From time to time, I've heard people quibble at Adam naming all the kinds of animals in an afternoon.
Well, consider the following links to articles about so-called 'savants'. People of seemingly extraordinary mental powers, who also appear to have a level of intellectual disability. This is not to say anything but the human mind can exercise vast capability.
If Adam was without the limitations of the fall that we have inhereted, I see no difficulty with him doing as the scripture indicates.
Mathematical and language genius
Musical genius
'Savant' profiles.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Just so
In a review of the book "Catching the Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human" (oh yeah, another meaningless effort to credit everything to 'evolution'), the reviewer, Simon Ings makes the following perceptive remark:
Good big ideas about evolution are rare. Often they're merely "just so" stories, stringing specious skeins of cause and effect over a much more complicated intellectual landscape. At first glance Wrangham's argument seems to have been fished from that dodgy pot.
Just so.
Then another review, on the same page, credits not cooking, but alcohol with making us who we are (I know, for some people, that is the case). More meaningless twaddle. At least the SADs might go along with this one: perhaps it gives a point to communion wine!
Both reviews in Spectrum, the Sydney Morning Herald's attempted literary weekend supplement.
Good big ideas about evolution are rare. Often they're merely "just so" stories, stringing specious skeins of cause and effect over a much more complicated intellectual landscape. At first glance Wrangham's argument seems to have been fished from that dodgy pot.
Just so.
Then another review, on the same page, credits not cooking, but alcohol with making us who we are (I know, for some people, that is the case). More meaningless twaddle. At least the SADs might go along with this one: perhaps it gives a point to communion wine!
Both reviews in Spectrum, the Sydney Morning Herald's attempted literary weekend supplement.
Friday, January 15, 2010
Leupold Genesis part 26A verse 1
1. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
The phrase "in the beginning" (bereshith) refers to the absolute beginning of created things, to the Uranfang. This fact is supported by the following arguments in the face of many and strong claims to the contrary. 1. The corresponding phrase in Greek, en arch, which the Septuagint translators used here and which appears at the beginning of John's Gospel, is plainly a reference to the absolute beginning. 2. The noun reshith appears without the article, appearing in use practically as a proper noun, Absolute Beginning (K. S. 294g). The Greek Hexapla of Orion supports this, for its transliteration with few exceptions gives bohsin, seldom baohshn. 3. The rendering which takes the expression as referring to the absolute beginning of things makes for a simple, natural progression of thought and avoids that peculiar periodic sentence structure, which shall presently be discussed as highly unnatural.
Because this noun bereshith is without the article, that does not allow for its being taken as a genitive or construct case, viz. "in the beginning of God's creating," etc., for with that rendering attention is at once centred on the second verse and no reason appears for mentioning "the beginning" at all.
Here, then, at the opening statement of sacred Scripture we are taken back to that point to which the human mind naturally will revert and in reference to which it asks: "What was the beginning of things?" This solemn and pithy statement gives man the information: the beginning was made by God in His creation of heaven and earth. As far as this world is concerned, it simply had no existence before this time.
He that did the creative work is said to be God, 'elohim. This Hebrew name is to be derived from a root found in the Arabic meaning "to fear" or "to reverence." It, therefore, conceives of God as the one who by His nature .and His works rouses man's fear and reverence. It is used 2,570 times (KTAT-(K) p. 144). This name is not a characteristic mark of a particular source as E, or in a measure also P, as Old Testament criticism is in the habit of claiming. It is used by Moses in accordance with its meaning. The work recorded in chapter one in a very outstanding way sets forth God's mighty works of power and majesty. God's omnipotence outshines all other attributes in this account. Omnipotence rouses man's reverence and holy fear rather than his love. In other words, it brings the Creator to man's notice rather as 'Elohim than from any other point of view. In stressing this we are not blind to the fact that this chapter also shows forth God as Yahweh, the faithful, merciful one. The claim, however, , that Yahweh might just as Well be employed as 'Elohim, if the meaning of these names is to be considered, really ignores the facts we have just emphasized above --facts which criticism, by the way, gives heed to far less carefully than conservative writers give attention to the arguments in favour of the various sources, E, J, P, D, etc.
