Recently I have been involved in discussions with friends about the differences between the NKJV and the KJV. I am a KJVer and my position is not well liked, but I got backing. Backing from the Word! Here is an email I have sent my friends regarding this topic.
That is the question at hand. Does the NKJV change doctrine? Lets actually look into it. My words will be in red.
1 John 5:13 (King James Version)
13These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
1 John 5:13 (New King James Version)
13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life,[a] and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God.
Now the main difference here is the word continue in the NKJV. You see that it is in italics which means it is a word that is not in the original text and it is added in to make more sense. Why would they insert continue? This verse in the KJV is strong for eternal security but in the NKJV it makes it seem that if you don't have the words John writes then it is possible for you to fall away. Doctrinal change? You betcha.
Mark 15:36 (King James Version)
36And one ran and filled a spunge full of vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink, saying, Let alone; let us see whether Elias will come to take him down.
Mark 15:36 (New King James Version)
36 Then someone ran and filled a sponge full of sour wine, put it on a reed, and offered it to Him to drink, saying, “Let Him alone; let us see if Elijah will come to take Him down.”
Psalm 69:21 (King James Version)
21They gave me also gall for my meat; and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.
Psalm 69:21 (New King James Version)
21 They also gave me gall for my food,And for my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.
Why would they change this? So now if you were trying to show someone prophecies fulfilled using the NKJV they would disprove you by saying the prophecy has to be exact, which it does, in the KJV.
Romans 1:25 (King James Version)
25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Romans 1:25 (New King James Version)
25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.The difference here is that the KJV is saying that these people took God's truth and changed it the NKJV is saying that these people kind of dropped God's truth and went on to something else. They in a way walked away from God. I now see why people who read the NKJV believe in walking away. The KJV is very strong on saying that nothing can take you out of the hand of God and that no temptation will ever be to great for you to handle. IF we could walk away then that would mean we were given a temptation that took us over, GOD PROMISES that will not happen.
John 1:3 (King James Version)
3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
John 1:3 (New King James Version)
3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.
Hebrews 10:14 (King James Version)
14For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
Hebrews 10:14 (New King James Version)
14 For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.The KJV is saying that by Christs death on the cross Christians are sanctified but the NKJV is asserting that there is a sanctification process. How can one offering cover a process? Would there not have to be offerings?
1 Corinthians 1:18 (King James Version)
18For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
1 Corinthians 1:18 (New King James Version)
18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.Who is saved and who is being saved? Maybe KJVers are saved and NKJVers are being saved? If you follow the NKJV reading then you would have to say the basis for salvation is whether or not you think the cross is foolishness. HUGE doctrinal difference. Is there a "being" saved?
2 Corinthians 2:15 (King James Version)
15For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish:
2 Corinthians 2:15 (New King James Version)
15 For we are to God the fragrance of Christ among those who are being saved and among those who are perishingAgain, who is the "being" saved and who is saved?
Titus 3:10 (King James Version)
10A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;
Titus 3:10 (New King James Version)
10 Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition,
A difference? Most Definitely! NKJV is asserting that you should reject someone if they start up problems the KJV is saying you should reject someone if they try to advance false doctrine, hence a heretick vs. someone who is divisive.
1 Corinthians 1:22 (King James Version)
22For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
Corinthians 1:22 (New King James Version)
22 For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom;
The Jews in order to accept Christ NEED a sign from God (which they will get), they do not just WANT a sign from God.
Now with all these verses I challenge you to try and go back into the original Greek Tectus Receptus (T.R., which the NKJV claims is what they used) and see what the correct translations are concerning these verses. I think it might suprise you with the NKJV claiming to be a newer version of KJV how much they swayed to the New Greek Text which all other new age versions are built upon. If the NKJV truly used the T.R. then why in many, many passages do they use the same statements as the NASB, NIV, ESV, etc.? To check it out use this handy site www.biblegateway.com which posts all the versions for easy side by side comparison. Unfortunately it is powered by Zondervan and includes "versions" like The Message and Today's NIV (TNIV). But for these purposes it works.
