I am that I am

The Hebrew for this phrase in which God reveals himself to Moses is

אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה,

Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh, grammatically understood, does not mean 'I am that I am" because Ehyeh is in it's imperfect tense; it therefore means "I shall be". Not a present reality of "I am", But a FUTURE state in which God says "I shall be that which I shall be".

So why this misunderstanding? This derives from the Greek translation of the Hebrew bible of אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה, as 'ego eimi ho on' "I am the BEING", which of course implies an entirely different idea from "I shall be that which I shall be". In the Vulgate Jerome translates it as "Ego sum qui sum" which comes into English as "I am who I am".

But its a FALSE and WRONG translation, as any rudimentary reader of Hebrew well knows.

Whats the difference? Why did the Greeks translate God as being, whereas the Hebrews meant God in the sense of a 'future state' in which God will be, and that, perhaps instead of meaning, "I am being', since that is not what is implied, what is meant is "I can be FOUND, in whatever I will be".

The evolution of god is interesting and explains why so many claim themselves the saviour. Can't help but think of the human instrumentality project.

Thank you. I was about to supernova.

reply to post by dontreally
I am fascinated by the phrase "I am that I am". Which to me means somthing along the lines of " I am, therefore "I" "am""

Which in my understanding means simply, that God is from another type of reasoning than our simple experience could phathom, for to God the word "I" would not mean the same as our rudementry use of the word, as we use it it means I me mine my person my body, instead of the more logical( from Gods enlightened position) I= mybody and spirit and my thoughts and works and being combined into a small easily packaged and understood word for you mere small minded limited thinking mortals.

"Am" also implies a state of being, in the here and now of our small limited existance of space time, instead of his usual omnipresent omnipotent version.

So to me the phrase would mean not "I am that I am" but instead. "I am here in this time and place now, not everywhere in all times and places as I would normally be, but here now in person, as I am here"

Of course this is still to primative an explanation, but human syntax has yet to create a suitable vocabluary to explain such abstracts in a clear manner, so it will still not be the idea of the meaning I have in my mind but really a cave man beating images into a cave wall version.

So ya I didn't really say much, but I said a lot of what I wanted to try to explain, as the way I see it to mean.

Originally posted by dontreally
"I can be FOUND, in whatever I will be".

edit on 14-10-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)

Maybe I'm reading that wrong (after all, this thread is about reading it wrong) but doesn't that say that God is either everything or that he simply is whatever you want him to be? Is that almost a statement promoting animism?

Either way, I like your interpretation better as I've always thought it was something that Christians struggled with, even if they didn't know they were struggling. It's a strange concept to wrap your head around.

reply to post by dontreally


Dear dontreally,

The universe is expanding and changing, if God is all that is then is he not also growing as we change? Everything that is known today is not everything that can and will be known tomorrow. We cannot know the extent of God or understand him because we are limited in understanding even as we grow. The bible says that Jesus wept, that means that he had emotions and emotions change based on what we experience, that means that God does not just exist in one state. People say that God is love and I believe that; but, love is more than a feeling, it is also an attitude. I can love someone and be sad about them, happy about them and even angry at them; but, it is still all from love.

reply to post by Cuervo

Maybe I'm reading that wrong (after all, this thread is about reading it wrong) but doesn't that say that God is either everything or that he simply is whatever you want him to be? Is that almost a statement promoting animism?

Yeah, if you take it out of context.

In context, the statement, "I shall be that which I shall be", has to be related to the earlier episode of Moses in the 'wilderness' (a symbol for an existential confrontation i.e.elijah in the desert, jesus, in the desert, mohammad in the desert), and him seeing a bright light, going towards that light, and asking God what he should respond to the Israelites who inquire of him of what to say to the Israelites who want to 'know his name'.

Eventually, this God, who calls himself "I shall be", fructifies himself in the name of YHWH, who imparts to man rules for who man should live in the world.

So, contrary to being simply 'animism', it is Monotheism; instead of God being splintered from the particular by investing the particular with a particular 'anima' (soul), it means, on the contrary, that the one God can be found in all situations; each event in a persons life poses a unique challenge, and in this challenge, man is challenged to respond to the situation in accord with his underlying belief in a God of 'love' and 'mercy' as the biblical God presents himself as.

So this higher idea could be seen to underlie all Biblical ideas of God; God 'shall be' whatever he is; he is not predictable, and with total freedom, both He and man encounter each new moment with a fresh awareness of responsibility, between God who poses, and man who responds.

If were to take Jacobs wrestle with Elohim (lit. God) this could mean that only after man responds to the challenge, after man struggles for unique meaning, will God bless man with a 'new name', or a new understanding.

Originally posted by dontreally

So, contrary to being simply 'animism', it is Monotheism; instead of God being splintered from the particular by investing the particular with a particular 'anima' (soul), it means, on the contrary, that the one God can be found in all situations; each event in a persons life poses a unique challenge, and in this challenge, man is challenged to respond to the situation in accord with his underlying belief in a God of 'love' and 'mercy' as the biblical God presents himself as.

Thank you for clarifying. That addresses exactly what I was confused about.

reply to post by dontreally

thanks for that, its nice to see the true meanings returning to us. Appreciate you effort in sharing that.

What's your background that you know some of this? Do you have a Doctoral in theology? Sounds like something a mormon or JW would be taught.

reply to post by r2d246

ehyeh" is the first person singular imperfect form and is usually translated in English Bibles as "I will be" (or "I shall be"), for example, at Exodus 3:12. Ehyeh asher ehyeh literally translates as "I Will Be What I Will Be", with attendant theological and mystical implications in Jewish tradition. However, in most English Bibles, this phrase is rendered as I am that I am."[1]

Link

As said, the discrepancy was introduced by the Septuagint, which the vulgate adopted, down to today.

And if it's something that they don't tell you, perhaps its because of a theological incongruity between God in a future state and God in a present state.

This is the essential difference between Judaism and Christianity. It doesn't work in Christianities favor, however, to continue mistranslating this word in line with the Septuagint and not the actual Hebrew of the Hebrew Bible.

"I am that I am" has nothing to do with future becoming, conceptually, it means that God is not definable, because God is the everything. God can not be contrasted against nor separated from anything. So God is the AM of the I. Before there was I, there was AM.

If a God-realized consciousness is asked, "who are you?" it might reply "AM".

reply to post by Visitor2012

"I am that I am" has nothing to do with future becoming, conceptually

You have essentially ignored the whole purpose of the thread.

The phrase ehyeh asher ehyeh is in the imperfect future.

It is not 'I am", but "I will be".

You may stick to the old way of interpretation in line with the septuagint and vulgate, but they are incorrect translations having nothing to do with the theology intimated by the grammatical future tense of the word ehyeh "I will be".

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by Visitor2012

 

"I am that I am" has nothing to do with future becoming, conceptually

You have essentially ignored the whole purpose of the thread.

The phrase ehyeh asher ehyeh is in the imperfect future.

It is not 'I am", but "I will be".

You may stick to the old way of interpretation in line with the septuagint and vulgate, but they are incorrect translations having nothing to do with the theology intimated by the grammatical future tense of the word ehyeh "I will be".

If you're debating the scripture itself, than I have indeed missed the point of this thread. If you were talking about the more Devine nature of the term I AM, then I am satisfied with my expressed opinion.