Hello everyone!!

[Daystar]

Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. John 8:58

First of all, this doesn't say that God and Jesus are the same. Secondly lets take a closer look at the verse.

"before Abraham came into existence, I have been” Greek πρὶν ᾿Αβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί (prin Abraam genesthai ego eimi)

Fourth / Fifth Century Syriac Edition - "before Abraham was, I have been" - A Translation of the Four Gospels from the Syriac of the Sinaitic Palimpsest, by Agnes Smith Lewis, London, 1894.

Fifth Century Curetonian Syriac Edition - "before ever Abraham came to be, I was" - The Curetonian Version of the Four Gospels, by F.Crawford Burkitt, Vol. 1, Cambridge, England, 1904.

Fifth Century Syriac Peshitta Edition - "before Abraham existed, I was" - The Syriac New Testament Translated into English from the Peshitto Version, by James Murdock, seventh ed., Boston and London, 1896.

Fifth Century Georgian Edition - "before Abraham came to be, I was" - The Old Georgian Version of the Gospel of John, by Robert P. Blake and Maurice Brière, published in Patrologia Orientalis, Vol. XXVI, fascicle 4, Paris, 1950.

Sixth Century Ethiopic Edition - "before Abraham was born, I was" - Novum Testamentum . . . Æthiopice (The New Testament . . . in Ethiopic), by Thomas Pell Platt, revised by F. Praetorius, Leipzig, 1899.

The action expressen in at that verse started before Abraham came into existence and is still in progress. εἰμί (eimi) is the first person singular present indicative, and so is properly translated by the perfect indicative. This same syntax can be found in Luke 2:48; 13:7; 15:29; John 5:6; 14:9; 15:27; Acts 15:21; 2 Corinthians 12:19; and 1 John 3:8.

A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament, by G. B. Winer, seventh edition, Andover, 1897, p. 267, states: "Sometimes the Present includes also a past tense (Mdv. 108), viz. when the verb expresses a state which commenced at an earlier period but still continues, - a state in its duration; as, Jno. xv. 27 ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς μετ’ ἐμοῦ ἐστέ [ap arkhes met emou este], viii. 58 πρὶν ᾿Αβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμι [prin Abraam genesthai ego eimi]."

A Grammar of New Testament Greek, by J. H. Moulton, Vol. III, by Nigel Turner, Edinburgh, 1963, p. 62, states: "The Present which indicates the continuance of an action during the past and up to the moment of speaking is virtually the same as Perfective, the only difference being that the action is conceived as still in progress . . . It is frequent in the NT: Lk 248 137 . . . 1529 . . . Jn 56 858 . . . "

In an attempt to identify Jesus with Jehovah some say ἐγὼ εἰμί (ego eimi) is the same as the Hebrew expression ani hu, "I am he," because it is used by God, which is silly because the expression is also used by man. (1 Chronicles 21:17)

Others try to use Exodus 3:14 which reads: Εγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν (Ego eimi ho on), which means "I am The Being," or "I am The Existing One" but they are not the same. There you have the Hebrew אהיה אׁשר אהיה (Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh). Leeser "I WILL BE THAT I WILL BE" Rotherham "I Will Become whatsoever I please." Greek Ego eimi ho on, "I am The Being," or, "I am The Existing One" Latin ego sum qui sum, "I am Who I am." Ehyeh comes from the Hebrew verb hayah, meaning "become; prove to be." Here Ehyeh is in the imperfect state, first person singular meaning "I shall become"; or, "I shall prove to be." God is stating what he intends to become or prove to be toward others rather than a self existence.

Jesus saith..."he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?" John 14:9

Meaning that Jesus was the perfect representation of the Father. After all John 1:17 - had already said: "No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom [position] with the Father is the one that has explained him.

"...And Thomas answered and said unto Jesus, My Lord and my God." John 20:28

Jesus was a god. So was Moses and Satan. Who was Jesus' God? God. Go back about 11 verses. John 20:17 -  Jesus said to her: "Stop clinging to me. For I have not yet ascended to the Father. But be on your way to my brothers and say to them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God.'

"And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." John 17:5

Again this only points to Jesus pre-human existence, not to Jesus as Jehovah.

Jesus saith... "I and my Father are ONE." John 10:30

Jesus said he and his disciples are one as well, are they all the same as God? John 17:11 - Also, I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world and I am coming to you. Holy Father, watch over them on account of your own name which you have given me, in order that they may be one just as we are.

"...CHRIST, who is the IMAGE OF GOD..." II Corinthians 4:4

Again, was not Adam made in the image of God as well?

---

Indeed I haven't read the OT. I have only read bits of it and read extractions from websites and TGD. So indeed feel free if you can actually give examples of how the OT is not indeed highly immoral. Without just twisting it.

We were talking about literal interpretation being, in your opinion, the most consistant one. Now you are talking about how highly immoral it is without twisting it. I really don't understand the connection there. As I have told you I don't understand the atheists criticism of figurative as well as literal interpretations.

I have had Atheist argue with on one point by saying: "You can interpret that any way you want!" and then the next point by saying: "You can't interpret it like that, it has to be literal!" I think this comes from an overall misunderstanding of the Bible. The Atheist (or skeptic) wants to translate it how they see it, which is usually negative and as simple as possible to prove their point.

I don't see morality as entering into it because morality is subjective. Also the Bible is full of examples of immoral behaviour.

You will have to give me an example of twisting the scriptures to make them moral when they are not in order for me to understand fully what you mean.

Yes, but the point is how do you decide which interpretation to pick?
I don't mean the whole bible can or should be interpreted literally. I just mean that when you look at the absurdly bold claims the bible makes and the evil in the OT. The key claims and immorality in the bible...how can you twist them into metaphorical interpretations to make it good when there are so many metaphorical interpretations?

Well, look at my post on What The Bible Really Teaches about Hell on the Religion board, that is a real good example of how to interpret it (The Bible) correctly and how it has been misinterpreted. When it is right it all adds up, when it is wrong it doesn't.

But with the bible when you interpret it scientifically, when you interpret it rationally. It comes across as a book that says a lot of things. But the key problem is that it says that the supernatural exists. That God exists. And there is no evidence of any of this, in it, or outside of it. The supernatural is highly complex and improbable.
Conclusion: There almost certainly is no God.

There is evidence again. You dismiss the Bible because it makes supernatural claims while at the same time saying that the supernatural is highly complex and improbable. How very scientific of you.