Why the persistent evasion?

Then you ought to stop it!

 

Yes, the differences are rather obvious—sort of like the differences between a Model T and a Mustang. You can drive a Model T if you want to, but what data do you really have to prove that the differences between your car and mine are differences that make my car inferior to yours? Let’s cut out the garbage, distortions, and name calling, and objectively compare the data.

 

I am making of fool of myself by showing that you don't know what you are talking about??? Exactly how that does work?? You set out to show how the KJV is superior and have consistently evaded the issue.

But God never used that word. Therefore, it is a bad translation. Which is okay since there is no translation that uses it there anyway. Why did you even bring this up??

BUT HE DIDN"T CALL IT THAT!!! You just admitted that above. Now you change your tune.

Yes you are, because you are chasing a trail using words that no translation uses to avoid answering the real question.

 

KJVO is a "SLURR", nas"v" is only the distinction that the New American Standard is a "version". Now we even have the moderator arguing semantics.

My point is the KJB uses the word concupiscence accurately to describe the sins involved in Genesis 19.

I just got back from Uncle Remus National Library. There we looked in the Websters Dictionary and found the definition of concupiscence as unusaul lust to obtain anything to satisfy any desire. The "lust" of Lot's two daughters to have children, namedly sons to prevent reproach in that day, was concupiscent in the very root of desire. I cannot help it if your intelligence won't accept that, it is become your problem.

I see your infactuation turning into sin as well to try and have me banned from BB, whatever.

I hold the higher standard in regards to the KJB and that is all there is to it!

Trying to equate the NASV to the AV 1611 KJB is futile. Much like the discussion rooted in insult is as futile, but that's the way the BB bounces.

Just plain simple fact that the language of the KJB is superior to that of the NASV regardless of your preference. Craig shows us that in the three verse used by comparison, now i guess we'll label Cragbythesea as KJVO, huh?

 

Yes, the differences are rather obvious—sort of like the differences between a Model T and a Mustang. You can drive a Model T if you want to, but what data do you really have to prove that the differences between your car and mine are differences that make my car inferior to yours? Let’s cut out the garbage, distortions, and name calling, and objectively compare the data. </font>[/QUOTE]Then never call me by your derogatory slurr again, that's hypocrisy. I suppose now that BROTHER Tim L Bynum is on a 10 day suspension, the "WOLVES" have to turn their attention to someone else.




Back! Back!

 

Aha! I think I understand. This whole rabbit trail was evidence that the KJB uses superior language to the NASB.

So, your argument goes like this:

The language of the KJB is superior to that of the NASB, therefore the NASB is not God's Word while the KJV is.

Am I close?

 

But you acknowledged already that the KJV doesn't use the word concupiscence to describe the events of Genesis 19. You are contradicting yourself.

For the record, the NASB is the official name of the New American Standard Bible. The NASV doesn't even exist. It doesn't help your point to use that acronym. Argue the facts, not this ridiculous stuff.

My intelligence can accept it just fine. My point is that God didn't use that word in Gen 19 and he did not use it about Gen 19. Our discussion here about God's word, not what QS thinks is an appropriate description of a series of events. Can you not see that distnction?

What is infactuation? And who is trying to have you banned? We are having loads of fun watching you stumble all over yourself, making no legitimate points in the process. Why would we want you banned? Somebody might come after with legitimate points we actually have to give some thought to.

But we hold the higher standard about God's Word.

No one is evening talking about the NASV. The discussion was about the NASB originally. I didn't see anyone equating it to the KJV.

Actually, it isn't. The superior language is the one that can be understood. That changes in times and cultures.

 

Aha! I think I understand. This whole rabbit trail was evidence that the KJB uses superior language to the NASB.

So, your argument goes like this:

The language of the KJB is superior to that of the NASB, therefore the NASB is not God's Word while the KJV is.

Am I close? </font>[/QUOTE]Close, Russell, close.

 

So where exactly is it that the KJV uses conwhateveritis and the NASB uses a word that is inferior?

 

I think the language of the KJB is superior. The NASB is downright stale! Still contains God's word however - but stale.

 

More flowerly language does not superiority prove....

 

And by that logic, God is in NASB onlyism, too:

Start with Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning, God...."

 

No, you acknowledged that, I never did. The KJB uses the word concupiscence to describe sin, uh, which the account of Genesis 19 clearly shows us the theme is sinful. Now I suppose you'll deny that also.

Your records are as corrupt as the MSS you use to attack the KJB. I thought your beef was with KJVO, not the kJB.

The records clearly show the KJB to be called The Holy Bible until a bunch like you came along and started demanding it to be called a version, so the mandate holds true the New American Standard is a VERSION! If you want to keep caling it The New American Standard Bible, go ahead, you're offending every other nationality in the world by calling the Bible "American"

This isn't a matter of what your inteligence accepts or rejects, the KJB uses the word accurately and also to describe any numerous sins mentioned in the Bible, uh, including the love of money, by defintion. At least you admit it is appropiate.

Now make your point of distinction, uh, are you now saying Genesis 19 isn't the Word of God?

I never said the word appears in the text of Genesis 19. But I have said time and time again that concupiscence refers back to the sins committed in Genesis 19, accurately. We can even look at the sin of Eve as concupiscence, David lusting after Bathsheba, Ahab desirng to have Naboth's vineyard, Judas selling out the Lord for 30 pieces of silver, etc, etc.

Ad-hominem? Hypocrisy!

Au contraire! I have not attacked the KJB, you have, uh, sir. I've merely said what is so evident to even a 10 year old child the New American Standard is only the words of men. I have never attacked it! Unless you consider comparison to the wording an attack? If that holds true, Craig has shot yourselves in the foot by allowing everyone else to see what we have on BB.

The AV 1611 KJB is just plainly superior and that statement excites your infactuation so much that you cannot live without coming back w/ insults and ad-hominem attacks to my person.

Again you sport your opinion as the rule and guide for practice. Hah!

Funny you should make such an outlandish statement. The KJB is where many of us have met the Lord in repentence unto salvation. The KJB declares the Lord changeth not, so by your demands the Word of God to change with culture, you would have God to change with that culture. HOGWASH!

Even you, your self proclaims the Hebrew and the Greek superior to the English, you are beside yourself to think this about God or His Word to change with culture, talking about CONTRADICTION!

RAOTFLOLU

Now let's suppose you to be right, then you proclaim the modeern English superior to the Original Hebrew and the Greek along with the few verses in Aramaic.

 

So you admit being in the snare.

 

I have, many times, concupiscence covers all manner of lust, covetousness, greed, inordinate affection, etc, etc. You're still arguing semantics in an effort to attack the KJB

The NASV is weak by comparison.

 

Funny you can't see that, God and I both see it, and that makes a majority in any form of democracy