Tag Archives: sex

Notes While Reading the Christian Standard Bible (CSB)

I set a goal this year to read through the Bible in the Christian Standard Bible (CSB) translation. I’m far behind schedule but don’t regret my choice.

The CSB, you may recall, is the new version of the now-retired Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB). There are many differences between the two, though both aim(ed) to provide a translation that falls somewhere between the formal equivalence (NASB, KJV, ESV) and functional equivalence (NIV, NET, NLT) ends of the translation spectrum.

You can easily find more information online about all such things, including my own advice about Bible translations. Here I’ll simply share a few translation choices that have stood out to me so far in the CSB. Let’s talk about Adam, sex, and cubits.

“ADAM” or “THE MAN”?

The Hebrew word for the name of the first man, “Adam,” simply means “the man” or, in a generic sense, “human beings.” Translators need to use context when deciding how ‘adam should be translated.

This creates special challenges in the early chapters of Genesis. The first occurrence of ‘adam is in Genesis 1:26, where God says, “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness. They will rule…” (I’ll use CSB in this post unless otherwise stated). Here both the theological emphasis on all humanity being created in God’s image and the plural “they” make it clear that a translation such as “man” or “human beings” (CSB footnote) is necessary. “Let us make Adam” would not work.

By the time we get to Genesis 5:3, it is very clear that ‘adam references not merely “human beings” in general nor even a generic “man,” but a specific individual: “Adam was 130 years old when he fathered a son in his likeness… and named him Seth.”

But the Genesis creation narrative flows quite seamlessly from a general description of the creation of humanity in general to a more specific discussion of Adam and Eve as individuals. When should we start thinking of ‘adam as a specific man?

It is always interesting to see when translations make this transition.

The KJV first mentions “Adam” at Genesis 2:19:

And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

The ESV makes the transition one verse later, at Genesis 2:20:

The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him.

The NASB and the NIV do the same as the ESV, but the NIV tips the reader off as early as  Genesis 2:4 by providing a heading that reads “Adam and Eve.”

The NLT waits until Genesis 3:20 to make the transition, translating a single Hebrew word twice to help the reader along:

Then the manAdam—named his wife Eve, because she would be the mother of all who live.

But the CSB waits even longer. “Adam” doesn’t appear until Genesis 4:25:

Adam was intimate with his wife again, and she gave birth to a son and named him Seth…

Which option is best? I give NLT top points for clarity. And it is ingenious to provide Adam’s name in the same verse where Eve is first named! But its double translation implies that two terms are present in Hebrew where there is only one.

Overall, I like the choice of the NASB, NIV, and ESV best. Including both “the man” and “Adam” in the same verse somewhat eases the transition, helping the reader know both terms refer to the same person.

And I like the CSB the least of the options shown above. When “Adam” first appears in Genesis 4:25, the man named “Adam” has not been discussed since Genesis 4:1—twenty-four verses earlier—where we read, “The man was intimate with his wife Eve…” The intervening verses have been about other characters named Cain, Abel, Lamech, and more. Advanced readers will notice that “Adam” who is “intimate with his wife” in 4:25 is “the man” who was “intimate with his wife” in 4:1.  But many beginning Bible readers (and there are increasing numbers in North America) will be left wondering who this “Adam” is that they are hearing about the first time, and why he is mentioned “again” if he has not been named before.

“KNEW,” “MADE LOVE TO,”
or “WAS INTIMATE WITH”?

But if the CSB strikes out with “Adam,” it hits a home run with its translation for the act of sexual intercourse, also mentioned in the verses above.

Translating sexual language brings many potential pitfalls. First, there are our modern preoccupations with sex, ranging from undue sexual embarrassment (especially when reading the Bible aloud in church!) to the anything-goes flaunting of sexual provocation in North American media and fashion.

The ancient biblical conceptions of sexuality also bring translation challenges. When the Old Testament talks about sexual intercourse, it often uses the word yada, often translated “know”/”knowledge.” Here is how Baker’s Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology begins its discussion of this word:

Yada… appears almost 950 times in the Hebrew Bible. It has a wider sweep than our English word “know, ” including perceiving,learning, understanding, willing, performing, and experiencing. To know is not to be intellectually informed about some abstract principle, but to apprehend and experience reality.

This word yada is used of all sorts of situations, including humanity’s knowledge of God, God’s knowledge of humanity, personal skills, moral awareness, and treaty relationships.

And sex.

Formal modern language about sexual union rarely expresses this concept of knowing another person. “Sexual intercourse” and “coitus” sound too scientific. “Had sex” is too dryly factual and sounds like we are talking about consumer goods. “Consummation” and “sexual relations” come closer, but still do not emphasize knowing above other possible connotations. Informal language such as “make love with” and “go to bed with” also often misses the boat.

Given these ancient and modern challenges, what is a translator to do?

