Featured Why do you think that by Sowing Changes to the Meanings in God's Word, has Reaped such a Harvest?

Erasmus' Notes —
His Knowledge of Variant Readings and Critical Problems.

Through his study of the writings of Jerome and other Church Fathers Erasmus became very well informed concerning the variant readings of the New Testament text. Indeed almost all the important variant readings known to scholars today were already known to Erasmus more than 460 years ago and discussed in the notes (previously prepared) which he placed after the text in his editions of the Greek New Testament.

In his notes Erasmus placed before the reader not only ancient discussions concerning the New Testament text but also debates which took place in the early Church over the New Testament canon and the authorship of some of the New Testament books, especially Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude and Revelation.

Not only did he mention the doubts reported by Jerome and the other Church Fathers, but also added some objections of his own.

However, he discussed these matters somewhat warily, declaring himself willing at any time to submit to "The consensus of public opinion and especially to the authority of the Church." (14) In short, he seemed to recognize that in reopening the question of the New Testament canon he was going contrary to the common faith.

But if Erasmus was cautious in his notes, much more was he so in his text, for this is what would strike the reader's eye immediately. Hence in the editing of his Greek New Testament text especially Erasmus was guided by the common faith in the current text.

And back of this common faith was the controlling providence of God. For this reason Erasmus' humanistic tendencies do not appear in the Textus Receptus which he produced. Although not himself outstanding as a man of faith, in his editorial labors on this text he was providentially influenced and guided by the faith of others.

In spite of his humanistic tendencies Erasmus was clearly used of God to place the Greek New Testament text in print, just as Martin Luther was used of God to bring in the Protestant Reformation in spite of the fact that, at least at first, he shared Erasmus' doubts concerning Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation. (15)

Latin Vulgate Readings in the Textus Receptus.

The God who brought the New Testament text safely through the ancient and medieval manuscript period did not fumble when it came time to transfer this text to the modern printed page.

This is the conviction which guides the believing Bible student as he considers the relationship of the printed Textus Receptus to the Traditional New Testament text found in the majority of the Greek New Testament manuscripts.

These two texts are virtually identical. Kirsopp Lake and his associates (1928) demonstrated this fact in their intensive researches in the Traditional text (which they called the Byzantine text).

Using their collations, they came to the conclusion that in the 11th chapter of Mark, "the most popular text in the manuscripts of the tenth to the fourteenth century" (16) differed from the Textus Receptus only four times.

This small number of differences seems almost negligible in view of the fact that in this same chapter Aleph, B. and D) differ from the Textus Receptus 69,71, and 95 times respectively. Also add to this the fact that in this same chapter B differs from Aleph 34 times and from D 102 times and that Aleph differs from D 100 times.

There are, however, a few places in which the Textus Receptus differs from the Traditional text found in the majority of the Greek New Testament manuscripts.

The most important of these differences are due to the fact that Erasmus, influenced by the usage of the Latin-speaking Church in which he was reared, sometimes followed the Latin Vulgate rather than the Traditional Greek text.

Are the readings which Erasmus
thus introduced into the Textus Receptus necessarily erroneous'?

By no means ought we to infer this.

For it is inconceivable that the divine providence which had preserved the New Testament text during the long ages of the manuscript period should blunder when at last this text was committed to the printing press.

According to the analogy of faith, then, we conclude that the Textus Receptus was a further step in God's providential preservation of the New Testament text and that these few Latin Vulgate readings which were incorporated into the Textus Receptus were genuine readings which had been preserved in the usage of the Latin-speaking Church.


Erasmus, we may well believe, was guided providentially by the common faith to include these readings in his printed Greek New Testament text.

con't

 

In the Textus Receptus God corrected the few mistakes of any consequence which yet remained in the Traditional New Testament text of the majority of the Greek manuscripts.

The following are some of the most familiar and important of those relatively few Latin Vulgate readings which, though not part of the Traditional Greek text, seem to have been placed in the Textus Receptus by the direction of God's special providence and therefore are to be retained.

The reader will note that these Latin Vulgate readings are also found in other ancient witnesses, namely, old Greek manuscripts, versions, and Fathers.

Matt. 10:8 raise the dead, is omitted by the majority of the Greek manuscripts. This reading is present, however, in Aleph B C D 1, the Latin Vulgate, and the Textus Receptus.

Matt. 27: 35 that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted My garments among them, and upon My vesture did they cast lots.

