Sheshbazzar

Why don't you just look up the definition of the freaking word transliterate in a few dictionaries?
Find out what it means instead of continuing an argument from ignorance.

I am not 'claiming you are using an incorrect definition of the word transliteration' The word transliterate has a definition, and you have been repeatedly misusing it in several posts.
That you disagree as to what the word means is only an indication that you were/or are not aware of its actual meaning and application.
No I will not just call it 'word for word translating' because it is NOT.

TRANSLITERATE
to change (letters, words, etc.) into corresponding characters of another alphabet or language: to transliterate the Greek Χ as ch.

Pertinent to this thread בן־אדם is -transliterated- as bn-adm or 'ben-adam', that is not a translation of the Hebrew words, but a -transliteration-, the carrying of the original alphabet over into the receiving languages alphabet, in this case English.
The English translation of ben-adam is 'son of man'.

Now, the most prominent and repetitive usage of this phrase in the Bible is within the NT where Jesus repeatedly applies it personally with respect to himself as the being "The Son of man"
The Greek of this is ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου which -transliterated- into English is 'o huios tou anthrōpos
of which the English -translation- is "The Son of Man".

Two noteworthy things here, the phrase was conveyed directly from the Hebrew and maintained intact into the Greek LXX and NT writings.

Jesus was maintaining a textual tradition, one wherein he self-identified with Daniel 7:13 "[one] like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven" as is very evident in Matt. 26:64 "Hereafter shall ye see The Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven."

There is no possible way that the translation of 'Son of man' as 'human', 'humans' or 'humanity' could ever make any sense in any of these NT contexts.
He, himself, by his words of self identification with, and with the evidence of myrid NT texts, was himself that 'Son of Man' prophesied.

The phrase "The Son of Man" stands, the bogus 'interpretation' and false 'translation' 'humanity' falls.

Toto

Sweatpea7 is evidently using a specialized definition of transliteration used in the field of sign language interpreting, that is not used for written languages.

hjalti

What do you think about this?

Jesus says that "the son of man" has authority to forgive sins, and then the author says that this authority was given to men.

Sheshbazzar

I would think that the difference between interpreting and transliteration in sign language, would be that of providing a freely interpretive translation, as opposed to literally spelling something out letter by letter.
For normal everyday conversations the interpretive translation would be much easier.
But when dealing with critical matters, carefully spelling out would serve as safeguard against any inadvertent misunderstandings.

Actually, as I have mentioned several times before within these forums, I am nearly deaf, with perhaps only around 10% of normal hearing ability, and have had this condition for over 43 years now. I hear almost no normal level conversation at all without my hearing aid. As a result of this, there are many times and situations, particularly in matters of legal importance, where I have had to request that what was being spoken had to be written down- that is explicitly 'spelled out' so that I could be assured of correctly understanding what was that was being conveyed.
In such critical instances mere 'interpretive' translations were of little value, it being absolutely imperative that I understood exactly what it was that was being said.

As for example my exchanges with my heart surgeon two weeks ago, where a simple misunderstanding of his spoken instructions could have easily cost me my life.

sweetpea7

Sheshbazzar, transliteration can be the most appropriate form to use if interpreting for a person who has a solid knowledge of English and background knowledge of hearing American culture. Transliterating for an ASL person who has grown up in Deaf Culture would not work--especially in medical or legal situations where that culturally Deaf person will not understand the word. If I do not know German, spelling it out letter for letter in German isn't going to help me much.

I'll agree with Toto that perhaps the word transliteration takes on a different meaning with regard to written language, however, that does not mean that my points are invalid. Please address them. Thank you.

Please.

Magus55

I don't know all the translations. You'd have to look pretty far back (before the KJV ) to get a better idea.

One I found is the NRSV:

Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, 10 thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.Sodomite is translated from arsenokoites in this verse, but there is a big problem with that word. One, the origin of the word is not the same as the origin of the word "Sodom".

