Iskander

Only if one likes the results

spin

Interestingly, "clans" is an inference, as much as "village", for the Hebrew just means "thousands".

There is a conflict for any translator which involves rendering the words used and the intended idea of the writer. If you translated "pain in the butt" ("He's a real pain in the butt") based on the individual words or would you try to capture the idea? It's a conflict between over-literal and over-interpretative. The first misses the idea and the second distorts it.

What is the writer referring to with Bethlehem Ephrathah? It is an example according to the text of what "thousands" refers to.

This last depends on the text tradition!

Byzantine has:
[T2]εν ανθρωποις ευδοκια
to men good will/to men of favor[/T2]

Alexandrian has:
[T2]εν ανθρωποις ευδοκιας
to men of good-will/to favored men[/T2]

The final sigma makes all the difference.

I don't think this one will matter much for modern translations. See Lk 2:14.

spin

Think about how the adjective "wonderful" might be used in the original statement, given the context of what came before it. (Shakes head.)

avi

Question: Does Dale Martin, or whoever wrote the "Jewish Study Bible", possibly have an axe to grind?

Son of man

Human

Deity

Which is it? Ezekiel 2:1 is best translated, exactly as Sheshbazzar has written: son of man.

"Son of" implies, just as Arius taught, that there was once a time when Jesus did not exist. The vocabulary is rich. There was no need to write "son of", if the author intended to convey the simple notion: human being. So, then, we must ask:

WHY do so many folks seek to misrepresent the original text, by writing "human", instead of "son of man"? In my opinion, the explanation of various folks and editions, asserting equality of meaning, between "human" and "son of man" is linked back to the cause of Nicea: monotheism versus trinitarianism.

The desire to refute Arius, is what, in my opinion, has led so many to insist that Ezekiel 2:1 is best translated ambiguously as "human", instead of precisely, "son of man".

Can we all agree that no orthodox Christian can accept the idea that JC is less than equal with God? Then, does it not follow, from that general point of agreement, that JC must not be regarded as son of man. By writing "human" instead of "son of man", one eliminates the controversy surrounding Jesus' ancestry.

Hebrew: yahweh/adonai

Greek: theos/kyrios

English: god/lord

Adonai/kyrios/lord is a human title, in each of the three languages. Application of this title to a deity is both disrespectful, and illogical, because the same application can be employed for mere humans--> normal creatures, not supernatural, omniscient, omnipotent deities. In contrast, no human can be called yahweh/theos/god. This title, in each language, is reserved for deities, not humans.

By replacing yahweh with kyrios, in LXX, as found in Codex Sinaiticus, one seeks, in my opinion, to elevate the stature of JC (the "lord") by degrading the status of yahweh--> theos, so that both JC and yahweh are described as lord.

If the Christian bible were logical, consistent, and accurate, it would present JC as theos, in every instance, but, instead, the Greek authors wrote kyrios, because, in my opinion, they did not regard JC as a deity, but as a mere human, i.e. a man born of a woman, born according to the law, in the words of "Paul". Since, subsequently, i.e. post Constantine, JC became God, then, it was necessary to change the LXX, as well, to be in harmony with the (clumsily revised) Gospels.

This distinction, easily seen in Ezekiel 1:3, is parallel to the current problem with the translation: "son of man"

Does the Hebrew text read Yahweh, or adonai?

היה היה דבר־יהוה אל־יחזקאל בן־בוזי הכהן בארץ כשדים על־נהר־כבר ותהי עליו שם יד־יהוה׃


The Latin Vulgate has "domini", lord, not god.

The Greek similarly has "kyrios", lord, not god.

καὶ ἐγένετο λόγος κυρίου πρὸς ιεζεκιηλ υἱὸν βουζι τὸν ἱερέα ἐν γῇ χαλδαίων ἐπὶ τοῦ ποταμοῦ τοῦ χοβαρ καὶ ἐγένετο ἐπ' ἐμὲ χεὶρ κυρίου

In other words, there has been a consistent pattern of deliberate mistranslation, for a very long time, going back, at least, to the era of issuance of the 50 bibles by Constantine, with widespread changes made to LXX.

The current effort to confound translation of "son of man", the literal text, with the more ambiguous, less precise, word "human" is part and parcel of an ancient tradition, one that has its roots in the very origin of the church.

avi

hjalti

Micah 5:2

I think it is mr. Bethlehem Ephrathah.

But doesn't is sometimes clearly mean something like clan? E.g. Judges 6:15

I don't know of any such case where thousand refers to a village.

So, if clan isn't necessarily the right translation, wouldn't you agree that "village" (or something similar) is a bad one, and probably just doing it to make it fit with the NT?

Right, and some translations might choose the worse tradition here, because it has a nicer ring to it, and it might not be relevant to most modern translations, but the translation I use (the Icelandic one ) has the Byzantine one, despite knowing that it is probably not the original one.

Iskander

What came before?

Iskander

The translation of ben adam is son of Adam. Son of man is already an interpretation.
Son of man is an idiotic translation which has created confusion among the reasonable people.
.

Iskander

Luke 2:14, glory to god, is also a hymn with the Latin title of, Gloria in excelsis Deo

You can find it here. Enjoy!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBi2ULZAFIY

spin

You need to ask. (Shakes head again.)

Iskander

Yes