Hovind Won’t Quote the KJV

“Now, at the end of the Flood, the Bible says ‘the mountains arose, and the valleys sank down, and the water rushed off.’ That’s in Psalm 104.”

—Kent Hovind, Bible Study #14 (09:38), Bible Study #17 (08:24)

I noticed years ago, while working for Kent, that he would not quote the King James Bible when reciting Psalm 104:8. Instead, he would quote something like the New American Standard Bible, or the English Standard Version. I found this to be odd, but a quick glance at the King James’ wording reveals why Kent avoids it:

1611 King James Bible
They [the waters] go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them.

Notice here that the waters are moving—not the mountains or valleys. Kent must not prefer this, since he quotes a different version of the Bible which has the mountains and valleys moving—far more catastrophic:

New American Standard Bible
The mountains rose; the valleys sank down To the place which You established for them.

If the King James is perfect, why doesn’t Kent prefer it’s account of what happened? For what it’s worth, the 1599 Geneva sounds more like the NASB than it does the KJV:

1599 Geneva Bible
And the mountains ascend, and the valleys descend to the place which thou hast established for them.

Advertisements

Kent Hovind’s KJV, Corrupted?

Kent Hovind doesn’t review questions before taking them. He doesn’t sit down and study a topic prior to airing a Question and Answer video. As a result, it is often the case that somebody will ask a question, and Kent will give an odd-to-ridiculous response that does little more than itch his ear.

In a recent broadcast, one writer asked about “the difference between ‘examples’ and ‘ensamples’ in 1 Corinthians 10:6 and 10:11.”

Both verses read as follows:

1611 King James Bible (Spelling modernized)
6 Now these things were † our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted. 11 Now all these things happened unto them for || ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.
Gr. our figures. || Or, Types.

I don’t believe I have ever heard the word ensample. My mind was immediately taken to the prefix, en. This struck me as being different than ex; after all, enter and exit are two different words, assuming fixed directionality (See Coming or Going, Noah?).

Kent apparently felt the same way, but was even more certain in his response:

“Excellent question. My theory is that one is external, and one is internal. Some things you see, and you say ‘whoa, that is a good example.’ Other things are internal—you think about it, like ‘wow.’ I think there is a distinction there, and the King James preserves the two words.”

I too think there is a distinction there, in English. But English is irrelevant. Was there a distinction when Paul wrote the letter? That is the question we ought to be asking ourselves.

Hovind’s last statement stood out to me; “…the King James preserves the two words.” When a King James Onlyist speaks of preservation, my ears perk up. If there is indeed a preserved distinction, we ought to see evidence of this in other translations as well. Unless, of course, they’re all just corrupt ☺.

Let’s take a brief walk through a few renderings of these passages, starting with the Latin Vulgate, and ending with the English Standard Version:

Latin Vulgate (~400 AD)
6 Haec autem in figura (figure) facta sunt nostri ut non simus concupiscentes malorum sicut et illi concupierunt. 11 Haec autem omnia in figura (figure) contingebant illis scripta sunt autem ad correptionem nostram in quos fines saeculorum devenerunt.

This first reading is of particular interest to me, because the term figure was cited in the margins of the Authorized Version for verse 6. Note, however, that both verses use the same term: figura.

Wycliffe Bible (1382)
6 But these things were done in figure of us, that we be not coveters of evil things, as [and] they coveted. 11 And all these things fell to them in figure; but they be written to our amending, into whom the ends of the worlds be come [soothly they be written to our correction, or amending, into whom the ends of the world have come].

Note again the use of figure; and in both passages.

Tyndale New Testament (1526)
6 These are ensamples to vs that we shuld not lust after evyll thinges as they lusted. 11 All these thinges happened vnto them for ensamples and were written to put vs in remembraunce whom the endes of the worlde are come apon.

Now we arrive at William Tyndale’s work. Tyndale uses the term ensamples not in one passage, but in both passages. While he uses a different word than Wycliffe, he leverages the pattern of using it twice.

Textus Receptus (1516)
6 ταῦτα δὲ τύποι (typoi, typos) ἡμῶν ἐγενήθησαν εἰς τὸ μὴ εἶναι ἡμᾶς ἐπιθυμητὰς κακῶν καθὼς κἀκεῖνοι ἐπεθύμησαν 11 ταῦτα δὲ πάντα τύποι (typoi, typos) συνέβαινον ἐκείνοις ἐγράφη δὲ πρὸς νουθεσίαν ἡμῶν εἰς οὓς τὰ τέλη τῶν αἰώνων κατήντησεν

Above is the TR; the foundation from which the New Testament of the King James Bible was constructed. Granted, it’s Greek, and King James Onlyists despise Greek more often than not. But this is the KJV Greek, so perhaps they’ll give it  a pass.

Note how the term typoi/typos is used in both verse 6 and verse 11. At this point, we can argue confidently that the King James Bible, rendering two different English words, is not a very good example of preservation in the formal equivalency sense.

Geneva Bible (1599)
6 Now these are ensamples to us, to the intent we should not lust after evil things as they also lusted. 11 Now all these things came unto them for ensamples, and were written to admonish us unto whom the ends of the world are come.

Note: The above text from the Geneva was taken from an old scan (scans below). I tried to reflect it accurately, but the quality was very poor. While I own a Geneva, it is a modern product, and may have slightly-revised content.

The Geneva Bible follows Tyndale, and uses ensamples in both verses. Some Geneva bibles today may contain a margin note for verse 6 staying “Some read figures,” calling back to Wycliffe and the Latin Vulgate.

So at this point we have the Latin using a single term, twice. We have Wycliffe using a single term, twice. We have Tyndale using a single term, twice. And lastly, we have the Textus Receptus using a single term, twice. A pattern is established.

1611 King James Bible (Spelling modernized)
6 Now these things were † our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted. 11 Now all these things happened unto them for || ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.
Gr. our figures. || Or, Types.

Now we get to the 1611 AV. It breaks from the pack, and uses two terms: examples, and ensamples. Though it broke the pattern, the translators referenced the Latin term figure in verse 6, and the Greek term typos in verse 11.

As I read this version, I wonder if the translators were tying our to examples, and them to ensamples. Pure speculation. What we do know is that the Greek from which the KJV NT was derived doesn’t use two words, and most (if not all?) of the preceding English translations also used one word.

Lets keep pressing forward in History.

King James Bible (1769 on BibleGateway, and BibleStudyTools)
6 Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted. 11 Now all these things happened unto them for examples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.

Here we arrive at today’s King James Bible. Note how today’s KJV has rejoined the pack, using a single term in both verses. If indeed the presence of ensample and example are signs of preservation (as Kent stated), then we have a clear example where the modern King James Bible removed a preserved distinction.

Update 4/19/2016: Some King James Bible’s today still contain “ensamples,” while others contain “examples”. Unfortunately, it has been difficult determining when the wording changed, and who was responsible for the change.

Lets wrap up our journey through history with the English Standard Version:

English Standard Version (2001)
6 Now these things took place as examples for us, that we might not desire evil as they did. 11 Now these things happened to them as an example, but they were written down for our instruction, on whom the end of the ages has come.

We see yet again, one word, used in both passages. The King James Bible has been brought back into the fold with other translations (including modern ones).

Herein lies the problem: Kent Hovind, and King James Onlyists like him, assume nearly every distinction between the King James Bible and other modern versions is some type of substantive preservation from the very Hand of God. As he stated himself, “…the King James preserves the two words.

What Kent failed to realize is that his KJV likely does not contain both terms. So if indeed the presence of both is preservation, the absence of one must be corruption.

Is your King James Bible corrupted, by Hovind’s reasoning?

 

Geneva and King James Bible scans, as promised.

1 Corinthians 10:6 (Geneva Bible)
1 Corinthians 10:6 (Geneva Bible)
1 Corinthians 10:11 (Geneva Bible)
1 Corinthians 10:11 (Geneva Bible)
1 Corinthians 10:6 (King James Bible)
1 Corinthians 10:6 (King James Bible)
1 Corinthians 10:11 (King James Bible)
1 Corinthians 10:11 (King James Bible)

 

 

Riplinger Fails to Hash Out a Defense

[Breathe, Jonathan. Just breathe. Oh, the reader has arrived.]

Oh, hey friend. Do you remember a couple of months ago when Gail Riplinger claimed the MD5 hashing algorithm was used to distort her voice? If not, allow me to jog your memory:

“Since the MD5 algorithm is open source, programs to distort a voice and make it subtly more difficult to discern are widely available to non-professionals; dozens of apps can be purchased to do this.”

