I AM WHO I AM or I WILL BE WHO I WILL BE?

[erickinho1bra]

‘I am who I am’ or ‘I will be who I will be’?

From the blog of Jeffrey Radon at The Times of Israel

blogs.timesofisrael.com

Apart from the fact that this is written by an unbelieving Jewish man, does he have a point regarding the translation of God's revelation of Himself to Moses? Should it be translated "I AM WHO I AM" or "I WILL BE WHO I WILL BE"?

Do the theological implications change regarding one's interpretation of God's statement?

 

[BertMulder]

That is how it is rendered in the Dutch 'Statenvertaling' "14 En God zeide tot Mozes: IK ZAL ZIJN, Die IK ZIJN ZAL! "

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Google Translate from the Dutch: "And God said unto Moses, I AM WHO I AM."

 

[Claes Jacob Heijndericksz]

Google Translate isn’t my favorite. Just only select “IK ZAL ZIJN, Die IK ZIJN ZAL” and notice the sudden difference. - (I will be that I will be)

The English translation of the Dutch Statenvertaling by Th. Haak renders ‘I zal zijn’ as ‘I shall be’ which is also possible, as in Dutch we cannot distinguish between ‘I shall be’ and ‘I will be’; both would be rendered 'ik zal zijn'.

The Dutch Annotations upon the Whole Bible, Statenvertaling : Theodore Haak : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Wikipedia, 'Statenvertaling': The Statenvertaling (...States Translation)... was the first translation of the Bible from the original Hebrew, Aramaic and...

archive.org

The Annotations give also the alternative translations: ‘Ik ben Die Ik ben,’ and ‘Ik zal zijn Die Ik was’

to be = (te) zijn
I am = ik ben
I will be = ik zal zijn
I was = ik was

 

[Sam Jer]

A Hebrew expert will have to chime in (@iainduguid?) but I think I recall biblical Hebrew tenses being diffrent from modern Hebrew.
In modern Hebrew, 'eheye (אהיה) would be future, and Malachi 1:11 would be present tense.

Also the author of this article writes all kinds of nonsense.

 

[iainduguid]

Also the author of this article writes all kinds of nonsense.

This. It's not worth reading or responding to. Get a decent commentary on Exodus and read it if you want to know more about this passage (and its very real complexity). I know this may be a shocking revelation but internet posts claiming to have unique insights into the Bible are rarely worth the electrons they are using.

 

[erickinho1bra]

This. It's not worth reading or responding to. Get a decent commentary on Exodus and read it if you want to know more about this passage (and its very real complexity). I know this may be a shocking revelation but internet posts claiming to have unique insights into the Bible are rarely worth the electrons they are using.

I appreciate the reply! I just thought the topic was interesting since the "I WILL BE WHO I WILL BE" translation/interpretation came up in a documentary I was watching.

I have the NICOT commentary on Exodus and will refer to that one instead of some pagan documentary!

 

[BertMulder]

I have done some further research (and called on a friend), and found out that Hebrew does not have tenses in the same way as the English (or Dutch) language. Instead it has completed or incomplete action. The Hebrew verb 'I am' is incomplete action, thus both are correct, and in my mind an allusion to God's eternal nature. See also on this Rev. 1:4 "Grace to you and peace from Him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven Spirits who are before His throne, 5and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler over the kings of the earth."

 

[Andrew35]

I have done some further research (and called on a friend), and found out that Hebrew does not have tenses in the same way as the English (or Dutch) language. Instead it has completed or incomplete action. The Hebrew verb 'I am' is incomplete action, thus both are correct, and in my mind an allusion to God's eternal nature. See also on this Rev. 1:4 "Grace to you and peace from Him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven Spirits who are before His throne, 5and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler over the kings of the earth."

Just for fun, linguistically speaking, English doesn't have a future tense either. Instead, we use auxiliaries (like "will") to demonstrate a future meaning.

Many languages are similar: the verbs themselves might not have conjugations to express tense, but there are various contextual or auxiliary means to do so.

Chinese, similarly to your example, expresses completed action with the 了 particle, but you usually know it's in the past or future by context or by a specific time reference (e.g., "Yesterday") toward the beginning of the sentence.