Talk:Son of Man

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) at 00:43, 23 November 2018. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

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)

"Son of Man"

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)...

citing mistakes by others does not belong in the introduction. Quoting the KJB, the Vulgate, etc. is citing mistakes? At this moment, no one but you, Andrew Schlafly, thinks that those are mistaken!

--AugustO 10:15, 24 June 2014 (EDT)

August, this website exists to advance knowledge and insights, not simply to repeat less informed views of the past. The Vulgate was not even an English translation, and the KJV or NIV translations were not perfect. Accordingly, neither they (nor my name) belongs in the introduction here.--Andy Schlafly 11:02, 24 June 2014 (EDT)
KJV, NIV are not perfect. That's true. But are you? At this moment, you own this phrase. No one else shares your insight - I, the only other editor on this page with some Greek and interest in the CBP, states that your translation is wrong. Yet you claim that this clumsy phrase "the Son, a human being" is the most accurate translation. And you want to do so under the cloak of anonymity! No Sir, a reader of the text should be able to realize that this is your personal, not traditional wisdom. --AugustO 11:25, 24 June 2014 (EDT)
One thing that must be noted in this debate is the background of John the Apostle. Being a resident of the Galilee, he must have spoken Aramaic and probably wrote his Gospel in that language. If you'll search for "Aramaic primacy" in google you see that there are a number of scholars who believe that the earlier Greek language copies of NT are translations from Aramaic. Granted, the scholars who advocate this view are a minority, but considering the liberal bias in today's academia I consider it a point in their favor.
If John wrote his Gospel in Aramaic, than it's possible that in the original text of the Gospel the phrase that was later translated to "υἱός ἄνθρωπος" was even more explicit in recognizing Jesus as God's son. While I think that "the Son, a human being" is a viable translation of "υἱός ἄνθρωπος", I believe that the original Aramaic phrase was probably even more explicit. - PetyrB 11:51, 24 June 2014 (EDT)
"the Son, a human being" is an excellent translation for υἱός ἄνθρωπος, just not for the phrase ὁ υἱὸς τοὺ ἀνθρώπο which is used in the Gospels. You should have recognized the difference. --AugustO 12:01, 24 June 2014 (EDT)
Whoop, I meant to write "ὁ υἱὸς τοὺ ἀνθρώπου". Thanks for the correction! - PetyrB 12:03, 24 June 2014 (EDT)

August, "the Son of Man" simply makes no sense as a phrase in English. At best, it's a high-school-level, word-for-word, overly literal translation of the Greek that might earn someone a C on an exam. The Greek term "τοὺ" is better translated as a comma in modern English, followed by an "a". There's just no way around this logic. If the ancient Greeks had the comma, then the original might have used it.--Andy Schlafly 13:21, 24 June 2014 (EDT)

