The correct translation of John 8:58. List of alternate readings to "I am."

The Correct Translation of John 8:58, “I am”? Or, “I have been”? (By: Lesriv Spencer, 8/03/2010. Updated, May 8, 2014) What is the correct translation of John 8:58? A consideration of which is the correct translation of John 8:58 is set forth herein, and a list of alternate readings of John 8:58 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 Reader's 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 Today´s English Version (TEV). First listed: the Greek original literal reading followed by three translations representative of many 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 sources, the reader will find in many cases, the original readings right below the English translation for comparison. c. 96: “ πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ (before Abraham

γενέσθαι to become

c. 405: “antequam Abraham (before Abraham 1602: “Antes que Abraham (Before Abraham

fieret was fuese, was

ἐγὼ i

εἰμί ” - Greek am )

ego sum ” – Latin Vulgate i am ) yo soy ” - Reina-Valera I am )

1611: “Before Abraham was, I am ” - King James Version

What is the meaning of the Greek phrase “egō eimi”? The Greek phrase ἐγὼ εἰμί (“egō eimi”, a pronoun ego, and the verb eimi in the present indicative form) means in its simplest sense: “I am.” At first glance, it looks like there is no reason to go further. You have the Greek on one hand which reads: “I am.” 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 8:58, and it looks like any other rendering besides “I am” 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 in English, 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 “egō eimi” found in John 8:58. Though “egō eimi” is generally translated “I am” 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 Greek and English tenses is a frustrating experience. In fact, some scholars avoid stressing the word “tense” (i.e. “time”) in relation to biblical languages. As grammarians Dana and Mantey pointed out decades ago: “...Time is but a minor consideration in the Greek tenses.” (A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, p. 177) And more recently, David A. Black adds: “Unlike 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 – whether it is represented as ongoing, finished or simply as an occurrence.” (Learn to Read New Testament Greek, p. 15) Scholars often speak of Hebrew and Greek as being “aspectual”* languages, unlike English which has only tenses. (*“Aspect”: “A verbal categorization that focuses upon kind of action rather than time of action (i.e. tense).” (Pocket Dictionary for the Study of Biblical Hebrew, Todd J. Murphy) Thus, there is no way to consistently translate the phrase “egō eimi” in discussion in a strictly literal way, because Greek is an aspectual language and English is not. In other words, the renderings “I am” and “I have been” for “eimi,” to name one example, could well be, context depending, just as literal as the other. Bible translator N. T. Wright also noted: “But, as with all translations, even within closely related modern European languages, there are always going to be places where you simply can't do word by word. To do so would be ‘correct’ at one level and deeply incorrect at another. There is no ‘safe’ option: all translation is risky, but it's a risk we have to take.” (The Kingdom New Testament, Preface, p. xii. HarperCollins Publishers, 2011) Although Wright, a trinitarian, renders John 8:58 in the traditional way, it is my opinion that John 8:58 is one of those “places where you simply can't do word by word” 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 “eimi” in John 8:58 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 “eimi” is “a function word, variously rendered am, are, is, was, were, will be depending on requirements of English structure; the resources of English permit numerous equivalent renderings.” (The Concise Greek-English Lexicon of

the New Testament, p. 110. – Frederick William Danker) You can add the rendering “I have been” to the list above, as we will see.

What do scholars say of the syntax found in John 8:58? 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 (“I have been”; “I have existed”). Other scholars have chosen instead to use a simple past tense (“I was”; “I existed”) in translation for the present verb “eimi” at John 8:58. These Bible translators, surely no less conscientious of Greek grammar than scholars who favor the “I am” rendering, have translated taking into account the presence of the peculiar syntax found at John 8:58. Grammarian Kenneth L. McKay refers to the idiom as “Extension from Past,” and it occurs when a present verb is “used with an expression of either past time or extent of time with past implications.” (A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek, 1994, 41) This is the case with John 8:58 where the expression “I am” forms part of a Greek idiom structure: “prin Abraam genesthai egō eimi [Before Abraham to become, I am],” having an expression of past time in its statement. This construction is not unique to John 8:58, appearing in other places as indicated below. It also appears in the Septuagint: (Genesis 31:38, 41; Exodus 4:10; 21:36; Judges 16:17; Psalm 90:2; Luke 13:7; 15:29; John 14:9; Acts 15:21;). Various scholars explain the syntax found in Scriptures, such as John 8:58, thus (Some scholars may or may not specifically mention John 8:58 as an example of the idiom.): Greek – An Intensive Course: “When [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 time.” (Hardy Hansen & Gerald M. Quinn, New York Fordham University Press, 1992. Page 731.) Winer: “Sometimes the Present includes also a past tense (Mdv. 108), viz. when the verb expresses a state which commenced at an earlier period but still continues,—a 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].” ( A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament, by G. B. Winer, seventh edition, Andover, 1897, p. 267) Brooks & Winbery: “Past and present are gathered up in a single affirmation...the full meaning is that something has been and still is.” (Syntax of New Testament Greek, by James A. Brooks & Carlton L. Winbery. Lanham: University Press of America, 1979 [1988], 84. Idiom labeled as “Durative Present” by the authors.) Wallace: “The 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 … Luke 15:29 τοσαῦτα ἔτη δουλεύω σοι [tosauta etē douleuō soi] I have served you for these many years 1 John 3:8 ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς ὁ διάβολος ἁμαρτάνει [ap' archēs ho diabolos hamartanei] the devil has been sinning from the beginning.” (The Basics of New Testament Syntax, by Daniel B. Wallace, pp. 222-3. Italics and bold letters his. Underline mine.) W.W. Goodwin: “The present with πάλαι [palai] or any other expression of past time has the force of a present and perfect combined; as πάλαι τοῦτο λέγω [palai touto legō], I have long been telling this (which I now tell).” (A Greek Grammar, Section 1258, p. 270.) J. H. Moulton: “The 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 56 858 (εἰμί). . .149...1527...Ac 1521...2631...2 Co 1219...2 Ti 315...2 Pt 34...1 Jn 29 38.” (A Grammar of New Testament Greek, by J. H. Moulton, Vol. III, Syntax, by Nigel Turner, Edinburgh, 1963, p. 62) Sanders and Masten: “To describe a state continuing up to the present, Greek uses the present tense where English uses the Perfect; cf. Jn 8:58.” (Harper's New Testament Commentaries, p. 158) Burton: “The Present of past Action still in Progress*. The Present Indicative, accompanied by 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 … Acts 15:21...Luke 13:7...15:29...John 5:6...2 Tim. 3:15...” (Syntax of Moods and Tenses in N.T. Greek, by Ernest De Witt Burton, p. 10) Smyth: “Present of Past and Present Combined. – 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 ‘progressive perfect’ is often used in translation. Thus, πάλαι θαυμάζω [palai thaumazō] I have been long (and am still) wondering.” (Greek Grammar, by Herbert Weir Smyth, Section 1885 on verb tenses. pp. 422-423.) (* “The Present of past Action still in Progress.” (See also: An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek by C.F.D. Moule, Section v., p. 8, Cambridge). This same idiom is discussed in other grammars under the names “Durative Present”; “Extension from Past Present,” or “Progressive Present.” See Blass and Debrunner, section 322; K. L. Mckay 1994, pp 41-42; A. T. Robertson's Grammar, p. 879; W.D. Chamberlain's Grammar, p. 70; D .A. Black, It's Still Greek to Me, p. 107; A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, by Dana and Mantey, pp. 182-3; Intermediate New Testament Greek, by Richard A Young, p. 111; 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 W.W. Goodwin, p. 9, #26.) The scholars quoted above clearly show that the English present tense in such construction is not equal to the Greek Present. Therefore, it would be a mistake to conclude that we have to take the basic sense of “egō eimi” in John 8:58, and represent it word-for-word in our language to be accurate. We must consider whether John 8:58 contains a temporal indicator that goes back in time in combination with a Greek “present” verb. Those seeking to prove a point of “timelessness” in “eimi,” should be reminded that Greek verb tenses of themselves, do not indicate whether a subject in view is “eternal” or not. In point of fact, the above biblical Greek syntax is carried over to modern Greek: A modern Greek Grammar explains: “The [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.] I've been taking this medicine since 1999.” (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, “I am taking”) using an English present perfect, “I've been taking this medicine since 1999.” Consequently, when Bible versions transfer the basic meaning “I am” 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. (“Ungrammatical,” because English present tense cannot start before a particular point in the past.”) Oddly, some free, paraphrased and dynamic equivalent translations carry over this “literal” 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 3:14 parallel to John 8:58? Some believe there is an asserted connection of Jesus at John 8:58 being identified with “The Being” or “The Existing One” of Exodus 3:14. In other words, those who hold such view, believe Jesus Christ is the “Jehovah” or “Yahweh” of the Old Testament. At Exodus 3:14, the Septuagint, a Greek translation from the Hebrew, has the true God saying, ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν [Egō eimi ho ōn]: “I am the The Being,” or, “I am The Existing One.” And linking to Exodus 3:14, many translations have Jesus saying at John 8:58, “I am.” However, did Christ really say at John 8:58, “I am Jehovah”; “I am The Being”; or even “The I Am”? No, he did not. Those interpretations are traditionally read into the text. The use of “eimi” at Exodus 3:14 in the Septuagint is used as a linking verb to the expression, “The Being,” or, “The Existing One,” not as an absolute predicate. This is similar to, as when David said: “I am (egō eimi) the one sinning.” (1 Chronicles 21:17,

