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

[Alan Gross]

Did Erasmus’ Greek manuscripts have any of the readings
that he added to his Greek text by translating
from an edition of the Latin Vulgate of Jerome?

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

 

[Alan Gross]

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.

 

[Alan Gross]

Doug Kutilek asserted:
"The fact that all textus receptus editions of Stephanus, Beza, et al.
read with Erasmus shows that their texts were more or less
slavish reprints of Erasmus' text and not independently compiled editions,

for had they been edited independently of Erasmus,
they would surely have followed the Greek manuscripts here
and read 'tree of life'"
(Westcott & Hort vs. Textus Receptus, p. 3).

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".
...

Are textual differences involving whole verses
or entire clauses very slight, minor, meaningless, and insignificant?

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.

Scrivener noted that his
“own collation represents Stephen’s first edition
as differing from his third in 797 places, of which 372
only are real various readings, the rest relating to accents,
or being mere errata” (Plain Introduction, II, p. 190, footnote 3).

...

There are more than a few variants in the Greek NT manuscripts
underlying the varying Received Text editions,
and they are not often noted in the margin of the KJV.

Is this supposed to be significant to anyone?

There were also textual conjectures introduced into the varying TR editions
along with some errors introduced by the printers.

And your point is what?

 

[Logos1560]

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)

Hoskier is likely mistaken since Erasmus himself is said to have said that he used only one single manuscript of the book of Revelation. The single manuscript that matches his Greek text with the changes he introduced from an edition of Jerome's Latin Vulgate is Codex 1.

Concerning manuscript 1’ [min. 2814], Robert Waltz wrote: “Noteworthy primarily as the single Greek manuscript used by Erasmus to prepare the Apocalypse of his 1516 New Testament” (Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism, p. 1037). Isbon Beckwith wrote: “Cursive no. 1, of the 12th or 13th century containing the Apocalypse, with the commentary of Andreas, is of particular interest, since it was the only Greek Ms. which Erasmus had for the Apocalypse in his first edition of the Greek Testament (1516)“ (Apocalypse of John, p. 412). John David Michaelis as translated by Herbert Marsh noted: “Erasmus relates in his defence adversus Stunicam, that he used only one single manuscript of the Revelation for his edition of the New Testament” (Introduction to the NT, Vol. II, p. 312). Thomas Holland wrote: “The manuscript Codex 1r used by Desiderius Erasmus in the production of his Greek New Testament is missing the last six verses of Revelation chapter twenty-two” (Crowned With Glory, p. 168). James Edward Snapp wrote: “Erasmus, in order to finish the first edition of his compilation, used Valla’s notes and a Latin Vulgate text to reconstruct the Greek text of verses 16-21” (NT Textual Analysis, p. 140). Jan Krans maintained that this manuscript had some other omissions in its text, noting: “Some striking examples, by no means exhaustive, of omissions in min. 2814 that are restored by Erasmus” on the basis of the Latin Vulgate include phrases or clauses at Revelation 2:2, 2:17, 2:20, 3:12, 6:11, 22:11 (Beyond What is Written, p. 54, footnote 7). This manuscript includes the commentary of Andreas of Caesarea in Cappadocia. The Greek text of this manuscript is sometimes described as the “Andreas text” because the manuscripts with Andreas’s commentary have some readings said to characterize or distinguish them from typical Byzantine Greek manuscripts. In a new translation and his commentary on the book of Revelation, Craig Koester distinguished between the text used in the commentary by Andreas and the Byzantine text (p. 149). Josef Schmid classified the Andreas text as one of the four main text types or families of text for the Apocalypse. Edward Hutton identified or associated “the Andreas text with the great Western family” (Atlas of Textual Criticism, p. 47).

