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

Your own claims and assertions clearly show that you are not in the #2 category. You are even more extreme than #3 since you do not consider English translations from the Critical Text to be just "sub-standard and inaccurate" for you strongly and extremely attacked them as supposedly being "Occult versions." You even seemed to suggest that your very extreme term of accusation applied to the NKJV which is not translated from the Critical Text.

The #3 group should be expected to be at least tolerant of the NKJV based on the same original-language texts as the KJV even if they consider it to be less accurate overall than the KJV, but you are not. Your comments and accusations against the NKJV demonstrate that you are extreme in your form of KJV-only reasoning. Your eyes seem to be closed to seeing how extreme your stated opinions are. You desire to be even more extreme since you suggest that the rules keep you from stating some negative accusations that you believe. You do not display the basic rules of civility and Christian courtesy towards the NKJV and its translators.
__________________________________
KJVO #3 "I BELIEVE IN THE RECEIVED TEXT ONLY"

They consider any English translation from "inferior" Greek texts of W/H (Wescott & Hort) or UBS/Nestle-Aland (United Bible Society) as to be sub-standard and inaccurate.
__________________________________________

I do not at all hate KJV-only advocates as you incorrectly suggest. Years ago I worked with and for a couple KJV-only pastors. My father-in-law was KJV-only, and we got along fine. I asked some KJV-only advocates to read my first manuscript before I had it printed in order to make sure that I accurately presented what they believe and teach. I attempt to assume that KJV-only advocates are sincere and have good intentions. I have favorably quoted what KJV-only authors write when they state the truth.

Because of my stand and love for the truth, I do disagree strongly when they make claims for the KJV that are not true and scriptural and when they make misleading, incorrect, or non-true accusations against other English Bible translations. What I condemn would be statements or assertions that are not true and that are not scriptural.

Questioning and challenging non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning and teaching is not suggesting that KJV-only advocates are not sincere and is not claiming that they do not believe what they state even when it is not actually true.

 

Some of the marginal notes in the 1611 edition of the KJV were the same kind of textual notes. Some 1611 textual notes were based on Jerome's Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate text.

At Hebrews 6:1, Backus maintained that the 1611 KJV has in the margin "a literal translation of the Vulgate 'the word of the beginning of Christ'" (Reformed Roots, p. 147). At Matthew 4:12, Backus asserted that the 1611 KJV put “the Vulgate reading ‘delivered up’ in the margin” (p. 48). Scrivener suggested that the 1611 marginal note at 2 John 8 came from the Vulgate (Authorized Edition, p. 59). In its marginal note at Mark 7:3, the 1611 KJV has an alternative translation, the literal meaning of the Greek, and the translation of a church father: "Or, diligently, in the Original, with the fist; Theophilact, up to the elbow." The KJV translators put the following marginal note in the 1611 for “mercies” at Acts 13:34: “Greek, [hosios] holy, or just things; which word in the Septuagint, both in the place of Isaiah 55:3, and in many others, use for that which is in the Hebrew mercies.“ At Acts 13:18, the 1611 KJV has another marginal note that refers to the Septuagint and that refers to a church father--Chrysostom.

At Luke 10:22, the textual marginal note in the 1611 stated: "Many ancient copies add these words, 'And turning to his disciples, he said.'" The 1560 edition of the Geneva Bible has in its text at the beginning of Luke 10:22 the following: “Then he turned to his disciples." Scrivener suggested that the words in the 1611 margin at Luke 10:22 “are from the Complutensian edition and Stephen’s of 1550” (Authorized Edition, p. 58). At Luke 17:36, the textual marginal note in the 1611 stated: "This 36 verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies." At 2 Peter 2:2, the textual marginal note in the 1611 noted: "Or, lascivious wages, as some copies read." At Acts 25:6, the textual marginal note in the 1611 was the following: "as some copies read, no more then eight or ten days."

