ldquoI am herdquo) Septuagint ἐγώ εἰμι (ldquoegō eimirdquo) Although many argue that there is a connection between Christs statements in the NT and those of God in the OT there is no certainty of those interpretations Even if there was some connection in the ldquoI amrdquo statements would that prove that the identity of the speaker is the same in each case Not really

In the Bible when God made some men powerful and blessed them with his spirit in a sensethey became like ldquoa godrdquo since they ldquorepresentedrdquo God (Exodus 71 Psalms 8216 John 1033-36) Having others referred to in similar language to that of God is no conclusive proofof ldquoequalityrdquo with God An example of this can be seen when a ldquomanrdquo (perhaps Solomon) became ldquokingrdquo of Israel was addressed literally in divine terms ldquoYour throne God forever and everrdquo (Psalm 456) Obviously this human king was not the One True God Not surprisingly some Bible translators work around this literal reading and make it read where it says something like ldquoYour throne is like Gods thronerdquo (Jewish Publication Society) OrldquoYour divine throne endures for ever and everrdquo (Revised Standard Version) Or ldquoYour throne is from Godrdquo (New Jerusalem Bible) Or ldquoGod has enthroned you for all eternityrdquo (Revised English Bible)

Even when translators render the passage literally they explain it in such a way that makes it clear that Solomon was not God For instance the NIV of 2011 has this footnote ldquoHere the king is addressed as Godrsquos representativerdquo Nonetheless when such reference is made of

Jesus Christ (as in Hebrews 18) the same translators may now insist those similar words areldquoproofrdquo of Christs ldquodeityrdquo A good example of this is found in the NET Bibles footnotes Although Jesus accepted being ldquoone greater than Solomonrdquo he never claimed to be God the Father (Matthew 1242) Significantly to Jesus ldquoGodrdquo was someone else

In the Bible is not rare to read frequent references and comparisons of faithful men with Jesus Christ ndash Abraham Jacob Moses David Solomon Jonas and John the Baptist (John 853 412 Deuteronomy 1815 Hebrews 33 Psalm 1101 Matthew 927 2245 124142 Mark 17 Luke 117 72628) Whats more Jesus is compared to ldquoangelsrdquo (Hebrews 14513) Should we take this to mean that men and angels are somehow identical to Jesus Christ True some of these references show that Jesus Christ is above them But we should take the superiority of Christ over them in the same way that we rightly accept Jesus own words indicative of his relative position to the Father ldquoThe Father is greater than Irdquo (John 1428 2031)

Accordingly the ldquoI amrdquo or ldquoI am herdquo expressions pronounced by God and Jesus Christ found in both the Old and New Testaments must be understood within their proper context From the beginning of mans history God provided a way for mankinds deliverance Jesus was prophetically the center of this magnificent expectation For eons of time mankind waited for the One (Messiah) who would deliver them from bondage Nevertheless when hedid appear on the earthly scene most people ignored and rejected the real Messiah because they were expecting politically speaking a quick deliverance from the Roman yoke

However God had something else in mind ndash deliverance was still ahead It was now the time to call attention to the fact that Christ their (future) ldquosaviorrdquo was in their midst Jesus did his part by words and by action (miracles etc) He called attention to who he really was ldquothe Son of Godrdquo and told others that he was ldquothe Christrdquo (or the ldquoMessiahrdquo) (John 42526 Matthew 1615-17 2663-68) Related to the subject one expression Jesus used on various occasions was this one ldquoI amrdquo or ldquoI am herdquo words understood by those brought up in trinitarian doctrine to attest Jesus equality with God (John 426 620 824 28 858 1319 185-6 8) However the phrase was sometimes used as a simple self-identification like ldquoIt is Irdquo or ldquoI am Jesusrdquo At other times when questioned by doubters Jesus used it to get the point across that lsquohe was the one [and not someone else]rsquo the promised ldquoSaviorrdquo ldquothe Son of manrdquo ldquothe Son of Godrdquo ldquothe Messiahrdquo

At no time did Jesus ever claim he was a ldquoGod-manrdquo or ldquoGod in the fleshrdquo (John 316) Those thoughts are foreign to Scripture Remember that Scripture teaches that lsquoGod was with Jesusrsquo just as we are told that lsquoGod was with Josephrsquo son of Jacob Scripture does not say that Jesus was God made flesh It was lsquothe Wordrsquo the Son of God who was with God in the beginning the One who lsquobecame fleshrsquo not God (Acts 79 1038 John 11 114) Christendom has distorted Scripture to the point that ldquoChristianrdquo followers cannot determine this plain truth A misunderstanding of John 11 and 1 Timothy 316 has greatly contributed to this error Further below you will find links where those verses are considered in detail

It was through Jesus death that God reconciled sinful people to himself Hence the ldquoI amrdquo

or ldquoI am herdquo sayings of Jesus need not be directly linked to those uttered by God before the time of Christ Jesus was sent by God on a saving mission as a representative of God With good reason he declared unambiguously that ldquoherdquo was (and not some other) ldquoGods Sonrdquo the promised ldquoMessiahrdquo The Jesus sayings ldquoI amrdquo or ldquoI am herdquo in some cases would confirm at most that ldquothere is no other name under heaven that has been given to men in which we must be savedrdquo (Acts 4 12) It was lsquoGod who resurrected Jesus from among the deadrsquo and it was God who lsquogave mankind the namersquo that saves people (Acts 410)

Thus the ldquoI amrdquo sayings of the New Testament were certainly pronounced in a different setting than those in the Old Testament Not to be overlooked the One using the ldquoI amrdquo or ldquoI am herdquo expressions in the OT is described unequivocally as lsquoAlmighty Godrsquo lsquothe only True Godrsquo with maximum ldquopowerrdquo and ldquoauthorityrdquo to send a ldquosubordinaterdquo to an extraordinary mission (Daniel 714 John 1316 537) The glorified Christ is never described in the same way as God was in Old Testament times as he always appears throughout the NT subordinated to God Still Christ is ldquothe wayrdquo to the Father and salvation (John 146) We are therefore commanded to recognize his lsquoGod-given authorityrsquo so ldquothat all may honor the Son just as they honor the Fatherrdquo (Matthew 2818 John 2031 523) Jesus is then the ldquomediatorrdquo between God and mankind (1 Timothy 25) A grand privilege that is

What does the context of John 858 indicate

Some Bible readers see Jesus in the context of John chapter 8 not only saying in idiomatic fashion that he lsquowas [already] alive before Abraham was born (SEB)rsquo and still lsquoisrsquo but also that he was identifying himself as ldquothe Son of Manrdquo ldquothe Messiahrdquo This is a reasonable assumption as well One of the Jews questions was ldquoWho do you think you arerdquo (John 853) In John 824 28 1319 Matthew 2754 and Mark 1460-64 the function or position ofChrist as the ldquoSon of Godrdquo ldquoSon of Manrdquo and ldquothe Christrdquo all come through

The statement (or question) Jews made to Jesus prior to verse 58 was ldquoYou are not yet fifty years old and you have seen Abrahamrdquo Logically Jesus answered the question of his age of his long existence and additionally was perhaps asserting his ldquomessiahshiprdquo as well in harmony with the question Jews had posed earlier in verse 53 This may be one reason a fewtranslators render or note John 858 not as ldquoI amrdquo but rather ldquoI am herdquo some to suggest Christ is God while others do so emphasizing his messianic role The second interpretation fits better with Scripture In the list of alternate readings of John 858 below you will find that rendering as well However the key issue in this text is Jesus existence from past to present Unlike other verses in John (82428) where ldquoeimirdquo is used (in the sense of ldquoI am herdquo ie ldquothe Son of Godrdquo ldquothe Messiahrdquo) in verse 58 the matter of ldquoidentityrdquo is secondaryto the key issue of his existence In the sum of things it should be noted that ldquoindefiniterdquo existence is not equal to ldquoeternalrdquo existence

Within the context of chapter eight (8) of John Jesus makes statements which mark clear differences with his Father God When reading over the next few paragraphs keep in mind that the Bible condemns two-faced personalities and speaking out with a forked tongue

Jesus himself spoke out against hypocrisy so he only spoke ldquotruthrdquo

In John 826 Jesus told the Jews that he was ldquosentrdquo by his Father and that lsquohe speaks the things that he hears from the one who sent himrsquo That lsquohe does nothing on his own initiativersquo (NASB) That lsquohe isrsquo ldquothe Son of Manrdquo and lsquospeaks just what the Father taught himrsquo (V 28)

Jesus stated a simple but significant truth ldquoNo servant is greater than his master nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent himrdquo (John 1316) With this principle in mind here are some questions to ponder about How could Jesus be ldquosentrdquo if he himself was ldquoGodrdquo Why was Jesus lsquonot able to do anything on his own initiativersquo if he was ldquoall-mightyrdquo In verse 29 Jesus says that lsquothe One who sent him has not left him alone and that he always did what pleased the Fatherrsquo Why would Jesus Christ say at all lsquoI always do what pleases him who sent mersquo If Jesus was ldquoGodrdquo why would he find it important enoughto mention whether he was left ldquoalonerdquo or not Does God need ldquocompanionshiprdquo as humans do Why would anybody have to ldquoteachrdquo Jesus anything if he was all-knowingrdquo

Also Jesus applied the title ldquoSon of Manrdquo to himself numerous times a term which Jews considered a title of the promised ldquoMessiahrdquo not of ldquoGodrdquo In addition the Bible book of Numbers 2319 tells us that ldquoGod is not a man that he should lie ldquonor a son of man that he should change his mindrdquo Nonetheless Christ precisely adopted this very same expression (ldquoSon of Manrdquo) before others with no regrets Furthermore did God have to become ldquoa manrdquo to save humankind when the Bible explicitly says that lsquoGod sent his only-begotten Sonrsquoto save the worldrsquo (John 316 NASB 1 John 414) Who is distorting the full picture here

In verse 40 John reports that the Jews lsquowere determined to kill Jesus because they didnt want to accept the word and truth that Jesus as a man [Greek anthropon] spoke having it received from Godrsquo How could Christ speak of himself as lsquoa man receiving truth from Godrsquowhen seconds later according to Trinitarians he would be using a ldquotitlerdquo claiming to be ldquoGodrdquo in effect contradicting everything he had been saying until then None of these statements would make sense if Jesus himself was the Supreme God as many believe

What would Jesus gain by claiming before the world that he lsquocould not do anything on his own initiativersquo that lsquohe always did what pleased the Fatherrsquo and that he only spoke just what the Father who sent him lsquotaughtrsquo him And shortly afterwards change his message altogether and claim as we are asked to believe that Christ was the ldquoGodrdquo of the Old Testament by the sole act of pronouncing the ldquoI amrdquo divine ldquotitlerdquo Does this lsquodouble personalityrsquo approach make any sense to a Christian who is taught to only believe ldquothere is but one God the Fatherrdquo (John 530 1 Corinthians 86) No wonder there are a good number of Bible translators including Trinitarians who disagree with the traditional view of John 858

Does the Jews reaction in John 859 prove Jesus Christ had claimed to be ldquoGodrdquo

Shortly before his death Jesus was taken before the Sanhedrin the high court of the Jews to

face false charges by people who wanted him dead Please take note of the charges brought up in Marks account (1460-64) which says

60 Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus ldquoAre you not going to answer What is this testimony that these men are bringing against yourdquo 61 But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer Again the high priest asked him ldquoAre you the Messiah the Son of the Blessed Onerdquo 62 ldquoI amrdquo said Jesus ldquoAnd you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heavenrdquo 63 The high priest tore his clothes ldquoWhy do we need any more witnessesrdquo he asked 64 ldquoYou have heard the blasphemy What do you thinkrdquo They all condemned him as worthy of death

In view of the events of Mark 1460-64 and considering the context of John chapter 8 it is clear that the Jews rejected Jesus claim of him being ldquothe Messiahrdquo and of being lsquogreaterrsquo than Abraham They were also rejecting the idea that he was ldquofrom aboverdquo ldquothe Son of Mansitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heavenrdquo of the heavenly vision (John 823) In their view that was enough to charge him with blasphemy since they could not imagine any ldquomanrdquo making such claims

C K Barrett rightly noted that the Jews reaction in verse 59 ldquodoes not mean that Jesus had claimed to be Godrdquo (The Gospel According to St John 2d ed Philadelphia Westminster Press 1978 352) And Professor Emeritus William Loader noted ldquoThe text need mean no more than I am and was in existence before Abraham still a majestic unique claim but not anallusion to the divine namerdquo (The Christology of the Fourth Gospel Structures and Issues Revised 2d ed New York Lang 1992 48)

Even before Jesus spoke the ldquoegō eimirdquo words in John 858 the Jews had already sought to kill Jesus (John 719 837) And for what ldquocrimerdquo This lsquoJesus claimed the truth he taughtcame from Godrsquo (John 716 840) This is vastly different from lsquoJesus alledgedly claiming a divine title equating him with God at John 858rsquo Since then all sorts of religious leaders have claimed as well that ldquowhat they teach others comes from Godrdquo and not from them Does that make them ldquoequalrdquo to God

Because Jesus often lsquocalled God his Fatherrsquo the Jews wrongly concluded that he was ldquomaking himself equal to Godrdquo (John 51819) However Jesus quickly set the matter straight when he called himself Gods ldquoSonrdquo (nine times in chapter 5 alone) an expression never applied to ldquoGodrdquo in Scripture (Matthew 2663-64) The Jews even claimed Jesus was ldquobreaking the Sabbathrdquo and further of being ldquoa Samaritan and demon-possessedrdquo (John 518 848) Were they right Absolutely not Thus wrong perceptions of Jews in Jesus time - like Jesus claiming equality with God - are truly a shaky foundation to base modern interpretations The Jerusalem Bible has this to say ldquoThe claim of Jesus to live on the divine plane (v 58) is for the Jews blasphemy for which the penalty is stoning Lv 2416rdquo I see the JB accepting the claim that Jesus possessed some mode of ldquodivine existencerdquo (as suggested by the Spanish edition of JB ldquoBiblia de Jerusaleacutenrdquo) but avoiding a direct reference of Christ

claiming to be God or that he was claiming ldquoeternalrdquo existence in the verse And former Professor Kenneth L McKay said ldquoThe claim to have been in existence for so long is in itself a staggering one quite enough to provoke the crowds violent reaction [in v59]rdquo (ldquo lsquoI amrsquo in Johns Gospelrdquo p 302) Hence those who claim the charge of blasphemy involved Jesus claim of being ldquoGodrdquo are wrong for Jesus never claimed to be ldquoThe Supreme Beingrdquo but only ldquoGods Sonrdquo (John 31718)

Weeks later after the incident of John chapter 8 but related to the topic of discussion in John 1030-36 we read that the Jews misunderstood Jesus words ldquoI and the father are onerdquo (John 10 30) So they wanted to stone him for it but Jesus told them

33 ldquoWe are not stoning you for any good workrdquo they replied ldquobut for blasphemy because you a mere man claim to be Godrdquo 34 Jesus answered them ldquoIs it not written in your Law lsquoI have said you are ldquogodsrdquorsquo [Psalm 826] 35 If he called them lsquogodsrsquo to whom the word of God camemdashand Scripture cannot be set asidemdash 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said lsquoI am Godrsquos Sonrsquo ( Other versions translate the Greek word here for ldquoGodrdquo without the article either as ldquogodrdquo or ldquoa godrdquo Besson Torrey NWT Mace Luther 1545 Diaglott Tomanek Andy Gaus New English Bible)

Notice that Jesus Christ under duress had another golden opportunity to once and for all disclose publicly that he was ldquoGodrdquo But he did not do so The argument itself that Jesus employed shows that he could legitimately claim lsquodivine originrsquo without being identified as one-and-the-same God with his Father

Less than a year later AFTER the encounter with the Jews of John chapter 8 and before his death Jesus told his closest disciples in his farewell speech that they lsquoshould rejoice he was going away to the Father because the Father was greater than he wasrsquo (John 1428) And in his final prayer in proximity with his disciples he prayed to God that lsquothey may know his Father the only true God and Jesus Christ whom he has sentrsquo (John 173 ) God never needs to pray to anyone Shortly after Jesus died and was resurrected by God but before returning to his Father Jesus said to Mary Magdalene ldquoDo not hold on to me for I have notyet ascended to the Father Go instead to my brothers and tell them lsquoI am ascending to my Father and your Father to my God and your Godrsquo rdquo (John 2017)

Does it make sense to have Jesus claim equality with God by employing a divine title (ldquoI Amrdquo) before unbelieving Jews as Trinitarians claim and then have Jesus later assure his closest and faithful ones that lsquohis Father and his Godrsquo was also lsquothe Father and God of everyone elsersquo In fact Jesus disciples were clearly in a privileged position in regards to Christian teaching Jesus Christ had previously said to his disciples that he would explain lsquoall thingsrsquo to them privately whereas to others he would only speak in lsquoparablesrsquo or lsquocomparisonsrsquo (Matthew 1311 Mark 411 33 34) An explicit lsquodivine titlersquo directed at lsquounbelievingrsquo Jews is certainly no parable and would run counter to his own stated principles

Anyways Jesus Christ wanted other Christian followers to understand the special

relationship he had with the Father ldquoBut go to my followers and tell them this lsquoI am going back to my Father and your Father I am going back to my God and your Godrsquo rdquo (Easy to Read Version) This simple message is so different from the convoluted one commonly expounded by Trinitarians in their philosophical speculations

Between the time of the encounter between the Jews and Jesus in John ch 8 and the farewelldiscourse of our Lord Jesus Christ of later (chapters 14-17) not once did Jesus say he was ldquoGodrdquo Christ never spoke with a forked tongue Therefore Bible translators who do not claim Jesus was using a divine title at John 858 and provide renderings agreeing with the words of John 173 and 2017 are in the correct

Scriptures with similar syntax to John 858

Thus when faced with certain idiomatic expressions as the one found in John 858 the translator often has to ask himself How would someone normally express such statements in our language I will cite six (6) Scriptural examples that are similar in syntax to John 858 Genesis 3138 LXX 1 John 38 Luke 248 John 56 2 Corinthians 1219 and John 1527 All six Scriptures have present tense verbs AND an expression of past time or extent of time with past implications within its structure Lets see how these Scriptures compare with John 858 in our discussion

1st Example (Genesis 3138 LXX) ταῦτά μοι εἴκοσι ἔτη ἐγώ εἰμι μετὰ σοῦ - Greek These mine twenty years I am with you

Jacob after leaving Haran disputes with his father-in-law Laban over missing personal idols which Laban claimed were stolen by Jacob Jacob had no idea Rachel had stolen them In defense Jacob proceeded to mention several things he had done through the years on Labansbehalf ldquoThese twenty years I am with yourdquo (The Apostolic Bible Polyglot LXX 2006)ldquoThese twenty years of mine I was with yourdquo (A New English Translation of the Septuagint ldquoNETSrdquo 2007)ldquoThese twenty years have I been with theerdquo (The Holy Orthodox Bible LXX 2006)ldquoThese twenty years I have been with yourdquo (The Orthodox Study Bible LXX 2008)ldquoThese twenty years of mine have I been with theerdquo (Orthodox England LXX 2009)ldquoI have spent with you twenty of my years [Jai passeacute avec toi vingt de mes anneacutees]rdquo (La Septante [LXX] translated by Pierre Giguet)ldquoThese twenty years have I been with theerdquo (Sir Lancelot CL Brenton LXX)ldquoThese twenty years that I have been with theerdquo (Charles Thomson LXX)

Aside from the interlinear reading of the literal Apostolic Bible Polyglot other translators of the Septuagint (LXX) render a present indicative verb ldquoegō eimirdquo (I am) preceded by an expression of time with past implications (ldquoThese twenty yearsrdquo) with present perfect

indicative forms (ldquoI have beenrdquo) while one translation (NETS) uses a simple past form (ldquoI wasrdquo) A modern Greek translation Η Αγία ΓραφήmdashΜετάφραση Νέου Κόσμου has ldquoήμουνrdquo (Literally ldquoI wasrdquo) in this text A likely reason for that as a modern Greek Grammar pointsout is that for the verb lsquoto be (είμαι)rsquo ldquoThere are only two sets of tense forms in Greek present and past (imperfect)rdquo (op cit An Essential Grammar p 126 Sec 67) Hence they could not have used here a perfect tense form for the verb lsquoto be (eimai)rsquo But in English the Bible Society responsible for the Greek and English translations of the Hebrew portion of the Bible used instead ldquoI have beenrdquo at Genesis 3138 in the English edition because a present perfect is available in the language for the verb

Another interesting tidbit is the fact that the original Hebrew text here lacks a verb in the declaration namely ldquoThis twenty year I with-yourdquo (The Hebrew-English Interlinear ESV Old Testament Crossway) Well how do translators deal with this issue Overall like this with the perfect indicative ldquoI have been with you for twenty years nowrdquo A few versions use the imperfect instead lsquoI wasrsquo such as the Wycliffe Bible and the Lexham English Bible Rarely do translations use a ldquopresentrdquo here the exceptions being Youngs and Concordant literal translations So why do the overwhelming number of translators prefer tosupply a perfect tense here for the missing verb in the Hebrew Its simple There is a temporal indicator going to the past in the text namely lsquoThese twenty yearsrsquo

Now when the LXX translators proceeded to translate the Hebrew words of Genesis 3138 into Greek they cleverly used a well known vivid idiom available in classical Greek where a verb in the present tense is combined with an indicator of past time In this syntax the ldquopast and present are gathered up in a single affirmationrdquo (op cit Brooks amp Winbery) Modern English translators usually resort to the present perfect in this construction as shown aboveSo too John 858 reveals an expression of past time with a present verb in its statement and the NWT is one translation that is consistent with this construction both in Genesis 3138 and John 858

For the following I will use the Wescott and Hort Greek text for reference

2nd Example (1 John 38)

ὅτι ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς ὁ διάβολος ἁμαρτάνει - Greek because from beginning the devil is sinning

The apostle John warns Christians not to carry on sin for those who make a practice of sin originate from the Devil who has sinned from the beginning For this purpose the Son of God was revealed that he might undo the works of the Devil The text above contains an expression of past time (ldquofrom beginningrdquo) with a present verb (is sinning) very much likeJohn 858 How do translators deal with this passage Lets see

ldquofor the devil sinneth from the beginningrdquo (Rheims New Testament)ldquofor the devil sinneth from the beginningrdquo (KJV)

ldquofor the devil has sinned from the beginningrdquo (New King James Version)ldquofor the devil has sinned from the beginningrdquo (NASB)ldquobecause the devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (Interlinear Mounce)ldquofor the Devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (Riverside NT Ballantine)ldquobecause the devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (NIV)ldquobecause the devil has sinned from the beginningrdquo (NAB)ldquosince the devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (Jay E Adams)ldquowho has been sinning since the beginningrdquo (NLT)ldquofor the devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (NRSV)ldquosince the devil has been a sinner from the beginningrdquo (NJB)ldquobecause the devil has been sinning from the very beginningrdquo (J G Anderson)ldquofor the devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (ESV)

ldquothe devil was a sinner from the firstrdquo (Ronald A Knox New Testament)

Some translations transfer the Greek present to their English versions as if the English and Greek ldquopresentrdquo in such construction were the same thing It is not The end result is ungrammatical English Would you say in contemporary English ldquoFrom the beginning of class the boy sleepsrdquo Not Doctor Richard A Young points out ldquoTo say that the devil is sinning from the beginning does not make sense in English English translations therefore employ the present perfectrdquo (Intermediate New Testament Greek page 111)

The renderings above ldquohas sinnedrdquo and ldquohas been sinningrdquo are present perfect and present perfect progressive indicative forms The word ldquowasrdquo is a simple past tense Just as in 1 John 38 some translators in John 858 have rendered a present tense with an expression of past time in its construction with a present perfect ldquoI have beenrdquo

3rd Example (2 Corinthians 1219)

Πάλαι δοκεῖτε ὅτι ὑμῖν ἀπολογούμεθα ndash Greek Long ago you are thinking that to you we are making defense

Paul finds himself having to defend his apostolic authority and vindicating his record as superior in hardship endured for Christ and loving concern for congregations In simpler words Paul was telling them ldquoAll this time have you been thinking that Ive been speaking up for myself No Ive been speaking with God as my witness Ive been speaking like a believer in Christ Dear friends everything I do is to help you become strongerrdquo (NIRV)

In the literal reading above we have an adverb of time with past implications (Palai) followed by two Greek verb forms (ldquodokeiterdquo amp ldquoapologoumethardquo) in the present indicativetense The book Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek Verb by William Watson Goodwin explains ldquoThe Present is often used with expressions denoting past time especially πάλαι [palai] in the sense of a perfect and a present combinedrdquo (Section 26 p 9) How do translators render these in English Some carry over the present tense into the English text producing unconventional English Others cognizant of issues presented here

do a better job at it See below for a sample

ldquoHave you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves before yourdquo (The Comprehensive New Testament 2008)ldquoI hope you donacutet think that all along weacuteve been making our defense before yourdquo (The Message Eugene H Peterson)ldquoHave you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves to yourdquo (NIV)ldquoIt may seem to you that all this time we have been attempting to put ourselves in the rightrdquo (Bible in Basic English)ldquoAll this time you have been thinking that we have been pleading our own cause before yourdquo (NJB)ldquoHave you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves to yourdquo (CEV)ldquoHave you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves before yourdquo (Revised Standard Version) ldquoPerhaps you think that all along we have been trying to defend ourselves before yourdquo (TEV)ldquoHave you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves to yourdquo (ESV)ldquoYou have thought all along that we were defending ourselves to yourdquo (HCSB)ldquoHave you been thinking all this time that we have been defending ourselves to yourdquo (NET Bible)

ldquoYou have been thinking all along that it was to you we were making our defenserdquo (The Bible in Living English Steven T Byington)

The above translations use present perfect (and perfect progressive) forms or past progressives to bring out the proper sense of the original into our language Can anyone rightfully claim that it is improper for these Bible versions to translate this text as they have done in English

4th Example (Luke 248 Wescott and HortNestle early editions Greek text)

ὁ πατήρ σου καὶ ἐγὼ ὀδυνώμενοι ζητοῦμέν σε - Greek The father of you and I being pained we are seeking you Here the context (vv 42-48) speaks of Jesus (12 years old) being left behind unwittingly in Jerusalem by his parents they went back searching in distress for three days before finding him When they finally found him they spoke the words above

ldquoYour father and I have been looking for you anxiouslyrdquo (Revised Standard Version)ldquoYour father and I in agony of mind have been searching for yourdquo (Williams NT)ldquoYour father and I have been anxiously looking for Yourdquo (NASB 1971)ldquoYour father and I have been searching for you in great distressrdquo (Riverside NT)

ldquoHere have your father and I been searching anxiously for yourdquo (Hugh J Schonfield)ldquoYour father and I have been looking for you have been very anxious rdquo (Goodspeed)ldquoYour father and I have been looking for you We have been very troubledrdquo (Bible in Worldwide English)ldquoYour father and I have been looking for you in distressrdquo (Richmond Lattimore)ldquoYour father and I have been searching for you in great distressrdquo (Twentieth Century NT) ldquoThy father and I have sought thee distressedrdquo (Darby Bible Translation)

ldquoThy father and I sought thee sorrowingrdquo (American Standard Version)

ldquoThy father and I in anguish were seeking theerdquo (The Emphasized Bible 3rd edit based on Wescott and Hort by Joseph B Rotherham)ldquoThy father and I were seeking thee sorrowfulrdquo (W B Godbey N T 1902)ldquoThy father and I were seeking Thee sorrowingrdquo (A S Worrell N T 1904)ldquoYour father and I were anxiously looking for yourdquo (World English Bible)

The words ldquowe are seeking yourdquo are in the present indicative tense however since an expression of time is used indicating action going on for days (ldquoafter three daysrdquo v 46) translators find it necessary to use either the present perfect (ldquohave beenrdquo ldquohave soughtrdquo) or simple past (ldquosoughtrdquo) or past progressive (ldquowere seekingrdquo) indicative forms to express in English what the Greek says in the ldquopresentrdquo Various Greek texts have instead of the ldquopresentrdquo found in the Westcott amp Hort Text above an ldquoimperfectrdquo verb form Both forms are frequently rendered with an English present ldquoperfectrdquo Compare with Youngs Literal Translation which also uses a past progressive indicative form ldquowere seekingrdquo and the Spanish Reina-Valera Revisada which rendered an imperfect verb form appearing in the Received Text with a present perfect indicative (ldquohemos buscadordquo) Is this another reason why many translators have rendered the Greek present ldquoegō eimirdquo preceded by an adverbial modifier in its clause at John 858 with perfective or past forms in English

5th Example (Juan 56)

καὶ γνοὺς ὅτι πολὺν ἤδη χρόνον ἔχει - Greek and having known that much already time he is having

This is an account of an invalid man who for 38 years had been sick and was now being cured by Jesus The Greek in this clause does not make his illness clear however the context does Take note of the expression of time used with past implications mixed with a present indicative verb ldquohe is havingrdquo For this to make any sense in our language it has to be modified When Jesus saw this sick man lying there

ldquoand knew that he had been now a long time in that caserdquo (KJV italics theirs) ldquoand knowing that he had been ill a long timerdquo (Revised English Bible)ldquoand knew he had been in that condition for a long timerdquo (NJB)ldquoand knew that he had been sick for a long timerdquo (World English Bible)ldquoand knew that he had been sick for a long timerdquo (Godacutes Word)

ldquoand knew how long he had been illrdquo (Living Bible)ldquoand knew he had already been there a long timerdquo (HCSB)ldquoand he knew that the man had been sick for such a long timerdquo (TEV)ldquoand knew that he had been in this state a long timerdquo (Confraternity Version)ldquoand finding that he had had a long time of itrdquo (S T Byington) ldquoand knew that he had been sick for a long timerdquo (Jay E Adams)ldquoand he knew that he had been waiting for a long timerdquo (George M Lamsa Peshitta) ldquoand knew that he had been now a long timerdquo (Rheims New Testament)

ldquoand knowing that he was [in that state] now a great length of timerdquo (J N Darby Translation Brackets his)

Once again we see translators having to use mostly perfective forms (ldquohad beenrdquo ldquohad hadrdquopast perfects) and one with a simple past ldquowasrdquo even though they are translating a present tense verb ldquohe is havingrdquo This shows that translators adapt their renderings whenever is necessary to convey the right meaning into the target language It is thus possible to render ldquoeimirdquo at John 858 with a form other than a present tense such as a present perfect Those who say that it can not be done or should not be done just need to look again at the evidenceobjectively

6th Example (John 1527 Wescott amp Hort)

ὅτι ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς μετʼ ἐμοῦ ἐστέ ndash Greek that from beginning with me you are

These words spoken by Jesus evidently refers to the beginning of his ministry when he chosehis closest disciples They were eyewitnesses of all the things God did through Christ duringhis ministry (Acts 121)

ldquobecause ye have been with me from the beginningrdquo (KJV) ldquobecause you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (NAB)ldquofor you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (Christian Community Bible)ldquobecause you are the men who have been with me from the very beginningrdquo (Heinz Wldquobecause you have been with me from the firstrdquo (New English Bible) [ Cassirer)ldquobecause you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (Godacutes Word Translation) ldquofor you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (NIV)ldquobecause you have been with me from the firstrdquo (Weymouth New Testament)ldquobecause you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (NRSV)ldquoyou that have been with me from the beginningrdquo (The Four Gospels EV Rieu)ldquobecause youacuteve been with Me from the beginning of My ministryrdquo (The Clear Word)ldquofor you have been with me from the firstrdquo (J B Phillips Modern English)ldquobecause you have been with Me from the beginningrdquo (HCSB) ldquothat you were with me from the startrdquo (21st Century New Testament)ldquofor you were with Me from the beginningrdquo (New Berkeley Version Revised Edition)

ldquobecause you were with me from the beginningrdquo (Mark Heber Miller)ldquobecause you were with me from the very beginningrdquo (SEB)

This scripture with the plural form of ldquoeimirdquo (este) is very similar to John 858 Again within its structure there is an expression of past time and a verb in the present indicative form (este) just as there is in John 858 A Grammar of New Testament Greek says ldquoThe reader may be reminded of one idiom which comes out of the linear idea the use of words like πάλαι [palai ldquolong agordquo] with the present in a sense best expressed by our perfect Thus in 2 Co 1219 lsquohave you been thinking all this timersquo or Jn 1527 lsquoyou have been with me from the beginning [ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς]rsquo hellip The durative present in such cases gathers up past and present time into one phraserdquo (A Grammar of New Testament Greek Vol 1 Prolegomena by JH Moulton p 119) As previously noted this Grammar specifically refers to John 858 as an example of this idiom

And here in John 1527 there is a connection of Jesus disciples [creatures as they are] that ldquowererdquo with him ldquofrom the beginningrdquo Obviously Jesus was making no reference to his disciples sharing ldquoeternityrdquo with him The disciples all had a beginning The logical conclusion is that Jesus was simply saying to them lsquoYou have been with me from the start of my ministryrsquo Hence there is no need to read ldquoeternityrdquo into the expression ldquoI amrdquo anymore that we should read ldquoeternityrdquo from Jesus words at John 1527 lsquoYou are with me from the beginningrsquo Neither grammar nor the context justifies reading more into these Scriptures than what they actually say

In fact the six (6) instances cited above (Genesis 3138 LXX 1 John 38 2 Cor 1219 Luke 248 John 56 John 1527) and John 858 as well all have an expression of past time or an extent of time with past implications (ldquoThese twenty yearsrdquo ldquoLong agordquo ldquoafter three daysrdquo Lk 246 ldquomuch already timerdquo ldquofrom [the] beginningrdquo ldquoBeforerdquo etc) AND present verbs in their sentences or nearby within the context and are commonly rendered with present perfect (some with past perfects) or simple past (or past progressive) forms in English translations If we apply this pattern to the translation of John 858 it would mean that renderings such as ldquoI have beenrdquo (present perfect) and ldquoI wasrdquo (simple past) are not only acceptable in translation but actually more ldquosuitablerdquo in application Can this really be done Not only can it be done it makes for a ldquobetterrdquo English translation

In regards to Jesus John 858 simply tells us that Jesus lsquowas alive before Abraham was bornrsquo (SEB) and that his existence continued up to the moment of his speaking to them Just as it is not proper English to say ldquoFor three days we are seeking yourdquo (Greek literal reading of Luke 248) or ldquobecause from the beginning with me you arerdquo (John 1527) it is no less proper English to say in John 858 ldquoBefore Abraham was born I amrdquo These readings should only appear in extremely literal interlinear translations which basically render the Greek word-by-word and not in standard idiomatic English translations Let me illustrate If a man advanced in age for example had his work history and experience questioned by co-workers in comparison to his younger son and employee Abe would he say in reply ldquoBefore my son Abe was born I am [the one fit for the job]rdquo No that does not sound right In English he could say it in various ways

ldquoI have been an experienced worker since before my son Abe was bornrdquo ldquoI have been what I am since before my son Abe was bornrdquo ldquoI was fit to work and fully active before my son Abe was ever bornrdquo ldquoI was already experienced in many jobs before Abe ever came to berdquo ldquoI have been a master worker way before my son Abe came to liferdquo ldquoBefore Abe was born I already was life and job experiencedrdquo etc

The point is that in English normally we include a present perfect tense whenever there is a reference to the past extending to the present or a past tense of some form whenever we go back in time The same with John 858 There is no justification in English to insist using a present verb form (which is not equal to the Greek present when combined with a past expression) in an unwarranted attempt to convey ldquoeternityrdquo as ldquopaddingrdquo to the Trinity doctrine a doctrine adopted AFTER the Christian era Worse it is disingenuous to accuse other translators (who have chosen to render ldquoegō eimirdquo at John 858 with an English present perfect or past tense) of scholastic dishonesty when the very same translations honored by these detractors do so in other places where the ldquodeityrdquo of Christ is not in play asshown in the samples provided above

An example of this double standard can be seen as well when scholars such as Dr Julius Mantey harshly criticizes the NWT for the rendering ldquoI have beenrdquo at John 858 but keeps quiet when other translators do similarly and even states or pretends that no other reputable translator would ever translate it that way He dared not criticize his former Greek teacher Charles B Williams who produced his own Bible translation Dr Mantey once wrote the following of Dr Williams translation ldquoWilliams translation considering all the factors is the most accurate and illuminating translation in the English languagerdquo And how does this ldquomost accurate translationrdquo render John 858 As follows ldquoI existed before Abraham was bornrdquo Here Dr Williams known for his Greek command used a simple past tense (ldquoI existedrdquo) as translation for the Greek present Julius Mantey certainly did not find Williams version of John 858 a ldquoshocking translationrdquo ldquoI existedrdquo is quite different from the translation Dr Mantey so passionately defended (ldquoI amrdquo)

When Dr Mantey talks about the NWT he says the rendering ldquoI have beenrdquo at John 858 cannot be justified and calls it ldquodishonestrdquo That rule does not apply to Williams translation does it Williams did not translate John 858 in the same way Mantey would have liked (ldquoI amrdquo) Not only that the Grammar itself that Dr Mantey co-authored with Dr Dana A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament states under ldquoThe Progressive Presentrdquo (called ldquoExtension from Pastrdquo by McKay) ldquoSometimes the progressive present is retroactivein its application denoting that which has begun in the past and continues into the present For the want of a better name we may call it the present of duration This use is generally associated with an adverb of time and may best be rendered by the English perfect ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς μετʼ ἐμοῦ ἐστέ Ye have been with me from the beginning Jn 1527 See also Lk137 2 Cor 129 [19]rdquo (Pages 182-83 Emphasis added)

Even though Julius Mantey has stated when referring to the NWT that ldquoI have beenrdquo is not a proper translation and even ldquodishonestrdquo at John 858 he clearly states in his Grammar (of

Scriptures with similar syntax to John 858) ldquoThis use is generally associated with an adverb of time and may best be rendered by the English perfect [such as ldquoI have beenrdquo which in fact is associated with an adverb of time in John 858]rdquo A likely reason for Dana ampManteys strong reluctance for not including John 858 as an example of the idiom discussed on page 183 may have to do with the fact that as ldquotrinitariansrdquo they oppose the idea of Jesus existence having lsquobegunrsquo in the past even though John 858 perfectly fits with the ldquoProgressive Presentrdquo idiom being discussed in their Grammar as acknowledged by other grammarians Hence their objection is truly a ldquotheologicalrdquo one rather than Greek grammaritself arguing in their favor as Mantey and some others have implied since a Greek present or an English perfect does not demand ldquoeternityrdquo at all from the subject

Consequently many religious individuals who focus solely on the basic meaning (of ldquoegō eimirdquo as ldquoI amrdquo) out of the context of the particular ldquoidiomrdquo used at John 858 end up missing the thrust of Jesus words and fall prey to misleading interpretations Doctor Kenneth L McKay taking into account all of these issues comes up with this excellent translation for John 858 ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo (A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek SBG 5 New York Peter Lang 1994 p42) If we objectively consider the material above we will not insist in connecting Jesus at John 858 with the God Jehovah of Exodus 314 (which many attempt to do but cannot be sustained) Instead we will focus on the simple message conveyed by Jesus words at John 858 which is in harmony with the totality of Scripture ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo (McKay) The rendering ldquoI have been in existencerdquo by itself does not rule out either the concept of ldquoeternityrdquo or the ldquocreationrdquo of Jesus Christ A Committee of Bible translators came up with the following translation which may not be the best choice but considering the issues involved is better than the traditional rendering of ldquoI amrdquo ldquoI was alive before Abraham was bornrdquo (The New Testament in Plain English)

(The following scholars are members of the Bible Translation Committee of The New Testament in Plain English which approved this last reading ldquoI was aliverdquo instead of ldquoI amrdquo(Dr Stanley L Morris chairman FW Gingrich Ph D a renown Greek lexicographer Jack P Lewis Ph D CH Accord Th D Clyde M Woods Ph D ST Kan Ph D Gary T Burke Ph D Milo Hadwin D Min)

I submit their names and their credentials here as an example because it is often asserted vigorously that no intelligent or highly qualified scholar would ever produce a translation other than ldquoI amrdquo As noted above and as the list of alternate readings (at the end of this essay) of John 858 shows many done by highly qualified people this is simply not true Usually those making statements of that sort are doing so based on emotional and theological not philological reasons Furthermore by not disclosing other valid viewpoints or by dismissing how other qualified Bible translators deal with this scripture they are undermining their own credibility as well

At this time you are welcome to briefly go over the list of Alternate Readings to John 858 at

the end before moving on to the second part of this essay

_____________________________

Should we ignore the evidence of all those translations listed at the end that differ in John 858 from the traditional versions What then are all these translators seeing at John 858 that moved them to render this text differently They surely must be aware of the resistance they would encounter by translating it by the various forms they used Still they must have had the firm conviction that both the Greek text and the context supports their understanding of this scripture They likely see a Jesus making no identity connection with his Father Godbut rather see a Jesus simply expressing his indefinite existence with no suggestion of eternity in focus Neither is Jesus stating here that he is the God of Old Testament times To understand it that way would be to read into the text more than what it says Taking some clues from the context of the chapter some scholars additionally see Jesus insinuating his ldquomessiahshiprdquo as if saying ldquoI am he [the Messiah]rdquo This is very likely In fact The LivingBible renders John 824 thus ldquoThat is why I said that you will die in your sins for unless you believe that I am the Messiah the Son of God [ἐγώ εἰμι] you will die in your sinsrdquo

Is ldquoegō eimirdquo a title or another name of God

The use of ldquoeimirdquo at John 858 is frequently used as a ldquoproof textrdquo of Jesus deity A noted Trinitarian scholar AT Robertson a Baptist even refers to ldquoegō eimirdquo as ldquothe absolute phrase used of Godrdquo likely indicating the verb conveys ldquotimeless beingrdquo an implication that ldquoeimirdquo here does not require anything else to complete the meaning of the phrase thus conveying ldquoeternal existencerdquo as well as being an actual name for God Some individuals have given plenty of publicity to Robertsons statement as absolute truth But his statement is not ldquotruthrdquo at all It is faulty interpretation which many people have fallen prey to Grammar and theology do not always make the best mix True Robertsons credentials as a scholar are impressive nevertheless credentials does not truth make Besides some other equally bright scholars disagree with him Lets illustrate the folly of those advocating a divine title at John 858 by way of addition (Or substitution if you will) as some suggest

ldquoBefore Abraham was born I am Eternalrdquo ldquoBefore Abraham was born I am Jehovahrdquo ldquoBefore Abraham was born I am eternally Godrdquo

First of all the above hypothetical translations are just as ungrammatical as the simple ldquoI amrdquo reading of most versions An English present tense cannot start before a definite point in the past This can be seen in the following two examples

1 ldquoBefore the US Iraq war I am a soldierrdquo 2 ldquoThree journalists are kidnapped in Nepal since the start of 2007rdquo

What is the correct way to express these statements in English Analyze it for a second and

provide an answer if you will

Notably if ldquoeimirdquo was used to convey eternal existence what is the point of using an expression of past time at all in the clause Moreover the context of previous verses (vv 48-57) clearly indicates that Jesus is speaking of God as a separate entity See below

49 ldquobut I honor my Father and you dishonor merdquo 50 ldquoI am not seeking glory for myself but there is one who seeks it and he is the

judgerdquo54 ldquoIf I glorify myself my glory means nothing My Father whom you claim as your

God is the one who glorifies me 55 ldquoThough you do not know him I know him If I said I did not I would be a liar like you but I do know him and obey his wordrdquo Thus if Jesus meant he himself was the ldquoJehovahrdquo of the Old Testament as Trinitarians claim what would be the rationale behind Jesus directing all distinction and glory to lsquothe Father Godrsquo as a distinct individual as he did in the previous verses and then a few words later abruptly change his argumentation by claiming he is that very same One who lsquoreceives obedience from his own wordrsquo lsquoseeking his own honor and gloryrsquo because he himself is ldquoGodrdquo Confusing is it not To accept this abrupt change of character on Jesus part would be not ldquoa mysteryrdquo but flat out ldquoa deceptionrdquo of big proportions since Jesus himself warned against pretending to be one thing and acting as another (Matthew 62-5 2313-36)

Are we are supposed against all logic to accept these ldquotrinitarianrdquo assumptions instead of a simple alternative which really answers the Jews question about lsquohow could Abraham ldquoseerdquoJesus day if he was not yet 50 years oldrsquo (ldquoI have been in existence since Abraham was bornrdquo)

The obsession with the simple words ldquoI amrdquo have led to many faulty assumptions ldquoI amrdquo issuch a common expression in our language even to this day that words such as ldquoegoismrdquo ldquoegotismrdquo etc (derived from the Greek ldquoegordquo) are considered common words in English dictionaries Everyone uses the phrase ldquoI amrdquo at times Think of any big corporation or powerful organization of your choice for a moment Would you conclude that the two most powerful individuals of this one prestigious organization must be identical in every way solely because they are heard equally saying to others in their common speech ldquoI am thisrdquoor ldquoI am thatrdquo etc

In Bible times humans too used common pronouns The verb eimi (ldquoI amrdquo) itself or forms of it appears more than two thousand times (2000x) in the New Testament alone Additionally the word ldquoegōrdquo appears over seventeen hundred times (1700x) in the NT And those numbers do not include the Septuagint totals Do all occurrences of the word then imply ldquodivinityrdquo in each case Of course not It may be more significant when God or Christ use the expression because of who they are but does it really mean that both God and Christ share the same identity Or that everyone who uses the phrase ldquoI amrdquo does so with divine pretensions Does it really mean that everyone using the phrase are ldquoequalrdquo The

answer is obvious is it not

Lets bear in mind that when God sent Jesus Christ as His representative to a most crucial assignment multiple biblical prophecies were pointing to Christ as the promised Messiah that would free mankind from its moribund condition It is logical then that when the time came for Jesus Christ to show up on earth he would somehow communicate to others that ldquoherdquo and not some other human claiming to be the Messiah was Gods instrument in bringing everlasting relief to human misery Hence he could rightly say any or all of the following ldquoI am (this)rdquo ldquoI am (that)rdquo ldquoI am he [the promised Messiah]rdquo or ldquoI am Gods Sonrdquo Should we expect anything less

The fact is that the words ldquoI amrdquo are not exclusive to God and Christ It should be noted that a man who was born ldquoblindrdquo also used the same expression (John 99) The Greek here says ldquoekeinos elegen hoti Egō eimirdquo (ldquoThat one kept saying that I amrdquo) AT Robertson cites John 99 as one of five parallels to the use of egō eimi in John 858 (Word Pictures in the New Testament Vol V p 159) The phrase here comes at the end of the clause with no explicit predicate James White who upholds the traditional reading admits ldquoThis last instance [John 99] is similar to the sayings as Jesus utters them in that the phrase comes at the end of the clause and looks elsewhere for its predicaterdquo The same could be said of John 1527 Some argue that ldquoeimirdquo in John 858 is ldquoabsoluterdquo but do not do so with John 99 or John 1527 Theology may be a factor in this Previously we saw how Jacob a man according to the Septuagint used the words ldquoegō eimirdquo Other instances in Scripture of creatures using those words would not prove they were part of a ldquoGodheadrdquo Context then ultimately dictates how ldquoeimirdquo should be translated According to John when Jesus was pressed he only claimed to have been alive way before Abraham was born and that he simply was ldquothe Christrdquo ldquothe Son of Manrdquo and ldquothe Son of Godrdquo

There is something else to keep in mind in regards to the meaning of ldquoeimirdquo And it is what grammarian Stanley Porter indicated ldquoSometimes the verb [eimi] is used on its own as a verb of existence Perhaps the best-known example of this is the following John 858rdquo (Fundamentals of New Testament Greek by Stanley E Porter section 753 72) AT Robertson adds ldquoThe verb εἰμί [eimi] hellip Sometimes it does express existence as a predicatelike any other verb as in ἐγὼ εἰμί [egō eimi] (Jo 858) and ἡ θάλασσα οὐκ ἔστιν ἔτι [hē thalassa ouk estin eti = ldquothe sea not is yetrdquo] (Rev 211) Cf Mt 2330rdquo (A Grammar of theGreek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research Nashville Tenn 1934 p 394)

What does this mean The examples mentioned by Robertson in addition to John 858 give us an idea of what this implies It is so strange that the two examples Robertson provided forcomparison with John 858 seems to contradict his ldquotimeless beingrdquo view on ldquoeimirdquo He cited a portion of Revelation 211 where the Greek literally says ldquoAnd the sea not is yetrdquo In other words ldquoThe sea does not exist any morerdquo Amplified Bible ldquoThere no longer existed any seardquo Curiously various versions render the present verb ldquoisrdquo (a form of ldquoeimirdquo) with an imperfect ldquowasrdquo (Cf KJV NIV NAB NRSV) Obviously ldquothe seardquo in this vision is [was] not ldquoeternalrdquo

And in Matthew 2330 the other text provided by Robertson in his comparison with John 858 the Greek word-for-word says ldquoIf we were in the days of the fathers of usrdquo which inmodern English would be ldquoIf we had lived in the days of our forefathersrdquo Other versions ldquoIf we had beenrdquo (Rheims NT) ldquoIf we had been livingrdquo (NASB) ldquoIf we had been existing in the days of our fathersrdquo (Jonathan Mitchell NT) The full NIV text reads ldquoAnd you say lsquoIf we had lived in the days of our ancestors we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophetsrsquo rdquo

It is clear from this comparison that the words of Matthew 2330 ldquoIf we wererdquo (a form of ldquoeimirdquo) in the text is used as an equivalent for ldquoliferdquo or ldquoexistencerdquo In the heavenly vision of Rev 211 lsquothe sea ceased to existrsquo And the generation of people which Jesus spoke about and their ancestors all died ceased to exist If we apply these two examples to John 858 given by Robertson with the meaning either of life or existence for ldquoeimirdquo then it wouldbe equally acceptable to translate ldquoI amrdquo as ldquoI existrdquo or ldquoI liverdquo Many translators reflect this very same understanding as the submitted list of alternate readings of John 858 show ldquoI existrdquo or ldquoI existed even before Abraham was bornrdquo Or ldquoI was alive before Abraham was bornrdquo (The Simple English Bible)

Although some may not see much semantic difference between Jesus saying ldquoI amrdquo or ldquoI existrdquo the two expressions communicate something very different to many readers ldquoI amrdquo is generally associated by Trinitarians as a title used by God or as another name for God Onthe other hand ldquoI existrdquo simply conveys ldquoliferdquo or ldquoexistence Barnabas Lindars points out that ldquoegō eimirdquo in John 858 ldquocannot be regarded as a title because it requires the meaning lsquoI am in existencersquordquo (ldquoThe Son of Man in Johannine Christologyrdquo in Christ and the Spirit in the New Testament In Honour of Charles Francis Digby Moule eds B Lindars and S Smalley Cambridge Cambridge University Press 1973) (Since an English present tense cannot start before a definite point in the past this would mean that we can incorporate Lindars valid observation and translate it into contemporary English like this ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo exactly as Dr McKay proposed)

Some in their eagerness to equate Christ with God accuse translators who render ldquoegō eimirdquo in John 858 with renderings other than ldquoI amrdquo pointing to all occurrences of this expression in the New Testament or in Johns Gospel where allegedly these translators do not follow the same ldquorulerdquo when translating ldquoegō eimirdquo in John 858 as they do elsewhere where they translate it with a present indicative form What they dont tell you or fail to understand is that in John 858 ldquoegō eimirdquo without a predicate AND with an expression of time with past implications in its sentence structure provides an ldquoidiomrdquo which is quite different from those other instances of ldquoeimirdquo Thats right an idiom (where present and past is combined) found equally at home in classical biblical and modern Greek which many translators convey into our language with the English present perfect at various places Consequently one cannot merely go by how the phrase ldquoegō eimirdquo is used elsewhere in the NT without taking into account the fact that John 858 displays an ldquoidiomrdquo in its structure Not doing so would be dishonest John the Baptist had said of Christ in John 130 ldquoA man is coming after me who ranks before me because he existed [Lit was] before merdquo (JB)

John 858 is in harmony with those words Furthermore some attempt to use the reading of Psalm 902 in the Septuagint as ldquoevidencerdquo that John 858 is rendered correctly in the popular versions But a closer analysis of this verse shows notable differences between the two verses making such comparison untenable With good reason a considerable number ofscholars have chosen to break from tradition in their rendering of John 858

If critics of alternate readings of John 858 are not candid enough to admit some of the very issues mentioned here and hide the fact that many scholars do hold a different interpretation and no less academic at that should we consider their diatribes of any worthy import It is ldquowishful thinkingrdquo for someone to believe that John 858 is directly connected to Exodus 314 rather than any real evidence (which is lacking) confirming their eager interpretations Remember even Dr James White a well known Trinitarian advocate admitted ldquothat an immediate and unqualified jump from the ego eimi of John 858 to Exodus 314 is unwiserdquo

Besides a theological tendency can be seen when they focus as some do on undermining the reputation of one Bible translation (NWT) when there are actually numerous versions from different religions dealing with the same controversial Scriptures in a similar manner This is very much like politicians who ignore the failings of their own party but are quick to lsquodemonizersquo their opponents (Matthew 73)

Is the Kingdom Interlinear ldquoproofrdquo the NWT is wrong at John 858

A criticism has been made of a Watchtower Society publication (The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures ldquoKITrdquo) which contains the Greek text and underneath it a word-by-word translation in English and on the right side of the page the modern New World Translation Well at John 858 this publication renders the Greek phrase being discussed here egō eimi word-for-word as ldquoI amrdquo and in the right column the NWT shows the reading ldquoI have beenrdquo This difference have led some to severely criticize the NW translators of ldquoincompetencerdquo ldquoinconsistencyrdquo and even of ldquodishonestyrdquo The critics say something like this ldquoThey have backed themselves into a corner where they cant escape their mishandling of the Greek textrdquo or something of that sort Amazingly these critics in their condemnations hardly ever mention the dozens of translators who translate the same way or similarly to the NWT as the submitted list shows So much for honesty

Those who engage in such tactics are not being forthcoming Why say that Besides dismissing how other translators deal with John 858 they also distort known facts for the WT Society have made it clear that the publication of this Greek Bible is to help the Bible student determine the basic sense of the Greek and have stated that the translation on the right column (the NWT) is a modern way of expressing the thoughts transmitted by the Greek text There are many factors to consider when using such publications

Even other interlinear publications warn of seeming discrepancies For instance The Zondervan Parallel New Testament in Greek and English says in its Foreword ldquo[I]t is a good thing to bear in mind that you cannot always either give an English equivalent for a Greek word or expression or even always render the same Greek verb word by the same

English onerdquo Another interlinear the New Greek-English Interlinear New Testament by Brown and Comfort and edited by J D Douglas explains ldquoIt is difficult to translate one language into another on a word-for-word basis because each language has its own syntax grammatical constructions and idioms that are difficultmdashif not impossiblemdashto replicate literally in another languagerdquo (Emphasis added) This statement is so true of the text in discussion (John 858) in regards to its syntax and particular idiom Often critics of the NWT hide this fact Why Is it religious bias at work

I will give the reader a few examples of an available interlinear translation which has the Greek main text and a literal sublinear translation below the Greek by Professor Paul R McReynolds and on the right column for comparison the reader can study the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) a popular translation in academia Observe how the two can differ

McReynolds Mat 21 ldquomagiciansrdquo NRSV ldquowise menrdquo John 118 ldquoonly born Godrdquo ldquoGod the only Sonrdquo Mat 243 ldquosign of the your presencerdquo ldquothe sign of your comingrdquo Mathew 522 ldquothe gehenna of the firerdquo ldquothe hell of firerdquo John 1319 ldquoI amrdquo ldquoI am herdquo John 149 ldquoI amrdquo ldquoHave I beenrdquo John 1527 ldquoyou arerdquo ldquoyou have beenrdquo 2 Peter 24 ldquobeing sent to Tartarusrdquo ldquobut cast them into hellrdquo Luke 1113 ldquowill give spirit holy tordquo ldquowillgive the Holy Spirit tordquo John 2022 ldquotake spirit holyrdquo ldquoReceive the Holy Spiritrdquo Acts 24 ldquofilled all of spirit holyrdquo ldquofilled with the Holy Spiritrdquo

( Paul R McReynolds is professor of Greek and New Testament at Pacific Christian College in Fullerton California USA He also contributed to the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia)

Some of the readings from the right column above (NRSV) are acceptable others are not See if you can detect in the right column above those translation renderings with a theological tendency that deviate from the literal readings from the left column McReynoldson the left does an excellent job of transmitting the Greek sense Even the most popular Bible versions do not adhere consistently to the base texts The NRSV and a host of other Bible versions add their own religious interpretation throughout Scripture just as much as the NWT if not more but hardly anyone complains of this transformation of Scriptures eventhough it leads to error Why Simply because the NRSV represents more of a ldquomajorityrdquo view than the NWT does But in truth majority or minority views do not correspond equallyto ldquoaccuraterdquo or ldquoinaccuraterdquo results

In the text discussed the KIT can appropriately show the basic sense rendering of ldquoI amrdquo for the Greek ldquoegō eimirdquo in the left column and alternately show the reading ldquoI have beenrdquo in the right column as a contemporary way of expressing in English the particular Greek clause with its ldquoidiomrdquo in John 858 as explained throughout this article a rendering which has

scholarship support When the Greek ldquoegō eimirdquo appears in an idiom-less structure it can rightfully be translated as ldquoI amrdquo as most versions do including the NWT Hence there is no contradiction between the two translations

Dr McKay argues that Jesus response in John 858 ldquowould be most naturally translated lsquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrsquo if it were not for the obsession with the simple words lsquoI amrsquo rdquo (Kenneth L McKay ldquolsquoI amrsquo in Johns Gospelrdquo Expository Times 1996 p 302) I take the author as saying that ldquoI have been in existencerdquo for ldquoeimirdquo is a better translation than ldquoI amrdquo but the [religious] obsession for the simple words ldquoI amrdquo in their quest to elevate Christ to Gods level does not allow people to see that The thing is that Christ lsquoalways pleased the Fatherrsquo and was fully satisfied with being lsquolesserrsquo than him (John 829 1029 1428 177813) Why not accept him as he is

Hence it is poor scholarship to forward the idea that an entity must be God Almighty himselfby the sole fact of using a divine sounding phrase when other Bible individuals are found using the same expression in Scripture The ldquocontextrdquo is the determining factor Not only must we take into account the context surrounding a chapter or book of the Bible but also what the whole Bible teaches on a given person or subject

What does the Bible teach about Jesus

That Christ ldquowas in the beginning with Godrdquo (John 12) At the announcement of his birth on earth the angel Gabriel told Mary that she will give birth to someone ldquogreatrdquo and ldquoholyrdquo and that one will be called ldquoSon of the Most Highrdquo and ldquoSon of Godrdquo (Luke 132 35) Trinitarians may claim that ldquoSon of Godrdquo is equivalent in meaning to ldquoGodrdquo It is a claim with no foundation If there was any truth to the claim then the ldquoHoly Spiritrdquo would also be called Son of God But no The fact is that other living creatures are called ldquosons of Godrdquo (Job 21) Never is ldquoGodrdquo or ldquoholy spiritrdquo ever called ldquoSon of Godrdquo in Scripture Only Jesus Christ is called ldquothe Son of Godrdquo with the article Why

By Christ lsquobecoming obedient [to God] until deathrsquo during the course of his earthly life lsquoGod highly exalted Him and graciously gave him a name which is above every other name that at the name of Jesus every knee should bendto the credit of God the Fatherrsquo (Hebrews58 Philippians 28-11 21st Century New Testament)

ldquo[Christ] has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God with angels authorities and powers made subject to himrdquo (1 Peter 322 NRSV) Still in heaven Christ receives knowledge information revelation from God and transmits it to other creatures (Revelation11) Though the glorified Christ is described as ldquoKing of kingsrdquo and ldquoLord of lordsrdquo he is specifically called ldquoThe Word of Godrdquo (Revelation 191316 NRSV) The night before his death he ldquoprayedrdquo to his Father and called him ldquothe only true Godrdquo and made this petition ldquoFather glorify me in your own presence [Greek beside yourself] with the glory that I hadin your presence [Greek beside you] before the world existedrdquo (John 175 NRSV) (ldquoalongside yourselfrdquo ST Byington) Again God never has to ldquoprayrdquo to anyone Ever

Well then if Jesus Christ expressed this one final ldquowishrdquo in prayer to be ldquoin the presence ofrdquoldquobesiderdquo ldquoalongsiderdquo his Father which he himself called ldquothe only true Godrdquo why should we for the sake of tradition insist with the belief that Jesus ldquomustrdquo somehow be that ldquotruerdquo God the One sitting at the center of Gods throne instead of ldquobesiderdquo God (Mark 1619) Christ did not ask to sit at Gods throne Christ was fully content with the premise of being alongside God And that is what actually happened Mark tells us ldquoSo then the Lord Jesus after he had spoken to them was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of Godrdquo (Mark 1619 NRSV Note Some ancient manuscripts omit this verse) The NIV Study Bible notes the significance of lsquositting at the right hand of Godrsquo ldquoA position of authority second only to Godsrdquo Being in ldquoa position of authority second only to Godsrdquo is something no one should ever say of God for he is always ldquosupremerdquo At no time does God relinquishes his supremacy Someone who holds a position of authority second to God cannot be identical to God Take note too that in this account of Mark chapter 16 or the oneat John chapter 17 there is no mention of a third party of a ldquoGodheadrdquo No ldquoHoly Spiritrdquo is in sight The fact is that the glorified Christ in heaven continues to call his Father ldquomy Godrdquo(Revelation 312)

As ldquoSon of Godrdquo and always lesser and subject to God it is illogical to think Christ would purposely usurp titles and rights that only belonged to lsquohis God and Fatherrsquo (John 1428 Matthew 2023 John 2017 Acts 17) Jesus Christ taught others to only worship the Father God (Matthew 410 John 42324) ldquoAnd we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the worldrdquo (1 John 414) If so the thought that Christ would usethe words ldquoI amrdquo as a title to identify himself as ldquothe true Godrdquo is incongruous Jesus made it clear that he would only seek the glory ldquothat comes from the one who alone is Godrdquo (John850 54 544)

In this Satan controlled world it is not that difficult to get entangled with human taught intricate philosophies which obscure the simple Christian doctrine (John 1231 2 Cor 44) Hence the need for caution at the time of defending popular traditional views which clash with the monotheistic approach of Bible writers

Consequently those who teach that Christ is Almighty God find themselves in conflict with the Scriptural record The submitted list of alternate readings of John 858 shows that there are a considerable number of scholars who not only understand the subject correctly but alsokeenly grasp that whatever Jesus said on the matter has to harmonize with both the context of John chapter 8 and the rest of the Scriptures as well

What is the correct translation of John 858

Is it ldquoI amrdquo ldquoI wasrdquo ldquoI am herdquo or ldquoI have beenrdquo After analyzing the Greek phrase ldquoegō eimirdquo the context and the various possible ways the expression can be translated in English I think it is best to render the Greek with an English present perfect Adding a smallelement such as ldquosincerdquo to the statement as McKay does below satisfies all contextual and grammatical requirements of the passage Doing so does not qualify as ldquointerpolationrdquo

A second choice a simple past tense can perhaps be used in translation where the context allows since it is grammatically correct but it is generally used of activity confined to the past so the message may be distorted Unless that is the simple past is interpreted as ldquoimperfectiverdquo with current relevance How so In support of Jesus deity many frequently cite John11 There in the text a simple past tense ldquowasrdquo is applied to ldquothe Wordrdquo three times in English versions Does that mean ldquothe Wordrdquo is no more or that it was permanentlycut-off from existence at some point Of course not The context of the whole gospel of John shows that Christ is fully pertinent in Christian lives

Scholars choosing a past tense for ldquoeimirdquo (ie ldquoI wasrdquo ldquoI existedrdquo etc) at John 858 may also have in mind what John the Baptist said as a precursor of Jesus Christ ldquoA man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was [ldquoexistedrdquo JB] before merdquo Surely John the Baptist did not mean that Jesus existence was done away with His own words show thatJesus life was very much relevant and would continue to be so Translators have no issue whatsoever in applying a past tense (ldquowasrdquo ldquoexistedrdquo) at John 11 and 130 in their English versions So why would they at John 858 Perhaps because it would mean that they wouldhave to do away with the premise of a ldquodivine titlerdquo in their argumentation of which is claimed clinches Jesus identity with Gods own As shown above Revelation 211 a presentverb a form of ldquoeimirdquo is rendered by some versions with a past tense ldquowasrdquo Obviously Bible translators have no problem in translating some present tense verbs with past tenses or with present perfects But most object to it at John 858 likely for theological reasons

As stated in the beginning of this essay the English ldquopresentrdquo and the Greek ldquopresentrdquo in certain contexts do not correspond exactly in meaning because in Greek ldquotimerdquo is a secondary factor That being the case the choice of English tense does not have to match theGreek conjugation per se to be faithful to the Sacred Text When one considers the specific idiom found in John 858 and the semantic implications of both the Greek and English ldquopresentrdquo one can see that the rendering ldquoI amrdquo though popular does not nearly represent the best translation possible in the English language ldquoContextrdquo often plays a more importantrole in determining the correct translation Overall though it is best to render the Greek expression with an English present perfect since it conveys clearly a more present relevancythan a past tense would

That said John 858 is a good example where a Greek transliteration may not be the best choice to communicate the right message effectively in our times The translation of ldquoI amrdquo has its place in extreme English literal translations which show the basic sense of the Greek such as those Interlinear translations mentioned above Also it can rightfully be used in many Scriptures where the context calls for it as when the sentence structure lacks the Greekldquoidiomrdquo discussed throughout this writing as might be the case with most occurrences of ldquoeimirdquo

Here listed in my opinion are the translations which come closest to the Greek thought presented by the particular ldquoidiomrdquo found in John 858 Dr Kenneth L McKay comes up with the correct translation

1 ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo - Kenneth L McKay A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek (SBG 5 New York Peter Lang 1994) p42

(Kenneth L McKay graduated with honours in Classics (with an interest in the Greek of theNT) from the Universities of Sydney and Cambridge He has taught Greek in universities and theological colleges in Nigeria New Zealand and England Mr McKay retired from the Australian National University in 1987 after teaching there for 26 years)

Other translations below come close to McKays rendering and are thus favored over the traditional rendering which is widely misunderstood

2 ldquoI have existed before Abraham was bornrdquo - A New Translation by James [ Moffatt - DD DLitt Glasgow Oxford 3 ldquoBefore Abraham came into existence I have beenrdquo - New World Translation 4 ldquoBefore Abraham came into being I have existedrdquo - The Documents of the [New Testament G W Wade London 5 ldquoFrom before Abraham was I have been rdquo - The New Testament by George [ R -Noyes DD Boston USA6 ldquoBefore Abraham was born I have already been rdquo - The Unvarnished New [Testament Andy Gaus Boston7 ldquoI existed even before Abraham was bornrdquo - The concise Gospel and the Acts [Logos International Christopher J ed Christianson Plainfield NJ8 ldquoI already was before Abraham was bornrdquo ndash Worldwide English New Testament [ Derby UK ________________________________

COMMENTS

Also compare the following translations

Nytt liv (1907 Norwegian)A Biacuteblia Viva (1981 Portuguese)O Novo Testamento Vivo (1974 Portuguese)Le Livre Nouveau Testament (1980 eacuteditions Farel French)Η Καινή Διαθήκη των Τεσσάρων Καθηγητών (ΚΔΤΚ Greek) (The New Testament of the Four Teachers The translation was made and approved (1921981) by the Holy Summit Church of Greece The English title of the project is The New Testament in Modern Greek Athens Greece) Η Αγία Γραφή Παλαιά και Καινή Διαθήκη (ΝΔΜ Greek) Ελληνική Βιβλική Εταιρία Αθήνα [Athens] 1997 (The Bible Old and New Testament Greek Biblical Company - London 1997) ΚΔΛΖ ΛΧ (Other Greek Versions expressing the same idea as translations on the list)___________________

ldquoI was rdquo Note on 1987 translation from Italian main list l Vangelio di Giovanni (El Evangelio de Juan [ldquoThe Gospel of Johnrdquo] with imprimatur) by J Mateos and J Barreto noted on John 858 (as translated by Teodora Tosatti p 387 Cittadela Editrice 1982) that the temporal relationship expressed by the Greek ldquoprin eimi [BeforeI am]rdquo can be translated into Italian ldquoprimaero [BeforeI was]rdquo (Translation from Italian to English mine)__________________

Comment on 1993 ΟІ ΧΡΙΣΤΙΑΝΙΚΕΣ ΓΡΑΦΕΣ Απόδοση από τη Μειάφράση Νέου Κόσμου which is a modern Greek translation of the New World Translation of the ChristianScriptures Unlike most Bible Versions which are published in only one language or a few atmost the NWT is available in dozens of languages based mainly on their English translationbut obviously taking into account other factors in the process such as the original Bible text the peculiarities of their recipient local languages and their targeted audiences in their respective countries

It is obvious though that other NWT translation editions closely followed the English text of the NWT and at the same time their translation teams had enough latitude to offer their own unique renderings at times expressing in their native languages what they see in in the Inspired Text Having said that it is interesting to see how they approached their translation of John 858 from their English translation back into [modern] Greek

The translation team was acutely aware of the basic sense of ldquoegō eimirdquo as ldquoI amrdquo and how those simple words are misconstrued by religionists to say something more than Jesus intended Taking into account the syntax of John 858 as stated throughout this document the translation team who worked on the modern Greek version faced a few options

First they had the option to go back to ldquoegō eimirdquo using the modern Greek equivalent ldquoΕγώ ειμαιrdquo (I am) as it reads in the Vamvas version which they did not Or they could haveexpressed their NWT English choice of ldquoI have beenrdquo with their modern Greek equivalent of ldquoέχο υπάρξει [I have existed]rdquo Thirdly they could have gone with ldquoI wasrdquo (ldquoεγώ ήμουνrdquo) as some of their French and Italian Bible editions have done in the past or even with ldquo[εγώ] υπήρξα [I existed])rdquo Or they could have provided some other unique rendering It is obvious they wanted to stick closely to the Greek text but given the common misconceptionssurrounding ldquoegō eimai (I am)rdquo in mainstream churches the translation team chose to use ldquoεγώ υπάρχωrdquo (a present indicative form in the Greek) which means basically ldquoI existrdquo but in the presence of an expression of past time in John 858 the sense is ldquoI have existedrdquo Thus ldquoBefore Abraham came into existence I have existedrdquo ( The verb είμαι [ldquoto berdquo] in modern Greek has no forms for the perfect tense It borrows the forms from the verb υπάρχω [ldquoI existrdquo] The Greek and English ldquoperfectsrdquo are not exact equivalents either)

The reader is reminded here as noted earlier that modern Greek keeps up with the Koineacute Greek ldquopresentrdquo idiom A modern Greek grammar Greek A Comprehensive Grammar explains ldquoThe present tense is also used in constructions where English would use the perfect continuous ie where the verb expresses a continuous state or habitual event that

has lasted since a certain point in the past and is continuing up to (and including) the presentrdquo The authors provide two examples where a present verb is used with a past time indicator and where they translate using an English perfect as explained ldquoI have been living[Μένω] in this house for three years nowrdquo And ldquoI have been reading [Διαβάζω] this newspaper since 1984rdquo (Greek A Comprehensive Grammar by David Holton Peter Mackridge amp Irene Philippaki-Warburton Revised by Vassilios Spyropoulos p 294 Second edition 2012)

Ten years after the NWT-Greek Edition was released another modern Greek translation was published with the following rendering at John 858 ldquoΣας βεβαιώνω πως πριν να γεννηθεί οΑβραάμ εγώ υπάρχωrdquo which in English would be ldquoI assure you that I have existed since before Abraham was bornrdquo (Literally ldquoI assure you that before could be born the AbrahamI exist [not ldquoΕγώ ειμαιrdquo]rdquo The Holy Bible in Todays Greek Version 2003 Greek Bible Society Interestingly the original English version of 1976 had ldquoI Amrdquo) Also a Spanish Bible conveys a similar thought ldquoYo existo desde antes que existiera Abrahamrdquo [Translation ldquo I exist since before Abraham existedrdquo] (La Biblia - Versioacuten Popular 2nd edition Sociedades Biacuteblicas Unidas 1983)

_________________________________________________________

The Clear Word The translators quoted in this article represent various religious faiths some are Catholic some are Protestant Others are Unitarians Jehovahs Witnesses Jewish Adventists etc and they represent countries the world over One of these translators is a Seventh-Day Adventist who worked on The Clear Word Jack J Blanco ThD As a Seventh-Day Adventist who supports the Trinity doctrine Blanco translated verses to make Jesus ldquoequalrdquo to God in every way

He renders John 11 ldquoHe is the Word of God and is equal with Godrdquo He shows Jesus at Philippians 25-7 as ldquoequal with Godrdquo and describes him as lsquoacting the part of a servantrsquo At John 1428 he completely omits the reference that lsquothe Father is greaterrsquo than Christ But here at John 858 in answer to the question the priests and leaders asked concerning Abraham lsquoseeingrsquo his day Jesus answered according to Dr Blanco ldquoBecause I existed before Abraham was even bornrdquo Thus Dr Blanco makes no connection as others do that Christ is the ldquoI amrdquo of Exodus 314 which according to some would indicate that Jesus is the Jehovah of the Old Testament What he sees in this account is that Jesus already lsquoexisted before Abraham didrsquo and thus Abraham was able to lsquoseersquo his day (John 856) To this we must add another likely element included in Jesus response to the Jews as wellone of simple identification as ldquothe Christ [Messiah]rdquo and ldquoSon of manrdquo Why is it then that manywho support the Trinity doctrine find it hard to understand Jesus statement correctly at John 858 Could it be that they are letting non-Scriptural influence and perhaps the weight of themajority view dictate their understanding of this Scripture

For a consideration of other subjects by the same author check below

For a discussion of Acts 286 Whose blood

httpwwwscribdcomdoc231244155Acts-20-28-Whose-blood

For a discussion of Colossians 116 (ldquoall other thingsrdquo) see

httpwwwscribdcomdoc205841269Colossians-1-16-Is-the-expression-all-other-things-a-proper-rendition

For a consideration on the subject of the Trinity click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc160286056Does-the-Trinity-ever-make-sense

For a full consideration of John 11 click the following link httpwwwscribdcomdoc34916458The-correct-translation-of-John-1-1

For a brief consideration of John 11 with additional citations click here httpwwwscribdcomdoc50330864John-1-1-List-of-Alternate-Readings

Did the NW translators know any Greek click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc48234022Did-the-New-World-Translation-Committee-Know-Greek

For a consideration of John 173 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc57772552John-17-3-E28098Taking-in-knowledge-of-E28099-God-and-Jesus

For a consideration of 1 Timothy 316 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc76927834Was-God-manifested-in-the-flesh-1-Timothy-3-16

For a consideration of Exodus 225 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc38676458Exodus-2-25-And-God-took-notice-Does-God- care-about-us

For a consideration of John 114 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc35002730John-1-14-Jesus-full-of-grace

For a consideration of Translation Differences-Questions and Answershttpwwwscribdcomdoc59484457Translation-Differences-Questions-and-Answers

In Spanish

Para una consideracioacuten de otros temas vea los siguientes enlaces

Para una consideracioacuten de Colosenses 116 ldquotodas las otras cosasrdquo vea

httpwwwscribdcomdoc209601066Colosenses-1-16-C2BFEs-la-traduccion-E2809Ctodas-las-otras-cosasE2809D-apropiada

Para una consideracioacuten de ldquoiquestAcaso tiene sentido la Trinidadrdquo

httpwwwscribdcomdoc173779117C2BFAcaso-tiene-sentido-la-Trinidad

Para un consideracioacuten de Juan 11 vea el siguiente enlace

httpwwwscribdcomdoc35899788Traduccion-correcta-de-Juan-1-1-Lista-de- lecturas-alternativas

Para el tema iquestSabiacutean griego los traductores de la TNM vea el siguiente enlace

httpwwwscribdcomdoc51623596C2BFSabia-griego-el-Comite-de-la-Traduccion-del-Nuevo-Mundo

the New Testament p 110 ndash Frederick William Danker) You can add the rendering ldquoI have beenrdquo to the list above as we will see What do scholars say of the syntax found in John 858

Some scholars have pointed out that Scriptures which have within their structure a particular idiom containing a Greek verb in the present tense with an expression of past time or an adverb in its construction can be rendered into a modern language such as English with a present perfect indicative form (ldquoI have beenrdquo ldquoI have existedrdquo) Other scholars have chosen instead to use a simple past tense (ldquoI wasrdquo ldquoI existedrdquo) in translation for the present verb ldquoeimirdquo at John 858 These Bible translators surely no less conscientious of Greek grammar than scholars who favor the ldquoI amrdquo rendering have translated taking into account the presence of the peculiar syntax found at John 858 Grammarian Kenneth L McKay refers to the idiom as ldquoExtension from Pastrdquo and it occurs when a present verb is ldquoused with an expression of either past time or extent of time with past implicationsrdquo (A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek 1994 41) This is the case with John 858 where the expression ldquoI amrdquo forms part of a Greek idiom structure ldquoprin Abraam genesthai egō eimi [Before Abraham to become I am]rdquo having an expression of past time in its statement This construction is not unique to John 858 appearing in other places as indicated below It also appears in the Septuagint (Genesis 3138 41 Exodus 410 2136 Judges 1617 Psalm 902 Luke 137 1529 John 149 Acts 1521)

Various scholars explain the syntax found in Scriptures such as John 858 thus (Some scholars may or may not specifically mention John 858 as an example of the idiom)

Greek ndash An Intensive Course ldquoWhen [the present is] used with expressions denoting past time the present is the equivalent of the English present progressive perfect πάλαι τοῦτο ποιῶ [palai touto poiō] I have been doing this for a long timerdquo (Hardy Hansen amp Gerald M Quinn New York Fordham University Press 1992 Page 731)

Winer ldquoSometimes the Present includes also a past tense (Mdv 108) viz when the verb expresses a state which commenced at an earlier period but still continuesmdasha state in its duration as Jno xv 27 ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς μετʼ ἐμοῦ ἐστέ [apʼ ar khēs metʼ e mou e ste] viii 58 πρὶν ᾿Αβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμι [prin A bra am ge nesthai e gō ei mi]rdquo ( A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament by G B Winer seventh edition Andover 1897 p 267)

Brooks amp Winbery ldquoPast and present are gathered up in a single affirmationthe full meaning is that something has been and still isrdquo (Syntax of New Testament Greek by James A Brooks amp Carlton L Winbery Lanham University Press of America 1979 [1988] 84 Idiom labeled as ldquoDurative Presentrdquo by the authors)

Wallace ldquoThe present tense may be used to describe an action that begun in the past continues in the present The emphasis is on the present time Note that this is different from the perfect tense in that the perfect speaks only about the results existing in the present time It is different from the progressive present in that it reaches back in time and usually if

not always has some sort of temporal indicator such as an adverbial phrase to show this past-referring element The key to this usage is normally to translate the present tense as an English present perfect hellip Luke 1529 τοσαῦτα ἔτη δουλεύω σοι [tosauta etē douleuō soi] I have served you for these many years 1 John 38 ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς ὁ διάβολος ἁμαρτάνει [ap archēs ho diabolos hamartanei] the devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (The Basics of New Testament Syntax by Daniel B Wallace pp 222-3 Italics and bold letters his Underline mine)

WW Goodwin ldquoThe present with πάλαι [palai] or any other expression of past time has theforce of a present and perfect combined as πάλαι τοῦτο λέγω [palai touto legō] I have longbeen telling this (which I now tell)rdquo (A Greek Grammar Section 1258 p 270)

J H Moulton ldquoThe Present which indicates the continuance of an action during the past and up to the moment of speaking is virtually the same as Perfective the only difference being that the action is conceived as still in progress It is frequent in the NT Lk 248 137 1529 Jn 56 8 58 (εἰμί) 1491527Ac 152126312 Co 12192 Ti 3152Pt 341 Jn 29 38rdquo (A Grammar of New Testament Greek by J H Moulton Vol III Syntax by Nigel Turner Edinburgh 1963 p 62)

Sanders and Masten ldquoTo describe a state continuing up to the present Greek uses the present tense where English uses the Perfect cf Jn 858rdquo (Harpers New Testament Commentaries p 158)

Burton ldquoThe Present of past Action still in Progress The Present Indicative accompaniedby an adverbial expression denoting duration and referring to past time is sometimes used in Greek as in German to describe an action which beginning in past time is still in progress at the time of speaking English idiom requires the use of the Perfect in such cases hellip Acts 1521Luke 1371529John 562 Tim 315rdquo (Syntax of Moods and Tenses in NT Greek by Ernest De Witt Burton p 10)

Smyth ldquoPresent of Past and Present Combined ndash The present when accompanied by a definite or indefinite expression of past time is used to express an action begun in the past and continued in the present The lsquoprogressive perfectrsquo is often used in translation Thus πάλαι θαυμάζω [palai thaumazō] I have been long (and am still) wonderingrdquo (Greek Grammar by Herbert Weir Smyth Section 1885 on verb tenses pp 422-423)

( ldquoThe Present of past Action still in Progressrdquo (See also An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek by CFD Moule Section v p 8 Cambridge) This same idiom is discussed in other grammars under the names ldquoDurative Presentrdquo ldquoExtension from Past Presentrdquo or ldquoProgressive Presentrdquo See Blass and Debrunner section 322 K L Mckay 1994 pp 41-42 A T Robertsons Grammar p 879 WD Chamberlains Grammar p 70 D A Black Its Still Greek to Me p 107 A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testamentby Dana and Mantey pp 182-3 Intermediate New Testament Greek by Richard A Young p111 A Concise Exegetical Grammar of New Testament Greek by J Harold Greenlee p 93

Classical examples are provided in Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek Verb by WW Goodwin p 9 26)

The scholars quoted above clearly show that the English present tense in such construction isnot equal to the Greek Present Therefore it would be a mistake to conclude that we have to take the basic sense of ldquoegō eimirdquo in John 858 and represent it word-for-word in our language to be accurate We must consider whether John 858 contains a temporal indicator that goes back in time in combination with a Greek ldquopresentrdquo verb Those seeking to prove apoint of ldquotimelessnessrdquo in ldquoeimirdquo should be reminded that Greek verb tenses of themselves do not indicate whether a subject in view is ldquoeternalrdquo or not

In point of fact the above biblical Greek syntax is carried over to modern Greek A modern Greek Grammar explains ldquoThe [Greek] present may also be used to refer to an action or situation that began in the past and continues in the present where English uses the perfect Παίρνω αυτό το φάρμακο από το 1999 [Pairnō auto to pharmako apo to 1999] Ive been taking this medicine since 1999rdquo (Greek An Essential Grammar of the Modern Language by David Holton Peter Mackridge and Irene Philippaki-Warburton p 121 2004) Take note how the authors take into account the Greek idiom and translate the verb pairno (1st person present indicative which basically means ldquoI am takingrdquo) using an English present perfect ldquoIve been taking this medicine since 1999rdquo

Consequently when Bible versions transfer the basic meaning ldquoI amrdquo into their translated text without considering the above syntax they could fail to convey the intended Greek meaning and end up with ungrammatical English as well (ldquoUngrammaticalrdquo because English present tense cannot start before a particular point in the pastrdquo) Oddly some free paraphrased and dynamic equivalent translations carry over this ldquoliteralrdquo reading of the passage right into their versions with no explanation whatsoever for breaking rules of English grammar Anyone doing translation work between two languages knows well that it is not always feasible or practical to translate word for word Otherwise the end product would be flawed unreadable material

Is Exodus 314 parallel to John 858

Some believe there is an asserted connection of Jesus at John 858 being identified with ldquoTheBeingrdquo or ldquoThe Existing Onerdquo of Exodus 314 In other words those who hold such view believe Jesus Christ is the ldquoJehovahrdquo or ldquoYahwehrdquo of the Old Testament At Exodus 314 the Septuagint a Greek translation from the Hebrew has the true God saying ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν [Egō eimi ho ōn] ldquoI am the The Beingrdquo or ldquoI am The Existing Onerdquo And linking to Exodus 314 many translations have Jesus saying at John 858 ldquoI amrdquo However did Christ really say at John 858 ldquoI am Jehovahrdquo ldquoI am The Beingrdquo or even ldquoThe I Amrdquo No he did not Those interpretations are traditionally read into the text

The use of ldquoeimirdquo at Exodus 314 in the Septuagint is used as a linking verb to the expression ldquoThe Beingrdquo or ldquoThe Existing Onerdquo not as an absolute predicate This is similar to as when David said ldquoI am (egō eimi) the one sinningrdquo (1 Chronicles 2117

LXX) Or when Jesus says (John 107) ldquoI am (egō eimi) the door to the sheeprdquo Or Peter (Acts 223) ldquoI am (egō eimi) a Jewrdquo In these three instances of ldquoeimirdquo as a connecting verb there is nothing in the words themselves suggesting eternity We also find an angel Gabriel using the same expression that Christ used at John 858 (Luke 119) Even Paul stated εἰμι ὅ εἰμι [eimi ho eimi] = ldquoI am what I amrdquo and by using those words he was by nomeans claiming he was God eternal (1 Corinthians 1510) Hence the use of ldquoeimirdquo of itselfcannot be used as a sound argument to bolster Christs deity

The meaning of ldquoeimirdquo must therefore be defined mainly from Bible context and not from any mysticism attributed to the word And strictly speaking John 858 does not even say whether Jesus is ldquoeternalrdquo or not All it says is that Jesus preceded Abraham in time and his existence extended to the present ldquoI have existed [since] before Abraham was bornrdquo (A New Translation by James Moffatt) The Bible does say that Christ is ldquosuperiorrdquo to angels but ldquosuperiorityrdquo does not demand ldquoeternityrdquo since someone can be ldquosuperiorrdquo to another without having the same age It should be pointed out that angels too existed way before Abraham came to be and still ldquoexistrdquo but nonetheless they were ldquocreatedrdquo by God (Genesis 62 Job 381-7 Psalm 1482 5) And of Christ it is said ldquoHe isthe firstborn of all creationrdquo (Col 115 ESV) Some in their attempt to disconnect Christ from lsquocreaturersquo status twist the meaning of this last statement but Christ himself said ldquoI have life because of him [God]rdquo (John 657 CEV)

Although many Bible commentators explain Gods words at Exodus 314 as the New American Standard Bible rendered it ldquoI AM WHO I AMrdquo other scholars accept another explanation such as the one found in The International Bible Commentary ldquoThe translation lsquoI will be what I will bersquo (cf NIVfn) is also possible and would make even more explicit the suggestion that Gods character would be disclosed as events unfoldedrdquo (FF Bruce GeneralEditor) Another reference work The Expositors Bible Commentary (Abridged Edition) points out the following as well ldquoThe Hebrew seeks the significance character quality and interpretation of the name Therefore what they needed to know was lsquoWhat does that name mean or signify in circumstances such as we are inrsquo rdquo So even when scholars use ldquoI Amrdquo intheir explanations of Exodus 314 others see the phrase as indicative of Gods will toward his people Thus other translators provide an alternate more accurate reading either in the main text or in their footnotes

ldquoI Will Be What I Will Berdquo (Modern Spelling Tyndale-Coverdale) ldquoI Will Become whatsoever I pleaserdquo (Joseph Bryant Rotherham) ldquoI will be what I will berdquo (The Bible in Living English Steven T Byington) ldquoI WILL BE THAT I WILL BErdquo (Leeser Old Testament 1853) ldquoI shall come to be just as I am coming to berdquo (Concordant Literal Version) ldquoI-will-be-what-I-will-berdquo (A New Translation by James Moffatt) ldquoI shall be that I shall berdquo (Julia Smith Translation) ldquoEHYEH ASHER EHYEH I will be-there howsoever I will be-thererdquo (The Five Books [of Moses by Everett Fox)ldquoI SHALL PROVE TO BE WHAT I SHALL PROVE TO BErdquo (NWT)ldquoI Will Become What I Choose to Becomerdquo (NWT 2013)

See also The Anchor Bible (William HC Propp) and the The Stone Tanach (Artscroll Mesorah)

In the Hebrew original the above words pronounced by God Almighty are in the ldquoimperfectrdquostate of the verb which communicate ldquoincompletenessrdquo or ldquofuturerdquo activity Interestingly the Hebrew word ייי( ה ה( ה איא (ehyeh) appears in Exodus 312 just two verses away and there many Bible translations render it unlike what they do in Exodus 314 as future action ldquoI will be with yourdquo reflecting the imperfect state of the verb here indicative of Gods intended involvement with his people (Compare with other occurrences of the word in Joshua 15 Judges 616 1 Samuel 2317 2 Samuel 714 1534 1618 1 Chronicles 1713 Isaiah 477 and Jeremiah 114 where ehyeh is commonly translated as ldquofuturerdquo action) This brings up the question Why do this in Exodus 312 and the other places but not in verse 14

Charles R Gianotti (Dallas Theological Seminary) points out this very thing ldquoSignificantlymost interpreters translate ייי( ה ה( ה איא [ehyeh] in Exodus 312 as future (ie I will be [ehyeh] with yoursquo) Yet two verses later why should not the same translation sufficerdquo Gianotti adds ldquoThe future in this case can indeed refer to future activity or effectiveness of YHWH It should be observed that even Aquila (AD 130) noted for his lsquoslavishly literal translationrsquo translated the tense as futurerdquo Gianotti says that ldquoin light of the imperfect form ייי( ה ה( ה איא [ehyeh] used in Exodus 314rdquo translating ייי( ה ה( ה איא [ ehyeh ] as most English versions do assuming a present tense meaning is ldquo unjustifiedrdquo (ldquoThe Meaning of the Divine Name YHWHrdquo Bibliotheca Sacra 142 January-March 1985) Reflecting a similar understanding the NWT 1984 Reference Edition adds the following footnote ldquoThe reference here is not to Gods self-existence but to what he has in mind to become toward othersrdquo

The Septuagint reading ldquoI am The Beingrdquo at Exodus 314 does not represent the best translation possible from the Hebrew It is odd indeed that many Bible translators choose to follow the Greek Septuagint in verse 14 rather than the original Hebrew Text Trinitarian advocate James R White PhD (from Alpha amp Omega Ministries) noted ldquoIt is true that many go directly to Exodus 314 for the background but it is felt that unless one first establishes the connection with the direct quotation of ego eimi in the Septuagint the connection with Exodus 314 will be somewhat tenuousrdquo

Could it be then that modern translators want to advance ehyeh as a title or name ldquoI Amrdquo to express self-existence and hence make the connection to the ldquoI Amrdquo of Jesus in John 858 as it appears in traditional versions If so such translators could be guilty of asserting the Trinity doctrine on their readers Although James White sees a connection between John 858 and the ldquoI am [he]rdquo sayings in Isaiah he has this to say of the supposed connection between John 858 and Exodus 314 ldquoIt could fairly be admitted that an immediate and unqualified jump from the ego eimi of John 858 to Exodus 314 is unwiserdquo (ldquoPurpose and Meaning of lsquoEgo Eimirsquo in the Gospel of John In Reference to the Deity of Christrdquo)

Likewise Edwin D Freed Professor Emeritus of Religion Gettysburg College contends that ldquothe meaning of the sentence [at John 858] in the mind of the writer was ldquoBefore

Abraham was I the Christ the Son of God existedrdquo (ldquoWho or what was before Abraham inJohn 858rdquo Journal for the Study of the New Testament 17 1983 52-59) Professor Freed thus sees no connection of Jesus statement in John 858 with that of Jehovah (Yahweh) at Exodus 314 But what about the ldquoI amrdquo sayings appearing in the books of Isaiah and John Are they not connected somehow

Is rsquoani-hursquo in Isaiah parallel to egō eimi in John

At times there are biblical statements made where both God and Christ use similar languageThis is not surprising when one considers the role Christ plays in Gods purpose The Bible tells us that Christ is ldquothe image of the invisible God the firstborn of all creationrdquo (NASB) ldquothe radiance of Gods glory and the exact representation of his beingrdquo (Colossians 115 Hebrews 13) ldquoAnd God has put all things under the authority of Christ and he gave him this authority for the benefit of the churchrdquo (Ephesians 122 NLT) Anyone seeking salvation must therefore put faith in lsquothe name which was given by God to mankindrsquo ldquoJesus Christrdquo ldquoto the glory of God the Fatherrdquo ldquoWhoever believes in the Son has eternal life but whoever rejects the Son will not see life for Godrsquos wrath remains on themrdquo (John 336 Philippians 21011) In all God still is in control and just as lsquoChristians belong to Christrsquo ldquoChrist belongs to Godrdquo says the Word (1 Corinthians 113 323 NASB)

In the Old Testament God appears on several occasions using the Hebrew phrase א( הוא נני־ אא (rsquoani-hursquo) which literally means ldquoI ndash herdquo but sometimes translated ldquoI amrdquo or ldquoI am herdquo (Isaiah 414 428 4310 13 464 4812 526) It also appears in Deuteronomy 3239 David a human also used that expression in 1 Chronicles 2117 (Hebrew הוא )ה נני־ אא (ani-huacute- ldquoI am herdquo) Septuagint ἐγώ εἰμι (ldquoegō eimirdquo) Although many argue that there is a connection between Christs statements in the NT and those of God in the OT there is no certainty of those interpretations Even if there was some connection in the ldquoI amrdquo statements would that prove that the identity of the speaker is the same in each case Not really

In the Bible when God made some men powerful and blessed them with his spirit in a sensethey became like ldquoa godrdquo since they ldquorepresentedrdquo God (Exodus 71 Psalms 8216 John 1033-36) Having others referred to in similar language to that of God is no conclusive proofof ldquoequalityrdquo with God An example of this can be seen when a ldquomanrdquo (perhaps Solomon) became ldquokingrdquo of Israel was addressed literally in divine terms ldquoYour throne God forever and everrdquo (Psalm 456) Obviously this human king was not the One True God Not surprisingly some Bible translators work around this literal reading and make it read where it says something like ldquoYour throne is like Gods thronerdquo (Jewish Publication Society) OrldquoYour divine throne endures for ever and everrdquo (Revised Standard Version) Or ldquoYour throne is from Godrdquo (New Jerusalem Bible) Or ldquoGod has enthroned you for all eternityrdquo (Revised English Bible)

Even when translators render the passage literally they explain it in such a way that makes it clear that Solomon was not God For instance the NIV of 2011 has this footnote ldquoHere the king is addressed as Godrsquos representativerdquo Nonetheless when such reference is made of

Jesus Christ (as in Hebrews 18) the same translators may now insist those similar words areldquoproofrdquo of Christs ldquodeityrdquo A good example of this is found in the NET Bibles footnotes Although Jesus accepted being ldquoone greater than Solomonrdquo he never claimed to be God the Father (Matthew 1242) Significantly to Jesus ldquoGodrdquo was someone else

In the Bible is not rare to read frequent references and comparisons of faithful men with Jesus Christ ndash Abraham Jacob Moses David Solomon Jonas and John the Baptist (John 853 412 Deuteronomy 1815 Hebrews 33 Psalm 1101 Matthew 927 2245 124142 Mark 17 Luke 117 72628) Whats more Jesus is compared to ldquoangelsrdquo (Hebrews 14513) Should we take this to mean that men and angels are somehow identical to Jesus Christ True some of these references show that Jesus Christ is above them But we should take the superiority of Christ over them in the same way that we rightly accept Jesus own words indicative of his relative position to the Father ldquoThe Father is greater than Irdquo (John 1428 2031)

Accordingly the ldquoI amrdquo or ldquoI am herdquo expressions pronounced by God and Jesus Christ found in both the Old and New Testaments must be understood within their proper context From the beginning of mans history God provided a way for mankinds deliverance Jesus was prophetically the center of this magnificent expectation For eons of time mankind waited for the One (Messiah) who would deliver them from bondage Nevertheless when hedid appear on the earthly scene most people ignored and rejected the real Messiah because they were expecting politically speaking a quick deliverance from the Roman yoke

However God had something else in mind ndash deliverance was still ahead It was now the time to call attention to the fact that Christ their (future) ldquosaviorrdquo was in their midst Jesus did his part by words and by action (miracles etc) He called attention to who he really was ldquothe Son of Godrdquo and told others that he was ldquothe Christrdquo (or the ldquoMessiahrdquo) (John 42526 Matthew 1615-17 2663-68) Related to the subject one expression Jesus used on various occasions was this one ldquoI amrdquo or ldquoI am herdquo words understood by those brought up in trinitarian doctrine to attest Jesus equality with God (John 426 620 824 28 858 1319 185-6 8) However the phrase was sometimes used as a simple self-identification like ldquoIt is Irdquo or ldquoI am Jesusrdquo At other times when questioned by doubters Jesus used it to get the point across that lsquohe was the one [and not someone else]rsquo the promised ldquoSaviorrdquo ldquothe Son of manrdquo ldquothe Son of Godrdquo ldquothe Messiahrdquo

At no time did Jesus ever claim he was a ldquoGod-manrdquo or ldquoGod in the fleshrdquo (John 316) Those thoughts are foreign to Scripture Remember that Scripture teaches that lsquoGod was with Jesusrsquo just as we are told that lsquoGod was with Josephrsquo son of Jacob Scripture does not say that Jesus was God made flesh It was lsquothe Wordrsquo the Son of God who was with God in the beginning the One who lsquobecame fleshrsquo not God (Acts 79 1038 John 11 114) Christendom has distorted Scripture to the point that ldquoChristianrdquo followers cannot determine this plain truth A misunderstanding of John 11 and 1 Timothy 316 has greatly contributed to this error Further below you will find links where those verses are considered in detail

It was through Jesus death that God reconciled sinful people to himself Hence the ldquoI amrdquo

or ldquoI am herdquo sayings of Jesus need not be directly linked to those uttered by God before the time of Christ Jesus was sent by God on a saving mission as a representative of God With good reason he declared unambiguously that ldquoherdquo was (and not some other) ldquoGods Sonrdquo the promised ldquoMessiahrdquo The Jesus sayings ldquoI amrdquo or ldquoI am herdquo in some cases would confirm at most that ldquothere is no other name under heaven that has been given to men in which we must be savedrdquo (Acts 4 12) It was lsquoGod who resurrected Jesus from among the deadrsquo and it was God who lsquogave mankind the namersquo that saves people (Acts 410)

Thus the ldquoI amrdquo sayings of the New Testament were certainly pronounced in a different setting than those in the Old Testament Not to be overlooked the One using the ldquoI amrdquo or ldquoI am herdquo expressions in the OT is described unequivocally as lsquoAlmighty Godrsquo lsquothe only True Godrsquo with maximum ldquopowerrdquo and ldquoauthorityrdquo to send a ldquosubordinaterdquo to an extraordinary mission (Daniel 714 John 1316 537) The glorified Christ is never described in the same way as God was in Old Testament times as he always appears throughout the NT subordinated to God Still Christ is ldquothe wayrdquo to the Father and salvation (John 146) We are therefore commanded to recognize his lsquoGod-given authorityrsquo so ldquothat all may honor the Son just as they honor the Fatherrdquo (Matthew 2818 John 2031 523) Jesus is then the ldquomediatorrdquo between God and mankind (1 Timothy 25) A grand privilege that is

What does the context of John 858 indicate

Some Bible readers see Jesus in the context of John chapter 8 not only saying in idiomatic fashion that he lsquowas [already] alive before Abraham was born (SEB)rsquo and still lsquoisrsquo but also that he was identifying himself as ldquothe Son of Manrdquo ldquothe Messiahrdquo This is a reasonable assumption as well One of the Jews questions was ldquoWho do you think you arerdquo (John 853) In John 824 28 1319 Matthew 2754 and Mark 1460-64 the function or position ofChrist as the ldquoSon of Godrdquo ldquoSon of Manrdquo and ldquothe Christrdquo all come through

The statement (or question) Jews made to Jesus prior to verse 58 was ldquoYou are not yet fifty years old and you have seen Abrahamrdquo Logically Jesus answered the question of his age of his long existence and additionally was perhaps asserting his ldquomessiahshiprdquo as well in harmony with the question Jews had posed earlier in verse 53 This may be one reason a fewtranslators render or note John 858 not as ldquoI amrdquo but rather ldquoI am herdquo some to suggest Christ is God while others do so emphasizing his messianic role The second interpretation fits better with Scripture In the list of alternate readings of John 858 below you will find that rendering as well However the key issue in this text is Jesus existence from past to present Unlike other verses in John (82428) where ldquoeimirdquo is used (in the sense of ldquoI am herdquo ie ldquothe Son of Godrdquo ldquothe Messiahrdquo) in verse 58 the matter of ldquoidentityrdquo is secondaryto the key issue of his existence In the sum of things it should be noted that ldquoindefiniterdquo existence is not equal to ldquoeternalrdquo existence

Within the context of chapter eight (8) of John Jesus makes statements which mark clear differences with his Father God When reading over the next few paragraphs keep in mind that the Bible condemns two-faced personalities and speaking out with a forked tongue

Jesus himself spoke out against hypocrisy so he only spoke ldquotruthrdquo

In John 826 Jesus told the Jews that he was ldquosentrdquo by his Father and that lsquohe speaks the things that he hears from the one who sent himrsquo That lsquohe does nothing on his own initiativersquo (NASB) That lsquohe isrsquo ldquothe Son of Manrdquo and lsquospeaks just what the Father taught himrsquo (V 28)

Jesus stated a simple but significant truth ldquoNo servant is greater than his master nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent himrdquo (John 1316) With this principle in mind here are some questions to ponder about How could Jesus be ldquosentrdquo if he himself was ldquoGodrdquo Why was Jesus lsquonot able to do anything on his own initiativersquo if he was ldquoall-mightyrdquo In verse 29 Jesus says that lsquothe One who sent him has not left him alone and that he always did what pleased the Fatherrsquo Why would Jesus Christ say at all lsquoI always do what pleases him who sent mersquo If Jesus was ldquoGodrdquo why would he find it important enoughto mention whether he was left ldquoalonerdquo or not Does God need ldquocompanionshiprdquo as humans do Why would anybody have to ldquoteachrdquo Jesus anything if he was all-knowingrdquo

Also Jesus applied the title ldquoSon of Manrdquo to himself numerous times a term which Jews considered a title of the promised ldquoMessiahrdquo not of ldquoGodrdquo In addition the Bible book of Numbers 2319 tells us that ldquoGod is not a man that he should lie ldquonor a son of man that he should change his mindrdquo Nonetheless Christ precisely adopted this very same expression (ldquoSon of Manrdquo) before others with no regrets Furthermore did God have to become ldquoa manrdquo to save humankind when the Bible explicitly says that lsquoGod sent his only-begotten Sonrsquoto save the worldrsquo (John 316 NASB 1 John 414) Who is distorting the full picture here

In verse 40 John reports that the Jews lsquowere determined to kill Jesus because they didnt want to accept the word and truth that Jesus as a man [Greek anthropon] spoke having it received from Godrsquo How could Christ speak of himself as lsquoa man receiving truth from Godrsquowhen seconds later according to Trinitarians he would be using a ldquotitlerdquo claiming to be ldquoGodrdquo in effect contradicting everything he had been saying until then None of these statements would make sense if Jesus himself was the Supreme God as many believe

What would Jesus gain by claiming before the world that he lsquocould not do anything on his own initiativersquo that lsquohe always did what pleased the Fatherrsquo and that he only spoke just what the Father who sent him lsquotaughtrsquo him And shortly afterwards change his message altogether and claim as we are asked to believe that Christ was the ldquoGodrdquo of the Old Testament by the sole act of pronouncing the ldquoI amrdquo divine ldquotitlerdquo Does this lsquodouble personalityrsquo approach make any sense to a Christian who is taught to only believe ldquothere is but one God the Fatherrdquo (John 530 1 Corinthians 86) No wonder there are a good number of Bible translators including Trinitarians who disagree with the traditional view of John 858

Does the Jews reaction in John 859 prove Jesus Christ had claimed to be ldquoGodrdquo

Shortly before his death Jesus was taken before the Sanhedrin the high court of the Jews to

face false charges by people who wanted him dead Please take note of the charges brought up in Marks account (1460-64) which says

60 Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus ldquoAre you not going to answer What is this testimony that these men are bringing against yourdquo 61 But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer Again the high priest asked him ldquoAre you the Messiah the Son of the Blessed Onerdquo 62 ldquoI amrdquo said Jesus ldquoAnd you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heavenrdquo 63 The high priest tore his clothes ldquoWhy do we need any more witnessesrdquo he asked 64 ldquoYou have heard the blasphemy What do you thinkrdquo They all condemned him as worthy of death

In view of the events of Mark 1460-64 and considering the context of John chapter 8 it is clear that the Jews rejected Jesus claim of him being ldquothe Messiahrdquo and of being lsquogreaterrsquo than Abraham They were also rejecting the idea that he was ldquofrom aboverdquo ldquothe Son of Mansitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heavenrdquo of the heavenly vision (John 823) In their view that was enough to charge him with blasphemy since they could not imagine any ldquomanrdquo making such claims

C K Barrett rightly noted that the Jews reaction in verse 59 ldquodoes not mean that Jesus had claimed to be Godrdquo (The Gospel According to St John 2d ed Philadelphia Westminster Press 1978 352) And Professor Emeritus William Loader noted ldquoThe text need mean no more than I am and was in existence before Abraham still a majestic unique claim but not anallusion to the divine namerdquo (The Christology of the Fourth Gospel Structures and Issues Revised 2d ed New York Lang 1992 48)

Even before Jesus spoke the ldquoegō eimirdquo words in John 858 the Jews had already sought to kill Jesus (John 719 837) And for what ldquocrimerdquo This lsquoJesus claimed the truth he taughtcame from Godrsquo (John 716 840) This is vastly different from lsquoJesus alledgedly claiming a divine title equating him with God at John 858rsquo Since then all sorts of religious leaders have claimed as well that ldquowhat they teach others comes from Godrdquo and not from them Does that make them ldquoequalrdquo to God

Because Jesus often lsquocalled God his Fatherrsquo the Jews wrongly concluded that he was ldquomaking himself equal to Godrdquo (John 51819) However Jesus quickly set the matter straight when he called himself Gods ldquoSonrdquo (nine times in chapter 5 alone) an expression never applied to ldquoGodrdquo in Scripture (Matthew 2663-64) The Jews even claimed Jesus was ldquobreaking the Sabbathrdquo and further of being ldquoa Samaritan and demon-possessedrdquo (John 518 848) Were they right Absolutely not Thus wrong perceptions of Jews in Jesus time - like Jesus claiming equality with God - are truly a shaky foundation to base modern interpretations The Jerusalem Bible has this to say ldquoThe claim of Jesus to live on the divine plane (v 58) is for the Jews blasphemy for which the penalty is stoning Lv 2416rdquo I see the JB accepting the claim that Jesus possessed some mode of ldquodivine existencerdquo (as suggested by the Spanish edition of JB ldquoBiblia de Jerusaleacutenrdquo) but avoiding a direct reference of Christ

claiming to be God or that he was claiming ldquoeternalrdquo existence in the verse And former Professor Kenneth L McKay said ldquoThe claim to have been in existence for so long is in itself a staggering one quite enough to provoke the crowds violent reaction [in v59]rdquo (ldquo lsquoI amrsquo in Johns Gospelrdquo p 302) Hence those who claim the charge of blasphemy involved Jesus claim of being ldquoGodrdquo are wrong for Jesus never claimed to be ldquoThe Supreme Beingrdquo but only ldquoGods Sonrdquo (John 31718)

Weeks later after the incident of John chapter 8 but related to the topic of discussion in John 1030-36 we read that the Jews misunderstood Jesus words ldquoI and the father are onerdquo (John 10 30) So they wanted to stone him for it but Jesus told them

33 ldquoWe are not stoning you for any good workrdquo they replied ldquobut for blasphemy because you a mere man claim to be Godrdquo 34 Jesus answered them ldquoIs it not written in your Law lsquoI have said you are ldquogodsrdquorsquo [Psalm 826] 35 If he called them lsquogodsrsquo to whom the word of God camemdashand Scripture cannot be set asidemdash 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said lsquoI am Godrsquos Sonrsquo ( Other versions translate the Greek word here for ldquoGodrdquo without the article either as ldquogodrdquo or ldquoa godrdquo Besson Torrey NWT Mace Luther 1545 Diaglott Tomanek Andy Gaus New English Bible)

Notice that Jesus Christ under duress had another golden opportunity to once and for all disclose publicly that he was ldquoGodrdquo But he did not do so The argument itself that Jesus employed shows that he could legitimately claim lsquodivine originrsquo without being identified as one-and-the-same God with his Father

Less than a year later AFTER the encounter with the Jews of John chapter 8 and before his death Jesus told his closest disciples in his farewell speech that they lsquoshould rejoice he was going away to the Father because the Father was greater than he wasrsquo (John 1428) And in his final prayer in proximity with his disciples he prayed to God that lsquothey may know his Father the only true God and Jesus Christ whom he has sentrsquo (John 173 ) God never needs to pray to anyone Shortly after Jesus died and was resurrected by God but before returning to his Father Jesus said to Mary Magdalene ldquoDo not hold on to me for I have notyet ascended to the Father Go instead to my brothers and tell them lsquoI am ascending to my Father and your Father to my God and your Godrsquo rdquo (John 2017)

Does it make sense to have Jesus claim equality with God by employing a divine title (ldquoI Amrdquo) before unbelieving Jews as Trinitarians claim and then have Jesus later assure his closest and faithful ones that lsquohis Father and his Godrsquo was also lsquothe Father and God of everyone elsersquo In fact Jesus disciples were clearly in a privileged position in regards to Christian teaching Jesus Christ had previously said to his disciples that he would explain lsquoall thingsrsquo to them privately whereas to others he would only speak in lsquoparablesrsquo or lsquocomparisonsrsquo (Matthew 1311 Mark 411 33 34) An explicit lsquodivine titlersquo directed at lsquounbelievingrsquo Jews is certainly no parable and would run counter to his own stated principles

Anyways Jesus Christ wanted other Christian followers to understand the special

relationship he had with the Father ldquoBut go to my followers and tell them this lsquoI am going back to my Father and your Father I am going back to my God and your Godrsquo rdquo (Easy to Read Version) This simple message is so different from the convoluted one commonly expounded by Trinitarians in their philosophical speculations

Between the time of the encounter between the Jews and Jesus in John ch 8 and the farewelldiscourse of our Lord Jesus Christ of later (chapters 14-17) not once did Jesus say he was ldquoGodrdquo Christ never spoke with a forked tongue Therefore Bible translators who do not claim Jesus was using a divine title at John 858 and provide renderings agreeing with the words of John 173 and 2017 are in the correct

Scriptures with similar syntax to John 858

Thus when faced with certain idiomatic expressions as the one found in John 858 the translator often has to ask himself How would someone normally express such statements in our language I will cite six (6) Scriptural examples that are similar in syntax to John 858 Genesis 3138 LXX 1 John 38 Luke 248 John 56 2 Corinthians 1219 and John 1527 All six Scriptures have present tense verbs AND an expression of past time or extent of time with past implications within its structure Lets see how these Scriptures compare with John 858 in our discussion

1st Example (Genesis 3138 LXX) ταῦτά μοι εἴκοσι ἔτη ἐγώ εἰμι μετὰ σοῦ - Greek These mine twenty years I am with you

Jacob after leaving Haran disputes with his father-in-law Laban over missing personal idols which Laban claimed were stolen by Jacob Jacob had no idea Rachel had stolen them In defense Jacob proceeded to mention several things he had done through the years on Labansbehalf ldquoThese twenty years I am with yourdquo (The Apostolic Bible Polyglot LXX 2006)ldquoThese twenty years of mine I was with yourdquo (A New English Translation of the Septuagint ldquoNETSrdquo 2007)ldquoThese twenty years have I been with theerdquo (The Holy Orthodox Bible LXX 2006)ldquoThese twenty years I have been with yourdquo (The Orthodox Study Bible LXX 2008)ldquoThese twenty years of mine have I been with theerdquo (Orthodox England LXX 2009)ldquoI have spent with you twenty of my years [Jai passeacute avec toi vingt de mes anneacutees]rdquo (La Septante [LXX] translated by Pierre Giguet)ldquoThese twenty years have I been with theerdquo (Sir Lancelot CL Brenton LXX)ldquoThese twenty years that I have been with theerdquo (Charles Thomson LXX)

Aside from the interlinear reading of the literal Apostolic Bible Polyglot other translators of the Septuagint (LXX) render a present indicative verb ldquoegō eimirdquo (I am) preceded by an expression of time with past implications (ldquoThese twenty yearsrdquo) with present perfect

indicative forms (ldquoI have beenrdquo) while one translation (NETS) uses a simple past form (ldquoI wasrdquo) A modern Greek translation Η Αγία ΓραφήmdashΜετάφραση Νέου Κόσμου has ldquoήμουνrdquo (Literally ldquoI wasrdquo) in this text A likely reason for that as a modern Greek Grammar pointsout is that for the verb lsquoto be (είμαι)rsquo ldquoThere are only two sets of tense forms in Greek present and past (imperfect)rdquo (op cit An Essential Grammar p 126 Sec 67) Hence they could not have used here a perfect tense form for the verb lsquoto be (eimai)rsquo But in English the Bible Society responsible for the Greek and English translations of the Hebrew portion of the Bible used instead ldquoI have beenrdquo at Genesis 3138 in the English edition because a present perfect is available in the language for the verb

Another interesting tidbit is the fact that the original Hebrew text here lacks a verb in the declaration namely ldquoThis twenty year I with-yourdquo (The Hebrew-English Interlinear ESV Old Testament Crossway) Well how do translators deal with this issue Overall like this with the perfect indicative ldquoI have been with you for twenty years nowrdquo A few versions use the imperfect instead lsquoI wasrsquo such as the Wycliffe Bible and the Lexham English Bible Rarely do translations use a ldquopresentrdquo here the exceptions being Youngs and Concordant literal translations So why do the overwhelming number of translators prefer tosupply a perfect tense here for the missing verb in the Hebrew Its simple There is a temporal indicator going to the past in the text namely lsquoThese twenty yearsrsquo

Now when the LXX translators proceeded to translate the Hebrew words of Genesis 3138 into Greek they cleverly used a well known vivid idiom available in classical Greek where a verb in the present tense is combined with an indicator of past time In this syntax the ldquopast and present are gathered up in a single affirmationrdquo (op cit Brooks amp Winbery) Modern English translators usually resort to the present perfect in this construction as shown aboveSo too John 858 reveals an expression of past time with a present verb in its statement and the NWT is one translation that is consistent with this construction both in Genesis 3138 and John 858

For the following I will use the Wescott and Hort Greek text for reference

2nd Example (1 John 38)

ὅτι ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς ὁ διάβολος ἁμαρτάνει - Greek because from beginning the devil is sinning

The apostle John warns Christians not to carry on sin for those who make a practice of sin originate from the Devil who has sinned from the beginning For this purpose the Son of God was revealed that he might undo the works of the Devil The text above contains an expression of past time (ldquofrom beginningrdquo) with a present verb (is sinning) very much likeJohn 858 How do translators deal with this passage Lets see

ldquofor the devil sinneth from the beginningrdquo (Rheims New Testament)ldquofor the devil sinneth from the beginningrdquo (KJV)

ldquofor the devil has sinned from the beginningrdquo (New King James Version)ldquofor the devil has sinned from the beginningrdquo (NASB)ldquobecause the devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (Interlinear Mounce)ldquofor the Devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (Riverside NT Ballantine)ldquobecause the devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (NIV)ldquobecause the devil has sinned from the beginningrdquo (NAB)ldquosince the devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (Jay E Adams)ldquowho has been sinning since the beginningrdquo (NLT)ldquofor the devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (NRSV)ldquosince the devil has been a sinner from the beginningrdquo (NJB)ldquobecause the devil has been sinning from the very beginningrdquo (J G Anderson)ldquofor the devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (ESV)

ldquothe devil was a sinner from the firstrdquo (Ronald A Knox New Testament)

Some translations transfer the Greek present to their English versions as if the English and Greek ldquopresentrdquo in such construction were the same thing It is not The end result is ungrammatical English Would you say in contemporary English ldquoFrom the beginning of class the boy sleepsrdquo Not Doctor Richard A Young points out ldquoTo say that the devil is sinning from the beginning does not make sense in English English translations therefore employ the present perfectrdquo (Intermediate New Testament Greek page 111)

The renderings above ldquohas sinnedrdquo and ldquohas been sinningrdquo are present perfect and present perfect progressive indicative forms The word ldquowasrdquo is a simple past tense Just as in 1 John 38 some translators in John 858 have rendered a present tense with an expression of past time in its construction with a present perfect ldquoI have beenrdquo

3rd Example (2 Corinthians 1219)

Πάλαι δοκεῖτε ὅτι ὑμῖν ἀπολογούμεθα ndash Greek Long ago you are thinking that to you we are making defense

Paul finds himself having to defend his apostolic authority and vindicating his record as superior in hardship endured for Christ and loving concern for congregations In simpler words Paul was telling them ldquoAll this time have you been thinking that Ive been speaking up for myself No Ive been speaking with God as my witness Ive been speaking like a believer in Christ Dear friends everything I do is to help you become strongerrdquo (NIRV)

In the literal reading above we have an adverb of time with past implications (Palai) followed by two Greek verb forms (ldquodokeiterdquo amp ldquoapologoumethardquo) in the present indicativetense The book Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek Verb by William Watson Goodwin explains ldquoThe Present is often used with expressions denoting past time especially πάλαι [palai] in the sense of a perfect and a present combinedrdquo (Section 26 p 9) How do translators render these in English Some carry over the present tense into the English text producing unconventional English Others cognizant of issues presented here

do a better job at it See below for a sample

ldquoHave you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves before yourdquo (The Comprehensive New Testament 2008)ldquoI hope you donacutet think that all along weacuteve been making our defense before yourdquo (The Message Eugene H Peterson)ldquoHave you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves to yourdquo (NIV)ldquoIt may seem to you that all this time we have been attempting to put ourselves in the rightrdquo (Bible in Basic English)ldquoAll this time you have been thinking that we have been pleading our own cause before yourdquo (NJB)ldquoHave you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves to yourdquo (CEV)ldquoHave you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves before yourdquo (Revised Standard Version) ldquoPerhaps you think that all along we have been trying to defend ourselves before yourdquo (TEV)ldquoHave you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves to yourdquo (ESV)ldquoYou have thought all along that we were defending ourselves to yourdquo (HCSB)ldquoHave you been thinking all this time that we have been defending ourselves to yourdquo (NET Bible)

ldquoYou have been thinking all along that it was to you we were making our defenserdquo (The Bible in Living English Steven T Byington)

The above translations use present perfect (and perfect progressive) forms or past progressives to bring out the proper sense of the original into our language Can anyone rightfully claim that it is improper for these Bible versions to translate this text as they have done in English

4th Example (Luke 248 Wescott and HortNestle early editions Greek text)

ὁ πατήρ σου καὶ ἐγὼ ὀδυνώμενοι ζητοῦμέν σε - Greek The father of you and I being pained we are seeking you Here the context (vv 42-48) speaks of Jesus (12 years old) being left behind unwittingly in Jerusalem by his parents they went back searching in distress for three days before finding him When they finally found him they spoke the words above

ldquoYour father and I have been looking for you anxiouslyrdquo (Revised Standard Version)ldquoYour father and I in agony of mind have been searching for yourdquo (Williams NT)ldquoYour father and I have been anxiously looking for Yourdquo (NASB 1971)ldquoYour father and I have been searching for you in great distressrdquo (Riverside NT)

ldquoHere have your father and I been searching anxiously for yourdquo (Hugh J Schonfield)ldquoYour father and I have been looking for you have been very anxious rdquo (Goodspeed)ldquoYour father and I have been looking for you We have been very troubledrdquo (Bible in Worldwide English)ldquoYour father and I have been looking for you in distressrdquo (Richmond Lattimore)ldquoYour father and I have been searching for you in great distressrdquo (Twentieth Century NT) ldquoThy father and I have sought thee distressedrdquo (Darby Bible Translation)

ldquoThy father and I sought thee sorrowingrdquo (American Standard Version)

ldquoThy father and I in anguish were seeking theerdquo (The Emphasized Bible 3rd edit based on Wescott and Hort by Joseph B Rotherham)ldquoThy father and I were seeking thee sorrowfulrdquo (W B Godbey N T 1902)ldquoThy father and I were seeking Thee sorrowingrdquo (A S Worrell N T 1904)ldquoYour father and I were anxiously looking for yourdquo (World English Bible)

The words ldquowe are seeking yourdquo are in the present indicative tense however since an expression of time is used indicating action going on for days (ldquoafter three daysrdquo v 46) translators find it necessary to use either the present perfect (ldquohave beenrdquo ldquohave soughtrdquo) or simple past (ldquosoughtrdquo) or past progressive (ldquowere seekingrdquo) indicative forms to express in English what the Greek says in the ldquopresentrdquo Various Greek texts have instead of the ldquopresentrdquo found in the Westcott amp Hort Text above an ldquoimperfectrdquo verb form Both forms are frequently rendered with an English present ldquoperfectrdquo Compare with Youngs Literal Translation which also uses a past progressive indicative form ldquowere seekingrdquo and the Spanish Reina-Valera Revisada which rendered an imperfect verb form appearing in the Received Text with a present perfect indicative (ldquohemos buscadordquo) Is this another reason why many translators have rendered the Greek present ldquoegō eimirdquo preceded by an adverbial modifier in its clause at John 858 with perfective or past forms in English

5th Example (Juan 56)

καὶ γνοὺς ὅτι πολὺν ἤδη χρόνον ἔχει - Greek and having known that much already time he is having

This is an account of an invalid man who for 38 years had been sick and was now being cured by Jesus The Greek in this clause does not make his illness clear however the context does Take note of the expression of time used with past implications mixed with a present indicative verb ldquohe is havingrdquo For this to make any sense in our language it has to be modified When Jesus saw this sick man lying there

ldquoand knew that he had been now a long time in that caserdquo (KJV italics theirs) ldquoand knowing that he had been ill a long timerdquo (Revised English Bible)ldquoand knew he had been in that condition for a long timerdquo (NJB)ldquoand knew that he had been sick for a long timerdquo (World English Bible)ldquoand knew that he had been sick for a long timerdquo (Godacutes Word)

ldquoand knew how long he had been illrdquo (Living Bible)ldquoand knew he had already been there a long timerdquo (HCSB)ldquoand he knew that the man had been sick for such a long timerdquo (TEV)ldquoand knew that he had been in this state a long timerdquo (Confraternity Version)ldquoand finding that he had had a long time of itrdquo (S T Byington) ldquoand knew that he had been sick for a long timerdquo (Jay E Adams)ldquoand he knew that he had been waiting for a long timerdquo (George M Lamsa Peshitta) ldquoand knew that he had been now a long timerdquo (Rheims New Testament)

ldquoand knowing that he was [in that state] now a great length of timerdquo (J N Darby Translation Brackets his)

Once again we see translators having to use mostly perfective forms (ldquohad beenrdquo ldquohad hadrdquopast perfects) and one with a simple past ldquowasrdquo even though they are translating a present tense verb ldquohe is havingrdquo This shows that translators adapt their renderings whenever is necessary to convey the right meaning into the target language It is thus possible to render ldquoeimirdquo at John 858 with a form other than a present tense such as a present perfect Those who say that it can not be done or should not be done just need to look again at the evidenceobjectively

6th Example (John 1527 Wescott amp Hort)

ὅτι ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς μετʼ ἐμοῦ ἐστέ ndash Greek that from beginning with me you are

These words spoken by Jesus evidently refers to the beginning of his ministry when he chosehis closest disciples They were eyewitnesses of all the things God did through Christ duringhis ministry (Acts 121)

ldquobecause ye have been with me from the beginningrdquo (KJV) ldquobecause you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (NAB)ldquofor you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (Christian Community Bible)ldquobecause you are the men who have been with me from the very beginningrdquo (Heinz Wldquobecause you have been with me from the firstrdquo (New English Bible) [ Cassirer)ldquobecause you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (Godacutes Word Translation) ldquofor you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (NIV)ldquobecause you have been with me from the firstrdquo (Weymouth New Testament)ldquobecause you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (NRSV)ldquoyou that have been with me from the beginningrdquo (The Four Gospels EV Rieu)ldquobecause youacuteve been with Me from the beginning of My ministryrdquo (The Clear Word)ldquofor you have been with me from the firstrdquo (J B Phillips Modern English)ldquobecause you have been with Me from the beginningrdquo (HCSB) ldquothat you were with me from the startrdquo (21st Century New Testament)ldquofor you were with Me from the beginningrdquo (New Berkeley Version Revised Edition)

ldquobecause you were with me from the beginningrdquo (Mark Heber Miller)ldquobecause you were with me from the very beginningrdquo (SEB)

This scripture with the plural form of ldquoeimirdquo (este) is very similar to John 858 Again within its structure there is an expression of past time and a verb in the present indicative form (este) just as there is in John 858 A Grammar of New Testament Greek says ldquoThe reader may be reminded of one idiom which comes out of the linear idea the use of words like πάλαι [palai ldquolong agordquo] with the present in a sense best expressed by our perfect Thus in 2 Co 1219 lsquohave you been thinking all this timersquo or Jn 1527 lsquoyou have been with me from the beginning [ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς]rsquo hellip The durative present in such cases gathers up past and present time into one phraserdquo (A Grammar of New Testament Greek Vol 1 Prolegomena by JH Moulton p 119) As previously noted this Grammar specifically refers to John 858 as an example of this idiom

And here in John 1527 there is a connection of Jesus disciples [creatures as they are] that ldquowererdquo with him ldquofrom the beginningrdquo Obviously Jesus was making no reference to his disciples sharing ldquoeternityrdquo with him The disciples all had a beginning The logical conclusion is that Jesus was simply saying to them lsquoYou have been with me from the start of my ministryrsquo Hence there is no need to read ldquoeternityrdquo into the expression ldquoI amrdquo anymore that we should read ldquoeternityrdquo from Jesus words at John 1527 lsquoYou are with me from the beginningrsquo Neither grammar nor the context justifies reading more into these Scriptures than what they actually say

In fact the six (6) instances cited above (Genesis 3138 LXX 1 John 38 2 Cor 1219 Luke 248 John 56 John 1527) and John 858 as well all have an expression of past time or an extent of time with past implications (ldquoThese twenty yearsrdquo ldquoLong agordquo ldquoafter three daysrdquo Lk 246 ldquomuch already timerdquo ldquofrom [the] beginningrdquo ldquoBeforerdquo etc) AND present verbs in their sentences or nearby within the context and are commonly rendered with present perfect (some with past perfects) or simple past (or past progressive) forms in English translations If we apply this pattern to the translation of John 858 it would mean that renderings such as ldquoI have beenrdquo (present perfect) and ldquoI wasrdquo (simple past) are not only acceptable in translation but actually more ldquosuitablerdquo in application Can this really be done Not only can it be done it makes for a ldquobetterrdquo English translation

In regards to Jesus John 858 simply tells us that Jesus lsquowas alive before Abraham was bornrsquo (SEB) and that his existence continued up to the moment of his speaking to them Just as it is not proper English to say ldquoFor three days we are seeking yourdquo (Greek literal reading of Luke 248) or ldquobecause from the beginning with me you arerdquo (John 1527) it is no less proper English to say in John 858 ldquoBefore Abraham was born I amrdquo These readings should only appear in extremely literal interlinear translations which basically render the Greek word-by-word and not in standard idiomatic English translations Let me illustrate If a man advanced in age for example had his work history and experience questioned by co-workers in comparison to his younger son and employee Abe would he say in reply ldquoBefore my son Abe was born I am [the one fit for the job]rdquo No that does not sound right In English he could say it in various ways

ldquoI have been an experienced worker since before my son Abe was bornrdquo ldquoI have been what I am since before my son Abe was bornrdquo ldquoI was fit to work and fully active before my son Abe was ever bornrdquo ldquoI was already experienced in many jobs before Abe ever came to berdquo ldquoI have been a master worker way before my son Abe came to liferdquo ldquoBefore Abe was born I already was life and job experiencedrdquo etc

The point is that in English normally we include a present perfect tense whenever there is a reference to the past extending to the present or a past tense of some form whenever we go back in time The same with John 858 There is no justification in English to insist using a present verb form (which is not equal to the Greek present when combined with a past expression) in an unwarranted attempt to convey ldquoeternityrdquo as ldquopaddingrdquo to the Trinity doctrine a doctrine adopted AFTER the Christian era Worse it is disingenuous to accuse other translators (who have chosen to render ldquoegō eimirdquo at John 858 with an English present perfect or past tense) of scholastic dishonesty when the very same translations honored by these detractors do so in other places where the ldquodeityrdquo of Christ is not in play asshown in the samples provided above

An example of this double standard can be seen as well when scholars such as Dr Julius Mantey harshly criticizes the NWT for the rendering ldquoI have beenrdquo at John 858 but keeps quiet when other translators do similarly and even states or pretends that no other reputable translator would ever translate it that way He dared not criticize his former Greek teacher Charles B Williams who produced his own Bible translation Dr Mantey once wrote the following of Dr Williams translation ldquoWilliams translation considering all the factors is the most accurate and illuminating translation in the English languagerdquo And how does this ldquomost accurate translationrdquo render John 858 As follows ldquoI existed before Abraham was bornrdquo Here Dr Williams known for his Greek command used a simple past tense (ldquoI existedrdquo) as translation for the Greek present Julius Mantey certainly did not find Williams version of John 858 a ldquoshocking translationrdquo ldquoI existedrdquo is quite different from the translation Dr Mantey so passionately defended (ldquoI amrdquo)

When Dr Mantey talks about the NWT he says the rendering ldquoI have beenrdquo at John 858 cannot be justified and calls it ldquodishonestrdquo That rule does not apply to Williams translation does it Williams did not translate John 858 in the same way Mantey would have liked (ldquoI amrdquo) Not only that the Grammar itself that Dr Mantey co-authored with Dr Dana A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament states under ldquoThe Progressive Presentrdquo (called ldquoExtension from Pastrdquo by McKay) ldquoSometimes the progressive present is retroactivein its application denoting that which has begun in the past and continues into the present For the want of a better name we may call it the present of duration This use is generally associated with an adverb of time and may best be rendered by the English perfect ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς μετʼ ἐμοῦ ἐστέ Ye have been with me from the beginning Jn 1527 See also Lk137 2 Cor 129 [19]rdquo (Pages 182-83 Emphasis added)

Even though Julius Mantey has stated when referring to the NWT that ldquoI have beenrdquo is not a proper translation and even ldquodishonestrdquo at John 858 he clearly states in his Grammar (of

Scriptures with similar syntax to John 858) ldquoThis use is generally associated with an adverb of time and may best be rendered by the English perfect [such as ldquoI have beenrdquo which in fact is associated with an adverb of time in John 858]rdquo A likely reason for Dana ampManteys strong reluctance for not including John 858 as an example of the idiom discussed on page 183 may have to do with the fact that as ldquotrinitariansrdquo they oppose the idea of Jesus existence having lsquobegunrsquo in the past even though John 858 perfectly fits with the ldquoProgressive Presentrdquo idiom being discussed in their Grammar as acknowledged by other grammarians Hence their objection is truly a ldquotheologicalrdquo one rather than Greek grammaritself arguing in their favor as Mantey and some others have implied since a Greek present or an English perfect does not demand ldquoeternityrdquo at all from the subject

Consequently many religious individuals who focus solely on the basic meaning (of ldquoegō eimirdquo as ldquoI amrdquo) out of the context of the particular ldquoidiomrdquo used at John 858 end up missing the thrust of Jesus words and fall prey to misleading interpretations Doctor Kenneth L McKay taking into account all of these issues comes up with this excellent translation for John 858 ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo (A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek SBG 5 New York Peter Lang 1994 p42) If we objectively consider the material above we will not insist in connecting Jesus at John 858 with the God Jehovah of Exodus 314 (which many attempt to do but cannot be sustained) Instead we will focus on the simple message conveyed by Jesus words at John 858 which is in harmony with the totality of Scripture ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo (McKay) The rendering ldquoI have been in existencerdquo by itself does not rule out either the concept of ldquoeternityrdquo or the ldquocreationrdquo of Jesus Christ A Committee of Bible translators came up with the following translation which may not be the best choice but considering the issues involved is better than the traditional rendering of ldquoI amrdquo ldquoI was alive before Abraham was bornrdquo (The New Testament in Plain English)

(The following scholars are members of the Bible Translation Committee of The New Testament in Plain English which approved this last reading ldquoI was aliverdquo instead of ldquoI amrdquo(Dr Stanley L Morris chairman FW Gingrich Ph D a renown Greek lexicographer Jack P Lewis Ph D CH Accord Th D Clyde M Woods Ph D ST Kan Ph D Gary T Burke Ph D Milo Hadwin D Min)

I submit their names and their credentials here as an example because it is often asserted vigorously that no intelligent or highly qualified scholar would ever produce a translation other than ldquoI amrdquo As noted above and as the list of alternate readings (at the end of this essay) of John 858 shows many done by highly qualified people this is simply not true Usually those making statements of that sort are doing so based on emotional and theological not philological reasons Furthermore by not disclosing other valid viewpoints or by dismissing how other qualified Bible translators deal with this scripture they are undermining their own credibility as well

At this time you are welcome to briefly go over the list of Alternate Readings to John 858 at

the end before moving on to the second part of this essay

_____________________________

Should we ignore the evidence of all those translations listed at the end that differ in John 858 from the traditional versions What then are all these translators seeing at John 858 that moved them to render this text differently They surely must be aware of the resistance they would encounter by translating it by the various forms they used Still they must have had the firm conviction that both the Greek text and the context supports their understanding of this scripture They likely see a Jesus making no identity connection with his Father Godbut rather see a Jesus simply expressing his indefinite existence with no suggestion of eternity in focus Neither is Jesus stating here that he is the God of Old Testament times To understand it that way would be to read into the text more than what it says Taking some clues from the context of the chapter some scholars additionally see Jesus insinuating his ldquomessiahshiprdquo as if saying ldquoI am he [the Messiah]rdquo This is very likely In fact The LivingBible renders John 824 thus ldquoThat is why I said that you will die in your sins for unless you believe that I am the Messiah the Son of God [ἐγώ εἰμι] you will die in your sinsrdquo

Is ldquoegō eimirdquo a title or another name of God

The use of ldquoeimirdquo at John 858 is frequently used as a ldquoproof textrdquo of Jesus deity A noted Trinitarian scholar AT Robertson a Baptist even refers to ldquoegō eimirdquo as ldquothe absolute phrase used of Godrdquo likely indicating the verb conveys ldquotimeless beingrdquo an implication that ldquoeimirdquo here does not require anything else to complete the meaning of the phrase thus conveying ldquoeternal existencerdquo as well as being an actual name for God Some individuals have given plenty of publicity to Robertsons statement as absolute truth But his statement is not ldquotruthrdquo at all It is faulty interpretation which many people have fallen prey to Grammar and theology do not always make the best mix True Robertsons credentials as a scholar are impressive nevertheless credentials does not truth make Besides some other equally bright scholars disagree with him Lets illustrate the folly of those advocating a divine title at John 858 by way of addition (Or substitution if you will) as some suggest

ldquoBefore Abraham was born I am Eternalrdquo ldquoBefore Abraham was born I am Jehovahrdquo ldquoBefore Abraham was born I am eternally Godrdquo

First of all the above hypothetical translations are just as ungrammatical as the simple ldquoI amrdquo reading of most versions An English present tense cannot start before a definite point in the past This can be seen in the following two examples

1 ldquoBefore the US Iraq war I am a soldierrdquo 2 ldquoThree journalists are kidnapped in Nepal since the start of 2007rdquo

What is the correct way to express these statements in English Analyze it for a second and

provide an answer if you will

Notably if ldquoeimirdquo was used to convey eternal existence what is the point of using an expression of past time at all in the clause Moreover the context of previous verses (vv 48-57) clearly indicates that Jesus is speaking of God as a separate entity See below

49 ldquobut I honor my Father and you dishonor merdquo 50 ldquoI am not seeking glory for myself but there is one who seeks it and he is the

judgerdquo54 ldquoIf I glorify myself my glory means nothing My Father whom you claim as your

God is the one who glorifies me 55 ldquoThough you do not know him I know him If I said I did not I would be a liar like you but I do know him and obey his wordrdquo Thus if Jesus meant he himself was the ldquoJehovahrdquo of the Old Testament as Trinitarians claim what would be the rationale behind Jesus directing all distinction and glory to lsquothe Father Godrsquo as a distinct individual as he did in the previous verses and then a few words later abruptly change his argumentation by claiming he is that very same One who lsquoreceives obedience from his own wordrsquo lsquoseeking his own honor and gloryrsquo because he himself is ldquoGodrdquo Confusing is it not To accept this abrupt change of character on Jesus part would be not ldquoa mysteryrdquo but flat out ldquoa deceptionrdquo of big proportions since Jesus himself warned against pretending to be one thing and acting as another (Matthew 62-5 2313-36)

Are we are supposed against all logic to accept these ldquotrinitarianrdquo assumptions instead of a simple alternative which really answers the Jews question about lsquohow could Abraham ldquoseerdquoJesus day if he was not yet 50 years oldrsquo (ldquoI have been in existence since Abraham was bornrdquo)

The obsession with the simple words ldquoI amrdquo have led to many faulty assumptions ldquoI amrdquo issuch a common expression in our language even to this day that words such as ldquoegoismrdquo ldquoegotismrdquo etc (derived from the Greek ldquoegordquo) are considered common words in English dictionaries Everyone uses the phrase ldquoI amrdquo at times Think of any big corporation or powerful organization of your choice for a moment Would you conclude that the two most powerful individuals of this one prestigious organization must be identical in every way solely because they are heard equally saying to others in their common speech ldquoI am thisrdquoor ldquoI am thatrdquo etc

In Bible times humans too used common pronouns The verb eimi (ldquoI amrdquo) itself or forms of it appears more than two thousand times (2000x) in the New Testament alone Additionally the word ldquoegōrdquo appears over seventeen hundred times (1700x) in the NT And those numbers do not include the Septuagint totals Do all occurrences of the word then imply ldquodivinityrdquo in each case Of course not It may be more significant when God or Christ use the expression because of who they are but does it really mean that both God and Christ share the same identity Or that everyone who uses the phrase ldquoI amrdquo does so with divine pretensions Does it really mean that everyone using the phrase are ldquoequalrdquo The

answer is obvious is it not

Lets bear in mind that when God sent Jesus Christ as His representative to a most crucial assignment multiple biblical prophecies were pointing to Christ as the promised Messiah that would free mankind from its moribund condition It is logical then that when the time came for Jesus Christ to show up on earth he would somehow communicate to others that ldquoherdquo and not some other human claiming to be the Messiah was Gods instrument in bringing everlasting relief to human misery Hence he could rightly say any or all of the following ldquoI am (this)rdquo ldquoI am (that)rdquo ldquoI am he [the promised Messiah]rdquo or ldquoI am Gods Sonrdquo Should we expect anything less

The fact is that the words ldquoI amrdquo are not exclusive to God and Christ It should be noted that a man who was born ldquoblindrdquo also used the same expression (John 99) The Greek here says ldquoekeinos elegen hoti Egō eimirdquo (ldquoThat one kept saying that I amrdquo) AT Robertson cites John 99 as one of five parallels to the use of egō eimi in John 858 (Word Pictures in the New Testament Vol V p 159) The phrase here comes at the end of the clause with no explicit predicate James White who upholds the traditional reading admits ldquoThis last instance [John 99] is similar to the sayings as Jesus utters them in that the phrase comes at the end of the clause and looks elsewhere for its predicaterdquo The same could be said of John 1527 Some argue that ldquoeimirdquo in John 858 is ldquoabsoluterdquo but do not do so with John 99 or John 1527 Theology may be a factor in this Previously we saw how Jacob a man according to the Septuagint used the words ldquoegō eimirdquo Other instances in Scripture of creatures using those words would not prove they were part of a ldquoGodheadrdquo Context then ultimately dictates how ldquoeimirdquo should be translated According to John when Jesus was pressed he only claimed to have been alive way before Abraham was born and that he simply was ldquothe Christrdquo ldquothe Son of Manrdquo and ldquothe Son of Godrdquo

There is something else to keep in mind in regards to the meaning of ldquoeimirdquo And it is what grammarian Stanley Porter indicated ldquoSometimes the verb [eimi] is used on its own as a verb of existence Perhaps the best-known example of this is the following John 858rdquo (Fundamentals of New Testament Greek by Stanley E Porter section 753 72) AT Robertson adds ldquoThe verb εἰμί [eimi] hellip Sometimes it does express existence as a predicatelike any other verb as in ἐγὼ εἰμί [egō eimi] (Jo 858) and ἡ θάλασσα οὐκ ἔστιν ἔτι [hē thalassa ouk estin eti = ldquothe sea not is yetrdquo] (Rev 211) Cf Mt 2330rdquo (A Grammar of theGreek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research Nashville Tenn 1934 p 394)

What does this mean The examples mentioned by Robertson in addition to John 858 give us an idea of what this implies It is so strange that the two examples Robertson provided forcomparison with John 858 seems to contradict his ldquotimeless beingrdquo view on ldquoeimirdquo He cited a portion of Revelation 211 where the Greek literally says ldquoAnd the sea not is yetrdquo In other words ldquoThe sea does not exist any morerdquo Amplified Bible ldquoThere no longer existed any seardquo Curiously various versions render the present verb ldquoisrdquo (a form of ldquoeimirdquo) with an imperfect ldquowasrdquo (Cf KJV NIV NAB NRSV) Obviously ldquothe seardquo in this vision is [was] not ldquoeternalrdquo

And in Matthew 2330 the other text provided by Robertson in his comparison with John 858 the Greek word-for-word says ldquoIf we were in the days of the fathers of usrdquo which inmodern English would be ldquoIf we had lived in the days of our forefathersrdquo Other versions ldquoIf we had beenrdquo (Rheims NT) ldquoIf we had been livingrdquo (NASB) ldquoIf we had been existing in the days of our fathersrdquo (Jonathan Mitchell NT) The full NIV text reads ldquoAnd you say lsquoIf we had lived in the days of our ancestors we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophetsrsquo rdquo

It is clear from this comparison that the words of Matthew 2330 ldquoIf we wererdquo (a form of ldquoeimirdquo) in the text is used as an equivalent for ldquoliferdquo or ldquoexistencerdquo In the heavenly vision of Rev 211 lsquothe sea ceased to existrsquo And the generation of people which Jesus spoke about and their ancestors all died ceased to exist If we apply these two examples to John 858 given by Robertson with the meaning either of life or existence for ldquoeimirdquo then it wouldbe equally acceptable to translate ldquoI amrdquo as ldquoI existrdquo or ldquoI liverdquo Many translators reflect this very same understanding as the submitted list of alternate readings of John 858 show ldquoI existrdquo or ldquoI existed even before Abraham was bornrdquo Or ldquoI was alive before Abraham was bornrdquo (The Simple English Bible)

Although some may not see much semantic difference between Jesus saying ldquoI amrdquo or ldquoI existrdquo the two expressions communicate something very different to many readers ldquoI amrdquo is generally associated by Trinitarians as a title used by God or as another name for God Onthe other hand ldquoI existrdquo simply conveys ldquoliferdquo or ldquoexistence Barnabas Lindars points out that ldquoegō eimirdquo in John 858 ldquocannot be regarded as a title because it requires the meaning lsquoI am in existencersquordquo (ldquoThe Son of Man in Johannine Christologyrdquo in Christ and the Spirit in the New Testament In Honour of Charles Francis Digby Moule eds B Lindars and S Smalley Cambridge Cambridge University Press 1973) (Since an English present tense cannot start before a definite point in the past this would mean that we can incorporate Lindars valid observation and translate it into contemporary English like this ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo exactly as Dr McKay proposed)

Some in their eagerness to equate Christ with God accuse translators who render ldquoegō eimirdquo in John 858 with renderings other than ldquoI amrdquo pointing to all occurrences of this expression in the New Testament or in Johns Gospel where allegedly these translators do not follow the same ldquorulerdquo when translating ldquoegō eimirdquo in John 858 as they do elsewhere where they translate it with a present indicative form What they dont tell you or fail to understand is that in John 858 ldquoegō eimirdquo without a predicate AND with an expression of time with past implications in its sentence structure provides an ldquoidiomrdquo which is quite different from those other instances of ldquoeimirdquo Thats right an idiom (where present and past is combined) found equally at home in classical biblical and modern Greek which many translators convey into our language with the English present perfect at various places Consequently one cannot merely go by how the phrase ldquoegō eimirdquo is used elsewhere in the NT without taking into account the fact that John 858 displays an ldquoidiomrdquo in its structure Not doing so would be dishonest John the Baptist had said of Christ in John 130 ldquoA man is coming after me who ranks before me because he existed [Lit was] before merdquo (JB)

John 858 is in harmony with those words Furthermore some attempt to use the reading of Psalm 902 in the Septuagint as ldquoevidencerdquo that John 858 is rendered correctly in the popular versions But a closer analysis of this verse shows notable differences between the two verses making such comparison untenable With good reason a considerable number ofscholars have chosen to break from tradition in their rendering of John 858

If critics of alternate readings of John 858 are not candid enough to admit some of the very issues mentioned here and hide the fact that many scholars do hold a different interpretation and no less academic at that should we consider their diatribes of any worthy import It is ldquowishful thinkingrdquo for someone to believe that John 858 is directly connected to Exodus 314 rather than any real evidence (which is lacking) confirming their eager interpretations Remember even Dr James White a well known Trinitarian advocate admitted ldquothat an immediate and unqualified jump from the ego eimi of John 858 to Exodus 314 is unwiserdquo

Besides a theological tendency can be seen when they focus as some do on undermining the reputation of one Bible translation (NWT) when there are actually numerous versions from different religions dealing with the same controversial Scriptures in a similar manner This is very much like politicians who ignore the failings of their own party but are quick to lsquodemonizersquo their opponents (Matthew 73)

Is the Kingdom Interlinear ldquoproofrdquo the NWT is wrong at John 858

A criticism has been made of a Watchtower Society publication (The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures ldquoKITrdquo) which contains the Greek text and underneath it a word-by-word translation in English and on the right side of the page the modern New World Translation Well at John 858 this publication renders the Greek phrase being discussed here egō eimi word-for-word as ldquoI amrdquo and in the right column the NWT shows the reading ldquoI have beenrdquo This difference have led some to severely criticize the NW translators of ldquoincompetencerdquo ldquoinconsistencyrdquo and even of ldquodishonestyrdquo The critics say something like this ldquoThey have backed themselves into a corner where they cant escape their mishandling of the Greek textrdquo or something of that sort Amazingly these critics in their condemnations hardly ever mention the dozens of translators who translate the same way or similarly to the NWT as the submitted list shows So much for honesty

Those who engage in such tactics are not being forthcoming Why say that Besides dismissing how other translators deal with John 858 they also distort known facts for the WT Society have made it clear that the publication of this Greek Bible is to help the Bible student determine the basic sense of the Greek and have stated that the translation on the right column (the NWT) is a modern way of expressing the thoughts transmitted by the Greek text There are many factors to consider when using such publications

Even other interlinear publications warn of seeming discrepancies For instance The Zondervan Parallel New Testament in Greek and English says in its Foreword ldquo[I]t is a good thing to bear in mind that you cannot always either give an English equivalent for a Greek word or expression or even always render the same Greek verb word by the same

English onerdquo Another interlinear the New Greek-English Interlinear New Testament by Brown and Comfort and edited by J D Douglas explains ldquoIt is difficult to translate one language into another on a word-for-word basis because each language has its own syntax grammatical constructions and idioms that are difficultmdashif not impossiblemdashto replicate literally in another languagerdquo (Emphasis added) This statement is so true of the text in discussion (John 858) in regards to its syntax and particular idiom Often critics of the NWT hide this fact Why Is it religious bias at work

I will give the reader a few examples of an available interlinear translation which has the Greek main text and a literal sublinear translation below the Greek by Professor Paul R McReynolds and on the right column for comparison the reader can study the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) a popular translation in academia Observe how the two can differ

McReynolds Mat 21 ldquomagiciansrdquo NRSV ldquowise menrdquo John 118 ldquoonly born Godrdquo ldquoGod the only Sonrdquo Mat 243 ldquosign of the your presencerdquo ldquothe sign of your comingrdquo Mathew 522 ldquothe gehenna of the firerdquo ldquothe hell of firerdquo John 1319 ldquoI amrdquo ldquoI am herdquo John 149 ldquoI amrdquo ldquoHave I beenrdquo John 1527 ldquoyou arerdquo ldquoyou have beenrdquo 2 Peter 24 ldquobeing sent to Tartarusrdquo ldquobut cast them into hellrdquo Luke 1113 ldquowill give spirit holy tordquo ldquowillgive the Holy Spirit tordquo John 2022 ldquotake spirit holyrdquo ldquoReceive the Holy Spiritrdquo Acts 24 ldquofilled all of spirit holyrdquo ldquofilled with the Holy Spiritrdquo

( Paul R McReynolds is professor of Greek and New Testament at Pacific Christian College in Fullerton California USA He also contributed to the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia)

Some of the readings from the right column above (NRSV) are acceptable others are not See if you can detect in the right column above those translation renderings with a theological tendency that deviate from the literal readings from the left column McReynoldson the left does an excellent job of transmitting the Greek sense Even the most popular Bible versions do not adhere consistently to the base texts The NRSV and a host of other Bible versions add their own religious interpretation throughout Scripture just as much as the NWT if not more but hardly anyone complains of this transformation of Scriptures eventhough it leads to error Why Simply because the NRSV represents more of a ldquomajorityrdquo view than the NWT does But in truth majority or minority views do not correspond equallyto ldquoaccuraterdquo or ldquoinaccuraterdquo results

In the text discussed the KIT can appropriately show the basic sense rendering of ldquoI amrdquo for the Greek ldquoegō eimirdquo in the left column and alternately show the reading ldquoI have beenrdquo in the right column as a contemporary way of expressing in English the particular Greek clause with its ldquoidiomrdquo in John 858 as explained throughout this article a rendering which has

scholarship support When the Greek ldquoegō eimirdquo appears in an idiom-less structure it can rightfully be translated as ldquoI amrdquo as most versions do including the NWT Hence there is no contradiction between the two translations

Dr McKay argues that Jesus response in John 858 ldquowould be most naturally translated lsquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrsquo if it were not for the obsession with the simple words lsquoI amrsquo rdquo (Kenneth L McKay ldquolsquoI amrsquo in Johns Gospelrdquo Expository Times 1996 p 302) I take the author as saying that ldquoI have been in existencerdquo for ldquoeimirdquo is a better translation than ldquoI amrdquo but the [religious] obsession for the simple words ldquoI amrdquo in their quest to elevate Christ to Gods level does not allow people to see that The thing is that Christ lsquoalways pleased the Fatherrsquo and was fully satisfied with being lsquolesserrsquo than him (John 829 1029 1428 177813) Why not accept him as he is

Hence it is poor scholarship to forward the idea that an entity must be God Almighty himselfby the sole fact of using a divine sounding phrase when other Bible individuals are found using the same expression in Scripture The ldquocontextrdquo is the determining factor Not only must we take into account the context surrounding a chapter or book of the Bible but also what the whole Bible teaches on a given person or subject

What does the Bible teach about Jesus

That Christ ldquowas in the beginning with Godrdquo (John 12) At the announcement of his birth on earth the angel Gabriel told Mary that she will give birth to someone ldquogreatrdquo and ldquoholyrdquo and that one will be called ldquoSon of the Most Highrdquo and ldquoSon of Godrdquo (Luke 132 35) Trinitarians may claim that ldquoSon of Godrdquo is equivalent in meaning to ldquoGodrdquo It is a claim with no foundation If there was any truth to the claim then the ldquoHoly Spiritrdquo would also be called Son of God But no The fact is that other living creatures are called ldquosons of Godrdquo (Job 21) Never is ldquoGodrdquo or ldquoholy spiritrdquo ever called ldquoSon of Godrdquo in Scripture Only Jesus Christ is called ldquothe Son of Godrdquo with the article Why

By Christ lsquobecoming obedient [to God] until deathrsquo during the course of his earthly life lsquoGod highly exalted Him and graciously gave him a name which is above every other name that at the name of Jesus every knee should bendto the credit of God the Fatherrsquo (Hebrews58 Philippians 28-11 21st Century New Testament)

ldquo[Christ] has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God with angels authorities and powers made subject to himrdquo (1 Peter 322 NRSV) Still in heaven Christ receives knowledge information revelation from God and transmits it to other creatures (Revelation11) Though the glorified Christ is described as ldquoKing of kingsrdquo and ldquoLord of lordsrdquo he is specifically called ldquoThe Word of Godrdquo (Revelation 191316 NRSV) The night before his death he ldquoprayedrdquo to his Father and called him ldquothe only true Godrdquo and made this petition ldquoFather glorify me in your own presence [Greek beside yourself] with the glory that I hadin your presence [Greek beside you] before the world existedrdquo (John 175 NRSV) (ldquoalongside yourselfrdquo ST Byington) Again God never has to ldquoprayrdquo to anyone Ever

Well then if Jesus Christ expressed this one final ldquowishrdquo in prayer to be ldquoin the presence ofrdquoldquobesiderdquo ldquoalongsiderdquo his Father which he himself called ldquothe only true Godrdquo why should we for the sake of tradition insist with the belief that Jesus ldquomustrdquo somehow be that ldquotruerdquo God the One sitting at the center of Gods throne instead of ldquobesiderdquo God (Mark 1619) Christ did not ask to sit at Gods throne Christ was fully content with the premise of being alongside God And that is what actually happened Mark tells us ldquoSo then the Lord Jesus after he had spoken to them was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of Godrdquo (Mark 1619 NRSV Note Some ancient manuscripts omit this verse) The NIV Study Bible notes the significance of lsquositting at the right hand of Godrsquo ldquoA position of authority second only to Godsrdquo Being in ldquoa position of authority second only to Godsrdquo is something no one should ever say of God for he is always ldquosupremerdquo At no time does God relinquishes his supremacy Someone who holds a position of authority second to God cannot be identical to God Take note too that in this account of Mark chapter 16 or the oneat John chapter 17 there is no mention of a third party of a ldquoGodheadrdquo No ldquoHoly Spiritrdquo is in sight The fact is that the glorified Christ in heaven continues to call his Father ldquomy Godrdquo(Revelation 312)

As ldquoSon of Godrdquo and always lesser and subject to God it is illogical to think Christ would purposely usurp titles and rights that only belonged to lsquohis God and Fatherrsquo (John 1428 Matthew 2023 John 2017 Acts 17) Jesus Christ taught others to only worship the Father God (Matthew 410 John 42324) ldquoAnd we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the worldrdquo (1 John 414) If so the thought that Christ would usethe words ldquoI amrdquo as a title to identify himself as ldquothe true Godrdquo is incongruous Jesus made it clear that he would only seek the glory ldquothat comes from the one who alone is Godrdquo (John850 54 544)

In this Satan controlled world it is not that difficult to get entangled with human taught intricate philosophies which obscure the simple Christian doctrine (John 1231 2 Cor 44) Hence the need for caution at the time of defending popular traditional views which clash with the monotheistic approach of Bible writers

Consequently those who teach that Christ is Almighty God find themselves in conflict with the Scriptural record The submitted list of alternate readings of John 858 shows that there are a considerable number of scholars who not only understand the subject correctly but alsokeenly grasp that whatever Jesus said on the matter has to harmonize with both the context of John chapter 8 and the rest of the Scriptures as well

What is the correct translation of John 858

Is it ldquoI amrdquo ldquoI wasrdquo ldquoI am herdquo or ldquoI have beenrdquo After analyzing the Greek phrase ldquoegō eimirdquo the context and the various possible ways the expression can be translated in English I think it is best to render the Greek with an English present perfect Adding a smallelement such as ldquosincerdquo to the statement as McKay does below satisfies all contextual and grammatical requirements of the passage Doing so does not qualify as ldquointerpolationrdquo

A second choice a simple past tense can perhaps be used in translation where the context allows since it is grammatically correct but it is generally used of activity confined to the past so the message may be distorted Unless that is the simple past is interpreted as ldquoimperfectiverdquo with current relevance How so In support of Jesus deity many frequently cite John11 There in the text a simple past tense ldquowasrdquo is applied to ldquothe Wordrdquo three times in English versions Does that mean ldquothe Wordrdquo is no more or that it was permanentlycut-off from existence at some point Of course not The context of the whole gospel of John shows that Christ is fully pertinent in Christian lives

Scholars choosing a past tense for ldquoeimirdquo (ie ldquoI wasrdquo ldquoI existedrdquo etc) at John 858 may also have in mind what John the Baptist said as a precursor of Jesus Christ ldquoA man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was [ldquoexistedrdquo JB] before merdquo Surely John the Baptist did not mean that Jesus existence was done away with His own words show thatJesus life was very much relevant and would continue to be so Translators have no issue whatsoever in applying a past tense (ldquowasrdquo ldquoexistedrdquo) at John 11 and 130 in their English versions So why would they at John 858 Perhaps because it would mean that they wouldhave to do away with the premise of a ldquodivine titlerdquo in their argumentation of which is claimed clinches Jesus identity with Gods own As shown above Revelation 211 a presentverb a form of ldquoeimirdquo is rendered by some versions with a past tense ldquowasrdquo Obviously Bible translators have no problem in translating some present tense verbs with past tenses or with present perfects But most object to it at John 858 likely for theological reasons

As stated in the beginning of this essay the English ldquopresentrdquo and the Greek ldquopresentrdquo in certain contexts do not correspond exactly in meaning because in Greek ldquotimerdquo is a secondary factor That being the case the choice of English tense does not have to match theGreek conjugation per se to be faithful to the Sacred Text When one considers the specific idiom found in John 858 and the semantic implications of both the Greek and English ldquopresentrdquo one can see that the rendering ldquoI amrdquo though popular does not nearly represent the best translation possible in the English language ldquoContextrdquo often plays a more importantrole in determining the correct translation Overall though it is best to render the Greek expression with an English present perfect since it conveys clearly a more present relevancythan a past tense would

That said John 858 is a good example where a Greek transliteration may not be the best choice to communicate the right message effectively in our times The translation of ldquoI amrdquo has its place in extreme English literal translations which show the basic sense of the Greek such as those Interlinear translations mentioned above Also it can rightfully be used in many Scriptures where the context calls for it as when the sentence structure lacks the Greekldquoidiomrdquo discussed throughout this writing as might be the case with most occurrences of ldquoeimirdquo

Here listed in my opinion are the translations which come closest to the Greek thought presented by the particular ldquoidiomrdquo found in John 858 Dr Kenneth L McKay comes up with the correct translation

1 ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo - Kenneth L McKay A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek (SBG 5 New York Peter Lang 1994) p42

(Kenneth L McKay graduated with honours in Classics (with an interest in the Greek of theNT) from the Universities of Sydney and Cambridge He has taught Greek in universities and theological colleges in Nigeria New Zealand and England Mr McKay retired from the Australian National University in 1987 after teaching there for 26 years)

Other translations below come close to McKays rendering and are thus favored over the traditional rendering which is widely misunderstood

2 ldquoI have existed before Abraham was bornrdquo - A New Translation by James [ Moffatt - DD DLitt Glasgow Oxford 3 ldquoBefore Abraham came into existence I have beenrdquo - New World Translation 4 ldquoBefore Abraham came into being I have existedrdquo - The Documents of the [New Testament G W Wade London 5 ldquoFrom before Abraham was I have been rdquo - The New Testament by George [ R -Noyes DD Boston USA6 ldquoBefore Abraham was born I have already been rdquo - The Unvarnished New [Testament Andy Gaus Boston7 ldquoI existed even before Abraham was bornrdquo - The concise Gospel and the Acts [Logos International Christopher J ed Christianson Plainfield NJ8 ldquoI already was before Abraham was bornrdquo ndash Worldwide English New Testament [ Derby UK ________________________________

COMMENTS

Also compare the following translations

Nytt liv (1907 Norwegian)A Biacuteblia Viva (1981 Portuguese)O Novo Testamento Vivo (1974 Portuguese)Le Livre Nouveau Testament (1980 eacuteditions Farel French)Η Καινή Διαθήκη των Τεσσάρων Καθηγητών (ΚΔΤΚ Greek) (The New Testament of the Four Teachers The translation was made and approved (1921981) by the Holy Summit Church of Greece The English title of the project is The New Testament in Modern Greek Athens Greece) Η Αγία Γραφή Παλαιά και Καινή Διαθήκη (ΝΔΜ Greek) Ελληνική Βιβλική Εταιρία Αθήνα [Athens] 1997 (The Bible Old and New Testament Greek Biblical Company - London 1997) ΚΔΛΖ ΛΧ (Other Greek Versions expressing the same idea as translations on the list)___________________

ldquoI was rdquo Note on 1987 translation from Italian main list l Vangelio di Giovanni (El Evangelio de Juan [ldquoThe Gospel of Johnrdquo] with imprimatur) by J Mateos and J Barreto noted on John 858 (as translated by Teodora Tosatti p 387 Cittadela Editrice 1982) that the temporal relationship expressed by the Greek ldquoprin eimi [BeforeI am]rdquo can be translated into Italian ldquoprimaero [BeforeI was]rdquo (Translation from Italian to English mine)__________________

Comment on 1993 ΟІ ΧΡΙΣΤΙΑΝΙΚΕΣ ΓΡΑΦΕΣ Απόδοση από τη Μειάφράση Νέου Κόσμου which is a modern Greek translation of the New World Translation of the ChristianScriptures Unlike most Bible Versions which are published in only one language or a few atmost the NWT is available in dozens of languages based mainly on their English translationbut obviously taking into account other factors in the process such as the original Bible text the peculiarities of their recipient local languages and their targeted audiences in their respective countries

It is obvious though that other NWT translation editions closely followed the English text of the NWT and at the same time their translation teams had enough latitude to offer their own unique renderings at times expressing in their native languages what they see in in the Inspired Text Having said that it is interesting to see how they approached their translation of John 858 from their English translation back into [modern] Greek

The translation team was acutely aware of the basic sense of ldquoegō eimirdquo as ldquoI amrdquo and how those simple words are misconstrued by religionists to say something more than Jesus intended Taking into account the syntax of John 858 as stated throughout this document the translation team who worked on the modern Greek version faced a few options

First they had the option to go back to ldquoegō eimirdquo using the modern Greek equivalent ldquoΕγώ ειμαιrdquo (I am) as it reads in the Vamvas version which they did not Or they could haveexpressed their NWT English choice of ldquoI have beenrdquo with their modern Greek equivalent of ldquoέχο υπάρξει [I have existed]rdquo Thirdly they could have gone with ldquoI wasrdquo (ldquoεγώ ήμουνrdquo) as some of their French and Italian Bible editions have done in the past or even with ldquo[εγώ] υπήρξα [I existed])rdquo Or they could have provided some other unique rendering It is obvious they wanted to stick closely to the Greek text but given the common misconceptionssurrounding ldquoegō eimai (I am)rdquo in mainstream churches the translation team chose to use ldquoεγώ υπάρχωrdquo (a present indicative form in the Greek) which means basically ldquoI existrdquo but in the presence of an expression of past time in John 858 the sense is ldquoI have existedrdquo Thus ldquoBefore Abraham came into existence I have existedrdquo ( The verb είμαι [ldquoto berdquo] in modern Greek has no forms for the perfect tense It borrows the forms from the verb υπάρχω [ldquoI existrdquo] The Greek and English ldquoperfectsrdquo are not exact equivalents either)

The reader is reminded here as noted earlier that modern Greek keeps up with the Koineacute Greek ldquopresentrdquo idiom A modern Greek grammar Greek A Comprehensive Grammar explains ldquoThe present tense is also used in constructions where English would use the perfect continuous ie where the verb expresses a continuous state or habitual event that

has lasted since a certain point in the past and is continuing up to (and including) the presentrdquo The authors provide two examples where a present verb is used with a past time indicator and where they translate using an English perfect as explained ldquoI have been living[Μένω] in this house for three years nowrdquo And ldquoI have been reading [Διαβάζω] this newspaper since 1984rdquo (Greek A Comprehensive Grammar by David Holton Peter Mackridge amp Irene Philippaki-Warburton Revised by Vassilios Spyropoulos p 294 Second edition 2012)

Ten years after the NWT-Greek Edition was released another modern Greek translation was published with the following rendering at John 858 ldquoΣας βεβαιώνω πως πριν να γεννηθεί οΑβραάμ εγώ υπάρχωrdquo which in English would be ldquoI assure you that I have existed since before Abraham was bornrdquo (Literally ldquoI assure you that before could be born the AbrahamI exist [not ldquoΕγώ ειμαιrdquo]rdquo The Holy Bible in Todays Greek Version 2003 Greek Bible Society Interestingly the original English version of 1976 had ldquoI Amrdquo) Also a Spanish Bible conveys a similar thought ldquoYo existo desde antes que existiera Abrahamrdquo [Translation ldquo I exist since before Abraham existedrdquo] (La Biblia - Versioacuten Popular 2nd edition Sociedades Biacuteblicas Unidas 1983)

_________________________________________________________

The Clear Word The translators quoted in this article represent various religious faiths some are Catholic some are Protestant Others are Unitarians Jehovahs Witnesses Jewish Adventists etc and they represent countries the world over One of these translators is a Seventh-Day Adventist who worked on The Clear Word Jack J Blanco ThD As a Seventh-Day Adventist who supports the Trinity doctrine Blanco translated verses to make Jesus ldquoequalrdquo to God in every way

He renders John 11 ldquoHe is the Word of God and is equal with Godrdquo He shows Jesus at Philippians 25-7 as ldquoequal with Godrdquo and describes him as lsquoacting the part of a servantrsquo At John 1428 he completely omits the reference that lsquothe Father is greaterrsquo than Christ But here at John 858 in answer to the question the priests and leaders asked concerning Abraham lsquoseeingrsquo his day Jesus answered according to Dr Blanco ldquoBecause I existed before Abraham was even bornrdquo Thus Dr Blanco makes no connection as others do that Christ is the ldquoI amrdquo of Exodus 314 which according to some would indicate that Jesus is the Jehovah of the Old Testament What he sees in this account is that Jesus already lsquoexisted before Abraham didrsquo and thus Abraham was able to lsquoseersquo his day (John 856) To this we must add another likely element included in Jesus response to the Jews as wellone of simple identification as ldquothe Christ [Messiah]rdquo and ldquoSon of manrdquo Why is it then that manywho support the Trinity doctrine find it hard to understand Jesus statement correctly at John 858 Could it be that they are letting non-Scriptural influence and perhaps the weight of themajority view dictate their understanding of this Scripture

For a consideration of other subjects by the same author check below

For a discussion of Acts 286 Whose blood

httpwwwscribdcomdoc231244155Acts-20-28-Whose-blood

For a discussion of Colossians 116 (ldquoall other thingsrdquo) see

httpwwwscribdcomdoc205841269Colossians-1-16-Is-the-expression-all-other-things-a-proper-rendition

For a consideration on the subject of the Trinity click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc160286056Does-the-Trinity-ever-make-sense

For a full consideration of John 11 click the following link httpwwwscribdcomdoc34916458The-correct-translation-of-John-1-1

For a brief consideration of John 11 with additional citations click here httpwwwscribdcomdoc50330864John-1-1-List-of-Alternate-Readings

Did the NW translators know any Greek click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc48234022Did-the-New-World-Translation-Committee-Know-Greek

For a consideration of John 173 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc57772552John-17-3-E28098Taking-in-knowledge-of-E28099-God-and-Jesus

For a consideration of 1 Timothy 316 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc76927834Was-God-manifested-in-the-flesh-1-Timothy-3-16

For a consideration of Exodus 225 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc38676458Exodus-2-25-And-God-took-notice-Does-God- care-about-us

For a consideration of John 114 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc35002730John-1-14-Jesus-full-of-grace

For a consideration of Translation Differences-Questions and Answershttpwwwscribdcomdoc59484457Translation-Differences-Questions-and-Answers

In Spanish

Para una consideracioacuten de otros temas vea los siguientes enlaces

Para una consideracioacuten de Colosenses 116 ldquotodas las otras cosasrdquo vea

httpwwwscribdcomdoc209601066Colosenses-1-16-C2BFEs-la-traduccion-E2809Ctodas-las-otras-cosasE2809D-apropiada

Para una consideracioacuten de ldquoiquestAcaso tiene sentido la Trinidadrdquo

httpwwwscribdcomdoc173779117C2BFAcaso-tiene-sentido-la-Trinidad

Para un consideracioacuten de Juan 11 vea el siguiente enlace

httpwwwscribdcomdoc35899788Traduccion-correcta-de-Juan-1-1-Lista-de- lecturas-alternativas

Para el tema iquestSabiacutean griego los traductores de la TNM vea el siguiente enlace

httpwwwscribdcomdoc51623596C2BFSabia-griego-el-Comite-de-la-Traduccion-del-Nuevo-Mundo

not always has some sort of temporal indicator such as an adverbial phrase to show this past-referring element The key to this usage is normally to translate the present tense as an English present perfect hellip Luke 1529 τοσαῦτα ἔτη δουλεύω σοι [tosauta etē douleuō soi] I have served you for these many years 1 John 38 ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς ὁ διάβολος ἁμαρτάνει [ap archēs ho diabolos hamartanei] the devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (The Basics of New Testament Syntax by Daniel B Wallace pp 222-3 Italics and bold letters his Underline mine)

WW Goodwin ldquoThe present with πάλαι [palai] or any other expression of past time has theforce of a present and perfect combined as πάλαι τοῦτο λέγω [palai touto legō] I have longbeen telling this (which I now tell)rdquo (A Greek Grammar Section 1258 p 270)

J H Moulton ldquoThe Present which indicates the continuance of an action during the past and up to the moment of speaking is virtually the same as Perfective the only difference being that the action is conceived as still in progress It is frequent in the NT Lk 248 137 1529 Jn 56 8 58 (εἰμί) 1491527Ac 152126312 Co 12192 Ti 3152Pt 341 Jn 29 38rdquo (A Grammar of New Testament Greek by J H Moulton Vol III Syntax by Nigel Turner Edinburgh 1963 p 62)

Sanders and Masten ldquoTo describe a state continuing up to the present Greek uses the present tense where English uses the Perfect cf Jn 858rdquo (Harpers New Testament Commentaries p 158)

Burton ldquoThe Present of past Action still in Progress The Present Indicative accompaniedby an adverbial expression denoting duration and referring to past time is sometimes used in Greek as in German to describe an action which beginning in past time is still in progress at the time of speaking English idiom requires the use of the Perfect in such cases hellip Acts 1521Luke 1371529John 562 Tim 315rdquo (Syntax of Moods and Tenses in NT Greek by Ernest De Witt Burton p 10)

Smyth ldquoPresent of Past and Present Combined ndash The present when accompanied by a definite or indefinite expression of past time is used to express an action begun in the past and continued in the present The lsquoprogressive perfectrsquo is often used in translation Thus πάλαι θαυμάζω [palai thaumazō] I have been long (and am still) wonderingrdquo (Greek Grammar by Herbert Weir Smyth Section 1885 on verb tenses pp 422-423)

( ldquoThe Present of past Action still in Progressrdquo (See also An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek by CFD Moule Section v p 8 Cambridge) This same idiom is discussed in other grammars under the names ldquoDurative Presentrdquo ldquoExtension from Past Presentrdquo or ldquoProgressive Presentrdquo See Blass and Debrunner section 322 K L Mckay 1994 pp 41-42 A T Robertsons Grammar p 879 WD Chamberlains Grammar p 70 D A Black Its Still Greek to Me p 107 A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testamentby Dana and Mantey pp 182-3 Intermediate New Testament Greek by Richard A Young p111 A Concise Exegetical Grammar of New Testament Greek by J Harold Greenlee p 93

Classical examples are provided in Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek Verb by WW Goodwin p 9 26)

The scholars quoted above clearly show that the English present tense in such construction isnot equal to the Greek Present Therefore it would be a mistake to conclude that we have to take the basic sense of ldquoegō eimirdquo in John 858 and represent it word-for-word in our language to be accurate We must consider whether John 858 contains a temporal indicator that goes back in time in combination with a Greek ldquopresentrdquo verb Those seeking to prove apoint of ldquotimelessnessrdquo in ldquoeimirdquo should be reminded that Greek verb tenses of themselves do not indicate whether a subject in view is ldquoeternalrdquo or not

In point of fact the above biblical Greek syntax is carried over to modern Greek A modern Greek Grammar explains ldquoThe [Greek] present may also be used to refer to an action or situation that began in the past and continues in the present where English uses the perfect Παίρνω αυτό το φάρμακο από το 1999 [Pairnō auto to pharmako apo to 1999] Ive been taking this medicine since 1999rdquo (Greek An Essential Grammar of the Modern Language by David Holton Peter Mackridge and Irene Philippaki-Warburton p 121 2004) Take note how the authors take into account the Greek idiom and translate the verb pairno (1st person present indicative which basically means ldquoI am takingrdquo) using an English present perfect ldquoIve been taking this medicine since 1999rdquo

Consequently when Bible versions transfer the basic meaning ldquoI amrdquo into their translated text without considering the above syntax they could fail to convey the intended Greek meaning and end up with ungrammatical English as well (ldquoUngrammaticalrdquo because English present tense cannot start before a particular point in the pastrdquo) Oddly some free paraphrased and dynamic equivalent translations carry over this ldquoliteralrdquo reading of the passage right into their versions with no explanation whatsoever for breaking rules of English grammar Anyone doing translation work between two languages knows well that it is not always feasible or practical to translate word for word Otherwise the end product would be flawed unreadable material

Is Exodus 314 parallel to John 858

Some believe there is an asserted connection of Jesus at John 858 being identified with ldquoTheBeingrdquo or ldquoThe Existing Onerdquo of Exodus 314 In other words those who hold such view believe Jesus Christ is the ldquoJehovahrdquo or ldquoYahwehrdquo of the Old Testament At Exodus 314 the Septuagint a Greek translation from the Hebrew has the true God saying ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν [Egō eimi ho ōn] ldquoI am the The Beingrdquo or ldquoI am The Existing Onerdquo And linking to Exodus 314 many translations have Jesus saying at John 858 ldquoI amrdquo However did Christ really say at John 858 ldquoI am Jehovahrdquo ldquoI am The Beingrdquo or even ldquoThe I Amrdquo No he did not Those interpretations are traditionally read into the text

The use of ldquoeimirdquo at Exodus 314 in the Septuagint is used as a linking verb to the expression ldquoThe Beingrdquo or ldquoThe Existing Onerdquo not as an absolute predicate This is similar to as when David said ldquoI am (egō eimi) the one sinningrdquo (1 Chronicles 2117

LXX) Or when Jesus says (John 107) ldquoI am (egō eimi) the door to the sheeprdquo Or Peter (Acts 223) ldquoI am (egō eimi) a Jewrdquo In these three instances of ldquoeimirdquo as a connecting verb there is nothing in the words themselves suggesting eternity We also find an angel Gabriel using the same expression that Christ used at John 858 (Luke 119) Even Paul stated εἰμι ὅ εἰμι [eimi ho eimi] = ldquoI am what I amrdquo and by using those words he was by nomeans claiming he was God eternal (1 Corinthians 1510) Hence the use of ldquoeimirdquo of itselfcannot be used as a sound argument to bolster Christs deity

The meaning of ldquoeimirdquo must therefore be defined mainly from Bible context and not from any mysticism attributed to the word And strictly speaking John 858 does not even say whether Jesus is ldquoeternalrdquo or not All it says is that Jesus preceded Abraham in time and his existence extended to the present ldquoI have existed [since] before Abraham was bornrdquo (A New Translation by James Moffatt) The Bible does say that Christ is ldquosuperiorrdquo to angels but ldquosuperiorityrdquo does not demand ldquoeternityrdquo since someone can be ldquosuperiorrdquo to another without having the same age It should be pointed out that angels too existed way before Abraham came to be and still ldquoexistrdquo but nonetheless they were ldquocreatedrdquo by God (Genesis 62 Job 381-7 Psalm 1482 5) And of Christ it is said ldquoHe isthe firstborn of all creationrdquo (Col 115 ESV) Some in their attempt to disconnect Christ from lsquocreaturersquo status twist the meaning of this last statement but Christ himself said ldquoI have life because of him [God]rdquo (John 657 CEV)

Although many Bible commentators explain Gods words at Exodus 314 as the New American Standard Bible rendered it ldquoI AM WHO I AMrdquo other scholars accept another explanation such as the one found in The International Bible Commentary ldquoThe translation lsquoI will be what I will bersquo (cf NIVfn) is also possible and would make even more explicit the suggestion that Gods character would be disclosed as events unfoldedrdquo (FF Bruce GeneralEditor) Another reference work The Expositors Bible Commentary (Abridged Edition) points out the following as well ldquoThe Hebrew seeks the significance character quality and interpretation of the name Therefore what they needed to know was lsquoWhat does that name mean or signify in circumstances such as we are inrsquo rdquo So even when scholars use ldquoI Amrdquo intheir explanations of Exodus 314 others see the phrase as indicative of Gods will toward his people Thus other translators provide an alternate more accurate reading either in the main text or in their footnotes

ldquoI Will Be What I Will Berdquo (Modern Spelling Tyndale-Coverdale) ldquoI Will Become whatsoever I pleaserdquo (Joseph Bryant Rotherham) ldquoI will be what I will berdquo (The Bible in Living English Steven T Byington) ldquoI WILL BE THAT I WILL BErdquo (Leeser Old Testament 1853) ldquoI shall come to be just as I am coming to berdquo (Concordant Literal Version) ldquoI-will-be-what-I-will-berdquo (A New Translation by James Moffatt) ldquoI shall be that I shall berdquo (Julia Smith Translation) ldquoEHYEH ASHER EHYEH I will be-there howsoever I will be-thererdquo (The Five Books [of Moses by Everett Fox)ldquoI SHALL PROVE TO BE WHAT I SHALL PROVE TO BErdquo (NWT)ldquoI Will Become What I Choose to Becomerdquo (NWT 2013)

See also The Anchor Bible (William HC Propp) and the The Stone Tanach (Artscroll Mesorah)

In the Hebrew original the above words pronounced by God Almighty are in the ldquoimperfectrdquostate of the verb which communicate ldquoincompletenessrdquo or ldquofuturerdquo activity Interestingly the Hebrew word ייי( ה ה( ה איא (ehyeh) appears in Exodus 312 just two verses away and there many Bible translations render it unlike what they do in Exodus 314 as future action ldquoI will be with yourdquo reflecting the imperfect state of the verb here indicative of Gods intended involvement with his people (Compare with other occurrences of the word in Joshua 15 Judges 616 1 Samuel 2317 2 Samuel 714 1534 1618 1 Chronicles 1713 Isaiah 477 and Jeremiah 114 where ehyeh is commonly translated as ldquofuturerdquo action) This brings up the question Why do this in Exodus 312 and the other places but not in verse 14

Charles R Gianotti (Dallas Theological Seminary) points out this very thing ldquoSignificantlymost interpreters translate ייי( ה ה( ה איא [ehyeh] in Exodus 312 as future (ie I will be [ehyeh] with yoursquo) Yet two verses later why should not the same translation sufficerdquo Gianotti adds ldquoThe future in this case can indeed refer to future activity or effectiveness of YHWH It should be observed that even Aquila (AD 130) noted for his lsquoslavishly literal translationrsquo translated the tense as futurerdquo Gianotti says that ldquoin light of the imperfect form ייי( ה ה( ה איא [ehyeh] used in Exodus 314rdquo translating ייי( ה ה( ה איא [ ehyeh ] as most English versions do assuming a present tense meaning is ldquo unjustifiedrdquo (ldquoThe Meaning of the Divine Name YHWHrdquo Bibliotheca Sacra 142 January-March 1985) Reflecting a similar understanding the NWT 1984 Reference Edition adds the following footnote ldquoThe reference here is not to Gods self-existence but to what he has in mind to become toward othersrdquo

The Septuagint reading ldquoI am The Beingrdquo at Exodus 314 does not represent the best translation possible from the Hebrew It is odd indeed that many Bible translators choose to follow the Greek Septuagint in verse 14 rather than the original Hebrew Text Trinitarian advocate James R White PhD (from Alpha amp Omega Ministries) noted ldquoIt is true that many go directly to Exodus 314 for the background but it is felt that unless one first establishes the connection with the direct quotation of ego eimi in the Septuagint the connection with Exodus 314 will be somewhat tenuousrdquo

Could it be then that modern translators want to advance ehyeh as a title or name ldquoI Amrdquo to express self-existence and hence make the connection to the ldquoI Amrdquo of Jesus in John 858 as it appears in traditional versions If so such translators could be guilty of asserting the Trinity doctrine on their readers Although James White sees a connection between John 858 and the ldquoI am [he]rdquo sayings in Isaiah he has this to say of the supposed connection between John 858 and Exodus 314 ldquoIt could fairly be admitted that an immediate and unqualified jump from the ego eimi of John 858 to Exodus 314 is unwiserdquo (ldquoPurpose and Meaning of lsquoEgo Eimirsquo in the Gospel of John In Reference to the Deity of Christrdquo)

Likewise Edwin D Freed Professor Emeritus of Religion Gettysburg College contends that ldquothe meaning of the sentence [at John 858] in the mind of the writer was ldquoBefore

Abraham was I the Christ the Son of God existedrdquo (ldquoWho or what was before Abraham inJohn 858rdquo Journal for the Study of the New Testament 17 1983 52-59) Professor Freed thus sees no connection of Jesus statement in John 858 with that of Jehovah (Yahweh) at Exodus 314 But what about the ldquoI amrdquo sayings appearing in the books of Isaiah and John Are they not connected somehow

Is rsquoani-hursquo in Isaiah parallel to egō eimi in John

At times there are biblical statements made where both God and Christ use similar languageThis is not surprising when one considers the role Christ plays in Gods purpose The Bible tells us that Christ is ldquothe image of the invisible God the firstborn of all creationrdquo (NASB) ldquothe radiance of Gods glory and the exact representation of his beingrdquo (Colossians 115 Hebrews 13) ldquoAnd God has put all things under the authority of Christ and he gave him this authority for the benefit of the churchrdquo (Ephesians 122 NLT) Anyone seeking salvation must therefore put faith in lsquothe name which was given by God to mankindrsquo ldquoJesus Christrdquo ldquoto the glory of God the Fatherrdquo ldquoWhoever believes in the Son has eternal life but whoever rejects the Son will not see life for Godrsquos wrath remains on themrdquo (John 336 Philippians 21011) In all God still is in control and just as lsquoChristians belong to Christrsquo ldquoChrist belongs to Godrdquo says the Word (1 Corinthians 113 323 NASB)

In the Old Testament God appears on several occasions using the Hebrew phrase א( הוא נני־ אא (rsquoani-hursquo) which literally means ldquoI ndash herdquo but sometimes translated ldquoI amrdquo or ldquoI am herdquo (Isaiah 414 428 4310 13 464 4812 526) It also appears in Deuteronomy 3239 David a human also used that expression in 1 Chronicles 2117 (Hebrew הוא )ה נני־ אא (ani-huacute- ldquoI am herdquo) Septuagint ἐγώ εἰμι (ldquoegō eimirdquo) Although many argue that there is a connection between Christs statements in the NT and those of God in the OT there is no certainty of those interpretations Even if there was some connection in the ldquoI amrdquo statements would that prove that the identity of the speaker is the same in each case Not really

In the Bible when God made some men powerful and blessed them with his spirit in a sensethey became like ldquoa godrdquo since they ldquorepresentedrdquo God (Exodus 71 Psalms 8216 John 1033-36) Having others referred to in similar language to that of God is no conclusive proofof ldquoequalityrdquo with God An example of this can be seen when a ldquomanrdquo (perhaps Solomon) became ldquokingrdquo of Israel was addressed literally in divine terms ldquoYour throne God forever and everrdquo (Psalm 456) Obviously this human king was not the One True God Not surprisingly some Bible translators work around this literal reading and make it read where it says something like ldquoYour throne is like Gods thronerdquo (Jewish Publication Society) OrldquoYour divine throne endures for ever and everrdquo (Revised Standard Version) Or ldquoYour throne is from Godrdquo (New Jerusalem Bible) Or ldquoGod has enthroned you for all eternityrdquo (Revised English Bible)

Even when translators render the passage literally they explain it in such a way that makes it clear that Solomon was not God For instance the NIV of 2011 has this footnote ldquoHere the king is addressed as Godrsquos representativerdquo Nonetheless when such reference is made of

Jesus Christ (as in Hebrews 18) the same translators may now insist those similar words areldquoproofrdquo of Christs ldquodeityrdquo A good example of this is found in the NET Bibles footnotes Although Jesus accepted being ldquoone greater than Solomonrdquo he never claimed to be God the Father (Matthew 1242) Significantly to Jesus ldquoGodrdquo was someone else

In the Bible is not rare to read frequent references and comparisons of faithful men with Jesus Christ ndash Abraham Jacob Moses David Solomon Jonas and John the Baptist (John 853 412 Deuteronomy 1815 Hebrews 33 Psalm 1101 Matthew 927 2245 124142 Mark 17 Luke 117 72628) Whats more Jesus is compared to ldquoangelsrdquo (Hebrews 14513) Should we take this to mean that men and angels are somehow identical to Jesus Christ True some of these references show that Jesus Christ is above them But we should take the superiority of Christ over them in the same way that we rightly accept Jesus own words indicative of his relative position to the Father ldquoThe Father is greater than Irdquo (John 1428 2031)

Accordingly the ldquoI amrdquo or ldquoI am herdquo expressions pronounced by God and Jesus Christ found in both the Old and New Testaments must be understood within their proper context From the beginning of mans history God provided a way for mankinds deliverance Jesus was prophetically the center of this magnificent expectation For eons of time mankind waited for the One (Messiah) who would deliver them from bondage Nevertheless when hedid appear on the earthly scene most people ignored and rejected the real Messiah because they were expecting politically speaking a quick deliverance from the Roman yoke

However God had something else in mind ndash deliverance was still ahead It was now the time to call attention to the fact that Christ their (future) ldquosaviorrdquo was in their midst Jesus did his part by words and by action (miracles etc) He called attention to who he really was ldquothe Son of Godrdquo and told others that he was ldquothe Christrdquo (or the ldquoMessiahrdquo) (John 42526 Matthew 1615-17 2663-68) Related to the subject one expression Jesus used on various occasions was this one ldquoI amrdquo or ldquoI am herdquo words understood by those brought up in trinitarian doctrine to attest Jesus equality with God (John 426 620 824 28 858 1319 185-6 8) However the phrase was sometimes used as a simple self-identification like ldquoIt is Irdquo or ldquoI am Jesusrdquo At other times when questioned by doubters Jesus used it to get the point across that lsquohe was the one [and not someone else]rsquo the promised ldquoSaviorrdquo ldquothe Son of manrdquo ldquothe Son of Godrdquo ldquothe Messiahrdquo

At no time did Jesus ever claim he was a ldquoGod-manrdquo or ldquoGod in the fleshrdquo (John 316) Those thoughts are foreign to Scripture Remember that Scripture teaches that lsquoGod was with Jesusrsquo just as we are told that lsquoGod was with Josephrsquo son of Jacob Scripture does not say that Jesus was God made flesh It was lsquothe Wordrsquo the Son of God who was with God in the beginning the One who lsquobecame fleshrsquo not God (Acts 79 1038 John 11 114) Christendom has distorted Scripture to the point that ldquoChristianrdquo followers cannot determine this plain truth A misunderstanding of John 11 and 1 Timothy 316 has greatly contributed to this error Further below you will find links where those verses are considered in detail

It was through Jesus death that God reconciled sinful people to himself Hence the ldquoI amrdquo

or ldquoI am herdquo sayings of Jesus need not be directly linked to those uttered by God before the time of Christ Jesus was sent by God on a saving mission as a representative of God With good reason he declared unambiguously that ldquoherdquo was (and not some other) ldquoGods Sonrdquo the promised ldquoMessiahrdquo The Jesus sayings ldquoI amrdquo or ldquoI am herdquo in some cases would confirm at most that ldquothere is no other name under heaven that has been given to men in which we must be savedrdquo (Acts 4 12) It was lsquoGod who resurrected Jesus from among the deadrsquo and it was God who lsquogave mankind the namersquo that saves people (Acts 410)

Thus the ldquoI amrdquo sayings of the New Testament were certainly pronounced in a different setting than those in the Old Testament Not to be overlooked the One using the ldquoI amrdquo or ldquoI am herdquo expressions in the OT is described unequivocally as lsquoAlmighty Godrsquo lsquothe only True Godrsquo with maximum ldquopowerrdquo and ldquoauthorityrdquo to send a ldquosubordinaterdquo to an extraordinary mission (Daniel 714 John 1316 537) The glorified Christ is never described in the same way as God was in Old Testament times as he always appears throughout the NT subordinated to God Still Christ is ldquothe wayrdquo to the Father and salvation (John 146) We are therefore commanded to recognize his lsquoGod-given authorityrsquo so ldquothat all may honor the Son just as they honor the Fatherrdquo (Matthew 2818 John 2031 523) Jesus is then the ldquomediatorrdquo between God and mankind (1 Timothy 25) A grand privilege that is

What does the context of John 858 indicate

Some Bible readers see Jesus in the context of John chapter 8 not only saying in idiomatic fashion that he lsquowas [already] alive before Abraham was born (SEB)rsquo and still lsquoisrsquo but also that he was identifying himself as ldquothe Son of Manrdquo ldquothe Messiahrdquo This is a reasonable assumption as well One of the Jews questions was ldquoWho do you think you arerdquo (John 853) In John 824 28 1319 Matthew 2754 and Mark 1460-64 the function or position ofChrist as the ldquoSon of Godrdquo ldquoSon of Manrdquo and ldquothe Christrdquo all come through

The statement (or question) Jews made to Jesus prior to verse 58 was ldquoYou are not yet fifty years old and you have seen Abrahamrdquo Logically Jesus answered the question of his age of his long existence and additionally was perhaps asserting his ldquomessiahshiprdquo as well in harmony with the question Jews had posed earlier in verse 53 This may be one reason a fewtranslators render or note John 858 not as ldquoI amrdquo but rather ldquoI am herdquo some to suggest Christ is God while others do so emphasizing his messianic role The second interpretation fits better with Scripture In the list of alternate readings of John 858 below you will find that rendering as well However the key issue in this text is Jesus existence from past to present Unlike other verses in John (82428) where ldquoeimirdquo is used (in the sense of ldquoI am herdquo ie ldquothe Son of Godrdquo ldquothe Messiahrdquo) in verse 58 the matter of ldquoidentityrdquo is secondaryto the key issue of his existence In the sum of things it should be noted that ldquoindefiniterdquo existence is not equal to ldquoeternalrdquo existence

Within the context of chapter eight (8) of John Jesus makes statements which mark clear differences with his Father God When reading over the next few paragraphs keep in mind that the Bible condemns two-faced personalities and speaking out with a forked tongue

Jesus himself spoke out against hypocrisy so he only spoke ldquotruthrdquo

In John 826 Jesus told the Jews that he was ldquosentrdquo by his Father and that lsquohe speaks the things that he hears from the one who sent himrsquo That lsquohe does nothing on his own initiativersquo (NASB) That lsquohe isrsquo ldquothe Son of Manrdquo and lsquospeaks just what the Father taught himrsquo (V 28)

Jesus stated a simple but significant truth ldquoNo servant is greater than his master nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent himrdquo (John 1316) With this principle in mind here are some questions to ponder about How could Jesus be ldquosentrdquo if he himself was ldquoGodrdquo Why was Jesus lsquonot able to do anything on his own initiativersquo if he was ldquoall-mightyrdquo In verse 29 Jesus says that lsquothe One who sent him has not left him alone and that he always did what pleased the Fatherrsquo Why would Jesus Christ say at all lsquoI always do what pleases him who sent mersquo If Jesus was ldquoGodrdquo why would he find it important enoughto mention whether he was left ldquoalonerdquo or not Does God need ldquocompanionshiprdquo as humans do Why would anybody have to ldquoteachrdquo Jesus anything if he was all-knowingrdquo

Also Jesus applied the title ldquoSon of Manrdquo to himself numerous times a term which Jews considered a title of the promised ldquoMessiahrdquo not of ldquoGodrdquo In addition the Bible book of Numbers 2319 tells us that ldquoGod is not a man that he should lie ldquonor a son of man that he should change his mindrdquo Nonetheless Christ precisely adopted this very same expression (ldquoSon of Manrdquo) before others with no regrets Furthermore did God have to become ldquoa manrdquo to save humankind when the Bible explicitly says that lsquoGod sent his only-begotten Sonrsquoto save the worldrsquo (John 316 NASB 1 John 414) Who is distorting the full picture here

In verse 40 John reports that the Jews lsquowere determined to kill Jesus because they didnt want to accept the word and truth that Jesus as a man [Greek anthropon] spoke having it received from Godrsquo How could Christ speak of himself as lsquoa man receiving truth from Godrsquowhen seconds later according to Trinitarians he would be using a ldquotitlerdquo claiming to be ldquoGodrdquo in effect contradicting everything he had been saying until then None of these statements would make sense if Jesus himself was the Supreme God as many believe

What would Jesus gain by claiming before the world that he lsquocould not do anything on his own initiativersquo that lsquohe always did what pleased the Fatherrsquo and that he only spoke just what the Father who sent him lsquotaughtrsquo him And shortly afterwards change his message altogether and claim as we are asked to believe that Christ was the ldquoGodrdquo of the Old Testament by the sole act of pronouncing the ldquoI amrdquo divine ldquotitlerdquo Does this lsquodouble personalityrsquo approach make any sense to a Christian who is taught to only believe ldquothere is but one God the Fatherrdquo (John 530 1 Corinthians 86) No wonder there are a good number of Bible translators including Trinitarians who disagree with the traditional view of John 858

Does the Jews reaction in John 859 prove Jesus Christ had claimed to be ldquoGodrdquo

Shortly before his death Jesus was taken before the Sanhedrin the high court of the Jews to

face false charges by people who wanted him dead Please take note of the charges brought up in Marks account (1460-64) which says

60 Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus ldquoAre you not going to answer What is this testimony that these men are bringing against yourdquo 61 But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer Again the high priest asked him ldquoAre you the Messiah the Son of the Blessed Onerdquo 62 ldquoI amrdquo said Jesus ldquoAnd you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heavenrdquo 63 The high priest tore his clothes ldquoWhy do we need any more witnessesrdquo he asked 64 ldquoYou have heard the blasphemy What do you thinkrdquo They all condemned him as worthy of death

In view of the events of Mark 1460-64 and considering the context of John chapter 8 it is clear that the Jews rejected Jesus claim of him being ldquothe Messiahrdquo and of being lsquogreaterrsquo than Abraham They were also rejecting the idea that he was ldquofrom aboverdquo ldquothe Son of Mansitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heavenrdquo of the heavenly vision (John 823) In their view that was enough to charge him with blasphemy since they could not imagine any ldquomanrdquo making such claims

C K Barrett rightly noted that the Jews reaction in verse 59 ldquodoes not mean that Jesus had claimed to be Godrdquo (The Gospel According to St John 2d ed Philadelphia Westminster Press 1978 352) And Professor Emeritus William Loader noted ldquoThe text need mean no more than I am and was in existence before Abraham still a majestic unique claim but not anallusion to the divine namerdquo (The Christology of the Fourth Gospel Structures and Issues Revised 2d ed New York Lang 1992 48)

Even before Jesus spoke the ldquoegō eimirdquo words in John 858 the Jews had already sought to kill Jesus (John 719 837) And for what ldquocrimerdquo This lsquoJesus claimed the truth he taughtcame from Godrsquo (John 716 840) This is vastly different from lsquoJesus alledgedly claiming a divine title equating him with God at John 858rsquo Since then all sorts of religious leaders have claimed as well that ldquowhat they teach others comes from Godrdquo and not from them Does that make them ldquoequalrdquo to God

Because Jesus often lsquocalled God his Fatherrsquo the Jews wrongly concluded that he was ldquomaking himself equal to Godrdquo (John 51819) However Jesus quickly set the matter straight when he called himself Gods ldquoSonrdquo (nine times in chapter 5 alone) an expression never applied to ldquoGodrdquo in Scripture (Matthew 2663-64) The Jews even claimed Jesus was ldquobreaking the Sabbathrdquo and further of being ldquoa Samaritan and demon-possessedrdquo (John 518 848) Were they right Absolutely not Thus wrong perceptions of Jews in Jesus time - like Jesus claiming equality with God - are truly a shaky foundation to base modern interpretations The Jerusalem Bible has this to say ldquoThe claim of Jesus to live on the divine plane (v 58) is for the Jews blasphemy for which the penalty is stoning Lv 2416rdquo I see the JB accepting the claim that Jesus possessed some mode of ldquodivine existencerdquo (as suggested by the Spanish edition of JB ldquoBiblia de Jerusaleacutenrdquo) but avoiding a direct reference of Christ

claiming to be God or that he was claiming ldquoeternalrdquo existence in the verse And former Professor Kenneth L McKay said ldquoThe claim to have been in existence for so long is in itself a staggering one quite enough to provoke the crowds violent reaction [in v59]rdquo (ldquo lsquoI amrsquo in Johns Gospelrdquo p 302) Hence those who claim the charge of blasphemy involved Jesus claim of being ldquoGodrdquo are wrong for Jesus never claimed to be ldquoThe Supreme Beingrdquo but only ldquoGods Sonrdquo (John 31718)

Weeks later after the incident of John chapter 8 but related to the topic of discussion in John 1030-36 we read that the Jews misunderstood Jesus words ldquoI and the father are onerdquo (John 10 30) So they wanted to stone him for it but Jesus told them

33 ldquoWe are not stoning you for any good workrdquo they replied ldquobut for blasphemy because you a mere man claim to be Godrdquo 34 Jesus answered them ldquoIs it not written in your Law lsquoI have said you are ldquogodsrdquorsquo [Psalm 826] 35 If he called them lsquogodsrsquo to whom the word of God camemdashand Scripture cannot be set asidemdash 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said lsquoI am Godrsquos Sonrsquo ( Other versions translate the Greek word here for ldquoGodrdquo without the article either as ldquogodrdquo or ldquoa godrdquo Besson Torrey NWT Mace Luther 1545 Diaglott Tomanek Andy Gaus New English Bible)

Notice that Jesus Christ under duress had another golden opportunity to once and for all disclose publicly that he was ldquoGodrdquo But he did not do so The argument itself that Jesus employed shows that he could legitimately claim lsquodivine originrsquo without being identified as one-and-the-same God with his Father

Less than a year later AFTER the encounter with the Jews of John chapter 8 and before his death Jesus told his closest disciples in his farewell speech that they lsquoshould rejoice he was going away to the Father because the Father was greater than he wasrsquo (John 1428) And in his final prayer in proximity with his disciples he prayed to God that lsquothey may know his Father the only true God and Jesus Christ whom he has sentrsquo (John 173 ) God never needs to pray to anyone Shortly after Jesus died and was resurrected by God but before returning to his Father Jesus said to Mary Magdalene ldquoDo not hold on to me for I have notyet ascended to the Father Go instead to my brothers and tell them lsquoI am ascending to my Father and your Father to my God and your Godrsquo rdquo (John 2017)

Does it make sense to have Jesus claim equality with God by employing a divine title (ldquoI Amrdquo) before unbelieving Jews as Trinitarians claim and then have Jesus later assure his closest and faithful ones that lsquohis Father and his Godrsquo was also lsquothe Father and God of everyone elsersquo In fact Jesus disciples were clearly in a privileged position in regards to Christian teaching Jesus Christ had previously said to his disciples that he would explain lsquoall thingsrsquo to them privately whereas to others he would only speak in lsquoparablesrsquo or lsquocomparisonsrsquo (Matthew 1311 Mark 411 33 34) An explicit lsquodivine titlersquo directed at lsquounbelievingrsquo Jews is certainly no parable and would run counter to his own stated principles

Anyways Jesus Christ wanted other Christian followers to understand the special

relationship he had with the Father ldquoBut go to my followers and tell them this lsquoI am going back to my Father and your Father I am going back to my God and your Godrsquo rdquo (Easy to Read Version) This simple message is so different from the convoluted one commonly expounded by Trinitarians in their philosophical speculations

Between the time of the encounter between the Jews and Jesus in John ch 8 and the farewelldiscourse of our Lord Jesus Christ of later (chapters 14-17) not once did Jesus say he was ldquoGodrdquo Christ never spoke with a forked tongue Therefore Bible translators who do not claim Jesus was using a divine title at John 858 and provide renderings agreeing with the words of John 173 and 2017 are in the correct

Scriptures with similar syntax to John 858

Thus when faced with certain idiomatic expressions as the one found in John 858 the translator often has to ask himself How would someone normally express such statements in our language I will cite six (6) Scriptural examples that are similar in syntax to John 858 Genesis 3138 LXX 1 John 38 Luke 248 John 56 2 Corinthians 1219 and John 1527 All six Scriptures have present tense verbs AND an expression of past time or extent of time with past implications within its structure Lets see how these Scriptures compare with John 858 in our discussion

1st Example (Genesis 3138 LXX) ταῦτά μοι εἴκοσι ἔτη ἐγώ εἰμι μετὰ σοῦ - Greek These mine twenty years I am with you

Jacob after leaving Haran disputes with his father-in-law Laban over missing personal idols which Laban claimed were stolen by Jacob Jacob had no idea Rachel had stolen them In defense Jacob proceeded to mention several things he had done through the years on Labansbehalf ldquoThese twenty years I am with yourdquo (The Apostolic Bible Polyglot LXX 2006)ldquoThese twenty years of mine I was with yourdquo (A New English Translation of the Septuagint ldquoNETSrdquo 2007)ldquoThese twenty years have I been with theerdquo (The Holy Orthodox Bible LXX 2006)ldquoThese twenty years I have been with yourdquo (The Orthodox Study Bible LXX 2008)ldquoThese twenty years of mine have I been with theerdquo (Orthodox England LXX 2009)ldquoI have spent with you twenty of my years [Jai passeacute avec toi vingt de mes anneacutees]rdquo (La Septante [LXX] translated by Pierre Giguet)ldquoThese twenty years have I been with theerdquo (Sir Lancelot CL Brenton LXX)ldquoThese twenty years that I have been with theerdquo (Charles Thomson LXX)

Aside from the interlinear reading of the literal Apostolic Bible Polyglot other translators of the Septuagint (LXX) render a present indicative verb ldquoegō eimirdquo (I am) preceded by an expression of time with past implications (ldquoThese twenty yearsrdquo) with present perfect

indicative forms (ldquoI have beenrdquo) while one translation (NETS) uses a simple past form (ldquoI wasrdquo) A modern Greek translation Η Αγία ΓραφήmdashΜετάφραση Νέου Κόσμου has ldquoήμουνrdquo (Literally ldquoI wasrdquo) in this text A likely reason for that as a modern Greek Grammar pointsout is that for the verb lsquoto be (είμαι)rsquo ldquoThere are only two sets of tense forms in Greek present and past (imperfect)rdquo (op cit An Essential Grammar p 126 Sec 67) Hence they could not have used here a perfect tense form for the verb lsquoto be (eimai)rsquo But in English the Bible Society responsible for the Greek and English translations of the Hebrew portion of the Bible used instead ldquoI have beenrdquo at Genesis 3138 in the English edition because a present perfect is available in the language for the verb

Another interesting tidbit is the fact that the original Hebrew text here lacks a verb in the declaration namely ldquoThis twenty year I with-yourdquo (The Hebrew-English Interlinear ESV Old Testament Crossway) Well how do translators deal with this issue Overall like this with the perfect indicative ldquoI have been with you for twenty years nowrdquo A few versions use the imperfect instead lsquoI wasrsquo such as the Wycliffe Bible and the Lexham English Bible Rarely do translations use a ldquopresentrdquo here the exceptions being Youngs and Concordant literal translations So why do the overwhelming number of translators prefer tosupply a perfect tense here for the missing verb in the Hebrew Its simple There is a temporal indicator going to the past in the text namely lsquoThese twenty yearsrsquo

Now when the LXX translators proceeded to translate the Hebrew words of Genesis 3138 into Greek they cleverly used a well known vivid idiom available in classical Greek where a verb in the present tense is combined with an indicator of past time In this syntax the ldquopast and present are gathered up in a single affirmationrdquo (op cit Brooks amp Winbery) Modern English translators usually resort to the present perfect in this construction as shown aboveSo too John 858 reveals an expression of past time with a present verb in its statement and the NWT is one translation that is consistent with this construction both in Genesis 3138 and John 858

For the following I will use the Wescott and Hort Greek text for reference

2nd Example (1 John 38)

ὅτι ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς ὁ διάβολος ἁμαρτάνει - Greek because from beginning the devil is sinning

The apostle John warns Christians not to carry on sin for those who make a practice of sin originate from the Devil who has sinned from the beginning For this purpose the Son of God was revealed that he might undo the works of the Devil The text above contains an expression of past time (ldquofrom beginningrdquo) with a present verb (is sinning) very much likeJohn 858 How do translators deal with this passage Lets see

ldquofor the devil sinneth from the beginningrdquo (Rheims New Testament)ldquofor the devil sinneth from the beginningrdquo (KJV)

ldquofor the devil has sinned from the beginningrdquo (New King James Version)ldquofor the devil has sinned from the beginningrdquo (NASB)ldquobecause the devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (Interlinear Mounce)ldquofor the Devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (Riverside NT Ballantine)ldquobecause the devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (NIV)ldquobecause the devil has sinned from the beginningrdquo (NAB)ldquosince the devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (Jay E Adams)ldquowho has been sinning since the beginningrdquo (NLT)ldquofor the devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (NRSV)ldquosince the devil has been a sinner from the beginningrdquo (NJB)ldquobecause the devil has been sinning from the very beginningrdquo (J G Anderson)ldquofor the devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (ESV)

ldquothe devil was a sinner from the firstrdquo (Ronald A Knox New Testament)

Some translations transfer the Greek present to their English versions as if the English and Greek ldquopresentrdquo in such construction were the same thing It is not The end result is ungrammatical English Would you say in contemporary English ldquoFrom the beginning of class the boy sleepsrdquo Not Doctor Richard A Young points out ldquoTo say that the devil is sinning from the beginning does not make sense in English English translations therefore employ the present perfectrdquo (Intermediate New Testament Greek page 111)

The renderings above ldquohas sinnedrdquo and ldquohas been sinningrdquo are present perfect and present perfect progressive indicative forms The word ldquowasrdquo is a simple past tense Just as in 1 John 38 some translators in John 858 have rendered a present tense with an expression of past time in its construction with a present perfect ldquoI have beenrdquo

3rd Example (2 Corinthians 1219)

Πάλαι δοκεῖτε ὅτι ὑμῖν ἀπολογούμεθα ndash Greek Long ago you are thinking that to you we are making defense

Paul finds himself having to defend his apostolic authority and vindicating his record as superior in hardship endured for Christ and loving concern for congregations In simpler words Paul was telling them ldquoAll this time have you been thinking that Ive been speaking up for myself No Ive been speaking with God as my witness Ive been speaking like a believer in Christ Dear friends everything I do is to help you become strongerrdquo (NIRV)