At times in this worn manuscript of the book of Revelation used by Erasmus and his copyist, it has been said that it was difficult to distinguish the commentary from the text. Henry Alford observed: “The text in the MS. is mixed up with the commentary of Andreas” (Greek Testament, Vol. 4, p. 263, footnote 8). In this manuscript, Thomas J. Conant noted: “The text and commentary alternate, without any break in the line” (Baptist Quarterly, April, 1870, p. 135). James R. White suggested that Erasmus “had an unknown copyist make a fresh copy and returned the original to Reuchlin” (King James Only, second edition, p. 91). Although some errors made by that copyist in his copying may have been corrected in later printed editions of the TR, W. Edward Glenny maintained that “the copyist made several errors that are still found in the TR text published today” (Beacham, One Bible Only, p. 82). In an edition of the KJV with commentary as edited by F. C. Cook and printed in 1881, William Lee in his introduction to the book of Revelation asserted “the sacred text is here mixed up with the commentary of Andreas,” and he noted: “Owing to this cause, Erasmus omitted, from his first three editions, chapter 21:26” (Vol. IV, p. 462). At Revelation 21:24, William Lee claimed that “the copyist has imported into the text the words of the commentary, viz. ’of them which are saved’” (Ibid.). Thomas Conant maintained that the words “of them which are saved” (Rev. 21:24) “rests solely on a mistake by the transcriber, who confounded the commentary of Andreas with the words of the sacred writer” (Baptist Quarterly, Vol. IV, April, 1870, p. 136). Thomas Conant suggested that “the transcriber accidentally misplaced the signs for the commencement of the text and of the commentary (as other copies of the commentary show), and thus included in the text the words, ‘of them that are saved,‘ which belong to the commentary on the preceding verse” (pp. 135-136).

In the book of Revelation, Robert Waltz asserted that the Textus Receptus has “a handful” of readings “derived from the [Andreas] commentary itself” (Encyclopedia, p. 438). In his commentary on the book of Numbers, Rod Mattoon asserted: “Some of the commentary [by Andreas] found its way into Erasmus’ text and into the KJV” (Treasures from Numbers, p. 525). John Nordstrom maintained that Erasmus acknowledged in his annotations that he had translated the last six verses of Revelation 22 from the Latin Vulgate, but that the printer did not choose to print that note in the printed edition. John Nordstrom asserted: “This omission can be verified by placing side-by-side Erasmus’ hand-copied notes with the actual printed copy” (Strained by Blood, p. 74). Jan Krans claimed that Erasmus wrote in his annotation on Revelation 22:20 the following as translated into English: “However, at the end of this book, I found some words in our versions which were lacking in the Greek copies, but we added them from the Latin” (Beyond What is Written, p. 55-56, footnote 11). Jan Krans noted that Erasmus later “ordered the proofreaders of his second edition to supply the final words of Revelation from the Aldine edition of the Greek Bible” (p. 57). Krans suggested that “it seems Erasmus never realized that the text of the New Testament in the Aldine edition is derived from his own first edition” (p. 57, footnote 16). Samuel Tregelles asserted: “Erasmus has often been blamed for using the Aldine reprint of his own first edition as if it were a distinct authority. But it appears from Erasmus’s own words, that he was not aware that such was the case” (Account of the Printed Text, p. 27).

 

[Alan Gross]

Incorrect.

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.

The truth remains that the Hebrew name for God
or Greek name for God is not in the KJV's underlying texts
in those places.

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).
...

 

[Alan Gross]

"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]).

 

[Logos1560]

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

You seem to be describing you yourself and KJV-only advocates.

 

[Logos1560]

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

You again bear false witness in disobedience to a command of God.

Exodus 20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
Matthew 19:18c Thou shalt not bear false witness
Mark 10:19b Do not bear false witness

I am not a "virulent critic" of the KJV as you falsely allege.

Why do you dodge the truth that exposing, refuting, or criticizing human, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning/teaching is not at all being a critic of the KJV as what it actually is?

I accept and believe the KJV as what it actually is.

Perhaps you are being the critic of the KJV by trying to make claims for it that are not true and that are not taught in Scripture.

 

[Logos1560]

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

You fail to prove your accusations to be true. You fail to display a love for the truth since you do not correct your false accusations.

Doug Kutilek is a Bible believer. He has been a Bible college teacher and missionary many years. I am not sure of the names of all the specific courses that he has taught and may now still teach. He teaches pastors at a Bible college or seminary in another country. He likely teaches New Testament Greek, Bible doctrine, etc.

 

[Logos1560]

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

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

Perhaps you should try to teach you yourself something since you seem to be unwilling to learn.

Your misleading and unjust allegations against the NKJV clearly demonstrate that you do not approach the NKJV with the same attitude with which you would approach the Geneva Bible or especially how you approach the KJV. You seem to approach the NKJV as a virulent Bible critic instead as a serious, seeking, believing reader of a Bible translation.

