Christ said we are to live by "every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." Matt 4:4
The King James Bible must be God's perfect,
inspired and preserved Word for these end times.
God forbid is a phrase in the King James Version 1611 of the Bible that has been
called into question through the years and recently in my ministry.  The underlying Greek words
are “me genoito”.  The author, Doug Kutilek, below states that it can be literally translated “may it
not be” and so the criticism is then made that neither “God” nor “Forbid” is found in the Greek,
but he himself goes on to state that his English rendering (and most new version renderings) is
“weaker in force than the Greek original”  Thankfully he honestly goes on to note “that ‘genoito’ is
sometimes used … to translate the Hebrew word ‘Amen’.  In Revelation 3:14 ‘Amen’ is given as a
proper capitalized name for God.  So ‘me genoito’ could be amplified as ‘prohibited from
happening by God’  since God is the only all powerful one that can truly forbid believers to
“continue in sin”

Two Greek words ‘me genoito’are excellently translated “God forbid” in 1611
English

(This gentleman is hostile towards KJV only but does honestly share some self
incriminating facts.)
Doug Kutilek (web article linked below) The NT passages, gleaned from Strong’s concordance,
are Luke 20:16; Romans 3:4; 3:6; 3:31; 6:2; 6:15; 7:7; 7:13; 9:14; 11:1; 11:11; I Corinthians 6:15;
Galatians 2:17; 3:21; 6:14.  In every case but the last, the phrase is a self-standing grammatical
unit, expressing strong opposition or rejection of a just mentioned opinion, point of view, or
implied answer to a question.  In Galatians 6:14, it is incorporated into a sentence.
In all 15 references, the Greek phrase is identical: ME GENOITO.  ME is a negative particle
usually used with verbs in the subjunctive, optative or imperative moods.  GENOITO is a rare NT
occurrence of a verb in the optative mood (just 56 cases in all).  It is from the verb GINOMAI,
“to be, become, happen,” etc.  Taken together, the phrase may be literally rendered, “may it not
be,” a phrase weaker in force in English than the Greek original.  
It is of note that GENOITO is sometimes used in the Septuagint, the pre-Christian Greek
translation of the OT, to translate the Hebrew word “amen.”  So, to write GENOITO would be as
if to say “amen!” while in the negative, ME GENOITO is in essence to declare “no amen!”   And
just as “amen!” is a strong affirmation of agreement, so “no amen!” would be a strong expression
of disagreement.  Modern English equivalents would be “not at all!” or “absolutely not!” or
“certainly not!” or “by no means” or “under no circumstances” or “
perish the thought!” or even
the colloquial, “no way, Jose!” (see the New King James Bible, New American Standard Bible, and
New International Version in the passages involved). While all of these modern renderings are
other than strictly literal renderings of ME GENOITO, they at least have the advantage over the
KJV rendering of not introducing the name of God where it is not found in the original.
These comments were found by someone who is not a KJV only advocate   http://www.kjvonly.
org/doug/kutilek_god_forbid.htm
"GENOITO would be as if to say “amen'   genoito  and
genomai  translated Amen sometimes  … of the genealogy        γενέσεως        geneseōs        
1078origin, birth        from ginomai


(This  is another article on the weakness of “may it not be” for the Greek ‘me genoito’)
…..Another example of the power of negation, of "No!" in Paul's writing occurs in an oft repeated
phrase of Paul's "God Forbid!". Paul uses this phrase fourteen times in the New Testament. In
Greek the Phrase is actually me genito and is an expression of strong abhorrence, rejection and
negation. Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon states that the term "me" in Greek denotes the denial of
the thought of a thing, or the denial of a thing according to the judgment, opinion will, purpose
and/ or preference of some one10.
Thus "God forbid!" or me genito! means "Away with such a thought! Don't even think such a
thing! Don't even allow such a thought to arise in your mind or remain in mind!" As used by Paul
it is a total rejection of concepts

