Continued:Presuppositionalism and KJV Onlyism

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Rev. Lowery:
People these days say there is no infallible word of God.

The word of God is infallible. It just doesn't lie in an English translation. I goes way beyond what the English conveys. The best the English can do is to give a translation of the word of God and lacking some details due to translation constraints.

The Bible in 1611 is word for word the Bible I hold in my hand this very day. No other book can make that claim.

You do not understand translation at all in any language. Just ask any foreign person to do some translation. For example ask a Spanish speaker to translate como estas and como esta. Many particles do not translate at all.

Most translations do not differentiate the difference between a first class conditional sentence and a third class conditional sentence not do they give the full impact of a prohibitive imperative.


So are you saying that the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek text is not the word of God but the KJV is the only one?

Where does the KJV make such a claim?

 

[Hope of Glory]

Just tell someone who speaks another language that "you're tickled to death to see them".

 

[Rev. Lowery]

gb93433
So are you saying that the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek text is not the word of God but the KJV is the only one?

Where does the KJV make such a claim?

I am not claiming that the KJV is the only word of God simple that it is the word of God in English.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by Hope of Glory:
Just tell someone who speaks another language that "you're tickled to death to see them".

Even I have trouble 'wrapping my mind around' that
one; I'm a native American English Speaker

 

[Eliyahu]

I told you, that the vocabularies are to be updated, but on the same basis, like MT-TR. It shows our laziness in this era.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by Eliyahu:
I told you, that the vocabularies are to be updated, but on the same basis, like MT-TR. It shows our laziness in this era.

I respectfully disagree. I have three
Bibles on the shelf above my computer.
Each claims to be what you suggest.
None are accepted by those who adhere to
strict KJVO positions. In fact, they are
damned alongside the NIV, ESV, NLT and
other good Bibles.

The three Bibles are:

1. The New King James Version (nKJV) of 1983

2. The 21st Century King James Version (KJV21) of 1994

3. Third Millennium Bible (TMB) subtitle:
'New Authorized Version (NAV)
of the Holy Bible' of 1998.

Unfortunately, the hard-line KJVOs have
painted themselves into a corner. They can
never agree to an update of the KJV1769.

It is my opinion (and can be proved by my
presumptions above) that all English Bibles
are individually and collectively the
Inerrant Holy Written Word of God. We receive
the benefits of God's Preservation of His
Written Word ONLY if we study and compare
this wealth of God's Bounty for us:
Multiple English Versions.

 

[Eliyahu]

I do not know other than NKJV. But, in case of NKJV, apparently it went to wrong direction again, even though the distance is not far.
You remember I mentioned about Ac 12:4, 1 Cor 1:21, 1John 5:13, Genesis 37:28 etc.
We want the same philosophy and faith.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Eliyahu: I told you, that the vocabularies are to be updated,
but on the same basis, like MT-TR. It shows our laziness in this era.//

Ed: //I respectfully disagree. I have three
Bibles on the shelf above my computer.
Each claims to be what you suggest.//

Eliyahu: //I do not know other than NKJV.//

Your sad commentary proves my point.
How could we all be so lazy in this era not even
to check out those documents like we specify?
Very few if any have heard of two of the attempts to
update the vocabulary, like using the MT-TR.
BTW, are you aware that there is no TR in print like that
that the KJV came from?

BTW, there are other attempts to do what you said, but they
all go the way of the ones i've said. The mililtant KJVOs
have painted themselves into a corner - the KJV1769 cannot
ever be updated again - the victum
of a bad presumption: God is limited to
one and only one book.

 

[Ransom]

Rev. Lowery said:

The Bible in 1611 is word for word the Bible I hold in my hand this very day. No other book can make that claim.

The 1611 Bible doesn't make that claim itself. Nor did its translators.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Rev. Lowery:

I am not claiming that the KJV is the only word of God simple that it is the word of God in English.

So you are claiming that are many word of Gods?

There isn't more than one word of God. The word of God is only one in number. It is the word of God. Not one among many.

You simply do not understand translation in any language. If you were to study a foreign language you would understand. I gave you a simple example earlier. If you had done as I suggested then you would not have come back with such a response.

 

[Eliyahu]

KJV 21 was the one that I wanted to see, but I didn't have a chance to see it.
The others like MKJV and Young's literal translation are more less the same as NKJV, I remember.

ESV, NIV, NASV, HCSB, RSV, ASV, NLT (Worst), Tyndale Paraphrased, NRSV : these are based on alsolutely wrong bases, IMO.

I didn't know about Third Millenium Bible before. Thanks to Ed, anyway for your Info. I already confessed my own laziness. It passes my minimum aparatus for checking and seems to be a good alternative to KJV.
Previously, NKJV, MKJV, Young's Literal was the second alternative for me. My basic principle is to be based on the right bases, then vocabularies.

 

[gb93433]

Phil. 1:20 Yea, brother, let me have joy of thee in the Lord: refresh my bowels in the Lord." (KJV)

My bowels are refreshed when I sit on the toilet.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Phm 1:20 (KJV1611 Edition):
Yea, brother, let mee haue ioy of thee in the Lord: refresh my bowles in the Lord.

It is in the book of Philemon (Phm)

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Originally posted by gb93433:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:
[qb]According to the latest poll, 85% of students at America's largest Evangelical seminary openly admit that they do not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture.

Again as you were warned a few years ago; quit plagiarizing. You did not document the source for this bit of juicy information.

Again as I asked you before: what is the source of your information?

</font>[/QUOTE]Hi qb, here is the documentation you requested. I can give a lot more if you wish.


THE CONDITION OF EVANGELICALISM TODAY

The following testimonies about the character of Evangelicalism today were not made by Fundamentalists; they were made by key Evangelical leaders.


"A GROWING VANGUARD OF YOUNG GRADUATES OF EVANGELICAL COLLEGES WHO HOLD DOCTORATES FROM NON-EVANGELICAL DIVINITY CENTERS NOW QUESTION OR DISOWN INERRANCY and the doctrine is held less consistently by evangelical faculties. ... Some retain the term and reassure supportive constituencies but nonetheless stretch the term's meaning" (Carl F.H. Henry, first editor of Christianity Today, chairman for the 1966 World Congress on Evangelism, "Conflict Over Biblical Inerrancy," Christianity Today, May 7, 1976)


"MORE AND MORE ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS HISTORICALLY COMMITTED TO AN INFALLIBLE SCRIPTURE HAVE BEEN EMBRACING AND PROPAGATING THE VIEW THAT THE BIBLE HAS ERRORS IN IT. This movement away from the historic standpoint has been most noticeable among those often labeled neo-evangelicals. This change of position with respect to the infallibility of the Bible is widespread and has occurred in evangelical denominations, Christian colleges, theological seminaries, publishing houses, and learned societies" (Harold Lindsell, former vice-president and professor Fuller Theological Seminary and Editor Emeritus of Christianity Today, The Battle for the Bible, 1976, p. 20).


"Most people outside the evangelical community itself are totally unaware of the profound changes that have occurred within evangelicalism during the last several years--in the movement's understanding of the inspiration and authority of Scripture, in its social concerns, cultural attitudes and ecumenical posture, and in the nature of its emerging leadership. ... evangelical theologians have begun looking at the Bible with a scrutiny reflecting THEIR WIDESPREAD ACCEPTANCE OF THE PRINCIPLES OF HISTORICAL AND LITERARY CRITICISM ... The position--affirming that Scripture is inerrant or infallible in its teaching on matters of faith and conduct but not necessarily in all its assertions concerning history and the cosmos--IS GRADUALLY BECOMING ASCENDANT AMONG THE MOST HIGHLY RESPECTED EVANGELICAL THEOLOGIANS. ... these new trends ... indicate that evangelical theology is becoming more centrist, more open to biblical criticism and more accepting of science and broad cultural analysis. ONE MIGHT EVEN SUGGEST THAT THE NEW GENERATION OF EVANGELICALS IS CLOSER TO BONHOEFFER, BARTH AND BRUNNER THAN TO HODGE AND WARFIELD ON THE INSPIRATION AND AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE" (Richard Quebedeaux, author of The Young Evangelicals and The Worldly Evangelicals, "The Evangelicals: New Trends and Tensions," Christianity and Crisis, Sept. 20, 1976, pp. 197-202).


"A SURPRISING ARRAY OF EQUALLY DEDICATED EVANGELICALS IS FORMING TO INSIST THAT ACCEPTANCE OF HISTORIC CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES DOES NOT REQUIRE BELIEF IN AN INERRANT BOOK. ... What has made it a new ball game today is the emergence of a new type of evangelical. These persons accept the cardinal doctrines of Christianity in their full and literal meaning but agree that the higher critics have a point: there are errors in Scripture, and some of its precepts must be recognized as being culturally and historically conditioned" (G. Aiken Taylor, "Is God as Good as His Word?" Christianity Today, Feb. 4, 1977).

"I must regretfully conclude that the term evangelical has been so debased that it has lost its usefulness. ... Forty years ago the term evangelical represented those who were theologically orthodox and who held to biblical inerrancy as one of the distinctives. ... WITHIN A DECADE OR SO NEOEVANGELICALISM, THAT STARTED SO WELL AND PROMISED SO MUCH, WAS BEING ASSAULTED FROM WITHIN BY INCREASING SKEPTICISM WITH REGARD TO BIBLICAL INFALLIBILITY OR INERRANCY" (Harold Lindsell, The Bible in the Balance, 1979, p. 319)

"WITHIN EVANGELICALISM THERE ARE A GROWING NUMBER WHO ARE MODIFYING THEIR VIEWS ON THE INERRANCY OF THE BIBLE SO THAT THE FULL AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE IS COMPLETELY UNDERCUT. But is happening in very subtle ways. Like the snow lying side-by-side on the ridge, the new views on biblical authority often seem at first glance not to be very far from what evangelicals, until just recently, have always believed. But also, like the snow lying side-by-side on the ridge, the new views when followed consistently end up a thousand miles apart. What may seem like a minor difference at first, in the end makes all the difference in the world ... compromising the full authority of Scripture eventually affects what it means to be a Christian theologically and how we live in the full spectrum of human life" (Francis Schaeffer, The Great Evangelical Disaster, 1983, p. 44).


"My main concern is with those who profess to believe that the Bible is the Word of God and yet by, what I can only call, surreptitious and devious means, deny it. This is, surprisingly enough, a position that is taken widely in the evangelical world. ALMOST ALL OF THE LITERATURE WHICH IS PRODUCED IN THE EVANGELICAL WORLD TODAY FALLS INTO THIS CATEGORY. In the October 1985 issue of Christianity Today, a symposium on Bible criticism was featured. The articles were written by scholars from several evangelical seminaries. NOT ONE OF THE PARTICIPANTS IN THAT SYMPOSIUM IN CHRISTIANITY TODAY WAS PREPARED TO REJECT HIGHER CRITICISM. All came to its defense. It became evident that all the scholars from the leading seminaries in this country held to a form of higher criticism. These men claim to believe that the Bible is the Word of God. At the same time they adopt higher critical methods in the explanation of the Scriptures. This has become so common in evangelical circles that it is almost impossible to find an evangelical professor in the theological schools of our land and abroad who still holds uncompromisingly to the doctrine of the infallible inspiration of the Scriptures. The insidious danger is that higher criticism is promoted by those who claim to believe in infallible inspiration" (Herman Hanko, Professor of Church History and New Testament, Protestant Reformed Seminary, The Battle for the Bible, 1993, pp. 2,3).

Amazing Statistics - This was posted at Study Light Forum where I have been discussing the Bible Version issue. I didn't post this. It was from another brother there who has been following the discussion.

It may be latter than we think.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was listening to my radio today, and happened to catch Pastor Michael Youseff's Message on His "Leading The Way" program. The title of todays message was "The Bible, The World's Most Relevant Book - Part 2

In his message he gave statistics of a poll that was conducted.

Here is what the poll revealed:

85% of students at America's largest Evangelical Seminary don't believe in the inerrancy of Scripture
74% of the Clergy in America no longer believe in the inerrancy of Scripture
95% of the Episcopalian Clergy no longer believe in the inerrancy of Scripture
82% of the Presbyterian Clergy no longer believe in the inerrancy of Scripture
77% of American Lutheran Clergy no longer believe in the inerrancy of Scripture
67% of American Baptist Clergy no longer believe in the inerrancy of Scripture

If the above stats are even close to being accurate, then the church of America is in sad shape today

Will

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Originally posted by gb93433:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:
Uh, D, it should be obvious to the least saint who knows anything about the subject of textual issues that "The Greek and Hebrew manuscripts" are in complete disarray and there is NO agreement among all the scholars as to which readings in literally thousands of places are correct or not.

So you have all the answers? </font>[/QUOTE]Hi qb, as a matter of fact, Yes, I do have all the answers, but it is not due to anything I did or can take credit for. All the correct answers are found in the Book God in His providence has given us - the King James Bible. I have no doubt about what God has said and wanted us to know. I don't understand everything in this wonderful Book, but I do believe it.

Will

 

[Will J. Kinney]

All English translation of the Bible other than the KJV remove important doctrinal points.

For years on this board we have been asking for examples, and have never gotten any. Perhaps you know of some? [/QB][/QUOTE]


Hi all, actually I have a list of several examples of where the mvs pervert sound doctrine. If you care to take up any one of the 10 or 12 examples I provide here, and show us how the mvs teach the same thing and/or are correct, then please do so.

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/nodoctrine.html

Accepted in the Beloved,

Will K

 

[Rev. Lowery]

Why are there so many differant versions of the Bible in English. What is wrong with the KJV1611 was it wrong, incorrect, not perfect. If so then what is the perfect word of God are all Bibles the perfect word of God? Or, is there no perfect word of God?

 

[Will J. Kinney]

In my opinion I think the NASU95 is a far superior translation to the KJV.


The fact is that nobody has any proof which was the original text.

These are interesting quotes. DHK would radically differ from your opinion about the NASB 95. If you are now promoting the idea that nobody has any proof which was the original text, then your only logical conclusion is the "Every man for himself" and "Make up your own bible as you go" approach.

What happened to all the promises of God to preserve His words in the Book of the Lord?

Was God using hyperbole (i.e. lying)?

As for your Ever-Changing 'literal' NASB, may I present this comparative study for your consideration? So, which one was inerrant?
Silly me. None of them are, right? Only the long long ago and far far away originals were. Of course I have no verse that tells me this, but I suppose it sounds religious and will try to conceal the fact that I don't believe The Bible IS the true words of God NOW.

Some things you may not know about the ever-changing NASB (Not A Sound Bible)

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/whbins.html

Will K

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Originally posted by gb93433:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bookborn:

However, you have failed to demonstrate a counter to Will's factual statement that in the BIBLE (definite article 'the' meaning ONE and 'Bible' meaning BOOK), references to 'scripture' are NOT references to any originals.
Please show us in your many verses how they can be a reference to any originals.

There are references to the originals in a number of cases.

"My own hand"
1Cor 16:21 The greeting is in my own hand--Paul.
Gala 6:11 See with what large letters I am writing to you with my own hand.
Colo 4:18 I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand. Remember my imprisonment. Grace be with you.
2The 3:17 I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand, and this is a distinguishing mark in every letter; this is the way I write.
Philemon 1:19 I, Paul, am writing this with my own hand, I will repay it (not to mention to you that you owe to me even your own self as well). </font>[/QUOTE]Hi gb, that was a nice try, but you failed to do what both I and Bookborn specifically asked you about. The specific request was to show us where in any Bible out there the word "scripture" is used to refer to the "originals".

Then, it apparently goes unnoticed by you that the very verses you quote we believe, NOT because we have the original writings in our possession, but because we believe we still have today the Book of the Lord.

But then your position is that nobody can prove (and thus, nobody can really know for sure) what the originals said. You ASSUME on the one hand that the Book of the Lord exists, and then you destroy your foundation for this belief by saying nobody can really know for sure if we have such a book, and you promote multiple-choice, constantly changing and conflicting versions that teach very different things in literally hundreds of verses.

Now you recommend the ever-changing nasb as the best in your opinion, but you don't really consider it to be the inerrant Book of the Lord, do you?

My, what a tangled web we weave...

Will K

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
Daniel 9:26 (KJV1611 Edition):
And after threescore and two weekes,
shall Messiah be cut off, ||but not for himselfe,
and the people of the Prince that shall come,
shall destroy the citie, and the Sanctuarie,
and the ende thereof shall be with a flood,
and vnto the ende of the warre desolations are determined.

Sidenote: || Or, shall have nothing.

Daniel 9:26 (HCSB):
After those 62 weeks
the Messiah will be cut off
and will have nothing.
The people of the coming prince
will destroy the city and the sanctuary.
The end will come with a flood,
and until the end there will be war;
desolations are decreed.

Show me the difference.
Show me the doctrine that is changed between versions.
Show me how this verse and this verse alone
supports the changed doctrine.

Hi Ed, hopefully a person with the brain waves of a bowl of lime jello or better would be able to see the clear doctrinal differences among these versions.

They can't all be right, and they certainly do not all teach the same things.


Daniel 9:26 "Messiah cut off, but NOT FOR HIMSELF"

An extremely important Messianic prophecy about the significance of the death of Christ has been drastically changed in a multitude of conflicting modern versions.

"And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, BUT NOT FOR HIMSELF."

Christ, who obviously is the Messiah, was cut off out of the land of the living and He died, not for Himself, but for His people. He laid down His life as a ransom for many. He gave Himself for the church, laid down His life for the sheep, and purchased the church of God with His own blood. By His death the Lord Jesus Christ made reconciliation for iniquity and brought in everlasting righteousness, as the immediate context of Daniel 9:24 tells us.

There is no verb in the Hebrew text of Daniel 9:26; it reads "but not for himself". This is also the reading of the Bishop's Bible 1568, the NKJV 1982, the Spanish Reina Valera of 1909 and 1960 (se quitará la vida al Mesías, mas no por sí) but they changed the 1995 Reina Valera and it now reads like the NIV.

Also agreeing with the King James reading of "but not for Himself" are Webster's 1833 translation, The Modern Greek Translation (pleen ouxi di heauton), the Third Millenium Bible, Green's 1998 Modern KJV, and the KJV 21st Century Version. Even the NIV footnote gives the reading of the King James Bible "or, cut off, but not for Himself", but the text of the NIV reads quite differently.

Versions like the NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Holman, and NASB read: "Messiah shall be cut off AND HAVE NOTHING." Messiah shall have nothing?!? He purchased His people and bought His bride with His own blood! He certainly did not "have nothing".

The NIV is not always translated in the same way into foreign languages. The NIV in Spanish simply omits this last phrase altogether. The 1984 Nueva Versión Internacional says: "After the 72 weeks, the life of the elect prince will be taken away."

Dr. Daniel Wallace, of Dallas Theological Seminary, is writing his own bible version on the internet. It is called the NET bible and it often rejects the clear Hebrew readings and frequently comes up with meanings not found in any other bible out there in print. His NET version with commentary says: "Now after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one will be cut off AND HAVE NOTHING." Then he footnotes: "The expression "HAVE NOTHING" is difficult. Presumably it refers to an absence of support or assistance for the anointed one at the time of his “cutting off.” The KJV rendering “but not for himself,” apparently suggesting A VICARIOUS DEATH, CANNOT BE DEFENDED."

This "renowned scholar" admits his own rendering "is difficult", and "a presumption", but then he adamantly tells that the idea of a substitutionary death as found in the King James Bible "cannot be defended". He is uncertain about his own reading, but certain that the King James Bible got it wrong! Aren't Bible correctors a kick in the head? Well, as we shall soon see, a great many Bible teachers and translators are not at all in agreement with Dr. Wallace's opinions.

Matthew Henry comments: "In order to all this the Messiah must be cut off, must die a violent death, and so be cut off from the land of the living, as was foretold, Isa. 53:8. He must be cut off, BUT NOT FOR HIMSELF —not for any sin of his own, but, as Caiaphas prophesied, HE MUST DIE FOR THE PEOPLE, IN OUR STEAD and for our good, it was TO ATONE FOR OUR SINS, and to purchase life for us, that he was cut off."

