[Brother Tim]

Steven, your excellent post on the three aspects of the issue can be used to evaluate a number of "one definite error" arguments. (e.g. Easter, love of money, etc)

My nature to use dry humor or satire is having to be aggressively stifled as the particular subject of the "gnat" ideally lends itself to metaphor. It is, however, such a clear, perfect example of the battle for the inerrancy of the KJB. It seems almost that God put the phrase there for this very reason. It would be perfect irony that the doubters would place so much effort to use this tiny phrase about a tiny animal as proof that the KJB was merely one of many human attempts. They are truly straining at the gn"at"!

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by Brother Tim

excellent post on the three aspects of the issue can be used to evaluate a number of "one definite error" arguments. (e.g. Easter, love of money, etc)... the "gnat" ideally lends itself to metaphor. It is, however, such a clear, perfect example of the battle for the inerrancy of the KJB... They are truly straining at the gn"at"!

Amen, Tim.

Today I was looking to see precisely how they strained and convoluted and deceived themselves and others - ending up with the various phrases for the canard designed to cast doubt upon God's word and, at the time, help promote their various new translations or the cry and wail for the 'revision'.

Some of the terms settled on for the accusation:

misprint
printer's error
typographical error
error of the press
scribal corruption

Wow. Looking at how this occurred was fascinating.
Here is a preview of the summary of the 'scholarship' involved.

=================================================

Anatomy of a False Accusation Against the Word of God

How did the false accusation against the word of God develop.. essentially from nothing, to be accepted in the land of 'modern scholarship' ?

================================================== ===============

The Lemming Quote Festival - Preview

Robert Lowth (1762) impropriety of the preposition (grammatical accuser)

William Bowyer (c 1770) false metaphor - ('strain off' is correct)

John Wesley (before 1791) that glaring false print

Adam Clarke (1817) likely to have been at first an error of the press

Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review (1825) typographical error
(Charles Hodge and others)

Samuel Bloomfield (1826) mere typographical blunder

Noah Webster (1833)
may have been a misprint, false translation or a misprint, evidently an oversight or misprint

Albert Barnes (1835)
mistranslation or misprint
strain out .. undoubtedly rendered by the translators
misprint, and should be corrected

================================================== =================

THE ADAM CLARKE 'PROOF'

Harris (1824) - Adam Clarke has proved that here is an error of the press
Carpenter (1833)

Dictionary of the Holy Bible - Robinson (1832) Clarke has shown that there is an error of the press

Bible Cyclopædia (1841)
Adam Clarke proves that " at" has been substituted for " out," by a typographical error in the edition of 1611

================================================== =================

Shalom,
Steven

[bibleprotector]

Lowth seems to be a proto-modernist:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Lowth

Lowth's method included criticising "false syntax"; his examples of false syntax were culled from Shakespeare, the King James Bible, John Donne, John Milton, Jonathan Swift, Alexander Pope, and other famous writers. His understanding of grammar, like that of all linguists of his period, was based largely on the study of Latin, a misapplication according to critics of a later generation (and his own stated principles; he condemned "forcing the English under the rules of a foreign Language"

Since Clarke was a Methodist, he would have followed Wesley's judgment. Both Lowth and Wesley made other translations into English against the English Bible.

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

Lowth seems to be a proto-modernist:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Lowth
Since Clarke was a Methodist, he would have followed Wesley's judgment. Both Lowth and Wesley made other translations into English against the English Bible.

Yep. There are some interesting backgrounds and relationships there. John Wesley is the strangest since he was a heavenly witnesses defender, with a neat modified version of the mariner's compass poem of Bengelius.

Noah Webster also wrote his own Bible update version, and in the last century perhaps the two most aggressive proponents and pushers of the myth-accusation have also been involved in new version attempts. Edgar Goodspeed and Daniel Wallace. So at least five myth-contributers share that peculiarity.

Since Adam Clarke was credited with proving the myth, let us next look at what he actually wrote.

================================================== =======================

Adam Clarke (1817) (also see post #35)

http://www.godrules.net/library/clarke/clarkemat23.htm
http://www.swartzentrover.com/cotor/...T/Mt/MT_23.htm
http://books.google.com/books?id=I6kGAAAAQAAJ&pg=PT183
The New Testament .. with a Commentary and Critical Notes (1817)

[Blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.] This clause should be thus translated: Ye strain out the gnat, but ye swallow down the camel. In the common translation, Ye strain AT a gnat, conveys no sense. Indeed, it is likely to have been at first an error of the press, AT for OUT, which, on examination, I find escaped in the edition of 1611, and has been regularly continued since. There is now before me, "The Newe Testament, (both in Englyshe and in Laten,) of Mayster Erasmus translacion, imprynted by Wyllyam Powell, dwellynge in Flete strete: the yere of our Lorde M.CCCCC.XLVII. the fyrste yere of the kynges (Edwd. VI.) moste gracious reygne." in which the verse stands thus: "Ye blinde gides, which strayne out a gnat, and swalowe a cammel." It is the same also in Edmund Becke's Bible, printed in London 1549, and in several others.-Clensynge a gnatte. - MS. Eng. Bib. So Wickliff. Similar to this is the following Arabic proverb . He eats an elephant and is choked by a gnat.

================================================== =======================

Notice that Adam Clarke, while more involved in the accusation than Wesley, still fudges the accusation - 'likely..' . And his factual backdrop is quite removed from the real issues. (A standard scholarship game of giving a bunch of facts implying to the reader that they really mean a lot, when they actually have very little bearing on the issue.) Amazingly, in the ongoing game of false accusation-lemming-telephone (to falsely accuse the word of God and encourage the 'revision') it is later claimed that Adam Clarke himself proved the myth-accusation. Quite clearly Adam Clarke did no such thing, nor did he claim to do so.

(Note: the Adam Clarke writing may go back to 1810 or 1811.)

Shalom,
Steven

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Clearly, the misprint myth should never had arisen. And the bold-faced assertion, the impudent untruth, is still kicking around today. Yet it developed out of a comedy of errors, to the extent that rebellion against the word of God can be a comedy. First, Robert Lowth, a Keystone Kop of English grammar (let's make English into Latin) ranted against traditional and excellent English, King James Bible, Shakespeare and the Kitchen Sink. Yet even Lowth made no intimation of a misprint. Then supposedly learned men, in a fog, actually said they could not comprehend 'strain at a gnat'. Amazing. Then the misprint theories were developed that had no evidence, and against evidence. Theories that we see pushed by men who wanted to peddle their own new versions. And finally, the wild and weird misprint and 'typographical error' and 'printer's error' theories were brazenly claimed to be 'proved' - a total fabrication.

============================================

Three elements doomed the theory from the beginning.

First there was no evidence, no smoking gun, not even a wisp of smoke. And such a theory (inadvertent error, never corrected) will have a high bar of evidence.

Second, despite many King James Bible corrections being made, usually quickly (shewed to hewed, a similar type of small distinction, similarly of some note, apparently was corrected immediately after the 1st edition) every Bible edition for over a century was exactly the same .. 'strain at a gnat'. And for over a century plus, no known voices of concern, protest, change, update or correction. The Authorised Version was all over the world, edition upon edition, England, USA and elsewhere, and every version simply had the sensible and accurate and commonly spoken 'strain at a gnat'.

These two would essentially disprove the theory. A theory of misprint or printer's error will have a reasonably high bar of evidence, even as only a conjecture. As an assertion, the evidence must be truly compelling. And here all the primary evidences are against. The phrase 'strain at a gnat and swallow a camel' was commonly used and understood English and was printed consistently without any known concern or opposition or correction.

However one more point arises. The misprint theory absolutely requires that 'strain at a gnat' be, at the time of first publication, a new and unusual text, thus a 'misprint'. If the phrase was truly unknown and unused, the theory could possibly have a bit of consideration, some traction. You might then wonder if the preposition 'at' came from the printer rather than from the translators intent, since the proposed vector of origination from the translators is questioned.

"How and why did they translate 'strain at a gnat' an unknown phrase ?"

might be a good and reasonable conjectural question. You might puzzle if an unknown phrase really came from the translators with deliberate intent.

On the other hand, if the phrase was used, the theory is gone, finito. Even more so if the phrase is used in Biblical and textual circles. Even more so if it arises in top scholarly Bible circles. Even more so if the phrase is used by King James Bible translators before the translation ! The conjectural possibility is then quadruple extra-busted.