So am I being "dogmatic" or simply standing up for the TRUE, INERRANT, Word of God?
-James
Where do we draw the line?
Merry Christmas! ( And HECK yes we can say that!)
13 comments:
I appreciate your post. I took your advice and checked many of these examples against the Greek. First, you are incorrect in claiming that these disagreements tend to be textual disputes (the NKJV agreeing with the "New Greek Texts"). This is simply not the case. The examples you listed are translational issues, not textual issues.
Second, you have gone a long way in convincing me of the superiority of the NKJV. You make a big deal of the "are being saved" type examples. This simply reflects an attempt to translate the durative nature of the Greek tense into English. I think either the NKJV or the KJV rendering is okay here. As for the rest of the examples, the NKJV tends to reflect the Greek and Hebrew much more clearly. Thanks for pointing me to these positive changes to the KJV.
Question for you: What about John 5:13 where it is both a translational and texual problem?
The NKJV for sure follows that of the NGT . The NKJV kind of takes both the TR and the NGT and throws them together.
So you think there is a "being saved"?
How does the NKJV reflect the Greek and Hebrew more clearly? Everthing I've seen it does not, so I'm interested how you came to that conclusion.
Just to use one example, the 1 Cor 1:22 is a slight improvement by the NKJV. The verb translated "require" by the KJV is "aitew." The verb is used 60 plus times in the NT. The KJV translates the term in other places as ask (by far the most frequently), desire (second most frequwently), beg, crave, and call for. It is translated just once with require (Luke 23:23), other than in 1 Cor 1:22. Luke 23:23 demonstrates that the word can mean something all the way from ask to demand, with the implication that the asking is done with urgency. I think a better translation here would probably be that the Jews demand a sign. The NKJV is probably not forceful enough given the context; but it is still better than the KJV's require.
In any case, your argument that the Jews "NEED" a sign seems to have no grounding in the Greek text.
As to your other questions, you will need to clarify a bit for me. I assume that you mean 1 John 5:13 instead of John. Also, you mention "being saved" in your question, but there is no reference to "being saved" in 1 John 5:13. Or perhaps you were asking about two separate issues in your second paragraph. The issue you noted in your post was continue to believe, which is a translation issue, not a textual issue. Please clarify.
The reason I deleted the last comment was because commnt #3 was posted twice.
How and in what way in 1 Cor. 1:22 is request a better translation than require?
And you are correct on the Greek being aiteo but it in no way can be translated to demand. The word aiteo cannot be translated to demand.
When I stated that the Jews need a sign I was not refering to the text I was saying that according to the Bible the Jews need a sign from God.
You are correct I was talking about 1 John 5:13 not John 5:13.
And the "being saved" question was in fact a seperate question.;
Also if I may ask this, How did you come to find this site?
Let me apologize for posting a bit hastily last time (and for posting doubly). I have reflected on the 1 Cor 1:22 translation, and I should not have suggested "demand" as a translation in this case. Let me explain why. I think here that the contrast is between the wisdom the Greeks desired and the sign that the Jews desired. The contrast is not requesting (or requiring) vs. seeking, but the contrast is between wisdom and a sign. In fact, Jesus used the terms for ask (aitew) and seek (zhtew) in a roughly parallel manner (Matt 7:7). In this case, ask and seek (or search in the KJV of Matt 7:7; this is the same Greek word) are not synonyms, but they are conceptually parallel. This is probably the case in 1 Cor 1:22. The meanings of both terms are probably roughly parallel, with the emphasis being on something like the English word desire.
I realized that demand does not really communicate this nearly as well in English; in fact demand is probably far too close to require, and the word should be translated as is the case all but a very few times in the KJV as "ask" or "desire." I find nothing in the context to "require" the translation "require."
Let me apologize again for posting hastily. I suppose this is part of the danger of this whole blog thing is that it is far too easy to put a viewpoint out there than has not been thoroughly thoughout. I would be interested to here your reactions to this assessment of the meaning of aitew here in 1 Cor.
I posted that last comment before having read your last post, so I feel I should address a few issues you brought up.