Present in Eusebius (c. 325), 1 and other "Caesarean" manuscripts, the Harclean Syriac, the Old Latin, the Vulgate, and the Textus Receptus. Omitted by the majority of the Greek manuscripts.

John 3:25 Then there arose a questioning between some of John's disciples and the Jews about purifying. Pap 66, Aleph, 1 and other "Caesarean" manuscripts, the Old Latin, the Vulgate, and the Textus Receptus read the Jews. Pap 75, B. the Peshitta, and the majority of the Greek manuscripts read, a Jew.

Acts 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believeth with all shine heart, thou may est. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

As J. A. Alexander (1857) suggested, this verse, though genuine, was omitted by many scribes, "as unfriendly to the practice of delaying baptism, which had become common, if not prevalent, before the end of the 3rd century." (17)

Hence the verse is absent from the majority of the Greek manuscripts. But it is present in some of them, including E (6th or 7 th century). It is cited by Irenaeus (c. 180) and Cyprian (c.250) and is found in the Old Latin and the Vulgate.

In his notes Erasmus says that he took this reading from the margin of 4ap and incorporated it into the Textus Receptus.

Acts 9:5 it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. This reading is absent here from the Greek manuscripts but present in Old Latin manuscripts and in the Latin Vulgate known to Erasmus. It is present also at the end of Acts 9:4 in E, 431, the Peshitta, and certain manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate. In Acts 26:14, however, this reading is present in all the Greek manuscripts.

In his notes Erasmus indicates that he took this reading from Acts 26:14 and inserted it here.

Acts 9:6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt Thou have me to do? and the Lord said unto him.

This reading is found in the Latin Vulgate and in other ancient witnesses. It is absent, however, from the Greek manuscripts, due, according to Lake and Cadbury (1933), "to the paucity of Western Greek texts and the absence of D at this point." (18)

In his notes Erasmus indicates that this reading is a translation made by him from the Vulgate into Greek.

Acts 20:28 Church of God. Here the majority of the Greek manuscripts read, Church of the Lord and God. The Latin Vulgate, however, and the Textus Receptus read, Church of God, which is also the reading of Aleph B and other ancient witnesses.

Rom. 16:25-27 In the majority of the manuscripts this doxology is placed at the end of chapter 14. In the Latin Vulgate and the Textus Receptus it is placed at the end of chapter 16 and this is also the position it occupies in Aleph B C and D.
(156 of 225)

Rev. 22: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life.

According to Hoskier, all the Greek manuscripts, except possibly one or two, read, tree of life. The Textus Receptus reads, book of life, with the Latin Vulgate (including the very old Vulgate manuscript F), the Bohairic version, Ambrose (d. 397), and the commentaries of Primasius (6th century) and Haymo (9th
century).

This is one of the verses which Erasmus is said to have translated from Latin into Greek. But Hoskier seems to doubt that Erasmus did this, suggesting that he may have followed Codex 141. (19)

Note 14 "nisi me consensus orbis alio vocaret, praecipue
vero auctoritas Ecclesiae." Note on Rev. 22:20.

Note 15 Works of Martin Luther, Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1932,
vol. 6, pp. 476-89.(Prefaces to Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation).

Note 16 HTR, vol. 21 (1928), p. 340.

Note 17 The Acts Of The Apostles, by J. A. Alexander, New York:
Scribner, 1967, vol. 1, pp.349-50.

Note 18 The Beginnings Of Christianity, London:
Macmillan, 1933, vol. 4, p. 101.

Note 19 Concerning The Text Of The Apocalypse by H. C. Hoskier,
London: Quaritch, 1929,vol. 1, pp. 474-77, vol. 2, pp. 454, 635.

 

Not when "book of life" is the correct rendering.

And do you want "independently compiled editions", from their flesh,
or The Providence of God?

I imagine if they were "independently compiled editions",
we'd have somebody to quote complaining that they were,
"independently compiled editions".
...

Now, that happens to be a good question, isn't it?

Those kinds of things need to be noted.

In this one, we have an answer.

...

Is this supposed to be significant to anyone?

And your point is what?

 

I try to teach folks something here, every once in a while.

However, if I have born any fruit to that end, I don't know about it.

That was a good one. Very rare. You blew it. But, that's not you're M.O.

You are NO LONGER in Alan's Bible of The Month Club, however.

There are your rules, like that one, and there are the rules,
which covers the overall comprehensive theater of literature.

Here, Doug Kutilek is a virulent critic of the King James Bible, like yourself.

