Mistranslations to Help Paul or Paulinism

True translations often damage Paul or Pauline doctrine, if given proper consideration.

John 1:11-12

As an introduction to this passage, be aware that in Exodus 20:6 KJV Yahweh says: "I show mercy to those who love me and obey my commandments."

So it comes as no surprise that this passage of John 1:11-12 should read:

For all that received Him, He gave them the RIGHT (exousian) to become sons of God -- to the ones OBEYING UNTO (pisteuosin eis) His name.  

This would precisely parallel Revelation 22:14 written by the same human hand as wrote John 1:12: 

Happy [are] the ones doing His commandments, so that their right (exousia) will be to the tree of life, and they shall enter by the gates into the city. (Rev 22:14)(ALT)

This Revelation passage uses a synonym for obedience -- "doing his commandments," and then links those so characterized as enjoying their "right" to the tree of life. Salvation. This exactly parallels what John 1:12 properly translated as to PISTEUOSIN EIS would read in relation to the same word as in Rev. 22:14 - exousia.

This also allows Revelation 22:14 to help prove the correct verb meaning of PISTEOUSIN EIS. For Revelation 22:14 clearly says "doing his commandments" and then links "exousia" to salvation, and thus one can see even more strongly why "obey unto" is the correct translation in John 1:12 of pisteuosin + eis. You can have a "right" to salvation based upon obedience in Revelation 22:14 as well as in John 1:12. 

Instead, this typically is rendered so a believer has a right to become a son of God by mere belief, with no other conditions necessary. See ASV, NASB, NIV, and God’s Word Bibles.

However, pisteuosin eis truly means obey unto, not the shallower concept of "believe in." 

How so?

In brief, EIS means unto in Greek. When directed at a person, and it follows the verb pisteuo it means Obey or Comply UNTO that person. It does not mean "believe" in facts about that person, or to simply have a "confidence" / faith in that person. See this link on John 3:16 in which these same root words appea, and are similarly mistranslated.

In fact, the famous evangelical specialist in Greek, Marvin Vincent wrote about John 1:12 in particular: 

“‘believe on’ (pisteuosin eis) is more than mere acceptance of a statement. It is so to accept them practically....Hence, to believe on the Lord Jesus is not merely to believe the facts of His historic life or His saving energy as facts, but to accept Him as Savior, Teacher, Sympathizer, Judge; to rest the soul upon Him for present and future salvation; and to accept and adopt His precepts and example as binding upon the life.” (Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (C. Scribner’s: 1905) Vol. 2 at 49-50.)

Vincent is beating about the bush. He says pisteuosin eis does not mean "belief in facts" about someone. What readily comes to mind is 1 Cor. 15:1-4 -- you "shall" be saved if you "keep in mind" three facts: Jesus died for sins, was buried, and rose from the dead. Instead, Vincent says that pisteusin eis means to "accept and adopt His precepts and example" as "binding upon life." Vincent, had he not feared the establishment, could have said piseuosin eis means OBEY, not FAITH ALONE. This then would support exousin means RIGHT.

But if instead we look at John 1:11,12 and used the shallower "believe" as the translation (incorrectly) to render pisteuosin, then exousin would have to mean power in this context, rather than "right."  This is because we know from Jesus that faith alone is no guarantee of a right to salvation once disobedience creeps into a believer's life, e.g, Mark 9:42-47 ("believer in me...ensnared [by sin]...[has 2 choices] heaven maimed [or] hell whole").

Thus, that alternative based upon "believe" (remember an error according to Vincent) would be POWER, not right. So I would render this way if believe were the correct translation (it is not): 

For all that received Him, He gave them the POWER (exousian) to become sons of God -- to the ones who believe on (pisteuosin eis) His name.  

Thus, with that in mind, the Bromiley International Bible Encylopedia (Eerdman's 1979) Vol. 1 at 365  explains "exousia" derives from "exestin," a noun which in one of its senses means "power." It says an alternative is "authority."   

