You wrote:
> There's nothing wrong with that construction: AIWN is a noun modified by
> PANTOS: "before _any/and every_ world-age."
Gotcha'! My mistake. Thanks for the input.
> What I'm wondering is why we aren't considering the existence referred to
> in Jesus' EIMI as essentially _timeless_, wherefore there's something a
> little bit odd--or at least paradoxical (perhaps intentionally so) in the
> suggestion that what is timeless has a temporal relation to an event in
> time.
Oh, I am with you 100% on that point! I personally believe that this
was part of Christ's two-fold point. The other part being a
deliberate reference back to God's self-designation in Exodus 3. But
you also have to understand the history of this current discussion:
it was basically started by a Jehovah's Witness who was responding to
questions about the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society's translation
of "I have been" for <ego eimi> in John 8:58.
The Watchtower Society has always been quite anxious to avoid any
connection between John 8:58 and the "I am" of Exodus 3. In my
opinion, the ultimate exegesis of John 8:58 is not their primary
concern. Their primary concern is that any exegesis on the part of
their membership does not establish a link between John 8:58 and
Exodus 3.
sola (scriptura + gratia + fide) = solus Christus,
-- Ron Henzel
Ronald.M.Henzel@wheaton.edu