Image Hosted by

Friday, August 18, 2006

You Are What You Read

I recently read a blog meme that asked about books. Here are some of the answers:

A book you’ve read more than once? The Heart of Christianity by Marcus Borg.

Let’s cut to the chase – Borg denies the divinity of Christ, and says that Jesus is not the Son of God. He defines the heart of Christianity as some “love what God loves” nonsense, yet denies that God saved men through the Incarnation. Marcus Borg is not a Christian, nor is anyone who thinks this book is worth reading. Not surprisingly, in the top five list of books that those who bought this heresy buy is a book by Bishop Spong, a God hater who denies pretty much everything Biblical.

A book that changed your life? The Preaching Life by Barbara Brown Taylor.

Barbara Brown Taylor gives Marcus Borg’s book great reviews. That says it all. If it didn’t, her denial of the authority of Scripture or the saving grace of Christ, that instead to “Simply perform mercy or justice to whomever you encounter and this will bring you eternal life” is denial of the necessity of the Incarnation, the Cross and the Empty tomb.

A book you have been meaning to read? A History of God by Karen Armstrong

First sentence of this book: IN THE BEGINNING, human beings created a God who was the First Cause of all things and Ruler of heaven and earth. Armstrong is a liberal broadcast commentator in Europe and a former nun who denies the exclusivity of salvation in Christ. She believes (as put forth in this book) that the “idea of a personal God has helped Jewish, Christian and Muslim believers mature as full human beings”, and that all religions are outgrowth of sociopolitical ideas and that the “believers” in all faiths should group together toward a notion, not of the God of the Bible, but a “notion of God that works for the empirical age”.

The person who finds these books and authors worthwhile is not a Christian. Their works may be good, their conversation kind, but anyone who is willing to read and reread these kind of heretical books is not someone who has denied themselves, taken up their cross, and followed the Son of God, who is eternally generated from the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, who is begotten, not made, one being with the Father, through whom all things were made, without whom nothing has been made; who, though he was equal with the Father, stooped to humility and humbled himself by becoming a man, and was obedient in ultimate humility unto death, even the shameful death of the cross, who rose again from the dead, conquering sin and death for all who would believe. This is not a small god whom these authors and this person follow – this is the King of Kings, the Lord of Lords, who hates sin, loves people, and at the last day will raise up those that are His unto glory – and those that have worshipped a god of their own making, a God who is not revealed in the final and authoritative source of revelation, the holy Scriptures, which speak of the Son of God and his salvific work of grace for us, will instead see:

For behold, the Lord will come in fire,

and his chariots like the whirlwind,

to render his anger in fury,

and his rebuke with flames of fire.

For by fire will the Lord enter into judgment,

and by his sword, with all flesh;

and those slain by the Lord shall be many.

(Isaiah 66:15-16)

And the actions He will take:

I trod them in my anger

and trampled them in my wrath;

their lifeblood spattered on my garments,

and stained all my apparel.

For the day of vengeance was in my heart,

and my year of redemption had come

(Isaiah 63:3-4)

And what will the results be?

And they shall go out and look on the dead bodies of the men who have rebelled against me. For their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh.

(Isaiah 66:24)


These have chosen their own ways,

and their soul delights in their abominations;

I also will choose harsh treatment for them

and bring their fears upon them,

because when I called, no one answered,

when I spoke they did not listen;

but they did what was evil in my eyes

and chose that in which I did not delight.

(Is 66:3-4)

Never forget:

“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom;

all those who practice it have a good understanding.

His praise endures forever!”

(Psalm 111:10)


  • Wow! A whole post dedicated to proving that I'm not a Christian!

    It's been pretty clear for awhile that you don't think I'm a Christian...I was under the assumption the same was clear to you. Surely you have better things to do with your time than beat this dead horse. Boy, I hope so.

    By Blogger Mary Beth, at 8/18/2006 02:29:00 PM  

  • Beat a dead horse? How is this a dead horse? Afterall, you being a pastor should make salvation quite an important topic for you, no?

    Praise God, Hammer! In a world where it is increasingly difficult to be a Christian, it is wonderful to have the Glory of God presented again for us to humble ourselves by. (little amped up...listening to a bit of "Praise You In This Storm, by Casting Crowns ;) )

    I thank you for the summary of dissection of someone like Borg. In a recent discipleship class I attended, the pastor discussed Borg, and the Jesus Seminar in great length. It was amazing to me why someone who so despises what Christianity is, would actually even want to be labeled as such.

    By Blogger Rightthinker, at 8/18/2006 02:57:00 PM  

  • Mary Beth,

    1) I never mentioned your name, on purpose. I have no link to your site, not even in the sidebar. My goal was not to smear anyone, but to speak the truth about faith. Had you not commented, no one would have known who I was talking about. It is noteworthy that you chose to expose yourself, yet not defend the doctrines I noted...nor deny them.

    2) Reviewing my comments at your site will not show that I said you were not a Christian (as I recall, after I withdrew I did not review that contentious post). I thought it, but others spoke it.

    3) Had you not recommended your heretical book to Ruth, who is seeking the One True God, it never would have been posted. She is why I posted, not you. I, with my Savior, desire to seek and save those that are lost with the good news of the Incarnation of the Son of God as Man who died that we might live. You seek to tell them that Jesus is not God's Son, apparently. How can we possibly both serve the risen Christ? I will pray for the salvation and regeneration of your soul, that I may call you sister.

    They seek to be labeled as Christian because they are the enemies of the cross, and will do anything to keep others from the Gospel. They are a greater threat to the Gospel than any cult, religion, or secular philosophy, because the elements of truth in their lie make it a better lie.

    By Blogger Hammertime, at 8/18/2006 03:16:00 PM  

  • This certainly is not about YOU, MB, or a post dedicated to proving YOU are not a christian. This is about helping people who are "on the fence" know the truth, and to prevent them from being led into false doctrine and deceived. Certainly, we DO have better things to do with our time than to pick on you, which was not the intent of the posting, but there is nothing better we can do with our time than expose lies regarding Christ and lead people to salvation through the saving grace of Jesus.
    Here is a very fitting verse I just found (not by accident, I'm sure):

    1 John 4:5-6 They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them. We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error."

    This explains clearly why Ruth ordered the Borg book of your recommendation. The world finds your teaching more appealing than the truth of God.

    By Blogger mrshammer, at 8/18/2006 03:38:00 PM  

  • Hammer,
    Very disappointed - this article is way below your usual standard.

    "Marcus Borg is not a Christian, nor is anyone who thinks this book is worth reading."

    I'm amazed at your spiritual insight. You appear to have the ability to discern a man's status before God without ever having met him. To decide a man's salvation from his writings alone is peculiar from someone who professes such a strong belief in election - a position that insists that our salvation does not depend on ourselves at all! Indeed, most Christians, even those with much less strong ideas about election, would not say that holding correct doctrine is a requirement for salvation - merely a living faith in Christ.

    As for excommunicating people merely for holding his books as worth reading, that's even less worthy of you. After all, you admit to having read him on multiple occasions, so presumably you saw some merit in the book (even if it was to refute the arguments therein).

    Had you restricted yourself to saying that Borg was a poor theologian, I wouldn't have argued. Had you said merely that you didn't think his books were worth reading, I'd not have batted an eyelid. But by weighing in with such hugely excessive rhetoric, you give a most bizarre impression - that salvation requires doctrinal purity, and that the nature of that purity has been revealed to a particular section of the Church in only the past hundred years or so (for many of these allegedly foundational doctrines were only formulated that recently). Indeed, you are condemning most of the greatest saints of the Church to hell, for most of them would not have recognised your faith as Christianity, either. The difference, perhaps, is that they would not have been so quick to condemn you.

    pax et bonum

    By Blogger John, at 8/18/2006 06:17:00 PM  

  • John,
    You are correct that this post has a different air to it than my usual writings. I saw that upon completion, yet if I have any core convictions, that Jesus Christ was God in the flesh is the first - don't you agree? If I must be insistent above all other things in this world on something, musn't it be that?

    Do you believe that a man who denies the divinity of Christ is a Christian? If so, what exactly is the dividing line between Christians and non-Christians?

    There are many books that I would say "this is not worth reading" or "they are bad theologians". When we discussed homosexuality, I identified some of the ideas you cut and pasted as poor exegesis, remember? I did not call their, or your, salvation into question. However, a book that denies the divinity of Christ is not a Christian book and not written by a Christian.

    Which greatest saints of the church, exactly, would I be condemning to hell with this view? How is the divinity of Christ a view of the past 100 years?

    Election has nothing to do with this. I'm not sure why you think it does.

    By the way, I have never read Borg. I read the review on Amazon by his publisher. That's how I knew what it says.

    By Blogger Hammertime, at 8/18/2006 09:26:00 PM  

  • I'm thankful for the post, Hammer.

    I am increasingly thankful to this post because I continue to get this air from the progressive Christian (in an effort to not be chastised for using labels, I will say that I am trying to easily refer to doctrine of some. We must discern doctrine to really understand what is true vs false) that they are somehow enlightened beyond other Christians.

    Because MB had referred to another blog on yet another blog, I can do the same here. MB commented something to the effect that she held the views of Mrshammer 15 years ago, and her mind couldn't have been changed..this calls to mind the idea that we are silly and immature in our faith to really believe the Bible as it is stated.

    The idea that Christianity has only recently had believers who believe in inerrancy vs those who don't is completely false. There has been a more recent movement to solidify that view, in the face of the desire to change. Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism is a relatively new movement.

    This established group was seen as necessary not because Christians were changing, and the Bible was more enlightened as a document of change, but rather because influence of the world began changing groups and denominations of Christians!

    I am quite close with a group of Orthodox Catholics. There is quite a large settlement here, as there is one of the few Orthodox schools for children, and a seminary. Anyway, it is a great retreat to discuss things with these people, and sometimes I want to convert!

    Their lives are simple, because they WANT to focus on Christ! They don't want to give the outside perverted world any chance, whatsoever, of changing the Bible in their church!

    Women wear dresses, stay at home once they have kids, allow God to decide how many children they have, they go to church daily to worship and pray, many do not have televisions, many farm and raise their own food, and they are active in the community and the political process to work to avoid adoption of anti-Christian and secular progress that erodes the beliefs.

    These are highly devoted Christians-more than any other single group I have seen. I don't interpret salvation or the hearts, but let me just say that God is working in their lives, and that of their children. You can't know them, and not see God in them!

    I want to be like Christ, and that means following His Word, and many of the women I know from that church are inspiration. Perhaps they are simple minded, but they, like me, are happy knowing that the Bible is exactly what it is cracked up to be. I am also guessing that becuase they LIVE the Christian life, none of them would bother in the church if they weren't deeply devoted to Christ in the purest form because it is a sacrifice in their lives to "tune out the world" for sake of "tuning in Jesus" Their music, their lives, their children, their discussions, their homes and their pursuits are all Christ-centered. That is something I see as lacking with a lot of those who say they are Christian-no matter what they claim on Sunday, and no matter what their denomination.

    By Blogger Rightthinker, at 8/18/2006 09:55:00 PM  

  • Hammer,
    If a theologian wrote a book in which he denied the divinity of Christ, I would want to know what he meant by those terms. The thing is that, in theology, as elsewhere, we often find people using words in different ways to the ones we expect. So, although Borg might appear to an evangelical to be denying the central truths of Christianity, this may not be so when he is read in his own context. Indeed, I have heard defenses of Borg from evangelical theologians - not of his theology but of his person and faith. (For example, see this post from Sven, in which he quotes NT Wright as follows:
    I have friends who I am quite sure are Christians who do not believe in the bodily resurrection. But the view I take of them - and they know this - is that they are very, very muddled. They would probably return the compliment. Marcus Borg really does not believe Jesus Christ was bodily raised from the dead. But I know Marcus well: he loves Jesus and believes in him passionately.
    And then quotes Borg himself:
    Easter is utterly central to Christianity. "God raised Jesus from the dead" is the foundational affirmation of the New Testament. About this Tom [Wright] and I agree. We also agree that the best explanation for the rise of Christianity - indeed, the only adequate explanation - is the resurrection of Jesus."

    All of which is to say that one must not judge a book by its cover - and certainly not judge a work of theology by its Amazon reviews! Personally, I've not read Borg but it sounds like it's just the language he uses that makes it appear that he doesn't believe in Christ so to those from certain theological traditions. His language and thinking may be flawed, even seriously so, but that doesn't make him a non-Christian.

    pax et bonum

    By Blogger John, at 8/19/2006 09:30:00 AM  

  • RT,
    "I continue to get this air from the progressive Christian ... that they are somehow enlightened beyond other Christians."

    Ain't life interesting - that's precisely the impression some of us non-conservative-evangelicals get from the cons and neocons! And, given the comments you've made to me elsewhere, I don't doubt you've got me in mind when you say this.

    The really interesting thing is, though, that this is the opposite of what I'm talking about. Indeed, I've said as much on various occasions. It is precisely the idea that correct doctrine is required for salvation that I am trying to argue against! It doesn't fundamentally matter whether we are liberal, evangelical, catholic, liberation or whatever. All that matters is our faith in Christ.

    This is where the thing about election comes in, by the way. If we are elect then nothing we can do will change that. So, if we are liberal, it doesn't matter - we may have an incorrect understanding of how God works, but it doesn't change the fact that God is working in us.

    Theology is "faith in search of understanding". If it is anything else, it is worthless.

    pax et bonum

    By Blogger John, at 8/19/2006 02:32:00 PM  

  • Actually what I meant, is this:

    For a fundamentalist/evangelical/ne-con/American neo-con/Bible thumper/literalist/inerrant Word of God believer/Bible believing person, (I used so many descriptions, because despite your apparent dislike for labels, you use them for others) the idea is that without God, we are nothing.

    Although we may be educated, inspired, emotional, feeling, loving, hating, understanding, etc., we cannot possibly decide what is God's Word, beyond what is conveyed to us.

    Alternatively, to believe that the Bible takes much interpretation (don't confuse interpretation with thinking-of course the Bible takes understanding and a thinking reader) means that one elevates themeselves to a position of understanding BEYOND what God has conveyed. While many think they are intelligent enough to do so, I do not.

    I do not believe that I can interpret the Bible any better than deciphering what it says, and applying that to my life.

    The movement of liberal Christians, progressives, etc., (whatever label is correct to others) pushes the idea that 1) the Bible isn't what it claims to be, 2) the Bible requires knowledge beyond Scriptural conveyance 3) and, anyone who reads the Bible and stands on exactly what it says is an idiot because they haven't gained enlightenment.

    That sounds a lot like Eastern Mysticism, to me. In fact, the "interpretation" element of progressives leaves so much unanswered, that it is open to basically anything someone claims. Marcus Borg, and your support of his denial of the trinity, is proof of that. Whatever a person wishes Christianity to be-it is.

    I simply disagree that Christianity is pliable, in regards to culture. I simply disagree that Bible-believing (see additional possibilities of labels, above) Christians are wrong when they stand on teh Bible alone. I also simply disagree that those who call factual information regarding the Bible into question have the same personal relationship with Christ that those who rely and TRUST Him enough that His Word is the ultimate truth.

    I can't make an ultimate truth. Neither can you(or anyone else). However, there is an attempt to do so when one says, "Na, all of the Bible is up for debate as to the REAL meaning. The REAL meaning is hidden beneath some enlightened theology, springing out of an earthly desire to mold Christ and His unfailing Word. I seek to find my own true gospel, just as long as I have some remaining essential parts, such as Jesus died for us".

    There is one true gospel, and reading it, believing that it is true, attending church, and labels of Christian are pointless if it applies differently to different people, because salvation becomes undefined! If the ideas of the trinity, one true God, right and wrong, etc., are up for debate, then so is the entire purpose and resulting salvation, of a Christian.

    Self-denial is essential to understanding our walk. If we don't understand what to deny, how to deny it, some of the reasons illustrated as to why we should deny it, then we have denied nothing.

    That is my understanding of the reason why I adhere to the Word of God. I am not qualified, holy enough or intelligent enough to believe that I can make any true assumptions, if they are counter to the Word.

    Dismissal of portions of text, based on reasoning away is fine for the progressive because there is no real truth. Truth is what it means today. I prefer the idea that truth is an absolute, unchanging, and can't be changed based on desire.

    I write this with a content heart, and a loving soul. I mean no malice. Above and beyond actually witnessing the gospel, I have no control over what someone believes. The Holy Spirit, when living in a Christian, is responsible for shaping their soul, their lives, their desires, and their committment to Christ. I don't claim responsibility for that, and I don't cast judgement on another persons soul. However, the Bible is clear that a person who has Christ is living for Him, and His commandments for our lives. But, when a person questions who "Him" and His guide actually is, because it could be different than what was taught to us, then there is no common ground, whatsoever. To say that the trinity is up for discussion, based on what words are used, to say that Jesus being the Son of God is up for discussion, based on the words, and to say that there are alternative "interpretations" of completely defined Biblical passages mean that there is nothing more to discuss for someone who knows the Bible is exactly what it says.

    Years being sympathetic to a sinful world won't bring me "enlightenment", as MB backhandedly suggested. I needed only one experience, and subsequent proof that the Holy Spirit is alive in me. I look for evidence in others-worshipping Jesus at every turn via music, prayer, discussion and praise. I look for evidence of a converted heart and life to show me I am in the company of a Christian. Things like a heart for truth, justice, honesty, compassion, witnessing, service, etc. Sometimes that is present, other times these groups say they don't need to do that to be a Christian. Again,that's between them and God. For me and my house,we will serve the Lord.

    By Blogger Rightthinker, at 8/19/2006 03:49:00 PM  

  • "So, although Borg might appear to an evangelical to be denying the central truths of Christianity, this may not be so when he is read in his own context...Personally, I've not read Borg but it sounds like it's just the language he uses that makes it appear that he doesn't believe in Christ so to those from certain theological traditions."

    I will check out the book on Tuesday, as well as the rest of the heresies listed, and quote them directly. Then their words cannot be disputed, ok?

    N.T. Wright is often chosen for support by liberals because they think his stand against homosexuality makes him an evangelical. He's not. I am tired of the Marcus Borgs of the world using Wright to show that they aren't liberal. It carries no weight. Mohler, Devers, Piper, Packer, Ware, Schreiner - there's a reason liberals don't quote these men in support. They are evangelicals. My next post - series, really - will show why.

    By Blogger Hammertime, at 8/19/2006 10:17:00 PM  

  • RT,
    "I do not believe that I can interpret the Bible any better than deciphering what it says, and applying that to my life."

    Then I can only conclude that you're using "interpret" in a totally different way to me. If "interpret" doesn't mean "decipher what [the Bible] says", what does it mean? I get the feeling that you feel it's acceptable for you to "decipher" the meaning of the Bible but not for someone like me to do the same - because I find different answers to you when I do so.

    It is not acceptable so say that you can interpret the Bible (or "decipher" it, if you prefer) but that I cannot do so, but must simply accept your word for what it says. It is not true that when you "decipher" the text you find the true meaning but that when I do it I am "explaining away". That is simply spiritual arrogance. You live and learn within one Christian tradition. I do so within a different tradition. The difference seems to be that I accept that any tradition has only a limited grasp on the infinite God, whereas you seem to believe that your tradition has God completely worked out and that everyone else is totally wrong.

    "Marcus Borg, and your support of his denial of the trinity, is proof of that."

    You seem to have been reading a different set of posts to me. I have nowhere defended a denial of the Trinity, nor have I even seen a demonstration that Borg denies the Trinity (or of how, exactly, he does this). All I have said is that, just perhaps, evangelicals don't always understand what people from other traditions are saying, because they don't do their translations properly. (The same is true in reverse, of course!)

    "Dismissal of portions of text, based on reasoning away is fine for the progressive because there is no real truth. Truth is what it means today. I prefer the idea that truth is an absolute, unchanging, and can't be changed based on desire."

    You see, we actaully share the same motives - the search for the eternal divine Truth that is in God. It's just that you seem to regard any doctrinal difference from your own position as "explaining away", but fail to recognise that arguments such as your "threefold Law" are a way of performing precisely the same thing - of justifying the privileging of certain portions of the Bible over others. The only difference is that these arguments are sanctioned by your tradition and taught by your pastors.

    pax et bonum

    By Blogger John, at 8/20/2006 03:46:00 AM  

  • Hammer,
    "I will check out the book on Tuesday, as well as the rest of the heresies listed, and quote them directly. Then their words cannot be disputed, ok?"

    :-) Cool. However, as always when reading theology from a different tradition, be careful not to assume that he means the same things as evangelicals do when he uses certain phrases - and that what he appears to deny in one place (because he's using different words) he doesn't affirm in another (using different words)!