Other usages of exousia in the NT support that power in John 1:12 is an alternative to "right" in John 1:12. For example, in Matt 10:1, Jesus gave the disciples "power" (exousia) over demons to defeat them. Both Moffatt & Godspeed concur it is "power" in 10:1.  See link.

Hence, "power" in John 1:12 would necessarily be the right translation if pisteuosin eis truly meant BELIEVE IN, because Jesus in Mark 9:42-47 gives a "believer in me" no automatic "right" to salvation if caught in sin: instead, Jesus says the believer must resolve the choice between "heaven maimed" or "hell whole" by choosing to cut off the body parts ensnaring him or her in sin, and thus go to "heaven maimed" rather than hell whole.

Thus, one can see John 1:12 is mistranslated in two different ways to help Paul's doctrine, and not to match Jesus' doctrine.

For if faith alone were the correct meaning in John 1:12, then this could not possibly give one the "right" to become sons of God alone because Jesus said the Prodigal son was "alive again" when he repented of sin, and turned around, heading to the Father, and not at a moment of 'faith.' (See Luke 15.) Faith might give you the "power" to obey, but not the right of salvation. For Jesus said faith alone does not save the sinning Christian who had not cut off the sources tempting them in sin, as He three distinct times taught in his "heaven maimed" or "hell whole" lesson. (Mark 9:42-47; Matt 5; Matt 18.)  

But more fundamentally, the verse actually means in its fullest most accurate sense, as Vincent pointed out long ago, obedience is what grants the right to become sons -- exactly as Revelation 22:14 reads. This was wholly adverse to Paul. Despite scholarship proving the meaning, the translators will not budge. Due to clear scholarly support, this is simply a continuing mistranslation to protect Paul.

Romans 3:7 - Does Paul Admit He is A Liar, But Claims An Excuse? Or Is Paul Quoting Someone Else's Argument?

Paul in Romans 3:7 with one primary exception is always quoted as speaking about "my lie." And because it was to advance the gospel, Paul asks: "then why I am still regarded as a sinner?" Paul clearly says that his lying for the gospel was excused by the end achieved - the advancing of the gospel.

Is it debatable whether any gospel built on lies is any gospel at all? I hope not. But I digress.

Rather than accept the verse as it exists in Greek the NIV changes this and unjustifiably ADDS "some might argue" without any Greek manuscript variant to support the idea. The NIV reads: 

7 Someone might argue, “If my falsehood enhances God’s truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner? (Romans 3:7 NIV.)

As evangelical Christian Ray Stedman says in Reason to Rejoice: Love, Grace, and Forgiveness in Paul's Letter to the Romans (Discovery House, 2016) at thislink:

"Translators of the New International Version erred by adding the phrase that is not in the original Greek text "Someone might argue...." The New King James renders it more accurately:

For if the truth of God has increased through my lie

unto his glory; why am I also judged as a sinner?"

You can verify for yourself that the NIV is improper by looking at the Bible.hub "Greek" tab, and you will see there is no such language "Someone might argue" supported tat the Greek tab for this verse. See

http://biblehub.com/romans/3-7.htm 

What is ironic is that the NIV's justification for adding deceptively to the text can only be to protect Paul. Obviously the NIV thinks protecting Paul's reputation advances the gospel. Thus, the NIV believes lying that advances the gospel as it understands the gospel is no sin. Hence, the very deceptive action of the NIV can only be defended by the way the verse actually reads. This proves the NIV knows what Romans 3:7 actually says, and relies upon that principle to justify deceiving us. This is the only way the NIV can defend altering the verse to disarm detractors from the "gospel" who cite Romans 3:7 to discredit Paul. The NIV must think that its deceptive addition to Romans 3:7 to advance the so-called Pauline gospel (truly simply insulate Paul from a criticism) is justified and not condemnable. No doubt the NIV knows what Paul says; and the NIV is relying upon it; and the NIV thereby changes the verse so we don't think we have the same liberty to deceive for Christ that the NIV chose to perform on the text.