In the literal reading above we have an adverb of time with past implications (Palai) followed by two Greek verb forms (ldquodokeiterdquo amp ldquoapologoumethardquo) in the present indicativetense The book Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek Verb by William Watson Goodwin explains ldquoThe Present is often used with expressions denoting past time especially πάλαι [palai] in the sense of a perfect and a present combinedrdquo (Section 26 p 9) How do translators render these in English Some carry over the present tense into the English text producing unconventional English Others cognizant of issues presented here

do a better job at it See below for a sample

ldquoHave you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves before yourdquo (The Comprehensive New Testament 2008)ldquoI hope you donacutet think that all along weacuteve been making our defense before yourdquo (The Message Eugene H Peterson)ldquoHave you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves to yourdquo (NIV)ldquoIt may seem to you that all this time we have been attempting to put ourselves in the rightrdquo (Bible in Basic English)ldquoAll this time you have been thinking that we have been pleading our own cause before yourdquo (NJB)ldquoHave you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves to yourdquo (CEV)ldquoHave you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves before yourdquo (Revised Standard Version) ldquoPerhaps you think that all along we have been trying to defend ourselves before yourdquo (TEV)ldquoHave you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves to yourdquo (ESV)ldquoYou have thought all along that we were defending ourselves to yourdquo (HCSB)ldquoHave you been thinking all this time that we have been defending ourselves to yourdquo (NET Bible)

ldquoYou have been thinking all along that it was to you we were making our defenserdquo (The Bible in Living English Steven T Byington)

The above translations use present perfect (and perfect progressive) forms or past progressives to bring out the proper sense of the original into our language Can anyone rightfully claim that it is improper for these Bible versions to translate this text as they have done in English

4th Example (Luke 248 Wescott and HortNestle early editions Greek text)

ὁ πατήρ σου καὶ ἐγὼ ὀδυνώμενοι ζητοῦμέν σε - Greek The father of you and I being pained we are seeking you Here the context (vv 42-48) speaks of Jesus (12 years old) being left behind unwittingly in Jerusalem by his parents they went back searching in distress for three days before finding him When they finally found him they spoke the words above

ldquoYour father and I have been looking for you anxiouslyrdquo (Revised Standard Version)ldquoYour father and I in agony of mind have been searching for yourdquo (Williams NT)ldquoYour father and I have been anxiously looking for Yourdquo (NASB 1971)ldquoYour father and I have been searching for you in great distressrdquo (Riverside NT)

ldquoHere have your father and I been searching anxiously for yourdquo (Hugh J Schonfield)ldquoYour father and I have been looking for you have been very anxious rdquo (Goodspeed)ldquoYour father and I have been looking for you We have been very troubledrdquo (Bible in Worldwide English)ldquoYour father and I have been looking for you in distressrdquo (Richmond Lattimore)ldquoYour father and I have been searching for you in great distressrdquo (Twentieth Century NT) ldquoThy father and I have sought thee distressedrdquo (Darby Bible Translation)

ldquoThy father and I sought thee sorrowingrdquo (American Standard Version)

ldquoThy father and I in anguish were seeking theerdquo (The Emphasized Bible 3rd edit based on Wescott and Hort by Joseph B Rotherham)ldquoThy father and I were seeking thee sorrowfulrdquo (W B Godbey N T 1902)ldquoThy father and I were seeking Thee sorrowingrdquo (A S Worrell N T 1904)ldquoYour father and I were anxiously looking for yourdquo (World English Bible)

The words ldquowe are seeking yourdquo are in the present indicative tense however since an expression of time is used indicating action going on for days (ldquoafter three daysrdquo v 46) translators find it necessary to use either the present perfect (ldquohave beenrdquo ldquohave soughtrdquo) or simple past (ldquosoughtrdquo) or past progressive (ldquowere seekingrdquo) indicative forms to express in English what the Greek says in the ldquopresentrdquo Various Greek texts have instead of the ldquopresentrdquo found in the Westcott amp Hort Text above an ldquoimperfectrdquo verb form Both forms are frequently rendered with an English present ldquoperfectrdquo Compare with Youngs Literal Translation which also uses a past progressive indicative form ldquowere seekingrdquo and the Spanish Reina-Valera Revisada which rendered an imperfect verb form appearing in the Received Text with a present perfect indicative (ldquohemos buscadordquo) Is this another reason why many translators have rendered the Greek present ldquoegō eimirdquo preceded by an adverbial modifier in its clause at John 858 with perfective or past forms in English

5th Example (Juan 56)

καὶ γνοὺς ὅτι πολὺν ἤδη χρόνον ἔχει - Greek and having known that much already time he is having

This is an account of an invalid man who for 38 years had been sick and was now being cured by Jesus The Greek in this clause does not make his illness clear however the context does Take note of the expression of time used with past implications mixed with a present indicative verb ldquohe is havingrdquo For this to make any sense in our language it has to be modified When Jesus saw this sick man lying there

ldquoand knew that he had been now a long time in that caserdquo (KJV italics theirs) ldquoand knowing that he had been ill a long timerdquo (Revised English Bible)ldquoand knew he had been in that condition for a long timerdquo (NJB)ldquoand knew that he had been sick for a long timerdquo (World English Bible)ldquoand knew that he had been sick for a long timerdquo (Godacutes Word)

ldquoand knew how long he had been illrdquo (Living Bible)ldquoand knew he had already been there a long timerdquo (HCSB)ldquoand he knew that the man had been sick for such a long timerdquo (TEV)ldquoand knew that he had been in this state a long timerdquo (Confraternity Version)ldquoand finding that he had had a long time of itrdquo (S T Byington) ldquoand knew that he had been sick for a long timerdquo (Jay E Adams)ldquoand he knew that he had been waiting for a long timerdquo (George M Lamsa Peshitta) ldquoand knew that he had been now a long timerdquo (Rheims New Testament)

ldquoand knowing that he was [in that state] now a great length of timerdquo (J N Darby Translation Brackets his)

Once again we see translators having to use mostly perfective forms (ldquohad beenrdquo ldquohad hadrdquopast perfects) and one with a simple past ldquowasrdquo even though they are translating a present tense verb ldquohe is havingrdquo This shows that translators adapt their renderings whenever is necessary to convey the right meaning into the target language It is thus possible to render ldquoeimirdquo at John 858 with a form other than a present tense such as a present perfect Those who say that it can not be done or should not be done just need to look again at the evidenceobjectively

6th Example (John 1527 Wescott amp Hort)

ὅτι ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς μετʼ ἐμοῦ ἐστέ ndash Greek that from beginning with me you are

These words spoken by Jesus evidently refers to the beginning of his ministry when he chosehis closest disciples They were eyewitnesses of all the things God did through Christ duringhis ministry (Acts 121)

ldquobecause ye have been with me from the beginningrdquo (KJV) ldquobecause you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (NAB)ldquofor you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (Christian Community Bible)ldquobecause you are the men who have been with me from the very beginningrdquo (Heinz Wldquobecause you have been with me from the firstrdquo (New English Bible) [ Cassirer)ldquobecause you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (Godacutes Word Translation) ldquofor you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (NIV)ldquobecause you have been with me from the firstrdquo (Weymouth New Testament)ldquobecause you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (NRSV)ldquoyou that have been with me from the beginningrdquo (The Four Gospels EV Rieu)ldquobecause youacuteve been with Me from the beginning of My ministryrdquo (The Clear Word)ldquofor you have been with me from the firstrdquo (J B Phillips Modern English)ldquobecause you have been with Me from the beginningrdquo (HCSB) ldquothat you were with me from the startrdquo (21st Century New Testament)ldquofor you were with Me from the beginningrdquo (New Berkeley Version Revised Edition)

ldquobecause you were with me from the beginningrdquo (Mark Heber Miller)ldquobecause you were with me from the very beginningrdquo (SEB)

This scripture with the plural form of ldquoeimirdquo (este) is very similar to John 858 Again within its structure there is an expression of past time and a verb in the present indicative form (este) just as there is in John 858 A Grammar of New Testament Greek says ldquoThe reader may be reminded of one idiom which comes out of the linear idea the use of words like πάλαι [palai ldquolong agordquo] with the present in a sense best expressed by our perfect Thus in 2 Co 1219 lsquohave you been thinking all this timersquo or Jn 1527 lsquoyou have been with me from the beginning [ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς]rsquo hellip The durative present in such cases gathers up past and present time into one phraserdquo (A Grammar of New Testament Greek Vol 1 Prolegomena by JH Moulton p 119) As previously noted this Grammar specifically refers to John 858 as an example of this idiom

And here in John 1527 there is a connection of Jesus disciples [creatures as they are] that ldquowererdquo with him ldquofrom the beginningrdquo Obviously Jesus was making no reference to his disciples sharing ldquoeternityrdquo with him The disciples all had a beginning The logical conclusion is that Jesus was simply saying to them lsquoYou have been with me from the start of my ministryrsquo Hence there is no need to read ldquoeternityrdquo into the expression ldquoI amrdquo anymore that we should read ldquoeternityrdquo from Jesus words at John 1527 lsquoYou are with me from the beginningrsquo Neither grammar nor the context justifies reading more into these Scriptures than what they actually say

In fact the six (6) instances cited above (Genesis 3138 LXX 1 John 38 2 Cor 1219 Luke 248 John 56 John 1527) and John 858 as well all have an expression of past time or an extent of time with past implications (ldquoThese twenty yearsrdquo ldquoLong agordquo ldquoafter three daysrdquo Lk 246 ldquomuch already timerdquo ldquofrom [the] beginningrdquo ldquoBeforerdquo etc) AND present verbs in their sentences or nearby within the context and are commonly rendered with present perfect (some with past perfects) or simple past (or past progressive) forms in English translations If we apply this pattern to the translation of John 858 it would mean that renderings such as ldquoI have beenrdquo (present perfect) and ldquoI wasrdquo (simple past) are not only acceptable in translation but actually more ldquosuitablerdquo in application Can this really be done Not only can it be done it makes for a ldquobetterrdquo English translation

In regards to Jesus John 858 simply tells us that Jesus lsquowas alive before Abraham was bornrsquo (SEB) and that his existence continued up to the moment of his speaking to them Just as it is not proper English to say ldquoFor three days we are seeking yourdquo (Greek literal reading of Luke 248) or ldquobecause from the beginning with me you arerdquo (John 1527) it is no less proper English to say in John 858 ldquoBefore Abraham was born I amrdquo These readings should only appear in extremely literal interlinear translations which basically render the Greek word-by-word and not in standard idiomatic English translations Let me illustrate If a man advanced in age for example had his work history and experience questioned by co-workers in comparison to his younger son and employee Abe would he say in reply ldquoBefore my son Abe was born I am [the one fit for the job]rdquo No that does not sound right In English he could say it in various ways

ldquoI have been an experienced worker since before my son Abe was bornrdquo ldquoI have been what I am since before my son Abe was bornrdquo ldquoI was fit to work and fully active before my son Abe was ever bornrdquo ldquoI was already experienced in many jobs before Abe ever came to berdquo ldquoI have been a master worker way before my son Abe came to liferdquo ldquoBefore Abe was born I already was life and job experiencedrdquo etc

The point is that in English normally we include a present perfect tense whenever there is a reference to the past extending to the present or a past tense of some form whenever we go back in time The same with John 858 There is no justification in English to insist using a present verb form (which is not equal to the Greek present when combined with a past expression) in an unwarranted attempt to convey ldquoeternityrdquo as ldquopaddingrdquo to the Trinity doctrine a doctrine adopted AFTER the Christian era Worse it is disingenuous to accuse other translators (who have chosen to render ldquoegō eimirdquo at John 858 with an English present perfect or past tense) of scholastic dishonesty when the very same translations honored by these detractors do so in other places where the ldquodeityrdquo of Christ is not in play asshown in the samples provided above

An example of this double standard can be seen as well when scholars such as Dr Julius Mantey harshly criticizes the NWT for the rendering ldquoI have beenrdquo at John 858 but keeps quiet when other translators do similarly and even states or pretends that no other reputable translator would ever translate it that way He dared not criticize his former Greek teacher Charles B Williams who produced his own Bible translation Dr Mantey once wrote the following of Dr Williams translation ldquoWilliams translation considering all the factors is the most accurate and illuminating translation in the English languagerdquo And how does this ldquomost accurate translationrdquo render John 858 As follows ldquoI existed before Abraham was bornrdquo Here Dr Williams known for his Greek command used a simple past tense (ldquoI existedrdquo) as translation for the Greek present Julius Mantey certainly did not find Williams version of John 858 a ldquoshocking translationrdquo ldquoI existedrdquo is quite different from the translation Dr Mantey so passionately defended (ldquoI amrdquo)

When Dr Mantey talks about the NWT he says the rendering ldquoI have beenrdquo at John 858 cannot be justified and calls it ldquodishonestrdquo That rule does not apply to Williams translation does it Williams did not translate John 858 in the same way Mantey would have liked (ldquoI amrdquo) Not only that the Grammar itself that Dr Mantey co-authored with Dr Dana A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament states under ldquoThe Progressive Presentrdquo (called ldquoExtension from Pastrdquo by McKay) ldquoSometimes the progressive present is retroactivein its application denoting that which has begun in the past and continues into the present For the want of a better name we may call it the present of duration This use is generally associated with an adverb of time and may best be rendered by the English perfect ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς μετʼ ἐμοῦ ἐστέ Ye have been with me from the beginning Jn 1527 See also Lk137 2 Cor 129 [19]rdquo (Pages 182-83 Emphasis added)

Even though Julius Mantey has stated when referring to the NWT that ldquoI have beenrdquo is not a proper translation and even ldquodishonestrdquo at John 858 he clearly states in his Grammar (of

Scriptures with similar syntax to John 858) ldquoThis use is generally associated with an adverb of time and may best be rendered by the English perfect [such as ldquoI have beenrdquo which in fact is associated with an adverb of time in John 858]rdquo A likely reason for Dana ampManteys strong reluctance for not including John 858 as an example of the idiom discussed on page 183 may have to do with the fact that as ldquotrinitariansrdquo they oppose the idea of Jesus existence having lsquobegunrsquo in the past even though John 858 perfectly fits with the ldquoProgressive Presentrdquo idiom being discussed in their Grammar as acknowledged by other grammarians Hence their objection is truly a ldquotheologicalrdquo one rather than Greek grammaritself arguing in their favor as Mantey and some others have implied since a Greek present or an English perfect does not demand ldquoeternityrdquo at all from the subject

Consequently many religious individuals who focus solely on the basic meaning (of ldquoegō eimirdquo as ldquoI amrdquo) out of the context of the particular ldquoidiomrdquo used at John 858 end up missing the thrust of Jesus words and fall prey to misleading interpretations Doctor Kenneth L McKay taking into account all of these issues comes up with this excellent translation for John 858 ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo (A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek SBG 5 New York Peter Lang 1994 p42) If we objectively consider the material above we will not insist in connecting Jesus at John 858 with the God Jehovah of Exodus 314 (which many attempt to do but cannot be sustained) Instead we will focus on the simple message conveyed by Jesus words at John 858 which is in harmony with the totality of Scripture ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo (McKay) The rendering ldquoI have been in existencerdquo by itself does not rule out either the concept of ldquoeternityrdquo or the ldquocreationrdquo of Jesus Christ A Committee of Bible translators came up with the following translation which may not be the best choice but considering the issues involved is better than the traditional rendering of ldquoI amrdquo ldquoI was alive before Abraham was bornrdquo (The New Testament in Plain English)

(The following scholars are members of the Bible Translation Committee of The New Testament in Plain English which approved this last reading ldquoI was aliverdquo instead of ldquoI amrdquo(Dr Stanley L Morris chairman FW Gingrich Ph D a renown Greek lexicographer Jack P Lewis Ph D CH Accord Th D Clyde M Woods Ph D ST Kan Ph D Gary T Burke Ph D Milo Hadwin D Min)

I submit their names and their credentials here as an example because it is often asserted vigorously that no intelligent or highly qualified scholar would ever produce a translation other than ldquoI amrdquo As noted above and as the list of alternate readings (at the end of this essay) of John 858 shows many done by highly qualified people this is simply not true Usually those making statements of that sort are doing so based on emotional and theological not philological reasons Furthermore by not disclosing other valid viewpoints or by dismissing how other qualified Bible translators deal with this scripture they are undermining their own credibility as well

At this time you are welcome to briefly go over the list of Alternate Readings to John 858 at

the end before moving on to the second part of this essay

_____________________________

Should we ignore the evidence of all those translations listed at the end that differ in John 858 from the traditional versions What then are all these translators seeing at John 858 that moved them to render this text differently They surely must be aware of the resistance they would encounter by translating it by the various forms they used Still they must have had the firm conviction that both the Greek text and the context supports their understanding of this scripture They likely see a Jesus making no identity connection with his Father Godbut rather see a Jesus simply expressing his indefinite existence with no suggestion of eternity in focus Neither is Jesus stating here that he is the God of Old Testament times To understand it that way would be to read into the text more than what it says Taking some clues from the context of the chapter some scholars additionally see Jesus insinuating his ldquomessiahshiprdquo as if saying ldquoI am he [the Messiah]rdquo This is very likely In fact The LivingBible renders John 824 thus ldquoThat is why I said that you will die in your sins for unless you believe that I am the Messiah the Son of God [ἐγώ εἰμι] you will die in your sinsrdquo

Is ldquoegō eimirdquo a title or another name of God

The use of ldquoeimirdquo at John 858 is frequently used as a ldquoproof textrdquo of Jesus deity A noted Trinitarian scholar AT Robertson a Baptist even refers to ldquoegō eimirdquo as ldquothe absolute phrase used of Godrdquo likely indicating the verb conveys ldquotimeless beingrdquo an implication that ldquoeimirdquo here does not require anything else to complete the meaning of the phrase thus conveying ldquoeternal existencerdquo as well as being an actual name for God Some individuals have given plenty of publicity to Robertsons statement as absolute truth But his statement is not ldquotruthrdquo at all It is faulty interpretation which many people have fallen prey to Grammar and theology do not always make the best mix True Robertsons credentials as a scholar are impressive nevertheless credentials does not truth make Besides some other equally bright scholars disagree with him Lets illustrate the folly of those advocating a divine title at John 858 by way of addition (Or substitution if you will) as some suggest

ldquoBefore Abraham was born I am Eternalrdquo ldquoBefore Abraham was born I am Jehovahrdquo ldquoBefore Abraham was born I am eternally Godrdquo

First of all the above hypothetical translations are just as ungrammatical as the simple ldquoI amrdquo reading of most versions An English present tense cannot start before a definite point in the past This can be seen in the following two examples

1 ldquoBefore the US Iraq war I am a soldierrdquo 2 ldquoThree journalists are kidnapped in Nepal since the start of 2007rdquo

What is the correct way to express these statements in English Analyze it for a second and

provide an answer if you will

Notably if ldquoeimirdquo was used to convey eternal existence what is the point of using an expression of past time at all in the clause Moreover the context of previous verses (vv 48-57) clearly indicates that Jesus is speaking of God as a separate entity See below

49 ldquobut I honor my Father and you dishonor merdquo 50 ldquoI am not seeking glory for myself but there is one who seeks it and he is the

judgerdquo54 ldquoIf I glorify myself my glory means nothing My Father whom you claim as your

God is the one who glorifies me 55 ldquoThough you do not know him I know him If I said I did not I would be a liar like you but I do know him and obey his wordrdquo Thus if Jesus meant he himself was the ldquoJehovahrdquo of the Old Testament as Trinitarians claim what would be the rationale behind Jesus directing all distinction and glory to lsquothe Father Godrsquo as a distinct individual as he did in the previous verses and then a few words later abruptly change his argumentation by claiming he is that very same One who lsquoreceives obedience from his own wordrsquo lsquoseeking his own honor and gloryrsquo because he himself is ldquoGodrdquo Confusing is it not To accept this abrupt change of character on Jesus part would be not ldquoa mysteryrdquo but flat out ldquoa deceptionrdquo of big proportions since Jesus himself warned against pretending to be one thing and acting as another (Matthew 62-5 2313-36)

Are we are supposed against all logic to accept these ldquotrinitarianrdquo assumptions instead of a simple alternative which really answers the Jews question about lsquohow could Abraham ldquoseerdquoJesus day if he was not yet 50 years oldrsquo (ldquoI have been in existence since Abraham was bornrdquo)

The obsession with the simple words ldquoI amrdquo have led to many faulty assumptions ldquoI amrdquo issuch a common expression in our language even to this day that words such as ldquoegoismrdquo ldquoegotismrdquo etc (derived from the Greek ldquoegordquo) are considered common words in English dictionaries Everyone uses the phrase ldquoI amrdquo at times Think of any big corporation or powerful organization of your choice for a moment Would you conclude that the two most powerful individuals of this one prestigious organization must be identical in every way solely because they are heard equally saying to others in their common speech ldquoI am thisrdquoor ldquoI am thatrdquo etc

In Bible times humans too used common pronouns The verb eimi (ldquoI amrdquo) itself or forms of it appears more than two thousand times (2000x) in the New Testament alone Additionally the word ldquoegōrdquo appears over seventeen hundred times (1700x) in the NT And those numbers do not include the Septuagint totals Do all occurrences of the word then imply ldquodivinityrdquo in each case Of course not It may be more significant when God or Christ use the expression because of who they are but does it really mean that both God and Christ share the same identity Or that everyone who uses the phrase ldquoI amrdquo does so with divine pretensions Does it really mean that everyone using the phrase are ldquoequalrdquo The

answer is obvious is it not

Lets bear in mind that when God sent Jesus Christ as His representative to a most crucial assignment multiple biblical prophecies were pointing to Christ as the promised Messiah that would free mankind from its moribund condition It is logical then that when the time came for Jesus Christ to show up on earth he would somehow communicate to others that ldquoherdquo and not some other human claiming to be the Messiah was Gods instrument in bringing everlasting relief to human misery Hence he could rightly say any or all of the following ldquoI am (this)rdquo ldquoI am (that)rdquo ldquoI am he [the promised Messiah]rdquo or ldquoI am Gods Sonrdquo Should we expect anything less

The fact is that the words ldquoI amrdquo are not exclusive to God and Christ It should be noted that a man who was born ldquoblindrdquo also used the same expression (John 99) The Greek here says ldquoekeinos elegen hoti Egō eimirdquo (ldquoThat one kept saying that I amrdquo) AT Robertson cites John 99 as one of five parallels to the use of egō eimi in John 858 (Word Pictures in the New Testament Vol V p 159) The phrase here comes at the end of the clause with no explicit predicate James White who upholds the traditional reading admits ldquoThis last instance [John 99] is similar to the sayings as Jesus utters them in that the phrase comes at the end of the clause and looks elsewhere for its predicaterdquo The same could be said of John 1527 Some argue that ldquoeimirdquo in John 858 is ldquoabsoluterdquo but do not do so with John 99 or John 1527 Theology may be a factor in this Previously we saw how Jacob a man according to the Septuagint used the words ldquoegō eimirdquo Other instances in Scripture of creatures using those words would not prove they were part of a ldquoGodheadrdquo Context then ultimately dictates how ldquoeimirdquo should be translated According to John when Jesus was pressed he only claimed to have been alive way before Abraham was born and that he simply was ldquothe Christrdquo ldquothe Son of Manrdquo and ldquothe Son of Godrdquo

There is something else to keep in mind in regards to the meaning of ldquoeimirdquo And it is what grammarian Stanley Porter indicated ldquoSometimes the verb [eimi] is used on its own as a verb of existence Perhaps the best-known example of this is the following John 858rdquo (Fundamentals of New Testament Greek by Stanley E Porter section 753 72) AT Robertson adds ldquoThe verb εἰμί [eimi] hellip Sometimes it does express existence as a predicatelike any other verb as in ἐγὼ εἰμί [egō eimi] (Jo 858) and ἡ θάλασσα οὐκ ἔστιν ἔτι [hē thalassa ouk estin eti = ldquothe sea not is yetrdquo] (Rev 211) Cf Mt 2330rdquo (A Grammar of theGreek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research Nashville Tenn 1934 p 394)

What does this mean The examples mentioned by Robertson in addition to John 858 give us an idea of what this implies It is so strange that the two examples Robertson provided forcomparison with John 858 seems to contradict his ldquotimeless beingrdquo view on ldquoeimirdquo He cited a portion of Revelation 211 where the Greek literally says ldquoAnd the sea not is yetrdquo In other words ldquoThe sea does not exist any morerdquo Amplified Bible ldquoThere no longer existed any seardquo Curiously various versions render the present verb ldquoisrdquo (a form of ldquoeimirdquo) with an imperfect ldquowasrdquo (Cf KJV NIV NAB NRSV) Obviously ldquothe seardquo in this vision is [was] not ldquoeternalrdquo

And in Matthew 2330 the other text provided by Robertson in his comparison with John 858 the Greek word-for-word says ldquoIf we were in the days of the fathers of usrdquo which inmodern English would be ldquoIf we had lived in the days of our forefathersrdquo Other versions ldquoIf we had beenrdquo (Rheims NT) ldquoIf we had been livingrdquo (NASB) ldquoIf we had been existing in the days of our fathersrdquo (Jonathan Mitchell NT) The full NIV text reads ldquoAnd you say lsquoIf we had lived in the days of our ancestors we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophetsrsquo rdquo

It is clear from this comparison that the words of Matthew 2330 ldquoIf we wererdquo (a form of ldquoeimirdquo) in the text is used as an equivalent for ldquoliferdquo or ldquoexistencerdquo In the heavenly vision of Rev 211 lsquothe sea ceased to existrsquo And the generation of people which Jesus spoke about and their ancestors all died ceased to exist If we apply these two examples to John 858 given by Robertson with the meaning either of life or existence for ldquoeimirdquo then it wouldbe equally acceptable to translate ldquoI amrdquo as ldquoI existrdquo or ldquoI liverdquo Many translators reflect this very same understanding as the submitted list of alternate readings of John 858 show ldquoI existrdquo or ldquoI existed even before Abraham was bornrdquo Or ldquoI was alive before Abraham was bornrdquo (The Simple English Bible)

Although some may not see much semantic difference between Jesus saying ldquoI amrdquo or ldquoI existrdquo the two expressions communicate something very different to many readers ldquoI amrdquo is generally associated by Trinitarians as a title used by God or as another name for God Onthe other hand ldquoI existrdquo simply conveys ldquoliferdquo or ldquoexistence Barnabas Lindars points out that ldquoegō eimirdquo in John 858 ldquocannot be regarded as a title because it requires the meaning lsquoI am in existencersquordquo (ldquoThe Son of Man in Johannine Christologyrdquo in Christ and the Spirit in the New Testament In Honour of Charles Francis Digby Moule eds B Lindars and S Smalley Cambridge Cambridge University Press 1973) (Since an English present tense cannot start before a definite point in the past this would mean that we can incorporate Lindars valid observation and translate it into contemporary English like this ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo exactly as Dr McKay proposed)

Some in their eagerness to equate Christ with God accuse translators who render ldquoegō eimirdquo in John 858 with renderings other than ldquoI amrdquo pointing to all occurrences of this expression in the New Testament or in Johns Gospel where allegedly these translators do not follow the same ldquorulerdquo when translating ldquoegō eimirdquo in John 858 as they do elsewhere where they translate it with a present indicative form What they dont tell you or fail to understand is that in John 858 ldquoegō eimirdquo without a predicate AND with an expression of time with past implications in its sentence structure provides an ldquoidiomrdquo which is quite different from those other instances of ldquoeimirdquo Thats right an idiom (where present and past is combined) found equally at home in classical biblical and modern Greek which many translators convey into our language with the English present perfect at various places Consequently one cannot merely go by how the phrase ldquoegō eimirdquo is used elsewhere in the NT without taking into account the fact that John 858 displays an ldquoidiomrdquo in its structure Not doing so would be dishonest John the Baptist had said of Christ in John 130 ldquoA man is coming after me who ranks before me because he existed [Lit was] before merdquo (JB)

John 858 is in harmony with those words Furthermore some attempt to use the reading of Psalm 902 in the Septuagint as ldquoevidencerdquo that John 858 is rendered correctly in the popular versions But a closer analysis of this verse shows notable differences between the two verses making such comparison untenable With good reason a considerable number ofscholars have chosen to break from tradition in their rendering of John 858

If critics of alternate readings of John 858 are not candid enough to admit some of the very issues mentioned here and hide the fact that many scholars do hold a different interpretation and no less academic at that should we consider their diatribes of any worthy import It is ldquowishful thinkingrdquo for someone to believe that John 858 is directly connected to Exodus 314 rather than any real evidence (which is lacking) confirming their eager interpretations Remember even Dr James White a well known Trinitarian advocate admitted ldquothat an immediate and unqualified jump from the ego eimi of John 858 to Exodus 314 is unwiserdquo

Besides a theological tendency can be seen when they focus as some do on undermining the reputation of one Bible translation (NWT) when there are actually numerous versions from different religions dealing with the same controversial Scriptures in a similar manner This is very much like politicians who ignore the failings of their own party but are quick to lsquodemonizersquo their opponents (Matthew 73)

Is the Kingdom Interlinear ldquoproofrdquo the NWT is wrong at John 858

A criticism has been made of a Watchtower Society publication (The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures ldquoKITrdquo) which contains the Greek text and underneath it a word-by-word translation in English and on the right side of the page the modern New World Translation Well at John 858 this publication renders the Greek phrase being discussed here egō eimi word-for-word as ldquoI amrdquo and in the right column the NWT shows the reading ldquoI have beenrdquo This difference have led some to severely criticize the NW translators of ldquoincompetencerdquo ldquoinconsistencyrdquo and even of ldquodishonestyrdquo The critics say something like this ldquoThey have backed themselves into a corner where they cant escape their mishandling of the Greek textrdquo or something of that sort Amazingly these critics in their condemnations hardly ever mention the dozens of translators who translate the same way or similarly to the NWT as the submitted list shows So much for honesty

Those who engage in such tactics are not being forthcoming Why say that Besides dismissing how other translators deal with John 858 they also distort known facts for the WT Society have made it clear that the publication of this Greek Bible is to help the Bible student determine the basic sense of the Greek and have stated that the translation on the right column (the NWT) is a modern way of expressing the thoughts transmitted by the Greek text There are many factors to consider when using such publications

Even other interlinear publications warn of seeming discrepancies For instance The Zondervan Parallel New Testament in Greek and English says in its Foreword ldquo[I]t is a good thing to bear in mind that you cannot always either give an English equivalent for a Greek word or expression or even always render the same Greek verb word by the same

English onerdquo Another interlinear the New Greek-English Interlinear New Testament by Brown and Comfort and edited by J D Douglas explains ldquoIt is difficult to translate one language into another on a word-for-word basis because each language has its own syntax grammatical constructions and idioms that are difficultmdashif not impossiblemdashto replicate literally in another languagerdquo (Emphasis added) This statement is so true of the text in discussion (John 858) in regards to its syntax and particular idiom Often critics of the NWT hide this fact Why Is it religious bias at work

I will give the reader a few examples of an available interlinear translation which has the Greek main text and a literal sublinear translation below the Greek by Professor Paul R McReynolds and on the right column for comparison the reader can study the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) a popular translation in academia Observe how the two can differ

McReynolds Mat 21 ldquomagiciansrdquo NRSV ldquowise menrdquo John 118 ldquoonly born Godrdquo ldquoGod the only Sonrdquo Mat 243 ldquosign of the your presencerdquo ldquothe sign of your comingrdquo Mathew 522 ldquothe gehenna of the firerdquo ldquothe hell of firerdquo John 1319 ldquoI amrdquo ldquoI am herdquo John 149 ldquoI amrdquo ldquoHave I beenrdquo John 1527 ldquoyou arerdquo ldquoyou have beenrdquo 2 Peter 24 ldquobeing sent to Tartarusrdquo ldquobut cast them into hellrdquo Luke 1113 ldquowill give spirit holy tordquo ldquowillgive the Holy Spirit tordquo John 2022 ldquotake spirit holyrdquo ldquoReceive the Holy Spiritrdquo Acts 24 ldquofilled all of spirit holyrdquo ldquofilled with the Holy Spiritrdquo

( Paul R McReynolds is professor of Greek and New Testament at Pacific Christian College in Fullerton California USA He also contributed to the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia)

Some of the readings from the right column above (NRSV) are acceptable others are not See if you can detect in the right column above those translation renderings with a theological tendency that deviate from the literal readings from the left column McReynoldson the left does an excellent job of transmitting the Greek sense Even the most popular Bible versions do not adhere consistently to the base texts The NRSV and a host of other Bible versions add their own religious interpretation throughout Scripture just as much as the NWT if not more but hardly anyone complains of this transformation of Scriptures eventhough it leads to error Why Simply because the NRSV represents more of a ldquomajorityrdquo view than the NWT does But in truth majority or minority views do not correspond equallyto ldquoaccuraterdquo or ldquoinaccuraterdquo results

In the text discussed the KIT can appropriately show the basic sense rendering of ldquoI amrdquo for the Greek ldquoegō eimirdquo in the left column and alternately show the reading ldquoI have beenrdquo in the right column as a contemporary way of expressing in English the particular Greek clause with its ldquoidiomrdquo in John 858 as explained throughout this article a rendering which has

scholarship support When the Greek ldquoegō eimirdquo appears in an idiom-less structure it can rightfully be translated as ldquoI amrdquo as most versions do including the NWT Hence there is no contradiction between the two translations

Dr McKay argues that Jesus response in John 858 ldquowould be most naturally translated lsquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrsquo if it were not for the obsession with the simple words lsquoI amrsquo rdquo (Kenneth L McKay ldquolsquoI amrsquo in Johns Gospelrdquo Expository Times 1996 p 302) I take the author as saying that ldquoI have been in existencerdquo for ldquoeimirdquo is a better translation than ldquoI amrdquo but the [religious] obsession for the simple words ldquoI amrdquo in their quest to elevate Christ to Gods level does not allow people to see that The thing is that Christ lsquoalways pleased the Fatherrsquo and was fully satisfied with being lsquolesserrsquo than him (John 829 1029 1428 177813) Why not accept him as he is

Hence it is poor scholarship to forward the idea that an entity must be God Almighty himselfby the sole fact of using a divine sounding phrase when other Bible individuals are found using the same expression in Scripture The ldquocontextrdquo is the determining factor Not only must we take into account the context surrounding a chapter or book of the Bible but also what the whole Bible teaches on a given person or subject

What does the Bible teach about Jesus

That Christ ldquowas in the beginning with Godrdquo (John 12) At the announcement of his birth on earth the angel Gabriel told Mary that she will give birth to someone ldquogreatrdquo and ldquoholyrdquo and that one will be called ldquoSon of the Most Highrdquo and ldquoSon of Godrdquo (Luke 132 35) Trinitarians may claim that ldquoSon of Godrdquo is equivalent in meaning to ldquoGodrdquo It is a claim with no foundation If there was any truth to the claim then the ldquoHoly Spiritrdquo would also be called Son of God But no The fact is that other living creatures are called ldquosons of Godrdquo (Job 21) Never is ldquoGodrdquo or ldquoholy spiritrdquo ever called ldquoSon of Godrdquo in Scripture Only Jesus Christ is called ldquothe Son of Godrdquo with the article Why

By Christ lsquobecoming obedient [to God] until deathrsquo during the course of his earthly life lsquoGod highly exalted Him and graciously gave him a name which is above every other name that at the name of Jesus every knee should bendto the credit of God the Fatherrsquo (Hebrews58 Philippians 28-11 21st Century New Testament)

ldquo[Christ] has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God with angels authorities and powers made subject to himrdquo (1 Peter 322 NRSV) Still in heaven Christ receives knowledge information revelation from God and transmits it to other creatures (Revelation11) Though the glorified Christ is described as ldquoKing of kingsrdquo and ldquoLord of lordsrdquo he is specifically called ldquoThe Word of Godrdquo (Revelation 191316 NRSV) The night before his death he ldquoprayedrdquo to his Father and called him ldquothe only true Godrdquo and made this petition ldquoFather glorify me in your own presence [Greek beside yourself] with the glory that I hadin your presence [Greek beside you] before the world existedrdquo (John 175 NRSV) (ldquoalongside yourselfrdquo ST Byington) Again God never has to ldquoprayrdquo to anyone Ever

Well then if Jesus Christ expressed this one final ldquowishrdquo in prayer to be ldquoin the presence ofrdquoldquobesiderdquo ldquoalongsiderdquo his Father which he himself called ldquothe only true Godrdquo why should we for the sake of tradition insist with the belief that Jesus ldquomustrdquo somehow be that ldquotruerdquo God the One sitting at the center of Gods throne instead of ldquobesiderdquo God (Mark 1619) Christ did not ask to sit at Gods throne Christ was fully content with the premise of being alongside God And that is what actually happened Mark tells us ldquoSo then the Lord Jesus after he had spoken to them was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of Godrdquo (Mark 1619 NRSV Note Some ancient manuscripts omit this verse) The NIV Study Bible notes the significance of lsquositting at the right hand of Godrsquo ldquoA position of authority second only to Godsrdquo Being in ldquoa position of authority second only to Godsrdquo is something no one should ever say of God for he is always ldquosupremerdquo At no time does God relinquishes his supremacy Someone who holds a position of authority second to God cannot be identical to God Take note too that in this account of Mark chapter 16 or the oneat John chapter 17 there is no mention of a third party of a ldquoGodheadrdquo No ldquoHoly Spiritrdquo is in sight The fact is that the glorified Christ in heaven continues to call his Father ldquomy Godrdquo(Revelation 312)

As ldquoSon of Godrdquo and always lesser and subject to God it is illogical to think Christ would purposely usurp titles and rights that only belonged to lsquohis God and Fatherrsquo (John 1428 Matthew 2023 John 2017 Acts 17) Jesus Christ taught others to only worship the Father God (Matthew 410 John 42324) ldquoAnd we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the worldrdquo (1 John 414) If so the thought that Christ would usethe words ldquoI amrdquo as a title to identify himself as ldquothe true Godrdquo is incongruous Jesus made it clear that he would only seek the glory ldquothat comes from the one who alone is Godrdquo (John850 54 544)

In this Satan controlled world it is not that difficult to get entangled with human taught intricate philosophies which obscure the simple Christian doctrine (John 1231 2 Cor 44) Hence the need for caution at the time of defending popular traditional views which clash with the monotheistic approach of Bible writers

Consequently those who teach that Christ is Almighty God find themselves in conflict with the Scriptural record The submitted list of alternate readings of John 858 shows that there are a considerable number of scholars who not only understand the subject correctly but alsokeenly grasp that whatever Jesus said on the matter has to harmonize with both the context of John chapter 8 and the rest of the Scriptures as well

What is the correct translation of John 858

Is it ldquoI amrdquo ldquoI wasrdquo ldquoI am herdquo or ldquoI have beenrdquo After analyzing the Greek phrase ldquoegō eimirdquo the context and the various possible ways the expression can be translated in English I think it is best to render the Greek with an English present perfect Adding a smallelement such as ldquosincerdquo to the statement as McKay does below satisfies all contextual and grammatical requirements of the passage Doing so does not qualify as ldquointerpolationrdquo

A second choice a simple past tense can perhaps be used in translation where the context allows since it is grammatically correct but it is generally used of activity confined to the past so the message may be distorted Unless that is the simple past is interpreted as ldquoimperfectiverdquo with current relevance How so In support of Jesus deity many frequently cite John11 There in the text a simple past tense ldquowasrdquo is applied to ldquothe Wordrdquo three times in English versions Does that mean ldquothe Wordrdquo is no more or that it was permanentlycut-off from existence at some point Of course not The context of the whole gospel of John shows that Christ is fully pertinent in Christian lives

Scholars choosing a past tense for ldquoeimirdquo (ie ldquoI wasrdquo ldquoI existedrdquo etc) at John 858 may also have in mind what John the Baptist said as a precursor of Jesus Christ ldquoA man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was [ldquoexistedrdquo JB] before merdquo Surely John the Baptist did not mean that Jesus existence was done away with His own words show thatJesus life was very much relevant and would continue to be so Translators have no issue whatsoever in applying a past tense (ldquowasrdquo ldquoexistedrdquo) at John 11 and 130 in their English versions So why would they at John 858 Perhaps because it would mean that they wouldhave to do away with the premise of a ldquodivine titlerdquo in their argumentation of which is claimed clinches Jesus identity with Gods own As shown above Revelation 211 a presentverb a form of ldquoeimirdquo is rendered by some versions with a past tense ldquowasrdquo Obviously Bible translators have no problem in translating some present tense verbs with past tenses or with present perfects But most object to it at John 858 likely for theological reasons

As stated in the beginning of this essay the English ldquopresentrdquo and the Greek ldquopresentrdquo in certain contexts do not correspond exactly in meaning because in Greek ldquotimerdquo is a secondary factor That being the case the choice of English tense does not have to match theGreek conjugation per se to be faithful to the Sacred Text When one considers the specific idiom found in John 858 and the semantic implications of both the Greek and English ldquopresentrdquo one can see that the rendering ldquoI amrdquo though popular does not nearly represent the best translation possible in the English language ldquoContextrdquo often plays a more importantrole in determining the correct translation Overall though it is best to render the Greek expression with an English present perfect since it conveys clearly a more present relevancythan a past tense would

That said John 858 is a good example where a Greek transliteration may not be the best choice to communicate the right message effectively in our times The translation of ldquoI amrdquo has its place in extreme English literal translations which show the basic sense of the Greek such as those Interlinear translations mentioned above Also it can rightfully be used in many Scriptures where the context calls for it as when the sentence structure lacks the Greekldquoidiomrdquo discussed throughout this writing as might be the case with most occurrences of ldquoeimirdquo

Here listed in my opinion are the translations which come closest to the Greek thought presented by the particular ldquoidiomrdquo found in John 858 Dr Kenneth L McKay comes up with the correct translation

1 ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo - Kenneth L McKay A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek (SBG 5 New York Peter Lang 1994) p42

(Kenneth L McKay graduated with honours in Classics (with an interest in the Greek of theNT) from the Universities of Sydney and Cambridge He has taught Greek in universities and theological colleges in Nigeria New Zealand and England Mr McKay retired from the Australian National University in 1987 after teaching there for 26 years)

Other translations below come close to McKays rendering and are thus favored over the traditional rendering which is widely misunderstood

2 ldquoI have existed before Abraham was bornrdquo - A New Translation by James [ Moffatt - DD DLitt Glasgow Oxford 3 ldquoBefore Abraham came into existence I have beenrdquo - New World Translation 4 ldquoBefore Abraham came into being I have existedrdquo - The Documents of the [New Testament G W Wade London 5 ldquoFrom before Abraham was I have been rdquo - The New Testament by George [ R -Noyes DD Boston USA6 ldquoBefore Abraham was born I have already been rdquo - The Unvarnished New [Testament Andy Gaus Boston7 ldquoI existed even before Abraham was bornrdquo - The concise Gospel and the Acts [Logos International Christopher J ed Christianson Plainfield NJ8 ldquoI already was before Abraham was bornrdquo ndash Worldwide English New Testament [ Derby UK ________________________________

COMMENTS

Also compare the following translations

Nytt liv (1907 Norwegian)A Biacuteblia Viva (1981 Portuguese)O Novo Testamento Vivo (1974 Portuguese)Le Livre Nouveau Testament (1980 eacuteditions Farel French)Η Καινή Διαθήκη των Τεσσάρων Καθηγητών (ΚΔΤΚ Greek) (The New Testament of the Four Teachers The translation was made and approved (1921981) by the Holy Summit Church of Greece The English title of the project is The New Testament in Modern Greek Athens Greece) Η Αγία Γραφή Παλαιά και Καινή Διαθήκη (ΝΔΜ Greek) Ελληνική Βιβλική Εταιρία Αθήνα [Athens] 1997 (The Bible Old and New Testament Greek Biblical Company - London 1997) ΚΔΛΖ ΛΧ (Other Greek Versions expressing the same idea as translations on the list)___________________

ldquoI was rdquo Note on 1987 translation from Italian main list l Vangelio di Giovanni (El Evangelio de Juan [ldquoThe Gospel of Johnrdquo] with imprimatur) by J Mateos and J Barreto noted on John 858 (as translated by Teodora Tosatti p 387 Cittadela Editrice 1982) that the temporal relationship expressed by the Greek ldquoprin eimi [BeforeI am]rdquo can be translated into Italian ldquoprimaero [BeforeI was]rdquo (Translation from Italian to English mine)__________________

Comment on 1993 ΟІ ΧΡΙΣΤΙΑΝΙΚΕΣ ΓΡΑΦΕΣ Απόδοση από τη Μειάφράση Νέου Κόσμου which is a modern Greek translation of the New World Translation of the ChristianScriptures Unlike most Bible Versions which are published in only one language or a few atmost the NWT is available in dozens of languages based mainly on their English translationbut obviously taking into account other factors in the process such as the original Bible text the peculiarities of their recipient local languages and their targeted audiences in their respective countries

It is obvious though that other NWT translation editions closely followed the English text of the NWT and at the same time their translation teams had enough latitude to offer their own unique renderings at times expressing in their native languages what they see in in the Inspired Text Having said that it is interesting to see how they approached their translation of John 858 from their English translation back into [modern] Greek

The translation team was acutely aware of the basic sense of ldquoegō eimirdquo as ldquoI amrdquo and how those simple words are misconstrued by religionists to say something more than Jesus intended Taking into account the syntax of John 858 as stated throughout this document the translation team who worked on the modern Greek version faced a few options

First they had the option to go back to ldquoegō eimirdquo using the modern Greek equivalent ldquoΕγώ ειμαιrdquo (I am) as it reads in the Vamvas version which they did not Or they could haveexpressed their NWT English choice of ldquoI have beenrdquo with their modern Greek equivalent of ldquoέχο υπάρξει [I have existed]rdquo Thirdly they could have gone with ldquoI wasrdquo (ldquoεγώ ήμουνrdquo) as some of their French and Italian Bible editions have done in the past or even with ldquo[εγώ] υπήρξα [I existed])rdquo Or they could have provided some other unique rendering It is obvious they wanted to stick closely to the Greek text but given the common misconceptionssurrounding ldquoegō eimai (I am)rdquo in mainstream churches the translation team chose to use ldquoεγώ υπάρχωrdquo (a present indicative form in the Greek) which means basically ldquoI existrdquo but in the presence of an expression of past time in John 858 the sense is ldquoI have existedrdquo Thus ldquoBefore Abraham came into existence I have existedrdquo ( The verb είμαι [ldquoto berdquo] in modern Greek has no forms for the perfect tense It borrows the forms from the verb υπάρχω [ldquoI existrdquo] The Greek and English ldquoperfectsrdquo are not exact equivalents either)

The reader is reminded here as noted earlier that modern Greek keeps up with the Koineacute Greek ldquopresentrdquo idiom A modern Greek grammar Greek A Comprehensive Grammar explains ldquoThe present tense is also used in constructions where English would use the perfect continuous ie where the verb expresses a continuous state or habitual event that

has lasted since a certain point in the past and is continuing up to (and including) the presentrdquo The authors provide two examples where a present verb is used with a past time indicator and where they translate using an English perfect as explained ldquoI have been living[Μένω] in this house for three years nowrdquo And ldquoI have been reading [Διαβάζω] this newspaper since 1984rdquo (Greek A Comprehensive Grammar by David Holton Peter Mackridge amp Irene Philippaki-Warburton Revised by Vassilios Spyropoulos p 294 Second edition 2012)

Ten years after the NWT-Greek Edition was released another modern Greek translation was published with the following rendering at John 858 ldquoΣας βεβαιώνω πως πριν να γεννηθεί οΑβραάμ εγώ υπάρχωrdquo which in English would be ldquoI assure you that I have existed since before Abraham was bornrdquo (Literally ldquoI assure you that before could be born the AbrahamI exist [not ldquoΕγώ ειμαιrdquo]rdquo The Holy Bible in Todays Greek Version 2003 Greek Bible Society Interestingly the original English version of 1976 had ldquoI Amrdquo) Also a Spanish Bible conveys a similar thought ldquoYo existo desde antes que existiera Abrahamrdquo [Translation ldquo I exist since before Abraham existedrdquo] (La Biblia - Versioacuten Popular 2nd edition Sociedades Biacuteblicas Unidas 1983)

_________________________________________________________

The Clear Word The translators quoted in this article represent various religious faiths some are Catholic some are Protestant Others are Unitarians Jehovahs Witnesses Jewish Adventists etc and they represent countries the world over One of these translators is a Seventh-Day Adventist who worked on The Clear Word Jack J Blanco ThD As a Seventh-Day Adventist who supports the Trinity doctrine Blanco translated verses to make Jesus ldquoequalrdquo to God in every way

He renders John 11 ldquoHe is the Word of God and is equal with Godrdquo He shows Jesus at Philippians 25-7 as ldquoequal with Godrdquo and describes him as lsquoacting the part of a servantrsquo At John 1428 he completely omits the reference that lsquothe Father is greaterrsquo than Christ But here at John 858 in answer to the question the priests and leaders asked concerning Abraham lsquoseeingrsquo his day Jesus answered according to Dr Blanco ldquoBecause I existed before Abraham was even bornrdquo Thus Dr Blanco makes no connection as others do that Christ is the ldquoI amrdquo of Exodus 314 which according to some would indicate that Jesus is the Jehovah of the Old Testament What he sees in this account is that Jesus already lsquoexisted before Abraham didrsquo and thus Abraham was able to lsquoseersquo his day (John 856) To this we must add another likely element included in Jesus response to the Jews as wellone of simple identification as ldquothe Christ [Messiah]rdquo and ldquoSon of manrdquo Why is it then that manywho support the Trinity doctrine find it hard to understand Jesus statement correctly at John 858 Could it be that they are letting non-Scriptural influence and perhaps the weight of themajority view dictate their understanding of this Scripture

For a consideration of other subjects by the same author check below

For a discussion of Acts 286 Whose blood

httpwwwscribdcomdoc231244155Acts-20-28-Whose-blood

For a discussion of Colossians 116 (ldquoall other thingsrdquo) see

httpwwwscribdcomdoc205841269Colossians-1-16-Is-the-expression-all-other-things-a-proper-rendition

For a consideration on the subject of the Trinity click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc160286056Does-the-Trinity-ever-make-sense

For a full consideration of John 11 click the following link httpwwwscribdcomdoc34916458The-correct-translation-of-John-1-1

For a brief consideration of John 11 with additional citations click here httpwwwscribdcomdoc50330864John-1-1-List-of-Alternate-Readings

Did the NW translators know any Greek click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc48234022Did-the-New-World-Translation-Committee-Know-Greek

For a consideration of John 173 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc57772552John-17-3-E28098Taking-in-knowledge-of-E28099-God-and-Jesus

For a consideration of 1 Timothy 316 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc76927834Was-God-manifested-in-the-flesh-1-Timothy-3-16

For a consideration of Exodus 225 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc38676458Exodus-2-25-And-God-took-notice-Does-God- care-about-us

For a consideration of John 114 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc35002730John-1-14-Jesus-full-of-grace

For a consideration of Translation Differences-Questions and Answershttpwwwscribdcomdoc59484457Translation-Differences-Questions-and-Answers

In Spanish

Para una consideracioacuten de otros temas vea los siguientes enlaces

Para una consideracioacuten de Colosenses 116 ldquotodas las otras cosasrdquo vea

httpwwwscribdcomdoc209601066Colosenses-1-16-C2BFEs-la-traduccion-E2809Ctodas-las-otras-cosasE2809D-apropiada

Para una consideracioacuten de ldquoiquestAcaso tiene sentido la Trinidadrdquo

httpwwwscribdcomdoc173779117C2BFAcaso-tiene-sentido-la-Trinidad

Para un consideracioacuten de Juan 11 vea el siguiente enlace

httpwwwscribdcomdoc35899788Traduccion-correcta-de-Juan-1-1-Lista-de- lecturas-alternativas

Para el tema iquestSabiacutean griego los traductores de la TNM vea el siguiente enlace

httpwwwscribdcomdoc51623596C2BFSabia-griego-el-Comite-de-la-Traduccion-del-Nuevo-Mundo

Classical examples are provided in Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek Verb by WW Goodwin p 9 26)

The scholars quoted above clearly show that the English present tense in such construction isnot equal to the Greek Present Therefore it would be a mistake to conclude that we have to take the basic sense of ldquoegō eimirdquo in John 858 and represent it word-for-word in our language to be accurate We must consider whether John 858 contains a temporal indicator that goes back in time in combination with a Greek ldquopresentrdquo verb Those seeking to prove apoint of ldquotimelessnessrdquo in ldquoeimirdquo should be reminded that Greek verb tenses of themselves do not indicate whether a subject in view is ldquoeternalrdquo or not

In point of fact the above biblical Greek syntax is carried over to modern Greek A modern Greek Grammar explains ldquoThe [Greek] present may also be used to refer to an action or situation that began in the past and continues in the present where English uses the perfect Παίρνω αυτό το φάρμακο από το 1999 [Pairnō auto to pharmako apo to 1999] Ive been taking this medicine since 1999rdquo (Greek An Essential Grammar of the Modern Language by David Holton Peter Mackridge and Irene Philippaki-Warburton p 121 2004) Take note how the authors take into account the Greek idiom and translate the verb pairno (1st person present indicative which basically means ldquoI am takingrdquo) using an English present perfect ldquoIve been taking this medicine since 1999rdquo

Consequently when Bible versions transfer the basic meaning ldquoI amrdquo into their translated text without considering the above syntax they could fail to convey the intended Greek meaning and end up with ungrammatical English as well (ldquoUngrammaticalrdquo because English present tense cannot start before a particular point in the pastrdquo) Oddly some free paraphrased and dynamic equivalent translations carry over this ldquoliteralrdquo reading of the passage right into their versions with no explanation whatsoever for breaking rules of English grammar Anyone doing translation work between two languages knows well that it is not always feasible or practical to translate word for word Otherwise the end product would be flawed unreadable material

Is Exodus 314 parallel to John 858

Some believe there is an asserted connection of Jesus at John 858 being identified with ldquoTheBeingrdquo or ldquoThe Existing Onerdquo of Exodus 314 In other words those who hold such view believe Jesus Christ is the ldquoJehovahrdquo or ldquoYahwehrdquo of the Old Testament At Exodus 314 the Septuagint a Greek translation from the Hebrew has the true God saying ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν [Egō eimi ho ōn] ldquoI am the The Beingrdquo or ldquoI am The Existing Onerdquo And linking to Exodus 314 many translations have Jesus saying at John 858 ldquoI amrdquo However did Christ really say at John 858 ldquoI am Jehovahrdquo ldquoI am The Beingrdquo or even ldquoThe I Amrdquo No he did not Those interpretations are traditionally read into the text

The use of ldquoeimirdquo at Exodus 314 in the Septuagint is used as a linking verb to the expression ldquoThe Beingrdquo or ldquoThe Existing Onerdquo not as an absolute predicate This is similar to as when David said ldquoI am (egō eimi) the one sinningrdquo (1 Chronicles 2117

LXX) Or when Jesus says (John 107) ldquoI am (egō eimi) the door to the sheeprdquo Or Peter (Acts 223) ldquoI am (egō eimi) a Jewrdquo In these three instances of ldquoeimirdquo as a connecting verb there is nothing in the words themselves suggesting eternity We also find an angel Gabriel using the same expression that Christ used at John 858 (Luke 119) Even Paul stated εἰμι ὅ εἰμι [eimi ho eimi] = ldquoI am what I amrdquo and by using those words he was by nomeans claiming he was God eternal (1 Corinthians 1510) Hence the use of ldquoeimirdquo of itselfcannot be used as a sound argument to bolster Christs deity

The meaning of ldquoeimirdquo must therefore be defined mainly from Bible context and not from any mysticism attributed to the word And strictly speaking John 858 does not even say whether Jesus is ldquoeternalrdquo or not All it says is that Jesus preceded Abraham in time and his existence extended to the present ldquoI have existed [since] before Abraham was bornrdquo (A New Translation by James Moffatt) The Bible does say that Christ is ldquosuperiorrdquo to angels but ldquosuperiorityrdquo does not demand ldquoeternityrdquo since someone can be ldquosuperiorrdquo to another without having the same age It should be pointed out that angels too existed way before Abraham came to be and still ldquoexistrdquo but nonetheless they were ldquocreatedrdquo by God (Genesis 62 Job 381-7 Psalm 1482 5) And of Christ it is said ldquoHe isthe firstborn of all creationrdquo (Col 115 ESV) Some in their attempt to disconnect Christ from lsquocreaturersquo status twist the meaning of this last statement but Christ himself said ldquoI have life because of him [God]rdquo (John 657 CEV)

Although many Bible commentators explain Gods words at Exodus 314 as the New American Standard Bible rendered it ldquoI AM WHO I AMrdquo other scholars accept another explanation such as the one found in The International Bible Commentary ldquoThe translation lsquoI will be what I will bersquo (cf NIVfn) is also possible and would make even more explicit the suggestion that Gods character would be disclosed as events unfoldedrdquo (FF Bruce GeneralEditor) Another reference work The Expositors Bible Commentary (Abridged Edition) points out the following as well ldquoThe Hebrew seeks the significance character quality and interpretation of the name Therefore what they needed to know was lsquoWhat does that name mean or signify in circumstances such as we are inrsquo rdquo So even when scholars use ldquoI Amrdquo intheir explanations of Exodus 314 others see the phrase as indicative of Gods will toward his people Thus other translators provide an alternate more accurate reading either in the main text or in their footnotes

ldquoI Will Be What I Will Berdquo (Modern Spelling Tyndale-Coverdale) ldquoI Will Become whatsoever I pleaserdquo (Joseph Bryant Rotherham) ldquoI will be what I will berdquo (The Bible in Living English Steven T Byington) ldquoI WILL BE THAT I WILL BErdquo (Leeser Old Testament 1853) ldquoI shall come to be just as I am coming to berdquo (Concordant Literal Version) ldquoI-will-be-what-I-will-berdquo (A New Translation by James Moffatt) ldquoI shall be that I shall berdquo (Julia Smith Translation) ldquoEHYEH ASHER EHYEH I will be-there howsoever I will be-thererdquo (The Five Books [of Moses by Everett Fox)ldquoI SHALL PROVE TO BE WHAT I SHALL PROVE TO BErdquo (NWT)ldquoI Will Become What I Choose to Becomerdquo (NWT 2013)

See also The Anchor Bible (William HC Propp) and the The Stone Tanach (Artscroll Mesorah)

In the Hebrew original the above words pronounced by God Almighty are in the ldquoimperfectrdquostate of the verb which communicate ldquoincompletenessrdquo or ldquofuturerdquo activity Interestingly the Hebrew word ייי( ה ה( ה איא (ehyeh) appears in Exodus 312 just two verses away and there many Bible translations render it unlike what they do in Exodus 314 as future action ldquoI will be with yourdquo reflecting the imperfect state of the verb here indicative of Gods intended involvement with his people (Compare with other occurrences of the word in Joshua 15 Judges 616 1 Samuel 2317 2 Samuel 714 1534 1618 1 Chronicles 1713 Isaiah 477 and Jeremiah 114 where ehyeh is commonly translated as ldquofuturerdquo action) This brings up the question Why do this in Exodus 312 and the other places but not in verse 14

Charles R Gianotti (Dallas Theological Seminary) points out this very thing ldquoSignificantlymost interpreters translate ייי( ה ה( ה איא [ehyeh] in Exodus 312 as future (ie I will be [ehyeh] with yoursquo) Yet two verses later why should not the same translation sufficerdquo Gianotti adds ldquoThe future in this case can indeed refer to future activity or effectiveness of YHWH It should be observed that even Aquila (AD 130) noted for his lsquoslavishly literal translationrsquo translated the tense as futurerdquo Gianotti says that ldquoin light of the imperfect form ייי( ה ה( ה איא [ehyeh] used in Exodus 314rdquo translating ייי( ה ה( ה איא [ ehyeh ] as most English versions do assuming a present tense meaning is ldquo unjustifiedrdquo (ldquoThe Meaning of the Divine Name YHWHrdquo Bibliotheca Sacra 142 January-March 1985) Reflecting a similar understanding the NWT 1984 Reference Edition adds the following footnote ldquoThe reference here is not to Gods self-existence but to what he has in mind to become toward othersrdquo

The Septuagint reading ldquoI am The Beingrdquo at Exodus 314 does not represent the best translation possible from the Hebrew It is odd indeed that many Bible translators choose to follow the Greek Septuagint in verse 14 rather than the original Hebrew Text Trinitarian advocate James R White PhD (from Alpha amp Omega Ministries) noted ldquoIt is true that many go directly to Exodus 314 for the background but it is felt that unless one first establishes the connection with the direct quotation of ego eimi in the Septuagint the connection with Exodus 314 will be somewhat tenuousrdquo

Could it be then that modern translators want to advance ehyeh as a title or name ldquoI Amrdquo to express self-existence and hence make the connection to the ldquoI Amrdquo of Jesus in John 858 as it appears in traditional versions If so such translators could be guilty of asserting the Trinity doctrine on their readers Although James White sees a connection between John 858 and the ldquoI am [he]rdquo sayings in Isaiah he has this to say of the supposed connection between John 858 and Exodus 314 ldquoIt could fairly be admitted that an immediate and unqualified jump from the ego eimi of John 858 to Exodus 314 is unwiserdquo (ldquoPurpose and Meaning of lsquoEgo Eimirsquo in the Gospel of John In Reference to the Deity of Christrdquo)

Likewise Edwin D Freed Professor Emeritus of Religion Gettysburg College contends that ldquothe meaning of the sentence [at John 858] in the mind of the writer was ldquoBefore

Abraham was I the Christ the Son of God existedrdquo (ldquoWho or what was before Abraham inJohn 858rdquo Journal for the Study of the New Testament 17 1983 52-59) Professor Freed thus sees no connection of Jesus statement in John 858 with that of Jehovah (Yahweh) at Exodus 314 But what about the ldquoI amrdquo sayings appearing in the books of Isaiah and John Are they not connected somehow

Is rsquoani-hursquo in Isaiah parallel to egō eimi in John

At times there are biblical statements made where both God and Christ use similar languageThis is not surprising when one considers the role Christ plays in Gods purpose The Bible tells us that Christ is ldquothe image of the invisible God the firstborn of all creationrdquo (NASB) ldquothe radiance of Gods glory and the exact representation of his beingrdquo (Colossians 115 Hebrews 13) ldquoAnd God has put all things under the authority of Christ and he gave him this authority for the benefit of the churchrdquo (Ephesians 122 NLT) Anyone seeking salvation must therefore put faith in lsquothe name which was given by God to mankindrsquo ldquoJesus Christrdquo ldquoto the glory of God the Fatherrdquo ldquoWhoever believes in the Son has eternal life but whoever rejects the Son will not see life for Godrsquos wrath remains on themrdquo (John 336 Philippians 21011) In all God still is in control and just as lsquoChristians belong to Christrsquo ldquoChrist belongs to Godrdquo says the Word (1 Corinthians 113 323 NASB)

In the Old Testament God appears on several occasions using the Hebrew phrase א( הוא נני־ אא (rsquoani-hursquo) which literally means ldquoI ndash herdquo but sometimes translated ldquoI amrdquo or ldquoI am herdquo (Isaiah 414 428 4310 13 464 4812 526) It also appears in Deuteronomy 3239 David a human also used that expression in 1 Chronicles 2117 (Hebrew הוא )ה נני־ אא (ani-huacute- ldquoI am herdquo) Septuagint ἐγώ εἰμι (ldquoegō eimirdquo) Although many argue that there is a connection between Christs statements in the NT and those of God in the OT there is no certainty of those interpretations Even if there was some connection in the ldquoI amrdquo statements would that prove that the identity of the speaker is the same in each case Not really

In the Bible when God made some men powerful and blessed them with his spirit in a sensethey became like ldquoa godrdquo since they ldquorepresentedrdquo God (Exodus 71 Psalms 8216 John 1033-36) Having others referred to in similar language to that of God is no conclusive proofof ldquoequalityrdquo with God An example of this can be seen when a ldquomanrdquo (perhaps Solomon) became ldquokingrdquo of Israel was addressed literally in divine terms ldquoYour throne God forever and everrdquo (Psalm 456) Obviously this human king was not the One True God Not surprisingly some Bible translators work around this literal reading and make it read where it says something like ldquoYour throne is like Gods thronerdquo (Jewish Publication Society) OrldquoYour divine throne endures for ever and everrdquo (Revised Standard Version) Or ldquoYour throne is from Godrdquo (New Jerusalem Bible) Or ldquoGod has enthroned you for all eternityrdquo (Revised English Bible)

Even when translators render the passage literally they explain it in such a way that makes it clear that Solomon was not God For instance the NIV of 2011 has this footnote ldquoHere the king is addressed as Godrsquos representativerdquo Nonetheless when such reference is made of

Jesus Christ (as in Hebrews 18) the same translators may now insist those similar words areldquoproofrdquo of Christs ldquodeityrdquo A good example of this is found in the NET Bibles footnotes Although Jesus accepted being ldquoone greater than Solomonrdquo he never claimed to be God the Father (Matthew 1242) Significantly to Jesus ldquoGodrdquo was someone else

In the Bible is not rare to read frequent references and comparisons of faithful men with Jesus Christ ndash Abraham Jacob Moses David Solomon Jonas and John the Baptist (John 853 412 Deuteronomy 1815 Hebrews 33 Psalm 1101 Matthew 927 2245 124142 Mark 17 Luke 117 72628) Whats more Jesus is compared to ldquoangelsrdquo (Hebrews 14513) Should we take this to mean that men and angels are somehow identical to Jesus Christ True some of these references show that Jesus Christ is above them But we should take the superiority of Christ over them in the same way that we rightly accept Jesus own words indicative of his relative position to the Father ldquoThe Father is greater than Irdquo (John 1428 2031)

Accordingly the ldquoI amrdquo or ldquoI am herdquo expressions pronounced by God and Jesus Christ found in both the Old and New Testaments must be understood within their proper context From the beginning of mans history God provided a way for mankinds deliverance Jesus was prophetically the center of this magnificent expectation For eons of time mankind waited for the One (Messiah) who would deliver them from bondage Nevertheless when hedid appear on the earthly scene most people ignored and rejected the real Messiah because they were expecting politically speaking a quick deliverance from the Roman yoke

However God had something else in mind ndash deliverance was still ahead It was now the time to call attention to the fact that Christ their (future) ldquosaviorrdquo was in their midst Jesus did his part by words and by action (miracles etc) He called attention to who he really was ldquothe Son of Godrdquo and told others that he was ldquothe Christrdquo (or the ldquoMessiahrdquo) (John 42526 Matthew 1615-17 2663-68) Related to the subject one expression Jesus used on various occasions was this one ldquoI amrdquo or ldquoI am herdquo words understood by those brought up in trinitarian doctrine to attest Jesus equality with God (John 426 620 824 28 858 1319 185-6 8) However the phrase was sometimes used as a simple self-identification like ldquoIt is Irdquo or ldquoI am Jesusrdquo At other times when questioned by doubters Jesus used it to get the point across that lsquohe was the one [and not someone else]rsquo the promised ldquoSaviorrdquo ldquothe Son of manrdquo ldquothe Son of Godrdquo ldquothe Messiahrdquo

At no time did Jesus ever claim he was a ldquoGod-manrdquo or ldquoGod in the fleshrdquo (John 316) Those thoughts are foreign to Scripture Remember that Scripture teaches that lsquoGod was with Jesusrsquo just as we are told that lsquoGod was with Josephrsquo son of Jacob Scripture does not say that Jesus was God made flesh It was lsquothe Wordrsquo the Son of God who was with God in the beginning the One who lsquobecame fleshrsquo not God (Acts 79 1038 John 11 114) Christendom has distorted Scripture to the point that ldquoChristianrdquo followers cannot determine this plain truth A misunderstanding of John 11 and 1 Timothy 316 has greatly contributed to this error Further below you will find links where those verses are considered in detail

It was through Jesus death that God reconciled sinful people to himself Hence the ldquoI amrdquo

or ldquoI am herdquo sayings of Jesus need not be directly linked to those uttered by God before the time of Christ Jesus was sent by God on a saving mission as a representative of God With good reason he declared unambiguously that ldquoherdquo was (and not some other) ldquoGods Sonrdquo the promised ldquoMessiahrdquo The Jesus sayings ldquoI amrdquo or ldquoI am herdquo in some cases would confirm at most that ldquothere is no other name under heaven that has been given to men in which we must be savedrdquo (Acts 4 12) It was lsquoGod who resurrected Jesus from among the deadrsquo and it was God who lsquogave mankind the namersquo that saves people (Acts 410)

Thus the ldquoI amrdquo sayings of the New Testament were certainly pronounced in a different setting than those in the Old Testament Not to be overlooked the One using the ldquoI amrdquo or ldquoI am herdquo expressions in the OT is described unequivocally as lsquoAlmighty Godrsquo lsquothe only True Godrsquo with maximum ldquopowerrdquo and ldquoauthorityrdquo to send a ldquosubordinaterdquo to an extraordinary mission (Daniel 714 John 1316 537) The glorified Christ is never described in the same way as God was in Old Testament times as he always appears throughout the NT subordinated to God Still Christ is ldquothe wayrdquo to the Father and salvation (John 146) We are therefore commanded to recognize his lsquoGod-given authorityrsquo so ldquothat all may honor the Son just as they honor the Fatherrdquo (Matthew 2818 John 2031 523) Jesus is then the ldquomediatorrdquo between God and mankind (1 Timothy 25) A grand privilege that is

What does the context of John 858 indicate

Some Bible readers see Jesus in the context of John chapter 8 not only saying in idiomatic fashion that he lsquowas [already] alive before Abraham was born (SEB)rsquo and still lsquoisrsquo but also that he was identifying himself as ldquothe Son of Manrdquo ldquothe Messiahrdquo This is a reasonable assumption as well One of the Jews questions was ldquoWho do you think you arerdquo (John 853) In John 824 28 1319 Matthew 2754 and Mark 1460-64 the function or position ofChrist as the ldquoSon of Godrdquo ldquoSon of Manrdquo and ldquothe Christrdquo all come through

The statement (or question) Jews made to Jesus prior to verse 58 was ldquoYou are not yet fifty years old and you have seen Abrahamrdquo Logically Jesus answered the question of his age of his long existence and additionally was perhaps asserting his ldquomessiahshiprdquo as well in harmony with the question Jews had posed earlier in verse 53 This may be one reason a fewtranslators render or note John 858 not as ldquoI amrdquo but rather ldquoI am herdquo some to suggest Christ is God while others do so emphasizing his messianic role The second interpretation fits better with Scripture In the list of alternate readings of John 858 below you will find that rendering as well However the key issue in this text is Jesus existence from past to present Unlike other verses in John (82428) where ldquoeimirdquo is used (in the sense of ldquoI am herdquo ie ldquothe Son of Godrdquo ldquothe Messiahrdquo) in verse 58 the matter of ldquoidentityrdquo is secondaryto the key issue of his existence In the sum of things it should be noted that ldquoindefiniterdquo existence is not equal to ldquoeternalrdquo existence

Within the context of chapter eight (8) of John Jesus makes statements which mark clear differences with his Father God When reading over the next few paragraphs keep in mind that the Bible condemns two-faced personalities and speaking out with a forked tongue

Jesus himself spoke out against hypocrisy so he only spoke ldquotruthrdquo

In John 826 Jesus told the Jews that he was ldquosentrdquo by his Father and that lsquohe speaks the things that he hears from the one who sent himrsquo That lsquohe does nothing on his own initiativersquo (NASB) That lsquohe isrsquo ldquothe Son of Manrdquo and lsquospeaks just what the Father taught himrsquo (V 28)

Jesus stated a simple but significant truth ldquoNo servant is greater than his master nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent himrdquo (John 1316) With this principle in mind here are some questions to ponder about How could Jesus be ldquosentrdquo if he himself was ldquoGodrdquo Why was Jesus lsquonot able to do anything on his own initiativersquo if he was ldquoall-mightyrdquo In verse 29 Jesus says that lsquothe One who sent him has not left him alone and that he always did what pleased the Fatherrsquo Why would Jesus Christ say at all lsquoI always do what pleases him who sent mersquo If Jesus was ldquoGodrdquo why would he find it important enoughto mention whether he was left ldquoalonerdquo or not Does God need ldquocompanionshiprdquo as humans do Why would anybody have to ldquoteachrdquo Jesus anything if he was all-knowingrdquo

Also Jesus applied the title ldquoSon of Manrdquo to himself numerous times a term which Jews considered a title of the promised ldquoMessiahrdquo not of ldquoGodrdquo In addition the Bible book of Numbers 2319 tells us that ldquoGod is not a man that he should lie ldquonor a son of man that he should change his mindrdquo Nonetheless Christ precisely adopted this very same expression (ldquoSon of Manrdquo) before others with no regrets Furthermore did God have to become ldquoa manrdquo to save humankind when the Bible explicitly says that lsquoGod sent his only-begotten Sonrsquoto save the worldrsquo (John 316 NASB 1 John 414) Who is distorting the full picture here

In verse 40 John reports that the Jews lsquowere determined to kill Jesus because they didnt want to accept the word and truth that Jesus as a man [Greek anthropon] spoke having it received from Godrsquo How could Christ speak of himself as lsquoa man receiving truth from Godrsquowhen seconds later according to Trinitarians he would be using a ldquotitlerdquo claiming to be ldquoGodrdquo in effect contradicting everything he had been saying until then None of these statements would make sense if Jesus himself was the Supreme God as many believe

What would Jesus gain by claiming before the world that he lsquocould not do anything on his own initiativersquo that lsquohe always did what pleased the Fatherrsquo and that he only spoke just what the Father who sent him lsquotaughtrsquo him And shortly afterwards change his message altogether and claim as we are asked to believe that Christ was the ldquoGodrdquo of the Old Testament by the sole act of pronouncing the ldquoI amrdquo divine ldquotitlerdquo Does this lsquodouble personalityrsquo approach make any sense to a Christian who is taught to only believe ldquothere is but one God the Fatherrdquo (John 530 1 Corinthians 86) No wonder there are a good number of Bible translators including Trinitarians who disagree with the traditional view of John 858

Does the Jews reaction in John 859 prove Jesus Christ had claimed to be ldquoGodrdquo

Shortly before his death Jesus was taken before the Sanhedrin the high court of the Jews to

face false charges by people who wanted him dead Please take note of the charges brought up in Marks account (1460-64) which says

60 Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus ldquoAre you not going to answer What is this testimony that these men are bringing against yourdquo 61 But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer Again the high priest asked him ldquoAre you the Messiah the Son of the Blessed Onerdquo 62 ldquoI amrdquo said Jesus ldquoAnd you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heavenrdquo 63 The high priest tore his clothes ldquoWhy do we need any more witnessesrdquo he asked 64 ldquoYou have heard the blasphemy What do you thinkrdquo They all condemned him as worthy of death

In view of the events of Mark 1460-64 and considering the context of John chapter 8 it is clear that the Jews rejected Jesus claim of him being ldquothe Messiahrdquo and of being lsquogreaterrsquo than Abraham They were also rejecting the idea that he was ldquofrom aboverdquo ldquothe Son of Mansitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heavenrdquo of the heavenly vision (John 823) In their view that was enough to charge him with blasphemy since they could not imagine any ldquomanrdquo making such claims

C K Barrett rightly noted that the Jews reaction in verse 59 ldquodoes not mean that Jesus had claimed to be Godrdquo (The Gospel According to St John 2d ed Philadelphia Westminster Press 1978 352) And Professor Emeritus William Loader noted ldquoThe text need mean no more than I am and was in existence before Abraham still a majestic unique claim but not anallusion to the divine namerdquo (The Christology of the Fourth Gospel Structures and Issues Revised 2d ed New York Lang 1992 48)

Even before Jesus spoke the ldquoegō eimirdquo words in John 858 the Jews had already sought to kill Jesus (John 719 837) And for what ldquocrimerdquo This lsquoJesus claimed the truth he taughtcame from Godrsquo (John 716 840) This is vastly different from lsquoJesus alledgedly claiming a divine title equating him with God at John 858rsquo Since then all sorts of religious leaders have claimed as well that ldquowhat they teach others comes from Godrdquo and not from them Does that make them ldquoequalrdquo to God

Because Jesus often lsquocalled God his Fatherrsquo the Jews wrongly concluded that he was ldquomaking himself equal to Godrdquo (John 51819) However Jesus quickly set the matter straight when he called himself Gods ldquoSonrdquo (nine times in chapter 5 alone) an expression never applied to ldquoGodrdquo in Scripture (Matthew 2663-64) The Jews even claimed Jesus was ldquobreaking the Sabbathrdquo and further of being ldquoa Samaritan and demon-possessedrdquo (John 518 848) Were they right Absolutely not Thus wrong perceptions of Jews in Jesus time - like Jesus claiming equality with God - are truly a shaky foundation to base modern interpretations The Jerusalem Bible has this to say ldquoThe claim of Jesus to live on the divine plane (v 58) is for the Jews blasphemy for which the penalty is stoning Lv 2416rdquo I see the JB accepting the claim that Jesus possessed some mode of ldquodivine existencerdquo (as suggested by the Spanish edition of JB ldquoBiblia de Jerusaleacutenrdquo) but avoiding a direct reference of Christ

claiming to be God or that he was claiming ldquoeternalrdquo existence in the verse And former Professor Kenneth L McKay said ldquoThe claim to have been in existence for so long is in itself a staggering one quite enough to provoke the crowds violent reaction [in v59]rdquo (ldquo lsquoI amrsquo in Johns Gospelrdquo p 302) Hence those who claim the charge of blasphemy involved Jesus claim of being ldquoGodrdquo are wrong for Jesus never claimed to be ldquoThe Supreme Beingrdquo but only ldquoGods Sonrdquo (John 31718)

Weeks later after the incident of John chapter 8 but related to the topic of discussion in John 1030-36 we read that the Jews misunderstood Jesus words ldquoI and the father are onerdquo (John 10 30) So they wanted to stone him for it but Jesus told them

33 ldquoWe are not stoning you for any good workrdquo they replied ldquobut for blasphemy because you a mere man claim to be Godrdquo 34 Jesus answered them ldquoIs it not written in your Law lsquoI have said you are ldquogodsrdquorsquo [Psalm 826] 35 If he called them lsquogodsrsquo to whom the word of God camemdashand Scripture cannot be set asidemdash 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said lsquoI am Godrsquos Sonrsquo ( Other versions translate the Greek word here for ldquoGodrdquo without the article either as ldquogodrdquo or ldquoa godrdquo Besson Torrey NWT Mace Luther 1545 Diaglott Tomanek Andy Gaus New English Bible)

Notice that Jesus Christ under duress had another golden opportunity to once and for all disclose publicly that he was ldquoGodrdquo But he did not do so The argument itself that Jesus employed shows that he could legitimately claim lsquodivine originrsquo without being identified as one-and-the-same God with his Father

Less than a year later AFTER the encounter with the Jews of John chapter 8 and before his death Jesus told his closest disciples in his farewell speech that they lsquoshould rejoice he was going away to the Father because the Father was greater than he wasrsquo (John 1428) And in his final prayer in proximity with his disciples he prayed to God that lsquothey may know his Father the only true God and Jesus Christ whom he has sentrsquo (John 173 ) God never needs to pray to anyone Shortly after Jesus died and was resurrected by God but before returning to his Father Jesus said to Mary Magdalene ldquoDo not hold on to me for I have notyet ascended to the Father Go instead to my brothers and tell them lsquoI am ascending to my Father and your Father to my God and your Godrsquo rdquo (John 2017)

Does it make sense to have Jesus claim equality with God by employing a divine title (ldquoI Amrdquo) before unbelieving Jews as Trinitarians claim and then have Jesus later assure his closest and faithful ones that lsquohis Father and his Godrsquo was also lsquothe Father and God of everyone elsersquo In fact Jesus disciples were clearly in a privileged position in regards to Christian teaching Jesus Christ had previously said to his disciples that he would explain lsquoall thingsrsquo to them privately whereas to others he would only speak in lsquoparablesrsquo or lsquocomparisonsrsquo (Matthew 1311 Mark 411 33 34) An explicit lsquodivine titlersquo directed at lsquounbelievingrsquo Jews is certainly no parable and would run counter to his own stated principles

Anyways Jesus Christ wanted other Christian followers to understand the special

relationship he had with the Father ldquoBut go to my followers and tell them this lsquoI am going back to my Father and your Father I am going back to my God and your Godrsquo rdquo (Easy to Read Version) This simple message is so different from the convoluted one commonly expounded by Trinitarians in their philosophical speculations

Between the time of the encounter between the Jews and Jesus in John ch 8 and the farewelldiscourse of our Lord Jesus Christ of later (chapters 14-17) not once did Jesus say he was ldquoGodrdquo Christ never spoke with a forked tongue Therefore Bible translators who do not claim Jesus was using a divine title at John 858 and provide renderings agreeing with the words of John 173 and 2017 are in the correct

Scriptures with similar syntax to John 858

Thus when faced with certain idiomatic expressions as the one found in John 858 the translator often has to ask himself How would someone normally express such statements in our language I will cite six (6) Scriptural examples that are similar in syntax to John 858 Genesis 3138 LXX 1 John 38 Luke 248 John 56 2 Corinthians 1219 and John 1527 All six Scriptures have present tense verbs AND an expression of past time or extent of time with past implications within its structure Lets see how these Scriptures compare with John 858 in our discussion

1st Example (Genesis 3138 LXX) ταῦτά μοι εἴκοσι ἔτη ἐγώ εἰμι μετὰ σοῦ - Greek These mine twenty years I am with you

Jacob after leaving Haran disputes with his father-in-law Laban over missing personal idols which Laban claimed were stolen by Jacob Jacob had no idea Rachel had stolen them In defense Jacob proceeded to mention several things he had done through the years on Labansbehalf ldquoThese twenty years I am with yourdquo (The Apostolic Bible Polyglot LXX 2006)ldquoThese twenty years of mine I was with yourdquo (A New English Translation of the Septuagint ldquoNETSrdquo 2007)ldquoThese twenty years have I been with theerdquo (The Holy Orthodox Bible LXX 2006)ldquoThese twenty years I have been with yourdquo (The Orthodox Study Bible LXX 2008)ldquoThese twenty years of mine have I been with theerdquo (Orthodox England LXX 2009)ldquoI have spent with you twenty of my years [Jai passeacute avec toi vingt de mes anneacutees]rdquo (La Septante [LXX] translated by Pierre Giguet)ldquoThese twenty years have I been with theerdquo (Sir Lancelot CL Brenton LXX)ldquoThese twenty years that I have been with theerdquo (Charles Thomson LXX)

Aside from the interlinear reading of the literal Apostolic Bible Polyglot other translators of the Septuagint (LXX) render a present indicative verb ldquoegō eimirdquo (I am) preceded by an expression of time with past implications (ldquoThese twenty yearsrdquo) with present perfect

indicative forms (ldquoI have beenrdquo) while one translation (NETS) uses a simple past form (ldquoI wasrdquo) A modern Greek translation Η Αγία ΓραφήmdashΜετάφραση Νέου Κόσμου has ldquoήμουνrdquo (Literally ldquoI wasrdquo) in this text A likely reason for that as a modern Greek Grammar pointsout is that for the verb lsquoto be (είμαι)rsquo ldquoThere are only two sets of tense forms in Greek present and past (imperfect)rdquo (op cit An Essential Grammar p 126 Sec 67) Hence they could not have used here a perfect tense form for the verb lsquoto be (eimai)rsquo But in English the Bible Society responsible for the Greek and English translations of the Hebrew portion of the Bible used instead ldquoI have beenrdquo at Genesis 3138 in the English edition because a present perfect is available in the language for the verb

Another interesting tidbit is the fact that the original Hebrew text here lacks a verb in the declaration namely ldquoThis twenty year I with-yourdquo (The Hebrew-English Interlinear ESV Old Testament Crossway) Well how do translators deal with this issue Overall like this with the perfect indicative ldquoI have been with you for twenty years nowrdquo A few versions use the imperfect instead lsquoI wasrsquo such as the Wycliffe Bible and the Lexham English Bible Rarely do translations use a ldquopresentrdquo here the exceptions being Youngs and Concordant literal translations So why do the overwhelming number of translators prefer tosupply a perfect tense here for the missing verb in the Hebrew Its simple There is a temporal indicator going to the past in the text namely lsquoThese twenty yearsrsquo

Now when the LXX translators proceeded to translate the Hebrew words of Genesis 3138 into Greek they cleverly used a well known vivid idiom available in classical Greek where a verb in the present tense is combined with an indicator of past time In this syntax the ldquopast and present are gathered up in a single affirmationrdquo (op cit Brooks amp Winbery) Modern English translators usually resort to the present perfect in this construction as shown aboveSo too John 858 reveals an expression of past time with a present verb in its statement and the NWT is one translation that is consistent with this construction both in Genesis 3138 and John 858

For the following I will use the Wescott and Hort Greek text for reference

2nd Example (1 John 38)

ὅτι ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς ὁ διάβολος ἁμαρτάνει - Greek because from beginning the devil is sinning

The apostle John warns Christians not to carry on sin for those who make a practice of sin originate from the Devil who has sinned from the beginning For this purpose the Son of God was revealed that he might undo the works of the Devil The text above contains an expression of past time (ldquofrom beginningrdquo) with a present verb (is sinning) very much likeJohn 858 How do translators deal with this passage Lets see

ldquofor the devil sinneth from the beginningrdquo (Rheims New Testament)ldquofor the devil sinneth from the beginningrdquo (KJV)

ldquofor the devil has sinned from the beginningrdquo (New King James Version)ldquofor the devil has sinned from the beginningrdquo (NASB)ldquobecause the devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (Interlinear Mounce)ldquofor the Devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (Riverside NT Ballantine)ldquobecause the devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (NIV)ldquobecause the devil has sinned from the beginningrdquo (NAB)ldquosince the devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (Jay E Adams)ldquowho has been sinning since the beginningrdquo (NLT)ldquofor the devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (NRSV)ldquosince the devil has been a sinner from the beginningrdquo (NJB)ldquobecause the devil has been sinning from the very beginningrdquo (J G Anderson)ldquofor the devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (ESV)

ldquothe devil was a sinner from the firstrdquo (Ronald A Knox New Testament)

Some translations transfer the Greek present to their English versions as if the English and Greek ldquopresentrdquo in such construction were the same thing It is not The end result is ungrammatical English Would you say in contemporary English ldquoFrom the beginning of class the boy sleepsrdquo Not Doctor Richard A Young points out ldquoTo say that the devil is sinning from the beginning does not make sense in English English translations therefore employ the present perfectrdquo (Intermediate New Testament Greek page 111)

The renderings above ldquohas sinnedrdquo and ldquohas been sinningrdquo are present perfect and present perfect progressive indicative forms The word ldquowasrdquo is a simple past tense Just as in 1 John 38 some translators in John 858 have rendered a present tense with an expression of past time in its construction with a present perfect ldquoI have beenrdquo

3rd Example (2 Corinthians 1219)

Πάλαι δοκεῖτε ὅτι ὑμῖν ἀπολογούμεθα ndash Greek Long ago you are thinking that to you we are making defense

Paul finds himself having to defend his apostolic authority and vindicating his record as superior in hardship endured for Christ and loving concern for congregations In simpler words Paul was telling them ldquoAll this time have you been thinking that Ive been speaking up for myself No Ive been speaking with God as my witness Ive been speaking like a believer in Christ Dear friends everything I do is to help you become strongerrdquo (NIRV)

In the literal reading above we have an adverb of time with past implications (Palai) followed by two Greek verb forms (ldquodokeiterdquo amp ldquoapologoumethardquo) in the present indicativetense The book Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek Verb by William Watson Goodwin explains ldquoThe Present is often used with expressions denoting past time especially πάλαι [palai] in the sense of a perfect and a present combinedrdquo (Section 26 p 9) How do translators render these in English Some carry over the present tense into the English text producing unconventional English Others cognizant of issues presented here

do a better job at it See below for a sample

ldquoHave you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves before yourdquo (The Comprehensive New Testament 2008)ldquoI hope you donacutet think that all along weacuteve been making our defense before yourdquo (The Message Eugene H Peterson)ldquoHave you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves to yourdquo (NIV)ldquoIt may seem to you that all this time we have been attempting to put ourselves in the rightrdquo (Bible in Basic English)ldquoAll this time you have been thinking that we have been pleading our own cause before yourdquo (NJB)ldquoHave you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves to yourdquo (CEV)ldquoHave you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves before yourdquo (Revised Standard Version) ldquoPerhaps you think that all along we have been trying to defend ourselves before yourdquo (TEV)ldquoHave you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves to yourdquo (ESV)ldquoYou have thought all along that we were defending ourselves to yourdquo (HCSB)ldquoHave you been thinking all this time that we have been defending ourselves to yourdquo (NET Bible)

ldquoYou have been thinking all along that it was to you we were making our defenserdquo (The Bible in Living English Steven T Byington)

The above translations use present perfect (and perfect progressive) forms or past progressives to bring out the proper sense of the original into our language Can anyone rightfully claim that it is improper for these Bible versions to translate this text as they have done in English

4th Example (Luke 248 Wescott and HortNestle early editions Greek text)

ὁ πατήρ σου καὶ ἐγὼ ὀδυνώμενοι ζητοῦμέν σε - Greek The father of you and I being pained we are seeking you Here the context (vv 42-48) speaks of Jesus (12 years old) being left behind unwittingly in Jerusalem by his parents they went back searching in distress for three days before finding him When they finally found him they spoke the words above

ldquoYour father and I have been looking for you anxiouslyrdquo (Revised Standard Version)ldquoYour father and I in agony of mind have been searching for yourdquo (Williams NT)ldquoYour father and I have been anxiously looking for Yourdquo (NASB 1971)ldquoYour father and I have been searching for you in great distressrdquo (Riverside NT)

ldquoHere have your father and I been searching anxiously for yourdquo (Hugh J Schonfield)ldquoYour father and I have been looking for you have been very anxious rdquo (Goodspeed)ldquoYour father and I have been looking for you We have been very troubledrdquo (Bible in Worldwide English)ldquoYour father and I have been looking for you in distressrdquo (Richmond Lattimore)ldquoYour father and I have been searching for you in great distressrdquo (Twentieth Century NT) ldquoThy father and I have sought thee distressedrdquo (Darby Bible Translation)

ldquoThy father and I sought thee sorrowingrdquo (American Standard Version)

ldquoThy father and I in anguish were seeking theerdquo (The Emphasized Bible 3rd edit based on Wescott and Hort by Joseph B Rotherham)ldquoThy father and I were seeking thee sorrowfulrdquo (W B Godbey N T 1902)ldquoThy father and I were seeking Thee sorrowingrdquo (A S Worrell N T 1904)ldquoYour father and I were anxiously looking for yourdquo (World English Bible)

The words ldquowe are seeking yourdquo are in the present indicative tense however since an expression of time is used indicating action going on for days (ldquoafter three daysrdquo v 46) translators find it necessary to use either the present perfect (ldquohave beenrdquo ldquohave soughtrdquo) or simple past (ldquosoughtrdquo) or past progressive (ldquowere seekingrdquo) indicative forms to express in English what the Greek says in the ldquopresentrdquo Various Greek texts have instead of the ldquopresentrdquo found in the Westcott amp Hort Text above an ldquoimperfectrdquo verb form Both forms are frequently rendered with an English present ldquoperfectrdquo Compare with Youngs Literal Translation which also uses a past progressive indicative form ldquowere seekingrdquo and the Spanish Reina-Valera Revisada which rendered an imperfect verb form appearing in the Received Text with a present perfect indicative (ldquohemos buscadordquo) Is this another reason why many translators have rendered the Greek present ldquoegō eimirdquo preceded by an adverbial modifier in its clause at John 858 with perfective or past forms in English

5th Example (Juan 56)

καὶ γνοὺς ὅτι πολὺν ἤδη χρόνον ἔχει - Greek and having known that much already time he is having

This is an account of an invalid man who for 38 years had been sick and was now being cured by Jesus The Greek in this clause does not make his illness clear however the context does Take note of the expression of time used with past implications mixed with a present indicative verb ldquohe is havingrdquo For this to make any sense in our language it has to be modified When Jesus saw this sick man lying there

ldquoand knew that he had been now a long time in that caserdquo (KJV italics theirs) ldquoand knowing that he had been ill a long timerdquo (Revised English Bible)ldquoand knew he had been in that condition for a long timerdquo (NJB)ldquoand knew that he had been sick for a long timerdquo (World English Bible)ldquoand knew that he had been sick for a long timerdquo (Godacutes Word)

ldquoand knew how long he had been illrdquo (Living Bible)ldquoand knew he had already been there a long timerdquo (HCSB)ldquoand he knew that the man had been sick for such a long timerdquo (TEV)ldquoand knew that he had been in this state a long timerdquo (Confraternity Version)ldquoand finding that he had had a long time of itrdquo (S T Byington) ldquoand knew that he had been sick for a long timerdquo (Jay E Adams)ldquoand he knew that he had been waiting for a long timerdquo (George M Lamsa Peshitta) ldquoand knew that he had been now a long timerdquo (Rheims New Testament)

ldquoand knowing that he was [in that state] now a great length of timerdquo (J N Darby Translation Brackets his)

Once again we see translators having to use mostly perfective forms (ldquohad beenrdquo ldquohad hadrdquopast perfects) and one with a simple past ldquowasrdquo even though they are translating a present tense verb ldquohe is havingrdquo This shows that translators adapt their renderings whenever is necessary to convey the right meaning into the target language It is thus possible to render ldquoeimirdquo at John 858 with a form other than a present tense such as a present perfect Those who say that it can not be done or should not be done just need to look again at the evidenceobjectively

6th Example (John 1527 Wescott amp Hort)

ὅτι ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς μετʼ ἐμοῦ ἐστέ ndash Greek that from beginning with me you are

These words spoken by Jesus evidently refers to the beginning of his ministry when he chosehis closest disciples They were eyewitnesses of all the things God did through Christ duringhis ministry (Acts 121)

ldquobecause ye have been with me from the beginningrdquo (KJV) ldquobecause you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (NAB)ldquofor you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (Christian Community Bible)ldquobecause you are the men who have been with me from the very beginningrdquo (Heinz Wldquobecause you have been with me from the firstrdquo (New English Bible) [ Cassirer)ldquobecause you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (Godacutes Word Translation) ldquofor you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (NIV)ldquobecause you have been with me from the firstrdquo (Weymouth New Testament)ldquobecause you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (NRSV)ldquoyou that have been with me from the beginningrdquo (The Four Gospels EV Rieu)ldquobecause youacuteve been with Me from the beginning of My ministryrdquo (The Clear Word)ldquofor you have been with me from the firstrdquo (J B Phillips Modern English)ldquobecause you have been with Me from the beginningrdquo (HCSB) ldquothat you were with me from the startrdquo (21st Century New Testament)ldquofor you were with Me from the beginningrdquo (New Berkeley Version Revised Edition)

ldquobecause you were with me from the beginningrdquo (Mark Heber Miller)ldquobecause you were with me from the very beginningrdquo (SEB)

This scripture with the plural form of ldquoeimirdquo (este) is very similar to John 858 Again within its structure there is an expression of past time and a verb in the present indicative form (este) just as there is in John 858 A Grammar of New Testament Greek says ldquoThe reader may be reminded of one idiom which comes out of the linear idea the use of words like πάλαι [palai ldquolong agordquo] with the present in a sense best expressed by our perfect Thus in 2 Co 1219 lsquohave you been thinking all this timersquo or Jn 1527 lsquoyou have been with me from the beginning [ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς]rsquo hellip The durative present in such cases gathers up past and present time into one phraserdquo (A Grammar of New Testament Greek Vol 1 Prolegomena by JH Moulton p 119) As previously noted this Grammar specifically refers to John 858 as an example of this idiom

And here in John 1527 there is a connection of Jesus disciples [creatures as they are] that ldquowererdquo with him ldquofrom the beginningrdquo Obviously Jesus was making no reference to his disciples sharing ldquoeternityrdquo with him The disciples all had a beginning The logical conclusion is that Jesus was simply saying to them lsquoYou have been with me from the start of my ministryrsquo Hence there is no need to read ldquoeternityrdquo into the expression ldquoI amrdquo anymore that we should read ldquoeternityrdquo from Jesus words at John 1527 lsquoYou are with me from the beginningrsquo Neither grammar nor the context justifies reading more into these Scriptures than what they actually say

In fact the six (6) instances cited above (Genesis 3138 LXX 1 John 38 2 Cor 1219 Luke 248 John 56 John 1527) and John 858 as well all have an expression of past time or an extent of time with past implications (ldquoThese twenty yearsrdquo ldquoLong agordquo ldquoafter three daysrdquo Lk 246 ldquomuch already timerdquo ldquofrom [the] beginningrdquo ldquoBeforerdquo etc) AND present verbs in their sentences or nearby within the context and are commonly rendered with present perfect (some with past perfects) or simple past (or past progressive) forms in English translations If we apply this pattern to the translation of John 858 it would mean that renderings such as ldquoI have beenrdquo (present perfect) and ldquoI wasrdquo (simple past) are not only acceptable in translation but actually more ldquosuitablerdquo in application Can this really be done Not only can it be done it makes for a ldquobetterrdquo English translation

In regards to Jesus John 858 simply tells us that Jesus lsquowas alive before Abraham was bornrsquo (SEB) and that his existence continued up to the moment of his speaking to them Just as it is not proper English to say ldquoFor three days we are seeking yourdquo (Greek literal reading of Luke 248) or ldquobecause from the beginning with me you arerdquo (John 1527) it is no less proper English to say in John 858 ldquoBefore Abraham was born I amrdquo These readings should only appear in extremely literal interlinear translations which basically render the Greek word-by-word and not in standard idiomatic English translations Let me illustrate If a man advanced in age for example had his work history and experience questioned by co-workers in comparison to his younger son and employee Abe would he say in reply ldquoBefore my son Abe was born I am [the one fit for the job]rdquo No that does not sound right In English he could say it in various ways

ldquoI have been an experienced worker since before my son Abe was bornrdquo ldquoI have been what I am since before my son Abe was bornrdquo ldquoI was fit to work and fully active before my son Abe was ever bornrdquo ldquoI was already experienced in many jobs before Abe ever came to berdquo ldquoI have been a master worker way before my son Abe came to liferdquo ldquoBefore Abe was born I already was life and job experiencedrdquo etc

The point is that in English normally we include a present perfect tense whenever there is a reference to the past extending to the present or a past tense of some form whenever we go back in time The same with John 858 There is no justification in English to insist using a present verb form (which is not equal to the Greek present when combined with a past expression) in an unwarranted attempt to convey ldquoeternityrdquo as ldquopaddingrdquo to the Trinity doctrine a doctrine adopted AFTER the Christian era Worse it is disingenuous to accuse other translators (who have chosen to render ldquoegō eimirdquo at John 858 with an English present perfect or past tense) of scholastic dishonesty when the very same translations honored by these detractors do so in other places where the ldquodeityrdquo of Christ is not in play asshown in the samples provided above

An example of this double standard can be seen as well when scholars such as Dr Julius Mantey harshly criticizes the NWT for the rendering ldquoI have beenrdquo at John 858 but keeps quiet when other translators do similarly and even states or pretends that no other reputable translator would ever translate it that way He dared not criticize his former Greek teacher Charles B Williams who produced his own Bible translation Dr Mantey once wrote the following of Dr Williams translation ldquoWilliams translation considering all the factors is the most accurate and illuminating translation in the English languagerdquo And how does this ldquomost accurate translationrdquo render John 858 As follows ldquoI existed before Abraham was bornrdquo Here Dr Williams known for his Greek command used a simple past tense (ldquoI existedrdquo) as translation for the Greek present Julius Mantey certainly did not find Williams version of John 858 a ldquoshocking translationrdquo ldquoI existedrdquo is quite different from the translation Dr Mantey so passionately defended (ldquoI amrdquo)

When Dr Mantey talks about the NWT he says the rendering ldquoI have beenrdquo at John 858 cannot be justified and calls it ldquodishonestrdquo That rule does not apply to Williams translation does it Williams did not translate John 858 in the same way Mantey would have liked (ldquoI amrdquo) Not only that the Grammar itself that Dr Mantey co-authored with Dr Dana A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament states under ldquoThe Progressive Presentrdquo (called ldquoExtension from Pastrdquo by McKay) ldquoSometimes the progressive present is retroactivein its application denoting that which has begun in the past and continues into the present For the want of a better name we may call it the present of duration This use is generally associated with an adverb of time and may best be rendered by the English perfect ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς μετʼ ἐμοῦ ἐστέ Ye have been with me from the beginning Jn 1527 See also Lk137 2 Cor 129 [19]rdquo (Pages 182-83 Emphasis added)

Even though Julius Mantey has stated when referring to the NWT that ldquoI have beenrdquo is not a proper translation and even ldquodishonestrdquo at John 858 he clearly states in his Grammar (of

Scriptures with similar syntax to John 858) ldquoThis use is generally associated with an adverb of time and may best be rendered by the English perfect [such as ldquoI have beenrdquo which in fact is associated with an adverb of time in John 858]rdquo A likely reason for Dana ampManteys strong reluctance for not including John 858 as an example of the idiom discussed on page 183 may have to do with the fact that as ldquotrinitariansrdquo they oppose the idea of Jesus existence having lsquobegunrsquo in the past even though John 858 perfectly fits with the ldquoProgressive Presentrdquo idiom being discussed in their Grammar as acknowledged by other grammarians Hence their objection is truly a ldquotheologicalrdquo one rather than Greek grammaritself arguing in their favor as Mantey and some others have implied since a Greek present or an English perfect does not demand ldquoeternityrdquo at all from the subject

Consequently many religious individuals who focus solely on the basic meaning (of ldquoegō eimirdquo as ldquoI amrdquo) out of the context of the particular ldquoidiomrdquo used at John 858 end up missing the thrust of Jesus words and fall prey to misleading interpretations Doctor Kenneth L McKay taking into account all of these issues comes up with this excellent translation for John 858 ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo (A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek SBG 5 New York Peter Lang 1994 p42) If we objectively consider the material above we will not insist in connecting Jesus at John 858 with the God Jehovah of Exodus 314 (which many attempt to do but cannot be sustained) Instead we will focus on the simple message conveyed by Jesus words at John 858 which is in harmony with the totality of Scripture ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo (McKay) The rendering ldquoI have been in existencerdquo by itself does not rule out either the concept of ldquoeternityrdquo or the ldquocreationrdquo of Jesus Christ A Committee of Bible translators came up with the following translation which may not be the best choice but considering the issues involved is better than the traditional rendering of ldquoI amrdquo ldquoI was alive before Abraham was bornrdquo (The New Testament in Plain English)

(The following scholars are members of the Bible Translation Committee of The New Testament in Plain English which approved this last reading ldquoI was aliverdquo instead of ldquoI amrdquo(Dr Stanley L Morris chairman FW Gingrich Ph D a renown Greek lexicographer Jack P Lewis Ph D CH Accord Th D Clyde M Woods Ph D ST Kan Ph D Gary T Burke Ph D Milo Hadwin D Min)

I submit their names and their credentials here as an example because it is often asserted vigorously that no intelligent or highly qualified scholar would ever produce a translation other than ldquoI amrdquo As noted above and as the list of alternate readings (at the end of this essay) of John 858 shows many done by highly qualified people this is simply not true Usually those making statements of that sort are doing so based on emotional and theological not philological reasons Furthermore by not disclosing other valid viewpoints or by dismissing how other qualified Bible translators deal with this scripture they are undermining their own credibility as well

At this time you are welcome to briefly go over the list of Alternate Readings to John 858 at

the end before moving on to the second part of this essay

_____________________________

Should we ignore the evidence of all those translations listed at the end that differ in John 858 from the traditional versions What then are all these translators seeing at John 858 that moved them to render this text differently They surely must be aware of the resistance they would encounter by translating it by the various forms they used Still they must have had the firm conviction that both the Greek text and the context supports their understanding of this scripture They likely see a Jesus making no identity connection with his Father Godbut rather see a Jesus simply expressing his indefinite existence with no suggestion of eternity in focus Neither is Jesus stating here that he is the God of Old Testament times To understand it that way would be to read into the text more than what it says Taking some clues from the context of the chapter some scholars additionally see Jesus insinuating his ldquomessiahshiprdquo as if saying ldquoI am he [the Messiah]rdquo This is very likely In fact The LivingBible renders John 824 thus ldquoThat is why I said that you will die in your sins for unless you believe that I am the Messiah the Son of God [ἐγώ εἰμι] you will die in your sinsrdquo

Is ldquoegō eimirdquo a title or another name of God

The use of ldquoeimirdquo at John 858 is frequently used as a ldquoproof textrdquo of Jesus deity A noted Trinitarian scholar AT Robertson a Baptist even refers to ldquoegō eimirdquo as ldquothe absolute phrase used of Godrdquo likely indicating the verb conveys ldquotimeless beingrdquo an implication that ldquoeimirdquo here does not require anything else to complete the meaning of the phrase thus conveying ldquoeternal existencerdquo as well as being an actual name for God Some individuals have given plenty of publicity to Robertsons statement as absolute truth But his statement is not ldquotruthrdquo at all It is faulty interpretation which many people have fallen prey to Grammar and theology do not always make the best mix True Robertsons credentials as a scholar are impressive nevertheless credentials does not truth make Besides some other equally bright scholars disagree with him Lets illustrate the folly of those advocating a divine title at John 858 by way of addition (Or substitution if you will) as some suggest

ldquoBefore Abraham was born I am Eternalrdquo ldquoBefore Abraham was born I am Jehovahrdquo ldquoBefore Abraham was born I am eternally Godrdquo

First of all the above hypothetical translations are just as ungrammatical as the simple ldquoI amrdquo reading of most versions An English present tense cannot start before a definite point in the past This can be seen in the following two examples

1 ldquoBefore the US Iraq war I am a soldierrdquo 2 ldquoThree journalists are kidnapped in Nepal since the start of 2007rdquo

What is the correct way to express these statements in English Analyze it for a second and

provide an answer if you will

Notably if ldquoeimirdquo was used to convey eternal existence what is the point of using an expression of past time at all in the clause Moreover the context of previous verses (vv 48-57) clearly indicates that Jesus is speaking of God as a separate entity See below

49 ldquobut I honor my Father and you dishonor merdquo 50 ldquoI am not seeking glory for myself but there is one who seeks it and he is the

judgerdquo54 ldquoIf I glorify myself my glory means nothing My Father whom you claim as your

God is the one who glorifies me 55 ldquoThough you do not know him I know him If I said I did not I would be a liar like you but I do know him and obey his wordrdquo Thus if Jesus meant he himself was the ldquoJehovahrdquo of the Old Testament as Trinitarians claim what would be the rationale behind Jesus directing all distinction and glory to lsquothe Father Godrsquo as a distinct individual as he did in the previous verses and then a few words later abruptly change his argumentation by claiming he is that very same One who lsquoreceives obedience from his own wordrsquo lsquoseeking his own honor and gloryrsquo because he himself is ldquoGodrdquo Confusing is it not To accept this abrupt change of character on Jesus part would be not ldquoa mysteryrdquo but flat out ldquoa deceptionrdquo of big proportions since Jesus himself warned against pretending to be one thing and acting as another (Matthew 62-5 2313-36)

Are we are supposed against all logic to accept these ldquotrinitarianrdquo assumptions instead of a simple alternative which really answers the Jews question about lsquohow could Abraham ldquoseerdquoJesus day if he was not yet 50 years oldrsquo (ldquoI have been in existence since Abraham was bornrdquo)

The obsession with the simple words ldquoI amrdquo have led to many faulty assumptions ldquoI amrdquo issuch a common expression in our language even to this day that words such as ldquoegoismrdquo ldquoegotismrdquo etc (derived from the Greek ldquoegordquo) are considered common words in English dictionaries Everyone uses the phrase ldquoI amrdquo at times Think of any big corporation or powerful organization of your choice for a moment Would you conclude that the two most powerful individuals of this one prestigious organization must be identical in every way solely because they are heard equally saying to others in their common speech ldquoI am thisrdquoor ldquoI am thatrdquo etc

In Bible times humans too used common pronouns The verb eimi (ldquoI amrdquo) itself or forms of it appears more than two thousand times (2000x) in the New Testament alone Additionally the word ldquoegōrdquo appears over seventeen hundred times (1700x) in the NT And those numbers do not include the Septuagint totals Do all occurrences of the word then imply ldquodivinityrdquo in each case Of course not It may be more significant when God or Christ use the expression because of who they are but does it really mean that both God and Christ share the same identity Or that everyone who uses the phrase ldquoI amrdquo does so with divine pretensions Does it really mean that everyone using the phrase are ldquoequalrdquo The

answer is obvious is it not

Lets bear in mind that when God sent Jesus Christ as His representative to a most crucial assignment multiple biblical prophecies were pointing to Christ as the promised Messiah that would free mankind from its moribund condition It is logical then that when the time came for Jesus Christ to show up on earth he would somehow communicate to others that ldquoherdquo and not some other human claiming to be the Messiah was Gods instrument in bringing everlasting relief to human misery Hence he could rightly say any or all of the following ldquoI am (this)rdquo ldquoI am (that)rdquo ldquoI am he [the promised Messiah]rdquo or ldquoI am Gods Sonrdquo Should we expect anything less

The fact is that the words ldquoI amrdquo are not exclusive to God and Christ It should be noted that a man who was born ldquoblindrdquo also used the same expression (John 99) The Greek here says ldquoekeinos elegen hoti Egō eimirdquo (ldquoThat one kept saying that I amrdquo) AT Robertson cites John 99 as one of five parallels to the use of egō eimi in John 858 (Word Pictures in the New Testament Vol V p 159) The phrase here comes at the end of the clause with no explicit predicate James White who upholds the traditional reading admits ldquoThis last instance [John 99] is similar to the sayings as Jesus utters them in that the phrase comes at the end of the clause and looks elsewhere for its predicaterdquo The same could be said of John 1527 Some argue that ldquoeimirdquo in John 858 is ldquoabsoluterdquo but do not do so with John 99 or John 1527 Theology may be a factor in this Previously we saw how Jacob a man according to the Septuagint used the words ldquoegō eimirdquo Other instances in Scripture of creatures using those words would not prove they were part of a ldquoGodheadrdquo Context then ultimately dictates how ldquoeimirdquo should be translated According to John when Jesus was pressed he only claimed to have been alive way before Abraham was born and that he simply was ldquothe Christrdquo ldquothe Son of Manrdquo and ldquothe Son of Godrdquo

There is something else to keep in mind in regards to the meaning of ldquoeimirdquo And it is what grammarian Stanley Porter indicated ldquoSometimes the verb [eimi] is used on its own as a verb of existence Perhaps the best-known example of this is the following John 858rdquo (Fundamentals of New Testament Greek by Stanley E Porter section 753 72) AT Robertson adds ldquoThe verb εἰμί [eimi] hellip Sometimes it does express existence as a predicatelike any other verb as in ἐγὼ εἰμί [egō eimi] (Jo 858) and ἡ θάλασσα οὐκ ἔστιν ἔτι [hē thalassa ouk estin eti = ldquothe sea not is yetrdquo] (Rev 211) Cf Mt 2330rdquo (A Grammar of theGreek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research Nashville Tenn 1934 p 394)

What does this mean The examples mentioned by Robertson in addition to John 858 give us an idea of what this implies It is so strange that the two examples Robertson provided forcomparison with John 858 seems to contradict his ldquotimeless beingrdquo view on ldquoeimirdquo He cited a portion of Revelation 211 where the Greek literally says ldquoAnd the sea not is yetrdquo In other words ldquoThe sea does not exist any morerdquo Amplified Bible ldquoThere no longer existed any seardquo Curiously various versions render the present verb ldquoisrdquo (a form of ldquoeimirdquo) with an imperfect ldquowasrdquo (Cf KJV NIV NAB NRSV) Obviously ldquothe seardquo in this vision is [was] not ldquoeternalrdquo

And in Matthew 2330 the other text provided by Robertson in his comparison with John 858 the Greek word-for-word says ldquoIf we were in the days of the fathers of usrdquo which inmodern English would be ldquoIf we had lived in the days of our forefathersrdquo Other versions ldquoIf we had beenrdquo (Rheims NT) ldquoIf we had been livingrdquo (NASB) ldquoIf we had been existing in the days of our fathersrdquo (Jonathan Mitchell NT) The full NIV text reads ldquoAnd you say lsquoIf we had lived in the days of our ancestors we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophetsrsquo rdquo

It is clear from this comparison that the words of Matthew 2330 ldquoIf we wererdquo (a form of ldquoeimirdquo) in the text is used as an equivalent for ldquoliferdquo or ldquoexistencerdquo In the heavenly vision of Rev 211 lsquothe sea ceased to existrsquo And the generation of people which Jesus spoke about and their ancestors all died ceased to exist If we apply these two examples to John 858 given by Robertson with the meaning either of life or existence for ldquoeimirdquo then it wouldbe equally acceptable to translate ldquoI amrdquo as ldquoI existrdquo or ldquoI liverdquo Many translators reflect this very same understanding as the submitted list of alternate readings of John 858 show ldquoI existrdquo or ldquoI existed even before Abraham was bornrdquo Or ldquoI was alive before Abraham was bornrdquo (The Simple English Bible)

Although some may not see much semantic difference between Jesus saying ldquoI amrdquo or ldquoI existrdquo the two expressions communicate something very different to many readers ldquoI amrdquo is generally associated by Trinitarians as a title used by God or as another name for God Onthe other hand ldquoI existrdquo simply conveys ldquoliferdquo or ldquoexistence Barnabas Lindars points out that ldquoegō eimirdquo in John 858 ldquocannot be regarded as a title because it requires the meaning lsquoI am in existencersquordquo (ldquoThe Son of Man in Johannine Christologyrdquo in Christ and the Spirit in the New Testament In Honour of Charles Francis Digby Moule eds B Lindars and S Smalley Cambridge Cambridge University Press 1973) (Since an English present tense cannot start before a definite point in the past this would mean that we can incorporate Lindars valid observation and translate it into contemporary English like this ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo exactly as Dr McKay proposed)

Some in their eagerness to equate Christ with God accuse translators who render ldquoegō eimirdquo in John 858 with renderings other than ldquoI amrdquo pointing to all occurrences of this expression in the New Testament or in Johns Gospel where allegedly these translators do not follow the same ldquorulerdquo when translating ldquoegō eimirdquo in John 858 as they do elsewhere where they translate it with a present indicative form What they dont tell you or fail to understand is that in John 858 ldquoegō eimirdquo without a predicate AND with an expression of time with past implications in its sentence structure provides an ldquoidiomrdquo which is quite different from those other instances of ldquoeimirdquo Thats right an idiom (where present and past is combined) found equally at home in classical biblical and modern Greek which many translators convey into our language with the English present perfect at various places Consequently one cannot merely go by how the phrase ldquoegō eimirdquo is used elsewhere in the NT without taking into account the fact that John 858 displays an ldquoidiomrdquo in its structure Not doing so would be dishonest John the Baptist had said of Christ in John 130 ldquoA man is coming after me who ranks before me because he existed [Lit was] before merdquo (JB)

John 858 is in harmony with those words Furthermore some attempt to use the reading of Psalm 902 in the Septuagint as ldquoevidencerdquo that John 858 is rendered correctly in the popular versions But a closer analysis of this verse shows notable differences between the two verses making such comparison untenable With good reason a considerable number ofscholars have chosen to break from tradition in their rendering of John 858

If critics of alternate readings of John 858 are not candid enough to admit some of the very issues mentioned here and hide the fact that many scholars do hold a different interpretation and no less academic at that should we consider their diatribes of any worthy import It is ldquowishful thinkingrdquo for someone to believe that John 858 is directly connected to Exodus 314 rather than any real evidence (which is lacking) confirming their eager interpretations Remember even Dr James White a well known Trinitarian advocate admitted ldquothat an immediate and unqualified jump from the ego eimi of John 858 to Exodus 314 is unwiserdquo

Besides a theological tendency can be seen when they focus as some do on undermining the reputation of one Bible translation (NWT) when there are actually numerous versions from different religions dealing with the same controversial Scriptures in a similar manner This is very much like politicians who ignore the failings of their own party but are quick to lsquodemonizersquo their opponents (Matthew 73)

Is the Kingdom Interlinear ldquoproofrdquo the NWT is wrong at John 858

A criticism has been made of a Watchtower Society publication (The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures ldquoKITrdquo) which contains the Greek text and underneath it a word-by-word translation in English and on the right side of the page the modern New World Translation Well at John 858 this publication renders the Greek phrase being discussed here egō eimi word-for-word as ldquoI amrdquo and in the right column the NWT shows the reading ldquoI have beenrdquo This difference have led some to severely criticize the NW translators of ldquoincompetencerdquo ldquoinconsistencyrdquo and even of ldquodishonestyrdquo The critics say something like this ldquoThey have backed themselves into a corner where they cant escape their mishandling of the Greek textrdquo or something of that sort Amazingly these critics in their condemnations hardly ever mention the dozens of translators who translate the same way or similarly to the NWT as the submitted list shows So much for honesty

Those who engage in such tactics are not being forthcoming Why say that Besides dismissing how other translators deal with John 858 they also distort known facts for the WT Society have made it clear that the publication of this Greek Bible is to help the Bible student determine the basic sense of the Greek and have stated that the translation on the right column (the NWT) is a modern way of expressing the thoughts transmitted by the Greek text There are many factors to consider when using such publications

Even other interlinear publications warn of seeming discrepancies For instance The Zondervan Parallel New Testament in Greek and English says in its Foreword ldquo[I]t is a good thing to bear in mind that you cannot always either give an English equivalent for a Greek word or expression or even always render the same Greek verb word by the same

English onerdquo Another interlinear the New Greek-English Interlinear New Testament by Brown and Comfort and edited by J D Douglas explains ldquoIt is difficult to translate one language into another on a word-for-word basis because each language has its own syntax grammatical constructions and idioms that are difficultmdashif not impossiblemdashto replicate literally in another languagerdquo (Emphasis added) This statement is so true of the text in discussion (John 858) in regards to its syntax and particular idiom Often critics of the NWT hide this fact Why Is it religious bias at work

I will give the reader a few examples of an available interlinear translation which has the Greek main text and a literal sublinear translation below the Greek by Professor Paul R McReynolds and on the right column for comparison the reader can study the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) a popular translation in academia Observe how the two can differ

McReynolds Mat 21 ldquomagiciansrdquo NRSV ldquowise menrdquo John 118 ldquoonly born Godrdquo ldquoGod the only Sonrdquo Mat 243 ldquosign of the your presencerdquo ldquothe sign of your comingrdquo Mathew 522 ldquothe gehenna of the firerdquo ldquothe hell of firerdquo John 1319 ldquoI amrdquo ldquoI am herdquo John 149 ldquoI amrdquo ldquoHave I beenrdquo John 1527 ldquoyou arerdquo ldquoyou have beenrdquo 2 Peter 24 ldquobeing sent to Tartarusrdquo ldquobut cast them into hellrdquo Luke 1113 ldquowill give spirit holy tordquo ldquowillgive the Holy Spirit tordquo John 2022 ldquotake spirit holyrdquo ldquoReceive the Holy Spiritrdquo Acts 24 ldquofilled all of spirit holyrdquo ldquofilled with the Holy Spiritrdquo

( Paul R McReynolds is professor of Greek and New Testament at Pacific Christian College in Fullerton California USA He also contributed to the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia)

Some of the readings from the right column above (NRSV) are acceptable others are not See if you can detect in the right column above those translation renderings with a theological tendency that deviate from the literal readings from the left column McReynoldson the left does an excellent job of transmitting the Greek sense Even the most popular Bible versions do not adhere consistently to the base texts The NRSV and a host of other Bible versions add their own religious interpretation throughout Scripture just as much as the NWT if not more but hardly anyone complains of this transformation of Scriptures eventhough it leads to error Why Simply because the NRSV represents more of a ldquomajorityrdquo view than the NWT does But in truth majority or minority views do not correspond equallyto ldquoaccuraterdquo or ldquoinaccuraterdquo results

In the text discussed the KIT can appropriately show the basic sense rendering of ldquoI amrdquo for the Greek ldquoegō eimirdquo in the left column and alternately show the reading ldquoI have beenrdquo in the right column as a contemporary way of expressing in English the particular Greek clause with its ldquoidiomrdquo in John 858 as explained throughout this article a rendering which has

scholarship support When the Greek ldquoegō eimirdquo appears in an idiom-less structure it can rightfully be translated as ldquoI amrdquo as most versions do including the NWT Hence there is no contradiction between the two translations

Dr McKay argues that Jesus response in John 858 ldquowould be most naturally translated lsquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrsquo if it were not for the obsession with the simple words lsquoI amrsquo rdquo (Kenneth L McKay ldquolsquoI amrsquo in Johns Gospelrdquo Expository Times 1996 p 302) I take the author as saying that ldquoI have been in existencerdquo for ldquoeimirdquo is a better translation than ldquoI amrdquo but the [religious] obsession for the simple words ldquoI amrdquo in their quest to elevate Christ to Gods level does not allow people to see that The thing is that Christ lsquoalways pleased the Fatherrsquo and was fully satisfied with being lsquolesserrsquo than him (John 829 1029 1428 177813) Why not accept him as he is

Hence it is poor scholarship to forward the idea that an entity must be God Almighty himselfby the sole fact of using a divine sounding phrase when other Bible individuals are found using the same expression in Scripture The ldquocontextrdquo is the determining factor Not only must we take into account the context surrounding a chapter or book of the Bible but also what the whole Bible teaches on a given person or subject

What does the Bible teach about Jesus

That Christ ldquowas in the beginning with Godrdquo (John 12) At the announcement of his birth on earth the angel Gabriel told Mary that she will give birth to someone ldquogreatrdquo and ldquoholyrdquo and that one will be called ldquoSon of the Most Highrdquo and ldquoSon of Godrdquo (Luke 132 35) Trinitarians may claim that ldquoSon of Godrdquo is equivalent in meaning to ldquoGodrdquo It is a claim with no foundation If there was any truth to the claim then the ldquoHoly Spiritrdquo would also be called Son of God But no The fact is that other living creatures are called ldquosons of Godrdquo (Job 21) Never is ldquoGodrdquo or ldquoholy spiritrdquo ever called ldquoSon of Godrdquo in Scripture Only Jesus Christ is called ldquothe Son of Godrdquo with the article Why

By Christ lsquobecoming obedient [to God] until deathrsquo during the course of his earthly life lsquoGod highly exalted Him and graciously gave him a name which is above every other name that at the name of Jesus every knee should bendto the credit of God the Fatherrsquo (Hebrews58 Philippians 28-11 21st Century New Testament)

ldquo[Christ] has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God with angels authorities and powers made subject to himrdquo (1 Peter 322 NRSV) Still in heaven Christ receives knowledge information revelation from God and transmits it to other creatures (Revelation11) Though the glorified Christ is described as ldquoKing of kingsrdquo and ldquoLord of lordsrdquo he is specifically called ldquoThe Word of Godrdquo (Revelation 191316 NRSV) The night before his death he ldquoprayedrdquo to his Father and called him ldquothe only true Godrdquo and made this petition ldquoFather glorify me in your own presence [Greek beside yourself] with the glory that I hadin your presence [Greek beside you] before the world existedrdquo (John 175 NRSV) (ldquoalongside yourselfrdquo ST Byington) Again God never has to ldquoprayrdquo to anyone Ever

Well then if Jesus Christ expressed this one final ldquowishrdquo in prayer to be ldquoin the presence ofrdquoldquobesiderdquo ldquoalongsiderdquo his Father which he himself called ldquothe only true Godrdquo why should we for the sake of tradition insist with the belief that Jesus ldquomustrdquo somehow be that ldquotruerdquo God the One sitting at the center of Gods throne instead of ldquobesiderdquo God (Mark 1619) Christ did not ask to sit at Gods throne Christ was fully content with the premise of being alongside God And that is what actually happened Mark tells us ldquoSo then the Lord Jesus after he had spoken to them was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of Godrdquo (Mark 1619 NRSV Note Some ancient manuscripts omit this verse) The NIV Study Bible notes the significance of lsquositting at the right hand of Godrsquo ldquoA position of authority second only to Godsrdquo Being in ldquoa position of authority second only to Godsrdquo is something no one should ever say of God for he is always ldquosupremerdquo At no time does God relinquishes his supremacy Someone who holds a position of authority second to God cannot be identical to God Take note too that in this account of Mark chapter 16 or the oneat John chapter 17 there is no mention of a third party of a ldquoGodheadrdquo No ldquoHoly Spiritrdquo is in sight The fact is that the glorified Christ in heaven continues to call his Father ldquomy Godrdquo(Revelation 312)

As ldquoSon of Godrdquo and always lesser and subject to God it is illogical to think Christ would purposely usurp titles and rights that only belonged to lsquohis God and Fatherrsquo (John 1428 Matthew 2023 John 2017 Acts 17) Jesus Christ taught others to only worship the Father God (Matthew 410 John 42324) ldquoAnd we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the worldrdquo (1 John 414) If so the thought that Christ would usethe words ldquoI amrdquo as a title to identify himself as ldquothe true Godrdquo is incongruous Jesus made it clear that he would only seek the glory ldquothat comes from the one who alone is Godrdquo (John850 54 544)

In this Satan controlled world it is not that difficult to get entangled with human taught intricate philosophies which obscure the simple Christian doctrine (John 1231 2 Cor 44) Hence the need for caution at the time of defending popular traditional views which clash with the monotheistic approach of Bible writers

Consequently those who teach that Christ is Almighty God find themselves in conflict with the Scriptural record The submitted list of alternate readings of John 858 shows that there are a considerable number of scholars who not only understand the subject correctly but alsokeenly grasp that whatever Jesus said on the matter has to harmonize with both the context of John chapter 8 and the rest of the Scriptures as well

What is the correct translation of John 858

Is it ldquoI amrdquo ldquoI wasrdquo ldquoI am herdquo or ldquoI have beenrdquo After analyzing the Greek phrase ldquoegō eimirdquo the context and the various possible ways the expression can be translated in English I think it is best to render the Greek with an English present perfect Adding a smallelement such as ldquosincerdquo to the statement as McKay does below satisfies all contextual and grammatical requirements of the passage Doing so does not qualify as ldquointerpolationrdquo

A second choice a simple past tense can perhaps be used in translation where the context allows since it is grammatically correct but it is generally used of activity confined to the past so the message may be distorted Unless that is the simple past is interpreted as ldquoimperfectiverdquo with current relevance How so In support of Jesus deity many frequently cite John11 There in the text a simple past tense ldquowasrdquo is applied to ldquothe Wordrdquo three times in English versions Does that mean ldquothe Wordrdquo is no more or that it was permanentlycut-off from existence at some point Of course not The context of the whole gospel of John shows that Christ is fully pertinent in Christian lives

Scholars choosing a past tense for ldquoeimirdquo (ie ldquoI wasrdquo ldquoI existedrdquo etc) at John 858 may also have in mind what John the Baptist said as a precursor of Jesus Christ ldquoA man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was [ldquoexistedrdquo JB] before merdquo Surely John the Baptist did not mean that Jesus existence was done away with His own words show thatJesus life was very much relevant and would continue to be so Translators have no issue whatsoever in applying a past tense (ldquowasrdquo ldquoexistedrdquo) at John 11 and 130 in their English versions So why would they at John 858 Perhaps because it would mean that they wouldhave to do away with the premise of a ldquodivine titlerdquo in their argumentation of which is claimed clinches Jesus identity with Gods own As shown above Revelation 211 a presentverb a form of ldquoeimirdquo is rendered by some versions with a past tense ldquowasrdquo Obviously Bible translators have no problem in translating some present tense verbs with past tenses or with present perfects But most object to it at John 858 likely for theological reasons

As stated in the beginning of this essay the English ldquopresentrdquo and the Greek ldquopresentrdquo in certain contexts do not correspond exactly in meaning because in Greek ldquotimerdquo is a secondary factor That being the case the choice of English tense does not have to match theGreek conjugation per se to be faithful to the Sacred Text When one considers the specific idiom found in John 858 and the semantic implications of both the Greek and English ldquopresentrdquo one can see that the rendering ldquoI amrdquo though popular does not nearly represent the best translation possible in the English language ldquoContextrdquo often plays a more importantrole in determining the correct translation Overall though it is best to render the Greek expression with an English present perfect since it conveys clearly a more present relevancythan a past tense would

That said John 858 is a good example where a Greek transliteration may not be the best choice to communicate the right message effectively in our times The translation of ldquoI amrdquo has its place in extreme English literal translations which show the basic sense of the Greek such as those Interlinear translations mentioned above Also it can rightfully be used in many Scriptures where the context calls for it as when the sentence structure lacks the Greekldquoidiomrdquo discussed throughout this writing as might be the case with most occurrences of ldquoeimirdquo

Here listed in my opinion are the translations which come closest to the Greek thought presented by the particular ldquoidiomrdquo found in John 858 Dr Kenneth L McKay comes up with the correct translation

1 ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo - Kenneth L McKay A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek (SBG 5 New York Peter Lang 1994) p42

(Kenneth L McKay graduated with honours in Classics (with an interest in the Greek of theNT) from the Universities of Sydney and Cambridge He has taught Greek in universities and theological colleges in Nigeria New Zealand and England Mr McKay retired from the Australian National University in 1987 after teaching there for 26 years)

Other translations below come close to McKays rendering and are thus favored over the traditional rendering which is widely misunderstood

2 ldquoI have existed before Abraham was bornrdquo - A New Translation by James [ Moffatt - DD DLitt Glasgow Oxford 3 ldquoBefore Abraham came into existence I have beenrdquo - New World Translation 4 ldquoBefore Abraham came into being I have existedrdquo - The Documents of the [New Testament G W Wade London 5 ldquoFrom before Abraham was I have been rdquo - The New Testament by George [ R -Noyes DD Boston USA6 ldquoBefore Abraham was born I have already been rdquo - The Unvarnished New [Testament Andy Gaus Boston7 ldquoI existed even before Abraham was bornrdquo - The concise Gospel and the Acts [Logos International Christopher J ed Christianson Plainfield NJ8 ldquoI already was before Abraham was bornrdquo ndash Worldwide English New Testament [ Derby UK ________________________________

COMMENTS

Also compare the following translations

Nytt liv (1907 Norwegian)A Biacuteblia Viva (1981 Portuguese)O Novo Testamento Vivo (1974 Portuguese)Le Livre Nouveau Testament (1980 eacuteditions Farel French)Η Καινή Διαθήκη των Τεσσάρων Καθηγητών (ΚΔΤΚ Greek) (The New Testament of the Four Teachers The translation was made and approved (1921981) by the Holy Summit Church of Greece The English title of the project is The New Testament in Modern Greek Athens Greece) Η Αγία Γραφή Παλαιά και Καινή Διαθήκη (ΝΔΜ Greek) Ελληνική Βιβλική Εταιρία Αθήνα [Athens] 1997 (The Bible Old and New Testament Greek Biblical Company - London 1997) ΚΔΛΖ ΛΧ (Other Greek Versions expressing the same idea as translations on the list)___________________

ldquoI was rdquo Note on 1987 translation from Italian main list l Vangelio di Giovanni (El Evangelio de Juan [ldquoThe Gospel of Johnrdquo] with imprimatur) by J Mateos and J Barreto noted on John 858 (as translated by Teodora Tosatti p 387 Cittadela Editrice 1982) that the temporal relationship expressed by the Greek ldquoprin eimi [BeforeI am]rdquo can be translated into Italian ldquoprimaero [BeforeI was]rdquo (Translation from Italian to English mine)__________________

Comment on 1993 ΟІ ΧΡΙΣΤΙΑΝΙΚΕΣ ΓΡΑΦΕΣ Απόδοση από τη Μειάφράση Νέου Κόσμου which is a modern Greek translation of the New World Translation of the ChristianScriptures Unlike most Bible Versions which are published in only one language or a few atmost the NWT is available in dozens of languages based mainly on their English translationbut obviously taking into account other factors in the process such as the original Bible text the peculiarities of their recipient local languages and their targeted audiences in their respective countries

It is obvious though that other NWT translation editions closely followed the English text of the NWT and at the same time their translation teams had enough latitude to offer their own unique renderings at times expressing in their native languages what they see in in the Inspired Text Having said that it is interesting to see how they approached their translation of John 858 from their English translation back into [modern] Greek

The translation team was acutely aware of the basic sense of ldquoegō eimirdquo as ldquoI amrdquo and how those simple words are misconstrued by religionists to say something more than Jesus intended Taking into account the syntax of John 858 as stated throughout this document the translation team who worked on the modern Greek version faced a few options

First they had the option to go back to ldquoegō eimirdquo using the modern Greek equivalent ldquoΕγώ ειμαιrdquo (I am) as it reads in the Vamvas version which they did not Or they could haveexpressed their NWT English choice of ldquoI have beenrdquo with their modern Greek equivalent of ldquoέχο υπάρξει [I have existed]rdquo Thirdly they could have gone with ldquoI wasrdquo (ldquoεγώ ήμουνrdquo) as some of their French and Italian Bible editions have done in the past or even with ldquo[εγώ] υπήρξα [I existed])rdquo Or they could have provided some other unique rendering It is obvious they wanted to stick closely to the Greek text but given the common misconceptionssurrounding ldquoegō eimai (I am)rdquo in mainstream churches the translation team chose to use ldquoεγώ υπάρχωrdquo (a present indicative form in the Greek) which means basically ldquoI existrdquo but in the presence of an expression of past time in John 858 the sense is ldquoI have existedrdquo Thus ldquoBefore Abraham came into existence I have existedrdquo ( The verb είμαι [ldquoto berdquo] in modern Greek has no forms for the perfect tense It borrows the forms from the verb υπάρχω [ldquoI existrdquo] The Greek and English ldquoperfectsrdquo are not exact equivalents either)

The reader is reminded here as noted earlier that modern Greek keeps up with the Koineacute Greek ldquopresentrdquo idiom A modern Greek grammar Greek A Comprehensive Grammar explains ldquoThe present tense is also used in constructions where English would use the perfect continuous ie where the verb expresses a continuous state or habitual event that

has lasted since a certain point in the past and is continuing up to (and including) the presentrdquo The authors provide two examples where a present verb is used with a past time indicator and where they translate using an English perfect as explained ldquoI have been living[Μένω] in this house for three years nowrdquo And ldquoI have been reading [Διαβάζω] this newspaper since 1984rdquo (Greek A Comprehensive Grammar by David Holton Peter Mackridge amp Irene Philippaki-Warburton Revised by Vassilios Spyropoulos p 294 Second edition 2012)

Ten years after the NWT-Greek Edition was released another modern Greek translation was published with the following rendering at John 858 ldquoΣας βεβαιώνω πως πριν να γεννηθεί οΑβραάμ εγώ υπάρχωrdquo which in English would be ldquoI assure you that I have existed since before Abraham was bornrdquo (Literally ldquoI assure you that before could be born the AbrahamI exist [not ldquoΕγώ ειμαιrdquo]rdquo The Holy Bible in Todays Greek Version 2003 Greek Bible Society Interestingly the original English version of 1976 had ldquoI Amrdquo) Also a Spanish Bible conveys a similar thought ldquoYo existo desde antes que existiera Abrahamrdquo [Translation ldquo I exist since before Abraham existedrdquo] (La Biblia - Versioacuten Popular 2nd edition Sociedades Biacuteblicas Unidas 1983)

_________________________________________________________

The Clear Word The translators quoted in this article represent various religious faiths some are Catholic some are Protestant Others are Unitarians Jehovahs Witnesses Jewish Adventists etc and they represent countries the world over One of these translators is a Seventh-Day Adventist who worked on The Clear Word Jack J Blanco ThD As a Seventh-Day Adventist who supports the Trinity doctrine Blanco translated verses to make Jesus ldquoequalrdquo to God in every way

He renders John 11 ldquoHe is the Word of God and is equal with Godrdquo He shows Jesus at Philippians 25-7 as ldquoequal with Godrdquo and describes him as lsquoacting the part of a servantrsquo At John 1428 he completely omits the reference that lsquothe Father is greaterrsquo than Christ But here at John 858 in answer to the question the priests and leaders asked concerning Abraham lsquoseeingrsquo his day Jesus answered according to Dr Blanco ldquoBecause I existed before Abraham was even bornrdquo Thus Dr Blanco makes no connection as others do that Christ is the ldquoI amrdquo of Exodus 314 which according to some would indicate that Jesus is the Jehovah of the Old Testament What he sees in this account is that Jesus already lsquoexisted before Abraham didrsquo and thus Abraham was able to lsquoseersquo his day (John 856) To this we must add another likely element included in Jesus response to the Jews as wellone of simple identification as ldquothe Christ [Messiah]rdquo and ldquoSon of manrdquo Why is it then that manywho support the Trinity doctrine find it hard to understand Jesus statement correctly at John 858 Could it be that they are letting non-Scriptural influence and perhaps the weight of themajority view dictate their understanding of this Scripture

For a consideration of other subjects by the same author check below

For a discussion of Acts 286 Whose blood

httpwwwscribdcomdoc231244155Acts-20-28-Whose-blood

For a discussion of Colossians 116 (ldquoall other thingsrdquo) see

httpwwwscribdcomdoc205841269Colossians-1-16-Is-the-expression-all-other-things-a-proper-rendition

For a consideration on the subject of the Trinity click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc160286056Does-the-Trinity-ever-make-sense

For a full consideration of John 11 click the following link httpwwwscribdcomdoc34916458The-correct-translation-of-John-1-1

For a brief consideration of John 11 with additional citations click here httpwwwscribdcomdoc50330864John-1-1-List-of-Alternate-Readings

Did the NW translators know any Greek click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc48234022Did-the-New-World-Translation-Committee-Know-Greek

For a consideration of John 173 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc57772552John-17-3-E28098Taking-in-knowledge-of-E28099-God-and-Jesus

For a consideration of 1 Timothy 316 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc76927834Was-God-manifested-in-the-flesh-1-Timothy-3-16

For a consideration of Exodus 225 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc38676458Exodus-2-25-And-God-took-notice-Does-God- care-about-us

For a consideration of John 114 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc35002730John-1-14-Jesus-full-of-grace

For a consideration of Translation Differences-Questions and Answershttpwwwscribdcomdoc59484457Translation-Differences-Questions-and-Answers

In Spanish

Para una consideracioacuten de otros temas vea los siguientes enlaces

Para una consideracioacuten de Colosenses 116 ldquotodas las otras cosasrdquo vea

httpwwwscribdcomdoc209601066Colosenses-1-16-C2BFEs-la-traduccion-E2809Ctodas-las-otras-cosasE2809D-apropiada

Para una consideracioacuten de ldquoiquestAcaso tiene sentido la Trinidadrdquo

httpwwwscribdcomdoc173779117C2BFAcaso-tiene-sentido-la-Trinidad

Para un consideracioacuten de Juan 11 vea el siguiente enlace

httpwwwscribdcomdoc35899788Traduccion-correcta-de-Juan-1-1-Lista-de- lecturas-alternativas

Para el tema iquestSabiacutean griego los traductores de la TNM vea el siguiente enlace

httpwwwscribdcomdoc51623596C2BFSabia-griego-el-Comite-de-la-Traduccion-del-Nuevo-Mundo

LXX) Or when Jesus says (John 107) ldquoI am (egō eimi) the door to the sheeprdquo Or Peter (Acts 223) ldquoI am (egō eimi) a Jewrdquo In these three instances of ldquoeimirdquo as a connecting verb there is nothing in the words themselves suggesting eternity We also find an angel Gabriel using the same expression that Christ used at John 858 (Luke 119) Even Paul stated εἰμι ὅ εἰμι [eimi ho eimi] = ldquoI am what I amrdquo and by using those words he was by nomeans claiming he was God eternal (1 Corinthians 1510) Hence the use of ldquoeimirdquo of itselfcannot be used as a sound argument to bolster Christs deity

The meaning of ldquoeimirdquo must therefore be defined mainly from Bible context and not from any mysticism attributed to the word And strictly speaking John 858 does not even say whether Jesus is ldquoeternalrdquo or not All it says is that Jesus preceded Abraham in time and his existence extended to the present ldquoI have existed [since] before Abraham was bornrdquo (A New Translation by James Moffatt) The Bible does say that Christ is ldquosuperiorrdquo to angels but ldquosuperiorityrdquo does not demand ldquoeternityrdquo since someone can be ldquosuperiorrdquo to another without having the same age It should be pointed out that angels too existed way before Abraham came to be and still ldquoexistrdquo but nonetheless they were ldquocreatedrdquo by God (Genesis 62 Job 381-7 Psalm 1482 5) And of Christ it is said ldquoHe isthe firstborn of all creationrdquo (Col 115 ESV) Some in their attempt to disconnect Christ from lsquocreaturersquo status twist the meaning of this last statement but Christ himself said ldquoI have life because of him [God]rdquo (John 657 CEV)

Although many Bible commentators explain Gods words at Exodus 314 as the New American Standard Bible rendered it ldquoI AM WHO I AMrdquo other scholars accept another explanation such as the one found in The International Bible Commentary ldquoThe translation lsquoI will be what I will bersquo (cf NIVfn) is also possible and would make even more explicit the suggestion that Gods character would be disclosed as events unfoldedrdquo (FF Bruce GeneralEditor) Another reference work The Expositors Bible Commentary (Abridged Edition) points out the following as well ldquoThe Hebrew seeks the significance character quality and interpretation of the name Therefore what they needed to know was lsquoWhat does that name mean or signify in circumstances such as we are inrsquo rdquo So even when scholars use ldquoI Amrdquo intheir explanations of Exodus 314 others see the phrase as indicative of Gods will toward his people Thus other translators provide an alternate more accurate reading either in the main text or in their footnotes

ldquoI Will Be What I Will Berdquo (Modern Spelling Tyndale-Coverdale) ldquoI Will Become whatsoever I pleaserdquo (Joseph Bryant Rotherham) ldquoI will be what I will berdquo (The Bible in Living English Steven T Byington) ldquoI WILL BE THAT I WILL BErdquo (Leeser Old Testament 1853) ldquoI shall come to be just as I am coming to berdquo (Concordant Literal Version) ldquoI-will-be-what-I-will-berdquo (A New Translation by James Moffatt) ldquoI shall be that I shall berdquo (Julia Smith Translation) ldquoEHYEH ASHER EHYEH I will be-there howsoever I will be-thererdquo (The Five Books [of Moses by Everett Fox)ldquoI SHALL PROVE TO BE WHAT I SHALL PROVE TO BErdquo (NWT)ldquoI Will Become What I Choose to Becomerdquo (NWT 2013)

See also The Anchor Bible (William HC Propp) and the The Stone Tanach (Artscroll Mesorah)

In the Hebrew original the above words pronounced by God Almighty are in the ldquoimperfectrdquostate of the verb which communicate ldquoincompletenessrdquo or ldquofuturerdquo activity Interestingly the Hebrew word ייי( ה ה( ה איא (ehyeh) appears in Exodus 312 just two verses away and there many Bible translations render it unlike what they do in Exodus 314 as future action ldquoI will be with yourdquo reflecting the imperfect state of the verb here indicative of Gods intended involvement with his people (Compare with other occurrences of the word in Joshua 15 Judges 616 1 Samuel 2317 2 Samuel 714 1534 1618 1 Chronicles 1713 Isaiah 477 and Jeremiah 114 where ehyeh is commonly translated as ldquofuturerdquo action) This brings up the question Why do this in Exodus 312 and the other places but not in verse 14

Charles R Gianotti (Dallas Theological Seminary) points out this very thing ldquoSignificantlymost interpreters translate ייי( ה ה( ה איא [ehyeh] in Exodus 312 as future (ie I will be [ehyeh] with yoursquo) Yet two verses later why should not the same translation sufficerdquo Gianotti adds ldquoThe future in this case can indeed refer to future activity or effectiveness of YHWH It should be observed that even Aquila (AD 130) noted for his lsquoslavishly literal translationrsquo translated the tense as futurerdquo Gianotti says that ldquoin light of the imperfect form ייי( ה ה( ה איא [ehyeh] used in Exodus 314rdquo translating ייי( ה ה( ה איא [ ehyeh ] as most English versions do assuming a present tense meaning is ldquo unjustifiedrdquo (ldquoThe Meaning of the Divine Name YHWHrdquo Bibliotheca Sacra 142 January-March 1985) Reflecting a similar understanding the NWT 1984 Reference Edition adds the following footnote ldquoThe reference here is not to Gods self-existence but to what he has in mind to become toward othersrdquo

The Septuagint reading ldquoI am The Beingrdquo at Exodus 314 does not represent the best translation possible from the Hebrew It is odd indeed that many Bible translators choose to follow the Greek Septuagint in verse 14 rather than the original Hebrew Text Trinitarian advocate James R White PhD (from Alpha amp Omega Ministries) noted ldquoIt is true that many go directly to Exodus 314 for the background but it is felt that unless one first establishes the connection with the direct quotation of ego eimi in the Septuagint the connection with Exodus 314 will be somewhat tenuousrdquo

Could it be then that modern translators want to advance ehyeh as a title or name ldquoI Amrdquo to express self-existence and hence make the connection to the ldquoI Amrdquo of Jesus in John 858 as it appears in traditional versions If so such translators could be guilty of asserting the Trinity doctrine on their readers Although James White sees a connection between John 858 and the ldquoI am [he]rdquo sayings in Isaiah he has this to say of the supposed connection between John 858 and Exodus 314 ldquoIt could fairly be admitted that an immediate and unqualified jump from the ego eimi of John 858 to Exodus 314 is unwiserdquo (ldquoPurpose and Meaning of lsquoEgo Eimirsquo in the Gospel of John In Reference to the Deity of Christrdquo)

Likewise Edwin D Freed Professor Emeritus of Religion Gettysburg College contends that ldquothe meaning of the sentence [at John 858] in the mind of the writer was ldquoBefore

Abraham was I the Christ the Son of God existedrdquo (ldquoWho or what was before Abraham inJohn 858rdquo Journal for the Study of the New Testament 17 1983 52-59) Professor Freed thus sees no connection of Jesus statement in John 858 with that of Jehovah (Yahweh) at Exodus 314 But what about the ldquoI amrdquo sayings appearing in the books of Isaiah and John Are they not connected somehow

Is rsquoani-hursquo in Isaiah parallel to egō eimi in John

At times there are biblical statements made where both God and Christ use similar languageThis is not surprising when one considers the role Christ plays in Gods purpose The Bible tells us that Christ is ldquothe image of the invisible God the firstborn of all creationrdquo (NASB) ldquothe radiance of Gods glory and the exact representation of his beingrdquo (Colossians 115 Hebrews 13) ldquoAnd God has put all things under the authority of Christ and he gave him this authority for the benefit of the churchrdquo (Ephesians 122 NLT) Anyone seeking salvation must therefore put faith in lsquothe name which was given by God to mankindrsquo ldquoJesus Christrdquo ldquoto the glory of God the Fatherrdquo ldquoWhoever believes in the Son has eternal life but whoever rejects the Son will not see life for Godrsquos wrath remains on themrdquo (John 336 Philippians 21011) In all God still is in control and just as lsquoChristians belong to Christrsquo ldquoChrist belongs to Godrdquo says the Word (1 Corinthians 113 323 NASB)

In the Old Testament God appears on several occasions using the Hebrew phrase א( הוא נני־ אא (rsquoani-hursquo) which literally means ldquoI ndash herdquo but sometimes translated ldquoI amrdquo or ldquoI am herdquo (Isaiah 414 428 4310 13 464 4812 526) It also appears in Deuteronomy 3239 David a human also used that expression in 1 Chronicles 2117 (Hebrew הוא )ה נני־ אא (ani-huacute- ldquoI am herdquo) Septuagint ἐγώ εἰμι (ldquoegō eimirdquo) Although many argue that there is a connection between Christs statements in the NT and those of God in the OT there is no certainty of those interpretations Even if there was some connection in the ldquoI amrdquo statements would that prove that the identity of the speaker is the same in each case Not really

In the Bible when God made some men powerful and blessed them with his spirit in a sensethey became like ldquoa godrdquo since they ldquorepresentedrdquo God (Exodus 71 Psalms 8216 John 1033-36) Having others referred to in similar language to that of God is no conclusive proofof ldquoequalityrdquo with God An example of this can be seen when a ldquomanrdquo (perhaps Solomon) became ldquokingrdquo of Israel was addressed literally in divine terms ldquoYour throne God forever and everrdquo (Psalm 456) Obviously this human king was not the One True God Not surprisingly some Bible translators work around this literal reading and make it read where it says something like ldquoYour throne is like Gods thronerdquo (Jewish Publication Society) OrldquoYour divine throne endures for ever and everrdquo (Revised Standard Version) Or ldquoYour throne is from Godrdquo (New Jerusalem Bible) Or ldquoGod has enthroned you for all eternityrdquo (Revised English Bible)

Even when translators render the passage literally they explain it in such a way that makes it clear that Solomon was not God For instance the NIV of 2011 has this footnote ldquoHere the king is addressed as Godrsquos representativerdquo Nonetheless when such reference is made of

Jesus Christ (as in Hebrews 18) the same translators may now insist those similar words areldquoproofrdquo of Christs ldquodeityrdquo A good example of this is found in the NET Bibles footnotes Although Jesus accepted being ldquoone greater than Solomonrdquo he never claimed to be God the Father (Matthew 1242) Significantly to Jesus ldquoGodrdquo was someone else

In the Bible is not rare to read frequent references and comparisons of faithful men with Jesus Christ ndash Abraham Jacob Moses David Solomon Jonas and John the Baptist (John 853 412 Deuteronomy 1815 Hebrews 33 Psalm 1101 Matthew 927 2245 124142 Mark 17 Luke 117 72628) Whats more Jesus is compared to ldquoangelsrdquo (Hebrews 14513) Should we take this to mean that men and angels are somehow identical to Jesus Christ True some of these references show that Jesus Christ is above them But we should take the superiority of Christ over them in the same way that we rightly accept Jesus own words indicative of his relative position to the Father ldquoThe Father is greater than Irdquo (John 1428 2031)

Accordingly the ldquoI amrdquo or ldquoI am herdquo expressions pronounced by God and Jesus Christ found in both the Old and New Testaments must be understood within their proper context From the beginning of mans history God provided a way for mankinds deliverance Jesus was prophetically the center of this magnificent expectation For eons of time mankind waited for the One (Messiah) who would deliver them from bondage Nevertheless when hedid appear on the earthly scene most people ignored and rejected the real Messiah because they were expecting politically speaking a quick deliverance from the Roman yoke

However God had something else in mind ndash deliverance was still ahead It was now the time to call attention to the fact that Christ their (future) ldquosaviorrdquo was in their midst Jesus did his part by words and by action (miracles etc) He called attention to who he really was ldquothe Son of Godrdquo and told others that he was ldquothe Christrdquo (or the ldquoMessiahrdquo) (John 42526 Matthew 1615-17 2663-68) Related to the subject one expression Jesus used on various occasions was this one ldquoI amrdquo or ldquoI am herdquo words understood by those brought up in trinitarian doctrine to attest Jesus equality with God (John 426 620 824 28 858 1319 185-6 8) However the phrase was sometimes used as a simple self-identification like ldquoIt is Irdquo or ldquoI am Jesusrdquo At other times when questioned by doubters Jesus used it to get the point across that lsquohe was the one [and not someone else]rsquo the promised ldquoSaviorrdquo ldquothe Son of manrdquo ldquothe Son of Godrdquo ldquothe Messiahrdquo

At no time did Jesus ever claim he was a ldquoGod-manrdquo or ldquoGod in the fleshrdquo (John 316) Those thoughts are foreign to Scripture Remember that Scripture teaches that lsquoGod was with Jesusrsquo just as we are told that lsquoGod was with Josephrsquo son of Jacob Scripture does not say that Jesus was God made flesh It was lsquothe Wordrsquo the Son of God who was with God in the beginning the One who lsquobecame fleshrsquo not God (Acts 79 1038 John 11 114) Christendom has distorted Scripture to the point that ldquoChristianrdquo followers cannot determine this plain truth A misunderstanding of John 11 and 1 Timothy 316 has greatly contributed to this error Further below you will find links where those verses are considered in detail

It was through Jesus death that God reconciled sinful people to himself Hence the ldquoI amrdquo

or ldquoI am herdquo sayings of Jesus need not be directly linked to those uttered by God before the time of Christ Jesus was sent by God on a saving mission as a representative of God With good reason he declared unambiguously that ldquoherdquo was (and not some other) ldquoGods Sonrdquo the promised ldquoMessiahrdquo The Jesus sayings ldquoI amrdquo or ldquoI am herdquo in some cases would confirm at most that ldquothere is no other name under heaven that has been given to men in which we must be savedrdquo (Acts 4 12) It was lsquoGod who resurrected Jesus from among the deadrsquo and it was God who lsquogave mankind the namersquo that saves people (Acts 410)

Thus the ldquoI amrdquo sayings of the New Testament were certainly pronounced in a different setting than those in the Old Testament Not to be overlooked the One using the ldquoI amrdquo or ldquoI am herdquo expressions in the OT is described unequivocally as lsquoAlmighty Godrsquo lsquothe only True Godrsquo with maximum ldquopowerrdquo and ldquoauthorityrdquo to send a ldquosubordinaterdquo to an extraordinary mission (Daniel 714 John 1316 537) The glorified Christ is never described in the same way as God was in Old Testament times as he always appears throughout the NT subordinated to God Still Christ is ldquothe wayrdquo to the Father and salvation (John 146) We are therefore commanded to recognize his lsquoGod-given authorityrsquo so ldquothat all may honor the Son just as they honor the Fatherrdquo (Matthew 2818 John 2031 523) Jesus is then the ldquomediatorrdquo between God and mankind (1 Timothy 25) A grand privilege that is

What does the context of John 858 indicate

Some Bible readers see Jesus in the context of John chapter 8 not only saying in idiomatic fashion that he lsquowas [already] alive before Abraham was born (SEB)rsquo and still lsquoisrsquo but also that he was identifying himself as ldquothe Son of Manrdquo ldquothe Messiahrdquo This is a reasonable assumption as well One of the Jews questions was ldquoWho do you think you arerdquo (John 853) In John 824 28 1319 Matthew 2754 and Mark 1460-64 the function or position ofChrist as the ldquoSon of Godrdquo ldquoSon of Manrdquo and ldquothe Christrdquo all come through

The statement (or question) Jews made to Jesus prior to verse 58 was ldquoYou are not yet fifty years old and you have seen Abrahamrdquo Logically Jesus answered the question of his age of his long existence and additionally was perhaps asserting his ldquomessiahshiprdquo as well in harmony with the question Jews had posed earlier in verse 53 This may be one reason a fewtranslators render or note John 858 not as ldquoI amrdquo but rather ldquoI am herdquo some to suggest Christ is God while others do so emphasizing his messianic role The second interpretation fits better with Scripture In the list of alternate readings of John 858 below you will find that rendering as well However the key issue in this text is Jesus existence from past to present Unlike other verses in John (82428) where ldquoeimirdquo is used (in the sense of ldquoI am herdquo ie ldquothe Son of Godrdquo ldquothe Messiahrdquo) in verse 58 the matter of ldquoidentityrdquo is secondaryto the key issue of his existence In the sum of things it should be noted that ldquoindefiniterdquo existence is not equal to ldquoeternalrdquo existence

Within the context of chapter eight (8) of John Jesus makes statements which mark clear differences with his Father God When reading over the next few paragraphs keep in mind that the Bible condemns two-faced personalities and speaking out with a forked tongue

Jesus himself spoke out against hypocrisy so he only spoke ldquotruthrdquo

In John 826 Jesus told the Jews that he was ldquosentrdquo by his Father and that lsquohe speaks the things that he hears from the one who sent himrsquo That lsquohe does nothing on his own initiativersquo (NASB) That lsquohe isrsquo ldquothe Son of Manrdquo and lsquospeaks just what the Father taught himrsquo (V 28)

Jesus stated a simple but significant truth ldquoNo servant is greater than his master nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent himrdquo (John 1316) With this principle in mind here are some questions to ponder about How could Jesus be ldquosentrdquo if he himself was ldquoGodrdquo Why was Jesus lsquonot able to do anything on his own initiativersquo if he was ldquoall-mightyrdquo In verse 29 Jesus says that lsquothe One who sent him has not left him alone and that he always did what pleased the Fatherrsquo Why would Jesus Christ say at all lsquoI always do what pleases him who sent mersquo If Jesus was ldquoGodrdquo why would he find it important enoughto mention whether he was left ldquoalonerdquo or not Does God need ldquocompanionshiprdquo as humans do Why would anybody have to ldquoteachrdquo Jesus anything if he was all-knowingrdquo

Also Jesus applied the title ldquoSon of Manrdquo to himself numerous times a term which Jews considered a title of the promised ldquoMessiahrdquo not of ldquoGodrdquo In addition the Bible book of Numbers 2319 tells us that ldquoGod is not a man that he should lie ldquonor a son of man that he should change his mindrdquo Nonetheless Christ precisely adopted this very same expression (ldquoSon of Manrdquo) before others with no regrets Furthermore did God have to become ldquoa manrdquo to save humankind when the Bible explicitly says that lsquoGod sent his only-begotten Sonrsquoto save the worldrsquo (John 316 NASB 1 John 414) Who is distorting the full picture here

In verse 40 John reports that the Jews lsquowere determined to kill Jesus because they didnt want to accept the word and truth that Jesus as a man [Greek anthropon] spoke having it received from Godrsquo How could Christ speak of himself as lsquoa man receiving truth from Godrsquowhen seconds later according to Trinitarians he would be using a ldquotitlerdquo claiming to be ldquoGodrdquo in effect contradicting everything he had been saying until then None of these statements would make sense if Jesus himself was the Supreme God as many believe

What would Jesus gain by claiming before the world that he lsquocould not do anything on his own initiativersquo that lsquohe always did what pleased the Fatherrsquo and that he only spoke just what the Father who sent him lsquotaughtrsquo him And shortly afterwards change his message altogether and claim as we are asked to believe that Christ was the ldquoGodrdquo of the Old Testament by the sole act of pronouncing the ldquoI amrdquo divine ldquotitlerdquo Does this lsquodouble personalityrsquo approach make any sense to a Christian who is taught to only believe ldquothere is but one God the Fatherrdquo (John 530 1 Corinthians 86) No wonder there are a good number of Bible translators including Trinitarians who disagree with the traditional view of John 858

Does the Jews reaction in John 859 prove Jesus Christ had claimed to be ldquoGodrdquo

Shortly before his death Jesus was taken before the Sanhedrin the high court of the Jews to

face false charges by people who wanted him dead Please take note of the charges brought up in Marks account (1460-64) which says

60 Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus ldquoAre you not going to answer What is this testimony that these men are bringing against yourdquo 61 But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer Again the high priest asked him ldquoAre you the Messiah the Son of the Blessed Onerdquo 62 ldquoI amrdquo said Jesus ldquoAnd you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heavenrdquo 63 The high priest tore his clothes ldquoWhy do we need any more witnessesrdquo he asked 64 ldquoYou have heard the blasphemy What do you thinkrdquo They all condemned him as worthy of death

In view of the events of Mark 1460-64 and considering the context of John chapter 8 it is clear that the Jews rejected Jesus claim of him being ldquothe Messiahrdquo and of being lsquogreaterrsquo than Abraham They were also rejecting the idea that he was ldquofrom aboverdquo ldquothe Son of Mansitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heavenrdquo of the heavenly vision (John 823) In their view that was enough to charge him with blasphemy since they could not imagine any ldquomanrdquo making such claims

C K Barrett rightly noted that the Jews reaction in verse 59 ldquodoes not mean that Jesus had claimed to be Godrdquo (The Gospel According to St John 2d ed Philadelphia Westminster Press 1978 352) And Professor Emeritus William Loader noted ldquoThe text need mean no more than I am and was in existence before Abraham still a majestic unique claim but not anallusion to the divine namerdquo (The Christology of the Fourth Gospel Structures and Issues Revised 2d ed New York Lang 1992 48)

Even before Jesus spoke the ldquoegō eimirdquo words in John 858 the Jews had already sought to kill Jesus (John 719 837) And for what ldquocrimerdquo This lsquoJesus claimed the truth he taughtcame from Godrsquo (John 716 840) This is vastly different from lsquoJesus alledgedly claiming a divine title equating him with God at John 858rsquo Since then all sorts of religious leaders have claimed as well that ldquowhat they teach others comes from Godrdquo and not from them Does that make them ldquoequalrdquo to God

Because Jesus often lsquocalled God his Fatherrsquo the Jews wrongly concluded that he was ldquomaking himself equal to Godrdquo (John 51819) However Jesus quickly set the matter straight when he called himself Gods ldquoSonrdquo (nine times in chapter 5 alone) an expression never applied to ldquoGodrdquo in Scripture (Matthew 2663-64) The Jews even claimed Jesus was ldquobreaking the Sabbathrdquo and further of being ldquoa Samaritan and demon-possessedrdquo (John 518 848) Were they right Absolutely not Thus wrong perceptions of Jews in Jesus time - like Jesus claiming equality with God - are truly a shaky foundation to base modern interpretations The Jerusalem Bible has this to say ldquoThe claim of Jesus to live on the divine plane (v 58) is for the Jews blasphemy for which the penalty is stoning Lv 2416rdquo I see the JB accepting the claim that Jesus possessed some mode of ldquodivine existencerdquo (as suggested by the Spanish edition of JB ldquoBiblia de Jerusaleacutenrdquo) but avoiding a direct reference of Christ

claiming to be God or that he was claiming ldquoeternalrdquo existence in the verse And former Professor Kenneth L McKay said ldquoThe claim to have been in existence for so long is in itself a staggering one quite enough to provoke the crowds violent reaction [in v59]rdquo (ldquo lsquoI amrsquo in Johns Gospelrdquo p 302) Hence those who claim the charge of blasphemy involved Jesus claim of being ldquoGodrdquo are wrong for Jesus never claimed to be ldquoThe Supreme Beingrdquo but only ldquoGods Sonrdquo (John 31718)

Weeks later after the incident of John chapter 8 but related to the topic of discussion in John 1030-36 we read that the Jews misunderstood Jesus words ldquoI and the father are onerdquo (John 10 30) So they wanted to stone him for it but Jesus told them

33 ldquoWe are not stoning you for any good workrdquo they replied ldquobut for blasphemy because you a mere man claim to be Godrdquo 34 Jesus answered them ldquoIs it not written in your Law lsquoI have said you are ldquogodsrdquorsquo [Psalm 826] 35 If he called them lsquogodsrsquo to whom the word of God camemdashand Scripture cannot be set asidemdash 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said lsquoI am Godrsquos Sonrsquo ( Other versions translate the Greek word here for ldquoGodrdquo without the article either as ldquogodrdquo or ldquoa godrdquo Besson Torrey NWT Mace Luther 1545 Diaglott Tomanek Andy Gaus New English Bible)

Notice that Jesus Christ under duress had another golden opportunity to once and for all disclose publicly that he was ldquoGodrdquo But he did not do so The argument itself that Jesus employed shows that he could legitimately claim lsquodivine originrsquo without being identified as one-and-the-same God with his Father

Less than a year later AFTER the encounter with the Jews of John chapter 8 and before his death Jesus told his closest disciples in his farewell speech that they lsquoshould rejoice he was going away to the Father because the Father was greater than he wasrsquo (John 1428) And in his final prayer in proximity with his disciples he prayed to God that lsquothey may know his Father the only true God and Jesus Christ whom he has sentrsquo (John 173 ) God never needs to pray to anyone Shortly after Jesus died and was resurrected by God but before returning to his Father Jesus said to Mary Magdalene ldquoDo not hold on to me for I have notyet ascended to the Father Go instead to my brothers and tell them lsquoI am ascending to my Father and your Father to my God and your Godrsquo rdquo (John 2017)

Does it make sense to have Jesus claim equality with God by employing a divine title (ldquoI Amrdquo) before unbelieving Jews as Trinitarians claim and then have Jesus later assure his closest and faithful ones that lsquohis Father and his Godrsquo was also lsquothe Father and God of everyone elsersquo In fact Jesus disciples were clearly in a privileged position in regards to Christian teaching Jesus Christ had previously said to his disciples that he would explain lsquoall thingsrsquo to them privately whereas to others he would only speak in lsquoparablesrsquo or lsquocomparisonsrsquo (Matthew 1311 Mark 411 33 34) An explicit lsquodivine titlersquo directed at lsquounbelievingrsquo Jews is certainly no parable and would run counter to his own stated principles

Anyways Jesus Christ wanted other Christian followers to understand the special

relationship he had with the Father ldquoBut go to my followers and tell them this lsquoI am going back to my Father and your Father I am going back to my God and your Godrsquo rdquo (Easy to Read Version) This simple message is so different from the convoluted one commonly expounded by Trinitarians in their philosophical speculations

Between the time of the encounter between the Jews and Jesus in John ch 8 and the farewelldiscourse of our Lord Jesus Christ of later (chapters 14-17) not once did Jesus say he was ldquoGodrdquo Christ never spoke with a forked tongue Therefore Bible translators who do not claim Jesus was using a divine title at John 858 and provide renderings agreeing with the words of John 173 and 2017 are in the correct

Scriptures with similar syntax to John 858

Thus when faced with certain idiomatic expressions as the one found in John 858 the translator often has to ask himself How would someone normally express such statements in our language I will cite six (6) Scriptural examples that are similar in syntax to John 858 Genesis 3138 LXX 1 John 38 Luke 248 John 56 2 Corinthians 1219 and John 1527 All six Scriptures have present tense verbs AND an expression of past time or extent of time with past implications within its structure Lets see how these Scriptures compare with John 858 in our discussion

1st Example (Genesis 3138 LXX) ταῦτά μοι εἴκοσι ἔτη ἐγώ εἰμι μετὰ σοῦ - Greek These mine twenty years I am with you

Jacob after leaving Haran disputes with his father-in-law Laban over missing personal idols which Laban claimed were stolen by Jacob Jacob had no idea Rachel had stolen them In defense Jacob proceeded to mention several things he had done through the years on Labansbehalf ldquoThese twenty years I am with yourdquo (The Apostolic Bible Polyglot LXX 2006)ldquoThese twenty years of mine I was with yourdquo (A New English Translation of the Septuagint ldquoNETSrdquo 2007)ldquoThese twenty years have I been with theerdquo (The Holy Orthodox Bible LXX 2006)ldquoThese twenty years I have been with yourdquo (The Orthodox Study Bible LXX 2008)ldquoThese twenty years of mine have I been with theerdquo (Orthodox England LXX 2009)ldquoI have spent with you twenty of my years [Jai passeacute avec toi vingt de mes anneacutees]rdquo (La Septante [LXX] translated by Pierre Giguet)ldquoThese twenty years have I been with theerdquo (Sir Lancelot CL Brenton LXX)ldquoThese twenty years that I have been with theerdquo (Charles Thomson LXX)

Aside from the interlinear reading of the literal Apostolic Bible Polyglot other translators of the Septuagint (LXX) render a present indicative verb ldquoegō eimirdquo (I am) preceded by an expression of time with past implications (ldquoThese twenty yearsrdquo) with present perfect

indicative forms (ldquoI have beenrdquo) while one translation (NETS) uses a simple past form (ldquoI wasrdquo) A modern Greek translation Η Αγία ΓραφήmdashΜετάφραση Νέου Κόσμου has ldquoήμουνrdquo (Literally ldquoI wasrdquo) in this text A likely reason for that as a modern Greek Grammar pointsout is that for the verb lsquoto be (είμαι)rsquo ldquoThere are only two sets of tense forms in Greek present and past (imperfect)rdquo (op cit An Essential Grammar p 126 Sec 67) Hence they could not have used here a perfect tense form for the verb lsquoto be (eimai)rsquo But in English the Bible Society responsible for the Greek and English translations of the Hebrew portion of the Bible used instead ldquoI have beenrdquo at Genesis 3138 in the English edition because a present perfect is available in the language for the verb

Another interesting tidbit is the fact that the original Hebrew text here lacks a verb in the declaration namely ldquoThis twenty year I with-yourdquo (The Hebrew-English Interlinear ESV Old Testament Crossway) Well how do translators deal with this issue Overall like this with the perfect indicative ldquoI have been with you for twenty years nowrdquo A few versions use the imperfect instead lsquoI wasrsquo such as the Wycliffe Bible and the Lexham English Bible Rarely do translations use a ldquopresentrdquo here the exceptions being Youngs and Concordant literal translations So why do the overwhelming number of translators prefer tosupply a perfect tense here for the missing verb in the Hebrew Its simple There is a temporal indicator going to the past in the text namely lsquoThese twenty yearsrsquo

Now when the LXX translators proceeded to translate the Hebrew words of Genesis 3138 into Greek they cleverly used a well known vivid idiom available in classical Greek where a verb in the present tense is combined with an indicator of past time In this syntax the ldquopast and present are gathered up in a single affirmationrdquo (op cit Brooks amp Winbery) Modern English translators usually resort to the present perfect in this construction as shown aboveSo too John 858 reveals an expression of past time with a present verb in its statement and the NWT is one translation that is consistent with this construction both in Genesis 3138 and John 858

For the following I will use the Wescott and Hort Greek text for reference

2nd Example (1 John 38)

ὅτι ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς ὁ διάβολος ἁμαρτάνει - Greek because from beginning the devil is sinning

The apostle John warns Christians not to carry on sin for those who make a practice of sin originate from the Devil who has sinned from the beginning For this purpose the Son of God was revealed that he might undo the works of the Devil The text above contains an expression of past time (ldquofrom beginningrdquo) with a present verb (is sinning) very much likeJohn 858 How do translators deal with this passage Lets see

ldquofor the devil sinneth from the beginningrdquo (Rheims New Testament)ldquofor the devil sinneth from the beginningrdquo (KJV)

ldquofor the devil has sinned from the beginningrdquo (New King James Version)ldquofor the devil has sinned from the beginningrdquo (NASB)ldquobecause the devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (Interlinear Mounce)ldquofor the Devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (Riverside NT Ballantine)ldquobecause the devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (NIV)ldquobecause the devil has sinned from the beginningrdquo (NAB)ldquosince the devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (Jay E Adams)ldquowho has been sinning since the beginningrdquo (NLT)ldquofor the devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (NRSV)ldquosince the devil has been a sinner from the beginningrdquo (NJB)ldquobecause the devil has been sinning from the very beginningrdquo (J G Anderson)ldquofor the devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (ESV)

ldquothe devil was a sinner from the firstrdquo (Ronald A Knox New Testament)

Some translations transfer the Greek present to their English versions as if the English and Greek ldquopresentrdquo in such construction were the same thing It is not The end result is ungrammatical English Would you say in contemporary English ldquoFrom the beginning of class the boy sleepsrdquo Not Doctor Richard A Young points out ldquoTo say that the devil is sinning from the beginning does not make sense in English English translations therefore employ the present perfectrdquo (Intermediate New Testament Greek page 111)

The renderings above ldquohas sinnedrdquo and ldquohas been sinningrdquo are present perfect and present perfect progressive indicative forms The word ldquowasrdquo is a simple past tense Just as in 1 John 38 some translators in John 858 have rendered a present tense with an expression of past time in its construction with a present perfect ldquoI have beenrdquo

3rd Example (2 Corinthians 1219)

Πάλαι δοκεῖτε ὅτι ὑμῖν ἀπολογούμεθα ndash Greek Long ago you are thinking that to you we are making defense

Paul finds himself having to defend his apostolic authority and vindicating his record as superior in hardship endured for Christ and loving concern for congregations In simpler words Paul was telling them ldquoAll this time have you been thinking that Ive been speaking up for myself No Ive been speaking with God as my witness Ive been speaking like a believer in Christ Dear friends everything I do is to help you become strongerrdquo (NIRV)

In the literal reading above we have an adverb of time with past implications (Palai) followed by two Greek verb forms (ldquodokeiterdquo amp ldquoapologoumethardquo) in the present indicativetense The book Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek Verb by William Watson Goodwin explains ldquoThe Present is often used with expressions denoting past time especially πάλαι [palai] in the sense of a perfect and a present combinedrdquo (Section 26 p 9) How do translators render these in English Some carry over the present tense into the English text producing unconventional English Others cognizant of issues presented here

do a better job at it See below for a sample

ldquoHave you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves before yourdquo (The Comprehensive New Testament 2008)ldquoI hope you donacutet think that all along weacuteve been making our defense before yourdquo (The Message Eugene H Peterson)ldquoHave you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves to yourdquo (NIV)ldquoIt may seem to you that all this time we have been attempting to put ourselves in the rightrdquo (Bible in Basic English)ldquoAll this time you have been thinking that we have been pleading our own cause before yourdquo (NJB)ldquoHave you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves to yourdquo (CEV)ldquoHave you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves before yourdquo (Revised Standard Version) ldquoPerhaps you think that all along we have been trying to defend ourselves before yourdquo (TEV)ldquoHave you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves to yourdquo (ESV)ldquoYou have thought all along that we were defending ourselves to yourdquo (HCSB)ldquoHave you been thinking all this time that we have been defending ourselves to yourdquo (NET Bible)

ldquoYou have been thinking all along that it was to you we were making our defenserdquo (The Bible in Living English Steven T Byington)

The above translations use present perfect (and perfect progressive) forms or past progressives to bring out the proper sense of the original into our language Can anyone rightfully claim that it is improper for these Bible versions to translate this text as they have done in English

4th Example (Luke 248 Wescott and HortNestle early editions Greek text)

ὁ πατήρ σου καὶ ἐγὼ ὀδυνώμενοι ζητοῦμέν σε - Greek The father of you and I being pained we are seeking you Here the context (vv 42-48) speaks of Jesus (12 years old) being left behind unwittingly in Jerusalem by his parents they went back searching in distress for three days before finding him When they finally found him they spoke the words above

ldquoYour father and I have been looking for you anxiouslyrdquo (Revised Standard Version)ldquoYour father and I in agony of mind have been searching for yourdquo (Williams NT)ldquoYour father and I have been anxiously looking for Yourdquo (NASB 1971)ldquoYour father and I have been searching for you in great distressrdquo (Riverside NT)

ldquoHere have your father and I been searching anxiously for yourdquo (Hugh J Schonfield)ldquoYour father and I have been looking for you have been very anxious rdquo (Goodspeed)ldquoYour father and I have been looking for you We have been very troubledrdquo (Bible in Worldwide English)ldquoYour father and I have been looking for you in distressrdquo (Richmond Lattimore)ldquoYour father and I have been searching for you in great distressrdquo (Twentieth Century NT) ldquoThy father and I have sought thee distressedrdquo (Darby Bible Translation)

ldquoThy father and I sought thee sorrowingrdquo (American Standard Version)

ldquoThy father and I in anguish were seeking theerdquo (The Emphasized Bible 3rd edit based on Wescott and Hort by Joseph B Rotherham)ldquoThy father and I were seeking thee sorrowfulrdquo (W B Godbey N T 1902)ldquoThy father and I were seeking Thee sorrowingrdquo (A S Worrell N T 1904)ldquoYour father and I were anxiously looking for yourdquo (World English Bible)

The words ldquowe are seeking yourdquo are in the present indicative tense however since an expression of time is used indicating action going on for days (ldquoafter three daysrdquo v 46) translators find it necessary to use either the present perfect (ldquohave beenrdquo ldquohave soughtrdquo) or simple past (ldquosoughtrdquo) or past progressive (ldquowere seekingrdquo) indicative forms to express in English what the Greek says in the ldquopresentrdquo Various Greek texts have instead of the ldquopresentrdquo found in the Westcott amp Hort Text above an ldquoimperfectrdquo verb form Both forms are frequently rendered with an English present ldquoperfectrdquo Compare with Youngs Literal Translation which also uses a past progressive indicative form ldquowere seekingrdquo and the Spanish Reina-Valera Revisada which rendered an imperfect verb form appearing in the Received Text with a present perfect indicative (ldquohemos buscadordquo) Is this another reason why many translators have rendered the Greek present ldquoegō eimirdquo preceded by an adverbial modifier in its clause at John 858 with perfective or past forms in English

5th Example (Juan 56)

καὶ γνοὺς ὅτι πολὺν ἤδη χρόνον ἔχει - Greek and having known that much already time he is having

This is an account of an invalid man who for 38 years had been sick and was now being cured by Jesus The Greek in this clause does not make his illness clear however the context does Take note of the expression of time used with past implications mixed with a present indicative verb ldquohe is havingrdquo For this to make any sense in our language it has to be modified When Jesus saw this sick man lying there

ldquoand knew that he had been now a long time in that caserdquo (KJV italics theirs) ldquoand knowing that he had been ill a long timerdquo (Revised English Bible)ldquoand knew he had been in that condition for a long timerdquo (NJB)ldquoand knew that he had been sick for a long timerdquo (World English Bible)ldquoand knew that he had been sick for a long timerdquo (Godacutes Word)

ldquoand knew how long he had been illrdquo (Living Bible)ldquoand knew he had already been there a long timerdquo (HCSB)ldquoand he knew that the man had been sick for such a long timerdquo (TEV)ldquoand knew that he had been in this state a long timerdquo (Confraternity Version)ldquoand finding that he had had a long time of itrdquo (S T Byington) ldquoand knew that he had been sick for a long timerdquo (Jay E Adams)ldquoand he knew that he had been waiting for a long timerdquo (George M Lamsa Peshitta) ldquoand knew that he had been now a long timerdquo (Rheims New Testament)

ldquoand knowing that he was [in that state] now a great length of timerdquo (J N Darby Translation Brackets his)

Once again we see translators having to use mostly perfective forms (ldquohad beenrdquo ldquohad hadrdquopast perfects) and one with a simple past ldquowasrdquo even though they are translating a present tense verb ldquohe is havingrdquo This shows that translators adapt their renderings whenever is necessary to convey the right meaning into the target language It is thus possible to render ldquoeimirdquo at John 858 with a form other than a present tense such as a present perfect Those who say that it can not be done or should not be done just need to look again at the evidenceobjectively

6th Example (John 1527 Wescott amp Hort)

ὅτι ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς μετʼ ἐμοῦ ἐστέ ndash Greek that from beginning with me you are

These words spoken by Jesus evidently refers to the beginning of his ministry when he chosehis closest disciples They were eyewitnesses of all the things God did through Christ duringhis ministry (Acts 121)

ldquobecause ye have been with me from the beginningrdquo (KJV) ldquobecause you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (NAB)ldquofor you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (Christian Community Bible)ldquobecause you are the men who have been with me from the very beginningrdquo (Heinz Wldquobecause you have been with me from the firstrdquo (New English Bible) [ Cassirer)ldquobecause you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (Godacutes Word Translation) ldquofor you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (NIV)ldquobecause you have been with me from the firstrdquo (Weymouth New Testament)ldquobecause you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (NRSV)ldquoyou that have been with me from the beginningrdquo (The Four Gospels EV Rieu)ldquobecause youacuteve been with Me from the beginning of My ministryrdquo (The Clear Word)ldquofor you have been with me from the firstrdquo (J B Phillips Modern English)ldquobecause you have been with Me from the beginningrdquo (HCSB) ldquothat you were with me from the startrdquo (21st Century New Testament)ldquofor you were with Me from the beginningrdquo (New Berkeley Version Revised Edition)

ldquobecause you were with me from the beginningrdquo (Mark Heber Miller)ldquobecause you were with me from the very beginningrdquo (SEB)

This scripture with the plural form of ldquoeimirdquo (este) is very similar to John 858 Again within its structure there is an expression of past time and a verb in the present indicative form (este) just as there is in John 858 A Grammar of New Testament Greek says ldquoThe reader may be reminded of one idiom which comes out of the linear idea the use of words like πάλαι [palai ldquolong agordquo] with the present in a sense best expressed by our perfect Thus in 2 Co 1219 lsquohave you been thinking all this timersquo or Jn 1527 lsquoyou have been with me from the beginning [ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς]rsquo hellip The durative present in such cases gathers up past and present time into one phraserdquo (A Grammar of New Testament Greek Vol 1 Prolegomena by JH Moulton p 119) As previously noted this Grammar specifically refers to John 858 as an example of this idiom

And here in John 1527 there is a connection of Jesus disciples [creatures as they are] that ldquowererdquo with him ldquofrom the beginningrdquo Obviously Jesus was making no reference to his disciples sharing ldquoeternityrdquo with him The disciples all had a beginning The logical conclusion is that Jesus was simply saying to them lsquoYou have been with me from the start of my ministryrsquo Hence there is no need to read ldquoeternityrdquo into the expression ldquoI amrdquo anymore that we should read ldquoeternityrdquo from Jesus words at John 1527 lsquoYou are with me from the beginningrsquo Neither grammar nor the context justifies reading more into these Scriptures than what they actually say

In fact the six (6) instances cited above (Genesis 3138 LXX 1 John 38 2 Cor 1219 Luke 248 John 56 John 1527) and John 858 as well all have an expression of past time or an extent of time with past implications (ldquoThese twenty yearsrdquo ldquoLong agordquo ldquoafter three daysrdquo Lk 246 ldquomuch already timerdquo ldquofrom [the] beginningrdquo ldquoBeforerdquo etc) AND present verbs in their sentences or nearby within the context and are commonly rendered with present perfect (some with past perfects) or simple past (or past progressive) forms in English translations If we apply this pattern to the translation of John 858 it would mean that renderings such as ldquoI have beenrdquo (present perfect) and ldquoI wasrdquo (simple past) are not only acceptable in translation but actually more ldquosuitablerdquo in application Can this really be done Not only can it be done it makes for a ldquobetterrdquo English translation

In regards to Jesus John 858 simply tells us that Jesus lsquowas alive before Abraham was bornrsquo (SEB) and that his existence continued up to the moment of his speaking to them Just as it is not proper English to say ldquoFor three days we are seeking yourdquo (Greek literal reading of Luke 248) or ldquobecause from the beginning with me you arerdquo (John 1527) it is no less proper English to say in John 858 ldquoBefore Abraham was born I amrdquo These readings should only appear in extremely literal interlinear translations which basically render the Greek word-by-word and not in standard idiomatic English translations Let me illustrate If a man advanced in age for example had his work history and experience questioned by co-workers in comparison to his younger son and employee Abe would he say in reply ldquoBefore my son Abe was born I am [the one fit for the job]rdquo No that does not sound right In English he could say it in various ways

ldquoI have been an experienced worker since before my son Abe was bornrdquo ldquoI have been what I am since before my son Abe was bornrdquo ldquoI was fit to work and fully active before my son Abe was ever bornrdquo ldquoI was already experienced in many jobs before Abe ever came to berdquo ldquoI have been a master worker way before my son Abe came to liferdquo ldquoBefore Abe was born I already was life and job experiencedrdquo etc

The point is that in English normally we include a present perfect tense whenever there is a reference to the past extending to the present or a past tense of some form whenever we go back in time The same with John 858 There is no justification in English to insist using a present verb form (which is not equal to the Greek present when combined with a past expression) in an unwarranted attempt to convey ldquoeternityrdquo as ldquopaddingrdquo to the Trinity doctrine a doctrine adopted AFTER the Christian era Worse it is disingenuous to accuse other translators (who have chosen to render ldquoegō eimirdquo at John 858 with an English present perfect or past tense) of scholastic dishonesty when the very same translations honored by these detractors do so in other places where the ldquodeityrdquo of Christ is not in play asshown in the samples provided above

An example of this double standard can be seen as well when scholars such as Dr Julius Mantey harshly criticizes the NWT for the rendering ldquoI have beenrdquo at John 858 but keeps quiet when other translators do similarly and even states or pretends that no other reputable translator would ever translate it that way He dared not criticize his former Greek teacher Charles B Williams who produced his own Bible translation Dr Mantey once wrote the following of Dr Williams translation ldquoWilliams translation considering all the factors is the most accurate and illuminating translation in the English languagerdquo And how does this ldquomost accurate translationrdquo render John 858 As follows ldquoI existed before Abraham was bornrdquo Here Dr Williams known for his Greek command used a simple past tense (ldquoI existedrdquo) as translation for the Greek present Julius Mantey certainly did not find Williams version of John 858 a ldquoshocking translationrdquo ldquoI existedrdquo is quite different from the translation Dr Mantey so passionately defended (ldquoI amrdquo)

When Dr Mantey talks about the NWT he says the rendering ldquoI have beenrdquo at John 858 cannot be justified and calls it ldquodishonestrdquo That rule does not apply to Williams translation does it Williams did not translate John 858 in the same way Mantey would have liked (ldquoI amrdquo) Not only that the Grammar itself that Dr Mantey co-authored with Dr Dana A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament states under ldquoThe Progressive Presentrdquo (called ldquoExtension from Pastrdquo by McKay) ldquoSometimes the progressive present is retroactivein its application denoting that which has begun in the past and continues into the present For the want of a better name we may call it the present of duration This use is generally associated with an adverb of time and may best be rendered by the English perfect ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς μετʼ ἐμοῦ ἐστέ Ye have been with me from the beginning Jn 1527 See also Lk137 2 Cor 129 [19]rdquo (Pages 182-83 Emphasis added)

Even though Julius Mantey has stated when referring to the NWT that ldquoI have beenrdquo is not a proper translation and even ldquodishonestrdquo at John 858 he clearly states in his Grammar (of

Scriptures with similar syntax to John 858) ldquoThis use is generally associated with an adverb of time and may best be rendered by the English perfect [such as ldquoI have beenrdquo which in fact is associated with an adverb of time in John 858]rdquo A likely reason for Dana ampManteys strong reluctance for not including John 858 as an example of the idiom discussed on page 183 may have to do with the fact that as ldquotrinitariansrdquo they oppose the idea of Jesus existence having lsquobegunrsquo in the past even though John 858 perfectly fits with the ldquoProgressive Presentrdquo idiom being discussed in their Grammar as acknowledged by other grammarians Hence their objection is truly a ldquotheologicalrdquo one rather than Greek grammaritself arguing in their favor as Mantey and some others have implied since a Greek present or an English perfect does not demand ldquoeternityrdquo at all from the subject

Consequently many religious individuals who focus solely on the basic meaning (of ldquoegō eimirdquo as ldquoI amrdquo) out of the context of the particular ldquoidiomrdquo used at John 858 end up missing the thrust of Jesus words and fall prey to misleading interpretations Doctor Kenneth L McKay taking into account all of these issues comes up with this excellent translation for John 858 ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo (A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek SBG 5 New York Peter Lang 1994 p42) If we objectively consider the material above we will not insist in connecting Jesus at John 858 with the God Jehovah of Exodus 314 (which many attempt to do but cannot be sustained) Instead we will focus on the simple message conveyed by Jesus words at John 858 which is in harmony with the totality of Scripture ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo (McKay) The rendering ldquoI have been in existencerdquo by itself does not rule out either the concept of ldquoeternityrdquo or the ldquocreationrdquo of Jesus Christ A Committee of Bible translators came up with the following translation which may not be the best choice but considering the issues involved is better than the traditional rendering of ldquoI amrdquo ldquoI was alive before Abraham was bornrdquo (The New Testament in Plain English)

(The following scholars are members of the Bible Translation Committee of The New Testament in Plain English which approved this last reading ldquoI was aliverdquo instead of ldquoI amrdquo(Dr Stanley L Morris chairman FW Gingrich Ph D a renown Greek lexicographer Jack P Lewis Ph D CH Accord Th D Clyde M Woods Ph D ST Kan Ph D Gary T Burke Ph D Milo Hadwin D Min)

I submit their names and their credentials here as an example because it is often asserted vigorously that no intelligent or highly qualified scholar would ever produce a translation other than ldquoI amrdquo As noted above and as the list of alternate readings (at the end of this essay) of John 858 shows many done by highly qualified people this is simply not true Usually those making statements of that sort are doing so based on emotional and theological not philological reasons Furthermore by not disclosing other valid viewpoints or by dismissing how other qualified Bible translators deal with this scripture they are undermining their own credibility as well

At this time you are welcome to briefly go over the list of Alternate Readings to John 858 at

the end before moving on to the second part of this essay

_____________________________

Should we ignore the evidence of all those translations listed at the end that differ in John 858 from the traditional versions What then are all these translators seeing at John 858 that moved them to render this text differently They surely must be aware of the resistance they would encounter by translating it by the various forms they used Still they must have had the firm conviction that both the Greek text and the context supports their understanding of this scripture They likely see a Jesus making no identity connection with his Father Godbut rather see a Jesus simply expressing his indefinite existence with no suggestion of eternity in focus Neither is Jesus stating here that he is the God of Old Testament times To understand it that way would be to read into the text more than what it says Taking some clues from the context of the chapter some scholars additionally see Jesus insinuating his ldquomessiahshiprdquo as if saying ldquoI am he [the Messiah]rdquo This is very likely In fact The LivingBible renders John 824 thus ldquoThat is why I said that you will die in your sins for unless you believe that I am the Messiah the Son of God [ἐγώ εἰμι] you will die in your sinsrdquo

Is ldquoegō eimirdquo a title or another name of God

The use of ldquoeimirdquo at John 858 is frequently used as a ldquoproof textrdquo of Jesus deity A noted Trinitarian scholar AT Robertson a Baptist even refers to ldquoegō eimirdquo as ldquothe absolute phrase used of Godrdquo likely indicating the verb conveys ldquotimeless beingrdquo an implication that ldquoeimirdquo here does not require anything else to complete the meaning of the phrase thus conveying ldquoeternal existencerdquo as well as being an actual name for God Some individuals have given plenty of publicity to Robertsons statement as absolute truth But his statement is not ldquotruthrdquo at all It is faulty interpretation which many people have fallen prey to Grammar and theology do not always make the best mix True Robertsons credentials as a scholar are impressive nevertheless credentials does not truth make Besides some other equally bright scholars disagree with him Lets illustrate the folly of those advocating a divine title at John 858 by way of addition (Or substitution if you will) as some suggest

ldquoBefore Abraham was born I am Eternalrdquo ldquoBefore Abraham was born I am Jehovahrdquo ldquoBefore Abraham was born I am eternally Godrdquo

First of all the above hypothetical translations are just as ungrammatical as the simple ldquoI amrdquo reading of most versions An English present tense cannot start before a definite point in the past This can be seen in the following two examples

1 ldquoBefore the US Iraq war I am a soldierrdquo 2 ldquoThree journalists are kidnapped in Nepal since the start of 2007rdquo

What is the correct way to express these statements in English Analyze it for a second and

provide an answer if you will

Notably if ldquoeimirdquo was used to convey eternal existence what is the point of using an expression of past time at all in the clause Moreover the context of previous verses (vv 48-57) clearly indicates that Jesus is speaking of God as a separate entity See below

49 ldquobut I honor my Father and you dishonor merdquo 50 ldquoI am not seeking glory for myself but there is one who seeks it and he is the

judgerdquo54 ldquoIf I glorify myself my glory means nothing My Father whom you claim as your

God is the one who glorifies me 55 ldquoThough you do not know him I know him If I said I did not I would be a liar like you but I do know him and obey his wordrdquo Thus if Jesus meant he himself was the ldquoJehovahrdquo of the Old Testament as Trinitarians claim what would be the rationale behind Jesus directing all distinction and glory to lsquothe Father Godrsquo as a distinct individual as he did in the previous verses and then a few words later abruptly change his argumentation by claiming he is that very same One who lsquoreceives obedience from his own wordrsquo lsquoseeking his own honor and gloryrsquo because he himself is ldquoGodrdquo Confusing is it not To accept this abrupt change of character on Jesus part would be not ldquoa mysteryrdquo but flat out ldquoa deceptionrdquo of big proportions since Jesus himself warned against pretending to be one thing and acting as another (Matthew 62-5 2313-36)

Are we are supposed against all logic to accept these ldquotrinitarianrdquo assumptions instead of a simple alternative which really answers the Jews question about lsquohow could Abraham ldquoseerdquoJesus day if he was not yet 50 years oldrsquo (ldquoI have been in existence since Abraham was bornrdquo)

The obsession with the simple words ldquoI amrdquo have led to many faulty assumptions ldquoI amrdquo issuch a common expression in our language even to this day that words such as ldquoegoismrdquo ldquoegotismrdquo etc (derived from the Greek ldquoegordquo) are considered common words in English dictionaries Everyone uses the phrase ldquoI amrdquo at times Think of any big corporation or powerful organization of your choice for a moment Would you conclude that the two most powerful individuals of this one prestigious organization must be identical in every way solely because they are heard equally saying to others in their common speech ldquoI am thisrdquoor ldquoI am thatrdquo etc

In Bible times humans too used common pronouns The verb eimi (ldquoI amrdquo) itself or forms of it appears more than two thousand times (2000x) in the New Testament alone Additionally the word ldquoegōrdquo appears over seventeen hundred times (1700x) in the NT And those numbers do not include the Septuagint totals Do all occurrences of the word then imply ldquodivinityrdquo in each case Of course not It may be more significant when God or Christ use the expression because of who they are but does it really mean that both God and Christ share the same identity Or that everyone who uses the phrase ldquoI amrdquo does so with divine pretensions Does it really mean that everyone using the phrase are ldquoequalrdquo The

answer is obvious is it not

Lets bear in mind that when God sent Jesus Christ as His representative to a most crucial assignment multiple biblical prophecies were pointing to Christ as the promised Messiah that would free mankind from its moribund condition It is logical then that when the time came for Jesus Christ to show up on earth he would somehow communicate to others that ldquoherdquo and not some other human claiming to be the Messiah was Gods instrument in bringing everlasting relief to human misery Hence he could rightly say any or all of the following ldquoI am (this)rdquo ldquoI am (that)rdquo ldquoI am he [the promised Messiah]rdquo or ldquoI am Gods Sonrdquo Should we expect anything less

The fact is that the words ldquoI amrdquo are not exclusive to God and Christ It should be noted that a man who was born ldquoblindrdquo also used the same expression (John 99) The Greek here says ldquoekeinos elegen hoti Egō eimirdquo (ldquoThat one kept saying that I amrdquo) AT Robertson cites John 99 as one of five parallels to the use of egō eimi in John 858 (Word Pictures in the New Testament Vol V p 159) The phrase here comes at the end of the clause with no explicit predicate James White who upholds the traditional reading admits ldquoThis last instance [John 99] is similar to the sayings as Jesus utters them in that the phrase comes at the end of the clause and looks elsewhere for its predicaterdquo The same could be said of John 1527 Some argue that ldquoeimirdquo in John 858 is ldquoabsoluterdquo but do not do so with John 99 or John 1527 Theology may be a factor in this Previously we saw how Jacob a man according to the Septuagint used the words ldquoegō eimirdquo Other instances in Scripture of creatures using those words would not prove they were part of a ldquoGodheadrdquo Context then ultimately dictates how ldquoeimirdquo should be translated According to John when Jesus was pressed he only claimed to have been alive way before Abraham was born and that he simply was ldquothe Christrdquo ldquothe Son of Manrdquo and ldquothe Son of Godrdquo

There is something else to keep in mind in regards to the meaning of ldquoeimirdquo And it is what grammarian Stanley Porter indicated ldquoSometimes the verb [eimi] is used on its own as a verb of existence Perhaps the best-known example of this is the following John 858rdquo (Fundamentals of New Testament Greek by Stanley E Porter section 753 72) AT Robertson adds ldquoThe verb εἰμί [eimi] hellip Sometimes it does express existence as a predicatelike any other verb as in ἐγὼ εἰμί [egō eimi] (Jo 858) and ἡ θάλασσα οὐκ ἔστιν ἔτι [hē thalassa ouk estin eti = ldquothe sea not is yetrdquo] (Rev 211) Cf Mt 2330rdquo (A Grammar of theGreek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research Nashville Tenn 1934 p 394)

What does this mean The examples mentioned by Robertson in addition to John 858 give us an idea of what this implies It is so strange that the two examples Robertson provided forcomparison with John 858 seems to contradict his ldquotimeless beingrdquo view on ldquoeimirdquo He cited a portion of Revelation 211 where the Greek literally says ldquoAnd the sea not is yetrdquo In other words ldquoThe sea does not exist any morerdquo Amplified Bible ldquoThere no longer existed any seardquo Curiously various versions render the present verb ldquoisrdquo (a form of ldquoeimirdquo) with an imperfect ldquowasrdquo (Cf KJV NIV NAB NRSV) Obviously ldquothe seardquo in this vision is [was] not ldquoeternalrdquo

And in Matthew 2330 the other text provided by Robertson in his comparison with John 858 the Greek word-for-word says ldquoIf we were in the days of the fathers of usrdquo which inmodern English would be ldquoIf we had lived in the days of our forefathersrdquo Other versions ldquoIf we had beenrdquo (Rheims NT) ldquoIf we had been livingrdquo (NASB) ldquoIf we had been existing in the days of our fathersrdquo (Jonathan Mitchell NT) The full NIV text reads ldquoAnd you say lsquoIf we had lived in the days of our ancestors we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophetsrsquo rdquo

It is clear from this comparison that the words of Matthew 2330 ldquoIf we wererdquo (a form of ldquoeimirdquo) in the text is used as an equivalent for ldquoliferdquo or ldquoexistencerdquo In the heavenly vision of Rev 211 lsquothe sea ceased to existrsquo And the generation of people which Jesus spoke about and their ancestors all died ceased to exist If we apply these two examples to John 858 given by Robertson with the meaning either of life or existence for ldquoeimirdquo then it wouldbe equally acceptable to translate ldquoI amrdquo as ldquoI existrdquo or ldquoI liverdquo Many translators reflect this very same understanding as the submitted list of alternate readings of John 858 show ldquoI existrdquo or ldquoI existed even before Abraham was bornrdquo Or ldquoI was alive before Abraham was bornrdquo (The Simple English Bible)

Although some may not see much semantic difference between Jesus saying ldquoI amrdquo or ldquoI existrdquo the two expressions communicate something very different to many readers ldquoI amrdquo is generally associated by Trinitarians as a title used by God or as another name for God Onthe other hand ldquoI existrdquo simply conveys ldquoliferdquo or ldquoexistence Barnabas Lindars points out that ldquoegō eimirdquo in John 858 ldquocannot be regarded as a title because it requires the meaning lsquoI am in existencersquordquo (ldquoThe Son of Man in Johannine Christologyrdquo in Christ and the Spirit in the New Testament In Honour of Charles Francis Digby Moule eds B Lindars and S Smalley Cambridge Cambridge University Press 1973) (Since an English present tense cannot start before a definite point in the past this would mean that we can incorporate Lindars valid observation and translate it into contemporary English like this ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo exactly as Dr McKay proposed)

Some in their eagerness to equate Christ with God accuse translators who render ldquoegō eimirdquo in John 858 with renderings other than ldquoI amrdquo pointing to all occurrences of this expression in the New Testament or in Johns Gospel where allegedly these translators do not follow the same ldquorulerdquo when translating ldquoegō eimirdquo in John 858 as they do elsewhere where they translate it with a present indicative form What they dont tell you or fail to understand is that in John 858 ldquoegō eimirdquo without a predicate AND with an expression of time with past implications in its sentence structure provides an ldquoidiomrdquo which is quite different from those other instances of ldquoeimirdquo Thats right an idiom (where present and past is combined) found equally at home in classical biblical and modern Greek which many translators convey into our language with the English present perfect at various places Consequently one cannot merely go by how the phrase ldquoegō eimirdquo is used elsewhere in the NT without taking into account the fact that John 858 displays an ldquoidiomrdquo in its structure Not doing so would be dishonest John the Baptist had said of Christ in John 130 ldquoA man is coming after me who ranks before me because he existed [Lit was] before merdquo (JB)

John 858 is in harmony with those words Furthermore some attempt to use the reading of Psalm 902 in the Septuagint as ldquoevidencerdquo that John 858 is rendered correctly in the popular versions But a closer analysis of this verse shows notable differences between the two verses making such comparison untenable With good reason a considerable number ofscholars have chosen to break from tradition in their rendering of John 858

If critics of alternate readings of John 858 are not candid enough to admit some of the very issues mentioned here and hide the fact that many scholars do hold a different interpretation and no less academic at that should we consider their diatribes of any worthy import It is ldquowishful thinkingrdquo for someone to believe that John 858 is directly connected to Exodus 314 rather than any real evidence (which is lacking) confirming their eager interpretations Remember even Dr James White a well known Trinitarian advocate admitted ldquothat an immediate and unqualified jump from the ego eimi of John 858 to Exodus 314 is unwiserdquo

Besides a theological tendency can be seen when they focus as some do on undermining the reputation of one Bible translation (NWT) when there are actually numerous versions from different religions dealing with the same controversial Scriptures in a similar manner This is very much like politicians who ignore the failings of their own party but are quick to lsquodemonizersquo their opponents (Matthew 73)

Is the Kingdom Interlinear ldquoproofrdquo the NWT is wrong at John 858

A criticism has been made of a Watchtower Society publication (The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures ldquoKITrdquo) which contains the Greek text and underneath it a word-by-word translation in English and on the right side of the page the modern New World Translation Well at John 858 this publication renders the Greek phrase being discussed here egō eimi word-for-word as ldquoI amrdquo and in the right column the NWT shows the reading ldquoI have beenrdquo This difference have led some to severely criticize the NW translators of ldquoincompetencerdquo ldquoinconsistencyrdquo and even of ldquodishonestyrdquo The critics say something like this ldquoThey have backed themselves into a corner where they cant escape their mishandling of the Greek textrdquo or something of that sort Amazingly these critics in their condemnations hardly ever mention the dozens of translators who translate the same way or similarly to the NWT as the submitted list shows So much for honesty

Those who engage in such tactics are not being forthcoming Why say that Besides dismissing how other translators deal with John 858 they also distort known facts for the WT Society have made it clear that the publication of this Greek Bible is to help the Bible student determine the basic sense of the Greek and have stated that the translation on the right column (the NWT) is a modern way of expressing the thoughts transmitted by the Greek text There are many factors to consider when using such publications

Even other interlinear publications warn of seeming discrepancies For instance The Zondervan Parallel New Testament in Greek and English says in its Foreword ldquo[I]t is a good thing to bear in mind that you cannot always either give an English equivalent for a Greek word or expression or even always render the same Greek verb word by the same

English onerdquo Another interlinear the New Greek-English Interlinear New Testament by Brown and Comfort and edited by J D Douglas explains ldquoIt is difficult to translate one language into another on a word-for-word basis because each language has its own syntax grammatical constructions and idioms that are difficultmdashif not impossiblemdashto replicate literally in another languagerdquo (Emphasis added) This statement is so true of the text in discussion (John 858) in regards to its syntax and particular idiom Often critics of the NWT hide this fact Why Is it religious bias at work

I will give the reader a few examples of an available interlinear translation which has the Greek main text and a literal sublinear translation below the Greek by Professor Paul R McReynolds and on the right column for comparison the reader can study the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) a popular translation in academia Observe how the two can differ

McReynolds Mat 21 ldquomagiciansrdquo NRSV ldquowise menrdquo John 118 ldquoonly born Godrdquo ldquoGod the only Sonrdquo Mat 243 ldquosign of the your presencerdquo ldquothe sign of your comingrdquo Mathew 522 ldquothe gehenna of the firerdquo ldquothe hell of firerdquo John 1319 ldquoI amrdquo ldquoI am herdquo John 149 ldquoI amrdquo ldquoHave I beenrdquo John 1527 ldquoyou arerdquo ldquoyou have beenrdquo 2 Peter 24 ldquobeing sent to Tartarusrdquo ldquobut cast them into hellrdquo Luke 1113 ldquowill give spirit holy tordquo ldquowillgive the Holy Spirit tordquo John 2022 ldquotake spirit holyrdquo ldquoReceive the Holy Spiritrdquo Acts 24 ldquofilled all of spirit holyrdquo ldquofilled with the Holy Spiritrdquo

( Paul R McReynolds is professor of Greek and New Testament at Pacific Christian College in Fullerton California USA He also contributed to the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia)

Some of the readings from the right column above (NRSV) are acceptable others are not See if you can detect in the right column above those translation renderings with a theological tendency that deviate from the literal readings from the left column McReynoldson the left does an excellent job of transmitting the Greek sense Even the most popular Bible versions do not adhere consistently to the base texts The NRSV and a host of other Bible versions add their own religious interpretation throughout Scripture just as much as the NWT if not more but hardly anyone complains of this transformation of Scriptures eventhough it leads to error Why Simply because the NRSV represents more of a ldquomajorityrdquo view than the NWT does But in truth majority or minority views do not correspond equallyto ldquoaccuraterdquo or ldquoinaccuraterdquo results

In the text discussed the KIT can appropriately show the basic sense rendering of ldquoI amrdquo for the Greek ldquoegō eimirdquo in the left column and alternately show the reading ldquoI have beenrdquo in the right column as a contemporary way of expressing in English the particular Greek clause with its ldquoidiomrdquo in John 858 as explained throughout this article a rendering which has

scholarship support When the Greek ldquoegō eimirdquo appears in an idiom-less structure it can rightfully be translated as ldquoI amrdquo as most versions do including the NWT Hence there is no contradiction between the two translations

Dr McKay argues that Jesus response in John 858 ldquowould be most naturally translated lsquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrsquo if it were not for the obsession with the simple words lsquoI amrsquo rdquo (Kenneth L McKay ldquolsquoI amrsquo in Johns Gospelrdquo Expository Times 1996 p 302) I take the author as saying that ldquoI have been in existencerdquo for ldquoeimirdquo is a better translation than ldquoI amrdquo but the [religious] obsession for the simple words ldquoI amrdquo in their quest to elevate Christ to Gods level does not allow people to see that The thing is that Christ lsquoalways pleased the Fatherrsquo and was fully satisfied with being lsquolesserrsquo than him (John 829 1029 1428 177813) Why not accept him as he is

Hence it is poor scholarship to forward the idea that an entity must be God Almighty himselfby the sole fact of using a divine sounding phrase when other Bible individuals are found using the same expression in Scripture The ldquocontextrdquo is the determining factor Not only must we take into account the context surrounding a chapter or book of the Bible but also what the whole Bible teaches on a given person or subject

What does the Bible teach about Jesus

That Christ ldquowas in the beginning with Godrdquo (John 12) At the announcement of his birth on earth the angel Gabriel told Mary that she will give birth to someone ldquogreatrdquo and ldquoholyrdquo and that one will be called ldquoSon of the Most Highrdquo and ldquoSon of Godrdquo (Luke 132 35) Trinitarians may claim that ldquoSon of Godrdquo is equivalent in meaning to ldquoGodrdquo It is a claim with no foundation If there was any truth to the claim then the ldquoHoly Spiritrdquo would also be called Son of God But no The fact is that other living creatures are called ldquosons of Godrdquo (Job 21) Never is ldquoGodrdquo or ldquoholy spiritrdquo ever called ldquoSon of Godrdquo in Scripture Only Jesus Christ is called ldquothe Son of Godrdquo with the article Why

By Christ lsquobecoming obedient [to God] until deathrsquo during the course of his earthly life lsquoGod highly exalted Him and graciously gave him a name which is above every other name that at the name of Jesus every knee should bendto the credit of God the Fatherrsquo (Hebrews58 Philippians 28-11 21st Century New Testament)

ldquo[Christ] has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God with angels authorities and powers made subject to himrdquo (1 Peter 322 NRSV) Still in heaven Christ receives knowledge information revelation from God and transmits it to other creatures (Revelation11) Though the glorified Christ is described as ldquoKing of kingsrdquo and ldquoLord of lordsrdquo he is specifically called ldquoThe Word of Godrdquo (Revelation 191316 NRSV) The night before his death he ldquoprayedrdquo to his Father and called him ldquothe only true Godrdquo and made this petition ldquoFather glorify me in your own presence [Greek beside yourself] with the glory that I hadin your presence [Greek beside you] before the world existedrdquo (John 175 NRSV) (ldquoalongside yourselfrdquo ST Byington) Again God never has to ldquoprayrdquo to anyone Ever

