Inerrancy and Truth

| | Comments (16) | TrackBacks (1)

I've already linked to Jollyblogger's excellent post on the view that the Bible is inerrant, in which he makes clear what the historic inerrancy view is not. It makes no claims that the Bible is perfectly precise, and therefore rounded numbers (e.g. the Chronicler's rounding of pi to 3 or a king's reign for 40 years when it might be 40.3 years) are not errors. It makes no claims that descriptions in the Bible will be on the scientific level, and therefore reports of the sun rising are not errors, just as it's wrong in English today to say someone said something false when they say the sun rises. What they said was true, but the words don't describe it on a scientific level. They describe it on a phenomenological level. There are lots of other fine points to make, but I won't worry about details for my purposes. This is enough to get a sense of what inerrantism requires. It requires that all the sentences affirmed by the scriptures will come out true, in context, at the level of intended precision, on a phenomenological level if that's the perspective being used, etc.

Now Darren at Nicene Theology wants to pick a bone with this description of inerrantism. He argues that inerrantism is false, and demonstrably so, but it's not because he's found anything contradicting the view of inerrantism I've just explained and Jollyblogger has gone into more detail about. He agrees with everything that view says. He just doesn't think that view is really what inerrantism says. He acknowledges that the definition of 'inerrancy' is what's at stake here, not any substantive view, and I agree. I just don't think he's right in his claims about what 'inerrancy' means or should mean.

One thing that confuses Darren's discussion is the way he defines 'infallible', which means without possibility of error. He treats infallibility as weaker than inerrancy, when it's actually a stronger claim. The Catholic view of scripture shows that. Catholics believe scripture is without error in fact but didn't necessarily have to be, because it's one way God has used to guide the Roman Catholic Church, which is the real source of infallibility. When you get technical, only the Pope's ex cathedra statements are really viewed to be infallible, and that's only happened twice, both times in the 20th Century, but that's irrelevant to showing that they see scripture as inerrant but not infallible, whereas Protestants have historically believed that scripture must logically be inerrant due to its being infallible. the main point here is that being infallible requires being inerrant. You can't be without possibility of error while having errors. It doesn't go the other way around. You can have no errors in fact but have the potential to have had errors. You just happened to say nothing false, even though you could have said something false.

Darren's main point seems to be that the word 'inerrancy' was never used historically by people who hold the view Darren and David (Jollyblogger) both accept. It was introduced by 19th and 20th Century fundamentalists with a more extreme view. There are people who have held this more extreme view, and they have used the word 'inerrancy', but I don't think they were the first to use the term. This view can so easily be ruled out that it's not worth spending the time, except that I want to make clear how obvious it is that this view is false in what it includes under the term 'error'. the more extreme view has to say that any dialect of a language besides the one later deemed to be official must be wrong. Otherwise there would be no way to say statements made in that dialect contain grammatical errors. The view requires that statements not intended to be precise to more than whole numbers are therefore false. The problem here is even worse, because you can't then make it be without error. You can round off more precisely, say to the third decimal point in (not that they had such mathematical systems, but supposed they could have gotten that precise). Even so, you've rounded. Then go a bit further. You'll never approximate pi to the point of not having an error. The extreme view requires saying that you can't refer to a book associated with someone's name, which everyone would have called it, even if they didn't think that person wrote every part of it, without meaning that that person wrote the words quoted. We do this today by calling a book Ruth that no one thinks Ruth wrote. If we quote the book and say "Ruth says..." we're not claiming the words we quoted were written by Ruth, and the same might be true if the psalms were called David or the Torah was called Moses, as I think likely. The same sort of thing goes for quotations that also allude to other places, where the name of the person who wrote the alluded to text is the one mentioned. If all these things count as errors, something really strange is taking place in the meaning of the word 'error'. I could go on, but it's easy to see how ridiculous the assumptions of that sort of view would have to be.

In ordinary English, we have some understanding of what it means to make an error. If someone asks me what time the sun rises, and I tell them what time sunup is that day, they're the one who makes an error if they then say "Ha! I got you! The earth moves around the sun!" In the context of discussion, what I said was true. My sentence was the correct answer to the question, and it wasn't in error. It wasn't scientifically precise. If it were a science course, and a professor asked "does the sun really rise at 7am?" it might well be an error to say yes. When someone asks me what time it is, and I say that it's 3:00, and I know my minute hand is a bit beyond 3:00, the context of utterance determines whether I said something incorrect. If we had no idea what time it might be, and it could have been between 2:00 and 4:00, and we just were interested in what five-minute interval we were closest to, that answer is sufficient. It's not wrong. It's true, even. If, however, we're timing something to the second, my statement is false. I'm not giving the precision required for the context.

It seems to me that Darren is saying all these things amount to errors, and therefore we're using the term 'inerrancy' wrongly if we say inerrancy allow these kinds of imprecision. That just doesn't seem right to me. His view requires saying that we say all kinds of false things all the time, things we would ordinarily describe as being true. As with the term 'error', we need to look at how the word 'true' is used to see what it means. We say statements are true when they're imprecise. A police detective asks a witness what time they saw the robbery, and they say it was at 5:00, because the sun was setting. The detective remembers that the sun has been setting between 5:55 and 6:05 that week, and says, "But the sun has been setting at 6:00 this week." The witness says in response, "Oh, right, that's true. It must have been 6:00 then." There doesn't seem to be any misuse of the English language in there. The detective didn't make any errors, and the witness's only error was getting the time off by an hour.

The other argument Darren gives seems equally unfair to those who have long used this term to refer to this view. Completely aside from the issue of who used it first in which way (which I think Jollyblogger is correct on), there's the issue of who uses the term now and how it's used. After all, words can change their meaning due to changes in use. There are radical people today who claim their extreme view is what the term means, thus ruling out people who believe in a round earth from being inerrantists, but most people who claim to be inerrantists believe what Jollyblogger explicated (or would upon reflection realize that inerrancy doesn't require anything stronger than what he said). The reason is because the commonsense view of what inerrantism claims is that the Bible is true. Most people who are inerrantists think in terms of truth and falsity, and they don't believe the Bible says anthing false. I've already explained why the things Darren calls errors don't amount to the Bible claiming anthing to be true that isn't true. Therefore, the view Jollblogger calls inerrancy fits with the commonsense view. Now there's this other group of people, the critics of inerrantism, who claim it must mean the more extreme view. Isn't it more fair to look at the vast majority of people who use that term for its meaning, particularly because they're in the mainstream of theological discussion, rather than those who claim not to hold the view?

The main objection at this point seems to be merely that the term seems inaccurate. Darren says this. If there are errors, and you just don't call them errors, then you're misleading by using the term. I've already explained why I don't think the ordinary English speaker would call these things errors if an ordinary English speaker did something along the same lines. Then Darren says that it's at least going to mislead the people who see inerrantism as being that extreme view, and for their sake it's best to discard that term. That just sounds to me like encountering a bunch of people who want to insist that there are no such things as butterflies. Their reasoning is that butter doesn't fly, flies don't have any important characteristics of butter, and there's nothing that's a combination of flies and butter. The term is just inaccurate. Well, it's not a descriptive term (not anymore, anyway). It's a name. Names don't have to be descriptive of the thing they name. We know what 'The Holy Roman Empire' refers to even if we don't think it was holy, Roman, or an empire. The same seems to be true of the term 'inerrancy'. Those who hold to the view know what they believe, they explain the view when they discuss it and distinguish it from that other view, and those who ignore their plain statements of what the view means and require it to mean something else seem to be the ones who have made an error.

I was going to end the post there, but then I checked out this post from A Physicist's Perspective, which had tracked back to Darren's post. Reading that post and the comments have made me want to say two more things, but I'm too lazy to work them into the post where they might fit, if there's such a place. First, David (David Mobley, of A Physicist's Perspective, not David Wayne the Jollyblogger) quotes Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology on the terms 'infallible' and 'inerrant'. I don't think Grudem is right. I don't think the traditional view is that the terms are synonymous. The traditional view is that infallibility is stronger than inerrancy, as I said above. The revisionist view reverses them, and that seems to be what Darren is going along with. [I already said this, but it wasn't in the context of Grudem's claim that the two were synonymous.]