(Hear is a gentleman’s clarification that ‘God Forbid’ is formal equivalence rather than the accused
dynamic equivalence)
#3: THE KING JAMES BIBLE HAS SUPERIOR TECHNIQUE. The third reason for defending the
KING JAMES BIBLE is because it has superior technique of translation. This correctly implies that
the various versions and perversions of the Bible have inferior technique of translation.       The
KJV translators used the superior technique of verbal equivalence and formal equivalence--not
dynamic equivalence. The modern versions and perversions have used, to a greater or lesser
degree, the inferior technique of dynamic equivalence and have disdained both verbal and formal
equivalence.
Alleged exceptions.    1. "God Forbid." Some people allege that the KJB translators used dynamic
equivalence in their expression "God forbid." Even if it were the case (and I do not accept that it
is), it is found only fourteen times in the New Testament: Ro. 3:4,6,31; 6:2,15; 7:7,13; 9:14; 11:
1,11; 1 Co. 6:15; Ga. 2:17; 3:21; 6:14. It is a rendering of "mE genoito" which is "may it not be" or
"let it not be." This is perfect 1611 parlance for "God forbid." It was quite literal in 1611. If you
don't believe it, consult the Oxford English Dictionary which gives you the meaning of "God
forbid" in 1611. It is found only seven times in the O.T.: Ge. 44:7,17; Jos. 22:29; 24:16; 1 Sa. 12:
23; 1 Ch. 11:19; Job 27:5. It is a rendering of "chalal" which is "may it be something profane" or
"may it be far from me." Again, "God forbid" is a perfect 1611- parlance for the Hebrew words
used.
2. "God Save the King." Another favorite allegation of dynamic equivalency in the KJV is the
expression "God save the king." Even if it were the case (and I do not accept that it is), it is only
found four times in the O.T.: 1 Sa. 10:24; 2 Sa. 16:16; 2 Ki. 11:12; 2 Ch. 23:11. It means "may the
king live long" or "may the king be preserved or safe." Well, if the king lives long, he is "saved" is
he not? [Editor: The term "salvation" was used in a much broader sense in past centuries.] So why
not let the 1611- parlance of "God save the king" alone? The fact is that such examples are very,
very few in the KJV, whereas they abound in the modern versions and perversions because in
those, the dynamic equivalent technique is the rule rather than the exception.
The King James Bible's verbal and formal equivalence. The KJV basically uses the technique of
verbal equivalence and formal equivalence. Verbal equivalence means that the very words,
wherever possible, are brought over from Hebrew into English and from Greek into English. The
KJV also uses the technique of formal equivalence, that is, the translators brought over, wherever
possible, the very forms of the Hebrew and Greek words into English. They didn't transform the
grammar. They didn't take a noun and make a verb out of it. They brought a verb into a verb and a
noun into a noun wherever possible. They were skilled craftsmen who had a proper concept of
what "translation" really is. It comes from translatus which in turn comes from two Latin words,
trans ("across") and latus which is the past participle of fero ("to carry"). It means to "carry
across" from one place to another, or from one language to another. It does not seek to CHANGE,
or to ADD, or to SUBTRACT!


Comfortless - 3737 ορφανος orphanos or-fan-os’   - of uncertain affinity; TDNT-5:
487,734; adj - AV-comfortless 1, fatherless 1; 2
1)        bereft (of a father, of parents) - 1a) of those
bereft of a teacher, guide, guardian - 1b)
orphaned


