As Far As It Is Translated Correctly

One of the criticisms of the Latter-day Saint (Mormon) faith is based on its 8th Article of Faith: “We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly;we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.”

When critics, especially of the Evangelical kind, come across this statement, they frequently believe it to mean that LDS reject the Bible, and can simply reject parts that supposedly don’t agree with their theology as not being “translated correctly”.

Recently, I began to read a somewhat controversial New York Times bestseller, “Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why“, by Bart Ehrman (Ph.D and M.Div from Princeton Theological Seminary, Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill).  In this book, Ehrman discusses (somewhat briefly) what “scripture” is, the evolution of what was considered as “canon” in Judaism and early Christianity, how manuscripts were copied anciently (i.e. by hand), who the scribes were, and the textual variants found among Biblical manuscripts in various languages (English, Greek, Latin, etc).

What does all of this have to do with the LDS church accepting the Bible as the word of God as it is translated correctly?  I think that this article of faith of Mormonism touches on something that many non-Biblical scholar Christians do not realize, or perhaps do not think about: the Bible(s) that we have today is a translation, which was translated from another manuscript that may have also been a translation.  When we look at the various English Bibles available, such as the King James Version, the New International Version, the New American Bible, etc., we note that the differences between these translations are not just about “modern English” versus “archiac English”.  There are actually differences in certain passages, whether certain words are translated differently, certain sentences may be omitted or added, etc.  There are of course differences between the Septuagint (Greek version of the Old Testament) and the Masoretic Text (Hebrew version of the Old Testament).  There are differences among ancient manuscripts such as the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus.  In some of these comparisons, we find multiple verses missing, differences in wording (some because of similar spelling in the Greek that was misinterpreted), etc.  The “Johannine Comma” is a popular example of extra words appearing in 1 John 5:7-8 that supposedly emphasis the Trinity.  These words do not appear in the most ancient manuscripts of 1 John, but were added much later (in fact, for example, the KJV includes the “comma” (phrase), while the NIV does not).

So, when a traditional Christian states that they believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, which Bible are they talking about?  Is it the Latin Vulgate, the King James Version, or the original manuscripts?  I think that all Christians would agree that originals certainly were inspired.  However if what we have today includes additions and substractions caused by various issues throughout the ages, then how can we be certain as to what the original authors really said?  Some may counter that sure, there may have been additions and subtractions, however they don’t change the meanings of the overall texts.  To me, that misses the entire point: if the original text was inspired, then who are we to say that it doesn’t matter if uninspired changes were introduced, some accidently and some intentionally?

This is why I find the LDS article of faith on accepting the Bible as far as translated correctly extremely insightful.  The fact is that Biblical scholars and textual critics aim to find the most ancient manuscripts, comparing them to each other, as well as to our modern translations, understanding how and why they vary.  Since we don’t have the original manuscripts, it is especially important for this work to continue, and for modern Christians to realize that the Bible that we read from is not the same as the Bible that your neighbor may be reading, or the same as the Bible that someone in Egypt is reading, or that someone in the 300s was reading.

With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, as well as the work in Biblical scholarship, it is clear that the Bible has not always been translated correctly (whether intentionally or unintentionally), Greek, Hebrew and Latin manuscripts vary to various degrees (some more serious than others, including additions of verses not found in older manuscripts, or in converse, some older manuscripts subtracted certainv erses)  and this is something that all have to come to accept and study.  Latter-day Saints therefore are right to qualify their acceptance of the Bible as the word of God in light of the historical realities of Biblical textual scholarship (much of which is done by believers).

Comparing Translations: Textual Criticism and Interpretation

Codex Sinaiticus

Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts

Heyns Lecture Series: Misquoting Jesus

Advertisements

14 comments

  1. It’s pretty simple, really. The Holy Spirit kept the translations essentially correct in the Catholic Church from the time of the first writings until now. The meaning hasn’t changed, even if the translation of a few words is different. Catholics believe, and have always believed, that their leaders are protected from error by the Holy Spirit. Our differences of opinion with Protestant faiths and Mormons is the meaning attached to those phrases.

    Does the Johanine Comma change the essential message of the entire letter? Not really.

    1. Thank you for your comments David.

      Yes, I am well aware of the Catholic (and Orthodox) position that the Holy Spirit protects the leaders, the Bishop of Rome, etc. Unfortunately, that is not really relevant to the substance of my post, as that is a faith-based assertion (which itself is based on an interpretation of scripture directed at apostles).

      Stating that the Holy Spirit kept the translations essentially correct from the time of the first writings until now does not make it so, unless it is demonstrated. What does “correct” mean? The very existence of Biblical scholarship in textual variance says otherwise, especially because we also don’t have the autographs (originals) to say what is “correct”. Instead, scholars compare manuscripts, from different and same time periods, languages, etc. Which is the correct translation that the Holy Spirit kept correct? How do you know?

      Traditional Christians frequently criticize the New World Translation of the Bible, used by the Jehovah’s Witnesses, because it is seen as a misleading translation used to support their unique theology. The fact is, similar claims are made in the field of Biblical scholarship about “traditional” translations as well (critique of Catholic translations is well known). The Johannine Comma is only one example of this. Whether or not it changes the “essential message” of the entire letter is irrelevant, as I mentioned in my post. The point is that it is an insertion of something that was not there in the first place, perhaps in support of a theological point of view (Trinity perhaps), and it therefore causes one to think about how exactly we have received the texts of the Bible we have today, and whether we are reading the same things as the early Christians did.

      When one actually researches this field, it is very clear that the meaning of a number of verses and chapters is changed because of these translation and transmission issues.

      Unfortunately, this is not that simple, really.

      1. We have the writings of the disciples of the apostles which gives us a very consistent view of what the writings meant. There was little dispute about Christianity and what the Bible meant until the 1500’s. Before that, people asked questions, or posed alternatives, and could directly determine whether their positions were correct or not. This is how the Catholic Church has operated since it began in 33AD. In fact, it’s also how the canon of the Bible was determined for Christians.

      2. Thank you again for commenting David.

        “There was little dispute about Christianity and what the Bible meant until the 1500s” (I assume you are referring to the Reformation)?? That assertion is not based in historical fact. The entire point of the early Ecumenical Councils was that there were disputes in Christianity, over issues as fundamental as the nature of God and how Jesus Christ was divine and human. Arianism, Modalism/Sabellianism, Adoptionism, etc. are just samples of the disputes leading up to the first Ecumenical Council. “People asked questions, or posed alternative, and could directly determine whether their positions were correct or not” certainly was not how the early Church functioned, by the very existence of the Ecumenical Councils, since these fundamental issues couldn’t be decided in such a simple manner. Then of course there was the schism of the Oriental Orthodox over the nature(s) of Christ, and the schism of the Eastern Orthodox over a number of issues. And of course the Orthodox Church sees itself as the church that “began in 33 AD”, not the Catholic Church. Clearly, things were not simple and easily decided pre-Reformation. Reading about what actually happened at the Ecumenical Councils shows otherwise. A good book for you would be “The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787): Their History and Theology” by Davis S.J. (a Jesuit).

        The setting of the canon is a separate issue (and not really related to my post). I will say that I find it interesting that Catholics state that they use the Septuagint, when really most (not all) of the books in the Septuagint canon are used, while the Eastern Orthodox use the entire Septuagint canon. The canon wasn’t infallibly declared (according to the Catholic Church) until 1546 AD at the Council of Trent. Previous to that, only non-universal and non-infallible local councils addressed it. Many of the early Christians regarded the Shepherd of Hermas as scripture (Irenaeus, bishop of Lugdunum thought it was, and it was included in the ancient Codex Sinaiticus, which dates to the 300s AD), yet of course it is not included in the canon for anyone.

  2. “The entire point of the early Ecumenical Councils was that there were disputes in Christianity, over issues as fundamental as the nature of God and how Jesus Christ was divine and human.” Yes, exactly! And how did they determine the answer to these questions? They went to the Bible, and to the early Church Fathers writings. The Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church were one Church in 33 AD. The Orthodox chose disobedience. To this day, both sides work to try to reconcile.
    All other Christian religions are an offshoot of Catholicism. Whether they believe so or not. They all diagree to some degree, and would rather believe what they believe than what God teaches.
    The fact that the declaration of the canon was not infallibly declared has no bearing on whether it existed or not. It just means that it was written down. Also, the fact that one Father or another thought some book should be or shouldn’t be has no bearing on the entire Church.
    Melito, bishop of Sardis, an ancient city of Asia Minor (see Rev 3), c. 170 AD produced the first known Christian attempt at an Old Testament canon. His list maintains the Septuagint order of books but contains only the Old Testament protocanonicals minus the Book of Esther.

    The Council of Laodicea, c. 360, produced a list of books similar to today’s canon. This was one of the Church’s earliest decisions on a canon.

    Pope Damasus, 366-384, in his Decree, listed the books of today’s canon.

    The Council of Rome, 382, was the forum which prompted Pope Damasus’ Decree.

    Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse wrote to Pope Innocent I in 405 requesting a list of canonical books. Pope Innocent listed the present canon.

    The Council of Hippo, a local north Africa council of bishops created the list of the Old and New Testament books in 393 which is the same as the Roman Catholic list today.

    The Council of Carthage, a local north Africa council of bishops created the same list of canonical books in 397. This is the council which many Protestant and Evangelical Christians take as the authority for the New Testament canon of books. The Old Testament canon from the same council is identical to Roman Catholic canon today. Another Council of Carthage in 419 offered the same list of canonical books.

    Since the Roman Catholic Church does not define truths unless errors abound on the matter, Roman Catholic Christians look to the Council of Florence, an ecumenical council in 1441 for the first definitive list of canonical books.

    The final infallible definition of canonical books for Roman Catholic Christians came from the Council of Trent in 1556 in the face of the errors of the Reformers who rejected seven Old Testament books from the canon of scripture to that time.

    1. Thank you again for commenting David.

      Yes, the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Roman Catholic churches were all one until the various schisms. Obviously as a Catholic you believe that the others went into schism from Catholicism. Obviously the other groups see this differently (especially when Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem all stayed together as “Eastern Orthodoxy”, while Rome was left alone). It is very easy for Orthodoxy to respond that Catholicism split off, “whether they believe so or not”, and that Catholicism chose disobedience (historically, Rome has much more doctrinal development to account for than the East, which pretty much has not developed doctrinally).

      If you believe that at the Ecumenical Councils they simply went to the Bible and the ECF writings and solved things, simple as that, you should really read more about what exactly happened at these Councils. They were hardly as quick, easy, and organized as you may believe. Even the emperors were involved in these church councils. The very existence of the Ecumenical Councils shows that dissent was in existence in early Christianity, long before the Protestant Reformation in the 1500s. There were “Protestants” from the beginning (Arianism, Modalism, Montanism, Docetism, etc.).

      As far as the canon, well it’s easy to say that just because one (in reality more than one) ECF said a certain book or two should be in the canon doesn’t mean that it had bearing on the church. But these are bishops we’re talking about, who are shepherds of the church. Odd that they would not know the “correct” canon, and would include certain books that never made it in the canon. The Shepherd of Hermas was widely considered to be scriptural in the early Church.

      The Council of Laodicea (363 AD) omitted the Book of Revelation from the canon, and also includes Baruch. The point is that the canon was not set in stone until over 300 years after the Apostles. Even if we go closer to the apostles, such as Bishop Melito or Tertullian, etc., we still see variance in the canon, with books omitted that we accept today, or books accepted that we reject today. What was happening in the interim that individual bishops and even a Council could give differing canons?

      What is also interesting is that the Eastern Catholics include more books in the canon than the Roman Catholics (they are following the Orthodox tradition of using the entire Septuagint, and not just some of the books like Roman Catholicism). So who’s right about the canon if Eastern Catholics, in communion with Roman Catholics, have more books?

      My overall point is that early Christianity was not a homogeneous entity, and there were many schisms, heresies, etc. The Protestant Reformation was not the first instance of dissent, and numerous bishops were anathematized, exiled, etc. All of these things led to the necessity of Councils to decide things (with the first Council being called by the Emperor, not any bishop).

      Also, it is helpful to cite your sources if you copy and paste part of an article.

      1. Citing facts from various sources that I’ve used in teaching ? They come from various places.

        Here’s how schisms happen, in a nutshell:

        Someone says “I believe XYZ about ABC”. People start to follow him. Others notice. They say but So and So says otherwise about that. The schismatics say “but it feels better this way than that way”. The Church says, “But that’s wrong. Our forefathers, who sat at Christ’s feet (or Paul’s feet, or Peter’s feet) disagree.” The schismatics say “Well, we’ll just go our own way with that.” And thus a branch of the one true church that Jesus created is established. So the Church defines the answer to the question.

        Bishops are entitled to their opinions, and opinions can be wrong. The only bishop that’s infallible and protected from teaching error is the Bishop of Rome. All others together, in concert with the Bishop of Rome, form the teaching office of the Church. There were schismatic and heretical bishops. Most recently Archbishop Lefevre.

        What the council of Laodicea did was not definitive. Much of the writing in the New Testament was not even widely distributed untill 100 years after the Apostles. Considering the spread of Christianity around the Mediterranean rim, it’s understandable that it took time to build the canon. We know, to this day, that we don’t have all the letters of St. Paul. Your characterization that the Orthodox use the entire Septuagint is incorrect. And your suggestion that all the Orthodox Churches march together is also incorrect. There are many Orthodox Churches. The only books of the Septuagint not in the Roman Canon are books of dubious authorship-3 and 4 Maccabees (Which could have been written as late as 40AD, and Psalms of Solomon, which wasn’t even discovered until very late.

        By the way,the Churches in communion with the Roman Church are allowed to have other writings. They’re just not considered canon.

        The first church council was not called by any emperor. It was called by Peter, James and John. The next council was convened by Constantine, but suggested by the Church after a synod couldn’t come to an agreement on when Easter should be celebrated.

        There has often been questioning of Church doctrine, even to this day. So the Church then declares the doctrine that the Early Church held, and sets it in stone. When people disagree with it, they become dissident and out of communion, therefore not Catholic.

      2. Thank you again for commenting David.

        By “copying and pasting” I simply meant that I found part of your last post on an apologetic website (and a few others) word for word, so it seemed to me that you simply copied and pasted it without attributing it.

        I agree that bishops are entitled to their opinions. However it is very odd that a fundamental issue such as which books go in the Bible was left in such an ambiguous state for over 300 years, long after all of the Apostles died, and that someone with such authority as a bishop would be able give a list of canonical texts, some of which did not make it into the current canon, while others that did were not included in those lists. So, while it is okay to pick and choose which councils and bishops we look to as “proof” of the current canon, we also have to acknowledge that other bishops and councils also gave other canons as well. The canon clearly was a fluid entity with no definitive Church definition until Florence and Trent (since no one since then in the Church would dare say that, for example, Revelation should not be included, and that we should add the Shepherd of Hermas. They certainly wouldn’t remain a bishop in good standing).

        As far as Papal Infallibility, well that’s a non-issue for that time period, since it wasn’t declared until recent times, and there is no evidence of such a belief in the ancient Church (we certainly don’t have a list of infallible Papal statements pre-1870. This doctrine only became speculated on in the Middle Ages). It is an example of doctrinal development (nothing wrong with that per se).

        I’m not sure what you mean by the writings of churches in communion with Rome are “not considered canon”. The Eastern Catholic churches follow Orthodox tradition in using the entire Septuagint as part of their Biblical canon. So, it is certainly odd for a Roman Catholic to tell an Eastern Catholic that the “extra books” are not canon, when the Eastern Catholics themselves believe that they are. It is also odd that the Melkite Catholic Eparchy of Newton states on its website that there have only been 7 ecumenical councils, and that the Vatican Council was not ecumenical. The point here is that the Pope has said that the Eastern Catholic churches must be true to their Eastern Orthodox heritages (i.e. not give in to “Latinizations”), yet this Orthodox heritage involves accepting as canonical books that the Roman Catholic church does not, which is what they do.

        By “first council”, of course I was not talking about the Biblical Council of Jerusalem. When people talk about the “first 7 ecumenical councils”, they always begin with the First Council of Nicaea as the first one.

        Of course all the [Eastern] Orthodox churches “march together”. They are multiple churches/jurisdictions that are united in their one Orthodox faith, with the Ecumenical Patriarch as the symbol of unity (who became the “first among equals” after Rome went into schism from the other 4 Patriarchates, in their opinion). The Catholic Church has a similar setup, with 23 churches together making up “the Catholic Church”, in union with the Bishop of Rome.

        Besides 3 and 4 Maccabees, 1 Esdras, Odes, and Psalm 151 are missing from the Western canon.

        I’m glad that you recognize that there has often been questioning of Church doctrine. I just wanted it to be clear that Christianity wasn’t nice and unified until the Protestant Reformation, but that there were multiple “Protestant” groups from the beginning. It is always interesting to look at schism from another perspective, such as the Eastern Orthodox view of the Catholic Church.

  3. I may have gotten info from some site you found, but it’s from my library, and I don’t necessarily know exactly where. But I’ve done the work and verified, so I’m not projecting error.

    I have to remind you that Jesus did not tell his apostles “Go out and write…”, he told them go out and teach. The books were written (especially Paul’s letters) to keep the faithful in line with the truth. The truth that the Jesus handed to the apostles, who handed it on, first verbally, then in writing, to others. There is merit in all the writings. The canon was generally held to those works written by, or in the name of, the apostles.If the book was not clearly apostolic in origin, it was generally rejected as canon. To this day we use the Didache as a teaching document, as we do the Protoevangelium of James. But they aren’t canonical.
    Russian orthodoxy does not equal Greek Orthodoxy. IF you’re talking about Eastern Orthodox, we were not talking of the same thing.

    My understanding is that 1 Esdras = Ezra. Prayer of Manasseh was not in all versions of the Septuagint. Odes, I’ve never heard of.

    The point I am making is that Christ only gave one message. He also only instituted one Church. He told the apostles that the gates of hell would not and could not prevail against his Church. The Catholic Church is that Church. Others have had disagreements with the Catholic understanding, and have let their pride get in the way. As for “protestants” (as if that was one Christian faith), you can tell that no Protestant church has the fullness of the faith, because no two Protestant Churches holds exactly the same doctrine. In fact, if you don’t like what your new pastor is teaching, or what they’re doing in one church, you can go to the one across town and see if they say what you like. The Catholic Church, on the other hand, has had one message for 2000 years, since the first Pentecost. It has never changed.

    You mention infallibility, as if it was something conjured up in the 1800’s. What you don’t know is that the definition of infallibility was always held for the pope, from day 1. It was defined in the 1800’s because of questions about what ‘infallibility’ means. If you’re interested, it means that a pope is protected by the grace of God (the Holy Spirity) from teaching error to the entire Catholic Church for the purposes of faith and morals. And if you examine all 260+ popes, you will find that this is a true statement.

    1. Thanks again for commenting David.

      Russian Orthodoxy and Greek Orthodoxy are the same faith, expressed differently. It is no different than the Ukrainian Catholic church and the Melkite Catholic church being the same faith as the Roman Catholic church, expressed differently. Russian Orthodox and Greek Orthodox are part of the same “[Eastern] Orthodox Church”, and in the United States, they are part of the same representative body, the Standing Conference of the Canonical Orthodox Bishops in America (SCOBA).

      I agree that Jesus did not say to “go out and write”. The point here is simply that the canon was a fluid entity within the Church itself (with bishops and councils stating that certain books were canonical that later were deemed not) until much later in history, hundreds of years after the books were written. The idea of a “canon” is itself of late origin, with the Jews not having a Hebrew Bible canon concept until after the 1st century AD.

      1 Esdras is not Ezra. Ezra is equivalent to 2 Esdras.

      I agree that Christ only gave one message. As a Catholic, I know that you believe that the Catholic Church is the “one true church” established by Jesus. However I also believe that the Orthodox Church also has a legitimate claim to that title (despite your claim that they broke off of the Catholic Church, since they believe that Catholicism broke off from itself), especially because they have changed much less than Catholicism has. Saying that the Catholic Church is true because it is doesn’t make it so.

      As far as Papal Infallibility, please demonstrate that it existed pre-1054 AD schism, let along before the Middle Ages. There is simply no evidence for this belief in the patristic writings. I am well aware of what it means (I studied Catholic history and theology at my undergrad Catholic university). It is interesting that the Eastern Orthodox, who were in union with Rome pre-Great Schism, also deny that such a belief existed. It is also interesting that there is no list of Infallible Papal documents pre-1870 (which should be easy to produce if it always existed). If it always existed from day 1, please demonstrate the exercising of Papal Infallibility, and that the Popes that did so were aware of it.