The NIV is wrong that we are ever free to add to the text this radically. The Bible is clear, unless you are a valid prophet who is not guilty of apostasy (Deut 13:1-5), you cannot "add" or "subtract" from God's Holy Word. (Deut 4:2.) If the NIV truly thought Paul was inspired, they cannot add to Paul's words. By making this change, the NIV gained an advantage for why its volume correctly includes Paul. It need not explain why Paul is in the Bible when he defends lying to advance the Bible, saying it is no sin at all.

But the Christian community has a right to know the true verse. We have a right to weigh whether Paul's admission into canon was right or wrong. What we see truly present in Romans 3:7 is evidence we all made a mistake somewhere back in time adding Paul.

2 Corinthians 12:16

Similar to the NIV in Romans 3:7, the ESV tampers with this passage by making it appear Paul is not owning being deceptive.  Here Paul says truly:

"But be it so,  I myself did not burden you, but being crafty, I caught you with guile." ASV.

But the English Standard. Version (ESV) reads: 

"But be it so,  I myself did not burden you, but being crafty, you say, I caught you with guile." ESV.

But what I bolded -- you say -- is a deliberately false insert, as there is no "you say" in the Greek text underlying this passage. You can see for yourself looking at the Greek tab from Biblehub.com for this verse at this link. The NIV which was willing to falsify Romans 3:7 with such a similar deflection was not willing to do so here likewise. Instead the NIV correctly translates:

"Be that as it may, I have not been a burden to you. Yet, crafty fellow that I am, I caught you by trickery."  NIV.

You can see nothing like "you say" appears in the NIV although the NIV falsified in the same way Romans 3:7. The NIV has Paul own his deceit.

The ESV version is therefore an obvious fraud here. Its purpose can only be to help Paul not look bad, i.e., not appear to be a self-professed deceiver.

John 13:16 - An Apostle Is Not Greater than His Master

There is nothing remarkable about the correct translation of this verse. Jesus begins by saying in John 13:16 that a "servant is not greater than his master," and then adds "an apostle is not greater than the one who sent him."

The word "apostle" is unavoidable as the Greek word is "apostolos." 

Why is it omitted, rendered as "one who is sent" except in the Young's Literal, the Aramaic NT,  Doay-Rheims, and Jerome's Vulgate?  All the latter versions have "apostle." Why do these texts render the noun apostolos in Greek as apostle in English?

First, it is the only possible honest translation.

Second, in context, Jesus contrasted the noun of "servant" with the noun of "apostle" in the same sentence. Neither a servant nor apostle has a status greater than their master.  Hence, Jesus was telling the apostles, and not just servants in general, that they are not greater than the one who sent them: Jesus himself.

Thus, Jesus is nicely saying he is superior to the apostles, and not merely his general servants. The apostles therefore cannot contradict him, claim any superior message to his own, or compete for attention with Jesus, etc.

But we all know there is a person who does this with the support of the clergy -- Paul. For we cannot forget that Luther began the Reformation believing Paul was "in advance" of Jesus, and wiser than him, and thus we are free to dismiss Jesus' teachings based strictly on listening to Paul. See Luther Construes Moses and Jesus Subject to Higher Authority of Paul.

Thus, a Paulinist believer who shares the young Luther's understanding will have a hard problem translating correctly this passage. It might trigger internal concern of the translator himself / herself about why the translator personally elevates Paul over Jesus. Thus, the standard translation, with the few exceptions listed above, renders the word "apostolos" not even by a noun, but by a verb phrase -- "he that is sent"  (KJV) -- making it much harder for the reader to realize Jesus is saying that He is more important than Paul or anyone else who claims the title of apostle.

By contrast, see other versions which merely downplay "apostolos" by rendering it as "messenger," e.g., NIV,  DLNT, etc. 

Could the English-translators be self-aware that "he that is sent" is a wrong and misleading translation?

Could they know they are indulging in such falsehood because they otherwise might have to be ashamed they have made Paul of much greater importance than Jesus?

I have mentioned multiple times that if you sat in attendance in any denomination of Protestantism, and record on paper -- a left column for Paul  and a right column for Jesus -- how many times Jesus is quoted compared to Paul, the ratio rarely varies. It is 13 x for Paul and 1 x for Jesus. I kept logs for five years, in varying denominations. This ratio often did not even improve when Jesus' parables were the topic of a sermon.

