I really don't know. I mean they are both somewhat correct but musings about grammar make me unsure. I am, so to say usettled, or even unsured (don't use in English exams, I just invented it!) by linguistic cogitation.
And however interesting I do find your cerebration and circumspection of the subject (which, beside my bantering I really do, otherwise I probably wouldn't be here) I must admit that I believe the underlying assumption to err slightly on the side of ... correctness.
Actually it's a spacing error. "Betake" is an (albeit archaic) term. Not in vogue to be sure (and apparently including a spacing error) but used properly.
Leave it to Stephen to be linguistically archaic
And it's passive voice too! (Which apparently in no longer acceptable, I join the chorus of people who took their BAs when it was considered The Right Thing is going "WHHAAAAATTTT?!")
If you just have another short glance at the sentence in question:
Following its success I have decided to add my own personal blog: as you might see from the first entry it will not always be take the form of the typical breezy journal, though sometimes it will be just that.
I do believe this is not really very passive voicish at all but rather future 1 simple. I think a passification of the sentence would be something like this:
...the form of the typical breezy journal will not always be betaken by the entry...
Admitting that this does sound very archaic or simply wrong. Again, what does the Kraut know?