April 17, 2006

Biblical Inerrancy

Update (4/17/2006)
There seem to have been some errors in my post on inerrancy. (How ironic!) I would like to take some steps to correct these.

First: the Council of Nicaea did NOT proclaim that canon of Scripture. This is a widely circulated myth (google it, and see esp. this article). In fact, the canon of Scripture we have was never proclaimed by any ecumenical council, and several books continue to be disputed (see the Catholic Encyclopedia article on "Canon of the New Testament". I'm still working on what this means theologically.

Second: as you can see from the comments, there is some dispute about what is meant by inerrancy as opposed to infallibility. Based on a quick survey, it seems that many dictionaries define the two terms interchangeably, but those that distinguish between them give something infallibility if it is impossible that it should go wrong, and inerrancy if it does not actually go wrong. However, in popular theological discourse (including at least some writings of professional theologians - at any rate, according to Theopedia F.F. Bruce, et al., in their book The Origin of the Bible argue that the Bible could conceivably be infallible without being free of error, implying that inerrancy is in fact the stronger term) the terms are often used in ways similar to my definitions below. This does indeed confuse the issue immensely. Of course, for purposes of this post you'll have to just take these terms the way I've defined them. In the future, I'll be sure not to use them without explicitly deifining them, and work harder to make sure that I'm using them in the most precise and least misleading way possible.

Original Post (4/4/2006)
World of Sven's Theology and Biblical Studies blog is responding (with general agreement) to a six part series at Chrisendom arguing against the inerrancy of Scripture (both writers are believers, and Chris at least self-identifies as an Evangelical). Since I'm coming into this discussion late (after it seems to be over, in fact) I'm going to go through each stage of the argument in turn.

First, let me begin by saying that my view of Scripture is something that I've been thinking long and hard about recently, and I am seriously struggling with the question of why exactly we should believe in it, and what else we should believe as a result. To be more clear, it is quite apparent to me, from experience, that there is something unique, miraculous, supernatural about the text of the Bible, but I am reevaluating exactly how we should understand this. I think the best argument that I have heard for belief in the divine inspiration of Scripture is something along the lines of that given in Richard Swinburne's book, Revelation. I discussed a modified version, which corrected for what I see as ecclesiological errors in Swinburne, some time ago here. The thing that has led me to a serious reevaluation of my views is the fact that this argument necessarily also establishes the authoritative (infallibe?) character of at least some elements of Christian 'tradition.' Certainly it gives at least 'quasi-scriptural status' to the proclamations of the First Council of Nicaea (325 - this is where we have the Canon of Scripture first proclaimed; the Nicene Creed as we have it today was actually proclaimed at a later council, but an early form of it, with less detail on the Church and the Holy Spirit, was proclaimed here), and I'm not at all certain how much else tradition comes along with it. The further forward in history we go, it becomes more and more difficult to identify the proclamation of the true Church, and I'm not even sure what the status of that proclamation is.

Meanwhile, back on inerrancy. Chris seems to understand inerrancy in a fairly weak form, as simply saying that the Bible is always right about everything (see part 1). I would call this something like 'total infallibility,' and oppose it to (1) qualified infallibility, or (2) inerrancy. I understand qualified infallibility to mean that the Bible is never wrong about certain things (e.g. theology, salvation, ethics, etc.) but may be wrong about other things (e.g. history, science, etc.). I understand inerrancy to mean that the Bible (whether we mean the autographs, the Masoretic Text + Textus Receptus, the Septuagint + Textus Receptus, or something else) is exactly letter-perfect what God wanted to say (what, precisely, that means as far as the content and style is questionable, but certainly, from the perspective of the Christian doctrines on the character of God, it will imply total infallibility).

A further distinction, drawn from Swinburne, is needed: if God chooses to state things in terms of false cultural assumptions, he does not err, provided that the false assumptions are part of the form and not part of the content. For instance, when English speakers say "the sun came up," we do not state what is false, despite the fact that the sun remained stationary while the earth rotated. The 'flat earth' implications of certain Scriptural passages can be, in my opinion, dismissed in this way, as can the implications that one thinks with his large intestine or feels with his spleen.

Now, as long as this proviso is taken into account, I'm committed to either inerrancy or total infallibility (I presently accept the former, but wouldn't be terribly upset if some argument persuaded me to switch to the latter), so let me see if I can respond to the objections, at least in some limited form.

