"I have been" or "I am" for John 8:58

by JW Ben 16 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

JW Ben

This essay is about 8 A4 pages
?I HAVE BEEN? or ?I AM? John
There are those that unfortunately have listened to ant NWT propaganda in relation to the above text and the different way that NWT renders that text in English compared with the majority of Bibles.
There was a discussion a couple of weeks ago about this when the person writing this did not give all the details, in fact, some of the information was deceptive, not necessarily intentional but possibly from ignorance. To be fair here, I will state now that most of the information I will present below I sourced form other documents, and I cut and pasted to present a discussion in a way I understand, and if I understand it, I hope others will as well.
The first thing that stands out is that, most people that put the NWT down, will say that Jesus was directly linking himself to the text in Exodus 3:14. In most English Bibles this text says ? 14 God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM." And he said, "Say this to the people of , ?I AM has sent me to you. ? (RSV). The NWT renders that verse different. Please note: ? 14 At this God said to Moses: ?I SHALL PROVE TO BE WHAT I SHALL PROVE TO BE.? And he added: ?This is what you are to say to the sons of , ?I SHALL PROVE TO BE has sent me to YOU . ?. So which one is correct and did Jesus refer to this text.? Are the two sayings the same? Should this link be made?. Have those that made the link made a mistake?
First lets look at the Hebrew expression at Exodus 3:14, which is ?hyha dva hyha?
The following comments on this Hebrew expression, hyha dva hyha (ehyeh asher ehyeh), which Jehovah used to make a declaration about Himself to Moses at Exodus , will be illuminating:
Such a translation [in English] as ?I am what I am? appears to be ruled out completely by the fact that the verbs [in Hebrew] here are imperfects. ?I am? is the normal translation of the Hebrew perfect, not an imperfect....The translation offered here relates this explanation of the name to covenants with the patriarchs. As such it was a basis of assurance concerning Yahweh?s presence and support. This thought is made explicit in the verse that follows, and the proper name Yahweh, the memorial name, is made synonymous with the description ?I shall continue to be what I have always been.? This makes the description a restatement of Yahweh?s faithfulness an assurance that he will fulfill the covenants with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.?J. Wash Watt, Professor of Old Testament, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, 1930-1968, A Distinctive Translation of Exodus With An Interpretative Outline, 1977, pp. 140?1.
The translation I am [in English] is doubly false: the tense is wrong, being present; and the idea is wrong, because am [in such an incorrect translation ] is used in the sense of essential existence. All those interpretations which proceed upon the supposition that the word is a name of God as the self-existent, the absolute, of which the Septuagint?s ho ohn is the most conspicuous illustration, must be set aside...the nature of the verb [in Hebrew] and the tense peremptorily forbid them.?A.B. Davidson, ?The Theology of the Old Testament,? in The International Theological Library, 1920, p. 55.
Most moderns follow Rashe [Shelomoh Ben Yishaq, 1040(?)?1105; see: Encyclopedia Americana, 1956, Volume 23, page 220] in rendering ?I will be what I will be? i.e. no words can sum up all that He will be to His people, but His everlasting faithfulness and unchanging mercy will more and more manifest themselves in the guidance of Israel. The answer, which Moses receives in these words, is thus equivalent to, ?I shall save in the way that I shall save.? It is to assure the Israelites of the fact of deliverance, but does not disclose the manner.?J.H. Hertz, The Pentateuch and Hoftorahs , 1950, footnote to Exodus 3:14.
Lets see how various translations reflect this knowledge:

1) ?I-will-be-what-I-will-be.??MO.
2) ?I Will Become Whatsoever I please??Rotherham added this footnote to Exodus 3:14 in his translation: ?Hayah [?to be? root of ?ehyeh?] does not mean ?to be essentially or ontologically [i.e. what He is basically or that He exists], but phenomenally [i.e., what He will do]....it seems that in the view of the writer ?ehyeh and yahweh are the same: that God is ?ehyeh ?I will be? when speaking of Himself, and yahweh? when spoken of by others. What he will be is left unexpressed ? He will be with them, helper, strengthener, deliverer.??Professor A.B. Davidson, in Bible Dictionary , Vol. II, [p.] 199.?
3) ?I will be what I will be.??BY.
4) ?I will be that I will be.??Leeser.
5) ?I SHALL PROVE TO BE WHAT I SHALL PROVE TO BE.??NWT.
6) ?I shall continue to be what I have always been.??J. .
7) ?I will be what I will be.??NEB.

8) ?The meaning of the divine name (v. 12) is repeated and expanded, God?s freedom from and control of history are denoted by the phrase, ?I will be what will be.?? Study Edition The New English Bible , footnote.

9) ?I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE. ??RSV, margin.
10) ?I will be what I will be.??NIV, margin.

11) ?I will be what I will be.??LB, margin.
12) ?I will be what I will be (or become).??The Companion Bible, margin.
13) ?I will be what I will be.??I.M. Ruben, 1928.
14 ) ?I will be what I will be.??Simon Glazer, 1935.
15) ?I will be what I will be.??English Revised Version, 1881?1885, margin.
16) ?I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE.??ASV, margin.

17) ?Or, I WILL BE THAT I WILL BE.??M.B. Glazebrook, D.D., Canon of Ely; THE LAYMAN?S OLD TESTANENT, Oxford University Press, 1913, margin.
18) ?I will be what I will be.??Revised English Bible, 1989, margin.
So it is not just a NWT rendering and I would say that the above renderings brings into question the correctness of trying of to link Exodus 3:14 with John 8:58.
The words in the Greek text of the Septuagint (LXX) are not ejgwv eijmi oJ ejgwv eijmi (eh.GOH A.mee hah eh.GOH A.mee, ?I am the I am?,) but, ejgwv eijmi oJ #Wn (eh.GOH A.mee hah own, ?I am the Being?, or, ?I am the Existing (one)?). Jehovah described Himself, according to the Greek of the LXX, not as ?the I am,? but as ?the Being,? or, ?the Existing (one).? This is far different from what Jesus said at John ; priVn AbraaVm genevsqai ejgwV eijmiv (prin, iv as ee in ?meet,? ah.bra.AHM gen.ES.thigh (gen as in ?Gennesaret?, rhymes with ?ten?) eh.GOH A.mee, (?before Abraham to become I am.?.) Jesus did not use the expression ?the Being? nor ?the Existing (one)? at this nor any other verse with reference to himself.
In John 8:58, Jesus merely said, translating literally from the Greek: ?before Abraham to become I am.? He did not apply any title or identification to himself. He only disclosed when he was alive; when his life started, and from when his life continued, sometime before Abraham. Not who, but when he was!
How should it be rendered into English. Lets look at what several Greek Scholars have to say (one of which are NWT critic).
Sometimes the progressive present is retroactive in its application, denoting that which has begun in the past and a continues into the present. For 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.(e.a.)?H.E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey, A Manuel Grammar of the Greek New Testament, 1928, p. 183.
The present [tense] with palai [long ago] or any other expression of past time denotes an action begun in the past and continued in the present, and is translated by the perfect [past tense] e.g. kei'non ijcneuvw paVlai [KAY.nohn ik.NEÜ.oh PAH.lie; literally, ?I am tracking him a long time?] I have been tracking him a long time,. (e.a.)?William Watson Goodwin, revised by Charles Burton Gulick, Greek Grammar, p. 268, section 1258.
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,...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.? (e.a.)?Ernest De Witt Burton, Syntax of the Moods And Tenses in New Testament Greek, p. 10, section 17. (This describes the syntax (construction) of John 8:58.)
Present Tense...It often stands with adverbial expressions denoting past time, such as palai ?long since,? arti or artios ?just (now),? where in English the progressive present [another term for a tense which shows an action begun and still in progress, used by some scholars, terminology varies from time to time and from country to country even in countries where the same language is used] seem to be required (I have long been looking)?A.N. Jannaris, An Historical Greek Grammar, p. 434, §1833. .2.
To describe a state continuing up to the present Greek uses the present tense (echei) [he is having] where English uses the perfect; cf. viii, 58; xiv, 9,?J.N. Sanders, A Commentary of the Gospel According to St. John, p. 158, footnote 4.
Sometimes the Present includes also a past tense...when the verb expresses a state which commenced at an earlier period but still continues - a state in its duration; as, Jn. xv.27...viii.58,?George Benedict Winer, A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament, (Luneman translation), 1893, p. 267.
According to Greek grammar, ?eimi? (?am?, in the present tense) at John 8:58, because of its being accompanied by and expression of past time, (prin Abraam genesthai) ?before Abraham to become?,) should be rendered, in English, in the perfect tense. See: James Strong?s ?Greek Dictionary...? in his Exhaustive Concordance Of The Bible, word 1510. The word is eijmiv some of the definitions of it are: ?have been...was.?
Why is this rendering different from earlier usages of ?I am? in John chapter 8 e.g.
8:12 ?saying, I am the light of the world:?
8:16 ?for I am not alone,?
8:18 ?I am one that bear witness?
8:23 ?I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.?
8:24 ?for if ye believe not that I am he,? (the he here is added to the text by translators)
8:28 ?shall ye know that I am he,? (the he here is added to the text by translators)
In all of these Jesus is talking about identity vs. 12 he is the light of the world; vs. 16 he is sent by the father; vs. 18 he is the one that bears witness about the Father; vs. 23 he is not from this world and verses 24 & 28 he is telling the audience that they must believe that he is all those things. There is no past mentioned.
In verse 58 the context changes because of the time relationship between himself and Abraham. The NWT is not alone in its rendering. Some others are?
1) ?[F]rom before Abraham was, I have been.??The New Testament, George R. Noyes, D.D., ?Professor Of Hebrew And Other Oriental Languages And Dexter Lecturer On Biblical Literature In Harvard University,? 1869.
2) ?[B]efore Abraham was, I have been.??Syriac-Edition: A Translation of the Four Gospels from the Syriac of the Sinaitic Palimpsest, Agnes Smith Lewis, 1886, from a 4 th /5 th century manuscript. (Syriac and Aramaic are forms of the same language.)