Test me on this!

First, verify the Greek "apostolos" in John 13:16 by going to the Bible.hub link.

Second, keep a log in your favorite church of how many times Jesus is quoted compared to Paul. Then you will see we all have been living in a Pauline Bubble designed so we cannot see outside the Bubble. Translations of Bibles were chosen by a denomination's founders to keep you (and even pastors) in the dark. 

Now consider looking outside the Pauline Bubble. What if we all knew this verse said "an apostle is not greater than the one who sent him," wouldn't we all be a bit more circumspect in our focus upon Paul's teachings over those of Jesus?

Of course.

Thus, the obvious purpose of the mistranslation is to help Paul.

But some would say it is an accidental assistance to Paul. However, that could be true only if the substitute translation for "apostle" is plausible. However, the common substitute is not plausible by any reasonable technique of translation. For you will never find anywhere in Greek to English translation that a noun like "apostolos" would be translated solely by a verb clause. But that is what we find in John 13:16. In the KJV, NAS and ASV it has instead of "apostle" the following: "one that is sent" (KJV, NAS, ASV). See Biblehub.com. These earliest translations post-Reformation omit any mention of the word "apostle" or even a plausible noun translation as "messenger."

If it said "one that is sent as a messenger" or "as apostle," you could not prove bias is involved. But omitting any noun -- whether "apostle" or "messenger" -- shows an intent to conceal the noun. Had the KJV said "messenger," those literate in classical Greek (as myself) would readily know "apostolos" is the underlying word. We could then assess whether Jesus meant he was greater than any "apostle" or did Jesus mean any "messenger," including an apostle.

But translating it as "he that is sent" with no mention of "apostle" or "messenger" clearly and deliberately obscures any presence of a noun. It cuts off any guessing by educated readers who know Greek about what lies underneath the translation. The result is everyone continues to have their guard down that Jesus would be displeased by our quoting Paul so much more frequently than Jesus, and on points that contradict Jesus, e.g., Mark 9:42-47 versus Eph. 2:8-9.

Hence, the biased intention in translating this verse is transparent when you peak under the covers.

2 Peter 1:10 Good Works Make Sure One's Salvation

The oldest Codex at the time of the King James was the Codex Bezae dating to circa 400 AD. The Codex Bezae versions -- two of them -- included in  the Textus Receptus have 2 Peter 1:10 say that "good works" make sure your salvation. Despite this being available to the King James translators, they ignored it. (They ignored other verses like Luke 3:22 for obviously biased reasons as well. See Baptismal Account of Jesus.)  Despite this fact, only one translation in English preserves this original Textus Receptus: the Douay-Rheims. 

Wherefore, brethren, labour the more, that by good works you may make sure your calling and election. For doing these things, you shall not sin at any time. (Douay-Rheims.)  

The Sinaiticus -- now the oldest extent New Testament   discovered in the 1880s which dates to about 340 AD (60 years earlier than the Codex Bezae) -- likewise has "good works." So too the Latin Vulgate from 405 AD. Also the Alexandrinus. 

Two ancient manuscripts, the Alexandrine and the Sinaitic, insert here, "Through your good works." (Pulpit Commentary.)

"by good works", as the Vulgate Latin version and two copies of Beza’s read; or "by your good works" (Gill’s Exposition)

Despite this overwhelming manuscript evidence, every English version but Douay-Rheims reads otherwise. The American Standard Version is typical:

Wherefore, brethren, give the more diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never stumble: (2 Peter 1:10 ASV.)

Why isn't the fact every oldest text to support the Greek Textus Receptus, Sinaiticus, Vulgate, Alexandrinus version has "good works" not enough to compel correction?  Those who recompiled the Textus Receptus on best sources had "good works" as well. See Textus Receptus of Stephanus (1550), and of Scrivener (1894). These were each top scholarly assessments on what was the original.

