Why the persistent evasion?

Reasonable request from Dr. Bob!

Good answer from Scott J!

Dan

 

And still no answer to Scott's question....

 

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?

 

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

[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 ]

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?"

 

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.

 

I believe that he is trying to do so. He doesn’t have very much to work with.

 

\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.

 

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.

Oh, and thanks for helping me make my case.

 

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.

[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 ]

 

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.

 

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?

 

So now sexual desire has nothing to do with having children I suppose they didn't get Lot drunk to excite his sexual desire either?

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...."