Best majority text version?

[Martin Marprelate]

Didn't the 2011 revision of the Niv address this issue though?

So I believe. I don't have a 2011 NIV as there are other issues with it.
But if the NIV revisers admit that 'body' is a wrong translation in Eph. 5:29, that is a good thing.

 

[Rippon]

I am "fired up" against the translation of sarx as 'body' when it means 'flesh.'

You buy into the "literal meaning" myth. Sarx doesn't = flesh many times in Scripture. There is such a thing as semantic range.

it causes me deep anger when translators play fast and loose with the word of God. I think the greatest need in a Bible translator is humility.

Perhaps you, as a non-translator, should exercise some humility and realize that Bible translators need not fall into lock-step with your dictates.

The point is that translators should not think that they can decide for themselves how to translate words.

All translators have to decide how to translate phrases, clauses and sentences. It is normally a team effort. Interpretation is necessary. There is no magical one-to-one correspondence.

They need to translate the words the Holy Spirit has given them accurately and humbly, and sarx means 'flesh.'

Sarx can mean a number of things including flesh. But for you to insist that it must mean flesh every single time is nonsensical.

 

[Rippon]

But if the NIV revisers admit that 'body' is a wrong translation in Eph. 5:29, that is a good thing.

The word "body" as it is used in Ephesians 5:29 is perfectly acceptable. It is not a "wrong" translation, it simply isn't your preference. Your preference is not good enough to override good scholarship.

You are so gung ho on using flesh. How about in 1 Cor. 1:29 where the NIV,NLT,HCSB,NET,GWT and ISV all have no one? The ESV has no human being.

Or what about 2 Cor. 7:1 where the Weymouth, GWT, NET, ISV, ESV,NLT and NIV all have body?

Or look at Gal. 1:16 where the NIV, NLT, ISV, NET and Weymouth all have human being. The ESV and HCSB have it rendered as anyone. GWT has any other person.

Cast a gander at Gal. 2:16 where the NIV,NLT, ESV and NET have it worded as no one. The HCSB, ISV and Weymouth all have it rendered as no human being.

See Ephesians 2:11 where the NIV and NET have body while the NLT and GWT have bodies.

 

[Rippon]

Sarx As Translated In Many Translations

Luke 3:6
NIV, NLT : all people
HCSB, ISV : everyone
NET : all humanity
GWT : all people
Weymouth : all mankind

Acts 2:26
NIV, NLT, ISV, NET, GWT, Weymouth : body

Romans 3:20
NIV, NLT, HCSB, NET : no one
ESV : no human being
ISV : not any human being
GWT : not one person

1 Peter 1:24
NIV, GWT :all people
NLT : people
ISV : all human life
Weymouth : all mankind

Matthew 24:22
NIV, HCSB, ISV, NET, GWT, Weymouth : no one
NLT : not a single person
ESV : no human being
NASB : no life

 

[Martin Marprelate]

You buy into the "literal meaning" myth. Sarx doesn't = flesh many times in Scripture. There is such a thing as semantic range.

Obviously I understand about the semantic range of a word. I studied ancient languages including Greek at University. A great deal of the time sarx means 'unredeemed human nature.' The context will tell you when this is so. But in 1 Tim. 3:16 and Eph. 5:29, there is a reason why the Holy Spirit has written sarx and not something else. I have explained this, but either you don't understand or you are deliberately ignoring it.

Perhaps you, as a non-translator, should exercise some humility and realize that Bible translators need not fall into lock-step with your dictates.

This is a discussion forum and I have as much right to my views as you do.

All translators have to decide how to translate phrases, clauses and sentences. It is normally a team effort. Interpretation is necessary. There is no magical one-to-one correspondence.

Sarx can mean a number of things including flesh. But for you to insist that it must mean flesh every single time is nonsensical.

