googlef87758e9b6df9bec.html A Sure Word: May 2010

Monday, May 31, 2010

Remembering on Memorial Day

They fell, but o'er their glorious grave
Floats free the banner of the cause they died to save.

Sunday, May 23, 2010

The Five D's of Unbelief. A Formulaic Review of Genesis 3

Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God actually say, 'You shall not eat of any tree in the garden'?" And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, but God said, 'You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'" But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. [Genesis 3:1-6]

I've written before that a belief in evolution is an obstacle to coming to a saving faith in Jesus Christ. It's not so much that I believe a person can't be Christian unless he's a creationist. Rather, I believe that when a person begins rejecting the word of God, it is typical that he will also reject God. It occurred to me that we see a sort of formulaic outline of the process occurring right in Genesis 3.

Pastors often use acronyms and similar mnemonic devices to help people remember some particular point. I never was too keen on these types of messages but in this passage, the “Five D's” leaped out at me so strongly that I can't resist using them.


The first step in unbelief occurs when we begin doubting the word of God. In Genesis 3, the serpent begins sowing seeds of doubt in Eve by saying, “Did God actually say...?” It's sad that many people who claim to be Christian have very little understanding of the Bible. Many Christians are unable to answer the simple question: Where did Cain get his wife? Such ignorance opens the door to all sorts of false doctrines. Hosea 4:6 says, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge:”


In Genesis 3:4, the devil said, “You will not surely die.” Of course, this denies the commandment of the LORD in Genesis 2:17: “for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” We can assume Eve believed Satan and denied the clear words of God because she eventually ate the fruit apparently believing she would not die.

It's a short step from doubt to denial. When some people have doubts about a difficult passage, rather than study and pray, they opt for the simpler method of denying the truth of the passage. We hear this often when people say things like, “Adam and Eve weren't real people; Genesis is just an allegory.” When the Bible presents something as a fact, we are ill advised to suggest it is not a fact. It is no different than when Satan said, “you will not die.”


When we deny the truth of what God has said in His word, then we diminish God's authority and make His will subservient to ours. In other words, we elevate our opinion above God's. In Genesis 3:6 says, “the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise.” Eve should have understood that God knew best when He commanded they not eat of the fruit. Nevertheless, she thought of reasons why she should. Romans 1:25 talks about people “Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator.” These foolish people rejected the Creator of the universe and worshiped instead the lesser things of His creation.


Genesis 3:6 says, “she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.” After Eve had denied God's commandment and decided for herself that the food was good to eat, what was left then but to disobey Him? Judges 21:25 says that when there was no king in Israel, “every man did that which was right in his own eyes.” If we do not recognize an authority greater than ourselves, there is no need to abide by that authority. To reject God's word will always lead to disobeying God's word because His ways are not our ways (Isaiah 55:8-9).


Proverbs 14:12 says, “There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.” Death has always been the punishment for sin (Romans 6:23). When Adam and Eve disobeyed God, they were cursed with death. We are descended from Adam and so we have inherited his body of flesh. Because of this first sin, we all die physically (Romans 5:12). However, those who die without Christ face the second death which is the lake of fire (Revelation 21:8).


So there you have it – the Five D's of Unbelief. It begins with doubt and ends with death. Again, I'm not saying that people who believe evolution are doomed to hell. I will say that to begin doubting God's word from the very first verse is a dangerous road to be on!

Saturday, May 22, 2010

Congressman Grayson Compares GOP to Al Qaeda

There's a lot of buzz this morning over Rep. Grayson's (D-Fl) remarks that liken the GOP to Al Qaeda. You can hear his remarks on this short video.

Frankly, I don't see what the big deal is. I mean, I can understand why this is being covered but demonizing conservatives is a tired, old tactic of liberals. For decades, liberals have called us “Nazis” but in recent years they've changed it to “Al Qaeda” or “Taliban.” Grayson may have just made these remarks recently but this is actually old news.

