Jesus "son of Man" or "the Human One" ???

[BrckBrln]

While "dome" may have been an accurate interpretation back in the days of the ancients, it is not what we use in our language today, nor have we for what is likely the last 2 thousand years. To translate it in such a way as to use dome, is to open the back door to let in the whole politically correct, all inclusive idea, which would include Islam.

Of course we don't use that languague today because we know the sky is not a solid dome. The ancients did, however, and that's what the verse means. Translating it as 'dome' instead of 'firmament' gives us moderns a better idea of what they ancients meant. What this has to do with Islam is beyond me.

It's a shame that you feel that way really, it's a shame anyone would feel that we can be so careless with the Word of God, and it won't effect our understanding of Truth. No denying He was human, but He was far more than that, and the title "Son of Man" as I stated, has more to do with Adam in the beginning, than it does with whether or not He was of some alien race. Jesus HIMSELF chose to give Himself that title, Son of Man, who are we to take that from Him? What does being the human one say about his nature? That He was "just human" like we like to say when someone messes up? Come on, God's Word is holy, and it ought to be treated as such, and it is a sad day when a Christian finds it "nothing" to make such changes all for the sake of "going with the flow" and being "politically correct" all for the purpose of "not offending" anyone....that is, anyone who doesn't give a hoot about the truth, and just wants to feel like they are a "good person" who's gettin into heaven, since that's all that the "christian in name only" folks care about.

You simply don't understand. This translation changing 'the Son of Man' to 'the Human one' does not mean the translation denies the divinity of Jesus. Have they changed the prologue to John? Regardless of what 'the Son of Man' actually means, and whether it's a good idea or not to change it to 'the Human one', it isn't blasphemy. It's merely affirming that Jesus is the true Human, something we all claim about Jesus, yet you seem uncomfortable with the idea.

[shepherdsword]

You simply don't understand. This translation changing 'the Son of Man' to 'the Human one' does not mean the translation denies the divinity of Jesus. Have they changed the prologue to John? Regardless of what 'the Son of Man' actually means, and whether it's a good idea or not to change it to 'the Human one', it isn't blasphemy. It's merely affirming that Jesus is the true Human, something we all claim about Jesus, yet you seem uncomfortable with the idea.

It is not an honest translation. The correct rendering is " the son of man" since "anthropou" is in the masculine gender. We drop the definite article implications of "tou" when following "Ho"since it doesn't follow English syntax. A mechanical word for word rendering reads "the son of the man" "The human one" is a ridiculous rendering.

[BrckBrln]

It is not an honest translation. The correct rendering is " the son of man" since "anthropou" is in the masculine gender. We drop the definite article implications of "tou" when following "Ho"since it doesn't follow English syntax. A mechanical word for word rendering reads "the son of the man" "The human one" is a ridiculous rendering.

I think it's an honest translation in the sense that the translators believe 'the Human one' is what 'the Son of Man' means. I don't think they were trying to translate the Greek word into it's English equivalent, but rather give the meaning of the term in something more comprehensible.

[shepherdsword]

I think it's an honest translation in the sense that the translators believe 'the Human one' is what 'the Son of Man' means. I don't think they were trying to translate the Greek word into it's English equivalent, but rather give the meaning of the term in something more comprehensible.

I am not following you. You think "the human one" is more comprehensible that the "son of man"? The son of man was used in Ezekiel to denote a prophetic calling.
It is used in Psalm 80 with messianic implications. Do they faithfully follow the rendering "son of man" in those passages as well? I don't know,I don't have a copy of that translation. The term "son of man" had serious implications in the vernacular use in ancient Judea. Translating it as "the human one" shows either ignorance or willful neglect of what the term actually meant to the Jews.Not only does the rendering not follow the text,it also shows a neglect of consideration for the common use of the term.

[quiet dove]

I am not following you. You think "the human one" is more comprehensible that the "son of man"? The son of man was used in Ezekiel to denote a prophetic calling.
It is used in Psalm 80 with messianic implications. Do they faithfully follow the rendering "son of man" in those passages as well? I don't know,I don't have a copy of that translation. The term "son of man" had serious implications in the vernacular use in ancient Judea. Translating it as "the human one" shows either ignorance or willful neglect of what the term actually meant to the Jews.Not only does the rendering not follow the text,it also shows a neglect of consideration for the common use of the term.