He said,
"As has been pointed out countless times with regard to the use of the phrase “God forbid” to render the words of the original Hebrew and Greek,
it is a close English equivalent except for two facts:

1. the word “God” is not found in the original text;

and 2. neither is the word “forbid.”

"Other than that, it is a fine representation of the original!

"It is obvious, of course, that here at least,
the KJV is not a literal translation of the original,
but is at best a paraphrase, a “dynamic equivalent*."
"(Do I hear some rigid KJV adherent mutter under his breath,
“God forbid!”?)" ~ Doug Kutilek.

*ACTUALLY, “μὴ γένοιτο” (me genoito), חָלִיל (ḥālı̂l)
is a negative interjection [1]
within a particular syntactical construction.

So, when it comes to the expression, “God forbid,”
it is said that our 1611 Authorized Version is a “poor translation.”

Is that so? Furthermore, could there be a double standard here?

THE ARGUMENT AGAINST “GOD FORBID”.

The argument against the inclusion of “God forbid” is summarized as:

1. The Greek Bible does not have “God” (theos) there.
2. The underlying Greek is “μὴ γένοιτο” (me genoito).
3. A literal translation is “never” (me) and “happen” (genoito).
4. To be faithful to the original Greek, “God” should not be supplied in the English translation. A better rendering is, “Banish the thought,” “By no means,” “May it never happen,” “Certainly not,” “Perish the thought,” “May it not be.”

(Let it be said without delay. This is infantile Bible study!)


Years ago, when I dealt with a New King James Version user
and preacher, he asked the usual
“What about the ‘God forbid’ ‘mistake’ in the King James Bible?”

He said, “There is not one Greek manuscript that reads ‘God forbid.’
There is no perfect inspired translation.”

(Like so many, he was simply and mindlessly repeating
what he had heard others say about it.
He had not researched the issue for himself; otherwise,
he would have laid out the reasoning behind the conclusion
and seen it to be childish.)

As I dealt with him about a variety of textual matters
for an extended period, I discovered that the man
—while claiming to be a “Bible-believer”
—really did not care to know the truth anyway.

He would always “disagree” with my dozens of points,
but never would he answer them.

Alas, he was comfortable in his position:
facts would never convince him (and those like him).
...

 

"God forbid" is the definition
that the Oxford Greek Dictionary gives, for μὴ γένοιτο (mē genoito).

And our English expression “God forbid” has full Biblical Precedent.

Constantine Tsirpanlis, former Instructor
in Modern Greek Language and Literature,
at New York University,
Former Consultant for the Program in Modern Greek Studies,
at Hunter College,
Professor of Church History and Greek Studies,
at Unification Theological Seminary,

gives the definition of μὴ γένοιτο (mē genoito), on page 72 of his book,
"Modern Greek Idiom And Phrase Book,"
Barron's Educational Services, Inc., 1978, ISBN 0-8120-0476-0.

"The ONLY definition Constantine Tsirpanlis (a native Greek)
gives for μὴ γένοιτο (mē genoito) is "God forbid!"

"There is NO reference to "may it never be",
"by no means" or "certainly not"!, he says.

One should note that the LXX at times translates חָלִיל (ḥālı̂l)
phrases with μὴ γένοιτο (mē genoito).[4]

The Greek phrase μὴ γένοιτο (mē genoito) is consistently rendered
in the New Testament of the King James Version as “God forbid.”[5]

Concerning this, A. T. Robertson’s massive
Grammar of the Greek New Testament
in the Light of Historical Research notes:
“In modern Greek … people sa[y] not μὴ γένοιτο,
but ὁ θεὸς νὰ φυλάξῃ … though νά is not here necessary.”[6]

"That is, the modern Greek version of the New Testament’s
μὴ γένοιτο (mē genoito) is “God forbid.”

Thus, there are good reasons
in both the Hebrew of the Old Testament
and the Greek of the New Testament
for the translation “God forbid”
as found in the King James Version of the Bible.

Here is The Old Testament warrant for the rendering “God forbid”.

μὴ γένοιτο corresponds to the Hebrew חלילה
and occurs as the rendering of the same in the LXX
(cf. Gen. 44:7, 17; Josh. 22:29; 24:16; 1 Kings 20:3).

And חלילה is sometimes used with the names for God יהוה
and אלהים and אל (1 Sam. 24:6; 26:11; 1 Kings 21:3; 1 Chron. 11:19;
Job 34:10; cf. 1 Sam. 2:30) and with the pronoun
when the same refers to God (Gen. 18:25).

