2001 Translation

Book   Chapter : Verse

Chapters

Select a book first.

Verses

Select a chapter first.

Display Mode

Typeface

CamelCase names

e.g. DaniEl instead of Daniel. Learn more.

Text Subheadings

Illustrations

God’s Name Circumlocutions

Learn more.

Name of God’s Son

Translating and the Trinity Doctrine

It’s very challenging to translate certain verses because they are so important to one of the longest-running disputes in Christianity.

The dispute is whether Jesus is:

With strong feelings on both sides, there are two pitfalls to avoid:

  • If we view Jesus as God’s created son, we may influence the translation to sound more Arian/Unitarian.
  • If we view Jesus as somehow God Himself or equal to God Himself, we may influence the translation to sound more Trinitarian.

The goal is to be as neutral as possible, adhering to the original languages. Whatever our views, we should not translate in a way which suggests that beliefs and interpretations existed if they did not develop until centuries later.

Unfortunately, most translations deliberately mistranslate key verses to insert the Trinity doctrine into the text. Many try to suggest the doctrine by using capitalization and other formatting tricks. A few even include entirely fake words! Let’s look at some key examples.

Our List

Note that there are more verses pertinent to the Arianism/Unitarian vs Trinitarian debate. However, those verses are more about interpretation; this page is about issues of translation.

Isaiah 9:6 — Mighty God, Eternal Father?

Most translations report this verse as containing grand divine titles:

‘For unto us a child is born… and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.’

But there’s something that surprizes most people about these divine titles: They’re completely missing from the Greek Septuagint, our oldest copy of the Jewish Bible. Instead, the Septuagint simply calls him a ‘messenger of great counsel.’ And nothing more.

This presents us with an historical puzzle. The titles appear in the Dead Sea Scrolls, but they’re conspicuously absent from early Christian writings until after the Council of Nicaea in AD 325. When they do appear in supposedly early writings, they’re found in known forgeries (like the letters falsely attributed to Ignatius).

Some key points to consider:

  • The Septuagint was translated around 250 BC by Jewish scholars.
  • Early Christians primarily used the Septuagint, not the Hebrew text.
  • These divine titles aren’t quoted by any early Christian writers.
  • The titles suddenly appear in Christian writings after AD 325.
  • When found in earlier writings, they’re in proven forgeries.

This raises some puzzling questions:

  • Were these titles fraudulently added to the Hebrew text between the Septuagint translation (3rd century BC) and the writing of the Dead Sea Scrolls (1st century AD)?
  • Or were they removed from the Septuagint because they were considered problematic?
  • If they were added or removed, who did it and why?
  • Why didn’t early Christians quote these powerful titles when arguing about Jesus’ nature?

In our opinion, our growing confidence in the Septuagint’s reliability inclines us to believe that these titles might not have been in the original Isaiah text, and were added to later Hebrew copies sometime before the 1st century AD.

But we don’t know. Nobody knows.

Given these uncertainties, our translation includes these titles but grays them out to mark them as questionable:

‘So for us, a child has been born,
And for us, a son has been given;
Upon whose shoulders authority was laid,
And called [a] messenger of great counsel.
Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace’

However, it is rather disappointing that most Bible translators don’t even mention this mystery in a footnote. They leave readers totally unaware of any problem. This may be because Church sponsors of those translations view it as an important text, and don’t want any doubts raised about it.

Our Editor comments:

It is impossible to know what happened here.

The facts do not add up in any way.

Even if we accept the words as original, they are puzzling as a Messianic prophecy. While Thomas did call Jesus ‘my god’ (John 20:28), and Jesus is also called ‘god’ (or more likely, ‘a god’) in John 1:1 and Titus 2:13, Jesus is never called ‘Mighty God’ or ‘Everlasting Father’ or the ‘Prince of Peace’ in the New Testament.

Yet when Isaiah said that Cyrus would conquer Babylon (Isaiah 45:1), a guy named Cyrus did indeed come and conquer Babylon. Isn’t it reasonable to think that Jesus might have been called ‘Mighty God’ or ‘Everlasting Father’ or the ‘Prince of Peace’ at least once in the New Testament? Yet there is no record of it.

And as for ‘Everlasting Father’, isn’t Jesus the Son? And aren’t fellow Christians his brothers and sisters? And he came to be called things like King of Kings, not ‘Prince of Peace’. Jesus explicitly said he came to bring a sword to the earth, not peace (Matthew 10:34).

The puzzle continues if we accept the alternate Septuagint version of the text. Jesus was never called a ‘messenger of great counsel’ in the New Testament. So why say that? Besides, is it correct to call Jesus a ‘messenger’ (an angel)?

Some have suggested that the Greek should be translated differently, that the Messenger is sent from something called a ‘Great Council’ (a ‘Council’ and ‘Counsel’ are the same word in Greek), implying he’s been dispatched by some assembly of angels in heaven (like in Job 1:6). It’s true that the Greek grammar can be translated that way.

But the Bible never uses the phrase anywhere else, and the Hebrew and Aramaic Targum versions of this text mention a counsellor, not a council (which are two different words in Hebrew and Aramaic). Jesus himself said that God sent him (John 17:18), not some angelic gathering. So if he was anyone’s ‘messenger’, then he was God’s messenger.

This is all very puzzling. Sometimes it is best to simply admit that nobody really knows what’s going on, and wait patiently for answers.

However, the absolute worst thing to do is to pretend that no problems exist here, and then to hide the whole debate from readers.

Further Reading

Matthew 28:19 — Three-Part Baptism Formula?

Here, historical evidence raises some intriguing questions. The traditional text reads:

‘…baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.’

