tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-720248274007053660.comments2008-12-07T10:42:00.223-08:00Time for TruthAdel Thaloshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14059435921761098111noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-720248274007053660.post-45790726511571155152008-12-07T10:42:00.000-08:002008-12-07T10:42:00.000-08:00Hi Michelle,Welcome to my blog.I have an updated o...Hi Michelle,<BR/><BR/>Welcome to my blog.<BR/><BR/>I have an updated one. Please come by any time.<BR/><BR/>http://timeforthetruth.wordpress.com/<BR/><BR/>I agree with you entirely. I have been teaching a class at our new church on how to read the Gospels. Everyone in that class from new Christians to elders have told me how much they needed the class.<BR/><BR/>In Him,<BR/>AdelAdel Thaloshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14059435921761098111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-720248274007053660.post-25031139620126381772008-12-07T05:31:00.000-08:002008-12-07T05:31:00.000-08:00Great job, Jacob!We're proud of you.Great job, Jacob!<BR/>We're proud of you.Michellehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15001240499506580826noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-720248274007053660.post-55700968947472947132008-12-07T05:30:00.000-08:002008-12-07T05:30:00.000-08:00Adel, I agree with your concern over the lack of a...Adel, I agree with your concern over the lack of attention the modern church has for reading the Bible. May I add another thought... Most Christians have never truly been taught how to study God's Word. In fact, I know that most Christians prefer to be "spoon-fed."Michellehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15001240499506580826noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-720248274007053660.post-58730417302331095932008-09-18T14:52:00.000-07:002008-09-18T14:52:00.000-07:00Isn't modern technology great! Thanks for sharing...Isn't modern technology great! Thanks for sharing.Suzannehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07420439959052867923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-720248274007053660.post-16810771005827755972008-08-11T12:27:00.000-07:002008-08-11T12:27:00.000-07:00Adel,[I'm responding here because I couldn't find ...Adel,<BR/><BR/>[I'm responding here because I couldn't find an e-mail and didn't know if you'd return to my blog to see the answer.]<BR/><BR/>Re: comment on "Ichabod and Scribbling on the Wall"<BR/><BR/>While I recognize the reality of your last paragraph, I don't understand how it relates to the question you asked me (it seems backwards like it should have been "I have known other pastors with 'no line' who later discovered one..."<BR/><BR/>At any rate, to answer you last question: I do have a line in the sand, but it is one of personal obedience and faithfulness rather than one I am waiting to see if others cross. Does that make sense in light of my article?<BR/><BR/>If, in pursuing faithful ministry, I am removed from the PCUSA because of not changing with changing denominational standards, that is another matter. But I do not foresee 'x' happening and me saying, "Now I'm leaving."robert austellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15538633800768108359noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-720248274007053660.post-88386190847633167162008-07-25T07:43:00.000-07:002008-07-25T07:43:00.000-07:00Doug,Thank you for the clarification of your post....Doug,<BR/><BR/>Thank you for the clarification of your post. Could you elaborate then as to how your view would be considered "liberal"? Are you telling me that simply saying that the four gospels are "different" or "distinct" is a liberal position? Any casual reader can see that they are different. All sides of the issue from extreme conservatives to extremely liberal would agree that they are distinct and different. Where they differ is the cause and whether or not the gospel writers erred or could err.<BR/><BR/>As to your comment on error and inerrant being a modern scientific category rather than an ancient Jewish/early Christian category -- I would contend that you are right and you are wrong (which should make you very happy seeing how much you love paradox). It is true in that they never used this term. On the other hand they took witnessing/being a witness very seriously, especially when it comes to speaking for God (something about killing a false prophet). <BR/><BR/>the concept of inerrancy is one that is gleaned from the whole revelation of scripture and I have given a brief defense of that in an earlier comment, which I am developing as a full blog entry. This is similar to the Christian view of the Trinity--while not clearly articulated in one or two verses, is very clearly developed and gleaned throughout scripture.<BR/><BR/>For instance in the full biblical defense of inerrancy one might start with the Old Testament view of truth and witness. In the Old Testament the word truth occurs about 100 times, “true” about 27 times, “truly” 38 times. In the vast majority of cases the Hebrew word root ‘emet is the background. This term connotes “support” or “stability,” with the ideas of “faithfulness” and “truth” developed. A good working definition of the OT concent of Truth--is that firm conformity to reality that proves to be wholly reliable, so that those who accept a statement can depend on the fact that it will not turn out to be false or deceitful. This then becomes foundational to our understanding of the purpose of revelation and historical records and witnesses.Adel Thaloshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14059435921761098111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-720248274007053660.post-30884960905407857052008-07-25T01:57:00.000-07:002008-07-25T01:57:00.000-07:00As for "inerrant", that seems like a modern standa...As for "inerrant", that seems like a modern standard to me. I'm not sure that the 1st Century Judaeans would be analyzing sacred texts to determine whether they are "inerrant" or not. So, just as we shouldn't judge those texts by modern standards of biography or history (except maybe as a theoretical/critical exercise), should we really be judging them based on their "inerrancy"?Douglas Underhillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02215736448645573566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-720248274007053660.post-4774522672234672722008-07-25T01:55:00.000-07:002008-07-25T01:55:00.000-07:00"You are merely elaborating on what you believe to..."You are merely elaborating on what you believe to be the purpose of the early church in allowing what you state as "multiple differing witnesses", but what it seems you are really saying is multiple incompatible or conflicting witnesses."<BR/><BR/>I'm sorry if that isn't clear - that is not what I am intending to say at all. "Incompatible" or "conflicting" are categories you are bringing up as important. That is, to me, differing witnesses are not necessarily mutually exclusive.<BR/><BR/>The fallacy you point out shows me that I'm not really getting across what I intend to get across for whatever reason. It isn't a fallacy I am making (though I'm sure it would only be one of a great multitude) because what you are laying out as my claim is not my claim. I don't (intend to) impose a modern schema of biography/history on the Gospels - on that issue, we seem to completely agree - and I think we've even talked about this before on another thread of comments.<BR/><BR/>Of course, I can't possibly read the Gospels as their original audience would, but I agree that one should not read them by our own modern standards of biography and history.<BR/><BR/>I actually never used the term "dissonant" - again, that is a concept/judgement that you are imposing on what I am actually saying.<BR/><BR/>Depending on what you mean by "harmonious", we might agree there, though I think there are excellent reasons that "harmonies" of the four Gospels have been rejected throughout Christian history. <BR/><BR/>I'm still not sure you've addressed the point I tried to make at all. I just tried to put forward another Liberal response to the fact that there are four Gospels which are distinct which you didn't cover in your blog - really, so that you could cover it if you wished, and because I think its an interesting position. I didn't at any point claim that one of them had to be in error (your category) or that they are necessarily dissonant (again, your category) and I don't think I even implied that we should judge them by modern biographical/historiological standards. If I did, I didn't intend to.<BR/><BR/>I think once again we're talking past each other, but I can never be sure.Douglas Underhillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02215736448645573566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-720248274007053660.post-67897408453576432462008-07-24T23:50:00.000-07:002008-07-24T23:50:00.000-07:00Doug,"Don't you know that Christianity is entirely...Doug,<BR/><BR/>"Don't you know that Christianity is entirely about cognitive assent to objective truth?"