I recently watched a video by a KJV onliest. This person claimed that new translations were corruptions of the word of God because of how they translated words. This person said you can use what he called a "checklist" to determine if your bible is corrupted or not. This "checklist" used 6 verses to determine this 3 in the OT and 3 in the NT. The NT claims are differences between the majority/minority texts so you are going to believe whatever text you like the best but the OT is translated from the same hebrew. I was actually bothered by these claims and would like to go through and address this OT list quoting from the KJV and using the NASB as my "corrupted text".
1
Genesis 1:1
KJV In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
NASB In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
the alleged corrupted portion of the text is the plural of heaven in the modern translations. The suggestion is that heave, singular, is the correct translation as it is in context of whole universe expanse (space) where a plural reference implies our earthly atmosphere, space, and heaven with God lives which is incorrect.
Well ignoring the 3 heavens that is assumed from the plural I would like to look at the Hebrew text to determine what the actual word is and how it should be properly translated.
here is the Hebrew in Gen 1:1 for heaven/heavens
השמים (hashamayim)
reading from right to left the literal translation is "the-heaven-s". To break it down the first letter (He) is a prefix and acts as a definite article and so means "the" or "the shamayim" The suffix "yim" indicates that it is plural so it is "the shama-(plural marker)" So this alone shoes us that whatever word you use to translate hashamayim the Hebrew does show it in its plural form. And the KJV doesn't disagree with this either for example the exact same word is in Genesis 2:1 and the KJV translated this inconsistent with how they translated it in Genesis 1:1 saying "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them."
2
Isaiah 14:12
KJV How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
NASB How you have fallen from heaven, O star of the morning, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the earth, You who have weakened the nations!
the alleged corrupted portion of the text is that the KJV uses the name "Lucifer" which then is assumed to be the name of Satan. And the new translations uses "morning star" (NASB "star of the morning"). The problem has multiple implications in that Lucifer seems to suggest to go back to Satan where as "morning star" could suggest that Christ is the one that has fallen from heaven since he is refereed to as the morning start in Rev 22:16 and also the day star (another alternative translation) in Peter 2:19.
Well first although the text can figuratively point to Satan it directly is referring to the King of Babylon. Certainly Babylon is many times paralleled with sin and thus the King of Babylon is the King of Sin and works well with the idea of Satan and I would agree with this interpretation. However the issue here is should the word be "Lucifer" or "Morning Star/Day Star". Well lets look at the Hebrew text again.
The word in question for Lucifer/Morning Star
הילל (heylel)
Well at first glance heylel doesn't look anything like Lucifer or Morning Star so the word is obviously translated from hebrew into English but the problem is how does heylel turn into Lucifer? Well Lucifer is actually not English at all it is Latin... and what is it Latin for... it is Latin for "Morning Star". So although these words are thought of as distinct they actually are the same thing... Lucifer = Morning Star and Morning Star = Lucifer (as an adjective it means light-bringer). Because of this passage figuratively pointing to Satan through the Latin Vulgate the name Lucifer became the popular name for Satan but no where in the bible affirms the name for Satan is the Latin word for Morning Star. Although to some it seems offensive to put Lucifer and Morning Star on the same level because Jesus is called the Morning Star Jerome, who wrote the Latin Vulgate uses Lucifer in this passage which figuratively points to Satan and also in Peter 2:19 which points to Christ (yes Christ is call lucifer ). To Jerome however there wasn't a problem as Lucifer was just a word to him. The difference between the Latin text and the KJV is the Latin doesn't use this word as a name but instead just as a word where as the KJV assumes this to be a name. The KJV isn't exactly wrong as the text seems to indicate it is a title of sorts but in a general sense like called someone a president but not in a specific sense as in identifying a name unique for Satan. It is unclear how far the the scribes of the KJV wanted this to go but today Lucifer is by far a very accepted name for Satan which is only based on a tradition and nothing else.
3
Daniel 3:25
KJV He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.
