Bible translation corruptions
Once a bible student begins to delve into the topic of christology, he quickly gets confronted with seemingly unpleasant bible verses that seem to strengthen the hypostatic union position and thus put the bible at an open contradiction to itself. I would like to present a few of the very apparent corruptions.
1. Hebrews 2:16 King James Bible
Jesus supposedly "took on a nature" and thus "took on flesh" instead of the Word of God literally BECOMING flesh. This is claimed to be supported by Hebrews 2:16 in the King James Bible. It reads:
"For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham."
If you compare this to the interlinear bible, you will see that all words in italics are additions by the translators.
While King James Only apologists claim that this merely strengthens the translation in favor of what is meant in the Greek original, it becomes evident that this in fact is nothing more but manufacturing a verse that provides a scripture for something that is not expressed elsewhere, then going back and claiming that this is what the Greek means. The Greek really means an act of help by "taking on", a "taking hold of" something or someone, in the sense of "grabbing", here "grabbing a group" - the seed of Abraham in contrast to the group of angels.
Supposing the sense of "taking on" as a "grabbing" of something is correct, the problem still is there that the word "nature" is not to be found in the text, neither the word "him". It would say: "He did not grab angels, but he grabbed the seed of Abraham". - Was there an abrahamic seed, in the sense of a sperm, inside the womb of Mary that "God the Word grabbed" ? I think not. The other evident problem is that "angels" is plural. This is why "him the nature of" was interjected into the text because a "grabbing" of a plural "angels" cannot mean "taking on the form of an angel" (singular). This further also proves that the "seed of Abraham" talks about a plural group and not a singular sperm of Abraham, ready to be "taken on" by "God, the Word". This is clearly a text corruption, as there are many in the King James Bible in order to justify ancient church dogmas. Very few people possess enough honesty to admit that this clearly is a text corruption. Let us never forget that Mary worship is based on these lies, which is the role that satan loves to slip into as "marian apparitions" of the past, speaking false things, proves.
Read also this from W.Kelly translation notes:
doth... take hold: The rendering of verse 16 is faultily given in many versions, in none perhaps worse than our own A.V. [King James Bible] The sense is totally changed, and a preterite form assigned to the verb, instead of the present tense, the natural consequence of such a change of sense. "He took not on Him the nature of angels, but He took," etc. This, it is evident, ἐπιλαμβάνεται. cannot bear. It is expressly a present. Again the word means to lay hold of, especially when with a genitive as here in the middle voice. Such is its force, even when uncompounded; and the preposition defines or emphasizes. Never does it mean to take a nature, though the A.V. seems to have been led into this, partly by Beza, chiefly by certain Greek commentators, for whose mistake no excuse can be made. (The substance of his annotation I transcribe from the fifth and last edition of his N.T., dedicated to Queen Elizabeth, 1598. "Angels, that is, angelic nature... He a little before said κεκοινώνηκε instead of κοινωεῖ so now on the other hand he employs the present for the past! which exchanges of tenses everywhere occur with Hebrews. Vulg. apprehendit not badly, but a word unusual in setting out the hypostatic union of the two natures. Abraham’s seed, that is, the real nature of man, especially of Abraham’s family.... Wherefore the more to be execrated is the audacity of Castalio, who renders ἐπιλαμβάνεται by opitulatur [helpeth], an interpretation not only false but irreverent, since ἐπ. never expresses this among the Greeks," etc., etc. Now it is true that Dean Alford, etc., who agree with C., go too far. With the dative the verb does mean to help. But the fact is that the French divine was blinded by theological prejudice, to say nothing of feeling against a rival translator, who here, if not quite accurate, was nearer the truth, would not swerve from grammatical requirement, and gave the sense substantially. There is on the one hand no enallage, as Beza says, but a clear and correct statement of a manifest and indisputable truth; on the other, it is untrue that Castalio invented a meaning new and unheard of, but pertinent to the unfolding argument of the chapter, whereas Beza offends against correct language, and destroys the truth here intended, confounding it with what was already laid down.) They