Some people, in their desire to honor and show respect for God, have turned to the Sacred Name movement. While their desire to please God is commendable, this may not be the best approach.

God is called by many names in the Bible. El, Elohim, Adonai, Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh, YHWH, Shaddai, Zebaot, Adir, Avinu Malkenu, Boreh, Ehyeh asher Ehyeh, Elohei Avraham, Elohei Yitzchak ve Elohei Ya`aqov, El ha-Gibbor, Emet, and I could continue.

To make matters even more confusing, there are variations in what is considered the main name of God. YHWH, Yah, Yahweh, Yahvah, Yahveh, Jehovah, Yahovah, Yahoweh, Yahovah, Yahuweh, Yahuveh, Yahuvah, Jeova, Jehofah, Geova, Ihowa, Iahueh, Yaohu, etc.

Also, there are variations in the main name for the Savior. How do you know which name is the correct one? There are dozens of different spellings and pronunciations of the names used by those who claim to have the correct name. Yahshua, Yasha, Yeshua, Yahushua, Yaohushua, Iahushua, YAHVAHSHUA, Yhwhhoshua, etc.

For this reason, I think the Sacred Name movement is a red herring, which draws people away from the real truth. It can also be divisive.

God wants us to worship him in Spirit and in truth. To manifest love in our hearts for him and our fellow man. When we do that, we honor him no matter what name we call him by. Personally, God and Jesus work fine for me - he knows I am referring to him when I use these English transliterations.

A Rose by any other name would still smell as sweet - Shakespeare. Does God cease being God, if I call him Elohim, instead of YHWH. Does Jesus cease being Jesus, if I call him "Isa Mesih" as the Turks do, instead of "Iesous Christos" as the Greeks do?

Why waste time arguing over this, while the world perishes for lack of love, the real manifestation of God in our lives. Merely professing his name does not honor him, one must do his will.

Matthew 7:21 Not everyone who keeps saying to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will get into the kingdom of heaven, but only the person who keeps doing the will of my Father in heaven...

Matthew 15:8 These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me...

Christ says we can even speak ill of him and be forgiven, but we must not reject the Holy Spirit, which is the unpardonable sin. What does this tell you? Is his main concern what name we call him by, or that we are born of the Spirit?

Matthew 12:32 Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the one to come.

If you really want to have a relationship with God, you do so by accepting his Spirit, not by intellectual acceptance of certain dogmas, or simply professing belief. While you do well to profess belief, as James said even the demons believe and tremble (James 2:19).

One must accept God's indwelling Spirit and be born of love. If you use the correct name, profess belief, have faith, know doctrine, you are still nothing without the Spirit of love. Don't let legalistic thinking, draw you away from the real issue.

1 Corinthians 13 If I speak in the languages of humans and angels but have no love, I have become a reverberating gong or a clashing cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can understand all secrets and every form of knowledge, and if I have absolute faith so as to move mountains but have no love, I am nothing. Even if I give away everything that I have and sacrifice myself, but have no love, I gain nothing

Romans 8:14 For all who are led by God's Spirit are God's children

1 John 4:7 Everyone who loves has been born from God and knows God. The person who does not love does not know God, because God is love

Of course, there are many fine people in the Sacred Name and broader Jewish Roots movements, who are genuine seekers of God and desire to please him. I commend their zeal and good intentions. As long as they don't judge others who do not use the same name as they do, or cause divisions over it, what is wrong with them using (what they consider to be) the authentic name of God?

I simply point out, that actions born of love honor God far more, than what name we call him by. He desires justice and righteousness, to spring forth from a heart born of love. If we don't honor him with our hearts, whatever name we call him by is mere lip service.

It is interesting to note that when Jesus was crucified, his name was written in three different languages above the cross.

John 19: 19-20 ...and it was written, 'Jesus the Nazarene, the king of the Jews; this title...written in Hebrew, in Greek, in Roman.

Whatever our language, or culture, one thing is certain - at some point, everyone (without exception) will confess Jesus Christ is Lord.

