Defense of Philippians 2:6

This time in defending the right reading of Scripture, in rightly dividing the word of truth, I would like to take a look at another number of Scripture references that we have so far not yet discussed, where, in many of the modern versions, a visible move away from the doctrine on the nature of God has occurred.

Before we begin, remember what the apostle Paul had to say on these matters in his epistle to Timothy.

If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.
— 1 Timothy 6:3-5

Any change to Scripture that is made to move the Bible away from its received foundation involves denying of the immutability, that is, the unchangeability, which rests in the word of God. See the linked articles for more there. Denying this results, many times, in attacks on the divinity of the Word, by whom “all things consist,” as it says in the Holy Bible.¹

As is written, “he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.”² And as Hebrews 4:13 says, “Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight”.

So having said that we take a look at Philippians 2:6 in the Authorized Version in red firstly, followed by the modern variants which provide a different translation of this passage of sacred Scripture.

Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
— Philippians 2:5-6 (A.V.)

…who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, — Philippians 2:6 (NASB)

…who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, — Philippians 2:6 (ESV)

You can immediately see by comparison that the true meaning of the passage has been reversed in these modern versions.

Whereas Christ Jesus “thought it not robbery to be equal with God,” in the new version it is made to say, that he did not count it as “a thing to be grasped.”

This one reversal exists in these two versions, as quoted above, the New American Standard Bible and the English Standard Version. Many other modern versions, however, do not include it.

By implication of this revision, equality with God is something that he never “grasped,” nor “claimed” to possess. Many non-believers have mistakenly said the same thing about Christ. Many have made the poorly informed claim that Christ Jesus never claimed to be God. They could open an ESV and go straight to this verse, which have been altered in these versions, in order to quickly bolster their point. They could say: “look here in Philippians 2:6 in this ESV/NASB, he never counted it as a thing to be grasped.” In this way, the ESV and NASB, and the translators of the ESV and NASB, provide a false statement on which such arguments can and have been attached.

Not only this, but many great passages that we could turn to elsewhere in order to defend the truth of Christ, the divinity of the Son of God, also, just so happen to be muddied and obscured in the same modern versions. We will show a number of examples here so that the pattern in this regard can be clearly seen.

What this situation leads to is relativism. People with modern versions, on the basis of these changes, will often become more compromising with respect those who argue that the Bible does not in fact teach the divinity of Christ. This stems from an inability on their part to defend the doctrine regarding Christ, because of the numerous changes in the modern versions. It can be shown here – to those who are not in denial – that these changes are both systematic and increasing in number.

To help defend Philippians 2:6, we can examine the changes collectively. This will help to show that the modern translation is, in this place and generally speaking, motivated against Christ. We should consider the effects that it would have if we accepted their changes. We should also recall, as has been done before, that further changes are inevitable in future modern versions, on the basis of future manuscripts, or future translation choices, which are used to make further changes or revisions to the so-called “modern versions” of the Bible by future translators. These translators, we add, in the future may or may not have the same beliefs, as the historical church. Finally, it is worth noting in all this, that the perpetrators of this have (understandably for their business) put up blanket denials that any doctrine is changed in their versions, which will of course be shown to be misleading by the below facts.

Let us start with the verse itself. The word used for “robbery” (occurs one time) in the A.V. is “ἁρπαγμὸν”. This is also given in a lexicon simply as:

Ἁρπαγμὸς. οῦ, ὁ, rapine, robbery, thing plundered; met. & meton. what is retained with an eager grasp, or eagerly claimed and conspicuously exercised, Phi. 2.6: from

According to the received text, the object in question here is not simply a possession, but – more specifically, something obtained by robbery and held forward as an object of value obtained thus. This would not fit the divinity of Christ according to Paul because it was not something obtained crookedly, to be conspicuously exercised in this way. Indeed, Jesus Christ possessed divinity eternally, so it would not be “robbery” for him to be equal with God.