(I thought this was interesting to hear Tim the ‘Greek expert’ say words like “absolutely” and
“always”  regarding Greek grammar in obvious exaggeration )
Regarding Tim’s other oft repeated criticism of “God forbid”, (which even his NKJV does too!) I
have already addressed in another article which can be seen here:   http://www.geocities.
com/brandplucked/Godfd.html   (no longer a webaddress)
Again, what “pastor Tim” abundantly demonstrates is typical of all bible correctors. He criticizes
something in the King James Bible, but then merely “uses” some other modern bible version which
in turn does the very thing he criticizes in the KJB. He will then tell us that he doesn’t believe any
translation or specific text is the inspired and infallible word of God, but he himself has to alter,
change and correct both the texts and the translation as he works through it. Tim has set up his
own mind and understanding as the final authority, and consistently agrees with nobody else.
Here is my first response to Tim’s criticism of the King James Bible in Romans chapter six.
Hi Tim. This has got to be one of the silliest allegations of error I have seen so far. Don't you
understand simple English? The King James Bible is correct when it says "we are dead" and "we
are buried". It is NOT talking about an ongoing process - that would be "we are dying" and "we
are being buried".
Not only does the KJB correctly read this way but so also do Tyndale, Coverdale, the Geneva,
Bishops' bible, Wesley's 1755 translation and Lamsa.
A basic knowledge of Greek should have taught you that the
aorist frequently describes the
entrance into a state of being.
Try Goodwins Greek Grammar.
Even your perverted NKJV frequently translates the aorist in this manner. As a small sampling of
examples take a look at Mark 3:21; John 15:7; Mat. 13:15; Luke 24:34 "he IS RISEN" (Hello?!),
John 13:21; John 11:14 Lazarus IS DEAD!!!. These are just a few of numerous examples of
where your NKJV does the same thing. Get a clue and learn a bit more about simple English. Will
Kinney
Pastor Tim responds: Will,...you are mistaken about the aorist tense. The aorist tense says
absolutely NOTHING about results flowing from the action of the verb,
or entrance into a
state.
If the action is of entering a static state, the aorist says nothing about it either way. To
translate it as a static state adds ideas to what the Greek says. Furthermore, it takes away the real
sense of the aorist indicative, which is to describe a past completed event or action.
Regarding your examples where the NKJV does the same thing, I never claimed perfection for the
NKJV. (I do not claim perfection for ANY translation). The NKJV does have a few similar errors.
But they are nothing like the magnitide in the KJV, where I showed 7 such errors in 8 consecutive
verses! My point is simply that the KJV is not perfect. It is far less perfect than the NKJV in the
way it handles verbs. My original question simply asks for an explanation from those who hold
that the KJV is perfect in every detail, when it clearly differs from the underlying Greek TR in
such cases, virtually on every page of the NT. Either the KJV is perfect, or its base (TR) is
perfect. You can't have it both ways because they differ in places that affect theology. Tim
My final answer to “pastor” Tim’s alleged errors.
Pastor Tim says quite emphatically: “The aorist tense says absolutely NOTHING about results
flowing from the action of the verb,
or entrance into a state.
OK. First let’s take a brief look at what other “experts” tell us about the aorist sometimes being
used to refer to the entrance into a state or condition. Then, more importantly, we will take a brief
look at just some of the NUMEROUS examples of where every Bible translation out there,
including the NKJV, RSV, ASV, RV, ESV, NASB, NIV, Holman Standard and NET version do
EXACTLY THE SAME THING Pastor Tim criticizes about the KJB.
Pastor Tim: “The aorist tense says absolutely NOTHING about results flowing from the action of
the verb, OR ENTRANCE INTO A STATE.”
Greek Grammar Beyond the Basic, by Daniel B. Wallace Ingressive (Inceptive, Inchoative) Aorist -
The aorist tense is often used to stress the beginning of an action
OR THE ENTRANCE
INTO A STATE
.” (Caps are mine.)
The Use of the Aorist Tense in Holiness Exegesis by Randy Maddox - “The question which now
arises is how one determines which of these three shades of meaning is to be understood in a
particular passage. Robertson sums it up by saying that we must consider the "total result of word
context and tense." That is, the context and the meaning of the word are the primary categories
(assuming the tense is aorist). Here Burton is helpful when he points out that the ingressive aorist
belongs primarily to verbs which DENOTE THE CONTINUANCE OF A STATE.”
http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/New_Testament_Greek/Text/Smith-Aorist-GTJ.htm
This is a very technical article but it shows how varied and contradictory are the opinions of the
“experts” on the meaning and use of the Greek aorist. What one expert affirms another just as
emphatically denies. It is titled ‘Errant Aorist Interpreters” by Charles R. Smith.
Mr. Smith states:”The thesis of this essay is that exegesis and theology have been plagued by the
tendency of Greek scholars and students to make their field of knowledge more esoteric,
recondite, and occult than is actually the case. There is an innate human inclination to attempt to
impress people with the hidden secrets which only the truly initiated can rightly understand or
explain. Nowhere is this more evident than in the plethora of arcane labels assigned to the aorist
tense in its supposed classifications and significations. Important theological distinctions are often
based on the tense and presented with all the authority that voice or pen can muster. It is here
proposed that the aorist tense (like many other grammatical features) should be "de-mythologized"
and simply recognized for what it is-the standard verbal aspect employed for naming or labeling an