were occupied with controversies which misled them to catch at straws. (Take the best of them, J. Chrysostom, who comments as follows on the passage: "What is this he says? He took up an angel’s nature, not a man’s. But what is, He layeth hold? Not that nature of the angels, says he, did He seize, but ours. And wherefore did he not say, He took up, but employ this expression, He layeth hold? From the metaphor of those that pursue persons that turn away and do everything so as to catch them though they flee, and lay hold of them though bounding off. For He pursued closely and caught human nature in its flight from Him and flying far, for we were far off. He showed that this He has done by kindness to man alone, and love and guardian care" (In Epp. Paul. vii. 63, ed. Field, Oxen. 1862). Theodoret adds nothing of real value, as he repeats the same exegetical mistake. He notices the peculiarity of Abraham’s seed in such a connection, and tries to explain it as a reminder of the promise. Quite true; but incarnation and promise are wholly distinct, though this could not have been without that.)... The uncertainty that has prevailed is extraordinary as to almost every word. (Exp. of Heb., p.45-46)
doth... take hold: The English version of verse 16 is false in itself and destroys the connection. For of course (δήπου) it is not angels He takes up (i.e. helps), but He takes up Abraham’s seed. It is not a question here of assuming a nature, but of the reason why He did so; and this is His undertaking the cause of the seed of Abraham not of Adam, as such. The ancient expositors (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Ambrose etc.) and "great divines" (as Luther, Calvin, Beza, etc.) misled the authorized translators and the error in sense led to the further error in form; for they could not adhere thus to the present tense of ἐπιλαμβάνεται and hence were forced into the monstrous blunder of rendering it, "He took," etc. Next, the thread of sense is cut, and a mere and feeble reiteration of the truth of verse 14 is imported into verse 16 a needless denial that angelic nature was assumed. Whereas, the affirmation of His special interest in Abraham’s seed links on with the previous statement of His incarnation and His death for redemption purposes, and most fitly leads into the inference that follows. (Bible Treasury 6:79)
doth... take hold:... that is, He does not espouse their cause, which is the true meaning. (Bible Treasury N1:44) [See also Bible Treasury 20:220)
doth... take hold: there is a well-known correction of the Authorized Version adopted [in the RV]; for it is a question not at all of having taken the nature of man, but of interest and succor for Abraham’s seed, not angels. (Bible Treasury 14:45)
doth... take hold: [The American correctors of the RV] propose for the text, "doth he give help to," instead of "take hold," which they would relegate to the margin. It comes really to the same sense, the one being the literal meaning, the other derivative.... The Authorized Version was a huge blunder physically, grammatically, contextually, and dogmatically.... So that Chrysostom who made a similar mistake had to desert the text, and puts it as the nature not of angels but of men that He took up; just as King James’ translators got farther away from the truth than the versions which preceded theirs. (Bible Treasury 15:30)
2. Romans 1:3 King James Bible
Jesus supposedly "was made of the seed of David" (if we believe the KJV translators), meaning God pre-created a body inside Mary's womb out of her supposed "davidic flesh" (which would further be impossible since she was a Levite of the house of Aaron, not a Davidid out of Judah - see here: Mary was a Levite (TEXT) ). Since the bible never confirms such fantasy as "making one half of the messiah from the virgin", the King James translators manufactured a verse. Allow me to present the corrupt text:
"Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh."
(Romans 1:3 KJV)
If one looks up the interlinear text, one will see that the words "genomenon ek", which is G1096 and G1537 are translated as "was made of" in order to give the sense of an act of creation. The truth of the matter however is that G1096 means "to become" or "to come to pass" and is further demonstrably dependent on the words that it connects, respectively prepositions used. Such as in this case, the preposition "ek" is used, which means "out of the depth of the source".
I am not a big fan of convincing the audience with empty and vain claims. Many misleading apologists like James White from Alpha and Omega ministries like to leave their audience in the dark about such apparent facts. I will come back to James White when I deal with Philippians 2:7 (ESV) and his presentation of the same further corrupted in a debate.