LXX) Or, when Jesus says (John 10:7): “I am (egō eimi) the door to the sheep.” Or, Peter (Acts 22:3): “I am (egō eimi) a Jew.” In these three instances of “eimi” 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 8:58. (Luke 1:19) Even Paul stated: εἰμι ὅ εἰμι [eimi ho eimi] = “I am what I am,” and by using those words he was by no means claiming he was God eternal. (1 Corinthians 15:10) Hence, the use of “eimi” of itself cannot be used as a sound argument to bolster Christ's deity. The meaning of “eimi” must therefore be defined mainly from Bible context, and not from any mysticism attributed to the word. And strictly speaking, John 8:58 does not even say whether Jesus is “eternal” or not. All it says is that Jesus preceded Abraham in time, and his existence extended to the present: “I have existed [since] before Abraham was born.” (A New Translation, by James Moffatt) The Bible does say that Christ is “superior” to angels, but “superiority” does not demand “eternity,” since someone can be “superior” to another without having the same age. It should be pointed out that angels too existed way before Abraham came to be, and still “exist,” but nonetheless, they were “created” by God. (Genesis 6:2; Job 38:1-7; Psalm 148:2, 5) And of Christ, it is said: “He is...the firstborn of all creation.” (Col. 1:15, ESV) Some in their attempt to disconnect Christ from ‘creature’ status, twist the meaning of this last statement, but Christ himself said: “I have life because of him [God].” (John 6:57, CEV) Although many Bible commentators explain God's words at Exodus 3:14 as the New American Standard Bible rendered it, “I AM WHO I AM,” other scholars accept another explanation, such as the one found in The International Bible Commentary: “The translation ‘I will be what I will be’ (cf. NIVfn) is also possible, and would make even more explicit the suggestion that God's character would be disclosed as events unfolded.” (F.F. Bruce, General Editor) Another reference work, The Expositor's Bible Commentary (Abridged Edition) points out the following as well: “The Hebrew seeks the significance, character, quality, and interpretation of the name. Therefore, what they needed to know was ‘What does that name mean or signify in circumstances such as we are in?’ ” So, even when scholars use “I Am” in their explanations of Exodus 3:14, others see the phrase as indicative of God's will toward his people. Thus, other translators provide an alternate, more accurate reading, either in the main text, or in their footnotes: “I Will Be What I Will Be” (Modern Spelling Tyndale-Coverdale) “I Will Become whatsoever I please” (Joseph Bryant Rotherham) “I will be what I will be” (The Bible in Living English, Steven T. Byington). “I WILL BE THAT I WILL BE” (Leeser Old Testament, 1853) “I shall come to be just as I am coming to be” (Concordant Literal Version) “I-will-be-what-I-will-be” (A New Translation by James Moffatt) “I shall be that I shall be” (Julia Smith Translation) “EHYEH ASHER EHYEH / I will be-there howsoever I will be-there.” (The Five Books [of Moses, by Everett Fox). “I SHALL PROVE TO BE WHAT I SHALL PROVE TO BE” (NWT) “I Will Become What I Choose to Become.” (NWT, 2013)

See also: The Anchor Bible (William H.C. Propp), and the The Stone Tanach (Artscroll /Mesorah). In the Hebrew original, the above words pronounced by God Almighty are in the “imperfect” state of the verb which communicate “incompleteness,” or, “future” activity. Interestingly, the Hebrew word ‫'( איאה) ה ֶייי) ה‬ehyeh) appears in Exodus 3:12, just two verses away, and there many Bible translations render it, unlike what they do in Exodus 3:14, as future action: “I will be with you,” reflecting the imperfect state of the verb, here indicative of God's intended involvement with his people. (Compare with other occurrences of the word in Joshua 1:5; Judges 6:16; 1 Samuel 23:17; 2 Samuel 7:14; 15:34; 16:18; 1 Chronicles 17:13; Isaiah 47:7; and Jeremiah 11:4, where 'ehyeh is commonly translated as “future” action.) This brings up the question: Why do this in Exodus 3:12 and the other places, but not in verse 14? Charles R. Gianotti, (Dallas Theological Seminary) points out this very thing: “Significantly, most interpreters translate ‫'[ איאה) ה ֶייי) ה‬ehyeh] in Exodus 3:12 as future (i.e., I will be ['ehyeh] with you’). Yet, two verses later, why should not the same translation suffice?” Gianotti adds: “The future in this case can indeed refer to future activity or effectiveness of YHWH. It should be observed that even Aquila (A.D. 130), noted for his ‘slavishly literal translation’ translated the tense as future.” Gianotti says that “in light of the imperfect form, ‫איאה) ה ֶייי) ה‬ ['ehyeh] used in Exodus 3:14,” translating ‫'[ איאה) ה ֶייי) ה‬ehyeh] as most English versions do assuming a present tense meaning, is “unjustified.” (“The Meaning of the Divine Name YHWH,” Bibliotheca Sacra 142: January-March 1985) Reflecting a similar understanding, the NWT 1984 Reference Edition adds the following footnote: “The reference here is not to God's self-existence but to what he has in mind to become toward others.” The Septuagint reading, “I am The Being” at Exodus 3:14 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 Ph.D. (from Alpha & Omega Ministries) noted: “It is true that many go directly to Exodus 3:14 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 3:14 will be somewhat tenuous.” Could it be then, that modern translators want to advance 'ehyeh as a title or name, “I Am!” to express self-existence, and hence, make the connection to the “I Am!” of Jesus in John 8:58 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 8:58 and the “I am [he]” sayings in Isaiah, he has this to say of the supposed connection between John 8:58 and Exodus 3:14: “It could fairly be admitted that an immediate and unqualified jump from the ego eimi of John 8:58 to Exodus 3:14 is unwise.” (“Purpose and Meaning of ‘Ego Eimi’ in the Gospel of John In Reference to the Deity of Christ.”) Likewise, Edwin D. Freed, Professor Emeritus of Religion, Gettysburg College, contends that “the meaning of the sentence [at John 8:58] in the mind of the writer was: “Before

Abraham was, I, the Christ, the Son of God, existed.” (“Who or what was before Abraham in John 8:58?”, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 17, 1983, 52-59) Professor Freed, thus, sees no connection of Jesus' statement in John 8:58 with that of Jehovah (Yahweh) at Exodus 3:14. But what about the “I am” sayings appearing in the books of Isaiah and John? Are they not connected somehow?

Is ’ani-hu’ in Isaiah parallel to egō eimi in John? At times, there are biblical statements made where both God and Christ use similar language. This is not surprising when one considers the role Christ plays in God's purpose. The Bible tells us that Christ is “the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation” (NASB); “the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being.” (Colossians 1:15; Hebrews 1:3) “And God has put all things under the authority of Christ, and he gave him this authority for the benefit of the church.” (Ephesians 1:22, NLT) Anyone seeking salvation must therefore put faith in ‘the name which was given by God to mankind,’ “Jesus Christ,” “to the glory of God the Father.” “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them.” (John 3:36; Philippians 2:10,11) In all, God still is in control, and just as ‘Christians belong to Christ,’ “Christ belongs to God,” says the Word. (1 Corinthians 11:3, 3:23; NASB) In the Old Testament, God appears on several occasions using the Hebrew phrase ‫אא ִנני־א) הּוא‬ (’ani-hu’), which literally means, “I – he,” but sometimes translated, “I am,” or “I am he.” (Isaiah 41:4; 42:8; 43:10, 13; 46:4; 48:12; 52:6) It also appears in Deuteronomy 32:39. David, a human, also used that expression in 1 Chronicles 21:17. (Hebrew: ‫( אא ִנני־ה) הּוא‬ani-hu´ - “I am he”); Septuagint: ἐγώ εἰμι (“egō eimi”) Although many argue that there is a connection between Christ's 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 “I am” 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 sense they became like “a god” since they “represented” God. (Exodus 7:1; Psalms 82:1,6; John 10:33-36) Having others referred to in similar language to that of God is no conclusive proof of “equality” with God. An example of this can be seen when a “man” (perhaps Solomon) became “king” of Israel, was addressed literally, in divine terms: “Your throne God forever and ever.” (Psalm 45:6) 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: “Your throne is like God's throne.” (Jewish Publication Society); Or: “Your divine throne endures for ever and ever.” (Revised Standard Version); Or: “Your throne is from God.” (New Jerusalem Bible); Or: “God has enthroned you for all eternity.” (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: “Here the king is addressed as God’s representative.” Nonetheless, when such reference is made of

Jesus Christ (as in Hebrews 1:8), the same translators may now insist those similar words are “proof” of Christ's “deity”. A good example of this is found in the NET Bible's footnotes. Although Jesus accepted being “one greater than Solomon,” he never claimed to be God the Father. (Matthew 12:42) Significantly, to Jesus, “God” was someone else. In the Bible is not rare to read frequent references and comparisons of faithful men with Jesus Christ – Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David, Solomon, Jonas, and John the Baptist. (John 8:53; 4:12; Deuteronomy 18:15; Hebrews 3:3; Psalm 110:1; Matthew 9:27; 22:45; 12:41,42; Mark 1:7; Luke 1:17; 7:26,28.) What's more, Jesus is compared to “angels.” (Hebrews 1:4,5,13) 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: “The Father is greater than I.” (John 14:28; 20:31) Accordingly, the “I am,” or “I am he” 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 man's history, God provided a way for mankind's 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 he did 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 – deliverance was still ahead. It was now the time to call attention to the fact that Christ, their (future) “savior,” was in their midst. Jesus did his part, by words and by action (miracles, etc.). He called attention to who he really was, “the Son of God,” and told others that he was “the Christ” (or the “Messiah”) (John 4:25,26; Matthew 16:15-17; 26:63-68). Related to the subject, one expression Jesus used on various occasions was this one: “I am,” or “I am he,” words understood by those brought up in trinitarian doctrine to attest Jesus' equality with God. (John 4:26; 6:20; 8:24, 28; 8:58; 13:19; 18:5-6, 8) However, the phrase was sometimes used as a simple self-identification, like: “It is I”; or “I am Jesus.” At other times, when questioned by doubters, Jesus used it to get the point across that ‘he was the one [and not someone else]’ the promised “Savior”; “the Son of man”; “the Son of God”; “the Messiah.” At no time did Jesus ever claim he was a “God-man” or “God in the flesh.” (John 3:16) Those thoughts are foreign to Scripture. Remember that Scripture teaches that ‘God was with Jesus,’ just as we are told that ‘God was with Joseph,’ son of Jacob. Scripture does not say that Jesus was God made flesh. It was ‘the Word,’ the Son of God, who was with God in the beginning, the One who ‘became flesh,’ not God. (Acts 7:9; 10:38; John 1:1; 1:14) Christendom has distorted Scripture to the point that “Christian” followers cannot determine this plain truth. A misunderstanding of John 1:1 and 1 Timothy 3:16 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 “I am,”

or “I am he” 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 “he” was (and not some other), “God's Son,” the promised “Messiah.” The Jesus' sayings, “I am,” or “I am he,” in some cases, would confirm, at most, that “there is no other name under heaven that has been given to men, in which we must be saved.” (Acts 4: 12) It was ‘God who resurrected Jesus from among the dead,’ and it was God who ‘gave mankind the name’ that saves people. (Acts 4:10) Thus, the “I am” 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 “I am,” or “I am he” expressions in the OT is described unequivocally as ‘Almighty God,’ ‘the only True God,’ with maximum “power” and “authority” to send a “subordinate” to an extraordinary mission. (Daniel 7:14; John 13:16; 5:37) The glorified Christ is never described in the same way as God was in Old Testament times, as he always appears throughout the N.T. subordinated to God. Still, Christ is “the way” to the Father and salvation. (John 14:6) We are therefore commanded to recognize his ‘God-given authority,’ so “that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father.” (Matthew 28:18; John 20:31; 5:23) Jesus is then, the “mediator” between God and mankind. (1 Timothy 2:5) A grand privilege that is!

