Why the persistent evasion?

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Scott J, Feb 10, 2004.

  1. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    From a recently closed thread:
    My question is: Why do KJVO's (and you too QS since you aren't KJVO) spend so much effort evading simple requests? If requested, I would be glad to lay out my case as to why both the KJV and the NASB are the Word of God. I have no apprehensions about doing it and would gladly change my opinion if proven wrong.

    QS, Why do you avoid laying out your factual (biblical and/or historical) case for proving that the NASB is not God's Word while the KJV is? If it can't stand the scrutiny of simple people like us then by what merit do you assert it as absolute truth and behave contentiously with those who disagree?
     
  2. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Scott - Could you list [bwhat makes[/b] a particular translation (we will use English as an example) a "real Bible" and worthy of acceptance?

    It might help the "only" proponents to see the error of thinking only ONE is true and all others false.
     
  3. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    OK, as best as I can.

    First, a "real Bible" should be derived from an original language text that is based on a reasonable, critical evaluation of available evidence. The production of the text should be based on rules that are consistently applied. The TR is given the benefit of the doubt as a representative of the Byzantine family/traditional texts even though Erasmus' exact methods of criticism aren't known. It appears that he gave some credence to RCC traditions and the Latin Vulgate.

    Second, a "real Bible" should be faithful to the text from which it was derived. It should use words that accurately convey the original meaning with respect to definition and context. It should be as consistent as possible in translating the same word. My personal belief is that DE should be kept to an absolute minimum and that paraphrases should not be considered "Bibles" on the same level with more strict translations.

    Third, the revelation communicated by the original language texts should not be obscured by grammar nor vocabulary. Although not a definitive method, a translation should be checked against other translations for doctrinal consistency. Any discrepancy should be studied thoroughly before being accepted or rejected.

    Fourth, the translation should be made objectively without preconceived doctrinal/philosophical bias. For instance: NWT, TNIV, NRSV. Changes to the meaning of the text should be avoided at all costs.
     
  4. Dan Todd

    Dan Todd
    Expand Collapse
    Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2003
    Messages:
    14,452
    Likes Received:
    0
    Reasonable request from Dr. Bob!

    Good answer from Scott J!

    Dan
     
  5. russell55

    russell55
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2002
    Messages:
    2,424
    Likes Received:
    0
    And still no answer to Scott's question....
     
  6. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Scott, I'm afraid this thread will simply die with your question unanswered by any KJVO. I think everyone who's posted in this thread knows why. The CORRECT answer applies a tire tool to the head of the KJVO myth.

    I plan to keep asking similar questions myself. How about you others who have responded in this thread?
     
  7. Precepts

    Precepts
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    Now you must define your opinion to this third reason of the use of grammar and vocabulary.

    Just for a "forinstance": "concupiscence" defines the temptation prior to the act of Lot's two daughters. The use of the word "incest" applies, but does not completely describe the sin as it does not indictae the initaitor of the action. "Incest" is part of the definiton of "concupiscence" when the parent word is looked upon as a blanket statement, but then what word defines the action?

    Sure the act was "incest", but "concupiscence" is the root of incest.

    So, tell me guys, what does the nas"v" call what happened with Lot and his two daughter? "Incest"?, yes, but it is the reason of concupiscense.

    So the opinion of which use of vocabulary really doesn't have all that much presidence over a version, but the completion by definition is found by using the correct word.

    So in conclusion; concupiscence covers it, incest is a right picture, but has too much room for mistaken ideas, for instance, "incest" is almost always instigated by the parent, but in the case of Lot's two daughters, concupiscence is better and more accurate to prevent confusion. Lot didn't go after his daughters, they went after him because of concupiscence.

    av 1611 kjb [​IMG]

    [If poster demeans English translations by NOT capitalizing them, please be consistent with all English translations.]

    [ February 12, 2004, 04:13 PM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob Griffin ]
     
  8. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    QS,

    People don't even know what concupiscence means. That in and of itself is a good reason not to use the KJV.