Something occurred to me just the other day that I had been meaning to blog about. I'm sure many of you have seen Eric Holder refusing to acknowledge a possible link between radical Islam and the recent terror attempt in NY. Here's the video again.

Here's what I think is funny: why is it that liberals frequently demonize conservatives by calling them Al Qaeda, Taliban, radical-right-wing-extremists, etc. yet these same liberals won't condemn radical Islam terrorists out of fear of offending them?! Liberals are such hypocrites that it's hilarious.

Thanks, Mr. Grayson & Mr. Holder for a good laugh. Thanks also for a never ending supply of blog-fodder. If it weren't for crazy liberal comments like these, what would us conservative bloggers do? I guess I'd have to start a cooking blog.

Thursday, May 20, 2010

Jesus is Jehovah

A while back, I wrote a brief post discussing the tetragrammaton. Just recently, while I was in a Christian forum which discussed the tetragrammaton, I came across a very interesting post written by a brother who goes by the screen name, Old Shepherd. He listed 26 verses from the OT that use the name YHWH (יהוה) and then paired them with NT verses showing how they are actually references to Jesus. I saved a copy of his post and it's 5 pages long so I won't cite all of the passages here. However, I wanted to share a few of the most significant ones.

Isaiah 40:3, “The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD (יהוה), make straight in the desert a highway for our God.”

Most Christians will immediately recognize this verse as being cited by John the Baptist in Matthew 3:3, “For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.”

As is characteristic of Matthew, he actually cites the book of Isaiah in his gospel so we know without a doubt that was thinking specifically of Isaiah 40:3. Furthermore, it cannot be credibly denied that John the Baptist was sent to prepare the way for Jesus. The conclusion is inescapable that the LORD (יהוה) in Isaiah 40:3 is the Lord Jesus in Matthew 3:3.

Another very compelling example comes from Joel 2:32, “And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD (יהוה) shall be delivered:”

Of course, in Romans 10:13 we read, “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”

From Romans 10:9 we can be certain that the “Lord” in Romans is Jesus. Again the conclusion is inescapable: we are saved by calling on the Lord – who is both Jesus and Jehovah.

The last verse we'll review is Isaiah 45:23, “I (יהוה) have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.”

Now compare this to Romans 14:10-11, “But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.” This same point is expressed again in Philippians 2:10-11, “That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”

Time and time again we see that what is said of the LORD (יהוה) in the OT is also said of Jesus in the NT. Verses that clearly identify Jehovah in the OT are mirrored in the NT when discussing Jesus. Some people go to great lengths to deny the significance of Jesus' “I AM” quote in John 8:58. I have no doubt they will do the same to distinguish the LORD (יהוה) of the OT from the Lord (Jesus) in the NT. In my opinion though, the meanings of these verses are self-evident. A clear reading of the verses in question will reveal just how desperate the critics' arguments are. Jesus is Jehovah!

Friday, May 14, 2010

Creationists were Right – Again!

Just a few short years ago, National Geographic proudly announced, “Neandertals Not Our Ancestors.” At that time, DNA studies concluded, “it is unlikely that Neandertals contributed to the current European gene pool.” In other words, Neandertals were an evolutionary dead end. They were cousins to modern humans just like chimps are – except that chimps have survived and Neandertals went extinct. Creationists, on the other hand, reject the theory of evolution outright. We reject, for example, any notion that chimps are related to humans. However, in spite of the evolutionary claims to the contrary, creationists have insisted that Neadertals are humans; They are descendants of Adam and therefore are our brothers.

It looks like some evolutionists might be coming around to our way of thinking. Again quoting National Geographic, “According to a new DNA study, most humans have a little Neanderthal in them—at least 1 to 4 percent of a person's genetic makeup. ”

Now, there are some evolutionists who have suspected all along that humans and Neandertals interbred. In light of this new study, they feel “vindicated.” Um, hold your horses there. In light of this new study, I feel vindicated too! Creationists "predicted" that Neandertals were fully human and this new study seems to support that.