Let us thus take a look at all instances where G1096 and G1537 are used following one another. This can be done with a word search on blueletterbible.com (quick demo is here: Links to study material). For now, you simply have to follow this Link:
I will leave it up to your homework to weed through all the instances. Make sure you pick those where "ek" follows "ginomai". In case you are not convinced, do the same word search in the LXX. Link is here:
Since I have done this homework before, I can rest fully assured in stating a fact when I say that "ginomai ek" denotes a channel of the object that it emerges from. It never refers to an act of creating something out of a certain material that is mentioned after the "ek". As such, it is used in Luke 3:22 where a "voice came out of heaven". The voice "genomenon ek ourano". The voice has its ultimate source inside God, the channel through which it emerges is heaven. The voice comes out of the depth of the speaker, God, and is emerging out of heaven. This is very simple and easy to understand. The voice was not "made of heaven" as some material used.
Applying this insight to Romans 1:3 we learn by the addition "according to the flesh" that Jesus Christ did not merely originate inside the womb of Mary (otherwise, why mention "according to the flesh" ? A brilliant verse to refute socinianism), but that he in fact came out of this very line. He emerged from the seed of David. How do I substantiate this further? By showing that his davidic emerging is based on the genealogy of Joseph. It has nothing to do with Mary, but everything to do with Joseph. Matthew 1:1 explains to us the origin of Jesus Christ as the Son of David and as the Son of Abraham in very plain words, by citing the flesh and blood genealogy of Joseph, who served as his legal father. Let me use some website space and quote verses 1 through 21 of Matthew 1 from the NKJV, which is proven to be much less corrupted than its predecessor KJV.
"The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham: Abraham begot Isaac, Isaac begot Jacob, and Jacob begot Judah and his brothers. Judah begot Perez and Zerah by Tamar, Perez begot Hezron, and Hezron begot Ram. Ram begot Amminadab, Amminadab begot Nahshon, and Nahshon begot Salmon. Salmon begot Boaz by Rahab, Boaz begot Obed by Ruth, Obed begot Jesse, and Jesse begot David the king. David the king begot Solomon by her who had been the wife of Uriah. Solomon begot Rehoboam, Rehoboam begot Abijah, and Abijah begot Asa. Asa begot Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat begot Joram, and Joram begot Uzziah. Uzziah begot Jotham, Jotham begot Ahaz, and Ahaz begot Hezekiah. 10 Hezekiah begot Manasseh, Manasseh begot Amon, and Amon begot Josiah. Josiah begot Jeconiah and his brothers about the time they were carried away to Babylon. And after they were brought to Babylon, Jeconiah begot Shealtiel, and Shealtiel begot Zerubbabel. Zerubbabel begot Abiud, Abiud begot Eliakim, and Eliakim begot Azor. Azor begot Zadok, Zadok begot Achim, and Achim begot Eliud. Eliud begot Eleazar, Eleazar begot Matthan, and Matthan begot Jacob. And Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ. So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations, from David until the captivity in Babylon are fourteen generations, and from the captivity in Babylon until the Christ are fourteen generations. Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wanting to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly. But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins."
(Matthew 1:1-21 NKJV)
You see, the sonship of David is proven not by a "having been created of the seed of David that is Mary's womb flesh" but rather by "coming out of the family line of Joseph, David's son", since the kinship is derived from the father.
"Take a census of all the congregation of the children of Israel, by their families, by their fathers’ houses, according to the number of names, every male individually."
Joseph was called the father of the Lord Jesus Christ by Mary in Luke 2:48. Joseph and Mary are called his parents in Luke 2:27 and Luke 2:41. Clearly, Joseph was the legal father of the Lord Jesus Christ and he thus inherited his claim to the throne from Joseph. It does not require him to be "created from Mary's flesh", which as mentioned would provide a serious bible contradiction as Mary is a Levite of the house of Aaron. The KJV has corrupted Romans 1:3 in a way that it provides a bible contradiction.