Other marginal notes that gave variant readings in the 1611 KJV can be found at Judges 19:2, Ezra 10:40, Psalm 102:3, Matthew 1:11, Matthew 26:26, Acts 13:18, 1 Corinthians 15:31, Ephesians 6:9, James 2:18, 1 Peter 2:21, 2 Peter 2:11, and 18. The 1611 marginal note beginning with “or” at Hebrews 5:2 could be properly considered a textual note since it basically agrees with Beza and the Geneva translation [“which is able sufficiently to have compassion”] while the makers of the KJV may follow the Latin Vulgate reading “who can have compassion” in their text. At Hebrews 5:7, the 1611 marginal note beginning with “or” could be considered a textual note since it indicates the reading of Erasmus [“pro sus reverential”] as followed by Tyndale’s and the Great Bible. In addition, the 1611 marginal note beginning with “or” at Romans 8:11 [“because of his spirit] could also be considered a textual note since Edward F. Hills presented this as a textual difference or variation in editions of the Textus Receptus with Beza having “by his Spirit” and Erasmus and Stephanus having “because of his Spirit” (KJV Defended, p. 222). Scrivener listed Romans 8:11 as one of thirty-seven NT textual marginal notes in the 1611 (Authorized Edition, p. 58). Scrivener indicated that the 1611 marginal note beginning with “or” at Revelation 6:8 “to him” is with “Complutensian, Vulgate, [and] Bishops’ Bible” (p. 59). Backus noted that “at Matthew 7:14 the ‘how’ reading occurs in AV margin (after the Vulgate)” (Reformed Roots, p. 70), and Scrivener listed it as a textual note (Authorized Edition, p. 58). At Mark 1:34, Backus indicated that the KJV followed the Bishops’/Tyndale/Vulgate reading “because they knew him” while “keeping the Beza/Geneva reading [“to say that they knew him”] as marginal alternative” (Reformed Roots, p. 66). In the 1611 at Mark 14:72, Backus asserted that “the Vulgate reading ‘he began to weep’ is suggested as a marginal alternative along with ‘he wept abundantly’ after Erasmus” (p. 75). At Galatians 4:15, Backus maintained that the KJV “adopts the Vulgate text more explicitly than Bois, reading ‘Where is then,’ but inserting the TR reading in the margin” (pp. 135-136). In its marginal note at Luke 8:18, the 1611 KJV evidently has the Latin Vulgate reading “thinking that he hath” (p. 84). At Luke 7:30, the 1611 KJV is said to put the Latin Vulgate reading “frustrated” in its marginal note (p. 83). Concerning Luke 8:18, Backus suggested that “the Vulgate reading ‘thinking that he hath’” is “retained in the margin” (p. 84). At Luke 17:20, Backus indicated that Whittingham, Geneva, Bishops, and KJV all read “with observation” in the text after the Vulgate while the 1611 marginal note “with outward show” is after Beza (p. 87). Backus asserted that the KJV follows the Latin Vulgate and reads “within you” at Luke 17:21 and “inserts the Bezan reading ‘among you’ as marginal alternative” (p. 87). At Romans 1:28 in the 1611 edition, Backus maintained that the “Revisers suggest the Bois/Beza reading as a marginal alternative” (p. 114). Backus asserted that at Romans 5:12 the KJV “inserts the Bezan reading ‘in whom’ in the margin” (p. 159). At Romans 8:22, Backus maintained that the KJV “adopts the Bezan reading in the text and the Vulgate/Erasmus reading in the margin” (p. 118). Concerning 1 Corinthians 10:30, Backus observed: “The Vulgate/Erasmus alternative ‘or by thanksgiving’ as suggested by [KJV translator Andrew] Downes is inserted in the AV margin” (p. 131). As seen in some of the above examples (Matt. 4:12, Mark 1:34, Mark 14:72, Luke 7:30, Luke 8:18, Luke 17:20, Luke 17:21, Rom. 1:28, Rom. 5:12, Rom. 8:22, 1 Cor. 10:30, Heb. 5:2, Heb. 5:7, Heb. 6:1), Backus identified another ten or more 1611 NT marginal notes as being textual that Scrivener may not have noticed as beng such and that he did not include in his count or list of thirty-seven.

John R. Kohlenberger III pointed out a textual variant in the marginal note in the 1611 edition at Deuteronomy 28:22. Kohlenberger asserted: “This variant is caused by the change of a single vowel point in Hebrew (horch versus the Masoretic herch) and likely reflects the Vulgate et aestu” (Burke, Translation, p. 50). Kohlenberger noted: “An example of an alternative reading that is not clearly stated is found at Luke 2:38: ‘that looked for redemption in Hierusalem’; note: ‘Or, Israel.’ This reading is not found in printed texts, but it is in Rheims” (p. 52).

 

As a user of the NKJV, I have to say that I think "God forbid" is probably a better translation of Μη γενοιτο than 'Certainly not."
If one wanted a true 'word-for-word' translation one would have to say "Let it not be" or "O that it may not happen," Although there is no word for 'God' and no word for 'forbid' in the Greek, it is a prayer of sorts and the KJV represents that.

However, that is not going to make me lose any sleep; nor is it going to stop me using the NKJV in preference to the KJV.

 

The NKJV does not call into question the Deity of the Trinity as you incorrectly allege.