What does the context of John 8:58 indicate? Some Bible readers see Jesus in the context of John chapter 8 not only saying in idiomatic fashion that he ‘was [already] alive before Abraham was born (SEB),’ and still ‘is,’ but also that he was identifying himself as: “the Son of Man,” “the Messiah.” This is a reasonable assumption as well. One of the Jews' questions was: “Who do you think you are?” (John 8:53) In John 8:24, 28, 13:19, Matthew 27:54 and Mark 14:60-64, the function or position of Christ as the “Son of God,” “Son of Man,” and “the Christ,” all come through. The statement (or, question) Jews made to Jesus prior to verse 58 was, “You are not yet fifty years old, and you have seen Abraham!” Logically, Jesus answered the question of his age, of his long existence, and additionally, was perhaps, asserting his “messiahship” as well, in harmony with the question Jews had posed earlier in verse 53. This may be one reason a few translators render or note John 8:58, not as “I am,” but, rather, “I am he,” 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 8:58 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 (8:24,28) where “eimi” is used (in the sense of: “I am he,” i.e. “the Son of God,” “the Messiah”), in verse 58, the matter of “identity” is secondary to the key issue of his existence. In the sum of things, it should be noted that, “indefinite” existence is not equal to “eternal” 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 “truth.” In John 8:26 Jesus told the Jews that he was “sent” by his Father and that ‘he speaks the things that he hears from the one who sent him,’ ... That ‘he does nothing on his own initiative’ (NASB), ... That ‘he is’ “the Son of Man” and ‘speaks just what the Father taught him.’ (V. 28) Jesus stated a simple but significant truth: “No servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him.” (John 13:16) With this principle in mind, here are some questions to ponder about: How could Jesus be “sent” if he himself was “God”? Why was Jesus ‘not able to do anything on his own initiative’ if he was “allmighty”? In verse 29 Jesus says that ‘the One who sent him has not left him alone, and that he always did what pleased the Father.’ Why would Jesus Christ say at all, ‘I always do what pleases him who sent me’? If Jesus was “God,” why would he find it important enough to mention whether he was left “alone” or not? Does God need “companionship” as humans do? Why would anybody have to “teach” Jesus anything if he was all-knowing”? Also, Jesus applied the title “Son of Man” to himself numerous times, a term which Jews considered a title of the promised “Messiah,” not of “God.” In addition, the Bible book of Numbers 23:19 tells us that “God is not a man, that he should lie, “nor a son of man, that he should change his mind.” Nonetheless, Christ precisely adopted this very same expression (“Son of Man”) before others with no regrets. Furthermore, did God have to become “a man” to save humankind when the Bible explicitly says that ‘God sent his only-begotten Son’ to save the world’? (John 3:16, NASB; 1 John 4:14) Who is distorting the full picture here? In verse 40, John reports that the Jews ‘were determined to kill Jesus because they didn't want to accept the word and truth that Jesus as a man [Greek: anthropon] spoke, having it received from God.’ How could Christ speak of himself as ‘a man receiving truth from God,’ when, seconds later, according to Trinitarians, he would be using a “title” claiming to be “God,” 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 ‘could not do anything on his own initiative,’ that ‘he always did what pleased the Father,’ and that he only spoke just what the Father who sent him ‘taught’ him? And shortly afterwards, change his message altogether, and claim, as we are asked to believe, that Christ was the “God” of the Old Testament by the sole act of pronouncing the “I am” divine “title”? Does this ‘double personality’ approach make any sense to a Christian, who is taught to only believe “there is but one God, the Father”? (John 5:30; 1 Corinthians 8:6) No wonder there are a good number of Bible translators, including Trinitarians, who disagree with the traditional view of John 8:58! Does the Jews' reaction in John 8:59 prove Jesus Christ had claimed to be “God”? 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 Mark's account (14:60-64), which says: 60 Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus, “Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?” 61 But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?” 62 “I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.” 63 The high priest tore his clothes. “Why do we need any more witnesses?” he asked. 64 “You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?” They all condemned him as worthy of death.

In view of the events of Mark 14:60-64, and considering the context of John chapter 8, it is clear that the Jews rejected Jesus' claim of him being “the Messiah,” and of being ‘greater’ than Abraham. They were also rejecting the idea that he was “from above,” “the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven” of the heavenly vision. (John 8:23) In their view, that was enough to charge him with blasphemy, since they could not imagine any “man” making such claims. C. K. Barrett rightly noted that the Jews' reaction in verse 59 “does not mean that Jesus had claimed to be God.” (The Gospel According to St. John, 2d. ed. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1978, 352). And Professor Emeritus William Loader noted: “The text need mean no more than I am and was in existence before Abraham, still a majestic unique claim but not an allusion to the divine name.” (The Christology of the Fourth Gospel: Structures and Issues, Revised. 2d. ed. New York: Lang, 1992, 48) Even before Jesus spoke the “egō eimi” words in John 8:58, the Jews had already sought to kill Jesus. (John 7:19; 8:37) And for what “crime”? This: ‘Jesus claimed the truth he taught came from God’. (John 7:16; 8:40) This is vastly different from ‘Jesus alledgedly claiming a divine title equating him with God at John 8:58.’ Since then, all sorts of religious leaders have claimed as well that “what they teach others comes from God”, and not from them. Does that make them “equal” to God? Because Jesus often ‘called God his Father,’ the Jews wrongly concluded that he was “making himself equal to God.” (John 5:18,19) However, Jesus quickly set the matter straight when he called himself God's “Son” (nine times in chapter 5 alone), an expression never applied to “God” in Scripture. (Matthew 26:63-64) The Jews even claimed Jesus was “breaking the Sabbath,” and further, of being “a Samaritan and demon-possessed.” (John 5:18; 8:48) 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: “The claim of Jesus to live on the divine plane (v. 58) is, for the Jews, blasphemy, for which the penalty is stoning. Lv 24:16.” I see the JB accepting the claim that Jesus possessed some mode of “divine existence,” (as suggested by the Spanish edition of JB, “Biblia de Jerusalén”), but avoiding a direct reference of Christ

claiming to be God, or that he was claiming “eternal” existence in the verse. And former Professor Kenneth L. McKay said, “The claim to have been in existence for so long is in itself a staggering one, quite enough to provoke the crowd's violent reaction [in v.59].” (“ ‘I am’ in John's Gospel,” p. 302) Hence, those who claim the charge of blasphemy involved Jesus' claim of being “God,” are wrong, for Jesus never claimed to be, “The Supreme Being,” but only “God's Son.” (John 3:17,18) Weeks later, after the incident of John chapter 8, but related to the topic of discussion, in John 10:30-36 we read that the Jews misunderstood Jesus' words, “I and the father are one.” (John 10: 30) So they wanted to stone him for it, but Jesus told them: 33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God*.” 34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’ [Psalm 82:6]? 35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside— 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, ‘I am God’s Son’? (* Other versions translate the Greek word here for “God” without the article either as “god” or “a god”: 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 “God.” But he did not do so. The argument itself that Jesus employed, shows that he could legitimately claim ‘divine origin’ 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 ‘should rejoice he was going away to the Father, because the Father was greater than he was.’ (John 14:28) And in his final prayer in proximity with his disciples, he prayed to God that ‘they may know his Father, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom he has sent.’ (John 17:3 ) 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: “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’ ” (John 20:17) Does it make sense to have Jesus claim equality with God by employing a divine title (“I Am”) before unbelieving Jews, as Trinitarians claim, and then have Jesus later, assure his closest and faithful ones, that ‘his Father and his God’ was also ‘the Father and God of everyone else’? 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 ‘all things’ to them privately, whereas to others he would only speak in ‘parables,’ or ‘comparisons.’ (Matthew 13:11; Mark 4:11, 33, 34) An explicit ‘divine title’ directed at ‘unbelieving’ 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: “But go to my followers and tell them this: ‘I am going back to my Father and your Father. I am going back to my God and your God.’ ” (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 farewell discourse of our Lord Jesus Christ of later (chapters 14-17), not once did Jesus say he was “God.” Christ never spoke with a forked tongue. Therefore, Bible translators who do not claim Jesus was using a divine title at John 8:58, and provide renderings agreeing with the words of John 17:3 and 20:17 are in the correct.

Scriptures with similar syntax to John 8:58: Thus, when faced with certain idiomatic expressions as the one found in John 8:58, 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 8:58: Genesis 31:38, LXX; 1 John 3:8; Luke 2:48; John 5:6; 2 Corinthians 12:19; and John 15:27. All six Scriptures have present tense verbs AND an expression of past time or extent of time with past implications within its structure. Let's see how these Scriptures compare with John 8:58 in our discussion. 1st Example (Genesis 31:38, LXX): ταῦτά These

μοι mine

εἴκοσι twenty

ἔτη years

ἐγώ I

εἰμι am

μετὰ with

σοῦ - Greek 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 Laban's behalf. “These twenty years I am with you” (The Apostolic Bible Polyglot, LXX, 2006) “These twenty years of mine I was with you” (A New English Translation of the Septuagint, “NETS”, 2007) “These twenty years have I been with thee” (The Holy Orthodox Bible, LXX, 2006) “These twenty years I have been with you” (The Orthodox Study Bible, LXX, 2008) “These twenty years of mine have I been with thee” (Orthodox England, LXX, 2009) “I have spent with you twenty of my years [J'ai passé avec toi vingt de mes années]” (La Septante, [LXX], translated by Pierre Giguet.) “These twenty years have I been with thee” (Sir Lancelot CL Brenton, LXX) “These twenty years that I have been with thee” (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 “egō eimi” (I am) preceded by an expression of time with past implications (“These twenty years”) with present perfect

indicative forms (“I have been”), while one translation (NETS) uses a simple past form (“I was”). A modern Greek translation, Η Αγία Γραφή—Μετάφραση Νέου Κόσμου, has “ήμουν” (Literally: “I was”) in this text. A likely reason for that, as a modern Greek Grammar points out, is that, for the verb ‘to be (είμαι),’ “There are only two sets of tense forms in Greek: present and past (imperfect).” (op. cit., An Essential Grammar, p. 126, Sec. 6.7) Hence, they could not have used here a perfect tense form for the verb ‘to be (eimai).’ But in English, the Bible Society responsible for the Greek and English translations of the Hebrew portion of the Bible, used instead, “I have been” at Genesis 31:38 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: “This twenty year I with-you.” (The Hebrew-English Interlinear ESV Old Testament, Crossway.) Well, how do translators deal with this issue? Overall like this, with the perfect indicative: “I have been with you for twenty years now” A few versions use the imperfect instead, ‘I was’, such as the Wycliffe Bible, and the Lexham English Bible. Rarely do translations use a “present” here, the exceptions being Young's and Concordant literal translations. So, why do the overwhelming number of translators prefer to supply a perfect tense here for the missing verb in the Hebrew? It's simple! There is a temporal indicator going to the past in the text, namely: ‘These twenty years...’ Now, when the LXX translators proceeded to translate the Hebrew words of Genesis 31:38 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 “past and present are gathered up in a single affirmation.” (op. cit., Brooks & Winbery) Modern English translators usually resort to the present perfect in this construction, as shown above. So too, John 8:58 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 31:38 and John 8:58. For the following, I will use the Wescott and Hort Greek text for reference: 2nd Example (1 John 3:8): ὅτι because

