Talk:I am that I am
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines. | ||
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale. | ||
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
{{WikiProject Judai For a December 2004 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Hayah
Contents |
[edit] But ...
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)
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)
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)
[edit] "Asher" is the conjunction "that", not the demonstrative "that"
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)
[edit] ZERO. SENSE.
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)
[edit] How Assyrians (aramaic speaking minority) interpret the phrase
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.
[edit] Removal of a link
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)
[edit] Response to dbratton
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
[edit] "I approve this"
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
What site is this? I would very much like to take a look at it. Secos5 22:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] no asher (lysdexia)
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)
[edit] Church's Tradition
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)
[edit] Tradition and Living Magisterium
That's the closest usage of Tradition I found in the Catholic Encyclopedia [4].
- Yours truly, --Ludvikus 02:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Judaism & Christianity
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)
[edit] Tetragrammaton & Yahweh
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)
[edit] I am what I am
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)
