Talk:I Am that I Am

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Christianity (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Judaism (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

For a December 2004 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Hayah





But ...[edit]

To me this seems to be quite a big question. What does it mean? What does I-shall-be that I-shall-be mean?

Please, analyse. It's like ... the keys to the answer, to the big question. ajkdbjfdofjf dgvdhdkj h fyhe ygbfosnuyfh sdfyf dt dtsygdz dofgg -miketus

Can we have a refrance for this please, other than a TOH refrance tooto 23:08, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

From a Google search I found that "hayah asher haya" is from Exodus 3:14, and then I checked that in one of the online King James Bibles that's linked from Bible. That line does show up in Exodus 3:14 [1]. I counldn't find one in Hebrew to allow comparison (though I can't read Hebrew). Do you think that would be a good enough reference? — Saxifrage |  02:31, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
My Tanakh has
And God said to Moses, "Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh." (Exodus 3:
With the footnote
Meaning of Heb. uncertain; variously translated: "I Am That I Am"; "I Am Who I Am"; "I Will Be What I Will Be", etc.
Dbenbenn 18:20, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If there were a Hebrew-English wiktionary, this word would qualify. As it is, this article seems yet another attempt by John P. Ennis to spam his imagined religion into some kind of credibility. -- Hoary 03:41, 2004 Dec 24 (UTC)

As per discussion here, I am removing the Sollog reference as not notable. - Taxman 17:09, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)


Ehyeh; asher Ehyeh, Ehyeh; asher Ehyeh - Universalist View[edit]

Ehyeh asher Ehyeh - What's in a name?

The answers to this question are given to us by history, through the Coptic Gospel of Thomas, the Psalm 22 prophecy of the Warlord David, and our knowledge of the life, persecution and death of Our Savior from the four Constantinian-Monarchist gospels

To the agnostic scientist (Unitarian Universalist) this Divine Conversation is perfectly understandable!

To us, the great distinction in the characterization of the supreme monotheistic deity is an argument between the vulgar noble gnostic plebeian mischaracterization of G_d as an anthropomorphized dualistic male human Hell and Lucifer owning Warlord-God, living in a palace on a cloud with human sins and failings, when, all the modern scientific and traditional moral evidence suggests that the transcendental universal attractive creative gravitational dimensionality of the universe that could only have been it's antecedent causality is an attractive unification of the indivisible yet omnipresent intellects of All Loveliness Itself and All Belovedness Itself, and Their Loving Holy Spiritual gravitational powers: the designers and the creative bonding constructor that defines All Existence from all nonexistence, or the Divine "They"

The Apostle Thomas gives us these insights in his reference to Jesus using terms like "The All Itself" and "The Undivided", "The Realm", "such wealth" and "The Light" in his quotations and most importantly in relating to the other disciples that they would stone him if he revealed to them what Jesus told him about Who He was and Who We All truly (both in the Loving eternal content of our souls and in our physical existences and environment) are!

The Warlord David perfectly well aware of the He-God fraud makes it abundantly clear in Psalms 22:9 and 10 he understands G_d to be the muscular force that forces Jesus from the womb, the milk of hope from his mothers breasts, his mother's belly and the ground he landed on upon delivery into the world.


Patriarchal Monarchism

Biblical (and even more recent medieval) times were times of universal patriarchal monarchist tyranny thus "Father", "Kingdom", "King"(not in the warlord sense), "He", "Him" etc where all semi-illiterate vernacular terms which are thus all correctly and properly interchangeable with "Parentage", "Location/Realm", "Warlord/Leader"(save for the Divine Guidance-Kingship of Jesus), or the divine "They" and "Them" in the modern sense of the politically and scientifically advanced linguistics of today. Christ himself had few words to work with in carefully preaching liberation to the semi-illiterate Jews of his time under the noses of the Sadducees and Roman living-Caesar-God spies and likewise his disciples and all monarchist translators and clerics were later forced to maintain the politically incorrect deceptions to their own advantage.

The antiquated old common materialistic view of G_d was conveniently and deliberately abused by the noble monarchist Levite desolationists to manufacture a pliable human male warlord-patriarch persona who "speaks to them alone" which in an illiterate and patriarchal society leads to the false singular masculine addressing of G_d as "he" or "him"! The Levites needed to corner the market on 'gods' to institute a monarchy.

