|
|
Post by Once4all on Mar 7, 2011 20:47:56 GMT -5
CHAPTER 20 - The Case for Prophecy Fulfilled
20.1 Page 391-392. There's a section called "Theological Uniformitarianism." It's a small section and this quotation is actually most of it.
"The consistent laws of our physical universe, ordered by the consistent nature of the Law-Giver himself, implies a matching consistent view of the spiritual world. We might call this view 'theological uniformitarianism': the fundamental principles of God's covenant relationship with man have never changed, nor do we have any reason to believe they ever will.
"Theological uniformitarianism is based on the fact that the Bible presents one story from Adam and Eve, God's original covenant people living in God's garden, to the redemption of all of God's people who live 'in Christ.'"
My margin note says that I had never thought of the Garden as being a type of Christ. On further reflection, I don't think it is and the above may be a faulty analogy. The Garden, I believe, better typifies the Kingdom or the New Jerusalem, that place where the people of God dwell. Yes, we are to abide in Christ, but that abiding is what keeps us as citizens of the Kingdom. The Garden didn't keep Adam and Eve there, but had they eaten from something growing within it (the tree of Life), they would have lived forever (Genesis 3:22).
Adam and Eve sinned and had to be banned from the Garden, much like Paul instructs that sinners must be put out of the church (1 Corinthians 5:2, 13).
Genesis 3:22 warns of the consequences of allowing the sinners to remain. To what in the church can we relate to these consequences?
Jesus is the "Tree of Life"—we are to eat his flesh and drink his blood (John 6:53-54). In Revelation 22:2, the tree of life "heals" the nations.
In 1 Corinthians 11:26-30, Paul warns that whoever partakes of the Lord's Supper unworthily brings judgment upon themselves.
Okay, I'm getting off-topic from the book, but I just had to get those thoughts written down as they surfaced in my little brain.
20.2 On page 394, in the section "Covenant Terms," I highlighted quite a bit. Mostly, these were examples of a repeated pattern throughout the Bible regarding terms of covenant life. This sentence sums it up: "God gave Israel freedom first, then the terms of the covenant ... . Grace first, then obedience."
20.3 On pages 394-394, Revelation 22:18-19 are quoted, from which I highlighted the last portion: "..., God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book." This is also the portion of the quotation highlighted by the authors.
I also highlighted the first sentence of the authors' explanation for the above: "This is merely an echo of the first chapters of the Bible, John warns the disobedient of eviction from God's garden."
I agree with that, but I also have a margin note about this portion of scripture, which supports my comments in 20.1, above; and that is that the Garden and the holy city (the New Jerusalem) are the same.
20.4 On pages 395-396 is a section called "The New Covenant 'One Sin' Warning of Jesus." I thought the parallel of "one thing" was good. At first I thought the authors were trying to say that the content of that "one thing" was the parallel, but now I see that they mean the fact that there is just "one thing." Here's a quotation from the section, referring to Matthew 12:32 –
"But notice how Jesus' statement regarding the one sin that would not be forgiven parallels God's original statement to Adam. There wa only one sin which God told Adam would result in death. Only one thing would not be forgiven: eating fruit from the forbidden tree. Likewise, Jesus affirmed that the one act that guarantees death, in that age or the age to come, was rejection of the Holy Spirit's work."
20.5 Also highlight in this same section, page 396, is this statement:
"The key is to recognize that the promise of judgment for incorrigible disobedience was part of the original 'very good' creation God made."
I see this as being huge. The consistency of God is mentioned throughout the book, and the Bible states that God does not change. There was consequence for sin in the original creation, and there is consequence for sin in the new creation. I view this as a strong argument against OSAS (once saved, always saved); whether the authors see it that way I don't know.
A good summary statement near the end of this section states, "God promised judgment to Adam for disobedience before the fall, and so we know God's judgment continues after redemption is complete. God the gardener tends his garden."
20.6 Pages 398-399 discusses how the two redemptive comings of Christ are prefigured by the two comings of Moses. I love reading about the types and figures of Christ in the Old Testament. There are SO many! (In general, not necessarily discussed in this book.) In this particular one, though, the authors talk about the timing between the two comings (40 years for both) with the great conclusion that "Exodus teaches preterism in types and shadows!" Love it.