But there’s something remarkable about these words (often called the ‘trinitarian formula’) — it conflicts with how the early Christians actually baptized people. Throughout the book of Acts, we see Christians consistently baptizing only ‘in the name of Jesus’ (Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, 19:5).

This presents us with a puzzle. If Jesus really commanded a three-part formula, why did his followers immediately ignore it? Even more intriguingly, the 4th-century church historian Eusebius quoted this verse 18 times before the Council of Nicaea — and never included the formula. But after the Council? The formula suddenly appears in his writings.

Some key points to consider:

  • The formula is absent from parallel accounts (Luke 24:47; Acts 1:8).
  • The early Church consistently baptized only in Jesus’ name.
  • We have no Bible manuscripts of Matthew 28:19 from before the 4th century, only quotes in other works.
  • Eusebius quoted the verse many times, but his quotations changed after AD 325 to add the three-part formula.

The formula is listed in the Didache, an ancient document outlining Christian practices which dates back to the late 1st century AD. However, it may not be a quote of the formula, as it is slightly different in the Greek, and the Didache is understood to be a ‘living document’ that was added to by later church leaders. There is no reason why words added to Matthew couldn’t also be added to the Didache.

If the words we added to Matthew later, it would follow a pattern seen elsewhere, with other changes made to 1 Timothy 3:16 and 1 John 5:7-8.

Baptism only in Jesus’ name was still common practice well into the 3rd century. It was so widespread that Pope Stephen I had to step in and declare it valid. Even centuries later, Pope Nicholas I (AD 858-867) said it was fine to baptize using just Jesus’ name. But not everyone agreed — some church leaders were so angry about it that they kicked Celtic missionaries out of the church for not using the three-part formula.

However, most Bible translations do not give readers any reason to question this verse. There is no footnote, no translator note, nor appendix on the matter. Most readers will never even know that there are any question marks over the words.

Our translation includes these words but grays them out to mark them as questionable and to bring attention to the issue:

‘So now, go make disciples in all the nations in my name, immersing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit [possibly spurious words], and teach them to obey all the things that I’ve commanded.’

Our Editor comments:

It makes little sense that these words are original. If they were, then nobody should have been baptizing in Jesus’ name only. However, since we don’t yet have early manuscripts of this portion of Matthew, we can only have strong suspicions.

Personally, I think they were added in the 3rd century as a response to Gnosticism. We can only wait and see what future manuscripts discoveries reveal.

Further Reading

John 1:1 — Ton Theon vs Theos

The traditional rendering of John 1:1 reads:

‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.’

However, there’s something crucial that English readers never see: the Greek text makes an important distinction between the two uses of ‘God’ in this verse. The first instance uses ton theon (‘The God’), while the second simply uses theos (‘god’).

This distinction matters because ton theon (‘The God’) is commonly used throughout both the Greek New Testament and the Greek Septuagint to refer specifically to Almighty God, distinguishing him from other gods. By translating both terms identically as ‘God’ in English, it misleads readers into thinking the two terms are the same, when they are not.

  • One is The God, the term used to refer to Almighty God.
  • The other is simply god, a term which can be used to refer to any powerful being.

Hiding this distinction from readers deceptively creates an equality between the Word (Jesus) and God (the Father) in this verse, when the original text indicates a difference.

This also ignores the historical context. The belief that Jesus and God are co-equal did not become a widespread Christian belief until much later. Early Christian writers like Justin Martyr (AD ~100-165) explicitly described Jesus as ‘another god’ who was distinct from and subject to the Creator. This would match with the terms used in John 1:1.

What’s more, John’s readers would have been familiar with the Jewish concept of the Memra (the Jewish name for God’s ‘Word’), which was often personified as a powerful divine being acting on God’s behalf. This context helps explain why John chose his words so carefully. The Word (Memra) was seen in various ways, but one of which was a powerful being acting on God’s behalf; the Word, or Memra, was never seen as Almighty God Himself.

Some key points to consider:

  • In the ancient world, referring to powerful beings as ‘gods’ was common and didn’t contradict monotheism (see 1 Corinthians 8:5).
  • The writer is using different Greek terms to make a distinction between ‘The God’ and a different divine being.
  • If the writer had wanted to describe the Word and God as the same, the text would call both beings by the same term, but it does not.

An accurate translation would preserve this distinction, not hide it. It’s very disappointing that most Bibles don’t even mention these facts in a footnote. Oddly, even translations sponsored by Arians and Unitarians don’t mention these facts.

Further:

  • Both Koine Greek and Aramaic have no word for ‘a’ (or ‘an’).
  • In English Bibles, translators insert ‘a’ (and ‘an’) thousands of times throughout the text to help it read better in English, and this is usually uncontroversial.
  • The ancient Coptic language did have a word for ‘a’, and the earliest Coptic translation of John says ‘the Word was a god’, showing that this was the common understanding of the time, and they too wished to preserve the distinction between ton theon and theos.
  • Translating it as ‘a god’ in English fits the Biblical and historical context that we discussed above, and maintains the distinction between ton theon and theos. However, Trinitarians are fiercely opposed to this, as it contradicts later Trinitarian doctrine.

However, saying ‘the Word was a god’ is an elegant way to naturally preserve the distinction between ‘The God’ (ton theon) and ‘god’ (theos) in English. So that’s what we do:

‘In the beginning, there was the Word,
The Word was with The God,
And [a] god was the Word’

Our Editor comments:

It is inappropriate for Bible translations to hide important distinctions between terms just because someone would prefer them not to exist.

Pretending that the distinction between ‘The God’ and ‘god’ doesn’t exist in John 1:1 is a betrayal of the original text, it’s author, and the reader. It’s ultimately futile, anyway. The difference doesn’t cease to exist simply because some wish to play pretend. Nor does it cease to exist if everyone else pretends along with them.

