The Yahweh Name

TrevorL

Well-known member
Greetings again Lon.
Moses didn't ask who God was. He asked who he should tell Pharaoh, He was. TRY to stay within context for this important conversation: "What does it say?" first. THEN "What does it mean?"
I have both explained what it says and what it means. Some names are associated with the future, such as Abraham.
see? Doesn't the context blow your narrow idea completely out of the water?
No, not at all. You are pressing the narrow view, in a vague support for a Trinitarian bias overruling the honest, simple interpretation given by Tyndale and many other scholars including John Thomas, AB Davidson, Alec Motyer and others. I have added Alec Motyer, not because I agree with his Trinitarian theology and other ideas, but because he understood the correct translation of Exodus 3:14 and the meaning of the Name Yahweh. I have a copy of his paper on this subject. He lectured many years on the Hebrew language as well as being the author of many commentaries, for example the two IVP commentaries on Isaiah, and he was the editor of some series. My Hebrew online instructor, most probably a Trinitarian, also claimed that Exodus 3:14 should be rendered "I will be".

Also perhaps you may or may not recognise the connection between "I will be" and Yahweh in the verses you quoted. You have given "Lord", but the KJV has "LORD" indicating Yahweh "He who will be" or "He will be". Do you have an old fashioned Englishman's Concordance? If you look up "Ehyeh" for Exodus 3:14 you will find that it is classified under "Future tense", and the translations of this word in other passages is "I will be", and the KJV "I AM" for Exodus 3:14 is the exception.

Kind regards
Trevor
 

Lon

Well-known member
Greetings again Lon.

I have both explained what it says and what it means.
At least to the best of your capability, which really isn't up to par at this time.
Some names are associated with the future, such as Abraham.

No, not at all. You are pressing the narrow view, in a vague support for a Trinitarian bias overruling the honest, simple interpretation given by Tyndale and many other scholars including John Thomas, AB Davidson, Alec Motyer and others.
1) they don't say it is the only translation or preferred
2) the ones that do are far and few between
3) SHOW a trinitarian bias. You literally cannot. You are inferring it in lieu of something meaningful over discussion. It is called posturing and you really aren't open to anything but what you want to try and teach (incorrectly). There is a lot of pride in it when you've done it for so many years, apparently, and unchallenged. It is time for you to step up to the plate or simply acquiesce this is going to be a mediocre thread and discussion for the Christadelphian indoctrination with little-substance, commercial. It is naught but posturing at that point. Discuss the substance of the verses or step down and let another more apt pick up where you are unable.

I have added Alec Motyer, not because I agree with his Trinitarian theology and other ideas, but because he understood the correct translation of Exodus 3:14 and the meaning of the Name Yahweh.
We can all find experts. Keil and Delitzsch are the Christian standard in Hebrew scholasticism: אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה, “I am that I am,”
See then Strong's: A primitive root (compare H1933); to exist, that is, be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary): - beacon, X altogether, be (-come, accomplished, committed, like), break, cause, come (to pass), continue, do, faint, fall, + follow, happen, X have, last, pertain, quit (one-) self, require, X use.

There is literally no ability for this or any other scholar to try and make it say only "I will be" other than for contextual considerations. While it is absolutely true, for Moses and the Israelites, "Will be your God too" is contextual by implication, the IMMEDIATE context is "What name shall I tell Pharaoh?" You miss that, scholar or not, you miss the point. "I Am God" is clearly the intent over and above Egyptian gods. In fact, there was going to be a ten plague contest to prove exactly that "Contextually."
Is there a 'Trinitarian' bent to me saying any of that? No! Not in the least little bit. It is demonstrable. Read here: "...in Biblical Hebrew, the form of the verb here is not associated with any particular English tense."
Did you catch that? It means, NECESSARILY that the immediate context tells you what is meant. AB may have been a nice guy, but He wasn't accurate and is ignoring the Hebrew language itself if he asserts anything else. We actually have a few Hebrew (wholly Jewish, not Christian) scholars who frequent TOL. You can easily ask any of them about this. Hebrew scholars themselves say 'a few' when talking about 'will be' as their translation. It means the majority of Hebrews, reading their own language, literally read "I AM." After that, as I've clearly shown, the immediate context to Pharaoh demands a contextual rendering.
I have a copy of his paper on this subject. He lectured many years on the Hebrew language as well as being the author of many commentaries, for example the two IVP commentaries on Isaiah, and he was the editor of some series. My Hebrew online instructor, most probably a Trinitarian, also claimed that Exodus 3:14 should be rendered "I will be".
So what? I JUST proved to you and anybody else reading that context ALONE is the deciding factor in the Hebrew language.
Also perhaps you may or may not recognise the connection between "I will be" and Yahweh in the verses you quoted. You have given "Lord", but the KJV has "LORD" indicating Yahweh "He who will be" or "He will be". Do you have an old fashioned Englishman's Concordance? If you look up "Ehyeh" for Exodus 3:14 you will find that it is classified under "Future tense", and the translations of this word in other passages is "I will be", and the KJV "I AM" for Exodus 3:14 is the exception.