    You talk about Lot's daughters but not even the KJV uses the word concupiscence to describe that.

    You say So, tell me guys, what does the nas"v" call what happened with Lot and his two daughter? "Incest"?, but that flatly not true. The NAU uses the word "incest" one time in Lev 20:12 and it has nothing to do with Lot or his daughters.

    Once again, you are talking about something you don't know anything about.
     
  9. Precepts

    Precepts
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    I see you didn't answer the question, just your usual mumbo-jumbo, trying to make others think you're IT.

    If I don't know what a word means, I look it up. Concupiscence is still in the dictionary you know. Also it gives a lot better understanding to the several situations of lust and it's devices, as well as it's outcome being sin. It's sin in it's conception.

    What word would you use to describe the account of Genesis 19, again?

    Now don't try and give us a word that doesn't fall under the definition of concupiscence, uh, you can't! and be truthful that is.

    I know what I'm talking about, obviously you don't.
     
  10. russell55

    russell55
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2002
    Messages:
    2,424
    Likes Received:
    0
    QS,

    I don't understand what this little rabbit trail about Lot and his drs has to do with answering the question Scott posed in the opening post....

    Just in case you forgot, the question is this:

    "Why do you avoid laying out your factual (biblical and/or historical) case for proving that the NASB is not God's Word while the KJV is?"
     
  11. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    The word “concupiscence” is used only three times in the KJV:

    Rom 7:8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. KJV

    Rom 7:8. But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin {is} dead. NASB 1995 Update

    Col 3:5 Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry: KJV

    Col 3:5. Therefore consider the members of your earthly body as dead to immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed, which amounts to idolatry. NASB 1995 Update

    1Th 4:5 Not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles which know not God: KJV

    1Th 4:5. not in lustful passion, like the Gentiles who do not know God; NASB 1995 Update

    The word “incest” is used only one time in the NASB 1995 Update:

    Lev. 20:12. 'If {there is} a man who lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death; they have committed incest, their bloodguiltiness is upon them. NASB 1995 Update

    Lev 20:12 And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them. KJV


    Notice especially Lev. 20:12. The NASB uses the word “incest;” the KJV uses the phrase “wrought confusion.” From my point of view, the KJV, especially in the Old Testament, wroughteth a whole lot of confusion. :(
     
  12. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    I believe that he is trying to do so. He doesn’t have very much to work with.
     
  13. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    \There was no mumbo jumbo in my post. I clearly showed you were inaccurate. I clearly showed that you had no case for your post.

    In one word, it was incest. It was not limited to concupiscence. There is no reason to use a word that people don't konw. Why confuse the word of God? Call it incest. Or just do what hte Hebrew does and say the "had sex with their father."

    Why would I? Not even the KJV uses concupiscence to describe this and God certainly didn't. Why would you? And why would you want me to? Why would you change what God said in order ot use a big word that is not in the text.

    Concupiscence is a strong sexual desire. That is not all that happened. That is a very limited part of what happened, if it happened at all. Lot's daughters weren't driven by sexual desire (concupiscence); they were driven by the desire for sons.

    Therefore, now that we actually look at it, concupiscence is a very inadequate word; it is even wrong. It does not translate any word in the text.

    No you don't. We just showed that.
     
  14. Precepts

    Precepts
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    You can't even discuss the use of the word w/o perverting it. You try to make others think sexual, uh, maligned sexual desire, is not even in the context with their desire to have children, but I guess that would hold the hand of your inhumane attirbutes.

    We have four children through sexual desire, but godly sexual desire, not concupiscencient desire, uh, that which falls under the guide lines of holy matrimony, not perverted passion.

    Yeah, Craig. I do have little to work with, but little is much when God is in it. :D

    Oh, and thanks for helping me make my case. ;)
     
  15. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    QS, Can you please clarify what you're trying to prove? I don't see where the subject you have brought up in any way answers my question.

