Talk:Ego eimi

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

issues with Grammatical issues

the section under 'grammatical issues' is a total misrepresentation of what is actually being argued, it makes no mention of PPA, which is the premise of what McKay and BeDuhn are arguing for, and also theyre not arguing for 'I was', they argue for for 'I have been'. I see "however in this case it is generally considered that if that was the intention of John, then the text should instead contain the corresponding past tense form is ego en "I was"." this is a straw man, this page seems to be very POV [evangelical POV i might ad]. When I get a chance Ill rewrite this to accurately reflect the issues at hand, instead of giving too much to one side of the argument and and misrepresenting the other.--Enedra (talk) 23:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a little bit but I plan to add more, namely the argument that γενέσθαι against eimi indicates eternality, also maybe some info on past interpretations--Enedra (talk) 00:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Enedra. PPA, while current on blogs is not normal grammatical terminology for Ancient Greek grammar, you might want to go there first. But by all means add these views. But please try and maintain weight; I presume you have seen Daniel Wallace on historical present. Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 00:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Er hmm, why did you delete Thomas A. Howe's answer to
New World Translation? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Yes I have, also the debate with Beduhn and Bowman, Also an 'Idiom' is not the force of beduhn's argument, I have Truth in Translation and it is not his focus on whether it was an expression or not. And as for Howe, I was getting to that esp. with γενέσθαι and εἰμί, Im pretty sure the NWT is have been vs. was, also note that Jesus would not be speaking in Aramaic or Hebrew, not Greek, John would be choosing words to represent what he actually said (that is if we take John as genuine, which I prefer to), also Im sorry if I came of as brash at first, cheersEnedra (talk) 04:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC) I also think it strange that Isaiah's Ani Hu sayings are not mentioned as they seem to be the more likely corrollary (sic?) and more commonly used, cheers Enedra (talk) 05:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Enedra I removed your comment about Ambrose "certainly" considering "I am" equivalent of an English progressive perfect (which progressive perfect?) since, while the quote would show that he considered that "before" could equally mean "before Adam" Ambrose doesn't say anything that would be relevant to the "I am". Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 01:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In ictu oculi - You said:"Ambrose doesn't say anything that would be relevant to the I am". You need to reread his words, they are very much relevant to the meaning of "ego eimi", he says: "not that He was included in any one's existence, but that all things are included in His" [existence]. If in John 8:58 is taken as a PPA (bear w/ my terminology) it says that "I have been in existence since before Abraham came to be"; Ambrose is discussing "existence" in relation to John 8:58, he says that "prin" doesn't have to just extend to "before Abraham" but reaches to before Adam also, but only because this is how he sees Jesus' eternity stated elsewhere in the "holy writ". He does not argue "before Adam" on the basis of John 8:58 but on the perceived "custom of holy writ" (ie. angel/morning star comparison). His comments show that if we look at the verse without any presumptions (ie. "custom of the holy writ") it says that Jesus has been in existence longer than Abraham, nothing more, nothing less. This, and plenty of other citations, show John 8:58 is tenable as an example of PPA (and in my opinion almost certain); Most patristic citations show John 8:58 likely taken as PPA (with the probable exception of Exegetical fragment V of Dionysius the Great). The "I AM" interpretation seems have started with John Chrysostom (in extant citations) If this supposed connection wasnt made (esp. by Origen) until 300 years after the Gospel of John was completed, Its not very binding. BTW, you did a good job cleaning up the page to make it clearer and nicer. CheersEnedra (talk) 21:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Enedra. Thanks. I have no idea how Ambrose saw anything, so I can't comment. But when sourcing someone like St. Ambrose (on any subject) it would either have to be a direct quote "Ambrose taught that NNNNNNN..." ref Ambrose XXXXXX /ref or a scholar, "Schaff considers that Ambrose taught NNNN.." ref Schaff XXXXX / ref. Again what is PPA? this is not a normal term in English grammar or Greek grammar. Is this a term from DeBuhn book?In ictu oculi (talk) 00:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In ictu oculi Ambrose was quite the anti-arian, look at his page. PPA is one the names it is called but nobody really knows what to call it, In the bgreek post Wallace calls it "hp" or historical present, If I remember correctly German has something similar, In any case its suppose to mean something continuing in the past to the present (Beduhn doesnt use "PPA"). The reason Howe's objection about what idiom means is Beduhn defines what he means in his book "When verb tenses or any other part of grammar is used in a way outside of usual expectations, we call it an 'idiom'" Howe's R&A proceeds to attack the notion that "ego eimi" is an idiom for "I was" in the same way "fly off the handle" is an idiom. Beduhn argues that "eimi" is used in existentially to mean 'Before Abraham came to be, I exist' but he adds because of 'prin' "exist" includes the past of 'before abraham' all the way up to the present (per his citation of smyth's grammar); essentially "Before abraham was, I was and still do exist', whether or not this is correct or not, It has very little to do with "ego eimi" being an "idiom" for "I was", in the sense of a figure of speech ie. "fly of the handle" Here's a later exchange ca. 2005 on Bgreek about this: starting here: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/2005-February/033086.html, The bowman-beduhn debate is quite long and ran 500 pgs, it is here: http://www.forananswer.org/Mars_Jw/JB-RB.Jn8_58.Index.htmEnedra (talk) 19:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well we can't have 500 pages on a Wikipedia article. Just link the 500pgs. Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 00:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LOL Enedra (talk) 01:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NWT

