Acts 2:30
(KJV) Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn
with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to
the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;
(1611KJV) Therefore being a Prophet, and knowing that God had
sworne with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loines,
according to the flesh, hee would raise vp Christ, to sit on his
throne
(NIV) But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath
that he would place one of his descendants on his throne.
(ESV) Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an
oath to him that he would set one of his descendants on his throne,
(NASV) "And so, because he was a prophet and knew that GOD HAD SWORN TO
HIM WITH AN OATH TO SEAT one OF HIS DESCENDANTS ON HIS THRONE,
(1901 ASV) Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn
with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins he would set one
upon his throne;
(1881 RV) Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with
an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins he would set one upon his
throne;
(HCSB) Since he was a prophet, he knew that God had sworn an oath to him
to seat one of his descendants on his throne.
(RSV) Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an
oath to him that he would set one of his descendants upon his throne,
(NAB-Roman Catholic) But since he was a prophet and knew that God had
sworn an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants upon his
throne,
(NWT-Jehovah’s Witnesses) Therefore, because he was a prophet and knew
that God had sworn to him with an oath that he would seat one from the
fruitage of his loins upon his throne,
Textus Receptus
projhthV oun uparcwn kai eidwV oti orkw
wmosen autw o qeoV ek karpou thV osjuoV autou to kata sarka
anasthsein ton criston kaqisai epi tou qronou autou
Hort-Westcott
projhthV oun uparcwn kai eidwV oti orkw
wmosen autw o qeoV ek karpou thV osjuoV autou kaqisai epi ton qronon
autou
Corrupted Manuscripts
This verse is corrupted in the following manuscripts:
Aleph - Sinaiticus - Fourth century
A - Alexandrinus - Fifth century
B - Vaticanus - Fourth century
C - Ephraemi Rescriptus - Fifth century
Affected Teachings
(2 Sam 7:12-13 KJV) And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep
with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed
out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. {13} He shall build
an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for
ever.
(Psa 132:11 KJV) The LORD hath sworn in truth unto David; he will not
turn from it; Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne.
By removing “according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ” the
trashlators violate the Scriptures in three ways. First, they once again
remove the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by doing that they remove
the specific name of the one that was to fulfill the prophecy found in
the above two verses. The Lord Jesus Christ is the one who fulfilled the
prophecy and promise that God made to David. Secondly, they have removed
another reference to the resurrection, “…he would raise up Christ” seems
to indicate a reference to the resurrection when the Lord Jesus Christ
would rise from the dead, ascend into Heaven and then take His rightful
place as the eternal king of the body of Christ, of which David was a
member. Thirdly, they remove a reference to the incarnation of Christ,
“…according to the flesh.” This verse teaches that Christ did not appear
as some type of Spirit but came in the flesh according to the prophecy
of many Scriptures. By removing these nine words, the modern versions
have attacked and removed three cardinal doctrines of the Christian
Faith and they attacked, once again, the person of the Lord Jesus
Christ, who is the head of the church. Of course, the second century
Gnostics did not believe that Christ was God come in the flesh so they
removed this reference to him and the modern trashlators have also
followed the same line of thinking because if they disagree with the
Gnostics, then they would have left the verse intact, but they didn’t.
PS: This week I started adding the verse from the 1611 King James
because another false claim by the modern version proponents is that
there was much change from the 1611 version to the 1769 updated language
version. We will see the only changes between the two renderings is
language update only.