This verse has been tampered with in the Greek language as early as the second century. It was corrupted in manuscripts to say "gennaomenon ek", which would say "begotten out of the seed of David". This is documented in the book "The orthodox corruption of scripture" by Bart Ehrmann.
3. Galatians 4:4 King James Bible
Jesus supposedly "was made of a woman". This verse falls into the exact same bucket as Romans 1:3 and has the same misleading "made of" when it fact is a "coming out of/from" a woman and "coming/occurring under the law" is described here. It also has the same Greek words "ginomai" and "ek" and Bart Ehrmann mentions the exact same corruptions to "gennaomenon" from the second century. Clearly, corrupting these 2 verses has been an older undertaking.
But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law.
(Galatians 4:4 KJV)
But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law.
(Galatians 4:4 ESV)
I will leave the reader with a link to the interlinear bible for his own analysis.
4. Hebrews 2:14 New American Standard Bible (among others)
The following verse in Hebrews 2:14 has 2 misleading translations. (The reader should notice that this is a favorite passage for misleading text corruptions in order to guide the people into the dogma of Chalcedon)
"Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil."
The interlinear text for comparison is here:
As can be seen, the children have "shared" in flesh and blood. Jesus had to do the same thing, which proves that the Word had to become flesh, not take it from elsewhere. We as human beings do not move around a flesh body out of our mother's womb flesh as spiritual remote controllers. We are true flesh and blood human beings and thus share in this nature. Jesus Christ did himself have to become such a man, save the sinful flesh. This is why Hebrews 2:14 really says that he had to "similarly" or "nearly" parttake of flesh and blood. This is the first corruption, namely the translation of "paraplesios" as "likewise". It does not mean "likewise" but "similarly"
The Word "paraplesios" is as such only used once in the NT. It is an adverb of paraplesion, which is used in Philippians 2:27, where Epaphroditus almost dies and as such "comes near death", which is denoted by "paraplesion", he "resembled death nearly" - it means when something comes very close to a thing since it is a word comprised out of the preposition "para" (side, next, with) and "plesion" which means "near, neighboring". Jesus Christ was "side-neighboring" the parttaking of flesh and blood, which means in a similar manner, but not in the same way.
Clearly, Jesus Christ was not conceived from a male God-sperm in a divine-human intercourse between God and the virgin Mary, neither is it true that Jesus Christ grabbed a pre-fashioned body on christmas eve for himself. God brought forth a human Son into the womb, that is the matter of the truth. Be it far from God to be an adulterer with the betrothed of Joseph.
The whole point of Hebrews 2:14-18 is to show that the Word of God became flesh in order to experience temptation from the devil and thus be able to have compassion on us as our high priest. It had nothing to do with picking up a flesh avatar out of Mary so that he could make humanity divine. That is paganism.
