Click here to learn about the ISV Triglyph!

Click here to learn about the ISV Triglyph!
WELCOME TO THE OFFICIAL WEB SITE OF THE
HOLY BIBLE:

INTERNATIONAL
STANDARD VERSION
®

Home Page

Dead Sea Scrolls Project


Who We Are

About Our Board

Committee on Translation

Contributing Scholars

English Reviewers


About our ISV Triglyph

Our Permissions Policy

Why the ISV?

Benefits of the ISV

Features of the ISV

Translation Principles

ISV Scholarly Reviews

Our BLOG: Catacombs

Reader Comments

Translation Issues

Comparing the ISV


Free ISV Downloads

ISV Preview Downloads


Our Press Releases

28 February 2007

Essay: A KJV for our Time

10 April 1998


Changing Page Formats

ISV for Hand-held devices

ISV add-ons

Purchase printed copies

ISV-Based Bible Studies

Track Changes to the ISV

Track ISV Progress

Free MP3 Downloads

Support Utilities

Using Adobe PDFs

About Donating to Us

IRS Disclosure Page

Our Privacy Policy

Our Terms of Use

How to Report Typo Errors


 Our Christmas Card

Maybe You Need
to Read This Book

Contact Us

Report typo error

Make a suggestion

Ask a question


will donate 1¢ to us each time you search the net.


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


THE CATACOMBS


You are here: Home > Catacombs > Articles

On ἄνθρωπος and Man's Fallen Nature

I have questions on the rendering of  ἄνθρωπος "anthropos" or "man" (e.g. KJV, Darby and NASB) as "natures" or "nature" in ISV in the following verses: Romans 6:6, Ephesians 4:22, Colossians 3:9-10.

1) Why does ISV not translate the term as "man"? Would "nature" not incline the text towards the "two-nature" theological interpretation? If so, should we make the text theologically neutral by rendering it literally as "man" instead?

The Greek word ἄνθρωπος can be translated as "man, mankind, self, person or nature." The use of the word "nature" as the translated word in the four passages you list is a correct translation and does not "incline the text towards the 'two nature' theological interpretation" as you suggest. However, thank you for pointing out our inconsistency in Eph. 4:24, where we will correct it from "new man" to "new nature".

2) Yet, interestingly, Ephesians 4:24 rightly translates it as "man" rather than "nature", which really makes it inconsistent with 4:22 since they belong together, much like the twin occurrences in Colossians 3:9 - 10. Do you agree?

In Col. 2:11 "corrupt nature" is correct.  While the literal is body of the flesh, to translate it literally in this context would mislead the English reader in regards to what the Apostle Paul is conveying.  Please keep in mind that a literal word-for-word translation does not always convey the correct meaning.  Context is equally important in the translation of Scripture.

3) Further, Colossians 2:11 translates the Greek as "corrupt nature" rather than "body of the flesh" as found in other more literal translations. Would you say this confounds the reader and makes him unaware that there is a difference between the original Greek terms in this verse and the afore-mentioned verses?

4) Romans 6:6 correctly translates as "sin-laden bodies" and not "sin-laden natures", but this makes it inconsistent with Colossians 2:11. To avoid confusion, should we not leave the term more literally as "body" in Colossians 2:11?

In Romans 6:6 our judgment was and continues to be that the context leans more toward "sin-laden bodies."
 
George Giacumakis, Ph.D.
General Editor
International Standard Version