Latest / The Foreign Saint's Podcast / Polygynist Logic: Master the Misquote and Do the Scholar Shuffle

Transcript

Polygynist Logic: Master the Misquote and Do the Scholar Shuffle · The Foreign Saint's Podcast

0:00
Cover abortion, persecuted Christians around the world and
0:03
make a four episode series on transgenderism in the gospel and
0:08
the comments there are mostly docile.
0:11
Then I make one video denouncing polygamy in the new covenant and
0:15
the comments lose their freaking minds.
0:18
But I really shouldn't be surprised that men will defend A
0:22
doctrine that allows them to walk through life like a
0:24
Christian pimp. I'm St.
0:27
Kay and you're listening to foreign Saints, and my mission
0:31
is to keep Christianity unique in this world by reviving the
0:35
hearts of those who are called to die daily.
0:43
The plan today was to answer a challenge from another polygyny
0:49
defending comment by user Saravo.
0:53
And that was the plan until in the process of doing the
0:59
research and the thinking into his arguments, but especially
1:02
the research into the scholars that he quoted.
1:06
It was in doing that that I found him to be a lie, like a
1:11
liar. I I don't have any other way to
1:14
say it. OK, So Revo, you're a liar.
1:17
And I like it's, it's the kind of lie that I can't abide.
1:23
OK, so let me let me just show you what it is that I'm even
1:27
talking about. All right?
1:28
So he gives me this comment underneath my video, underneath
1:34
one of my 2 videos coming at Rich Tidwell and his polygyny
1:39
defending theology. All right?
1:42
And he leaves me this super long comment along with a bunch of
1:46
other comments. But for now, all I need to know
1:48
is that he gives me this comment with a couple of questions and
1:51
then we get into some back and forth down here in the comments.
1:54
All right? And one of the first red flags
1:57
from this guy kind of showed up here, you know, I asked him, you
2:01
know, these questions for me. He says, yeah, I asked him if he
2:04
saw the follow up video. If he says yes.
2:07
The reason I asked that is because I don't like making
2:09
repeat videos. Like, I put a lot of work and a
2:13
lot of research and a lot of editing time into these videos.
2:17
So if you actually want to know my opinion on something, then
2:20
watch the video. Listen to the full podcast.
2:24
OK, you know, I'm I'm not a big fan of re recording content I've
2:31
already made unless I just think that particular video just needs
2:34
a quality boost. I am considering that for some
2:38
some, but not not for these videos right now.
2:43
I asked him, you know, I'm complimentary to the guy and I
2:47
asked him if he would be OK with me making a response video to
2:52
this gigantic comment that he made here, you know, if he would
2:57
be OK with me taking a little bit more time to make a proper
3:00
response video. And this is where he says
3:03
something that rubbed me the wrong way.
3:06
He said that that would be a little too impersonal and
3:09
evasive. And that suggests that I haven't
3:14
really searched the scriptures on this issue.
3:17
He says sure, no problem with you making another video, but
3:19
I'd appreciate a more immediate and direct response.
3:22
Now keep in mind in his original post he said here are four
3:27
questions about which I hope you will prayerfully meditate upon
3:31
at length. And I confronted him about that.
3:35
I said you literally asked that I would prayerfully meditate on
3:39
the questions you asked, but now the response has to be immediate
3:43
and not in video form. So no, I stayed 10 toes down for
3:48
the reasons I gave here in the comments section.
3:52
I don't see the problem with taking the time to consider the
3:55
argument. Look up the context behind each
3:57
of the scholars you quoted. By the way.
3:59
I'm really glad that I did that because it was when I looked
4:02
into the context behind the very first scholar he quoted, I
4:07
thought, in my opinion, I find him to be a liar.
4:09
Not worth my time at this point, not when I already have, as I
4:14
said, 2 videos on this to suffice to give my opinion,
4:20
along with a bunch of other teaching videos through
4:23
Matthew's gospel and some other things that touch on marriage
4:28
and, you know, things related or at least tangential to the topic
4:33
of polygamy and polygyny. OK, so you know, and he's like
4:38
badgering me down here, you know?
4:40
So what's a reasonable amount of time?
4:44
You know, he comes through later.
4:46
Let me see, you know, way down here at the bottom of the
4:49
thread. He also wants to post a whole
4:51
bunch of cricket icons down here, you know, you know,
4:54
crickets going chirp because I'm still silent on the matter.