John Wesley tersely remarks: " Not for himself - BUT FOR OUR SAKES, and for our salvation."

John Gill offfers this explanation first: " when Jesus the true Messiah was cut off in a judicial way; not for any sins of his own, BUT FOR THE SINS OF HIS PEOPLE, to make satisfaction for them, and TBTAIN THEIR REDEMPTION and salvation."

David Guzik's Commentary says simply: "The Messiah will be cut off FOR THE SAKE OF OTHERS, NOT FOR HIMSELF."

C.H. Spurgeon comments: "The Messiah shall be cut off, but not for himself." - Daniel 9:26 "Blessed be his name, there was no cause of death in him. Neither original nor actual sin had defiled him, and therefore death had no claim upon him. No man could have taken his life from him justly, for he had done no man wrong, and no man could even have lain him by force unless he had been pleased to yield himself to die. But lo, one sins and another suffers. Justice was offended by us, but found its satisfaction in him. Rivers of tears, mountains of offerings, seas of the blood of bullocks, and hills of frankincense, could not have availed for the removal of sin; BUT JESUS WAS CUT OFF FOR US, and the cause of wrath was cut off at once, for sin was put away for ever. Herein is wisdom, whereby SUBSTITUTION, the sure and speedy WAY OF ATONEMENT, was devised! Herein is condescension, which brought Messiah, the Prince, to wear a crown of thorns, and die upon the cross! Herein is love, which led the Redeemer to LAY DOWN HIS LIFE FOR HIS ENEMIES!

Bible Babel in Action

Here are some other "bible versions" and their readings for comparison. See if this clears things up for us and verifies the statements made by many today that "There are no conflicting bibles", or "By reading a multitude of different versions we get a better idea of what the text says".

Wycliffe 1395 - "Christ shall be slain, and IT SHALL NOT BE HIS PEOPLE THAT SHALL DENY HIM."

Coverdale 1535 "Christ shall be slain AND THEY SHALL HAVE NO PLEASURE IN HIM."

The New English bible 1970 says: "one who is anointed is removed WITHOUT ANYONE TO TAKE HIS PART."

Young's 'literal' translation has: "cut off is Messiah AND THE CITY AND THE HOLY PLACE ARE NOT."

Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac - "Messiah shall be slain AND THE CITY SHALL BE WITHOUT A RULER."

The alleged Greek Septuagint (LXX) reads: "the anointed one shall be destroyed AND THERE IS NO JUDGMENT IN HIM."

The Message of 2002 - "After the sixty-two sevens, the Anointed Leader will be killed--THE END OF HIM." (Not quite true, is it?)

1917 Jewish Publication Society translation - "shall an anointed one be cut off AND BE NO MORE." (Again not true)

The Good News Translation - Second edition says: "And at the end of that time God's chosen leader will be killed UNJUSTLY." Then it footnotes: "One ancient translation unjustly; Hebrew unclear."

The Easy To Read Version 2001 - "After the 62 weeks, the chosen person will be killed. HE WILL BE GONE."

The Catholic versions are all in disagreement with each other too.

The Douay Version of 1950 says: - "And after sixty-two weeks Christ shall be slain: AND THE PEOPLE THAT SHALL DENY HIM SHALL NOT BE HIS."

Then the Jerusalem Bible of 1968 has: "an anointed one will be cut off - AND....WILL NOT BE FOR HIM." (This is actually how it reads)

The St. Joseph New American Bible of 1970 has: "an anointed shall be cut down WHEN HE DOES NOT POSSES THE CITY"

And finally the New Jerusalem Bible of 1985 says: "an Anointed One put to death WITHOUT HIS...city and sanctuary ruined by a prince who is to come." (Again, this is actually how it reads)

May I suggest you take a few moments to review this list of conflicting bible readings, and then ask God to open your eyes to see which one presents the truth about why Messiah was cut off, and what His death accomplished? The King James Bible always comes out on top when the Truth of God is revealed to the believing heart.

Will Kinney