Page history
Talk: Son of Man
November 24, 2018
November 23, 2018
→This is indeed an excellent example!
+5
→Example illustrates why "as Man" is more accurate than "of Man": thanks for this insightful example
+1,611
→Example illustrates why "as Man" is more accurate than "of Man": sporting events that last only 60 seconds (or where the referees ensure that one side will win) are not interesting to atheists, so it's illogical to think they'd be interesting to God
+691
November 22, 2018
→Example illustrates why "as Man" is more accurate than "of Man"
+342
→Example illustrates why "as Man" is more accurate than "of Man"
+284
→Example illustrates why "as Man" is more accurate than "of Man"
m+3
→Example illustrates why "as Man" is more accurate than "of Man": When you watch a sporting event, would you prefer it finish in one minute, or take some real time to play out??
+656
→Example illustrates why "as Man" is more accurate than "of Man"
+543
→Example illustrates why "as Man" is more accurate than "of Man": The Son as Man spoke to all of us less than 2000 years ago, and was almost certainly the author of the since-misnamed Epistle to the Hebrews. We are all free to be in denial, b
+408
→Example illustrates why "as Man" is more accurate than "of Man"
+700
one would say "A championship was won by LeBron as a Cavalier." One would not say "A championship was won by Lebron of the Cavaliers." Likewise, "the Son as Man," not "the Son of Man."
+513
→"Son of Man" is a common mistranslation, preferred by liberals, which obscures Jesus's divinity.: this article is a testament to your ignorance
+424
→"Son of Man" is a common mistranslation, preferred by liberals, which obscures Jesus's divinity.: "The Son as man" is a better translation, and conveys divinity that the mistranslation "Son of Man" denies.
+307
→"Son of Man" is a common mistranslation, preferred by liberals, which obscures Jesus's divinity.: You are repeating a statement of which you know that it is not true. That makes you a liar. Simple as that.
+507
→"Son of Man" is a common mistranslation, preferred by liberals, which obscures Jesus's divinity.
+159
→"Son of Man" is a common mistranslation, preferred by liberals, which obscures Jesus's divinity.: "of" is merely a pedantic translation, and source confirms that it is not the best translation.
+194
→"Son of Man" is a common mistranslation, preferred by liberals, which obscures Jesus's divinity.
m-1
November 21, 2018
→"Son of Man" is a common mistranslation, preferred by liberals, which obscures Jesus's divinity.
+224
→"Son of Man" is a common mistranslation, preferred by liberals, which obscures Jesus's divinity.
-1
→"Son of Man" is a common mistranslation, preferred by liberals, which obscures Jesus's divinity.
m-3
→"Son of Man" is a common mistranslation, preferred by liberals, which obscures Jesus's divinity.
+1
→"Son of Man" is a common mistranslation, preferred by liberals, which obscures Jesus's divinity.: the source says that "of" can be used but emphasizes that there are superior options, such as "which is" or, as suggested here, "as".
+372
→"Son of Man" is a common mistranslation, preferred by liberals, which obscures Jesus's divinity.
m+87
→"Son of Man" is a common mistranslation, preferred by liberals, which obscures Jesus's divinity.: Son 'of' Man" is not a mistranslation according to your source
+754
→"Son of Man" is a common mistranslation, preferred by liberals, which obscures Jesus's divinity.
m-1
→"Son of Man" is a common mistranslation, preferred by liberals, which obscures Jesus's divinity.: see 2 Corinthians 5:5 example
+420
→"Son of Man" is a common mistranslation, preferred by liberals, which obscures Jesus's divinity.: you conflate a ''genitive object'' with an ''apposition''
+452
→"Son of Man" is a common mistranslation, preferred by liberals, which obscures Jesus's divinity.
m+2
→"Son of Man" is a common mistranslation, preferred by liberals, which obscures Jesus's divinity.: spacing for clarity
m+4
→"Son of Man" is a common mistranslation, preferred by liberals, which obscures Jesus's divinity.: the flaw in your analysis is not with the Greek, but with the English. "as" is extraordinarily versatile and conveys the meaning of the Greek the best.
+273
→"Son of Man" is a common mistranslation, preferred by liberals, which obscures Jesus's divinity.: new section
+423
April 4, 2018
March 16, 2015
→Luke 10:6: No, it does not. Following the arguments of the translators of the Common English Bible, it just makes the difference between "''a Human One''" or "''the Human One''".
+229
→Luke 10:6: The "the" ("ὁ") is what makes the big difference, requiring inclusion of "son" in the translation with a capital "S": "the Son, a man."
+202
→Luke 10:6: new section
+948
July 6, 2014
→ὁ υἱὸς τοὺ ἀνθρώπου in the rest of the CBP: add
+95
→ὁ υἱὸς τοὺ ἀνθρώπου in the rest of the CBP
-4
→ὁ υἱὸς τοὺ ἀνθρώπου in the rest of the CBP
+27
→ὁ υἱὸς τοὺ ἀνθρώπου in the rest of the CBP: r
+360
July 1, 2014
→"Son of Man": sp
-1
→"Son of Man": misrepresenting the Common English Biblie: Andy, the Common English Bible explicitly rejects your translation
+788
June 30, 2014
→"Son of Man": the Common English Bible explains that the Greek for "Son of Man" really means "characteristic of human beings." The best way to translate that today is with a comma followed b
+277
→John 6:53: How to proceed?: sp
m-2
→John 6:53: How to proceed?: answering Andy, repeating my questions.
+1,164
→ὁ υἱὸς τοὺ ἀνθρώπου in the rest of the CBP
+166
→ὁ υἱὸς τοὺ ἀνθρώπου in the rest of the CBP
+1,113
→ὁ υἱὸς τοὺ ἀνθρώπου in the rest of the CBP: sp
m+1
→ὁ υἱὸς τοὺ ἀνθρώπου in the rest of the CBP: @Aschlafly
+2,242
Undo revision 1091382 by AugustO (talk) Free speech is not a cover for talk pollution
-289