Kind regards
Trevor
And you haven't nearly enough Hebrew under your belt. There are two tenses in Hebrew: Past perfect (Was) and Future(not completed to an end (AM & Will Be). Context ALONE drives the tense meaning. AB is correct that 'future' means 'will be' but he is missing a point: "Am" is part of the acceptable translation and most Hebrew scholars read it 'Am.'
Your turn. Ball in your court and you literally cannot assail one point I've posted here, Trinitarian or Unitarian or whatever else. It doesn't matter: It rather matters what the text actually says and means and you are left in the dust wanting.
"Kind regards?" Not mean, but certainly challenging our assertions. -Lon
 

TrevorL

Well-known member
Greetings again Lon,
At least to the best of your capability, which really isn't up to par at this time.
This is your assessment, but I am happy with my level of understanding on this subject. In my opinion you have not given a viable explanation.
they don't say it is the only translation or preferred
These all give "I will be" as their translation and thus disagree with "I AM".
the ones that do are far and few between
The majority are not always correct, for example Joshua and Caleb and their minority report.
SHOW a trinitarian bias. You literally cannot.
Look at any Trinitarian thread, and many of these claim that John 8:58 is quoting the "I AM" of Exodus 3:14.
Discuss the substance of the verses or step down and let another more apt pick up where you are unable.
A bit of bluff and bluster on your side here. For example I have discussed the context Exodus 3:12 and the further elaboration in Exodus 6:1-8.
We can all find experts.
Yes, and then we must decide which "authority" we accept and in this case one factor is whether the "authority" is a dedicated Trinitarian.
the IMMEDIATE context is "What name shall I tell Pharaoh?" You miss that, scholar or not, you miss the point. "I Am God" is clearly the intent over and above Egyptian gods. In fact, there was going to be a ten plague contest to prove exactly that "Contextually."
No, you miss what the context directly states, that Moses asked what Name would he tell the children of Israel to describe the God of their fathers who they already knew existed, and who they had cried unto as a result of their oppression by the Egyptians:
Exodus 3:13 (KJV): And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them?
And you haven't nearly enough Hebrew under your belt.
A bit of bluff and bluster here again and in the rest of your post, but I doubt that you have connected "Ehyeh" and "Yahweh" previously as such things are rarely expounded in Trinitarian circles and not part of their thinking.

Kind regards
Trevor
 

Lon

Well-known member
Greetings again Lon,

This is your assessment, but I am happy with my level of understanding on this subject. In my opinion you have not given a viable explanation.
I'm a capable grammarian.
These all give "I will be" as their translation and thus disagree with "I AM"
Couldn't care less. It matters not. It is just posturing on Trevor's part.
The majority are not always correct, for example Joshua and Caleb and their minority report.
Proof-texting. The majority are most often right. Try taking a couple of quizzes and hit 'majority.' It'll be right exponentially over wrong.
Look at any Trinitarian thread, and many of these claim that John 8:58 is quoting the "I AM" of Exodus 3:14.
We don't really have many Trinitarian threads. Unitarians on TOL have anti-trinitarian threads (like this one).
A bit of bluff and bluster on your side here.
No, that's just you posturing/asserting on your end. Prove, don't just state your opinion. I gave scriptures.
For example I have discussed the context Exodus 3:12 and the further elaboration in Exodus 6:1-8.