The KJV famously simply opts for “knew.” Formally, this is a perfect translation choice, retaining links to other places where yada is found. And functionally, it points the reader directly to a primary significance that the ancient Hebrews saw in the sexual act. That said, it leaves some modern readers clueless as to what Adam actually did. (Did he take Eve on a date? Exchange family histories with her? Ask her about her favorite flavor of ice cream?) Now, this has its advantages in church Bible readings, when children are present, right? But nobody today uses “knew” in this way unless they are deliberately parroting the KJV.

That is what the NKJV does, and so do others like the NRSV and the ESV. It works, but it needs some explanation from time to time.

The NASB uses “had relations with.” That’s closer to modern usage, though usually today one would specify that it is sexual relations under discussion. And again, the modern idiom “relations” does not quite emphasize the idea of knowing in a way that matches the Hebrew yada.

The NIV lets modern usage lead the way, so it says Adam “made love to” his wife. This translation mercifully lets readers know what actually happened. But it totally misses the boat with its connotation of loving another person rather than knowing them. It carries too much baggage from medieval notions of romance and modern chick flicks.

The CSB, it seems to me, gets it about as good as modern English can: “Adam was intimate with his wife.” First, this clearly conveys what actually happened between Adam and his wife. Dictionaries define this phrase as “to have sexual relations with” or have “sex” or “sexual intercourse” with someone. Second, the word “intimate” very accurately expresses the sort of experiential knowledge conveyed by the Hebrew yada. And third, the phrase is an idiom, which appears to be how the term yada functioned when used to refer to sexual activity.

Well, done, CSB!

“CUBITS” or “INCHES”?

Today while reading through Exodus in the CSB, I was surprised to read this:

They are to make an ark of acacia wood, forty-five inches long, twenty-seven inches wide, and twenty-seven inches high. (Exodus 25:10)

What surprised me was the appearance of “inches,” along with other modern units such as “feet,” “yards,” and “pounds.”

Metric units would be so much better, right? Actually, what I was expecting was “cubits,” as I grew up reading about in the KJV:

And they shall make an ark of shittim wood: two cubits and a half shall be the length thereof, and a cubit and a half the breadth thereof, and a cubit and a half the height thereof.

A cubit was the length from a man’s elbow to his fingertips—about 18 inches. So, when you do the conversions, the CSB lengths remain accurate.

But every other translation I’ve commonly used retains the ancient Hebrew units. This includes the NKJV, the NASB, the ESV, and—surprisingly—even the NIV. I say surprisingly because usually the NIV is seen as more quick than the CSB to prioritize modern language over the formal patterns of the original text. (We saw a hint of this above with the NIV’s “made love to” vs. the CSB’s still-modern-but-less-widely-used “was intimate with.”) Generally, if no significant meaning will be lost by using modern terminology, the NIV will use it. So why didn’t they here?

Roughly twenty of the approximately fifty English translations on www.Biblegateway.com use modern units.  I am somewhat surprised that so many do. Most recent translations opt for English units. But there are some exceptions: for example, the Lexham English Bible, International Standard Version, and even the Amplified Bible still retain Hebrew units. (None offer metric units. And the ESVUK retains biblical units in sensible British fashion.)

I don’t know what I think about this choice. I have been familiar long enough with cubits to have little trouble picturing the size of objects measured with this unit. But other ancient units (shekel, hin, etc.) still leave me searching for footnotes. So I appreciate the assistance that using modern units gives to readers.

On the other hand, an ark that is “twenty-seven inches wide” (not 24″ or 36″) sounds less natural than one that is “one and a half cubits wide.” The same is true of:

  • an altar that is “7 ½ feet” long and wide (not 8 feet) versus one that is “five cubits” long and wide (Ex. 27:1), or
  • hangings that are “22 ½ feet” long (not 20 feet or 25 feet) versus “15 cubits” long (Ex. 27:14).

It is clear that God used measurements that were ordinary sizes in the culture of ancient Israel, but using modern unit conversions doesn’t convey this.

A second potential concern is that some biblical measurements have symbolic meaning that can be lost in conversion. That said, I am not aware of any such symbolism in the measurements of the tabernacle, apart from ratios of length which are not lost in conversion. The dimensions of the Most Holy Place form a cube in feet just as well as in cubits, thus preserving the link to the cube-shaped New Jerusalem in Revelation. And in Revelation, where the units measuring the New Jerusalem do indeed have symbolic significance (being multiples of 12), the CSB does use the biblical units, excluding modern units to footnotes:

He measured the city with the rod at 12,000 stadia. Its length, width, and height are equal. Then he measured its wall, 144 cubits according to human measurement, which the angel used. (Rev. 21:16-17)

I would need to examine this further to see how well the CSB handles this balance. But what I see so far suggests that in their handling of units of measurement the CSB translators have achieved the “optimal equivalence” they aimed for between faithfulness to the original text and readability for the modern ear.


Every translation philosophy has trade-offs. I enjoy reading multiple translations to help me better ponder and understand God’s words.

Have you read from the CSB? Do you have any most- or least-favorite translation choices from the CSB? Share them in the comments below. And keep reading…


Save page

On Translation Choices and Pastoral Concerns

This morning I noticed an example of the NIV being very politically correct–or, to be kinder, very pastorally aware:

The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. (1 Cor. 7:4)

The Greek text for this verse has no word that corresponds to the NIV word “yields.” The ESV translates the end of each sentence well: “but the husband/wife does.” This translation supplies the implied verb, “does.” The KJV does not supply any implied verb. So it is less clear but mirrors the Greek even more closely: “but the husband/wife.”