This Hegellian false thesis and antithesis imposes the false Warlord-God and Lucifer-God synthesis by centering all arguments about a false debate. In order to impose this 'false synthesis' solution one needs to stage a false debate about two false postulates that in its own false result gives credibility to both. This false dualism is inherited by the Jews from the priesthood of Ra demonstrated in these formerly lucrative and pliable Horace and Set "supernatural warlord' myths (arguably also the origin of the Torah tablets).

One could not have a purely attractive, creative G_d that was the Spirit of the sacred, creative, attractive gravitational trans-dimensional Unity Of All Love Itself, they needed to manufacture a speaking human Man-God Warlord, who could speak through them alone - the false Yahweh Thesis.

One could not have a nonexistent nullifying and destructive hateful force of natural self-preservational human-greed-on-steroids false-god, they needed a speaking human same-sex antiGod-God Warlord whom they could paraphrase, blame and scapegoat - the false Lucifer Antithesis.


One cannot get out in front of your slaves and say that "The attractive, creative Undivided Unity of All Love Itself has told me, to tell you to go out and slaughter all those Babylonians", since there is implicit moral value in the description of the supernatural moral authority itself. People who knew or where related to lots of nice Babylonians or understood what Love is would take justifiable exception to such blanket-fiat commands. BUT - If one gives the deity a falsely human personification then 'the good God-guy' can be as selfish, Ishmael deadbeat dad, entrapping, greedy, vindictive, destructive and immune from sin as 'he' wants to be. (presumably, 'cuz The Big Dude's only human... )


Similarly one cannot teach one's slaves to hate those you wish to exploit, scapegoat, persecute or conquer if one correctly identifies the antithesis of your Human Warlord God to be the repulsive and destructive self-nullifying, selfish, false-god of all greedy and selfish animalistic bestial human hatreds, since there is an implicit moral value in the statement of such implacable moral truth. People know the difference between self preservational thrift and greed, murder, theft or robbery. But - If one creates a supernatural Evil Warlord "bad-guy God" one can put all sorts of abhorrent and disgusting words in his mouth, make him ugly and anoint 'him' ruler of your 'evil' enemies. (or just say their 'good' god-dude is your 'bad god-dude' by another name)


This false synthesis (two male Warlord-Gods) provides the convenient side affect for them of being able to imprison this "him" in a 'sanctuary' where this "he" is held by them to attract ransoms in exchange for the sins of the Jews. These ransoms become so plentiful they have little choice but to burn most of them to "make an aroma" that supposedly pleases their "Prisoner". This is the core noble heretical "Templar Imprisonment" transgression that defines the exclusive incorporate "abomination of desolation" that thereafter plagues Judaism.

It is a corrupt noble deceptive plot to "desolate" and so conceal the true nature of G_d from Mankind so that they alone can falsely "mediate" this relationship.


In The Beginning:

When Moses asks to see Their glory, The Unity of All Love Itself responds "We will make all Our goodness pass before you, and will proclaim before you Our names 'I shall be' that I shall be {The Undivided Lover and Beloved}." Then I shall be that I shall be passes before Moses and proclaims, " I shall be that I shall be; I shall be that I shall be, The Undivided, merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness"

This 2X name is The Most Sacred and Divine Conversation between All Loveliness Itself and All Belovedness Itself within Their eternally indivisible union as the causality and effect that is the eternally creative intellectual fountainhead and reservoir of All, Itself! }

and then "G_d" {The Undivided Unity of All Love Itself} said: "Let US make man in OUR image and likeness...." also makes perfect sense! (Genesis) although the large substance and remainder of that Levitican tale of creation is fraught with immense deception thereafter.


Universalist Translation of Psalm 22

  The divine conversation between All Loveliness Itself and All Belovedness Itself that is the full Name Of "G_d" is the opening structure in this passage. The Unity of All Love Itself is the shorter succinct description for the plural Undivided Loving Attractor and Beloved Attractee which can clearly and correctly be envisioned as the two paired helical stiles of a DNA ladder or the paired 3D helical oscillation waveforms of propagating energy-beam vectors that transmit all energy, design data and enlightenment from this trancendental fountainhead and reservoir of all intellect.

