I was looking for a dictionary that listed new words, such as relate to the Internet and modern business (eg "outsourcing"). This dictionary is not it! It is very simplistic and is probably useful as a quick guide, although if your level of French is not advanced you won't be able to use it very well, as there are no examples of usage. The blurb is misleading, as this is not a dictionary that is specifically devised for "a global economy and fast-changing world". Nor does it specifically relate to the 21st century.

This handy book contains a 1-page introduction and 3-page pronunciation guide, each in english and in french. What follows are a 200 page french to english portion, and a 260 page english to french dictionary. I was attracted by the price but was quickly convinced that I had erred in not purchasing one of the larger, more expensive offerings. I am attempting a rough translation of a french novel and was disappointed so many words were nowhere to be found in this book. Further, only the infinitive and some gerundic forms of french verbs are listed; when I try to find, for example, a third person singular form, I come up empty, even though the infinitive is listed. I have, since, ordered a larger, more comprehensive dictionary and will report on it after I have a chance to use it. Carl F. Ricciardelli

I picked this dictionary up while browsing for a quick, easy, light reference. I'm an intermediate/advanced speaker of Italian and I found this book useless. It has no examples or expanations - just one work to one work translations, which can cause a great deal of confussion. It also is missing many current words in both English and Italian. Definately NOT a dictionary for the 21st century.

I'm a beginning Italian student, and I can't find the words I need, even though my lessons are introductory level. Steer clear of this book.

This book is totally outdated. Nothing in this book actually applies to real world auto repair. Do yourself a favor and DO NOT BUY IT!!!!

This book isn't worth the price. The only "help" it gives is a list of the ASE goals for the tests. The pages would be better devoted to some actual information.

The questions in the sections seem very old fashioned considering ASE has updated the tests over the years. How many people, for example, ever see an electrically controlled overdrive unit on a manual transmission?

About this awful book, it must be also said that it was written at a time without political correctness, and whites didn't care then about what we African would think about their hate against us. (and they never believed we "savages" would ever also be able to read their books.) So this is why it is important you read this awful book and see clearly how much Christianity hates us and is used by white to control, enslave us. You will never hear missionary and priests say this so clearly nowadays. But Christianity in its core has not changed and remain the imperialistic, hateful, killing religions and cultures that is exposed in this book by a Christian pastor who is not ashamed of his hate and exposes the Christian plan to murder the African soul.

I found that book in a library. Oh, how can I say it. It is just pure, I really mean pure, hate! Oh. My copy is a reprint (1969) at "Negro Universities Press, New York"! No joke, even the name of the publisher is hate. But the book was written in 1892. It was a time where whites didn't bother hiding demonic schemes. The man thinks that all that is African : religions, races, cultures, languages, etc. is subhuman, he thinks we have the soul of a beast, and that our soul must be destroyed and replaced by white religion, culture, language, and the white race (sending white colons to replace our race.) And he explains how to do it. Man, don't think man that all those missionaries, priests and pastors love you. This book makes it clear : they came to murder our soul, thus murdering us. Agents of God or of the devil : that book answers the question! Man, you may wonder why I read this piece of s..., of pure hate, but if we want to heal and recover our religions, languages, races and cultures, we have to know how it was killed, what was the demonic scheme behind it all. Brothers, if you read that book, it will hurt you, it took me some time to recover of this confrontation with the spirit of the white Christian missionary, colon, globalist, capitalist. Only read it if you have to and are strong enough to look at the heart of the devil.

Acceptance of old-earth ideas, including the Big Bang, progressive creation, theistic evolution, the framework hypothesis, etc., necessarily implies downgrading the Flood of Noah's day from worldwide in scope to merely one of local extent. For example, the author, Mr. Stoner (an advocate of billions of years for the earth's age) vigorously denies the global flood. He calls it "universal," covering all that Noah could see, but not the entire earth. This insistence does not come from sound Biblical exegesis, but from the incompatibility of a global flood with old-earth thinking, which he accepts. The evidence for great ages is thought to be found in the rock and fossil records of the earth's crust. These are interpreted by the principle of uniformitarianism, that "the present is the key to the past." Since geologic processes happen slowly today, they argue, the extensive rock and fossil records must have taken great lengths of time to form.

However, a flood of the proportions described in Genesis would have resulted in vast amounts of erosion and redepositing of sediments, fossilization of plants and animals, volcanism, and redistribution of radioisotopes. If one denies the global flood as a historic event, he might use the Grand Canyon/Colorado River system to "prove" great ages, when, in reality, the Canyon demonstrates flooding processes with rates, scales, and intensities eclipsing anything observed today. Thus the misunderstood evidence of old ages, is actually strong evidence for the Flood. In reality, the global flood and recent creation doctrines are synonymous concepts, forcing Mr. Stoner and others to twist Scripture, making it say something it clearly does not. To document that the Bible specifically teaches the global flood should be sufficient to convince a true believer in the authority of the Bible.

Mr. Stoner rightly claims that the word "all" can sometimes be used in a limited sense (e.g., Genesis 41:57); thus the terms used in the flood account might be similarly limited. But proper Biblical exegesis involves discerning the meaning of words in their immediate context. A passage cannot be interpreted by vaguely possible meanings. An honest look at the flood account uncovers an abundance of terms and phrases, each of which is best understood in a global sense. Taken together as forming the context for each other, the case is overwhelming. The global extent of the Flood is referred to more than 30 times in Genesis 6-9 alone!

It would seem that the Author of Genesis could hardly have been more explicit. Conversely, if the omniscient Author had intended to describe a local flood, He obscured the facts. If words can communicate truth, if God can express Himself clearly, then the Flood was global.

It would seem that only a rank downgrading of Scripture, and/or an unhealthy desire for the approval of unsaved men could lead one to question this doctrine. I would call on my Christian brothers, who choose to hold on to the idea of a local flood and its corollary concept, the old earth, either to return to a God-honoring trust in Scripture, or else to cease using the term "Bible-believing" to describe their position.

I recommend clicking the "publications" link on ICR's (Institute for Creation Research) website, and browsing the highly informative (and voluminous) "Impact", "Back to Genesis" and "Dr. John's Q&A" sections.

I also recommend reading "The Young Earth" by John Morris, Ph.D. Geologist (available from Amazon).

Unfortunately, Mr. Stoner's interpretations raise far more problems than they attempt to solve (as will be documented below).

I do not believe that those who adhere to some form of theistic evolution (God used evolution to create everything) or progressive creation (God intervened at various points in the process of evolution) fully realize that their position violates clear concepts revealed in the Bible--indeed much that is foundational to the very Gospel itself.

For instance..

Concept violated: the goodness of God

The Bible says 'God is good' and in Genesis 1:31 God described his just finished creation as 'very good'. How do you understand the goodness of God if He used evolution, 'nature red in tooth and claw', to 'create' everything?

Concept violated: Adam's sin brought death and decay, the basis of the Gospel

According to the evolutionist's (and progressive creationist's) understanding, fossils (which show death, disease and bloodshed) were formed before people appeared on earth. Doesn't that mean that you can't believe the Bible when it says that everything is in 'bondage to decay' because of Adam's sin (Romans 8)? In the evolutionary view, hasn't the 'bondage to decay' always been there? And if death and suffering did not arise with Adam's sin and the resulting curse, how can Jesus' suffering and physical death pay the penalty for sin and give us eternal life, as the Bible clearly says (e.g. 1 Corinthians 15:22, "For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all shall be made alive")?

Concept violated: the divine inspiration of the whole Bible

If the Genesis accounts of Creation, the Fall, the origin of nations, the Flood and the Tower of Babel - the first 11 chapters - are not historical, although they are written as historical narrative and understood by Jesus to be so, what other unfashionable parts of the Bible do you discard? The biblical account of creation in Genesis seems very specific with six days of creative activity, each having an evening and a morning. According to the evolutionary sequence, the biblical order of creation is all wrong. Do you think God should have inspired an account more in keeping with the evolutionary order, the truth as you see it, if indeed He did use evolution or followed the evolutionary pattern in creating everything?

Concept violated: the straightforward understanding of the Word of God

If the Genesis account does not mean what it plainly says, but must be 'interpreted' to fit an evolutionary world, how are we to understand the rest of the Bible? How are we to know that the historical accounts of Jesus' life, death and resurrection should not also be 'reinterpreted'? Indeed, can we know anything for sure if the Bible can be so flexible?

Concept violated: the creation is supposed to show the hand of God clearly

Dr Niles Eldredge, well-known evolutionist, said:

'Darwin . . . taught us that we can understand life's history in purely naturalistic terms, without recourse to the supernatural or divine.' [Niles Eldredge, "Time Frames - the Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium", 1986, Heinemann, London, p. 13.]

Is it not philosophically inconsistent to marry God (theism) with evolution (naturalism)? If God 'created' using evolution which makes Him unnecessary, how can God's 'eternal power and divine nature' be 'clearly seen' in creation, as Romans 1:20 says? Evolution has no purpose, no direction, no goal. The God of the Bible is all about purpose. How do you reconcile the purposelessness of evolution with the purposes of God? What does God have to do in an evolutionary world? Is not God an 'unnecessary hypothesis'?

Concept violated: the need of restoration for the creation

If God created over millions of years involving death, the existing earth is not ruined by sin, but is as it always has been - as God supposedly intended it to be. So why then should He want to destroy it and create a new heavens and earth (2 Peter 3 and other places)?

Starting to get the picture of where Mr. Stoner's compromising theology leads?

See the Answers in Genesis website for volumnes of eye-opening information.

Books I would strongly encourage one to read instead: "Icons of Evolution" by Jonathan Wells, "Bones of Contention" by Marvin Lubenow, "Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No!" by Duane Gish, "In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation" by John F. Aston, "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" by Michael Denton, "Astronomy and the Bible" by Donald B. DeYoung, "Refuting Evolution" by Jonathan Sarfati, "The Answers Book" by Ham/Snelling/Wieland, and "The Young Earth" by John Morris.

I used this book in the hope that it would help me write a SAS macro. Unfortunately, it is so poorly written and full of jargon (as the author-provided description suggests), that I came away more confused than when I started.

I used this book in the hope that it would help me write a SAS macro. Unfortunately, it is so poorly written and full of jargon (as the author-provided description suggests), that I came away more confused than when I started.

SIGH. The very first chapter (Essential Vocabulary I) lists the definition of "ambulatory" as "able to work" - YIKES ! When did the definition change from 'able to WALK' - WALK not "work." One has to be leery about the rest of the book. Sigh.

HPI's Cardiology Words and Phrases has been of limited help to me and the transcriptionists I supervise. I have been searching for another reference, but I do not want to waste any more money on another cardiology reference as poor as this one.

Thank you for allowing me to voice an opinion.

V. Smith

Another collection of texts written by experts that never designed an "infrastructure system". This is simply the editor's meal ticket for the summer months