Son of God Part – 2

Peace blessings have mercy be upon y'all. And welcome back to our page and to part two of this video series, The Son of God. In the first video of the series, I talked to you about identity politics. Jesus is self designation as Son of man and the metaphorical weight of honorifics, such as Son of God, and Son of David. In today's video, we're going to be talking about semantics and focus on the translation of the New Testament from ancient Greek. As you know, translation is a tricky beast. While it makes text more globally accessible, and therefore increases their reach and marketability. It also has its pitfalls, translation often fall short of its own best intentions. And that is

because there are some words and concepts that simply failed to translate well, for example, my South African followers will know there's no real way to translate the Afrikaans word Lego, of course, you can offer a direct translation and say it means nice, but that doesn't quite capture the essence and the intention and meaning in the original language, does it? Can you imagine how much more difficult it must be to accurately translate meaning from an ancient language into a modern one, languages evolve and develop meaning over time drawing from the contemporary realities to inform the construction. So it's no wonder translations, often literal or direct failed to convey

the nuances originally intended. Just look at Google Translate. Now, obviously, I'm joking, because Google Translate is just a machine. And the scholars who translate religious texts are human, and therefore self aware and aware of the distinction between direct translation and the translation of meaning. But aren't we all as humans, by definition, fallible? No two of us are alike. And aside from the passage of time, and the development of language systems, and systems of meaning, that's just another reason why we get different translations of a single source text. For example, The King James Version of the Bible is a different translation to the New Living version of the Bible. And

there are various different scholars who have offered their own translations of the Holy Quran into English. While the meaning of all English translations of these texts should then be identically true to the meaning and intention of the source text. We know this isn't always the case, because of both the pitfalls of translation and the evolution of language, not to mention the element of human subjectivity, whether implicitly or explicitly expressed. Therefore, it is important that we refer back to the source language whenever meaning and translation is called into question, or otherwise in doubt. This brings me to the investigation of the translation of the New Testament from ancient

Greek and more specifically, the translation of two specific Greek words, which pertain to sonship and the identity of Jesus Christ, the two Greek words both of which are popularly translated in modern Bibles as son in English, a pious and who uses these words in turn have been derived from the ancient Hebrew language. Pious, for example, is said to have been derived from the Hebrew word edit, which bears meaning more akin to servant than son. However, as explored in part one of this video series, the ancient intention or meaning of sonship, was one who imitates or follows the examples of a father, figure or leader, who takes commands from a master or leader better than a servant, whose

existence is predicated on fulfilling the wishes of his master. This translation of pious to son and not servant must then likewise be metaphorical, as in ancient traditions, and not literal as it's tempting to assume from modern translations. This translation of the metaphorical intention actually ties in perfectly with the prophecy of Messiah conveyed in chapter 42 verse one, and which is upheld in Matthew chapter 12, is a team in which God says, Behold, my servant, from the Greek word pines, whom I've chosen my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased. This prophecy is believed to have been about the coming of the Prophet Jesus, which was fulfilled by the time of the painting of Matthew,

even if we were to disregard the translation of pious as son, and not servant in contemporary English Bibles, we'd need to acknowledge that Jesus Christ is not the only one who is called Pius, the servant of God. In the original Greek, the same phrase is used eight times in the New Testament, and only five of those times is in reference to Jesus. The remaining three are divided between Israel, as in Luke chapter one, verse 54, and David as in Luke chapter one, verse 69, and Acts chapter four verse 25. Even if you translate pious Theo's as Son of God, instead of servant of God, they asked

will at least three sons of God mentioned in the New Testament. So why does the English translation appear to deliberately set Jesus apart? Because despite the fact that the Greek is identical in meaning and expression when referring to Israel, Jesus and David as pious the US, the English translation of servants is applied to David and Israel, but Sun is reserved for the reference to Jesus. If the original Greek does not make that distinction in either expression, or meaning, why does the translation presume to do so? The Greek word who yas which is also translated in English as son, is also blatantly metaphorical in its usage in the original Greek, but the same metaphorical

weight has failed to translate to the English. Yes, who you ask is used literally in referring to Jesus as the son of Mary. But it is more frequently used metaphorically to refer to among others, believers as sons of the King, as in Matthew chapter 12, verse 25, God's elect being sons of Abraham, as in Luke chapter 19, verse nine, believers being sons of God, as in Matthew chapter seven, verse nine, Jesus's favorite disciple being introduced to his mother Mary as her other son, as in John chapter 19, verse 26, and various other metaphorical references to the sons of various abstract concepts and natural phenomenon, like sons of peace, sons of light, sons of this world, and

even Sons of Thunder. But this is not Greek mythology, writes, Sons of Thunder is clearly a metaphor, because otherwise we'd have to accept that James and his brother were for his kids bright, or that the natural phenomenon thunder was capable of fathering children. Nobody's claiming that this is the case. So why does the metaphorical weight of the original Greek not translate to English? And look, ultimately, none of this is to say that Jesus peace and blessings be upon him was not special, or that he was not a son of God, a prophet, a servant. He clearly was in the Koran. Jesus even miraculously speaks from the cradle, and calls himself in the Abdullah, which means

servant of God, as in the Quran, chapter 19 Verse 30, even gray ham stands in a renowned biblical scholar concludes that most scholars agree that the Aramaic and Hebrew word behind son is servant, which makes sense, because all God's prophets can be described as His servants, often foregoing the pleasures and foibles of this life to serve their master in heaven. So I hope you can understand why I say that while Jesus was definitely a son of God within the biblical context, his servant and a prophet, I believe calling him the Son of God is not only misleading, but disingenuous. Thank you so much for sticking around for part two of this video series. If you haven't yet watched part one of

this series, I highly encourage you to check it out. Now. If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to message me via our page. I'm always happy to engage in constructive and mutually respectful conversation. All the best blessings upon you and your family does