ἀπʼ from

ἀρχῆς beginning

ὁ the

διάβολος devil

ἁμαρτάνει - Greek 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 (“from beginning”) with a present verb (is sinning), very much like John 8:58. How do translators deal with this passage? Let's see! “for the devil sinneth from the beginning” (Rheims New Testament) “for the devil sinneth from the beginning” (KJV)

“for the devil has sinned from the beginning” (New King James Version) “for the devil has sinned from the beginning” (NASB) “because the devil has been sinning from the beginning” (Interlinear, Mounce) “for the Devil has been sinning from the beginning” (Riverside NT, Ballantine) “because the devil has been sinning from the beginning” (NIV) “because the devil has sinned from the beginning” (NAB) “since the devil has been sinning from the beginning” (Jay E. Adams) “who has been sinning since the beginning” (NLT) “for the devil has been sinning from the beginning” (NRSV) “since the devil has been a sinner from the beginning” (NJB) “because the devil has been sinning from the very beginning” (J. G. Anderson) “for the devil has been sinning from the beginning” (ESV) “the devil was a sinner from the first” (Ronald A. Knox New Testament) Some translations transfer the Greek present to their English versions as if the English and Greek “present” in such construction were the same thing. It is not. The end result is ungrammatical English. Would you say in contemporary English: “From the beginning of class the boy sleeps”? Not! Doctor Richard A. Young points out: “To say that the devil is sinning from the beginning does not make sense in English. English translations therefore employ the present perfect.” (Intermediate New Testament Greek, page 111.) The renderings above, “has sinned” and “has been sinning” are present perfect and present perfect progressive indicative forms. The word “was” is a simple past tense. Just as in 1 John 3:8, some translators in John 8:58 have rendered a present tense with an expression of past time in its construction with a present perfect: “I have been.” 3rd Example (2 Corinthians 12:19): Πάλαι Long ago

δοκεῖτε you are thinking

ὅτι that

ὑμῖν to you

ἀπολογούμεθα – Greek 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: “All this time, have you been thinking that I've been speaking up for myself? No, I've been speaking with God as my witness. I've been speaking like a believer in Christ. Dear friends, everything I do is to help you become stronger.” (NIRV) In the literal reading above, we have an adverb of time with past implications (Palai) followed by two Greek verb forms (“dokeite” & “apologoumetha”) in the present indicative tense. The book Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek Verb by William Watson Goodwin explains: “The Present is often used with expressions denoting past time, especially πάλαι [palai], in the sense of a perfect and a present combined.” (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: “Have you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves before you?” (The Comprehensive New Testament, 2008) “I hope you don´t think that all along we´ve been making our defense before you” (The Message, Eugene H. Peterson) “Have you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves to you?” (NIV) “It may seem to you that all this time we have been attempting to put ourselves in the right.” (Bible in Basic English) “All this time you have been thinking that we have been pleading our own cause before you.” (NJB) “Have you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves to you?” (CEV) “Have you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves before you.” (Revised Standard Version) “Perhaps you think that all along we have been trying to defend ourselves before you?” (TEV) “Have you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves to you?” (ESV) “You have thought all along that we were defending ourselves to you.” (HCSB) “Have you been thinking all this time that we have been defending ourselves to you?” (NET Bible) “You have been thinking all along that it was to you we were making our defense.” (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 2:48, Wescott and Hort/Nestle, early editions Greek text): ὁ πατήρ σου The father of you

καὶ and

ἐγὼ ὀδυνώμενοι I being pained

ζητοῦμέν σε - Greek 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. “Your father and I have been looking for you anxiously” (Revised Standard Version) “Your father and I, in agony of mind, have been searching for you!” (Williams N.T.) “Your father and I have been anxiously looking for You” (NASB, 1971) “Your father and I have been searching for you in great distress” (Riverside N.T.)

“Here have your father and I been searching anxiously for you” (Hugh J. Schonfield) “Your father and I have been looking for you, have been very anxious ” (Goodspeed) “Your father and I have been looking for you. We have been very troubled” (Bible in Worldwide English) “Your father and I have been looking for you, in distress” (Richmond Lattimore) “Your father and I have been searching for you in great distress” (Twentieth Century N.T.) “Thy father and I have sought thee distressed” (Darby Bible Translation) “Thy father and I sought thee sorrowing” (American Standard Version) “Thy father and I in anguish were seeking thee” (The Emphasized Bible, 3rd edit., based on Wescott and Hort, by Joseph B. Rotherham) “Thy father and I were seeking thee, sorrowful” (W. B. Godbey N. T., 1902) “Thy father and I were seeking Thee, sorrowing!” (A. S. Worrell, N. T., 1904) “Your father and I were anxiously looking for you” (World English Bible) The words “we are seeking you” are in the present indicative tense, however, since an expression of time is used indicating action going on for days (“after three days,” v. 46), translators find it necessary to use either the present perfect (“have been”, “have sought”) or simple past (“sought”), or past progressive (“were seeking”) indicative forms to express in English what the Greek says in the “present.” Various Greek texts have, instead of the “present” found in the Westcott & Hort Text above, an “imperfect” verb form. Both forms are frequently rendered with an English present “perfect.” Compare with Young's Literal Translation which also uses a past progressive indicative form “were seeking,” and the Spanish Reina-Valera Revisada which rendered an imperfect verb form appearing in the Received Text with a present perfect indicative (“hemos buscado”). Is this another reason why many translators have rendered the Greek present “egō eimi” preceded by an adverbial modifier in its clause at John 8:58 with perfective or past forms in English? 5th Example (Juan 5:6): καὶ and

γνοὺς having known

ὅτι that

πολὺν much

ἤδη already

χρόνον ἔχει - Greek 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, “he is having.” For this to make any sense in our language, it has to be modified. When Jesus saw this sick man lying there... “and knew that he had been now a long time in that case” (KJV, italics theirs) “and knowing that he had been ill a long time” (Revised English Bible) “and knew he had been in that condition for a long time” (NJB) “and knew that he had been sick for a long time” (World English Bible) “and knew that he had been sick for a long time” (God´s Word)

“and knew how long he had been ill” (Living Bible) “and knew he had already been there a long time” (HCSB) “and he knew that the man had been sick for such a long time” (TEV) “and knew that he had been in this state a long time” (Confraternity Version) “and finding that he had had a long time of it” (S. T. Byington) “and knew that he had been sick for a long time” (Jay E. Adams) “and he knew that he had been waiting for a long time” (George M. Lamsa, Peshitta) “and knew that he had been now a long time” (Rheims New Testament) “and knowing that he was [in that state] now a great length of time” (J. N. Darby Translation, Brackets his.) Once again, we see translators having to use mostly perfective forms (“had been,” “had had,” past perfects) and one with a simple past, “was,” even though they are translating a present tense verb, “he is having.” 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 “eimi” at John 8:58 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 evidence objectively. 6th Example (John 15:27, Wescott & Hort): ὅτι that

ἀπʼ from

ἀρχῆς beginning

μετʼ with

ἐμοῦ me

ἐστέ – Greek you are

These words spoken by Jesus evidently refers to the beginning of his ministry when he chose his closest disciples. They were eyewitnesses of all the things God did through Christ during his ministry. (Acts 1:21) “because ye have been with me from the beginning” (KJV) “because you have been with me from the beginning” (NAB) “for you have been with me from the beginning” (Christian Community Bible) “because you are the men who have been with me from the very beginning” (Heinz W. “because you have been with me from the first” (New English Bible) [ Cassirer) “because you have been with me from the beginning” (God´s Word Translation) “for you have been with me from the beginning” (NIV) “because you have been with me from the first” (Weymouth New Testament) “because you have been with me from the beginning” (NRSV) “you that have been with me from the beginning” (The Four Gospels, E.V. Rieu) “because you´ve been with Me from the beginning of My ministry” (The Clear Word) “for you have been with me from the first” (J. B Phillips Modern English) “because you have been with Me from the beginning” (HCSB) “that you were with me from the start” (21st Century New Testament) “for you were with Me from the beginning” (New Berkeley Version, Revised Edition)

“because you were with me from the beginning” (Mark Heber Miller) “because you were with me from the very beginning” (SEB) This scripture with the plural form of “eimi” (este) is very similar to John 8:58. 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 8:58. A Grammar of New Testament Greek says: “The reader may be reminded of one idiom which comes out of the linear idea, the use of words like πάλαι [palai, “long ago”] with the present in a sense best expressed by our perfect. Thus in 2 Co 1219 ‘have you been thinking all this time?’ or Jn 1527, ‘you have been with me from the beginning [ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς].’ … The durative present in such cases gathers up past and present time into one phrase.” (A Grammar of New Testament Greek, Vol. 1, Prolegomena, by J.H. Moulton, p. 119) As previously noted, this Grammar specifically refers to John 8:58 as an example of this idiom. And here in John 15:27 there is a connection of Jesus' disciples [creatures as they are] that “were” with him “from the beginning.” Obviously, Jesus was making no reference to his disciples sharing “eternity” with him. The disciples all had a beginning. The logical conclusion is, that Jesus was simply saying to them: ‘You have been with me from the start of my ministry.’ Hence, there is no need to read “eternity” into the expression “I am” anymore that we should read “eternity” from Jesus' words at John 15:27: ‘You are with me from the beginning.’ 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 31:38, LXX; 1 John 3:8; 2 Cor. 12:19; Luke 2:48; John 5:6, John 15:27) and John 8:58 as well, all, have an expression of past time or an extent of time with past implications (“These twenty years”; “Long ago”; “after three days,” Lk 2:46; “much already time”; “from [the] beginning”; “Before,” 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 8:58, it would mean that renderings such as “I have been” (present perfect) and “I was” (simple past) are not only acceptable in translation, but actually more “suitable” in application. Can this really be done? Not only can it be done, it makes for a “better” English translation. In regards to Jesus, John 8:58 simply tells us that Jesus ‘was alive before Abraham was born’ (SEB), and that his existence continued up to the moment of his speaking to them. Just as it is not proper English to say “For three days we are seeking you” (Greek literal reading of Luke 2:48); or, “because from the beginning with me you are” (John 15:27); it is no less proper English to say in John 8:58: “Before Abraham was born, I am.” 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: “Before my son Abe was born, I am [the one fit for the job]”? No, that does not sound right. In English, he could say it in various ways:

“I have been an experienced worker since before my son Abe was born.” “I have been what I am since before my son Abe was born.” “I was fit to work and fully active before my son Abe was ever born.” “I was already experienced in many jobs before Abe ever came to be.” “I have been a master worker way before my son Abe came to life.” “Before Abe was born, I already was life and job experienced,” 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 8:58. 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 “eternity” as “padding” to the Trinity doctrine, a doctrine adopted AFTER the Christian era. Worse, it is disingenuous to accuse other translators (who have chosen to render “egō eimi” at John 8:58, 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 “deity” of Christ is not in play, as shown 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 “I have been” at John 8:58, 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: “Williams translation, considering all the factors, is the most accurate and illuminating translation in the English language.” And how does this “most accurate translation” render John 8:58? As follows: “I existed before Abraham was born!” Here Dr. Williams known for his Greek command, used a simple past tense (“I existed”) as translation for the Greek present. Julius Mantey certainly did not find William's version of John 8:58 a “shocking translation.” “I existed” is quite different from the translation Dr. Mantey so passionately defended (“I am”). When Dr. Mantey talks about the NWT, he says the rendering “I have been” at John 8:58 cannot be justified, and calls it “dishonest.” That rule does not apply to Williams translation, does it? Williams did not translate John 8:58 in the same way Mantey would have liked (“I am”). Not only that, the Grammar itself that Dr. Mantey co-authored with Dr. Dana, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, states under “The Progressive Present” (called “Extension from Past” by McKay): “Sometimes the progressive present is retroactive in 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. 15:27. See also: Lk. 13:7; 2 Cor. 12:9 [19].” (Pages 182-83. Emphasis added) Even though Julius Mantey has stated when referring to the NWT that “I have been” is not a proper translation and even “dishonest” at John 8:58, he clearly states in his Grammar (of

Scriptures with similar syntax to John 8:58): “This use is generally associated with an adverb of time, and may best be rendered by the English perfect [such as “I have been,” which in fact is associated with an adverb of time in John 8:58].” A likely reason for Dana & Mantey's strong reluctance for not including John 8:58 as an example of the idiom discussed on page 183 may have to do with the fact that as “trinitarians,” they oppose the idea of Jesus' existence having ‘begun’ in the past, even though John 8:58 perfectly fits with the “Progressive Present” idiom being discussed in their Grammar, as acknowledged by other grammarians. Hence, their objection is truly a “theological” one, rather than Greek grammar itself arguing in their favor, as Mantey and some others have implied, since a Greek present or an English perfect does not demand “eternity” at all from the subject. Consequently, many religious individuals who focus solely on the basic meaning (of “egō eimi” as “I am”), out of the context of the particular “idiom” used at John 8:58, 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 8:58: “I have been in existence since before Abraham was born” (A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek SBG 5; New York: Peter Lang, 1994, p.42.) If we objectively consider the material above, we will not insist in connecting Jesus at John 8:58 with the God Jehovah of Exodus 3:14 (which many attempt to do, but cannot be sustained). Instead, we will focus on the simple message conveyed by Jesus words at John 8:58 which is in harmony with the totality of Scripture: “I have been in existence since before Abraham was born.” (McKay) The rendering “I have been in existence” by itself does not rule out either the concept of “eternity” or the “creation” 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 “I am”: “I was alive before Abraham was born!” (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, “I was alive”, instead of “I am”: (Dr. Stanley L. Morris, chairman; F.W. Gingrich, Ph. D., a renown Greek lexicographer; Jack P. Lewis, Ph. D.; C.H. Accord, Th. D.; Clyde M. Woods, Ph. D.; S.T, 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 “I am.” As noted above, and as the list of alternate readings (at the end of this essay) of John 8:58 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 8:58 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 8:58 from the traditional versions? What then, are all these translators seeing at John 8:58 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, God, but 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 “messiahship,” as if saying: “I am he [the Messiah].” This is very likely. In fact, The Living Bible renders John 8:24 thus: “That 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 sins.”

Is “egō eimi” a title, or another name of God? The use of “eimi” at John 8:58 is frequently used as a “proof text” of Jesus' deity. A noted Trinitarian scholar, A.T. Robertson, a Baptist, even refers to “egō eimi” as “the absolute phrase used of God,” likely indicating the verb conveys “timeless being”... an implication that “eimi” here does not require anything else to complete the meaning of the phrase, thus conveying “eternal existence” as well as being an actual name for God. Some individuals have given plenty of publicity to Robertson's statement as absolute truth. But his statement is not “truth” at all. It is faulty interpretation, which many people have fallen prey to. Grammar and theology do not always make the best mix. True, Robertson's credentials as a scholar are impressive, nevertheless, credentials does not truth make. Besides, some other equally bright scholars disagree with him. Let's illustrate the folly of those advocating a divine title at John 8:58 by way of addition (Or, substitution, if you will) as some suggest: “Before Abraham was born, I am Eternal” “Before Abraham was born, I am Jehovah” “Before Abraham was born, I am eternally God” First of all, the above hypothetical translations are just as ungrammatical as the simple “I am” 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. “Before the US / Iraq war, I am a soldier.” 2. “Three journalists are kidnapped in Nepal since the start of 2007.” 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 “eimi” 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 “but I honor my Father and you dishonor me.” 50 “I am not seeking glory for myself; but there is one who seeks it, and he is the judge.” 54 “If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. 55 “Though 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 word.”

Thus, if Jesus meant he himself was the “Jehovah” of the Old Testament as Trinitarians claim, what would be the rationale behind Jesus directing all distinction and glory to ‘the Father, God’ 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 ‘receives obedience from his own word,’ ‘seeking his own honor and glory,’ because he himself is “God”? Confusing, is it not? To accept this abrupt change of character on Jesus part, would be not “a mystery,” but flat out, “a deception” of big proportions, since Jesus himself warned against pretending to be one thing and acting as another. (Matthew 6:2-5; 23:13-36) Are we are supposed against all logic to accept these “trinitarian” assumptions instead of a simple alternative* which really answers the Jews' question about ‘how could Abraham “see” Jesus' day if he was not yet 50 years old’? (*“I have been in existence since Abraham was born.”) The obsession with the simple words, “I am” have led to many faulty assumptions. “I am” is such a common expression in our language even to this day, that words such as “egoism,” “egotism,” etc. (derived from the Greek, “ego”) are considered common words in English dictionaries. Everyone uses the phrase “I am” 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, “I am this...”, or “I am that...”, etc.? In Bible times, humans too used common pronouns. The verb eimi (“I am”) itself, or forms of it, appears more than two thousand times (2,000x) in the New Testament alone. Additionally, the word “egō” appears over seventeen hundred times (1,700x) in the NT. And those numbers do not include the Septuagint totals. Do all occurrences of the word then, imply “divinity” 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 “I am” does so with divine pretensions? Does it really mean that everyone using the phrase are “equal”? The

answer is obvious, is it not? Let's 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 “he” and not some other human claiming to be the Messiah, was God's instrument in bringing everlasting relief to human misery. Hence, he could rightly say any, or all of the following: “I am (this),” “I am (that),” “I am he [the promised Messiah]”, or, “I am God's Son.” Should we expect anything less? The fact is that the words “I am” are not exclusive to God and Christ. It should be noted that a man, who was born “blind,” also used the same expression. (John 9:9) The Greek here says: “ekeinos elegen hoti 'Egō eimi” (“That one kept saying that I am”). A.T. Robertson cites John 9:9 as one of five parallels to the use of egō eimi in John 8:58. (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: “This last instance [John 9:9] 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 predicate.” The same could be said of John 15:27. Some argue that “eimi” in John 8:58 is “absolute,” but do not do so with John 9:9, or John 15:27. Theology may be a factor in this. Previously we saw how Jacob, a man, according to the Septuagint used the words “egō eimi”. Other instances in Scripture of creatures using those words would not prove they were part of a “Godhead.” Context, then, ultimately dictates how “eimi” 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 “the Christ,” “the Son of Man,” and “the Son of God.” There is something else to keep in mind in regards to the meaning of “eimi.” And it is what grammarian Stanley Porter indicated: “Sometimes the verb [eimi] is used on its own, as a verb of existence. Perhaps the best-known example of this is the following: John 8:58...”. (Fundamentals of New Testament Greek, by Stanley E. Porter, section 7.5.3, 72) A.T. Robertson adds: “The verb εἰμί [eimi] … Sometimes it does express existence as a predicate like any other verb, as in ἐγὼ εἰμί [egō eimi] (Jo. 8:58) and ἡ θάλασσα οὐκ ἔστιν ἔτι [hē thalassa ouk estin eti = “the sea not is yet”] (Rev. 21:1). Cf. Mt. 23:30.” (A Grammar of the Greek 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 8:58, give us an idea of what this implies. It is so strange that the two examples Robertson provided for comparison with John 8:58, seems to contradict his “timeless being” view on “eimi.” He cited a portion of Revelation 21:1, where the Greek literally says: “And the sea not is yet.” In other words: “The sea does not exist any more.” Amplified Bible: “There no longer existed any sea.” Curiously, various versions render the present verb “is” (a form of “eimi”) with an imperfect, “was.” (Cf. KJV; NIV; NAB; NRSV) Obviously, “the sea” in this vision is [was] not “eternal.”

And in Matthew 23:30, the other text provided by Robertson in his comparison with John 8:58, the Greek word-for-word says: “If we were in the days of the fathers of us....” which in modern English would be: “If we had lived in the days of our forefathers.” Other versions: “If we had been...” (Rheims NT); “If we had been living...” (NASB); “If we had been existing in the days of our fathers.” (Jonathan Mitchell NT) The full NIV text reads: “And you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ ” It is clear from this comparison, that the words of Matthew 23:30, “If we were” (a form of “eimi”), in the text, is used as an equivalent for “life” or “existence.” In the heavenly vision of Rev. 21:1, ‘the sea ceased to exist.’ 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 8:58 given by Robertson with the meaning either of life or existence for “eimi”, then it would be equally acceptable to translate “I am” as “I exist,” or “I live.” Many translators reflect this very same understanding as the submitted list of alternate readings of John 8:58 show: “I exist,” or, “I existed even before Abraham was born”; Or: “I was alive before Abraham was born!” (The Simple English Bible) Although some may not see much semantic difference between Jesus saying, “I am,” or “I exist,” the two expressions communicate something very different to many readers. “I am” is generally associated by Trinitarians as a title used by God, or as another name for God. On the other hand, “I exist” simply conveys “life” or “existence. Barnabas Lindars points out that “egō eimi” in John 8:58 “cannot be regarded as a title, because it requires the meaning ‘I am in existence*.’” (“The Son of Man in Johannine Christology,” 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: “I have been in existence since before Abraham was born,” exactly as Dr. McKay proposed.) Some in their eagerness to equate Christ with God, accuse translators who render “egō eimi” in John 8:58 with renderings other than “I am,” pointing to all occurrences of this expression in the New Testament, or in John's Gospel, where allegedly, these translators do not follow the same “rule” when translating “egō eimi” in John 8:58 as they do elsewhere, where they translate it with a present indicative form. What they don't tell you, or fail to understand, is that in John 8:58, “egō eimi” without a predicate, AND with an expression of time with past implications in its sentence structure, provides an “idiom,” which is quite different from those other instances of “eimi”. That's 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 “egō eimi” is used elsewhere in the NT without taking into account the fact that John 8:58 displays an “idiom” in its structure. Not doing so would be dishonest. John the Baptist had said of Christ in John 1:30: “A man is coming after me who ranks before me because he existed [Lit. was] before me.” (JB)