The phrase "in the beginning" (bereshith) refers to the absolute beginning of created things, to the Uranfang. This fact is supported by the following arguments in the face of many and strong claims to the contrary. 1. The corresponding phrase in Greek, en arch, which the Septuagint translators used here and which appears at the beginning of John's Gospel, is plainly a reference to the absolute beginning. 2. The noun reshith appears without the article, appearing in use practically as a proper noun, Absolute Beginning (K. S. 294g). The Greek Hexapla of Orion supports this, for its transliteration with few exceptions gives bohsin, seldom baohshn. 3. The rendering which takes the expression as referring to the absolute beginning of things makes for a simple, natural progression of thought and avoids that peculiar periodic sentence structure, which shall presently be discussed as highly unnatural.
Because this noun bereshith is without the article, that does not allow for its being taken as a genitive or construct case, viz. "in the beginning of God's creating," etc., for with that rendering attention is at once centred on the second verse and no reason appears for mentioning "the beginning" at all.
Here, then, at the opening statement of sacred Scripture we are taken back to that point to which the human mind naturally will revert and in reference to which it asks: "What was the beginning of things?" This solemn and pithy statement gives man the information: the beginning was made by God in His creation of heaven and earth. As far as this world is concerned, it simply had no existence before this time.
He that did the creative work is said to be God, 'elohim. This Hebrew name is to be derived from a root found in the Arabic meaning "to fear" or "to reverence." It, therefore, conceives of God as the one who by His nature .and His works rouses man's fear and reverence. It is used 2,570 times (KTAT-(K) p. 144). This name is not a characteristic mark of a particular source as E, or in a measure also P, as Old Testament criticism is in the habit of claiming. It is used by Moses in accordance with its meaning. The work recorded in chapter one in a very outstanding way sets forth God's mighty works of power and majesty. God's omnipotence outshines all other attributes in this account. Omnipotence rouses man's reverence and holy fear rather than his love. In other words, it brings the Creator to man's notice rather as 'Elohim than from any other point of view. In stressing this we are not blind to the fact that this chapter also shows forth God as Yahweh, the faithful, merciful one. The claim, however, , that Yahweh might just as Well be employed as 'Elohim, if the meaning of these names is to be considered, really ignores the facts we have just emphasized above --facts which criticism, by the way, gives heed to far less carefully than conservative writers give attention to the arguments in favour of the various sources, E, J, P, D, etc.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Does Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney Know Jesus Christ?
The Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney is proud of its evangelical tradition. It talks much of trusting Scripture and regarding it as authority for understanding the mind of God. More than that it trusts Scripture for understanding life. Its theological seminary, Moore Theological College, is held as the bastion of truth on theological matters and the hope for training men an women to go, principally, into the Diocese but generally into the world in the name of Jesus Christ. Where the Church globally is succumbing to the world the Diocese looks to itself and its evangelical tradition to draw courage to continue the fight.
But how goes it beneath the surface, beyond all the bluster?
Recently I read a few words from the late Bishop J.C. Ryle on "Reality." Both Neil Moore and I have previously quoted Bishop Ryle. He still has relevance and I sense he has something to say to all of us who regard ourselves as a) evangelical and, b) having it altogether concerning our faith.
Bishop Ryle said "How much evangelical religion is completely unreal? You will sometimes see men professing great affection for the pure 'gospel,' while they are practically inflicting on it the greatest injury. The will talk loudly of soundness in the faith, and have a keen nose for heresy. They will run eagerly after popular preachers, applaud Protestant speakers at public meetings to the very echo. They are familiar with all the phrases of evangelical religion, and converse fluently about its leading doctrines. To see their faces at public meetings, or in church, you would think them eminently godly. And yet these people in private will sometimes do things of which even some heathen would be ashamed. They are neither truthful, nor straightforward, nor honest, nor manly, nor just, nor good-tempered, nor unselfish, nor merciful, nor humble, nor kind. And is such Christianity as this real? It is not. It is a miserable imposture, a base cheat and caricature."
Such words as these ought to make us all stop and consider our ways. Are our ways consistent with the faith we profess?
Mindful of the purpose of this sydneyanglicanheretics site to expose the descent of the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney into heresy via heterodoxical belief on the creation of the world, I was struck by Bishop Ryle's early statements: "... You will sometimes see men professing great affection for the pure 'gospel,' while they are practically inflicting on it the greatest injury. They will talk loudly of soundness in the faith ..." Is this not a fair synopsis of the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney?
A fair criticism of the Diocese would be to say the overwhelming rhetoric both orally and in print coming from the Diocese is that the gospel is Jesus Christ, the Son of God, dying for our sins and being resurrected that we might live. Nothing wrong with that as far as it goes but then cause for criticism kicks in. The Diocese is unfit to explain the nature of who it was who was crucified and resurrected. More precisely, the Diocese will be inconsistent in explaining his nature and thus unable to explain his nature.
Commencing with Archbishop Peter Jensen and the tergiversating doctrine of Moore Theological College on Creation, an influence exists within the Diocese which inhibits an inquirer's capacity to identify Jesus Christ with the Creator. That which is espoused by those sources leads the inquirer to formulate a nature of a Creator who scratched out a creation red with tooth and claw while formulating a nature of Jesus Christ who was meek and caring, healing the sufferings of the helpless and dying for our sins. The two characters are miles apart in nature. The latter is attested in the Bible and is real but the former is alien to the Bible and untrue. But errant influences within the Diocese urge an inquirer to marry the two natures. As such, a great injury has been inflicted on the gospel, on Jesus Christ himself.
Several New Testament passages make it clear that Creation occurred through and by Jesus Christ (eg John 1 and Colossians 1) but I draw attention to Hebrews 1:1-3b:
"God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person ..." (NKJV)
Jesus Christ is the express image of God's person (some translations have nature). If you want an idea of the manner in which God created, you only need look to Jesus Christ. Did the Creator use a slow, death, disease, suffering and dead end riddled process? Look to Jesus Christ and you will see one who wept over suffering; healed suffering and disease with quickness; where there was non-life he made life and did it expediently; he altered the chemical structure of water to turn it into high quality wine - all this and much more with just a thought or a word.
More than that he who has all authority in heaven and on earth demonstrated himself to be the antithesis of "survival of the fittest" by suffering death on the cross so that those who could not, by their own efforts, see and enjoy God.
Further, a day has been appointed, at the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ, when all those who left this world in right relationship with God, will be raised up instantly, though their body long before having been obliterated, and on that day they shall be given a body which never decays. Again, I say, instantly.
All these expressions of will display a nature of Jesus Christ completely in contrast to a nature which is cruel, incompetent and likely to engender a death, disease, suffering and dead-end riddled process of creation. Remember who it was who said:
³ “Blessed are the poor in spirit,
For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 Blessed are those who mourn,
For they shall be comforted.
5 Blessed are the meek,
For they shall inherit the earth.
6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
For they shall be filled.
7 Blessed are the merciful,
For they shall obtain mercy.
8 Blessed are the pure in heart,
For they shall see God.
9 Blessed are the peacemakers,
For they shall be called sons of God.
10 Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake,
For theirs is the kingdom of heaven." (Matt. 5:3-10, NKJV)
Is the one who delivers on those promises one who kills and maims to make a world? Is he who is light also darkness? Is he who is life also death?
It is time for those within the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney who hold to Theistic Evolution and those within its theological seminary who allow Theistic Evolution to be believed within the Diocese, it is time for them to recognize the damage they do to the nature of Jesus Christ and the damage they do to his church.
These of whom I speak declare loudly a faith in Jesus Christ but they corrupt his nature. They defile his office as Creator. They present, in nature, two contrary Sons of God to the world.
I call on these people to forsake their pride and repent of their sin. I appeal to them - is your pride worth more than the souls of those who will be lost to Christ in future years because they are presented with two Sons of God and will end up throwing off both? Come back to the Bible in your belief and trust the one who was there at the creation of the world. Know Jesus Christ as he is revealed there from the beginning, as he appeared Incarnate and as he is upon return.
The deception is exposed. You can no longer thow this issue off as not being a gospel issue. It is a gospel issue because the nature of Jesus Christ is assaulted. Repent!
I ask again, is your pride worth more than the souls of those who will be lost because of the low view of Christ you present to the world?
Sam Drucker
But how goes it beneath the surface, beyond all the bluster?
Recently I read a few words from the late Bishop J.C. Ryle on "Reality." Both Neil Moore and I have previously quoted Bishop Ryle. He still has relevance and I sense he has something to say to all of us who regard ourselves as a) evangelical and, b) having it altogether concerning our faith.
Bishop Ryle said "How much evangelical religion is completely unreal? You will sometimes see men professing great affection for the pure 'gospel,' while they are practically inflicting on it the greatest injury. The will talk loudly of soundness in the faith, and have a keen nose for heresy. They will run eagerly after popular preachers, applaud Protestant speakers at public meetings to the very echo. They are familiar with all the phrases of evangelical religion, and converse fluently about its leading doctrines. To see their faces at public meetings, or in church, you would think them eminently godly. And yet these people in private will sometimes do things of which even some heathen would be ashamed. They are neither truthful, nor straightforward, nor honest, nor manly, nor just, nor good-tempered, nor unselfish, nor merciful, nor humble, nor kind. And is such Christianity as this real? It is not. It is a miserable imposture, a base cheat and caricature."
Such words as these ought to make us all stop and consider our ways. Are our ways consistent with the faith we profess?
Mindful of the purpose of this sydneyanglicanheretics site to expose the descent of the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney into heresy via heterodoxical belief on the creation of the world, I was struck by Bishop Ryle's early statements: "... You will sometimes see men professing great affection for the pure 'gospel,' while they are practically inflicting on it the greatest injury. They will talk loudly of soundness in the faith ..." Is this not a fair synopsis of the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney?
A fair criticism of the Diocese would be to say the overwhelming rhetoric both orally and in print coming from the Diocese is that the gospel is Jesus Christ, the Son of God, dying for our sins and being resurrected that we might live. Nothing wrong with that as far as it goes but then cause for criticism kicks in. The Diocese is unfit to explain the nature of who it was who was crucified and resurrected. More precisely, the Diocese will be inconsistent in explaining his nature and thus unable to explain his nature.
Commencing with Archbishop Peter Jensen and the tergiversating doctrine of Moore Theological College on Creation, an influence exists within the Diocese which inhibits an inquirer's capacity to identify Jesus Christ with the Creator. That which is espoused by those sources leads the inquirer to formulate a nature of a Creator who scratched out a creation red with tooth and claw while formulating a nature of Jesus Christ who was meek and caring, healing the sufferings of the helpless and dying for our sins. The two characters are miles apart in nature. The latter is attested in the Bible and is real but the former is alien to the Bible and untrue. But errant influences within the Diocese urge an inquirer to marry the two natures. As such, a great injury has been inflicted on the gospel, on Jesus Christ himself.
Several New Testament passages make it clear that Creation occurred through and by Jesus Christ (eg John 1 and Colossians 1) but I draw attention to Hebrews 1:1-3b:
"God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person ..." (NKJV)
Jesus Christ is the express image of God's person (some translations have nature). If you want an idea of the manner in which God created, you only need look to Jesus Christ. Did the Creator use a slow, death, disease, suffering and dead end riddled process? Look to Jesus Christ and you will see one who wept over suffering; healed suffering and disease with quickness; where there was non-life he made life and did it expediently; he altered the chemical structure of water to turn it into high quality wine - all this and much more with just a thought or a word.
More than that he who has all authority in heaven and on earth demonstrated himself to be the antithesis of "survival of the fittest" by suffering death on the cross so that those who could not, by their own efforts, see and enjoy God.
Further, a day has been appointed, at the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ, when all those who left this world in right relationship with God, will be raised up instantly, though their body long before having been obliterated, and on that day they shall be given a body which never decays. Again, I say, instantly.
All these expressions of will display a nature of Jesus Christ completely in contrast to a nature which is cruel, incompetent and likely to engender a death, disease, suffering and dead-end riddled process of creation. Remember who it was who said:
³ “Blessed are the poor in spirit,
For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 Blessed are those who mourn,
For they shall be comforted.