Well then if Jesus Christ expressed this one final ldquowishrdquo in prayer to be ldquoin the presence ofrdquoldquobesiderdquo ldquoalongsiderdquo his Father which he himself called ldquothe only true Godrdquo why should we for the sake of tradition insist with the belief that Jesus ldquomustrdquo somehow be that ldquotruerdquo God the One sitting at the center of Gods throne instead of ldquobesiderdquo God (Mark 1619) Christ did not ask to sit at Gods throne Christ was fully content with the premise of being alongside God And that is what actually happened Mark tells us ldquoSo then the Lord Jesus after he had spoken to them was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of Godrdquo (Mark 1619 NRSV Note Some ancient manuscripts omit this verse) The NIV Study Bible notes the significance of lsquositting at the right hand of Godrsquo ldquoA position of authority second only to Godsrdquo Being in ldquoa position of authority second only to Godsrdquo is something no one should ever say of God for he is always ldquosupremerdquo At no time does God relinquishes his supremacy Someone who holds a position of authority second to God cannot be identical to God Take note too that in this account of Mark chapter 16 or the oneat John chapter 17 there is no mention of a third party of a ldquoGodheadrdquo No ldquoHoly Spiritrdquo is in sight The fact is that the glorified Christ in heaven continues to call his Father ldquomy Godrdquo(Revelation 312)

As ldquoSon of Godrdquo and always lesser and subject to God it is illogical to think Christ would purposely usurp titles and rights that only belonged to lsquohis God and Fatherrsquo (John 1428 Matthew 2023 John 2017 Acts 17) Jesus Christ taught others to only worship the Father God (Matthew 410 John 42324) ldquoAnd we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the worldrdquo (1 John 414) If so the thought that Christ would usethe words ldquoI amrdquo as a title to identify himself as ldquothe true Godrdquo is incongruous Jesus made it clear that he would only seek the glory ldquothat comes from the one who alone is Godrdquo (John850 54 544)

In this Satan controlled world it is not that difficult to get entangled with human taught intricate philosophies which obscure the simple Christian doctrine (John 1231 2 Cor 44) Hence the need for caution at the time of defending popular traditional views which clash with the monotheistic approach of Bible writers

Consequently those who teach that Christ is Almighty God find themselves in conflict with the Scriptural record The submitted list of alternate readings of John 858 shows that there are a considerable number of scholars who not only understand the subject correctly but alsokeenly grasp that whatever Jesus said on the matter has to harmonize with both the context of John chapter 8 and the rest of the Scriptures as well

What is the correct translation of John 858

Is it ldquoI amrdquo ldquoI wasrdquo ldquoI am herdquo or ldquoI have beenrdquo After analyzing the Greek phrase ldquoegō eimirdquo the context and the various possible ways the expression can be translated in English I think it is best to render the Greek with an English present perfect Adding a smallelement such as ldquosincerdquo to the statement as McKay does below satisfies all contextual and grammatical requirements of the passage Doing so does not qualify as ldquointerpolationrdquo

A second choice a simple past tense can perhaps be used in translation where the context allows since it is grammatically correct but it is generally used of activity confined to the past so the message may be distorted Unless that is the simple past is interpreted as ldquoimperfectiverdquo with current relevance How so In support of Jesus deity many frequently cite John11 There in the text a simple past tense ldquowasrdquo is applied to ldquothe Wordrdquo three times in English versions Does that mean ldquothe Wordrdquo is no more or that it was permanentlycut-off from existence at some point Of course not The context of the whole gospel of John shows that Christ is fully pertinent in Christian lives

Scholars choosing a past tense for ldquoeimirdquo (ie ldquoI wasrdquo ldquoI existedrdquo etc) at John 858 may also have in mind what John the Baptist said as a precursor of Jesus Christ ldquoA man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was [ldquoexistedrdquo JB] before merdquo Surely John the Baptist did not mean that Jesus existence was done away with His own words show thatJesus life was very much relevant and would continue to be so Translators have no issue whatsoever in applying a past tense (ldquowasrdquo ldquoexistedrdquo) at John 11 and 130 in their English versions So why would they at John 858 Perhaps because it would mean that they wouldhave to do away with the premise of a ldquodivine titlerdquo in their argumentation of which is claimed clinches Jesus identity with Gods own As shown above Revelation 211 a presentverb a form of ldquoeimirdquo is rendered by some versions with a past tense ldquowasrdquo Obviously Bible translators have no problem in translating some present tense verbs with past tenses or with present perfects But most object to it at John 858 likely for theological reasons

As stated in the beginning of this essay the English ldquopresentrdquo and the Greek ldquopresentrdquo in certain contexts do not correspond exactly in meaning because in Greek ldquotimerdquo is a secondary factor That being the case the choice of English tense does not have to match theGreek conjugation per se to be faithful to the Sacred Text When one considers the specific idiom found in John 858 and the semantic implications of both the Greek and English ldquopresentrdquo one can see that the rendering ldquoI amrdquo though popular does not nearly represent the best translation possible in the English language ldquoContextrdquo often plays a more importantrole in determining the correct translation Overall though it is best to render the Greek expression with an English present perfect since it conveys clearly a more present relevancythan a past tense would

That said John 858 is a good example where a Greek transliteration may not be the best choice to communicate the right message effectively in our times The translation of ldquoI amrdquo has its place in extreme English literal translations which show the basic sense of the Greek such as those Interlinear translations mentioned above Also it can rightfully be used in many Scriptures where the context calls for it as when the sentence structure lacks the Greekldquoidiomrdquo discussed throughout this writing as might be the case with most occurrences of ldquoeimirdquo

Here listed in my opinion are the translations which come closest to the Greek thought presented by the particular ldquoidiomrdquo found in John 858 Dr Kenneth L McKay comes up with the correct translation

1 ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo - Kenneth L McKay A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek (SBG 5 New York Peter Lang 1994) p42

(Kenneth L McKay graduated with honours in Classics (with an interest in the Greek of theNT) from the Universities of Sydney and Cambridge He has taught Greek in universities and theological colleges in Nigeria New Zealand and England Mr McKay retired from the Australian National University in 1987 after teaching there for 26 years)

Other translations below come close to McKays rendering and are thus favored over the traditional rendering which is widely misunderstood

2 ldquoI have existed before Abraham was bornrdquo - A New Translation by James [ Moffatt - DD DLitt Glasgow Oxford 3 ldquoBefore Abraham came into existence I have beenrdquo - New World Translation 4 ldquoBefore Abraham came into being I have existedrdquo - The Documents of the [New Testament G W Wade London 5 ldquoFrom before Abraham was I have been rdquo - The New Testament by George [ R -Noyes DD Boston USA6 ldquoBefore Abraham was born I have already been rdquo - The Unvarnished New [Testament Andy Gaus Boston7 ldquoI existed even before Abraham was bornrdquo - The concise Gospel and the Acts [Logos International Christopher J ed Christianson Plainfield NJ8 ldquoI already was before Abraham was bornrdquo ndash Worldwide English New Testament [ Derby UK ________________________________

COMMENTS

Also compare the following translations

Nytt liv (1907 Norwegian)A Biacuteblia Viva (1981 Portuguese)O Novo Testamento Vivo (1974 Portuguese)Le Livre Nouveau Testament (1980 eacuteditions Farel French)Η Καινή Διαθήκη των Τεσσάρων Καθηγητών (ΚΔΤΚ Greek) (The New Testament of the Four Teachers The translation was made and approved (1921981) by the Holy Summit Church of Greece The English title of the project is The New Testament in Modern Greek Athens Greece) Η Αγία Γραφή Παλαιά και Καινή Διαθήκη (ΝΔΜ Greek) Ελληνική Βιβλική Εταιρία Αθήνα [Athens] 1997 (The Bible Old and New Testament Greek Biblical Company - London 1997) ΚΔΛΖ ΛΧ (Other Greek Versions expressing the same idea as translations on the list)___________________

ldquoI was rdquo Note on 1987 translation from Italian main list l Vangelio di Giovanni (El Evangelio de Juan [ldquoThe Gospel of Johnrdquo] with imprimatur) by J Mateos and J Barreto noted on John 858 (as translated by Teodora Tosatti p 387 Cittadela Editrice 1982) that the temporal relationship expressed by the Greek ldquoprin eimi [BeforeI am]rdquo can be translated into Italian ldquoprimaero [BeforeI was]rdquo (Translation from Italian to English mine)__________________

Comment on 1993 ΟІ ΧΡΙΣΤΙΑΝΙΚΕΣ ΓΡΑΦΕΣ Απόδοση από τη Μειάφράση Νέου Κόσμου which is a modern Greek translation of the New World Translation of the ChristianScriptures Unlike most Bible Versions which are published in only one language or a few atmost the NWT is available in dozens of languages based mainly on their English translationbut obviously taking into account other factors in the process such as the original Bible text the peculiarities of their recipient local languages and their targeted audiences in their respective countries

It is obvious though that other NWT translation editions closely followed the English text of the NWT and at the same time their translation teams had enough latitude to offer their own unique renderings at times expressing in their native languages what they see in in the Inspired Text Having said that it is interesting to see how they approached their translation of John 858 from their English translation back into [modern] Greek

The translation team was acutely aware of the basic sense of ldquoegō eimirdquo as ldquoI amrdquo and how those simple words are misconstrued by religionists to say something more than Jesus intended Taking into account the syntax of John 858 as stated throughout this document the translation team who worked on the modern Greek version faced a few options

First they had the option to go back to ldquoegō eimirdquo using the modern Greek equivalent ldquoΕγώ ειμαιrdquo (I am) as it reads in the Vamvas version which they did not Or they could haveexpressed their NWT English choice of ldquoI have beenrdquo with their modern Greek equivalent of ldquoέχο υπάρξει [I have existed]rdquo Thirdly they could have gone with ldquoI wasrdquo (ldquoεγώ ήμουνrdquo) as some of their French and Italian Bible editions have done in the past or even with ldquo[εγώ] υπήρξα [I existed])rdquo Or they could have provided some other unique rendering It is obvious they wanted to stick closely to the Greek text but given the common misconceptionssurrounding ldquoegō eimai (I am)rdquo in mainstream churches the translation team chose to use ldquoεγώ υπάρχωrdquo (a present indicative form in the Greek) which means basically ldquoI existrdquo but in the presence of an expression of past time in John 858 the sense is ldquoI have existedrdquo Thus ldquoBefore Abraham came into existence I have existedrdquo ( The verb είμαι [ldquoto berdquo] in modern Greek has no forms for the perfect tense It borrows the forms from the verb υπάρχω [ldquoI existrdquo] The Greek and English ldquoperfectsrdquo are not exact equivalents either)

The reader is reminded here as noted earlier that modern Greek keeps up with the Koineacute Greek ldquopresentrdquo idiom A modern Greek grammar Greek A Comprehensive Grammar explains ldquoThe present tense is also used in constructions where English would use the perfect continuous ie where the verb expresses a continuous state or habitual event that

has lasted since a certain point in the past and is continuing up to (and including) the presentrdquo The authors provide two examples where a present verb is used with a past time indicator and where they translate using an English perfect as explained ldquoI have been living[Μένω] in this house for three years nowrdquo And ldquoI have been reading [Διαβάζω] this newspaper since 1984rdquo (Greek A Comprehensive Grammar by David Holton Peter Mackridge amp Irene Philippaki-Warburton Revised by Vassilios Spyropoulos p 294 Second edition 2012)

Ten years after the NWT-Greek Edition was released another modern Greek translation was published with the following rendering at John 858 ldquoΣας βεβαιώνω πως πριν να γεννηθεί οΑβραάμ εγώ υπάρχωrdquo which in English would be ldquoI assure you that I have existed since before Abraham was bornrdquo (Literally ldquoI assure you that before could be born the AbrahamI exist [not ldquoΕγώ ειμαιrdquo]rdquo The Holy Bible in Todays Greek Version 2003 Greek Bible Society Interestingly the original English version of 1976 had ldquoI Amrdquo) Also a Spanish Bible conveys a similar thought ldquoYo existo desde antes que existiera Abrahamrdquo [Translation ldquo I exist since before Abraham existedrdquo] (La Biblia - Versioacuten Popular 2nd edition Sociedades Biacuteblicas Unidas 1983)

_________________________________________________________

The Clear Word The translators quoted in this article represent various religious faiths some are Catholic some are Protestant Others are Unitarians Jehovahs Witnesses Jewish Adventists etc and they represent countries the world over One of these translators is a Seventh-Day Adventist who worked on The Clear Word Jack J Blanco ThD As a Seventh-Day Adventist who supports the Trinity doctrine Blanco translated verses to make Jesus ldquoequalrdquo to God in every way

He renders John 11 ldquoHe is the Word of God and is equal with Godrdquo He shows Jesus at Philippians 25-7 as ldquoequal with Godrdquo and describes him as lsquoacting the part of a servantrsquo At John 1428 he completely omits the reference that lsquothe Father is greaterrsquo than Christ But here at John 858 in answer to the question the priests and leaders asked concerning Abraham lsquoseeingrsquo his day Jesus answered according to Dr Blanco ldquoBecause I existed before Abraham was even bornrdquo Thus Dr Blanco makes no connection as others do that Christ is the ldquoI amrdquo of Exodus 314 which according to some would indicate that Jesus is the Jehovah of the Old Testament What he sees in this account is that Jesus already lsquoexisted before Abraham didrsquo and thus Abraham was able to lsquoseersquo his day (John 856) To this we must add another likely element included in Jesus response to the Jews as wellone of simple identification as ldquothe Christ [Messiah]rdquo and ldquoSon of manrdquo Why is it then that manywho support the Trinity doctrine find it hard to understand Jesus statement correctly at John 858 Could it be that they are letting non-Scriptural influence and perhaps the weight of themajority view dictate their understanding of this Scripture

For a consideration of other subjects by the same author check below

For a discussion of Acts 286 Whose blood

httpwwwscribdcomdoc231244155Acts-20-28-Whose-blood

For a discussion of Colossians 116 (ldquoall other thingsrdquo) see

httpwwwscribdcomdoc205841269Colossians-1-16-Is-the-expression-all-other-things-a-proper-rendition

For a consideration on the subject of the Trinity click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc160286056Does-the-Trinity-ever-make-sense

For a full consideration of John 11 click the following link httpwwwscribdcomdoc34916458The-correct-translation-of-John-1-1

For a brief consideration of John 11 with additional citations click here httpwwwscribdcomdoc50330864John-1-1-List-of-Alternate-Readings

Did the NW translators know any Greek click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc48234022Did-the-New-World-Translation-Committee-Know-Greek

For a consideration of John 173 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc57772552John-17-3-E28098Taking-in-knowledge-of-E28099-God-and-Jesus

For a consideration of 1 Timothy 316 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc76927834Was-God-manifested-in-the-flesh-1-Timothy-3-16

For a consideration of Exodus 225 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc38676458Exodus-2-25-And-God-took-notice-Does-God- care-about-us

For a consideration of John 114 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc35002730John-1-14-Jesus-full-of-grace

For a consideration of Translation Differences-Questions and Answershttpwwwscribdcomdoc59484457Translation-Differences-Questions-and-Answers

In Spanish

Para una consideracioacuten de otros temas vea los siguientes enlaces

Para una consideracioacuten de Colosenses 116 ldquotodas las otras cosasrdquo vea

httpwwwscribdcomdoc209601066Colosenses-1-16-C2BFEs-la-traduccion-E2809Ctodas-las-otras-cosasE2809D-apropiada

Para una consideracioacuten de ldquoiquestAcaso tiene sentido la Trinidadrdquo

httpwwwscribdcomdoc173779117C2BFAcaso-tiene-sentido-la-Trinidad

Para un consideracioacuten de Juan 11 vea el siguiente enlace

httpwwwscribdcomdoc35899788Traduccion-correcta-de-Juan-1-1-Lista-de- lecturas-alternativas

Para el tema iquestSabiacutean griego los traductores de la TNM vea el siguiente enlace

httpwwwscribdcomdoc51623596C2BFSabia-griego-el-Comite-de-la-Traduccion-del-Nuevo-Mundo

See also The Anchor Bible (William HC Propp) and the The Stone Tanach (Artscroll Mesorah)

In the Hebrew original the above words pronounced by God Almighty are in the ldquoimperfectrdquostate of the verb which communicate ldquoincompletenessrdquo or ldquofuturerdquo activity Interestingly the Hebrew word ייי( ה ה( ה איא (ehyeh) appears in Exodus 312 just two verses away and there many Bible translations render it unlike what they do in Exodus 314 as future action ldquoI will be with yourdquo reflecting the imperfect state of the verb here indicative of Gods intended involvement with his people (Compare with other occurrences of the word in Joshua 15 Judges 616 1 Samuel 2317 2 Samuel 714 1534 1618 1 Chronicles 1713 Isaiah 477 and Jeremiah 114 where ehyeh is commonly translated as ldquofuturerdquo action) This brings up the question Why do this in Exodus 312 and the other places but not in verse 14

Charles R Gianotti (Dallas Theological Seminary) points out this very thing ldquoSignificantlymost interpreters translate ייי( ה ה( ה איא [ehyeh] in Exodus 312 as future (ie I will be [ehyeh] with yoursquo) Yet two verses later why should not the same translation sufficerdquo Gianotti adds ldquoThe future in this case can indeed refer to future activity or effectiveness of YHWH It should be observed that even Aquila (AD 130) noted for his lsquoslavishly literal translationrsquo translated the tense as futurerdquo Gianotti says that ldquoin light of the imperfect form ייי( ה ה( ה איא [ehyeh] used in Exodus 314rdquo translating ייי( ה ה( ה איא [ ehyeh ] as most English versions do assuming a present tense meaning is ldquo unjustifiedrdquo (ldquoThe Meaning of the Divine Name YHWHrdquo Bibliotheca Sacra 142 January-March 1985) Reflecting a similar understanding the NWT 1984 Reference Edition adds the following footnote ldquoThe reference here is not to Gods self-existence but to what he has in mind to become toward othersrdquo

The Septuagint reading ldquoI am The Beingrdquo at Exodus 314 does not represent the best translation possible from the Hebrew It is odd indeed that many Bible translators choose to follow the Greek Septuagint in verse 14 rather than the original Hebrew Text Trinitarian advocate James R White PhD (from Alpha amp Omega Ministries) noted ldquoIt is true that many go directly to Exodus 314 for the background but it is felt that unless one first establishes the connection with the direct quotation of ego eimi in the Septuagint the connection with Exodus 314 will be somewhat tenuousrdquo

Could it be then that modern translators want to advance ehyeh as a title or name ldquoI Amrdquo to express self-existence and hence make the connection to the ldquoI Amrdquo of Jesus in John 858 as it appears in traditional versions If so such translators could be guilty of asserting the Trinity doctrine on their readers Although James White sees a connection between John 858 and the ldquoI am [he]rdquo sayings in Isaiah he has this to say of the supposed connection between John 858 and Exodus 314 ldquoIt could fairly be admitted that an immediate and unqualified jump from the ego eimi of John 858 to Exodus 314 is unwiserdquo (ldquoPurpose and Meaning of lsquoEgo Eimirsquo in the Gospel of John In Reference to the Deity of Christrdquo)

Likewise Edwin D Freed Professor Emeritus of Religion Gettysburg College contends that ldquothe meaning of the sentence [at John 858] in the mind of the writer was ldquoBefore

Abraham was I the Christ the Son of God existedrdquo (ldquoWho or what was before Abraham inJohn 858rdquo Journal for the Study of the New Testament 17 1983 52-59) Professor Freed thus sees no connection of Jesus statement in John 858 with that of Jehovah (Yahweh) at Exodus 314 But what about the ldquoI amrdquo sayings appearing in the books of Isaiah and John Are they not connected somehow

Is rsquoani-hursquo in Isaiah parallel to egō eimi in John

At times there are biblical statements made where both God and Christ use similar languageThis is not surprising when one considers the role Christ plays in Gods purpose The Bible tells us that Christ is ldquothe image of the invisible God the firstborn of all creationrdquo (NASB) ldquothe radiance of Gods glory and the exact representation of his beingrdquo (Colossians 115 Hebrews 13) ldquoAnd God has put all things under the authority of Christ and he gave him this authority for the benefit of the churchrdquo (Ephesians 122 NLT) Anyone seeking salvation must therefore put faith in lsquothe name which was given by God to mankindrsquo ldquoJesus Christrdquo ldquoto the glory of God the Fatherrdquo ldquoWhoever believes in the Son has eternal life but whoever rejects the Son will not see life for Godrsquos wrath remains on themrdquo (John 336 Philippians 21011) In all God still is in control and just as lsquoChristians belong to Christrsquo ldquoChrist belongs to Godrdquo says the Word (1 Corinthians 113 323 NASB)

In the Old Testament God appears on several occasions using the Hebrew phrase א( הוא נני־ אא (rsquoani-hursquo) which literally means ldquoI ndash herdquo but sometimes translated ldquoI amrdquo or ldquoI am herdquo (Isaiah 414 428 4310 13 464 4812 526) It also appears in Deuteronomy 3239 David a human also used that expression in 1 Chronicles 2117 (Hebrew הוא )ה נני־ אא (ani-huacute- ldquoI am herdquo) Septuagint ἐγώ εἰμι (ldquoegō eimirdquo) Although many argue that there is a connection between Christs statements in the NT and those of God in the OT there is no certainty of those interpretations Even if there was some connection in the ldquoI amrdquo statements would that prove that the identity of the speaker is the same in each case Not really

In the Bible when God made some men powerful and blessed them with his spirit in a sensethey became like ldquoa godrdquo since they ldquorepresentedrdquo God (Exodus 71 Psalms 8216 John 1033-36) Having others referred to in similar language to that of God is no conclusive proofof ldquoequalityrdquo with God An example of this can be seen when a ldquomanrdquo (perhaps Solomon) became ldquokingrdquo of Israel was addressed literally in divine terms ldquoYour throne God forever and everrdquo (Psalm 456) Obviously this human king was not the One True God Not surprisingly some Bible translators work around this literal reading and make it read where it says something like ldquoYour throne is like Gods thronerdquo (Jewish Publication Society) OrldquoYour divine throne endures for ever and everrdquo (Revised Standard Version) Or ldquoYour throne is from Godrdquo (New Jerusalem Bible) Or ldquoGod has enthroned you for all eternityrdquo (Revised English Bible)

Even when translators render the passage literally they explain it in such a way that makes it clear that Solomon was not God For instance the NIV of 2011 has this footnote ldquoHere the king is addressed as Godrsquos representativerdquo Nonetheless when such reference is made of

Jesus Christ (as in Hebrews 18) the same translators may now insist those similar words areldquoproofrdquo of Christs ldquodeityrdquo A good example of this is found in the NET Bibles footnotes Although Jesus accepted being ldquoone greater than Solomonrdquo he never claimed to be God the Father (Matthew 1242) Significantly to Jesus ldquoGodrdquo was someone else

In the Bible is not rare to read frequent references and comparisons of faithful men with Jesus Christ ndash Abraham Jacob Moses David Solomon Jonas and John the Baptist (John 853 412 Deuteronomy 1815 Hebrews 33 Psalm 1101 Matthew 927 2245 124142 Mark 17 Luke 117 72628) Whats more Jesus is compared to ldquoangelsrdquo (Hebrews 14513) Should we take this to mean that men and angels are somehow identical to Jesus Christ True some of these references show that Jesus Christ is above them But we should take the superiority of Christ over them in the same way that we rightly accept Jesus own words indicative of his relative position to the Father ldquoThe Father is greater than Irdquo (John 1428 2031)

Accordingly the ldquoI amrdquo or ldquoI am herdquo expressions pronounced by God and Jesus Christ found in both the Old and New Testaments must be understood within their proper context From the beginning of mans history God provided a way for mankinds deliverance Jesus was prophetically the center of this magnificent expectation For eons of time mankind waited for the One (Messiah) who would deliver them from bondage Nevertheless when hedid appear on the earthly scene most people ignored and rejected the real Messiah because they were expecting politically speaking a quick deliverance from the Roman yoke

However God had something else in mind ndash deliverance was still ahead It was now the time to call attention to the fact that Christ their (future) ldquosaviorrdquo was in their midst Jesus did his part by words and by action (miracles etc) He called attention to who he really was ldquothe Son of Godrdquo and told others that he was ldquothe Christrdquo (or the ldquoMessiahrdquo) (John 42526 Matthew 1615-17 2663-68) Related to the subject one expression Jesus used on various occasions was this one ldquoI amrdquo or ldquoI am herdquo words understood by those brought up in trinitarian doctrine to attest Jesus equality with God (John 426 620 824 28 858 1319 185-6 8) However the phrase was sometimes used as a simple self-identification like ldquoIt is Irdquo or ldquoI am Jesusrdquo At other times when questioned by doubters Jesus used it to get the point across that lsquohe was the one [and not someone else]rsquo the promised ldquoSaviorrdquo ldquothe Son of manrdquo ldquothe Son of Godrdquo ldquothe Messiahrdquo

At no time did Jesus ever claim he was a ldquoGod-manrdquo or ldquoGod in the fleshrdquo (John 316) Those thoughts are foreign to Scripture Remember that Scripture teaches that lsquoGod was with Jesusrsquo just as we are told that lsquoGod was with Josephrsquo son of Jacob Scripture does not say that Jesus was God made flesh It was lsquothe Wordrsquo the Son of God who was with God in the beginning the One who lsquobecame fleshrsquo not God (Acts 79 1038 John 11 114) Christendom has distorted Scripture to the point that ldquoChristianrdquo followers cannot determine this plain truth A misunderstanding of John 11 and 1 Timothy 316 has greatly contributed to this error Further below you will find links where those verses are considered in detail

It was through Jesus death that God reconciled sinful people to himself Hence the ldquoI amrdquo

or ldquoI am herdquo sayings of Jesus need not be directly linked to those uttered by God before the time of Christ Jesus was sent by God on a saving mission as a representative of God With good reason he declared unambiguously that ldquoherdquo was (and not some other) ldquoGods Sonrdquo the promised ldquoMessiahrdquo The Jesus sayings ldquoI amrdquo or ldquoI am herdquo in some cases would confirm at most that ldquothere is no other name under heaven that has been given to men in which we must be savedrdquo (Acts 4 12) It was lsquoGod who resurrected Jesus from among the deadrsquo and it was God who lsquogave mankind the namersquo that saves people (Acts 410)

Thus the ldquoI amrdquo sayings of the New Testament were certainly pronounced in a different setting than those in the Old Testament Not to be overlooked the One using the ldquoI amrdquo or ldquoI am herdquo expressions in the OT is described unequivocally as lsquoAlmighty Godrsquo lsquothe only True Godrsquo with maximum ldquopowerrdquo and ldquoauthorityrdquo to send a ldquosubordinaterdquo to an extraordinary mission (Daniel 714 John 1316 537) The glorified Christ is never described in the same way as God was in Old Testament times as he always appears throughout the NT subordinated to God Still Christ is ldquothe wayrdquo to the Father and salvation (John 146) We are therefore commanded to recognize his lsquoGod-given authorityrsquo so ldquothat all may honor the Son just as they honor the Fatherrdquo (Matthew 2818 John 2031 523) Jesus is then the ldquomediatorrdquo between God and mankind (1 Timothy 25) A grand privilege that is

What does the context of John 858 indicate

Some Bible readers see Jesus in the context of John chapter 8 not only saying in idiomatic fashion that he lsquowas [already] alive before Abraham was born (SEB)rsquo and still lsquoisrsquo but also that he was identifying himself as ldquothe Son of Manrdquo ldquothe Messiahrdquo This is a reasonable assumption as well One of the Jews questions was ldquoWho do you think you arerdquo (John 853) In John 824 28 1319 Matthew 2754 and Mark 1460-64 the function or position ofChrist as the ldquoSon of Godrdquo ldquoSon of Manrdquo and ldquothe Christrdquo all come through

The statement (or question) Jews made to Jesus prior to verse 58 was ldquoYou are not yet fifty years old and you have seen Abrahamrdquo Logically Jesus answered the question of his age of his long existence and additionally was perhaps asserting his ldquomessiahshiprdquo as well in harmony with the question Jews had posed earlier in verse 53 This may be one reason a fewtranslators render or note John 858 not as ldquoI amrdquo but rather ldquoI am herdquo some to suggest Christ is God while others do so emphasizing his messianic role The second interpretation fits better with Scripture In the list of alternate readings of John 858 below you will find that rendering as well However the key issue in this text is Jesus existence from past to present Unlike other verses in John (82428) where ldquoeimirdquo is used (in the sense of ldquoI am herdquo ie ldquothe Son of Godrdquo ldquothe Messiahrdquo) in verse 58 the matter of ldquoidentityrdquo is secondaryto the key issue of his existence In the sum of things it should be noted that ldquoindefiniterdquo existence is not equal to ldquoeternalrdquo existence

Within the context of chapter eight (8) of John Jesus makes statements which mark clear differences with his Father God When reading over the next few paragraphs keep in mind that the Bible condemns two-faced personalities and speaking out with a forked tongue

Jesus himself spoke out against hypocrisy so he only spoke ldquotruthrdquo

In John 826 Jesus told the Jews that he was ldquosentrdquo by his Father and that lsquohe speaks the things that he hears from the one who sent himrsquo That lsquohe does nothing on his own initiativersquo (NASB) That lsquohe isrsquo ldquothe Son of Manrdquo and lsquospeaks just what the Father taught himrsquo (V 28)

Jesus stated a simple but significant truth ldquoNo servant is greater than his master nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent himrdquo (John 1316) With this principle in mind here are some questions to ponder about How could Jesus be ldquosentrdquo if he himself was ldquoGodrdquo Why was Jesus lsquonot able to do anything on his own initiativersquo if he was ldquoall-mightyrdquo In verse 29 Jesus says that lsquothe One who sent him has not left him alone and that he always did what pleased the Fatherrsquo Why would Jesus Christ say at all lsquoI always do what pleases him who sent mersquo If Jesus was ldquoGodrdquo why would he find it important enoughto mention whether he was left ldquoalonerdquo or not Does God need ldquocompanionshiprdquo as humans do Why would anybody have to ldquoteachrdquo Jesus anything if he was all-knowingrdquo

Also Jesus applied the title ldquoSon of Manrdquo to himself numerous times a term which Jews considered a title of the promised ldquoMessiahrdquo not of ldquoGodrdquo In addition the Bible book of Numbers 2319 tells us that ldquoGod is not a man that he should lie ldquonor a son of man that he should change his mindrdquo Nonetheless Christ precisely adopted this very same expression (ldquoSon of Manrdquo) before others with no regrets Furthermore did God have to become ldquoa manrdquo to save humankind when the Bible explicitly says that lsquoGod sent his only-begotten Sonrsquoto save the worldrsquo (John 316 NASB 1 John 414) Who is distorting the full picture here

In verse 40 John reports that the Jews lsquowere determined to kill Jesus because they didnt want to accept the word and truth that Jesus as a man [Greek anthropon] spoke having it received from Godrsquo How could Christ speak of himself as lsquoa man receiving truth from Godrsquowhen seconds later according to Trinitarians he would be using a ldquotitlerdquo claiming to be ldquoGodrdquo in effect contradicting everything he had been saying until then None of these statements would make sense if Jesus himself was the Supreme God as many believe

What would Jesus gain by claiming before the world that he lsquocould not do anything on his own initiativersquo that lsquohe always did what pleased the Fatherrsquo and that he only spoke just what the Father who sent him lsquotaughtrsquo him And shortly afterwards change his message altogether and claim as we are asked to believe that Christ was the ldquoGodrdquo of the Old Testament by the sole act of pronouncing the ldquoI amrdquo divine ldquotitlerdquo Does this lsquodouble personalityrsquo approach make any sense to a Christian who is taught to only believe ldquothere is but one God the Fatherrdquo (John 530 1 Corinthians 86) No wonder there are a good number of Bible translators including Trinitarians who disagree with the traditional view of John 858

Does the Jews reaction in John 859 prove Jesus Christ had claimed to be ldquoGodrdquo

Shortly before his death Jesus was taken before the Sanhedrin the high court of the Jews to

face false charges by people who wanted him dead Please take note of the charges brought up in Marks account (1460-64) which says

60 Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus ldquoAre you not going to answer What is this testimony that these men are bringing against yourdquo 61 But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer Again the high priest asked him ldquoAre you the Messiah the Son of the Blessed Onerdquo 62 ldquoI amrdquo said Jesus ldquoAnd you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heavenrdquo 63 The high priest tore his clothes ldquoWhy do we need any more witnessesrdquo he asked 64 ldquoYou have heard the blasphemy What do you thinkrdquo They all condemned him as worthy of death

In view of the events of Mark 1460-64 and considering the context of John chapter 8 it is clear that the Jews rejected Jesus claim of him being ldquothe Messiahrdquo and of being lsquogreaterrsquo than Abraham They were also rejecting the idea that he was ldquofrom aboverdquo ldquothe Son of Mansitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heavenrdquo of the heavenly vision (John 823) In their view that was enough to charge him with blasphemy since they could not imagine any ldquomanrdquo making such claims

C K Barrett rightly noted that the Jews reaction in verse 59 ldquodoes not mean that Jesus had claimed to be Godrdquo (The Gospel According to St John 2d ed Philadelphia Westminster Press 1978 352) And Professor Emeritus William Loader noted ldquoThe text need mean no more than I am and was in existence before Abraham still a majestic unique claim but not anallusion to the divine namerdquo (The Christology of the Fourth Gospel Structures and Issues Revised 2d ed New York Lang 1992 48)

Even before Jesus spoke the ldquoegō eimirdquo words in John 858 the Jews had already sought to kill Jesus (John 719 837) And for what ldquocrimerdquo This lsquoJesus claimed the truth he taughtcame from Godrsquo (John 716 840) This is vastly different from lsquoJesus alledgedly claiming a divine title equating him with God at John 858rsquo Since then all sorts of religious leaders have claimed as well that ldquowhat they teach others comes from Godrdquo and not from them Does that make them ldquoequalrdquo to God

Because Jesus often lsquocalled God his Fatherrsquo the Jews wrongly concluded that he was ldquomaking himself equal to Godrdquo (John 51819) However Jesus quickly set the matter straight when he called himself Gods ldquoSonrdquo (nine times in chapter 5 alone) an expression never applied to ldquoGodrdquo in Scripture (Matthew 2663-64) The Jews even claimed Jesus was ldquobreaking the Sabbathrdquo and further of being ldquoa Samaritan and demon-possessedrdquo (John 518 848) Were they right Absolutely not Thus wrong perceptions of Jews in Jesus time - like Jesus claiming equality with God - are truly a shaky foundation to base modern interpretations The Jerusalem Bible has this to say ldquoThe claim of Jesus to live on the divine plane (v 58) is for the Jews blasphemy for which the penalty is stoning Lv 2416rdquo I see the JB accepting the claim that Jesus possessed some mode of ldquodivine existencerdquo (as suggested by the Spanish edition of JB ldquoBiblia de Jerusaleacutenrdquo) but avoiding a direct reference of Christ

claiming to be God or that he was claiming ldquoeternalrdquo existence in the verse And former Professor Kenneth L McKay said ldquoThe claim to have been in existence for so long is in itself a staggering one quite enough to provoke the crowds violent reaction [in v59]rdquo (ldquo lsquoI amrsquo in Johns Gospelrdquo p 302) Hence those who claim the charge of blasphemy involved Jesus claim of being ldquoGodrdquo are wrong for Jesus never claimed to be ldquoThe Supreme Beingrdquo but only ldquoGods Sonrdquo (John 31718)

Weeks later after the incident of John chapter 8 but related to the topic of discussion in John 1030-36 we read that the Jews misunderstood Jesus words ldquoI and the father are onerdquo (John 10 30) So they wanted to stone him for it but Jesus told them

33 ldquoWe are not stoning you for any good workrdquo they replied ldquobut for blasphemy because you a mere man claim to be Godrdquo 34 Jesus answered them ldquoIs it not written in your Law lsquoI have said you are ldquogodsrdquorsquo [Psalm 826] 35 If he called them lsquogodsrsquo to whom the word of God camemdashand Scripture cannot be set asidemdash 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said lsquoI am Godrsquos Sonrsquo ( Other versions translate the Greek word here for ldquoGodrdquo without the article either as ldquogodrdquo or ldquoa godrdquo Besson Torrey NWT Mace Luther 1545 Diaglott Tomanek Andy Gaus New English Bible)

Notice that Jesus Christ under duress had another golden opportunity to once and for all disclose publicly that he was ldquoGodrdquo But he did not do so The argument itself that Jesus employed shows that he could legitimately claim lsquodivine originrsquo without being identified as one-and-the-same God with his Father

Less than a year later AFTER the encounter with the Jews of John chapter 8 and before his death Jesus told his closest disciples in his farewell speech that they lsquoshould rejoice he was going away to the Father because the Father was greater than he wasrsquo (John 1428) And in his final prayer in proximity with his disciples he prayed to God that lsquothey may know his Father the only true God and Jesus Christ whom he has sentrsquo (John 173 ) God never needs to pray to anyone Shortly after Jesus died and was resurrected by God but before returning to his Father Jesus said to Mary Magdalene ldquoDo not hold on to me for I have notyet ascended to the Father Go instead to my brothers and tell them lsquoI am ascending to my Father and your Father to my God and your Godrsquo rdquo (John 2017)

Does it make sense to have Jesus claim equality with God by employing a divine title (ldquoI Amrdquo) before unbelieving Jews as Trinitarians claim and then have Jesus later assure his closest and faithful ones that lsquohis Father and his Godrsquo was also lsquothe Father and God of everyone elsersquo In fact Jesus disciples were clearly in a privileged position in regards to Christian teaching Jesus Christ had previously said to his disciples that he would explain lsquoall thingsrsquo to them privately whereas to others he would only speak in lsquoparablesrsquo or lsquocomparisonsrsquo (Matthew 1311 Mark 411 33 34) An explicit lsquodivine titlersquo directed at lsquounbelievingrsquo Jews is certainly no parable and would run counter to his own stated principles

Anyways Jesus Christ wanted other Christian followers to understand the special

relationship he had with the Father ldquoBut go to my followers and tell them this lsquoI am going back to my Father and your Father I am going back to my God and your Godrsquo rdquo (Easy to Read Version) This simple message is so different from the convoluted one commonly expounded by Trinitarians in their philosophical speculations

Between the time of the encounter between the Jews and Jesus in John ch 8 and the farewelldiscourse of our Lord Jesus Christ of later (chapters 14-17) not once did Jesus say he was ldquoGodrdquo Christ never spoke with a forked tongue Therefore Bible translators who do not claim Jesus was using a divine title at John 858 and provide renderings agreeing with the words of John 173 and 2017 are in the correct

Scriptures with similar syntax to John 858

Thus when faced with certain idiomatic expressions as the one found in John 858 the translator often has to ask himself How would someone normally express such statements in our language I will cite six (6) Scriptural examples that are similar in syntax to John 858 Genesis 3138 LXX 1 John 38 Luke 248 John 56 2 Corinthians 1219 and John 1527 All six Scriptures have present tense verbs AND an expression of past time or extent of time with past implications within its structure Lets see how these Scriptures compare with John 858 in our discussion

1st Example (Genesis 3138 LXX) ταῦτά μοι εἴκοσι ἔτη ἐγώ εἰμι μετὰ σοῦ - Greek These mine twenty years I am with you

Jacob after leaving Haran disputes with his father-in-law Laban over missing personal idols which Laban claimed were stolen by Jacob Jacob had no idea Rachel had stolen them In defense Jacob proceeded to mention several things he had done through the years on Labansbehalf ldquoThese twenty years I am with yourdquo (The Apostolic Bible Polyglot LXX 2006)ldquoThese twenty years of mine I was with yourdquo (A New English Translation of the Septuagint ldquoNETSrdquo 2007)ldquoThese twenty years have I been with theerdquo (The Holy Orthodox Bible LXX 2006)ldquoThese twenty years I have been with yourdquo (The Orthodox Study Bible LXX 2008)ldquoThese twenty years of mine have I been with theerdquo (Orthodox England LXX 2009)ldquoI have spent with you twenty of my years [Jai passeacute avec toi vingt de mes anneacutees]rdquo (La Septante [LXX] translated by Pierre Giguet)ldquoThese twenty years have I been with theerdquo (Sir Lancelot CL Brenton LXX)ldquoThese twenty years that I have been with theerdquo (Charles Thomson LXX)

Aside from the interlinear reading of the literal Apostolic Bible Polyglot other translators of the Septuagint (LXX) render a present indicative verb ldquoegō eimirdquo (I am) preceded by an expression of time with past implications (ldquoThese twenty yearsrdquo) with present perfect

indicative forms (ldquoI have beenrdquo) while one translation (NETS) uses a simple past form (ldquoI wasrdquo) A modern Greek translation Η Αγία ΓραφήmdashΜετάφραση Νέου Κόσμου has ldquoήμουνrdquo (Literally ldquoI wasrdquo) in this text A likely reason for that as a modern Greek Grammar pointsout is that for the verb lsquoto be (είμαι)rsquo ldquoThere are only two sets of tense forms in Greek present and past (imperfect)rdquo (op cit An Essential Grammar p 126 Sec 67) Hence they could not have used here a perfect tense form for the verb lsquoto be (eimai)rsquo But in English the Bible Society responsible for the Greek and English translations of the Hebrew portion of the Bible used instead ldquoI have beenrdquo at Genesis 3138 in the English edition because a present perfect is available in the language for the verb

Another interesting tidbit is the fact that the original Hebrew text here lacks a verb in the declaration namely ldquoThis twenty year I with-yourdquo (The Hebrew-English Interlinear ESV Old Testament Crossway) Well how do translators deal with this issue Overall like this with the perfect indicative ldquoI have been with you for twenty years nowrdquo A few versions use the imperfect instead lsquoI wasrsquo such as the Wycliffe Bible and the Lexham English Bible Rarely do translations use a ldquopresentrdquo here the exceptions being Youngs and Concordant literal translations So why do the overwhelming number of translators prefer tosupply a perfect tense here for the missing verb in the Hebrew Its simple There is a temporal indicator going to the past in the text namely lsquoThese twenty yearsrsquo

Now when the LXX translators proceeded to translate the Hebrew words of Genesis 3138 into Greek they cleverly used a well known vivid idiom available in classical Greek where a verb in the present tense is combined with an indicator of past time In this syntax the ldquopast and present are gathered up in a single affirmationrdquo (op cit Brooks amp Winbery) Modern English translators usually resort to the present perfect in this construction as shown aboveSo too John 858 reveals an expression of past time with a present verb in its statement and the NWT is one translation that is consistent with this construction both in Genesis 3138 and John 858

For the following I will use the Wescott and Hort Greek text for reference

2nd Example (1 John 38)

ὅτι ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς ὁ διάβολος ἁμαρτάνει - Greek because from beginning the devil is sinning

The apostle John warns Christians not to carry on sin for those who make a practice of sin originate from the Devil who has sinned from the beginning For this purpose the Son of God was revealed that he might undo the works of the Devil The text above contains an expression of past time (ldquofrom beginningrdquo) with a present verb (is sinning) very much likeJohn 858 How do translators deal with this passage Lets see

ldquofor the devil sinneth from the beginningrdquo (Rheims New Testament)ldquofor the devil sinneth from the beginningrdquo (KJV)

ldquofor the devil has sinned from the beginningrdquo (New King James Version)ldquofor the devil has sinned from the beginningrdquo (NASB)ldquobecause the devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (Interlinear Mounce)ldquofor the Devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (Riverside NT Ballantine)ldquobecause the devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (NIV)ldquobecause the devil has sinned from the beginningrdquo (NAB)ldquosince the devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (Jay E Adams)ldquowho has been sinning since the beginningrdquo (NLT)ldquofor the devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (NRSV)ldquosince the devil has been a sinner from the beginningrdquo (NJB)ldquobecause the devil has been sinning from the very beginningrdquo (J G Anderson)ldquofor the devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (ESV)

ldquothe devil was a sinner from the firstrdquo (Ronald A Knox New Testament)

Some translations transfer the Greek present to their English versions as if the English and Greek ldquopresentrdquo in such construction were the same thing It is not The end result is ungrammatical English Would you say in contemporary English ldquoFrom the beginning of class the boy sleepsrdquo Not Doctor Richard A Young points out ldquoTo say that the devil is sinning from the beginning does not make sense in English English translations therefore employ the present perfectrdquo (Intermediate New Testament Greek page 111)

The renderings above ldquohas sinnedrdquo and ldquohas been sinningrdquo are present perfect and present perfect progressive indicative forms The word ldquowasrdquo is a simple past tense Just as in 1 John 38 some translators in John 858 have rendered a present tense with an expression of past time in its construction with a present perfect ldquoI have beenrdquo

3rd Example (2 Corinthians 1219)

Πάλαι δοκεῖτε ὅτι ὑμῖν ἀπολογούμεθα ndash Greek Long ago you are thinking that to you we are making defense

Paul finds himself having to defend his apostolic authority and vindicating his record as superior in hardship endured for Christ and loving concern for congregations In simpler words Paul was telling them ldquoAll this time have you been thinking that Ive been speaking up for myself No Ive been speaking with God as my witness Ive been speaking like a believer in Christ Dear friends everything I do is to help you become strongerrdquo (NIRV)

In the literal reading above we have an adverb of time with past implications (Palai) followed by two Greek verb forms (ldquodokeiterdquo amp ldquoapologoumethardquo) in the present indicativetense The book Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek Verb by William Watson Goodwin explains ldquoThe Present is often used with expressions denoting past time especially πάλαι [palai] in the sense of a perfect and a present combinedrdquo (Section 26 p 9) How do translators render these in English Some carry over the present tense into the English text producing unconventional English Others cognizant of issues presented here

do a better job at it See below for a sample

ldquoHave you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves before yourdquo (The Comprehensive New Testament 2008)ldquoI hope you donacutet think that all along weacuteve been making our defense before yourdquo (The Message Eugene H Peterson)ldquoHave you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves to yourdquo (NIV)ldquoIt may seem to you that all this time we have been attempting to put ourselves in the rightrdquo (Bible in Basic English)ldquoAll this time you have been thinking that we have been pleading our own cause before yourdquo (NJB)ldquoHave you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves to yourdquo (CEV)ldquoHave you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves before yourdquo (Revised Standard Version) ldquoPerhaps you think that all along we have been trying to defend ourselves before yourdquo (TEV)ldquoHave you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves to yourdquo (ESV)ldquoYou have thought all along that we were defending ourselves to yourdquo (HCSB)ldquoHave you been thinking all this time that we have been defending ourselves to yourdquo (NET Bible)

ldquoYou have been thinking all along that it was to you we were making our defenserdquo (The Bible in Living English Steven T Byington)

The above translations use present perfect (and perfect progressive) forms or past progressives to bring out the proper sense of the original into our language Can anyone rightfully claim that it is improper for these Bible versions to translate this text as they have done in English

4th Example (Luke 248 Wescott and HortNestle early editions Greek text)

ὁ πατήρ σου καὶ ἐγὼ ὀδυνώμενοι ζητοῦμέν σε - Greek The father of you and I being pained we are seeking you Here the context (vv 42-48) speaks of Jesus (12 years old) being left behind unwittingly in Jerusalem by his parents they went back searching in distress for three days before finding him When they finally found him they spoke the words above

ldquoYour father and I have been looking for you anxiouslyrdquo (Revised Standard Version)ldquoYour father and I in agony of mind have been searching for yourdquo (Williams NT)ldquoYour father and I have been anxiously looking for Yourdquo (NASB 1971)ldquoYour father and I have been searching for you in great distressrdquo (Riverside NT)

ldquoHere have your father and I been searching anxiously for yourdquo (Hugh J Schonfield)ldquoYour father and I have been looking for you have been very anxious rdquo (Goodspeed)ldquoYour father and I have been looking for you We have been very troubledrdquo (Bible in Worldwide English)ldquoYour father and I have been looking for you in distressrdquo (Richmond Lattimore)ldquoYour father and I have been searching for you in great distressrdquo (Twentieth Century NT) ldquoThy father and I have sought thee distressedrdquo (Darby Bible Translation)

ldquoThy father and I sought thee sorrowingrdquo (American Standard Version)

ldquoThy father and I in anguish were seeking theerdquo (The Emphasized Bible 3rd edit based on Wescott and Hort by Joseph B Rotherham)ldquoThy father and I were seeking thee sorrowfulrdquo (W B Godbey N T 1902)ldquoThy father and I were seeking Thee sorrowingrdquo (A S Worrell N T 1904)ldquoYour father and I were anxiously looking for yourdquo (World English Bible)

The words ldquowe are seeking yourdquo are in the present indicative tense however since an expression of time is used indicating action going on for days (ldquoafter three daysrdquo v 46) translators find it necessary to use either the present perfect (ldquohave beenrdquo ldquohave soughtrdquo) or simple past (ldquosoughtrdquo) or past progressive (ldquowere seekingrdquo) indicative forms to express in English what the Greek says in the ldquopresentrdquo Various Greek texts have instead of the ldquopresentrdquo found in the Westcott amp Hort Text above an ldquoimperfectrdquo verb form Both forms are frequently rendered with an English present ldquoperfectrdquo Compare with Youngs Literal Translation which also uses a past progressive indicative form ldquowere seekingrdquo and the Spanish Reina-Valera Revisada which rendered an imperfect verb form appearing in the Received Text with a present perfect indicative (ldquohemos buscadordquo) Is this another reason why many translators have rendered the Greek present ldquoegō eimirdquo preceded by an adverbial modifier in its clause at John 858 with perfective or past forms in English

5th Example (Juan 56)

καὶ γνοὺς ὅτι πολὺν ἤδη χρόνον ἔχει - Greek and having known that much already time he is having

This is an account of an invalid man who for 38 years had been sick and was now being cured by Jesus The Greek in this clause does not make his illness clear however the context does Take note of the expression of time used with past implications mixed with a present indicative verb ldquohe is havingrdquo For this to make any sense in our language it has to be modified When Jesus saw this sick man lying there

ldquoand knew that he had been now a long time in that caserdquo (KJV italics theirs) ldquoand knowing that he had been ill a long timerdquo (Revised English Bible)ldquoand knew he had been in that condition for a long timerdquo (NJB)ldquoand knew that he had been sick for a long timerdquo (World English Bible)ldquoand knew that he had been sick for a long timerdquo (Godacutes Word)

ldquoand knew how long he had been illrdquo (Living Bible)ldquoand knew he had already been there a long timerdquo (HCSB)ldquoand he knew that the man had been sick for such a long timerdquo (TEV)ldquoand knew that he had been in this state a long timerdquo (Confraternity Version)ldquoand finding that he had had a long time of itrdquo (S T Byington) ldquoand knew that he had been sick for a long timerdquo (Jay E Adams)ldquoand he knew that he had been waiting for a long timerdquo (George M Lamsa Peshitta) ldquoand knew that he had been now a long timerdquo (Rheims New Testament)

ldquoand knowing that he was [in that state] now a great length of timerdquo (J N Darby Translation Brackets his)

Once again we see translators having to use mostly perfective forms (ldquohad beenrdquo ldquohad hadrdquopast perfects) and one with a simple past ldquowasrdquo even though they are translating a present tense verb ldquohe is havingrdquo This shows that translators adapt their renderings whenever is necessary to convey the right meaning into the target language It is thus possible to render ldquoeimirdquo at John 858 with a form other than a present tense such as a present perfect Those who say that it can not be done or should not be done just need to look again at the evidenceobjectively

6th Example (John 1527 Wescott amp Hort)

ὅτι ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς μετʼ ἐμοῦ ἐστέ ndash Greek that from beginning with me you are

These words spoken by Jesus evidently refers to the beginning of his ministry when he chosehis closest disciples They were eyewitnesses of all the things God did through Christ duringhis ministry (Acts 121)

ldquobecause ye have been with me from the beginningrdquo (KJV) ldquobecause you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (NAB)ldquofor you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (Christian Community Bible)ldquobecause you are the men who have been with me from the very beginningrdquo (Heinz Wldquobecause you have been with me from the firstrdquo (New English Bible) [ Cassirer)ldquobecause you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (Godacutes Word Translation) ldquofor you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (NIV)ldquobecause you have been with me from the firstrdquo (Weymouth New Testament)ldquobecause you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (NRSV)ldquoyou that have been with me from the beginningrdquo (The Four Gospels EV Rieu)ldquobecause youacuteve been with Me from the beginning of My ministryrdquo (The Clear Word)ldquofor you have been with me from the firstrdquo (J B Phillips Modern English)ldquobecause you have been with Me from the beginningrdquo (HCSB) ldquothat you were with me from the startrdquo (21st Century New Testament)ldquofor you were with Me from the beginningrdquo (New Berkeley Version Revised Edition)

ldquobecause you were with me from the beginningrdquo (Mark Heber Miller)ldquobecause you were with me from the very beginningrdquo (SEB)

This scripture with the plural form of ldquoeimirdquo (este) is very similar to John 858 Again within its structure there is an expression of past time and a verb in the present indicative form (este) just as there is in John 858 A Grammar of New Testament Greek says ldquoThe reader may be reminded of one idiom which comes out of the linear idea the use of words like πάλαι [palai ldquolong agordquo] with the present in a sense best expressed by our perfect Thus in 2 Co 1219 lsquohave you been thinking all this timersquo or Jn 1527 lsquoyou have been with me from the beginning [ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς]rsquo hellip The durative present in such cases gathers up past and present time into one phraserdquo (A Grammar of New Testament Greek Vol 1 Prolegomena by JH Moulton p 119) As previously noted this Grammar specifically refers to John 858 as an example of this idiom

And here in John 1527 there is a connection of Jesus disciples [creatures as they are] that ldquowererdquo with him ldquofrom the beginningrdquo Obviously Jesus was making no reference to his disciples sharing ldquoeternityrdquo with him The disciples all had a beginning The logical conclusion is that Jesus was simply saying to them lsquoYou have been with me from the start of my ministryrsquo Hence there is no need to read ldquoeternityrdquo into the expression ldquoI amrdquo anymore that we should read ldquoeternityrdquo from Jesus words at John 1527 lsquoYou are with me from the beginningrsquo Neither grammar nor the context justifies reading more into these Scriptures than what they actually say

In fact the six (6) instances cited above (Genesis 3138 LXX 1 John 38 2 Cor 1219 Luke 248 John 56 John 1527) and John 858 as well all have an expression of past time or an extent of time with past implications (ldquoThese twenty yearsrdquo ldquoLong agordquo ldquoafter three daysrdquo Lk 246 ldquomuch already timerdquo ldquofrom [the] beginningrdquo ldquoBeforerdquo etc) AND present verbs in their sentences or nearby within the context and are commonly rendered with present perfect (some with past perfects) or simple past (or past progressive) forms in English translations If we apply this pattern to the translation of John 858 it would mean that renderings such as ldquoI have beenrdquo (present perfect) and ldquoI wasrdquo (simple past) are not only acceptable in translation but actually more ldquosuitablerdquo in application Can this really be done Not only can it be done it makes for a ldquobetterrdquo English translation

In regards to Jesus John 858 simply tells us that Jesus lsquowas alive before Abraham was bornrsquo (SEB) and that his existence continued up to the moment of his speaking to them Just as it is not proper English to say ldquoFor three days we are seeking yourdquo (Greek literal reading of Luke 248) or ldquobecause from the beginning with me you arerdquo (John 1527) it is no less proper English to say in John 858 ldquoBefore Abraham was born I amrdquo These readings should only appear in extremely literal interlinear translations which basically render the Greek word-by-word and not in standard idiomatic English translations Let me illustrate If a man advanced in age for example had his work history and experience questioned by co-workers in comparison to his younger son and employee Abe would he say in reply ldquoBefore my son Abe was born I am [the one fit for the job]rdquo No that does not sound right In English he could say it in various ways

ldquoI have been an experienced worker since before my son Abe was bornrdquo ldquoI have been what I am since before my son Abe was bornrdquo ldquoI was fit to work and fully active before my son Abe was ever bornrdquo ldquoI was already experienced in many jobs before Abe ever came to berdquo ldquoI have been a master worker way before my son Abe came to liferdquo ldquoBefore Abe was born I already was life and job experiencedrdquo etc

The point is that in English normally we include a present perfect tense whenever there is a reference to the past extending to the present or a past tense of some form whenever we go back in time The same with John 858 There is no justification in English to insist using a present verb form (which is not equal to the Greek present when combined with a past expression) in an unwarranted attempt to convey ldquoeternityrdquo as ldquopaddingrdquo to the Trinity doctrine a doctrine adopted AFTER the Christian era Worse it is disingenuous to accuse other translators (who have chosen to render ldquoegō eimirdquo at John 858 with an English present perfect or past tense) of scholastic dishonesty when the very same translations honored by these detractors do so in other places where the ldquodeityrdquo of Christ is not in play asshown in the samples provided above

An example of this double standard can be seen as well when scholars such as Dr Julius Mantey harshly criticizes the NWT for the rendering ldquoI have beenrdquo at John 858 but keeps quiet when other translators do similarly and even states or pretends that no other reputable translator would ever translate it that way He dared not criticize his former Greek teacher Charles B Williams who produced his own Bible translation Dr Mantey once wrote the following of Dr Williams translation ldquoWilliams translation considering all the factors is the most accurate and illuminating translation in the English languagerdquo And how does this ldquomost accurate translationrdquo render John 858 As follows ldquoI existed before Abraham was bornrdquo Here Dr Williams known for his Greek command used a simple past tense (ldquoI existedrdquo) as translation for the Greek present Julius Mantey certainly did not find Williams version of John 858 a ldquoshocking translationrdquo ldquoI existedrdquo is quite different from the translation Dr Mantey so passionately defended (ldquoI amrdquo)

When Dr Mantey talks about the NWT he says the rendering ldquoI have beenrdquo at John 858 cannot be justified and calls it ldquodishonestrdquo That rule does not apply to Williams translation does it Williams did not translate John 858 in the same way Mantey would have liked (ldquoI amrdquo) Not only that the Grammar itself that Dr Mantey co-authored with Dr Dana A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament states under ldquoThe Progressive Presentrdquo (called ldquoExtension from Pastrdquo by McKay) ldquoSometimes the progressive present is retroactivein its application denoting that which has begun in the past and continues into the present For the want of a better name we may call it the present of duration This use is generally associated with an adverb of time and may best be rendered by the English perfect ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς μετʼ ἐμοῦ ἐστέ Ye have been with me from the beginning Jn 1527 See also Lk137 2 Cor 129 [19]rdquo (Pages 182-83 Emphasis added)

Even though Julius Mantey has stated when referring to the NWT that ldquoI have beenrdquo is not a proper translation and even ldquodishonestrdquo at John 858 he clearly states in his Grammar (of

Scriptures with similar syntax to John 858) ldquoThis use is generally associated with an adverb of time and may best be rendered by the English perfect [such as ldquoI have beenrdquo which in fact is associated with an adverb of time in John 858]rdquo A likely reason for Dana ampManteys strong reluctance for not including John 858 as an example of the idiom discussed on page 183 may have to do with the fact that as ldquotrinitariansrdquo they oppose the idea of Jesus existence having lsquobegunrsquo in the past even though John 858 perfectly fits with the ldquoProgressive Presentrdquo idiom being discussed in their Grammar as acknowledged by other grammarians Hence their objection is truly a ldquotheologicalrdquo one rather than Greek grammaritself arguing in their favor as Mantey and some others have implied since a Greek present or an English perfect does not demand ldquoeternityrdquo at all from the subject

Consequently many religious individuals who focus solely on the basic meaning (of ldquoegō eimirdquo as ldquoI amrdquo) out of the context of the particular ldquoidiomrdquo used at John 858 end up missing the thrust of Jesus words and fall prey to misleading interpretations Doctor Kenneth L McKay taking into account all of these issues comes up with this excellent translation for John 858 ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo (A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek SBG 5 New York Peter Lang 1994 p42) If we objectively consider the material above we will not insist in connecting Jesus at John 858 with the God Jehovah of Exodus 314 (which many attempt to do but cannot be sustained) Instead we will focus on the simple message conveyed by Jesus words at John 858 which is in harmony with the totality of Scripture ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo (McKay) The rendering ldquoI have been in existencerdquo by itself does not rule out either the concept of ldquoeternityrdquo or the ldquocreationrdquo of Jesus Christ A Committee of Bible translators came up with the following translation which may not be the best choice but considering the issues involved is better than the traditional rendering of ldquoI amrdquo ldquoI was alive before Abraham was bornrdquo (The New Testament in Plain English)

(The following scholars are members of the Bible Translation Committee of The New Testament in Plain English which approved this last reading ldquoI was aliverdquo instead of ldquoI amrdquo(Dr Stanley L Morris chairman FW Gingrich Ph D a renown Greek lexicographer Jack P Lewis Ph D CH Accord Th D Clyde M Woods Ph D ST Kan Ph D Gary T Burke Ph D Milo Hadwin D Min)

I submit their names and their credentials here as an example because it is often asserted vigorously that no intelligent or highly qualified scholar would ever produce a translation other than ldquoI amrdquo As noted above and as the list of alternate readings (at the end of this essay) of John 858 shows many done by highly qualified people this is simply not true Usually those making statements of that sort are doing so based on emotional and theological not philological reasons Furthermore by not disclosing other valid viewpoints or by dismissing how other qualified Bible translators deal with this scripture they are undermining their own credibility as well

At this time you are welcome to briefly go over the list of Alternate Readings to John 858 at

the end before moving on to the second part of this essay

_____________________________

Should we ignore the evidence of all those translations listed at the end that differ in John 858 from the traditional versions What then are all these translators seeing at John 858 that moved them to render this text differently They surely must be aware of the resistance they would encounter by translating it by the various forms they used Still they must have had the firm conviction that both the Greek text and the context supports their understanding of this scripture They likely see a Jesus making no identity connection with his Father Godbut rather see a Jesus simply expressing his indefinite existence with no suggestion of eternity in focus Neither is Jesus stating here that he is the God of Old Testament times To understand it that way would be to read into the text more than what it says Taking some clues from the context of the chapter some scholars additionally see Jesus insinuating his ldquomessiahshiprdquo as if saying ldquoI am he [the Messiah]rdquo This is very likely In fact The LivingBible renders John 824 thus ldquoThat is why I said that you will die in your sins for unless you believe that I am the Messiah the Son of God [ἐγώ εἰμι] you will die in your sinsrdquo

Is ldquoegō eimirdquo a title or another name of God

The use of ldquoeimirdquo at John 858 is frequently used as a ldquoproof textrdquo of Jesus deity A noted Trinitarian scholar AT Robertson a Baptist even refers to ldquoegō eimirdquo as ldquothe absolute phrase used of Godrdquo likely indicating the verb conveys ldquotimeless beingrdquo an implication that ldquoeimirdquo here does not require anything else to complete the meaning of the phrase thus conveying ldquoeternal existencerdquo as well as being an actual name for God Some individuals have given plenty of publicity to Robertsons statement as absolute truth But his statement is not ldquotruthrdquo at all It is faulty interpretation which many people have fallen prey to Grammar and theology do not always make the best mix True Robertsons credentials as a scholar are impressive nevertheless credentials does not truth make Besides some other equally bright scholars disagree with him Lets illustrate the folly of those advocating a divine title at John 858 by way of addition (Or substitution if you will) as some suggest

ldquoBefore Abraham was born I am Eternalrdquo ldquoBefore Abraham was born I am Jehovahrdquo ldquoBefore Abraham was born I am eternally Godrdquo

First of all the above hypothetical translations are just as ungrammatical as the simple ldquoI amrdquo reading of most versions An English present tense cannot start before a definite point in the past This can be seen in the following two examples

1 ldquoBefore the US Iraq war I am a soldierrdquo 2 ldquoThree journalists are kidnapped in Nepal since the start of 2007rdquo

What is the correct way to express these statements in English Analyze it for a second and

provide an answer if you will

Notably if ldquoeimirdquo was used to convey eternal existence what is the point of using an expression of past time at all in the clause Moreover the context of previous verses (vv 48-57) clearly indicates that Jesus is speaking of God as a separate entity See below

49 ldquobut I honor my Father and you dishonor merdquo 50 ldquoI am not seeking glory for myself but there is one who seeks it and he is the

judgerdquo54 ldquoIf I glorify myself my glory means nothing My Father whom you claim as your

God is the one who glorifies me 55 ldquoThough you do not know him I know him If I said I did not I would be a liar like you but I do know him and obey his wordrdquo Thus if Jesus meant he himself was the ldquoJehovahrdquo of the Old Testament as Trinitarians claim what would be the rationale behind Jesus directing all distinction and glory to lsquothe Father Godrsquo as a distinct individual as he did in the previous verses and then a few words later abruptly change his argumentation by claiming he is that very same One who lsquoreceives obedience from his own wordrsquo lsquoseeking his own honor and gloryrsquo because he himself is ldquoGodrdquo Confusing is it not To accept this abrupt change of character on Jesus part would be not ldquoa mysteryrdquo but flat out ldquoa deceptionrdquo of big proportions since Jesus himself warned against pretending to be one thing and acting as another (Matthew 62-5 2313-36)

Are we are supposed against all logic to accept these ldquotrinitarianrdquo assumptions instead of a simple alternative which really answers the Jews question about lsquohow could Abraham ldquoseerdquoJesus day if he was not yet 50 years oldrsquo (ldquoI have been in existence since Abraham was bornrdquo)

The obsession with the simple words ldquoI amrdquo have led to many faulty assumptions ldquoI amrdquo issuch a common expression in our language even to this day that words such as ldquoegoismrdquo ldquoegotismrdquo etc (derived from the Greek ldquoegordquo) are considered common words in English dictionaries Everyone uses the phrase ldquoI amrdquo at times Think of any big corporation or powerful organization of your choice for a moment Would you conclude that the two most powerful individuals of this one prestigious organization must be identical in every way solely because they are heard equally saying to others in their common speech ldquoI am thisrdquoor ldquoI am thatrdquo etc

In Bible times humans too used common pronouns The verb eimi (ldquoI amrdquo) itself or forms of it appears more than two thousand times (2000x) in the New Testament alone Additionally the word ldquoegōrdquo appears over seventeen hundred times (1700x) in the NT And those numbers do not include the Septuagint totals Do all occurrences of the word then imply ldquodivinityrdquo in each case Of course not It may be more significant when God or Christ use the expression because of who they are but does it really mean that both God and Christ share the same identity Or that everyone who uses the phrase ldquoI amrdquo does so with divine pretensions Does it really mean that everyone using the phrase are ldquoequalrdquo The

answer is obvious is it not

Lets bear in mind that when God sent Jesus Christ as His representative to a most crucial assignment multiple biblical prophecies were pointing to Christ as the promised Messiah that would free mankind from its moribund condition It is logical then that when the time came for Jesus Christ to show up on earth he would somehow communicate to others that ldquoherdquo and not some other human claiming to be the Messiah was Gods instrument in bringing everlasting relief to human misery Hence he could rightly say any or all of the following ldquoI am (this)rdquo ldquoI am (that)rdquo ldquoI am he [the promised Messiah]rdquo or ldquoI am Gods Sonrdquo Should we expect anything less

The fact is that the words ldquoI amrdquo are not exclusive to God and Christ It should be noted that a man who was born ldquoblindrdquo also used the same expression (John 99) The Greek here says ldquoekeinos elegen hoti Egō eimirdquo (ldquoThat one kept saying that I amrdquo) AT Robertson cites John 99 as one of five parallels to the use of egō eimi in John 858 (Word Pictures in the New Testament Vol V p 159) The phrase here comes at the end of the clause with no explicit predicate James White who upholds the traditional reading admits ldquoThis last instance [John 99] is similar to the sayings as Jesus utters them in that the phrase comes at the end of the clause and looks elsewhere for its predicaterdquo The same could be said of John 1527 Some argue that ldquoeimirdquo in John 858 is ldquoabsoluterdquo but do not do so with John 99 or John 1527 Theology may be a factor in this Previously we saw how Jacob a man according to the Septuagint used the words ldquoegō eimirdquo Other instances in Scripture of creatures using those words would not prove they were part of a ldquoGodheadrdquo Context then ultimately dictates how ldquoeimirdquo should be translated According to John when Jesus was pressed he only claimed to have been alive way before Abraham was born and that he simply was ldquothe Christrdquo ldquothe Son of Manrdquo and ldquothe Son of Godrdquo

There is something else to keep in mind in regards to the meaning of ldquoeimirdquo And it is what grammarian Stanley Porter indicated ldquoSometimes the verb [eimi] is used on its own as a verb of existence Perhaps the best-known example of this is the following John 858rdquo (Fundamentals of New Testament Greek by Stanley E Porter section 753 72) AT Robertson adds ldquoThe verb εἰμί [eimi] hellip Sometimes it does express existence as a predicatelike any other verb as in ἐγὼ εἰμί [egō eimi] (Jo 858) and ἡ θάλασσα οὐκ ἔστιν ἔτι [hē thalassa ouk estin eti = ldquothe sea not is yetrdquo] (Rev 211) Cf Mt 2330rdquo (A Grammar of theGreek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research Nashville Tenn 1934 p 394)

What does this mean The examples mentioned by Robertson in addition to John 858 give us an idea of what this implies It is so strange that the two examples Robertson provided forcomparison with John 858 seems to contradict his ldquotimeless beingrdquo view on ldquoeimirdquo He cited a portion of Revelation 211 where the Greek literally says ldquoAnd the sea not is yetrdquo In other words ldquoThe sea does not exist any morerdquo Amplified Bible ldquoThere no longer existed any seardquo Curiously various versions render the present verb ldquoisrdquo (a form of ldquoeimirdquo) with an imperfect ldquowasrdquo (Cf KJV NIV NAB NRSV) Obviously ldquothe seardquo in this vision is [was] not ldquoeternalrdquo

And in Matthew 2330 the other text provided by Robertson in his comparison with John 858 the Greek word-for-word says ldquoIf we were in the days of the fathers of usrdquo which inmodern English would be ldquoIf we had lived in the days of our forefathersrdquo Other versions ldquoIf we had beenrdquo (Rheims NT) ldquoIf we had been livingrdquo (NASB) ldquoIf we had been existing in the days of our fathersrdquo (Jonathan Mitchell NT) The full NIV text reads ldquoAnd you say lsquoIf we had lived in the days of our ancestors we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophetsrsquo rdquo

It is clear from this comparison that the words of Matthew 2330 ldquoIf we wererdquo (a form of ldquoeimirdquo) in the text is used as an equivalent for ldquoliferdquo or ldquoexistencerdquo In the heavenly vision of Rev 211 lsquothe sea ceased to existrsquo And the generation of people which Jesus spoke about and their ancestors all died ceased to exist If we apply these two examples to John 858 given by Robertson with the meaning either of life or existence for ldquoeimirdquo then it wouldbe equally acceptable to translate ldquoI amrdquo as ldquoI existrdquo or ldquoI liverdquo Many translators reflect this very same understanding as the submitted list of alternate readings of John 858 show ldquoI existrdquo or ldquoI existed even before Abraham was bornrdquo Or ldquoI was alive before Abraham was bornrdquo (The Simple English Bible)

Although some may not see much semantic difference between Jesus saying ldquoI amrdquo or ldquoI existrdquo the two expressions communicate something very different to many readers ldquoI amrdquo is generally associated by Trinitarians as a title used by God or as another name for God Onthe other hand ldquoI existrdquo simply conveys ldquoliferdquo or ldquoexistence Barnabas Lindars points out that ldquoegō eimirdquo in John 858 ldquocannot be regarded as a title because it requires the meaning lsquoI am in existencersquordquo (ldquoThe Son of Man in Johannine Christologyrdquo in Christ and the Spirit in the New Testament In Honour of Charles Francis Digby Moule eds B Lindars and S Smalley Cambridge Cambridge University Press 1973) (Since an English present tense cannot start before a definite point in the past this would mean that we can incorporate Lindars valid observation and translate it into contemporary English like this ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo exactly as Dr McKay proposed)

Some in their eagerness to equate Christ with God accuse translators who render ldquoegō eimirdquo in John 858 with renderings other than ldquoI amrdquo pointing to all occurrences of this expression in the New Testament or in Johns Gospel where allegedly these translators do not follow the same ldquorulerdquo when translating ldquoegō eimirdquo in John 858 as they do elsewhere where they translate it with a present indicative form What they dont tell you or fail to understand is that in John 858 ldquoegō eimirdquo without a predicate AND with an expression of time with past implications in its sentence structure provides an ldquoidiomrdquo which is quite different from those other instances of ldquoeimirdquo Thats right an idiom (where present and past is combined) found equally at home in classical biblical and modern Greek which many translators convey into our language with the English present perfect at various places Consequently one cannot merely go by how the phrase ldquoegō eimirdquo is used elsewhere in the NT without taking into account the fact that John 858 displays an ldquoidiomrdquo in its structure Not doing so would be dishonest John the Baptist had said of Christ in John 130 ldquoA man is coming after me who ranks before me because he existed [Lit was] before merdquo (JB)

John 858 is in harmony with those words Furthermore some attempt to use the reading of Psalm 902 in the Septuagint as ldquoevidencerdquo that John 858 is rendered correctly in the popular versions But a closer analysis of this verse shows notable differences between the two verses making such comparison untenable With good reason a considerable number ofscholars have chosen to break from tradition in their rendering of John 858

If critics of alternate readings of John 858 are not candid enough to admit some of the very issues mentioned here and hide the fact that many scholars do hold a different interpretation and no less academic at that should we consider their diatribes of any worthy import It is ldquowishful thinkingrdquo for someone to believe that John 858 is directly connected to Exodus 314 rather than any real evidence (which is lacking) confirming their eager interpretations Remember even Dr James White a well known Trinitarian advocate admitted ldquothat an immediate and unqualified jump from the ego eimi of John 858 to Exodus 314 is unwiserdquo

Besides a theological tendency can be seen when they focus as some do on undermining the reputation of one Bible translation (NWT) when there are actually numerous versions from different religions dealing with the same controversial Scriptures in a similar manner This is very much like politicians who ignore the failings of their own party but are quick to lsquodemonizersquo their opponents (Matthew 73)

Is the Kingdom Interlinear ldquoproofrdquo the NWT is wrong at John 858

A criticism has been made of a Watchtower Society publication (The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures ldquoKITrdquo) which contains the Greek text and underneath it a word-by-word translation in English and on the right side of the page the modern New World Translation Well at John 858 this publication renders the Greek phrase being discussed here egō eimi word-for-word as ldquoI amrdquo and in the right column the NWT shows the reading ldquoI have beenrdquo This difference have led some to severely criticize the NW translators of ldquoincompetencerdquo ldquoinconsistencyrdquo and even of ldquodishonestyrdquo The critics say something like this ldquoThey have backed themselves into a corner where they cant escape their mishandling of the Greek textrdquo or something of that sort Amazingly these critics in their condemnations hardly ever mention the dozens of translators who translate the same way or similarly to the NWT as the submitted list shows So much for honesty

Those who engage in such tactics are not being forthcoming Why say that Besides dismissing how other translators deal with John 858 they also distort known facts for the WT Society have made it clear that the publication of this Greek Bible is to help the Bible student determine the basic sense of the Greek and have stated that the translation on the right column (the NWT) is a modern way of expressing the thoughts transmitted by the Greek text There are many factors to consider when using such publications

Even other interlinear publications warn of seeming discrepancies For instance The Zondervan Parallel New Testament in Greek and English says in its Foreword ldquo[I]t is a good thing to bear in mind that you cannot always either give an English equivalent for a Greek word or expression or even always render the same Greek verb word by the same

English onerdquo Another interlinear the New Greek-English Interlinear New Testament by Brown and Comfort and edited by J D Douglas explains ldquoIt is difficult to translate one language into another on a word-for-word basis because each language has its own syntax grammatical constructions and idioms that are difficultmdashif not impossiblemdashto replicate literally in another languagerdquo (Emphasis added) This statement is so true of the text in discussion (John 858) in regards to its syntax and particular idiom Often critics of the NWT hide this fact Why Is it religious bias at work

I will give the reader a few examples of an available interlinear translation which has the Greek main text and a literal sublinear translation below the Greek by Professor Paul R McReynolds and on the right column for comparison the reader can study the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) a popular translation in academia Observe how the two can differ

McReynolds Mat 21 ldquomagiciansrdquo NRSV ldquowise menrdquo John 118 ldquoonly born Godrdquo ldquoGod the only Sonrdquo Mat 243 ldquosign of the your presencerdquo ldquothe sign of your comingrdquo Mathew 522 ldquothe gehenna of the firerdquo ldquothe hell of firerdquo John 1319 ldquoI amrdquo ldquoI am herdquo John 149 ldquoI amrdquo ldquoHave I beenrdquo John 1527 ldquoyou arerdquo ldquoyou have beenrdquo 2 Peter 24 ldquobeing sent to Tartarusrdquo ldquobut cast them into hellrdquo Luke 1113 ldquowill give spirit holy tordquo ldquowillgive the Holy Spirit tordquo John 2022 ldquotake spirit holyrdquo ldquoReceive the Holy Spiritrdquo Acts 24 ldquofilled all of spirit holyrdquo ldquofilled with the Holy Spiritrdquo

( Paul R McReynolds is professor of Greek and New Testament at Pacific Christian College in Fullerton California USA He also contributed to the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia)

Some of the readings from the right column above (NRSV) are acceptable others are not See if you can detect in the right column above those translation renderings with a theological tendency that deviate from the literal readings from the left column McReynoldson the left does an excellent job of transmitting the Greek sense Even the most popular Bible versions do not adhere consistently to the base texts The NRSV and a host of other Bible versions add their own religious interpretation throughout Scripture just as much as the NWT if not more but hardly anyone complains of this transformation of Scriptures eventhough it leads to error Why Simply because the NRSV represents more of a ldquomajorityrdquo view than the NWT does But in truth majority or minority views do not correspond equallyto ldquoaccuraterdquo or ldquoinaccuraterdquo results

In the text discussed the KIT can appropriately show the basic sense rendering of ldquoI amrdquo for the Greek ldquoegō eimirdquo in the left column and alternately show the reading ldquoI have beenrdquo in the right column as a contemporary way of expressing in English the particular Greek clause with its ldquoidiomrdquo in John 858 as explained throughout this article a rendering which has

scholarship support When the Greek ldquoegō eimirdquo appears in an idiom-less structure it can rightfully be translated as ldquoI amrdquo as most versions do including the NWT Hence there is no contradiction between the two translations

Dr McKay argues that Jesus response in John 858 ldquowould be most naturally translated lsquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrsquo if it were not for the obsession with the simple words lsquoI amrsquo rdquo (Kenneth L McKay ldquolsquoI amrsquo in Johns Gospelrdquo Expository Times 1996 p 302) I take the author as saying that ldquoI have been in existencerdquo for ldquoeimirdquo is a better translation than ldquoI amrdquo but the [religious] obsession for the simple words ldquoI amrdquo in their quest to elevate Christ to Gods level does not allow people to see that The thing is that Christ lsquoalways pleased the Fatherrsquo and was fully satisfied with being lsquolesserrsquo than him (John 829 1029 1428 177813) Why not accept him as he is

Hence it is poor scholarship to forward the idea that an entity must be God Almighty himselfby the sole fact of using a divine sounding phrase when other Bible individuals are found using the same expression in Scripture The ldquocontextrdquo is the determining factor Not only must we take into account the context surrounding a chapter or book of the Bible but also what the whole Bible teaches on a given person or subject

What does the Bible teach about Jesus

That Christ ldquowas in the beginning with Godrdquo (John 12) At the announcement of his birth on earth the angel Gabriel told Mary that she will give birth to someone ldquogreatrdquo and ldquoholyrdquo and that one will be called ldquoSon of the Most Highrdquo and ldquoSon of Godrdquo (Luke 132 35) Trinitarians may claim that ldquoSon of Godrdquo is equivalent in meaning to ldquoGodrdquo It is a claim with no foundation If there was any truth to the claim then the ldquoHoly Spiritrdquo would also be called Son of God But no The fact is that other living creatures are called ldquosons of Godrdquo (Job 21) Never is ldquoGodrdquo or ldquoholy spiritrdquo ever called ldquoSon of Godrdquo in Scripture Only Jesus Christ is called ldquothe Son of Godrdquo with the article Why

By Christ lsquobecoming obedient [to God] until deathrsquo during the course of his earthly life lsquoGod highly exalted Him and graciously gave him a name which is above every other name that at the name of Jesus every knee should bendto the credit of God the Fatherrsquo (Hebrews58 Philippians 28-11 21st Century New Testament)

ldquo[Christ] has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God with angels authorities and powers made subject to himrdquo (1 Peter 322 NRSV) Still in heaven Christ receives knowledge information revelation from God and transmits it to other creatures (Revelation11) Though the glorified Christ is described as ldquoKing of kingsrdquo and ldquoLord of lordsrdquo he is specifically called ldquoThe Word of Godrdquo (Revelation 191316 NRSV) The night before his death he ldquoprayedrdquo to his Father and called him ldquothe only true Godrdquo and made this petition ldquoFather glorify me in your own presence [Greek beside yourself] with the glory that I hadin your presence [Greek beside you] before the world existedrdquo (John 175 NRSV) (ldquoalongside yourselfrdquo ST Byington) Again God never has to ldquoprayrdquo to anyone Ever

Well then if Jesus Christ expressed this one final ldquowishrdquo in prayer to be ldquoin the presence ofrdquoldquobesiderdquo ldquoalongsiderdquo his Father which he himself called ldquothe only true Godrdquo why should we for the sake of tradition insist with the belief that Jesus ldquomustrdquo somehow be that ldquotruerdquo God the One sitting at the center of Gods throne instead of ldquobesiderdquo God (Mark 1619) Christ did not ask to sit at Gods throne Christ was fully content with the premise of being alongside God And that is what actually happened Mark tells us ldquoSo then the Lord Jesus after he had spoken to them was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of Godrdquo (Mark 1619 NRSV Note Some ancient manuscripts omit this verse) The NIV Study Bible notes the significance of lsquositting at the right hand of Godrsquo ldquoA position of authority second only to Godsrdquo Being in ldquoa position of authority second only to Godsrdquo is something no one should ever say of God for he is always ldquosupremerdquo At no time does God relinquishes his supremacy Someone who holds a position of authority second to God cannot be identical to God Take note too that in this account of Mark chapter 16 or the oneat John chapter 17 there is no mention of a third party of a ldquoGodheadrdquo No ldquoHoly Spiritrdquo is in sight The fact is that the glorified Christ in heaven continues to call his Father ldquomy Godrdquo(Revelation 312)

As ldquoSon of Godrdquo and always lesser and subject to God it is illogical to think Christ would purposely usurp titles and rights that only belonged to lsquohis God and Fatherrsquo (John 1428 Matthew 2023 John 2017 Acts 17) Jesus Christ taught others to only worship the Father God (Matthew 410 John 42324) ldquoAnd we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the worldrdquo (1 John 414) If so the thought that Christ would usethe words ldquoI amrdquo as a title to identify himself as ldquothe true Godrdquo is incongruous Jesus made it clear that he would only seek the glory ldquothat comes from the one who alone is Godrdquo (John850 54 544)

In this Satan controlled world it is not that difficult to get entangled with human taught intricate philosophies which obscure the simple Christian doctrine (John 1231 2 Cor 44) Hence the need for caution at the time of defending popular traditional views which clash with the monotheistic approach of Bible writers

Consequently those who teach that Christ is Almighty God find themselves in conflict with the Scriptural record The submitted list of alternate readings of John 858 shows that there are a considerable number of scholars who not only understand the subject correctly but alsokeenly grasp that whatever Jesus said on the matter has to harmonize with both the context of John chapter 8 and the rest of the Scriptures as well

What is the correct translation of John 858

Is it ldquoI amrdquo ldquoI wasrdquo ldquoI am herdquo or ldquoI have beenrdquo After analyzing the Greek phrase ldquoegō eimirdquo the context and the various possible ways the expression can be translated in English I think it is best to render the Greek with an English present perfect Adding a smallelement such as ldquosincerdquo to the statement as McKay does below satisfies all contextual and grammatical requirements of the passage Doing so does not qualify as ldquointerpolationrdquo

A second choice a simple past tense can perhaps be used in translation where the context allows since it is grammatically correct but it is generally used of activity confined to the past so the message may be distorted Unless that is the simple past is interpreted as ldquoimperfectiverdquo with current relevance How so In support of Jesus deity many frequently cite John11 There in the text a simple past tense ldquowasrdquo is applied to ldquothe Wordrdquo three times in English versions Does that mean ldquothe Wordrdquo is no more or that it was permanentlycut-off from existence at some point Of course not The context of the whole gospel of John shows that Christ is fully pertinent in Christian lives

Scholars choosing a past tense for ldquoeimirdquo (ie ldquoI wasrdquo ldquoI existedrdquo etc) at John 858 may also have in mind what John the Baptist said as a precursor of Jesus Christ ldquoA man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was [ldquoexistedrdquo JB] before merdquo Surely John the Baptist did not mean that Jesus existence was done away with His own words show thatJesus life was very much relevant and would continue to be so Translators have no issue whatsoever in applying a past tense (ldquowasrdquo ldquoexistedrdquo) at John 11 and 130 in their English versions So why would they at John 858 Perhaps because it would mean that they wouldhave to do away with the premise of a ldquodivine titlerdquo in their argumentation of which is claimed clinches Jesus identity with Gods own As shown above Revelation 211 a presentverb a form of ldquoeimirdquo is rendered by some versions with a past tense ldquowasrdquo Obviously Bible translators have no problem in translating some present tense verbs with past tenses or with present perfects But most object to it at John 858 likely for theological reasons

As stated in the beginning of this essay the English ldquopresentrdquo and the Greek ldquopresentrdquo in certain contexts do not correspond exactly in meaning because in Greek ldquotimerdquo is a secondary factor That being the case the choice of English tense does not have to match theGreek conjugation per se to be faithful to the Sacred Text When one considers the specific idiom found in John 858 and the semantic implications of both the Greek and English ldquopresentrdquo one can see that the rendering ldquoI amrdquo though popular does not nearly represent the best translation possible in the English language ldquoContextrdquo often plays a more importantrole in determining the correct translation Overall though it is best to render the Greek expression with an English present perfect since it conveys clearly a more present relevancythan a past tense would

That said John 858 is a good example where a Greek transliteration may not be the best choice to communicate the right message effectively in our times The translation of ldquoI amrdquo has its place in extreme English literal translations which show the basic sense of the Greek such as those Interlinear translations mentioned above Also it can rightfully be used in many Scriptures where the context calls for it as when the sentence structure lacks the Greekldquoidiomrdquo discussed throughout this writing as might be the case with most occurrences of ldquoeimirdquo

Here listed in my opinion are the translations which come closest to the Greek thought presented by the particular ldquoidiomrdquo found in John 858 Dr Kenneth L McKay comes up with the correct translation

1 ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo - Kenneth L McKay A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek (SBG 5 New York Peter Lang 1994) p42

(Kenneth L McKay graduated with honours in Classics (with an interest in the Greek of theNT) from the Universities of Sydney and Cambridge He has taught Greek in universities and theological colleges in Nigeria New Zealand and England Mr McKay retired from the Australian National University in 1987 after teaching there for 26 years)

Other translations below come close to McKays rendering and are thus favored over the traditional rendering which is widely misunderstood

2 ldquoI have existed before Abraham was bornrdquo - A New Translation by James [ Moffatt - DD DLitt Glasgow Oxford 3 ldquoBefore Abraham came into existence I have beenrdquo - New World Translation 4 ldquoBefore Abraham came into being I have existedrdquo - The Documents of the [New Testament G W Wade London 5 ldquoFrom before Abraham was I have been rdquo - The New Testament by George [ R -Noyes DD Boston USA6 ldquoBefore Abraham was born I have already been rdquo - The Unvarnished New [Testament Andy Gaus Boston7 ldquoI existed even before Abraham was bornrdquo - The concise Gospel and the Acts [Logos International Christopher J ed Christianson Plainfield NJ8 ldquoI already was before Abraham was bornrdquo ndash Worldwide English New Testament [ Derby UK ________________________________

COMMENTS

Also compare the following translations

Nytt liv (1907 Norwegian)A Biacuteblia Viva (1981 Portuguese)O Novo Testamento Vivo (1974 Portuguese)Le Livre Nouveau Testament (1980 eacuteditions Farel French)Η Καινή Διαθήκη των Τεσσάρων Καθηγητών (ΚΔΤΚ Greek) (The New Testament of the Four Teachers The translation was made and approved (1921981) by the Holy Summit Church of Greece The English title of the project is The New Testament in Modern Greek Athens Greece) Η Αγία Γραφή Παλαιά και Καινή Διαθήκη (ΝΔΜ Greek) Ελληνική Βιβλική Εταιρία Αθήνα [Athens] 1997 (The Bible Old and New Testament Greek Biblical Company - London 1997) ΚΔΛΖ ΛΧ (Other Greek Versions expressing the same idea as translations on the list)___________________

ldquoI was rdquo Note on 1987 translation from Italian main list l Vangelio di Giovanni (El Evangelio de Juan [ldquoThe Gospel of Johnrdquo] with imprimatur) by J Mateos and J Barreto noted on John 858 (as translated by Teodora Tosatti p 387 Cittadela Editrice 1982) that the temporal relationship expressed by the Greek ldquoprin eimi [BeforeI am]rdquo can be translated into Italian ldquoprimaero [BeforeI was]rdquo (Translation from Italian to English mine)__________________

Comment on 1993 ΟІ ΧΡΙΣΤΙΑΝΙΚΕΣ ΓΡΑΦΕΣ Απόδοση από τη Μειάφράση Νέου Κόσμου which is a modern Greek translation of the New World Translation of the ChristianScriptures Unlike most Bible Versions which are published in only one language or a few atmost the NWT is available in dozens of languages based mainly on their English translationbut obviously taking into account other factors in the process such as the original Bible text the peculiarities of their recipient local languages and their targeted audiences in their respective countries

It is obvious though that other NWT translation editions closely followed the English text of the NWT and at the same time their translation teams had enough latitude to offer their own unique renderings at times expressing in their native languages what they see in in the Inspired Text Having said that it is interesting to see how they approached their translation of John 858 from their English translation back into [modern] Greek

The translation team was acutely aware of the basic sense of ldquoegō eimirdquo as ldquoI amrdquo and how those simple words are misconstrued by religionists to say something more than Jesus intended Taking into account the syntax of John 858 as stated throughout this document the translation team who worked on the modern Greek version faced a few options

First they had the option to go back to ldquoegō eimirdquo using the modern Greek equivalent ldquoΕγώ ειμαιrdquo (I am) as it reads in the Vamvas version which they did not Or they could haveexpressed their NWT English choice of ldquoI have beenrdquo with their modern Greek equivalent of ldquoέχο υπάρξει [I have existed]rdquo Thirdly they could have gone with ldquoI wasrdquo (ldquoεγώ ήμουνrdquo) as some of their French and Italian Bible editions have done in the past or even with ldquo[εγώ] υπήρξα [I existed])rdquo Or they could have provided some other unique rendering It is obvious they wanted to stick closely to the Greek text but given the common misconceptionssurrounding ldquoegō eimai (I am)rdquo in mainstream churches the translation team chose to use ldquoεγώ υπάρχωrdquo (a present indicative form in the Greek) which means basically ldquoI existrdquo but in the presence of an expression of past time in John 858 the sense is ldquoI have existedrdquo Thus ldquoBefore Abraham came into existence I have existedrdquo ( The verb είμαι [ldquoto berdquo] in modern Greek has no forms for the perfect tense It borrows the forms from the verb υπάρχω [ldquoI existrdquo] The Greek and English ldquoperfectsrdquo are not exact equivalents either)

The reader is reminded here as noted earlier that modern Greek keeps up with the Koineacute Greek ldquopresentrdquo idiom A modern Greek grammar Greek A Comprehensive Grammar explains ldquoThe present tense is also used in constructions where English would use the perfect continuous ie where the verb expresses a continuous state or habitual event that

has lasted since a certain point in the past and is continuing up to (and including) the presentrdquo The authors provide two examples where a present verb is used with a past time indicator and where they translate using an English perfect as explained ldquoI have been living[Μένω] in this house for three years nowrdquo And ldquoI have been reading [Διαβάζω] this newspaper since 1984rdquo (Greek A Comprehensive Grammar by David Holton Peter Mackridge amp Irene Philippaki-Warburton Revised by Vassilios Spyropoulos p 294 Second edition 2012)

Ten years after the NWT-Greek Edition was released another modern Greek translation was published with the following rendering at John 858 ldquoΣας βεβαιώνω πως πριν να γεννηθεί οΑβραάμ εγώ υπάρχωrdquo which in English would be ldquoI assure you that I have existed since before Abraham was bornrdquo (Literally ldquoI assure you that before could be born the AbrahamI exist [not ldquoΕγώ ειμαιrdquo]rdquo The Holy Bible in Todays Greek Version 2003 Greek Bible Society Interestingly the original English version of 1976 had ldquoI Amrdquo) Also a Spanish Bible conveys a similar thought ldquoYo existo desde antes que existiera Abrahamrdquo [Translation ldquo I exist since before Abraham existedrdquo] (La Biblia - Versioacuten Popular 2nd edition Sociedades Biacuteblicas Unidas 1983)

_________________________________________________________

The Clear Word The translators quoted in this article represent various religious faiths some are Catholic some are Protestant Others are Unitarians Jehovahs Witnesses Jewish Adventists etc and they represent countries the world over One of these translators is a Seventh-Day Adventist who worked on The Clear Word Jack J Blanco ThD As a Seventh-Day Adventist who supports the Trinity doctrine Blanco translated verses to make Jesus ldquoequalrdquo to God in every way

He renders John 11 ldquoHe is the Word of God and is equal with Godrdquo He shows Jesus at Philippians 25-7 as ldquoequal with Godrdquo and describes him as lsquoacting the part of a servantrsquo At John 1428 he completely omits the reference that lsquothe Father is greaterrsquo than Christ But here at John 858 in answer to the question the priests and leaders asked concerning Abraham lsquoseeingrsquo his day Jesus answered according to Dr Blanco ldquoBecause I existed before Abraham was even bornrdquo Thus Dr Blanco makes no connection as others do that Christ is the ldquoI amrdquo of Exodus 314 which according to some would indicate that Jesus is the Jehovah of the Old Testament What he sees in this account is that Jesus already lsquoexisted before Abraham didrsquo and thus Abraham was able to lsquoseersquo his day (John 856) To this we must add another likely element included in Jesus response to the Jews as wellone of simple identification as ldquothe Christ [Messiah]rdquo and ldquoSon of manrdquo Why is it then that manywho support the Trinity doctrine find it hard to understand Jesus statement correctly at John 858 Could it be that they are letting non-Scriptural influence and perhaps the weight of themajority view dictate their understanding of this Scripture

For a consideration of other subjects by the same author check below

For a discussion of Acts 286 Whose blood

httpwwwscribdcomdoc231244155Acts-20-28-Whose-blood

For a discussion of Colossians 116 (ldquoall other thingsrdquo) see

httpwwwscribdcomdoc205841269Colossians-1-16-Is-the-expression-all-other-things-a-proper-rendition

For a consideration on the subject of the Trinity click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc160286056Does-the-Trinity-ever-make-sense

For a full consideration of John 11 click the following link httpwwwscribdcomdoc34916458The-correct-translation-of-John-1-1

For a brief consideration of John 11 with additional citations click here httpwwwscribdcomdoc50330864John-1-1-List-of-Alternate-Readings

Did the NW translators know any Greek click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc48234022Did-the-New-World-Translation-Committee-Know-Greek

For a consideration of John 173 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc57772552John-17-3-E28098Taking-in-knowledge-of-E28099-God-and-Jesus

For a consideration of 1 Timothy 316 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc76927834Was-God-manifested-in-the-flesh-1-Timothy-3-16

For a consideration of Exodus 225 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc38676458Exodus-2-25-And-God-took-notice-Does-God- care-about-us

For a consideration of John 114 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc35002730John-1-14-Jesus-full-of-grace

For a consideration of Translation Differences-Questions and Answershttpwwwscribdcomdoc59484457Translation-Differences-Questions-and-Answers

In Spanish

Para una consideracioacuten de otros temas vea los siguientes enlaces

Para una consideracioacuten de Colosenses 116 ldquotodas las otras cosasrdquo vea

httpwwwscribdcomdoc209601066Colosenses-1-16-C2BFEs-la-traduccion-E2809Ctodas-las-otras-cosasE2809D-apropiada

Para una consideracioacuten de ldquoiquestAcaso tiene sentido la Trinidadrdquo

httpwwwscribdcomdoc173779117C2BFAcaso-tiene-sentido-la-Trinidad

Para un consideracioacuten de Juan 11 vea el siguiente enlace

httpwwwscribdcomdoc35899788Traduccion-correcta-de-Juan-1-1-Lista-de- lecturas-alternativas

Para el tema iquestSabiacutean griego los traductores de la TNM vea el siguiente enlace

httpwwwscribdcomdoc51623596C2BFSabia-griego-el-Comite-de-la-Traduccion-del-Nuevo-Mundo

Abraham was I the Christ the Son of God existedrdquo (ldquoWho or what was before Abraham inJohn 858rdquo Journal for the Study of the New Testament 17 1983 52-59) Professor Freed thus sees no connection of Jesus statement in John 858 with that of Jehovah (Yahweh) at Exodus 314 But what about the ldquoI amrdquo sayings appearing in the books of Isaiah and John Are they not connected somehow

Is rsquoani-hursquo in Isaiah parallel to egō eimi in John

At times there are biblical statements made where both God and Christ use similar languageThis is not surprising when one considers the role Christ plays in Gods purpose The Bible tells us that Christ is ldquothe image of the invisible God the firstborn of all creationrdquo (NASB) ldquothe radiance of Gods glory and the exact representation of his beingrdquo (Colossians 115 Hebrews 13) ldquoAnd God has put all things under the authority of Christ and he gave him this authority for the benefit of the churchrdquo (Ephesians 122 NLT) Anyone seeking salvation must therefore put faith in lsquothe name which was given by God to mankindrsquo ldquoJesus Christrdquo ldquoto the glory of God the Fatherrdquo ldquoWhoever believes in the Son has eternal life but whoever rejects the Son will not see life for Godrsquos wrath remains on themrdquo (John 336 Philippians 21011) In all God still is in control and just as lsquoChristians belong to Christrsquo ldquoChrist belongs to Godrdquo says the Word (1 Corinthians 113 323 NASB)

In the Old Testament God appears on several occasions using the Hebrew phrase א( הוא נני־ אא (rsquoani-hursquo) which literally means ldquoI ndash herdquo but sometimes translated ldquoI amrdquo or ldquoI am herdquo (Isaiah 414 428 4310 13 464 4812 526) It also appears in Deuteronomy 3239 David a human also used that expression in 1 Chronicles 2117 (Hebrew הוא )ה נני־ אא (ani-huacute- ldquoI am herdquo) Septuagint ἐγώ εἰμι (ldquoegō eimirdquo) Although many argue that there is a connection between Christs statements in the NT and those of God in the OT there is no certainty of those interpretations Even if there was some connection in the ldquoI amrdquo statements would that prove that the identity of the speaker is the same in each case Not really

In the Bible when God made some men powerful and blessed them with his spirit in a sensethey became like ldquoa godrdquo since they ldquorepresentedrdquo God (Exodus 71 Psalms 8216 John 1033-36) Having others referred to in similar language to that of God is no conclusive proofof ldquoequalityrdquo with God An example of this can be seen when a ldquomanrdquo (perhaps Solomon) became ldquokingrdquo of Israel was addressed literally in divine terms ldquoYour throne God forever and everrdquo (Psalm 456) Obviously this human king was not the One True God Not surprisingly some Bible translators work around this literal reading and make it read where it says something like ldquoYour throne is like Gods thronerdquo (Jewish Publication Society) OrldquoYour divine throne endures for ever and everrdquo (Revised Standard Version) Or ldquoYour throne is from Godrdquo (New Jerusalem Bible) Or ldquoGod has enthroned you for all eternityrdquo (Revised English Bible)

Even when translators render the passage literally they explain it in such a way that makes it clear that Solomon was not God For instance the NIV of 2011 has this footnote ldquoHere the king is addressed as Godrsquos representativerdquo Nonetheless when such reference is made of

Jesus Christ (as in Hebrews 18) the same translators may now insist those similar words areldquoproofrdquo of Christs ldquodeityrdquo A good example of this is found in the NET Bibles footnotes Although Jesus accepted being ldquoone greater than Solomonrdquo he never claimed to be God the Father (Matthew 1242) Significantly to Jesus ldquoGodrdquo was someone else

In the Bible is not rare to read frequent references and comparisons of faithful men with Jesus Christ ndash Abraham Jacob Moses David Solomon Jonas and John the Baptist (John 853 412 Deuteronomy 1815 Hebrews 33 Psalm 1101 Matthew 927 2245 124142 Mark 17 Luke 117 72628) Whats more Jesus is compared to ldquoangelsrdquo (Hebrews 14513) Should we take this to mean that men and angels are somehow identical to Jesus Christ True some of these references show that Jesus Christ is above them But we should take the superiority of Christ over them in the same way that we rightly accept Jesus own words indicative of his relative position to the Father ldquoThe Father is greater than Irdquo (John 1428 2031)

Accordingly the ldquoI amrdquo or ldquoI am herdquo expressions pronounced by God and Jesus Christ found in both the Old and New Testaments must be understood within their proper context From the beginning of mans history God provided a way for mankinds deliverance Jesus was prophetically the center of this magnificent expectation For eons of time mankind waited for the One (Messiah) who would deliver them from bondage Nevertheless when hedid appear on the earthly scene most people ignored and rejected the real Messiah because they were expecting politically speaking a quick deliverance from the Roman yoke

However God had something else in mind ndash deliverance was still ahead It was now the time to call attention to the fact that Christ their (future) ldquosaviorrdquo was in their midst Jesus did his part by words and by action (miracles etc) He called attention to who he really was ldquothe Son of Godrdquo and told others that he was ldquothe Christrdquo (or the ldquoMessiahrdquo) (John 42526 Matthew 1615-17 2663-68) Related to the subject one expression Jesus used on various occasions was this one ldquoI amrdquo or ldquoI am herdquo words understood by those brought up in trinitarian doctrine to attest Jesus equality with God (John 426 620 824 28 858 1319 185-6 8) However the phrase was sometimes used as a simple self-identification like ldquoIt is Irdquo or ldquoI am Jesusrdquo At other times when questioned by doubters Jesus used it to get the point across that lsquohe was the one [and not someone else]rsquo the promised ldquoSaviorrdquo ldquothe Son of manrdquo ldquothe Son of Godrdquo ldquothe Messiahrdquo

At no time did Jesus ever claim he was a ldquoGod-manrdquo or ldquoGod in the fleshrdquo (John 316) Those thoughts are foreign to Scripture Remember that Scripture teaches that lsquoGod was with Jesusrsquo just as we are told that lsquoGod was with Josephrsquo son of Jacob Scripture does not say that Jesus was God made flesh It was lsquothe Wordrsquo the Son of God who was with God in the beginning the One who lsquobecame fleshrsquo not God (Acts 79 1038 John 11 114) Christendom has distorted Scripture to the point that ldquoChristianrdquo followers cannot determine this plain truth A misunderstanding of John 11 and 1 Timothy 316 has greatly contributed to this error Further below you will find links where those verses are considered in detail

It was through Jesus death that God reconciled sinful people to himself Hence the ldquoI amrdquo

or ldquoI am herdquo sayings of Jesus need not be directly linked to those uttered by God before the time of Christ Jesus was sent by God on a saving mission as a representative of God With good reason he declared unambiguously that ldquoherdquo was (and not some other) ldquoGods Sonrdquo the promised ldquoMessiahrdquo The Jesus sayings ldquoI amrdquo or ldquoI am herdquo in some cases would confirm at most that ldquothere is no other name under heaven that has been given to men in which we must be savedrdquo (Acts 4 12) It was lsquoGod who resurrected Jesus from among the deadrsquo and it was God who lsquogave mankind the namersquo that saves people (Acts 410)

Thus the ldquoI amrdquo sayings of the New Testament were certainly pronounced in a different setting than those in the Old Testament Not to be overlooked the One using the ldquoI amrdquo or ldquoI am herdquo expressions in the OT is described unequivocally as lsquoAlmighty Godrsquo lsquothe only True Godrsquo with maximum ldquopowerrdquo and ldquoauthorityrdquo to send a ldquosubordinaterdquo to an extraordinary mission (Daniel 714 John 1316 537) The glorified Christ is never described in the same way as God was in Old Testament times as he always appears throughout the NT subordinated to God Still Christ is ldquothe wayrdquo to the Father and salvation (John 146) We are therefore commanded to recognize his lsquoGod-given authorityrsquo so ldquothat all may honor the Son just as they honor the Fatherrdquo (Matthew 2818 John 2031 523) Jesus is then the ldquomediatorrdquo between God and mankind (1 Timothy 25) A grand privilege that is

What does the context of John 858 indicate

Some Bible readers see Jesus in the context of John chapter 8 not only saying in idiomatic fashion that he lsquowas [already] alive before Abraham was born (SEB)rsquo and still lsquoisrsquo but also that he was identifying himself as ldquothe Son of Manrdquo ldquothe Messiahrdquo This is a reasonable assumption as well One of the Jews questions was ldquoWho do you think you arerdquo (John 853) In John 824 28 1319 Matthew 2754 and Mark 1460-64 the function or position ofChrist as the ldquoSon of Godrdquo ldquoSon of Manrdquo and ldquothe Christrdquo all come through

The statement (or question) Jews made to Jesus prior to verse 58 was ldquoYou are not yet fifty years old and you have seen Abrahamrdquo Logically Jesus answered the question of his age of his long existence and additionally was perhaps asserting his ldquomessiahshiprdquo as well in harmony with the question Jews had posed earlier in verse 53 This may be one reason a fewtranslators render or note John 858 not as ldquoI amrdquo but rather ldquoI am herdquo some to suggest Christ is God while others do so emphasizing his messianic role The second interpretation fits better with Scripture In the list of alternate readings of John 858 below you will find that rendering as well However the key issue in this text is Jesus existence from past to present Unlike other verses in John (82428) where ldquoeimirdquo is used (in the sense of ldquoI am herdquo ie ldquothe Son of Godrdquo ldquothe Messiahrdquo) in verse 58 the matter of ldquoidentityrdquo is secondaryto the key issue of his existence In the sum of things it should be noted that ldquoindefiniterdquo existence is not equal to ldquoeternalrdquo existence

Within the context of chapter eight (8) of John Jesus makes statements which mark clear differences with his Father God When reading over the next few paragraphs keep in mind that the Bible condemns two-faced personalities and speaking out with a forked tongue

Jesus himself spoke out against hypocrisy so he only spoke ldquotruthrdquo

In John 826 Jesus told the Jews that he was ldquosentrdquo by his Father and that lsquohe speaks the things that he hears from the one who sent himrsquo That lsquohe does nothing on his own initiativersquo (NASB) That lsquohe isrsquo ldquothe Son of Manrdquo and lsquospeaks just what the Father taught himrsquo (V 28)

Jesus stated a simple but significant truth ldquoNo servant is greater than his master nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent himrdquo (John 1316) With this principle in mind here are some questions to ponder about How could Jesus be ldquosentrdquo if he himself was ldquoGodrdquo Why was Jesus lsquonot able to do anything on his own initiativersquo if he was ldquoall-mightyrdquo In verse 29 Jesus says that lsquothe One who sent him has not left him alone and that he always did what pleased the Fatherrsquo Why would Jesus Christ say at all lsquoI always do what pleases him who sent mersquo If Jesus was ldquoGodrdquo why would he find it important enoughto mention whether he was left ldquoalonerdquo or not Does God need ldquocompanionshiprdquo as humans do Why would anybody have to ldquoteachrdquo Jesus anything if he was all-knowingrdquo

Also Jesus applied the title ldquoSon of Manrdquo to himself numerous times a term which Jews considered a title of the promised ldquoMessiahrdquo not of ldquoGodrdquo In addition the Bible book of Numbers 2319 tells us that ldquoGod is not a man that he should lie ldquonor a son of man that he should change his mindrdquo Nonetheless Christ precisely adopted this very same expression (ldquoSon of Manrdquo) before others with no regrets Furthermore did God have to become ldquoa manrdquo to save humankind when the Bible explicitly says that lsquoGod sent his only-begotten Sonrsquoto save the worldrsquo (John 316 NASB 1 John 414) Who is distorting the full picture here

In verse 40 John reports that the Jews lsquowere determined to kill Jesus because they didnt want to accept the word and truth that Jesus as a man [Greek anthropon] spoke having it received from Godrsquo How could Christ speak of himself as lsquoa man receiving truth from Godrsquowhen seconds later according to Trinitarians he would be using a ldquotitlerdquo claiming to be ldquoGodrdquo in effect contradicting everything he had been saying until then None of these statements would make sense if Jesus himself was the Supreme God as many believe

What would Jesus gain by claiming before the world that he lsquocould not do anything on his own initiativersquo that lsquohe always did what pleased the Fatherrsquo and that he only spoke just what the Father who sent him lsquotaughtrsquo him And shortly afterwards change his message altogether and claim as we are asked to believe that Christ was the ldquoGodrdquo of the Old Testament by the sole act of pronouncing the ldquoI amrdquo divine ldquotitlerdquo Does this lsquodouble personalityrsquo approach make any sense to a Christian who is taught to only believe ldquothere is but one God the Fatherrdquo (John 530 1 Corinthians 86) No wonder there are a good number of Bible translators including Trinitarians who disagree with the traditional view of John 858

Does the Jews reaction in John 859 prove Jesus Christ had claimed to be ldquoGodrdquo

Shortly before his death Jesus was taken before the Sanhedrin the high court of the Jews to

face false charges by people who wanted him dead Please take note of the charges brought up in Marks account (1460-64) which says

60 Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus ldquoAre you not going to answer What is this testimony that these men are bringing against yourdquo 61 But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer Again the high priest asked him ldquoAre you the Messiah the Son of the Blessed Onerdquo 62 ldquoI amrdquo said Jesus ldquoAnd you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heavenrdquo 63 The high priest tore his clothes ldquoWhy do we need any more witnessesrdquo he asked 64 ldquoYou have heard the blasphemy What do you thinkrdquo They all condemned him as worthy of death

In view of the events of Mark 1460-64 and considering the context of John chapter 8 it is clear that the Jews rejected Jesus claim of him being ldquothe Messiahrdquo and of being lsquogreaterrsquo than Abraham They were also rejecting the idea that he was ldquofrom aboverdquo ldquothe Son of Mansitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heavenrdquo of the heavenly vision (John 823) In their view that was enough to charge him with blasphemy since they could not imagine any ldquomanrdquo making such claims

C K Barrett rightly noted that the Jews reaction in verse 59 ldquodoes not mean that Jesus had claimed to be Godrdquo (The Gospel According to St John 2d ed Philadelphia Westminster Press 1978 352) And Professor Emeritus William Loader noted ldquoThe text need mean no more than I am and was in existence before Abraham still a majestic unique claim but not anallusion to the divine namerdquo (The Christology of the Fourth Gospel Structures and Issues Revised 2d ed New York Lang 1992 48)

Even before Jesus spoke the ldquoegō eimirdquo words in John 858 the Jews had already sought to kill Jesus (John 719 837) And for what ldquocrimerdquo This lsquoJesus claimed the truth he taughtcame from Godrsquo (John 716 840) This is vastly different from lsquoJesus alledgedly claiming a divine title equating him with God at John 858rsquo Since then all sorts of religious leaders have claimed as well that ldquowhat they teach others comes from Godrdquo and not from them Does that make them ldquoequalrdquo to God

Because Jesus often lsquocalled God his Fatherrsquo the Jews wrongly concluded that he was ldquomaking himself equal to Godrdquo (John 51819) However Jesus quickly set the matter straight when he called himself Gods ldquoSonrdquo (nine times in chapter 5 alone) an expression never applied to ldquoGodrdquo in Scripture (Matthew 2663-64) The Jews even claimed Jesus was ldquobreaking the Sabbathrdquo and further of being ldquoa Samaritan and demon-possessedrdquo (John 518 848) Were they right Absolutely not Thus wrong perceptions of Jews in Jesus time - like Jesus claiming equality with God - are truly a shaky foundation to base modern interpretations The Jerusalem Bible has this to say ldquoThe claim of Jesus to live on the divine plane (v 58) is for the Jews blasphemy for which the penalty is stoning Lv 2416rdquo I see the JB accepting the claim that Jesus possessed some mode of ldquodivine existencerdquo (as suggested by the Spanish edition of JB ldquoBiblia de Jerusaleacutenrdquo) but avoiding a direct reference of Christ

claiming to be God or that he was claiming ldquoeternalrdquo existence in the verse And former Professor Kenneth L McKay said ldquoThe claim to have been in existence for so long is in itself a staggering one quite enough to provoke the crowds violent reaction [in v59]rdquo (ldquo lsquoI amrsquo in Johns Gospelrdquo p 302) Hence those who claim the charge of blasphemy involved Jesus claim of being ldquoGodrdquo are wrong for Jesus never claimed to be ldquoThe Supreme Beingrdquo but only ldquoGods Sonrdquo (John 31718)

Weeks later after the incident of John chapter 8 but related to the topic of discussion in John 1030-36 we read that the Jews misunderstood Jesus words ldquoI and the father are onerdquo (John 10 30) So they wanted to stone him for it but Jesus told them

33 ldquoWe are not stoning you for any good workrdquo they replied ldquobut for blasphemy because you a mere man claim to be Godrdquo 34 Jesus answered them ldquoIs it not written in your Law lsquoI have said you are ldquogodsrdquorsquo [Psalm 826] 35 If he called them lsquogodsrsquo to whom the word of God camemdashand Scripture cannot be set asidemdash 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said lsquoI am Godrsquos Sonrsquo ( Other versions translate the Greek word here for ldquoGodrdquo without the article either as ldquogodrdquo or ldquoa godrdquo Besson Torrey NWT Mace Luther 1545 Diaglott Tomanek Andy Gaus New English Bible)

Notice that Jesus Christ under duress had another golden opportunity to once and for all disclose publicly that he was ldquoGodrdquo But he did not do so The argument itself that Jesus employed shows that he could legitimately claim lsquodivine originrsquo without being identified as one-and-the-same God with his Father

Less than a year later AFTER the encounter with the Jews of John chapter 8 and before his death Jesus told his closest disciples in his farewell speech that they lsquoshould rejoice he was going away to the Father because the Father was greater than he wasrsquo (John 1428) And in his final prayer in proximity with his disciples he prayed to God that lsquothey may know his Father the only true God and Jesus Christ whom he has sentrsquo (John 173 ) God never needs to pray to anyone Shortly after Jesus died and was resurrected by God but before returning to his Father Jesus said to Mary Magdalene ldquoDo not hold on to me for I have notyet ascended to the Father Go instead to my brothers and tell them lsquoI am ascending to my Father and your Father to my God and your Godrsquo rdquo (John 2017)

Does it make sense to have Jesus claim equality with God by employing a divine title (ldquoI Amrdquo) before unbelieving Jews as Trinitarians claim and then have Jesus later assure his closest and faithful ones that lsquohis Father and his Godrsquo was also lsquothe Father and God of everyone elsersquo In fact Jesus disciples were clearly in a privileged position in regards to Christian teaching Jesus Christ had previously said to his disciples that he would explain lsquoall thingsrsquo to them privately whereas to others he would only speak in lsquoparablesrsquo or lsquocomparisonsrsquo (Matthew 1311 Mark 411 33 34) An explicit lsquodivine titlersquo directed at lsquounbelievingrsquo Jews is certainly no parable and would run counter to his own stated principles

Anyways Jesus Christ wanted other Christian followers to understand the special

relationship he had with the Father ldquoBut go to my followers and tell them this lsquoI am going back to my Father and your Father I am going back to my God and your Godrsquo rdquo (Easy to Read Version) This simple message is so different from the convoluted one commonly expounded by Trinitarians in their philosophical speculations

Between the time of the encounter between the Jews and Jesus in John ch 8 and the farewelldiscourse of our Lord Jesus Christ of later (chapters 14-17) not once did Jesus say he was ldquoGodrdquo Christ never spoke with a forked tongue Therefore Bible translators who do not claim Jesus was using a divine title at John 858 and provide renderings agreeing with the words of John 173 and 2017 are in the correct

Scriptures with similar syntax to John 858

Thus when faced with certain idiomatic expressions as the one found in John 858 the translator often has to ask himself How would someone normally express such statements in our language I will cite six (6) Scriptural examples that are similar in syntax to John 858 Genesis 3138 LXX 1 John 38 Luke 248 John 56 2 Corinthians 1219 and John 1527 All six Scriptures have present tense verbs AND an expression of past time or extent of time with past implications within its structure Lets see how these Scriptures compare with John 858 in our discussion

1st Example (Genesis 3138 LXX) ταῦτά μοι εἴκοσι ἔτη ἐγώ εἰμι μετὰ σοῦ - Greek These mine twenty years I am with you

Jacob after leaving Haran disputes with his father-in-law Laban over missing personal idols which Laban claimed were stolen by Jacob Jacob had no idea Rachel had stolen them In defense Jacob proceeded to mention several things he had done through the years on Labansbehalf ldquoThese twenty years I am with yourdquo (The Apostolic Bible Polyglot LXX 2006)ldquoThese twenty years of mine I was with yourdquo (A New English Translation of the Septuagint ldquoNETSrdquo 2007)ldquoThese twenty years have I been with theerdquo (The Holy Orthodox Bible LXX 2006)ldquoThese twenty years I have been with yourdquo (The Orthodox Study Bible LXX 2008)ldquoThese twenty years of mine have I been with theerdquo (Orthodox England LXX 2009)ldquoI have spent with you twenty of my years [Jai passeacute avec toi vingt de mes anneacutees]rdquo (La Septante [LXX] translated by Pierre Giguet)ldquoThese twenty years have I been with theerdquo (Sir Lancelot CL Brenton LXX)ldquoThese twenty years that I have been with theerdquo (Charles Thomson LXX)

Aside from the interlinear reading of the literal Apostolic Bible Polyglot other translators of the Septuagint (LXX) render a present indicative verb ldquoegō eimirdquo (I am) preceded by an expression of time with past implications (ldquoThese twenty yearsrdquo) with present perfect

indicative forms (ldquoI have beenrdquo) while one translation (NETS) uses a simple past form (ldquoI wasrdquo) A modern Greek translation Η Αγία ΓραφήmdashΜετάφραση Νέου Κόσμου has ldquoήμουνrdquo (Literally ldquoI wasrdquo) in this text A likely reason for that as a modern Greek Grammar pointsout is that for the verb lsquoto be (είμαι)rsquo ldquoThere are only two sets of tense forms in Greek present and past (imperfect)rdquo (op cit An Essential Grammar p 126 Sec 67) Hence they could not have used here a perfect tense form for the verb lsquoto be (eimai)rsquo But in English the Bible Society responsible for the Greek and English translations of the Hebrew portion of the Bible used instead ldquoI have beenrdquo at Genesis 3138 in the English edition because a present perfect is available in the language for the verb

Another interesting tidbit is the fact that the original Hebrew text here lacks a verb in the declaration namely ldquoThis twenty year I with-yourdquo (The Hebrew-English Interlinear ESV Old Testament Crossway) Well how do translators deal with this issue Overall like this with the perfect indicative ldquoI have been with you for twenty years nowrdquo A few versions use the imperfect instead lsquoI wasrsquo such as the Wycliffe Bible and the Lexham English Bible Rarely do translations use a ldquopresentrdquo here the exceptions being Youngs and Concordant literal translations So why do the overwhelming number of translators prefer tosupply a perfect tense here for the missing verb in the Hebrew Its simple There is a temporal indicator going to the past in the text namely lsquoThese twenty yearsrsquo

Now when the LXX translators proceeded to translate the Hebrew words of Genesis 3138 into Greek they cleverly used a well known vivid idiom available in classical Greek where a verb in the present tense is combined with an indicator of past time In this syntax the ldquopast and present are gathered up in a single affirmationrdquo (op cit Brooks amp Winbery) Modern English translators usually resort to the present perfect in this construction as shown aboveSo too John 858 reveals an expression of past time with a present verb in its statement and the NWT is one translation that is consistent with this construction both in Genesis 3138 and John 858

For the following I will use the Wescott and Hort Greek text for reference

2nd Example (1 John 38)

ὅτι ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς ὁ διάβολος ἁμαρτάνει - Greek because from beginning the devil is sinning

The apostle John warns Christians not to carry on sin for those who make a practice of sin originate from the Devil who has sinned from the beginning For this purpose the Son of God was revealed that he might undo the works of the Devil The text above contains an expression of past time (ldquofrom beginningrdquo) with a present verb (is sinning) very much likeJohn 858 How do translators deal with this passage Lets see

ldquofor the devil sinneth from the beginningrdquo (Rheims New Testament)ldquofor the devil sinneth from the beginningrdquo (KJV)

ldquofor the devil has sinned from the beginningrdquo (New King James Version)ldquofor the devil has sinned from the beginningrdquo (NASB)ldquobecause the devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (Interlinear Mounce)ldquofor the Devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (Riverside NT Ballantine)ldquobecause the devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (NIV)ldquobecause the devil has sinned from the beginningrdquo (NAB)ldquosince the devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (Jay E Adams)ldquowho has been sinning since the beginningrdquo (NLT)ldquofor the devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (NRSV)ldquosince the devil has been a sinner from the beginningrdquo (NJB)ldquobecause the devil has been sinning from the very beginningrdquo (J G Anderson)ldquofor the devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (ESV)

ldquothe devil was a sinner from the firstrdquo (Ronald A Knox New Testament)

Some translations transfer the Greek present to their English versions as if the English and Greek ldquopresentrdquo in such construction were the same thing It is not The end result is ungrammatical English Would you say in contemporary English ldquoFrom the beginning of class the boy sleepsrdquo Not Doctor Richard A Young points out ldquoTo say that the devil is sinning from the beginning does not make sense in English English translations therefore employ the present perfectrdquo (Intermediate New Testament Greek page 111)

The renderings above ldquohas sinnedrdquo and ldquohas been sinningrdquo are present perfect and present perfect progressive indicative forms The word ldquowasrdquo is a simple past tense Just as in 1 John 38 some translators in John 858 have rendered a present tense with an expression of past time in its construction with a present perfect ldquoI have beenrdquo

3rd Example (2 Corinthians 1219)

Πάλαι δοκεῖτε ὅτι ὑμῖν ἀπολογούμεθα ndash Greek Long ago you are thinking that to you we are making defense

Paul finds himself having to defend his apostolic authority and vindicating his record as superior in hardship endured for Christ and loving concern for congregations In simpler words Paul was telling them ldquoAll this time have you been thinking that Ive been speaking up for myself No Ive been speaking with God as my witness Ive been speaking like a believer in Christ Dear friends everything I do is to help you become strongerrdquo (NIRV)

In the literal reading above we have an adverb of time with past implications (Palai) followed by two Greek verb forms (ldquodokeiterdquo amp ldquoapologoumethardquo) in the present indicativetense The book Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek Verb by William Watson Goodwin explains ldquoThe Present is often used with expressions denoting past time especially πάλαι [palai] in the sense of a perfect and a present combinedrdquo (Section 26 p 9) How do translators render these in English Some carry over the present tense into the English text producing unconventional English Others cognizant of issues presented here

do a better job at it See below for a sample

ldquoHave you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves before yourdquo (The Comprehensive New Testament 2008)ldquoI hope you donacutet think that all along weacuteve been making our defense before yourdquo (The Message Eugene H Peterson)ldquoHave you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves to yourdquo (NIV)ldquoIt may seem to you that all this time we have been attempting to put ourselves in the rightrdquo (Bible in Basic English)ldquoAll this time you have been thinking that we have been pleading our own cause before yourdquo (NJB)ldquoHave you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves to yourdquo (CEV)ldquoHave you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves before yourdquo (Revised Standard Version) ldquoPerhaps you think that all along we have been trying to defend ourselves before yourdquo (TEV)ldquoHave you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves to yourdquo (ESV)ldquoYou have thought all along that we were defending ourselves to yourdquo (HCSB)ldquoHave you been thinking all this time that we have been defending ourselves to yourdquo (NET Bible)

ldquoYou have been thinking all along that it was to you we were making our defenserdquo (The Bible in Living English Steven T Byington)

The above translations use present perfect (and perfect progressive) forms or past progressives to bring out the proper sense of the original into our language Can anyone rightfully claim that it is improper for these Bible versions to translate this text as they have done in English

4th Example (Luke 248 Wescott and HortNestle early editions Greek text)

ὁ πατήρ σου καὶ ἐγὼ ὀδυνώμενοι ζητοῦμέν σε - Greek The father of you and I being pained we are seeking you Here the context (vv 42-48) speaks of Jesus (12 years old) being left behind unwittingly in Jerusalem by his parents they went back searching in distress for three days before finding him When they finally found him they spoke the words above

ldquoYour father and I have been looking for you anxiouslyrdquo (Revised Standard Version)ldquoYour father and I in agony of mind have been searching for yourdquo (Williams NT)ldquoYour father and I have been anxiously looking for Yourdquo (NASB 1971)ldquoYour father and I have been searching for you in great distressrdquo (Riverside NT)

ldquoHere have your father and I been searching anxiously for yourdquo (Hugh J Schonfield)ldquoYour father and I have been looking for you have been very anxious rdquo (Goodspeed)ldquoYour father and I have been looking for you We have been very troubledrdquo (Bible in Worldwide English)ldquoYour father and I have been looking for you in distressrdquo (Richmond Lattimore)ldquoYour father and I have been searching for you in great distressrdquo (Twentieth Century NT) ldquoThy father and I have sought thee distressedrdquo (Darby Bible Translation)

ldquoThy father and I sought thee sorrowingrdquo (American Standard Version)

ldquoThy father and I in anguish were seeking theerdquo (The Emphasized Bible 3rd edit based on Wescott and Hort by Joseph B Rotherham)ldquoThy father and I were seeking thee sorrowfulrdquo (W B Godbey N T 1902)ldquoThy father and I were seeking Thee sorrowingrdquo (A S Worrell N T 1904)ldquoYour father and I were anxiously looking for yourdquo (World English Bible)

The words ldquowe are seeking yourdquo are in the present indicative tense however since an expression of time is used indicating action going on for days (ldquoafter three daysrdquo v 46) translators find it necessary to use either the present perfect (ldquohave beenrdquo ldquohave soughtrdquo) or simple past (ldquosoughtrdquo) or past progressive (ldquowere seekingrdquo) indicative forms to express in English what the Greek says in the ldquopresentrdquo Various Greek texts have instead of the ldquopresentrdquo found in the Westcott amp Hort Text above an ldquoimperfectrdquo verb form Both forms are frequently rendered with an English present ldquoperfectrdquo Compare with Youngs Literal Translation which also uses a past progressive indicative form ldquowere seekingrdquo and the Spanish Reina-Valera Revisada which rendered an imperfect verb form appearing in the Received Text with a present perfect indicative (ldquohemos buscadordquo) Is this another reason why many translators have rendered the Greek present ldquoegō eimirdquo preceded by an adverbial modifier in its clause at John 858 with perfective or past forms in English

5th Example (Juan 56)

καὶ γνοὺς ὅτι πολὺν ἤδη χρόνον ἔχει - Greek and having known that much already time he is having

This is an account of an invalid man who for 38 years had been sick and was now being cured by Jesus The Greek in this clause does not make his illness clear however the context does Take note of the expression of time used with past implications mixed with a present indicative verb ldquohe is havingrdquo For this to make any sense in our language it has to be modified When Jesus saw this sick man lying there

ldquoand knew that he had been now a long time in that caserdquo (KJV italics theirs) ldquoand knowing that he had been ill a long timerdquo (Revised English Bible)ldquoand knew he had been in that condition for a long timerdquo (NJB)ldquoand knew that he had been sick for a long timerdquo (World English Bible)ldquoand knew that he had been sick for a long timerdquo (Godacutes Word)

ldquoand knew how long he had been illrdquo (Living Bible)ldquoand knew he had already been there a long timerdquo (HCSB)ldquoand he knew that the man had been sick for such a long timerdquo (TEV)ldquoand knew that he had been in this state a long timerdquo (Confraternity Version)ldquoand finding that he had had a long time of itrdquo (S T Byington) ldquoand knew that he had been sick for a long timerdquo (Jay E Adams)ldquoand he knew that he had been waiting for a long timerdquo (George M Lamsa Peshitta) ldquoand knew that he had been now a long timerdquo (Rheims New Testament)

ldquoand knowing that he was [in that state] now a great length of timerdquo (J N Darby Translation Brackets his)

Once again we see translators having to use mostly perfective forms (ldquohad beenrdquo ldquohad hadrdquopast perfects) and one with a simple past ldquowasrdquo even though they are translating a present tense verb ldquohe is havingrdquo This shows that translators adapt their renderings whenever is necessary to convey the right meaning into the target language It is thus possible to render ldquoeimirdquo at John 858 with a form other than a present tense such as a present perfect Those who say that it can not be done or should not be done just need to look again at the evidenceobjectively

6th Example (John 1527 Wescott amp Hort)

ὅτι ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς μετʼ ἐμοῦ ἐστέ ndash Greek that from beginning with me you are

These words spoken by Jesus evidently refers to the beginning of his ministry when he chosehis closest disciples They were eyewitnesses of all the things God did through Christ duringhis ministry (Acts 121)

ldquobecause ye have been with me from the beginningrdquo (KJV) ldquobecause you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (NAB)ldquofor you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (Christian Community Bible)ldquobecause you are the men who have been with me from the very beginningrdquo (Heinz Wldquobecause you have been with me from the firstrdquo (New English Bible) [ Cassirer)ldquobecause you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (Godacutes Word Translation) ldquofor you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (NIV)ldquobecause you have been with me from the firstrdquo (Weymouth New Testament)ldquobecause you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (NRSV)ldquoyou that have been with me from the beginningrdquo (The Four Gospels EV Rieu)ldquobecause youacuteve been with Me from the beginning of My ministryrdquo (The Clear Word)ldquofor you have been with me from the firstrdquo (J B Phillips Modern English)ldquobecause you have been with Me from the beginningrdquo (HCSB) ldquothat you were with me from the startrdquo (21st Century New Testament)ldquofor you were with Me from the beginningrdquo (New Berkeley Version Revised Edition)

ldquobecause you were with me from the beginningrdquo (Mark Heber Miller)ldquobecause you were with me from the very beginningrdquo (SEB)

This scripture with the plural form of ldquoeimirdquo (este) is very similar to John 858 Again within its structure there is an expression of past time and a verb in the present indicative form (este) just as there is in John 858 A Grammar of New Testament Greek says ldquoThe reader may be reminded of one idiom which comes out of the linear idea the use of words like πάλαι [palai ldquolong agordquo] with the present in a sense best expressed by our perfect Thus in 2 Co 1219 lsquohave you been thinking all this timersquo or Jn 1527 lsquoyou have been with me from the beginning [ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς]rsquo hellip The durative present in such cases gathers up past and present time into one phraserdquo (A Grammar of New Testament Greek Vol 1 Prolegomena by JH Moulton p 119) As previously noted this Grammar specifically refers to John 858 as an example of this idiom

And here in John 1527 there is a connection of Jesus disciples [creatures as they are] that ldquowererdquo with him ldquofrom the beginningrdquo Obviously Jesus was making no reference to his disciples sharing ldquoeternityrdquo with him The disciples all had a beginning The logical conclusion is that Jesus was simply saying to them lsquoYou have been with me from the start of my ministryrsquo Hence there is no need to read ldquoeternityrdquo into the expression ldquoI amrdquo anymore that we should read ldquoeternityrdquo from Jesus words at John 1527 lsquoYou are with me from the beginningrsquo Neither grammar nor the context justifies reading more into these Scriptures than what they actually say

In fact the six (6) instances cited above (Genesis 3138 LXX 1 John 38 2 Cor 1219 Luke 248 John 56 John 1527) and John 858 as well all have an expression of past time or an extent of time with past implications (ldquoThese twenty yearsrdquo ldquoLong agordquo ldquoafter three daysrdquo Lk 246 ldquomuch already timerdquo ldquofrom [the] beginningrdquo ldquoBeforerdquo etc) AND present verbs in their sentences or nearby within the context and are commonly rendered with present perfect (some with past perfects) or simple past (or past progressive) forms in English translations If we apply this pattern to the translation of John 858 it would mean that renderings such as ldquoI have beenrdquo (present perfect) and ldquoI wasrdquo (simple past) are not only acceptable in translation but actually more ldquosuitablerdquo in application Can this really be done Not only can it be done it makes for a ldquobetterrdquo English translation

In regards to Jesus John 858 simply tells us that Jesus lsquowas alive before Abraham was bornrsquo (SEB) and that his existence continued up to the moment of his speaking to them Just as it is not proper English to say ldquoFor three days we are seeking yourdquo (Greek literal reading of Luke 248) or ldquobecause from the beginning with me you arerdquo (John 1527) it is no less proper English to say in John 858 ldquoBefore Abraham was born I amrdquo These readings should only appear in extremely literal interlinear translations which basically render the Greek word-by-word and not in standard idiomatic English translations Let me illustrate If a man advanced in age for example had his work history and experience questioned by co-workers in comparison to his younger son and employee Abe would he say in reply ldquoBefore my son Abe was born I am [the one fit for the job]rdquo No that does not sound right In English he could say it in various ways

ldquoI have been an experienced worker since before my son Abe was bornrdquo ldquoI have been what I am since before my son Abe was bornrdquo ldquoI was fit to work and fully active before my son Abe was ever bornrdquo ldquoI was already experienced in many jobs before Abe ever came to berdquo ldquoI have been a master worker way before my son Abe came to liferdquo ldquoBefore Abe was born I already was life and job experiencedrdquo etc

The point is that in English normally we include a present perfect tense whenever there is a reference to the past extending to the present or a past tense of some form whenever we go back in time The same with John 858 There is no justification in English to insist using a present verb form (which is not equal to the Greek present when combined with a past expression) in an unwarranted attempt to convey ldquoeternityrdquo as ldquopaddingrdquo to the Trinity doctrine a doctrine adopted AFTER the Christian era Worse it is disingenuous to accuse other translators (who have chosen to render ldquoegō eimirdquo at John 858 with an English present perfect or past tense) of scholastic dishonesty when the very same translations honored by these detractors do so in other places where the ldquodeityrdquo of Christ is not in play asshown in the samples provided above

An example of this double standard can be seen as well when scholars such as Dr Julius Mantey harshly criticizes the NWT for the rendering ldquoI have beenrdquo at John 858 but keeps quiet when other translators do similarly and even states or pretends that no other reputable translator would ever translate it that way He dared not criticize his former Greek teacher Charles B Williams who produced his own Bible translation Dr Mantey once wrote the following of Dr Williams translation ldquoWilliams translation considering all the factors is the most accurate and illuminating translation in the English languagerdquo And how does this ldquomost accurate translationrdquo render John 858 As follows ldquoI existed before Abraham was bornrdquo Here Dr Williams known for his Greek command used a simple past tense (ldquoI existedrdquo) as translation for the Greek present Julius Mantey certainly did not find Williams version of John 858 a ldquoshocking translationrdquo ldquoI existedrdquo is quite different from the translation Dr Mantey so passionately defended (ldquoI amrdquo)

When Dr Mantey talks about the NWT he says the rendering ldquoI have beenrdquo at John 858 cannot be justified and calls it ldquodishonestrdquo That rule does not apply to Williams translation does it Williams did not translate John 858 in the same way Mantey would have liked (ldquoI amrdquo) Not only that the Grammar itself that Dr Mantey co-authored with Dr Dana A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament states under ldquoThe Progressive Presentrdquo (called ldquoExtension from Pastrdquo by McKay) ldquoSometimes the progressive present is retroactivein its application denoting that which has begun in the past and continues into the present For the want of a better name we may call it the present of duration This use is generally associated with an adverb of time and may best be rendered by the English perfect ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς μετʼ ἐμοῦ ἐστέ Ye have been with me from the beginning Jn 1527 See also Lk137 2 Cor 129 [19]rdquo (Pages 182-83 Emphasis added)

Even though Julius Mantey has stated when referring to the NWT that ldquoI have beenrdquo is not a proper translation and even ldquodishonestrdquo at John 858 he clearly states in his Grammar (of

Scriptures with similar syntax to John 858) ldquoThis use is generally associated with an adverb of time and may best be rendered by the English perfect [such as ldquoI have beenrdquo which in fact is associated with an adverb of time in John 858]rdquo A likely reason for Dana ampManteys strong reluctance for not including John 858 as an example of the idiom discussed on page 183 may have to do with the fact that as ldquotrinitariansrdquo they oppose the idea of Jesus existence having lsquobegunrsquo in the past even though John 858 perfectly fits with the ldquoProgressive Presentrdquo idiom being discussed in their Grammar as acknowledged by other grammarians Hence their objection is truly a ldquotheologicalrdquo one rather than Greek grammaritself arguing in their favor as Mantey and some others have implied since a Greek present or an English perfect does not demand ldquoeternityrdquo at all from the subject

Consequently many religious individuals who focus solely on the basic meaning (of ldquoegō eimirdquo as ldquoI amrdquo) out of the context of the particular ldquoidiomrdquo used at John 858 end up missing the thrust of Jesus words and fall prey to misleading interpretations Doctor Kenneth L McKay taking into account all of these issues comes up with this excellent translation for John 858 ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo (A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek SBG 5 New York Peter Lang 1994 p42) If we objectively consider the material above we will not insist in connecting Jesus at John 858 with the God Jehovah of Exodus 314 (which many attempt to do but cannot be sustained) Instead we will focus on the simple message conveyed by Jesus words at John 858 which is in harmony with the totality of Scripture ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo (McKay) The rendering ldquoI have been in existencerdquo by itself does not rule out either the concept of ldquoeternityrdquo or the ldquocreationrdquo of Jesus Christ A Committee of Bible translators came up with the following translation which may not be the best choice but considering the issues involved is better than the traditional rendering of ldquoI amrdquo ldquoI was alive before Abraham was bornrdquo (The New Testament in Plain English)

(The following scholars are members of the Bible Translation Committee of The New Testament in Plain English which approved this last reading ldquoI was aliverdquo instead of ldquoI amrdquo(Dr Stanley L Morris chairman FW Gingrich Ph D a renown Greek lexicographer Jack P Lewis Ph D CH Accord Th D Clyde M Woods Ph D ST Kan Ph D Gary T Burke Ph D Milo Hadwin D Min)

I submit their names and their credentials here as an example because it is often asserted vigorously that no intelligent or highly qualified scholar would ever produce a translation other than ldquoI amrdquo As noted above and as the list of alternate readings (at the end of this essay) of John 858 shows many done by highly qualified people this is simply not true Usually those making statements of that sort are doing so based on emotional and theological not philological reasons Furthermore by not disclosing other valid viewpoints or by dismissing how other qualified Bible translators deal with this scripture they are undermining their own credibility as well

At this time you are welcome to briefly go over the list of Alternate Readings to John 858 at

the end before moving on to the second part of this essay

_____________________________

Should we ignore the evidence of all those translations listed at the end that differ in John 858 from the traditional versions What then are all these translators seeing at John 858 that moved them to render this text differently They surely must be aware of the resistance they would encounter by translating it by the various forms they used Still they must have had the firm conviction that both the Greek text and the context supports their understanding of this scripture They likely see a Jesus making no identity connection with his Father Godbut rather see a Jesus simply expressing his indefinite existence with no suggestion of eternity in focus Neither is Jesus stating here that he is the God of Old Testament times To understand it that way would be to read into the text more than what it says Taking some clues from the context of the chapter some scholars additionally see Jesus insinuating his ldquomessiahshiprdquo as if saying ldquoI am he [the Messiah]rdquo This is very likely In fact The LivingBible renders John 824 thus ldquoThat is why I said that you will die in your sins for unless you believe that I am the Messiah the Son of God [ἐγώ εἰμι] you will die in your sinsrdquo

Is ldquoegō eimirdquo a title or another name of God

The use of ldquoeimirdquo at John 858 is frequently used as a ldquoproof textrdquo of Jesus deity A noted Trinitarian scholar AT Robertson a Baptist even refers to ldquoegō eimirdquo as ldquothe absolute phrase used of Godrdquo likely indicating the verb conveys ldquotimeless beingrdquo an implication that ldquoeimirdquo here does not require anything else to complete the meaning of the phrase thus conveying ldquoeternal existencerdquo as well as being an actual name for God Some individuals have given plenty of publicity to Robertsons statement as absolute truth But his statement is not ldquotruthrdquo at all It is faulty interpretation which many people have fallen prey to Grammar and theology do not always make the best mix True Robertsons credentials as a scholar are impressive nevertheless credentials does not truth make Besides some other equally bright scholars disagree with him Lets illustrate the folly of those advocating a divine title at John 858 by way of addition (Or substitution if you will) as some suggest

ldquoBefore Abraham was born I am Eternalrdquo ldquoBefore Abraham was born I am Jehovahrdquo ldquoBefore Abraham was born I am eternally Godrdquo

First of all the above hypothetical translations are just as ungrammatical as the simple ldquoI amrdquo reading of most versions An English present tense cannot start before a definite point in the past This can be seen in the following two examples

1 ldquoBefore the US Iraq war I am a soldierrdquo 2 ldquoThree journalists are kidnapped in Nepal since the start of 2007rdquo

What is the correct way to express these statements in English Analyze it for a second and

provide an answer if you will

Notably if ldquoeimirdquo was used to convey eternal existence what is the point of using an expression of past time at all in the clause Moreover the context of previous verses (vv 48-57) clearly indicates that Jesus is speaking of God as a separate entity See below

49 ldquobut I honor my Father and you dishonor merdquo 50 ldquoI am not seeking glory for myself but there is one who seeks it and he is the

judgerdquo54 ldquoIf I glorify myself my glory means nothing My Father whom you claim as your

God is the one who glorifies me 55 ldquoThough you do not know him I know him If I said I did not I would be a liar like you but I do know him and obey his wordrdquo Thus if Jesus meant he himself was the ldquoJehovahrdquo of the Old Testament as Trinitarians claim what would be the rationale behind Jesus directing all distinction and glory to lsquothe Father Godrsquo as a distinct individual as he did in the previous verses and then a few words later abruptly change his argumentation by claiming he is that very same One who lsquoreceives obedience from his own wordrsquo lsquoseeking his own honor and gloryrsquo because he himself is ldquoGodrdquo Confusing is it not To accept this abrupt change of character on Jesus part would be not ldquoa mysteryrdquo but flat out ldquoa deceptionrdquo of big proportions since Jesus himself warned against pretending to be one thing and acting as another (Matthew 62-5 2313-36)

Are we are supposed against all logic to accept these ldquotrinitarianrdquo assumptions instead of a simple alternative which really answers the Jews question about lsquohow could Abraham ldquoseerdquoJesus day if he was not yet 50 years oldrsquo (ldquoI have been in existence since Abraham was bornrdquo)

The obsession with the simple words ldquoI amrdquo have led to many faulty assumptions ldquoI amrdquo issuch a common expression in our language even to this day that words such as ldquoegoismrdquo ldquoegotismrdquo etc (derived from the Greek ldquoegordquo) are considered common words in English dictionaries Everyone uses the phrase ldquoI amrdquo at times Think of any big corporation or powerful organization of your choice for a moment Would you conclude that the two most powerful individuals of this one prestigious organization must be identical in every way solely because they are heard equally saying to others in their common speech ldquoI am thisrdquoor ldquoI am thatrdquo etc

In Bible times humans too used common pronouns The verb eimi (ldquoI amrdquo) itself or forms of it appears more than two thousand times (2000x) in the New Testament alone Additionally the word ldquoegōrdquo appears over seventeen hundred times (1700x) in the NT And those numbers do not include the Septuagint totals Do all occurrences of the word then imply ldquodivinityrdquo in each case Of course not It may be more significant when God or Christ use the expression because of who they are but does it really mean that both God and Christ share the same identity Or that everyone who uses the phrase ldquoI amrdquo does so with divine pretensions Does it really mean that everyone using the phrase are ldquoequalrdquo The

answer is obvious is it not

Lets bear in mind that when God sent Jesus Christ as His representative to a most crucial assignment multiple biblical prophecies were pointing to Christ as the promised Messiah that would free mankind from its moribund condition It is logical then that when the time came for Jesus Christ to show up on earth he would somehow communicate to others that ldquoherdquo and not some other human claiming to be the Messiah was Gods instrument in bringing everlasting relief to human misery Hence he could rightly say any or all of the following ldquoI am (this)rdquo ldquoI am (that)rdquo ldquoI am he [the promised Messiah]rdquo or ldquoI am Gods Sonrdquo Should we expect anything less

The fact is that the words ldquoI amrdquo are not exclusive to God and Christ It should be noted that a man who was born ldquoblindrdquo also used the same expression (John 99) The Greek here says ldquoekeinos elegen hoti Egō eimirdquo (ldquoThat one kept saying that I amrdquo) AT Robertson cites John 99 as one of five parallels to the use of egō eimi in John 858 (Word Pictures in the New Testament Vol V p 159) The phrase here comes at the end of the clause with no explicit predicate James White who upholds the traditional reading admits ldquoThis last instance [John 99] is similar to the sayings as Jesus utters them in that the phrase comes at the end of the clause and looks elsewhere for its predicaterdquo The same could be said of John 1527 Some argue that ldquoeimirdquo in John 858 is ldquoabsoluterdquo but do not do so with John 99 or John 1527 Theology may be a factor in this Previously we saw how Jacob a man according to the Septuagint used the words ldquoegō eimirdquo Other instances in Scripture of creatures using those words would not prove they were part of a ldquoGodheadrdquo Context then ultimately dictates how ldquoeimirdquo should be translated According to John when Jesus was pressed he only claimed to have been alive way before Abraham was born and that he simply was ldquothe Christrdquo ldquothe Son of Manrdquo and ldquothe Son of Godrdquo

There is something else to keep in mind in regards to the meaning of ldquoeimirdquo And it is what grammarian Stanley Porter indicated ldquoSometimes the verb [eimi] is used on its own as a verb of existence Perhaps the best-known example of this is the following John 858rdquo (Fundamentals of New Testament Greek by Stanley E Porter section 753 72) AT Robertson adds ldquoThe verb εἰμί [eimi] hellip Sometimes it does express existence as a predicatelike any other verb as in ἐγὼ εἰμί [egō eimi] (Jo 858) and ἡ θάλασσα οὐκ ἔστιν ἔτι [hē thalassa ouk estin eti = ldquothe sea not is yetrdquo] (Rev 211) Cf Mt 2330rdquo (A Grammar of theGreek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research Nashville Tenn 1934 p 394)

What does this mean The examples mentioned by Robertson in addition to John 858 give us an idea of what this implies It is so strange that the two examples Robertson provided forcomparison with John 858 seems to contradict his ldquotimeless beingrdquo view on ldquoeimirdquo He cited a portion of Revelation 211 where the Greek literally says ldquoAnd the sea not is yetrdquo In other words ldquoThe sea does not exist any morerdquo Amplified Bible ldquoThere no longer existed any seardquo Curiously various versions render the present verb ldquoisrdquo (a form of ldquoeimirdquo) with an imperfect ldquowasrdquo (Cf KJV NIV NAB NRSV) Obviously ldquothe seardquo in this vision is [was] not ldquoeternalrdquo

And in Matthew 2330 the other text provided by Robertson in his comparison with John 858 the Greek word-for-word says ldquoIf we were in the days of the fathers of usrdquo which inmodern English would be ldquoIf we had lived in the days of our forefathersrdquo Other versions ldquoIf we had beenrdquo (Rheims NT) ldquoIf we had been livingrdquo (NASB) ldquoIf we had been existing in the days of our fathersrdquo (Jonathan Mitchell NT) The full NIV text reads ldquoAnd you say lsquoIf we had lived in the days of our ancestors we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophetsrsquo rdquo

It is clear from this comparison that the words of Matthew 2330 ldquoIf we wererdquo (a form of ldquoeimirdquo) in the text is used as an equivalent for ldquoliferdquo or ldquoexistencerdquo In the heavenly vision of Rev 211 lsquothe sea ceased to existrsquo And the generation of people which Jesus spoke about and their ancestors all died ceased to exist If we apply these two examples to John 858 given by Robertson with the meaning either of life or existence for ldquoeimirdquo then it wouldbe equally acceptable to translate ldquoI amrdquo as ldquoI existrdquo or ldquoI liverdquo Many translators reflect this very same understanding as the submitted list of alternate readings of John 858 show ldquoI existrdquo or ldquoI existed even before Abraham was bornrdquo Or ldquoI was alive before Abraham was bornrdquo (The Simple English Bible)

Although some may not see much semantic difference between Jesus saying ldquoI amrdquo or ldquoI existrdquo the two expressions communicate something very different to many readers ldquoI amrdquo is generally associated by Trinitarians as a title used by God or as another name for God Onthe other hand ldquoI existrdquo simply conveys ldquoliferdquo or ldquoexistence Barnabas Lindars points out that ldquoegō eimirdquo in John 858 ldquocannot be regarded as a title because it requires the meaning lsquoI am in existencersquordquo (ldquoThe Son of Man in Johannine Christologyrdquo in Christ and the Spirit in the New Testament In Honour of Charles Francis Digby Moule eds B Lindars and S Smalley Cambridge Cambridge University Press 1973) (Since an English present tense cannot start before a definite point in the past this would mean that we can incorporate Lindars valid observation and translate it into contemporary English like this ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo exactly as Dr McKay proposed)

Some in their eagerness to equate Christ with God accuse translators who render ldquoegō eimirdquo in John 858 with renderings other than ldquoI amrdquo pointing to all occurrences of this expression in the New Testament or in Johns Gospel where allegedly these translators do not follow the same ldquorulerdquo when translating ldquoegō eimirdquo in John 858 as they do elsewhere where they translate it with a present indicative form What they dont tell you or fail to understand is that in John 858 ldquoegō eimirdquo without a predicate AND with an expression of time with past implications in its sentence structure provides an ldquoidiomrdquo which is quite different from those other instances of ldquoeimirdquo Thats right an idiom (where present and past is combined) found equally at home in classical biblical and modern Greek which many translators convey into our language with the English present perfect at various places Consequently one cannot merely go by how the phrase ldquoegō eimirdquo is used elsewhere in the NT without taking into account the fact that John 858 displays an ldquoidiomrdquo in its structure Not doing so would be dishonest John the Baptist had said of Christ in John 130 ldquoA man is coming after me who ranks before me because he existed [Lit was] before merdquo (JB)

John 858 is in harmony with those words Furthermore some attempt to use the reading of Psalm 902 in the Septuagint as ldquoevidencerdquo that John 858 is rendered correctly in the popular versions But a closer analysis of this verse shows notable differences between the two verses making such comparison untenable With good reason a considerable number ofscholars have chosen to break from tradition in their rendering of John 858

If critics of alternate readings of John 858 are not candid enough to admit some of the very issues mentioned here and hide the fact that many scholars do hold a different interpretation and no less academic at that should we consider their diatribes of any worthy import It is ldquowishful thinkingrdquo for someone to believe that John 858 is directly connected to Exodus 314 rather than any real evidence (which is lacking) confirming their eager interpretations Remember even Dr James White a well known Trinitarian advocate admitted ldquothat an immediate and unqualified jump from the ego eimi of John 858 to Exodus 314 is unwiserdquo

Besides a theological tendency can be seen when they focus as some do on undermining the reputation of one Bible translation (NWT) when there are actually numerous versions from different religions dealing with the same controversial Scriptures in a similar manner This is very much like politicians who ignore the failings of their own party but are quick to lsquodemonizersquo their opponents (Matthew 73)

Is the Kingdom Interlinear ldquoproofrdquo the NWT is wrong at John 858

A criticism has been made of a Watchtower Society publication (The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures ldquoKITrdquo) which contains the Greek text and underneath it a word-by-word translation in English and on the right side of the page the modern New World Translation Well at John 858 this publication renders the Greek phrase being discussed here egō eimi word-for-word as ldquoI amrdquo and in the right column the NWT shows the reading ldquoI have beenrdquo This difference have led some to severely criticize the NW translators of ldquoincompetencerdquo ldquoinconsistencyrdquo and even of ldquodishonestyrdquo The critics say something like this ldquoThey have backed themselves into a corner where they cant escape their mishandling of the Greek textrdquo or something of that sort Amazingly these critics in their condemnations hardly ever mention the dozens of translators who translate the same way or similarly to the NWT as the submitted list shows So much for honesty

Those who engage in such tactics are not being forthcoming Why say that Besides dismissing how other translators deal with John 858 they also distort known facts for the WT Society have made it clear that the publication of this Greek Bible is to help the Bible student determine the basic sense of the Greek and have stated that the translation on the right column (the NWT) is a modern way of expressing the thoughts transmitted by the Greek text There are many factors to consider when using such publications

Even other interlinear publications warn of seeming discrepancies For instance The Zondervan Parallel New Testament in Greek and English says in its Foreword ldquo[I]t is a good thing to bear in mind that you cannot always either give an English equivalent for a Greek word or expression or even always render the same Greek verb word by the same

English onerdquo Another interlinear the New Greek-English Interlinear New Testament by Brown and Comfort and edited by J D Douglas explains ldquoIt is difficult to translate one language into another on a word-for-word basis because each language has its own syntax grammatical constructions and idioms that are difficultmdashif not impossiblemdashto replicate literally in another languagerdquo (Emphasis added) This statement is so true of the text in discussion (John 858) in regards to its syntax and particular idiom Often critics of the NWT hide this fact Why Is it religious bias at work

I will give the reader a few examples of an available interlinear translation which has the Greek main text and a literal sublinear translation below the Greek by Professor Paul R McReynolds and on the right column for comparison the reader can study the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) a popular translation in academia Observe how the two can differ

McReynolds Mat 21 ldquomagiciansrdquo NRSV ldquowise menrdquo John 118 ldquoonly born Godrdquo ldquoGod the only Sonrdquo Mat 243 ldquosign of the your presencerdquo ldquothe sign of your comingrdquo Mathew 522 ldquothe gehenna of the firerdquo ldquothe hell of firerdquo John 1319 ldquoI amrdquo ldquoI am herdquo John 149 ldquoI amrdquo ldquoHave I beenrdquo John 1527 ldquoyou arerdquo ldquoyou have beenrdquo 2 Peter 24 ldquobeing sent to Tartarusrdquo ldquobut cast them into hellrdquo Luke 1113 ldquowill give spirit holy tordquo ldquowillgive the Holy Spirit tordquo John 2022 ldquotake spirit holyrdquo ldquoReceive the Holy Spiritrdquo Acts 24 ldquofilled all of spirit holyrdquo ldquofilled with the Holy Spiritrdquo

( Paul R McReynolds is professor of Greek and New Testament at Pacific Christian College in Fullerton California USA He also contributed to the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia)

Some of the readings from the right column above (NRSV) are acceptable others are not See if you can detect in the right column above those translation renderings with a theological tendency that deviate from the literal readings from the left column McReynoldson the left does an excellent job of transmitting the Greek sense Even the most popular Bible versions do not adhere consistently to the base texts The NRSV and a host of other Bible versions add their own religious interpretation throughout Scripture just as much as the NWT if not more but hardly anyone complains of this transformation of Scriptures eventhough it leads to error Why Simply because the NRSV represents more of a ldquomajorityrdquo view than the NWT does But in truth majority or minority views do not correspond equallyto ldquoaccuraterdquo or ldquoinaccuraterdquo results

In the text discussed the KIT can appropriately show the basic sense rendering of ldquoI amrdquo for the Greek ldquoegō eimirdquo in the left column and alternately show the reading ldquoI have beenrdquo in the right column as a contemporary way of expressing in English the particular Greek clause with its ldquoidiomrdquo in John 858 as explained throughout this article a rendering which has

scholarship support When the Greek ldquoegō eimirdquo appears in an idiom-less structure it can rightfully be translated as ldquoI amrdquo as most versions do including the NWT Hence there is no contradiction between the two translations

Dr McKay argues that Jesus response in John 858 ldquowould be most naturally translated lsquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrsquo if it were not for the obsession with the simple words lsquoI amrsquo rdquo (Kenneth L McKay ldquolsquoI amrsquo in Johns Gospelrdquo Expository Times 1996 p 302) I take the author as saying that ldquoI have been in existencerdquo for ldquoeimirdquo is a better translation than ldquoI amrdquo but the [religious] obsession for the simple words ldquoI amrdquo in their quest to elevate Christ to Gods level does not allow people to see that The thing is that Christ lsquoalways pleased the Fatherrsquo and was fully satisfied with being lsquolesserrsquo than him (John 829 1029 1428 177813) Why not accept him as he is

Hence it is poor scholarship to forward the idea that an entity must be God Almighty himselfby the sole fact of using a divine sounding phrase when other Bible individuals are found using the same expression in Scripture The ldquocontextrdquo is the determining factor Not only must we take into account the context surrounding a chapter or book of the Bible but also what the whole Bible teaches on a given person or subject

What does the Bible teach about Jesus

That Christ ldquowas in the beginning with Godrdquo (John 12) At the announcement of his birth on earth the angel Gabriel told Mary that she will give birth to someone ldquogreatrdquo and ldquoholyrdquo and that one will be called ldquoSon of the Most Highrdquo and ldquoSon of Godrdquo (Luke 132 35) Trinitarians may claim that ldquoSon of Godrdquo is equivalent in meaning to ldquoGodrdquo It is a claim with no foundation If there was any truth to the claim then the ldquoHoly Spiritrdquo would also be called Son of God But no The fact is that other living creatures are called ldquosons of Godrdquo (Job 21) Never is ldquoGodrdquo or ldquoholy spiritrdquo ever called ldquoSon of Godrdquo in Scripture Only Jesus Christ is called ldquothe Son of Godrdquo with the article Why

By Christ lsquobecoming obedient [to God] until deathrsquo during the course of his earthly life lsquoGod highly exalted Him and graciously gave him a name which is above every other name that at the name of Jesus every knee should bendto the credit of God the Fatherrsquo (Hebrews58 Philippians 28-11 21st Century New Testament)

ldquo[Christ] has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God with angels authorities and powers made subject to himrdquo (1 Peter 322 NRSV) Still in heaven Christ receives knowledge information revelation from God and transmits it to other creatures (Revelation11) Though the glorified Christ is described as ldquoKing of kingsrdquo and ldquoLord of lordsrdquo he is specifically called ldquoThe Word of Godrdquo (Revelation 191316 NRSV) The night before his death he ldquoprayedrdquo to his Father and called him ldquothe only true Godrdquo and made this petition ldquoFather glorify me in your own presence [Greek beside yourself] with the glory that I hadin your presence [Greek beside you] before the world existedrdquo (John 175 NRSV) (ldquoalongside yourselfrdquo ST Byington) Again God never has to ldquoprayrdquo to anyone Ever

Well then if Jesus Christ expressed this one final ldquowishrdquo in prayer to be ldquoin the presence ofrdquoldquobesiderdquo ldquoalongsiderdquo his Father which he himself called ldquothe only true Godrdquo why should we for the sake of tradition insist with the belief that Jesus ldquomustrdquo somehow be that ldquotruerdquo God the One sitting at the center of Gods throne instead of ldquobesiderdquo God (Mark 1619) Christ did not ask to sit at Gods throne Christ was fully content with the premise of being alongside God And that is what actually happened Mark tells us ldquoSo then the Lord Jesus after he had spoken to them was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of Godrdquo (Mark 1619 NRSV Note Some ancient manuscripts omit this verse) The NIV Study Bible notes the significance of lsquositting at the right hand of Godrsquo ldquoA position of authority second only to Godsrdquo Being in ldquoa position of authority second only to Godsrdquo is something no one should ever say of God for he is always ldquosupremerdquo At no time does God relinquishes his supremacy Someone who holds a position of authority second to God cannot be identical to God Take note too that in this account of Mark chapter 16 or the oneat John chapter 17 there is no mention of a third party of a ldquoGodheadrdquo No ldquoHoly Spiritrdquo is in sight The fact is that the glorified Christ in heaven continues to call his Father ldquomy Godrdquo(Revelation 312)

As ldquoSon of Godrdquo and always lesser and subject to God it is illogical to think Christ would purposely usurp titles and rights that only belonged to lsquohis God and Fatherrsquo (John 1428 Matthew 2023 John 2017 Acts 17) Jesus Christ taught others to only worship the Father God (Matthew 410 John 42324) ldquoAnd we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the worldrdquo (1 John 414) If so the thought that Christ would usethe words ldquoI amrdquo as a title to identify himself as ldquothe true Godrdquo is incongruous Jesus made it clear that he would only seek the glory ldquothat comes from the one who alone is Godrdquo (John850 54 544)

In this Satan controlled world it is not that difficult to get entangled with human taught intricate philosophies which obscure the simple Christian doctrine (John 1231 2 Cor 44) Hence the need for caution at the time of defending popular traditional views which clash with the monotheistic approach of Bible writers

Consequently those who teach that Christ is Almighty God find themselves in conflict with the Scriptural record The submitted list of alternate readings of John 858 shows that there are a considerable number of scholars who not only understand the subject correctly but alsokeenly grasp that whatever Jesus said on the matter has to harmonize with both the context of John chapter 8 and the rest of the Scriptures as well

What is the correct translation of John 858

Is it ldquoI amrdquo ldquoI wasrdquo ldquoI am herdquo or ldquoI have beenrdquo After analyzing the Greek phrase ldquoegō eimirdquo the context and the various possible ways the expression can be translated in English I think it is best to render the Greek with an English present perfect Adding a smallelement such as ldquosincerdquo to the statement as McKay does below satisfies all contextual and grammatical requirements of the passage Doing so does not qualify as ldquointerpolationrdquo

A second choice a simple past tense can perhaps be used in translation where the context allows since it is grammatically correct but it is generally used of activity confined to the past so the message may be distorted Unless that is the simple past is interpreted as ldquoimperfectiverdquo with current relevance How so In support of Jesus deity many frequently cite John11 There in the text a simple past tense ldquowasrdquo is applied to ldquothe Wordrdquo three times in English versions Does that mean ldquothe Wordrdquo is no more or that it was permanentlycut-off from existence at some point Of course not The context of the whole gospel of John shows that Christ is fully pertinent in Christian lives

Scholars choosing a past tense for ldquoeimirdquo (ie ldquoI wasrdquo ldquoI existedrdquo etc) at John 858 may also have in mind what John the Baptist said as a precursor of Jesus Christ ldquoA man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was [ldquoexistedrdquo JB] before merdquo Surely John the Baptist did not mean that Jesus existence was done away with His own words show thatJesus life was very much relevant and would continue to be so Translators have no issue whatsoever in applying a past tense (ldquowasrdquo ldquoexistedrdquo) at John 11 and 130 in their English versions So why would they at John 858 Perhaps because it would mean that they wouldhave to do away with the premise of a ldquodivine titlerdquo in their argumentation of which is claimed clinches Jesus identity with Gods own As shown above Revelation 211 a presentverb a form of ldquoeimirdquo is rendered by some versions with a past tense ldquowasrdquo Obviously Bible translators have no problem in translating some present tense verbs with past tenses or with present perfects But most object to it at John 858 likely for theological reasons

As stated in the beginning of this essay the English ldquopresentrdquo and the Greek ldquopresentrdquo in certain contexts do not correspond exactly in meaning because in Greek ldquotimerdquo is a secondary factor That being the case the choice of English tense does not have to match theGreek conjugation per se to be faithful to the Sacred Text When one considers the specific idiom found in John 858 and the semantic implications of both the Greek and English ldquopresentrdquo one can see that the rendering ldquoI amrdquo though popular does not nearly represent the best translation possible in the English language ldquoContextrdquo often plays a more importantrole in determining the correct translation Overall though it is best to render the Greek expression with an English present perfect since it conveys clearly a more present relevancythan a past tense would

That said John 858 is a good example where a Greek transliteration may not be the best choice to communicate the right message effectively in our times The translation of ldquoI amrdquo has its place in extreme English literal translations which show the basic sense of the Greek such as those Interlinear translations mentioned above Also it can rightfully be used in many Scriptures where the context calls for it as when the sentence structure lacks the Greekldquoidiomrdquo discussed throughout this writing as might be the case with most occurrences of ldquoeimirdquo

Here listed in my opinion are the translations which come closest to the Greek thought presented by the particular ldquoidiomrdquo found in John 858 Dr Kenneth L McKay comes up with the correct translation

1 ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo - Kenneth L McKay A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek (SBG 5 New York Peter Lang 1994) p42

(Kenneth L McKay graduated with honours in Classics (with an interest in the Greek of theNT) from the Universities of Sydney and Cambridge He has taught Greek in universities and theological colleges in Nigeria New Zealand and England Mr McKay retired from the Australian National University in 1987 after teaching there for 26 years)

Other translations below come close to McKays rendering and are thus favored over the traditional rendering which is widely misunderstood

2 ldquoI have existed before Abraham was bornrdquo - A New Translation by James [ Moffatt - DD DLitt Glasgow Oxford 3 ldquoBefore Abraham came into existence I have beenrdquo - New World Translation 4 ldquoBefore Abraham came into being I have existedrdquo - The Documents of the [New Testament G W Wade London 5 ldquoFrom before Abraham was I have been rdquo - The New Testament by George [ R -Noyes DD Boston USA6 ldquoBefore Abraham was born I have already been rdquo - The Unvarnished New [Testament Andy Gaus Boston7 ldquoI existed even before Abraham was bornrdquo - The concise Gospel and the Acts [Logos International Christopher J ed Christianson Plainfield NJ8 ldquoI already was before Abraham was bornrdquo ndash Worldwide English New Testament [ Derby UK ________________________________

COMMENTS

Also compare the following translations

Nytt liv (1907 Norwegian)A Biacuteblia Viva (1981 Portuguese)O Novo Testamento Vivo (1974 Portuguese)Le Livre Nouveau Testament (1980 eacuteditions Farel French)Η Καινή Διαθήκη των Τεσσάρων Καθηγητών (ΚΔΤΚ Greek) (The New Testament of the Four Teachers The translation was made and approved (1921981) by the Holy Summit Church of Greece The English title of the project is The New Testament in Modern Greek Athens Greece) Η Αγία Γραφή Παλαιά και Καινή Διαθήκη (ΝΔΜ Greek) Ελληνική Βιβλική Εταιρία Αθήνα [Athens] 1997 (The Bible Old and New Testament Greek Biblical Company - London 1997) ΚΔΛΖ ΛΧ (Other Greek Versions expressing the same idea as translations on the list)___________________

ldquoI was rdquo Note on 1987 translation from Italian main list l Vangelio di Giovanni (El Evangelio de Juan [ldquoThe Gospel of Johnrdquo] with imprimatur) by J Mateos and J Barreto noted on John 858 (as translated by Teodora Tosatti p 387 Cittadela Editrice 1982) that the temporal relationship expressed by the Greek ldquoprin eimi [BeforeI am]rdquo can be translated into Italian ldquoprimaero [BeforeI was]rdquo (Translation from Italian to English mine)__________________

Comment on 1993 ΟІ ΧΡΙΣΤΙΑΝΙΚΕΣ ΓΡΑΦΕΣ Απόδοση από τη Μειάφράση Νέου Κόσμου which is a modern Greek translation of the New World Translation of the ChristianScriptures Unlike most Bible Versions which are published in only one language or a few atmost the NWT is available in dozens of languages based mainly on their English translationbut obviously taking into account other factors in the process such as the original Bible text the peculiarities of their recipient local languages and their targeted audiences in their respective countries

It is obvious though that other NWT translation editions closely followed the English text of the NWT and at the same time their translation teams had enough latitude to offer their own unique renderings at times expressing in their native languages what they see in in the Inspired Text Having said that it is interesting to see how they approached their translation of John 858 from their English translation back into [modern] Greek

The translation team was acutely aware of the basic sense of ldquoegō eimirdquo as ldquoI amrdquo and how those simple words are misconstrued by religionists to say something more than Jesus intended Taking into account the syntax of John 858 as stated throughout this document the translation team who worked on the modern Greek version faced a few options

First they had the option to go back to ldquoegō eimirdquo using the modern Greek equivalent ldquoΕγώ ειμαιrdquo (I am) as it reads in the Vamvas version which they did not Or they could haveexpressed their NWT English choice of ldquoI have beenrdquo with their modern Greek equivalent of ldquoέχο υπάρξει [I have existed]rdquo Thirdly they could have gone with ldquoI wasrdquo (ldquoεγώ ήμουνrdquo) as some of their French and Italian Bible editions have done in the past or even with ldquo[εγώ] υπήρξα [I existed])rdquo Or they could have provided some other unique rendering It is obvious they wanted to stick closely to the Greek text but given the common misconceptionssurrounding ldquoegō eimai (I am)rdquo in mainstream churches the translation team chose to use ldquoεγώ υπάρχωrdquo (a present indicative form in the Greek) which means basically ldquoI existrdquo but in the presence of an expression of past time in John 858 the sense is ldquoI have existedrdquo Thus ldquoBefore Abraham came into existence I have existedrdquo ( The verb είμαι [ldquoto berdquo] in modern Greek has no forms for the perfect tense It borrows the forms from the verb υπάρχω [ldquoI existrdquo] The Greek and English ldquoperfectsrdquo are not exact equivalents either)

The reader is reminded here as noted earlier that modern Greek keeps up with the Koineacute Greek ldquopresentrdquo idiom A modern Greek grammar Greek A Comprehensive Grammar explains ldquoThe present tense is also used in constructions where English would use the perfect continuous ie where the verb expresses a continuous state or habitual event that

has lasted since a certain point in the past and is continuing up to (and including) the presentrdquo The authors provide two examples where a present verb is used with a past time indicator and where they translate using an English perfect as explained ldquoI have been living[Μένω] in this house for three years nowrdquo And ldquoI have been reading [Διαβάζω] this newspaper since 1984rdquo (Greek A Comprehensive Grammar by David Holton Peter Mackridge amp Irene Philippaki-Warburton Revised by Vassilios Spyropoulos p 294 Second edition 2012)

Ten years after the NWT-Greek Edition was released another modern Greek translation was published with the following rendering at John 858 ldquoΣας βεβαιώνω πως πριν να γεννηθεί οΑβραάμ εγώ υπάρχωrdquo which in English would be ldquoI assure you that I have existed since before Abraham was bornrdquo (Literally ldquoI assure you that before could be born the AbrahamI exist [not ldquoΕγώ ειμαιrdquo]rdquo The Holy Bible in Todays Greek Version 2003 Greek Bible Society Interestingly the original English version of 1976 had ldquoI Amrdquo) Also a Spanish Bible conveys a similar thought ldquoYo existo desde antes que existiera Abrahamrdquo [Translation ldquo I exist since before Abraham existedrdquo] (La Biblia - Versioacuten Popular 2nd edition Sociedades Biacuteblicas Unidas 1983)

_________________________________________________________

The Clear Word The translators quoted in this article represent various religious faiths some are Catholic some are Protestant Others are Unitarians Jehovahs Witnesses Jewish Adventists etc and they represent countries the world over One of these translators is a Seventh-Day Adventist who worked on The Clear Word Jack J Blanco ThD As a Seventh-Day Adventist who supports the Trinity doctrine Blanco translated verses to make Jesus ldquoequalrdquo to God in every way

He renders John 11 ldquoHe is the Word of God and is equal with Godrdquo He shows Jesus at Philippians 25-7 as ldquoequal with Godrdquo and describes him as lsquoacting the part of a servantrsquo At John 1428 he completely omits the reference that lsquothe Father is greaterrsquo than Christ But here at John 858 in answer to the question the priests and leaders asked concerning Abraham lsquoseeingrsquo his day Jesus answered according to Dr Blanco ldquoBecause I existed before Abraham was even bornrdquo Thus Dr Blanco makes no connection as others do that Christ is the ldquoI amrdquo of Exodus 314 which according to some would indicate that Jesus is the Jehovah of the Old Testament What he sees in this account is that Jesus already lsquoexisted before Abraham didrsquo and thus Abraham was able to lsquoseersquo his day (John 856) To this we must add another likely element included in Jesus response to the Jews as wellone of simple identification as ldquothe Christ [Messiah]rdquo and ldquoSon of manrdquo Why is it then that manywho support the Trinity doctrine find it hard to understand Jesus statement correctly at John 858 Could it be that they are letting non-Scriptural influence and perhaps the weight of themajority view dictate their understanding of this Scripture

For a consideration of other subjects by the same author check below

For a discussion of Acts 286 Whose blood

httpwwwscribdcomdoc231244155Acts-20-28-Whose-blood

For a discussion of Colossians 116 (ldquoall other thingsrdquo) see

httpwwwscribdcomdoc205841269Colossians-1-16-Is-the-expression-all-other-things-a-proper-rendition

For a consideration on the subject of the Trinity click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc160286056Does-the-Trinity-ever-make-sense

For a full consideration of John 11 click the following link httpwwwscribdcomdoc34916458The-correct-translation-of-John-1-1

For a brief consideration of John 11 with additional citations click here httpwwwscribdcomdoc50330864John-1-1-List-of-Alternate-Readings

Did the NW translators know any Greek click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc48234022Did-the-New-World-Translation-Committee-Know-Greek

For a consideration of John 173 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc57772552John-17-3-E28098Taking-in-knowledge-of-E28099-God-and-Jesus

For a consideration of 1 Timothy 316 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc76927834Was-God-manifested-in-the-flesh-1-Timothy-3-16

For a consideration of Exodus 225 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc38676458Exodus-2-25-And-God-took-notice-Does-God- care-about-us

For a consideration of John 114 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc35002730John-1-14-Jesus-full-of-grace

For a consideration of Translation Differences-Questions and Answershttpwwwscribdcomdoc59484457Translation-Differences-Questions-and-Answers

In Spanish

Para una consideracioacuten de otros temas vea los siguientes enlaces

Para una consideracioacuten de Colosenses 116 ldquotodas las otras cosasrdquo vea

httpwwwscribdcomdoc209601066Colosenses-1-16-C2BFEs-la-traduccion-E2809Ctodas-las-otras-cosasE2809D-apropiada

Para una consideracioacuten de ldquoiquestAcaso tiene sentido la Trinidadrdquo

httpwwwscribdcomdoc173779117C2BFAcaso-tiene-sentido-la-Trinidad

Para un consideracioacuten de Juan 11 vea el siguiente enlace

httpwwwscribdcomdoc35899788Traduccion-correcta-de-Juan-1-1-Lista-de- lecturas-alternativas

Para el tema iquestSabiacutean griego los traductores de la TNM vea el siguiente enlace

httpwwwscribdcomdoc51623596C2BFSabia-griego-el-Comite-de-la-Traduccion-del-Nuevo-Mundo

Jesus Christ (as in Hebrews 18) the same translators may now insist those similar words areldquoproofrdquo of Christs ldquodeityrdquo A good example of this is found in the NET Bibles footnotes Although Jesus accepted being ldquoone greater than Solomonrdquo he never claimed to be God the Father (Matthew 1242) Significantly to Jesus ldquoGodrdquo was someone else

In the Bible is not rare to read frequent references and comparisons of faithful men with Jesus Christ ndash Abraham Jacob Moses David Solomon Jonas and John the Baptist (John 853 412 Deuteronomy 1815 Hebrews 33 Psalm 1101 Matthew 927 2245 124142 Mark 17 Luke 117 72628) Whats more Jesus is compared to ldquoangelsrdquo (Hebrews 14513) Should we take this to mean that men and angels are somehow identical to Jesus Christ True some of these references show that Jesus Christ is above them But we should take the superiority of Christ over them in the same way that we rightly accept Jesus own words indicative of his relative position to the Father ldquoThe Father is greater than Irdquo (John 1428 2031)

Accordingly the ldquoI amrdquo or ldquoI am herdquo expressions pronounced by God and Jesus Christ found in both the Old and New Testaments must be understood within their proper context From the beginning of mans history God provided a way for mankinds deliverance Jesus was prophetically the center of this magnificent expectation For eons of time mankind waited for the One (Messiah) who would deliver them from bondage Nevertheless when hedid appear on the earthly scene most people ignored and rejected the real Messiah because they were expecting politically speaking a quick deliverance from the Roman yoke

However God had something else in mind ndash deliverance was still ahead It was now the time to call attention to the fact that Christ their (future) ldquosaviorrdquo was in their midst Jesus did his part by words and by action (miracles etc) He called attention to who he really was ldquothe Son of Godrdquo and told others that he was ldquothe Christrdquo (or the ldquoMessiahrdquo) (John 42526 Matthew 1615-17 2663-68) Related to the subject one expression Jesus used on various occasions was this one ldquoI amrdquo or ldquoI am herdquo words understood by those brought up in trinitarian doctrine to attest Jesus equality with God (John 426 620 824 28 858 1319 185-6 8) However the phrase was sometimes used as a simple self-identification like ldquoIt is Irdquo or ldquoI am Jesusrdquo At other times when questioned by doubters Jesus used it to get the point across that lsquohe was the one [and not someone else]rsquo the promised ldquoSaviorrdquo ldquothe Son of manrdquo ldquothe Son of Godrdquo ldquothe Messiahrdquo

At no time did Jesus ever claim he was a ldquoGod-manrdquo or ldquoGod in the fleshrdquo (John 316) Those thoughts are foreign to Scripture Remember that Scripture teaches that lsquoGod was with Jesusrsquo just as we are told that lsquoGod was with Josephrsquo son of Jacob Scripture does not say that Jesus was God made flesh It was lsquothe Wordrsquo the Son of God who was with God in the beginning the One who lsquobecame fleshrsquo not God (Acts 79 1038 John 11 114) Christendom has distorted Scripture to the point that ldquoChristianrdquo followers cannot determine this plain truth A misunderstanding of John 11 and 1 Timothy 316 has greatly contributed to this error Further below you will find links where those verses are considered in detail

It was through Jesus death that God reconciled sinful people to himself Hence the ldquoI amrdquo

or ldquoI am herdquo sayings of Jesus need not be directly linked to those uttered by God before the time of Christ Jesus was sent by God on a saving mission as a representative of God With good reason he declared unambiguously that ldquoherdquo was (and not some other) ldquoGods Sonrdquo the promised ldquoMessiahrdquo The Jesus sayings ldquoI amrdquo or ldquoI am herdquo in some cases would confirm at most that ldquothere is no other name under heaven that has been given to men in which we must be savedrdquo (Acts 4 12) It was lsquoGod who resurrected Jesus from among the deadrsquo and it was God who lsquogave mankind the namersquo that saves people (Acts 410)

Thus the ldquoI amrdquo sayings of the New Testament were certainly pronounced in a different setting than those in the Old Testament Not to be overlooked the One using the ldquoI amrdquo or ldquoI am herdquo expressions in the OT is described unequivocally as lsquoAlmighty Godrsquo lsquothe only True Godrsquo with maximum ldquopowerrdquo and ldquoauthorityrdquo to send a ldquosubordinaterdquo to an extraordinary mission (Daniel 714 John 1316 537) The glorified Christ is never described in the same way as God was in Old Testament times as he always appears throughout the NT subordinated to God Still Christ is ldquothe wayrdquo to the Father and salvation (John 146) We are therefore commanded to recognize his lsquoGod-given authorityrsquo so ldquothat all may honor the Son just as they honor the Fatherrdquo (Matthew 2818 John 2031 523) Jesus is then the ldquomediatorrdquo between God and mankind (1 Timothy 25) A grand privilege that is

What does the context of John 858 indicate

Some Bible readers see Jesus in the context of John chapter 8 not only saying in idiomatic fashion that he lsquowas [already] alive before Abraham was born (SEB)rsquo and still lsquoisrsquo but also that he was identifying himself as ldquothe Son of Manrdquo ldquothe Messiahrdquo This is a reasonable assumption as well One of the Jews questions was ldquoWho do you think you arerdquo (John 853) In John 824 28 1319 Matthew 2754 and Mark 1460-64 the function or position ofChrist as the ldquoSon of Godrdquo ldquoSon of Manrdquo and ldquothe Christrdquo all come through

The statement (or question) Jews made to Jesus prior to verse 58 was ldquoYou are not yet fifty years old and you have seen Abrahamrdquo Logically Jesus answered the question of his age of his long existence and additionally was perhaps asserting his ldquomessiahshiprdquo as well in harmony with the question Jews had posed earlier in verse 53 This may be one reason a fewtranslators render or note John 858 not as ldquoI amrdquo but rather ldquoI am herdquo some to suggest Christ is God while others do so emphasizing his messianic role The second interpretation fits better with Scripture In the list of alternate readings of John 858 below you will find that rendering as well However the key issue in this text is Jesus existence from past to present Unlike other verses in John (82428) where ldquoeimirdquo is used (in the sense of ldquoI am herdquo ie ldquothe Son of Godrdquo ldquothe Messiahrdquo) in verse 58 the matter of ldquoidentityrdquo is secondaryto the key issue of his existence In the sum of things it should be noted that ldquoindefiniterdquo existence is not equal to ldquoeternalrdquo existence

Within the context of chapter eight (8) of John Jesus makes statements which mark clear differences with his Father God When reading over the next few paragraphs keep in mind that the Bible condemns two-faced personalities and speaking out with a forked tongue

Jesus himself spoke out against hypocrisy so he only spoke ldquotruthrdquo

In John 826 Jesus told the Jews that he was ldquosentrdquo by his Father and that lsquohe speaks the things that he hears from the one who sent himrsquo That lsquohe does nothing on his own initiativersquo (NASB) That lsquohe isrsquo ldquothe Son of Manrdquo and lsquospeaks just what the Father taught himrsquo (V 28)

Jesus stated a simple but significant truth ldquoNo servant is greater than his master nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent himrdquo (John 1316) With this principle in mind here are some questions to ponder about How could Jesus be ldquosentrdquo if he himself was ldquoGodrdquo Why was Jesus lsquonot able to do anything on his own initiativersquo if he was ldquoall-mightyrdquo In verse 29 Jesus says that lsquothe One who sent him has not left him alone and that he always did what pleased the Fatherrsquo Why would Jesus Christ say at all lsquoI always do what pleases him who sent mersquo If Jesus was ldquoGodrdquo why would he find it important enoughto mention whether he was left ldquoalonerdquo or not Does God need ldquocompanionshiprdquo as humans do Why would anybody have to ldquoteachrdquo Jesus anything if he was all-knowingrdquo

Also Jesus applied the title ldquoSon of Manrdquo to himself numerous times a term which Jews considered a title of the promised ldquoMessiahrdquo not of ldquoGodrdquo In addition the Bible book of Numbers 2319 tells us that ldquoGod is not a man that he should lie ldquonor a son of man that he should change his mindrdquo Nonetheless Christ precisely adopted this very same expression (ldquoSon of Manrdquo) before others with no regrets Furthermore did God have to become ldquoa manrdquo to save humankind when the Bible explicitly says that lsquoGod sent his only-begotten Sonrsquoto save the worldrsquo (John 316 NASB 1 John 414) Who is distorting the full picture here

In verse 40 John reports that the Jews lsquowere determined to kill Jesus because they didnt want to accept the word and truth that Jesus as a man [Greek anthropon] spoke having it received from Godrsquo How could Christ speak of himself as lsquoa man receiving truth from Godrsquowhen seconds later according to Trinitarians he would be using a ldquotitlerdquo claiming to be ldquoGodrdquo in effect contradicting everything he had been saying until then None of these statements would make sense if Jesus himself was the Supreme God as many believe

What would Jesus gain by claiming before the world that he lsquocould not do anything on his own initiativersquo that lsquohe always did what pleased the Fatherrsquo and that he only spoke just what the Father who sent him lsquotaughtrsquo him And shortly afterwards change his message altogether and claim as we are asked to believe that Christ was the ldquoGodrdquo of the Old Testament by the sole act of pronouncing the ldquoI amrdquo divine ldquotitlerdquo Does this lsquodouble personalityrsquo approach make any sense to a Christian who is taught to only believe ldquothere is but one God the Fatherrdquo (John 530 1 Corinthians 86) No wonder there are a good number of Bible translators including Trinitarians who disagree with the traditional view of John 858

Does the Jews reaction in John 859 prove Jesus Christ had claimed to be ldquoGodrdquo

Shortly before his death Jesus was taken before the Sanhedrin the high court of the Jews to

face false charges by people who wanted him dead Please take note of the charges brought up in Marks account (1460-64) which says

60 Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus ldquoAre you not going to answer What is this testimony that these men are bringing against yourdquo 61 But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer Again the high priest asked him ldquoAre you the Messiah the Son of the Blessed Onerdquo 62 ldquoI amrdquo said Jesus ldquoAnd you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heavenrdquo 63 The high priest tore his clothes ldquoWhy do we need any more witnessesrdquo he asked 64 ldquoYou have heard the blasphemy What do you thinkrdquo They all condemned him as worthy of death

In view of the events of Mark 1460-64 and considering the context of John chapter 8 it is clear that the Jews rejected Jesus claim of him being ldquothe Messiahrdquo and of being lsquogreaterrsquo than Abraham They were also rejecting the idea that he was ldquofrom aboverdquo ldquothe Son of Mansitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heavenrdquo of the heavenly vision (John 823) In their view that was enough to charge him with blasphemy since they could not imagine any ldquomanrdquo making such claims

C K Barrett rightly noted that the Jews reaction in verse 59 ldquodoes not mean that Jesus had claimed to be Godrdquo (The Gospel According to St John 2d ed Philadelphia Westminster Press 1978 352) And Professor Emeritus William Loader noted ldquoThe text need mean no more than I am and was in existence before Abraham still a majestic unique claim but not anallusion to the divine namerdquo (The Christology of the Fourth Gospel Structures and Issues Revised 2d ed New York Lang 1992 48)

Even before Jesus spoke the ldquoegō eimirdquo words in John 858 the Jews had already sought to kill Jesus (John 719 837) And for what ldquocrimerdquo This lsquoJesus claimed the truth he taughtcame from Godrsquo (John 716 840) This is vastly different from lsquoJesus alledgedly claiming a divine title equating him with God at John 858rsquo Since then all sorts of religious leaders have claimed as well that ldquowhat they teach others comes from Godrdquo and not from them Does that make them ldquoequalrdquo to God

Because Jesus often lsquocalled God his Fatherrsquo the Jews wrongly concluded that he was ldquomaking himself equal to Godrdquo (John 51819) However Jesus quickly set the matter straight when he called himself Gods ldquoSonrdquo (nine times in chapter 5 alone) an expression never applied to ldquoGodrdquo in Scripture (Matthew 2663-64) The Jews even claimed Jesus was ldquobreaking the Sabbathrdquo and further of being ldquoa Samaritan and demon-possessedrdquo (John 518 848) Were they right Absolutely not Thus wrong perceptions of Jews in Jesus time - like Jesus claiming equality with God - are truly a shaky foundation to base modern interpretations The Jerusalem Bible has this to say ldquoThe claim of Jesus to live on the divine plane (v 58) is for the Jews blasphemy for which the penalty is stoning Lv 2416rdquo I see the JB accepting the claim that Jesus possessed some mode of ldquodivine existencerdquo (as suggested by the Spanish edition of JB ldquoBiblia de Jerusaleacutenrdquo) but avoiding a direct reference of Christ

claiming to be God or that he was claiming ldquoeternalrdquo existence in the verse And former Professor Kenneth L McKay said ldquoThe claim to have been in existence for so long is in itself a staggering one quite enough to provoke the crowds violent reaction [in v59]rdquo (ldquo lsquoI amrsquo in Johns Gospelrdquo p 302) Hence those who claim the charge of blasphemy involved Jesus claim of being ldquoGodrdquo are wrong for Jesus never claimed to be ldquoThe Supreme Beingrdquo but only ldquoGods Sonrdquo (John 31718)

Weeks later after the incident of John chapter 8 but related to the topic of discussion in John 1030-36 we read that the Jews misunderstood Jesus words ldquoI and the father are onerdquo (John 10 30) So they wanted to stone him for it but Jesus told them

33 ldquoWe are not stoning you for any good workrdquo they replied ldquobut for blasphemy because you a mere man claim to be Godrdquo 34 Jesus answered them ldquoIs it not written in your Law lsquoI have said you are ldquogodsrdquorsquo [Psalm 826] 35 If he called them lsquogodsrsquo to whom the word of God camemdashand Scripture cannot be set asidemdash 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said lsquoI am Godrsquos Sonrsquo ( Other versions translate the Greek word here for ldquoGodrdquo without the article either as ldquogodrdquo or ldquoa godrdquo Besson Torrey NWT Mace Luther 1545 Diaglott Tomanek Andy Gaus New English Bible)

Notice that Jesus Christ under duress had another golden opportunity to once and for all disclose publicly that he was ldquoGodrdquo But he did not do so The argument itself that Jesus employed shows that he could legitimately claim lsquodivine originrsquo without being identified as one-and-the-same God with his Father

Less than a year later AFTER the encounter with the Jews of John chapter 8 and before his death Jesus told his closest disciples in his farewell speech that they lsquoshould rejoice he was going away to the Father because the Father was greater than he wasrsquo (John 1428) And in his final prayer in proximity with his disciples he prayed to God that lsquothey may know his Father the only true God and Jesus Christ whom he has sentrsquo (John 173 ) God never needs to pray to anyone Shortly after Jesus died and was resurrected by God but before returning to his Father Jesus said to Mary Magdalene ldquoDo not hold on to me for I have notyet ascended to the Father Go instead to my brothers and tell them lsquoI am ascending to my Father and your Father to my God and your Godrsquo rdquo (John 2017)

Does it make sense to have Jesus claim equality with God by employing a divine title (ldquoI Amrdquo) before unbelieving Jews as Trinitarians claim and then have Jesus later assure his closest and faithful ones that lsquohis Father and his Godrsquo was also lsquothe Father and God of everyone elsersquo In fact Jesus disciples were clearly in a privileged position in regards to Christian teaching Jesus Christ had previously said to his disciples that he would explain lsquoall thingsrsquo to them privately whereas to others he would only speak in lsquoparablesrsquo or lsquocomparisonsrsquo (Matthew 1311 Mark 411 33 34) An explicit lsquodivine titlersquo directed at lsquounbelievingrsquo Jews is certainly no parable and would run counter to his own stated principles

Anyways Jesus Christ wanted other Christian followers to understand the special

relationship he had with the Father ldquoBut go to my followers and tell them this lsquoI am going back to my Father and your Father I am going back to my God and your Godrsquo rdquo (Easy to Read Version) This simple message is so different from the convoluted one commonly expounded by Trinitarians in their philosophical speculations

Between the time of the encounter between the Jews and Jesus in John ch 8 and the farewelldiscourse of our Lord Jesus Christ of later (chapters 14-17) not once did Jesus say he was ldquoGodrdquo Christ never spoke with a forked tongue Therefore Bible translators who do not claim Jesus was using a divine title at John 858 and provide renderings agreeing with the words of John 173 and 2017 are in the correct

Scriptures with similar syntax to John 858

Thus when faced with certain idiomatic expressions as the one found in John 858 the translator often has to ask himself How would someone normally express such statements in our language I will cite six (6) Scriptural examples that are similar in syntax to John 858 Genesis 3138 LXX 1 John 38 Luke 248 John 56 2 Corinthians 1219 and John 1527 All six Scriptures have present tense verbs AND an expression of past time or extent of time with past implications within its structure Lets see how these Scriptures compare with John 858 in our discussion

1st Example (Genesis 3138 LXX) ταῦτά μοι εἴκοσι ἔτη ἐγώ εἰμι μετὰ σοῦ - Greek These mine twenty years I am with you

Jacob after leaving Haran disputes with his father-in-law Laban over missing personal idols which Laban claimed were stolen by Jacob Jacob had no idea Rachel had stolen them In defense Jacob proceeded to mention several things he had done through the years on Labansbehalf ldquoThese twenty years I am with yourdquo (The Apostolic Bible Polyglot LXX 2006)ldquoThese twenty years of mine I was with yourdquo (A New English Translation of the Septuagint ldquoNETSrdquo 2007)ldquoThese twenty years have I been with theerdquo (The Holy Orthodox Bible LXX 2006)ldquoThese twenty years I have been with yourdquo (The Orthodox Study Bible LXX 2008)ldquoThese twenty years of mine have I been with theerdquo (Orthodox England LXX 2009)ldquoI have spent with you twenty of my years [Jai passeacute avec toi vingt de mes anneacutees]rdquo (La Septante [LXX] translated by Pierre Giguet)ldquoThese twenty years have I been with theerdquo (Sir Lancelot CL Brenton LXX)ldquoThese twenty years that I have been with theerdquo (Charles Thomson LXX)

Aside from the interlinear reading of the literal Apostolic Bible Polyglot other translators of the Septuagint (LXX) render a present indicative verb ldquoegō eimirdquo (I am) preceded by an expression of time with past implications (ldquoThese twenty yearsrdquo) with present perfect

indicative forms (ldquoI have beenrdquo) while one translation (NETS) uses a simple past form (ldquoI wasrdquo) A modern Greek translation Η Αγία ΓραφήmdashΜετάφραση Νέου Κόσμου has ldquoήμουνrdquo (Literally ldquoI wasrdquo) in this text A likely reason for that as a modern Greek Grammar pointsout is that for the verb lsquoto be (είμαι)rsquo ldquoThere are only two sets of tense forms in Greek present and past (imperfect)rdquo (op cit An Essential Grammar p 126 Sec 67) Hence they could not have used here a perfect tense form for the verb lsquoto be (eimai)rsquo But in English the Bible Society responsible for the Greek and English translations of the Hebrew portion of the Bible used instead ldquoI have beenrdquo at Genesis 3138 in the English edition because a present perfect is available in the language for the verb

Another interesting tidbit is the fact that the original Hebrew text here lacks a verb in the declaration namely ldquoThis twenty year I with-yourdquo (The Hebrew-English Interlinear ESV Old Testament Crossway) Well how do translators deal with this issue Overall like this with the perfect indicative ldquoI have been with you for twenty years nowrdquo A few versions use the imperfect instead lsquoI wasrsquo such as the Wycliffe Bible and the Lexham English Bible Rarely do translations use a ldquopresentrdquo here the exceptions being Youngs and Concordant literal translations So why do the overwhelming number of translators prefer tosupply a perfect tense here for the missing verb in the Hebrew Its simple There is a temporal indicator going to the past in the text namely lsquoThese twenty yearsrsquo

Now when the LXX translators proceeded to translate the Hebrew words of Genesis 3138 into Greek they cleverly used a well known vivid idiom available in classical Greek where a verb in the present tense is combined with an indicator of past time In this syntax the ldquopast and present are gathered up in a single affirmationrdquo (op cit Brooks amp Winbery) Modern English translators usually resort to the present perfect in this construction as shown aboveSo too John 858 reveals an expression of past time with a present verb in its statement and the NWT is one translation that is consistent with this construction both in Genesis 3138 and John 858

For the following I will use the Wescott and Hort Greek text for reference

2nd Example (1 John 38)

ὅτι ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς ὁ διάβολος ἁμαρτάνει - Greek because from beginning the devil is sinning

The apostle John warns Christians not to carry on sin for those who make a practice of sin originate from the Devil who has sinned from the beginning For this purpose the Son of God was revealed that he might undo the works of the Devil The text above contains an expression of past time (ldquofrom beginningrdquo) with a present verb (is sinning) very much likeJohn 858 How do translators deal with this passage Lets see

ldquofor the devil sinneth from the beginningrdquo (Rheims New Testament)ldquofor the devil sinneth from the beginningrdquo (KJV)

ldquofor the devil has sinned from the beginningrdquo (New King James Version)ldquofor the devil has sinned from the beginningrdquo (NASB)ldquobecause the devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (Interlinear Mounce)ldquofor the Devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (Riverside NT Ballantine)ldquobecause the devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (NIV)ldquobecause the devil has sinned from the beginningrdquo (NAB)ldquosince the devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (Jay E Adams)ldquowho has been sinning since the beginningrdquo (NLT)ldquofor the devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (NRSV)ldquosince the devil has been a sinner from the beginningrdquo (NJB)ldquobecause the devil has been sinning from the very beginningrdquo (J G Anderson)ldquofor the devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (ESV)

ldquothe devil was a sinner from the firstrdquo (Ronald A Knox New Testament)

Some translations transfer the Greek present to their English versions as if the English and Greek ldquopresentrdquo in such construction were the same thing It is not The end result is ungrammatical English Would you say in contemporary English ldquoFrom the beginning of class the boy sleepsrdquo Not Doctor Richard A Young points out ldquoTo say that the devil is sinning from the beginning does not make sense in English English translations therefore employ the present perfectrdquo (Intermediate New Testament Greek page 111)

The renderings above ldquohas sinnedrdquo and ldquohas been sinningrdquo are present perfect and present perfect progressive indicative forms The word ldquowasrdquo is a simple past tense Just as in 1 John 38 some translators in John 858 have rendered a present tense with an expression of past time in its construction with a present perfect ldquoI have beenrdquo

3rd Example (2 Corinthians 1219)

Πάλαι δοκεῖτε ὅτι ὑμῖν ἀπολογούμεθα ndash Greek Long ago you are thinking that to you we are making defense

Paul finds himself having to defend his apostolic authority and vindicating his record as superior in hardship endured for Christ and loving concern for congregations In simpler words Paul was telling them ldquoAll this time have you been thinking that Ive been speaking up for myself No Ive been speaking with God as my witness Ive been speaking like a believer in Christ Dear friends everything I do is to help you become strongerrdquo (NIRV)

In the literal reading above we have an adverb of time with past implications (Palai) followed by two Greek verb forms (ldquodokeiterdquo amp ldquoapologoumethardquo) in the present indicativetense The book Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek Verb by William Watson Goodwin explains ldquoThe Present is often used with expressions denoting past time especially πάλαι [palai] in the sense of a perfect and a present combinedrdquo (Section 26 p 9) How do translators render these in English Some carry over the present tense into the English text producing unconventional English Others cognizant of issues presented here

do a better job at it See below for a sample

ldquoHave you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves before yourdquo (The Comprehensive New Testament 2008)ldquoI hope you donacutet think that all along weacuteve been making our defense before yourdquo (The Message Eugene H Peterson)ldquoHave you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves to yourdquo (NIV)ldquoIt may seem to you that all this time we have been attempting to put ourselves in the rightrdquo (Bible in Basic English)ldquoAll this time you have been thinking that we have been pleading our own cause before yourdquo (NJB)ldquoHave you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves to yourdquo (CEV)ldquoHave you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves before yourdquo (Revised Standard Version) ldquoPerhaps you think that all along we have been trying to defend ourselves before yourdquo (TEV)ldquoHave you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves to yourdquo (ESV)ldquoYou have thought all along that we were defending ourselves to yourdquo (HCSB)ldquoHave you been thinking all this time that we have been defending ourselves to yourdquo (NET Bible)

ldquoYou have been thinking all along that it was to you we were making our defenserdquo (The Bible in Living English Steven T Byington)

The above translations use present perfect (and perfect progressive) forms or past progressives to bring out the proper sense of the original into our language Can anyone rightfully claim that it is improper for these Bible versions to translate this text as they have done in English

4th Example (Luke 248 Wescott and HortNestle early editions Greek text)

ὁ πατήρ σου καὶ ἐγὼ ὀδυνώμενοι ζητοῦμέν σε - Greek The father of you and I being pained we are seeking you Here the context (vv 42-48) speaks of Jesus (12 years old) being left behind unwittingly in Jerusalem by his parents they went back searching in distress for three days before finding him When they finally found him they spoke the words above

ldquoYour father and I have been looking for you anxiouslyrdquo (Revised Standard Version)ldquoYour father and I in agony of mind have been searching for yourdquo (Williams NT)ldquoYour father and I have been anxiously looking for Yourdquo (NASB 1971)ldquoYour father and I have been searching for you in great distressrdquo (Riverside NT)

ldquoHere have your father and I been searching anxiously for yourdquo (Hugh J Schonfield)ldquoYour father and I have been looking for you have been very anxious rdquo (Goodspeed)ldquoYour father and I have been looking for you We have been very troubledrdquo (Bible in Worldwide English)ldquoYour father and I have been looking for you in distressrdquo (Richmond Lattimore)ldquoYour father and I have been searching for you in great distressrdquo (Twentieth Century NT) ldquoThy father and I have sought thee distressedrdquo (Darby Bible Translation)

ldquoThy father and I sought thee sorrowingrdquo (American Standard Version)

ldquoThy father and I in anguish were seeking theerdquo (The Emphasized Bible 3rd edit based on Wescott and Hort by Joseph B Rotherham)ldquoThy father and I were seeking thee sorrowfulrdquo (W B Godbey N T 1902)ldquoThy father and I were seeking Thee sorrowingrdquo (A S Worrell N T 1904)ldquoYour father and I were anxiously looking for yourdquo (World English Bible)

The words ldquowe are seeking yourdquo are in the present indicative tense however since an expression of time is used indicating action going on for days (ldquoafter three daysrdquo v 46) translators find it necessary to use either the present perfect (ldquohave beenrdquo ldquohave soughtrdquo) or simple past (ldquosoughtrdquo) or past progressive (ldquowere seekingrdquo) indicative forms to express in English what the Greek says in the ldquopresentrdquo Various Greek texts have instead of the ldquopresentrdquo found in the Westcott amp Hort Text above an ldquoimperfectrdquo verb form Both forms are frequently rendered with an English present ldquoperfectrdquo Compare with Youngs Literal Translation which also uses a past progressive indicative form ldquowere seekingrdquo and the Spanish Reina-Valera Revisada which rendered an imperfect verb form appearing in the Received Text with a present perfect indicative (ldquohemos buscadordquo) Is this another reason why many translators have rendered the Greek present ldquoegō eimirdquo preceded by an adverbial modifier in its clause at John 858 with perfective or past forms in English

5th Example (Juan 56)

καὶ γνοὺς ὅτι πολὺν ἤδη χρόνον ἔχει - Greek and having known that much already time he is having

This is an account of an invalid man who for 38 years had been sick and was now being cured by Jesus The Greek in this clause does not make his illness clear however the context does Take note of the expression of time used with past implications mixed with a present indicative verb ldquohe is havingrdquo For this to make any sense in our language it has to be modified When Jesus saw this sick man lying there

ldquoand knew that he had been now a long time in that caserdquo (KJV italics theirs) ldquoand knowing that he had been ill a long timerdquo (Revised English Bible)ldquoand knew he had been in that condition for a long timerdquo (NJB)ldquoand knew that he had been sick for a long timerdquo (World English Bible)ldquoand knew that he had been sick for a long timerdquo (Godacutes Word)

ldquoand knew how long he had been illrdquo (Living Bible)ldquoand knew he had already been there a long timerdquo (HCSB)ldquoand he knew that the man had been sick for such a long timerdquo (TEV)ldquoand knew that he had been in this state a long timerdquo (Confraternity Version)ldquoand finding that he had had a long time of itrdquo (S T Byington) ldquoand knew that he had been sick for a long timerdquo (Jay E Adams)ldquoand he knew that he had been waiting for a long timerdquo (George M Lamsa Peshitta) ldquoand knew that he had been now a long timerdquo (Rheims New Testament)

ldquoand knowing that he was [in that state] now a great length of timerdquo (J N Darby Translation Brackets his)

Once again we see translators having to use mostly perfective forms (ldquohad beenrdquo ldquohad hadrdquopast perfects) and one with a simple past ldquowasrdquo even though they are translating a present tense verb ldquohe is havingrdquo This shows that translators adapt their renderings whenever is necessary to convey the right meaning into the target language It is thus possible to render ldquoeimirdquo at John 858 with a form other than a present tense such as a present perfect Those who say that it can not be done or should not be done just need to look again at the evidenceobjectively

6th Example (John 1527 Wescott amp Hort)

ὅτι ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς μετʼ ἐμοῦ ἐστέ ndash Greek that from beginning with me you are

These words spoken by Jesus evidently refers to the beginning of his ministry when he chosehis closest disciples They were eyewitnesses of all the things God did through Christ duringhis ministry (Acts 121)

ldquobecause ye have been with me from the beginningrdquo (KJV) ldquobecause you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (NAB)ldquofor you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (Christian Community Bible)ldquobecause you are the men who have been with me from the very beginningrdquo (Heinz Wldquobecause you have been with me from the firstrdquo (New English Bible) [ Cassirer)ldquobecause you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (Godacutes Word Translation) ldquofor you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (NIV)ldquobecause you have been with me from the firstrdquo (Weymouth New Testament)ldquobecause you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (NRSV)ldquoyou that have been with me from the beginningrdquo (The Four Gospels EV Rieu)ldquobecause youacuteve been with Me from the beginning of My ministryrdquo (The Clear Word)ldquofor you have been with me from the firstrdquo (J B Phillips Modern English)ldquobecause you have been with Me from the beginningrdquo (HCSB) ldquothat you were with me from the startrdquo (21st Century New Testament)ldquofor you were with Me from the beginningrdquo (New Berkeley Version Revised Edition)

ldquobecause you were with me from the beginningrdquo (Mark Heber Miller)ldquobecause you were with me from the very beginningrdquo (SEB)

This scripture with the plural form of ldquoeimirdquo (este) is very similar to John 858 Again within its structure there is an expression of past time and a verb in the present indicative form (este) just as there is in John 858 A Grammar of New Testament Greek says ldquoThe reader may be reminded of one idiom which comes out of the linear idea the use of words like πάλαι [palai ldquolong agordquo] with the present in a sense best expressed by our perfect Thus in 2 Co 1219 lsquohave you been thinking all this timersquo or Jn 1527 lsquoyou have been with me from the beginning [ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς]rsquo hellip The durative present in such cases gathers up past and present time into one phraserdquo (A Grammar of New Testament Greek Vol 1 Prolegomena by JH Moulton p 119) As previously noted this Grammar specifically refers to John 858 as an example of this idiom

And here in John 1527 there is a connection of Jesus disciples [creatures as they are] that ldquowererdquo with him ldquofrom the beginningrdquo Obviously Jesus was making no reference to his disciples sharing ldquoeternityrdquo with him The disciples all had a beginning The logical conclusion is that Jesus was simply saying to them lsquoYou have been with me from the start of my ministryrsquo Hence there is no need to read ldquoeternityrdquo into the expression ldquoI amrdquo anymore that we should read ldquoeternityrdquo from Jesus words at John 1527 lsquoYou are with me from the beginningrsquo Neither grammar nor the context justifies reading more into these Scriptures than what they actually say

In fact the six (6) instances cited above (Genesis 3138 LXX 1 John 38 2 Cor 1219 Luke 248 John 56 John 1527) and John 858 as well all have an expression of past time or an extent of time with past implications (ldquoThese twenty yearsrdquo ldquoLong agordquo ldquoafter three daysrdquo Lk 246 ldquomuch already timerdquo ldquofrom [the] beginningrdquo ldquoBeforerdquo etc) AND present verbs in their sentences or nearby within the context and are commonly rendered with present perfect (some with past perfects) or simple past (or past progressive) forms in English translations If we apply this pattern to the translation of John 858 it would mean that renderings such as ldquoI have beenrdquo (present perfect) and ldquoI wasrdquo (simple past) are not only acceptable in translation but actually more ldquosuitablerdquo in application Can this really be done Not only can it be done it makes for a ldquobetterrdquo English translation