Don't get too excited about this news, however. Like any other piece of information, we must be skeptical about it. Only God's word is absolutely true, everything else is suspicious. We already know that humans did not evolve from non-humans and need not wait for “science” to confirm that. Besides, evolutionary theory is a fickle thing. On one day, the headlines show that DNA studies prove we aren't descended from Neandertals and on another day we are. So which is it? It doesn't matter a whit to evolution. Everything that we currently understand about evolution could someday be shown to be wrong but the theory itself will continue. Check out some of these other headlines from National Geographic:

Documentary Redraws Human's Family Tree
Java Skull Raises Questions on Human Family Tree
Controversy Over Famed Ancient Skull: Ape or Human?
Skull Fossil Challenges Out-of-Africa Theory

Do you see what I mean? One day a skull is supposedly a human ancestor and later it's not. Maybe all humans originated from Africa or maybe we didn't. The family tree drawn in public school science books one year is redrawn in the books next year. What were once scientific “facts” become replaced with all new “facts.” I guess they never were "facts" then, were they? It makes me wonder how many facts about evolution have to be discarded before some people decide to discard the “fact” of evolution.

Wednesday, May 12, 2010

It's the Illegals' Fault

Did you know that one reason your credit card rate is so high is because some people don't pay their bills so credit card companies have to collect more from the people who do pay? Likewise, when you go to your local retail store, the cost of the goods there has been raised to cover the money lost from people stealing from the store. It's sad but true that a lot of the money we pay for goods and services are higher because some other people don't pay. It's sort of a tax the innocent pay to help defray the costs caused by the guilty. We can whine that it's not fair but there's nothing we can do about it – except perhaps crack down on the guilty!

Have you ever been walking out of a store and a clerk stops you at the door and asks to see your receipt? It happens. I could make a big fuss and rant that it's “Nazi-like” to be asked for “my papers” but I don't. It's a nuisance but I know the clerk is trying to reduce theft from the store and ultimately I know that less theft means lower prices for everyone. So I just show my receipt to the clerk and then go about my business.

As I listen to the debate raging about the AZ law, I hear some of the same whining. People are upset that the crack down on illegal immigration might mean that innocent Latinos will be stopped and asked to show their papers. Welcome to the real world!! The innocent sometimes pay a price because of the guilty and immigration is no exception. In the effort to find illegal immigrants, a few citizens or legal immigrants might be asked to produce their IDs. How is that so different than me having to show a receipt to a store clerk?

The thing that annoys me is how the liberals' anger is being directed at the people who are trying to reduce crime and not at the people committing the crime. If illegal immigration weren't such a problem, there wouldn't be a need to crack down on illegal immigrants. If illegals were rare, Americans of Mexican descent would less likely be seen as possible illegals. But it is precisely because there are so many illegals that some citizens and legal immigrants are looked at with suspicion.

Now liberals are very predictable and I already know what they're thinking even as I write this: they are thinking that such a crack down will only target Hispanics and thus be a form of discrimination. It would be like a store clerk who only stops black customers at the door and asks to see their receipts. The AZ law specifically prohibits racial profiling. People cannot be stopped for just any reason but, instead, there must be some preceding infraction such as a traffic violation. If anyone of any race any where is stopped because of a traffic violation, he will always be asked to produce an driver's license. In most states, proof of legal residency is required in order to obtain a driver's license. So if a person stopped in AZ can produce a driver's license, that alone should be enough to establish legal residency. However, if a person is not able to produce an ID, then the status of legal residency might be questioned further. It's common sense, really.