5 Blessed are the meek,
For they shall inherit the earth.
6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
For they shall be filled.
7 Blessed are the merciful,
For they shall obtain mercy.
8 Blessed are the pure in heart,
For they shall see God.
9 Blessed are the peacemakers,
For they shall be called sons of God.
10 Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake,
For theirs is the kingdom of heaven." (Matt. 5:3-10, NKJV)
Is the one who delivers on those promises one who kills and maims to make a world? Is he who is light also darkness? Is he who is life also death?
It is time for those within the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney who hold to Theistic Evolution and those within its theological seminary who allow Theistic Evolution to be believed within the Diocese, it is time for them to recognize the damage they do to the nature of Jesus Christ and the damage they do to his church.
These of whom I speak declare loudly a faith in Jesus Christ but they corrupt his nature. They defile his office as Creator. They present, in nature, two contrary Sons of God to the world.
I call on these people to forsake their pride and repent of their sin. I appeal to them - is your pride worth more than the souls of those who will be lost to Christ in future years because they are presented with two Sons of God and will end up throwing off both? Come back to the Bible in your belief and trust the one who was there at the creation of the world. Know Jesus Christ as he is revealed there from the beginning, as he appeared Incarnate and as he is upon return.
The deception is exposed. You can no longer thow this issue off as not being a gospel issue. It is a gospel issue because the nature of Jesus Christ is assaulted. Repent!
I ask again, is your pride worth more than the souls of those who will be lost because of the low view of Christ you present to the world?
Sam Drucker
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Re-paganising the church
John posted this comment to the post on paganising the church. It was so interesting I've taken the liberty posting it here, with my own comment appended to the post. Hope you don't mind, John.
Perhaps what disturbs me most of all from the mouth of these men who espouse this other Gospel is that they have imposed something other than Christ between the creation and God.
Paul and John are adamant that it is THROUGH and BY Christ that everything HAS ALREADY come into existence. If evolution, another principle, is the basis by which everything IS BEING brought into existence, then it's no longer Christ.
Atheists have asked me on many occasions, if evolution isn't true, then how did God bring the cosmos into existence. They are looking for a mechanical, material and/or reductionist process. And that's the difference: God doesn't require a process as he just thinks it into being, and it is so, whole and complete. It's an entirely different ballgame and the Christian doesn't need to allow the atheist to set the rules of the game.
Logically, there is nothing irrational in a Creator having no need of secondary principles to create by. It's not like I can't imagine another world scenario in which the Creator says something and that immediately comes into existence. It's certainly not like thinking of a world where there are bachelors with wives.
Yet, the Sydney Anglicans, philosophically supported by their atheist-inspired theology, must have something other than Christ being the Creator. They have to have a process doing God's work. This is nothing but a return to paganism. Jensen, within a single generation, has repaganised the Church.
And I added:
John's comment has touched something very interesting, I think.
If a 'principle' comes between God and his creation that is not Christ, then something other than God is basic to creation. That is, there is something else that is self-, or at least pre-existent apart from God.
If it is pre-existent to the creation, then God created before he created (or did some creating that we don't know of; maybe when he created the spirit world, but that's speculation). It seems that the cosmos of our experience is that which is created in its entirety, and no principles can be interposed between God's speaking and result in Genesis 1. The other scripture that can be brought to this theme would support this, I think (subject of a future post).
To suppose the contrary is to disregard the scripture, or to have a basic belief structure that is pagan, if not materialist, rather than Christian theist; If PJ is a theistic evolutionist, then he courts a very much anti-biblical position, to my mind.
Perhaps what disturbs me most of all from the mouth of these men who espouse this other Gospel is that they have imposed something other than Christ between the creation and God.
Paul and John are adamant that it is THROUGH and BY Christ that everything HAS ALREADY come into existence. If evolution, another principle, is the basis by which everything IS BEING brought into existence, then it's no longer Christ.
Atheists have asked me on many occasions, if evolution isn't true, then how did God bring the cosmos into existence. They are looking for a mechanical, material and/or reductionist process. And that's the difference: God doesn't require a process as he just thinks it into being, and it is so, whole and complete. It's an entirely different ballgame and the Christian doesn't need to allow the atheist to set the rules of the game.