Yes, and then we must decide which "authority" we accept and in this case one factor is whether the "authority" is a dedicated Trinitaria
Has no bearing. Just decide if they are capable of answering the questions. The first very simple is: "Did Moses ask 'Who' or 'what?" As I said, in the context of Moses and Hebrews, 'will be what you need' is a good promise, but Moses asked 'What am I to say is your name?' Further? As I said, Jews are Trinitarian: They say 'Am' over 'will be' and as I posted, with 'few' exceptions. It means YOU are one of those 'few.'
No, you miss what the context directly states, that Moses asked what Name would he tell the children of Israel to describe the God of their fathers who they already knew existed, and who they had cried unto as a result of their oppression by the Egyptians:
Exodus 3:13 (KJV): And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them?
WHICH I already acquiesced. Every time you read "LORD" in the KJV, it is the tetragrammaton. It is given over and over in verse 13, 15, 16 and in v, 18, the same Name given to Pharaoh (also Exodus 5:1,2 etc.). See the point? No I guess you don't. You are so busy posturing you can't be honest and look at the point: He is NOT saying "I will be" to Pharaoh.
A bit of bluff and bluster here again and in the rest of your post, but I doubt that you have connected "Ehyeh" and "Yahweh" previously as such things are rarely expounded in Trinitarian circles and not part of their thinking.

Kind regards
Trevor
Ah, the Christadelphian commercial with "no Kind Regards." Why is it, that cults come on here and feign 'kind regards' when they have no intent of it? 🤔 :Z
 

TrevorL

Well-known member
Gretings again Lon,
The first very simple is: "Did Moses ask 'Who' or 'what?"
The "Who" is Yahweh, the Name of the One God of Israel, "He who will be". God is not a "what", but you seem to be hung up on this, despite your grammarian skills. There are no further aspects from your post that need to be discussed, especially your last comment.

Kind regards
Trevor
 

Lon

Well-known member
Gretings again Lon,

The "Who" is Yahweh, the Name of the One God of Israel, "He who will be". God is not a "what", but you seem to be hung up on this, despite your grammarian skills.
Right, because YOU thought my post was to you with Keypurr's name on it. YOU are the one that is wrong, even on this one. You misread a LOT, Trevor. You do. Not me. You do. YOU are the one insisting on "Will be" (a what, as in 'what' will "He be?" - YOUR insistence). While certainly it may be argued that "will be/Am," a VERB form of being (a what is He doing answer, not a 'who' answer specifically unless "I just AM" like I and all other Hebrews and Grammarians insist. Try and pay attention now and pay attention to grammar rule as well as follow instruction. You are so caught up in your ignorance, you can't be taught anything. You are posturing at this point because, frankly, sticking your head in the sand and stamping your proverbial foot is all you have left.
There are no further aspects from your post that need to be discussed, especially your last comment.

Kind regards
Trevor
So, Trevor, a layman with little training or education in theology, is trying to insist, from his limited theology education, that "YHWH" must always mean: "I will be."

Let's take two points that help Mr. Trevor, the Christadelphian (some cult (not derogatorily) hardly anybody knows about, but he thinks it "all that" for poor reasons of allegiance).

1) The Jews say "I Am." The Jews of Old said "I Am" In the LXX, (the same Greek Bible the Lord Jesus Christ had read in synagogue on occassion). Modern Jews ALSO say "I Am." It means, if you were open to honesty, that "Trevor and Christadelphians aren't correct. They are wrong, which is hardly surprising when Trevor thinks "Keypurr" is himself and a note to him might somehow, incredibly, be applied to 'TrevorL.' 💫

2) Even if somehow, in Mr. Trevor's world, Christadelphians and JWs and every other obscure group that have no theologians esteemed by the Christian community at large, Even 'if' somehow they could prove
the LXX is false in using the First person, singular, indicative, PRESENT. Even "IF" Trevor, with no education in theology matters COULD prove the LXX is wrong, it'd ALSO mean Jesus used the EXACT SAME term in the Exodus 3 form the LXX uses!
See that? It wouldn't matter a whit and this thread is all for naught, it'd still mean Jesus used the name exactly the same BUT it DOES use "I Am" and Trevor and AB and any other, is negligent and remise for not paying attention to what Hebrews actually believe. It is THEIR language. One simply cannot be a 'scholar' and ignore every other Hebrew scholar and student on the planet.

