/ Topic: Tondor and NT Canon / 1Nov99 / Forum: TheologyOnLine - BibleStudy / NG: alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /
.
>> On 29Oct99 rb36 wrote: I have looked into the formation of NT canon due to the fact that Tondor has
>> been spouting off a bunch of liberal naturalistic garbage in another thread.
.
Tondaar replies: Oy Vey!
.
>> 1st, All of Pauls writings were established in canonical form at the time of Peters statement that
>> Paul's writtings were scripture. (2 Peter 3:15,16)
.
I tend to agree (more or less). The importance of this statement is that it only makes sense if one accepts my contention that 2Peter was the very last NT book to be written (circa mid-second century). Thus all those who wish to fantasize about Simon Peter as the author of 2Peter have to explain how all of Paul's authentic epistles could have reached their canonical format prior to 65CE (the latest date for 2Peter *IF* one asserts Simon Peter as author). This explanation of excessively speedy formatting will also have to take into account the undeniable fact that the canonical process (as regards Paul's letters) continued up to and beyond the turn of the second century. ... In other words, those who wish to claim that Paul's letters reached their canonical form prior to 65CE are fools who know not whereof they speak!
.
>> Goodspeed (liberal scholar)
.
Edgar J. Goodspeed is one of the most respected and well-known bible-scholars of the century. He has written many books relating to the Bible; including a small (and very readable) account on the formation of the Bible as we now have it ('How Came The Bible?'). Among his many accomplishments is the so-called Chicago Bible (aka The Complete Bible: An American Translation) for which he translated both the NT and the Apocrypha. The cyber-prophet owns and enjoys a copy of this rare and remarkable version of the scriptures. Here is just one reason why:
.
"James, a slave of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ" (Jm 1:1).
"Jude, a slave of Jesus Christ, and the brother of James" (Jude 1:1).
"Simon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ" (2Peter 1:1).
.
>> admitted that all of Pauls writings were collected and were in circulation at the beginning of the 2nd
>> century as was cited by Ignatious (ad 117).
.
There were various collections of pauline and post-pauline epistles circulating among the early Greek churches at the beginning of the 2nd century. However, these were in no way identical to the current canonical format, and in no way standardized at all. The canonical process at this stage was one of diversity and *gradual* standardization (which was fully achieved only in the fourth century).
.
>> The Gospels: In Diatessaron (170 ad) Tiatian harmonized the 4. Thus giving a good indication that all 4
>> were accepted well before his research. (BTW he only harmonized Matthew, Mark, Luke and John,
>> dispelling the canocity of Thomas and Barnabas)
.
'Barnabas' is an epistle; not a gospel. And the so-called 'Gospel of Thomas' is a collection of Jesus-sayings; not a gospel. In the same way, the Diatessaron was never accepted as canonical by the majority of churches (for obvious reasons).
.
>> Acts, 1Peter and 1John were recognized as scripture before 200 ad.
>> Ireneaus, Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian cite them.
.
They also cite many other canonical, deutero-canonical, and non-canonical books. Thus citing any given book, in and of itself, does not demonstrate a recognition of scriptural status (unless this recognition explicitly or implicitly accompanies the citation).
.
>> The 7 remaining books were thought of as canon prior to the 4th century, as cited by
>> Athaniansias, Augustine, and Jerome.
.
Except that some books remained "disputed" up to and after the council of Nicaea (325CE);
including Revelation and 2Peter.
.
>> Side note. Interesting that the majority of Books written to the jewish believers (note also the division
>> between jews and gentile believers as far as 400 ad, and calvinists say that there is not a division, yea
>> right!) were the last to be accepted, this is due to their non-grace positions.
.
Verily, thou art full of it! In fact, there is not even a single NT book that was written exclusively to Jewish believers. If you disagree with this observation, you are certainly free to *try* and convince me otherwise ... Good Luck with that! ... You'll need it!
.
>> Yep, the Church Fathers were dispensationalists, just didn't see it far enough!
.
[Timeout while Tondaar runs to the toilet and violently retches!]
.
> On 29Oct99 Fisherman wrote: Tondaar, Wherest art thou ... when thou needest to defendest thyself?
.
