Featured Is “God Forbid” a Mistranslation in the KJV?

Tell this to someone 18 years old.

 

"God forbid", is a prayer to God, in the Word of God, including the Subject, "God", by the formal equivalence of continuous translational invariance and contextual symmetry (and was around, in writing, many moons before having had any misplaced confusion with dynamic equivalence.)

 

Nah, it's all good. I love it. Thanks.

 

This is not all your fault.

I chose to post in a forum where I'm a little bound, where I'd rather not be, i.e.,
"9. Certain terms are off limits in this forum.
"For example:

1. "The KJVO crowd will not not refer to the Modern Versions as "perversions," "satanic," "devil's bibles," etc...nor call those that use them "Bible correctors," "Bible doubters," etc."

And you also notice I haven't been playing by the rules when it comes to self-identifying as either one type of "KJVO person" or another, when after all, I actually self-identify as a Los Angeles World Airport terminal.

One makes as much sense as the other.

Anyway, I am a #2, despite the potential for the mistaken identity of a #3-5, etc.

But, for the sake of being sure to keep arguing with you, it drives me nuts, I also have to admit, with what Google calls the "fallacy of circular argument, known as petitio principii (“begging the question”), that occurs when the premises presume, openly or covertly, the very conclusion that is to be demonstrated."

Oh, well. Too bad for me.

And, even though you didn't mean to state that that way, (or maybe there was a footnote I missed that calls it into question?), directly observing the specific NKJV is not what you want, I don't think.

Especially, not with its dreaded footnotes!

 

Your castigation and disenfranchisement of presumed KJVO-types is nothing compared to the castigation and disenfranchisement the Bible has received from the NKJV revisionists.

I'm sorry, I thought everyone would know or could find out.

I fall into another hornets nest of flailing swatting defenders of the direction certain versions have taken, as if there was something at stake, every day.

And there is.

Absolute delusion instead of overwhelming, but possibly recoverable, delusion.

"...NKJV's adherence to the Majority Text (which has ties to the Textus Receptus) is accused of violating the spirit of open scholarship and open inquiry, and to ascribe a level of perfection to the documents available to the 17th century scholars that they would not have claimed for them.

"However, not all textual critics agree that the earliest manuscripts are the most accurate. Alternative readings based on other texts do appear as footnotes in the New King James Version, and unlike other translations (such as the New International Version), the NKJV does not contain value comments like "the best manuscripts add, etc." Instead, the footnotes simply state which manuscript sets do not contain the passage (similar to the approach previously taken by the New World Translation) of the Jehovah's Witnesses.

"However, this is unlikely to placate those who feel that the "Johannine Comma" (at 1 John 5:7), for example, is not a legitimate portion of scripture and should not be treated as such. The NKJV holds to a loose stance for the Textus Receptus and Masoretic Text, but incorporates other corrupt manuscripts in its footnotes and follows corrupt definitions from other versions, which in doing so, reveals their belief that the KJV is in error in 1000’s of places.

"The Hebrew Text that the NKJV is translated from is slightly different from the Masoretic text used by the KJV. The KJV is primarily translated from the Bomberg edition (1524-25) of the Masoretic text prepared by Jacob ben Chayyim.

"The NKJV uses the 1967/77 Stuttgart edition of the Biblia Hebraica, with frequent comparisons made with the Bomberg edition of 1525.

"In addition the NKJV consulted, the LXX or Septuagint Greek Old Testament, the Latin Vulgate a variety of ancient versions of the Hebrew Scriptures, as well as the Dead Sea Scrolls (NKJV preface, p.vi)."

from: New King James Version - Textus Receptus

So, the NKJV is truly, at best,
"A bridge translation to Westcott and Hort", which this article goes on to discuss.

 

‘Dead flies cause the ointment of the apothecary to send forth a stinking savour: so doth a little folly him that is in reputation for wisdom and honour’

 

See, where you say, "a few of those same kind of textual footnotes".

"Those same kind of textual footnotes"
wouldn't refer to the same "kind" of subject-matter, would they?

If not, then the following is even more bizarre than it already is:

You see what you are saying,
"The presence of one such textual note"
(of any "kind" of subject matter (?),
"in the 1611 KJV or in any other editions of the KJV"

= (?)