If my argument isn't sound, forget about it. If it is (it is), RETHINK your misplaced allegiance. They may very well be good people, but on this point simply love them as they are wrong and BE CORRECTED. Follow God. Forget it is coming from a Trinitarian whose doctrine you despise SIMPLY because you've been indoctrinated to think so. Rather realize that the majority of us are actually just 'pretty smart' people that can reason through the scriptures with integrity. This subject literally can be solved by grammar and a desire to 'find truth.' Have that as your ONLY goal, Trevor. It is mine. You asked if a post sent to "Keypurr" was to you. You need a bit of help, obviously, in reading for context. I might be wrong on assessment of you, but in most cases, cults (not used in a derogatory sense) have allegiance to their church and never do learn to actually think and most aren't the grammarians in the world (can be remedied with honesty and desire to be educated correctly. How likely is it, afterall, that an obscure cult could be right? Sure Christianity started that way, but it grew very quickly because it could be investigated as true. It was grammatically true as well.
 
Last edited:

TrevorL

Well-known member
Greetings again Lon,
YOU are the one insisting on "Will be" (a what, as in 'what' will "He be?" - YOUR insistence).
Yes, "I Will Be", "He will be" is the meaning of His Name. Alec Motyer from possibly his last writing before his death, his New Translation of the Psalms in 2016, when he explained why he used "Yahweh" throughout he stated: 'God' is what he is; Yahweh is who he is.
The Jews of Old said "I Am" In the LXX, (the same Greek Bible the Lord Jesus Christ had read in synagogue on occassion).
Even if somehow, in Mr. Trevor's world, Christadelphians and JWs and every other obscure group that have no theologians esteemed by the Christian community at large, Even 'if' somehow they could prove the LXX is false in using the First person, singular, indicative, PRESENT. Even "IF" Trevor, with no education in theology matters COULD prove the LXX is wrong, it'd ALSO mean Jesus used the EXACT SAME term in the Exodus 3 form the LXX uses!
Despite your rhetoric as if your case is watertight, the LXX does not support your claim. You are echoing without proper consideration the Trinitarian argument to support their claim that the KJV "I AM" of Exodus 3:14 is correct and thus their view of John 8:58. The LXX has "I am THE BEING" and "THE BEING" has sent me unto you. It does not say the "I AM" has sent me unto you. I appreciate your input and discussion. We have covered and attempted to explain the two perspectives, and even though we have not agreed, at least others will determine what view they adopt.

Kind regards
Trevor
 

Idolater

Well-known member
. . . others will determine what view they adopt.

Kind regards
Trevor
They'll adopt the Catholic view. If they're honest and have integrity they'll admit it, like the late AMR admitted it. Otherwise they'll say, "It's not the Catholic view---it's the biblical view" or some other such nonsense lol.

Hi Trevor.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lon

Lon

Well-known member
Greetings again Lon,

Yes, "I Will Be", "He will be" is the meaning of His Name. Alec Motyer from possibly his last writing before his death, his New Translation of the Psalms in 2016, when he explained why he used "Yahweh" throughout he stated: 'God' is what he is; Yahweh is who he is.


Despite your rhetoric as if your case is watertight, the LXX does not support your claim.
Incorrect, and I'm positive you cannot read a lick of Greek.
You are echoing without proper consideration the Trinitarian argument to support their claim that the KJV "I AM" of Exodus 3:14 is correct and thus their view of John 8:58. The LXX has "I am THE BEING" and "THE BEING" has sent me unto you. It does not say the "I AM" has sent me unto you. I appreciate your input and discussion. We have covered and attempted to explain the two perspectives, and even though we have not agreed, at least others will determine what view they adopt.

Kind regards
Trevor
You clearly cannot read a lick of it, Trevor. I'll post the Greek for you later. I've other things on my plate.
 

oatmeal

Well-known member
The Yahweh Name Part 1 – Initial Promise and Fulfilment
The following is a consideration of the Yahweh Name that was revealed in Exodus 3:14. It is hoped that the following comments will help to explain some of the language of both the OT and NT and the true role of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

The Name of God was revealed to Moses in the following terms:
Exodus 3:14-15 (KJV): 14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. 15 And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.

Most translations and commentators accept the present tense “I am that I am”, but notice in the margin of the RV (or ASV) and RSV, an alternative is given “I will be that I will be” or “I will be what I will be”, showing that some modern scholars suggest this alternative reading. Although not popular it appears that this future tense is the correct translation. Not only modern scholars, Tyndale also translated this in the future tense.
Exodus 3:12-14 (Tyndale): 12 And he sayde: I wilbe with the. And this shalbe a token vnto the that I haue sent the: after that thou hast broughte the people out of Egipte, ye shall serue God vppon this mountayne. 13 Than sayde Moses vnto God: when I come vnto the childern of Israell and saye vnto them, the God of youre fathers hath sent me vnto you, ad they saye vnto me, what ys his name, what answere shall I geuethem? 14 Then sayde God vnto Moses: I wilbe what I wilbe: ad he sayde, this shalt thou saye vnto the children of Israel: I wilbe dyd send me to you.

