Humankind vs mankind in LEB translation of Gen 1:27

I understand the nuances of language evolution and the intent behind more inclusive terms. However, I believe in adhering to a literal translation approach, as facilitated by tools like Strong's Concordance. According to Strong's, 'אדם' (adam) fundamentally refers to man or mankind, capturing the essence of humanity in its original context. This concordance helps us stay as close as possible to the original Hebrew text, providing a direct bridge to the ancient words without the overlay of modern linguistic adjustments. The choice to use 'mankind' is thus not about excluding or prioritizing one gender over another but about maintaining fidelity to the ancient text as it was written and understood in its time. It's about preserving the historical and cultural context of the Bible, respecting the precision of the original Hebrew words.

My friend says:

I appreciate your insights, and your explanation has led me to agree that both 'humankind' and 'humanity' indeed capture the essence of 'אדם' in a manner faithful to its original context and meaning. The notion that these terms are not merely modern adaptations but genuinely reflect a literal interpretation of 'אדם' resonates with me. Having used Logos since its fourth edition, it's intriguing that this nuance has only just come to my attention. My regular readings from the NIV1984 version, which uses 'mankind,' contrast with the later NIV versions' shift to 'humankind.'

My preference for conservative translation stems from a desire to engage with the text as directly as possible, seeking to reflect and meditate upon it without modern biases, despite potential awkwardness in English. This approach is about striving for a translation that maintains as much of the original wording's integrity as possible. However, following your explanation, I am now inclined to consider 'humanity' as potentially even more accurate than 'mankind.' It seems we might need to share these insights with the compilers of Strong's Concordance.

Thank you to everyone who contributed to this discussion. It’s my hope that our conversation enlightens others who might question whether translations like the LEB are becoming 'overly inclusive.' Your perspectives have certainly enriched my understanding and appreciation of the translation process.

I appreciate your insights, and your explanation has led me to agree that both 'humankind' and 'humanity' indeed capture the essence of 'אדם' in a manner faithful to its original context and meaning. The notion that these terms are not merely modern adaptations but genuinely reflect a literal interpretation of 'אדם' resonates with me. Having used Logos since its fourth edition, it's intriguing that this nuance has only just come to my attention. My regular readings from the NIV1984 version, which uses 'mankind,' contrast with the later NIV versions' shift to 'humankind.'

My preference for conservative translation stems from a desire to engage with the text as directly as possible, seeking to reflect and meditate upon it without modern biases, despite potential awkwardness in English. This approach is about striving for a translation that maintains as much of the original wording's integrity as possible. However, following your explanation, I am now inclined to consider 'humanity' as potentially even more accurate than 'mankind.' It seems we might need to share these insights with the compilers of Strong's Concordance.

Thank you to everyone who contributed to this discussion. It’s my hope that our conversation enlightens others who might question whether translations like the LEB are becoming 'overly inclusive.' Your perspectives have certainly enriched my understanding and appreciation of the translation process.

Thanks, MJ! It is always greatly appreciated when you chime in. 

For future inquiries, just to elaborate on your point, here's what I've researched (aka ChatGPT4) based on your point:

The link between "Adam" (אָדָם) from Hebrew and the Latin "humus," meaning earth or ground, reflects similar thematic elements across cultures about the origins of humanity. While "Adam" directly connects to "adamah" (אֲדָמָה), denoting ground or earth in Hebrew, it emphasizes the creation of the first human from the earth itself, a concept mirrored in the etymology of the word "human" through its Latin roots.

The Hebrew concept embodied in "Adam" underscores the material from which humans were created—earth, signifying a deep connection to the ground as part of our origin story. This connection is not just a physical one but also carries spiritual and moral implications, reflecting humanity's humble origins and its responsibilities towards creation.

In both the Hebrew narrative and the Latin etymology, there's an implicit reminder of humanity's mortality and our earth-bound nature. The idea that humans return to the earth after death is a common theme, reflecting a cycle of life that ties us back to our elemental origins. These concepts encourage humility, a sense of stewardship for the earth, and an understanding of our place within a broader ecological and spiritual order.

So, while "Adam" and "humus" come from different linguistic and cultural backgrounds, they both express a profound understanding of humanity's connection to the earth, serving as a reminder of our origins, our place in the world, and our ultimate return to it. This shared theme highlights a universal aspect of human identity and our relationship with the natural world.