  • It made sense for hundreds of year. The KJB's translation is "high-school-level", earning a C? *LOL*
  • Could you please provide us with a list of genitives translated as appositions in the way you would like to see this in this case? Take a look into e.g. William's "Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics", and you can see that this is not appropriate in this case.
  • Ancient Greek knew the apposition, they didn't need a comma as much as English as their way of declination allowed to recognize the relation between nouns.
  • You are still alone with your "translation". As this is a great change in translating this phrase, you should be able to defend it in a way other than only claiming that it is logical. Where are examples of parallel constructions? ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ "The Son, a God"? ὁ υἱὸς τῆς Μαρίας "The Son, a Mary?"
AugustO 13:39, 24 June 2014 (EDT)
You shouldn't rely too much on KJB when trying to discern proper Bible translations. The makers of that translations also thought that the Adulteress Story was genuine. - PetyrB
Excellent point by PetyrB. August, real scholarship is about rejecting the mistakes of prior scholars. Are you going to insist next that the Adulteress Story must be genuine, because the translators of the KJB were fooled by it???--Andy Schlafly 14:26, 24 June 2014 (EDT)
  • More of an irrelevant than an excellent point: the quality of the translation is excellent, even if the original Greek text is an invention. A counterfeiter, who copies a forgery, can still do an excellent job, but his work may differ from the original.
  • It is not sure that you have found a mistake of prior scholars. It is even quite unlikely. It is not the conservative way to embrace an insight just because the idea is new. You should corroborate your thoughts.
  • At this level (i.e., calling the accumulated wisdom of centuries of scholars a mistake), you should be able to answer some questions about your translation. I repeat:
  • Could you please provide us with a list of genitives translated as appositions in the way you would like to see this in this case?
  • Where are examples of parallel constructions? ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ "The Son, a God"? ὁ υἱὸς τῆς Μαρίας "The Son, a Mary?"
--AugustO 14:53, 24 June 2014 (EDT)
The Adulteress story is relevant to this argument. By failing to remove it from their translation, the makers of the KJB showed that their understanding of God's word left much to be desired. For that reason, we should not just blindly accept their use of the phrase "Son of Man". You wrote that "It is not sure that you have found a mistake of prior scholars. [...] It is not the conservative way to embrace an insight just because the idea is new." If anything, I would say that deferring to the consensus accepted by the liberal academe is not the conservative way.
"Could you please provide us with a list of genitives translated as appositions in the way you would like to see this in this case?" As I said before, Gospel of John was probably translated from Aramaic. It is not unlikely therefore that certain phrases in the Greek version are somewhat odd by the standards of that language. - PetyrB 15:24, 24 June 2014 (EDT)
August, here is a list of other translation errors in the KJV: [1] Are you going to claim that nothing on that list is correct?
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.--Andy Schlafly 15:47, 24 June 2014 (EDT)
  • Yes, there are errors in the KJB. BTW, I'd even add John 9:35 - but here the manuscripts show not only ὁ υἱὸς τοὺ ἀνθρώπου, but sometimes ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ. So, "Son of Man" or "Son of God" are both possibilities... 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 - because I get so few answers.
--AugustO 16:15, 24 June 2014 (EDT)
Matthew 5:45 has "πατρὸς ὑμῶν τοῦ ἐν οὐρανοῖς." This is translated as "your Father who is in heaven" or, more concisely, "your Father, in heaven." Likewise "ὁ υἱὸς τοὺ ἀνθρώπου" should be "The Son who is a human being" or, more concisely, "The Son, a human being."--Andy Schlafly 18:51, 24 June 2014 (EDT)
Is this a joke or is this a test? You should be careful with such nonsensical statements, as a reader who thinks that you are serious might doubt that you have any knowledge of Greek at all!
But if this is a test, I'm game, and I'll try to answer in my best Biblical-Greek-101 stile:
  • in phrases like ὁ υἱὸς τοὺ ἀνθρώπου, ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ and ὁ υἱὸς τῆς Μαρίας, τοὺ/τῆς is an article belonging to the second noun, which is in the genitive. Therefore, the article and the noun coincide in casus (genitive), numerus (singular), and genus. The most straightforward - and literal - translation is "the Son of Man/God/Mary".
  • in υἱοὶ τοῦ Πατρὸς ὑμῶν τοῦ ἐν οὐρανοῖς, τοῦ cannot belong to οὐρανοῖς, as this noun is in the dative (due to ἐν) and in the plural, while τοῦ is in the singular and in the genitive! So where does it belong to? To Πατρὸς, which is in the genitive, as it is used attributively to υἱοὶ! This becomes abundantly clear when we look into Matthew 6:9, where we find a very similar phrase, but with "Father" as the subject of the sentence: Πάτερ ἡμῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς See, here it's ὁ! ὁ (and earlier τοῦ ) is used as a relative pronoun for the elliptical phrase [being] in heavens. Therefore, the most straightforward translation is "Father of us, who [is] in the heavens."
to summarize: ὁ, ἡ, τό in front of a noun is generally used as the (definitive) article, while following a noun, ὁ, ἡ, τό is often used as a kind of relative pronoun. The examples above demonstrate these quite different usages excellently!
--AugustO 03:35, 25 June 2014 (EDT)
August, 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 by "a human being."--Andy Schlafly 19:50, 30 June 2014 (EDT)
Sorry, Andy, you are wrong - and you are misrepresenting the Common English Bible: it makes it abundantly clear that the translation of "son of x" means "having the characteristic of x", and not "the son, having the characteristics of x"! You are smuggling an additional "son" (giving raise to the question of whom?) into your translation. The Common English Bible explicitly rejects this translation , it writes: in Acts 13:10 Paul calls a sorcerer "a 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": ὁ υἱὸς διαβόλου does not mean the son, a devil. --AugustO 01:30, 1 July 2014 (EDT)

John 9:35

There is good evidence that the Textus Receptus is correct, stating Σὺ πιστεύεις εἰς τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, Do you believe in the Son of God. This is one of the very few examples where there are substantial differences between the various manuscripts, as others read Σὺ πιστεύεις εἰς τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου; Do you believe in the Son of Man.

We have no way to draw conclusions from this for those verses on which all manuscripts and translations agree.

--AugustO 17:25, 24 June 2014 (EDT)


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! --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. --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 explained in detail how your example of υἱοὶ τοῦ Πατρὸς ὑμῶν τοῦ ἐν οὐρανοῖς- or better Πάτερ ἡμῶν 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...

--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.--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 (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.
--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.--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!
--AugustO 17:06, 28 June 2014 (EDT)
Strong's confirms that the primary meaning of ἄνθρωπος is "a human being."[2] It should not be translated as something else.--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.
--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?--Andy Schlafly 20:12, 28 June 2014 (EDT)
  1. I enjoyed the translation of the Common English Bible. Have you listened to their little video 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.
  2. 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:
  3. "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.
  4. 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"".
  5. Andy, it's nice to see how your reasoning has developed: In 2010, you 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 :-)

--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.--Andy Schlafly 19:00, 29 June 2014 (EDT)
It's just amazing how you are able to get the "original meaning" from the Greek manuscript without an understanding of the very basics of Greek grammar! You are not translating, you are recreating, indeed, you are creating Jesus Christ in your image, according to your imagination --AugustO 19:13, 29 June 2014 (EDT)
August, a pedantic word-for-word approach to translation has several obvious flaws. I ask you again, what do you think the original meaning of Jesus's phrase was? Whatever that meaning was, "Son of Man" does not convey it in English.--Andy Schlafly 19:26, 29 June 2014 (EDT)
  • I'm not for a pedantic word-for-word approach to translation. But in any translation, it is the first step! First are grammar and words, then there is the meaning - not the other way around.
  • Son of Man, Menschensohn, Filius Hominis, these all stress that Jesus Christ is human, without implying that He is only human. It is parallel to Son of God, Gottessohn, Filius Dei, showing His duality: both phrases together show that He is God Who became Man. I think it is rather beautiful, simple, and full of meaning (on which a commentary can elaborate).
  • The translation has the advantage that it not only makes sense, but conveys the grammatical construction in a straightforward way, thereby allowing the reader to draw similar conclusions as an original Greek reader may have.
  • And now, Andy, I'd like you to address the points 1-4 above, especially point 3:
3. "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.
--AugustO 15:23, 30 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? - PetyrB 13:52, 28 June 2014 (EDT)

I think it should be "the Son, a human being," unless the context indicates otherwise. It would be great if you could update the other instances of "Son of Man."--Andy Schlafly 19:01, 29 June 2014 (EDT)

I advise against such a substitution, futilely, I suppose. But the only justification for this phrase is that Andy likes it, he hasn't come up with anything resembling a fact, an example for this use of the genitive, etc. --AugustO 19:27, 29 June 2014 (EDT)
Thanks for the reply! I think I've managed to correct all instances of the term in Gospel of John (if there's something I missed than somebody please let me know), Soon I'll begin working on the removing the term from our translation of Gospel of Mark. Should the use of the phrase "Son of Man" be corrected when translating only the New Testament, or also when translating the Old Testament? - PetyrB 11:28, 30 June 2014 (EDT) EDIT: I've finished correcting the usage of the term in Gospels of John, Mark and Matthew. After I'll rest a bit, a correction of our translation of Gospel of Luke will also follow. - PetyrB 12:01, 30 June 2014 (EDT)
PetyrB, thanks, but the translation is "the Son, a human being," not "the Son of God, a human being." The latter would have been blasphemous, which was then a very serious crime.--Andy Schlafly 12:11, 30 June 2014 (EDT)
Whoops... Should have taken better notice. My bad, within a couple of minutes I'll fix this. - PetyrB 12:12, 30 June 2014 (EDT)
Fixed my mistake, after some rest I will start working on Gospel of Luke. - PetyrB 12:24, 30 June 2014 (EDT)
Thanks!--Andy Schlafly 12:39, 30 June 2014 (EDT)
No problem, glad to help. I went through the Gospels, Acts and Hebrews, if there's something I'm forgetting let me know. - PetyrB 13:03, 30 June 2014 (EDT)

Andy, PetyrB's mistake doesn't come as much as a surprise, as you yourself wrote at Talk:John 1-7 (Translated)#Elaboration:

υἱὸς means "Son of God" in this context (and in John's usage in his Epistle), while ἀνθρώπου means "human being." So, translated literally, the phrase "υἱὸς τοὺ ἀνθρώπου" means "Son of God, His human being." I'll update the Son of Man entry accordingly now.

—--Andy Schlafly 16:36, 22 June 2014 (EDT)

"human being" (ἀνθρώπου) does modify "son" (υἱὸς), but that does not mean it should be translated as "son of a human being" or "son of man." Instead, it means that the "son" is of God, but that son is a human being. Hence "Son of God, a human being" is the English that is closest to the original meaning.

—--Andy Schlafly 19:47, 22 June 2014 (EDT)

Nothing in our discussion over there indicates that you were persuaded by my argument:

But "the Son" means "Son of God." No, it just implies "Son of God". It does so in the Greek, and therefore it should do so in the translation. A commentary is the right place to stress this implication, but editorializing "of God" into the "translation" shifts the whole narrative: Jesus Christ isn't declaring proudly time and time again that he is the "Son of God" - an announcement which would have let to drastic reactions by the religious elites of the time. So, a reader of the CBP gets a totally wrong idea of what has happened.

—--AugustO 06:09, 23 June 2014 (EDT)

In fact, you even write later:

No one would have crucified Jesus if he merely called himself the "Son of Man." He was crucified for call himself "the Son [of God], a human being."

—--Andy Schlafly 16:53, 23 June 2014 (EDT)

It is nice to see that you now adopt my argument: my actions are not totally futile after all! --AugustO 14:55, 30 June 2014 (EDT)

No one would have crucified Jesus if he merely called himself the "Son of Man." He was crucified for calling himself "the Son [of God], a human being." - Aschafly
This is a bad argument. For example, "Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am." So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple.(John 8:58-59).
Also, "That’s exactly how Jesus’ original audience seemed to take it when He said, “I and the Father are one.” In fact, the Jews were ready to kill Him right there! Why? “Because you,” they said, “a mere man, claim to be God” (John 10:33)."[3]
Also, "Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?” “I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.” The high priest tore his clothes. “Why do we need any more witnesses?” he asked. “You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?” They all condemned him as worthy of death. (63-64)."[4] Conservative 15:10, 30 June 2014 (EDT)
  • "And you will see the Son of Man ... coming on the clouds of heaven” is Jesus quoting Daniel 7:13. So the original, at least for this phrase, is Aramaic. Daniel says that the Son of Man will have, "an everlasting dominion that shall not pass away." So he's not exactly a human being, or at least not a mere mortal. Referring to yourself by this phrase was obviously blasphemous however you might translate it. PeterKa 04:15, 6 July 2014 (EDT)

Luke 10:6

Andy, in Luke 10:6, we have the phrase "υἱὸς εἰρήνης", which can be translated as "a peaceful man". For this, you quote the translators of the Common English Bible: "Greek usage often refers to 'a son of x' in the sense of 'one who has the character of ‘x.’'" Please note that it is "one who has the character of 'x'" - in this case one who has the character of peace, but not as "the son, who has the character of 'x'"!

Therefore this translation of υἱὸς εἰρήνης isn't similar to your approach at ὁ υἱὸς τοὺ ἀνθρώπου, as you crowbar in an additional "son": "the Human One" is not equivalent to "the Son, the Human Being", "a peaceful man" isn't "the son, a peaceful man" - those phrases with the additional son beg the question "Whose son?", which was already answered ("of man", "of peace").

--AugustO 06:51, 16 March 2015 (EDT)

The "the" ("ὁ") is what makes the big difference, requiring inclusion of "son" in the translation with a capital "S": "the Son, a man."--Andy Schlafly 13:53, 16 March 2015 (EDT)
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". --AugustO 14:08, 16 March 2015 (EDT)

"This is probably a mistranslation..."

It is quite improbable that "Son of Man" is a mistranslation, as only one man in the whole Christendom thinks so (though there may be better translations) --AugustO (talk) 06:28, 4 April 2018 (EDT)

"Son of Man" is a common mistranslation, preferred by liberals, which obscures Jesus's divinity.

Yeah, all these liberals like Martin Luther ("Menschensohn") and the Hippie Commune of the King James translation. Andy, each of those knew much more about the Greek language than you are willing to learn in your life-time. --AugustO (talk) 13:30, 21 November 2018 (EST)

August, 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.
"of" does not.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 14:03, 21 November 2018 (EST)
Andy: "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"
Your flaw, Andy, is not with the individual languages but with grammar in general: you conflate a genitive object with an apposition! This mistake cannot be healed by any amount of puffery. --AugustO (talk) 14:55, 21 November 2018 (EST)
August, here is something similar in 2 Corinthians 5:5:
"oJ dou;V hJmi'n to;n ajrrabw'na tou' pneuvmato."
"Who has given to us the down payment of the Spirit."
i.e. the down payment which is the Spirit. [5]
better yet: the down payment as the Spirit.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 17:31, 21 November 2018 (EST)

This is not similar at all. From your own source: [This is a] Epexigetical Genitive - This use of the genitive helps to define an ambiguous or metaphorical head noun, or gives a specific example of the larger category named by the head noun. It also requires the words of equality for proper understanding, but the word ‘of’ can be used (unlike the case with Simple Apposition).

