Modern Day Idols!
The sun and evolution - two for the price of one.

In today's episode, the SAB give us two objections in one under the scientific historical absurdity categories:

Objection 1 - The sun god

(Gen.1:11-13) "Let the earth bring forth grass". Plants are made on the third day before there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes.

Response:

This objection really does expose the SAB for what they are, a bunch of unlearned, angry skeptics who frequently use the argument from outrage tactic. But anyway... just because there was no sun created at this stage, there was light, and as most people know, plants will photosynthesize without the sun in artificial light even today. So there is no problem here and the SAB are silenced once more.

The SAB seem to have an unhealthy fixation with the sun...the terms baal worship spring to mind.

Objection 2 - The evolution god

The next objection from the SAB referring to the same verse is:

Notice, though, that God lets "the earth bring forth" the plants, rather than creating them directly. Maybe Genesis is not so anti-evolution after all.

And

Does the Bible teach evolution?
And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree. --
Gen. 1:11
And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. -- Gen. 1:24
Notice that God lets "the earth bring forth" the plants and animals, rather than create them directly. So maybe the creationists have it all wrong. Maybe Genesis is not so anti-evolution after all.

But both Luther and Calvin rejected any non-literal interpretation of the creation accounts in Genesis.

At the Reformation the vast authority of Luther was thrown in favour of the literal acceptance of Scripture as the main source of natural science. The allegorical and mystical interpretations of earlier theologians he utterly rejected. "Why," he asks, "should Moses use allegory when he is not speaking of allegorical creatures or of an allegorical world, but of real creatures and of a visible world, which can be seen, felt, and grasped? Moses calls things by their right names, as we ought to do....I hold that the animals took their being at once upon the word of God, as did also the fishes in the sea."

Not less explicit in his adherence to the literal account of creation given in Genesis was Calvin. He warns those who, by taking another view than his own, "basely insult the Creator, to expect a judge who will annihilate them." He insists that all species of animals were created in six days, each made up of an evening and a morning, and that no new species has ever appeared since. He dwells on the production of birds from the water as resting upon certain warrant of Scripture, but adds, "If the question is to be argued on physical grounds, we know that water is more akin to air than the earth is." As to difficulties in the scriptural account of creation, he tells us that God "wished by these to give proofs of his power which should fill us with astonishment."

Response:
The answer to the absurd suggestion that the Bible teaches evolution is found in the fact that the Bible teaches literal 24 hour creation days, whereas evolution requires millions of years. For articles showing that the creation days were literally 24 hours see here.

Also, we doubt "bring forth" as used elsewhere (Joel 2:22), could mean evolution.

Referring to the Luther and Calvin quotes given above, most truly Bible believing christians will strongly agree with the quote from Luther. As for the Calvin information, whether he believed that all species of animals were created in six days and that no new species has ever appeared since is irrelevant, the Bible doesn't teach this, see here. With the other Calvin statements we agree.

Again, it seems to us that the SAB show their true colours from these objections. Their so called objections, far from furnishing any evidence for the unreliability of the Bible, are nothing more than excuses for their unbelief in the true God, and their worship of any other god (sun, moon, evolution, materialism) that comes along - they simply do not want to believe in the God of the Bible and use whatever they can to silence their consciences.

In the next installment, we will be giving a short comment on the question of whether plants were created before or after humans (as this has been answered in a previous post), and what the Bible says on astrology.

See you soon.

'Good day to you!'
Why is the second day of creation not called good?

Today, the SAB make this objection, under the interpretation category:

" Gen. 1:8
And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
The second day is the only day God didn't call "good".
St. Jerome held that the reason why God did not pronounce the work of the second day "good" is to be found in the fact that there is something essentially evil in the number two, and this was echoed centuries afterward, afar off in Britain, by Bede."

Certain skeptics make much of these types of objections in order to try and convey the picture that the Bible is open to any number of interpretations, and so it is impossible to know which one is correct. It is true that there are some passages of scripture which are open to various possible interpretations, but none of these passages involve any fundamental significant doctrine of the faith, all of which have a single interpretation which is clearly set out in scripture. None of the types of interpretive difficulties as that mentioned in this objection by the SAB change in the slightest the overall message of the Bible. But now to the objection itself,

The interpretations cited by the SAB from St.Jerome and St.Bede are typical of mystical, superstitious roman catholic interpretation of scripture and are groundless. For more information on this subject see here.

Two more common sense and logical interpretations are,

1. An interpretation given by Picherellus, that the ninth and tenth verses of Genesis 1 all belonged to the work of the second day, though mentioned after it, or rather
2. The work on the second day was part of a larger unit of work which was not completed until the third day, where it is then called good. So the larger unit of work was to create the firmament, divide the waters, then gather the lower waters into oceans and reveal the dry land. The creation of the firmament and division of the waters was the first phase of the work on day two, then the forming of the oceans and dry land the second and final phase on day three, where it is then called good. This interpretation concurs with that given by Calvin.

Either of these interpretations give a reasonable explanation why the second creation day is not called good by God, and the SAB are silenced yet again.

Join me soon for the next episode where God, the creator and sustainer of all things, is accused of being unable to sustain plant life without the sun. And get this, Genesis actually teaches evolution.

Bye for now.

Affirming the Firmament!

In this post, the SAB offer the following objection under the scientific/historical absurdity category:

(Gen. 1:6-8) The Firmament (Heaven)

"God spends one-sixth of his entire creative effort (the second day) working on a solid firmament. This strange structure, which God calls heaven, is intended to separate the higher waters from the lower waters."

This objection seems to consist of three parts:

1. The 'strange, solid' structure of the firmament.
2. The fact that it is called heaven.
3. Its function of separating the higher and lower waters.

The 'strange, solid' structure of the firmament.

This objection commonly hinges on the use of the Hebrew word for firmament (raqiya') found in these verses of Genesis. To answer this objection we need only say that the Genesis text contains no indication whatsoever that the firmament is a solid object; one can only read a solid firmament into the text by assuming that it is there in the first place. For a more detailed discussion of this point, see the following article:

• Is the raqiya'('firmament') a solid dome?

The fact that it is called heaven.

The original Hebrew word used for 'Heaven' in verse 8 of Genesis 1 is 'shamayim'. This word has at least 3 meanings in the Bible:

1. Heaven, where God lives.
2. The heavens, or the universe.
3. The local heavens or the sky.

The appropriate usage in a particular instance is determined by the context in which it is used. It is clear from the context in verse 8 that the Bible is describing some kind of space or expanse which God placed between two bodies of water, one of which was on earth and the other above and around the earth, and therefore in verse 8 the Heaven mentioned there takes the third meaning listed above. For a more detailed discussion of this see the following article:

• Linguistics, Genesis and evolution.

Its function of separating the higher and lower waters.

The function of the firmament described in verse 7 is to separate the lower waters (the oceans) from the higher waters, which is exactly what the local heavens, or sky does.

The Higher Waters

There is some difference of opinion between commentators as to what the higher waters actually are; Calvin and Poole take them to be the clouds, which are, as we know, water vapour. Others, such as creation science expert James Patrick Holding say that they were the originally-created, basic building blocks of matter that the earth was made from:

"What, then, are these ‘waters’? We agree with Seely, against a number of commentators, that these are not clouds. Rather, it is our suggestion that these ‘waters’ were the originally-created, basic building blocks of matter that the earth was made from, and otherwise became all that was created outside of our atmosphere and/or our solar system. We would hardly expect the author of Genesis to make distinctions between things like stellar matter, methane gas, asteroids, comets, etc. A simple elemental term, ‘waters,’ would be sufficient, especially in light of the fact that these same waters were made into ‘Seas’ below the raqiya‘, and even so after the primordial ‘waters’ had been coalesced into different forms. The term ‘waters’ would serve in the minds of the pre-scientific just as ‘blood’ stood for whatever actual substance the Nile became.
We are not told what becomes of these ‘waters’ above the raqiya‘ in Genesis. This is not surprising, and in fact accords with the biblical record, for as Seely rightly observes, citing Steck:
'…(B)y not naming the waters above the firmament as he named the waters below (Gen. 1:9-10) God signified that he excluded them from the world made for man.’
This clue is more significant than Seely realizes. No further revelation is given about the nature of these waters; nor is it said what has happened to them. As far as the inspired writers knew, these waters were still ‘up there,’ and if they started with the conception of an ocean, they would continue with that conception. At the same time, as long as they referred only to the ‘waters’ without any further description, they were not inspired to error. The ‘waters’ were still there, but God had made further use of them in His creation, and the terminology was hardly available to say that things were any different. (Hence, it is appropriate that Psalms 148:4 only refers to these ‘waters’ and says nothing else about them.)
With that, we are only left with some figurative language associated with the Flood account. Seely reports:
‘In Genesis 7:11–12 water above the firmament is allowed to fall as rain by opening the floodgates of the firmament; and in 8:2 the water is restrained from falling by closing those same floodgates.’
This works well as long as it is assumed proven that raqiya‘ and shamayim are not equal in the mind of the Genesis writer, but as we have shown, this is not proven at all. This water that came from above could have come from any point in the expanse. It is not my place here to offer any speculations on the mechanisms of the Flood, but it is worth noting that this term ‘floodgates of heaven’ is used elsewhere in the OT in the context of heavy rain (2 Kings 7:2, 19; Mal. 3:10). Perhaps the ancient readers of this text did envision a solid dome with an ocean above it, but if so, they read things into the inspired and equivocal language of the text every bit as much as Seely or I have."(James Patrick Holding, Is the raqiya‘ (‘firmament’) a solid dome?Equivocal language in the cosmology of Genesis 1 and the Old Testament: a response to Paul H. Seely, Online).

Whatever these higher waters are, the firmament still provides a valid and logical function that cannot be shown to be in opposition to modern science.

Again, the SAB have failed to give a convincing argument in support of their claims about the unreliability of God's Word, and the Sacred Scriptures remain unmoved. Ironically and tragically their claims confirm the truth of the Scriptures time after time (Romans 1: 18-22).

Bye for now.

Some Light Relief!
What is the ultimate source of light?

In this relatively short installment, the SAB make the following objection:

(Gen. 1:3-5, 14-19) "Let there be light"God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day (Gen. 1:14-19). And how could there be "the evening and the morning" on the first day if there was no sun to mark them?

They place this objection under the categories of an absurdity, symbolised by:




and a scientific/historical contradiction, symbolised by:




Suffice it to say in answer to this that it is absurd for the SAB to claim that the God who can create the sun, moon and stars is unable to create and emanate light before He creates these light producing/reflecting objects. I'll leave a more detailed explanation of this in more capable hands:

• Answers In Genesis's Jonathan Sarfati on this question.
• John Calvin: Genesis means what it says.

The next episode deals with the firmament of Genesis 1: 6-8, which the SAB claim is another historical/scientific absurdity, but which will be shown to be, as in this installment, nothing of the kind, and perfectly explainable in scientific and biblical terms.

Bye for now.

Happy Birthday to U!
How old is the universe?

In today's installment, the SAB provide us with the following quotations:

When was the universe created?

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." -- Genesis 1:1

Archbishop James Ussher: 22 October 4004 BCE
The universes birthday party
The full chronology

Young-Earth Creationists: 6000 - 10,000 years ago
"...the Biblical chronology is about a million times shorter than the evolutionary chronology. A million-fold mistake is no small matter, and Biblical scholars surely need to give primary attention to resolving this tremendous discrepancy right at the very foundation of our entire Biblical cosmology. This is not a peripheral issue that can be dismissed with some exegetical twist, but is central to the very integrity of scriptural theology." -- Henry Morris, The Biblical Basis for Modern Science, Baker,(1984), Page 115.

Jehovah's Witnesses: 46,026 BCE
The JW book "Let God Be True" (1946) says that each of the seven days of creation was 7,000 years long. And that since Adam was "created toward the close of the sixth day, he was put on earth toward the end of 42,000 years of earth's preparation." (p. 155) And since "[a]ccording to reliable Bible chronology Adam was created in the year 4026 B.C.E., likely in the autumn of the year, at the end of the sixth day of creation" (April 1, 1968, Watchtower), we know that the universe was created in 46,026 BCE.

Old-Earth Creationists: Somewhere between 10,000 and 20 billion years
It's hard to pin these folks down, but they generally accept some form of day-age interpretation for the creation days of Genesis 1.

Catholic Church: The date cannot be determined from the bible
"At least 200 dates have been suggested, varying from 3483 to 6934 years B.C., all based on the supposition that the Bible enables us to settle the point. But it does nothing of the sort. ... The literal interpretation has now been entirely abandoned; and the world is admitted to be of immense antiquity. ... On such questions we have no Biblical evidence, and the Catholic is quite free to follow the teaching of science." -- Catholic Encyclopedia: Biblical Chronology

The SAB's motivation for these quotations is that they all disagree with what is according to them the correct age of the earth, as given by secular evolutionist scientists. I spoke in the last post about the degree to which secular science can be sure about its theories, and its theory about the age of the earth is no exception.

Taking each quotation in turn:

• The 'The Full Chronology' link above is not Bishop Ussher's work, but the work of whoever the link is referencing. Bishop Ussher's work only gives the chronology up until 70 A.D. There is some reliable Bishop Ussher information here.
• The quotation from Henry M Morris has been ripped out of context; it was not meant as a way to encourage compromise with secular theories.
• The Watchtower organisation (Jehovahs Witnesses) are notorious for making false predictions about various events, and this is no exception. See here for a catalogue of Watchtower false prophecies and erroneous dating information.
• The old age creationists are a group who seek to reconcile the age of the earth given by secular science with the Biblical record. They do this by some kind of re-interpretation of the Biblical data, thereby compromising the Biblical record and undermining the authority of Scripture. What they are doing here is regarding the word of men as more authoritative than the Word of God; we think they should get their priorities straight. The following are some links to articles covering various aspects of the age of the earth controversy from a young earth perspective:
  

  Helium Evidence for a young earth

  The moon Evidence for a young earth

  Geology and the young earth

  The truth about the dating methods

  Radiometric dating questions and answers

• Historically, the Roman Catholic church is an example of the wholesale abandonment of the authority of Scripture (in fact, it sets itself in authority over Scripture), and it is therefore no surprise that they disagree with the scriptural account of creation. For more information on the multitude of non Biblical Roman Catholic doctrines see here.

The common factor in all the above quotations (except for the Bishop Ussher and Henry M Morris quotations, which have been misused), is that they have all compromised the Biblical position in favour of secular evolutionistic theory. This is not surprising for the Jehovahs Witness and Roman Catholic cases, as these are non Christian, unbiblical cult movements.

It seems that the purpose of the SAB authors in using these quotations was to show the disagreement between Christians as to the age of the earth; however, as mentioned above, the majority of the quotations used come from either non Christian cult movements, or those who have compromised Biblical authority. This issue aside, the SAB speak as though the whole of secular science is in complete harmony regarding the age of the earth. This is certainly not the case, as some of the links above illustrate.

The bottom line in all this is this, secular science has no more 'evidence' and is no more 'sure' about the age of the earth than are Biblical creationists, and so the SAB have again failed to prove the unreliability of the Bible or discredit it in any way.

Well, that's all for this episode, join me next time for the Sun and Stars controversy. Bye for now.

Innocent Ignorance or Pernicious Deceit!
Is evolution established fact or religious faith?

In this installment, the writers at the SAB make the following claim:

Gen. 1:1 - 2:3
The creation account in Genesis 1 conflicts with the order of events that are known to science. In Genesis, the earth is created before light and stars, birds and whales before reptiles and insects, and flowering plants before any animals. The true order of events was just the opposite. (emphasis added).

Simply put, what the SAB writers are saying here is that evolutionary theory, which they correctly say is totally opposed to the biblical creation account, has been scientifically proven as the true account of the origin of the universe and everything in it.

I don't have the space here to deal with this subject exhaustively. What I will say though is that for the SAB writers to make a claim like this, they are either completely unaware of current scientific developments in the area of intelligent design and origins, or they are being deliberately deceitful and misleading about the 'facts' of evolutionary theory.

The following links provide some factual material on various issues at the heart of the evolution/creation debate:

• The facts about the dating methods used to determine the age of the earth.
• A long list of articles supporting creationism.
• An excellent article exposing the myth of evolution.
• An article detailing the irreducibly complex design of the human knee joint.

These articles (and many others) help to illustrate that the 'facts' of evolutionary theory just don't stack up, and that evolution is as much a religion as any other worldview or system of beliefs (which, incidentally requires a much larger leap of faith than belief in the Bible does). The claim that evolutionary theory is objectively scientific is nonsense; it is as much based on presuppositions as religious belief is; for the one (evolution) the underlying supposition is that God does not exist, while for the other, the supposition is that He does.

A fitting conclusion to this post is a quotation from the father of evolutionary theory:

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."(Darwin, C. (1872) Origin Of Species, 6th ed. (1988), New York University Press, New York, p. 154)

Bearing this quotation in mind, I would like to recommend two books that deal with this issue:

A very well written (though slightly technical in places) explanation of the intelligent design issue, and the problems it presents for evolutionary theory.












Another excellent, and slightly less technical explanation of intelligent design, using examples such as the human knee joint, the ecosystem, bird flight and others.










That's all for this installment, I trust that there is enough info here to at least convince you that the theory of evolution is not as certain as its proponents would like to think it is. Tune in soon for further episodes. Bye for now.

The Created Order
The two 'contradictory' creation accounts

Before we start with this series, a preliminary comment is in order:

If a case is proposed in which the Bible contradicts itself, secular history or science, and a solution is here proposed which serves to explain and reconcile the contradiction; then unless our proposed solution can be proven untrue or irrational, then our solution stands; the burden of proof then lies with the objector.

The SAB website proposes the following:

The two 'contradictory' creation accounts

First Account (Genesis 1:1 - 2:3)	Second Account(Genesis 2:4 - 25)
Gen.1:25 - 27 (Humans were created after the other animals.) And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image....So God created man in his own image.	Gen.2:18 - 19 (Humans were created before the other animals.) And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
Gen.1:27 (The first man and woman were created simultaneously.) So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.	Gen.2:18-22 (The man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man's rib.) And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them.... And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

Firstly, it cannot be assumed when reading the Scripture that each event described from Genesis to Revelation is described in sequential, chronological order. This is simply not the case, some parts are but others are not. This alleged contradiction has at its heart this very error.

In summary, the above 'contradiction' is that in the first chapter the man and the woman seem to be represented as created together, after the lower animals; in the second chapter the man appears to be created first, then the beasts, lastly the woman.

Simply, these differences arise from the compression of the narrative in the first chapter, and from the disregard of chronological order in the second. The first chapter gives a general, concise account of the six days' work; while in the second a review is given, along with some additional details, and without following the order of time. The narrative in the second chapter is totally unchronological, the near and the remote being brought together without the regard to the order of time. Everything in chapter one is described in its relation to time, whereas everything in chapter two is not, but is described in its relation to the man.

So, the chronological interpretation of chapter two should be governed by the chronological order of chapter one, as it is clearly the intention of the writer to describe things in chapter one chronologically.

Taking each verse individually, the correct interpretation is a follows:

1. Gen.1:25-27 sets the true chronological order.

2. In interpreting Gen.2:18-19, a number of observations can be made:

• The help meet for the man in verse 18 is not the animals of verse 19, but is the woman.
• If read carefully verse 19 does not actually say that the beasts were created after man, "...And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast...". Now, if the emphasised 'AND' in verse 19 had been a 'then', maybe we could interpret it chronologically, but it isn't and so we can't.

