Why the persistent evasion?

More flowerly language does not superiority prove.... </font>[/QUOTE]We'll see just how far that goes Saturday when your husband brings home a little note he jotted down compared to the bouqet I'm giving my wife!

At least now you're admitting the beauty, the fragrance and sheer elegance of the KJB.

 

Don't know, I've always heard you can't rape the willing!

Wonder if rape has anything to do with evil concupiscence?

Go back and scan the BB and you'll just have to figure it out all by yourself.

 

And "coveting of every kind" doesn't cover all manner of lust, covetousness, greed, inordinate affection, etc. etc?

Seems to me, the two things are pretty much equal. So this whole rabbit trail led to a tie...

I take that back--advantage NASV on this one, cuz I know what "coveting of every kind" means without the help of Webster.

 

O.K., Russell, I'll let you win.

 

Don't know, I've always heard you can't rape the willing!</font>[/QUOTE] Perhaps you should read the passage again. They had to get him so drunk he didn't remember what he had done in order to make him willing. IOW, he wasn't willing. </font>[/QUOTE]See what evil concupiscence will do?

 

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. </font>[/QUOTE]I am not attacking the KJV at all. I think that concupiscence is a very good word and would have fit well into verse 7 also. But as it stands, the KJV uses three words that mean different things to translate two words that are very closely associated within two verses.

The command not to covet would certainly cover concupiscence but lust and concupiscence are not equivalent terms. As you noted, concupiscence transcends mere "lust".

But all of that simply doesn't make the NASB inaccurate or less the Word of God.

BTW, I am just comparing the two versions. How does that make it an attack on the KJV? Didn't you tell Pastor Larry that comparison is not an attack? </font>[/QUOTE]Am I beginning to detect you are starting to catch on?

 

Funny you can't see that, God and I both see it, and that makes a majority in any form of democracy </font>[/QUOTE]When did God say that He saw it? </font>[/QUOTE]Somewhere between Genesis 1:1 and Revelation 22:21 in your King James Bible. He did say something like when men will bring all types of railing accusation against you thinking to do Him service.

 

hey!! Whatch out,your hittin close home here

 

QS, Do you even remember what you post after you submit it?? Consider this:

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. </font>[/QUOTE]Now, let’s look at the facts. On page 2 of this thread, you said I never said it was written verbatum in Genesis 19, but the evidences proving it's definition are all over the context. Later in this post you say, I never said the word appears in the text of Genesis 19. So in fact, I was right when I said you acknowledge the the KJV does not use the word concupiscence to describe the events of Gen 19. I don’t understand why you would even debate that. It is clear that “concupiscence” does not appear in Gen 19 or in any biblical passage talking about thevents of Gen 19. It is furthermore clear that you admitted that. I said you admitted it (and quoted you to prove it), and then you deny that you said it. What in the world are you thinking??

I am not attacking the KJV. I never have and I never will. I am pointing out what the actual names of these translations are. Look on the spine of your KJV and read what it says. It says Holy Bible at the top; then in the middle it says “King James Version.” And yes, my beef is with the KJVO.

You already made a mistake. It is the KJV that is called the Holy Bible. It is not a KJB.

Get one and look at the title page. It is titled “New American Standard Bible.” It is not offensive to anyone who understands the issues.

I do think the KJV uses the word accurately. That was never the debate. Go back and read this thread. You said that the KJV used the word to describe the events of Gen 19. That is patently false.

I believe Gen 19 is the word of God. Why?

Where??

That isn’t evident; it isn’t even true.

To what? And how so?? I have used the KJV extensively and find that the NASB is plainly superior. And I can demonstrate it and have before. That doesn’t make the KJV bad.

[q/b]What is infactuation?? Why not answer that question?? You are chasing enough other rabbit trails. Chase that one … Get out your dictionary and look it up and tell us what it means. I can’t find it in my dictionary.

Nope. It is not my opinion that the NASB is the NASB. That is a point of settled fact.

I was saved under the KJV and used it for almost 30 years of my life. The NASB declares that the Lord does not change to. I never said the Lord changed. I did say language changes. Please read what I say and respond to that. Don’t make stuff up.

The Greek and Hebrew are superior to English. So what? That is not rocket science … I never said God or his word changed with culture. You are simply dishonest to say that. I said that language changes. That is undeniable and completely distinct from your ridiculous accusations.

In the end, you are unwilling to look at the truth and respond to God’s word. That is unfortunate. No one here is attacking the KJV. You know that.

 

hey!! Whatch out,your hittin close home here </font>[/QUOTE]Like you Ali-bomians ain't got no jokes about us Georguns ! I'm glad to see somebody here knows how to joke around!

 

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. </font>[/QUOTE]Now, let’s look at the facts. On page 2 of this thread, you said I never said it was written verbatum in Genesis 19, but the evidences proving it's definition are all over the context. Later in this post you say, I never said the word appears in the text of Genesis 19. So in fact, I was right when I said you acknowledge the the KJV does not use the word concupiscence to describe the events of Gen 19. I don’t understand why you would even debate that. It is clear that “concupiscence” does not appear in Gen 19 or in any biblical passage talking about thevents of Gen 19. It is furthermore clear that you admitted that. I said you admitted it (and quoted you to prove it), and then you deny that you said it. What in the world are you thinking??

I am not attacking the KJV. I never have and I never will. I am pointing out what the actual names of these translations are. Look on the spine of your KJV and read what it says. It says Holy Bible at the top; then in the middle it says “King James Version.” And yes, my beef is with the KJVO.

You already made a mistake. It is the KJV that is called the Holy Bible. It is not a KJB.

Get one and look at the title page. It is titled “New American Standard Bible.” It is not offensive to anyone who understands the issues.

I do think the KJV uses the word accurately. That was never the debate. Go back and read this thread. You said that the KJV used the word to describe the events of Gen 19. That is patently false.

I believe Gen 19 is the word of God. Why?

Where??

That isn’t evident; it isn’t even true.

To what? And how so?? I have used the KJV extensively and find that the NASB is plainly superior. And I can demonstrate it and have before. That doesn’t make the KJV bad.

[q/b]What is infactuation?? Why not answer that question?? You are chasing enough other rabbit trails. Chase that one … Get out your dictionary and look it up and tell us what it means. I can’t find it in my dictionary.

Nope. It is not my opinion that the NASB is the NASB. That is a point of settled fact.

I was saved under the KJV and used it for almost 30 years of my life. The NASB declares that the Lord does not change to. I never said the Lord changed. I did say language changes. Please read what I say and respond to that. Don’t make stuff up.

The Greek and Hebrew are superior to English. So what? That is not rocket science … I never said God or his word changed with culture. You are simply dishonest to say that. I said that language changes. That is undeniable and completely distinct from your ridiculous accusations.

In the end, you are unwilling to look at the truth and respond to God’s word. That is unfortunate. No one here is attacking the KJV. You know that. </font>[/QUOTE]What end are you talking about? The conclusion that you are obsessed? Yes. that would be the end. Infatuated? Yes, that too brings this to an end.

I've had these conversations with you before and there is no meeting of the minds. If I were to say white, you would say, "What shade of white! You don't know white like I do! You don't know what you're talking about! Blah,blah,blah,blah-blah!" It's a never ending and circular discussion with you larry until either one agrees or subsides,

Good Day

 

Great post, Pastor Larry. It shows just how deep a hole a KJVO can dig him or herself, and QS's response was the only way he could respond - by evading and attacking instead of dealing with the issues.

 

QuickeningSpirit wrote:

Dear brother,

What derogatory slur are you speaking of? I do not recall ever calling you by a derogatory slur. Are you perhaps confusing your words for mine?

 

[snipped]

[ February 13, 2004, 12:11 AM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob Griffin ]

 

QuickeningSpirit,

Happy Valentines Day.

P.S. I'm a guy, not a gal! So please don't send me any red roses! But a two pound box of See's chocolates would be nice!

 

I must admit it took me a while to figure this out. But I understand it all now. QuickeningSpirit doesn’t believe that the NASB is either the word of God or the Holy Bible because the word “concupiscence” isn’t in it. But applying that logic to the teachings of Christ, His words were not the word of God and should not be in the Bible because He never used the word “concupiscence.” The only real word of God is Paul’s Epistles to the Romans and the Colossians, and his First Epistle to the Thessalonians in the KJV. The Old Testament in the KJV, where the word “concupiscence” was implied but never used, is in severe need to revision. The Revised Version of 1881-1885 didn’t fix the problem in the KJV so the Revised Version is just a version of the Bible and not the real Bible. The NASB still didn’t fix it, and that is what this is all about!