I sometimes think that, if I were the violent type, I would beat the crap out of anyone I saw trying to steal something from a store. It's their fault that I have to pay more for everything I buy. It's their fault that I sometimes get stopped and have to show my receipt. I know that I'm innocent but it's their fault that I have to prove my innocence. Why don't liberals feel the same way about illegal immigrants? They should be ticked off. If liberals are truly concerned with protecting the rights of innocent people, they should realize that it's the illegal immigrants that are causing the problem. If this were a genuine concern, liberals should be equally ticked off with career politicians who aren't doing anything about the problem. If you ask me, they are complicit in the problem just like a clerk would be if he looked the other way while thieves shoplift from his store. Of course, liberals are never genuine. They have absolutely no interest in stopping or reducing illegal immigration. They merely raise the claim of racial profiling as a red herring. They are playing the race card just like they do with any other issue. It's the only play they know.

Tuesday, May 11, 2010

Tim Hawkins

I'd like to take a break from serious discussions and talk about a great, Christian comic and singer who's been burning up You Tube. His videos are hilarious. Here's one of my favorites.

That's just funny. Very clever. Tim also has an evangelical side to his music. Check out this funny spin on a popular TV commercial.

If you'd like to get more of Tim, go to YouTube and search for his name. Enjoy!!

Saturday, May 8, 2010

The Stones Cry Out: Why the Bible Trumps Archeology

On my way to a doctor's appointment today, I grabbed a book so that I'd have something to read during the inevitable wait I would have. I picked up, “The Stones Cry Out.” I had read it several years ago but had forgotten some of the better points of the book. It's probably a little dated now (it was originally published in 1997) but in just the second chapter, it raised a few great points that are timeless.

All in all, archeology has been friendly to the Bible. Several archeological finds have marvelously confirmed facts previously only known from Scripture. Even so, some difficulties remain. Critics will sometimes claim certain details in Scripture have not been verified by archeologists. Indeed, some current evidence seems to contradict Scripture. Can the spade of modern archeologists overturn the authority of the Bible? Heaven forbid! Early in the book, Dr. Randall Price outlined why he believes the Bible trumps archeology.

1) “Only a fraction of what is made or written survives”: We have found a lot of things which had been written down by the ancients but the overwhelming majority of what they wrote simply no longer exists. At the time “The Stones Cry Out” was published, no sizable archive has been discovered in the Land of Israel. What certainty do we have that what survives is representative of the whole body of what was written?

2) “Only a fraction of the available archeological sites have been surveyed”: In Israel and the Near East, there are thousands of unexcavated tels. Sites that are surveyed cannot keep pace with the many more that are being discovered. Many of these sites will never be properly explored because of political disputes and lack of resources. Many are also being destroyed by population growth and construction.

3) “Only a fraction of the surveyed sites have been excavated”: In Israel, military spending takes priority over archeological excavation. Most work in this area is done by volunteers or by archeologists who make their real living as professors. These people must raise money for their expeditions from private resources and can only work a few weeks out of the year. Because of all these factors, only 2% of surveyed sites in Israel have been excavated.

4) “Only a fraction of an excavation site is actually examined”: Due to limited time and resources, archeologists tend to invest the majority of their time in sites they suspect have the best chance of yielding a sensational find. A big find helps in future fund-raising. Strategic sites, such as Tel Hazor, have been repeatedly excavated yet there is so much ground that Tel Hazor still remains the largest unexcavated tel in Israel.

5) “Only a fraction of what is excavated is eventually reported and published”: There was a forty year delay between the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the release of just their photographs. It is a simple fact of archeological research. There are tens of thousands of cuneiform texts in museum storage rooms all over the world and there is simply not enough time, expertise, and resources to review it all.

Dr. Price concluded his points with these insightful words:
“In the final analysis, it must be remembered that the Bible itself is our finest example of an archeological document. While we have only a limited number of archeological artifacts from the biblical period, the Bible represents the most complete literary record we possess of ancient times. Surviving in one form or another since its first books were penned by Moses some 3400 years ago, it remains the most accurate and trustworthy account of antiquity in the archeological record. For this reason it is improper to elevate other archeological inscriptions above the Biblical text in order to challenge the latter's integrity.”
In this area, I believe Dr. Price has really nailed it. I'm going to finish re-reading the book and may write a full review in the future.