It is simply a fact of history that Trinitarian beliefs took centuries to develop after much disagreement and debate, much of which is recorded. Further, our earliest translation of John 1:1 into a language which does make use of ‘a’ (Coptic) says ‘a god’, accurately reflecting the earlier pre-Trinitarian beliefs of the time.

Therefore, adding the word ‘a’ to say ‘a god’ is a reasonable way to preserve the distinction in English, while also maintaining the original meaning in the historical context. It is not some Arian or Unitarian opinion; no, it’s a translation that fits with both the text itself and the time it was written.

The only reason to refrain from saying ‘a god’ is if the translator is trying to deliberately hide the distinction between ‘The God’ and ‘god’. That is dishonest and wrong.

Further Reading

John 8:58 — Before Abraham Was, I AM?

Many translations format this verse like this:

‘Before Abraham was, I AM.’

But there’s something off about this translation — it creates an artificial connection to Exodus 3:14 that isn’t actually there in the original languages. The Greek phrase ego eimi and the Aramaic ena na are simply the normal ways to say ‘I am’ in those languages. They’re used hundreds of times throughout the Bible for ordinary statements.

What’s particularly revealing is how translators handle the exact same phrase elsewhere. When Jesus says ego eimi in other contexts, it’s typically translated naturally:

Some key points to consider:

  • The phrase ego eimi appears 48 times in John’s Gospel.
  • It’s translated naturally in most occurrences.
  • The same phrase appears in statements by ordinary people.
  • Early Christian writers didn’t connect this verse to Exodus 3:14.

This interpretation only became common centuries after John wrote his Gospel. The early Christians understood this as a simple statement about Jesus’ pre-existence — that he existed before Abraham — not as any claim to be Yahweh.

The context supports this simpler reading. Jesus was answering the Jews’ question about how he could have seen Abraham, since he wasn’t yet fifty years old. His answer? He existed before Abraham! This would have been shocking enough without adding implications that weren’t there in the original.

Modern translators often reveal a bias by:

  • Capitalizing ‘I AM’ to suggest a link with Exodus 3:14, where the meaning of God’s name is traditionally written in uppercase. Of course, uppercase and lowercase were not distinguished in Greek at this time, and do not exist in Hebrew or Aramaic.
  • Adding explanatory footnotes directly linking to Exodus 3:14.
  • Using other special formatting to emphasize ‘I AM’.
  • Ignoring how the same phrase is translated elsewhere.

Our translation maintains the original, natural meaning:

‘And Jesus replied:

‘I tell you the truth; I existed before AbraHam was born!’’

This preserves the actual point Jesus was making — his pre-existence.

Our Editor comments:

It is wrong for modern translators to impose one’s own ideas onto this verse. This is not like adding an indentation, quotes, or a bullet list to aid readability; no, this is inserting a specific theological point into the text.

Besides, it’s really very weird. What are we to think when we see Jesus say ‘I AM’? Was he speaking in capital letters? Was he shouting? Was he actually speaking in a text message and left the caps-lock key on?

No, it’s nonsense. And it shouldn’t be there.

I really wonder if the translators saw English capital letters as a sneaky way to insert their own beliefs, thinking: ‘I’m not changing the words, I’m just adding some formatting!’ As if that makes it okay.

It is one thing to translate a verse in light of similar verses, but it is entirely another to impose doctrine from the late Roman Era on a text from centuries even before that, especially by means of something as alien as English capital letters!

Further Reading

Ephesians 4:30 — Can the Spirit Be Grieved?

Here’s where a single word choice reveals the translator’s theological assumptions. Most modern Bibles translate this verse as:

‘And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God’

However, that is a very selective translation in how it chooses to translate the word for ‘grieve’. The translator has cherrypicked from several possible translations to impose a much later theological concept onto Paul’s words.

The translator has tried to support the idea that the holy spirit is a ‘Person of the Trinity’ who can be emotionally grieved, or saddened. This idea didn’t develop until centuries after Paul wrote this letter, and it’s not what the Greek text actually says.

The Greek word lupeó can mean:

  • To cause pain, trouble, or distress.
  • Harassing an enemy force.
  • Impeding or hindering something.

Similarly, the Aramaic word, mahiyqiyn can mean:

  • To grieve or sadden,
  • To oppress or trouble,
  • To constrict or impede.

Therefore, choosing to view this as only meaning ‘to grieve’ is a specific choice.

The wider context suggests that grieve may not be the meaning Paul meant, or it’s only part of the meaning. Both here and in other letters, Paul often warned against specific sins that would:

  • Prevent God’s breath from working in believers’ lives,
  • Resist its influence (e.g. Acts 7:51),
  • Stifle its power (e.g. 1 Thessalonians 5:19).

So while he could have been talking about making God’s breath sad or upset, he could also have been talking about impeding or stifling it.

Or both.

Some key points to consider:

  • No one in Paul’s time viewed the spirit as a ‘Person’. That came centuries later.
  • The original words have broader meanings than just emotional grief.
  • The context suggests practical impediment rather than emotional hurt.
  • Similar passages speak of resisting or stifling the spirit.

Our translation gives what is likely the original meaning:

‘Don’t impede the holy breath of The God’.

Our Editor comments:

It is inappropriate for a translator to ignore both the context and other definitions of the word, simply to align the text with Church doctrine. And what doctrine are they imposing? A later theological concept that did not exist at the time. It’s anachronistic and, therefore, deceiving readers into thinking that later beliefs were always there.

Besides, if we’re right, and he was really saying that one shouldn’t impede the holy breath, it makes perfect sense in the context. Heck, it even reads better and makes for a better argument.

