Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

...As to your 'points', as has been clearly expressed in multiple posts, you are trying to peddle something that I am simply not buying;

'humanity' is not the equivelent of, nor a correct 'translation' or 'interpretation' of the phrase 'The Son of Man', and it never will be even if you compose thousands of pages of arguments.

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by avi

Thanks.
In my opinion, you were not verbose. Your detailed explanation, with a description of work in the courts was very well stated. thank you.

Umm, however, I must say, I really disagree, profoundly, with your approach.

Problem 1: Rose colored spectacles. If one does not provide at least, BOTH the literal translation, AND a subsequent interpretation, perhaps in the vernacular, then one risks imposing upon the scenario, one's own ideas, instead of faithfully communicating the original intent.

problem 2: passage of time. hjalti gave us a dozen illustrations of literal English translations, which obviously made no sense, to illustrate the necessity of avoiding absolutely literal translations. Thanks, hjalti. well done, but, this idea will inevitably lead to a huge error, ultimately, because the context is essential for any idiom to have meaning. We don't appreciate the context of the ancient text. We must translate the text literally, and if it appears awkward, clumsy, or unintelligible, then, we need to accompany the literal translation with notes, as spin suggested, two pages ago.

Those notes, over time, will themselves become archaic, and unintelligible.

The goal of ANY translation, is to find clarity. Sheshbazzar's insistence on accuracy and fidelity is not misplaced, but right on target. The Christians and Muslims have both altered the original Hebrew text to fit their own agendas. The OP focused on a new translation, which once again, dilutes, alters, and changes the meaning by mistranslating "son of man" as human.

It may be true, though I vigorously dispute it, that the phrase "son of man" is today regarded as synonymous with "human", but I am of the opinion, that one must not assume that the ancient Hebrews thought that.

"son of" anything, implies heredity, obviously an important issue in the old testament. Human simply refers to any person, without regard to ancestry. Heredity is of minimal or decreased importance in a society with genetic cloning, and single parents giving birth after artificial insemination. It was, in my opinion, not a trivial matter, in an ancient tribal society with laws directed according to one's heredity--sperm of david--> messiah.



As I mentioned earlier, in reply to Toto, this topic is about mistranslation, not oral communication. I have no idea what ancient Jews talked about, or did not talk about. Taboos are common in ancient society. I am commenting on a systematic attempt to forge the ancient texts, to conform to theological goals, and I illustrate that attempt, by citing this mistranslation from Ezekiel 1:3, which translates the tetragramon as kurios, though the proper translation, into Greek, is theos.



1. ancient: I am writing this message, Toto, on an ancient computer, one that is ten years old. The property of ancientness, is based not upon an actual time, but on a relative consideration.

2. Dura Europos:
Clark Hopkins, page 192, describes the stone relief, not a temple, called Zeus Kyrios.


I am sorry, Toto, but, in my opinion, no stone mason wrote anno domini 31, in the year CE 31.

This is either a forgery, or a fraud, or, perhaps a simple translation error by Hopkins, with the actual date given according to some other reference, and then translated by Hopkins as a.d. 31. The fact that Hopkins reports the date as a.d. 31, leads one to suspect whether or not he may have erred as well, in writing Zeus kyrios.... If it really is engraved, or chiseled, I would then ask, what is that actual date of composition, and is this person, who is chiseling in both Aramaic and Greek, perhaps reflecting his/her Aramaic mother language?

A little further down the same page, 192:
avi

Originally Posted by Iskander

Ezekiel was written in Hebrew and English speakers should be using an English translation from Hebrew. Why are you using a Greek word when speaking of Ezekiel?

Originally Posted by avi

Thanks, Iskander. I acknowledge the correctness of your comment, and will try to answer your question.

The OP is discussing a new translation of the Bible. The initial focus concerned the proper translation (and, as Sheshbazzar has brilliantly elucidated, proper here, means both accurate and literal) for Ezekiel 2:1. Arguments focused on the proper interpretation of the Hebrew phrase "son of man".

I suggested, perhaps improperly, that one could observe errors in translation even before modern times (as the OP was focused on a new translation).
I referenced a passage in Ezekiel, one verse earlier, i.e. 1:2, where we read, in Hebrew, Yahweh, aka tetragrammaton.

Several English translations present yahweh from Ezekiel 1:2, (in my opinion completely wrong) as lord, instead of god. I claim that this error dates from the dates of Greek Christian interference, using kyrios, instead of theos.

Toto has suggested that I err, and DCHindley has kindly explained further details to explain Clark Hopkins comments. I lack time to properly respond, today, will try again next week, if time permits:

Here is a description of the major city nearby Dura Europos: Palmyra

avi

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

I'll offer here a few of The New Testement verses containing the phrase " 'o huios tou anthrōpos", which has been translated into the English language since the inception of the first hand written English language Bible's in the 1380s as "The SON of man".

However to show the 'problem' with the 'translation '<sic> 'humanity' (or 'human') being used as a 'Modern English 'interpretation' in place of the long standing phrase "Son of man", I'll provide these NT quotations substituting the desired "humanity" as a 'translation' of the actual phrase employed.

I'll note here that this promoted "new version" dubbed as being 'The Common English Bible' has according to the link in the OP not yet been released , so I as yet have not been able to determine how it does translate any of these NT verses.

My arguments thus far have principally dealt with what I believe to be a serious imposition upon the correct presentation of the OT (TaNaKa) text by obscuring and/or eliminating the phrase "The SON of man".
My opponent wants 'humanity' as the translation of the phrase, so I'll herewith oblige, and allow each reader to judge the results.
I'll postpone further any comments until latter.
The first verse this phrase occurs in the NT is;





Are any of these correct translations, and consistent with the contexts that they occur within in the texts of Matthew?
Does 'humanity' stand the test as being a correct Modern English translation, equivelent to the phrase "The SON of man"?

You know my answer.
(I gotta admit though, a few do come out pretty damn peceptive as to the wokings of religion, and the human condition )