Why is it also not enough that the Critical Text of 1896 by Walcott Hort -- the inspiration for the text behind the NIV-- has"good works" not enough? Yet, the NIV will not budge and put in "good works."

As mentioned, in our modern editions, we see the words "good works' ommited, leaving "these things" later in the sentence left unexplained, such as in the NIV.

The Latin Vulgate of 405 AD also has "good works" (bona opera) but silence everywhere else other than the Douay-Rheims.

Can doctrine dictate this?

What other than doctrine explains why  the King James have "these things" although the KJV is based upon the Codex Bezae within the Textus Receptus editions which both say "good works"? It had no alternative that was younger? Or if it turned to Latin, there again was "good works."

More oddly, no one even claims later Greek manuscripts are missing "good works." It appears simply a deletion to something that offends ones ears.

Regardless, we are no longer censors, are we?

Why is the Sinaiticus discovery in the 1800s of a text from about 340 AD not enough to compound the proof that the earliest text read "good works?" 

Oh yes, doctrine would be impinged. It is best to keep this secret.  Perhaps this article will finally cause reconsideration. For more in depth discussion, see Misleading Assurance of Salvation. 

How do we know it is bias to protect Paul that explains this? Because  Daniel Whitby who died in 1726 -- a well-respected scholar whose research was impeccable -- exposed this almost 300 years ago. The evidence has only gotten stronger since then in light of the find of the Sinaiticus Bible in 1898 -- the oldest Christian New Testament from about 340 AD.  

Daniel Whitby (1638-1726) explained in his work Election and Reprobation, Discourse I 3:1 (1801) at page 43 that there are words in 2 Peter 1:10 that we do not see in the KJV (and now the NIV) but are supported by every ancient source imaginable, including the context:

“[Our final election] is to be made sure unto us, ‘by good works,’ according to that exhortation of St. Peter, (2 Pet. 1:10) ‘give diligence to make your calling and election sure, BY GOOD WORKS,’ as both the Fathers, the Syriac, the Vulgar [i.e., Vulgate], the Ethiopic, and many ancient copies read, and as the text requires, as the words following, being these, 'for if you do these things you shall never fall....”

Thus, Whitby is saying the Syriac and Ethiopic Greek manuscripts and the Latin Vulgate all have by good works in the sentence. And 2 Peter 1:10 was quoted by the earliest Patristic writings of the so-called Fathers to include the phrase by good works. So what it actually says is “give diligence to make your calling and election sure by good works.” Now you can see why the KJV and NIV simply refuse to honor the text. It runs afoul of Paul's words that security comes by a one-time faith, and not by good works.

Acts 20:22, Paul's Spirit or the Holy Spirit Bound Paul?

As another example, as I point out elsewhere, faithful Christian scholars concur that Paul disobeyed the messages given to a Prophet and to others by the Holy Spirit that Paul should not go to Jerusalem but Paul went anyway. On that trip, Paul's traveling companion entered the temple in an uncircumcised state, thereby defiling the Temple in violation of Ezekiel 44. See our link.

But one mistranslation creates conflict so that, if you wish, you will ignore that Paul did not follow prophetic and Holy Spirit messages that Luke says took place. 

One of the supporters of the Jesus' Words Only principle sent me an email explaining how the Amplified Bible translates the passages at issue 180 degrees opposite of all standard translations. This Amplified version just happens to thereby make it appear Paul was not disobedient to the Holy Spirit's message to a prophet and other believers. Here is what Rod explains:

Wanna see how they even modify the Scriptures to save Paul from being exposed as disobedient???

Check this from the Amplified Bible:

And now, you see, I am going to Jerusalem, bound by the [Holy] Spirit and obligated and compelled by the [convictions of my own] spirit, not knowing what will befall me there. (Acts 20:22).

Most versions simply say "bound by the Spirit." One other version says "bound by my spirit." See Biblos on Acts 20:22: "And now I am on my way to Jerusalem, bound in my spirit, not knowing what I will encounter there." (Holman),

They added "Holy" to justify his trip as an act of obedience to the Holy Spirit.- But now check THIS: