Talk:Son of man

Untitled

As the "Refimprove" notice at the top of the main page indicates, this whole page lacks sourcing while resisting the literal, si-fi, people, literature, and other uses of the phrase. The easy solution is to renamed to have "(religious)" appended, and remove the suffix of "dissambiguation" from the sister-page Son of man (disambiguation). Sadly, per the dialog on this page it looks like the wiki-page owners have an ax to grind here - maybe there's sponsorship from the WikiProject Christianity PAYING for favorable content. 74.111.4.108 (talk) 05:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Lord of the sabbath

I added another instance of the phrase "son of man" being used in the synoptic gospels. I did my best to be fair to both the Christian POV and the naive reading of the passage (if I can use "naive" as a neutral adjective). The last time I tried adding this passage, it was reverted, so I hope I got it right this time. Jonathan Tweet 02:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

Wouldn't it be fair for the introduction to this page to mention the use of "Son of Man" as an epithet for Jesus? After all, I think that's why this page is so extensive. It's not like everyone's really interested in Near Eastern idioms. Or am I way off base? Jonathan Tweet 02:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Nah, you're not way off base. However, we -do- have a section about Christian theology and the implications of the "Son of Man" (note caps :-) ). The article is primarily about the ancient idiom, and there are tomes of scholarly research on that subject, tracing it's use from Ancient Mesopotamia on down the lines. אמר Steve Caruso _(poll) 13:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I added something simple and noncontroversial to the introduction. Jonathan Tweet 15:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. :-) אמר Steve Caruso _(poll) 15:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Lost Sheep

I added another instance of "son of man" in the synoptics, this one clearly refering to Jesus himself but also not generally regarded as an authentic part of the original gospel. I'm tempted to say something about how this verse suggests a change in the usage of the phrase (from earlier "a person" to later "Jesus"), but I don't want to go overboard. Jonathan Tweet 16:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Hehe, I should have read the talk page before I edited things. Although it's not considered authentic (mainly due to it's placement and manuscript evidence), it does follow proper semitic use as a humble self-appelation. אמר Steve Caruso _(poll) 17:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Foxes have Holes

In this section, it seems clear to me at least that Jesus is using "son of man" to refer to himself. A scribe says he wants to follow Jesus, and Jesus answers that the "son of man has no where to lay his head." Seems to indicate that Jesus can't offer the scribe any shelter if he follows him, and may suggest that they'll be traveling a lot rather than settled down in one place. If it meant people in general, Jesus would be saying that people, or most people, don't have a place to sleep, which doesn't make nearly as much sense. Wesley 20:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on the subject so I can't expand much on this but shouldn't there be an atheist view of this phrase? For Jews to claim they were the 'Son of God' was heretical so a Jew (Jesus) using the phrase would be him denying his divinity (while others were asserting it). This phrase is therefore evidence of his non-divine status and suggests others later claimed the contrary. AC 16/07/2006

I would think that would be more appropriate to the Son of God article to bring up issues of divinity. There were many Jews in the 1st Century "claiming" to be sons of God (in fact it was common rhetoric for Rabbim of the time to say that all Jews were sons and daughters of God). "Son of man" was just a common way to refer to humanity of oneself in a conversation, and (at least linguistically) shouldn't, in this son of man's opinion, be used as any basis to claim "divinity." ;-) אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/poll) 15:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree. The phrase Son of Man was used to refer to one's self. JPotter 16:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

An unfortunate conflation of 2 terms: "A son of man" and "THE son of man"

While it is true that the expression "a son of man" (or even, "O', son of man") is an ancient Semitic idiom for referring to someone as being an all too typical human being, the term "the son of man" has a specific meaning originating in 2nd Temple Judaism, and especially the apocalyptic writings of that time.

Drawing from the vision recorded in Daniel 7:13, the rabbis and mystics of the 2nd Temple period increasingly spoke of "THE son of man", a heavenly, eternal, uncreated being who sat upon the Throne of God. He was also associated with "THE angel of the LORD" in the Old Testament - a being who was more than any angel, but was in some way a theophany (or avatar, if you prefer) of God Himself.

Jews of the Inter-testimental period increasingly imagined a cosmos populated with a vast angelic hierarchy, necessary as a means of bridging the gulf between God's utterly perfect righteousness and human sinfulness. It was believed that God was SO holy and righteous, that if even one of the four guardian Cherubim (who stood about the Throne of God) so much as glimpsed God's Face, even they would be utterly destroyed.

The problem was then, how does anyone "know God"? How does God have any contact with His creation? Their answer was, "By the son of man". This being was believed to exist as the ultimate mediator between God and all creation. In fact, it was this "THE son of man" who had actually done all the creating ... in God's Name, of course. He was God's great viceroy, the grand vizier of heaven, prince of all the angels. Unlike the angels, He was not a created being, but was somehow a perfect reflection of God Himself, eternal and resplendent. He possessed all the glory, majesty, holiness, power, and authority of God. He was so perfectly submitted to the will and nature of God, that he was utterly transparent to it. His words were the words of God. His will was the will of God. His deeds were the deeds of God. He was so much like God that no meaningful distinction could be made ... except that the Jews insisted on making one. He was who (or what) Philo termed, "the logos".

Every book, author, and theorized "source" of the New Testament, and all other early Christian documents, claim that Jesus was and is the incaranation of this being. In fact, all the evidence that exists overwhelmingly substantiates that this claim originated with Jesus himself.

That's excellent information! find a source for it and add it to the article. (To make things more confusing, the gospels sometimes record Jesus as using "son of man" to mean "a human being.") Jonathan Tweet 13:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Trying to make RTL/LTR mix display comprehensibly in Firefox (and other browsers?)

In the "Hebrew Bible" section there are some quotations which mix (left-to-right) Arabic numerals with (right-to-left) Hebrew text. I don't know about other browsers, but Firefox on Linux deals with these really badly. I've rearranged some of these quotations so you can clearly see which verse has which number (and incidentally added {{hebrew}} tags). I can't read Hebrew, so some of these may have been mangled. It took a lot of effort given that none of the editors I can find deal with the mix at all nicely, so I haven't bothered to do the others. I'd appreciate it if someone else could continue (or else revert :). Hairy Dude 04:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The Thadman

Thanks. Garry Denke 23:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Relfexively comment reverted

I tried to leave a message in my edit comments but it seems to have glitched. "Son of man" is not solely used as a reflexive appellation, hence my revert of a good faith edit. אמר Steve Caruso 04:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

is "son" specifically masculine?

In some languages, the word "son" is specifically masculine (e.g., in English). In others, the word "son" is generic, but the corresponding word "daughter" is specifically feminine (e.g., Spanish). In Spanish, if one is talking about a "son" or "sons" in general, the term strictly means "child" or "offspring." European languages with gender often have word pairs that don't map to English, as in "sibling-sister," "parent-mother," "teacher-female teacher," etc. What's the case in the term "son of man"? I've seen it translated as "child of humanity" (Ehrman). In Aramaic, does the term "son of man" mean "child of a mortal man" or does it mean specifically "male child of a mortal man"? Leadwind (talk) 19:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Enoch

I have read that some people think that Enoch is the Son of Man. It should probably be mentioned somewhere here. [1] ADM (talk) 12:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Have you read 1 Enoch 71:14? by the way some scholar think that the whole chapter 71 is a early addition. A ntv (talk) 20:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Information vs lists

I have looked at this article for a few days now and the thought that keeps to mind is "just a boring list of lists". There is so much rich Christology about Son of man and its relationship to other issues in the Hypostatic union etc. that has not even been mentioned. There are no major errors here that I can see, but as is, one needs several cups of coffee to keep awake by the time one gets half way through the lists. And given that not all readers are interested in the Hebrew Bible aspects, it is just too long to read and not enough information keeps the interest of the reader. An encyclopedia should be more than a "list of Bible references" that send the reader to sleep, unless it is intended as a sleeping aid. I think it will be good to separate out Son of man (Christianity) so the Christological issues can be addressed in a clean module. There is no point in adding them here, to make this even longer and more tedious. A separate page with a Main reference from here is needed. History2007 (talk) 07:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

How very true. Like a cup of tea? PiCo (talk) 13:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

How are you doing my friend? How are things? I have done my best to avoid working on this article. It will just be too much work. Maybe next year... I will make a new year resolution. That way I can put it off for another year. History2007 (talk) 13:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Other

I just added a section under "Other" referencing the movie Terminator 2. In the world of engineering and computer professionals involved with things like image processing, tracking, prediction, estimation and on and on. It a VERY strongly FELT point of view that I believe belongs here. The content I added was:

Computers

Many involved various technology development efforts often find the phrase fitting of its face-value interpretation "As an idiom for the future human, it can be translated gender-neutrally as offspring of Mankind, or Man's child." The movie Terminator_2 is often quoted for the line "sky-net became self aware in 1996" in similar (or opposite) regard. In the movie the Terminator informs John and Sarah about Skynet, the artificial intelligence that will initiate a nuclear holocaust on "Judgment Day" and go on to create the machines that will hunt the remnants of humanity. With a refence below under "See also":

• Terminator_2: Judgement Day

Great, everyone has a keyboard an a personal opinion. IP: read WP:OR first, then delete it. History2007 (talk) 00:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

That's not new and its not unsourced - and its not "just my opinion". At least this time there's a note just above the section suggesting: "This section may contain ..." fine - let it be worked for improvement then. So no I've read the WP:OR and accordingly I have not intention of deleting it. If it does get deleted I WILL put the whole thing up on www.drudge.com with the fustration of adding ANYTHIGN on a wiki. Because surely there are some who oppose addition of truth in the face of false teaching. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.111.7.85 (talk) 00:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhapse addition of more sources such as iRobot, Men In Black, and soo many other movies and popular literature that carry that idea to a "judgment" conclusion would help. Thus I don't mind the note - and would hope it works in that sort of direction (how I see wiki in my idealistic views). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.111.7.85 (talk) 00:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

How precisely was that not unsourced? I didn't see a reference. And regarding "truth": Wikipedia is officially not about truth, but about verifiability. If you can produce a reliable source covering the use of "son of man" in the context of AI, please go ahead and present it. If you can't, that content is unsuited for Wikipedia. Huon (talk) 01:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I referenced a popular movei. Not enough? Ok then, lets try a DR thread then. Sure I'm just 1 voice and you can shout me off here - and if they don't care and nobody else does... well the KILLED JESUS too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.111.7.85 (talk) 02:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

A movie is not a reliable secondary source; at best, it's a primary source. And does Terminator 2 actually use the term "son of man"? I can't remember Skynet being called that. Huon (talk) 02:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

You may "WIN" here - ok if you do. HOWEVER, for some engineers like me the term resonates like it did in that movie. I wanted to see that here. Was greatly dissapointed in this whole experience with wiki - and if I'm still failing to accomplish what seems obvious to me then fine. That does happen to ME - yea I'm scientific. Anyway, I did put up a thread on DR and if you'd like to bash me or my wiki-nubiness there fine. Here fine. But I think what I think and the pherasees don't "own the phrase" which has direct meaning per SECULAR defintion. I even quoted that DIRECTLY from the page intro. Here's the DR link: http://www.drudge.com/news/145470/wiki-son-man-and-skynet-self-aware#discuss — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.111.7.85 (talk) 02:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