20.7 Page 404 contains some good information regarding the resurrection being fulfilled:
"The Old Testament contains the promise of resurrection. Both Ezekiel 37-38 and Daniel 12 give prophecies to old covenant Israel of a coming resurrection. ..."
"... the resurrection is past, for the old covenant has passed away. Paul made it absolutely clear that not one of God's promises could fail (Rom. 9:6). How is it possible , then, to believe that the old covenant has ended, but some of the promises it contained remain unfulfilled? ... If the resurrection remains in our future, then the old covenant passed away without some of its promises coming to pass."
Strong stuff.
20.8 Near the bottom of page 404 is this statement: "..., the curse was related to spiritual death cause by Adam's sin; it is 'the death' defined by a broken covenant relationship between God and man."
My margin note: I think this is the same as some call today, "breaking fellowship" with God. Breaking covenant with God has serious consequences that get covered up by the "fluffier" term of breaking "fellowship." This is, in my opinion, a part of a massive structure of incorrect doctrine. For example, those who say that "you don't lose your salvation, you just fall out of fellowship with God."
------------------
There were other statements and even long passages that I highlighted in this chapter, but this is all I'll comment on here.
|
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Mar 7, 2011 20:57:49 GMT -5
Hmmm - good stuff in the margins, Bev.
|
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Mar 7, 2011 21:09:27 GMT -5
"Theological uniformitarianism is based on the fact that the Bible presents one story from Adam and Eve, God's original covenant people living in God's garden, to the redemption of all of God's people who live 'in Christ.'" My margin note says that I had never thought of the Garden as being a type of Christ. On further reflection, I don't think it is and the above may be a faulty analogy. The Garden, I believe, better typifies the Kingdom or the New Jerusalem, that place where the people of God dwell. Yes, we are to abide in Christ, but that abiding is what keeps us as citizens of the Kingdom. The Garden didn't keep Adam and Eve there, but had they eaten from something growing within it (the tree of Life), they would have lived forever (Genesis 3:22). Bev, I think we could have better written the sentence you quoted. Tim likes to refer to the city in Rev. 21-22 as, "The garden, all grown up." Those who live in Christ, do live in the new garden/city, but it wasn't our intent to make them the same thing. Not thought of that connection before. Fits. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by lumberjack on Mar 7, 2011 22:53:20 GMT -5
Everybody in the church is a sinner, but very few are evil, the scriptures says to put out the evil one. ( just a thought )
|
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Mar 7, 2011 23:39:23 GMT -5
Everybody in the church is a sinner, but very few are evil, the scriptures says to put out the evil one. ( just a thought ) I, too, acknowledge a differentiation. In my opinion, evil ones are those who sin intentionally; they have evil intent. |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Mar 7, 2011 23:40:56 GMT -5
"Theological uniformitarianism is based on the fact that the Bible presents one story from Adam and Eve, God's original covenant people living in God's garden, to the redemption of all of God's people who live 'in Christ.'" My margin note says that I had never thought of the Garden as being a type of Christ. On further reflection, I don't think it is and the above may be a faulty analogy. The Garden, I believe, better typifies the Kingdom or the New Jerusalem, that place where the people of God dwell. Yes, we are to abide in Christ, but that abiding is what keeps us as citizens of the Kingdom. The Garden didn't keep Adam and Eve there, but had they eaten from something growing within it (the tree of Life), they would have lived forever (Genesis 3:22). Bev, I think we could have better written the sentence you quoted. Tim likes to refer to the city in Rev. 21-22 as, "The garden, all grown up." Those who live in Christ, do live in the new garden/city, but it wasn't our intent to make them the same thing. Not thought of that connection before. Fits. Thanks. Thanks, Jeff. I always appreciate your comments. Especially in this study of your book!  |
|
|
|
Post by lumberjack on Mar 9, 2011 9:59:18 GMT -5
Speaking of redemption, If all God's people are to be redeemed, why wouldn't God's creation be redeemed ? Isn't that basically saying that even tho we have the Holy Spirit in us ( God Himself ) that isn't sufficient to finish the job. That God is a loser ? That the ' curse " will permeate and controll the earth and it's systems forever ?