In regards to Jesus John 858 simply tells us that Jesus lsquowas alive before Abraham was bornrsquo (SEB) and that his existence continued up to the moment of his speaking to them Just as it is not proper English to say ldquoFor three days we are seeking yourdquo (Greek literal reading of Luke 248) or ldquobecause from the beginning with me you arerdquo (John 1527) it is no less proper English to say in John 858 ldquoBefore Abraham was born I amrdquo These readings should only appear in extremely literal interlinear translations which basically render the Greek word-by-word and not in standard idiomatic English translations Let me illustrate If a man advanced in age for example had his work history and experience questioned by co-workers in comparison to his younger son and employee Abe would he say in reply ldquoBefore my son Abe was born I am [the one fit for the job]rdquo No that does not sound right In English he could say it in various ways

ldquoI have been an experienced worker since before my son Abe was bornrdquo ldquoI have been what I am since before my son Abe was bornrdquo ldquoI was fit to work and fully active before my son Abe was ever bornrdquo ldquoI was already experienced in many jobs before Abe ever came to berdquo ldquoI have been a master worker way before my son Abe came to liferdquo ldquoBefore Abe was born I already was life and job experiencedrdquo etc

The point is that in English normally we include a present perfect tense whenever there is a reference to the past extending to the present or a past tense of some form whenever we go back in time The same with John 858 There is no justification in English to insist using a present verb form (which is not equal to the Greek present when combined with a past expression) in an unwarranted attempt to convey ldquoeternityrdquo as ldquopaddingrdquo to the Trinity doctrine a doctrine adopted AFTER the Christian era Worse it is disingenuous to accuse other translators (who have chosen to render ldquoegō eimirdquo at John 858 with an English present perfect or past tense) of scholastic dishonesty when the very same translations honored by these detractors do so in other places where the ldquodeityrdquo of Christ is not in play asshown in the samples provided above

An example of this double standard can be seen as well when scholars such as Dr Julius Mantey harshly criticizes the NWT for the rendering ldquoI have beenrdquo at John 858 but keeps quiet when other translators do similarly and even states or pretends that no other reputable translator would ever translate it that way He dared not criticize his former Greek teacher Charles B Williams who produced his own Bible translation Dr Mantey once wrote the following of Dr Williams translation ldquoWilliams translation considering all the factors is the most accurate and illuminating translation in the English languagerdquo And how does this ldquomost accurate translationrdquo render John 858 As follows ldquoI existed before Abraham was bornrdquo Here Dr Williams known for his Greek command used a simple past tense (ldquoI existedrdquo) as translation for the Greek present Julius Mantey certainly did not find Williams version of John 858 a ldquoshocking translationrdquo ldquoI existedrdquo is quite different from the translation Dr Mantey so passionately defended (ldquoI amrdquo)

When Dr Mantey talks about the NWT he says the rendering ldquoI have beenrdquo at John 858 cannot be justified and calls it ldquodishonestrdquo That rule does not apply to Williams translation does it Williams did not translate John 858 in the same way Mantey would have liked (ldquoI amrdquo) Not only that the Grammar itself that Dr Mantey co-authored with Dr Dana A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament states under ldquoThe Progressive Presentrdquo (called ldquoExtension from Pastrdquo by McKay) ldquoSometimes the progressive present is retroactivein its application denoting that which has begun in the past and continues into the present For the want of a better name we may call it the present of duration This use is generally associated with an adverb of time and may best be rendered by the English perfect ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς μετʼ ἐμοῦ ἐστέ Ye have been with me from the beginning Jn 1527 See also Lk137 2 Cor 129 [19]rdquo (Pages 182-83 Emphasis added)

Even though Julius Mantey has stated when referring to the NWT that ldquoI have beenrdquo is not a proper translation and even ldquodishonestrdquo at John 858 he clearly states in his Grammar (of

Scriptures with similar syntax to John 858) ldquoThis use is generally associated with an adverb of time and may best be rendered by the English perfect [such as ldquoI have beenrdquo which in fact is associated with an adverb of time in John 858]rdquo A likely reason for Dana ampManteys strong reluctance for not including John 858 as an example of the idiom discussed on page 183 may have to do with the fact that as ldquotrinitariansrdquo they oppose the idea of Jesus existence having lsquobegunrsquo in the past even though John 858 perfectly fits with the ldquoProgressive Presentrdquo idiom being discussed in their Grammar as acknowledged by other grammarians Hence their objection is truly a ldquotheologicalrdquo one rather than Greek grammaritself arguing in their favor as Mantey and some others have implied since a Greek present or an English perfect does not demand ldquoeternityrdquo at all from the subject

Consequently many religious individuals who focus solely on the basic meaning (of ldquoegō eimirdquo as ldquoI amrdquo) out of the context of the particular ldquoidiomrdquo used at John 858 end up missing the thrust of Jesus words and fall prey to misleading interpretations Doctor Kenneth L McKay taking into account all of these issues comes up with this excellent translation for John 858 ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo (A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek SBG 5 New York Peter Lang 1994 p42) If we objectively consider the material above we will not insist in connecting Jesus at John 858 with the God Jehovah of Exodus 314 (which many attempt to do but cannot be sustained) Instead we will focus on the simple message conveyed by Jesus words at John 858 which is in harmony with the totality of Scripture ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo (McKay) The rendering ldquoI have been in existencerdquo by itself does not rule out either the concept of ldquoeternityrdquo or the ldquocreationrdquo of Jesus Christ A Committee of Bible translators came up with the following translation which may not be the best choice but considering the issues involved is better than the traditional rendering of ldquoI amrdquo ldquoI was alive before Abraham was bornrdquo (The New Testament in Plain English)

(The following scholars are members of the Bible Translation Committee of The New Testament in Plain English which approved this last reading ldquoI was aliverdquo instead of ldquoI amrdquo(Dr Stanley L Morris chairman FW Gingrich Ph D a renown Greek lexicographer Jack P Lewis Ph D CH Accord Th D Clyde M Woods Ph D ST Kan Ph D Gary T Burke Ph D Milo Hadwin D Min)

I submit their names and their credentials here as an example because it is often asserted vigorously that no intelligent or highly qualified scholar would ever produce a translation other than ldquoI amrdquo As noted above and as the list of alternate readings (at the end of this essay) of John 858 shows many done by highly qualified people this is simply not true Usually those making statements of that sort are doing so based on emotional and theological not philological reasons Furthermore by not disclosing other valid viewpoints or by dismissing how other qualified Bible translators deal with this scripture they are undermining their own credibility as well

At this time you are welcome to briefly go over the list of Alternate Readings to John 858 at

the end before moving on to the second part of this essay

_____________________________

Should we ignore the evidence of all those translations listed at the end that differ in John 858 from the traditional versions What then are all these translators seeing at John 858 that moved them to render this text differently They surely must be aware of the resistance they would encounter by translating it by the various forms they used Still they must have had the firm conviction that both the Greek text and the context supports their understanding of this scripture They likely see a Jesus making no identity connection with his Father Godbut rather see a Jesus simply expressing his indefinite existence with no suggestion of eternity in focus Neither is Jesus stating here that he is the God of Old Testament times To understand it that way would be to read into the text more than what it says Taking some clues from the context of the chapter some scholars additionally see Jesus insinuating his ldquomessiahshiprdquo as if saying ldquoI am he [the Messiah]rdquo This is very likely In fact The LivingBible renders John 824 thus ldquoThat is why I said that you will die in your sins for unless you believe that I am the Messiah the Son of God [ἐγώ εἰμι] you will die in your sinsrdquo

Is ldquoegō eimirdquo a title or another name of God

The use of ldquoeimirdquo at John 858 is frequently used as a ldquoproof textrdquo of Jesus deity A noted Trinitarian scholar AT Robertson a Baptist even refers to ldquoegō eimirdquo as ldquothe absolute phrase used of Godrdquo likely indicating the verb conveys ldquotimeless beingrdquo an implication that ldquoeimirdquo here does not require anything else to complete the meaning of the phrase thus conveying ldquoeternal existencerdquo as well as being an actual name for God Some individuals have given plenty of publicity to Robertsons statement as absolute truth But his statement is not ldquotruthrdquo at all It is faulty interpretation which many people have fallen prey to Grammar and theology do not always make the best mix True Robertsons credentials as a scholar are impressive nevertheless credentials does not truth make Besides some other equally bright scholars disagree with him Lets illustrate the folly of those advocating a divine title at John 858 by way of addition (Or substitution if you will) as some suggest

ldquoBefore Abraham was born I am Eternalrdquo ldquoBefore Abraham was born I am Jehovahrdquo ldquoBefore Abraham was born I am eternally Godrdquo

First of all the above hypothetical translations are just as ungrammatical as the simple ldquoI amrdquo reading of most versions An English present tense cannot start before a definite point in the past This can be seen in the following two examples

1 ldquoBefore the US Iraq war I am a soldierrdquo 2 ldquoThree journalists are kidnapped in Nepal since the start of 2007rdquo

What is the correct way to express these statements in English Analyze it for a second and

provide an answer if you will

Notably if ldquoeimirdquo was used to convey eternal existence what is the point of using an expression of past time at all in the clause Moreover the context of previous verses (vv 48-57) clearly indicates that Jesus is speaking of God as a separate entity See below

49 ldquobut I honor my Father and you dishonor merdquo 50 ldquoI am not seeking glory for myself but there is one who seeks it and he is the

judgerdquo54 ldquoIf I glorify myself my glory means nothing My Father whom you claim as your

God is the one who glorifies me 55 ldquoThough you do not know him I know him If I said I did not I would be a liar like you but I do know him and obey his wordrdquo Thus if Jesus meant he himself was the ldquoJehovahrdquo of the Old Testament as Trinitarians claim what would be the rationale behind Jesus directing all distinction and glory to lsquothe Father Godrsquo as a distinct individual as he did in the previous verses and then a few words later abruptly change his argumentation by claiming he is that very same One who lsquoreceives obedience from his own wordrsquo lsquoseeking his own honor and gloryrsquo because he himself is ldquoGodrdquo Confusing is it not To accept this abrupt change of character on Jesus part would be not ldquoa mysteryrdquo but flat out ldquoa deceptionrdquo of big proportions since Jesus himself warned against pretending to be one thing and acting as another (Matthew 62-5 2313-36)

Are we are supposed against all logic to accept these ldquotrinitarianrdquo assumptions instead of a simple alternative which really answers the Jews question about lsquohow could Abraham ldquoseerdquoJesus day if he was not yet 50 years oldrsquo (ldquoI have been in existence since Abraham was bornrdquo)

The obsession with the simple words ldquoI amrdquo have led to many faulty assumptions ldquoI amrdquo issuch a common expression in our language even to this day that words such as ldquoegoismrdquo ldquoegotismrdquo etc (derived from the Greek ldquoegordquo) are considered common words in English dictionaries Everyone uses the phrase ldquoI amrdquo at times Think of any big corporation or powerful organization of your choice for a moment Would you conclude that the two most powerful individuals of this one prestigious organization must be identical in every way solely because they are heard equally saying to others in their common speech ldquoI am thisrdquoor ldquoI am thatrdquo etc

In Bible times humans too used common pronouns The verb eimi (ldquoI amrdquo) itself or forms of it appears more than two thousand times (2000x) in the New Testament alone Additionally the word ldquoegōrdquo appears over seventeen hundred times (1700x) in the NT And those numbers do not include the Septuagint totals Do all occurrences of the word then imply ldquodivinityrdquo in each case Of course not It may be more significant when God or Christ use the expression because of who they are but does it really mean that both God and Christ share the same identity Or that everyone who uses the phrase ldquoI amrdquo does so with divine pretensions Does it really mean that everyone using the phrase are ldquoequalrdquo The

answer is obvious is it not

Lets bear in mind that when God sent Jesus Christ as His representative to a most crucial assignment multiple biblical prophecies were pointing to Christ as the promised Messiah that would free mankind from its moribund condition It is logical then that when the time came for Jesus Christ to show up on earth he would somehow communicate to others that ldquoherdquo and not some other human claiming to be the Messiah was Gods instrument in bringing everlasting relief to human misery Hence he could rightly say any or all of the following ldquoI am (this)rdquo ldquoI am (that)rdquo ldquoI am he [the promised Messiah]rdquo or ldquoI am Gods Sonrdquo Should we expect anything less

The fact is that the words ldquoI amrdquo are not exclusive to God and Christ It should be noted that a man who was born ldquoblindrdquo also used the same expression (John 99) The Greek here says ldquoekeinos elegen hoti Egō eimirdquo (ldquoThat one kept saying that I amrdquo) AT Robertson cites John 99 as one of five parallels to the use of egō eimi in John 858 (Word Pictures in the New Testament Vol V p 159) The phrase here comes at the end of the clause with no explicit predicate James White who upholds the traditional reading admits ldquoThis last instance [John 99] is similar to the sayings as Jesus utters them in that the phrase comes at the end of the clause and looks elsewhere for its predicaterdquo The same could be said of John 1527 Some argue that ldquoeimirdquo in John 858 is ldquoabsoluterdquo but do not do so with John 99 or John 1527 Theology may be a factor in this Previously we saw how Jacob a man according to the Septuagint used the words ldquoegō eimirdquo Other instances in Scripture of creatures using those words would not prove they were part of a ldquoGodheadrdquo Context then ultimately dictates how ldquoeimirdquo should be translated According to John when Jesus was pressed he only claimed to have been alive way before Abraham was born and that he simply was ldquothe Christrdquo ldquothe Son of Manrdquo and ldquothe Son of Godrdquo

There is something else to keep in mind in regards to the meaning of ldquoeimirdquo And it is what grammarian Stanley Porter indicated ldquoSometimes the verb [eimi] is used on its own as a verb of existence Perhaps the best-known example of this is the following John 858rdquo (Fundamentals of New Testament Greek by Stanley E Porter section 753 72) AT Robertson adds ldquoThe verb εἰμί [eimi] hellip Sometimes it does express existence as a predicatelike any other verb as in ἐγὼ εἰμί [egō eimi] (Jo 858) and ἡ θάλασσα οὐκ ἔστιν ἔτι [hē thalassa ouk estin eti = ldquothe sea not is yetrdquo] (Rev 211) Cf Mt 2330rdquo (A Grammar of theGreek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research Nashville Tenn 1934 p 394)

What does this mean The examples mentioned by Robertson in addition to John 858 give us an idea of what this implies It is so strange that the two examples Robertson provided forcomparison with John 858 seems to contradict his ldquotimeless beingrdquo view on ldquoeimirdquo He cited a portion of Revelation 211 where the Greek literally says ldquoAnd the sea not is yetrdquo In other words ldquoThe sea does not exist any morerdquo Amplified Bible ldquoThere no longer existed any seardquo Curiously various versions render the present verb ldquoisrdquo (a form of ldquoeimirdquo) with an imperfect ldquowasrdquo (Cf KJV NIV NAB NRSV) Obviously ldquothe seardquo in this vision is [was] not ldquoeternalrdquo

And in Matthew 2330 the other text provided by Robertson in his comparison with John 858 the Greek word-for-word says ldquoIf we were in the days of the fathers of usrdquo which inmodern English would be ldquoIf we had lived in the days of our forefathersrdquo Other versions ldquoIf we had beenrdquo (Rheims NT) ldquoIf we had been livingrdquo (NASB) ldquoIf we had been existing in the days of our fathersrdquo (Jonathan Mitchell NT) The full NIV text reads ldquoAnd you say lsquoIf we had lived in the days of our ancestors we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophetsrsquo rdquo

It is clear from this comparison that the words of Matthew 2330 ldquoIf we wererdquo (a form of ldquoeimirdquo) in the text is used as an equivalent for ldquoliferdquo or ldquoexistencerdquo In the heavenly vision of Rev 211 lsquothe sea ceased to existrsquo And the generation of people which Jesus spoke about and their ancestors all died ceased to exist If we apply these two examples to John 858 given by Robertson with the meaning either of life or existence for ldquoeimirdquo then it wouldbe equally acceptable to translate ldquoI amrdquo as ldquoI existrdquo or ldquoI liverdquo Many translators reflect this very same understanding as the submitted list of alternate readings of John 858 show ldquoI existrdquo or ldquoI existed even before Abraham was bornrdquo Or ldquoI was alive before Abraham was bornrdquo (The Simple English Bible)

Although some may not see much semantic difference between Jesus saying ldquoI amrdquo or ldquoI existrdquo the two expressions communicate something very different to many readers ldquoI amrdquo is generally associated by Trinitarians as a title used by God or as another name for God Onthe other hand ldquoI existrdquo simply conveys ldquoliferdquo or ldquoexistence Barnabas Lindars points out that ldquoegō eimirdquo in John 858 ldquocannot be regarded as a title because it requires the meaning lsquoI am in existencersquordquo (ldquoThe Son of Man in Johannine Christologyrdquo in Christ and the Spirit in the New Testament In Honour of Charles Francis Digby Moule eds B Lindars and S Smalley Cambridge Cambridge University Press 1973) (Since an English present tense cannot start before a definite point in the past this would mean that we can incorporate Lindars valid observation and translate it into contemporary English like this ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo exactly as Dr McKay proposed)

Some in their eagerness to equate Christ with God accuse translators who render ldquoegō eimirdquo in John 858 with renderings other than ldquoI amrdquo pointing to all occurrences of this expression in the New Testament or in Johns Gospel where allegedly these translators do not follow the same ldquorulerdquo when translating ldquoegō eimirdquo in John 858 as they do elsewhere where they translate it with a present indicative form What they dont tell you or fail to understand is that in John 858 ldquoegō eimirdquo without a predicate AND with an expression of time with past implications in its sentence structure provides an ldquoidiomrdquo which is quite different from those other instances of ldquoeimirdquo Thats right an idiom (where present and past is combined) found equally at home in classical biblical and modern Greek which many translators convey into our language with the English present perfect at various places Consequently one cannot merely go by how the phrase ldquoegō eimirdquo is used elsewhere in the NT without taking into account the fact that John 858 displays an ldquoidiomrdquo in its structure Not doing so would be dishonest John the Baptist had said of Christ in John 130 ldquoA man is coming after me who ranks before me because he existed [Lit was] before merdquo (JB)

John 858 is in harmony with those words Furthermore some attempt to use the reading of Psalm 902 in the Septuagint as ldquoevidencerdquo that John 858 is rendered correctly in the popular versions But a closer analysis of this verse shows notable differences between the two verses making such comparison untenable With good reason a considerable number ofscholars have chosen to break from tradition in their rendering of John 858

If critics of alternate readings of John 858 are not candid enough to admit some of the very issues mentioned here and hide the fact that many scholars do hold a different interpretation and no less academic at that should we consider their diatribes of any worthy import It is ldquowishful thinkingrdquo for someone to believe that John 858 is directly connected to Exodus 314 rather than any real evidence (which is lacking) confirming their eager interpretations Remember even Dr James White a well known Trinitarian advocate admitted ldquothat an immediate and unqualified jump from the ego eimi of John 858 to Exodus 314 is unwiserdquo

Besides a theological tendency can be seen when they focus as some do on undermining the reputation of one Bible translation (NWT) when there are actually numerous versions from different religions dealing with the same controversial Scriptures in a similar manner This is very much like politicians who ignore the failings of their own party but are quick to lsquodemonizersquo their opponents (Matthew 73)

Is the Kingdom Interlinear ldquoproofrdquo the NWT is wrong at John 858

A criticism has been made of a Watchtower Society publication (The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures ldquoKITrdquo) which contains the Greek text and underneath it a word-by-word translation in English and on the right side of the page the modern New World Translation Well at John 858 this publication renders the Greek phrase being discussed here egō eimi word-for-word as ldquoI amrdquo and in the right column the NWT shows the reading ldquoI have beenrdquo This difference have led some to severely criticize the NW translators of ldquoincompetencerdquo ldquoinconsistencyrdquo and even of ldquodishonestyrdquo The critics say something like this ldquoThey have backed themselves into a corner where they cant escape their mishandling of the Greek textrdquo or something of that sort Amazingly these critics in their condemnations hardly ever mention the dozens of translators who translate the same way or similarly to the NWT as the submitted list shows So much for honesty

Those who engage in such tactics are not being forthcoming Why say that Besides dismissing how other translators deal with John 858 they also distort known facts for the WT Society have made it clear that the publication of this Greek Bible is to help the Bible student determine the basic sense of the Greek and have stated that the translation on the right column (the NWT) is a modern way of expressing the thoughts transmitted by the Greek text There are many factors to consider when using such publications

Even other interlinear publications warn of seeming discrepancies For instance The Zondervan Parallel New Testament in Greek and English says in its Foreword ldquo[I]t is a good thing to bear in mind that you cannot always either give an English equivalent for a Greek word or expression or even always render the same Greek verb word by the same

English onerdquo Another interlinear the New Greek-English Interlinear New Testament by Brown and Comfort and edited by J D Douglas explains ldquoIt is difficult to translate one language into another on a word-for-word basis because each language has its own syntax grammatical constructions and idioms that are difficultmdashif not impossiblemdashto replicate literally in another languagerdquo (Emphasis added) This statement is so true of the text in discussion (John 858) in regards to its syntax and particular idiom Often critics of the NWT hide this fact Why Is it religious bias at work

I will give the reader a few examples of an available interlinear translation which has the Greek main text and a literal sublinear translation below the Greek by Professor Paul R McReynolds and on the right column for comparison the reader can study the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) a popular translation in academia Observe how the two can differ

McReynolds Mat 21 ldquomagiciansrdquo NRSV ldquowise menrdquo John 118 ldquoonly born Godrdquo ldquoGod the only Sonrdquo Mat 243 ldquosign of the your presencerdquo ldquothe sign of your comingrdquo Mathew 522 ldquothe gehenna of the firerdquo ldquothe hell of firerdquo John 1319 ldquoI amrdquo ldquoI am herdquo John 149 ldquoI amrdquo ldquoHave I beenrdquo John 1527 ldquoyou arerdquo ldquoyou have beenrdquo 2 Peter 24 ldquobeing sent to Tartarusrdquo ldquobut cast them into hellrdquo Luke 1113 ldquowill give spirit holy tordquo ldquowillgive the Holy Spirit tordquo John 2022 ldquotake spirit holyrdquo ldquoReceive the Holy Spiritrdquo Acts 24 ldquofilled all of spirit holyrdquo ldquofilled with the Holy Spiritrdquo

( Paul R McReynolds is professor of Greek and New Testament at Pacific Christian College in Fullerton California USA He also contributed to the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia)

Some of the readings from the right column above (NRSV) are acceptable others are not See if you can detect in the right column above those translation renderings with a theological tendency that deviate from the literal readings from the left column McReynoldson the left does an excellent job of transmitting the Greek sense Even the most popular Bible versions do not adhere consistently to the base texts The NRSV and a host of other Bible versions add their own religious interpretation throughout Scripture just as much as the NWT if not more but hardly anyone complains of this transformation of Scriptures eventhough it leads to error Why Simply because the NRSV represents more of a ldquomajorityrdquo view than the NWT does But in truth majority or minority views do not correspond equallyto ldquoaccuraterdquo or ldquoinaccuraterdquo results

In the text discussed the KIT can appropriately show the basic sense rendering of ldquoI amrdquo for the Greek ldquoegō eimirdquo in the left column and alternately show the reading ldquoI have beenrdquo in the right column as a contemporary way of expressing in English the particular Greek clause with its ldquoidiomrdquo in John 858 as explained throughout this article a rendering which has

scholarship support When the Greek ldquoegō eimirdquo appears in an idiom-less structure it can rightfully be translated as ldquoI amrdquo as most versions do including the NWT Hence there is no contradiction between the two translations

Dr McKay argues that Jesus response in John 858 ldquowould be most naturally translated lsquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrsquo if it were not for the obsession with the simple words lsquoI amrsquo rdquo (Kenneth L McKay ldquolsquoI amrsquo in Johns Gospelrdquo Expository Times 1996 p 302) I take the author as saying that ldquoI have been in existencerdquo for ldquoeimirdquo is a better translation than ldquoI amrdquo but the [religious] obsession for the simple words ldquoI amrdquo in their quest to elevate Christ to Gods level does not allow people to see that The thing is that Christ lsquoalways pleased the Fatherrsquo and was fully satisfied with being lsquolesserrsquo than him (John 829 1029 1428 177813) Why not accept him as he is

Hence it is poor scholarship to forward the idea that an entity must be God Almighty himselfby the sole fact of using a divine sounding phrase when other Bible individuals are found using the same expression in Scripture The ldquocontextrdquo is the determining factor Not only must we take into account the context surrounding a chapter or book of the Bible but also what the whole Bible teaches on a given person or subject

What does the Bible teach about Jesus

That Christ ldquowas in the beginning with Godrdquo (John 12) At the announcement of his birth on earth the angel Gabriel told Mary that she will give birth to someone ldquogreatrdquo and ldquoholyrdquo and that one will be called ldquoSon of the Most Highrdquo and ldquoSon of Godrdquo (Luke 132 35) Trinitarians may claim that ldquoSon of Godrdquo is equivalent in meaning to ldquoGodrdquo It is a claim with no foundation If there was any truth to the claim then the ldquoHoly Spiritrdquo would also be called Son of God But no The fact is that other living creatures are called ldquosons of Godrdquo (Job 21) Never is ldquoGodrdquo or ldquoholy spiritrdquo ever called ldquoSon of Godrdquo in Scripture Only Jesus Christ is called ldquothe Son of Godrdquo with the article Why

By Christ lsquobecoming obedient [to God] until deathrsquo during the course of his earthly life lsquoGod highly exalted Him and graciously gave him a name which is above every other name that at the name of Jesus every knee should bendto the credit of God the Fatherrsquo (Hebrews58 Philippians 28-11 21st Century New Testament)

ldquo[Christ] has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God with angels authorities and powers made subject to himrdquo (1 Peter 322 NRSV) Still in heaven Christ receives knowledge information revelation from God and transmits it to other creatures (Revelation11) Though the glorified Christ is described as ldquoKing of kingsrdquo and ldquoLord of lordsrdquo he is specifically called ldquoThe Word of Godrdquo (Revelation 191316 NRSV) The night before his death he ldquoprayedrdquo to his Father and called him ldquothe only true Godrdquo and made this petition ldquoFather glorify me in your own presence [Greek beside yourself] with the glory that I hadin your presence [Greek beside you] before the world existedrdquo (John 175 NRSV) (ldquoalongside yourselfrdquo ST Byington) Again God never has to ldquoprayrdquo to anyone Ever

Well then if Jesus Christ expressed this one final ldquowishrdquo in prayer to be ldquoin the presence ofrdquoldquobesiderdquo ldquoalongsiderdquo his Father which he himself called ldquothe only true Godrdquo why should we for the sake of tradition insist with the belief that Jesus ldquomustrdquo somehow be that ldquotruerdquo God the One sitting at the center of Gods throne instead of ldquobesiderdquo God (Mark 1619) Christ did not ask to sit at Gods throne Christ was fully content with the premise of being alongside God And that is what actually happened Mark tells us ldquoSo then the Lord Jesus after he had spoken to them was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of Godrdquo (Mark 1619 NRSV Note Some ancient manuscripts omit this verse) The NIV Study Bible notes the significance of lsquositting at the right hand of Godrsquo ldquoA position of authority second only to Godsrdquo Being in ldquoa position of authority second only to Godsrdquo is something no one should ever say of God for he is always ldquosupremerdquo At no time does God relinquishes his supremacy Someone who holds a position of authority second to God cannot be identical to God Take note too that in this account of Mark chapter 16 or the oneat John chapter 17 there is no mention of a third party of a ldquoGodheadrdquo No ldquoHoly Spiritrdquo is in sight The fact is that the glorified Christ in heaven continues to call his Father ldquomy Godrdquo(Revelation 312)

As ldquoSon of Godrdquo and always lesser and subject to God it is illogical to think Christ would purposely usurp titles and rights that only belonged to lsquohis God and Fatherrsquo (John 1428 Matthew 2023 John 2017 Acts 17) Jesus Christ taught others to only worship the Father God (Matthew 410 John 42324) ldquoAnd we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the worldrdquo (1 John 414) If so the thought that Christ would usethe words ldquoI amrdquo as a title to identify himself as ldquothe true Godrdquo is incongruous Jesus made it clear that he would only seek the glory ldquothat comes from the one who alone is Godrdquo (John850 54 544)

In this Satan controlled world it is not that difficult to get entangled with human taught intricate philosophies which obscure the simple Christian doctrine (John 1231 2 Cor 44) Hence the need for caution at the time of defending popular traditional views which clash with the monotheistic approach of Bible writers

Consequently those who teach that Christ is Almighty God find themselves in conflict with the Scriptural record The submitted list of alternate readings of John 858 shows that there are a considerable number of scholars who not only understand the subject correctly but alsokeenly grasp that whatever Jesus said on the matter has to harmonize with both the context of John chapter 8 and the rest of the Scriptures as well

What is the correct translation of John 858

Is it ldquoI amrdquo ldquoI wasrdquo ldquoI am herdquo or ldquoI have beenrdquo After analyzing the Greek phrase ldquoegō eimirdquo the context and the various possible ways the expression can be translated in English I think it is best to render the Greek with an English present perfect Adding a smallelement such as ldquosincerdquo to the statement as McKay does below satisfies all contextual and grammatical requirements of the passage Doing so does not qualify as ldquointerpolationrdquo

A second choice a simple past tense can perhaps be used in translation where the context allows since it is grammatically correct but it is generally used of activity confined to the past so the message may be distorted Unless that is the simple past is interpreted as ldquoimperfectiverdquo with current relevance How so In support of Jesus deity many frequently cite John11 There in the text a simple past tense ldquowasrdquo is applied to ldquothe Wordrdquo three times in English versions Does that mean ldquothe Wordrdquo is no more or that it was permanentlycut-off from existence at some point Of course not The context of the whole gospel of John shows that Christ is fully pertinent in Christian lives

Scholars choosing a past tense for ldquoeimirdquo (ie ldquoI wasrdquo ldquoI existedrdquo etc) at John 858 may also have in mind what John the Baptist said as a precursor of Jesus Christ ldquoA man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was [ldquoexistedrdquo JB] before merdquo Surely John the Baptist did not mean that Jesus existence was done away with His own words show thatJesus life was very much relevant and would continue to be so Translators have no issue whatsoever in applying a past tense (ldquowasrdquo ldquoexistedrdquo) at John 11 and 130 in their English versions So why would they at John 858 Perhaps because it would mean that they wouldhave to do away with the premise of a ldquodivine titlerdquo in their argumentation of which is claimed clinches Jesus identity with Gods own As shown above Revelation 211 a presentverb a form of ldquoeimirdquo is rendered by some versions with a past tense ldquowasrdquo Obviously Bible translators have no problem in translating some present tense verbs with past tenses or with present perfects But most object to it at John 858 likely for theological reasons

As stated in the beginning of this essay the English ldquopresentrdquo and the Greek ldquopresentrdquo in certain contexts do not correspond exactly in meaning because in Greek ldquotimerdquo is a secondary factor That being the case the choice of English tense does not have to match theGreek conjugation per se to be faithful to the Sacred Text When one considers the specific idiom found in John 858 and the semantic implications of both the Greek and English ldquopresentrdquo one can see that the rendering ldquoI amrdquo though popular does not nearly represent the best translation possible in the English language ldquoContextrdquo often plays a more importantrole in determining the correct translation Overall though it is best to render the Greek expression with an English present perfect since it conveys clearly a more present relevancythan a past tense would

That said John 858 is a good example where a Greek transliteration may not be the best choice to communicate the right message effectively in our times The translation of ldquoI amrdquo has its place in extreme English literal translations which show the basic sense of the Greek such as those Interlinear translations mentioned above Also it can rightfully be used in many Scriptures where the context calls for it as when the sentence structure lacks the Greekldquoidiomrdquo discussed throughout this writing as might be the case with most occurrences of ldquoeimirdquo

Here listed in my opinion are the translations which come closest to the Greek thought presented by the particular ldquoidiomrdquo found in John 858 Dr Kenneth L McKay comes up with the correct translation

1 ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo - Kenneth L McKay A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek (SBG 5 New York Peter Lang 1994) p42

(Kenneth L McKay graduated with honours in Classics (with an interest in the Greek of theNT) from the Universities of Sydney and Cambridge He has taught Greek in universities and theological colleges in Nigeria New Zealand and England Mr McKay retired from the Australian National University in 1987 after teaching there for 26 years)

Other translations below come close to McKays rendering and are thus favored over the traditional rendering which is widely misunderstood

2 ldquoI have existed before Abraham was bornrdquo - A New Translation by James [ Moffatt - DD DLitt Glasgow Oxford 3 ldquoBefore Abraham came into existence I have beenrdquo - New World Translation 4 ldquoBefore Abraham came into being I have existedrdquo - The Documents of the [New Testament G W Wade London 5 ldquoFrom before Abraham was I have been rdquo - The New Testament by George [ R -Noyes DD Boston USA6 ldquoBefore Abraham was born I have already been rdquo - The Unvarnished New [Testament Andy Gaus Boston7 ldquoI existed even before Abraham was bornrdquo - The concise Gospel and the Acts [Logos International Christopher J ed Christianson Plainfield NJ8 ldquoI already was before Abraham was bornrdquo ndash Worldwide English New Testament [ Derby UK ________________________________

COMMENTS

Also compare the following translations

Nytt liv (1907 Norwegian)A Biacuteblia Viva (1981 Portuguese)O Novo Testamento Vivo (1974 Portuguese)Le Livre Nouveau Testament (1980 eacuteditions Farel French)Η Καινή Διαθήκη των Τεσσάρων Καθηγητών (ΚΔΤΚ Greek) (The New Testament of the Four Teachers The translation was made and approved (1921981) by the Holy Summit Church of Greece The English title of the project is The New Testament in Modern Greek Athens Greece) Η Αγία Γραφή Παλαιά και Καινή Διαθήκη (ΝΔΜ Greek) Ελληνική Βιβλική Εταιρία Αθήνα [Athens] 1997 (The Bible Old and New Testament Greek Biblical Company - London 1997) ΚΔΛΖ ΛΧ (Other Greek Versions expressing the same idea as translations on the list)___________________

ldquoI was rdquo Note on 1987 translation from Italian main list l Vangelio di Giovanni (El Evangelio de Juan [ldquoThe Gospel of Johnrdquo] with imprimatur) by J Mateos and J Barreto noted on John 858 (as translated by Teodora Tosatti p 387 Cittadela Editrice 1982) that the temporal relationship expressed by the Greek ldquoprin eimi [BeforeI am]rdquo can be translated into Italian ldquoprimaero [BeforeI was]rdquo (Translation from Italian to English mine)__________________

Comment on 1993 ΟІ ΧΡΙΣΤΙΑΝΙΚΕΣ ΓΡΑΦΕΣ Απόδοση από τη Μειάφράση Νέου Κόσμου which is a modern Greek translation of the New World Translation of the ChristianScriptures Unlike most Bible Versions which are published in only one language or a few atmost the NWT is available in dozens of languages based mainly on their English translationbut obviously taking into account other factors in the process such as the original Bible text the peculiarities of their recipient local languages and their targeted audiences in their respective countries

It is obvious though that other NWT translation editions closely followed the English text of the NWT and at the same time their translation teams had enough latitude to offer their own unique renderings at times expressing in their native languages what they see in in the Inspired Text Having said that it is interesting to see how they approached their translation of John 858 from their English translation back into [modern] Greek

The translation team was acutely aware of the basic sense of ldquoegō eimirdquo as ldquoI amrdquo and how those simple words are misconstrued by religionists to say something more than Jesus intended Taking into account the syntax of John 858 as stated throughout this document the translation team who worked on the modern Greek version faced a few options

First they had the option to go back to ldquoegō eimirdquo using the modern Greek equivalent ldquoΕγώ ειμαιrdquo (I am) as it reads in the Vamvas version which they did not Or they could haveexpressed their NWT English choice of ldquoI have beenrdquo with their modern Greek equivalent of ldquoέχο υπάρξει [I have existed]rdquo Thirdly they could have gone with ldquoI wasrdquo (ldquoεγώ ήμουνrdquo) as some of their French and Italian Bible editions have done in the past or even with ldquo[εγώ] υπήρξα [I existed])rdquo Or they could have provided some other unique rendering It is obvious they wanted to stick closely to the Greek text but given the common misconceptionssurrounding ldquoegō eimai (I am)rdquo in mainstream churches the translation team chose to use ldquoεγώ υπάρχωrdquo (a present indicative form in the Greek) which means basically ldquoI existrdquo but in the presence of an expression of past time in John 858 the sense is ldquoI have existedrdquo Thus ldquoBefore Abraham came into existence I have existedrdquo ( The verb είμαι [ldquoto berdquo] in modern Greek has no forms for the perfect tense It borrows the forms from the verb υπάρχω [ldquoI existrdquo] The Greek and English ldquoperfectsrdquo are not exact equivalents either)

The reader is reminded here as noted earlier that modern Greek keeps up with the Koineacute Greek ldquopresentrdquo idiom A modern Greek grammar Greek A Comprehensive Grammar explains ldquoThe present tense is also used in constructions where English would use the perfect continuous ie where the verb expresses a continuous state or habitual event that

has lasted since a certain point in the past and is continuing up to (and including) the presentrdquo The authors provide two examples where a present verb is used with a past time indicator and where they translate using an English perfect as explained ldquoI have been living[Μένω] in this house for three years nowrdquo And ldquoI have been reading [Διαβάζω] this newspaper since 1984rdquo (Greek A Comprehensive Grammar by David Holton Peter Mackridge amp Irene Philippaki-Warburton Revised by Vassilios Spyropoulos p 294 Second edition 2012)

Ten years after the NWT-Greek Edition was released another modern Greek translation was published with the following rendering at John 858 ldquoΣας βεβαιώνω πως πριν να γεννηθεί οΑβραάμ εγώ υπάρχωrdquo which in English would be ldquoI assure you that I have existed since before Abraham was bornrdquo (Literally ldquoI assure you that before could be born the AbrahamI exist [not ldquoΕγώ ειμαιrdquo]rdquo The Holy Bible in Todays Greek Version 2003 Greek Bible Society Interestingly the original English version of 1976 had ldquoI Amrdquo) Also a Spanish Bible conveys a similar thought ldquoYo existo desde antes que existiera Abrahamrdquo [Translation ldquo I exist since before Abraham existedrdquo] (La Biblia - Versioacuten Popular 2nd edition Sociedades Biacuteblicas Unidas 1983)

_________________________________________________________

The Clear Word The translators quoted in this article represent various religious faiths some are Catholic some are Protestant Others are Unitarians Jehovahs Witnesses Jewish Adventists etc and they represent countries the world over One of these translators is a Seventh-Day Adventist who worked on The Clear Word Jack J Blanco ThD As a Seventh-Day Adventist who supports the Trinity doctrine Blanco translated verses to make Jesus ldquoequalrdquo to God in every way

He renders John 11 ldquoHe is the Word of God and is equal with Godrdquo He shows Jesus at Philippians 25-7 as ldquoequal with Godrdquo and describes him as lsquoacting the part of a servantrsquo At John 1428 he completely omits the reference that lsquothe Father is greaterrsquo than Christ But here at John 858 in answer to the question the priests and leaders asked concerning Abraham lsquoseeingrsquo his day Jesus answered according to Dr Blanco ldquoBecause I existed before Abraham was even bornrdquo Thus Dr Blanco makes no connection as others do that Christ is the ldquoI amrdquo of Exodus 314 which according to some would indicate that Jesus is the Jehovah of the Old Testament What he sees in this account is that Jesus already lsquoexisted before Abraham didrsquo and thus Abraham was able to lsquoseersquo his day (John 856) To this we must add another likely element included in Jesus response to the Jews as wellone of simple identification as ldquothe Christ [Messiah]rdquo and ldquoSon of manrdquo Why is it then that manywho support the Trinity doctrine find it hard to understand Jesus statement correctly at John 858 Could it be that they are letting non-Scriptural influence and perhaps the weight of themajority view dictate their understanding of this Scripture

For a consideration of other subjects by the same author check below

For a discussion of Acts 286 Whose blood

httpwwwscribdcomdoc231244155Acts-20-28-Whose-blood

For a discussion of Colossians 116 (ldquoall other thingsrdquo) see

httpwwwscribdcomdoc205841269Colossians-1-16-Is-the-expression-all-other-things-a-proper-rendition

For a consideration on the subject of the Trinity click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc160286056Does-the-Trinity-ever-make-sense

For a full consideration of John 11 click the following link httpwwwscribdcomdoc34916458The-correct-translation-of-John-1-1

For a brief consideration of John 11 with additional citations click here httpwwwscribdcomdoc50330864John-1-1-List-of-Alternate-Readings

Did the NW translators know any Greek click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc48234022Did-the-New-World-Translation-Committee-Know-Greek

For a consideration of John 173 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc57772552John-17-3-E28098Taking-in-knowledge-of-E28099-God-and-Jesus

For a consideration of 1 Timothy 316 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc76927834Was-God-manifested-in-the-flesh-1-Timothy-3-16

For a consideration of Exodus 225 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc38676458Exodus-2-25-And-God-took-notice-Does-God- care-about-us

For a consideration of John 114 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc35002730John-1-14-Jesus-full-of-grace

For a consideration of Translation Differences-Questions and Answershttpwwwscribdcomdoc59484457Translation-Differences-Questions-and-Answers

In Spanish

Para una consideracioacuten de otros temas vea los siguientes enlaces

Para una consideracioacuten de Colosenses 116 ldquotodas las otras cosasrdquo vea

httpwwwscribdcomdoc209601066Colosenses-1-16-C2BFEs-la-traduccion-E2809Ctodas-las-otras-cosasE2809D-apropiada

Para una consideracioacuten de ldquoiquestAcaso tiene sentido la Trinidadrdquo

httpwwwscribdcomdoc173779117C2BFAcaso-tiene-sentido-la-Trinidad

Para un consideracioacuten de Juan 11 vea el siguiente enlace

httpwwwscribdcomdoc35899788Traduccion-correcta-de-Juan-1-1-Lista-de- lecturas-alternativas

Para el tema iquestSabiacutean griego los traductores de la TNM vea el siguiente enlace

httpwwwscribdcomdoc51623596C2BFSabia-griego-el-Comite-de-la-Traduccion-del-Nuevo-Mundo

or ldquoI am herdquo sayings of Jesus need not be directly linked to those uttered by God before the time of Christ Jesus was sent by God on a saving mission as a representative of God With good reason he declared unambiguously that ldquoherdquo was (and not some other) ldquoGods Sonrdquo the promised ldquoMessiahrdquo The Jesus sayings ldquoI amrdquo or ldquoI am herdquo in some cases would confirm at most that ldquothere is no other name under heaven that has been given to men in which we must be savedrdquo (Acts 4 12) It was lsquoGod who resurrected Jesus from among the deadrsquo and it was God who lsquogave mankind the namersquo that saves people (Acts 410)

Thus the ldquoI amrdquo sayings of the New Testament were certainly pronounced in a different setting than those in the Old Testament Not to be overlooked the One using the ldquoI amrdquo or ldquoI am herdquo expressions in the OT is described unequivocally as lsquoAlmighty Godrsquo lsquothe only True Godrsquo with maximum ldquopowerrdquo and ldquoauthorityrdquo to send a ldquosubordinaterdquo to an extraordinary mission (Daniel 714 John 1316 537) The glorified Christ is never described in the same way as God was in Old Testament times as he always appears throughout the NT subordinated to God Still Christ is ldquothe wayrdquo to the Father and salvation (John 146) We are therefore commanded to recognize his lsquoGod-given authorityrsquo so ldquothat all may honor the Son just as they honor the Fatherrdquo (Matthew 2818 John 2031 523) Jesus is then the ldquomediatorrdquo between God and mankind (1 Timothy 25) A grand privilege that is

What does the context of John 858 indicate

Some Bible readers see Jesus in the context of John chapter 8 not only saying in idiomatic fashion that he lsquowas [already] alive before Abraham was born (SEB)rsquo and still lsquoisrsquo but also that he was identifying himself as ldquothe Son of Manrdquo ldquothe Messiahrdquo This is a reasonable assumption as well One of the Jews questions was ldquoWho do you think you arerdquo (John 853) In John 824 28 1319 Matthew 2754 and Mark 1460-64 the function or position ofChrist as the ldquoSon of Godrdquo ldquoSon of Manrdquo and ldquothe Christrdquo all come through

The statement (or question) Jews made to Jesus prior to verse 58 was ldquoYou are not yet fifty years old and you have seen Abrahamrdquo Logically Jesus answered the question of his age of his long existence and additionally was perhaps asserting his ldquomessiahshiprdquo as well in harmony with the question Jews had posed earlier in verse 53 This may be one reason a fewtranslators render or note John 858 not as ldquoI amrdquo but rather ldquoI am herdquo some to suggest Christ is God while others do so emphasizing his messianic role The second interpretation fits better with Scripture In the list of alternate readings of John 858 below you will find that rendering as well However the key issue in this text is Jesus existence from past to present Unlike other verses in John (82428) where ldquoeimirdquo is used (in the sense of ldquoI am herdquo ie ldquothe Son of Godrdquo ldquothe Messiahrdquo) in verse 58 the matter of ldquoidentityrdquo is secondaryto the key issue of his existence In the sum of things it should be noted that ldquoindefiniterdquo existence is not equal to ldquoeternalrdquo existence

Within the context of chapter eight (8) of John Jesus makes statements which mark clear differences with his Father God When reading over the next few paragraphs keep in mind that the Bible condemns two-faced personalities and speaking out with a forked tongue

Jesus himself spoke out against hypocrisy so he only spoke ldquotruthrdquo

In John 826 Jesus told the Jews that he was ldquosentrdquo by his Father and that lsquohe speaks the things that he hears from the one who sent himrsquo That lsquohe does nothing on his own initiativersquo (NASB) That lsquohe isrsquo ldquothe Son of Manrdquo and lsquospeaks just what the Father taught himrsquo (V 28)

Jesus stated a simple but significant truth ldquoNo servant is greater than his master nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent himrdquo (John 1316) With this principle in mind here are some questions to ponder about How could Jesus be ldquosentrdquo if he himself was ldquoGodrdquo Why was Jesus lsquonot able to do anything on his own initiativersquo if he was ldquoall-mightyrdquo In verse 29 Jesus says that lsquothe One who sent him has not left him alone and that he always did what pleased the Fatherrsquo Why would Jesus Christ say at all lsquoI always do what pleases him who sent mersquo If Jesus was ldquoGodrdquo why would he find it important enoughto mention whether he was left ldquoalonerdquo or not Does God need ldquocompanionshiprdquo as humans do Why would anybody have to ldquoteachrdquo Jesus anything if he was all-knowingrdquo

Also Jesus applied the title ldquoSon of Manrdquo to himself numerous times a term which Jews considered a title of the promised ldquoMessiahrdquo not of ldquoGodrdquo In addition the Bible book of Numbers 2319 tells us that ldquoGod is not a man that he should lie ldquonor a son of man that he should change his mindrdquo Nonetheless Christ precisely adopted this very same expression (ldquoSon of Manrdquo) before others with no regrets Furthermore did God have to become ldquoa manrdquo to save humankind when the Bible explicitly says that lsquoGod sent his only-begotten Sonrsquoto save the worldrsquo (John 316 NASB 1 John 414) Who is distorting the full picture here

In verse 40 John reports that the Jews lsquowere determined to kill Jesus because they didnt want to accept the word and truth that Jesus as a man [Greek anthropon] spoke having it received from Godrsquo How could Christ speak of himself as lsquoa man receiving truth from Godrsquowhen seconds later according to Trinitarians he would be using a ldquotitlerdquo claiming to be ldquoGodrdquo in effect contradicting everything he had been saying until then None of these statements would make sense if Jesus himself was the Supreme God as many believe

What would Jesus gain by claiming before the world that he lsquocould not do anything on his own initiativersquo that lsquohe always did what pleased the Fatherrsquo and that he only spoke just what the Father who sent him lsquotaughtrsquo him And shortly afterwards change his message altogether and claim as we are asked to believe that Christ was the ldquoGodrdquo of the Old Testament by the sole act of pronouncing the ldquoI amrdquo divine ldquotitlerdquo Does this lsquodouble personalityrsquo approach make any sense to a Christian who is taught to only believe ldquothere is but one God the Fatherrdquo (John 530 1 Corinthians 86) No wonder there are a good number of Bible translators including Trinitarians who disagree with the traditional view of John 858

Does the Jews reaction in John 859 prove Jesus Christ had claimed to be ldquoGodrdquo

Shortly before his death Jesus was taken before the Sanhedrin the high court of the Jews to

face false charges by people who wanted him dead Please take note of the charges brought up in Marks account (1460-64) which says

60 Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus ldquoAre you not going to answer What is this testimony that these men are bringing against yourdquo 61 But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer Again the high priest asked him ldquoAre you the Messiah the Son of the Blessed Onerdquo 62 ldquoI amrdquo said Jesus ldquoAnd you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heavenrdquo 63 The high priest tore his clothes ldquoWhy do we need any more witnessesrdquo he asked 64 ldquoYou have heard the blasphemy What do you thinkrdquo They all condemned him as worthy of death

In view of the events of Mark 1460-64 and considering the context of John chapter 8 it is clear that the Jews rejected Jesus claim of him being ldquothe Messiahrdquo and of being lsquogreaterrsquo than Abraham They were also rejecting the idea that he was ldquofrom aboverdquo ldquothe Son of Mansitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heavenrdquo of the heavenly vision (John 823) In their view that was enough to charge him with blasphemy since they could not imagine any ldquomanrdquo making such claims

C K Barrett rightly noted that the Jews reaction in verse 59 ldquodoes not mean that Jesus had claimed to be Godrdquo (The Gospel According to St John 2d ed Philadelphia Westminster Press 1978 352) And Professor Emeritus William Loader noted ldquoThe text need mean no more than I am and was in existence before Abraham still a majestic unique claim but not anallusion to the divine namerdquo (The Christology of the Fourth Gospel Structures and Issues Revised 2d ed New York Lang 1992 48)

Even before Jesus spoke the ldquoegō eimirdquo words in John 858 the Jews had already sought to kill Jesus (John 719 837) And for what ldquocrimerdquo This lsquoJesus claimed the truth he taughtcame from Godrsquo (John 716 840) This is vastly different from lsquoJesus alledgedly claiming a divine title equating him with God at John 858rsquo Since then all sorts of religious leaders have claimed as well that ldquowhat they teach others comes from Godrdquo and not from them Does that make them ldquoequalrdquo to God

Because Jesus often lsquocalled God his Fatherrsquo the Jews wrongly concluded that he was ldquomaking himself equal to Godrdquo (John 51819) However Jesus quickly set the matter straight when he called himself Gods ldquoSonrdquo (nine times in chapter 5 alone) an expression never applied to ldquoGodrdquo in Scripture (Matthew 2663-64) The Jews even claimed Jesus was ldquobreaking the Sabbathrdquo and further of being ldquoa Samaritan and demon-possessedrdquo (John 518 848) Were they right Absolutely not Thus wrong perceptions of Jews in Jesus time - like Jesus claiming equality with God - are truly a shaky foundation to base modern interpretations The Jerusalem Bible has this to say ldquoThe claim of Jesus to live on the divine plane (v 58) is for the Jews blasphemy for which the penalty is stoning Lv 2416rdquo I see the JB accepting the claim that Jesus possessed some mode of ldquodivine existencerdquo (as suggested by the Spanish edition of JB ldquoBiblia de Jerusaleacutenrdquo) but avoiding a direct reference of Christ

claiming to be God or that he was claiming ldquoeternalrdquo existence in the verse And former Professor Kenneth L McKay said ldquoThe claim to have been in existence for so long is in itself a staggering one quite enough to provoke the crowds violent reaction [in v59]rdquo (ldquo lsquoI amrsquo in Johns Gospelrdquo p 302) Hence those who claim the charge of blasphemy involved Jesus claim of being ldquoGodrdquo are wrong for Jesus never claimed to be ldquoThe Supreme Beingrdquo but only ldquoGods Sonrdquo (John 31718)

Weeks later after the incident of John chapter 8 but related to the topic of discussion in John 1030-36 we read that the Jews misunderstood Jesus words ldquoI and the father are onerdquo (John 10 30) So they wanted to stone him for it but Jesus told them

33 ldquoWe are not stoning you for any good workrdquo they replied ldquobut for blasphemy because you a mere man claim to be Godrdquo 34 Jesus answered them ldquoIs it not written in your Law lsquoI have said you are ldquogodsrdquorsquo [Psalm 826] 35 If he called them lsquogodsrsquo to whom the word of God camemdashand Scripture cannot be set asidemdash 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said lsquoI am Godrsquos Sonrsquo ( Other versions translate the Greek word here for ldquoGodrdquo without the article either as ldquogodrdquo or ldquoa godrdquo Besson Torrey NWT Mace Luther 1545 Diaglott Tomanek Andy Gaus New English Bible)

Notice that Jesus Christ under duress had another golden opportunity to once and for all disclose publicly that he was ldquoGodrdquo But he did not do so The argument itself that Jesus employed shows that he could legitimately claim lsquodivine originrsquo without being identified as one-and-the-same God with his Father

Less than a year later AFTER the encounter with the Jews of John chapter 8 and before his death Jesus told his closest disciples in his farewell speech that they lsquoshould rejoice he was going away to the Father because the Father was greater than he wasrsquo (John 1428) And in his final prayer in proximity with his disciples he prayed to God that lsquothey may know his Father the only true God and Jesus Christ whom he has sentrsquo (John 173 ) God never needs to pray to anyone Shortly after Jesus died and was resurrected by God but before returning to his Father Jesus said to Mary Magdalene ldquoDo not hold on to me for I have notyet ascended to the Father Go instead to my brothers and tell them lsquoI am ascending to my Father and your Father to my God and your Godrsquo rdquo (John 2017)

Does it make sense to have Jesus claim equality with God by employing a divine title (ldquoI Amrdquo) before unbelieving Jews as Trinitarians claim and then have Jesus later assure his closest and faithful ones that lsquohis Father and his Godrsquo was also lsquothe Father and God of everyone elsersquo In fact Jesus disciples were clearly in a privileged position in regards to Christian teaching Jesus Christ had previously said to his disciples that he would explain lsquoall thingsrsquo to them privately whereas to others he would only speak in lsquoparablesrsquo or lsquocomparisonsrsquo (Matthew 1311 Mark 411 33 34) An explicit lsquodivine titlersquo directed at lsquounbelievingrsquo Jews is certainly no parable and would run counter to his own stated principles

Anyways Jesus Christ wanted other Christian followers to understand the special

relationship he had with the Father ldquoBut go to my followers and tell them this lsquoI am going back to my Father and your Father I am going back to my God and your Godrsquo rdquo (Easy to Read Version) This simple message is so different from the convoluted one commonly expounded by Trinitarians in their philosophical speculations

Between the time of the encounter between the Jews and Jesus in John ch 8 and the farewelldiscourse of our Lord Jesus Christ of later (chapters 14-17) not once did Jesus say he was ldquoGodrdquo Christ never spoke with a forked tongue Therefore Bible translators who do not claim Jesus was using a divine title at John 858 and provide renderings agreeing with the words of John 173 and 2017 are in the correct

Scriptures with similar syntax to John 858

Thus when faced with certain idiomatic expressions as the one found in John 858 the translator often has to ask himself How would someone normally express such statements in our language I will cite six (6) Scriptural examples that are similar in syntax to John 858 Genesis 3138 LXX 1 John 38 Luke 248 John 56 2 Corinthians 1219 and John 1527 All six Scriptures have present tense verbs AND an expression of past time or extent of time with past implications within its structure Lets see how these Scriptures compare with John 858 in our discussion

1st Example (Genesis 3138 LXX) ταῦτά μοι εἴκοσι ἔτη ἐγώ εἰμι μετὰ σοῦ - Greek These mine twenty years I am with you

Jacob after leaving Haran disputes with his father-in-law Laban over missing personal idols which Laban claimed were stolen by Jacob Jacob had no idea Rachel had stolen them In defense Jacob proceeded to mention several things he had done through the years on Labansbehalf ldquoThese twenty years I am with yourdquo (The Apostolic Bible Polyglot LXX 2006)ldquoThese twenty years of mine I was with yourdquo (A New English Translation of the Septuagint ldquoNETSrdquo 2007)ldquoThese twenty years have I been with theerdquo (The Holy Orthodox Bible LXX 2006)ldquoThese twenty years I have been with yourdquo (The Orthodox Study Bible LXX 2008)ldquoThese twenty years of mine have I been with theerdquo (Orthodox England LXX 2009)ldquoI have spent with you twenty of my years [Jai passeacute avec toi vingt de mes anneacutees]rdquo (La Septante [LXX] translated by Pierre Giguet)ldquoThese twenty years have I been with theerdquo (Sir Lancelot CL Brenton LXX)ldquoThese twenty years that I have been with theerdquo (Charles Thomson LXX)

Aside from the interlinear reading of the literal Apostolic Bible Polyglot other translators of the Septuagint (LXX) render a present indicative verb ldquoegō eimirdquo (I am) preceded by an expression of time with past implications (ldquoThese twenty yearsrdquo) with present perfect

indicative forms (ldquoI have beenrdquo) while one translation (NETS) uses a simple past form (ldquoI wasrdquo) A modern Greek translation Η Αγία ΓραφήmdashΜετάφραση Νέου Κόσμου has ldquoήμουνrdquo (Literally ldquoI wasrdquo) in this text A likely reason for that as a modern Greek Grammar pointsout is that for the verb lsquoto be (είμαι)rsquo ldquoThere are only two sets of tense forms in Greek present and past (imperfect)rdquo (op cit An Essential Grammar p 126 Sec 67) Hence they could not have used here a perfect tense form for the verb lsquoto be (eimai)rsquo But in English the Bible Society responsible for the Greek and English translations of the Hebrew portion of the Bible used instead ldquoI have beenrdquo at Genesis 3138 in the English edition because a present perfect is available in the language for the verb

Another interesting tidbit is the fact that the original Hebrew text here lacks a verb in the declaration namely ldquoThis twenty year I with-yourdquo (The Hebrew-English Interlinear ESV Old Testament Crossway) Well how do translators deal with this issue Overall like this with the perfect indicative ldquoI have been with you for twenty years nowrdquo A few versions use the imperfect instead lsquoI wasrsquo such as the Wycliffe Bible and the Lexham English Bible Rarely do translations use a ldquopresentrdquo here the exceptions being Youngs and Concordant literal translations So why do the overwhelming number of translators prefer tosupply a perfect tense here for the missing verb in the Hebrew Its simple There is a temporal indicator going to the past in the text namely lsquoThese twenty yearsrsquo

Now when the LXX translators proceeded to translate the Hebrew words of Genesis 3138 into Greek they cleverly used a well known vivid idiom available in classical Greek where a verb in the present tense is combined with an indicator of past time In this syntax the ldquopast and present are gathered up in a single affirmationrdquo (op cit Brooks amp Winbery) Modern English translators usually resort to the present perfect in this construction as shown aboveSo too John 858 reveals an expression of past time with a present verb in its statement and the NWT is one translation that is consistent with this construction both in Genesis 3138 and John 858

For the following I will use the Wescott and Hort Greek text for reference

2nd Example (1 John 38)

ὅτι ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς ὁ διάβολος ἁμαρτάνει - Greek because from beginning the devil is sinning

The apostle John warns Christians not to carry on sin for those who make a practice of sin originate from the Devil who has sinned from the beginning For this purpose the Son of God was revealed that he might undo the works of the Devil The text above contains an expression of past time (ldquofrom beginningrdquo) with a present verb (is sinning) very much likeJohn 858 How do translators deal with this passage Lets see

ldquofor the devil sinneth from the beginningrdquo (Rheims New Testament)ldquofor the devil sinneth from the beginningrdquo (KJV)

ldquofor the devil has sinned from the beginningrdquo (New King James Version)ldquofor the devil has sinned from the beginningrdquo (NASB)ldquobecause the devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (Interlinear Mounce)ldquofor the Devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (Riverside NT Ballantine)ldquobecause the devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (NIV)ldquobecause the devil has sinned from the beginningrdquo (NAB)ldquosince the devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (Jay E Adams)ldquowho has been sinning since the beginningrdquo (NLT)ldquofor the devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (NRSV)ldquosince the devil has been a sinner from the beginningrdquo (NJB)ldquobecause the devil has been sinning from the very beginningrdquo (J G Anderson)ldquofor the devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (ESV)

ldquothe devil was a sinner from the firstrdquo (Ronald A Knox New Testament)

Some translations transfer the Greek present to their English versions as if the English and Greek ldquopresentrdquo in such construction were the same thing It is not The end result is ungrammatical English Would you say in contemporary English ldquoFrom the beginning of class the boy sleepsrdquo Not Doctor Richard A Young points out ldquoTo say that the devil is sinning from the beginning does not make sense in English English translations therefore employ the present perfectrdquo (Intermediate New Testament Greek page 111)

The renderings above ldquohas sinnedrdquo and ldquohas been sinningrdquo are present perfect and present perfect progressive indicative forms The word ldquowasrdquo is a simple past tense Just as in 1 John 38 some translators in John 858 have rendered a present tense with an expression of past time in its construction with a present perfect ldquoI have beenrdquo

3rd Example (2 Corinthians 1219)

Πάλαι δοκεῖτε ὅτι ὑμῖν ἀπολογούμεθα ndash Greek Long ago you are thinking that to you we are making defense

Paul finds himself having to defend his apostolic authority and vindicating his record as superior in hardship endured for Christ and loving concern for congregations In simpler words Paul was telling them ldquoAll this time have you been thinking that Ive been speaking up for myself No Ive been speaking with God as my witness Ive been speaking like a believer in Christ Dear friends everything I do is to help you become strongerrdquo (NIRV)

In the literal reading above we have an adverb of time with past implications (Palai) followed by two Greek verb forms (ldquodokeiterdquo amp ldquoapologoumethardquo) in the present indicativetense The book Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek Verb by William Watson Goodwin explains ldquoThe Present is often used with expressions denoting past time especially πάλαι [palai] in the sense of a perfect and a present combinedrdquo (Section 26 p 9) How do translators render these in English Some carry over the present tense into the English text producing unconventional English Others cognizant of issues presented here

do a better job at it See below for a sample

ldquoHave you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves before yourdquo (The Comprehensive New Testament 2008)ldquoI hope you donacutet think that all along weacuteve been making our defense before yourdquo (The Message Eugene H Peterson)ldquoHave you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves to yourdquo (NIV)ldquoIt may seem to you that all this time we have been attempting to put ourselves in the rightrdquo (Bible in Basic English)ldquoAll this time you have been thinking that we have been pleading our own cause before yourdquo (NJB)ldquoHave you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves to yourdquo (CEV)ldquoHave you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves before yourdquo (Revised Standard Version) ldquoPerhaps you think that all along we have been trying to defend ourselves before yourdquo (TEV)ldquoHave you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves to yourdquo (ESV)ldquoYou have thought all along that we were defending ourselves to yourdquo (HCSB)ldquoHave you been thinking all this time that we have been defending ourselves to yourdquo (NET Bible)

ldquoYou have been thinking all along that it was to you we were making our defenserdquo (The Bible in Living English Steven T Byington)

The above translations use present perfect (and perfect progressive) forms or past progressives to bring out the proper sense of the original into our language Can anyone rightfully claim that it is improper for these Bible versions to translate this text as they have done in English

4th Example (Luke 248 Wescott and HortNestle early editions Greek text)

ὁ πατήρ σου καὶ ἐγὼ ὀδυνώμενοι ζητοῦμέν σε - Greek The father of you and I being pained we are seeking you Here the context (vv 42-48) speaks of Jesus (12 years old) being left behind unwittingly in Jerusalem by his parents they went back searching in distress for three days before finding him When they finally found him they spoke the words above

ldquoYour father and I have been looking for you anxiouslyrdquo (Revised Standard Version)ldquoYour father and I in agony of mind have been searching for yourdquo (Williams NT)ldquoYour father and I have been anxiously looking for Yourdquo (NASB 1971)ldquoYour father and I have been searching for you in great distressrdquo (Riverside NT)

ldquoHere have your father and I been searching anxiously for yourdquo (Hugh J Schonfield)ldquoYour father and I have been looking for you have been very anxious rdquo (Goodspeed)ldquoYour father and I have been looking for you We have been very troubledrdquo (Bible in Worldwide English)ldquoYour father and I have been looking for you in distressrdquo (Richmond Lattimore)ldquoYour father and I have been searching for you in great distressrdquo (Twentieth Century NT) ldquoThy father and I have sought thee distressedrdquo (Darby Bible Translation)

ldquoThy father and I sought thee sorrowingrdquo (American Standard Version)

ldquoThy father and I in anguish were seeking theerdquo (The Emphasized Bible 3rd edit based on Wescott and Hort by Joseph B Rotherham)ldquoThy father and I were seeking thee sorrowfulrdquo (W B Godbey N T 1902)ldquoThy father and I were seeking Thee sorrowingrdquo (A S Worrell N T 1904)ldquoYour father and I were anxiously looking for yourdquo (World English Bible)

The words ldquowe are seeking yourdquo are in the present indicative tense however since an expression of time is used indicating action going on for days (ldquoafter three daysrdquo v 46) translators find it necessary to use either the present perfect (ldquohave beenrdquo ldquohave soughtrdquo) or simple past (ldquosoughtrdquo) or past progressive (ldquowere seekingrdquo) indicative forms to express in English what the Greek says in the ldquopresentrdquo Various Greek texts have instead of the ldquopresentrdquo found in the Westcott amp Hort Text above an ldquoimperfectrdquo verb form Both forms are frequently rendered with an English present ldquoperfectrdquo Compare with Youngs Literal Translation which also uses a past progressive indicative form ldquowere seekingrdquo and the Spanish Reina-Valera Revisada which rendered an imperfect verb form appearing in the Received Text with a present perfect indicative (ldquohemos buscadordquo) Is this another reason why many translators have rendered the Greek present ldquoegō eimirdquo preceded by an adverbial modifier in its clause at John 858 with perfective or past forms in English

5th Example (Juan 56)

καὶ γνοὺς ὅτι πολὺν ἤδη χρόνον ἔχει - Greek and having known that much already time he is having

This is an account of an invalid man who for 38 years had been sick and was now being cured by Jesus The Greek in this clause does not make his illness clear however the context does Take note of the expression of time used with past implications mixed with a present indicative verb ldquohe is havingrdquo For this to make any sense in our language it has to be modified When Jesus saw this sick man lying there

ldquoand knew that he had been now a long time in that caserdquo (KJV italics theirs) ldquoand knowing that he had been ill a long timerdquo (Revised English Bible)ldquoand knew he had been in that condition for a long timerdquo (NJB)ldquoand knew that he had been sick for a long timerdquo (World English Bible)ldquoand knew that he had been sick for a long timerdquo (Godacutes Word)

ldquoand knew how long he had been illrdquo (Living Bible)ldquoand knew he had already been there a long timerdquo (HCSB)ldquoand he knew that the man had been sick for such a long timerdquo (TEV)ldquoand knew that he had been in this state a long timerdquo (Confraternity Version)ldquoand finding that he had had a long time of itrdquo (S T Byington) ldquoand knew that he had been sick for a long timerdquo (Jay E Adams)ldquoand he knew that he had been waiting for a long timerdquo (George M Lamsa Peshitta) ldquoand knew that he had been now a long timerdquo (Rheims New Testament)

ldquoand knowing that he was [in that state] now a great length of timerdquo (J N Darby Translation Brackets his)

Once again we see translators having to use mostly perfective forms (ldquohad beenrdquo ldquohad hadrdquopast perfects) and one with a simple past ldquowasrdquo even though they are translating a present tense verb ldquohe is havingrdquo This shows that translators adapt their renderings whenever is necessary to convey the right meaning into the target language It is thus possible to render ldquoeimirdquo at John 858 with a form other than a present tense such as a present perfect Those who say that it can not be done or should not be done just need to look again at the evidenceobjectively

6th Example (John 1527 Wescott amp Hort)

ὅτι ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς μετʼ ἐμοῦ ἐστέ ndash Greek that from beginning with me you are

These words spoken by Jesus evidently refers to the beginning of his ministry when he chosehis closest disciples They were eyewitnesses of all the things God did through Christ duringhis ministry (Acts 121)

ldquobecause ye have been with me from the beginningrdquo (KJV) ldquobecause you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (NAB)ldquofor you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (Christian Community Bible)ldquobecause you are the men who have been with me from the very beginningrdquo (Heinz Wldquobecause you have been with me from the firstrdquo (New English Bible) [ Cassirer)ldquobecause you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (Godacutes Word Translation) ldquofor you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (NIV)ldquobecause you have been with me from the firstrdquo (Weymouth New Testament)ldquobecause you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (NRSV)ldquoyou that have been with me from the beginningrdquo (The Four Gospels EV Rieu)ldquobecause youacuteve been with Me from the beginning of My ministryrdquo (The Clear Word)ldquofor you have been with me from the firstrdquo (J B Phillips Modern English)ldquobecause you have been with Me from the beginningrdquo (HCSB) ldquothat you were with me from the startrdquo (21st Century New Testament)ldquofor you were with Me from the beginningrdquo (New Berkeley Version Revised Edition)

ldquobecause you were with me from the beginningrdquo (Mark Heber Miller)ldquobecause you were with me from the very beginningrdquo (SEB)

This scripture with the plural form of ldquoeimirdquo (este) is very similar to John 858 Again within its structure there is an expression of past time and a verb in the present indicative form (este) just as there is in John 858 A Grammar of New Testament Greek says ldquoThe reader may be reminded of one idiom which comes out of the linear idea the use of words like πάλαι [palai ldquolong agordquo] with the present in a sense best expressed by our perfect Thus in 2 Co 1219 lsquohave you been thinking all this timersquo or Jn 1527 lsquoyou have been with me from the beginning [ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς]rsquo hellip The durative present in such cases gathers up past and present time into one phraserdquo (A Grammar of New Testament Greek Vol 1 Prolegomena by JH Moulton p 119) As previously noted this Grammar specifically refers to John 858 as an example of this idiom

And here in John 1527 there is a connection of Jesus disciples [creatures as they are] that ldquowererdquo with him ldquofrom the beginningrdquo Obviously Jesus was making no reference to his disciples sharing ldquoeternityrdquo with him The disciples all had a beginning The logical conclusion is that Jesus was simply saying to them lsquoYou have been with me from the start of my ministryrsquo Hence there is no need to read ldquoeternityrdquo into the expression ldquoI amrdquo anymore that we should read ldquoeternityrdquo from Jesus words at John 1527 lsquoYou are with me from the beginningrsquo Neither grammar nor the context justifies reading more into these Scriptures than what they actually say

In fact the six (6) instances cited above (Genesis 3138 LXX 1 John 38 2 Cor 1219 Luke 248 John 56 John 1527) and John 858 as well all have an expression of past time or an extent of time with past implications (ldquoThese twenty yearsrdquo ldquoLong agordquo ldquoafter three daysrdquo Lk 246 ldquomuch already timerdquo ldquofrom [the] beginningrdquo ldquoBeforerdquo etc) AND present verbs in their sentences or nearby within the context and are commonly rendered with present perfect (some with past perfects) or simple past (or past progressive) forms in English translations If we apply this pattern to the translation of John 858 it would mean that renderings such as ldquoI have beenrdquo (present perfect) and ldquoI wasrdquo (simple past) are not only acceptable in translation but actually more ldquosuitablerdquo in application Can this really be done Not only can it be done it makes for a ldquobetterrdquo English translation

In regards to Jesus John 858 simply tells us that Jesus lsquowas alive before Abraham was bornrsquo (SEB) and that his existence continued up to the moment of his speaking to them Just as it is not proper English to say ldquoFor three days we are seeking yourdquo (Greek literal reading of Luke 248) or ldquobecause from the beginning with me you arerdquo (John 1527) it is no less proper English to say in John 858 ldquoBefore Abraham was born I amrdquo These readings should only appear in extremely literal interlinear translations which basically render the Greek word-by-word and not in standard idiomatic English translations Let me illustrate If a man advanced in age for example had his work history and experience questioned by co-workers in comparison to his younger son and employee Abe would he say in reply ldquoBefore my son Abe was born I am [the one fit for the job]rdquo No that does not sound right In English he could say it in various ways

ldquoI have been an experienced worker since before my son Abe was bornrdquo ldquoI have been what I am since before my son Abe was bornrdquo ldquoI was fit to work and fully active before my son Abe was ever bornrdquo ldquoI was already experienced in many jobs before Abe ever came to berdquo ldquoI have been a master worker way before my son Abe came to liferdquo ldquoBefore Abe was born I already was life and job experiencedrdquo etc

The point is that in English normally we include a present perfect tense whenever there is a reference to the past extending to the present or a past tense of some form whenever we go back in time The same with John 858 There is no justification in English to insist using a present verb form (which is not equal to the Greek present when combined with a past expression) in an unwarranted attempt to convey ldquoeternityrdquo as ldquopaddingrdquo to the Trinity doctrine a doctrine adopted AFTER the Christian era Worse it is disingenuous to accuse other translators (who have chosen to render ldquoegō eimirdquo at John 858 with an English present perfect or past tense) of scholastic dishonesty when the very same translations honored by these detractors do so in other places where the ldquodeityrdquo of Christ is not in play asshown in the samples provided above

An example of this double standard can be seen as well when scholars such as Dr Julius Mantey harshly criticizes the NWT for the rendering ldquoI have beenrdquo at John 858 but keeps quiet when other translators do similarly and even states or pretends that no other reputable translator would ever translate it that way He dared not criticize his former Greek teacher Charles B Williams who produced his own Bible translation Dr Mantey once wrote the following of Dr Williams translation ldquoWilliams translation considering all the factors is the most accurate and illuminating translation in the English languagerdquo And how does this ldquomost accurate translationrdquo render John 858 As follows ldquoI existed before Abraham was bornrdquo Here Dr Williams known for his Greek command used a simple past tense (ldquoI existedrdquo) as translation for the Greek present Julius Mantey certainly did not find Williams version of John 858 a ldquoshocking translationrdquo ldquoI existedrdquo is quite different from the translation Dr Mantey so passionately defended (ldquoI amrdquo)

When Dr Mantey talks about the NWT he says the rendering ldquoI have beenrdquo at John 858 cannot be justified and calls it ldquodishonestrdquo That rule does not apply to Williams translation does it Williams did not translate John 858 in the same way Mantey would have liked (ldquoI amrdquo) Not only that the Grammar itself that Dr Mantey co-authored with Dr Dana A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament states under ldquoThe Progressive Presentrdquo (called ldquoExtension from Pastrdquo by McKay) ldquoSometimes the progressive present is retroactivein its application denoting that which has begun in the past and continues into the present For the want of a better name we may call it the present of duration This use is generally associated with an adverb of time and may best be rendered by the English perfect ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς μετʼ ἐμοῦ ἐστέ Ye have been with me from the beginning Jn 1527 See also Lk137 2 Cor 129 [19]rdquo (Pages 182-83 Emphasis added)

Even though Julius Mantey has stated when referring to the NWT that ldquoI have beenrdquo is not a proper translation and even ldquodishonestrdquo at John 858 he clearly states in his Grammar (of

Scriptures with similar syntax to John 858) ldquoThis use is generally associated with an adverb of time and may best be rendered by the English perfect [such as ldquoI have beenrdquo which in fact is associated with an adverb of time in John 858]rdquo A likely reason for Dana ampManteys strong reluctance for not including John 858 as an example of the idiom discussed on page 183 may have to do with the fact that as ldquotrinitariansrdquo they oppose the idea of Jesus existence having lsquobegunrsquo in the past even though John 858 perfectly fits with the ldquoProgressive Presentrdquo idiom being discussed in their Grammar as acknowledged by other grammarians Hence their objection is truly a ldquotheologicalrdquo one rather than Greek grammaritself arguing in their favor as Mantey and some others have implied since a Greek present or an English perfect does not demand ldquoeternityrdquo at all from the subject

Consequently many religious individuals who focus solely on the basic meaning (of ldquoegō eimirdquo as ldquoI amrdquo) out of the context of the particular ldquoidiomrdquo used at John 858 end up missing the thrust of Jesus words and fall prey to misleading interpretations Doctor Kenneth L McKay taking into account all of these issues comes up with this excellent translation for John 858 ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo (A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek SBG 5 New York Peter Lang 1994 p42) If we objectively consider the material above we will not insist in connecting Jesus at John 858 with the God Jehovah of Exodus 314 (which many attempt to do but cannot be sustained) Instead we will focus on the simple message conveyed by Jesus words at John 858 which is in harmony with the totality of Scripture ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo (McKay) The rendering ldquoI have been in existencerdquo by itself does not rule out either the concept of ldquoeternityrdquo or the ldquocreationrdquo of Jesus Christ A Committee of Bible translators came up with the following translation which may not be the best choice but considering the issues involved is better than the traditional rendering of ldquoI amrdquo ldquoI was alive before Abraham was bornrdquo (The New Testament in Plain English)

(The following scholars are members of the Bible Translation Committee of The New Testament in Plain English which approved this last reading ldquoI was aliverdquo instead of ldquoI amrdquo(Dr Stanley L Morris chairman FW Gingrich Ph D a renown Greek lexicographer Jack P Lewis Ph D CH Accord Th D Clyde M Woods Ph D ST Kan Ph D Gary T Burke Ph D Milo Hadwin D Min)

I submit their names and their credentials here as an example because it is often asserted vigorously that no intelligent or highly qualified scholar would ever produce a translation other than ldquoI amrdquo As noted above and as the list of alternate readings (at the end of this essay) of John 858 shows many done by highly qualified people this is simply not true Usually those making statements of that sort are doing so based on emotional and theological not philological reasons Furthermore by not disclosing other valid viewpoints or by dismissing how other qualified Bible translators deal with this scripture they are undermining their own credibility as well

At this time you are welcome to briefly go over the list of Alternate Readings to John 858 at

the end before moving on to the second part of this essay

_____________________________

Should we ignore the evidence of all those translations listed at the end that differ in John 858 from the traditional versions What then are all these translators seeing at John 858 that moved them to render this text differently They surely must be aware of the resistance they would encounter by translating it by the various forms they used Still they must have had the firm conviction that both the Greek text and the context supports their understanding of this scripture They likely see a Jesus making no identity connection with his Father Godbut rather see a Jesus simply expressing his indefinite existence with no suggestion of eternity in focus Neither is Jesus stating here that he is the God of Old Testament times To understand it that way would be to read into the text more than what it says Taking some clues from the context of the chapter some scholars additionally see Jesus insinuating his ldquomessiahshiprdquo as if saying ldquoI am he [the Messiah]rdquo This is very likely In fact The LivingBible renders John 824 thus ldquoThat is why I said that you will die in your sins for unless you believe that I am the Messiah the Son of God [ἐγώ εἰμι] you will die in your sinsrdquo

Is ldquoegō eimirdquo a title or another name of God

The use of ldquoeimirdquo at John 858 is frequently used as a ldquoproof textrdquo of Jesus deity A noted Trinitarian scholar AT Robertson a Baptist even refers to ldquoegō eimirdquo as ldquothe absolute phrase used of Godrdquo likely indicating the verb conveys ldquotimeless beingrdquo an implication that ldquoeimirdquo here does not require anything else to complete the meaning of the phrase thus conveying ldquoeternal existencerdquo as well as being an actual name for God Some individuals have given plenty of publicity to Robertsons statement as absolute truth But his statement is not ldquotruthrdquo at all It is faulty interpretation which many people have fallen prey to Grammar and theology do not always make the best mix True Robertsons credentials as a scholar are impressive nevertheless credentials does not truth make Besides some other equally bright scholars disagree with him Lets illustrate the folly of those advocating a divine title at John 858 by way of addition (Or substitution if you will) as some suggest

ldquoBefore Abraham was born I am Eternalrdquo ldquoBefore Abraham was born I am Jehovahrdquo ldquoBefore Abraham was born I am eternally Godrdquo

First of all the above hypothetical translations are just as ungrammatical as the simple ldquoI amrdquo reading of most versions An English present tense cannot start before a definite point in the past This can be seen in the following two examples

1 ldquoBefore the US Iraq war I am a soldierrdquo 2 ldquoThree journalists are kidnapped in Nepal since the start of 2007rdquo

What is the correct way to express these statements in English Analyze it for a second and

provide an answer if you will

Notably if ldquoeimirdquo was used to convey eternal existence what is the point of using an expression of past time at all in the clause Moreover the context of previous verses (vv 48-57) clearly indicates that Jesus is speaking of God as a separate entity See below

49 ldquobut I honor my Father and you dishonor merdquo 50 ldquoI am not seeking glory for myself but there is one who seeks it and he is the

judgerdquo54 ldquoIf I glorify myself my glory means nothing My Father whom you claim as your

God is the one who glorifies me 55 ldquoThough you do not know him I know him If I said I did not I would be a liar like you but I do know him and obey his wordrdquo Thus if Jesus meant he himself was the ldquoJehovahrdquo of the Old Testament as Trinitarians claim what would be the rationale behind Jesus directing all distinction and glory to lsquothe Father Godrsquo as a distinct individual as he did in the previous verses and then a few words later abruptly change his argumentation by claiming he is that very same One who lsquoreceives obedience from his own wordrsquo lsquoseeking his own honor and gloryrsquo because he himself is ldquoGodrdquo Confusing is it not To accept this abrupt change of character on Jesus part would be not ldquoa mysteryrdquo but flat out ldquoa deceptionrdquo of big proportions since Jesus himself warned against pretending to be one thing and acting as another (Matthew 62-5 2313-36)

Are we are supposed against all logic to accept these ldquotrinitarianrdquo assumptions instead of a simple alternative which really answers the Jews question about lsquohow could Abraham ldquoseerdquoJesus day if he was not yet 50 years oldrsquo (ldquoI have been in existence since Abraham was bornrdquo)

The obsession with the simple words ldquoI amrdquo have led to many faulty assumptions ldquoI amrdquo issuch a common expression in our language even to this day that words such as ldquoegoismrdquo ldquoegotismrdquo etc (derived from the Greek ldquoegordquo) are considered common words in English dictionaries Everyone uses the phrase ldquoI amrdquo at times Think of any big corporation or powerful organization of your choice for a moment Would you conclude that the two most powerful individuals of this one prestigious organization must be identical in every way solely because they are heard equally saying to others in their common speech ldquoI am thisrdquoor ldquoI am thatrdquo etc

In Bible times humans too used common pronouns The verb eimi (ldquoI amrdquo) itself or forms of it appears more than two thousand times (2000x) in the New Testament alone Additionally the word ldquoegōrdquo appears over seventeen hundred times (1700x) in the NT And those numbers do not include the Septuagint totals Do all occurrences of the word then imply ldquodivinityrdquo in each case Of course not It may be more significant when God or Christ use the expression because of who they are but does it really mean that both God and Christ share the same identity Or that everyone who uses the phrase ldquoI amrdquo does so with divine pretensions Does it really mean that everyone using the phrase are ldquoequalrdquo The

answer is obvious is it not

Lets bear in mind that when God sent Jesus Christ as His representative to a most crucial assignment multiple biblical prophecies were pointing to Christ as the promised Messiah that would free mankind from its moribund condition It is logical then that when the time came for Jesus Christ to show up on earth he would somehow communicate to others that ldquoherdquo and not some other human claiming to be the Messiah was Gods instrument in bringing everlasting relief to human misery Hence he could rightly say any or all of the following ldquoI am (this)rdquo ldquoI am (that)rdquo ldquoI am he [the promised Messiah]rdquo or ldquoI am Gods Sonrdquo Should we expect anything less

The fact is that the words ldquoI amrdquo are not exclusive to God and Christ It should be noted that a man who was born ldquoblindrdquo also used the same expression (John 99) The Greek here says ldquoekeinos elegen hoti Egō eimirdquo (ldquoThat one kept saying that I amrdquo) AT Robertson cites John 99 as one of five parallels to the use of egō eimi in John 858 (Word Pictures in the New Testament Vol V p 159) The phrase here comes at the end of the clause with no explicit predicate James White who upholds the traditional reading admits ldquoThis last instance [John 99] is similar to the sayings as Jesus utters them in that the phrase comes at the end of the clause and looks elsewhere for its predicaterdquo The same could be said of John 1527 Some argue that ldquoeimirdquo in John 858 is ldquoabsoluterdquo but do not do so with John 99 or John 1527 Theology may be a factor in this Previously we saw how Jacob a man according to the Septuagint used the words ldquoegō eimirdquo Other instances in Scripture of creatures using those words would not prove they were part of a ldquoGodheadrdquo Context then ultimately dictates how ldquoeimirdquo should be translated According to John when Jesus was pressed he only claimed to have been alive way before Abraham was born and that he simply was ldquothe Christrdquo ldquothe Son of Manrdquo and ldquothe Son of Godrdquo

There is something else to keep in mind in regards to the meaning of ldquoeimirdquo And it is what grammarian Stanley Porter indicated ldquoSometimes the verb [eimi] is used on its own as a verb of existence Perhaps the best-known example of this is the following John 858rdquo (Fundamentals of New Testament Greek by Stanley E Porter section 753 72) AT Robertson adds ldquoThe verb εἰμί [eimi] hellip Sometimes it does express existence as a predicatelike any other verb as in ἐγὼ εἰμί [egō eimi] (Jo 858) and ἡ θάλασσα οὐκ ἔστιν ἔτι [hē thalassa ouk estin eti = ldquothe sea not is yetrdquo] (Rev 211) Cf Mt 2330rdquo (A Grammar of theGreek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research Nashville Tenn 1934 p 394)

What does this mean The examples mentioned by Robertson in addition to John 858 give us an idea of what this implies It is so strange that the two examples Robertson provided forcomparison with John 858 seems to contradict his ldquotimeless beingrdquo view on ldquoeimirdquo He cited a portion of Revelation 211 where the Greek literally says ldquoAnd the sea not is yetrdquo In other words ldquoThe sea does not exist any morerdquo Amplified Bible ldquoThere no longer existed any seardquo Curiously various versions render the present verb ldquoisrdquo (a form of ldquoeimirdquo) with an imperfect ldquowasrdquo (Cf KJV NIV NAB NRSV) Obviously ldquothe seardquo in this vision is [was] not ldquoeternalrdquo

And in Matthew 2330 the other text provided by Robertson in his comparison with John 858 the Greek word-for-word says ldquoIf we were in the days of the fathers of usrdquo which inmodern English would be ldquoIf we had lived in the days of our forefathersrdquo Other versions ldquoIf we had beenrdquo (Rheims NT) ldquoIf we had been livingrdquo (NASB) ldquoIf we had been existing in the days of our fathersrdquo (Jonathan Mitchell NT) The full NIV text reads ldquoAnd you say lsquoIf we had lived in the days of our ancestors we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophetsrsquo rdquo

It is clear from this comparison that the words of Matthew 2330 ldquoIf we wererdquo (a form of ldquoeimirdquo) in the text is used as an equivalent for ldquoliferdquo or ldquoexistencerdquo In the heavenly vision of Rev 211 lsquothe sea ceased to existrsquo And the generation of people which Jesus spoke about and their ancestors all died ceased to exist If we apply these two examples to John 858 given by Robertson with the meaning either of life or existence for ldquoeimirdquo then it wouldbe equally acceptable to translate ldquoI amrdquo as ldquoI existrdquo or ldquoI liverdquo Many translators reflect this very same understanding as the submitted list of alternate readings of John 858 show ldquoI existrdquo or ldquoI existed even before Abraham was bornrdquo Or ldquoI was alive before Abraham was bornrdquo (The Simple English Bible)

Although some may not see much semantic difference between Jesus saying ldquoI amrdquo or ldquoI existrdquo the two expressions communicate something very different to many readers ldquoI amrdquo is generally associated by Trinitarians as a title used by God or as another name for God Onthe other hand ldquoI existrdquo simply conveys ldquoliferdquo or ldquoexistence Barnabas Lindars points out that ldquoegō eimirdquo in John 858 ldquocannot be regarded as a title because it requires the meaning lsquoI am in existencersquordquo (ldquoThe Son of Man in Johannine Christologyrdquo in Christ and the Spirit in the New Testament In Honour of Charles Francis Digby Moule eds B Lindars and S Smalley Cambridge Cambridge University Press 1973) (Since an English present tense cannot start before a definite point in the past this would mean that we can incorporate Lindars valid observation and translate it into contemporary English like this ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo exactly as Dr McKay proposed)

Some in their eagerness to equate Christ with God accuse translators who render ldquoegō eimirdquo in John 858 with renderings other than ldquoI amrdquo pointing to all occurrences of this expression in the New Testament or in Johns Gospel where allegedly these translators do not follow the same ldquorulerdquo when translating ldquoegō eimirdquo in John 858 as they do elsewhere where they translate it with a present indicative form What they dont tell you or fail to understand is that in John 858 ldquoegō eimirdquo without a predicate AND with an expression of time with past implications in its sentence structure provides an ldquoidiomrdquo which is quite different from those other instances of ldquoeimirdquo Thats right an idiom (where present and past is combined) found equally at home in classical biblical and modern Greek which many translators convey into our language with the English present perfect at various places Consequently one cannot merely go by how the phrase ldquoegō eimirdquo is used elsewhere in the NT without taking into account the fact that John 858 displays an ldquoidiomrdquo in its structure Not doing so would be dishonest John the Baptist had said of Christ in John 130 ldquoA man is coming after me who ranks before me because he existed [Lit was] before merdquo (JB)

John 858 is in harmony with those words Furthermore some attempt to use the reading of Psalm 902 in the Septuagint as ldquoevidencerdquo that John 858 is rendered correctly in the popular versions But a closer analysis of this verse shows notable differences between the two verses making such comparison untenable With good reason a considerable number ofscholars have chosen to break from tradition in their rendering of John 858

If critics of alternate readings of John 858 are not candid enough to admit some of the very issues mentioned here and hide the fact that many scholars do hold a different interpretation and no less academic at that should we consider their diatribes of any worthy import It is ldquowishful thinkingrdquo for someone to believe that John 858 is directly connected to Exodus 314 rather than any real evidence (which is lacking) confirming their eager interpretations Remember even Dr James White a well known Trinitarian advocate admitted ldquothat an immediate and unqualified jump from the ego eimi of John 858 to Exodus 314 is unwiserdquo

Besides a theological tendency can be seen when they focus as some do on undermining the reputation of one Bible translation (NWT) when there are actually numerous versions from different religions dealing with the same controversial Scriptures in a similar manner This is very much like politicians who ignore the failings of their own party but are quick to lsquodemonizersquo their opponents (Matthew 73)

Is the Kingdom Interlinear ldquoproofrdquo the NWT is wrong at John 858

A criticism has been made of a Watchtower Society publication (The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures ldquoKITrdquo) which contains the Greek text and underneath it a word-by-word translation in English and on the right side of the page the modern New World Translation Well at John 858 this publication renders the Greek phrase being discussed here egō eimi word-for-word as ldquoI amrdquo and in the right column the NWT shows the reading ldquoI have beenrdquo This difference have led some to severely criticize the NW translators of ldquoincompetencerdquo ldquoinconsistencyrdquo and even of ldquodishonestyrdquo The critics say something like this ldquoThey have backed themselves into a corner where they cant escape their mishandling of the Greek textrdquo or something of that sort Amazingly these critics in their condemnations hardly ever mention the dozens of translators who translate the same way or similarly to the NWT as the submitted list shows So much for honesty

Those who engage in such tactics are not being forthcoming Why say that Besides dismissing how other translators deal with John 858 they also distort known facts for the WT Society have made it clear that the publication of this Greek Bible is to help the Bible student determine the basic sense of the Greek and have stated that the translation on the right column (the NWT) is a modern way of expressing the thoughts transmitted by the Greek text There are many factors to consider when using such publications

Even other interlinear publications warn of seeming discrepancies For instance The Zondervan Parallel New Testament in Greek and English says in its Foreword ldquo[I]t is a good thing to bear in mind that you cannot always either give an English equivalent for a Greek word or expression or even always render the same Greek verb word by the same

English onerdquo Another interlinear the New Greek-English Interlinear New Testament by Brown and Comfort and edited by J D Douglas explains ldquoIt is difficult to translate one language into another on a word-for-word basis because each language has its own syntax grammatical constructions and idioms that are difficultmdashif not impossiblemdashto replicate literally in another languagerdquo (Emphasis added) This statement is so true of the text in discussion (John 858) in regards to its syntax and particular idiom Often critics of the NWT hide this fact Why Is it religious bias at work

I will give the reader a few examples of an available interlinear translation which has the Greek main text and a literal sublinear translation below the Greek by Professor Paul R McReynolds and on the right column for comparison the reader can study the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) a popular translation in academia Observe how the two can differ

McReynolds Mat 21 ldquomagiciansrdquo NRSV ldquowise menrdquo John 118 ldquoonly born Godrdquo ldquoGod the only Sonrdquo Mat 243 ldquosign of the your presencerdquo ldquothe sign of your comingrdquo Mathew 522 ldquothe gehenna of the firerdquo ldquothe hell of firerdquo John 1319 ldquoI amrdquo ldquoI am herdquo John 149 ldquoI amrdquo ldquoHave I beenrdquo John 1527 ldquoyou arerdquo ldquoyou have beenrdquo 2 Peter 24 ldquobeing sent to Tartarusrdquo ldquobut cast them into hellrdquo Luke 1113 ldquowill give spirit holy tordquo ldquowillgive the Holy Spirit tordquo John 2022 ldquotake spirit holyrdquo ldquoReceive the Holy Spiritrdquo Acts 24 ldquofilled all of spirit holyrdquo ldquofilled with the Holy Spiritrdquo

( Paul R McReynolds is professor of Greek and New Testament at Pacific Christian College in Fullerton California USA He also contributed to the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia)

Some of the readings from the right column above (NRSV) are acceptable others are not See if you can detect in the right column above those translation renderings with a theological tendency that deviate from the literal readings from the left column McReynoldson the left does an excellent job of transmitting the Greek sense Even the most popular Bible versions do not adhere consistently to the base texts The NRSV and a host of other Bible versions add their own religious interpretation throughout Scripture just as much as the NWT if not more but hardly anyone complains of this transformation of Scriptures eventhough it leads to error Why Simply because the NRSV represents more of a ldquomajorityrdquo view than the NWT does But in truth majority or minority views do not correspond equallyto ldquoaccuraterdquo or ldquoinaccuraterdquo results

In the text discussed the KIT can appropriately show the basic sense rendering of ldquoI amrdquo for the Greek ldquoegō eimirdquo in the left column and alternately show the reading ldquoI have beenrdquo in the right column as a contemporary way of expressing in English the particular Greek clause with its ldquoidiomrdquo in John 858 as explained throughout this article a rendering which has

scholarship support When the Greek ldquoegō eimirdquo appears in an idiom-less structure it can rightfully be translated as ldquoI amrdquo as most versions do including the NWT Hence there is no contradiction between the two translations

Dr McKay argues that Jesus response in John 858 ldquowould be most naturally translated lsquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrsquo if it were not for the obsession with the simple words lsquoI amrsquo rdquo (Kenneth L McKay ldquolsquoI amrsquo in Johns Gospelrdquo Expository Times 1996 p 302) I take the author as saying that ldquoI have been in existencerdquo for ldquoeimirdquo is a better translation than ldquoI amrdquo but the [religious] obsession for the simple words ldquoI amrdquo in their quest to elevate Christ to Gods level does not allow people to see that The thing is that Christ lsquoalways pleased the Fatherrsquo and was fully satisfied with being lsquolesserrsquo than him (John 829 1029 1428 177813) Why not accept him as he is

Hence it is poor scholarship to forward the idea that an entity must be God Almighty himselfby the sole fact of using a divine sounding phrase when other Bible individuals are found using the same expression in Scripture The ldquocontextrdquo is the determining factor Not only must we take into account the context surrounding a chapter or book of the Bible but also what the whole Bible teaches on a given person or subject

What does the Bible teach about Jesus

That Christ ldquowas in the beginning with Godrdquo (John 12) At the announcement of his birth on earth the angel Gabriel told Mary that she will give birth to someone ldquogreatrdquo and ldquoholyrdquo and that one will be called ldquoSon of the Most Highrdquo and ldquoSon of Godrdquo (Luke 132 35) Trinitarians may claim that ldquoSon of Godrdquo is equivalent in meaning to ldquoGodrdquo It is a claim with no foundation If there was any truth to the claim then the ldquoHoly Spiritrdquo would also be called Son of God But no The fact is that other living creatures are called ldquosons of Godrdquo (Job 21) Never is ldquoGodrdquo or ldquoholy spiritrdquo ever called ldquoSon of Godrdquo in Scripture Only Jesus Christ is called ldquothe Son of Godrdquo with the article Why

By Christ lsquobecoming obedient [to God] until deathrsquo during the course of his earthly life lsquoGod highly exalted Him and graciously gave him a name which is above every other name that at the name of Jesus every knee should bendto the credit of God the Fatherrsquo (Hebrews58 Philippians 28-11 21st Century New Testament)

ldquo[Christ] has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God with angels authorities and powers made subject to himrdquo (1 Peter 322 NRSV) Still in heaven Christ receives knowledge information revelation from God and transmits it to other creatures (Revelation11) Though the glorified Christ is described as ldquoKing of kingsrdquo and ldquoLord of lordsrdquo he is specifically called ldquoThe Word of Godrdquo (Revelation 191316 NRSV) The night before his death he ldquoprayedrdquo to his Father and called him ldquothe only true Godrdquo and made this petition ldquoFather glorify me in your own presence [Greek beside yourself] with the glory that I hadin your presence [Greek beside you] before the world existedrdquo (John 175 NRSV) (ldquoalongside yourselfrdquo ST Byington) Again God never has to ldquoprayrdquo to anyone Ever

Well then if Jesus Christ expressed this one final ldquowishrdquo in prayer to be ldquoin the presence ofrdquoldquobesiderdquo ldquoalongsiderdquo his Father which he himself called ldquothe only true Godrdquo why should we for the sake of tradition insist with the belief that Jesus ldquomustrdquo somehow be that ldquotruerdquo God the One sitting at the center of Gods throne instead of ldquobesiderdquo God (Mark 1619) Christ did not ask to sit at Gods throne Christ was fully content with the premise of being alongside God And that is what actually happened Mark tells us ldquoSo then the Lord Jesus after he had spoken to them was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of Godrdquo (Mark 1619 NRSV Note Some ancient manuscripts omit this verse) The NIV Study Bible notes the significance of lsquositting at the right hand of Godrsquo ldquoA position of authority second only to Godsrdquo Being in ldquoa position of authority second only to Godsrdquo is something no one should ever say of God for he is always ldquosupremerdquo At no time does God relinquishes his supremacy Someone who holds a position of authority second to God cannot be identical to God Take note too that in this account of Mark chapter 16 or the oneat John chapter 17 there is no mention of a third party of a ldquoGodheadrdquo No ldquoHoly Spiritrdquo is in sight The fact is that the glorified Christ in heaven continues to call his Father ldquomy Godrdquo(Revelation 312)

As ldquoSon of Godrdquo and always lesser and subject to God it is illogical to think Christ would purposely usurp titles and rights that only belonged to lsquohis God and Fatherrsquo (John 1428 Matthew 2023 John 2017 Acts 17) Jesus Christ taught others to only worship the Father God (Matthew 410 John 42324) ldquoAnd we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the worldrdquo (1 John 414) If so the thought that Christ would usethe words ldquoI amrdquo as a title to identify himself as ldquothe true Godrdquo is incongruous Jesus made it clear that he would only seek the glory ldquothat comes from the one who alone is Godrdquo (John850 54 544)

In this Satan controlled world it is not that difficult to get entangled with human taught intricate philosophies which obscure the simple Christian doctrine (John 1231 2 Cor 44) Hence the need for caution at the time of defending popular traditional views which clash with the monotheistic approach of Bible writers

Consequently those who teach that Christ is Almighty God find themselves in conflict with the Scriptural record The submitted list of alternate readings of John 858 shows that there are a considerable number of scholars who not only understand the subject correctly but alsokeenly grasp that whatever Jesus said on the matter has to harmonize with both the context of John chapter 8 and the rest of the Scriptures as well

What is the correct translation of John 858

Is it ldquoI amrdquo ldquoI wasrdquo ldquoI am herdquo or ldquoI have beenrdquo After analyzing the Greek phrase ldquoegō eimirdquo the context and the various possible ways the expression can be translated in English I think it is best to render the Greek with an English present perfect Adding a smallelement such as ldquosincerdquo to the statement as McKay does below satisfies all contextual and grammatical requirements of the passage Doing so does not qualify as ldquointerpolationrdquo

A second choice a simple past tense can perhaps be used in translation where the context allows since it is grammatically correct but it is generally used of activity confined to the past so the message may be distorted Unless that is the simple past is interpreted as ldquoimperfectiverdquo with current relevance How so In support of Jesus deity many frequently cite John11 There in the text a simple past tense ldquowasrdquo is applied to ldquothe Wordrdquo three times in English versions Does that mean ldquothe Wordrdquo is no more or that it was permanentlycut-off from existence at some point Of course not The context of the whole gospel of John shows that Christ is fully pertinent in Christian lives

Scholars choosing a past tense for ldquoeimirdquo (ie ldquoI wasrdquo ldquoI existedrdquo etc) at John 858 may also have in mind what John the Baptist said as a precursor of Jesus Christ ldquoA man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was [ldquoexistedrdquo JB] before merdquo Surely John the Baptist did not mean that Jesus existence was done away with His own words show thatJesus life was very much relevant and would continue to be so Translators have no issue whatsoever in applying a past tense (ldquowasrdquo ldquoexistedrdquo) at John 11 and 130 in their English versions So why would they at John 858 Perhaps because it would mean that they wouldhave to do away with the premise of a ldquodivine titlerdquo in their argumentation of which is claimed clinches Jesus identity with Gods own As shown above Revelation 211 a presentverb a form of ldquoeimirdquo is rendered by some versions with a past tense ldquowasrdquo Obviously Bible translators have no problem in translating some present tense verbs with past tenses or with present perfects But most object to it at John 858 likely for theological reasons

As stated in the beginning of this essay the English ldquopresentrdquo and the Greek ldquopresentrdquo in certain contexts do not correspond exactly in meaning because in Greek ldquotimerdquo is a secondary factor That being the case the choice of English tense does not have to match theGreek conjugation per se to be faithful to the Sacred Text When one considers the specific idiom found in John 858 and the semantic implications of both the Greek and English ldquopresentrdquo one can see that the rendering ldquoI amrdquo though popular does not nearly represent the best translation possible in the English language ldquoContextrdquo often plays a more importantrole in determining the correct translation Overall though it is best to render the Greek expression with an English present perfect since it conveys clearly a more present relevancythan a past tense would

That said John 858 is a good example where a Greek transliteration may not be the best choice to communicate the right message effectively in our times The translation of ldquoI amrdquo has its place in extreme English literal translations which show the basic sense of the Greek such as those Interlinear translations mentioned above Also it can rightfully be used in many Scriptures where the context calls for it as when the sentence structure lacks the Greekldquoidiomrdquo discussed throughout this writing as might be the case with most occurrences of ldquoeimirdquo

Here listed in my opinion are the translations which come closest to the Greek thought presented by the particular ldquoidiomrdquo found in John 858 Dr Kenneth L McKay comes up with the correct translation

1 ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo - Kenneth L McKay A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek (SBG 5 New York Peter Lang 1994) p42

(Kenneth L McKay graduated with honours in Classics (with an interest in the Greek of theNT) from the Universities of Sydney and Cambridge He has taught Greek in universities and theological colleges in Nigeria New Zealand and England Mr McKay retired from the Australian National University in 1987 after teaching there for 26 years)

Other translations below come close to McKays rendering and are thus favored over the traditional rendering which is widely misunderstood

2 ldquoI have existed before Abraham was bornrdquo - A New Translation by James [ Moffatt - DD DLitt Glasgow Oxford 3 ldquoBefore Abraham came into existence I have beenrdquo - New World Translation 4 ldquoBefore Abraham came into being I have existedrdquo - The Documents of the [New Testament G W Wade London 5 ldquoFrom before Abraham was I have been rdquo - The New Testament by George [ R -Noyes DD Boston USA6 ldquoBefore Abraham was born I have already been rdquo - The Unvarnished New [Testament Andy Gaus Boston7 ldquoI existed even before Abraham was bornrdquo - The concise Gospel and the Acts [Logos International Christopher J ed Christianson Plainfield NJ8 ldquoI already was before Abraham was bornrdquo ndash Worldwide English New Testament [ Derby UK ________________________________

COMMENTS

Also compare the following translations

Nytt liv (1907 Norwegian)A Biacuteblia Viva (1981 Portuguese)O Novo Testamento Vivo (1974 Portuguese)Le Livre Nouveau Testament (1980 eacuteditions Farel French)Η Καινή Διαθήκη των Τεσσάρων Καθηγητών (ΚΔΤΚ Greek) (The New Testament of the Four Teachers The translation was made and approved (1921981) by the Holy Summit Church of Greece The English title of the project is The New Testament in Modern Greek Athens Greece) Η Αγία Γραφή Παλαιά και Καινή Διαθήκη (ΝΔΜ Greek) Ελληνική Βιβλική Εταιρία Αθήνα [Athens] 1997 (The Bible Old and New Testament Greek Biblical Company - London 1997) ΚΔΛΖ ΛΧ (Other Greek Versions expressing the same idea as translations on the list)___________________

ldquoI was rdquo Note on 1987 translation from Italian main list l Vangelio di Giovanni (El Evangelio de Juan [ldquoThe Gospel of Johnrdquo] with imprimatur) by J Mateos and J Barreto noted on John 858 (as translated by Teodora Tosatti p 387 Cittadela Editrice 1982) that the temporal relationship expressed by the Greek ldquoprin eimi [BeforeI am]rdquo can be translated into Italian ldquoprimaero [BeforeI was]rdquo (Translation from Italian to English mine)__________________

Comment on 1993 ΟІ ΧΡΙΣΤΙΑΝΙΚΕΣ ΓΡΑΦΕΣ Απόδοση από τη Μειάφράση Νέου Κόσμου which is a modern Greek translation of the New World Translation of the ChristianScriptures Unlike most Bible Versions which are published in only one language or a few atmost the NWT is available in dozens of languages based mainly on their English translationbut obviously taking into account other factors in the process such as the original Bible text the peculiarities of their recipient local languages and their targeted audiences in their respective countries

It is obvious though that other NWT translation editions closely followed the English text of the NWT and at the same time their translation teams had enough latitude to offer their own unique renderings at times expressing in their native languages what they see in in the Inspired Text Having said that it is interesting to see how they approached their translation of John 858 from their English translation back into [modern] Greek

The translation team was acutely aware of the basic sense of ldquoegō eimirdquo as ldquoI amrdquo and how those simple words are misconstrued by religionists to say something more than Jesus intended Taking into account the syntax of John 858 as stated throughout this document the translation team who worked on the modern Greek version faced a few options

First they had the option to go back to ldquoegō eimirdquo using the modern Greek equivalent ldquoΕγώ ειμαιrdquo (I am) as it reads in the Vamvas version which they did not Or they could haveexpressed their NWT English choice of ldquoI have beenrdquo with their modern Greek equivalent of ldquoέχο υπάρξει [I have existed]rdquo Thirdly they could have gone with ldquoI wasrdquo (ldquoεγώ ήμουνrdquo) as some of their French and Italian Bible editions have done in the past or even with ldquo[εγώ] υπήρξα [I existed])rdquo Or they could have provided some other unique rendering It is obvious they wanted to stick closely to the Greek text but given the common misconceptionssurrounding ldquoegō eimai (I am)rdquo in mainstream churches the translation team chose to use ldquoεγώ υπάρχωrdquo (a present indicative form in the Greek) which means basically ldquoI existrdquo but in the presence of an expression of past time in John 858 the sense is ldquoI have existedrdquo Thus ldquoBefore Abraham came into existence I have existedrdquo ( The verb είμαι [ldquoto berdquo] in modern Greek has no forms for the perfect tense It borrows the forms from the verb υπάρχω [ldquoI existrdquo] The Greek and English ldquoperfectsrdquo are not exact equivalents either)

The reader is reminded here as noted earlier that modern Greek keeps up with the Koineacute Greek ldquopresentrdquo idiom A modern Greek grammar Greek A Comprehensive Grammar explains ldquoThe present tense is also used in constructions where English would use the perfect continuous ie where the verb expresses a continuous state or habitual event that

has lasted since a certain point in the past and is continuing up to (and including) the presentrdquo The authors provide two examples where a present verb is used with a past time indicator and where they translate using an English perfect as explained ldquoI have been living[Μένω] in this house for three years nowrdquo And ldquoI have been reading [Διαβάζω] this newspaper since 1984rdquo (Greek A Comprehensive Grammar by David Holton Peter Mackridge amp Irene Philippaki-Warburton Revised by Vassilios Spyropoulos p 294 Second edition 2012)

Ten years after the NWT-Greek Edition was released another modern Greek translation was published with the following rendering at John 858 ldquoΣας βεβαιώνω πως πριν να γεννηθεί οΑβραάμ εγώ υπάρχωrdquo which in English would be ldquoI assure you that I have existed since before Abraham was bornrdquo (Literally ldquoI assure you that before could be born the AbrahamI exist [not ldquoΕγώ ειμαιrdquo]rdquo The Holy Bible in Todays Greek Version 2003 Greek Bible Society Interestingly the original English version of 1976 had ldquoI Amrdquo) Also a Spanish Bible conveys a similar thought ldquoYo existo desde antes que existiera Abrahamrdquo [Translation ldquo I exist since before Abraham existedrdquo] (La Biblia - Versioacuten Popular 2nd edition Sociedades Biacuteblicas Unidas 1983)

_________________________________________________________

The Clear Word The translators quoted in this article represent various religious faiths some are Catholic some are Protestant Others are Unitarians Jehovahs Witnesses Jewish Adventists etc and they represent countries the world over One of these translators is a Seventh-Day Adventist who worked on The Clear Word Jack J Blanco ThD As a Seventh-Day Adventist who supports the Trinity doctrine Blanco translated verses to make Jesus ldquoequalrdquo to God in every way

He renders John 11 ldquoHe is the Word of God and is equal with Godrdquo He shows Jesus at Philippians 25-7 as ldquoequal with Godrdquo and describes him as lsquoacting the part of a servantrsquo At John 1428 he completely omits the reference that lsquothe Father is greaterrsquo than Christ But here at John 858 in answer to the question the priests and leaders asked concerning Abraham lsquoseeingrsquo his day Jesus answered according to Dr Blanco ldquoBecause I existed before Abraham was even bornrdquo Thus Dr Blanco makes no connection as others do that Christ is the ldquoI amrdquo of Exodus 314 which according to some would indicate that Jesus is the Jehovah of the Old Testament What he sees in this account is that Jesus already lsquoexisted before Abraham didrsquo and thus Abraham was able to lsquoseersquo his day (John 856) To this we must add another likely element included in Jesus response to the Jews as wellone of simple identification as ldquothe Christ [Messiah]rdquo and ldquoSon of manrdquo Why is it then that manywho support the Trinity doctrine find it hard to understand Jesus statement correctly at John 858 Could it be that they are letting non-Scriptural influence and perhaps the weight of themajority view dictate their understanding of this Scripture

For a consideration of other subjects by the same author check below

For a discussion of Acts 286 Whose blood

httpwwwscribdcomdoc231244155Acts-20-28-Whose-blood

For a discussion of Colossians 116 (ldquoall other thingsrdquo) see

httpwwwscribdcomdoc205841269Colossians-1-16-Is-the-expression-all-other-things-a-proper-rendition

For a consideration on the subject of the Trinity click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc160286056Does-the-Trinity-ever-make-sense

For a full consideration of John 11 click the following link httpwwwscribdcomdoc34916458The-correct-translation-of-John-1-1

For a brief consideration of John 11 with additional citations click here httpwwwscribdcomdoc50330864John-1-1-List-of-Alternate-Readings

Did the NW translators know any Greek click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc48234022Did-the-New-World-Translation-Committee-Know-Greek

For a consideration of John 173 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc57772552John-17-3-E28098Taking-in-knowledge-of-E28099-God-and-Jesus

For a consideration of 1 Timothy 316 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc76927834Was-God-manifested-in-the-flesh-1-Timothy-3-16

For a consideration of Exodus 225 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc38676458Exodus-2-25-And-God-took-notice-Does-God- care-about-us

For a consideration of John 114 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc35002730John-1-14-Jesus-full-of-grace

For a consideration of Translation Differences-Questions and Answershttpwwwscribdcomdoc59484457Translation-Differences-Questions-and-Answers

In Spanish

Para una consideracioacuten de otros temas vea los siguientes enlaces

Para una consideracioacuten de Colosenses 116 ldquotodas las otras cosasrdquo vea

httpwwwscribdcomdoc209601066Colosenses-1-16-C2BFEs-la-traduccion-E2809Ctodas-las-otras-cosasE2809D-apropiada

Para una consideracioacuten de ldquoiquestAcaso tiene sentido la Trinidadrdquo

httpwwwscribdcomdoc173779117C2BFAcaso-tiene-sentido-la-Trinidad

Para un consideracioacuten de Juan 11 vea el siguiente enlace

httpwwwscribdcomdoc35899788Traduccion-correcta-de-Juan-1-1-Lista-de- lecturas-alternativas

Para el tema iquestSabiacutean griego los traductores de la TNM vea el siguiente enlace

httpwwwscribdcomdoc51623596C2BFSabia-griego-el-Comite-de-la-Traduccion-del-Nuevo-Mundo

Jesus himself spoke out against hypocrisy so he only spoke ldquotruthrdquo

In John 826 Jesus told the Jews that he was ldquosentrdquo by his Father and that lsquohe speaks the things that he hears from the one who sent himrsquo That lsquohe does nothing on his own initiativersquo (NASB) That lsquohe isrsquo ldquothe Son of Manrdquo and lsquospeaks just what the Father taught himrsquo (V 28)

Jesus stated a simple but significant truth ldquoNo servant is greater than his master nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent himrdquo (John 1316) With this principle in mind here are some questions to ponder about How could Jesus be ldquosentrdquo if he himself was ldquoGodrdquo Why was Jesus lsquonot able to do anything on his own initiativersquo if he was ldquoall-mightyrdquo In verse 29 Jesus says that lsquothe One who sent him has not left him alone and that he always did what pleased the Fatherrsquo Why would Jesus Christ say at all lsquoI always do what pleases him who sent mersquo If Jesus was ldquoGodrdquo why would he find it important enoughto mention whether he was left ldquoalonerdquo or not Does God need ldquocompanionshiprdquo as humans do Why would anybody have to ldquoteachrdquo Jesus anything if he was all-knowingrdquo

Also Jesus applied the title ldquoSon of Manrdquo to himself numerous times a term which Jews considered a title of the promised ldquoMessiahrdquo not of ldquoGodrdquo In addition the Bible book of Numbers 2319 tells us that ldquoGod is not a man that he should lie ldquonor a son of man that he should change his mindrdquo Nonetheless Christ precisely adopted this very same expression (ldquoSon of Manrdquo) before others with no regrets Furthermore did God have to become ldquoa manrdquo to save humankind when the Bible explicitly says that lsquoGod sent his only-begotten Sonrsquoto save the worldrsquo (John 316 NASB 1 John 414) Who is distorting the full picture here

In verse 40 John reports that the Jews lsquowere determined to kill Jesus because they didnt want to accept the word and truth that Jesus as a man [Greek anthropon] spoke having it received from Godrsquo How could Christ speak of himself as lsquoa man receiving truth from Godrsquowhen seconds later according to Trinitarians he would be using a ldquotitlerdquo claiming to be ldquoGodrdquo in effect contradicting everything he had been saying until then None of these statements would make sense if Jesus himself was the Supreme God as many believe

What would Jesus gain by claiming before the world that he lsquocould not do anything on his own initiativersquo that lsquohe always did what pleased the Fatherrsquo and that he only spoke just what the Father who sent him lsquotaughtrsquo him And shortly afterwards change his message altogether and claim as we are asked to believe that Christ was the ldquoGodrdquo of the Old Testament by the sole act of pronouncing the ldquoI amrdquo divine ldquotitlerdquo Does this lsquodouble personalityrsquo approach make any sense to a Christian who is taught to only believe ldquothere is but one God the Fatherrdquo (John 530 1 Corinthians 86) No wonder there are a good number of Bible translators including Trinitarians who disagree with the traditional view of John 858

Does the Jews reaction in John 859 prove Jesus Christ had claimed to be ldquoGodrdquo

Shortly before his death Jesus was taken before the Sanhedrin the high court of the Jews to

face false charges by people who wanted him dead Please take note of the charges brought up in Marks account (1460-64) which says

60 Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus ldquoAre you not going to answer What is this testimony that these men are bringing against yourdquo 61 But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer Again the high priest asked him ldquoAre you the Messiah the Son of the Blessed Onerdquo 62 ldquoI amrdquo said Jesus ldquoAnd you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heavenrdquo 63 The high priest tore his clothes ldquoWhy do we need any more witnessesrdquo he asked 64 ldquoYou have heard the blasphemy What do you thinkrdquo They all condemned him as worthy of death

In view of the events of Mark 1460-64 and considering the context of John chapter 8 it is clear that the Jews rejected Jesus claim of him being ldquothe Messiahrdquo and of being lsquogreaterrsquo than Abraham They were also rejecting the idea that he was ldquofrom aboverdquo ldquothe Son of Mansitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heavenrdquo of the heavenly vision (John 823) In their view that was enough to charge him with blasphemy since they could not imagine any ldquomanrdquo making such claims

C K Barrett rightly noted that the Jews reaction in verse 59 ldquodoes not mean that Jesus had claimed to be Godrdquo (The Gospel According to St John 2d ed Philadelphia Westminster Press 1978 352) And Professor Emeritus William Loader noted ldquoThe text need mean no more than I am and was in existence before Abraham still a majestic unique claim but not anallusion to the divine namerdquo (The Christology of the Fourth Gospel Structures and Issues Revised 2d ed New York Lang 1992 48)

Even before Jesus spoke the ldquoegō eimirdquo words in John 858 the Jews had already sought to kill Jesus (John 719 837) And for what ldquocrimerdquo This lsquoJesus claimed the truth he taughtcame from Godrsquo (John 716 840) This is vastly different from lsquoJesus alledgedly claiming a divine title equating him with God at John 858rsquo Since then all sorts of religious leaders have claimed as well that ldquowhat they teach others comes from Godrdquo and not from them Does that make them ldquoequalrdquo to God

Because Jesus often lsquocalled God his Fatherrsquo the Jews wrongly concluded that he was ldquomaking himself equal to Godrdquo (John 51819) However Jesus quickly set the matter straight when he called himself Gods ldquoSonrdquo (nine times in chapter 5 alone) an expression never applied to ldquoGodrdquo in Scripture (Matthew 2663-64) The Jews even claimed Jesus was ldquobreaking the Sabbathrdquo and further of being ldquoa Samaritan and demon-possessedrdquo (John 518 848) Were they right Absolutely not Thus wrong perceptions of Jews in Jesus time - like Jesus claiming equality with God - are truly a shaky foundation to base modern interpretations The Jerusalem Bible has this to say ldquoThe claim of Jesus to live on the divine plane (v 58) is for the Jews blasphemy for which the penalty is stoning Lv 2416rdquo I see the JB accepting the claim that Jesus possessed some mode of ldquodivine existencerdquo (as suggested by the Spanish edition of JB ldquoBiblia de Jerusaleacutenrdquo) but avoiding a direct reference of Christ

claiming to be God or that he was claiming ldquoeternalrdquo existence in the verse And former Professor Kenneth L McKay said ldquoThe claim to have been in existence for so long is in itself a staggering one quite enough to provoke the crowds violent reaction [in v59]rdquo (ldquo lsquoI amrsquo in Johns Gospelrdquo p 302) Hence those who claim the charge of blasphemy involved Jesus claim of being ldquoGodrdquo are wrong for Jesus never claimed to be ldquoThe Supreme Beingrdquo but only ldquoGods Sonrdquo (John 31718)

Weeks later after the incident of John chapter 8 but related to the topic of discussion in John 1030-36 we read that the Jews misunderstood Jesus words ldquoI and the father are onerdquo (John 10 30) So they wanted to stone him for it but Jesus told them

33 ldquoWe are not stoning you for any good workrdquo they replied ldquobut for blasphemy because you a mere man claim to be Godrdquo 34 Jesus answered them ldquoIs it not written in your Law lsquoI have said you are ldquogodsrdquorsquo [Psalm 826] 35 If he called them lsquogodsrsquo to whom the word of God camemdashand Scripture cannot be set asidemdash 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said lsquoI am Godrsquos Sonrsquo ( Other versions translate the Greek word here for ldquoGodrdquo without the article either as ldquogodrdquo or ldquoa godrdquo Besson Torrey NWT Mace Luther 1545 Diaglott Tomanek Andy Gaus New English Bible)

Notice that Jesus Christ under duress had another golden opportunity to once and for all disclose publicly that he was ldquoGodrdquo But he did not do so The argument itself that Jesus employed shows that he could legitimately claim lsquodivine originrsquo without being identified as one-and-the-same God with his Father

Less than a year later AFTER the encounter with the Jews of John chapter 8 and before his death Jesus told his closest disciples in his farewell speech that they lsquoshould rejoice he was going away to the Father because the Father was greater than he wasrsquo (John 1428) And in his final prayer in proximity with his disciples he prayed to God that lsquothey may know his Father the only true God and Jesus Christ whom he has sentrsquo (John 173 ) God never needs to pray to anyone Shortly after Jesus died and was resurrected by God but before returning to his Father Jesus said to Mary Magdalene ldquoDo not hold on to me for I have notyet ascended to the Father Go instead to my brothers and tell them lsquoI am ascending to my Father and your Father to my God and your Godrsquo rdquo (John 2017)

Does it make sense to have Jesus claim equality with God by employing a divine title (ldquoI Amrdquo) before unbelieving Jews as Trinitarians claim and then have Jesus later assure his closest and faithful ones that lsquohis Father and his Godrsquo was also lsquothe Father and God of everyone elsersquo In fact Jesus disciples were clearly in a privileged position in regards to Christian teaching Jesus Christ had previously said to his disciples that he would explain lsquoall thingsrsquo to them privately whereas to others he would only speak in lsquoparablesrsquo or lsquocomparisonsrsquo (Matthew 1311 Mark 411 33 34) An explicit lsquodivine titlersquo directed at lsquounbelievingrsquo Jews is certainly no parable and would run counter to his own stated principles

Anyways Jesus Christ wanted other Christian followers to understand the special

relationship he had with the Father ldquoBut go to my followers and tell them this lsquoI am going back to my Father and your Father I am going back to my God and your Godrsquo rdquo (Easy to Read Version) This simple message is so different from the convoluted one commonly expounded by Trinitarians in their philosophical speculations

Between the time of the encounter between the Jews and Jesus in John ch 8 and the farewelldiscourse of our Lord Jesus Christ of later (chapters 14-17) not once did Jesus say he was ldquoGodrdquo Christ never spoke with a forked tongue Therefore Bible translators who do not claim Jesus was using a divine title at John 858 and provide renderings agreeing with the words of John 173 and 2017 are in the correct

Scriptures with similar syntax to John 858

Thus when faced with certain idiomatic expressions as the one found in John 858 the translator often has to ask himself How would someone normally express such statements in our language I will cite six (6) Scriptural examples that are similar in syntax to John 858 Genesis 3138 LXX 1 John 38 Luke 248 John 56 2 Corinthians 1219 and John 1527 All six Scriptures have present tense verbs AND an expression of past time or extent of time with past implications within its structure Lets see how these Scriptures compare with John 858 in our discussion

1st Example (Genesis 3138 LXX) ταῦτά μοι εἴκοσι ἔτη ἐγώ εἰμι μετὰ σοῦ - Greek These mine twenty years I am with you

Jacob after leaving Haran disputes with his father-in-law Laban over missing personal idols which Laban claimed were stolen by Jacob Jacob had no idea Rachel had stolen them In defense Jacob proceeded to mention several things he had done through the years on Labansbehalf ldquoThese twenty years I am with yourdquo (The Apostolic Bible Polyglot LXX 2006)ldquoThese twenty years of mine I was with yourdquo (A New English Translation of the Septuagint ldquoNETSrdquo 2007)ldquoThese twenty years have I been with theerdquo (The Holy Orthodox Bible LXX 2006)ldquoThese twenty years I have been with yourdquo (The Orthodox Study Bible LXX 2008)ldquoThese twenty years of mine have I been with theerdquo (Orthodox England LXX 2009)ldquoI have spent with you twenty of my years [Jai passeacute avec toi vingt de mes anneacutees]rdquo (La Septante [LXX] translated by Pierre Giguet)ldquoThese twenty years have I been with theerdquo (Sir Lancelot CL Brenton LXX)ldquoThese twenty years that I have been with theerdquo (Charles Thomson LXX)

Aside from the interlinear reading of the literal Apostolic Bible Polyglot other translators of the Septuagint (LXX) render a present indicative verb ldquoegō eimirdquo (I am) preceded by an expression of time with past implications (ldquoThese twenty yearsrdquo) with present perfect

indicative forms (ldquoI have beenrdquo) while one translation (NETS) uses a simple past form (ldquoI wasrdquo) A modern Greek translation Η Αγία ΓραφήmdashΜετάφραση Νέου Κόσμου has ldquoήμουνrdquo (Literally ldquoI wasrdquo) in this text A likely reason for that as a modern Greek Grammar pointsout is that for the verb lsquoto be (είμαι)rsquo ldquoThere are only two sets of tense forms in Greek present and past (imperfect)rdquo (op cit An Essential Grammar p 126 Sec 67) Hence they could not have used here a perfect tense form for the verb lsquoto be (eimai)rsquo But in English the Bible Society responsible for the Greek and English translations of the Hebrew portion of the Bible used instead ldquoI have beenrdquo at Genesis 3138 in the English edition because a present perfect is available in the language for the verb

Another interesting tidbit is the fact that the original Hebrew text here lacks a verb in the declaration namely ldquoThis twenty year I with-yourdquo (The Hebrew-English Interlinear ESV Old Testament Crossway) Well how do translators deal with this issue Overall like this with the perfect indicative ldquoI have been with you for twenty years nowrdquo A few versions use the imperfect instead lsquoI wasrsquo such as the Wycliffe Bible and the Lexham English Bible Rarely do translations use a ldquopresentrdquo here the exceptions being Youngs and Concordant literal translations So why do the overwhelming number of translators prefer tosupply a perfect tense here for the missing verb in the Hebrew Its simple There is a temporal indicator going to the past in the text namely lsquoThese twenty yearsrsquo

Now when the LXX translators proceeded to translate the Hebrew words of Genesis 3138 into Greek they cleverly used a well known vivid idiom available in classical Greek where a verb in the present tense is combined with an indicator of past time In this syntax the ldquopast and present are gathered up in a single affirmationrdquo (op cit Brooks amp Winbery) Modern English translators usually resort to the present perfect in this construction as shown aboveSo too John 858 reveals an expression of past time with a present verb in its statement and the NWT is one translation that is consistent with this construction both in Genesis 3138 and John 858

For the following I will use the Wescott and Hort Greek text for reference

2nd Example (1 John 38)

ὅτι ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς ὁ διάβολος ἁμαρτάνει - Greek because from beginning the devil is sinning

The apostle John warns Christians not to carry on sin for those who make a practice of sin originate from the Devil who has sinned from the beginning For this purpose the Son of God was revealed that he might undo the works of the Devil The text above contains an expression of past time (ldquofrom beginningrdquo) with a present verb (is sinning) very much likeJohn 858 How do translators deal with this passage Lets see

ldquofor the devil sinneth from the beginningrdquo (Rheims New Testament)ldquofor the devil sinneth from the beginningrdquo (KJV)

ldquofor the devil has sinned from the beginningrdquo (New King James Version)ldquofor the devil has sinned from the beginningrdquo (NASB)ldquobecause the devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (Interlinear Mounce)ldquofor the Devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (Riverside NT Ballantine)ldquobecause the devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (NIV)ldquobecause the devil has sinned from the beginningrdquo (NAB)ldquosince the devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (Jay E Adams)ldquowho has been sinning since the beginningrdquo (NLT)ldquofor the devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (NRSV)ldquosince the devil has been a sinner from the beginningrdquo (NJB)ldquobecause the devil has been sinning from the very beginningrdquo (J G Anderson)ldquofor the devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (ESV)

ldquothe devil was a sinner from the firstrdquo (Ronald A Knox New Testament)

Some translations transfer the Greek present to their English versions as if the English and Greek ldquopresentrdquo in such construction were the same thing It is not The end result is ungrammatical English Would you say in contemporary English ldquoFrom the beginning of class the boy sleepsrdquo Not Doctor Richard A Young points out ldquoTo say that the devil is sinning from the beginning does not make sense in English English translations therefore employ the present perfectrdquo (Intermediate New Testament Greek page 111)

The renderings above ldquohas sinnedrdquo and ldquohas been sinningrdquo are present perfect and present perfect progressive indicative forms The word ldquowasrdquo is a simple past tense Just as in 1 John 38 some translators in John 858 have rendered a present tense with an expression of past time in its construction with a present perfect ldquoI have beenrdquo

3rd Example (2 Corinthians 1219)

Πάλαι δοκεῖτε ὅτι ὑμῖν ἀπολογούμεθα ndash Greek Long ago you are thinking that to you we are making defense

Paul finds himself having to defend his apostolic authority and vindicating his record as superior in hardship endured for Christ and loving concern for congregations In simpler words Paul was telling them ldquoAll this time have you been thinking that Ive been speaking up for myself No Ive been speaking with God as my witness Ive been speaking like a believer in Christ Dear friends everything I do is to help you become strongerrdquo (NIRV)

In the literal reading above we have an adverb of time with past implications (Palai) followed by two Greek verb forms (ldquodokeiterdquo amp ldquoapologoumethardquo) in the present indicativetense The book Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek Verb by William Watson Goodwin explains ldquoThe Present is often used with expressions denoting past time especially πάλαι [palai] in the sense of a perfect and a present combinedrdquo (Section 26 p 9) How do translators render these in English Some carry over the present tense into the English text producing unconventional English Others cognizant of issues presented here

do a better job at it See below for a sample

ldquoHave you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves before yourdquo (The Comprehensive New Testament 2008)ldquoI hope you donacutet think that all along weacuteve been making our defense before yourdquo (The Message Eugene H Peterson)ldquoHave you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves to yourdquo (NIV)ldquoIt may seem to you that all this time we have been attempting to put ourselves in the rightrdquo (Bible in Basic English)ldquoAll this time you have been thinking that we have been pleading our own cause before yourdquo (NJB)ldquoHave you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves to yourdquo (CEV)ldquoHave you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves before yourdquo (Revised Standard Version) ldquoPerhaps you think that all along we have been trying to defend ourselves before yourdquo (TEV)ldquoHave you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves to yourdquo (ESV)ldquoYou have thought all along that we were defending ourselves to yourdquo (HCSB)ldquoHave you been thinking all this time that we have been defending ourselves to yourdquo (NET Bible)

ldquoYou have been thinking all along that it was to you we were making our defenserdquo (The Bible in Living English Steven T Byington)

The above translations use present perfect (and perfect progressive) forms or past progressives to bring out the proper sense of the original into our language Can anyone rightfully claim that it is improper for these Bible versions to translate this text as they have done in English

4th Example (Luke 248 Wescott and HortNestle early editions Greek text)

ὁ πατήρ σου καὶ ἐγὼ ὀδυνώμενοι ζητοῦμέν σε - Greek The father of you and I being pained we are seeking you Here the context (vv 42-48) speaks of Jesus (12 years old) being left behind unwittingly in Jerusalem by his parents they went back searching in distress for three days before finding him When they finally found him they spoke the words above

ldquoYour father and I have been looking for you anxiouslyrdquo (Revised Standard Version)ldquoYour father and I in agony of mind have been searching for yourdquo (Williams NT)ldquoYour father and I have been anxiously looking for Yourdquo (NASB 1971)ldquoYour father and I have been searching for you in great distressrdquo (Riverside NT)

ldquoHere have your father and I been searching anxiously for yourdquo (Hugh J Schonfield)ldquoYour father and I have been looking for you have been very anxious rdquo (Goodspeed)ldquoYour father and I have been looking for you We have been very troubledrdquo (Bible in Worldwide English)ldquoYour father and I have been looking for you in distressrdquo (Richmond Lattimore)ldquoYour father and I have been searching for you in great distressrdquo (Twentieth Century NT) ldquoThy father and I have sought thee distressedrdquo (Darby Bible Translation)

ldquoThy father and I sought thee sorrowingrdquo (American Standard Version)

ldquoThy father and I in anguish were seeking theerdquo (The Emphasized Bible 3rd edit based on Wescott and Hort by Joseph B Rotherham)ldquoThy father and I were seeking thee sorrowfulrdquo (W B Godbey N T 1902)ldquoThy father and I were seeking Thee sorrowingrdquo (A S Worrell N T 1904)ldquoYour father and I were anxiously looking for yourdquo (World English Bible)

The words ldquowe are seeking yourdquo are in the present indicative tense however since an expression of time is used indicating action going on for days (ldquoafter three daysrdquo v 46) translators find it necessary to use either the present perfect (ldquohave beenrdquo ldquohave soughtrdquo) or simple past (ldquosoughtrdquo) or past progressive (ldquowere seekingrdquo) indicative forms to express in English what the Greek says in the ldquopresentrdquo Various Greek texts have instead of the ldquopresentrdquo found in the Westcott amp Hort Text above an ldquoimperfectrdquo verb form Both forms are frequently rendered with an English present ldquoperfectrdquo Compare with Youngs Literal Translation which also uses a past progressive indicative form ldquowere seekingrdquo and the Spanish Reina-Valera Revisada which rendered an imperfect verb form appearing in the Received Text with a present perfect indicative (ldquohemos buscadordquo) Is this another reason why many translators have rendered the Greek present ldquoegō eimirdquo preceded by an adverbial modifier in its clause at John 858 with perfective or past forms in English

5th Example (Juan 56)

καὶ γνοὺς ὅτι πολὺν ἤδη χρόνον ἔχει - Greek and having known that much already time he is having

This is an account of an invalid man who for 38 years had been sick and was now being cured by Jesus The Greek in this clause does not make his illness clear however the context does Take note of the expression of time used with past implications mixed with a present indicative verb ldquohe is havingrdquo For this to make any sense in our language it has to be modified When Jesus saw this sick man lying there

ldquoand knew that he had been now a long time in that caserdquo (KJV italics theirs) ldquoand knowing that he had been ill a long timerdquo (Revised English Bible)ldquoand knew he had been in that condition for a long timerdquo (NJB)ldquoand knew that he had been sick for a long timerdquo (World English Bible)ldquoand knew that he had been sick for a long timerdquo (Godacutes Word)

ldquoand knew how long he had been illrdquo (Living Bible)ldquoand knew he had already been there a long timerdquo (HCSB)ldquoand he knew that the man had been sick for such a long timerdquo (TEV)ldquoand knew that he had been in this state a long timerdquo (Confraternity Version)ldquoand finding that he had had a long time of itrdquo (S T Byington) ldquoand knew that he had been sick for a long timerdquo (Jay E Adams)ldquoand he knew that he had been waiting for a long timerdquo (George M Lamsa Peshitta) ldquoand knew that he had been now a long timerdquo (Rheims New Testament)

ldquoand knowing that he was [in that state] now a great length of timerdquo (J N Darby Translation Brackets his)

Once again we see translators having to use mostly perfective forms (ldquohad beenrdquo ldquohad hadrdquopast perfects) and one with a simple past ldquowasrdquo even though they are translating a present tense verb ldquohe is havingrdquo This shows that translators adapt their renderings whenever is necessary to convey the right meaning into the target language It is thus possible to render ldquoeimirdquo at John 858 with a form other than a present tense such as a present perfect Those who say that it can not be done or should not be done just need to look again at the evidenceobjectively

6th Example (John 1527 Wescott amp Hort)

ὅτι ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς μετʼ ἐμοῦ ἐστέ ndash Greek that from beginning with me you are

These words spoken by Jesus evidently refers to the beginning of his ministry when he chosehis closest disciples They were eyewitnesses of all the things God did through Christ duringhis ministry (Acts 121)

ldquobecause ye have been with me from the beginningrdquo (KJV) ldquobecause you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (NAB)ldquofor you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (Christian Community Bible)ldquobecause you are the men who have been with me from the very beginningrdquo (Heinz Wldquobecause you have been with me from the firstrdquo (New English Bible) [ Cassirer)ldquobecause you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (Godacutes Word Translation) ldquofor you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (NIV)ldquobecause you have been with me from the firstrdquo (Weymouth New Testament)ldquobecause you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (NRSV)ldquoyou that have been with me from the beginningrdquo (The Four Gospels EV Rieu)ldquobecause youacuteve been with Me from the beginning of My ministryrdquo (The Clear Word)ldquofor you have been with me from the firstrdquo (J B Phillips Modern English)ldquobecause you have been with Me from the beginningrdquo (HCSB) ldquothat you were with me from the startrdquo (21st Century New Testament)ldquofor you were with Me from the beginningrdquo (New Berkeley Version Revised Edition)

ldquobecause you were with me from the beginningrdquo (Mark Heber Miller)ldquobecause you were with me from the very beginningrdquo (SEB)

This scripture with the plural form of ldquoeimirdquo (este) is very similar to John 858 Again within its structure there is an expression of past time and a verb in the present indicative form (este) just as there is in John 858 A Grammar of New Testament Greek says ldquoThe reader may be reminded of one idiom which comes out of the linear idea the use of words like πάλαι [palai ldquolong agordquo] with the present in a sense best expressed by our perfect Thus in 2 Co 1219 lsquohave you been thinking all this timersquo or Jn 1527 lsquoyou have been with me from the beginning [ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς]rsquo hellip The durative present in such cases gathers up past and present time into one phraserdquo (A Grammar of New Testament Greek Vol 1 Prolegomena by JH Moulton p 119) As previously noted this Grammar specifically refers to John 858 as an example of this idiom

And here in John 1527 there is a connection of Jesus disciples [creatures as they are] that ldquowererdquo with him ldquofrom the beginningrdquo Obviously Jesus was making no reference to his disciples sharing ldquoeternityrdquo with him The disciples all had a beginning The logical conclusion is that Jesus was simply saying to them lsquoYou have been with me from the start of my ministryrsquo Hence there is no need to read ldquoeternityrdquo into the expression ldquoI amrdquo anymore that we should read ldquoeternityrdquo from Jesus words at John 1527 lsquoYou are with me from the beginningrsquo Neither grammar nor the context justifies reading more into these Scriptures than what they actually say

In fact the six (6) instances cited above (Genesis 3138 LXX 1 John 38 2 Cor 1219 Luke 248 John 56 John 1527) and John 858 as well all have an expression of past time or an extent of time with past implications (ldquoThese twenty yearsrdquo ldquoLong agordquo ldquoafter three daysrdquo Lk 246 ldquomuch already timerdquo ldquofrom [the] beginningrdquo ldquoBeforerdquo etc) AND present verbs in their sentences or nearby within the context and are commonly rendered with present perfect (some with past perfects) or simple past (or past progressive) forms in English translations If we apply this pattern to the translation of John 858 it would mean that renderings such as ldquoI have beenrdquo (present perfect) and ldquoI wasrdquo (simple past) are not only acceptable in translation but actually more ldquosuitablerdquo in application Can this really be done Not only can it be done it makes for a ldquobetterrdquo English translation

In regards to Jesus John 858 simply tells us that Jesus lsquowas alive before Abraham was bornrsquo (SEB) and that his existence continued up to the moment of his speaking to them Just as it is not proper English to say ldquoFor three days we are seeking yourdquo (Greek literal reading of Luke 248) or ldquobecause from the beginning with me you arerdquo (John 1527) it is no less proper English to say in John 858 ldquoBefore Abraham was born I amrdquo These readings should only appear in extremely literal interlinear translations which basically render the Greek word-by-word and not in standard idiomatic English translations Let me illustrate If a man advanced in age for example had his work history and experience questioned by co-workers in comparison to his younger son and employee Abe would he say in reply ldquoBefore my son Abe was born I am [the one fit for the job]rdquo No that does not sound right In English he could say it in various ways

ldquoI have been an experienced worker since before my son Abe was bornrdquo ldquoI have been what I am since before my son Abe was bornrdquo ldquoI was fit to work and fully active before my son Abe was ever bornrdquo ldquoI was already experienced in many jobs before Abe ever came to berdquo ldquoI have been a master worker way before my son Abe came to liferdquo ldquoBefore Abe was born I already was life and job experiencedrdquo etc

The point is that in English normally we include a present perfect tense whenever there is a reference to the past extending to the present or a past tense of some form whenever we go back in time The same with John 858 There is no justification in English to insist using a present verb form (which is not equal to the Greek present when combined with a past expression) in an unwarranted attempt to convey ldquoeternityrdquo as ldquopaddingrdquo to the Trinity doctrine a doctrine adopted AFTER the Christian era Worse it is disingenuous to accuse other translators (who have chosen to render ldquoegō eimirdquo at John 858 with an English present perfect or past tense) of scholastic dishonesty when the very same translations honored by these detractors do so in other places where the ldquodeityrdquo of Christ is not in play asshown in the samples provided above

An example of this double standard can be seen as well when scholars such as Dr Julius Mantey harshly criticizes the NWT for the rendering ldquoI have beenrdquo at John 858 but keeps quiet when other translators do similarly and even states or pretends that no other reputable translator would ever translate it that way He dared not criticize his former Greek teacher Charles B Williams who produced his own Bible translation Dr Mantey once wrote the following of Dr Williams translation ldquoWilliams translation considering all the factors is the most accurate and illuminating translation in the English languagerdquo And how does this ldquomost accurate translationrdquo render John 858 As follows ldquoI existed before Abraham was bornrdquo Here Dr Williams known for his Greek command used a simple past tense (ldquoI existedrdquo) as translation for the Greek present Julius Mantey certainly did not find Williams version of John 858 a ldquoshocking translationrdquo ldquoI existedrdquo is quite different from the translation Dr Mantey so passionately defended (ldquoI amrdquo)

When Dr Mantey talks about the NWT he says the rendering ldquoI have beenrdquo at John 858 cannot be justified and calls it ldquodishonestrdquo That rule does not apply to Williams translation does it Williams did not translate John 858 in the same way Mantey would have liked (ldquoI amrdquo) Not only that the Grammar itself that Dr Mantey co-authored with Dr Dana A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament states under ldquoThe Progressive Presentrdquo (called ldquoExtension from Pastrdquo by McKay) ldquoSometimes the progressive present is retroactivein its application denoting that which has begun in the past and continues into the present For the want of a better name we may call it the present of duration This use is generally associated with an adverb of time and may best be rendered by the English perfect ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς μετʼ ἐμοῦ ἐστέ Ye have been with me from the beginning Jn 1527 See also Lk137 2 Cor 129 [19]rdquo (Pages 182-83 Emphasis added)

Even though Julius Mantey has stated when referring to the NWT that ldquoI have beenrdquo is not a proper translation and even ldquodishonestrdquo at John 858 he clearly states in his Grammar (of

Scriptures with similar syntax to John 858) ldquoThis use is generally associated with an adverb of time and may best be rendered by the English perfect [such as ldquoI have beenrdquo which in fact is associated with an adverb of time in John 858]rdquo A likely reason for Dana ampManteys strong reluctance for not including John 858 as an example of the idiom discussed on page 183 may have to do with the fact that as ldquotrinitariansrdquo they oppose the idea of Jesus existence having lsquobegunrsquo in the past even though John 858 perfectly fits with the ldquoProgressive Presentrdquo idiom being discussed in their Grammar as acknowledged by other grammarians Hence their objection is truly a ldquotheologicalrdquo one rather than Greek grammaritself arguing in their favor as Mantey and some others have implied since a Greek present or an English perfect does not demand ldquoeternityrdquo at all from the subject

Consequently many religious individuals who focus solely on the basic meaning (of ldquoegō eimirdquo as ldquoI amrdquo) out of the context of the particular ldquoidiomrdquo used at John 858 end up missing the thrust of Jesus words and fall prey to misleading interpretations Doctor Kenneth L McKay taking into account all of these issues comes up with this excellent translation for John 858 ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo (A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek SBG 5 New York Peter Lang 1994 p42) If we objectively consider the material above we will not insist in connecting Jesus at John 858 with the God Jehovah of Exodus 314 (which many attempt to do but cannot be sustained) Instead we will focus on the simple message conveyed by Jesus words at John 858 which is in harmony with the totality of Scripture ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo (McKay) The rendering ldquoI have been in existencerdquo by itself does not rule out either the concept of ldquoeternityrdquo or the ldquocreationrdquo of Jesus Christ A Committee of Bible translators came up with the following translation which may not be the best choice but considering the issues involved is better than the traditional rendering of ldquoI amrdquo ldquoI was alive before Abraham was bornrdquo (The New Testament in Plain English)

(The following scholars are members of the Bible Translation Committee of The New Testament in Plain English which approved this last reading ldquoI was aliverdquo instead of ldquoI amrdquo(Dr Stanley L Morris chairman FW Gingrich Ph D a renown Greek lexicographer Jack P Lewis Ph D CH Accord Th D Clyde M Woods Ph D ST Kan Ph D Gary T Burke Ph D Milo Hadwin D Min)

I submit their names and their credentials here as an example because it is often asserted vigorously that no intelligent or highly qualified scholar would ever produce a translation other than ldquoI amrdquo As noted above and as the list of alternate readings (at the end of this essay) of John 858 shows many done by highly qualified people this is simply not true Usually those making statements of that sort are doing so based on emotional and theological not philological reasons Furthermore by not disclosing other valid viewpoints or by dismissing how other qualified Bible translators deal with this scripture they are undermining their own credibility as well

At this time you are welcome to briefly go over the list of Alternate Readings to John 858 at

the end before moving on to the second part of this essay

_____________________________

Should we ignore the evidence of all those translations listed at the end that differ in John 858 from the traditional versions What then are all these translators seeing at John 858 that moved them to render this text differently They surely must be aware of the resistance they would encounter by translating it by the various forms they used Still they must have had the firm conviction that both the Greek text and the context supports their understanding of this scripture They likely see a Jesus making no identity connection with his Father Godbut rather see a Jesus simply expressing his indefinite existence with no suggestion of eternity in focus Neither is Jesus stating here that he is the God of Old Testament times To understand it that way would be to read into the text more than what it says Taking some clues from the context of the chapter some scholars additionally see Jesus insinuating his ldquomessiahshiprdquo as if saying ldquoI am he [the Messiah]rdquo This is very likely In fact The LivingBible renders John 824 thus ldquoThat is why I said that you will die in your sins for unless you believe that I am the Messiah the Son of God [ἐγώ εἰμι] you will die in your sinsrdquo

Is ldquoegō eimirdquo a title or another name of God

The use of ldquoeimirdquo at John 858 is frequently used as a ldquoproof textrdquo of Jesus deity A noted Trinitarian scholar AT Robertson a Baptist even refers to ldquoegō eimirdquo as ldquothe absolute phrase used of Godrdquo likely indicating the verb conveys ldquotimeless beingrdquo an implication that ldquoeimirdquo here does not require anything else to complete the meaning of the phrase thus conveying ldquoeternal existencerdquo as well as being an actual name for God Some individuals have given plenty of publicity to Robertsons statement as absolute truth But his statement is not ldquotruthrdquo at all It is faulty interpretation which many people have fallen prey to Grammar and theology do not always make the best mix True Robertsons credentials as a scholar are impressive nevertheless credentials does not truth make Besides some other equally bright scholars disagree with him Lets illustrate the folly of those advocating a divine title at John 858 by way of addition (Or substitution if you will) as some suggest

ldquoBefore Abraham was born I am Eternalrdquo ldquoBefore Abraham was born I am Jehovahrdquo ldquoBefore Abraham was born I am eternally Godrdquo

First of all the above hypothetical translations are just as ungrammatical as the simple ldquoI amrdquo reading of most versions An English present tense cannot start before a definite point in the past This can be seen in the following two examples

1 ldquoBefore the US Iraq war I am a soldierrdquo 2 ldquoThree journalists are kidnapped in Nepal since the start of 2007rdquo

What is the correct way to express these statements in English Analyze it for a second and

provide an answer if you will

Notably if ldquoeimirdquo was used to convey eternal existence what is the point of using an expression of past time at all in the clause Moreover the context of previous verses (vv 48-57) clearly indicates that Jesus is speaking of God as a separate entity See below

49 ldquobut I honor my Father and you dishonor merdquo 50 ldquoI am not seeking glory for myself but there is one who seeks it and he is the

judgerdquo54 ldquoIf I glorify myself my glory means nothing My Father whom you claim as your

God is the one who glorifies me 55 ldquoThough you do not know him I know him If I said I did not I would be a liar like you but I do know him and obey his wordrdquo Thus if Jesus meant he himself was the ldquoJehovahrdquo of the Old Testament as Trinitarians claim what would be the rationale behind Jesus directing all distinction and glory to lsquothe Father Godrsquo as a distinct individual as he did in the previous verses and then a few words later abruptly change his argumentation by claiming he is that very same One who lsquoreceives obedience from his own wordrsquo lsquoseeking his own honor and gloryrsquo because he himself is ldquoGodrdquo Confusing is it not To accept this abrupt change of character on Jesus part would be not ldquoa mysteryrdquo but flat out ldquoa deceptionrdquo of big proportions since Jesus himself warned against pretending to be one thing and acting as another (Matthew 62-5 2313-36)

Are we are supposed against all logic to accept these ldquotrinitarianrdquo assumptions instead of a simple alternative which really answers the Jews question about lsquohow could Abraham ldquoseerdquoJesus day if he was not yet 50 years oldrsquo (ldquoI have been in existence since Abraham was bornrdquo)

The obsession with the simple words ldquoI amrdquo have led to many faulty assumptions ldquoI amrdquo issuch a common expression in our language even to this day that words such as ldquoegoismrdquo ldquoegotismrdquo etc (derived from the Greek ldquoegordquo) are considered common words in English dictionaries Everyone uses the phrase ldquoI amrdquo at times Think of any big corporation or powerful organization of your choice for a moment Would you conclude that the two most powerful individuals of this one prestigious organization must be identical in every way solely because they are heard equally saying to others in their common speech ldquoI am thisrdquoor ldquoI am thatrdquo etc

In Bible times humans too used common pronouns The verb eimi (ldquoI amrdquo) itself or forms of it appears more than two thousand times (2000x) in the New Testament alone Additionally the word ldquoegōrdquo appears over seventeen hundred times (1700x) in the NT And those numbers do not include the Septuagint totals Do all occurrences of the word then imply ldquodivinityrdquo in each case Of course not It may be more significant when God or Christ use the expression because of who they are but does it really mean that both God and Christ share the same identity Or that everyone who uses the phrase ldquoI amrdquo does so with divine pretensions Does it really mean that everyone using the phrase are ldquoequalrdquo The

answer is obvious is it not

Lets bear in mind that when God sent Jesus Christ as His representative to a most crucial assignment multiple biblical prophecies were pointing to Christ as the promised Messiah that would free mankind from its moribund condition It is logical then that when the time came for Jesus Christ to show up on earth he would somehow communicate to others that ldquoherdquo and not some other human claiming to be the Messiah was Gods instrument in bringing everlasting relief to human misery Hence he could rightly say any or all of the following ldquoI am (this)rdquo ldquoI am (that)rdquo ldquoI am he [the promised Messiah]rdquo or ldquoI am Gods Sonrdquo Should we expect anything less

The fact is that the words ldquoI amrdquo are not exclusive to God and Christ It should be noted that a man who was born ldquoblindrdquo also used the same expression (John 99) The Greek here says ldquoekeinos elegen hoti Egō eimirdquo (ldquoThat one kept saying that I amrdquo) AT Robertson cites John 99 as one of five parallels to the use of egō eimi in John 858 (Word Pictures in the New Testament Vol V p 159) The phrase here comes at the end of the clause with no explicit predicate James White who upholds the traditional reading admits ldquoThis last instance [John 99] is similar to the sayings as Jesus utters them in that the phrase comes at the end of the clause and looks elsewhere for its predicaterdquo The same could be said of John 1527 Some argue that ldquoeimirdquo in John 858 is ldquoabsoluterdquo but do not do so with John 99 or John 1527 Theology may be a factor in this Previously we saw how Jacob a man according to the Septuagint used the words ldquoegō eimirdquo Other instances in Scripture of creatures using those words would not prove they were part of a ldquoGodheadrdquo Context then ultimately dictates how ldquoeimirdquo should be translated According to John when Jesus was pressed he only claimed to have been alive way before Abraham was born and that he simply was ldquothe Christrdquo ldquothe Son of Manrdquo and ldquothe Son of Godrdquo

There is something else to keep in mind in regards to the meaning of ldquoeimirdquo And it is what grammarian Stanley Porter indicated ldquoSometimes the verb [eimi] is used on its own as a verb of existence Perhaps the best-known example of this is the following John 858rdquo (Fundamentals of New Testament Greek by Stanley E Porter section 753 72) AT Robertson adds ldquoThe verb εἰμί [eimi] hellip Sometimes it does express existence as a predicatelike any other verb as in ἐγὼ εἰμί [egō eimi] (Jo 858) and ἡ θάλασσα οὐκ ἔστιν ἔτι [hē thalassa ouk estin eti = ldquothe sea not is yetrdquo] (Rev 211) Cf Mt 2330rdquo (A Grammar of theGreek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research Nashville Tenn 1934 p 394)

What does this mean The examples mentioned by Robertson in addition to John 858 give us an idea of what this implies It is so strange that the two examples Robertson provided forcomparison with John 858 seems to contradict his ldquotimeless beingrdquo view on ldquoeimirdquo He cited a portion of Revelation 211 where the Greek literally says ldquoAnd the sea not is yetrdquo In other words ldquoThe sea does not exist any morerdquo Amplified Bible ldquoThere no longer existed any seardquo Curiously various versions render the present verb ldquoisrdquo (a form of ldquoeimirdquo) with an imperfect ldquowasrdquo (Cf KJV NIV NAB NRSV) Obviously ldquothe seardquo in this vision is [was] not ldquoeternalrdquo

And in Matthew 2330 the other text provided by Robertson in his comparison with John 858 the Greek word-for-word says ldquoIf we were in the days of the fathers of usrdquo which inmodern English would be ldquoIf we had lived in the days of our forefathersrdquo Other versions ldquoIf we had beenrdquo (Rheims NT) ldquoIf we had been livingrdquo (NASB) ldquoIf we had been existing in the days of our fathersrdquo (Jonathan Mitchell NT) The full NIV text reads ldquoAnd you say lsquoIf we had lived in the days of our ancestors we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophetsrsquo rdquo

It is clear from this comparison that the words of Matthew 2330 ldquoIf we wererdquo (a form of ldquoeimirdquo) in the text is used as an equivalent for ldquoliferdquo or ldquoexistencerdquo In the heavenly vision of Rev 211 lsquothe sea ceased to existrsquo And the generation of people which Jesus spoke about and their ancestors all died ceased to exist If we apply these two examples to John 858 given by Robertson with the meaning either of life or existence for ldquoeimirdquo then it wouldbe equally acceptable to translate ldquoI amrdquo as ldquoI existrdquo or ldquoI liverdquo Many translators reflect this very same understanding as the submitted list of alternate readings of John 858 show ldquoI existrdquo or ldquoI existed even before Abraham was bornrdquo Or ldquoI was alive before Abraham was bornrdquo (The Simple English Bible)

Although some may not see much semantic difference between Jesus saying ldquoI amrdquo or ldquoI existrdquo the two expressions communicate something very different to many readers ldquoI amrdquo is generally associated by Trinitarians as a title used by God or as another name for God Onthe other hand ldquoI existrdquo simply conveys ldquoliferdquo or ldquoexistence Barnabas Lindars points out that ldquoegō eimirdquo in John 858 ldquocannot be regarded as a title because it requires the meaning lsquoI am in existencersquordquo (ldquoThe Son of Man in Johannine Christologyrdquo in Christ and the Spirit in the New Testament In Honour of Charles Francis Digby Moule eds B Lindars and S Smalley Cambridge Cambridge University Press 1973) (Since an English present tense cannot start before a definite point in the past this would mean that we can incorporate Lindars valid observation and translate it into contemporary English like this ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo exactly as Dr McKay proposed)

Some in their eagerness to equate Christ with God accuse translators who render ldquoegō eimirdquo in John 858 with renderings other than ldquoI amrdquo pointing to all occurrences of this expression in the New Testament or in Johns Gospel where allegedly these translators do not follow the same ldquorulerdquo when translating ldquoegō eimirdquo in John 858 as they do elsewhere where they translate it with a present indicative form What they dont tell you or fail to understand is that in John 858 ldquoegō eimirdquo without a predicate AND with an expression of time with past implications in its sentence structure provides an ldquoidiomrdquo which is quite different from those other instances of ldquoeimirdquo Thats right an idiom (where present and past is combined) found equally at home in classical biblical and modern Greek which many translators convey into our language with the English present perfect at various places Consequently one cannot merely go by how the phrase ldquoegō eimirdquo is used elsewhere in the NT without taking into account the fact that John 858 displays an ldquoidiomrdquo in its structure Not doing so would be dishonest John the Baptist had said of Christ in John 130 ldquoA man is coming after me who ranks before me because he existed [Lit was] before merdquo (JB)

John 858 is in harmony with those words Furthermore some attempt to use the reading of Psalm 902 in the Septuagint as ldquoevidencerdquo that John 858 is rendered correctly in the popular versions But a closer analysis of this verse shows notable differences between the two verses making such comparison untenable With good reason a considerable number ofscholars have chosen to break from tradition in their rendering of John 858

If critics of alternate readings of John 858 are not candid enough to admit some of the very issues mentioned here and hide the fact that many scholars do hold a different interpretation and no less academic at that should we consider their diatribes of any worthy import It is ldquowishful thinkingrdquo for someone to believe that John 858 is directly connected to Exodus 314 rather than any real evidence (which is lacking) confirming their eager interpretations Remember even Dr James White a well known Trinitarian advocate admitted ldquothat an immediate and unqualified jump from the ego eimi of John 858 to Exodus 314 is unwiserdquo

Besides a theological tendency can be seen when they focus as some do on undermining the reputation of one Bible translation (NWT) when there are actually numerous versions from different religions dealing with the same controversial Scriptures in a similar manner This is very much like politicians who ignore the failings of their own party but are quick to lsquodemonizersquo their opponents (Matthew 73)

Is the Kingdom Interlinear ldquoproofrdquo the NWT is wrong at John 858

A criticism has been made of a Watchtower Society publication (The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures ldquoKITrdquo) which contains the Greek text and underneath it a word-by-word translation in English and on the right side of the page the modern New World Translation Well at John 858 this publication renders the Greek phrase being discussed here egō eimi word-for-word as ldquoI amrdquo and in the right column the NWT shows the reading ldquoI have beenrdquo This difference have led some to severely criticize the NW translators of ldquoincompetencerdquo ldquoinconsistencyrdquo and even of ldquodishonestyrdquo The critics say something like this ldquoThey have backed themselves into a corner where they cant escape their mishandling of the Greek textrdquo or something of that sort Amazingly these critics in their condemnations hardly ever mention the dozens of translators who translate the same way or similarly to the NWT as the submitted list shows So much for honesty

Those who engage in such tactics are not being forthcoming Why say that Besides dismissing how other translators deal with John 858 they also distort known facts for the WT Society have made it clear that the publication of this Greek Bible is to help the Bible student determine the basic sense of the Greek and have stated that the translation on the right column (the NWT) is a modern way of expressing the thoughts transmitted by the Greek text There are many factors to consider when using such publications

Even other interlinear publications warn of seeming discrepancies For instance The Zondervan Parallel New Testament in Greek and English says in its Foreword ldquo[I]t is a good thing to bear in mind that you cannot always either give an English equivalent for a Greek word or expression or even always render the same Greek verb word by the same

English onerdquo Another interlinear the New Greek-English Interlinear New Testament by Brown and Comfort and edited by J D Douglas explains ldquoIt is difficult to translate one language into another on a word-for-word basis because each language has its own syntax grammatical constructions and idioms that are difficultmdashif not impossiblemdashto replicate literally in another languagerdquo (Emphasis added) This statement is so true of the text in discussion (John 858) in regards to its syntax and particular idiom Often critics of the NWT hide this fact Why Is it religious bias at work

I will give the reader a few examples of an available interlinear translation which has the Greek main text and a literal sublinear translation below the Greek by Professor Paul R McReynolds and on the right column for comparison the reader can study the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) a popular translation in academia Observe how the two can differ

McReynolds Mat 21 ldquomagiciansrdquo NRSV ldquowise menrdquo John 118 ldquoonly born Godrdquo ldquoGod the only Sonrdquo Mat 243 ldquosign of the your presencerdquo ldquothe sign of your comingrdquo Mathew 522 ldquothe gehenna of the firerdquo ldquothe hell of firerdquo John 1319 ldquoI amrdquo ldquoI am herdquo John 149 ldquoI amrdquo ldquoHave I beenrdquo John 1527 ldquoyou arerdquo ldquoyou have beenrdquo 2 Peter 24 ldquobeing sent to Tartarusrdquo ldquobut cast them into hellrdquo Luke 1113 ldquowill give spirit holy tordquo ldquowillgive the Holy Spirit tordquo John 2022 ldquotake spirit holyrdquo ldquoReceive the Holy Spiritrdquo Acts 24 ldquofilled all of spirit holyrdquo ldquofilled with the Holy Spiritrdquo

( Paul R McReynolds is professor of Greek and New Testament at Pacific Christian College in Fullerton California USA He also contributed to the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia)

Some of the readings from the right column above (NRSV) are acceptable others are not See if you can detect in the right column above those translation renderings with a theological tendency that deviate from the literal readings from the left column McReynoldson the left does an excellent job of transmitting the Greek sense Even the most popular Bible versions do not adhere consistently to the base texts The NRSV and a host of other Bible versions add their own religious interpretation throughout Scripture just as much as the NWT if not more but hardly anyone complains of this transformation of Scriptures eventhough it leads to error Why Simply because the NRSV represents more of a ldquomajorityrdquo view than the NWT does But in truth majority or minority views do not correspond equallyto ldquoaccuraterdquo or ldquoinaccuraterdquo results

In the text discussed the KIT can appropriately show the basic sense rendering of ldquoI amrdquo for the Greek ldquoegō eimirdquo in the left column and alternately show the reading ldquoI have beenrdquo in the right column as a contemporary way of expressing in English the particular Greek clause with its ldquoidiomrdquo in John 858 as explained throughout this article a rendering which has

scholarship support When the Greek ldquoegō eimirdquo appears in an idiom-less structure it can rightfully be translated as ldquoI amrdquo as most versions do including the NWT Hence there is no contradiction between the two translations

Dr McKay argues that Jesus response in John 858 ldquowould be most naturally translated lsquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrsquo if it were not for the obsession with the simple words lsquoI amrsquo rdquo (Kenneth L McKay ldquolsquoI amrsquo in Johns Gospelrdquo Expository Times 1996 p 302) I take the author as saying that ldquoI have been in existencerdquo for ldquoeimirdquo is a better translation than ldquoI amrdquo but the [religious] obsession for the simple words ldquoI amrdquo in their quest to elevate Christ to Gods level does not allow people to see that The thing is that Christ lsquoalways pleased the Fatherrsquo and was fully satisfied with being lsquolesserrsquo than him (John 829 1029 1428 177813) Why not accept him as he is

Hence it is poor scholarship to forward the idea that an entity must be God Almighty himselfby the sole fact of using a divine sounding phrase when other Bible individuals are found using the same expression in Scripture The ldquocontextrdquo is the determining factor Not only must we take into account the context surrounding a chapter or book of the Bible but also what the whole Bible teaches on a given person or subject

What does the Bible teach about Jesus

That Christ ldquowas in the beginning with Godrdquo (John 12) At the announcement of his birth on earth the angel Gabriel told Mary that she will give birth to someone ldquogreatrdquo and ldquoholyrdquo and that one will be called ldquoSon of the Most Highrdquo and ldquoSon of Godrdquo (Luke 132 35) Trinitarians may claim that ldquoSon of Godrdquo is equivalent in meaning to ldquoGodrdquo It is a claim with no foundation If there was any truth to the claim then the ldquoHoly Spiritrdquo would also be called Son of God But no The fact is that other living creatures are called ldquosons of Godrdquo (Job 21) Never is ldquoGodrdquo or ldquoholy spiritrdquo ever called ldquoSon of Godrdquo in Scripture Only Jesus Christ is called ldquothe Son of Godrdquo with the article Why

By Christ lsquobecoming obedient [to God] until deathrsquo during the course of his earthly life lsquoGod highly exalted Him and graciously gave him a name which is above every other name that at the name of Jesus every knee should bendto the credit of God the Fatherrsquo (Hebrews58 Philippians 28-11 21st Century New Testament)

ldquo[Christ] has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God with angels authorities and powers made subject to himrdquo (1 Peter 322 NRSV) Still in heaven Christ receives knowledge information revelation from God and transmits it to other creatures (Revelation11) Though the glorified Christ is described as ldquoKing of kingsrdquo and ldquoLord of lordsrdquo he is specifically called ldquoThe Word of Godrdquo (Revelation 191316 NRSV) The night before his death he ldquoprayedrdquo to his Father and called him ldquothe only true Godrdquo and made this petition ldquoFather glorify me in your own presence [Greek beside yourself] with the glory that I hadin your presence [Greek beside you] before the world existedrdquo (John 175 NRSV) (ldquoalongside yourselfrdquo ST Byington) Again God never has to ldquoprayrdquo to anyone Ever

Well then if Jesus Christ expressed this one final ldquowishrdquo in prayer to be ldquoin the presence ofrdquoldquobesiderdquo ldquoalongsiderdquo his Father which he himself called ldquothe only true Godrdquo why should we for the sake of tradition insist with the belief that Jesus ldquomustrdquo somehow be that ldquotruerdquo God the One sitting at the center of Gods throne instead of ldquobesiderdquo God (Mark 1619) Christ did not ask to sit at Gods throne Christ was fully content with the premise of being alongside God And that is what actually happened Mark tells us ldquoSo then the Lord Jesus after he had spoken to them was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of Godrdquo (Mark 1619 NRSV Note Some ancient manuscripts omit this verse) The NIV Study Bible notes the significance of lsquositting at the right hand of Godrsquo ldquoA position of authority second only to Godsrdquo Being in ldquoa position of authority second only to Godsrdquo is something no one should ever say of God for he is always ldquosupremerdquo At no time does God relinquishes his supremacy Someone who holds a position of authority second to God cannot be identical to God Take note too that in this account of Mark chapter 16 or the oneat John chapter 17 there is no mention of a third party of a ldquoGodheadrdquo No ldquoHoly Spiritrdquo is in sight The fact is that the glorified Christ in heaven continues to call his Father ldquomy Godrdquo(Revelation 312)

As ldquoSon of Godrdquo and always lesser and subject to God it is illogical to think Christ would purposely usurp titles and rights that only belonged to lsquohis God and Fatherrsquo (John 1428 Matthew 2023 John 2017 Acts 17) Jesus Christ taught others to only worship the Father God (Matthew 410 John 42324) ldquoAnd we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the worldrdquo (1 John 414) If so the thought that Christ would usethe words ldquoI amrdquo as a title to identify himself as ldquothe true Godrdquo is incongruous Jesus made it clear that he would only seek the glory ldquothat comes from the one who alone is Godrdquo (John850 54 544)

In this Satan controlled world it is not that difficult to get entangled with human taught intricate philosophies which obscure the simple Christian doctrine (John 1231 2 Cor 44) Hence the need for caution at the time of defending popular traditional views which clash with the monotheistic approach of Bible writers

Consequently those who teach that Christ is Almighty God find themselves in conflict with the Scriptural record The submitted list of alternate readings of John 858 shows that there are a considerable number of scholars who not only understand the subject correctly but alsokeenly grasp that whatever Jesus said on the matter has to harmonize with both the context of John chapter 8 and the rest of the Scriptures as well

What is the correct translation of John 858

Is it ldquoI amrdquo ldquoI wasrdquo ldquoI am herdquo or ldquoI have beenrdquo After analyzing the Greek phrase ldquoegō eimirdquo the context and the various possible ways the expression can be translated in English I think it is best to render the Greek with an English present perfect Adding a smallelement such as ldquosincerdquo to the statement as McKay does below satisfies all contextual and grammatical requirements of the passage Doing so does not qualify as ldquointerpolationrdquo

A second choice a simple past tense can perhaps be used in translation where the context allows since it is grammatically correct but it is generally used of activity confined to the past so the message may be distorted Unless that is the simple past is interpreted as ldquoimperfectiverdquo with current relevance How so In support of Jesus deity many frequently cite John11 There in the text a simple past tense ldquowasrdquo is applied to ldquothe Wordrdquo three times in English versions Does that mean ldquothe Wordrdquo is no more or that it was permanentlycut-off from existence at some point Of course not The context of the whole gospel of John shows that Christ is fully pertinent in Christian lives

Scholars choosing a past tense for ldquoeimirdquo (ie ldquoI wasrdquo ldquoI existedrdquo etc) at John 858 may also have in mind what John the Baptist said as a precursor of Jesus Christ ldquoA man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was [ldquoexistedrdquo JB] before merdquo Surely John the Baptist did not mean that Jesus existence was done away with His own words show thatJesus life was very much relevant and would continue to be so Translators have no issue whatsoever in applying a past tense (ldquowasrdquo ldquoexistedrdquo) at John 11 and 130 in their English versions So why would they at John 858 Perhaps because it would mean that they wouldhave to do away with the premise of a ldquodivine titlerdquo in their argumentation of which is claimed clinches Jesus identity with Gods own As shown above Revelation 211 a presentverb a form of ldquoeimirdquo is rendered by some versions with a past tense ldquowasrdquo Obviously Bible translators have no problem in translating some present tense verbs with past tenses or with present perfects But most object to it at John 858 likely for theological reasons

As stated in the beginning of this essay the English ldquopresentrdquo and the Greek ldquopresentrdquo in certain contexts do not correspond exactly in meaning because in Greek ldquotimerdquo is a secondary factor That being the case the choice of English tense does not have to match theGreek conjugation per se to be faithful to the Sacred Text When one considers the specific idiom found in John 858 and the semantic implications of both the Greek and English ldquopresentrdquo one can see that the rendering ldquoI amrdquo though popular does not nearly represent the best translation possible in the English language ldquoContextrdquo often plays a more importantrole in determining the correct translation Overall though it is best to render the Greek expression with an English present perfect since it conveys clearly a more present relevancythan a past tense would

That said John 858 is a good example where a Greek transliteration may not be the best choice to communicate the right message effectively in our times The translation of ldquoI amrdquo has its place in extreme English literal translations which show the basic sense of the Greek such as those Interlinear translations mentioned above Also it can rightfully be used in many Scriptures where the context calls for it as when the sentence structure lacks the Greekldquoidiomrdquo discussed throughout this writing as might be the case with most occurrences of ldquoeimirdquo

Here listed in my opinion are the translations which come closest to the Greek thought presented by the particular ldquoidiomrdquo found in John 858 Dr Kenneth L McKay comes up with the correct translation

1 ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo - Kenneth L McKay A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek (SBG 5 New York Peter Lang 1994) p42

(Kenneth L McKay graduated with honours in Classics (with an interest in the Greek of theNT) from the Universities of Sydney and Cambridge He has taught Greek in universities and theological colleges in Nigeria New Zealand and England Mr McKay retired from the Australian National University in 1987 after teaching there for 26 years)

Other translations below come close to McKays rendering and are thus favored over the traditional rendering which is widely misunderstood

2 ldquoI have existed before Abraham was bornrdquo - A New Translation by James [ Moffatt - DD DLitt Glasgow Oxford 3 ldquoBefore Abraham came into existence I have beenrdquo - New World Translation 4 ldquoBefore Abraham came into being I have existedrdquo - The Documents of the [New Testament G W Wade London 5 ldquoFrom before Abraham was I have been rdquo - The New Testament by George [ R -Noyes DD Boston USA6 ldquoBefore Abraham was born I have already been rdquo - The Unvarnished New [Testament Andy Gaus Boston7 ldquoI existed even before Abraham was bornrdquo - The concise Gospel and the Acts [Logos International Christopher J ed Christianson Plainfield NJ8 ldquoI already was before Abraham was bornrdquo ndash Worldwide English New Testament [ Derby UK ________________________________

COMMENTS

Also compare the following translations

Nytt liv (1907 Norwegian)A Biacuteblia Viva (1981 Portuguese)O Novo Testamento Vivo (1974 Portuguese)Le Livre Nouveau Testament (1980 eacuteditions Farel French)Η Καινή Διαθήκη των Τεσσάρων Καθηγητών (ΚΔΤΚ Greek) (The New Testament of the Four Teachers The translation was made and approved (1921981) by the Holy Summit Church of Greece The English title of the project is The New Testament in Modern Greek Athens Greece) Η Αγία Γραφή Παλαιά και Καινή Διαθήκη (ΝΔΜ Greek) Ελληνική Βιβλική Εταιρία Αθήνα [Athens] 1997 (The Bible Old and New Testament Greek Biblical Company - London 1997) ΚΔΛΖ ΛΧ (Other Greek Versions expressing the same idea as translations on the list)___________________

ldquoI was rdquo Note on 1987 translation from Italian main list l Vangelio di Giovanni (El Evangelio de Juan [ldquoThe Gospel of Johnrdquo] with imprimatur) by J Mateos and J Barreto noted on John 858 (as translated by Teodora Tosatti p 387 Cittadela Editrice 1982) that the temporal relationship expressed by the Greek ldquoprin eimi [BeforeI am]rdquo can be translated into Italian ldquoprimaero [BeforeI was]rdquo (Translation from Italian to English mine)__________________

Comment on 1993 ΟІ ΧΡΙΣΤΙΑΝΙΚΕΣ ΓΡΑΦΕΣ Απόδοση από τη Μειάφράση Νέου Κόσμου which is a modern Greek translation of the New World Translation of the ChristianScriptures Unlike most Bible Versions which are published in only one language or a few atmost the NWT is available in dozens of languages based mainly on their English translationbut obviously taking into account other factors in the process such as the original Bible text the peculiarities of their recipient local languages and their targeted audiences in their respective countries

It is obvious though that other NWT translation editions closely followed the English text of the NWT and at the same time their translation teams had enough latitude to offer their own unique renderings at times expressing in their native languages what they see in in the Inspired Text Having said that it is interesting to see how they approached their translation of John 858 from their English translation back into [modern] Greek

The translation team was acutely aware of the basic sense of ldquoegō eimirdquo as ldquoI amrdquo and how those simple words are misconstrued by religionists to say something more than Jesus intended Taking into account the syntax of John 858 as stated throughout this document the translation team who worked on the modern Greek version faced a few options

First they had the option to go back to ldquoegō eimirdquo using the modern Greek equivalent ldquoΕγώ ειμαιrdquo (I am) as it reads in the Vamvas version which they did not Or they could haveexpressed their NWT English choice of ldquoI have beenrdquo with their modern Greek equivalent of ldquoέχο υπάρξει [I have existed]rdquo Thirdly they could have gone with ldquoI wasrdquo (ldquoεγώ ήμουνrdquo) as some of their French and Italian Bible editions have done in the past or even with ldquo[εγώ] υπήρξα [I existed])rdquo Or they could have provided some other unique rendering It is obvious they wanted to stick closely to the Greek text but given the common misconceptionssurrounding ldquoegō eimai (I am)rdquo in mainstream churches the translation team chose to use ldquoεγώ υπάρχωrdquo (a present indicative form in the Greek) which means basically ldquoI existrdquo but in the presence of an expression of past time in John 858 the sense is ldquoI have existedrdquo Thus ldquoBefore Abraham came into existence I have existedrdquo ( The verb είμαι [ldquoto berdquo] in modern Greek has no forms for the perfect tense It borrows the forms from the verb υπάρχω [ldquoI existrdquo] The Greek and English ldquoperfectsrdquo are not exact equivalents either)

The reader is reminded here as noted earlier that modern Greek keeps up with the Koineacute Greek ldquopresentrdquo idiom A modern Greek grammar Greek A Comprehensive Grammar explains ldquoThe present tense is also used in constructions where English would use the perfect continuous ie where the verb expresses a continuous state or habitual event that

has lasted since a certain point in the past and is continuing up to (and including) the presentrdquo The authors provide two examples where a present verb is used with a past time indicator and where they translate using an English perfect as explained ldquoI have been living[Μένω] in this house for three years nowrdquo And ldquoI have been reading [Διαβάζω] this newspaper since 1984rdquo (Greek A Comprehensive Grammar by David Holton Peter Mackridge amp Irene Philippaki-Warburton Revised by Vassilios Spyropoulos p 294 Second edition 2012)

Ten years after the NWT-Greek Edition was released another modern Greek translation was published with the following rendering at John 858 ldquoΣας βεβαιώνω πως πριν να γεννηθεί οΑβραάμ εγώ υπάρχωrdquo which in English would be ldquoI assure you that I have existed since before Abraham was bornrdquo (Literally ldquoI assure you that before could be born the AbrahamI exist [not ldquoΕγώ ειμαιrdquo]rdquo The Holy Bible in Todays Greek Version 2003 Greek Bible Society Interestingly the original English version of 1976 had ldquoI Amrdquo) Also a Spanish Bible conveys a similar thought ldquoYo existo desde antes que existiera Abrahamrdquo [Translation ldquo I exist since before Abraham existedrdquo] (La Biblia - Versioacuten Popular 2nd edition Sociedades Biacuteblicas Unidas 1983)

_________________________________________________________

The Clear Word The translators quoted in this article represent various religious faiths some are Catholic some are Protestant Others are Unitarians Jehovahs Witnesses Jewish Adventists etc and they represent countries the world over One of these translators is a Seventh-Day Adventist who worked on The Clear Word Jack J Blanco ThD As a Seventh-Day Adventist who supports the Trinity doctrine Blanco translated verses to make Jesus ldquoequalrdquo to God in every way

He renders John 11 ldquoHe is the Word of God and is equal with Godrdquo He shows Jesus at Philippians 25-7 as ldquoequal with Godrdquo and describes him as lsquoacting the part of a servantrsquo At John 1428 he completely omits the reference that lsquothe Father is greaterrsquo than Christ But here at John 858 in answer to the question the priests and leaders asked concerning Abraham lsquoseeingrsquo his day Jesus answered according to Dr Blanco ldquoBecause I existed before Abraham was even bornrdquo Thus Dr Blanco makes no connection as others do that Christ is the ldquoI amrdquo of Exodus 314 which according to some would indicate that Jesus is the Jehovah of the Old Testament What he sees in this account is that Jesus already lsquoexisted before Abraham didrsquo and thus Abraham was able to lsquoseersquo his day (John 856) To this we must add another likely element included in Jesus response to the Jews as wellone of simple identification as ldquothe Christ [Messiah]rdquo and ldquoSon of manrdquo Why is it then that manywho support the Trinity doctrine find it hard to understand Jesus statement correctly at John 858 Could it be that they are letting non-Scriptural influence and perhaps the weight of themajority view dictate their understanding of this Scripture

For a consideration of other subjects by the same author check below

For a discussion of Acts 286 Whose blood

httpwwwscribdcomdoc231244155Acts-20-28-Whose-blood

For a discussion of Colossians 116 (ldquoall other thingsrdquo) see

httpwwwscribdcomdoc205841269Colossians-1-16-Is-the-expression-all-other-things-a-proper-rendition

For a consideration on the subject of the Trinity click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc160286056Does-the-Trinity-ever-make-sense

For a full consideration of John 11 click the following link httpwwwscribdcomdoc34916458The-correct-translation-of-John-1-1

For a brief consideration of John 11 with additional citations click here httpwwwscribdcomdoc50330864John-1-1-List-of-Alternate-Readings

Did the NW translators know any Greek click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc48234022Did-the-New-World-Translation-Committee-Know-Greek

For a consideration of John 173 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc57772552John-17-3-E28098Taking-in-knowledge-of-E28099-God-and-Jesus

For a consideration of 1 Timothy 316 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc76927834Was-God-manifested-in-the-flesh-1-Timothy-3-16

For a consideration of Exodus 225 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc38676458Exodus-2-25-And-God-took-notice-Does-God- care-about-us

For a consideration of John 114 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc35002730John-1-14-Jesus-full-of-grace

For a consideration of Translation Differences-Questions and Answershttpwwwscribdcomdoc59484457Translation-Differences-Questions-and-Answers

In Spanish

Para una consideracioacuten de otros temas vea los siguientes enlaces

Para una consideracioacuten de Colosenses 116 ldquotodas las otras cosasrdquo vea

httpwwwscribdcomdoc209601066Colosenses-1-16-C2BFEs-la-traduccion-E2809Ctodas-las-otras-cosasE2809D-apropiada

Para una consideracioacuten de ldquoiquestAcaso tiene sentido la Trinidadrdquo

httpwwwscribdcomdoc173779117C2BFAcaso-tiene-sentido-la-Trinidad

Para un consideracioacuten de Juan 11 vea el siguiente enlace

httpwwwscribdcomdoc35899788Traduccion-correcta-de-Juan-1-1-Lista-de- lecturas-alternativas

Para el tema iquestSabiacutean griego los traductores de la TNM vea el siguiente enlace

httpwwwscribdcomdoc51623596C2BFSabia-griego-el-Comite-de-la-Traduccion-del-Nuevo-Mundo

face false charges by people who wanted him dead Please take note of the charges brought up in Marks account (1460-64) which says

60 Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus ldquoAre you not going to answer What is this testimony that these men are bringing against yourdquo 61 But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer Again the high priest asked him ldquoAre you the Messiah the Son of the Blessed Onerdquo 62 ldquoI amrdquo said Jesus ldquoAnd you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heavenrdquo 63 The high priest tore his clothes ldquoWhy do we need any more witnessesrdquo he asked 64 ldquoYou have heard the blasphemy What do you thinkrdquo They all condemned him as worthy of death

In view of the events of Mark 1460-64 and considering the context of John chapter 8 it is clear that the Jews rejected Jesus claim of him being ldquothe Messiahrdquo and of being lsquogreaterrsquo than Abraham They were also rejecting the idea that he was ldquofrom aboverdquo ldquothe Son of Mansitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heavenrdquo of the heavenly vision (John 823) In their view that was enough to charge him with blasphemy since they could not imagine any ldquomanrdquo making such claims

C K Barrett rightly noted that the Jews reaction in verse 59 ldquodoes not mean that Jesus had claimed to be Godrdquo (The Gospel According to St John 2d ed Philadelphia Westminster Press 1978 352) And Professor Emeritus William Loader noted ldquoThe text need mean no more than I am and was in existence before Abraham still a majestic unique claim but not anallusion to the divine namerdquo (The Christology of the Fourth Gospel Structures and Issues Revised 2d ed New York Lang 1992 48)

Even before Jesus spoke the ldquoegō eimirdquo words in John 858 the Jews had already sought to kill Jesus (John 719 837) And for what ldquocrimerdquo This lsquoJesus claimed the truth he taughtcame from Godrsquo (John 716 840) This is vastly different from lsquoJesus alledgedly claiming a divine title equating him with God at John 858rsquo Since then all sorts of religious leaders have claimed as well that ldquowhat they teach others comes from Godrdquo and not from them Does that make them ldquoequalrdquo to God

Because Jesus often lsquocalled God his Fatherrsquo the Jews wrongly concluded that he was ldquomaking himself equal to Godrdquo (John 51819) However Jesus quickly set the matter straight when he called himself Gods ldquoSonrdquo (nine times in chapter 5 alone) an expression never applied to ldquoGodrdquo in Scripture (Matthew 2663-64) The Jews even claimed Jesus was ldquobreaking the Sabbathrdquo and further of being ldquoa Samaritan and demon-possessedrdquo (John 518 848) Were they right Absolutely not Thus wrong perceptions of Jews in Jesus time - like Jesus claiming equality with God - are truly a shaky foundation to base modern interpretations The Jerusalem Bible has this to say ldquoThe claim of Jesus to live on the divine plane (v 58) is for the Jews blasphemy for which the penalty is stoning Lv 2416rdquo I see the JB accepting the claim that Jesus possessed some mode of ldquodivine existencerdquo (as suggested by the Spanish edition of JB ldquoBiblia de Jerusaleacutenrdquo) but avoiding a direct reference of Christ

claiming to be God or that he was claiming ldquoeternalrdquo existence in the verse And former Professor Kenneth L McKay said ldquoThe claim to have been in existence for so long is in itself a staggering one quite enough to provoke the crowds violent reaction [in v59]rdquo (ldquo lsquoI amrsquo in Johns Gospelrdquo p 302) Hence those who claim the charge of blasphemy involved Jesus claim of being ldquoGodrdquo are wrong for Jesus never claimed to be ldquoThe Supreme Beingrdquo but only ldquoGods Sonrdquo (John 31718)

Weeks later after the incident of John chapter 8 but related to the topic of discussion in John 1030-36 we read that the Jews misunderstood Jesus words ldquoI and the father are onerdquo (John 10 30) So they wanted to stone him for it but Jesus told them

33 ldquoWe are not stoning you for any good workrdquo they replied ldquobut for blasphemy because you a mere man claim to be Godrdquo 34 Jesus answered them ldquoIs it not written in your Law lsquoI have said you are ldquogodsrdquorsquo [Psalm 826] 35 If he called them lsquogodsrsquo to whom the word of God camemdashand Scripture cannot be set asidemdash 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said lsquoI am Godrsquos Sonrsquo ( Other versions translate the Greek word here for ldquoGodrdquo without the article either as ldquogodrdquo or ldquoa godrdquo Besson Torrey NWT Mace Luther 1545 Diaglott Tomanek Andy Gaus New English Bible)

Notice that Jesus Christ under duress had another golden opportunity to once and for all disclose publicly that he was ldquoGodrdquo But he did not do so The argument itself that Jesus employed shows that he could legitimately claim lsquodivine originrsquo without being identified as one-and-the-same God with his Father

Less than a year later AFTER the encounter with the Jews of John chapter 8 and before his death Jesus told his closest disciples in his farewell speech that they lsquoshould rejoice he was going away to the Father because the Father was greater than he wasrsquo (John 1428) And in his final prayer in proximity with his disciples he prayed to God that lsquothey may know his Father the only true God and Jesus Christ whom he has sentrsquo (John 173 ) God never needs to pray to anyone Shortly after Jesus died and was resurrected by God but before returning to his Father Jesus said to Mary Magdalene ldquoDo not hold on to me for I have notyet ascended to the Father Go instead to my brothers and tell them lsquoI am ascending to my Father and your Father to my God and your Godrsquo rdquo (John 2017)

Does it make sense to have Jesus claim equality with God by employing a divine title (ldquoI Amrdquo) before unbelieving Jews as Trinitarians claim and then have Jesus later assure his closest and faithful ones that lsquohis Father and his Godrsquo was also lsquothe Father and God of everyone elsersquo In fact Jesus disciples were clearly in a privileged position in regards to Christian teaching Jesus Christ had previously said to his disciples that he would explain lsquoall thingsrsquo to them privately whereas to others he would only speak in lsquoparablesrsquo or lsquocomparisonsrsquo (Matthew 1311 Mark 411 33 34) An explicit lsquodivine titlersquo directed at lsquounbelievingrsquo Jews is certainly no parable and would run counter to his own stated principles

Anyways Jesus Christ wanted other Christian followers to understand the special

relationship he had with the Father ldquoBut go to my followers and tell them this lsquoI am going back to my Father and your Father I am going back to my God and your Godrsquo rdquo (Easy to Read Version) This simple message is so different from the convoluted one commonly expounded by Trinitarians in their philosophical speculations

Between the time of the encounter between the Jews and Jesus in John ch 8 and the farewelldiscourse of our Lord Jesus Christ of later (chapters 14-17) not once did Jesus say he was ldquoGodrdquo Christ never spoke with a forked tongue Therefore Bible translators who do not claim Jesus was using a divine title at John 858 and provide renderings agreeing with the words of John 173 and 2017 are in the correct

Scriptures with similar syntax to John 858

Thus when faced with certain idiomatic expressions as the one found in John 858 the translator often has to ask himself How would someone normally express such statements in our language I will cite six (6) Scriptural examples that are similar in syntax to John 858 Genesis 3138 LXX 1 John 38 Luke 248 John 56 2 Corinthians 1219 and John 1527 All six Scriptures have present tense verbs AND an expression of past time or extent of time with past implications within its structure Lets see how these Scriptures compare with John 858 in our discussion

1st Example (Genesis 3138 LXX) ταῦτά μοι εἴκοσι ἔτη ἐγώ εἰμι μετὰ σοῦ - Greek These mine twenty years I am with you

Jacob after leaving Haran disputes with his father-in-law Laban over missing personal idols which Laban claimed were stolen by Jacob Jacob had no idea Rachel had stolen them In defense Jacob proceeded to mention several things he had done through the years on Labansbehalf ldquoThese twenty years I am with yourdquo (The Apostolic Bible Polyglot LXX 2006)ldquoThese twenty years of mine I was with yourdquo (A New English Translation of the Septuagint ldquoNETSrdquo 2007)ldquoThese twenty years have I been with theerdquo (The Holy Orthodox Bible LXX 2006)ldquoThese twenty years I have been with yourdquo (The Orthodox Study Bible LXX 2008)ldquoThese twenty years of mine have I been with theerdquo (Orthodox England LXX 2009)ldquoI have spent with you twenty of my years [Jai passeacute avec toi vingt de mes anneacutees]rdquo (La Septante [LXX] translated by Pierre Giguet)ldquoThese twenty years have I been with theerdquo (Sir Lancelot CL Brenton LXX)ldquoThese twenty years that I have been with theerdquo (Charles Thomson LXX)

Aside from the interlinear reading of the literal Apostolic Bible Polyglot other translators of the Septuagint (LXX) render a present indicative verb ldquoegō eimirdquo (I am) preceded by an expression of time with past implications (ldquoThese twenty yearsrdquo) with present perfect

indicative forms (ldquoI have beenrdquo) while one translation (NETS) uses a simple past form (ldquoI wasrdquo) A modern Greek translation Η Αγία ΓραφήmdashΜετάφραση Νέου Κόσμου has ldquoήμουνrdquo (Literally ldquoI wasrdquo) in this text A likely reason for that as a modern Greek Grammar pointsout is that for the verb lsquoto be (είμαι)rsquo ldquoThere are only two sets of tense forms in Greek present and past (imperfect)rdquo (op cit An Essential Grammar p 126 Sec 67) Hence they could not have used here a perfect tense form for the verb lsquoto be (eimai)rsquo But in English the Bible Society responsible for the Greek and English translations of the Hebrew portion of the Bible used instead ldquoI have beenrdquo at Genesis 3138 in the English edition because a present perfect is available in the language for the verb

Another interesting tidbit is the fact that the original Hebrew text here lacks a verb in the declaration namely ldquoThis twenty year I with-yourdquo (The Hebrew-English Interlinear ESV Old Testament Crossway) Well how do translators deal with this issue Overall like this with the perfect indicative ldquoI have been with you for twenty years nowrdquo A few versions use the imperfect instead lsquoI wasrsquo such as the Wycliffe Bible and the Lexham English Bible Rarely do translations use a ldquopresentrdquo here the exceptions being Youngs and Concordant literal translations So why do the overwhelming number of translators prefer tosupply a perfect tense here for the missing verb in the Hebrew Its simple There is a temporal indicator going to the past in the text namely lsquoThese twenty yearsrsquo

Now when the LXX translators proceeded to translate the Hebrew words of Genesis 3138 into Greek they cleverly used a well known vivid idiom available in classical Greek where a verb in the present tense is combined with an indicator of past time In this syntax the ldquopast and present are gathered up in a single affirmationrdquo (op cit Brooks amp Winbery) Modern English translators usually resort to the present perfect in this construction as shown aboveSo too John 858 reveals an expression of past time with a present verb in its statement and the NWT is one translation that is consistent with this construction both in Genesis 3138 and John 858

For the following I will use the Wescott and Hort Greek text for reference

2nd Example (1 John 38)

ὅτι ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς ὁ διάβολος ἁμαρτάνει - Greek because from beginning the devil is sinning

The apostle John warns Christians not to carry on sin for those who make a practice of sin originate from the Devil who has sinned from the beginning For this purpose the Son of God was revealed that he might undo the works of the Devil The text above contains an expression of past time (ldquofrom beginningrdquo) with a present verb (is sinning) very much likeJohn 858 How do translators deal with this passage Lets see

ldquofor the devil sinneth from the beginningrdquo (Rheims New Testament)ldquofor the devil sinneth from the beginningrdquo (KJV)

ldquofor the devil has sinned from the beginningrdquo (New King James Version)ldquofor the devil has sinned from the beginningrdquo (NASB)ldquobecause the devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (Interlinear Mounce)ldquofor the Devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (Riverside NT Ballantine)ldquobecause the devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (NIV)ldquobecause the devil has sinned from the beginningrdquo (NAB)ldquosince the devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (Jay E Adams)ldquowho has been sinning since the beginningrdquo (NLT)ldquofor the devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (NRSV)ldquosince the devil has been a sinner from the beginningrdquo (NJB)ldquobecause the devil has been sinning from the very beginningrdquo (J G Anderson)ldquofor the devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (ESV)

ldquothe devil was a sinner from the firstrdquo (Ronald A Knox New Testament)

Some translations transfer the Greek present to their English versions as if the English and Greek ldquopresentrdquo in such construction were the same thing It is not The end result is ungrammatical English Would you say in contemporary English ldquoFrom the beginning of class the boy sleepsrdquo Not Doctor Richard A Young points out ldquoTo say that the devil is sinning from the beginning does not make sense in English English translations therefore employ the present perfectrdquo (Intermediate New Testament Greek page 111)

The renderings above ldquohas sinnedrdquo and ldquohas been sinningrdquo are present perfect and present perfect progressive indicative forms The word ldquowasrdquo is a simple past tense Just as in 1 John 38 some translators in John 858 have rendered a present tense with an expression of past time in its construction with a present perfect ldquoI have beenrdquo

3rd Example (2 Corinthians 1219)

Πάλαι δοκεῖτε ὅτι ὑμῖν ἀπολογούμεθα ndash Greek Long ago you are thinking that to you we are making defense

Paul finds himself having to defend his apostolic authority and vindicating his record as superior in hardship endured for Christ and loving concern for congregations In simpler words Paul was telling them ldquoAll this time have you been thinking that Ive been speaking up for myself No Ive been speaking with God as my witness Ive been speaking like a believer in Christ Dear friends everything I do is to help you become strongerrdquo (NIRV)

In the literal reading above we have an adverb of time with past implications (Palai) followed by two Greek verb forms (ldquodokeiterdquo amp ldquoapologoumethardquo) in the present indicativetense The book Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek Verb by William Watson Goodwin explains ldquoThe Present is often used with expressions denoting past time especially πάλαι [palai] in the sense of a perfect and a present combinedrdquo (Section 26 p 9) How do translators render these in English Some carry over the present tense into the English text producing unconventional English Others cognizant of issues presented here

do a better job at it See below for a sample

ldquoHave you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves before yourdquo (The Comprehensive New Testament 2008)ldquoI hope you donacutet think that all along weacuteve been making our defense before yourdquo (The Message Eugene H Peterson)ldquoHave you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves to yourdquo (NIV)ldquoIt may seem to you that all this time we have been attempting to put ourselves in the rightrdquo (Bible in Basic English)ldquoAll this time you have been thinking that we have been pleading our own cause before yourdquo (NJB)ldquoHave you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves to yourdquo (CEV)ldquoHave you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves before yourdquo (Revised Standard Version) ldquoPerhaps you think that all along we have been trying to defend ourselves before yourdquo (TEV)ldquoHave you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves to yourdquo (ESV)ldquoYou have thought all along that we were defending ourselves to yourdquo (HCSB)ldquoHave you been thinking all this time that we have been defending ourselves to yourdquo (NET Bible)

ldquoYou have been thinking all along that it was to you we were making our defenserdquo (The Bible in Living English Steven T Byington)

The above translations use present perfect (and perfect progressive) forms or past progressives to bring out the proper sense of the original into our language Can anyone rightfully claim that it is improper for these Bible versions to translate this text as they have done in English

4th Example (Luke 248 Wescott and HortNestle early editions Greek text)

ὁ πατήρ σου καὶ ἐγὼ ὀδυνώμενοι ζητοῦμέν σε - Greek The father of you and I being pained we are seeking you Here the context (vv 42-48) speaks of Jesus (12 years old) being left behind unwittingly in Jerusalem by his parents they went back searching in distress for three days before finding him When they finally found him they spoke the words above

ldquoYour father and I have been looking for you anxiouslyrdquo (Revised Standard Version)ldquoYour father and I in agony of mind have been searching for yourdquo (Williams NT)ldquoYour father and I have been anxiously looking for Yourdquo (NASB 1971)ldquoYour father and I have been searching for you in great distressrdquo (Riverside NT)

ldquoHere have your father and I been searching anxiously for yourdquo (Hugh J Schonfield)ldquoYour father and I have been looking for you have been very anxious rdquo (Goodspeed)ldquoYour father and I have been looking for you We have been very troubledrdquo (Bible in Worldwide English)ldquoYour father and I have been looking for you in distressrdquo (Richmond Lattimore)ldquoYour father and I have been searching for you in great distressrdquo (Twentieth Century NT) ldquoThy father and I have sought thee distressedrdquo (Darby Bible Translation)

ldquoThy father and I sought thee sorrowingrdquo (American Standard Version)

ldquoThy father and I in anguish were seeking theerdquo (The Emphasized Bible 3rd edit based on Wescott and Hort by Joseph B Rotherham)ldquoThy father and I were seeking thee sorrowfulrdquo (W B Godbey N T 1902)ldquoThy father and I were seeking Thee sorrowingrdquo (A S Worrell N T 1904)ldquoYour father and I were anxiously looking for yourdquo (World English Bible)

The words ldquowe are seeking yourdquo are in the present indicative tense however since an expression of time is used indicating action going on for days (ldquoafter three daysrdquo v 46) translators find it necessary to use either the present perfect (ldquohave beenrdquo ldquohave soughtrdquo) or simple past (ldquosoughtrdquo) or past progressive (ldquowere seekingrdquo) indicative forms to express in English what the Greek says in the ldquopresentrdquo Various Greek texts have instead of the ldquopresentrdquo found in the Westcott amp Hort Text above an ldquoimperfectrdquo verb form Both forms are frequently rendered with an English present ldquoperfectrdquo Compare with Youngs Literal Translation which also uses a past progressive indicative form ldquowere seekingrdquo and the Spanish Reina-Valera Revisada which rendered an imperfect verb form appearing in the Received Text with a present perfect indicative (ldquohemos buscadordquo) Is this another reason why many translators have rendered the Greek present ldquoegō eimirdquo preceded by an adverbial modifier in its clause at John 858 with perfective or past forms in English

5th Example (Juan 56)

καὶ γνοὺς ὅτι πολὺν ἤδη χρόνον ἔχει - Greek and having known that much already time he is having

This is an account of an invalid man who for 38 years had been sick and was now being cured by Jesus The Greek in this clause does not make his illness clear however the context does Take note of the expression of time used with past implications mixed with a present indicative verb ldquohe is havingrdquo For this to make any sense in our language it has to be modified When Jesus saw this sick man lying there

ldquoand knew that he had been now a long time in that caserdquo (KJV italics theirs) ldquoand knowing that he had been ill a long timerdquo (Revised English Bible)ldquoand knew he had been in that condition for a long timerdquo (NJB)ldquoand knew that he had been sick for a long timerdquo (World English Bible)ldquoand knew that he had been sick for a long timerdquo (Godacutes Word)

ldquoand knew how long he had been illrdquo (Living Bible)ldquoand knew he had already been there a long timerdquo (HCSB)ldquoand he knew that the man had been sick for such a long timerdquo (TEV)ldquoand knew that he had been in this state a long timerdquo (Confraternity Version)ldquoand finding that he had had a long time of itrdquo (S T Byington) ldquoand knew that he had been sick for a long timerdquo (Jay E Adams)ldquoand he knew that he had been waiting for a long timerdquo (George M Lamsa Peshitta) ldquoand knew that he had been now a long timerdquo (Rheims New Testament)

ldquoand knowing that he was [in that state] now a great length of timerdquo (J N Darby Translation Brackets his)

Once again we see translators having to use mostly perfective forms (ldquohad beenrdquo ldquohad hadrdquopast perfects) and one with a simple past ldquowasrdquo even though they are translating a present tense verb ldquohe is havingrdquo This shows that translators adapt their renderings whenever is necessary to convey the right meaning into the target language It is thus possible to render ldquoeimirdquo at John 858 with a form other than a present tense such as a present perfect Those who say that it can not be done or should not be done just need to look again at the evidenceobjectively

6th Example (John 1527 Wescott amp Hort)

ὅτι ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς μετʼ ἐμοῦ ἐστέ ndash Greek that from beginning with me you are

These words spoken by Jesus evidently refers to the beginning of his ministry when he chosehis closest disciples They were eyewitnesses of all the things God did through Christ duringhis ministry (Acts 121)

ldquobecause ye have been with me from the beginningrdquo (KJV) ldquobecause you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (NAB)ldquofor you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (Christian Community Bible)ldquobecause you are the men who have been with me from the very beginningrdquo (Heinz Wldquobecause you have been with me from the firstrdquo (New English Bible) [ Cassirer)ldquobecause you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (Godacutes Word Translation) ldquofor you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (NIV)ldquobecause you have been with me from the firstrdquo (Weymouth New Testament)ldquobecause you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (NRSV)ldquoyou that have been with me from the beginningrdquo (The Four Gospels EV Rieu)ldquobecause youacuteve been with Me from the beginning of My ministryrdquo (The Clear Word)ldquofor you have been with me from the firstrdquo (J B Phillips Modern English)ldquobecause you have been with Me from the beginningrdquo (HCSB) ldquothat you were with me from the startrdquo (21st Century New Testament)ldquofor you were with Me from the beginningrdquo (New Berkeley Version Revised Edition)

ldquobecause you were with me from the beginningrdquo (Mark Heber Miller)ldquobecause you were with me from the very beginningrdquo (SEB)

This scripture with the plural form of ldquoeimirdquo (este) is very similar to John 858 Again within its structure there is an expression of past time and a verb in the present indicative form (este) just as there is in John 858 A Grammar of New Testament Greek says ldquoThe reader may be reminded of one idiom which comes out of the linear idea the use of words like πάλαι [palai ldquolong agordquo] with the present in a sense best expressed by our perfect Thus in 2 Co 1219 lsquohave you been thinking all this timersquo or Jn 1527 lsquoyou have been with me from the beginning [ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς]rsquo hellip The durative present in such cases gathers up past and present time into one phraserdquo (A Grammar of New Testament Greek Vol 1 Prolegomena by JH Moulton p 119) As previously noted this Grammar specifically refers to John 858 as an example of this idiom

And here in John 1527 there is a connection of Jesus disciples [creatures as they are] that ldquowererdquo with him ldquofrom the beginningrdquo Obviously Jesus was making no reference to his disciples sharing ldquoeternityrdquo with him The disciples all had a beginning The logical conclusion is that Jesus was simply saying to them lsquoYou have been with me from the start of my ministryrsquo Hence there is no need to read ldquoeternityrdquo into the expression ldquoI amrdquo anymore that we should read ldquoeternityrdquo from Jesus words at John 1527 lsquoYou are with me from the beginningrsquo Neither grammar nor the context justifies reading more into these Scriptures than what they actually say

In fact the six (6) instances cited above (Genesis 3138 LXX 1 John 38 2 Cor 1219 Luke 248 John 56 John 1527) and John 858 as well all have an expression of past time or an extent of time with past implications (ldquoThese twenty yearsrdquo ldquoLong agordquo ldquoafter three daysrdquo Lk 246 ldquomuch already timerdquo ldquofrom [the] beginningrdquo ldquoBeforerdquo etc) AND present verbs in their sentences or nearby within the context and are commonly rendered with present perfect (some with past perfects) or simple past (or past progressive) forms in English translations If we apply this pattern to the translation of John 858 it would mean that renderings such as ldquoI have beenrdquo (present perfect) and ldquoI wasrdquo (simple past) are not only acceptable in translation but actually more ldquosuitablerdquo in application Can this really be done Not only can it be done it makes for a ldquobetterrdquo English translation

In regards to Jesus John 858 simply tells us that Jesus lsquowas alive before Abraham was bornrsquo (SEB) and that his existence continued up to the moment of his speaking to them Just as it is not proper English to say ldquoFor three days we are seeking yourdquo (Greek literal reading of Luke 248) or ldquobecause from the beginning with me you arerdquo (John 1527) it is no less proper English to say in John 858 ldquoBefore Abraham was born I amrdquo These readings should only appear in extremely literal interlinear translations which basically render the Greek word-by-word and not in standard idiomatic English translations Let me illustrate If a man advanced in age for example had his work history and experience questioned by co-workers in comparison to his younger son and employee Abe would he say in reply ldquoBefore my son Abe was born I am [the one fit for the job]rdquo No that does not sound right In English he could say it in various ways

ldquoI have been an experienced worker since before my son Abe was bornrdquo ldquoI have been what I am since before my son Abe was bornrdquo ldquoI was fit to work and fully active before my son Abe was ever bornrdquo ldquoI was already experienced in many jobs before Abe ever came to berdquo ldquoI have been a master worker way before my son Abe came to liferdquo ldquoBefore Abe was born I already was life and job experiencedrdquo etc

The point is that in English normally we include a present perfect tense whenever there is a reference to the past extending to the present or a past tense of some form whenever we go back in time The same with John 858 There is no justification in English to insist using a present verb form (which is not equal to the Greek present when combined with a past expression) in an unwarranted attempt to convey ldquoeternityrdquo as ldquopaddingrdquo to the Trinity doctrine a doctrine adopted AFTER the Christian era Worse it is disingenuous to accuse other translators (who have chosen to render ldquoegō eimirdquo at John 858 with an English present perfect or past tense) of scholastic dishonesty when the very same translations honored by these detractors do so in other places where the ldquodeityrdquo of Christ is not in play asshown in the samples provided above

An example of this double standard can be seen as well when scholars such as Dr Julius Mantey harshly criticizes the NWT for the rendering ldquoI have beenrdquo at John 858 but keeps quiet when other translators do similarly and even states or pretends that no other reputable translator would ever translate it that way He dared not criticize his former Greek teacher Charles B Williams who produced his own Bible translation Dr Mantey once wrote the following of Dr Williams translation ldquoWilliams translation considering all the factors is the most accurate and illuminating translation in the English languagerdquo And how does this ldquomost accurate translationrdquo render John 858 As follows ldquoI existed before Abraham was bornrdquo Here Dr Williams known for his Greek command used a simple past tense (ldquoI existedrdquo) as translation for the Greek present Julius Mantey certainly did not find Williams version of John 858 a ldquoshocking translationrdquo ldquoI existedrdquo is quite different from the translation Dr Mantey so passionately defended (ldquoI amrdquo)

