| Line 83: |
Line 83: |
| | | | |
| | --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:25, 24 June 2014 (EDT) | | --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:25, 24 June 2014 (EDT) |
| | + | == Menschensohn == |
| | + | |
| | + | I grew up with Luther's powerful ''Menschensohn'' ("Son of Man") - perhaps that's why I'm fond of it. Have you read my last comment at [[Talk:Son of Man]], where you liked "Father who you are in heaven" to "Son of Man"? '''tl;dr: this comparison is absolutely wrong and shows a staggering lack of knowledge about Greek grammar.''' I'm still hoping that you intended it as a joke/test, but your last edits to [[John 1-7 (Translated)]] cast doubt on this view. |
| | + | |
| | + | Please, before you carry on this dangerous path of bending the text of the Bible according to your "''insights''", rethink your position! Discuss these edits with other people who have Greek, it is nearly impossible to get the grip of a language on your own! Listen not only into your heard, but to others! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:49, 26 June 2014 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | + | Andy, when you are asked the question "what's two times two", and you answer "2+2=5", you have given an answer, but not settled the problem. '''Claiming that "πατρὸς ὑμῶν τοῦ ἐν οὐρανοῖς" is like "ὁ υἱὸς τοὺ ἀνθρώπου" is the grammatical equivalent to the statement "2+2=5".''' At the moment, I see nothing which justifies your unprecedented approach! ''Unprecedented'', ''novel'', and ''new'' are pejoratives in this context, as the purpose of speech is to be understood by your audience, and not only by a single man in billions a couple of hundred years later. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 03:07, 27 June 2014 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | + | ===John 6:53: How to proceed? === |
| | + | Andy, you propose to translate "ὁ υἱὸς τοὺ ἀνθρώπου" as ''"the Son, a human being" or (including the obvious implication) "the Son of God, His human being."'' I think that this translation is not only problematic, but outright wrong: |
| | + | *You have failed to come up with a similar genitive which is generally translated in a parallel way. Why is this important? Because if it is a novel, unprecedented, unique grammatical expression, there is no chance that a listener or reader understands this in this novel, unprecedented, unique way! |
| | + | *straightforward genitives of possession work in English and Greek in a similar way: a reader or listener of the English "the Son of Man" should be able to draw conclusions similar to his Greek counterpart when reading or hearing "ὁ υἱὸς τοὺ ἀνθρώπου" |
| | + | *Biblical Greek knows and uses appositions, though it lacks a comma - Ἰωάνης ὁ Βαπτίζων springs to my mind (Mark 6:14) |
| | + | *the Bible uses the parallel phrase ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ "The Son of God" quite often, but should this be translated as "the Son, a God"? Similarly, ὁ υἱὸς τῆς Μαρίας "The Son, a Mary? |
| | + | *I [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Son_of_Man&diff=1090584&oldid=1090555 explained in detail] how your example of υἱοὶ τοῦ Πατρὸς ὑμῶν '''τοῦ''' ἐν οὐρανοῖς- or better Πάτερ ἡμῶν '''ὁ''' ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς - is a very different grammatical composition. |
| | + | *If the implication "of God" is obvious in Greek, it should be obvious in English, too - and thus, there is no need to make it explicit, and add words to the Bible. |
| | + | I know that I'm a thorn in your thigh - call it quality control. But how do you wish to proceed? '''Will you just ignore these points, stick to you dubious translation, and just revert any correction to [[John 1-7 (Translated)]]?''' Heck, you don't have to edit the page yourself, as there will always be editors without any knowledge of the subject who defer to your status as an expert on Greek and who therefore are willing to keep the page in your preferred state! |
| | + | In my opinion, this is a disservice to the users of this encyclopedia: you are using the authority of Conservapedia to uphold a claim which is made just by a single man - a fact you seemingly try to hide. Yes, majorities are often wrong. Even overwhelming majorities. But it is disingenuous to try to hide the fact that there is a overwhelming majority, well, a nearly unanimous consensus, which translates the phrase as "the Son of Man"! And you are doing so when you are calling those translations "older, archaic English versions", or when you are saying that the translation "Son of Man" is used ''often'', when it is used nearly always... |
| | + | |
| | + | --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:43, 28 June 2014 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | + | :August, a good translation conveys the original meaning in the current vernacular. "Son of Man" is not what Jesus said, and is a nonsensical English phrase today. The focus of this discussion should be what [[Jesus]] meant, and how to say that best today. "'''''The''''' Son, a human being" is closer to the obvious original meaning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:28, 28 June 2014 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | + | ::*''August, a good translation conveys the original meaning in the current vernacular.'' Indeed. But to produce a good translation, you should have an understanding of the grammar, too, it's not enough to rearrange words in a pleasing way. That's why I pointed out a couple of facts on grammar above - facts, which you have totally ignored in your ''answer'' |
| | + | ::*''"Son of Man" is not what Jesus said, and is a nonsensical English phrase today.'' That's just wrong. "The Son of Man" (or better, ὁ υἱὸς τοὺ ἀνθρώπου) is what Jesus Christ said according to John. '''"The Son, a human being" (or something like ὁ υἱὸς ὁ ἄνθρωπος) is what Jesus Christ should have said according to Andrew Schlafly.''' |
| | + | ::*''"The Son, a human being" is closer to the obvious original meaning.'' The meaning which is so obvious that it is totally ignored by every Christian but Andrew Schlafly and a few admirers? |