Second, the comments brought up the question the issue of Genesis 1. I disagree with both Darren and David (Mobley, not Wayne) on this one. Darren says it would be an error to affirm Genesis 1 if the creation events described in that passage actually took longer than six days to come into existence. David says the passage requires six days unless the word 'day' means day, but it could mean a longer period of time. Most Genesis scholars (and I mean most evangelicals) say otherwise. They say that the poetic imagery in the chapter (including parallelism, a structure of repetition not just from day to day but in the first half and second half of the passage, etc.) does not require the passage to be a prose account of what happens in chronological order with scientifically exact terminology. If the temporal language in Gen 1 does not refer to a time period at all but rather an ordering God imposed on creation in distinction from what surrounding creation myths said, then it's not an error merely if it turns out to be a longer period, as Darren says, nor is it an error if it turns out creation took longer but the words within the framework of the passage really do talk about days. I think the evidence points to a longer creation, and I think the evidence points to the words being used quite literally, just as the words in the parable of the sower are quite literally talking about seeds within the framework of the story. It's the whole parable that refers to something other than sowing seed, and in that true somethingn else the seed refers to the word of God and the soils to the character of people's receptiveness to the word. The word for seed is still used literally, as the terms in Genesis 1 are used literally even if the poetic view is correct. It's not like referring to Jesus as a door and then not telling a story about doors. That's a real metaphor and is not literal language. If Jonah turned out to be a parable, then it's not as if the word for fish isn't used literally. In the story, it's referring to a fish. In the spiritual point of the parable, it might refer more generally to God's discipline of those who disobey, but it's not as if the word for fish is used in an erroneous way.

I go into all this mainly to say that none of these things constitutes an error, since what is said is still true in all these cases.

1 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Inerrancy and Truth.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://movabletype.ektopos.com/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/988

The Seeds of a Worthy Dream The post is about what I believe is the foundation to Christian involvement in the culture. I have a dream that Christians would bring on a new birth of creativity in our culture that... Read More

16 Comments

Correct me if I've missed your point.

Inerrancy mean that if a passage indicated 2+2=5, that this might be an example which fails the infallablity test but not the inerrancy test. That is if author (as inspired by the Holy Spirit) made the statement (even though false) intentionally (for other reasons).

I read somewhere that Origen made claims like that. That is that apparent errors in scripture (contraditions and whatnot) are there intentionally as a trigger for the careful reader to pay close attention and dig deaper for the true meaning in the given passage.

No, a clear statement that 2+2=5, intended to mean that, would fail both. Inerrancy requires no false claims, and that's a false claim. It doesn't require that it's impossible for it to make false claims, just that there aren't any. Infallibility requires that there couldn't have been any, which makes sense if God is behind the authorship, even if the authors are fully human and their process of coming up with their words are fully human.

Now someone quoting someone saying that would still be ok as long as the person did say that 2+2=5. Also, if you have some rounding going on and a mathematical pedant comes along and adds up stuff to get something with the sums not matching, there may be reasons consistent with the standards of reporting such things that would have operated at the time. Ezra and Nehemiah's genealogies have things like that, for instance, but there isn't any reason to think any of it involves errors. It involves multiple methods of counting, put into the same document, and a modern reader doesn't understand all those methods fully.

The only way to check if something fails infallibility but not inerrancy is to go to other possible worlds, which you can't do. If a genuinely possible situation would involve the Bible getting something wrong, then in whatever sense that situation was possible the Bible is fallible. If it's inerrant but fallible, there wouldn't be any actual errors, because it's inerrant. So the Catholic view and the Protestant view can't be tested against each other in that sort of way. I think the scriptural testimony about scripture requires infallibility in whatever sense of possibility is relevant (and therefore inerrancy, the weaker claim, follows, because infallility requires inerrancy not just in our world but in any possible world).

If I understand correctly, the "extreme" version of inerrancy is called "absolute inerrencay", while the more moderate and common view which you and Jollyblogger (and myself as well) hold to is called "full inerrancy". (There's also a "limited inerrancy" view which holds that the Bible is only inerrant on matters of morality and theology, but not history or science.)

Multiple views, multiple names. Helps to clear things up.

Hi Jeremy,

Thanks for the post. I am certainly not talking about "errors" of imprecision (round numbers) or context (the sun rises), or common sense. My concern is largely with factual, historical, organizational, and grammatical errors that naturally come with a text being written by dozens of different (human, fallible) authors in different parts of the world over the span of many centuries.

To deny this characteristic of Scripture appears to deny that it was written by human beings at all. The Bible becomes so deified that it might as well have fallen from the sky and been discovered, a la the Koran and the Book of Mormon. But now I'm drifting from the topic ...

"The commonsense view of what inerrantism claims is that the Bible is true."

I don't doubt that most inerrantists hold to the common sense view of the term, and not the strict (or "extreme") view. Nevertheless, my beef is with linguistic precision: "without error" is taken by the layman to mean "without error," no matter how much we want the language to evolve to meet the contemporary theologian's use of the word.

Obviously, if well-studied men and women who do not hold to inerrancy can be so confused over what interrantists mean by the term, what can we say to lay persons? "We don't really mean without any error, just without big and significant errors"?

"Darren says it would be an error to affirm Genesis 1 if the creation events described in that passage actually took longer than six days to come into existence."

I will revisit David's thread to see exactly what I said, but I do not believe this is true. I'm familiar with the broad manner in which the Hebrew yom can be translated. If creation was actually done over 10 days, 100 days, or 1 million years, Genesis 1 is not erroneous. (Besides, the author of Genesis is a theologian, certainly not a post-Enlightenment scientist.)

"Names don't have to be descriptive of the thing they name."

This is a sloppy view of the purpose and use of language, in my opinion. Words mean things; "Inerrancy" is not merely a proper noun like "Calvinism" or "Platonism." It is from the root for "error," with a negating prefix. People will process its meaning in the same way they do with "incalculable," or "unimportant."

Besides, I still think there is substance behind the word "inerrant" that inerrantists refuse to give up. If we substituted the phrase "without any error" throughout this entire discussion, would your position as an inerrantist change? Would you be willing to tell a fellow church-goer that the Bible is "without any error," and leave it at that?

If your answer is yes, do you believe the Bible contains any factual, historical, organizational (different people reporting the same events in a different order, for example), or grammatical errors?

(Ephesians 3:1 is a good example for discussion. There is a grammatical error [Paul often dictated his letters verbally], but the author is not affirming anything false, or saying anything that could be attributed to perspective.)

Grace and peace be with you.

I'm just at a loss as to what errors you think there are if the things I discussed aren't errors. My argument about names and descriptions was a "besides" argument, even if my primary argument doesn't work. I think it does. I don't think the things you've called errors genuinely count as errors, particularly when the view is about errors in truth, and it's whole sentences that are true, not parts like whether a word agrees in gender or case with another word.

I already explained why I think using a colloquial grammar rather than a formal one doesn't involve an error. I'm not going to repeat that.

I don't see how reporting things in different orders counts as an error. It means they're reporting them in different orders. They may have a reason to report them in different orders. Maybe the book is organizes thematically, or maybe they just collected a bunch of accounts and wanted to express that they all happened without concern for chronology. Maybe they even tell the reader when it was so you can work out the chronology, as Jeremiah does, but don't put it in any discernible order. I don't see how any of that counts as an error. If they put it that way while thinking it was chronological, that would be one thing, but there's just too much evidence that the authors didn't care about chronology and didn't expect people to think they were putting things in chronological order.

I don't know of any examples of indisputable factual or historical errors, unless you mean the things I've already argued are not errors but are just imprecise statements that are still true, so you're going to have to tell me what you mean. I know of some examples of original readings not being preserved, but the inerrancy view is about the original manuscripts. The example you gave about the length of Saul's reign falls under that. That's a copyist error, not an error in the inspired text.

The problem here seems to lie in an equivocation over what counts as an "error" and what does not. Is it an error if the original author didn't consider it an error? Certainly we cannot enforce modern standards on the text in every instance. But perhaps there is only so far we can draw that line in abstract terms; perhaps it is a case-by-case matter.

Is Eph. 3:1 an example of colloquial grammar -- an incomplete sentence tantamount to an aborted thought? Is your argument thus that "That's just how people talked back then?"

Does the language "Then he ... Then they ... Then the ..." used in the gospel narratives imply chronological order? I think so. Were all four canonical gospel writers necessarily concerned with recording a 100 percent historically accurate record of the life of Jesus? No, they each had a theological agenda, and compiled their material in different ways with different emphases for different audiences. But with four gospels side by side and discrepancies between them, they cannot all be 100 percent factual.

We seem to agree on this much. But while I take into account such factors as the author's theological (and not scientific or historical) intent and conclude that discrepancies will be a natural result, you do the same but seem to wash over said discrepancies as not important, as not really erroneous because the authors weren't intending to produce rigorous histories.