Further Reading

Philippians 2:6 — Equal with God?

This verse is often translated in two completely contradictory ways. The traditional (Trinitarian) version reads like this:

‘…being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.’

While non-Trinitarian versions translate it like this:

‘…being in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be seized.’

They’re perfect examples of how one’s theological view can lead translators in opposite directions.

There is actually a third way to translate this verse, which we believe is the most accurate. The key lies in the Greek word used in this verse for ‘equal’ (ίσα / eesa). In ancient Greek, this word refers to being of the same substance, amount, or quality — like two objects made of the same material, or two measurements of the same value.

Think of how two men might be the same height, but one is a king and the other is a slave.

Therefore, this verse cannot be talking about Jesus being equal in authority or power with God (the word does not mean that), nor could it be about him refusing to seize such equality (besides, how could he seize it, if God is more powerful than him?).

So what is it talking about?

The verse told us: his divine nature, ‘being in the same form as God’. This reminds us of John 4:24, which says, ‘God is spirit’.

The Aramaic text confirms this interpretation. In Aramaic, the phrase uses the possessive form — literally meaning ‘the same as God’s.’ The same as God’s what? His form, of course! Yes, it’s referring back to the ‘form’ mentioned earlier in the verse – what it called the same form as God.

Some key points to consider:

  • The Greek term used here for ‘equal’ refers to sameness of substance, not rank or authority.
  • The context is about Jesus giving up his spirit nature (’the same form as God’) to become human.
  • Early Christian writers didn’t use this verse to argue for Jesus being co-equal with his Father.
  • Modern translations often force the text to support their own theological views.

A more accurate translation would focus on what the text actually says: that Jesus, while having the same form as God (being a spirit), willingly gave that up to become human. This reading aligns perfectly with the chapter’s theme of humility and self-sacrifice, the historical context, and both the Aramaic text and the Greek word for ‘equal’.

Our translation reads:

‘That, while being in the same form as God (and he didn’t think it was wrong for this to be the same as God’s), he still gave up everything’.

Our Editor comments:

Translators of all persuasions have a choice to make. They can either translate the text as it is, or they can impose their own theological views onto it. It seems that the choice is often made to impose their own views, and what the text actually says is secondary.

Further Reading

Colossians 1:15-16 — Firstborn or First Created?

The way translators handle Colossians 1:15 reveals a pattern of theological bias. The verse traditionally reads:

‘He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.’

But many modern translations add explanatory notes or use creative formatting to suggest that ‘firstborn’ doesn’t really mean ‘first created.’ Why? Because the idea of Jesus being created conflicts with later Church doctrine. Eventually the Church decided that Jesus was co-eternal with his Father and was, therefore, never created, but had always existed.

However, the Greek word here is prototokos, which literally means ‘first taken’ or ‘first born.’ In the Aramaic text, the word is bukur ‘firstborn’ or ‘earliest one’. Throughout the Bible, these terms consistently refer to actual firstborn beings.

Yet because this can be seen to contradict later Church doctrine, some translators insist it merely means ‘preeminent’ or ‘foremost’ — despite the fact that Greek and Aramaic have other words for those concepts.

The context causes even more trouble. Paul goes on to say in verses 17-18:

‘…the firstborn of all creation. Since he was before everything and everything came into existence through him… the first to be born from the dead so that he would be first in everything.’

Did you catch that? Paul uses a parallel structure to show that Jesus was:

  • The firstborn of creation, therefore the first to be created.
  • The first spirit creature to be born as a human.
  • The first to be ‘born from the dead’ (resurrected) to eternal life.

These comparisons would make no sense if ‘firstborn’ didn’t actually mean ‘first to be born’.

Some key points to consider:

  • The terms prototokos and bukur are used consistently throughout scripture to mean literally ‘firstborn.’
  • The context speaks of Jesus being ‘before’ all creation, not above it in some manner or something else.
  • Early Christian writers had no problem describing Jesus as God’s first creation.
  • Modern translations often add explanatory notes to avoid this straightforward meaning.
Our Editor comments:

A simple, straightforward phrase like this is only complicated when translators try to apply their own ideas and perform a little linguistic gymnastics. The meaning would have been entirely uncontroversial in the first century AD. There is no reason to complicate matters.

Further Reading

1 Timothy 3:16 — He or God Manifested?

Here’s an example of manuscript corruption being ignored if it supports later doctrine. Many traditional Bibles translate this verse as the King James Version does. Regarding Jesus, it says:

‘God was manifest in the flesh.’

But there’s a problem: the earliest and most reliable manuscripts don’t say ‘God’ here; they say ‘who’ or ‘he who’ (referring to Jesus). How did this change happen?

In Greek, it’s a tale of two letters. The manuscripts used something called nomina sacra (sacred names). These are abbreviations for more common terms, used to save space when writing on expensive parchment. The nomina sacra for God is ΘΣ (theta and sigma), which happens to look similar to the word for ‘who’, ΟΣ (omicron and sigma).

So, it seems some later copyist added (probably accidentally) a horizontal line and changed omicron to theta (ΟΣ to ΘΣ), and ‘who’ became ‘God’. This might seem like a tiny change, but it dramatically alters the meaning.

We can roughly trace when this change occurred. The earliest manuscripts, including the Codex Sinaiticus (4th century AD), have ‘who.’ It’s only in later 9th century manuscripts, after Trinitarian doctrine was long established, that we start reading that ‘God’ was manifested. Obviously this change never occurred in the Aramaic text, which has a different alphabet, so it has always said ‘he’ or ‘it’ was revealed.

So this alteration happened about 800 years after the original text was written!

