Exodus 3:14

[Figleaf]

It has recently come to my attention that several versions of the Bible have wrongheadedly converted JHVHs self-description: "I AM THAT I AM" into some watered-down nonsense such as 'I am who I am' or other like idiocies.

What kind of Biblical scholarship is this? How can such so called professionals be so obtuse as to ignore that 'I am that I am' is a succinct formula to describe a self-created being? (Whereas 'I am who I am' sounds more like a philanderer's excuse.)

[theloniusfleabag]

What kind of obscure rant is this? Something to be taken up at bible college perhaps...

Reminds me of an 'off-colour' joke (or a coloured one) I heard once...A little white boy and a little black boy were arguing over whether God himself was white or black. Just then a big booming voice came down from the heavens, and declared "YOU ARE WHAT YOU ARE".

The little white boy said ;

"See, that proves it, God is white!"

The little black boy countered, "How does that prove anything?"

The little white boy replied, "'Cause if he was black, he would have said "You is what you is."

[Figleaf]

What kind of obscure rant is this? Something to be taken up at bible college perhaps...

Frankly, I'm shocked and saddened by the apparent lack of theological erudition on the board (at least based on the few replies here so far).

Aren't they teaching a decent survey of theology in public schools these days? What gives?

[newbie]

"I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE" is another popular version of that chapter and verse. link

Not sure why this is a big deal. The point is well conveyed regardless of translation.

[Figleaf]

Well conveyed? Nonsense. The point is obscured in most of these trashy translations.

I AM THAT I AM says something specific. Matching colors, it means: I exist through the agency of (my) existence.'

It's a primum mobile describing itself.

[jbg]

What kind of obscure rant is this? Something to be taken up at bible college perhaps...

Frankly, I'm shocked and saddened by the apparent lack of theological erudition on the board (at least based on the few replies here so far).

Aren't they teaching a decent survey of theology in public schools these days? What gives?

You're intriguing me, but I'm not quite sure what you're getting at.

[Figleaf]

What kind of obscure rant is this? Something to be taken up at bible college perhaps...

Frankly, I'm shocked and saddened by the apparent lack of theological erudition on the board (at least based on the few replies here so far).

Aren't they teaching a decent survey of theology in public schools these days? What gives?

You're intriguing me, but I'm not quite sure what you're getting at.

Well, I'm being facetious about theology in public schools, but I'm getting at what I said in the post immediatly above yours, with the colored text. Certain English translations use I am That..., which means something, while others use I am Who..., which means nothing.

[Charles Anthony]

It has recently come to my attention that

Like, how recently?? Like, the day before??

Might this:

March 11, 2007

Third Sunday of Lent

Reading 1

Ex 3:1-8a, 13-15

---SNIP---

Moses said to God, “But when I go to the Israelites

and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’

if they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what am I to tell them?”

God replied, “I am who am.”

Then he added, “This is what you shall tell the Israelites:

I AM sent me to you.”

---SNIP---

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

just be a coincidence?

[Figleaf]

It has recently come to my attention that

Like, how recently?? Like, the day before??

Might this:

March 11, 2007

Third Sunday of Lent

Reading 1

Ex 3:1-8a, 13-15

---SNIP---

Moses said to God, “But when I go to the Israelites

and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’

if they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what am I to tell them?”

God replied, “I am who am.”

Then he added, “This is what you shall tell the Israelites:

I AM sent me to you.”

---SNIP---

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

just be a coincidence?

I had not seen that article. Since I had thought about this long ago, I should have said it has recently RETURNED to my attention (I was leafing thru a parallel bible).

[newbie]

Well conveyed? Nonsense. The point is obscured in most of these trashy translations.

I AM THAT I AM says something specific. Matching colors, it means: I exist through the agency of (my) existence.'

It's a primum mobile describing itself.

So tell us, oh great seer, which is the "right" translation? And why?

[Figleaf]

Well conveyed? Nonsense. The point is obscured in most of these trashy translations.

I AM THAT I AM says something specific. Matching colors, it means: I exist through the agency of (my) existence.'

It's a primum mobile describing itself.

So tell us, oh great seer, which is the "right" translation? And why?

My wisdom will remain restricted here to this one point: any translation that says 'I am that I am' is better than one that says 'I am who I am'.

[leonardcohen]

I'm afraid to expect any kind of intelligent theological discussion

on this board is expecting too much,judging from the content of

this forum.

It would be interesting to see what the make up of religion

beliefs we have here.

I would like to post a poll ,but am i allowed to here?

[Figleaf]

I would like to post a poll ,but am i allowed to here?

You have to start a fresh topic and then open the Manage Polls link. Be careful not to confuse the name of the poll field with the poll question field.

[fellowtraveller]

I ascribe to the deep symbolism implict in the mantra of both Vegans and Popeye the Sailor Man:

I Yam what I Yam.

[daniel]

The second "I am" is just the object of the verb (the first) "am" - as in "I am that boy." or "I am that God"

Charleston Heston explained that God does not have a name but only to be referred to as "I am".

I am George. I am Harry. I am I am.

[guyser]

Well conveyed? Nonsense. The point is obscured in most of these trashy translations.

I AM THAT I AM says something specific. Matching colors, it means: I exist through the agency of (my) existence.'

It's a primum mobile describing itself.

Let me guess , no beans in chili , no white pants after labour day.....

[Figleaf]

The second "I am" is just the object of the verb (the first) "am" - as in "I am that boy." or "I am that God"

I am George. I am Harry. I am I am.

Those seem like interesting takes on the matter, but they seem like two different things.

Any way we slice it though, 'I am who I am' is still wrongheaded, of course.