The word “ehyeh” is in Exodus 3:14 is the same in the earlier statement in v12, and here the translators give the future tense:
Exodus 3:12 (KJV): And he said, Certainly I will be with thee; and this shall be a token unto thee, that I have sent thee: When thou hast brought forth the people out of Egypt, ye shall serve God upon this mountain.
Not only does this fix the tense, it also introduces the concept that the Name of God is also associated with some future activity.

This future tense and future activity was to be God acting to deliver Israel out of Egypt, so that Israel would become a people for His Name. They would be a living witness to the purpose of God, and a witness to the existence of God. The following passage emphasises this future work in delivering Israel with the future aspect of the Name:
Exodus 6:1-8 (KJV): 1 Then the LORD said unto Moses, Now shalt thou see what I will do to Pharaoh: for with a strong hand shall he let them go, and with a strong hand shall he drive them out of his land. 2 And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the LORD: 3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH (or Yahweh) was I not known to them. 4 And I have also established my covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan, the land of their pilgrimage, wherein they were strangers. 5 And I have also heard the groaning of the children of Israel, whom the Egyptians keep in bondage; and I have remembered my covenant. 6 Wherefore say unto the children of Israel, I am the LORD, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will rid you out of their bondage, and I will redeem you with a stretched out arm, and with great judgments: 7 And I will take you to me for a people, and I will be to you a God: and ye shall know that I am the LORD your God, which bringeth you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians. 8 And I will bring you in unto the land, concerning the which I did swear to give it to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob; and I will give it you for an heritage: I am the LORD.

When Israel was delivered out of Egypt the Name of God remains the same, but the particular activity has been accomplished:
Exodus 15:1-3 (KJV): 1 Then sang Moses and the children of Israel this song unto the LORD, and spake, saying, I will sing unto the LORD, for he hath triumphed gloriously: the horse and his rider hath he thrown into the sea. 2 The LORD is my strength and song, and he is become my salvation: he is my God, and I will prepare him an habitation; my father’s God, and I will exalt him. 3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.
The future tense of God’s Name “He will be or become” has been accomplished, and Yahweh had become Israel’s salvation.

Kind regards
Trevor
Oh it is interesting to know that God refers to himself with the pronoun I in a vast majority of situations.

Thus the majority of evidence indicates that God is a single entity hence the single pronoun

Which makes it all the more clear that God referring to himself as us in Genesis one is a figure of speech
 

Idolater

Well-known member
Oh it is interesting to know that God refers to himself with the pronoun I in a vast majority of situations.
The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit all use I.
Thus the majority of evidence indicates that God is a single entity hence the single pronoun
The piece we don't have, but that's actually positive proof that the Trinity is God /God is the Trinity, is that we never read any Person say "We". The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are mentioned by Name by Christ, and He indicates that it is One Name, "The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit" is one name, not names, plural. The Father speaks, the Holy Spirit descends in the likeness of a dove (as He did with Noah, when He returned with the olive branch), and the Son is baptized, each Person is distinct. They all say I. And no one ever says "We" as if any One Person were just a member of a committee. Each Person is God, full stop.
Which makes it all the more clear that God referring to himself as us in Genesis one is a figure of speech
We Trinitarians are not conflicted about Genesis---you Nontrinitarians ought to be, though. Genesis is more consistent with the Trinitarian /Catholic teaching than with Nontrinitarianism. Abraham and Jacob meet angels who appear to be men, but who then talk as if they are God Himself, rather than as His angel or messenger. How can a man speak as God Himself? Catholics and other Trinitarians have no trouble. You Nontrinitarians are missing that you really should be conflicted about Genesis, because there are multiple instances that are more consistent with the Trinity than with Nontrinitarianism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lon