In the 1800's and the early 1900s' a few pointed out that the 'printer's error' theory made little or no sense. Likely, but not necessarily since the theory was far-fetched from the get-go, some early usage supporting 'strain at a gnat' was pointed out, perhaps the two early examples that made it into the Oxford English Dictionary, John King on Jonah and Mamilla. These men of sense saying 'hmm.. wait a minute here' were mostly ignored in the pseudo-scholarship circles that have taken over much of Bible text discussion.

And then the last possibility of traction for the misprint accusation was decimated by the 1944 Constantin Hopf paper. Totally destroyed. (The inability of 'scholars' like Daniel Wallace to recognize this is truly astounding.) Two separate English translations of Calvin significantly before the King James Bible using the same phrase for the Biblical passage at issue ! And in the perfect timing of translation that would explain why the phrase made the King James Bible and yet did not appear in the earlier English versions. (e.g. the Geneva Bible had already been translated). How anyone with any position or savvy or smarts could still talk today about assertions of 'scribal corruption' and 'definite error' and 'misprint' is the remaining question. What type of deception and rebellion comes to play to think so illogically ? And all to attack the pure word of God.

Now, today, we have much more even than Constantin Hopf presented. My next post, by God's grace, will show forum readers the summary of English usage from before 1611 that we can find in an easy search today. (Some is on the thread above, however a bit scattered, some is new.)

Please note : none of this is necessary to bust the accusation that Constantin Hopf already destroyed in 1944. It is, however, interesting to see the truth about the common and accepted and excellent usages of the phrase 'strain at a gnat' - the usage and understanding that was brought into the King James Bible by the learned men labouring to bring forth the pure word of God into English.

My thanks to the brethren considering this fascinating history with the forum and myself, and to the many who have contributed so much to defending the pure word of God.

Shalom,
Steven

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

One point to add about the myth-accusation There is a slogan (often misused) that applies well here. 'Extraordinary Events Require Extraordinary Evidence'.

We have the Bible carefully put together and read and edited and proofed, over many years with many capable hands. Printer errors were made, this was the early years of printing, and were quickly corrected. So, out of many 10s of thousands of words, there is no case that a misprint is supposed to have passed through unnoticed. None at all, except, per the accusers, a century later (without evidence) ... one case. One little word, one 'definite error' (Wallace). A truly extraordinary event. Not only that, the one word is in the New Testament on a oft-considered section and verse, very difficult to overlook, a passage and section and verse oft-read and oft-spoken.

Thus such a case of the one and only misprint uncorrected - for consideration in a sensible and sane Bible discussion - would require extraordinary evidences. People raising their voices, a 1613 edition with 'strain out', a preaching by a translator bemoaning what occurred, etc. None of this exists. There is no there there.

In fact, as we see on researching, there are infallible proofs in the other direction ! Powerful and multi-corroborative. Totally missed or overlook or even hid by the false accusers of the word of God.

One other point.

The pernicious nature of this false accusation over 200 years is hard to express. I only touch on it a bit on this thread, and I may be too involved in the details to give the fine overview explanation. This has been truly a centerpiece of the anti-King-James-Bible movements, from the revisionists to the alexandrian-corruption-proponents to the modern cornfuseniks who simply want to reject the authority of God's word in the King James Bible. (btw, when this history and verse and false accusation is brought forth to these men you truly can see straining at multi-gnats. And swallowing the camel of the lack integrity and ethics and the lack of truth of the deceivers about the pure word of God.)

Others here may want to address this overall deception of the cornfuseniks and deceivers, how they used this nonsense-attack-foil and how sweet it is to see our pure and perfect Bible fully vindicated from the phoney and baseless assault. Thank you Lord Jesus !

Proverbs 30:5
Every word of God is pure:
he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

Every word.

Shalom,
Steven

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Matthew 23:24 (KJB-1611)
Ye blind guides,
which straine at a gnat,
and swallow a camel.