  • In which way is the head noun υἱὸς ambiguous or metaphorical? A little more diligence, please.
  • Even then, the word ‘of’ can be used, so "Son 'of' Man" is not a mistranslation according to this source!

--AugustO (talk) 18:02, 21 November 2018 (EST)

"υἱὸς" is the ultimate in ambiguity: Jesus was both the Son ("υἱὸς") of God, and also man. Nothing more ambiguous than that!
the source says that "of" can be used but emphasizes that there are superior options, such as "which is" or, as suggested here, "as".--Andy Schlafly (talk) 18:54, 21 November 2018 (EST)
the source says that "of" can be used So you agree that "Son of Man" is not a mistranslation. I'll change the article accordingly. --AugustO (talk) 18:57, 21 November 2018 (EST)
"of" is merely a pedantic translation, and source confirms that it is not the best translation.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 19:09, 21 November 2018 (EST)
just to be pedantic: a pedantic translation is not a mistranslation. --AugustO (talk) 19:14, 21 November 2018 (EST)

To summarize: Andy, according to your own sources, "Son of Man" is not a mistranslation. It may not be the best translation (I have stated that again and again and again), but being pedantic, literally, etc. does not make it false.

Andy, you now are aware of the fact that "Son of Man" is not a mistranslation. You are repeating a statement of which you know that it is not true. That makes you a liar. Simple as that. --AugustO (talk) 19:26, 21 November 2018 (EST)

August, you protest too much. You admit that "Son of Man" "may not be the best translation." Right. "The Son as man" is a better translation, and conveys divinity that the mistranslation "Son of Man" denies.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 20:40, 21 November 2018 (EST)
I'm nearly not protesting enough - it is my only remedy (though it won't change a iota on this dismal article). My only consolation is the knowledge that your dubious insights have not gathered any interest around the internet. It's for your own good, as this article is a testament to your ignorance paired with an impressive hubris. --AugustO (talk) 10:20, 22 November 2018 (EST)

Example illustrates why "as Man" is more accurate than "of Man"

LeBron James has won multiple NBA championships with different teams. One could say, "A championship was won by LeBron," but that's ambiguous. To clarify, 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."--Andy Schlafly (talk) 14:30, 22 November 2018 (EST)

I thought the ambiguity was the whole point of the Son of Man construction. He wanted us to choose to accept his message, rather than enforcing it through some universally unmistakable demonstration of his power.
I know it's a weird and inefficient way to go about things, but God's apparently being doing this for ages, what with all his Old Testament mucking about with imperfect human prophets.
In fact, the only time he ever talked directly to all of humanity was in Eden, and then there were only two of us. Perhaps it's worthy of another entry in your "Mystery" series: Does God hate public speaking? JohnZ (talk) 16:30, 22 November 2018 (EST)
Liberal denial is stubborn. 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, but it's illogical. Open your mind to the logic of the Bible and you'll never look back.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 16:52, 22 November 2018 (EST)
He didn't though, did he? Whatever might've happened on a cross outside Jerusalem didn't register on a global scale for many hundreds of years. God could clearly address all of humanity simultaneously and offer unmistakable proof of his will. The fact that he hasn't is what's illogical here.
For the record, I don't imagine this will trouble your faith in the slightest. I am, however, genuinely curious to hear your rationale for this apparent oversight. JohnZ (talk) 17:19, 22 November 2018 (EST)
It's logic, not merely faith. Your arguments are not based on logic, but on emotion. You do what you want, and God does what He wants. It's illogical for you to insist on thinking what you want, but then demand that God act as you would want Him to.
There is nothing illogical or even implausible about God having one person speak the truth and then watch that take thousands of years to spread and take effect, as it has been. When you watch a sporting event, would you prefer it to finish in one short minute, or take some real time to play out?--Andy Schlafly (talk) 18:08, 22 November 2018 (EST)
I'm sorry, but if he died to save "us", that is mankind collectively, then where's the logic in several billion souls being denied salvation because of his failure to communicate to a global audience? JohnZ (talk) 18:56, 22 November 2018 (EST)
Either way, the meaning is the same. It's speaks Jesus's humanity. "What think ye Christ, whose son is he, David's or God's?" The answer is both. This is the primary difference between Christianity and Judaism and Islam. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 18:58, 22 November 2018 (EST)
JohnZ, you're making a lot of circular assumptions in your statement. Most of the non-believers hear his message but reject it. Are you implying that God should force everyone to accept him?
The incoherence of atheism becomes clearer when its objections are taken to their logical conclusions. Often they are of the form, "if God is all-powerful, then why doesn't he do such-and-such?" But 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.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 19:43, 22 November 2018 (EST)