The Greek μὴ γένοιτο, indicating the recoil of abhorrence, needs the strength of this English rendering derived from the Hebrew חָלִיל (ḥālı̂l).

Hence our English expression “God forbid” has Biblical Precedent.


from: Is “God Forbid” A Mistranslation in the KJV?
by Thomas Ross. (See for references [1] thru [7]).

 

IF YOU'RE NOT a "virulent critic" of the KJV, every breath you breathe
associated with the KJV WOULD NOT BE SCATHINGLY NEGATIVE.

But since it got brought up, I've got the most scathingly brilliant idea!

What if?

1.) You "think" you are not a "virulent critic" of the KJV,

2.) And, whereas others, like myself, may have dismissed
all Ruckmanite KJVOnlyism out of hand, at first glance,
and never looked back, in the same manner, they do "The Flat Earth",

you have taken it upon yourself as a Life's Mission and Calling
to refute their juvenile non-sense with your unsuspected blitzkriegs of formidable and staggering athenaeums to overwhelm the enemy
(in the same way, our military might take 600 men to get 1, i.e., Sadam),

Then, 3.) Your overly vigilant rampages opposing KJVOnlyists
appear, for all the world, to be the handiwork of one of the most
"virulent critics" of the KJV that have ever taken a turn BASHING IT?

What about that for a staggeringly brilliant idea?

Then that would just mean one thing, if true.

You, sir, need to Google the expression,
"Playing into the Hands of the Devil".

Amen.
...

"When Kutilek* affirms that Kent Brandenburg
wrote the anti-KJV/TR book God’s Word in Our Hands,
he is making a fool of himself."

(God’s Word in Our Hands was written to convince you
that the modern translations are just as much the word of God as Bibles
that do NOT have dozens of verses removed, like the new ones.

Or, as in the words of Alan Gross, that having dozens of verses removed
and/or saliant portions OF DIVINE CONTENT omitted from them,
"Does not make them lies")

"The intention of this study is by no means to indicate
that there are no heretics, wackos, ignoramuses,
or dishonest defenders of the KJV."

Doug Kutilek’s Incredible Errors:
An examination of his article “Wilkinson’s Incredible Errors.”

"Wilkinson was a Seventh Day Adventist,
and Seventh Day Adventism is heresy.

"Wilkinson’s book Our Authorized Bible Vindicated,
unlike the Bible it defends, is not infallible.

"Peter Ruckman is unquestionably a wacko.

"However, these problems are not at all unique to the defenders of the KJV—
"Kutilek*, in his slander of David Otis Fuller and Kent Brandenburg,
his bungling critique of Wilkinson, and the other myths

(such as the idea that Wilkinson founded the movement defending the KJV)

propounded on his website is an example of the inaccuracy,
out of either ignorance or dishonesty,
that is sadly too often found among opponents of the KJV/TR position.

(Alan's note: Where, oh where,
might we ever find the animal of such a species?)

"Kutilek’s* final paragraph contains these three sentences:

“[T]hese examples are adequate to demonstrate
beyond honest cavil the wholly unreliable nature of Wilkinson’s writings.

". . . Instead of helping resolve the text and translation controversy,
Fuller, by virtue of his republication of Wilkinson,
has created (again to use Fuller’s own words)
“such profound confusion in Christian circles” (Which Bible, p. 174).

"He has gotten for himself such a blot on his escutcheon as shall tarnish his reputation as long as his memory shall endure among the living.”

"In light of the errors made by Kutilek*—
in an article that is supposed to be exposing “incredible errors,” KJV defenders,
would it be better to replace the word “Kutilek” with “Wilkinson” or “Fuller”
in the quotation above?"


“Wilkinson’s Incredible Errors,”
originally published in Baptist Biblical Heritage, Vol. I, No. 3; Fall, 1990,
and available at: http://www.truth.sg/resources/WilkinsonsErrorsInOabv.pdf

 

So, IF YOU'RE NOT a "virulent critic" of the KJV,
why won't you allow God, as The Author of The Bible, to refer to Himself
as being the Subject of the invocations made to your Creator, by the word "God"?

It's HIS BOOK!

Could your opposition to the KJV be a reflection
of your underlying opposition, elsewhere?

You're not suggesting that these prayers
are intended to address someone else, are you?

Who else is around to hear them in the spirit realm,
once you've eliminated God?

Beauty is in the Eye of the Beholder.