John 8:58 is in harmony with those words. Furthermore, some attempt to use the reading of Psalm 90:2 in the Septuagint as “evidence” that John 8:58 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 of scholars have chosen to break from tradition in their rendering of John 8:58. If critics of alternate readings of John 8:58 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 “wishful thinking” for someone to believe that John 8:58 is directly connected to Exodus 3:14, rather than any real evidence (which is lacking), confirming their eager interpretations. Remember, even Dr. James White, a well known Trinitarian advocate admitted, “that an immediate and unqualified jump from the ego eimi of John 8:58 to Exodus 3:14 is unwise.” 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 ‘demonize’ their opponents. (Matthew 7:3)

Is the Kingdom Interlinear “proof” the NWT is wrong at John 8:58? A criticism has been made of a Watchtower Society publication (The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures, “KIT”) 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 8:58, this publication renders the Greek phrase being discussed here, egō eimi, word-for-word as “I am,” and in the right column, the NWT shows the reading, “I have been.” This difference have led some to severely criticize the NW translators of “incompetence,” “inconsistency,” and even of “dishonesty.” The critics say something like this: “They have backed themselves into a corner where they can't escape their mishandling of the Greek text,” 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 8:58, 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: “[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 one.” Another interlinear, the New Greek-English Interlinear New Testament, by Brown and Comfort, and edited by J. D. Douglas explains: “It 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 difficult—if not impossible—to replicate literally in another language.” (Emphasis added) This statement is so true of the text in discussion (John 8:58) 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. 2:1: “magicians” John 1:18 “only born God” Mat. 24:3 “sign of the your presence” Mathew 5:22 “the gehenna of the fire” John 13:19 “I am” John 14:9 “I am” John 15:27 “you are” 2 Peter 2:4 “being sent to Tartarus” Luke 11:13 “will give spirit holy to” John 20:22 “take spirit holy” Acts 2:4 “filled all of spirit holy”

NRSV: “wise men” “God the only Son” “the sign of your coming” “the hell of fire” “I am he” “Have I been...?” “you have been” “but cast them into hell” “will...give the Holy Spirit to” “Receive the Holy Spirit” “filled with the Holy Spirit”

(* 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. McReynolds on 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, even though it leads to error. Why? Simply because the NRSV represents more of a “majority” view than the NWT does. But in truth, majority or minority views do not correspond equally to “accurate” or “inaccurate” results. In the text discussed, the KIT can appropriately show the basic sense rendering of “I am” for the Greek “egō eimi” in the left column, and alternately show the reading “I have been” in the right column as a contemporary way of expressing in English the particular Greek clause with its “idiom” in John 8:58 as explained throughout this article, a rendering which has

scholarship support. When the Greek “egō eimi” appears in an idiom-less structure, it can rightfully be translated as “I am,” as most versions do, including the NWT. Hence, there is no contradiction between the two translations. Dr. McKay argues that Jesus' response in John 8:58 “would be most naturally translated ‘I have been in existence since before Abraham was born,’ if it were not for the obsession with the simple words ‘I am.’ ” (Kenneth L. McKay, “‘I am’ in John's Gospel”, Expository Times 1996, p. 302) I take the author as saying, that “I have been in existence” for “eimi” is a better translation than “I am,” but the [religious] obsession for the simple words “I am” in their quest to elevate Christ to God's level, does not allow people to see that. The thing is that Christ ‘always pleased the Father’ and was fully satisfied with being ‘lesser’ than him. (John 8:29; 10:29; 14:28; 17:7,8,13) Why not accept him as he is? Hence, it is poor scholarship to forward the idea that an entity must be God Almighty himself by the sole fact of using a divine sounding phrase, when other Bible individuals are found using the same expression in Scripture. The “context” 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 “was in the beginning with God.” (John 1:2) At the announcement of his birth on earth, the angel Gabriel told Mary that she will give birth to someone “great” and “holy”, and that one will be called “Son of the Most High” and “Son of God.” (Luke 1:32, 35) Trinitarians may claim that “Son of God” is equivalent in meaning to “God.” It is a claim with no foundation! If there was any truth to the claim, then the “Holy Spirit” would also be called Son of God. But no! The fact is that other living creatures are called “sons of God.” (Job 2:1) Never is “God” or “holy spirit” ever called “Son of God” in Scripture. Only Jesus Christ is called “the Son of God”, with the article! Why? By Christ ‘becoming obedient [to God] until death,’ during the course of his earthly life, ‘God highly exalted Him, and graciously gave him a name which is above every other name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend...to the credit of God the Father.’ (Hebrews 5:8; Philippians 2:8-11, 21st Century New Testament) “[Christ] has gone into heaven, and is at the right hand of God; with angels, authorities, and powers made subject to him.” (1 Peter 3:22, NRSV) Still, in heaven Christ receives knowledge, information, revelation from God and transmits it to other creatures. (Revelation 1:1) Though the glorified Christ is described as “King of kings,” and “Lord of lords,” he is specifically called “The Word of God.” (Revelation 19:13,16, NRSV) The night before his death, he “prayed” to his Father, and called him “the only true God” and made this petition: “Father, glorify me in your own presence [Greek: beside* yourself] with the glory that I had in your presence [Greek: beside* you] before the world existed.” (John 17:5, NRSV) (*“alongside yourself,” S.T. Byington) Again, God never has to “pray” to anyone. Ever!

Well then, if Jesus Christ expressed this one final “wish” in prayer, to be “in the presence of,” “beside,” “alongside” his Father, which he himself called “the only true God,” why should we, for the sake of tradition, insist with the belief that Jesus “must” somehow be that “true” God, the One sitting at the center of God's throne instead of “beside” God? (Mark 16:19) Christ did not ask to sit at God's throne. Christ was fully content with the premise of being alongside God. And that is what actually happened. Mark tells us: “So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God.” (Mark 16:19, NRSV. Note: Some ancient manuscripts omit this verse.) The NIV Study Bible notes the significance of ‘sitting at the right hand of God’: “A position of authority second only to God's.” Being in “a position of authority second only to God's,” is something no one should ever say of God, for he is always “supreme.” 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 one at John chapter 17, there is no mention of a third party of a “Godhead.” No “Holy Spirit” is in sight. The fact is that the glorified Christ in heaven continues to call his Father “my God.” (Revelation 3:12) As “Son of God” and always lesser and subject to God, it is illogical to think Christ would purposely usurp titles and rights that only belonged to ‘his God and Father.’ (John 14:28; Matthew 20:23; John 20:17; Acts 1:7) Jesus Christ taught others to only worship the Father, God. (Matthew 4:10; John 4:23,24) “And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world.” (1 John 4:14) If so, the thought that Christ would use the words “I am” as a title to identify himself as “the true God” is incongruous. Jesus made it clear that he would only seek the glory “that comes from the one who alone is God.” (John 8:50, 54, 5:44) 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 12:31; 2 Cor. 4:4) 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 8:58 shows that there are a considerable number of scholars who not only understand the subject correctly, but also keenly 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 8:58? Is it, “I am?” “I was?” “I am he?” or, “I have been?” After analyzing the Greek phrase “egō eimi,” 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 small element such as “since” to the statement as McKay does below satisfies all contextual and grammatical requirements of the passage. Doing so does not qualify as “interpolation.”

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 “imperfective” with current relevance. How so? In support of Jesus' deity, many frequently cite John1:1. There in the text, a simple past tense, “was,” is applied to “the Word” three times in English versions. Does that mean “the Word” is no more, or that it was permanently cut-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 “eimi” (i.e. “I was,” “I existed,” etc.) at John 8:58 may also have in mind what John the Baptist said as a precursor of Jesus Christ: “A man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was [“existed,” JB] before me.” Surely, John the Baptist did not mean that Jesus' existence was done away with. His own words show that Jesus' life was very much relevant, and would continue to be so. Translators have no issue whatsoever in applying a past tense (“was,” “existed”) at John 1:1 and 1:30 in their English versions. So, why would they at John 8:58? Perhaps because, it would mean that they would have to do away with the premise of a “divine title” in their argumentation, of which is claimed, clinches Jesus' identity with God's own. As shown above, Revelation 21:1 a present verb, a form of “eimi” is rendered by some versions with a past tense, “was.” 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 8:58, likely for theological reasons. As stated in the beginning of this essay, the English “present” and the Greek “present,” in certain contexts, do not correspond exactly in meaning, because in Greek, “time” is a secondary factor. That being the case, the choice of English tense does not have to match the Greek conjugation, per se, to be faithful to the Sacred Text. When one considers the specific idiom found in John 8:58, and the semantic implications of both the Greek and English “present,” one can see that the rendering “I am,” though popular, does not nearly represent the best translation possible in the English language. “Context” often plays a more important role 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 relevancy than a past tense would. That said, John 8:58 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 “I am” 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 Greek “idiom” discussed throughout this writing, as might be the case with most occurrences of “eimi.” Here listed, in my opinion, are the translations which come closest to the Greek thought presented by the particular “idiom” found in John 8:58. Dr. Kenneth L. McKay* comes up with the correct translation:

1. “I have been in existence since before Abraham was born” - Kenneth L. McKay, A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek (SBG 5; New York: Peter Lang, 1994), p.42. (*Kenneth L. McKay graduated with honours in Classics (with an interest in the Greek of the NT) 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 McKay's rendering, and are thus favored over the traditional rendering which is widely misunderstood. 2. “I have existed before Abraham was born” - A New Translation, by James [ Moffatt, - D.D.; D.Litt. Glasgow, Oxford. 3. “Before Abraham came into existence, I have been.” - New World Translation. 4. “Before Abraham came into being, I have existed.” - The Documents of the [New Testament, G. W. Wade, London. 5. “From before Abraham was, I have been ” - The New Testament, by George [ R. -Noyes, D.D., Boston, USA. 6. “Before Abraham was born, I have already been ” - The Unvarnished New [Testament, Andy Gaus, Boston. 7. “I existed even before Abraham was born.” - The concise Gospel and the Acts. [Logos International; Christopher J. ed Christianson, Plainfield, N.J. 8. “I already was before Abraham was born” – Worldwide English New Testament. [ Derby, U.K. ________________________________ COMMENTS: Also compare the following translations: Nytt liv (1907, Norwegian) A Bíblia Viva (1981, Portuguese) O Novo Testamento Vivo (1974, Portuguese) Le Livre , Nouveau Testament (1980, éditions Farel, French) Η Καινή Διαθήκη των Τεσσάρων Καθηγητών (ΚΔΤΚ, Greek) (The New Testament of the Four Teachers. The translation was made and approved (19/2/1981) 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). ___________________