The above is also different from saying, that something was not counted as a thing to be grasped at all! See below dictionary definitions for “grasp”:

Webster 1828
GR′ASP, verb transitive To seize and hold by clasping or embracing with the fingers or arms. We say, to grasp with the hand, or with the arms.
1. To catch; to seize; to lay hold of; to take possession of. Kings often grasp more than they can hold.
*
GR′ASP, verb intransitive To catch or seize; to gripe.
1. To struggle; to strive. [Not in use.]
2. To encroach.
— To grasp at, to catch at; to try to seize.
— Alexander grasped at universal empire.
*
GR′ASP, noun The gripe or seizure of the hand. This seems to be its proper sense; but it denotes also a seizure by embrace, or infolding in the arms.
1. Possession; hold.
2. Reach of the arms; and figuratively, the power of seizing.
— Bonaparte seemed to think he had the Russian empire within his grasp.

Johnson 1755
To Grasp. v. a. [graspare, Italian.]
1. To hold in the hand; to gripe.
— Kings, by grasping more than they can hold,
First made their subjects, by oppression, bold. Denham.
— Doom, as they please, my empire not to stand,
I’ll grasp my sceptre with my dying hand. Dryd.
2. To seize; to catch at.
— This grasping of the militia of the kingdom into their own hands, was desired the Summer before. Clarendon.
*
To Grasp. v. n.
1. To catch; to endeavor to seize; to try at.
— So endless and exorbitant are the desires of men, that they will grasp at all, and can form no scheme of perfect happiness with less. Swift.
2. To struggle; to strive; to grapple. Not now in use.
3. To gripe; to encroach.
— Like a miser ‘midst his store,
Who grasps and grasps ’till he can hold no more. Dryden.
*
Grasp. n. s. [from the verb.]
1. The gripe or seizure of the hand.
— The left arm is a little defaced, though one may see it held something in its grasp formerly. Addison.
2. Possession; hold.
— I would not be the villain that thou think’st
For the whole space that’s in the tyrant’s grasp,
And the rich East to boot. Shakesp. Macbeth.
3. Power of seizing.
—They looked upon it as their own, and had it even within their grasp. Clarendon.

By this definition, we see how the term “to be grasped” implies anything that would be held in the hand. The implication of saying that something was not a thing to be grasped, implies, that Jesus Christ did well not to make an attempt to grasp something that he – supposedly, by implication – could not grasp, as it was not a thing to be grasped.

This is contrary to the reality of the Scripture passage in the KJV. Here, Scripture states quite clearly that he did not exercise something that was his already, as if it was obtained by robbery.

He thought it not robbery to BE equal to God. It plainly says that he was equal to God there. This is not the same thing as saying that being equal to God was something that he “could not grasp,” or did not count himself to be worthy of “grasping.”

“He thought it not robbery to be equal to God”; and not, “he did not regard it a thing to be grasped.”

If He supposedly did not think to grasp it, this openly suggests that divinity was something to be grasped in the first place; that is, placed inside your hand for the first time – which he was supposedly wise enough not to attempt to grasp.

In reality though, and according to Paul writing in Philippians here, divinity was something Jesus possessed. He was able to grasp it, and already had done so since eternity. We learn that he did not think it was something to be held forth as if it had been obtained by robbery. The wisdom of Christ here (according to the Holy Bible) is not to treat His possession as if it were obtained through some performance of cunning or skill. This is actually clear and can be easily obtained simply by translation of the words for what they really are in Philippians 2:6 of the Authorized Version. However, the enemy would like to cloud up this reference and cast doubt on this.

What the NASB and ESV version of the verse tells the casual reader, is far, far different from this. The NASB and ESV version tells the casual reader that Jesus Christ did not think to grasp something, and that the wisdom of Christ was thus not to grasp something, which suggests, that equality with God was something Christ could not have grasped, held in His hand, or possessed; and that He was wise not to attempt to do so, according to what Paul is (supposedly) saying here.

