Cesc

Is it true that it can be translated as both "I am, who I am" and "I am the one, who is" ?

show_no_mercy

It apparently can also be translated as "I will be who I will be"

It should be noted that Jews have no problem saying "I am (will be)" which is אהיה, but they do have problems saying the "proper name" of YHWH.

Ben C Smith

Which gives Frank Tipler much food for thought regarding his quirky Omega Point hypothesis (or via: amazon.co.uk).

Ben.

Johnny Skeptic

A Jew called Sheshbazzar is currently at the Evolution/Creation Forum. He is fluent in ancient Hebrew. If anyone is interested, they can ask him for his opinion. He has translated and critiqued a large amount of ancient Hebrew at the Evolution/Creation Forum. He is also a nice person.

Spanky

I is what I is????

Sheshbazzar

Just surfing around and came across this. Thanks for the honor Johnny, although I do not represent myself as being a "Jew", or of the present 'Jewish religion' or nationality either by birth, or conversion.
A 'Hebrew' yes, by a personal transitional experience, in the same sense that Abraham became a 'Hebrew' by 'passing over' from the other side, so also I left the land and (religious) ways of my father(s), to seek better promises.
An 'Hebrew' also in the sense of one who reads and recites in The Language, but not as an empty head parrot that believes everything written is literally true, or needs to be accepted at face value, -wisdom is justified of her children. Many of the Scriptures most important lessons (torah) are subtle, and are 'hidden' within 'word plays' and peculiar 'insider' idioms difficult to apprehend, (or to explain) outside of the original language.
My profile and identity here has from the beginning been as a Spiritual Israelite by adoption, and vocation. A Gileadite Warrior and Watchman, one guarding 'without the camp', and all that implies. But enough about me.

Without gong into detailed Hebrew 'word studies' and elaborately documented 'proofs', my personal opinion on Exodus 3:14 is approximately;

"I am the causing to be, what I am causing to be"

A 'play' on The Name 'YHWH' and the causative verb forms 'yah'he and ha'yah' יהי and היה (and 'it (he) WAS)'-(and 'it (he) BECAME')

The core idea being of a past, present, and future (self-existent) FORCE, causing, and bringing into 'being' all that -ever 'was' -now 'is'-ever 'shall be'


Shalom, Sheshbazzar

Cesc

Thx, Sheshbazzar. But to my question (OP), is the answer yes or no?

And how is it translated in the Septuagint?
The Vulgate supports "I am the one, who is."

Sheshbazzar

I would say yes_ as long as one did not attempt to limit it to only that rendition.
I could probably come up with a couple of dozen variations, but none alone would suffice to cover all of the possibilities.
That is why I personally prefer to leave it in Hebrew, and to contemplate its significance from the perspective of related Hebrew idioms and phrasing.
It is a 'shibboleth' in its own sense, as nothing, either of the Hebrew, or of any other language, can perfectly convey, or be the exact equivalent replacement for it.
As a 'shibboleth' cannot -be- other than a 'shibboleth', ever.
It is, dare I say it, a 'holy', a 'set-apart', immutable and irreplaceable part of our joint human cultural heritage.

I seldom use The Septuagint, and claim no Greek language skills. I could 'look it up'- but would not 'trade' a Greek 'translation' for the Hebrew original in any case.

A very detailed look at Exodus 3:14 from the Jewish/Hebrew perspective may be found at http://www.exodus-314.com


Shalom, Sheshbazzar

spin

The Hebrew verb doesn't give time indications, so that, when we find an English translation saying "I am" or "I will be", the translator has derived information from elsewhere to decide if we are dealing with past, present or future. The context of the statement in Ex 3:14 doesn't supply any such help.

The phrase under concern is just three words, ehyeh I (be) asher who/what ehyeh I (be). While the first alternative supplied in the o.p. fits the Hebrew, the second doesn't, suggesting the second ("I am the one, who is") is not an acceptable translation.

The Greek provides an interesting translation not directly from the Hebrew, ego eimi o wn, "I am the being". The Latin is more transparent, "ego sum qui sum", "I am who(/what) I am".


spin

Sheshbazzar

I may be mistaken- but in this, (and other threads) it appears that I am on spin's 'ignore' list.
So it is likely that in composing his relpy, that he did not even see the link to http://www.exodus-314.com