When Dr Mantey talks about the NWT he says the rendering ldquoI have beenrdquo at John 858 cannot be justified and calls it ldquodishonestrdquo That rule does not apply to Williams translation does it Williams did not translate John 858 in the same way Mantey would have liked (ldquoI amrdquo) Not only that the Grammar itself that Dr Mantey co-authored with Dr Dana A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament states under ldquoThe Progressive Presentrdquo (called ldquoExtension from Pastrdquo by McKay) ldquoSometimes the progressive present is retroactivein its application denoting that which has begun in the past and continues into the present For the want of a better name we may call it the present of duration This use is generally associated with an adverb of time and may best be rendered by the English perfect ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς μετʼ ἐμοῦ ἐστέ Ye have been with me from the beginning Jn 1527 See also Lk137 2 Cor 129 [19]rdquo (Pages 182-83 Emphasis added)

Even though Julius Mantey has stated when referring to the NWT that ldquoI have beenrdquo is not a proper translation and even ldquodishonestrdquo at John 858 he clearly states in his Grammar (of

Scriptures with similar syntax to John 858) ldquoThis use is generally associated with an adverb of time and may best be rendered by the English perfect [such as ldquoI have beenrdquo which in fact is associated with an adverb of time in John 858]rdquo A likely reason for Dana ampManteys strong reluctance for not including John 858 as an example of the idiom discussed on page 183 may have to do with the fact that as ldquotrinitariansrdquo they oppose the idea of Jesus existence having lsquobegunrsquo in the past even though John 858 perfectly fits with the ldquoProgressive Presentrdquo idiom being discussed in their Grammar as acknowledged by other grammarians Hence their objection is truly a ldquotheologicalrdquo one rather than Greek grammaritself arguing in their favor as Mantey and some others have implied since a Greek present or an English perfect does not demand ldquoeternityrdquo at all from the subject

Consequently many religious individuals who focus solely on the basic meaning (of ldquoegō eimirdquo as ldquoI amrdquo) out of the context of the particular ldquoidiomrdquo used at John 858 end up missing the thrust of Jesus words and fall prey to misleading interpretations Doctor Kenneth L McKay taking into account all of these issues comes up with this excellent translation for John 858 ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo (A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek SBG 5 New York Peter Lang 1994 p42) If we objectively consider the material above we will not insist in connecting Jesus at John 858 with the God Jehovah of Exodus 314 (which many attempt to do but cannot be sustained) Instead we will focus on the simple message conveyed by Jesus words at John 858 which is in harmony with the totality of Scripture ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo (McKay) The rendering ldquoI have been in existencerdquo by itself does not rule out either the concept of ldquoeternityrdquo or the ldquocreationrdquo of Jesus Christ A Committee of Bible translators came up with the following translation which may not be the best choice but considering the issues involved is better than the traditional rendering of ldquoI amrdquo ldquoI was alive before Abraham was bornrdquo (The New Testament in Plain English)

(The following scholars are members of the Bible Translation Committee of The New Testament in Plain English which approved this last reading ldquoI was aliverdquo instead of ldquoI amrdquo(Dr Stanley L Morris chairman FW Gingrich Ph D a renown Greek lexicographer Jack P Lewis Ph D CH Accord Th D Clyde M Woods Ph D ST Kan Ph D Gary T Burke Ph D Milo Hadwin D Min)

I submit their names and their credentials here as an example because it is often asserted vigorously that no intelligent or highly qualified scholar would ever produce a translation other than ldquoI amrdquo As noted above and as the list of alternate readings (at the end of this essay) of John 858 shows many done by highly qualified people this is simply not true Usually those making statements of that sort are doing so based on emotional and theological not philological reasons Furthermore by not disclosing other valid viewpoints or by dismissing how other qualified Bible translators deal with this scripture they are undermining their own credibility as well

At this time you are welcome to briefly go over the list of Alternate Readings to John 858 at

the end before moving on to the second part of this essay

_____________________________

Should we ignore the evidence of all those translations listed at the end that differ in John 858 from the traditional versions What then are all these translators seeing at John 858 that moved them to render this text differently They surely must be aware of the resistance they would encounter by translating it by the various forms they used Still they must have had the firm conviction that both the Greek text and the context supports their understanding of this scripture They likely see a Jesus making no identity connection with his Father Godbut rather see a Jesus simply expressing his indefinite existence with no suggestion of eternity in focus Neither is Jesus stating here that he is the God of Old Testament times To understand it that way would be to read into the text more than what it says Taking some clues from the context of the chapter some scholars additionally see Jesus insinuating his ldquomessiahshiprdquo as if saying ldquoI am he [the Messiah]rdquo This is very likely In fact The LivingBible renders John 824 thus ldquoThat is why I said that you will die in your sins for unless you believe that I am the Messiah the Son of God [ἐγώ εἰμι] you will die in your sinsrdquo

Is ldquoegō eimirdquo a title or another name of God

The use of ldquoeimirdquo at John 858 is frequently used as a ldquoproof textrdquo of Jesus deity A noted Trinitarian scholar AT Robertson a Baptist even refers to ldquoegō eimirdquo as ldquothe absolute phrase used of Godrdquo likely indicating the verb conveys ldquotimeless beingrdquo an implication that ldquoeimirdquo here does not require anything else to complete the meaning of the phrase thus conveying ldquoeternal existencerdquo as well as being an actual name for God Some individuals have given plenty of publicity to Robertsons statement as absolute truth But his statement is not ldquotruthrdquo at all It is faulty interpretation which many people have fallen prey to Grammar and theology do not always make the best mix True Robertsons credentials as a scholar are impressive nevertheless credentials does not truth make Besides some other equally bright scholars disagree with him Lets illustrate the folly of those advocating a divine title at John 858 by way of addition (Or substitution if you will) as some suggest

ldquoBefore Abraham was born I am Eternalrdquo ldquoBefore Abraham was born I am Jehovahrdquo ldquoBefore Abraham was born I am eternally Godrdquo

First of all the above hypothetical translations are just as ungrammatical as the simple ldquoI amrdquo reading of most versions An English present tense cannot start before a definite point in the past This can be seen in the following two examples

1 ldquoBefore the US Iraq war I am a soldierrdquo 2 ldquoThree journalists are kidnapped in Nepal since the start of 2007rdquo

What is the correct way to express these statements in English Analyze it for a second and

provide an answer if you will

Notably if ldquoeimirdquo was used to convey eternal existence what is the point of using an expression of past time at all in the clause Moreover the context of previous verses (vv 48-57) clearly indicates that Jesus is speaking of God as a separate entity See below

49 ldquobut I honor my Father and you dishonor merdquo 50 ldquoI am not seeking glory for myself but there is one who seeks it and he is the

judgerdquo54 ldquoIf I glorify myself my glory means nothing My Father whom you claim as your

God is the one who glorifies me 55 ldquoThough you do not know him I know him If I said I did not I would be a liar like you but I do know him and obey his wordrdquo Thus if Jesus meant he himself was the ldquoJehovahrdquo of the Old Testament as Trinitarians claim what would be the rationale behind Jesus directing all distinction and glory to lsquothe Father Godrsquo as a distinct individual as he did in the previous verses and then a few words later abruptly change his argumentation by claiming he is that very same One who lsquoreceives obedience from his own wordrsquo lsquoseeking his own honor and gloryrsquo because he himself is ldquoGodrdquo Confusing is it not To accept this abrupt change of character on Jesus part would be not ldquoa mysteryrdquo but flat out ldquoa deceptionrdquo of big proportions since Jesus himself warned against pretending to be one thing and acting as another (Matthew 62-5 2313-36)

Are we are supposed against all logic to accept these ldquotrinitarianrdquo assumptions instead of a simple alternative which really answers the Jews question about lsquohow could Abraham ldquoseerdquoJesus day if he was not yet 50 years oldrsquo (ldquoI have been in existence since Abraham was bornrdquo)

The obsession with the simple words ldquoI amrdquo have led to many faulty assumptions ldquoI amrdquo issuch a common expression in our language even to this day that words such as ldquoegoismrdquo ldquoegotismrdquo etc (derived from the Greek ldquoegordquo) are considered common words in English dictionaries Everyone uses the phrase ldquoI amrdquo at times Think of any big corporation or powerful organization of your choice for a moment Would you conclude that the two most powerful individuals of this one prestigious organization must be identical in every way solely because they are heard equally saying to others in their common speech ldquoI am thisrdquoor ldquoI am thatrdquo etc

In Bible times humans too used common pronouns The verb eimi (ldquoI amrdquo) itself or forms of it appears more than two thousand times (2000x) in the New Testament alone Additionally the word ldquoegōrdquo appears over seventeen hundred times (1700x) in the NT And those numbers do not include the Septuagint totals Do all occurrences of the word then imply ldquodivinityrdquo in each case Of course not It may be more significant when God or Christ use the expression because of who they are but does it really mean that both God and Christ share the same identity Or that everyone who uses the phrase ldquoI amrdquo does so with divine pretensions Does it really mean that everyone using the phrase are ldquoequalrdquo The

answer is obvious is it not

Lets bear in mind that when God sent Jesus Christ as His representative to a most crucial assignment multiple biblical prophecies were pointing to Christ as the promised Messiah that would free mankind from its moribund condition It is logical then that when the time came for Jesus Christ to show up on earth he would somehow communicate to others that ldquoherdquo and not some other human claiming to be the Messiah was Gods instrument in bringing everlasting relief to human misery Hence he could rightly say any or all of the following ldquoI am (this)rdquo ldquoI am (that)rdquo ldquoI am he [the promised Messiah]rdquo or ldquoI am Gods Sonrdquo Should we expect anything less

The fact is that the words ldquoI amrdquo are not exclusive to God and Christ It should be noted that a man who was born ldquoblindrdquo also used the same expression (John 99) The Greek here says ldquoekeinos elegen hoti Egō eimirdquo (ldquoThat one kept saying that I amrdquo) AT Robertson cites John 99 as one of five parallels to the use of egō eimi in John 858 (Word Pictures in the New Testament Vol V p 159) The phrase here comes at the end of the clause with no explicit predicate James White who upholds the traditional reading admits ldquoThis last instance [John 99] is similar to the sayings as Jesus utters them in that the phrase comes at the end of the clause and looks elsewhere for its predicaterdquo The same could be said of John 1527 Some argue that ldquoeimirdquo in John 858 is ldquoabsoluterdquo but do not do so with John 99 or John 1527 Theology may be a factor in this Previously we saw how Jacob a man according to the Septuagint used the words ldquoegō eimirdquo Other instances in Scripture of creatures using those words would not prove they were part of a ldquoGodheadrdquo Context then ultimately dictates how ldquoeimirdquo should be translated According to John when Jesus was pressed he only claimed to have been alive way before Abraham was born and that he simply was ldquothe Christrdquo ldquothe Son of Manrdquo and ldquothe Son of Godrdquo

There is something else to keep in mind in regards to the meaning of ldquoeimirdquo And it is what grammarian Stanley Porter indicated ldquoSometimes the verb [eimi] is used on its own as a verb of existence Perhaps the best-known example of this is the following John 858rdquo (Fundamentals of New Testament Greek by Stanley E Porter section 753 72) AT Robertson adds ldquoThe verb εἰμί [eimi] hellip Sometimes it does express existence as a predicatelike any other verb as in ἐγὼ εἰμί [egō eimi] (Jo 858) and ἡ θάλασσα οὐκ ἔστιν ἔτι [hē thalassa ouk estin eti = ldquothe sea not is yetrdquo] (Rev 211) Cf Mt 2330rdquo (A Grammar of theGreek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research Nashville Tenn 1934 p 394)

What does this mean The examples mentioned by Robertson in addition to John 858 give us an idea of what this implies It is so strange that the two examples Robertson provided forcomparison with John 858 seems to contradict his ldquotimeless beingrdquo view on ldquoeimirdquo He cited a portion of Revelation 211 where the Greek literally says ldquoAnd the sea not is yetrdquo In other words ldquoThe sea does not exist any morerdquo Amplified Bible ldquoThere no longer existed any seardquo Curiously various versions render the present verb ldquoisrdquo (a form of ldquoeimirdquo) with an imperfect ldquowasrdquo (Cf KJV NIV NAB NRSV) Obviously ldquothe seardquo in this vision is [was] not ldquoeternalrdquo

And in Matthew 2330 the other text provided by Robertson in his comparison with John 858 the Greek word-for-word says ldquoIf we were in the days of the fathers of usrdquo which inmodern English would be ldquoIf we had lived in the days of our forefathersrdquo Other versions ldquoIf we had beenrdquo (Rheims NT) ldquoIf we had been livingrdquo (NASB) ldquoIf we had been existing in the days of our fathersrdquo (Jonathan Mitchell NT) The full NIV text reads ldquoAnd you say lsquoIf we had lived in the days of our ancestors we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophetsrsquo rdquo

It is clear from this comparison that the words of Matthew 2330 ldquoIf we wererdquo (a form of ldquoeimirdquo) in the text is used as an equivalent for ldquoliferdquo or ldquoexistencerdquo In the heavenly vision of Rev 211 lsquothe sea ceased to existrsquo And the generation of people which Jesus spoke about and their ancestors all died ceased to exist If we apply these two examples to John 858 given by Robertson with the meaning either of life or existence for ldquoeimirdquo then it wouldbe equally acceptable to translate ldquoI amrdquo as ldquoI existrdquo or ldquoI liverdquo Many translators reflect this very same understanding as the submitted list of alternate readings of John 858 show ldquoI existrdquo or ldquoI existed even before Abraham was bornrdquo Or ldquoI was alive before Abraham was bornrdquo (The Simple English Bible)

Although some may not see much semantic difference between Jesus saying ldquoI amrdquo or ldquoI existrdquo the two expressions communicate something very different to many readers ldquoI amrdquo is generally associated by Trinitarians as a title used by God or as another name for God Onthe other hand ldquoI existrdquo simply conveys ldquoliferdquo or ldquoexistence Barnabas Lindars points out that ldquoegō eimirdquo in John 858 ldquocannot be regarded as a title because it requires the meaning lsquoI am in existencersquordquo (ldquoThe Son of Man in Johannine Christologyrdquo in Christ and the Spirit in the New Testament In Honour of Charles Francis Digby Moule eds B Lindars and S Smalley Cambridge Cambridge University Press 1973) (Since an English present tense cannot start before a definite point in the past this would mean that we can incorporate Lindars valid observation and translate it into contemporary English like this ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo exactly as Dr McKay proposed)

Some in their eagerness to equate Christ with God accuse translators who render ldquoegō eimirdquo in John 858 with renderings other than ldquoI amrdquo pointing to all occurrences of this expression in the New Testament or in Johns Gospel where allegedly these translators do not follow the same ldquorulerdquo when translating ldquoegō eimirdquo in John 858 as they do elsewhere where they translate it with a present indicative form What they dont tell you or fail to understand is that in John 858 ldquoegō eimirdquo without a predicate AND with an expression of time with past implications in its sentence structure provides an ldquoidiomrdquo which is quite different from those other instances of ldquoeimirdquo Thats right an idiom (where present and past is combined) found equally at home in classical biblical and modern Greek which many translators convey into our language with the English present perfect at various places Consequently one cannot merely go by how the phrase ldquoegō eimirdquo is used elsewhere in the NT without taking into account the fact that John 858 displays an ldquoidiomrdquo in its structure Not doing so would be dishonest John the Baptist had said of Christ in John 130 ldquoA man is coming after me who ranks before me because he existed [Lit was] before merdquo (JB)

John 858 is in harmony with those words Furthermore some attempt to use the reading of Psalm 902 in the Septuagint as ldquoevidencerdquo that John 858 is rendered correctly in the popular versions But a closer analysis of this verse shows notable differences between the two verses making such comparison untenable With good reason a considerable number ofscholars have chosen to break from tradition in their rendering of John 858

If critics of alternate readings of John 858 are not candid enough to admit some of the very issues mentioned here and hide the fact that many scholars do hold a different interpretation and no less academic at that should we consider their diatribes of any worthy import It is ldquowishful thinkingrdquo for someone to believe that John 858 is directly connected to Exodus 314 rather than any real evidence (which is lacking) confirming their eager interpretations Remember even Dr James White a well known Trinitarian advocate admitted ldquothat an immediate and unqualified jump from the ego eimi of John 858 to Exodus 314 is unwiserdquo

Besides a theological tendency can be seen when they focus as some do on undermining the reputation of one Bible translation (NWT) when there are actually numerous versions from different religions dealing with the same controversial Scriptures in a similar manner This is very much like politicians who ignore the failings of their own party but are quick to lsquodemonizersquo their opponents (Matthew 73)

Is the Kingdom Interlinear ldquoproofrdquo the NWT is wrong at John 858

A criticism has been made of a Watchtower Society publication (The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures ldquoKITrdquo) which contains the Greek text and underneath it a word-by-word translation in English and on the right side of the page the modern New World Translation Well at John 858 this publication renders the Greek phrase being discussed here egō eimi word-for-word as ldquoI amrdquo and in the right column the NWT shows the reading ldquoI have beenrdquo This difference have led some to severely criticize the NW translators of ldquoincompetencerdquo ldquoinconsistencyrdquo and even of ldquodishonestyrdquo The critics say something like this ldquoThey have backed themselves into a corner where they cant escape their mishandling of the Greek textrdquo or something of that sort Amazingly these critics in their condemnations hardly ever mention the dozens of translators who translate the same way or similarly to the NWT as the submitted list shows So much for honesty

Those who engage in such tactics are not being forthcoming Why say that Besides dismissing how other translators deal with John 858 they also distort known facts for the WT Society have made it clear that the publication of this Greek Bible is to help the Bible student determine the basic sense of the Greek and have stated that the translation on the right column (the NWT) is a modern way of expressing the thoughts transmitted by the Greek text There are many factors to consider when using such publications

Even other interlinear publications warn of seeming discrepancies For instance The Zondervan Parallel New Testament in Greek and English says in its Foreword ldquo[I]t is a good thing to bear in mind that you cannot always either give an English equivalent for a Greek word or expression or even always render the same Greek verb word by the same

English onerdquo Another interlinear the New Greek-English Interlinear New Testament by Brown and Comfort and edited by J D Douglas explains ldquoIt is difficult to translate one language into another on a word-for-word basis because each language has its own syntax grammatical constructions and idioms that are difficultmdashif not impossiblemdashto replicate literally in another languagerdquo (Emphasis added) This statement is so true of the text in discussion (John 858) in regards to its syntax and particular idiom Often critics of the NWT hide this fact Why Is it religious bias at work

I will give the reader a few examples of an available interlinear translation which has the Greek main text and a literal sublinear translation below the Greek by Professor Paul R McReynolds and on the right column for comparison the reader can study the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) a popular translation in academia Observe how the two can differ

McReynolds Mat 21 ldquomagiciansrdquo NRSV ldquowise menrdquo John 118 ldquoonly born Godrdquo ldquoGod the only Sonrdquo Mat 243 ldquosign of the your presencerdquo ldquothe sign of your comingrdquo Mathew 522 ldquothe gehenna of the firerdquo ldquothe hell of firerdquo John 1319 ldquoI amrdquo ldquoI am herdquo John 149 ldquoI amrdquo ldquoHave I beenrdquo John 1527 ldquoyou arerdquo ldquoyou have beenrdquo 2 Peter 24 ldquobeing sent to Tartarusrdquo ldquobut cast them into hellrdquo Luke 1113 ldquowill give spirit holy tordquo ldquowillgive the Holy Spirit tordquo John 2022 ldquotake spirit holyrdquo ldquoReceive the Holy Spiritrdquo Acts 24 ldquofilled all of spirit holyrdquo ldquofilled with the Holy Spiritrdquo

( Paul R McReynolds is professor of Greek and New Testament at Pacific Christian College in Fullerton California USA He also contributed to the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia)

Some of the readings from the right column above (NRSV) are acceptable others are not See if you can detect in the right column above those translation renderings with a theological tendency that deviate from the literal readings from the left column McReynoldson the left does an excellent job of transmitting the Greek sense Even the most popular Bible versions do not adhere consistently to the base texts The NRSV and a host of other Bible versions add their own religious interpretation throughout Scripture just as much as the NWT if not more but hardly anyone complains of this transformation of Scriptures eventhough it leads to error Why Simply because the NRSV represents more of a ldquomajorityrdquo view than the NWT does But in truth majority or minority views do not correspond equallyto ldquoaccuraterdquo or ldquoinaccuraterdquo results

In the text discussed the KIT can appropriately show the basic sense rendering of ldquoI amrdquo for the Greek ldquoegō eimirdquo in the left column and alternately show the reading ldquoI have beenrdquo in the right column as a contemporary way of expressing in English the particular Greek clause with its ldquoidiomrdquo in John 858 as explained throughout this article a rendering which has

scholarship support When the Greek ldquoegō eimirdquo appears in an idiom-less structure it can rightfully be translated as ldquoI amrdquo as most versions do including the NWT Hence there is no contradiction between the two translations

Dr McKay argues that Jesus response in John 858 ldquowould be most naturally translated lsquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrsquo if it were not for the obsession with the simple words lsquoI amrsquo rdquo (Kenneth L McKay ldquolsquoI amrsquo in Johns Gospelrdquo Expository Times 1996 p 302) I take the author as saying that ldquoI have been in existencerdquo for ldquoeimirdquo is a better translation than ldquoI amrdquo but the [religious] obsession for the simple words ldquoI amrdquo in their quest to elevate Christ to Gods level does not allow people to see that The thing is that Christ lsquoalways pleased the Fatherrsquo and was fully satisfied with being lsquolesserrsquo than him (John 829 1029 1428 177813) Why not accept him as he is

Hence it is poor scholarship to forward the idea that an entity must be God Almighty himselfby the sole fact of using a divine sounding phrase when other Bible individuals are found using the same expression in Scripture The ldquocontextrdquo is the determining factor Not only must we take into account the context surrounding a chapter or book of the Bible but also what the whole Bible teaches on a given person or subject

What does the Bible teach about Jesus

That Christ ldquowas in the beginning with Godrdquo (John 12) At the announcement of his birth on earth the angel Gabriel told Mary that she will give birth to someone ldquogreatrdquo and ldquoholyrdquo and that one will be called ldquoSon of the Most Highrdquo and ldquoSon of Godrdquo (Luke 132 35) Trinitarians may claim that ldquoSon of Godrdquo is equivalent in meaning to ldquoGodrdquo It is a claim with no foundation If there was any truth to the claim then the ldquoHoly Spiritrdquo would also be called Son of God But no The fact is that other living creatures are called ldquosons of Godrdquo (Job 21) Never is ldquoGodrdquo or ldquoholy spiritrdquo ever called ldquoSon of Godrdquo in Scripture Only Jesus Christ is called ldquothe Son of Godrdquo with the article Why

By Christ lsquobecoming obedient [to God] until deathrsquo during the course of his earthly life lsquoGod highly exalted Him and graciously gave him a name which is above every other name that at the name of Jesus every knee should bendto the credit of God the Fatherrsquo (Hebrews58 Philippians 28-11 21st Century New Testament)

ldquo[Christ] has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God with angels authorities and powers made subject to himrdquo (1 Peter 322 NRSV) Still in heaven Christ receives knowledge information revelation from God and transmits it to other creatures (Revelation11) Though the glorified Christ is described as ldquoKing of kingsrdquo and ldquoLord of lordsrdquo he is specifically called ldquoThe Word of Godrdquo (Revelation 191316 NRSV) The night before his death he ldquoprayedrdquo to his Father and called him ldquothe only true Godrdquo and made this petition ldquoFather glorify me in your own presence [Greek beside yourself] with the glory that I hadin your presence [Greek beside you] before the world existedrdquo (John 175 NRSV) (ldquoalongside yourselfrdquo ST Byington) Again God never has to ldquoprayrdquo to anyone Ever

Well then if Jesus Christ expressed this one final ldquowishrdquo in prayer to be ldquoin the presence ofrdquoldquobesiderdquo ldquoalongsiderdquo his Father which he himself called ldquothe only true Godrdquo why should we for the sake of tradition insist with the belief that Jesus ldquomustrdquo somehow be that ldquotruerdquo God the One sitting at the center of Gods throne instead of ldquobesiderdquo God (Mark 1619) Christ did not ask to sit at Gods throne Christ was fully content with the premise of being alongside God And that is what actually happened Mark tells us ldquoSo then the Lord Jesus after he had spoken to them was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of Godrdquo (Mark 1619 NRSV Note Some ancient manuscripts omit this verse) The NIV Study Bible notes the significance of lsquositting at the right hand of Godrsquo ldquoA position of authority second only to Godsrdquo Being in ldquoa position of authority second only to Godsrdquo is something no one should ever say of God for he is always ldquosupremerdquo At no time does God relinquishes his supremacy Someone who holds a position of authority second to God cannot be identical to God Take note too that in this account of Mark chapter 16 or the oneat John chapter 17 there is no mention of a third party of a ldquoGodheadrdquo No ldquoHoly Spiritrdquo is in sight The fact is that the glorified Christ in heaven continues to call his Father ldquomy Godrdquo(Revelation 312)

As ldquoSon of Godrdquo and always lesser and subject to God it is illogical to think Christ would purposely usurp titles and rights that only belonged to lsquohis God and Fatherrsquo (John 1428 Matthew 2023 John 2017 Acts 17) Jesus Christ taught others to only worship the Father God (Matthew 410 John 42324) ldquoAnd we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the worldrdquo (1 John 414) If so the thought that Christ would usethe words ldquoI amrdquo as a title to identify himself as ldquothe true Godrdquo is incongruous Jesus made it clear that he would only seek the glory ldquothat comes from the one who alone is Godrdquo (John850 54 544)

In this Satan controlled world it is not that difficult to get entangled with human taught intricate philosophies which obscure the simple Christian doctrine (John 1231 2 Cor 44) Hence the need for caution at the time of defending popular traditional views which clash with the monotheistic approach of Bible writers

Consequently those who teach that Christ is Almighty God find themselves in conflict with the Scriptural record The submitted list of alternate readings of John 858 shows that there are a considerable number of scholars who not only understand the subject correctly but alsokeenly grasp that whatever Jesus said on the matter has to harmonize with both the context of John chapter 8 and the rest of the Scriptures as well

What is the correct translation of John 858

Is it ldquoI amrdquo ldquoI wasrdquo ldquoI am herdquo or ldquoI have beenrdquo After analyzing the Greek phrase ldquoegō eimirdquo the context and the various possible ways the expression can be translated in English I think it is best to render the Greek with an English present perfect Adding a smallelement such as ldquosincerdquo to the statement as McKay does below satisfies all contextual and grammatical requirements of the passage Doing so does not qualify as ldquointerpolationrdquo

A second choice a simple past tense can perhaps be used in translation where the context allows since it is grammatically correct but it is generally used of activity confined to the past so the message may be distorted Unless that is the simple past is interpreted as ldquoimperfectiverdquo with current relevance How so In support of Jesus deity many frequently cite John11 There in the text a simple past tense ldquowasrdquo is applied to ldquothe Wordrdquo three times in English versions Does that mean ldquothe Wordrdquo is no more or that it was permanentlycut-off from existence at some point Of course not The context of the whole gospel of John shows that Christ is fully pertinent in Christian lives

Scholars choosing a past tense for ldquoeimirdquo (ie ldquoI wasrdquo ldquoI existedrdquo etc) at John 858 may also have in mind what John the Baptist said as a precursor of Jesus Christ ldquoA man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was [ldquoexistedrdquo JB] before merdquo Surely John the Baptist did not mean that Jesus existence was done away with His own words show thatJesus life was very much relevant and would continue to be so Translators have no issue whatsoever in applying a past tense (ldquowasrdquo ldquoexistedrdquo) at John 11 and 130 in their English versions So why would they at John 858 Perhaps because it would mean that they wouldhave to do away with the premise of a ldquodivine titlerdquo in their argumentation of which is claimed clinches Jesus identity with Gods own As shown above Revelation 211 a presentverb a form of ldquoeimirdquo is rendered by some versions with a past tense ldquowasrdquo Obviously Bible translators have no problem in translating some present tense verbs with past tenses or with present perfects But most object to it at John 858 likely for theological reasons

As stated in the beginning of this essay the English ldquopresentrdquo and the Greek ldquopresentrdquo in certain contexts do not correspond exactly in meaning because in Greek ldquotimerdquo is a secondary factor That being the case the choice of English tense does not have to match theGreek conjugation per se to be faithful to the Sacred Text When one considers the specific idiom found in John 858 and the semantic implications of both the Greek and English ldquopresentrdquo one can see that the rendering ldquoI amrdquo though popular does not nearly represent the best translation possible in the English language ldquoContextrdquo often plays a more importantrole in determining the correct translation Overall though it is best to render the Greek expression with an English present perfect since it conveys clearly a more present relevancythan a past tense would

That said John 858 is a good example where a Greek transliteration may not be the best choice to communicate the right message effectively in our times The translation of ldquoI amrdquo has its place in extreme English literal translations which show the basic sense of the Greek such as those Interlinear translations mentioned above Also it can rightfully be used in many Scriptures where the context calls for it as when the sentence structure lacks the Greekldquoidiomrdquo discussed throughout this writing as might be the case with most occurrences of ldquoeimirdquo

Here listed in my opinion are the translations which come closest to the Greek thought presented by the particular ldquoidiomrdquo found in John 858 Dr Kenneth L McKay comes up with the correct translation

1 ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo - Kenneth L McKay A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek (SBG 5 New York Peter Lang 1994) p42

(Kenneth L McKay graduated with honours in Classics (with an interest in the Greek of theNT) from the Universities of Sydney and Cambridge He has taught Greek in universities and theological colleges in Nigeria New Zealand and England Mr McKay retired from the Australian National University in 1987 after teaching there for 26 years)

Other translations below come close to McKays rendering and are thus favored over the traditional rendering which is widely misunderstood

2 ldquoI have existed before Abraham was bornrdquo - A New Translation by James [ Moffatt - DD DLitt Glasgow Oxford 3 ldquoBefore Abraham came into existence I have beenrdquo - New World Translation 4 ldquoBefore Abraham came into being I have existedrdquo - The Documents of the [New Testament G W Wade London 5 ldquoFrom before Abraham was I have been rdquo - The New Testament by George [ R -Noyes DD Boston USA6 ldquoBefore Abraham was born I have already been rdquo - The Unvarnished New [Testament Andy Gaus Boston7 ldquoI existed even before Abraham was bornrdquo - The concise Gospel and the Acts [Logos International Christopher J ed Christianson Plainfield NJ8 ldquoI already was before Abraham was bornrdquo ndash Worldwide English New Testament [ Derby UK ________________________________

COMMENTS

Also compare the following translations

Nytt liv (1907 Norwegian)A Biacuteblia Viva (1981 Portuguese)O Novo Testamento Vivo (1974 Portuguese)Le Livre Nouveau Testament (1980 eacuteditions Farel French)Η Καινή Διαθήκη των Τεσσάρων Καθηγητών (ΚΔΤΚ Greek) (The New Testament of the Four Teachers The translation was made and approved (1921981) by the Holy Summit Church of Greece The English title of the project is The New Testament in Modern Greek Athens Greece) Η Αγία Γραφή Παλαιά και Καινή Διαθήκη (ΝΔΜ Greek) Ελληνική Βιβλική Εταιρία Αθήνα [Athens] 1997 (The Bible Old and New Testament Greek Biblical Company - London 1997) ΚΔΛΖ ΛΧ (Other Greek Versions expressing the same idea as translations on the list)___________________

ldquoI was rdquo Note on 1987 translation from Italian main list l Vangelio di Giovanni (El Evangelio de Juan [ldquoThe Gospel of Johnrdquo] with imprimatur) by J Mateos and J Barreto noted on John 858 (as translated by Teodora Tosatti p 387 Cittadela Editrice 1982) that the temporal relationship expressed by the Greek ldquoprin eimi [BeforeI am]rdquo can be translated into Italian ldquoprimaero [BeforeI was]rdquo (Translation from Italian to English mine)__________________

Comment on 1993 ΟІ ΧΡΙΣΤΙΑΝΙΚΕΣ ΓΡΑΦΕΣ Απόδοση από τη Μειάφράση Νέου Κόσμου which is a modern Greek translation of the New World Translation of the ChristianScriptures Unlike most Bible Versions which are published in only one language or a few atmost the NWT is available in dozens of languages based mainly on their English translationbut obviously taking into account other factors in the process such as the original Bible text the peculiarities of their recipient local languages and their targeted audiences in their respective countries

It is obvious though that other NWT translation editions closely followed the English text of the NWT and at the same time their translation teams had enough latitude to offer their own unique renderings at times expressing in their native languages what they see in in the Inspired Text Having said that it is interesting to see how they approached their translation of John 858 from their English translation back into [modern] Greek

The translation team was acutely aware of the basic sense of ldquoegō eimirdquo as ldquoI amrdquo and how those simple words are misconstrued by religionists to say something more than Jesus intended Taking into account the syntax of John 858 as stated throughout this document the translation team who worked on the modern Greek version faced a few options

First they had the option to go back to ldquoegō eimirdquo using the modern Greek equivalent ldquoΕγώ ειμαιrdquo (I am) as it reads in the Vamvas version which they did not Or they could haveexpressed their NWT English choice of ldquoI have beenrdquo with their modern Greek equivalent of ldquoέχο υπάρξει [I have existed]rdquo Thirdly they could have gone with ldquoI wasrdquo (ldquoεγώ ήμουνrdquo) as some of their French and Italian Bible editions have done in the past or even with ldquo[εγώ] υπήρξα [I existed])rdquo Or they could have provided some other unique rendering It is obvious they wanted to stick closely to the Greek text but given the common misconceptionssurrounding ldquoegō eimai (I am)rdquo in mainstream churches the translation team chose to use ldquoεγώ υπάρχωrdquo (a present indicative form in the Greek) which means basically ldquoI existrdquo but in the presence of an expression of past time in John 858 the sense is ldquoI have existedrdquo Thus ldquoBefore Abraham came into existence I have existedrdquo ( The verb είμαι [ldquoto berdquo] in modern Greek has no forms for the perfect tense It borrows the forms from the verb υπάρχω [ldquoI existrdquo] The Greek and English ldquoperfectsrdquo are not exact equivalents either)

The reader is reminded here as noted earlier that modern Greek keeps up with the Koineacute Greek ldquopresentrdquo idiom A modern Greek grammar Greek A Comprehensive Grammar explains ldquoThe present tense is also used in constructions where English would use the perfect continuous ie where the verb expresses a continuous state or habitual event that

has lasted since a certain point in the past and is continuing up to (and including) the presentrdquo The authors provide two examples where a present verb is used with a past time indicator and where they translate using an English perfect as explained ldquoI have been living[Μένω] in this house for three years nowrdquo And ldquoI have been reading [Διαβάζω] this newspaper since 1984rdquo (Greek A Comprehensive Grammar by David Holton Peter Mackridge amp Irene Philippaki-Warburton Revised by Vassilios Spyropoulos p 294 Second edition 2012)

Ten years after the NWT-Greek Edition was released another modern Greek translation was published with the following rendering at John 858 ldquoΣας βεβαιώνω πως πριν να γεννηθεί οΑβραάμ εγώ υπάρχωrdquo which in English would be ldquoI assure you that I have existed since before Abraham was bornrdquo (Literally ldquoI assure you that before could be born the AbrahamI exist [not ldquoΕγώ ειμαιrdquo]rdquo The Holy Bible in Todays Greek Version 2003 Greek Bible Society Interestingly the original English version of 1976 had ldquoI Amrdquo) Also a Spanish Bible conveys a similar thought ldquoYo existo desde antes que existiera Abrahamrdquo [Translation ldquo I exist since before Abraham existedrdquo] (La Biblia - Versioacuten Popular 2nd edition Sociedades Biacuteblicas Unidas 1983)

_________________________________________________________

The Clear Word The translators quoted in this article represent various religious faiths some are Catholic some are Protestant Others are Unitarians Jehovahs Witnesses Jewish Adventists etc and they represent countries the world over One of these translators is a Seventh-Day Adventist who worked on The Clear Word Jack J Blanco ThD As a Seventh-Day Adventist who supports the Trinity doctrine Blanco translated verses to make Jesus ldquoequalrdquo to God in every way

He renders John 11 ldquoHe is the Word of God and is equal with Godrdquo He shows Jesus at Philippians 25-7 as ldquoequal with Godrdquo and describes him as lsquoacting the part of a servantrsquo At John 1428 he completely omits the reference that lsquothe Father is greaterrsquo than Christ But here at John 858 in answer to the question the priests and leaders asked concerning Abraham lsquoseeingrsquo his day Jesus answered according to Dr Blanco ldquoBecause I existed before Abraham was even bornrdquo Thus Dr Blanco makes no connection as others do that Christ is the ldquoI amrdquo of Exodus 314 which according to some would indicate that Jesus is the Jehovah of the Old Testament What he sees in this account is that Jesus already lsquoexisted before Abraham didrsquo and thus Abraham was able to lsquoseersquo his day (John 856) To this we must add another likely element included in Jesus response to the Jews as wellone of simple identification as ldquothe Christ [Messiah]rdquo and ldquoSon of manrdquo Why is it then that manywho support the Trinity doctrine find it hard to understand Jesus statement correctly at John 858 Could it be that they are letting non-Scriptural influence and perhaps the weight of themajority view dictate their understanding of this Scripture

For a consideration of other subjects by the same author check below

For a discussion of Acts 286 Whose blood

httpwwwscribdcomdoc231244155Acts-20-28-Whose-blood

For a discussion of Colossians 116 (ldquoall other thingsrdquo) see

httpwwwscribdcomdoc205841269Colossians-1-16-Is-the-expression-all-other-things-a-proper-rendition

For a consideration on the subject of the Trinity click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc160286056Does-the-Trinity-ever-make-sense

For a full consideration of John 11 click the following link httpwwwscribdcomdoc34916458The-correct-translation-of-John-1-1

For a brief consideration of John 11 with additional citations click here httpwwwscribdcomdoc50330864John-1-1-List-of-Alternate-Readings

Did the NW translators know any Greek click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc48234022Did-the-New-World-Translation-Committee-Know-Greek

For a consideration of John 173 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc57772552John-17-3-E28098Taking-in-knowledge-of-E28099-God-and-Jesus

For a consideration of 1 Timothy 316 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc76927834Was-God-manifested-in-the-flesh-1-Timothy-3-16

For a consideration of Exodus 225 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc38676458Exodus-2-25-And-God-took-notice-Does-God- care-about-us

For a consideration of John 114 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc35002730John-1-14-Jesus-full-of-grace

For a consideration of Translation Differences-Questions and Answershttpwwwscribdcomdoc59484457Translation-Differences-Questions-and-Answers

In Spanish

Para una consideracioacuten de otros temas vea los siguientes enlaces

Para una consideracioacuten de Colosenses 116 ldquotodas las otras cosasrdquo vea

httpwwwscribdcomdoc209601066Colosenses-1-16-C2BFEs-la-traduccion-E2809Ctodas-las-otras-cosasE2809D-apropiada

Para una consideracioacuten de ldquoiquestAcaso tiene sentido la Trinidadrdquo

httpwwwscribdcomdoc173779117C2BFAcaso-tiene-sentido-la-Trinidad

Para un consideracioacuten de Juan 11 vea el siguiente enlace

httpwwwscribdcomdoc35899788Traduccion-correcta-de-Juan-1-1-Lista-de- lecturas-alternativas

Para el tema iquestSabiacutean griego los traductores de la TNM vea el siguiente enlace

httpwwwscribdcomdoc51623596C2BFSabia-griego-el-Comite-de-la-Traduccion-del-Nuevo-Mundo

claiming to be God or that he was claiming ldquoeternalrdquo existence in the verse And former Professor Kenneth L McKay said ldquoThe claim to have been in existence for so long is in itself a staggering one quite enough to provoke the crowds violent reaction [in v59]rdquo (ldquo lsquoI amrsquo in Johns Gospelrdquo p 302) Hence those who claim the charge of blasphemy involved Jesus claim of being ldquoGodrdquo are wrong for Jesus never claimed to be ldquoThe Supreme Beingrdquo but only ldquoGods Sonrdquo (John 31718)

Weeks later after the incident of John chapter 8 but related to the topic of discussion in John 1030-36 we read that the Jews misunderstood Jesus words ldquoI and the father are onerdquo (John 10 30) So they wanted to stone him for it but Jesus told them

33 ldquoWe are not stoning you for any good workrdquo they replied ldquobut for blasphemy because you a mere man claim to be Godrdquo 34 Jesus answered them ldquoIs it not written in your Law lsquoI have said you are ldquogodsrdquorsquo [Psalm 826] 35 If he called them lsquogodsrsquo to whom the word of God camemdashand Scripture cannot be set asidemdash 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said lsquoI am Godrsquos Sonrsquo ( Other versions translate the Greek word here for ldquoGodrdquo without the article either as ldquogodrdquo or ldquoa godrdquo Besson Torrey NWT Mace Luther 1545 Diaglott Tomanek Andy Gaus New English Bible)

Notice that Jesus Christ under duress had another golden opportunity to once and for all disclose publicly that he was ldquoGodrdquo But he did not do so The argument itself that Jesus employed shows that he could legitimately claim lsquodivine originrsquo without being identified as one-and-the-same God with his Father

Less than a year later AFTER the encounter with the Jews of John chapter 8 and before his death Jesus told his closest disciples in his farewell speech that they lsquoshould rejoice he was going away to the Father because the Father was greater than he wasrsquo (John 1428) And in his final prayer in proximity with his disciples he prayed to God that lsquothey may know his Father the only true God and Jesus Christ whom he has sentrsquo (John 173 ) God never needs to pray to anyone Shortly after Jesus died and was resurrected by God but before returning to his Father Jesus said to Mary Magdalene ldquoDo not hold on to me for I have notyet ascended to the Father Go instead to my brothers and tell them lsquoI am ascending to my Father and your Father to my God and your Godrsquo rdquo (John 2017)

Does it make sense to have Jesus claim equality with God by employing a divine title (ldquoI Amrdquo) before unbelieving Jews as Trinitarians claim and then have Jesus later assure his closest and faithful ones that lsquohis Father and his Godrsquo was also lsquothe Father and God of everyone elsersquo In fact Jesus disciples were clearly in a privileged position in regards to Christian teaching Jesus Christ had previously said to his disciples that he would explain lsquoall thingsrsquo to them privately whereas to others he would only speak in lsquoparablesrsquo or lsquocomparisonsrsquo (Matthew 1311 Mark 411 33 34) An explicit lsquodivine titlersquo directed at lsquounbelievingrsquo Jews is certainly no parable and would run counter to his own stated principles

Anyways Jesus Christ wanted other Christian followers to understand the special

relationship he had with the Father ldquoBut go to my followers and tell them this lsquoI am going back to my Father and your Father I am going back to my God and your Godrsquo rdquo (Easy to Read Version) This simple message is so different from the convoluted one commonly expounded by Trinitarians in their philosophical speculations

Between the time of the encounter between the Jews and Jesus in John ch 8 and the farewelldiscourse of our Lord Jesus Christ of later (chapters 14-17) not once did Jesus say he was ldquoGodrdquo Christ never spoke with a forked tongue Therefore Bible translators who do not claim Jesus was using a divine title at John 858 and provide renderings agreeing with the words of John 173 and 2017 are in the correct

Scriptures with similar syntax to John 858

Thus when faced with certain idiomatic expressions as the one found in John 858 the translator often has to ask himself How would someone normally express such statements in our language I will cite six (6) Scriptural examples that are similar in syntax to John 858 Genesis 3138 LXX 1 John 38 Luke 248 John 56 2 Corinthians 1219 and John 1527 All six Scriptures have present tense verbs AND an expression of past time or extent of time with past implications within its structure Lets see how these Scriptures compare with John 858 in our discussion

1st Example (Genesis 3138 LXX) ταῦτά μοι εἴκοσι ἔτη ἐγώ εἰμι μετὰ σοῦ - Greek These mine twenty years I am with you

Jacob after leaving Haran disputes with his father-in-law Laban over missing personal idols which Laban claimed were stolen by Jacob Jacob had no idea Rachel had stolen them In defense Jacob proceeded to mention several things he had done through the years on Labansbehalf ldquoThese twenty years I am with yourdquo (The Apostolic Bible Polyglot LXX 2006)ldquoThese twenty years of mine I was with yourdquo (A New English Translation of the Septuagint ldquoNETSrdquo 2007)ldquoThese twenty years have I been with theerdquo (The Holy Orthodox Bible LXX 2006)ldquoThese twenty years I have been with yourdquo (The Orthodox Study Bible LXX 2008)ldquoThese twenty years of mine have I been with theerdquo (Orthodox England LXX 2009)ldquoI have spent with you twenty of my years [Jai passeacute avec toi vingt de mes anneacutees]rdquo (La Septante [LXX] translated by Pierre Giguet)ldquoThese twenty years have I been with theerdquo (Sir Lancelot CL Brenton LXX)ldquoThese twenty years that I have been with theerdquo (Charles Thomson LXX)

Aside from the interlinear reading of the literal Apostolic Bible Polyglot other translators of the Septuagint (LXX) render a present indicative verb ldquoegō eimirdquo (I am) preceded by an expression of time with past implications (ldquoThese twenty yearsrdquo) with present perfect

indicative forms (ldquoI have beenrdquo) while one translation (NETS) uses a simple past form (ldquoI wasrdquo) A modern Greek translation Η Αγία ΓραφήmdashΜετάφραση Νέου Κόσμου has ldquoήμουνrdquo (Literally ldquoI wasrdquo) in this text A likely reason for that as a modern Greek Grammar pointsout is that for the verb lsquoto be (είμαι)rsquo ldquoThere are only two sets of tense forms in Greek present and past (imperfect)rdquo (op cit An Essential Grammar p 126 Sec 67) Hence they could not have used here a perfect tense form for the verb lsquoto be (eimai)rsquo But in English the Bible Society responsible for the Greek and English translations of the Hebrew portion of the Bible used instead ldquoI have beenrdquo at Genesis 3138 in the English edition because a present perfect is available in the language for the verb

Another interesting tidbit is the fact that the original Hebrew text here lacks a verb in the declaration namely ldquoThis twenty year I with-yourdquo (The Hebrew-English Interlinear ESV Old Testament Crossway) Well how do translators deal with this issue Overall like this with the perfect indicative ldquoI have been with you for twenty years nowrdquo A few versions use the imperfect instead lsquoI wasrsquo such as the Wycliffe Bible and the Lexham English Bible Rarely do translations use a ldquopresentrdquo here the exceptions being Youngs and Concordant literal translations So why do the overwhelming number of translators prefer tosupply a perfect tense here for the missing verb in the Hebrew Its simple There is a temporal indicator going to the past in the text namely lsquoThese twenty yearsrsquo

Now when the LXX translators proceeded to translate the Hebrew words of Genesis 3138 into Greek they cleverly used a well known vivid idiom available in classical Greek where a verb in the present tense is combined with an indicator of past time In this syntax the ldquopast and present are gathered up in a single affirmationrdquo (op cit Brooks amp Winbery) Modern English translators usually resort to the present perfect in this construction as shown aboveSo too John 858 reveals an expression of past time with a present verb in its statement and the NWT is one translation that is consistent with this construction both in Genesis 3138 and John 858

For the following I will use the Wescott and Hort Greek text for reference

2nd Example (1 John 38)

ὅτι ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς ὁ διάβολος ἁμαρτάνει - Greek because from beginning the devil is sinning

The apostle John warns Christians not to carry on sin for those who make a practice of sin originate from the Devil who has sinned from the beginning For this purpose the Son of God was revealed that he might undo the works of the Devil The text above contains an expression of past time (ldquofrom beginningrdquo) with a present verb (is sinning) very much likeJohn 858 How do translators deal with this passage Lets see

ldquofor the devil sinneth from the beginningrdquo (Rheims New Testament)ldquofor the devil sinneth from the beginningrdquo (KJV)

ldquofor the devil has sinned from the beginningrdquo (New King James Version)ldquofor the devil has sinned from the beginningrdquo (NASB)ldquobecause the devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (Interlinear Mounce)ldquofor the Devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (Riverside NT Ballantine)ldquobecause the devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (NIV)ldquobecause the devil has sinned from the beginningrdquo (NAB)ldquosince the devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (Jay E Adams)ldquowho has been sinning since the beginningrdquo (NLT)ldquofor the devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (NRSV)ldquosince the devil has been a sinner from the beginningrdquo (NJB)ldquobecause the devil has been sinning from the very beginningrdquo (J G Anderson)ldquofor the devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (ESV)

ldquothe devil was a sinner from the firstrdquo (Ronald A Knox New Testament)

Some translations transfer the Greek present to their English versions as if the English and Greek ldquopresentrdquo in such construction were the same thing It is not The end result is ungrammatical English Would you say in contemporary English ldquoFrom the beginning of class the boy sleepsrdquo Not Doctor Richard A Young points out ldquoTo say that the devil is sinning from the beginning does not make sense in English English translations therefore employ the present perfectrdquo (Intermediate New Testament Greek page 111)

The renderings above ldquohas sinnedrdquo and ldquohas been sinningrdquo are present perfect and present perfect progressive indicative forms The word ldquowasrdquo is a simple past tense Just as in 1 John 38 some translators in John 858 have rendered a present tense with an expression of past time in its construction with a present perfect ldquoI have beenrdquo

3rd Example (2 Corinthians 1219)

Πάλαι δοκεῖτε ὅτι ὑμῖν ἀπολογούμεθα ndash Greek Long ago you are thinking that to you we are making defense

Paul finds himself having to defend his apostolic authority and vindicating his record as superior in hardship endured for Christ and loving concern for congregations In simpler words Paul was telling them ldquoAll this time have you been thinking that Ive been speaking up for myself No Ive been speaking with God as my witness Ive been speaking like a believer in Christ Dear friends everything I do is to help you become strongerrdquo (NIRV)

In the literal reading above we have an adverb of time with past implications (Palai) followed by two Greek verb forms (ldquodokeiterdquo amp ldquoapologoumethardquo) in the present indicativetense The book Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek Verb by William Watson Goodwin explains ldquoThe Present is often used with expressions denoting past time especially πάλαι [palai] in the sense of a perfect and a present combinedrdquo (Section 26 p 9) How do translators render these in English Some carry over the present tense into the English text producing unconventional English Others cognizant of issues presented here

do a better job at it See below for a sample

ldquoHave you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves before yourdquo (The Comprehensive New Testament 2008)ldquoI hope you donacutet think that all along weacuteve been making our defense before yourdquo (The Message Eugene H Peterson)ldquoHave you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves to yourdquo (NIV)ldquoIt may seem to you that all this time we have been attempting to put ourselves in the rightrdquo (Bible in Basic English)ldquoAll this time you have been thinking that we have been pleading our own cause before yourdquo (NJB)ldquoHave you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves to yourdquo (CEV)ldquoHave you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves before yourdquo (Revised Standard Version) ldquoPerhaps you think that all along we have been trying to defend ourselves before yourdquo (TEV)ldquoHave you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves to yourdquo (ESV)ldquoYou have thought all along that we were defending ourselves to yourdquo (HCSB)ldquoHave you been thinking all this time that we have been defending ourselves to yourdquo (NET Bible)

ldquoYou have been thinking all along that it was to you we were making our defenserdquo (The Bible in Living English Steven T Byington)

The above translations use present perfect (and perfect progressive) forms or past progressives to bring out the proper sense of the original into our language Can anyone rightfully claim that it is improper for these Bible versions to translate this text as they have done in English

4th Example (Luke 248 Wescott and HortNestle early editions Greek text)

ὁ πατήρ σου καὶ ἐγὼ ὀδυνώμενοι ζητοῦμέν σε - Greek The father of you and I being pained we are seeking you Here the context (vv 42-48) speaks of Jesus (12 years old) being left behind unwittingly in Jerusalem by his parents they went back searching in distress for three days before finding him When they finally found him they spoke the words above

ldquoYour father and I have been looking for you anxiouslyrdquo (Revised Standard Version)ldquoYour father and I in agony of mind have been searching for yourdquo (Williams NT)ldquoYour father and I have been anxiously looking for Yourdquo (NASB 1971)ldquoYour father and I have been searching for you in great distressrdquo (Riverside NT)

ldquoHere have your father and I been searching anxiously for yourdquo (Hugh J Schonfield)ldquoYour father and I have been looking for you have been very anxious rdquo (Goodspeed)ldquoYour father and I have been looking for you We have been very troubledrdquo (Bible in Worldwide English)ldquoYour father and I have been looking for you in distressrdquo (Richmond Lattimore)ldquoYour father and I have been searching for you in great distressrdquo (Twentieth Century NT) ldquoThy father and I have sought thee distressedrdquo (Darby Bible Translation)

ldquoThy father and I sought thee sorrowingrdquo (American Standard Version)

ldquoThy father and I in anguish were seeking theerdquo (The Emphasized Bible 3rd edit based on Wescott and Hort by Joseph B Rotherham)ldquoThy father and I were seeking thee sorrowfulrdquo (W B Godbey N T 1902)ldquoThy father and I were seeking Thee sorrowingrdquo (A S Worrell N T 1904)ldquoYour father and I were anxiously looking for yourdquo (World English Bible)

The words ldquowe are seeking yourdquo are in the present indicative tense however since an expression of time is used indicating action going on for days (ldquoafter three daysrdquo v 46) translators find it necessary to use either the present perfect (ldquohave beenrdquo ldquohave soughtrdquo) or simple past (ldquosoughtrdquo) or past progressive (ldquowere seekingrdquo) indicative forms to express in English what the Greek says in the ldquopresentrdquo Various Greek texts have instead of the ldquopresentrdquo found in the Westcott amp Hort Text above an ldquoimperfectrdquo verb form Both forms are frequently rendered with an English present ldquoperfectrdquo Compare with Youngs Literal Translation which also uses a past progressive indicative form ldquowere seekingrdquo and the Spanish Reina-Valera Revisada which rendered an imperfect verb form appearing in the Received Text with a present perfect indicative (ldquohemos buscadordquo) Is this another reason why many translators have rendered the Greek present ldquoegō eimirdquo preceded by an adverbial modifier in its clause at John 858 with perfective or past forms in English

5th Example (Juan 56)

καὶ γνοὺς ὅτι πολὺν ἤδη χρόνον ἔχει - Greek and having known that much already time he is having

This is an account of an invalid man who for 38 years had been sick and was now being cured by Jesus The Greek in this clause does not make his illness clear however the context does Take note of the expression of time used with past implications mixed with a present indicative verb ldquohe is havingrdquo For this to make any sense in our language it has to be modified When Jesus saw this sick man lying there

ldquoand knew that he had been now a long time in that caserdquo (KJV italics theirs) ldquoand knowing that he had been ill a long timerdquo (Revised English Bible)ldquoand knew he had been in that condition for a long timerdquo (NJB)ldquoand knew that he had been sick for a long timerdquo (World English Bible)ldquoand knew that he had been sick for a long timerdquo (Godacutes Word)

ldquoand knew how long he had been illrdquo (Living Bible)ldquoand knew he had already been there a long timerdquo (HCSB)ldquoand he knew that the man had been sick for such a long timerdquo (TEV)ldquoand knew that he had been in this state a long timerdquo (Confraternity Version)ldquoand finding that he had had a long time of itrdquo (S T Byington) ldquoand knew that he had been sick for a long timerdquo (Jay E Adams)ldquoand he knew that he had been waiting for a long timerdquo (George M Lamsa Peshitta) ldquoand knew that he had been now a long timerdquo (Rheims New Testament)

ldquoand knowing that he was [in that state] now a great length of timerdquo (J N Darby Translation Brackets his)

Once again we see translators having to use mostly perfective forms (ldquohad beenrdquo ldquohad hadrdquopast perfects) and one with a simple past ldquowasrdquo even though they are translating a present tense verb ldquohe is havingrdquo This shows that translators adapt their renderings whenever is necessary to convey the right meaning into the target language It is thus possible to render ldquoeimirdquo at John 858 with a form other than a present tense such as a present perfect Those who say that it can not be done or should not be done just need to look again at the evidenceobjectively

6th Example (John 1527 Wescott amp Hort)

ὅτι ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς μετʼ ἐμοῦ ἐστέ ndash Greek that from beginning with me you are

These words spoken by Jesus evidently refers to the beginning of his ministry when he chosehis closest disciples They were eyewitnesses of all the things God did through Christ duringhis ministry (Acts 121)

ldquobecause ye have been with me from the beginningrdquo (KJV) ldquobecause you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (NAB)ldquofor you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (Christian Community Bible)ldquobecause you are the men who have been with me from the very beginningrdquo (Heinz Wldquobecause you have been with me from the firstrdquo (New English Bible) [ Cassirer)ldquobecause you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (Godacutes Word Translation) ldquofor you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (NIV)ldquobecause you have been with me from the firstrdquo (Weymouth New Testament)ldquobecause you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (NRSV)ldquoyou that have been with me from the beginningrdquo (The Four Gospels EV Rieu)ldquobecause youacuteve been with Me from the beginning of My ministryrdquo (The Clear Word)ldquofor you have been with me from the firstrdquo (J B Phillips Modern English)ldquobecause you have been with Me from the beginningrdquo (HCSB) ldquothat you were with me from the startrdquo (21st Century New Testament)ldquofor you were with Me from the beginningrdquo (New Berkeley Version Revised Edition)

ldquobecause you were with me from the beginningrdquo (Mark Heber Miller)ldquobecause you were with me from the very beginningrdquo (SEB)

This scripture with the plural form of ldquoeimirdquo (este) is very similar to John 858 Again within its structure there is an expression of past time and a verb in the present indicative form (este) just as there is in John 858 A Grammar of New Testament Greek says ldquoThe reader may be reminded of one idiom which comes out of the linear idea the use of words like πάλαι [palai ldquolong agordquo] with the present in a sense best expressed by our perfect Thus in 2 Co 1219 lsquohave you been thinking all this timersquo or Jn 1527 lsquoyou have been with me from the beginning [ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς]rsquo hellip The durative present in such cases gathers up past and present time into one phraserdquo (A Grammar of New Testament Greek Vol 1 Prolegomena by JH Moulton p 119) As previously noted this Grammar specifically refers to John 858 as an example of this idiom

And here in John 1527 there is a connection of Jesus disciples [creatures as they are] that ldquowererdquo with him ldquofrom the beginningrdquo Obviously Jesus was making no reference to his disciples sharing ldquoeternityrdquo with him The disciples all had a beginning The logical conclusion is that Jesus was simply saying to them lsquoYou have been with me from the start of my ministryrsquo Hence there is no need to read ldquoeternityrdquo into the expression ldquoI amrdquo anymore that we should read ldquoeternityrdquo from Jesus words at John 1527 lsquoYou are with me from the beginningrsquo Neither grammar nor the context justifies reading more into these Scriptures than what they actually say

In fact the six (6) instances cited above (Genesis 3138 LXX 1 John 38 2 Cor 1219 Luke 248 John 56 John 1527) and John 858 as well all have an expression of past time or an extent of time with past implications (ldquoThese twenty yearsrdquo ldquoLong agordquo ldquoafter three daysrdquo Lk 246 ldquomuch already timerdquo ldquofrom [the] beginningrdquo ldquoBeforerdquo etc) AND present verbs in their sentences or nearby within the context and are commonly rendered with present perfect (some with past perfects) or simple past (or past progressive) forms in English translations If we apply this pattern to the translation of John 858 it would mean that renderings such as ldquoI have beenrdquo (present perfect) and ldquoI wasrdquo (simple past) are not only acceptable in translation but actually more ldquosuitablerdquo in application Can this really be done Not only can it be done it makes for a ldquobetterrdquo English translation

In regards to Jesus John 858 simply tells us that Jesus lsquowas alive before Abraham was bornrsquo (SEB) and that his existence continued up to the moment of his speaking to them Just as it is not proper English to say ldquoFor three days we are seeking yourdquo (Greek literal reading of Luke 248) or ldquobecause from the beginning with me you arerdquo (John 1527) it is no less proper English to say in John 858 ldquoBefore Abraham was born I amrdquo These readings should only appear in extremely literal interlinear translations which basically render the Greek word-by-word and not in standard idiomatic English translations Let me illustrate If a man advanced in age for example had his work history and experience questioned by co-workers in comparison to his younger son and employee Abe would he say in reply ldquoBefore my son Abe was born I am [the one fit for the job]rdquo No that does not sound right In English he could say it in various ways

ldquoI have been an experienced worker since before my son Abe was bornrdquo ldquoI have been what I am since before my son Abe was bornrdquo ldquoI was fit to work and fully active before my son Abe was ever bornrdquo ldquoI was already experienced in many jobs before Abe ever came to berdquo ldquoI have been a master worker way before my son Abe came to liferdquo ldquoBefore Abe was born I already was life and job experiencedrdquo etc

The point is that in English normally we include a present perfect tense whenever there is a reference to the past extending to the present or a past tense of some form whenever we go back in time The same with John 858 There is no justification in English to insist using a present verb form (which is not equal to the Greek present when combined with a past expression) in an unwarranted attempt to convey ldquoeternityrdquo as ldquopaddingrdquo to the Trinity doctrine a doctrine adopted AFTER the Christian era Worse it is disingenuous to accuse other translators (who have chosen to render ldquoegō eimirdquo at John 858 with an English present perfect or past tense) of scholastic dishonesty when the very same translations honored by these detractors do so in other places where the ldquodeityrdquo of Christ is not in play asshown in the samples provided above

An example of this double standard can be seen as well when scholars such as Dr Julius Mantey harshly criticizes the NWT for the rendering ldquoI have beenrdquo at John 858 but keeps quiet when other translators do similarly and even states or pretends that no other reputable translator would ever translate it that way He dared not criticize his former Greek teacher Charles B Williams who produced his own Bible translation Dr Mantey once wrote the following of Dr Williams translation ldquoWilliams translation considering all the factors is the most accurate and illuminating translation in the English languagerdquo And how does this ldquomost accurate translationrdquo render John 858 As follows ldquoI existed before Abraham was bornrdquo Here Dr Williams known for his Greek command used a simple past tense (ldquoI existedrdquo) as translation for the Greek present Julius Mantey certainly did not find Williams version of John 858 a ldquoshocking translationrdquo ldquoI existedrdquo is quite different from the translation Dr Mantey so passionately defended (ldquoI amrdquo)

When Dr Mantey talks about the NWT he says the rendering ldquoI have beenrdquo at John 858 cannot be justified and calls it ldquodishonestrdquo That rule does not apply to Williams translation does it Williams did not translate John 858 in the same way Mantey would have liked (ldquoI amrdquo) Not only that the Grammar itself that Dr Mantey co-authored with Dr Dana A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament states under ldquoThe Progressive Presentrdquo (called ldquoExtension from Pastrdquo by McKay) ldquoSometimes the progressive present is retroactivein its application denoting that which has begun in the past and continues into the present For the want of a better name we may call it the present of duration This use is generally associated with an adverb of time and may best be rendered by the English perfect ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς μετʼ ἐμοῦ ἐστέ Ye have been with me from the beginning Jn 1527 See also Lk137 2 Cor 129 [19]rdquo (Pages 182-83 Emphasis added)

Even though Julius Mantey has stated when referring to the NWT that ldquoI have beenrdquo is not a proper translation and even ldquodishonestrdquo at John 858 he clearly states in his Grammar (of

Scriptures with similar syntax to John 858) ldquoThis use is generally associated with an adverb of time and may best be rendered by the English perfect [such as ldquoI have beenrdquo which in fact is associated with an adverb of time in John 858]rdquo A likely reason for Dana ampManteys strong reluctance for not including John 858 as an example of the idiom discussed on page 183 may have to do with the fact that as ldquotrinitariansrdquo they oppose the idea of Jesus existence having lsquobegunrsquo in the past even though John 858 perfectly fits with the ldquoProgressive Presentrdquo idiom being discussed in their Grammar as acknowledged by other grammarians Hence their objection is truly a ldquotheologicalrdquo one rather than Greek grammaritself arguing in their favor as Mantey and some others have implied since a Greek present or an English perfect does not demand ldquoeternityrdquo at all from the subject

Consequently many religious individuals who focus solely on the basic meaning (of ldquoegō eimirdquo as ldquoI amrdquo) out of the context of the particular ldquoidiomrdquo used at John 858 end up missing the thrust of Jesus words and fall prey to misleading interpretations Doctor Kenneth L McKay taking into account all of these issues comes up with this excellent translation for John 858 ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo (A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek SBG 5 New York Peter Lang 1994 p42) If we objectively consider the material above we will not insist in connecting Jesus at John 858 with the God Jehovah of Exodus 314 (which many attempt to do but cannot be sustained) Instead we will focus on the simple message conveyed by Jesus words at John 858 which is in harmony with the totality of Scripture ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo (McKay) The rendering ldquoI have been in existencerdquo by itself does not rule out either the concept of ldquoeternityrdquo or the ldquocreationrdquo of Jesus Christ A Committee of Bible translators came up with the following translation which may not be the best choice but considering the issues involved is better than the traditional rendering of ldquoI amrdquo ldquoI was alive before Abraham was bornrdquo (The New Testament in Plain English)

(The following scholars are members of the Bible Translation Committee of The New Testament in Plain English which approved this last reading ldquoI was aliverdquo instead of ldquoI amrdquo(Dr Stanley L Morris chairman FW Gingrich Ph D a renown Greek lexicographer Jack P Lewis Ph D CH Accord Th D Clyde M Woods Ph D ST Kan Ph D Gary T Burke Ph D Milo Hadwin D Min)

I submit their names and their credentials here as an example because it is often asserted vigorously that no intelligent or highly qualified scholar would ever produce a translation other than ldquoI amrdquo As noted above and as the list of alternate readings (at the end of this essay) of John 858 shows many done by highly qualified people this is simply not true Usually those making statements of that sort are doing so based on emotional and theological not philological reasons Furthermore by not disclosing other valid viewpoints or by dismissing how other qualified Bible translators deal with this scripture they are undermining their own credibility as well

At this time you are welcome to briefly go over the list of Alternate Readings to John 858 at

the end before moving on to the second part of this essay

_____________________________

Should we ignore the evidence of all those translations listed at the end that differ in John 858 from the traditional versions What then are all these translators seeing at John 858 that moved them to render this text differently They surely must be aware of the resistance they would encounter by translating it by the various forms they used Still they must have had the firm conviction that both the Greek text and the context supports their understanding of this scripture They likely see a Jesus making no identity connection with his Father Godbut rather see a Jesus simply expressing his indefinite existence with no suggestion of eternity in focus Neither is Jesus stating here that he is the God of Old Testament times To understand it that way would be to read into the text more than what it says Taking some clues from the context of the chapter some scholars additionally see Jesus insinuating his ldquomessiahshiprdquo as if saying ldquoI am he [the Messiah]rdquo This is very likely In fact The LivingBible renders John 824 thus ldquoThat is why I said that you will die in your sins for unless you believe that I am the Messiah the Son of God [ἐγώ εἰμι] you will die in your sinsrdquo

Is ldquoegō eimirdquo a title or another name of God

The use of ldquoeimirdquo at John 858 is frequently used as a ldquoproof textrdquo of Jesus deity A noted Trinitarian scholar AT Robertson a Baptist even refers to ldquoegō eimirdquo as ldquothe absolute phrase used of Godrdquo likely indicating the verb conveys ldquotimeless beingrdquo an implication that ldquoeimirdquo here does not require anything else to complete the meaning of the phrase thus conveying ldquoeternal existencerdquo as well as being an actual name for God Some individuals have given plenty of publicity to Robertsons statement as absolute truth But his statement is not ldquotruthrdquo at all It is faulty interpretation which many people have fallen prey to Grammar and theology do not always make the best mix True Robertsons credentials as a scholar are impressive nevertheless credentials does not truth make Besides some other equally bright scholars disagree with him Lets illustrate the folly of those advocating a divine title at John 858 by way of addition (Or substitution if you will) as some suggest

ldquoBefore Abraham was born I am Eternalrdquo ldquoBefore Abraham was born I am Jehovahrdquo ldquoBefore Abraham was born I am eternally Godrdquo

First of all the above hypothetical translations are just as ungrammatical as the simple ldquoI amrdquo reading of most versions An English present tense cannot start before a definite point in the past This can be seen in the following two examples

1 ldquoBefore the US Iraq war I am a soldierrdquo 2 ldquoThree journalists are kidnapped in Nepal since the start of 2007rdquo

What is the correct way to express these statements in English Analyze it for a second and

provide an answer if you will

Notably if ldquoeimirdquo was used to convey eternal existence what is the point of using an expression of past time at all in the clause Moreover the context of previous verses (vv 48-57) clearly indicates that Jesus is speaking of God as a separate entity See below

49 ldquobut I honor my Father and you dishonor merdquo 50 ldquoI am not seeking glory for myself but there is one who seeks it and he is the

judgerdquo54 ldquoIf I glorify myself my glory means nothing My Father whom you claim as your

God is the one who glorifies me 55 ldquoThough you do not know him I know him If I said I did not I would be a liar like you but I do know him and obey his wordrdquo Thus if Jesus meant he himself was the ldquoJehovahrdquo of the Old Testament as Trinitarians claim what would be the rationale behind Jesus directing all distinction and glory to lsquothe Father Godrsquo as a distinct individual as he did in the previous verses and then a few words later abruptly change his argumentation by claiming he is that very same One who lsquoreceives obedience from his own wordrsquo lsquoseeking his own honor and gloryrsquo because he himself is ldquoGodrdquo Confusing is it not To accept this abrupt change of character on Jesus part would be not ldquoa mysteryrdquo but flat out ldquoa deceptionrdquo of big proportions since Jesus himself warned against pretending to be one thing and acting as another (Matthew 62-5 2313-36)

Are we are supposed against all logic to accept these ldquotrinitarianrdquo assumptions instead of a simple alternative which really answers the Jews question about lsquohow could Abraham ldquoseerdquoJesus day if he was not yet 50 years oldrsquo (ldquoI have been in existence since Abraham was bornrdquo)

The obsession with the simple words ldquoI amrdquo have led to many faulty assumptions ldquoI amrdquo issuch a common expression in our language even to this day that words such as ldquoegoismrdquo ldquoegotismrdquo etc (derived from the Greek ldquoegordquo) are considered common words in English dictionaries Everyone uses the phrase ldquoI amrdquo at times Think of any big corporation or powerful organization of your choice for a moment Would you conclude that the two most powerful individuals of this one prestigious organization must be identical in every way solely because they are heard equally saying to others in their common speech ldquoI am thisrdquoor ldquoI am thatrdquo etc

In Bible times humans too used common pronouns The verb eimi (ldquoI amrdquo) itself or forms of it appears more than two thousand times (2000x) in the New Testament alone Additionally the word ldquoegōrdquo appears over seventeen hundred times (1700x) in the NT And those numbers do not include the Septuagint totals Do all occurrences of the word then imply ldquodivinityrdquo in each case Of course not It may be more significant when God or Christ use the expression because of who they are but does it really mean that both God and Christ share the same identity Or that everyone who uses the phrase ldquoI amrdquo does so with divine pretensions Does it really mean that everyone using the phrase are ldquoequalrdquo The

answer is obvious is it not

Lets bear in mind that when God sent Jesus Christ as His representative to a most crucial assignment multiple biblical prophecies were pointing to Christ as the promised Messiah that would free mankind from its moribund condition It is logical then that when the time came for Jesus Christ to show up on earth he would somehow communicate to others that ldquoherdquo and not some other human claiming to be the Messiah was Gods instrument in bringing everlasting relief to human misery Hence he could rightly say any or all of the following ldquoI am (this)rdquo ldquoI am (that)rdquo ldquoI am he [the promised Messiah]rdquo or ldquoI am Gods Sonrdquo Should we expect anything less

The fact is that the words ldquoI amrdquo are not exclusive to God and Christ It should be noted that a man who was born ldquoblindrdquo also used the same expression (John 99) The Greek here says ldquoekeinos elegen hoti Egō eimirdquo (ldquoThat one kept saying that I amrdquo) AT Robertson cites John 99 as one of five parallels to the use of egō eimi in John 858 (Word Pictures in the New Testament Vol V p 159) The phrase here comes at the end of the clause with no explicit predicate James White who upholds the traditional reading admits ldquoThis last instance [John 99] is similar to the sayings as Jesus utters them in that the phrase comes at the end of the clause and looks elsewhere for its predicaterdquo The same could be said of John 1527 Some argue that ldquoeimirdquo in John 858 is ldquoabsoluterdquo but do not do so with John 99 or John 1527 Theology may be a factor in this Previously we saw how Jacob a man according to the Septuagint used the words ldquoegō eimirdquo Other instances in Scripture of creatures using those words would not prove they were part of a ldquoGodheadrdquo Context then ultimately dictates how ldquoeimirdquo should be translated According to John when Jesus was pressed he only claimed to have been alive way before Abraham was born and that he simply was ldquothe Christrdquo ldquothe Son of Manrdquo and ldquothe Son of Godrdquo

There is something else to keep in mind in regards to the meaning of ldquoeimirdquo And it is what grammarian Stanley Porter indicated ldquoSometimes the verb [eimi] is used on its own as a verb of existence Perhaps the best-known example of this is the following John 858rdquo (Fundamentals of New Testament Greek by Stanley E Porter section 753 72) AT Robertson adds ldquoThe verb εἰμί [eimi] hellip Sometimes it does express existence as a predicatelike any other verb as in ἐγὼ εἰμί [egō eimi] (Jo 858) and ἡ θάλασσα οὐκ ἔστιν ἔτι [hē thalassa ouk estin eti = ldquothe sea not is yetrdquo] (Rev 211) Cf Mt 2330rdquo (A Grammar of theGreek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research Nashville Tenn 1934 p 394)

What does this mean The examples mentioned by Robertson in addition to John 858 give us an idea of what this implies It is so strange that the two examples Robertson provided forcomparison with John 858 seems to contradict his ldquotimeless beingrdquo view on ldquoeimirdquo He cited a portion of Revelation 211 where the Greek literally says ldquoAnd the sea not is yetrdquo In other words ldquoThe sea does not exist any morerdquo Amplified Bible ldquoThere no longer existed any seardquo Curiously various versions render the present verb ldquoisrdquo (a form of ldquoeimirdquo) with an imperfect ldquowasrdquo (Cf KJV NIV NAB NRSV) Obviously ldquothe seardquo in this vision is [was] not ldquoeternalrdquo

And in Matthew 2330 the other text provided by Robertson in his comparison with John 858 the Greek word-for-word says ldquoIf we were in the days of the fathers of usrdquo which inmodern English would be ldquoIf we had lived in the days of our forefathersrdquo Other versions ldquoIf we had beenrdquo (Rheims NT) ldquoIf we had been livingrdquo (NASB) ldquoIf we had been existing in the days of our fathersrdquo (Jonathan Mitchell NT) The full NIV text reads ldquoAnd you say lsquoIf we had lived in the days of our ancestors we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophetsrsquo rdquo

It is clear from this comparison that the words of Matthew 2330 ldquoIf we wererdquo (a form of ldquoeimirdquo) in the text is used as an equivalent for ldquoliferdquo or ldquoexistencerdquo In the heavenly vision of Rev 211 lsquothe sea ceased to existrsquo And the generation of people which Jesus spoke about and their ancestors all died ceased to exist If we apply these two examples to John 858 given by Robertson with the meaning either of life or existence for ldquoeimirdquo then it wouldbe equally acceptable to translate ldquoI amrdquo as ldquoI existrdquo or ldquoI liverdquo Many translators reflect this very same understanding as the submitted list of alternate readings of John 858 show ldquoI existrdquo or ldquoI existed even before Abraham was bornrdquo Or ldquoI was alive before Abraham was bornrdquo (The Simple English Bible)

Although some may not see much semantic difference between Jesus saying ldquoI amrdquo or ldquoI existrdquo the two expressions communicate something very different to many readers ldquoI amrdquo is generally associated by Trinitarians as a title used by God or as another name for God Onthe other hand ldquoI existrdquo simply conveys ldquoliferdquo or ldquoexistence Barnabas Lindars points out that ldquoegō eimirdquo in John 858 ldquocannot be regarded as a title because it requires the meaning lsquoI am in existencersquordquo (ldquoThe Son of Man in Johannine Christologyrdquo in Christ and the Spirit in the New Testament In Honour of Charles Francis Digby Moule eds B Lindars and S Smalley Cambridge Cambridge University Press 1973) (Since an English present tense cannot start before a definite point in the past this would mean that we can incorporate Lindars valid observation and translate it into contemporary English like this ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo exactly as Dr McKay proposed)

Some in their eagerness to equate Christ with God accuse translators who render ldquoegō eimirdquo in John 858 with renderings other than ldquoI amrdquo pointing to all occurrences of this expression in the New Testament or in Johns Gospel where allegedly these translators do not follow the same ldquorulerdquo when translating ldquoegō eimirdquo in John 858 as they do elsewhere where they translate it with a present indicative form What they dont tell you or fail to understand is that in John 858 ldquoegō eimirdquo without a predicate AND with an expression of time with past implications in its sentence structure provides an ldquoidiomrdquo which is quite different from those other instances of ldquoeimirdquo Thats right an idiom (where present and past is combined) found equally at home in classical biblical and modern Greek which many translators convey into our language with the English present perfect at various places Consequently one cannot merely go by how the phrase ldquoegō eimirdquo is used elsewhere in the NT without taking into account the fact that John 858 displays an ldquoidiomrdquo in its structure Not doing so would be dishonest John the Baptist had said of Christ in John 130 ldquoA man is coming after me who ranks before me because he existed [Lit was] before merdquo (JB)

John 858 is in harmony with those words Furthermore some attempt to use the reading of Psalm 902 in the Septuagint as ldquoevidencerdquo that John 858 is rendered correctly in the popular versions But a closer analysis of this verse shows notable differences between the two verses making such comparison untenable With good reason a considerable number ofscholars have chosen to break from tradition in their rendering of John 858

If critics of alternate readings of John 858 are not candid enough to admit some of the very issues mentioned here and hide the fact that many scholars do hold a different interpretation and no less academic at that should we consider their diatribes of any worthy import It is ldquowishful thinkingrdquo for someone to believe that John 858 is directly connected to Exodus 314 rather than any real evidence (which is lacking) confirming their eager interpretations Remember even Dr James White a well known Trinitarian advocate admitted ldquothat an immediate and unqualified jump from the ego eimi of John 858 to Exodus 314 is unwiserdquo

Besides a theological tendency can be seen when they focus as some do on undermining the reputation of one Bible translation (NWT) when there are actually numerous versions from different religions dealing with the same controversial Scriptures in a similar manner This is very much like politicians who ignore the failings of their own party but are quick to lsquodemonizersquo their opponents (Matthew 73)

Is the Kingdom Interlinear ldquoproofrdquo the NWT is wrong at John 858

A criticism has been made of a Watchtower Society publication (The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures ldquoKITrdquo) which contains the Greek text and underneath it a word-by-word translation in English and on the right side of the page the modern New World Translation Well at John 858 this publication renders the Greek phrase being discussed here egō eimi word-for-word as ldquoI amrdquo and in the right column the NWT shows the reading ldquoI have beenrdquo This difference have led some to severely criticize the NW translators of ldquoincompetencerdquo ldquoinconsistencyrdquo and even of ldquodishonestyrdquo The critics say something like this ldquoThey have backed themselves into a corner where they cant escape their mishandling of the Greek textrdquo or something of that sort Amazingly these critics in their condemnations hardly ever mention the dozens of translators who translate the same way or similarly to the NWT as the submitted list shows So much for honesty

Those who engage in such tactics are not being forthcoming Why say that Besides dismissing how other translators deal with John 858 they also distort known facts for the WT Society have made it clear that the publication of this Greek Bible is to help the Bible student determine the basic sense of the Greek and have stated that the translation on the right column (the NWT) is a modern way of expressing the thoughts transmitted by the Greek text There are many factors to consider when using such publications

Even other interlinear publications warn of seeming discrepancies For instance The Zondervan Parallel New Testament in Greek and English says in its Foreword ldquo[I]t is a good thing to bear in mind that you cannot always either give an English equivalent for a Greek word or expression or even always render the same Greek verb word by the same

English onerdquo Another interlinear the New Greek-English Interlinear New Testament by Brown and Comfort and edited by J D Douglas explains ldquoIt is difficult to translate one language into another on a word-for-word basis because each language has its own syntax grammatical constructions and idioms that are difficultmdashif not impossiblemdashto replicate literally in another languagerdquo (Emphasis added) This statement is so true of the text in discussion (John 858) in regards to its syntax and particular idiom Often critics of the NWT hide this fact Why Is it religious bias at work

I will give the reader a few examples of an available interlinear translation which has the Greek main text and a literal sublinear translation below the Greek by Professor Paul R McReynolds and on the right column for comparison the reader can study the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) a popular translation in academia Observe how the two can differ

McReynolds Mat 21 ldquomagiciansrdquo NRSV ldquowise menrdquo John 118 ldquoonly born Godrdquo ldquoGod the only Sonrdquo Mat 243 ldquosign of the your presencerdquo ldquothe sign of your comingrdquo Mathew 522 ldquothe gehenna of the firerdquo ldquothe hell of firerdquo John 1319 ldquoI amrdquo ldquoI am herdquo John 149 ldquoI amrdquo ldquoHave I beenrdquo John 1527 ldquoyou arerdquo ldquoyou have beenrdquo 2 Peter 24 ldquobeing sent to Tartarusrdquo ldquobut cast them into hellrdquo Luke 1113 ldquowill give spirit holy tordquo ldquowillgive the Holy Spirit tordquo John 2022 ldquotake spirit holyrdquo ldquoReceive the Holy Spiritrdquo Acts 24 ldquofilled all of spirit holyrdquo ldquofilled with the Holy Spiritrdquo

( Paul R McReynolds is professor of Greek and New Testament at Pacific Christian College in Fullerton California USA He also contributed to the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia)

Some of the readings from the right column above (NRSV) are acceptable others are not See if you can detect in the right column above those translation renderings with a theological tendency that deviate from the literal readings from the left column McReynoldson the left does an excellent job of transmitting the Greek sense Even the most popular Bible versions do not adhere consistently to the base texts The NRSV and a host of other Bible versions add their own religious interpretation throughout Scripture just as much as the NWT if not more but hardly anyone complains of this transformation of Scriptures eventhough it leads to error Why Simply because the NRSV represents more of a ldquomajorityrdquo view than the NWT does But in truth majority or minority views do not correspond equallyto ldquoaccuraterdquo or ldquoinaccuraterdquo results

In the text discussed the KIT can appropriately show the basic sense rendering of ldquoI amrdquo for the Greek ldquoegō eimirdquo in the left column and alternately show the reading ldquoI have beenrdquo in the right column as a contemporary way of expressing in English the particular Greek clause with its ldquoidiomrdquo in John 858 as explained throughout this article a rendering which has

scholarship support When the Greek ldquoegō eimirdquo appears in an idiom-less structure it can rightfully be translated as ldquoI amrdquo as most versions do including the NWT Hence there is no contradiction between the two translations

Dr McKay argues that Jesus response in John 858 ldquowould be most naturally translated lsquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrsquo if it were not for the obsession with the simple words lsquoI amrsquo rdquo (Kenneth L McKay ldquolsquoI amrsquo in Johns Gospelrdquo Expository Times 1996 p 302) I take the author as saying that ldquoI have been in existencerdquo for ldquoeimirdquo is a better translation than ldquoI amrdquo but the [religious] obsession for the simple words ldquoI amrdquo in their quest to elevate Christ to Gods level does not allow people to see that The thing is that Christ lsquoalways pleased the Fatherrsquo and was fully satisfied with being lsquolesserrsquo than him (John 829 1029 1428 177813) Why not accept him as he is

Hence it is poor scholarship to forward the idea that an entity must be God Almighty himselfby the sole fact of using a divine sounding phrase when other Bible individuals are found using the same expression in Scripture The ldquocontextrdquo is the determining factor Not only must we take into account the context surrounding a chapter or book of the Bible but also what the whole Bible teaches on a given person or subject

What does the Bible teach about Jesus

That Christ ldquowas in the beginning with Godrdquo (John 12) At the announcement of his birth on earth the angel Gabriel told Mary that she will give birth to someone ldquogreatrdquo and ldquoholyrdquo and that one will be called ldquoSon of the Most Highrdquo and ldquoSon of Godrdquo (Luke 132 35) Trinitarians may claim that ldquoSon of Godrdquo is equivalent in meaning to ldquoGodrdquo It is a claim with no foundation If there was any truth to the claim then the ldquoHoly Spiritrdquo would also be called Son of God But no The fact is that other living creatures are called ldquosons of Godrdquo (Job 21) Never is ldquoGodrdquo or ldquoholy spiritrdquo ever called ldquoSon of Godrdquo in Scripture Only Jesus Christ is called ldquothe Son of Godrdquo with the article Why

By Christ lsquobecoming obedient [to God] until deathrsquo during the course of his earthly life lsquoGod highly exalted Him and graciously gave him a name which is above every other name that at the name of Jesus every knee should bendto the credit of God the Fatherrsquo (Hebrews58 Philippians 28-11 21st Century New Testament)

ldquo[Christ] has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God with angels authorities and powers made subject to himrdquo (1 Peter 322 NRSV) Still in heaven Christ receives knowledge information revelation from God and transmits it to other creatures (Revelation11) Though the glorified Christ is described as ldquoKing of kingsrdquo and ldquoLord of lordsrdquo he is specifically called ldquoThe Word of Godrdquo (Revelation 191316 NRSV) The night before his death he ldquoprayedrdquo to his Father and called him ldquothe only true Godrdquo and made this petition ldquoFather glorify me in your own presence [Greek beside yourself] with the glory that I hadin your presence [Greek beside you] before the world existedrdquo (John 175 NRSV) (ldquoalongside yourselfrdquo ST Byington) Again God never has to ldquoprayrdquo to anyone Ever

Well then if Jesus Christ expressed this one final ldquowishrdquo in prayer to be ldquoin the presence ofrdquoldquobesiderdquo ldquoalongsiderdquo his Father which he himself called ldquothe only true Godrdquo why should we for the sake of tradition insist with the belief that Jesus ldquomustrdquo somehow be that ldquotruerdquo God the One sitting at the center of Gods throne instead of ldquobesiderdquo God (Mark 1619) Christ did not ask to sit at Gods throne Christ was fully content with the premise of being alongside God And that is what actually happened Mark tells us ldquoSo then the Lord Jesus after he had spoken to them was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of Godrdquo (Mark 1619 NRSV Note Some ancient manuscripts omit this verse) The NIV Study Bible notes the significance of lsquositting at the right hand of Godrsquo ldquoA position of authority second only to Godsrdquo Being in ldquoa position of authority second only to Godsrdquo is something no one should ever say of God for he is always ldquosupremerdquo At no time does God relinquishes his supremacy Someone who holds a position of authority second to God cannot be identical to God Take note too that in this account of Mark chapter 16 or the oneat John chapter 17 there is no mention of a third party of a ldquoGodheadrdquo No ldquoHoly Spiritrdquo is in sight The fact is that the glorified Christ in heaven continues to call his Father ldquomy Godrdquo(Revelation 312)

As ldquoSon of Godrdquo and always lesser and subject to God it is illogical to think Christ would purposely usurp titles and rights that only belonged to lsquohis God and Fatherrsquo (John 1428 Matthew 2023 John 2017 Acts 17) Jesus Christ taught others to only worship the Father God (Matthew 410 John 42324) ldquoAnd we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the worldrdquo (1 John 414) If so the thought that Christ would usethe words ldquoI amrdquo as a title to identify himself as ldquothe true Godrdquo is incongruous Jesus made it clear that he would only seek the glory ldquothat comes from the one who alone is Godrdquo (John850 54 544)

In this Satan controlled world it is not that difficult to get entangled with human taught intricate philosophies which obscure the simple Christian doctrine (John 1231 2 Cor 44) Hence the need for caution at the time of defending popular traditional views which clash with the monotheistic approach of Bible writers

Consequently those who teach that Christ is Almighty God find themselves in conflict with the Scriptural record The submitted list of alternate readings of John 858 shows that there are a considerable number of scholars who not only understand the subject correctly but alsokeenly grasp that whatever Jesus said on the matter has to harmonize with both the context of John chapter 8 and the rest of the Scriptures as well

What is the correct translation of John 858

Is it ldquoI amrdquo ldquoI wasrdquo ldquoI am herdquo or ldquoI have beenrdquo After analyzing the Greek phrase ldquoegō eimirdquo the context and the various possible ways the expression can be translated in English I think it is best to render the Greek with an English present perfect Adding a smallelement such as ldquosincerdquo to the statement as McKay does below satisfies all contextual and grammatical requirements of the passage Doing so does not qualify as ldquointerpolationrdquo

A second choice a simple past tense can perhaps be used in translation where the context allows since it is grammatically correct but it is generally used of activity confined to the past so the message may be distorted Unless that is the simple past is interpreted as ldquoimperfectiverdquo with current relevance How so In support of Jesus deity many frequently cite John11 There in the text a simple past tense ldquowasrdquo is applied to ldquothe Wordrdquo three times in English versions Does that mean ldquothe Wordrdquo is no more or that it was permanentlycut-off from existence at some point Of course not The context of the whole gospel of John shows that Christ is fully pertinent in Christian lives

Scholars choosing a past tense for ldquoeimirdquo (ie ldquoI wasrdquo ldquoI existedrdquo etc) at John 858 may also have in mind what John the Baptist said as a precursor of Jesus Christ ldquoA man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was [ldquoexistedrdquo JB] before merdquo Surely John the Baptist did not mean that Jesus existence was done away with His own words show thatJesus life was very much relevant and would continue to be so Translators have no issue whatsoever in applying a past tense (ldquowasrdquo ldquoexistedrdquo) at John 11 and 130 in their English versions So why would they at John 858 Perhaps because it would mean that they wouldhave to do away with the premise of a ldquodivine titlerdquo in their argumentation of which is claimed clinches Jesus identity with Gods own As shown above Revelation 211 a presentverb a form of ldquoeimirdquo is rendered by some versions with a past tense ldquowasrdquo Obviously Bible translators have no problem in translating some present tense verbs with past tenses or with present perfects But most object to it at John 858 likely for theological reasons

As stated in the beginning of this essay the English ldquopresentrdquo and the Greek ldquopresentrdquo in certain contexts do not correspond exactly in meaning because in Greek ldquotimerdquo is a secondary factor That being the case the choice of English tense does not have to match theGreek conjugation per se to be faithful to the Sacred Text When one considers the specific idiom found in John 858 and the semantic implications of both the Greek and English ldquopresentrdquo one can see that the rendering ldquoI amrdquo though popular does not nearly represent the best translation possible in the English language ldquoContextrdquo often plays a more importantrole in determining the correct translation Overall though it is best to render the Greek expression with an English present perfect since it conveys clearly a more present relevancythan a past tense would

That said John 858 is a good example where a Greek transliteration may not be the best choice to communicate the right message effectively in our times The translation of ldquoI amrdquo has its place in extreme English literal translations which show the basic sense of the Greek such as those Interlinear translations mentioned above Also it can rightfully be used in many Scriptures where the context calls for it as when the sentence structure lacks the Greekldquoidiomrdquo discussed throughout this writing as might be the case with most occurrences of ldquoeimirdquo

Here listed in my opinion are the translations which come closest to the Greek thought presented by the particular ldquoidiomrdquo found in John 858 Dr Kenneth L McKay comes up with the correct translation

1 ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo - Kenneth L McKay A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek (SBG 5 New York Peter Lang 1994) p42

(Kenneth L McKay graduated with honours in Classics (with an interest in the Greek of theNT) from the Universities of Sydney and Cambridge He has taught Greek in universities and theological colleges in Nigeria New Zealand and England Mr McKay retired from the Australian National University in 1987 after teaching there for 26 years)

Other translations below come close to McKays rendering and are thus favored over the traditional rendering which is widely misunderstood

2 ldquoI have existed before Abraham was bornrdquo - A New Translation by James [ Moffatt - DD DLitt Glasgow Oxford 3 ldquoBefore Abraham came into existence I have beenrdquo - New World Translation 4 ldquoBefore Abraham came into being I have existedrdquo - The Documents of the [New Testament G W Wade London 5 ldquoFrom before Abraham was I have been rdquo - The New Testament by George [ R -Noyes DD Boston USA6 ldquoBefore Abraham was born I have already been rdquo - The Unvarnished New [Testament Andy Gaus Boston7 ldquoI existed even before Abraham was bornrdquo - The concise Gospel and the Acts [Logos International Christopher J ed Christianson Plainfield NJ8 ldquoI already was before Abraham was bornrdquo ndash Worldwide English New Testament [ Derby UK ________________________________

COMMENTS

Also compare the following translations

Nytt liv (1907 Norwegian)A Biacuteblia Viva (1981 Portuguese)O Novo Testamento Vivo (1974 Portuguese)Le Livre Nouveau Testament (1980 eacuteditions Farel French)Η Καινή Διαθήκη των Τεσσάρων Καθηγητών (ΚΔΤΚ Greek) (The New Testament of the Four Teachers The translation was made and approved (1921981) by the Holy Summit Church of Greece The English title of the project is The New Testament in Modern Greek Athens Greece) Η Αγία Γραφή Παλαιά και Καινή Διαθήκη (ΝΔΜ Greek) Ελληνική Βιβλική Εταιρία Αθήνα [Athens] 1997 (The Bible Old and New Testament Greek Biblical Company - London 1997) ΚΔΛΖ ΛΧ (Other Greek Versions expressing the same idea as translations on the list)___________________

ldquoI was rdquo Note on 1987 translation from Italian main list l Vangelio di Giovanni (El Evangelio de Juan [ldquoThe Gospel of Johnrdquo] with imprimatur) by J Mateos and J Barreto noted on John 858 (as translated by Teodora Tosatti p 387 Cittadela Editrice 1982) that the temporal relationship expressed by the Greek ldquoprin eimi [BeforeI am]rdquo can be translated into Italian ldquoprimaero [BeforeI was]rdquo (Translation from Italian to English mine)__________________

Comment on 1993 ΟІ ΧΡΙΣΤΙΑΝΙΚΕΣ ΓΡΑΦΕΣ Απόδοση από τη Μειάφράση Νέου Κόσμου which is a modern Greek translation of the New World Translation of the ChristianScriptures Unlike most Bible Versions which are published in only one language or a few atmost the NWT is available in dozens of languages based mainly on their English translationbut obviously taking into account other factors in the process such as the original Bible text the peculiarities of their recipient local languages and their targeted audiences in their respective countries

It is obvious though that other NWT translation editions closely followed the English text of the NWT and at the same time their translation teams had enough latitude to offer their own unique renderings at times expressing in their native languages what they see in in the Inspired Text Having said that it is interesting to see how they approached their translation of John 858 from their English translation back into [modern] Greek

The translation team was acutely aware of the basic sense of ldquoegō eimirdquo as ldquoI amrdquo and how those simple words are misconstrued by religionists to say something more than Jesus intended Taking into account the syntax of John 858 as stated throughout this document the translation team who worked on the modern Greek version faced a few options

First they had the option to go back to ldquoegō eimirdquo using the modern Greek equivalent ldquoΕγώ ειμαιrdquo (I am) as it reads in the Vamvas version which they did not Or they could haveexpressed their NWT English choice of ldquoI have beenrdquo with their modern Greek equivalent of ldquoέχο υπάρξει [I have existed]rdquo Thirdly they could have gone with ldquoI wasrdquo (ldquoεγώ ήμουνrdquo) as some of their French and Italian Bible editions have done in the past or even with ldquo[εγώ] υπήρξα [I existed])rdquo Or they could have provided some other unique rendering It is obvious they wanted to stick closely to the Greek text but given the common misconceptionssurrounding ldquoegō eimai (I am)rdquo in mainstream churches the translation team chose to use ldquoεγώ υπάρχωrdquo (a present indicative form in the Greek) which means basically ldquoI existrdquo but in the presence of an expression of past time in John 858 the sense is ldquoI have existedrdquo Thus ldquoBefore Abraham came into existence I have existedrdquo ( The verb είμαι [ldquoto berdquo] in modern Greek has no forms for the perfect tense It borrows the forms from the verb υπάρχω [ldquoI existrdquo] The Greek and English ldquoperfectsrdquo are not exact equivalents either)

The reader is reminded here as noted earlier that modern Greek keeps up with the Koineacute Greek ldquopresentrdquo idiom A modern Greek grammar Greek A Comprehensive Grammar explains ldquoThe present tense is also used in constructions where English would use the perfect continuous ie where the verb expresses a continuous state or habitual event that

has lasted since a certain point in the past and is continuing up to (and including) the presentrdquo The authors provide two examples where a present verb is used with a past time indicator and where they translate using an English perfect as explained ldquoI have been living[Μένω] in this house for three years nowrdquo And ldquoI have been reading [Διαβάζω] this newspaper since 1984rdquo (Greek A Comprehensive Grammar by David Holton Peter Mackridge amp Irene Philippaki-Warburton Revised by Vassilios Spyropoulos p 294 Second edition 2012)

Ten years after the NWT-Greek Edition was released another modern Greek translation was published with the following rendering at John 858 ldquoΣας βεβαιώνω πως πριν να γεννηθεί οΑβραάμ εγώ υπάρχωrdquo which in English would be ldquoI assure you that I have existed since before Abraham was bornrdquo (Literally ldquoI assure you that before could be born the AbrahamI exist [not ldquoΕγώ ειμαιrdquo]rdquo The Holy Bible in Todays Greek Version 2003 Greek Bible Society Interestingly the original English version of 1976 had ldquoI Amrdquo) Also a Spanish Bible conveys a similar thought ldquoYo existo desde antes que existiera Abrahamrdquo [Translation ldquo I exist since before Abraham existedrdquo] (La Biblia - Versioacuten Popular 2nd edition Sociedades Biacuteblicas Unidas 1983)

_________________________________________________________

The Clear Word The translators quoted in this article represent various religious faiths some are Catholic some are Protestant Others are Unitarians Jehovahs Witnesses Jewish Adventists etc and they represent countries the world over One of these translators is a Seventh-Day Adventist who worked on The Clear Word Jack J Blanco ThD As a Seventh-Day Adventist who supports the Trinity doctrine Blanco translated verses to make Jesus ldquoequalrdquo to God in every way

He renders John 11 ldquoHe is the Word of God and is equal with Godrdquo He shows Jesus at Philippians 25-7 as ldquoequal with Godrdquo and describes him as lsquoacting the part of a servantrsquo At John 1428 he completely omits the reference that lsquothe Father is greaterrsquo than Christ But here at John 858 in answer to the question the priests and leaders asked concerning Abraham lsquoseeingrsquo his day Jesus answered according to Dr Blanco ldquoBecause I existed before Abraham was even bornrdquo Thus Dr Blanco makes no connection as others do that Christ is the ldquoI amrdquo of Exodus 314 which according to some would indicate that Jesus is the Jehovah of the Old Testament What he sees in this account is that Jesus already lsquoexisted before Abraham didrsquo and thus Abraham was able to lsquoseersquo his day (John 856) To this we must add another likely element included in Jesus response to the Jews as wellone of simple identification as ldquothe Christ [Messiah]rdquo and ldquoSon of manrdquo Why is it then that manywho support the Trinity doctrine find it hard to understand Jesus statement correctly at John 858 Could it be that they are letting non-Scriptural influence and perhaps the weight of themajority view dictate their understanding of this Scripture

For a consideration of other subjects by the same author check below

For a discussion of Acts 286 Whose blood

httpwwwscribdcomdoc231244155Acts-20-28-Whose-blood

For a discussion of Colossians 116 (ldquoall other thingsrdquo) see

httpwwwscribdcomdoc205841269Colossians-1-16-Is-the-expression-all-other-things-a-proper-rendition

For a consideration on the subject of the Trinity click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc160286056Does-the-Trinity-ever-make-sense

For a full consideration of John 11 click the following link httpwwwscribdcomdoc34916458The-correct-translation-of-John-1-1

For a brief consideration of John 11 with additional citations click here httpwwwscribdcomdoc50330864John-1-1-List-of-Alternate-Readings

Did the NW translators know any Greek click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc48234022Did-the-New-World-Translation-Committee-Know-Greek

For a consideration of John 173 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc57772552John-17-3-E28098Taking-in-knowledge-of-E28099-God-and-Jesus

For a consideration of 1 Timothy 316 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc76927834Was-God-manifested-in-the-flesh-1-Timothy-3-16

For a consideration of Exodus 225 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc38676458Exodus-2-25-And-God-took-notice-Does-God- care-about-us

For a consideration of John 114 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc35002730John-1-14-Jesus-full-of-grace

For a consideration of Translation Differences-Questions and Answershttpwwwscribdcomdoc59484457Translation-Differences-Questions-and-Answers

In Spanish

Para una consideracioacuten de otros temas vea los siguientes enlaces

Para una consideracioacuten de Colosenses 116 ldquotodas las otras cosasrdquo vea

httpwwwscribdcomdoc209601066Colosenses-1-16-C2BFEs-la-traduccion-E2809Ctodas-las-otras-cosasE2809D-apropiada

Para una consideracioacuten de ldquoiquestAcaso tiene sentido la Trinidadrdquo

httpwwwscribdcomdoc173779117C2BFAcaso-tiene-sentido-la-Trinidad

Para un consideracioacuten de Juan 11 vea el siguiente enlace

httpwwwscribdcomdoc35899788Traduccion-correcta-de-Juan-1-1-Lista-de- lecturas-alternativas

Para el tema iquestSabiacutean griego los traductores de la TNM vea el siguiente enlace

httpwwwscribdcomdoc51623596C2BFSabia-griego-el-Comite-de-la-Traduccion-del-Nuevo-Mundo

relationship he had with the Father ldquoBut go to my followers and tell them this lsquoI am going back to my Father and your Father I am going back to my God and your Godrsquo rdquo (Easy to Read Version) This simple message is so different from the convoluted one commonly expounded by Trinitarians in their philosophical speculations

Between the time of the encounter between the Jews and Jesus in John ch 8 and the farewelldiscourse of our Lord Jesus Christ of later (chapters 14-17) not once did Jesus say he was ldquoGodrdquo Christ never spoke with a forked tongue Therefore Bible translators who do not claim Jesus was using a divine title at John 858 and provide renderings agreeing with the words of John 173 and 2017 are in the correct

Scriptures with similar syntax to John 858

Thus when faced with certain idiomatic expressions as the one found in John 858 the translator often has to ask himself How would someone normally express such statements in our language I will cite six (6) Scriptural examples that are similar in syntax to John 858 Genesis 3138 LXX 1 John 38 Luke 248 John 56 2 Corinthians 1219 and John 1527 All six Scriptures have present tense verbs AND an expression of past time or extent of time with past implications within its structure Lets see how these Scriptures compare with John 858 in our discussion

1st Example (Genesis 3138 LXX) ταῦτά μοι εἴκοσι ἔτη ἐγώ εἰμι μετὰ σοῦ - Greek These mine twenty years I am with you

Jacob after leaving Haran disputes with his father-in-law Laban over missing personal idols which Laban claimed were stolen by Jacob Jacob had no idea Rachel had stolen them In defense Jacob proceeded to mention several things he had done through the years on Labansbehalf ldquoThese twenty years I am with yourdquo (The Apostolic Bible Polyglot LXX 2006)ldquoThese twenty years of mine I was with yourdquo (A New English Translation of the Septuagint ldquoNETSrdquo 2007)ldquoThese twenty years have I been with theerdquo (The Holy Orthodox Bible LXX 2006)ldquoThese twenty years I have been with yourdquo (The Orthodox Study Bible LXX 2008)ldquoThese twenty years of mine have I been with theerdquo (Orthodox England LXX 2009)ldquoI have spent with you twenty of my years [Jai passeacute avec toi vingt de mes anneacutees]rdquo (La Septante [LXX] translated by Pierre Giguet)ldquoThese twenty years have I been with theerdquo (Sir Lancelot CL Brenton LXX)ldquoThese twenty years that I have been with theerdquo (Charles Thomson LXX)

Aside from the interlinear reading of the literal Apostolic Bible Polyglot other translators of the Septuagint (LXX) render a present indicative verb ldquoegō eimirdquo (I am) preceded by an expression of time with past implications (ldquoThese twenty yearsrdquo) with present perfect

indicative forms (ldquoI have beenrdquo) while one translation (NETS) uses a simple past form (ldquoI wasrdquo) A modern Greek translation Η Αγία ΓραφήmdashΜετάφραση Νέου Κόσμου has ldquoήμουνrdquo (Literally ldquoI wasrdquo) in this text A likely reason for that as a modern Greek Grammar pointsout is that for the verb lsquoto be (είμαι)rsquo ldquoThere are only two sets of tense forms in Greek present and past (imperfect)rdquo (op cit An Essential Grammar p 126 Sec 67) Hence they could not have used here a perfect tense form for the verb lsquoto be (eimai)rsquo But in English the Bible Society responsible for the Greek and English translations of the Hebrew portion of the Bible used instead ldquoI have beenrdquo at Genesis 3138 in the English edition because a present perfect is available in the language for the verb

Another interesting tidbit is the fact that the original Hebrew text here lacks a verb in the declaration namely ldquoThis twenty year I with-yourdquo (The Hebrew-English Interlinear ESV Old Testament Crossway) Well how do translators deal with this issue Overall like this with the perfect indicative ldquoI have been with you for twenty years nowrdquo A few versions use the imperfect instead lsquoI wasrsquo such as the Wycliffe Bible and the Lexham English Bible Rarely do translations use a ldquopresentrdquo here the exceptions being Youngs and Concordant literal translations So why do the overwhelming number of translators prefer tosupply a perfect tense here for the missing verb in the Hebrew Its simple There is a temporal indicator going to the past in the text namely lsquoThese twenty yearsrsquo

Now when the LXX translators proceeded to translate the Hebrew words of Genesis 3138 into Greek they cleverly used a well known vivid idiom available in classical Greek where a verb in the present tense is combined with an indicator of past time In this syntax the ldquopast and present are gathered up in a single affirmationrdquo (op cit Brooks amp Winbery) Modern English translators usually resort to the present perfect in this construction as shown aboveSo too John 858 reveals an expression of past time with a present verb in its statement and the NWT is one translation that is consistent with this construction both in Genesis 3138 and John 858

For the following I will use the Wescott and Hort Greek text for reference

2nd Example (1 John 38)

ὅτι ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς ὁ διάβολος ἁμαρτάνει - Greek because from beginning the devil is sinning

The apostle John warns Christians not to carry on sin for those who make a practice of sin originate from the Devil who has sinned from the beginning For this purpose the Son of God was revealed that he might undo the works of the Devil The text above contains an expression of past time (ldquofrom beginningrdquo) with a present verb (is sinning) very much likeJohn 858 How do translators deal with this passage Lets see

ldquofor the devil sinneth from the beginningrdquo (Rheims New Testament)ldquofor the devil sinneth from the beginningrdquo (KJV)

ldquofor the devil has sinned from the beginningrdquo (New King James Version)ldquofor the devil has sinned from the beginningrdquo (NASB)ldquobecause the devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (Interlinear Mounce)ldquofor the Devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (Riverside NT Ballantine)ldquobecause the devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (NIV)ldquobecause the devil has sinned from the beginningrdquo (NAB)ldquosince the devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (Jay E Adams)ldquowho has been sinning since the beginningrdquo (NLT)ldquofor the devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (NRSV)ldquosince the devil has been a sinner from the beginningrdquo (NJB)ldquobecause the devil has been sinning from the very beginningrdquo (J G Anderson)ldquofor the devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (ESV)

ldquothe devil was a sinner from the firstrdquo (Ronald A Knox New Testament)

Some translations transfer the Greek present to their English versions as if the English and Greek ldquopresentrdquo in such construction were the same thing It is not The end result is ungrammatical English Would you say in contemporary English ldquoFrom the beginning of class the boy sleepsrdquo Not Doctor Richard A Young points out ldquoTo say that the devil is sinning from the beginning does not make sense in English English translations therefore employ the present perfectrdquo (Intermediate New Testament Greek page 111)

The renderings above ldquohas sinnedrdquo and ldquohas been sinningrdquo are present perfect and present perfect progressive indicative forms The word ldquowasrdquo is a simple past tense Just as in 1 John 38 some translators in John 858 have rendered a present tense with an expression of past time in its construction with a present perfect ldquoI have beenrdquo

3rd Example (2 Corinthians 1219)

Πάλαι δοκεῖτε ὅτι ὑμῖν ἀπολογούμεθα ndash Greek Long ago you are thinking that to you we are making defense

Paul finds himself having to defend his apostolic authority and vindicating his record as superior in hardship endured for Christ and loving concern for congregations In simpler words Paul was telling them ldquoAll this time have you been thinking that Ive been speaking up for myself No Ive been speaking with God as my witness Ive been speaking like a believer in Christ Dear friends everything I do is to help you become strongerrdquo (NIRV)

In the literal reading above we have an adverb of time with past implications (Palai) followed by two Greek verb forms (ldquodokeiterdquo amp ldquoapologoumethardquo) in the present indicativetense The book Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek Verb by William Watson Goodwin explains ldquoThe Present is often used with expressions denoting past time especially πάλαι [palai] in the sense of a perfect and a present combinedrdquo (Section 26 p 9) How do translators render these in English Some carry over the present tense into the English text producing unconventional English Others cognizant of issues presented here

do a better job at it See below for a sample

ldquoHave you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves before yourdquo (The Comprehensive New Testament 2008)ldquoI hope you donacutet think that all along weacuteve been making our defense before yourdquo (The Message Eugene H Peterson)ldquoHave you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves to yourdquo (NIV)ldquoIt may seem to you that all this time we have been attempting to put ourselves in the rightrdquo (Bible in Basic English)ldquoAll this time you have been thinking that we have been pleading our own cause before yourdquo (NJB)ldquoHave you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves to yourdquo (CEV)ldquoHave you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves before yourdquo (Revised Standard Version) ldquoPerhaps you think that all along we have been trying to defend ourselves before yourdquo (TEV)ldquoHave you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves to yourdquo (ESV)ldquoYou have thought all along that we were defending ourselves to yourdquo (HCSB)ldquoHave you been thinking all this time that we have been defending ourselves to yourdquo (NET Bible)

ldquoYou have been thinking all along that it was to you we were making our defenserdquo (The Bible in Living English Steven T Byington)

The above translations use present perfect (and perfect progressive) forms or past progressives to bring out the proper sense of the original into our language Can anyone rightfully claim that it is improper for these Bible versions to translate this text as they have done in English

4th Example (Luke 248 Wescott and HortNestle early editions Greek text)

ὁ πατήρ σου καὶ ἐγὼ ὀδυνώμενοι ζητοῦμέν σε - Greek The father of you and I being pained we are seeking you Here the context (vv 42-48) speaks of Jesus (12 years old) being left behind unwittingly in Jerusalem by his parents they went back searching in distress for three days before finding him When they finally found him they spoke the words above

ldquoYour father and I have been looking for you anxiouslyrdquo (Revised Standard Version)ldquoYour father and I in agony of mind have been searching for yourdquo (Williams NT)ldquoYour father and I have been anxiously looking for Yourdquo (NASB 1971)ldquoYour father and I have been searching for you in great distressrdquo (Riverside NT)

ldquoHere have your father and I been searching anxiously for yourdquo (Hugh J Schonfield)ldquoYour father and I have been looking for you have been very anxious rdquo (Goodspeed)ldquoYour father and I have been looking for you We have been very troubledrdquo (Bible in Worldwide English)ldquoYour father and I have been looking for you in distressrdquo (Richmond Lattimore)ldquoYour father and I have been searching for you in great distressrdquo (Twentieth Century NT) ldquoThy father and I have sought thee distressedrdquo (Darby Bible Translation)

ldquoThy father and I sought thee sorrowingrdquo (American Standard Version)

ldquoThy father and I in anguish were seeking theerdquo (The Emphasized Bible 3rd edit based on Wescott and Hort by Joseph B Rotherham)ldquoThy father and I were seeking thee sorrowfulrdquo (W B Godbey N T 1902)ldquoThy father and I were seeking Thee sorrowingrdquo (A S Worrell N T 1904)ldquoYour father and I were anxiously looking for yourdquo (World English Bible)

The words ldquowe are seeking yourdquo are in the present indicative tense however since an expression of time is used indicating action going on for days (ldquoafter three daysrdquo v 46) translators find it necessary to use either the present perfect (ldquohave beenrdquo ldquohave soughtrdquo) or simple past (ldquosoughtrdquo) or past progressive (ldquowere seekingrdquo) indicative forms to express in English what the Greek says in the ldquopresentrdquo Various Greek texts have instead of the ldquopresentrdquo found in the Westcott amp Hort Text above an ldquoimperfectrdquo verb form Both forms are frequently rendered with an English present ldquoperfectrdquo Compare with Youngs Literal Translation which also uses a past progressive indicative form ldquowere seekingrdquo and the Spanish Reina-Valera Revisada which rendered an imperfect verb form appearing in the Received Text with a present perfect indicative (ldquohemos buscadordquo) Is this another reason why many translators have rendered the Greek present ldquoegō eimirdquo preceded by an adverbial modifier in its clause at John 858 with perfective or past forms in English

5th Example (Juan 56)

καὶ γνοὺς ὅτι πολὺν ἤδη χρόνον ἔχει - Greek and having known that much already time he is having

This is an account of an invalid man who for 38 years had been sick and was now being cured by Jesus The Greek in this clause does not make his illness clear however the context does Take note of the expression of time used with past implications mixed with a present indicative verb ldquohe is havingrdquo For this to make any sense in our language it has to be modified When Jesus saw this sick man lying there

ldquoand knew that he had been now a long time in that caserdquo (KJV italics theirs) ldquoand knowing that he had been ill a long timerdquo (Revised English Bible)ldquoand knew he had been in that condition for a long timerdquo (NJB)ldquoand knew that he had been sick for a long timerdquo (World English Bible)ldquoand knew that he had been sick for a long timerdquo (Godacutes Word)

ldquoand knew how long he had been illrdquo (Living Bible)ldquoand knew he had already been there a long timerdquo (HCSB)ldquoand he knew that the man had been sick for such a long timerdquo (TEV)ldquoand knew that he had been in this state a long timerdquo (Confraternity Version)ldquoand finding that he had had a long time of itrdquo (S T Byington) ldquoand knew that he had been sick for a long timerdquo (Jay E Adams)ldquoand he knew that he had been waiting for a long timerdquo (George M Lamsa Peshitta) ldquoand knew that he had been now a long timerdquo (Rheims New Testament)

ldquoand knowing that he was [in that state] now a great length of timerdquo (J N Darby Translation Brackets his)

Once again we see translators having to use mostly perfective forms (ldquohad beenrdquo ldquohad hadrdquopast perfects) and one with a simple past ldquowasrdquo even though they are translating a present tense verb ldquohe is havingrdquo This shows that translators adapt their renderings whenever is necessary to convey the right meaning into the target language It is thus possible to render ldquoeimirdquo at John 858 with a form other than a present tense such as a present perfect Those who say that it can not be done or should not be done just need to look again at the evidenceobjectively

6th Example (John 1527 Wescott amp Hort)

ὅτι ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς μετʼ ἐμοῦ ἐστέ ndash Greek that from beginning with me you are

These words spoken by Jesus evidently refers to the beginning of his ministry when he chosehis closest disciples They were eyewitnesses of all the things God did through Christ duringhis ministry (Acts 121)

ldquobecause ye have been with me from the beginningrdquo (KJV) ldquobecause you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (NAB)ldquofor you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (Christian Community Bible)ldquobecause you are the men who have been with me from the very beginningrdquo (Heinz Wldquobecause you have been with me from the firstrdquo (New English Bible) [ Cassirer)ldquobecause you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (Godacutes Word Translation) ldquofor you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (NIV)ldquobecause you have been with me from the firstrdquo (Weymouth New Testament)ldquobecause you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (NRSV)ldquoyou that have been with me from the beginningrdquo (The Four Gospels EV Rieu)ldquobecause youacuteve been with Me from the beginning of My ministryrdquo (The Clear Word)ldquofor you have been with me from the firstrdquo (J B Phillips Modern English)ldquobecause you have been with Me from the beginningrdquo (HCSB) ldquothat you were with me from the startrdquo (21st Century New Testament)ldquofor you were with Me from the beginningrdquo (New Berkeley Version Revised Edition)

ldquobecause you were with me from the beginningrdquo (Mark Heber Miller)ldquobecause you were with me from the very beginningrdquo (SEB)

This scripture with the plural form of ldquoeimirdquo (este) is very similar to John 858 Again within its structure there is an expression of past time and a verb in the present indicative form (este) just as there is in John 858 A Grammar of New Testament Greek says ldquoThe reader may be reminded of one idiom which comes out of the linear idea the use of words like πάλαι [palai ldquolong agordquo] with the present in a sense best expressed by our perfect Thus in 2 Co 1219 lsquohave you been thinking all this timersquo or Jn 1527 lsquoyou have been with me from the beginning [ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς]rsquo hellip The durative present in such cases gathers up past and present time into one phraserdquo (A Grammar of New Testament Greek Vol 1 Prolegomena by JH Moulton p 119) As previously noted this Grammar specifically refers to John 858 as an example of this idiom

And here in John 1527 there is a connection of Jesus disciples [creatures as they are] that ldquowererdquo with him ldquofrom the beginningrdquo Obviously Jesus was making no reference to his disciples sharing ldquoeternityrdquo with him The disciples all had a beginning The logical conclusion is that Jesus was simply saying to them lsquoYou have been with me from the start of my ministryrsquo Hence there is no need to read ldquoeternityrdquo into the expression ldquoI amrdquo anymore that we should read ldquoeternityrdquo from Jesus words at John 1527 lsquoYou are with me from the beginningrsquo Neither grammar nor the context justifies reading more into these Scriptures than what they actually say

In fact the six (6) instances cited above (Genesis 3138 LXX 1 John 38 2 Cor 1219 Luke 248 John 56 John 1527) and John 858 as well all have an expression of past time or an extent of time with past implications (ldquoThese twenty yearsrdquo ldquoLong agordquo ldquoafter three daysrdquo Lk 246 ldquomuch already timerdquo ldquofrom [the] beginningrdquo ldquoBeforerdquo etc) AND present verbs in their sentences or nearby within the context and are commonly rendered with present perfect (some with past perfects) or simple past (or past progressive) forms in English translations If we apply this pattern to the translation of John 858 it would mean that renderings such as ldquoI have beenrdquo (present perfect) and ldquoI wasrdquo (simple past) are not only acceptable in translation but actually more ldquosuitablerdquo in application Can this really be done Not only can it be done it makes for a ldquobetterrdquo English translation

In regards to Jesus John 858 simply tells us that Jesus lsquowas alive before Abraham was bornrsquo (SEB) and that his existence continued up to the moment of his speaking to them Just as it is not proper English to say ldquoFor three days we are seeking yourdquo (Greek literal reading of Luke 248) or ldquobecause from the beginning with me you arerdquo (John 1527) it is no less proper English to say in John 858 ldquoBefore Abraham was born I amrdquo These readings should only appear in extremely literal interlinear translations which basically render the Greek word-by-word and not in standard idiomatic English translations Let me illustrate If a man advanced in age for example had his work history and experience questioned by co-workers in comparison to his younger son and employee Abe would he say in reply ldquoBefore my son Abe was born I am [the one fit for the job]rdquo No that does not sound right In English he could say it in various ways

ldquoI have been an experienced worker since before my son Abe was bornrdquo ldquoI have been what I am since before my son Abe was bornrdquo ldquoI was fit to work and fully active before my son Abe was ever bornrdquo ldquoI was already experienced in many jobs before Abe ever came to berdquo ldquoI have been a master worker way before my son Abe came to liferdquo ldquoBefore Abe was born I already was life and job experiencedrdquo etc

The point is that in English normally we include a present perfect tense whenever there is a reference to the past extending to the present or a past tense of some form whenever we go back in time The same with John 858 There is no justification in English to insist using a present verb form (which is not equal to the Greek present when combined with a past expression) in an unwarranted attempt to convey ldquoeternityrdquo as ldquopaddingrdquo to the Trinity doctrine a doctrine adopted AFTER the Christian era Worse it is disingenuous to accuse other translators (who have chosen to render ldquoegō eimirdquo at John 858 with an English present perfect or past tense) of scholastic dishonesty when the very same translations honored by these detractors do so in other places where the ldquodeityrdquo of Christ is not in play asshown in the samples provided above

An example of this double standard can be seen as well when scholars such as Dr Julius Mantey harshly criticizes the NWT for the rendering ldquoI have beenrdquo at John 858 but keeps quiet when other translators do similarly and even states or pretends that no other reputable translator would ever translate it that way He dared not criticize his former Greek teacher Charles B Williams who produced his own Bible translation Dr Mantey once wrote the following of Dr Williams translation ldquoWilliams translation considering all the factors is the most accurate and illuminating translation in the English languagerdquo And how does this ldquomost accurate translationrdquo render John 858 As follows ldquoI existed before Abraham was bornrdquo Here Dr Williams known for his Greek command used a simple past tense (ldquoI existedrdquo) as translation for the Greek present Julius Mantey certainly did not find Williams version of John 858 a ldquoshocking translationrdquo ldquoI existedrdquo is quite different from the translation Dr Mantey so passionately defended (ldquoI amrdquo)

When Dr Mantey talks about the NWT he says the rendering ldquoI have beenrdquo at John 858 cannot be justified and calls it ldquodishonestrdquo That rule does not apply to Williams translation does it Williams did not translate John 858 in the same way Mantey would have liked (ldquoI amrdquo) Not only that the Grammar itself that Dr Mantey co-authored with Dr Dana A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament states under ldquoThe Progressive Presentrdquo (called ldquoExtension from Pastrdquo by McKay) ldquoSometimes the progressive present is retroactivein its application denoting that which has begun in the past and continues into the present For the want of a better name we may call it the present of duration This use is generally associated with an adverb of time and may best be rendered by the English perfect ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς μετʼ ἐμοῦ ἐστέ Ye have been with me from the beginning Jn 1527 See also Lk137 2 Cor 129 [19]rdquo (Pages 182-83 Emphasis added)

Even though Julius Mantey has stated when referring to the NWT that ldquoI have beenrdquo is not a proper translation and even ldquodishonestrdquo at John 858 he clearly states in his Grammar (of

Scriptures with similar syntax to John 858) ldquoThis use is generally associated with an adverb of time and may best be rendered by the English perfect [such as ldquoI have beenrdquo which in fact is associated with an adverb of time in John 858]rdquo A likely reason for Dana ampManteys strong reluctance for not including John 858 as an example of the idiom discussed on page 183 may have to do with the fact that as ldquotrinitariansrdquo they oppose the idea of Jesus existence having lsquobegunrsquo in the past even though John 858 perfectly fits with the ldquoProgressive Presentrdquo idiom being discussed in their Grammar as acknowledged by other grammarians Hence their objection is truly a ldquotheologicalrdquo one rather than Greek grammaritself arguing in their favor as Mantey and some others have implied since a Greek present or an English perfect does not demand ldquoeternityrdquo at all from the subject

Consequently many religious individuals who focus solely on the basic meaning (of ldquoegō eimirdquo as ldquoI amrdquo) out of the context of the particular ldquoidiomrdquo used at John 858 end up missing the thrust of Jesus words and fall prey to misleading interpretations Doctor Kenneth L McKay taking into account all of these issues comes up with this excellent translation for John 858 ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo (A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek SBG 5 New York Peter Lang 1994 p42) If we objectively consider the material above we will not insist in connecting Jesus at John 858 with the God Jehovah of Exodus 314 (which many attempt to do but cannot be sustained) Instead we will focus on the simple message conveyed by Jesus words at John 858 which is in harmony with the totality of Scripture ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo (McKay) The rendering ldquoI have been in existencerdquo by itself does not rule out either the concept of ldquoeternityrdquo or the ldquocreationrdquo of Jesus Christ A Committee of Bible translators came up with the following translation which may not be the best choice but considering the issues involved is better than the traditional rendering of ldquoI amrdquo ldquoI was alive before Abraham was bornrdquo (The New Testament in Plain English)

(The following scholars are members of the Bible Translation Committee of The New Testament in Plain English which approved this last reading ldquoI was aliverdquo instead of ldquoI amrdquo(Dr Stanley L Morris chairman FW Gingrich Ph D a renown Greek lexicographer Jack P Lewis Ph D CH Accord Th D Clyde M Woods Ph D ST Kan Ph D Gary T Burke Ph D Milo Hadwin D Min)

I submit their names and their credentials here as an example because it is often asserted vigorously that no intelligent or highly qualified scholar would ever produce a translation other than ldquoI amrdquo As noted above and as the list of alternate readings (at the end of this essay) of John 858 shows many done by highly qualified people this is simply not true Usually those making statements of that sort are doing so based on emotional and theological not philological reasons Furthermore by not disclosing other valid viewpoints or by dismissing how other qualified Bible translators deal with this scripture they are undermining their own credibility as well

At this time you are welcome to briefly go over the list of Alternate Readings to John 858 at

the end before moving on to the second part of this essay

_____________________________

Should we ignore the evidence of all those translations listed at the end that differ in John 858 from the traditional versions What then are all these translators seeing at John 858 that moved them to render this text differently They surely must be aware of the resistance they would encounter by translating it by the various forms they used Still they must have had the firm conviction that both the Greek text and the context supports their understanding of this scripture They likely see a Jesus making no identity connection with his Father Godbut rather see a Jesus simply expressing his indefinite existence with no suggestion of eternity in focus Neither is Jesus stating here that he is the God of Old Testament times To understand it that way would be to read into the text more than what it says Taking some clues from the context of the chapter some scholars additionally see Jesus insinuating his ldquomessiahshiprdquo as if saying ldquoI am he [the Messiah]rdquo This is very likely In fact The LivingBible renders John 824 thus ldquoThat is why I said that you will die in your sins for unless you believe that I am the Messiah the Son of God [ἐγώ εἰμι] you will die in your sinsrdquo

Is ldquoegō eimirdquo a title or another name of God

The use of ldquoeimirdquo at John 858 is frequently used as a ldquoproof textrdquo of Jesus deity A noted Trinitarian scholar AT Robertson a Baptist even refers to ldquoegō eimirdquo as ldquothe absolute phrase used of Godrdquo likely indicating the verb conveys ldquotimeless beingrdquo an implication that ldquoeimirdquo here does not require anything else to complete the meaning of the phrase thus conveying ldquoeternal existencerdquo as well as being an actual name for God Some individuals have given plenty of publicity to Robertsons statement as absolute truth But his statement is not ldquotruthrdquo at all It is faulty interpretation which many people have fallen prey to Grammar and theology do not always make the best mix True Robertsons credentials as a scholar are impressive nevertheless credentials does not truth make Besides some other equally bright scholars disagree with him Lets illustrate the folly of those advocating a divine title at John 858 by way of addition (Or substitution if you will) as some suggest

ldquoBefore Abraham was born I am Eternalrdquo ldquoBefore Abraham was born I am Jehovahrdquo ldquoBefore Abraham was born I am eternally Godrdquo

First of all the above hypothetical translations are just as ungrammatical as the simple ldquoI amrdquo reading of most versions An English present tense cannot start before a definite point in the past This can be seen in the following two examples

1 ldquoBefore the US Iraq war I am a soldierrdquo 2 ldquoThree journalists are kidnapped in Nepal since the start of 2007rdquo

What is the correct way to express these statements in English Analyze it for a second and

provide an answer if you will

Notably if ldquoeimirdquo was used to convey eternal existence what is the point of using an expression of past time at all in the clause Moreover the context of previous verses (vv 48-57) clearly indicates that Jesus is speaking of God as a separate entity See below

49 ldquobut I honor my Father and you dishonor merdquo 50 ldquoI am not seeking glory for myself but there is one who seeks it and he is the

judgerdquo54 ldquoIf I glorify myself my glory means nothing My Father whom you claim as your

God is the one who glorifies me 55 ldquoThough you do not know him I know him If I said I did not I would be a liar like you but I do know him and obey his wordrdquo Thus if Jesus meant he himself was the ldquoJehovahrdquo of the Old Testament as Trinitarians claim what would be the rationale behind Jesus directing all distinction and glory to lsquothe Father Godrsquo as a distinct individual as he did in the previous verses and then a few words later abruptly change his argumentation by claiming he is that very same One who lsquoreceives obedience from his own wordrsquo lsquoseeking his own honor and gloryrsquo because he himself is ldquoGodrdquo Confusing is it not To accept this abrupt change of character on Jesus part would be not ldquoa mysteryrdquo but flat out ldquoa deceptionrdquo of big proportions since Jesus himself warned against pretending to be one thing and acting as another (Matthew 62-5 2313-36)

Are we are supposed against all logic to accept these ldquotrinitarianrdquo assumptions instead of a simple alternative which really answers the Jews question about lsquohow could Abraham ldquoseerdquoJesus day if he was not yet 50 years oldrsquo (ldquoI have been in existence since Abraham was bornrdquo)

The obsession with the simple words ldquoI amrdquo have led to many faulty assumptions ldquoI amrdquo issuch a common expression in our language even to this day that words such as ldquoegoismrdquo ldquoegotismrdquo etc (derived from the Greek ldquoegordquo) are considered common words in English dictionaries Everyone uses the phrase ldquoI amrdquo at times Think of any big corporation or powerful organization of your choice for a moment Would you conclude that the two most powerful individuals of this one prestigious organization must be identical in every way solely because they are heard equally saying to others in their common speech ldquoI am thisrdquoor ldquoI am thatrdquo etc

In Bible times humans too used common pronouns The verb eimi (ldquoI amrdquo) itself or forms of it appears more than two thousand times (2000x) in the New Testament alone Additionally the word ldquoegōrdquo appears over seventeen hundred times (1700x) in the NT And those numbers do not include the Septuagint totals Do all occurrences of the word then imply ldquodivinityrdquo in each case Of course not It may be more significant when God or Christ use the expression because of who they are but does it really mean that both God and Christ share the same identity Or that everyone who uses the phrase ldquoI amrdquo does so with divine pretensions Does it really mean that everyone using the phrase are ldquoequalrdquo The

answer is obvious is it not

Lets bear in mind that when God sent Jesus Christ as His representative to a most crucial assignment multiple biblical prophecies were pointing to Christ as the promised Messiah that would free mankind from its moribund condition It is logical then that when the time came for Jesus Christ to show up on earth he would somehow communicate to others that ldquoherdquo and not some other human claiming to be the Messiah was Gods instrument in bringing everlasting relief to human misery Hence he could rightly say any or all of the following ldquoI am (this)rdquo ldquoI am (that)rdquo ldquoI am he [the promised Messiah]rdquo or ldquoI am Gods Sonrdquo Should we expect anything less

The fact is that the words ldquoI amrdquo are not exclusive to God and Christ It should be noted that a man who was born ldquoblindrdquo also used the same expression (John 99) The Greek here says ldquoekeinos elegen hoti Egō eimirdquo (ldquoThat one kept saying that I amrdquo) AT Robertson cites John 99 as one of five parallels to the use of egō eimi in John 858 (Word Pictures in the New Testament Vol V p 159) The phrase here comes at the end of the clause with no explicit predicate James White who upholds the traditional reading admits ldquoThis last instance [John 99] is similar to the sayings as Jesus utters them in that the phrase comes at the end of the clause and looks elsewhere for its predicaterdquo The same could be said of John 1527 Some argue that ldquoeimirdquo in John 858 is ldquoabsoluterdquo but do not do so with John 99 or John 1527 Theology may be a factor in this Previously we saw how Jacob a man according to the Septuagint used the words ldquoegō eimirdquo Other instances in Scripture of creatures using those words would not prove they were part of a ldquoGodheadrdquo Context then ultimately dictates how ldquoeimirdquo should be translated According to John when Jesus was pressed he only claimed to have been alive way before Abraham was born and that he simply was ldquothe Christrdquo ldquothe Son of Manrdquo and ldquothe Son of Godrdquo

There is something else to keep in mind in regards to the meaning of ldquoeimirdquo And it is what grammarian Stanley Porter indicated ldquoSometimes the verb [eimi] is used on its own as a verb of existence Perhaps the best-known example of this is the following John 858rdquo (Fundamentals of New Testament Greek by Stanley E Porter section 753 72) AT Robertson adds ldquoThe verb εἰμί [eimi] hellip Sometimes it does express existence as a predicatelike any other verb as in ἐγὼ εἰμί [egō eimi] (Jo 858) and ἡ θάλασσα οὐκ ἔστιν ἔτι [hē thalassa ouk estin eti = ldquothe sea not is yetrdquo] (Rev 211) Cf Mt 2330rdquo (A Grammar of theGreek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research Nashville Tenn 1934 p 394)

What does this mean The examples mentioned by Robertson in addition to John 858 give us an idea of what this implies It is so strange that the two examples Robertson provided forcomparison with John 858 seems to contradict his ldquotimeless beingrdquo view on ldquoeimirdquo He cited a portion of Revelation 211 where the Greek literally says ldquoAnd the sea not is yetrdquo In other words ldquoThe sea does not exist any morerdquo Amplified Bible ldquoThere no longer existed any seardquo Curiously various versions render the present verb ldquoisrdquo (a form of ldquoeimirdquo) with an imperfect ldquowasrdquo (Cf KJV NIV NAB NRSV) Obviously ldquothe seardquo in this vision is [was] not ldquoeternalrdquo

And in Matthew 2330 the other text provided by Robertson in his comparison with John 858 the Greek word-for-word says ldquoIf we were in the days of the fathers of usrdquo which inmodern English would be ldquoIf we had lived in the days of our forefathersrdquo Other versions ldquoIf we had beenrdquo (Rheims NT) ldquoIf we had been livingrdquo (NASB) ldquoIf we had been existing in the days of our fathersrdquo (Jonathan Mitchell NT) The full NIV text reads ldquoAnd you say lsquoIf we had lived in the days of our ancestors we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophetsrsquo rdquo

It is clear from this comparison that the words of Matthew 2330 ldquoIf we wererdquo (a form of ldquoeimirdquo) in the text is used as an equivalent for ldquoliferdquo or ldquoexistencerdquo In the heavenly vision of Rev 211 lsquothe sea ceased to existrsquo And the generation of people which Jesus spoke about and their ancestors all died ceased to exist If we apply these two examples to John 858 given by Robertson with the meaning either of life or existence for ldquoeimirdquo then it wouldbe equally acceptable to translate ldquoI amrdquo as ldquoI existrdquo or ldquoI liverdquo Many translators reflect this very same understanding as the submitted list of alternate readings of John 858 show ldquoI existrdquo or ldquoI existed even before Abraham was bornrdquo Or ldquoI was alive before Abraham was bornrdquo (The Simple English Bible)

Although some may not see much semantic difference between Jesus saying ldquoI amrdquo or ldquoI existrdquo the two expressions communicate something very different to many readers ldquoI amrdquo is generally associated by Trinitarians as a title used by God or as another name for God Onthe other hand ldquoI existrdquo simply conveys ldquoliferdquo or ldquoexistence Barnabas Lindars points out that ldquoegō eimirdquo in John 858 ldquocannot be regarded as a title because it requires the meaning lsquoI am in existencersquordquo (ldquoThe Son of Man in Johannine Christologyrdquo in Christ and the Spirit in the New Testament In Honour of Charles Francis Digby Moule eds B Lindars and S Smalley Cambridge Cambridge University Press 1973) (Since an English present tense cannot start before a definite point in the past this would mean that we can incorporate Lindars valid observation and translate it into contemporary English like this ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo exactly as Dr McKay proposed)

Some in their eagerness to equate Christ with God accuse translators who render ldquoegō eimirdquo in John 858 with renderings other than ldquoI amrdquo pointing to all occurrences of this expression in the New Testament or in Johns Gospel where allegedly these translators do not follow the same ldquorulerdquo when translating ldquoegō eimirdquo in John 858 as they do elsewhere where they translate it with a present indicative form What they dont tell you or fail to understand is that in John 858 ldquoegō eimirdquo without a predicate AND with an expression of time with past implications in its sentence structure provides an ldquoidiomrdquo which is quite different from those other instances of ldquoeimirdquo Thats right an idiom (where present and past is combined) found equally at home in classical biblical and modern Greek which many translators convey into our language with the English present perfect at various places Consequently one cannot merely go by how the phrase ldquoegō eimirdquo is used elsewhere in the NT without taking into account the fact that John 858 displays an ldquoidiomrdquo in its structure Not doing so would be dishonest John the Baptist had said of Christ in John 130 ldquoA man is coming after me who ranks before me because he existed [Lit was] before merdquo (JB)

John 858 is in harmony with those words Furthermore some attempt to use the reading of Psalm 902 in the Septuagint as ldquoevidencerdquo that John 858 is rendered correctly in the popular versions But a closer analysis of this verse shows notable differences between the two verses making such comparison untenable With good reason a considerable number ofscholars have chosen to break from tradition in their rendering of John 858

If critics of alternate readings of John 858 are not candid enough to admit some of the very issues mentioned here and hide the fact that many scholars do hold a different interpretation and no less academic at that should we consider their diatribes of any worthy import It is ldquowishful thinkingrdquo for someone to believe that John 858 is directly connected to Exodus 314 rather than any real evidence (which is lacking) confirming their eager interpretations Remember even Dr James White a well known Trinitarian advocate admitted ldquothat an immediate and unqualified jump from the ego eimi of John 858 to Exodus 314 is unwiserdquo

Besides a theological tendency can be seen when they focus as some do on undermining the reputation of one Bible translation (NWT) when there are actually numerous versions from different religions dealing with the same controversial Scriptures in a similar manner This is very much like politicians who ignore the failings of their own party but are quick to lsquodemonizersquo their opponents (Matthew 73)

Is the Kingdom Interlinear ldquoproofrdquo the NWT is wrong at John 858

A criticism has been made of a Watchtower Society publication (The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures ldquoKITrdquo) which contains the Greek text and underneath it a word-by-word translation in English and on the right side of the page the modern New World Translation Well at John 858 this publication renders the Greek phrase being discussed here egō eimi word-for-word as ldquoI amrdquo and in the right column the NWT shows the reading ldquoI have beenrdquo This difference have led some to severely criticize the NW translators of ldquoincompetencerdquo ldquoinconsistencyrdquo and even of ldquodishonestyrdquo The critics say something like this ldquoThey have backed themselves into a corner where they cant escape their mishandling of the Greek textrdquo or something of that sort Amazingly these critics in their condemnations hardly ever mention the dozens of translators who translate the same way or similarly to the NWT as the submitted list shows So much for honesty

Those who engage in such tactics are not being forthcoming Why say that Besides dismissing how other translators deal with John 858 they also distort known facts for the WT Society have made it clear that the publication of this Greek Bible is to help the Bible student determine the basic sense of the Greek and have stated that the translation on the right column (the NWT) is a modern way of expressing the thoughts transmitted by the Greek text There are many factors to consider when using such publications

Even other interlinear publications warn of seeming discrepancies For instance The Zondervan Parallel New Testament in Greek and English says in its Foreword ldquo[I]t is a good thing to bear in mind that you cannot always either give an English equivalent for a Greek word or expression or even always render the same Greek verb word by the same

English onerdquo Another interlinear the New Greek-English Interlinear New Testament by Brown and Comfort and edited by J D Douglas explains ldquoIt is difficult to translate one language into another on a word-for-word basis because each language has its own syntax grammatical constructions and idioms that are difficultmdashif not impossiblemdashto replicate literally in another languagerdquo (Emphasis added) This statement is so true of the text in discussion (John 858) in regards to its syntax and particular idiom Often critics of the NWT hide this fact Why Is it religious bias at work

I will give the reader a few examples of an available interlinear translation which has the Greek main text and a literal sublinear translation below the Greek by Professor Paul R McReynolds and on the right column for comparison the reader can study the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) a popular translation in academia Observe how the two can differ

McReynolds Mat 21 ldquomagiciansrdquo NRSV ldquowise menrdquo John 118 ldquoonly born Godrdquo ldquoGod the only Sonrdquo Mat 243 ldquosign of the your presencerdquo ldquothe sign of your comingrdquo Mathew 522 ldquothe gehenna of the firerdquo ldquothe hell of firerdquo John 1319 ldquoI amrdquo ldquoI am herdquo John 149 ldquoI amrdquo ldquoHave I beenrdquo John 1527 ldquoyou arerdquo ldquoyou have beenrdquo 2 Peter 24 ldquobeing sent to Tartarusrdquo ldquobut cast them into hellrdquo Luke 1113 ldquowill give spirit holy tordquo ldquowillgive the Holy Spirit tordquo John 2022 ldquotake spirit holyrdquo ldquoReceive the Holy Spiritrdquo Acts 24 ldquofilled all of spirit holyrdquo ldquofilled with the Holy Spiritrdquo

( Paul R McReynolds is professor of Greek and New Testament at Pacific Christian College in Fullerton California USA He also contributed to the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia)

Some of the readings from the right column above (NRSV) are acceptable others are not See if you can detect in the right column above those translation renderings with a theological tendency that deviate from the literal readings from the left column McReynoldson the left does an excellent job of transmitting the Greek sense Even the most popular Bible versions do not adhere consistently to the base texts The NRSV and a host of other Bible versions add their own religious interpretation throughout Scripture just as much as the NWT if not more but hardly anyone complains of this transformation of Scriptures eventhough it leads to error Why Simply because the NRSV represents more of a ldquomajorityrdquo view than the NWT does But in truth majority or minority views do not correspond equallyto ldquoaccuraterdquo or ldquoinaccuraterdquo results

In the text discussed the KIT can appropriately show the basic sense rendering of ldquoI amrdquo for the Greek ldquoegō eimirdquo in the left column and alternately show the reading ldquoI have beenrdquo in the right column as a contemporary way of expressing in English the particular Greek clause with its ldquoidiomrdquo in John 858 as explained throughout this article a rendering which has

scholarship support When the Greek ldquoegō eimirdquo appears in an idiom-less structure it can rightfully be translated as ldquoI amrdquo as most versions do including the NWT Hence there is no contradiction between the two translations

Dr McKay argues that Jesus response in John 858 ldquowould be most naturally translated lsquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrsquo if it were not for the obsession with the simple words lsquoI amrsquo rdquo (Kenneth L McKay ldquolsquoI amrsquo in Johns Gospelrdquo Expository Times 1996 p 302) I take the author as saying that ldquoI have been in existencerdquo for ldquoeimirdquo is a better translation than ldquoI amrdquo but the [religious] obsession for the simple words ldquoI amrdquo in their quest to elevate Christ to Gods level does not allow people to see that The thing is that Christ lsquoalways pleased the Fatherrsquo and was fully satisfied with being lsquolesserrsquo than him (John 829 1029 1428 177813) Why not accept him as he is

Hence it is poor scholarship to forward the idea that an entity must be God Almighty himselfby the sole fact of using a divine sounding phrase when other Bible individuals are found using the same expression in Scripture The ldquocontextrdquo is the determining factor Not only must we take into account the context surrounding a chapter or book of the Bible but also what the whole Bible teaches on a given person or subject

What does the Bible teach about Jesus

That Christ ldquowas in the beginning with Godrdquo (John 12) At the announcement of his birth on earth the angel Gabriel told Mary that she will give birth to someone ldquogreatrdquo and ldquoholyrdquo and that one will be called ldquoSon of the Most Highrdquo and ldquoSon of Godrdquo (Luke 132 35) Trinitarians may claim that ldquoSon of Godrdquo is equivalent in meaning to ldquoGodrdquo It is a claim with no foundation If there was any truth to the claim then the ldquoHoly Spiritrdquo would also be called Son of God But no The fact is that other living creatures are called ldquosons of Godrdquo (Job 21) Never is ldquoGodrdquo or ldquoholy spiritrdquo ever called ldquoSon of Godrdquo in Scripture Only Jesus Christ is called ldquothe Son of Godrdquo with the article Why

By Christ lsquobecoming obedient [to God] until deathrsquo during the course of his earthly life lsquoGod highly exalted Him and graciously gave him a name which is above every other name that at the name of Jesus every knee should bendto the credit of God the Fatherrsquo (Hebrews58 Philippians 28-11 21st Century New Testament)

ldquo[Christ] has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God with angels authorities and powers made subject to himrdquo (1 Peter 322 NRSV) Still in heaven Christ receives knowledge information revelation from God and transmits it to other creatures (Revelation11) Though the glorified Christ is described as ldquoKing of kingsrdquo and ldquoLord of lordsrdquo he is specifically called ldquoThe Word of Godrdquo (Revelation 191316 NRSV) The night before his death he ldquoprayedrdquo to his Father and called him ldquothe only true Godrdquo and made this petition ldquoFather glorify me in your own presence [Greek beside yourself] with the glory that I hadin your presence [Greek beside you] before the world existedrdquo (John 175 NRSV) (ldquoalongside yourselfrdquo ST Byington) Again God never has to ldquoprayrdquo to anyone Ever

Well then if Jesus Christ expressed this one final ldquowishrdquo in prayer to be ldquoin the presence ofrdquoldquobesiderdquo ldquoalongsiderdquo his Father which he himself called ldquothe only true Godrdquo why should we for the sake of tradition insist with the belief that Jesus ldquomustrdquo somehow be that ldquotruerdquo God the One sitting at the center of Gods throne instead of ldquobesiderdquo God (Mark 1619) Christ did not ask to sit at Gods throne Christ was fully content with the premise of being alongside God And that is what actually happened Mark tells us ldquoSo then the Lord Jesus after he had spoken to them was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of Godrdquo (Mark 1619 NRSV Note Some ancient manuscripts omit this verse) The NIV Study Bible notes the significance of lsquositting at the right hand of Godrsquo ldquoA position of authority second only to Godsrdquo Being in ldquoa position of authority second only to Godsrdquo is something no one should ever say of God for he is always ldquosupremerdquo At no time does God relinquishes his supremacy Someone who holds a position of authority second to God cannot be identical to God Take note too that in this account of Mark chapter 16 or the oneat John chapter 17 there is no mention of a third party of a ldquoGodheadrdquo No ldquoHoly Spiritrdquo is in sight The fact is that the glorified Christ in heaven continues to call his Father ldquomy Godrdquo(Revelation 312)

As ldquoSon of Godrdquo and always lesser and subject to God it is illogical to think Christ would purposely usurp titles and rights that only belonged to lsquohis God and Fatherrsquo (John 1428 Matthew 2023 John 2017 Acts 17) Jesus Christ taught others to only worship the Father God (Matthew 410 John 42324) ldquoAnd we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the worldrdquo (1 John 414) If so the thought that Christ would usethe words ldquoI amrdquo as a title to identify himself as ldquothe true Godrdquo is incongruous Jesus made it clear that he would only seek the glory ldquothat comes from the one who alone is Godrdquo (John850 54 544)

In this Satan controlled world it is not that difficult to get entangled with human taught intricate philosophies which obscure the simple Christian doctrine (John 1231 2 Cor 44) Hence the need for caution at the time of defending popular traditional views which clash with the monotheistic approach of Bible writers

Consequently those who teach that Christ is Almighty God find themselves in conflict with the Scriptural record The submitted list of alternate readings of John 858 shows that there are a considerable number of scholars who not only understand the subject correctly but alsokeenly grasp that whatever Jesus said on the matter has to harmonize with both the context of John chapter 8 and the rest of the Scriptures as well

What is the correct translation of John 858

Is it ldquoI amrdquo ldquoI wasrdquo ldquoI am herdquo or ldquoI have beenrdquo After analyzing the Greek phrase ldquoegō eimirdquo the context and the various possible ways the expression can be translated in English I think it is best to render the Greek with an English present perfect Adding a smallelement such as ldquosincerdquo to the statement as McKay does below satisfies all contextual and grammatical requirements of the passage Doing so does not qualify as ldquointerpolationrdquo

A second choice a simple past tense can perhaps be used in translation where the context allows since it is grammatically correct but it is generally used of activity confined to the past so the message may be distorted Unless that is the simple past is interpreted as ldquoimperfectiverdquo with current relevance How so In support of Jesus deity many frequently cite John11 There in the text a simple past tense ldquowasrdquo is applied to ldquothe Wordrdquo three times in English versions Does that mean ldquothe Wordrdquo is no more or that it was permanentlycut-off from existence at some point Of course not The context of the whole gospel of John shows that Christ is fully pertinent in Christian lives

Scholars choosing a past tense for ldquoeimirdquo (ie ldquoI wasrdquo ldquoI existedrdquo etc) at John 858 may also have in mind what John the Baptist said as a precursor of Jesus Christ ldquoA man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was [ldquoexistedrdquo JB] before merdquo Surely John the Baptist did not mean that Jesus existence was done away with His own words show thatJesus life was very much relevant and would continue to be so Translators have no issue whatsoever in applying a past tense (ldquowasrdquo ldquoexistedrdquo) at John 11 and 130 in their English versions So why would they at John 858 Perhaps because it would mean that they wouldhave to do away with the premise of a ldquodivine titlerdquo in their argumentation of which is claimed clinches Jesus identity with Gods own As shown above Revelation 211 a presentverb a form of ldquoeimirdquo is rendered by some versions with a past tense ldquowasrdquo Obviously Bible translators have no problem in translating some present tense verbs with past tenses or with present perfects But most object to it at John 858 likely for theological reasons

As stated in the beginning of this essay the English ldquopresentrdquo and the Greek ldquopresentrdquo in certain contexts do not correspond exactly in meaning because in Greek ldquotimerdquo is a secondary factor That being the case the choice of English tense does not have to match theGreek conjugation per se to be faithful to the Sacred Text When one considers the specific idiom found in John 858 and the semantic implications of both the Greek and English ldquopresentrdquo one can see that the rendering ldquoI amrdquo though popular does not nearly represent the best translation possible in the English language ldquoContextrdquo often plays a more importantrole in determining the correct translation Overall though it is best to render the Greek expression with an English present perfect since it conveys clearly a more present relevancythan a past tense would

That said John 858 is a good example where a Greek transliteration may not be the best choice to communicate the right message effectively in our times The translation of ldquoI amrdquo has its place in extreme English literal translations which show the basic sense of the Greek such as those Interlinear translations mentioned above Also it can rightfully be used in many Scriptures where the context calls for it as when the sentence structure lacks the Greekldquoidiomrdquo discussed throughout this writing as might be the case with most occurrences of ldquoeimirdquo

Here listed in my opinion are the translations which come closest to the Greek thought presented by the particular ldquoidiomrdquo found in John 858 Dr Kenneth L McKay comes up with the correct translation

1 ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo - Kenneth L McKay A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek (SBG 5 New York Peter Lang 1994) p42

(Kenneth L McKay graduated with honours in Classics (with an interest in the Greek of theNT) from the Universities of Sydney and Cambridge He has taught Greek in universities and theological colleges in Nigeria New Zealand and England Mr McKay retired from the Australian National University in 1987 after teaching there for 26 years)

Other translations below come close to McKays rendering and are thus favored over the traditional rendering which is widely misunderstood

2 ldquoI have existed before Abraham was bornrdquo - A New Translation by James [ Moffatt - DD DLitt Glasgow Oxford 3 ldquoBefore Abraham came into existence I have beenrdquo - New World Translation 4 ldquoBefore Abraham came into being I have existedrdquo - The Documents of the [New Testament G W Wade London 5 ldquoFrom before Abraham was I have been rdquo - The New Testament by George [ R -Noyes DD Boston USA6 ldquoBefore Abraham was born I have already been rdquo - The Unvarnished New [Testament Andy Gaus Boston7 ldquoI existed even before Abraham was bornrdquo - The concise Gospel and the Acts [Logos International Christopher J ed Christianson Plainfield NJ8 ldquoI already was before Abraham was bornrdquo ndash Worldwide English New Testament [ Derby UK ________________________________

COMMENTS

Also compare the following translations

Nytt liv (1907 Norwegian)A Biacuteblia Viva (1981 Portuguese)O Novo Testamento Vivo (1974 Portuguese)Le Livre Nouveau Testament (1980 eacuteditions Farel French)Η Καινή Διαθήκη των Τεσσάρων Καθηγητών (ΚΔΤΚ Greek) (The New Testament of the Four Teachers The translation was made and approved (1921981) by the Holy Summit Church of Greece The English title of the project is The New Testament in Modern Greek Athens Greece) Η Αγία Γραφή Παλαιά και Καινή Διαθήκη (ΝΔΜ Greek) Ελληνική Βιβλική Εταιρία Αθήνα [Athens] 1997 (The Bible Old and New Testament Greek Biblical Company - London 1997) ΚΔΛΖ ΛΧ (Other Greek Versions expressing the same idea as translations on the list)___________________

ldquoI was rdquo Note on 1987 translation from Italian main list l Vangelio di Giovanni (El Evangelio de Juan [ldquoThe Gospel of Johnrdquo] with imprimatur) by J Mateos and J Barreto noted on John 858 (as translated by Teodora Tosatti p 387 Cittadela Editrice 1982) that the temporal relationship expressed by the Greek ldquoprin eimi [BeforeI am]rdquo can be translated into Italian ldquoprimaero [BeforeI was]rdquo (Translation from Italian to English mine)__________________

Comment on 1993 ΟІ ΧΡΙΣΤΙΑΝΙΚΕΣ ΓΡΑΦΕΣ Απόδοση από τη Μειάφράση Νέου Κόσμου which is a modern Greek translation of the New World Translation of the ChristianScriptures Unlike most Bible Versions which are published in only one language or a few atmost the NWT is available in dozens of languages based mainly on their English translationbut obviously taking into account other factors in the process such as the original Bible text the peculiarities of their recipient local languages and their targeted audiences in their respective countries

It is obvious though that other NWT translation editions closely followed the English text of the NWT and at the same time their translation teams had enough latitude to offer their own unique renderings at times expressing in their native languages what they see in in the Inspired Text Having said that it is interesting to see how they approached their translation of John 858 from their English translation back into [modern] Greek

The translation team was acutely aware of the basic sense of ldquoegō eimirdquo as ldquoI amrdquo and how those simple words are misconstrued by religionists to say something more than Jesus intended Taking into account the syntax of John 858 as stated throughout this document the translation team who worked on the modern Greek version faced a few options

First they had the option to go back to ldquoegō eimirdquo using the modern Greek equivalent ldquoΕγώ ειμαιrdquo (I am) as it reads in the Vamvas version which they did not Or they could haveexpressed their NWT English choice of ldquoI have beenrdquo with their modern Greek equivalent of ldquoέχο υπάρξει [I have existed]rdquo Thirdly they could have gone with ldquoI wasrdquo (ldquoεγώ ήμουνrdquo) as some of their French and Italian Bible editions have done in the past or even with ldquo[εγώ] υπήρξα [I existed])rdquo Or they could have provided some other unique rendering It is obvious they wanted to stick closely to the Greek text but given the common misconceptionssurrounding ldquoegō eimai (I am)rdquo in mainstream churches the translation team chose to use ldquoεγώ υπάρχωrdquo (a present indicative form in the Greek) which means basically ldquoI existrdquo but in the presence of an expression of past time in John 858 the sense is ldquoI have existedrdquo Thus ldquoBefore Abraham came into existence I have existedrdquo ( The verb είμαι [ldquoto berdquo] in modern Greek has no forms for the perfect tense It borrows the forms from the verb υπάρχω [ldquoI existrdquo] The Greek and English ldquoperfectsrdquo are not exact equivalents either)

The reader is reminded here as noted earlier that modern Greek keeps up with the Koineacute Greek ldquopresentrdquo idiom A modern Greek grammar Greek A Comprehensive Grammar explains ldquoThe present tense is also used in constructions where English would use the perfect continuous ie where the verb expresses a continuous state or habitual event that

has lasted since a certain point in the past and is continuing up to (and including) the presentrdquo The authors provide two examples where a present verb is used with a past time indicator and where they translate using an English perfect as explained ldquoI have been living[Μένω] in this house for three years nowrdquo And ldquoI have been reading [Διαβάζω] this newspaper since 1984rdquo (Greek A Comprehensive Grammar by David Holton Peter Mackridge amp Irene Philippaki-Warburton Revised by Vassilios Spyropoulos p 294 Second edition 2012)

Ten years after the NWT-Greek Edition was released another modern Greek translation was published with the following rendering at John 858 ldquoΣας βεβαιώνω πως πριν να γεννηθεί οΑβραάμ εγώ υπάρχωrdquo which in English would be ldquoI assure you that I have existed since before Abraham was bornrdquo (Literally ldquoI assure you that before could be born the AbrahamI exist [not ldquoΕγώ ειμαιrdquo]rdquo The Holy Bible in Todays Greek Version 2003 Greek Bible Society Interestingly the original English version of 1976 had ldquoI Amrdquo) Also a Spanish Bible conveys a similar thought ldquoYo existo desde antes que existiera Abrahamrdquo [Translation ldquo I exist since before Abraham existedrdquo] (La Biblia - Versioacuten Popular 2nd edition Sociedades Biacuteblicas Unidas 1983)

_________________________________________________________

The Clear Word The translators quoted in this article represent various religious faiths some are Catholic some are Protestant Others are Unitarians Jehovahs Witnesses Jewish Adventists etc and they represent countries the world over One of these translators is a Seventh-Day Adventist who worked on The Clear Word Jack J Blanco ThD As a Seventh-Day Adventist who supports the Trinity doctrine Blanco translated verses to make Jesus ldquoequalrdquo to God in every way

He renders John 11 ldquoHe is the Word of God and is equal with Godrdquo He shows Jesus at Philippians 25-7 as ldquoequal with Godrdquo and describes him as lsquoacting the part of a servantrsquo At John 1428 he completely omits the reference that lsquothe Father is greaterrsquo than Christ But here at John 858 in answer to the question the priests and leaders asked concerning Abraham lsquoseeingrsquo his day Jesus answered according to Dr Blanco ldquoBecause I existed before Abraham was even bornrdquo Thus Dr Blanco makes no connection as others do that Christ is the ldquoI amrdquo of Exodus 314 which according to some would indicate that Jesus is the Jehovah of the Old Testament What he sees in this account is that Jesus already lsquoexisted before Abraham didrsquo and thus Abraham was able to lsquoseersquo his day (John 856) To this we must add another likely element included in Jesus response to the Jews as wellone of simple identification as ldquothe Christ [Messiah]rdquo and ldquoSon of manrdquo Why is it then that manywho support the Trinity doctrine find it hard to understand Jesus statement correctly at John 858 Could it be that they are letting non-Scriptural influence and perhaps the weight of themajority view dictate their understanding of this Scripture

For a consideration of other subjects by the same author check below

For a discussion of Acts 286 Whose blood

httpwwwscribdcomdoc231244155Acts-20-28-Whose-blood

For a discussion of Colossians 116 (ldquoall other thingsrdquo) see

httpwwwscribdcomdoc205841269Colossians-1-16-Is-the-expression-all-other-things-a-proper-rendition

For a consideration on the subject of the Trinity click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc160286056Does-the-Trinity-ever-make-sense

For a full consideration of John 11 click the following link httpwwwscribdcomdoc34916458The-correct-translation-of-John-1-1

For a brief consideration of John 11 with additional citations click here httpwwwscribdcomdoc50330864John-1-1-List-of-Alternate-Readings

Did the NW translators know any Greek click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc48234022Did-the-New-World-Translation-Committee-Know-Greek

For a consideration of John 173 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc57772552John-17-3-E28098Taking-in-knowledge-of-E28099-God-and-Jesus

For a consideration of 1 Timothy 316 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc76927834Was-God-manifested-in-the-flesh-1-Timothy-3-16

For a consideration of Exodus 225 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc38676458Exodus-2-25-And-God-took-notice-Does-God- care-about-us

For a consideration of John 114 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc35002730John-1-14-Jesus-full-of-grace

For a consideration of Translation Differences-Questions and Answershttpwwwscribdcomdoc59484457Translation-Differences-Questions-and-Answers

In Spanish

Para una consideracioacuten de otros temas vea los siguientes enlaces

Para una consideracioacuten de Colosenses 116 ldquotodas las otras cosasrdquo vea

httpwwwscribdcomdoc209601066Colosenses-1-16-C2BFEs-la-traduccion-E2809Ctodas-las-otras-cosasE2809D-apropiada

Para una consideracioacuten de ldquoiquestAcaso tiene sentido la Trinidadrdquo

httpwwwscribdcomdoc173779117C2BFAcaso-tiene-sentido-la-Trinidad

Para un consideracioacuten de Juan 11 vea el siguiente enlace

httpwwwscribdcomdoc35899788Traduccion-correcta-de-Juan-1-1-Lista-de- lecturas-alternativas

Para el tema iquestSabiacutean griego los traductores de la TNM vea el siguiente enlace

httpwwwscribdcomdoc51623596C2BFSabia-griego-el-Comite-de-la-Traduccion-del-Nuevo-Mundo

indicative forms (ldquoI have beenrdquo) while one translation (NETS) uses a simple past form (ldquoI wasrdquo) A modern Greek translation Η Αγία ΓραφήmdashΜετάφραση Νέου Κόσμου has ldquoήμουνrdquo (Literally ldquoI wasrdquo) in this text A likely reason for that as a modern Greek Grammar pointsout is that for the verb lsquoto be (είμαι)rsquo ldquoThere are only two sets of tense forms in Greek present and past (imperfect)rdquo (op cit An Essential Grammar p 126 Sec 67) Hence they could not have used here a perfect tense form for the verb lsquoto be (eimai)rsquo But in English the Bible Society responsible for the Greek and English translations of the Hebrew portion of the Bible used instead ldquoI have beenrdquo at Genesis 3138 in the English edition because a present perfect is available in the language for the verb

Another interesting tidbit is the fact that the original Hebrew text here lacks a verb in the declaration namely ldquoThis twenty year I with-yourdquo (The Hebrew-English Interlinear ESV Old Testament Crossway) Well how do translators deal with this issue Overall like this with the perfect indicative ldquoI have been with you for twenty years nowrdquo A few versions use the imperfect instead lsquoI wasrsquo such as the Wycliffe Bible and the Lexham English Bible Rarely do translations use a ldquopresentrdquo here the exceptions being Youngs and Concordant literal translations So why do the overwhelming number of translators prefer tosupply a perfect tense here for the missing verb in the Hebrew Its simple There is a temporal indicator going to the past in the text namely lsquoThese twenty yearsrsquo

Now when the LXX translators proceeded to translate the Hebrew words of Genesis 3138 into Greek they cleverly used a well known vivid idiom available in classical Greek where a verb in the present tense is combined with an indicator of past time In this syntax the ldquopast and present are gathered up in a single affirmationrdquo (op cit Brooks amp Winbery) Modern English translators usually resort to the present perfect in this construction as shown aboveSo too John 858 reveals an expression of past time with a present verb in its statement and the NWT is one translation that is consistent with this construction both in Genesis 3138 and John 858

For the following I will use the Wescott and Hort Greek text for reference

2nd Example (1 John 38)

ὅτι ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς ὁ διάβολος ἁμαρτάνει - Greek because from beginning the devil is sinning

The apostle John warns Christians not to carry on sin for those who make a practice of sin originate from the Devil who has sinned from the beginning For this purpose the Son of God was revealed that he might undo the works of the Devil The text above contains an expression of past time (ldquofrom beginningrdquo) with a present verb (is sinning) very much likeJohn 858 How do translators deal with this passage Lets see

ldquofor the devil sinneth from the beginningrdquo (Rheims New Testament)ldquofor the devil sinneth from the beginningrdquo (KJV)

ldquofor the devil has sinned from the beginningrdquo (New King James Version)ldquofor the devil has sinned from the beginningrdquo (NASB)ldquobecause the devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (Interlinear Mounce)ldquofor the Devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (Riverside NT Ballantine)ldquobecause the devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (NIV)ldquobecause the devil has sinned from the beginningrdquo (NAB)ldquosince the devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (Jay E Adams)ldquowho has been sinning since the beginningrdquo (NLT)ldquofor the devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (NRSV)ldquosince the devil has been a sinner from the beginningrdquo (NJB)ldquobecause the devil has been sinning from the very beginningrdquo (J G Anderson)ldquofor the devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (ESV)

ldquothe devil was a sinner from the firstrdquo (Ronald A Knox New Testament)

Some translations transfer the Greek present to their English versions as if the English and Greek ldquopresentrdquo in such construction were the same thing It is not The end result is ungrammatical English Would you say in contemporary English ldquoFrom the beginning of class the boy sleepsrdquo Not Doctor Richard A Young points out ldquoTo say that the devil is sinning from the beginning does not make sense in English English translations therefore employ the present perfectrdquo (Intermediate New Testament Greek page 111)

The renderings above ldquohas sinnedrdquo and ldquohas been sinningrdquo are present perfect and present perfect progressive indicative forms The word ldquowasrdquo is a simple past tense Just as in 1 John 38 some translators in John 858 have rendered a present tense with an expression of past time in its construction with a present perfect ldquoI have beenrdquo

3rd Example (2 Corinthians 1219)

Πάλαι δοκεῖτε ὅτι ὑμῖν ἀπολογούμεθα ndash Greek Long ago you are thinking that to you we are making defense

Paul finds himself having to defend his apostolic authority and vindicating his record as superior in hardship endured for Christ and loving concern for congregations In simpler words Paul was telling them ldquoAll this time have you been thinking that Ive been speaking up for myself No Ive been speaking with God as my witness Ive been speaking like a believer in Christ Dear friends everything I do is to help you become strongerrdquo (NIRV)

In the literal reading above we have an adverb of time with past implications (Palai) followed by two Greek verb forms (ldquodokeiterdquo amp ldquoapologoumethardquo) in the present indicativetense The book Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek Verb by William Watson Goodwin explains ldquoThe Present is often used with expressions denoting past time especially πάλαι [palai] in the sense of a perfect and a present combinedrdquo (Section 26 p 9) How do translators render these in English Some carry over the present tense into the English text producing unconventional English Others cognizant of issues presented here

do a better job at it See below for a sample

ldquoHave you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves before yourdquo (The Comprehensive New Testament 2008)ldquoI hope you donacutet think that all along weacuteve been making our defense before yourdquo (The Message Eugene H Peterson)ldquoHave you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves to yourdquo (NIV)ldquoIt may seem to you that all this time we have been attempting to put ourselves in the rightrdquo (Bible in Basic English)ldquoAll this time you have been thinking that we have been pleading our own cause before yourdquo (NJB)ldquoHave you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves to yourdquo (CEV)ldquoHave you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves before yourdquo (Revised Standard Version) ldquoPerhaps you think that all along we have been trying to defend ourselves before yourdquo (TEV)ldquoHave you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves to yourdquo (ESV)ldquoYou have thought all along that we were defending ourselves to yourdquo (HCSB)ldquoHave you been thinking all this time that we have been defending ourselves to yourdquo (NET Bible)

ldquoYou have been thinking all along that it was to you we were making our defenserdquo (The Bible in Living English Steven T Byington)

The above translations use present perfect (and perfect progressive) forms or past progressives to bring out the proper sense of the original into our language Can anyone rightfully claim that it is improper for these Bible versions to translate this text as they have done in English

4th Example (Luke 248 Wescott and HortNestle early editions Greek text)

ὁ πατήρ σου καὶ ἐγὼ ὀδυνώμενοι ζητοῦμέν σε - Greek The father of you and I being pained we are seeking you Here the context (vv 42-48) speaks of Jesus (12 years old) being left behind unwittingly in Jerusalem by his parents they went back searching in distress for three days before finding him When they finally found him they spoke the words above

ldquoYour father and I have been looking for you anxiouslyrdquo (Revised Standard Version)ldquoYour father and I in agony of mind have been searching for yourdquo (Williams NT)ldquoYour father and I have been anxiously looking for Yourdquo (NASB 1971)ldquoYour father and I have been searching for you in great distressrdquo (Riverside NT)

ldquoHere have your father and I been searching anxiously for yourdquo (Hugh J Schonfield)ldquoYour father and I have been looking for you have been very anxious rdquo (Goodspeed)ldquoYour father and I have been looking for you We have been very troubledrdquo (Bible in Worldwide English)ldquoYour father and I have been looking for you in distressrdquo (Richmond Lattimore)ldquoYour father and I have been searching for you in great distressrdquo (Twentieth Century NT) ldquoThy father and I have sought thee distressedrdquo (Darby Bible Translation)

ldquoThy father and I sought thee sorrowingrdquo (American Standard Version)

ldquoThy father and I in anguish were seeking theerdquo (The Emphasized Bible 3rd edit based on Wescott and Hort by Joseph B Rotherham)ldquoThy father and I were seeking thee sorrowfulrdquo (W B Godbey N T 1902)ldquoThy father and I were seeking Thee sorrowingrdquo (A S Worrell N T 1904)ldquoYour father and I were anxiously looking for yourdquo (World English Bible)

The words ldquowe are seeking yourdquo are in the present indicative tense however since an expression of time is used indicating action going on for days (ldquoafter three daysrdquo v 46) translators find it necessary to use either the present perfect (ldquohave beenrdquo ldquohave soughtrdquo) or simple past (ldquosoughtrdquo) or past progressive (ldquowere seekingrdquo) indicative forms to express in English what the Greek says in the ldquopresentrdquo Various Greek texts have instead of the ldquopresentrdquo found in the Westcott amp Hort Text above an ldquoimperfectrdquo verb form Both forms are frequently rendered with an English present ldquoperfectrdquo Compare with Youngs Literal Translation which also uses a past progressive indicative form ldquowere seekingrdquo and the Spanish Reina-Valera Revisada which rendered an imperfect verb form appearing in the Received Text with a present perfect indicative (ldquohemos buscadordquo) Is this another reason why many translators have rendered the Greek present ldquoegō eimirdquo preceded by an adverbial modifier in its clause at John 858 with perfective or past forms in English

5th Example (Juan 56)

καὶ γνοὺς ὅτι πολὺν ἤδη χρόνον ἔχει - Greek and having known that much already time he is having

This is an account of an invalid man who for 38 years had been sick and was now being cured by Jesus The Greek in this clause does not make his illness clear however the context does Take note of the expression of time used with past implications mixed with a present indicative verb ldquohe is havingrdquo For this to make any sense in our language it has to be modified When Jesus saw this sick man lying there

ldquoand knew that he had been now a long time in that caserdquo (KJV italics theirs) ldquoand knowing that he had been ill a long timerdquo (Revised English Bible)ldquoand knew he had been in that condition for a long timerdquo (NJB)ldquoand knew that he had been sick for a long timerdquo (World English Bible)ldquoand knew that he had been sick for a long timerdquo (Godacutes Word)

ldquoand knew how long he had been illrdquo (Living Bible)ldquoand knew he had already been there a long timerdquo (HCSB)ldquoand he knew that the man had been sick for such a long timerdquo (TEV)ldquoand knew that he had been in this state a long timerdquo (Confraternity Version)ldquoand finding that he had had a long time of itrdquo (S T Byington) ldquoand knew that he had been sick for a long timerdquo (Jay E Adams)ldquoand he knew that he had been waiting for a long timerdquo (George M Lamsa Peshitta) ldquoand knew that he had been now a long timerdquo (Rheims New Testament)

ldquoand knowing that he was [in that state] now a great length of timerdquo (J N Darby Translation Brackets his)

Once again we see translators having to use mostly perfective forms (ldquohad beenrdquo ldquohad hadrdquopast perfects) and one with a simple past ldquowasrdquo even though they are translating a present tense verb ldquohe is havingrdquo This shows that translators adapt their renderings whenever is necessary to convey the right meaning into the target language It is thus possible to render ldquoeimirdquo at John 858 with a form other than a present tense such as a present perfect Those who say that it can not be done or should not be done just need to look again at the evidenceobjectively

6th Example (John 1527 Wescott amp Hort)

ὅτι ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς μετʼ ἐμοῦ ἐστέ ndash Greek that from beginning with me you are

These words spoken by Jesus evidently refers to the beginning of his ministry when he chosehis closest disciples They were eyewitnesses of all the things God did through Christ duringhis ministry (Acts 121)

ldquobecause ye have been with me from the beginningrdquo (KJV) ldquobecause you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (NAB)ldquofor you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (Christian Community Bible)ldquobecause you are the men who have been with me from the very beginningrdquo (Heinz Wldquobecause you have been with me from the firstrdquo (New English Bible) [ Cassirer)ldquobecause you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (Godacutes Word Translation) ldquofor you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (NIV)ldquobecause you have been with me from the firstrdquo (Weymouth New Testament)ldquobecause you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (NRSV)ldquoyou that have been with me from the beginningrdquo (The Four Gospels EV Rieu)ldquobecause youacuteve been with Me from the beginning of My ministryrdquo (The Clear Word)ldquofor you have been with me from the firstrdquo (J B Phillips Modern English)ldquobecause you have been with Me from the beginningrdquo (HCSB) ldquothat you were with me from the startrdquo (21st Century New Testament)ldquofor you were with Me from the beginningrdquo (New Berkeley Version Revised Edition)

ldquobecause you were with me from the beginningrdquo (Mark Heber Miller)ldquobecause you were with me from the very beginningrdquo (SEB)

This scripture with the plural form of ldquoeimirdquo (este) is very similar to John 858 Again within its structure there is an expression of past time and a verb in the present indicative form (este) just as there is in John 858 A Grammar of New Testament Greek says ldquoThe reader may be reminded of one idiom which comes out of the linear idea the use of words like πάλαι [palai ldquolong agordquo] with the present in a sense best expressed by our perfect Thus in 2 Co 1219 lsquohave you been thinking all this timersquo or Jn 1527 lsquoyou have been with me from the beginning [ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς]rsquo hellip The durative present in such cases gathers up past and present time into one phraserdquo (A Grammar of New Testament Greek Vol 1 Prolegomena by JH Moulton p 119) As previously noted this Grammar specifically refers to John 858 as an example of this idiom

And here in John 1527 there is a connection of Jesus disciples [creatures as they are] that ldquowererdquo with him ldquofrom the beginningrdquo Obviously Jesus was making no reference to his disciples sharing ldquoeternityrdquo with him The disciples all had a beginning The logical conclusion is that Jesus was simply saying to them lsquoYou have been with me from the start of my ministryrsquo Hence there is no need to read ldquoeternityrdquo into the expression ldquoI amrdquo anymore that we should read ldquoeternityrdquo from Jesus words at John 1527 lsquoYou are with me from the beginningrsquo Neither grammar nor the context justifies reading more into these Scriptures than what they actually say

In fact the six (6) instances cited above (Genesis 3138 LXX 1 John 38 2 Cor 1219 Luke 248 John 56 John 1527) and John 858 as well all have an expression of past time or an extent of time with past implications (ldquoThese twenty yearsrdquo ldquoLong agordquo ldquoafter three daysrdquo Lk 246 ldquomuch already timerdquo ldquofrom [the] beginningrdquo ldquoBeforerdquo etc) AND present verbs in their sentences or nearby within the context and are commonly rendered with present perfect (some with past perfects) or simple past (or past progressive) forms in English translations If we apply this pattern to the translation of John 858 it would mean that renderings such as ldquoI have beenrdquo (present perfect) and ldquoI wasrdquo (simple past) are not only acceptable in translation but actually more ldquosuitablerdquo in application Can this really be done Not only can it be done it makes for a ldquobetterrdquo English translation

In regards to Jesus John 858 simply tells us that Jesus lsquowas alive before Abraham was bornrsquo (SEB) and that his existence continued up to the moment of his speaking to them Just as it is not proper English to say ldquoFor three days we are seeking yourdquo (Greek literal reading of Luke 248) or ldquobecause from the beginning with me you arerdquo (John 1527) it is no less proper English to say in John 858 ldquoBefore Abraham was born I amrdquo These readings should only appear in extremely literal interlinear translations which basically render the Greek word-by-word and not in standard idiomatic English translations Let me illustrate If a man advanced in age for example had his work history and experience questioned by co-workers in comparison to his younger son and employee Abe would he say in reply ldquoBefore my son Abe was born I am [the one fit for the job]rdquo No that does not sound right In English he could say it in various ways

ldquoI have been an experienced worker since before my son Abe was bornrdquo ldquoI have been what I am since before my son Abe was bornrdquo ldquoI was fit to work and fully active before my son Abe was ever bornrdquo ldquoI was already experienced in many jobs before Abe ever came to berdquo ldquoI have been a master worker way before my son Abe came to liferdquo ldquoBefore Abe was born I already was life and job experiencedrdquo etc

The point is that in English normally we include a present perfect tense whenever there is a reference to the past extending to the present or a past tense of some form whenever we go back in time The same with John 858 There is no justification in English to insist using a present verb form (which is not equal to the Greek present when combined with a past expression) in an unwarranted attempt to convey ldquoeternityrdquo as ldquopaddingrdquo to the Trinity doctrine a doctrine adopted AFTER the Christian era Worse it is disingenuous to accuse other translators (who have chosen to render ldquoegō eimirdquo at John 858 with an English present perfect or past tense) of scholastic dishonesty when the very same translations honored by these detractors do so in other places where the ldquodeityrdquo of Christ is not in play asshown in the samples provided above

An example of this double standard can be seen as well when scholars such as Dr Julius Mantey harshly criticizes the NWT for the rendering ldquoI have beenrdquo at John 858 but keeps quiet when other translators do similarly and even states or pretends that no other reputable translator would ever translate it that way He dared not criticize his former Greek teacher Charles B Williams who produced his own Bible translation Dr Mantey once wrote the following of Dr Williams translation ldquoWilliams translation considering all the factors is the most accurate and illuminating translation in the English languagerdquo And how does this ldquomost accurate translationrdquo render John 858 As follows ldquoI existed before Abraham was bornrdquo Here Dr Williams known for his Greek command used a simple past tense (ldquoI existedrdquo) as translation for the Greek present Julius Mantey certainly did not find Williams version of John 858 a ldquoshocking translationrdquo ldquoI existedrdquo is quite different from the translation Dr Mantey so passionately defended (ldquoI amrdquo)

When Dr Mantey talks about the NWT he says the rendering ldquoI have beenrdquo at John 858 cannot be justified and calls it ldquodishonestrdquo That rule does not apply to Williams translation does it Williams did not translate John 858 in the same way Mantey would have liked (ldquoI amrdquo) Not only that the Grammar itself that Dr Mantey co-authored with Dr Dana A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament states under ldquoThe Progressive Presentrdquo (called ldquoExtension from Pastrdquo by McKay) ldquoSometimes the progressive present is retroactivein its application denoting that which has begun in the past and continues into the present For the want of a better name we may call it the present of duration This use is generally associated with an adverb of time and may best be rendered by the English perfect ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς μετʼ ἐμοῦ ἐστέ Ye have been with me from the beginning Jn 1527 See also Lk137 2 Cor 129 [19]rdquo (Pages 182-83 Emphasis added)

Even though Julius Mantey has stated when referring to the NWT that ldquoI have beenrdquo is not a proper translation and even ldquodishonestrdquo at John 858 he clearly states in his Grammar (of

Scriptures with similar syntax to John 858) ldquoThis use is generally associated with an adverb of time and may best be rendered by the English perfect [such as ldquoI have beenrdquo which in fact is associated with an adverb of time in John 858]rdquo A likely reason for Dana ampManteys strong reluctance for not including John 858 as an example of the idiom discussed on page 183 may have to do with the fact that as ldquotrinitariansrdquo they oppose the idea of Jesus existence having lsquobegunrsquo in the past even though John 858 perfectly fits with the ldquoProgressive Presentrdquo idiom being discussed in their Grammar as acknowledged by other grammarians Hence their objection is truly a ldquotheologicalrdquo one rather than Greek grammaritself arguing in their favor as Mantey and some others have implied since a Greek present or an English perfect does not demand ldquoeternityrdquo at all from the subject

Consequently many religious individuals who focus solely on the basic meaning (of ldquoegō eimirdquo as ldquoI amrdquo) out of the context of the particular ldquoidiomrdquo used at John 858 end up missing the thrust of Jesus words and fall prey to misleading interpretations Doctor Kenneth L McKay taking into account all of these issues comes up with this excellent translation for John 858 ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo (A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek SBG 5 New York Peter Lang 1994 p42) If we objectively consider the material above we will not insist in connecting Jesus at John 858 with the God Jehovah of Exodus 314 (which many attempt to do but cannot be sustained) Instead we will focus on the simple message conveyed by Jesus words at John 858 which is in harmony with the totality of Scripture ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo (McKay) The rendering ldquoI have been in existencerdquo by itself does not rule out either the concept of ldquoeternityrdquo or the ldquocreationrdquo of Jesus Christ A Committee of Bible translators came up with the following translation which may not be the best choice but considering the issues involved is better than the traditional rendering of ldquoI amrdquo ldquoI was alive before Abraham was bornrdquo (The New Testament in Plain English)

(The following scholars are members of the Bible Translation Committee of The New Testament in Plain English which approved this last reading ldquoI was aliverdquo instead of ldquoI amrdquo(Dr Stanley L Morris chairman FW Gingrich Ph D a renown Greek lexicographer Jack P Lewis Ph D CH Accord Th D Clyde M Woods Ph D ST Kan Ph D Gary T Burke Ph D Milo Hadwin D Min)

I submit their names and their credentials here as an example because it is often asserted vigorously that no intelligent or highly qualified scholar would ever produce a translation other than ldquoI amrdquo As noted above and as the list of alternate readings (at the end of this essay) of John 858 shows many done by highly qualified people this is simply not true Usually those making statements of that sort are doing so based on emotional and theological not philological reasons Furthermore by not disclosing other valid viewpoints or by dismissing how other qualified Bible translators deal with this scripture they are undermining their own credibility as well

At this time you are welcome to briefly go over the list of Alternate Readings to John 858 at

the end before moving on to the second part of this essay

_____________________________

Should we ignore the evidence of all those translations listed at the end that differ in John 858 from the traditional versions What then are all these translators seeing at John 858 that moved them to render this text differently They surely must be aware of the resistance they would encounter by translating it by the various forms they used Still they must have had the firm conviction that both the Greek text and the context supports their understanding of this scripture They likely see a Jesus making no identity connection with his Father Godbut rather see a Jesus simply expressing his indefinite existence with no suggestion of eternity in focus Neither is Jesus stating here that he is the God of Old Testament times To understand it that way would be to read into the text more than what it says Taking some clues from the context of the chapter some scholars additionally see Jesus insinuating his ldquomessiahshiprdquo as if saying ldquoI am he [the Messiah]rdquo This is very likely In fact The LivingBible renders John 824 thus ldquoThat is why I said that you will die in your sins for unless you believe that I am the Messiah the Son of God [ἐγώ εἰμι] you will die in your sinsrdquo

Is ldquoegō eimirdquo a title or another name of God

The use of ldquoeimirdquo at John 858 is frequently used as a ldquoproof textrdquo of Jesus deity A noted Trinitarian scholar AT Robertson a Baptist even refers to ldquoegō eimirdquo as ldquothe absolute phrase used of Godrdquo likely indicating the verb conveys ldquotimeless beingrdquo an implication that ldquoeimirdquo here does not require anything else to complete the meaning of the phrase thus conveying ldquoeternal existencerdquo as well as being an actual name for God Some individuals have given plenty of publicity to Robertsons statement as absolute truth But his statement is not ldquotruthrdquo at all It is faulty interpretation which many people have fallen prey to Grammar and theology do not always make the best mix True Robertsons credentials as a scholar are impressive nevertheless credentials does not truth make Besides some other equally bright scholars disagree with him Lets illustrate the folly of those advocating a divine title at John 858 by way of addition (Or substitution if you will) as some suggest

ldquoBefore Abraham was born I am Eternalrdquo ldquoBefore Abraham was born I am Jehovahrdquo ldquoBefore Abraham was born I am eternally Godrdquo

First of all the above hypothetical translations are just as ungrammatical as the simple ldquoI amrdquo reading of most versions An English present tense cannot start before a definite point in the past This can be seen in the following two examples

1 ldquoBefore the US Iraq war I am a soldierrdquo 2 ldquoThree journalists are kidnapped in Nepal since the start of 2007rdquo

What is the correct way to express these statements in English Analyze it for a second and

provide an answer if you will

Notably if ldquoeimirdquo was used to convey eternal existence what is the point of using an expression of past time at all in the clause Moreover the context of previous verses (vv 48-57) clearly indicates that Jesus is speaking of God as a separate entity See below

49 ldquobut I honor my Father and you dishonor merdquo 50 ldquoI am not seeking glory for myself but there is one who seeks it and he is the

judgerdquo54 ldquoIf I glorify myself my glory means nothing My Father whom you claim as your

God is the one who glorifies me 55 ldquoThough you do not know him I know him If I said I did not I would be a liar like you but I do know him and obey his wordrdquo Thus if Jesus meant he himself was the ldquoJehovahrdquo of the Old Testament as Trinitarians claim what would be the rationale behind Jesus directing all distinction and glory to lsquothe Father Godrsquo as a distinct individual as he did in the previous verses and then a few words later abruptly change his argumentation by claiming he is that very same One who lsquoreceives obedience from his own wordrsquo lsquoseeking his own honor and gloryrsquo because he himself is ldquoGodrdquo Confusing is it not To accept this abrupt change of character on Jesus part would be not ldquoa mysteryrdquo but flat out ldquoa deceptionrdquo of big proportions since Jesus himself warned against pretending to be one thing and acting as another (Matthew 62-5 2313-36)

Are we are supposed against all logic to accept these ldquotrinitarianrdquo assumptions instead of a simple alternative which really answers the Jews question about lsquohow could Abraham ldquoseerdquoJesus day if he was not yet 50 years oldrsquo (ldquoI have been in existence since Abraham was bornrdquo)

The obsession with the simple words ldquoI amrdquo have led to many faulty assumptions ldquoI amrdquo issuch a common expression in our language even to this day that words such as ldquoegoismrdquo ldquoegotismrdquo etc (derived from the Greek ldquoegordquo) are considered common words in English dictionaries Everyone uses the phrase ldquoI amrdquo at times Think of any big corporation or powerful organization of your choice for a moment Would you conclude that the two most powerful individuals of this one prestigious organization must be identical in every way solely because they are heard equally saying to others in their common speech ldquoI am thisrdquoor ldquoI am thatrdquo etc

In Bible times humans too used common pronouns The verb eimi (ldquoI amrdquo) itself or forms of it appears more than two thousand times (2000x) in the New Testament alone Additionally the word ldquoegōrdquo appears over seventeen hundred times (1700x) in the NT And those numbers do not include the Septuagint totals Do all occurrences of the word then imply ldquodivinityrdquo in each case Of course not It may be more significant when God or Christ use the expression because of who they are but does it really mean that both God and Christ share the same identity Or that everyone who uses the phrase ldquoI amrdquo does so with divine pretensions Does it really mean that everyone using the phrase are ldquoequalrdquo The

answer is obvious is it not

Lets bear in mind that when God sent Jesus Christ as His representative to a most crucial assignment multiple biblical prophecies were pointing to Christ as the promised Messiah that would free mankind from its moribund condition It is logical then that when the time came for Jesus Christ to show up on earth he would somehow communicate to others that ldquoherdquo and not some other human claiming to be the Messiah was Gods instrument in bringing everlasting relief to human misery Hence he could rightly say any or all of the following ldquoI am (this)rdquo ldquoI am (that)rdquo ldquoI am he [the promised Messiah]rdquo or ldquoI am Gods Sonrdquo Should we expect anything less

The fact is that the words ldquoI amrdquo are not exclusive to God and Christ It should be noted that a man who was born ldquoblindrdquo also used the same expression (John 99) The Greek here says ldquoekeinos elegen hoti Egō eimirdquo (ldquoThat one kept saying that I amrdquo) AT Robertson cites John 99 as one of five parallels to the use of egō eimi in John 858 (Word Pictures in the New Testament Vol V p 159) The phrase here comes at the end of the clause with no explicit predicate James White who upholds the traditional reading admits ldquoThis last instance [John 99] is similar to the sayings as Jesus utters them in that the phrase comes at the end of the clause and looks elsewhere for its predicaterdquo The same could be said of John 1527 Some argue that ldquoeimirdquo in John 858 is ldquoabsoluterdquo but do not do so with John 99 or John 1527 Theology may be a factor in this Previously we saw how Jacob a man according to the Septuagint used the words ldquoegō eimirdquo Other instances in Scripture of creatures using those words would not prove they were part of a ldquoGodheadrdquo Context then ultimately dictates how ldquoeimirdquo should be translated According to John when Jesus was pressed he only claimed to have been alive way before Abraham was born and that he simply was ldquothe Christrdquo ldquothe Son of Manrdquo and ldquothe Son of Godrdquo

There is something else to keep in mind in regards to the meaning of ldquoeimirdquo And it is what grammarian Stanley Porter indicated ldquoSometimes the verb [eimi] is used on its own as a verb of existence Perhaps the best-known example of this is the following John 858rdquo (Fundamentals of New Testament Greek by Stanley E Porter section 753 72) AT Robertson adds ldquoThe verb εἰμί [eimi] hellip Sometimes it does express existence as a predicatelike any other verb as in ἐγὼ εἰμί [egō eimi] (Jo 858) and ἡ θάλασσα οὐκ ἔστιν ἔτι [hē thalassa ouk estin eti = ldquothe sea not is yetrdquo] (Rev 211) Cf Mt 2330rdquo (A Grammar of theGreek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research Nashville Tenn 1934 p 394)

What does this mean The examples mentioned by Robertson in addition to John 858 give us an idea of what this implies It is so strange that the two examples Robertson provided forcomparison with John 858 seems to contradict his ldquotimeless beingrdquo view on ldquoeimirdquo He cited a portion of Revelation 211 where the Greek literally says ldquoAnd the sea not is yetrdquo In other words ldquoThe sea does not exist any morerdquo Amplified Bible ldquoThere no longer existed any seardquo Curiously various versions render the present verb ldquoisrdquo (a form of ldquoeimirdquo) with an imperfect ldquowasrdquo (Cf KJV NIV NAB NRSV) Obviously ldquothe seardquo in this vision is [was] not ldquoeternalrdquo

And in Matthew 2330 the other text provided by Robertson in his comparison with John 858 the Greek word-for-word says ldquoIf we were in the days of the fathers of usrdquo which inmodern English would be ldquoIf we had lived in the days of our forefathersrdquo Other versions ldquoIf we had beenrdquo (Rheims NT) ldquoIf we had been livingrdquo (NASB) ldquoIf we had been existing in the days of our fathersrdquo (Jonathan Mitchell NT) The full NIV text reads ldquoAnd you say lsquoIf we had lived in the days of our ancestors we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophetsrsquo rdquo

It is clear from this comparison that the words of Matthew 2330 ldquoIf we wererdquo (a form of ldquoeimirdquo) in the text is used as an equivalent for ldquoliferdquo or ldquoexistencerdquo In the heavenly vision of Rev 211 lsquothe sea ceased to existrsquo And the generation of people which Jesus spoke about and their ancestors all died ceased to exist If we apply these two examples to John 858 given by Robertson with the meaning either of life or existence for ldquoeimirdquo then it wouldbe equally acceptable to translate ldquoI amrdquo as ldquoI existrdquo or ldquoI liverdquo Many translators reflect this very same understanding as the submitted list of alternate readings of John 858 show ldquoI existrdquo or ldquoI existed even before Abraham was bornrdquo Or ldquoI was alive before Abraham was bornrdquo (The Simple English Bible)

Although some may not see much semantic difference between Jesus saying ldquoI amrdquo or ldquoI existrdquo the two expressions communicate something very different to many readers ldquoI amrdquo is generally associated by Trinitarians as a title used by God or as another name for God Onthe other hand ldquoI existrdquo simply conveys ldquoliferdquo or ldquoexistence Barnabas Lindars points out that ldquoegō eimirdquo in John 858 ldquocannot be regarded as a title because it requires the meaning lsquoI am in existencersquordquo (ldquoThe Son of Man in Johannine Christologyrdquo in Christ and the Spirit in the New Testament In Honour of Charles Francis Digby Moule eds B Lindars and S Smalley Cambridge Cambridge University Press 1973) (Since an English present tense cannot start before a definite point in the past this would mean that we can incorporate Lindars valid observation and translate it into contemporary English like this ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo exactly as Dr McKay proposed)

Some in their eagerness to equate Christ with God accuse translators who render ldquoegō eimirdquo in John 858 with renderings other than ldquoI amrdquo pointing to all occurrences of this expression in the New Testament or in Johns Gospel where allegedly these translators do not follow the same ldquorulerdquo when translating ldquoegō eimirdquo in John 858 as they do elsewhere where they translate it with a present indicative form What they dont tell you or fail to understand is that in John 858 ldquoegō eimirdquo without a predicate AND with an expression of time with past implications in its sentence structure provides an ldquoidiomrdquo which is quite different from those other instances of ldquoeimirdquo Thats right an idiom (where present and past is combined) found equally at home in classical biblical and modern Greek which many translators convey into our language with the English present perfect at various places Consequently one cannot merely go by how the phrase ldquoegō eimirdquo is used elsewhere in the NT without taking into account the fact that John 858 displays an ldquoidiomrdquo in its structure Not doing so would be dishonest John the Baptist had said of Christ in John 130 ldquoA man is coming after me who ranks before me because he existed [Lit was] before merdquo (JB)

John 858 is in harmony with those words Furthermore some attempt to use the reading of Psalm 902 in the Septuagint as ldquoevidencerdquo that John 858 is rendered correctly in the popular versions But a closer analysis of this verse shows notable differences between the two verses making such comparison untenable With good reason a considerable number ofscholars have chosen to break from tradition in their rendering of John 858

If critics of alternate readings of John 858 are not candid enough to admit some of the very issues mentioned here and hide the fact that many scholars do hold a different interpretation and no less academic at that should we consider their diatribes of any worthy import It is ldquowishful thinkingrdquo for someone to believe that John 858 is directly connected to Exodus 314 rather than any real evidence (which is lacking) confirming their eager interpretations Remember even Dr James White a well known Trinitarian advocate admitted ldquothat an immediate and unqualified jump from the ego eimi of John 858 to Exodus 314 is unwiserdquo

Besides a theological tendency can be seen when they focus as some do on undermining the reputation of one Bible translation (NWT) when there are actually numerous versions from different religions dealing with the same controversial Scriptures in a similar manner This is very much like politicians who ignore the failings of their own party but are quick to lsquodemonizersquo their opponents (Matthew 73)

Is the Kingdom Interlinear ldquoproofrdquo the NWT is wrong at John 858

A criticism has been made of a Watchtower Society publication (The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures ldquoKITrdquo) which contains the Greek text and underneath it a word-by-word translation in English and on the right side of the page the modern New World Translation Well at John 858 this publication renders the Greek phrase being discussed here egō eimi word-for-word as ldquoI amrdquo and in the right column the NWT shows the reading ldquoI have beenrdquo This difference have led some to severely criticize the NW translators of ldquoincompetencerdquo ldquoinconsistencyrdquo and even of ldquodishonestyrdquo The critics say something like this ldquoThey have backed themselves into a corner where they cant escape their mishandling of the Greek textrdquo or something of that sort Amazingly these critics in their condemnations hardly ever mention the dozens of translators who translate the same way or similarly to the NWT as the submitted list shows So much for honesty

Those who engage in such tactics are not being forthcoming Why say that Besides dismissing how other translators deal with John 858 they also distort known facts for the WT Society have made it clear that the publication of this Greek Bible is to help the Bible student determine the basic sense of the Greek and have stated that the translation on the right column (the NWT) is a modern way of expressing the thoughts transmitted by the Greek text There are many factors to consider when using such publications

Even other interlinear publications warn of seeming discrepancies For instance The Zondervan Parallel New Testament in Greek and English says in its Foreword ldquo[I]t is a good thing to bear in mind that you cannot always either give an English equivalent for a Greek word or expression or even always render the same Greek verb word by the same

English onerdquo Another interlinear the New Greek-English Interlinear New Testament by Brown and Comfort and edited by J D Douglas explains ldquoIt is difficult to translate one language into another on a word-for-word basis because each language has its own syntax grammatical constructions and idioms that are difficultmdashif not impossiblemdashto replicate literally in another languagerdquo (Emphasis added) This statement is so true of the text in discussion (John 858) in regards to its syntax and particular idiom Often critics of the NWT hide this fact Why Is it religious bias at work

I will give the reader a few examples of an available interlinear translation which has the Greek main text and a literal sublinear translation below the Greek by Professor Paul R McReynolds and on the right column for comparison the reader can study the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) a popular translation in academia Observe how the two can differ

McReynolds Mat 21 ldquomagiciansrdquo NRSV ldquowise menrdquo John 118 ldquoonly born Godrdquo ldquoGod the only Sonrdquo Mat 243 ldquosign of the your presencerdquo ldquothe sign of your comingrdquo Mathew 522 ldquothe gehenna of the firerdquo ldquothe hell of firerdquo John 1319 ldquoI amrdquo ldquoI am herdquo John 149 ldquoI amrdquo ldquoHave I beenrdquo John 1527 ldquoyou arerdquo ldquoyou have beenrdquo 2 Peter 24 ldquobeing sent to Tartarusrdquo ldquobut cast them into hellrdquo Luke 1113 ldquowill give spirit holy tordquo ldquowillgive the Holy Spirit tordquo John 2022 ldquotake spirit holyrdquo ldquoReceive the Holy Spiritrdquo Acts 24 ldquofilled all of spirit holyrdquo ldquofilled with the Holy Spiritrdquo

( Paul R McReynolds is professor of Greek and New Testament at Pacific Christian College in Fullerton California USA He also contributed to the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia)

Some of the readings from the right column above (NRSV) are acceptable others are not See if you can detect in the right column above those translation renderings with a theological tendency that deviate from the literal readings from the left column McReynoldson the left does an excellent job of transmitting the Greek sense Even the most popular Bible versions do not adhere consistently to the base texts The NRSV and a host of other Bible versions add their own religious interpretation throughout Scripture just as much as the NWT if not more but hardly anyone complains of this transformation of Scriptures eventhough it leads to error Why Simply because the NRSV represents more of a ldquomajorityrdquo view than the NWT does But in truth majority or minority views do not correspond equallyto ldquoaccuraterdquo or ldquoinaccuraterdquo results

In the text discussed the KIT can appropriately show the basic sense rendering of ldquoI amrdquo for the Greek ldquoegō eimirdquo in the left column and alternately show the reading ldquoI have beenrdquo in the right column as a contemporary way of expressing in English the particular Greek clause with its ldquoidiomrdquo in John 858 as explained throughout this article a rendering which has

scholarship support When the Greek ldquoegō eimirdquo appears in an idiom-less structure it can rightfully be translated as ldquoI amrdquo as most versions do including the NWT Hence there is no contradiction between the two translations

Dr McKay argues that Jesus response in John 858 ldquowould be most naturally translated lsquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrsquo if it were not for the obsession with the simple words lsquoI amrsquo rdquo (Kenneth L McKay ldquolsquoI amrsquo in Johns Gospelrdquo Expository Times 1996 p 302) I take the author as saying that ldquoI have been in existencerdquo for ldquoeimirdquo is a better translation than ldquoI amrdquo but the [religious] obsession for the simple words ldquoI amrdquo in their quest to elevate Christ to Gods level does not allow people to see that The thing is that Christ lsquoalways pleased the Fatherrsquo and was fully satisfied with being lsquolesserrsquo than him (John 829 1029 1428 177813) Why not accept him as he is

Hence it is poor scholarship to forward the idea that an entity must be God Almighty himselfby the sole fact of using a divine sounding phrase when other Bible individuals are found using the same expression in Scripture The ldquocontextrdquo is the determining factor Not only must we take into account the context surrounding a chapter or book of the Bible but also what the whole Bible teaches on a given person or subject

What does the Bible teach about Jesus

That Christ ldquowas in the beginning with Godrdquo (John 12) At the announcement of his birth on earth the angel Gabriel told Mary that she will give birth to someone ldquogreatrdquo and ldquoholyrdquo and that one will be called ldquoSon of the Most Highrdquo and ldquoSon of Godrdquo (Luke 132 35) Trinitarians may claim that ldquoSon of Godrdquo is equivalent in meaning to ldquoGodrdquo It is a claim with no foundation If there was any truth to the claim then the ldquoHoly Spiritrdquo would also be called Son of God But no The fact is that other living creatures are called ldquosons of Godrdquo (Job 21) Never is ldquoGodrdquo or ldquoholy spiritrdquo ever called ldquoSon of Godrdquo in Scripture Only Jesus Christ is called ldquothe Son of Godrdquo with the article Why

By Christ lsquobecoming obedient [to God] until deathrsquo during the course of his earthly life lsquoGod highly exalted Him and graciously gave him a name which is above every other name that at the name of Jesus every knee should bendto the credit of God the Fatherrsquo (Hebrews58 Philippians 28-11 21st Century New Testament)

ldquo[Christ] has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God with angels authorities and powers made subject to himrdquo (1 Peter 322 NRSV) Still in heaven Christ receives knowledge information revelation from God and transmits it to other creatures (Revelation11) Though the glorified Christ is described as ldquoKing of kingsrdquo and ldquoLord of lordsrdquo he is specifically called ldquoThe Word of Godrdquo (Revelation 191316 NRSV) The night before his death he ldquoprayedrdquo to his Father and called him ldquothe only true Godrdquo and made this petition ldquoFather glorify me in your own presence [Greek beside yourself] with the glory that I hadin your presence [Greek beside you] before the world existedrdquo (John 175 NRSV) (ldquoalongside yourselfrdquo ST Byington) Again God never has to ldquoprayrdquo to anyone Ever

Well then if Jesus Christ expressed this one final ldquowishrdquo in prayer to be ldquoin the presence ofrdquoldquobesiderdquo ldquoalongsiderdquo his Father which he himself called ldquothe only true Godrdquo why should we for the sake of tradition insist with the belief that Jesus ldquomustrdquo somehow be that ldquotruerdquo God the One sitting at the center of Gods throne instead of ldquobesiderdquo God (Mark 1619) Christ did not ask to sit at Gods throne Christ was fully content with the premise of being alongside God And that is what actually happened Mark tells us ldquoSo then the Lord Jesus after he had spoken to them was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of Godrdquo (Mark 1619 NRSV Note Some ancient manuscripts omit this verse) The NIV Study Bible notes the significance of lsquositting at the right hand of Godrsquo ldquoA position of authority second only to Godsrdquo Being in ldquoa position of authority second only to Godsrdquo is something no one should ever say of God for he is always ldquosupremerdquo At no time does God relinquishes his supremacy Someone who holds a position of authority second to God cannot be identical to God Take note too that in this account of Mark chapter 16 or the oneat John chapter 17 there is no mention of a third party of a ldquoGodheadrdquo No ldquoHoly Spiritrdquo is in sight The fact is that the glorified Christ in heaven continues to call his Father ldquomy Godrdquo(Revelation 312)

As ldquoSon of Godrdquo and always lesser and subject to God it is illogical to think Christ would purposely usurp titles and rights that only belonged to lsquohis God and Fatherrsquo (John 1428 Matthew 2023 John 2017 Acts 17) Jesus Christ taught others to only worship the Father God (Matthew 410 John 42324) ldquoAnd we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the worldrdquo (1 John 414) If so the thought that Christ would usethe words ldquoI amrdquo as a title to identify himself as ldquothe true Godrdquo is incongruous Jesus made it clear that he would only seek the glory ldquothat comes from the one who alone is Godrdquo (John850 54 544)

In this Satan controlled world it is not that difficult to get entangled with human taught intricate philosophies which obscure the simple Christian doctrine (John 1231 2 Cor 44) Hence the need for caution at the time of defending popular traditional views which clash with the monotheistic approach of Bible writers

Consequently those who teach that Christ is Almighty God find themselves in conflict with the Scriptural record The submitted list of alternate readings of John 858 shows that there are a considerable number of scholars who not only understand the subject correctly but alsokeenly grasp that whatever Jesus said on the matter has to harmonize with both the context of John chapter 8 and the rest of the Scriptures as well

What is the correct translation of John 858

Is it ldquoI amrdquo ldquoI wasrdquo ldquoI am herdquo or ldquoI have beenrdquo After analyzing the Greek phrase ldquoegō eimirdquo the context and the various possible ways the expression can be translated in English I think it is best to render the Greek with an English present perfect Adding a smallelement such as ldquosincerdquo to the statement as McKay does below satisfies all contextual and grammatical requirements of the passage Doing so does not qualify as ldquointerpolationrdquo

A second choice a simple past tense can perhaps be used in translation where the context allows since it is grammatically correct but it is generally used of activity confined to the past so the message may be distorted Unless that is the simple past is interpreted as ldquoimperfectiverdquo with current relevance How so In support of Jesus deity many frequently cite John11 There in the text a simple past tense ldquowasrdquo is applied to ldquothe Wordrdquo three times in English versions Does that mean ldquothe Wordrdquo is no more or that it was permanentlycut-off from existence at some point Of course not The context of the whole gospel of John shows that Christ is fully pertinent in Christian lives

Scholars choosing a past tense for ldquoeimirdquo (ie ldquoI wasrdquo ldquoI existedrdquo etc) at John 858 may also have in mind what John the Baptist said as a precursor of Jesus Christ ldquoA man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was [ldquoexistedrdquo JB] before merdquo Surely John the Baptist did not mean that Jesus existence was done away with His own words show thatJesus life was very much relevant and would continue to be so Translators have no issue whatsoever in applying a past tense (ldquowasrdquo ldquoexistedrdquo) at John 11 and 130 in their English versions So why would they at John 858 Perhaps because it would mean that they wouldhave to do away with the premise of a ldquodivine titlerdquo in their argumentation of which is claimed clinches Jesus identity with Gods own As shown above Revelation 211 a presentverb a form of ldquoeimirdquo is rendered by some versions with a past tense ldquowasrdquo Obviously Bible translators have no problem in translating some present tense verbs with past tenses or with present perfects But most object to it at John 858 likely for theological reasons

As stated in the beginning of this essay the English ldquopresentrdquo and the Greek ldquopresentrdquo in certain contexts do not correspond exactly in meaning because in Greek ldquotimerdquo is a secondary factor That being the case the choice of English tense does not have to match theGreek conjugation per se to be faithful to the Sacred Text When one considers the specific idiom found in John 858 and the semantic implications of both the Greek and English ldquopresentrdquo one can see that the rendering ldquoI amrdquo though popular does not nearly represent the best translation possible in the English language ldquoContextrdquo often plays a more importantrole in determining the correct translation Overall though it is best to render the Greek expression with an English present perfect since it conveys clearly a more present relevancythan a past tense would

That said John 858 is a good example where a Greek transliteration may not be the best choice to communicate the right message effectively in our times The translation of ldquoI amrdquo has its place in extreme English literal translations which show the basic sense of the Greek such as those Interlinear translations mentioned above Also it can rightfully be used in many Scriptures where the context calls for it as when the sentence structure lacks the Greekldquoidiomrdquo discussed throughout this writing as might be the case with most occurrences of ldquoeimirdquo

Here listed in my opinion are the translations which come closest to the Greek thought presented by the particular ldquoidiomrdquo found in John 858 Dr Kenneth L McKay comes up with the correct translation

1 ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo - Kenneth L McKay A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek (SBG 5 New York Peter Lang 1994) p42

(Kenneth L McKay graduated with honours in Classics (with an interest in the Greek of theNT) from the Universities of Sydney and Cambridge He has taught Greek in universities and theological colleges in Nigeria New Zealand and England Mr McKay retired from the Australian National University in 1987 after teaching there for 26 years)

