Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit, rollback
5,023
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 60:
Line 60: + + + + + +
→Personal opinion of Andrew Schlafly
::::You ask lots of questions, but I don't recalling seeing you answer the basic issue: "the Son of Man" is meaningless in English. Some translations use a capital "m" for man, while others use a small "m", which shows the phrase is an erroneous one in English.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:47, 24 June 2014 (EDT)
::::You ask lots of questions, but I don't recalling seeing you answer the basic issue: "the Son of Man" is meaningless in English. Some translations use a capital "m" for man, while others use a small "m", which shows the phrase is an erroneous one in English.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:47, 24 June 2014 (EDT)
:::::*Yes, there are errors in the KJB. BTW, I'd even add John 9:35... But show me the verses on which almost every English version agrees - and where all of the are wrong!
:::::*If you take the phrase for itself, it seems to be counterintuitive. But Jesus has described himself over and over again as "Son of Man/man", and his Jewish listeners would have drawn the conclusion that this is just ''one'' aspect of his person, implying the other aspect, "Son of God". But this is an interpretation - it should not be put into the translation.
:::::*m vs. M: you are reaching: the KJV generally uses,e.g. no majuscules for personal pronouns. "Son of Man" is just more polite than "Son of man"
:::::*Yes, I ask a lot of questions - [[Talk:E=mc^2|because I get so few answers]].
:::::--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:15, 24 June 2014 (EDT)