First, you are not technically correct that aitew cannot be translated as demand. It probably could be at some points, but we need not go down this road in light of my last comment. However, I think you will see based on my last post how I would claim that "request" is a better translation than "require." "Request" is far closer to the concept of "desire" or "ask" than "require." I would have chosen one of these other two terms, but "request" is better than "require."
Second, "When I stated that the Jews need a sign I was not refering to the text I was saying that according to the Bible the Jews need a sign from God."
This is very much unhelpful then. When dealing with translation, you must deal with what THIS text says. Just because the Bible says something doesn't mean than any given passage in the Bible contains that same meaning. The question when doing translation should be what does 1 Cor 1:22 say. You simply cannot say a translation is a bad translation because it does not teach something explicitly that you happen to want it to say. You must ask only if the translation accurately communicates the intended meaning of Paul/God.
Third, as to 1 John 5:13, there is a textual issue in the verse, but it is not related to the point you made in your initial post (about "continue to believe" vs. "believe"). This issue, as far as I see at least, is strictly translational and not textual. If you take issue with other portions of the NKJV of this verse, then that is another issue.
Fourth (and I will stop here as I have already been too verbose), I found your site by searching for blogs on translation issues (obviously NKJV, KJV, TNIV, NASB, etc. all show up on blog searches. I have read a lot of websites on this issue recently, as it is of great interest to me. I do not normally comment, but I figured since I followed your advice and checked some of these examples, I would comment to get your thoughts. Thanks for deleting the repeated post.
The thing is about aitew is the word does not have a meaning of demand. If someone were to translate it that way it would be going beyond the meaning of the word itself.
I see what your saying about "request" but what makes more sense in the context? The Jews "request" or the Jews "require", which your right would be a translational issue. When I mentioned the thing about the NGT what I was saying is that in many of these verses the NKJV translators followed the NGT not the TR.
You are 100% correct that 1 John 5:13 is a translational issue not texual. Again by stating the thing about the NGT I was not saying that all were textual. But the thing is here though is why did they enter "continue to"? It is not even in the original text?
Thanks for coming it is good to have you here. As you can see it is still in the beginnings of its blog history. Hopefully someday we'll really beable to get it going.
I don't know if you also like politics or not but I have another blog at this address www.crusaderempire.blog.com which is a little more popular and we have some good coversations going.
1. You are incorrect that aitew cannot mean to demand. Check the major lexicons and you will find this listed as a possible meaning.
2. I find it very peculiar that you argue that aitew cannot mean demand, but that it can mean the more forecful require. This seems backwards to me, and you have not offered any proof of how or why aitew could mean require (other than saying it sounds good to you in the context).
This, however, is a side-issue that has distracted us from the main topic. The biggest problem I have found with your post was your claim that the NKJV is changing doctrine. This claim is made constantly about new translations, and it is often the most misleading claim made about any new translation. You claim that the NKJV changes doctrine because it changes some things about the KJV. You must realize, however, that the NKJV is an attempt to faithfully render the Greek. Any changes to the KJV by the NKJV were made in an attempt to make the translation more accurate. You simply CANNOT claim that the NKJV changes the KJV, so it changes docrtine. This is not a valid argument.
In order to criticize the NKJV, you must be able to demonstrate that it has changed the meaning of the Greek text. This is the ONLY way to claim that docrtinal changes have been made.
Let's take the two exampes that we have been discussing (1 Cor 1:22 and 1 John 5:13). Your claim that the NKJV changes doctrine in 1 Cor 1:22 is false. You have picked up on one meaning of "require" in English and claimed that the Jews needed a sign before they would believe. In fact, this is not the meaning of the passage at all (and we see that the Jews got many signs, but many still continued not to believe). The meaning of the passage is that the Jews asked a sign of God, or demanded that God show them a sign (just like the Greeks sought after wisdom). The Jews sought a wonder-working Messiah, while the Greeks sought after reason or wisdom. This seeking or demanding by the Jews from God is a possible meaning of the English word require in the KJV. However, you have taken a possible meaning of the English word "require" (need) and placed it onto the Greek word (aitew). The Greek word, though, did not carry this sense of the English word "require." Instead the Greek word meant to ask for or to demand, not to need.
