Mistakes or Attacks

[gb93433]

Also, you originally said that translating it as "birds of the air" as being inaccurate. Now you seem to be saying that it might be acceptable if you are trying to stay closer to the receptor language. Am I reading this right?

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.

 

[TomVols]

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

 

[Deacon]

On another thread, John of Japan responded to a question about a change, one of the modern English versions made to the Bible........
Matthew 8:20
“And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air [have] nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay [his] head.”

Matthew 8:20 Common English Bible
“Jesus replied, Foxes have dens, and the birds in the sky have nests, but the Human One has no place to lay his head.”
--------------------------------------------------
The point of this post, comes from John’s response to this change........
Quote:
“Since there is always a definite article in front of the Greek phrase, then it is a mistake to simply translate it as "Human One," which could apply to anyone. "Son of man" is uniquely meant to apply to Christ. It is a title which contrasts with "Son of God," not simply a descriptive phrase.”
Now John called this “a mistake”, when it is CLEARLY an attack upon the Deity of Christ.

--------------------------------------------------
I suggest we start calling things, what they are.

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:

The literal translation of the phrase בר אנש is “a human being” (cf. BH בן אדם “a human being,” בן עולה “a wicked person,” BA יד אנש “a human hand,” etc.). “Son of man” is a literalistic Semitism.
John E. Goldingay, vol. 30, Word Biblical Commentary : Daniel, (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 2002), 167.

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

 

[stilllearning]

Hello Deacon

For sure, I don’t know everything, but I did know that “the Son of man” was a reference to the Lord’s humanity;
Which is also a vital part of who our Lord is.

He is the Son of God, not simply “the Human One”.
--------------------------------------------------
This is in fact, a veiled attempt to take something away from who Christ is!

All this “gender natural” stuff, makes me sick: and it is simply a foot in the door of our understand, of who the Lord Jesus Christ really is.

 

[dwmoeller1]

Yes.

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.

If not, why this distinction between staying close to receptor or original language? Is one method correct while the other incorrect?

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.

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.

 

[dwmoeller1]

Hello Deacon

For sure, I don’t know everything, but I did know that “the Son of man” was a reference to the Lord’s humanity;
Which is also a vital part of who our Lord is.

He is the Son of God, not simply “the Human One”.
--------------------------------------------------
This is in fact, a veiled attempt to take something away from who Christ is!

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.

All this “gender natural” stuff, makes me sick: and it is simply a foot in the door of our understand, of who the Lord Jesus Christ really is.

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

 

[rbell]

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

Since when has dishonesty ever stopped stilllearning before?

He seems to revel in it.

 

[rbell]

I suggest we start calling things, what they are.

OK.

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

There.

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

 

[Mexdeaf]

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.

 

[sag38]

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.

 

[John of Japan]

Sarcasm ALERT!!!!! That must mean that John of Japan is soft on the deity of Christ...

End ALERT

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

 

[John of Japan]

On another thread, John of Japan responded to a question about a change, one of the modern English versions made to the Bible........
Matthew 8:20
“And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air [have] nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay [his] head.”

Matthew 8:20 Common English Bible
“Jesus replied, Foxes have dens, and the birds in the sky have nests, but the Human One has no place to lay his head.”
--------------------------------------------------
The point of this post, comes from John’s response to this change........

Now John called this “a mistake”, when it is CLEARLY an attack upon the Deity of Christ.
--------------------------------------------------
I suggest we start calling things, what they are.

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?

 

[stilllearning]

Hello sag38

You said......

“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.”

I have never said anything about a verse, “destroying Jesus' validity”;
But I have warned about the Lord’s true identity being attacked.

Also, in these last days, a little paranoia might be a good thing to have.

 

[Rippon]

Regarding Conspiracy Paranoia

Also, in these last days, a little paranoia might be a good thing to have.

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)

 

[stilllearning]

Hi John

I have been waiting for you to weigh in, on this thread, because I have been using your quotes, to make my point.
(I was very careful to use your complete quotes, so as not to be misquoting you.)

I apologize, if this offended you.
--------------------------------------------------
You asked......

“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?”

The Lord Jesus Christ, is a unique individual, in the fact that He is both God and man simultaneously.
Therefore an “attack” upon “His humanity”, is an attack upon all that He is, including His deity.

Passages like this, explain my point..........
1 John 4:1-3
V.1 ¶ Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
V.2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
V.3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that [spirit] of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

2 John 1:7-9
V.7 ¶ For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
V.8 Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward.
V.9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.

These passages demonstrate how intertwined the Lord’s two natures are;
To the point, that an attack upon ANY PART of who Jesus is, is an attack upon “the doctrine of Christ”.

Therefore I call it, “an attack upon the Deity of Christ”, because it really is.

Someone who starts off, attacking His humanity, has opened the door, to attack His Deity.

 

[stilllearning]

Good morning Rippon

Here is the context, of the verse that you used:
And it surprisingly hits the nail(of this thread), on the head.........

