Hodgie, Podgie, 'hooding-and-pie' Tribunal Sandiwara!

Once upon a time two ministers by the name of Hodgie and Podgie of the Hocus and Pocus churches respectively (not their real names) had an issue with one another.

This caused much distress among the fellowship between their churches as well as with other churches associated with them.

What should have been kept and restricted to themselves and their respective churches was foisted upon other churches. Sungai Dua Church was dragged in this hodgy-podgy affair for no reason whatever. It called forth the following letter below... more than 10 years ago. The letter below was written in response to an official and public letter entitled "Objection to the Setting Up of a Tribunal" issued by two churches pastored by Pastor Podgie, and addressed to me, among others, as Pastor of Sungai Dua Church.

I came across this old letter in an old email out-box recently when I was clearing out old mails from the old computer. This old letter is reproduced here for just one purpose. How easily the devil can cause havoc and destroys fellowship among brethren... because of the unforgiving spirit, and the manipulative scheming to destroy seen among fellow ministers. The sad effect is evident for all with seeing eyes to see.

It was a common practice that many pastors would issue FORMAL letters in the name of their churches WITHOUT the knowledge of their church members! Many church members were ignorant that their church leaders issued official and public letters without their knowledge. It is so convenient to keep them in the dark! What rotten churchmanship!

So here is the letter. I despise both the unforgiving spirit of one, and the manipulative hypocrisy of the other!

----------
From: singlau
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 16:50:22 +0800
Subject: Your Letter "Objection to the Setting Up of a Tribunal"

To the EIGHT signatories of the letter "Objection to the Setting Up of a Tribunal," both individually, and jointly as representatives of your respective churches. I therefore request that my letter be distributed to the members of your churches. They made the appeal to me, among others, and I, upon my individual capacity, am responding to yours and theirs appeal. I only request fair play. Kindly concede.

Note to Hodgie: what is written is for your PERSONAL attention only.
Note to Podgie: please receive the letter with the same spirit in which it is written.


Dear brethren,

Greeting in the blessed name of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

I wish to thank you, in your individual capacity, as well as representatives of your respective churches for your letter dated 26 March 2002, handed to me at the fraternal meeting on the 2 April. I have read your letter many times, digesting it on my 5 hrs' coach journey back here to Penang after the fraternal.

Let me inform you that this mail is also cc to all those to whom your letter were addressed, except brother Thorny Leek. It is also cc. to your dear Pastor, still an esteemed colleague in the ministry.

I am in hearty agreement with the main thesis in the section titled "Response of Members of the Pocus Church and SC" of your letter. You have wisely highlighted the various disastrous damages should there be such a Tribunal. In principle, I am, all along, opposed to such idea - and have expressed so in unequivocal term elsewhere. See appendix below if you wish to know. Suffice to say that the reason for the inclusion of the appendix is to lay the broader picture to what I desire to say. May I request that you kindly read the rest of what I am going to say in light of my convictions expressed in the lengthy quote. I don't want to be misunderstood.

There are just two simple things I wish to say about your letter - and I say them because my conscience constrained me. I am not one who is interested in taking side whatever you may think. I really have better things to do than writing this letter. It taxed me to no end, but not writing it and having a defiled conscience is far worse. Taking side is the last thing I would do in my life; for whichever side you take, it is still a man's side that you take, therefore a foolish thing to do. The best of man is still man, and man's heart is deceitful above all things - mine included. I am not discouraging you from taking side, but as Christian men take the side of truth and righteousness. I would rather deal with principles.

1. The accuracy of the first point in the Preamble of your letter is questionable to me. Please permit me to explain why I say so. There is a stark discrepancy between what is stated there and what Pastor Hodgie stated in his email to all the pastors in the Fraternal. I believe Pastor Hodgie was responding to the first item of business, i.e. "Tribunal to try Pastor Podgie (requested by Pastor Hodge )" listed in the notice for Fraternal Meeting sent out by Pastor Podgie on March 27.

Following is Pastor Hodgie's email, dated 29 March (unedited).

-------------------
Dear brethren,

I believe I should make this clear so that there is no misunderstanding in this matter.

I have NOT requested for a Tribunal to try Podgie. The event leading to this was like this: In the last fraternal, when I made the mistake of saying ‘my problem is with your office’, that was in respond to Podgie’s question ‘what is your problem with me’. Podgie then offered me two options: i) if I choose to leave the fraternal, he will understand, or ii) to call for a panel to discuss this matter with Podgie’s presence.

After the Chinese New Year, I called up Podgie to apologize to him for making that mistake and also to discuss this matter about the panel. My intention to call for a panel is to explain my problem and nothing more than that. Podgie then said he didn’t mean it, instead, he would like to set up a tribunal. I told him I would go along with that. But we DIDN’T discuss what we intend to do with this tribunal. I agreed to it basically I just wanted a platform to explain myself and nothing more.
-----------------------

Following is point 1 in the Preamble of your [Podgie's] Letter:

"Pastor Hodgie of Hocus Church, has, on 24 February 2002; requested (by telephone) for a Tribunal to be set up to inquire and determine whether Pastor Podgie fulfills the scriptural qualification to be the pastor of a church of the Lord Jesus Christ - more specifically, whether he is fit to hold the office of a Minister of God's Word."

------------------------

You would agree that the discrepancy between what you stated in your 'Objection' letter and Pastor Hodgie's email is quite obvious. This discrepancy begs a question, 'Where does the truth lie?' I am just wondering, if there be any truth in what Pastor Hodgie has said above, then the Preamble has failed to state the matter factually and fairly. If there is any truth in what Pastor Hodge said above then it should have been phrased like this, "Pastor Hodgie of Hocus Church, was, on 24 February 2002 (by telephone) agreeable to Pastor Podgie's proposal for a Tribunal to be set up...." This would reconcile the discrepancy somewhat. Where does the truth lie? Be that as it may, it is my humble opinion that it was an error of judgment on Pastor Hodgie's part to "go along" with the suggested Tribunal (but that is beside the point) - wishfully thinking that the Tribunal was "just a platform to explain himself and nothing more." The reason I say so is two-fold: not only because the suggested Tribunal is unbiblical; it is also a Tribunal that will never be because NO pastors will sit in such a Tribunal. It was only a cleverly invented fiction, for what purpose, I leave it to you to decide.

Does it matter whether we determine who actually requested for, or who proposed or even insisted upon the setting up of the Tribunal? The answer will become obvious soon. Suffice for the moment to say, "He who requests for such a Tribunal is necessarily made to appear obnoxious! BUT a clear-minded and principled man who is willing to submit to such a Tribunal DOES appear all the more obnoxious." So remember well, the SAME sword intended to cut someone, actually cuts both ways. Let me explain.

Having said that, may I ask you to consider the matter. Let me first assume that Pastor Podgie has briefed you concerning the Tribunal "he would like to set up" and to which Pastor Hodgie said he would "go along" with. What kind of a Tribunal were you briefed with? Was Pastor Podgie in favour of the proposed Tribunal or against it? I can only second guess - but that's beside the point too. Whatever the Tribunal Pastor Podgie had proposed to be set up, one thing would be very certain; one can expect that the Tribunal would be one which has biblical warrant, and therefore a 'proper forum'. I am taking this fact for granted and without fear of contradiction because of our high regard for Pastor Podgie's clarity of mind and his consistent fidelity to biblical principles. You are also well-taught men under his ministry. You would agree that Pastor Podgie wouldn't have proposed a Tribunal that is contrary to biblical principles - this much must be granted. (I supposed, Pastor Hodgie, without further thought, took for granted that what Pastor Podgie has suggested would be biblical and proper, and just "go along". I do the same too, often!)

If my assumption is disputed then the only other option left is to conclude that Pastor Podgie himself has actually proposed to set up a Tribunal that has no biblical warrant to begin with. To me, that is most unlikely! Then, my simple question to you is this: "Why would your sharp-minded Pastor set up a "Tribunal" which he knows full well is unbiblical, and which any reasonably taught congregation would abominate?" And you do belong to well-taught congregations and you did reject and denounce such a "Tribunal" proposed by your own Pastor. Something is strangely amiss. I remain disturbed. Do you appreciate my point?

Let me now assume that it is as you have stated in your letter that it was Pastor Hodgie who "requested for a Tribunal." IF Pastor Hodgie's words that it was Pastor Podgie who suggested "to set up a tribunal" are rejected as untrue, and that the Tribunal was Pastor Hodgie's idea all along, and that Pastor Podgie was, and I quote, "willing to submit himself to the inquiry of a Tribunal", THEN I am left with a BIGGER doubt. Aren't you? Why would Pastor Podgie, a man with such clarity of mind and fidelity to biblical principles, "willingly submit himself to the inquiry of a Tribunal" which he knows full well is without any biblical warrant, and therefore not a proper forum, and which is also attended with many potential evils? Even you men know enough to categorically denounce such a Tribunal because, and I quote, "it is not the proper forum. A TRIBUNAL WHICH DOES NOT HAVE LAWFUL AUTHORITY, TRESPASSING INTO THE LAWFUL GOVERNANCE." [emphasis original]. To me, it is MOST unusual of Pastor Podgie, a clear-minded and principled man, to willingly subject himself to the inquiry of a "Tribunal", which is against clear biblical principles, and with all the accompanying evils which you have so aptly and wisely highlighted in your letter, and which you rightly denounced, just as intentioned and expected!!

In my humble opinion, only a VERY serious lapse of mind on Pastor Podgie's part could adequately explain this bizarre 'willingness' to submit himself to an unbiblical, therefore, an unlawful and not proper Tribunal "requested" by Pastor Hodgie. Was there such a lapse? If there was, I am not aware of. I know just enough of Pastor Podgie, remember - he was once my dear Pastor too, and like you, he taught me well; and he STILL IS an esteemed colleague in the ministry - that he is a kungfu expert who wastes no move! Do you see the point? What explains for this strange "willingness" to submit to this unlawful "Tribunal"? Let me venture an opinion.

To me, this most "genuine willingness" to submit to a Tribunal (and one requested by the "opponent" for want of a better term!!!) which one knows full well is unbiblical, and which will NEVER be permitted to take place by the churches concerned, is indeed, a stroke of genius, or shall I say, an first-class showmanship! You may like to describe it as "shrewdness"; others would say, "just plain hypocrisy and manipulation." Now I understand your Pastor Podgie's insistence on a Tribunal "affirmed" at the last fraternal meeting, whereas Pastor Hodge, and I quote, "just wanted a platform to explain myself and nothing more." I ask you again, where does the truth lie?

Is it right for one to insist upon something (for his own advantage), and at the same time insists that the same thing is requested by the opponent (for the opponent disadvantage)? What would you call such practice? Remember that in this case, the sword cuts both ways, and the sword has cut both ways, whether you like it or not.


2. There are insinuation and accusation. Let me explain. In one statement you speak of "the proposed setting up of the said Tribunal;" then in another, you issued an appeal to all pastors "to wisely refrain from any further participation in the Tribunal." One moment you speak of the non-existent "proposed" Tribunal; in the next, you "appeal to all pastors... to wisely refrain from FURTHER [emphasis mine] participation in the Tribunal." The phrase "further participation in the Tribunal" means that such a Tribunal already exists, it is no longer in the 'the proposed' stage. One can't participate in a Tribunal that does not exist, much less "further participates" in it. One can ONLY "further participate" in an existing Tribunal. But your letter is only objecting to the setting up of a "Tribunal" and you have insinuated that the pastors were already participating in it!

Again, who 'proposed' or who 'requested' for the Tribunal, I will leave it to you to judge. Though it is an irrelevant question, it is a useful lesson nevertheless. Try asking these questions: Who proposed? WHY did the person propose such????? It is so important to know the "why", isn't it?. To whom was it proposed? When was it proposed? Who else was informed of this proposal? Who else was invited and/or accepted to take part in this proposal? WHO IS SETTING UP A TRIBUNAL? Or was it all JUST a cooked up, imaginary Tribunal? Do you have answers to these simple questions? Did you bother to ask these questions when you were briefed on the matter, and before you put your signature to the letter? However, please choose what you want to say and say it clearly that I may discern the truth, because:

The phrase "further participate in the Tribunal" carries the implicit CHARGE or ACCUSATION of prior participation in such a Tribunal. Are you aware of what you have written when put your signature to it? Do you actually want to make that accusation against me? I leave it to others to speak for themselves. Have I misread your letter? Please forgive me if I have. Perhaps you would like to restate what you meant to say that I might read it correctly. I leave it to you to do what you see fit. I will give you the benefit of the last word.

Let me conclude by stating categorically and unequivocally, that if your well-intentioned letter in any way insinuate or imply that I, Pastor Lau of Sungai Dua Church, has, in any way participated in the said 'imagined' Tribunal at any stage, then before the Judge of the living and the dead, I categorically REPUDIATE such demeaning insinuation. If my name has been associated with such a "manufactured" Tribunal - whether by words uttered in public or insinuated in private - may the Lord forgive such low impudence and pathetic judgment of character.

Thank you for your patience. I have written in the most respectful manner I know how and if anything comes across disrespectful to you, let me assure you that I do not intend it. I am a peaceful man and love a clear conscience. Please don't find fault with me when there is none at my door at the moment. When there is, please be the first to wound me and I would be very thankful to God for the wounds from brothers like you (Pro 27:6).

We live in troublous days. Do stand by your Pastor. I commend your courage to stand by him, to guard his good name. I suggest that you consider doing the same for other pastors and men in good standing. Be that as it may, please leave a little fly like me alone. Surely you do know that even a harmless little fly may sting severely when it is provoked for no good reason.

May the Lord have pity upon us, and keep us in the bond of peace. I still love you as dear brethren in the Lord whatever you have been led to believe about me, and others. I do DETEST foul play or manipulation no matter which quarters they come from. Beware of making the devil the winner.

If I know my own heart at all, I can safely assure you that I am committed to jealously guard the esteem that my people have for you brethren, and for your dear Pastor, regardless of how you may desire to respond.

I write with a bleeding heart.

I remain,

Your unworthy brother and
a sinner saved and preserved by grace alone,
Pastor Lau Sing Foo
Sungai Dua Church (1689 Baptist), Penang.

-----------------------

Appendix:

Here is part of my letter (unedited), dated March 5, to Pastor Hodge and cc. to all the other pastors. . This letter is prior to the two dates, March 10th and 26th, mentioned in your letter

[quote]
B. Upon careful reflection, I believe the case which has troubled you so much these many years has been very badly handled. It is of no use now for me to say what should have been done. I don't wish to sound like a smart aleck. It is very sad that the matter has been left festering and unresolved for so long - complicating your relationship with Podge all these years, as evidenced from your various course of actions (of course you may have all your 'legitimate' reasons), and also affecting the fellowship of the whole fraternal. For the days ahead, I propose this simple course of action. I am glad that the whole idea of the 'panel' has not gone ahead, for I am convinced now that that course of action is really without biblical warrant. Not only so, it contradicts one basic biblical principle, that of by-passing the local church."

I suggest that if you are still intent in pursuing the issue, that Podge is no longer fit for the ministry, you have to raise the issue with Podge's church. Inform Podge of your intention, and discuss with him an acceptable way for you to raise the issue. I believe THE ISSUE here is that you ARE CONVINCED that Podge is no longer fit for the office because of his 'offence', but Podge believes that his 'offence' does not disqualify him from the ministry. The issue is not whether he has committed the offence or not - because you have admitted that you have forgiven him. Your forgiveness must have implied that he has asked for your forgiveness. UNTIL NOW, I am still baffled, how if you are only a third party to the offence, and that you are not the offended party (unless the offended party is very closely related to you), that you are also involved in forgiving Podge. In any case, THE ISSUE must be very clear.

So, bring THE ISSUE to Podge's church. Let his church deal with the issue, unless you also consider D'salah Church deficient to handle such a matter. Perhaps, Podge may gather the men of his church to form the tribunal to give you a proper hearing. Perhaps you may want to insist that the whole Dodge Church membership be present to hear your concern. Whatever it is, you have to work out with Podge something agreeable to you both.

Think about it carefully. It is only a local church which has the power and authority to recognize, to call and to defrock a minister of the word, not someone outside the church. What you and I and all others outside that church may do is to withhold our fellowship from the man whom we think no longer qualifies for the ministry. And if our conviction is different from that of the man's church, then all we can legitimately do is to withhold fellowship from that church too. We can only withhold what we have first extended, i.e. fellowship, to the church or to the man. There is nothing more we can do. This is Independency in practice.

Now, here is the crunch. When, after you have brought the issue to Podge's church, and the church after careful consideration, concluded that Podge's offence does not disqualify him from his ministerial office, and continue to honour him as their pastor in good standing, are you prepared to abide by the church's decision? You may raise all sort of reasons that the church decision is disagreeable to you... but still, that is the church decision. And we are all agreed that there is no higher ecclesiastical authority than that of the local church. Are you prepared to abide by the church decision's, or will you go your on with your conviction, with the inevitability of OFFICIALLY (which you have been practising unofficially for sometimes!) declaring non-fellowship with Podge as well as his church, and other churches, e.g., Suebunk, Cherust, etc. Are you prepared to draw such a line?

If a time come when I have to choose which way to take for the future, I would be constrained to honour and to abide by the decision of the Dodge church. I do not wish to hear your case against Podge unless the Pocus Church requests my presence as an observer. Let his church hear it if you wish to be heard on the matter; otherwise, it is a biblical duty for you and me to remain silent with respect to the matter. A right thing must be done in a right manner. I see that that is the biblical way forward.

P/s Note carefully, won't you, what I said above, particularly the sentence, "Perhaps, Podge may gather the men of his church to form the tribunal to give you a proper hearing." That's the only Tribunal permissible in my simple understanding.
[end quote]
-------------------

The angels that sinned - who, how, when, where, why, etc?

'Daughters of MAN' - the FEMALE offspring of MAN generally,
and not the daughters of Cainites as many love to imagine. 

The 'daughters of man' refer to the female offspring of the whole mankind.

It is the femaleness of the daughters of man that is emphasized.
The daughters of man were fair because of their femaleness.
In that sense all the daughters of man were fair.
But so many would take 'fair' describing the beauty of all the Cainite women!
'Fair' - ('towb' tobe from 02895; TWOT) means good or fitting or suitable for a definite purpose.

The 'sons of God' saw that the 'daughters of man' were fair,
that is, good, appropriate and suitable for their SINISTER purpose.

The angels that sinned:
- who were they?

- how did they sin? 

- when did they sin?

- why did they sin?

- what was the effect of their sin?
- how were they judged? 

- etc?

PjW
Thursday at 1:51am
https://www.facebook.com/pj.walters.9/posts/3772720789462

I have some questions concerning this:
2 Peter 2:4 "For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;"

Who were the angels that sinned?
What was their sin?
When were they cast down to hell?

Funk
Bro. Pj, do you think that Psalm 78:49 harmonizes with Revelation 12:9? Truly Satan has evil angels chained to him whose lot is to operate here in this world until their final judgement. Great question.

Rhodes
One third of the host of heaven Satan being one of them, pride, when they could no longer accuse the brethren???? Just guessing....???

PjW
Bro. John, at first sight, it doesn't seem to be in speaking of the same thing or of the same angels; though it is noteworthy that "evil" is not always implicit of "wickedness".

PjW
Sis. Cheryle, pride being the cause has struck a chord within my brain, for pride goeth before destruction. May so be that were the case! Some brethren, against whom I have no great issue, think that the angels that sinned were they which left thier first estate to go after the daughters of men.

Rhodes
I thought they were one in the same...left their first estate and were Satan's angels...
Revelation 12:9 "And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him."

Matthew Ong
Pj: Beware of those that teaches: think that the angels that sinned were they which left there first estate to go after the daughters of men.... They might have hidden agenda to "unjustify" the Lamb of God's purity of blood. Ruth(one of Jesus Christ's great grant mother) was a moab. I used to hear from people like chuck missler and also others that do believe in such thing without real understanding of what they are trying to imply by hidden manner.

Burris
Pride is correct, I think. One of the qualifications of a bishop is that he not be a novice, lest being lifted up with pride, he fall into the condemnation of the devil. Sounds like the devil's condemnation was, or is, pride.

When? I imagine the same time as Lucifer, whenever that was. BTW, take a look at all the things that Lucifer says "I will" do, in Isaiah 14. Sounds like a lot more pride.

Sing F Lau
‎2 Peter 2:4 "For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;"

I will give you my simple answers. Disagree if you like, but say why, especially you, Matthew Ong.

Q. Who were the angels that sinned?
- Those fallen angels that are involved in that specific sin.
- Not all fallen angels were involved.
- If all fallen angels were involved, then all fallen angels would have been cast into hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;"
- If that was true then there would be no devils and demons left on earth! But that's plainly a fiction.

Q. What was their sin?
- Jude 6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
- VERY MANY smart people say this refer to the fall of good angels at the beginning, that their first estate is heavenly bliss, and because of their pride, they were cast out of heaven. But fallen angels were cast down to the EARTH (Rev 12:9), and NOT cast into hell, or delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment.
- Satan was still quite free in the days of Job! Satanic activities were still very evidenced during Christ's earthly ministry.

- The SPECIFIC angels kept not their first estate in the spirit realm... their first habitation, their NATIVE realm of existence is in the spirit realm. It is like the native realm of existence of the eternal Word before He was made flesh. These specific angels left their native realm as spirit beings. That was their SPECIFIC sins. They trespassed into the human realm, and became men and reproduced - bring the devastation and catastrophe recorded in Gen 6.
- My question: where in the Scriptures records such specific sin by these specific angels?

Q. When were they cast down to hell?
-They were cast cast to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment when their sin was judged... at the time of the judgment of the universal flood.
- Only those fallen angels who participated in that sin of leaving their own native habitation and TRESPASSED into the human realm suffered that judgment.

Now, raise some objections worth of rebutting!

Sing F Lau
‎Matthew Ong, in discussion, it is a DUTY to explain and substantiate one's statement and insinuation. It is no good to act like a COWARD, making statements and then hide behind a panty!

You said, "They might have hidden agenda to "unjustify" the Lamb of God's purity of blood. Ruth(one of Jesus Christ's great grant mother) was a moab."

I request: Please show how such view "unjustify" the Lamb of God's purity of blood?

Did you ever read the genealogy of Adam to Christ, and the account of the eternal Word made flesh?

You have FOOLISHLY imagined that Noah was an offspring of the cursed union between the sons of God and daughters of man in Gen 6. I said FOOLISHLY because even though it has been plainly put to you before, you are just repeating the same silly fiction. Imagining fictional objection is shameful!

Raise some real objections!!!

Blake Well, since hell was not even a concept until the early days of the church and was also a gross mistranslation of the original manuscripts, this is more likely just an idea that Peter had as the only possible solution to what he believed at the time. Seems legit.

Sing F Lau
‎Pj, rightly divide these two matters!

- the sin of pride that cause those guilty angels to be sacked from heaven and cast down to earth BEFORE the fall of man, and
- the sin of those fallen angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation in Gen 6, and were cast down to hell and reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

Great men pride themselves in rightly dividing the word of truth, and then INSIST that these two speak of the one and the same thing!!! I give up on those great men!

Sing F Lau
Blake, does the OT speak about hell?
You mentioned about 'gross mistranslation.'

Could you give some examples where the extant manuscript was grossly mistranslated?
Also, tell us how those places ought to be translated so that we have THE right translation? Thanks.

Blake
Actually, I shouldnt say that the word 'hell' is even a translation, but rather a word that the translators inserted to refer to their own preconceived notions about eternal torment. The OT word that is often inserted as 'hell' is simply the word 'Sheol' which refers to the grave.

During the first five centuries of Christianity, there were six theological schools, of which four (Alexandria, Antioch, Caesarea, and Edessa, or Nisibis) were Universalist; one (Ephesus) accepted conditional mortality; one (Carthage or Rome) taught endless punishment of the wicked.

This greatly influenced certain words that became part of the KJV.

The Latin Vulgate became the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church, and to this day, it is regarded to be free from any doctrinal errors by the Roman Catholic Church. The Latin Vulgate reigned supreme for over a thousand years and the doctrine of hell became deeply entrenched into the psyche of the Christian world as a true biblical doctrine. This was because of the complete dominance of the Roman Catholic Church throughout the Middle Ages, from the 5th century to the 16th century.

It is not surprising that the translators of the King James Version (1611 A.D.) were greatly influenced, both directly and indirectly, by the Latin Vulgate and they simply copied many of the translation errors made by the Latin Vulgate in support of the doctrine of hell. As you already know, the KJV was originally published with the spurious books of the Apocrypha, as contained in the Latin Vulgate.

The KJV has had a major influence on formulating the traditional Protestant Christian doctrine of hell, which is of course similar to the Roman Catholic doctrine of hell.

Some consider the doctrine of hell to be heresy of the highest order. Personally, I think it's the #1 tool of the church to invoke fear and to control and manipulate the masses. Without hell, the church has no leverage to use against people. Even in both camps...in predestination--you keep people wondering if they're the 'in crowd' or the 'out crowd' with no choice in the matter, or if in the 'choice' crowd, you keep people wondering whether their choice was legit.

Either way, the Doctrine of Hell is simply another tool to use against naive people who will believe anything a bible-thumping believer that wears a collar or carries a lofty religious title tells them.

Michael
In the Primitive Baptist religion, hell is never used as leverage for anything! Hell is reserved for those that were not chosen by God before the foundation of the world and leaves them in their fallen state.The choice was made by God! And his choices are always just and correct.

Blake
Michael...as i said...those ideas you have about hell have been pumped into the minds of believers for years until many believe it must be true. But even by your own standards, that belief is built on false information.

PjW
Thanks, Bro. Sing. I will study this out.

PjW
Mr. Blake, hell is a doctrine which has been also taught in most cultures of the world.

Blake
How does this make it true?

PjW
Where is your substantiation that we (Primitive Baptists), as you imply, use the doctrine of hell as a tool to use against anyone? We preach that there is therefore now no condemnation to the children of God. It is unfair of you to roll us up in the same wad as churchianity, and I do not appreciate it.

PjW
I didn't say it did. I was using that to counter your misrepresentation (that hell is only taught from the Bible) of the doctrine.

Blake
I didn't say that hell was only taught in the bible, but that hell was not a concept that was used in the original text...it was added during translation. Sheol meant grave. How else do you get the word 'hell' from that word unless is intentionally added. And we all know how vile and controlling and murderous the very church was that gave us these translations, and yet entire denominations have been built on this false information.

Without the doctrine of hell, the 'us' and 'them' theology and the 'elect' doctrine crumbles.

PjW
Sheol did not only mean grave.

PjW
The Roman Catholic church did not give the KJ translation. It was against such.

Blake
Ahhh. Seems legit.

Rhodes
I have a question about hell. If there is no hell, what happens to the souls of the non-elect? Seems like if there is "no hell" there could be "no non-elect" either. If there are no non-elect how are some elected. What are they elected to?

PjW
Sis. Cheryle, this is my understanding:

Election was purposed without the consideration of man being fallen or upright, and even without consideration of hell, as hell was originally prepared for the devil and his angels. If man had not sinned, Christ would still have His bride which the Father gave Him; that is, even if man had not fallen there would still be an elect people which were given to Christ.

PjW
Also, they were elected to be Christ's bride. As I said, this is but my understanding.

Rhodes
Wouldn't that change the number of the elect, which was chosen before the foundation of the world?

If man had never sinned, then would all men have made up the bride?

PjW
It doesn't make sense that it would have changed that number; the bride was chosen out of Adam's race, so it would be logical that it would not have been all men whatsoever, but all that were given unto the Son.

One reason I believe this is that Eve was made for Adam before the fall (and so marriage was instituted prior to the fall), so it makes sense that the Father would also have manifestly given a bride unto His Son at some time regardless of the fall.

Matthew Ong
Rhodes @ Revelation 12:9 "And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him."
 
If God is the Spirit and satan and the devils are those that were cast out with him, would also be spirits that need possesion of physical body. Did NOT the Bible CLEARLY show devils was cast out of mankind by Jesus Christ? If the devils(angles has the ability to materialized to mankind like flesh is a different matter) can do what the angles go, why do they need to possess a mankind's body?

Matthew Ong
Pj @ Sheol did not only mean grave.<<< Unless someone is born native greek speaker, lets not go the direction that they can be more precise than the scholars King James assembled who did a great task. The shear manhours combinations would distract us from the bearing of fruit of Holy Ghost.

Matthew Ong
Sing F Lau @ Matthew Ong, in discussion, it is a DUTY to explain and substantiate one's statement and insinuation. It is no good to act like a COWARD, making statements and then hide behind a panty! <<< Yeah. I am a coward?? I was away working on projects in a fulltime job. Please do not spread lies or wild accusations in other pages
--------------------
To others that was reading this, sorry for my late Asynchronized(post and respond later communication) on FB wall feed
--------------------

You said, "They might have hidden agenda to "unjustify" the Lamb of God's purity of blood. Ruth(one of Jesus Christ's great grant mother) was a moab."

I request: Please show how such view "unjustify" the Lamb of God's purity of blood?

MO: Videos was posted earlier in facebook on chuck missler and I have also written email to Jonathan Crosby about this matter. Why do not you check carefully with Jonathan as I mentioned and Jonathan already preached the same view that there were NO devils who became sons of God?


Chuck Missler - Return Of The Nephilim
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0gZMFD34Vc

John Hagee denies that Jesus is the Christ and is therefore an antichrist.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFv5ijz6s6A

Who is Jesus? Michael Brown vs Rabbi David Blumofe
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Qg9J6_ijFI
======================

All these three share the same view in some ways to the Rabbi David Blumofe (who plainly reject Jesus Christ) which like many others raised the blood the questions of blood purity of King Jesus Christ of Nazareth.

Chuck Missler - Return Of The Nephilim
www.youtube.com

Sing F Lau
Matthew Ong, You asserted: ""They might have hidden agenda to "unjustify" the Lamb of God's purity of blood. Ruth(one of Jesus Christ's great grant mother) was a moab."

I requested: Please show how such view "unjustify" the Lamb of God's purity of blood?

Why don't you just give a simple explanation how such view "unjustify" the Lamb of God's purity of blood? Is that too hard a question?

What's the point of quoting this and that man? Do you expect me to waste time going though those links to look for the answer to my simple question? You must be joking.

Sing F Lau
‎Matthw Ong @ If God is the Spirit and satan and the devils are those that were cast out with him, would also be spirits that need possesion of physical body. Did NOT the Bible CLEARLY show devils was cast out of mankind by Jesus Christ? If the devils(angles has the ability to materialized to mankind like flesh is a different matter) can do what the angles go, why do they need to possess a mankind's body?

Revelation 12:9 "And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him."

Uncle Matthew, your logic is based on fiction. And here is the proof.

You whole reasoning assume that when Satan and the fallen angels that were CAST OUT of heaven INTO THE EARTH at the beginning before the fall of man, they had already trespassed into the human realm. That is just pure fiction imagined by you.

The sin of trespassing into the human realm by SOME of the fallen angels (Satan himself not involved... because he was still roaming freely in Job's time) took place in Noah's time. It is those angels that committed that specific sin that are mentioned in 2Pet 2:4 and Jude 6.

I said before, there is no virtue in raising fictional objection.
You have not even offered a simple explanation of those two passage.

Why don't you do it?
Why don't you offer simple answers to Pj's questions, and we can examine them!

Sing F Lau ‎
Matthew Ong @ If God is the Spirit and satan and the devils are those that were cast out with him, would also be spirits that need possesion of physical body. Did NOT the Bible CLEARLY show devils was cast out of mankind by Jesus Christ? If the devils(angles has the ability to materialized to mankind like flesh is a different matter) can do what the angles go, why do they need to possess a mankind's body?>>>

Another twisted logic. And here is the explanation:
You are equating possession of a man by an evil spirit as the EQUIVALENT, i.e. as one and the same as angels trespassing into the human realm by taking,assuming upon themselves humanity.

One simple question for you: The angels/men who appeared to Lot - did they take possession of some already existing men, or did they temporarily transformed themselves into real men?

Christ cast out devils that took possession of men. Is that clear?

You have admitted that "angels have ability to materialized to mankind like flesh."

Another rotten logic: "If the devils... can do what the angles go, why do they need to possess a mankind's body?

- First, you are comparing 'possession of existing men by the devil' with 'angels trespassing themselves into the human realm.' They are vastly different!
- Second, you are assuming that the sin of the angels in Gen 6 (and stated in 2Pet 2;4 and Jude 6) can be repeated willy nilly.
- Third, you are assuming that the other fallen angels are so BLOODY stupid to commit the same sin...KNOWING SO WELL that those angels that had sinned that way failed MISERABLY... ended up being "cast down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment." Fallen angels are smarter than you think!!!

Objections are acceptable in discussion... they must be valid and logical... and not fictional nor whimsical!!!

OK... please reply after your office hours... think carefully before you go blah blah blah!

Sing F Lau
Blake @ "Actually, I shouldnt say that the word 'hell' is even a translation, but rather a word that the translators inserted to refer to their own preconceived notions about eternal torment. The OT word that is often inserted as 'hell' is simply the word 'Sheol' which refers to the grave.
=========
Blake, you are probably a very objective man without your own preconceived notions about hell.
So I am glad to ask your objective assessment on a passage of what Christ said in Lk 12:4-5
"And I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.

In your OBJECTIVE understanding, without preconceived notions, how should Christ words be translated?

Thanks.

Godly and ungodly lines in Gen 6???

Sons of God - the godly line of Seth?

Daughters of men - the ungodly line of Cain?

God has His elect people in BOTH the genealogical lines 

represented by Seth and Cain.
Adam had many other sons (and daughters) Gen 5:4.
Which line does each of those sons represent?

Seth's line is called the 'godly' ONLY in the sense 
that it was in that line that the promised Messiah, 

the seed of the woman, would come. 

It DOES NOT mean that all of that line are godly. 

That's just pure fiction! A fable.

Charles quoted
"The uniform Hebrew and Christian interpretation have been that verse Genesis 6:2 marks the breaking down of the separation between the godly line of Seth and the godless line of Cain, and so the failure of the testimony to Jehovah committed to the line of Seth Genesis 4:26."
- C. I. Scofield Reference Study Bible notes.      July 9 at 5:25am

Charles ‎
"This is what most everybody believes" However I don't attempt to believe what everybody believes. Most everybody can be wrong!

Several problems exist in this. It is a denial of the original sin of Adam. There was a breakdown before this! Both Seth and Cain are part of the sinful Adamic race. Not just Cain.

It implies that godly men related genuinely to God are that way by choice. Seth in NT meaning is regenerate and Cain is unregenerate and that by behavior. It is a denial of the election.