The natural meaning of sarx is 'flesh.' Before anyone translates it in a different way he needs to ask himself why the Holy Spirit chose that word and not another. Sometimes it may be OK to use another word to translate it, but in the two verses under discussion I don't believe it is.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The word "body" as it is used in Ephesians 5:29 is perfectly acceptable. It is not a "wrong" translation, it simply isn't your preference. Your preference is not good enough to override good scholarship.

You are so gung ho on using flesh. How about in 1 Cor. 1:29 where the NIV,NLT,HCSB,NET,GWT and ISV all have no one? The ESV has no human being.

etc., etc., etc..

We are talking about 1 Tim. 3:16 and Eph. 5:29. Each verse has to be considered separately. FYI, I believe that in 1 Cor. 1:29, 'flesh' is the only proper translation of sarx because here sarx means 'unredeemed humanity'- those who are 'in the flesh.' Christians will certainly be glorying in Christ's presence one day (1 Cor. 1:31; Rev. 7:9ff), so 'no one' and 'no human being' are wrong.

I have no intention of going through all the other verses. But the translator needs humbly and prayerfully to ask himself why the Holy Spirit uses one word rather than another, and not to think that he can let his own prejudices and fallen intellect decide.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Acts 2:26
NIV, NLT, ISV, NET, GWT, Weymouth : body

Here sarx is obviously referring to a corpse or a dead body, therefore 'body' as a translation would be acceptable, although I don't know what is wrong with 'flesh.' I think some of these modern translations have to use different words to get around copyright.

 

[Logos1560]

I think some of these modern translations have to use different words to get around copyright.

When several modern translations use the same rendering that differs from the KJV, how could the purpose be to get around copyright?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I am no expert on this, but my understanding is that a new translation has to differ from other modern translations to avoid claims of plagiarism. Obviously they don't all have to differ at the same place. Whether they have to differ by 10%, 20% or 30%+ I have no idea.

 

[Van]

Stepping away from what might motivate modern translators, we know that they pay lip service to concordance but seldom stick to that principle.

Lets back up and consider the Greek word (transliterated)sarx. It is used in two general ways, referring to the physical material of our physical body, i.e. flesh, and the actions of the physical body such as reproduction, i.e ...according to the flesh. OTOH, it is used for actions apart from God, i.e. carnal. Using just these two meanings, lets consider some of the verses where "sarx" appears.

Romans 8:5 "For those who are according to the flesh, set their minds on on the things of the flesh.... (NASB) Obviously the second meaning (above) is intended. Thus should be translated "For those who are according to the carnal, set their minds of the things of the carnal...."

Now lets turn to Ephesians 5:29. Clearly our physical body is in view and therefore should be translated "flesh."

There is absolutely no need to overlap and translate two different Greek words, sarx and soma into the very same English word (body).

Lets look at a more difficult usage, Ephesians 6:5. "Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ." Here the idea of according to sarx is according to the world's non-spiritual viewpoint, so again when the idea is referring to something independent or apart from God, a form of carnal should be used.

 

[Rippon]

A great deal of the time sarx means 'unredeemed human nature.'


The natural meaning of sarx is 'flesh.'

Sometimes it may be OK to use another word to translate it,

Well, in the above quotes you are all over the place. Is it that sarx means unredeemed human nature a great deal of the time? Is the natural meaning flesh? Or it's okay to use other words occasionally.

 

[Rippon]

The natural meaning of sarx is 'flesh.' Before anyone translates it in a different way he needs to ask himself why the Holy Spirit chose that word and not another.

The Holy Spirit did not chose the word "flesh" -that's just an English gloss. The Holy Spirit chose sarx.

You have acknowledged that sarx can be translated in ways other than "flesh" --so "the natural meaning" is not automatically what you insist on here.

 

[Rippon]

FYI, I believe that in 1 Cor. 1:29, 'flesh' is the only proper translation of sarx

Well, a plethora of real Bible translators have not seen any merit in your opinion.

the translator needs humbly and prayerfully to ask himself why the Holy Spirit uses one word rather than another, and not to think that he can let his own prejudices and fallen intellect decide.