I did some research and the NWT has always had "I have been", I dont know where you heard otherwise but here's my proof (pg.3):http://www.elihubooks.com/data/lampstand/000/000/013/NWT_footnotes_John_8_58_SITE_12.17.2009.pdf , BTW "ani hu" is not "I am" it is verbless: "I he", "ani hu" in no way resembles "ehyeh", also I see no reason to have Thomas Howe's link here, his paper doesnt even argue anything, It just claims beduhn misrepresents everything without interacting with his actual arguments ; I see no reason for it to be here, Ive seen a couple pages that interact with what Beduhn argues, they are the ones that should be linked not Thomas Howe's paper; regards Enedra (talk) 07:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re Howe's paper I'll look at it again, but you already deleted it once and I restored it once. The fact is that given that Beduhn is not a mainstream Greek scholar and is presenting an unusual minority view it demands a counter-paper if Beduhn is to be referenced. If you know another counter paper then that could be there instead. Re Hebrew please see a Hebrew grammar. Re the NWT I think you're right, the 1950 NWT and 1984 NWT appear to be only different in the footnote. Let me say that I'm not and don't pretend to be well informed about JWs. Who is the author of http://www.elihubooks.com/data/lampstand/000/000/013/NWT_footnotes_John_8_58_SITE_12.17.2009.pdf ? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:18, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

misunderstanding sources

this page cites Wallaces bgreek post. Wallace discusses historical present and says they are not (to his knowledge) used in direct discourse or use eimi, that is not MCKAY's reading, IF Wallace had asserted EFPP (Extension from past present) do not apply in discourse, or use EIMI then that would have been a foolish assertion (Jn 14:9). WAllace objects to MCKays reading on the basis that their is no similarly structured EFPP use of EIMI in the NT or LXX and "says it lack sufficient parallels to be convincing", Best RegardsJahoel109 (talk) 23:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hebrew Translation

The Article says that the Hebrew translation of the New Testament produced by the Bible Society of Israel Renders John 8:58 as Ani Hayiti rather then Ani Hu. This may be the case for an older edition, but it is currently translated Ani Hu, so I would recommend a change of text. http://new.org.il/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.217.226.10 (talk) 10:15, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ἐγώ εἰμι

I'm curious that this page doesn't discuss the consistency with which John uses "ἐγώ εἰμι" where "εἰμι" would have done and the possible emphasis that is intended by it. I'll admit ignorance of the literature on this point, but wouldn't "ἐγώ εἰμι X" in Greek normally be meant to emphasis the claim of the speaker to be X in opposition to the claims of others? 45.130.58.54 (talk) 12:43, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ego_eimi&oldid=1217254502"