Dear Fisherman, sorry about the delay. I've been busy in the Real World; and also busy getting myself killed a lot in the nightmarish world of Blackmarsh (ie. in the computer game called HexenII). It's funny though, how fending off giant spiders and blood-thirsty golems is so much like talking with fundies!
.
> Thy reputation hangest in the balance!
.
Oh, I hardly think that my reputation is so fragile that the feeble arguments of someone like rb36 can damage it in any way ... LOL
.
> Besides that ... we misseth thee
.
Fear not, good sir! I have not abandoned my favorite forum. I just haven't been keeping my scholarly nose pressed to the scholarly grindstone as perhaps I should ... :)
.
> On 2Nov99 rb36 wrote: According to my source material 2 Peter was written about ad 64 or 67,
> PRIOR to the destruction of the temple.
.
Tondaar say: Dear rb36, does your marvelous (unnamed) source material explain how Paul's letters (the ink on some of which is barely dry) could have been collected, *and* have attained their canonical format, *and* have achieved scriptural status, all in the few short years prior to the loss of Jerusalem? ... No? Hardly surprising.
.
And does your marvelous source material explain how it is that a predominantly Jewish reform movement (not yet split from Judaism) could be so concerned about second century gnostic Christians among the assembly? No? Again, hardly surprising; since such bothersome questions are best left unspoken by those who have not the first clue about what 2Peter is talking about!
.
> The persecutions that he addresses in first Peter
.
The author of 1Peter is not the same person as the author of 2Peter. This is plainly apparent to the vast majority of sensible and honest scribes and scholars. Of course, irrational fools and dishonest fundies may take it 'on faith' (more like 'on stupidity') that the two books were written by the same dead and illiterate fisherman. The evidence within the NT, however, suggests otherwise, and only the intellectually lazy can habitually and persistently ignore the facts as presented by the sacred texts.
.
> could be associated with persecutions of other devout Jews such as Paul before his conversion.
.
This interpretation of the text is utter nonsense for which there is no support whatsoever in the epistles called 1&2Peter. Thus we see that the interpretations of the conservative scholars are far more concerned to make the text fit their own fantasies of date and authorship, than they are in allowing the text to speak for itself.
.
> I will continue to research the other books that you seem to detest!
.
A bigger waste of time would be hard to imagine seeing as how your source material is clearly not even worth the paper its printed on!
/ Re: Tondor and NT Canon / 4Nov99 / Forum: TheologyOnLine - BibleStudy / NG: alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /
.
> On 3Nov99 Fisherman wrote: Tondaar, I see that you are your "usual polite self," and call all that disagree
> with you: "irrational fools" or "dishonest fundies," whatever they are.
.
Tondaar say: Dear Fisherman, dishonest fundies are *all* those who claim much devotion and respect for the scriptures, and yet refuse to approach the Word of God with an honest and reasonable attitude (no doubt thinking that such a methodology is offensive and revolting in every conceivable way).
.
> Do you think that it is something new, to say that Peter was not the author of 2Peter?
.
Certainly not! There were doubts about 2Peter right from the beginning (ie. from the second century) -> a sure sign that it did not come from the hand of Simon Peter.
.
> Henry Halley (who lived at the turn of the century) said: "The Epistle (2Peter) specifically claims to be the
> work of Simon Peter (1:1). The writer represents himself as having been present at the Transfiguration of
> Christ (1:16-18); and of having been warned by Christ of his impending death (1:14). This means that the
> Epistle is a genuine writing of Peter, or that it was the work of some one who professed himself to be Peter.
.
I'm not all that thrilled with Halley's logic. Peter2's references to the Transfiguration, and to Peter's impending death, clearly demonstrate that the author was well aware of the gospel traditions, and used them to support his position of speaking as Peter. None of this means "that the Epistle is a genuine writing of Peter", as HH suggests. That extremely remote possibility can only be established as factual *IF* the evidence of the epistle as a whole supports it. But, in fact, the bulk of the evidence in 2Peter *strongly* indicates that it is a mid-2C composition (indeed the last NT book to be written), and *that* fact disallows the possibility that Simon Peter wrote it (ie. SP apparently died sometime during the Jewish Wars).
.
> Though it was slow in being received into the New Teatament Canon,
.
