Comments on: Wretched translations! ESV vs. HCSB: Romans 7:13-25

By: HCSB Bible Translation | Scripture Zealot

HCSB Bible Translation | Scripture Zealot — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 15:58:29 +0000

[...] links HCSB at Better Bibles Blog Choosing a modern Bible translation, part 3 – He Is Sufficient Wretched translations! ESV vs. HCSB: Romans 7:13-25 – He Is Sufficient HCSB at THIS LAMP – scroll through for relevant posts Brief Thoughts on the [...]

By: tcgreek

tcgreek — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 21:50:50 +0000

We are never going to find that perfect bible, but there are some really good ones out there: NASB, TNIV, ESV, NET.

By: Stewart MacLean

Stewart MacLean — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 23:42:16 +0000

Hey,
Not sure if this helps or not, but I found this review of the new ESV study bible a big help. http://www.sharperiron.org/2008/01/03/book-review-the-literary-study-bible/
I for one will be getting it.

By: ElShaddai Edwards

ElShaddai Edwards — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 10:22:57 +0000

That’s a good point, Stephen, it does get tricky reading “flesh” in Romans et al. And perhaps the HCSB has erred here – since “made out of flesh” does seem to be slightly gnostic. Ironically, though, both translations read “For I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my flesh.” in verse 18.

I’m slowly coming to the opinion that it really is too easy to read “flesh” as the physical body vs. “mind” as the spiritual body. I really don’t care for the (T)NIV’s translation of sarx as “sinful nature”, since that seems to imply that there are other natures as well. The REB uses “unspiritual”, which is also ambiguous.

One of the more attractive functional equivalents I’ve read lately was “sinful inclination”. In that case, v.14 might read, “For we know that the law is spiritual; but my natural inclination is toward sin, I am sold into sin’s power.”

By: Stephen

Stephen — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 02:31:01 +0000

Oops, I should have logged in from my biblioblog to leave that comment: Emerging From Babel.

By: Stephen

Stephen — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 02:29:56 +0000

The one objection I have, in the passage you quote, is in verse 14. The HCSB has, “I am made out of flesh”.

I understand the problem with a less directive translation like the ESV. “I am of the flesh” means what, exactly, to someone who is not schooled in theology?

Nonetheless, I think it’s better to leave the ambiguity in the text. The HCSB translation will cause readers to think that the problem is literally in our physical bodies.

It’s the old Greek notion of the body as a prison for the soul, or a weight causing the soul to sink from the heavens to the earth. Paul did not hold that the physical body is innately evil, or he would not have held to the resurrection of the body as in 1Co. 15.

Paul’s theology of the flesh is more nuanced than the HCSB would lead readers to believe. In sum, the HCSB is seriously misleading in this instance.

By: ElShaddai Edwards

ElShaddai Edwards — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 14:52:57 +0000

MAC – thanks for the comments. I actually do have both an ESV and HCSB on my shelf and do refer to one and/or the other when digging deeper into a particular text. I’ve been using the Revised English Bible (REB) as my primary translation these days, with the NASB, NRSV, ESV, HCSB, TNIV, NEB and NLT all available for reference.

By: MACnoodle

MACnoodle — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 10:04:38 +0000

Why not buy both? I have virtually all translations in my library. I personally prefer the KJV for devotional reading and also for some study work. I always compare the KJV with the ESV, NASB, NAB, NIV AND HCSB. I enjoy the HCSB very much but still prefer my good ol’ faithful KJV for its majestic grace.

I feel that too many modern English translations have “dumbed down” the Bible to ridiculous levels. One example of this is the NLT.

By: Another update: Choosing a modern Bible translation « He is Sufficient

Another update: Choosing a modern Bible translation « He is Sufficient — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 18:43:54 +0000

[...] TNIV comparisons… how does the HCSB compare to the ESV?I recently posted a comparison from Romans 7 between the HCSB and ESV. For this passage at least, I found that the HCSB and ESV share quite a [...]

By: elshaddai

elshaddai — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 02:58:08 +0000

I’ve only seen what Rick Mansfield detailed on his blog as far as the 2001 to 2007 ESV changes, and those seemed relatively minor overall. Nothing that really affected this passage – in fact v.15 had the only change (adding the word “For” at the beginning of the verse) and that was already in the online ESV text that I copied.