  The Holy Spirit of Love is the attractive quantum creative dimensional gravitative force of the Union of All Love Itself, present as the macrocosmic and microcosmic attractive glue of the substance of all created things material of one with the Undivideds All. 

Pagan Roman "Old Testimonial" bibles omit this critically important Exodus 3:13 repetition in gross error, but for our records of David in Psalm 22 and in the words of Our Savior on the cross in the Constantinian Monarchist gospels do not. The Old Testimonials censorship in the post-Warlord James versions is highly suspicious.


The non-patriarchal 'Trinity' is thus composed of actually 4 entities:

I Shall Be; that I shall be, I shall be; That I Shall Be The erroneous "Father" figure of patriarchal language, which are plural yet Undivided, to wit: The Undivided Unity of All Loveliness Itself and All Belovedness Itself which are our spiritual Parents or Parentage, the designers of all things, spiritual Heaven and the loving contents of our own spiritual characters (the 'Chaff' or 'Grail' of the Soul). Commonly also referred to as "G_d" Erroneously referred to as (the) LORD, Lord, Father, He, Him etc...  

The Holy Spirit - The 5th dimension of Gravitation, omnipresent manifestation of All Loves, of oneness with all things material.  

Jesus Christ - Our Savior the living human Son of The Parentage of All Love Itself, made as are we, of the Holy Spirit, the Prince of The Spirit and the one and only-ever King of Mankind .

- source: Metatron ```` Urlborg (talk) 15:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


The stuff recently added about Buddhist influence/interpretation is interesting for about two or three paragraphs, but it's exceedingly long and tangential to the article after that. Further, without citations, even the interesting parts seem to be original research. Anyone think it's salvageable? Anyone have a source for that interpretation?  — Saxifrage |  22:27, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

It seems like totally nonsensical ramblings, ramblings that have barely anything at all to do with the subject of the article. And the part in those ramblings that DOES have to do with the subject of the article is bursting with incorrect information. I'm going to delete it, at least for the time being. --Whimemsz 21:26, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

It does not help very much to use the word "imperfect", which normally denotes tense, in one section and then call it "imperfective", which denotes aspect, later on. Pamour (talk) 11:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

"Asher" is the conjunction "that", not the demonstrative "that"[edit]

The Hebrew word אשר ('asher) means "that" as a conjunction, not as a demonstrative.

Stated another way, אשר can never mean "that" as opposed to "this".

The expression in Exodus 3:14, therefore, cannot possibly mean "I am 'That'", or "I am That, I am". It could, however, mean "I am what I am", or "I will be that which I will be", etc.

A discussion of the "Thatness" of God might be interesting, but it's irrelevant to the meaning of אהיה אשר אהיה.

-- Richwales

I came here to request that more information about asher be incorporated in the article, as I was having the previous in mind. If this is true, then the article needs a rewriting.--Alif 16:04, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

'asher indicates relationship and functions in a way that has no parallel in English.Pamour (talk) 16:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

ZERO. SENSE.[edit]

This article makes linguistically zero sense. Absolutely no sense at all. Could someone who actually knows Hebrew have a look into it? - Cymydog Naakka 21:27, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How Assyrians (aramaic speaking minority) interpret the phrase[edit]

I am Assyrian (a large minority) and I read and write aramaic. I want to let you know that this is an actual interpretation by Assyrians who speak aramaic.

Removal of a link[edit]

To the editor of this article,

I have recently made several attempts to have a link included in the external links section of this article. The link is to a website dedicated entirely to the interpretation of Exodus 3:14, and therefore has a great deal more to say about Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh than the article itself has. It is also written to a high standard of scholarship, including 49 references and endnotes many of which would not be readily available to the average reader. It is objective and non-proselytyzing throughout, although the main subject content is for obvious reasons Jewish.

This link has been removed as often as I placed it, apparently on the grounds of 'link spamming', and the site was then closed to editing on the grounds of 'vandalism'. It was last removed by dbratton on May 23rd.

Can you please review this decision, and explain to me why this highly relevant and high-quality link has been removed.