First, Chris, part 1: here Chris argues that inerrancy has not always been believed by Christians. He cites Origen and Luther, which isn't going to get him anywhere with me. Both say a lot of heretical things, in my opinion. Calvin certainly believed in inerrancy, or at least total infallibility. (Note: please do not assume from the fact that I think Calvin is a much better theologian than Luther that I am a Calvinist. I am not.) Let's look briefly at what some early Christians say.

First, there is the Apostle Paul. When he refers to 'Scripture' we can assume that he means at least the Hebrew Bible (in the original Hebrew, or in the Septuagint? It isn't clear). There is reason to suppose that he also views Luke as 'Scripture,' from 1 Timothy 5:18 where he begins "For the Scripture says," and proceeds to quote first Deuteronomy 25:4 and then Luke 10:7. I suppose it is possible that Paul and Luke are quoting a common source, but if so, that source is neither the Hebrew Bible nor the Septuagint. Since Paul accepted Luke as Scripture it is likely he accepted some other early Christian writings, but we have no way of knowing which ones. Paul then gives us 2 Timothy 3:16. This verse, however, does not state inerrancy. Rather, it says that Scripture is 'God-breathed' (Gr. theopneustos) and useful for various purposes. What exactly 'God-breathed' means is a difficult question, as the compound is an apparent coinage, and the verb pneo, from which it is compounded, simply means 'breathe' and has no deep spiritual connotations in ordinary Greek. So, all we can really say about Paul is that he believes Scripture and the Holy Spirit (pneuma is indeed derived from pneo) to be intimately related, and he believes Scripture to be sufficient for our spiritual needs.

Second there are the early Patristics. (Note: I'm working from the book A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, ed. David Bercott) Clement of Rome refers to some Scriptures being "true utterances of the Holy Spirit." (1.17) Justin Martyr says that the Holy Spirit "descend[ed] from heaven and use[d] these righteous mean as an instrument like a harp or lyre" to reveal the truth of God to us (1.276). This sounds an aweful lot like inerrancy (as opposed to either qualified or total infallibility) to me: the writers of Scripture are tools (presenting themselves willingly) used by God to present his Word. God uses, rather than ignores, their individual characteristics, but nevertheless he brings it about that his Word is written. Again, Athenagoras also uses the image of a musical instrument (2.132-133). The first clear statement of something like 'qualified infallibility' I have in my book is from the Muratorian Fragment (c. 200 AD) which says that although in the various gospels "different matters are taught us," the differences are not important because "all things are related under one imperial Spirit." (5.603) Hippolytus, a western writer of the late 2nd/early 3rd centuries, again uses the musical instrument metaphor (5.204). The Fathers have a great deal to say about Scripture, but what the above shows is that the sort of account of inspiration that leads to inerrancy is NOT new (although the explicit statement of something like inerrancy probably occurs for the first time fairly late). The early Christians (as early as the second century!) believed that the Scriptures were 'God-breathed,' and that this meant that the human writers were instruments with which God played the symphony that is Scripture. Every writer's individual character is used to good effect, but God is nonetheless the musician, the author, and the authority behind the end result.

In part 2, Chris claims that the Bible itself does not directly assert it's own inerrancy. I concede this point (see the above discussion of Paul). However, he never presents an argument for his claim that "it can be conclusively proved that scripture is not inerrant, and the bible's own witness to this is decisive!" He makes this claim again in part 6, but again fails to support it. I would be very interesting to hear this argument in more detail.

In part 3 of Chris's series, he points to a collection of alleged contradictions in Scripture. This is a topic exegetes have dealth with ad nauseam, so I'm not going to try here. Suffice it to say that nearly all of the issues brought up have, in my opinion, acceptable solutions, but the genealogical discrepancies are genuinely troubling to me. If one has strong enough reason to believe in inerrancy then the difficulties can be overcome. However, the solutions are sometimes convoluted enough as to require very strong reasons for inerrancy, so the objection is not something to be ignored.

In part 4, Chris argues that not all of the alleged errors/contradictions can be attributed to scribal mistakes. I concede. However, as I have said, I think that in general other solutions exist.