Therefore the correct interpretation of the passage is as follows:

Prior to verse 19 God creates the animals and then Adam. God decrees that he will create Eve as a companion for the man in verse 19. God then brings the animals that He has already created to Adam in order that he might name them, and to demonstrate to Adam that there is no suitable companion for Adam out of the animals. God creates Eve out of Adam's body.

The mistake generally made here is that the help meet for Adam is taken as referring to the animals, and that Eve was created as an afterthought because God was unable to make a suitable companion for Adam from the animals. Are we really to suppose that the creator God seen in chapter one is unable to successfully create a suitable companion for Adam instantly. We think not!

3. Gen.1:27 gives no indication of in which order the male and female were created, or the time period between their creation, it simply states that they were created male and female.

So, according to logic and common sense, the alleged 'contradictions' have been shown to dissolve, and leave the unity and integrity of the Scriptures unimpaired.

Don't forget to tune in for my next installment, where the SAB team inform us that, "The creation account in Genesis 1 conflicts with the order of events that are known to science." (emphasis added). Yeah right!

Before I Start!

Before I start my dissection of the SAB website's drivel, I'd like to recommend a book to you:

This book is an excellent treatment of most of the alleged discrepancies found in the Bible. I say most and not all for two reasons:

1. The book only deals with alleged 'internal' discrepancies, i.e. those in which the Bible appears inconsistent with itself; cases in which it appears inconsistent with secular history or science are not dealt with (I will deal with those myself separately).

2. Not all the alleged discrepancies that appear on the SAB site are dealt with by the book (other sources will be referred to for these cases

That said, this is an excellent book; well worth a read and is also well indexed for easy reference.

I will be starting this over the next couple of days, beginning at Genesis and working through each case as quickly and thoroughly as my time permits.

Some Light Relief

Allow me to introduce you to some of the undeserved blessings that our Lord has gracefully bestowed upon me:

Mrs Ephemeral Mortal (a.k.a 'my rib' or Annette)

Been married 'lots' of years now. Started courting in high school, but known each other since we were about 10 years old.














Ephemeral Mortal Junior (a.k.a Damien)
He's an (almost) 13 year old Playstation addict.











Ephemeral Mortal Canine (a.k.a. Milo)
He's a 4 year old, very placid (with people) Staffordshire Bull Terrier.








And finally...

Ephemeral Site of natural beauty (a.k.a Pontsticill Reservoir)

This is my favorite tranquil retreat, and is only a 5 - 10 minute drive from my house. I enjoy taking in this breathtaking beauty, and then realising that some day all this will be dissolved and reconstituted to make an even better new heavens and a new earth.

Hello Blog World!

This post is just a few words of introduction and to just state what my intentions are for starting this blog.
I have had numerous conversations and debates with fellow mortals who are of the atheist/humanist/evolutionist persuasion, during which, after having explained to them their need of salvation, and after them having almost exhausted their stock of excuses for their unbelief, they hit me with what they think is the 'knock out blow'; the old 'the Bible is full of contradictions, absurdities and inconsistencies' excuse. They then proceed (they think) to add weight to their blow by directing me to the following website:

This nauseous website contains a long list of apparent 'contradictions' and 'absurdities' taken from every book from Genesis to Revelation. To accomplish this the author makes no attempt to intelligently understand any of the text and decontextualises everything. Some of the entries are so blatantly ridiculous that a child could answer the objections raised and they barely warrant an explanation. Nevertheless, I think that this website has, can and will be used to place stumbling blocks in the way of genuine seekers of the Lord, to hinder the growth of the weaker brother or sister in the faith and serves to furnish unbelievers with much material with which they can silence their consciences.

This brings me back to my intentions for this blog. I intend, over a period of time (don't know how long, may be months, but could be years) to answer each objection listed on the aforementioned website. I realise that the answers to these objections and more have been published in various works, but my aim is to gather together into a single unit simple explanations that are accessible to all.

P.S. I am no theologian, and don't pretend to be one, (and realise that there are a number of theological 'big hitters' in the blogsphere e.g. Phil Johnson, Steve Camp and others of their ilk) so if anyone objects to any of my explanations, and have the credentials to do so, please feel free to comment on or correct anything that I publish.