In another thread a poster feels that the word "flesh" is the most natural meaning in English for sarx. (Albeit, leaving some leeway for select expressions such as "carnal.") In the New Testament the word "flesh" occurs 132 times in the KJV. The word "fleshly" occurs 3 times. First let's look at the frequency of the word "flesh" in various translations of the N.T. NASB : 118 LEB : 108 ESV : 107 NABRE : 106 Mounce : 105 HCSB : 97 NRSV : 95 NET : 77 NIV : 68 ISV : 50 The NRSV usage of the word is right around the mid-point mark. The lower the score, the better, it seems to me. You might be interested to know that the KJV translated it as "body" on at least two occasions that I have found --in 1 Cor. 15:44 and 2 Cor. 4:10. In Romans the KJV has sarx translated as "flesh" 22 times. The NIV has it rendered that way 20 times. Yet there is not much overlap. Let's look at some references where other versions do not use "flesh." Romans 9:3. The KJV has it as "kinsmen according to the flesh." The NIV : "those of my own race" NET : "my fellow countrymen" NLT and NCV : "my Jewish brothers and sisters." ISV and Weymouth : "my own people." Romans 9:5. The KJV words it as follows :"concerning the flesh." The NIV has "human ancestry." Other translations have similiar constructions -the NLT, NET, NCV, Mounce, LEB, CEB, JBP, ISV, HCSB, GWT, Weymouth. In Romans 11:14 the KJV reads "flesh" while other translations such as the NIV have it : "my own people." Check out the NLT, HCSB, ESV, NASB, NET, Weymouth, ISV, JBP, LEB, Mounce, NCV, NRSV. In Romans 14:21 the KJV has "flesh" while just about every non-TR version has the word "meat" instead. It's my contention that the English translation of sarx is found in a variety of words and phrases. The word "flesh" is far from being considered a "natural choice" in the matter. The word "flesh" is not sacrosanct. God did not chose that particular English word as the equivalent of sarx. It really depends on the context and situation being addressed. And really, this is 2015. Many words that were quite acceptable and good choices half a millennium ago are not so suitable now. More observations will be given in future posts. Feel free to chime in.