Perrydox.com is devoted to the pursuit of truth, whether plain or paradoxical, whether simple or sublime, or simply absurd yet absolute.
Genesis – NASB vs. HCSB vs. ESV
Genesis 2:18, 20
Genesis 2:18 NASB Then the LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.”
Genesis 2:18 HCSB (2004) Then the LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper who is like him.”
Genesis 2:18 HCSB (2010) Then the Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper as his complement.
The literal reading in Hebrew is, “corresponding to” with the idea of being the opposite of. Therefore the 2004 version of the HCSB is just too weak. The NASB has “suitable” which is better. The ESV “fit for him” is also adequate. But the 2010 version of the HCSB is best. The reason is not just the definition of the Hebrew, but the entire creation account. Notice how the days corresponded to each other in chapter one, and now man and women correspond to each other.
| 1 – Light & Darkness & 4 – Sun, Moon, Stars
2 – Expanse (heaven/sky) & 5 – Sea Animals and Birds 3 – Seas, Land; Vegetation, Trees & 6 – Land Animals and Man |
Just as day one set the stage for the completion of what was created on day four, the creation of man set the stage for the his own completion by the woman.
The 2010 version of the HCSB is the better translation.
Genesis 3:8
Genesis 3:8 NASB They heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden.
Genesis 3:8 HCSB Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden at the time of the evening breeze, and they hid themselves from the LORD God among the trees of the garden.
The NASB is touted as the most literal modern translation. But here the HCSB is actually more literal. The word translated “cool” is literally “wind, breeze.” And while the NASB captures the sense, the HCSB is more literal. The Hebrew here is ruach. That is the same word translated “Spirit” in Genesis 1:2. Whether there is a connection or not, between the Spirit hovering over creation and the breeze or wind in the garden, I do not know. But if there is, it is served better by the HCSB. And if there is not, the literal translation is still best.
Genesis 3:16
Genesis 3:16 NASB To the woman He said, “I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you.”
Genesis 3:16 HCSB (2004) He said to the woman: I will intensify your labor pains; you will bear children in anguish. Your desire will be for your husband, yet he will dominate you.
Genesis 3:16 HCSB (2010) He said to the woman: I will intensify your labor pains; you will bear children in anguish.Your desire will be for your husband, yet he will rule over you.
The updated version of the HCSB changes this back to “rule over you.” I will show how that is the correct and better understanding. But even with this change, the HCSB is inferior to the NASB.
To “rule” is a softer word than to “dominate.” While this verse is difficult to translate, some understand the whole verse to be a curse, including subjection. There is a curse in the pangs of child birth. There is a curse in the woman’s desire to rule over her husband. There is a curse in his domination of her.
Interpreting all of Gen.3:16 as a curse is a dissimilitude which is common. Many people wrongly interpret Gen.3:16c – “and he will rule over/dominate you” – as a curse. It is not for the following reasons:
To assume everything in Gen.3:16 is a curse would mean even the phrase, “Yet your desire will be for your husband,” is also a curse. The best way (with more evidence as to why to follow) to interpret Gen.3:16 is as follows. It is divided into three sections: 1) Curse; 2) Comfort; 3) Command.
The Curse: “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth, in pain you will bring forth children.”
The Comfort: “Yet (notice the contrasting nature of this word – even though I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth…) your desire will be for your husband.” That is a comfort for women, that they still will desire sexually their husbands even though the result will be more pain in childbirth. Even here in the beginning, we see God blessing and reassuring the sexual relationship between a husband and a wife.
The Command: “And he will rule over you.” Is this a curse? If it is, then it follows a comforting blessing. No, instead it is a command reiterating her relationship to her husband – which she broke in Gen.3:1-6. He rules. Some teach this rule of subjection is a curse. I will show why that is not contextually accurate, nor spiritually affirming in the following two stages.
