Yesterday a friend and I were discussing Bible translations ( imagine that ! ) . When I brought up the TNIV he instantly said that it was a blasphemous production . I asked him why and he said that the TNIV does not use the words "Son of Man " , instead it has " Son of people " or similiar phraselogy . I told him that he was mistaken , that the TNIV does indeed keep the form of words " Son of Man " . He told me to verify that -- that I would be in for a big surprise . I already knew that my friend was wrong ( I had investigated this issue and others regarding translational issues -- from a laymen's perspective ) . This morning I went through a number of passages in Matthew and "Son of Man " was right there in the text -- over and over again . I went especially to Daniel 7:13 and the Matthew passage that is related to it -- Matt. 8:20 ( and 20 other matthew passages ) . Some against the TNIV maintain that they know the issues regarding this translation . Yet they do not own the translation . They depend on 2nd and third hand info . Even at this late date the TNIV has been doing rather well despite the barrage of criticism over the last number of years as well as having to endure such a large boycott . Many remain as clueless as ever . Misinformation continues to be pumped out and the Christian public is duped once again . Providentially there are a growing number of folks who have now taken the time to buy one for themselves and have come to the conclusion : " What has all the fuss been about ? It's a solid translation . " But , getting back to the OP , though the TNIV has the terminology " Son of Man " just as many times as the NIV has it -- is that form of words the most accurate rendering ? Is Christ's maleness being emphasized in the original , or His humanness ? Would it be so bad to have "Son of Mankind " or "Son of Humanity" ? Wouldn't that be closer to the intent of the original authors ?