Do you think this is an accurate assessment?

Sorry for the double-post ... lost my Internet connection and was told it didn't go through.

You also bring up an interesting point about the doctrine of inerrancy technically applying only to the original autographs, which of course are lost to us. Does this not make the contemporary argument moot?

Would the inerrantist persist to argue that there is an such thing as an inerrant Bible still in existence?

I don't see any equivocation on 'error'. I just think we disagree over what it normally means in most English conversations. You can appeal to more specific instances with some things that might fall under the semantic range of the term in certain contexts, but that doesn't seem to me to be what the people who first starting using the term counted as an error, and it doesn't seem to me to be what most people who use the term now mean by an error. In context, it seems to be a misapplication of the term.

For Eph 3:1, I don't need to say just that that's how people talked back then. People talk like that now! Just because it's not accepted as a complete sentence in formal grammar doesn't mean the sentence is false, and inerrancy is about sentences not being false. Besides, that's a letter. All inerrancy requires is that we have the apostle's words to the churches that received them and that what he says is true. Since it's an accurate reflection of his teaching, and since his teaching is true, the manner of it expression does not count as an error.

The words translated as "then" do not in the original Greek imply chronology. Commentators are in pretty much unanimous agreement on that. I know enough Greek to know that all sorts of conjunctions appear all the time for all sorts of reasons at the beginning of sentences. Sometimes it's because of a chronological connection, but sometimes it's a logical connection, and sometimes it's just because that writer has a habit of starting sentences that way, as Mark seems to have had.

Inerrantists generally don't assume the information from the original texts is lost. It just takes careful textual criticism to discern what's most likely the original reading in some cases. An example where the original reading seems to have been preserved is in the Septuagint on the length of Saul's reign. Most scholars agree that the Septuagint was translated from an alternate textual tradition that sometimes is closer to the original Hebrew than the MT because the MT is much later than the Septuagint and fragments on an older Hebrew text appear in the Dead Sead Scrolls that match the Septuagint more. Also, where Chronicles and the MT of Samuel-Kings disagree about details, the Septuagint of Samuel-Kings often agrees with Chronicles, and these fragments of an older Samuel text seem to agree with Chronicles also. Sometimes the Septuagint mistranslates the original, so you have to take it with a grain of salt, but there's no good reason not to trust it with Saul's reign. with the New Testament, it's even more clear that we probably haven't lost anything overall, though some scholars think we've lost the ending of Mark. Even if that's right, inerrancy doesn't mean we have every part of the original manuscripts. It means they're what was inspired, and a gap doesn't amount to a falsity.

I would say that your denial that the gospels are 100% factual means you're not an inerrantist, though, even in the sense I've been using. You seem to be saying that not everything the Bible says is true. I don't want to say that the things you're calling errors are factual errors, even if I were to call them errors. I've never seem any clear factual problem with any biblical statement. I've seen some statements that are hard, but not impossible, to reconcile with each other, but I don't assume guilt. It all goes back to what was originally intended to be communicated and whether the words used require going beyond that, and I don't know of any cases when in the original context they do. If you want to deal with specific cases, that may be more helpful, because it's hard to keep talking about these things in generalities.

Darren: I agree with Jeremy that a specific example would be helpful. Aside from citing bad grammar and approximations, can you give any specific examples of factual errors, as you are claiming there are? And not just, "There are many," but pick a specific example.

Jeremy: At least when I've heard it used, "infallible" has not been a stronger term than "inerrant", but I don't think this is an important point, so I really don't have anything to add to what you said in your post. Can you give a reference, though, on "the traditional view is that infallibility is stronger than inerrancy"? If Grudem is wrong I'd like to read a bit more about it. If not, no big deal.

Also, on Genesis -- you're right and that's an alternative view that I was forgetting when I gave that example. It probably would have been better for me to pick a different example. Thanks.

I'm just talking about what the words mean. Something is inerrant if it doesn't have any errors. Something is infallible if it's incapable of any errors. This is right out of Merriam-Webster's Dictionary. The dictionary and the etymology line up in this case, since breaking down the root words gives you the same thing. The only argument against this would be to show that the dictionary is wrong by finding examples where what is says is not correct. I haven't seen anyone do that. All I've seen are assertions contrary to the dictionary definition or appeals to authority where the authority just asserts something contrary to the dictionary.

