This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
the section under 'grammatical issues' is a total misrepresentation of what is actually being argued, it makes no mention of PPA, which is the premise of what McKay and BeDuhn are arguing for, and also theyre not arguing for 'I was', they argue for for 'I have been'. I see "however in this case it is generally considered that if that was the intention of John, then the text should instead contain the corresponding past tense form is ego en "I was"." this is a straw man, this page seems to be very POV [evangelical POV i might ad]. When I get a chance Ill rewrite this to accurately reflect the issues at hand, instead of giving too much to one side of the argument and and misrepresenting the other.-- Enedra ( talk) 23:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I just did a little bit but I plan to add more, namely the argument that γενέσθαι against eimi indicates eternality, also maybe some info on past interpretations-- Enedra ( talk) 00:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes I have, also the debate with Beduhn and Bowman, Also an 'Idiom' is not the force of beduhn's argument, I have Truth in Translation and it is not his focus on whether it was an expression or not. And as for Howe, I was getting to that esp. with γενέσθαι and εἰμί, Im pretty sure the NWT is have been vs. was, also note that Jesus would not be speaking in Aramaic or Hebrew, not Greek, John would be choosing words to represent what he actually said (that is if we take John as genuine, which I prefer to), also Im sorry if I came of as brash at first, cheers Enedra ( talk) 04:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC) I also think it strange that Isaiah's Ani Hu sayings are not mentioned as they seem to be the more likely corrollary (sic?) and more commonly used, cheers Enedra ( talk) 05:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I did some research and the NWT has always had "I have been", I dont know where you heard otherwise but here's my proof (pg.3): http://www.elihubooks.com/data/lampstand/000/000/013/NWT_footnotes_John_8_58_SITE_12.17.2009.pdf , BTW "ani hu" is not "I am" it is verbless: "I he", "ani hu" in no way resembles "ehyeh", also I see no reason to have Thomas Howe's link here, his paper doesnt even argue anything, It just claims beduhn misrepresents everything without interacting with his actual arguments ; I see no reason for it to be here, Ive seen a couple pages that interact with what Beduhn argues, they are the ones that should be linked not Thomas Howe's paper; regards Enedra ( talk) 07:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
this page cites Wallaces bgreek post. Wallace discusses historical present and says they are not (to his knowledge) used in direct discourse or use eimi, that is not MCKAY's reading, IF Wallace had asserted EFPP (Extension from past present) do not apply in discourse, or use EIMI then that would have been a foolish assertion (Jn 14:9). WAllace objects to MCKays reading on the basis that their is no similarly structured EFPP use of EIMI in the NT or LXX and "says it lack sufficient parallels to be convincing", Best Regards Jahoel109 ( talk) 23:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
The Article says that the Hebrew translation of the New Testament produced by the Bible Society of Israel Renders John 8:58 as Ani Hayiti rather then Ani Hu. This may be the case for an older edition, but it is currently translated Ani Hu, so I would recommend a change of text. http://new.org.il/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.217.226.10 ( talk) 10:15, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm curious that this page doesn't discuss the consistency with which John uses "ἐγώ εἰμι" where "εἰμι" would have done and the possible emphasis that is intended by it. I'll admit ignorance of the literature on this point, but wouldn't "ἐγώ εἰμι X" in Greek normally be meant to emphasis the claim of the speaker to be X in opposition to the claims of others? 45.130.58.54 ( talk) 12:43, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
the section under 'grammatical issues' is a total misrepresentation of what is actually being argued, it makes no mention of PPA, which is the premise of what McKay and BeDuhn are arguing for, and also theyre not arguing for 'I was', they argue for for 'I have been'. I see "however in this case it is generally considered that if that was the intention of John, then the text should instead contain the corresponding past tense form is ego en "I was"." this is a straw man, this page seems to be very POV [evangelical POV i might ad]. When I get a chance Ill rewrite this to accurately reflect the issues at hand, instead of giving too much to one side of the argument and and misrepresenting the other.-- Enedra ( talk) 23:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I just did a little bit but I plan to add more, namely the argument that γενέσθαι against eimi indicates eternality, also maybe some info on past interpretations-- Enedra ( talk) 00:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes I have, also the debate with Beduhn and Bowman, Also an 'Idiom' is not the force of beduhn's argument, I have Truth in Translation and it is not his focus on whether it was an expression or not. And as for Howe, I was getting to that esp. with γενέσθαι and εἰμί, Im pretty sure the NWT is have been vs. was, also note that Jesus would not be speaking in Aramaic or Hebrew, not Greek, John would be choosing words to represent what he actually said (that is if we take John as genuine, which I prefer to), also Im sorry if I came of as brash at first, cheers Enedra ( talk) 04:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC) I also think it strange that Isaiah's Ani Hu sayings are not mentioned as they seem to be the more likely corrollary (sic?) and more commonly used, cheers Enedra ( talk) 05:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I did some research and the NWT has always had "I have been", I dont know where you heard otherwise but here's my proof (pg.3): http://www.elihubooks.com/data/lampstand/000/000/013/NWT_footnotes_John_8_58_SITE_12.17.2009.pdf , BTW "ani hu" is not "I am" it is verbless: "I he", "ani hu" in no way resembles "ehyeh", also I see no reason to have Thomas Howe's link here, his paper doesnt even argue anything, It just claims beduhn misrepresents everything without interacting with his actual arguments ; I see no reason for it to be here, Ive seen a couple pages that interact with what Beduhn argues, they are the ones that should be linked not Thomas Howe's paper; regards Enedra ( talk) 07:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
this page cites Wallaces bgreek post. Wallace discusses historical present and says they are not (to his knowledge) used in direct discourse or use eimi, that is not MCKAY's reading, IF Wallace had asserted EFPP (Extension from past present) do not apply in discourse, or use EIMI then that would have been a foolish assertion (Jn 14:9). WAllace objects to MCKays reading on the basis that their is no similarly structured EFPP use of EIMI in the NT or LXX and "says it lack sufficient parallels to be convincing", Best Regards Jahoel109 ( talk) 23:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
The Article says that the Hebrew translation of the New Testament produced by the Bible Society of Israel Renders John 8:58 as Ani Hayiti rather then Ani Hu. This may be the case for an older edition, but it is currently translated Ani Hu, so I would recommend a change of text. http://new.org.il/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.217.226.10 ( talk) 10:15, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm curious that this page doesn't discuss the consistency with which John uses "ἐγώ εἰμι" where "εἰμι" would have done and the possible emphasis that is intended by it. I'll admit ignorance of the literature on this point, but wouldn't "ἐγώ εἰμι X" in Greek normally be meant to emphasis the claim of the speaker to be X in opposition to the claims of others? 45.130.58.54 ( talk) 12:43, 19 April 2022 (UTC)