The above is utterly the opposite of what the passage in Philippians 2:6 really means. But it is perfectly in line with the arguments from unbelief that Jesus never claimed in the Bible to be God. They would prefer this version of Philippians 2:6 which is presented in the NASB and ESV. The version presented by the ESV and NASB could be used as a “quick reference verse” to argue that position. To a crowd unfamiliar with the Bible, this “modern” version of Philippians 2:6 might seem to say what they suggest. Thus serving the plan of corrupting Scripture in order to lessen the deity of Christ.

There are many other passages of scripture that go along with this which have likewise been changed in most modern versions, including the NIV (New International Version) and others. For example in Isaiah 63:16 and in Micah 5:2, consider the following two prophecies:

Doubtless thou art our father, though Abraham be ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledge us not: thou, O LORD, art our father, our redeemer; thy name is from everlasting. — Isaiah 63:16

But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. — Micah 5:2

The modern versions replace the phrase “from everlasting” in both places with one of the following: “from of old”, “from ages past” or “from ancient days/times.”

But this change undermines the concept that his name and goings forth are from everlasting; it says they are simply old, not from eternity: thus undermining the deity of Christ. Let us continue with more.

In Isaiah 7:14,³ the NET or “New English Translation” of 2005, changes the word for “virgin” with simply “young woman,” in accordance with the “modern context” of the word – that is, by following Hebrew lexicons that have been written recently. But we will show in another post, that “modern Hebrew” is a fabrication not to be confused with the authentic language of Hebrew. Nevertheless, this change is starting to enter modern translations now.

Likewise, in the book of Luke there are several examples of the motive to be found. In Luke 2:33,⁴ most modern versions will replace “Joseph and his mother” with “his father and his mother”. This change to making Joseph the father of Jesus again seems to line up with the altered prophecy in Isaiah 7:14. Recall that Isaiah 7:14 was changed in the NET and some other modern versions so that a “young women” will give birth, not a virgin. Both this change and the one in Luke 2:33 implies that Joseph was indeed his true father.

This is so, because, otherwise, having Luke, as the narrator of the Gospel, state that Jesus’ “father and mother marvelled” at his statement introduces a technical untruth.

We know this because no earthly man was his father according to the regular, “Authorized version” form of Isaiah 7:14.

The change to Luke 2:33 in the modern versions suggests that the Christ was not Jesus born of Mary, as Isaiah conventionally describes. This is because Isaiah said he would be born of a virgin. If, according to Luke as the narrator, it was Jesus’ father and mother that marvelled at His statements, then His true father would have been Joseph, according to Luke. This is a contradiction to what Isaiah said, who said that He would be born of a virgin. Future modern versions are prone to include together the changes to Isaiah 7:14, and Luke 2:33, and Luke 2:43 also (which repeats the same change as Luke 2:33), in this way helping to support a new narrative of Jesus having an earthly father, overall. Although one change already is enough, other changes to modern versions may further provide additional references for this false, and ultimately misleading and untrue narrative to be propagated.

Additional mentions of Jesus’ divinity, and the fulfillment of prophecy regarding being the only begotten Son, could very well be removed in future modern versions of the Bible that add additional undiscovered manuscripts or make different translation choices. We continue for the time being with some more examples:

An “eclectic” Bible version (like the NASB, ESV and others) always removes the last three words of the following passage of Scripture:

And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: — Ephesians 3:9

The removal of “by Jesus Christ” in this verse, also unassociates Jesus Christ with these passages: Hebrews 1:1-2⁵, Hebrews 11:3⁶, 2 Peter 3:5⁷.

The eclectic changes in Isaiah 63:16, Micah 5:2, Isaiah 7:14, Luke 2:33, 2:43, and Ephesians 3:9 amount to an orchestrated attack on the eternal pre-existence of Christ. But this is not all, there are further references to discuss. We have additional references that have yet to be mentioned. This may begin at Ephesians 3:14. The words removed are underlined:

For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
— Ephesians 3:14

In this passage, the words “of our Lord Jesus Christ” are removed in most modern versions.