And what is your explanation for this phenomena, Fisherman? Is it not clear to you that IF 2Peter was in fact written by Simon Peter before 65CE there could be no possibility of, or opportunity for, this "slowness" in accepting it?!
.
> it was recognized by the early Church as a genuine writing of Peter,
.
It was not universally accepted as genuine until well after the second century; and even thereafter there were plenty of individuals who expressed reservations (as Jerome and Eusebius attest).
.
> and has, through the centuries been revered as a part of Holy Scripture.
.
It is a part of scripture because it is a valuable and valid expression of the Faith; not because "someone important" wrote it.
.
> Some modern critics regard it as a pseudonymous work of the late second century
> (were you around then Tondaar?),
.
I go back to the early decades of the Faith every time I open the NT.
.
> written by some unkown person who assumed Peter's name,
.
The point is not that Peter2 assumed the name and identity of Simon Peter, but rather that the authority of the prophetic tradition is traced back to Peter (and the Lord's public ministry). Please read Mark's account of the Transfiguration, and see how Peter2 understands its meaning and significance.
.
> a hundred years after Peter's death (Sounds like you have been studying Halley ).
.
Never heard of him before today.
.
> To the average mind (that's one just a little above mine) this would be just plain common forgery,
> an offence against civil and moral law and ordinary decency (Halley was my kind of man).
.
Such an attitude clearly demonstrates a serious lack of understanding and sympathy for the early Greek churches
and the problems that they faced.
.
> The critics, however, insist over and over that there is nothing at all unethical in thus counterfeiting
> another's name."
.
That's quite right. It is *not* a question of "counterfeiting". That is a modern pre-judgment that has no echo in ancient times. Fundies foolishly suppose that everyone everywhere in the past must have thought about things in exactly the same way that they do! Rest assured that is NOT the case! In fact, the idiotic charge of counterfeiting says more about those who make it than about 2Peter and its author.
.
> Come on Tondaar ... you know that forgery is unethical, ... don't you? -- In His Service
.
This is not a question of forgery either. The second-century Egyptian-Christian prophet Peter2 was simply following an already well-established tradition among the sacred writings (ie. the post-Paul pauline epistles) in speaking in the name of one who had considerable authority and prestige among the early Greek churches. This was not done as a deliberate attempt to deceive (as you foolishly suggest), but rather as a deliberate attempt to meet the heretics on their own ground (ie. they were the ones introducing heretical ideas and doctrines in spurious documents under the names of early Christian heroes (eg. see the so-called 'Secret Gospel of Mark')).
.
- the one who knows the score - Tondaar ;>
.
P.S. Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says, "Oh, that today you would listen as he speaks! Do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion, in the day of testing in the wilderness. There your fathers tested me and tried me, and they saw my works for forty years. Therefore, I became provoked at that generation and said, 'Their hearts are always wandering and they have not known my ways.' As I swore in my anger, 'They will never enter my rest!'" See to it, brothers and sisters, that none of you has an evil, unbelieving heart that forsakes the living God. But exhort one another each day, as long as it is called "Today," that none of you may become hardened by sin's deception. -- Heb.3:7-13 / NET Bible
PETER2 ON THE WRITINGS OF PAUL
/ Re: Tondor and NT Canon / 5Nov99 / Forum: TheologyOnLine - BibleStudy / NG: alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /
.
> On 3Nov99 Fisherman also wrote: Tondaar, What evidence is there to suggest, that, just because Peter
> refers to "the writings of Paul" in 2Peter, that this implies that they (Paul's Letters) had already been
> collected or even ... for that matter ... that they had already all been written?
.
Tondaar say: Dear Fisherman, you are certainly right to point out that 2Peter does not *explicitly* mention an established and authoritative collection of Paul's epistles. What is happening here is that exegetes suppose that all this is *implied* by the author's use of the phrase "the writings of Paul". The question then becomes: Are the scholars right in attributing this implication to these words of Peter2? ...
.
Now conservative evangelical scholars (ie. those fond of a simplistic and literal interpretation of the scriptures) will say: 'No, there is no such reference implied in the phrase'. They reach this conclusion by focusing attention entirely on those four words, and by so isolating the phrase from the surrounding context, their logic seems sound and
irrefutable. Indeed, this is the way fundy scholars treat *all* the evidence presented by the text. They isolate any particular word or phrase from everything else, and then declare that this word or phrase is utterly meaningless (as evidence of something else). Lovely method.
.
However, scholars who understand the complexities of hermeneutics know that such a method does great violence to the meaning of the scriptures. Especially when dealing with the prophets (who use words in strange and heavily-laden ways), it is essential to use the surrounding context to illuminate the meaning the author has in mind. 'Slave' is a good example of what I am talking about. In the context of the biblical prophetic tradition, 'slave' is just another way of saying 'prophet'. But translators who are ignorant of the prophetic intention of 'slave' cannot see this meaning, and therefore suppose that 'servant' or 'bondsman' (being similar to the literal meaning of slave) will do just as well (actually better, since they are less offensive etc). Thus we see 'servant' and 'bond-servant' in many popular translations such that the Word of God is corrupted and degraded, and no one notices or even cares. Such are the fruits of the 'literal hermeneutics'.
.
Needless to say, I find such corruption of the text to be incredibly irresponsible, and offensive beyond measure; and this is why I am not shy to insult the blindness and stupidity of the vast majority of scholars and translators. Thus when 2Peter makes mention of the "other scriptures" we rightly assume that (for the author) Paul's writings are regarded *as* scripture. This explicit recognition did not happen in the first century, but only after collections of Paul's epistles (including the post-Paul pauline epistles) had *gradually* developed and *gradually* circulated and *gradually* became well-known to the churches in general (this process took decades, not weeks) such that Peter2's readers would know what he meant by the phrase "the writings of Paul". Today's ignorant fundies, however, stupidly imagine that Paul's letters were immediately collected and at once declared scripture by everyone everywhere, because anything less would be a supreme insult to the Word of God! . . .
.
Sayeth the cyber-prophet: Good Grief!
.
> This reference to Paul's letters could very well refer to only those that Peter had knowledge of.
.
Only if you ignore and reject the rest of the evidence provided by 2Peter (as per the grossly inadequate fundy hermeneutics). 4X: His extensive and intimate knowledge of the gospels. In other words, the gospels of Matthew and John were both written well after the Jewish Wars; and since Peter2 knew them well, it is hardly unreasonable to suppose that he knew *all* the authentic letters of Paul (as well as the other pauline epistles erroneously attributed to him).
.
> I don't think that this reference signifies that Paul's letters were already collected and part of the
> canon at the time.
.
There is no sense in speaking of the canon within the context of the pre-Nicaea churches. That is to project later events and realities back into the past where they surely *don't* belong. This is not a question of canonical forms or status. This is a question of what did the author of 2Peter mean by the phrase "the writings of Paul". A simplistic,
isolationist, and literal interpretation says that this reference does NOT mean "that Paul's letters were already collected". Such an interpretation is wrong because it ignores the most basic facts about 2Peter; eg. that it was written round about mid-2C when Paul's letters *were* gathered together in collections (arranged according to size;
big ones first, small ones last).
.
> I can't recall how late you date 2Peter,
.
Somewhere near the middle of the second century, I think -> Round about c.140-50CE.
.
> but the Epistle of Barnabas, written between 90 and 120 A.D.,
.
That's one hell of a spread there buddy!
.
> quotes from Matthew, John, Acts and 2nd Peter.
.
If Barnabas quotes from Acts (and not the other way around) then I would tend to lean toward 120CE as the probable date for this epistle. ... As to the alleged quote from 2Peter, I would like to see this quote for myself before I make any comment on it. Are you able to provide it for us?
.
> This would surely signify that the Epistle was not written during the 2nd century; or at least, not very far into it.
.
By "the Epistle" I assume you are referring to 2Peter. *IF* Barnabas does indeed quote from 2Peter (and not the other way around) then, yes, it's certainly logical to conclude that 2Peter came earlier in time than Barnabas. But even if that is indeed the case here, we are still left with the problem of assigning a more adequate date (and place of composition) for Barnabas. And that can only be done by a careful study of that epistle, and all the relevant evidence that it offers (4X: a quote from Acts would strongly suggest a date sometime after 115CE (which was approximately when Luke-Acts began to circulate among the churches (ie. it was most likely written from Rome between 110-15CE))).
.
BTW: We have not yet even begun to do more than simply scratch the surface of the meaning and message of the universal epistle called Second Peter. So let us by all means dig deeper still!
.
- the one searching for a shovel - Tondaar ;>
.
P.S. On this topic we have much to say; and it is difficult to explain, since you have become sluggish in hearing. For though you should in fact be teachers by this time, you need someone to teach you the beginning elements of God's utterances. You have gone back to needing milk, not solid food. For everyone who lives on milk is inexperienced in the message of righteousness, because he is an infant. But solid food is for the mature, whose perceptions are trained by practice for discerning both good and evil. Therefore we must progress beyond the elementary instructions about Christ and move on to maturity ... -- Hebrews 5:11-6:1 / NET bible
/ Re: Tondor and NT Canon / 7Nov99 / Forum: TheologyOnLine - BibleStudy / NG: alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /
.
>> On 5Nov99 SteveT wrote: Just a couple of quick comments: The practice of pseudonymous writing - putting
>> your words in a teacher or predecessor's mouth - was very common in the ancient world. Pick up Plato's
>> dialogs, and you'll see nary a word spoken of by "Plato", but everything is attributed to Socrates. A
>> particularly popular form of pseudonymous work was the "last will and testament" type - a dissertion or
>> letter supposed to have been uttered immediately before death.
.
Tondaar say: Dear SteveT, some scholars (eg. Bo Reicke, Anchor Bible #37) believe that Second Peter is properly classified among just this very genre. On this point I tend to agree with Bo. Many of the sacred writings produced in the intertestamental period were of this type; but since these once well-respected works are not admitted to the
canon (ie. they are now classified as apocrypha), fundies know nothing about them (and don't want to know)!
.
>> Given these realities, and the fact that the references to the Transfiguration in 2Peter would have been
>> known to anyone familiar with the Gospels, it seems not at all unlikely that 2Peter is a pseudonymous work.
.
And once you add to this the remaining mountain of evidence suggesting a second century date, then the possibility becomes a virtual certainty.
.
>> The more pressing question is, what difference does it make? Fisherman, if you were convinced (say, by an
>> archaeological find tomorrow) that 2Peter was in fact a pseudonymous work from the mid 2nd century,
.
It ought to be apparent by now that no amount of facts, evidence, and the careful reasoning about the truth of things can possibly convince Fisherman that he is wrong about this! Thus even if the Lord himself came and told him that Simon Peter was not the author of 1&2Peter, Fisherman would still *NOT* believe it ...
.
>> would that make any difference to you? Would you therefore delete it from the canon?
>> Why is this so important to you?
.
> On 5Nov99 Fisherman answers with the usual senseless fundy pseudo-logic (the emptiness of which
> is hidden and covered over with a handful of impressive biblical snippets; none of which have any
> relevance to the matter in hand) -> <SNIPPED WITH EXTREME PREJUDICE!>
.
In other words, the usual fundy reply to the various facts and realities that obtained in the ancient world is to ignore them, ignore them, and then ignore them some more. Thus the essence of Fisherman's reply is the following statement about the author of Second Peter:
.
> <snip> if he was not Simon Peter, then he lied <snip>
.
Thus we see that a clear recognition of the author of 2Peter as a second-century Egyptian-Christian prophet would lead fundies directly to the conclusion that it is utterly worthless! In the same way, the fact that James and Jude were not written by the blood-brothers of the Lord means that they too are utterly worthless. Thus it is not a
question of simply deleting these 'books by liars' from the canon; rather, the fundies would first retch themselves silly in a melodramatic outburst of infantile hissy-fits laced with nausea, and *then* promptly toss away the entire canon (on the principle that one bad apple makes the entire orchard poisonous).
.
Here then is the fruit of the foolish fundy hermeneutics. Frankly, I can't imagine a better way to illustrate the grossly childish and horribly self-serving method of reading the scriptures that these silly ones indulge themselves in. In the same way, nothing better shows the dismal *quality* of the alleged "love" and "respect" that Fisherman, and his fundy pals, have for the Word of God!
.
- one who reveals the implications - Tondaar ;>
<><
/ Re: Tondor and NT Canon / 13Nov99 / Forum: TheologyOnLine - BibleStudy / NG: alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /
.
> On 8Nov99 SteveT wrote: Fisherman: I am a Roman Catholic, not a "Fundie".
.
Tondaar say: Dear SteveT, the cyber-prophet is neither a Cat nor a Fundy; and holds the view that both these groups of *very numerous* pseudo-believers are *equally* apostate!
.
> The canon of scripture was defined infallibly by the church in various ecumenical councils.
.
Infallibility is an attribute of divinity; therefore those who imagine that other things (bible, councils, popes) are also or likewise infallible are guilty of breaking the first command that YWVH gave to the original People of God. Such people are idolaters, and certainly *NOT* true believers!
.
> I believe the Holy Spirit guided the authors (whoever they were) in the writing of these books, and that
> the same Holy Spirit guided the church in selecting these books to be the canon of scripture.
.
I fully agree with this statement, SteveT. It is your understanding of the meaning, significance, and implications of these truths that the Lord finds supremely offensive.
.
> I do not believe the canon was determined by men acting without divine guidance, such that these men
> could have been in error.
.
There is always plenty of room for error wherever human beings are involved. Episcopal muffinheads, however, fancy that their exalted status as "superior persons" grants them immunity from fundamental human realities!
.
> As such, even if they were mistaken in their reasons for accepting 2Peter (and other works) into the
> canon, it doesn't affect their canonicity.
.
If you mean that it doesn't subtract from their authority and eternal-value, then I fully agree!
.
> Now, if you do not accept the infallibility of the church,
.
No true believer could *ever* accept such an absurd and unbiblical doctrine.
.
> then you have to come up with your own criteria for determining the canon.
.
The only sufficient criteria for determining which books are inspired and of value to the People of God is
truth, truth, and more truth!
.
> Apparently, you take "must not be a pseudonymous work" to be one of your criteria. Since even many
> of the Fathers doubted the authenticity of 2Peter, I would think you should delete it from your canon
> under the principle "when in doubt, throw it out."
.
Fisherman is immune to doubt (just as he is immune to truth) because he does not bother his silly head to look beyond the most superficial level of the text.
.
> There is simply no human way to know for certain that it is an authentic letter, and many good
> reasons to suspect it is not.
.
The evidence of the texts alone is so weighty and compelling that it IS certain that Simon-Peter did not write 2Peter (or 1Peter). Those who choose to believe otherwise obviously have no respect whatsoever for truth, historical-realities, or the full depth of meaning within the sacred texts.
.
- one who rightly divides the Word - Tondaar ;>
<><
/ Re: Tondor and NT Canon / 13Nov99 / Forum: TheologyOnLine - BibleStudy / NG: alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /
.
> On 9Nov99 Fisherman wrote: SteveT; I have no 'doubts' whatsoever, concerning the authorship of 2Peter
> ... so therefore I kindly thank you for your advice, but will decline to follow it. It is those such as yourself,
> and Tondaar that are in doubt!
.
Tondaar say: Dear Fisherman, like you, I also have no doubts whatsoever concerning the authorship of 2Peter; ie. I have no doubts that Simon-Peter is NOT the author!
.
> The Roman Catholic Church accepts the Apocryphal Books as canonical, so I assume by "the infallibility of
> the Church" you are referring to the Roman Catholic Church ... right?
.
Actually, I believe SteveT is referring to the *infallible* Roman Catholic Church; which is more aptly known as The Church of the Poisoned Mind & Twisted Heart!
.
> I'm sorry, but I don't accept the claims of the Catholic Church concerning many things.
.
Good fer U!
.
> Such as the authority and infallibility of the Pope, the supremacy of the Catholic Church, the Rosary,
> purgatory, transubstantiation, the assumption of Mary, prayer to the Saints, etc. etc.
.
Give em hell, Fisherman!
.
> If you had read all of my previous posts on the subject of 2Peter's authorship, you would have known
> that I am not in 'doubt', in the least, concerning it.
.
It is your lack of doubt in the face of the mountain of evidence to the contrary that worries us, dude.
It smacks of unbridled arrogance.
.
> I state (regardless of the doubt of 'some' of the early church fathers), that Simon Peter wrote it!
.
Of course he didn't. SP was illiterate (lest we forget).
.
> If you "doubt that," then its your choice to "keep it, or throw it out." As for me ... I will keep it! -- In His Service
.
Sure you'll keep it. But only on your own incredibly biased terms!