"it can be translated gender-neutrally as offspring of Mankind, or Man's child." --- is a direct lift-copy from the wiki-page 1st paragraph. So let's consider that another "SOURCING". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.111.7.85 (talk) 02:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't understand what you are saying here. I did a Google search for Skynet and "son of man", and the most relevant I found was a forum post where someone discussed whether Skynet was a deity. But a pseudonymous forum entry is not a reliable source. Is Skynet actually called "son of man" in the movie? If so, do you perchance know of a movie review or something like that discussing the movie's use of the term? Such a review would be a secondary source and might serve to improve the article. If the movie does not actually use the term, why should our article on the term mention the movie? Huon (talk) 02:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I may not have an ADEQUATE answer from what you seem to suggest necessary for wiki-approval... Though this may help a little. In my book here: http://edans.org/Choose/choose.htm#_Toc295919696 (only internet pub, not bin#'d), ... I have a section on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.111.7.85 (talk) 03:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Huon, consider again the Wiki DEFINITION of the PHRASE at the top of the wiki itsef: "it can be translated gender-neutrally as offspring of Mankind, or Man's child." (re:"Sorry, but I don't understand what you are saying here."). To me that's SOOO obvious it escapes me why I'm not immediately understood - and this interpretation seems common among engineers I've worked with.74.111.7.85 (talk) 05:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Your book seems to be a self-published source, and it lacks the editorial oversight we require of reliable sources. Anyway, if I understand your book correctly, you argue that the Biblical use of "son of man" in Matthew 25:13 refers to an AI that mankind will develop (which won't necessarily have much in common with Skynet - your book doesn't mention Terminator 2 at all). That seems a rather uncommon interpretation of the Bible. Do you know of any other sources besides your book which argue that point? Some theologian, perhaps? If you are the only one to propose this interpretation, it would indeed be considered original research as History2007 pointed out, and Wikipedia is the wrong venue for that. If the timetable you propose in your book is correct, I'd suggest waiting until 2013 - when the AI has arisen, news sources discussing it will abound, and we can write a well-sourced paragraph on the creation of AI by mankind. Huon (talk) 11:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree and I think this IP is wasting everyone's time. Even if he finds a source this statement is on the outer fringe of WP:FRINGE and can not come in. IP: I would suggest watching Terminator 2 several more times instead of wasting everyone's time here. History2007 (talk) 13:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you are quite rude and DISHONEST. I find your suggestion offensive and your deflection of common sense in direct contrast the whole WIKI concept - in fact I find it WICKED. Sure you might own content or priority here - but you don't own the TRUTH. Nor do mainstream publishers. WORDS have meaning you can't stop - just like you can't kill an idea (V for Vendetta).

How simple can it be - just read the words in the definition:

"it can be translated gender-neutrally as offspring of Mankind, or Man's child."

And yet that OBVIOUS assertion is rejected. That CLEARLY proves the lack of credibility for this vetting process.

Wiki-sucks, that's now my opinion and it wasn't before offering this plain and simple - obvious interpretation. Rather than reading and interperteting literally - just like bullies in charge of churches - wiki has appeased sponsors rather than common sense. GOOD BY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.111.7.85 (talk) 00:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Accusations of wickedness or dishonesty will not help you; they just violate Wikipedia's policy on personal attacks. I also fail to understand what you try to argue. You say that the "OBVIOUS assertion" that "son of man" may be translated as "offspring of Mankind, or Man's child" is rejected - yet that supposedly rejected assertion is part of our article's introduction. The assertion that the phrase refers to a computer or some kind of AI is anything but obvious, and as you have been told before, it would require reliable secondary sources. History2007 is also correct in invoking WP:FRINGE: The idea that this biblical phrase refers to computers has, to my knowledge, not been adopted by any major denomination (or even a minor one), it is not supported by any recognized theologian, it has not been advocated by any preacher I am aware of, it is entirely insignificant compared to the mainstream interpretations. Correct me if I'm wrong, and please provide sources. Huon (talk) 01:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I never said it was a theological or religious interpretation. Rather I said it was literal - and my reference of the introduction to the site introduces it that way itself. Your circular logic and adherence to religions while denying the secular obvious interpretation well established by movies made my case - you've rejected it. I get that - and we disagree about the secondary sources - I felt I provided those - especially the literal interpretation of the words. My impression remains that a set of religiously aligned representatives "OWN" this content and don't even acknowledge the obvious. With the help of Rupert Murdoch the truth is adequetly suppressed - you win - and I don't "believe in" wikipedia any more. I also don't believe in "theologins" interpreting the bible for me - or the words "son of man". nuf said. **** — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.111.7.85 (talk) 18:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

For the theologins to ponder in their certainty of their own correctness - I say they're wrong without any "church authority" either - rather, the term is loaded with multiple meanings throughout the bible. For example: Psalms|146:3 Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help. (KJV - other versions change that quote to make "son of man" equate to princes) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.111.7.85 (talk) 18:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

But 74.111.7.85, in your learned opinion, did Apostle Peter use an iPad, or did he continue to use the Microsoft Windows? History2007 (talk) 19:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

that's not my assertion. Rather I'm saying something more like The title references Psalm 8:4: "What is man, that thou art mindful of him? And the son of man, that thou visitest him?" which was the Title of Isaac Asimov story ._._._That_Thou_Art_Mindful_of_Him. Also the essence of every movie in existance where the computers take over the world. Si-Fi interpretation of the exact definition of the sequence of 3 simple words - just like the text introduction to the wiki-page (yet still resisted just like Asimov was). Oh well I don't expect to overcome the religious irrational opposition - but while not eliminated here - seems worth typing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.111.7.85 (talk) 19:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

similarly: Son_of_Man_(novel): The book is about Clay, a 20th century man, who travels billions of years into the future and meets humanity in its future forms.[1][2] Some of the issues discussed in the book are sexuality, telepathic communication between people, physical prowess or frailty, division of humans by caste or ability, and the preservation of ancient wisdom, among other things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.111.7.85 (talk) 19:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

another: [21st century, secular interpretation of the book of Revelation] - there are numerous references to "son of man" on that page - each adds similar interpretation of the phrase while providing additional references between Si-Fi, Computer and AI industries, the bible, and archeology. Its a good link. 74.111.7.85 (talk) 19:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

and another: [Prepare for HyperEvolution with Christian Transhumanism] - again use the search on-page for both "son of man" and for "computer" - it make the same points better than I have. Again tying together the scientific realm (I'm an engineer 1st), theology, and Si-Fi. 74.111.7.85 (talk) 19:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Fascinating. I will be sure to tell my computer all about it. History2007 (talk) 21:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

It makes my head hurt. PiCo (talk) 13:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Me too - computers are obvious to anyone like me who's worked in the field of AI, but perhapse too narrow - since the AI concept it includes networks such as 'skynet', and cybernetic humans such as star trek's 'borg' or Silverberg's novel. Re-trying as "Literal, Man's child" - and deferring to dissambiguation since it clearly belongs somewhere. If not this page then maybe a page of its own and the existing page should get renamed to "son of man (religious)" - as even Christians are fans of literal translation (though often 'behind the times' from a technology standpoint - such as the flat earth, etc). 74.111.4.108 (talk) 22:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Literal, Man's child

Re-applied after this well sourced addition was deleted. The text/refs were:

It can be translated gender-neutrally as offspring of Mankind, or Man's child. Also it exists as a philosophy. Sometimes expressed in science fiction where the computer becomes self aware and possibly integrates the worlds computers into itself. For example, Hal in 2001 Space oddesy, Skynet in Terminator 2, I, Robot, and Son Of Man (a 1971 novel by Silverberg).

