Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Vadim Cherny" <VadimCherny AT mail.ru>]

> >-         If Ex3:14 contains the name, it could only be "I will be that I
will be," a theologically odd notion that God is not currently present. The
translation "I am that I am" hinges on the wrong theory that Hebrew lacks
tenses. Even in that theory, reading grammatical future tense as present
tense is extremely unusual.
>
> Indeed it would be unusual to read anything as future tense if Hebrew
> has no tenses! But you misunderstand the theory. On that theory the
> YIQTOL form used here is not in any sense a future tense, but a timeless
> continuous verb form.
>

We discussed this issue with issue a short while ago, and I proved
decisively that Hebrew uses tenses absolutely correctly, in standard sense,
but allows, like Russian, deictic centre shifts. The theory of tenseless
Hebrew makes sense only for people who believe that all world uses tenses as
English and German speakers.

Besides, as I also noted, how many yiqtols elsewhere are translated with
present continuous?

Vadim Cherny