Some key points to consider:

  • Manuscripts before the 9th century AD consistently read ‘who was manifested.’
  • The change to ‘God’ appears long after Trinitarian doctrine became dominant, and only in Greek.
  • Many modern translations have corrected this, though some still retain ‘God’ in footnotes, showing it as an alternative reading, as if it has some kind of legitimacy.
Our Editor comments:

This is a simple and well-known scribal error. Yet some still use it as a prooftext. Why? Many may not know that it’s an error. However, I suspect that some are fully aware, but choose to use it anyway, hoping their audience can be fooled.

Further Reading

Titus 2:13 — Great God or God and Savior?

Here’s another likely corruption of the text, but we’re not sure when it happened. The traditional text goes something like this:

‘…the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ’

However, some translations say this:

‘…the appearing of the glory of the great God, and of our Savior Jesus Christ’

This difference might seem subtle, but it’s very important. The first version implies Jesus is ‘our great God’. The second distinguishes between God and Jesus in the same way as other verses do.

Which is correct?

Literally, the first version is correct if we just look at the Greek text. There is a grammatical rule called the Granville Sharp Rule. Basically, when two terms are used to describe someone, connected by the word ‘and’, then they are both describing the same person.

That’s what we do in English. For example, the sentence:

‘We would like to thank our boss and supporter, William.’

We would usually infer that William is both the supporter and the boss.

However, the Aramaic text reads differently. It makes a normal distinction between God and Jesus in this verse, and is entirely unremarkable. The Aramaic uses the same structure as it does when listing two people, separated by ‘and our’.

Again, it’s similar to English. For example:

‘We would like to thank our boss, and our supporter, William’.

We would be usually understand this to mean two people, the boss (whoever he is), and also the supporter, someone named William.

Well, that’s how the Aramaic text words it when mentioning both God and Jesus together, including here, in this verse. It’s the normal construction for an expression mentioning two separate beings.

Whether the Aramaic version of Titus is the original text (as some believe) or just a 2nd century translation, it shows that the early Christians understood this verse to be showing that God and Jesus are separate, just like in all the other similarly-worded mentions.

It suggests that the Greek text may have suffered a small corruption here at some early point in time, with the Aramaic text preserving the original reading. It is, after all, a very tiny change from a time period when Paul’s writings were not yet widely accepted as scripture (and therefore, probably had few copies in circulation).

This is entirely reasonable. It matches with how Paul writes elsewhere, consistently distinguishing between ‘God our Father’ and ‘Jesus Christ our Lord’ (see Romans 1:7; 1 Corinthians 1:3; etc.).

Some key points to consider:

  • The Aramaic text clearly separates ‘the great God’ from ‘our Savior.’
  • Paul consistently distinguishes between God and Jesus.
  • It’s an obvious error in the Greek text, and very small.
  • The change must have happened early, after the Aramaic text was made.
  • Early Christian writers didn’t use this verse to argue that Jesus and God were the same being.

Modern translators are happy to choose the Greek source because it supports the doctrines of their sponsoring churches. However, that doctrine didn’t become common until centuries after Paul wrote.

Our Editor comments:

If Paul had truly stated that Jesus and the God of the Old Testament were the same being, it would have been an outrageous thing to say in AD 62, even blasphemous! Yet it is said so casually in this verse, as almost a throwaway line. Of course, translators know this, and this fact alone is enough to show that it’s just an error.

It’s very disappointing that most don’t even supply this information in a footnote, but allow readers to think there is no issue with the verse.

Further Reading

Hebrews 1:8 — Your Throne, O God?

Here’s a case where even just capitalization choices are used to push a certain interpretation. Most Bibles translate this verse as:

‘But of the Son he says, ‘Your throne, O God, is forever and ever.’’

Modern readers may be confused by this, as in our language, it sounds like the writer of Hebrews is calling Jesus ‘God’, as in, Yahweh, God Almighty. However, the word for god is much broader than that.

The Greek word, theos, can refer to any divine or powerful being. The equivalent Aramaic word, alah, is the same. In fact, this verse is quoting Psalm 45:6, where the Hebrew word used is elohim — a term that can apply to any mighty one.

Throughout the Hebrew Bible, we see elohim used for:

This broader usage of elohim helps explain why the writer of Hebrews could apply this term to Jesus without implying he was The God.

Translators ought to look at other uses of the word and the surrounding context. Well, if we read on in the same quote, it says:

‘You loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; therefore The God — your God — has anointed you…’ (Hebrews 1:9)

Did you catch that? The same passage that refers to Jesus as ‘You, o god’ immediately clarifies that he has a God above him, and this time, it uses the Greek expression ho theos (‘The God’). That’s the special phrase, consistently reserved for the Father alone in Greek texts. Others, including Jesus, may be called theos (‘god’) without ‘the’ beforehand.

Translators know all this. Yet they do not give this information in their footnotes. Further, they capitalize the word ‘God’. However, since most Bibles are funded by committed Trinitarians, it could not be any other way.

Some key points to consider:

  • The original text makes no distinction between capital and lowercase letters.
  • The context clearly shows Jesus has a God above him.
  • The term theos/elohim can apply to any mighty one, even men (John 10:34; 1 Corinthians 8:5; Psalm 82:6).
  • Jesus is consistently shown as subordinate to The God throughout scripture (John 20:17; 1 Corinthians 11:3; etc.).

For these reasons, our translation says:

‘But, about the Son, [the Psalmist] said:

‘Your throne, O god, is throughout ages of ages…’’

‘The God – your God – has [anointed] you…’

This maintains the crucial distinction between Jesus as a mighty one (theos) and The God (ho theos) who anointed him, without creating any contradictions.