|
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Mar 9, 2011 10:42:46 GMT -5
Speaking of redemption, If all God's people are to be redeemed, why wouldn't God's creation be redeemed ? Isn't that basically saying that even tho we have the Holy Spirit in us ( God Himself ) that isn't sufficient to finish the job. That God is a loser ? That the ' curse " will permeate and controll the earth and it's systems forever ? Joel, The universe is about 14 billion years old. Planet Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. Animal life has lived and died for approximately a half billion years. Modern humans have done likewise for 50,000 to 200,000 years. The Bible describes Adam as a farmer and a rancher in ancient Mesopotamia around 6000 years ago. Are we agreed? Okay then, what was the planet like before the Biblical "earth" was cursed? What was mankind's physical life like? What changed with the curse? What then needs to be redeemed from the curse? |
|
|
|
Post by lumberjack on Mar 11, 2011 11:08:27 GMT -5
Jeff,
" Are we agreed? " Yes.
Q - 1: Geological uniformitarianism processes ongoing.
Q - 2: Assuming man at 200,000 yrs, I assume the earth had evolved to a state such as represented by the fruitfullness of the description of the area lived in by Adam.
Q - 3: What changed with the curse? I assume the weather patterns affecting seasons, rainfall, drought, the fertility of the soil, to a degree that mankind wasn't on a cake-walk no more. That man was born with a " dead spirit. " Also Satan was given " authority " over what Adam had forfeited. The creation mandate.
Q - 4: So the curse infects the kosmos, the planet and the " systems " that run it. It infects the rulership of the nations, businesses, arts, education, economics, civil gvts, churches, families, individuals, and the physical earth itself. Everything has to be redeemed in the physical reality, not just inside an imaginary H & E. That's what I get out of the scriptures.
|
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Mar 11, 2011 12:41:31 GMT -5
Jeff, " Are we agreed? " Yes. Q - 1: Geological uniformitarianism processes ongoing. Q - 2: Assuming man at 200,000 yrs, I assume the earth had evolved to a state such as represented by the fruitfullness of the description of the area lived in by Adam. Q - 3: What changed with the curse? I assume the weather patterns affecting seasons, rainfall, drought, the fertility of the soil, to a degree that mankind wasn't on a cake-walk no more. That man was born with a " dead spirit. " Also Satan was given " authority " over what Adam had forfeited. The creation mandate. Q - 4: So the curse infects the kosmos, the planet and the " systems " that run it. It infects the rulership of the nations, businesses, arts, education, economics, civil gvts, churches, families, individuals, and the physical earth itself. Everything has to be redeemed in the physical reality, not just inside an imaginary H & E. That's what I get out of the scriptures. 1. Yes. 2. No, I take a different view. For the purposes of this discussion, I don't think our differences matter. 3. I assume all of those conditions already existed and were part of what man had to deal with. (Given your view of Q2, I find your view of Q3 puzzling.) For example, the "pain" of childbirth was "multiplied." That is, the pain of childbirth already existed. Is. 65:23, tells us that the "increased" pain was the futility under the curse of the old covenant. We discuss this at length in BCS Chapters 11 & 12. 4. The Greek kosmos as used in John's gospel means the covenant people of a given generation. Compare John 1:10 w/ 1:11. The world, kosmos, was His own, not the planet, etc. All New Testament writers except Paul and Luke, were born and raised in the Aramaic Hebrew culture and had that same understanding of kosmos. All of their uses of kosmos are easily understood in this manner. Paul appears to use kosmos primarily in that manner, but possibly not exclusively. For Luke, it is more difficult to determine his usage. Covenant is law. Adam transgressed God's law and was punished for it along with everyone under that old covenant law. That covenant is gone. That punishment is gone. |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Mar 11, 2011 12:54:55 GMT -5
I would like to quickly add that just because the punishment is gone it in no way leads to Universalism. There are still those "outside the city" who need to come into covenant with God through the Lord Jesus in order to inherit eternal life and immortality.