If the phrase “and he will rule over you” is part of the curse, then we will not see the role of subjection prior to “the fall.” The point is we do. God created man first, and according to the distant context, the order of creation had a meaning of order, rule and subjection (1 Cor.11; 1 Tim.2). God gave man the order not to eat (2:16-17). No where do we find Him giving this command to Eve. She knows it (3:1-3), and we can assume she either learned it from Adam or God Himself. I think she learned it from Adam. Adam named his wife (2:24; 3:20). She took both “his name” (i.e. “woman because she was taken out of man;” she received her “own name” (i.e. Eve) from Adam. Just as he named the animals (2:20), Adam named his wife (2:23). We continue this practice by giving our wives our last name. God gave her the shared name of Man/Adam (Heb. – Man and Adam are the same in Hebrew) (Gen.1:26ff). Eve could correctly be called a “man;” but Adam could not be called, “woman.” Eve was created for Adam, not the other way around (1 Cor.11). Eve was made from Adam, not the other way around (Gen.2:21). Adam was condemned for two sins: 1) “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife,” and 2) “and have eaten from the tree which I commanded you saying, `You shall not eat from it.’
As we can see from the above, a husband was to rule over his wife before “the fall.”
Plus, when we look at the Hebrew word for “rule over/dominate” we see it used in Genesis 1:18 describing the sun and moon. The NASB there translates it as “govern.” The sun and moon do not dominate in the sense of a curse. They rule or govern.
The updated version of the HCSB goes back to the NASB, “rule over,” but still implies a curse by using the word “yet” not as contrasting her pain in childbirth and her desire for her husband, but rather her desire for her husband and his rule over her. This is often misunderstood as the wife will desire to rule over her husband but the husband will rule over the wife.
In this verse, the NASB has the better translation.
Genesis 4:5,6,14,16
In the name of readability, English translations sometimes lose something in the translation. When Cain’s offering was not accepted, his “face” (literally) fell (Genesis 4:5). The NASB says, “his countenance fell.” The HCSB says “he was downcast” (2004) and “he looked despondent.” The ESV is the best translation, “his face fell.”
This same Hebrew word (pânı̂ym / pâneh) is used in 4:14, 16 where the NASB translates it “face” (v.14) but switches to “presence” (v.16).
NASB 4:14 “Behold, You have driven me this day from the face of the ground; and from Your face I will be hidden, and I will be a vagrant and a wanderer on the earth, and… 4:16 Then Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden.
The HCSB leaves out the first used of face with reference to the ground and simply says, “banishing.” In vv.14 and 16 with reference to the God, it translates it as “presence.”
Genesis 4:14-16 HCSB Since You are banishing me today from the soil, and I must hide myself from Your presence and become a restless wanderer on the earth, whoever finds me will kill me.” (16) Then Cain went out from the LORD’s presence and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden.
The ESV leaves out the first use of “face” with reference to the ground, keeps it literally in reference to God in v.14, but changes it to presence in v.16.
Genesis 4:14-16 ESV Behold, you have driven me today away from the ground, and from your face I shall be hidden. I shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.” (16) Then Cain went away from the presence of the LORD and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden.
What each version should have done is kept the literally meaning, “face,” because it gives it both balance and accuracy. Cain’s face fell, which means his is looking down, leading to the face of the earth being cursed and then being driven from the face of God, which means God is looking away and Cain is looking away from God.
Genesis 6:3
Genesis 6:3 NASB Then the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.”
Genesis 6:3 HCSB And the LORD said, “My Spirit will not remain with mankind forever, because they are corrupt. Their days will be 120 years.”
Apparently the meaning of this verse is one of the most disputed which gives the translators challenges as to how to put the meaning into English. The NASB, HCSB, and ESV are the same in capitalizing “Spirit” thereby referring to the Holy Spirit. The KJV and NET read “spirit.”
The next disputed translation is “strive” (NASB), or “remain with” (HCSB). The ESV translates as “abide in.” The last word given a different translation is flesh (NASB; ESV) but translated as “corrupt” in the HCSB. The NET Bible translates as “mortal.”
Should (bâśâr) be understood as flesh vs. spirit (or Spirit), as corrupt vs. Spirit (i.e, Holy Spirit), or just as mortal?
When there is doubt, it is best to translate literally, and let the reader decide.
