Featured Will you Supprt Inclusive Language 2020 Nasb?

You are absolutely wrong , as usual. And your constant use of exclamation marks for just about anything you say does not add any more weight to your nonsense claims.

 

I have explained myself repeatedly on this subject. You have amnesia.

 

You are wrong as can be. What's new?

 

You're being blasphemous.

 

Your disordered mind is jumping all around. You were referencing Psalms and Hebrews earlier. And like usual you don't bother to give references.

I hope you have figured out that you are not the Holy Spirit by now.

 

It did such a poor job of "disconnecting Jesus from the Son of Man" that it didn't do it at all.

 

Martin, I was just looking at this yesterday. I agree that the change obscures the Messianic prophecy of Psalm 8:4-5. Hebrews 2:5-9 quotes Psalm 8:4-5 and shows its prophetic nature. Leaving “son of man” in Psalm 8 allows for a reference to human beings as well as the Lord, while using “human beings” obscures the reference to the Lord. I thought this even more curious when I noticed the footnote in Daniel 8:17: “The Hebrew phrase ben adam means human being. The phrase son of man is retained as a form of address here because of its possible association with ‘Son of Man’ in the New Testament.” Here they give a Messianic reason for retaining “son of man.” Though the note here gives the “form of address” reasoning, they also retain “son of man” in Daniel 7:13, where it is not a form of address. Altogether, I thought it interesting that they let the New Testament understanding enter into the translation decision in Daniel, but not in Psalm 8. Son of man is a correct translation of ben adam, even if one argues it can be something else.

 

In the following essay by D.A. Carson in his The Limits of Functional Equivalence in Bible Translation he refers to the TNIV. The 2011 NIV had not yet been published. But the points he makes are still relevant.
"The charge is made that the TNIV obscures the quotation from Ps. 8:4, mistranslates three words by turning them into plurals, and loses the messianic plication of 'son of man' to Jesus Christ. I have probably said enough about the use of the plural. Whether the TNIV obscures the connection with Ps. 8:4, will depend a bit on how it translates which has not been published. The serious charge, in my view, is that this loses the messianic application to Jesus Christ. Yet here, too, the charge is less than fair. The expression 'son of man' in the Old Testament can have powerful messianic overtones, of course (see Daniel 7:13,14), but it is far from being invariable: about eighty times it is used as a form of address to the prophet Ezekiel, without any messianic overtone whatsoever. So whether the expression has messianic content or not must be argued, not merely asserted. In Psalm 8, the overwhelming majority of commentators see the expression as a gentilic, parallel to the Hebrew for 'man' in the preceding line. 9Incidentally, gentilic nouns in Hebrew are often singular in form but plural in referent --which may also address the indignation over the shift to the plural.) In the context of the application of Psalm 8:4 to Jesus in Hebrews 2, one should at least recognize that the nature of the application to Jesus is disputed. Scanning my commentaries on Hebrews (I have about forty of them), over three-quarters of them do not think that 'son of man' here functions as a messianic title but simply as a gentilic, as in Psalm 8. If this exegesis is correct (and I shall argue elsewhere and at length that it is), Jesus is said to be 'son of man,' not in function the messianic force of that title in Daniel 7:13-14, but in function of his becoming a human being --which all sides recognize is one of the major themes of Hebrews 2. If one wishes to take the opposite tack --that 'son of man' here is a messianic title --there are competent interpreters who have taken that line. But it is not a matter of theological orthodoxy, since understanding the text one way does not mean that the translator (or the commentator) is denying the complementary truth but is merely asserting that the complementary truth is not in view here."

 

Continuing with D.A. Carson's article :

"One could even imagine a more subtle argument, one with which I would have some sympathy : It is possible to see in 'son of man' in Psalm 8:4 a gentilic, rightly preserved in Hebrews 2, and then wonder if, owing to the frequency of 'son of man' as a messianic title in the Synoptic Gospels, early Christian ears might have picked up an additional overtone, without reading a messianic interpretation into the entire passage. This is possible, though hard to prove. The possibility could be accommodated by a footnote cue after 'human beings' in the TNIV, the footnote itself reading "Or, 'son of man.' [which the TNIV did -Rippon2] But at the level of actual translation, it is difficult to find legitimate reasons for condemning the TNIV rendering in such absolutist terms."