Like the result of this totally generic Google search,
of μὴ γένοιτο ?????? seen at: μὴ γένοιτο - Wiktionary, the free dictionary

"μὴ γένοιτο
View attachment 9164
Wikipedia
https://en.wiktionary.org › wiki › μὴ_γένοιτο

Interjection edit · μὴ γένοιτο • (mḕ génoito). God forbid"

Optative of Wish.

The OPTATIVE of WISH (cf. Latin opto)
is used to convey a wish for the future (S 1814-1819).

One Key Feature for Identifying Optatives.
For the expression of a wish, by means of syntactical and seminal markers,
to indicate the past indicative tense of a verb stating lack, want, or need,
is attested by Optatives that add an iota as a "mood marker"
to the connecting vowel or aorist tense former.

And so, for example, the present indicative λύομεν
becomes λύοιμεν in the optative mood.

Thus, "μὴ γένοιτο".

γένοιτο is actually the aorist middle optative, third person singular
from γίνομαι (to be or become).

One of The Most Frequent Forms of Optatives.
Paul often asks a rhetorical question with a firmly negative answer.

For example,

Τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν; ὁ νόμος ἁμαρτία; μὴ γένοιτο!

"What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid..." —Romans 7:7a.

Distinct optative forms gradually waned in Greek, as well,
in the post-Classical world.

By the time New Testament Greek was being written,
the optative had all but disappeared from the Greek language,
surviving mostly in phrases such as μὴ γένοιτο (optative of wish).

For example:

• ἁμαρτήσωμεν, ὅτι οὐκ ἐσμὲν ὑπὸ νόμον ἀλλὰ ὑπὸ χάριν; μὴ γένοιτο.
  • "What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid." (Romans 6:15)

And shown without the negative is "μή",

• εἶπεν δὲ Μαριάμ· ἰδοὺ ἡ δούλη κυρίου· γένοιτό μοι κατὰ τὸ ῥῆμά σου. καὶ ἀπῆλθεν ἀπ᾿ αὐτῆς ὁ ἄγγελος. (Luke 1:38),
  • "And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her."

Again, as an already-existent linguistic reality,
the desiderative function of the optative
appears there in Luke 1:38, above
and here in Luke 20:16;

"He shall come and destroy these husbandmen,
and shall give the vineyard to others.
And when they heard it, they said, God forbid."

from: (are those capitols? on "Μὴ"? Oh, why not?)

ΚΑΤΑ ΛΟΥΚΑΝ 20:16 Greek NT: Nestle 1904
ἐλεύσεται καὶ ἀπολέσει τοὺς γεωργοὺς τούτους,
καὶ δώσει τὸν ἀμπελῶνα ἄλλοις. ἀκούσαντες δὲ εἶπαν Μὴ γένοιτο.

ΚΑΤΑ ΛΟΥΚΑΝ 20:16 Greek NT: Westcott and Hort 1881
ἐλεύσεται καὶ ἀπολέσει τοὺς γεωργοὺς τούτους,
καὶ δώσει τὸν ἀμπελῶνα ἄλλοις. ἀκούσαντες δὲ εἶπαν Μὴ γένοιτο.

ΚΑΤΑ ΛΟΥΚΑΝ 20:16 Greek NT: Westcott and Hort / [NA27 and UBS4 variants]
ἐλεύσεται καὶ ἀπολέσει τοὺς γεωργοὺς τούτους,
καὶ δώσει τὸν ἀμπελῶνα ἄλλοις. ἀκούσαντες δὲ εἶπαν Μὴ γένοιτο.

ΚΑΤΑ ΛΟΥΚΑΝ 20:16 Greek NT: RP Byzantine Majority Text 2005
Ἐλεύσεται καὶ ἀπολέσει τοὺς γεωργοὺς τούτους,
καὶ δώσει τὸν ἀμπελῶνα ἄλλοις. Ἀκούσαντες δὲ εἴπον, Μὴ γένοιτο.

ΚΑΤΑ ΛΟΥΚΑΝ 20:16 Greek NT: Greek Orthodox Church
ἐλεύσεται καὶ ἀπολέσει τοὺς γεωργοὺς τούτους,
καὶ δώσει τὸν ἀμπελῶνα ἄλλοις. ἀκούσαντες δὲ εἶπον· Μὴ γένοιτο.

Perfectly normal. Perfectly natural.

 

The translators of the KJV are called out
in contradistinction to what? where? who?

Those burning in Hell hotter than Hitler?