Philippians 2:10-11 so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Ken Rich
http://kenrich.me

--
Ken Rich
https://kenrich.me
updated by @ken-rich: 05/26/17 03:01:35PM

I see that you use Elohim, Yahweh, and Yahshua, so you are in one of the Sacred name camps, at least to some degree.As I said in my article, there are many fine people in that movement. However, some of the extremists within seem to judge everyone who doesn't agree with them, as unworthy of salvation, and somehow inferior.I see no evidence of that attitude in your comment, you seem to be one of the moderates, and your comment was well formulated and mature.As I said in my post, There are dozens of different spellings and pronunciations of the names used by those who claim to have the correct name. Yahshua, Yasha, Yeshua, Yahushua, Yaohushua, Iahushua, YAHVAHSHUA, Yhwhhoshua, etc.Paul Wong, in the first link I gave, deals with some of the controversies within this movement. The divisiveness, the judgmentalism, etc.As someone with a mature and reasoned approach (who is within this movement), how do you percieve these controversies and what do you feel needs to happen for some of this to dissipate?Do you think that at some point, other language groups should drop transliterations (like God and Jesus) and use Hebrew? Within the Hebrew linguistic controversies over spelling and pronounciation, what evidence convinces you that Yahshua should be used rather than Yeshua - or one of the many other versions championed by others?


--
Ken Rich
https://kenrich.me

I love some of your thoughts here and am in agreement. This statement you made is wonderful - We must relate through and beyond of our theological, doctrinal and philosophical differences. We must be able to tolerate what we consider to be theological confusion, doctrinal error, and heretical understanding.Also, this statement you made I, personally, have been an ignorant participant in the proliferation of theological, doctrinal and philosophical error at one time or another in my life. In the past 37 years, I have altered my course, changed my mind, shifted my position and adopted things that I believed to be true at the time, only to find later that they too were based on the limited perception of another man or group of people. Through those experiences, I have come to realize that my quest for truth is gradual, ongoing and personal.I too, have switched sides on several issues over the years. One must be open to healthy debate, apologetics, and examine concepts outside of, or opposed to, the theological stance given to us by our denominational filter, or previous study.I have come to the place where I refuse to be boxed into a particular denomination, or system of theology. Truth is where you find it, and the surest way to remain in ignorance, is condemnation before investigation. Only a fool judges a matter before it is heard, yet many people refuse to hear any voice outside of the narrow confines of their particular Church, or religious organization. "Group think" prevails in those environments, and it is hard to move forward. Like you, I have also come to realize that my quest for truth is gradual, ongoing and personal.Your ten points above are excellent. A recipe for growth, which if taken seriously, would break us free from the limiting beliefs and prisons we make for ourselves, by refusing to consider the opinions of others.Above all else, love! We don't have to agree on everything, or much of anything (for that matter), in order to love one another. If we are truly attempting to emulate Christ, and are born of God - we will love even our enemies. It should never be, that we proclaim the name above all names, yet can't love someone we disagree with!


