Mistakes or Attacks

[jbh28]

Hello robycop3

You said........

Why not?

The verse was originally translated into English.......
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.”

The word “Son”, is translated from the Greek word “hwee-os’”(male offspring);
And the word “man” comes from the Greek word “anth’-ro-pos”(a human being).

Yet in their Bible they changed it to “Human One”!

What other reason could their be for this change, but to try and take something away from Christ or our understanding of Him?
--------------------------------------------------
Now I am not “worked up” about this at all, because it’s par for the course, when it comes to the Modern English versions.

And although I am unsure exactly what kind of an "attack" this is, it is an attack, because it is so blatant, that it can’t be a simple "mistake".

That's a difference between the dynamic and formal equivalence. Personally, I prefer the more literal rendering, but the question was is it an attack on Jesus. I'm still not seeing how it's an attack. What part of Christ is it attacking? His humanity? His deity? If either, how?

 

[Mexdeaf]

That's a difference between the dynamic and formal equivalence. Personally, I prefer the more literal rendering, but the question was is it an attack on Jesus. I'm still not seeing how it's an attack. What part of Christ is it attacking? His humanity? His deity? If either, how?

Let's call it what I believe SL sees it as- an "attack" on the KJV.

 

[dwmoeller1]

Yet in their Bible they changed it to “Human One”!

Which the translators believe better represents what they hold is an idiom. If they are correct, then translating it as such is perfectly fine. It doesn't affect the doctrine of Christ in any way that I can see.

What other reason could their be for this change, but to try and take something away from Christ or our understanding of Him?

They gave their reason and it was posted on the other thread. Its a reason which has nothing to do with taking away from Christ or our understanding of Him. Furthermore, you have yet to explain how you even see it as an attack on Christ's nature.

And although I am unsure exactly what kind of an "attack" this is, it is an attack, because it is so blatant, that it can’t be a simple "mistake".

Its blatant only if you ignore the reasoning they give. And since no one (even you as far as I can tell) can determine exactly how it is an attack on Christ's nature, I can see no reason to say it is. Calling a change like this an attack w/o some sound reason and basing your estimation purely on a change that you don't like is unsound reasoning. Try to understand first the reasons they give and work from there. If you can determine that their reasons are w/o any foundation, then maybe we can start talking about an "attack". Otherwise you seem to be leaping to unwarranted and fallacious conclusions over this. More intellectually honest to say simply "I don't understand why they did that."

 

[dwmoeller1]

My bible has the definite article in there.

Its not in the Greek though. Thats the key. Some English translations add it (as they add lots of words - just go through a KJV and see how many words are italicized) to make it more clear. Since the Greek has no article where one would expect it in the English reading, an article gets added and which one is up to the best estimation of the particular translator.