Evidently, you come to inspect a mirror [the NKJV] (perhaps using a magnifying glass) instead of coming to see yourself in this mirror of the Scriptures translated into present-day English in the NKJV. Do you only look inconsistently and critically at this mirror and refuse to look in it? Would you read the NKJV as the word of God translated into English and with a willingness to obey and apply the scriptural truths in its verses to your own life? Because you may come to the NKJV solely as a critic or because you may read against it, you may be unable to see the truth that it would belong in the same family of Bible translations as the Geneva Bible and the KJV.

You do not respect, accept, or believe the NKJV as a good Bible translation which can communicate to you the words of God in present-day English. Could you suppose that you see errors in the NKJV because you had already assumed that they are there or because you have been told that they were there as seen in the accusations that you repeated from Gail Riplinger? Perhaps your own KJV-only bias could prevent you from being able to see the places where the Geneva Bible and the NKJV more accurately translate the same underlying original-language texts of Scripture than the KJV does. Could rejection of consistent truth and actual facts keep you from being able to see that the NKJV would be clearly a better overall English translation than the Geneva Bible which KJV-only advocates have praised?

You will inconsistently accuse others of being critics while you yourself may act as a subjective, intemperate, extreme, or virulent critic of English Bible translations such as the NKJV. You may be unintentionally revealing that you are guilty of what you accuse others.

 

[Alan Gross]

Why do you dodge the truth that exposing, refuting, or criticizing human, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning/teaching

is not at all being a critic of the KJV as what it actually is?

Exodus 20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
Matthew 19:18c Thou shalt not bear false witness
Mark 10:19b Do not bear false witness

I am not a "virulent critic" of the KJV as you falsely allege.

You will inconsistently accuse others

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.
...

I accept and believe the KJV as what it actually is.

Doug Kutilek is a Bible believer.

"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

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.

(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.)

 

[Alan Gross]

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?

You fail to prove your accusations to be true. You fail to display a love for the truth since you do not correct your false accusations.

Beauty is in the Eye of the Beholder.

Perhaps you are being the critic of the KJV by trying to make claims for it that are not true and that are not taught in Scripture.

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"

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

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.

 

[JonC]

This is something I was thinking about.

Is it O.K., for me to think this?

And for me to want to ask this question?

Why do you think that;
by sowing the acceptance of men changing God's Word,
in the instances of them changing the meaning
and definitions of His Words in the Bible

(and thereby, for example, attempting to disannul
and make void and ineffectual

His instructions on How to Worship Him,
into a practically unknowable, indiscernible
series of words written that mean nothing)

has reaped a harvest
of a Lot of Things being Changed and Omitted?

What could possibly go wrong?

Is the Bible still in pretty good shape after all this?

After all, there is a practical universal acknowledgment
and acceptance given to these heavily altered
and edited versions of the Bible,

which were the result of initiating the highly suspect intention
of translating new copies of the Bible,
"as if it were any other book",

using highly suspect original text manuscripts,

by highly suspect translators,

and employing highly suspect philosophies of translation,

and methods of determining and settling changes in the wording,

with the resulting end product being,
what Helena Petrovna Blavatsky,
the editor of,

LUCIFER
A Theosophical Magazine,

(DESIGNED TO “BRING TO LIGHT
THE HIDDEN THINGS OF DARKNESS.”

EDITED BY
H. P. BLAVATSKY AND MABEL COLLINS)

was very happy to say about it, that we finally had,
"the very Word of God, in truth"?

I didn't say they didn't have the Word of God in them,

I said that:
Helena Blavatsky said they were, "the very Word of God, in truth".

What could go wrong?

Is everything still O.K., between us and God?

What does He think about all of this?

Has anyone asked Him?

Have you?

That doesn't seem like the worst idea in the world.

Acknowledging, and Consulting,
and Invoking God's participation and involvement
in the whole scheme of things.

In prayer.

I just haven't seen much indication of that taking place
or the inclination to consider it, or Him.

It's His Word, isn't it?

I'd say that God is greater than man. His Word transcends translation.

The translators of the KJV may have chosen some words poorly, or by virtue of the materials at hand utilized poor translation practices, but they did not actively change God's Word.

It is a mistake to condemn the KJV simply because some of their translation choices do not adequately reflect the source language.

The KJV is just as much the Word of God as other translations (like the NASB, the NIV, and the ESV).

While it is true that the KJV no longer serves its purpose to provide a translation in the English vernacular, it remains a beautiful translation of Scripture.

