I Am Who?

     In all the Bibles I've read (five version) the name "I Am" for a name of God is presented as a Bible truth by capitalizing the "A" but when looking at the Hebrew and Greek text (the same text used for translating the King James Version Bible and others), shows that the name for God is "Jehovah" and not "I Am". This is how it is presented in several current Bible translations: "And God said to Moses, I Am That I Am; and He said, You shall say this to the sons of Israel, I Am has sent me to you." (Exodus 3:14). Taken from an Interlinear Bible's "Literal Translation" Exodus 3:14 is almost exactly the same as the JKV Bible translation, but looking further to the next verse, "And God said to Moses again, You shall say this to the sons of Israel, Jehovah the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is My name forever, and this is My title from generations to generation," (Exodus 3:15). This verse in its original text explains itself, that "Jehovah" is God's name and His title is "God", however, this presents a question: what about "I Am", how is this also considered a name, based on the information in the two above verses presented in the I-Bible? This is easily explained in a later verse, "And I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob as God Almighty, and by My name Jehovah I never made Myself known to them." (Exodus 6:3). The name "Jehovah" also appears in the King James Version Bible, one of the four places. Since the Israelites didn't yet know Almighty God by His personal name, He wanted to reveal Himself with an explanation of Himself, "I Am That I Am" meaning, "the self existent one" the One and only God of all existence, as the Israelites knew Him, not to be confused with the multitude of gods that the Egyptians and others worshiped, since the Israelites had been living in Egypt for the past 400 years.

      Exploring "I Am" a little deeper, the Hebrew word translated as "I Am" is the Strong's number #1961 hayah, and these are the many possible English translation, according to the Strong's dictionary: to exist, i.e. be or become, come to pass (always emphat., and not a mere copula or auxiliary): - beacon, x altogether, be (-come), accomplished, committed, (like), break, cause, come (to pass), do, faint, fall, + follow, happen, x have, last, pertain, quit (one-) self, require, x use. From the list of possible English words, there is no "I Am" or anything like it. The translators abandoned correct translating, and chose what they desired this verse to say. Logically, the intended best word to be chosen from the list would have been: "exist" reading, "I exist" spoken twice to emphasize, or to mean, "I exist because I exist" and that could only mean Almighty God, the Creator "But now please ask the animals, and they will teach you; and the birds of the heavens and they will tell you; or speak to the earth and it will teach you; and the fish of the sea will recount to you, Who of all these does not know that Jehovah's hand has done this?" (Job 12:7-9) and the Father having given the breath of life for the start of mankind, "And Jehovah God formed the man out of the dust from the ground, and blew into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." (Genesis 2:7), and each offspring continues with His breath of life, starting with Adam and Eve.

     Moving to the New Testament, "Then the Jews said to Him, You do not yet have fifty years, and have you seen Abraham? Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham came into being, I Am." (John 8:58). Here, we need to look at the first Greek word, for "I": eyw ego is the Greek word used #1473 (Strong's Concordance number) and the various choices are: a primary pron. of the first pers. I (only expressed when emphatic):- I, me. Here, "I" is translated correctly. The next word is "Am": eiui eimi Strong's #1510, and the choices are more: the first pers. sing. present ind.; a prol. form of a primary and defective verb; I exist (used only when emphatic):- am, have been, x it is I, was. Yes, "am" is in the list, but the translators again, chose what they wanted to choose, forcing a vague connection with the incorrect translation of Exodus 6:3, but their choice doesn't make sense because it doesn't answer the question that was asked. A more logical choice would be: "was" "have been" or "existed" to answer the question correctly, directed to Jesus, instead of "Am". Keeping in mind that the translators have the freedom and a responsibility to choose, according to their conscience, but was their choice to conform to Christ's intention or their own. The connection between God, Jehovah (replaced by "Lord" in most Bibles) as represented in the Old Testament and the "Son of God", Jesus, as represented in the New Testament, as both representing Christ is not Biblical, according to the testimony given in God's word from the original text, by the Word of God, the Son of God, Jesus, through inspiration to the Bible writers. Should we consider misrepresenting Christ's intended meaning?

   Putting these two illogical and unrelated verses together, plus adding the element that God's personal name "Jehovah" was stated as His name in the next verse, 15, cancels out that His name or Christ's name is "I Am". If we dare to add the fact that God's personal name "Jehovah" has been substituted with a title "Lord" or "God" 6742 times, should it not be clear to everyone that this was a chosen manipulation of Christ's intended meaning of the two verses in question? I looked at four Bible versions, KJV, NIV, NKJV and ESV, plus The J. P. Green Interlinear Bible and all five support the same "I Am" translation, so I question, are they translating from the Hebrew and Greek or following the tradition of other translators? It was easy for me to find what I gave you above from the Hebrew and Greek text, using the readily available Strong's Exhaustive Concordance.

   This example illustrates how understanding can be manipulated or adjusted by an incorrect or careless translation. This shows how God's truth is lost, because of a particular agenda of the translators. There are other examples of adjustments from the truth, according to what Christ has given us in the original text. This strongly emphasizes the importance in looking at the original Hebrew and Greek text (or as close as possible) to confirm the integrity of the translations. Realizing this also accentuates the need to seek what is consistent throughout all of God's word and to look closer at each verse that would "appear" to depart from God's intended meanings and understands. It is sad and even heartbreaking that we shouldn't trust our familiar Bible translations, however each translation is slightly (or more so) different from other translations and each version. It is so important to be grounded in the truth that God has given us and to stand firmly on that rock, as the Word of God, Jesus, has given us through inspiration to the many Bible writers, for the intended purpose of education, and correct understanding. We need to know what God is telling us, without our foolish wisdom interfering or others misdirecting us from the truth of God's word.

     You may wonder why the translators, or those who hired them would do such a thing, the answer is contained in many of the other subjects addressed throughout this website, www.biblefriendly.com.