please note that the original Greek codex of the New Testament always names Jesus Christ or Yahshua as the Son of Adam NOT the Son of man. Adam was intentionally changed in the English and other language translations to generalize inclusivity. The fact remains however, that the Greek words used for our Redeemer throughout the New Testament was always Son of Adam, NEVER Son of man.
Do you mean that “τοῦ ἀνθρώπου” is wrong in the way of textual criticism, or do you mean that the translation of it into “son of man” in wrong?
The word ἀνθρώποs (anthropos) or MAN was never used in the original Codex written on papyrus which is not the the Greek Bible of today that also uses ἀνθρώποs. The correct word was Adam. There are other words that were changed when copies from the original were made but is not the subject matter here. To most Christian priests and ministers, this is just minutia, but for clear understanding the proper words must always be used. Using the term man infers that mankind is directly related to the Lord Jesus of the Virgin birth. Luke indicates that Adam was also the Son of God. Lk 3:38, which leads us to Jesus Christ's title as Son of Adam as in the flesh, NOT the Son of any man. In this context John 1:4 also loses all significance when we see the term "light of men" when it should be light of Adam. There is no light of men but there is the light of Adam. The light of Adam alludes to the light that was taken away from Adam after his trangression in the Garden, where afterwards, Adam bemoaned the fact that he could no longer see or hear the angels in heaven. You have to read the Masoretic texts and other Hebrew writtings to learn about the rest of that wonderful story. When Jesus the Christ was born our heavenly Father restored the light of Adam in Jesus Christ, this is why John speaks of this "light". The Lord God had made a covenant with Adam which eventually led to the birth of our Lord and Saviour. I said too much already, however, there is quite a bit more to this incredible Divine story that connects all the dots which leads to deeper understanding. If you wish further study, check out your Companion Bible and look up Appendix 14 -Synonymous Words Used for Man, where Christ is correctly called Son of Adam not Son of enosh (man) which is in accord with the original New Testament Codex.
The word ἀνθρώποs (anthropos) or MAN was never used in the original Codex written on papyrus which is not the the Greek Bible of today that also uses ἀνθρώποs.
ἀνθρώποs was abbreviated in the nominative as ΑΝΟΣ/ανος and in the genitive as ΑΝΟΥ/ανου.
If you wish further study, check out your Companion Bible and look up Appendix 14 -Synonymous Words Used for Man, where Christ is correctly called Son of Adam not Son of enosh (man) which is in accord with the original New Testament Codex.
Could you be more specific about which papyri use Adam and which codex? Codex Siniaticus has "του αν̅ο̅υ̅" in Mt 12:32 and 24:30.
You are working here with online reseach of the mistranslated text, that papyrus is not the original Codex nor have you looked up in your Companion Bible appendix 14 that gives the details which shows how Christ was called Son of Adam. Like many other things about the origins and errors in the Scriptures and censorship, you won't find that online because it changes the entire narrative of the story. You will only learn of this from a Theological Seminary that teaches advanced Biblical Studies where you have to learn old Greek, Aramaic/Chaldee, Syriac and study all of the Apocryphal books from the Christian Coptic Church. The Judaists love to call Jesus Christ the Son of man rather than the Son of Adam. Their Tradition of the Elders (Babylonian Talmud) which Christ condemned, says that Jesus was the son of a Roman soldier which supports their narrative that Jesus was only the Son of a man, and we keep on maintaining this lie with our modern Bibles.
The Greek Codex was tranlated from the much older Chaldee texts. I should have explained this to avoid all the nit-pik. The Greek versions of the New Testament were translated from the Chaldee manuscripts which used the article attached to the word Adam which meant "The Adam" not the lower form of adam without the article, being the word ENOSH for flesh being, or man, from the Chaldee as is found throughout Genesis. As such, in these texts where we see Son of man in our modern Bibles, the Chaldee version always had the article before the word Adam, showing that it was always "The Adam" of Genesis, hence, Son of Adam. Even the Syriac versions of the text in Matthew and Revelations use the term Son of Adam. In either case Christ should always be referred to as the Son of God or Son of the Adam from Genesis and never the blasphemous term of Son of a lowly man as the anti-Christian Judaic texts indicate. To persist in saying that Jesus Christ is the Son of man only supports the lie. When the Holy Spirit descended upon Yahshua/Jesus after His baptism, the Lord God in a voice from heaven did say; "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased." Matt. 3:17. Can you still say that Christ is the Son of man? If you can teach someone to believe two opposites you can make them believe anything. Thus endeth the discussion. Best wishes.