    And, remember, I know that Borg denies certain doctrines that you and I would both regard as central to Christianity (such as the bodily resurrection of Jesus). The question is whether he's a Christian. All I've said is that judging another man's heart without ever meeting him, merely through his writings is fraught.

    "N.T. Wright is often chosen for support by liberals because they think his stand against homosexuality makes him an evangelical. He's not."

    Ooh, Hammer, you know I'd never do anything like that. After all, I'm always pointing out that "evangelical" doesn't equate to "condemns homosexuality" in any case! Wright is unarguably an evangelical theologian - he writes within the Anglican evangelical tradition. Of course, he's not conservative, but evangelicalism has a lot more to it than that. Some of his theology is condemned by conservative evangelicals (often because they misunderstand it, I've been reliably informed) but, especially over here, he is widely regarded as the best theologian evangelicals have today.

    Don't mistake "he doesn't agree with me" for "he's not evangelical".

    Oh, and Borg wouldn't for a second try to use anything to claim that he wasn't liberal, I'm sure! They wear their labels as proudly as you wear yours - I doubt Borg has any desire at all to be known as "evangelical".

    pax et bonum

    By Blogger John, at 8/20/2006 03:57:00 AM  

  • Hammer,
    ""Fact" must be a subset of "truth", and if something meant to be factually true is factually untrue, then it is altogether untrue."

    There are two things there. Yes, "fact" is a subset of "truth". However, the necessary corollary of that is that there are things that are "true" that are not "factual"! The second point is exactly which parts of the Bible are meant to be factual - we can certainly not maintain that the whole Bible is factual. We must also ask, though, whether the mere fact that a book is "history" requires that it be "factual" - the study of history as we understand it didn't arise until long after the biblical books were written.

    "as you have done in the past, you choose a descriptive passage and make it prescriptive to attempt to disprove Biblical accuracy (as well as inventing animal lust for reeds, which is just weird)"

    Yeah, sorry about that lust thing. I was working from memory. However, the main point remains - the passage describes an effect (patterned young) arising from a certain cause (sticks in the water). That the passage doesn't explicitly say "because" is irrelevant. It plainly sets out the sticks as the cause of the patterned young.

    This is not factual - it's not what happens. The stick are irrelevant. What's important is that God was giving Jacob the sheep (which the passage makes clear). I totally fail to see how this example is irrelevant to the point. And, by the way, I'm not trying to "disprove Biblical accuracy". I'm trying to show that it's not always factual, even when one could interpret it to be so. Crude appeals to the "factual" nature of the Bible are flawed.

    "I have not settled on the earth's age because I also do not see internal evidence that the accounts of the generations of man are specific and direct father-to-son descriptions."

    In other words, you disregard the traditional, "factual" interpretation of the begats because they clash with the external evidence. That's all I was saying. By contrast, RT seems to believe that a text like this in the Bible should be taken at face value to trump any physical evidence.

    pax et bonum

    By Blogger John, at 8/20/2006 04:11:00 AM  

  • Borg denies the Trinity, because he denies Jesus is the resurrected Son of God.

    Everything else I am done with. In this regard, understanding is deciphering, interpreation leads to interjection and new assumptions.

    By Blogger Rightthinker, at 8/20/2006 08:02:00 AM  

  • RT,
    Borg has a somewhat strange picture of Jesus - from what little I've read, I don't know how he connects the human and the divine Christ. But he certainly affirms that Jesus Christ, the resurrection, is the second Person of the Trinity. He just has an unorthodox (and probably incorrect IMO) understanding of what that resurrection was.

    "In this regard, understanding is deciphering, interpreation leads to interjection and new assumptions."

    I'm afraid that still sounds like "deciphering's what I do, interpreting's what you do". You're using the two names for the same process, and applying them according to whether you like the results. To an extent, that's fair enough. The problem is when you also claim that you only "decipher", whereas other people only "interpret".

    pax et bonum

    By Blogger John, at 8/20/2006 02:52:00 PM  

  • John,
    I checked out two Borg books today. He is a heretic in every sense of the word. There are lots of theological errors one can believe and not be heretical, but I think Borg hit every base.

    I'll do a post on it, but it may be a few days. Hebrew is hard.

    By Blogger Hammertime, at 8/22/2006 03:15:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home