3) ?[B]efore Abraham existed, I was.??Syriac Peshita-Edition: The Syriac New Testament into English from the Peshitto Version, seventh edition, James Murdock, 1896, from 5 th century manuscripts.

4) ?[B]efore Abraham to be, I was.??Curetoian Syriac-Edition: The Curetonian Version of the Four Gospels, F. Crawford Burkitt, 1904, from 5 th century manuscripts.
5) ?[B]efore Abraham cane to be, I was.??Georgian-Edition: ?The Old Georgian Version of the Gospel? of John, P. Blake, M. Briere, in Patrologia Orientallis, Vol. XXVI, faxcicle 4, Paris, 1950, from 5 th century manuscripts.
6) ?[B]efore Abraham was born, I was.??Ethiopic-Edition: Novum Testamentum Æthioice, T.P. Platt, revised by F. Praetorius, Lepzig, 1899.
7) ?I was before Abraham was born.??The New Testament Or Rather The New Covenant, Samuel Sharpe, 1881.
8) ?[B]efore Abraham existed I was already what I am.??The Twentieth Century New Testament, 1904.
9) ?[B]efore Abraham came to be, I was.??The New Testament (in German), Curt Stage, 1907.
10) ?[B]efore Abraham became, I, I, am being.??The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Southern Dialect, George William Horner, 1911.
11) ?[B]efore Abraham came into being, I have existed.??The Documents Of The New Testament, G.W. Wade 1934.
12) ?I have existed before Abraham was born.??The Bible A New Translation, James Moffatt, 1935.
13) ?Before Abraham was, I have been.??The New Testament in Hebrew, Franz Delitzsch, 1937 edition.
14) ?I existed before Abraham was born.??An American Translation, Smith and Goodspeed, 1939.
15) ?Before Abraham was born, I was.?? The New Testament According To The Eastern Text, George Lamsa, 1940.
16) ?I have been when there had as yet been no Abraham.??Isaac Salkinson and David Ginsberg, The New Testament in Hebrew, 1941 edition.

17) ?I existed before Abraham was born.??The New Testament of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, George Swan, 1947.
18) ?Before there was an Abraham, I was already there.??The New Testament (in German), Friedreich Pfaefflin, 1949.

19) ?I am here - and I was before Abraham.??The New Testament, James A. Klist, S.J., and Joseph L. Lilly, C.M., 1954. Footnote in same: ?Christ here states (1) that he ?was? already ?in existence? before Abraham ?came into being?; and (2) that, since then he has always been, and ?still is,? in existence. The two statements, fused into one grammatical expression, stress the idea of continuity from before Abraham?s time down to the present moment and intimate his eternity. The statement in Exod. 3:14 is different: ?I am he whose essence it is to be.,? [Christ is disclosing his being before Abraham; but to say that ?he intimated his eternity?, is reading more into the statement than is there. ed.]

20) ?I existed before Abraham was born.??The Authentic New Testament, Hugh J. Schonfield, 1958.
21) ?Before Abraham existed I was existing.??Biblia Sagrada (Sacred Bible, in Portuguese), Roman Catholic, second edition, 1960.
22) ?[O]r, I have been,? (margin)?New American Standard Version, editions of 1960-1973. (Later removed!)
23) ?I existed before Abraham was born.??The New Testament Of Our Lord And Savior Jesus Christ, Translated Into English From The Approved Greek Text Of The Church Of Constantinople And the Church Of Greece, by Metropolitan Archbishop Fan S. Noli, 1961.