Universalism gets the first part right. However, partly because the NHNE is relegated incorrectly to a planetary/universal aspect, they get the second part wrong. Faith in Jesus Christ is still needed in order to become part of the NHNE. I look at the NHNE as the new creation (ktisis) in Jesus Christ. A person either becomes a new creation or becomes part of the new creation AT SALVATION, not at death as others believe.
|
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Mar 11, 2011 14:51:12 GMT -5
Universalism gets the first part right. Ted, I say no it doesn't. The curse was on the original covenant people, the Adamites, the sons of Adam (consistently mistranlated as sons of man or mankind in all English translations). The curse wasn't universal. There is no need for the end of the curse to have been universal either. |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Mar 11, 2011 15:31:54 GMT -5
Universalism gets the first part right. Ted, I say no it doesn't. The curse was on the original covenant people, the Adamites, the sons of Adam (consistently mistranlated as sons of man or mankind in all English translations). The curse wasn't universal. There is no need for the end of the curse to have been universal either. Jeff, the first part, for me, is that the Universalists believe in no more punishment. That is extended to all individuals because of the traditional hell/heaven doctrine. I think from there they add that if no more punishment then all have eternal life. I don't even think they recognize that the curse was strictly Adamite in nature - at least I would be very surprised if they did. |
|
|
|
Post by lumberjack on Mar 11, 2011 21:32:06 GMT -5
Jeff and Mellontes,
Before we go any farther, could you define some of your terms. Just who are the Adamites and who aren't ? Who are the Universalists ? Am I a traditionlist ? Was the curse only on the Adamites or on all mankind ? Just what exactly was the curse according to your theology ?
|
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Mar 11, 2011 22:37:56 GMT -5
Jeff and Mellontes, Before we go any farther, could you define some of your terms. Just who are the Adamites and who aren't ? Who are the Universalists ? Am I a traditionlist ? Was the curse only on the Adamites or on all mankind ? Just what exactly was the curse according to your theology ? Joel, Descendant = someone legally/covenantally recognized as having a specific ancestor Jews = descendants of Judah Israelites = descendants of Israel Kenites = descendants of Cain Adamites = descendants of Adam You agreed that mankind has been on this planet for some 200Kyears and that Adam was cursed only some 6Kyears ago. Therefore, Adamites are the descendants of Adam. The rest of mankind, the majority, are not descendants of Adam. This includes my ancestors in the British Isles. Descent is a legal/covenantal distinction, not biological. All ancient Romans were sons of Romulus. All Israelites were "sons of Adam." The Kenites were not, until some joined Israel at the time of the Judges. Universalism is Ted's sidetrack. Adam was cursed. So yes, only the Adamites had the curse. Tim and I developed the nature of the death and the curse in Chapters 11 & 12 of Beyond Creation Science. Let Scripture define it. Whatever the death and the curse were, Christ ended them in AD 70. They are now gone. Because they are now gone, the "evils" you see today have nothing to do with the death and the curse. |
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Mar 16, 2011 14:12:07 GMT -5
You agreed that mankind has been on this planet for some 200Kyears and that Adam was cursed only some 6Kyears ago. In your opinion, did God deal with mankind prior to Adam? What was man's "hope" before Adam? |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Mar 16, 2011 15:55:40 GMT -5
You agreed that mankind has been on this planet for some 200Kyears and that Adam was cursed only some 6Kyears ago. In your opinion, did God deal with mankind prior to Adam? What was man's "hope" before Adam? Morris, I have no opinion. I can only tell you what Scriptures says. Scripture (Ez. 28) tells us that God had a covenant with the gatekeepers (Cherubs) in Gen. 3:15. It doesn't tell us whether He made that covenant before or after His covenant with Adam, but it was certainly separate from it. God had many covenants with people outside of "the covenant line." Tim Martin discussed some of these covenants in his talk, "The Promised Land of Lot," which is available in the archives on PreteristRadio.com. God is a God of covenants. Scripture doesn't tell us about any that are earlier than the H&E covenant w/ Adam and the covenant w/ the gatekeepers. If God dealt w/ people before those two covenants, then God had covenants that he has not told us about. |
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Mar 17, 2011 16:08:13 GMT -5
Thanks. Scripture (Ez. 28) tells us that God had a covenant with the gatekeepers (Cherubs) in Gen. 3:15. It doesn't tell us whether He made that covenant before or after His covenant with Adam, but it was certainly separate from it. Could you explain this just a little more? I'm not following how you arrived this. |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Mar 17, 2011 20:26:08 GMT -5
Thanks. Scripture (Ez. 28) tells us that God had a covenant with the gatekeepers (Cherubs) in Gen. 3:15. It doesn't tell us whether He made that covenant before or after His covenant with Adam, but it was certainly separate from it. Could you explain this just a little more? I'm not following how you arrived this. Morris, Arrive at what? There are a lot of things in that statement that people might take issue with. You were in Eden, the garden of God;
Every precious stone was your covering:
The sardius, topaz, and diamond,
Beryl, onyx, and jasper,
Sapphire, turquoise, and emerald with gold.