Logically, there is nothing irrational in a Creator having no need of secondary principles to create by. It's not like I can't imagine another world scenario in which the Creator says something and that immediately comes into existence. It's certainly not like thinking of a world where there are bachelors with wives.
Yet, the Sydney Anglicans, philosophically supported by their atheist-inspired theology, must have something other than Christ being the Creator. They have to have a process doing God's work. This is nothing but a return to paganism. Jensen, within a single generation, has repaganised the Church.
And I added:
John's comment has touched something very interesting, I think.
If a 'principle' comes between God and his creation that is not Christ, then something other than God is basic to creation. That is, there is something else that is self-, or at least pre-existent apart from God.
If it is pre-existent to the creation, then God created before he created (or did some creating that we don't know of; maybe when he created the spirit world, but that's speculation). It seems that the cosmos of our experience is that which is created in its entirety, and no principles can be interposed between God's speaking and result in Genesis 1. The other scripture that can be brought to this theme would support this, I think (subject of a future post).
To suppose the contrary is to disregard the scripture, or to have a basic belief structure that is pagan, if not materialist, rather than Christian theist; If PJ is a theistic evolutionist, then he courts a very much anti-biblical position, to my mind.
Buffet Badge
In the Financial Review column "Pierpont's Dubious Distinction Awards" the Anglican diocese of Sydney gets a gong:
Buffet Badge for Investor of the Year
Goes to suggest that perhaps it wasn't on God's side! Just like Connect09: a work of man and not of God?
Buffet Badge for Investor of the Year
To the Anglican church for dropping $160 million on its share portfolio. Which proves that even with God on your side you couldn't beat the market in 2008-09.
Goes to suggest that perhaps it wasn't on God's side! Just like Connect09: a work of man and not of God?
Saturday, January 2, 2010
Creation in Anglican newspaper
This letter on creation and the Bible's historicity popped up recently on another website (one we watch). Its worth keeping track of.
Friday, January 1, 2010
What happened?
In response to this comment
to a blog on Goldsworthy:
I replied:
Of course the Bible gives detailed history (events that can have time and space coordinates), odd how most people drift off from the historical backbone when it gets beyond Abraham. But this is the very point, one would think; of showing in terms of the space-time domination of our lives how we, as image bearing creatures are connected in terms of the real world we are in to the wilful creator who authored us, gave the 'image' and made the real world as the setting of our image-bearing. I know some hold that God did create us, but not in a way that is depicted in the Bible. One wonders whence such information, of course, and the value of a creation that cannot be represented in language that conveys meaning.
This summary of the Bible by Goldsworthy is also worth a look, IMO.
to a blog on Goldsworthy:
Nice outline.
Of course, the bible gave a lot of detailed history for that vague “creation to Abraham” part of the bible, but for some reason, nobody wants to take it seriously.
Just sayin’.
I replied:
Of course the Bible gives detailed history (events that can have time and space coordinates), odd how most people drift off from the historical backbone when it gets beyond Abraham. But this is the very point, one would think; of showing in terms of the space-time domination of our lives how we, as image bearing creatures are connected in terms of the real world we are in to the wilful creator who authored us, gave the 'image' and made the real world as the setting of our image-bearing. I know some hold that God did create us, but not in a way that is depicted in the Bible. One wonders whence such information, of course, and the value of a creation that cannot be represented in language that conveys meaning.
This summary of the Bible by Goldsworthy is also worth a look, IMO.
Leupold Genesis part 25 overview of structure
But quite apart from such attempts to fit the whole creation into a pattern of our own devising it is immediately apparent that the account as a whole proceeds from the lower to the higher, providing first the basic essentials for existence as well as for plant and for animal life, then running to a climax in the creation of man for whose well-being and well-ordered existence all previous steps in creation provide the adequate setting. So the account abundantly displays that God is a God of order. The very general formula devised by Driver (quoted by Skinner) is as satisfactory as any: "The first three days are days of preparation, the next three are days of accomplishment."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