Read from the W.Kelly notes:
in like manner: "Likewise," "in like manner," "similarly" (as I have rendered it), is the true force of παραπλησίως. It is not correct to say that the rendering in our common Bible is not sufficiently strong. Bengel gives similiter and remarks, not that it is equivalent to but "idem fere atque mox κατα πάντα per omnia v. 17, c. iv. 15." The Docetae may have perverted the word to their own wicked folly; but no scholar who examines the matter can deny that π. does not go as far as ὀμοίως or ἵσως; but as Alford justly remarks, it expresses "a general similitude, a likeness in the main
5. John 1:14
"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us." (KJV)
"So the Word became human and made his home among us." (CEV)
"The Word became a human being and lived here with us." (NLT)
The King James Version bears the idea that the Word "was made" into something, which implies that some act of "making" in the sense of "creating" took place "by someone" (who?). The bible refutes this idea on 2 points, namely that "nothing was made that was made" without "the Word" (John 1:3) and the body was "mended / adjusted / furnished" (G2675 "katartizo, see Hebrews 10:5), which shows that there was "Word" present as immaterial which became material. "Katartizo" is middle voice, so it is neither active nor passive, but God is the cause ("you have") in adjusting the body ("me") towards Jesus Christ as a man. This as we know was done by the power of the Holy Spirit. "Katartizo" bears the idea of something already existing and being mended, not the sense of something currently "created out of nothing". God's Word resides in himself and God speaks the same and is able to manifest himself in visible form "as flesh". The visible-becoming was "mended, adjusted" by becoming flesh in the womb. God himself "became visible in flesh", see 1. Timothy 3:16. The flesh of Jesus Christ "became", meaning the whole Son of God "became" and nothing "was made" pertaining to the Son of God. In 1. John 1:1, we read that "That which was from the beginning" was actually "seen and touched" and John said that "concerning the Word". Whatever was seen and touched was there from eternity past, but it had to be mended in order to be flesh so that man could see and touch the Word of God. The King James Version blurs this fact. We can beautifully see how God himself directs his Word towards the Word that became flesh in Luke 3:22 / Matthew 3:17:
And the Holy Spirit descended in bodily form like a dove upon Him, and a voice came from heaven ("genesthai ex ourano" - "became out of heaven") which said (see Matthew 3:17 "legousa", from Logos), “You are My beloved Son; in You I am well pleased.”
The Word of God was still as much God as it was God when it became flesh as the Son of God. The Son of God is the Word and the place of forthcoming of the Son of God is the Word. God is the Word. Jesus Christ told us:
"Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me?"
In regards to the CEV and the NLT it can be stated that "the Word became human" seeks to leave a loophole for the unbiblical "took on flesh" idea, meaning that "The Word became flesh" (as the greek says and it translated in the NKJV) is merely some nice way of stating that a person in the Godhead entered a body made from the virgin and then was fused with the same in a "unity in person". This is not a reflection of the clear language that God's Word was born out of God to become flesh, which is very consistent with everything else said about God's Word in the Old Testament. Why create a model (several persons in the "Godhead" - an unbiblical idea, there are 2 female nouns and one adjective that were translated "Godhead" in the KJV, which apologists use to claim that Godhead is the "being of God" - an adjective or a female, pick whatever you like and never forget: it is a force / substance / essence and not a person and the bible calls this "theion" - the trinitarian monotheistic God is actually an impersonal substance) when the bible already explains wonderfully that God begot a Son ?
6. Philippians 2:7 (NIV, ESV, CSB, HCSB)
"...but [He] emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men." (ESV)
"Instead he emptied himself by assuming the form of a servant, taking on the likeness of humanity. And when he had come as a man" (CSB)
"but emptied Himself, having taken the form of a servant, having been made in the likeness of men.." (NLT)
We are dealing with a "trinitarian favorite" here and as such, Trinitarians obligate themselves to corrupt the bible text in the course of translation as to please themselves in their undertaking to find hidden messages in the New Testament that "teach" a "second member of the trinity from eternity past" called "God, the Son". (which is the role that satan later wants to grab for himself) This in fact is a desired "Eternal Sonship proof text". The whole passage in fact has received a title by itself as "the Carmen Christi". Of course such titles are additions in themselves in order to fill the arsenal of "great and swelling words" for "apologists".
I will devote a longer article to the whole passage, so I will not take the time to give quotes from people like James White (Alpha and Omega ministries), Bruce Reeves (Church of Christ) or Matt Slick (CARM). The claim is somewhat as follows:
Chapter 2 of Philippians supposedly "talks about" the "incarnation" of Jesus Christ. As such, it has been misunderstood to the point that certain voices sought to exclude it from the New Testament canon, claiming it teaches the Gnostic Kenosis (emptying), the "Fall of Sophia" from Pleroma (fullness) to Kenoma (emptiness). Note: Yes, the Trinitarian Jesus is actually female "prior to the incarnation" (see for example "The Gospel of the Memra: Jewish Binitarianism and the the Prologue to John" by Daniel Boyarin)
The word Kenosis itself is derived from this verse. The whole passage is probably the most important one in order to justify the strange idea that a distinct God-person emptied himself by adding something to himself. A contradiction in itself as Daniel B. Wallace admits in his book "Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics". Trinitarians love contradictions, call them mysterious revelations and praise a God of confusion (notice the Hebrew term Babylon means confusion).