<BR/><BR/>yeah, they keep telling me that, but it just doesn't seem to stick. ;-) Greek Philosophy is cool, but weren't most of the philosophers a bunch of perverts? <BR/><BR/>Adel,<BR/><BR/>You make a lot of assumptions based on assumptions before you start applying logical reasoning. I think you are about five steps out on thin ice.Jodiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15447125159108080797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-720248274007053660.post-75147286744778280712008-07-24T08:46:00.000-07:002008-07-24T08:46:00.000-07:00Thank you Doug. Although I was not attempting to ...Thank you Doug. Although I was not attempting to be exhaustive of all options. <BR/><BR/>You wrote " Multiple, differing witnesses to Christ's life is exactly what was intended by the early Church so that Christ would remain a mystery..." Clearly there are 4 witnesses (Gospels), so of course there are "multiple" witnesses. They are also clearly "different", in this case putting the events of Christ's life in different order. The "intended by the church" part I would point out is not accurate in reading early church history, records of councils and early church Fathers writings, but I will deal with this issue in detail in subsequent blog entries. <BR/><BR/>The major aspect of contention would be this part of your statement, "...so that Christ would remain a mystery, so that built into the very fabric of our salvation history would be an allowance for multiple voices - continuing in the tradition of the OT of course, as one would expect."<BR/>Built into this, is the assumption of error in 1 or more of the gospels, as I have already stated. You are merely elaborating on what you believe to be the purpose of the early church in allowing what you state as "multiple differing witnesses", but what it seems you are really saying is multiple incompatible or conflicting witnesses. <BR/><BR/> I would first like to point out that you are making what appears to be a serious fallacy that you often accuse conservatives of making (but only if by different you mean historical errors which clearly conflict with each other). That is, you are reading the texts with a Western scientific (modern forms of biography and history) schema. <BR/>Here is how I would present the logic of your statements (You can assess for me the accuracy).<BR/>1. There are 4 different gospels which put the events of Jesus' life in different order.<BR/>2. Since they all cannot be right in their order, some or all of them must be historically (time linearly) wrong. For instance Mark after each event, says, "then this". If one event does not follow linearly after the other, then Mark must be wrong.<BR/>3. They are clearly left that way and included for a purpose.<BR/>4. The purpose must be to have the "mystery of Christ" built into the fabric of Christian history and faith. <BR/><BR/>Here is, I believe, the fallacy of this view. In statement 2 it imposes a schema of modern biography/history upon the genre of the gospels. If the gospel writers were not attempting to communicate in linear time sequence the events of Christ's life, but rather were ordering the events for theological purposes, then there is no error. In other words, the authors, while they knew the order of the events, had no intention of communicating them in that order. One of the foremost Gospel scholars of our day, Dr. Craig Blomberg has written an excellent book, entitled "The Historical Reliability of the Gospels" (he has also written a book specifically for the gospel of John, "The historical reliability of the Gospel of John") which discusses this and many other objections to the historical reliability of the gospels. <BR/><BR/>While you might describe the gospels as dissonant voices, I would describe them as harmonious. One filling in some of the details that another left out. One emphasizing something different from another. All 4 completely completely harmonious and inerrant.Adel Thaloshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14059435921761098111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-720248274007053660.post-46623212329629077962008-07-24T03:40:00.000-07:002008-07-24T03:40:00.000-07:00Adel: "Problem: The gospels put the events of Chri...Adel: <BR/><BR/>"Problem: The gospels put the events of Christ’s life in different sequences.<BR/>Liberal response – 1 or more are in error.<BR/>Possible neoliberal responses – error or we simply do not know."<BR/><BR/>You don't mention the most interesting Liberal answer:<BR/><BR/>Multiple, differing witnesses to Christ's life is exactly what was intended by the early Church so that Christ would remain a mystery, so that built into the very fabric of our salvation history would be an allowance for multiple voices - continuing in the tradition of the OT of course, as one would expect.<BR/><BR/>That's my favorite anyway.<BR/><BR/>Jodie:<BR/><BR/>As always, you bring out the orthopraxis. You're a heretic like me! Don't you know that Christianity is entirely about cognitive assent to objective truth?Douglas Underhillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02215736448645573566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-720248274007053660.post-559587786445626212008-07-23T18:04:00.000-07:002008-07-23T18:04:00.000-07:00I'll ignore the "convoluted logic" comment except ...I'll ignore the "convoluted logic" comment except to note that it is both ungracious and unmerited.<BR/><BR/>I love the reference to Zechariah. The “word” that Zechariah is referring to is quoted in the preceding verses 9 - 11: <BR/><BR/>“Dispense true justice and practice kindness and compassion each to his brother; and do not oppress the widow or the orphan, the stranger or the poor; and do not devise evil in your hearts against one another. But they refused to pay attention and turned a stubborn shoulder and stopped their ears from hearing. (NAS)”<BR/><BR/>Can't say I can find any error in those words. Perhaps the more things change, the more they stay the same.Jodiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15447125159108080797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-720248274007053660.post-17288231843658280292008-07-23T08:01:00.000-07:002008-07-23T08:01:00.000-07:00Jodie,I will not address your convoluted logic, as...Jodie,<BR/><BR/>I will not address your convoluted logic, as my blog entry defense stands, but let me address the biblical foundation of inerrancy.<BR/>I will only be selcting a very small portion of the pertinent text on the subject and good systematic theologies such as Wayne Grudem's and Lewis and Demarest's should be consulted for a more thorough biblical defense. <BR/><BR/>"They made their hearts as hard as flint and would not listen to the law or to the words that the LORD Almighty had sent by his Spirit through the earlier prophets. So the LORD Almighty was very angry" (Zech 7:12). God reveals himself through his prophets and repeatedly we find throughout the Old Testament, those prophetic writings to be held up as the standard of what to believe and how to live. Rejection of them, equalled rejection of God. When people refused to repent and become faithful to the Word of God revealed, It was God's Holy Spirit inspired texts which provided a just basis for their accountability. In Romans 3:2, Paul tells us that the chief advantage of the Jews is that "they have been entrusted with he very words (ta logia) of God." <BR/><BR/>Jesus recognized the final authority of the scriptures as he resisted Satan by quoting the Old Testament. In fact, he asserted that the Law and Prophets (a common way of refering to Old Testament) could not be abolished and all must be fulfilled (Matt. 5:17-18) and ought to be believed (Luke 24:25). Paul emphasized that all the scriptures originated with God (2 Tim. 3:16)(he is speaking of the written word) and according to Peter not with the human writers (2 Peter 1:20-21). <BR/><BR/>Not only does Jesus affirm the full authority and truthfulness of the Old Testament, he then prepared the way for the preservation of his teaching to the apostles. Jesus having all authority delegates that authority to the his apostles. John chapter 16 here is vital, for we find that the promised Holy Spirit would remind them, and also guide them into "all truth." He would take from Christ and make it known to them (16:13-15). <BR/><BR/>Paul told the Thessalonians who were saved "through belief in the truth" to "stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter" (1 Thess. 5:25). In fact, disobedience to Paul's letter was considered disobedience to God's revealed Word (3:14-15).<BR/><BR/>Before Paul gives an amazing defense of physical resurrection, he states "If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command" (1Cor. 14:37). Paul wrote the Galatians, "The gospel I preached is not someting that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ" (Gal. 1:11-12).<BR/><BR/>Peter puts Paul's letters on a par with the Old Testament Scriptures (2Peter 3:15-16). Paul also quoted from Luke 10:7 as Scripture alongside a passage form the Old Testament (1 Tim. 5:18). <BR/><BR/>The New Testament (apostolic writings) also make truth assertions that are empirically reliable, existentially viable, and logically noncontradictory. (I am planning on writing further on this in the future). <BR/><BR/>Inerrancy therefore is not "a priori" assumed as you put it, but rather it is clearly gleaned from the Bible itself. <BR/>Further as a Presbyterian (I have no idea what your affiliation is since your posting includes no information) I am called to affirm the Scriptures as authoritative and the confessions as binding (the 2nd Helvetic and the Westminster both clearly affirm the infallibility and inerrancy of scripture). I am clearly writing to those who are making some form of affirmation of Jesus as Lord and Savior. I am calling for them to take that very seriously and to look very seriously at what the Bible has to say for itself. <BR/><BR/>If a Christian were to reject the inerrancy of Scripture then they must address Jesus Christ's view of Scripture, the claims of the prophets, the claims of the apostles, dominant views of the Scriptures throughout the varied history of the church, and fulfilled prophecy and miracles confirming the office and messages of the apostles and prophets. <BR/><BR/>The doctrine of inerrancy rests firmly upon the doctrine of a truthful God. If God is truthful, communicating in word and deed, then the scriptures whose source is God (2Timothy 3:16) are also wholly truthful.Adel Thaloshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14059435921761098111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-720248274007053660.post-61268738589441856172008-07-23T00:44:00.000-07:002008-07-23T00:44:00.000-07:00Wow,Its too bad there is no scriptural argument fo...Wow,<BR/><BR/>Its too bad there is no scriptural argument for the inerrancy of Scripture. <BR/><BR/>It invariably goes goes down like this:<BR/>0- Inerrancy exists<BR/>1- The scriptures are inerrant<BR/>2- I understand and interpret them correctly<BR/>3- Therefore I am inerrant and anybody who opposes me therefore opposes God.<BR/><BR/>The fundamental assumption here is the belief in inerrancy. It is an a priori assumption that cannot be verified. Some would argue even that it is easy to impeach, but only if you agree to certain basic rules of logic and empiricism.<BR/><BR/>My objection is that the belief in inerrancy of the Scriptures in practice always leads to the subversion of their authority. <BR/><BR/>I think that the only way to preserve the authority of Scriptures is to deny their inerrancy. That way, no matter how good you are at interpreting the Scriptures, you are never tempted to believe in your own inerrancy. We can therefore easily deny the inerrancy on the part of the interpreters and rely on the Scriptures alone to interpret the Scriptures - right or wrong, a level playing field.Jodiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15447125159108080797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-720248274007053660.post-74664736777928799592008-07-22T12:19:00.000-07:002008-07-22T12:19:00.000-07:00Your last two paragraphs make my point nicely, I t...Your last two paragraphs make my point nicely, I think. From your position, you can't get away from saying that in some cases, God demands genocide. Pretending as if a particular culture deserves genocide because we are all sinful and deserving of death doesn't really help the issue in my view. It still leaves you with God calling for a moral atrocity of the highest order, which...well, I'll let you deal with the consequences of that, since it is your chosen position on the matter.<BR/><BR/>Also, I never assumed your ignorance, but I understand that at this point I am a place-holder for your frustration with "neoliberals".Douglas Underhillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02215736448645573566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-720248274007053660.post-78068905681867579202008-07-20T08:59:00.000-07:002008-07-20T08:59:00.000-07:00Thank you for the questions Doug. I don't think I...Thank you for the questions Doug. I don't think I can do justice to your query here, so I will post a full answer in my next blog entry.Adel Thaloshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14059435921761098111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-720248274007053660.post-68361555848468779542008-07-19T21:17:00.000-07:002008-07-19T21:17:00.000-07:00"what the Bible teaches about history and science ..."what the Bible teaches about history and science as well as theology and ethics according to the standards of accuracy of their own day are truthful and accurate."<BR/><BR/>This is interesting because I think almost every liberal would agree with your statement here. It seems very similar to the historical-critical position, in fact. The difference is perhaps what we mean by 'the standards of accuracy of their own day.' I don't argue that the Bible wasn't cutting-edge 'science' for the ancient world, I just doubt that it is still to be considered cutting-edge thousands of years later...when the standards for accuracy are far more exacting, especially in the sphere of science - which is a recently-developed category that the authors of the Bible wouldn't even recognize.<BR/><BR/>The same is true in the area of ethics. It wasn't unusual to attribute calls for genocide to a culture's deity or deities - that shouldn't surprise us. So when God is depicted as calling for various acts of genocide and wholesale destruction of peoples, men and women and even infants, while it is horrifying it isn't entirely unexpected. By the standards of the time, we might assume that perhaps this wasn't an "evil" thing for God to do in their view. Even though, now, such a thing is rightly unconscionable.