I’m discussing Bible versions both here and on another site. One argument that was raised is that newer Bible translations deny the virigin birth of Christ. If true, that would be quite serious.
The verse offered to support this is Luke 2:33. The KJV says “Joseph and his [Jesus's] mother” whereas newer versions read “His father and mother”.
Does this mean that only the KJV teaches the virigin birth of Christ? Hardly.
The KJV refers to Joseph as Christ’s father in Luke 2:48, and to Joseph and Mary as Jesus’s parents in Luke 2:41.
Further, the doctrine of the virgin birth has never depended on verses like Luke 2:33. It is quite clearly taught in passages such as Luke 1:26-38 and Matthew 1:18-25.
Here are those passages from the NAS. Judge for yourself whether the virgin birth of Christ is taught.
Matthew 1:18-25
18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit.
19 And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man and not wanting to disgrace her, planned to send her away secretly.
20 But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.
21 “She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.”
22 Now all this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet:
23 “BEHOLD, THE VIRGIN SHALL BE WITH CHILD AND SHALL BEAR A SON, AND THEY SHALL CALL HIS NAME IMMANUEL,” which translated means, “GOD WITH US.”
24 And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife,
25 but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.Luke 1:26-38
26 Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city in Galilee called Nazareth,
27 to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the descendants of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary.
28 And coming in, he said to her, “Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you.”
29 But she was very perplexed at this statement, and kept pondering what kind of salutation this was.
30 The angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; for you have found favor with God.
31 “And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus.
32 “He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David;
33 and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end.”
34 Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I am a virgin?”
35 The angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.
36 “And behold, even your relative Elizabeth has also conceived a son in her old age; and she who was called barren is now in her sixth month.
37 “For nothing will be impossible with God.”
38 And Mary said, “Behold, the bondslave of the Lord; may it be done to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her.
Biblical doctrines do not depend on the particular phrasing of a verse here and there.
Your comparison is an exercise in dishonesty. You basically compare Luke’s ad verbatim account of what Mary said, to what Luke himself had written. You’re completely ignoring the original premise of the argument, and by doing so you set up the straw man easily knocked down through a misrepresentation of the arguments presented on the corruption of modern versions, that of Scripture being diluted with each successive modern translation. Dilution is not the same thing as the total elimination of orthodox doctrine, but that is again the trend we are seeing. Bits and pieces are chipped away, and it will continue to be so until there is virtually nothing left but an apostate doctrine that the Antichrist will eventually be able to take hold of and use to formulate and control a one world religion.
Was Mary claiming the Joseph was Jesus’s biological father? Of course not. And in Luke 2:41, Luke himself calls Joseph and Mary Jesus’s parents. There is no difference between this and the arguably more accurate rendering of Luke 2:33.
Changing Luke 2:33 is not a dilution of the doctrine of the virgin birth, as that doctrine does not depend even remotely on that verse. It is instead established on the passages I already referred to.
When a Bible translation contends that the first two chapters of Luke are not authentic, for example, then that will be dilution.
This touches on another verse, Isa. 7:14, “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”
As I understand it, the word translated virgin isn’t a word that means virgin strictly. It could be translated young woman, not necessarily virginal. We believe this to be a prophecy of the Lord, and we know he was born of a virgin; but that doesn’t change the original word used.