act or event. As such, apart from its indications of time relationships, it is exegetically insignificant:
(1) It does not necessarily refer to past time; (2) It neither identifies nor views action as punctiliar;
(3) It does not indicate once- for-all action; (4) It does not designate the kind of action; (5) It is
not the opposite of a present, imperfect, or perfect; (6) It does not occur in classes or kinds; and,
(7) It may describe any action or event.”  
                                    Mr. Smith continues with these Biblical examples: “Even in the
indicative, time is not intrinsic to the aorist tense.The following are examples of biblical texts
which employ aorist indicatives in ways that do not designate past events--they are essentially
timeless. "In you I am well pleased" - Mark 1:11). "Now is the Son of Man glorified"- John 13:31).
"In this is my Father glorified" - John 15:8). "Wisdom is justified by all her children" - Luke 7:35)."
The grass withers" - I Pet 1:24). All of these examples appear to be timeless in their connotations
and they adequately demonstrate that the aorist, even in its indicative forms, need not refer to past
time.”
Goodwin’s Greek Grammar, 1892 page 270 - #1260 “The aorist of verbs which denote a state or
condition MAY EXPRESS THE ENTRANCE INTO THAT STATE OR CONDITION.”
A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament by Dana and Mantey on page 196 says
regarding the Ingressive Aorist - “The action signified by the aorist may be contemplated in its
beginning. This use is COMMONLY EMPLOYED with verbs which signify a state or condition,
and DENOTE ENTRANCE INTO THAT STATE OR CONDITION.”
Brief Greek Syntax by Louis Bevier, American Book Company 1903 section 145 says: “Ingressive
aorist - the aorist of verbs expressing a condition may denote ENTRANCE INTO THAT STATE
OR CONDITION.”
Pastor Tim - “The aorist tense says absolutely NOTHING about results flowing from the action of
the verb, OR ENTRANCE INTO A STATE.”
Now, to close out this little study, let’s take a look at just a few of the numerous examples of
where every single Bible translator out there frequently does the very thing “pastor” Tim criticizes
about the King James Bible.
Regarding the verses in Romans 6, let’s just take the first example found in Romans 6:2 and see
what other Bible translations have done. The example in Romans 6:2 is of the exact same nature as
the ones found in verses 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9, so if we knock the one down we knock them all down.
Not only does the King James Bible correctly state: “How shall we that ARE DEAD to sin, live any
longer therein?”, but so also do the following English and foreign language bibles: Wycliffe 1395,
Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, John Wesley’s 1755
translation, Webster’s 1833 translation, Lamsa’s 1933 translation of the Syriac, the Douay-Rheims
1950, the KJV 21st century Version 1994, and the Third Millenium Bible 1998.
There are a few foreign language bibles I can read and among those that read exactly like the King
James Bible are the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, the Reina Valera 1909 “somos muertos al
pecado”, the French Martin 1755 “sommes morts au péché”, the French Louis Segond 1910, the
French Ostervald 1998, the International Bible Society’s La Bible du Semeur 1999 (the same
people who put out the NIV), the Albanian New Testament (a native born Albanian showed me
this one), the Italian Riveduta 1927, and the New Diodati 1991 “noi che siamo morti al peccato”.
The Greek aorist can be translated in a wide variety of ways. Sometimes a simple past is called
for, like “he died” and yet many other times the aorist describes the entrance into a state or
condition. Here are just a few of the many examples found in ALL Bible translations put out by
people who know just as much Greek speak as our dear “pastor” Tim.
John 7:26 “DO the rulers KNOW indeed that this is the very Christ?”. They came to this
knowledge and they obviously still know it. See RV, ASV, NASB, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, ESV,
Holman and NET.
John 13:31 “Now IS the Son of man GLORIFIED” - See RV, ASV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, ESV,
NKJV, NIV, Holman and NET.
John 11:14 “Lazarus IS DEAD.” See RV, ASV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NIV, NKJV, Holman
Standard, and others.
Romans 3:27 "Where is boasting then? IT IS EXCLUDED." - RV, ASV, NASB, NIV, RSV, NRSV,
ESV, NET, NKJV and Holman Standard.
2 Timothy 2:19 "the Lord KNOWETH them that are his." - RV, ASV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, ESV,
NIV, NKJV, NET and Holman Standard.
1 Corinthians 15:54 “Death IS SWALLOWED UP in victory” See RV, ASV, RSV, ESV, NASB,
NKJV.
Romans 13:12 “The night IS far SPENT” - See RV, ASV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, ESV,
Holman Standard.
These are just a few of the dozens of places in the New Testament where all the bible translators,
who likewise have gone to seminary and studied the Greek just like “pastor” Tim, have seen that
the Greek aorist sometimes describes the entrance into a state of being or condition which
continues into the present.
Pastor Tim has proven nothing in the way of translational errors in the King James Bible. The only
thing he has clearly demonstrated is that once a person sets up their own mind and understanding
as their final authority, they become hardened in pride and end up with no bible in any language
that they consider to be the complete, infallible and 100% true word of God. They both lose the
Book themselves and steal it from their flock.
The King James Bible is always right. It is God’s Book to the nations and will be till our Lord
Jesus Christ comes again for His people.
Will Kinney
Click Below!
Lighthouse Baptist Church
323 W. Boulevard Lewistown MT 59457
Robert Snyder, Pastor/ Trustee   
 
(406) 535-2600    (406 350-1031)  Please click here to email me