Genesis 6:15
Genesis 6:15 NASB “This is how you shall make it: the length of the ark three hundred cubits, its breadth fifty cubits, and its height thirty cubits.
Genesis 6:15 HCSB This is how you are to make it: The ark will be 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high.
Although technically, there might be doubt that a cubit is approximately 18 inches, that is the accepted measure. And since whoever is reading or commenting on this verse would want to give the more understandable reading as found in the HCSB, this is an example where the optimal equivalent translation philosophy works.
Genesis 6:16
Genesis 6:16 NASB “You shall make a window for the ark, and finish it to a cubit from the top; and set the door of the ark in the side of it; you shall make it with lower, second, and third decks.
Genesis 6:16 HCSB You are to make a roof, finishing the sides of the ark to within 18 inches of the roof. You are to put a door in the side of the ark. Make it with lower, middle, and upper decks.
The word translated as “window” in the NASB is a disputed translation. Three of the more modern translations, the HCSB, ESV, and the NET all translate it similarly as “roof.” Since is the only time this Hebrew word appears, it is disputed. Just from a practical point of view, I doubt the NASB reading. If that ark only had one window, whew!
Genesis 9:11
Genesis 9:11 NASB “I establish My covenant with you; and all flesh shall never again be cut off by the water of the flood, neither shall there again be a flood to destroy the earth.”
Genesis 9:11 HCSB I confirm My covenant with you that never again will all flesh be wiped out by the waters of a deluge; there will never again be a deluge to destroy the earth.”
The HSCB reads, “wiped out by the waters” and the NASB reads, “cut off by the water.” While the HCSB better fits the image of water “wiping out” there is something deeper missed, in my opinion, by that translation. The Hebrew for “wipe out/cut off” is kârath (3772) and can mean “to kill” which is what the HSCB suggests. But it can also mean “to cut or make a covenant.” Considering that the word covenant is in the verse, we should consider a deeper meaning is behind that inspired word choice.
Just as circumcision is a covenant by cutting off the flesh, so is the flood a covenant by cutting off flesh. This same play on words is found in Genesis 15, where both the NASB and HCSB keep the word play:
Genesis 17:12-14 HCSB Throughout your generations, every male among you at eight days old is to be circumcised. This includes a slave born in your house and one purchased with money from any foreigner. The one who is not your offspring, (13) a slave born in your house, as well as one purchased with money, must be circumcised. My covenant will be in your flesh as an everlasting covenant. (14) If any male is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that man will be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.”
Two other translation comments: First, in the updated version of the HSCB, they do change “deluge” back to “flood.” “Deluge” was an unpopular choice, and the editors heard the readers. Second, is that in Genesis 6:18, God said “I will establish” (NASB; HCSB). When this same Hebrews word is used in 9:9,11, the NASB retains the English, but the HCSB changes it to “confirm.” That does not help English readers see the connections.
But the biggest failure, in my opinion, is translating “wiped out” instead of “cut off” and therefore missing the deeper lesson taught. The flood was not just a punishment, it was a covenant. God saved Noah from judgment, a lesson taught in 1 Peter 3.
So in this verse, the NASB wins with its more literal translation.
Genesis 9:23
Genesis 9:23 NASB But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it upon both their shoulders and walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were turned away, so that they did not see their father’s nakedness.
Genesis 9:23 HCSB Then Shem and Japheth took a cloak and placed it over both their shoulders, and walking backwards, they covered their father’s nakedness. Their faces were turned away, and they did not see their father naked.
Genesis 9:23 ESV Then Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it on both their shoulders, and walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father. Their faces were turned backward, and they did not see their father’s nakedness.
Of these three, only the ESV keeps the original wording “backward” twice, to refer to both how they walked, and their faces. The sons walked backward and kept their face turned backward. While the ESV might sound awkward since the meaning obviously is “turned away,” still the ESV is the most accurate in this verse.
Genesis 15:9
Genesis 15:9 NASB So He said to him, “Bring Me a three year old heifer, and a three year old female goat, and a three year old ram, and a turtledove, and a young pigeon.”