In the above sentence, the word “since” means “because”. The statement “the MD5 algorithm is open source” is given as the cause to the statement “programs to distort a voice…are widely available.” Gail claims MD5 can distort audio.

I pointed out in my response that MD5 hashes are used for many things, but they aren’t used for audio distortion. Her assertion to the contrary demonstrates a complete lack of relevant knowledge on her part.

Recall that the MD5 hashing algorithm accepts variable-length input, and produces 32 characters of output. Most importantly, recall that this algorithm loses all original data. Pass in 64,512 characters of data, and you will get 32 characters of output. Pass in 0 characters of data, and you will get 32 characters of output.

Well, Gail is now trying to save face. Or not. Honestly, I have no idea what this lady is thinking. To even attribute thought to her aimless scrawlings is generous.

In her most recent post, Gail claims that I am “unsure as to how MD5 is related to audio forensics.” As shown in my earlier article, I understand how MD5 is used to test file integrity. But Gail didn’t attribute MD5 to file-integrity; she attributed it to voice distortion.

It seems now that Gail is claiming to have used MD5 to test the file signature (or, the hash generated from the file). As I pointed out in my original article, this is a legitimate use of the technology.

Gail provides a couple of helpful quotes:

“Any changes, even the simple act of opening and resaving a file without any content changes, can alter the calculated MD5 value.”

http://forensicprotection.com/Education_Authenticate.html

“Two of the most common hashes used in the audio/video forensic field are message-digest algorithm 5 (MD5….)”

https://books.google.com/books…

Correct. No disagreement here. These authors understand the topic. Gail does not.

Let us, for now, pretend that Gail never claimed MD5 was used in audio distortion. Let us pretend that Gail claimed from the start that she used MD5 to authenticate James’ debate audio. Now, let us see how quickly even our imagination betrays us.

What audio does Gail have in her possession? Well, she claims to have received “originals” in the form of one or more cassette tapes:

“On the originals, my voice is clear…I received the original tape from a listener.”

I called Gail after reading this, hoping to get her copy of the debate to compare for myself, and perhaps upload for the consideration of others. After all, if what she claims is correct, and James has an edited copy, James should be confronted.

Gail told me that she did not have a digital copy; only a cassette. She did, however, say that she would try to get a family member to digitize the audio. I believe she was going to check with her son-in-law.

So lets assume that Gail does have a recording, and that the recording differs from James’. Lets assume she has her very own cassette tape (as she claims), just as James has his.

Dr. James White holds up his cassette tape containing the 1993 debate with Gail Riplinger on KRDS during his February 16, 2016 Dividing Line.
Dr. James White holds up his cassette tape containing the 1993 debate with Gail Riplinger on KRDS during his February 16, 2016 Dividing Line (https://youtu.be/JRV6CAiN5wE?t=2105).

What problem has Gail created for herself now? Gail claims to have performed a forensic analysis using MD5 on the debate audio; but MD5 doesn’t work unless you have a digital copy (such as a WAV or MP3) to begin with. You cannot do digital analysis on a cassette tape, Gail.

You may be asking yourself, is there any way Gail can redeem this MD5 story? There might be, but it’s going to take a little more lying on her part.

If KRDS had provided identical (bit for bit) MP3 files to White and Riplinger, and White uploaded a manipulated version to a public share, Riplinger could then download White’s file and check its MD5 hash against the hash from her own original MP3. This would tell her whether White made modifications or not.

But even in this alternate history, Gail’s own source says “…the simple act of opening and resaving a file without any content changes, can alter the calculated MD5 value.” So even if Gail performed a digital analysis, a variant MD5 hash doesn’t necessarily mean manipulation; it could mean nothing more than a harmless re-saving of the data.

Quit now, Gail. For your own sake, quit now.

God Creates Evil?

So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? (1 Corinthians 14:9a, KJV)

King James Onlyists often claim the KJV is, without question, the easiest of all translations to read and understand. They’ll cite articles claiming modern translations require an 8th or 9th grade reading ability, while alleging the King James requires little more than a 5th grade education. Now, these studies are questionable (and perhaps worth debunking), but lets first evaluate the practical reality of this claim.

Suppose you were a middle-aged man, and have had your mind washed in the Word of God for nearly 50 years. Each year, you read the King James Bible cover to cover. So confident are you in your understanding of it, you decide to make a life of ministry to others. For decades, you stand before multitudes, and lead many thousands to the Lord.

One day, during a routine online broadcast, a young Christian woman by the name of Amber writes-in regarding a verse that gives her some confusion. “I love the King James, and read it only” she says, but she has encountered an odd passage:

…I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things. (Isaiah 45:7, KJV)

You read the passage on the air, but you struggle to form an answer. In hopes of being rescued, you reach for Peter Ruckman’s Errors in the King James Bible, and begin fanning through the pages. After a moment, you find Ruckman’s book to be dumb (in the traditional sense, of course).

What now? You quickly defer to a joke, and move on to the next question.

The tragic ending to this story is the young woman is left wondering whether God is directly involved in committing moral evils. After all, isn’t that what the King James Bible says in the book of Isaiah?

I wish I could say the above story was purely a work of fiction, but it is not. Today, on his evening YouTube broadcast, Kent Hovind was unable to clear up this minor semantic issue. Rather than turn to other translations or commentaries for clarity, he turned to Ruckman.

When critics of King James Onlyism ask if the King James Bible could be improved in any way, this is precisely the type of thing we have in mind. When Dr. James White sat across from Steven Anderson, and inquired about the conflation of hades and gehenna, this is the type of thing he had in mind. Sadly, advocates of onlyism refuse to concede the point.

So what does Isaiah 45:7 say, exactly? Well, lets seek out a multitude of counselors, per Proverbs 11:14, and see what we learn:

New American Standard Version
The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the Lord who does all these.

English Standard Version 
I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the Lord, who does all these things.

New King James Version
I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create calamity; I, the Lord, do all these things.

1599 Geneva Bible
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

What we find by looking at other translations is that “calamity” is a very popular alternative. It’s also worth noting that “calamity” serves as a meaningful parallel to well-being, and peace. This adds even more to its weight as an alternative reading.

When we consult older translations, such as the Wycliffe (from the Vulgate), or the Geneva (from the Masoretic), we see the same terms are used that are found in the King James Bible. This suggests the term “evil” floated through each English translation since Wycliffe, and may have once enjoyed a broader semantic range.

Imagine for a moment that the tables were turned, and “calamity” appeared in the King James Bible while “I […] create evil” appeared in the modern versions. Gail Riplinger and Kent Hovind would take every opportunity to declare this  to be heretical, and attribute it to Satan.

Blue Letter Bible is a great resource for those of you who wish to continue digging beyond this point. Utilizing this resource, we learn that the Hebrew term here is רַע (raʻ, rah), and has the following semantic range:

  • evil, distress, misery, injury, calamity
    • evil, distress, adversity
    • evil, injury, wrong
    • evil (ethical)

For completeness, I’ll close with Calvin’s commentary from the mid-1500’s:

Making peace, and creating evil. By the words “light” and “darkness” he describes metaphorically not only peace and war; but adverse and prosperous events of any kind; and he extends the word peace, according to the custom of Hebrew writers, to all success and prosperity. This is made abundantly clear by the contrast; for he contrasts “peace” not only with war, but with adverse events of every sort.

Fanatics torture this word evil, as if God were the author of evil, that is, of sin; but it is very obvious how ridiculously they abuse this passage of the Prophet. This is sufficiently explained by the contrast, the parts of which must agree with each other; for he contrasts “peace” with “evil,” that is, with afflictions, wars, and other adverse occurrences.

If he contrasted “righteousness” with “evil,” there would be some plausibility in their reasonings, but this is a manifest contrast of things that are opposite to each other. Consequently, we ought not to reject the ordinary distinction, that God is the author of the “evil” of punishment, but not of the “evil” of guilt.

Gail Riplinger Caught Lying

Gail Riplinger wrote a lengthy note a few weeks back (Published by Kent Hovind’s website on February 11, 2016), accusing Dr. James White of many terrible things. In her article she made numerous bold claims that I would love to dig into, but frankly don’t have the time. She did, however, walk right into my wheelhouse in her attempt to discuss audio forensics.

