It seems to me that some of the notation in the mentioned textbook is implicit. Let's start with the phase space where coordinates are $(q,p)$. We have a canonical transformation to coordinates $(q',p')$. A point in the phase space will be denoted by $A$, and some other point by $B$.
$\quad \bullet\quad$ In the passive viewpoint, all quantities at a point $A$ have the same value in all coordinate systems, but possibly their functional dependence changes: $$f(q,p)\Big|_{A} = f'(q',p')\Big|_{A}$$
where I deliberately put a dash to the function $f$ to denote that the form of the function might change.
$\quad \bullet\quad$ In the active viewpoint, we "move" our points, say $A \to B$, and we want to know how our functions change. Our original function was (denoting by $q_{A}$ the coordinates of the point $A$ and similarly for the momentum
$$f(q_A,p_{A})$$
$\quad \bullet\quad$ The change in our functions then corresponds to
$$f(q_A,p_{A}) \to f(q_B,p_{B})$$
Note how this time in the right hand side $f$ does not have the dash. One important point is that from the knowledge of the passive transformation we can say something about the active transformation - the coordinates of the point $B$ in the old coordinate system $(q,p)$ are the same as the coordinates of the point $A$ in the new coordinate system $(q',p')$
Now the textbook says that we are interested in the change of our functions under an active transformation, and we denote this change by $\partial$.
$$\partial f = f(q_B,p_{B}) - f(q_A,p_{A})$$
However, we cannot say at which point $\partial f$ is evaluated - is it at the point $A$ or at the point $B$?
To make this consistent, we must actually obtain a result that can be evaluated at a single point, so, as implicitly done in Goldstein, let's take this point to be $B$. This means that implicitly we actually have
$$\partial f = \lim_{A\to B} \left(f(q_B,p_{B}) - f(q_A,p_{A})\right)$$
Technically, we must now evaluate $f(q_A, p_A)$ in terms of quantities that exist at the point $B$. We use our known relation $$f(q_A,p_{A}) = f'(q'_A,p'_A)$$ and we use our trick mentioned above - the coordinates of the point $B$ in the old coordinate system $(q,p)$ are the same as the coordinates of the point $A$ in the new coordinate system $(q',p')$ $\Rightarrow q'_A = q_B$, etc.
This actually means that
$$f'(q'_A,p'_A) = f'(q_B,p_B)$$
And we have
$$\partial f = \lim_{A\to B} \left(f(q_B,p_{B}) - f(q_A,p_{A})\right) = f(q_B,p_{B}) - f'(q_B,p_{B})$$
This is the meaning of "...where of course A and B will be infinitesimally close." in Goldstein under eq. (9.102). The point of it all is to apply this to examine the change in the Hamiltonian, now using our consistent definition
$$\partial H = H(q_B, p_B) - H'(q_B, p_B)$$
And the good thing is, we know from earlier how to use the passive transformation properties, and also how to transform the Hamiltonian to a new pair of canonical variables:
\begin{equation}
H(q_A,p_A) = H'(q'_A,p'_A) = H'(q_B, p_B) = K(q_B, p_B) = H(q_B, p_B) + \frac{\partial F}{\partial t}
\end{equation}
to get
$$\partial H = H(q_B, p_B) - H(q_A,p_A) - \frac{\partial F}{\partial t}$$