Other translations below come close to McKays rendering and are thus favored over the traditional rendering which is widely misunderstood

2 ldquoI have existed before Abraham was bornrdquo - A New Translation by James [ Moffatt - DD DLitt Glasgow Oxford 3 ldquoBefore Abraham came into existence I have beenrdquo - New World Translation 4 ldquoBefore Abraham came into being I have existedrdquo - The Documents of the [New Testament G W Wade London 5 ldquoFrom before Abraham was I have been rdquo - The New Testament by George [ R -Noyes DD Boston USA6 ldquoBefore Abraham was born I have already been rdquo - The Unvarnished New [Testament Andy Gaus Boston7 ldquoI existed even before Abraham was bornrdquo - The concise Gospel and the Acts [Logos International Christopher J ed Christianson Plainfield NJ8 ldquoI already was before Abraham was bornrdquo ndash Worldwide English New Testament [ Derby UK ________________________________

COMMENTS

Also compare the following translations

Nytt liv (1907 Norwegian)A Biacuteblia Viva (1981 Portuguese)O Novo Testamento Vivo (1974 Portuguese)Le Livre Nouveau Testament (1980 eacuteditions Farel French)Η Καινή Διαθήκη των Τεσσάρων Καθηγητών (ΚΔΤΚ Greek) (The New Testament of the Four Teachers The translation was made and approved (1921981) by the Holy Summit Church of Greece The English title of the project is The New Testament in Modern Greek Athens Greece) Η Αγία Γραφή Παλαιά και Καινή Διαθήκη (ΝΔΜ Greek) Ελληνική Βιβλική Εταιρία Αθήνα [Athens] 1997 (The Bible Old and New Testament Greek Biblical Company - London 1997) ΚΔΛΖ ΛΧ (Other Greek Versions expressing the same idea as translations on the list)___________________

ldquoI was rdquo Note on 1987 translation from Italian main list l Vangelio di Giovanni (El Evangelio de Juan [ldquoThe Gospel of Johnrdquo] with imprimatur) by J Mateos and J Barreto noted on John 858 (as translated by Teodora Tosatti p 387 Cittadela Editrice 1982) that the temporal relationship expressed by the Greek ldquoprin eimi [BeforeI am]rdquo can be translated into Italian ldquoprimaero [BeforeI was]rdquo (Translation from Italian to English mine)__________________

Comment on 1993 ΟІ ΧΡΙΣΤΙΑΝΙΚΕΣ ΓΡΑΦΕΣ Απόδοση από τη Μειάφράση Νέου Κόσμου which is a modern Greek translation of the New World Translation of the ChristianScriptures Unlike most Bible Versions which are published in only one language or a few atmost the NWT is available in dozens of languages based mainly on their English translationbut obviously taking into account other factors in the process such as the original Bible text the peculiarities of their recipient local languages and their targeted audiences in their respective countries

It is obvious though that other NWT translation editions closely followed the English text of the NWT and at the same time their translation teams had enough latitude to offer their own unique renderings at times expressing in their native languages what they see in in the Inspired Text Having said that it is interesting to see how they approached their translation of John 858 from their English translation back into [modern] Greek

The translation team was acutely aware of the basic sense of ldquoegō eimirdquo as ldquoI amrdquo and how those simple words are misconstrued by religionists to say something more than Jesus intended Taking into account the syntax of John 858 as stated throughout this document the translation team who worked on the modern Greek version faced a few options

First they had the option to go back to ldquoegō eimirdquo using the modern Greek equivalent ldquoΕγώ ειμαιrdquo (I am) as it reads in the Vamvas version which they did not Or they could haveexpressed their NWT English choice of ldquoI have beenrdquo with their modern Greek equivalent of ldquoέχο υπάρξει [I have existed]rdquo Thirdly they could have gone with ldquoI wasrdquo (ldquoεγώ ήμουνrdquo) as some of their French and Italian Bible editions have done in the past or even with ldquo[εγώ] υπήρξα [I existed])rdquo Or they could have provided some other unique rendering It is obvious they wanted to stick closely to the Greek text but given the common misconceptionssurrounding ldquoegō eimai (I am)rdquo in mainstream churches the translation team chose to use ldquoεγώ υπάρχωrdquo (a present indicative form in the Greek) which means basically ldquoI existrdquo but in the presence of an expression of past time in John 858 the sense is ldquoI have existedrdquo Thus ldquoBefore Abraham came into existence I have existedrdquo ( The verb είμαι [ldquoto berdquo] in modern Greek has no forms for the perfect tense It borrows the forms from the verb υπάρχω [ldquoI existrdquo] The Greek and English ldquoperfectsrdquo are not exact equivalents either)

The reader is reminded here as noted earlier that modern Greek keeps up with the Koineacute Greek ldquopresentrdquo idiom A modern Greek grammar Greek A Comprehensive Grammar explains ldquoThe present tense is also used in constructions where English would use the perfect continuous ie where the verb expresses a continuous state or habitual event that

has lasted since a certain point in the past and is continuing up to (and including) the presentrdquo The authors provide two examples where a present verb is used with a past time indicator and where they translate using an English perfect as explained ldquoI have been living[Μένω] in this house for three years nowrdquo And ldquoI have been reading [Διαβάζω] this newspaper since 1984rdquo (Greek A Comprehensive Grammar by David Holton Peter Mackridge amp Irene Philippaki-Warburton Revised by Vassilios Spyropoulos p 294 Second edition 2012)

Ten years after the NWT-Greek Edition was released another modern Greek translation was published with the following rendering at John 858 ldquoΣας βεβαιώνω πως πριν να γεννηθεί οΑβραάμ εγώ υπάρχωrdquo which in English would be ldquoI assure you that I have existed since before Abraham was bornrdquo (Literally ldquoI assure you that before could be born the AbrahamI exist [not ldquoΕγώ ειμαιrdquo]rdquo The Holy Bible in Todays Greek Version 2003 Greek Bible Society Interestingly the original English version of 1976 had ldquoI Amrdquo) Also a Spanish Bible conveys a similar thought ldquoYo existo desde antes que existiera Abrahamrdquo [Translation ldquo I exist since before Abraham existedrdquo] (La Biblia - Versioacuten Popular 2nd edition Sociedades Biacuteblicas Unidas 1983)

_________________________________________________________

The Clear Word The translators quoted in this article represent various religious faiths some are Catholic some are Protestant Others are Unitarians Jehovahs Witnesses Jewish Adventists etc and they represent countries the world over One of these translators is a Seventh-Day Adventist who worked on The Clear Word Jack J Blanco ThD As a Seventh-Day Adventist who supports the Trinity doctrine Blanco translated verses to make Jesus ldquoequalrdquo to God in every way

He renders John 11 ldquoHe is the Word of God and is equal with Godrdquo He shows Jesus at Philippians 25-7 as ldquoequal with Godrdquo and describes him as lsquoacting the part of a servantrsquo At John 1428 he completely omits the reference that lsquothe Father is greaterrsquo than Christ But here at John 858 in answer to the question the priests and leaders asked concerning Abraham lsquoseeingrsquo his day Jesus answered according to Dr Blanco ldquoBecause I existed before Abraham was even bornrdquo Thus Dr Blanco makes no connection as others do that Christ is the ldquoI amrdquo of Exodus 314 which according to some would indicate that Jesus is the Jehovah of the Old Testament What he sees in this account is that Jesus already lsquoexisted before Abraham didrsquo and thus Abraham was able to lsquoseersquo his day (John 856) To this we must add another likely element included in Jesus response to the Jews as wellone of simple identification as ldquothe Christ [Messiah]rdquo and ldquoSon of manrdquo Why is it then that manywho support the Trinity doctrine find it hard to understand Jesus statement correctly at John 858 Could it be that they are letting non-Scriptural influence and perhaps the weight of themajority view dictate their understanding of this Scripture

For a consideration of other subjects by the same author check below

For a discussion of Acts 286 Whose blood

httpwwwscribdcomdoc231244155Acts-20-28-Whose-blood

For a discussion of Colossians 116 (ldquoall other thingsrdquo) see

httpwwwscribdcomdoc205841269Colossians-1-16-Is-the-expression-all-other-things-a-proper-rendition

For a consideration on the subject of the Trinity click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc160286056Does-the-Trinity-ever-make-sense

For a full consideration of John 11 click the following link httpwwwscribdcomdoc34916458The-correct-translation-of-John-1-1

For a brief consideration of John 11 with additional citations click here httpwwwscribdcomdoc50330864John-1-1-List-of-Alternate-Readings

Did the NW translators know any Greek click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc48234022Did-the-New-World-Translation-Committee-Know-Greek

For a consideration of John 173 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc57772552John-17-3-E28098Taking-in-knowledge-of-E28099-God-and-Jesus

For a consideration of 1 Timothy 316 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc76927834Was-God-manifested-in-the-flesh-1-Timothy-3-16

For a consideration of Exodus 225 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc38676458Exodus-2-25-And-God-took-notice-Does-God- care-about-us

For a consideration of John 114 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc35002730John-1-14-Jesus-full-of-grace

For a consideration of Translation Differences-Questions and Answershttpwwwscribdcomdoc59484457Translation-Differences-Questions-and-Answers

In Spanish

Para una consideracioacuten de otros temas vea los siguientes enlaces

Para una consideracioacuten de Colosenses 116 ldquotodas las otras cosasrdquo vea

httpwwwscribdcomdoc209601066Colosenses-1-16-C2BFEs-la-traduccion-E2809Ctodas-las-otras-cosasE2809D-apropiada

Para una consideracioacuten de ldquoiquestAcaso tiene sentido la Trinidadrdquo

httpwwwscribdcomdoc173779117C2BFAcaso-tiene-sentido-la-Trinidad

Para un consideracioacuten de Juan 11 vea el siguiente enlace

httpwwwscribdcomdoc35899788Traduccion-correcta-de-Juan-1-1-Lista-de- lecturas-alternativas

Para el tema iquestSabiacutean griego los traductores de la TNM vea el siguiente enlace

httpwwwscribdcomdoc51623596C2BFSabia-griego-el-Comite-de-la-Traduccion-del-Nuevo-Mundo

ldquofor the devil has sinned from the beginningrdquo (New King James Version)ldquofor the devil has sinned from the beginningrdquo (NASB)ldquobecause the devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (Interlinear Mounce)ldquofor the Devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (Riverside NT Ballantine)ldquobecause the devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (NIV)ldquobecause the devil has sinned from the beginningrdquo (NAB)ldquosince the devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (Jay E Adams)ldquowho has been sinning since the beginningrdquo (NLT)ldquofor the devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (NRSV)ldquosince the devil has been a sinner from the beginningrdquo (NJB)ldquobecause the devil has been sinning from the very beginningrdquo (J G Anderson)ldquofor the devil has been sinning from the beginningrdquo (ESV)

ldquothe devil was a sinner from the firstrdquo (Ronald A Knox New Testament)

Some translations transfer the Greek present to their English versions as if the English and Greek ldquopresentrdquo in such construction were the same thing It is not The end result is ungrammatical English Would you say in contemporary English ldquoFrom the beginning of class the boy sleepsrdquo Not Doctor Richard A Young points out ldquoTo say that the devil is sinning from the beginning does not make sense in English English translations therefore employ the present perfectrdquo (Intermediate New Testament Greek page 111)

The renderings above ldquohas sinnedrdquo and ldquohas been sinningrdquo are present perfect and present perfect progressive indicative forms The word ldquowasrdquo is a simple past tense Just as in 1 John 38 some translators in John 858 have rendered a present tense with an expression of past time in its construction with a present perfect ldquoI have beenrdquo

3rd Example (2 Corinthians 1219)

Πάλαι δοκεῖτε ὅτι ὑμῖν ἀπολογούμεθα ndash Greek Long ago you are thinking that to you we are making defense

Paul finds himself having to defend his apostolic authority and vindicating his record as superior in hardship endured for Christ and loving concern for congregations In simpler words Paul was telling them ldquoAll this time have you been thinking that Ive been speaking up for myself No Ive been speaking with God as my witness Ive been speaking like a believer in Christ Dear friends everything I do is to help you become strongerrdquo (NIRV)

In the literal reading above we have an adverb of time with past implications (Palai) followed by two Greek verb forms (ldquodokeiterdquo amp ldquoapologoumethardquo) in the present indicativetense The book Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek Verb by William Watson Goodwin explains ldquoThe Present is often used with expressions denoting past time especially πάλαι [palai] in the sense of a perfect and a present combinedrdquo (Section 26 p 9) How do translators render these in English Some carry over the present tense into the English text producing unconventional English Others cognizant of issues presented here

do a better job at it See below for a sample

ldquoHave you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves before yourdquo (The Comprehensive New Testament 2008)ldquoI hope you donacutet think that all along weacuteve been making our defense before yourdquo (The Message Eugene H Peterson)ldquoHave you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves to yourdquo (NIV)ldquoIt may seem to you that all this time we have been attempting to put ourselves in the rightrdquo (Bible in Basic English)ldquoAll this time you have been thinking that we have been pleading our own cause before yourdquo (NJB)ldquoHave you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves to yourdquo (CEV)ldquoHave you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves before yourdquo (Revised Standard Version) ldquoPerhaps you think that all along we have been trying to defend ourselves before yourdquo (TEV)ldquoHave you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves to yourdquo (ESV)ldquoYou have thought all along that we were defending ourselves to yourdquo (HCSB)ldquoHave you been thinking all this time that we have been defending ourselves to yourdquo (NET Bible)

ldquoYou have been thinking all along that it was to you we were making our defenserdquo (The Bible in Living English Steven T Byington)

The above translations use present perfect (and perfect progressive) forms or past progressives to bring out the proper sense of the original into our language Can anyone rightfully claim that it is improper for these Bible versions to translate this text as they have done in English

4th Example (Luke 248 Wescott and HortNestle early editions Greek text)

ὁ πατήρ σου καὶ ἐγὼ ὀδυνώμενοι ζητοῦμέν σε - Greek The father of you and I being pained we are seeking you Here the context (vv 42-48) speaks of Jesus (12 years old) being left behind unwittingly in Jerusalem by his parents they went back searching in distress for three days before finding him When they finally found him they spoke the words above

ldquoYour father and I have been looking for you anxiouslyrdquo (Revised Standard Version)ldquoYour father and I in agony of mind have been searching for yourdquo (Williams NT)ldquoYour father and I have been anxiously looking for Yourdquo (NASB 1971)ldquoYour father and I have been searching for you in great distressrdquo (Riverside NT)

ldquoHere have your father and I been searching anxiously for yourdquo (Hugh J Schonfield)ldquoYour father and I have been looking for you have been very anxious rdquo (Goodspeed)ldquoYour father and I have been looking for you We have been very troubledrdquo (Bible in Worldwide English)ldquoYour father and I have been looking for you in distressrdquo (Richmond Lattimore)ldquoYour father and I have been searching for you in great distressrdquo (Twentieth Century NT) ldquoThy father and I have sought thee distressedrdquo (Darby Bible Translation)

ldquoThy father and I sought thee sorrowingrdquo (American Standard Version)

ldquoThy father and I in anguish were seeking theerdquo (The Emphasized Bible 3rd edit based on Wescott and Hort by Joseph B Rotherham)ldquoThy father and I were seeking thee sorrowfulrdquo (W B Godbey N T 1902)ldquoThy father and I were seeking Thee sorrowingrdquo (A S Worrell N T 1904)ldquoYour father and I were anxiously looking for yourdquo (World English Bible)

The words ldquowe are seeking yourdquo are in the present indicative tense however since an expression of time is used indicating action going on for days (ldquoafter three daysrdquo v 46) translators find it necessary to use either the present perfect (ldquohave beenrdquo ldquohave soughtrdquo) or simple past (ldquosoughtrdquo) or past progressive (ldquowere seekingrdquo) indicative forms to express in English what the Greek says in the ldquopresentrdquo Various Greek texts have instead of the ldquopresentrdquo found in the Westcott amp Hort Text above an ldquoimperfectrdquo verb form Both forms are frequently rendered with an English present ldquoperfectrdquo Compare with Youngs Literal Translation which also uses a past progressive indicative form ldquowere seekingrdquo and the Spanish Reina-Valera Revisada which rendered an imperfect verb form appearing in the Received Text with a present perfect indicative (ldquohemos buscadordquo) Is this another reason why many translators have rendered the Greek present ldquoegō eimirdquo preceded by an adverbial modifier in its clause at John 858 with perfective or past forms in English

5th Example (Juan 56)

καὶ γνοὺς ὅτι πολὺν ἤδη χρόνον ἔχει - Greek and having known that much already time he is having

This is an account of an invalid man who for 38 years had been sick and was now being cured by Jesus The Greek in this clause does not make his illness clear however the context does Take note of the expression of time used with past implications mixed with a present indicative verb ldquohe is havingrdquo For this to make any sense in our language it has to be modified When Jesus saw this sick man lying there

ldquoand knew that he had been now a long time in that caserdquo (KJV italics theirs) ldquoand knowing that he had been ill a long timerdquo (Revised English Bible)ldquoand knew he had been in that condition for a long timerdquo (NJB)ldquoand knew that he had been sick for a long timerdquo (World English Bible)ldquoand knew that he had been sick for a long timerdquo (Godacutes Word)

ldquoand knew how long he had been illrdquo (Living Bible)ldquoand knew he had already been there a long timerdquo (HCSB)ldquoand he knew that the man had been sick for such a long timerdquo (TEV)ldquoand knew that he had been in this state a long timerdquo (Confraternity Version)ldquoand finding that he had had a long time of itrdquo (S T Byington) ldquoand knew that he had been sick for a long timerdquo (Jay E Adams)ldquoand he knew that he had been waiting for a long timerdquo (George M Lamsa Peshitta) ldquoand knew that he had been now a long timerdquo (Rheims New Testament)

ldquoand knowing that he was [in that state] now a great length of timerdquo (J N Darby Translation Brackets his)

Once again we see translators having to use mostly perfective forms (ldquohad beenrdquo ldquohad hadrdquopast perfects) and one with a simple past ldquowasrdquo even though they are translating a present tense verb ldquohe is havingrdquo This shows that translators adapt their renderings whenever is necessary to convey the right meaning into the target language It is thus possible to render ldquoeimirdquo at John 858 with a form other than a present tense such as a present perfect Those who say that it can not be done or should not be done just need to look again at the evidenceobjectively

6th Example (John 1527 Wescott amp Hort)

ὅτι ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς μετʼ ἐμοῦ ἐστέ ndash Greek that from beginning with me you are

These words spoken by Jesus evidently refers to the beginning of his ministry when he chosehis closest disciples They were eyewitnesses of all the things God did through Christ duringhis ministry (Acts 121)

ldquobecause ye have been with me from the beginningrdquo (KJV) ldquobecause you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (NAB)ldquofor you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (Christian Community Bible)ldquobecause you are the men who have been with me from the very beginningrdquo (Heinz Wldquobecause you have been with me from the firstrdquo (New English Bible) [ Cassirer)ldquobecause you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (Godacutes Word Translation) ldquofor you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (NIV)ldquobecause you have been with me from the firstrdquo (Weymouth New Testament)ldquobecause you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (NRSV)ldquoyou that have been with me from the beginningrdquo (The Four Gospels EV Rieu)ldquobecause youacuteve been with Me from the beginning of My ministryrdquo (The Clear Word)ldquofor you have been with me from the firstrdquo (J B Phillips Modern English)ldquobecause you have been with Me from the beginningrdquo (HCSB) ldquothat you were with me from the startrdquo (21st Century New Testament)ldquofor you were with Me from the beginningrdquo (New Berkeley Version Revised Edition)

ldquobecause you were with me from the beginningrdquo (Mark Heber Miller)ldquobecause you were with me from the very beginningrdquo (SEB)

This scripture with the plural form of ldquoeimirdquo (este) is very similar to John 858 Again within its structure there is an expression of past time and a verb in the present indicative form (este) just as there is in John 858 A Grammar of New Testament Greek says ldquoThe reader may be reminded of one idiom which comes out of the linear idea the use of words like πάλαι [palai ldquolong agordquo] with the present in a sense best expressed by our perfect Thus in 2 Co 1219 lsquohave you been thinking all this timersquo or Jn 1527 lsquoyou have been with me from the beginning [ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς]rsquo hellip The durative present in such cases gathers up past and present time into one phraserdquo (A Grammar of New Testament Greek Vol 1 Prolegomena by JH Moulton p 119) As previously noted this Grammar specifically refers to John 858 as an example of this idiom

And here in John 1527 there is a connection of Jesus disciples [creatures as they are] that ldquowererdquo with him ldquofrom the beginningrdquo Obviously Jesus was making no reference to his disciples sharing ldquoeternityrdquo with him The disciples all had a beginning The logical conclusion is that Jesus was simply saying to them lsquoYou have been with me from the start of my ministryrsquo Hence there is no need to read ldquoeternityrdquo into the expression ldquoI amrdquo anymore that we should read ldquoeternityrdquo from Jesus words at John 1527 lsquoYou are with me from the beginningrsquo Neither grammar nor the context justifies reading more into these Scriptures than what they actually say

In fact the six (6) instances cited above (Genesis 3138 LXX 1 John 38 2 Cor 1219 Luke 248 John 56 John 1527) and John 858 as well all have an expression of past time or an extent of time with past implications (ldquoThese twenty yearsrdquo ldquoLong agordquo ldquoafter three daysrdquo Lk 246 ldquomuch already timerdquo ldquofrom [the] beginningrdquo ldquoBeforerdquo etc) AND present verbs in their sentences or nearby within the context and are commonly rendered with present perfect (some with past perfects) or simple past (or past progressive) forms in English translations If we apply this pattern to the translation of John 858 it would mean that renderings such as ldquoI have beenrdquo (present perfect) and ldquoI wasrdquo (simple past) are not only acceptable in translation but actually more ldquosuitablerdquo in application Can this really be done Not only can it be done it makes for a ldquobetterrdquo English translation

In regards to Jesus John 858 simply tells us that Jesus lsquowas alive before Abraham was bornrsquo (SEB) and that his existence continued up to the moment of his speaking to them Just as it is not proper English to say ldquoFor three days we are seeking yourdquo (Greek literal reading of Luke 248) or ldquobecause from the beginning with me you arerdquo (John 1527) it is no less proper English to say in John 858 ldquoBefore Abraham was born I amrdquo These readings should only appear in extremely literal interlinear translations which basically render the Greek word-by-word and not in standard idiomatic English translations Let me illustrate If a man advanced in age for example had his work history and experience questioned by co-workers in comparison to his younger son and employee Abe would he say in reply ldquoBefore my son Abe was born I am [the one fit for the job]rdquo No that does not sound right In English he could say it in various ways

ldquoI have been an experienced worker since before my son Abe was bornrdquo ldquoI have been what I am since before my son Abe was bornrdquo ldquoI was fit to work and fully active before my son Abe was ever bornrdquo ldquoI was already experienced in many jobs before Abe ever came to berdquo ldquoI have been a master worker way before my son Abe came to liferdquo ldquoBefore Abe was born I already was life and job experiencedrdquo etc

The point is that in English normally we include a present perfect tense whenever there is a reference to the past extending to the present or a past tense of some form whenever we go back in time The same with John 858 There is no justification in English to insist using a present verb form (which is not equal to the Greek present when combined with a past expression) in an unwarranted attempt to convey ldquoeternityrdquo as ldquopaddingrdquo to the Trinity doctrine a doctrine adopted AFTER the Christian era Worse it is disingenuous to accuse other translators (who have chosen to render ldquoegō eimirdquo at John 858 with an English present perfect or past tense) of scholastic dishonesty when the very same translations honored by these detractors do so in other places where the ldquodeityrdquo of Christ is not in play asshown in the samples provided above

An example of this double standard can be seen as well when scholars such as Dr Julius Mantey harshly criticizes the NWT for the rendering ldquoI have beenrdquo at John 858 but keeps quiet when other translators do similarly and even states or pretends that no other reputable translator would ever translate it that way He dared not criticize his former Greek teacher Charles B Williams who produced his own Bible translation Dr Mantey once wrote the following of Dr Williams translation ldquoWilliams translation considering all the factors is the most accurate and illuminating translation in the English languagerdquo And how does this ldquomost accurate translationrdquo render John 858 As follows ldquoI existed before Abraham was bornrdquo Here Dr Williams known for his Greek command used a simple past tense (ldquoI existedrdquo) as translation for the Greek present Julius Mantey certainly did not find Williams version of John 858 a ldquoshocking translationrdquo ldquoI existedrdquo is quite different from the translation Dr Mantey so passionately defended (ldquoI amrdquo)

When Dr Mantey talks about the NWT he says the rendering ldquoI have beenrdquo at John 858 cannot be justified and calls it ldquodishonestrdquo That rule does not apply to Williams translation does it Williams did not translate John 858 in the same way Mantey would have liked (ldquoI amrdquo) Not only that the Grammar itself that Dr Mantey co-authored with Dr Dana A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament states under ldquoThe Progressive Presentrdquo (called ldquoExtension from Pastrdquo by McKay) ldquoSometimes the progressive present is retroactivein its application denoting that which has begun in the past and continues into the present For the want of a better name we may call it the present of duration This use is generally associated with an adverb of time and may best be rendered by the English perfect ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς μετʼ ἐμοῦ ἐστέ Ye have been with me from the beginning Jn 1527 See also Lk137 2 Cor 129 [19]rdquo (Pages 182-83 Emphasis added)

Even though Julius Mantey has stated when referring to the NWT that ldquoI have beenrdquo is not a proper translation and even ldquodishonestrdquo at John 858 he clearly states in his Grammar (of

Scriptures with similar syntax to John 858) ldquoThis use is generally associated with an adverb of time and may best be rendered by the English perfect [such as ldquoI have beenrdquo which in fact is associated with an adverb of time in John 858]rdquo A likely reason for Dana ampManteys strong reluctance for not including John 858 as an example of the idiom discussed on page 183 may have to do with the fact that as ldquotrinitariansrdquo they oppose the idea of Jesus existence having lsquobegunrsquo in the past even though John 858 perfectly fits with the ldquoProgressive Presentrdquo idiom being discussed in their Grammar as acknowledged by other grammarians Hence their objection is truly a ldquotheologicalrdquo one rather than Greek grammaritself arguing in their favor as Mantey and some others have implied since a Greek present or an English perfect does not demand ldquoeternityrdquo at all from the subject

Consequently many religious individuals who focus solely on the basic meaning (of ldquoegō eimirdquo as ldquoI amrdquo) out of the context of the particular ldquoidiomrdquo used at John 858 end up missing the thrust of Jesus words and fall prey to misleading interpretations Doctor Kenneth L McKay taking into account all of these issues comes up with this excellent translation for John 858 ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo (A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek SBG 5 New York Peter Lang 1994 p42) If we objectively consider the material above we will not insist in connecting Jesus at John 858 with the God Jehovah of Exodus 314 (which many attempt to do but cannot be sustained) Instead we will focus on the simple message conveyed by Jesus words at John 858 which is in harmony with the totality of Scripture ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo (McKay) The rendering ldquoI have been in existencerdquo by itself does not rule out either the concept of ldquoeternityrdquo or the ldquocreationrdquo of Jesus Christ A Committee of Bible translators came up with the following translation which may not be the best choice but considering the issues involved is better than the traditional rendering of ldquoI amrdquo ldquoI was alive before Abraham was bornrdquo (The New Testament in Plain English)

(The following scholars are members of the Bible Translation Committee of The New Testament in Plain English which approved this last reading ldquoI was aliverdquo instead of ldquoI amrdquo(Dr Stanley L Morris chairman FW Gingrich Ph D a renown Greek lexicographer Jack P Lewis Ph D CH Accord Th D Clyde M Woods Ph D ST Kan Ph D Gary T Burke Ph D Milo Hadwin D Min)

I submit their names and their credentials here as an example because it is often asserted vigorously that no intelligent or highly qualified scholar would ever produce a translation other than ldquoI amrdquo As noted above and as the list of alternate readings (at the end of this essay) of John 858 shows many done by highly qualified people this is simply not true Usually those making statements of that sort are doing so based on emotional and theological not philological reasons Furthermore by not disclosing other valid viewpoints or by dismissing how other qualified Bible translators deal with this scripture they are undermining their own credibility as well

At this time you are welcome to briefly go over the list of Alternate Readings to John 858 at

the end before moving on to the second part of this essay

_____________________________

Should we ignore the evidence of all those translations listed at the end that differ in John 858 from the traditional versions What then are all these translators seeing at John 858 that moved them to render this text differently They surely must be aware of the resistance they would encounter by translating it by the various forms they used Still they must have had the firm conviction that both the Greek text and the context supports their understanding of this scripture They likely see a Jesus making no identity connection with his Father Godbut rather see a Jesus simply expressing his indefinite existence with no suggestion of eternity in focus Neither is Jesus stating here that he is the God of Old Testament times To understand it that way would be to read into the text more than what it says Taking some clues from the context of the chapter some scholars additionally see Jesus insinuating his ldquomessiahshiprdquo as if saying ldquoI am he [the Messiah]rdquo This is very likely In fact The LivingBible renders John 824 thus ldquoThat is why I said that you will die in your sins for unless you believe that I am the Messiah the Son of God [ἐγώ εἰμι] you will die in your sinsrdquo

Is ldquoegō eimirdquo a title or another name of God

The use of ldquoeimirdquo at John 858 is frequently used as a ldquoproof textrdquo of Jesus deity A noted Trinitarian scholar AT Robertson a Baptist even refers to ldquoegō eimirdquo as ldquothe absolute phrase used of Godrdquo likely indicating the verb conveys ldquotimeless beingrdquo an implication that ldquoeimirdquo here does not require anything else to complete the meaning of the phrase thus conveying ldquoeternal existencerdquo as well as being an actual name for God Some individuals have given plenty of publicity to Robertsons statement as absolute truth But his statement is not ldquotruthrdquo at all It is faulty interpretation which many people have fallen prey to Grammar and theology do not always make the best mix True Robertsons credentials as a scholar are impressive nevertheless credentials does not truth make Besides some other equally bright scholars disagree with him Lets illustrate the folly of those advocating a divine title at John 858 by way of addition (Or substitution if you will) as some suggest

ldquoBefore Abraham was born I am Eternalrdquo ldquoBefore Abraham was born I am Jehovahrdquo ldquoBefore Abraham was born I am eternally Godrdquo

First of all the above hypothetical translations are just as ungrammatical as the simple ldquoI amrdquo reading of most versions An English present tense cannot start before a definite point in the past This can be seen in the following two examples

1 ldquoBefore the US Iraq war I am a soldierrdquo 2 ldquoThree journalists are kidnapped in Nepal since the start of 2007rdquo

What is the correct way to express these statements in English Analyze it for a second and

provide an answer if you will

Notably if ldquoeimirdquo was used to convey eternal existence what is the point of using an expression of past time at all in the clause Moreover the context of previous verses (vv 48-57) clearly indicates that Jesus is speaking of God as a separate entity See below

49 ldquobut I honor my Father and you dishonor merdquo 50 ldquoI am not seeking glory for myself but there is one who seeks it and he is the

judgerdquo54 ldquoIf I glorify myself my glory means nothing My Father whom you claim as your

God is the one who glorifies me 55 ldquoThough you do not know him I know him If I said I did not I would be a liar like you but I do know him and obey his wordrdquo Thus if Jesus meant he himself was the ldquoJehovahrdquo of the Old Testament as Trinitarians claim what would be the rationale behind Jesus directing all distinction and glory to lsquothe Father Godrsquo as a distinct individual as he did in the previous verses and then a few words later abruptly change his argumentation by claiming he is that very same One who lsquoreceives obedience from his own wordrsquo lsquoseeking his own honor and gloryrsquo because he himself is ldquoGodrdquo Confusing is it not To accept this abrupt change of character on Jesus part would be not ldquoa mysteryrdquo but flat out ldquoa deceptionrdquo of big proportions since Jesus himself warned against pretending to be one thing and acting as another (Matthew 62-5 2313-36)

Are we are supposed against all logic to accept these ldquotrinitarianrdquo assumptions instead of a simple alternative which really answers the Jews question about lsquohow could Abraham ldquoseerdquoJesus day if he was not yet 50 years oldrsquo (ldquoI have been in existence since Abraham was bornrdquo)

The obsession with the simple words ldquoI amrdquo have led to many faulty assumptions ldquoI amrdquo issuch a common expression in our language even to this day that words such as ldquoegoismrdquo ldquoegotismrdquo etc (derived from the Greek ldquoegordquo) are considered common words in English dictionaries Everyone uses the phrase ldquoI amrdquo at times Think of any big corporation or powerful organization of your choice for a moment Would you conclude that the two most powerful individuals of this one prestigious organization must be identical in every way solely because they are heard equally saying to others in their common speech ldquoI am thisrdquoor ldquoI am thatrdquo etc

In Bible times humans too used common pronouns The verb eimi (ldquoI amrdquo) itself or forms of it appears more than two thousand times (2000x) in the New Testament alone Additionally the word ldquoegōrdquo appears over seventeen hundred times (1700x) in the NT And those numbers do not include the Septuagint totals Do all occurrences of the word then imply ldquodivinityrdquo in each case Of course not It may be more significant when God or Christ use the expression because of who they are but does it really mean that both God and Christ share the same identity Or that everyone who uses the phrase ldquoI amrdquo does so with divine pretensions Does it really mean that everyone using the phrase are ldquoequalrdquo The

answer is obvious is it not

Lets bear in mind that when God sent Jesus Christ as His representative to a most crucial assignment multiple biblical prophecies were pointing to Christ as the promised Messiah that would free mankind from its moribund condition It is logical then that when the time came for Jesus Christ to show up on earth he would somehow communicate to others that ldquoherdquo and not some other human claiming to be the Messiah was Gods instrument in bringing everlasting relief to human misery Hence he could rightly say any or all of the following ldquoI am (this)rdquo ldquoI am (that)rdquo ldquoI am he [the promised Messiah]rdquo or ldquoI am Gods Sonrdquo Should we expect anything less

The fact is that the words ldquoI amrdquo are not exclusive to God and Christ It should be noted that a man who was born ldquoblindrdquo also used the same expression (John 99) The Greek here says ldquoekeinos elegen hoti Egō eimirdquo (ldquoThat one kept saying that I amrdquo) AT Robertson cites John 99 as one of five parallels to the use of egō eimi in John 858 (Word Pictures in the New Testament Vol V p 159) The phrase here comes at the end of the clause with no explicit predicate James White who upholds the traditional reading admits ldquoThis last instance [John 99] is similar to the sayings as Jesus utters them in that the phrase comes at the end of the clause and looks elsewhere for its predicaterdquo The same could be said of John 1527 Some argue that ldquoeimirdquo in John 858 is ldquoabsoluterdquo but do not do so with John 99 or John 1527 Theology may be a factor in this Previously we saw how Jacob a man according to the Septuagint used the words ldquoegō eimirdquo Other instances in Scripture of creatures using those words would not prove they were part of a ldquoGodheadrdquo Context then ultimately dictates how ldquoeimirdquo should be translated According to John when Jesus was pressed he only claimed to have been alive way before Abraham was born and that he simply was ldquothe Christrdquo ldquothe Son of Manrdquo and ldquothe Son of Godrdquo

There is something else to keep in mind in regards to the meaning of ldquoeimirdquo And it is what grammarian Stanley Porter indicated ldquoSometimes the verb [eimi] is used on its own as a verb of existence Perhaps the best-known example of this is the following John 858rdquo (Fundamentals of New Testament Greek by Stanley E Porter section 753 72) AT Robertson adds ldquoThe verb εἰμί [eimi] hellip Sometimes it does express existence as a predicatelike any other verb as in ἐγὼ εἰμί [egō eimi] (Jo 858) and ἡ θάλασσα οὐκ ἔστιν ἔτι [hē thalassa ouk estin eti = ldquothe sea not is yetrdquo] (Rev 211) Cf Mt 2330rdquo (A Grammar of theGreek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research Nashville Tenn 1934 p 394)

What does this mean The examples mentioned by Robertson in addition to John 858 give us an idea of what this implies It is so strange that the two examples Robertson provided forcomparison with John 858 seems to contradict his ldquotimeless beingrdquo view on ldquoeimirdquo He cited a portion of Revelation 211 where the Greek literally says ldquoAnd the sea not is yetrdquo In other words ldquoThe sea does not exist any morerdquo Amplified Bible ldquoThere no longer existed any seardquo Curiously various versions render the present verb ldquoisrdquo (a form of ldquoeimirdquo) with an imperfect ldquowasrdquo (Cf KJV NIV NAB NRSV) Obviously ldquothe seardquo in this vision is [was] not ldquoeternalrdquo

And in Matthew 2330 the other text provided by Robertson in his comparison with John 858 the Greek word-for-word says ldquoIf we were in the days of the fathers of usrdquo which inmodern English would be ldquoIf we had lived in the days of our forefathersrdquo Other versions ldquoIf we had beenrdquo (Rheims NT) ldquoIf we had been livingrdquo (NASB) ldquoIf we had been existing in the days of our fathersrdquo (Jonathan Mitchell NT) The full NIV text reads ldquoAnd you say lsquoIf we had lived in the days of our ancestors we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophetsrsquo rdquo

It is clear from this comparison that the words of Matthew 2330 ldquoIf we wererdquo (a form of ldquoeimirdquo) in the text is used as an equivalent for ldquoliferdquo or ldquoexistencerdquo In the heavenly vision of Rev 211 lsquothe sea ceased to existrsquo And the generation of people which Jesus spoke about and their ancestors all died ceased to exist If we apply these two examples to John 858 given by Robertson with the meaning either of life or existence for ldquoeimirdquo then it wouldbe equally acceptable to translate ldquoI amrdquo as ldquoI existrdquo or ldquoI liverdquo Many translators reflect this very same understanding as the submitted list of alternate readings of John 858 show ldquoI existrdquo or ldquoI existed even before Abraham was bornrdquo Or ldquoI was alive before Abraham was bornrdquo (The Simple English Bible)

Although some may not see much semantic difference between Jesus saying ldquoI amrdquo or ldquoI existrdquo the two expressions communicate something very different to many readers ldquoI amrdquo is generally associated by Trinitarians as a title used by God or as another name for God Onthe other hand ldquoI existrdquo simply conveys ldquoliferdquo or ldquoexistence Barnabas Lindars points out that ldquoegō eimirdquo in John 858 ldquocannot be regarded as a title because it requires the meaning lsquoI am in existencersquordquo (ldquoThe Son of Man in Johannine Christologyrdquo in Christ and the Spirit in the New Testament In Honour of Charles Francis Digby Moule eds B Lindars and S Smalley Cambridge Cambridge University Press 1973) (Since an English present tense cannot start before a definite point in the past this would mean that we can incorporate Lindars valid observation and translate it into contemporary English like this ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo exactly as Dr McKay proposed)

Some in their eagerness to equate Christ with God accuse translators who render ldquoegō eimirdquo in John 858 with renderings other than ldquoI amrdquo pointing to all occurrences of this expression in the New Testament or in Johns Gospel where allegedly these translators do not follow the same ldquorulerdquo when translating ldquoegō eimirdquo in John 858 as they do elsewhere where they translate it with a present indicative form What they dont tell you or fail to understand is that in John 858 ldquoegō eimirdquo without a predicate AND with an expression of time with past implications in its sentence structure provides an ldquoidiomrdquo which is quite different from those other instances of ldquoeimirdquo Thats right an idiom (where present and past is combined) found equally at home in classical biblical and modern Greek which many translators convey into our language with the English present perfect at various places Consequently one cannot merely go by how the phrase ldquoegō eimirdquo is used elsewhere in the NT without taking into account the fact that John 858 displays an ldquoidiomrdquo in its structure Not doing so would be dishonest John the Baptist had said of Christ in John 130 ldquoA man is coming after me who ranks before me because he existed [Lit was] before merdquo (JB)

John 858 is in harmony with those words Furthermore some attempt to use the reading of Psalm 902 in the Septuagint as ldquoevidencerdquo that John 858 is rendered correctly in the popular versions But a closer analysis of this verse shows notable differences between the two verses making such comparison untenable With good reason a considerable number ofscholars have chosen to break from tradition in their rendering of John 858

If critics of alternate readings of John 858 are not candid enough to admit some of the very issues mentioned here and hide the fact that many scholars do hold a different interpretation and no less academic at that should we consider their diatribes of any worthy import It is ldquowishful thinkingrdquo for someone to believe that John 858 is directly connected to Exodus 314 rather than any real evidence (which is lacking) confirming their eager interpretations Remember even Dr James White a well known Trinitarian advocate admitted ldquothat an immediate and unqualified jump from the ego eimi of John 858 to Exodus 314 is unwiserdquo

Besides a theological tendency can be seen when they focus as some do on undermining the reputation of one Bible translation (NWT) when there are actually numerous versions from different religions dealing with the same controversial Scriptures in a similar manner This is very much like politicians who ignore the failings of their own party but are quick to lsquodemonizersquo their opponents (Matthew 73)

Is the Kingdom Interlinear ldquoproofrdquo the NWT is wrong at John 858

A criticism has been made of a Watchtower Society publication (The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures ldquoKITrdquo) which contains the Greek text and underneath it a word-by-word translation in English and on the right side of the page the modern New World Translation Well at John 858 this publication renders the Greek phrase being discussed here egō eimi word-for-word as ldquoI amrdquo and in the right column the NWT shows the reading ldquoI have beenrdquo This difference have led some to severely criticize the NW translators of ldquoincompetencerdquo ldquoinconsistencyrdquo and even of ldquodishonestyrdquo The critics say something like this ldquoThey have backed themselves into a corner where they cant escape their mishandling of the Greek textrdquo or something of that sort Amazingly these critics in their condemnations hardly ever mention the dozens of translators who translate the same way or similarly to the NWT as the submitted list shows So much for honesty

Those who engage in such tactics are not being forthcoming Why say that Besides dismissing how other translators deal with John 858 they also distort known facts for the WT Society have made it clear that the publication of this Greek Bible is to help the Bible student determine the basic sense of the Greek and have stated that the translation on the right column (the NWT) is a modern way of expressing the thoughts transmitted by the Greek text There are many factors to consider when using such publications

Even other interlinear publications warn of seeming discrepancies For instance The Zondervan Parallel New Testament in Greek and English says in its Foreword ldquo[I]t is a good thing to bear in mind that you cannot always either give an English equivalent for a Greek word or expression or even always render the same Greek verb word by the same

English onerdquo Another interlinear the New Greek-English Interlinear New Testament by Brown and Comfort and edited by J D Douglas explains ldquoIt is difficult to translate one language into another on a word-for-word basis because each language has its own syntax grammatical constructions and idioms that are difficultmdashif not impossiblemdashto replicate literally in another languagerdquo (Emphasis added) This statement is so true of the text in discussion (John 858) in regards to its syntax and particular idiom Often critics of the NWT hide this fact Why Is it religious bias at work

I will give the reader a few examples of an available interlinear translation which has the Greek main text and a literal sublinear translation below the Greek by Professor Paul R McReynolds and on the right column for comparison the reader can study the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) a popular translation in academia Observe how the two can differ

McReynolds Mat 21 ldquomagiciansrdquo NRSV ldquowise menrdquo John 118 ldquoonly born Godrdquo ldquoGod the only Sonrdquo Mat 243 ldquosign of the your presencerdquo ldquothe sign of your comingrdquo Mathew 522 ldquothe gehenna of the firerdquo ldquothe hell of firerdquo John 1319 ldquoI amrdquo ldquoI am herdquo John 149 ldquoI amrdquo ldquoHave I beenrdquo John 1527 ldquoyou arerdquo ldquoyou have beenrdquo 2 Peter 24 ldquobeing sent to Tartarusrdquo ldquobut cast them into hellrdquo Luke 1113 ldquowill give spirit holy tordquo ldquowillgive the Holy Spirit tordquo John 2022 ldquotake spirit holyrdquo ldquoReceive the Holy Spiritrdquo Acts 24 ldquofilled all of spirit holyrdquo ldquofilled with the Holy Spiritrdquo

( Paul R McReynolds is professor of Greek and New Testament at Pacific Christian College in Fullerton California USA He also contributed to the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia)

Some of the readings from the right column above (NRSV) are acceptable others are not See if you can detect in the right column above those translation renderings with a theological tendency that deviate from the literal readings from the left column McReynoldson the left does an excellent job of transmitting the Greek sense Even the most popular Bible versions do not adhere consistently to the base texts The NRSV and a host of other Bible versions add their own religious interpretation throughout Scripture just as much as the NWT if not more but hardly anyone complains of this transformation of Scriptures eventhough it leads to error Why Simply because the NRSV represents more of a ldquomajorityrdquo view than the NWT does But in truth majority or minority views do not correspond equallyto ldquoaccuraterdquo or ldquoinaccuraterdquo results

In the text discussed the KIT can appropriately show the basic sense rendering of ldquoI amrdquo for the Greek ldquoegō eimirdquo in the left column and alternately show the reading ldquoI have beenrdquo in the right column as a contemporary way of expressing in English the particular Greek clause with its ldquoidiomrdquo in John 858 as explained throughout this article a rendering which has

scholarship support When the Greek ldquoegō eimirdquo appears in an idiom-less structure it can rightfully be translated as ldquoI amrdquo as most versions do including the NWT Hence there is no contradiction between the two translations

Dr McKay argues that Jesus response in John 858 ldquowould be most naturally translated lsquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrsquo if it were not for the obsession with the simple words lsquoI amrsquo rdquo (Kenneth L McKay ldquolsquoI amrsquo in Johns Gospelrdquo Expository Times 1996 p 302) I take the author as saying that ldquoI have been in existencerdquo for ldquoeimirdquo is a better translation than ldquoI amrdquo but the [religious] obsession for the simple words ldquoI amrdquo in their quest to elevate Christ to Gods level does not allow people to see that The thing is that Christ lsquoalways pleased the Fatherrsquo and was fully satisfied with being lsquolesserrsquo than him (John 829 1029 1428 177813) Why not accept him as he is

Hence it is poor scholarship to forward the idea that an entity must be God Almighty himselfby the sole fact of using a divine sounding phrase when other Bible individuals are found using the same expression in Scripture The ldquocontextrdquo is the determining factor Not only must we take into account the context surrounding a chapter or book of the Bible but also what the whole Bible teaches on a given person or subject

What does the Bible teach about Jesus

That Christ ldquowas in the beginning with Godrdquo (John 12) At the announcement of his birth on earth the angel Gabriel told Mary that she will give birth to someone ldquogreatrdquo and ldquoholyrdquo and that one will be called ldquoSon of the Most Highrdquo and ldquoSon of Godrdquo (Luke 132 35) Trinitarians may claim that ldquoSon of Godrdquo is equivalent in meaning to ldquoGodrdquo It is a claim with no foundation If there was any truth to the claim then the ldquoHoly Spiritrdquo would also be called Son of God But no The fact is that other living creatures are called ldquosons of Godrdquo (Job 21) Never is ldquoGodrdquo or ldquoholy spiritrdquo ever called ldquoSon of Godrdquo in Scripture Only Jesus Christ is called ldquothe Son of Godrdquo with the article Why

By Christ lsquobecoming obedient [to God] until deathrsquo during the course of his earthly life lsquoGod highly exalted Him and graciously gave him a name which is above every other name that at the name of Jesus every knee should bendto the credit of God the Fatherrsquo (Hebrews58 Philippians 28-11 21st Century New Testament)

ldquo[Christ] has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God with angels authorities and powers made subject to himrdquo (1 Peter 322 NRSV) Still in heaven Christ receives knowledge information revelation from God and transmits it to other creatures (Revelation11) Though the glorified Christ is described as ldquoKing of kingsrdquo and ldquoLord of lordsrdquo he is specifically called ldquoThe Word of Godrdquo (Revelation 191316 NRSV) The night before his death he ldquoprayedrdquo to his Father and called him ldquothe only true Godrdquo and made this petition ldquoFather glorify me in your own presence [Greek beside yourself] with the glory that I hadin your presence [Greek beside you] before the world existedrdquo (John 175 NRSV) (ldquoalongside yourselfrdquo ST Byington) Again God never has to ldquoprayrdquo to anyone Ever

Well then if Jesus Christ expressed this one final ldquowishrdquo in prayer to be ldquoin the presence ofrdquoldquobesiderdquo ldquoalongsiderdquo his Father which he himself called ldquothe only true Godrdquo why should we for the sake of tradition insist with the belief that Jesus ldquomustrdquo somehow be that ldquotruerdquo God the One sitting at the center of Gods throne instead of ldquobesiderdquo God (Mark 1619) Christ did not ask to sit at Gods throne Christ was fully content with the premise of being alongside God And that is what actually happened Mark tells us ldquoSo then the Lord Jesus after he had spoken to them was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of Godrdquo (Mark 1619 NRSV Note Some ancient manuscripts omit this verse) The NIV Study Bible notes the significance of lsquositting at the right hand of Godrsquo ldquoA position of authority second only to Godsrdquo Being in ldquoa position of authority second only to Godsrdquo is something no one should ever say of God for he is always ldquosupremerdquo At no time does God relinquishes his supremacy Someone who holds a position of authority second to God cannot be identical to God Take note too that in this account of Mark chapter 16 or the oneat John chapter 17 there is no mention of a third party of a ldquoGodheadrdquo No ldquoHoly Spiritrdquo is in sight The fact is that the glorified Christ in heaven continues to call his Father ldquomy Godrdquo(Revelation 312)

As ldquoSon of Godrdquo and always lesser and subject to God it is illogical to think Christ would purposely usurp titles and rights that only belonged to lsquohis God and Fatherrsquo (John 1428 Matthew 2023 John 2017 Acts 17) Jesus Christ taught others to only worship the Father God (Matthew 410 John 42324) ldquoAnd we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the worldrdquo (1 John 414) If so the thought that Christ would usethe words ldquoI amrdquo as a title to identify himself as ldquothe true Godrdquo is incongruous Jesus made it clear that he would only seek the glory ldquothat comes from the one who alone is Godrdquo (John850 54 544)

In this Satan controlled world it is not that difficult to get entangled with human taught intricate philosophies which obscure the simple Christian doctrine (John 1231 2 Cor 44) Hence the need for caution at the time of defending popular traditional views which clash with the monotheistic approach of Bible writers

Consequently those who teach that Christ is Almighty God find themselves in conflict with the Scriptural record The submitted list of alternate readings of John 858 shows that there are a considerable number of scholars who not only understand the subject correctly but alsokeenly grasp that whatever Jesus said on the matter has to harmonize with both the context of John chapter 8 and the rest of the Scriptures as well

What is the correct translation of John 858

Is it ldquoI amrdquo ldquoI wasrdquo ldquoI am herdquo or ldquoI have beenrdquo After analyzing the Greek phrase ldquoegō eimirdquo the context and the various possible ways the expression can be translated in English I think it is best to render the Greek with an English present perfect Adding a smallelement such as ldquosincerdquo to the statement as McKay does below satisfies all contextual and grammatical requirements of the passage Doing so does not qualify as ldquointerpolationrdquo

A second choice a simple past tense can perhaps be used in translation where the context allows since it is grammatically correct but it is generally used of activity confined to the past so the message may be distorted Unless that is the simple past is interpreted as ldquoimperfectiverdquo with current relevance How so In support of Jesus deity many frequently cite John11 There in the text a simple past tense ldquowasrdquo is applied to ldquothe Wordrdquo three times in English versions Does that mean ldquothe Wordrdquo is no more or that it was permanentlycut-off from existence at some point Of course not The context of the whole gospel of John shows that Christ is fully pertinent in Christian lives

Scholars choosing a past tense for ldquoeimirdquo (ie ldquoI wasrdquo ldquoI existedrdquo etc) at John 858 may also have in mind what John the Baptist said as a precursor of Jesus Christ ldquoA man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was [ldquoexistedrdquo JB] before merdquo Surely John the Baptist did not mean that Jesus existence was done away with His own words show thatJesus life was very much relevant and would continue to be so Translators have no issue whatsoever in applying a past tense (ldquowasrdquo ldquoexistedrdquo) at John 11 and 130 in their English versions So why would they at John 858 Perhaps because it would mean that they wouldhave to do away with the premise of a ldquodivine titlerdquo in their argumentation of which is claimed clinches Jesus identity with Gods own As shown above Revelation 211 a presentverb a form of ldquoeimirdquo is rendered by some versions with a past tense ldquowasrdquo Obviously Bible translators have no problem in translating some present tense verbs with past tenses or with present perfects But most object to it at John 858 likely for theological reasons

As stated in the beginning of this essay the English ldquopresentrdquo and the Greek ldquopresentrdquo in certain contexts do not correspond exactly in meaning because in Greek ldquotimerdquo is a secondary factor That being the case the choice of English tense does not have to match theGreek conjugation per se to be faithful to the Sacred Text When one considers the specific idiom found in John 858 and the semantic implications of both the Greek and English ldquopresentrdquo one can see that the rendering ldquoI amrdquo though popular does not nearly represent the best translation possible in the English language ldquoContextrdquo often plays a more importantrole in determining the correct translation Overall though it is best to render the Greek expression with an English present perfect since it conveys clearly a more present relevancythan a past tense would

That said John 858 is a good example where a Greek transliteration may not be the best choice to communicate the right message effectively in our times The translation of ldquoI amrdquo has its place in extreme English literal translations which show the basic sense of the Greek such as those Interlinear translations mentioned above Also it can rightfully be used in many Scriptures where the context calls for it as when the sentence structure lacks the Greekldquoidiomrdquo discussed throughout this writing as might be the case with most occurrences of ldquoeimirdquo

Here listed in my opinion are the translations which come closest to the Greek thought presented by the particular ldquoidiomrdquo found in John 858 Dr Kenneth L McKay comes up with the correct translation

1 ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo - Kenneth L McKay A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek (SBG 5 New York Peter Lang 1994) p42

(Kenneth L McKay graduated with honours in Classics (with an interest in the Greek of theNT) from the Universities of Sydney and Cambridge He has taught Greek in universities and theological colleges in Nigeria New Zealand and England Mr McKay retired from the Australian National University in 1987 after teaching there for 26 years)

Other translations below come close to McKays rendering and are thus favored over the traditional rendering which is widely misunderstood

2 ldquoI have existed before Abraham was bornrdquo - A New Translation by James [ Moffatt - DD DLitt Glasgow Oxford 3 ldquoBefore Abraham came into existence I have beenrdquo - New World Translation 4 ldquoBefore Abraham came into being I have existedrdquo - The Documents of the [New Testament G W Wade London 5 ldquoFrom before Abraham was I have been rdquo - The New Testament by George [ R -Noyes DD Boston USA6 ldquoBefore Abraham was born I have already been rdquo - The Unvarnished New [Testament Andy Gaus Boston7 ldquoI existed even before Abraham was bornrdquo - The concise Gospel and the Acts [Logos International Christopher J ed Christianson Plainfield NJ8 ldquoI already was before Abraham was bornrdquo ndash Worldwide English New Testament [ Derby UK ________________________________

COMMENTS

Also compare the following translations

Nytt liv (1907 Norwegian)A Biacuteblia Viva (1981 Portuguese)O Novo Testamento Vivo (1974 Portuguese)Le Livre Nouveau Testament (1980 eacuteditions Farel French)Η Καινή Διαθήκη των Τεσσάρων Καθηγητών (ΚΔΤΚ Greek) (The New Testament of the Four Teachers The translation was made and approved (1921981) by the Holy Summit Church of Greece The English title of the project is The New Testament in Modern Greek Athens Greece) Η Αγία Γραφή Παλαιά και Καινή Διαθήκη (ΝΔΜ Greek) Ελληνική Βιβλική Εταιρία Αθήνα [Athens] 1997 (The Bible Old and New Testament Greek Biblical Company - London 1997) ΚΔΛΖ ΛΧ (Other Greek Versions expressing the same idea as translations on the list)___________________

ldquoI was rdquo Note on 1987 translation from Italian main list l Vangelio di Giovanni (El Evangelio de Juan [ldquoThe Gospel of Johnrdquo] with imprimatur) by J Mateos and J Barreto noted on John 858 (as translated by Teodora Tosatti p 387 Cittadela Editrice 1982) that the temporal relationship expressed by the Greek ldquoprin eimi [BeforeI am]rdquo can be translated into Italian ldquoprimaero [BeforeI was]rdquo (Translation from Italian to English mine)__________________

Comment on 1993 ΟІ ΧΡΙΣΤΙΑΝΙΚΕΣ ΓΡΑΦΕΣ Απόδοση από τη Μειάφράση Νέου Κόσμου which is a modern Greek translation of the New World Translation of the ChristianScriptures Unlike most Bible Versions which are published in only one language or a few atmost the NWT is available in dozens of languages based mainly on their English translationbut obviously taking into account other factors in the process such as the original Bible text the peculiarities of their recipient local languages and their targeted audiences in their respective countries

It is obvious though that other NWT translation editions closely followed the English text of the NWT and at the same time their translation teams had enough latitude to offer their own unique renderings at times expressing in their native languages what they see in in the Inspired Text Having said that it is interesting to see how they approached their translation of John 858 from their English translation back into [modern] Greek

The translation team was acutely aware of the basic sense of ldquoegō eimirdquo as ldquoI amrdquo and how those simple words are misconstrued by religionists to say something more than Jesus intended Taking into account the syntax of John 858 as stated throughout this document the translation team who worked on the modern Greek version faced a few options

First they had the option to go back to ldquoegō eimirdquo using the modern Greek equivalent ldquoΕγώ ειμαιrdquo (I am) as it reads in the Vamvas version which they did not Or they could haveexpressed their NWT English choice of ldquoI have beenrdquo with their modern Greek equivalent of ldquoέχο υπάρξει [I have existed]rdquo Thirdly they could have gone with ldquoI wasrdquo (ldquoεγώ ήμουνrdquo) as some of their French and Italian Bible editions have done in the past or even with ldquo[εγώ] υπήρξα [I existed])rdquo Or they could have provided some other unique rendering It is obvious they wanted to stick closely to the Greek text but given the common misconceptionssurrounding ldquoegō eimai (I am)rdquo in mainstream churches the translation team chose to use ldquoεγώ υπάρχωrdquo (a present indicative form in the Greek) which means basically ldquoI existrdquo but in the presence of an expression of past time in John 858 the sense is ldquoI have existedrdquo Thus ldquoBefore Abraham came into existence I have existedrdquo ( The verb είμαι [ldquoto berdquo] in modern Greek has no forms for the perfect tense It borrows the forms from the verb υπάρχω [ldquoI existrdquo] The Greek and English ldquoperfectsrdquo are not exact equivalents either)

The reader is reminded here as noted earlier that modern Greek keeps up with the Koineacute Greek ldquopresentrdquo idiom A modern Greek grammar Greek A Comprehensive Grammar explains ldquoThe present tense is also used in constructions where English would use the perfect continuous ie where the verb expresses a continuous state or habitual event that

has lasted since a certain point in the past and is continuing up to (and including) the presentrdquo The authors provide two examples where a present verb is used with a past time indicator and where they translate using an English perfect as explained ldquoI have been living[Μένω] in this house for three years nowrdquo And ldquoI have been reading [Διαβάζω] this newspaper since 1984rdquo (Greek A Comprehensive Grammar by David Holton Peter Mackridge amp Irene Philippaki-Warburton Revised by Vassilios Spyropoulos p 294 Second edition 2012)

Ten years after the NWT-Greek Edition was released another modern Greek translation was published with the following rendering at John 858 ldquoΣας βεβαιώνω πως πριν να γεννηθεί οΑβραάμ εγώ υπάρχωrdquo which in English would be ldquoI assure you that I have existed since before Abraham was bornrdquo (Literally ldquoI assure you that before could be born the AbrahamI exist [not ldquoΕγώ ειμαιrdquo]rdquo The Holy Bible in Todays Greek Version 2003 Greek Bible Society Interestingly the original English version of 1976 had ldquoI Amrdquo) Also a Spanish Bible conveys a similar thought ldquoYo existo desde antes que existiera Abrahamrdquo [Translation ldquo I exist since before Abraham existedrdquo] (La Biblia - Versioacuten Popular 2nd edition Sociedades Biacuteblicas Unidas 1983)

_________________________________________________________

The Clear Word The translators quoted in this article represent various religious faiths some are Catholic some are Protestant Others are Unitarians Jehovahs Witnesses Jewish Adventists etc and they represent countries the world over One of these translators is a Seventh-Day Adventist who worked on The Clear Word Jack J Blanco ThD As a Seventh-Day Adventist who supports the Trinity doctrine Blanco translated verses to make Jesus ldquoequalrdquo to God in every way

He renders John 11 ldquoHe is the Word of God and is equal with Godrdquo He shows Jesus at Philippians 25-7 as ldquoequal with Godrdquo and describes him as lsquoacting the part of a servantrsquo At John 1428 he completely omits the reference that lsquothe Father is greaterrsquo than Christ But here at John 858 in answer to the question the priests and leaders asked concerning Abraham lsquoseeingrsquo his day Jesus answered according to Dr Blanco ldquoBecause I existed before Abraham was even bornrdquo Thus Dr Blanco makes no connection as others do that Christ is the ldquoI amrdquo of Exodus 314 which according to some would indicate that Jesus is the Jehovah of the Old Testament What he sees in this account is that Jesus already lsquoexisted before Abraham didrsquo and thus Abraham was able to lsquoseersquo his day (John 856) To this we must add another likely element included in Jesus response to the Jews as wellone of simple identification as ldquothe Christ [Messiah]rdquo and ldquoSon of manrdquo Why is it then that manywho support the Trinity doctrine find it hard to understand Jesus statement correctly at John 858 Could it be that they are letting non-Scriptural influence and perhaps the weight of themajority view dictate their understanding of this Scripture

For a consideration of other subjects by the same author check below

For a discussion of Acts 286 Whose blood

httpwwwscribdcomdoc231244155Acts-20-28-Whose-blood

For a discussion of Colossians 116 (ldquoall other thingsrdquo) see

httpwwwscribdcomdoc205841269Colossians-1-16-Is-the-expression-all-other-things-a-proper-rendition

For a consideration on the subject of the Trinity click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc160286056Does-the-Trinity-ever-make-sense

For a full consideration of John 11 click the following link httpwwwscribdcomdoc34916458The-correct-translation-of-John-1-1

For a brief consideration of John 11 with additional citations click here httpwwwscribdcomdoc50330864John-1-1-List-of-Alternate-Readings

Did the NW translators know any Greek click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc48234022Did-the-New-World-Translation-Committee-Know-Greek

For a consideration of John 173 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc57772552John-17-3-E28098Taking-in-knowledge-of-E28099-God-and-Jesus

For a consideration of 1 Timothy 316 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc76927834Was-God-manifested-in-the-flesh-1-Timothy-3-16

For a consideration of Exodus 225 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc38676458Exodus-2-25-And-God-took-notice-Does-God- care-about-us

For a consideration of John 114 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc35002730John-1-14-Jesus-full-of-grace

For a consideration of Translation Differences-Questions and Answershttpwwwscribdcomdoc59484457Translation-Differences-Questions-and-Answers

In Spanish

Para una consideracioacuten de otros temas vea los siguientes enlaces

Para una consideracioacuten de Colosenses 116 ldquotodas las otras cosasrdquo vea

httpwwwscribdcomdoc209601066Colosenses-1-16-C2BFEs-la-traduccion-E2809Ctodas-las-otras-cosasE2809D-apropiada

Para una consideracioacuten de ldquoiquestAcaso tiene sentido la Trinidadrdquo

httpwwwscribdcomdoc173779117C2BFAcaso-tiene-sentido-la-Trinidad

Para un consideracioacuten de Juan 11 vea el siguiente enlace

httpwwwscribdcomdoc35899788Traduccion-correcta-de-Juan-1-1-Lista-de- lecturas-alternativas

Para el tema iquestSabiacutean griego los traductores de la TNM vea el siguiente enlace

httpwwwscribdcomdoc51623596C2BFSabia-griego-el-Comite-de-la-Traduccion-del-Nuevo-Mundo

do a better job at it See below for a sample

ldquoHave you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves before yourdquo (The Comprehensive New Testament 2008)ldquoI hope you donacutet think that all along weacuteve been making our defense before yourdquo (The Message Eugene H Peterson)ldquoHave you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves to yourdquo (NIV)ldquoIt may seem to you that all this time we have been attempting to put ourselves in the rightrdquo (Bible in Basic English)ldquoAll this time you have been thinking that we have been pleading our own cause before yourdquo (NJB)ldquoHave you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves to yourdquo (CEV)ldquoHave you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves before yourdquo (Revised Standard Version) ldquoPerhaps you think that all along we have been trying to defend ourselves before yourdquo (TEV)ldquoHave you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves to yourdquo (ESV)ldquoYou have thought all along that we were defending ourselves to yourdquo (HCSB)ldquoHave you been thinking all this time that we have been defending ourselves to yourdquo (NET Bible)

ldquoYou have been thinking all along that it was to you we were making our defenserdquo (The Bible in Living English Steven T Byington)

The above translations use present perfect (and perfect progressive) forms or past progressives to bring out the proper sense of the original into our language Can anyone rightfully claim that it is improper for these Bible versions to translate this text as they have done in English

4th Example (Luke 248 Wescott and HortNestle early editions Greek text)

ὁ πατήρ σου καὶ ἐγὼ ὀδυνώμενοι ζητοῦμέν σε - Greek The father of you and I being pained we are seeking you Here the context (vv 42-48) speaks of Jesus (12 years old) being left behind unwittingly in Jerusalem by his parents they went back searching in distress for three days before finding him When they finally found him they spoke the words above

ldquoYour father and I have been looking for you anxiouslyrdquo (Revised Standard Version)ldquoYour father and I in agony of mind have been searching for yourdquo (Williams NT)ldquoYour father and I have been anxiously looking for Yourdquo (NASB 1971)ldquoYour father and I have been searching for you in great distressrdquo (Riverside NT)

ldquoHere have your father and I been searching anxiously for yourdquo (Hugh J Schonfield)ldquoYour father and I have been looking for you have been very anxious rdquo (Goodspeed)ldquoYour father and I have been looking for you We have been very troubledrdquo (Bible in Worldwide English)ldquoYour father and I have been looking for you in distressrdquo (Richmond Lattimore)ldquoYour father and I have been searching for you in great distressrdquo (Twentieth Century NT) ldquoThy father and I have sought thee distressedrdquo (Darby Bible Translation)

ldquoThy father and I sought thee sorrowingrdquo (American Standard Version)

ldquoThy father and I in anguish were seeking theerdquo (The Emphasized Bible 3rd edit based on Wescott and Hort by Joseph B Rotherham)ldquoThy father and I were seeking thee sorrowfulrdquo (W B Godbey N T 1902)ldquoThy father and I were seeking Thee sorrowingrdquo (A S Worrell N T 1904)ldquoYour father and I were anxiously looking for yourdquo (World English Bible)

The words ldquowe are seeking yourdquo are in the present indicative tense however since an expression of time is used indicating action going on for days (ldquoafter three daysrdquo v 46) translators find it necessary to use either the present perfect (ldquohave beenrdquo ldquohave soughtrdquo) or simple past (ldquosoughtrdquo) or past progressive (ldquowere seekingrdquo) indicative forms to express in English what the Greek says in the ldquopresentrdquo Various Greek texts have instead of the ldquopresentrdquo found in the Westcott amp Hort Text above an ldquoimperfectrdquo verb form Both forms are frequently rendered with an English present ldquoperfectrdquo Compare with Youngs Literal Translation which also uses a past progressive indicative form ldquowere seekingrdquo and the Spanish Reina-Valera Revisada which rendered an imperfect verb form appearing in the Received Text with a present perfect indicative (ldquohemos buscadordquo) Is this another reason why many translators have rendered the Greek present ldquoegō eimirdquo preceded by an adverbial modifier in its clause at John 858 with perfective or past forms in English

5th Example (Juan 56)

καὶ γνοὺς ὅτι πολὺν ἤδη χρόνον ἔχει - Greek and having known that much already time he is having

This is an account of an invalid man who for 38 years had been sick and was now being cured by Jesus The Greek in this clause does not make his illness clear however the context does Take note of the expression of time used with past implications mixed with a present indicative verb ldquohe is havingrdquo For this to make any sense in our language it has to be modified When Jesus saw this sick man lying there

ldquoand knew that he had been now a long time in that caserdquo (KJV italics theirs) ldquoand knowing that he had been ill a long timerdquo (Revised English Bible)ldquoand knew he had been in that condition for a long timerdquo (NJB)ldquoand knew that he had been sick for a long timerdquo (World English Bible)ldquoand knew that he had been sick for a long timerdquo (Godacutes Word)

ldquoand knew how long he had been illrdquo (Living Bible)ldquoand knew he had already been there a long timerdquo (HCSB)ldquoand he knew that the man had been sick for such a long timerdquo (TEV)ldquoand knew that he had been in this state a long timerdquo (Confraternity Version)ldquoand finding that he had had a long time of itrdquo (S T Byington) ldquoand knew that he had been sick for a long timerdquo (Jay E Adams)ldquoand he knew that he had been waiting for a long timerdquo (George M Lamsa Peshitta) ldquoand knew that he had been now a long timerdquo (Rheims New Testament)

ldquoand knowing that he was [in that state] now a great length of timerdquo (J N Darby Translation Brackets his)

Once again we see translators having to use mostly perfective forms (ldquohad beenrdquo ldquohad hadrdquopast perfects) and one with a simple past ldquowasrdquo even though they are translating a present tense verb ldquohe is havingrdquo This shows that translators adapt their renderings whenever is necessary to convey the right meaning into the target language It is thus possible to render ldquoeimirdquo at John 858 with a form other than a present tense such as a present perfect Those who say that it can not be done or should not be done just need to look again at the evidenceobjectively

6th Example (John 1527 Wescott amp Hort)

ὅτι ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς μετʼ ἐμοῦ ἐστέ ndash Greek that from beginning with me you are

These words spoken by Jesus evidently refers to the beginning of his ministry when he chosehis closest disciples They were eyewitnesses of all the things God did through Christ duringhis ministry (Acts 121)

ldquobecause ye have been with me from the beginningrdquo (KJV) ldquobecause you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (NAB)ldquofor you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (Christian Community Bible)ldquobecause you are the men who have been with me from the very beginningrdquo (Heinz Wldquobecause you have been with me from the firstrdquo (New English Bible) [ Cassirer)ldquobecause you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (Godacutes Word Translation) ldquofor you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (NIV)ldquobecause you have been with me from the firstrdquo (Weymouth New Testament)ldquobecause you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (NRSV)ldquoyou that have been with me from the beginningrdquo (The Four Gospels EV Rieu)ldquobecause youacuteve been with Me from the beginning of My ministryrdquo (The Clear Word)ldquofor you have been with me from the firstrdquo (J B Phillips Modern English)ldquobecause you have been with Me from the beginningrdquo (HCSB) ldquothat you were with me from the startrdquo (21st Century New Testament)ldquofor you were with Me from the beginningrdquo (New Berkeley Version Revised Edition)

ldquobecause you were with me from the beginningrdquo (Mark Heber Miller)ldquobecause you were with me from the very beginningrdquo (SEB)

This scripture with the plural form of ldquoeimirdquo (este) is very similar to John 858 Again within its structure there is an expression of past time and a verb in the present indicative form (este) just as there is in John 858 A Grammar of New Testament Greek says ldquoThe reader may be reminded of one idiom which comes out of the linear idea the use of words like πάλαι [palai ldquolong agordquo] with the present in a sense best expressed by our perfect Thus in 2 Co 1219 lsquohave you been thinking all this timersquo or Jn 1527 lsquoyou have been with me from the beginning [ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς]rsquo hellip The durative present in such cases gathers up past and present time into one phraserdquo (A Grammar of New Testament Greek Vol 1 Prolegomena by JH Moulton p 119) As previously noted this Grammar specifically refers to John 858 as an example of this idiom

And here in John 1527 there is a connection of Jesus disciples [creatures as they are] that ldquowererdquo with him ldquofrom the beginningrdquo Obviously Jesus was making no reference to his disciples sharing ldquoeternityrdquo with him The disciples all had a beginning The logical conclusion is that Jesus was simply saying to them lsquoYou have been with me from the start of my ministryrsquo Hence there is no need to read ldquoeternityrdquo into the expression ldquoI amrdquo anymore that we should read ldquoeternityrdquo from Jesus words at John 1527 lsquoYou are with me from the beginningrsquo Neither grammar nor the context justifies reading more into these Scriptures than what they actually say

In fact the six (6) instances cited above (Genesis 3138 LXX 1 John 38 2 Cor 1219 Luke 248 John 56 John 1527) and John 858 as well all have an expression of past time or an extent of time with past implications (ldquoThese twenty yearsrdquo ldquoLong agordquo ldquoafter three daysrdquo Lk 246 ldquomuch already timerdquo ldquofrom [the] beginningrdquo ldquoBeforerdquo etc) AND present verbs in their sentences or nearby within the context and are commonly rendered with present perfect (some with past perfects) or simple past (or past progressive) forms in English translations If we apply this pattern to the translation of John 858 it would mean that renderings such as ldquoI have beenrdquo (present perfect) and ldquoI wasrdquo (simple past) are not only acceptable in translation but actually more ldquosuitablerdquo in application Can this really be done Not only can it be done it makes for a ldquobetterrdquo English translation

In regards to Jesus John 858 simply tells us that Jesus lsquowas alive before Abraham was bornrsquo (SEB) and that his existence continued up to the moment of his speaking to them Just as it is not proper English to say ldquoFor three days we are seeking yourdquo (Greek literal reading of Luke 248) or ldquobecause from the beginning with me you arerdquo (John 1527) it is no less proper English to say in John 858 ldquoBefore Abraham was born I amrdquo These readings should only appear in extremely literal interlinear translations which basically render the Greek word-by-word and not in standard idiomatic English translations Let me illustrate If a man advanced in age for example had his work history and experience questioned by co-workers in comparison to his younger son and employee Abe would he say in reply ldquoBefore my son Abe was born I am [the one fit for the job]rdquo No that does not sound right In English he could say it in various ways

ldquoI have been an experienced worker since before my son Abe was bornrdquo ldquoI have been what I am since before my son Abe was bornrdquo ldquoI was fit to work and fully active before my son Abe was ever bornrdquo ldquoI was already experienced in many jobs before Abe ever came to berdquo ldquoI have been a master worker way before my son Abe came to liferdquo ldquoBefore Abe was born I already was life and job experiencedrdquo etc

The point is that in English normally we include a present perfect tense whenever there is a reference to the past extending to the present or a past tense of some form whenever we go back in time The same with John 858 There is no justification in English to insist using a present verb form (which is not equal to the Greek present when combined with a past expression) in an unwarranted attempt to convey ldquoeternityrdquo as ldquopaddingrdquo to the Trinity doctrine a doctrine adopted AFTER the Christian era Worse it is disingenuous to accuse other translators (who have chosen to render ldquoegō eimirdquo at John 858 with an English present perfect or past tense) of scholastic dishonesty when the very same translations honored by these detractors do so in other places where the ldquodeityrdquo of Christ is not in play asshown in the samples provided above

An example of this double standard can be seen as well when scholars such as Dr Julius Mantey harshly criticizes the NWT for the rendering ldquoI have beenrdquo at John 858 but keeps quiet when other translators do similarly and even states or pretends that no other reputable translator would ever translate it that way He dared not criticize his former Greek teacher Charles B Williams who produced his own Bible translation Dr Mantey once wrote the following of Dr Williams translation ldquoWilliams translation considering all the factors is the most accurate and illuminating translation in the English languagerdquo And how does this ldquomost accurate translationrdquo render John 858 As follows ldquoI existed before Abraham was bornrdquo Here Dr Williams known for his Greek command used a simple past tense (ldquoI existedrdquo) as translation for the Greek present Julius Mantey certainly did not find Williams version of John 858 a ldquoshocking translationrdquo ldquoI existedrdquo is quite different from the translation Dr Mantey so passionately defended (ldquoI amrdquo)

When Dr Mantey talks about the NWT he says the rendering ldquoI have beenrdquo at John 858 cannot be justified and calls it ldquodishonestrdquo That rule does not apply to Williams translation does it Williams did not translate John 858 in the same way Mantey would have liked (ldquoI amrdquo) Not only that the Grammar itself that Dr Mantey co-authored with Dr Dana A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament states under ldquoThe Progressive Presentrdquo (called ldquoExtension from Pastrdquo by McKay) ldquoSometimes the progressive present is retroactivein its application denoting that which has begun in the past and continues into the present For the want of a better name we may call it the present of duration This use is generally associated with an adverb of time and may best be rendered by the English perfect ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς μετʼ ἐμοῦ ἐστέ Ye have been with me from the beginning Jn 1527 See also Lk137 2 Cor 129 [19]rdquo (Pages 182-83 Emphasis added)

Even though Julius Mantey has stated when referring to the NWT that ldquoI have beenrdquo is not a proper translation and even ldquodishonestrdquo at John 858 he clearly states in his Grammar (of

Scriptures with similar syntax to John 858) ldquoThis use is generally associated with an adverb of time and may best be rendered by the English perfect [such as ldquoI have beenrdquo which in fact is associated with an adverb of time in John 858]rdquo A likely reason for Dana ampManteys strong reluctance for not including John 858 as an example of the idiom discussed on page 183 may have to do with the fact that as ldquotrinitariansrdquo they oppose the idea of Jesus existence having lsquobegunrsquo in the past even though John 858 perfectly fits with the ldquoProgressive Presentrdquo idiom being discussed in their Grammar as acknowledged by other grammarians Hence their objection is truly a ldquotheologicalrdquo one rather than Greek grammaritself arguing in their favor as Mantey and some others have implied since a Greek present or an English perfect does not demand ldquoeternityrdquo at all from the subject

Consequently many religious individuals who focus solely on the basic meaning (of ldquoegō eimirdquo as ldquoI amrdquo) out of the context of the particular ldquoidiomrdquo used at John 858 end up missing the thrust of Jesus words and fall prey to misleading interpretations Doctor Kenneth L McKay taking into account all of these issues comes up with this excellent translation for John 858 ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo (A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek SBG 5 New York Peter Lang 1994 p42) If we objectively consider the material above we will not insist in connecting Jesus at John 858 with the God Jehovah of Exodus 314 (which many attempt to do but cannot be sustained) Instead we will focus on the simple message conveyed by Jesus words at John 858 which is in harmony with the totality of Scripture ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo (McKay) The rendering ldquoI have been in existencerdquo by itself does not rule out either the concept of ldquoeternityrdquo or the ldquocreationrdquo of Jesus Christ A Committee of Bible translators came up with the following translation which may not be the best choice but considering the issues involved is better than the traditional rendering of ldquoI amrdquo ldquoI was alive before Abraham was bornrdquo (The New Testament in Plain English)

(The following scholars are members of the Bible Translation Committee of The New Testament in Plain English which approved this last reading ldquoI was aliverdquo instead of ldquoI amrdquo(Dr Stanley L Morris chairman FW Gingrich Ph D a renown Greek lexicographer Jack P Lewis Ph D CH Accord Th D Clyde M Woods Ph D ST Kan Ph D Gary T Burke Ph D Milo Hadwin D Min)

I submit their names and their credentials here as an example because it is often asserted vigorously that no intelligent or highly qualified scholar would ever produce a translation other than ldquoI amrdquo As noted above and as the list of alternate readings (at the end of this essay) of John 858 shows many done by highly qualified people this is simply not true Usually those making statements of that sort are doing so based on emotional and theological not philological reasons Furthermore by not disclosing other valid viewpoints or by dismissing how other qualified Bible translators deal with this scripture they are undermining their own credibility as well

At this time you are welcome to briefly go over the list of Alternate Readings to John 858 at

the end before moving on to the second part of this essay

_____________________________

Should we ignore the evidence of all those translations listed at the end that differ in John 858 from the traditional versions What then are all these translators seeing at John 858 that moved them to render this text differently They surely must be aware of the resistance they would encounter by translating it by the various forms they used Still they must have had the firm conviction that both the Greek text and the context supports their understanding of this scripture They likely see a Jesus making no identity connection with his Father Godbut rather see a Jesus simply expressing his indefinite existence with no suggestion of eternity in focus Neither is Jesus stating here that he is the God of Old Testament times To understand it that way would be to read into the text more than what it says Taking some clues from the context of the chapter some scholars additionally see Jesus insinuating his ldquomessiahshiprdquo as if saying ldquoI am he [the Messiah]rdquo This is very likely In fact The LivingBible renders John 824 thus ldquoThat is why I said that you will die in your sins for unless you believe that I am the Messiah the Son of God [ἐγώ εἰμι] you will die in your sinsrdquo

Is ldquoegō eimirdquo a title or another name of God

The use of ldquoeimirdquo at John 858 is frequently used as a ldquoproof textrdquo of Jesus deity A noted Trinitarian scholar AT Robertson a Baptist even refers to ldquoegō eimirdquo as ldquothe absolute phrase used of Godrdquo likely indicating the verb conveys ldquotimeless beingrdquo an implication that ldquoeimirdquo here does not require anything else to complete the meaning of the phrase thus conveying ldquoeternal existencerdquo as well as being an actual name for God Some individuals have given plenty of publicity to Robertsons statement as absolute truth But his statement is not ldquotruthrdquo at all It is faulty interpretation which many people have fallen prey to Grammar and theology do not always make the best mix True Robertsons credentials as a scholar are impressive nevertheless credentials does not truth make Besides some other equally bright scholars disagree with him Lets illustrate the folly of those advocating a divine title at John 858 by way of addition (Or substitution if you will) as some suggest

ldquoBefore Abraham was born I am Eternalrdquo ldquoBefore Abraham was born I am Jehovahrdquo ldquoBefore Abraham was born I am eternally Godrdquo

First of all the above hypothetical translations are just as ungrammatical as the simple ldquoI amrdquo reading of most versions An English present tense cannot start before a definite point in the past This can be seen in the following two examples

1 ldquoBefore the US Iraq war I am a soldierrdquo 2 ldquoThree journalists are kidnapped in Nepal since the start of 2007rdquo

What is the correct way to express these statements in English Analyze it for a second and

provide an answer if you will

Notably if ldquoeimirdquo was used to convey eternal existence what is the point of using an expression of past time at all in the clause Moreover the context of previous verses (vv 48-57) clearly indicates that Jesus is speaking of God as a separate entity See below

49 ldquobut I honor my Father and you dishonor merdquo 50 ldquoI am not seeking glory for myself but there is one who seeks it and he is the

judgerdquo54 ldquoIf I glorify myself my glory means nothing My Father whom you claim as your

God is the one who glorifies me 55 ldquoThough you do not know him I know him If I said I did not I would be a liar like you but I do know him and obey his wordrdquo Thus if Jesus meant he himself was the ldquoJehovahrdquo of the Old Testament as Trinitarians claim what would be the rationale behind Jesus directing all distinction and glory to lsquothe Father Godrsquo as a distinct individual as he did in the previous verses and then a few words later abruptly change his argumentation by claiming he is that very same One who lsquoreceives obedience from his own wordrsquo lsquoseeking his own honor and gloryrsquo because he himself is ldquoGodrdquo Confusing is it not To accept this abrupt change of character on Jesus part would be not ldquoa mysteryrdquo but flat out ldquoa deceptionrdquo of big proportions since Jesus himself warned against pretending to be one thing and acting as another (Matthew 62-5 2313-36)

Are we are supposed against all logic to accept these ldquotrinitarianrdquo assumptions instead of a simple alternative which really answers the Jews question about lsquohow could Abraham ldquoseerdquoJesus day if he was not yet 50 years oldrsquo (ldquoI have been in existence since Abraham was bornrdquo)

The obsession with the simple words ldquoI amrdquo have led to many faulty assumptions ldquoI amrdquo issuch a common expression in our language even to this day that words such as ldquoegoismrdquo ldquoegotismrdquo etc (derived from the Greek ldquoegordquo) are considered common words in English dictionaries Everyone uses the phrase ldquoI amrdquo at times Think of any big corporation or powerful organization of your choice for a moment Would you conclude that the two most powerful individuals of this one prestigious organization must be identical in every way solely because they are heard equally saying to others in their common speech ldquoI am thisrdquoor ldquoI am thatrdquo etc

In Bible times humans too used common pronouns The verb eimi (ldquoI amrdquo) itself or forms of it appears more than two thousand times (2000x) in the New Testament alone Additionally the word ldquoegōrdquo appears over seventeen hundred times (1700x) in the NT And those numbers do not include the Septuagint totals Do all occurrences of the word then imply ldquodivinityrdquo in each case Of course not It may be more significant when God or Christ use the expression because of who they are but does it really mean that both God and Christ share the same identity Or that everyone who uses the phrase ldquoI amrdquo does so with divine pretensions Does it really mean that everyone using the phrase are ldquoequalrdquo The

answer is obvious is it not

Lets bear in mind that when God sent Jesus Christ as His representative to a most crucial assignment multiple biblical prophecies were pointing to Christ as the promised Messiah that would free mankind from its moribund condition It is logical then that when the time came for Jesus Christ to show up on earth he would somehow communicate to others that ldquoherdquo and not some other human claiming to be the Messiah was Gods instrument in bringing everlasting relief to human misery Hence he could rightly say any or all of the following ldquoI am (this)rdquo ldquoI am (that)rdquo ldquoI am he [the promised Messiah]rdquo or ldquoI am Gods Sonrdquo Should we expect anything less

The fact is that the words ldquoI amrdquo are not exclusive to God and Christ It should be noted that a man who was born ldquoblindrdquo also used the same expression (John 99) The Greek here says ldquoekeinos elegen hoti Egō eimirdquo (ldquoThat one kept saying that I amrdquo) AT Robertson cites John 99 as one of five parallels to the use of egō eimi in John 858 (Word Pictures in the New Testament Vol V p 159) The phrase here comes at the end of the clause with no explicit predicate James White who upholds the traditional reading admits ldquoThis last instance [John 99] is similar to the sayings as Jesus utters them in that the phrase comes at the end of the clause and looks elsewhere for its predicaterdquo The same could be said of John 1527 Some argue that ldquoeimirdquo in John 858 is ldquoabsoluterdquo but do not do so with John 99 or John 1527 Theology may be a factor in this Previously we saw how Jacob a man according to the Septuagint used the words ldquoegō eimirdquo Other instances in Scripture of creatures using those words would not prove they were part of a ldquoGodheadrdquo Context then ultimately dictates how ldquoeimirdquo should be translated According to John when Jesus was pressed he only claimed to have been alive way before Abraham was born and that he simply was ldquothe Christrdquo ldquothe Son of Manrdquo and ldquothe Son of Godrdquo

There is something else to keep in mind in regards to the meaning of ldquoeimirdquo And it is what grammarian Stanley Porter indicated ldquoSometimes the verb [eimi] is used on its own as a verb of existence Perhaps the best-known example of this is the following John 858rdquo (Fundamentals of New Testament Greek by Stanley E Porter section 753 72) AT Robertson adds ldquoThe verb εἰμί [eimi] hellip Sometimes it does express existence as a predicatelike any other verb as in ἐγὼ εἰμί [egō eimi] (Jo 858) and ἡ θάλασσα οὐκ ἔστιν ἔτι [hē thalassa ouk estin eti = ldquothe sea not is yetrdquo] (Rev 211) Cf Mt 2330rdquo (A Grammar of theGreek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research Nashville Tenn 1934 p 394)

What does this mean The examples mentioned by Robertson in addition to John 858 give us an idea of what this implies It is so strange that the two examples Robertson provided forcomparison with John 858 seems to contradict his ldquotimeless beingrdquo view on ldquoeimirdquo He cited a portion of Revelation 211 where the Greek literally says ldquoAnd the sea not is yetrdquo In other words ldquoThe sea does not exist any morerdquo Amplified Bible ldquoThere no longer existed any seardquo Curiously various versions render the present verb ldquoisrdquo (a form of ldquoeimirdquo) with an imperfect ldquowasrdquo (Cf KJV NIV NAB NRSV) Obviously ldquothe seardquo in this vision is [was] not ldquoeternalrdquo

And in Matthew 2330 the other text provided by Robertson in his comparison with John 858 the Greek word-for-word says ldquoIf we were in the days of the fathers of usrdquo which inmodern English would be ldquoIf we had lived in the days of our forefathersrdquo Other versions ldquoIf we had beenrdquo (Rheims NT) ldquoIf we had been livingrdquo (NASB) ldquoIf we had been existing in the days of our fathersrdquo (Jonathan Mitchell NT) The full NIV text reads ldquoAnd you say lsquoIf we had lived in the days of our ancestors we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophetsrsquo rdquo

It is clear from this comparison that the words of Matthew 2330 ldquoIf we wererdquo (a form of ldquoeimirdquo) in the text is used as an equivalent for ldquoliferdquo or ldquoexistencerdquo In the heavenly vision of Rev 211 lsquothe sea ceased to existrsquo And the generation of people which Jesus spoke about and their ancestors all died ceased to exist If we apply these two examples to John 858 given by Robertson with the meaning either of life or existence for ldquoeimirdquo then it wouldbe equally acceptable to translate ldquoI amrdquo as ldquoI existrdquo or ldquoI liverdquo Many translators reflect this very same understanding as the submitted list of alternate readings of John 858 show ldquoI existrdquo or ldquoI existed even before Abraham was bornrdquo Or ldquoI was alive before Abraham was bornrdquo (The Simple English Bible)

Although some may not see much semantic difference between Jesus saying ldquoI amrdquo or ldquoI existrdquo the two expressions communicate something very different to many readers ldquoI amrdquo is generally associated by Trinitarians as a title used by God or as another name for God Onthe other hand ldquoI existrdquo simply conveys ldquoliferdquo or ldquoexistence Barnabas Lindars points out that ldquoegō eimirdquo in John 858 ldquocannot be regarded as a title because it requires the meaning lsquoI am in existencersquordquo (ldquoThe Son of Man in Johannine Christologyrdquo in Christ and the Spirit in the New Testament In Honour of Charles Francis Digby Moule eds B Lindars and S Smalley Cambridge Cambridge University Press 1973) (Since an English present tense cannot start before a definite point in the past this would mean that we can incorporate Lindars valid observation and translate it into contemporary English like this ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo exactly as Dr McKay proposed)

Some in their eagerness to equate Christ with God accuse translators who render ldquoegō eimirdquo in John 858 with renderings other than ldquoI amrdquo pointing to all occurrences of this expression in the New Testament or in Johns Gospel where allegedly these translators do not follow the same ldquorulerdquo when translating ldquoegō eimirdquo in John 858 as they do elsewhere where they translate it with a present indicative form What they dont tell you or fail to understand is that in John 858 ldquoegō eimirdquo without a predicate AND with an expression of time with past implications in its sentence structure provides an ldquoidiomrdquo which is quite different from those other instances of ldquoeimirdquo Thats right an idiom (where present and past is combined) found equally at home in classical biblical and modern Greek which many translators convey into our language with the English present perfect at various places Consequently one cannot merely go by how the phrase ldquoegō eimirdquo is used elsewhere in the NT without taking into account the fact that John 858 displays an ldquoidiomrdquo in its structure Not doing so would be dishonest John the Baptist had said of Christ in John 130 ldquoA man is coming after me who ranks before me because he existed [Lit was] before merdquo (JB)

John 858 is in harmony with those words Furthermore some attempt to use the reading of Psalm 902 in the Septuagint as ldquoevidencerdquo that John 858 is rendered correctly in the popular versions But a closer analysis of this verse shows notable differences between the two verses making such comparison untenable With good reason a considerable number ofscholars have chosen to break from tradition in their rendering of John 858

If critics of alternate readings of John 858 are not candid enough to admit some of the very issues mentioned here and hide the fact that many scholars do hold a different interpretation and no less academic at that should we consider their diatribes of any worthy import It is ldquowishful thinkingrdquo for someone to believe that John 858 is directly connected to Exodus 314 rather than any real evidence (which is lacking) confirming their eager interpretations Remember even Dr James White a well known Trinitarian advocate admitted ldquothat an immediate and unqualified jump from the ego eimi of John 858 to Exodus 314 is unwiserdquo

Besides a theological tendency can be seen when they focus as some do on undermining the reputation of one Bible translation (NWT) when there are actually numerous versions from different religions dealing with the same controversial Scriptures in a similar manner This is very much like politicians who ignore the failings of their own party but are quick to lsquodemonizersquo their opponents (Matthew 73)

Is the Kingdom Interlinear ldquoproofrdquo the NWT is wrong at John 858

A criticism has been made of a Watchtower Society publication (The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures ldquoKITrdquo) which contains the Greek text and underneath it a word-by-word translation in English and on the right side of the page the modern New World Translation Well at John 858 this publication renders the Greek phrase being discussed here egō eimi word-for-word as ldquoI amrdquo and in the right column the NWT shows the reading ldquoI have beenrdquo This difference have led some to severely criticize the NW translators of ldquoincompetencerdquo ldquoinconsistencyrdquo and even of ldquodishonestyrdquo The critics say something like this ldquoThey have backed themselves into a corner where they cant escape their mishandling of the Greek textrdquo or something of that sort Amazingly these critics in their condemnations hardly ever mention the dozens of translators who translate the same way or similarly to the NWT as the submitted list shows So much for honesty

Those who engage in such tactics are not being forthcoming Why say that Besides dismissing how other translators deal with John 858 they also distort known facts for the WT Society have made it clear that the publication of this Greek Bible is to help the Bible student determine the basic sense of the Greek and have stated that the translation on the right column (the NWT) is a modern way of expressing the thoughts transmitted by the Greek text There are many factors to consider when using such publications

Even other interlinear publications warn of seeming discrepancies For instance The Zondervan Parallel New Testament in Greek and English says in its Foreword ldquo[I]t is a good thing to bear in mind that you cannot always either give an English equivalent for a Greek word or expression or even always render the same Greek verb word by the same

English onerdquo Another interlinear the New Greek-English Interlinear New Testament by Brown and Comfort and edited by J D Douglas explains ldquoIt is difficult to translate one language into another on a word-for-word basis because each language has its own syntax grammatical constructions and idioms that are difficultmdashif not impossiblemdashto replicate literally in another languagerdquo (Emphasis added) This statement is so true of the text in discussion (John 858) in regards to its syntax and particular idiom Often critics of the NWT hide this fact Why Is it religious bias at work

I will give the reader a few examples of an available interlinear translation which has the Greek main text and a literal sublinear translation below the Greek by Professor Paul R McReynolds and on the right column for comparison the reader can study the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) a popular translation in academia Observe how the two can differ

McReynolds Mat 21 ldquomagiciansrdquo NRSV ldquowise menrdquo John 118 ldquoonly born Godrdquo ldquoGod the only Sonrdquo Mat 243 ldquosign of the your presencerdquo ldquothe sign of your comingrdquo Mathew 522 ldquothe gehenna of the firerdquo ldquothe hell of firerdquo John 1319 ldquoI amrdquo ldquoI am herdquo John 149 ldquoI amrdquo ldquoHave I beenrdquo John 1527 ldquoyou arerdquo ldquoyou have beenrdquo 2 Peter 24 ldquobeing sent to Tartarusrdquo ldquobut cast them into hellrdquo Luke 1113 ldquowill give spirit holy tordquo ldquowillgive the Holy Spirit tordquo John 2022 ldquotake spirit holyrdquo ldquoReceive the Holy Spiritrdquo Acts 24 ldquofilled all of spirit holyrdquo ldquofilled with the Holy Spiritrdquo

( Paul R McReynolds is professor of Greek and New Testament at Pacific Christian College in Fullerton California USA He also contributed to the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia)

Some of the readings from the right column above (NRSV) are acceptable others are not See if you can detect in the right column above those translation renderings with a theological tendency that deviate from the literal readings from the left column McReynoldson the left does an excellent job of transmitting the Greek sense Even the most popular Bible versions do not adhere consistently to the base texts The NRSV and a host of other Bible versions add their own religious interpretation throughout Scripture just as much as the NWT if not more but hardly anyone complains of this transformation of Scriptures eventhough it leads to error Why Simply because the NRSV represents more of a ldquomajorityrdquo view than the NWT does But in truth majority or minority views do not correspond equallyto ldquoaccuraterdquo or ldquoinaccuraterdquo results

In the text discussed the KIT can appropriately show the basic sense rendering of ldquoI amrdquo for the Greek ldquoegō eimirdquo in the left column and alternately show the reading ldquoI have beenrdquo in the right column as a contemporary way of expressing in English the particular Greek clause with its ldquoidiomrdquo in John 858 as explained throughout this article a rendering which has

scholarship support When the Greek ldquoegō eimirdquo appears in an idiom-less structure it can rightfully be translated as ldquoI amrdquo as most versions do including the NWT Hence there is no contradiction between the two translations

Dr McKay argues that Jesus response in John 858 ldquowould be most naturally translated lsquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrsquo if it were not for the obsession with the simple words lsquoI amrsquo rdquo (Kenneth L McKay ldquolsquoI amrsquo in Johns Gospelrdquo Expository Times 1996 p 302) I take the author as saying that ldquoI have been in existencerdquo for ldquoeimirdquo is a better translation than ldquoI amrdquo but the [religious] obsession for the simple words ldquoI amrdquo in their quest to elevate Christ to Gods level does not allow people to see that The thing is that Christ lsquoalways pleased the Fatherrsquo and was fully satisfied with being lsquolesserrsquo than him (John 829 1029 1428 177813) Why not accept him as he is

Hence it is poor scholarship to forward the idea that an entity must be God Almighty himselfby the sole fact of using a divine sounding phrase when other Bible individuals are found using the same expression in Scripture The ldquocontextrdquo is the determining factor Not only must we take into account the context surrounding a chapter or book of the Bible but also what the whole Bible teaches on a given person or subject

What does the Bible teach about Jesus

That Christ ldquowas in the beginning with Godrdquo (John 12) At the announcement of his birth on earth the angel Gabriel told Mary that she will give birth to someone ldquogreatrdquo and ldquoholyrdquo and that one will be called ldquoSon of the Most Highrdquo and ldquoSon of Godrdquo (Luke 132 35) Trinitarians may claim that ldquoSon of Godrdquo is equivalent in meaning to ldquoGodrdquo It is a claim with no foundation If there was any truth to the claim then the ldquoHoly Spiritrdquo would also be called Son of God But no The fact is that other living creatures are called ldquosons of Godrdquo (Job 21) Never is ldquoGodrdquo or ldquoholy spiritrdquo ever called ldquoSon of Godrdquo in Scripture Only Jesus Christ is called ldquothe Son of Godrdquo with the article Why

By Christ lsquobecoming obedient [to God] until deathrsquo during the course of his earthly life lsquoGod highly exalted Him and graciously gave him a name which is above every other name that at the name of Jesus every knee should bendto the credit of God the Fatherrsquo (Hebrews58 Philippians 28-11 21st Century New Testament)

ldquo[Christ] has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God with angels authorities and powers made subject to himrdquo (1 Peter 322 NRSV) Still in heaven Christ receives knowledge information revelation from God and transmits it to other creatures (Revelation11) Though the glorified Christ is described as ldquoKing of kingsrdquo and ldquoLord of lordsrdquo he is specifically called ldquoThe Word of Godrdquo (Revelation 191316 NRSV) The night before his death he ldquoprayedrdquo to his Father and called him ldquothe only true Godrdquo and made this petition ldquoFather glorify me in your own presence [Greek beside yourself] with the glory that I hadin your presence [Greek beside you] before the world existedrdquo (John 175 NRSV) (ldquoalongside yourselfrdquo ST Byington) Again God never has to ldquoprayrdquo to anyone Ever

Well then if Jesus Christ expressed this one final ldquowishrdquo in prayer to be ldquoin the presence ofrdquoldquobesiderdquo ldquoalongsiderdquo his Father which he himself called ldquothe only true Godrdquo why should we for the sake of tradition insist with the belief that Jesus ldquomustrdquo somehow be that ldquotruerdquo God the One sitting at the center of Gods throne instead of ldquobesiderdquo God (Mark 1619) Christ did not ask to sit at Gods throne Christ was fully content with the premise of being alongside God And that is what actually happened Mark tells us ldquoSo then the Lord Jesus after he had spoken to them was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of Godrdquo (Mark 1619 NRSV Note Some ancient manuscripts omit this verse) The NIV Study Bible notes the significance of lsquositting at the right hand of Godrsquo ldquoA position of authority second only to Godsrdquo Being in ldquoa position of authority second only to Godsrdquo is something no one should ever say of God for he is always ldquosupremerdquo At no time does God relinquishes his supremacy Someone who holds a position of authority second to God cannot be identical to God Take note too that in this account of Mark chapter 16 or the oneat John chapter 17 there is no mention of a third party of a ldquoGodheadrdquo No ldquoHoly Spiritrdquo is in sight The fact is that the glorified Christ in heaven continues to call his Father ldquomy Godrdquo(Revelation 312)

As ldquoSon of Godrdquo and always lesser and subject to God it is illogical to think Christ would purposely usurp titles and rights that only belonged to lsquohis God and Fatherrsquo (John 1428 Matthew 2023 John 2017 Acts 17) Jesus Christ taught others to only worship the Father God (Matthew 410 John 42324) ldquoAnd we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the worldrdquo (1 John 414) If so the thought that Christ would usethe words ldquoI amrdquo as a title to identify himself as ldquothe true Godrdquo is incongruous Jesus made it clear that he would only seek the glory ldquothat comes from the one who alone is Godrdquo (John850 54 544)

In this Satan controlled world it is not that difficult to get entangled with human taught intricate philosophies which obscure the simple Christian doctrine (John 1231 2 Cor 44) Hence the need for caution at the time of defending popular traditional views which clash with the monotheistic approach of Bible writers

Consequently those who teach that Christ is Almighty God find themselves in conflict with the Scriptural record The submitted list of alternate readings of John 858 shows that there are a considerable number of scholars who not only understand the subject correctly but alsokeenly grasp that whatever Jesus said on the matter has to harmonize with both the context of John chapter 8 and the rest of the Scriptures as well

What is the correct translation of John 858

Is it ldquoI amrdquo ldquoI wasrdquo ldquoI am herdquo or ldquoI have beenrdquo After analyzing the Greek phrase ldquoegō eimirdquo the context and the various possible ways the expression can be translated in English I think it is best to render the Greek with an English present perfect Adding a smallelement such as ldquosincerdquo to the statement as McKay does below satisfies all contextual and grammatical requirements of the passage Doing so does not qualify as ldquointerpolationrdquo

A second choice a simple past tense can perhaps be used in translation where the context allows since it is grammatically correct but it is generally used of activity confined to the past so the message may be distorted Unless that is the simple past is interpreted as ldquoimperfectiverdquo with current relevance How so In support of Jesus deity many frequently cite John11 There in the text a simple past tense ldquowasrdquo is applied to ldquothe Wordrdquo three times in English versions Does that mean ldquothe Wordrdquo is no more or that it was permanentlycut-off from existence at some point Of course not The context of the whole gospel of John shows that Christ is fully pertinent in Christian lives

Scholars choosing a past tense for ldquoeimirdquo (ie ldquoI wasrdquo ldquoI existedrdquo etc) at John 858 may also have in mind what John the Baptist said as a precursor of Jesus Christ ldquoA man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was [ldquoexistedrdquo JB] before merdquo Surely John the Baptist did not mean that Jesus existence was done away with His own words show thatJesus life was very much relevant and would continue to be so Translators have no issue whatsoever in applying a past tense (ldquowasrdquo ldquoexistedrdquo) at John 11 and 130 in their English versions So why would they at John 858 Perhaps because it would mean that they wouldhave to do away with the premise of a ldquodivine titlerdquo in their argumentation of which is claimed clinches Jesus identity with Gods own As shown above Revelation 211 a presentverb a form of ldquoeimirdquo is rendered by some versions with a past tense ldquowasrdquo Obviously Bible translators have no problem in translating some present tense verbs with past tenses or with present perfects But most object to it at John 858 likely for theological reasons

As stated in the beginning of this essay the English ldquopresentrdquo and the Greek ldquopresentrdquo in certain contexts do not correspond exactly in meaning because in Greek ldquotimerdquo is a secondary factor That being the case the choice of English tense does not have to match theGreek conjugation per se to be faithful to the Sacred Text When one considers the specific idiom found in John 858 and the semantic implications of both the Greek and English ldquopresentrdquo one can see that the rendering ldquoI amrdquo though popular does not nearly represent the best translation possible in the English language ldquoContextrdquo often plays a more importantrole in determining the correct translation Overall though it is best to render the Greek expression with an English present perfect since it conveys clearly a more present relevancythan a past tense would

That said John 858 is a good example where a Greek transliteration may not be the best choice to communicate the right message effectively in our times The translation of ldquoI amrdquo has its place in extreme English literal translations which show the basic sense of the Greek such as those Interlinear translations mentioned above Also it can rightfully be used in many Scriptures where the context calls for it as when the sentence structure lacks the Greekldquoidiomrdquo discussed throughout this writing as might be the case with most occurrences of ldquoeimirdquo

Here listed in my opinion are the translations which come closest to the Greek thought presented by the particular ldquoidiomrdquo found in John 858 Dr Kenneth L McKay comes up with the correct translation

1 ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo - Kenneth L McKay A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek (SBG 5 New York Peter Lang 1994) p42

(Kenneth L McKay graduated with honours in Classics (with an interest in the Greek of theNT) from the Universities of Sydney and Cambridge He has taught Greek in universities and theological colleges in Nigeria New Zealand and England Mr McKay retired from the Australian National University in 1987 after teaching there for 26 years)

Other translations below come close to McKays rendering and are thus favored over the traditional rendering which is widely misunderstood

2 ldquoI have existed before Abraham was bornrdquo - A New Translation by James [ Moffatt - DD DLitt Glasgow Oxford 3 ldquoBefore Abraham came into existence I have beenrdquo - New World Translation 4 ldquoBefore Abraham came into being I have existedrdquo - The Documents of the [New Testament G W Wade London 5 ldquoFrom before Abraham was I have been rdquo - The New Testament by George [ R -Noyes DD Boston USA6 ldquoBefore Abraham was born I have already been rdquo - The Unvarnished New [Testament Andy Gaus Boston7 ldquoI existed even before Abraham was bornrdquo - The concise Gospel and the Acts [Logos International Christopher J ed Christianson Plainfield NJ8 ldquoI already was before Abraham was bornrdquo ndash Worldwide English New Testament [ Derby UK ________________________________

COMMENTS

Also compare the following translations

Nytt liv (1907 Norwegian)A Biacuteblia Viva (1981 Portuguese)O Novo Testamento Vivo (1974 Portuguese)Le Livre Nouveau Testament (1980 eacuteditions Farel French)Η Καινή Διαθήκη των Τεσσάρων Καθηγητών (ΚΔΤΚ Greek) (The New Testament of the Four Teachers The translation was made and approved (1921981) by the Holy Summit Church of Greece The English title of the project is The New Testament in Modern Greek Athens Greece) Η Αγία Γραφή Παλαιά και Καινή Διαθήκη (ΝΔΜ Greek) Ελληνική Βιβλική Εταιρία Αθήνα [Athens] 1997 (The Bible Old and New Testament Greek Biblical Company - London 1997) ΚΔΛΖ ΛΧ (Other Greek Versions expressing the same idea as translations on the list)___________________

ldquoI was rdquo Note on 1987 translation from Italian main list l Vangelio di Giovanni (El Evangelio de Juan [ldquoThe Gospel of Johnrdquo] with imprimatur) by J Mateos and J Barreto noted on John 858 (as translated by Teodora Tosatti p 387 Cittadela Editrice 1982) that the temporal relationship expressed by the Greek ldquoprin eimi [BeforeI am]rdquo can be translated into Italian ldquoprimaero [BeforeI was]rdquo (Translation from Italian to English mine)__________________

Comment on 1993 ΟІ ΧΡΙΣΤΙΑΝΙΚΕΣ ΓΡΑΦΕΣ Απόδοση από τη Μειάφράση Νέου Κόσμου which is a modern Greek translation of the New World Translation of the ChristianScriptures Unlike most Bible Versions which are published in only one language or a few atmost the NWT is available in dozens of languages based mainly on their English translationbut obviously taking into account other factors in the process such as the original Bible text the peculiarities of their recipient local languages and their targeted audiences in their respective countries

It is obvious though that other NWT translation editions closely followed the English text of the NWT and at the same time their translation teams had enough latitude to offer their own unique renderings at times expressing in their native languages what they see in in the Inspired Text Having said that it is interesting to see how they approached their translation of John 858 from their English translation back into [modern] Greek

The translation team was acutely aware of the basic sense of ldquoegō eimirdquo as ldquoI amrdquo and how those simple words are misconstrued by religionists to say something more than Jesus intended Taking into account the syntax of John 858 as stated throughout this document the translation team who worked on the modern Greek version faced a few options

First they had the option to go back to ldquoegō eimirdquo using the modern Greek equivalent ldquoΕγώ ειμαιrdquo (I am) as it reads in the Vamvas version which they did not Or they could haveexpressed their NWT English choice of ldquoI have beenrdquo with their modern Greek equivalent of ldquoέχο υπάρξει [I have existed]rdquo Thirdly they could have gone with ldquoI wasrdquo (ldquoεγώ ήμουνrdquo) as some of their French and Italian Bible editions have done in the past or even with ldquo[εγώ] υπήρξα [I existed])rdquo Or they could have provided some other unique rendering It is obvious they wanted to stick closely to the Greek text but given the common misconceptionssurrounding ldquoegō eimai (I am)rdquo in mainstream churches the translation team chose to use ldquoεγώ υπάρχωrdquo (a present indicative form in the Greek) which means basically ldquoI existrdquo but in the presence of an expression of past time in John 858 the sense is ldquoI have existedrdquo Thus ldquoBefore Abraham came into existence I have existedrdquo ( The verb είμαι [ldquoto berdquo] in modern Greek has no forms for the perfect tense It borrows the forms from the verb υπάρχω [ldquoI existrdquo] The Greek and English ldquoperfectsrdquo are not exact equivalents either)

The reader is reminded here as noted earlier that modern Greek keeps up with the Koineacute Greek ldquopresentrdquo idiom A modern Greek grammar Greek A Comprehensive Grammar explains ldquoThe present tense is also used in constructions where English would use the perfect continuous ie where the verb expresses a continuous state or habitual event that

has lasted since a certain point in the past and is continuing up to (and including) the presentrdquo The authors provide two examples where a present verb is used with a past time indicator and where they translate using an English perfect as explained ldquoI have been living[Μένω] in this house for three years nowrdquo And ldquoI have been reading [Διαβάζω] this newspaper since 1984rdquo (Greek A Comprehensive Grammar by David Holton Peter Mackridge amp Irene Philippaki-Warburton Revised by Vassilios Spyropoulos p 294 Second edition 2012)

Ten years after the NWT-Greek Edition was released another modern Greek translation was published with the following rendering at John 858 ldquoΣας βεβαιώνω πως πριν να γεννηθεί οΑβραάμ εγώ υπάρχωrdquo which in English would be ldquoI assure you that I have existed since before Abraham was bornrdquo (Literally ldquoI assure you that before could be born the AbrahamI exist [not ldquoΕγώ ειμαιrdquo]rdquo The Holy Bible in Todays Greek Version 2003 Greek Bible Society Interestingly the original English version of 1976 had ldquoI Amrdquo) Also a Spanish Bible conveys a similar thought ldquoYo existo desde antes que existiera Abrahamrdquo [Translation ldquo I exist since before Abraham existedrdquo] (La Biblia - Versioacuten Popular 2nd edition Sociedades Biacuteblicas Unidas 1983)

_________________________________________________________

The Clear Word The translators quoted in this article represent various religious faiths some are Catholic some are Protestant Others are Unitarians Jehovahs Witnesses Jewish Adventists etc and they represent countries the world over One of these translators is a Seventh-Day Adventist who worked on The Clear Word Jack J Blanco ThD As a Seventh-Day Adventist who supports the Trinity doctrine Blanco translated verses to make Jesus ldquoequalrdquo to God in every way

He renders John 11 ldquoHe is the Word of God and is equal with Godrdquo He shows Jesus at Philippians 25-7 as ldquoequal with Godrdquo and describes him as lsquoacting the part of a servantrsquo At John 1428 he completely omits the reference that lsquothe Father is greaterrsquo than Christ But here at John 858 in answer to the question the priests and leaders asked concerning Abraham lsquoseeingrsquo his day Jesus answered according to Dr Blanco ldquoBecause I existed before Abraham was even bornrdquo Thus Dr Blanco makes no connection as others do that Christ is the ldquoI amrdquo of Exodus 314 which according to some would indicate that Jesus is the Jehovah of the Old Testament What he sees in this account is that Jesus already lsquoexisted before Abraham didrsquo and thus Abraham was able to lsquoseersquo his day (John 856) To this we must add another likely element included in Jesus response to the Jews as wellone of simple identification as ldquothe Christ [Messiah]rdquo and ldquoSon of manrdquo Why is it then that manywho support the Trinity doctrine find it hard to understand Jesus statement correctly at John 858 Could it be that they are letting non-Scriptural influence and perhaps the weight of themajority view dictate their understanding of this Scripture

For a consideration of other subjects by the same author check below

For a discussion of Acts 286 Whose blood

httpwwwscribdcomdoc231244155Acts-20-28-Whose-blood

For a discussion of Colossians 116 (ldquoall other thingsrdquo) see

httpwwwscribdcomdoc205841269Colossians-1-16-Is-the-expression-all-other-things-a-proper-rendition

For a consideration on the subject of the Trinity click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc160286056Does-the-Trinity-ever-make-sense

For a full consideration of John 11 click the following link httpwwwscribdcomdoc34916458The-correct-translation-of-John-1-1

For a brief consideration of John 11 with additional citations click here httpwwwscribdcomdoc50330864John-1-1-List-of-Alternate-Readings

Did the NW translators know any Greek click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc48234022Did-the-New-World-Translation-Committee-Know-Greek

For a consideration of John 173 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc57772552John-17-3-E28098Taking-in-knowledge-of-E28099-God-and-Jesus

For a consideration of 1 Timothy 316 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc76927834Was-God-manifested-in-the-flesh-1-Timothy-3-16

For a consideration of Exodus 225 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc38676458Exodus-2-25-And-God-took-notice-Does-God- care-about-us

For a consideration of John 114 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc35002730John-1-14-Jesus-full-of-grace

For a consideration of Translation Differences-Questions and Answershttpwwwscribdcomdoc59484457Translation-Differences-Questions-and-Answers

In Spanish

Para una consideracioacuten de otros temas vea los siguientes enlaces

Para una consideracioacuten de Colosenses 116 ldquotodas las otras cosasrdquo vea

httpwwwscribdcomdoc209601066Colosenses-1-16-C2BFEs-la-traduccion-E2809Ctodas-las-otras-cosasE2809D-apropiada

Para una consideracioacuten de ldquoiquestAcaso tiene sentido la Trinidadrdquo

httpwwwscribdcomdoc173779117C2BFAcaso-tiene-sentido-la-Trinidad

Para un consideracioacuten de Juan 11 vea el siguiente enlace

httpwwwscribdcomdoc35899788Traduccion-correcta-de-Juan-1-1-Lista-de- lecturas-alternativas

Para el tema iquestSabiacutean griego los traductores de la TNM vea el siguiente enlace

httpwwwscribdcomdoc51623596C2BFSabia-griego-el-Comite-de-la-Traduccion-del-Nuevo-Mundo

ldquoHere have your father and I been searching anxiously for yourdquo (Hugh J Schonfield)ldquoYour father and I have been looking for you have been very anxious rdquo (Goodspeed)ldquoYour father and I have been looking for you We have been very troubledrdquo (Bible in Worldwide English)ldquoYour father and I have been looking for you in distressrdquo (Richmond Lattimore)ldquoYour father and I have been searching for you in great distressrdquo (Twentieth Century NT) ldquoThy father and I have sought thee distressedrdquo (Darby Bible Translation)

ldquoThy father and I sought thee sorrowingrdquo (American Standard Version)

ldquoThy father and I in anguish were seeking theerdquo (The Emphasized Bible 3rd edit based on Wescott and Hort by Joseph B Rotherham)ldquoThy father and I were seeking thee sorrowfulrdquo (W B Godbey N T 1902)ldquoThy father and I were seeking Thee sorrowingrdquo (A S Worrell N T 1904)ldquoYour father and I were anxiously looking for yourdquo (World English Bible)

The words ldquowe are seeking yourdquo are in the present indicative tense however since an expression of time is used indicating action going on for days (ldquoafter three daysrdquo v 46) translators find it necessary to use either the present perfect (ldquohave beenrdquo ldquohave soughtrdquo) or simple past (ldquosoughtrdquo) or past progressive (ldquowere seekingrdquo) indicative forms to express in English what the Greek says in the ldquopresentrdquo Various Greek texts have instead of the ldquopresentrdquo found in the Westcott amp Hort Text above an ldquoimperfectrdquo verb form Both forms are frequently rendered with an English present ldquoperfectrdquo Compare with Youngs Literal Translation which also uses a past progressive indicative form ldquowere seekingrdquo and the Spanish Reina-Valera Revisada which rendered an imperfect verb form appearing in the Received Text with a present perfect indicative (ldquohemos buscadordquo) Is this another reason why many translators have rendered the Greek present ldquoegō eimirdquo preceded by an adverbial modifier in its clause at John 858 with perfective or past forms in English

5th Example (Juan 56)

καὶ γνοὺς ὅτι πολὺν ἤδη χρόνον ἔχει - Greek and having known that much already time he is having

This is an account of an invalid man who for 38 years had been sick and was now being cured by Jesus The Greek in this clause does not make his illness clear however the context does Take note of the expression of time used with past implications mixed with a present indicative verb ldquohe is havingrdquo For this to make any sense in our language it has to be modified When Jesus saw this sick man lying there

ldquoand knew that he had been now a long time in that caserdquo (KJV italics theirs) ldquoand knowing that he had been ill a long timerdquo (Revised English Bible)ldquoand knew he had been in that condition for a long timerdquo (NJB)ldquoand knew that he had been sick for a long timerdquo (World English Bible)ldquoand knew that he had been sick for a long timerdquo (Godacutes Word)

ldquoand knew how long he had been illrdquo (Living Bible)ldquoand knew he had already been there a long timerdquo (HCSB)ldquoand he knew that the man had been sick for such a long timerdquo (TEV)ldquoand knew that he had been in this state a long timerdquo (Confraternity Version)ldquoand finding that he had had a long time of itrdquo (S T Byington) ldquoand knew that he had been sick for a long timerdquo (Jay E Adams)ldquoand he knew that he had been waiting for a long timerdquo (George M Lamsa Peshitta) ldquoand knew that he had been now a long timerdquo (Rheims New Testament)

ldquoand knowing that he was [in that state] now a great length of timerdquo (J N Darby Translation Brackets his)

Once again we see translators having to use mostly perfective forms (ldquohad beenrdquo ldquohad hadrdquopast perfects) and one with a simple past ldquowasrdquo even though they are translating a present tense verb ldquohe is havingrdquo This shows that translators adapt their renderings whenever is necessary to convey the right meaning into the target language It is thus possible to render ldquoeimirdquo at John 858 with a form other than a present tense such as a present perfect Those who say that it can not be done or should not be done just need to look again at the evidenceobjectively

6th Example (John 1527 Wescott amp Hort)

ὅτι ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς μετʼ ἐμοῦ ἐστέ ndash Greek that from beginning with me you are

These words spoken by Jesus evidently refers to the beginning of his ministry when he chosehis closest disciples They were eyewitnesses of all the things God did through Christ duringhis ministry (Acts 121)

ldquobecause ye have been with me from the beginningrdquo (KJV) ldquobecause you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (NAB)ldquofor you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (Christian Community Bible)ldquobecause you are the men who have been with me from the very beginningrdquo (Heinz Wldquobecause you have been with me from the firstrdquo (New English Bible) [ Cassirer)ldquobecause you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (Godacutes Word Translation) ldquofor you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (NIV)ldquobecause you have been with me from the firstrdquo (Weymouth New Testament)ldquobecause you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (NRSV)ldquoyou that have been with me from the beginningrdquo (The Four Gospels EV Rieu)ldquobecause youacuteve been with Me from the beginning of My ministryrdquo (The Clear Word)ldquofor you have been with me from the firstrdquo (J B Phillips Modern English)ldquobecause you have been with Me from the beginningrdquo (HCSB) ldquothat you were with me from the startrdquo (21st Century New Testament)ldquofor you were with Me from the beginningrdquo (New Berkeley Version Revised Edition)

ldquobecause you were with me from the beginningrdquo (Mark Heber Miller)ldquobecause you were with me from the very beginningrdquo (SEB)

This scripture with the plural form of ldquoeimirdquo (este) is very similar to John 858 Again within its structure there is an expression of past time and a verb in the present indicative form (este) just as there is in John 858 A Grammar of New Testament Greek says ldquoThe reader may be reminded of one idiom which comes out of the linear idea the use of words like πάλαι [palai ldquolong agordquo] with the present in a sense best expressed by our perfect Thus in 2 Co 1219 lsquohave you been thinking all this timersquo or Jn 1527 lsquoyou have been with me from the beginning [ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς]rsquo hellip The durative present in such cases gathers up past and present time into one phraserdquo (A Grammar of New Testament Greek Vol 1 Prolegomena by JH Moulton p 119) As previously noted this Grammar specifically refers to John 858 as an example of this idiom

And here in John 1527 there is a connection of Jesus disciples [creatures as they are] that ldquowererdquo with him ldquofrom the beginningrdquo Obviously Jesus was making no reference to his disciples sharing ldquoeternityrdquo with him The disciples all had a beginning The logical conclusion is that Jesus was simply saying to them lsquoYou have been with me from the start of my ministryrsquo Hence there is no need to read ldquoeternityrdquo into the expression ldquoI amrdquo anymore that we should read ldquoeternityrdquo from Jesus words at John 1527 lsquoYou are with me from the beginningrsquo Neither grammar nor the context justifies reading more into these Scriptures than what they actually say

In fact the six (6) instances cited above (Genesis 3138 LXX 1 John 38 2 Cor 1219 Luke 248 John 56 John 1527) and John 858 as well all have an expression of past time or an extent of time with past implications (ldquoThese twenty yearsrdquo ldquoLong agordquo ldquoafter three daysrdquo Lk 246 ldquomuch already timerdquo ldquofrom [the] beginningrdquo ldquoBeforerdquo etc) AND present verbs in their sentences or nearby within the context and are commonly rendered with present perfect (some with past perfects) or simple past (or past progressive) forms in English translations If we apply this pattern to the translation of John 858 it would mean that renderings such as ldquoI have beenrdquo (present perfect) and ldquoI wasrdquo (simple past) are not only acceptable in translation but actually more ldquosuitablerdquo in application Can this really be done Not only can it be done it makes for a ldquobetterrdquo English translation

In regards to Jesus John 858 simply tells us that Jesus lsquowas alive before Abraham was bornrsquo (SEB) and that his existence continued up to the moment of his speaking to them Just as it is not proper English to say ldquoFor three days we are seeking yourdquo (Greek literal reading of Luke 248) or ldquobecause from the beginning with me you arerdquo (John 1527) it is no less proper English to say in John 858 ldquoBefore Abraham was born I amrdquo These readings should only appear in extremely literal interlinear translations which basically render the Greek word-by-word and not in standard idiomatic English translations Let me illustrate If a man advanced in age for example had his work history and experience questioned by co-workers in comparison to his younger son and employee Abe would he say in reply ldquoBefore my son Abe was born I am [the one fit for the job]rdquo No that does not sound right In English he could say it in various ways

ldquoI have been an experienced worker since before my son Abe was bornrdquo ldquoI have been what I am since before my son Abe was bornrdquo ldquoI was fit to work and fully active before my son Abe was ever bornrdquo ldquoI was already experienced in many jobs before Abe ever came to berdquo ldquoI have been a master worker way before my son Abe came to liferdquo ldquoBefore Abe was born I already was life and job experiencedrdquo etc

The point is that in English normally we include a present perfect tense whenever there is a reference to the past extending to the present or a past tense of some form whenever we go back in time The same with John 858 There is no justification in English to insist using a present verb form (which is not equal to the Greek present when combined with a past expression) in an unwarranted attempt to convey ldquoeternityrdquo as ldquopaddingrdquo to the Trinity doctrine a doctrine adopted AFTER the Christian era Worse it is disingenuous to accuse other translators (who have chosen to render ldquoegō eimirdquo at John 858 with an English present perfect or past tense) of scholastic dishonesty when the very same translations honored by these detractors do so in other places where the ldquodeityrdquo of Christ is not in play asshown in the samples provided above

An example of this double standard can be seen as well when scholars such as Dr Julius Mantey harshly criticizes the NWT for the rendering ldquoI have beenrdquo at John 858 but keeps quiet when other translators do similarly and even states or pretends that no other reputable translator would ever translate it that way He dared not criticize his former Greek teacher Charles B Williams who produced his own Bible translation Dr Mantey once wrote the following of Dr Williams translation ldquoWilliams translation considering all the factors is the most accurate and illuminating translation in the English languagerdquo And how does this ldquomost accurate translationrdquo render John 858 As follows ldquoI existed before Abraham was bornrdquo Here Dr Williams known for his Greek command used a simple past tense (ldquoI existedrdquo) as translation for the Greek present Julius Mantey certainly did not find Williams version of John 858 a ldquoshocking translationrdquo ldquoI existedrdquo is quite different from the translation Dr Mantey so passionately defended (ldquoI amrdquo)

When Dr Mantey talks about the NWT he says the rendering ldquoI have beenrdquo at John 858 cannot be justified and calls it ldquodishonestrdquo That rule does not apply to Williams translation does it Williams did not translate John 858 in the same way Mantey would have liked (ldquoI amrdquo) Not only that the Grammar itself that Dr Mantey co-authored with Dr Dana A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament states under ldquoThe Progressive Presentrdquo (called ldquoExtension from Pastrdquo by McKay) ldquoSometimes the progressive present is retroactivein its application denoting that which has begun in the past and continues into the present For the want of a better name we may call it the present of duration This use is generally associated with an adverb of time and may best be rendered by the English perfect ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς μετʼ ἐμοῦ ἐστέ Ye have been with me from the beginning Jn 1527 See also Lk137 2 Cor 129 [19]rdquo (Pages 182-83 Emphasis added)

Even though Julius Mantey has stated when referring to the NWT that ldquoI have beenrdquo is not a proper translation and even ldquodishonestrdquo at John 858 he clearly states in his Grammar (of

Scriptures with similar syntax to John 858) ldquoThis use is generally associated with an adverb of time and may best be rendered by the English perfect [such as ldquoI have beenrdquo which in fact is associated with an adverb of time in John 858]rdquo A likely reason for Dana ampManteys strong reluctance for not including John 858 as an example of the idiom discussed on page 183 may have to do with the fact that as ldquotrinitariansrdquo they oppose the idea of Jesus existence having lsquobegunrsquo in the past even though John 858 perfectly fits with the ldquoProgressive Presentrdquo idiom being discussed in their Grammar as acknowledged by other grammarians Hence their objection is truly a ldquotheologicalrdquo one rather than Greek grammaritself arguing in their favor as Mantey and some others have implied since a Greek present or an English perfect does not demand ldquoeternityrdquo at all from the subject

Consequently many religious individuals who focus solely on the basic meaning (of ldquoegō eimirdquo as ldquoI amrdquo) out of the context of the particular ldquoidiomrdquo used at John 858 end up missing the thrust of Jesus words and fall prey to misleading interpretations Doctor Kenneth L McKay taking into account all of these issues comes up with this excellent translation for John 858 ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo (A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek SBG 5 New York Peter Lang 1994 p42) If we objectively consider the material above we will not insist in connecting Jesus at John 858 with the God Jehovah of Exodus 314 (which many attempt to do but cannot be sustained) Instead we will focus on the simple message conveyed by Jesus words at John 858 which is in harmony with the totality of Scripture ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo (McKay) The rendering ldquoI have been in existencerdquo by itself does not rule out either the concept of ldquoeternityrdquo or the ldquocreationrdquo of Jesus Christ A Committee of Bible translators came up with the following translation which may not be the best choice but considering the issues involved is better than the traditional rendering of ldquoI amrdquo ldquoI was alive before Abraham was bornrdquo (The New Testament in Plain English)

(The following scholars are members of the Bible Translation Committee of The New Testament in Plain English which approved this last reading ldquoI was aliverdquo instead of ldquoI amrdquo(Dr Stanley L Morris chairman FW Gingrich Ph D a renown Greek lexicographer Jack P Lewis Ph D CH Accord Th D Clyde M Woods Ph D ST Kan Ph D Gary T Burke Ph D Milo Hadwin D Min)

I submit their names and their credentials here as an example because it is often asserted vigorously that no intelligent or highly qualified scholar would ever produce a translation other than ldquoI amrdquo As noted above and as the list of alternate readings (at the end of this essay) of John 858 shows many done by highly qualified people this is simply not true Usually those making statements of that sort are doing so based on emotional and theological not philological reasons Furthermore by not disclosing other valid viewpoints or by dismissing how other qualified Bible translators deal with this scripture they are undermining their own credibility as well

At this time you are welcome to briefly go over the list of Alternate Readings to John 858 at

the end before moving on to the second part of this essay

_____________________________

Should we ignore the evidence of all those translations listed at the end that differ in John 858 from the traditional versions What then are all these translators seeing at John 858 that moved them to render this text differently They surely must be aware of the resistance they would encounter by translating it by the various forms they used Still they must have had the firm conviction that both the Greek text and the context supports their understanding of this scripture They likely see a Jesus making no identity connection with his Father Godbut rather see a Jesus simply expressing his indefinite existence with no suggestion of eternity in focus Neither is Jesus stating here that he is the God of Old Testament times To understand it that way would be to read into the text more than what it says Taking some clues from the context of the chapter some scholars additionally see Jesus insinuating his ldquomessiahshiprdquo as if saying ldquoI am he [the Messiah]rdquo This is very likely In fact The LivingBible renders John 824 thus ldquoThat is why I said that you will die in your sins for unless you believe that I am the Messiah the Son of God [ἐγώ εἰμι] you will die in your sinsrdquo

Is ldquoegō eimirdquo a title or another name of God

The use of ldquoeimirdquo at John 858 is frequently used as a ldquoproof textrdquo of Jesus deity A noted Trinitarian scholar AT Robertson a Baptist even refers to ldquoegō eimirdquo as ldquothe absolute phrase used of Godrdquo likely indicating the verb conveys ldquotimeless beingrdquo an implication that ldquoeimirdquo here does not require anything else to complete the meaning of the phrase thus conveying ldquoeternal existencerdquo as well as being an actual name for God Some individuals have given plenty of publicity to Robertsons statement as absolute truth But his statement is not ldquotruthrdquo at all It is faulty interpretation which many people have fallen prey to Grammar and theology do not always make the best mix True Robertsons credentials as a scholar are impressive nevertheless credentials does not truth make Besides some other equally bright scholars disagree with him Lets illustrate the folly of those advocating a divine title at John 858 by way of addition (Or substitution if you will) as some suggest

ldquoBefore Abraham was born I am Eternalrdquo ldquoBefore Abraham was born I am Jehovahrdquo ldquoBefore Abraham was born I am eternally Godrdquo

First of all the above hypothetical translations are just as ungrammatical as the simple ldquoI amrdquo reading of most versions An English present tense cannot start before a definite point in the past This can be seen in the following two examples

1 ldquoBefore the US Iraq war I am a soldierrdquo 2 ldquoThree journalists are kidnapped in Nepal since the start of 2007rdquo

What is the correct way to express these statements in English Analyze it for a second and

provide an answer if you will

Notably if ldquoeimirdquo was used to convey eternal existence what is the point of using an expression of past time at all in the clause Moreover the context of previous verses (vv 48-57) clearly indicates that Jesus is speaking of God as a separate entity See below

49 ldquobut I honor my Father and you dishonor merdquo 50 ldquoI am not seeking glory for myself but there is one who seeks it and he is the

judgerdquo54 ldquoIf I glorify myself my glory means nothing My Father whom you claim as your

God is the one who glorifies me 55 ldquoThough you do not know him I know him If I said I did not I would be a liar like you but I do know him and obey his wordrdquo Thus if Jesus meant he himself was the ldquoJehovahrdquo of the Old Testament as Trinitarians claim what would be the rationale behind Jesus directing all distinction and glory to lsquothe Father Godrsquo as a distinct individual as he did in the previous verses and then a few words later abruptly change his argumentation by claiming he is that very same One who lsquoreceives obedience from his own wordrsquo lsquoseeking his own honor and gloryrsquo because he himself is ldquoGodrdquo Confusing is it not To accept this abrupt change of character on Jesus part would be not ldquoa mysteryrdquo but flat out ldquoa deceptionrdquo of big proportions since Jesus himself warned against pretending to be one thing and acting as another (Matthew 62-5 2313-36)

Are we are supposed against all logic to accept these ldquotrinitarianrdquo assumptions instead of a simple alternative which really answers the Jews question about lsquohow could Abraham ldquoseerdquoJesus day if he was not yet 50 years oldrsquo (ldquoI have been in existence since Abraham was bornrdquo)

The obsession with the simple words ldquoI amrdquo have led to many faulty assumptions ldquoI amrdquo issuch a common expression in our language even to this day that words such as ldquoegoismrdquo ldquoegotismrdquo etc (derived from the Greek ldquoegordquo) are considered common words in English dictionaries Everyone uses the phrase ldquoI amrdquo at times Think of any big corporation or powerful organization of your choice for a moment Would you conclude that the two most powerful individuals of this one prestigious organization must be identical in every way solely because they are heard equally saying to others in their common speech ldquoI am thisrdquoor ldquoI am thatrdquo etc

In Bible times humans too used common pronouns The verb eimi (ldquoI amrdquo) itself or forms of it appears more than two thousand times (2000x) in the New Testament alone Additionally the word ldquoegōrdquo appears over seventeen hundred times (1700x) in the NT And those numbers do not include the Septuagint totals Do all occurrences of the word then imply ldquodivinityrdquo in each case Of course not It may be more significant when God or Christ use the expression because of who they are but does it really mean that both God and Christ share the same identity Or that everyone who uses the phrase ldquoI amrdquo does so with divine pretensions Does it really mean that everyone using the phrase are ldquoequalrdquo The

answer is obvious is it not

Lets bear in mind that when God sent Jesus Christ as His representative to a most crucial assignment multiple biblical prophecies were pointing to Christ as the promised Messiah that would free mankind from its moribund condition It is logical then that when the time came for Jesus Christ to show up on earth he would somehow communicate to others that ldquoherdquo and not some other human claiming to be the Messiah was Gods instrument in bringing everlasting relief to human misery Hence he could rightly say any or all of the following ldquoI am (this)rdquo ldquoI am (that)rdquo ldquoI am he [the promised Messiah]rdquo or ldquoI am Gods Sonrdquo Should we expect anything less

The fact is that the words ldquoI amrdquo are not exclusive to God and Christ It should be noted that a man who was born ldquoblindrdquo also used the same expression (John 99) The Greek here says ldquoekeinos elegen hoti Egō eimirdquo (ldquoThat one kept saying that I amrdquo) AT Robertson cites John 99 as one of five parallels to the use of egō eimi in John 858 (Word Pictures in the New Testament Vol V p 159) The phrase here comes at the end of the clause with no explicit predicate James White who upholds the traditional reading admits ldquoThis last instance [John 99] is similar to the sayings as Jesus utters them in that the phrase comes at the end of the clause and looks elsewhere for its predicaterdquo The same could be said of John 1527 Some argue that ldquoeimirdquo in John 858 is ldquoabsoluterdquo but do not do so with John 99 or John 1527 Theology may be a factor in this Previously we saw how Jacob a man according to the Septuagint used the words ldquoegō eimirdquo Other instances in Scripture of creatures using those words would not prove they were part of a ldquoGodheadrdquo Context then ultimately dictates how ldquoeimirdquo should be translated According to John when Jesus was pressed he only claimed to have been alive way before Abraham was born and that he simply was ldquothe Christrdquo ldquothe Son of Manrdquo and ldquothe Son of Godrdquo

There is something else to keep in mind in regards to the meaning of ldquoeimirdquo And it is what grammarian Stanley Porter indicated ldquoSometimes the verb [eimi] is used on its own as a verb of existence Perhaps the best-known example of this is the following John 858rdquo (Fundamentals of New Testament Greek by Stanley E Porter section 753 72) AT Robertson adds ldquoThe verb εἰμί [eimi] hellip Sometimes it does express existence as a predicatelike any other verb as in ἐγὼ εἰμί [egō eimi] (Jo 858) and ἡ θάλασσα οὐκ ἔστιν ἔτι [hē thalassa ouk estin eti = ldquothe sea not is yetrdquo] (Rev 211) Cf Mt 2330rdquo (A Grammar of theGreek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research Nashville Tenn 1934 p 394)

What does this mean The examples mentioned by Robertson in addition to John 858 give us an idea of what this implies It is so strange that the two examples Robertson provided forcomparison with John 858 seems to contradict his ldquotimeless beingrdquo view on ldquoeimirdquo He cited a portion of Revelation 211 where the Greek literally says ldquoAnd the sea not is yetrdquo In other words ldquoThe sea does not exist any morerdquo Amplified Bible ldquoThere no longer existed any seardquo Curiously various versions render the present verb ldquoisrdquo (a form of ldquoeimirdquo) with an imperfect ldquowasrdquo (Cf KJV NIV NAB NRSV) Obviously ldquothe seardquo in this vision is [was] not ldquoeternalrdquo

And in Matthew 2330 the other text provided by Robertson in his comparison with John 858 the Greek word-for-word says ldquoIf we were in the days of the fathers of usrdquo which inmodern English would be ldquoIf we had lived in the days of our forefathersrdquo Other versions ldquoIf we had beenrdquo (Rheims NT) ldquoIf we had been livingrdquo (NASB) ldquoIf we had been existing in the days of our fathersrdquo (Jonathan Mitchell NT) The full NIV text reads ldquoAnd you say lsquoIf we had lived in the days of our ancestors we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophetsrsquo rdquo

It is clear from this comparison that the words of Matthew 2330 ldquoIf we wererdquo (a form of ldquoeimirdquo) in the text is used as an equivalent for ldquoliferdquo or ldquoexistencerdquo In the heavenly vision of Rev 211 lsquothe sea ceased to existrsquo And the generation of people which Jesus spoke about and their ancestors all died ceased to exist If we apply these two examples to John 858 given by Robertson with the meaning either of life or existence for ldquoeimirdquo then it wouldbe equally acceptable to translate ldquoI amrdquo as ldquoI existrdquo or ldquoI liverdquo Many translators reflect this very same understanding as the submitted list of alternate readings of John 858 show ldquoI existrdquo or ldquoI existed even before Abraham was bornrdquo Or ldquoI was alive before Abraham was bornrdquo (The Simple English Bible)

Although some may not see much semantic difference between Jesus saying ldquoI amrdquo or ldquoI existrdquo the two expressions communicate something very different to many readers ldquoI amrdquo is generally associated by Trinitarians as a title used by God or as another name for God Onthe other hand ldquoI existrdquo simply conveys ldquoliferdquo or ldquoexistence Barnabas Lindars points out that ldquoegō eimirdquo in John 858 ldquocannot be regarded as a title because it requires the meaning lsquoI am in existencersquordquo (ldquoThe Son of Man in Johannine Christologyrdquo in Christ and the Spirit in the New Testament In Honour of Charles Francis Digby Moule eds B Lindars and S Smalley Cambridge Cambridge University Press 1973) (Since an English present tense cannot start before a definite point in the past this would mean that we can incorporate Lindars valid observation and translate it into contemporary English like this ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo exactly as Dr McKay proposed)

Some in their eagerness to equate Christ with God accuse translators who render ldquoegō eimirdquo in John 858 with renderings other than ldquoI amrdquo pointing to all occurrences of this expression in the New Testament or in Johns Gospel where allegedly these translators do not follow the same ldquorulerdquo when translating ldquoegō eimirdquo in John 858 as they do elsewhere where they translate it with a present indicative form What they dont tell you or fail to understand is that in John 858 ldquoegō eimirdquo without a predicate AND with an expression of time with past implications in its sentence structure provides an ldquoidiomrdquo which is quite different from those other instances of ldquoeimirdquo Thats right an idiom (where present and past is combined) found equally at home in classical biblical and modern Greek which many translators convey into our language with the English present perfect at various places Consequently one cannot merely go by how the phrase ldquoegō eimirdquo is used elsewhere in the NT without taking into account the fact that John 858 displays an ldquoidiomrdquo in its structure Not doing so would be dishonest John the Baptist had said of Christ in John 130 ldquoA man is coming after me who ranks before me because he existed [Lit was] before merdquo (JB)

John 858 is in harmony with those words Furthermore some attempt to use the reading of Psalm 902 in the Septuagint as ldquoevidencerdquo that John 858 is rendered correctly in the popular versions But a closer analysis of this verse shows notable differences between the two verses making such comparison untenable With good reason a considerable number ofscholars have chosen to break from tradition in their rendering of John 858

If critics of alternate readings of John 858 are not candid enough to admit some of the very issues mentioned here and hide the fact that many scholars do hold a different interpretation and no less academic at that should we consider their diatribes of any worthy import It is ldquowishful thinkingrdquo for someone to believe that John 858 is directly connected to Exodus 314 rather than any real evidence (which is lacking) confirming their eager interpretations Remember even Dr James White a well known Trinitarian advocate admitted ldquothat an immediate and unqualified jump from the ego eimi of John 858 to Exodus 314 is unwiserdquo

Besides a theological tendency can be seen when they focus as some do on undermining the reputation of one Bible translation (NWT) when there are actually numerous versions from different religions dealing with the same controversial Scriptures in a similar manner This is very much like politicians who ignore the failings of their own party but are quick to lsquodemonizersquo their opponents (Matthew 73)

Is the Kingdom Interlinear ldquoproofrdquo the NWT is wrong at John 858

A criticism has been made of a Watchtower Society publication (The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures ldquoKITrdquo) which contains the Greek text and underneath it a word-by-word translation in English and on the right side of the page the modern New World Translation Well at John 858 this publication renders the Greek phrase being discussed here egō eimi word-for-word as ldquoI amrdquo and in the right column the NWT shows the reading ldquoI have beenrdquo This difference have led some to severely criticize the NW translators of ldquoincompetencerdquo ldquoinconsistencyrdquo and even of ldquodishonestyrdquo The critics say something like this ldquoThey have backed themselves into a corner where they cant escape their mishandling of the Greek textrdquo or something of that sort Amazingly these critics in their condemnations hardly ever mention the dozens of translators who translate the same way or similarly to the NWT as the submitted list shows So much for honesty

Those who engage in such tactics are not being forthcoming Why say that Besides dismissing how other translators deal with John 858 they also distort known facts for the WT Society have made it clear that the publication of this Greek Bible is to help the Bible student determine the basic sense of the Greek and have stated that the translation on the right column (the NWT) is a modern way of expressing the thoughts transmitted by the Greek text There are many factors to consider when using such publications

Even other interlinear publications warn of seeming discrepancies For instance The Zondervan Parallel New Testament in Greek and English says in its Foreword ldquo[I]t is a good thing to bear in mind that you cannot always either give an English equivalent for a Greek word or expression or even always render the same Greek verb word by the same

English onerdquo Another interlinear the New Greek-English Interlinear New Testament by Brown and Comfort and edited by J D Douglas explains ldquoIt is difficult to translate one language into another on a word-for-word basis because each language has its own syntax grammatical constructions and idioms that are difficultmdashif not impossiblemdashto replicate literally in another languagerdquo (Emphasis added) This statement is so true of the text in discussion (John 858) in regards to its syntax and particular idiom Often critics of the NWT hide this fact Why Is it religious bias at work

I will give the reader a few examples of an available interlinear translation which has the Greek main text and a literal sublinear translation below the Greek by Professor Paul R McReynolds and on the right column for comparison the reader can study the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) a popular translation in academia Observe how the two can differ

McReynolds Mat 21 ldquomagiciansrdquo NRSV ldquowise menrdquo John 118 ldquoonly born Godrdquo ldquoGod the only Sonrdquo Mat 243 ldquosign of the your presencerdquo ldquothe sign of your comingrdquo Mathew 522 ldquothe gehenna of the firerdquo ldquothe hell of firerdquo John 1319 ldquoI amrdquo ldquoI am herdquo John 149 ldquoI amrdquo ldquoHave I beenrdquo John 1527 ldquoyou arerdquo ldquoyou have beenrdquo 2 Peter 24 ldquobeing sent to Tartarusrdquo ldquobut cast them into hellrdquo Luke 1113 ldquowill give spirit holy tordquo ldquowillgive the Holy Spirit tordquo John 2022 ldquotake spirit holyrdquo ldquoReceive the Holy Spiritrdquo Acts 24 ldquofilled all of spirit holyrdquo ldquofilled with the Holy Spiritrdquo

( Paul R McReynolds is professor of Greek and New Testament at Pacific Christian College in Fullerton California USA He also contributed to the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia)

Some of the readings from the right column above (NRSV) are acceptable others are not See if you can detect in the right column above those translation renderings with a theological tendency that deviate from the literal readings from the left column McReynoldson the left does an excellent job of transmitting the Greek sense Even the most popular Bible versions do not adhere consistently to the base texts The NRSV and a host of other Bible versions add their own religious interpretation throughout Scripture just as much as the NWT if not more but hardly anyone complains of this transformation of Scriptures eventhough it leads to error Why Simply because the NRSV represents more of a ldquomajorityrdquo view than the NWT does But in truth majority or minority views do not correspond equallyto ldquoaccuraterdquo or ldquoinaccuraterdquo results

In the text discussed the KIT can appropriately show the basic sense rendering of ldquoI amrdquo for the Greek ldquoegō eimirdquo in the left column and alternately show the reading ldquoI have beenrdquo in the right column as a contemporary way of expressing in English the particular Greek clause with its ldquoidiomrdquo in John 858 as explained throughout this article a rendering which has

scholarship support When the Greek ldquoegō eimirdquo appears in an idiom-less structure it can rightfully be translated as ldquoI amrdquo as most versions do including the NWT Hence there is no contradiction between the two translations

Dr McKay argues that Jesus response in John 858 ldquowould be most naturally translated lsquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrsquo if it were not for the obsession with the simple words lsquoI amrsquo rdquo (Kenneth L McKay ldquolsquoI amrsquo in Johns Gospelrdquo Expository Times 1996 p 302) I take the author as saying that ldquoI have been in existencerdquo for ldquoeimirdquo is a better translation than ldquoI amrdquo but the [religious] obsession for the simple words ldquoI amrdquo in their quest to elevate Christ to Gods level does not allow people to see that The thing is that Christ lsquoalways pleased the Fatherrsquo and was fully satisfied with being lsquolesserrsquo than him (John 829 1029 1428 177813) Why not accept him as he is

Hence it is poor scholarship to forward the idea that an entity must be God Almighty himselfby the sole fact of using a divine sounding phrase when other Bible individuals are found using the same expression in Scripture The ldquocontextrdquo is the determining factor Not only must we take into account the context surrounding a chapter or book of the Bible but also what the whole Bible teaches on a given person or subject

What does the Bible teach about Jesus

That Christ ldquowas in the beginning with Godrdquo (John 12) At the announcement of his birth on earth the angel Gabriel told Mary that she will give birth to someone ldquogreatrdquo and ldquoholyrdquo and that one will be called ldquoSon of the Most Highrdquo and ldquoSon of Godrdquo (Luke 132 35) Trinitarians may claim that ldquoSon of Godrdquo is equivalent in meaning to ldquoGodrdquo It is a claim with no foundation If there was any truth to the claim then the ldquoHoly Spiritrdquo would also be called Son of God But no The fact is that other living creatures are called ldquosons of Godrdquo (Job 21) Never is ldquoGodrdquo or ldquoholy spiritrdquo ever called ldquoSon of Godrdquo in Scripture Only Jesus Christ is called ldquothe Son of Godrdquo with the article Why

By Christ lsquobecoming obedient [to God] until deathrsquo during the course of his earthly life lsquoGod highly exalted Him and graciously gave him a name which is above every other name that at the name of Jesus every knee should bendto the credit of God the Fatherrsquo (Hebrews58 Philippians 28-11 21st Century New Testament)

ldquo[Christ] has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God with angels authorities and powers made subject to himrdquo (1 Peter 322 NRSV) Still in heaven Christ receives knowledge information revelation from God and transmits it to other creatures (Revelation11) Though the glorified Christ is described as ldquoKing of kingsrdquo and ldquoLord of lordsrdquo he is specifically called ldquoThe Word of Godrdquo (Revelation 191316 NRSV) The night before his death he ldquoprayedrdquo to his Father and called him ldquothe only true Godrdquo and made this petition ldquoFather glorify me in your own presence [Greek beside yourself] with the glory that I hadin your presence [Greek beside you] before the world existedrdquo (John 175 NRSV) (ldquoalongside yourselfrdquo ST Byington) Again God never has to ldquoprayrdquo to anyone Ever

Well then if Jesus Christ expressed this one final ldquowishrdquo in prayer to be ldquoin the presence ofrdquoldquobesiderdquo ldquoalongsiderdquo his Father which he himself called ldquothe only true Godrdquo why should we for the sake of tradition insist with the belief that Jesus ldquomustrdquo somehow be that ldquotruerdquo God the One sitting at the center of Gods throne instead of ldquobesiderdquo God (Mark 1619) Christ did not ask to sit at Gods throne Christ was fully content with the premise of being alongside God And that is what actually happened Mark tells us ldquoSo then the Lord Jesus after he had spoken to them was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of Godrdquo (Mark 1619 NRSV Note Some ancient manuscripts omit this verse) The NIV Study Bible notes the significance of lsquositting at the right hand of Godrsquo ldquoA position of authority second only to Godsrdquo Being in ldquoa position of authority second only to Godsrdquo is something no one should ever say of God for he is always ldquosupremerdquo At no time does God relinquishes his supremacy Someone who holds a position of authority second to God cannot be identical to God Take note too that in this account of Mark chapter 16 or the oneat John chapter 17 there is no mention of a third party of a ldquoGodheadrdquo No ldquoHoly Spiritrdquo is in sight The fact is that the glorified Christ in heaven continues to call his Father ldquomy Godrdquo(Revelation 312)

As ldquoSon of Godrdquo and always lesser and subject to God it is illogical to think Christ would purposely usurp titles and rights that only belonged to lsquohis God and Fatherrsquo (John 1428 Matthew 2023 John 2017 Acts 17) Jesus Christ taught others to only worship the Father God (Matthew 410 John 42324) ldquoAnd we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the worldrdquo (1 John 414) If so the thought that Christ would usethe words ldquoI amrdquo as a title to identify himself as ldquothe true Godrdquo is incongruous Jesus made it clear that he would only seek the glory ldquothat comes from the one who alone is Godrdquo (John850 54 544)

In this Satan controlled world it is not that difficult to get entangled with human taught intricate philosophies which obscure the simple Christian doctrine (John 1231 2 Cor 44) Hence the need for caution at the time of defending popular traditional views which clash with the monotheistic approach of Bible writers

Consequently those who teach that Christ is Almighty God find themselves in conflict with the Scriptural record The submitted list of alternate readings of John 858 shows that there are a considerable number of scholars who not only understand the subject correctly but alsokeenly grasp that whatever Jesus said on the matter has to harmonize with both the context of John chapter 8 and the rest of the Scriptures as well

What is the correct translation of John 858

Is it ldquoI amrdquo ldquoI wasrdquo ldquoI am herdquo or ldquoI have beenrdquo After analyzing the Greek phrase ldquoegō eimirdquo the context and the various possible ways the expression can be translated in English I think it is best to render the Greek with an English present perfect Adding a smallelement such as ldquosincerdquo to the statement as McKay does below satisfies all contextual and grammatical requirements of the passage Doing so does not qualify as ldquointerpolationrdquo

A second choice a simple past tense can perhaps be used in translation where the context allows since it is grammatically correct but it is generally used of activity confined to the past so the message may be distorted Unless that is the simple past is interpreted as ldquoimperfectiverdquo with current relevance How so In support of Jesus deity many frequently cite John11 There in the text a simple past tense ldquowasrdquo is applied to ldquothe Wordrdquo three times in English versions Does that mean ldquothe Wordrdquo is no more or that it was permanentlycut-off from existence at some point Of course not The context of the whole gospel of John shows that Christ is fully pertinent in Christian lives

Scholars choosing a past tense for ldquoeimirdquo (ie ldquoI wasrdquo ldquoI existedrdquo etc) at John 858 may also have in mind what John the Baptist said as a precursor of Jesus Christ ldquoA man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was [ldquoexistedrdquo JB] before merdquo Surely John the Baptist did not mean that Jesus existence was done away with His own words show thatJesus life was very much relevant and would continue to be so Translators have no issue whatsoever in applying a past tense (ldquowasrdquo ldquoexistedrdquo) at John 11 and 130 in their English versions So why would they at John 858 Perhaps because it would mean that they wouldhave to do away with the premise of a ldquodivine titlerdquo in their argumentation of which is claimed clinches Jesus identity with Gods own As shown above Revelation 211 a presentverb a form of ldquoeimirdquo is rendered by some versions with a past tense ldquowasrdquo Obviously Bible translators have no problem in translating some present tense verbs with past tenses or with present perfects But most object to it at John 858 likely for theological reasons

As stated in the beginning of this essay the English ldquopresentrdquo and the Greek ldquopresentrdquo in certain contexts do not correspond exactly in meaning because in Greek ldquotimerdquo is a secondary factor That being the case the choice of English tense does not have to match theGreek conjugation per se to be faithful to the Sacred Text When one considers the specific idiom found in John 858 and the semantic implications of both the Greek and English ldquopresentrdquo one can see that the rendering ldquoI amrdquo though popular does not nearly represent the best translation possible in the English language ldquoContextrdquo often plays a more importantrole in determining the correct translation Overall though it is best to render the Greek expression with an English present perfect since it conveys clearly a more present relevancythan a past tense would

That said John 858 is a good example where a Greek transliteration may not be the best choice to communicate the right message effectively in our times The translation of ldquoI amrdquo has its place in extreme English literal translations which show the basic sense of the Greek such as those Interlinear translations mentioned above Also it can rightfully be used in many Scriptures where the context calls for it as when the sentence structure lacks the Greekldquoidiomrdquo discussed throughout this writing as might be the case with most occurrences of ldquoeimirdquo

Here listed in my opinion are the translations which come closest to the Greek thought presented by the particular ldquoidiomrdquo found in John 858 Dr Kenneth L McKay comes up with the correct translation

1 ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo - Kenneth L McKay A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek (SBG 5 New York Peter Lang 1994) p42

(Kenneth L McKay graduated with honours in Classics (with an interest in the Greek of theNT) from the Universities of Sydney and Cambridge He has taught Greek in universities and theological colleges in Nigeria New Zealand and England Mr McKay retired from the Australian National University in 1987 after teaching there for 26 years)

Other translations below come close to McKays rendering and are thus favored over the traditional rendering which is widely misunderstood

2 ldquoI have existed before Abraham was bornrdquo - A New Translation by James [ Moffatt - DD DLitt Glasgow Oxford 3 ldquoBefore Abraham came into existence I have beenrdquo - New World Translation 4 ldquoBefore Abraham came into being I have existedrdquo - The Documents of the [New Testament G W Wade London 5 ldquoFrom before Abraham was I have been rdquo - The New Testament by George [ R -Noyes DD Boston USA6 ldquoBefore Abraham was born I have already been rdquo - The Unvarnished New [Testament Andy Gaus Boston7 ldquoI existed even before Abraham was bornrdquo - The concise Gospel and the Acts [Logos International Christopher J ed Christianson Plainfield NJ8 ldquoI already was before Abraham was bornrdquo ndash Worldwide English New Testament [ Derby UK ________________________________

COMMENTS

Also compare the following translations

Nytt liv (1907 Norwegian)A Biacuteblia Viva (1981 Portuguese)O Novo Testamento Vivo (1974 Portuguese)Le Livre Nouveau Testament (1980 eacuteditions Farel French)Η Καινή Διαθήκη των Τεσσάρων Καθηγητών (ΚΔΤΚ Greek) (The New Testament of the Four Teachers The translation was made and approved (1921981) by the Holy Summit Church of Greece The English title of the project is The New Testament in Modern Greek Athens Greece) Η Αγία Γραφή Παλαιά και Καινή Διαθήκη (ΝΔΜ Greek) Ελληνική Βιβλική Εταιρία Αθήνα [Athens] 1997 (The Bible Old and New Testament Greek Biblical Company - London 1997) ΚΔΛΖ ΛΧ (Other Greek Versions expressing the same idea as translations on the list)___________________

ldquoI was rdquo Note on 1987 translation from Italian main list l Vangelio di Giovanni (El Evangelio de Juan [ldquoThe Gospel of Johnrdquo] with imprimatur) by J Mateos and J Barreto noted on John 858 (as translated by Teodora Tosatti p 387 Cittadela Editrice 1982) that the temporal relationship expressed by the Greek ldquoprin eimi [BeforeI am]rdquo can be translated into Italian ldquoprimaero [BeforeI was]rdquo (Translation from Italian to English mine)__________________

Comment on 1993 ΟІ ΧΡΙΣΤΙΑΝΙΚΕΣ ΓΡΑΦΕΣ Απόδοση από τη Μειάφράση Νέου Κόσμου which is a modern Greek translation of the New World Translation of the ChristianScriptures Unlike most Bible Versions which are published in only one language or a few atmost the NWT is available in dozens of languages based mainly on their English translationbut obviously taking into account other factors in the process such as the original Bible text the peculiarities of their recipient local languages and their targeted audiences in their respective countries

It is obvious though that other NWT translation editions closely followed the English text of the NWT and at the same time their translation teams had enough latitude to offer their own unique renderings at times expressing in their native languages what they see in in the Inspired Text Having said that it is interesting to see how they approached their translation of John 858 from their English translation back into [modern] Greek

The translation team was acutely aware of the basic sense of ldquoegō eimirdquo as ldquoI amrdquo and how those simple words are misconstrued by religionists to say something more than Jesus intended Taking into account the syntax of John 858 as stated throughout this document the translation team who worked on the modern Greek version faced a few options

First they had the option to go back to ldquoegō eimirdquo using the modern Greek equivalent ldquoΕγώ ειμαιrdquo (I am) as it reads in the Vamvas version which they did not Or they could haveexpressed their NWT English choice of ldquoI have beenrdquo with their modern Greek equivalent of ldquoέχο υπάρξει [I have existed]rdquo Thirdly they could have gone with ldquoI wasrdquo (ldquoεγώ ήμουνrdquo) as some of their French and Italian Bible editions have done in the past or even with ldquo[εγώ] υπήρξα [I existed])rdquo Or they could have provided some other unique rendering It is obvious they wanted to stick closely to the Greek text but given the common misconceptionssurrounding ldquoegō eimai (I am)rdquo in mainstream churches the translation team chose to use ldquoεγώ υπάρχωrdquo (a present indicative form in the Greek) which means basically ldquoI existrdquo but in the presence of an expression of past time in John 858 the sense is ldquoI have existedrdquo Thus ldquoBefore Abraham came into existence I have existedrdquo ( The verb είμαι [ldquoto berdquo] in modern Greek has no forms for the perfect tense It borrows the forms from the verb υπάρχω [ldquoI existrdquo] The Greek and English ldquoperfectsrdquo are not exact equivalents either)

The reader is reminded here as noted earlier that modern Greek keeps up with the Koineacute Greek ldquopresentrdquo idiom A modern Greek grammar Greek A Comprehensive Grammar explains ldquoThe present tense is also used in constructions where English would use the perfect continuous ie where the verb expresses a continuous state or habitual event that

has lasted since a certain point in the past and is continuing up to (and including) the presentrdquo The authors provide two examples where a present verb is used with a past time indicator and where they translate using an English perfect as explained ldquoI have been living[Μένω] in this house for three years nowrdquo And ldquoI have been reading [Διαβάζω] this newspaper since 1984rdquo (Greek A Comprehensive Grammar by David Holton Peter Mackridge amp Irene Philippaki-Warburton Revised by Vassilios Spyropoulos p 294 Second edition 2012)

Ten years after the NWT-Greek Edition was released another modern Greek translation was published with the following rendering at John 858 ldquoΣας βεβαιώνω πως πριν να γεννηθεί οΑβραάμ εγώ υπάρχωrdquo which in English would be ldquoI assure you that I have existed since before Abraham was bornrdquo (Literally ldquoI assure you that before could be born the AbrahamI exist [not ldquoΕγώ ειμαιrdquo]rdquo The Holy Bible in Todays Greek Version 2003 Greek Bible Society Interestingly the original English version of 1976 had ldquoI Amrdquo) Also a Spanish Bible conveys a similar thought ldquoYo existo desde antes que existiera Abrahamrdquo [Translation ldquo I exist since before Abraham existedrdquo] (La Biblia - Versioacuten Popular 2nd edition Sociedades Biacuteblicas Unidas 1983)

_________________________________________________________

The Clear Word The translators quoted in this article represent various religious faiths some are Catholic some are Protestant Others are Unitarians Jehovahs Witnesses Jewish Adventists etc and they represent countries the world over One of these translators is a Seventh-Day Adventist who worked on The Clear Word Jack J Blanco ThD As a Seventh-Day Adventist who supports the Trinity doctrine Blanco translated verses to make Jesus ldquoequalrdquo to God in every way

He renders John 11 ldquoHe is the Word of God and is equal with Godrdquo He shows Jesus at Philippians 25-7 as ldquoequal with Godrdquo and describes him as lsquoacting the part of a servantrsquo At John 1428 he completely omits the reference that lsquothe Father is greaterrsquo than Christ But here at John 858 in answer to the question the priests and leaders asked concerning Abraham lsquoseeingrsquo his day Jesus answered according to Dr Blanco ldquoBecause I existed before Abraham was even bornrdquo Thus Dr Blanco makes no connection as others do that Christ is the ldquoI amrdquo of Exodus 314 which according to some would indicate that Jesus is the Jehovah of the Old Testament What he sees in this account is that Jesus already lsquoexisted before Abraham didrsquo and thus Abraham was able to lsquoseersquo his day (John 856) To this we must add another likely element included in Jesus response to the Jews as wellone of simple identification as ldquothe Christ [Messiah]rdquo and ldquoSon of manrdquo Why is it then that manywho support the Trinity doctrine find it hard to understand Jesus statement correctly at John 858 Could it be that they are letting non-Scriptural influence and perhaps the weight of themajority view dictate their understanding of this Scripture

For a consideration of other subjects by the same author check below

For a discussion of Acts 286 Whose blood

httpwwwscribdcomdoc231244155Acts-20-28-Whose-blood

For a discussion of Colossians 116 (ldquoall other thingsrdquo) see

httpwwwscribdcomdoc205841269Colossians-1-16-Is-the-expression-all-other-things-a-proper-rendition

For a consideration on the subject of the Trinity click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc160286056Does-the-Trinity-ever-make-sense

For a full consideration of John 11 click the following link httpwwwscribdcomdoc34916458The-correct-translation-of-John-1-1

For a brief consideration of John 11 with additional citations click here httpwwwscribdcomdoc50330864John-1-1-List-of-Alternate-Readings

Did the NW translators know any Greek click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc48234022Did-the-New-World-Translation-Committee-Know-Greek

For a consideration of John 173 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc57772552John-17-3-E28098Taking-in-knowledge-of-E28099-God-and-Jesus

For a consideration of 1 Timothy 316 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc76927834Was-God-manifested-in-the-flesh-1-Timothy-3-16

For a consideration of Exodus 225 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc38676458Exodus-2-25-And-God-took-notice-Does-God- care-about-us

For a consideration of John 114 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc35002730John-1-14-Jesus-full-of-grace

For a consideration of Translation Differences-Questions and Answershttpwwwscribdcomdoc59484457Translation-Differences-Questions-and-Answers

In Spanish

Para una consideracioacuten de otros temas vea los siguientes enlaces

Para una consideracioacuten de Colosenses 116 ldquotodas las otras cosasrdquo vea

httpwwwscribdcomdoc209601066Colosenses-1-16-C2BFEs-la-traduccion-E2809Ctodas-las-otras-cosasE2809D-apropiada

Para una consideracioacuten de ldquoiquestAcaso tiene sentido la Trinidadrdquo

httpwwwscribdcomdoc173779117C2BFAcaso-tiene-sentido-la-Trinidad

Para un consideracioacuten de Juan 11 vea el siguiente enlace

httpwwwscribdcomdoc35899788Traduccion-correcta-de-Juan-1-1-Lista-de- lecturas-alternativas

Para el tema iquestSabiacutean griego los traductores de la TNM vea el siguiente enlace

httpwwwscribdcomdoc51623596C2BFSabia-griego-el-Comite-de-la-Traduccion-del-Nuevo-Mundo

ldquoand knew how long he had been illrdquo (Living Bible)ldquoand knew he had already been there a long timerdquo (HCSB)ldquoand he knew that the man had been sick for such a long timerdquo (TEV)ldquoand knew that he had been in this state a long timerdquo (Confraternity Version)ldquoand finding that he had had a long time of itrdquo (S T Byington) ldquoand knew that he had been sick for a long timerdquo (Jay E Adams)ldquoand he knew that he had been waiting for a long timerdquo (George M Lamsa Peshitta) ldquoand knew that he had been now a long timerdquo (Rheims New Testament)

ldquoand knowing that he was [in that state] now a great length of timerdquo (J N Darby Translation Brackets his)

Once again we see translators having to use mostly perfective forms (ldquohad beenrdquo ldquohad hadrdquopast perfects) and one with a simple past ldquowasrdquo even though they are translating a present tense verb ldquohe is havingrdquo This shows that translators adapt their renderings whenever is necessary to convey the right meaning into the target language It is thus possible to render ldquoeimirdquo at John 858 with a form other than a present tense such as a present perfect Those who say that it can not be done or should not be done just need to look again at the evidenceobjectively

6th Example (John 1527 Wescott amp Hort)

ὅτι ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς μετʼ ἐμοῦ ἐστέ ndash Greek that from beginning with me you are

These words spoken by Jesus evidently refers to the beginning of his ministry when he chosehis closest disciples They were eyewitnesses of all the things God did through Christ duringhis ministry (Acts 121)

ldquobecause ye have been with me from the beginningrdquo (KJV) ldquobecause you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (NAB)ldquofor you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (Christian Community Bible)ldquobecause you are the men who have been with me from the very beginningrdquo (Heinz Wldquobecause you have been with me from the firstrdquo (New English Bible) [ Cassirer)ldquobecause you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (Godacutes Word Translation) ldquofor you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (NIV)ldquobecause you have been with me from the firstrdquo (Weymouth New Testament)ldquobecause you have been with me from the beginningrdquo (NRSV)ldquoyou that have been with me from the beginningrdquo (The Four Gospels EV Rieu)ldquobecause youacuteve been with Me from the beginning of My ministryrdquo (The Clear Word)ldquofor you have been with me from the firstrdquo (J B Phillips Modern English)ldquobecause you have been with Me from the beginningrdquo (HCSB) ldquothat you were with me from the startrdquo (21st Century New Testament)ldquofor you were with Me from the beginningrdquo (New Berkeley Version Revised Edition)

ldquobecause you were with me from the beginningrdquo (Mark Heber Miller)ldquobecause you were with me from the very beginningrdquo (SEB)

This scripture with the plural form of ldquoeimirdquo (este) is very similar to John 858 Again within its structure there is an expression of past time and a verb in the present indicative form (este) just as there is in John 858 A Grammar of New Testament Greek says ldquoThe reader may be reminded of one idiom which comes out of the linear idea the use of words like πάλαι [palai ldquolong agordquo] with the present in a sense best expressed by our perfect Thus in 2 Co 1219 lsquohave you been thinking all this timersquo or Jn 1527 lsquoyou have been with me from the beginning [ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς]rsquo hellip The durative present in such cases gathers up past and present time into one phraserdquo (A Grammar of New Testament Greek Vol 1 Prolegomena by JH Moulton p 119) As previously noted this Grammar specifically refers to John 858 as an example of this idiom

And here in John 1527 there is a connection of Jesus disciples [creatures as they are] that ldquowererdquo with him ldquofrom the beginningrdquo Obviously Jesus was making no reference to his disciples sharing ldquoeternityrdquo with him The disciples all had a beginning The logical conclusion is that Jesus was simply saying to them lsquoYou have been with me from the start of my ministryrsquo Hence there is no need to read ldquoeternityrdquo into the expression ldquoI amrdquo anymore that we should read ldquoeternityrdquo from Jesus words at John 1527 lsquoYou are with me from the beginningrsquo Neither grammar nor the context justifies reading more into these Scriptures than what they actually say

In fact the six (6) instances cited above (Genesis 3138 LXX 1 John 38 2 Cor 1219 Luke 248 John 56 John 1527) and John 858 as well all have an expression of past time or an extent of time with past implications (ldquoThese twenty yearsrdquo ldquoLong agordquo ldquoafter three daysrdquo Lk 246 ldquomuch already timerdquo ldquofrom [the] beginningrdquo ldquoBeforerdquo etc) AND present verbs in their sentences or nearby within the context and are commonly rendered with present perfect (some with past perfects) or simple past (or past progressive) forms in English translations If we apply this pattern to the translation of John 858 it would mean that renderings such as ldquoI have beenrdquo (present perfect) and ldquoI wasrdquo (simple past) are not only acceptable in translation but actually more ldquosuitablerdquo in application Can this really be done Not only can it be done it makes for a ldquobetterrdquo English translation

In regards to Jesus John 858 simply tells us that Jesus lsquowas alive before Abraham was bornrsquo (SEB) and that his existence continued up to the moment of his speaking to them Just as it is not proper English to say ldquoFor three days we are seeking yourdquo (Greek literal reading of Luke 248) or ldquobecause from the beginning with me you arerdquo (John 1527) it is no less proper English to say in John 858 ldquoBefore Abraham was born I amrdquo These readings should only appear in extremely literal interlinear translations which basically render the Greek word-by-word and not in standard idiomatic English translations Let me illustrate If a man advanced in age for example had his work history and experience questioned by co-workers in comparison to his younger son and employee Abe would he say in reply ldquoBefore my son Abe was born I am [the one fit for the job]rdquo No that does not sound right In English he could say it in various ways

ldquoI have been an experienced worker since before my son Abe was bornrdquo ldquoI have been what I am since before my son Abe was bornrdquo ldquoI was fit to work and fully active before my son Abe was ever bornrdquo ldquoI was already experienced in many jobs before Abe ever came to berdquo ldquoI have been a master worker way before my son Abe came to liferdquo ldquoBefore Abe was born I already was life and job experiencedrdquo etc

The point is that in English normally we include a present perfect tense whenever there is a reference to the past extending to the present or a past tense of some form whenever we go back in time The same with John 858 There is no justification in English to insist using a present verb form (which is not equal to the Greek present when combined with a past expression) in an unwarranted attempt to convey ldquoeternityrdquo as ldquopaddingrdquo to the Trinity doctrine a doctrine adopted AFTER the Christian era Worse it is disingenuous to accuse other translators (who have chosen to render ldquoegō eimirdquo at John 858 with an English present perfect or past tense) of scholastic dishonesty when the very same translations honored by these detractors do so in other places where the ldquodeityrdquo of Christ is not in play asshown in the samples provided above

An example of this double standard can be seen as well when scholars such as Dr Julius Mantey harshly criticizes the NWT for the rendering ldquoI have beenrdquo at John 858 but keeps quiet when other translators do similarly and even states or pretends that no other reputable translator would ever translate it that way He dared not criticize his former Greek teacher Charles B Williams who produced his own Bible translation Dr Mantey once wrote the following of Dr Williams translation ldquoWilliams translation considering all the factors is the most accurate and illuminating translation in the English languagerdquo And how does this ldquomost accurate translationrdquo render John 858 As follows ldquoI existed before Abraham was bornrdquo Here Dr Williams known for his Greek command used a simple past tense (ldquoI existedrdquo) as translation for the Greek present Julius Mantey certainly did not find Williams version of John 858 a ldquoshocking translationrdquo ldquoI existedrdquo is quite different from the translation Dr Mantey so passionately defended (ldquoI amrdquo)

When Dr Mantey talks about the NWT he says the rendering ldquoI have beenrdquo at John 858 cannot be justified and calls it ldquodishonestrdquo That rule does not apply to Williams translation does it Williams did not translate John 858 in the same way Mantey would have liked (ldquoI amrdquo) Not only that the Grammar itself that Dr Mantey co-authored with Dr Dana A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament states under ldquoThe Progressive Presentrdquo (called ldquoExtension from Pastrdquo by McKay) ldquoSometimes the progressive present is retroactivein its application denoting that which has begun in the past and continues into the present For the want of a better name we may call it the present of duration This use is generally associated with an adverb of time and may best be rendered by the English perfect ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς μετʼ ἐμοῦ ἐστέ Ye have been with me from the beginning Jn 1527 See also Lk137 2 Cor 129 [19]rdquo (Pages 182-83 Emphasis added)

Even though Julius Mantey has stated when referring to the NWT that ldquoI have beenrdquo is not a proper translation and even ldquodishonestrdquo at John 858 he clearly states in his Grammar (of

Scriptures with similar syntax to John 858) ldquoThis use is generally associated with an adverb of time and may best be rendered by the English perfect [such as ldquoI have beenrdquo which in fact is associated with an adverb of time in John 858]rdquo A likely reason for Dana ampManteys strong reluctance for not including John 858 as an example of the idiom discussed on page 183 may have to do with the fact that as ldquotrinitariansrdquo they oppose the idea of Jesus existence having lsquobegunrsquo in the past even though John 858 perfectly fits with the ldquoProgressive Presentrdquo idiom being discussed in their Grammar as acknowledged by other grammarians Hence their objection is truly a ldquotheologicalrdquo one rather than Greek grammaritself arguing in their favor as Mantey and some others have implied since a Greek present or an English perfect does not demand ldquoeternityrdquo at all from the subject

Consequently many religious individuals who focus solely on the basic meaning (of ldquoegō eimirdquo as ldquoI amrdquo) out of the context of the particular ldquoidiomrdquo used at John 858 end up missing the thrust of Jesus words and fall prey to misleading interpretations Doctor Kenneth L McKay taking into account all of these issues comes up with this excellent translation for John 858 ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo (A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek SBG 5 New York Peter Lang 1994 p42) If we objectively consider the material above we will not insist in connecting Jesus at John 858 with the God Jehovah of Exodus 314 (which many attempt to do but cannot be sustained) Instead we will focus on the simple message conveyed by Jesus words at John 858 which is in harmony with the totality of Scripture ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo (McKay) The rendering ldquoI have been in existencerdquo by itself does not rule out either the concept of ldquoeternityrdquo or the ldquocreationrdquo of Jesus Christ A Committee of Bible translators came up with the following translation which may not be the best choice but considering the issues involved is better than the traditional rendering of ldquoI amrdquo ldquoI was alive before Abraham was bornrdquo (The New Testament in Plain English)

(The following scholars are members of the Bible Translation Committee of The New Testament in Plain English which approved this last reading ldquoI was aliverdquo instead of ldquoI amrdquo(Dr Stanley L Morris chairman FW Gingrich Ph D a renown Greek lexicographer Jack P Lewis Ph D CH Accord Th D Clyde M Woods Ph D ST Kan Ph D Gary T Burke Ph D Milo Hadwin D Min)

I submit their names and their credentials here as an example because it is often asserted vigorously that no intelligent or highly qualified scholar would ever produce a translation other than ldquoI amrdquo As noted above and as the list of alternate readings (at the end of this essay) of John 858 shows many done by highly qualified people this is simply not true Usually those making statements of that sort are doing so based on emotional and theological not philological reasons Furthermore by not disclosing other valid viewpoints or by dismissing how other qualified Bible translators deal with this scripture they are undermining their own credibility as well

At this time you are welcome to briefly go over the list of Alternate Readings to John 858 at

the end before moving on to the second part of this essay

_____________________________

Should we ignore the evidence of all those translations listed at the end that differ in John 858 from the traditional versions What then are all these translators seeing at John 858 that moved them to render this text differently They surely must be aware of the resistance they would encounter by translating it by the various forms they used Still they must have had the firm conviction that both the Greek text and the context supports their understanding of this scripture They likely see a Jesus making no identity connection with his Father Godbut rather see a Jesus simply expressing his indefinite existence with no suggestion of eternity in focus Neither is Jesus stating here that he is the God of Old Testament times To understand it that way would be to read into the text more than what it says Taking some clues from the context of the chapter some scholars additionally see Jesus insinuating his ldquomessiahshiprdquo as if saying ldquoI am he [the Messiah]rdquo This is very likely In fact The LivingBible renders John 824 thus ldquoThat is why I said that you will die in your sins for unless you believe that I am the Messiah the Son of God [ἐγώ εἰμι] you will die in your sinsrdquo

Is ldquoegō eimirdquo a title or another name of God

The use of ldquoeimirdquo at John 858 is frequently used as a ldquoproof textrdquo of Jesus deity A noted Trinitarian scholar AT Robertson a Baptist even refers to ldquoegō eimirdquo as ldquothe absolute phrase used of Godrdquo likely indicating the verb conveys ldquotimeless beingrdquo an implication that ldquoeimirdquo here does not require anything else to complete the meaning of the phrase thus conveying ldquoeternal existencerdquo as well as being an actual name for God Some individuals have given plenty of publicity to Robertsons statement as absolute truth But his statement is not ldquotruthrdquo at all It is faulty interpretation which many people have fallen prey to Grammar and theology do not always make the best mix True Robertsons credentials as a scholar are impressive nevertheless credentials does not truth make Besides some other equally bright scholars disagree with him Lets illustrate the folly of those advocating a divine title at John 858 by way of addition (Or substitution if you will) as some suggest

ldquoBefore Abraham was born I am Eternalrdquo ldquoBefore Abraham was born I am Jehovahrdquo ldquoBefore Abraham was born I am eternally Godrdquo

First of all the above hypothetical translations are just as ungrammatical as the simple ldquoI amrdquo reading of most versions An English present tense cannot start before a definite point in the past This can be seen in the following two examples

1 ldquoBefore the US Iraq war I am a soldierrdquo 2 ldquoThree journalists are kidnapped in Nepal since the start of 2007rdquo

What is the correct way to express these statements in English Analyze it for a second and

provide an answer if you will

Notably if ldquoeimirdquo was used to convey eternal existence what is the point of using an expression of past time at all in the clause Moreover the context of previous verses (vv 48-57) clearly indicates that Jesus is speaking of God as a separate entity See below

49 ldquobut I honor my Father and you dishonor merdquo 50 ldquoI am not seeking glory for myself but there is one who seeks it and he is the

judgerdquo54 ldquoIf I glorify myself my glory means nothing My Father whom you claim as your

God is the one who glorifies me 55 ldquoThough you do not know him I know him If I said I did not I would be a liar like you but I do know him and obey his wordrdquo Thus if Jesus meant he himself was the ldquoJehovahrdquo of the Old Testament as Trinitarians claim what would be the rationale behind Jesus directing all distinction and glory to lsquothe Father Godrsquo as a distinct individual as he did in the previous verses and then a few words later abruptly change his argumentation by claiming he is that very same One who lsquoreceives obedience from his own wordrsquo lsquoseeking his own honor and gloryrsquo because he himself is ldquoGodrdquo Confusing is it not To accept this abrupt change of character on Jesus part would be not ldquoa mysteryrdquo but flat out ldquoa deceptionrdquo of big proportions since Jesus himself warned against pretending to be one thing and acting as another (Matthew 62-5 2313-36)

Are we are supposed against all logic to accept these ldquotrinitarianrdquo assumptions instead of a simple alternative which really answers the Jews question about lsquohow could Abraham ldquoseerdquoJesus day if he was not yet 50 years oldrsquo (ldquoI have been in existence since Abraham was bornrdquo)

The obsession with the simple words ldquoI amrdquo have led to many faulty assumptions ldquoI amrdquo issuch a common expression in our language even to this day that words such as ldquoegoismrdquo ldquoegotismrdquo etc (derived from the Greek ldquoegordquo) are considered common words in English dictionaries Everyone uses the phrase ldquoI amrdquo at times Think of any big corporation or powerful organization of your choice for a moment Would you conclude that the two most powerful individuals of this one prestigious organization must be identical in every way solely because they are heard equally saying to others in their common speech ldquoI am thisrdquoor ldquoI am thatrdquo etc

In Bible times humans too used common pronouns The verb eimi (ldquoI amrdquo) itself or forms of it appears more than two thousand times (2000x) in the New Testament alone Additionally the word ldquoegōrdquo appears over seventeen hundred times (1700x) in the NT And those numbers do not include the Septuagint totals Do all occurrences of the word then imply ldquodivinityrdquo in each case Of course not It may be more significant when God or Christ use the expression because of who they are but does it really mean that both God and Christ share the same identity Or that everyone who uses the phrase ldquoI amrdquo does so with divine pretensions Does it really mean that everyone using the phrase are ldquoequalrdquo The

answer is obvious is it not

Lets bear in mind that when God sent Jesus Christ as His representative to a most crucial assignment multiple biblical prophecies were pointing to Christ as the promised Messiah that would free mankind from its moribund condition It is logical then that when the time came for Jesus Christ to show up on earth he would somehow communicate to others that ldquoherdquo and not some other human claiming to be the Messiah was Gods instrument in bringing everlasting relief to human misery Hence he could rightly say any or all of the following ldquoI am (this)rdquo ldquoI am (that)rdquo ldquoI am he [the promised Messiah]rdquo or ldquoI am Gods Sonrdquo Should we expect anything less

The fact is that the words ldquoI amrdquo are not exclusive to God and Christ It should be noted that a man who was born ldquoblindrdquo also used the same expression (John 99) The Greek here says ldquoekeinos elegen hoti Egō eimirdquo (ldquoThat one kept saying that I amrdquo) AT Robertson cites John 99 as one of five parallels to the use of egō eimi in John 858 (Word Pictures in the New Testament Vol V p 159) The phrase here comes at the end of the clause with no explicit predicate James White who upholds the traditional reading admits ldquoThis last instance [John 99] is similar to the sayings as Jesus utters them in that the phrase comes at the end of the clause and looks elsewhere for its predicaterdquo The same could be said of John 1527 Some argue that ldquoeimirdquo in John 858 is ldquoabsoluterdquo but do not do so with John 99 or John 1527 Theology may be a factor in this Previously we saw how Jacob a man according to the Septuagint used the words ldquoegō eimirdquo Other instances in Scripture of creatures using those words would not prove they were part of a ldquoGodheadrdquo Context then ultimately dictates how ldquoeimirdquo should be translated According to John when Jesus was pressed he only claimed to have been alive way before Abraham was born and that he simply was ldquothe Christrdquo ldquothe Son of Manrdquo and ldquothe Son of Godrdquo

There is something else to keep in mind in regards to the meaning of ldquoeimirdquo And it is what grammarian Stanley Porter indicated ldquoSometimes the verb [eimi] is used on its own as a verb of existence Perhaps the best-known example of this is the following John 858rdquo (Fundamentals of New Testament Greek by Stanley E Porter section 753 72) AT Robertson adds ldquoThe verb εἰμί [eimi] hellip Sometimes it does express existence as a predicatelike any other verb as in ἐγὼ εἰμί [egō eimi] (Jo 858) and ἡ θάλασσα οὐκ ἔστιν ἔτι [hē thalassa ouk estin eti = ldquothe sea not is yetrdquo] (Rev 211) Cf Mt 2330rdquo (A Grammar of theGreek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research Nashville Tenn 1934 p 394)

What does this mean The examples mentioned by Robertson in addition to John 858 give us an idea of what this implies It is so strange that the two examples Robertson provided forcomparison with John 858 seems to contradict his ldquotimeless beingrdquo view on ldquoeimirdquo He cited a portion of Revelation 211 where the Greek literally says ldquoAnd the sea not is yetrdquo In other words ldquoThe sea does not exist any morerdquo Amplified Bible ldquoThere no longer existed any seardquo Curiously various versions render the present verb ldquoisrdquo (a form of ldquoeimirdquo) with an imperfect ldquowasrdquo (Cf KJV NIV NAB NRSV) Obviously ldquothe seardquo in this vision is [was] not ldquoeternalrdquo

And in Matthew 2330 the other text provided by Robertson in his comparison with John 858 the Greek word-for-word says ldquoIf we were in the days of the fathers of usrdquo which inmodern English would be ldquoIf we had lived in the days of our forefathersrdquo Other versions ldquoIf we had beenrdquo (Rheims NT) ldquoIf we had been livingrdquo (NASB) ldquoIf we had been existing in the days of our fathersrdquo (Jonathan Mitchell NT) The full NIV text reads ldquoAnd you say lsquoIf we had lived in the days of our ancestors we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophetsrsquo rdquo

It is clear from this comparison that the words of Matthew 2330 ldquoIf we wererdquo (a form of ldquoeimirdquo) in the text is used as an equivalent for ldquoliferdquo or ldquoexistencerdquo In the heavenly vision of Rev 211 lsquothe sea ceased to existrsquo And the generation of people which Jesus spoke about and their ancestors all died ceased to exist If we apply these two examples to John 858 given by Robertson with the meaning either of life or existence for ldquoeimirdquo then it wouldbe equally acceptable to translate ldquoI amrdquo as ldquoI existrdquo or ldquoI liverdquo Many translators reflect this very same understanding as the submitted list of alternate readings of John 858 show ldquoI existrdquo or ldquoI existed even before Abraham was bornrdquo Or ldquoI was alive before Abraham was bornrdquo (The Simple English Bible)

Although some may not see much semantic difference between Jesus saying ldquoI amrdquo or ldquoI existrdquo the two expressions communicate something very different to many readers ldquoI amrdquo is generally associated by Trinitarians as a title used by God or as another name for God Onthe other hand ldquoI existrdquo simply conveys ldquoliferdquo or ldquoexistence Barnabas Lindars points out that ldquoegō eimirdquo in John 858 ldquocannot be regarded as a title because it requires the meaning lsquoI am in existencersquordquo (ldquoThe Son of Man in Johannine Christologyrdquo in Christ and the Spirit in the New Testament In Honour of Charles Francis Digby Moule eds B Lindars and S Smalley Cambridge Cambridge University Press 1973) (Since an English present tense cannot start before a definite point in the past this would mean that we can incorporate Lindars valid observation and translate it into contemporary English like this ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo exactly as Dr McKay proposed)

Some in their eagerness to equate Christ with God accuse translators who render ldquoegō eimirdquo in John 858 with renderings other than ldquoI amrdquo pointing to all occurrences of this expression in the New Testament or in Johns Gospel where allegedly these translators do not follow the same ldquorulerdquo when translating ldquoegō eimirdquo in John 858 as they do elsewhere where they translate it with a present indicative form What they dont tell you or fail to understand is that in John 858 ldquoegō eimirdquo without a predicate AND with an expression of time with past implications in its sentence structure provides an ldquoidiomrdquo which is quite different from those other instances of ldquoeimirdquo Thats right an idiom (where present and past is combined) found equally at home in classical biblical and modern Greek which many translators convey into our language with the English present perfect at various places Consequently one cannot merely go by how the phrase ldquoegō eimirdquo is used elsewhere in the NT without taking into account the fact that John 858 displays an ldquoidiomrdquo in its structure Not doing so would be dishonest John the Baptist had said of Christ in John 130 ldquoA man is coming after me who ranks before me because he existed [Lit was] before merdquo (JB)

John 858 is in harmony with those words Furthermore some attempt to use the reading of Psalm 902 in the Septuagint as ldquoevidencerdquo that John 858 is rendered correctly in the popular versions But a closer analysis of this verse shows notable differences between the two verses making such comparison untenable With good reason a considerable number ofscholars have chosen to break from tradition in their rendering of John 858

If critics of alternate readings of John 858 are not candid enough to admit some of the very issues mentioned here and hide the fact that many scholars do hold a different interpretation and no less academic at that should we consider their diatribes of any worthy import It is ldquowishful thinkingrdquo for someone to believe that John 858 is directly connected to Exodus 314 rather than any real evidence (which is lacking) confirming their eager interpretations Remember even Dr James White a well known Trinitarian advocate admitted ldquothat an immediate and unqualified jump from the ego eimi of John 858 to Exodus 314 is unwiserdquo

Besides a theological tendency can be seen when they focus as some do on undermining the reputation of one Bible translation (NWT) when there are actually numerous versions from different religions dealing with the same controversial Scriptures in a similar manner This is very much like politicians who ignore the failings of their own party but are quick to lsquodemonizersquo their opponents (Matthew 73)

Is the Kingdom Interlinear ldquoproofrdquo the NWT is wrong at John 858

A criticism has been made of a Watchtower Society publication (The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures ldquoKITrdquo) which contains the Greek text and underneath it a word-by-word translation in English and on the right side of the page the modern New World Translation Well at John 858 this publication renders the Greek phrase being discussed here egō eimi word-for-word as ldquoI amrdquo and in the right column the NWT shows the reading ldquoI have beenrdquo This difference have led some to severely criticize the NW translators of ldquoincompetencerdquo ldquoinconsistencyrdquo and even of ldquodishonestyrdquo The critics say something like this ldquoThey have backed themselves into a corner where they cant escape their mishandling of the Greek textrdquo or something of that sort Amazingly these critics in their condemnations hardly ever mention the dozens of translators who translate the same way or similarly to the NWT as the submitted list shows So much for honesty

Those who engage in such tactics are not being forthcoming Why say that Besides dismissing how other translators deal with John 858 they also distort known facts for the WT Society have made it clear that the publication of this Greek Bible is to help the Bible student determine the basic sense of the Greek and have stated that the translation on the right column (the NWT) is a modern way of expressing the thoughts transmitted by the Greek text There are many factors to consider when using such publications

Even other interlinear publications warn of seeming discrepancies For instance The Zondervan Parallel New Testament in Greek and English says in its Foreword ldquo[I]t is a good thing to bear in mind that you cannot always either give an English equivalent for a Greek word or expression or even always render the same Greek verb word by the same

English onerdquo Another interlinear the New Greek-English Interlinear New Testament by Brown and Comfort and edited by J D Douglas explains ldquoIt is difficult to translate one language into another on a word-for-word basis because each language has its own syntax grammatical constructions and idioms that are difficultmdashif not impossiblemdashto replicate literally in another languagerdquo (Emphasis added) This statement is so true of the text in discussion (John 858) in regards to its syntax and particular idiom Often critics of the NWT hide this fact Why Is it religious bias at work

I will give the reader a few examples of an available interlinear translation which has the Greek main text and a literal sublinear translation below the Greek by Professor Paul R McReynolds and on the right column for comparison the reader can study the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) a popular translation in academia Observe how the two can differ

McReynolds Mat 21 ldquomagiciansrdquo NRSV ldquowise menrdquo John 118 ldquoonly born Godrdquo ldquoGod the only Sonrdquo Mat 243 ldquosign of the your presencerdquo ldquothe sign of your comingrdquo Mathew 522 ldquothe gehenna of the firerdquo ldquothe hell of firerdquo John 1319 ldquoI amrdquo ldquoI am herdquo John 149 ldquoI amrdquo ldquoHave I beenrdquo John 1527 ldquoyou arerdquo ldquoyou have beenrdquo 2 Peter 24 ldquobeing sent to Tartarusrdquo ldquobut cast them into hellrdquo Luke 1113 ldquowill give spirit holy tordquo ldquowillgive the Holy Spirit tordquo John 2022 ldquotake spirit holyrdquo ldquoReceive the Holy Spiritrdquo Acts 24 ldquofilled all of spirit holyrdquo ldquofilled with the Holy Spiritrdquo

( Paul R McReynolds is professor of Greek and New Testament at Pacific Christian College in Fullerton California USA He also contributed to the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia)

Some of the readings from the right column above (NRSV) are acceptable others are not See if you can detect in the right column above those translation renderings with a theological tendency that deviate from the literal readings from the left column McReynoldson the left does an excellent job of transmitting the Greek sense Even the most popular Bible versions do not adhere consistently to the base texts The NRSV and a host of other Bible versions add their own religious interpretation throughout Scripture just as much as the NWT if not more but hardly anyone complains of this transformation of Scriptures eventhough it leads to error Why Simply because the NRSV represents more of a ldquomajorityrdquo view than the NWT does But in truth majority or minority views do not correspond equallyto ldquoaccuraterdquo or ldquoinaccuraterdquo results

In the text discussed the KIT can appropriately show the basic sense rendering of ldquoI amrdquo for the Greek ldquoegō eimirdquo in the left column and alternately show the reading ldquoI have beenrdquo in the right column as a contemporary way of expressing in English the particular Greek clause with its ldquoidiomrdquo in John 858 as explained throughout this article a rendering which has

scholarship support When the Greek ldquoegō eimirdquo appears in an idiom-less structure it can rightfully be translated as ldquoI amrdquo as most versions do including the NWT Hence there is no contradiction between the two translations

Dr McKay argues that Jesus response in John 858 ldquowould be most naturally translated lsquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrsquo if it were not for the obsession with the simple words lsquoI amrsquo rdquo (Kenneth L McKay ldquolsquoI amrsquo in Johns Gospelrdquo Expository Times 1996 p 302) I take the author as saying that ldquoI have been in existencerdquo for ldquoeimirdquo is a better translation than ldquoI amrdquo but the [religious] obsession for the simple words ldquoI amrdquo in their quest to elevate Christ to Gods level does not allow people to see that The thing is that Christ lsquoalways pleased the Fatherrsquo and was fully satisfied with being lsquolesserrsquo than him (John 829 1029 1428 177813) Why not accept him as he is

Hence it is poor scholarship to forward the idea that an entity must be God Almighty himselfby the sole fact of using a divine sounding phrase when other Bible individuals are found using the same expression in Scripture The ldquocontextrdquo is the determining factor Not only must we take into account the context surrounding a chapter or book of the Bible but also what the whole Bible teaches on a given person or subject

What does the Bible teach about Jesus

That Christ ldquowas in the beginning with Godrdquo (John 12) At the announcement of his birth on earth the angel Gabriel told Mary that she will give birth to someone ldquogreatrdquo and ldquoholyrdquo and that one will be called ldquoSon of the Most Highrdquo and ldquoSon of Godrdquo (Luke 132 35) Trinitarians may claim that ldquoSon of Godrdquo is equivalent in meaning to ldquoGodrdquo It is a claim with no foundation If there was any truth to the claim then the ldquoHoly Spiritrdquo would also be called Son of God But no The fact is that other living creatures are called ldquosons of Godrdquo (Job 21) Never is ldquoGodrdquo or ldquoholy spiritrdquo ever called ldquoSon of Godrdquo in Scripture Only Jesus Christ is called ldquothe Son of Godrdquo with the article Why

By Christ lsquobecoming obedient [to God] until deathrsquo during the course of his earthly life lsquoGod highly exalted Him and graciously gave him a name which is above every other name that at the name of Jesus every knee should bendto the credit of God the Fatherrsquo (Hebrews58 Philippians 28-11 21st Century New Testament)

ldquo[Christ] has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God with angels authorities and powers made subject to himrdquo (1 Peter 322 NRSV) Still in heaven Christ receives knowledge information revelation from God and transmits it to other creatures (Revelation11) Though the glorified Christ is described as ldquoKing of kingsrdquo and ldquoLord of lordsrdquo he is specifically called ldquoThe Word of Godrdquo (Revelation 191316 NRSV) The night before his death he ldquoprayedrdquo to his Father and called him ldquothe only true Godrdquo and made this petition ldquoFather glorify me in your own presence [Greek beside yourself] with the glory that I hadin your presence [Greek beside you] before the world existedrdquo (John 175 NRSV) (ldquoalongside yourselfrdquo ST Byington) Again God never has to ldquoprayrdquo to anyone Ever

Well then if Jesus Christ expressed this one final ldquowishrdquo in prayer to be ldquoin the presence ofrdquoldquobesiderdquo ldquoalongsiderdquo his Father which he himself called ldquothe only true Godrdquo why should we for the sake of tradition insist with the belief that Jesus ldquomustrdquo somehow be that ldquotruerdquo God the One sitting at the center of Gods throne instead of ldquobesiderdquo God (Mark 1619) Christ did not ask to sit at Gods throne Christ was fully content with the premise of being alongside God And that is what actually happened Mark tells us ldquoSo then the Lord Jesus after he had spoken to them was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of Godrdquo (Mark 1619 NRSV Note Some ancient manuscripts omit this verse) The NIV Study Bible notes the significance of lsquositting at the right hand of Godrsquo ldquoA position of authority second only to Godsrdquo Being in ldquoa position of authority second only to Godsrdquo is something no one should ever say of God for he is always ldquosupremerdquo At no time does God relinquishes his supremacy Someone who holds a position of authority second to God cannot be identical to God Take note too that in this account of Mark chapter 16 or the oneat John chapter 17 there is no mention of a third party of a ldquoGodheadrdquo No ldquoHoly Spiritrdquo is in sight The fact is that the glorified Christ in heaven continues to call his Father ldquomy Godrdquo(Revelation 312)

As ldquoSon of Godrdquo and always lesser and subject to God it is illogical to think Christ would purposely usurp titles and rights that only belonged to lsquohis God and Fatherrsquo (John 1428 Matthew 2023 John 2017 Acts 17) Jesus Christ taught others to only worship the Father God (Matthew 410 John 42324) ldquoAnd we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the worldrdquo (1 John 414) If so the thought that Christ would usethe words ldquoI amrdquo as a title to identify himself as ldquothe true Godrdquo is incongruous Jesus made it clear that he would only seek the glory ldquothat comes from the one who alone is Godrdquo (John850 54 544)

In this Satan controlled world it is not that difficult to get entangled with human taught intricate philosophies which obscure the simple Christian doctrine (John 1231 2 Cor 44) Hence the need for caution at the time of defending popular traditional views which clash with the monotheistic approach of Bible writers

Consequently those who teach that Christ is Almighty God find themselves in conflict with the Scriptural record The submitted list of alternate readings of John 858 shows that there are a considerable number of scholars who not only understand the subject correctly but alsokeenly grasp that whatever Jesus said on the matter has to harmonize with both the context of John chapter 8 and the rest of the Scriptures as well

What is the correct translation of John 858

Is it ldquoI amrdquo ldquoI wasrdquo ldquoI am herdquo or ldquoI have beenrdquo After analyzing the Greek phrase ldquoegō eimirdquo the context and the various possible ways the expression can be translated in English I think it is best to render the Greek with an English present perfect Adding a smallelement such as ldquosincerdquo to the statement as McKay does below satisfies all contextual and grammatical requirements of the passage Doing so does not qualify as ldquointerpolationrdquo

A second choice a simple past tense can perhaps be used in translation where the context allows since it is grammatically correct but it is generally used of activity confined to the past so the message may be distorted Unless that is the simple past is interpreted as ldquoimperfectiverdquo with current relevance How so In support of Jesus deity many frequently cite John11 There in the text a simple past tense ldquowasrdquo is applied to ldquothe Wordrdquo three times in English versions Does that mean ldquothe Wordrdquo is no more or that it was permanentlycut-off from existence at some point Of course not The context of the whole gospel of John shows that Christ is fully pertinent in Christian lives

Scholars choosing a past tense for ldquoeimirdquo (ie ldquoI wasrdquo ldquoI existedrdquo etc) at John 858 may also have in mind what John the Baptist said as a precursor of Jesus Christ ldquoA man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was [ldquoexistedrdquo JB] before merdquo Surely John the Baptist did not mean that Jesus existence was done away with His own words show thatJesus life was very much relevant and would continue to be so Translators have no issue whatsoever in applying a past tense (ldquowasrdquo ldquoexistedrdquo) at John 11 and 130 in their English versions So why would they at John 858 Perhaps because it would mean that they wouldhave to do away with the premise of a ldquodivine titlerdquo in their argumentation of which is claimed clinches Jesus identity with Gods own As shown above Revelation 211 a presentverb a form of ldquoeimirdquo is rendered by some versions with a past tense ldquowasrdquo Obviously Bible translators have no problem in translating some present tense verbs with past tenses or with present perfects But most object to it at John 858 likely for theological reasons

As stated in the beginning of this essay the English ldquopresentrdquo and the Greek ldquopresentrdquo in certain contexts do not correspond exactly in meaning because in Greek ldquotimerdquo is a secondary factor That being the case the choice of English tense does not have to match theGreek conjugation per se to be faithful to the Sacred Text When one considers the specific idiom found in John 858 and the semantic implications of both the Greek and English ldquopresentrdquo one can see that the rendering ldquoI amrdquo though popular does not nearly represent the best translation possible in the English language ldquoContextrdquo often plays a more importantrole in determining the correct translation Overall though it is best to render the Greek expression with an English present perfect since it conveys clearly a more present relevancythan a past tense would

That said John 858 is a good example where a Greek transliteration may not be the best choice to communicate the right message effectively in our times The translation of ldquoI amrdquo has its place in extreme English literal translations which show the basic sense of the Greek such as those Interlinear translations mentioned above Also it can rightfully be used in many Scriptures where the context calls for it as when the sentence structure lacks the Greekldquoidiomrdquo discussed throughout this writing as might be the case with most occurrences of ldquoeimirdquo

Here listed in my opinion are the translations which come closest to the Greek thought presented by the particular ldquoidiomrdquo found in John 858 Dr Kenneth L McKay comes up with the correct translation

1 ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo - Kenneth L McKay A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek (SBG 5 New York Peter Lang 1994) p42

(Kenneth L McKay graduated with honours in Classics (with an interest in the Greek of theNT) from the Universities of Sydney and Cambridge He has taught Greek in universities and theological colleges in Nigeria New Zealand and England Mr McKay retired from the Australian National University in 1987 after teaching there for 26 years)

Other translations below come close to McKays rendering and are thus favored over the traditional rendering which is widely misunderstood

2 ldquoI have existed before Abraham was bornrdquo - A New Translation by James [ Moffatt - DD DLitt Glasgow Oxford 3 ldquoBefore Abraham came into existence I have beenrdquo - New World Translation 4 ldquoBefore Abraham came into being I have existedrdquo - The Documents of the [New Testament G W Wade London 5 ldquoFrom before Abraham was I have been rdquo - The New Testament by George [ R -Noyes DD Boston USA6 ldquoBefore Abraham was born I have already been rdquo - The Unvarnished New [Testament Andy Gaus Boston7 ldquoI existed even before Abraham was bornrdquo - The concise Gospel and the Acts [Logos International Christopher J ed Christianson Plainfield NJ8 ldquoI already was before Abraham was bornrdquo ndash Worldwide English New Testament [ Derby UK ________________________________

COMMENTS

Also compare the following translations

Nytt liv (1907 Norwegian)A Biacuteblia Viva (1981 Portuguese)O Novo Testamento Vivo (1974 Portuguese)Le Livre Nouveau Testament (1980 eacuteditions Farel French)Η Καινή Διαθήκη των Τεσσάρων Καθηγητών (ΚΔΤΚ Greek) (The New Testament of the Four Teachers The translation was made and approved (1921981) by the Holy Summit Church of Greece The English title of the project is The New Testament in Modern Greek Athens Greece) Η Αγία Γραφή Παλαιά και Καινή Διαθήκη (ΝΔΜ Greek) Ελληνική Βιβλική Εταιρία Αθήνα [Athens] 1997 (The Bible Old and New Testament Greek Biblical Company - London 1997) ΚΔΛΖ ΛΧ (Other Greek Versions expressing the same idea as translations on the list)___________________

ldquoI was rdquo Note on 1987 translation from Italian main list l Vangelio di Giovanni (El Evangelio de Juan [ldquoThe Gospel of Johnrdquo] with imprimatur) by J Mateos and J Barreto noted on John 858 (as translated by Teodora Tosatti p 387 Cittadela Editrice 1982) that the temporal relationship expressed by the Greek ldquoprin eimi [BeforeI am]rdquo can be translated into Italian ldquoprimaero [BeforeI was]rdquo (Translation from Italian to English mine)__________________

Comment on 1993 ΟІ ΧΡΙΣΤΙΑΝΙΚΕΣ ΓΡΑΦΕΣ Απόδοση από τη Μειάφράση Νέου Κόσμου which is a modern Greek translation of the New World Translation of the ChristianScriptures Unlike most Bible Versions which are published in only one language or a few atmost the NWT is available in dozens of languages based mainly on their English translationbut obviously taking into account other factors in the process such as the original Bible text the peculiarities of their recipient local languages and their targeted audiences in their respective countries

It is obvious though that other NWT translation editions closely followed the English text of the NWT and at the same time their translation teams had enough latitude to offer their own unique renderings at times expressing in their native languages what they see in in the Inspired Text Having said that it is interesting to see how they approached their translation of John 858 from their English translation back into [modern] Greek

The translation team was acutely aware of the basic sense of ldquoegō eimirdquo as ldquoI amrdquo and how those simple words are misconstrued by religionists to say something more than Jesus intended Taking into account the syntax of John 858 as stated throughout this document the translation team who worked on the modern Greek version faced a few options

First they had the option to go back to ldquoegō eimirdquo using the modern Greek equivalent ldquoΕγώ ειμαιrdquo (I am) as it reads in the Vamvas version which they did not Or they could haveexpressed their NWT English choice of ldquoI have beenrdquo with their modern Greek equivalent of ldquoέχο υπάρξει [I have existed]rdquo Thirdly they could have gone with ldquoI wasrdquo (ldquoεγώ ήμουνrdquo) as some of their French and Italian Bible editions have done in the past or even with ldquo[εγώ] υπήρξα [I existed])rdquo Or they could have provided some other unique rendering It is obvious they wanted to stick closely to the Greek text but given the common misconceptionssurrounding ldquoegō eimai (I am)rdquo in mainstream churches the translation team chose to use ldquoεγώ υπάρχωrdquo (a present indicative form in the Greek) which means basically ldquoI existrdquo but in the presence of an expression of past time in John 858 the sense is ldquoI have existedrdquo Thus ldquoBefore Abraham came into existence I have existedrdquo ( The verb είμαι [ldquoto berdquo] in modern Greek has no forms for the perfect tense It borrows the forms from the verb υπάρχω [ldquoI existrdquo] The Greek and English ldquoperfectsrdquo are not exact equivalents either)

The reader is reminded here as noted earlier that modern Greek keeps up with the Koineacute Greek ldquopresentrdquo idiom A modern Greek grammar Greek A Comprehensive Grammar explains ldquoThe present tense is also used in constructions where English would use the perfect continuous ie where the verb expresses a continuous state or habitual event that

has lasted since a certain point in the past and is continuing up to (and including) the presentrdquo The authors provide two examples where a present verb is used with a past time indicator and where they translate using an English perfect as explained ldquoI have been living[Μένω] in this house for three years nowrdquo And ldquoI have been reading [Διαβάζω] this newspaper since 1984rdquo (Greek A Comprehensive Grammar by David Holton Peter Mackridge amp Irene Philippaki-Warburton Revised by Vassilios Spyropoulos p 294 Second edition 2012)

Ten years after the NWT-Greek Edition was released another modern Greek translation was published with the following rendering at John 858 ldquoΣας βεβαιώνω πως πριν να γεννηθεί οΑβραάμ εγώ υπάρχωrdquo which in English would be ldquoI assure you that I have existed since before Abraham was bornrdquo (Literally ldquoI assure you that before could be born the AbrahamI exist [not ldquoΕγώ ειμαιrdquo]rdquo The Holy Bible in Todays Greek Version 2003 Greek Bible Society Interestingly the original English version of 1976 had ldquoI Amrdquo) Also a Spanish Bible conveys a similar thought ldquoYo existo desde antes que existiera Abrahamrdquo [Translation ldquo I exist since before Abraham existedrdquo] (La Biblia - Versioacuten Popular 2nd edition Sociedades Biacuteblicas Unidas 1983)