<BR/><BR/>What is delightful are the places where the Biblical authors reached beyond the ethical standards of their time, or pushed the apparent standards of their time to their limits.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, I just did a little double-take that you wrote something about the Bible that I could easily agree with.<BR/><BR/>I imagine that is because I've misunderstood, but oh well.Douglas Underhillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02215736448645573566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-720248274007053660.post-55349810088973871152008-07-19T21:03:00.000-07:002008-07-19T21:03:00.000-07:00Adel:Perhaps this will go better than our previous...Adel:<BR/><BR/>Perhaps this will go better than our previous conversation, perhaps not, but I do have a question.<BR/><BR/>In reference to general revelation, the examples you use are all drawn from scripture, which I have always taken to be special revelation. Do you have any examples of how God's existence and attributes and so on are demonstrate through the categories of general revelation you list - nature, history, and our moral conscience? Or do you think that the Bible is part of general revelation (perhaps in the category of "history"?)Douglas Underhillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02215736448645573566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-720248274007053660.post-5198434704000504142008-07-19T10:04:00.000-07:002008-07-19T10:04:00.000-07:00Hi Bobby,Thank you so much for kind comments. I t...Hi Bobby,<BR/><BR/>Thank you so much for kind comments. <BR/>I too believe that correction of course can only come from within. It has been the stance of renewalists and renewal groups for decades. While those renewal groups have done wonderful work, it has only served to slow the move toward apostacy. <BR/><BR/>Today we face the reality that as one speaker (Dr. David Githii) at New Wineskins made..."the wolves are in charge of the hen house". With this most recent General Assembly, things have changed even more radically, and the church now is forced to accept the ordination of self-affirming practicing homosexuals, and sin is further minimized. <BR/>Even leaders who have chosen to stay refer to the PCUSA structure as the world and that it has separated itself from the Christian church. One of the major aspects of Presbyterianism is its connectionalism and shared ministry and shared government. It is a very close yoking and identification if you will. If you truly believe that the denomination has become "the world" or indistinguishable from the world, then we must be obedient and refuse to be equally yoked with such. 2Corinthians 6:14 comes to mind. Especially when we focus on the complete context of that passage. I would argue that the biblical evidence would indicate that when a denomination reaches a point where true discipline and renewal are no longer possible, then separation is the biblical call to believers. What I am hearing from renewal leaders and organizations is that they no longer believe that the denomination can once again return to sound orthodoxy. Therefore, logicallly and biblically, I think separation is appropriate. <BR/><BR/>I have asked several leaders who consider themselves evangelicals to lay out a biblical argument/defense for staying in a denomination that is apostate and none have done so. If you have biblical grounds for staying and supporting a heretical denomination, I would be happy to consider the biblical evidence.<BR/><BR/>In the Grace of Jesus our Lord,<BR/>AdelAdel Thaloshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14059435921761098111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-720248274007053660.post-90322871301838750152008-07-19T07:31:00.000-07:002008-07-19T07:31:00.000-07:00It appears the PCUSA is headed down the path that ...It appears the PCUSA is headed down the path that leads to destruction. It is now time for Truth of the Gospel be proclaimed louder that than ever. The Changes<BR/>needed to correct this course can only come from within the body(PCUSA). I dont see leaving the fight as an effective tool for reaching our goal. Thanks for the blog...The Truth will indeed, set us free.bomac1https://www.blogger.com/profile/10069164157538675168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-720248274007053660.post-64744008498703965362008-07-18T14:00:00.000-07:002008-07-18T14:00:00.000-07:00Well, the PCUSA continues down a road, and I canno...Well, the PCUSA continues down a road, and I cannot understand how members continue to support the church in this journey. As you have pointed out, the church has for some time taken stances that cannot be reconciled with basic Christianity. Keep the information coming.Mark E. Thurmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01634453862097851041noreply@blogger.com