It seems to have been at this point that Sven jumped in. In Sven's post, two additional objections to inerrancy are brought up:

  1. "Most views of inerrancy and inspiration are a kind of scriptural Apolinarianism." What he means to say is that people often lose sight of the human element in the Scriptures, and the human element of the Scriptures is just as important to a Christian understanding of Scripture as the human element of Christ is to our Christology. I think that this is a legitimate concern, but applies only to sloppy formulations and sloppy thinking about the subject. Most Evangelicals I know affirm that God used the individuating characteristics of the human authors to bring it about that His Word would be written. This is not a doctrinal problem, but more of a 'devotional' problem; that is, it has to do not with the abstract formulations but with the thinking habits certain Christains get into.

  2. "Views of inerrancy do not arise in the biblical texts or the biblical period themselves, they arise from modernist dualism." This is similar to the claim from Chris's part 1 (see above). I think Sven's statements are helpful and bring up important points, but I have to take exception to his way of framing the issue. He begins with this: "By 'modernist dualism' I mean the Enlightenment worldview in which God (if he existed at all) was 'up there' in some transcendent sense whilst human beings remained 'down below', quite separate from the divine dwelling." This view has nothing to do with the Enlightenment. It comes from ancient (pre-Christian) Greek philosophy, and came to the fore in Christian theological disputes in the Greek East in the 14th century, long before the enlightenment. Thomas Aquinas also is 'guilty,' if it is in fact guilt, of this kind of thinking. However, what Sven says next, is that certain forms of inerrancy have been developed in order to 'divinize' Scripture in order to bring the divine to earth. From a Christian perspective this is seen to be ludicrous as soon as it is clearly stated. God came to earth in the form of Jesus Christ in whom God is revealed to all, and Scripture is not a replacement for Christ (although depending on our reading of John 1 it may be identical with Christ in some very confusing sense). I do think Sven is right to say that the real revelation of God is Jesus Christ himself, but this view needn't undermine inerrancy.

In part 5, Chris argues that inerrancy promotes a generally low view of Scripture, because we view all revelation as propositional and cease to have a living encounter. I do not think this criticism is valid. The Protestant/Evangelical emphasis on propositional infallibility has quite likely had this effect, but that does not make the doctrine itself flawed. It may well be true that the Bible is propositionally infallible but nevertheless "living and active." The important - even critical - truth that this criticism does point to is that the Bible is not only a repository of propositional truth but rather a living encounter with God.

Finally, in part 6, the podcast, Chris sets forth the doctrine of Scripture that he accepts, which is the proclamation of the Second Vatican Council: "The books of Scripture, firmly, faithfully and without error, teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the sacred Scriptures." I think Chris understands this passage as a form of what I have called qualified infallibility. He understands the word 'salvation' very broadly to mean not merely a path to heaven, but God's total rescue of mankind from corruption (that is, to include both salvation and sanctification). He also points out that Scripture is (as discussed above) more than merely a repository of propositional truth. He says, "these texts, then, need to be treated as an invitation to trusting belief in that to which they point." He also asserts that the inspiration of Scripture is not simply a statement about how the texts came about, but also has to do with what happens when individuals and communities of believers read the text and God speaks through it. Chris says that a high view of Scripture will mean that we trust that God speaks to us through the text, but it doesn't necessarily mean that we can analyze the Bible scientifically or philosophically by taking it apart piece by piece with our intellect and come to absolute truth in this way. He speaks repeatedly of "the God-givenness of a generally accurate text."

In general, these arguments have not had the effect of shaking my belief in inerrancy. However, I think it is important that we engage some of the issue brought up here. In particular, we must not limit our understanding of Scripture to its propositional value. It is a tool by which God reveals himself to individuals. It is not a dead thing, but the Living Word of God. However, I believe that one of the primary reasons God chose to reveal his Word in written form was to endow the revelation with a degree of obejectivity (see my previous post), and this will fail if it is not reliable as a source of propositional truth (at least as far as I can see). If Chris were right in his characterization of Scripture, it would not be clear to me why it was put in written form at all. Furthermore, I think that Sven and Chris both limit God too much in assuming that inerrancy necessarily eliminates the human element. God is quite capable of working with the human element to bring his Word into the world without error. There is a fine line to be drawn. Scripture is both human and divine in its content, and it is both a source of objective propositional truth and an invitation to and means of experience of the Living God.