In addition to this, the words “and of the Father” were removed as well in Colossians 2:2 here:

That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ; — Colossians 2:2 (A.V.)

Also in the same versions, in addition to the above, these versions have chosen to change the wording in 1 Timothy 3:16,⁸ which normally says “God was manifest in the flesh,” into the unclear statement, “he was manifest in the flesh”. This is another place in addition to the above where the divinity of Christ, the fact that Christ is God, is stated clearly in Scripture, but where it is changed once again in modern versions. Christ is the one that was manifest in the flesh, born of a virgin, by whom all things were created. He considered it not robbery to be equal with God. These are things we now know from Scripture.

Hence, by reading the apostle Paul in his letter to Timothy, we see also that “God was manifest in the flesh,” indicating to us that Christ – who was manifest in the flesh – is in fact God. According to 1 Timothy 3:16 KJV.

Continuing, in John 1:18⁹, the ESV and the NET versions replace “the only begotten Son” with “the only God”. Clearly you can see how this change in these versions makes it less clear that the Son is being spoken of here.

Likewise, at Ephesians 4:30¹⁰, the translation called “HBFV” (or Holy Bible Faithful Version) from 2009, attaches the following footnote to this verse:

“The traditional translation of the Greek word λυπ∈ω as ‘grieve’ assumes one is ‘causing grief’ to a third person of a trinity. The Holy Spirit of God is not a person, but the spiritual power God gives to converted believers. … Therefore, it has been translated ‘vex’ instead of ‘grieve’ ” (underline added)

All of the above changes that have been documented so far show a definite trend in modern versions, where they change the translation in some way away from clear statements in favor of the Son of God, and his divinity. Rather than letting Christ be equal to God, some would rather have it that he did not think equality with God “was a thing to be grasped.” Included in this would be any of the ESV and NASB translators, in their respective versions, who are behind the change to Philippians 2:6 we have mentioned here.

But lest we stop now, there are further changes in the modern versions, beyond everything that has so far been mentioned, which can be shown, would be convenient to have for someone who wanted to claim Jesus was not the Christ or the Messiah… likely to advance the claims of someone else to these titles! Therefore, the desire to change Philippians 2:6 is better described (if not understood), and we see why the NASB and ESV translations are not accurate translations in these places but instead are motivated by a bias against the divinity of Christ.

Now, by all indications, more changes are soon to come in further modern versions. But below are some of the changes that already support some of the well-known lines and positions against the divinity of the Lord Jesus, which are used to argue against the titles of Jesus as both Lord and Christ.

All the words below underlined were directly removed from the received text of the Bible and are removed by the modern versions.

And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world. — John 4:42

And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. — Acts 16:31

Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. — Acts 20:21

If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha.
— 1 Corinthians 16:22

Here we can see that additional changes of this sort would soon bring us to a situation where all references to Jesus as being eternally pre-existent, the word of God, and Christ will be removed in modern versions of the Bible. A situation like this would undoubtedly make it much easier for someone who claims falsely to be the Christ in the future to point to the corrupted form of scripture as lacking anything specific to contradict it. By all indications, more changes are imminent in future modern versions. These are only glimpses at what the final forms of the corruptions may end up looking like. Once it is denied that the word of God is eternally unchanging, then any amount of translational alterations and unpredictable future corruptions of scripture are left for the individual reader to decide. And without faith in the immutability and preservation of the Bible – God’s word – one is left with relativism.

In the school of the critical text, it can be taught that, everything is more or less the same… whether or not people believe in Jesus as Christ, and in His divinity. It just comes down to which Bible version you prefer. And yet, they are all supposedly the same and do not alter any doctrine whatsoever, according to the producers of these versions. Maybe that is because these producers hold no doctrine at all to begin with, which is why they can say that.

In Romans 14:10, the word “Christ” is changed to “God,” so that there is no reference to “the judgment seat of Christ” anymore but in modern versions just “the judgment seat of God.” In Romans 14:12 it then says “So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.”

If Romans 14:10 does not say Christ anymore then they lose that connection of him being God according to Romans 14:12.

In Galatians 4:7, it is written “an heir of God through Christ” but the modern versions simply write “an heir through God”. This again cuts off the connection of Christ with God, and destroys precious information, and keys to understanding. It says in Scripture, that “every word of God is pure,” (Proverbs 30:5). Christ says “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” How then can it be argued that removal of some words from the Bible changes nothing.

Paul said, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.” If all scripture is profitable, then what is the removal of those words in the modern versions but a destruction of precious information and of keys to understanding? That’s exactly what it is.

Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. We know that by Romans 10:17. But if the foundation be destroyed, what can the righteous do? Jesus described his sayings as a “rock” in Matthew 7. It was a rock upon which a wise man built his house. And we know that the foundation is secure because Jesus Christ said in Matthew 24:35 that “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.”

The same kind of removal occurs also in modern versions in 1 Corinthians 15:47, where the underlined words are removed as well. “The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.” But now consider also the next scripture which is also changed likewise in modern versions:

But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. — Hebrews 1:8

In most of the modern versions mentioned here (except the CSB and NLT) our verse Hebrews 1:8 is altered to say, “But about the Son he says…” or, “of the Son”.

This is a clear passage used in the KJV to show the Father speaking to the Son. Although we also get this from 2 Peter 1:17¹¹ and other places, it is in Hebrews 1:8 that this verse is outright and specific in calling the Son as “God,” so it really seems unusual that some unbiased translators would feel the need to treat the grammar of this one sentence differently.

It is more likely the influence changing this word of the same bias that enacted the similar changes in Philippians 2:6 which is also at work here in Hebrews 1:8 in the modern translations. In both places, they do not want Jesus Christ the Son being called too strongly as God and equal with God.

Now we have gone over quite a few examples. But over and above most of these are the following three infamous instances of removal of Scripture, which are in 1 John 4:3, 1 John 5:7 and Revelation 1:11.

Each of these three passages have already been used as arguments that, because they are or were removed, the removal of the words in modern versions therefore proves false some part of authentic Biblical doctrine touched upon by these verses. It has been used to argue for example that the changes to these verses prove that the Holy Trinity is false. Or that it is false as a Biblical concept. These changes have been used to deny the eternal Godhood of Jesus Christ, and in 1 John 5:7 case, of the Holy Spirit. We see that it is very important to have an accurate account of what Scripture says in these places. The simple fact that words have been removed by modern versions, has been enough to trigger arguments against the doctrines about God’s nature in the Bible. I have personally seen such arguments made contrary to Scripture myself. Those who argue against the divinity of Christ or Triune nature of God will always take the critical text view, now that it has been promulgated, as a basis and justification for their false teachings. That alone is objective, unquestionable proof of the positive merits of these Scriptures for defending it. Not that we need to cast forth our proof before anyone. As it says in 1 Corinthians 4, “it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man’s judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self.”

Just like all of the arguments which their benefactors – who are the textual critics or adherents of higher and lower criticism – have used, their arguments against the inclusion of these famous passages of Scripture have all been dealt with in the context of this post. So the discussion, particularly on the text of 1 John 5:7, is referred there: for discussion on inclusion of 1 John 5:7 and others, scroll to the last three paragraphs of Pt. 1 in the aforementioned article.

Such arguments generally against the divinity, the eternal pre-existence, and the identity of Christ, continue to run up against untold numbers of other references in the word of God beside these. Nevertheless, they will continue to attempt this, through preying on assumed unfamiliarity with Scripture and the overall acquiescence of the presumed apologist to relativism. Further changes in future versions will surely continue to dissolve away more and more Scripture passages dealing with His – Jesus, our Lord’s – divinity and status as Lord: which is exactly as Philippians 2:6-11 in the KJV, the Authorized Bible, continually and clearly explains.¹²

The Bible passage is not going to change. Only the poor modern versions will change.

I have now more examples, if the above has not yet been enough to make a convincing case. Consider Acts 2:30, where it is written—

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; — Acts 2:30

In the modern, critical-text versions, the word “Christ” is again replaced with the phrase “one of his descendants”.

But this version of the text makes absolutely no sense. Just as the alteration of Isaiah 7:14 into predicting a “young woman” conceiving, it is rather unremarkable that “a descendant of” David would sit on his throne. Why is such a thing is even brought up as a prophecy! Surely, any of the kings that were heirs to David would have fulfilled that.

If the prophecy only said that a descendant of David would sit on his throne, what would even be the purpose of predicting that simply “a descendant” would sit on the throne of David. Consider that the prophecy in question was made in David’s own lifetime, as seen here, in 2 Samuel 7:12-16.

So then Solomon or any of his subsequent sons would have already fulfilled that prophecy. Thus raising the question of why this was significant to be brought up in the New Testament in Acts 2:30. The original manuscripts all say “Χριστὸν” in Acts 2:30. It is only in the so-called “eclectic” version, as it is sometimes called, that this is removed.

But if the passage never mentioned “Christ,” why would it have been brought up by the apostle Peter as a reference to Jesus in Acts 2:30 at all?

But this change again removes any reference of Jesus as being Christ. In this case, as fulfilling the prophecy of 2 Samuel 7:12-16¹³, not just the one part about being his seed, but the whole prophecy.

The change to Acts 2:30 raises another question, of who we are really talking about. If it is not referring to “Christ,” then this reference might be referring to someone else than it traditionally has been held to for the whole time when the Scripture was accepted by all as saying “Christ.”

Now, see in Luke 23:42:

And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.
— Luke 23:42 (A.V.)

The modern translators have universally thrown out the word “Lord” here.

The only line spoken by the thief on the cross, in the entire New Testament, is left devoid of this extremely important word. This word is again removed in the modern versions such as the NASB, ESV, NIV, NLT, CSB, NET. All of these translations throw out the one word, Lord, here.

So then the thief on the cross, in his only line in the Bible, has his recognition of Jesus as ‘Lord’ undone.

Thus, they change the whole passage. Especially because this is the only line that the thief speaks. In the modern versions, Jesus is not recognized as Lord by the thief on the cross. The thief on the cross is later said to be saved. This omission alone should probably raise significant doubts about the lack of doctrinal changes to the text of the translators of the modern versions. Yet nary a word is spoken from them over this. They are on extremely thin ice and they do not want to make any cracks. They cannot move. All that can be done for them is to desperately act like nothing is wrong, and to continue relying on no one noticing or catching on.

Lastly, perhaps most tellingly of all the changes here – in Isaiah 14:12,¹⁴ the name of Lucifer, in English, is replaced with either “morning star” or “day star”.

However, we note right away that Jesus Christ respectively claims these same names in 2 Peter 1:19 and in the book of Revelation 22:16. Therefore, the modern versions have arbitrarily created a linkage between the figure of Lucifer in Isaiah 14:12, and the name of Christ.

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! — Isaiah 14:12

How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations! — (NIV)

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! — (NASB)

How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low! — (ESV)

In the Authorized version, you will notice that there never was a linkage between Isaiah 14:12 and the name of Christ. Because note once again that in the book of Revelation, at the 16th verse of the last chapter, Jesus refers to himself as, “I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.”

For the above reason, the change to Isaiah 14:12 creates a linkage, between the name of Christ which He gives Himself, and the proper name only found in Isaiah 14:12, as being the same. If one goes back to the original languages, are they the same name?

If not, is it poor translation practices that have been employed by modern translators in order to arbitrarily create this link?

The fact that Christ’s eternal pre-existence is called into question repeatedly by the changes in “modern” versions – such as where they alter Micah 5:2, Luke 2:33, John 1:18 and Ephesians 3:9 – is contradicted by Christ’s claim to be “the root and the offspring of David,” since He was in the beginning (e.g. John 1:1, 1:15, 17:5, 17:24; Colossians 1:15-17, Hebrews 13:8, 1 John 1:2, Book of Revelation 3:14).

The fact that Jesus is the true Christ (from His fulfilling prophecy) is called into question repeatedly by the changes found in “modern” versions, such as where they change Isaiah 7:14, Galatians 4:7, 1 John 4:3 and Acts 2:30.

In addition to these things, Jesus Christ’s divinity and identification with the Son, the seed of David and Jacob, the Messiah, the anointed one, and the Word of God, are significantly questioned or removed by changes in translation in the “modern” translations in various places.

In this way, it is shown that there undeniably exists a motivation for these “modern” translations to also reinterpret Philippians 2:6, using the same methods of altering the translation as have already been used against numerous other passages, which have been demonstrated here and elsewhere across this site.

But in Isaiah 14:12, among the most direct attempts is made to contrive a new meaning. The translators actually resorted to the interpretative false context of modern Hebrew, as well as to the Latin definitions, not the English definitions (as you would normally expect), of words to justify their motivated alteration of Isaiah 14:12, wherein “Lucifer” is changed into “morning / day star.”

This would be as unusual as it is, in a Greek to English translation (say, of Ephesians 2:8-9¹⁵), to change the word “gift” to “poison” in the translation, based on the German definition of the word “gift.” In other words, reasoning that, since, in German, the word “gift” means “poison,” so then “poison” could be substituted for “gift” in the English translation of the Greek. Really?

In English, the word Lucifer (a proper noun) is defined as follows:

Webster 1828 Dictionary
LU′CIFER noun [Latin lux, lucis, light, and fero, to bring.]
1. The planet Venus, so called from its brightness.
2. Satan.
— And when he falls, he falls like lucifer never to hope again.
*

Johnson 1755 Dictionary
Luci′ferous. adj. [lucifer, Latin.] Giving light; affording means of discovery.
— The experiment is not ignoble, and luciferous enough, as shewing a new way to produce a volatile salt. Boyle.
*
Luci′fick. adj. [lux and facio, Lat.] Making light; producing light.
— When made to converge, and so mixed together; though their lucifick motion be continued, yet by interfering, that equal motion, which is the colorifick, is interrupted. Grew.

From this information we see that the nearest improper noun to the proper noun “Lucifer,” which would fit the translation here is not the Latin definition of the word (meaning “morning star”), but rather “bright one” or “shining one,” which is what some other types of translations affix.

Notice first that this definition of “bright one” has nothing to do with celestial bodies like planets or stars – it simply denotes brightness.

However, that being said, in the case of Isaiah 14:12, since this is the only occurrence of what is clearly a proper noun (as the invocation of “O Lucifer” with the added descriptor, “son of the morning” depicts) it is therefore most appropriate to continue using the proper name “Lucifer” here, and not “bright one” or “shining one.” This is what KJV, and earlier English, and many other translations do.

Meanwhile, the least appropriate translation is to substitute the term “morning star,” in place of what would be more accurate, “bright one” or “shining one.”

This can clearly be seen as a motivated change. Some cleverly thought they could talk their way out of having made this arbitrary change, but in doing so, they, (or rather, he, the father of lies) have betrayed the real intention here in the changes that have been made in the modern versions overall.

Finally, the fact that this term in Isaiah 14 is supposed to be a proper name makes substitution of the term “O morning star” in its place, all the more brazen in its misattribution toward the only bright and morning star of Revelation 22:16. This is because if there is only one, whom we cannot mistake with any other in referring to as ‘the morning star,’ with a definite article, then it cannot be the being described in Isaiah 14:12. It has to be Jesus Christ who spoke to us in the final chapter of the book of Revelation. Of course, no one can by any suggestion equate the two as the same entity by giving them the same proper name.¹⁶

The devil is said to have been cut down from heaven. Christ the Savior however, inherits the prophecy of the Psalms:

For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.
Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet:
— Psalm 8:5-6

One thought on “Defense of Philippians 2:6”

Leave a Reply Cancel reply