English Standerd Version
Joh 9:35 Jesus heard that they had cast him out, and having found him he said, "Do you believe in the Son of Man?"
King James version
Joh 9:35 Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?
2007-02-19 13:40:42 · 10 answers · asked by Kimo 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
No, In ESV son of man .. in KJV son of God
2007-02-19 13:45:21 · update #1
Again this question reflects the questioner's ignorance on the subject of Biblical textual criticism and the process of Bible translation work. Both phrases are theologically true. The reason that the difference exists is because the translations used a different text base. Integrity would demand that the Bible translators do not amend the text but translate what they have, and note the variant reading in footnotes. Had the Muslims been in charge, they would force one reading and burn the others, and then declare that there is only one true sacred book!
2007-02-20 13:08:51 · answer #1 · answered by Seraph 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
neither is wrong.
Jesus is both a son of man and son of God.
i won't explain the whole lot here but in short, Jesus is a son of God cos God created Him in His likeness and He's a representation of God in human form.
Jesus is a son of man too because He's given birth to normally. Mary being pregnant for 9 months, etc. the only difference is that Mary conceived without Joseph's help. this difference helped in proofing that He's a son of God. i.e. supernatural
2007-02-20 20:34:08 · answer #2 · answered by serene 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Different forms of English. Same verse. KJV is Old English, and ESV is Modern English.
2007-02-19 13:46:10 · answer #3 · answered by pish_01 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The KJV!
The difference is in the small words "in" and "on".....
you can believe in Jesus (the Bible says even the devil believes and trembles)....without ever having believed ON HIM to the saving of your soul. Also, the ESV questions His deity in this verse.....Son of man? No! Son of GOD!
2007-02-19 13:44:27 · answer #4 · answered by lookn2cjc 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Both are. One is olde English of King James, and the other is modern English
2007-02-19 13:43:26 · answer #5 · answered by tebone0315 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They say the same thing.
You spelled 'standard' wrong.
Son of Man and Son of God are synomous in scripture.
Jesus called himself both.
Because he was 100% man and 100% God.
2007-02-19 13:44:29 · answer #6 · answered by Doug 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Neither. The translators ignored the original Aramaic it was revealed in. They used the Hebrew version to translate it into English, and as the bible itself says, it has been corrupted by the pens of the Jewish scribes. People like to say our Quran is so anti semitic. They might want to take a look at the bible.
2007-02-19 13:45:07 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
credis in Filium Dei
"Do you believe in the Son of God?"
Just like in Arabic, Latin and other languages can have more then one meaning to a word.
Latin: in (into, toward, against)
2007-02-19 14:54:29 · answer #8 · answered by keiichi 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
same meaning, different era of the english language.
2007-02-19 13:44:02 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
What Doug said.
2007-02-19 13:51:57 · answer #10 · answered by silverleaf90210 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