Genesis 15:9 HCSB He said to him, “Bring me a three-year-old cow, a three-year-old female goat, a three-year-old ram, a turtledove, and a young pigeon.”
All heifers are cows, but not all cows are heifers. Considering the Hebrew word here is, a female cow, the NASB and ESV are more accurate. Everyone knows what a cow is, but does everyone know that a heifer is a female cow?
Genesis 16:5
Genesis 16:5 NASB And Sarai said to Abram, “May the wrong done me be upon you. I gave my maid into your arms, but when she saw that she had conceived, I was despised in her sight. May the LORD judge between you and me.”
Genesis 16:5 HCSB Then Sarai said to Abram, “You are responsible for my suffering! I put my slave in your arms, and ever since she saw that she was pregnant, she has looked down on me. May the LORD judge between me and you.”
Apparently the Hebrew can be translated with either intent, “may the wrong done me be upon you” or “you are responsible for my suffering.” Either Sarah is blaming Abram for the ill treatment she is receiving from Hagar (i.e., the HCSB), or else she is cursing Abram with the same curse she is experiencing (i.e., NASB, ESV).
In the NASB the language used by Sarai is the language of a curse. Sarai said she was despised in Hagar’s sight, and wanted Abraham to share in that curse. God Himself said to Abram, “I will curse those who treat you with contempt” (Genesis 12:3). That is the same Hebrew word in both: despised (16:5); contempt (12:3).
However in the HCSB, there is not the same curse-like language. Sarah simply blames Abram unjustly. I think the NASB and ESV is probably more accurate contextually.
Genesis 18:8
Genesis 18:8 NASB He took curds and milk and the calf which he had prepared, and placed it before them; and he was standing by them under the tree as they ate.
Genesis 18:8 HCSB Then Abraham took curds and milk, and the calf that he had prepared, and set them before the men. He served them as they ate under the tree.
The word “served” is literally “stood (NASB; ESV). While I do not doubt that Abraham served these strangers, there is no need to have a non-literal translation, such as in the HCSB
Genesis 18:12
Genesis 18:12 NASB Sarah laughed to herself, saying, “After I have become old, shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?”
Genesis 18:12 HCSB So she laughed to herself: “After I have become shriveled up and my lord is old, will I have delight?”
Genesis 18:12 ESV So Sarah laughed to herself, saying, “After I am worn out, and my lord is old, shall I have pleasure?”
With the NASB repeating the word “old,” it masks that the Hebrew uses two different words. The HCSB has “shriveled up” and the ESV “worn out.” The meaning of the word is “worn out.” While the HCSB is better than the NASB, and very picturesque, the ESV is the most literal.
Genesis 19:5
Genesis 19:5 NASB and they called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them.”
Genesis 19:5 HCSB They called out to Lot and said, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Send them out to us so we can have sex with them!”
Genesis 19:5 ESV And they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.”
Literally the ESV is correct, “to know them.” “To know” contextually means “to have sex” which is how the HCSB plainly puts it. In fact, I like the bluntness of the HCSB here, for there is no decorum with these men of Sodom. The NASB says, “have relations” with, which just doesn’t fit the tone.
“Tone” and context should determine how yada/know is translated. For example, back in Genesis 4:1,
Genesis 4:1 NASB Now the man had relations with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain, and she said, “I have gotten a manchild with the help of the LORD.”
Genesis 4:1 ESV Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, “I have gotten a man with the help of the LORD.”
Genesis 4:1 HCSB (2004) Adam knew his wife Eve intimately, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain. She said, “I have had a male child with the LORD’s help.”
Genesis 4:1 HCSB (2010) Adam was intimate with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain. She said, “I have had a male child with the Lord’s help.”
While the ESV and NASB are consistent, the HCSB actually is more contextual in both cases.
Genesis 21:33
Genesis 21:33 NASB Abraham planted a tamarisk tree at Beersheba, and there he called on the name of the LORD, the Everlasting God.
Genesis 21:33 HCSB (2004) Abraham planted a tamarisk tree in Beer-sheba, and there he worshiped the LORD, the Everlasting God.