So to answer the OP - The KJV has not sown changes in God's Word. It may not be the best translation today, but it is still just as much God's Word as other translations.

 

[Alan Gross]

The translators of the KJV may have chosen some words poorly

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

Those burning in Hell hotter than Hitler?

 

[Logos1560]

The translators of the KJV are called out

The same measures/standards are applied soundly to the KJV translators that are applied to other Bible translators. That is in agreement with clear scriptural truths.

 

[Logos1560]

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

Your bogus accusation is not true so you again bear false witness in disobedience to scripture. It seems that you often act as a false accuser of the brethren [believers].

I have made many positive assertions concerning the KJV. As a believer, I have read the KJV over 50 years, accepting and believing it to be what it actually is. I esteem the KJV highly as being a good overall English Bible translation. I have not condemned anyone for reading and accepting the KJV as what it actually is as I still do.

Many times, I have repeated this true statement. 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. I advocate the same view of Bible translations that the early English Bible translators including the KJV translators advocated.

You continue to try to misrepresent, distort, and twist my sound, scripturally-based evaluations of non-true, non-scriptural, false KJV-only teaching as being against the KJV when they are not. Pointing out non-true claims being made for the KJV is not being against the KJV.

Applying the same exact measures/standards to the KJV that KJV-only advocates inconsistently and unjustly apply to other English Bibles would not be an attack on the KJV as it is necessary for the true purpose of exposing the use of double standards or divers measures in misleading KJV-only accusations against other English Bibles.

 

[JonC]

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

Those burning in Hell hotter than Hitler?

Not called out at all. That's my point.

The translators of the KJV did their best given what was avaliable to them. They made some unfortunate choices, but the KJV translators were not sowing changes into God's Word (even though, admittedly, tradition has to an extent).

The OP is wrong to condemn the KJV for its word choices just as it would be wrong to condemn any other legitimate translation for their word choices.

And it was wrong for those who opposed the KJV when it was new for changing from the previous English translation.

 

[JonC]

Some people seem to forget that we had an English translation of the Bible about a century before the Church of England gave us the King James translation.

The KJV was different in that the translators chose different words. The KJV was different in that it was designed to support the English monarchy and the Church of England.

But the KJV translators were not "sowing changes" in the English translation that God had provided for English speaking people for a century before the KJV was written.

The KJV was simply a different translation from the previous English translation.

 

[Logos1560]

The KJV was different in that the translators chose different words. The KJV was different in that it was designed to support the English monarchy and the Church of England.

Yes, some changes introduced in the KJV do seem to have been intended to support Church of England doctrinal views and to support the divine right of kings view of King James.

The third rule for the making of the KJV was that "the old ecclesiastical words to be kept; as the word church, not to be translated congregation, etc." After listing this third rule, Adam Nicolson commented: “Bancroft, and almost certainly the king, was not prepared to give any ground in the language of the translation to the Presbyterians” (God’s Secretaries, p. 75). David Daiches noted that the third rule was "directed against the Puritan tendency to abandon the traditional terms which had associations with Catholic ritual and is an interesting reflection of the essentially Anglican nature of A.V." (The KJV of the English Bible, p. 169). John Nordstrom asserted that the third rule “reveals Bancroft’s Anglicanism more than any other and shows that Bancroft wanted to guide the new revision back to a high-church position, taking away any congregational power” (Stained with Blood, p. 169). Was this third rule also a possible attempt to satisfy and answer the written objections of Roman Catholics Sir Thomas More and Gregory Martin concerning earlier English translations? David Norton suggested that “following More and Martin, ‘the old ecclesiastical words [are] to be kept, viz. the word ‘Church’ not to be translated ‘congregation’” (History, p. 620. In his introduction to Tyndale’s New Testament, David Daniell noted: “Of the words to which Sir Thomas More took exception so bitterly, the most objectionable was ‘congregation’ instead of ‘church’ for ekklesia” (p. xxi). Frederick Grant summarized the rules as follows: "It was to be a conservative revision, in the slow, deep, main current of Anglican orthodoxy, loyal to the church fathers, sound in scholarship, free to get light and learning from any source; and it was not to be accompanied by controversial notes on theological interpretation of the kind which had disfigured some earlier versions" (Translating the Bible, pp. 75-76). Charles Pastoor and Galen Johnson maintained that King James I in effect directed “that the translation adopt language supportive of episcopacy” (Historical Dictionary, p. 174). John Beard asserted that “the intense Episcopalianism of the Bishops’ Bible was transfused into that of James” (A Revised English Bible, p. 102). Henry Jessey, a Baptist Bible scholar and pastor in the 1600's, complained about the KJV for its episcopacy and said that a prelate or bishop "who was supervisor of the present translation, altered it in fourteen places to make it speak the language of prelacy" (Williams, Common English Version, p. 53). Adam Nicolson wrote: “Bancroft, and almost certainly the king, was not prepared to give any ground in the language of the translation to the Presbyterians” (God’s Secretaries, p. 75).