TrevorL

Well-known member
Greetings again Hark and Greetings oatmeal and Idolater,
Incorrect, and I'm positive you cannot read a lick of Greek. You clearly cannot read a lick of it, Trevor. I'll post the Greek for you later. I've other things on my plate.
I am the librarian for my meeting and also have a reasonable personal collection. The following is the LXX from my electronic Bible program and the versions on Bible Hub which is slightly different. I assume these are reasonably correct or you can quote your version.
Exodus 3:14 (LXX): καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεὸς πρὸς Μωυσῆν Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν, καὶ εἶπεν Οὕτως ἐρεῖς τοῖς υἱοῖς Ισραηλ Ὁ ὢν ἀπέσταλκέν με πρὸς ὑμᾶς.
Exodus 3:14 (LXX – Bible Hub): καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεὸς πρὸς Μωυσῆν λέγων Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν· καὶ εἶπεν Οὕτως ἐρεῖς τοῖς υἱοῖς Ἰσραήλ Ὁ ὢν ἀπέσταλκέν με πρὸς ὑμᾶς.
Exodus 3:14 (Swete’s LXX – Bible Hub): καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεὸς πρὸς Μωυσῆν λέγων Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν· καὶ εἶπεν Οὕτως ἐρεῖς τοῖς υἱοῖς Ἰσραήλ Ὁ ὢν ἀπέσταλκέν με πρὸς ὑμᾶς.


You are correct, quoting another Greek version will not help me much, but I am interested in your English translation. Now while I wait for your different or improved translation, the following is the English translation from my print version:
Exodus 3:14 (LXX – English translation): And God spoke to Moses, saying, I am THE BEING; and he said, Thus shall thou say to the children of Israel, THE BEING has sent me to you.
The English translation from my book at least seems to indicate “THE BEING” not “I AM”.

Oh it is interesting to know that God refers to himself with the pronoun I in a vast majority of situations. Thus the majority of evidence indicates that God is a single entity hence the single pronoun Which makes it all the more clear that God referring to himself as us in Genesis one is a figure of speech
I understand that the plurality “us” and “our” is God and the Angels Psalm 8:5.

How can a man speak as God Himself?
The Angels speak and act on Yahweh's behalf.

Kind regards
Trevor
 
Last edited:

Idolater

Well-known member
Greetings again Hark and Greetings oatmeal and Idolater,
Hi.
The Angels speak and act on Yahweh's behalf.
Yes. But not AS God. On God's behalf, but not AS God. Gabriel didn't start talking as if he was God, when he visited Mary. He talked about God to her, not AS God. But the angels in Genesis, sometimes One of them spoke as if He were literally God Himself. That is a huge problem for Nontrinitarianism. HUGE. But it is a trivial thing for Catholics and other Catholic Trinitarians, because the Son of the Living God, is called LORD, by His Apostles, and He never corrected them, not even "Doubting Thomas", who said, "My LORD and my GOD" to Him. He never corrected them.
 

TrevorL

Well-known member
Greetings again Idolater,
Yes. But not AS God. On God's behalf, but not AS God. Gabriel didn't start talking as if he was God, when he visited Mary.
The Angels spoke and acted on the One God, Yahweh's behalf. They also had some delegated authority and responsibility as is evident on some occasions. In the NT times Zechariah was struck dumb, and we not told whether God comminicated this, or Gabriel acted on his own behalf as part of his responsibility.
But the angels in Genesis, sometimes One of them spoke as if He were literally God Himself.
Using another example Exodus 3:1-6, despite the language that we find difficult, nevertheless specifically states that it was the Angel of Yahweh, not Yahweh Himself.
the Son of the Living God, is called LORD, by His Apostles
There is a distinction between LORD (Yahweh) and Lord, refer Psalm 110:1 where the two words are used and Acts 2:29-36 expounds this.
even "Doubting Thomas", who said, "My LORD and my GOD" to Him.
Again Lord not LORD (Yahweh) and God is used for Angels, Judges and here our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God. The theme of John's Gospel record is found in the next few verses, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God and these are greater titles than the way the term "God" is used in the OT and the NT, refer John 10:30-36.

Kind regards
Trevor
 

Lon

Well-known member
I am the librarian for my meeting and also have a reasonable personal collection. The following is the LXX from my electronic Bible program and the versions on Bible Hub which is slightly different. I assume these are reasonably correct or you can quote your version.
Exodus 3:14 (LXX): καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεὸς πρὸς Μωυσῆν Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν, καὶ εἶπεν Οὕτως ἐρεῖς τοῖς υἱοῖς Ισραηλ Ὁ ὢν ἀπέσταλκέν με πρὸς ὑμᾶς.
Exodus 3:14 (LXX – Bible Hub): καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεὸς πρὸς Μωυσῆν λέγων Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν· καὶ εἶπεν Οὕτως ἐρεῖς τοῖς υἱοῖς Ἰσραήλ Ὁ ὢν ἀπέσταλκέν με πρὸς ὑμᾶς.
Exodus 3:14 (Swete’s LXX – Bible Hub): καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεὸς πρὸς Μωυσῆν λέγων Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν· καὶ εἶπεν Οὕτως ἐρεῖς τοῖς υἱοῖς Ἰσραήλ Ὁ ὢν ἀπέσταλκέν με πρὸς ὑμᾶς.