Genesis 21:33 HCSB (2010) Abraham planted a tamarisk tree in Beer-sheba, and there he called on the name of Yahweh, the Everlasting God
Here is an example of where the older version of the HCSB is inferior to the NASB, and yet the 2010 update of the HCSB shines brilliantly and better than the NASB. While “called on the name of” is definitely worship, it should not be translated as such. The word for worship or bow down is first used in Genesis 22:5. Translating 21:33 as worship confuses the English reader into thinking they are the same Hebrew.
Translating YHWH should always be done as Yahweh and never as LORD. The argument that we do not know how to pronounce the Tetragrammaton is flawed, because while we do not know how to pronounce, we do know how it is not pronounced – as L-O-R-D.
I am thankful to the updated version of the HCSB for using more often Yahweh to translate the Tetragrammaton. I just wish they would have used it constantly which would have been the consistent choice.
We see the same again in Genesis 26:25.
Genesis 26:35
Genesis 26:35 NASB and they brought grief to Isaac and Rebekah.
Genesis 26:35 HCSB They made life bitter for Isaac and Rebekah.
“Bitter” is the literal translation and figuratively means “grief.” But since the figurative meaning of bitter can still use the word bitter, the more literal translation is the HCSB. Another way the HCSB is more literal is the use of “life” which is translated from ruach. This is totally missing in the NASB.
Genesis 27:12
Genesis 27:12 NASB “Perhaps my father will feel me, then I will be as a deceiver in his sight, and I will bring upon myself a curse and not a blessing.”
Genesis 27:12 HCSB (2004) Suppose my father touches me. Then I will seem to be deceiving him, and I will bring a curse rather than a blessing on myself.”
Genesis 27:12 HCSB (2010) Suppose my father touches me. Then I will be revealed to him as a deceiver and bring a curse rather than a blessing on myself.”
Genesis 27:12 ESV Perhaps my father will feel me, and I shall seem to be mocking him and bring a curse upon myself and not a blessing.”
The NASB is the best out of the four. The 2004 HCSB is weak with the phrase, “I will seem to be deceiving him.” There is no “seeming.” The 2010 corrects by reading, “I will be revealed to him as a deceiver.” But it misses out on the play of words between verses 1 and 12. Isaac’s “eyes” (‛ayin) were weak and dim and Jacob was fearful of being found a deceiver in Isaac’s “sight” (‛ayin). The HCSB use of “revealed” is close but not as good. Here the optimal equivalent falters. Language is more than just words; it is words relating to other words. The ESV is the worse out of the four.
Genesis 27:27
Genesis 27:27 NASB So he came close and kissed him; and when he smelled the smell of his garments, he blessed him and said, “See, the smell of my son Is like the smell of a field which the LORD has blessed;
Genesis 27:27 HCSB So he came closer and kissed him. When Isaac smelled his clothes, he blessed him and said: Ah, the smell of my son is like the smell of a field that the LORD has blessed.
Both the NASB and the ESV use the word “see” where the HCSB uses the word “Ah.” I understand why because in today’s language we do not say, “See, the smell….” But here “see” harks back to v.1 where it says Isaac’s eyes were to dim or weak “to see.” By going more readable, the play on words is again missed.
Genesis 31:53
Genesis 31:53 NASB “The God of Abraham and the God of Nahor, the God of their father, judge between us.” So Jacob swore by the fear of his father Isaac.
Genesis 31:53 HCSB The God of Abraham, and the gods of Nahor–the gods of their father–will judge between us.” And Jacob swore by the Fear of his father Isaac.
The HCSB is different than most modern, major translations by pluralizing “gods.” Grammatically this can be done, as most know the word elohim is plural, but is translated as singular when referring to the God of the Bible. By translating gods here, the HCSB implies that Laban is an idolater, which is stated several times in this chapter (vv.19,30,32,34,35), along with Nahor, Abraham’s brother and Laban’s father. Couple this with Joshua 24:2, and it becomes clear why the translators chose “gods.” I think the HCSB has the better translation.
Comments