Mistakes or Attacks

You said

"The" makes the difference.

We are all "sons of man"- meaning "sons of Adam (or Enos)". The original languages make this idea much clearer than it is expressed in English.

 

No.. we're human ones. :laugh:

:love2:

 

No, but then Jesus is not always called the Son of Man. Also, we simply wouldn't expect a definite article to be used when Daniel is being called "son of man". For example, while we might talk about "the" President among ourselves, and and while he might refer to himself and "the" President, if you were speaking directly to the President you would never call him "the" President. So, the lack of definite articles in Eze and Dan is totally expected and thus tells use little.

 

Can you site a verse in which Jesus is not called the Son of Man? I'm not trying to argue, just don't know of a place in scripture where He isn't referred to with "the".

 

Simple is fine. Fallacious is not. Its the difference between lacking understanding and having a false understanding - between being ignorant and believing a falsehood.

Everyone agrees with that here. What you haven't yet explained is HOW the rendering is an attack or an attempt to change part of Christ. Thats where the main question still lies.

I don't think there is much doubt of that at this point. BUT, I still want to be clear that the main question still remains unanswered. Even if would be a mistake to consider it an attack on His deity, it might still be an attack on some other aspect of His nature. That is the question that remains unaddressed.

Some people? So far you are the *only* one who does I am still hoping to hear why you think it is.

Yes, I understand that to be your position. You still haven't explained how this is true. How is this rendering an attempt to change what the Bible says about Christ?

And "son of man" can't be seen as referring to any human? It seems that every difficulty you raise about "Human One" equally applies to "Son of Man". If thats true, then calling the different rendering an attack or change to Christ nature doesn't make sense. Thats where I am having difficulty with your position.

True. But thats no less reason to avoid them and correct them when they are discovered. Iron sharpening iron and all that.

No, an attack on one is not necessarily an attack on the other. That a fallacious conclusion. A conclusion that hints at heresy as well. What would be correct to say is that an attack on either is an attack on Christ's nature.

 

Another casualty of cross-posting

John 5:27, Rev. 1:13 and 14:14

 

I was more hoping for an explanation instead

Ok, let's call it the secondary part of the issue - one that can't be dealt with until we have nailed down how you come to conclude that the rendering is an attack on Christ's nature.

 

Gee dw, you are the patient one!
This thread is almost like watching a train wreck in slow motion, you know a tragedy is happening but you can't turn away. :tongue3:

Unfortunately the AV (and the textus receptus in John 5:27) fills in the blank.
You can only see this by looking at the Greek text or reading a modern version.

Rob

 

Jesus is referred to as the “Son of Man” 88 times in the New Testament. A first meaning of the phrase “Son of Man” is as a reference to the prophecy of Daniel 7:13-14, “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.” The description “Son of Man” was a Messianic title. Jesus is the One who was given dominion and glory and a kingdom. When Jesus used this phrase, He was assigning the Son of Man prophecy to Himself. The Jews of that era would have been intimately familiar with the phrase and to whom it referred. Jesus was proclaiming Himself as the Messiah.

http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-Son-of-Man.html

 

Ok. Here is a list of modern versions.

LINK

Only one says "a" son of man, the HNV. (not sure what that is)

Maybe you should find a better defense.

Are you saying the TR says "a" son of man instead of "the" Son of Man?

 

My point all along: stilllearning makes accusations, with no details or explanations.

Guess we're supposed to take his word for it.

Smells of intellectual dishonesty to me.

 

It's "the Human One" vs "the Son of Man"

Just like the Son of Man has "the" and capital letters, so does the Human One. I do prefer "the Son of Man" because of it's parallel with "the Son of God." But wanted to make sure we accurately quote the other version. We are all "a son of man" but not The Son of Man just like we are all a human one, but not "the Human One."

 

I am not seeing that yet. I get the impression that he thinks that he is giving sufficient explanation.

 

Of course this is illogical, but moving on from that...

The Human One vs the Son of Man is dealing with Jesus' humanity. I have seen quite a few posts so far, but haven't seen anyone be able to explain why saying "the Human One" is an attack on the humanity of Christ. Notice, both use the definite article "the" and both capitalize the words.

Corrected it for you. The KJV says that. You are doing what's called begging the question by your post here. Now this is not an attack on the deity of Christ(in contrast to the humanity that is being dealt with in the other passage) any more than 15 verses later when the KJV refers to Joseph as Jesus' father. Joseph was not Jesus' biological father. The Bible is very clear about that. What is being referred to here(both the CEB and the KJV) is the role Joseph played. (I really don't think Mary was confused). This example(as the other one) is not an attack on Jesus, His deity nor His humanity. This example here is a textual difference. The passage about"the Human One" is a translational choice. While I prefer the rendering of "the Son of Man" you cannot say it's an attack on the humanity of Jesus nor the deity of Jesus by calling him "the Human One." Just because some translation team decides to translate it differently that what we are used to doesn't make it wrong. And just because it is different form the KJV doesn't make it wrong.

We are talking about translational choices not changes. Nobody is changing "the Bible" Nobody is changing the KJV. Last I looked, the KJV still had "the Son of Man" so no change there. It's a different translational choice.

Agree, we should be careful about which translational choices are made. I do think it's important. What is also important is to not say somebody is attacking the deity of Christ by using a different term to refer to his humanity.

 

And "son of man" could be applied to God's daughter or God's second cousin.

 

Have at it...http://baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1591060#post1591060

 

The KJV calls Ezekiel "son of man" 93 times. (I mighta have miscounted, but not by much.) and, "son of man" is used 109 times in the OT. (Again, my count might be off a little!)
So, let's not get worked up over a different wording in other versions in the NT.

 

My bible has the definite article in there.