In this case, the NKJV offers a translation of the Greek which prevents the reader from minuderstanding by thinking that Paul is claiming that the Jews NEEDED a sign. The NKJV translation is better (you have offered no evidence to the contrary). Again, the problem with your claim is that you have denigtated needlessy the translators of the NKJV, just because they have rendered the translation differently than the KJV, when in fact they are more faithful to the Greek text. Even if they happened to be less faithful to the Greek text, you should argue that they have made a bad translation rather than that they have changed doctrine.
To bring this post to an end with one more example, I go back to 1 John 5:13. You have claimed that the NKJV has inserted "continue to" into the text, which was "not even in the original text." You are of course aware that actually the word "believe" is not in the text of 1 John 5:13 either. What is in the text of 1 John 5:13 is the Greek word pisteuhte (a form of pisteuw). The translators of the NKJV have deemed that this form indicates a contiuous or on-going action. This type of understanding can be conveyed with the English word "believe." The Enlish word "believe," however, can refer to point-in-time action, or an action that occurs once. If the translators of the NKJV are correct in their understanding of pisteuhete, then the NKJV is a better translation of the Greek into English, because it accurately portrays the Greek and avoids potential confusion.
Now, you may think that the translators of the NKJV were wrong here. I personally am on the fence on this issue. But, if I happened to disagree with them, I would not claim that they were changing doctrine; I would simply claim that they made a bad translation. To say that they are changing doctrine is sensationalist and misleading.
I would be glad to discuss any of the examples with you, but the main reason that led me to post on your blog was the, I think, misleading and distrubing claim that the NKJV makes doctrinal changes to the KJV
Ok you had a long comment so I'll try my best to cover it all.
The reason I say that aitew cannot be translated to demand is that according to Strong's Greek lexicon that is not a possible meaning. Possible meanings are: ask,beg,call for,crave,desire,require.
moving on...
Doctrine= Teaching. Just wanted to get that meaning across.
1 John 5:13(doctrinal issue)
KJV- If you follow what is being written by John then you can be assured you have eternal life.
NKJV- By adding "continue to" it is asserting that if you don't have the words John writes then you could fall away.
That is a difference in doctrine(teaching).
Mark 15:36 (translational issue)
KJV- Goes hand in hand with the prophecy in Psalm 69:21.
NKJV- May be ligitimate but it creates an unease of use which the NKJV claims to have over the KJV. You even have to admit the KJV is easier to follow with this prophecy (and there are many more just like it).
Romans 1:25 (doctrinal issue)
KJV- saying that these people took God's truth and changed it or distorted into a lie.
NKJV- says that they exchanged it for something different again asserting that these people walked away from the truth.
John 1:3 (doctrinal issue)
KJV- everything was made by Christ, by His hands!
NKJV- saying that everything was just made through Him and not by Him. The JW's believe exactly the same thing and that verse is in their New World Translation (which came from the NGT). This is a perfect example of where the NKJV followed the NGT not the TR.
Hebrews 10:14 (doctrinal issue)
KJV- when Christ died he sanctified believers
NKJV- says that when Christ died he sanctified those who are "being" sanctified. This is asserting that sanctification is a process which is unbiblical.
1 Corinthians 1:18 (doctrinal issue)
KJV- to those who are saved the preaching of the cross is the power of God.
NKJV- says that those who are "being" saved. Who is being saved? But also like I said in the post if you follow the reading of the NKJV you could say that it says that salvation rests upon whether or not you think the cross is foolishness.
2 Corinthians 2:15 (doctrinal issue)
KJV- those who are saved
NKJV- those who are "being" saved
I don't know about you but I'm saved not "being" saved.
Titus 3:10 (doctrinal issue)
KJV- someone who advances false doctrine (teaching) should be kicked out of the church.
NKJV- someone who starts trouble should be kicked out of the church. many great men of God started trouble in their churches by standing up for the truth, should they have been kicked out? Spurgeon was.
1 Corinthians 1:22 (translational issue)
KJV- says the Jews need a sign from God
NKJV- says the Jews merely ask for a sign from God.