NASB He said, “Look! I see four men loosed and walking about in the midst of the fire without harm, and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods!”
the alleged corrupted portion of the text is that the KJV seems points to the son of a monotheistic deity which then can be paralleled with Christ and the newer translated uses a the plural "gods" which points to a pagan understanding of God and is counter-christian.
Well what does the Hebrew say. Well to start off the passage is not in Hebrew it is in Aramaic. Most of the OT is in Hebrew however some areas like a lot of Daniel is in Aramaic
אלהין (elahin)
the Hebrew equivalent would be:
אלהים (elohyim)
I will refer back to the remarks on Gen 1:1. The suffix "yim" in Hebrew is a plural marker and in Aramaic it is the suffix "hin" The pronunciation may change base on whats before it but in Hebrew it is ים and in Aramaic it is ין and they both indicate a plural. So "gods" is perfectly acceptable
The confusion is that through the bible the Israelite's God is referred to many times as the plural elohyim and translated as the singular "God" and not "gods". The reason for this is in Hebrew (as well as Aramaic) there is something called a majestic plural where the plural is put there as a form of respect but not to indicate more than one of something. The best English equivalent is capitalization of the first letter to make the word unique like "God" instead of "god". For example Gen 1:1 uses the word elohyim for God. In Hebrew Gen 1:1 uses this majestic plural but in English we capitalize the first letter.
If this is so why doesn't this text translated it as only "Son of God" instead of "son of gods" Well elohyim is translated as many things in the bible sometimes as God but also sometimes as gods this is the same in the KJV. What determines what it should be is the context. In this case the context is the pagan Babylonians looking into a fire and see what they describe as a son of gods. This is not intended to be a statement who this fourth man actually was but instead a statement description of what a pagan mind sees when they saw this fourth figure. They are not monotheistic so for them to point to a monotheistic God would be inconsistent with their belief system.
Elohyim is translated as other words as well in the KJV like judge, angel or goddess and again the context is what shapes the english translation. Because a group of pagans saw a man and describes him as a son of God/gods does not mean he was Jesus. We as Christians like to think this because of what we know of Jesus but we must remember who is speaking this and they only spoke what they thought they saw. Elohyim is a word that is connected with something of great power and can be translated simply as the word "powers" which is why it can be translated to different English words of people who hold power. All the words that the Babylonians describe only show us that this fourth man was of great power and in no way does it condone polytheism but it does reflect their understanding.
1
Genesis 1:1
KJV In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
NASB In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
the alleged corrupted portion of the text is the plural of heaven in the modern translations. The suggestion is that heave, singular, is the correct translation as it is in context of whole universe expanse (space) where a plural reference implies our earthly atmosphere, space, and heaven with God lives which is incorrect.
Well ignoring the 3 heavens that is assumed from the plural I would like to look at the Hebrew text to determine what the actual word is and how it should be properly translated.
here is the Hebrew in Gen 1:1 for heaven/heavens
השמים (hashamayim)
reading from right to left the literal translation is "the-heaven-s". To break it down the first letter (He) is a prefix and acts as a definite article and so means "the" or "the shamayim" The suffix "yim" indicates that it is plural so it is "the shama-(plural marker)" So this alone shoes us that whatever word you use to translate hashamayim the Hebrew does show it in its plural form. And the KJV doesn't disagree with this either for example the exact same word is in Genesis 2:1 and the KJV translated this inconsistent with how they translated it in Genesis 1:1 saying "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them."
2
Isaiah 14:12
KJV How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
NASB How you have fallen from heaven, O star of the morning, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the earth, You who have weakened the nations!
the alleged corrupted portion of the text is that the KJV uses the name "Lucifer" which then is assumed to be the name of Satan. And the new translations uses "morning star" (NASB "star of the morning"). The problem has multiple implications in that Lucifer seems to suggest to go back to Satan where as "morning star" could suggest that Christ is the one that has fallen from heaven since he is refereed to as the morning start in Rev 22:16 and also the day star (another alternative translation) in Peter 2:19.
Well first although the text can figuratively point to Satan it directly is referring to the King of Babylon. Certainly Babylon is many times paralleled with sin and thus the King of Babylon is the King of Sin and works well with the idea of Satan and I would agree with this interpretation. However the issue here is should the word be "Lucifer" or "Morning Star/Day Star". Well lets look at the Hebrew text again.
