Energion Direct

Category: Inerrancy

Biblical Teaching about Inspiration

by Edward Vick

We begin this section with a caveat. We are speaking in what follows of individual writings speaking about other writings. The term ‘writings’ (or ‘Scriptures’) in the New Testament is the Greek word graphai, a plural form, from which we get such words as graph, graphic and all the other words of which these form a part (e.g. photographic, lithograph). This word has a general and so a rather vague reference. We cannot therefore, as some people would like to think, speak about ‘the Bible’s view of itself’. When some of the statements were made the Bible did not yet exist as a whole. Moreover the recognition of a particular body of books was in the future. Only when that recognition was established was it possible to speak of ‘the Bible.’ That was, of course, after the production of any particular writing. What we should rather say is that some writings talk of other writings. One may, of course, take what these writings say of those others as true of the whole. But that is an interpretation. It was not the intention — how could it have been? — of the writers themselves. This will become clear as we consider the particular passages themselves in some detail. We shall have to ask whether we can say for sure which writings are being spoken of, when the term ‘writings’ is used.
It is therefore misleading to say, ‘the Bible claims’ to be inspired.
There is no “the Bible” that claims to be divinely inspired. There is no “it” that has a “view of itself”. There is only this or that source, like II Timothy or II Peter, which make statements about certain other writings, these rather undefined. There is no such thing as “the Bible’s view of itself” from which a fully authoritative answer to these questions can be obtained.
It is wrong to claim that the New Testament states clearly and unambiguously that ‘it’ is inspired. As we have seen, the canon has a history. Some books were considered secondary, even disputed. II Peter was one of these secondary books and II Timothy was considered marginal. This means that two of the less important books make claims about source writings which they know. The term Scripture means ‘writing,’ simply ‘writing’. We have no means of knowing which books they are speaking about. We cannot, must not, assume that II Timothy 3:16 is referring to the twenty-seven books of the canon which we adopt. We do not know how many such writings II Timothy knew. We cannot say that this passage represents the New Testament teaching about itself. The passage reads: ‘All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction and for training in righteousness.’ The marginal note correctly indicates that the language is ambiguous. It reads as an alternative: ‘Every Scripture inspired by God is also profitable. . . .The ambiguity is inherent in the Greek construction. The text reads: pasa graphe theopneustos kai ophelimos pros didaskalian. There is no verb, no ‘is’ in the sentence. Rendered word for word, which in this case is not misleading, the passage reads: ‘every writing inspired and (or also) profitable for instruction.’ We have to supply ‘is’. But the writer does not indicate where we shall put it, and so we do not know which of the following alternatives he intended. We can read either: (l) ‘every writing is inspired and profitable’ or (2)‘every inspired writing is also profitable’.
In the first case we have supplied ‘is’ after graphe ‘writing.’ In the second case we have supplied it before kai (and), which, since it then introduces a second adjective ophelimos, is translated ‘also,’ as it often is. There is no stretching or distortion. To translate the passage as in 2. is to render into English a perfectly normal usage from Greek. The sentence is ambiguous in Greek and requires consideration of both (1) and (2) to render that ambiguity. So much for the language.
Therefore, first, we cannot say which books the writer refers to either from the meaning of the words of the passage, or from its context. We cannot, therefore, construct from this one use of the term ‘inspired’ a theory of the authority of the whole Bible. Second: the term is used only once, and the associations with the Greek culture render it unsuitable for use as the basis of a doctrinal theory. It is only as the concept of inspiration is duly qualified that it may be used as a theological principle. Even then it has serious limitations. This is because the Biblical materials are so diverse that we cannot impose one and only one model of inspiration on them.
Even if it were the case that the Bible claimed that the Bible had authority, that the Bible was ‘inspired,’ holy, set apart, that would not prove that it was. We just cannot take as a general principle: What x, say a book, claims to be it is or, If someone makes a claim, that person is the something he claims to be. That we must establish on other grounds. Not all those who claimed to be prophets inspired by God were prophets inspired by God. Several stories in the Old Testament make the point that other considerations than that a person makes a claim have to be carefully weighed before a decision is reasonably made about the claim.
We mentioned the Greek concept of inspiration. The word theopneustia itself is not biblical. It is not found in the Septuagint but it is part of the religious vocabulary of Greece. Inspiration is a kind of possession. The state of mind is readily identified. It is a kind of madness, dementia, loss of wits and remembrance. The accompanying behaviour is unusual. The person has visions and utters words, is beyond consciousness and needs an interpreter to judge of their sanity and of the truth or falsity of the matter. When they speak they do not know what they say. ‘No man, when in his wits, attains prophetic truth and inspiration, but when he receives the inspired word, either his intelligence is enthralled in sleep, or he is demented by some distemper or possession.’ So it is necessary to ‘set up spokesmen to pronounce judgment on inspired divination.’
Christian theology of revelation could be developed along such lines. Were that done, the unusual behaviour of the individual would then have to be explained. If one took the problem boldly in hand, the unusual phenomena accompanying the visitation might be taken as evidence that it was authentic. The physical or psychological state would then be interpreted as positive evidence of the divine activity. But that is the very thing in question. It is illogical, and so irrational to argue from an unusual psychological or physical state for support of the trustworthiness of the sayings delivered. Plato knew that. An interpreter or ‘spokesman’ (prophetes) was needed to assess the whole business.
There were ecstatic ‘prophets’ in the Old Testament story, and they were considered to be mad. Their ecstasy was wild and contagious. It is as if something enters into a person from without and he becomes another person. Such is the literal meaning of ‘possession’ and ‘ecstasy.’ ‘The spirit of the Lord will come mightily upon you and you shall prophesy with them and be turned into another man.’ That was said of Saul. And when the ‘prophet’ comes with a notorious message to Jehu, his servants ask him, ‘Is all well? Why did this mad fellow come to you?’
But the Hebrew understanding of prophecy did not in the main develop along these lines, the lines of mantic possession. Nor did the Christian understanding. It could have done, and later to some extent it did. Philo the Jew spoke of the divine possessing the human and shaping words within the man. Many Jews treated their books as though they had been produced in this way. Some Christian writers use metaphors which suggest possession of the human by the divine. Athenagoras speaks of man as the flute and God as the flute player. The Holy Spirit is like a player blowing into the flute.
There is no suggestion on the part of the New Testament writers that this was the way they thought about the matter. They do not think of possession, nor of a verbally inspired text, nor of inerrancy as Philo had done. That was left to much later Christian writers for whom inerrancy and verbal inspiration was crucial. But from the beginning that was not the case. The reason for this is that they do not think of the activity of the Holy Spirit in this way. The Holy Spirit is active in the many and varied activities which make up the whole of the church’s life and witness. The whole Christian movement is inspired. Without the Spirit there could be no witness, no love, no unity.
The term used of ‘the writing’ in II Timothy 3:16, theopneustos, means literally ‘God-breathed.’ It is a combination of the words for ‘God’ and for ‘breath’, ‘breathing.’ The term ‘inspiration’ is a very free translation, and is thus inexact. As we have seen, the term, once used of the writings, calls on a whole range of meanings which are not suitable here.
Nor does the text claim a great deal for the ‘inspired’ writings. They are ‘profitable for instruction and for edification.’ That does not particularly set them apart from many other writings. The later high sounding claims made in the name of inspiration have no basis whatever in the modest association of theopneustos with edifying.
Writers up to and around AD 200 have various ways of describing what it is that makes New Testament Scripture different. The writings are sacred because they are inspired by the Holy Spirit. The terms used vary. The writers are pneumataphorioi ‘bearers,’ i.e. instruments, of the Spirit. Their minds are ‘flooded’ with the Holy Spirit. Sometimes the source of inspiration is the Holy Spirit. Sometimes the writings reflect the authority of Christ. The writings are kuriakai graphai (the Lord’s writings). Christ speaks through the writings. Some speak of the inspiration as having to do with the very words, and of the Spirit as foreseeing what would happen, e.g. that heresies would arise, and speaking appropriately to the situation they foresee. Sometimes Scripture is said to be perfect and infallible. Scripture is holy.
The term for ‘spirit’ in the Old Testament is ruach, in the New Testament pneuma. In both cases the term means ‘breath,’ ‘wind.’ Breath is air in motion, and without inbreathing air there can be no life. Breath is life-giving. Without breath there can be no speech. When the breath moves over the vocal cords and articulate sounds are produced, communication becomes possible. It is itself invisible but its results are quite visible and tangible. The term ruach is in the Old Testament books used of the life-giving power of Yahweh, and of the revelation he makes through the prophets to man. He breathes the ‘Spirit’ into the lifeless form and man becomes a living being. He sends his ‘Spirit’ and the prophet speaks the ‘word of the Lord.’
Since the term ruach, spirit, is a way of speaking of God, the writers of the Old Testament recognize that God is in some sense present in the very process by which he comes to be revealed. God is in some way present in the events which make possible the speaking of the prophet.
So the metaphor of inspiration, in-breathing, has connections with this process of revelation. The word of the Lord and the Spirit of the Lord are dynamically one. When ruach is used metaphorically, at its root is the idea of movement, creative and revealing movement. Breath is air in motion. So there are remarkable and sometimes devastating results. The wind moves mightily. Storms follow, and leave their trace. So it is with the Spirit of God.
It is clear that the ruach has many different meanings, and can express in concrete terms, physical terms, a quite basic conviction of the Old Testament, namely that God is active in the midst of his people in many different ways. The idea of God’s spirit influencing persons and events through persons underwent change and refinement as time passed.
The earlier prophets behaved in very strange ways. On those occasions when the ruach came upon them, entered into them, they were filled as the lungs are full of breath. So possessed, they did strange things. Then the spirit left them and they resumed their normal personalities and more normal activities.

[slideshow_deploy id=’2645′]

May 26, 2016
Inspiration of Scripture: Meaning What?
by Edward W. H. Vick

l. Theory and Fact

The incentive for constructing theories of inspiration is to provide a basis for asserting the authority of the Bible. The Bible, so the argument goes, has authority because it is inspired, and it is inspired in the way the theory of inspiration accounts for it. Since we know how the scriptural books came into being and how they became part of the canon, we simply have to reject any theories which do not take this process into account, or which do not take it sufficiently into account.¹The question how in fact a scriptural writing was produced is decisive: ‘the real question is whether in fact such a writing was ever produced to form part of the Bible as we know it today. It is by this criterion, and not by its inner logic or consistency, that the relevance of the scholastic theology of inspiration must be judged.^’2

The question how in fact a scriptural writing was produced is decisive. It is the criterion by which we must judge not only a scholastic theology of inspiration but any theology of inspiration. What is at issue is the relevance of any theology of inspiration. In view of what we now know concerning how the book came to its final form, we ask how a theory of inspiration can be helpful and what it is that it explains. We must keep the demands of what we know about the actual production of the literature always before our minds. We go seriously wrong if we do not constantly keep in mind what happened in the long story of the composition, compilation and acceptance of the Bible.

A theory of inspiration may make claims that are easily shown to be false by carefully examining the facts. It will either ignore or explain away the facts. Any satisfactory doctrine of inspiration will take account of these data, and be compatible with them. It will take notice of the history of the Bible, and its great complexity. It will not take as an a priori principle that the Bible is inspired, and then proceed to build on it, saying something like, ‘The Bible is inspired, therefore . . . .’ and then proceed to fill in the claim, e.g. there were certain ways in which it could not have been written. The last time I confronted the argument it went: ‘The Bible was inspired, therefore its writers could not have borrowed or copied from other sources in any shape or form.’
Rather one first asks: What, according to the evidence which is available, are the stages and the processes which took place before the end-product resulted? If you ask this historical question, you will have to keep an open mind. It is not fitting, nor is it honest (even if one is sincere) to say, ‘Scripture is inspired: therefore such-and-such did not happen.’ We must seriously take account of the historical data. We may not overlook any significant facts in building a doctrine of Scripture.

2. Some Well-established Facts about Scripture

Here, then, is a short list of some well-established facts about the Scriptures. They represent the dedicated efforts of competent and devoted scholars over several centuries:
1. There is an enormous range of styles in the Scriptures. Some is literature of the very highest rank. Other is ungrammatical.
2. There are literary relationships between some of the scriptural writings. That means that the similarities are so close that they come from common literary, i.e. written, sources. Simply, the writer copied from other people.
3. Oral traditions lie behind our written documents.
4. The traditions were reworked, often several times, before the product resulted as we now have it. The process of redaction was complex.
5. It was a common practice for ancient authors to use pseudonyms. They hoped to give distinction to their work by connecting it with well-known figures.
6. It is at times impossible to harmonize some biblical narratives with others.
7. Each piece of writing has come from a quite particular historical setting. In the majority of cases we can reconstruct that particular setting and relate the writing to the setting.
8. Often, e.g. in Genesis, Kings, Deuteronomy, several oral traditions were set side by side.
3. How the Books were Put Together

The following is a very brief and simplified summary of the series of events that went into the making of a book.

‘Literary studies lead to the conclusion that the process of composition of a typical Old Testament book was as follows: a. groups of unknown people composed oral form to help them with their work, their worship, their teaching; b. the oral forms were passed on through the generations, undergoing small changes from time to time; c. local men of letters wrote down the oral forms with which they were familiar; d. in some period of great literary activity, an editor collected these various literary products and combined them into one large work; e. the large work might be combined with others to make up a complete roll.’³

Any doctrine of inspiration must reckon with these facts, take into account this complex process by which the books came into being and the manner in which they came to have a special recognition in the church.

4. Norms for a Doctrine of Scripture

Even if we do not wish to enter into discussion of a particular viewpoint because we do not consider it an issue, it is sometimes worthwhile to say why it is acceptable or unacceptable. ‘Inerrancy’ is the term used to refer to the view which holds that the Bible is without error, that it must be interpreted in such a way that one may claim that it contains no kind of error. ‘Verbal inspiration’ is the theory which says that the words of the writing have their origin in the divine initiative. ‘Dictation’ is the theory that God ‘spoke’ the actual words of the biblical writer, who duly set them down. Hence, the words of Scripture are the words of God. Dictation theory is not always, but very often, called upon as support for a doctrine of scriptural inerrancy.
We shall now simply list reasons why a verbal, i.e. dictation, theory of inspiration is in error.
1. The ‘writers’ do not claim to be inspired in this way.
2. Only the originals would be so inspired. We don’t have them. Translations are of secondary value.
3. It says nothing about the function of the books. Suppose they had been inspired in this way and left in a box and not yet discovered?
4. Dictation theory is a caricature of the actual process of composition and transmission, which is quite varied indeed. It was ‘in many and varied ways’ that ‘God spoke’ [Hebrews 1:1]. Luke was not dictated to. Mark and other sources were copied by other scriptural writers.
5. It makes the writers into puppets. The theory of accommodation is an obvious enough rationalization.
6. Evidence from the writings themselves contradicts a verbal inspiration theory.
7. It misconceives the idea of authority.
8. Even if it were true it would not establish the authority of Scripture. It only tells us how the words got on to the page.
9. The writings are not without error.
10. It fails to consider the historical evidence and in doing so distorts basic definitions, for example, ‘writer,’ ‘author.’
11. It does not do justice to the diversity of the biblical materials.
The question which raises a worthwhile issue is this: Can a duly modified theory of inspiration take account of the facts, some of which we have just mentioned? That is to say, Can a concept of ‘inspiration’ serve as a theological idea which can provide an adequate explanation of those convictions the Christian wishes to express about the Bible? Rejecting a theory of verbal inspiration, where dictation is the means, can we defend a modified theory of inspiration and account for the Christian attitude to and use of the Bible?

We can certainly set out check points for any such doctrine. By referring to the objections made above to a dictation theory of inspiration, we can derive some norms for an adequate doctrine of Scripture. Any adequate doctrine of the Bible must give a satisfactory account of the following:
1. What the ‘writers’ themselves claim or do not claim.
2. The history of the original text, of its transmission and translation.
3. How the books actually function in the Christian community. How the church uses the writings.
4. The complex and various ways in which the writings came to be, and in particular,
5. The creative individuality and contextuality, i.e. the humanity, of the writers.
6. Evidence from the writings concerning the origin of particular oracles, ideas and pronouncements.
7. That the authority of the Bible is religious and relational.
8. That the words of Scripture come to have such authority. This involves an extended process of recognition or canonization.
9. That the writings are not inerrant.
10. The history of the composition and compilation of the books.
11. The great diversity of the biblical materials: including style, culture, religious and ethical views, form, and aim.
_____________________________________________________

¹Cf. Leo XIII (Nov. 18^th. 1893).

²Bruce Vawter, Biblical Inspiration. London: Hutchinson, 1972 3.1, p. 75.

³David Stacey, Interpreting the Bible, London, Sheldon Press, 1976. pp. 44-45.
- Seventh-day Adventists Interpreting Scripture and Establishing Fundamental Doctrines
  
  Price range: $6.49 through $9.99
  
  Add to cart
- Seventh-Day Adventists and the Bible
  
  Price range: $6.49 through $9.99
  
  Add to cart
- Product on sale
  
  What Is the Word of God?
  
  Price range: $1.39 through $1.99
  
  Add to cart
- When People Speak for God
  
  Price range: $11.69 through $17.99
  
  Add to cart
- Product on sale
  
  From Inspiration to Understanding
  
  Price range: $24.99 through $29.99
  
  Select options
- Inspiration
  
  Price range: $19.49 through $39.99
  
  Select options
February 25, 2016
Why I Don’t Argue for Inerrancy – Too Much
by Elgin Hushbeck

I believe the Bible to be the inerrant word of God. While I believe the Bible to be inerrant, rarely do I argue for inerrancy. First off, let me briefly explain what I mean by the Bible is the inerrant word of God. While it is possible to be much more explicit, basically I believe that the Bible as written by the Apostles and Prophets is correct in all that the authors intended it to say. (Those wishing a more in-depth discussion should google The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, or get Norman Geisler’s excellent book, Inerrancy).

Note that this brief definition avoids all of the problems of textual issues, translations, and interpretation and in fact most of the issues that are behind a lot of disagreements we have as Christians. This is in fact part of the reason I do not argue for Inerrancy, though my main reasons fall into two categories, one for non-Christians and one for Christians.

Why I don’t argue inerrancy with non-Christians.

For Non-Christians, this is pretty straight forward and easy. It is pointless, I don’t need to, and in fact it only makes things harder. Inerrancy is a theological doctrine, grounded on many beliefs, some of which are an integral part of being a Christian. For example, a key underpinning for inerrancy is the belief in the existence of God. Thus how can one argue for inerrancy with an atheist?

More importantly, when dealing with non-Christians, inerrancy is not required. That one does not need to accept inerrancy is amply demonstrated by those Christians who reject the doctrine. Thus for me, why would I want to put a potential stumbling block in the path of someone who needs Christ?

Not only is it not required it makes things harder. Even when I was an atheist I never bought the argument that if there is even one error in the Bible the entire book should be tossed out. Apply that rule universally, we would not have any books. When I claim inerrancy, I take on an impossible burden of proof. How could I ever demonstrate that there was not even a single error in any of the books? I couldn’t.

Instead of taking on this impossible burden, when dealing with non-believers I discuss reliability, not inerrancy. If the Bible is reliable when it talks about the life, ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus, and the implications of this in our lives, what else do I need? Showing the Bible is reliable is actually fairly straight forward, and it is the critics who have to come up with special rules and exceptions so as to avoid conclusions they do not wish to reach. (See my books, Evidence for the Bible, and Christianity and Secularism) Finally, when you get right down to it, the problem of conversion is not a rational problem of arguments and evidence. It is a spiritual problem of the heart.

Why I don’t argue inerrancy with Christians.

While the above reasons are valid when talking with non-Christians, they don’t apply, or apply only secondarily with other Christians. With other Christians my reasons for not arguing inerrancy center around relevance. In short inerrancy simply does not come up that often. As I stated above, a key feature of the definition of inerrancy is that it avoids all the problems of textual issues, translations, and interpretation. While that is good for the doctrine of inerrancy, it does not help when settling other doctrinal disagreements and it is just a fact that there are doctrinal disagreements even among those who those hold to inerrancy. Thus inerrancy is usually the last place I go when attempting to resolve doctrinal disputes.
In addition, Inerrancy is not a clear teaching of scripture in the sense that there is a passage that says: the Bible is inerrant. While I believe there is a solid scriptural basis, there remain a few steps of faith and issues of interpretation, and so I can see where rational people could reach a different conclusion.

So does all this mean that I think the doctrine is unimportant? Not at all. But I think there is a deeper issue here: How do we see ourselves in relation to God’s word. Do we sit in judgment of God’s word or does God’s word sit in judgment of us?

There are those verses in the Bible that I wish were not there; verses that do not conform to my understanding of the way I think things should be. It would be far easier to say, “that apostle didn’t know any better,” or “that prophet made a mistake,” so I could simply ignore the passage. A key “disadvantage” of inerrancy is that this is not an option. On the other hand, there are a lot of people who profess inerrancy and yet avoid all such troublesome issues simply because they do not read the Bible in the first place.

Instead I must wrestle with the text, digging deeper, trying to understand the background and the setting, trying to figure out why God would say such a thing. Most of all, I must pray for understanding, seeking the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Granted, this is no guarantee. At the end of the process it is still not hard to find ways to ignore troublesome and difficult passages. The line between being a judge of the text, and being judged by the text is often quite fine, and I do not make any claims of perfection in this area.

So even though I believe in the doctrine of inerrancy, I rarely argue for it. Instead, I argue that we place ourselves under, not over, the word of God. That we wrestle with those passages that we find difficult, and that by doing so we let the Holy Spirit transform our lives.
- Product on sale
  
  From Inspiration to Understanding
  
  Price range: $24.99 through $29.99
  
  Select options
- Inspiration
  
  Price range: $19.49 through $39.99
  
  Select options
October 15, 2015
The Way Out: Finding Our Way Home

by Steve Kindle

In my two previous posts, I attempted to make the case that finding a way for everyone to agree on how to understand the Bible is an impossibility. For various reasons, such as language nuances, psychological makeup, differing worldviews, hidden agendas and the like, we are presently, and probably always will be, unable to see eye to eye. This is true not only of the mundane (What swallowed Jonah?) and certainly the “essentials of the faith”.
I don’t see this inability to understand alike as a problem, per se. In the first place, it is a gross misunderstanding of human nature. We are all very different and come to scripture with all those differences intact. To expect conformity is to downgrade humans to the status of androids. Part of being created in the image of God is the ability to think for ourselves, unlike other animals.
Secondly, the idea that a text can yield only one true interpretation is to misunderstand even how the Bible works. Only one example is necessary, that of how Matthew plucked meaning from Old Testament passages that could never have been conceived of by their original authors or hearers. (You may want to fall back on Matthew “being guided by the Holy Spirit,” yet more meaning was in those texts than one.) Some of us may legitimately see things that others miss.
Thirdly, as long as the hermeneutic circle exists (in order to understand the Bible, one must understand every verse in the Bible. In order to understand every verse in the Bible, one must understand the whole Bible), there will never be a comprehensive or complete interpretation. In the meantime, we struggle.
So, in a world where ultimate assurance of a given interpretation is wanting, what are we to do? We need to acknowledge the value of disagreement. Disagreement is inevitable and therefore necessary. Necessary? Yes, as it points to the limitations of the human capacity to discern ultimate truth. It’s another way of acknowledging that we need each other. Your strengths may shore up my weaknesses and vice versa. But this can only happen if we allow it to.
The problem is not disagreement. Disagreements often arise because some interpreters fail to recognize their own baggage that they bring to the task, and believe they are operating in a “baggage free zone,” where one’s assumptions, if they are thought of at all, are assumed to be true, untainted by human error. The real problem is when those with a point of view insist all others must conform to it. This is the original sin of Fundamentalism. “I derived my interpretation from the Bible, therefore it is equal to the Bible itself.” R. W. Dale noted way back in 1889 “that to put a meaning of [one’s] own into a Bible sentence and to claim Divine authority for it, was just as bad as to put a sentence of [one’s] own into the Bible and to claim Divine authority for it.” We need to be constantly reminded that in Protestantism there are no popes.
Where we go wrong, it seems to me, is not respecting human finitude. We must begin with the proposition that regardless of the beauty and sublimity of a particular interpretation, there is no perfect, absolute, final understanding. Even though we may reach profound heights, we still see in a mirror, dimly. The threat to the church is not different outcomes, but those who would insist on their particular understanding at the expense of all others. The “one who knows” is like the person holding one piece of the jigsaw puzzle believing it’s the whole picture. Paul warned us about those who think of themselves more highly than they ought. Humility before the Bible is a prime requisite of meaningful interpretation. Diversity (spice) is inevitable, and to try to force everyone into the same mold is not only futile, it goes against what it means to be human. And, I believe, Christian.

Order I’m Right and You’re Wrong here: https://energiondirect.info/biblical-studies/im-right-and-youre-wrong

October 14, 2015

Your cart (items: 0)

Products in cart
Product	Details	Total
	Available on backorder Previous price: Discounted price:	Save