Talk:Son of man/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Son of man. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Discussion
- I'll be adding in examples of how the Aramaic בר אנשא (bar nashâ) is used as a title of piousness and self-reference near the turn of the millenium from surviving written evidence within the next week. -The Thadman 18:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- UPDATE - I was able to add in a bunch of stuff, but I still am planning on padding out each individual source with some further discussion, as well as link in some more sources contemporary to Jesus of Nazereth. The Thadman 04:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
I think the information about usage in Aramaic and Hebrew is interesting. Would it be possible to also add information on how it appeared in the Greek Septuagint in these passages? This seems particularly relevant as the New Testament quotes from the Septuagint far more often than it quotes from Hebrew or Aramaic texts, and the early church mostly used the Septuagint as well. Wesley 17:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
permission
What follows is an e-mail giving permission to use the article found at http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/meta_jesus.htm, apparently received by Amgine and first posted on User talk:Mirv:
Subject: Re: your article Son of Man From: zgmet@wanadoo.fr Date: 2:56 PM saewyc wrote: >> >> Sir, >> >> An article of yours (brilliant imo) was posted at Wikipedia, and is now >> removed because it was probably posted without copyright permission. And (as >> many discussions involving religious topics) it has become a bit of a messy >> dispute. So I am writing to request permission to post the message at >> Wikipedia, or as a source on Wikibooks. (the following is the official >> request for permission boilerplate text): >> >> I discovered your article Son of Man at >> http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/meta_jesus.htm. I found it >> very informative and useful. I would love to use it in a project I'm >> involved with called Wikipedia, so I'm seeking your permission. >> >> Wikipedia http://www.wikipedia.org is a free encyclopedia that is >> collaboratively-edited by volunteers from around the world. >> >> I'd like to include your materials in this article >> http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_man; . To get a sense of the freedom of >> wikipedia, you could even edit this without registration right now. >> >> We can only use your materials if you are willing to grant permission for it >> to be used under terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. This means >> anybody will have the right to share your materials and update them: for >> example, to keep up with new information. You can read this license in full >> at: >> http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GFDL >> (note: To keep things simple, we don't use Invariant Sections, Front-Cover >> Texts, or Back-Cover Texts) >> >> The license also expressly protects authors "from being considered >> responsible for modifications made by others" while ensuring that authors >> get credit for their work. There is more information on our copyright policy >> at: >> http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights >> >> If you agree, we will credit you for your work in the resulting article's >> references section by stating it was based on your work and is used with >> your permission and by providing a web link back to either the source I >> found it at (http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/meta_jesus.htm) >> or your page at Third Age (http://home.thirdage.com/science/zgmet/) where I >> located this e-mail address. >> >> Thank you for your time. >> >> Kindly, >> >> <WIKIPEDIA AUTHOR> ====================================================== Dear Sir Thank you for your interest. You have my permission to use my article observing copyright and common decency rules, in particular clearly indicating all eventual updates as not being written by me. Please notify me when and where the article will be posted. Regards Georges Metanomski =======================================================
POV paragraph removal
While not disputing the removal, per se, it appeared to me the paragraph reported a cited source's opinion which is relevant to the article topic. Should this paragraph have been rewritten to present this information in NPOV? - Amgine 19:18, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It was inserted 1/2 way into a sentence by an anonymous user for POV reasons, whose only other edit was to insert the same text into another article to support the same POV. It was clearly an act of extreme POV editing. CheeseDreams 19:36, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The text in question stated that "X proved that these were fraudulent translations", it is clearly POV. It would be more accurate to state "Some have the opinion that the translation is inaccurate. X claimed to have provided proved that these were inaccurate translations, however most dispute his claim of proof". Also, the "A, B, C, and D think that the translation should be always in the apocalyptic sense, and that other terms translated son of man are mistranslated" opinion is expressed already, further down in the article. CheeseDreams 19:42, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Im wondering whose sock-puppet it was that made the insertion. CheeseDreams
- <Nod> I thought that was the case. Just wanted to be sure. As to the sockpuppet question, in this case I don't think so. Mirv has reported repeated anon attempts on this particular subject related to the citation for a week or so now. I think the text you have then covers the issue. Is the article referenced? - Amgine 19:47, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)