The workmanship of your timbrels and pipes
Was prepared for you on the day you were created.
14 “ You were the anointed cherub who covers;
I established you;
You were on the holy mountain of God;
You walked back and forth in the midst of fiery stones The King of Tyre was "in Eden." He had the spoils of Eden. He was "anointed" and "established." He was a cherub in the garden. |
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Mar 18, 2011 9:26:03 GMT -5
Thanks. Could you explain this just a little more? I'm not following how you arrived this. Morris, Arrive at what? Ah, sorry for not specifying. I had this comment in mind; "Scripture (Ez. 28) tells us that God had a covenant with the gatekeepers (Cherubs) in Gen. 3:15". |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Mar 18, 2011 16:21:00 GMT -5
Ah, sorry for not specifying. I had this comment in mind; "Scripture (Ez. 28) tells us that God had a covenant with the gatekeepers (Cherubs) in Gen. 3:15". Morris, Comments/questions on the rest of my remark? Do you accept that "annoint" and "establish" implies a covenant? Do you accept that the cherubs in Ge. 3:15 were human? That the cherubs were human kings? That these kings had the spoils of Eden? That this implies God drove Adam out of the garden with human physical might? These are some of the issues that need to be addressed. What do you already accept, and what do I need to justify? |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Mar 18, 2011 20:06:32 GMT -5
Jeff, I sent you a PM...
|
|
|
|
Post by lumberjack on Mar 19, 2011 22:25:01 GMT -5
Jeff,
Fascinating how we are programmed thru paradigms and presuppositions to filter information,to the point of not even being able to objectively analyze what we are taking in. I've been asking people what the " curse " is and to what it applies to and it's a smogsbord of answers.
I am wondering why if it didn't ( in your opinion ) affect the fertility of the land, why there have been cases recently where population centers such as cities and nations have, as a whole repented publically and experienced a move of the Holy Spirit in revival, their land has been healed ( fertility ) and crop production multiplied exponentially. Also barren reef systems totally rejuvinated and fish populations exploding. Kinda like in Solomons time where God totally blessed the nation with wealth of all sorts for walking in His ways. From these examples I conclude that the earth was cursed to an extent and the curse can be reversed by enmasse obedience. What do you think?