_________________________________________________________

The Clear Word The translators quoted in this article represent various religious faiths some are Catholic some are Protestant Others are Unitarians Jehovahs Witnesses Jewish Adventists etc and they represent countries the world over One of these translators is a Seventh-Day Adventist who worked on The Clear Word Jack J Blanco ThD As a Seventh-Day Adventist who supports the Trinity doctrine Blanco translated verses to make Jesus ldquoequalrdquo to God in every way

He renders John 11 ldquoHe is the Word of God and is equal with Godrdquo He shows Jesus at Philippians 25-7 as ldquoequal with Godrdquo and describes him as lsquoacting the part of a servantrsquo At John 1428 he completely omits the reference that lsquothe Father is greaterrsquo than Christ But here at John 858 in answer to the question the priests and leaders asked concerning Abraham lsquoseeingrsquo his day Jesus answered according to Dr Blanco ldquoBecause I existed before Abraham was even bornrdquo Thus Dr Blanco makes no connection as others do that Christ is the ldquoI amrdquo of Exodus 314 which according to some would indicate that Jesus is the Jehovah of the Old Testament What he sees in this account is that Jesus already lsquoexisted before Abraham didrsquo and thus Abraham was able to lsquoseersquo his day (John 856) To this we must add another likely element included in Jesus response to the Jews as wellone of simple identification as ldquothe Christ [Messiah]rdquo and ldquoSon of manrdquo Why is it then that manywho support the Trinity doctrine find it hard to understand Jesus statement correctly at John 858 Could it be that they are letting non-Scriptural influence and perhaps the weight of themajority view dictate their understanding of this Scripture

For a consideration of other subjects by the same author check below

For a discussion of Acts 286 Whose blood

httpwwwscribdcomdoc231244155Acts-20-28-Whose-blood

For a discussion of Colossians 116 (ldquoall other thingsrdquo) see

httpwwwscribdcomdoc205841269Colossians-1-16-Is-the-expression-all-other-things-a-proper-rendition

For a consideration on the subject of the Trinity click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc160286056Does-the-Trinity-ever-make-sense

For a full consideration of John 11 click the following link httpwwwscribdcomdoc34916458The-correct-translation-of-John-1-1

For a brief consideration of John 11 with additional citations click here httpwwwscribdcomdoc50330864John-1-1-List-of-Alternate-Readings

Did the NW translators know any Greek click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc48234022Did-the-New-World-Translation-Committee-Know-Greek

For a consideration of John 173 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc57772552John-17-3-E28098Taking-in-knowledge-of-E28099-God-and-Jesus

For a consideration of 1 Timothy 316 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc76927834Was-God-manifested-in-the-flesh-1-Timothy-3-16

For a consideration of Exodus 225 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc38676458Exodus-2-25-And-God-took-notice-Does-God- care-about-us

For a consideration of John 114 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc35002730John-1-14-Jesus-full-of-grace

For a consideration of Translation Differences-Questions and Answershttpwwwscribdcomdoc59484457Translation-Differences-Questions-and-Answers

In Spanish

Para una consideracioacuten de otros temas vea los siguientes enlaces

Para una consideracioacuten de Colosenses 116 ldquotodas las otras cosasrdquo vea

httpwwwscribdcomdoc209601066Colosenses-1-16-C2BFEs-la-traduccion-E2809Ctodas-las-otras-cosasE2809D-apropiada

Para una consideracioacuten de ldquoiquestAcaso tiene sentido la Trinidadrdquo

httpwwwscribdcomdoc173779117C2BFAcaso-tiene-sentido-la-Trinidad

Para un consideracioacuten de Juan 11 vea el siguiente enlace

httpwwwscribdcomdoc35899788Traduccion-correcta-de-Juan-1-1-Lista-de- lecturas-alternativas

Para el tema iquestSabiacutean griego los traductores de la TNM vea el siguiente enlace

httpwwwscribdcomdoc51623596C2BFSabia-griego-el-Comite-de-la-Traduccion-del-Nuevo-Mundo

ldquobecause you were with me from the beginningrdquo (Mark Heber Miller)ldquobecause you were with me from the very beginningrdquo (SEB)

This scripture with the plural form of ldquoeimirdquo (este) is very similar to John 858 Again within its structure there is an expression of past time and a verb in the present indicative form (este) just as there is in John 858 A Grammar of New Testament Greek says ldquoThe reader may be reminded of one idiom which comes out of the linear idea the use of words like πάλαι [palai ldquolong agordquo] with the present in a sense best expressed by our perfect Thus in 2 Co 1219 lsquohave you been thinking all this timersquo or Jn 1527 lsquoyou have been with me from the beginning [ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς]rsquo hellip The durative present in such cases gathers up past and present time into one phraserdquo (A Grammar of New Testament Greek Vol 1 Prolegomena by JH Moulton p 119) As previously noted this Grammar specifically refers to John 858 as an example of this idiom

And here in John 1527 there is a connection of Jesus disciples [creatures as they are] that ldquowererdquo with him ldquofrom the beginningrdquo Obviously Jesus was making no reference to his disciples sharing ldquoeternityrdquo with him The disciples all had a beginning The logical conclusion is that Jesus was simply saying to them lsquoYou have been with me from the start of my ministryrsquo Hence there is no need to read ldquoeternityrdquo into the expression ldquoI amrdquo anymore that we should read ldquoeternityrdquo from Jesus words at John 1527 lsquoYou are with me from the beginningrsquo Neither grammar nor the context justifies reading more into these Scriptures than what they actually say

In fact the six (6) instances cited above (Genesis 3138 LXX 1 John 38 2 Cor 1219 Luke 248 John 56 John 1527) and John 858 as well all have an expression of past time or an extent of time with past implications (ldquoThese twenty yearsrdquo ldquoLong agordquo ldquoafter three daysrdquo Lk 246 ldquomuch already timerdquo ldquofrom [the] beginningrdquo ldquoBeforerdquo etc) AND present verbs in their sentences or nearby within the context and are commonly rendered with present perfect (some with past perfects) or simple past (or past progressive) forms in English translations If we apply this pattern to the translation of John 858 it would mean that renderings such as ldquoI have beenrdquo (present perfect) and ldquoI wasrdquo (simple past) are not only acceptable in translation but actually more ldquosuitablerdquo in application Can this really be done Not only can it be done it makes for a ldquobetterrdquo English translation

In regards to Jesus John 858 simply tells us that Jesus lsquowas alive before Abraham was bornrsquo (SEB) and that his existence continued up to the moment of his speaking to them Just as it is not proper English to say ldquoFor three days we are seeking yourdquo (Greek literal reading of Luke 248) or ldquobecause from the beginning with me you arerdquo (John 1527) it is no less proper English to say in John 858 ldquoBefore Abraham was born I amrdquo These readings should only appear in extremely literal interlinear translations which basically render the Greek word-by-word and not in standard idiomatic English translations Let me illustrate If a man advanced in age for example had his work history and experience questioned by co-workers in comparison to his younger son and employee Abe would he say in reply ldquoBefore my son Abe was born I am [the one fit for the job]rdquo No that does not sound right In English he could say it in various ways

ldquoI have been an experienced worker since before my son Abe was bornrdquo ldquoI have been what I am since before my son Abe was bornrdquo ldquoI was fit to work and fully active before my son Abe was ever bornrdquo ldquoI was already experienced in many jobs before Abe ever came to berdquo ldquoI have been a master worker way before my son Abe came to liferdquo ldquoBefore Abe was born I already was life and job experiencedrdquo etc

The point is that in English normally we include a present perfect tense whenever there is a reference to the past extending to the present or a past tense of some form whenever we go back in time The same with John 858 There is no justification in English to insist using a present verb form (which is not equal to the Greek present when combined with a past expression) in an unwarranted attempt to convey ldquoeternityrdquo as ldquopaddingrdquo to the Trinity doctrine a doctrine adopted AFTER the Christian era Worse it is disingenuous to accuse other translators (who have chosen to render ldquoegō eimirdquo at John 858 with an English present perfect or past tense) of scholastic dishonesty when the very same translations honored by these detractors do so in other places where the ldquodeityrdquo of Christ is not in play asshown in the samples provided above

An example of this double standard can be seen as well when scholars such as Dr Julius Mantey harshly criticizes the NWT for the rendering ldquoI have beenrdquo at John 858 but keeps quiet when other translators do similarly and even states or pretends that no other reputable translator would ever translate it that way He dared not criticize his former Greek teacher Charles B Williams who produced his own Bible translation Dr Mantey once wrote the following of Dr Williams translation ldquoWilliams translation considering all the factors is the most accurate and illuminating translation in the English languagerdquo And how does this ldquomost accurate translationrdquo render John 858 As follows ldquoI existed before Abraham was bornrdquo Here Dr Williams known for his Greek command used a simple past tense (ldquoI existedrdquo) as translation for the Greek present Julius Mantey certainly did not find Williams version of John 858 a ldquoshocking translationrdquo ldquoI existedrdquo is quite different from the translation Dr Mantey so passionately defended (ldquoI amrdquo)

When Dr Mantey talks about the NWT he says the rendering ldquoI have beenrdquo at John 858 cannot be justified and calls it ldquodishonestrdquo That rule does not apply to Williams translation does it Williams did not translate John 858 in the same way Mantey would have liked (ldquoI amrdquo) Not only that the Grammar itself that Dr Mantey co-authored with Dr Dana A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament states under ldquoThe Progressive Presentrdquo (called ldquoExtension from Pastrdquo by McKay) ldquoSometimes the progressive present is retroactivein its application denoting that which has begun in the past and continues into the present For the want of a better name we may call it the present of duration This use is generally associated with an adverb of time and may best be rendered by the English perfect ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς μετʼ ἐμοῦ ἐστέ Ye have been with me from the beginning Jn 1527 See also Lk137 2 Cor 129 [19]rdquo (Pages 182-83 Emphasis added)

Even though Julius Mantey has stated when referring to the NWT that ldquoI have beenrdquo is not a proper translation and even ldquodishonestrdquo at John 858 he clearly states in his Grammar (of

Scriptures with similar syntax to John 858) ldquoThis use is generally associated with an adverb of time and may best be rendered by the English perfect [such as ldquoI have beenrdquo which in fact is associated with an adverb of time in John 858]rdquo A likely reason for Dana ampManteys strong reluctance for not including John 858 as an example of the idiom discussed on page 183 may have to do with the fact that as ldquotrinitariansrdquo they oppose the idea of Jesus existence having lsquobegunrsquo in the past even though John 858 perfectly fits with the ldquoProgressive Presentrdquo idiom being discussed in their Grammar as acknowledged by other grammarians Hence their objection is truly a ldquotheologicalrdquo one rather than Greek grammaritself arguing in their favor as Mantey and some others have implied since a Greek present or an English perfect does not demand ldquoeternityrdquo at all from the subject

Consequently many religious individuals who focus solely on the basic meaning (of ldquoegō eimirdquo as ldquoI amrdquo) out of the context of the particular ldquoidiomrdquo used at John 858 end up missing the thrust of Jesus words and fall prey to misleading interpretations Doctor Kenneth L McKay taking into account all of these issues comes up with this excellent translation for John 858 ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo (A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek SBG 5 New York Peter Lang 1994 p42) If we objectively consider the material above we will not insist in connecting Jesus at John 858 with the God Jehovah of Exodus 314 (which many attempt to do but cannot be sustained) Instead we will focus on the simple message conveyed by Jesus words at John 858 which is in harmony with the totality of Scripture ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo (McKay) The rendering ldquoI have been in existencerdquo by itself does not rule out either the concept of ldquoeternityrdquo or the ldquocreationrdquo of Jesus Christ A Committee of Bible translators came up with the following translation which may not be the best choice but considering the issues involved is better than the traditional rendering of ldquoI amrdquo ldquoI was alive before Abraham was bornrdquo (The New Testament in Plain English)

(The following scholars are members of the Bible Translation Committee of The New Testament in Plain English which approved this last reading ldquoI was aliverdquo instead of ldquoI amrdquo(Dr Stanley L Morris chairman FW Gingrich Ph D a renown Greek lexicographer Jack P Lewis Ph D CH Accord Th D Clyde M Woods Ph D ST Kan Ph D Gary T Burke Ph D Milo Hadwin D Min)

I submit their names and their credentials here as an example because it is often asserted vigorously that no intelligent or highly qualified scholar would ever produce a translation other than ldquoI amrdquo As noted above and as the list of alternate readings (at the end of this essay) of John 858 shows many done by highly qualified people this is simply not true Usually those making statements of that sort are doing so based on emotional and theological not philological reasons Furthermore by not disclosing other valid viewpoints or by dismissing how other qualified Bible translators deal with this scripture they are undermining their own credibility as well

At this time you are welcome to briefly go over the list of Alternate Readings to John 858 at

the end before moving on to the second part of this essay

_____________________________

Should we ignore the evidence of all those translations listed at the end that differ in John 858 from the traditional versions What then are all these translators seeing at John 858 that moved them to render this text differently They surely must be aware of the resistance they would encounter by translating it by the various forms they used Still they must have had the firm conviction that both the Greek text and the context supports their understanding of this scripture They likely see a Jesus making no identity connection with his Father Godbut rather see a Jesus simply expressing his indefinite existence with no suggestion of eternity in focus Neither is Jesus stating here that he is the God of Old Testament times To understand it that way would be to read into the text more than what it says Taking some clues from the context of the chapter some scholars additionally see Jesus insinuating his ldquomessiahshiprdquo as if saying ldquoI am he [the Messiah]rdquo This is very likely In fact The LivingBible renders John 824 thus ldquoThat is why I said that you will die in your sins for unless you believe that I am the Messiah the Son of God [ἐγώ εἰμι] you will die in your sinsrdquo

Is ldquoegō eimirdquo a title or another name of God

The use of ldquoeimirdquo at John 858 is frequently used as a ldquoproof textrdquo of Jesus deity A noted Trinitarian scholar AT Robertson a Baptist even refers to ldquoegō eimirdquo as ldquothe absolute phrase used of Godrdquo likely indicating the verb conveys ldquotimeless beingrdquo an implication that ldquoeimirdquo here does not require anything else to complete the meaning of the phrase thus conveying ldquoeternal existencerdquo as well as being an actual name for God Some individuals have given plenty of publicity to Robertsons statement as absolute truth But his statement is not ldquotruthrdquo at all It is faulty interpretation which many people have fallen prey to Grammar and theology do not always make the best mix True Robertsons credentials as a scholar are impressive nevertheless credentials does not truth make Besides some other equally bright scholars disagree with him Lets illustrate the folly of those advocating a divine title at John 858 by way of addition (Or substitution if you will) as some suggest

ldquoBefore Abraham was born I am Eternalrdquo ldquoBefore Abraham was born I am Jehovahrdquo ldquoBefore Abraham was born I am eternally Godrdquo

First of all the above hypothetical translations are just as ungrammatical as the simple ldquoI amrdquo reading of most versions An English present tense cannot start before a definite point in the past This can be seen in the following two examples

1 ldquoBefore the US Iraq war I am a soldierrdquo 2 ldquoThree journalists are kidnapped in Nepal since the start of 2007rdquo

What is the correct way to express these statements in English Analyze it for a second and

provide an answer if you will

Notably if ldquoeimirdquo was used to convey eternal existence what is the point of using an expression of past time at all in the clause Moreover the context of previous verses (vv 48-57) clearly indicates that Jesus is speaking of God as a separate entity See below

49 ldquobut I honor my Father and you dishonor merdquo 50 ldquoI am not seeking glory for myself but there is one who seeks it and he is the

judgerdquo54 ldquoIf I glorify myself my glory means nothing My Father whom you claim as your

God is the one who glorifies me 55 ldquoThough you do not know him I know him If I said I did not I would be a liar like you but I do know him and obey his wordrdquo Thus if Jesus meant he himself was the ldquoJehovahrdquo of the Old Testament as Trinitarians claim what would be the rationale behind Jesus directing all distinction and glory to lsquothe Father Godrsquo as a distinct individual as he did in the previous verses and then a few words later abruptly change his argumentation by claiming he is that very same One who lsquoreceives obedience from his own wordrsquo lsquoseeking his own honor and gloryrsquo because he himself is ldquoGodrdquo Confusing is it not To accept this abrupt change of character on Jesus part would be not ldquoa mysteryrdquo but flat out ldquoa deceptionrdquo of big proportions since Jesus himself warned against pretending to be one thing and acting as another (Matthew 62-5 2313-36)

Are we are supposed against all logic to accept these ldquotrinitarianrdquo assumptions instead of a simple alternative which really answers the Jews question about lsquohow could Abraham ldquoseerdquoJesus day if he was not yet 50 years oldrsquo (ldquoI have been in existence since Abraham was bornrdquo)

The obsession with the simple words ldquoI amrdquo have led to many faulty assumptions ldquoI amrdquo issuch a common expression in our language even to this day that words such as ldquoegoismrdquo ldquoegotismrdquo etc (derived from the Greek ldquoegordquo) are considered common words in English dictionaries Everyone uses the phrase ldquoI amrdquo at times Think of any big corporation or powerful organization of your choice for a moment Would you conclude that the two most powerful individuals of this one prestigious organization must be identical in every way solely because they are heard equally saying to others in their common speech ldquoI am thisrdquoor ldquoI am thatrdquo etc

In Bible times humans too used common pronouns The verb eimi (ldquoI amrdquo) itself or forms of it appears more than two thousand times (2000x) in the New Testament alone Additionally the word ldquoegōrdquo appears over seventeen hundred times (1700x) in the NT And those numbers do not include the Septuagint totals Do all occurrences of the word then imply ldquodivinityrdquo in each case Of course not It may be more significant when God or Christ use the expression because of who they are but does it really mean that both God and Christ share the same identity Or that everyone who uses the phrase ldquoI amrdquo does so with divine pretensions Does it really mean that everyone using the phrase are ldquoequalrdquo The

answer is obvious is it not

Lets bear in mind that when God sent Jesus Christ as His representative to a most crucial assignment multiple biblical prophecies were pointing to Christ as the promised Messiah that would free mankind from its moribund condition It is logical then that when the time came for Jesus Christ to show up on earth he would somehow communicate to others that ldquoherdquo and not some other human claiming to be the Messiah was Gods instrument in bringing everlasting relief to human misery Hence he could rightly say any or all of the following ldquoI am (this)rdquo ldquoI am (that)rdquo ldquoI am he [the promised Messiah]rdquo or ldquoI am Gods Sonrdquo Should we expect anything less

The fact is that the words ldquoI amrdquo are not exclusive to God and Christ It should be noted that a man who was born ldquoblindrdquo also used the same expression (John 99) The Greek here says ldquoekeinos elegen hoti Egō eimirdquo (ldquoThat one kept saying that I amrdquo) AT Robertson cites John 99 as one of five parallels to the use of egō eimi in John 858 (Word Pictures in the New Testament Vol V p 159) The phrase here comes at the end of the clause with no explicit predicate James White who upholds the traditional reading admits ldquoThis last instance [John 99] is similar to the sayings as Jesus utters them in that the phrase comes at the end of the clause and looks elsewhere for its predicaterdquo The same could be said of John 1527 Some argue that ldquoeimirdquo in John 858 is ldquoabsoluterdquo but do not do so with John 99 or John 1527 Theology may be a factor in this Previously we saw how Jacob a man according to the Septuagint used the words ldquoegō eimirdquo Other instances in Scripture of creatures using those words would not prove they were part of a ldquoGodheadrdquo Context then ultimately dictates how ldquoeimirdquo should be translated According to John when Jesus was pressed he only claimed to have been alive way before Abraham was born and that he simply was ldquothe Christrdquo ldquothe Son of Manrdquo and ldquothe Son of Godrdquo

There is something else to keep in mind in regards to the meaning of ldquoeimirdquo And it is what grammarian Stanley Porter indicated ldquoSometimes the verb [eimi] is used on its own as a verb of existence Perhaps the best-known example of this is the following John 858rdquo (Fundamentals of New Testament Greek by Stanley E Porter section 753 72) AT Robertson adds ldquoThe verb εἰμί [eimi] hellip Sometimes it does express existence as a predicatelike any other verb as in ἐγὼ εἰμί [egō eimi] (Jo 858) and ἡ θάλασσα οὐκ ἔστιν ἔτι [hē thalassa ouk estin eti = ldquothe sea not is yetrdquo] (Rev 211) Cf Mt 2330rdquo (A Grammar of theGreek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research Nashville Tenn 1934 p 394)

What does this mean The examples mentioned by Robertson in addition to John 858 give us an idea of what this implies It is so strange that the two examples Robertson provided forcomparison with John 858 seems to contradict his ldquotimeless beingrdquo view on ldquoeimirdquo He cited a portion of Revelation 211 where the Greek literally says ldquoAnd the sea not is yetrdquo In other words ldquoThe sea does not exist any morerdquo Amplified Bible ldquoThere no longer existed any seardquo Curiously various versions render the present verb ldquoisrdquo (a form of ldquoeimirdquo) with an imperfect ldquowasrdquo (Cf KJV NIV NAB NRSV) Obviously ldquothe seardquo in this vision is [was] not ldquoeternalrdquo

And in Matthew 2330 the other text provided by Robertson in his comparison with John 858 the Greek word-for-word says ldquoIf we were in the days of the fathers of usrdquo which inmodern English would be ldquoIf we had lived in the days of our forefathersrdquo Other versions ldquoIf we had beenrdquo (Rheims NT) ldquoIf we had been livingrdquo (NASB) ldquoIf we had been existing in the days of our fathersrdquo (Jonathan Mitchell NT) The full NIV text reads ldquoAnd you say lsquoIf we had lived in the days of our ancestors we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophetsrsquo rdquo

It is clear from this comparison that the words of Matthew 2330 ldquoIf we wererdquo (a form of ldquoeimirdquo) in the text is used as an equivalent for ldquoliferdquo or ldquoexistencerdquo In the heavenly vision of Rev 211 lsquothe sea ceased to existrsquo And the generation of people which Jesus spoke about and their ancestors all died ceased to exist If we apply these two examples to John 858 given by Robertson with the meaning either of life or existence for ldquoeimirdquo then it wouldbe equally acceptable to translate ldquoI amrdquo as ldquoI existrdquo or ldquoI liverdquo Many translators reflect this very same understanding as the submitted list of alternate readings of John 858 show ldquoI existrdquo or ldquoI existed even before Abraham was bornrdquo Or ldquoI was alive before Abraham was bornrdquo (The Simple English Bible)

Although some may not see much semantic difference between Jesus saying ldquoI amrdquo or ldquoI existrdquo the two expressions communicate something very different to many readers ldquoI amrdquo is generally associated by Trinitarians as a title used by God or as another name for God Onthe other hand ldquoI existrdquo simply conveys ldquoliferdquo or ldquoexistence Barnabas Lindars points out that ldquoegō eimirdquo in John 858 ldquocannot be regarded as a title because it requires the meaning lsquoI am in existencersquordquo (ldquoThe Son of Man in Johannine Christologyrdquo in Christ and the Spirit in the New Testament In Honour of Charles Francis Digby Moule eds B Lindars and S Smalley Cambridge Cambridge University Press 1973) (Since an English present tense cannot start before a definite point in the past this would mean that we can incorporate Lindars valid observation and translate it into contemporary English like this ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo exactly as Dr McKay proposed)

Some in their eagerness to equate Christ with God accuse translators who render ldquoegō eimirdquo in John 858 with renderings other than ldquoI amrdquo pointing to all occurrences of this expression in the New Testament or in Johns Gospel where allegedly these translators do not follow the same ldquorulerdquo when translating ldquoegō eimirdquo in John 858 as they do elsewhere where they translate it with a present indicative form What they dont tell you or fail to understand is that in John 858 ldquoegō eimirdquo without a predicate AND with an expression of time with past implications in its sentence structure provides an ldquoidiomrdquo which is quite different from those other instances of ldquoeimirdquo Thats right an idiom (where present and past is combined) found equally at home in classical biblical and modern Greek which many translators convey into our language with the English present perfect at various places Consequently one cannot merely go by how the phrase ldquoegō eimirdquo is used elsewhere in the NT without taking into account the fact that John 858 displays an ldquoidiomrdquo in its structure Not doing so would be dishonest John the Baptist had said of Christ in John 130 ldquoA man is coming after me who ranks before me because he existed [Lit was] before merdquo (JB)

John 858 is in harmony with those words Furthermore some attempt to use the reading of Psalm 902 in the Septuagint as ldquoevidencerdquo that John 858 is rendered correctly in the popular versions But a closer analysis of this verse shows notable differences between the two verses making such comparison untenable With good reason a considerable number ofscholars have chosen to break from tradition in their rendering of John 858

If critics of alternate readings of John 858 are not candid enough to admit some of the very issues mentioned here and hide the fact that many scholars do hold a different interpretation and no less academic at that should we consider their diatribes of any worthy import It is ldquowishful thinkingrdquo for someone to believe that John 858 is directly connected to Exodus 314 rather than any real evidence (which is lacking) confirming their eager interpretations Remember even Dr James White a well known Trinitarian advocate admitted ldquothat an immediate and unqualified jump from the ego eimi of John 858 to Exodus 314 is unwiserdquo

Besides a theological tendency can be seen when they focus as some do on undermining the reputation of one Bible translation (NWT) when there are actually numerous versions from different religions dealing with the same controversial Scriptures in a similar manner This is very much like politicians who ignore the failings of their own party but are quick to lsquodemonizersquo their opponents (Matthew 73)

Is the Kingdom Interlinear ldquoproofrdquo the NWT is wrong at John 858

A criticism has been made of a Watchtower Society publication (The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures ldquoKITrdquo) which contains the Greek text and underneath it a word-by-word translation in English and on the right side of the page the modern New World Translation Well at John 858 this publication renders the Greek phrase being discussed here egō eimi word-for-word as ldquoI amrdquo and in the right column the NWT shows the reading ldquoI have beenrdquo This difference have led some to severely criticize the NW translators of ldquoincompetencerdquo ldquoinconsistencyrdquo and even of ldquodishonestyrdquo The critics say something like this ldquoThey have backed themselves into a corner where they cant escape their mishandling of the Greek textrdquo or something of that sort Amazingly these critics in their condemnations hardly ever mention the dozens of translators who translate the same way or similarly to the NWT as the submitted list shows So much for honesty

Those who engage in such tactics are not being forthcoming Why say that Besides dismissing how other translators deal with John 858 they also distort known facts for the WT Society have made it clear that the publication of this Greek Bible is to help the Bible student determine the basic sense of the Greek and have stated that the translation on the right column (the NWT) is a modern way of expressing the thoughts transmitted by the Greek text There are many factors to consider when using such publications

Even other interlinear publications warn of seeming discrepancies For instance The Zondervan Parallel New Testament in Greek and English says in its Foreword ldquo[I]t is a good thing to bear in mind that you cannot always either give an English equivalent for a Greek word or expression or even always render the same Greek verb word by the same

English onerdquo Another interlinear the New Greek-English Interlinear New Testament by Brown and Comfort and edited by J D Douglas explains ldquoIt is difficult to translate one language into another on a word-for-word basis because each language has its own syntax grammatical constructions and idioms that are difficultmdashif not impossiblemdashto replicate literally in another languagerdquo (Emphasis added) This statement is so true of the text in discussion (John 858) in regards to its syntax and particular idiom Often critics of the NWT hide this fact Why Is it religious bias at work

I will give the reader a few examples of an available interlinear translation which has the Greek main text and a literal sublinear translation below the Greek by Professor Paul R McReynolds and on the right column for comparison the reader can study the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) a popular translation in academia Observe how the two can differ

McReynolds Mat 21 ldquomagiciansrdquo NRSV ldquowise menrdquo John 118 ldquoonly born Godrdquo ldquoGod the only Sonrdquo Mat 243 ldquosign of the your presencerdquo ldquothe sign of your comingrdquo Mathew 522 ldquothe gehenna of the firerdquo ldquothe hell of firerdquo John 1319 ldquoI amrdquo ldquoI am herdquo John 149 ldquoI amrdquo ldquoHave I beenrdquo John 1527 ldquoyou arerdquo ldquoyou have beenrdquo 2 Peter 24 ldquobeing sent to Tartarusrdquo ldquobut cast them into hellrdquo Luke 1113 ldquowill give spirit holy tordquo ldquowillgive the Holy Spirit tordquo John 2022 ldquotake spirit holyrdquo ldquoReceive the Holy Spiritrdquo Acts 24 ldquofilled all of spirit holyrdquo ldquofilled with the Holy Spiritrdquo

( Paul R McReynolds is professor of Greek and New Testament at Pacific Christian College in Fullerton California USA He also contributed to the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia)

Some of the readings from the right column above (NRSV) are acceptable others are not See if you can detect in the right column above those translation renderings with a theological tendency that deviate from the literal readings from the left column McReynoldson the left does an excellent job of transmitting the Greek sense Even the most popular Bible versions do not adhere consistently to the base texts The NRSV and a host of other Bible versions add their own religious interpretation throughout Scripture just as much as the NWT if not more but hardly anyone complains of this transformation of Scriptures eventhough it leads to error Why Simply because the NRSV represents more of a ldquomajorityrdquo view than the NWT does But in truth majority or minority views do not correspond equallyto ldquoaccuraterdquo or ldquoinaccuraterdquo results

In the text discussed the KIT can appropriately show the basic sense rendering of ldquoI amrdquo for the Greek ldquoegō eimirdquo in the left column and alternately show the reading ldquoI have beenrdquo in the right column as a contemporary way of expressing in English the particular Greek clause with its ldquoidiomrdquo in John 858 as explained throughout this article a rendering which has

scholarship support When the Greek ldquoegō eimirdquo appears in an idiom-less structure it can rightfully be translated as ldquoI amrdquo as most versions do including the NWT Hence there is no contradiction between the two translations

Dr McKay argues that Jesus response in John 858 ldquowould be most naturally translated lsquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrsquo if it were not for the obsession with the simple words lsquoI amrsquo rdquo (Kenneth L McKay ldquolsquoI amrsquo in Johns Gospelrdquo Expository Times 1996 p 302) I take the author as saying that ldquoI have been in existencerdquo for ldquoeimirdquo is a better translation than ldquoI amrdquo but the [religious] obsession for the simple words ldquoI amrdquo in their quest to elevate Christ to Gods level does not allow people to see that The thing is that Christ lsquoalways pleased the Fatherrsquo and was fully satisfied with being lsquolesserrsquo than him (John 829 1029 1428 177813) Why not accept him as he is

Hence it is poor scholarship to forward the idea that an entity must be God Almighty himselfby the sole fact of using a divine sounding phrase when other Bible individuals are found using the same expression in Scripture The ldquocontextrdquo is the determining factor Not only must we take into account the context surrounding a chapter or book of the Bible but also what the whole Bible teaches on a given person or subject

What does the Bible teach about Jesus

That Christ ldquowas in the beginning with Godrdquo (John 12) At the announcement of his birth on earth the angel Gabriel told Mary that she will give birth to someone ldquogreatrdquo and ldquoholyrdquo and that one will be called ldquoSon of the Most Highrdquo and ldquoSon of Godrdquo (Luke 132 35) Trinitarians may claim that ldquoSon of Godrdquo is equivalent in meaning to ldquoGodrdquo It is a claim with no foundation If there was any truth to the claim then the ldquoHoly Spiritrdquo would also be called Son of God But no The fact is that other living creatures are called ldquosons of Godrdquo (Job 21) Never is ldquoGodrdquo or ldquoholy spiritrdquo ever called ldquoSon of Godrdquo in Scripture Only Jesus Christ is called ldquothe Son of Godrdquo with the article Why

By Christ lsquobecoming obedient [to God] until deathrsquo during the course of his earthly life lsquoGod highly exalted Him and graciously gave him a name which is above every other name that at the name of Jesus every knee should bendto the credit of God the Fatherrsquo (Hebrews58 Philippians 28-11 21st Century New Testament)

ldquo[Christ] has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God with angels authorities and powers made subject to himrdquo (1 Peter 322 NRSV) Still in heaven Christ receives knowledge information revelation from God and transmits it to other creatures (Revelation11) Though the glorified Christ is described as ldquoKing of kingsrdquo and ldquoLord of lordsrdquo he is specifically called ldquoThe Word of Godrdquo (Revelation 191316 NRSV) The night before his death he ldquoprayedrdquo to his Father and called him ldquothe only true Godrdquo and made this petition ldquoFather glorify me in your own presence [Greek beside yourself] with the glory that I hadin your presence [Greek beside you] before the world existedrdquo (John 175 NRSV) (ldquoalongside yourselfrdquo ST Byington) Again God never has to ldquoprayrdquo to anyone Ever

Well then if Jesus Christ expressed this one final ldquowishrdquo in prayer to be ldquoin the presence ofrdquoldquobesiderdquo ldquoalongsiderdquo his Father which he himself called ldquothe only true Godrdquo why should we for the sake of tradition insist with the belief that Jesus ldquomustrdquo somehow be that ldquotruerdquo God the One sitting at the center of Gods throne instead of ldquobesiderdquo God (Mark 1619) Christ did not ask to sit at Gods throne Christ was fully content with the premise of being alongside God And that is what actually happened Mark tells us ldquoSo then the Lord Jesus after he had spoken to them was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of Godrdquo (Mark 1619 NRSV Note Some ancient manuscripts omit this verse) The NIV Study Bible notes the significance of lsquositting at the right hand of Godrsquo ldquoA position of authority second only to Godsrdquo Being in ldquoa position of authority second only to Godsrdquo is something no one should ever say of God for he is always ldquosupremerdquo At no time does God relinquishes his supremacy Someone who holds a position of authority second to God cannot be identical to God Take note too that in this account of Mark chapter 16 or the oneat John chapter 17 there is no mention of a third party of a ldquoGodheadrdquo No ldquoHoly Spiritrdquo is in sight The fact is that the glorified Christ in heaven continues to call his Father ldquomy Godrdquo(Revelation 312)

As ldquoSon of Godrdquo and always lesser and subject to God it is illogical to think Christ would purposely usurp titles and rights that only belonged to lsquohis God and Fatherrsquo (John 1428 Matthew 2023 John 2017 Acts 17) Jesus Christ taught others to only worship the Father God (Matthew 410 John 42324) ldquoAnd we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the worldrdquo (1 John 414) If so the thought that Christ would usethe words ldquoI amrdquo as a title to identify himself as ldquothe true Godrdquo is incongruous Jesus made it clear that he would only seek the glory ldquothat comes from the one who alone is Godrdquo (John850 54 544)

In this Satan controlled world it is not that difficult to get entangled with human taught intricate philosophies which obscure the simple Christian doctrine (John 1231 2 Cor 44) Hence the need for caution at the time of defending popular traditional views which clash with the monotheistic approach of Bible writers

Consequently those who teach that Christ is Almighty God find themselves in conflict with the Scriptural record The submitted list of alternate readings of John 858 shows that there are a considerable number of scholars who not only understand the subject correctly but alsokeenly grasp that whatever Jesus said on the matter has to harmonize with both the context of John chapter 8 and the rest of the Scriptures as well

What is the correct translation of John 858

Is it ldquoI amrdquo ldquoI wasrdquo ldquoI am herdquo or ldquoI have beenrdquo After analyzing the Greek phrase ldquoegō eimirdquo the context and the various possible ways the expression can be translated in English I think it is best to render the Greek with an English present perfect Adding a smallelement such as ldquosincerdquo to the statement as McKay does below satisfies all contextual and grammatical requirements of the passage Doing so does not qualify as ldquointerpolationrdquo

A second choice a simple past tense can perhaps be used in translation where the context allows since it is grammatically correct but it is generally used of activity confined to the past so the message may be distorted Unless that is the simple past is interpreted as ldquoimperfectiverdquo with current relevance How so In support of Jesus deity many frequently cite John11 There in the text a simple past tense ldquowasrdquo is applied to ldquothe Wordrdquo three times in English versions Does that mean ldquothe Wordrdquo is no more or that it was permanentlycut-off from existence at some point Of course not The context of the whole gospel of John shows that Christ is fully pertinent in Christian lives

Scholars choosing a past tense for ldquoeimirdquo (ie ldquoI wasrdquo ldquoI existedrdquo etc) at John 858 may also have in mind what John the Baptist said as a precursor of Jesus Christ ldquoA man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was [ldquoexistedrdquo JB] before merdquo Surely John the Baptist did not mean that Jesus existence was done away with His own words show thatJesus life was very much relevant and would continue to be so Translators have no issue whatsoever in applying a past tense (ldquowasrdquo ldquoexistedrdquo) at John 11 and 130 in their English versions So why would they at John 858 Perhaps because it would mean that they wouldhave to do away with the premise of a ldquodivine titlerdquo in their argumentation of which is claimed clinches Jesus identity with Gods own As shown above Revelation 211 a presentverb a form of ldquoeimirdquo is rendered by some versions with a past tense ldquowasrdquo Obviously Bible translators have no problem in translating some present tense verbs with past tenses or with present perfects But most object to it at John 858 likely for theological reasons

As stated in the beginning of this essay the English ldquopresentrdquo and the Greek ldquopresentrdquo in certain contexts do not correspond exactly in meaning because in Greek ldquotimerdquo is a secondary factor That being the case the choice of English tense does not have to match theGreek conjugation per se to be faithful to the Sacred Text When one considers the specific idiom found in John 858 and the semantic implications of both the Greek and English ldquopresentrdquo one can see that the rendering ldquoI amrdquo though popular does not nearly represent the best translation possible in the English language ldquoContextrdquo often plays a more importantrole in determining the correct translation Overall though it is best to render the Greek expression with an English present perfect since it conveys clearly a more present relevancythan a past tense would

That said John 858 is a good example where a Greek transliteration may not be the best choice to communicate the right message effectively in our times The translation of ldquoI amrdquo has its place in extreme English literal translations which show the basic sense of the Greek such as those Interlinear translations mentioned above Also it can rightfully be used in many Scriptures where the context calls for it as when the sentence structure lacks the Greekldquoidiomrdquo discussed throughout this writing as might be the case with most occurrences of ldquoeimirdquo

Here listed in my opinion are the translations which come closest to the Greek thought presented by the particular ldquoidiomrdquo found in John 858 Dr Kenneth L McKay comes up with the correct translation

1 ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo - Kenneth L McKay A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek (SBG 5 New York Peter Lang 1994) p42

(Kenneth L McKay graduated with honours in Classics (with an interest in the Greek of theNT) from the Universities of Sydney and Cambridge He has taught Greek in universities and theological colleges in Nigeria New Zealand and England Mr McKay retired from the Australian National University in 1987 after teaching there for 26 years)

Other translations below come close to McKays rendering and are thus favored over the traditional rendering which is widely misunderstood

2 ldquoI have existed before Abraham was bornrdquo - A New Translation by James [ Moffatt - DD DLitt Glasgow Oxford 3 ldquoBefore Abraham came into existence I have beenrdquo - New World Translation 4 ldquoBefore Abraham came into being I have existedrdquo - The Documents of the [New Testament G W Wade London 5 ldquoFrom before Abraham was I have been rdquo - The New Testament by George [ R -Noyes DD Boston USA6 ldquoBefore Abraham was born I have already been rdquo - The Unvarnished New [Testament Andy Gaus Boston7 ldquoI existed even before Abraham was bornrdquo - The concise Gospel and the Acts [Logos International Christopher J ed Christianson Plainfield NJ8 ldquoI already was before Abraham was bornrdquo ndash Worldwide English New Testament [ Derby UK ________________________________

COMMENTS

Also compare the following translations

Nytt liv (1907 Norwegian)A Biacuteblia Viva (1981 Portuguese)O Novo Testamento Vivo (1974 Portuguese)Le Livre Nouveau Testament (1980 eacuteditions Farel French)Η Καινή Διαθήκη των Τεσσάρων Καθηγητών (ΚΔΤΚ Greek) (The New Testament of the Four Teachers The translation was made and approved (1921981) by the Holy Summit Church of Greece The English title of the project is The New Testament in Modern Greek Athens Greece) Η Αγία Γραφή Παλαιά και Καινή Διαθήκη (ΝΔΜ Greek) Ελληνική Βιβλική Εταιρία Αθήνα [Athens] 1997 (The Bible Old and New Testament Greek Biblical Company - London 1997) ΚΔΛΖ ΛΧ (Other Greek Versions expressing the same idea as translations on the list)___________________

ldquoI was rdquo Note on 1987 translation from Italian main list l Vangelio di Giovanni (El Evangelio de Juan [ldquoThe Gospel of Johnrdquo] with imprimatur) by J Mateos and J Barreto noted on John 858 (as translated by Teodora Tosatti p 387 Cittadela Editrice 1982) that the temporal relationship expressed by the Greek ldquoprin eimi [BeforeI am]rdquo can be translated into Italian ldquoprimaero [BeforeI was]rdquo (Translation from Italian to English mine)__________________

Comment on 1993 ΟІ ΧΡΙΣΤΙΑΝΙΚΕΣ ΓΡΑΦΕΣ Απόδοση από τη Μειάφράση Νέου Κόσμου which is a modern Greek translation of the New World Translation of the ChristianScriptures Unlike most Bible Versions which are published in only one language or a few atmost the NWT is available in dozens of languages based mainly on their English translationbut obviously taking into account other factors in the process such as the original Bible text the peculiarities of their recipient local languages and their targeted audiences in their respective countries

It is obvious though that other NWT translation editions closely followed the English text of the NWT and at the same time their translation teams had enough latitude to offer their own unique renderings at times expressing in their native languages what they see in in the Inspired Text Having said that it is interesting to see how they approached their translation of John 858 from their English translation back into [modern] Greek

The translation team was acutely aware of the basic sense of ldquoegō eimirdquo as ldquoI amrdquo and how those simple words are misconstrued by religionists to say something more than Jesus intended Taking into account the syntax of John 858 as stated throughout this document the translation team who worked on the modern Greek version faced a few options

First they had the option to go back to ldquoegō eimirdquo using the modern Greek equivalent ldquoΕγώ ειμαιrdquo (I am) as it reads in the Vamvas version which they did not Or they could haveexpressed their NWT English choice of ldquoI have beenrdquo with their modern Greek equivalent of ldquoέχο υπάρξει [I have existed]rdquo Thirdly they could have gone with ldquoI wasrdquo (ldquoεγώ ήμουνrdquo) as some of their French and Italian Bible editions have done in the past or even with ldquo[εγώ] υπήρξα [I existed])rdquo Or they could have provided some other unique rendering It is obvious they wanted to stick closely to the Greek text but given the common misconceptionssurrounding ldquoegō eimai (I am)rdquo in mainstream churches the translation team chose to use ldquoεγώ υπάρχωrdquo (a present indicative form in the Greek) which means basically ldquoI existrdquo but in the presence of an expression of past time in John 858 the sense is ldquoI have existedrdquo Thus ldquoBefore Abraham came into existence I have existedrdquo ( The verb είμαι [ldquoto berdquo] in modern Greek has no forms for the perfect tense It borrows the forms from the verb υπάρχω [ldquoI existrdquo] The Greek and English ldquoperfectsrdquo are not exact equivalents either)

The reader is reminded here as noted earlier that modern Greek keeps up with the Koineacute Greek ldquopresentrdquo idiom A modern Greek grammar Greek A Comprehensive Grammar explains ldquoThe present tense is also used in constructions where English would use the perfect continuous ie where the verb expresses a continuous state or habitual event that

has lasted since a certain point in the past and is continuing up to (and including) the presentrdquo The authors provide two examples where a present verb is used with a past time indicator and where they translate using an English perfect as explained ldquoI have been living[Μένω] in this house for three years nowrdquo And ldquoI have been reading [Διαβάζω] this newspaper since 1984rdquo (Greek A Comprehensive Grammar by David Holton Peter Mackridge amp Irene Philippaki-Warburton Revised by Vassilios Spyropoulos p 294 Second edition 2012)

Ten years after the NWT-Greek Edition was released another modern Greek translation was published with the following rendering at John 858 ldquoΣας βεβαιώνω πως πριν να γεννηθεί οΑβραάμ εγώ υπάρχωrdquo which in English would be ldquoI assure you that I have existed since before Abraham was bornrdquo (Literally ldquoI assure you that before could be born the AbrahamI exist [not ldquoΕγώ ειμαιrdquo]rdquo The Holy Bible in Todays Greek Version 2003 Greek Bible Society Interestingly the original English version of 1976 had ldquoI Amrdquo) Also a Spanish Bible conveys a similar thought ldquoYo existo desde antes que existiera Abrahamrdquo [Translation ldquo I exist since before Abraham existedrdquo] (La Biblia - Versioacuten Popular 2nd edition Sociedades Biacuteblicas Unidas 1983)

_________________________________________________________

The Clear Word The translators quoted in this article represent various religious faiths some are Catholic some are Protestant Others are Unitarians Jehovahs Witnesses Jewish Adventists etc and they represent countries the world over One of these translators is a Seventh-Day Adventist who worked on The Clear Word Jack J Blanco ThD As a Seventh-Day Adventist who supports the Trinity doctrine Blanco translated verses to make Jesus ldquoequalrdquo to God in every way

He renders John 11 ldquoHe is the Word of God and is equal with Godrdquo He shows Jesus at Philippians 25-7 as ldquoequal with Godrdquo and describes him as lsquoacting the part of a servantrsquo At John 1428 he completely omits the reference that lsquothe Father is greaterrsquo than Christ But here at John 858 in answer to the question the priests and leaders asked concerning Abraham lsquoseeingrsquo his day Jesus answered according to Dr Blanco ldquoBecause I existed before Abraham was even bornrdquo Thus Dr Blanco makes no connection as others do that Christ is the ldquoI amrdquo of Exodus 314 which according to some would indicate that Jesus is the Jehovah of the Old Testament What he sees in this account is that Jesus already lsquoexisted before Abraham didrsquo and thus Abraham was able to lsquoseersquo his day (John 856) To this we must add another likely element included in Jesus response to the Jews as wellone of simple identification as ldquothe Christ [Messiah]rdquo and ldquoSon of manrdquo Why is it then that manywho support the Trinity doctrine find it hard to understand Jesus statement correctly at John 858 Could it be that they are letting non-Scriptural influence and perhaps the weight of themajority view dictate their understanding of this Scripture

For a consideration of other subjects by the same author check below

For a discussion of Acts 286 Whose blood

httpwwwscribdcomdoc231244155Acts-20-28-Whose-blood

For a discussion of Colossians 116 (ldquoall other thingsrdquo) see

httpwwwscribdcomdoc205841269Colossians-1-16-Is-the-expression-all-other-things-a-proper-rendition

For a consideration on the subject of the Trinity click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc160286056Does-the-Trinity-ever-make-sense

For a full consideration of John 11 click the following link httpwwwscribdcomdoc34916458The-correct-translation-of-John-1-1

For a brief consideration of John 11 with additional citations click here httpwwwscribdcomdoc50330864John-1-1-List-of-Alternate-Readings

Did the NW translators know any Greek click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc48234022Did-the-New-World-Translation-Committee-Know-Greek

For a consideration of John 173 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc57772552John-17-3-E28098Taking-in-knowledge-of-E28099-God-and-Jesus

For a consideration of 1 Timothy 316 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc76927834Was-God-manifested-in-the-flesh-1-Timothy-3-16

For a consideration of Exodus 225 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc38676458Exodus-2-25-And-God-took-notice-Does-God- care-about-us

For a consideration of John 114 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc35002730John-1-14-Jesus-full-of-grace

For a consideration of Translation Differences-Questions and Answershttpwwwscribdcomdoc59484457Translation-Differences-Questions-and-Answers

In Spanish

Para una consideracioacuten de otros temas vea los siguientes enlaces

Para una consideracioacuten de Colosenses 116 ldquotodas las otras cosasrdquo vea

httpwwwscribdcomdoc209601066Colosenses-1-16-C2BFEs-la-traduccion-E2809Ctodas-las-otras-cosasE2809D-apropiada

Para una consideracioacuten de ldquoiquestAcaso tiene sentido la Trinidadrdquo

httpwwwscribdcomdoc173779117C2BFAcaso-tiene-sentido-la-Trinidad

Para un consideracioacuten de Juan 11 vea el siguiente enlace

httpwwwscribdcomdoc35899788Traduccion-correcta-de-Juan-1-1-Lista-de- lecturas-alternativas

Para el tema iquestSabiacutean griego los traductores de la TNM vea el siguiente enlace

httpwwwscribdcomdoc51623596C2BFSabia-griego-el-Comite-de-la-Traduccion-del-Nuevo-Mundo

ldquoI have been an experienced worker since before my son Abe was bornrdquo ldquoI have been what I am since before my son Abe was bornrdquo ldquoI was fit to work and fully active before my son Abe was ever bornrdquo ldquoI was already experienced in many jobs before Abe ever came to berdquo ldquoI have been a master worker way before my son Abe came to liferdquo ldquoBefore Abe was born I already was life and job experiencedrdquo etc

The point is that in English normally we include a present perfect tense whenever there is a reference to the past extending to the present or a past tense of some form whenever we go back in time The same with John 858 There is no justification in English to insist using a present verb form (which is not equal to the Greek present when combined with a past expression) in an unwarranted attempt to convey ldquoeternityrdquo as ldquopaddingrdquo to the Trinity doctrine a doctrine adopted AFTER the Christian era Worse it is disingenuous to accuse other translators (who have chosen to render ldquoegō eimirdquo at John 858 with an English present perfect or past tense) of scholastic dishonesty when the very same translations honored by these detractors do so in other places where the ldquodeityrdquo of Christ is not in play asshown in the samples provided above

An example of this double standard can be seen as well when scholars such as Dr Julius Mantey harshly criticizes the NWT for the rendering ldquoI have beenrdquo at John 858 but keeps quiet when other translators do similarly and even states or pretends that no other reputable translator would ever translate it that way He dared not criticize his former Greek teacher Charles B Williams who produced his own Bible translation Dr Mantey once wrote the following of Dr Williams translation ldquoWilliams translation considering all the factors is the most accurate and illuminating translation in the English languagerdquo And how does this ldquomost accurate translationrdquo render John 858 As follows ldquoI existed before Abraham was bornrdquo Here Dr Williams known for his Greek command used a simple past tense (ldquoI existedrdquo) as translation for the Greek present Julius Mantey certainly did not find Williams version of John 858 a ldquoshocking translationrdquo ldquoI existedrdquo is quite different from the translation Dr Mantey so passionately defended (ldquoI amrdquo)

When Dr Mantey talks about the NWT he says the rendering ldquoI have beenrdquo at John 858 cannot be justified and calls it ldquodishonestrdquo That rule does not apply to Williams translation does it Williams did not translate John 858 in the same way Mantey would have liked (ldquoI amrdquo) Not only that the Grammar itself that Dr Mantey co-authored with Dr Dana A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament states under ldquoThe Progressive Presentrdquo (called ldquoExtension from Pastrdquo by McKay) ldquoSometimes the progressive present is retroactivein its application denoting that which has begun in the past and continues into the present For the want of a better name we may call it the present of duration This use is generally associated with an adverb of time and may best be rendered by the English perfect ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς μετʼ ἐμοῦ ἐστέ Ye have been with me from the beginning Jn 1527 See also Lk137 2 Cor 129 [19]rdquo (Pages 182-83 Emphasis added)

Even though Julius Mantey has stated when referring to the NWT that ldquoI have beenrdquo is not a proper translation and even ldquodishonestrdquo at John 858 he clearly states in his Grammar (of

Scriptures with similar syntax to John 858) ldquoThis use is generally associated with an adverb of time and may best be rendered by the English perfect [such as ldquoI have beenrdquo which in fact is associated with an adverb of time in John 858]rdquo A likely reason for Dana ampManteys strong reluctance for not including John 858 as an example of the idiom discussed on page 183 may have to do with the fact that as ldquotrinitariansrdquo they oppose the idea of Jesus existence having lsquobegunrsquo in the past even though John 858 perfectly fits with the ldquoProgressive Presentrdquo idiom being discussed in their Grammar as acknowledged by other grammarians Hence their objection is truly a ldquotheologicalrdquo one rather than Greek grammaritself arguing in their favor as Mantey and some others have implied since a Greek present or an English perfect does not demand ldquoeternityrdquo at all from the subject

Consequently many religious individuals who focus solely on the basic meaning (of ldquoegō eimirdquo as ldquoI amrdquo) out of the context of the particular ldquoidiomrdquo used at John 858 end up missing the thrust of Jesus words and fall prey to misleading interpretations Doctor Kenneth L McKay taking into account all of these issues comes up with this excellent translation for John 858 ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo (A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek SBG 5 New York Peter Lang 1994 p42) If we objectively consider the material above we will not insist in connecting Jesus at John 858 with the God Jehovah of Exodus 314 (which many attempt to do but cannot be sustained) Instead we will focus on the simple message conveyed by Jesus words at John 858 which is in harmony with the totality of Scripture ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo (McKay) The rendering ldquoI have been in existencerdquo by itself does not rule out either the concept of ldquoeternityrdquo or the ldquocreationrdquo of Jesus Christ A Committee of Bible translators came up with the following translation which may not be the best choice but considering the issues involved is better than the traditional rendering of ldquoI amrdquo ldquoI was alive before Abraham was bornrdquo (The New Testament in Plain English)

(The following scholars are members of the Bible Translation Committee of The New Testament in Plain English which approved this last reading ldquoI was aliverdquo instead of ldquoI amrdquo(Dr Stanley L Morris chairman FW Gingrich Ph D a renown Greek lexicographer Jack P Lewis Ph D CH Accord Th D Clyde M Woods Ph D ST Kan Ph D Gary T Burke Ph D Milo Hadwin D Min)

I submit their names and their credentials here as an example because it is often asserted vigorously that no intelligent or highly qualified scholar would ever produce a translation other than ldquoI amrdquo As noted above and as the list of alternate readings (at the end of this essay) of John 858 shows many done by highly qualified people this is simply not true Usually those making statements of that sort are doing so based on emotional and theological not philological reasons Furthermore by not disclosing other valid viewpoints or by dismissing how other qualified Bible translators deal with this scripture they are undermining their own credibility as well

At this time you are welcome to briefly go over the list of Alternate Readings to John 858 at

the end before moving on to the second part of this essay

_____________________________

Should we ignore the evidence of all those translations listed at the end that differ in John 858 from the traditional versions What then are all these translators seeing at John 858 that moved them to render this text differently They surely must be aware of the resistance they would encounter by translating it by the various forms they used Still they must have had the firm conviction that both the Greek text and the context supports their understanding of this scripture They likely see a Jesus making no identity connection with his Father Godbut rather see a Jesus simply expressing his indefinite existence with no suggestion of eternity in focus Neither is Jesus stating here that he is the God of Old Testament times To understand it that way would be to read into the text more than what it says Taking some clues from the context of the chapter some scholars additionally see Jesus insinuating his ldquomessiahshiprdquo as if saying ldquoI am he [the Messiah]rdquo This is very likely In fact The LivingBible renders John 824 thus ldquoThat is why I said that you will die in your sins for unless you believe that I am the Messiah the Son of God [ἐγώ εἰμι] you will die in your sinsrdquo

Is ldquoegō eimirdquo a title or another name of God

The use of ldquoeimirdquo at John 858 is frequently used as a ldquoproof textrdquo of Jesus deity A noted Trinitarian scholar AT Robertson a Baptist even refers to ldquoegō eimirdquo as ldquothe absolute phrase used of Godrdquo likely indicating the verb conveys ldquotimeless beingrdquo an implication that ldquoeimirdquo here does not require anything else to complete the meaning of the phrase thus conveying ldquoeternal existencerdquo as well as being an actual name for God Some individuals have given plenty of publicity to Robertsons statement as absolute truth But his statement is not ldquotruthrdquo at all It is faulty interpretation which many people have fallen prey to Grammar and theology do not always make the best mix True Robertsons credentials as a scholar are impressive nevertheless credentials does not truth make Besides some other equally bright scholars disagree with him Lets illustrate the folly of those advocating a divine title at John 858 by way of addition (Or substitution if you will) as some suggest

ldquoBefore Abraham was born I am Eternalrdquo ldquoBefore Abraham was born I am Jehovahrdquo ldquoBefore Abraham was born I am eternally Godrdquo

First of all the above hypothetical translations are just as ungrammatical as the simple ldquoI amrdquo reading of most versions An English present tense cannot start before a definite point in the past This can be seen in the following two examples

1 ldquoBefore the US Iraq war I am a soldierrdquo 2 ldquoThree journalists are kidnapped in Nepal since the start of 2007rdquo

What is the correct way to express these statements in English Analyze it for a second and

provide an answer if you will

Notably if ldquoeimirdquo was used to convey eternal existence what is the point of using an expression of past time at all in the clause Moreover the context of previous verses (vv 48-57) clearly indicates that Jesus is speaking of God as a separate entity See below

49 ldquobut I honor my Father and you dishonor merdquo 50 ldquoI am not seeking glory for myself but there is one who seeks it and he is the

judgerdquo54 ldquoIf I glorify myself my glory means nothing My Father whom you claim as your

God is the one who glorifies me 55 ldquoThough you do not know him I know him If I said I did not I would be a liar like you but I do know him and obey his wordrdquo Thus if Jesus meant he himself was the ldquoJehovahrdquo of the Old Testament as Trinitarians claim what would be the rationale behind Jesus directing all distinction and glory to lsquothe Father Godrsquo as a distinct individual as he did in the previous verses and then a few words later abruptly change his argumentation by claiming he is that very same One who lsquoreceives obedience from his own wordrsquo lsquoseeking his own honor and gloryrsquo because he himself is ldquoGodrdquo Confusing is it not To accept this abrupt change of character on Jesus part would be not ldquoa mysteryrdquo but flat out ldquoa deceptionrdquo of big proportions since Jesus himself warned against pretending to be one thing and acting as another (Matthew 62-5 2313-36)

Are we are supposed against all logic to accept these ldquotrinitarianrdquo assumptions instead of a simple alternative which really answers the Jews question about lsquohow could Abraham ldquoseerdquoJesus day if he was not yet 50 years oldrsquo (ldquoI have been in existence since Abraham was bornrdquo)

The obsession with the simple words ldquoI amrdquo have led to many faulty assumptions ldquoI amrdquo issuch a common expression in our language even to this day that words such as ldquoegoismrdquo ldquoegotismrdquo etc (derived from the Greek ldquoegordquo) are considered common words in English dictionaries Everyone uses the phrase ldquoI amrdquo at times Think of any big corporation or powerful organization of your choice for a moment Would you conclude that the two most powerful individuals of this one prestigious organization must be identical in every way solely because they are heard equally saying to others in their common speech ldquoI am thisrdquoor ldquoI am thatrdquo etc

In Bible times humans too used common pronouns The verb eimi (ldquoI amrdquo) itself or forms of it appears more than two thousand times (2000x) in the New Testament alone Additionally the word ldquoegōrdquo appears over seventeen hundred times (1700x) in the NT And those numbers do not include the Septuagint totals Do all occurrences of the word then imply ldquodivinityrdquo in each case Of course not It may be more significant when God or Christ use the expression because of who they are but does it really mean that both God and Christ share the same identity Or that everyone who uses the phrase ldquoI amrdquo does so with divine pretensions Does it really mean that everyone using the phrase are ldquoequalrdquo The

answer is obvious is it not

Lets bear in mind that when God sent Jesus Christ as His representative to a most crucial assignment multiple biblical prophecies were pointing to Christ as the promised Messiah that would free mankind from its moribund condition It is logical then that when the time came for Jesus Christ to show up on earth he would somehow communicate to others that ldquoherdquo and not some other human claiming to be the Messiah was Gods instrument in bringing everlasting relief to human misery Hence he could rightly say any or all of the following ldquoI am (this)rdquo ldquoI am (that)rdquo ldquoI am he [the promised Messiah]rdquo or ldquoI am Gods Sonrdquo Should we expect anything less

The fact is that the words ldquoI amrdquo are not exclusive to God and Christ It should be noted that a man who was born ldquoblindrdquo also used the same expression (John 99) The Greek here says ldquoekeinos elegen hoti Egō eimirdquo (ldquoThat one kept saying that I amrdquo) AT Robertson cites John 99 as one of five parallels to the use of egō eimi in John 858 (Word Pictures in the New Testament Vol V p 159) The phrase here comes at the end of the clause with no explicit predicate James White who upholds the traditional reading admits ldquoThis last instance [John 99] is similar to the sayings as Jesus utters them in that the phrase comes at the end of the clause and looks elsewhere for its predicaterdquo The same could be said of John 1527 Some argue that ldquoeimirdquo in John 858 is ldquoabsoluterdquo but do not do so with John 99 or John 1527 Theology may be a factor in this Previously we saw how Jacob a man according to the Septuagint used the words ldquoegō eimirdquo Other instances in Scripture of creatures using those words would not prove they were part of a ldquoGodheadrdquo Context then ultimately dictates how ldquoeimirdquo should be translated According to John when Jesus was pressed he only claimed to have been alive way before Abraham was born and that he simply was ldquothe Christrdquo ldquothe Son of Manrdquo and ldquothe Son of Godrdquo

There is something else to keep in mind in regards to the meaning of ldquoeimirdquo And it is what grammarian Stanley Porter indicated ldquoSometimes the verb [eimi] is used on its own as a verb of existence Perhaps the best-known example of this is the following John 858rdquo (Fundamentals of New Testament Greek by Stanley E Porter section 753 72) AT Robertson adds ldquoThe verb εἰμί [eimi] hellip Sometimes it does express existence as a predicatelike any other verb as in ἐγὼ εἰμί [egō eimi] (Jo 858) and ἡ θάλασσα οὐκ ἔστιν ἔτι [hē thalassa ouk estin eti = ldquothe sea not is yetrdquo] (Rev 211) Cf Mt 2330rdquo (A Grammar of theGreek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research Nashville Tenn 1934 p 394)

What does this mean The examples mentioned by Robertson in addition to John 858 give us an idea of what this implies It is so strange that the two examples Robertson provided forcomparison with John 858 seems to contradict his ldquotimeless beingrdquo view on ldquoeimirdquo He cited a portion of Revelation 211 where the Greek literally says ldquoAnd the sea not is yetrdquo In other words ldquoThe sea does not exist any morerdquo Amplified Bible ldquoThere no longer existed any seardquo Curiously various versions render the present verb ldquoisrdquo (a form of ldquoeimirdquo) with an imperfect ldquowasrdquo (Cf KJV NIV NAB NRSV) Obviously ldquothe seardquo in this vision is [was] not ldquoeternalrdquo

And in Matthew 2330 the other text provided by Robertson in his comparison with John 858 the Greek word-for-word says ldquoIf we were in the days of the fathers of usrdquo which inmodern English would be ldquoIf we had lived in the days of our forefathersrdquo Other versions ldquoIf we had beenrdquo (Rheims NT) ldquoIf we had been livingrdquo (NASB) ldquoIf we had been existing in the days of our fathersrdquo (Jonathan Mitchell NT) The full NIV text reads ldquoAnd you say lsquoIf we had lived in the days of our ancestors we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophetsrsquo rdquo

It is clear from this comparison that the words of Matthew 2330 ldquoIf we wererdquo (a form of ldquoeimirdquo) in the text is used as an equivalent for ldquoliferdquo or ldquoexistencerdquo In the heavenly vision of Rev 211 lsquothe sea ceased to existrsquo And the generation of people which Jesus spoke about and their ancestors all died ceased to exist If we apply these two examples to John 858 given by Robertson with the meaning either of life or existence for ldquoeimirdquo then it wouldbe equally acceptable to translate ldquoI amrdquo as ldquoI existrdquo or ldquoI liverdquo Many translators reflect this very same understanding as the submitted list of alternate readings of John 858 show ldquoI existrdquo or ldquoI existed even before Abraham was bornrdquo Or ldquoI was alive before Abraham was bornrdquo (The Simple English Bible)

Although some may not see much semantic difference between Jesus saying ldquoI amrdquo or ldquoI existrdquo the two expressions communicate something very different to many readers ldquoI amrdquo is generally associated by Trinitarians as a title used by God or as another name for God Onthe other hand ldquoI existrdquo simply conveys ldquoliferdquo or ldquoexistence Barnabas Lindars points out that ldquoegō eimirdquo in John 858 ldquocannot be regarded as a title because it requires the meaning lsquoI am in existencersquordquo (ldquoThe Son of Man in Johannine Christologyrdquo in Christ and the Spirit in the New Testament In Honour of Charles Francis Digby Moule eds B Lindars and S Smalley Cambridge Cambridge University Press 1973) (Since an English present tense cannot start before a definite point in the past this would mean that we can incorporate Lindars valid observation and translate it into contemporary English like this ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo exactly as Dr McKay proposed)

Some in their eagerness to equate Christ with God accuse translators who render ldquoegō eimirdquo in John 858 with renderings other than ldquoI amrdquo pointing to all occurrences of this expression in the New Testament or in Johns Gospel where allegedly these translators do not follow the same ldquorulerdquo when translating ldquoegō eimirdquo in John 858 as they do elsewhere where they translate it with a present indicative form What they dont tell you or fail to understand is that in John 858 ldquoegō eimirdquo without a predicate AND with an expression of time with past implications in its sentence structure provides an ldquoidiomrdquo which is quite different from those other instances of ldquoeimirdquo Thats right an idiom (where present and past is combined) found equally at home in classical biblical and modern Greek which many translators convey into our language with the English present perfect at various places Consequently one cannot merely go by how the phrase ldquoegō eimirdquo is used elsewhere in the NT without taking into account the fact that John 858 displays an ldquoidiomrdquo in its structure Not doing so would be dishonest John the Baptist had said of Christ in John 130 ldquoA man is coming after me who ranks before me because he existed [Lit was] before merdquo (JB)

John 858 is in harmony with those words Furthermore some attempt to use the reading of Psalm 902 in the Septuagint as ldquoevidencerdquo that John 858 is rendered correctly in the popular versions But a closer analysis of this verse shows notable differences between the two verses making such comparison untenable With good reason a considerable number ofscholars have chosen to break from tradition in their rendering of John 858

If critics of alternate readings of John 858 are not candid enough to admit some of the very issues mentioned here and hide the fact that many scholars do hold a different interpretation and no less academic at that should we consider their diatribes of any worthy import It is ldquowishful thinkingrdquo for someone to believe that John 858 is directly connected to Exodus 314 rather than any real evidence (which is lacking) confirming their eager interpretations Remember even Dr James White a well known Trinitarian advocate admitted ldquothat an immediate and unqualified jump from the ego eimi of John 858 to Exodus 314 is unwiserdquo

Besides a theological tendency can be seen when they focus as some do on undermining the reputation of one Bible translation (NWT) when there are actually numerous versions from different religions dealing with the same controversial Scriptures in a similar manner This is very much like politicians who ignore the failings of their own party but are quick to lsquodemonizersquo their opponents (Matthew 73)

Is the Kingdom Interlinear ldquoproofrdquo the NWT is wrong at John 858

A criticism has been made of a Watchtower Society publication (The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures ldquoKITrdquo) which contains the Greek text and underneath it a word-by-word translation in English and on the right side of the page the modern New World Translation Well at John 858 this publication renders the Greek phrase being discussed here egō eimi word-for-word as ldquoI amrdquo and in the right column the NWT shows the reading ldquoI have beenrdquo This difference have led some to severely criticize the NW translators of ldquoincompetencerdquo ldquoinconsistencyrdquo and even of ldquodishonestyrdquo The critics say something like this ldquoThey have backed themselves into a corner where they cant escape their mishandling of the Greek textrdquo or something of that sort Amazingly these critics in their condemnations hardly ever mention the dozens of translators who translate the same way or similarly to the NWT as the submitted list shows So much for honesty

Those who engage in such tactics are not being forthcoming Why say that Besides dismissing how other translators deal with John 858 they also distort known facts for the WT Society have made it clear that the publication of this Greek Bible is to help the Bible student determine the basic sense of the Greek and have stated that the translation on the right column (the NWT) is a modern way of expressing the thoughts transmitted by the Greek text There are many factors to consider when using such publications

Even other interlinear publications warn of seeming discrepancies For instance The Zondervan Parallel New Testament in Greek and English says in its Foreword ldquo[I]t is a good thing to bear in mind that you cannot always either give an English equivalent for a Greek word or expression or even always render the same Greek verb word by the same

English onerdquo Another interlinear the New Greek-English Interlinear New Testament by Brown and Comfort and edited by J D Douglas explains ldquoIt is difficult to translate one language into another on a word-for-word basis because each language has its own syntax grammatical constructions and idioms that are difficultmdashif not impossiblemdashto replicate literally in another languagerdquo (Emphasis added) This statement is so true of the text in discussion (John 858) in regards to its syntax and particular idiom Often critics of the NWT hide this fact Why Is it religious bias at work

I will give the reader a few examples of an available interlinear translation which has the Greek main text and a literal sublinear translation below the Greek by Professor Paul R McReynolds and on the right column for comparison the reader can study the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) a popular translation in academia Observe how the two can differ

McReynolds Mat 21 ldquomagiciansrdquo NRSV ldquowise menrdquo John 118 ldquoonly born Godrdquo ldquoGod the only Sonrdquo Mat 243 ldquosign of the your presencerdquo ldquothe sign of your comingrdquo Mathew 522 ldquothe gehenna of the firerdquo ldquothe hell of firerdquo John 1319 ldquoI amrdquo ldquoI am herdquo John 149 ldquoI amrdquo ldquoHave I beenrdquo John 1527 ldquoyou arerdquo ldquoyou have beenrdquo 2 Peter 24 ldquobeing sent to Tartarusrdquo ldquobut cast them into hellrdquo Luke 1113 ldquowill give spirit holy tordquo ldquowillgive the Holy Spirit tordquo John 2022 ldquotake spirit holyrdquo ldquoReceive the Holy Spiritrdquo Acts 24 ldquofilled all of spirit holyrdquo ldquofilled with the Holy Spiritrdquo

( Paul R McReynolds is professor of Greek and New Testament at Pacific Christian College in Fullerton California USA He also contributed to the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia)

Some of the readings from the right column above (NRSV) are acceptable others are not See if you can detect in the right column above those translation renderings with a theological tendency that deviate from the literal readings from the left column McReynoldson the left does an excellent job of transmitting the Greek sense Even the most popular Bible versions do not adhere consistently to the base texts The NRSV and a host of other Bible versions add their own religious interpretation throughout Scripture just as much as the NWT if not more but hardly anyone complains of this transformation of Scriptures eventhough it leads to error Why Simply because the NRSV represents more of a ldquomajorityrdquo view than the NWT does But in truth majority or minority views do not correspond equallyto ldquoaccuraterdquo or ldquoinaccuraterdquo results

In the text discussed the KIT can appropriately show the basic sense rendering of ldquoI amrdquo for the Greek ldquoegō eimirdquo in the left column and alternately show the reading ldquoI have beenrdquo in the right column as a contemporary way of expressing in English the particular Greek clause with its ldquoidiomrdquo in John 858 as explained throughout this article a rendering which has

scholarship support When the Greek ldquoegō eimirdquo appears in an idiom-less structure it can rightfully be translated as ldquoI amrdquo as most versions do including the NWT Hence there is no contradiction between the two translations

Dr McKay argues that Jesus response in John 858 ldquowould be most naturally translated lsquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrsquo if it were not for the obsession with the simple words lsquoI amrsquo rdquo (Kenneth L McKay ldquolsquoI amrsquo in Johns Gospelrdquo Expository Times 1996 p 302) I take the author as saying that ldquoI have been in existencerdquo for ldquoeimirdquo is a better translation than ldquoI amrdquo but the [religious] obsession for the simple words ldquoI amrdquo in their quest to elevate Christ to Gods level does not allow people to see that The thing is that Christ lsquoalways pleased the Fatherrsquo and was fully satisfied with being lsquolesserrsquo than him (John 829 1029 1428 177813) Why not accept him as he is

Hence it is poor scholarship to forward the idea that an entity must be God Almighty himselfby the sole fact of using a divine sounding phrase when other Bible individuals are found using the same expression in Scripture The ldquocontextrdquo is the determining factor Not only must we take into account the context surrounding a chapter or book of the Bible but also what the whole Bible teaches on a given person or subject

What does the Bible teach about Jesus

That Christ ldquowas in the beginning with Godrdquo (John 12) At the announcement of his birth on earth the angel Gabriel told Mary that she will give birth to someone ldquogreatrdquo and ldquoholyrdquo and that one will be called ldquoSon of the Most Highrdquo and ldquoSon of Godrdquo (Luke 132 35) Trinitarians may claim that ldquoSon of Godrdquo is equivalent in meaning to ldquoGodrdquo It is a claim with no foundation If there was any truth to the claim then the ldquoHoly Spiritrdquo would also be called Son of God But no The fact is that other living creatures are called ldquosons of Godrdquo (Job 21) Never is ldquoGodrdquo or ldquoholy spiritrdquo ever called ldquoSon of Godrdquo in Scripture Only Jesus Christ is called ldquothe Son of Godrdquo with the article Why

By Christ lsquobecoming obedient [to God] until deathrsquo during the course of his earthly life lsquoGod highly exalted Him and graciously gave him a name which is above every other name that at the name of Jesus every knee should bendto the credit of God the Fatherrsquo (Hebrews58 Philippians 28-11 21st Century New Testament)

ldquo[Christ] has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God with angels authorities and powers made subject to himrdquo (1 Peter 322 NRSV) Still in heaven Christ receives knowledge information revelation from God and transmits it to other creatures (Revelation11) Though the glorified Christ is described as ldquoKing of kingsrdquo and ldquoLord of lordsrdquo he is specifically called ldquoThe Word of Godrdquo (Revelation 191316 NRSV) The night before his death he ldquoprayedrdquo to his Father and called him ldquothe only true Godrdquo and made this petition ldquoFather glorify me in your own presence [Greek beside yourself] with the glory that I hadin your presence [Greek beside you] before the world existedrdquo (John 175 NRSV) (ldquoalongside yourselfrdquo ST Byington) Again God never has to ldquoprayrdquo to anyone Ever

Well then if Jesus Christ expressed this one final ldquowishrdquo in prayer to be ldquoin the presence ofrdquoldquobesiderdquo ldquoalongsiderdquo his Father which he himself called ldquothe only true Godrdquo why should we for the sake of tradition insist with the belief that Jesus ldquomustrdquo somehow be that ldquotruerdquo God the One sitting at the center of Gods throne instead of ldquobesiderdquo God (Mark 1619) Christ did not ask to sit at Gods throne Christ was fully content with the premise of being alongside God And that is what actually happened Mark tells us ldquoSo then the Lord Jesus after he had spoken to them was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of Godrdquo (Mark 1619 NRSV Note Some ancient manuscripts omit this verse) The NIV Study Bible notes the significance of lsquositting at the right hand of Godrsquo ldquoA position of authority second only to Godsrdquo Being in ldquoa position of authority second only to Godsrdquo is something no one should ever say of God for he is always ldquosupremerdquo At no time does God relinquishes his supremacy Someone who holds a position of authority second to God cannot be identical to God Take note too that in this account of Mark chapter 16 or the oneat John chapter 17 there is no mention of a third party of a ldquoGodheadrdquo No ldquoHoly Spiritrdquo is in sight The fact is that the glorified Christ in heaven continues to call his Father ldquomy Godrdquo(Revelation 312)

As ldquoSon of Godrdquo and always lesser and subject to God it is illogical to think Christ would purposely usurp titles and rights that only belonged to lsquohis God and Fatherrsquo (John 1428 Matthew 2023 John 2017 Acts 17) Jesus Christ taught others to only worship the Father God (Matthew 410 John 42324) ldquoAnd we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the worldrdquo (1 John 414) If so the thought that Christ would usethe words ldquoI amrdquo as a title to identify himself as ldquothe true Godrdquo is incongruous Jesus made it clear that he would only seek the glory ldquothat comes from the one who alone is Godrdquo (John850 54 544)

In this Satan controlled world it is not that difficult to get entangled with human taught intricate philosophies which obscure the simple Christian doctrine (John 1231 2 Cor 44) Hence the need for caution at the time of defending popular traditional views which clash with the monotheistic approach of Bible writers

Consequently those who teach that Christ is Almighty God find themselves in conflict with the Scriptural record The submitted list of alternate readings of John 858 shows that there are a considerable number of scholars who not only understand the subject correctly but alsokeenly grasp that whatever Jesus said on the matter has to harmonize with both the context of John chapter 8 and the rest of the Scriptures as well

What is the correct translation of John 858

Is it ldquoI amrdquo ldquoI wasrdquo ldquoI am herdquo or ldquoI have beenrdquo After analyzing the Greek phrase ldquoegō eimirdquo the context and the various possible ways the expression can be translated in English I think it is best to render the Greek with an English present perfect Adding a smallelement such as ldquosincerdquo to the statement as McKay does below satisfies all contextual and grammatical requirements of the passage Doing so does not qualify as ldquointerpolationrdquo

A second choice a simple past tense can perhaps be used in translation where the context allows since it is grammatically correct but it is generally used of activity confined to the past so the message may be distorted Unless that is the simple past is interpreted as ldquoimperfectiverdquo with current relevance How so In support of Jesus deity many frequently cite John11 There in the text a simple past tense ldquowasrdquo is applied to ldquothe Wordrdquo three times in English versions Does that mean ldquothe Wordrdquo is no more or that it was permanentlycut-off from existence at some point Of course not The context of the whole gospel of John shows that Christ is fully pertinent in Christian lives

Scholars choosing a past tense for ldquoeimirdquo (ie ldquoI wasrdquo ldquoI existedrdquo etc) at John 858 may also have in mind what John the Baptist said as a precursor of Jesus Christ ldquoA man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was [ldquoexistedrdquo JB] before merdquo Surely John the Baptist did not mean that Jesus existence was done away with His own words show thatJesus life was very much relevant and would continue to be so Translators have no issue whatsoever in applying a past tense (ldquowasrdquo ldquoexistedrdquo) at John 11 and 130 in their English versions So why would they at John 858 Perhaps because it would mean that they wouldhave to do away with the premise of a ldquodivine titlerdquo in their argumentation of which is claimed clinches Jesus identity with Gods own As shown above Revelation 211 a presentverb a form of ldquoeimirdquo is rendered by some versions with a past tense ldquowasrdquo Obviously Bible translators have no problem in translating some present tense verbs with past tenses or with present perfects But most object to it at John 858 likely for theological reasons

As stated in the beginning of this essay the English ldquopresentrdquo and the Greek ldquopresentrdquo in certain contexts do not correspond exactly in meaning because in Greek ldquotimerdquo is a secondary factor That being the case the choice of English tense does not have to match theGreek conjugation per se to be faithful to the Sacred Text When one considers the specific idiom found in John 858 and the semantic implications of both the Greek and English ldquopresentrdquo one can see that the rendering ldquoI amrdquo though popular does not nearly represent the best translation possible in the English language ldquoContextrdquo often plays a more importantrole in determining the correct translation Overall though it is best to render the Greek expression with an English present perfect since it conveys clearly a more present relevancythan a past tense would

That said John 858 is a good example where a Greek transliteration may not be the best choice to communicate the right message effectively in our times The translation of ldquoI amrdquo has its place in extreme English literal translations which show the basic sense of the Greek such as those Interlinear translations mentioned above Also it can rightfully be used in many Scriptures where the context calls for it as when the sentence structure lacks the Greekldquoidiomrdquo discussed throughout this writing as might be the case with most occurrences of ldquoeimirdquo

Here listed in my opinion are the translations which come closest to the Greek thought presented by the particular ldquoidiomrdquo found in John 858 Dr Kenneth L McKay comes up with the correct translation

1 ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo - Kenneth L McKay A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek (SBG 5 New York Peter Lang 1994) p42

(Kenneth L McKay graduated with honours in Classics (with an interest in the Greek of theNT) from the Universities of Sydney and Cambridge He has taught Greek in universities and theological colleges in Nigeria New Zealand and England Mr McKay retired from the Australian National University in 1987 after teaching there for 26 years)

Other translations below come close to McKays rendering and are thus favored over the traditional rendering which is widely misunderstood

2 ldquoI have existed before Abraham was bornrdquo - A New Translation by James [ Moffatt - DD DLitt Glasgow Oxford 3 ldquoBefore Abraham came into existence I have beenrdquo - New World Translation 4 ldquoBefore Abraham came into being I have existedrdquo - The Documents of the [New Testament G W Wade London 5 ldquoFrom before Abraham was I have been rdquo - The New Testament by George [ R -Noyes DD Boston USA6 ldquoBefore Abraham was born I have already been rdquo - The Unvarnished New [Testament Andy Gaus Boston7 ldquoI existed even before Abraham was bornrdquo - The concise Gospel and the Acts [Logos International Christopher J ed Christianson Plainfield NJ8 ldquoI already was before Abraham was bornrdquo ndash Worldwide English New Testament [ Derby UK ________________________________

COMMENTS

Also compare the following translations

Nytt liv (1907 Norwegian)A Biacuteblia Viva (1981 Portuguese)O Novo Testamento Vivo (1974 Portuguese)Le Livre Nouveau Testament (1980 eacuteditions Farel French)Η Καινή Διαθήκη των Τεσσάρων Καθηγητών (ΚΔΤΚ Greek) (The New Testament of the Four Teachers The translation was made and approved (1921981) by the Holy Summit Church of Greece The English title of the project is The New Testament in Modern Greek Athens Greece) Η Αγία Γραφή Παλαιά και Καινή Διαθήκη (ΝΔΜ Greek) Ελληνική Βιβλική Εταιρία Αθήνα [Athens] 1997 (The Bible Old and New Testament Greek Biblical Company - London 1997) ΚΔΛΖ ΛΧ (Other Greek Versions expressing the same idea as translations on the list)___________________

ldquoI was rdquo Note on 1987 translation from Italian main list l Vangelio di Giovanni (El Evangelio de Juan [ldquoThe Gospel of Johnrdquo] with imprimatur) by J Mateos and J Barreto noted on John 858 (as translated by Teodora Tosatti p 387 Cittadela Editrice 1982) that the temporal relationship expressed by the Greek ldquoprin eimi [BeforeI am]rdquo can be translated into Italian ldquoprimaero [BeforeI was]rdquo (Translation from Italian to English mine)__________________

Comment on 1993 ΟІ ΧΡΙΣΤΙΑΝΙΚΕΣ ΓΡΑΦΕΣ Απόδοση από τη Μειάφράση Νέου Κόσμου which is a modern Greek translation of the New World Translation of the ChristianScriptures Unlike most Bible Versions which are published in only one language or a few atmost the NWT is available in dozens of languages based mainly on their English translationbut obviously taking into account other factors in the process such as the original Bible text the peculiarities of their recipient local languages and their targeted audiences in their respective countries

It is obvious though that other NWT translation editions closely followed the English text of the NWT and at the same time their translation teams had enough latitude to offer their own unique renderings at times expressing in their native languages what they see in in the Inspired Text Having said that it is interesting to see how they approached their translation of John 858 from their English translation back into [modern] Greek

The translation team was acutely aware of the basic sense of ldquoegō eimirdquo as ldquoI amrdquo and how those simple words are misconstrued by religionists to say something more than Jesus intended Taking into account the syntax of John 858 as stated throughout this document the translation team who worked on the modern Greek version faced a few options

First they had the option to go back to ldquoegō eimirdquo using the modern Greek equivalent ldquoΕγώ ειμαιrdquo (I am) as it reads in the Vamvas version which they did not Or they could haveexpressed their NWT English choice of ldquoI have beenrdquo with their modern Greek equivalent of ldquoέχο υπάρξει [I have existed]rdquo Thirdly they could have gone with ldquoI wasrdquo (ldquoεγώ ήμουνrdquo) as some of their French and Italian Bible editions have done in the past or even with ldquo[εγώ] υπήρξα [I existed])rdquo Or they could have provided some other unique rendering It is obvious they wanted to stick closely to the Greek text but given the common misconceptionssurrounding ldquoegō eimai (I am)rdquo in mainstream churches the translation team chose to use ldquoεγώ υπάρχωrdquo (a present indicative form in the Greek) which means basically ldquoI existrdquo but in the presence of an expression of past time in John 858 the sense is ldquoI have existedrdquo Thus ldquoBefore Abraham came into existence I have existedrdquo ( The verb είμαι [ldquoto berdquo] in modern Greek has no forms for the perfect tense It borrows the forms from the verb υπάρχω [ldquoI existrdquo] The Greek and English ldquoperfectsrdquo are not exact equivalents either)

The reader is reminded here as noted earlier that modern Greek keeps up with the Koineacute Greek ldquopresentrdquo idiom A modern Greek grammar Greek A Comprehensive Grammar explains ldquoThe present tense is also used in constructions where English would use the perfect continuous ie where the verb expresses a continuous state or habitual event that

has lasted since a certain point in the past and is continuing up to (and including) the presentrdquo The authors provide two examples where a present verb is used with a past time indicator and where they translate using an English perfect as explained ldquoI have been living[Μένω] in this house for three years nowrdquo And ldquoI have been reading [Διαβάζω] this newspaper since 1984rdquo (Greek A Comprehensive Grammar by David Holton Peter Mackridge amp Irene Philippaki-Warburton Revised by Vassilios Spyropoulos p 294 Second edition 2012)

Ten years after the NWT-Greek Edition was released another modern Greek translation was published with the following rendering at John 858 ldquoΣας βεβαιώνω πως πριν να γεννηθεί οΑβραάμ εγώ υπάρχωrdquo which in English would be ldquoI assure you that I have existed since before Abraham was bornrdquo (Literally ldquoI assure you that before could be born the AbrahamI exist [not ldquoΕγώ ειμαιrdquo]rdquo The Holy Bible in Todays Greek Version 2003 Greek Bible Society Interestingly the original English version of 1976 had ldquoI Amrdquo) Also a Spanish Bible conveys a similar thought ldquoYo existo desde antes que existiera Abrahamrdquo [Translation ldquo I exist since before Abraham existedrdquo] (La Biblia - Versioacuten Popular 2nd edition Sociedades Biacuteblicas Unidas 1983)

_________________________________________________________

The Clear Word The translators quoted in this article represent various religious faiths some are Catholic some are Protestant Others are Unitarians Jehovahs Witnesses Jewish Adventists etc and they represent countries the world over One of these translators is a Seventh-Day Adventist who worked on The Clear Word Jack J Blanco ThD As a Seventh-Day Adventist who supports the Trinity doctrine Blanco translated verses to make Jesus ldquoequalrdquo to God in every way

He renders John 11 ldquoHe is the Word of God and is equal with Godrdquo He shows Jesus at Philippians 25-7 as ldquoequal with Godrdquo and describes him as lsquoacting the part of a servantrsquo At John 1428 he completely omits the reference that lsquothe Father is greaterrsquo than Christ But here at John 858 in answer to the question the priests and leaders asked concerning Abraham lsquoseeingrsquo his day Jesus answered according to Dr Blanco ldquoBecause I existed before Abraham was even bornrdquo Thus Dr Blanco makes no connection as others do that Christ is the ldquoI amrdquo of Exodus 314 which according to some would indicate that Jesus is the Jehovah of the Old Testament What he sees in this account is that Jesus already lsquoexisted before Abraham didrsquo and thus Abraham was able to lsquoseersquo his day (John 856) To this we must add another likely element included in Jesus response to the Jews as wellone of simple identification as ldquothe Christ [Messiah]rdquo and ldquoSon of manrdquo Why is it then that manywho support the Trinity doctrine find it hard to understand Jesus statement correctly at John 858 Could it be that they are letting non-Scriptural influence and perhaps the weight of themajority view dictate their understanding of this Scripture

For a consideration of other subjects by the same author check below

For a discussion of Acts 286 Whose blood

httpwwwscribdcomdoc231244155Acts-20-28-Whose-blood

For a discussion of Colossians 116 (ldquoall other thingsrdquo) see

httpwwwscribdcomdoc205841269Colossians-1-16-Is-the-expression-all-other-things-a-proper-rendition

For a consideration on the subject of the Trinity click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc160286056Does-the-Trinity-ever-make-sense

For a full consideration of John 11 click the following link httpwwwscribdcomdoc34916458The-correct-translation-of-John-1-1

For a brief consideration of John 11 with additional citations click here httpwwwscribdcomdoc50330864John-1-1-List-of-Alternate-Readings

Did the NW translators know any Greek click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc48234022Did-the-New-World-Translation-Committee-Know-Greek

For a consideration of John 173 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc57772552John-17-3-E28098Taking-in-knowledge-of-E28099-God-and-Jesus

For a consideration of 1 Timothy 316 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc76927834Was-God-manifested-in-the-flesh-1-Timothy-3-16

For a consideration of Exodus 225 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc38676458Exodus-2-25-And-God-took-notice-Does-God- care-about-us

For a consideration of John 114 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc35002730John-1-14-Jesus-full-of-grace

For a consideration of Translation Differences-Questions and Answershttpwwwscribdcomdoc59484457Translation-Differences-Questions-and-Answers

In Spanish

Para una consideracioacuten de otros temas vea los siguientes enlaces

Para una consideracioacuten de Colosenses 116 ldquotodas las otras cosasrdquo vea

httpwwwscribdcomdoc209601066Colosenses-1-16-C2BFEs-la-traduccion-E2809Ctodas-las-otras-cosasE2809D-apropiada

Para una consideracioacuten de ldquoiquestAcaso tiene sentido la Trinidadrdquo

httpwwwscribdcomdoc173779117C2BFAcaso-tiene-sentido-la-Trinidad

Para un consideracioacuten de Juan 11 vea el siguiente enlace

httpwwwscribdcomdoc35899788Traduccion-correcta-de-Juan-1-1-Lista-de- lecturas-alternativas

Para el tema iquestSabiacutean griego los traductores de la TNM vea el siguiente enlace

httpwwwscribdcomdoc51623596C2BFSabia-griego-el-Comite-de-la-Traduccion-del-Nuevo-Mundo

Scriptures with similar syntax to John 858) ldquoThis use is generally associated with an adverb of time and may best be rendered by the English perfect [such as ldquoI have beenrdquo which in fact is associated with an adverb of time in John 858]rdquo A likely reason for Dana ampManteys strong reluctance for not including John 858 as an example of the idiom discussed on page 183 may have to do with the fact that as ldquotrinitariansrdquo they oppose the idea of Jesus existence having lsquobegunrsquo in the past even though John 858 perfectly fits with the ldquoProgressive Presentrdquo idiom being discussed in their Grammar as acknowledged by other grammarians Hence their objection is truly a ldquotheologicalrdquo one rather than Greek grammaritself arguing in their favor as Mantey and some others have implied since a Greek present or an English perfect does not demand ldquoeternityrdquo at all from the subject

Consequently many religious individuals who focus solely on the basic meaning (of ldquoegō eimirdquo as ldquoI amrdquo) out of the context of the particular ldquoidiomrdquo used at John 858 end up missing the thrust of Jesus words and fall prey to misleading interpretations Doctor Kenneth L McKay taking into account all of these issues comes up with this excellent translation for John 858 ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo (A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek SBG 5 New York Peter Lang 1994 p42) If we objectively consider the material above we will not insist in connecting Jesus at John 858 with the God Jehovah of Exodus 314 (which many attempt to do but cannot be sustained) Instead we will focus on the simple message conveyed by Jesus words at John 858 which is in harmony with the totality of Scripture ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo (McKay) The rendering ldquoI have been in existencerdquo by itself does not rule out either the concept of ldquoeternityrdquo or the ldquocreationrdquo of Jesus Christ A Committee of Bible translators came up with the following translation which may not be the best choice but considering the issues involved is better than the traditional rendering of ldquoI amrdquo ldquoI was alive before Abraham was bornrdquo (The New Testament in Plain English)

(The following scholars are members of the Bible Translation Committee of The New Testament in Plain English which approved this last reading ldquoI was aliverdquo instead of ldquoI amrdquo(Dr Stanley L Morris chairman FW Gingrich Ph D a renown Greek lexicographer Jack P Lewis Ph D CH Accord Th D Clyde M Woods Ph D ST Kan Ph D Gary T Burke Ph D Milo Hadwin D Min)

I submit their names and their credentials here as an example because it is often asserted vigorously that no intelligent or highly qualified scholar would ever produce a translation other than ldquoI amrdquo As noted above and as the list of alternate readings (at the end of this essay) of John 858 shows many done by highly qualified people this is simply not true Usually those making statements of that sort are doing so based on emotional and theological not philological reasons Furthermore by not disclosing other valid viewpoints or by dismissing how other qualified Bible translators deal with this scripture they are undermining their own credibility as well

At this time you are welcome to briefly go over the list of Alternate Readings to John 858 at

the end before moving on to the second part of this essay

_____________________________

Should we ignore the evidence of all those translations listed at the end that differ in John 858 from the traditional versions What then are all these translators seeing at John 858 that moved them to render this text differently They surely must be aware of the resistance they would encounter by translating it by the various forms they used Still they must have had the firm conviction that both the Greek text and the context supports their understanding of this scripture They likely see a Jesus making no identity connection with his Father Godbut rather see a Jesus simply expressing his indefinite existence with no suggestion of eternity in focus Neither is Jesus stating here that he is the God of Old Testament times To understand it that way would be to read into the text more than what it says Taking some clues from the context of the chapter some scholars additionally see Jesus insinuating his ldquomessiahshiprdquo as if saying ldquoI am he [the Messiah]rdquo This is very likely In fact The LivingBible renders John 824 thus ldquoThat is why I said that you will die in your sins for unless you believe that I am the Messiah the Son of God [ἐγώ εἰμι] you will die in your sinsrdquo

Is ldquoegō eimirdquo a title or another name of God

The use of ldquoeimirdquo at John 858 is frequently used as a ldquoproof textrdquo of Jesus deity A noted Trinitarian scholar AT Robertson a Baptist even refers to ldquoegō eimirdquo as ldquothe absolute phrase used of Godrdquo likely indicating the verb conveys ldquotimeless beingrdquo an implication that ldquoeimirdquo here does not require anything else to complete the meaning of the phrase thus conveying ldquoeternal existencerdquo as well as being an actual name for God Some individuals have given plenty of publicity to Robertsons statement as absolute truth But his statement is not ldquotruthrdquo at all It is faulty interpretation which many people have fallen prey to Grammar and theology do not always make the best mix True Robertsons credentials as a scholar are impressive nevertheless credentials does not truth make Besides some other equally bright scholars disagree with him Lets illustrate the folly of those advocating a divine title at John 858 by way of addition (Or substitution if you will) as some suggest

ldquoBefore Abraham was born I am Eternalrdquo ldquoBefore Abraham was born I am Jehovahrdquo ldquoBefore Abraham was born I am eternally Godrdquo

First of all the above hypothetical translations are just as ungrammatical as the simple ldquoI amrdquo reading of most versions An English present tense cannot start before a definite point in the past This can be seen in the following two examples

1 ldquoBefore the US Iraq war I am a soldierrdquo 2 ldquoThree journalists are kidnapped in Nepal since the start of 2007rdquo

What is the correct way to express these statements in English Analyze it for a second and

provide an answer if you will

Notably if ldquoeimirdquo was used to convey eternal existence what is the point of using an expression of past time at all in the clause Moreover the context of previous verses (vv 48-57) clearly indicates that Jesus is speaking of God as a separate entity See below

49 ldquobut I honor my Father and you dishonor merdquo 50 ldquoI am not seeking glory for myself but there is one who seeks it and he is the

judgerdquo54 ldquoIf I glorify myself my glory means nothing My Father whom you claim as your

God is the one who glorifies me 55 ldquoThough you do not know him I know him If I said I did not I would be a liar like you but I do know him and obey his wordrdquo Thus if Jesus meant he himself was the ldquoJehovahrdquo of the Old Testament as Trinitarians claim what would be the rationale behind Jesus directing all distinction and glory to lsquothe Father Godrsquo as a distinct individual as he did in the previous verses and then a few words later abruptly change his argumentation by claiming he is that very same One who lsquoreceives obedience from his own wordrsquo lsquoseeking his own honor and gloryrsquo because he himself is ldquoGodrdquo Confusing is it not To accept this abrupt change of character on Jesus part would be not ldquoa mysteryrdquo but flat out ldquoa deceptionrdquo of big proportions since Jesus himself warned against pretending to be one thing and acting as another (Matthew 62-5 2313-36)

Are we are supposed against all logic to accept these ldquotrinitarianrdquo assumptions instead of a simple alternative which really answers the Jews question about lsquohow could Abraham ldquoseerdquoJesus day if he was not yet 50 years oldrsquo (ldquoI have been in existence since Abraham was bornrdquo)

The obsession with the simple words ldquoI amrdquo have led to many faulty assumptions ldquoI amrdquo issuch a common expression in our language even to this day that words such as ldquoegoismrdquo ldquoegotismrdquo etc (derived from the Greek ldquoegordquo) are considered common words in English dictionaries Everyone uses the phrase ldquoI amrdquo at times Think of any big corporation or powerful organization of your choice for a moment Would you conclude that the two most powerful individuals of this one prestigious organization must be identical in every way solely because they are heard equally saying to others in their common speech ldquoI am thisrdquoor ldquoI am thatrdquo etc

In Bible times humans too used common pronouns The verb eimi (ldquoI amrdquo) itself or forms of it appears more than two thousand times (2000x) in the New Testament alone Additionally the word ldquoegōrdquo appears over seventeen hundred times (1700x) in the NT And those numbers do not include the Septuagint totals Do all occurrences of the word then imply ldquodivinityrdquo in each case Of course not It may be more significant when God or Christ use the expression because of who they are but does it really mean that both God and Christ share the same identity Or that everyone who uses the phrase ldquoI amrdquo does so with divine pretensions Does it really mean that everyone using the phrase are ldquoequalrdquo The

answer is obvious is it not

Lets bear in mind that when God sent Jesus Christ as His representative to a most crucial assignment multiple biblical prophecies were pointing to Christ as the promised Messiah that would free mankind from its moribund condition It is logical then that when the time came for Jesus Christ to show up on earth he would somehow communicate to others that ldquoherdquo and not some other human claiming to be the Messiah was Gods instrument in bringing everlasting relief to human misery Hence he could rightly say any or all of the following ldquoI am (this)rdquo ldquoI am (that)rdquo ldquoI am he [the promised Messiah]rdquo or ldquoI am Gods Sonrdquo Should we expect anything less

The fact is that the words ldquoI amrdquo are not exclusive to God and Christ It should be noted that a man who was born ldquoblindrdquo also used the same expression (John 99) The Greek here says ldquoekeinos elegen hoti Egō eimirdquo (ldquoThat one kept saying that I amrdquo) AT Robertson cites John 99 as one of five parallels to the use of egō eimi in John 858 (Word Pictures in the New Testament Vol V p 159) The phrase here comes at the end of the clause with no explicit predicate James White who upholds the traditional reading admits ldquoThis last instance [John 99] is similar to the sayings as Jesus utters them in that the phrase comes at the end of the clause and looks elsewhere for its predicaterdquo The same could be said of John 1527 Some argue that ldquoeimirdquo in John 858 is ldquoabsoluterdquo but do not do so with John 99 or John 1527 Theology may be a factor in this Previously we saw how Jacob a man according to the Septuagint used the words ldquoegō eimirdquo Other instances in Scripture of creatures using those words would not prove they were part of a ldquoGodheadrdquo Context then ultimately dictates how ldquoeimirdquo should be translated According to John when Jesus was pressed he only claimed to have been alive way before Abraham was born and that he simply was ldquothe Christrdquo ldquothe Son of Manrdquo and ldquothe Son of Godrdquo

There is something else to keep in mind in regards to the meaning of ldquoeimirdquo And it is what grammarian Stanley Porter indicated ldquoSometimes the verb [eimi] is used on its own as a verb of existence Perhaps the best-known example of this is the following John 858rdquo (Fundamentals of New Testament Greek by Stanley E Porter section 753 72) AT Robertson adds ldquoThe verb εἰμί [eimi] hellip Sometimes it does express existence as a predicatelike any other verb as in ἐγὼ εἰμί [egō eimi] (Jo 858) and ἡ θάλασσα οὐκ ἔστιν ἔτι [hē thalassa ouk estin eti = ldquothe sea not is yetrdquo] (Rev 211) Cf Mt 2330rdquo (A Grammar of theGreek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research Nashville Tenn 1934 p 394)

What does this mean The examples mentioned by Robertson in addition to John 858 give us an idea of what this implies It is so strange that the two examples Robertson provided forcomparison with John 858 seems to contradict his ldquotimeless beingrdquo view on ldquoeimirdquo He cited a portion of Revelation 211 where the Greek literally says ldquoAnd the sea not is yetrdquo In other words ldquoThe sea does not exist any morerdquo Amplified Bible ldquoThere no longer existed any seardquo Curiously various versions render the present verb ldquoisrdquo (a form of ldquoeimirdquo) with an imperfect ldquowasrdquo (Cf KJV NIV NAB NRSV) Obviously ldquothe seardquo in this vision is [was] not ldquoeternalrdquo

And in Matthew 2330 the other text provided by Robertson in his comparison with John 858 the Greek word-for-word says ldquoIf we were in the days of the fathers of usrdquo which inmodern English would be ldquoIf we had lived in the days of our forefathersrdquo Other versions ldquoIf we had beenrdquo (Rheims NT) ldquoIf we had been livingrdquo (NASB) ldquoIf we had been existing in the days of our fathersrdquo (Jonathan Mitchell NT) The full NIV text reads ldquoAnd you say lsquoIf we had lived in the days of our ancestors we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophetsrsquo rdquo

It is clear from this comparison that the words of Matthew 2330 ldquoIf we wererdquo (a form of ldquoeimirdquo) in the text is used as an equivalent for ldquoliferdquo or ldquoexistencerdquo In the heavenly vision of Rev 211 lsquothe sea ceased to existrsquo And the generation of people which Jesus spoke about and their ancestors all died ceased to exist If we apply these two examples to John 858 given by Robertson with the meaning either of life or existence for ldquoeimirdquo then it wouldbe equally acceptable to translate ldquoI amrdquo as ldquoI existrdquo or ldquoI liverdquo Many translators reflect this very same understanding as the submitted list of alternate readings of John 858 show ldquoI existrdquo or ldquoI existed even before Abraham was bornrdquo Or ldquoI was alive before Abraham was bornrdquo (The Simple English Bible)

Although some may not see much semantic difference between Jesus saying ldquoI amrdquo or ldquoI existrdquo the two expressions communicate something very different to many readers ldquoI amrdquo is generally associated by Trinitarians as a title used by God or as another name for God Onthe other hand ldquoI existrdquo simply conveys ldquoliferdquo or ldquoexistence Barnabas Lindars points out that ldquoegō eimirdquo in John 858 ldquocannot be regarded as a title because it requires the meaning lsquoI am in existencersquordquo (ldquoThe Son of Man in Johannine Christologyrdquo in Christ and the Spirit in the New Testament In Honour of Charles Francis Digby Moule eds B Lindars and S Smalley Cambridge Cambridge University Press 1973) (Since an English present tense cannot start before a definite point in the past this would mean that we can incorporate Lindars valid observation and translate it into contemporary English like this ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo exactly as Dr McKay proposed)

Some in their eagerness to equate Christ with God accuse translators who render ldquoegō eimirdquo in John 858 with renderings other than ldquoI amrdquo pointing to all occurrences of this expression in the New Testament or in Johns Gospel where allegedly these translators do not follow the same ldquorulerdquo when translating ldquoegō eimirdquo in John 858 as they do elsewhere where they translate it with a present indicative form What they dont tell you or fail to understand is that in John 858 ldquoegō eimirdquo without a predicate AND with an expression of time with past implications in its sentence structure provides an ldquoidiomrdquo which is quite different from those other instances of ldquoeimirdquo Thats right an idiom (where present and past is combined) found equally at home in classical biblical and modern Greek which many translators convey into our language with the English present perfect at various places Consequently one cannot merely go by how the phrase ldquoegō eimirdquo is used elsewhere in the NT without taking into account the fact that John 858 displays an ldquoidiomrdquo in its structure Not doing so would be dishonest John the Baptist had said of Christ in John 130 ldquoA man is coming after me who ranks before me because he existed [Lit was] before merdquo (JB)

John 858 is in harmony with those words Furthermore some attempt to use the reading of Psalm 902 in the Septuagint as ldquoevidencerdquo that John 858 is rendered correctly in the popular versions But a closer analysis of this verse shows notable differences between the two verses making such comparison untenable With good reason a considerable number ofscholars have chosen to break from tradition in their rendering of John 858

If critics of alternate readings of John 858 are not candid enough to admit some of the very issues mentioned here and hide the fact that many scholars do hold a different interpretation and no less academic at that should we consider their diatribes of any worthy import It is ldquowishful thinkingrdquo for someone to believe that John 858 is directly connected to Exodus 314 rather than any real evidence (which is lacking) confirming their eager interpretations Remember even Dr James White a well known Trinitarian advocate admitted ldquothat an immediate and unqualified jump from the ego eimi of John 858 to Exodus 314 is unwiserdquo

Besides a theological tendency can be seen when they focus as some do on undermining the reputation of one Bible translation (NWT) when there are actually numerous versions from different religions dealing with the same controversial Scriptures in a similar manner This is very much like politicians who ignore the failings of their own party but are quick to lsquodemonizersquo their opponents (Matthew 73)

Is the Kingdom Interlinear ldquoproofrdquo the NWT is wrong at John 858

A criticism has been made of a Watchtower Society publication (The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures ldquoKITrdquo) which contains the Greek text and underneath it a word-by-word translation in English and on the right side of the page the modern New World Translation Well at John 858 this publication renders the Greek phrase being discussed here egō eimi word-for-word as ldquoI amrdquo and in the right column the NWT shows the reading ldquoI have beenrdquo This difference have led some to severely criticize the NW translators of ldquoincompetencerdquo ldquoinconsistencyrdquo and even of ldquodishonestyrdquo The critics say something like this ldquoThey have backed themselves into a corner where they cant escape their mishandling of the Greek textrdquo or something of that sort Amazingly these critics in their condemnations hardly ever mention the dozens of translators who translate the same way or similarly to the NWT as the submitted list shows So much for honesty

Those who engage in such tactics are not being forthcoming Why say that Besides dismissing how other translators deal with John 858 they also distort known facts for the WT Society have made it clear that the publication of this Greek Bible is to help the Bible student determine the basic sense of the Greek and have stated that the translation on the right column (the NWT) is a modern way of expressing the thoughts transmitted by the Greek text There are many factors to consider when using such publications

Even other interlinear publications warn of seeming discrepancies For instance The Zondervan Parallel New Testament in Greek and English says in its Foreword ldquo[I]t is a good thing to bear in mind that you cannot always either give an English equivalent for a Greek word or expression or even always render the same Greek verb word by the same

English onerdquo Another interlinear the New Greek-English Interlinear New Testament by Brown and Comfort and edited by J D Douglas explains ldquoIt is difficult to translate one language into another on a word-for-word basis because each language has its own syntax grammatical constructions and idioms that are difficultmdashif not impossiblemdashto replicate literally in another languagerdquo (Emphasis added) This statement is so true of the text in discussion (John 858) in regards to its syntax and particular idiom Often critics of the NWT hide this fact Why Is it religious bias at work

I will give the reader a few examples of an available interlinear translation which has the Greek main text and a literal sublinear translation below the Greek by Professor Paul R McReynolds and on the right column for comparison the reader can study the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) a popular translation in academia Observe how the two can differ

McReynolds Mat 21 ldquomagiciansrdquo NRSV ldquowise menrdquo John 118 ldquoonly born Godrdquo ldquoGod the only Sonrdquo Mat 243 ldquosign of the your presencerdquo ldquothe sign of your comingrdquo Mathew 522 ldquothe gehenna of the firerdquo ldquothe hell of firerdquo John 1319 ldquoI amrdquo ldquoI am herdquo John 149 ldquoI amrdquo ldquoHave I beenrdquo John 1527 ldquoyou arerdquo ldquoyou have beenrdquo 2 Peter 24 ldquobeing sent to Tartarusrdquo ldquobut cast them into hellrdquo Luke 1113 ldquowill give spirit holy tordquo ldquowillgive the Holy Spirit tordquo John 2022 ldquotake spirit holyrdquo ldquoReceive the Holy Spiritrdquo Acts 24 ldquofilled all of spirit holyrdquo ldquofilled with the Holy Spiritrdquo

( Paul R McReynolds is professor of Greek and New Testament at Pacific Christian College in Fullerton California USA He also contributed to the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia)

Some of the readings from the right column above (NRSV) are acceptable others are not See if you can detect in the right column above those translation renderings with a theological tendency that deviate from the literal readings from the left column McReynoldson the left does an excellent job of transmitting the Greek sense Even the most popular Bible versions do not adhere consistently to the base texts The NRSV and a host of other Bible versions add their own religious interpretation throughout Scripture just as much as the NWT if not more but hardly anyone complains of this transformation of Scriptures eventhough it leads to error Why Simply because the NRSV represents more of a ldquomajorityrdquo view than the NWT does But in truth majority or minority views do not correspond equallyto ldquoaccuraterdquo or ldquoinaccuraterdquo results

In the text discussed the KIT can appropriately show the basic sense rendering of ldquoI amrdquo for the Greek ldquoegō eimirdquo in the left column and alternately show the reading ldquoI have beenrdquo in the right column as a contemporary way of expressing in English the particular Greek clause with its ldquoidiomrdquo in John 858 as explained throughout this article a rendering which has

scholarship support When the Greek ldquoegō eimirdquo appears in an idiom-less structure it can rightfully be translated as ldquoI amrdquo as most versions do including the NWT Hence there is no contradiction between the two translations

Dr McKay argues that Jesus response in John 858 ldquowould be most naturally translated lsquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrsquo if it were not for the obsession with the simple words lsquoI amrsquo rdquo (Kenneth L McKay ldquolsquoI amrsquo in Johns Gospelrdquo Expository Times 1996 p 302) I take the author as saying that ldquoI have been in existencerdquo for ldquoeimirdquo is a better translation than ldquoI amrdquo but the [religious] obsession for the simple words ldquoI amrdquo in their quest to elevate Christ to Gods level does not allow people to see that The thing is that Christ lsquoalways pleased the Fatherrsquo and was fully satisfied with being lsquolesserrsquo than him (John 829 1029 1428 177813) Why not accept him as he is

Hence it is poor scholarship to forward the idea that an entity must be God Almighty himselfby the sole fact of using a divine sounding phrase when other Bible individuals are found using the same expression in Scripture The ldquocontextrdquo is the determining factor Not only must we take into account the context surrounding a chapter or book of the Bible but also what the whole Bible teaches on a given person or subject

What does the Bible teach about Jesus

That Christ ldquowas in the beginning with Godrdquo (John 12) At the announcement of his birth on earth the angel Gabriel told Mary that she will give birth to someone ldquogreatrdquo and ldquoholyrdquo and that one will be called ldquoSon of the Most Highrdquo and ldquoSon of Godrdquo (Luke 132 35) Trinitarians may claim that ldquoSon of Godrdquo is equivalent in meaning to ldquoGodrdquo It is a claim with no foundation If there was any truth to the claim then the ldquoHoly Spiritrdquo would also be called Son of God But no The fact is that other living creatures are called ldquosons of Godrdquo (Job 21) Never is ldquoGodrdquo or ldquoholy spiritrdquo ever called ldquoSon of Godrdquo in Scripture Only Jesus Christ is called ldquothe Son of Godrdquo with the article Why

By Christ lsquobecoming obedient [to God] until deathrsquo during the course of his earthly life lsquoGod highly exalted Him and graciously gave him a name which is above every other name that at the name of Jesus every knee should bendto the credit of God the Fatherrsquo (Hebrews58 Philippians 28-11 21st Century New Testament)

ldquo[Christ] has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God with angels authorities and powers made subject to himrdquo (1 Peter 322 NRSV) Still in heaven Christ receives knowledge information revelation from God and transmits it to other creatures (Revelation11) Though the glorified Christ is described as ldquoKing of kingsrdquo and ldquoLord of lordsrdquo he is specifically called ldquoThe Word of Godrdquo (Revelation 191316 NRSV) The night before his death he ldquoprayedrdquo to his Father and called him ldquothe only true Godrdquo and made this petition ldquoFather glorify me in your own presence [Greek beside yourself] with the glory that I hadin your presence [Greek beside you] before the world existedrdquo (John 175 NRSV) (ldquoalongside yourselfrdquo ST Byington) Again God never has to ldquoprayrdquo to anyone Ever

Well then if Jesus Christ expressed this one final ldquowishrdquo in prayer to be ldquoin the presence ofrdquoldquobesiderdquo ldquoalongsiderdquo his Father which he himself called ldquothe only true Godrdquo why should we for the sake of tradition insist with the belief that Jesus ldquomustrdquo somehow be that ldquotruerdquo God the One sitting at the center of Gods throne instead of ldquobesiderdquo God (Mark 1619) Christ did not ask to sit at Gods throne Christ was fully content with the premise of being alongside God And that is what actually happened Mark tells us ldquoSo then the Lord Jesus after he had spoken to them was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of Godrdquo (Mark 1619 NRSV Note Some ancient manuscripts omit this verse) The NIV Study Bible notes the significance of lsquositting at the right hand of Godrsquo ldquoA position of authority second only to Godsrdquo Being in ldquoa position of authority second only to Godsrdquo is something no one should ever say of God for he is always ldquosupremerdquo At no time does God relinquishes his supremacy Someone who holds a position of authority second to God cannot be identical to God Take note too that in this account of Mark chapter 16 or the oneat John chapter 17 there is no mention of a third party of a ldquoGodheadrdquo No ldquoHoly Spiritrdquo is in sight The fact is that the glorified Christ in heaven continues to call his Father ldquomy Godrdquo(Revelation 312)

As ldquoSon of Godrdquo and always lesser and subject to God it is illogical to think Christ would purposely usurp titles and rights that only belonged to lsquohis God and Fatherrsquo (John 1428 Matthew 2023 John 2017 Acts 17) Jesus Christ taught others to only worship the Father God (Matthew 410 John 42324) ldquoAnd we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the worldrdquo (1 John 414) If so the thought that Christ would usethe words ldquoI amrdquo as a title to identify himself as ldquothe true Godrdquo is incongruous Jesus made it clear that he would only seek the glory ldquothat comes from the one who alone is Godrdquo (John850 54 544)

In this Satan controlled world it is not that difficult to get entangled with human taught intricate philosophies which obscure the simple Christian doctrine (John 1231 2 Cor 44) Hence the need for caution at the time of defending popular traditional views which clash with the monotheistic approach of Bible writers

Consequently those who teach that Christ is Almighty God find themselves in conflict with the Scriptural record The submitted list of alternate readings of John 858 shows that there are a considerable number of scholars who not only understand the subject correctly but alsokeenly grasp that whatever Jesus said on the matter has to harmonize with both the context of John chapter 8 and the rest of the Scriptures as well

What is the correct translation of John 858

Is it ldquoI amrdquo ldquoI wasrdquo ldquoI am herdquo or ldquoI have beenrdquo After analyzing the Greek phrase ldquoegō eimirdquo the context and the various possible ways the expression can be translated in English I think it is best to render the Greek with an English present perfect Adding a smallelement such as ldquosincerdquo to the statement as McKay does below satisfies all contextual and grammatical requirements of the passage Doing so does not qualify as ldquointerpolationrdquo

A second choice a simple past tense can perhaps be used in translation where the context allows since it is grammatically correct but it is generally used of activity confined to the past so the message may be distorted Unless that is the simple past is interpreted as ldquoimperfectiverdquo with current relevance How so In support of Jesus deity many frequently cite John11 There in the text a simple past tense ldquowasrdquo is applied to ldquothe Wordrdquo three times in English versions Does that mean ldquothe Wordrdquo is no more or that it was permanentlycut-off from existence at some point Of course not The context of the whole gospel of John shows that Christ is fully pertinent in Christian lives

Scholars choosing a past tense for ldquoeimirdquo (ie ldquoI wasrdquo ldquoI existedrdquo etc) at John 858 may also have in mind what John the Baptist said as a precursor of Jesus Christ ldquoA man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was [ldquoexistedrdquo JB] before merdquo Surely John the Baptist did not mean that Jesus existence was done away with His own words show thatJesus life was very much relevant and would continue to be so Translators have no issue whatsoever in applying a past tense (ldquowasrdquo ldquoexistedrdquo) at John 11 and 130 in their English versions So why would they at John 858 Perhaps because it would mean that they wouldhave to do away with the premise of a ldquodivine titlerdquo in their argumentation of which is claimed clinches Jesus identity with Gods own As shown above Revelation 211 a presentverb a form of ldquoeimirdquo is rendered by some versions with a past tense ldquowasrdquo Obviously Bible translators have no problem in translating some present tense verbs with past tenses or with present perfects But most object to it at John 858 likely for theological reasons

As stated in the beginning of this essay the English ldquopresentrdquo and the Greek ldquopresentrdquo in certain contexts do not correspond exactly in meaning because in Greek ldquotimerdquo is a secondary factor That being the case the choice of English tense does not have to match theGreek conjugation per se to be faithful to the Sacred Text When one considers the specific idiom found in John 858 and the semantic implications of both the Greek and English ldquopresentrdquo one can see that the rendering ldquoI amrdquo though popular does not nearly represent the best translation possible in the English language ldquoContextrdquo often plays a more importantrole in determining the correct translation Overall though it is best to render the Greek expression with an English present perfect since it conveys clearly a more present relevancythan a past tense would

That said John 858 is a good example where a Greek transliteration may not be the best choice to communicate the right message effectively in our times The translation of ldquoI amrdquo has its place in extreme English literal translations which show the basic sense of the Greek such as those Interlinear translations mentioned above Also it can rightfully be used in many Scriptures where the context calls for it as when the sentence structure lacks the Greekldquoidiomrdquo discussed throughout this writing as might be the case with most occurrences of ldquoeimirdquo

Here listed in my opinion are the translations which come closest to the Greek thought presented by the particular ldquoidiomrdquo found in John 858 Dr Kenneth L McKay comes up with the correct translation

1 ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo - Kenneth L McKay A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek (SBG 5 New York Peter Lang 1994) p42

(Kenneth L McKay graduated with honours in Classics (with an interest in the Greek of theNT) from the Universities of Sydney and Cambridge He has taught Greek in universities and theological colleges in Nigeria New Zealand and England Mr McKay retired from the Australian National University in 1987 after teaching there for 26 years)

Other translations below come close to McKays rendering and are thus favored over the traditional rendering which is widely misunderstood

2 ldquoI have existed before Abraham was bornrdquo - A New Translation by James [ Moffatt - DD DLitt Glasgow Oxford 3 ldquoBefore Abraham came into existence I have beenrdquo - New World Translation 4 ldquoBefore Abraham came into being I have existedrdquo - The Documents of the [New Testament G W Wade London 5 ldquoFrom before Abraham was I have been rdquo - The New Testament by George [ R -Noyes DD Boston USA6 ldquoBefore Abraham was born I have already been rdquo - The Unvarnished New [Testament Andy Gaus Boston7 ldquoI existed even before Abraham was bornrdquo - The concise Gospel and the Acts [Logos International Christopher J ed Christianson Plainfield NJ8 ldquoI already was before Abraham was bornrdquo ndash Worldwide English New Testament [ Derby UK ________________________________

COMMENTS

Also compare the following translations

Nytt liv (1907 Norwegian)A Biacuteblia Viva (1981 Portuguese)O Novo Testamento Vivo (1974 Portuguese)Le Livre Nouveau Testament (1980 eacuteditions Farel French)Η Καινή Διαθήκη των Τεσσάρων Καθηγητών (ΚΔΤΚ Greek) (The New Testament of the Four Teachers The translation was made and approved (1921981) by the Holy Summit Church of Greece The English title of the project is The New Testament in Modern Greek Athens Greece) Η Αγία Γραφή Παλαιά και Καινή Διαθήκη (ΝΔΜ Greek) Ελληνική Βιβλική Εταιρία Αθήνα [Athens] 1997 (The Bible Old and New Testament Greek Biblical Company - London 1997) ΚΔΛΖ ΛΧ (Other Greek Versions expressing the same idea as translations on the list)___________________

ldquoI was rdquo Note on 1987 translation from Italian main list l Vangelio di Giovanni (El Evangelio de Juan [ldquoThe Gospel of Johnrdquo] with imprimatur) by J Mateos and J Barreto noted on John 858 (as translated by Teodora Tosatti p 387 Cittadela Editrice 1982) that the temporal relationship expressed by the Greek ldquoprin eimi [BeforeI am]rdquo can be translated into Italian ldquoprimaero [BeforeI was]rdquo (Translation from Italian to English mine)__________________

Comment on 1993 ΟІ ΧΡΙΣΤΙΑΝΙΚΕΣ ΓΡΑΦΕΣ Απόδοση από τη Μειάφράση Νέου Κόσμου which is a modern Greek translation of the New World Translation of the ChristianScriptures Unlike most Bible Versions which are published in only one language or a few atmost the NWT is available in dozens of languages based mainly on their English translationbut obviously taking into account other factors in the process such as the original Bible text the peculiarities of their recipient local languages and their targeted audiences in their respective countries

It is obvious though that other NWT translation editions closely followed the English text of the NWT and at the same time their translation teams had enough latitude to offer their own unique renderings at times expressing in their native languages what they see in in the Inspired Text Having said that it is interesting to see how they approached their translation of John 858 from their English translation back into [modern] Greek

The translation team was acutely aware of the basic sense of ldquoegō eimirdquo as ldquoI amrdquo and how those simple words are misconstrued by religionists to say something more than Jesus intended Taking into account the syntax of John 858 as stated throughout this document the translation team who worked on the modern Greek version faced a few options

First they had the option to go back to ldquoegō eimirdquo using the modern Greek equivalent ldquoΕγώ ειμαιrdquo (I am) as it reads in the Vamvas version which they did not Or they could haveexpressed their NWT English choice of ldquoI have beenrdquo with their modern Greek equivalent of ldquoέχο υπάρξει [I have existed]rdquo Thirdly they could have gone with ldquoI wasrdquo (ldquoεγώ ήμουνrdquo) as some of their French and Italian Bible editions have done in the past or even with ldquo[εγώ] υπήρξα [I existed])rdquo Or they could have provided some other unique rendering It is obvious they wanted to stick closely to the Greek text but given the common misconceptionssurrounding ldquoegō eimai (I am)rdquo in mainstream churches the translation team chose to use ldquoεγώ υπάρχωrdquo (a present indicative form in the Greek) which means basically ldquoI existrdquo but in the presence of an expression of past time in John 858 the sense is ldquoI have existedrdquo Thus ldquoBefore Abraham came into existence I have existedrdquo ( The verb είμαι [ldquoto berdquo] in modern Greek has no forms for the perfect tense It borrows the forms from the verb υπάρχω [ldquoI existrdquo] The Greek and English ldquoperfectsrdquo are not exact equivalents either)

The reader is reminded here as noted earlier that modern Greek keeps up with the Koineacute Greek ldquopresentrdquo idiom A modern Greek grammar Greek A Comprehensive Grammar explains ldquoThe present tense is also used in constructions where English would use the perfect continuous ie where the verb expresses a continuous state or habitual event that

has lasted since a certain point in the past and is continuing up to (and including) the presentrdquo The authors provide two examples where a present verb is used with a past time indicator and where they translate using an English perfect as explained ldquoI have been living[Μένω] in this house for three years nowrdquo And ldquoI have been reading [Διαβάζω] this newspaper since 1984rdquo (Greek A Comprehensive Grammar by David Holton Peter Mackridge amp Irene Philippaki-Warburton Revised by Vassilios Spyropoulos p 294 Second edition 2012)

Ten years after the NWT-Greek Edition was released another modern Greek translation was published with the following rendering at John 858 ldquoΣας βεβαιώνω πως πριν να γεννηθεί οΑβραάμ εγώ υπάρχωrdquo which in English would be ldquoI assure you that I have existed since before Abraham was bornrdquo (Literally ldquoI assure you that before could be born the AbrahamI exist [not ldquoΕγώ ειμαιrdquo]rdquo The Holy Bible in Todays Greek Version 2003 Greek Bible Society Interestingly the original English version of 1976 had ldquoI Amrdquo) Also a Spanish Bible conveys a similar thought ldquoYo existo desde antes que existiera Abrahamrdquo [Translation ldquo I exist since before Abraham existedrdquo] (La Biblia - Versioacuten Popular 2nd edition Sociedades Biacuteblicas Unidas 1983)

_________________________________________________________

The Clear Word The translators quoted in this article represent various religious faiths some are Catholic some are Protestant Others are Unitarians Jehovahs Witnesses Jewish Adventists etc and they represent countries the world over One of these translators is a Seventh-Day Adventist who worked on The Clear Word Jack J Blanco ThD As a Seventh-Day Adventist who supports the Trinity doctrine Blanco translated verses to make Jesus ldquoequalrdquo to God in every way

He renders John 11 ldquoHe is the Word of God and is equal with Godrdquo He shows Jesus at Philippians 25-7 as ldquoequal with Godrdquo and describes him as lsquoacting the part of a servantrsquo At John 1428 he completely omits the reference that lsquothe Father is greaterrsquo than Christ But here at John 858 in answer to the question the priests and leaders asked concerning Abraham lsquoseeingrsquo his day Jesus answered according to Dr Blanco ldquoBecause I existed before Abraham was even bornrdquo Thus Dr Blanco makes no connection as others do that Christ is the ldquoI amrdquo of Exodus 314 which according to some would indicate that Jesus is the Jehovah of the Old Testament What he sees in this account is that Jesus already lsquoexisted before Abraham didrsquo and thus Abraham was able to lsquoseersquo his day (John 856) To this we must add another likely element included in Jesus response to the Jews as wellone of simple identification as ldquothe Christ [Messiah]rdquo and ldquoSon of manrdquo Why is it then that manywho support the Trinity doctrine find it hard to understand Jesus statement correctly at John 858 Could it be that they are letting non-Scriptural influence and perhaps the weight of themajority view dictate their understanding of this Scripture

For a consideration of other subjects by the same author check below

For a discussion of Acts 286 Whose blood

httpwwwscribdcomdoc231244155Acts-20-28-Whose-blood

For a discussion of Colossians 116 (ldquoall other thingsrdquo) see

httpwwwscribdcomdoc205841269Colossians-1-16-Is-the-expression-all-other-things-a-proper-rendition

For a consideration on the subject of the Trinity click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc160286056Does-the-Trinity-ever-make-sense

For a full consideration of John 11 click the following link httpwwwscribdcomdoc34916458The-correct-translation-of-John-1-1

For a brief consideration of John 11 with additional citations click here httpwwwscribdcomdoc50330864John-1-1-List-of-Alternate-Readings

Did the NW translators know any Greek click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc48234022Did-the-New-World-Translation-Committee-Know-Greek

For a consideration of John 173 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc57772552John-17-3-E28098Taking-in-knowledge-of-E28099-God-and-Jesus

For a consideration of 1 Timothy 316 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc76927834Was-God-manifested-in-the-flesh-1-Timothy-3-16

For a consideration of Exodus 225 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc38676458Exodus-2-25-And-God-took-notice-Does-God- care-about-us

For a consideration of John 114 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc35002730John-1-14-Jesus-full-of-grace

For a consideration of Translation Differences-Questions and Answershttpwwwscribdcomdoc59484457Translation-Differences-Questions-and-Answers

In Spanish

Para una consideracioacuten de otros temas vea los siguientes enlaces

Para una consideracioacuten de Colosenses 116 ldquotodas las otras cosasrdquo vea

httpwwwscribdcomdoc209601066Colosenses-1-16-C2BFEs-la-traduccion-E2809Ctodas-las-otras-cosasE2809D-apropiada

Para una consideracioacuten de ldquoiquestAcaso tiene sentido la Trinidadrdquo

httpwwwscribdcomdoc173779117C2BFAcaso-tiene-sentido-la-Trinidad

Para un consideracioacuten de Juan 11 vea el siguiente enlace

httpwwwscribdcomdoc35899788Traduccion-correcta-de-Juan-1-1-Lista-de- lecturas-alternativas

Para el tema iquestSabiacutean griego los traductores de la TNM vea el siguiente enlace

httpwwwscribdcomdoc51623596C2BFSabia-griego-el-Comite-de-la-Traduccion-del-Nuevo-Mundo

the end before moving on to the second part of this essay

_____________________________

Should we ignore the evidence of all those translations listed at the end that differ in John 858 from the traditional versions What then are all these translators seeing at John 858 that moved them to render this text differently They surely must be aware of the resistance they would encounter by translating it by the various forms they used Still they must have had the firm conviction that both the Greek text and the context supports their understanding of this scripture They likely see a Jesus making no identity connection with his Father Godbut rather see a Jesus simply expressing his indefinite existence with no suggestion of eternity in focus Neither is Jesus stating here that he is the God of Old Testament times To understand it that way would be to read into the text more than what it says Taking some clues from the context of the chapter some scholars additionally see Jesus insinuating his ldquomessiahshiprdquo as if saying ldquoI am he [the Messiah]rdquo This is very likely In fact The LivingBible renders John 824 thus ldquoThat is why I said that you will die in your sins for unless you believe that I am the Messiah the Son of God [ἐγώ εἰμι] you will die in your sinsrdquo

Is ldquoegō eimirdquo a title or another name of God

The use of ldquoeimirdquo at John 858 is frequently used as a ldquoproof textrdquo of Jesus deity A noted Trinitarian scholar AT Robertson a Baptist even refers to ldquoegō eimirdquo as ldquothe absolute phrase used of Godrdquo likely indicating the verb conveys ldquotimeless beingrdquo an implication that ldquoeimirdquo here does not require anything else to complete the meaning of the phrase thus conveying ldquoeternal existencerdquo as well as being an actual name for God Some individuals have given plenty of publicity to Robertsons statement as absolute truth But his statement is not ldquotruthrdquo at all It is faulty interpretation which many people have fallen prey to Grammar and theology do not always make the best mix True Robertsons credentials as a scholar are impressive nevertheless credentials does not truth make Besides some other equally bright scholars disagree with him Lets illustrate the folly of those advocating a divine title at John 858 by way of addition (Or substitution if you will) as some suggest

ldquoBefore Abraham was born I am Eternalrdquo ldquoBefore Abraham was born I am Jehovahrdquo ldquoBefore Abraham was born I am eternally Godrdquo

First of all the above hypothetical translations are just as ungrammatical as the simple ldquoI amrdquo reading of most versions An English present tense cannot start before a definite point in the past This can be seen in the following two examples

1 ldquoBefore the US Iraq war I am a soldierrdquo 2 ldquoThree journalists are kidnapped in Nepal since the start of 2007rdquo

What is the correct way to express these statements in English Analyze it for a second and

provide an answer if you will

Notably if ldquoeimirdquo was used to convey eternal existence what is the point of using an expression of past time at all in the clause Moreover the context of previous verses (vv 48-57) clearly indicates that Jesus is speaking of God as a separate entity See below

49 ldquobut I honor my Father and you dishonor merdquo 50 ldquoI am not seeking glory for myself but there is one who seeks it and he is the

judgerdquo54 ldquoIf I glorify myself my glory means nothing My Father whom you claim as your

God is the one who glorifies me 55 ldquoThough you do not know him I know him If I said I did not I would be a liar like you but I do know him and obey his wordrdquo Thus if Jesus meant he himself was the ldquoJehovahrdquo of the Old Testament as Trinitarians claim what would be the rationale behind Jesus directing all distinction and glory to lsquothe Father Godrsquo as a distinct individual as he did in the previous verses and then a few words later abruptly change his argumentation by claiming he is that very same One who lsquoreceives obedience from his own wordrsquo lsquoseeking his own honor and gloryrsquo because he himself is ldquoGodrdquo Confusing is it not To accept this abrupt change of character on Jesus part would be not ldquoa mysteryrdquo but flat out ldquoa deceptionrdquo of big proportions since Jesus himself warned against pretending to be one thing and acting as another (Matthew 62-5 2313-36)

Are we are supposed against all logic to accept these ldquotrinitarianrdquo assumptions instead of a simple alternative which really answers the Jews question about lsquohow could Abraham ldquoseerdquoJesus day if he was not yet 50 years oldrsquo (ldquoI have been in existence since Abraham was bornrdquo)

The obsession with the simple words ldquoI amrdquo have led to many faulty assumptions ldquoI amrdquo issuch a common expression in our language even to this day that words such as ldquoegoismrdquo ldquoegotismrdquo etc (derived from the Greek ldquoegordquo) are considered common words in English dictionaries Everyone uses the phrase ldquoI amrdquo at times Think of any big corporation or powerful organization of your choice for a moment Would you conclude that the two most powerful individuals of this one prestigious organization must be identical in every way solely because they are heard equally saying to others in their common speech ldquoI am thisrdquoor ldquoI am thatrdquo etc

In Bible times humans too used common pronouns The verb eimi (ldquoI amrdquo) itself or forms of it appears more than two thousand times (2000x) in the New Testament alone Additionally the word ldquoegōrdquo appears over seventeen hundred times (1700x) in the NT And those numbers do not include the Septuagint totals Do all occurrences of the word then imply ldquodivinityrdquo in each case Of course not It may be more significant when God or Christ use the expression because of who they are but does it really mean that both God and Christ share the same identity Or that everyone who uses the phrase ldquoI amrdquo does so with divine pretensions Does it really mean that everyone using the phrase are ldquoequalrdquo The

answer is obvious is it not

Lets bear in mind that when God sent Jesus Christ as His representative to a most crucial assignment multiple biblical prophecies were pointing to Christ as the promised Messiah that would free mankind from its moribund condition It is logical then that when the time came for Jesus Christ to show up on earth he would somehow communicate to others that ldquoherdquo and not some other human claiming to be the Messiah was Gods instrument in bringing everlasting relief to human misery Hence he could rightly say any or all of the following ldquoI am (this)rdquo ldquoI am (that)rdquo ldquoI am he [the promised Messiah]rdquo or ldquoI am Gods Sonrdquo Should we expect anything less

The fact is that the words ldquoI amrdquo are not exclusive to God and Christ It should be noted that a man who was born ldquoblindrdquo also used the same expression (John 99) The Greek here says ldquoekeinos elegen hoti Egō eimirdquo (ldquoThat one kept saying that I amrdquo) AT Robertson cites John 99 as one of five parallels to the use of egō eimi in John 858 (Word Pictures in the New Testament Vol V p 159) The phrase here comes at the end of the clause with no explicit predicate James White who upholds the traditional reading admits ldquoThis last instance [John 99] is similar to the sayings as Jesus utters them in that the phrase comes at the end of the clause and looks elsewhere for its predicaterdquo The same could be said of John 1527 Some argue that ldquoeimirdquo in John 858 is ldquoabsoluterdquo but do not do so with John 99 or John 1527 Theology may be a factor in this Previously we saw how Jacob a man according to the Septuagint used the words ldquoegō eimirdquo Other instances in Scripture of creatures using those words would not prove they were part of a ldquoGodheadrdquo Context then ultimately dictates how ldquoeimirdquo should be translated According to John when Jesus was pressed he only claimed to have been alive way before Abraham was born and that he simply was ldquothe Christrdquo ldquothe Son of Manrdquo and ldquothe Son of Godrdquo

There is something else to keep in mind in regards to the meaning of ldquoeimirdquo And it is what grammarian Stanley Porter indicated ldquoSometimes the verb [eimi] is used on its own as a verb of existence Perhaps the best-known example of this is the following John 858rdquo (Fundamentals of New Testament Greek by Stanley E Porter section 753 72) AT Robertson adds ldquoThe verb εἰμί [eimi] hellip Sometimes it does express existence as a predicatelike any other verb as in ἐγὼ εἰμί [egō eimi] (Jo 858) and ἡ θάλασσα οὐκ ἔστιν ἔτι [hē thalassa ouk estin eti = ldquothe sea not is yetrdquo] (Rev 211) Cf Mt 2330rdquo (A Grammar of theGreek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research Nashville Tenn 1934 p 394)

What does this mean The examples mentioned by Robertson in addition to John 858 give us an idea of what this implies It is so strange that the two examples Robertson provided forcomparison with John 858 seems to contradict his ldquotimeless beingrdquo view on ldquoeimirdquo He cited a portion of Revelation 211 where the Greek literally says ldquoAnd the sea not is yetrdquo In other words ldquoThe sea does not exist any morerdquo Amplified Bible ldquoThere no longer existed any seardquo Curiously various versions render the present verb ldquoisrdquo (a form of ldquoeimirdquo) with an imperfect ldquowasrdquo (Cf KJV NIV NAB NRSV) Obviously ldquothe seardquo in this vision is [was] not ldquoeternalrdquo

And in Matthew 2330 the other text provided by Robertson in his comparison with John 858 the Greek word-for-word says ldquoIf we were in the days of the fathers of usrdquo which inmodern English would be ldquoIf we had lived in the days of our forefathersrdquo Other versions ldquoIf we had beenrdquo (Rheims NT) ldquoIf we had been livingrdquo (NASB) ldquoIf we had been existing in the days of our fathersrdquo (Jonathan Mitchell NT) The full NIV text reads ldquoAnd you say lsquoIf we had lived in the days of our ancestors we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophetsrsquo rdquo

It is clear from this comparison that the words of Matthew 2330 ldquoIf we wererdquo (a form of ldquoeimirdquo) in the text is used as an equivalent for ldquoliferdquo or ldquoexistencerdquo In the heavenly vision of Rev 211 lsquothe sea ceased to existrsquo And the generation of people which Jesus spoke about and their ancestors all died ceased to exist If we apply these two examples to John 858 given by Robertson with the meaning either of life or existence for ldquoeimirdquo then it wouldbe equally acceptable to translate ldquoI amrdquo as ldquoI existrdquo or ldquoI liverdquo Many translators reflect this very same understanding as the submitted list of alternate readings of John 858 show ldquoI existrdquo or ldquoI existed even before Abraham was bornrdquo Or ldquoI was alive before Abraham was bornrdquo (The Simple English Bible)

Although some may not see much semantic difference between Jesus saying ldquoI amrdquo or ldquoI existrdquo the two expressions communicate something very different to many readers ldquoI amrdquo is generally associated by Trinitarians as a title used by God or as another name for God Onthe other hand ldquoI existrdquo simply conveys ldquoliferdquo or ldquoexistence Barnabas Lindars points out that ldquoegō eimirdquo in John 858 ldquocannot be regarded as a title because it requires the meaning lsquoI am in existencersquordquo (ldquoThe Son of Man in Johannine Christologyrdquo in Christ and the Spirit in the New Testament In Honour of Charles Francis Digby Moule eds B Lindars and S Smalley Cambridge Cambridge University Press 1973) (Since an English present tense cannot start before a definite point in the past this would mean that we can incorporate Lindars valid observation and translate it into contemporary English like this ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo exactly as Dr McKay proposed)

Some in their eagerness to equate Christ with God accuse translators who render ldquoegō eimirdquo in John 858 with renderings other than ldquoI amrdquo pointing to all occurrences of this expression in the New Testament or in Johns Gospel where allegedly these translators do not follow the same ldquorulerdquo when translating ldquoegō eimirdquo in John 858 as they do elsewhere where they translate it with a present indicative form What they dont tell you or fail to understand is that in John 858 ldquoegō eimirdquo without a predicate AND with an expression of time with past implications in its sentence structure provides an ldquoidiomrdquo which is quite different from those other instances of ldquoeimirdquo Thats right an idiom (where present and past is combined) found equally at home in classical biblical and modern Greek which many translators convey into our language with the English present perfect at various places Consequently one cannot merely go by how the phrase ldquoegō eimirdquo is used elsewhere in the NT without taking into account the fact that John 858 displays an ldquoidiomrdquo in its structure Not doing so would be dishonest John the Baptist had said of Christ in John 130 ldquoA man is coming after me who ranks before me because he existed [Lit was] before merdquo (JB)

John 858 is in harmony with those words Furthermore some attempt to use the reading of Psalm 902 in the Septuagint as ldquoevidencerdquo that John 858 is rendered correctly in the popular versions But a closer analysis of this verse shows notable differences between the two verses making such comparison untenable With good reason a considerable number ofscholars have chosen to break from tradition in their rendering of John 858

If critics of alternate readings of John 858 are not candid enough to admit some of the very issues mentioned here and hide the fact that many scholars do hold a different interpretation and no less academic at that should we consider their diatribes of any worthy import It is ldquowishful thinkingrdquo for someone to believe that John 858 is directly connected to Exodus 314 rather than any real evidence (which is lacking) confirming their eager interpretations Remember even Dr James White a well known Trinitarian advocate admitted ldquothat an immediate and unqualified jump from the ego eimi of John 858 to Exodus 314 is unwiserdquo

Besides a theological tendency can be seen when they focus as some do on undermining the reputation of one Bible translation (NWT) when there are actually numerous versions from different religions dealing with the same controversial Scriptures in a similar manner This is very much like politicians who ignore the failings of their own party but are quick to lsquodemonizersquo their opponents (Matthew 73)

Is the Kingdom Interlinear ldquoproofrdquo the NWT is wrong at John 858

A criticism has been made of a Watchtower Society publication (The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures ldquoKITrdquo) which contains the Greek text and underneath it a word-by-word translation in English and on the right side of the page the modern New World Translation Well at John 858 this publication renders the Greek phrase being discussed here egō eimi word-for-word as ldquoI amrdquo and in the right column the NWT shows the reading ldquoI have beenrdquo This difference have led some to severely criticize the NW translators of ldquoincompetencerdquo ldquoinconsistencyrdquo and even of ldquodishonestyrdquo The critics say something like this ldquoThey have backed themselves into a corner where they cant escape their mishandling of the Greek textrdquo or something of that sort Amazingly these critics in their condemnations hardly ever mention the dozens of translators who translate the same way or similarly to the NWT as the submitted list shows So much for honesty

Those who engage in such tactics are not being forthcoming Why say that Besides dismissing how other translators deal with John 858 they also distort known facts for the WT Society have made it clear that the publication of this Greek Bible is to help the Bible student determine the basic sense of the Greek and have stated that the translation on the right column (the NWT) is a modern way of expressing the thoughts transmitted by the Greek text There are many factors to consider when using such publications

Even other interlinear publications warn of seeming discrepancies For instance The Zondervan Parallel New Testament in Greek and English says in its Foreword ldquo[I]t is a good thing to bear in mind that you cannot always either give an English equivalent for a Greek word or expression or even always render the same Greek verb word by the same

English onerdquo Another interlinear the New Greek-English Interlinear New Testament by Brown and Comfort and edited by J D Douglas explains ldquoIt is difficult to translate one language into another on a word-for-word basis because each language has its own syntax grammatical constructions and idioms that are difficultmdashif not impossiblemdashto replicate literally in another languagerdquo (Emphasis added) This statement is so true of the text in discussion (John 858) in regards to its syntax and particular idiom Often critics of the NWT hide this fact Why Is it religious bias at work

I will give the reader a few examples of an available interlinear translation which has the Greek main text and a literal sublinear translation below the Greek by Professor Paul R McReynolds and on the right column for comparison the reader can study the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) a popular translation in academia Observe how the two can differ

McReynolds Mat 21 ldquomagiciansrdquo NRSV ldquowise menrdquo John 118 ldquoonly born Godrdquo ldquoGod the only Sonrdquo Mat 243 ldquosign of the your presencerdquo ldquothe sign of your comingrdquo Mathew 522 ldquothe gehenna of the firerdquo ldquothe hell of firerdquo John 1319 ldquoI amrdquo ldquoI am herdquo John 149 ldquoI amrdquo ldquoHave I beenrdquo John 1527 ldquoyou arerdquo ldquoyou have beenrdquo 2 Peter 24 ldquobeing sent to Tartarusrdquo ldquobut cast them into hellrdquo Luke 1113 ldquowill give spirit holy tordquo ldquowillgive the Holy Spirit tordquo John 2022 ldquotake spirit holyrdquo ldquoReceive the Holy Spiritrdquo Acts 24 ldquofilled all of spirit holyrdquo ldquofilled with the Holy Spiritrdquo

( Paul R McReynolds is professor of Greek and New Testament at Pacific Christian College in Fullerton California USA He also contributed to the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia)

Some of the readings from the right column above (NRSV) are acceptable others are not See if you can detect in the right column above those translation renderings with a theological tendency that deviate from the literal readings from the left column McReynoldson the left does an excellent job of transmitting the Greek sense Even the most popular Bible versions do not adhere consistently to the base texts The NRSV and a host of other Bible versions add their own religious interpretation throughout Scripture just as much as the NWT if not more but hardly anyone complains of this transformation of Scriptures eventhough it leads to error Why Simply because the NRSV represents more of a ldquomajorityrdquo view than the NWT does But in truth majority or minority views do not correspond equallyto ldquoaccuraterdquo or ldquoinaccuraterdquo results

In the text discussed the KIT can appropriately show the basic sense rendering of ldquoI amrdquo for the Greek ldquoegō eimirdquo in the left column and alternately show the reading ldquoI have beenrdquo in the right column as a contemporary way of expressing in English the particular Greek clause with its ldquoidiomrdquo in John 858 as explained throughout this article a rendering which has

scholarship support When the Greek ldquoegō eimirdquo appears in an idiom-less structure it can rightfully be translated as ldquoI amrdquo as most versions do including the NWT Hence there is no contradiction between the two translations

Dr McKay argues that Jesus response in John 858 ldquowould be most naturally translated lsquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrsquo if it were not for the obsession with the simple words lsquoI amrsquo rdquo (Kenneth L McKay ldquolsquoI amrsquo in Johns Gospelrdquo Expository Times 1996 p 302) I take the author as saying that ldquoI have been in existencerdquo for ldquoeimirdquo is a better translation than ldquoI amrdquo but the [religious] obsession for the simple words ldquoI amrdquo in their quest to elevate Christ to Gods level does not allow people to see that The thing is that Christ lsquoalways pleased the Fatherrsquo and was fully satisfied with being lsquolesserrsquo than him (John 829 1029 1428 177813) Why not accept him as he is

Hence it is poor scholarship to forward the idea that an entity must be God Almighty himselfby the sole fact of using a divine sounding phrase when other Bible individuals are found using the same expression in Scripture The ldquocontextrdquo is the determining factor Not only must we take into account the context surrounding a chapter or book of the Bible but also what the whole Bible teaches on a given person or subject

What does the Bible teach about Jesus

That Christ ldquowas in the beginning with Godrdquo (John 12) At the announcement of his birth on earth the angel Gabriel told Mary that she will give birth to someone ldquogreatrdquo and ldquoholyrdquo and that one will be called ldquoSon of the Most Highrdquo and ldquoSon of Godrdquo (Luke 132 35) Trinitarians may claim that ldquoSon of Godrdquo is equivalent in meaning to ldquoGodrdquo It is a claim with no foundation If there was any truth to the claim then the ldquoHoly Spiritrdquo would also be called Son of God But no The fact is that other living creatures are called ldquosons of Godrdquo (Job 21) Never is ldquoGodrdquo or ldquoholy spiritrdquo ever called ldquoSon of Godrdquo in Scripture Only Jesus Christ is called ldquothe Son of Godrdquo with the article Why

By Christ lsquobecoming obedient [to God] until deathrsquo during the course of his earthly life lsquoGod highly exalted Him and graciously gave him a name which is above every other name that at the name of Jesus every knee should bendto the credit of God the Fatherrsquo (Hebrews58 Philippians 28-11 21st Century New Testament)

ldquo[Christ] has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God with angels authorities and powers made subject to himrdquo (1 Peter 322 NRSV) Still in heaven Christ receives knowledge information revelation from God and transmits it to other creatures (Revelation11) Though the glorified Christ is described as ldquoKing of kingsrdquo and ldquoLord of lordsrdquo he is specifically called ldquoThe Word of Godrdquo (Revelation 191316 NRSV) The night before his death he ldquoprayedrdquo to his Father and called him ldquothe only true Godrdquo and made this petition ldquoFather glorify me in your own presence [Greek beside yourself] with the glory that I hadin your presence [Greek beside you] before the world existedrdquo (John 175 NRSV) (ldquoalongside yourselfrdquo ST Byington) Again God never has to ldquoprayrdquo to anyone Ever

Well then if Jesus Christ expressed this one final ldquowishrdquo in prayer to be ldquoin the presence ofrdquoldquobesiderdquo ldquoalongsiderdquo his Father which he himself called ldquothe only true Godrdquo why should we for the sake of tradition insist with the belief that Jesus ldquomustrdquo somehow be that ldquotruerdquo God the One sitting at the center of Gods throne instead of ldquobesiderdquo God (Mark 1619) Christ did not ask to sit at Gods throne Christ was fully content with the premise of being alongside God And that is what actually happened Mark tells us ldquoSo then the Lord Jesus after he had spoken to them was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of Godrdquo (Mark 1619 NRSV Note Some ancient manuscripts omit this verse) The NIV Study Bible notes the significance of lsquositting at the right hand of Godrsquo ldquoA position of authority second only to Godsrdquo Being in ldquoa position of authority second only to Godsrdquo is something no one should ever say of God for he is always ldquosupremerdquo At no time does God relinquishes his supremacy Someone who holds a position of authority second to God cannot be identical to God Take note too that in this account of Mark chapter 16 or the oneat John chapter 17 there is no mention of a third party of a ldquoGodheadrdquo No ldquoHoly Spiritrdquo is in sight The fact is that the glorified Christ in heaven continues to call his Father ldquomy Godrdquo(Revelation 312)

As ldquoSon of Godrdquo and always lesser and subject to God it is illogical to think Christ would purposely usurp titles and rights that only belonged to lsquohis God and Fatherrsquo (John 1428 Matthew 2023 John 2017 Acts 17) Jesus Christ taught others to only worship the Father God (Matthew 410 John 42324) ldquoAnd we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the worldrdquo (1 John 414) If so the thought that Christ would usethe words ldquoI amrdquo as a title to identify himself as ldquothe true Godrdquo is incongruous Jesus made it clear that he would only seek the glory ldquothat comes from the one who alone is Godrdquo (John850 54 544)

In this Satan controlled world it is not that difficult to get entangled with human taught intricate philosophies which obscure the simple Christian doctrine (John 1231 2 Cor 44) Hence the need for caution at the time of defending popular traditional views which clash with the monotheistic approach of Bible writers

Consequently those who teach that Christ is Almighty God find themselves in conflict with the Scriptural record The submitted list of alternate readings of John 858 shows that there are a considerable number of scholars who not only understand the subject correctly but alsokeenly grasp that whatever Jesus said on the matter has to harmonize with both the context of John chapter 8 and the rest of the Scriptures as well

What is the correct translation of John 858

Is it ldquoI amrdquo ldquoI wasrdquo ldquoI am herdquo or ldquoI have beenrdquo After analyzing the Greek phrase ldquoegō eimirdquo the context and the various possible ways the expression can be translated in English I think it is best to render the Greek with an English present perfect Adding a smallelement such as ldquosincerdquo to the statement as McKay does below satisfies all contextual and grammatical requirements of the passage Doing so does not qualify as ldquointerpolationrdquo

A second choice a simple past tense can perhaps be used in translation where the context allows since it is grammatically correct but it is generally used of activity confined to the past so the message may be distorted Unless that is the simple past is interpreted as ldquoimperfectiverdquo with current relevance How so In support of Jesus deity many frequently cite John11 There in the text a simple past tense ldquowasrdquo is applied to ldquothe Wordrdquo three times in English versions Does that mean ldquothe Wordrdquo is no more or that it was permanentlycut-off from existence at some point Of course not The context of the whole gospel of John shows that Christ is fully pertinent in Christian lives

Scholars choosing a past tense for ldquoeimirdquo (ie ldquoI wasrdquo ldquoI existedrdquo etc) at John 858 may also have in mind what John the Baptist said as a precursor of Jesus Christ ldquoA man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was [ldquoexistedrdquo JB] before merdquo Surely John the Baptist did not mean that Jesus existence was done away with His own words show thatJesus life was very much relevant and would continue to be so Translators have no issue whatsoever in applying a past tense (ldquowasrdquo ldquoexistedrdquo) at John 11 and 130 in their English versions So why would they at John 858 Perhaps because it would mean that they wouldhave to do away with the premise of a ldquodivine titlerdquo in their argumentation of which is claimed clinches Jesus identity with Gods own As shown above Revelation 211 a presentverb a form of ldquoeimirdquo is rendered by some versions with a past tense ldquowasrdquo Obviously Bible translators have no problem in translating some present tense verbs with past tenses or with present perfects But most object to it at John 858 likely for theological reasons

As stated in the beginning of this essay the English ldquopresentrdquo and the Greek ldquopresentrdquo in certain contexts do not correspond exactly in meaning because in Greek ldquotimerdquo is a secondary factor That being the case the choice of English tense does not have to match theGreek conjugation per se to be faithful to the Sacred Text When one considers the specific idiom found in John 858 and the semantic implications of both the Greek and English ldquopresentrdquo one can see that the rendering ldquoI amrdquo though popular does not nearly represent the best translation possible in the English language ldquoContextrdquo often plays a more importantrole in determining the correct translation Overall though it is best to render the Greek expression with an English present perfect since it conveys clearly a more present relevancythan a past tense would

That said John 858 is a good example where a Greek transliteration may not be the best choice to communicate the right message effectively in our times The translation of ldquoI amrdquo has its place in extreme English literal translations which show the basic sense of the Greek such as those Interlinear translations mentioned above Also it can rightfully be used in many Scriptures where the context calls for it as when the sentence structure lacks the Greekldquoidiomrdquo discussed throughout this writing as might be the case with most occurrences of ldquoeimirdquo

Here listed in my opinion are the translations which come closest to the Greek thought presented by the particular ldquoidiomrdquo found in John 858 Dr Kenneth L McKay comes up with the correct translation

1 ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo - Kenneth L McKay A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek (SBG 5 New York Peter Lang 1994) p42

(Kenneth L McKay graduated with honours in Classics (with an interest in the Greek of theNT) from the Universities of Sydney and Cambridge He has taught Greek in universities and theological colleges in Nigeria New Zealand and England Mr McKay retired from the Australian National University in 1987 after teaching there for 26 years)

Other translations below come close to McKays rendering and are thus favored over the traditional rendering which is widely misunderstood

2 ldquoI have existed before Abraham was bornrdquo - A New Translation by James [ Moffatt - DD DLitt Glasgow Oxford 3 ldquoBefore Abraham came into existence I have beenrdquo - New World Translation 4 ldquoBefore Abraham came into being I have existedrdquo - The Documents of the [New Testament G W Wade London 5 ldquoFrom before Abraham was I have been rdquo - The New Testament by George [ R -Noyes DD Boston USA6 ldquoBefore Abraham was born I have already been rdquo - The Unvarnished New [Testament Andy Gaus Boston7 ldquoI existed even before Abraham was bornrdquo - The concise Gospel and the Acts [Logos International Christopher J ed Christianson Plainfield NJ8 ldquoI already was before Abraham was bornrdquo ndash Worldwide English New Testament [ Derby UK ________________________________

COMMENTS

Also compare the following translations

Nytt liv (1907 Norwegian)A Biacuteblia Viva (1981 Portuguese)O Novo Testamento Vivo (1974 Portuguese)Le Livre Nouveau Testament (1980 eacuteditions Farel French)Η Καινή Διαθήκη των Τεσσάρων Καθηγητών (ΚΔΤΚ Greek) (The New Testament of the Four Teachers The translation was made and approved (1921981) by the Holy Summit Church of Greece The English title of the project is The New Testament in Modern Greek Athens Greece) Η Αγία Γραφή Παλαιά και Καινή Διαθήκη (ΝΔΜ Greek) Ελληνική Βιβλική Εταιρία Αθήνα [Athens] 1997 (The Bible Old and New Testament Greek Biblical Company - London 1997) ΚΔΛΖ ΛΧ (Other Greek Versions expressing the same idea as translations on the list)___________________

ldquoI was rdquo Note on 1987 translation from Italian main list l Vangelio di Giovanni (El Evangelio de Juan [ldquoThe Gospel of Johnrdquo] with imprimatur) by J Mateos and J Barreto noted on John 858 (as translated by Teodora Tosatti p 387 Cittadela Editrice 1982) that the temporal relationship expressed by the Greek ldquoprin eimi [BeforeI am]rdquo can be translated into Italian ldquoprimaero [BeforeI was]rdquo (Translation from Italian to English mine)__________________

Comment on 1993 ΟІ ΧΡΙΣΤΙΑΝΙΚΕΣ ΓΡΑΦΕΣ Απόδοση από τη Μειάφράση Νέου Κόσμου which is a modern Greek translation of the New World Translation of the ChristianScriptures Unlike most Bible Versions which are published in only one language or a few atmost the NWT is available in dozens of languages based mainly on their English translationbut obviously taking into account other factors in the process such as the original Bible text the peculiarities of their recipient local languages and their targeted audiences in their respective countries

It is obvious though that other NWT translation editions closely followed the English text of the NWT and at the same time their translation teams had enough latitude to offer their own unique renderings at times expressing in their native languages what they see in in the Inspired Text Having said that it is interesting to see how they approached their translation of John 858 from their English translation back into [modern] Greek

The translation team was acutely aware of the basic sense of ldquoegō eimirdquo as ldquoI amrdquo and how those simple words are misconstrued by religionists to say something more than Jesus intended Taking into account the syntax of John 858 as stated throughout this document the translation team who worked on the modern Greek version faced a few options

First they had the option to go back to ldquoegō eimirdquo using the modern Greek equivalent ldquoΕγώ ειμαιrdquo (I am) as it reads in the Vamvas version which they did not Or they could haveexpressed their NWT English choice of ldquoI have beenrdquo with their modern Greek equivalent of ldquoέχο υπάρξει [I have existed]rdquo Thirdly they could have gone with ldquoI wasrdquo (ldquoεγώ ήμουνrdquo) as some of their French and Italian Bible editions have done in the past or even with ldquo[εγώ] υπήρξα [I existed])rdquo Or they could have provided some other unique rendering It is obvious they wanted to stick closely to the Greek text but given the common misconceptionssurrounding ldquoegō eimai (I am)rdquo in mainstream churches the translation team chose to use ldquoεγώ υπάρχωrdquo (a present indicative form in the Greek) which means basically ldquoI existrdquo but in the presence of an expression of past time in John 858 the sense is ldquoI have existedrdquo Thus ldquoBefore Abraham came into existence I have existedrdquo ( The verb είμαι [ldquoto berdquo] in modern Greek has no forms for the perfect tense It borrows the forms from the verb υπάρχω [ldquoI existrdquo] The Greek and English ldquoperfectsrdquo are not exact equivalents either)

The reader is reminded here as noted earlier that modern Greek keeps up with the Koineacute Greek ldquopresentrdquo idiom A modern Greek grammar Greek A Comprehensive Grammar explains ldquoThe present tense is also used in constructions where English would use the perfect continuous ie where the verb expresses a continuous state or habitual event that

has lasted since a certain point in the past and is continuing up to (and including) the presentrdquo The authors provide two examples where a present verb is used with a past time indicator and where they translate using an English perfect as explained ldquoI have been living[Μένω] in this house for three years nowrdquo And ldquoI have been reading [Διαβάζω] this newspaper since 1984rdquo (Greek A Comprehensive Grammar by David Holton Peter Mackridge amp Irene Philippaki-Warburton Revised by Vassilios Spyropoulos p 294 Second edition 2012)

Ten years after the NWT-Greek Edition was released another modern Greek translation was published with the following rendering at John 858 ldquoΣας βεβαιώνω πως πριν να γεννηθεί οΑβραάμ εγώ υπάρχωrdquo which in English would be ldquoI assure you that I have existed since before Abraham was bornrdquo (Literally ldquoI assure you that before could be born the AbrahamI exist [not ldquoΕγώ ειμαιrdquo]rdquo The Holy Bible in Todays Greek Version 2003 Greek Bible Society Interestingly the original English version of 1976 had ldquoI Amrdquo) Also a Spanish Bible conveys a similar thought ldquoYo existo desde antes que existiera Abrahamrdquo [Translation ldquo I exist since before Abraham existedrdquo] (La Biblia - Versioacuten Popular 2nd edition Sociedades Biacuteblicas Unidas 1983)

_________________________________________________________

The Clear Word The translators quoted in this article represent various religious faiths some are Catholic some are Protestant Others are Unitarians Jehovahs Witnesses Jewish Adventists etc and they represent countries the world over One of these translators is a Seventh-Day Adventist who worked on The Clear Word Jack J Blanco ThD As a Seventh-Day Adventist who supports the Trinity doctrine Blanco translated verses to make Jesus ldquoequalrdquo to God in every way

He renders John 11 ldquoHe is the Word of God and is equal with Godrdquo He shows Jesus at Philippians 25-7 as ldquoequal with Godrdquo and describes him as lsquoacting the part of a servantrsquo At John 1428 he completely omits the reference that lsquothe Father is greaterrsquo than Christ But here at John 858 in answer to the question the priests and leaders asked concerning Abraham lsquoseeingrsquo his day Jesus answered according to Dr Blanco ldquoBecause I existed before Abraham was even bornrdquo Thus Dr Blanco makes no connection as others do that Christ is the ldquoI amrdquo of Exodus 314 which according to some would indicate that Jesus is the Jehovah of the Old Testament What he sees in this account is that Jesus already lsquoexisted before Abraham didrsquo and thus Abraham was able to lsquoseersquo his day (John 856) To this we must add another likely element included in Jesus response to the Jews as wellone of simple identification as ldquothe Christ [Messiah]rdquo and ldquoSon of manrdquo Why is it then that manywho support the Trinity doctrine find it hard to understand Jesus statement correctly at John 858 Could it be that they are letting non-Scriptural influence and perhaps the weight of themajority view dictate their understanding of this Scripture

For a consideration of other subjects by the same author check below

For a discussion of Acts 286 Whose blood

httpwwwscribdcomdoc231244155Acts-20-28-Whose-blood

For a discussion of Colossians 116 (ldquoall other thingsrdquo) see

httpwwwscribdcomdoc205841269Colossians-1-16-Is-the-expression-all-other-things-a-proper-rendition

For a consideration on the subject of the Trinity click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc160286056Does-the-Trinity-ever-make-sense

For a full consideration of John 11 click the following link httpwwwscribdcomdoc34916458The-correct-translation-of-John-1-1

For a brief consideration of John 11 with additional citations click here httpwwwscribdcomdoc50330864John-1-1-List-of-Alternate-Readings

Did the NW translators know any Greek click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc48234022Did-the-New-World-Translation-Committee-Know-Greek

For a consideration of John 173 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc57772552John-17-3-E28098Taking-in-knowledge-of-E28099-God-and-Jesus

For a consideration of 1 Timothy 316 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc76927834Was-God-manifested-in-the-flesh-1-Timothy-3-16

For a consideration of Exodus 225 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc38676458Exodus-2-25-And-God-took-notice-Does-God- care-about-us

For a consideration of John 114 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc35002730John-1-14-Jesus-full-of-grace

For a consideration of Translation Differences-Questions and Answershttpwwwscribdcomdoc59484457Translation-Differences-Questions-and-Answers

In Spanish

Para una consideracioacuten de otros temas vea los siguientes enlaces

Para una consideracioacuten de Colosenses 116 ldquotodas las otras cosasrdquo vea

httpwwwscribdcomdoc209601066Colosenses-1-16-C2BFEs-la-traduccion-E2809Ctodas-las-otras-cosasE2809D-apropiada

Para una consideracioacuten de ldquoiquestAcaso tiene sentido la Trinidadrdquo

httpwwwscribdcomdoc173779117C2BFAcaso-tiene-sentido-la-Trinidad

Para un consideracioacuten de Juan 11 vea el siguiente enlace

httpwwwscribdcomdoc35899788Traduccion-correcta-de-Juan-1-1-Lista-de- lecturas-alternativas

Para el tema iquestSabiacutean griego los traductores de la TNM vea el siguiente enlace

httpwwwscribdcomdoc51623596C2BFSabia-griego-el-Comite-de-la-Traduccion-del-Nuevo-Mundo

provide an answer if you will

Notably if ldquoeimirdquo was used to convey eternal existence what is the point of using an expression of past time at all in the clause Moreover the context of previous verses (vv 48-57) clearly indicates that Jesus is speaking of God as a separate entity See below

49 ldquobut I honor my Father and you dishonor merdquo 50 ldquoI am not seeking glory for myself but there is one who seeks it and he is the

judgerdquo54 ldquoIf I glorify myself my glory means nothing My Father whom you claim as your

God is the one who glorifies me 55 ldquoThough you do not know him I know him If I said I did not I would be a liar like you but I do know him and obey his wordrdquo Thus if Jesus meant he himself was the ldquoJehovahrdquo of the Old Testament as Trinitarians claim what would be the rationale behind Jesus directing all distinction and glory to lsquothe Father Godrsquo as a distinct individual as he did in the previous verses and then a few words later abruptly change his argumentation by claiming he is that very same One who lsquoreceives obedience from his own wordrsquo lsquoseeking his own honor and gloryrsquo because he himself is ldquoGodrdquo Confusing is it not To accept this abrupt change of character on Jesus part would be not ldquoa mysteryrdquo but flat out ldquoa deceptionrdquo of big proportions since Jesus himself warned against pretending to be one thing and acting as another (Matthew 62-5 2313-36)

Are we are supposed against all logic to accept these ldquotrinitarianrdquo assumptions instead of a simple alternative which really answers the Jews question about lsquohow could Abraham ldquoseerdquoJesus day if he was not yet 50 years oldrsquo (ldquoI have been in existence since Abraham was bornrdquo)

The obsession with the simple words ldquoI amrdquo have led to many faulty assumptions ldquoI amrdquo issuch a common expression in our language even to this day that words such as ldquoegoismrdquo ldquoegotismrdquo etc (derived from the Greek ldquoegordquo) are considered common words in English dictionaries Everyone uses the phrase ldquoI amrdquo at times Think of any big corporation or powerful organization of your choice for a moment Would you conclude that the two most powerful individuals of this one prestigious organization must be identical in every way solely because they are heard equally saying to others in their common speech ldquoI am thisrdquoor ldquoI am thatrdquo etc

In Bible times humans too used common pronouns The verb eimi (ldquoI amrdquo) itself or forms of it appears more than two thousand times (2000x) in the New Testament alone Additionally the word ldquoegōrdquo appears over seventeen hundred times (1700x) in the NT And those numbers do not include the Septuagint totals Do all occurrences of the word then imply ldquodivinityrdquo in each case Of course not It may be more significant when God or Christ use the expression because of who they are but does it really mean that both God and Christ share the same identity Or that everyone who uses the phrase ldquoI amrdquo does so with divine pretensions Does it really mean that everyone using the phrase are ldquoequalrdquo The

answer is obvious is it not

Lets bear in mind that when God sent Jesus Christ as His representative to a most crucial assignment multiple biblical prophecies were pointing to Christ as the promised Messiah that would free mankind from its moribund condition It is logical then that when the time came for Jesus Christ to show up on earth he would somehow communicate to others that ldquoherdquo and not some other human claiming to be the Messiah was Gods instrument in bringing everlasting relief to human misery Hence he could rightly say any or all of the following ldquoI am (this)rdquo ldquoI am (that)rdquo ldquoI am he [the promised Messiah]rdquo or ldquoI am Gods Sonrdquo Should we expect anything less

The fact is that the words ldquoI amrdquo are not exclusive to God and Christ It should be noted that a man who was born ldquoblindrdquo also used the same expression (John 99) The Greek here says ldquoekeinos elegen hoti Egō eimirdquo (ldquoThat one kept saying that I amrdquo) AT Robertson cites John 99 as one of five parallels to the use of egō eimi in John 858 (Word Pictures in the New Testament Vol V p 159) The phrase here comes at the end of the clause with no explicit predicate James White who upholds the traditional reading admits ldquoThis last instance [John 99] is similar to the sayings as Jesus utters them in that the phrase comes at the end of the clause and looks elsewhere for its predicaterdquo The same could be said of John 1527 Some argue that ldquoeimirdquo in John 858 is ldquoabsoluterdquo but do not do so with John 99 or John 1527 Theology may be a factor in this Previously we saw how Jacob a man according to the Septuagint used the words ldquoegō eimirdquo Other instances in Scripture of creatures using those words would not prove they were part of a ldquoGodheadrdquo Context then ultimately dictates how ldquoeimirdquo should be translated According to John when Jesus was pressed he only claimed to have been alive way before Abraham was born and that he simply was ldquothe Christrdquo ldquothe Son of Manrdquo and ldquothe Son of Godrdquo

There is something else to keep in mind in regards to the meaning of ldquoeimirdquo And it is what grammarian Stanley Porter indicated ldquoSometimes the verb [eimi] is used on its own as a verb of existence Perhaps the best-known example of this is the following John 858rdquo (Fundamentals of New Testament Greek by Stanley E Porter section 753 72) AT Robertson adds ldquoThe verb εἰμί [eimi] hellip Sometimes it does express existence as a predicatelike any other verb as in ἐγὼ εἰμί [egō eimi] (Jo 858) and ἡ θάλασσα οὐκ ἔστιν ἔτι [hē thalassa ouk estin eti = ldquothe sea not is yetrdquo] (Rev 211) Cf Mt 2330rdquo (A Grammar of theGreek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research Nashville Tenn 1934 p 394)

What does this mean The examples mentioned by Robertson in addition to John 858 give us an idea of what this implies It is so strange that the two examples Robertson provided forcomparison with John 858 seems to contradict his ldquotimeless beingrdquo view on ldquoeimirdquo He cited a portion of Revelation 211 where the Greek literally says ldquoAnd the sea not is yetrdquo In other words ldquoThe sea does not exist any morerdquo Amplified Bible ldquoThere no longer existed any seardquo Curiously various versions render the present verb ldquoisrdquo (a form of ldquoeimirdquo) with an imperfect ldquowasrdquo (Cf KJV NIV NAB NRSV) Obviously ldquothe seardquo in this vision is [was] not ldquoeternalrdquo

And in Matthew 2330 the other text provided by Robertson in his comparison with John 858 the Greek word-for-word says ldquoIf we were in the days of the fathers of usrdquo which inmodern English would be ldquoIf we had lived in the days of our forefathersrdquo Other versions ldquoIf we had beenrdquo (Rheims NT) ldquoIf we had been livingrdquo (NASB) ldquoIf we had been existing in the days of our fathersrdquo (Jonathan Mitchell NT) The full NIV text reads ldquoAnd you say lsquoIf we had lived in the days of our ancestors we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophetsrsquo rdquo

It is clear from this comparison that the words of Matthew 2330 ldquoIf we wererdquo (a form of ldquoeimirdquo) in the text is used as an equivalent for ldquoliferdquo or ldquoexistencerdquo In the heavenly vision of Rev 211 lsquothe sea ceased to existrsquo And the generation of people which Jesus spoke about and their ancestors all died ceased to exist If we apply these two examples to John 858 given by Robertson with the meaning either of life or existence for ldquoeimirdquo then it wouldbe equally acceptable to translate ldquoI amrdquo as ldquoI existrdquo or ldquoI liverdquo Many translators reflect this very same understanding as the submitted list of alternate readings of John 858 show ldquoI existrdquo or ldquoI existed even before Abraham was bornrdquo Or ldquoI was alive before Abraham was bornrdquo (The Simple English Bible)

Although some may not see much semantic difference between Jesus saying ldquoI amrdquo or ldquoI existrdquo the two expressions communicate something very different to many readers ldquoI amrdquo is generally associated by Trinitarians as a title used by God or as another name for God Onthe other hand ldquoI existrdquo simply conveys ldquoliferdquo or ldquoexistence Barnabas Lindars points out that ldquoegō eimirdquo in John 858 ldquocannot be regarded as a title because it requires the meaning lsquoI am in existencersquordquo (ldquoThe Son of Man in Johannine Christologyrdquo in Christ and the Spirit in the New Testament In Honour of Charles Francis Digby Moule eds B Lindars and S Smalley Cambridge Cambridge University Press 1973) (Since an English present tense cannot start before a definite point in the past this would mean that we can incorporate Lindars valid observation and translate it into contemporary English like this ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo exactly as Dr McKay proposed)

Some in their eagerness to equate Christ with God accuse translators who render ldquoegō eimirdquo in John 858 with renderings other than ldquoI amrdquo pointing to all occurrences of this expression in the New Testament or in Johns Gospel where allegedly these translators do not follow the same ldquorulerdquo when translating ldquoegō eimirdquo in John 858 as they do elsewhere where they translate it with a present indicative form What they dont tell you or fail to understand is that in John 858 ldquoegō eimirdquo without a predicate AND with an expression of time with past implications in its sentence structure provides an ldquoidiomrdquo which is quite different from those other instances of ldquoeimirdquo Thats right an idiom (where present and past is combined) found equally at home in classical biblical and modern Greek which many translators convey into our language with the English present perfect at various places Consequently one cannot merely go by how the phrase ldquoegō eimirdquo is used elsewhere in the NT without taking into account the fact that John 858 displays an ldquoidiomrdquo in its structure Not doing so would be dishonest John the Baptist had said of Christ in John 130 ldquoA man is coming after me who ranks before me because he existed [Lit was] before merdquo (JB)

John 858 is in harmony with those words Furthermore some attempt to use the reading of Psalm 902 in the Septuagint as ldquoevidencerdquo that John 858 is rendered correctly in the popular versions But a closer analysis of this verse shows notable differences between the two verses making such comparison untenable With good reason a considerable number ofscholars have chosen to break from tradition in their rendering of John 858

If critics of alternate readings of John 858 are not candid enough to admit some of the very issues mentioned here and hide the fact that many scholars do hold a different interpretation and no less academic at that should we consider their diatribes of any worthy import It is ldquowishful thinkingrdquo for someone to believe that John 858 is directly connected to Exodus 314 rather than any real evidence (which is lacking) confirming their eager interpretations Remember even Dr James White a well known Trinitarian advocate admitted ldquothat an immediate and unqualified jump from the ego eimi of John 858 to Exodus 314 is unwiserdquo

Besides a theological tendency can be seen when they focus as some do on undermining the reputation of one Bible translation (NWT) when there are actually numerous versions from different religions dealing with the same controversial Scriptures in a similar manner This is very much like politicians who ignore the failings of their own party but are quick to lsquodemonizersquo their opponents (Matthew 73)

Is the Kingdom Interlinear ldquoproofrdquo the NWT is wrong at John 858

A criticism has been made of a Watchtower Society publication (The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures ldquoKITrdquo) which contains the Greek text and underneath it a word-by-word translation in English and on the right side of the page the modern New World Translation Well at John 858 this publication renders the Greek phrase being discussed here egō eimi word-for-word as ldquoI amrdquo and in the right column the NWT shows the reading ldquoI have beenrdquo This difference have led some to severely criticize the NW translators of ldquoincompetencerdquo ldquoinconsistencyrdquo and even of ldquodishonestyrdquo The critics say something like this ldquoThey have backed themselves into a corner where they cant escape their mishandling of the Greek textrdquo or something of that sort Amazingly these critics in their condemnations hardly ever mention the dozens of translators who translate the same way or similarly to the NWT as the submitted list shows So much for honesty

Those who engage in such tactics are not being forthcoming Why say that Besides dismissing how other translators deal with John 858 they also distort known facts for the WT Society have made it clear that the publication of this Greek Bible is to help the Bible student determine the basic sense of the Greek and have stated that the translation on the right column (the NWT) is a modern way of expressing the thoughts transmitted by the Greek text There are many factors to consider when using such publications

Even other interlinear publications warn of seeming discrepancies For instance The Zondervan Parallel New Testament in Greek and English says in its Foreword ldquo[I]t is a good thing to bear in mind that you cannot always either give an English equivalent for a Greek word or expression or even always render the same Greek verb word by the same

English onerdquo Another interlinear the New Greek-English Interlinear New Testament by Brown and Comfort and edited by J D Douglas explains ldquoIt is difficult to translate one language into another on a word-for-word basis because each language has its own syntax grammatical constructions and idioms that are difficultmdashif not impossiblemdashto replicate literally in another languagerdquo (Emphasis added) This statement is so true of the text in discussion (John 858) in regards to its syntax and particular idiom Often critics of the NWT hide this fact Why Is it religious bias at work

I will give the reader a few examples of an available interlinear translation which has the Greek main text and a literal sublinear translation below the Greek by Professor Paul R McReynolds and on the right column for comparison the reader can study the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) a popular translation in academia Observe how the two can differ

McReynolds Mat 21 ldquomagiciansrdquo NRSV ldquowise menrdquo John 118 ldquoonly born Godrdquo ldquoGod the only Sonrdquo Mat 243 ldquosign of the your presencerdquo ldquothe sign of your comingrdquo Mathew 522 ldquothe gehenna of the firerdquo ldquothe hell of firerdquo John 1319 ldquoI amrdquo ldquoI am herdquo John 149 ldquoI amrdquo ldquoHave I beenrdquo John 1527 ldquoyou arerdquo ldquoyou have beenrdquo 2 Peter 24 ldquobeing sent to Tartarusrdquo ldquobut cast them into hellrdquo Luke 1113 ldquowill give spirit holy tordquo ldquowillgive the Holy Spirit tordquo John 2022 ldquotake spirit holyrdquo ldquoReceive the Holy Spiritrdquo Acts 24 ldquofilled all of spirit holyrdquo ldquofilled with the Holy Spiritrdquo

( Paul R McReynolds is professor of Greek and New Testament at Pacific Christian College in Fullerton California USA He also contributed to the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia)

Some of the readings from the right column above (NRSV) are acceptable others are not See if you can detect in the right column above those translation renderings with a theological tendency that deviate from the literal readings from the left column McReynoldson the left does an excellent job of transmitting the Greek sense Even the most popular Bible versions do not adhere consistently to the base texts The NRSV and a host of other Bible versions add their own religious interpretation throughout Scripture just as much as the NWT if not more but hardly anyone complains of this transformation of Scriptures eventhough it leads to error Why Simply because the NRSV represents more of a ldquomajorityrdquo view than the NWT does But in truth majority or minority views do not correspond equallyto ldquoaccuraterdquo or ldquoinaccuraterdquo results

In the text discussed the KIT can appropriately show the basic sense rendering of ldquoI amrdquo for the Greek ldquoegō eimirdquo in the left column and alternately show the reading ldquoI have beenrdquo in the right column as a contemporary way of expressing in English the particular Greek clause with its ldquoidiomrdquo in John 858 as explained throughout this article a rendering which has

scholarship support When the Greek ldquoegō eimirdquo appears in an idiom-less structure it can rightfully be translated as ldquoI amrdquo as most versions do including the NWT Hence there is no contradiction between the two translations

Dr McKay argues that Jesus response in John 858 ldquowould be most naturally translated lsquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrsquo if it were not for the obsession with the simple words lsquoI amrsquo rdquo (Kenneth L McKay ldquolsquoI amrsquo in Johns Gospelrdquo Expository Times 1996 p 302) I take the author as saying that ldquoI have been in existencerdquo for ldquoeimirdquo is a better translation than ldquoI amrdquo but the [religious] obsession for the simple words ldquoI amrdquo in their quest to elevate Christ to Gods level does not allow people to see that The thing is that Christ lsquoalways pleased the Fatherrsquo and was fully satisfied with being lsquolesserrsquo than him (John 829 1029 1428 177813) Why not accept him as he is

Hence it is poor scholarship to forward the idea that an entity must be God Almighty himselfby the sole fact of using a divine sounding phrase when other Bible individuals are found using the same expression in Scripture The ldquocontextrdquo is the determining factor Not only must we take into account the context surrounding a chapter or book of the Bible but also what the whole Bible teaches on a given person or subject

What does the Bible teach about Jesus

That Christ ldquowas in the beginning with Godrdquo (John 12) At the announcement of his birth on earth the angel Gabriel told Mary that she will give birth to someone ldquogreatrdquo and ldquoholyrdquo and that one will be called ldquoSon of the Most Highrdquo and ldquoSon of Godrdquo (Luke 132 35) Trinitarians may claim that ldquoSon of Godrdquo is equivalent in meaning to ldquoGodrdquo It is a claim with no foundation If there was any truth to the claim then the ldquoHoly Spiritrdquo would also be called Son of God But no The fact is that other living creatures are called ldquosons of Godrdquo (Job 21) Never is ldquoGodrdquo or ldquoholy spiritrdquo ever called ldquoSon of Godrdquo in Scripture Only Jesus Christ is called ldquothe Son of Godrdquo with the article Why

By Christ lsquobecoming obedient [to God] until deathrsquo during the course of his earthly life lsquoGod highly exalted Him and graciously gave him a name which is above every other name that at the name of Jesus every knee should bendto the credit of God the Fatherrsquo (Hebrews58 Philippians 28-11 21st Century New Testament)

ldquo[Christ] has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God with angels authorities and powers made subject to himrdquo (1 Peter 322 NRSV) Still in heaven Christ receives knowledge information revelation from God and transmits it to other creatures (Revelation11) Though the glorified Christ is described as ldquoKing of kingsrdquo and ldquoLord of lordsrdquo he is specifically called ldquoThe Word of Godrdquo (Revelation 191316 NRSV) The night before his death he ldquoprayedrdquo to his Father and called him ldquothe only true Godrdquo and made this petition ldquoFather glorify me in your own presence [Greek beside yourself] with the glory that I hadin your presence [Greek beside you] before the world existedrdquo (John 175 NRSV) (ldquoalongside yourselfrdquo ST Byington) Again God never has to ldquoprayrdquo to anyone Ever

Well then if Jesus Christ expressed this one final ldquowishrdquo in prayer to be ldquoin the presence ofrdquoldquobesiderdquo ldquoalongsiderdquo his Father which he himself called ldquothe only true Godrdquo why should we for the sake of tradition insist with the belief that Jesus ldquomustrdquo somehow be that ldquotruerdquo God the One sitting at the center of Gods throne instead of ldquobesiderdquo God (Mark 1619) Christ did not ask to sit at Gods throne Christ was fully content with the premise of being alongside God And that is what actually happened Mark tells us ldquoSo then the Lord Jesus after he had spoken to them was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of Godrdquo (Mark 1619 NRSV Note Some ancient manuscripts omit this verse) The NIV Study Bible notes the significance of lsquositting at the right hand of Godrsquo ldquoA position of authority second only to Godsrdquo Being in ldquoa position of authority second only to Godsrdquo is something no one should ever say of God for he is always ldquosupremerdquo At no time does God relinquishes his supremacy Someone who holds a position of authority second to God cannot be identical to God Take note too that in this account of Mark chapter 16 or the oneat John chapter 17 there is no mention of a third party of a ldquoGodheadrdquo No ldquoHoly Spiritrdquo is in sight The fact is that the glorified Christ in heaven continues to call his Father ldquomy Godrdquo(Revelation 312)

As ldquoSon of Godrdquo and always lesser and subject to God it is illogical to think Christ would purposely usurp titles and rights that only belonged to lsquohis God and Fatherrsquo (John 1428 Matthew 2023 John 2017 Acts 17) Jesus Christ taught others to only worship the Father God (Matthew 410 John 42324) ldquoAnd we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the worldrdquo (1 John 414) If so the thought that Christ would usethe words ldquoI amrdquo as a title to identify himself as ldquothe true Godrdquo is incongruous Jesus made it clear that he would only seek the glory ldquothat comes from the one who alone is Godrdquo (John850 54 544)

In this Satan controlled world it is not that difficult to get entangled with human taught intricate philosophies which obscure the simple Christian doctrine (John 1231 2 Cor 44) Hence the need for caution at the time of defending popular traditional views which clash with the monotheistic approach of Bible writers

Consequently those who teach that Christ is Almighty God find themselves in conflict with the Scriptural record The submitted list of alternate readings of John 858 shows that there are a considerable number of scholars who not only understand the subject correctly but alsokeenly grasp that whatever Jesus said on the matter has to harmonize with both the context of John chapter 8 and the rest of the Scriptures as well

What is the correct translation of John 858

Is it ldquoI amrdquo ldquoI wasrdquo ldquoI am herdquo or ldquoI have beenrdquo After analyzing the Greek phrase ldquoegō eimirdquo the context and the various possible ways the expression can be translated in English I think it is best to render the Greek with an English present perfect Adding a smallelement such as ldquosincerdquo to the statement as McKay does below satisfies all contextual and grammatical requirements of the passage Doing so does not qualify as ldquointerpolationrdquo

A second choice a simple past tense can perhaps be used in translation where the context allows since it is grammatically correct but it is generally used of activity confined to the past so the message may be distorted Unless that is the simple past is interpreted as ldquoimperfectiverdquo with current relevance How so In support of Jesus deity many frequently cite John11 There in the text a simple past tense ldquowasrdquo is applied to ldquothe Wordrdquo three times in English versions Does that mean ldquothe Wordrdquo is no more or that it was permanentlycut-off from existence at some point Of course not The context of the whole gospel of John shows that Christ is fully pertinent in Christian lives

Scholars choosing a past tense for ldquoeimirdquo (ie ldquoI wasrdquo ldquoI existedrdquo etc) at John 858 may also have in mind what John the Baptist said as a precursor of Jesus Christ ldquoA man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was [ldquoexistedrdquo JB] before merdquo Surely John the Baptist did not mean that Jesus existence was done away with His own words show thatJesus life was very much relevant and would continue to be so Translators have no issue whatsoever in applying a past tense (ldquowasrdquo ldquoexistedrdquo) at John 11 and 130 in their English versions So why would they at John 858 Perhaps because it would mean that they wouldhave to do away with the premise of a ldquodivine titlerdquo in their argumentation of which is claimed clinches Jesus identity with Gods own As shown above Revelation 211 a presentverb a form of ldquoeimirdquo is rendered by some versions with a past tense ldquowasrdquo Obviously Bible translators have no problem in translating some present tense verbs with past tenses or with present perfects But most object to it at John 858 likely for theological reasons

As stated in the beginning of this essay the English ldquopresentrdquo and the Greek ldquopresentrdquo in certain contexts do not correspond exactly in meaning because in Greek ldquotimerdquo is a secondary factor That being the case the choice of English tense does not have to match theGreek conjugation per se to be faithful to the Sacred Text When one considers the specific idiom found in John 858 and the semantic implications of both the Greek and English ldquopresentrdquo one can see that the rendering ldquoI amrdquo though popular does not nearly represent the best translation possible in the English language ldquoContextrdquo often plays a more importantrole in determining the correct translation Overall though it is best to render the Greek expression with an English present perfect since it conveys clearly a more present relevancythan a past tense would

That said John 858 is a good example where a Greek transliteration may not be the best choice to communicate the right message effectively in our times The translation of ldquoI amrdquo has its place in extreme English literal translations which show the basic sense of the Greek such as those Interlinear translations mentioned above Also it can rightfully be used in many Scriptures where the context calls for it as when the sentence structure lacks the Greekldquoidiomrdquo discussed throughout this writing as might be the case with most occurrences of ldquoeimirdquo

Here listed in my opinion are the translations which come closest to the Greek thought presented by the particular ldquoidiomrdquo found in John 858 Dr Kenneth L McKay comes up with the correct translation

1 ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo - Kenneth L McKay A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek (SBG 5 New York Peter Lang 1994) p42

(Kenneth L McKay graduated with honours in Classics (with an interest in the Greek of theNT) from the Universities of Sydney and Cambridge He has taught Greek in universities and theological colleges in Nigeria New Zealand and England Mr McKay retired from the Australian National University in 1987 after teaching there for 26 years)

Other translations below come close to McKays rendering and are thus favored over the traditional rendering which is widely misunderstood

2 ldquoI have existed before Abraham was bornrdquo - A New Translation by James [ Moffatt - DD DLitt Glasgow Oxford 3 ldquoBefore Abraham came into existence I have beenrdquo - New World Translation 4 ldquoBefore Abraham came into being I have existedrdquo - The Documents of the [New Testament G W Wade London 5 ldquoFrom before Abraham was I have been rdquo - The New Testament by George [ R -Noyes DD Boston USA6 ldquoBefore Abraham was born I have already been rdquo - The Unvarnished New [Testament Andy Gaus Boston7 ldquoI existed even before Abraham was bornrdquo - The concise Gospel and the Acts [Logos International Christopher J ed Christianson Plainfield NJ8 ldquoI already was before Abraham was bornrdquo ndash Worldwide English New Testament [ Derby UK ________________________________

COMMENTS

Also compare the following translations

Nytt liv (1907 Norwegian)A Biacuteblia Viva (1981 Portuguese)O Novo Testamento Vivo (1974 Portuguese)Le Livre Nouveau Testament (1980 eacuteditions Farel French)Η Καινή Διαθήκη των Τεσσάρων Καθηγητών (ΚΔΤΚ Greek) (The New Testament of the Four Teachers The translation was made and approved (1921981) by the Holy Summit Church of Greece The English title of the project is The New Testament in Modern Greek Athens Greece) Η Αγία Γραφή Παλαιά και Καινή Διαθήκη (ΝΔΜ Greek) Ελληνική Βιβλική Εταιρία Αθήνα [Athens] 1997 (The Bible Old and New Testament Greek Biblical Company - London 1997) ΚΔΛΖ ΛΧ (Other Greek Versions expressing the same idea as translations on the list)___________________

ldquoI was rdquo Note on 1987 translation from Italian main list l Vangelio di Giovanni (El Evangelio de Juan [ldquoThe Gospel of Johnrdquo] with imprimatur) by J Mateos and J Barreto noted on John 858 (as translated by Teodora Tosatti p 387 Cittadela Editrice 1982) that the temporal relationship expressed by the Greek ldquoprin eimi [BeforeI am]rdquo can be translated into Italian ldquoprimaero [BeforeI was]rdquo (Translation from Italian to English mine)__________________

Comment on 1993 ΟІ ΧΡΙΣΤΙΑΝΙΚΕΣ ΓΡΑΦΕΣ Απόδοση από τη Μειάφράση Νέου Κόσμου which is a modern Greek translation of the New World Translation of the ChristianScriptures Unlike most Bible Versions which are published in only one language or a few atmost the NWT is available in dozens of languages based mainly on their English translationbut obviously taking into account other factors in the process such as the original Bible text the peculiarities of their recipient local languages and their targeted audiences in their respective countries

It is obvious though that other NWT translation editions closely followed the English text of the NWT and at the same time their translation teams had enough latitude to offer their own unique renderings at times expressing in their native languages what they see in in the Inspired Text Having said that it is interesting to see how they approached their translation of John 858 from their English translation back into [modern] Greek

The translation team was acutely aware of the basic sense of ldquoegō eimirdquo as ldquoI amrdquo and how those simple words are misconstrued by religionists to say something more than Jesus intended Taking into account the syntax of John 858 as stated throughout this document the translation team who worked on the modern Greek version faced a few options

First they had the option to go back to ldquoegō eimirdquo using the modern Greek equivalent ldquoΕγώ ειμαιrdquo (I am) as it reads in the Vamvas version which they did not Or they could haveexpressed their NWT English choice of ldquoI have beenrdquo with their modern Greek equivalent of ldquoέχο υπάρξει [I have existed]rdquo Thirdly they could have gone with ldquoI wasrdquo (ldquoεγώ ήμουνrdquo) as some of their French and Italian Bible editions have done in the past or even with ldquo[εγώ] υπήρξα [I existed])rdquo Or they could have provided some other unique rendering It is obvious they wanted to stick closely to the Greek text but given the common misconceptionssurrounding ldquoegō eimai (I am)rdquo in mainstream churches the translation team chose to use ldquoεγώ υπάρχωrdquo (a present indicative form in the Greek) which means basically ldquoI existrdquo but in the presence of an expression of past time in John 858 the sense is ldquoI have existedrdquo Thus ldquoBefore Abraham came into existence I have existedrdquo ( The verb είμαι [ldquoto berdquo] in modern Greek has no forms for the perfect tense It borrows the forms from the verb υπάρχω [ldquoI existrdquo] The Greek and English ldquoperfectsrdquo are not exact equivalents either)

The reader is reminded here as noted earlier that modern Greek keeps up with the Koineacute Greek ldquopresentrdquo idiom A modern Greek grammar Greek A Comprehensive Grammar explains ldquoThe present tense is also used in constructions where English would use the perfect continuous ie where the verb expresses a continuous state or habitual event that

has lasted since a certain point in the past and is continuing up to (and including) the presentrdquo The authors provide two examples where a present verb is used with a past time indicator and where they translate using an English perfect as explained ldquoI have been living[Μένω] in this house for three years nowrdquo And ldquoI have been reading [Διαβάζω] this newspaper since 1984rdquo (Greek A Comprehensive Grammar by David Holton Peter Mackridge amp Irene Philippaki-Warburton Revised by Vassilios Spyropoulos p 294 Second edition 2012)

Ten years after the NWT-Greek Edition was released another modern Greek translation was published with the following rendering at John 858 ldquoΣας βεβαιώνω πως πριν να γεννηθεί οΑβραάμ εγώ υπάρχωrdquo which in English would be ldquoI assure you that I have existed since before Abraham was bornrdquo (Literally ldquoI assure you that before could be born the AbrahamI exist [not ldquoΕγώ ειμαιrdquo]rdquo The Holy Bible in Todays Greek Version 2003 Greek Bible Society Interestingly the original English version of 1976 had ldquoI Amrdquo) Also a Spanish Bible conveys a similar thought ldquoYo existo desde antes que existiera Abrahamrdquo [Translation ldquo I exist since before Abraham existedrdquo] (La Biblia - Versioacuten Popular 2nd edition Sociedades Biacuteblicas Unidas 1983)

_________________________________________________________

The Clear Word The translators quoted in this article represent various religious faiths some are Catholic some are Protestant Others are Unitarians Jehovahs Witnesses Jewish Adventists etc and they represent countries the world over One of these translators is a Seventh-Day Adventist who worked on The Clear Word Jack J Blanco ThD As a Seventh-Day Adventist who supports the Trinity doctrine Blanco translated verses to make Jesus ldquoequalrdquo to God in every way

He renders John 11 ldquoHe is the Word of God and is equal with Godrdquo He shows Jesus at Philippians 25-7 as ldquoequal with Godrdquo and describes him as lsquoacting the part of a servantrsquo At John 1428 he completely omits the reference that lsquothe Father is greaterrsquo than Christ But here at John 858 in answer to the question the priests and leaders asked concerning Abraham lsquoseeingrsquo his day Jesus answered according to Dr Blanco ldquoBecause I existed before Abraham was even bornrdquo Thus Dr Blanco makes no connection as others do that Christ is the ldquoI amrdquo of Exodus 314 which according to some would indicate that Jesus is the Jehovah of the Old Testament What he sees in this account is that Jesus already lsquoexisted before Abraham didrsquo and thus Abraham was able to lsquoseersquo his day (John 856) To this we must add another likely element included in Jesus response to the Jews as wellone of simple identification as ldquothe Christ [Messiah]rdquo and ldquoSon of manrdquo Why is it then that manywho support the Trinity doctrine find it hard to understand Jesus statement correctly at John 858 Could it be that they are letting non-Scriptural influence and perhaps the weight of themajority view dictate their understanding of this Scripture

For a consideration of other subjects by the same author check below

For a discussion of Acts 286 Whose blood

httpwwwscribdcomdoc231244155Acts-20-28-Whose-blood

For a discussion of Colossians 116 (ldquoall other thingsrdquo) see

httpwwwscribdcomdoc205841269Colossians-1-16-Is-the-expression-all-other-things-a-proper-rendition

For a consideration on the subject of the Trinity click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc160286056Does-the-Trinity-ever-make-sense

For a full consideration of John 11 click the following link httpwwwscribdcomdoc34916458The-correct-translation-of-John-1-1

For a brief consideration of John 11 with additional citations click here httpwwwscribdcomdoc50330864John-1-1-List-of-Alternate-Readings

Did the NW translators know any Greek click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc48234022Did-the-New-World-Translation-Committee-Know-Greek

For a consideration of John 173 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc57772552John-17-3-E28098Taking-in-knowledge-of-E28099-God-and-Jesus

For a consideration of 1 Timothy 316 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc76927834Was-God-manifested-in-the-flesh-1-Timothy-3-16

For a consideration of Exodus 225 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc38676458Exodus-2-25-And-God-took-notice-Does-God- care-about-us

For a consideration of John 114 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc35002730John-1-14-Jesus-full-of-grace

For a consideration of Translation Differences-Questions and Answershttpwwwscribdcomdoc59484457Translation-Differences-Questions-and-Answers

In Spanish

Para una consideracioacuten de otros temas vea los siguientes enlaces

Para una consideracioacuten de Colosenses 116 ldquotodas las otras cosasrdquo vea

httpwwwscribdcomdoc209601066Colosenses-1-16-C2BFEs-la-traduccion-E2809Ctodas-las-otras-cosasE2809D-apropiada

Para una consideracioacuten de ldquoiquestAcaso tiene sentido la Trinidadrdquo

httpwwwscribdcomdoc173779117C2BFAcaso-tiene-sentido-la-Trinidad

Para un consideracioacuten de Juan 11 vea el siguiente enlace

httpwwwscribdcomdoc35899788Traduccion-correcta-de-Juan-1-1-Lista-de- lecturas-alternativas

Para el tema iquestSabiacutean griego los traductores de la TNM vea el siguiente enlace

httpwwwscribdcomdoc51623596C2BFSabia-griego-el-Comite-de-la-Traduccion-del-Nuevo-Mundo

answer is obvious is it not

Lets bear in mind that when God sent Jesus Christ as His representative to a most crucial assignment multiple biblical prophecies were pointing to Christ as the promised Messiah that would free mankind from its moribund condition It is logical then that when the time came for Jesus Christ to show up on earth he would somehow communicate to others that ldquoherdquo and not some other human claiming to be the Messiah was Gods instrument in bringing everlasting relief to human misery Hence he could rightly say any or all of the following ldquoI am (this)rdquo ldquoI am (that)rdquo ldquoI am he [the promised Messiah]rdquo or ldquoI am Gods Sonrdquo Should we expect anything less

The fact is that the words ldquoI amrdquo are not exclusive to God and Christ It should be noted that a man who was born ldquoblindrdquo also used the same expression (John 99) The Greek here says ldquoekeinos elegen hoti Egō eimirdquo (ldquoThat one kept saying that I amrdquo) AT Robertson cites John 99 as one of five parallels to the use of egō eimi in John 858 (Word Pictures in the New Testament Vol V p 159) The phrase here comes at the end of the clause with no explicit predicate James White who upholds the traditional reading admits ldquoThis last instance [John 99] is similar to the sayings as Jesus utters them in that the phrase comes at the end of the clause and looks elsewhere for its predicaterdquo The same could be said of John 1527 Some argue that ldquoeimirdquo in John 858 is ldquoabsoluterdquo but do not do so with John 99 or John 1527 Theology may be a factor in this Previously we saw how Jacob a man according to the Septuagint used the words ldquoegō eimirdquo Other instances in Scripture of creatures using those words would not prove they were part of a ldquoGodheadrdquo Context then ultimately dictates how ldquoeimirdquo should be translated According to John when Jesus was pressed he only claimed to have been alive way before Abraham was born and that he simply was ldquothe Christrdquo ldquothe Son of Manrdquo and ldquothe Son of Godrdquo

There is something else to keep in mind in regards to the meaning of ldquoeimirdquo And it is what grammarian Stanley Porter indicated ldquoSometimes the verb [eimi] is used on its own as a verb of existence Perhaps the best-known example of this is the following John 858rdquo (Fundamentals of New Testament Greek by Stanley E Porter section 753 72) AT Robertson adds ldquoThe verb εἰμί [eimi] hellip Sometimes it does express existence as a predicatelike any other verb as in ἐγὼ εἰμί [egō eimi] (Jo 858) and ἡ θάλασσα οὐκ ἔστιν ἔτι [hē thalassa ouk estin eti = ldquothe sea not is yetrdquo] (Rev 211) Cf Mt 2330rdquo (A Grammar of theGreek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research Nashville Tenn 1934 p 394)

What does this mean The examples mentioned by Robertson in addition to John 858 give us an idea of what this implies It is so strange that the two examples Robertson provided forcomparison with John 858 seems to contradict his ldquotimeless beingrdquo view on ldquoeimirdquo He cited a portion of Revelation 211 where the Greek literally says ldquoAnd the sea not is yetrdquo In other words ldquoThe sea does not exist any morerdquo Amplified Bible ldquoThere no longer existed any seardquo Curiously various versions render the present verb ldquoisrdquo (a form of ldquoeimirdquo) with an imperfect ldquowasrdquo (Cf KJV NIV NAB NRSV) Obviously ldquothe seardquo in this vision is [was] not ldquoeternalrdquo

And in Matthew 2330 the other text provided by Robertson in his comparison with John 858 the Greek word-for-word says ldquoIf we were in the days of the fathers of usrdquo which inmodern English would be ldquoIf we had lived in the days of our forefathersrdquo Other versions ldquoIf we had beenrdquo (Rheims NT) ldquoIf we had been livingrdquo (NASB) ldquoIf we had been existing in the days of our fathersrdquo (Jonathan Mitchell NT) The full NIV text reads ldquoAnd you say lsquoIf we had lived in the days of our ancestors we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophetsrsquo rdquo

It is clear from this comparison that the words of Matthew 2330 ldquoIf we wererdquo (a form of ldquoeimirdquo) in the text is used as an equivalent for ldquoliferdquo or ldquoexistencerdquo In the heavenly vision of Rev 211 lsquothe sea ceased to existrsquo And the generation of people which Jesus spoke about and their ancestors all died ceased to exist If we apply these two examples to John 858 given by Robertson with the meaning either of life or existence for ldquoeimirdquo then it wouldbe equally acceptable to translate ldquoI amrdquo as ldquoI existrdquo or ldquoI liverdquo Many translators reflect this very same understanding as the submitted list of alternate readings of John 858 show ldquoI existrdquo or ldquoI existed even before Abraham was bornrdquo Or ldquoI was alive before Abraham was bornrdquo (The Simple English Bible)

Although some may not see much semantic difference between Jesus saying ldquoI amrdquo or ldquoI existrdquo the two expressions communicate something very different to many readers ldquoI amrdquo is generally associated by Trinitarians as a title used by God or as another name for God Onthe other hand ldquoI existrdquo simply conveys ldquoliferdquo or ldquoexistence Barnabas Lindars points out that ldquoegō eimirdquo in John 858 ldquocannot be regarded as a title because it requires the meaning lsquoI am in existencersquordquo (ldquoThe Son of Man in Johannine Christologyrdquo in Christ and the Spirit in the New Testament In Honour of Charles Francis Digby Moule eds B Lindars and S Smalley Cambridge Cambridge University Press 1973) (Since an English present tense cannot start before a definite point in the past this would mean that we can incorporate Lindars valid observation and translate it into contemporary English like this ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo exactly as Dr McKay proposed)

Some in their eagerness to equate Christ with God accuse translators who render ldquoegō eimirdquo in John 858 with renderings other than ldquoI amrdquo pointing to all occurrences of this expression in the New Testament or in Johns Gospel where allegedly these translators do not follow the same ldquorulerdquo when translating ldquoegō eimirdquo in John 858 as they do elsewhere where they translate it with a present indicative form What they dont tell you or fail to understand is that in John 858 ldquoegō eimirdquo without a predicate AND with an expression of time with past implications in its sentence structure provides an ldquoidiomrdquo which is quite different from those other instances of ldquoeimirdquo Thats right an idiom (where present and past is combined) found equally at home in classical biblical and modern Greek which many translators convey into our language with the English present perfect at various places Consequently one cannot merely go by how the phrase ldquoegō eimirdquo is used elsewhere in the NT without taking into account the fact that John 858 displays an ldquoidiomrdquo in its structure Not doing so would be dishonest John the Baptist had said of Christ in John 130 ldquoA man is coming after me who ranks before me because he existed [Lit was] before merdquo (JB)

John 858 is in harmony with those words Furthermore some attempt to use the reading of Psalm 902 in the Septuagint as ldquoevidencerdquo that John 858 is rendered correctly in the popular versions But a closer analysis of this verse shows notable differences between the two verses making such comparison untenable With good reason a considerable number ofscholars have chosen to break from tradition in their rendering of John 858

If critics of alternate readings of John 858 are not candid enough to admit some of the very issues mentioned here and hide the fact that many scholars do hold a different interpretation and no less academic at that should we consider their diatribes of any worthy import It is ldquowishful thinkingrdquo for someone to believe that John 858 is directly connected to Exodus 314 rather than any real evidence (which is lacking) confirming their eager interpretations Remember even Dr James White a well known Trinitarian advocate admitted ldquothat an immediate and unqualified jump from the ego eimi of John 858 to Exodus 314 is unwiserdquo

Besides a theological tendency can be seen when they focus as some do on undermining the reputation of one Bible translation (NWT) when there are actually numerous versions from different religions dealing with the same controversial Scriptures in a similar manner This is very much like politicians who ignore the failings of their own party but are quick to lsquodemonizersquo their opponents (Matthew 73)

Is the Kingdom Interlinear ldquoproofrdquo the NWT is wrong at John 858

A criticism has been made of a Watchtower Society publication (The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures ldquoKITrdquo) which contains the Greek text and underneath it a word-by-word translation in English and on the right side of the page the modern New World Translation Well at John 858 this publication renders the Greek phrase being discussed here egō eimi word-for-word as ldquoI amrdquo and in the right column the NWT shows the reading ldquoI have beenrdquo This difference have led some to severely criticize the NW translators of ldquoincompetencerdquo ldquoinconsistencyrdquo and even of ldquodishonestyrdquo The critics say something like this ldquoThey have backed themselves into a corner where they cant escape their mishandling of the Greek textrdquo or something of that sort Amazingly these critics in their condemnations hardly ever mention the dozens of translators who translate the same way or similarly to the NWT as the submitted list shows So much for honesty

Those who engage in such tactics are not being forthcoming Why say that Besides dismissing how other translators deal with John 858 they also distort known facts for the WT Society have made it clear that the publication of this Greek Bible is to help the Bible student determine the basic sense of the Greek and have stated that the translation on the right column (the NWT) is a modern way of expressing the thoughts transmitted by the Greek text There are many factors to consider when using such publications

Even other interlinear publications warn of seeming discrepancies For instance The Zondervan Parallel New Testament in Greek and English says in its Foreword ldquo[I]t is a good thing to bear in mind that you cannot always either give an English equivalent for a Greek word or expression or even always render the same Greek verb word by the same

English onerdquo Another interlinear the New Greek-English Interlinear New Testament by Brown and Comfort and edited by J D Douglas explains ldquoIt is difficult to translate one language into another on a word-for-word basis because each language has its own syntax grammatical constructions and idioms that are difficultmdashif not impossiblemdashto replicate literally in another languagerdquo (Emphasis added) This statement is so true of the text in discussion (John 858) in regards to its syntax and particular idiom Often critics of the NWT hide this fact Why Is it religious bias at work

I will give the reader a few examples of an available interlinear translation which has the Greek main text and a literal sublinear translation below the Greek by Professor Paul R McReynolds and on the right column for comparison the reader can study the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) a popular translation in academia Observe how the two can differ