There is a link in one of the first couple post that you can go check out the translation.

[BrckBrln]

I am not following you. You think "the human one" is more comprehensible that the "son of man"? The son of man was used in Ezekiel to denote a prophetic calling.
It is used in Psalm 80 with messianic implications. Do they faithfully follow the rendering "son of man" in those passages as well? I don't know,I don't have a copy of that translation. The term "son of man" had serious implications in the vernacular use in ancient Judea. Translating it as "the human one" shows either ignorance or willful neglect of what the term actually meant to the Jews.Not only does the rendering not follow the text,it also shows a neglect of consideration for the common use of the term.

Yes, the Human one is more comprehensible than Son of Man. There are whole books written on the meaning of the Son of Man. The casual reader will not understand what Son of Man means other than Jesus was a son of a man. Not very insightful. If they see that Jesus is the Human one, they will easily see that Jesus is the true Human. As I said before, this is something we should affirm not deny. I haven't read from this translation yet but I highly doubt it's purpose is to present Jesus as a mere human. Jesus' divinity does not hang on the term Son of Man.

[shepherdsword]

Yes, the Human one is more comprehensible than Son of Man. There are whole books written on the meaning of the Son of Man. The casual reader will not understand what Son of Man means other than Jesus was a son of a man. Not very insightful. If they see that Jesus is the Human one, they will easily see that Jesus is the true Human. As I said before, this is something we should affirm not deny. I haven't read from this translation yet but I highly doubt it's purpose is to present Jesus as a mere human. Jesus' divinity does not hang on the term Son of Man.

The casual reading will assume that "the human one" means that Jesus is just a man. That's what everyone is concerned about. "The son of man" is the most accurate rendering. The phrase itself has a deep meaning that is totaly lost with that translation. The fact that there are whole books written on it should tell you something. The phrase is important.

[BrckBrln]

The casual reading will assume that "the human one" means that Jesus is just a man. That's what everyone is concerned about. "The son of man" is the most accurate rendering. The phrase itself has a deep meaning that is totaly lost with that translation. The fact that there are whole books written on it should tell you something. The phrase is important.

So do you ever tell people Jesus was human? If you do, does that mean you're implying Jesus was only human? I think not. You can believe it is a bad translation but it's hardly anything close to blasphemy.

[shepherdsword]

So do you ever tell people Jesus was human? If you do, does that mean you're implying Jesus was only human? I think not. You can believe it is a bad translation but it's hardly anything close to blasphemy.

I never mention the humanity of Jesus unless I also establish his divinity.This eliminates confusion. I don't think the translation is blasphemous either,I just think it is inaccurate. It doesn't follow the greek text and doesn't reflect the cultural and vernacular meaning that Jesus was expressing when he used the term concerning himself.

[Bandit]

I think it's an honest translation in the sense that the translators believe 'the Human one' is what 'the Son of Man' means. I don't think they were trying to translate the Greek word into it's English equivalent, but rather give the meaning of the term in something more comprehensible.

And herein lies the problem for many: this has now become more of an interpretation than a translation.

[BrckBrln]

I hope, then, you two only read the original Hebrew and Greek or only the most literal of translations.

[Bandit]

Yes, I read from the most literal translations I can.

[shepherdsword]

Yes, I read from the most literal translations I can.

I do as well and refer to the original Hebrew and Greek constantly. I don't know if that makes me a "scribe" or a "pharisee. I just like to understand what God is actually saying.Sometimes it is needful to cut through the paradigms of the translators. I do know this though,the rendering of "the human one" is pretty bad,just my opinion on it. Others can see it differently even if I don't understand why.

[BrckBrln]

Then it seems the issue is not referring to Jesus as the Human one but rather a translation philosophy. Am I correct?

[Bandit]

Yes, it is all about how one "defines" translation. I would think, that as much as is possible, a good translator should refrain from taking too many interpretation liberties. The translator should avoid "interpreting" the text for the reader (which is why I don't read paraphrased bibles). It sounds to me that this new CEB is moving into the interpretation arena.