Our Editor comments:

The earliest Christians were mostly former Jews living in the ancient world. They lived in a reality filled with false gods, demons, angels, cherubim, and even referred to certain powerful men as gods. They were very familiar with the idea that a mighty one could be called a ‘god’. Even their own scriptures do this. Psalm 82:6 famously calls Israelite judges ‘gods’, which Jesus himself quoted in John 10:34-35 to prove this very point.

It’s a great pity that when modern people read Hebrews 1:8, they usually get entirely the wrong idea. However, early Christians did not get the wrong idea.

That’s why Justin Martyr, writing in the 2nd century, described Jesus as ‘another god’ subordinate to the God of the Old Testament. That remained the normal, mainstream Christian view for at least another century.

It does not matter if that upsets someone. It is simply true. And the Bible text remains unaffected by their displeasure.

Further Reading

1 John 5:7-8 — The Johannine Comma

The King James Version includes these words:

‘For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.’

But here’s the shocking truth: these words aren’t found in any ancient manuscript of the Bible, not one. We’re talking about every ancient Greek, Aramaic, Syriac, Slavic, Georgian, Coptic, and Arabic manuscript; they all lack these words.

When did these words first appear in Greek manuscripts? The 14th century — about 1,300 years after John wrote his letter! The words themselves first appeared as additions to Latin manuscripts in the early 6th century AD, but no Greek manuscript contained them for nearly 800 more years. That’s right, the words are inauthentic, first added to the Latin Bible during the early Middle Ages.

Some key points about this addition:

  • Not found in any Greek manuscript until around AD 1400.
  • Missing from every ancient translation of the Bible.
  • Early Church fathers never quoted it, even when arguing for the Trinity.
  • Creates an illogical break in John’s discussion of three earthly witnesses.
  • Interestingly, Sir Isaac Newton wrote against its authenticity.

What’s particularly revealing is that even the context shows these words don’t belong. John was discussing three earthly witnesses to Jesus: the water (his baptism), the spirit (breath), and the blood. Adding words about ‘the Father, Word, and Holy Ghost’ completely breaks the logical flow of John’s argument.

Today, this is all so well-known that most Bible translations have removed these words. This even includes Bibles published by the same religion that first added it into the text – the Catholic Church. Their Jerusalem Bible and New American Bible have both evicted the words.

However, these words managed to survive in all English Bibles until 1881, when the Revised Version was the first to remove them. Even today, Churchgoers who use the King James Version will still see them in its pages.

Our Editor comments:

I recall getting into a very one-sided discussion with a young man who insisted that ‘the Bible says that the Father, Word, and Holy Ghost are one’. He had no idea that these words were not in the original text and outright refused to discuss the matter.

It’s depressing to think just how many people have been deceived by Bible publishers who continue to include these words in their King James Bibles. Apparently, tradition is more important than truth.

Further Reading

Revelation 1:11 and 22:13 — Who is the Alpha and Omega?

Here’s where manuscript evidence and even formatting causes translation issues.

Some teach that these verses in Revelation support the later idea that Jesus and God are the same being, since it calls both of them the ‘Alpha and Omega’. However, the full facts are more complex.

First, let’s look at Revelation 1:11. The King James Version has Jesus saying:

‘I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last’

There’s just one problem: these words aren’t found in the earliest manuscripts. They appear to be a later addition, copied from elsewhere in Revelation where they genuinely appear. This addition isn’t found in:

  • The majority of Greek manuscripts.
  • Any of the Aramaic manuscript families.

The words here are unoriginal, copied into this part of Revelation in later centuries from elsewhere in the book. The vast majority of English translations have, thankfully, removed this spurious addition, so most readers have probably never seen them here.

The phrase ‘Alpha and Omega’ really appears in Revelation three times:

  1. Revelation 1:8 quotes God applying it to Himself.
  2. Revelation 21:6 quotes God applying it to Himself.
  3. Revelation 22:13 quotes Jesus applying it to Himself – or does it?

It’s easy to think that Revelation 22:13 quotes Jesus as calling himself the ‘Alpha and Omega’ because it’s stated in one long quote, during which it is said, ‘I am Jesus’:

‘I am the Alpha and the Omega […] I am Jesus…’ (Revelation 22:13-16)

However, this isn’t really true. There is a likely break in the text between these two statements. Further, according to the text, Jesus is not speaking any of it anyway.

The text says that it’s really an angelic messenger speaking for Jesus, but sometimes he also speaks as himself (Revelation 22:9-10, 22:12). If he sometimes speaks as himself and sometimes speaks as Jesus, he could easily be sometimes speaking as God, too.

After all, in the Old Testament, angelic messengers sometimes spoke as themselves and sometimes spoke as if they were God when delivering His messages:

‘…a [spirit] messenger of Yahweh called out to him from the sky, and said: ‘[…] For now I know that you fear God, since you haven’t spared even your loved son for My sake!’’ (Genesis 22:11-12)

‘Yahweh’s messenger appeared to him in a flame that was burning in a bush. […] Then He said: ‘I am the God of your ancestors’.’ (Exodus 3:2-6)

And so on.

You may think, ‘Surely this is a matter of interpretation? What does this have to do with translation?’

Oh boy, if only it were that simple!

Translators must decide who is speaking so we can format the text in ways English speakers expect (with quotation marks, indentations, etc.).

There are many, many places in the Bible where the person speaking changes without warning, and where it’s very unclear who’s speaking where. The original ancient readers were supposed to be smart enough to infer who’s who from the context. So, when modern translators format our Bibles, we must make a lot of educated guesses.

For example, in many books, God may be speaking, then the prophet, and then God again, and sometimes the messenger (the Word), then God, then the prophet, and so on, with many of these changes unindicated. We must use the context and our knowledge to guess where to put the quotation marks.

