What took so long?

You know what's more illogical? Your feeling that he still hasn't created one.

 

Ah, so you agree your view is illogical, just slighly less so because the number of years since Christ is 20% less?

So if it took God 1611 years to create one, what's so bad about thinking he took 1901 or 1978 or 2005 years instead?

 

At my age (60 this year) my
main form of exercise is JUMPING
TO CONCLUSIONS

Here is my conclusion:
God had to wait for the Church of
England to be formed before he
could provide His Word for our generation.
Note that it is the same Anglican
church which persecuted our Baptist
forebearers.

I'll be satisfied with my Final Authority:
the New King James Bible (nKJB).
At least there were some Baptists among
the translators of the nKJB.
Not to mention that none of the translators
of the nKJB were active persecuters of
the Baptists.

Praise Jesus, the Living Word of God,
for the inerrant Written Word of God
in the English Language for these last
days: the New King James Bible (nKJB).

 

Funny, and I thought he had the earth finished in just 3 days. Must be some new MV translation your reading.

 

Uh, wait a minute Terry, did you mean the perfect 1611AD original or the perfect 1769AD revision?

With or without Apocrypha and marginal notes?

Cambridge or Oxford Version?

HankD

 

Amen, Brother Terry Herrington -- Preach it!

 

Terry, your experience is fine for you but this statement is no more valid, and maybe less so, than claims by KJVO's that anyone who uses an MV is a Godless liberal.

The use of this version or that is far less important than to what extent the teachings of the Word are being applied. Both the best and worst churches I have ever attended used the KJV.

 

If the 200+ "bibles"(ad nauseam) since 1881 has not gotten rid of the Monarch of the Books, the KJB, what makes you think the next one will do it?? or even the next two after that??

 

Hey Terry I've been around some of those MV using churches you mentioned and what a joke.They try to manufacture the presence of God to make you think he's there.Weak and sappy at best.Of course some people thrive on fluff.It's a comedy to hear some guy stand up and try to justify using an mv.I've heard them and it reminds me of finger nails on the chalk board.I think what it might be is that mv users despise the MANLY tone of the KJV.The mv users I have met at least the men that I know that use the mv's are very feminine.Not the crowd I want to run with.

 

Who wants to get rid of it?!?

 

Read Terry's post and answer your own question Brian.

 

You mean they look like this???:

 

No not exactly .The mv users look and act way more feminine than that.

 

BrianT said:

You mean they look like this???

Nice dress!

 

Certianly not me or any male MV user that I know. I know MV users who have had Div 1A college athletic scholarships, who exercise and work out on a regular basis, who are as tough and manly as anybody you will ever want to meet. This is a stupid line of argumentation to suggest that manliness or masculinity is determined by the version you use. It shows that when you can't support your argument biblically, you continue to make up stuff, each time worse than before.

 

KING JAMES AV 1611 said:

I think what it might be is that mv users despise the MANLY tone of the KJV.

Ah, so we're back to "advancing moronic arguments" mode.

What comes next? Spamming? Or popping your fingertips out of your ears just long enough to claim you haven't been refuted yet?

 

Steve? Is that you questioning someone's manhood? Why are you submitting to the authority of the divinely inspired Gail Riplinger in violation of I Tim 2:12? The biblical man wouldn't do such a thing, would he?