Yes aitew could mean ask, beg, request , etc but what is the right meaning of the word in this situation. Its just like in the english language we have to, too, and two each one is pronounced the same but they have totally different meanings.
Both meanings, "request" and "require", are legitimate but which one fits best with the verse? Do the Jews merely ask for a sign?
All these verses are exactly what you say they are translational issues and that is exactly what I wanted you to see by my post! Its in these translational issues that they change doctrine (teaching).
If you want a true NKJV get a KJ21. Go to kj21.com to see what I'm talking about.
1. If you want to investigate the meaning of a word, you should go to a lexicon rather than a concordance. Strong's is not really the kind of source to cite here (I could cite BDAG, Louw and Nida, and Lidell and Scott to show that demans is a possible meaning of aitew). Moving on....
2. You continue to commit the error of taking what the English word can mean, and assuming that it is what the Greek word did mean. Rom 1:25 is a classic example. The Greek word used here is metallassw. This word means to exchange one thing for another. It more clearly means to exchange rather than to change in English. If you do not believe me, read Rom 1:26. Paul says (KJV) "for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature." They traded what was according to nature for what was not according to nature. The NKJV more clearly translates both of these phrases with "exchange" rather than "change." "Change" can have the meaning of trade one thing for another that the Greek word carries, but "exchange" conveys this concept much more clearly.
Once again, you have picked up on a possible English meaning of "change" and argued that Paul is saying that people changed God's truth. If you were reading the NKJV, you would have avoided this error because of the clearer translation "exchange." I am beginning to see now why you are making such a big deal of this all. You believe strongly in the perseverance of the saints (and rightly so). However, you are attempting to find this doctrine being taught in every nook and cranny of the Bible. You can do this better with the KJV than the NKJV, so you like the KJV better, even if the NKJV happens to offer a better translation.
3. Back to 1 Cor 1:22. Your analogy of the English "to," "two," and "too" does not work here. These are different English words. We are dealing with one Greek word that can be translated using a number of different English words. These are two separate issues.
You said that both "require" and "request" are both legitimate translations of aitew. Let's say I concede this point. You have offered no evidence that "require" is a better translation here. All you have said is "Do the Jews merely ask for a sign?" A question is hardly evidence for your position. I have given evidence of why I think "request" is better. You have said nothing that refutes any of these points. Until you offer evidence of why you think require is better, you CANNOT say that the NKJV changes doctrine. You say it changes doctrine; I say it is a better translation. It does not change doctrine; it just prevents you from reading too much into the text of the KJV.
4. You have not really done anything in your last post other than repeat what you said in your previous post. Again, I want to remind you that you cannot claim that a translation changes doctrine unless it changes the meaning of the Greek text. In most of these instances, the NKJV offers a better translation of the Greek (you have offered no evidence to the contrary for any of your examples). Therefore, you should not say that it changes doctrine. What it does is change some of the wording of the KJV to translate the Greek more clearly. If a change to greater faithfulness to the Greek changes doctrine, then two options are likely. 1. The doctrine was wrong to begin with. 2. You should not have been teaching this doctrine from this text to begin with. Option #2 is where most of your examples fall.
5. Finally, you are incorrect in arguing that John 1:3 is an example of the NKJV following the NGT over the TR. Again, this is a translation issue, not a textual issue.
1. it is Strong's lexicon not a concordance. And Strong's is perfectly fine to use here.
2. You are correct that Rom. 1:25 could mean exchange but the Greek word metallasso is used twice in the Bible (ro. 1:25 and rom.1:26) and the KJV translated both times as change so the KJV translator were also pretty sure it was changed not exchanged. In Ro. 1:26 the woman did not "exchange" what was natural as you pointed out they totally changed what was natural.
You say that it is an error for the KJV to put "change"? Is that not the meaning for the Greek word?
The whole Bible goes together and nothing contradicts each other. If a doctrine (like eternal security) is true than you can find it in EVERY nook and cranny of the Bible! And no I don't just like the KJV because it is more in line with eternal security, I like the KJV because it is the best translation of the Bible and if your going to truly study the word of God you'll use a KJV.
