TO THE CHRISTIAN PUBLIC
75
efore Abraham was, I am.'," How is it possible that
the Editor, a diligent student of the Bible for thirty or
forty years, can have made such a palpable mistake as to
assert, that the declaration of Jehovah, in Exod. hi.,
and that of Jesus, in John viii., arepseciscly the same, f
It is but his zeal to .support the doctrine of the Holy
Trinity that can have prevented him from examining
the phrases found in these two chapters. In Exod. God
says, "Thus shalt thou say to the children oflsreal, PPPTit
'"7t£^ TTnK* ' the being who is being ' hath sent me unto
you ;" a phrase in Hebrew, which implies Him who alone
-can be described as only mere being or existence, and
which is translated in the Greek Septuagint, though
nott very correctly, "f7w ti t o wv" "I am the being.1'
But in the Gospel of John (viii. 24) the words are, " I
am," (lie or Christ,) and in the original Greek 1i?\uj
jit>i" "lam," without the addition of "owv" "the
being," as is found in the Septuagint. In the Hebrew
translation of John viii. 24, X\n "OK, or "I he," is found.
So in ver. 58, we find only "eTw fiHi' or " I am." In John
viii. 24, the word "XPia-ros "is of course supplied in
comparing with Matt. xxiv. 5, "I am Christ," and with
John iv. 25-, 26. I would then ask, Is iTn« "Tl^K rTTTK. or
r the being who is being." a phrase precisely the same
with "f7w fitu or " I am"? If so, it must require a mode
* PITTS is the future tense of HTl to be, which literally implies
"I shall be," and is used for "I am," that is, "I am and I shall
be;" equivalent to the " enternal being." The Jews consequently
count this term among the names of God, as is evident from its being
used in agreement with a verb in the third person, as in the
above-cited verse,
f I say not very correctly, because we find in the Septuagint, the
term PPPTK rendered 6 wl, or the being, in one instance, and (JM uf±t
in lieu of the same term PTTTS in the other.
75
efore Abraham was, I am.'," How is it possible that
the Editor, a diligent student of the Bible for thirty or
forty years, can have made such a palpable mistake as to
assert, that the declaration of Jehovah, in Exod. hi.,
and that of Jesus, in John viii., arepseciscly the same, f
It is but his zeal to .support the doctrine of the Holy
Trinity that can have prevented him from examining
the phrases found in these two chapters. In Exod. God
says, "Thus shalt thou say to the children oflsreal, PPPTit
'"7t£^ TTnK* ' the being who is being ' hath sent me unto
you ;" a phrase in Hebrew, which implies Him who alone
-can be described as only mere being or existence, and
which is translated in the Greek Septuagint, though
nott very correctly, "f7w ti t o wv" "I am the being.1'
But in the Gospel of John (viii. 24) the words are, " I
am," (lie or Christ,) and in the original Greek 1i?\uj
jit>i" "lam," without the addition of "owv" "the
being," as is found in the Septuagint. In the Hebrew
translation of John viii. 24, X\n "OK, or "I he," is found.
So in ver. 58, we find only "eTw fiHi' or " I am." In John
viii. 24, the word "XPia-ros "is of course supplied in
comparing with Matt. xxiv. 5, "I am Christ," and with
John iv. 25-, 26. I would then ask, Is iTn« "Tl^K rTTTK. or
r the being who is being." a phrase precisely the same
with "f7w fitu or " I am"? If so, it must require a mode
* PITTS is the future tense of HTl to be, which literally implies
"I shall be," and is used for "I am," that is, "I am and I shall
be;" equivalent to the " enternal being." The Jews consequently
count this term among the names of God, as is evident from its being
used in agreement with a verb in the third person, as in the
above-cited verse,
f I say not very correctly, because we find in the Septuagint, the
term PPPTK rendered 6 wl, or the being, in one instance, and (JM uf±t
in lieu of the same term PTTTS in the other.