Isaiah 8:11-13
V.11 For the LORD spake thus to me with a strong hand, and instructed me that I should not walk in the way of this people, saying,
V.12 Say ye not, A confederacy, to all [them to] whom this people shall say, A confederacy; neither fear ye their fear, nor be afraid.
V.13 Sanctify the LORD of hosts himself; and [let] him [be] your fear, and [let] him [be] your dread.

In other words, follow the LORD, not the crowd.

The Lord tells me(just as He told Isaiah), not to care if everyone on this board disagrees with me, as long as I am following Him and His Word.

 

[dwmoeller1]

Hi John

I have been waiting for you to weigh in, on this thread, because I have been using your quotes, to make my point.
(I was very careful to use your complete quotes, so as not to be misquoting you.)

I apologize, if this offended you.
--------------------------------------------------
You asked......


The Lord Jesus Christ, is a unique individual, in the fact that He is both God and man simultaneously.
Therefore an “attack” upon “His humanity”, is an attack upon all that He is, including His deity.

Passages like this, explain my point..........
1 John 4:1-3
V.1 ¶ Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
V.2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
V.3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that [spirit] of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

2 John 1:7-9
V.7 ¶ For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
V.8 Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward.
V.9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.

These passages demonstrate how intertwined the Lord’s two natures are;
To the point, that an attack upon ANY PART of who Jesus is, is an attack upon “the doctrine of Christ”.

Therefore I call it, “an attack upon the Deity of Christ”, because it really is.

Someone who starts off, attacking His humanity, has opened the door, to attack His Deity.

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.

 

[John of Japan]

Hi John

I have been waiting for you to weigh in, on this thread, because I have been using your quotes, to make my point.
(I was very careful to use your complete quotes, so as not to be misquoting you.)

I apologize, if this offended you.

I'm not offended, just puzzled.

You asked......


The Lord Jesus Christ, is a unique individual, in the fact that He is both God and man simultaneously.
Therefore an “attack” upon “His humanity”, is an attack upon all that He is, including His deity.

Passages like this, explain my point..........
1 John 4:1-3
V.1 ¶ Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
V.2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
V.3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that [spirit] of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

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

2 John 1:7-9
V.7 ¶ For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
V.8 Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward.
V.9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.

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.

These passages demonstrate how intertwined the Lord’s two natures are;
To the point, that an attack upon ANY PART of who Jesus is, is an attack upon “the doctrine of Christ”.

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.

Therefore I call it, “an attack upon the Deity of Christ”, because it really is.

Someone who starts off, attacking His humanity, has opened the door, to attack His Deity.

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.

 

[stilllearning]

Hi dwmoeller1

You asked......

“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.”

Thank you for this question.

You are asking me to explain how, changing the words of the Bible, from “Son of man” to “Human One” is an attack upon the Lord’s humanity.

Well, sure enough calling someone “human”, is establishing their humanity, but in my understanding of Jesus Christ, I see Him as “Human” not just “human”.

I would love to get into a discussion of the kind of blood that was flowing through His body, but that would surly derail this tread.
--------------------------------------------------
Your question has caused me to reflect, as to why I started this thread; And the reason that comes to mind, seems to be “my respect for God’s Word”.

I value the Bible so highly, that I personally see a change to God’s word like this, as an attack upon Jesus(He is the Word).
Others may not see it that way, but I do.
--------------------------------------------------
Also the suggestion by you and others, that I am being intellectually dishonest, is without merit.

Intellectual dishonesty, involves the “omission” of facts or Scripture that disagree with my position.
I have not done that.
--------------------------------------------------
I am truly seeking to “learn”, but not at the expense of Scriptural integrity.

 

[stilllearning]

Hello again John

I truly appreciate your “kind, Biblical rebuke”.

You responded to my statement.....

An attack upon ANY PART of who Jesus is, is an attack upon “the doctrine of Christ”.

And you said......

“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.”

Well lets take another look at 2 John 1:7-9.......
V.7 ¶ For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
V.8 Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward.
V.9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.

It talks about “deceivers”, who say that Jesus Christ did not come in the flesh.
(In other words, that Jesus was not God, because they say that “God can not be in human flesh”.)

Now, this is an attack upon “the Humanity of Christ”.

Then in V.9 this passage says.......
“Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God.”

The context of this passage, seems to disagree with your statement that an attack upon the humanity of Christ, is not an attack on the “Doctrine of Christ”.
------------------------
Also you quoted me........

“Someone who starts off, attacking His humanity, has opened the door, to attack His Deity.”

And you said.....

“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.”

The door that was opened, was an attack upon “Doctrine of Christ”!
By attacking the Humanity of Christ, they are attacking the Doctrine of Christ, which in fact is attacking the Deity of Christ.

Who is Christ?
Was Christ the man that walked in Israel 2000 years ago?

Well that Christ, was in Human Flesh!
So an attack upon His Humanity, is an attack upon His Deity!