However, quotation marks are sometimes confusing, so we have also added [translator insertions] such as ‘[Hosea now says:]‘ and ‘[God says:]‘ or ‘[And God replies:]‘ about 100 times.

We’ve added them to:

  • 1 Corinthians
  • 1 Kings
  • 2 Kings
  • Ephesias
  • Ezekiel
  • Genesis
  • Haggai
  • Hosea
  • Isaiah
  • Jeremiah
  • Joel
  • Lamentations
  • Malachi
  • Micah
  • Nahum
  • Psalms
  • Song of Solomon
  • Zechariah
  • and Zephaniah.

The best example of this is in the book of Joel, where the speakers swap between Joel and God without any warning or notice throughout the entire book! Yes, not a single change in speaker is indicated in the entire text. Normally, readers just have to infer when the speaker changes by the words spoken, but we’ve added insertions like ‘[For God said:]‘ and ‘[For Joel said:]‘ to show our best guesses.

So, returning to Revelation 22:13 and this final mention of ‘I am the Alpha and Omega’, we need to ask: Is the messenger talking as himself, talking as Jesus, or talking as God?

Consider:

  • Elsewhere, Revelation has God calling Himself the ‘Alpha and Omega’, not once, but twice. (Revelation 1:8, 21:6)
  • The messenger in Revelation certainly speaks as both himself sometimes and as Jesus sometimes, without warning, at different times.
  • It is common in these ancient texts to have messengers speaking this way.
  • In the middle of the long quote, verse 16 suddenly says, ‘I am Jesus…’. This may show that the messenger has just switched from speaking as God to speaking as Jesus.
  • When Revelation was written, Jesus and Yahweh were still seen as separate beings (see the timeline).
  • Our charter says we must translate things as they were understood when they were written.

For these reasons, we believe that the original audience would have likely understood that the messenger was speaking as God when he said ‘I am the Alpha and Omega’ and switched to speaking as Jesus in verse 16 when he started it with ‘I am Jesus’.

To indicate this, we’ve added the insertions ‘[For God said:]‘ in verse 12, and ‘[For Jesus said:]‘ in verse 16.

See it in context at Revelation 22:8-21.

It might not matter

What’s particularly surprising is that this entire discussion may be moot. Many early Christians rejected Revelation as a fraud, even writing entire books (now lost) to refute it. If that’s true, then it would not matter what its text says about anything.

Our Editor comments:

Revelation is not only a confusing book, even its formatting is confusing. Many sections are not clearly marked and it’s not clear whether it is all in chronological order. It would not be surprising if it also has unannounced changes of speaker, especially since this was pretty common in ancient texts anyway.

That is the simplest explanation. And the simplest explanation is often the correct one.

Besides, if Revelation is merely an elaborate fraud, as many early Christians believed, then perhaps the confusion over the Alpha and Omega is just a case of the author getting lost in his own text.

Further Reading

Multiple Texts: Bias in Capitalizing Words

Here’s where something as simple as choosing what words to capitalize subtly influences readers to agree with a specific interpretation.

Most modern translations use capital letters when saying ‘Holy Spirit’ because most churches teach that this is a Divine Person of the Trinity. Therefore, they custom is to treat the term like a personal name, and capitalize it just like we do all personal names like ‘Yahweh’ or ‘Jesus’.

Further, they capitalize pronouns like ‘He’ or ‘Him’ when these refer to God, Jesus, and the ‘Holy Spirit’. Translators are compelled to this by tradition, and because church sponsors expect it.

However, Bible translators are very well aware that no such feature existed in the original writings:

  • Originally, Greek texts used only uppercase (majuscule) letters.
  • Lowercase Greek letters emerged around AD 800-850.
  • Mixed case (capitals and lowercase) became common after AD 850.
  • Hebrew and Aramaic still don’t have capital letters today.
  • The practice of capitalizing divine references is purely a modern custom in English and many other modern languages.

Some key points to consider:

  • The original Greek word commonly translated as ‘Holy Spirit’ or ‘Holy Ghost’ is pneuma, which simply means ‘breath’ or ‘wind.’
  • The Aramaic word ruhah carries the same basic meaning.
  • The Jews had no concept of this ‘breath’ being a divine ‘Person’.
  • Nor did the early Christians.
  • Early Christians didn’t distinguish this ‘breath’ with special formatting like captial letters, because everything was written in uppercase letters.
  • Capitalizing ‘Spirit’ imposes later theology onto the text.

It may only be a small thing, but this capitalization practice subtly influences readers’ understanding. When many people see ‘Holy Spirit’ with capital letters, they automatically think of a divine ‘Person’. But when you read ‘holy breath’ or ‘God’s breath’ (which is what the words actually mean), you get a very different impression.

However, it often goes further, as translators also capitalise pronouns referring to Jesus. Is this an attempt at showing respect? Or is it an attempt to add a link between Jesus and God that is not present in the source texts?

Modern translators subtly introduce bias by:

  • Capitalizing ‘Spirit’.
  • Using masculine pronouns (He/Him) for the ‘Spirit’, even when the original text uses feminine or neuter pronouns.

This custom of capitalising all pronouns referring to God didn’t exist in English until relatively recently. Even the King James Version did it inconsistently. Sometimes, it can clarify who is being referenced, but this is just the opinion of the translator.

For these reasons, our translation uses ‘breath’ or ‘spirit’, and we don’t capitalize these words (only when we’re quoting someone else’s translation). Further, we only capitalise the pronouns used to refer to Yahweh, and never those referring to Jesus or God’s breath, as this would be imposing a later theological bias onto the text.

