Talk:I am (biblical term)
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article was nominated for merging with I Am that I Am on October 11 2022. The result of the discussion (permanent link) was No consensus. |
Use in Luke and John edit
I did a search but could not confirm that Luke 1:19, and John 9:9 are the "only" other uses. The bible sources are actually still only WP:Primary. Another book, not the bible is needed. There are a few websites that say that but none were WP:RS as far as I could see. And the John item really needs to link to the miracle page, which I added. This may well be true, but per WP:V needs sources. Thanks.History2007 (talk) 17:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- No worries. I have in fact now provided two sources -- one more than the minimum required -- as regards the statements re. usage in the New Testament of "ego eimi": (1) Nestle-Aland "Novum Testamentum Graece", 27th revised edition (a.k.a. "NA27"), Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, July 2006, ISBN: 1598561723, and (2) "The Greek New Testament", 4th Edition with Dictionary, United Bible Societies (a.k.a. "UBS4"). Both of these, each in its own way, are "other" books in that they form the foundation for much of the Bible's textual criticism; i.e., they are not -- either one -- 'merely' the Bible. --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 20:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- No, sorry, it does not work that way. You do not know if there is a use in Mark. You need a source that says it is not used in Mark, etc. Reading Mark yourself and deciding that it is not used in Mark is WP:OR. So you need a book such as Encyclopedia of theology: a concise Sacramentum mundi that says that. That would be a WP:Secondary source. These are not. History2007 (talk) 23:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Undefined Acronym edit
The acronym ASV, used in the sentence beginning "Many other translations including the ASV," should be defined in this sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aantia (talk • contribs) 15:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Merge discussion edit
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Support: @FatalSubjectivities - I am in favor of merging this page to I Am that I Am. We can add the content from this page into a new section onto that article. Curious, what is your rationale for merging? — That Coptic Guy (let's talk?) 20:50, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
- Merge. Agreed that this works better as a subsection. Brian (talk) 01:46, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
- WEll, this is a short pg. Pardon my scatterbrained nature, but I realised a third pg - Ego eimi, may make us change our mind about which to merge where.. FatalSubjectivities (talk) 06:04, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
- Yikes, that does complicate things. I hadn't noticed that either. My inclination is to say that there ought to be two pages. One on I am that I am that deals in a general way with the divine name, and another focused specifically on Jesus's 'I am' statements in the Gospel of John. The Ego eimi article is pretty much exclusively about those statements. In that case, this article should be partitioned out among those two articles. But that's starting to sound like a decently big job. —Brian (talk) 13:19, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
- What about converting this to a WP:DISAMBIGUATION page?
- Biblical 'I am' (disambiguation) FatalSubjectivities (talk) 02:54, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
- Given that there are only two pages we're considering splitting the content between, and that we can probably agree to a primary meaning, then we should probably used hatnotes rather than use a dab (see WP:TWODABS). Hence, perhaps the best solution might be:
- merge Ego eimi to I am (biblical term), preferring the English to the Ancient Greek term.
- move content related to I Am that I Am from I am (biblical term) (old testament section primarily).
- This would mean roughly a split of content between New and Old testaments; or between references to Jesus and to God. Klbrain (talk) 19:11, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
- I'm Mostly agreeable:
- Agreeable to "move content related to I Am that I Am from I am (biblical term)".
- But preferring to merge Ego eimi from I am (biblical term), preferring the Greek original to the English term, since "I am", i feel, has less precision - it is used in Descartes' Cogito, and above all, "I Am that I Am". Would change my mind on this 2nd bullet point if the bible psgs are all restricted to the correct half (Testament) of the Bieble
- FatalSubjectivities (talk) 14:21, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- merge to Ego eimi from I am (biblical term)*
- FatalSubjectivities (talk) 15:25, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- I'm Mostly agreeable:
- Given that there are only two pages we're considering splitting the content between, and that we can probably agree to a primary meaning, then we should probably used hatnotes rather than use a dab (see WP:TWODABS). Hence, perhaps the best solution might be:
- Yikes, that does complicate things. I hadn't noticed that either. My inclination is to say that there ought to be two pages. One on I am that I am that deals in a general way with the divine name, and another focused specifically on Jesus's 'I am' statements in the Gospel of John. The Ego eimi article is pretty much exclusively about those statements. In that case, this article should be partitioned out among those two articles. But that's starting to sound like a decently big job. —Brian (talk) 13:19, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Appropriate to Add Subsection on Philosophical Treatment? edit
UPDATE: I went ahead and added the subsection. Please feel free to edit or even remove it; I am quite new to Wikipedia so I am sure it can be improved.
I am wondering if it would be appropriate to add a subsection on discourses of philosophers and theologians like St. Thomas Aquinas on why the biblical term "I am" is the proper name of God. LaivineOrodrim (talk) 18:44, 16 April 2023 (UTC)