If we look at the KJV, the only verse that uses that word is :

Deuteronomy 23:17 There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.

The Hebrew word that translates as sodomite by the KJV is Qadesh. A qadesh is a male temple prositute who sold himself for money in pagan temples while worshipping the Caananite fertility goddesses. It correlates with the word "whore" up there, which comes from the Hebrew Qadeshah, meaning female prostitute.

Despite most Christians equating "Sodomite" with the city of "Sodom" the 2 words are entirely unrelated in origin.

So why does the KJV call a sodomite a temple prostitute, but the NRSV calls supposedly a gay person a sodomite if the English translations are accurate and consistent? I don't know about you, but I've never met a 21st Century gay guy who sells sex for money in pagan temples to Caananite gods.

But then look at the NRSV that calls "malakoi" a male prostitute in that verse. The KJV calls malakoi effeminate.

In 1522, Martin Luther translated it in German as "weaklings". Philo, in the first Century, believed Paul was using Malakoi to refer to men who remarried their former wives. And most scholars believe it refers to some form of moral weakness.

As for Arsenokoitai, depending on the English version, it has been translated as Abusers of themselves with mankind, sexual perverts, homosexual offenders, sodomites, men who lie with males, those who behave like homosexuals etc.

Keep in mind, homosexual never existed in any translation until 1958.

The New American Bible, originally translated that as homosexual practicers, but after a lot of criticism for their bad scholarship and translation, the editors deleted it and replaced it with sodomite.

The problem with Arsenokotai is, it's a bizarre, made up word with no evidence to its meaning. Up until the 4th Century, Paul and most Christians seemed to use it to refer to male prostitutes. This is in line with Corinth culture, where the most common type of male sexual behavior was boy love (pederasty) and cultic pagan sex rituals. Around the 5th and 6th Century, Greek culture started moving to Latin and westernized cultures, and among the elite, Greek understanding of obscure language began to fade, so arsenokotai lost meaning to most people. It was then arbitrarily associated with perverted and forbidden forms of sexual behavior, such as pederasty and pagan prostitution. And this of course, included certain same-sex behavior since pederasty and prostitution were common among men in Corinth.

This lost meaning of the Greek, and inaccurate association with all same-sex behavior stuck as Latin translations developed into English.

Now, with Bible publishing being a financial business, and translators sticking to tradition, most English Bibles continue to associate "arsenokotai" and "malakoi" with modern day homosexuality. And it's completely inaccurate.

sweetpea7

I agree that Jesus was maintaining a textual tradition. The problem is that the average American reader of today does not have the background knowledge to understand the meaning of that textual tradition in the way that Jesus and other contemporaries of his would have.

I have not seen any standard translation of the Bible that does not have explicitly stated 'Son of Man' in the footnotes with an explanation if the in text interpretation is different. It is an idiom. An idiom cannot be understood just by the language and the immediate context. There has to be shared cultural knowledge. Geez.

sweetpea7

So, Magus55, you are unable to produce any translation of the Bible that supports your assertion. Thank you for your response.

Magus55

Did you even read my post? The NRSV is one example. If you're going to be obnoxious and unwilling to hear what other people have to say, don't bother responding.

sweetpea7

I listed the NRSV myself in response to you earlier. I have it here in front of me. You did not answer my question. That was all I wanted.

The NRSV is not a translation that supports your assertion. The NRSV was written for standard English users of today whom understand Sodomites to mean gay men--rightly or wrongly. Going to other verses and other English translations is irrelevant to the question I asked. I did not see the reason to comment upon the rest of your post. I was not trying to be obnoxious.

I want to agree with you. I don't like that verse. I don't like a lot of verses in the Bible. That doesn't mean that that has any bearing upon what the translation should be. I was hoping that you knew of a Bible Scholar or of a translation that agreed with you. I would be happy to know of him/her and read their translation.