You choose to believe incorrect, bogus KJV-only accusations against the NKJV.

The NKJV more clearly presents the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ at Titus 2:13 and at 2 Peter 1:1 than the 1611 KJV does.

At Titus 2:13, the NKJV, the MKJV, and several other English translations read "our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,” more clearly presenting the deity of Christ than the KJV does.

The NKJV in agreement with several pre-1611 English Bibles and many post-1611 English Bibles clearly, precisely, and accurately identifies Jesus Christ as "our God and Saviour" at 2 Peter 1:1. A modern spelling edition of the 1388 Wycliffe’s Bible rendered the last part of this verse as “righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ.” William Tyndale in 1534, Miles Coverdale in 1535, and John Rogers in 1537 translated the last part of 2 Peter 1:1 as "righteousness that cometh of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ." In his 1538 Latin-English New Testament, Miles Coverdale rendered it “righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ.” The 1539 Great Bible, 1557 Whittingham's New Testament, 1560 Geneva Bible, 1568 Bishops' Bible, 1576 Tomson’s New Testament, 1657 Haak’s English translation of the Dutch Bible, 1755 Wesley's New Testament, 1842 Baptist or Bernard's, 1862 Young’s Literal Translation, 1866 American Bible Union Version, 1982 NKJV, 1994 Majority Text Interlinear, and a number of other English translations translate it "righteousness of our God and Saviour [or Savior] Jesus Christ."

At John 8:58, some English translations, such as Wesley’s New Testament, the 1961 Wuest’s Expanded Translation, 1971 KJII, 1982 NKJV, 1985 Literal Translation in The Interlinear Bible, 1990 MKJV, 2010 English Majority Text Version, 2014 Modern English Version, and Wilbur Pickering’s 2016 English translation, capitalize "I AM" to make sure the reader knows that Christ was claiming here to be God. Does the NKJV along with these other English translations more clearly indicate a connection between this verse and Exodus 3:14 than does the KJV?

This same Greek word found at Acts 4:27 and 30 was also used of Jesus at Matthew 12:18a where it was translated "servant" in the KJV. However, it was translated "child" in Wycliffe's, 1534 Tyndale's, Matthew's, Great, and Bishops' Bibles and as "son" in 1526 Tyndale's. Why is this difference important in Acts 4:27 and 30 but unimportant in Matthew 12:18? Does the KJV’s rendering at Matthew 12:18 demonstrate that the NKJV translators in the book of Acts used one of renderings which the Greek NT text would allow? The prophet Isaiah had referred to Christ as the servant of the Lord (Isa. 42:1-4, Isa. 52:13).
James D. Price explained that the real reason for this choice of rendering "servant" in the book of Acts in the NKJV is that the translators thought that in this context Peter was alluding to Isaiah 52:13, which identifies Christ as the Servant of the LORD (False Witness, p. 25).

 

I did not lie in my sound, true observations about your own stated KJV-only assertions. You are wrong to attack my honesty and to accuse me falsely of lying. My evaluation of your overall position is accurate and true.

According to your own posts, it is very obvious that you are even more extreme than the #3 position since you do not consider English translations from the Critical Text to be just "sub-standard and inaccurate." Your term of accusation against them was much more negative and extreme than "sub-standard and inaccurate" since you extremely condemned them as supposedly being "Occult versions." You even seemed to suggest that your very extreme term of accusation applied to the NKJV which is not even translated from the Critical Text.

 

The KJV is the word of God translated into English in the same sense (univocally) as the pre-1611 English Bibles are the word of God translated into English and in the same sense (univocally) as post-1611 English Bibles such as the NKJV are the word of God translated into English.

It is acknowledging the truth to state that the NKJV is the word of God translated into English in the same sense (univocally) as the KJV is the word of God translated into English.

The KJV is both a revision and a translation just as the NKJV is both a revision and a translation. Just as the KJV is a real English Bible translation, the NKJV is also a real English Bible translation.

Preferring one over the other or esteeming one more than the other does not change the fact that the other one remains a real English Bible translation in the same sense (univocally).

The NKJV is not a fake, a false, or a counterfeit English Bible translation.

 

You did not demonstrate any actual circular reasoning on my part. It is KJV-only reasoning that is often circular.

 

Rather than debate whether a particular version correctly translates the phrase "me ginomai" (G3361 + G1096) why not consider what the Greek words probably mean?"Me" means no, or not and "Ginomai" means to be or become so the idea is "not to be or not to become.

God is no where to be found, so a better translation might be "never to be" or "certainly not."

The NET goes with "absolutely not" and the NLT goes with "of course not."