| | + | ::Andrew, how did you come to your translation: It isn't rooted in the Greek grammar (which you pointedly ignore). Do you claim to have some divine input which lead to your insight? If it is fact-based, you should be able to address my points above. |
| | + | ::Your latest blunder ([http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3ASon_of_Man&action=historysubmit&diff=1090555&oldid=1090547 quoting Matthew 5:45 as an example]) raises serious questions about your knowledge of Greek grammar. You are aware that translating the Bible is a serious task, and what at first seems to be just a ridiculous mistranslation can easily become blasphemous. |
| | + | ::--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:44, 28 June 2014 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | + | :::August, what percentage of your comments are devoted to considering the original meaning? Translations into nonsensical phrases are not good translations. "Man" is obviously archaic today. Archaic translations have not been updated yet, but eventually they will be or else eventually no one will be reading the translation anymore.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:46, 28 June 2014 (EDT) |
| | + | ::::That's just another ''claim'', not a ''fact''. What percentage of your time is devoted to understand Greek? Please, answer my points above (repeatedly stated), or '''stop calling your actions a translation, call it ''what Jesus Christ should have said: a Gospel according to Andrew Schlafly''!''' |
| | + | ::::--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:06, 28 June 2014 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | + | :::::''Strong's'' confirms that the primary meaning of ἄνθρωπος is "a human being."[http://www.blbclassic.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G444&t=NASB] It should not be translated as something else.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:55, 28 June 2014 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | + | :::::*Amusingly, the dictionary entry uses ''man'' as a synonym for ''human being'' in section 1.2 ,1.3 ,1.5 , 1.6, just after stating that ἄνθρωπος has the meaning of ''human being'' in section 1. '''"It should not be translated as something else" is again just your personal opinion, and in direct contradiction to the lexicon's usage.''' |
| | + | :::::*Again, you are just rearranging words, without respect for grammar. If your translation was based on knowledge of the Greek language and its Grammar, you wouldn't have to avoid my questions: you should be able to come up with a plethora of examples... |
| | + | :::::*If you prefer "the Son of a Human-Being" over "the Son of Man", feel free to use this phrase. But not "the Son of God, [his] Human Being". The problem is about '''''grammar'''''. |
| | + | :::::--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:35, 28 June 2014 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | + | ::::::What do you think is the original meaning of the phrase? If not "THE Son, a human being," then how does your interpretation of the original meaning differ from that?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:12, 28 June 2014 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | + | #I enjoyed the translation of the [[Common English Bible]]. Have you listened to their little video [http://vimeo.com/31602853 The "Human One" Explained]? Even while intended for their laymen's audience, they are doing the right thing - they are not just saying that this is ''the obvious translation'', or ''the most logical one'', no, they explain how there are parallel examples which justify their line of thought, and how there is a parallel Aramaic construction. Contrast these, e.g., with your translation of Λόγος in John 1:1. There is no precedent for a translation as "perfection", and you cannot give any example for a similar use. You could have "translated" Λόγος as "Eternity", or "Brightness", just other words which makes sense to you in this place, but which are equally without justification. |
| | + | #Nevertheless, personally, I'd still translate ὁ υἱὸς τοὺ ἀνθρώπου as "the Son of Man", as this is the most straightforward way. I think that the phrase "I'm the Son of Man" is more powerful than "I'm human" - and the CME agrees, as they use the phrase "I'm the Human One". You can find a similar phrase in English: "She's a bundle of joy", an emphasized version of "she is joyful" - but not "she's a bundle, a joy", or "she's a bundle with the character of joyfulness". With which I come to my next point: |
| | + | #'''"the Son, a human being" is still an invalid translation of ὁ υἱὸς τοὺ ἀνθρώπου for which you have not provided any example of parallel phrases in Greek.''' |
| | + | #the same holds for "the Son, with the character of man". This is a perversion of the CME's translation, as it explicitly state in one of their examples "''in Acts 13:10 Paul calls a sorcerer "as son of the devil." This is not a reference to the sorcerer's actual ancestry, but serves to identify his character. He is devilish - or, more simply in English, "a devil""''. |
| | + | #Andy, it's nice to see how your reasoning has developed: In 2010, you [[Talk:Matthew_1-9_(Translated)#Matthew_4:19|stated]] that άνθρωπος should generally be translated as "man" or "men", and "human being" or "people" would mean to "''just repeat and parrot increasingly liberal sources''". Now, in 2014, you say that "''man" is archaic'', and that "''Strong's confirms that the primary meaning of ἄνθρωπος is "a human being." It should not be translated as something else.''" Luckily, both opinions are partly wrong :-) |
| | + | --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:49, 29 June 2014 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | + | August, I don't agree with a pedantic "word-for-word" approach to translation. The goal is to convey the original meaning as precisely and clearly as possible. That requires, first and foremost, to understand and discuss what the original meaning was.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:00, 29 June 2014 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | + | ===ὁ υἱὸς τοὺ ἀνθρώπου in the rest of the CBP=== |
| | + | |
| | + | I noticed that in other parts of the CBP ὁ υἱὸς τοὺ ἀνθρώπου is still translated as "Son of Man". Should that be changed? - [[User:PetyrB|PetyrB]] 13:52, 28 June 2014 (EDT) |