Talk:I am that I am
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For a December 2004 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Hayah
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)
Contents |
[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] Site
What site is this? I would very much like to take a look at it. Secos5 22:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