24) ?I existed before Abraham was born.??The New Testament In The Language Of The People, Charles B. Williams, 1963, (? honored preceptor? of H.E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey. (See: A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, H.E Dana and Julius R. Mantey, 1927-57; p. x.) Mantey, in a review of his former teacher?s translation, said: ?Williams? translation, considering all the factors, is the most accurate and illuminating translation in the English language.???Introduction? to Williams? translation; Moody Press. Yet Mantey condemns the New World Translation?s render- ing of John 8:58, which has the same meaning as Williams? rendering!)
25) ?I tell you in truth,? Jesus told them, ?I was before Abraham.??The New Testament In The Language Of Today, William G. Beck, 1973.
26) ?The absolute truth is that I was in existence before Abraham was born.??The Living Bible, Kenneth Taylor, 1971.
27) ?Truly I tell you, I existed even before Abraham was born.??The Concise Gospel and The Acts, Christopher J. Christianson, 1973.
28) ?I am from before Abraham was.??The Four Gospels And The Revelation, Richmond Lattermore, 1979.
29) ?[T]o make sense, one must say ?Before Abraham existed, I existed? or ?...I have existed.??A Translator?s Handbook on the Gospel of John, Barclay M. Newman and Eugene A. Nida. 1980.
30) ?I was alive before Abraham was born.??The Simple English Bible, 1981.
31) ?I tell you for a positive fact, I existed before Abraham was born.??The Original New Testament, Hugh J. Schonfield, 1985.
32) ?I existed before there was an Abraham.??The Complete Gospels Annotated Scholars Version, Robert J. Miller editor, 1994.
32) ?4.2.4. Extension from past. When used with an expression of either past time or extent of time with past implications?the present tense signals an activity begun in the past (e.a.) and continuing to present time; Lu 13:7?Lu 15: 29?Jn 14:9?Ac 27: 33?Jn 8:58?I have been in existence since before Abraham was born.??K.L. McKay, A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek, Peter Lang, New York, 1994, pp. 41-2.
34) ?The verb ?to be? is used?in what is presumably its basic meaning of ?be in existence?, in John 8:58: prin Abraam genesthai ego eimi?which 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.? If we take the Greek words in their natural meaning, as we surely should, 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.??K.L. McKay, THE EXPOSITORY TIMES, ? I am in John?s Gospel?, July 1996, Vol. 17, Number 10, p. 302.
Another problem some people have is with the footnotes to this verse in the NWT. It changed slightly. A footnote in the 1950 and 1951 editions states: ?I have been = ejgwV eijmiv (e.go? ei.mi?) after the a?orist infinitive clause priVn AbraaVm genevsqi [preen Ahb.rah.AHM gehn.ES.thai] and hence properly rendered in the perfect indefinite tense. ?
Latter editions say ? is properly translated by the perfect indicative ?. So some argue that the translators do not know what they are talking about because they changed the ?tense?.
These differences, here are not talking about Greek grammar but the tense that the Greek should be rendered or translated into English. Then some say that the English has no such tense as the ?perfect indefinite tense?. The fact is this tense is exactly the same as ? the perfect indicative ?. The translators were aware of older grammar usages of this tense. This expression became less popular than ? the perfect indicative ?, so it was changed from ?perfect indefinite tense? to ? the perfect indicative ?.
Ok so where is the proof that such an English grammar tense ever existed?
Yes there is. I can provide scanned photocopied pages from the following books that show the terminology ?perfect indefinite tense?. (this is just 3 of several grammar books that I have scans of, that mention the ?perfect indefinite tense?. )
A NEW ENGLISH GRAMMAR LOGICAL AND HISTORICAL - by Henry Sweet M.A.; PH.D, LL.D -Oxford at the Clarendon Press. First printed in 1891 and had twelve printings by Oxford until 1968. Page 105
ENGLISH GRAMMATICAL CATEGORIES and the tradition to 1800 ? Ian Michael ? Cambridge at the University Press 1970
CROWELL?S DICTIONARY OF ENGLISH GRAMMAR and Handbook Of American Usage ? by Maurice H Wessen ? copy write by Thomas Y. Crowell Company New York p 177, 178
So even though the KIT literally translates ?ego eimi? as ?I am?, The NWT correctly shows the full meaning of that expression based on the context as ?I have been? showing that Jesus had been in existence at some time before Abraham. The use of that phrase is a literal rendering into English to make sense in our language. The NWT is absolutely correct and, not misleading and is not unscholarly.
Narkissos

The problem of the translation "I have been" is of course not within the sentence itself, rather that the very peculiar and obviously intentional "mysterious" use of egô eimi in John (in addition to chapter 8, note 4:26; 6:20; 9:9; 12:26; 13:13,19; 18:5ff; this last one outlines the extraordinary character of the phrase) is then lost. Notice that most translations which (correctly) use a past or present perfect tense manage to restore the connection in some other way (e.g. "Before Abraham was born I already was what I am.") By not doing that, the NWT deliberately obscures one characteristic item of Johannine speech.
About Exodus 3 I would add that (1) the meaning of the Hebrew doesn't matter here, as the allusion occurs in Greek intertextuality, and (2) in addition to that text the characteristic absolute divine uses of egô eimi in Deuteronomy 32:39 and especially 2nd Isaiah (41:4; 43:10,25 etc.) also lie in the background.
Deputy Dog

Ben
Give it up!
Your statement in your letter that the sacred text itself should guide one and "not just someone's rule book." We agree with you. But our study proves that Jehovah's Witnesses do the opposite of that whenever the "sacred text" differs with their heretical beliefs. For example the translation of kolasis as cutting off when punishment is the only meaning cited in the lexicons for it. The mistranslation of ego eimi as "I have been" in John 8:58, the addition of "for all time" in Heb. 9:27 when nothing in the Greek New Testament support it. The attempt to belittle Christ by mistranslating arche tes kriseos "beginning of the creation" when he is magnified as the "creator of all things" (John 1:2) and as "equal with God" (Phil. 2:6) before he humbled himself and lived a human body on earth. Your quotation of "The father is greater than I am, (John 14:28) to prove that Jesus was not equal to God overlooks the fact stated in Phil 2:6-8. When Jesus said that he was still in his voluntary state of humiliation. That state ended when he ascended to heaven. Why the attempt to deliberately deceive people by mispunctuation by placing a comma after "today" in Luke 23:43 when in the Greek, Latin, German and all English translations except yours, even in the Greek in your KIT, the comma occurs after lego (I say) - "Today you will be with me in Paradise." 2 Cor 5:8, "to be out of the body and at home with the Lord."
Julius R. Mantey
From:
http://www.forananswer.org/Top_JW/Mantey.index.htm
http://www.forananswer.org/Top_JW/Mantey.htm