Jeremy,

It seems to me that the difference between our positions is in the standard to which we hold up the word "inerrant." Your position (correct me if I'm wrong) is that discongruous narratives, historical inaccuracies, and grammatical oopsies shouldn't really be called errors, as they don't bear on the truthfulness of what the author is communicating. This seems confirmed by your statement:

"It all goes back to what was originally intended to be communicated and whether the words used require going beyond that ..."

Our standard for whether or not something contitutes an error is therefore whether or not the author originally intended to communicate that erroneous bit as an assertion, or whether it is incidental to what he is writing about. This reduces the doctrine of Scripture to little more than: "What the author intended to be inerrant is inerrant; if he made a mistake, you can't hold that against inerrancy."

My position is that a word such as "inerrant," in commonly accepted English usage, carries a much more strict standard. Most hearers take it to mean "without any error of any kind or degree; factually perfect." If you simply disgree that most people understand "inerrant" in this way -- that it rather means "mostly without error," or "without significant or important error, from the author's perspective" -- there may not be much more we can say.

Calling the text "inerrant" gives it an extremely high burden of proof. It cannot include any error, mistake, or discongruency (internal contradiction) of any sort and still be "without error."

Grace and peace to you!

On your first point, I'd say yes except I'm going to hold off on the historical inaccuracies. You still haven't said anything about what you mean by this, so I don't know if I'd be willing to say anything about it. As the term is normally used, I wouldn't say I know of any real historical inaccuracies in the Bible. Unless you're using the term differently, that would be a place we disagree. That's why I'm asking for specific examples.

An historical inaccuracy would be a demonstrably erroneous statement about the facts of the past. If a text were to say that JFK was elected in 1950, for example, it would be an "historical inaccuracy" form of error.

I'm not arguing that I have a list of them from the Bible -- just that the category falls under the definition of "error."

I think that would count as an error, plain and simple. Inerrantism should deny that there are any of those in the original texts.

Hi , I enjoy your debate here in Australia.

""Something is inerrant if it doesn't have any errors. Something is infallible if it's incapable of any errors. This is right out of Merriam-Webster's Dictionary.""
I think we must go beyond dictionary definitions, because theologians have used these words in other popular and important ways.
If Scripture is God-Breathed Truth it is infallible by definition, as above. I believe inerrant was brought in to strengthen and clarify what once was meant by 'infallible' or 'wholly trustworthy' in doctrinal statements. The *concept* is very old, as historian John Woodbridge's book on Donald McKim long ago argued fully.
Some 'evangelical Barthians' 50 years ago wanted to accept minor errors in the Bible [minor on their own say-so!] and used 'infallible' in the specific sense of 'unfailingly communicating all that Christians need for salvation and living as a Church' - so limited infallibility to that of a defined 'achieved purpose' only -an instrumental definition. Barth was and is the culprit because of his terminal ambiguity about the *nature* of Scripture. So they devalued the term for all others who mean a lot more than that by it.
'Inerrant' was not needed as a descriptive word before about 1850, when major texts like Genesis 1-3 were challenged by scientists and archaeologists etc, a new breed who proclaimed stricter standards for 'truth measuring' than ever before.
'Inerrant' specifically challenges those who claim [wrongly] that clear historical and scientific errors are rife in the Bible.
Infallible for Catholics always carried their own specific meaning, involving, first, the infallibility of the RC Church in deciding all correct doctrine and practice, and then narrowing to apply to specific new Ex Cathedra proclamations by the Pope. In this way they parallelled the Protestants' Bible with: What the Church says, God says.'

My point is that this is one of those rare instances when both philosophers and the dictionaries agree that infallibility is stronger than inerrancy. If a small group of theologians have wrongly used the words in the opposite way, is that sufficient for continuing such a perverse misuse of language? I say no.

Leave a comment

Contact

    The Parablemen are: , , and .

Archives

Archives

Books I'm Reading

Fiction I've Finished Recently

Non-Fiction I've Finished Recently

Books I've Been Referring To

I've Been Listening To

Games I've Been Playing

Other Stuff

    jolly_good_blogger

    thinking blogger
    thinking blogger

    Dr. Seuss Pro

    Search or read the Bible


    Example: John 1 or love one another (ESV)





  • Link Policy
Powered by Movable Type 5.04