74.111.4.108 (talk) 20:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Those movies are obviously primary sources, and they are not reliable, either. Basing content on such sources is original resarch and not acceptable for Wikipedia. And does Terminator 2 actually refer to Skynet as "son of man"? When? I'm pretty sure nobody refers to HAL 9000 as "son of man", and while I haven't seen I, Robot, Asimov's short stories don't use that terminology either, if I remember correctly. Huon (talk) 20:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Those movies are based upon a widespread common fear of the technology taking over. The quote is about taking the words literally. So the words are the source itself - perhaps you'd prefer a dictionary reference? "Son" offspring", "of" assigns to whom, and "man" is the perverbial mankind as used througout this section. Want a link to neil armstrong's 1 small step for man 1 giant step for mankind? I think if you're honest about it the section adds value - especially in context of christian scholarship where the LITERAL translations should be considered 1st. Otherwise its omission makes the whole page suspicious. -so please offer what sort of reference you'd like rather than hostility toward valuable content. 74.111.4.108 (talk) 21:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Added references to Man (disambiguation) and Son

I'd like a reliable secondary source - maybe a philosopher discussing this interpretation of "son of man" in a scholarly journal, or a movie review discussing Skynet or Hal as "son of man", or some other published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that discusses "son of man" in the context of AI. I don't doubt that "technology taking over" is a common theme in science fiction - but it's usually not connected with this term, and without a reliable source to cite, we should not make the connection ourselves. Huon (talk) 21:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Obviously its as literal as the words and opposed by hostile anti-truth religion like you've just done here. This isn't new - and rather than helping you've kept the whole subject ignorant of the very 1st rule of religious doctrine interpretation - start literal. I've added the reference to the words. And surly Isic Asimov reference isn't new either. But instead you want one of the top-10 philosophers? the terminator aspect of judgment is pretty easy, [Terminator and Philosophy: I'll Be Back, Therefore I Am]. IDK about going to the phrase - but the phrase is 3 simple words - and those words are direct and now referenced. Maybe I'll find a better one from a book somewhere 74.111.4.108 (talk) 22:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC) 74.111.4.108 (talk) 22:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think "AI" is the literal meaning of "son of man", and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Furthermore, Wikipedia is concerned with verifiability, not truth. Your "references to the words" are wiki-links, not reliable sources. Isaac Asimov's short stories are not secondary sources for their own use of the term "son of man" - do they even use it? If so, which story?

I didn't ask for "one of the top-ten philosophers", I asked for a reliable secondary source, a published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. If you want the connection between "son of man" and AI noted in this article, you will need a reliable secondary source making that connection. Not a work of fiction, not another Wikipedia article (none of which make the connection anyway), but a reliable secondary source. Otherwise, the connection between "son of man" and AI would be your original research and not acceptable for Wikipedia. As an aside, JohnBlackburne agrees with my interpretation a little farther down this talk page, and edit-warring will get you nowhere except blocked. Huon (talk) 22:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Seems we were editing at the same time. I just added another reference from philosophy. See the 3rd ref above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.111.4.108 (talk) 22:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Resequenced the paragraph for better flow - placing the philosophy book before the movie references. 74.111.4.108 (talk) 22:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

You're aware that's not a philosophical text but a work of science fiction? A novel? Novels are not known for fact-checking and accuracy, science fiction even less so than other genres, and therefore that book is not a reliable source, much less one on philosophy. Huon (talk) 22:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Its still a reference and just an interpretation whether its sifi or philosophy. And I've just added another reference that ties them all together. Expresses how philosophy is advanced via fiction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.111.4.108 (talk) 22:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC) (the 4th ref now above) Added specific reference to p93 Faith Fiction and Philosophy (ref 4 on this talk page)74.111.4.108 (talk) 23:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