4:58
Well, my bad, OK. I was dealing with being let go
5:02
from the job I was at because the only explanation I have for
5:07
the events that happened to me were Boston, like my Christian
5:12
faith or whatever. All right.
5:14
Lied about some medical malpractice, tried to put me up
5:19
in front of the medical board. The medical board ended up
5:22
siding with me on the issue, completely sided against him and
5:26
his lie. But that situation created a
5:29
whole bunch of things that we needed to deal with.
5:31
We ended up moving to a state of, you know, we ended up moving
5:36
to a new state because of that. So I was dealing with that while
5:40
I was working a contract at a hospital 4 nights a week, right?
5:45
I had other things to do, quite honestly.
5:48
Then make a third video about a topic that I've already put to
5:51
bed, OK, But you know, I promised them that I would,
5:56
right? So I was going to come back
5:57
around to it, right? And so I came back around to it
6:02
and look at this, all right? I I say Hebrew dinis all the
6:07
time. All right, I use this phrase on
6:09
this show, Hebrew dinis, and it's just a little silly phrase
6:14
I use for people that like to play games with the original
6:18
language to try to stuff in and do magic tricks to make one
6:22
theology magically appear like something else.
6:27
And so let me show you what he does.
6:29
Dude dropped a lot of comments. OK, so I had a lot of stuff to
6:32
look through. As I was looking through this
6:34
stuff, I discovered that some of the objections he gave are
6:37
objections I already answered in one of my two previous videos.
6:42
This is one of them, the objection about First Timothy 3.
6:46
Two, let me go ahead and pull that up.
6:51
By the way. And I'll be honest bro, I don't
6:52
even care about getting the, you know, the CSB or the ESB.
6:56
We got the ESB up here as a default.
6:58
It doesn't matter. First Timothy 3/2.
7:00
His argument being that an overseer must be above reproach.
7:04
The husband of one wife. His claim is that whatever First
7:09
Timothy 32 means, it must be the precise equivalent of First
7:16
Timothy 59. And if that sounds arbitrary, it
7:21
did seem to be. His reasoning is because the
7:23
same commandment is made, but with husband and wife inverted.
7:28
All right, here's the thing. All right, Christians, pay
7:32
attention when you're having these kinds of conversations
7:35
with people or you're looking into what people say about the
7:37
Bible. Anytime someone makes a claim
7:40
about the Bible, especially when that claim is, you know, laid
7:44
down as the foundation of the argument, Fact Check it.
7:48
Is this true? Is it even true that First
7:52
Timothy 59 gives the same construction, gives the same
7:56
verse construction, but with the words husband and wife inverted?
8:00
Let's find out. First Timothy 59.
8:03
Let a widow be enrolled if she is not less than 60 years of
8:07
age, having been the wife of one husband.
8:11
OK, so yes, wife and husband are, you might say, inverted
8:17
here, but there is still some dishonesty here.
8:21
All right, First Timothy 3 verse 2, all right, the person that's
8:27
being talked about, right, this male that's being talked about
8:30
for the office must be above reproach.
8:33
The husband of one wife, right? The husband of one wife.
8:40
It doesn't mention his divorce status or not.
8:45
But when you come to First Timothy chapter 5, it
8:47
specifically specifies a widow being enrolled in, you know
8:52
this, you know, in this local church charity, right?
8:55
So yes, even though the wording is similar here, the situation
9:02
being talked about is different. And that does potentially change
9:06
the context. He doesn't mention that, though.
9:08
He doesn't mention that. Is that the lie that set me off?
9:12
No, no, that's the usual kind of lie and dishonesty that I'm used
9:17
to dealing with. That's not the issue to me.
9:20
The issue is when he wants to quote a scholar way down here,
9:25
right? He says after he lays out a
9:27
whole bunch of stuff that I've already handled in a previous
9:30
video, which is why I'm not getting into it now.
9:32
I'm not running. I'm just not repeating myself.
9:35
Go watch the previous video on this topic if you want to see my
9:41
actual rebuttal of this. I think it's quite simple, and
9:44
it's actually really simple. But look at what he says here,
9:47
OK? He says what many presume to be
9:52
a straightforward command against ordaining polygynous in
9:55
First Timothy 3 verse two turns out to be tangled up in some
9:59
highly questionable and objectionable results.
10:02
If we interpret it that way, the interpretation of First Timothy
10:06
32 is nowhere near as straightforward as monogamy only
10:11
proponents would like it to be. And the difficulty here comes
10:14
from within the self. Same epistle.
10:17
OK, let's see what he's got. This is worth some more in depth
10:22
analysis. JE Adams.
10:25
Remember that name, people. JE Adams, a scholar of New
10:31
Testament Greek, made the observation that the Greek
10:35
phrase. However you say that MIAs
10:39
gunaikos Andhra in First Timothy 3212 and Titus 1-6 is
10:44
grammatically an unusual construction.
10:47
Notice the quotes, the only thing that he actually quotes
10:51
directly from the scholar JE Adams are these two words
10:55
unusual construction from Jay Adams's work Marriage, Divorce
11:01
and Remarriage in the Bible, page 81.
11:05
All right. He goes on to say that he
11:07
personally that Saravo personally doesn't think that
11:11
this fact has been given its due consideration by most
11:15
commentators. He also says an unusual
11:18
construction in any language is a dead giveaway of an idiomatic
11:23
expression. Idiomatic expressions are
11:26
virtually never meant to be understood in a strictly literal
11:30
sense. And he says that's just one of
11:32
the considerations here. Whether the proper translation
11:35
is one woman man or first woman man is kind of a red herring
11:40
anyway, yada yada and yada. OK, but here's my thing.
11:46
Whenever people quote a scholar, whenever people quote a scholar,
11:50
I want to Fact Check the quote to see a couple things.
11:54
One, did they quote the scholar accurately?
11:58
Right. If you lied about what he said,
12:01
I'm not trusting your argumentation.
12:04
I'm not trusting your I'm just not.
12:06
I'm not going to trust it. Secondly, if you're going to
12:09
quote a scholar, and I want you to pay attention to what I mean
12:12
when I say this, he quoted 2 words from the scholar.
12:18
The only thing he quoted from Jay Adams was 2 words quote
12:22
unusual construction, UN quote. That's it.
12:25
That's all he did after he quoted those two words from the
12:29
scholar. Then Saravo goes on to give his
12:33
own interpretation of that. But here's the question.
12:37
If the opinion of the scholar that he quotes agrees with him,
12:44
why not just give that full quote?
12:48
Why not just do that? Now, it will be one thing if he
12:51
opened up this and said JE Adams, a scholar of New
12:55
Testament Greek and who is also not a polygynist.
13:01
But what he says here agrees with my point as a polygynist.
13:07
That would not be dishonest. That would actually be really
13:10
strong rhetoric. Actually, that's not what he
13:13
says. That's not what he puts here,
13:17
right? So when I go to when I go to it
13:22
sent me a while to find it too because I didn't want to
13:27
actually buy the full books. I was doing my best to see if I
13:30
can find APDF. You know what I'm saying, free
13:32
PDF sample or something. And I did.
13:34
Google Books gives me a sample from Marriage, Divorce and
13:38
Remarriage in the Bible by JE Adams.
13:42
And luckily enough, page 81 is part of the free sample that you
13:49
get when you look it up, so that's nice.
13:51
I didn't even have to spend money to debunk this lie.
13:54
But on page 81 you do find those two words, right?
13:58
Rather, Paul consistently used the unusual construction, the
14:04
husband of only one wife. So OK, so far you at least pass
14:10
the first check. All right, JE Adams on page 81
14:14
did use the 2 words unusual construction without anything in
14:18
between. All right sweet, you quoted the
14:22
scholars words on the page accurately.
14:26
That's real nice. But this is where the lie comes
14:29
in. All right, he quoted JE Adams
14:34
saying that the Greek of First Timothy 32 is an unusual
14:39
construction as a way of saying that the unusual construction
14:44
itself points to that Greek being an idiom, you know, like
14:50
a, a turn of phrase, right, a saying, right?
14:55
And that that saying because it's an idiom and kind of poetic
15:01
and not completely literal, therefore polygyny.
15:07
That that that's really the through line of his argument.
15:10
Because it's an idiom, therefore polygyny.
15:13
Because it's an unusual Greek construction, therefore
15:16
polygyny. OK, so that bag that created the
15:23
next question in my mind, does JE Adams, the scholar of New
15:28
Testament Greek, come to the same conclusion that you did?