* “I was ”: Note on 1987 translation from Italian, main list. l Vangelio di Giovanni, (El Evangelio de Juan [“The Gospel of John”], with imprimatur), by J. Mateos and J. Barreto noted on John 8:58 (as translated by Teodora Tosatti, p. 387, Cittadela Editrice, 1982) that the temporal relationship expressed by the Greek “prin... eimi [Before...I am]” can be translated into Italian “prima...ero [Before...I was].” (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 Christian Scriptures. Unlike most Bible Versions which are published in only one language or a few at most, the NWT is available in dozens of languages based mainly on their English translation, but 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 8:58 from their English translation back into [modern] Greek. The translation team was acutely aware of the basic sense of “egō eimi” as “I am”, and how those simple words are misconstrued by religionists to say something more than Jesus intended. Taking into account the syntax of John 8:58 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 “egō eimi” using the modern Greek equivalent “Εγώ ειμαι” (I am) as it reads in the Vamvas version, which they did not. Or, they could have expressed their NWT English choice of “I have been” with their modern Greek equivalent of “έχο υπάρξει [I have existed]*.” Thirdly, they could have gone with “I was,” (“εγώ ήμουν”) as some of their French and Italian Bible editions have done in the past, or even with “[εγώ] υπήρξα [I existed]).” 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 misconceptions surrounding “egō eimai (I am)” in mainstream churches, the translation team chose to use “εγώ υπάρχω,” (a present indicative form in the Greek) which means basically “I exist,” but in the presence of an expression of past time in John 8:58, the sense is “I have existed.” Thus: “Before Abraham came into existence, I have existed.” (* The verb είμαι [“to be”] in modern Greek has no forms for the perfect tense. It borrows the forms from the verb υπάρχω [“I exist”]. The Greek and English “perfects” are not exact equivalents either.) The reader is reminded here as noted earlier that modern Greek keeps up with the Koiné Greek “present” idiom. A modern Greek grammar, Greek, A Comprehensive Grammar explains: “The present tense is also used in constructions where English would use the perfect continuous, i.e. 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 present.” 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. “I have been living [Μένω] in this house for three years now.” And: “I have been reading [Διαβάζω] this newspaper since 1984.” (Greek, A Comprehensive Grammar, by David Holton, Peter Mackridge & 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 8:58: “Σας βεβαιώνω πως πριν να γεννηθεί ο Αβραάμ, εγώ υπάρχω,” which in English would be: “I assure you that I have existed since before Abraham was born,.” (Literally: “I assure you that before could be born the Abraham, I exist [not “Εγώ ειμαι”]”; The Holy Bible in Today's Greek Version, 2003, Greek Bible Society. Interestingly, the original English version of 1976 had “I Am.”) Also, a Spanish Bible conveys a similar thought: “Yo existo desde antes que existiera Abraham.” [Translation: “ I exist since before Abraham existed.”] (La Biblia - Versión Popular, 2nd edition, Sociedades Bíblicas Unidas, 1983.) _________________________________________________________ The Clear Word: The translators quoted in this article represent various religious faiths, some are Catholic, some are Protestant. Others are Unitarians, Jehovah's 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, Th.D. As a Seventh-Day Adventist who supports the Trinity doctrine, Blanco translated verses to make Jesus “equal” to God in every way. He renders John 1:1: “He is the Word of God and is equal with God.” He shows Jesus at Philippians 2:5-7 as “equal with God” and describes him as ‘acting the part of a servant.’ At John 14:28 he completely omits the reference that ‘the Father is greater’ than Christ. But here, at John 8:58, in answer to the question the priests and leaders asked concerning Abraham ‘seeing’ his day, Jesus answered according to Dr. Blanco: “Because I existed before Abraham was even born.” Thus, Dr. Blanco makes no connection as others do, that Christ is the “I am” of Exodus 3:14, 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 ‘existed before Abraham did,’ and thus Abraham was able to ‘see’ his day. (John 8:56) To this we must add another likely element included in Jesus' response to the Jews as well...one of simple identification, as “the Christ [Messiah],” and “Son of man.” Why is it then, that many who support the Trinity doctrine find it hard to understand Jesus' statement correctly at John 8:58? Could it be that they are letting non-Scriptural influence and perhaps the weight of the majority view dictate their understanding of this Scripture?

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

For a discussion of Acts 28.6, Whose blood?: http://www.scribd.com/doc/231244155/Acts-20-28-Whose-blood For a discussion of Colossians 1:16 (“all other things”), see: http://www.scribd.com/doc/205841269/Colossians-1-16-Is-the-expression-all-other-things-a-proper-rendition

For a consideration on the subject of the Trinity, click the following link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/160286056/Does-the-Trinity-ever-make-sense For a full consideration of John 1:1, click the following link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/34916458/The-correct-translation-of-John-1-1 For a brief consideration of John 1:1 with additional citations, click here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/50330864/John-1-1-List-of-Alternate-Readings Did the NW translators know any Greek?, click the following link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/48234022/Did-the-New-World-Translation-Committee-Know-Greek

For a consideration of John 17:3, click the following link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/57772552/John-17-3-%E2%80%98Taking-in-knowledge-of-%E2%80%99-God-and-Jesus

For a consideration of 1 Timothy 3:16, click the following link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/76927834/Was-God-manifested-in-the-flesh-1-Timothy-3-16 For a consideration of Exodus 2:25, click the following link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/38676458/Exodus-2-25-And-God-took-notice-Does-God-care-about-us

For a consideration of John 1:14, click the following link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/35002730/John-1-14-Jesus-full-of-grace For a consideration of, Translation Differences-Questions and Answers: http://www.scribd.com/doc/59484457/Translation-Differences-Questions-and-Answers In Spanish: Para una consideración de otros temas, vea los siguientes enlaces: Para una consideración de Colosenses 1:16, “todas las otras cosas”, vea: http://www.scribd.com/doc/209601066/Colosenses-1-16-%C2%BFEs-la-traduccion-%E2%80%9Ctodas-las-otras-cosas%E2%80%9D-apropiada

Para una consideración de, “¿Acaso tiene sentido la Trinidad?”: http://www.scribd.com/doc/173779117/%C2%BFAcaso-tiene-sentido-la-Trinidad Para un consideración de Juan 1:1, vea el siguiente enlace: http://www.scribd.com/doc/35899788/Traduccion-correcta-de-Juan-1-1-Lista-de- lecturas-alternativas

Para el tema, ¿Sabían griego los traductores de la TNM?, vea el siguiente enlace: http://www.scribd.com/doc/51623596/%C2%BFSabia-griego-el-Comite-de-la-Traduccion-del-Nuevo-Mundo

Para un consideración de Juan 8:58 (“yo soy”), vea el siguiente enlace: http://www.scribd.com/doc/36126649/Traduccion-correcta-de-Juan-8-58-Lista-de-lecturas-alternativas-a-yo- soy

Para un consideración de Juan 17:3 (‘adquirir conocimiento’), vea el siguiente enlace: http://www.scribd.com/doc/74629981/Juan-17-3-%E2%80%98Adquiriendo-conocimiento%E2%80%99-de-Dios-y-Jesucristo

Para un consideración de 1 Timoteo 3:16 vea el siguiente enlace: http://www.scribd.com/doc/77336247/%C2%BFFue-Dios-manifestado-en-carne-1-Timoteo-3-16

__________________________________________ List of Alternate Readings: How do other translators render John 8:58: c. 200: “Before Abraham existed, I am existing” - The Sahidic Coptic New Testament, [empate abraHam Swpe anok TSoop*] [ Transliteration by J. W. Wells, 2008. *Note: not “anok pe” (I am), but “anok TSoop.” 4th/5th Century: “before Abraham was, I have been ” - Syriac-Edition: Agnes Smith [Lewis, London, 1894. th 5 Century: “before Abraham existed, I was ” - Syriac Peshitta-Ed.: James Murdock, -7 th ed., Boston and London, 1896. 5th Century: “before ever Abraham came to be, I was ” - Curetonian Syriac-Edition: F. [Crawford Burkitt, Vol. 1, Cambridge, England, 1904. th 5 Century: “before Abraham came to be, I was ” - Georgian-Edition: Robert P. Blake and Maurice Derrière, Paris, 1950. th 6 Century: “before Abraham was born, I was ” – Ethiopic-Edition: Thomas Pell Platt, -rev. by F. Praetorious, Leipzig, 1899. c. 990: “ic wæs [ i was ] ærþām þe Abraham wæs ” – WestSaxon Gospels. c.1175: “Ic wæs [ I was ] ær þonne þe abraham wære ” – WestSaxon Gospels. 1840: “ I was before Abraham was born” - The New Testament Or Rather the New [Covenant, Samuel Sharpe, London. 1846: “I existed before Abraham was born” - The New Testament of Our Lord and [Saviour Jesus Christ, W. Swan, London. 1864: “before Abraham came into being, I was ” - Henry T. Anderson New Testament Translated from the Original Greek, Cincinnati, Ohio. 1864: “Before Abraham was born, I am he *” - The Emphatic Diaglott, by Benjamin (*that is, the Messiah, the Son of God) [Wilson- New York and London. 1869: “From before Abraham was, I have been ” - The New Testament, by George R. [ Noyes, D.D., Boston, USA. 1896: “Before Abraham came to be, I was ” - Neuen Testament übersetzt in die Sprache [Ehe Abraham geworden ist, war ich ] [der Gegenwart, by Curt Stage, Leipzig.