"would condemn the KJV-only view
for its inconsistency, hypocrisy, or unjust divers measures" (?)

That's pretty incredible.

Heavy condemnation. Several.

Then, you double down on "the same-type notes";

"it strongly blasts the NKJV
and other translations for the same-type notes"

"Same-type" as to what? The fact that there is a footnote?

You do say, just "one" counts
as inconsistency, hypocrisy, or unjust divers measures, to you.

So, no matter what "kind" of subject matter, the quality OR the quantity?


That's consistent, non-hypocritical, or just measures?

Wild.

Are you sure?

"actual facts concerning Greek New Testament manuscripts"

Are you? Sure?

I've seen (above, for one example)
what you consider my "same attitude".

You miss my entire point, however.

The "same attitude" (regardless of what it is)
"with which you would approach the 1560 Geneva Bible
or the 1611 KJV" has precious little to do
with my insistence that the approach toward comparison includes:

1. the intent of the translation, (& vs the stated intent),
2. the texts (which we just mentioned a little,
of which you may stick with the Geneva, KJV, and NKJV being from the same texts, which you say over and over, and is a deal killer),
3. the translators,
4. the translators' attitude and philosophy,
5. the publishing and revision committees
and their attitude and philosophy,
6. the resulting product,
7. Future additions, corrections, omissions,
editions, revisions, etc., (if you want 7, altogether.)

Right now, as I said, we're on #2, comparing the texts.

The footnotes would have to do with #2, too, as well as, #4 & 5, I suppose.

So, we talked about them a second.

"your own KJV-only bias". I am KJV-only, in the sense Dr. Bob advised me to identify myself as a #2, while you lump me into a #3,4,&5, which is inconsistent, hypocrisy, or unjust divers measures.

Yuk, yuk, yuk, yuk, yuk, yuk.

"the NKJV more accurately translates the same underlying original-language texts of Scripture than the KJV does" Does it really?

What about that?

If so, it is not an issue.

Other than if you're saying the KJV sucks and is a liar, etc.

No issue, at all.

con't

 

I do not see "God forbid" as a "dynamic equivalent rendering."

You do.

I see it for what it is.

An invocation.

"God forbid", is a prayer to God, in the Word of God, including the Subject, "God", indicating the prayer's recoil of abhorrence by the formal equivalence of continuous translational invariance and contextual symmetry (and was around, in writing, many moons before having had any misplaced confusion with dynamic equivalence.)

The word is taken straight from the original language prayer, in this case, to Divinity, "God", and transported directly into English, as "God forbid", not changing a thing, except its position, which is only before different readers, is all.

from: Is “God Forbid” a Mistranslation in the KJV?

“God forbid” or “May it not be” in Romans 3:4, et al.? - KJV Today

"Μη γενοιτο is a prayer."

"Contrary to what many critics believe, the idiom, “God forbid” did not originate in English.

"It is an idiom of biblical Hebrew origin, first introduced in 1 Samuel 24:6: “The LORD forbid that I should do this thing….” (ESV, NIV).

"Thus the idiom has biblical precedent and is legitimate.

"The charge, however, is that the word “God (θεός)” is not in the Greek "μη γενοιτο" in Romans 3:4 and elsewhere.

"The Greek literally says “become (optative) not.”

"However, the verb in the optative mood expresses a strong negative wish in the strongest of terms, even invoking a "prayer":


"The voluntative optative seems to be used this way in the language of prayer.

"Again, as with μη γενοιτο, it is largely a carry-over from Attic even though its meaning has changed.

"This is not due to any substantive change in syntax, but is rather due to a change in theological perspective.

"Prayers offered to the semi-gods of ancient Athens could expect to be haggled over, rebuffed, and left unanswered.

"But the God of the NT was bigger than that.

"The prayers offered to him depend on his sovereignty and goodness.

"Thus, although the form of much prayer language in the NT has the tinge of remote possibility when it is offered to the God who raised Jesus Christ from the dead, its meaning often moves into the realm of expectation.

"If uncertainty is part of the package, it is not due to questions of God's ability, but simply to the petitioner's humility before the transcendent one." (Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics at 481).


"Daniel Wallace in no uncertain terms acknowledges that μη γενοιτο is a language of prayer carried over from Attic Greek.