15:32
I mean, you're quoting him for this purpose.
15:34
I would assume that he did, but I was suspicious because he only
15:38
quoted 2 words. He didn't quote Jay Adams's
15:41
opinion on his own thought process.
15:45
So I looked it up and this is what I found.
15:48
And this is the part when I when I read this.
15:54
This is why I'm not dealing with the argument.
15:57
Sorry though, This is why. This is why, because you went to
16:01
a scholar that disagreed with everything that you argued in
16:06
that comment, everything that you argued in that comment, but
16:08
you want to quote JE Adams as if he agreed with anything you
16:12
said. All right, let's look at what
16:14
Jay actually wrote. Rather, Paul consistently used
16:19
the unusual construction the husband of only one wife.
16:23
He was concerned not about how many times a man had been
16:27
married, but about how many wives he had.
16:32
The phrase the husband of only one wife, strictly speaking,
16:36
permits only one interpretation. Let me say that again.
16:40
The phrase the husband of only one wife, strictly speaking,
16:44
permits only one interpretation. A prospective elder or Deacon,
16:52
because he must be an example in all things, including his
16:55
marriage practices. Remember what I said in the
16:57
previous episode, people on this topic that elders are
17:00
theological anchors. OK, JE Adams agrees with me on
17:05
that. Or maybe I just say I agree with
17:07
him on that. I don't know.
17:08
We agree with each other, I guess.
17:09
And why is that? Because I like JE Adams,
17:13
apparently all we do is read. We just read the text and let
17:16
the text speak for itself, at least on this point, right?
17:21
So because he must be an example in all things, including his
17:24
marriage practices, he may not be a polygamist.
17:30
The very scholar that you quoted to support your view disagrees
17:36
with your view, but you quoted the scholar as if he's an
17:39
authority, but you want to disagree with the very argument
17:43
he gives. Freaking liar, bro.
17:46
Absolute liar. Absolute liar.
17:49
If you had actually read this book, if you had actually read
17:53
page 81 and what follows, you would have known not to quote JE
17:59
Adams. This is why I call you a liar.
18:04
And This is why. No, like I can't.
18:07
No, no, I'm not. I'm not doing it, man.
18:10
I got to. I got to choose me, dude.
18:12
Like I got to choose me. I've got a bunch of other things
18:16
that I'm doing that are more fruitful than having a back and
18:20
forth with someone this hard headed.
18:23
OK, I've got international evangelistic callers that I take
18:30
now, you know, but I put up in the new playlist, the Gospel to
18:35
the Nations. Go check it out.
18:36
By the way, check out that playlist.
18:38
Great conversations with people, a lot less hard headed than the
18:41
Saravo guy. Additionally, I'm working on
18:45
something I've been wanting to do for a few years now, a new
18:48
project for this Juneteenth. All right, Christianity versus
18:53
the Ku Klux Christ. Yes, I said that Christianity
18:57
versus the Ku Klux Christ. That's the working title anyway.
19:01
We'll see what it comes out to be.
19:03
All that to say, I've got other things to do then deal with
19:06
people that are going to lie about the scholars that they
19:09
quote. Then, then then dishonestly
19:13
quote the scholars. Try to make a scholar say
19:16
something completely opposite to what the scholar himself had to
19:19
say. No, no, no.
19:22
That is a that you have crossed into a realm of dishonesty that
19:25
I do my best to not actually engage with, because there's no
19:29
point. If you, if you're going to lie
19:32
about what the scholar says, you're definitely going to lie
19:35
about what the Bible says. And that's kind of been my point
19:38
this whole time in dealing with the content from Rich Tidwell
19:44
and some of these other guys that support polygyny.
19:47
They lie about what the text says.
19:50
They will straight lie and just gaslight you into accepting
19:54
their lie. Don't do it.
19:57
Don't do it. OK, Look at what this guy says.
20:01
Look at, look at what JE Adams says.
20:03
He continues to say and affirm everything that I've been saying
20:08
in my series. Now, is JE Adams an inspired
20:10
author? No, but Seraivo quoted JE Adams
20:16
as if he was an authority on this point.
20:20
JE Adams continues to say the Old Testament permitted
20:23
polygamy, but it was never the ideal.