    Moreover, I still haven't figured out what in the world you are talking about. In the passage dealing with Lot and his daughters, the KJV does not use "concupiscence" nor does the NASB use "incest".

    I actually agree that concupiscence is a very powerful word (if it is accurate to the word it is translating). It is a pity that it has fallen out of usage.... but the fact is that it has.... and another fact is that it is not the original word used by God... and another fact is that it is not a word chosen by God in 1611.

    So, in analyzing your argument so far, you haven't posted anything relevant to proving anything except that maybe the NASB uses a different (possibly even more accurate word) than the KJV.

    A different word in an MV than in the KJV is not automatically an inferior choice (contrary to KJVO delusion).
     
  16. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    You can't even discuss the use of the word w/o perverting it. You try to make others think sexual, uh, maligned sexual desire, is not even in the context with their desire to have children,</font>[/QUOTE] What does the text say? You may read into it that they had sexual desires for their father... it wouldn't be surprising considering where they grew up. But, the text doesn't say it. It says they wanted to bear Lot sons.
    What in the world does this mean? I am sure that you said it in the highest level of Christian love but I honestly can't make any sense of it.

    It also doesn't fall under the guide lines of incest. That would be a different part of Georgia. :D :D :D Actually, I guess that hits pretty close to home for me too...

    Please show evidence that God is in KJVOnlyism.
     
  17. Precepts

    Precepts
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thank you for helping me make my case, Scott, it is relevant to the discussion and Larry is quite making a fool of himself by arguing otherwise.

    All the words used to describe Genesis 19 are well noted, but concupiscence describes the entire passage altogether, even Lot's drunken state that caused him to be sexually involved falls under the definition of the term, it just fits the context. I never said it was written verbatum in Genesis 19, but the evidences proving it's definition are all over the context.

    We're not dealing with just simple lust or incest for that matter, but evil concupiscence is what the Lord has called it, and rather accurately at that. Now am I some how evading the differences of the KJB from the [NASB]? NO!

    If one looks closer at the comparisons Craig has given, the differences are just a little too obvious, but then I guess you'd have to dumb-down not to see them. :rolleyes:

    [Moderator - I again changed the slur against an English translation by using the proper abbreviation.]

    [ February 12, 2004, 04:19 PM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob Griffin ]
     
  18. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    You seriously make me laugh out loud. Here is the dictionary definition:

    From dictionary.com -- A strong desire, especially sexual desire; lust; Sexual lust; morbid carnal passion; a desire for sexual intimacy; denotes evil desire,
    indwelling sin.

    From Miriam Webster (m-w.com): strong desire; especially : sexual desire

    So what did Larry do? He quoted the dictionary. What did QS do? Show that he doesn't know what he is talking about.

    The strong sexual desire as I used it generally has a wicked immoral force to it. You don't see any reference to that in the stories of Lot and his daughters. What you see in that story is a desire for offspring since there was no other man around. By the dictionary definition of concupiscence, you are wrong.

    Why is that hard to see? You tried to make a case that the KJV is superior to the NASB based on a word that the KJV doesn't use compared to a word that the NASB doesn't use. You didn't make sense from the beginning.
     
  19. russell55

    russell55
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2002
    Messages:
    2,424
    Likes Received:
    0
    Huh? I am clueless as to the point QS trying to make and how it ties into the original question....

    QS, could you lay it out in 1, 2, 3 form for me? Please?
     
  20. Precepts

    Precepts
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    So now sexual desire has nothing to do with having children :rolleyes: I suppose they didn't get Lot drunk to excite his sexual desire either? :rolleyes:
    Is "love" an axe, or an attirbute?
    No, that's Alabama, you have to wait until you're 16 now to marry your cousin. Are we to consider your remark a confession to being the offspring of incest?
    If you mean in the KJB, start with Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning, God...."
     

Share This Page

Loading...