Readers,

Unfortunately this forum closed due to maintence problems with the server.

If you are interested in continuing a discussion, you can go to this board:

http://p221.ezboard.com/bthechristianforum

The Christian Forum

Or try our URL Forwarder www.bluespun.com

www.Bluespun.com

This was our back up board, but now we all relocated here.

Hope to see you there! All links lead to the same place!

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@gmail.com), November 28, 2005.

Excellent discussion, Zarove and Steve!

The King James Authorized Version and the Catholic Bible.

We really should have both versions of the Holy Bible, at least.

................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 03, 2004

Answers

Uh....round and round discussions are necessary!! That's how the truth eventually comes out.

...................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 03, 2004.

rod,

I have been following that discussion.

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00CApb

I have posted their first posts on that thread, and will continue post them here so they will not get deleted.

I don't normally do this, but I will edit their responses for easier reading.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 03, 2004.

"Uh....round and round discussions are necessary!! That's how the truth eventually comes out." - rod

Right, that's why Kevin (in his discussions with Max) has lost credibility now :-)

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 03, 2004.

Although, I do object to including Steve as a "Great". He cannot, has not, will not, respond to Zaroves arguments on the KJV.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 03, 2004.

Actually Steve seems content to make bad Protestant baitign comments and lumpign everythign that occured after the reform as "Protestants" and includign irrelevant informaiton to the discutiton such as English Common law...

The KJV has been abandoned as a topic and now its about how " Big and bad and in charge" Cahtolcis are ott he meager, unthinkgn and weak minded Protestants...

Which, of corse, is what I principley objected to, his use of misrepresentation.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), July 03, 2004.

"Protestant baiting".... I have never heard that phrase before until Zarove mentioned it. BTW, how old are you Zarove? 28?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 03, 2004.

Yes, David, I have kept track of your backup thread for that discussion. I think that's a good idea, too. I was surprised that the thread was allowed to continue from the very start. They like you over there, Zarove!

The "Great" generally means "outstanding".

But, Zarove do you have a Catholic Bible at home?

................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 03, 2004.

Wait a minute... Zarove, what are you still doing over there? I thought they would have banned you by now. Or did you go into hiding when Ed was on a banning rampage?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 03, 2004.

Just saying the Apocrypha isn't canon is enough for them to label you an "anti-Catholic" *gasp* =o

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 03, 2004.

Of course, the Apocrypha is not canonical, but the Deuteroconanicals are.

...............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 03, 2004.

I turn 27 tommorrow.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), July 03, 2004.

David,

Just some personal observations about Zarove at the Catholic Board. He's always respectful, intellectually honest, and charitable. I've learned a lot about Christianity and of course, the KJV from his posts. I think we can all take a few pointers from Zarove. He's also taken the time to learn what other religions actually teach before he makes comments about their techings.

It's not only what points he makes, but also how he makes them that speaks volumes to who Zarove is. I may not always agree with him but I do respect him and what he has to say. He is a great addition to the Catholic Board. I think those are all the reasons he is not banned. He's never given any of the moderators a reason to ban him. Saying the Apocrypha isn't canon isn't enough to get you banned. It takes more than that, in my opinion.

-- Andy S ("aszmere@earthlink.net"), July 03, 2004.

You mean like, "All Catholics are going to Hell"?

I just thought I'd bring that little quotation out for a reference point.

(I do not believe anything like that. It's only an example, or sample, I have encountered.)

..........................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 03, 2004.

Yea, that's what I'm talking about rod.

-- Andy S ("aszmere@earthlink.net"), July 03, 2004.

Dang, that was gonna be the subject of my next thread!!!

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), July 04, 2004.

hee...hee...

..........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 04, 2004.

Happy B-day Zarove.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 04, 2004.

Thanks.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), July 04, 2004.

=o , Zarove, your b-day is on 4th of July :-) Too bad your a Brit :p

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 04, 2004.

But I do live in Tennessee...wich also soemtimes considers itsself occupied rather than American... the whole " The South will risd Again" theme...

Ah well.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), July 04, 2004.

Agh..thought you were from Brit.. and from all those late night posts you make, it made sense to think you were in the UK.. I guess I've been chatting to too many Brits and Aussies :-/

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 05, 2004.

I am a Brit. I am an imigrant.And Aussies rule lol

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), July 05, 2004.

Hay! the South will rise again and I tend to forget the Alamo! Slavery is/was wrong, but the South did have a point--I just don't know what that point was. As far as the Alamo is concerned, sorry, I was for the Mexicans. Them Yankees had no right to be in Mexican territory--becoming Catholic--just to take the land away! Stephen F. Austin the father of Texas??? Yeah, right. Other than that, yeah sure, I'm proud to be an American. :)

.......................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 05, 2004.

Actualy the Civil was is popularised by the slavery issue, but the main reason the south sought to break away was not slavery, but rater the Confederate states opposed Federan otrole, and prefered State rights and Aoverignty over central autority basedin Washington.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), July 05, 2004.

Yes, but it was very peculiar that the North was rather hypocritical in that they were oppressing the South just as the English had done to the Colonialists. And, the Colonialist were slave owners themselves. And, the Constitution was flawed in that it gave freedoms to all who were not Black or Female.

The English/British used the slavery issue in order to cripple the numbers the Colonists had in their army and malitia. The North used the same tactics on the South by crippling the backbone of the South's production--by freeing the Slaves. It wasn't about slavery at all, but it did have an effect on the slavery issue. Slavery is slavery and it is wrong however it falls in the context of a society.

................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 05, 2004.

The Constitution was not flawed; the interpretation was flawed. Not all men were equal in the minds and hearts of the people. The Bible does not reflect such an ideology either. Men are not equal, but God does privide Salvation to all men and women, regardless of their inequalities.

..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 05, 2004.

"malitia"???? that sounds like a rare bacterial desease one gets from too much consumption of malted milk or something. Make that "militia".

................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 05, 2004.

mALARIA COUDL ALSO BE A GREAT NAME FOR A ROCK BAND... just a thought...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), July 05, 2004.

That is why, Rod,

I also have the Revised Standard Version: It has the Jewish=Protestant books=66 books (The Next churches call themselves Catholic, to distinguish them I use other common adjectives for them. Started from the one having less and then how much more they add. ) the Roman Catholic: Judith, 1,2 Maccabees, Eclesiasticus (Sirach), Baruch, Tobit, plus additions to Esther and Daniel, and Lamentations The Greek Orthodox 3 Maccabees, Psalm 151, I Esdras The Russian Orthodox: 4 Maccabees

I just need the Ethiopian books: Enoch, Jubilees

I also have Funk's 5 Gospels: Mark (plus secret Mark), Matthew, Luke, John, and Thomas. =Besides ,what is called Q (Matthew an Luke), Signs Gospel (proto John), and the egerton Gospel(intermediate John.

The Cjhristian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), July 07, 2004.

Welcome back Elpidio, or you still on vacation?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 07, 2004.

Hi Elpidio

My first encounter with the story of Enoch was when I was around 10 or 11 years old. My imagination and curiosity was lit with a torch when I heard that the world would not end until the arrival of Enoch first and then the Messiah.

I also understand tha Jubilees is another can of worms opener as it makes more questions than it answers. I too need to locate a decently priced copy of each of those books.

.....................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 07, 2004.