The word in question for Lucifer/Morning Star
הילל (heylel)
Well at first glance heylel doesn't look anything like Lucifer or Morning Star so the word is obviously translated from hebrew into English but the problem is how does heylel turn into Lucifer? Well Lucifer is actually not English at all it is Latin... and what is it Latin for... it is Latin for "Morning Star". So although these words are thought of as distinct they actually are the same thing... Lucifer = Morning Star and Morning Star = Lucifer (as an adjective it means light-bringer). Because of this passage figuratively pointing to Satan through the Latin Vulgate the name Lucifer became the popular name for Satan but no where in the bible affirms the name for Satan is the Latin word for Morning Star. Although to some it seems offensive to put Lucifer and Morning Star on the same level because Jesus is called the Morning Star Jerome, who wrote the Latin Vulgate uses Lucifer in this passage which figuratively points to Satan and also in Peter 2:19 which points to Christ (yes Christ is call lucifer ). To Jerome however there wasn't a problem as Lucifer was just a word to him. The difference between the Latin text and the KJV is the Latin doesn't use this word as a name but instead just as a word where as the KJV assumes this to be a name. The KJV isn't exactly wrong as the text seems to indicate it is a title of sorts but in a general sense like called someone a president but not in a specific sense as in identifying a name unique for Satan. It is unclear how far the the scribes of the KJV wanted this to go but today Lucifer is by far a very accepted name for Satan which is only based on a tradition and nothing else.
3
Daniel 3:25
KJV He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.
NASB He said, “Look! I see four men loosed and walking about in the midst of the fire without harm, and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods!”
the alleged corrupted portion of the text is that the KJV seems points to the son of a monotheistic deity which then can be paralleled with Christ and the newer translated uses a the plural "gods" which points to a pagan understanding of God and is counter-christian.
Well what does the Hebrew say. Well to start off the passage is not in Hebrew it is in Aramaic. Most of the OT is in Hebrew however some areas like a lot of Daniel is in Aramaic
אלהין (elahin)
the Hebrew equivalent would be:
אלהים (elohyim)
I will refer back to the remarks on Gen 1:1. The suffix "yim" in Hebrew is a plural marker and in Aramaic it is the suffix "hin" The pronunciation may change base on whats before it but in Hebrew it is ים and in Aramaic it is ין and they both indicate a plural. So "gods" is perfectly acceptable
The confusion is that through the bible the Israelite's God is referred to many times as the plural elohyim and translated as the singular "God" and not "gods". The reason for this is in Hebrew (as well as Aramaic) there is something called a majestic plural where the plural is put there as a form of respect but not to indicate more than one of something. The best English equivalent is capitalization of the first letter to make the word unique like "God" instead of "god". For example Gen 1:1 uses the word elohyim for God. In Hebrew Gen 1:1 uses this majestic plural but in English we capitalize the first letter.
If this is so why doesn't this text translated it as only "Son of God" instead of "son of gods" Well elohyim is translated as many things in the bible sometimes as God but also sometimes as gods this is the same in the KJV. What determines what it should be is the context. In this case the context is the pagan Babylonians looking into a fire and see what they describe as a son of gods. This is not intended to be a statement who this fourth man actually was but instead a statement description of what a pagan mind sees when they saw this fourth figure. They are not monotheistic so for them to point to a monotheistic God would be inconsistent with their belief system.
Elohyim is translated as other words as well in the KJV like judge, angel or goddess and again the context is what shapes the english translation. Because a group of pagans saw a man and describes him as a son of God/gods does not mean he was Jesus. We as Christians like to think this because of what we know of Jesus but we must remember who is speaking this and they only spoke what they thought they saw. Elohyim is a word that is connected with something of great power and can be translated simply as the word "powers" which is why it can be translated to different English words of people who hold power. All the words that the Babylonians describe only show us that this fourth man was of great power and in no way does it condone polytheism but it does reflect their understanding.
Last edited:
