Greek interpretation of Romans 1: 26-28

Currently I'm not into Greek and may never be. So, I bring my case here for help.

I am in discussion on Romans 1: 26-28.

I take the verses for what they say from the King James Bible. But I have someone telling me that my interpretetion is wrong, and that in Greek context, the verses pertain to temple worship only, that it' doesn't pertain to the real love of men to men.

His example: They mention nothing of the Ero love or Venus love that two people can share. He, therefore, says that the verses pertain to temple worshiping according to Greek context.

He is defending homosexuality love

I need help with this one and would appreciate anyone with some Greek knowledge to let me know if he is right or wrong on the context.

Thanks for your time.

May Christ be with you all.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

BKMitchell

If
you had Logos, you could quickly learn that:

evseba,sqhsan
(Rom 1:25
translated as worship in your KJV) and evla,treusan
(Rom 1:25 translated as served in the KJV) both appear only here in
NT. However,
you would then (before you finished your favorite beverage) immediately note that evla,treusan
in
some form is use 16 times with in the OT/LXX (A list of those is as
follows: Deuteronomy 12:2, Deuteronomy. 29:25, Joshua. 24:2, 14,
Judges. 2:13, Judges. 3:6, Judges. 10:6, 16, Judges. 2:11, 13,
Judges. 3:6f, 2 Kings. 17:12, 16, and Daniel. 3:12)

After
scanning those you would suddenly be drawn to the conclusion that out
of all those cases evla,treusan
is never used for the proper worship of YHVH in the temple, rather it is usually used for
the forbidden worship of idols/foreign gods regardless of their location.

When,
you continue on to read Romans 1:26 to 28 you realize that the word
crh/sin
(Rom
1:26 and 1:27 interpreted as natural use in the KJV) was
also used in context 1
Samuel 1:28
and Tobit 1:13 to mean some sort of intimacy or close relationship.Thus,
may be euphemism for sexual relations and/or may be functioning here
as word play contrasting with two other phrases here pa,qh
avtimi,aj
(Rom
1:26 vile affections in the KJV)

observing Paul's word choice here:

fusikh.n
crh/sin
(Rom
1:26 natural use)

para.
fu,sin
(Rom
1:26 against nature)

as well as noting the overall parallelism

It brought you to your final conclusion that ( ... ) and that You, were happy to have acquired your own Logos license

Using
your common sense you know that the Letter of Romans is written to
...well, Rome! and not to community in Jerusalem the only place where
the Temple can legally exist! Therefore, it does not logically follow that Paul was given instructions on worship in the Temple when there couldn't be one in Rome! Nor would the Romans be permitted to participate in the Temple worship. (unless of course they were Jewish and if they were they would in theory already know what was expected of them).

POST SCRIPT:

The link above to the Tobit citation doesn't work so for reference I have posted an excerpt from King James Apocrypha 1611/1769 editions:

"And the most High gave me grace and favour before Enemessar, so that I was his purveyor." (Tobit 1:13 KJV)

George Somsel

Currently I'm not into Greek and may never be. So, I bring my case here for help.

I am in discussion on Romans 1: 26-28.

I take the verses for what they say from the King James Bible. But I have someone telling me that my interpretetion is wrong, and that in Greek context, the verses pertain to temple worship only, that it' doesn't pertain to the real love of men to men.

His example: They mention nothing of the Ero love or Venus love that two people can share. He, therefore, says that the verses pertain to temple worshiping according to Greek context.

He is defending homosexuality love

I need help with this one and would appreciate anyone with some Greek knowledge to let me know if he is right or wrong on the context.

Thanks for your time.

May Christ be with you all.

First of all, you need to get a little more context. Beginning in v 18 ff it speaks of the fact that mankind is subject to wrath due to their failure to acknowledge God and rather equated him with the creation. Because of that God has given them over to their own dishonorable cravings (πάθη ἀτιμίας). I don't see how one can get around the fact that it states that the women exchanged normal relations for those contrary to nature (παρὰ φύσιν). Similarly men exchanged the customary relationship with women for that with other men (ἄρσενες ἐν ἄρσεσιν). This in no whay relates to temple worship but is the outgrowth of a failure to recognize and honor God.