20:25
In Genesis, God said the two shall be 1 flesh, not the three
20:29
or five or eight. Gee, where have we heard that
20:33
before? That the Old Testament permitted
20:36
polygamy, but it was not the ideal.
20:39
Where have we heard something like that before?
20:42
Oh yeah, that's right, Matthew 19, Matthew 19, when the
20:47
Pharisees asked Jesus, why did Moses command one to give a
20:51
certificate of divorce, to send her away?
20:54
And Jesus said the same thing. Because of your hardness of
20:56
heart, Moses allowed you to divorce your wives.
20:59
But from the beginning it was not so.
21:03
All right, JE Adams is using the exact same hermeneutic that God
21:07
in the flesh used about his own book.
21:10
I, I, I think I'll trust that. But we are told by advocates,
21:13
according to J, you know, JE Adams continues, we're told by
21:16
advocates of the anti remarriage viewpoints that there was no
21:19
polygamy in New Testament times. And not just that, by the way,
21:23
the people that push this polygyny nonsense also will say
21:27
similar things, you know, except when it comes to polygyny, they
21:31
do this weird thing or they just restricted to women, which is
21:35
circular because you're just assuming that new covenant
21:38
supports your theology when you haven't actually argued for it.
21:41
But you know, it's whatever. I've already got 2 videos
21:44
proving that to be the case, all right?
21:46
That's not what I'm here to do. This video, right?
21:49
This, this video, this episode, really, I'm just here to tell
21:52
you why you're not getting the full personal response video
21:55
that I usually like to do for people, all right?
21:58
Because I don't think you're honest enough for me to waste my
22:04
time on it, to be honest. Like, like if you're going to if
22:07
you're going to the very first scholar that I quote completely
22:10
goes against you. And you just so happened to not
22:15
quote any of that part. OK, OK.
22:19
And then he wants to say here that polygamy simply did not
22:23
exist among the Greeks and was regarded as barbaric.
22:27
What are you talking about? What are you talking about?
22:29
Now, look, I see that he quotes a guy, William F Luck.
22:32
But you know, I, I don't trust you.
22:35
I don't trust your quotes of scholars anymore, especially
22:38
when when I continue reading in the same page, page 81 where you
22:44
quoted JE Adams before. What does he say?
22:47
Many of the early converts of every church that Paul began
22:51
were Jews of the dispersion. Josephus twice mentions polygamy
22:55
in his day. In 212 AD.
22:58
The Lex and Toniana de Civitate made monogamy the law for
23:03
Romans, but specifically accepted the Jews.
23:07
This is history. This is historical record, all
23:10
right. Later 285AD Diocletian finds it
23:14
necessary to rescind that exception. 393 AD Theodosius
23:18
finds it necessary to enact a special law against polygamy
23:21
among the Jews since they persisted in the practice.
23:24
And even that didn't put an end to it.
23:26
According to Jay Adams, polygamy among the Jews continued until
23:29
the 11th century. But that isn't all to refute
23:32
cerevo specific claim that Pilemi didn't exist among the
23:36
Greeks. JE Adams even gives us a
23:40
marriage contract, a marriage contract from 92 BC, 92 before
23:48
Christ. And what does this marriage
23:50
contract say? We have a line all right from
23:55
the footnote here, says Hunt and Edgar Select papyri Citation 1,
24:01
five to seven. It shall not be lawful for
24:06
Phylliscus to bring in another wife besides Apollonia, quote UN
24:12
quote. All right, This marriage
24:14
contract makes it clear that apart from such a prohibition,
24:17
polygamy was an altogether likely option.
24:21
And that just makes sense. If polygamy was not a culturally
24:24
practiced thing, why in 92 BC would they feel that it's
24:31
necessary to put in a special clause in the marriage contract
24:35
saying that this guy Phyllisius could not bring in another wife
24:39
besides Apollonia? If monogamy was the assumed
24:43
default of the Romans and the Greeks, why on earth do they
24:48
have to put in a clause ensuring the thing that's supposed to be
24:52
the default? Make it make sense, JE Adams
24:56
continues. This marriage contract makes it
24:58
clear that apart from such a prohibition, polygamy was an
25:00
altogether likely option. An altogether likely option.
25:06
Another marriage contract from 13 BC.
25:10
The the footnote #4 down here says Ipid, page 11.