--
Ken Rich
https://kenrich.me

Hi Blake,The Wikipedia article you point to indicates some of the controversies over the proper name of God about which I speak. For instance this statement The stem of the name Yahweh (Yah-) remains widely accepted but disagreements continue on the ending (-weh). This pronunciation and spelling, as with many religious and scholarly issues, remains the subject of ongoing debate .For a more scholarly treatment of the subject, try this link The Names of God. Their Pronunciation and Their Translation It goes deeply into the scholarly debates, archaeological evidence, controversies stemming from linguistics, etc.It should become apparent to you, the farther you research, that evidence exists to support a large number of views on this subject. To be dogmatic on an issue so debatable, is not a course that I would personally choose.I must agree with Paul Wong, in the original link I provided Response to the Extreme Exclusive Sacred Name Movement . He raises several damaging objections to the movement, not the least of which are these: Hebrew names not in the New Testament First, Hebrew names or titles for God are not found in the New Testament. It is therefore supposed by adherents of the Extreme Exclusive Sacred Name Movement (EESNM) that there must have been a different original, a non-Greek version. There is none! The New Testament uses the Greek Theos for God 1,345 times and Kyrios for Lord 665 times! There is no New Testament manuscript in which Hebrew names for God are used instead of these Greek words.The foundation of the Extreme Exclusive Sacred Name Movement (EESNM) is the use of the Hebrew names of the Creator and the Savior. Since the New Testament do not have the Hebrew names the movement have nothing to stand on. This movement is a sham, a big lie. (Acts. 2:4-11) These were all Jews hearing the message of God in the various languages of different nations of the world. What does this miracle indicate? It certainly does not show that God wanted all the different nations to exalt Him only in the Hebrew language. God has shown the disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ that His name must be exalted in different languages of the world. Confusion There are dozens of different spellings and pronunciations of the names used by those who claim to have the correct name. All of them promote their particular name as the only one God approves of. There are only two possibilities. The first possibility is that only one of the names is correct. Which one? The other possibility is that none of them are correct. There is so much confusion in this movement that you can say that it is definitely not of God. For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints. (1 Cor. 14:33) Personally, I have run into a certain attitude in some Messianic circles, which comes very close to your statement - the North American Church system is the product of a Constantinian Religion, and from raised in a Babylonian mindset. Much of what they represent is a mixture and conglomeration at best. No doubt, there are many problems in Christianity, just as there are in every world view, including Judaism. However, some run back to the old wine because they see Rome and her daughters as having "tainted" the new wine. There is much truth to this, but the solution is not the old wine.All kinds of legalistic teachings, Judaizing, hair splitting, straining out flies to swallow camels, etc., is justified in this way. They claim they are purifying themselves from what they perceive as the corruption and perversion of truth, generally known as Institutional Christianity. Raise an objection to something false they teach, and you are immediately scorned as a poor simple Goyim, deceived by Babylon, and practicing "Christianity 101".After many debates with such people, in a spirit of love, I eventually had to accept that I was "casting my pearls before swine". The more you point out things (even from their own Hebrew scriptures) that disagree with their position, the more offended they become.Proverbs 18:19 A brother offended is harder to be won than a strong city: and their contentions are like the bars of a castle. Believe me, I hope not to offend anyone and you are welcome to believe whatever you wish. I may not agree with you and argue for a different view. I hope we can continue such discussions - in a Spirit of love and mutual respect, hopefully leading to growth.Sometimes such discussions result in either myself, or someone else, coming to a new understanding - previously overlooked. Often, both of us learn something new, or at least learn how to articulate our positions better.Proverbs 27:17 Iron sharpens iron, So one man sharpens another