To say Cain is ungodly by behavior is implying he is ungodly because God has not chosen to regenerate him. To say Abel was regenerate and that Cain was unregenerate seems to be a slap in the face of God himself as well as an insult to Cain's parents. They instructed their sons in the means of worshipping God by precept and example I am certain.

If Cain was not elect and regenerate why the big fuss over the murder of Abel? If you are not part of the covenant what is the problem with killing your brother?

Sing F Lau

Charles, God has His elect people in EVERY "kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;"

Adam had a lot more sons than Cain and Seth.

Re 5:9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation.

God has His elect people in BOTH the genealogical line represented by Seth and Cain. Seth's line is called the 'godly' ONLY in the sense that it was in that line that the promised Messiah, the seed of the woman would come. It DOES NOT mean that all of that line are godly. That's just pure fiction! A fable.

Sing F Lau

The 'sons of God' in Gen 6 are REMOTELY the godly Sethites. Supposing they were INDEED godly Sethites, godly men marry ungodly daughters of men WILL NEVER, CAN NEVER, HAS NEVER produced what is documented in Gen 6.

Sons of God were NOT godly Sethites. And the puerile 'fallen angelic marriages' is a misleading term. The 'sons of God' are no mere fallen angels. Angels do not marry! Everyone knows that, even the idiots!

So get it right!!! Sons of God DO NOT EQUAL to fallen angels.

The sons of God WERE FALLEN ANGELS who "kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation"... i.e. FALLEN angels who left their own first, native habitation, in the SPIRIT REALM, and TRESPASSED into the HUMAN REALM (i.e. taking upon themselves humanity, AND THEN multiplied themselves with the finest daughters of men, the female offspring of men, NOT the women of the ungodly line, with the horrendous result recorded in Gen 6. Nothing else is an adequate explanation of the plain facts stated in Gen 6.

It was Satan's serious attempt to circumvent the appearance of the Seed of the woman, the One appointed of God to CRUSH Satan head!!! Had God not spared Noah...the whole human race would have been destroyed... then there would have been no redemption. Satan would have triumphed.

But divine grace triumphed, and reigns supreme!

Charles

Sing, Is it possible that the original meaning of Gen 6:1-4 has been lost to us today? It seems there is a clear meaning held by the apostolic authors but a lot of muddy interpretations veil our understanding.

Sing F Lau

The common and popular idea is that of 'mixed marriage' between the godly Sethites and the ungodly Cainites. This is the most atrocious example of anachronism in biblical interpretation. The mixed marriage was a MUCH MUCH later issue imported into Gen 6. And they think that naive and simplistic and anachronistic view is able to explain what actually happened!

Charles

Politically motivated anachronism!
Sing, I am personally struggling with this racial purity concept and it is a painful struggle. Breaking free from entanglements. Experientially God is providentially leading me in this process. Christ Himself suffered through this struggle with the Jewish perplexities. "How am I straightened till it be accomplished"

I see the election of God so real in the faces of the young black kids (not all of them are black but the majority are) I work with. They are so precious and I am joined with them in their struggle and such unfair treatment, subtle mistreatment. I am coming to loathe Amerikanism and what it represents. Yesterday the church's security came out to check on me. He is black and a deputy sheriff who doubles as a security officer over the church's security staff. I have beat them at their city code enforcement and he came out to question the wording of my protest sign "pickles have souls" I let my loathsomeness lose on him. A deputy sheriff trying to be a theologian as though it was his job to correct me theologically. Can you imagine??? I said you stick to code enforcement and leave the theology to others. He said I needed to be locked up in a psyche ward and not free to roam the streets.

Our youth faces this law enforcement daily on the streets even from their own black cops.

Charles 

White Europeans just have things out of place. Like oranges being on the table in the Last Supper painting!!!

Seems many shy away from calling Cain regenerate choosing to think of him as "not a child of God"! They are afraid of this. Why? Isn't it just as risky or maybe even destructive to label him unregenerate, non-elect and Godless? God don't own children who do bad things, no, no!!!

Charles

"God has His elect people in EVERY "kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;"

Re 5:9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to Go...d by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation.

God has His elect people in BOTH the genealogical line represented by Seth and Cain. Seth's line is called the 'godly' ONLY in the sense that it was in that line that the promised Messiah, the seed of the woman would come." - Sing F Lau

Sing F Lau
The simple fact is - there is very little 'godliness' recorded in the so-called 'godly' line of Seth.

Charles

Indeed, how were David and Solomon different from the 'sons of God' in Gen 6:2. For that matter how am I different!!!

Sing F Lau
‎'Sons of God" CAN'T possibly be godly Sethites.
Godly men simply don't marry ungodly women... men who do marry ungodly women wouldn't be called 'sons of God' in the Scriptures. Scriptures is consistent, men are not.

Charles

Did David and Solomon marry godly women?

Sing F Lau
Gen 6 is not about individual men... it is speaking of men collectively.
Collectively speaking, 'sons of God' (supposing the term refers to godly men) can't possibly be marrying 'ungodly women.' That's just contradiction of terms.

Pj Walt

I think it was godly sons from BOTH lineages marrying ungodly women from both lines!

Sing F Lau

It doesn't say godly sons of men marrying the ungodly daughters of men.

It says, "That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose."

The idea of 'godly' and 'ungodly' is read into the text.

Look at the text:
6:1 ¶ And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

If you insist that 'daughters of men' refer to ungodly women, then you are saying that verse 1 is speaking of ungodly men multiplying and producing ungodly women.

But verse 1 is PLAINLY a general statement of the human race multiplying as per God's command to them, "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

Pj Walt

I meant (and should have said!) regenerates marrying unregenerates!

Sing F Lau

The change does not help one iota! Instead MORE problems.
Regenerates include BOTH MEN and WOMEN.
Now, your regenerates are completely men , and the unregenerates are completely women!

