Something is not right in these Bibles?

Question

Ezek.18

1:Thus the word of the LORD came to me: Son of man, 2"(A)What do you mean by using this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying,
'(B)The fathers eat the sour grapes,
But the children's teeth are set on edge'? (New American Bible)


1:The word of the LORD came to me:2 "What do you people mean by quoting this proverb about the land of Israel:
" 'The fathers eat sour grapes,
and the children's teeth are set on edge'? (NIV)


1The word of the LORD came unto me again, saying,
2What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge? (KJV)


Why doesn't the othe 2 have "Son of man" in the first verse?Does this have something to do wit Jesus, who also called himself "Son of man"?

Answer 1

The NAS Bible is a Catholic translation. The Catholics believe strongly that the Alexandrian line of manuscripts are more true to the originals (as opposed to the Byzantine texts, followed by the KJV, NKJV, etc.). Though the Alexandrian line of MSS is older, there seem to be problems with them, and many scholars don't believe it to be accurate. Some believe these MSS to be tainted with Platonic philosophies, introduced by an early translator. However, this pertains to the New Testament Greek!

Another possible source of the difference (and I think this more likely), is the fact that the Catholic Bibles often have text displaced from the manuscript positions. I have never understood the reasoning behind this juggling of text, but it is briefly mentioned in the preface of the NAS Bible:

"In some instances in the Book of Job, in Proverbs, Sirach, Isaiah, Jeremiah, EZEKIEL, ..., there is good reason to believe that the original order of lines was accidentally disturbed in the transmission of the text. ...In these instances the textual notes advise the reader of the difficulty. Cases of exceptional dislocation are called to the reader's attention by footnotes."
(NAS, Preface, p. v)
However, I could not see any notice of dislocation for the verse in question.

Another even more remote possibility for the difference is in textual criticism, but I'm at a loss as to how.

Bottom line? I don't know.

BTW, the phrase 'son of man' is a humble way of referring to one's self, or a human being -- i.e. 'son of Adam'.

Answer 2

I was having a problem finding the New American Bible as Biblegateway.com did not have it. It turns out that the NAB is a Catholic Bible. Wikipedia has the following http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_American_Bible

I have been looking at the interlinear study bible and reviewed all the other translations including the New American Standard Bible (NASB) believed to be the closest word for word translation. None of these sources have the phrase "Son of man".

I would have to say that that phrase is a mistranslation in the NAB.

Answer 3

There are 2 Old Testaments. The Testament in Hebrew and the testament in Greek (Translation if 70). The Greek text has the '' son of man''. Son of man means the son of the first man; Adam. Jesus use this to show that He Is(was) a perfect God and a perfect man too. (Hypostatically)

Answer 4

Dear Veritas Mae,

The phrase "Son of Man" is used 93 times in the book of Ezekiel and is an emphatic form of the word "man." It is meant to contrast Ezekiel's humanity with the awesome majesticness of God. It was a reminder to Ezekiel that he was just a mere man.

When Jesus refers to himself as the "Son of Man" in the gospels, it speaks volumes about how great of a sacrifice He truly made. Not only did He die on the cross to bear the sins of the world, but He experienced being separated from His Father in Heaven (whom He had always been with since the beginning of time).

The KJV is as closest as possible to the original language. (the translators of the NAB- wanted to emphasize this aspect of Ezekiel).

i hope that clears up some of your confusion.

Kindly,

Nickster

Answer 5

"your best bet is to stay with the king james, i have found some loose interpitations in other bibles"

I laughed at that. KJV is full of errors aswell . You're best off with a literal translation of the original Hebrew/Greek rather than the presumptions that most translations throw in.

Answer 6

I don't understand it either. I think they are all confused.
Sour grapes and all...hmm-m, sounds like those grapes were fermenting to me, making wine. What is wrong with eating sour grapes if you are hungry enough to want to do that? Maybe that is all they had to eat that day?

Good Luck

Answer 7

your best bet is to stay with the king james, i have found some loose interpitations in other bibles.