More 'philosophy' oriented references are possible - but IMHO that goes to far. CONSIDER the size of the section in the context of how many references already exist on this page. If you insist on more I could also add [http://andphilosophy.com/terminator-and-philosophy/ Terminator and Philosophy I'll Be Back, Therefore I Am William Irwin (Series Editor), Richard Brown (Editor), Kevin S. Decker] but I haven't because I think that detracts from the other sections that might be of interest for those following references. Anyone into si-fi will get the point - perhapse faster than the religious scholars here seem to. 74.111.4.108 (talk) 23:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Another reference (too many imho now - but I can add it if needed - getting near 1/3 of all the refs on the page for this tiny addition). This one engages the computer in the context of son of man in 13 separate pages : The Son of Man: Saoshyant By George W. Barclay, George W. Barclay — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.111.4.108 (talk) 23:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC) (I think this is adequately sourced and done now) 74.111.4.108 (talk) 23:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Let me be blunt: That paragraph has many footnotes, but all are useless. The first two are to Wikipedia articles, and Wikipedia does not accept itself as a reliable source: that would be circular. The third, the fourth and the last three are all to works of fiction, which are not considered reliable sources. That leaves us with no. 5, Faith, Film and Philosophy, which is indeed a reliable secondary source, but it does not say what you want it to say. The "son of man" mentioned in that book is not an AI, but Neo, the human protagonist of The Matrix. It even explicitly says that Neo's name "Anderson", which, with a lot of good will, can be translated as "son of man", is an indication of his role as the messiah. Neo is, argues that book, the Matrix equivalent of Jesus Christ, and the "son of man" name refers to that role. No computers required. (The third source, by the way, the SF novel, also uses "son of man" for a Jesus Christ-equivalent character.) Terminator and Philosophy does not seem to use the term "son of man" at all. (I also doubt that any of the 13 mentions of the word "computer" in The son of Man: Saoshyant actually imply that "son of man" refers to a computer. It mentions "dog" 12 times; does that imply dogs are the son of man? Surely not.) In summary, these references do not show that "son of man" commonly refers to human-built computers with artificial intelligence. Huon (talk) 00:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Fine, be blunt - so I can be too. I've provided more refs to a LITERAL TRANSLATION from dictionary pages on wiki to multiple philosophy books and movies. More are available but my perception is that no matter what supportive reference the people controlling this page will reject it for 'religious' reasons that have nothing to do with the truth. The concept lives on. Meanwhile haters can do things here like make up definitions (eg: Santorum (which is kinda funny - but also a perfect example of this situation here)). Seems wiki has lost its direction via doled-out moderator statutses with axes to grind in support of thier personal religions rather than 3 simple words taken at face value. Even cristians believe in taking the bible 'literally' (should we take the bible literally? (multiple bible refs say YES)). Those who love not the truth cannot be saved - they're lost in wickedness (summary of 2 thess 2). 74.111.4.108 (talk) 03:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

+ 1 more si-fi reference that uses the phrase as its title and represents man 1M years in the furture as a technological creature originating from man but as a more complex cybernetic organism. 74.111.4.108 (talk) 21:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

It may be that this section could fit better under [Son of man (disambiguation) | Son of man (disambiguation)]. HOWEVER, if that's the case then the current page for "Son of Man" should be renamed "Son Of Man (religious)". Otherwise the most obvious literal interpretation of 3 simple words should ether be on that page or on the Disambiguation page - or a page of its own along side of the religious phrase - and let the disambiguation page sort it out. As the si-fi demonstrate its not original research to include the literal interpretation and apply it to futuristic creations of mankind that either saves or kills mankind. But clearly some of the religious scholars seem to want a "son of man (religion)" page they own without dissent of interpretation (other than the dissent among the religions - for me si-fi is but another 'religion'). 74.111.4.108 (talk) 22:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

How often do I have to repeat this? Works of fiction are not reliable secondary sources, they do not come with the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy necessary for that status, and we cannot base a section on "son of man and computers" on such sources. Finding more sources that suffer the same basic flaw will not help. What you're doing is known as "original synthesis": You take a selection of sources, none of which make the point you want them to make (in particular, none say that "son of man" commonly refers to computers becoming self-aware), and use a combination of them to advance your own position nonetheless. This is not accpetable; it violates one of Wikipedia's core policies.

I have time and again expressed my doubt whether movies such as Terminator 2 or 2001: A Space Odyssey actually use the phrase "son of man"; I still don't think they do. And even if they did, they would still be primary sources, and we'd need a secondary source for interpretation. For example, John Coniglio's book definitely uses the term - but in my opinion not because the character is a self-aware computer, but because he's a messianic figure - just as Neo in The Matrix has a name which refers to "son of man" not because of any connection to self-aware computers, but because of his messianic role. If you want to show that your interpretation of Coniglio's book's use of "son of man" is correct and mine is wrong, you need a secondary source.

Concerning your newest claims: You have not provided "multiple philosophy books and movies" which make a connection between "son of man" and computers. You have provided a single philosophy book which does not make the connection, and multiple works of fiction, most of which do not make the connection and none of which are reliable sources.

Providing the literal meaning of the term "son of man" without making the connection to computers is useless, too: On the one hand, we can expect our readers to know the literal meaning of the words "son", "of", and "man", on the other hand, Wikipedia is not a dictionary anyway. As soon as you interpret "son of man" as "descendant of mankind", you have left the realm of the literal anyway, and self-aware computers are in no way the literal meaning of "son of man". If you try to have a separate article on the "computer" meaning of the term created, it will be deleted, either as a WP:NOT violation or for a lack of demonstrated notability. For now I have (once again) removed the badly-sourced content. Huon (talk) 00:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

There are many pages about works of fiction on wiki. There are also pages for "son" and "man" and many other words. This page is even a combination of words. Thus I think you've forced your beliefs here - seem to have the power. No suggested solutions other than DELETE. Can't you do any better than that? Or are you really suggesting the deletaion of 1000s of wiki pages in your FAILED logic and dissrespect on what I find to be COMMON SENSE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.111.4.108 (talk) 04:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

PS: This section was about the 3 words being used LITERALLY - not specific to computers - but you seem obsessed on that manifestation too. Your strawman in order to knock down. IMHO you're sadly wrong, seem to control the page ban others and bully the results. Perhapse you'd like to bully the dissambiguation page too... before this page gets renamed to Son Of Man (religion) - since the religion doesn't OWN the words. Even wiki has entries for Son and Man.

There are indeed many pages on fiction, but I dearly hope most of them do not try to pass of fiction as a reliable secondary source. And while other badly sourced articles exist, that's no reason to deliberately create more.

And if the section I removed was about the words being used literally, why did it mention computers becoming self-aware? There's nothing in "son of man" that literally says "computers becoming self-aware". Huon (talk) 09:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC) Apparently you're challenged to scroll up and read the proposed text. IT was this (with more clarity in the proposed title this time):

Literal, Man's Creation

It can be translated gender-neutrally as offspring of Mankind, or Man's child. Also it exists as a philosophy such as Transhumanism. The novel, Son Of Man (a 1971 novel by Silverberg) presents the concept in an even further future scenario as though mankind transforms itself into a technology based being. The concept is often expressed in science fiction where a computer or network of computers becomes self aware and takes over possibly killing off mankind. For example, Skynet in Terminator 2, I, Robot, and Hal in 2001 Space oddesy.