And you believe that the regenerate men marrying unregenerate women can produce such devastating consequences.... thousands of years (after the flood) of godless UN-regenerate marrying godless UN-regenerate has produced NOTHING close to what we read in Gen 6!

So the idea that the regenerate marrying the unregenerate can produce such effects is just PURE fiction!

Pj Walt

You are missing the point I'm getting at.

The regenerates went after the unregenerates, and this yielded much wanton wickedness as every man went after the lusts of his own heart because mixing with those who knew not God facilitated wickedness even further. (All, except for Noah, followed this pattern.)

The flood stands as a testimony that God will reserve the ungodly unto destruction, but will deliver the godly from it.

Sing F Lau

You are the one missing the point...
It is all a fictional imagination: calling some men with lofty title "sons of God"... and then these 'sons of God' go a whoring after the ungodly women... these "sons of God" went after the lusts of their own hearts.

And it is biblical testimony that a believing partner always has a 'sanctifying' influence upon the unbelieving spouse and children. Read 1Cor 7:14... your notion (...with those who knew not God facilitated wickedness even further) is a fiction contrary to Scriptures. Haven't I said that even the union of UN-regenerates with UN-regenerates for the last thousands of years was INCAPABLE of producing the devastating effects we read in Gen 6... and you still go blah blah blah with the fable!

Why are people so oblivious to the direct hand of Satan in Gen 6???

You are quite mistaken about Noah. Noah was no exception. Noah was included in the description in Gen 6:5-7. BUT... BUT ... BUT ... God showed grace to him. Had God not shown grace to Noah, he would have been swept away by destruction too. It is the divine grace triumphing over Satan's effort to prevent the Seed of the Woman from appearing!

5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
6 ¶ And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
8 ¶ But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

Charles

I found this interesting footnote: "John Gill notes that the Targum of Jonathan calls two of these angels by name: Schanchazai and Uziel. According to James Boice, the book of Enoch has much to say about (what it thinks is) God’s judgment ...upon fallen angels (James M. Boice, Genesis Vol. 1, pg. 308). Boice also wonders aloud how Jude 6 is not echoing the book of Enoch. His treatment in Genesis 6:14 is worth reading, since few Reformed people are willing to even consider this view as an option. http://rbcnc.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Giants.pdf

To misrepresent is to bear false witness!

Here is an example...

On July 12 Thursday at 10:41pm ·
Matt Hew wrote:

John Calvin of Geneva and Jacob Arminus did NOT supported this. However, 2 verses guarantee this perseverance much better than all the words of creature. Said explicitly by the Lord of Glory Himself, Jesus Christ of Nazareth, Godhead manifested in the flesh of mankind:

John 6:39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
John 10:29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
==============
Eternal Glory. John 6:39 is rather explicit. John 10:29 is declaration of the Omnipotent of the Godhead to guarantee that success. That is how I read it.

Sing F Lau
Did you actually check out what the two men said on those passages before making the declaration about them???

This is part of Calvin's commentary on John 6:39
"... This promise is highly necessary for us, who miserably groan under so grea...t weakness of the flesh, of which every one of us is sufficiently aware; and at every moment, indeed, the salvation of the whole world might be ruined, were it not that believers, supported by the hand of Christ, advance boldly to the day of resurrection..."

His commentary on John 10:29 includes this,
"And none can wrest them out of my Father’s hand." The word 'and,' in this passage, means therefore For, since the power of God is invincible, Christ infers that the salvation of believers is not exposed to the ungovernable passions of their enemies, because, ere they perish, God must be overcome, who has taken them under the protection of his hand.

What do you make of that?
Making potshots at someone or something with no chance of self-defense is unbecoming of godliness.See More

 Matt Hew
But they turn around and plainly deny it later? Is that not double tongue?

Matt Hew
What do you make of that?
Making potshots at someone or something with no chance of self-defense is unbecoming of godliness.<<< What about Paul at the mars hill on the dead Grecian philosophers? Is that not open rebuke at someone that could... not have defended themselves?
===============
Act 17:22 Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.
.....
Act 17:31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.
Act 17:32 And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, *some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter. *See More

Matt Hew
ye are too superstitious. <<< Statement declaring their mixed believes inherited from their heathen grecian culture including their famous various vain philosophers. Just like the chinese also have many such "teachers"

Sing F Lau
Matt Hew, you quoted two SPECIFIC VERSES... so I checked those two verses, and that's what Calvin commented on those two verses.

You picked on Calvin on those two verses... and I have simply shown you what Calvin said about those two verses.... You have MISREPRESENTED Calvin on those two specific passages. That's clear to everyone who read the comments here.

There is no need to run amok, and raise all sort of red herrings. Just be a bit careful.

Paul quoted the dead Grecian philosophers to affirm a biblical truth.
Paul did not MISREPRESENT the dead Grecian philosophers.
You miss the whole point!

Take a rest. Rinse your mind with some Clorox!!!

Matt Hew
Paul quoted the dead Grecian philosophers to affirm a biblical truth.
=============
I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious. <<< You read this as affirmation?? Hmm...I tot I was the one from british ex-colonial chinnice school.

Sing F Lau ‎
Matt Hew  you are just so obtuse, as well as confused... and incorrigible tooooo!
When Paul said, "I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious" - was he quoting from any Grecian philosophers at all?

Here, this is what Paul 'quoted' the Grecian philosophers or :

" 27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.

Read verse 28 again... here Paul is 'QUOTING' - "AS CERTAIN ALSO OF YOUR OWN POETS HAVE SAID."
That's the only QUOTATION in this passage!

And Paul quoted the Grecian poets/philosophers to affirm a biblical truth stated.

Uncle Matt Hew, you are one INCORRIGIBLE man!

And whatever type of school one was from... there is no advantage whatsoever... nor disadvantage. So, it is just plain stupid to introduce a red herring like that.

I have been advised not to waste anymore time with you, Matt Hew.
May be their is wisdom in that advice.

May be you should unfriend me on FB... so that I won't be a thorn in your flesh!