"Whereas the Athenians directed the plea "μη γενοιτο" to their pagan gods, the writers of the New Testament direct this same prayer phrase to God.

"Thus when a New Testament writer says "μη γενοιτο," the implied subject is God.

"God" is made explicit, but not added.

The KJV translators did not add "God" in translating μη γενοιτο, but merely made explicit the subject that was implicit in Greek. Such a practice is so common in translation that it is never an issue. [End of comments from KJV Today article]

The proper force of this Greek phrase 'me genoito' is to express a negative in the strongest of possible terms.

"The English expression "God forbid" perfectly and accurately conveys the force of this thought, whereas such phases as "may it not be" come across as prissy and effeminate.

Mr. Kutilek chides our AV because "God" is not literally found in the text.

In spite of all his learning, he has little understanding of how languages work and exalts his opinion above any bible version out there today.

God forbid. No issue here.

How about, "no", the Truth doesn't always follow in the same set of tracks, otherwise we couldn't have different words representing the same thing, or any form of translation from the original, at all.

I see is a plain 'ol formal equivalence, as much as they did (in a hundred versions that translated it "God forbid", a thousand years, I means, a thousand times.)

Not so. Unmitigated categorical denunciation.

"KJVOnlyism is a false teaching." Yes, it is.

KJVOnly #2 Only (with more qualifications,
I am intent on writing into a swore statement of belief).

"use their false sources" What have I quoted that is false? or what is at their sites that is false, apart from their KJVOnlyism, which is a false teaching?

Btw, I'd like to see something posted onto the entire internet in the last 6-months more God-honoring than my thread, Is “God Forbid” a Mistranslation in the KJV?

Show me.

con't

 

KJV-only.

KJV-only reasoning.

You wouldn't be able to post any Dr. Peter Ruckmanism, that is from me.

I condemn, as spurious, the Occult versions, if that is what you want to know.

"your own stated claims in your posts measure up to what constitutes being KJV-only. Some of your own statements in your posts clearly display KJV-only reasoning/teaching" Name one?

Yes, I do, by the seven criteria, above.

"You have not proven from Scripture that God was any more involved in the making of the KJV than God was also involved in the making of the NKJV."

In your favor, they include I John 5:6-8 in the NKJV. God, I would believe and I appreciate that.

"6 This is He who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ; not only by water, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is truth.

7 For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.

8 And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one."

I do not appreciate their footnote, which is an astounding falsehood.

b. 1 John 5:7 NU, M omit the words from in heaven (v. 7) through on earth (v. 8). Only 4 or 5 very late mss. contain these words in Greek.

from: I John 5:7

"George Travis documented 31 Greek manuscripts that bore witness to I John 5:7 - (Letters to Edward George Gibbon, Esq. Forgotten Books, p. 285)

"One must never think there are only 9 (or 4 or 5(?) Greek manuscripts that contain the passage."

"The same Holy Spirit"

Ecclesiastes: ‘Dead flies cause the ointment of the apothecary to send forth a stinking savor: so doth a little folly him that is in reputation for wisdom and honor’ (10.1), is a witness against the NKJV.

"...while using the Received Text, it contains in its marginal references variant readings from these defective Alexandrian manuscripts.

"When examined, these marginal readings are seen to cast doubt on such fundamental doctrines as;

"the Eternal Generation of the Son,
John 1.18 – ‘the only begotten Son’
becomes ‘the only begotten God’

"the Union of Christ’s Deity and Humanity,
1 Corinthians 15.47 – omission of ‘the Lord’;

"the Incarnation,
1 Timothy 3.16 – ‘God’ changed to ‘Who’;

"the Blood Atonement,
Colossians 1.14 – ‘through his blood’ is left out;

"and the Eternal Conscious Punishment of the Wicked in Hell,
Mark 9.46 – omission of ‘Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched’

"Here is a clear case of what the Scripture refers to in Ecclesiastes."

Where was The Holy Spirit when they translated these verses and cut out the Deity mentioned, the Blood, and Hell?

We're talking about my criteria listed, as #6, the resulting product, now.

What do you think about all this?

I never hear these issues addressed.

Yeah, no issue.

"the same original-language texts", if we do, but I see them as having been quite different, despite what they claim.

If you hold to this, we have a disagreement, we must agree to disagree about.