Ben, Why do you decieve?
ozziepost

Care to elaborate, Deputy?
Honesty

JW Ben,
If you have access to a 1985 Edition (Blue) The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures published by the WTBTS of NY please refer to page # 451. You will notice that the Greek - English text on the left side of the page for John 8:58 reads as:
Said to them Jesus Amen amen I am saying to you Before Abraham to become I am.
Of course, the right side of page # 451 containing the NWT text reads as:
Jesus said to them: "Most truly I say to You, Before Abraham came into existence, I have been.
The footnote states that ego eimi, "I have been" is properly translated by the perfect indicative tense. However, in the 1969 edition (purple) of the same publication the footnote states that the "I have been" is properly rendered in the perfect tense.
So, JW Ben, which one of these editions is correct according to Greek grammar. As for the credientials of the NWT translators: Nathan Knorr, Fred Franz, A.D. Schroeder, G.D. Gangas and Milton Henschel; none were able to read, speak or write Greek. Even first year Greek students recognise this phrase is in the present tense and is correctly translated "I am".
If you deny this is the case, then turn to page # 446 and compare John 8:18, 23, 24 and 28. You will notice examples where ego eimi is correctly translated by the NWT translators, as "I am."
Therefore, JW Ben, wouldn't true Greek scholars KNOW the correct tense and translation? What happened to the promise they made on page # 9 of the 1985 edition of "The Kingdom Interlinear Translation" publication where the above five men said they would offer NO PARAPHRASE of the Scriptures? Why the deception of John 8:58, and the cover-up, not once but twice? Why did they change the plain statement of Jesus Christ that He is the " I Am"?
The WatchTower Society can not have its Bible revealing their false doctrines concerning Jesus Christ. Therefore, the dishonest and blasphemous deception of John 8:58 is presented as fact from five men who served on the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses in order to maintain their control over 6 million innocent and trusting people.
Numerous translations and scholars correctly cross-reference John 8:58 with Exodus 3:13-14 which reveals the divine name for God as "I AM". The American Standard Version has this comment in the footnote for John 8:58 : The "I AM" denotes absolute eternal existence, not simply existence before Abraham. It is a claim to be YAHWEH of the Old Testament. That the Jews understood the vital meaning of this claim is clear by their reaction to it in John 8:59.
Truly, JW Ben, Jesus took the Divine Name of God and applied it to Himself. The Watch Tower Society had to mistranslate and misconstrue Greek tenses in order that their false teachings regarding Jesus would not be discovered by Jehovah's Witnesses.
How important is this? Jesus, Himself tells us just how important it is. He tells us in John 8:24 that unless we believe that He is the "I AM", we will die in our sins!
Ben, I know how hard for you it is to accept that the WatchTower Society has misled millions of people now living and many others in the past. I spent nearly three years in therapy denying the very essence of who Jesus really is because it was too difficult a task to believe that I had been decieved by the organisation I trusted to be God's cahnnel for humankind. In the end, Ben, I knew in my heart that it was true. I had been lied to and decieved by an organisation that not only attacks the divine nature of Jesus Christ but also denies access to Him by their faithful adherents.
JW Ben, I sincerely pray that one day you will understand what God meant when He said that He was going to take out a people for His name - Christians. Literally, "Little Christs" in the Greek language.
In the event that you would like to discuss a bit more of the Greek language and grammar in the NWT and Kingdom Interlinear concerning the following:
Ho Theos: "The God"
Colossians 1:26 "Is there Mystery about God"
Colossians 2:9 "Godship or Godhead"
"Obeisance or Worship" (check out the 1961 NWT of Hebrews 1:6 and compare it to the Reasoning Book on page # 214 "Does the fact that worship is given Jesus prove that he is God?". Notice the Reasoning book says the NWT renders Hebrews 1:6 "do obeisance to" but the 1961 NWT renders the same verse " worship him". Who's lying in this case, Ben? The WatchTower Society can not even keep their lies consistent between publications.
How about John 17:3? The WatchTower has dropped the ball on that verse so hard # 25 Columbia Heights vibrated from the shockwaves.
Page # 8 of the 1985 edition of The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures emphatically states:
"...There is no benefit in self-deception...those who provide a translation for the spiritual instruction of others come under a special responsibility as teachers before the Divine Judge. Hence we are aware of the need to be careful." But, have they been "careful"? Did they really translate word-for-word in every case, or paraphrase were it suited their own doctrines? Did they really keep to one meaning per word as promised, or have they blatantly tampered with the text? Did the Watchtower "translators" not only engage in self-deception, but deliberately set out to deceive their followers?
Decide for yourself, JW Ben.
A Paduan

