Approximately from 1:54:31 to 1:56:50 in "Interviewing Nick Sayers @RevolutionDebates on The Perfection of The KJV!!!" Nick Sayers states:
They claim to us, “oh you're you're following no manuscripts in this place.” Like, say, one example: Revelation 16:5. They always bring this up. Oh, Revelation 16:5 - when it has “shall be – “Oh, that's a conjectural emendation. That was just made up out of thin air.” Sort of thing. What they don't tell you is when it says “the one who is, and was, and shall be,” that's actually the etymology of the name of Jehovah: the past, the present, and the future. When you read in Exodus 3, verses 14 to 15, it has three I AMs there. One's the past, One's the present, One's the future. And then the next verse says, “My name is Jehovah.” So, the building blocks for the name of Jehovah is: the past, the present, and the future – the one who is, and was, and shall be. So, when it says that -- some scribe wrote “holy” on it because it's the holiest name of God according to the Jews. Many times they don't even pronounce this name and so they've written “holy” on a lot of these manuscripts, which is a type of – it's a name and so they put a “Sacra” on it which means “holy.” So, it’s a nomin sacra. So, understanding that, we do have some very good internal evidence for some of these things that — people have been saying for years that, “oh this is a conjectural emendation.” James White will make a big fuss about this, but they don't tell you it's the name of Jehovah there in the Book of Revelation, in Revelation 16:5, and that changes everything. Why would they have “holy” written there? Well, it's a holy name. Jews didn't want anyone to say this. I mean they even say God with a g dash d. You know what I mean. If they’re seeing the etymology of Jehovah with the three I AMs there, that's like – that's radioactive to them. And so they're going to write “holy” there. And, so that's why you see these type of things. It’s a name. It’s a full name of the name of Jehovah. So, of course it's going to have the three elements: the past, the present, and the future. It appears four other times in the Book of Revelation as the one who was, and is, and is to come; but the purest form is the one who was, and is, and shall be. And they wrote holy over it.
13 And Moses said unto God, Behold, [when] I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What [is] his name? what shall I say unto them? 14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. 15 And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this [is] my name for ever, and this [is] my memorial unto all generations. 16 Go, and gather the elders of Israel together, and say unto them, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, appeared unto me, saying, I have surely visited you, and [seen] that which is done to you in Egypt:
This argument from the "three I AMs" may not be original to Nick (I don't recall whether he cites anyone for this idea), but it does not seem to be either translationally or exegetically sound.
It is true that the phrase "I AM" appears three times in the English of Exodus 3:14 in the KJV. The Hebrew of the verse says:
וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים אֶל־מֹשֶׁה אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה וַיֹּאמֶר כֹּה תֹאמַר לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶהְיֶה שְׁלָחַנִי אֲלֵיכֶם׃
Most English translations render this Hebrew word (in all three places) as "I AM." Certainly, Nick's preferred English translation, which he normally argues was perfectly translated, likewise uses "I AM" in all three places. Some render this word as "shall be." Some commentators (such as Victor P. Hamilton, Exodus: An Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011), p. 64 or Robert A. Snyder), argue that the Hebrew word אֶהְיֶה could be variously understood as past, present, or future. Snyder writes:
With regard to translation, “I AM WHO I AM” (אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה) has nine possibilities, due to three translations for the verb (“I was” or “I am” or “I will be”) and three translations for the relative pronoun (“who” or “what” or “that”).
Similarly, Hamilton writes:
Nevertheless, at the next page, Hamilton concludes:
Likewise, Snyder connects Exodus 3:14 with the Gospel "I am" statements:
The Gospel of John proclaims Jesus as the fulfillment of the divine name of Exodus. As in Exodus, where “He will always be whatever his people need him to be in any given moment, in any given place,” because truly God is both “I-will-be-what-I-will-be” and “I-will-be-what-I-need-to-be-for-you,”[62] so also in John, Jesus is both the absolute “I am” and the predicate “I am your every need.” Jesus is God’s memorial-name forever and our very strong tower. Hallelujah!
Neither of these gentlemen, however, suggest that somehow the three instances of אֶהְיֶה in Exodus 3:14 should be understood respectively as past, present, and future.
Additionally, while versification does lasso in a third instance of "I AM," in God's own explanation of His name, He only uses אֶהְיֶה twice, namely: "אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה" - "Ehyeh asher ehyeh" - "I AM THAT I AM," in the KJV. Moreover, when God tells Moses what Moses should tell the people, God simply states: "אֶהְיֶה" (ehyeh), a single time.
- When God expands that in the next verse, He says:
- "LORD (i.e. YHWH) God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob,"
- "יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵי אֲבֹתֵיכֶם אֱלֹהֵי אַבְרָהָם אֱלֹהֵי יִצְחָק וֵאלֹהֵי יַעֲקֹב"
- "YHWH elohei avoteichem elohei avraham elohei yitzchak velohei ya'akov"
Thus, God explains says Moses should refer to Him as YHWH, and describe him as the "elohei avoteichem" (God of your fathers), namely the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. Elohim is used four times and the Tetragrammaton is used once, but even the triple use of Elohim is not about past, present, and future, but about identifying the three principle patriarchs of the people of Israel.
As for the assertion that "some scribe wrote 'holy' on it," this assertion lacks merit. There is precedence for substitutions of Adonai for YHWH in Hebrew or κύριος (kurios - Lord). The KJV itself follows this practice in most places in the Old Testament, including in Exodus 3:15. There is also precedent for abbreviating words like κύριος as ΚΣ (kappa sigma, with a line over them). This latter practice is also known as nomina sacra abbreviation. However, characteristic of nomina sacra abbreviations is the omission of letters and the use of the overline. What Sayers has proposed is a substitution without any precedent.
The reference to the similar expressions in Revelation 1:4, 1:8, 4:8, and 11:17 is a sword with two edges for Sayers. In none of these places do we find manuscripts reflecting a similar scribal practice as Sayers has proposed occurred here. Sayers' assertion that this is the "purest form" is - again - a claim without precedent. It's not a "form" used anywhere in Scripture, nor is it a form used in the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament, nor in the other Jewish writings before the New Testament.
Additionally, Revelation 11:17 does not help Sayers, as it does not even include the "coming one" found in Revelation 1:4, 1:8, and 4:8, and necessary for Sayers to view this as some kind of "triadic declaration."