Do you mean that “τοῦ ἀνθρώπου” is wrong in the way of textual criticism, or do you mean that the translation of it into “son of man” in wrong?
Mark 13:26 and Daniel 7:13 are related passages.
The word ἀνθρώποs (anthropos) or MAN was never used in the original Codex written on papyrus which is not the the Greek Bible of today that also uses ἀνθρώποs. The correct word was Adam. There are other words that were changed when copies from the original were made but is not the subject matter here. To most Christian priests and ministers, this is just minutia, but for clear understanding the proper words must always be used. Using the term man infers that mankind is directly related to the Lord Jesus of the Virgin birth. Luke indicates that Adam was also the Son of God. Lk 3:38, which leads us to Jesus Christ's title as Son of Adam as in the flesh, NOT the Son of any man. In this context John 1:4 also loses all significance when we see the term "light of men" when it should be light of Adam. There is no light of men but there is the light of Adam. The light of Adam alludes to the light that was taken away from Adam after his trangression in the Garden, where afterwards, Adam bemoaned the fact that he could no longer see or hear the angels in heaven. You have to read the Masoretic texts and other Hebrew writtings to learn about the rest of that wonderful story. When Jesus the Christ was born our heavenly Father restored the light of Adam in Jesus Christ, this is why John speaks of this "light". The Lord God had made a covenant with Adam which eventually led to the birth of our Lord and Saviour. I said too much already, however, there is quite a bit more to this incredible Divine story that connects all the dots which leads to deeper understanding. If you wish further study, check out your Companion Bible and look up Appendix 14 -Synonymous Words Used for Man, where Christ is correctly called Son of Adam not Son of enosh (man) which is in accord with the original New Testament Codex.
ἀνθρώποs was abbreviated in the nominative as ΑΝΟΣ/ανος and in the genitive as ΑΝΟΥ/ανου.
Here's papyri 𝔓21 of Matthew 12:32 which has "[υυ] του ανου" where [υυ] is an abbreviate used for ὑιός. https://ntvmr.uni-muenster.de/manuscript-workspace/?docID=10021
Could you be more specific about which papyri use Adam and which codex? Codex Siniaticus has "του αν̅ο̅υ̅" in Mt 12:32 and 24:30.
You are working here with online reseach of the mistranslated text, that papyrus is not the original Codex nor have you looked up in your Companion Bible appendix 14 that gives the details which shows how Christ was called Son of Adam. Like many other things about the origins and errors in the Scriptures and censorship, you won't find that online because it changes the entire narrative of the story. You will only learn of this from a Theological Seminary that teaches advanced Biblical Studies where you have to learn old Greek, Aramaic/Chaldee, Syriac and study all of the Apocryphal books from the Christian Coptic Church. The Judaists love to call Jesus Christ the Son of man rather than the Son of Adam. Their Tradition of the Elders (Babylonian Talmud) which Christ condemned, says that Jesus was the son of a Roman soldier which supports their narrative that Jesus was only the Son of a man, and we keep on maintaining this lie with our modern Bibles.
The Greek Codex was tranlated from the much older Chaldee texts. I should have explained this to avoid all the nit-pik. The Greek versions of the New Testament were translated from the Chaldee manuscripts which used the article attached to the word Adam which meant "The Adam" not the lower form of adam without the article, being the word ENOSH for flesh being, or man, from the Chaldee as is found throughout Genesis. As such, in these texts where we see Son of man in our modern Bibles, the Chaldee version always had the article before the word Adam, showing that it was always "The Adam" of Genesis, hence, Son of Adam. Even the Syriac versions of the text in Matthew and Revelations use the term Son of Adam. In either case Christ should always be referred to as the Son of God or Son of the Adam from Genesis and never the blasphemous term of Son of a lowly man as the anti-Christian Judaic texts indicate. To persist in saying that Jesus Christ is the Son of man only supports the lie. When the Holy Spirit descended upon Yahshua/Jesus after His baptism, the Lord God in a voice from heaven did say; "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased." Matt. 3:17. Can you still say that Christ is the Son of man? If you can teach someone to believe two opposites you can make them believe anything. Thus endeth the discussion. Best wishes.