I am who I am - that's the beauty
Kenneson

As far as I'm concerned, Jesus existed before Abraham and has been from all eternity and will continue forever and ever. No beginning and no end.
As far as that goes, God, too, has been from all eternity and will continue forever and ever. No beginning and no end. There was never a time when God was not Father and a time when Jesus was not Son. An eternal Father has an eternal Son.
Leolaia

I think one relevant fact is the distribution of the unmodified egó eimi "I am" (e.g. without a following predicate, prepositional phrase, modifier) in the LXX OT, which occurs mostly in divine speech or in haughty speech imitating God:
"See now that I am (hoti egó eimi), and there is no other god beside me" (Deuteronomy 32:39).
"I, God, am the first and the last. I am (egó eimi)." (Isaiah 41:4).
"So that you may know (gnóte) and believe (pisteuséte) and understand that I am (hoti egó eimi). Before me there was no god formed (egeneto), and there will be none after me" (Isaiah 43:10).
"I am (egó eimi), and there is nobody else (kai ouk estin eti)" (Isaiah 45:18).
"Now then, hear this you sensual one, who dwells securely, who says in your heart, 'I am (egó eimi), and there is no one besides me' " (Isaiah 47:8).
"For you have said in your heart, 'I am (egó eimi), and there is no one besides me' " (Isaiah 47:10).
"This is the exultant city which dwells securely, who says in her heart, 'I am (egó eimi), and there is no one besides me' " (Zephaniah 2:15).
This idiom conveys divine identity and uniqueness as God. Although egó eimi occurs frequently in John in christological contexts (e.g. "I am the bread of life," "I am the Good Shepherd," "I am the way, the truth, and the life", etc.), it is the unmodified form that evokes the divine declaration in Exodus 3:14 and the examples above from Deuteronomy and Isaiah.
"I am (egó eimi), who is now speaking to you" (John 4:26).
"I am (egó eimi), do not be afraid" (John 6:20).
"For if you do not believe (pisteuséte) that I am (hoti egó eimi), you will die in your sins" (John 8:24).
"When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know (gnósesthe) that I am (hoti egó eimi) and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me" (John 8:28).
"Truly, truly, I say to you, Before (prin) Abraham was (genesthai), I am (egó eimi)' " (John 8:58).
"I am telling you now before it happens, so that when it elling you now before it happens, so that when it happens you may believe (pisteuséte) that I am (hoti egó eimi)" (John 13:19).
"I told you that I am (hoti egó eimi)" (John 18:8).
The resemblence is especially strong between Isaiah 43:10 and John 8:24, 28, where PISTEUSÉTE + HOTI + unmodified EGÓ EIMI and GNÓSTE/GNÓSESTHE + HOTI + unmodified EGÓ EIMI occur. This makes it fairly probable that an allusion to Isaiah 43:10 occurs in John 8:24, 28, and since these two verses occur in the same chapter as John 8:58, I think the third instance of an unmodifed ego eimi in the same context should also be linked to the same pattern. Note also that the temporal linking of prin "before" and ginomai "become" in John 8:58 has a resemblance with the clause "Before (emprosthen) me there was no other god formed (egeneto, a form of ginomai), nor will there be one after me" in Isaiah 43:10 which highlights God's timelessness. This passage also has a parallel in Isaiah 43:13, "From ancient days I am" which has a striking parallel with John 8:58. The LXX elides the explicit personal reference (which is found in the MT גם־מיום אני הוא ), giving only ap' arkhés "from the beginning", but it is possible that other Greek versions (e.g. Theodotion, Symmachus, etc.) included it....unfortunately I don't have a copy of the Hexpla to check. I think ap' arkhes egó eimi or apo tón hemerón egó eimi would have been an interesting precedent for the wording in John 8:58.
scholar

Leolaia
JW Ben did a an excellent survey of how that idiom has been translated and why the NWT has treated this idiom accordingly.The NWT rendering conforms to the conventions of recent scholarship in NT Greek which is now exploring issues in lexicography and verbal aspect of NT Greek. Your contention that this 'I am' idiom denotes divine identity and uniqueness as God is not supported by the texts in John's Gospel that you quote. None of these examples are from the NWT but from another trinitarian based transaltion. It would be preferable to base your argument on the NWT which already uses a specific rendering of that idiom in 8:58 rather than on another translation different to the NWT. Why not again post those seven examples from the NWT. The Johannine idiom simple attests to Jesus as the Son of God as demonstrated by the NWT, your examples of the idiom simply attest to Jesus as God so it would be honest of you if you make your postion quite clear.
The NWT has proved itself to be at the cutting edge in Greek NT studies and lovers of truth are very grateful to Almighty God that such a superb transaltion of God's inspired Word is now so readily available in some fifty languages. Truly, a blessed gift to mankind.
scholar
BA MA Studies in Religion
mnb77
The Jehovah's Witnesses and John 8:58
"Jesus said to them: "Most truly I say to you, Before Abraham came into existence,
I have been" (New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses).
The Jehovah's Witnesses deny that Jesus is God. So, when it comes to translating and interpreting Bible verses that show the deity of Jesus, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society will go to great lengths to support their false presupposition. Sometimes they will even translate verses in a way that is consistent with their belief system. In the Jehovah's Witness Bible, known as the New World Translation (NWT), John 8:58 is a verse that they have translated in a manner deliberately consistent with their theology. Following is the verse in context from the NASB.
In John 8:56-59 says, "'Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.' 57 The Jews therefore said to Him, 'You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?' 58 Jesus said to them, 'Truly truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.' 59 Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself, and went out of the temple." (All Bible quotes are from the NASB)