--
Ken Rich
https://kenrich.me

Hi Blake,Of course I would like to get to know you better. I love debates, and I love dialogging on more than a superficial level - which is so often the case on the Internet.We don't see "eye to eye" on everything, but I take no offense and believe in freedom of conscience and expression.In fact, I am sympathetic to your views because I was once on a similar path. I was a Sabbath keeper, a legalist, even holding to dietary restrictions - until I found my freedom in Christ under the New Covenant. I have studied and debated issues with Messianic and Jewish roots people before, and understand that mindset to a certain degree. I have dear friends still within these groups and in the SDA Church.My only problem, in discussing these issues with you, is that you don't seem to read the links I provide. Many of the points you bring up were already refuted in the very first link I gave you - Response to the Extreme Exclusive Sacred Name Movement by Paul Wong. Since you have apparently missed that, I will take the time and effort to bring them to your attention.You make the statement - Remember names are not translatable; but they can be transliterated into different languages. My name is Blake Higginbotham in Russia, Mexico or Japan. It just may sound a little different if spoken in any other language than English. Paul Wong - The writer was trying to tell us that transliteration of names is an absurdity or impossibility. It is a very common thing. Let me give you an example. In the United States my official name is Paul Wong. I have Chinese ancestry and I am going to give you my name in four Chinese dialect transliterations. Chinese always place the family name first. In Mandarin Chinese I am known as Huang Pau Law. In Cantonese I am called Wong Pou Law. In Hakka they call me Wong Pau Law. In Hokkien (Taiwanese) I am known as Ng Po Lo. Why are there so many different pronunciations? They are just dialects that have been developed in different parts of China. There are hundreds of Chinese dialects. It does not make any difference what dialect transliteration people call me. They know me and I know they are calling me. Transliteration is an accepted practice by all people all over the world. My Japanese friends in Japan would call me Oo-o-ng Po-Ro. They do not have the direct phonetic alphabets for Wong and no L sounds in their spoken language for Paul. Do I have my name in Japanese? Sure, I do!Transliteration of our Saviors name has been used in Bible translations in more than 700 languages...Transliteration of our Saviors name have existed centuries before His birth in Bethlehem. The Septuagint Bible has the transliterated Greek name of Joshua. Pilate wrote the transliterated Greek and Latin names of our Savior on the cross where He was crucified (Jn. 19:19-20) You also made this statement Blake, let's face it Ken, I live in a real world where the generic term "God" could mean nothing or anything. I believe that it is both helpful and useful for us to put a specific name to our "God" so that people know that we believe that He is the One and Only True God. Once again, this is something dealt with in the very first link I pointed you to. Paul Wong - Some argue that God is a word that is used by pagans to refer to idols. That is true. Pagans who used the Hebrew or Aramaic language also called their idols by Hebrew names such as Elohim, El, "Eloah and Elah (Gen 35:2; Josh. 24:15) but Yahweh, or the LORD, inspired his prophets to apply the same names to Him. This shows that it is not wrong to refer to the true God by the same words that the pagans misused in reference to their idols. If EESNM want to be strict about it and use the same judgment that they have against the English word God they should throw away or burn every Sacred Name Bible that have the word Elohim. Blake you also make this statement, I want make you aware that most theologians agree that there was indeed a Hebrew text from which both the Old and New Covenants of the Bible were derived. This is completely false for several undeniable reasons. I will point you to the following article as a refutation. I have presented a few relevant statements from it, since you don't seem to read the articles I point you to lol. Was the New Testament Written in Hebrew? by Tim Warner One of the subtle attacks on the Christian Faith comes from the notion that the New Testament was not written in Greek, but in "Hebrew." ...No ancient Hebrew manuscript of the New Testament has ever been found from the early centuries of Christianity. The oldest are Greek. The oldest papyrus fragment [a portion of the Gospel of John] dates back to the late second century. So the manuscript evidence alone weighs heavily against the concept of Hebrew originals.The proponents of the Hebrew New Testament claim that internal evidence suggests the original language of the text was Hebrew. Actually, the Hebrew of the Torah was not widely spoken at the time of Christ. ...So, lets not begin with a false impression that true Hebrew of the Torah is even a possible candidate for the original documents of the New Testament. It is not. No one except a few Jewish scholars would have been able to read it.Proponents of the Hebrew New Testament concept claim that the Greek New Testament is unreliable, due to Hellenization of the text. Hellenized simply means influenced by Greek culture and thought. ...The real message of Jesus was allegedly lost in the Hellenized and embellished documents we call the four Gospels. My friends, this is NOT of God! It is EXACTLY the tactic of every major cult. They all claim that true Christianity was lost, and they have been chosen to recover the true message of Jesus and the Apostles.The Hebrew New Testament proponents would have us trust them to fix the faulty Scriptures, by relying on their supposed knowledge of Jewish customs and figures of speech. In short, we need to sit at the feet of rabbis in order to understand what was written. But, by editing the text of the New Testament to conform to so-called Jewish thought only leads AWAY from the message preserved by the providence of God. God promised to preserve His Word for every generation [Psalm 12:6,7 Matt. 24:35]. God kept His word! The Traditional Greek text of the New Testament is reliable...Limiting the words of Jesus and the Apostles to a Jewish culture and to Jewish thought is to limit the Son of God to human ideologies! ...The message of the New Testament transcends the Jewish and Greek cultures! Personally, what is the "clincher" for me Blake, is how Jesus and the Apostles treated this issue, as the New Covenant was being instituted. I will borrow from another of Paul Wong's articles - THE NAME WHICH IS ABOVE EVERY NAME . Not that I think he is authoritative on this subject, but for the sake of time and brevity, it is easier for me to quote him - when he holds to the same view I do which is certainly not always the case. During His crucifixion Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is, My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me? (Mt. 27:46; Mk. 15:34) In the Sermon on the Mount He taught His disciples In this manner, therefore, pray: Our Father in heaven, Hallowed be Your name. (Mt. 6:9; Lk. 11:2) Our Lord had addressed His prayers to My Father and My God and not once as YAHWEH. If our Lord Jesus Christ had never taught His disciples to pray in the name of YAHWEH no one should insist on it.Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, wrote nine epistles to the Gentile churches. Being a Roman citizen he wrote to the Roman church in Latin. (Acts 22:25-29; Rom. 1:7; 11:13) All the other eight epistles were written in Greek. Paul was well educated and spoke Greek. (Acts 21:37) He spoke to the Athenians using the Greek words Theos for God and Kurios for Lord. He used the same words over and over again in his eight epistles to the Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians and Thessalonians. In all his epistles he addressed the Savior in Greek as Kurios Iosous Cristos translated as Lord Jesus Christ.Many Sacred Name congregations do not use the Greek/English form of the name JESUS because of two main reasons. They think that it is derived from the names "Zeus" or IASO the mythical Greek deities. This is incorrect. Any reliable Bible dictionary will inform us that JESUS is a transliteration of the Greek IESOUS. The second objection is that the letter J was non-existent in the Hebrew alphabet. Do you really think God is concerned about phonics, or is he concerned about hearts?This article Jesus or Zeus? by Tim Warner, also deals with some of the objections you have raised.You said, at one point, that you didn't know why I had originally made my post, or why I was making it an issue. Actually, another member here made it an issue by posting on it and trying to make himself infallible by blocking my comments.From my point of view, both he and you, have fallen for some of the "Jewish Roots" teachings, that are not founded on scripture, or sound scholarship. Of course, you are welcome to hold those opinions, but personally, I find ample reason to reject them - having given the matter considerable thought and study.Blessings to you and yours,Ken