Well, I think this post is more than long enough, but it hasn't begun to address the issue. I suppose that means that more posts on this subject will have to follow. I am not presently prepared to present my view as such (it is in flux to too large a degree), but I may soon be ready to publish some speculations. Stay tuned.

Posted by Kenny at April 17, 2006 8:56 AM
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blog.kennypearce.net/admin/mt-tb.cgi/194
Why Believe the Bible?Part 1: Plan of Attack
Excerpt: There has been a lot floating around about the doctrine of inerrancy recently. I posted on this subject not long ago, responding to a post at World of Sven and a lengthy series at Chrisendom. Since then, there has been a second World of Sven post, and ...
Weblog: blog.kennypearce.net
Tracked: May 6, 2006 3:48 PM


A good summary. I think there are a few problems in the presentation of my argument. For example:
1) You say that which I've addressed is not inerrancy. But the definition I used is a definition of inerrancy. Grudem uses a simpler form of a similar definition for inerrancy. I thought about distinguishing between infallible, inerrant etc., but I thought I'd simply stick to the one term in the end - just to save on another 'qualification post'
2)"However, he never presents an argument for his claim that "it can be conclusively proved that scripture is not inerrant, and the bible's own witness to this is decisive!""

This was the argument of the next part - a demonstration that the bible contains clear 'errors' and thus, inductively read, the bible asserts its own errancy.

"nearly all of the issues brought up have, in my opinion, acceptable solutions"

That's where I would differ.

3) Pt 4, my argument is a little more subtle, but the aspect you cite is certainly part of it.

All in all, some great thoughts here, and thanks for engaging with my own posts so openly. And, yes, I am most definetley an evangelical - obviously not a coservative, more 'open'.

All the best,

Posted by: Chris Tilling at April 4, 2006 11:08 AM

Hi Kenny,

Thanks for the comments on my posts. You're right that the Enlightenment worldview I descirbed actually has its roots in pre-Christian Greek thought, but the modern views of inerrancy tended to be formed in this period following the Reformation, especially within Protestantism, which is where most of the debates over inerrancy occur.

I think you've highlighted my problem with the divinisation of scripture. It may seem ridiculous from a Christian point of view in the light of the incarnation, but that's precisely my grumble. God has revealed himself to creation in the person of Jesus Christ, and the Bible is witness to this - but the Bible itself is not another kind of incarnation, it is a testimony to incarnation, and this is where the confusion arises with many kinds of inerrancy, as the Bible tends to get made into another form of incarnation, and as a result it is divinised when it should not be.

Posted by: Steven Harris at April 4, 2006 11:47 AM

Chris, concerning your first point, I don't mean to say that you are incorrect to call what you are talking about inerrancy, but merely to say that I wouldn't call it that. I do think the phrase total infallibility is a more accurate description of what you are talking about but, of course, this is merely terminology and doesn't particularly matter.

I think that if what you mean about the Biblical doctrine of Scripture being contrary to inerrancy is the argument from errors or contradictions found within the Bible, then it is incorrect to say that "the Bible asserts its own errancy." Rather, if your claim is true, then the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy is self-contradictory; i.e. for some proposition P, inerrancy entails P & ~P. The Bible does not assert anything about itself, per se (as you have said). It does assert some things about "Scripture" and "the Word of God," but we must look outside the Bible at history, tradition, the proclamation of the Church, etc. in order to determine to what these terms refer. Obviously no book of the Bible was written after canonization, so no author could possibly have had the complete canon as we know it in mind when he wrote.

If the doctrine of inerrancy does in fact entail a contradiction, we should certainly reject it. If this is what you mean, you might want to say that a principled reading of Scripture will lead us to reject inerrancy, but this is different than claiming that the Scripture asserts its own errancy. It does not.

Posted by: Kenny at April 4, 2006 11:56 AM

Steven: I agree. One of the formulations I've been toying with recently is something along the lines of "the entirety of God's revelation to mankind is contained in the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. The text of Scripture is all and only a perfect, complete, and infallible verbal expression of this same revelation." In fact, I would go so far as to say that the entirety of the revelation is contained implicitly in Christ's single word from the cross: tetelestai (John 19:30). It points to this moment, the death of Christ on the cross, as the telos of all things - of sin, of love, of history, of revelation, of the divine plan, etc. This revelation is expressed more fully and more clearly in the complete life and teaching of Christ, but nothing is added to it that is not already there. Again, the revelatory content of the life and teachings of Christ is expressed more fully and more clearly when we look at the whole of Scripture, but nothing is added and nothing is taken away.

