Talk:I Am

message: From WP:RfD:
* I am → God -- "I am" only appears once in the destination page, as an english translation of 'YHVH' (יהוה), which is Yahweh in Hebrew. "I am" is not a separate concept or commonly used phrase  as a search or navigation keyword, and so it will be little missed except the editor who's insisted on revert warring over it. FeloniousMonk 19:18, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Replace by redirect?

message: There's no there, there. Sam's "evidence" is uncompelling. The stats are that almost the only people landing on this redirect are EB, SS, and myself. This article redirect, is little used, adds nothing to wikipedia, and become a constant source of contention for Sam, it should be deleted. I'll adding the vfd template. FeloniousMonk 15:32, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you think the reader would be better served by a dead link? How is that? Sam Spade 16:02, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: VFD

message: Do you actually think 2:1 is consensus? Please read consensus. Sam Spade 16:02, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Consensus]] 

message: Redirecting "I am" to God does not make intuitive sense.  As I mentioned on your talk page, "I am" is in fact a copula; it is not synonymous with God.  As a reader, if I searched for a copula and ended up at God I'd be very confused and hardly "well served."  
On the other hand, if there are valid reasons to provide a link to God from "I am" (and Google isn't gospel), then the page could be turned into a disambiguation page.  I'm personally not convinced that there are good reasons to create a disambig page here.  So the Bible says that God said "I am that I am."  So what?  By that logic, we could redirect to Popeye, who as well all know said (probably more famously) "I am what I am."  The links you provided say really nothing and present no compelling argument in your favour.
On the other hand, "I am" is by definition what is called a copula, that is, the connecting link between subject and predicate of a proposition.  "To be" is another copula; it would make little sense to redirect that to existence, but I think a more convincing argument could be made for that redirect than the one you propose.  
Exploding Boy 16:25, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
I think a more convincing argument could be made for that redirect than the one you propose
:Then please make one. Telling me that you think a quote from Popeye is more famous than a self identifying quote from God to Moses is utterly unconvincing reasoning. Your suggestion of a disambig page is a good one, but also one you seem to disapprove of. Copula's are not synonymous w the concept of Copula, and should not redirect there. Sam Spade 17:17, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: intuitive sense

message: There's a lot of petty arguing going on here. Why not agree to disagree and turn it into a disambiguation page, pointing to several pages, most notably God and Copula?
:Because I opposed "gay bath house" for featured article status, and EB has pestered me ever since? I favor the disambig idea, btw. Sam Spade 21:45, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hardly. Anyone confused about what the tossup is about should have a look @ Talk:Anal sex. Sam Spade 22:47, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation 

message: Curps, I absolutely fail to understand why you are so intent on removing this reference to YHWH. (I see you completely deleted the entry "The English translation of Yahweh in Hebrew ('YHVH', יהוה)").
Look, I don't give a rat's ass one way or the other about the theological arguments, on both sides. It's all meaningless, as far as I'm concerned. However, it does seem to be a fact that that interpretation of the meaning of "YHWH" is widely read to be "I am" in some circles - so it's not just SS's original research. E.g. I found the following in the first two pages of results from a Yahoo search:
* "Some Bible scholars think that YHWH is a form of Hayah (I AM)" 
* "Jesus is the YHWH, the "I am" of the Old and New Testaments" 
* "two facts persuade me that this text provides an interpretation of the name Yahweh. One is that the name Yahweh and the name I AM are built out of the same Hebrew word (hayah). The other is that Yahweh seems to be used here interchangeably with I AM." 
* "When God finally revealed His name to be 'I am'" 
* "I am persuaded that God said His name was YHWH only because He was speaking to Hebrew people. If God would have revealed Himself to English speaking people He would not have said His name was 'YHWH,' but rather 'I am,' because the Hebrew 'YHWH' and the English 'I am' are the same verb. The difference is not in the meaning, but in the language through which the meaning ('I am') is conveyed. The name YHWH does not 'tag' God for identity purposes (for God does not need a name), but rather describes to us who God is." 
* "In modern Hebrew grammar this matter is so serious and important, that the verb 'to be' ('I am') is not used in the present tense at all! An Israeli will therefore state in Hebrew: 'I teacher ... I clever', omitting the verb 'to be' (I am) in the present tense. Usage of the Hebrew verb 'HOVEH' (I am) would imply referring to oneself as being the Almighty!" 
The philological scholarship may point in a different direction as to the precise meaning of YHWH, but that doesn't stop many people from having another interpretation, as you can see above. I think the fact that a lot of people do think this is the meaning is noteworthy and encyclopaedic.
So, I'll try and reformulate that entry to more accurately reflect the situation, and put it back. Noel (talk) 16:04, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job, thank you. Sam Spade 21:09, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Sure. I only hope Curps is OK with it, though. Noel (talk) 23:30, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice job, thank you so much for it. Gaurav89mrfr (talk) 10:56, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion of entry