N
NHInsider
Guest
I wrote
My point remains the same, but it’s not true that the NIV never translates “sarx” as “flesh.”
Always proofread . . . .
Sally
Left out a critical word: “in Romans” the NIV does not translate “sarx” as “flesh” . . . .The NIV also does not translate “sarx” as “flesh,” using instead the word “human nature” or “body” when “flesh” refers to Jesus and “sinful nature” the rest of the time. This, too, undermines understanding of the Incarnation, and combined with a couple of other tweaks, almost supports a form of Docetism (Jesus only “appeared” to be human . . .).
Sally
My point remains the same, but it’s not true that the NIV never translates “sarx” as “flesh.”
Always proofread . . . .
Sally