The issue at hand is the phrase "I am" in verse 58. The Jehovah's Witnesses have "translated" the Greek present tense ("I am") into the English perfect tense ("I have been") which is more consistent with their theological position that Jesus is not God in flesh. In the Greek, the words are "ego eimi." Literally, this is "I am." "Ego eimi" is the present active indicative first person singular (I am), not the perfect active indicative first person singular (I have been). It would seem that the natural and correct translation into the English is "I am." But the NWT does not translate this into the present tense. Why? I am firmly convinced it is because translating John 8:58 as "I am" would be too close to God identifying Himself as the "I am" in Exodus 3:14. Therefore, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society has opted for a different rendering.
"And God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM"; and He said, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ?I AM has sent me to you,?" (Exodus 3:14).

But the issue is not settled so easily. Does the Bible ever legitimately translate the present tense 'ego eimi' into the English perfect tense "I have been"? Yes it does. In John 14:8-9 it says, "Philip said to Him, 'Lord show us the Father, and it is enough for us.' 9 Jesus said to him, 'Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how do you say, 'Show us the Father?'" Where Jesus says, "I have been" is in the Greek present tense, 'ego eimi'. Literally, again, this is "I am." Here we have an example of the Greek present tense being translated into the English perfect tense. This is the very same thing the Watchtower organization claims is legitimate in John 8:58. Why is this translated into "I have been?" Quite simply because if we did not do this, then the English would say, "I am with you so long...." That is awkward in the English, so translators translate it as "Have I been so long with you...." It is legitimate to do this in some instances where it is warranted in order to make the English more readable and clear. But is it necessary to do this in John 8:58? I don't believe so -- unless your underlying presupposition is that Jesus is not God in flesh.
Additionally, to make the issue even more complicated, there are some English Bible translations that render John 8:58 other than "I AM." For example, the Living Bible (1973, a paraphrase) says, "The absolute truth is that I was in existence before Abraham was ever born." The New Living Translations says, "I existed." The Bible in Worldwide English translates it as "I already was." The 1960, 1973 NASB had a marginal rendering of "I have been." Because of this, the Jehovah's Witness will claim the NWT is, therefore, legitimate since other Bibles have translations other than "I AM" in John 8:58. But from what I have seen of these other translations, they are intended to be looser renderings of the Greek and therefore take more liberties in translation. The NASB, for example, is intended to be as literal as possible as does the KJV which both translate the verse as "I AM." The 1973 NASB marginal quote above is just that, marginal and is not what they rendered into the English text. The preferred translation is "I am." Take Young's Literal Translation as another example. In John 8:58 it states, ". . . Before Abraham's coming -- I am." In fact, other translations render it as:
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was born, I am," (ASV).

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am," (KJV).

?Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am," (NASB).

?I tell you the truth,? Jesus answered, ?before Abraham was born, I am!" (NIV).

?Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM," (NKJV).

?Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am," (RSV).

"Truly, truly, before Abraham was, I am," (NLT).

"Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am," (RSV)

"Verily, verily I say unto you, before Abraham was, I am!" (KJ21).

"Verily, verily, I say to you, Before Abraham's coming -- I am,' (YLT).

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am," (Darby).

"Antes que Abraham fuese, yo soy," (Spanish) - uses "yo soy" which is "I am."

"En vérité, en vérité, je vous le dis, avant qu'Abraham fût, je suis," (French) "je suis" which is "I am."
Of course, the Jehovah's Witnesses will cite translations that have renderings other than the plain "I am" for John 8:58 and in so doing claim legitimacy. Unfortunately, since different translations do have different renderings, the debate will continue between the Jehovah's Witnesses and Christian apologists until the Lord Jesus returns.
In the mean time, let's turn to page 467 of the 1969 Greek Interlinear used by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society:.
The Watchtower's own interlinear translates John 8:58 as "I am" even though in the NWT it renders it as "I have been." In this, they admit that the Greek is indeed, "I am," the present tense. They will not deny this. What they assert is that it should be translated into the English, "I have been." Should it or could it? If it should, then Greek scholars would echo the NWT rendition in the great majority of instances. But they do not. Essentially, the Watchtower organization is saying that all the translations that have "I am" as the rendering are wrong, that the "proper" translation is "I have been." In a footnote at the bottom of page 467 regarding John 8:58 in the NWT is this comment:
"I have been = ego eimi after the a'orist infinitive clause prin' Abraam genesthai and hence properly rendered in the perfect tense. It is not the same as ho ohn', meaning "The Being" or "The I Am") at Exodus 3:14, LXX"