Kind regards
Trevor
Yep, it means you are so heavily vested, layman and all, that you cannot be reasoned with (read it at your own Christadelphian peril when you are able to follow God instead of being so vested you cannot be bothered to think). Until then? Yeah, I'm not interested in posturing over and over and over again in a thread that is simply indoctrination trying to prove itself on the elementary level. It just won't fly. You know it and have been shown by your betters. This isn't 'greek' know-how, Trevor. You are posturing and you know it quite without the wherewithal. You KNOW it too! It is present indicative (and you have NO idea what that even means, sadly). Even your decided translation says "I Am..." Greek, in the indicative (and translated) means literally 'Am' (present indicative). -Lon
 
Last edited:

Lon

Well-known member
Again Lord not LORD (Yahweh) and God is used for Angels, Judges and here our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God. The theme of John's Gospel record is found in the next few verses, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God and these are greater titles than the way the term "God" is used in the OT and the NT, refer John 10:30-36.

Kind regards
Trevor
No, you are literally being inept. My 'Lord' AND my 'God.' You lose for want of reasoning ability. :nono: Not even an ι .

I'll simply pray for you. Until you humble yourself, you'll never get away from problematic teaching from your cult. Until then, you are well beyond my help. -Lon
 

TrevorL

Well-known member
Greetings again Lon,
It is present indicative (and you have NO idea what that even means, sadly). Even your decided translation says "I Am..." Greek, in the indicative (and translated) means literally 'Am' (present indicative).
I noticed that you did not address what the LXX says: "I am THE BEING" and "The BEING has sent me unto you". If I say "I am ...", this does not represent that I am claiming to be Deity, for example I am an Australian. The LXX is a poor translation of the Hebrew here, and no English translation from the Hebrew comes near to agreeing with the LXX.
Until you humble yourself, you'll never get away from problematic teaching from your cult. Until then, you are well beyond my help.
Yes (Uriah oops Lon), I agree that we have covered the subject, though I would like to add two aspects. And cult? Possibly you should check whether the Trinity concepts have been developed from paganism (many gods) and Greek philosophy.

The first is that it is a very smooth transition from what the Name Yahweh represents, and what the NT revelation is that the One God of the OT, Yahweh is God the Father. This is concentrated in the fact that God has given birth to a Son, our Lord Jesus Christ as promised to David, concerning the promised descendant of David, that Yahweh would be His Father, and the descendant of David would be God's Son. Jesus when fully matured by the time of his ministry revealed the character of God, full of grace and truth, and is thus also the Son of God.

The second is that the full development of the Yahweh Name is when God has gathered together in One all the faithful, so that at the end of the 1000 years God will be ALL in ALL 1 Corinthians 15:28 and the Name of what God would become will be fulfilled.

Kind regards
Trevor.
 

oatmeal

Well-known member
The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit all use I.

The piece we don't have, but that's actually positive proof that the Trinity is God /God is the Trinity, is that we never read any Person say "We". The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are mentioned by Name by Christ, and He indicates that it is One Name, "The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit" is one name, not names, plural. The Father speaks, the Holy Spirit descends in the likeness of a dove (as He did with Noah, when He returned with the olive branch), and the Son is baptized, each Person is distinct. They all say I. And no one ever says "We" as if any One Person were just a member of a committee. Each Person is God, full stop.

We Trinitarians are not conflicted about Genesis---you Nontrinitarians ought to be, though. Genesis is more consistent with the Trinitarian /Catholic teaching than with Nontrinitarianism. Abraham and Jacob meet angels who appear to be men, but who then talk as if they are God Himself, rather than as His angel or messenger. How can a man speak as God Himself? Catholics and other Trinitarians have no trouble. You Nontrinitarians are missing that you really should be conflicted about Genesis, because there are multiple instances that are more consistent with the Trinity than with Nontrinitarianism.
Of course the Father uses I

the Son of God uses I

The Holy Spirit is another name God the Father use this to refer to himself

The use of the word I indicates that they are individual entities as much as Peter is I or Paul is I or I am I.

I'm a biblical student that has bothered to read scripture for what it says not for what pagan influenced early Christianity would like it to say
 

oatmeal

Well-known member
Greetings again Hark and Greetings oatmeal and Idolater,

I am the librarian for my meeting and also have a reasonable personal collection. The following is the LXX from my electronic Bible program and the versions on Bible Hub which is slightly different. I assume these are reasonably correct or you can quote your version.
Exodus 3:14 (LXX): καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεὸς πρὸς Μωυσῆν Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν, καὶ εἶπεν Οὕτως ἐρεῖς τοῖς υἱοῖς Ισραηλ Ὁ ὢν ἀπέσταλκέν με πρὸς ὑμᾶς.
Exodus 3:14 (LXX – Bible Hub): καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεὸς πρὸς Μωυσῆν λέγων Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν· καὶ εἶπεν Οὕτως ἐρεῖς τοῖς υἱοῖς Ἰσραήλ Ὁ ὢν ἀπέσταλκέν με πρὸς ὑμᾶς.
Exodus 3:14 (Swete’s LXX – Bible Hub): καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεὸς πρὸς Μωυσῆν λέγων Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν· καὶ εἶπεν Οὕτως ἐρεῖς τοῖς υἱοῖς Ἰσραήλ Ὁ ὢν ἀπέσταλκέν με πρὸς ὑμᾶς.


You are correct, quoting another Greek version will not help me much, but I am interested in your English translation. Now while I wait for your different or improved translation, the following is the English translation from my print version:
Exodus 3:14 (LXX – English translation): And God spoke to Moses, saying, I am THE BEING; and he said, Thus shall thou say to the children of Israel, THE BEING has sent me to you.
The English translation from my book at least seems to indicate “THE BEING” not “I AM”.


I understand that the plurality “us” and “our” is God and the Angels Psalm 8:5.


The Angels speak and act on Yahweh's behalf.

Kind regards
Trevor
Use of the plural in Genesis this is a figure of speech referred to as the plural of majesty or the plural of intensity or as the trinitarian ew Bollinger calls it the heterosis of number used to magnify the greatness of the ACT being done.

Evidently the Queen of England uses the majestic plural figure of speech when she would speak of we the Queen of England indicating her position as well as magnifying it
 

Lon

Well-known member
Greetings again Lon,

I noticed that you did not address what the LXX says: "I am THE BEING" and "The BEING has sent me unto you".
Really? You literally think you know that? As I said "Present indicative." You LITERALLY didn't think I addressed it? 🤔
If I say "I am ...", this does not represent that I am claiming to be Deity, for example I am an Australian.
So tempting...but no, you aren't being cogent and are incorrect.
The LXX is a poor translation of the Hebrew here, and no English translation from the Hebrew comes near to agreeing with the LXX.
LOL, and there it is. Jesus read from it. Don't believe it? Look it up.
Yes (Uriah oops Lon),
2 Samuel 12:9–10 1 Kings 15:5 🤔
I agree that we have covered the subject, though I would like to add two aspects. And cult? Possibly you should check whether the Trinity concepts have been developed from paganism (many gods) and Greek philosophy.
Literally don't care. Unlike you, I CAN read Greek. I can muddle through Hebrew too.
The first is that it is a very smooth transition from what the Name Yahweh represents, and what the NT revelation is that the One God of the OT, Yahweh is God the Father. This is concentrated in the fact that God has given birth to a Son, our Lord Jesus Christ as promised to David, concerning the promised descendant of David, that Yahweh would be His Father, and the descendant of David would be God's Son. Jesus when fully matured by the time of his ministry revealed the character of God, full of grace and truth, and is thus also the Son of God.
Why did you even start this thread? You are completely incompetent to deliver on iota of meaning to it (I had previously posted an iota and knew you couldn't read even that). Why are you even trying? It is a complete waste of time because you are completely inept for this conversation.
The second is that the full development of the Yahweh Name is when God has gathered together in One all the faithful, so that at the end of the 1000 years God will be ALL in ALL 1 Corinthians 15:28 and the Name of what God would become will be fulfilled.

Kind regards
Trevor.
You are making it up. Why? Christadelphian/U-nut-arian, commercial.
I am the librarian for my {Christadelphian sect} meeting
Kind regards
Trevor
You are indoctrinated, sold your soul to the company store (American West reference) and are stuck.
 
Last edited:
Top