      1. First off, let me say you’ve been very polite, and I appreciate that. Thank you.

        We’re quibbling over minor pieces of the Septuagint which were not in all versions. And by the way, the “Orthodox Canon” you describe wasn’t defined until 1672. So for most of Christianity, the Catholic Bible has been the Bible.

        Christianity is about obeying the commandments and the word of God. Jesus, who was and is the Son of God, said that it would last until the end of time, and that the gates of Hell would not prevail against his Church. There is only one Church which meets those ideals. The Catholic Church is true because God made it true. Part of the problem of the Great Schism is that the EOs decided that they did not want to obey God the way he told them to, but the way they thought they should. ( I wonder who wrote that Catholic History course you took, and who explained Catholic theology to you…) Regarding lists of “infallible documents” there is none, that I know of. But yet the doctrine exists. But it’s in the Bible. Matt 28:19-20, Christ taught us to preach everything that he taught, and (John 16:13) promised to send the Holy Spirit to “guide you in all truth”. Since there was one infant Church when Christ preached these, he was talking to “the” Church. The Catholic Church. And that the early Fathers knew this, Cyprian of Carthage “”Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?” (Letters 59 [55], 14). Augustine followed with “Rome has spoken, the case is concluded:” (Sermons 131,10)

        As for your understanding of infallible pronouncements, the Church only does something infallibly when pressed-when a doctrine is called into question.

      2. Thanks again for commenting David.

        In regards to my education in Catholic history and theology, what I have been stating in my responses to you is not necessarily reflective of the positions in those courses and books that I have read. What is taught in such courses and books would mostly agree with everything you are saying, because they are written from the Catholic perspective. My point in these responses has simply been that there are Eastern Orthodox courses and books (many of which I have read) that give another view of those same events, and that I am not really giving the Catholic view of things in responding to you (as you realize). So while you (and those Catholic-related courses and books I’ve taken and read) may believe that part of the cause of the Great Schism was that “the EOs decided that they did not want to obey God the way he told them to, but the way they thought they should”, the Eastern Orthodox of course don’t view it that way, and may even apply what you said to Catholics themselves. The Great Schism was as much the fault of the East as it was the fault of the West. It is only with this beginning that reconciliation can ever happen. The Catholic Church itself recognizes that the Orthodox Church has valid apostolic succession and valid sacraments, and that if necessary, Catholics can receive sacraments in an Orthodox church (though the Orthodox most likely would not give it to them anyway). It is with that understanding that I believe that the Orthodox Church has a strong claim to being the “one true Church”, especially when another “one true Church”, the Catholic Church, recognizes its priesthood validity and sacraments.

        I agree that the Bible says that the Holy Spirit will guide in all truth and to teach everything Jesus taught, however that doesn’t really lead to the conclusion of a doctrine of Papal Infallibility. In the pre-Schism Church, we see no exercising of Papal Infallibility (nor have their ever been documents from that time period retroactively declared infallible by the Catholic Church post-1870 AD), yet of course we do see Conciliar Infallibility (i.e. the Ecumenical Councils).

      3. Oh I forgot to ask: what is the standard used to decide when Papal Infallibility should be exercised instead of calling an Ecumenical Council? I assume that there must be some standard if we accept your view that the belief in Papal Infallibility always existed, since it wasn’t exercised until more recently, beginning with the declaration of the Immaculate Conception in 1854 (I can’t remember, but I apologize if I incorrectly stated that it wasn’t exercised until after it was defined in 1870, since this seems to be the only retroactive declaration of Papal Infallibility exercising confirmed by the Magisterium). So, why didn’t the Church simply use Papal Infallibility to declare/settle doctrines instead of going through Ecumenical Councils? This is something I haven’t looked into.

  4. What a great thread of responses to this article. My only complaint is that it ended. This is how a conversation on religion should be had. With respect, openess, and the desire to learn from one another. I’m so glad I found this blog: An answer to my prayers really. I myself am in a search for truth and this is proving to be a great source of information. I’ll be reading every single thing posted here – starting from FEB 2010 all the way to DEC 2011. I really hope this blog continues. Thank you.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s