The "LXX" is the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. The question is whether or not Jesus was quoting from the LXX or if He was simply translating the Hebrew. Again, Exodus 3:14 says, "And God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM"; and He said, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ?I AM has sent me to you.?" The phrase "I AM WHO I AM" is rendered in the Greek LXX as "Ego eimi ho on." Literally, this is "I am the being one." Most Bibles translate the Hebrew from Exodus 3:14 as "I am" -- the present tense as did the Hebrew translators of the LXX. The LXX also has it in the present tense which is what the Greek syntax states. Jesus uses the present tense in John 8:58.
In spite of some of the translations regarding John 8:58, I do not believe the NWT's version of John 8:58 is warranted for three reasons: First, it purports to "transmit his [God] thoughts and declarations as accurately as possible."1 I do not believe this is the case at all. Rather, I see the Watchtower's bias against Jesus' divinity overtaking this verse and altering it as it has done in other verses such as Heb. 1:8 and Col. 1:15-17. Second, the most literal translations such as the NASB, the NIV, and the KJV do not render this verse as "I have been" but as "I AM." And, third, the context of the verse does not support the JW position.
It isn't the English, but the Greek that upset the Pharisees
"'Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.' 57 The Jews therefore said to Him, 'You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?' 58 Jesus said to them, 'Truly truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.' 59 Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself, and went out of the temple."

The Pharisees didn't speak English. They spoke Hebrew and Greek. In the Greek text, Jesus uses the present tense. It was this Greek present tense (I am) that upset the Pharisees so much, not the perfect tense (I have been).
If Jesus were really saying to the Jews, "I have been," then why would the Pharisees want to kill him (v. 59)? Since blasphemy, or calling yourself God, was punishable by death, isn't this a confirmation that Jesus was saying "I am" and that the Jew's understood what he was saying? Absolutely! That is why the best translation is simply, "I am."2
I also need to mention that in Mark 14:62, where Jesus answered the High Priest who said, "Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? 62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. 63 Then the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What need we any further witnesses? 64 Ye have heard the blasphemy. . ." Jesus responded with "I am" which provoked the authorities and prompted them to seek death. This is particularly revealing when we compare John 10:34 where the Pharisees want to kill Jesus because they said He was making Himself equal to God. The phrase, "I AM" in these contexts would surely imply that.
Undoubtedly, Jesus knew the difference in the Greek between "I am" and "I have been." Jesus did not use the form "I have been" in the Greek, but used the form "I am." It is the Greek, not the English that the Pharisees were upset about.
But the Pharisees were so upset
At this point, many of the Jehovah's Witnesses assert that by the time Jesus said, "Before Abraham was I have been" (NWT), they had already been thoroughly agitated by Jesus and, basically, snapped and tried to kill Him at this final comment. Furthermore, the Jehovah's Witnesses deny that Jesus was claiming the divine title of Exodus 3:14 where God said to Moses, "I am that I am." But which do you think would have upset the Pharisees more, saying "Before Abraham was, I am" or Before Abraham was, I have been"? Obviously, the former would be more upsetting and that is exactly the phrase that Jesus used.
If Jesus wanted to avoid any confusion with the Pharisees, why didn't He use one of the past tenses? Certainly he must have known that saying "Before Abraham was, I am" to the Pharisees would cause some problems. And it did. The aorist (I was), the perfect (I have been), and the pluperfect (I had been) all deal with the past, yet Jesus chose to deliberately use the present tense "I am." He used a past tense verb when describing Abraham ("before Abraham was..."), but a present tense verb when describing Himself ("I am"). He deliberately brought attention to the words, "I am." The Pharisees understood this and was indeed the last straw for them.
Conclusion
The Jehovah's Witnesses have spent a great deal of time developing and crafting linguistic arguments to favor their translation of John 8:58. Wading through their arguments dealing with Greek tenses, verb forms, and grammar rules is beyond the scope of this paper. However, it is sufficient to mention that the Jehovah's Witnesses have a theological bias against the deity of Christ. Their translation of John 8:58 and their attempts to justify this translation are directly related to their presuppositions against Christ and his deity.
The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society teaches its members to deny the deity of Christ. From this base, any and all affirmations to Jesus' deity will be undermined in whatever way possible. John 8:58 is just another example of this bias.
________
1 New World Translation, 1961, page 5.
2 I should note that, most probably Jesus spoke to the Pharisees in Aramaic, a Hebrew Dialect. It is possible He spoke to them in Greek. But, since all we have is the NT Greek and no Aramaic writings of the NT, we must work from what the Greek says.
WE = WorldWide English Bible
YLT = Young's Literal Translation
KJ21 = 21st Century King James Version
carm.org/jw/john8_58.htm is where i got this info. you can find other dicussion on other verses from that pt. as well

"I have been" or "I am" for John 8:58

Share this