• no opposition or reply? Well then it seems time to try it with this slightly modified title back on the main page.74.111.4.108 (talk) 22:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• resequenced text to align Transhumanism with the philosophy reference as well as linking it to the Transhumanism wiki page. 74.111.4.108 (talk) 22:57, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Let me point you to a relevant guideline: WP:IDHT. I have explained at length that other Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources. I have explained at length that works of fiction are not reliable secondary sources. Yet you keep re-introducing a paragraph whose sources are almost exclusively other Wikipedia articles and works of fiction (and the one reliable secondary source you use as a reference doesn't say anything remotely relevant to that paragraph). Since you didn't address any of those issues, I didn't feel it necessary to repeat my objections, but since exhaustion apparently is interpreted as agreement, so be it: I still object to the paragraph for all the old reasons which you have not addressed, and I'll continue to do so until you have addressed them, which I expect will be rather difficult.

You introduced new problems as well: You have now named the section "Literal: Man's Creation". But even if I accept for the sake of argument that "offspring of mankind" is a literal translation, "creation" and "offspring" are not synonymous. You are trying to push for a "literal translation" that's anything but. Of course you do not cite any reliable sources for the correctness of your proposed translation from the Hebrew - you can't.

As an aside, you claim that The Son of Man: Saoshyant "discusses computers in the context of chaos theory and the son of man", and you give a couple of page numbers. Those are all instances where the book mentions the word "computer". Have you bothered to read what those pages actually say? Let me cite p. 141 for you:

Tehran Iran

9 A.M., Sunday, December 8, 1993
Temp 35°, light snow

Their wake up call was by computer from the desk. In Italy they got Caruso or Pavarotti but in Iran they got: [...]

The rest of the page discusses turbans, beards and pubic hair. There is nothing about chaos theory, there is nothing about the son of man, there is nothing about philosophy. (Even if there were, we'd still have the problem that you're citing a novel as if it were a philosophy textbook.) You're grasping at straws. Huon (talk) 23:30, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

You say I'm grasping at straws. I say you're denying reality and drunk on your wiki-power (blood of your Saint Contributors). The disambiguation page is full of supporting examples of authors playing on the religious fears from the phrase while using its more literal meaning.

For example:

Books

• Jesus, the Son of Man, a 1928 book by Kahlil Gibran about the life of Jesus
• Hijo de hombre, a 1960 book by the Paraguayan author Augusto Roa Bastos
• Son of Man (novel), a 1971 science fiction novel by Robert Silverberg that explores humanity by musing about its manifestations millions of years into the future.
• The Son of Man (book), a 1998 nonfiction book by Andrew Harvey about the life of Jesus
• Son of Man, a 1979 novel by Yi Munyol
• Son of Man, a 2004 collection of Hellblazer 129-133

Film and television

• Son of Man (play), a 1969 television play by Dennis Potter
• Son of Man (1980 film), a 1980 film directed by Yu Hyun-mok, based upon the 1979 novel
• Son of Man (film), a 2005 South African film that debuted at the Sundance Film Festival

Music

• Sunz of Man, a Wu-Tang Clan affiliated rap group
• "Mab y Dyn" ("Son of Man"), a 1967 choral by Arwel Hughes
• "Son of Man", a 1975 chamber work by Philip Cannon, commissioned to mark Britain's entry into Europe
• "Son of Man" (song), written in 1999 by Phil Collins written for Disney's film Tarzan
• "Son of Man", a 2006 track on the 10cc album Greatest Hits ... And More

Art

• The Son of Man, a 1964 painting by René Magritte

So by pushing all those direct uses of the literal phrase onto an OBSCURE "dissambiguation" page you've successfully glorified your religion while denying the reality of popular culture. You seem to feel good about it too - to me its a disgusting example of manipulated authorship. And yea there's a lot of money in religion so its not a surprise either. 74.111.4.108 (talk) 20:31, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

You can copy and paste the disambiguation page's content. Congratulations. This is supposed to prove what? I don't think those authors play on "religious fear". There's no fear commonly associated with the "son of man" title - it usually denotes either a literal son of another man, a (male) human being, or some sort of messiah (such as the example given by your Matrix reference). Neither is something to be feared. We cite textbooks and scholarly articles on Aramaic and Hebrew for those meanings. And yes, I do feel good about keeping unsourced fringe theories out of this article, though somehow I have failed to get paid for my efforts.

But I don't deny the reality of popular culture - I deny its relevance to this topic. While the phrase "son of man" has been used in popular culture (but not in all of those instances you kept linking to), most of that is closely derived from the religious meaning (again, see the Matrix reference), and the use of the phrase in popular culture remains outside the scope of secondary sources, with even the Matrix reference not actually discussing the use of "son of man" (because it isn't actually used) but just mentions it to make a point that's unrelated to the phrase itself.

As an aside, I am pretty amused by being accused of denying reality when you claimed a paragraph about a computerized wake-up call "discusses computers in the context of chaos theory and the son of man". Huon (talk) 23:56, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Most Christians believe...

208.95.51.156 introduced the claim that "most Christians believe" that the phrase son of man took on Messianic significance within the Christian movement primarily due to the Jewish eschatology during the time of its early conception, and the "most Christians" part is sourced to Delbert Burkett's book, but no page number is given. I haven't read the entire book, but in the introduction Burkett says there is no consensus, with two interpretations predominating: The apocalyptic/messianic and the idiomatic/nontitular (p. 5). Where exactly does Burkett claim that the messianic interpretation is the one held by most Christians? Huon (talk) 01:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Mr(s) IP malcited the source, it seems. Not too unusual in this genre on Wikipedia. If unsure delete IP's hasty claims! Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 07:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Far too few secondary sources

I count the article to contain 28 sections, whereof only 9 are properly sourced with secondary sources. Secondary sources in this case should be a scholarly exposition on the relevant place in the Bible, explaining that "the hebrew/aramaic/greek original phrase 'X' means 'Y' in this context". At the very least. Any long-range dependencies, such as comparing this usage with that usage also needs secondary sources, and of course also general usages in a certain section of the Bible. I'll label the article as missing inline needing more citations. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 08:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Marked. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 08:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