--
Ken Rich
https://kenrich.me

Hi Blake,Santa, the tree, the revelry, and the other pagan aspects of the holiday, are of course, not of Biblical origin. Most Christian scholars agree that Christ was born in the fall, not December 25. That date came from pagan sun worship. However, replacing a pagan festival, with a celebration honoring the birth of the Savior, is somewhat of a victory in my estimation.Likewise, the Easter Bunny is a fertility symbol (same as the eggs) which came from Paganism. No competent Christian scholar would disagree. However, replacing a pagan celebration for a fertility God, with a memorial honoring the sacrifice Christ made for us, is also somewhat of a victory, in my eyes.The 50 days of the Easter Season were forshawdowed in Judaism as Shavuot. The feast of Pentecost (Shavuot) is a wonderful example of type meeting anti-type and the continuity of Scripture between the Testaments.On Passover, the Jews were delivered from slavery in Egypt; at the resurrection, Christ the passover lamb - delivered us from slavery to sin. He also represented the firstfruits (Bikkurim). But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept (1 Cor.15:20). On Shavout, the Children of Israel received the Torah; on Pentecost, Christians received the ministry of the Holy Spirit. Jews celebrated their freedom from bondage in Egypt and the birth of the Old Covenant. We celebrate our freedom from bondage to sin and the birth of the New Covenant.The Saturday/Sunday conflict is a non-issue to me. I have entered the true rest, foreshadowed by the Sabbath, by resting in Jesus. However, that is a subject covered in a different post - Law vs Grace in the New Covenant May his peace be upon you,Ken


