Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Whether a translation asnwers a particular question is irrelevant, though
one can prefer "I am" to "I will be" only on theological grounds. What is
relevant, is grammatical correctness. I showed few weeks ago on this list
that a theory of tenseless Hebrew is absurd, and Hebrew use of tenses is
perfectly consistent. Grammatically, the meaning is "I will be."

Vadim Cherny


> I also think that I AM who I AM is better because I think that it answer
Moses' question.  What is your name?
>
> In my mind "I will who I will be." be does not answer the question.
>
> --
> Kelton Graham
> KGRAHAM0938 AT comcast.net
>
> -------------- Original message -------------- 
>
> > On 11/09/2005 18:35, Vadim Cherny wrote:
> >
> > >...
> > >
> > >- 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.
> >
> > -- 
> > Peter Kirk
> > peter AT qaya.org (personal)
> > peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
> > http://www.qaya.org/
> >
> >
> >
> > -- 
> > No virus found in this outgoing message.
> > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> > Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.21/96 - Release Date:
10/09/2005
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > b-hebrew mailing list
> > b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>