Sincerely,

Dr K J Cronin

Hi Dr Cronin,
The link that you placed on this page and several others was removed for a variety of reasons. First, it is considered a form of vandalism to spread a link to a personal website indiscriminately across multiple pages. Second, and more importantly, the link that you provided violated the Wikipedia policy of No Original Research. While it may be an interesting and objective theory, it is still a novel personal interpretation. Please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not for more information.
You seem to have a great deal of knowledge about the subject - please consider further contributing to the articles, but remember that Wikipedia is intended for providing facts and common information, not personal theories or interpretations. Dbratton 11:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Response to dbratton[edit]

Hello dbratton,

Thank you for your response, which has helped to clarify the position for me. In fairness, however, I must point out that the links I made were not at all indiscriminate. On the contrary, they were very carefully selected, and made only because the content of my website is highly relevant to the subjects of those articles. I do accept that my website is ‘personal’, but, as I have pointed out, it is also highly scholarly and extensively referenced, and both objective and reasonable in those parts of it that are necessarily speculative. These features do at least put the reader in a position to make up their minds up for themselves. Moreover, so far as I am aware there is no other source in any medium where this information is brought together and analysed to the same extent and with the same objectivity as it is on my site. However, I do accept that the second part of the website is almost entirely my own analysis and elucidation of the meaning of Exodus 3:14.

I will certainly consider your suggestion of making a contribution to the relevant articles, and would of course restrict that contribution to facts and source materials.

All the best,

K J Cronin


"I approve this"[edit]

This whole misunderstanding, that Dr. Cronin was spamming and all the hilarity that ensued put aside, I think Cronin has a point there. As this article doesn't offer that much, and he wrote up an objective view about it in more detail, why not give it more room? Incorporate new ideas you agree with, in consensus, to this article - thus improving it!

-- 420, greets from a'dam

Site[edit]

What site is this? I would very much like to take a look at it. Secos5 22:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

no asher (lysdexia)[edit]

The Hibiru here says asher but Strong's Concordance [2][3] says aher. Moreover, there are a bunch of ashers for "happy", which is "happy-going", as -osher means "goes". Thus -hjh -Sr -hjh could yield "[(I) am|is] golly|happy|jolly [(I) am|is]".

Other than that, "I am that I am" isn't very grammatic. Other speakts distinguish between that (demonstrative) and than (conjunctive), and trade off between than and what, which, who, and as, and don't distinguish between those tradeoffs and than (conjunctive) and than (comparative). If someone askd a no-name, it would make more sense for one to say "[(I) am|(it) is] as [(I) am|(it) is]" or "[(I)['ll]|(it)] be as [(I)['ll]|(it)] be" rather than those overly specific "that" or "who". There's even the "as" in "ashr" already! Therefore, this subject is about yet-another mistranslation in shoddy skòlarship. -lysdexia 01:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Hebrew verb conjugation seems to show that it's "I'll be as I'll be". Which makes sense for a god. -lysdexia 02:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Church's Tradition[edit]

It occurs linked in the article, but there's no article on it.

We need help from Catholic scholars on this one.
Yours truly, --Ludvikus 02:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Tradition and Living Magisterium[edit]

That's the closest usage of Tradition I found in the Catholic Encyclopedia [4].

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 02:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Judaism & Christianity[edit]

I've added the {{Christianity}} tag. The article clearly discusses Christian, and particularly Catholic conceptions of I am that I am. So it's only fitting to supply this tag. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 02:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Tetragrammaton & Yahweh[edit]

I'm surprised that neither editors of Judaism nor those of Christianity have made no contributions to the above.

Yours truly, Ludvikus 03:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's difficult to reconcile the conventional Judao/Christian concept of a 'personal' God with such an odd abstract name as 'I Am'. Pantheists would say that the answer suggests that 'God' is the sum total of every sentient being in the universe which has a brain sufficient to grasp the concept 'I Am' - i.e. is self-aware. But would such a collective being put in a personal appearance and speak with one voice? I dunno...it gives me headaches :-) 160.84.253.241 14:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I am what I am[edit]

Is also a subject of philosophical concern.