The interlinear bible student will notice that the words "by" are not in the Greek text. They were added by bible translators in order to give the idea that "God the Son" "emptied himself" "by incarnating". Stop for a moment and think about the Gnostic rejection of anything material. The "act of incarnation" itself posed an act of redemption in the Gnostic mindset. I also invite you to dwell on the inescapable fact that this would mean that God has given Jesus the name above every name not because he willingly poured out his soul unto death (Isaiah 53:12 - he emptied himself), but because "God the Son took on flesh", a degrading act in the eyes of a Gnostic. Jesus was highly exalted for uniting himself with a human body out of the virgin. That changes the whole gospel message.
If you look up to the 3 verses quoted, you will find the Berean Literal Translation to be the ONLY one that somewhat conveys what the text actually says but in the mindset of dogmatic church scribes cannot say: that Jesus Christ emptied himself IN THE STATE of being in the likeness of man.
What is the claim? The claim is that some grammar in this verse "requires" the word "emptying" to be "defined by what follows". This, they call "participles of means". "Emptying" took place "by taking on the form of a slave" and "by being made in the likeness of man". White argues, anytime an "aorist indicative" (verb tense of the "emptying" verb) is followed by an "aorist participle" (verbs here "taking on" and "becoming"), the participles describe "the means of the action". That is why you find the words "by" in the text. First of all, this claim is false. There are many examples in the New Testament that prove this theory wrong. (among others, Acts 2:24, 5:19, Luke 1:9, Galatians 4:4). Wallace says in his book that "emptying is vague" and that it somehow begs to be defined and gives that as a reason to throw in words "a la gusto" so that Trinitarianism can survive and have a foundation.
The fact of the matter is that "emptying" is not vague at all but explained in the following verse. He became obedient as a servant to the point of death. The idea itself that the "form of God" (morphe) that Jesus was in when he emptied himself was in itself not "a divine attribute" that described his "inner substance", but rather the outer appearance. Jesus Christ never emptied himself from an outer appearance , nor of an inner substance, but rather said prophetically:
I am poured out like water,
And all My bones are out of joint;
My heart is like wax;
It has melted within Me.
fifteen My strength is dried up like a potsherd,
And my tongue clings to My jaws;
You have brought Me to the dust of death.
The aorist indicative verb of "emptying" took place after Jesus Christ, as a grown man, decided to rather chose the appearance of a servant, though he was in the appearance of God. He did so "having become in the likeness of man". That was the other attribute. The word "ginomai" is here again and, as you may guess correctly, shows the reader that the Son of God "became" and was neither "created", nor "took on" flesh. He was begotten out of God. The Word of God BECAME flesh. Simple, easy, praise God.
We as Christians should not be willing to empty ourselves of our "inner substance" and receive praise for it, but rather we should be ready to pour our souls out unto death, just like Jesus Christ himself did. Trinitarians prove that they have a Gnostic foundation in their mind and are cursed by God unto doom for changing the bible text and building their misconception of God on it.
Here it is for you:
"...but [Jesus Christ] emptied himself, the form of a servant having taken, in the likeness of men having become."
That is what it says and this is how it should be translated.
7. 1 John 5:18 (KJV & others)
"We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not."
This verse gives the impression that it is the child of God HIMSELF that upholds his status in God. At the same time, it takes away a proof text that Jesus Christ is begotten out of God. It should say:
"We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is born of God keepeth him, and that wicked one toucheth him not."
The one "born of God" is Jesus Christ. He keeps us, not we ourselves. He is born out of God. You can confirm this by following the link to the interlinear bible.
As we see, the false teaching of the hypostatic union is relying from ancient times on text changes and corruptions. This is a sign of satan at work.
This page will be extended further.