A genuine Bible translator makes exegetical interpretations all the time.There is no such thing as mechanical translation where an English word or phrase is automatically slipped into a given text.

 

[Rippon]

Stepping away from what might motivate modern translators, we know that they pay lip service to concordance but seldom stick to that principle.

You are an advocate of lexical concordance. Most New Testament Bible translators believe in contextual concordance.

Thus should be translated "For those who are according to the carnal, set their minds of the things of the carnal...."

Your "translation" is rife with poor English.

 

[Rippon]

Now lets turn to Ephesians 5:29. Clearly our physical body is in view and therefore should be translated "flesh."

If it is so clear, then why not indeed use the word body?

One of your favorite Bible translations that you constantly extol is the NET.
Here in Eph. 5:29 it starts out with :"For no one has ever hated his own body..."

 

[Van]

Translating two different Greek words (sarx and soma) into the same English word (body) obscures the underlying text. Transparency requires using different words or phrases for different Greek words. Flesh works for Ephesians 5:29.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The natural meaning of sarx is 'flesh.' Before anyone translates it in a different way he needs to ask himself why the Holy Spirit chose that word and not another.

The Holy Spirit did not chose the word "flesh" -that's just an English gloss. The Holy Spirit chose sarx.

I'm not sure whether you're being silly or snarky, but it ill becomes you; please stop it. Of course the Holy Spirit chose sarx, of which the normal, natural meaning is 'flesh.' Therefore, before anyone translates the word a different way, they need to ask themselves why the Holy Spirit used that word and not another.

You have acknowledged that sarx can be translated in ways other than "flesh" --so "the natural meaning" is not automatically what you insist on here.

You're still being silly. The word sarx appears 151 times in the N.T. The KJV translates it as 'flesh' 147 times, 'carnal' twice, 'carnally' once and 'fleshly' (ie. 'of the flesh') once. Therefore the KJV translators must have thought that the natural meaning of sarx was 'flesh.' Sometimes it has a metaphorical meaning, as in Rom. 8 where the 1984 NIV translated it as 'sinful nature.' However, the 2011 NIV rightly decided to follow the KJV and most other translations and go back to 'flesh.' It is usually better to stick to the natural meaning of the word.

I have shown you why 'flesh' is a better translation than 'body in 1 Tim. 3:16, Eph. 5:29 and 1 Cor. 1:29. You have not engaged with any of this, nor have you commented on my post #30. Instead you've just made silly remarks. Unless you're going to debate sensibly, I'm finished here.

 

[Rippon]

I'm not sure whether you're being silly or snarky, but it ill becomes you; please stop it. Of course the Holy Spirit chose sarx,

I am being quite clear. You mistake an English gloss for a Greek word. The two are not the same. Some people think "begotten" must be used because "the Holy Spirit" chose that term and we should not tamper with God's Word. The same applies to a host of other items. Your natural meaning mantra falls flat.

The Holy Spirit chose sarx --not flesh.

The word sarx appears 151 times in the N.T. The KJV translates it as 'flesh' 147 times, 'carnal' twice, 'carnally' once and 'fleshly' (ie. 'of the flesh') once. Therefore the KJV translators must have thought that the natural meaning of sarx was 'flesh.'

Why do you hold up the KJV as a standard way of translating? Did the Holy Spirit authorize it? The KJV revisers were good scholars of their day. But a lot of progress has been made in the last four centuries with respect to New Testament scholarship. In addition, the English language has undergone a lot of change since that time. That's why we don't use the term Holy Ghost any longer.

I have shown you why 'flesh' is a better translation than 'body in 1 Tim. 3:16, Eph. 5:29 and 1 Cor. 1:29. You have not engaged with any of this,

Of course I have.

nor have you commented on my post #30.

Your post #30 I had to look up. It didn't stand out as noteworthy. It was largely about the ERV --which hardly has anything to do with the topics at-hand.

 

[Van]

Summary of thread, the best MT English translation is the World English Bible (WEB).

 

[rsr]

Maybe. Is there any evidence that the WEB is better than the EMTV?