Does this kind of formulation answer your objections, or do you still find it problematic?

Posted by: Kenny at April 4, 2006 12:04 PM

Oh, by the way, I hope that when I said the idea was ludicrous you didn't think I was claiming that no one actually believes it. I inteded to be pointing out just how valid your objection was. A lot of Christians DO believe something like that, but once you lay it out in those terms, it is clear that the idea is inimical to the whole of Christian theology.

Posted by: Kenny at April 4, 2006 12:06 PM

You say (maybe) "The text of Scripture is all and only a perfect, complete, and infallible verbal expression of this same revelation" leaving open the possibility of other things being a perfect, complete, and infallible expression of the same revelation. Is this your intent, or would you consider something along the lines of "ONLY Scripture is all and only a perfect, complete, and infallible expression of this same revelation"? Also, while you say that you support inerrancy, this isn't included in your formulation- is there a reason why you chose to say infallible as opposed to inerrant here?

Posted by: Anonymous at April 5, 2006 6:23 AM

On the contemplated (but not yet accepted) view, I would say "ONLY the text of Scripture is all and only a perfect, complete, and infallible VERBAL expression of this same revelation" - I've already said there are other perfect and complete expressions, but they are not essentially verbal.

I don't think the word 'inerrant' is relevant to the context here, although I do indeed believe in it. That's because the word 'inerrant,' as I have defined it, relates the end result to God's intention or goal. That relationship isn't what's being discussed in this statement. Instead we are discussing the relationship of the Scripture to the revelation. What inerrant means is that, in addition to infallibly expressing the revelation, the Scripture expresses it in precisely the manner God wanted, so that it is not only without human error in its content, but also in its mode of expression. But what constitutes an error in the mode of expression? I'm not sure. I guess if something was strictly true but expressed in an unnecessarily unclear or misleading way, that would be an error, but then we will have to say there are some cases where lack of clarity is in fact necessary (which I guess is an ok thing to say).

Posted by: Kenny at April 5, 2006 9:51 AM

On the matter of Sven's historical revisionism, I think it should be noted that you don't need to go anywhere near as late as Aquinas for full-blown inerrantism. Augustine states exactly the view evangelicals are defending as inerrantism in utterly clear terminology. (Then there's that longest chapter in the Bible that we call Psalm 119. I think that was a little before Aquinas, and I think its implications are pretty clearly inerrantist.)

As for this confusion between thinking something is exactly right and thinking it is somehow worthy of worship as an incarnation of God, I'm just not sure what to say. I've seen people assert over and over that those are somehow the same thing, but that's just silly. If I write out an equation, e.g. 2+2=4, then I've gotten it exactly right, but that doesn't mean God is incarnated in it. So why should a much more complex set of documents be any different just because there are far more true statements in it (with no false ones)?

I'm not all that clear on what you think the difference between infallibility and inerrancy is supposed to be, but it seems to me that you're badly misusing those terms. Infallibility is stronger than inerrancy. Inerrancy means something happens to be without errors without speculating beyond that about whether it could have had errors. It simply doesn't. Infallibility is a claim about the possibility of errors. Something is infallible if it couldn't be wrong. Since we're talking about the word of God here, it makes sense to call it infallible in the sense that it couldn't be wrong given that it's God's word. It's a sort of conditional necessity. But inerrancy isn't something stronger than that. It's weaker. It implies only that there are no errors, not that there couldn't be any.

Posted by: Jeremy Pierce at April 9, 2006 11:13 PM

Jeremy, thanks for these comments. My usage of infallibility versus inerrancy is based on discussions that were had in the church I grew up in over the details of a doctrinal formulation. I recall the people of this church, including those with theological training, and also the American Baptist area minister (rough equivalent of a bishop, I suppose) all using inerrancy to mean something stronger, rather than weaker, than infallibility. The relevant wikipedia articles don't provide a contrast between the two terms. I've done a little more research on the usage of the terms:

The article "Bible, authority of" in Baker's Dictionary of Evangelical Theology quotes the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy and applies inerrancy to the text, but infallibility to God, as though the term inerrancy applied to a teaching or statement, but infallibility applied to the teacher or speaker.

The article at http://mb-soft.com/believe/text/inerranc.htm quotes Steven T. Davis as defining infallibility (as related to Scripture) as "the Bible makes no false or misleading statements about matters of faith and practice," then proceeds to define inerrancy as "Inerrancy is the view that when all the facts become known, they will demonstrate that the Bible in its original autographs and correctly interpreted is entirely true and never false in all it affirms, whether that relates to doctrine or ethics or to the social, physical, or life science," so this article uses 'infallibility' to mean what I have called 'qualified infallibility' and uses 'inerrancy' to mean what I have called 'total infallibility.'

The Theopedia article on "Inerrancy of the Bible" contains a short section which entitled "Inerrancy and infallibility," which reads in its entirety:

Some scholars have used these terms interchangeably. However, infallibility is a broader term. Those who hold to inerrancy will by default hold to infallibility. The other side of this is not necessarily true. Some scholars argue that the Bible can be infallible without having to be free of error (The Origin of the Bible, p. 39). A brief definition of infallibility is that the Bible is thus reliable and trustworthy to those who turn to it in search of God's truth. Infallibility concerns itself with one's personal knowledge of God and assurance of salvation, while inerrancy concerns itself more specifically with the accurate transmission of the details of revelation (ibid.).

This article uses the same definition for inerrancy previously cited. (Yes, this is a wiki, no I've never edited it.)

While none of these sources uses the terms exactly as I have defined them, I think the range of usage represented here is such that my definitions are within reason as far as the common use of these terms in theological discourse.

Posted by: Kenny at April 10, 2006 9:46 AM

Well, they're all clearly misleading the terms. Fallibility is about the possibility of error. Whoever started this egregious practice should be severely reprimanded, because it causes all sorts of philosophical confusion. In foreknowledge discussions in philosophy, philosophers get this right. Dictionaries I've looked at get this right (dictionary.com and merriam-webster.com are the two most accessible online dictionaries, and they take them the way I've been saying is correct). I'm going to continue to get this right in my discussions, but it's going to be annoying that I'll have to explain why the standard usage of these terms in these discussions is just wrong.

Posted by: Jeremy Pierce at April 14, 2006 6:52 PM

This is a much more fun way to tell people to google something.


Posted by: pferree at April 22, 2006 12:00 AM

Came into this kinda late, but i'm curious about something you said.
You said:
"I am seriously struggling with the question of why exactly we should believe in it, and what else we should believe as a result. To be more clear, it is quite apparent to me, from experience, that there is something unique, miraculous, supernatural about the text of the Bible, but I am reevaluating exactly how we should understand this."

Now that you've had some time to consider this, I'm interested to know if you've had any further insights.

Posted by: kevin at January 1, 2007 8:26 PM

Kevin, I started a series on why we should believe in the Bible last May, and have unfortunately left it hanging due to general busy-ness for the last six months or so. I do intend ultimately to finish it, but the outline on the page I just linked to shows the general direction of argument that I think will establish that it is reasonable to believe what the Bible tells us. I do think, however, that such an argument will depend on the Church being an authoritative and reliable (though perhaps not infallible, even if we restrict ourselves to statements of the whole Church about the content of the revelation) divinely authorized proclaimer of God's revelation to mankind. I am pretty confident that this type of argument can get us at least to the point of saying "we should always believe whatever the Bible teaches," though of course there are problems about the fact that our texts may be imperfect and our interpretations are quite fallible. In short, I haven't worked the details out just yet, but I still hold quite strongly to a basically Evangelical view of Scripture. The big question is just what the proclamation of the Church (that is, the true spiritual Church taken as a whole) about the Bible really is. Stay tuned for the rest of the "Why Believe the Bible" series - depending on what else I have to do, I could perceivably get to writing the next post as soon as Saturday (I left some of my books in Philadelphia, so I can't really do it before then). Then again, I could get caught up with the new semester starting and everything and not get to it for months. At any rate, I suspect that when I do get it written out in detail like that I will understand it much better myself.

Posted by: Kenny at January 1, 2007 8:50 PM

Post a comment

Return to blog.kennypearce.net