Nas What is man that You take thought of him,
And the son of man that You care for him?
Nkjv What is man that You are mindful of him,
And the son of man that You him?
Any wonder we prefer more formal translations?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The Problem with Dynamic Equivalence
- Thread starter Martin Marprelate
- Start date
- Status
And the son of man that You care for him?
Nkjv What is man that You are mindful of him,
And the son of man that You him?
Any wonder we prefer more formal translations?
1 Timothy 2:12
NIV : "I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet."'
Paul is saying he does not permit or allow a woman to teach. She is not to assume authority over a man. That is she is not allowed to exercise authority over a man. She is not to supplant a man's position or place of authority. She is not to take it upon herself to take his role.
BDAG: "To assume a stance of independent authority, give orders to, dictate to."
The KJV renders it as 'usurp' which pretty much means the same thing as assume.
So, to summarize: Paul is telling us that a woman can't teach or have authority over a man. She is to remain quiet.
Are we clear here?
NIV : "I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet."'
Paul is saying he does not permit or allow a woman to teach. She is not to assume authority over a man. That is she is not allowed to exercise authority over a man. She is not to supplant a man's position or place of authority. She is not to take it upon herself to take his role.
BDAG: "To assume a stance of independent authority, give orders to, dictate to."
The KJV renders it as 'usurp' which pretty much means the same thing as assume.
So, to summarize: Paul is telling us that a woman can't teach or have authority over a man. She is to remain quiet.
Are we clear here?
Is there any wonder why you can't understand plain English?
I take the time to explain, again, and whoosh, it's like you can't take in English basics.
The Nas states it as not allowing a women to teach, or to exercise authority over a man, seems to be stronger language...
I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. (NIV)
But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. (NASB)
I would argue that the NIV seems more forceful. "She must be quiet" vs. "But to remain quiet".
Either way, it would be an over reach. Both translations have the same exact meaning.
Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk
NKJV. What is man that you are mindful of him, or the son of man that You visit [or 'give attention to,' or 'care for'] him?
The NKJV is obviously better because Hebrews 2:6 quotes it with reference to the Lord Jesus (v.9).
I think you'll find that it is you who is not interested in learning. You are as entitled to be wrong as anyone else, but the serious point is that readers of the proper translations are allowed to decide for themselves whether 'Son of man' refers to Christ. The ragbag of renderings that you have quoted above prevent the reader from finding Christ in the text. The Son of Man Himself said, "These are [the Scriptures] that testify of Me" (John 5:39). 'And beginning at Moses and the prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself' (Luke 24:27). We should always look to find Christ in the Scriptures. How dare these translations keep their readers from finding the Saviour to satisfy a bunch of feminists who don't believe in Him anyway?
I don't have those versions.
Our brother Rippon really disagrees that there was ANY christian feminist agendas behind the new translations, but they does indeed seem to be a concerted effort to "Demasculinize" the Bible!
And Jesus Himself stated as you said, that He to be found in the OT scriptures, so would trust His view over some contemporary translations!
Brother Rippon posted what the niv stated on those verses, what do you think?
In Ezekiel the term son of man is used more than 80 times. It has no reference to Christ.
Don't let your zeal overwhelm common sense and decency. This has nothing to do with a feminist plot. You and Y1 are a bit zany for saying such things repeatedly.
" Psalm 8, both in its Old Testament context and in its context in Hebrews, is about God's intention for humanity. Jesus fulfills this destiny by acting as the true human representative. The plural references in both Psalm 8:4 and Hebrews 2:6-8 capture this sense well." (Fee and Strauss)
"These quoted verses from Psalm 8 refer to mankind, not to the Messiah, who is not mentioned in the Hebrews passage until verse 9. In verses 6-8 we see God's planned destiny for mankind in general." (John MacArthur)
Three out of four commentaries on Hebrews do not think that the term 'son of man' functions as a Messianic title.
So you are saying that you have never stated that my view concernng Christian feminism creeping over into Bible translations was wrong?
You think that because you don't understand what 'Son of man means. I can explain it if you want.
It's not so much a feminist plot as translators and Bible publishers kow-towing before a feminist zeitgeist.
A. W. Pink on the subject: 'Now that which is of first importance for us to observe is the use which the Apostle here makes of the Saviour's glorification. The exultation of Jesus is both the proof and the pledge of the coming exaltation of His redeemed. The prophecy of Psa. 8 has already begun to receive its fulfilment. The crowning of Jesus with honour and gloryis the ground and guarantee of all His people. Christ has entered heaven as the "Firstfruits," the earnest of the coming harvest. He passed within the veil as the "Forerunner" (Heb. 6:20), so that there must be others to follow.'
John Brown's commentary on Hebrews also sees Psalm 8 speaking of Christ, and so does Dale Ralph Davis in his exposition of the Psalm. I haven't looked at Spurgeon yet. But that is not the point! The point is that it is the duty of the translator to translate what is there, not what he thinks ought to be there. That is the difference between us. I am not asking translators to point me to Christ-- the Holy Spirit has done that. I am asking them not deliberately to obscure Christ and hide Him from me.
Jesus keep pointing back to the Hebrew OT Son of man as Him being foreshadowed, so why would we want the translators to not agree with Him on this issue?
I said that the term son of man is used more than in 80 times in the book of Ezekiel and is not referencing Christ. Do you dispute that?
A distinction without a difference. It's your fantasy boogieman.
Do you think john MacArthur and D.A. Carson subscribe to your nonsense conspiracy? If so you are wacko.
The point is --you have no point. Your reasoning is like that of a KJVO.
The translators that you so often demean are honoring the Word of God and honest in their attempt at translation.
You are simply throwing mud.
You are zany.
In past threads I have quoted from the 2011 NIV
1 Cor. 11:3, 7-9
Col. 3:18
1 Tim. 2:11-13
1 Peter 2:1,5, 7
You made no comment on any of those verses. There is no feminist plot in any of them. There is no blurring of gender roles. There is nothing in your absurd charges that you have made over the past 96 months regarding the NIV. You make stuff up constantly. But a lie is still a lie no matter how many times you repeat it. A Christian is not to lie --but you do. And you seem to enjoy the practice. You relish the opportunity to engage in falsehood as often as possible with no hint that you feel any shame.
Well worth repeating. Y1 cannot bear the thought of dealing with actual content.
Tell me the passages above as rendered in the NIV support your wild-eyed contentions.
Can't do it? Then don't manufacture lies in the first place.
Below is a snip of what albert Barnes had to say about the term son of man in Psalm 8.
"Any descendant of man --any one of the race. What was man, as he was originally made, that such exalted honor should have been conferred on him; and what has any one of his descendants become, in virtue of his native faculties or acquired endowments, that he should be thus honored? ….there was nothing in man, considered in any respect, that entitled him to this exalted name."
"Any descendant of man --any one of the race. What was man, as he was originally made, that such exalted honor should have been conferred on him; and what has any one of his descendants become, in virtue of his native faculties or acquired endowments, that he should be thus honored? ….there was nothing in man, considered in any respect, that entitled him to this exalted name."
Don't look for Him when He is not there.
For some examples in the KJV and NKJV it says in the book of Mark that He came into Capernaum, but based on the best documentation they came into that city. (9:33)
See also 11:19 where your favorite version has He, but it should read they went out of the city.
Jesus tied Himself into the OT prophecies of the Son of Man, so why would we try to exclude Him from being there?
- Status