Mistakes or Attacks

Yes.


If not, why this distinction between staying close to receptor or original language? Is one method correct while the other incorrect?[/QUOTE]Words often have different meaning in different cultures. Language is tied to a particular culture.

In Spanish ¿Cómo estás? and ¿cómo está? translate the same in English but have a very different usage. Used wrongly could be insulting or surprising someone. We would translate both of those questions "How are you?" That does not come close to distinguishing the difference.

 

Putting words into peoples' mouths is a sin, last time I checked. Something about bearing false witness......

 

Stillearning perfectly demonstrates why the translators of the CEB decided to render the idiom, “the Human One”!!!

The expression, “the Human One” is not an attack on his divinity
...When Stillearning says this he demonstrates he even misunderstands of the phrase "Son of Man".
It's for people like Stillearning that simple to read and understand translations like the CEB were made!


The Greek phrase is constructed to remind one of Jesus’ humanity and echoes a phrase found in Daniel 7:13.

Concerning the Hebrew phrase, John Goldnegay, (a translator on the CEB project) writes:

This is the way it was translated in the New Revised Standard Version

As I watched in the night visions,
I saw one like a human being
coming with the clouds of heaven.
And he came to the Ancient One
and was presented before him.
Daniel 7:13 NRSV

Jesus echoes this phrase when speaking to his disciples.

Now when Jesus came to the area of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Human One is?” 14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, and still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 Then Jesus replied, “Happy are you, Simon son of Jonah because no human has shown you. Rather my Father who is in heaven has shown you.
Matthew 16:13–17 Common English Bible

So the point of all this is: If the phrase “Son of Man” means Jesus was the “Human One”, what does the phrase “Son of God” mean?

So it isn't an attack on his diviinity but a confirmation of his humanity (see Isaiah 9:6 and Matthew 1:23 - - - "God with us").

Rob

 

Then why the initial claim that "birds of the air" is inaccurate? It seems that, even in your view, it would be fine depending on which approach you took.

We translate them both that way because the words are effectively equivalents, but happen to have a different social connotation due to the language being inflectional and English not being so.

However, the case of "heaven" is different. The word in the Greek do not have an English equivalent in all contexts. If the word is used in reference to God's abode, then it certainly should be translated "heaven" in English as "heaven" retains this meaning still. But when dealing with a context that refers to what birds fly in, "heaven" no longer retains that meaning in English. In normal speech a modern English speaker would never speak of the birds of heaven - it would be, at best, a very archaic phrase. With me so far?

So, this idea of sticking to "heaven" in this verse because it sticks closer to the original language is, as far as I can tell, non-sensical. Translating it as such is an anachronism - the original Greek context does not mean "heaven" as its understood and used today. Certainly a translator at the time of the KJV would most accurately render it "heaven", but "heaven" no longer retains the meaning it did 400 years ago. It has lost the connotation which would make sense as the original Greek meant it. The modern understanding of the word "heaven" no longer fits the context of that verse.

Now, we also run into the problem that "air" is not exactly what was meant in the original context either. It relies on a distinction that wouldn't even make sense to a person before 1500 or so. So "air" isn't a perfect translation either. However, it does have the advantage of being a word that makes sense to the modern English reader in the context of that verse w/o forcing them to figure out archaic phrasing.

So, 400 years ago, "heaven" was, by far, the best rendering - as close to a perfect match as one could hope. Today, I can't see how it could be considered more accurate a rendering. The only advantage I could see is that its archaic nature might indicate that an archaic concept is at work in the original context. Whether that is a real advantage though is debatable.

 

I am not seeing how it takes away from who Christ is. That it is rendered "the Human One" has no impact on the fact that He is still the son of God that I can see. It certainly doesn't take away from His humanity.

And, as Deacon alludes to, it might even seem to strengthen His deity. After all, the simple phrase "Son of God" is often used to deny Christ's deity (ie. if He is the son, then He is not fully God since "son" implies He has a beginning, etc.), but if "the son of man" = "the Human One", then a parallel would imply that "the Son of God" is equivalent to "the God One".

Please explain how you come to the conclusion that this rendering takes something (since you are saying its an attack on His deity I must assume this something being taken away is His deity). Please, don't just state it; explain so that others can understand.

Ah, now, the gender neutral stuff is a different matter.

 

Since when has dishonesty ever stopped stilllearning before?

He seems to revel in it.

 

OK.

You are terribly mistaken at best--intellectually dishonest at worst.

There.

You're right...calling things as they are is quite liberating.

 

I would have just left "intellect" out of it. But us deaf people tend to be quite blunt.

 

I just don't get it. I don't see how this is an attack on the deity of Christ. There are plenty of other verses that better affirm His identity. The idea that somehow this one verse destroys Jesus' validity, as God, in my opinion takes a giant leap over intellect into the realm of conspiracy paranoia.

 

Whew! Thanks for the sarcasm alert. I was about to separate from myself!

 

I sense my name being used in vain on this thread.

In one post in this thread you show that you clearly understand that "Son of man" refers to Christ's humanity. Now, please share with me how mis-translating "Son of man" is an attack on Christ's deity rather than an attack on His humanity?

 

Regarding Conspiracy Paranoia

Isaiah 8:12 :"Do not call conspiracy all that this people calls conspiracy,and do not fear what they fear,nor be in dread." (ESV)

 

You have shown how you see the natures of Christ being intertwined and how you see an attack on His humanity being an attack on His deity. Lets say for the sake of discussion that your above logic is sound (and intellectually honest for that matter). What is STILL missing is showing how the rendering is an attack on His humanity (and by extension, His nature and His deity). You say it is but don't explain how you reach that conclusion. Please do so. Given that the rendering would, if anything *emphasis* His humanity, I am most curious how you see it as an attack on His humanity.

 

I'm not offended, just puzzled.

Sorry, I don't see how this proves your point. This passage is specifically talking about Christ's humanity but not His deity.

Sorry, I don't see how this proves your point either. It is also talking specifically about His humanity but not His deity.

Friend, I mean no offense, only a kind, Biblical rebuke: you simply can't take verses out of the Word of God, the KJV no less, and make them mean just what you want them to. Is the Bible precious to you? I'm sure it is. Then treat it like the revelation of God that it is, not like a tool to prove your point with.

No, these passages do not prove what you want them to. An attack on "the doctrine of Christ" may or may not be an attack on his deity. Christ is 100% God and 100% man, this is true. But to use a human example, someone may attack me as a missionary without attacking me as a father or a husband.

Well, now, first you say that attacking His humanity means attacking His deity, and now you say that it opens the door to attacking His deity. Which is it? You can't have both. I agree with your second premise but not your first. They have two different meanings.