3.The reason I believe that "require" is better than "request" is because I believe it keeps you from making the error of believing that the Jews merely ask for a sign when the Jews truly need a sign.
4. I'm sorry you feel that way.
5.Do you understand what the NGT is? the TR? If you don't watch the video posted on the site and it will give you more insight.
Here is John 1:3 in newer versions (see if it coincides with NKJV)
John 1:3 (New International Version)
3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
John 1:3 (New American Standard Bible)
3(A)All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.
I am going to respond to your last series of comments and then that will probably be it for me. I think we are just spinning our wheels.
1. You say Strong's does not have demand as a meaning. I can cite BDAG, Mounce's Analytical Lexicon, Louw and Nida, and Lidell and Scott, which all have demand as a possible meaning. I cannot help but think you have picked one piece of evidence that fits your view and have ignored the rest.
2. You said in Rom 1:26, "they totally changed what was natural." So unnatural sexual relations are now natural???? This is what you say, that they changed what was natural, so that what was unnatural would now be natural. This sounds like accepting that homosexual behavior is now natural (what was unnatural has changed and become natural). No, I think what you mean is that they exchanged what was natural for that which was unnatural. Instead of practicing what was natural, they did what was unnatural instead (or exhanged the natural for the unnatural).
Again, if you will check the lexicons, you will find that "exchanged" is the most common meaning of the Greek word. I believe if you check Strong's that you will find "exchange" listed before "change."
"If a doctrine (like eternal security) is true than you can find it in EVERY nook and cranny of the Bible!"
I do not really understand how you can make a statement like this. For example, the Bible teaches that homosexuality is wrong. But would you say that this doctrine (teaching) can be found in every passage of Scripture. You have to accept the fact that not every verse in the Bible teaches eternal security. This is not the same thing as saying that some verses contradict eternal security; it is just saying that not every verse teaches it. One of the most common errors among conservative Christians is trying to make every passage of the Bible teach a given doctrine. In doing so, one often misses out on the main point of the passage.
3. "The reason I believe that "require" is better than "request" is because I believe it keeps you from making the error of believing that the Jews merely ask for a sign when the Jews truly need a sign."
Again, you have offered no evidence in support of your position other than this is what you think it should be. You seem willing to hold to this position even though the simplest and most logical translation of Paul's wording is that the Jews did ask for a sign. Again, I ask for evidence to the contrary. Can you offer anything in the text that points you to this translation other than that it fits better with what you think the text should say? These are the kind of things you need to be doing; offering concrete supporting evidence for your translation choices.
4. I am curious as to why you are sorry I feel this way. Since again you have offered no evidence one way or the other, I can only assume it is because I disagree with you and the KJV on these points, which you assume must be right.
5. I am well aware of what the NGT and the TR are. You seem to know what they are, but you apparently do not have the means to actually check some of the claims you are making. For example, you claim that the NKJV follows the NGT rather than the TR in John 1:3 ("by" versus "through"). The word translated "by" or "through" in John 1:3 is dia (shortened to di in this verse). This word can mean either through or by. I have no desire to debate the meaning of the word here. Listen to this closely though. The NGT and the TR read EXACTLY the same in John 1:3. THIS IS NOT A TEXTUAL ISSUE. This is a translational issue. The NKJV does happen to follow many of the versions that are translated from the NGT, but this DOES NOT mean that that NKJV follows the NGT. It simply means that the NKJV happened to translate the word in a way similiar to some of the more modern translations. This is not an issue of the NGT versus the TR, as both are exactly the same at this point. It seems that this whole issue has been confused a number of times, going back to your original post.
You will probably be aware from these last posts that I do not think we are making much progress at this point. I posted on this blog initially because I think any opportunity to discuss the evidence helps sharpen one's own viewpoints. I welcome the opportunity to do so at anytime, but I do not really think we have been doing so lately. I think so many issues have been brought in that no one issue has been dealt with thoroughly. It is probably time to move on. I will check back again to see if you have any new evidence to present, but if not I appreciate your dialogue, and I hope you will continue to be open to examining the evidence.
Post a Comment