Thursday, May 6, 2010

It's the National Day of Prayer; Or is it?

For the last 58 years, the first Thursday in May has been recognized as a national day of prayer. There was some debate recently, though, as to whether or not it would occur this year because some radical groups protested, claiming it was a violation of the “separation of church and state.” It looks like it's official now so everyone can feel free to pray without guilt.

I shouldn't have to remind anyone that the term “separation of church and state” doesn't appear anywhere in the Constitution. Instead, the First Amendment prevents the government from establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Observing a day of prayer (certainly not compulsory) doesn't even come close to violating the First Amendment. I guess it's too close, though, for some people's comfort. Not only do they not pray, neither do they observe any religion. Moreover, they don't want to even hear about people praying or practicing their religion. Hearing the President encourage (not compel) people to pray is somehow offensive to them. Since when is there a right to “not be offended”?

Though the National Day of Prayer may have been recognized since 1952, it is a tradition that goes back much further than that. It began during the Constitutional Convention where, after a stalemate in the debates, Benjamin Franklin suggested turning to prayer. He said:
“I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: ‘that God governs in the affairs of man.’ And if a sparrow cannot fail to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel; we shall be divided by our little partial local interest; our projects will be confounded; and we ourselves shall become a reproach and a byword down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter, from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing government by human wisdom and leave it to chance, war, or conquest.

I therefore beg leave to move that, henceforth, prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven and its blessing on our deliberation be held in this assembly every morning before we proceed to business.”
Washington echoed Franklin's sentiments in his first inaugural address where he said:
[I]t would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes, and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own, nor those of my fellow-citizens at large less than either. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States.
Isn't it strange that some people would suggest a call to prayer was somehow unconstitutional when the authors of the Constitution didn't seem to think so? Go figure!

Wednesday, May 5, 2010

Where is our Watchman?

“Give me your poor, your tired, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free...” These words, graven on a tablet on the Statue of Liberty, are the recipe for what has been called the American “melting pot.” People of different nations and heritages would come here and become Americans. One sign of our diversity is the recent celebration of Cinco De Mayo (the Mexican equivalent of the 4th of July). This day is celebrated more widely in the US than in Mexico – though perhaps it's become like St. Patrick's day and is just another excuse to party.

Sadly, the idea of an American melting pot has been replaced by a “salad bowl.” People all want to be in the same place but they still want to remain separate. Many people seem to want to be divided along ethnic or racial lines.

One notable landmark in the history of immigration is Ellis Island. The first stop for some 12,000,000 immigrants to the US was this NY port where everyone underwent legal and medical inspection. Most immigrants were free to enter the US after only a few hours with only about 2% being turned away. Perhaps it wasn't a perfect system but, looking back, it seemed a good balance between making American liberty available to anyone and protecting our national security.

The recent events in AZ have brought the issue of immigration and national security to the forefront. The governor there wants to enforce immigration laws and be able to investigate the citizenship status of anyone suspected of a crime. If someone gets pulled over for speeding, he usually has to produce a driver's license. Now, he may also be asked if he's here illegally.

The Obama administration, and liberals in general, see the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants as a crop of potential Democrat voters and so they oppose any efforts to crack down on illegal immigrants. Interestingly, during the first century of the US, immigration regulation was the responsibility of the states. It wasn't until 1890 that the Federal government took over and now the Feds act offended that states don't like the job they've done (or rather aren't doing). Well, I don't like the job they're doing either. I've not heard a single word – NOT ONE WORD – about how Obama intends to stem the flow of illegal border crossings. What I have heard is that we need a plan to deal with the “undocumented persons” we already have here (aka “amnesty”).