Here is the summary of some other quotes that, by the revisionist theory, would really need to be 'misprints'. Else there is a clear and sensible explanation and understanding of the King James Bible verse, even by the pure Bible skeptic view of the doubting Doug and Rick and Daniel (Wallace). This is only what is before 1611 and goes back to 1539 ! Later I plan a longer post of the same basic info, however I hope it is easy to read as follows.

'Misprint' Quote Festival

Thomas Tymme - translation of Marlorate - quotation of John Calvin (1570)
".They do therefore euen as if a man shoulde straine at a small crumme of bread, and swallow a whole loafe. Wee knowe that a gnat is a small creature, and a Camell, a huge beast: there is nothinge therefore more rydiculous, than to strayne in, wyne and water, least in swallowinge a gnat thou hurte thy Jawes, but careleslye to suppe vp a Camell."

Eusebius Paget - translation of Calvin's Harmonia (1584)
"Therefore they doe as much, as if a man shoulde straine at a crumme of bread, and swallow downe a whole loafe. Wee know that a gnat is a small creature, and a camel a great beast: nothing therefore is more ridiculous then to straine wine or water, leaste thou shouldest hurt the iawes with swallowing vp a gnat, but carelessly suppe vp a camel."

George Abbot (1562–1633) - translator Second Oxford committee - assigned the Gospels
An exposition vpon the prophet Ionah... (1600)
"...to make a strayning at a gnat, and to swallow vp a whole Camel."

Roger Fenton - (translator - 2nd Westminster company)
An ansvvere to VVilliam Alablaster... (1599)
"...Let vs then leaue to straine at gnattes, and ingenuously acknowledge..."

John King
Lectures upon Jonas (1599)
"They have verified the olde proverbe in strayning at gnats and swallowing downe camells."
".we straine at gnats..."

Group arrested in Oxford 1539 for breaking Lenten fast to Thomas Cromwell
They pleaded that their case should not be judged by those
"as will streyne a gnat and devo[ur] a Camele"

John Whitgift (c. 1530–1604) Archbishop of Canterbury 1583-1604 (Works of John Whitgift)
"...ye straine at a Gnat, & swallow up a camel" (p. 581) Sermon 1574
" and strain at a gnat swallowing down a camel" (p. 523) Sermon 1583 -
"..of whom Christ speaketh : ' They strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.' "(p. 595)

Arthur Golding (1536-1606) translation of John Calvin (The sermons of M. Iohn Caluin)... (1577)
"...play the hipocrytes, who will streyne at a gnat, and swallowe..."

Henry Barrow and John Greenwood to Puritan compromisers (1587)
"strain at a gnat and swallow a camel; and are close hypocrites, and walk in a left-handed policy"

Rudolf Gwalther
An hundred, threescore and fiftene homelyes or sermons...(1572)
"...Gospel, where he sayth they strayne at a Gnat..."

Edward Topsell
The house-holder: or, Perfect man. Preached in three sermons... (1610)
"...will leaue these Fooles, Which straine at Gnats, and swallow Camels ... "

Robert Greene
Mamillia; The Second Part of the Triumph of Pallas (1593)
"most unjustly straining at a gnat and letting pass an elephant"

Thomas Gainsford
The vision and discourse of Henry the seuenth... (1610)
"...and seeke extremities, They straine at Gnats..."

And William Shakespeare used "strain at.."
Troilus and Cressida III. 2. 112 (1602) Ulysses: I do not strain at the position *

My thanks to a number of sources and resources in helping create this compilation. Special thanks to 'Jerome' on BaptistBoard who had information on eight of these in one thread in late 2006. It was an excellent jump-start and really helped show that the more commonly-given references (John King & Mamillia) strong as they were, were essentially iceberg tips.

Keep in mind also that the top two, from Constantin Hopf, must receive special note, and thanks that he took the time and effort to really help with the fundamental research even back in 1944. And other references, such as the King James Bible translators, are similarly conclusive. To a sensible and reasoning mind, if there even was an issue one or two of these would firmly close shut the misprint door. The fact that we have such a wealth of available references after 500 years I believe is simply God's design to really help people see and understand the truth. Also it can be an encouragement to study the environment and times leading up to the King James Bible. (Recommended start : William Grady, Final Authority).

Shalom,
Steven

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

And to increase to 15 references (other than Shakespeare's limited reference).

Fovre Letters and Certeine Sonnets - by Gabriel Harvey
"to straine at a Gnatt, as it were at a Camell" (c. 1592)

And here is a bit more on the three less complete references above.

=================================================== ================

Rudolf Gwalther translated by John Bridges
An hundred, threescore and fiftene homelyes or sermones, vppon the Actes of the Apostles, written by Saint Luke: made by Rudolpe Gualthere Tigurine, and translated out of Latine into our Tongue, for the commodite of the Englishe reader [by John Bridges, Vicar of Herne] London, H. Denham, 1572
"...Gospel, where he sayth they strayne at a Gnat..."

Rudolf Gwalther. (Rodolphus-Rodolph Gualter) (Rudolpe Gualthere) (1519–1586), theologian
Bishop of the Reformed Church of Zurich, following Bullinger and Zwingli in that office.

================================================== =======================

Edward Topsell (1572-1625) - Church of England clergyman,
Author of "The History of Four-Footed Beasts and Serpents" (with unicorn section)
The house-holder: or, Perfect man. Preached in three sermons lately at Hartfield in Sussex ... (1610)
"...will leaue these Fooles, Which straine at Gnats, and swallow Camels ... "

================================================== =========================

Thomas Gainsford (1566-1624)
The vision and discourse of Henry the seuenth.Concerning the vnitie of Great Brittaine. . (1610)
"...and seeke extremities, They straine at Gnats..."

================================================== ============================

Note that a careful check of EEBO - Early English Books Online - might find additional references.

Shalom,
Steven

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

And to round out for now the section on early usages.
One more clear usage.

Richard Jugge - the Queen's printer (1570)
A briefe examination for the tyme, of a certaine declaration, lately put in print in the name and defence of certaine Ministers in London, refusyng to weare the apparell prescribed by the lawes and orders of the Realme

It were to be wyshed .. that none of them which pretend herein a straytness of conscience, dyd strayne a Gnat and swallowe a Camell.

======================

AFTER 1611 - SOME REFERENCES OF NOTE

Post #66 - Dr. Nicholas Bernard, Dean of Kilmore
swallow downe, these Scottish camells, and sadly strayne at our English gnats (colorful phrasing)

Algernon Sidney (1660)
the titles that are given me of fierce, violent, seditious, mutinous, turbulent ... I knowe people will say, I straine at knats, and swallowe camels; that it is a strange conscience, that lets a man runne violently on, till he is deepe in civill blood, and then stays at a fewe words and complements

========

The next is especially insightful, even today !

John Winthrop (1587/8 –1649) led a group of English Puritans to the New World, joined the Massachusetts Bay Company in 1629 and was elected their governor on October 1629.

USA Puritan Usage - When usage was Geneva and King James Bible
Apparently the same spiritual confusion and malaise situation existed in the 1600's as today.

John Winthrop, Reasons for Emigrating to New England (1631).

The fountains of Learning & Religion are so corrupted as (besides the unsupportable charge of there education) most children (even the best wits & of fairest hopes) are perverted, corrupted, & utterly overthrowne by the multitude of evill examples & the licentious government of those seminaries, where men straine at gnats & swallow camels

Amen !

=========================

BEFORE 1611 - 3 REFERENCES OF "STRAIN A GNAT"

"straine a gnat" - different yet indicating the effort.
The second includes an early commentary.

Encyclopædia metropolitana; or,
Universal dictionary of knowledge, Volume XVI (1845) (p. 186)

Precisians and plaine plodders
(such is this, and so is that)
In loue do swallow cammells, whilst
They nicely straine a gnat.
Warner. Albion's England, book vi. (c.1600)

Letters and Exercises of the Elizabethan Schoolmaster John Conybeare (c.1590)
They streigne a gnatte through their teeth, and swallowe downe a cammel

An apt proverbe applied by oure saviour christ unto the Phariseis, which did aggravate small offences and mayntayne great enormities. It maye be nowe used agaynst such persons as seke out and punishe small offenders, and leat the great trespassours agaynst the la we goe quyte unpunished. Also them that are scrupulouse yn thinges of litle importaunce, and yn ambition, avarice, extorcion, advonterie, theft, murder, treason or heresie. they fynde no daunger of conscience.

The Literature of Roguery: Defence of Conny-Catching (1592)
You "would straine a gnat, and lette passe an elephant"

=======================================

What would round out this survey would be the places with 'strain out' before 1611 in the literature. And I think that may actually be less common than 'strain at' despite the Bible versions, which generally had 'strain out' (Wycliffe being different, an earlier dialect).

We saw 'strain out' in the Tyndale's 'Obedience of the Christian Man' (noting the sense was fuller) and it is in Udall's translation of Erasmus. And I remember that one of the references in the 1500s also had a 'strain out' in the same section as 'strain at'. Perhaps some more has been referenced or could be found. However overall it seems reasonable to conclude that 'strain at a gnat' was even the more common and accepted usage before the King James Bible.

One brother on a forum was writing, a bit humorously yet earnestly, that he really had hoped to see 'strain at a gnat' to be a kind of providential update and enhancement of the English language from the King James Bible 1611 - even as the claimed misprint ! . Right or wrong in concept he presented an interesting view. Alas, there is no possibility of consideration of 'strain at a gnat' being any type of 'misprint', neither providential or simply accidental.

Remember, the Oxford English Dictionary gives support to the truth, which we have attempted to share more fully on this thread:

"It has been asserted that ‘straine at’ in the Bible of 1611 is a misprint for ‘straine out,’ the rendering of the earlier versions. But the quotations [from] 1583 and 1594 show that the translators of 1611 simply adopted a rendering that had already obtained currency. It was not a mistranslation..’"

This definitely precedes the Constantin Hopf paper in 1944, an interesting question how far back goes the O.E.D. reference. Note that true English language scholarship had accepted the full validity of 'strain at a gnat' quite long ago, discarding the weak and feeble attempts to taint this phrase in the King James Bible as a misprint or a mistranslation. The curious question is how the even the pseudo-scholars like Daniel Wallace who know the truth as above would simply ignore it their attempt to claim 'one definite error', a 'scribal corruption' in the King James Bible.

An interesting new discovery is that Daniel Wallace, while he ended up putting the O.E.D. reference in a footnote (my conjecture is that he first wrote his articles and then added the footnote when he discovered it contradicted his position) actually omitted the most salient phrase (in the context of his 'one definite error' assertion) from O.E.D.

"It was not a mistranslation..’".

Daniel Wallace actually had the chutzpah to stop the quote at "obtained currency" and then make a flying jump to a straw-man attempt to weaken the effect (covered in post #45). In the earlier post I did not notice the additional aspect of the transparently dishonest (snipping).

Shalom,
Steven

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

One additional note on the astoundingly deficient Daniel Wallace presentations.

In the article where Daniel Wallace claims about 'strain out a gnat':

http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1197
Changes to the KJV since 1611:An Illustration - Daniel B. Wallace , Th.M., Ph.D. (Bio)

"I believe that the KJV of 1611 actually had this wording"

Daniel Wallace, in addition to demonstrating incredibly shoddy 'scholarship' skills, since the facts of the matter are well-known and easy to check (post #45) - Wallace actually omits the O.E.D. footnote ! (Of which he is fully aware, since in the other article he has the footnote. And Internet Archives shows these two articles being initially posted at the same time.)

Amazing. When Wallace includes O.E.D. he does so duplicitously, with both blatant snipping and the non sequitur diversion attempt. When he cannot include it at all since there is no way to even come up with a phoney counter attempt, he simply omits the reference. And Wallace omits the additional refutation of his attempts to claim 'scribal corruption' etc. given 60+ years ago by Constantin Hopf (referenced in the BDAG lexicon).

In these presentations 'Daniel Wallace Th.M., Ph.D' achieves such a height of subtiley dishonest scholarship that he threatens to give garden-variety run-of-the-mill dishonest scholarship a bad name.

Daniel Wallace owes the Bible community and the scholastic world not simply a withdrawal of these blunders and deceptions, errors that he has used to try to undermine the faith of brothers and sisters in the pure word of God. Daniel Wallace owes the Bible believers a separate web page article, prominent and publicly-maintained (for a year or more, the deceptions have been up for almost two years), a correction and full apology and without diversionary reservations and excuses.

Shalom,
Steven