1898: “Before Abraham was, I was ” - La Sainte Bible, version d´Ostervald. (French) [Avant qu'Abraham fût, j'étais ] 1904: “From before Abraham existed, I was ” - Twentieth Century New Testament. (New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1902. Rev. 1904) 1903: “Before Abraham came into existence, I have been ” - Det ny Testament” by Dr. T. [Førend Abraham blev til, har jeg været ] [ Skat Rørdam. (Danish) 1911: “Before Abraham became, I, I am being ” - George W. Horner, The Coptic Version -of the New Testament in the Southern Dialect, [ Vol 3, Oxford, The Clarendon Press. 1912: “Before Abraham was born, I was ” - Leidse Vertaling, Amsterdam and [Eer Abraham werd geboren was ik ] [ Zaltbommel. (Dutch) 1925: “Before Abraham was brought up, I exist ” - Sagrada Biblia, Félix Torres Amat, [Antes que Abraham fuera criado, yo existo ] [ Madrid, Spain. 1933: “Before Abraham came into existence, I have been” - Dette er Biblen pÃ¥ dansk, [førend Abraham blev til, har jeg været ] (Danish) 1934: “Before Abraham came into being, I have existed ” - The Documents of the New [ Testament, G. W. Wade, London. 1935: “I have existed before Abraham was born” - A New Translation, James Moffatt, [-D.D.; D.Litt. Glasgow, Oxford. 1935: “ I existed before Abraham was born!” - The Bible - An American Translation, [ by J.M.P. Smith, and E. J. Goodspeed. 1937: “Before Abraham was, I have been ” - Translated from the Hebrew of Dr. Franz [ aní hayíthi, not Ehyéh] [ Delitzsch. 1937: “ I existed before Abraham was born” - Williams New Testament, Charles B. [ Williams. 1941: “ I have been when there had as yet been no Abraham” - Translated from the [aní hayíthi, not Ehyéh] [Hebrew of Isaac Salkinson and David Ginsburg. 1945: “Before Abraham came into existence, I was ” - Det nye testamente i ny [Før Abraham ble til, var jeg ] [oversettelse” - by Lyder Brun, (Professor of NT Theology, Oslo, Norway) 1950: “Before Abraham came into existence, I have been ” - New World Translation [of the Holy Scriptures. 1956: “ I am here – and I was before Abraham!” – J.A. Kleist and J.L. Lilly, The [New Testament (Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Company).

1957: “Before Abraham was born, I was ” - The Holy Bible From Ancient Eastern [-Manuscripts, George M. Lamsa. 1960: “Before Abraham existed, I was existing ” - Bíblia Sagrada, by Catholic Bible [Antes que Abraão existisse, eu existia ] [ -Center, 2nd ed., São Paulo, Brasil. 1961: “ I existed before Abraham was born” - The New Testament of Our Lord and [Savior, Jesus Christ, Fan S. Noli, Boston, MA, USA. 1963: “ I was before Abraham” - William F. Beck, The New Testament in the [Language of Today (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House). 1965: “Before there was an Abraham, I was already there! ” - Das Neue Testament, [Ehe es einen Abraham gab, war ich schon da!] [Friedrich Pfäfflin, Heilbronn, Ger. 1965: “Before Abraham was born, I was already the one that I am” - Das Neue Test. Jörg [Ehe Abraham geboren wurde, war ich schon der, der ich bin] [Zink, German. 1967: “Before could be born the Abraham, I have existed ” - Η ΚΑΙΝΗ ΔΙΑΘΗΚΗ, [πρίν γεννηθñ˛ ό Aβραάμ 'Εγώ ύπάρχω*] [Modern Revised NT, [Vella´s Version, Athens, Greece. *(Lit. “I exist,” but “I have existed” with adverbial adjunct. Not “Εγώ ειμαι [I am]”, as in Vamvas Version.) 1968: “Before Abraham was born, I was ” - Sagrada Biblia, Nácar-Colunga, Madrid. [Antes que Abraham naciese, era yo ] 1969: “Before Abraham was, I was ” - Det nye testamente, “Ungdomsoversettelsen.” [Før Abraham ble til, var jeg ] (Norwegian) 1971: “Before Abraham was born, I have been ” - New American Standard Bible, Alternate reading, margin; Early editions.) 1971: “ I was in existence before Abraham was ever born!” - The Living Bible. 1973: “ I existed even before Abraham was born.” - The concise Gospel and the Acts, [Logos International; Christopher J. ed Christianson, Plainfield, NJ. 1973: “before Abraham was born, [I have been]” – La Biblia de las Américas, margin. [antes que Abraham naciera, Yo he sido] [Lockman Foundation] 1976: “I am already from before the birth of Abraham” - Het Levende Woord, Dutch. [Ik ben er al van voor de geboorte van Abraham] 1978: “Before Abraham was born, I was already the one that I am ” - O Novo [Antes de Abraão nascer, já eu era aquele que sou] Testamento Inter[-confessional, (Sociedad Bíblica, Lisboa, Portugal). 1978: “Before Abraham was born, I already existed ” - Nuevo Testamento, R. P. Felipe

[Antes que Abraham naciese, ya existía yo ] [ de Fuenterrabía, Capuchin, (Professor of Sacred Scripture at Theology College, Pamplona, Navarra, Spain) 1979: “ I already existed since way before Abraham was born” - La Biblia al Día, [¡Ya existía desde mucho antes que Abraham naciera!] Editorial Unilit, Miami. 1979: “ I am from before Abraham was born” - The Four Gospels and the Revelation, Richmond Lattimore, New York, N.Y. 1980: “Before Abraham existed, I exist ” - Sagrada Biblia, Pedro Franquesa (C.M.F.) [Antes que Abraham existiera, yo existo] [ and José M. Solé, (C.M.F.), Barcelona. 1981: “I was alive before Abraham was born!'” - The Simple English Bible, New York. 1981: “Before Abraham existed, I already existed ” - Sagrada Biblia, Agustín Magaña [Antes que Abraham existiera, ya existía Yo ] [ Méndez, ex-Seminary Professor of [ Zamora, Mich., México; Notre Dame Univ., USA., and others. 1982: “ I was in existence before Abraham was ever born.” - The Living Scriptures, (Messianic Version), David Bronstein. 1982: “Before Abraham was born, I was already there ” - Bibel in heutigem Deutsch, [Bevor Abraham geboren wurde, war ich schon da ] [ Stuttgart, Germany. 1983: “ I exist since before Abraham existed” – La Biblia - Versión Popular, 2nd edit., [Yo existo desde antes que existiera Abraham] [ Sociedades Bíblicas Unidas. 1983: Before Abraham was born, I am He *” – The Gospel of John, F.F. Bruce, 1983. (*Bruce links this text to Isa. 41:4) 1985: “ I existed before Abraham was born” – The Original New Testament, Hugh J. [ Schonfield, Aberdeen, Scotland. 1985: “Before Abraham was, I have been ” – N. T., The Bible Society in Israel. [bete´rem heyiot´ Abraham´, aní hayíthi, (not Ehyéh)] Translated from the Hebrew [ of Norman Henry Snaith. 1985: “Abraham was not yet born, when I was already there ” – Common Language [Abraram pa t' ankò fèt, mwen menm, mwen te la deja] [Version. (Haitian Creole Version, Port-au-Prince, United Bible Societies) 1987: “Before Abraham came into existence, I was ” - Les Saintes Écritures-Traduction [Avant qu'Abraham soit venu à l'existence, j´étais*] [du monde nouveau. (French) (* “j'ai été,” Online edition, 2006®) 1987: “Before Abraham came into existence, I was ” – Traduzione del Nuovo Mondo Prima che Abraamo venisse all'esistenza, io ero *] delle Sacre Scritture, Rome. [*“io sono stato”, 1967 edition. Also, see “Comments”]

1988: “ I already was before Abraham was born” – Hek Boek, (Dutch) Published by [ Ik was er al voor Abraham werd geboren] [ Biblica. 1991: “Before Abraham was born, I have already been ” – The Unvarnished New [ Testament, Andy Gaus. 1993: “Before the Abraham came into existence, I have existed ” (Lit.: “I exist”) Πριν o Aβραάμ έρθει σε ύπαρξη, εγώ υπάρχω*1 ] (Greek) *ΟІ ΧΡΙΣΤΙΑΝΙΚΕΣ ΓΡΑΦΕΣ Απόδοση από τη Μειάφράση Νέου Κόσμου (New World Translation of the Christian Scriptures, Modern Greek) 1 ( Εγώ ύπάρχω, not Εγώ ειμαι, [“I am”], as in Vamvas Version. See “Comments”) 1994: “ I existed ” - The Complete Gospels: Annotaded Scholars Version, R.J.Miller, editor. 1994: “ I have been in existence since before Abraham was born” – Kenneth L. McKay, (op. cit., A New Syntax...) 1995: “[E]ven before Abraham was, I was, and I am” – Contemporary English Version, [ New York. 1996: “I already was before Abraham was born” – Worldwide English New Testament, [ Derby, U.K. 1996: “ I existed before Abraham was even born” – New Living Translation, Wheaton, [ Illinois. st 1998: “ I came into being before Abraham” – 21 Century N. T., Bristol, England. 1999: “that before Abraham was born, I exist ” – Sagrada Biblia del Pueblo Católico, [que antes que Abrahán naciera, yo existo ] [ Santa Fé de Bogotá. 2000: “before Abraham was born, I already existed” – Traducción en lenguage actual, [antes de que naciera Abraham ya existía yo ] [United Bible Societies, Miami. 2000: “ I existed before Abraham was even born!” – Levande Bibeln, Swedish Biblica. [att jag fanns till innan Abraham ens var född!] 2000: “¡before Abraham was born, I already was who I am! ” - O Livro, (Portuguese[antes de Abraão nascer eu já era quem sou! ] [European pub. by Biblica. 2001: “ I existed before Abraham came into existence” – 21st Century Version of the -Christian Scriptures, Mark Heber Miller. 2001: “ I existed before Abraham was” - 2001 Translation - An American English Bible. 2002: “Long before Abraham was even born, I was there ” – Hoffnung für Alle [Lange bevor Abraham überhaupt geboren wurde, war ich da] [Hope for all] (International Bible Society, Wells Publishing, Giessen, Germany)

2003: “I existed before Abraham was born!” – New Simplified Bible, James R. Madsen. 2003: “I was alive before Abraham was born!” – The New Testament in Plain English, [ Shippensburg, PA. 2003: “ I assure you that before Abraham was born, I have existed ” [ Σας βεβαιώνω πως πριν να γεννηθεί ο Αβραάμ, εγώ υπάρχω ] The Holy Bible in Today's Greek Version, 2003, Greek Bible Society. (See end: Comment on 1993 ΟІ ΧΡΙΣΤΙΑΝΙΚΕΣ ΓΡΑΦΕΣ Απόδοση από τη Μειάφράση Νέου Κόσμου) 2005: “I existed before Abraham was even born” – The Clear Word, Jack J. Blanco, Th.D. (See comment on The Clear Word at the end.) 2008: “before Abraham was born, I exist ” – La Santa Biblia-Nueva Biblia al Día, by [antes que Abraham naciera, yo existo] Sociedad Bíblica Internacional, Miami, FL. (Published by Grupo Nelson, Nashville, TN, USA.) 2008: “I was in existence before Abraham was ever born” – The Book: New Testament, [Illuminated World, Dag Söderberg. 2009: “before Abraham existed, I exist ” – LA BIBLIA de NUESTRO PUEBLO, [antes de que existiera Abrahán, existo yo] [Biblia del Peregrino, América Latina, [Luis Alonso Schökel. XII Edición, with Imprimatur, Bilbao, Spain. 2010: “before Abraham was born, I exist ” – La Palabra, (Hispanoamérica), Bible [antes de que Abraham naciera, existo yo ] [Society of Spain) 2014: “before Abraham was born I exist ” – Interlinear Greek Bible, (Scripture Direct, Prof. Johannes Louw & 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: [email protected] )