I always try to find a Biblical perspective on political issues. While considering illegal immigration, I thought about Ezekiel and the parable of the Watchman. Ezekiel 33:2-6 talks about how a city will set up a watchman who will stand on the wall and sound the trumpet when he sees an enemy approaching. By the way, where is our wall? Even Nehemiah saw the need to have a wall to protect the city. Anyway, when the watchman saw an enemy approaching, he was to sound the alarm. That was his job. Even if the enemy still came and destroyed city, the watchman will have done his job. However, if the watchman saw the enemy coming and did nothing, the people's blood will be on the watchman's hands. Illegal immigration is much the same. Where is our wall to defend our border? Why are we not more vigilant in protecting our people from illegal immigration? Where is our watchman? The people of another country are rushing across our borders in droves and the person who is supposed to stop this is doing nothing!

Tuesday, May 4, 2010

What is the Name of God? A Look at the Tetragrammaton

God is called by many names: Elohim (Creator), El Shaddai (God Almighty), El Elyon (Most High), and many others. However, when Moses asked God His name, the Lord answered, “I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you” (Exodus 3:14). From this verse, we have an indication as to how God identifies Himself. The word He uses is comprised of four letters (יהוה) collectively known as the tetragrammaton (from Greek literally meaning four lettersh). The English equivalent of these letters are, YHWH.

The tetragrammaton occurs some 6500 times in the OT but there is some debate over the correct pronunciation of the word. Because of the commandment to not take the Lord's name in vain (Exodus 20:7), Jews would not speak the word out of fear of accidentally breaking the commandment. So wherever the word occurred, the Jews would instead say, “Adonai”, meaning, “Lord.” In the King James and other translations, wherever the tetragrammaton appears, it is translated as “LORD” with all upper case letters.

In the original text, Hebrew did not contain vowels. Then around 500-600 AD, scholars began to add “points” to indicate vowel sounds. These points were added around the characters so that the actual text was not altered. To the tetragrammaton, they added the vowel points belonging to “Adonai” so that the reader would know to pronounce the word as, “LORD.” Eventually, people began to pronounce the letters of the tetragrammaton with the vowel points of “Adonai” and thus the name, “Jehovah,” was born.

The tetragrammaton is most likely pronounced as, “Yahweh” (yä'-wā). Alternatively there could be an additional vowel sound: “Yahoweh” (yä-hō'-wā). There is the further complication of the letter vav/waw which can be pronounced as the English “w” or “v.” Occasionally, the letter is even silent but that isn't likely here. So the Name could be pronounced as “Yahweh,” “Yahveh,” “Yehowah,” or “Yehovah.” In spite of the many variations, however, we can be certain the correct pronunciation is not, “Jehovah” as there is no “j” sound in Hebrew!

The word is believed to be an imperfect form of the Hebrew verb, “hayah” meaning “was.” In the passage of Exodus 3:14, it is understood in a sense to mean “the One who is” or “the One who exists.” When the Bible was translated into Greek in the 3rd century BC (a work known as the Septuagint), the tetragrammaton is usually rendered as “kurios” (κύριος), meaning, “Lord.” In Exodus 3:14, the word is translated using two different Greek verbs: “Ego” (εγώ) which is the personal pronoun, “I” and the verb “eimi” (ειμι) which means, “I am.” The redundant use of the pronoun with the verb creates an emphatic expression that literally reads, “I, I am.” This is sometimes rendered in all uppercase letters - “I AM.”

There are some disputed claims that early Hebrew copies of the New Testament included uses of the tetragrammaton but most scholars disagree. However, in the NT, Jesus often referred to Himself with the emphatic, εγώ ειμι. Perhaps the most notable example occurs in John 8:58 where Jesus said, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.” The verse is significant because Jesus invoked of Himself the same divine name God used in Exodus 3:14. This does not escape the attention of His Jewish audience and verse 59 says they took up stones to stone Him. Those who deny the divinity of Jesus often boast that Jesus never claimed to be God. Yet in those instances where He used this emphatic expression, He is doing essentially just that.

Further reading: