I recently encountered an individual of antagonistic orientation determined to present himself before the bar of testimony wielding in hand, against YHVH's sons, a certain page ripped from YHVH's Will to them, adducing it to contain affirmative proof that their Father has disinherited them.
The passage, John 1:12&13:
"But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the children of God, even to them that believe on his name:
"Who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." --King James 2000
This writing is not going to focus on verse 12. However, in passing, it is all but sole-sufficiently to the point to note the fact that the word used for "adoption" in the New Testament is "huiothesia," which, as a simple matter of fact, refers to a literal, already, blood-born son, who comes of age and is brought into full membership in his father's household. (Neither will study of the Greek word "huiothesia" be made the focus of this writing.) "Huiothesia" style adoption is the context with respect to "'receiving the power to become' children of God." A translation better respective of the context: "But as many who received Him, He gave to them the authority which the children of Yahweh are to attain, to those believing in His Name."--Christogenea New Testament. Again, not to focus on verse 12.
On to verse 13. I don't reckon it takes a rocket scientist to appraise the phrase, "Not of blood," and, even, on its surface, figure it need not possess any particular reference to race. Although, the irony to be borne out is that the verse, in fact, has much to do with race--not in the way of any abjuration, but after the fashion of yet another buttress.
"But, dude, it literally says, 'blood,'" kibitzes the chatroom quabbler. To which, sass, the automatic rejoinder is dispensed, to wit: "Was Adam born of blood?" Or, was his distinguishing characteristic not that YHVH breathed His own Spirit into Adam's nostrils?
What of the children of Abraham? Abraham produced, at least, eight sons; seven, through, the concubines, Hagar, and Keturah, yet, only, one, chosen, through Sarah. Nonetheless, all were born of the blood of Abraham.
Likewise, Isaac produced the twins, Esau, and Jacob, yet only Jacob was chosen.
What happened to the family lines of those who were not chosen? They mongrelized, very simple.
All of this is covered in Romans 9.
Only YHVH has the power to preserve any racial line. It does not matter who you think your parents are, if YHVH decides to discard that racial line and preserve another; at that, perhaps, another line, humble and unexpected.
In passing, note that John 1:13, also, implies that Christians are Divine--of the Divine household. Aryans are "higher than blood"; YHVH, himself, being their racial father.
A number of translations do not use the word "blood," much less "race." Why? Because the context is not of two different Earthly races. The verbiage is not, to wit, "a people of 'this' blood, versus a people of 'that' blood." One people, it says, are "not of blood" at all. They are Divine. It is hardly easily construed that the Divine should somehow be inferior or less discriminate. One group of people is Earthly (entirely, "blood born"), versus the other, being of differing, non-Earthly, extraction, altogether. All people possess an Earthly race, or "blood," but one people possesses an origin and controlling principle that is extra-Earthly. Niggers and mongrels are "Earthly," which is why they are called "beast of the field," and "people of the land," (Ezra 6:21 and Nehemiah 10:28). Adamic kind is born from heaven. Christian, Israelite, Adamites are the very children of God. Those whom He preserves by way of His Will and Law-Word are called Israel, a chosen race.
Here are a number of translations to consider.
NIV: "Children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God."
NET: "Children not born by human parents or by human desire or a husband's decision, but by God."
God's Word Translation: "These people didn't become God's children in a physical way-from a human impulse or from a husband's desire [to have a child]. They were born from God."
NLT: "not with a physical birth resulting from human passion or plan, but a birth that comes from God."
James K. Warner:
"Which were born, (in the celestial plane before being placed on the Earth) not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."
Christogenea: "Not those from of mixed origin nor from of desire of the flesh nor from of the will of man, but they who have been born from Yahweh."
Anointed Standard Translation:
"Who were born not of bloods, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but were born of God." [Notice, "bloods," plural.]
And, some commentaries:
Adam Clarke's Commentary: "Which were born, not of blood - Who were regenerated, ουκ εξ αἱματων, not of bloods" --Notice the plural.
Albert Barnes: "Not of blood - The Greek word is plural; not of 'bloods' - that is, not of 'man.'"
John Gill: "Which were born not of blood,.... Or bloods, in the plural number."
John Lightfoot: "I. Not of bloods. Observe the plural number: 'Our Rabbins say, That all Israel had thrown off circumcision in Egypt--but at length they were circumcised, and the blood of the passover was mingled with the blood of the circumcised, and God accepted every one of them and kissed them.' 'I said, while thou wert in thy bloods, Live: i.e. in the twofold blood, that of the passover, and that of the circumcision.' The Israelites were brought into covenant by three things; by circumcision, by washing, and by offering of sacrifices. In the same manner, a heathen, if he would be admitted into covenant, he must of necessity be circumcised, baptized, and offer sacrifice. We see how of bloods of the passover and circumcision, they say the Israelites were recovered from the degeneracy: and how of the bloods of circumcision and sacrifices (with the addition only of washing), they supposed the Gentiles might become the sons of God, being by their proselytism made Israelites, and the children of the covenant: for they knew of no other adoption or sonship."
Frederic Louis Godet: "The first phrase: not of blood, denotes procreation from the purely physical point of view; the blood is mentioned as the seat of natural life (Leviticus 17:1)."
It does not, however, matter which translation is used, none of them possess the power in the single idiosyncratic mis-translation at hand to counter the steam rolling direction of Jesus' ministry; let alone the context of the entire Word of God, as happens to present, even, to the present, the most racist body of writing ever set between two covers.
Mark well the duplicity evoking, ostensible, irresponsibility of translators in the rendering they choose to falsify as being literal by way of their omission of the plurality of the word "bloods." There being an entire house of cards built on the verse, it defies credulity to believe the blatantly erroneous translation could have been allowed to stand through all of the years of innumerable retranslation outside of a motive of self-conscious deceit. My best guess would be that translators have avoided the literal translation because it would soon have led to the questions apropos of why? Why "bloods"? It is indeed a stand-out peculiarity in the context.
The way the Christian reads scripture, he runs his hand across it like the woodcarver his art, so that he can feel every bur; he breathes it in and imbibes it to the degree that any waft of aberration cannot go unnoticed. My own approach is alike, at the same time, tending towards a measure of holism. It is difficult to pass off to me any novel oddity that does not fit the leitmotif. At times I desire to bring a magnifying glass to bear on tiny deviations; at other times I will see deviations and knock 'em right down, able to recognize them, straightaway, as bearing no significance. Unfortunately, it seems such a method of discernment is elusive to the larger church world. However, I have noticed before--the more so, the more fundamentalist--there is a particular personality of vain church man that will not let an aberrant bur go accounted for, whether it be by making something fanciful of it, or by drawing it into the pattern of his preconceived doctrinal narrative. What I might see in the scripture hardly matters because I have no significant audience, but, even, church men, might end up trying to make something of our curiosity if it were let to stand. I do not think quite fundamentalist folks would likely be easily persuaded that the quirk consisted of nothing more than a meaningless artifact of the ancient language. (Cf. the theory that "bloods" is comparable to "waters" as used to refer to a single volume of liquid.) And, no matter what might be made of it by such scrutiny, the case would be being highlighted as might lead a separate type of person to observe the thing and turn it in the light until it revealed a meaning of substance, and fit into the theme of the whole of YHVH's cosmos.
The primary significance of the expression "born of bloods" is as follows: Jews had used the expression "born of bloods" as a polite, euphemistic, way to say a foreigner had been made into a Jew. A pure Judahite would be he who was (born) "of 'blood,'" in the singular, i.e., the hereditary blood of his parents; but, a foreigner would be brought in by two bloods, i.e., that of circumcision, and that of animal sacrifice on his behalf. Though, doubtlessly, occurs a double entendre respecting what would be the multiple origins of the person's racial bloodlines.
A dynamic translation of our subject verse could render:
"Which were born, not of proselytization, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."