Difference between revisions of "Talk:Son of Man"
(→Personal opinion of Andrew Schlafly: new section) |
|||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
::It's not about a simple spelling error - there are a couple of problems with this phrase, grammatical ''and'' Biblical. So, I'll wait for Andy's correction and will give further input then. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 04:55, 22 June 2014 (EDT) | ::It's not about a simple spelling error - there are a couple of problems with this phrase, grammatical ''and'' Biblical. So, I'll wait for Andy's correction and will give further input then. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 04:55, 22 June 2014 (EDT) | ||
:::Andy's correction substantiated my suspicion - he hasn't made himself familiar with this problem in detail. Otherwise he should have known that the phrase is ''always'' used by Jesus Christ including the leading definite article, a somewhat peculiar wording, and therefore to be quoted exactly. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:22, 22 June 2014 (EDT) | :::Andy's correction substantiated my suspicion - he hasn't made himself familiar with this problem in detail. Otherwise he should have known that the phrase is ''always'' used by Jesus Christ including the leading definite article, a somewhat peculiar wording, and therefore to be quoted exactly. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:22, 22 June 2014 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Personal opinion of Andrew Schlafly == | ||
| + | |||
| + | Over the last 1700 years, there has been much debate about how to interpret the phrase ὁ υἱὸς τοὺ ἀνθρώπου, Son of Man, filius hominis. '''There has never been disagreement about how to translate it'''. The introduction claims that the phrase "the Son, a human being" is the most accurate translation. At the moment, this is only the personal opinion of Andrew Schlafly, which isn't shared by any Greek scholar! To give it not only equal weight to the traditional translation, but to promote over the "Son of Man", misleads the reader! Therefore, it should be clearly marked as Andrew Schlafly's idea, as it is his original work. | ||
| + | |||
| + | For me, this is just a mistranslation, a rendering of a genitive as an apposition in a case where this just doesn't work. Is my view less valid than Andrew Schlafly's? Should I put it into the introduction, too? How about: | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''''The most accurate, but wrong translation is "the Son, a human being"...''''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | No, at this moment we should at least make it clear in the article that this translation is the original work of Andrew Schlafly. IMO it would be a service to the reader to stress that this insight isn't shared by any Greek scholar (yet)... | ||
| + | |||
| + | --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:15, 24 June 2014 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 14:15, June 24, 2014
The Lamb of God (John 1:36) who was personally chosen by the Almighty to carry the weight of the world's sin and atone for it is not a member of the public. Some descriptions of Jesus Christ emphasize His humanity but never downplay His divinity, for no other man is our Lord and Savior, eternal and one with God. You're taking this best of the public idea way too far. Nate 11:02, 20 March 2012 (EDT)
Factual error, please correct
Andy, υἱός ἄνθρωπος just means son man --AugustO 01:42, 22 June 2014 (EDT)
- AugustO, don't put in a "sic" indicator where there's a spelling error; just make the correction. If it's a translation problem, make the change, then explain the change here. Karajou 02:43, 22 June 2014 (EDT)
- It's not about a simple spelling error - there are a couple of problems with this phrase, grammatical and Biblical. So, I'll wait for Andy's correction and will give further input then. --AugustO 04:55, 22 June 2014 (EDT)
- Andy's correction substantiated my suspicion - he hasn't made himself familiar with this problem in detail. Otherwise he should have known that the phrase is always used by Jesus Christ including the leading definite article, a somewhat peculiar wording, and therefore to be quoted exactly. --AugustO 17:22, 22 June 2014 (EDT)
- It's not about a simple spelling error - there are a couple of problems with this phrase, grammatical and Biblical. So, I'll wait for Andy's correction and will give further input then. --AugustO 04:55, 22 June 2014 (EDT)
Personal opinion of Andrew Schlafly
Over the last 1700 years, there has been much debate about how to interpret the phrase ὁ υἱὸς τοὺ ἀνθρώπου, Son of Man, filius hominis. There has never been disagreement about how to translate it. The introduction claims that the phrase "the Son, a human being" is the most accurate translation. At the moment, this is only the personal opinion of Andrew Schlafly, which isn't shared by any Greek scholar! To give it not only equal weight to the traditional translation, but to promote over the "Son of Man", misleads the reader! Therefore, it should be clearly marked as Andrew Schlafly's idea, as it is his original work.
For me, this is just a mistranslation, a rendering of a genitive as an apposition in a case where this just doesn't work. Is my view less valid than Andrew Schlafly's? Should I put it into the introduction, too? How about:
The most accurate, but wrong translation is "the Son, a human being"...
No, at this moment we should at least make it clear in the article that this translation is the original work of Andrew Schlafly. IMO it would be a service to the reader to stress that this insight isn't shared by any Greek scholar (yet)...
--AugustO 10:15, 24 June 2014 (EDT)