So obviously the mod on this page is biased/owned/manipulated by $/power interests rather than wiki truth. Otherwise the computers section would be honored. I've offered dozens of sources from iRobot, Terminator 2, 2000 Space Oddesy (Hal), Star-Trek, (Viger/Voyager, and Borgue) as well as a couple modern interpretations references (in that talk section). But still that section is prohibited while the biblical quote seems to think they own the quote. Meanwhile the intro-paragraph says exactly what the "computer" section tried to say... "Son of man" interpreted literally = a creation of man. Instead the established religions owning this page say their head hurts. So does my hope in wiki. 74.111.4.108 (talk) 00:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I can't remember seeing a single reliable secondary source from you. The various movies and TV series are obviously primary sources, and I doubt many of them even use the term "son of man" - for example, I'm pretty sure the Borg aren't called that, and it would be rather illogical because their fictional origin has nothing to do with mankind at all (they aren't computers or artificial intelligence, either). If I remember your timeline correctly, we'll only have to wait another year and a half until the AI arises to which Matthew 25:13 apparently refers; once that has happened, we'll surely have many reliable sources discussing such a world-changing event, and if those sources use the term "son of man" to refer to the new AI, we can add them to this article. I just re-checked that you had mathematical proof for the date; so we'll just have to wait a little and the problem will resolve itself. Huon (talk) 01:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, those are simply not reliable, i.e. proper, sources or anywhere close to it. Please read WP:Reliable sources to discover what you need to support your claims, and refrain from adding original research until you do.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Just removed the IP's latest edit based on one of a number of ebooks by George W. Barclay Jr, a retired cardiologist.[2] Self-published by someone who couldn't be considered a reliable source. Dougweller (talk) 05:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Right on bork, but it seems not just about sourcing as you suggest. Rather it seems more about religious bias. The religious powers ruling the content of this page wants to own the words/language itself and even resists the literal interpretation, "Man's child". IMHO its time to subjugate the whole page to a "Son of Man (religious)" title and elevate the "Son of Man (dissambiguation)" page into its place. Otherwise the results are wicked - as in those who loved not the truth cannot be saved (2 Thess 2). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.111.4.108 (talk) 04:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Son of man (religious)

The 3 simple words have a literal translation that's not religious and not owned by any religion. Si-fi, philosophy, and science such as AI have used them frequently in the broader term and since both Son and Man have wiki pages this page should be seperated from its more secular usage. The page Son of man (disambiguation) should drop the "(disambiguation)" from its title and already describes the more general use of the phrase with a philosophy nutral POV including the literal translation. Or, the literal usage should be included on the page. But as the lenghty dialogs under "other" and "sourcing" below have demonstrated via the debates - there seems a strong pro-religion bias with this content on this page, and it seems to exceed the bible-reader form of Christianity into 'church-ed' Christianity (bullied like softer more modern form of inquisition/censorship). 74.111.4.108 (talk) 05:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The religious meaning of the phrase is by far the most significant; for example, out of the top ten Google hits, two are Wikipedia, seven are religious and a single one is neither. At Google Books it's six of the first ten hits, at Google Scholar nine out of ten. It's appropriate that the article on the primary meaning is at the non-disambiguated title.

As an aside, I'm not sure what "literal translation" is supposed to mean in this context. As this article describes, "son of man" is the literal translation of the biblical Hebrew - as much so as any translation can be literal. The biblical Greek can be translated as "son of man" or more literally as "son of the human being", not as "descendant of mankind" (at least not literally), and definitely not as "creation of mankind". If the literal translation of those Hebrew and Greek phrases is supposed to be something else, I'd like to see a reliable source explicitly discussing the translation of those phrases. Huon (talk) 09:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

That's simply not true in the context of scientists and science fiction. There are dozens of movies and films with that theme. And sure "religious" groups are huge, most of the USA's population - but even most christian groups favor LITERAL translation. That means what do the words say directly? Son (ofspring) Of(from) Man (people), 3 words that are very simple. So simple in fact that the first sentance of my proposed addition was in the 1st paragraph of the page till some religious editor here removed it. My impression is the logic of the arguments here have broken down and rather than face the truth about 3 simple workds they'rs a bully system of denial going on. Especially since the dissambiguation page doesn't handle it either - instead same stuff going on there too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.111.4.108 (talk) 05:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The Moderation of This Page is BIASED

Seems the religions want to OWN THE WORDS in addition to its source from the bible. 3 simple words interpreted literally seem to face extreme opposition both here and on the dissabiguation page. To me it demonstrates the short comming of Wiki, and dishonisty of several mods on this page. Enjoy your lies when the "Son OF Man" comes. Son = offspring of = from who Man = mankind Most honest Christians begin with LITERAL TRANSLATION rather than TRADITION. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.106.203.110 (talk) 05:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppets running wild

There are a few newly created accounts that really look like sockpppets of User:Spt172012. Note how one puppet retired another. And attempt to delete an Afd page.

Anyway they are making a mess all over the place. I moved out some Christian items to its own page, given my comments above here from 18 months ago. But the new page needs help too, but with rational edits,not like this. History2007 (talk) 07:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The key puppet was indef blocked and I have started to clean up Son of man (Christianity) - did not want to do it at all... But should be ok in a day or two. Now why does this topic attract all the loony bin crowd with the human-computer ideas and these puppets and IPs with way out ideas? History2007 (talk) 16:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Restructuring

I think here we can take an approach similar to Holy Spirit, which is an overview article, and has four separate sub-articles:

• Holy Spirit (Christianity)
• Holy Spirit (Judaism)
• Holy Spirit (Islam)
• Maid of Heaven (Bahá'í)

That has worked well there. Unless there are objections, I will do that, now that the Christianity material is a separate page. I do not plan to change any of the material in teh Jewish section, just make it a separate page and leave a summary here. But it would even be better if someone more familiar with that does it. History2007 (talk) 21:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Ip adding unsourced items and outdated sources