This helps you to read a text closer to what the original audience saw, without imparing readability in English (which is why we don’t remove all capital letters).

Our Editor comments:

Us Bible translators have got ourselves all tied up into knots by trying to Capitalize different words that may, or may not, be referring to God, Jesus, or the ‘Holy Spirit’.

Here at the 2001 Translation, we eventually decided to only capitalize the pronouns referring to Jehovah/Yahweh, but even that is not always so simple.

Further Reading

Multiple Texts: Is the Holy Spirit a ‘He’?

Many English Bible translations consistently refer to the ‘Holy Spirit’ as ‘He’ or ‘Him.’ But is this really what the original texts say? Yes and no. The answer is really, it’s complicated.

In Greek, the word for ‘spirit’ (pneuma) is neuter gender and takes neuter pronouns – even when referring to God’s spirit. It would naturally be translated as ‘it.’ Of course, many modern translators are compelled by their employers or sponsors to make the spirit a ‘He’ to support the later 4th century teaching that the spirit has personhood, making the spirit a ‘He’ (a Person) to match the Father and Son.

They may feel some justification for this because, in Hebrew and Aramaic, ‘spirit’ (ruach/ruha) is usually feminine, except when referring to God’s spirit – then it turns masculine.

However, does this really mean much? In these ancient languages, every noun had a grammatical gender, regardless of whether the thing itself was actually male, female, or neither. For example:

  • ‘Door’ is feminine in Hebrew.
  • ‘Stone’ is masculine in Greek.

This gender is just a feature of grammar, not necessarily a statement about the actual nature of the thing. After all, a French speaker doesn’t think their table is actually female, so would the original readers have thought God’s breath/spirit was a male person just because of the pronouns used for it? Perhaps, but perhaps not.

When Hebrew and Aramaic refer specifically to God’s spirit, they sometimes use masculine forms. However, it’s important to note that masculine forms also function as a generic or default form in these languages; acting as their version of ‘it’. So we should be cautious about reading too much theological significance into this grammatical feature — especially when the holy breath is neuter in Greek.

Some key points about modern translations:

  • They use ‘He/Him’ for the holy breath even where the Greek manuscripts use neuter pronouns.
  • They apply masculine pronouns more consistently than the original texts.
  • They often add explanatory notes about the spirit’s personhood.
  • They do not mention that masculine pronouns could also be a generic ‘it’ form.
  • They rarely explain these grammatical facts to readers.

Our translation uses ‘it’ when referring to God’s breath/spirit, matching:

  • The Greek text using neuter ‘it’ pronouns.
  • The fact that Hebrew/Aramaic also uses masculine pronouns for the generic ‘it’ form.
  • How we naturally speak about breath or wind being an ‘it’ in English.

This completely avoids imposing a later theological bias onto the text. However, if readers wish to consider the ‘Holy Spirit’ as a ‘Person’, they can still can. One does not need to make the spirit a ‘He’ to do so.

Our Editor comments:

Capitalizing the ‘Holy Spirit’ is one thing, but to go even further, and refer to this as ‘he’ and ‘him’, when the Greek uses neuter pronouns, is a deliberate act to mislead readers.

The Greek writers could have easily used masculine pronouns if they had wished, but they did not. It is not appropriate for translators to literally change words to fit their own views.

Besides, in English, a ‘spirit’, a ‘wind’, and a ‘breath’ are all ‘it’. Therefore, we say ‘it’ in our translation.

Further Reading

Multiple Texts: Worship or Bow Down?

The same Greek and Aramaic words get translated differently depending on who’s receiving the action. Why? In order to insert pro-Trinitarian interpretations into certain Bible texts.

You see, the original texts use consistent terms; when people show reverence by physically bowing down, the Greek uses proskyneō and the Aramaic uses similar terms. These words simply describe the physical act of bowing or showing honor — whether to a king, prophet, angel, or God.

So what’s the problem? Well, sectarian translators perform a little trick:

  • When people bow to Jesus, they translate it as ‘worshiped’.
  • When people bow to kings, prophets, or other humans, suddenly the same word becomes ‘bowed down’, ‘paid homage’, or ‘showed respect’.

They can then argue: ‘See? People worshiped Jesus, and since only God should be worshiped, Jesus must be God!’ But they’re using a dishonest translation trick to make this argument work.

The truth is much simpler: there’s no separate word for ‘worship’ in the original languages that distinguishes religious veneration from respectful bowing. The same terms describes people bowing to strangers (e.g. Acts 10:25), people bowing to kings throughout the Old Testament, and yes, people bowing to Jesus.

Take any concordance and examine all the words derived from the root προσκυνεω (proskyneō) throughout the New Testament. You’ll see the same Greek term used when:

And of course in the Greek Septuagint, the same words are used for bowing to lots of different humans (Genesis 23:7, 33:3, 42:6; 1 Samuel 24:8; 2 Samuel 14:4; etc.).

The ancient world was full of people bowing to show respect to various authorities — chiefs, older relatives, emperors, governors, high priests, prophets, and teachers. And yes, they did it to Jesus too. That’s it. Unfortunately, translators often translate it as ‘worship’ whenever Jesus is the recipient, and use a different term for everyone else. This helps to conform their Bible text to their sectarian bias.

Worst of all, they usually don’t even add a footnote to explain what the text really says.

Our Editor comments:

The early Christians lived in a world where bowing was normal social behavior; it wasn’t necessarily a statement about divinity. Yet many modern translators twist these into statements about divinity, inserting an idea into the English text that was not there originally, artifically adding distinctions not made by the original authors. It’s dishonest and it’s wrong.

Of course, the sponsoring Church wouldn’t accept it any other way.

Further Reading

Translating Bias

Also see our Articles index and our About section.