25:16
Ibid. You know, but this is what he
25:19
says. Another marriage contract 13 BC
25:21
Ptolemaeus shall not insult her nor bring in another wife.
25:28
Come on bro. Come on bro.
25:31
We have actual marriage licenses from the society.
25:36
He says that didn't practice polygamy.
25:39
Putting in their marriage licenses sometimes Don't do
25:43
polygamy honey, if you're going to marry me, you explicitly
25:47
cannot do polygamy. There's no reason to say that if
25:50
that is the cultural default. So all that all that to say,
25:56
bro, you're a liar and how you deal with the scholar.
26:02
OK, you're a liar and how you deal with the scholars.
26:05
And so I really don't desire to give you anything more specific
26:12
or personal than that. And if, and I don't really care
26:17
how that lands on, I really don't OK, if you feel insulted
26:21
by that, feel insulted by that, I, I, I don't care.
26:26
I don't care. All right, because I did a lot
26:28
of work. All right, I've, I've got this
26:30
whole document here. Let me, let me show you got this
26:33
whole document here, right? I had your questions, right?
26:40
I considered it did a bunch of other stuff, right.
26:43
I was actually beginning to do this, right.
26:45
I, I got here after I was assessing your argument and then
26:49
decided, you know what? I should finally actually look
26:52
into the scholars he quotes and understand why he quoted those
26:55
scholars once I did that. If you're going to be that
26:59
dishonest, then you know you can deal with the stuff I've already
27:03
recorded. I'm not recording anything new
27:05
for you. And to anyone else that's
27:08
listening to this episode, let this be a lesson, OK?
27:12
Yeah. I'm not some big channel, right?
27:15
But that's almost why I'm going to enforce this a bit more
27:18
because it's just me. It's just me.
27:20
If I'm not writing an episode in Matthew, it's because I'm doing
27:23
something else, right? So I want the stuff that I'm
27:26
doing to actually be worth my time.
27:28
So if you're going to ask me dishonest questions like this,
27:32
that's tough. That's tough.
27:35
All right? Not this one.
27:37
Not this one. I choose me and I choose to let
27:41
my time be efficient. Let that be another lesson for
27:45
the true Christians that listen to this show and how to deal
27:49
with people like this. All right, if people are going
27:51
to quote scholars, take the time to Fact Check the scholars and
27:55
see if the scholars that these people quote when they're trying
27:58
to prove heresies to you. See if the scholars that they're
28:02
quoting even agree with their position.
28:06
Because if they're going to rest on the authority of men, if
28:10
they're going to rest on the authority of a scholar to back
28:14
up their false theology, then the least they could do.
28:18
Unless they're purposely trying to quote a hostile witness to
28:22
their position, which is a rhetorically powerful thing to
28:25
do. If they're not trying to do
28:26
that, then the least they could do is pick a scholar that
28:30
actually agrees with their position instead of picking a
28:33
scholar that would actually undermine their position.
28:37
All right, so shorter episode this time, which is nice for me.
28:42
Stay tuned. I've got a couple of calls lined
28:46
up this weekend. Hopefully as long as the
28:49
recording software doesn't glitch, I should be able to do
28:51
it. Having a conversation with
28:53
somebody from LA and somebody else from Asia should be fun.
28:56
Also will be appearing on the Let Nothing Move You podcast
28:59
with Christian Ashley to discuss judges the The Book of Judges.
29:04
Chapters 10 through 12 should be fun.
29:06
Check his stuff out, all right? Not just the episodes I'm in.
29:09
He is an amazing exegete of the scriptures in his own right.
29:13
Check him out, all right? You want a trustworthy scholar?
29:16
Christian Ashley's your guy. He's not going to quote scholars
29:19
in such a way as to lie to you, OK?
29:22
Don't be afraid to call a liar a liar, all right?
29:26
Because liars need to repent and believe on Jesus too.
29:31
All right, untrue. Godfather, Son and Spirit, Holy
29:38
Father, righteous Son and Spirit gives life.
29:44
Help us know. Help us know as Christians how
29:46
to engage in the spiritual warfare, when to be bold, when
29:48
to be soft, when to stand 10 toes down and when to walk away.
29:54
Honestly, man, thank you God for just what this what you're doing
30:02
in it through the ministry of this YouTube channel and for all
30:08
of us that are listening. Until next time, Saints of God
30:13
born in Saints, go in peace.