Among those words called "ecclesiastical words" which King James forbade to be translated into English, changed, or updated, the words "baptism" and "baptize" could perhaps be included. In fact, the preface to the 1611 KJV clearly indicated that “baptism” was considered to be one of the “old ecclesiastical words’ that the translators were ordered to keep.

Nicholas Perrin maintained that King James I wanted a new Bible “for certain political and ecclesiastical reasons” (Lost in Transmission, pp. 171-172). Tim Fellure claimed: “The king authorized the new translation for one reason only: he felt threatened by the popular version of the day” (Neither Jot nor Tittle, p. 170). Alister McGrath observed: "The ultimate grounds for James's hostility toward the Geneva Bible was the challenge its marginal notes posed to his passionate belief in the doctrine of the 'divine right of kings'" (In the Beginning, p. 141). Bernard Levinson and Joshua Berman suggested that the marginal notes in the Geneva Bible “contained some interpretations that were sympathetic to the right of the oppressed to resist a tyrant, and that raised questions about ‘the divine right of kings’” (KJB at 400, p. 4). Vishal Mangalwadi noted that King James I “upheld the doctrine of the divine right of kings, which the Geneva Bible challenged” (Book That Made Your World, p. 155). Jon Pahl asserted that “James wanted a Bible free of the antimonarchical glosses of the Geneva Bible of 1560” (Burke, KJV at 400, p. 416). In his introduction to the facsimile edition of the 1599 Geneva Bible, Michael Brown pointed out: "King James did not encourage a translation of the Bible in order to enlighten the common people: his sole intent was to deny them the marginal notes of the Geneva Bible" (p. i). Gustavus Paine also noted: "James's real reason for objecting to the Geneva Bible was rooted in his need to feel secure on his throne. Some of the marginal notes in the Geneva version had wording which disturbed him: they seemed to scoff at kings. If the Bible threatened him, it must be changed. Away with all marginal notes!" (Men Behind the KJV, p. 10).

Alister McGrath claimed that "the Geneva notes regularly use the word 'tyrant' to refer to kings; the King James Bible never uses this word" (In the Beginning, p. 143). Allison Jack maintained that “’kings’ were sometimes referred to as ‘tyrants’ in the notes of the Geneva Bible” and suggested that “such anti-monarchy leanings were to be avoided” in the KJV (Bible and Literature, p. 3). The 1611 KJV did have the word “tyrant” in the Apocrypha [Wisdom of Solomon 12:14, 2 Maccabees 4:25, 7:27]. The pre-1611 English Bibles sometimes had the strong word "tyrant" or the word “tyranny” in the text of some verses which are removed and toned down in the KJV's OT.

 

[Logos1560]

Baptist pastor Glenn Conjurske observed: "While I professed that I did not interpret the Bible, but merely believed it, the fact was, that I interpreted it as much as my neighbors did" (Olde Paths and Ancient Landmarks, August, 1998, p. 173).

Glenn Conjurske noted: "But what harm was there in this? Not a little harm, surely, for it led me to regard my opponents' position as their own interpretation, while I held my own position to be the very word of God. Such a position naturally fosters pride" (p. 173).

Glenn Conjurske wrote: "Any position which claims infallibility confirms men in their errors" (p. 173).

Glenn Conjurske noted: "The King James Only man can never be delivered from his errors, so long as he arrogates to himself, as a 'covenant-keeping Christian' (a Baptist, that is), 'the infallible teaching of the Holy Ghost' (as William Van Kleeck does)" (p. 174).

Glenn Conjurske asserted: "No doubt the teaching of the Holy Ghost is infallible, but my apprehension of it is not infallible, whether I am a 'Bible believer' or a 'covenant-keeping Christian' or not" (p. 174).