On Translation Choices…

In the NIV Paul sounds like he is urging voluntary mutual submission in this verse, rather than providing a reason why such submission is important. It is more likely, I think, that Paul is urging mutual submission in the previous verse (“The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband” 1 Cor. 7:3.) and then adding a reason why in this verse. In other words, I think verse verse 3 says what married people should do–give each other their conjugal rights–and verse 4 says why–because married people don’t possess autonomous authority over their own bodies.

There, I find myself being PC, too! There is no word “autonomous” in the Greek to soften the force of Paul’s assertion.

The ESV, interestingly, shows it agrees with my understanding of how verses 3 and 4 are related by adding a “for” at the start of verse 4, even though none is present in the Greek.

So is there any linguistic basis for the NIV’s choice here? There probably is, for the NIV is usually very intentional. I’m speculating here, because I don’t know what discussion the translation committee had on this verse. But I suspect the textual basis for their choice is found in the verb “have authority over.” They may understand this as “keep authority over,” concluding, therefore, that the opposite idea is to yield. But it seems odd to me, if this is really what Paul was thinking, that he would end his sentence with “but the husband/wife.” Rather, it would be more natural, if he understood the verb this way, to end, “but yields it.” This, of course, is how the NIV translates the end of the sentence. So the NIV provides what Paul should have said if their understanding of the verb is correct, not what Paul actually said!

At least, that’s my best guess at what’s happening linguistically here with the NIV.

Let me contrast the NIV and ESV translations another way. In the ESV, Paul is contrasting persons: Who has authority over the husband’s body? Not the husband but the wife. In the NIV, Paul is contrasting actions: What does the husband do with his body? Not rule it himself but yield it to his wife. I think the ESV reflects the Greek more accurately.

I quickly surveyed all 50 translations on Bible Gateway. If I counted correctly, only the Phillips, the Message, the NLT, and VOICE translations agree with the NIV here. That’s not proof that the NIV is wrong, but neither is it a ringing endorsement.

A few translations find other ways of “softening the blow,” such as EXB’s “The wife does not have full rights over her own body; her husband shares them…” This translation softens the blow at two points: by adding the word “full” before “rights” (but they add a note after “full rights” that provides a literal translation: “authority”) and by providing the word “shares” in the final clause, where the Greek gives no suggestion of anything being mutual.

Probably little real damage is done by NIV’s choice, and it may prevent some dangerous misapplication. But it’s yet another reminder of (a) how pastoral concerns can shape translation choices, and (b) the importance of comparing translations when we can.

And Pastoral Concerns

The pastoral concern that probably motivated the NIV translators is legitimate: We do not want to encourage abusive spouses to demand sexual rights from their spouses. Just as slave owners have pointed to texts commanding slaves to obey their masters, so abusive husbands have pointed to texts like this to convince their spouses that they must submit to abuse.

The pastoral problem is very real. So is there another way to address the problem besides rewriting Paul’s thoughts (as I think the NIV is doing)?

I think there is. I think the answer is to preach and teach “the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27). We need to constantly discourage people from building theologies and practices on isolated proof-texts. I believe proof-texting can be legitimate and even important; the NT authors do it regularly as they quote the OT. But we must not use isolated proof-texts. Our proof-texts must reflect the whole counsel of God. We can do this by choosing proof-texts that are balanced within themselves. We can also do this by providing multiple proof-texts. And we can avoid proof-text problems by remembering that, according to Scripture, Scripture often requires explanation, not mere quotation (see Neh. 8:7-8).

Here is an example that parallels the problem in our text: The question of relating to civil authorities. Paul says some very hard-to-swallow things about this question, too:

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. (Rom. 13:1-2)

Taken in isolation, this can be a dangerous proof text. But we don’t solve this problem by rewriting Paul. We don’t translate Paul like this: “Let every person be subject to those governing authorities which have been instituted by God.” (At least, I hope we don’t.) Rather, we recognize that Paul is stating a foundational principle. We quote this principle and feel its full force. Then we pull in other Scriptural data and recognized that there are exceptions. For example, the apostles said “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29) and Jesus even commanded his disciples to flee authorities who tried to persecute them (Matt. 10:23).

If we apply these parallels to the question of conjugal rights and sexual submission in marriage, then several conclusions are suggested: (1) There are times when one spouse will need to tell the other, “I must obey God rather than you.” (2) There are times when a spouse will need to flee abuse.

Other passages could enrich our observations here. My point is that I think this kind of theological and expositional legwork is a good way to address the pastoral concerns of a text like 1 Corinthians 7:4. I appreciate when translations try to avoid leaving misimpressions. But I don’t appreciate when they do this by changing what the text actually says. So, in this case, I prefer the ESV over the NIV.

What do you think? Leave a comment and share your perspective.


Save page