I would caution you, however, that although this is an evidence of a failure to follow God's law, you should never be overly condemnatory toward them since each of us has our own failures which can also be seen as a result of our own failure to follow God's laws so that we are in reality no better than they. Speak of God's love and compassion rather than of judgment.

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :)

Currently I'm not into Greek and may never be. So, I bring my case here for help.

I am in discussion on Romans 1: 26-28.

I take the verses for what they say from the King James Bible. But I have someone telling me that my interpretetion is wrong, and that in Greek context, the verses pertain to temple worship only, that it' doesn't pertain to the real love of men to men.

His example: They mention nothing of the Ero love or Venus love that two people can share. He, therefore, says that the verses pertain to temple worshiping according to Greek context.

He is defending homosexuality love

I need help with this one and would appreciate anyone with some Greek knowledge to let me know if he is right or wrong on the context.

Welcome [:D]

With primary purpose of Logos forums being use of Logos Bible Software, here's a Logos 4 screen shot of Authorized Version interlinear showing Greek words with transliteration plus Louw-Nida #'s (that can be clicked for semantic domain glosses for Greek word along with Bible Word Study) adjacent to The United Bible Societies' New Testament Handbook Series (20 vols.) notes about translating Romans 1:25-28:

Also included Wuest's expanded translation for comparison (who added words trying to express greek verbal richness).

The UBS Handbooks are included in Scholar's Gold and above packages => http://www.logos.com/comparison

evseba,sqhsan
(Rom 1:25
translated as worship in your KJV) and evla,treusan
(Rom 1:25 translated as served in the KJV) both appear only here in
NT. However,
you would then (before you finished your favorite beverage) immediately note that evla,treusan
in
some form is use 16 times with in the OT/LXX (A list of those is as
follows: Deuteronomy 12:2, Deuteronomy. 29:25, Joshua. 24:2, 14,
Judges. 2:13, Judges. 3:6, Judges. 10:6, 16, Judges. 2:11, 13,
Judges. 3:6f, 2 Kings. 17:12, 16, and Daniel. 3:12)

After
scanning those you would suddenly be drawn to the conclusion that out
of all those cases evla,treusan
is never used for the proper worship of YHVH, rather it is always used for
the forbidden worship of idols/foreign gods regardless of their location.

Observation: Joshua 24:29 uses aorist tense singular (instead of plural). Also Judges 10:16 context does not agree with evla,treusan word usage conclusion:

Likewise found Septuagint (LXX for 70 translators of Old Testament) has 95 occurrences of Greek lemma for elatreusan (note: evla,treusan includes couple more characters for Greek aspiration and accent). Thankful for Logos Bible Word Study and search capabilities.

After noting UBS handbook commentary lacks "temple worship" for translation in Romans 1:25-28, researched more commentaries in my Logos library:

Another book to consider: Suggestion: "10 Life Choices" by Bob Perdue (lots of good questions with personal testimony, reason for Logos suggestion).

Keep Smiling [:)]

Anon

Daniel,

there are several arguments used to defend homosexual behavior.

the verses pertain to temple worship only, that it' doesn't pertain to the real love of men to men.

His example: They mention nothing of the Ero love or Venus love that two people can share. He, therefore, says that the verses pertain to temple worshiping according to Greek context.

He is defending homosexuality love

These would be that Paul in Romans is talking in reference to temple prostitution, pederasty, or to have a homosexual relation when you are not by "nature" homosexual. Hopefully, the following commentary excerpts will be helpful in addition to what has already been posted.

Lauren

Contemporary homosexuals insist that these verses mean that it is perverse for a heterosexual male or female to engage in homosexual relations but it is not perverse for a homosexual male or female to do so since homosexuality is such a person’s natural preference. This is strained exegesis unsupported by the Bible. The only natural sexual relationship the Bible recognizes is a heterosexual one (Gen. 2:21-24; Matt. 19:4-6) within marriage. Walvoord, J. F., Zuck, R. B., & Dallas Theological Seminary. (1983-). The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures (V 2, pp 443–444). Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.

26 In many Jewish polemical works, the gross sexual immorality that the Jews found rampant among the Gentiles was traced directly to idolatry. Thus, to cite Wisdom of Solomon: “the idea of making idols was the beginning of fornication, and the invention of them was the corruption of life” (14:12). Paul follows this genre by making the same connection but differs from it by attributing the connection to the act of God. As in vv. 23–24, people’s “exchange” of the true God for idols (v. 25) is the cause109 of God’s retributive “handing them over.”110 And that to which they are handed over, “dishonorable passions,”111 here corresponds to the “uncleanness” of v. 24. Paul’s use of the word “passions,”112 combined with what he says in vv. 26b–27, makes clear that he refers to illicit sexual passions. For the last clause of the verse illustrates these “dishonorable passions.”113 In yet another similarity to Jewish criticisms of the Gentile world, the sexual sin that Paul singles out is homosexuality: “women114 exchanged the natural use of their bodies for that use which is against nature.” The verb “exchange,” which has been used twice to depict the fall into idolatry (vv. 23, 25), is now used to characterize this tragic reversal in sexual practice. The “natural use” has been replaced with one that is “against nature.”115

The extent to which Paul characterizes this exchange as a violation of God’s created order depends on the significance of the words “natural” and “nature” in this verse. Paul generally uses the word “nature” to describe the way things are by reason of their intrinsic state or birth, and in these cases there is no clear reference to divine intention.116 Some scholars in recent years especially, noting this, have argued that Paul does not here brand homosexuality as a violation of God’s will. He is only, they argue, following his own cultural prejudices by characterizing homosexual relations as being against what is “usually” the case.117 But Paul’s use of the word “nature” in this verse probably owes much to Jewish authors, particularly Philo, who included sexual morality as part of “natural law” and therefore as a divine mandate applicable to all people.118 Violations of this law, as in the case of Sodom, are therefore considered transgressions of God’s will.119 In keeping with the biblical and Jewish worldview, the heterosexual desires observed normally in nature are traced to God’s creative intent. Sexual sins that are “against nature” are also, then, against God, and it is this close association that makes it probable that Paul’s appeal to “nature” in this verse includes appeal to God’s created order.120 Confirmation can be found in the context. In labeling the turning from “the natural use” to “that [use] which is against nature” an “exchange,” Paul associates homosexuality with the perversion of true knowledge of God already depicted in vv. 23 and 25. In addition, we must remember that the clause in question is a description of “sinful passions,” a phrase plainly connoting activities that are contrary to God’s will. When these factors are considered, it is clear that Paul depicts homosexual activity as a violation of God’s created order, another indication of the departure from true knowledge and worship of God.121

27 This verse is connected to the last part of v. 26 with “likewise,” as Paul shows that the same “sinful passions” that lead women to engage in unnatural homosexual acts are also operative among men, with similar effect.122 Homosexuality among “males,”123 like that among “females,” is characterized as a departure from nature.124 As in the previous verse, “nature” denotes the natural order, but as reflective of God’s purposes. Paul uses strong language to characterize male homosexuality: “they burned125 in their desire126 for one another, men with men127 doing128 that which is shameful129 and receiving in themselves the just penalty130 that was necessary for their error.” In calling the homosexual activity that brings about this penalty an “error,” Paul does not diminish the seriousness of the offense, for this word often denotes sins of unbelievers in the NT.131 In claiming that this penalty for homosexual practice is received “in themselves,” Paul may suggest that the sexual perversion itself is the punishment.132 On the other hand, this could be a vivid way of saying that those who engage in such activities will suffer eternal punishment; they will receive “in their own persons” God’s penalty for violation of his will.133 This punishment, Paul says, was “necessary,” by which he probably means that God could not allow his created order to be so violated without there being a just punishment.134 Moo, D. J. (1996). The Epistle to the Romans. The New International Commentary on the New Testament (pp 113–117). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

footnote 117

117 To cite a representative work, R. Scroggs, in The New Testament and Homosexuality: Contextual Background for Contemporary Debate (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), holds that Paul’s criticism of homosexuality cannot be taken too seriously. He sketches the attitude of the Greeks to homosexuality, which was generally positive. Pederasty, in particular, was widely practiced, accepted, and even honored in some circles. On the other hand, homosexual prostitution was generally condemned (pp. 17–65). In light of this background, Scroggs suggests that, while Paul opposes homosexuality in Rom. 1, Paul gives no real rationale, implying that he is simply following his Hellenistic Jewish model and that Paul himself is not “particularly upset” by the practice of homosexuality (pp. 109–18). Scroggs also thinks that Paul condemns only homosexual prostitution in 1 Cor. 6:9 (pp. 101–9). Moo, D. J. (1996). The Epistle to the Romans. The New International Commentary on the New Testament