McReynolds Mat 21 ldquomagiciansrdquo NRSV ldquowise menrdquo John 118 ldquoonly born Godrdquo ldquoGod the only Sonrdquo Mat 243 ldquosign of the your presencerdquo ldquothe sign of your comingrdquo Mathew 522 ldquothe gehenna of the firerdquo ldquothe hell of firerdquo John 1319 ldquoI amrdquo ldquoI am herdquo John 149 ldquoI amrdquo ldquoHave I beenrdquo John 1527 ldquoyou arerdquo ldquoyou have beenrdquo 2 Peter 24 ldquobeing sent to Tartarusrdquo ldquobut cast them into hellrdquo Luke 1113 ldquowill give spirit holy tordquo ldquowillgive the Holy Spirit tordquo John 2022 ldquotake spirit holyrdquo ldquoReceive the Holy Spiritrdquo Acts 24 ldquofilled all of spirit holyrdquo ldquofilled with the Holy Spiritrdquo

( Paul R McReynolds is professor of Greek and New Testament at Pacific Christian College in Fullerton California USA He also contributed to the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia)

Some of the readings from the right column above (NRSV) are acceptable others are not See if you can detect in the right column above those translation renderings with a theological tendency that deviate from the literal readings from the left column McReynoldson the left does an excellent job of transmitting the Greek sense Even the most popular Bible versions do not adhere consistently to the base texts The NRSV and a host of other Bible versions add their own religious interpretation throughout Scripture just as much as the NWT if not more but hardly anyone complains of this transformation of Scriptures eventhough it leads to error Why Simply because the NRSV represents more of a ldquomajorityrdquo view than the NWT does But in truth majority or minority views do not correspond equallyto ldquoaccuraterdquo or ldquoinaccuraterdquo results

In the text discussed the KIT can appropriately show the basic sense rendering of ldquoI amrdquo for the Greek ldquoegō eimirdquo in the left column and alternately show the reading ldquoI have beenrdquo in the right column as a contemporary way of expressing in English the particular Greek clause with its ldquoidiomrdquo in John 858 as explained throughout this article a rendering which has

scholarship support When the Greek ldquoegō eimirdquo appears in an idiom-less structure it can rightfully be translated as ldquoI amrdquo as most versions do including the NWT Hence there is no contradiction between the two translations

Dr McKay argues that Jesus response in John 858 ldquowould be most naturally translated lsquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrsquo if it were not for the obsession with the simple words lsquoI amrsquo rdquo (Kenneth L McKay ldquolsquoI amrsquo in Johns Gospelrdquo Expository Times 1996 p 302) I take the author as saying that ldquoI have been in existencerdquo for ldquoeimirdquo is a better translation than ldquoI amrdquo but the [religious] obsession for the simple words ldquoI amrdquo in their quest to elevate Christ to Gods level does not allow people to see that The thing is that Christ lsquoalways pleased the Fatherrsquo and was fully satisfied with being lsquolesserrsquo than him (John 829 1029 1428 177813) Why not accept him as he is

Hence it is poor scholarship to forward the idea that an entity must be God Almighty himselfby the sole fact of using a divine sounding phrase when other Bible individuals are found using the same expression in Scripture The ldquocontextrdquo is the determining factor Not only must we take into account the context surrounding a chapter or book of the Bible but also what the whole Bible teaches on a given person or subject

What does the Bible teach about Jesus

That Christ ldquowas in the beginning with Godrdquo (John 12) At the announcement of his birth on earth the angel Gabriel told Mary that she will give birth to someone ldquogreatrdquo and ldquoholyrdquo and that one will be called ldquoSon of the Most Highrdquo and ldquoSon of Godrdquo (Luke 132 35) Trinitarians may claim that ldquoSon of Godrdquo is equivalent in meaning to ldquoGodrdquo It is a claim with no foundation If there was any truth to the claim then the ldquoHoly Spiritrdquo would also be called Son of God But no The fact is that other living creatures are called ldquosons of Godrdquo (Job 21) Never is ldquoGodrdquo or ldquoholy spiritrdquo ever called ldquoSon of Godrdquo in Scripture Only Jesus Christ is called ldquothe Son of Godrdquo with the article Why

By Christ lsquobecoming obedient [to God] until deathrsquo during the course of his earthly life lsquoGod highly exalted Him and graciously gave him a name which is above every other name that at the name of Jesus every knee should bendto the credit of God the Fatherrsquo (Hebrews58 Philippians 28-11 21st Century New Testament)

ldquo[Christ] has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God with angels authorities and powers made subject to himrdquo (1 Peter 322 NRSV) Still in heaven Christ receives knowledge information revelation from God and transmits it to other creatures (Revelation11) Though the glorified Christ is described as ldquoKing of kingsrdquo and ldquoLord of lordsrdquo he is specifically called ldquoThe Word of Godrdquo (Revelation 191316 NRSV) The night before his death he ldquoprayedrdquo to his Father and called him ldquothe only true Godrdquo and made this petition ldquoFather glorify me in your own presence [Greek beside yourself] with the glory that I hadin your presence [Greek beside you] before the world existedrdquo (John 175 NRSV) (ldquoalongside yourselfrdquo ST Byington) Again God never has to ldquoprayrdquo to anyone Ever

Well then if Jesus Christ expressed this one final ldquowishrdquo in prayer to be ldquoin the presence ofrdquoldquobesiderdquo ldquoalongsiderdquo his Father which he himself called ldquothe only true Godrdquo why should we for the sake of tradition insist with the belief that Jesus ldquomustrdquo somehow be that ldquotruerdquo God the One sitting at the center of Gods throne instead of ldquobesiderdquo God (Mark 1619) Christ did not ask to sit at Gods throne Christ was fully content with the premise of being alongside God And that is what actually happened Mark tells us ldquoSo then the Lord Jesus after he had spoken to them was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of Godrdquo (Mark 1619 NRSV Note Some ancient manuscripts omit this verse) The NIV Study Bible notes the significance of lsquositting at the right hand of Godrsquo ldquoA position of authority second only to Godsrdquo Being in ldquoa position of authority second only to Godsrdquo is something no one should ever say of God for he is always ldquosupremerdquo At no time does God relinquishes his supremacy Someone who holds a position of authority second to God cannot be identical to God Take note too that in this account of Mark chapter 16 or the oneat John chapter 17 there is no mention of a third party of a ldquoGodheadrdquo No ldquoHoly Spiritrdquo is in sight The fact is that the glorified Christ in heaven continues to call his Father ldquomy Godrdquo(Revelation 312)

As ldquoSon of Godrdquo and always lesser and subject to God it is illogical to think Christ would purposely usurp titles and rights that only belonged to lsquohis God and Fatherrsquo (John 1428 Matthew 2023 John 2017 Acts 17) Jesus Christ taught others to only worship the Father God (Matthew 410 John 42324) ldquoAnd we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the worldrdquo (1 John 414) If so the thought that Christ would usethe words ldquoI amrdquo as a title to identify himself as ldquothe true Godrdquo is incongruous Jesus made it clear that he would only seek the glory ldquothat comes from the one who alone is Godrdquo (John850 54 544)

In this Satan controlled world it is not that difficult to get entangled with human taught intricate philosophies which obscure the simple Christian doctrine (John 1231 2 Cor 44) Hence the need for caution at the time of defending popular traditional views which clash with the monotheistic approach of Bible writers

Consequently those who teach that Christ is Almighty God find themselves in conflict with the Scriptural record The submitted list of alternate readings of John 858 shows that there are a considerable number of scholars who not only understand the subject correctly but alsokeenly grasp that whatever Jesus said on the matter has to harmonize with both the context of John chapter 8 and the rest of the Scriptures as well

What is the correct translation of John 858

Is it ldquoI amrdquo ldquoI wasrdquo ldquoI am herdquo or ldquoI have beenrdquo After analyzing the Greek phrase ldquoegō eimirdquo the context and the various possible ways the expression can be translated in English I think it is best to render the Greek with an English present perfect Adding a smallelement such as ldquosincerdquo to the statement as McKay does below satisfies all contextual and grammatical requirements of the passage Doing so does not qualify as ldquointerpolationrdquo

A second choice a simple past tense can perhaps be used in translation where the context allows since it is grammatically correct but it is generally used of activity confined to the past so the message may be distorted Unless that is the simple past is interpreted as ldquoimperfectiverdquo with current relevance How so In support of Jesus deity many frequently cite John11 There in the text a simple past tense ldquowasrdquo is applied to ldquothe Wordrdquo three times in English versions Does that mean ldquothe Wordrdquo is no more or that it was permanentlycut-off from existence at some point Of course not The context of the whole gospel of John shows that Christ is fully pertinent in Christian lives

Scholars choosing a past tense for ldquoeimirdquo (ie ldquoI wasrdquo ldquoI existedrdquo etc) at John 858 may also have in mind what John the Baptist said as a precursor of Jesus Christ ldquoA man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was [ldquoexistedrdquo JB] before merdquo Surely John the Baptist did not mean that Jesus existence was done away with His own words show thatJesus life was very much relevant and would continue to be so Translators have no issue whatsoever in applying a past tense (ldquowasrdquo ldquoexistedrdquo) at John 11 and 130 in their English versions So why would they at John 858 Perhaps because it would mean that they wouldhave to do away with the premise of a ldquodivine titlerdquo in their argumentation of which is claimed clinches Jesus identity with Gods own As shown above Revelation 211 a presentverb a form of ldquoeimirdquo is rendered by some versions with a past tense ldquowasrdquo Obviously Bible translators have no problem in translating some present tense verbs with past tenses or with present perfects But most object to it at John 858 likely for theological reasons

As stated in the beginning of this essay the English ldquopresentrdquo and the Greek ldquopresentrdquo in certain contexts do not correspond exactly in meaning because in Greek ldquotimerdquo is a secondary factor That being the case the choice of English tense does not have to match theGreek conjugation per se to be faithful to the Sacred Text When one considers the specific idiom found in John 858 and the semantic implications of both the Greek and English ldquopresentrdquo one can see that the rendering ldquoI amrdquo though popular does not nearly represent the best translation possible in the English language ldquoContextrdquo often plays a more importantrole in determining the correct translation Overall though it is best to render the Greek expression with an English present perfect since it conveys clearly a more present relevancythan a past tense would

That said John 858 is a good example where a Greek transliteration may not be the best choice to communicate the right message effectively in our times The translation of ldquoI amrdquo has its place in extreme English literal translations which show the basic sense of the Greek such as those Interlinear translations mentioned above Also it can rightfully be used in many Scriptures where the context calls for it as when the sentence structure lacks the Greekldquoidiomrdquo discussed throughout this writing as might be the case with most occurrences of ldquoeimirdquo

Here listed in my opinion are the translations which come closest to the Greek thought presented by the particular ldquoidiomrdquo found in John 858 Dr Kenneth L McKay comes up with the correct translation

1 ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo - Kenneth L McKay A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek (SBG 5 New York Peter Lang 1994) p42

(Kenneth L McKay graduated with honours in Classics (with an interest in the Greek of theNT) from the Universities of Sydney and Cambridge He has taught Greek in universities and theological colleges in Nigeria New Zealand and England Mr McKay retired from the Australian National University in 1987 after teaching there for 26 years)

Other translations below come close to McKays rendering and are thus favored over the traditional rendering which is widely misunderstood

2 ldquoI have existed before Abraham was bornrdquo - A New Translation by James [ Moffatt - DD DLitt Glasgow Oxford 3 ldquoBefore Abraham came into existence I have beenrdquo - New World Translation 4 ldquoBefore Abraham came into being I have existedrdquo - The Documents of the [New Testament G W Wade London 5 ldquoFrom before Abraham was I have been rdquo - The New Testament by George [ R -Noyes DD Boston USA6 ldquoBefore Abraham was born I have already been rdquo - The Unvarnished New [Testament Andy Gaus Boston7 ldquoI existed even before Abraham was bornrdquo - The concise Gospel and the Acts [Logos International Christopher J ed Christianson Plainfield NJ8 ldquoI already was before Abraham was bornrdquo ndash Worldwide English New Testament [ Derby UK ________________________________

COMMENTS

Also compare the following translations

Nytt liv (1907 Norwegian)A Biacuteblia Viva (1981 Portuguese)O Novo Testamento Vivo (1974 Portuguese)Le Livre Nouveau Testament (1980 eacuteditions Farel French)Η Καινή Διαθήκη των Τεσσάρων Καθηγητών (ΚΔΤΚ Greek) (The New Testament of the Four Teachers The translation was made and approved (1921981) by the Holy Summit Church of Greece The English title of the project is The New Testament in Modern Greek Athens Greece) Η Αγία Γραφή Παλαιά και Καινή Διαθήκη (ΝΔΜ Greek) Ελληνική Βιβλική Εταιρία Αθήνα [Athens] 1997 (The Bible Old and New Testament Greek Biblical Company - London 1997) ΚΔΛΖ ΛΧ (Other Greek Versions expressing the same idea as translations on the list)___________________

ldquoI was rdquo Note on 1987 translation from Italian main list l Vangelio di Giovanni (El Evangelio de Juan [ldquoThe Gospel of Johnrdquo] with imprimatur) by J Mateos and J Barreto noted on John 858 (as translated by Teodora Tosatti p 387 Cittadela Editrice 1982) that the temporal relationship expressed by the Greek ldquoprin eimi [BeforeI am]rdquo can be translated into Italian ldquoprimaero [BeforeI was]rdquo (Translation from Italian to English mine)__________________

Comment on 1993 ΟІ ΧΡΙΣΤΙΑΝΙΚΕΣ ΓΡΑΦΕΣ Απόδοση από τη Μειάφράση Νέου Κόσμου which is a modern Greek translation of the New World Translation of the ChristianScriptures Unlike most Bible Versions which are published in only one language or a few atmost the NWT is available in dozens of languages based mainly on their English translationbut obviously taking into account other factors in the process such as the original Bible text the peculiarities of their recipient local languages and their targeted audiences in their respective countries

It is obvious though that other NWT translation editions closely followed the English text of the NWT and at the same time their translation teams had enough latitude to offer their own unique renderings at times expressing in their native languages what they see in in the Inspired Text Having said that it is interesting to see how they approached their translation of John 858 from their English translation back into [modern] Greek

The translation team was acutely aware of the basic sense of ldquoegō eimirdquo as ldquoI amrdquo and how those simple words are misconstrued by religionists to say something more than Jesus intended Taking into account the syntax of John 858 as stated throughout this document the translation team who worked on the modern Greek version faced a few options

First they had the option to go back to ldquoegō eimirdquo using the modern Greek equivalent ldquoΕγώ ειμαιrdquo (I am) as it reads in the Vamvas version which they did not Or they could haveexpressed their NWT English choice of ldquoI have beenrdquo with their modern Greek equivalent of ldquoέχο υπάρξει [I have existed]rdquo Thirdly they could have gone with ldquoI wasrdquo (ldquoεγώ ήμουνrdquo) as some of their French and Italian Bible editions have done in the past or even with ldquo[εγώ] υπήρξα [I existed])rdquo Or they could have provided some other unique rendering It is obvious they wanted to stick closely to the Greek text but given the common misconceptionssurrounding ldquoegō eimai (I am)rdquo in mainstream churches the translation team chose to use ldquoεγώ υπάρχωrdquo (a present indicative form in the Greek) which means basically ldquoI existrdquo but in the presence of an expression of past time in John 858 the sense is ldquoI have existedrdquo Thus ldquoBefore Abraham came into existence I have existedrdquo ( The verb είμαι [ldquoto berdquo] in modern Greek has no forms for the perfect tense It borrows the forms from the verb υπάρχω [ldquoI existrdquo] The Greek and English ldquoperfectsrdquo are not exact equivalents either)

The reader is reminded here as noted earlier that modern Greek keeps up with the Koineacute Greek ldquopresentrdquo idiom A modern Greek grammar Greek A Comprehensive Grammar explains ldquoThe present tense is also used in constructions where English would use the perfect continuous ie where the verb expresses a continuous state or habitual event that

has lasted since a certain point in the past and is continuing up to (and including) the presentrdquo The authors provide two examples where a present verb is used with a past time indicator and where they translate using an English perfect as explained ldquoI have been living[Μένω] in this house for three years nowrdquo And ldquoI have been reading [Διαβάζω] this newspaper since 1984rdquo (Greek A Comprehensive Grammar by David Holton Peter Mackridge amp Irene Philippaki-Warburton Revised by Vassilios Spyropoulos p 294 Second edition 2012)

Ten years after the NWT-Greek Edition was released another modern Greek translation was published with the following rendering at John 858 ldquoΣας βεβαιώνω πως πριν να γεννηθεί οΑβραάμ εγώ υπάρχωrdquo which in English would be ldquoI assure you that I have existed since before Abraham was bornrdquo (Literally ldquoI assure you that before could be born the AbrahamI exist [not ldquoΕγώ ειμαιrdquo]rdquo The Holy Bible in Todays Greek Version 2003 Greek Bible Society Interestingly the original English version of 1976 had ldquoI Amrdquo) Also a Spanish Bible conveys a similar thought ldquoYo existo desde antes que existiera Abrahamrdquo [Translation ldquo I exist since before Abraham existedrdquo] (La Biblia - Versioacuten Popular 2nd edition Sociedades Biacuteblicas Unidas 1983)

_________________________________________________________

The Clear Word The translators quoted in this article represent various religious faiths some are Catholic some are Protestant Others are Unitarians Jehovahs Witnesses Jewish Adventists etc and they represent countries the world over One of these translators is a Seventh-Day Adventist who worked on The Clear Word Jack J Blanco ThD As a Seventh-Day Adventist who supports the Trinity doctrine Blanco translated verses to make Jesus ldquoequalrdquo to God in every way

He renders John 11 ldquoHe is the Word of God and is equal with Godrdquo He shows Jesus at Philippians 25-7 as ldquoequal with Godrdquo and describes him as lsquoacting the part of a servantrsquo At John 1428 he completely omits the reference that lsquothe Father is greaterrsquo than Christ But here at John 858 in answer to the question the priests and leaders asked concerning Abraham lsquoseeingrsquo his day Jesus answered according to Dr Blanco ldquoBecause I existed before Abraham was even bornrdquo Thus Dr Blanco makes no connection as others do that Christ is the ldquoI amrdquo of Exodus 314 which according to some would indicate that Jesus is the Jehovah of the Old Testament What he sees in this account is that Jesus already lsquoexisted before Abraham didrsquo and thus Abraham was able to lsquoseersquo his day (John 856) To this we must add another likely element included in Jesus response to the Jews as wellone of simple identification as ldquothe Christ [Messiah]rdquo and ldquoSon of manrdquo Why is it then that manywho support the Trinity doctrine find it hard to understand Jesus statement correctly at John 858 Could it be that they are letting non-Scriptural influence and perhaps the weight of themajority view dictate their understanding of this Scripture

For a consideration of other subjects by the same author check below

For a discussion of Acts 286 Whose blood

httpwwwscribdcomdoc231244155Acts-20-28-Whose-blood

For a discussion of Colossians 116 (ldquoall other thingsrdquo) see

httpwwwscribdcomdoc205841269Colossians-1-16-Is-the-expression-all-other-things-a-proper-rendition

For a consideration on the subject of the Trinity click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc160286056Does-the-Trinity-ever-make-sense

For a full consideration of John 11 click the following link httpwwwscribdcomdoc34916458The-correct-translation-of-John-1-1

For a brief consideration of John 11 with additional citations click here httpwwwscribdcomdoc50330864John-1-1-List-of-Alternate-Readings

Did the NW translators know any Greek click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc48234022Did-the-New-World-Translation-Committee-Know-Greek

For a consideration of John 173 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc57772552John-17-3-E28098Taking-in-knowledge-of-E28099-God-and-Jesus

For a consideration of 1 Timothy 316 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc76927834Was-God-manifested-in-the-flesh-1-Timothy-3-16

For a consideration of Exodus 225 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc38676458Exodus-2-25-And-God-took-notice-Does-God- care-about-us

For a consideration of John 114 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc35002730John-1-14-Jesus-full-of-grace

For a consideration of Translation Differences-Questions and Answershttpwwwscribdcomdoc59484457Translation-Differences-Questions-and-Answers

In Spanish

Para una consideracioacuten de otros temas vea los siguientes enlaces

Para una consideracioacuten de Colosenses 116 ldquotodas las otras cosasrdquo vea

httpwwwscribdcomdoc209601066Colosenses-1-16-C2BFEs-la-traduccion-E2809Ctodas-las-otras-cosasE2809D-apropiada

Para una consideracioacuten de ldquoiquestAcaso tiene sentido la Trinidadrdquo

httpwwwscribdcomdoc173779117C2BFAcaso-tiene-sentido-la-Trinidad

Para un consideracioacuten de Juan 11 vea el siguiente enlace

httpwwwscribdcomdoc35899788Traduccion-correcta-de-Juan-1-1-Lista-de- lecturas-alternativas

Para el tema iquestSabiacutean griego los traductores de la TNM vea el siguiente enlace

httpwwwscribdcomdoc51623596C2BFSabia-griego-el-Comite-de-la-Traduccion-del-Nuevo-Mundo

And in Matthew 2330 the other text provided by Robertson in his comparison with John 858 the Greek word-for-word says ldquoIf we were in the days of the fathers of usrdquo which inmodern English would be ldquoIf we had lived in the days of our forefathersrdquo Other versions ldquoIf we had beenrdquo (Rheims NT) ldquoIf we had been livingrdquo (NASB) ldquoIf we had been existing in the days of our fathersrdquo (Jonathan Mitchell NT) The full NIV text reads ldquoAnd you say lsquoIf we had lived in the days of our ancestors we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophetsrsquo rdquo

It is clear from this comparison that the words of Matthew 2330 ldquoIf we wererdquo (a form of ldquoeimirdquo) in the text is used as an equivalent for ldquoliferdquo or ldquoexistencerdquo In the heavenly vision of Rev 211 lsquothe sea ceased to existrsquo And the generation of people which Jesus spoke about and their ancestors all died ceased to exist If we apply these two examples to John 858 given by Robertson with the meaning either of life or existence for ldquoeimirdquo then it wouldbe equally acceptable to translate ldquoI amrdquo as ldquoI existrdquo or ldquoI liverdquo Many translators reflect this very same understanding as the submitted list of alternate readings of John 858 show ldquoI existrdquo or ldquoI existed even before Abraham was bornrdquo Or ldquoI was alive before Abraham was bornrdquo (The Simple English Bible)

Although some may not see much semantic difference between Jesus saying ldquoI amrdquo or ldquoI existrdquo the two expressions communicate something very different to many readers ldquoI amrdquo is generally associated by Trinitarians as a title used by God or as another name for God Onthe other hand ldquoI existrdquo simply conveys ldquoliferdquo or ldquoexistence Barnabas Lindars points out that ldquoegō eimirdquo in John 858 ldquocannot be regarded as a title because it requires the meaning lsquoI am in existencersquordquo (ldquoThe Son of Man in Johannine Christologyrdquo in Christ and the Spirit in the New Testament In Honour of Charles Francis Digby Moule eds B Lindars and S Smalley Cambridge Cambridge University Press 1973) (Since an English present tense cannot start before a definite point in the past this would mean that we can incorporate Lindars valid observation and translate it into contemporary English like this ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo exactly as Dr McKay proposed)

Some in their eagerness to equate Christ with God accuse translators who render ldquoegō eimirdquo in John 858 with renderings other than ldquoI amrdquo pointing to all occurrences of this expression in the New Testament or in Johns Gospel where allegedly these translators do not follow the same ldquorulerdquo when translating ldquoegō eimirdquo in John 858 as they do elsewhere where they translate it with a present indicative form What they dont tell you or fail to understand is that in John 858 ldquoegō eimirdquo without a predicate AND with an expression of time with past implications in its sentence structure provides an ldquoidiomrdquo which is quite different from those other instances of ldquoeimirdquo Thats right an idiom (where present and past is combined) found equally at home in classical biblical and modern Greek which many translators convey into our language with the English present perfect at various places Consequently one cannot merely go by how the phrase ldquoegō eimirdquo is used elsewhere in the NT without taking into account the fact that John 858 displays an ldquoidiomrdquo in its structure Not doing so would be dishonest John the Baptist had said of Christ in John 130 ldquoA man is coming after me who ranks before me because he existed [Lit was] before merdquo (JB)

John 858 is in harmony with those words Furthermore some attempt to use the reading of Psalm 902 in the Septuagint as ldquoevidencerdquo that John 858 is rendered correctly in the popular versions But a closer analysis of this verse shows notable differences between the two verses making such comparison untenable With good reason a considerable number ofscholars have chosen to break from tradition in their rendering of John 858

If critics of alternate readings of John 858 are not candid enough to admit some of the very issues mentioned here and hide the fact that many scholars do hold a different interpretation and no less academic at that should we consider their diatribes of any worthy import It is ldquowishful thinkingrdquo for someone to believe that John 858 is directly connected to Exodus 314 rather than any real evidence (which is lacking) confirming their eager interpretations Remember even Dr James White a well known Trinitarian advocate admitted ldquothat an immediate and unqualified jump from the ego eimi of John 858 to Exodus 314 is unwiserdquo

Besides a theological tendency can be seen when they focus as some do on undermining the reputation of one Bible translation (NWT) when there are actually numerous versions from different religions dealing with the same controversial Scriptures in a similar manner This is very much like politicians who ignore the failings of their own party but are quick to lsquodemonizersquo their opponents (Matthew 73)

Is the Kingdom Interlinear ldquoproofrdquo the NWT is wrong at John 858

A criticism has been made of a Watchtower Society publication (The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures ldquoKITrdquo) which contains the Greek text and underneath it a word-by-word translation in English and on the right side of the page the modern New World Translation Well at John 858 this publication renders the Greek phrase being discussed here egō eimi word-for-word as ldquoI amrdquo and in the right column the NWT shows the reading ldquoI have beenrdquo This difference have led some to severely criticize the NW translators of ldquoincompetencerdquo ldquoinconsistencyrdquo and even of ldquodishonestyrdquo The critics say something like this ldquoThey have backed themselves into a corner where they cant escape their mishandling of the Greek textrdquo or something of that sort Amazingly these critics in their condemnations hardly ever mention the dozens of translators who translate the same way or similarly to the NWT as the submitted list shows So much for honesty

Those who engage in such tactics are not being forthcoming Why say that Besides dismissing how other translators deal with John 858 they also distort known facts for the WT Society have made it clear that the publication of this Greek Bible is to help the Bible student determine the basic sense of the Greek and have stated that the translation on the right column (the NWT) is a modern way of expressing the thoughts transmitted by the Greek text There are many factors to consider when using such publications

Even other interlinear publications warn of seeming discrepancies For instance The Zondervan Parallel New Testament in Greek and English says in its Foreword ldquo[I]t is a good thing to bear in mind that you cannot always either give an English equivalent for a Greek word or expression or even always render the same Greek verb word by the same

English onerdquo Another interlinear the New Greek-English Interlinear New Testament by Brown and Comfort and edited by J D Douglas explains ldquoIt is difficult to translate one language into another on a word-for-word basis because each language has its own syntax grammatical constructions and idioms that are difficultmdashif not impossiblemdashto replicate literally in another languagerdquo (Emphasis added) This statement is so true of the text in discussion (John 858) in regards to its syntax and particular idiom Often critics of the NWT hide this fact Why Is it religious bias at work

I will give the reader a few examples of an available interlinear translation which has the Greek main text and a literal sublinear translation below the Greek by Professor Paul R McReynolds and on the right column for comparison the reader can study the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) a popular translation in academia Observe how the two can differ

McReynolds Mat 21 ldquomagiciansrdquo NRSV ldquowise menrdquo John 118 ldquoonly born Godrdquo ldquoGod the only Sonrdquo Mat 243 ldquosign of the your presencerdquo ldquothe sign of your comingrdquo Mathew 522 ldquothe gehenna of the firerdquo ldquothe hell of firerdquo John 1319 ldquoI amrdquo ldquoI am herdquo John 149 ldquoI amrdquo ldquoHave I beenrdquo John 1527 ldquoyou arerdquo ldquoyou have beenrdquo 2 Peter 24 ldquobeing sent to Tartarusrdquo ldquobut cast them into hellrdquo Luke 1113 ldquowill give spirit holy tordquo ldquowillgive the Holy Spirit tordquo John 2022 ldquotake spirit holyrdquo ldquoReceive the Holy Spiritrdquo Acts 24 ldquofilled all of spirit holyrdquo ldquofilled with the Holy Spiritrdquo

( Paul R McReynolds is professor of Greek and New Testament at Pacific Christian College in Fullerton California USA He also contributed to the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia)

Some of the readings from the right column above (NRSV) are acceptable others are not See if you can detect in the right column above those translation renderings with a theological tendency that deviate from the literal readings from the left column McReynoldson the left does an excellent job of transmitting the Greek sense Even the most popular Bible versions do not adhere consistently to the base texts The NRSV and a host of other Bible versions add their own religious interpretation throughout Scripture just as much as the NWT if not more but hardly anyone complains of this transformation of Scriptures eventhough it leads to error Why Simply because the NRSV represents more of a ldquomajorityrdquo view than the NWT does But in truth majority or minority views do not correspond equallyto ldquoaccuraterdquo or ldquoinaccuraterdquo results

In the text discussed the KIT can appropriately show the basic sense rendering of ldquoI amrdquo for the Greek ldquoegō eimirdquo in the left column and alternately show the reading ldquoI have beenrdquo in the right column as a contemporary way of expressing in English the particular Greek clause with its ldquoidiomrdquo in John 858 as explained throughout this article a rendering which has

scholarship support When the Greek ldquoegō eimirdquo appears in an idiom-less structure it can rightfully be translated as ldquoI amrdquo as most versions do including the NWT Hence there is no contradiction between the two translations

Dr McKay argues that Jesus response in John 858 ldquowould be most naturally translated lsquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrsquo if it were not for the obsession with the simple words lsquoI amrsquo rdquo (Kenneth L McKay ldquolsquoI amrsquo in Johns Gospelrdquo Expository Times 1996 p 302) I take the author as saying that ldquoI have been in existencerdquo for ldquoeimirdquo is a better translation than ldquoI amrdquo but the [religious] obsession for the simple words ldquoI amrdquo in their quest to elevate Christ to Gods level does not allow people to see that The thing is that Christ lsquoalways pleased the Fatherrsquo and was fully satisfied with being lsquolesserrsquo than him (John 829 1029 1428 177813) Why not accept him as he is

Hence it is poor scholarship to forward the idea that an entity must be God Almighty himselfby the sole fact of using a divine sounding phrase when other Bible individuals are found using the same expression in Scripture The ldquocontextrdquo is the determining factor Not only must we take into account the context surrounding a chapter or book of the Bible but also what the whole Bible teaches on a given person or subject

What does the Bible teach about Jesus

That Christ ldquowas in the beginning with Godrdquo (John 12) At the announcement of his birth on earth the angel Gabriel told Mary that she will give birth to someone ldquogreatrdquo and ldquoholyrdquo and that one will be called ldquoSon of the Most Highrdquo and ldquoSon of Godrdquo (Luke 132 35) Trinitarians may claim that ldquoSon of Godrdquo is equivalent in meaning to ldquoGodrdquo It is a claim with no foundation If there was any truth to the claim then the ldquoHoly Spiritrdquo would also be called Son of God But no The fact is that other living creatures are called ldquosons of Godrdquo (Job 21) Never is ldquoGodrdquo or ldquoholy spiritrdquo ever called ldquoSon of Godrdquo in Scripture Only Jesus Christ is called ldquothe Son of Godrdquo with the article Why

By Christ lsquobecoming obedient [to God] until deathrsquo during the course of his earthly life lsquoGod highly exalted Him and graciously gave him a name which is above every other name that at the name of Jesus every knee should bendto the credit of God the Fatherrsquo (Hebrews58 Philippians 28-11 21st Century New Testament)

ldquo[Christ] has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God with angels authorities and powers made subject to himrdquo (1 Peter 322 NRSV) Still in heaven Christ receives knowledge information revelation from God and transmits it to other creatures (Revelation11) Though the glorified Christ is described as ldquoKing of kingsrdquo and ldquoLord of lordsrdquo he is specifically called ldquoThe Word of Godrdquo (Revelation 191316 NRSV) The night before his death he ldquoprayedrdquo to his Father and called him ldquothe only true Godrdquo and made this petition ldquoFather glorify me in your own presence [Greek beside yourself] with the glory that I hadin your presence [Greek beside you] before the world existedrdquo (John 175 NRSV) (ldquoalongside yourselfrdquo ST Byington) Again God never has to ldquoprayrdquo to anyone Ever

Well then if Jesus Christ expressed this one final ldquowishrdquo in prayer to be ldquoin the presence ofrdquoldquobesiderdquo ldquoalongsiderdquo his Father which he himself called ldquothe only true Godrdquo why should we for the sake of tradition insist with the belief that Jesus ldquomustrdquo somehow be that ldquotruerdquo God the One sitting at the center of Gods throne instead of ldquobesiderdquo God (Mark 1619) Christ did not ask to sit at Gods throne Christ was fully content with the premise of being alongside God And that is what actually happened Mark tells us ldquoSo then the Lord Jesus after he had spoken to them was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of Godrdquo (Mark 1619 NRSV Note Some ancient manuscripts omit this verse) The NIV Study Bible notes the significance of lsquositting at the right hand of Godrsquo ldquoA position of authority second only to Godsrdquo Being in ldquoa position of authority second only to Godsrdquo is something no one should ever say of God for he is always ldquosupremerdquo At no time does God relinquishes his supremacy Someone who holds a position of authority second to God cannot be identical to God Take note too that in this account of Mark chapter 16 or the oneat John chapter 17 there is no mention of a third party of a ldquoGodheadrdquo No ldquoHoly Spiritrdquo is in sight The fact is that the glorified Christ in heaven continues to call his Father ldquomy Godrdquo(Revelation 312)

As ldquoSon of Godrdquo and always lesser and subject to God it is illogical to think Christ would purposely usurp titles and rights that only belonged to lsquohis God and Fatherrsquo (John 1428 Matthew 2023 John 2017 Acts 17) Jesus Christ taught others to only worship the Father God (Matthew 410 John 42324) ldquoAnd we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the worldrdquo (1 John 414) If so the thought that Christ would usethe words ldquoI amrdquo as a title to identify himself as ldquothe true Godrdquo is incongruous Jesus made it clear that he would only seek the glory ldquothat comes from the one who alone is Godrdquo (John850 54 544)

In this Satan controlled world it is not that difficult to get entangled with human taught intricate philosophies which obscure the simple Christian doctrine (John 1231 2 Cor 44) Hence the need for caution at the time of defending popular traditional views which clash with the monotheistic approach of Bible writers

Consequently those who teach that Christ is Almighty God find themselves in conflict with the Scriptural record The submitted list of alternate readings of John 858 shows that there are a considerable number of scholars who not only understand the subject correctly but alsokeenly grasp that whatever Jesus said on the matter has to harmonize with both the context of John chapter 8 and the rest of the Scriptures as well

What is the correct translation of John 858

Is it ldquoI amrdquo ldquoI wasrdquo ldquoI am herdquo or ldquoI have beenrdquo After analyzing the Greek phrase ldquoegō eimirdquo the context and the various possible ways the expression can be translated in English I think it is best to render the Greek with an English present perfect Adding a smallelement such as ldquosincerdquo to the statement as McKay does below satisfies all contextual and grammatical requirements of the passage Doing so does not qualify as ldquointerpolationrdquo

A second choice a simple past tense can perhaps be used in translation where the context allows since it is grammatically correct but it is generally used of activity confined to the past so the message may be distorted Unless that is the simple past is interpreted as ldquoimperfectiverdquo with current relevance How so In support of Jesus deity many frequently cite John11 There in the text a simple past tense ldquowasrdquo is applied to ldquothe Wordrdquo three times in English versions Does that mean ldquothe Wordrdquo is no more or that it was permanentlycut-off from existence at some point Of course not The context of the whole gospel of John shows that Christ is fully pertinent in Christian lives

Scholars choosing a past tense for ldquoeimirdquo (ie ldquoI wasrdquo ldquoI existedrdquo etc) at John 858 may also have in mind what John the Baptist said as a precursor of Jesus Christ ldquoA man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was [ldquoexistedrdquo JB] before merdquo Surely John the Baptist did not mean that Jesus existence was done away with His own words show thatJesus life was very much relevant and would continue to be so Translators have no issue whatsoever in applying a past tense (ldquowasrdquo ldquoexistedrdquo) at John 11 and 130 in their English versions So why would they at John 858 Perhaps because it would mean that they wouldhave to do away with the premise of a ldquodivine titlerdquo in their argumentation of which is claimed clinches Jesus identity with Gods own As shown above Revelation 211 a presentverb a form of ldquoeimirdquo is rendered by some versions with a past tense ldquowasrdquo Obviously Bible translators have no problem in translating some present tense verbs with past tenses or with present perfects But most object to it at John 858 likely for theological reasons

As stated in the beginning of this essay the English ldquopresentrdquo and the Greek ldquopresentrdquo in certain contexts do not correspond exactly in meaning because in Greek ldquotimerdquo is a secondary factor That being the case the choice of English tense does not have to match theGreek conjugation per se to be faithful to the Sacred Text When one considers the specific idiom found in John 858 and the semantic implications of both the Greek and English ldquopresentrdquo one can see that the rendering ldquoI amrdquo though popular does not nearly represent the best translation possible in the English language ldquoContextrdquo often plays a more importantrole in determining the correct translation Overall though it is best to render the Greek expression with an English present perfect since it conveys clearly a more present relevancythan a past tense would

That said John 858 is a good example where a Greek transliteration may not be the best choice to communicate the right message effectively in our times The translation of ldquoI amrdquo has its place in extreme English literal translations which show the basic sense of the Greek such as those Interlinear translations mentioned above Also it can rightfully be used in many Scriptures where the context calls for it as when the sentence structure lacks the Greekldquoidiomrdquo discussed throughout this writing as might be the case with most occurrences of ldquoeimirdquo

Here listed in my opinion are the translations which come closest to the Greek thought presented by the particular ldquoidiomrdquo found in John 858 Dr Kenneth L McKay comes up with the correct translation

1 ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo - Kenneth L McKay A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek (SBG 5 New York Peter Lang 1994) p42

(Kenneth L McKay graduated with honours in Classics (with an interest in the Greek of theNT) from the Universities of Sydney and Cambridge He has taught Greek in universities and theological colleges in Nigeria New Zealand and England Mr McKay retired from the Australian National University in 1987 after teaching there for 26 years)

Other translations below come close to McKays rendering and are thus favored over the traditional rendering which is widely misunderstood

2 ldquoI have existed before Abraham was bornrdquo - A New Translation by James [ Moffatt - DD DLitt Glasgow Oxford 3 ldquoBefore Abraham came into existence I have beenrdquo - New World Translation 4 ldquoBefore Abraham came into being I have existedrdquo - The Documents of the [New Testament G W Wade London 5 ldquoFrom before Abraham was I have been rdquo - The New Testament by George [ R -Noyes DD Boston USA6 ldquoBefore Abraham was born I have already been rdquo - The Unvarnished New [Testament Andy Gaus Boston7 ldquoI existed even before Abraham was bornrdquo - The concise Gospel and the Acts [Logos International Christopher J ed Christianson Plainfield NJ8 ldquoI already was before Abraham was bornrdquo ndash Worldwide English New Testament [ Derby UK ________________________________

COMMENTS

Also compare the following translations

Nytt liv (1907 Norwegian)A Biacuteblia Viva (1981 Portuguese)O Novo Testamento Vivo (1974 Portuguese)Le Livre Nouveau Testament (1980 eacuteditions Farel French)Η Καινή Διαθήκη των Τεσσάρων Καθηγητών (ΚΔΤΚ Greek) (The New Testament of the Four Teachers The translation was made and approved (1921981) by the Holy Summit Church of Greece The English title of the project is The New Testament in Modern Greek Athens Greece) Η Αγία Γραφή Παλαιά και Καινή Διαθήκη (ΝΔΜ Greek) Ελληνική Βιβλική Εταιρία Αθήνα [Athens] 1997 (The Bible Old and New Testament Greek Biblical Company - London 1997) ΚΔΛΖ ΛΧ (Other Greek Versions expressing the same idea as translations on the list)___________________

ldquoI was rdquo Note on 1987 translation from Italian main list l Vangelio di Giovanni (El Evangelio de Juan [ldquoThe Gospel of Johnrdquo] with imprimatur) by J Mateos and J Barreto noted on John 858 (as translated by Teodora Tosatti p 387 Cittadela Editrice 1982) that the temporal relationship expressed by the Greek ldquoprin eimi [BeforeI am]rdquo can be translated into Italian ldquoprimaero [BeforeI was]rdquo (Translation from Italian to English mine)__________________

Comment on 1993 ΟІ ΧΡΙΣΤΙΑΝΙΚΕΣ ΓΡΑΦΕΣ Απόδοση από τη Μειάφράση Νέου Κόσμου which is a modern Greek translation of the New World Translation of the ChristianScriptures Unlike most Bible Versions which are published in only one language or a few atmost the NWT is available in dozens of languages based mainly on their English translationbut obviously taking into account other factors in the process such as the original Bible text the peculiarities of their recipient local languages and their targeted audiences in their respective countries

It is obvious though that other NWT translation editions closely followed the English text of the NWT and at the same time their translation teams had enough latitude to offer their own unique renderings at times expressing in their native languages what they see in in the Inspired Text Having said that it is interesting to see how they approached their translation of John 858 from their English translation back into [modern] Greek

The translation team was acutely aware of the basic sense of ldquoegō eimirdquo as ldquoI amrdquo and how those simple words are misconstrued by religionists to say something more than Jesus intended Taking into account the syntax of John 858 as stated throughout this document the translation team who worked on the modern Greek version faced a few options

First they had the option to go back to ldquoegō eimirdquo using the modern Greek equivalent ldquoΕγώ ειμαιrdquo (I am) as it reads in the Vamvas version which they did not Or they could haveexpressed their NWT English choice of ldquoI have beenrdquo with their modern Greek equivalent of ldquoέχο υπάρξει [I have existed]rdquo Thirdly they could have gone with ldquoI wasrdquo (ldquoεγώ ήμουνrdquo) as some of their French and Italian Bible editions have done in the past or even with ldquo[εγώ] υπήρξα [I existed])rdquo Or they could have provided some other unique rendering It is obvious they wanted to stick closely to the Greek text but given the common misconceptionssurrounding ldquoegō eimai (I am)rdquo in mainstream churches the translation team chose to use ldquoεγώ υπάρχωrdquo (a present indicative form in the Greek) which means basically ldquoI existrdquo but in the presence of an expression of past time in John 858 the sense is ldquoI have existedrdquo Thus ldquoBefore Abraham came into existence I have existedrdquo ( The verb είμαι [ldquoto berdquo] in modern Greek has no forms for the perfect tense It borrows the forms from the verb υπάρχω [ldquoI existrdquo] The Greek and English ldquoperfectsrdquo are not exact equivalents either)

The reader is reminded here as noted earlier that modern Greek keeps up with the Koineacute Greek ldquopresentrdquo idiom A modern Greek grammar Greek A Comprehensive Grammar explains ldquoThe present tense is also used in constructions where English would use the perfect continuous ie where the verb expresses a continuous state or habitual event that

has lasted since a certain point in the past and is continuing up to (and including) the presentrdquo The authors provide two examples where a present verb is used with a past time indicator and where they translate using an English perfect as explained ldquoI have been living[Μένω] in this house for three years nowrdquo And ldquoI have been reading [Διαβάζω] this newspaper since 1984rdquo (Greek A Comprehensive Grammar by David Holton Peter Mackridge amp Irene Philippaki-Warburton Revised by Vassilios Spyropoulos p 294 Second edition 2012)

Ten years after the NWT-Greek Edition was released another modern Greek translation was published with the following rendering at John 858 ldquoΣας βεβαιώνω πως πριν να γεννηθεί οΑβραάμ εγώ υπάρχωrdquo which in English would be ldquoI assure you that I have existed since before Abraham was bornrdquo (Literally ldquoI assure you that before could be born the AbrahamI exist [not ldquoΕγώ ειμαιrdquo]rdquo The Holy Bible in Todays Greek Version 2003 Greek Bible Society Interestingly the original English version of 1976 had ldquoI Amrdquo) Also a Spanish Bible conveys a similar thought ldquoYo existo desde antes que existiera Abrahamrdquo [Translation ldquo I exist since before Abraham existedrdquo] (La Biblia - Versioacuten Popular 2nd edition Sociedades Biacuteblicas Unidas 1983)

_________________________________________________________

The Clear Word The translators quoted in this article represent various religious faiths some are Catholic some are Protestant Others are Unitarians Jehovahs Witnesses Jewish Adventists etc and they represent countries the world over One of these translators is a Seventh-Day Adventist who worked on The Clear Word Jack J Blanco ThD As a Seventh-Day Adventist who supports the Trinity doctrine Blanco translated verses to make Jesus ldquoequalrdquo to God in every way

He renders John 11 ldquoHe is the Word of God and is equal with Godrdquo He shows Jesus at Philippians 25-7 as ldquoequal with Godrdquo and describes him as lsquoacting the part of a servantrsquo At John 1428 he completely omits the reference that lsquothe Father is greaterrsquo than Christ But here at John 858 in answer to the question the priests and leaders asked concerning Abraham lsquoseeingrsquo his day Jesus answered according to Dr Blanco ldquoBecause I existed before Abraham was even bornrdquo Thus Dr Blanco makes no connection as others do that Christ is the ldquoI amrdquo of Exodus 314 which according to some would indicate that Jesus is the Jehovah of the Old Testament What he sees in this account is that Jesus already lsquoexisted before Abraham didrsquo and thus Abraham was able to lsquoseersquo his day (John 856) To this we must add another likely element included in Jesus response to the Jews as wellone of simple identification as ldquothe Christ [Messiah]rdquo and ldquoSon of manrdquo Why is it then that manywho support the Trinity doctrine find it hard to understand Jesus statement correctly at John 858 Could it be that they are letting non-Scriptural influence and perhaps the weight of themajority view dictate their understanding of this Scripture

For a consideration of other subjects by the same author check below

For a discussion of Acts 286 Whose blood

httpwwwscribdcomdoc231244155Acts-20-28-Whose-blood

For a discussion of Colossians 116 (ldquoall other thingsrdquo) see

httpwwwscribdcomdoc205841269Colossians-1-16-Is-the-expression-all-other-things-a-proper-rendition

For a consideration on the subject of the Trinity click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc160286056Does-the-Trinity-ever-make-sense

For a full consideration of John 11 click the following link httpwwwscribdcomdoc34916458The-correct-translation-of-John-1-1

For a brief consideration of John 11 with additional citations click here httpwwwscribdcomdoc50330864John-1-1-List-of-Alternate-Readings

Did the NW translators know any Greek click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc48234022Did-the-New-World-Translation-Committee-Know-Greek

For a consideration of John 173 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc57772552John-17-3-E28098Taking-in-knowledge-of-E28099-God-and-Jesus

For a consideration of 1 Timothy 316 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc76927834Was-God-manifested-in-the-flesh-1-Timothy-3-16

For a consideration of Exodus 225 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc38676458Exodus-2-25-And-God-took-notice-Does-God- care-about-us

For a consideration of John 114 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc35002730John-1-14-Jesus-full-of-grace

For a consideration of Translation Differences-Questions and Answershttpwwwscribdcomdoc59484457Translation-Differences-Questions-and-Answers

In Spanish

Para una consideracioacuten de otros temas vea los siguientes enlaces

Para una consideracioacuten de Colosenses 116 ldquotodas las otras cosasrdquo vea

httpwwwscribdcomdoc209601066Colosenses-1-16-C2BFEs-la-traduccion-E2809Ctodas-las-otras-cosasE2809D-apropiada

Para una consideracioacuten de ldquoiquestAcaso tiene sentido la Trinidadrdquo

httpwwwscribdcomdoc173779117C2BFAcaso-tiene-sentido-la-Trinidad

Para un consideracioacuten de Juan 11 vea el siguiente enlace

httpwwwscribdcomdoc35899788Traduccion-correcta-de-Juan-1-1-Lista-de- lecturas-alternativas

Para el tema iquestSabiacutean griego los traductores de la TNM vea el siguiente enlace

httpwwwscribdcomdoc51623596C2BFSabia-griego-el-Comite-de-la-Traduccion-del-Nuevo-Mundo

John 858 is in harmony with those words Furthermore some attempt to use the reading of Psalm 902 in the Septuagint as ldquoevidencerdquo that John 858 is rendered correctly in the popular versions But a closer analysis of this verse shows notable differences between the two verses making such comparison untenable With good reason a considerable number ofscholars have chosen to break from tradition in their rendering of John 858

If critics of alternate readings of John 858 are not candid enough to admit some of the very issues mentioned here and hide the fact that many scholars do hold a different interpretation and no less academic at that should we consider their diatribes of any worthy import It is ldquowishful thinkingrdquo for someone to believe that John 858 is directly connected to Exodus 314 rather than any real evidence (which is lacking) confirming their eager interpretations Remember even Dr James White a well known Trinitarian advocate admitted ldquothat an immediate and unqualified jump from the ego eimi of John 858 to Exodus 314 is unwiserdquo

Besides a theological tendency can be seen when they focus as some do on undermining the reputation of one Bible translation (NWT) when there are actually numerous versions from different religions dealing with the same controversial Scriptures in a similar manner This is very much like politicians who ignore the failings of their own party but are quick to lsquodemonizersquo their opponents (Matthew 73)

Is the Kingdom Interlinear ldquoproofrdquo the NWT is wrong at John 858

A criticism has been made of a Watchtower Society publication (The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures ldquoKITrdquo) which contains the Greek text and underneath it a word-by-word translation in English and on the right side of the page the modern New World Translation Well at John 858 this publication renders the Greek phrase being discussed here egō eimi word-for-word as ldquoI amrdquo and in the right column the NWT shows the reading ldquoI have beenrdquo This difference have led some to severely criticize the NW translators of ldquoincompetencerdquo ldquoinconsistencyrdquo and even of ldquodishonestyrdquo The critics say something like this ldquoThey have backed themselves into a corner where they cant escape their mishandling of the Greek textrdquo or something of that sort Amazingly these critics in their condemnations hardly ever mention the dozens of translators who translate the same way or similarly to the NWT as the submitted list shows So much for honesty

Those who engage in such tactics are not being forthcoming Why say that Besides dismissing how other translators deal with John 858 they also distort known facts for the WT Society have made it clear that the publication of this Greek Bible is to help the Bible student determine the basic sense of the Greek and have stated that the translation on the right column (the NWT) is a modern way of expressing the thoughts transmitted by the Greek text There are many factors to consider when using such publications

Even other interlinear publications warn of seeming discrepancies For instance The Zondervan Parallel New Testament in Greek and English says in its Foreword ldquo[I]t is a good thing to bear in mind that you cannot always either give an English equivalent for a Greek word or expression or even always render the same Greek verb word by the same

English onerdquo Another interlinear the New Greek-English Interlinear New Testament by Brown and Comfort and edited by J D Douglas explains ldquoIt is difficult to translate one language into another on a word-for-word basis because each language has its own syntax grammatical constructions and idioms that are difficultmdashif not impossiblemdashto replicate literally in another languagerdquo (Emphasis added) This statement is so true of the text in discussion (John 858) in regards to its syntax and particular idiom Often critics of the NWT hide this fact Why Is it religious bias at work

I will give the reader a few examples of an available interlinear translation which has the Greek main text and a literal sublinear translation below the Greek by Professor Paul R McReynolds and on the right column for comparison the reader can study the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) a popular translation in academia Observe how the two can differ

McReynolds Mat 21 ldquomagiciansrdquo NRSV ldquowise menrdquo John 118 ldquoonly born Godrdquo ldquoGod the only Sonrdquo Mat 243 ldquosign of the your presencerdquo ldquothe sign of your comingrdquo Mathew 522 ldquothe gehenna of the firerdquo ldquothe hell of firerdquo John 1319 ldquoI amrdquo ldquoI am herdquo John 149 ldquoI amrdquo ldquoHave I beenrdquo John 1527 ldquoyou arerdquo ldquoyou have beenrdquo 2 Peter 24 ldquobeing sent to Tartarusrdquo ldquobut cast them into hellrdquo Luke 1113 ldquowill give spirit holy tordquo ldquowillgive the Holy Spirit tordquo John 2022 ldquotake spirit holyrdquo ldquoReceive the Holy Spiritrdquo Acts 24 ldquofilled all of spirit holyrdquo ldquofilled with the Holy Spiritrdquo

( Paul R McReynolds is professor of Greek and New Testament at Pacific Christian College in Fullerton California USA He also contributed to the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia)

Some of the readings from the right column above (NRSV) are acceptable others are not See if you can detect in the right column above those translation renderings with a theological tendency that deviate from the literal readings from the left column McReynoldson the left does an excellent job of transmitting the Greek sense Even the most popular Bible versions do not adhere consistently to the base texts The NRSV and a host of other Bible versions add their own religious interpretation throughout Scripture just as much as the NWT if not more but hardly anyone complains of this transformation of Scriptures eventhough it leads to error Why Simply because the NRSV represents more of a ldquomajorityrdquo view than the NWT does But in truth majority or minority views do not correspond equallyto ldquoaccuraterdquo or ldquoinaccuraterdquo results

In the text discussed the KIT can appropriately show the basic sense rendering of ldquoI amrdquo for the Greek ldquoegō eimirdquo in the left column and alternately show the reading ldquoI have beenrdquo in the right column as a contemporary way of expressing in English the particular Greek clause with its ldquoidiomrdquo in John 858 as explained throughout this article a rendering which has

scholarship support When the Greek ldquoegō eimirdquo appears in an idiom-less structure it can rightfully be translated as ldquoI amrdquo as most versions do including the NWT Hence there is no contradiction between the two translations

Dr McKay argues that Jesus response in John 858 ldquowould be most naturally translated lsquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrsquo if it were not for the obsession with the simple words lsquoI amrsquo rdquo (Kenneth L McKay ldquolsquoI amrsquo in Johns Gospelrdquo Expository Times 1996 p 302) I take the author as saying that ldquoI have been in existencerdquo for ldquoeimirdquo is a better translation than ldquoI amrdquo but the [religious] obsession for the simple words ldquoI amrdquo in their quest to elevate Christ to Gods level does not allow people to see that The thing is that Christ lsquoalways pleased the Fatherrsquo and was fully satisfied with being lsquolesserrsquo than him (John 829 1029 1428 177813) Why not accept him as he is

Hence it is poor scholarship to forward the idea that an entity must be God Almighty himselfby the sole fact of using a divine sounding phrase when other Bible individuals are found using the same expression in Scripture The ldquocontextrdquo is the determining factor Not only must we take into account the context surrounding a chapter or book of the Bible but also what the whole Bible teaches on a given person or subject

What does the Bible teach about Jesus

That Christ ldquowas in the beginning with Godrdquo (John 12) At the announcement of his birth on earth the angel Gabriel told Mary that she will give birth to someone ldquogreatrdquo and ldquoholyrdquo and that one will be called ldquoSon of the Most Highrdquo and ldquoSon of Godrdquo (Luke 132 35) Trinitarians may claim that ldquoSon of Godrdquo is equivalent in meaning to ldquoGodrdquo It is a claim with no foundation If there was any truth to the claim then the ldquoHoly Spiritrdquo would also be called Son of God But no The fact is that other living creatures are called ldquosons of Godrdquo (Job 21) Never is ldquoGodrdquo or ldquoholy spiritrdquo ever called ldquoSon of Godrdquo in Scripture Only Jesus Christ is called ldquothe Son of Godrdquo with the article Why

By Christ lsquobecoming obedient [to God] until deathrsquo during the course of his earthly life lsquoGod highly exalted Him and graciously gave him a name which is above every other name that at the name of Jesus every knee should bendto the credit of God the Fatherrsquo (Hebrews58 Philippians 28-11 21st Century New Testament)

ldquo[Christ] has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God with angels authorities and powers made subject to himrdquo (1 Peter 322 NRSV) Still in heaven Christ receives knowledge information revelation from God and transmits it to other creatures (Revelation11) Though the glorified Christ is described as ldquoKing of kingsrdquo and ldquoLord of lordsrdquo he is specifically called ldquoThe Word of Godrdquo (Revelation 191316 NRSV) The night before his death he ldquoprayedrdquo to his Father and called him ldquothe only true Godrdquo and made this petition ldquoFather glorify me in your own presence [Greek beside yourself] with the glory that I hadin your presence [Greek beside you] before the world existedrdquo (John 175 NRSV) (ldquoalongside yourselfrdquo ST Byington) Again God never has to ldquoprayrdquo to anyone Ever

Well then if Jesus Christ expressed this one final ldquowishrdquo in prayer to be ldquoin the presence ofrdquoldquobesiderdquo ldquoalongsiderdquo his Father which he himself called ldquothe only true Godrdquo why should we for the sake of tradition insist with the belief that Jesus ldquomustrdquo somehow be that ldquotruerdquo God the One sitting at the center of Gods throne instead of ldquobesiderdquo God (Mark 1619) Christ did not ask to sit at Gods throne Christ was fully content with the premise of being alongside God And that is what actually happened Mark tells us ldquoSo then the Lord Jesus after he had spoken to them was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of Godrdquo (Mark 1619 NRSV Note Some ancient manuscripts omit this verse) The NIV Study Bible notes the significance of lsquositting at the right hand of Godrsquo ldquoA position of authority second only to Godsrdquo Being in ldquoa position of authority second only to Godsrdquo is something no one should ever say of God for he is always ldquosupremerdquo At no time does God relinquishes his supremacy Someone who holds a position of authority second to God cannot be identical to God Take note too that in this account of Mark chapter 16 or the oneat John chapter 17 there is no mention of a third party of a ldquoGodheadrdquo No ldquoHoly Spiritrdquo is in sight The fact is that the glorified Christ in heaven continues to call his Father ldquomy Godrdquo(Revelation 312)

As ldquoSon of Godrdquo and always lesser and subject to God it is illogical to think Christ would purposely usurp titles and rights that only belonged to lsquohis God and Fatherrsquo (John 1428 Matthew 2023 John 2017 Acts 17) Jesus Christ taught others to only worship the Father God (Matthew 410 John 42324) ldquoAnd we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the worldrdquo (1 John 414) If so the thought that Christ would usethe words ldquoI amrdquo as a title to identify himself as ldquothe true Godrdquo is incongruous Jesus made it clear that he would only seek the glory ldquothat comes from the one who alone is Godrdquo (John850 54 544)

In this Satan controlled world it is not that difficult to get entangled with human taught intricate philosophies which obscure the simple Christian doctrine (John 1231 2 Cor 44) Hence the need for caution at the time of defending popular traditional views which clash with the monotheistic approach of Bible writers

Consequently those who teach that Christ is Almighty God find themselves in conflict with the Scriptural record The submitted list of alternate readings of John 858 shows that there are a considerable number of scholars who not only understand the subject correctly but alsokeenly grasp that whatever Jesus said on the matter has to harmonize with both the context of John chapter 8 and the rest of the Scriptures as well

What is the correct translation of John 858

Is it ldquoI amrdquo ldquoI wasrdquo ldquoI am herdquo or ldquoI have beenrdquo After analyzing the Greek phrase ldquoegō eimirdquo the context and the various possible ways the expression can be translated in English I think it is best to render the Greek with an English present perfect Adding a smallelement such as ldquosincerdquo to the statement as McKay does below satisfies all contextual and grammatical requirements of the passage Doing so does not qualify as ldquointerpolationrdquo

A second choice a simple past tense can perhaps be used in translation where the context allows since it is grammatically correct but it is generally used of activity confined to the past so the message may be distorted Unless that is the simple past is interpreted as ldquoimperfectiverdquo with current relevance How so In support of Jesus deity many frequently cite John11 There in the text a simple past tense ldquowasrdquo is applied to ldquothe Wordrdquo three times in English versions Does that mean ldquothe Wordrdquo is no more or that it was permanentlycut-off from existence at some point Of course not The context of the whole gospel of John shows that Christ is fully pertinent in Christian lives

Scholars choosing a past tense for ldquoeimirdquo (ie ldquoI wasrdquo ldquoI existedrdquo etc) at John 858 may also have in mind what John the Baptist said as a precursor of Jesus Christ ldquoA man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was [ldquoexistedrdquo JB] before merdquo Surely John the Baptist did not mean that Jesus existence was done away with His own words show thatJesus life was very much relevant and would continue to be so Translators have no issue whatsoever in applying a past tense (ldquowasrdquo ldquoexistedrdquo) at John 11 and 130 in their English versions So why would they at John 858 Perhaps because it would mean that they wouldhave to do away with the premise of a ldquodivine titlerdquo in their argumentation of which is claimed clinches Jesus identity with Gods own As shown above Revelation 211 a presentverb a form of ldquoeimirdquo is rendered by some versions with a past tense ldquowasrdquo Obviously Bible translators have no problem in translating some present tense verbs with past tenses or with present perfects But most object to it at John 858 likely for theological reasons

As stated in the beginning of this essay the English ldquopresentrdquo and the Greek ldquopresentrdquo in certain contexts do not correspond exactly in meaning because in Greek ldquotimerdquo is a secondary factor That being the case the choice of English tense does not have to match theGreek conjugation per se to be faithful to the Sacred Text When one considers the specific idiom found in John 858 and the semantic implications of both the Greek and English ldquopresentrdquo one can see that the rendering ldquoI amrdquo though popular does not nearly represent the best translation possible in the English language ldquoContextrdquo often plays a more importantrole in determining the correct translation Overall though it is best to render the Greek expression with an English present perfect since it conveys clearly a more present relevancythan a past tense would

That said John 858 is a good example where a Greek transliteration may not be the best choice to communicate the right message effectively in our times The translation of ldquoI amrdquo has its place in extreme English literal translations which show the basic sense of the Greek such as those Interlinear translations mentioned above Also it can rightfully be used in many Scriptures where the context calls for it as when the sentence structure lacks the Greekldquoidiomrdquo discussed throughout this writing as might be the case with most occurrences of ldquoeimirdquo

Here listed in my opinion are the translations which come closest to the Greek thought presented by the particular ldquoidiomrdquo found in John 858 Dr Kenneth L McKay comes up with the correct translation

1 ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo - Kenneth L McKay A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek (SBG 5 New York Peter Lang 1994) p42

(Kenneth L McKay graduated with honours in Classics (with an interest in the Greek of theNT) from the Universities of Sydney and Cambridge He has taught Greek in universities and theological colleges in Nigeria New Zealand and England Mr McKay retired from the Australian National University in 1987 after teaching there for 26 years)

Other translations below come close to McKays rendering and are thus favored over the traditional rendering which is widely misunderstood

2 ldquoI have existed before Abraham was bornrdquo - A New Translation by James [ Moffatt - DD DLitt Glasgow Oxford 3 ldquoBefore Abraham came into existence I have beenrdquo - New World Translation 4 ldquoBefore Abraham came into being I have existedrdquo - The Documents of the [New Testament G W Wade London 5 ldquoFrom before Abraham was I have been rdquo - The New Testament by George [ R -Noyes DD Boston USA6 ldquoBefore Abraham was born I have already been rdquo - The Unvarnished New [Testament Andy Gaus Boston7 ldquoI existed even before Abraham was bornrdquo - The concise Gospel and the Acts [Logos International Christopher J ed Christianson Plainfield NJ8 ldquoI already was before Abraham was bornrdquo ndash Worldwide English New Testament [ Derby UK ________________________________

COMMENTS

Also compare the following translations

Nytt liv (1907 Norwegian)A Biacuteblia Viva (1981 Portuguese)O Novo Testamento Vivo (1974 Portuguese)Le Livre Nouveau Testament (1980 eacuteditions Farel French)Η Καινή Διαθήκη των Τεσσάρων Καθηγητών (ΚΔΤΚ Greek) (The New Testament of the Four Teachers The translation was made and approved (1921981) by the Holy Summit Church of Greece The English title of the project is The New Testament in Modern Greek Athens Greece) Η Αγία Γραφή Παλαιά και Καινή Διαθήκη (ΝΔΜ Greek) Ελληνική Βιβλική Εταιρία Αθήνα [Athens] 1997 (The Bible Old and New Testament Greek Biblical Company - London 1997) ΚΔΛΖ ΛΧ (Other Greek Versions expressing the same idea as translations on the list)___________________

ldquoI was rdquo Note on 1987 translation from Italian main list l Vangelio di Giovanni (El Evangelio de Juan [ldquoThe Gospel of Johnrdquo] with imprimatur) by J Mateos and J Barreto noted on John 858 (as translated by Teodora Tosatti p 387 Cittadela Editrice 1982) that the temporal relationship expressed by the Greek ldquoprin eimi [BeforeI am]rdquo can be translated into Italian ldquoprimaero [BeforeI was]rdquo (Translation from Italian to English mine)__________________

Comment on 1993 ΟІ ΧΡΙΣΤΙΑΝΙΚΕΣ ΓΡΑΦΕΣ Απόδοση από τη Μειάφράση Νέου Κόσμου which is a modern Greek translation of the New World Translation of the ChristianScriptures Unlike most Bible Versions which are published in only one language or a few atmost the NWT is available in dozens of languages based mainly on their English translationbut obviously taking into account other factors in the process such as the original Bible text the peculiarities of their recipient local languages and their targeted audiences in their respective countries

It is obvious though that other NWT translation editions closely followed the English text of the NWT and at the same time their translation teams had enough latitude to offer their own unique renderings at times expressing in their native languages what they see in in the Inspired Text Having said that it is interesting to see how they approached their translation of John 858 from their English translation back into [modern] Greek

The translation team was acutely aware of the basic sense of ldquoegō eimirdquo as ldquoI amrdquo and how those simple words are misconstrued by religionists to say something more than Jesus intended Taking into account the syntax of John 858 as stated throughout this document the translation team who worked on the modern Greek version faced a few options

First they had the option to go back to ldquoegō eimirdquo using the modern Greek equivalent ldquoΕγώ ειμαιrdquo (I am) as it reads in the Vamvas version which they did not Or they could haveexpressed their NWT English choice of ldquoI have beenrdquo with their modern Greek equivalent of ldquoέχο υπάρξει [I have existed]rdquo Thirdly they could have gone with ldquoI wasrdquo (ldquoεγώ ήμουνrdquo) as some of their French and Italian Bible editions have done in the past or even with ldquo[εγώ] υπήρξα [I existed])rdquo Or they could have provided some other unique rendering It is obvious they wanted to stick closely to the Greek text but given the common misconceptionssurrounding ldquoegō eimai (I am)rdquo in mainstream churches the translation team chose to use ldquoεγώ υπάρχωrdquo (a present indicative form in the Greek) which means basically ldquoI existrdquo but in the presence of an expression of past time in John 858 the sense is ldquoI have existedrdquo Thus ldquoBefore Abraham came into existence I have existedrdquo ( The verb είμαι [ldquoto berdquo] in modern Greek has no forms for the perfect tense It borrows the forms from the verb υπάρχω [ldquoI existrdquo] The Greek and English ldquoperfectsrdquo are not exact equivalents either)

The reader is reminded here as noted earlier that modern Greek keeps up with the Koineacute Greek ldquopresentrdquo idiom A modern Greek grammar Greek A Comprehensive Grammar explains ldquoThe present tense is also used in constructions where English would use the perfect continuous ie where the verb expresses a continuous state or habitual event that

has lasted since a certain point in the past and is continuing up to (and including) the presentrdquo The authors provide two examples where a present verb is used with a past time indicator and where they translate using an English perfect as explained ldquoI have been living[Μένω] in this house for three years nowrdquo And ldquoI have been reading [Διαβάζω] this newspaper since 1984rdquo (Greek A Comprehensive Grammar by David Holton Peter Mackridge amp Irene Philippaki-Warburton Revised by Vassilios Spyropoulos p 294 Second edition 2012)

Ten years after the NWT-Greek Edition was released another modern Greek translation was published with the following rendering at John 858 ldquoΣας βεβαιώνω πως πριν να γεννηθεί οΑβραάμ εγώ υπάρχωrdquo which in English would be ldquoI assure you that I have existed since before Abraham was bornrdquo (Literally ldquoI assure you that before could be born the AbrahamI exist [not ldquoΕγώ ειμαιrdquo]rdquo The Holy Bible in Todays Greek Version 2003 Greek Bible Society Interestingly the original English version of 1976 had ldquoI Amrdquo) Also a Spanish Bible conveys a similar thought ldquoYo existo desde antes que existiera Abrahamrdquo [Translation ldquo I exist since before Abraham existedrdquo] (La Biblia - Versioacuten Popular 2nd edition Sociedades Biacuteblicas Unidas 1983)

_________________________________________________________

The Clear Word The translators quoted in this article represent various religious faiths some are Catholic some are Protestant Others are Unitarians Jehovahs Witnesses Jewish Adventists etc and they represent countries the world over One of these translators is a Seventh-Day Adventist who worked on The Clear Word Jack J Blanco ThD As a Seventh-Day Adventist who supports the Trinity doctrine Blanco translated verses to make Jesus ldquoequalrdquo to God in every way

He renders John 11 ldquoHe is the Word of God and is equal with Godrdquo He shows Jesus at Philippians 25-7 as ldquoequal with Godrdquo and describes him as lsquoacting the part of a servantrsquo At John 1428 he completely omits the reference that lsquothe Father is greaterrsquo than Christ But here at John 858 in answer to the question the priests and leaders asked concerning Abraham lsquoseeingrsquo his day Jesus answered according to Dr Blanco ldquoBecause I existed before Abraham was even bornrdquo Thus Dr Blanco makes no connection as others do that Christ is the ldquoI amrdquo of Exodus 314 which according to some would indicate that Jesus is the Jehovah of the Old Testament What he sees in this account is that Jesus already lsquoexisted before Abraham didrsquo and thus Abraham was able to lsquoseersquo his day (John 856) To this we must add another likely element included in Jesus response to the Jews as wellone of simple identification as ldquothe Christ [Messiah]rdquo and ldquoSon of manrdquo Why is it then that manywho support the Trinity doctrine find it hard to understand Jesus statement correctly at John 858 Could it be that they are letting non-Scriptural influence and perhaps the weight of themajority view dictate their understanding of this Scripture

For a consideration of other subjects by the same author check below

For a discussion of Acts 286 Whose blood

httpwwwscribdcomdoc231244155Acts-20-28-Whose-blood

For a discussion of Colossians 116 (ldquoall other thingsrdquo) see

httpwwwscribdcomdoc205841269Colossians-1-16-Is-the-expression-all-other-things-a-proper-rendition

For a consideration on the subject of the Trinity click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc160286056Does-the-Trinity-ever-make-sense

For a full consideration of John 11 click the following link httpwwwscribdcomdoc34916458The-correct-translation-of-John-1-1

For a brief consideration of John 11 with additional citations click here httpwwwscribdcomdoc50330864John-1-1-List-of-Alternate-Readings

Did the NW translators know any Greek click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc48234022Did-the-New-World-Translation-Committee-Know-Greek

For a consideration of John 173 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc57772552John-17-3-E28098Taking-in-knowledge-of-E28099-God-and-Jesus

For a consideration of 1 Timothy 316 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc76927834Was-God-manifested-in-the-flesh-1-Timothy-3-16

For a consideration of Exodus 225 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc38676458Exodus-2-25-And-God-took-notice-Does-God- care-about-us

For a consideration of John 114 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc35002730John-1-14-Jesus-full-of-grace

For a consideration of Translation Differences-Questions and Answershttpwwwscribdcomdoc59484457Translation-Differences-Questions-and-Answers

In Spanish

Para una consideracioacuten de otros temas vea los siguientes enlaces

Para una consideracioacuten de Colosenses 116 ldquotodas las otras cosasrdquo vea

httpwwwscribdcomdoc209601066Colosenses-1-16-C2BFEs-la-traduccion-E2809Ctodas-las-otras-cosasE2809D-apropiada

Para una consideracioacuten de ldquoiquestAcaso tiene sentido la Trinidadrdquo

httpwwwscribdcomdoc173779117C2BFAcaso-tiene-sentido-la-Trinidad

Para un consideracioacuten de Juan 11 vea el siguiente enlace

httpwwwscribdcomdoc35899788Traduccion-correcta-de-Juan-1-1-Lista-de- lecturas-alternativas

Para el tema iquestSabiacutean griego los traductores de la TNM vea el siguiente enlace

httpwwwscribdcomdoc51623596C2BFSabia-griego-el-Comite-de-la-Traduccion-del-Nuevo-Mundo

English onerdquo Another interlinear the New Greek-English Interlinear New Testament by Brown and Comfort and edited by J D Douglas explains ldquoIt is difficult to translate one language into another on a word-for-word basis because each language has its own syntax grammatical constructions and idioms that are difficultmdashif not impossiblemdashto replicate literally in another languagerdquo (Emphasis added) This statement is so true of the text in discussion (John 858) in regards to its syntax and particular idiom Often critics of the NWT hide this fact Why Is it religious bias at work

I will give the reader a few examples of an available interlinear translation which has the Greek main text and a literal sublinear translation below the Greek by Professor Paul R McReynolds and on the right column for comparison the reader can study the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) a popular translation in academia Observe how the two can differ

McReynolds Mat 21 ldquomagiciansrdquo NRSV ldquowise menrdquo John 118 ldquoonly born Godrdquo ldquoGod the only Sonrdquo Mat 243 ldquosign of the your presencerdquo ldquothe sign of your comingrdquo Mathew 522 ldquothe gehenna of the firerdquo ldquothe hell of firerdquo John 1319 ldquoI amrdquo ldquoI am herdquo John 149 ldquoI amrdquo ldquoHave I beenrdquo John 1527 ldquoyou arerdquo ldquoyou have beenrdquo 2 Peter 24 ldquobeing sent to Tartarusrdquo ldquobut cast them into hellrdquo Luke 1113 ldquowill give spirit holy tordquo ldquowillgive the Holy Spirit tordquo John 2022 ldquotake spirit holyrdquo ldquoReceive the Holy Spiritrdquo Acts 24 ldquofilled all of spirit holyrdquo ldquofilled with the Holy Spiritrdquo

( Paul R McReynolds is professor of Greek and New Testament at Pacific Christian College in Fullerton California USA He also contributed to the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia)

Some of the readings from the right column above (NRSV) are acceptable others are not See if you can detect in the right column above those translation renderings with a theological tendency that deviate from the literal readings from the left column McReynoldson the left does an excellent job of transmitting the Greek sense Even the most popular Bible versions do not adhere consistently to the base texts The NRSV and a host of other Bible versions add their own religious interpretation throughout Scripture just as much as the NWT if not more but hardly anyone complains of this transformation of Scriptures eventhough it leads to error Why Simply because the NRSV represents more of a ldquomajorityrdquo view than the NWT does But in truth majority or minority views do not correspond equallyto ldquoaccuraterdquo or ldquoinaccuraterdquo results

In the text discussed the KIT can appropriately show the basic sense rendering of ldquoI amrdquo for the Greek ldquoegō eimirdquo in the left column and alternately show the reading ldquoI have beenrdquo in the right column as a contemporary way of expressing in English the particular Greek clause with its ldquoidiomrdquo in John 858 as explained throughout this article a rendering which has

scholarship support When the Greek ldquoegō eimirdquo appears in an idiom-less structure it can rightfully be translated as ldquoI amrdquo as most versions do including the NWT Hence there is no contradiction between the two translations

Dr McKay argues that Jesus response in John 858 ldquowould be most naturally translated lsquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrsquo if it were not for the obsession with the simple words lsquoI amrsquo rdquo (Kenneth L McKay ldquolsquoI amrsquo in Johns Gospelrdquo Expository Times 1996 p 302) I take the author as saying that ldquoI have been in existencerdquo for ldquoeimirdquo is a better translation than ldquoI amrdquo but the [religious] obsession for the simple words ldquoI amrdquo in their quest to elevate Christ to Gods level does not allow people to see that The thing is that Christ lsquoalways pleased the Fatherrsquo and was fully satisfied with being lsquolesserrsquo than him (John 829 1029 1428 177813) Why not accept him as he is

Hence it is poor scholarship to forward the idea that an entity must be God Almighty himselfby the sole fact of using a divine sounding phrase when other Bible individuals are found using the same expression in Scripture The ldquocontextrdquo is the determining factor Not only must we take into account the context surrounding a chapter or book of the Bible but also what the whole Bible teaches on a given person or subject

What does the Bible teach about Jesus

That Christ ldquowas in the beginning with Godrdquo (John 12) At the announcement of his birth on earth the angel Gabriel told Mary that she will give birth to someone ldquogreatrdquo and ldquoholyrdquo and that one will be called ldquoSon of the Most Highrdquo and ldquoSon of Godrdquo (Luke 132 35) Trinitarians may claim that ldquoSon of Godrdquo is equivalent in meaning to ldquoGodrdquo It is a claim with no foundation If there was any truth to the claim then the ldquoHoly Spiritrdquo would also be called Son of God But no The fact is that other living creatures are called ldquosons of Godrdquo (Job 21) Never is ldquoGodrdquo or ldquoholy spiritrdquo ever called ldquoSon of Godrdquo in Scripture Only Jesus Christ is called ldquothe Son of Godrdquo with the article Why

By Christ lsquobecoming obedient [to God] until deathrsquo during the course of his earthly life lsquoGod highly exalted Him and graciously gave him a name which is above every other name that at the name of Jesus every knee should bendto the credit of God the Fatherrsquo (Hebrews58 Philippians 28-11 21st Century New Testament)

ldquo[Christ] has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God with angels authorities and powers made subject to himrdquo (1 Peter 322 NRSV) Still in heaven Christ receives knowledge information revelation from God and transmits it to other creatures (Revelation11) Though the glorified Christ is described as ldquoKing of kingsrdquo and ldquoLord of lordsrdquo he is specifically called ldquoThe Word of Godrdquo (Revelation 191316 NRSV) The night before his death he ldquoprayedrdquo to his Father and called him ldquothe only true Godrdquo and made this petition ldquoFather glorify me in your own presence [Greek beside yourself] with the glory that I hadin your presence [Greek beside you] before the world existedrdquo (John 175 NRSV) (ldquoalongside yourselfrdquo ST Byington) Again God never has to ldquoprayrdquo to anyone Ever

Well then if Jesus Christ expressed this one final ldquowishrdquo in prayer to be ldquoin the presence ofrdquoldquobesiderdquo ldquoalongsiderdquo his Father which he himself called ldquothe only true Godrdquo why should we for the sake of tradition insist with the belief that Jesus ldquomustrdquo somehow be that ldquotruerdquo God the One sitting at the center of Gods throne instead of ldquobesiderdquo God (Mark 1619) Christ did not ask to sit at Gods throne Christ was fully content with the premise of being alongside God And that is what actually happened Mark tells us ldquoSo then the Lord Jesus after he had spoken to them was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of Godrdquo (Mark 1619 NRSV Note Some ancient manuscripts omit this verse) The NIV Study Bible notes the significance of lsquositting at the right hand of Godrsquo ldquoA position of authority second only to Godsrdquo Being in ldquoa position of authority second only to Godsrdquo is something no one should ever say of God for he is always ldquosupremerdquo At no time does God relinquishes his supremacy Someone who holds a position of authority second to God cannot be identical to God Take note too that in this account of Mark chapter 16 or the oneat John chapter 17 there is no mention of a third party of a ldquoGodheadrdquo No ldquoHoly Spiritrdquo is in sight The fact is that the glorified Christ in heaven continues to call his Father ldquomy Godrdquo(Revelation 312)

As ldquoSon of Godrdquo and always lesser and subject to God it is illogical to think Christ would purposely usurp titles and rights that only belonged to lsquohis God and Fatherrsquo (John 1428 Matthew 2023 John 2017 Acts 17) Jesus Christ taught others to only worship the Father God (Matthew 410 John 42324) ldquoAnd we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the worldrdquo (1 John 414) If so the thought that Christ would usethe words ldquoI amrdquo as a title to identify himself as ldquothe true Godrdquo is incongruous Jesus made it clear that he would only seek the glory ldquothat comes from the one who alone is Godrdquo (John850 54 544)

In this Satan controlled world it is not that difficult to get entangled with human taught intricate philosophies which obscure the simple Christian doctrine (John 1231 2 Cor 44) Hence the need for caution at the time of defending popular traditional views which clash with the monotheistic approach of Bible writers

Consequently those who teach that Christ is Almighty God find themselves in conflict with the Scriptural record The submitted list of alternate readings of John 858 shows that there are a considerable number of scholars who not only understand the subject correctly but alsokeenly grasp that whatever Jesus said on the matter has to harmonize with both the context of John chapter 8 and the rest of the Scriptures as well

What is the correct translation of John 858

Is it ldquoI amrdquo ldquoI wasrdquo ldquoI am herdquo or ldquoI have beenrdquo After analyzing the Greek phrase ldquoegō eimirdquo the context and the various possible ways the expression can be translated in English I think it is best to render the Greek with an English present perfect Adding a smallelement such as ldquosincerdquo to the statement as McKay does below satisfies all contextual and grammatical requirements of the passage Doing so does not qualify as ldquointerpolationrdquo

A second choice a simple past tense can perhaps be used in translation where the context allows since it is grammatically correct but it is generally used of activity confined to the past so the message may be distorted Unless that is the simple past is interpreted as ldquoimperfectiverdquo with current relevance How so In support of Jesus deity many frequently cite John11 There in the text a simple past tense ldquowasrdquo is applied to ldquothe Wordrdquo three times in English versions Does that mean ldquothe Wordrdquo is no more or that it was permanentlycut-off from existence at some point Of course not The context of the whole gospel of John shows that Christ is fully pertinent in Christian lives

Scholars choosing a past tense for ldquoeimirdquo (ie ldquoI wasrdquo ldquoI existedrdquo etc) at John 858 may also have in mind what John the Baptist said as a precursor of Jesus Christ ldquoA man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was [ldquoexistedrdquo JB] before merdquo Surely John the Baptist did not mean that Jesus existence was done away with His own words show thatJesus life was very much relevant and would continue to be so Translators have no issue whatsoever in applying a past tense (ldquowasrdquo ldquoexistedrdquo) at John 11 and 130 in their English versions So why would they at John 858 Perhaps because it would mean that they wouldhave to do away with the premise of a ldquodivine titlerdquo in their argumentation of which is claimed clinches Jesus identity with Gods own As shown above Revelation 211 a presentverb a form of ldquoeimirdquo is rendered by some versions with a past tense ldquowasrdquo Obviously Bible translators have no problem in translating some present tense verbs with past tenses or with present perfects But most object to it at John 858 likely for theological reasons

As stated in the beginning of this essay the English ldquopresentrdquo and the Greek ldquopresentrdquo in certain contexts do not correspond exactly in meaning because in Greek ldquotimerdquo is a secondary factor That being the case the choice of English tense does not have to match theGreek conjugation per se to be faithful to the Sacred Text When one considers the specific idiom found in John 858 and the semantic implications of both the Greek and English ldquopresentrdquo one can see that the rendering ldquoI amrdquo though popular does not nearly represent the best translation possible in the English language ldquoContextrdquo often plays a more importantrole in determining the correct translation Overall though it is best to render the Greek expression with an English present perfect since it conveys clearly a more present relevancythan a past tense would

That said John 858 is a good example where a Greek transliteration may not be the best choice to communicate the right message effectively in our times The translation of ldquoI amrdquo has its place in extreme English literal translations which show the basic sense of the Greek such as those Interlinear translations mentioned above Also it can rightfully be used in many Scriptures where the context calls for it as when the sentence structure lacks the Greekldquoidiomrdquo discussed throughout this writing as might be the case with most occurrences of ldquoeimirdquo

Here listed in my opinion are the translations which come closest to the Greek thought presented by the particular ldquoidiomrdquo found in John 858 Dr Kenneth L McKay comes up with the correct translation

1 ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo - Kenneth L McKay A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek (SBG 5 New York Peter Lang 1994) p42

(Kenneth L McKay graduated with honours in Classics (with an interest in the Greek of theNT) from the Universities of Sydney and Cambridge He has taught Greek in universities and theological colleges in Nigeria New Zealand and England Mr McKay retired from the Australian National University in 1987 after teaching there for 26 years)

Other translations below come close to McKays rendering and are thus favored over the traditional rendering which is widely misunderstood

2 ldquoI have existed before Abraham was bornrdquo - A New Translation by James [ Moffatt - DD DLitt Glasgow Oxford 3 ldquoBefore Abraham came into existence I have beenrdquo - New World Translation 4 ldquoBefore Abraham came into being I have existedrdquo - The Documents of the [New Testament G W Wade London 5 ldquoFrom before Abraham was I have been rdquo - The New Testament by George [ R -Noyes DD Boston USA6 ldquoBefore Abraham was born I have already been rdquo - The Unvarnished New [Testament Andy Gaus Boston7 ldquoI existed even before Abraham was bornrdquo - The concise Gospel and the Acts [Logos International Christopher J ed Christianson Plainfield NJ8 ldquoI already was before Abraham was bornrdquo ndash Worldwide English New Testament [ Derby UK ________________________________

COMMENTS

Also compare the following translations

Nytt liv (1907 Norwegian)A Biacuteblia Viva (1981 Portuguese)O Novo Testamento Vivo (1974 Portuguese)Le Livre Nouveau Testament (1980 eacuteditions Farel French)Η Καινή Διαθήκη των Τεσσάρων Καθηγητών (ΚΔΤΚ Greek) (The New Testament of the Four Teachers The translation was made and approved (1921981) by the Holy Summit Church of Greece The English title of the project is The New Testament in Modern Greek Athens Greece) Η Αγία Γραφή Παλαιά και Καινή Διαθήκη (ΝΔΜ Greek) Ελληνική Βιβλική Εταιρία Αθήνα [Athens] 1997 (The Bible Old and New Testament Greek Biblical Company - London 1997) ΚΔΛΖ ΛΧ (Other Greek Versions expressing the same idea as translations on the list)___________________

ldquoI was rdquo Note on 1987 translation from Italian main list l Vangelio di Giovanni (El Evangelio de Juan [ldquoThe Gospel of Johnrdquo] with imprimatur) by J Mateos and J Barreto noted on John 858 (as translated by Teodora Tosatti p 387 Cittadela Editrice 1982) that the temporal relationship expressed by the Greek ldquoprin eimi [BeforeI am]rdquo can be translated into Italian ldquoprimaero [BeforeI was]rdquo (Translation from Italian to English mine)__________________

Comment on 1993 ΟІ ΧΡΙΣΤΙΑΝΙΚΕΣ ΓΡΑΦΕΣ Απόδοση από τη Μειάφράση Νέου Κόσμου which is a modern Greek translation of the New World Translation of the ChristianScriptures Unlike most Bible Versions which are published in only one language or a few atmost the NWT is available in dozens of languages based mainly on their English translationbut obviously taking into account other factors in the process such as the original Bible text the peculiarities of their recipient local languages and their targeted audiences in their respective countries

It is obvious though that other NWT translation editions closely followed the English text of the NWT and at the same time their translation teams had enough latitude to offer their own unique renderings at times expressing in their native languages what they see in in the Inspired Text Having said that it is interesting to see how they approached their translation of John 858 from their English translation back into [modern] Greek

The translation team was acutely aware of the basic sense of ldquoegō eimirdquo as ldquoI amrdquo and how those simple words are misconstrued by religionists to say something more than Jesus intended Taking into account the syntax of John 858 as stated throughout this document the translation team who worked on the modern Greek version faced a few options

First they had the option to go back to ldquoegō eimirdquo using the modern Greek equivalent ldquoΕγώ ειμαιrdquo (I am) as it reads in the Vamvas version which they did not Or they could haveexpressed their NWT English choice of ldquoI have beenrdquo with their modern Greek equivalent of ldquoέχο υπάρξει [I have existed]rdquo Thirdly they could have gone with ldquoI wasrdquo (ldquoεγώ ήμουνrdquo) as some of their French and Italian Bible editions have done in the past or even with ldquo[εγώ] υπήρξα [I existed])rdquo Or they could have provided some other unique rendering It is obvious they wanted to stick closely to the Greek text but given the common misconceptionssurrounding ldquoegō eimai (I am)rdquo in mainstream churches the translation team chose to use ldquoεγώ υπάρχωrdquo (a present indicative form in the Greek) which means basically ldquoI existrdquo but in the presence of an expression of past time in John 858 the sense is ldquoI have existedrdquo Thus ldquoBefore Abraham came into existence I have existedrdquo ( The verb είμαι [ldquoto berdquo] in modern Greek has no forms for the perfect tense It borrows the forms from the verb υπάρχω [ldquoI existrdquo] The Greek and English ldquoperfectsrdquo are not exact equivalents either)

The reader is reminded here as noted earlier that modern Greek keeps up with the Koineacute Greek ldquopresentrdquo idiom A modern Greek grammar Greek A Comprehensive Grammar explains ldquoThe present tense is also used in constructions where English would use the perfect continuous ie where the verb expresses a continuous state or habitual event that

has lasted since a certain point in the past and is continuing up to (and including) the presentrdquo The authors provide two examples where a present verb is used with a past time indicator and where they translate using an English perfect as explained ldquoI have been living[Μένω] in this house for three years nowrdquo And ldquoI have been reading [Διαβάζω] this newspaper since 1984rdquo (Greek A Comprehensive Grammar by David Holton Peter Mackridge amp Irene Philippaki-Warburton Revised by Vassilios Spyropoulos p 294 Second edition 2012)

Ten years after the NWT-Greek Edition was released another modern Greek translation was published with the following rendering at John 858 ldquoΣας βεβαιώνω πως πριν να γεννηθεί οΑβραάμ εγώ υπάρχωrdquo which in English would be ldquoI assure you that I have existed since before Abraham was bornrdquo (Literally ldquoI assure you that before could be born the AbrahamI exist [not ldquoΕγώ ειμαιrdquo]rdquo The Holy Bible in Todays Greek Version 2003 Greek Bible Society Interestingly the original English version of 1976 had ldquoI Amrdquo) Also a Spanish Bible conveys a similar thought ldquoYo existo desde antes que existiera Abrahamrdquo [Translation ldquo I exist since before Abraham existedrdquo] (La Biblia - Versioacuten Popular 2nd edition Sociedades Biacuteblicas Unidas 1983)

_________________________________________________________

The Clear Word The translators quoted in this article represent various religious faiths some are Catholic some are Protestant Others are Unitarians Jehovahs Witnesses Jewish Adventists etc and they represent countries the world over One of these translators is a Seventh-Day Adventist who worked on The Clear Word Jack J Blanco ThD As a Seventh-Day Adventist who supports the Trinity doctrine Blanco translated verses to make Jesus ldquoequalrdquo to God in every way

He renders John 11 ldquoHe is the Word of God and is equal with Godrdquo He shows Jesus at Philippians 25-7 as ldquoequal with Godrdquo and describes him as lsquoacting the part of a servantrsquo At John 1428 he completely omits the reference that lsquothe Father is greaterrsquo than Christ But here at John 858 in answer to the question the priests and leaders asked concerning Abraham lsquoseeingrsquo his day Jesus answered according to Dr Blanco ldquoBecause I existed before Abraham was even bornrdquo Thus Dr Blanco makes no connection as others do that Christ is the ldquoI amrdquo of Exodus 314 which according to some would indicate that Jesus is the Jehovah of the Old Testament What he sees in this account is that Jesus already lsquoexisted before Abraham didrsquo and thus Abraham was able to lsquoseersquo his day (John 856) To this we must add another likely element included in Jesus response to the Jews as wellone of simple identification as ldquothe Christ [Messiah]rdquo and ldquoSon of manrdquo Why is it then that manywho support the Trinity doctrine find it hard to understand Jesus statement correctly at John 858 Could it be that they are letting non-Scriptural influence and perhaps the weight of themajority view dictate their understanding of this Scripture

For a consideration of other subjects by the same author check below

For a discussion of Acts 286 Whose blood

httpwwwscribdcomdoc231244155Acts-20-28-Whose-blood

For a discussion of Colossians 116 (ldquoall other thingsrdquo) see

httpwwwscribdcomdoc205841269Colossians-1-16-Is-the-expression-all-other-things-a-proper-rendition

For a consideration on the subject of the Trinity click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc160286056Does-the-Trinity-ever-make-sense

For a full consideration of John 11 click the following link httpwwwscribdcomdoc34916458The-correct-translation-of-John-1-1

For a brief consideration of John 11 with additional citations click here httpwwwscribdcomdoc50330864John-1-1-List-of-Alternate-Readings

Did the NW translators know any Greek click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc48234022Did-the-New-World-Translation-Committee-Know-Greek

For a consideration of John 173 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc57772552John-17-3-E28098Taking-in-knowledge-of-E28099-God-and-Jesus

For a consideration of 1 Timothy 316 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc76927834Was-God-manifested-in-the-flesh-1-Timothy-3-16

For a consideration of Exodus 225 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc38676458Exodus-2-25-And-God-took-notice-Does-God- care-about-us

For a consideration of John 114 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc35002730John-1-14-Jesus-full-of-grace

For a consideration of Translation Differences-Questions and Answershttpwwwscribdcomdoc59484457Translation-Differences-Questions-and-Answers

In Spanish

Para una consideracioacuten de otros temas vea los siguientes enlaces

Para una consideracioacuten de Colosenses 116 ldquotodas las otras cosasrdquo vea

httpwwwscribdcomdoc209601066Colosenses-1-16-C2BFEs-la-traduccion-E2809Ctodas-las-otras-cosasE2809D-apropiada

Para una consideracioacuten de ldquoiquestAcaso tiene sentido la Trinidadrdquo

httpwwwscribdcomdoc173779117C2BFAcaso-tiene-sentido-la-Trinidad

Para un consideracioacuten de Juan 11 vea el siguiente enlace

httpwwwscribdcomdoc35899788Traduccion-correcta-de-Juan-1-1-Lista-de- lecturas-alternativas

Para el tema iquestSabiacutean griego los traductores de la TNM vea el siguiente enlace

httpwwwscribdcomdoc51623596C2BFSabia-griego-el-Comite-de-la-Traduccion-del-Nuevo-Mundo

scholarship support When the Greek ldquoegō eimirdquo appears in an idiom-less structure it can rightfully be translated as ldquoI amrdquo as most versions do including the NWT Hence there is no contradiction between the two translations

Dr McKay argues that Jesus response in John 858 ldquowould be most naturally translated lsquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrsquo if it were not for the obsession with the simple words lsquoI amrsquo rdquo (Kenneth L McKay ldquolsquoI amrsquo in Johns Gospelrdquo Expository Times 1996 p 302) I take the author as saying that ldquoI have been in existencerdquo for ldquoeimirdquo is a better translation than ldquoI amrdquo but the [religious] obsession for the simple words ldquoI amrdquo in their quest to elevate Christ to Gods level does not allow people to see that The thing is that Christ lsquoalways pleased the Fatherrsquo and was fully satisfied with being lsquolesserrsquo than him (John 829 1029 1428 177813) Why not accept him as he is

Hence it is poor scholarship to forward the idea that an entity must be God Almighty himselfby the sole fact of using a divine sounding phrase when other Bible individuals are found using the same expression in Scripture The ldquocontextrdquo is the determining factor Not only must we take into account the context surrounding a chapter or book of the Bible but also what the whole Bible teaches on a given person or subject

What does the Bible teach about Jesus

That Christ ldquowas in the beginning with Godrdquo (John 12) At the announcement of his birth on earth the angel Gabriel told Mary that she will give birth to someone ldquogreatrdquo and ldquoholyrdquo and that one will be called ldquoSon of the Most Highrdquo and ldquoSon of Godrdquo (Luke 132 35) Trinitarians may claim that ldquoSon of Godrdquo is equivalent in meaning to ldquoGodrdquo It is a claim with no foundation If there was any truth to the claim then the ldquoHoly Spiritrdquo would also be called Son of God But no The fact is that other living creatures are called ldquosons of Godrdquo (Job 21) Never is ldquoGodrdquo or ldquoholy spiritrdquo ever called ldquoSon of Godrdquo in Scripture Only Jesus Christ is called ldquothe Son of Godrdquo with the article Why

By Christ lsquobecoming obedient [to God] until deathrsquo during the course of his earthly life lsquoGod highly exalted Him and graciously gave him a name which is above every other name that at the name of Jesus every knee should bendto the credit of God the Fatherrsquo (Hebrews58 Philippians 28-11 21st Century New Testament)

ldquo[Christ] has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God with angels authorities and powers made subject to himrdquo (1 Peter 322 NRSV) Still in heaven Christ receives knowledge information revelation from God and transmits it to other creatures (Revelation11) Though the glorified Christ is described as ldquoKing of kingsrdquo and ldquoLord of lordsrdquo he is specifically called ldquoThe Word of Godrdquo (Revelation 191316 NRSV) The night before his death he ldquoprayedrdquo to his Father and called him ldquothe only true Godrdquo and made this petition ldquoFather glorify me in your own presence [Greek beside yourself] with the glory that I hadin your presence [Greek beside you] before the world existedrdquo (John 175 NRSV) (ldquoalongside yourselfrdquo ST Byington) Again God never has to ldquoprayrdquo to anyone Ever

Well then if Jesus Christ expressed this one final ldquowishrdquo in prayer to be ldquoin the presence ofrdquoldquobesiderdquo ldquoalongsiderdquo his Father which he himself called ldquothe only true Godrdquo why should we for the sake of tradition insist with the belief that Jesus ldquomustrdquo somehow be that ldquotruerdquo God the One sitting at the center of Gods throne instead of ldquobesiderdquo God (Mark 1619) Christ did not ask to sit at Gods throne Christ was fully content with the premise of being alongside God And that is what actually happened Mark tells us ldquoSo then the Lord Jesus after he had spoken to them was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of Godrdquo (Mark 1619 NRSV Note Some ancient manuscripts omit this verse) The NIV Study Bible notes the significance of lsquositting at the right hand of Godrsquo ldquoA position of authority second only to Godsrdquo Being in ldquoa position of authority second only to Godsrdquo is something no one should ever say of God for he is always ldquosupremerdquo At no time does God relinquishes his supremacy Someone who holds a position of authority second to God cannot be identical to God Take note too that in this account of Mark chapter 16 or the oneat John chapter 17 there is no mention of a third party of a ldquoGodheadrdquo No ldquoHoly Spiritrdquo is in sight The fact is that the glorified Christ in heaven continues to call his Father ldquomy Godrdquo(Revelation 312)

As ldquoSon of Godrdquo and always lesser and subject to God it is illogical to think Christ would purposely usurp titles and rights that only belonged to lsquohis God and Fatherrsquo (John 1428 Matthew 2023 John 2017 Acts 17) Jesus Christ taught others to only worship the Father God (Matthew 410 John 42324) ldquoAnd we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the worldrdquo (1 John 414) If so the thought that Christ would usethe words ldquoI amrdquo as a title to identify himself as ldquothe true Godrdquo is incongruous Jesus made it clear that he would only seek the glory ldquothat comes from the one who alone is Godrdquo (John850 54 544)

In this Satan controlled world it is not that difficult to get entangled with human taught intricate philosophies which obscure the simple Christian doctrine (John 1231 2 Cor 44) Hence the need for caution at the time of defending popular traditional views which clash with the monotheistic approach of Bible writers

Consequently those who teach that Christ is Almighty God find themselves in conflict with the Scriptural record The submitted list of alternate readings of John 858 shows that there are a considerable number of scholars who not only understand the subject correctly but alsokeenly grasp that whatever Jesus said on the matter has to harmonize with both the context of John chapter 8 and the rest of the Scriptures as well

What is the correct translation of John 858

Is it ldquoI amrdquo ldquoI wasrdquo ldquoI am herdquo or ldquoI have beenrdquo After analyzing the Greek phrase ldquoegō eimirdquo the context and the various possible ways the expression can be translated in English I think it is best to render the Greek with an English present perfect Adding a smallelement such as ldquosincerdquo to the statement as McKay does below satisfies all contextual and grammatical requirements of the passage Doing so does not qualify as ldquointerpolationrdquo

A second choice a simple past tense can perhaps be used in translation where the context allows since it is grammatically correct but it is generally used of activity confined to the past so the message may be distorted Unless that is the simple past is interpreted as ldquoimperfectiverdquo with current relevance How so In support of Jesus deity many frequently cite John11 There in the text a simple past tense ldquowasrdquo is applied to ldquothe Wordrdquo three times in English versions Does that mean ldquothe Wordrdquo is no more or that it was permanentlycut-off from existence at some point Of course not The context of the whole gospel of John shows that Christ is fully pertinent in Christian lives

Scholars choosing a past tense for ldquoeimirdquo (ie ldquoI wasrdquo ldquoI existedrdquo etc) at John 858 may also have in mind what John the Baptist said as a precursor of Jesus Christ ldquoA man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was [ldquoexistedrdquo JB] before merdquo Surely John the Baptist did not mean that Jesus existence was done away with His own words show thatJesus life was very much relevant and would continue to be so Translators have no issue whatsoever in applying a past tense (ldquowasrdquo ldquoexistedrdquo) at John 11 and 130 in their English versions So why would they at John 858 Perhaps because it would mean that they wouldhave to do away with the premise of a ldquodivine titlerdquo in their argumentation of which is claimed clinches Jesus identity with Gods own As shown above Revelation 211 a presentverb a form of ldquoeimirdquo is rendered by some versions with a past tense ldquowasrdquo Obviously Bible translators have no problem in translating some present tense verbs with past tenses or with present perfects But most object to it at John 858 likely for theological reasons

As stated in the beginning of this essay the English ldquopresentrdquo and the Greek ldquopresentrdquo in certain contexts do not correspond exactly in meaning because in Greek ldquotimerdquo is a secondary factor That being the case the choice of English tense does not have to match theGreek conjugation per se to be faithful to the Sacred Text When one considers the specific idiom found in John 858 and the semantic implications of both the Greek and English ldquopresentrdquo one can see that the rendering ldquoI amrdquo though popular does not nearly represent the best translation possible in the English language ldquoContextrdquo often plays a more importantrole in determining the correct translation Overall though it is best to render the Greek expression with an English present perfect since it conveys clearly a more present relevancythan a past tense would

That said John 858 is a good example where a Greek transliteration may not be the best choice to communicate the right message effectively in our times The translation of ldquoI amrdquo has its place in extreme English literal translations which show the basic sense of the Greek such as those Interlinear translations mentioned above Also it can rightfully be used in many Scriptures where the context calls for it as when the sentence structure lacks the Greekldquoidiomrdquo discussed throughout this writing as might be the case with most occurrences of ldquoeimirdquo

Here listed in my opinion are the translations which come closest to the Greek thought presented by the particular ldquoidiomrdquo found in John 858 Dr Kenneth L McKay comes up with the correct translation

1 ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo - Kenneth L McKay A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek (SBG 5 New York Peter Lang 1994) p42

(Kenneth L McKay graduated with honours in Classics (with an interest in the Greek of theNT) from the Universities of Sydney and Cambridge He has taught Greek in universities and theological colleges in Nigeria New Zealand and England Mr McKay retired from the Australian National University in 1987 after teaching there for 26 years)

Other translations below come close to McKays rendering and are thus favored over the traditional rendering which is widely misunderstood

2 ldquoI have existed before Abraham was bornrdquo - A New Translation by James [ Moffatt - DD DLitt Glasgow Oxford 3 ldquoBefore Abraham came into existence I have beenrdquo - New World Translation 4 ldquoBefore Abraham came into being I have existedrdquo - The Documents of the [New Testament G W Wade London 5 ldquoFrom before Abraham was I have been rdquo - The New Testament by George [ R -Noyes DD Boston USA6 ldquoBefore Abraham was born I have already been rdquo - The Unvarnished New [Testament Andy Gaus Boston7 ldquoI existed even before Abraham was bornrdquo - The concise Gospel and the Acts [Logos International Christopher J ed Christianson Plainfield NJ8 ldquoI already was before Abraham was bornrdquo ndash Worldwide English New Testament [ Derby UK ________________________________

COMMENTS

Also compare the following translations

Nytt liv (1907 Norwegian)A Biacuteblia Viva (1981 Portuguese)O Novo Testamento Vivo (1974 Portuguese)Le Livre Nouveau Testament (1980 eacuteditions Farel French)Η Καινή Διαθήκη των Τεσσάρων Καθηγητών (ΚΔΤΚ Greek) (The New Testament of the Four Teachers The translation was made and approved (1921981) by the Holy Summit Church of Greece The English title of the project is The New Testament in Modern Greek Athens Greece) Η Αγία Γραφή Παλαιά και Καινή Διαθήκη (ΝΔΜ Greek) Ελληνική Βιβλική Εταιρία Αθήνα [Athens] 1997 (The Bible Old and New Testament Greek Biblical Company - London 1997) ΚΔΛΖ ΛΧ (Other Greek Versions expressing the same idea as translations on the list)___________________

ldquoI was rdquo Note on 1987 translation from Italian main list l Vangelio di Giovanni (El Evangelio de Juan [ldquoThe Gospel of Johnrdquo] with imprimatur) by J Mateos and J Barreto noted on John 858 (as translated by Teodora Tosatti p 387 Cittadela Editrice 1982) that the temporal relationship expressed by the Greek ldquoprin eimi [BeforeI am]rdquo can be translated into Italian ldquoprimaero [BeforeI was]rdquo (Translation from Italian to English mine)__________________

Comment on 1993 ΟІ ΧΡΙΣΤΙΑΝΙΚΕΣ ΓΡΑΦΕΣ Απόδοση από τη Μειάφράση Νέου Κόσμου which is a modern Greek translation of the New World Translation of the ChristianScriptures Unlike most Bible Versions which are published in only one language or a few atmost the NWT is available in dozens of languages based mainly on their English translationbut obviously taking into account other factors in the process such as the original Bible text the peculiarities of their recipient local languages and their targeted audiences in their respective countries

It is obvious though that other NWT translation editions closely followed the English text of the NWT and at the same time their translation teams had enough latitude to offer their own unique renderings at times expressing in their native languages what they see in in the Inspired Text Having said that it is interesting to see how they approached their translation of John 858 from their English translation back into [modern] Greek

The translation team was acutely aware of the basic sense of ldquoegō eimirdquo as ldquoI amrdquo and how those simple words are misconstrued by religionists to say something more than Jesus intended Taking into account the syntax of John 858 as stated throughout this document the translation team who worked on the modern Greek version faced a few options

First they had the option to go back to ldquoegō eimirdquo using the modern Greek equivalent ldquoΕγώ ειμαιrdquo (I am) as it reads in the Vamvas version which they did not Or they could haveexpressed their NWT English choice of ldquoI have beenrdquo with their modern Greek equivalent of ldquoέχο υπάρξει [I have existed]rdquo Thirdly they could have gone with ldquoI wasrdquo (ldquoεγώ ήμουνrdquo) as some of their French and Italian Bible editions have done in the past or even with ldquo[εγώ] υπήρξα [I existed])rdquo Or they could have provided some other unique rendering It is obvious they wanted to stick closely to the Greek text but given the common misconceptionssurrounding ldquoegō eimai (I am)rdquo in mainstream churches the translation team chose to use ldquoεγώ υπάρχωrdquo (a present indicative form in the Greek) which means basically ldquoI existrdquo but in the presence of an expression of past time in John 858 the sense is ldquoI have existedrdquo Thus ldquoBefore Abraham came into existence I have existedrdquo ( The verb είμαι [ldquoto berdquo] in modern Greek has no forms for the perfect tense It borrows the forms from the verb υπάρχω [ldquoI existrdquo] The Greek and English ldquoperfectsrdquo are not exact equivalents either)

The reader is reminded here as noted earlier that modern Greek keeps up with the Koineacute Greek ldquopresentrdquo idiom A modern Greek grammar Greek A Comprehensive Grammar explains ldquoThe present tense is also used in constructions where English would use the perfect continuous ie where the verb expresses a continuous state or habitual event that

has lasted since a certain point in the past and is continuing up to (and including) the presentrdquo The authors provide two examples where a present verb is used with a past time indicator and where they translate using an English perfect as explained ldquoI have been living[Μένω] in this house for three years nowrdquo And ldquoI have been reading [Διαβάζω] this newspaper since 1984rdquo (Greek A Comprehensive Grammar by David Holton Peter Mackridge amp Irene Philippaki-Warburton Revised by Vassilios Spyropoulos p 294 Second edition 2012)

Ten years after the NWT-Greek Edition was released another modern Greek translation was published with the following rendering at John 858 ldquoΣας βεβαιώνω πως πριν να γεννηθεί οΑβραάμ εγώ υπάρχωrdquo which in English would be ldquoI assure you that I have existed since before Abraham was bornrdquo (Literally ldquoI assure you that before could be born the AbrahamI exist [not ldquoΕγώ ειμαιrdquo]rdquo The Holy Bible in Todays Greek Version 2003 Greek Bible Society Interestingly the original English version of 1976 had ldquoI Amrdquo) Also a Spanish Bible conveys a similar thought ldquoYo existo desde antes que existiera Abrahamrdquo [Translation ldquo I exist since before Abraham existedrdquo] (La Biblia - Versioacuten Popular 2nd edition Sociedades Biacuteblicas Unidas 1983)

_________________________________________________________

The Clear Word The translators quoted in this article represent various religious faiths some are Catholic some are Protestant Others are Unitarians Jehovahs Witnesses Jewish Adventists etc and they represent countries the world over One of these translators is a Seventh-Day Adventist who worked on The Clear Word Jack J Blanco ThD As a Seventh-Day Adventist who supports the Trinity doctrine Blanco translated verses to make Jesus ldquoequalrdquo to God in every way

He renders John 11 ldquoHe is the Word of God and is equal with Godrdquo He shows Jesus at Philippians 25-7 as ldquoequal with Godrdquo and describes him as lsquoacting the part of a servantrsquo At John 1428 he completely omits the reference that lsquothe Father is greaterrsquo than Christ But here at John 858 in answer to the question the priests and leaders asked concerning Abraham lsquoseeingrsquo his day Jesus answered according to Dr Blanco ldquoBecause I existed before Abraham was even bornrdquo Thus Dr Blanco makes no connection as others do that Christ is the ldquoI amrdquo of Exodus 314 which according to some would indicate that Jesus is the Jehovah of the Old Testament What he sees in this account is that Jesus already lsquoexisted before Abraham didrsquo and thus Abraham was able to lsquoseersquo his day (John 856) To this we must add another likely element included in Jesus response to the Jews as wellone of simple identification as ldquothe Christ [Messiah]rdquo and ldquoSon of manrdquo Why is it then that manywho support the Trinity doctrine find it hard to understand Jesus statement correctly at John 858 Could it be that they are letting non-Scriptural influence and perhaps the weight of themajority view dictate their understanding of this Scripture

For a consideration of other subjects by the same author check below

For a discussion of Acts 286 Whose blood

httpwwwscribdcomdoc231244155Acts-20-28-Whose-blood

For a discussion of Colossians 116 (ldquoall other thingsrdquo) see

httpwwwscribdcomdoc205841269Colossians-1-16-Is-the-expression-all-other-things-a-proper-rendition

For a consideration on the subject of the Trinity click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc160286056Does-the-Trinity-ever-make-sense

For a full consideration of John 11 click the following link httpwwwscribdcomdoc34916458The-correct-translation-of-John-1-1

For a brief consideration of John 11 with additional citations click here httpwwwscribdcomdoc50330864John-1-1-List-of-Alternate-Readings

Did the NW translators know any Greek click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc48234022Did-the-New-World-Translation-Committee-Know-Greek

For a consideration of John 173 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc57772552John-17-3-E28098Taking-in-knowledge-of-E28099-God-and-Jesus

For a consideration of 1 Timothy 316 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc76927834Was-God-manifested-in-the-flesh-1-Timothy-3-16

For a consideration of Exodus 225 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc38676458Exodus-2-25-And-God-took-notice-Does-God- care-about-us

For a consideration of John 114 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc35002730John-1-14-Jesus-full-of-grace

For a consideration of Translation Differences-Questions and Answershttpwwwscribdcomdoc59484457Translation-Differences-Questions-and-Answers

In Spanish

Para una consideracioacuten de otros temas vea los siguientes enlaces

Para una consideracioacuten de Colosenses 116 ldquotodas las otras cosasrdquo vea

httpwwwscribdcomdoc209601066Colosenses-1-16-C2BFEs-la-traduccion-E2809Ctodas-las-otras-cosasE2809D-apropiada

Para una consideracioacuten de ldquoiquestAcaso tiene sentido la Trinidadrdquo

httpwwwscribdcomdoc173779117C2BFAcaso-tiene-sentido-la-Trinidad

Para un consideracioacuten de Juan 11 vea el siguiente enlace

httpwwwscribdcomdoc35899788Traduccion-correcta-de-Juan-1-1-Lista-de- lecturas-alternativas

Para el tema iquestSabiacutean griego los traductores de la TNM vea el siguiente enlace

httpwwwscribdcomdoc51623596C2BFSabia-griego-el-Comite-de-la-Traduccion-del-Nuevo-Mundo

Well then if Jesus Christ expressed this one final ldquowishrdquo in prayer to be ldquoin the presence ofrdquoldquobesiderdquo ldquoalongsiderdquo his Father which he himself called ldquothe only true Godrdquo why should we for the sake of tradition insist with the belief that Jesus ldquomustrdquo somehow be that ldquotruerdquo God the One sitting at the center of Gods throne instead of ldquobesiderdquo God (Mark 1619) Christ did not ask to sit at Gods throne Christ was fully content with the premise of being alongside God And that is what actually happened Mark tells us ldquoSo then the Lord Jesus after he had spoken to them was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of Godrdquo (Mark 1619 NRSV Note Some ancient manuscripts omit this verse) The NIV Study Bible notes the significance of lsquositting at the right hand of Godrsquo ldquoA position of authority second only to Godsrdquo Being in ldquoa position of authority second only to Godsrdquo is something no one should ever say of God for he is always ldquosupremerdquo At no time does God relinquishes his supremacy Someone who holds a position of authority second to God cannot be identical to God Take note too that in this account of Mark chapter 16 or the oneat John chapter 17 there is no mention of a third party of a ldquoGodheadrdquo No ldquoHoly Spiritrdquo is in sight The fact is that the glorified Christ in heaven continues to call his Father ldquomy Godrdquo(Revelation 312)

As ldquoSon of Godrdquo and always lesser and subject to God it is illogical to think Christ would purposely usurp titles and rights that only belonged to lsquohis God and Fatherrsquo (John 1428 Matthew 2023 John 2017 Acts 17) Jesus Christ taught others to only worship the Father God (Matthew 410 John 42324) ldquoAnd we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the worldrdquo (1 John 414) If so the thought that Christ would usethe words ldquoI amrdquo as a title to identify himself as ldquothe true Godrdquo is incongruous Jesus made it clear that he would only seek the glory ldquothat comes from the one who alone is Godrdquo (John850 54 544)

In this Satan controlled world it is not that difficult to get entangled with human taught intricate philosophies which obscure the simple Christian doctrine (John 1231 2 Cor 44) Hence the need for caution at the time of defending popular traditional views which clash with the monotheistic approach of Bible writers

Consequently those who teach that Christ is Almighty God find themselves in conflict with the Scriptural record The submitted list of alternate readings of John 858 shows that there are a considerable number of scholars who not only understand the subject correctly but alsokeenly grasp that whatever Jesus said on the matter has to harmonize with both the context of John chapter 8 and the rest of the Scriptures as well

What is the correct translation of John 858

Is it ldquoI amrdquo ldquoI wasrdquo ldquoI am herdquo or ldquoI have beenrdquo After analyzing the Greek phrase ldquoegō eimirdquo the context and the various possible ways the expression can be translated in English I think it is best to render the Greek with an English present perfect Adding a smallelement such as ldquosincerdquo to the statement as McKay does below satisfies all contextual and grammatical requirements of the passage Doing so does not qualify as ldquointerpolationrdquo

A second choice a simple past tense can perhaps be used in translation where the context allows since it is grammatically correct but it is generally used of activity confined to the past so the message may be distorted Unless that is the simple past is interpreted as ldquoimperfectiverdquo with current relevance How so In support of Jesus deity many frequently cite John11 There in the text a simple past tense ldquowasrdquo is applied to ldquothe Wordrdquo three times in English versions Does that mean ldquothe Wordrdquo is no more or that it was permanentlycut-off from existence at some point Of course not The context of the whole gospel of John shows that Christ is fully pertinent in Christian lives

Scholars choosing a past tense for ldquoeimirdquo (ie ldquoI wasrdquo ldquoI existedrdquo etc) at John 858 may also have in mind what John the Baptist said as a precursor of Jesus Christ ldquoA man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was [ldquoexistedrdquo JB] before merdquo Surely John the Baptist did not mean that Jesus existence was done away with His own words show thatJesus life was very much relevant and would continue to be so Translators have no issue whatsoever in applying a past tense (ldquowasrdquo ldquoexistedrdquo) at John 11 and 130 in their English versions So why would they at John 858 Perhaps because it would mean that they wouldhave to do away with the premise of a ldquodivine titlerdquo in their argumentation of which is claimed clinches Jesus identity with Gods own As shown above Revelation 211 a presentverb a form of ldquoeimirdquo is rendered by some versions with a past tense ldquowasrdquo Obviously Bible translators have no problem in translating some present tense verbs with past tenses or with present perfects But most object to it at John 858 likely for theological reasons

As stated in the beginning of this essay the English ldquopresentrdquo and the Greek ldquopresentrdquo in certain contexts do not correspond exactly in meaning because in Greek ldquotimerdquo is a secondary factor That being the case the choice of English tense does not have to match theGreek conjugation per se to be faithful to the Sacred Text When one considers the specific idiom found in John 858 and the semantic implications of both the Greek and English ldquopresentrdquo one can see that the rendering ldquoI amrdquo though popular does not nearly represent the best translation possible in the English language ldquoContextrdquo often plays a more importantrole in determining the correct translation Overall though it is best to render the Greek expression with an English present perfect since it conveys clearly a more present relevancythan a past tense would

That said John 858 is a good example where a Greek transliteration may not be the best choice to communicate the right message effectively in our times The translation of ldquoI amrdquo has its place in extreme English literal translations which show the basic sense of the Greek such as those Interlinear translations mentioned above Also it can rightfully be used in many Scriptures where the context calls for it as when the sentence structure lacks the Greekldquoidiomrdquo discussed throughout this writing as might be the case with most occurrences of ldquoeimirdquo

Here listed in my opinion are the translations which come closest to the Greek thought presented by the particular ldquoidiomrdquo found in John 858 Dr Kenneth L McKay comes up with the correct translation

1 ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo - Kenneth L McKay A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek (SBG 5 New York Peter Lang 1994) p42

(Kenneth L McKay graduated with honours in Classics (with an interest in the Greek of theNT) from the Universities of Sydney and Cambridge He has taught Greek in universities and theological colleges in Nigeria New Zealand and England Mr McKay retired from the Australian National University in 1987 after teaching there for 26 years)

Other translations below come close to McKays rendering and are thus favored over the traditional rendering which is widely misunderstood

2 ldquoI have existed before Abraham was bornrdquo - A New Translation by James [ Moffatt - DD DLitt Glasgow Oxford 3 ldquoBefore Abraham came into existence I have beenrdquo - New World Translation 4 ldquoBefore Abraham came into being I have existedrdquo - The Documents of the [New Testament G W Wade London 5 ldquoFrom before Abraham was I have been rdquo - The New Testament by George [ R -Noyes DD Boston USA6 ldquoBefore Abraham was born I have already been rdquo - The Unvarnished New [Testament Andy Gaus Boston7 ldquoI existed even before Abraham was bornrdquo - The concise Gospel and the Acts [Logos International Christopher J ed Christianson Plainfield NJ8 ldquoI already was before Abraham was bornrdquo ndash Worldwide English New Testament [ Derby UK ________________________________

COMMENTS

Also compare the following translations

Nytt liv (1907 Norwegian)A Biacuteblia Viva (1981 Portuguese)O Novo Testamento Vivo (1974 Portuguese)Le Livre Nouveau Testament (1980 eacuteditions Farel French)Η Καινή Διαθήκη των Τεσσάρων Καθηγητών (ΚΔΤΚ Greek) (The New Testament of the Four Teachers The translation was made and approved (1921981) by the Holy Summit Church of Greece The English title of the project is The New Testament in Modern Greek Athens Greece) Η Αγία Γραφή Παλαιά και Καινή Διαθήκη (ΝΔΜ Greek) Ελληνική Βιβλική Εταιρία Αθήνα [Athens] 1997 (The Bible Old and New Testament Greek Biblical Company - London 1997) ΚΔΛΖ ΛΧ (Other Greek Versions expressing the same idea as translations on the list)___________________

ldquoI was rdquo Note on 1987 translation from Italian main list l Vangelio di Giovanni (El Evangelio de Juan [ldquoThe Gospel of Johnrdquo] with imprimatur) by J Mateos and J Barreto noted on John 858 (as translated by Teodora Tosatti p 387 Cittadela Editrice 1982) that the temporal relationship expressed by the Greek ldquoprin eimi [BeforeI am]rdquo can be translated into Italian ldquoprimaero [BeforeI was]rdquo (Translation from Italian to English mine)__________________

Comment on 1993 ΟІ ΧΡΙΣΤΙΑΝΙΚΕΣ ΓΡΑΦΕΣ Απόδοση από τη Μειάφράση Νέου Κόσμου which is a modern Greek translation of the New World Translation of the ChristianScriptures Unlike most Bible Versions which are published in only one language or a few atmost the NWT is available in dozens of languages based mainly on their English translationbut obviously taking into account other factors in the process such as the original Bible text the peculiarities of their recipient local languages and their targeted audiences in their respective countries

It is obvious though that other NWT translation editions closely followed the English text of the NWT and at the same time their translation teams had enough latitude to offer their own unique renderings at times expressing in their native languages what they see in in the Inspired Text Having said that it is interesting to see how they approached their translation of John 858 from their English translation back into [modern] Greek

The translation team was acutely aware of the basic sense of ldquoegō eimirdquo as ldquoI amrdquo and how those simple words are misconstrued by religionists to say something more than Jesus intended Taking into account the syntax of John 858 as stated throughout this document the translation team who worked on the modern Greek version faced a few options

First they had the option to go back to ldquoegō eimirdquo using the modern Greek equivalent ldquoΕγώ ειμαιrdquo (I am) as it reads in the Vamvas version which they did not Or they could haveexpressed their NWT English choice of ldquoI have beenrdquo with their modern Greek equivalent of ldquoέχο υπάρξει [I have existed]rdquo Thirdly they could have gone with ldquoI wasrdquo (ldquoεγώ ήμουνrdquo) as some of their French and Italian Bible editions have done in the past or even with ldquo[εγώ] υπήρξα [I existed])rdquo Or they could have provided some other unique rendering It is obvious they wanted to stick closely to the Greek text but given the common misconceptionssurrounding ldquoegō eimai (I am)rdquo in mainstream churches the translation team chose to use ldquoεγώ υπάρχωrdquo (a present indicative form in the Greek) which means basically ldquoI existrdquo but in the presence of an expression of past time in John 858 the sense is ldquoI have existedrdquo Thus ldquoBefore Abraham came into existence I have existedrdquo ( The verb είμαι [ldquoto berdquo] in modern Greek has no forms for the perfect tense It borrows the forms from the verb υπάρχω [ldquoI existrdquo] The Greek and English ldquoperfectsrdquo are not exact equivalents either)

The reader is reminded here as noted earlier that modern Greek keeps up with the Koineacute Greek ldquopresentrdquo idiom A modern Greek grammar Greek A Comprehensive Grammar explains ldquoThe present tense is also used in constructions where English would use the perfect continuous ie where the verb expresses a continuous state or habitual event that

has lasted since a certain point in the past and is continuing up to (and including) the presentrdquo The authors provide two examples where a present verb is used with a past time indicator and where they translate using an English perfect as explained ldquoI have been living[Μένω] in this house for three years nowrdquo And ldquoI have been reading [Διαβάζω] this newspaper since 1984rdquo (Greek A Comprehensive Grammar by David Holton Peter Mackridge amp Irene Philippaki-Warburton Revised by Vassilios Spyropoulos p 294 Second edition 2012)

Ten years after the NWT-Greek Edition was released another modern Greek translation was published with the following rendering at John 858 ldquoΣας βεβαιώνω πως πριν να γεννηθεί οΑβραάμ εγώ υπάρχωrdquo which in English would be ldquoI assure you that I have existed since before Abraham was bornrdquo (Literally ldquoI assure you that before could be born the AbrahamI exist [not ldquoΕγώ ειμαιrdquo]rdquo The Holy Bible in Todays Greek Version 2003 Greek Bible Society Interestingly the original English version of 1976 had ldquoI Amrdquo) Also a Spanish Bible conveys a similar thought ldquoYo existo desde antes que existiera Abrahamrdquo [Translation ldquo I exist since before Abraham existedrdquo] (La Biblia - Versioacuten Popular 2nd edition Sociedades Biacuteblicas Unidas 1983)

_________________________________________________________

The Clear Word The translators quoted in this article represent various religious faiths some are Catholic some are Protestant Others are Unitarians Jehovahs Witnesses Jewish Adventists etc and they represent countries the world over One of these translators is a Seventh-Day Adventist who worked on The Clear Word Jack J Blanco ThD As a Seventh-Day Adventist who supports the Trinity doctrine Blanco translated verses to make Jesus ldquoequalrdquo to God in every way

He renders John 11 ldquoHe is the Word of God and is equal with Godrdquo He shows Jesus at Philippians 25-7 as ldquoequal with Godrdquo and describes him as lsquoacting the part of a servantrsquo At John 1428 he completely omits the reference that lsquothe Father is greaterrsquo than Christ But here at John 858 in answer to the question the priests and leaders asked concerning Abraham lsquoseeingrsquo his day Jesus answered according to Dr Blanco ldquoBecause I existed before Abraham was even bornrdquo Thus Dr Blanco makes no connection as others do that Christ is the ldquoI amrdquo of Exodus 314 which according to some would indicate that Jesus is the Jehovah of the Old Testament What he sees in this account is that Jesus already lsquoexisted before Abraham didrsquo and thus Abraham was able to lsquoseersquo his day (John 856) To this we must add another likely element included in Jesus response to the Jews as wellone of simple identification as ldquothe Christ [Messiah]rdquo and ldquoSon of manrdquo Why is it then that manywho support the Trinity doctrine find it hard to understand Jesus statement correctly at John 858 Could it be that they are letting non-Scriptural influence and perhaps the weight of themajority view dictate their understanding of this Scripture

For a consideration of other subjects by the same author check below

For a discussion of Acts 286 Whose blood

httpwwwscribdcomdoc231244155Acts-20-28-Whose-blood

For a discussion of Colossians 116 (ldquoall other thingsrdquo) see

httpwwwscribdcomdoc205841269Colossians-1-16-Is-the-expression-all-other-things-a-proper-rendition

For a consideration on the subject of the Trinity click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc160286056Does-the-Trinity-ever-make-sense

For a full consideration of John 11 click the following link httpwwwscribdcomdoc34916458The-correct-translation-of-John-1-1

For a brief consideration of John 11 with additional citations click here httpwwwscribdcomdoc50330864John-1-1-List-of-Alternate-Readings

Did the NW translators know any Greek click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc48234022Did-the-New-World-Translation-Committee-Know-Greek

For a consideration of John 173 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc57772552John-17-3-E28098Taking-in-knowledge-of-E28099-God-and-Jesus

For a consideration of 1 Timothy 316 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc76927834Was-God-manifested-in-the-flesh-1-Timothy-3-16

For a consideration of Exodus 225 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc38676458Exodus-2-25-And-God-took-notice-Does-God- care-about-us

For a consideration of John 114 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc35002730John-1-14-Jesus-full-of-grace

For a consideration of Translation Differences-Questions and Answershttpwwwscribdcomdoc59484457Translation-Differences-Questions-and-Answers

In Spanish

Para una consideracioacuten de otros temas vea los siguientes enlaces

Para una consideracioacuten de Colosenses 116 ldquotodas las otras cosasrdquo vea

httpwwwscribdcomdoc209601066Colosenses-1-16-C2BFEs-la-traduccion-E2809Ctodas-las-otras-cosasE2809D-apropiada

Para una consideracioacuten de ldquoiquestAcaso tiene sentido la Trinidadrdquo

httpwwwscribdcomdoc173779117C2BFAcaso-tiene-sentido-la-Trinidad

Para un consideracioacuten de Juan 11 vea el siguiente enlace

httpwwwscribdcomdoc35899788Traduccion-correcta-de-Juan-1-1-Lista-de- lecturas-alternativas

Para el tema iquestSabiacutean griego los traductores de la TNM vea el siguiente enlace

httpwwwscribdcomdoc51623596C2BFSabia-griego-el-Comite-de-la-Traduccion-del-Nuevo-Mundo

A second choice a simple past tense can perhaps be used in translation where the context allows since it is grammatically correct but it is generally used of activity confined to the past so the message may be distorted Unless that is the simple past is interpreted as ldquoimperfectiverdquo with current relevance How so In support of Jesus deity many frequently cite John11 There in the text a simple past tense ldquowasrdquo is applied to ldquothe Wordrdquo three times in English versions Does that mean ldquothe Wordrdquo is no more or that it was permanentlycut-off from existence at some point Of course not The context of the whole gospel of John shows that Christ is fully pertinent in Christian lives

Scholars choosing a past tense for ldquoeimirdquo (ie ldquoI wasrdquo ldquoI existedrdquo etc) at John 858 may also have in mind what John the Baptist said as a precursor of Jesus Christ ldquoA man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was [ldquoexistedrdquo JB] before merdquo Surely John the Baptist did not mean that Jesus existence was done away with His own words show thatJesus life was very much relevant and would continue to be so Translators have no issue whatsoever in applying a past tense (ldquowasrdquo ldquoexistedrdquo) at John 11 and 130 in their English versions So why would they at John 858 Perhaps because it would mean that they wouldhave to do away with the premise of a ldquodivine titlerdquo in their argumentation of which is claimed clinches Jesus identity with Gods own As shown above Revelation 211 a presentverb a form of ldquoeimirdquo is rendered by some versions with a past tense ldquowasrdquo Obviously Bible translators have no problem in translating some present tense verbs with past tenses or with present perfects But most object to it at John 858 likely for theological reasons

As stated in the beginning of this essay the English ldquopresentrdquo and the Greek ldquopresentrdquo in certain contexts do not correspond exactly in meaning because in Greek ldquotimerdquo is a secondary factor That being the case the choice of English tense does not have to match theGreek conjugation per se to be faithful to the Sacred Text When one considers the specific idiom found in John 858 and the semantic implications of both the Greek and English ldquopresentrdquo one can see that the rendering ldquoI amrdquo though popular does not nearly represent the best translation possible in the English language ldquoContextrdquo often plays a more importantrole in determining the correct translation Overall though it is best to render the Greek expression with an English present perfect since it conveys clearly a more present relevancythan a past tense would

That said John 858 is a good example where a Greek transliteration may not be the best choice to communicate the right message effectively in our times The translation of ldquoI amrdquo has its place in extreme English literal translations which show the basic sense of the Greek such as those Interlinear translations mentioned above Also it can rightfully be used in many Scriptures where the context calls for it as when the sentence structure lacks the Greekldquoidiomrdquo discussed throughout this writing as might be the case with most occurrences of ldquoeimirdquo

Here listed in my opinion are the translations which come closest to the Greek thought presented by the particular ldquoidiomrdquo found in John 858 Dr Kenneth L McKay comes up with the correct translation

1 ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo - Kenneth L McKay A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek (SBG 5 New York Peter Lang 1994) p42

(Kenneth L McKay graduated with honours in Classics (with an interest in the Greek of theNT) from the Universities of Sydney and Cambridge He has taught Greek in universities and theological colleges in Nigeria New Zealand and England Mr McKay retired from the Australian National University in 1987 after teaching there for 26 years)

Other translations below come close to McKays rendering and are thus favored over the traditional rendering which is widely misunderstood

2 ldquoI have existed before Abraham was bornrdquo - A New Translation by James [ Moffatt - DD DLitt Glasgow Oxford 3 ldquoBefore Abraham came into existence I have beenrdquo - New World Translation 4 ldquoBefore Abraham came into being I have existedrdquo - The Documents of the [New Testament G W Wade London 5 ldquoFrom before Abraham was I have been rdquo - The New Testament by George [ R -Noyes DD Boston USA6 ldquoBefore Abraham was born I have already been rdquo - The Unvarnished New [Testament Andy Gaus Boston7 ldquoI existed even before Abraham was bornrdquo - The concise Gospel and the Acts [Logos International Christopher J ed Christianson Plainfield NJ8 ldquoI already was before Abraham was bornrdquo ndash Worldwide English New Testament [ Derby UK ________________________________

COMMENTS

Also compare the following translations

Nytt liv (1907 Norwegian)A Biacuteblia Viva (1981 Portuguese)O Novo Testamento Vivo (1974 Portuguese)Le Livre Nouveau Testament (1980 eacuteditions Farel French)Η Καινή Διαθήκη των Τεσσάρων Καθηγητών (ΚΔΤΚ Greek) (The New Testament of the Four Teachers The translation was made and approved (1921981) by the Holy Summit Church of Greece The English title of the project is The New Testament in Modern Greek Athens Greece) Η Αγία Γραφή Παλαιά και Καινή Διαθήκη (ΝΔΜ Greek) Ελληνική Βιβλική Εταιρία Αθήνα [Athens] 1997 (The Bible Old and New Testament Greek Biblical Company - London 1997) ΚΔΛΖ ΛΧ (Other Greek Versions expressing the same idea as translations on the list)___________________

ldquoI was rdquo Note on 1987 translation from Italian main list l Vangelio di Giovanni (El Evangelio de Juan [ldquoThe Gospel of Johnrdquo] with imprimatur) by J Mateos and J Barreto noted on John 858 (as translated by Teodora Tosatti p 387 Cittadela Editrice 1982) that the temporal relationship expressed by the Greek ldquoprin eimi [BeforeI am]rdquo can be translated into Italian ldquoprimaero [BeforeI was]rdquo (Translation from Italian to English mine)__________________

Comment on 1993 ΟІ ΧΡΙΣΤΙΑΝΙΚΕΣ ΓΡΑΦΕΣ Απόδοση από τη Μειάφράση Νέου Κόσμου which is a modern Greek translation of the New World Translation of the ChristianScriptures Unlike most Bible Versions which are published in only one language or a few atmost the NWT is available in dozens of languages based mainly on their English translationbut obviously taking into account other factors in the process such as the original Bible text the peculiarities of their recipient local languages and their targeted audiences in their respective countries

It is obvious though that other NWT translation editions closely followed the English text of the NWT and at the same time their translation teams had enough latitude to offer their own unique renderings at times expressing in their native languages what they see in in the Inspired Text Having said that it is interesting to see how they approached their translation of John 858 from their English translation back into [modern] Greek

The translation team was acutely aware of the basic sense of ldquoegō eimirdquo as ldquoI amrdquo and how those simple words are misconstrued by religionists to say something more than Jesus intended Taking into account the syntax of John 858 as stated throughout this document the translation team who worked on the modern Greek version faced a few options

First they had the option to go back to ldquoegō eimirdquo using the modern Greek equivalent ldquoΕγώ ειμαιrdquo (I am) as it reads in the Vamvas version which they did not Or they could haveexpressed their NWT English choice of ldquoI have beenrdquo with their modern Greek equivalent of ldquoέχο υπάρξει [I have existed]rdquo Thirdly they could have gone with ldquoI wasrdquo (ldquoεγώ ήμουνrdquo) as some of their French and Italian Bible editions have done in the past or even with ldquo[εγώ] υπήρξα [I existed])rdquo Or they could have provided some other unique rendering It is obvious they wanted to stick closely to the Greek text but given the common misconceptionssurrounding ldquoegō eimai (I am)rdquo in mainstream churches the translation team chose to use ldquoεγώ υπάρχωrdquo (a present indicative form in the Greek) which means basically ldquoI existrdquo but in the presence of an expression of past time in John 858 the sense is ldquoI have existedrdquo Thus ldquoBefore Abraham came into existence I have existedrdquo ( The verb είμαι [ldquoto berdquo] in modern Greek has no forms for the perfect tense It borrows the forms from the verb υπάρχω [ldquoI existrdquo] The Greek and English ldquoperfectsrdquo are not exact equivalents either)

The reader is reminded here as noted earlier that modern Greek keeps up with the Koineacute Greek ldquopresentrdquo idiom A modern Greek grammar Greek A Comprehensive Grammar explains ldquoThe present tense is also used in constructions where English would use the perfect continuous ie where the verb expresses a continuous state or habitual event that

has lasted since a certain point in the past and is continuing up to (and including) the presentrdquo The authors provide two examples where a present verb is used with a past time indicator and where they translate using an English perfect as explained ldquoI have been living[Μένω] in this house for three years nowrdquo And ldquoI have been reading [Διαβάζω] this newspaper since 1984rdquo (Greek A Comprehensive Grammar by David Holton Peter Mackridge amp Irene Philippaki-Warburton Revised by Vassilios Spyropoulos p 294 Second edition 2012)

Ten years after the NWT-Greek Edition was released another modern Greek translation was published with the following rendering at John 858 ldquoΣας βεβαιώνω πως πριν να γεννηθεί οΑβραάμ εγώ υπάρχωrdquo which in English would be ldquoI assure you that I have existed since before Abraham was bornrdquo (Literally ldquoI assure you that before could be born the AbrahamI exist [not ldquoΕγώ ειμαιrdquo]rdquo The Holy Bible in Todays Greek Version 2003 Greek Bible Society Interestingly the original English version of 1976 had ldquoI Amrdquo) Also a Spanish Bible conveys a similar thought ldquoYo existo desde antes que existiera Abrahamrdquo [Translation ldquo I exist since before Abraham existedrdquo] (La Biblia - Versioacuten Popular 2nd edition Sociedades Biacuteblicas Unidas 1983)

_________________________________________________________

The Clear Word The translators quoted in this article represent various religious faiths some are Catholic some are Protestant Others are Unitarians Jehovahs Witnesses Jewish Adventists etc and they represent countries the world over One of these translators is a Seventh-Day Adventist who worked on The Clear Word Jack J Blanco ThD As a Seventh-Day Adventist who supports the Trinity doctrine Blanco translated verses to make Jesus ldquoequalrdquo to God in every way

He renders John 11 ldquoHe is the Word of God and is equal with Godrdquo He shows Jesus at Philippians 25-7 as ldquoequal with Godrdquo and describes him as lsquoacting the part of a servantrsquo At John 1428 he completely omits the reference that lsquothe Father is greaterrsquo than Christ But here at John 858 in answer to the question the priests and leaders asked concerning Abraham lsquoseeingrsquo his day Jesus answered according to Dr Blanco ldquoBecause I existed before Abraham was even bornrdquo Thus Dr Blanco makes no connection as others do that Christ is the ldquoI amrdquo of Exodus 314 which according to some would indicate that Jesus is the Jehovah of the Old Testament What he sees in this account is that Jesus already lsquoexisted before Abraham didrsquo and thus Abraham was able to lsquoseersquo his day (John 856) To this we must add another likely element included in Jesus response to the Jews as wellone of simple identification as ldquothe Christ [Messiah]rdquo and ldquoSon of manrdquo Why is it then that manywho support the Trinity doctrine find it hard to understand Jesus statement correctly at John 858 Could it be that they are letting non-Scriptural influence and perhaps the weight of themajority view dictate their understanding of this Scripture

For a consideration of other subjects by the same author check below

For a discussion of Acts 286 Whose blood

httpwwwscribdcomdoc231244155Acts-20-28-Whose-blood

For a discussion of Colossians 116 (ldquoall other thingsrdquo) see

httpwwwscribdcomdoc205841269Colossians-1-16-Is-the-expression-all-other-things-a-proper-rendition

For a consideration on the subject of the Trinity click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc160286056Does-the-Trinity-ever-make-sense

For a full consideration of John 11 click the following link httpwwwscribdcomdoc34916458The-correct-translation-of-John-1-1

For a brief consideration of John 11 with additional citations click here httpwwwscribdcomdoc50330864John-1-1-List-of-Alternate-Readings

Did the NW translators know any Greek click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc48234022Did-the-New-World-Translation-Committee-Know-Greek

For a consideration of John 173 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc57772552John-17-3-E28098Taking-in-knowledge-of-E28099-God-and-Jesus

For a consideration of 1 Timothy 316 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc76927834Was-God-manifested-in-the-flesh-1-Timothy-3-16

For a consideration of Exodus 225 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc38676458Exodus-2-25-And-God-took-notice-Does-God- care-about-us

For a consideration of John 114 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc35002730John-1-14-Jesus-full-of-grace

For a consideration of Translation Differences-Questions and Answershttpwwwscribdcomdoc59484457Translation-Differences-Questions-and-Answers

In Spanish

Para una consideracioacuten de otros temas vea los siguientes enlaces

Para una consideracioacuten de Colosenses 116 ldquotodas las otras cosasrdquo vea

httpwwwscribdcomdoc209601066Colosenses-1-16-C2BFEs-la-traduccion-E2809Ctodas-las-otras-cosasE2809D-apropiada

Para una consideracioacuten de ldquoiquestAcaso tiene sentido la Trinidadrdquo

httpwwwscribdcomdoc173779117C2BFAcaso-tiene-sentido-la-Trinidad

Para un consideracioacuten de Juan 11 vea el siguiente enlace

httpwwwscribdcomdoc35899788Traduccion-correcta-de-Juan-1-1-Lista-de- lecturas-alternativas

Para el tema iquestSabiacutean griego los traductores de la TNM vea el siguiente enlace

httpwwwscribdcomdoc51623596C2BFSabia-griego-el-Comite-de-la-Traduccion-del-Nuevo-Mundo

1 ldquoI have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo - Kenneth L McKay A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek (SBG 5 New York Peter Lang 1994) p42

(Kenneth L McKay graduated with honours in Classics (with an interest in the Greek of theNT) from the Universities of Sydney and Cambridge He has taught Greek in universities and theological colleges in Nigeria New Zealand and England Mr McKay retired from the Australian National University in 1987 after teaching there for 26 years)

Other translations below come close to McKays rendering and are thus favored over the traditional rendering which is widely misunderstood

2 ldquoI have existed before Abraham was bornrdquo - A New Translation by James [ Moffatt - DD DLitt Glasgow Oxford 3 ldquoBefore Abraham came into existence I have beenrdquo - New World Translation 4 ldquoBefore Abraham came into being I have existedrdquo - The Documents of the [New Testament G W Wade London 5 ldquoFrom before Abraham was I have been rdquo - The New Testament by George [ R -Noyes DD Boston USA6 ldquoBefore Abraham was born I have already been rdquo - The Unvarnished New [Testament Andy Gaus Boston7 ldquoI existed even before Abraham was bornrdquo - The concise Gospel and the Acts [Logos International Christopher J ed Christianson Plainfield NJ8 ldquoI already was before Abraham was bornrdquo ndash Worldwide English New Testament [ Derby UK ________________________________

COMMENTS

Also compare the following translations

Nytt liv (1907 Norwegian)A Biacuteblia Viva (1981 Portuguese)O Novo Testamento Vivo (1974 Portuguese)Le Livre Nouveau Testament (1980 eacuteditions Farel French)Η Καινή Διαθήκη των Τεσσάρων Καθηγητών (ΚΔΤΚ Greek) (The New Testament of the Four Teachers The translation was made and approved (1921981) by the Holy Summit Church of Greece The English title of the project is The New Testament in Modern Greek Athens Greece) Η Αγία Γραφή Παλαιά και Καινή Διαθήκη (ΝΔΜ Greek) Ελληνική Βιβλική Εταιρία Αθήνα [Athens] 1997 (The Bible Old and New Testament Greek Biblical Company - London 1997) ΚΔΛΖ ΛΧ (Other Greek Versions expressing the same idea as translations on the list)___________________

ldquoI was rdquo Note on 1987 translation from Italian main list l Vangelio di Giovanni (El Evangelio de Juan [ldquoThe Gospel of Johnrdquo] with imprimatur) by J Mateos and J Barreto noted on John 858 (as translated by Teodora Tosatti p 387 Cittadela Editrice 1982) that the temporal relationship expressed by the Greek ldquoprin eimi [BeforeI am]rdquo can be translated into Italian ldquoprimaero [BeforeI was]rdquo (Translation from Italian to English mine)__________________

Comment on 1993 ΟІ ΧΡΙΣΤΙΑΝΙΚΕΣ ΓΡΑΦΕΣ Απόδοση από τη Μειάφράση Νέου Κόσμου which is a modern Greek translation of the New World Translation of the ChristianScriptures Unlike most Bible Versions which are published in only one language or a few atmost the NWT is available in dozens of languages based mainly on their English translationbut obviously taking into account other factors in the process such as the original Bible text the peculiarities of their recipient local languages and their targeted audiences in their respective countries

It is obvious though that other NWT translation editions closely followed the English text of the NWT and at the same time their translation teams had enough latitude to offer their own unique renderings at times expressing in their native languages what they see in in the Inspired Text Having said that it is interesting to see how they approached their translation of John 858 from their English translation back into [modern] Greek

The translation team was acutely aware of the basic sense of ldquoegō eimirdquo as ldquoI amrdquo and how those simple words are misconstrued by religionists to say something more than Jesus intended Taking into account the syntax of John 858 as stated throughout this document the translation team who worked on the modern Greek version faced a few options

First they had the option to go back to ldquoegō eimirdquo using the modern Greek equivalent ldquoΕγώ ειμαιrdquo (I am) as it reads in the Vamvas version which they did not Or they could haveexpressed their NWT English choice of ldquoI have beenrdquo with their modern Greek equivalent of ldquoέχο υπάρξει [I have existed]rdquo Thirdly they could have gone with ldquoI wasrdquo (ldquoεγώ ήμουνrdquo) as some of their French and Italian Bible editions have done in the past or even with ldquo[εγώ] υπήρξα [I existed])rdquo Or they could have provided some other unique rendering It is obvious they wanted to stick closely to the Greek text but given the common misconceptionssurrounding ldquoegō eimai (I am)rdquo in mainstream churches the translation team chose to use ldquoεγώ υπάρχωrdquo (a present indicative form in the Greek) which means basically ldquoI existrdquo but in the presence of an expression of past time in John 858 the sense is ldquoI have existedrdquo Thus ldquoBefore Abraham came into existence I have existedrdquo ( The verb είμαι [ldquoto berdquo] in modern Greek has no forms for the perfect tense It borrows the forms from the verb υπάρχω [ldquoI existrdquo] The Greek and English ldquoperfectsrdquo are not exact equivalents either)

The reader is reminded here as noted earlier that modern Greek keeps up with the Koineacute Greek ldquopresentrdquo idiom A modern Greek grammar Greek A Comprehensive Grammar explains ldquoThe present tense is also used in constructions where English would use the perfect continuous ie where the verb expresses a continuous state or habitual event that

has lasted since a certain point in the past and is continuing up to (and including) the presentrdquo The authors provide two examples where a present verb is used with a past time indicator and where they translate using an English perfect as explained ldquoI have been living[Μένω] in this house for three years nowrdquo And ldquoI have been reading [Διαβάζω] this newspaper since 1984rdquo (Greek A Comprehensive Grammar by David Holton Peter Mackridge amp Irene Philippaki-Warburton Revised by Vassilios Spyropoulos p 294 Second edition 2012)

Ten years after the NWT-Greek Edition was released another modern Greek translation was published with the following rendering at John 858 ldquoΣας βεβαιώνω πως πριν να γεννηθεί οΑβραάμ εγώ υπάρχωrdquo which in English would be ldquoI assure you that I have existed since before Abraham was bornrdquo (Literally ldquoI assure you that before could be born the AbrahamI exist [not ldquoΕγώ ειμαιrdquo]rdquo The Holy Bible in Todays Greek Version 2003 Greek Bible Society Interestingly the original English version of 1976 had ldquoI Amrdquo) Also a Spanish Bible conveys a similar thought ldquoYo existo desde antes que existiera Abrahamrdquo [Translation ldquo I exist since before Abraham existedrdquo] (La Biblia - Versioacuten Popular 2nd edition Sociedades Biacuteblicas Unidas 1983)

_________________________________________________________

The Clear Word The translators quoted in this article represent various religious faiths some are Catholic some are Protestant Others are Unitarians Jehovahs Witnesses Jewish Adventists etc and they represent countries the world over One of these translators is a Seventh-Day Adventist who worked on The Clear Word Jack J Blanco ThD As a Seventh-Day Adventist who supports the Trinity doctrine Blanco translated verses to make Jesus ldquoequalrdquo to God in every way

He renders John 11 ldquoHe is the Word of God and is equal with Godrdquo He shows Jesus at Philippians 25-7 as ldquoequal with Godrdquo and describes him as lsquoacting the part of a servantrsquo At John 1428 he completely omits the reference that lsquothe Father is greaterrsquo than Christ But here at John 858 in answer to the question the priests and leaders asked concerning Abraham lsquoseeingrsquo his day Jesus answered according to Dr Blanco ldquoBecause I existed before Abraham was even bornrdquo Thus Dr Blanco makes no connection as others do that Christ is the ldquoI amrdquo of Exodus 314 which according to some would indicate that Jesus is the Jehovah of the Old Testament What he sees in this account is that Jesus already lsquoexisted before Abraham didrsquo and thus Abraham was able to lsquoseersquo his day (John 856) To this we must add another likely element included in Jesus response to the Jews as wellone of simple identification as ldquothe Christ [Messiah]rdquo and ldquoSon of manrdquo Why is it then that manywho support the Trinity doctrine find it hard to understand Jesus statement correctly at John 858 Could it be that they are letting non-Scriptural influence and perhaps the weight of themajority view dictate their understanding of this Scripture

For a consideration of other subjects by the same author check below

For a discussion of Acts 286 Whose blood

httpwwwscribdcomdoc231244155Acts-20-28-Whose-blood

For a discussion of Colossians 116 (ldquoall other thingsrdquo) see

httpwwwscribdcomdoc205841269Colossians-1-16-Is-the-expression-all-other-things-a-proper-rendition

For a consideration on the subject of the Trinity click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc160286056Does-the-Trinity-ever-make-sense

For a full consideration of John 11 click the following link httpwwwscribdcomdoc34916458The-correct-translation-of-John-1-1

For a brief consideration of John 11 with additional citations click here httpwwwscribdcomdoc50330864John-1-1-List-of-Alternate-Readings

Did the NW translators know any Greek click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc48234022Did-the-New-World-Translation-Committee-Know-Greek

For a consideration of John 173 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc57772552John-17-3-E28098Taking-in-knowledge-of-E28099-God-and-Jesus

For a consideration of 1 Timothy 316 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc76927834Was-God-manifested-in-the-flesh-1-Timothy-3-16

For a consideration of Exodus 225 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc38676458Exodus-2-25-And-God-took-notice-Does-God- care-about-us

For a consideration of John 114 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc35002730John-1-14-Jesus-full-of-grace

For a consideration of Translation Differences-Questions and Answershttpwwwscribdcomdoc59484457Translation-Differences-Questions-and-Answers

In Spanish

Para una consideracioacuten de otros temas vea los siguientes enlaces

Para una consideracioacuten de Colosenses 116 ldquotodas las otras cosasrdquo vea

httpwwwscribdcomdoc209601066Colosenses-1-16-C2BFEs-la-traduccion-E2809Ctodas-las-otras-cosasE2809D-apropiada

Para una consideracioacuten de ldquoiquestAcaso tiene sentido la Trinidadrdquo

httpwwwscribdcomdoc173779117C2BFAcaso-tiene-sentido-la-Trinidad

Para un consideracioacuten de Juan 11 vea el siguiente enlace

httpwwwscribdcomdoc35899788Traduccion-correcta-de-Juan-1-1-Lista-de- lecturas-alternativas

Para el tema iquestSabiacutean griego los traductores de la TNM vea el siguiente enlace

httpwwwscribdcomdoc51623596C2BFSabia-griego-el-Comite-de-la-Traduccion-del-Nuevo-Mundo

ldquoI was rdquo Note on 1987 translation from Italian main list l Vangelio di Giovanni (El Evangelio de Juan [ldquoThe Gospel of Johnrdquo] with imprimatur) by J Mateos and J Barreto noted on John 858 (as translated by Teodora Tosatti p 387 Cittadela Editrice 1982) that the temporal relationship expressed by the Greek ldquoprin eimi [BeforeI am]rdquo can be translated into Italian ldquoprimaero [BeforeI was]rdquo (Translation from Italian to English mine)__________________

Comment on 1993 ΟІ ΧΡΙΣΤΙΑΝΙΚΕΣ ΓΡΑΦΕΣ Απόδοση από τη Μειάφράση Νέου Κόσμου which is a modern Greek translation of the New World Translation of the ChristianScriptures Unlike most Bible Versions which are published in only one language or a few atmost the NWT is available in dozens of languages based mainly on their English translationbut obviously taking into account other factors in the process such as the original Bible text the peculiarities of their recipient local languages and their targeted audiences in their respective countries

It is obvious though that other NWT translation editions closely followed the English text of the NWT and at the same time their translation teams had enough latitude to offer their own unique renderings at times expressing in their native languages what they see in in the Inspired Text Having said that it is interesting to see how they approached their translation of John 858 from their English translation back into [modern] Greek

The translation team was acutely aware of the basic sense of ldquoegō eimirdquo as ldquoI amrdquo and how those simple words are misconstrued by religionists to say something more than Jesus intended Taking into account the syntax of John 858 as stated throughout this document the translation team who worked on the modern Greek version faced a few options

First they had the option to go back to ldquoegō eimirdquo using the modern Greek equivalent ldquoΕγώ ειμαιrdquo (I am) as it reads in the Vamvas version which they did not Or they could haveexpressed their NWT English choice of ldquoI have beenrdquo with their modern Greek equivalent of ldquoέχο υπάρξει [I have existed]rdquo Thirdly they could have gone with ldquoI wasrdquo (ldquoεγώ ήμουνrdquo) as some of their French and Italian Bible editions have done in the past or even with ldquo[εγώ] υπήρξα [I existed])rdquo Or they could have provided some other unique rendering It is obvious they wanted to stick closely to the Greek text but given the common misconceptionssurrounding ldquoegō eimai (I am)rdquo in mainstream churches the translation team chose to use ldquoεγώ υπάρχωrdquo (a present indicative form in the Greek) which means basically ldquoI existrdquo but in the presence of an expression of past time in John 858 the sense is ldquoI have existedrdquo Thus ldquoBefore Abraham came into existence I have existedrdquo ( The verb είμαι [ldquoto berdquo] in modern Greek has no forms for the perfect tense It borrows the forms from the verb υπάρχω [ldquoI existrdquo] The Greek and English ldquoperfectsrdquo are not exact equivalents either)

The reader is reminded here as noted earlier that modern Greek keeps up with the Koineacute Greek ldquopresentrdquo idiom A modern Greek grammar Greek A Comprehensive Grammar explains ldquoThe present tense is also used in constructions where English would use the perfect continuous ie where the verb expresses a continuous state or habitual event that

has lasted since a certain point in the past and is continuing up to (and including) the presentrdquo The authors provide two examples where a present verb is used with a past time indicator and where they translate using an English perfect as explained ldquoI have been living[Μένω] in this house for three years nowrdquo And ldquoI have been reading [Διαβάζω] this newspaper since 1984rdquo (Greek A Comprehensive Grammar by David Holton Peter Mackridge amp Irene Philippaki-Warburton Revised by Vassilios Spyropoulos p 294 Second edition 2012)

Ten years after the NWT-Greek Edition was released another modern Greek translation was published with the following rendering at John 858 ldquoΣας βεβαιώνω πως πριν να γεννηθεί οΑβραάμ εγώ υπάρχωrdquo which in English would be ldquoI assure you that I have existed since before Abraham was bornrdquo (Literally ldquoI assure you that before could be born the AbrahamI exist [not ldquoΕγώ ειμαιrdquo]rdquo The Holy Bible in Todays Greek Version 2003 Greek Bible Society Interestingly the original English version of 1976 had ldquoI Amrdquo) Also a Spanish Bible conveys a similar thought ldquoYo existo desde antes que existiera Abrahamrdquo [Translation ldquo I exist since before Abraham existedrdquo] (La Biblia - Versioacuten Popular 2nd edition Sociedades Biacuteblicas Unidas 1983)

_________________________________________________________

The Clear Word The translators quoted in this article represent various religious faiths some are Catholic some are Protestant Others are Unitarians Jehovahs Witnesses Jewish Adventists etc and they represent countries the world over One of these translators is a Seventh-Day Adventist who worked on The Clear Word Jack J Blanco ThD As a Seventh-Day Adventist who supports the Trinity doctrine Blanco translated verses to make Jesus ldquoequalrdquo to God in every way

He renders John 11 ldquoHe is the Word of God and is equal with Godrdquo He shows Jesus at Philippians 25-7 as ldquoequal with Godrdquo and describes him as lsquoacting the part of a servantrsquo At John 1428 he completely omits the reference that lsquothe Father is greaterrsquo than Christ But here at John 858 in answer to the question the priests and leaders asked concerning Abraham lsquoseeingrsquo his day Jesus answered according to Dr Blanco ldquoBecause I existed before Abraham was even bornrdquo Thus Dr Blanco makes no connection as others do that Christ is the ldquoI amrdquo of Exodus 314 which according to some would indicate that Jesus is the Jehovah of the Old Testament What he sees in this account is that Jesus already lsquoexisted before Abraham didrsquo and thus Abraham was able to lsquoseersquo his day (John 856) To this we must add another likely element included in Jesus response to the Jews as wellone of simple identification as ldquothe Christ [Messiah]rdquo and ldquoSon of manrdquo Why is it then that manywho support the Trinity doctrine find it hard to understand Jesus statement correctly at John 858 Could it be that they are letting non-Scriptural influence and perhaps the weight of themajority view dictate their understanding of this Scripture

For a consideration of other subjects by the same author check below

For a discussion of Acts 286 Whose blood

httpwwwscribdcomdoc231244155Acts-20-28-Whose-blood

For a discussion of Colossians 116 (ldquoall other thingsrdquo) see

httpwwwscribdcomdoc205841269Colossians-1-16-Is-the-expression-all-other-things-a-proper-rendition

For a consideration on the subject of the Trinity click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc160286056Does-the-Trinity-ever-make-sense

For a full consideration of John 11 click the following link httpwwwscribdcomdoc34916458The-correct-translation-of-John-1-1

For a brief consideration of John 11 with additional citations click here httpwwwscribdcomdoc50330864John-1-1-List-of-Alternate-Readings

Did the NW translators know any Greek click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc48234022Did-the-New-World-Translation-Committee-Know-Greek

For a consideration of John 173 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc57772552John-17-3-E28098Taking-in-knowledge-of-E28099-God-and-Jesus

For a consideration of 1 Timothy 316 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc76927834Was-God-manifested-in-the-flesh-1-Timothy-3-16

For a consideration of Exodus 225 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc38676458Exodus-2-25-And-God-took-notice-Does-God- care-about-us

For a consideration of John 114 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc35002730John-1-14-Jesus-full-of-grace

For a consideration of Translation Differences-Questions and Answershttpwwwscribdcomdoc59484457Translation-Differences-Questions-and-Answers

In Spanish

Para una consideracioacuten de otros temas vea los siguientes enlaces

Para una consideracioacuten de Colosenses 116 ldquotodas las otras cosasrdquo vea

httpwwwscribdcomdoc209601066Colosenses-1-16-C2BFEs-la-traduccion-E2809Ctodas-las-otras-cosasE2809D-apropiada

Para una consideracioacuten de ldquoiquestAcaso tiene sentido la Trinidadrdquo

httpwwwscribdcomdoc173779117C2BFAcaso-tiene-sentido-la-Trinidad

Para un consideracioacuten de Juan 11 vea el siguiente enlace

httpwwwscribdcomdoc35899788Traduccion-correcta-de-Juan-1-1-Lista-de- lecturas-alternativas

Para el tema iquestSabiacutean griego los traductores de la TNM vea el siguiente enlace

httpwwwscribdcomdoc51623596C2BFSabia-griego-el-Comite-de-la-Traduccion-del-Nuevo-Mundo

has lasted since a certain point in the past and is continuing up to (and including) the presentrdquo The authors provide two examples where a present verb is used with a past time indicator and where they translate using an English perfect as explained ldquoI have been living[Μένω] in this house for three years nowrdquo And ldquoI have been reading [Διαβάζω] this newspaper since 1984rdquo (Greek A Comprehensive Grammar by David Holton Peter Mackridge amp Irene Philippaki-Warburton Revised by Vassilios Spyropoulos p 294 Second edition 2012)

Ten years after the NWT-Greek Edition was released another modern Greek translation was published with the following rendering at John 858 ldquoΣας βεβαιώνω πως πριν να γεννηθεί οΑβραάμ εγώ υπάρχωrdquo which in English would be ldquoI assure you that I have existed since before Abraham was bornrdquo (Literally ldquoI assure you that before could be born the AbrahamI exist [not ldquoΕγώ ειμαιrdquo]rdquo The Holy Bible in Todays Greek Version 2003 Greek Bible Society Interestingly the original English version of 1976 had ldquoI Amrdquo) Also a Spanish Bible conveys a similar thought ldquoYo existo desde antes que existiera Abrahamrdquo [Translation ldquo I exist since before Abraham existedrdquo] (La Biblia - Versioacuten Popular 2nd edition Sociedades Biacuteblicas Unidas 1983)

_________________________________________________________

The Clear Word The translators quoted in this article represent various religious faiths some are Catholic some are Protestant Others are Unitarians Jehovahs Witnesses Jewish Adventists etc and they represent countries the world over One of these translators is a Seventh-Day Adventist who worked on The Clear Word Jack J Blanco ThD As a Seventh-Day Adventist who supports the Trinity doctrine Blanco translated verses to make Jesus ldquoequalrdquo to God in every way

He renders John 11 ldquoHe is the Word of God and is equal with Godrdquo He shows Jesus at Philippians 25-7 as ldquoequal with Godrdquo and describes him as lsquoacting the part of a servantrsquo At John 1428 he completely omits the reference that lsquothe Father is greaterrsquo than Christ But here at John 858 in answer to the question the priests and leaders asked concerning Abraham lsquoseeingrsquo his day Jesus answered according to Dr Blanco ldquoBecause I existed before Abraham was even bornrdquo Thus Dr Blanco makes no connection as others do that Christ is the ldquoI amrdquo of Exodus 314 which according to some would indicate that Jesus is the Jehovah of the Old Testament What he sees in this account is that Jesus already lsquoexisted before Abraham didrsquo and thus Abraham was able to lsquoseersquo his day (John 856) To this we must add another likely element included in Jesus response to the Jews as wellone of simple identification as ldquothe Christ [Messiah]rdquo and ldquoSon of manrdquo Why is it then that manywho support the Trinity doctrine find it hard to understand Jesus statement correctly at John 858 Could it be that they are letting non-Scriptural influence and perhaps the weight of themajority view dictate their understanding of this Scripture

For a consideration of other subjects by the same author check below

For a discussion of Acts 286 Whose blood

httpwwwscribdcomdoc231244155Acts-20-28-Whose-blood

For a discussion of Colossians 116 (ldquoall other thingsrdquo) see

httpwwwscribdcomdoc205841269Colossians-1-16-Is-the-expression-all-other-things-a-proper-rendition

For a consideration on the subject of the Trinity click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc160286056Does-the-Trinity-ever-make-sense

For a full consideration of John 11 click the following link httpwwwscribdcomdoc34916458The-correct-translation-of-John-1-1

For a brief consideration of John 11 with additional citations click here httpwwwscribdcomdoc50330864John-1-1-List-of-Alternate-Readings

Did the NW translators know any Greek click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc48234022Did-the-New-World-Translation-Committee-Know-Greek

For a consideration of John 173 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc57772552John-17-3-E28098Taking-in-knowledge-of-E28099-God-and-Jesus

For a consideration of 1 Timothy 316 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc76927834Was-God-manifested-in-the-flesh-1-Timothy-3-16

For a consideration of Exodus 225 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc38676458Exodus-2-25-And-God-took-notice-Does-God- care-about-us

For a consideration of John 114 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc35002730John-1-14-Jesus-full-of-grace

For a consideration of Translation Differences-Questions and Answershttpwwwscribdcomdoc59484457Translation-Differences-Questions-and-Answers

In Spanish

Para una consideracioacuten de otros temas vea los siguientes enlaces

Para una consideracioacuten de Colosenses 116 ldquotodas las otras cosasrdquo vea

httpwwwscribdcomdoc209601066Colosenses-1-16-C2BFEs-la-traduccion-E2809Ctodas-las-otras-cosasE2809D-apropiada

Para una consideracioacuten de ldquoiquestAcaso tiene sentido la Trinidadrdquo

httpwwwscribdcomdoc173779117C2BFAcaso-tiene-sentido-la-Trinidad

Para un consideracioacuten de Juan 11 vea el siguiente enlace

httpwwwscribdcomdoc35899788Traduccion-correcta-de-Juan-1-1-Lista-de- lecturas-alternativas

Para el tema iquestSabiacutean griego los traductores de la TNM vea el siguiente enlace

httpwwwscribdcomdoc51623596C2BFSabia-griego-el-Comite-de-la-Traduccion-del-Nuevo-Mundo

For a discussion of Acts 286 Whose blood

httpwwwscribdcomdoc231244155Acts-20-28-Whose-blood

For a discussion of Colossians 116 (ldquoall other thingsrdquo) see

httpwwwscribdcomdoc205841269Colossians-1-16-Is-the-expression-all-other-things-a-proper-rendition

For a consideration on the subject of the Trinity click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc160286056Does-the-Trinity-ever-make-sense

For a full consideration of John 11 click the following link httpwwwscribdcomdoc34916458The-correct-translation-of-John-1-1

For a brief consideration of John 11 with additional citations click here httpwwwscribdcomdoc50330864John-1-1-List-of-Alternate-Readings

Did the NW translators know any Greek click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc48234022Did-the-New-World-Translation-Committee-Know-Greek

For a consideration of John 173 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc57772552John-17-3-E28098Taking-in-knowledge-of-E28099-God-and-Jesus

For a consideration of 1 Timothy 316 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc76927834Was-God-manifested-in-the-flesh-1-Timothy-3-16

For a consideration of Exodus 225 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc38676458Exodus-2-25-And-God-took-notice-Does-God- care-about-us

For a consideration of John 114 click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc35002730John-1-14-Jesus-full-of-grace

For a consideration of Translation Differences-Questions and Answershttpwwwscribdcomdoc59484457Translation-Differences-Questions-and-Answers

In Spanish

Para una consideracioacuten de otros temas vea los siguientes enlaces

Para una consideracioacuten de Colosenses 116 ldquotodas las otras cosasrdquo vea

httpwwwscribdcomdoc209601066Colosenses-1-16-C2BFEs-la-traduccion-E2809Ctodas-las-otras-cosasE2809D-apropiada

Para una consideracioacuten de ldquoiquestAcaso tiene sentido la Trinidadrdquo

httpwwwscribdcomdoc173779117C2BFAcaso-tiene-sentido-la-Trinidad

Para un consideracioacuten de Juan 11 vea el siguiente enlace

httpwwwscribdcomdoc35899788Traduccion-correcta-de-Juan-1-1-Lista-de- lecturas-alternativas

Para el tema iquestSabiacutean griego los traductores de la TNM vea el siguiente enlace

httpwwwscribdcomdoc51623596C2BFSabia-griego-el-Comite-de-la-Traduccion-del-Nuevo-Mundo

Para un consideracioacuten de Juan 858 (ldquoyo soyrdquo) vea el siguiente enlace

httpwwwscribdcomdoc36126649Traduccion-correcta-de-Juan-8-58-Lista-de-lecturas-alternativas-a-yo- soy

Para un consideracioacuten de Juan 173 (lsquoadquirir conocimientorsquo) vea el siguiente enlace

httpwwwscribdcomdoc74629981Juan-17-3-E28098Adquiriendo-conocimientoE28099-de-Dios-y-Jesucristo

Para un consideracioacuten de 1 Timoteo 316 vea el siguiente enlace

httpwwwscribdcomdoc77336247C2BFFue-Dios-manifestado-en-carne-1-Timoteo-3-16

__________________________________________

List of Alternate Readings How do other translators render John 858

c 200 ldquoBefore Abraham existed I am existingrdquo - The Sahidic Coptic New Testament [empate abraHam Swpe anok TSoop] [ Transliteration by J W Wells 2008 Note not ldquoanok perdquo (I am) but ldquoanok TSooprdquo 4th5th Century ldquobefore Abraham was I have been rdquo - Syriac-Edition Agnes Smith [Lewis London 18945th Century ldquobefore Abraham existed I was rdquo - Syriac Peshitta-Ed James Murdock -7th ed Boston and London 18965th Century ldquobefore ever Abraham came to be I was rdquo - Curetonian Syriac-Edition F [Crawford Burkitt Vol 1 Cambridge England 19045th Century ldquobefore Abraham came to be I was rdquo - Georgian-Edition Robert P Blake and Maurice Derriegravere Paris 1950 6th Century ldquobefore Abraham was born I was rdquo ndash Ethiopic-Edition Thomas Pell Platt -rev by F Praetorious Leipzig 1899

c 990 ldquoic waeligs [ i was ] aeligrthornām thorne Abraham waeligs rdquo ndash WestSaxon Gospels

c1175 ldquoIc waeligs [ I was ] aeligr thornonne thorne abraham waeligre rdquo ndash WestSaxon Gospels

1840 ldquo I was before Abraham was bornrdquo - The New Testament Or Rather the New [Covenant Samuel Sharpe London1846 ldquoI existed before Abraham was bornrdquo - The New Testament of Our Lord and [Saviour Jesus Christ W Swan London1864 ldquobefore Abraham came into being I was rdquo - Henry T Anderson New Testament Translated from the Original Greek Cincinnati Ohio1864 ldquoBefore Abraham was born I am he rdquo - The Emphatic Diaglott by Benjamin (that is the Messiah the Son of God) [Wilson- New York and London 1869 ldquoFrom before Abraham was I have been rdquo - The New Testament by George R [ Noyes DD Boston USA1896 ldquoBefore Abraham came to be I was rdquo - Neuen Testament uumlbersetzt in die Sprache [Ehe Abraham geworden ist war ich ] [der Gegenwart by Curt Stage Leipzig

1898 ldquoBefore Abraham was I was rdquo - La Sainte Bible version dacuteOstervald (French) [Avant quAbraham fucirct jeacutetais ] 1904 ldquoFrom before Abraham existed I was rdquo - Twentieth Century New Testament (New York Fleming H Revell Co 1902 Rev 1904) 1903 ldquoBefore Abraham came into existence I have been rdquo - Det ny Testamentrdquo by Dr T [Foslashrend Abraham blev til har jeg vaeligret ] [ Skat Roslashrdam (Danish)

1911 ldquoBefore Abraham became I I am being rdquo - George W Horner The Coptic Version -of the New Testament in the Southern Dialect [ Vol 3 Oxford The Clarendon Press 1912 ldquoBefore Abraham was born I was rdquo - Leidse Vertaling Amsterdam and [Eer Abraham werd geboren was ik ] [ Zaltbommel (Dutch)

1925 ldquoBefore Abraham was brought up I exist rdquo - Sagrada Biblia Feacutelix Torres Amat [Antes que Abraham fuera criado yo existo ] [ Madrid Spain

1933 ldquoBefore Abraham came into existence I have beenrdquo - Dette er Biblen pAtildeyen dansk [foslashrend Abraham blev til har jeg vaeligret ] (Danish)

1934 ldquoBefore Abraham came into being I have existed rdquo - The Documents of the New [ Testament G W Wade London1935 ldquoI have existed before Abraham was bornrdquo - A New Translation James Moffatt [-DD DLitt Glasgow Oxford

1935 ldquo I existed before Abraham was bornrdquo - The Bible - An American Translation [ by JMP Smith and E J Goodspeed1937 ldquoBefore Abraham was I have been rdquo - Translated from the Hebrew of Dr Franz [ aniacute hayiacutethi not Ehyeacuteh] [ Delitzsch 1937 ldquo I existed before Abraham was bornrdquo - Williams New Testament Charles B [ Williams 1941 ldquo I have been when there had as yet been no Abrahamrdquo - Translated from the [aniacute hayiacutethi not Ehyeacuteh] [Hebrew of Isaac Salkinson and David Ginsburg 1945 ldquoBefore Abraham came into existence I was rdquo - Det nye testamente i ny [Foslashr Abraham ble til var jeg ] [oversettelserdquo - by Lyder Brun (Professor of NT Theology Oslo Norway)1950 ldquoBefore Abraham came into existence I have been rdquo - New World Translation [of the Holy Scriptures 1956 ldquo I am here ndash and I was before Abrahamrdquo ndash JA Kleist and JL Lilly The [New Testament (Milwaukee The Bruce Publishing Company)

1957 ldquoBefore Abraham was born I was rdquo - The Holy Bible From Ancient Eastern [-Manuscripts George M Lamsa1960 ldquoBefore Abraham existed I was existing rdquo - Biacuteblia Sagrada by Catholic Bible [Antes que Abraatildeo existisse eu existia ] [ -Center 2nd ed Satildeo Paulo Brasil

1961 ldquo I existed before Abraham was bornrdquo - The New Testament of Our Lord and [Savior Jesus Christ Fan S Noli Boston MA USA1963 ldquo I was before Abrahamrdquo - William F Beck The New Testament in the [Language of Today (St Louis Concordia Publishing House) 1965 ldquoBefore there was an Abraham I was already there rdquo - Das Neue Testament [Ehe es einen Abraham gab war ich schon da] [Friedrich Pfaumlfflin Heilbronn Ger 1965 ldquoBefore Abraham was born I was already the one that I amrdquo - Das Neue Test Joumlrg [Ehe Abraham geboren wurde war ich schon der der ich bin] [Zink German 1967 ldquoBefore could be born the Abraham I have existed rdquo - Η ΚΑΙΝΗ ΔΙΑΘΗΚΗ [πρίν γεννηθntilde˛ ό Aβραάμ Εγώ ύπάρχω] [Modern Revised NT [Vellaacutes Version Athens Greece (Lit ldquoI existrdquo but ldquoI have existedrdquo with adverbial adjunct Not ldquoΕγώ ειμαι [I am]rdquo as in Vamvas Version) 1968 ldquoBefore Abraham was born I was rdquo - Sagrada Biblia Naacutecar-Colunga Madrid [Antes que Abraham naciese era yo ]

1969 ldquoBefore Abraham was I was rdquo - Det nye testamente ldquoUngdomsoversettelsenrdquo [Foslashr Abraham ble til var jeg ] (Norwegian)

1971 ldquoBefore Abraham was born I have been rdquo - New American Standard Bible Alternate reading margin Early editions)1971 ldquo I was in existence before Abraham was ever bornrdquo - The Living Bible

1973 ldquo I existed even before Abraham was bornrdquo - The concise Gospel and the Acts [Logos International Christopher J ed Christianson Plainfield NJ

1973 ldquobefore Abraham was born [I have been]rdquo ndash La Biblia de las Ameacutericas margin [antes que Abraham naciera Yo he sido] [Lockman Foundation] 1976 ldquoI am already from before the birth of Abrahamrdquo - Het Levende Woord Dutch [Ik ben er al van voor de geboorte van Abraham] 1978 ldquoBefore Abraham was born I was already the one that I am rdquo - O Novo [Antes de Abraatildeo nascer jaacute eu era aquele que sou] Testamento Inter- [-confessional (Sociedad Biacuteblica Lisboa Portugal) 1978 ldquoBefore Abraham was born I already existed rdquo - Nuevo Testamento R P Felipe

[Antes que Abraham naciese ya existiacutea yo ] [ de Fuenterrabiacutea Capuchin (Professor of Sacred Scripture at Theology College Pamplona Navarra Spain)

1979 ldquo I already existed since way before Abraham was bornrdquo - La Biblia al Diacutea [iexclYa existiacutea desde mucho antes que Abraham naciera] Editorial Unilit Miami

1979 ldquo I am from before Abraham was bornrdquo - The Four Gospels and the Revelation Richmond Lattimore New York NY 1980 ldquoBefore Abraham existed I exist rdquo - Sagrada Biblia Pedro Franquesa (CMF) [Antes que Abraham existiera yo existo] [ and Joseacute M Soleacute (CMF) Barcelona

1981 ldquoI was alive before Abraham was bornrdquo - The Simple English Bible New York

1981 ldquoBefore Abraham existed I already existed rdquo - Sagrada Biblia Agustiacuten Magantildea [Antes que Abraham existiera ya existiacutea Yo ] [ Meacutendez ex-Seminary Professor of [ Zamora Mich Meacutexico Notre Dame Univ USA and others 1982 ldquo I was in existence before Abraham was ever bornrdquo - The Living Scriptures (Messianic Version) David Bronstein 1982 ldquoBefore Abraham was born I was already there rdquo - Bibel in heutigem Deutsch [Bevor Abraham geboren wurde war ich schon da ] [ Stuttgart Germany

1983 ldquo I exist since before Abraham existedrdquo ndash La Biblia - Versioacuten Popular 2nd edit [Yo existo desde antes que existiera Abraham] [ Sociedades Biacuteblicas Unidas

1983 Before Abraham was born I am He rdquo ndash The Gospel of John FF Bruce 1983 (Bruce links this text to Isa 414)

1985 ldquo I existed before Abraham was bornrdquo ndash The Original New Testament Hugh J [ Schonfield Aberdeen Scotland1985 ldquoBefore Abraham was I have been rdquo ndash N T The Bible Society in Israel [beteacuterem heyiotacute Abrahamacute aniacute hayiacutethi (not Ehyeacuteh)] Translated from the Hebrew [ of Norman Henry Snaith1985 ldquoAbraham was not yet born when I was already there rdquo ndash Common Language [Abraram pa t ankograve fegravet mwen menm mwen te la deja] [Version (Haitian Creole Version Port-au-Prince United Bible Societies)

1987 ldquoBefore Abraham came into existence I was rdquo - Les Saintes Eacutecritures-Traduction [Avant quAbraham soit venu agrave lexistence jacuteeacutetais] [du monde nouveau (French) ( ldquojai eacuteteacuterdquo Online edition 2006reg) 1987 ldquoBefore Abraham came into existence I was rdquo ndash Traduzione del Nuovo Mondo Prima che Abraamo venisse allesistenza io ero ] delle Sacre Scritture Rome [ldquoio sono statordquo 1967 edition Also see ldquoCommentsrdquo]

1988 ldquo I already was before Abraham was bornrdquo ndash Hek Boek (Dutch) Published by [ Ik was er al voor Abraham werd geboren] [ Biblica 1991 ldquoBefore Abraham was born I have already been rdquo ndash The Unvarnished New [ Testament Andy Gaus 1993 ldquoBefore the Abraham came into existence I have existed rdquo (Lit ldquoI existrdquo) Πριν o Aβραάμ έρθει σε ύπαρξη εγώ υπάρχω1 ] (Greek) ΟІ ΧΡΙΣΤΙΑΝΙΚΕΣ ΓΡΑΦΕΣ Απόδοση από τη Μειάφράση Νέου Κόσμου (New World Translation of the Christian Scriptures Modern Greek) (1Εγώ ύπάρχω not Εγώ ειμαι [ldquoI amrdquo] as in Vamvas Version See ldquoCommentsrdquo) 1994 ldquo I existed rdquo - The Complete Gospels Annotaded Scholars Version RJMiller editor

1994 ldquo I have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo ndash Kenneth L McKay (op cit A New Syntax) 1995 ldquo[E]ven before Abraham was I was and I amrdquo ndash Contemporary English Version [ New York1996 ldquoI already was before Abraham was bornrdquo ndash Worldwide English New Testament [ Derby UK1996 ldquo I existed before Abraham was even bornrdquo ndash New Living Translation Wheaton [ Illinois1998 ldquo I came into being before Abrahamrdquo ndash 21st Century N T Bristol England 1999 ldquothat before Abraham was born I exist rdquo ndash Sagrada Biblia del Pueblo Catoacutelico [que antes que Abrahaacuten naciera yo existo ] [ Santa Feacute de Bogotaacute 2000 ldquobefore Abraham was born I already existedrdquo ndash Traduccioacuten en lenguage actual [antes de que naciera Abraham ya existiacutea yo ] [United Bible Societies Miami 2000 ldquo I existed before Abraham was even bornrdquo ndash Levande Bibeln Swedish Biblica [att jag fanns till innan Abraham ens var foumldd]

2000 ldquoiexclbefore Abraham was born I already was who I am rdquo - O Livro (Portuguese- [antes de Abraatildeo nascer eu jaacute era quem sou ] [European pub by Biblica

2001 ldquo I existed before Abraham came into existencerdquo ndash 21st Century Version of the -Christian Scriptures Mark Heber Miller

2001 ldquo I existed before Abraham wasrdquo - 2001 Translation - An American English Bible

2002 ldquoLong before Abraham was even born I was there rdquo ndash Hoffnung fuumlr Alle [Lange bevor Abraham uumlberhaupt geboren wurde war ich da] [Hope for all] (International Bible Society Wells Publishing Giessen Germany)

2003 ldquoI existed before Abraham was bornrdquo ndash New Simplified Bible James R Madsen

2003 ldquoI was alive before Abraham was bornrdquo ndash The New Testament in Plain English [ Shippensburg PA2003 ldquo I assure you that before Abraham was born I have existed rdquo [ Σας βεβαιώνω πως πριν να γεννηθεί ο Αβραάμ εγώ υπάρχω ] The Holy Bible in Todays Greek Version 2003 Greek Bible Society (See end Comment on 1993 ΟІ ΧΡΙΣΤΙΑΝΙΚΕΣ ΓΡΑΦΕΣ Απόδοση από τη Μειάφράση Νέου Κόσμου)

2005 ldquoI existed before Abraham was even bornrdquo ndash The Clear Word Jack J Blanco ThD (See comment on The Clear Word at the end)

2008 ldquobefore Abraham was born I exist rdquo ndash La Santa Biblia-Nueva Biblia al Diacutea by [antes que Abraham naciera yo existo] Sociedad Biacuteblica Internacional Miami FL (Published by Grupo Nelson Nashville TN USA)2008 ldquoI was in existence before Abraham was ever bornrdquo ndash The Book New Testament [Illuminated World Dag Soumlderberg2009 ldquobefore Abraham existed I exist rdquo ndash LA BIBLIA de NUESTRO PUEBLO [antes de que existiera Abrahaacuten existo yo] [Biblia del Peregrino Ameacuterica Latina [Luis Alonso Schoumlkel XII Edicioacuten with Imprimatur Bilbao Spain

2010 ldquobefore Abraham was born I exist rdquo ndash La Palabra (Hispanoameacuterica) Bible [antes de que Abraham naciera existo yo ] [Society of Spain)

2014 ldquobefore Abraham was born I exist rdquo ndash Interlinear Greek Bible (Scripture Direct Prof Johannes Louw amp Dr Bennie Wolvaardt) ____________________________________________________

Final Note This document was written using the free LibreOffice Writer using Croscore Tinos Font Main Font Size 13 originally in the odt (Open Document Text) format

(For comments corrections or suggestions submit to lesriv000gmailcom )

1957 ldquoBefore Abraham was born I was rdquo - The Holy Bible From Ancient Eastern [-Manuscripts George M Lamsa1960 ldquoBefore Abraham existed I was existing rdquo - Biacuteblia Sagrada by Catholic Bible [Antes que Abraatildeo existisse eu existia ] [ -Center 2nd ed Satildeo Paulo Brasil

1961 ldquo I existed before Abraham was bornrdquo - The New Testament of Our Lord and [Savior Jesus Christ Fan S Noli Boston MA USA1963 ldquo I was before Abrahamrdquo - William F Beck The New Testament in the [Language of Today (St Louis Concordia Publishing House) 1965 ldquoBefore there was an Abraham I was already there rdquo - Das Neue Testament [Ehe es einen Abraham gab war ich schon da] [Friedrich Pfaumlfflin Heilbronn Ger 1965 ldquoBefore Abraham was born I was already the one that I amrdquo - Das Neue Test Joumlrg [Ehe Abraham geboren wurde war ich schon der der ich bin] [Zink German 1967 ldquoBefore could be born the Abraham I have existed rdquo - Η ΚΑΙΝΗ ΔΙΑΘΗΚΗ [πρίν γεννηθntilde˛ ό Aβραάμ Εγώ ύπάρχω] [Modern Revised NT [Vellaacutes Version Athens Greece (Lit ldquoI existrdquo but ldquoI have existedrdquo with adverbial adjunct Not ldquoΕγώ ειμαι [I am]rdquo as in Vamvas Version) 1968 ldquoBefore Abraham was born I was rdquo - Sagrada Biblia Naacutecar-Colunga Madrid [Antes que Abraham naciese era yo ]

1969 ldquoBefore Abraham was I was rdquo - Det nye testamente ldquoUngdomsoversettelsenrdquo [Foslashr Abraham ble til var jeg ] (Norwegian)

1971 ldquoBefore Abraham was born I have been rdquo - New American Standard Bible Alternate reading margin Early editions)1971 ldquo I was in existence before Abraham was ever bornrdquo - The Living Bible

1973 ldquo I existed even before Abraham was bornrdquo - The concise Gospel and the Acts [Logos International Christopher J ed Christianson Plainfield NJ

1973 ldquobefore Abraham was born [I have been]rdquo ndash La Biblia de las Ameacutericas margin [antes que Abraham naciera Yo he sido] [Lockman Foundation] 1976 ldquoI am already from before the birth of Abrahamrdquo - Het Levende Woord Dutch [Ik ben er al van voor de geboorte van Abraham] 1978 ldquoBefore Abraham was born I was already the one that I am rdquo - O Novo [Antes de Abraatildeo nascer jaacute eu era aquele que sou] Testamento Inter- [-confessional (Sociedad Biacuteblica Lisboa Portugal) 1978 ldquoBefore Abraham was born I already existed rdquo - Nuevo Testamento R P Felipe

[Antes que Abraham naciese ya existiacutea yo ] [ de Fuenterrabiacutea Capuchin (Professor of Sacred Scripture at Theology College Pamplona Navarra Spain)

1979 ldquo I already existed since way before Abraham was bornrdquo - La Biblia al Diacutea [iexclYa existiacutea desde mucho antes que Abraham naciera] Editorial Unilit Miami

1979 ldquo I am from before Abraham was bornrdquo - The Four Gospels and the Revelation Richmond Lattimore New York NY 1980 ldquoBefore Abraham existed I exist rdquo - Sagrada Biblia Pedro Franquesa (CMF) [Antes que Abraham existiera yo existo] [ and Joseacute M Soleacute (CMF) Barcelona

1981 ldquoI was alive before Abraham was bornrdquo - The Simple English Bible New York

1981 ldquoBefore Abraham existed I already existed rdquo - Sagrada Biblia Agustiacuten Magantildea [Antes que Abraham existiera ya existiacutea Yo ] [ Meacutendez ex-Seminary Professor of [ Zamora Mich Meacutexico Notre Dame Univ USA and others 1982 ldquo I was in existence before Abraham was ever bornrdquo - The Living Scriptures (Messianic Version) David Bronstein 1982 ldquoBefore Abraham was born I was already there rdquo - Bibel in heutigem Deutsch [Bevor Abraham geboren wurde war ich schon da ] [ Stuttgart Germany

1983 ldquo I exist since before Abraham existedrdquo ndash La Biblia - Versioacuten Popular 2nd edit [Yo existo desde antes que existiera Abraham] [ Sociedades Biacuteblicas Unidas

1983 Before Abraham was born I am He rdquo ndash The Gospel of John FF Bruce 1983 (Bruce links this text to Isa 414)

1985 ldquo I existed before Abraham was bornrdquo ndash The Original New Testament Hugh J [ Schonfield Aberdeen Scotland1985 ldquoBefore Abraham was I have been rdquo ndash N T The Bible Society in Israel [beteacuterem heyiotacute Abrahamacute aniacute hayiacutethi (not Ehyeacuteh)] Translated from the Hebrew [ of Norman Henry Snaith1985 ldquoAbraham was not yet born when I was already there rdquo ndash Common Language [Abraram pa t ankograve fegravet mwen menm mwen te la deja] [Version (Haitian Creole Version Port-au-Prince United Bible Societies)

1987 ldquoBefore Abraham came into existence I was rdquo - Les Saintes Eacutecritures-Traduction [Avant quAbraham soit venu agrave lexistence jacuteeacutetais] [du monde nouveau (French) ( ldquojai eacuteteacuterdquo Online edition 2006reg) 1987 ldquoBefore Abraham came into existence I was rdquo ndash Traduzione del Nuovo Mondo Prima che Abraamo venisse allesistenza io ero ] delle Sacre Scritture Rome [ldquoio sono statordquo 1967 edition Also see ldquoCommentsrdquo]

1988 ldquo I already was before Abraham was bornrdquo ndash Hek Boek (Dutch) Published by [ Ik was er al voor Abraham werd geboren] [ Biblica 1991 ldquoBefore Abraham was born I have already been rdquo ndash The Unvarnished New [ Testament Andy Gaus 1993 ldquoBefore the Abraham came into existence I have existed rdquo (Lit ldquoI existrdquo) Πριν o Aβραάμ έρθει σε ύπαρξη εγώ υπάρχω1 ] (Greek) ΟІ ΧΡΙΣΤΙΑΝΙΚΕΣ ΓΡΑΦΕΣ Απόδοση από τη Μειάφράση Νέου Κόσμου (New World Translation of the Christian Scriptures Modern Greek) (1Εγώ ύπάρχω not Εγώ ειμαι [ldquoI amrdquo] as in Vamvas Version See ldquoCommentsrdquo) 1994 ldquo I existed rdquo - The Complete Gospels Annotaded Scholars Version RJMiller editor

1994 ldquo I have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo ndash Kenneth L McKay (op cit A New Syntax) 1995 ldquo[E]ven before Abraham was I was and I amrdquo ndash Contemporary English Version [ New York1996 ldquoI already was before Abraham was bornrdquo ndash Worldwide English New Testament [ Derby UK1996 ldquo I existed before Abraham was even bornrdquo ndash New Living Translation Wheaton [ Illinois1998 ldquo I came into being before Abrahamrdquo ndash 21st Century N T Bristol England 1999 ldquothat before Abraham was born I exist rdquo ndash Sagrada Biblia del Pueblo Catoacutelico [que antes que Abrahaacuten naciera yo existo ] [ Santa Feacute de Bogotaacute 2000 ldquobefore Abraham was born I already existedrdquo ndash Traduccioacuten en lenguage actual [antes de que naciera Abraham ya existiacutea yo ] [United Bible Societies Miami 2000 ldquo I existed before Abraham was even bornrdquo ndash Levande Bibeln Swedish Biblica [att jag fanns till innan Abraham ens var foumldd]

2000 ldquoiexclbefore Abraham was born I already was who I am rdquo - O Livro (Portuguese- [antes de Abraatildeo nascer eu jaacute era quem sou ] [European pub by Biblica

2001 ldquo I existed before Abraham came into existencerdquo ndash 21st Century Version of the -Christian Scriptures Mark Heber Miller

2001 ldquo I existed before Abraham wasrdquo - 2001 Translation - An American English Bible

2002 ldquoLong before Abraham was even born I was there rdquo ndash Hoffnung fuumlr Alle [Lange bevor Abraham uumlberhaupt geboren wurde war ich da] [Hope for all] (International Bible Society Wells Publishing Giessen Germany)

2003 ldquoI existed before Abraham was bornrdquo ndash New Simplified Bible James R Madsen

2003 ldquoI was alive before Abraham was bornrdquo ndash The New Testament in Plain English [ Shippensburg PA2003 ldquo I assure you that before Abraham was born I have existed rdquo [ Σας βεβαιώνω πως πριν να γεννηθεί ο Αβραάμ εγώ υπάρχω ] The Holy Bible in Todays Greek Version 2003 Greek Bible Society (See end Comment on 1993 ΟІ ΧΡΙΣΤΙΑΝΙΚΕΣ ΓΡΑΦΕΣ Απόδοση από τη Μειάφράση Νέου Κόσμου)

2005 ldquoI existed before Abraham was even bornrdquo ndash The Clear Word Jack J Blanco ThD (See comment on The Clear Word at the end)

2008 ldquobefore Abraham was born I exist rdquo ndash La Santa Biblia-Nueva Biblia al Diacutea by [antes que Abraham naciera yo existo] Sociedad Biacuteblica Internacional Miami FL (Published by Grupo Nelson Nashville TN USA)2008 ldquoI was in existence before Abraham was ever bornrdquo ndash The Book New Testament [Illuminated World Dag Soumlderberg2009 ldquobefore Abraham existed I exist rdquo ndash LA BIBLIA de NUESTRO PUEBLO [antes de que existiera Abrahaacuten existo yo] [Biblia del Peregrino Ameacuterica Latina [Luis Alonso Schoumlkel XII Edicioacuten with Imprimatur Bilbao Spain

2010 ldquobefore Abraham was born I exist rdquo ndash La Palabra (Hispanoameacuterica) Bible [antes de que Abraham naciera existo yo ] [Society of Spain)

2014 ldquobefore Abraham was born I exist rdquo ndash Interlinear Greek Bible (Scripture Direct Prof Johannes Louw amp Dr Bennie Wolvaardt) ____________________________________________________

Final Note This document was written using the free LibreOffice Writer using Croscore Tinos Font Main Font Size 13 originally in the odt (Open Document Text) format

(For comments corrections or suggestions submit to lesriv000gmailcom )

[Antes que Abraham naciese ya existiacutea yo ] [ de Fuenterrabiacutea Capuchin (Professor of Sacred Scripture at Theology College Pamplona Navarra Spain)

1979 ldquo I already existed since way before Abraham was bornrdquo - La Biblia al Diacutea [iexclYa existiacutea desde mucho antes que Abraham naciera] Editorial Unilit Miami

1979 ldquo I am from before Abraham was bornrdquo - The Four Gospels and the Revelation Richmond Lattimore New York NY 1980 ldquoBefore Abraham existed I exist rdquo - Sagrada Biblia Pedro Franquesa (CMF) [Antes que Abraham existiera yo existo] [ and Joseacute M Soleacute (CMF) Barcelona

1981 ldquoI was alive before Abraham was bornrdquo - The Simple English Bible New York

1981 ldquoBefore Abraham existed I already existed rdquo - Sagrada Biblia Agustiacuten Magantildea [Antes que Abraham existiera ya existiacutea Yo ] [ Meacutendez ex-Seminary Professor of [ Zamora Mich Meacutexico Notre Dame Univ USA and others 1982 ldquo I was in existence before Abraham was ever bornrdquo - The Living Scriptures (Messianic Version) David Bronstein 1982 ldquoBefore Abraham was born I was already there rdquo - Bibel in heutigem Deutsch [Bevor Abraham geboren wurde war ich schon da ] [ Stuttgart Germany

1983 ldquo I exist since before Abraham existedrdquo ndash La Biblia - Versioacuten Popular 2nd edit [Yo existo desde antes que existiera Abraham] [ Sociedades Biacuteblicas Unidas

1983 Before Abraham was born I am He rdquo ndash The Gospel of John FF Bruce 1983 (Bruce links this text to Isa 414)

1985 ldquo I existed before Abraham was bornrdquo ndash The Original New Testament Hugh J [ Schonfield Aberdeen Scotland1985 ldquoBefore Abraham was I have been rdquo ndash N T The Bible Society in Israel [beteacuterem heyiotacute Abrahamacute aniacute hayiacutethi (not Ehyeacuteh)] Translated from the Hebrew [ of Norman Henry Snaith1985 ldquoAbraham was not yet born when I was already there rdquo ndash Common Language [Abraram pa t ankograve fegravet mwen menm mwen te la deja] [Version (Haitian Creole Version Port-au-Prince United Bible Societies)

1987 ldquoBefore Abraham came into existence I was rdquo - Les Saintes Eacutecritures-Traduction [Avant quAbraham soit venu agrave lexistence jacuteeacutetais] [du monde nouveau (French) ( ldquojai eacuteteacuterdquo Online edition 2006reg) 1987 ldquoBefore Abraham came into existence I was rdquo ndash Traduzione del Nuovo Mondo Prima che Abraamo venisse allesistenza io ero ] delle Sacre Scritture Rome [ldquoio sono statordquo 1967 edition Also see ldquoCommentsrdquo]

1988 ldquo I already was before Abraham was bornrdquo ndash Hek Boek (Dutch) Published by [ Ik was er al voor Abraham werd geboren] [ Biblica 1991 ldquoBefore Abraham was born I have already been rdquo ndash The Unvarnished New [ Testament Andy Gaus 1993 ldquoBefore the Abraham came into existence I have existed rdquo (Lit ldquoI existrdquo) Πριν o Aβραάμ έρθει σε ύπαρξη εγώ υπάρχω1 ] (Greek) ΟІ ΧΡΙΣΤΙΑΝΙΚΕΣ ΓΡΑΦΕΣ Απόδοση από τη Μειάφράση Νέου Κόσμου (New World Translation of the Christian Scriptures Modern Greek) (1Εγώ ύπάρχω not Εγώ ειμαι [ldquoI amrdquo] as in Vamvas Version See ldquoCommentsrdquo) 1994 ldquo I existed rdquo - The Complete Gospels Annotaded Scholars Version RJMiller editor

1994 ldquo I have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo ndash Kenneth L McKay (op cit A New Syntax) 1995 ldquo[E]ven before Abraham was I was and I amrdquo ndash Contemporary English Version [ New York1996 ldquoI already was before Abraham was bornrdquo ndash Worldwide English New Testament [ Derby UK1996 ldquo I existed before Abraham was even bornrdquo ndash New Living Translation Wheaton [ Illinois1998 ldquo I came into being before Abrahamrdquo ndash 21st Century N T Bristol England 1999 ldquothat before Abraham was born I exist rdquo ndash Sagrada Biblia del Pueblo Catoacutelico [que antes que Abrahaacuten naciera yo existo ] [ Santa Feacute de Bogotaacute 2000 ldquobefore Abraham was born I already existedrdquo ndash Traduccioacuten en lenguage actual [antes de que naciera Abraham ya existiacutea yo ] [United Bible Societies Miami 2000 ldquo I existed before Abraham was even bornrdquo ndash Levande Bibeln Swedish Biblica [att jag fanns till innan Abraham ens var foumldd]

2000 ldquoiexclbefore Abraham was born I already was who I am rdquo - O Livro (Portuguese- [antes de Abraatildeo nascer eu jaacute era quem sou ] [European pub by Biblica

2001 ldquo I existed before Abraham came into existencerdquo ndash 21st Century Version of the -Christian Scriptures Mark Heber Miller

2001 ldquo I existed before Abraham wasrdquo - 2001 Translation - An American English Bible

2002 ldquoLong before Abraham was even born I was there rdquo ndash Hoffnung fuumlr Alle [Lange bevor Abraham uumlberhaupt geboren wurde war ich da] [Hope for all] (International Bible Society Wells Publishing Giessen Germany)

2003 ldquoI existed before Abraham was bornrdquo ndash New Simplified Bible James R Madsen

2003 ldquoI was alive before Abraham was bornrdquo ndash The New Testament in Plain English [ Shippensburg PA2003 ldquo I assure you that before Abraham was born I have existed rdquo [ Σας βεβαιώνω πως πριν να γεννηθεί ο Αβραάμ εγώ υπάρχω ] The Holy Bible in Todays Greek Version 2003 Greek Bible Society (See end Comment on 1993 ΟІ ΧΡΙΣΤΙΑΝΙΚΕΣ ΓΡΑΦΕΣ Απόδοση από τη Μειάφράση Νέου Κόσμου)

2005 ldquoI existed before Abraham was even bornrdquo ndash The Clear Word Jack J Blanco ThD (See comment on The Clear Word at the end)

2008 ldquobefore Abraham was born I exist rdquo ndash La Santa Biblia-Nueva Biblia al Diacutea by [antes que Abraham naciera yo existo] Sociedad Biacuteblica Internacional Miami FL (Published by Grupo Nelson Nashville TN USA)2008 ldquoI was in existence before Abraham was ever bornrdquo ndash The Book New Testament [Illuminated World Dag Soumlderberg2009 ldquobefore Abraham existed I exist rdquo ndash LA BIBLIA de NUESTRO PUEBLO [antes de que existiera Abrahaacuten existo yo] [Biblia del Peregrino Ameacuterica Latina [Luis Alonso Schoumlkel XII Edicioacuten with Imprimatur Bilbao Spain

2010 ldquobefore Abraham was born I exist rdquo ndash La Palabra (Hispanoameacuterica) Bible [antes de que Abraham naciera existo yo ] [Society of Spain)

2014 ldquobefore Abraham was born I exist rdquo ndash Interlinear Greek Bible (Scripture Direct Prof Johannes Louw amp Dr Bennie Wolvaardt) ____________________________________________________

Final Note This document was written using the free LibreOffice Writer using Croscore Tinos Font Main Font Size 13 originally in the odt (Open Document Text) format

(For comments corrections or suggestions submit to lesriv000gmailcom )

1988 ldquo I already was before Abraham was bornrdquo ndash Hek Boek (Dutch) Published by [ Ik was er al voor Abraham werd geboren] [ Biblica 1991 ldquoBefore Abraham was born I have already been rdquo ndash The Unvarnished New [ Testament Andy Gaus 1993 ldquoBefore the Abraham came into existence I have existed rdquo (Lit ldquoI existrdquo) Πριν o Aβραάμ έρθει σε ύπαρξη εγώ υπάρχω1 ] (Greek) ΟІ ΧΡΙΣΤΙΑΝΙΚΕΣ ΓΡΑΦΕΣ Απόδοση από τη Μειάφράση Νέου Κόσμου (New World Translation of the Christian Scriptures Modern Greek) (1Εγώ ύπάρχω not Εγώ ειμαι [ldquoI amrdquo] as in Vamvas Version See ldquoCommentsrdquo) 1994 ldquo I existed rdquo - The Complete Gospels Annotaded Scholars Version RJMiller editor

1994 ldquo I have been in existence since before Abraham was bornrdquo ndash Kenneth L McKay (op cit A New Syntax) 1995 ldquo[E]ven before Abraham was I was and I amrdquo ndash Contemporary English Version [ New York1996 ldquoI already was before Abraham was bornrdquo ndash Worldwide English New Testament [ Derby UK1996 ldquo I existed before Abraham was even bornrdquo ndash New Living Translation Wheaton [ Illinois1998 ldquo I came into being before Abrahamrdquo ndash 21st Century N T Bristol England 1999 ldquothat before Abraham was born I exist rdquo ndash Sagrada Biblia del Pueblo Catoacutelico [que antes que Abrahaacuten naciera yo existo ] [ Santa Feacute de Bogotaacute 2000 ldquobefore Abraham was born I already existedrdquo ndash Traduccioacuten en lenguage actual [antes de que naciera Abraham ya existiacutea yo ] [United Bible Societies Miami 2000 ldquo I existed before Abraham was even bornrdquo ndash Levande Bibeln Swedish Biblica [att jag fanns till innan Abraham ens var foumldd]

2000 ldquoiexclbefore Abraham was born I already was who I am rdquo - O Livro (Portuguese- [antes de Abraatildeo nascer eu jaacute era quem sou ] [European pub by Biblica

2001 ldquo I existed before Abraham came into existencerdquo ndash 21st Century Version of the -Christian Scriptures Mark Heber Miller

2001 ldquo I existed before Abraham wasrdquo - 2001 Translation - An American English Bible

2002 ldquoLong before Abraham was even born I was there rdquo ndash Hoffnung fuumlr Alle [Lange bevor Abraham uumlberhaupt geboren wurde war ich da] [Hope for all] (International Bible Society Wells Publishing Giessen Germany)

2003 ldquoI existed before Abraham was bornrdquo ndash New Simplified Bible James R Madsen

2003 ldquoI was alive before Abraham was bornrdquo ndash The New Testament in Plain English [ Shippensburg PA2003 ldquo I assure you that before Abraham was born I have existed rdquo [ Σας βεβαιώνω πως πριν να γεννηθεί ο Αβραάμ εγώ υπάρχω ] The Holy Bible in Todays Greek Version 2003 Greek Bible Society (See end Comment on 1993 ΟІ ΧΡΙΣΤΙΑΝΙΚΕΣ ΓΡΑΦΕΣ Απόδοση από τη Μειάφράση Νέου Κόσμου)

2005 ldquoI existed before Abraham was even bornrdquo ndash The Clear Word Jack J Blanco ThD (See comment on The Clear Word at the end)

2008 ldquobefore Abraham was born I exist rdquo ndash La Santa Biblia-Nueva Biblia al Diacutea by [antes que Abraham naciera yo existo] Sociedad Biacuteblica Internacional Miami FL (Published by Grupo Nelson Nashville TN USA)2008 ldquoI was in existence before Abraham was ever bornrdquo ndash The Book New Testament [Illuminated World Dag Soumlderberg2009 ldquobefore Abraham existed I exist rdquo ndash LA BIBLIA de NUESTRO PUEBLO [antes de que existiera Abrahaacuten existo yo] [Biblia del Peregrino Ameacuterica Latina [Luis Alonso Schoumlkel XII Edicioacuten with Imprimatur Bilbao Spain

2010 ldquobefore Abraham was born I exist rdquo ndash La Palabra (Hispanoameacuterica) Bible [antes de que Abraham naciera existo yo ] [Society of Spain)

2014 ldquobefore Abraham was born I exist rdquo ndash Interlinear Greek Bible (Scripture Direct Prof Johannes Louw amp Dr Bennie Wolvaardt) ____________________________________________________

Final Note This document was written using the free LibreOffice Writer using Croscore Tinos Font Main Font Size 13 originally in the odt (Open Document Text) format

(For comments corrections or suggestions submit to lesriv000gmailcom )

2003 ldquoI existed before Abraham was bornrdquo ndash New Simplified Bible James R Madsen

2003 ldquoI was alive before Abraham was bornrdquo ndash The New Testament in Plain English [ Shippensburg PA2003 ldquo I assure you that before Abraham was born I have existed rdquo [ Σας βεβαιώνω πως πριν να γεννηθεί ο Αβραάμ εγώ υπάρχω ] The Holy Bible in Todays Greek Version 2003 Greek Bible Society (See end Comment on 1993 ΟІ ΧΡΙΣΤΙΑΝΙΚΕΣ ΓΡΑΦΕΣ Απόδοση από τη Μειάφράση Νέου Κόσμου)

2005 ldquoI existed before Abraham was even bornrdquo ndash The Clear Word Jack J Blanco ThD (See comment on The Clear Word at the end)

2008 ldquobefore Abraham was born I exist rdquo ndash La Santa Biblia-Nueva Biblia al Diacutea by [antes que Abraham naciera yo existo] Sociedad Biacuteblica Internacional Miami FL (Published by Grupo Nelson Nashville TN USA)2008 ldquoI was in existence before Abraham was ever bornrdquo ndash The Book New Testament [Illuminated World Dag Soumlderberg2009 ldquobefore Abraham existed I exist rdquo ndash LA BIBLIA de NUESTRO PUEBLO [antes de que existiera Abrahaacuten existo yo] [Biblia del Peregrino Ameacuterica Latina [Luis Alonso Schoumlkel XII Edicioacuten with Imprimatur Bilbao Spain

2010 ldquobefore Abraham was born I exist rdquo ndash La Palabra (Hispanoameacuterica) Bible [antes de que Abraham naciera existo yo ] [Society of Spain)

2014 ldquobefore Abraham was born I exist rdquo ndash Interlinear Greek Bible (Scripture Direct Prof Johannes Louw amp Dr Bennie Wolvaardt) ____________________________________________________

Final Note This document was written using the free LibreOffice Writer using Croscore Tinos Font Main Font Size 13 originally in the odt (Open Document Text) format

(For comments corrections or suggestions submit to lesriv000gmailcom )