Except it is commonly attributed to Popeye the sailor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.9.2.123 (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Jesus[edit]

According to Christianity, Jesus is Yahveh. The name of Jesus means several things, but one of those things is I AM. In French, the name Jesus is similar to [Je suis], which also means I AM. Another interesting thing is that Abba and the Holy Spirit are also called I AM. Speaking with one voice, they say [I AM the Trinity]. Also, Enoch/Metaron is reputed to have called himself I AM. ADM (talk) 21:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

LITTERAL MEANING OF "I AM THAT I AM"[edit]


The way i see it is simply :- God exists for his/her own existance, self substantiating for the purpose of being or living to understand life.
God just IS. if you have a better way of putting it lay it down lets have a look.
I am Dave.

I believe the form "I AM that One that IS" would mean the permanent essence of the phrase. Franco —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.93.249.82 (talk) 23:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Removal of the "Dispute" tag[edit]

The dispute tag was added in August 2008, by an un-named editor. The edit summary says "sounds like a sermon". The talk page has no discussion or dispute by that editor. There is no hint as to what part of the article the author felt it necessary to dispute. Let me point out that to add a dispute tag, one adds the letters "POV" indicating that one believes someone is pushing a "personal" or very one-sided point of view.

I would dispute that this is the case. The topic itself "I Am that I Am" is Biblical. It comes from the Hebrew as stated. The definitions and use of the word are given. They are followed by a section drawn directly from a written source. I can't find a place where any contributor has written a personal point of view, rather than the point of view of a cited religious body.

I cannot see how this reads as a sermon, unless the person who made that comment interprets any discussion of a religious subject as being "like a sermon". This indicates a considerable degree of ignorance, but is the probable reason, nonetheless. Amandajm (talk) 12:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The only Biblical point of view given is one of the Roman Catholic Church interpretation. And just one RCC interpretation, at that, since it is basicly a one long quote. There is no other Christian view and no real Jewish view given. Even the Kabbalist section barely mentions anything more than that Kabbalist have a view. It does not state the view in an encyclopedic way.
Of course what this article needs even more is a "this article is mostly one long quote" tag. Carlaude:Talk 01:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
In that case wouldn't the article be better served with an "expansion" tag, rather than a "neutrality" tag? Awayforawhile (talk) 13:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

ho ôn=THE BEING[edit]

The translation THE BEING is not very helpful. English cannot handle this literally because it does not work like Greek: a reasonably accurate way to put it into English might be to explain that the first word is the definite article in the nominative masculine form and the second word is the nominative masculine form of the present participle of the verb "to be" (Feminists, for example, may wish to have this made clear). The combination, however, does not produce THE BEING. One might try THE BEING ONE (masc.) or THE ONE (masc.) WHO IS, the second of which is the more common way of translating a Greek present participle, e.g. ho legôn and hê legousa are both "the one who speaks/is speaking", but are different genders, which English can indicate only as I have done. Pamour (talk) 16:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Zecharia Sitchin[edit]

This man's own article says he is largely discredited, listing him as an authority is a bit misleading. I added some balance by stating that he is discredited, but rather It should just be removed entirely per Wikipedia:Fringe theories. Thoughts?Smitty1337 (talk) 00:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Linguistic connection with Tetragrammaton[edit]

Should mention that the form Ehyeh derives from a consonantal root היה H-Y-Y which is a variant of the root H-W-Y הוה which is usually considered to be behind YHWH (the Tetragrammaton)... AnonMoos (talk) 08:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

7. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p1.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dogen3 (talkcontribs) 03:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Spam and Proselytizing in the article[edit]

Someone's plugging a site called scripture4all.org in this article's section on Judaism. And the paragraph about the site looks like an attempt at proselytizing. I'd delete it myself, but I don't want to be accused of trolling. Bluemonkee (talk) 22:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

It's original research, so I've deleted it. Dougweller (talk) 10:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Shakespeare[edit]

I found this article while searching for information on Shakespeare's usage of the phrase in Sonnet #121. I was also able to confirm that this was the translation used in the Geneva Bible, which was published before the sonnets. However, I am not certain whether this information belongs in this article, or in what context; and I do not have the time to do proper citations et cetera at this moment. I may come back to do so later, but if anyone else would like to do so first, I think at least a brief mention might be appropriate.

Liger42 (talk) 23:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)