Although verse 26 is ambiguous regarding the precise sense in which women acted contrary to nature, verse 27 clarifies that what is unnatural is same-sex relations.5 That homosexual relations are contrary to nature, in the sense that they violate what God intended, is communicated in saying that women abandoned “the natural use for that which is contrary to nature” (τὴν φυσικὴν χρῆσιν εἰς τὴν παρὰ φύσιν, tēn physikēn chrēsin eis tēn para physin, v. 26), and in saying that men “have left the natural use of women” (ἀφέντες τὴν φυσικὴν χρῆσιν τῆς θηλείας, aphentes tēn physikēn chrēsin tēs thēleias, v. 27). The word χρῆσις is often used of sexual relations in Greek writings (BAGD 886), while the word φύσις refers in this context to what God intended in creating men and women (Koester, TDNT 9:273; Hays 1986: 196–99; cf. De Young 1988). The word φύσις does not invariably refer to the divine intention in Paul (cf. Rom. 2:14, 27; 11:21, 24 [3 times]; Gal. 2:15; 4:8; Eph. 2:3).6 At least two pieces of evidence, however, indicate that an argument from the created order is constructed in Rom. 1:26–27. First, Paul selected the unusual words θῆλυς (thēlys, female) and ἄρσην (arsēn, male) rather than γύνη (gynē, woman) and ἀνήρ (anēr, man), respectively. In doing so he drew on the creation account of Genesis, which uses the same words (Gen. 1:27 LXX; cf. Matt. 19:4; Mark 10:6). These words emphasize the sexual distinctiveness of male and female (Moo 1991: 109), suggesting that sexual relations with the same sex violate the distinctions that God intended in the creation of man and woman. Second, the phrase “contrary to nature” (παρὰ φύσιν) is rooted in Stoic and Hellenistic Jewish traditions that saw homosexual relations as violations of the created order (see below). The latter point is borne out by verse 27, which specifies in three ways what constitutes the unnatural activity for men: (1) in forsaking sexual relations with women (ἀφέντες τὴν φυσικὴν χρῆσιν τῆς θηλείας); (2) in burning in desire for other men (ἐξεκαύθησαν ἐν τῇ ὀρέξει αὐτῶν εἰς ἀλλήλους, exekauthēsan en tē orexei autōn eis allēlous); and (3) in doing that which was shameful with other men (ἄρσενες ἐν ἄρσεσιν τὴν ἀσχημοσύνην κατεργαζόμενοι, arsenes en arsesin tēn aschēmosynēn katergazomenoi).7 Verse 27 gives no indication that only specific kinds of homosexual activity are prohibited. Instead, homosexual relations in general are indicted.

Modern controversy over homosexuality has led to a reevaluation of this text. Some scholars argue that Paul does not condemn all forms of homosexuality but only homosexual acts practiced by people who are “naturally” heterosexual (e.g., Boswell 1980: 109–12). According to this interpretation, to act contrary to nature involves engaging in sexual activity that is contrary to the personal nature or character of the individual. Thus Paul should not be understood as implying that all homosexuality is contrary to what God intended from creation. He speaks only against homosexual acts that are practiced by those who are heterosexuals by nature.8

This interpretation should be rejected since there is no evidence that Paul understood the “nature” of human beings in the individualized and psychological sense that is familiar to us in the twentieth century. Instead, in accord with Stoic and Hellenistic Jewish tradition, Paul rejects homosexuality as contrary to the created order—homosexual activity is a violation of what God intended when he created men and women (Hays 1986: 192–94; Malick 1993: 335).9 Paul’s prohibition of all homosexual relations is also supported by the unanimous rejection of homosexuality in Jewish sources (see De Young 1990). For instance, Josephus (Ag. Ap. 2.24 §199) declares that the marriage of a man and woman is “according to nature” (κατὰ φύσιν, kata physin), and proceeds to say that the OT law demands the death penalty for intercourse between males. Both Philo (Spec. Laws 3.7 §38; cf. Abr. 26 §§133–36) and Josephus (Ag. Ap. 2.37 §273) specifically criticize homosexual relations as παρὰ φύσιν. The author of the Testament of Naphtali (3.3–4) sees homosexuality as a departure “from the order of nature,” and his appeal to creation in verse 3 reveals that he understands this in term of God’s created intention.

