Ron Cusano

The NAB is the "New American Bible", not the "New American Standard Bible". The NAB is the new name for the "Catholic Bible", that is why is contains the apocrypha. They are two completely different Bibles.

Fair enough!

PS - The Books of the Old Testament were decided upon by a council of Jewish Rabbi's and theologians, long before the writing of the New Testament, and no by the early Church Fathers. And yet, the other books introduced by the Catholic church have all been added to the Old Testament, even though that had been decided upon long before there even was a church. That in inself is a great reason to disregard them.

When you talk about the "Nag-Hadami", are you refering to the Apohrepher (forgive the spelling) that is contained in the Catholic Bible? I am not familiar with the terminology "Nag-Hadami"! The King James all the books that are recognized as Cannon. The Catholic Bible has the Apohrepher (again forgive the spelling) which is not recognized as Cannon by any other Christian denomination, and in a lot of places is contridictory of the other books of Cannon. The New American Standard Bible, which you said is apporved by the Catholic Church and the King James both do not contain there other books. FYI - There are hundreds of other works and so-called Gospels that were never considered to be accurate or part of Cannon by the early church fathers. The books contained in the current Bibles, excluding the additional books added by the Catholic church, are those that were considered to be Cannon.

I am basiclly aware of the different means by which we absorb information. I feel that I have repeatedly said the same thing to you several different ways any you don't seem to understand it. Then I might be asking you the same thing, but if I did it you would tell me I am being evasive or arrogant, would you not?

No! But you had just gotten done raking me over the coals claiming that I don't admit when I am wrong, even thought I have done so several times. I wanted to see if you hold yourself to the same standards. You vare persuiing different threads, and I an discussing/debating usually several people at once and doing other things, so my time and attention is stretched at least as much as yours is.

First, no one ownes a ministry. A ministry, if organized, must be non-profit and run by a board of directors. A ministry can have a director, but never an owner. Likewise, many people can contribute and be part of a ministry, bit in the common understanding withing the church, that are not ministers. And church ministers can be called ministers without beinf part of a ministry, aside from their own personal ministry. The usual understanding of the title of minister means to be the minister of a congregation. By someone saying that I claimed to be a minister, they were giving a false statement and picture of my role.

Because you said and I think I am quoting you, "I am an atgiest and am not a Bible scholar." or something to that effect. And you don't condiser that sarcastic??

The King James is or was the "gold standard" for accuarcy, but it was written in the "King's English" which some have a problem understanding, and some of the terminology in todays English has different meanings. They came out with the "New King James" version which is in todays English, without the Thee's and Thou's! A recent addition has been the New American Standard Bible which is touted to be the most accuarate word for word translations in modern English ever done. There are other Bibles out ther call "pharaphrased" Bibles, such as "The Living Bible" which gives you what the writed say's the passaage means, but is not a literal translation. And them there is the Strong's Concorrdance that give you the exact, literal translation of every single word in the Bible from the original Greek and Hebrew root, when you what to know what a specific word means. This is helpful when you find a word or reference that is clearly not meant literally by context. I would be happy to explain context in any given sitution, bit a Bible study is a more apporiate forum because it take a lot of time and discussion. I am trying real hard here to give you a serious answer.

Go back and read you recent post wher you said I "claimed to be a minister"! Now, you are wrong! Will you own up to it?

SEE BELOW!

My typos are the result of sever arthritus in my hands which I shared several time before. Of course, that you conveniently forget. That is pure bunk! Tell me what I have not answered!

I don't believe that for a moment. You knew exactly what it meant.

She knew exactly what it meant.

See below -

See Below!

I don't have all the answers and never claimed to. I am also not infallible and have never claimed to be, but I do know what I am talking about. If I try to debate Laured about chemistry, I have very limited knowledge and freely admitted it. I may not believe her conclusions, but I don't have the educated knowledge to comprehend all the detailed arguments. Those who do not have intimate knowledge into the scriptures are also not equipped to fully understand a lot of the theology I am speaking about, and you take it as me being arrogant and self-serving. It is anything but.

I am not talking about ex-smokers who I don't even know. I am talking about me.

I apparently did misquote you and I apoligize. Nevertheless, weather we are talking about proof of the flood or geological signs, the fact is that there is plenty of evidence to that end. There are no questions lingering that I have not answered. Just questions where you don't accept the answer and are nit-picking just to be difficult. I am not playing you stupid, childish game anymore. You want to talk seriously, fine, but I'm not playing this push and shove gave with you any more.

Unless you happen to be a master of both Hebrew and English, they you have to rely on the translation of experts. Those who are not fluent in these two languages, which includes just about everyone, have a language dictionary called a Strongs Concordance that provides the literal translation of every word in the Bible from the original Hebrew or Greek. We rely on historial and archeological works to provide the background information on what life was life during biblical times. This is how all students of the Bible, from scolars to beginners learn scripture. So what is the problem that you have with this? Are you saying we should not study the Bible unless we are fluent in Hebrew and Greek" That is like saying we shouldn't drive a Japanese made care becaue we don't speak Japanese and have to use a manuel translated by someone who speaks both English and Japanese. That makes no sense!

I never said that "scripture translates scripture"! What I said was, "scripture interprets scripture" Translating from one language to another, and intretpeting what the scripture say are two entirely different things.

I am not belittleing anyone's beliefs; I am disagreeing with them. You are taking my disagreement as belittleing, and it is not. At one time in my life, I believed the same as many of those with whom I am now disagreeing. Why would I belittle them? It is how you are taking it.

I don't care if you do or don't. You and others have a problem that I am reluctant to publicly discuss the differences between Catholic dogma and Biblical teaching, so if you really care to know, I am willing to discuss it privately. That's all! How would YOU fee if I asked you questions about your faith? Would you be willing to discuss what YOU believe??

My purpose in posting those sites was not in an attempt to prove the flood, althought I believe there is a lot of good evidence toward that end. Wheetin said there was NO EVIDENCE to support the flood. I was pointing out there is. Weather you believe it or not is something else. There is a lot of argument on both sides of the fence.

I don't know what you mean. Here is another site with more evidence. http://www.ucgstp.org/lit/gn/gn047/worldwideflood.htm and another http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/EarthSciences13.html and another http://www.earthage.addr.com/EarthOldorYoung/scientific_evidence_for_a_worldwide%20flood.htm There are also hundreds of books on the subject! I was told there is not proof of the flood, but that is proof. Weather you believe it or not is not the issue.