Figleaf Posted March 12, 2007 Report Share Posted March 12, 2007 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.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theloniusfleabag Posted March 13, 2007 Report Share Posted March 13, 2007 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." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figleaf Posted March 13, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 13, 2007 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newbie Posted March 13, 2007 Report Share Posted March 13, 2007 "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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figleaf Posted March 13, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 13, 2007 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted March 13, 2007 Report Share Posted March 13, 2007 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figleaf Posted March 13, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 13, 2007 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Anthony Posted March 13, 2007 Report Share Posted March 13, 2007 It has recently come to my attention thatLike, 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 Bishopsjust be a coincidence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figleaf Posted March 13, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 13, 2007 It has recently come to my attention thatLike, 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 Bishopsjust 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). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newbie Posted March 13, 2007 Report Share Posted March 13, 2007 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figleaf Posted March 13, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 13, 2007 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'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leonardcohen Posted March 14, 2007 Report Share Posted March 14, 2007 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figleaf Posted March 14, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 14, 2007 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fellowtraveller Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 I ascribe to the deep symbolism implict in the mantra of both Vegans and Popeye the Sailor Man: I Yam what I Yam. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daniel Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted March 22, 2007 Report Share Posted March 22, 2007 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..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figleaf Posted March 22, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 22, 2007 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.