IP 85.183.56.74 is adding unsourced, incorrect mataerial and making a mess of things. Don't want to revert him again, but needs to read policy - does not seem to have read it. On his talk page says policy does not apply to him. History2007 (talk) 01:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe the IP editor meant to say that his edits actually follow policy and that the criticism therefore does not apply. Anyway, even though the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia is in the public domain, I don't think lengthy swathes of copied text are a good addition to this article. In particular I'd be very careful when citing the Jewish Encyclopedia on Matthew. To me the text sounds anything but neutral; especially when it claims that "obviously" the Biblical text supports their preferred interpretation - I somehow doubt Christians would find that quite as obvious. Furthermore the Jewish Encyclopedia is old, and we should use newer sources to adequately represent the scholarly consensus (as opposed to what might have been the consensus a century ago). Huon (talk) 02:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

There are multiple issues, one the WP:OR such as "we can see that ברנשא bar nasha is used in a general form for humanity." in the gnostics, "idiosycratically denotes a prophesied, divine eternal ruler." in the lede etc. These are unsourced and in fact less than correct. And the topic has been the subject of ongoing debate in which opinions have changed and what was agreed to 20 years ago is now rejected. So what he added is a clear degradation of fully sourced text. History2007 (talk) 09:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I started to do some editing but reverted instead. We shouldn't be using the JE and we certainly shouldn't be copying it, PD or not. Dougweller (talk) 09:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree. And some of it was not even from the JE necessarily and was WP:OR, as above. History2007 (talk) 14:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

'Son of Man' as a royal title, back in the day

This article http://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/sonofman.html in site Tektonics.org (an apologetics ministry) shows how the 'Son of Man' title as used by Jesus corresponded with the 'Son of man' from Daniel and how the words used by Daniel ('bar enash' instead of 'bar adam') indicated not merely a human being (which 'bar adam' always means in the OT/Tanakh), but instead a royal heir, and related concepts that finally add to a(nother) claim to divinity (when taking all Daniel says about this 'son of man'). The article is at the least very educating regarding its meaning, and his sources probably could fit here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.9.128.146 (talk) 23:50, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Moved from article - etymology

As Christ spoke Aramaic, "Son of Man" is obviously a translation of Aramaic "Bar Nasha" and obviously an erroneous translation. The error consists in "etymological confusion", in taking etymology for meaning. Etymology of "Bar Nasha" is indeed "Son of Man", but its meaning at Christ's time was "Man". -You DON'T translate "baise-en-ville" as "make love downtown" (etymology), but as "overnight bag" (meaning in current French); -you DON'T translate "cul-de-sac" as "ass-of-bag", but as "blind alley"; -you DON'T translate "bistro" as "hurry up!" (Russian etymology), but as "French bar"; -you DON'T translate French "vasistas" as "what's that?" (German etymology) but as "fanlight" (current French meaning); -you DON'T translate Russian "vaksal" as "Vauxhall" (English etymology), but as "railway station" (current Russian meaning). You DON'T translate "BAR NASHA" as "SON OF MAN" (etymology), but as "MAN" (current Aramaic meaning at Christ's time). Hebrew ben-adam means "man", a point, and it does not even have the etymology of "Son of Man" but "Son of Soil", "adama" meaning soil in hebrew. This error calls in question the whole article, which should be at least partially rewritten. I could do it with pleasure, if accepted. Added to article by Zgmet (talk · contribs) so I moved it here for discussion. Zgmet, you will need sources meeting WP:RS discussing "Son of Man". Dougweller (talk) 10:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

POV

I entered a POV tag because I am having trouble with the statement "Modern scholarship increasingly sees the phrase not as one genuinely used by Jesus but as a one put in his mouth by the early Church." in the History section. It only has a single source. Basileias (talk) 05:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

That source is Burkett, possibly the leading "son of man" scholar of the present day. Are you proposing to know more about the subject? I find your style of editing tendentious and pov-driven. PiCo (talk) 07:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Been busy. Burkett stated there is no consensus and that statement (paraphrased) was one agreed among others. A piece of the source has been obviously cherry picked. This misrepresents the author Burkett. Basileias (talk) 12:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

It would be best to put a complete coverage of the debate over the origin of the term. Ashorocetus (talk) 17:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I am not suggesting what you put forward is invalid, but that is a separate issue from what I brought forward. I am also not interested in taking that on at this time. My issues here are how the sources have been used in the History paragraph. Statements in them have clearly been cherry picked and then paraphrased. I have corrected that and I am waiting to see if it will stand with other editors. Basileias (talk) 17:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I see. I agree with you on this point, what you have is a much more accurate representation of the source. Ashorocetus (talk) 03:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I just came and looked again at this today. It looks like there are no protests with my edits. I am removing the POV tag. Basileias (talk) 04:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Son of Man sources

Ok, this shouldn't be a hard article to do, just find sources and do it, right? I'll give it a go.PiCo (talk) 10:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Substitute kings

I have removed the content added by Preston Kavanagh, largely for two reasons: Firstly, his work was given undue weight compared to the rest of the article. Secondly, that book is brand new, published only in 2017, and I feel rather uncomfortable with an author adding their own new work to the relevant Wikipedia article. Particularly for a book advertised as providing an explanation that has escaped theologians and bible scholars for millennia, I would like to see whether that explanation indeed is acceptted by other scholars as the new consensus or whether it's just another one in the spectrum of theories. Huon (talk) 00:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Proving Son of Man is Adam (Chosen one, Elect one)

Here is proof that the son of Man is Adam who is also called The Chosen One. Here is the book online with scripture backing it including the Dead Sea Scrolls including Book of Enoch: https://sites.google.com/view/sonofman/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.181.168.42 (talk) 18:56, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Genesis 28 and John 1 50-51 Gives the truth about who the "Son of Man" is... by name! Thus ... AM I the only ONE who knows ? Because MY name is written in the book of life? Love Jakob! Jorn Jakob Albert Boor (talk) 14:19, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

what's going on with this page?

under "Children of Men Interpretation" there's just a bunch of nonsense and blathering. they use the term "friend zone" and I know that's not in the Bible. this doesn't seem like the kind of content that belongs on Wikipedia 50.193.137.89 (talk) 23:39, 16 July 2022 (UTC)