--
Ken Rich
https://kenrich.me

Hi Blake,I had a quick look at your links (pressed for time), but I saw nothing new there that I have not seen before.I am not trying to play the devil's advocate lol. Personally, I see nothing wrong with celebrating the birth of our Lord I'm happy that he came and died for me. Nativity scenes, special services honoring the King, theatrical productions retelling the story, are all good things in my eyes.When I was swimming in legalistic circles, I too was affected by all the condemnation and finger pointing. Baptized paganism is the general sentiment expressed by such people. So what's the alternative? Tell the world to stop celebrating the Savior and go back to sun worship?The big problem I see with the legalistic mindset, is that it condemns everything outside of the narrow confines of what it deems acceptable, and believes everything (and everybody) else, is offensive God. However, few things are as offensive to God, as the legalistic mindset itself.How far are you willing to go to purify yourself? You say Christians compromise the truth, so where do you set your own personal limits? Rings are of pagan origin, so you must get rid of your wedding ring! Don't shake anyones hand the handshake had it's origin in paganism. How about the myriad of symbols allegedly originating with occult systems. Some people actually find circles and triangles offensive! Are you going to do what the Jews did, and start adding prohibition after prohibition - until you are staggering under a load of burdens?Also, consider the fact that many of the traditions commanded by God, and found in scripture, initially had pagan origins. Others were not by command of God, but were accepted practices among his people and not condemned by him. Circumcision was practiced by the Egyptians before it was practiced by the Jews. It was a cultural practice which had some religious significance. God captured the practice, gave it to Abraham, reinvested it with new meaning and it became a religious rite for Abraham to worship his creator. Hanukkah, the Festival of Lights, wasn't given by God in the Scriptures. It's something that they do to recollect a deliverance, a special deliverance . ( Is Christmas Pagan? Gregory Koukl)Some people condemn what God does not condemn. They have not found their freedom in Christ, and have no love for others. Bondage to legalistic thinking, and condemnation of others, characterizes their spiritual condition.Luke 6:37 Stop judging, and you will never be judged. Stop condemning, and you will never be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. 2 Corinthians 3:17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Lord's Spirit is, there is freedom. 1 Corinthians 10:23 We are free to do all things, but there are things which it is not wise to do. We are free to do all things, but not all things are for the common good. I was once a legalist and seriously considered removing Christmas from my life. Baptized paganism , said the voices I was listening to. Now I listen to the Spirit, and when Christmas comes, I am thankful that Christ came to this earth (in the flesh) to save me! I rejoice in his birth, his life, his Gospel of love, and his hard won victory what is pagan about that?Did some of the trappings (tree, balls, mistletoe, etc.) of Christmas, originate with paganism? Although there is debate, there is evidence to support that claim. So what? Like circumcision, it's not what it meant originally that counts, it's what it currently means. Circumcision was originally associated with paganism ( Encyclopedia Britannica ), then commanded by God and adopted by the Jews, later nullified by the New Covenant, and now seen as a sign of legalism - by those free in Christ.1 John 3:21 Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence in the presence of God. Love and blessings,Ken


--
Ken Rich
https://kenrich.me

Amen Ken! Blake it's called down right legalism. If Jesus hung out with sinners, and loved them. I think that's theology in a nutshell...let's reach the lost in all types of music genres, reach the kids, and the people that don't know him. That's FREEDOM in Christ. I never once heard you speak of GRACE. Grace is unmerited favor from a superior to an inferior. We don't deserve anything from God, whatever we get is a gift. Seems to me like you have "Yahweh" in you back pocket. God is way bigger than a name, and actually from God's own mouth his name is "I Am."

Ken,I very much appreciate this discussion. I think that His name is Jesus. And we should be done in short order with warring over it. One consistent fact about the revisionists is that they now come centuries after Jesus Christ's coming in the flesh trying to tell us that we have been getting His name wrong. My response is that if this was so important, why did God allow so much time to go by before correcting us? I also often ask where are their miracles to prove that God is behind their movement? Have they no miracles that draw due attention to their preachings? Have they actually seen Christ. Ken I also fine that they work hard to teach us to get His name right. But when it comes down to the simply massive and multifaceted "grace package" that we inherit when we come to Him--free gift of righteousness, death to sin, death to the Law, the immediacy and surety of salvation, etc., they have very little to say.Eric.

I'm really glad you said this. I feel the SAME WAY. I recently heard a minister on blog radio claiming that Jesus and God don't hear you if you don't call them by the correct names. I couldn't believe what I was hearing. Boy, did he get that backward?. He should have said You have to know ""WHO"" they are, not what the correct pronunciation of their names are. What is happening to Christians? Are they all going crazy? I've been calling God God and Jesus Jesus since I was a little girl, it's always been fine with them. I'm amazed Christians fall for this crap. It's awful. Every time I turn around there's more conspiracies and secret signs that someone's trying to expose in the mean time these people wouldn't recognize Jesus if they fell over him. I don't know what to say anymore. People seem to be moving further and further from the truth everyday. They certainly give me a lot to write about.