Scroggs (1983: 109–18) attempts to minimize Paul’s negative remarks on homosexuality in Rom. 1:26–27 by arguing that he is simply drawing on Hellenistic Jewish tradition, that probably only pederasty is being condemned, and that the focus of the section is theological rather than ethical. The first point reveals the weakness of Scroggs’s case. There is no evidence that Paul reverses the unanimous Jewish conviction that homosexuality was sinful (e.g., Gen. 19:1–28; Lev. 18:22; 20:13; Deut. 23:17–18; Wis. 14:26; T. Levi 17.11; Sib. Or. 3.596–600; see also the above citations of Josephus and Philo; and Boughton 1992).10 Paul’s negative comments on homosexuality, even if they are traditional, signal his acceptance of the tradition. The claim that only an abusive form of homosexuality is prohibited, such as pederasty, suffers from lack of evidence. The wording of Rom. 1:26–27 is not restricted to a specific kind of homosexuality but is a general proscription of the activity. In fact, no mention is made of homosexual relations between men and boys but of “males with males” (ἄρσενες ἐν ἄρσεσιν, arsenes en arsesin, v. 27). Moreover, the idea that pederasty is in view is contradicted by the reference to the homosexual acts of women in verse 26 (Malick 1993: 339; Byrne 1996: 76), for pederasty, by definition, involves men and boys, and evidence is lacking that women engaged in sexual activity with girls. Finally, Scroggs artificially separates theology from ethics in Pauline thought, implying that the vices listed would not be part of Paul’s ethical exhortations. But theology and ethics are closely wedded in all of Paul’s letters. Any attempt to drive a wedge between them is unsatisfactory. The rejection of God theologically is concretely illustrated in evil that is promulgated by human beings.

Sheppard (1985) admits that Paul’s rejection of homosexuality cannot be explained away but argues that loving homosexual relations can be accepted in the light of the canon as a whole and the recognition that our understanding of the Word of God advances as we gain more knowledge about homosexuality. To say that the whole of Scripture supports homosexuality is weak, since there is no canonical acceptance of homosexuality. Sheppard’s argument depends ultimately not on the canon, but on his conviction that recent study and human experience validate homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle. Schreiner, T. R. (1998). Vol. 6: Romans. Baker exegetical commentary on the New Testament (pp 94–97). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.

Bootjack

Daniel, because you do not have a knowledge of Hebrew & Greek does not put you at a disadvantage for showing men and women the nature of this sin and its horrific consequence, i.e. 1Cor 6:9 / Rev 21:8 etc.

God's judgment upon Sodom & Gomorrah, Gen 19, or upon the tribe of Benjamin, Judges 19-21, gives us the Divine verdict upon this particular sin.

Men can do whatever to sidestep "what saith the Scriptures" but they are only found fighting against God. These men / woman like all sinners need to be shown without reservation, the judgment of God against such - that they are plunging headlong towards the judgment bar of God, cp 1Cor 6:9 / Gal 5:19-21.

John baptist's message was basically - "flee from the wrath to come" - "behold the Lamb of God" ...

Jack Caviness

I would caution you, however, that although this is an evidence of a failure to follow God's law, you should never be overly condemnatory toward them since each of us has our own failures which can also be seen as a result of our own failure to follow God's laws so that we are in reality no better than they. Speak of God's love and compassion rather than of judgment.

Very well stated. [Y] How often we forget that the primary motivation for pointing out sin should be the redemption of the individual, not condemnation.

BKMitchell

Also Judges 10:16 context does not agree with evla,treusan word usage conclusion:

Really?

Well, I guess I should have said "the proper worship of YHVH in the temple" as the temple is not mentioned in that verse nor in the context surrounding it.

I get your point though and you made a good one,

but either way the words in discussion have nothing to do with the temple worship system during the later first century context of Romans. We know that:

One Paul wrote to the community in Rome not Jerusalem

and

Two, there was never (and could never) be a Temple worship service outside of Jerusalem. The tabernacle, before the advent of the Temple could move about wherever, and synagogues can exist anywhere, but the Temple proper can only exist in Jerusalem and then only on mount moriah.

