“Eres Tu”; “Ego Eimi”

The Eurovision competition in Europe began in 1956. One group that won went on to worldwide fame. That would be Abba with their song, “Waterloo” in 1974. The year previous the song that took second place was the entry from Spain, “Eres Tu,” by Mocedades, a group from Bilbao, Spain. It was released in the United States the following year, and though sung entirely in Spanish, managed to break into the Top Ten during its 11-week stint on the Top Forty.

Even if one does not understand the words, the singing and the melody are catchy enough to attract attention. But one might ask, “What do the words mean?” Quite simply, “Eres Tu” is a love song that begins:

Like a promise, you are, you are...
Like a summer morning.
Like a smile, you are, you are.
That's how, that's how, you are.
You are like my hope, you are, you are...
like a fresh rain in my hands.
Like a strong breeze, you are, you are.

Other expressions include: “You are the water of my fountain”; You are the warmth in my home”: You are …like the fire in my fireplace”; You are, the wheat in my bread. It concludes with:

Like my poem, you are, you are…
Like a guitar in the night.
You are all my horizon, you are.

The point to remember is that eres tu means “you are.” It does not mean “I am” or “we are.” Neither does it mean “he is” or “they are.” More particularly, the phrase does not mean “you have been.” The verb in that case would be ha sido.

If a language has verbs at all, these distinctions will be seen. For example, consider the present tense of the verb to be in Latin, whose forms are listed below.

sum (“I am”)   sumus (“We are”)
es (“You are”)   estis (“You are”)
est (“he is”)   sunt (“they are”)

Other tenses have other forms. It would be inappropriate to translate sum as “I will be” or “I have been.” Those forms look nothing like those above (ero for “I will be” and fui for “I have been.” What is true of Latin is also true of Greek. Below is present tense.

eimi (“I am”)   esmen (“we are”)
ei (“you are”)   este (“you are”)
esti (“he is”)   eisi (“they are”)

Ego eimi, very simply, means “I am.” Ego is the pronoun for “I.” The pronoun, ego, is not needed, because eimi, all by itself, means “I am.” Therefore, when the two are used together, it is for the purpose of emphasis. As in Spanish and Latin, there is a different word in the Greek for “I have been.,” which is hamoun.

So, what is the point of all these facts? To summarize, most languages, especially Latin and Greek, have different forms for present tense, past tense, and future tense. Thus, there really cannot be any confusion over the proper way to translated verbs of being. Yet the Jehovah’s Witness New World Translation bungles what the Holy Spirit inspired the apostle John to write in John 8:58. Jesus says, “Before Abraham was, I AM” (ego eimi). The Jehovah’s Witness translation has “Before Abraham was, I have been.”

One might wonder, “Is there a textual variation in the verse?” No! The words are ego eimi. Jerome’s Vulgate (the Latin version that was prominent for 1,000 years) has ego sum. Both of these mean, unequivocally, “I am.” Neither of them can be properly translated as “I have been.” That would have been hamoun (or fui in the Latin). Thus, Jehovah’s Witnesses are intentionally dishonest in their rendering. Furthermore, they know they are dishonest. They never named the men who translated the New World Translation, which is no small wonder. Nobody in his right mind would want his name associated with such a disgraceful version.

“But can you really say the translation is dishonest?” Yes, and so were their anonymous translators. Here is the reason we know. The Greek phrase, ego eimi, is used in the following verses both before and after John 8:58. Below is a list where both words are used—all from the book of John.

6:35  7:36  8:28
6:41  8:12  10:7
6:48  8:18  10:11
6:51  8:23  10:14
7:34  8:24

In every one of these instances, the New World Translation translated ego eimi as “I am.” Only in John 8:58 did they use, “I have been.” The only reason they did not translate that verse correctly is that it shows unmistakably that Jesus is eternal. They reject this truth; so, they falsely rendered ego eimi as, “I have been,” which suggests that Jesus is merely older—not eternal. Instead of correctly rendering the phrase, they allowed their theology to do the translating.

They knew precisely what those Greek words mean; they simply would not admit it, which is dishonest. Deliberately altering the Word of God is a violation that God sternly warned against (Deut. 4:2). So, who is now aware of the facts of the matter? Eres tu