|
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Mar 19, 2011 23:13:22 GMT -5
I am wondering why if it didn't ( in your opinion ) affect the fertility of the land, why there have been cases recently where population centers such as cities and nations have, as a whole repented publically and experienced a move of the Holy Spirit in revival, their land has been healed ( fertility ) and crop production multiplied exponentially. Also barren reef systems totally rejuvinated and fish populations exploding. Kinda like in Solomons time where God totally blessed the nation with wealth of all sorts for walking in His ways. From these examples I conclude that the earth was cursed to an extent and the curse can be reversed by enmasse obedience. What do you think? Joel, If Adam's curse affected the fertility of the land, then why would God turn that curse on and off as you are suggesting? I won't be able to get back to this for a week. See you later. |
|
|
|
Post by lumberjack on Mar 20, 2011 8:49:33 GMT -5
Is there anybody else who holds Jeff's view on the limitations of the curse who would care to respond to my previous post ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Mar 21, 2011 18:49:03 GMT -5
Morris, Comments/questions on the rest of my remark? Do you accept that "annoint" and "establish" implies a covenant? Not at all. A covenant is specifically between two or more parties whereby obligations to be performed are defined. Anoint and Establish can be unilateral and result because an action is performed. What cherubs? (Did you intend a different verse?) Which kings? Do you mean those in Ezekiel that lived thousands of years later? Sorry, I'm confused where you're drawing things from and where you're placing them. I'm starting to feel a little lost (and embarrassed actually). I can usually follow and pick up on what people are talking about, but I'm not sure what these issues are that you mention. Is it because Ezekiel says "You were in Eden, the garden of God" and it must be taken literally? |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Mar 27, 2011 16:16:45 GMT -5
What cherubs? (Did you intend a different verse?) Oops, I meant Gen. 3:24. |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jun 29, 2011 17:59:34 GMT -5
Morris, Did you read Ez. 28? 13 You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone adorned you: carnelian, chrysolite and emerald, topaz, onyx and jasper, lapis lazuli, turquoise and beryl. Your settings and mountings were made of gold; on the day you were created they were prepared. 14 You were anointed as a guardian cherub, for so I ordained you. Who was in Eden? Here's a quick list: Adam, Eve, God, Serpent, Beasts of the field, Cherubs guarding the way to the ToL. Did I miss anyone important? Which of these are being referred to in Ez. 28:14? One of the Cherubs. Where did this Cherub get his riches from? Eden. Remember all the gold and precious stones found there in Gen. 2? This Cherub has the spoils of Eden. And by Ez. 28, this Cherub became the King of Tyre. What doesn't follow? Where is the hole in my logic? |
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Jun 30, 2011 14:52:37 GMT -5
Alright, it looks as though we're starting over. That's fine, but I will be reintroducing my unanswered questions asked previously. Morris, Did you read Ez. 28? 13 You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone adorned you: carnelian, chrysolite and emerald, topaz, onyx and jasper, lapis lazuli, turquoise and beryl. Your settings and mountings were made of gold; on the day you were created they were prepared. 14 You were anointed as a guardian cherub, for so I ordained you. Who was in Eden? Here's a quick list: Adam, Eve, God, Serpent, Beasts of the field, Cherubs guarding the way to the ToL. Did I miss anyone important? So you are working on a literal basis here. Does this mean that in 2 Samuel 22:11 (also in Psalm 18:10), God rode upon the king of Tyre (or at least, a man) and flew? Are any of the other instances of cherub in Ezekiel mere men? If these "cherubim" are men that drove Israel out of Eden, why would they craft their images all over the temple and on the ark of the covenant? If cherubim were men, the Israelites broke the command of God in His very presence, the Holy of Holies. Here's the law; Deuteronomy 4:15-18, 23, " Take careful heed to yourselves, for you saw no form when the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, lest you act corruptly and make for yourselves a carved image in the form of any figure: the likeness of male or female, the likeness of any animal that is on the earth or the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the air, the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground or the likeness of any fish that is in the water beneath the earth... Take heed to yourselves, lest you forget the covenant of the LORD your God which He made with you, and make for yourselves a carved image in the form of anything which the LORD your God has forbidden you.." Instead of asking who was in Eden we should be asking 'is this a literal use of Eden'? Perhaps this needs to be read again. Genesis 2:10-12, " Now a river went out of Eden to water the garden, and from there it parted and became four riverheads. The name of the first is Pishon; it is the one which skirts the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold. And the gold of that land is good. Bdellium and the onyx stone are there." According to the description, a river came out from the garden, and from there it parted into four separate rivers. These riches described here in Genesis 2 were in the land of Havilah, not Eden. The oldest living man in history? As it seems to me, it would be the literalism and the inconsistency of the application to other appearances of cherub (plural, cherubim). |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jun 30, 2011 18:08:39 GMT -5
Morris,
I told you what the passage said. Why do you add to what I said? Why do you remark on what you've added, as if I said it?
|
|