Daniel's friend may have been trying to tie the Temple worship to sexual behavior. However, no text in the Bible. the Mishnah, the Talumd, the Mishneh Torah, or any of the other legal codes will support any such claims of legalized sexual practices in the Temple.

It is enough to note that the context in the letter to the Romans has nothing to do with Jerusalem. And, even if it did Paul would surely not need to teach the Jewish community about that which they would already know from the book of Leviticus. Paul might need to remind Hellenistic converts to the new faith system, though.

George Somsel

evseba,sqhsan (Rom 1:25 translated as worship in your KJV) and evla,treusan (Rom 1:25 translated as served in the KJV) both appear only here in NT.

What in the world is evseba, sqhsan and evla treusan ? If this is supposed to be Greek, it is not recognizable as such.

Jack Caviness

What in the world is evseba, sqhsan and evla treusan ? If this is supposed to be Greek, it is not recognizable as such.

He must mean ἐσεβάσθησαν καὶ ἐλάτρευσαν; however, the faulty transliteration makes that difficult to see.

Jack Caviness

evseba,sqhsan
(Rom 1:25
translated as worship in your KJV) and evla,treusan
(Rom 1:25 translated as served in the KJV) both appear only here in
NT.

Actually λατρεύω (served) appears 21 times in the New Testament. It only appears in Romans 1:25 in the Aorist, but that does not exhaust its use in other tenses.

MJ. Smith

there are several arguments used to defend homosexual behavior.

This is the kind of topic where church documents are often the best resource for careful analysis of Scripture and doctrine. The web site out of Toronto "Religious Tolerance" has a number of useful resources. http://www.religioustolerance.org/

BKMitchell

... however, the faulty transliteration makes that difficult to see.

I wasn't using transliteration I was using a true-type font set for Greek though.

What does everyone else use to type Greek here?

David Paul

Doesn't sound like an argument that appeals to original languages can solve. I would simply look the person in the eye an say..."That's what you believe? Well...good luck with that."

...Luck, of course, having nothing whatever to do with it.

Daniel Presley

George Somsel:

Thanks for your reply, it was helpfull.

May Christ be with you always.

Dan

Daniel Presley

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus:

Thanks for your time, help and suggestions.

I do have Logos 4 Study edition. But, it's just so much wiser for me to seek help with people who are more experience than I am in Greek.

I have been adding books to my collection, but not Greek. Foreign language just wasn't in my ally. I thinks mine does have some Greek and Hebrew but not as full as yours. Still it's better to seek experienced help.

Thanks for your time and help.

May Christ be with you always.

Dan

Daniel Presley

L. Goodwin:

Thanks for the time you have put into this.

I have gathered much information from your work to use in my arguments against homosexuality.

Thank you for your time and efforts.

May Christ be with you always.

Dan

Daniel Presley

Bootjack:

Thanks for your reply.

Much consideration has been into what you have said.

I am gratefull for your thoughts.

May Christ be with you always.

Dan

Daniel Presley

Jack Caviness:

Thanks for your reply.

I have been keeping this more on a scholarly level than a condemnation level. Hopefully they will see their thinking is wrong on the interpretation of text. I have a friend who is excellent with Apologetics and has done very well in stumping the stars (homosexuals), but neither of us are experienced in Greek, that's why I came here, to Logos 4 forum. I have gotten a lot of help here.

I want to thank you very much for your input, it's very kind of you.

May Christ be with you always.

Dan

Daniel Presley

David Paul:

Thanks for your input.

Unfortunately, I cannot look him in the eye, we are in a blog on the "net." I think the blog is coming to a close-they keep beating the same "dead horse." Going to these blogs really test your knowledge. You have to keep civil even when the waves get rough. But, it's fun.

Thanks again my friend.

May Christ be with you always.

Dan

Anon

L. Goodwin:

Thanks for the time you have put into this.

I have gathered much information from your work to use in my arguments against homosexuality.

Thank you for your time and efforts.

May Christ be with you always.

Dan

Dan,

you are very welcome. I recommend taking a look at this book by Michael Brown just published and now for sale here.

Lauren

Daniel Presley

Thanks Lauren

I will check into the book

Thanks again for the information

Grace and peace to you always

Dan