I’m not trained in audio forensics, so I won’t pretend to be an authority on the matter. But given Gail’s short write-up, I can say with absolute confidence that she cannot possibly be an authority on the matter either. You see, in her attempt to sound authoritative, she made reference to something I do know a great deal about—hashing algorithms.

Since the MD5 algorithm is open source, programs to distort a voice and make it subtly more difficult to discern are widely available to non-professionals; dozens of apps can be purchased to do this. (as of 2016-02-24)

The above was Gail’s statement from the original post. I have, quite honestly, no idea what possessed her to pull MD5 into this discussion. It has nothing to do with generating clicks, pops, or any other audio artifacts as we’ll see momentarily.

I’ve been a software engineer for nearly two decades. In fact, as a young man (over a decade ago) I built Gail Riplinger’s website avpublications.com (as of 2016-02-24, it is still in use). The Lord must have a sense of humor.

Hashes exist in software security to store sensitive data (passwords, in particular) in a way that isn’t easily compromised in the event of a data-breach. Hashes are also used to confirm that files haven’t been subject to tampering. Think of hashes like trash compactors that take in loads of garbage, and output an indiscernible heap.

How about we look at an example?

Suppose you registered an account on my new website, and you provided the password “Genesis 1:1”. In my database, I could store a hash to represent this password. A hash, in this case, is a 128-bit value that represents your password. The above password would result the following hash: 15b4bd0bf02b2f1a591643c1af015c9d.

Here are a couple other hashes. Note that the size of the data being hashed has no impact over the size of the resulting hash. Each hash is 32 characters long:

Input MD5 Hash
jonathan 78842815248300fa6ae79f7776a5080a
1611 7a6a74cbe87bc60030a4bd041dd47b78

The great thing about hashes is that they are one-way, meaning I can generate the hash if I have your password, but I cannot generate your password if I have the hash. Each time you come to my site and provide a password to login, I hash the password you’re attempting to log-in with, and authenticate you only if the new hash matches the hash on file. (To my fellow engineers, I’m avoiding a discussion about salting, rainbow tables, etc).

Since hashes are determined by the input, they are used to confirm file integrity as well. A program author passes their program through the algorithm (like we passed a password earlier), and a 128-bit value is produced. That generated hash allows others to detect changes to the program (such as an embedded virus) upon download. If the hash you generate after downloading the program doesn’t match the hash published by the author, there’s a good chance you downloaded a corrupted file.

Back to Gail. Gail seems to think this has something to do with creating distortions, clicks, and pops in an audio file. She’s wrong. It doesn’t. An algorithm that adds distortion needs to output something that sounds almost like the input. MD5 hashing loses all of the original data.

What I am left wondering is why Gail would pretend to know something like this, at the risk of embarrassing herself. Does she think Hovind’s community of followers are too ignorant to catch her red-handed?

What this example demonstrates to me is that Gail is willing to lie in order to appear authoritative on a matter. I am left wondering how serious she could possibly take KJV Onlyism if she is willing to spread misinformation in its defense.

What saddens me most is that Kent Hovind continues to hold to the mast of Gail’s sinking reputation. Why he won’t let go, per the advise of so many around him, is beyond me. I can do nothing more than pray for his sight, and expose her blindness.

Coming or Going, Noah? (Updated)

Update: On March 2, 2016 I sent the following article to Dr. Kent Hovind. My expectation was that, since he issued the challenge on his broadcast, he would consider my response on his broadcast. On Kent’s March 28, 2016 broadcast (at 23:30), the first line of my email was read before Kent decided to skip the email entirely, going on to another question.

A picture of Jonathan Sampson's email to Kent Hovind
Original email sent to Dr. Kent Hovind after he issued a challenged to Jonathan Sampson regarding God’s command for Noah to go/come into the Ark.

A Bit of Backstory

If you know me, you likely know that I used to be a King James Onlyist. I adopted the perspective shortly after moving to Pensacola, FL as a young man around 2003.

Shortly after moving to Pensacola, I was surrounded by a group of wonderful people who all began to show me where my Bible was “missing” verses like Matthew 18:11 (see Luke 19:10). Having no knowledge to catch me, I fell by persuasion rather swiftly, and began parroting the same arguments.

Fast-forward now, 13 years later, and I am no longer a King James Onlyist. However, many of my friends are, including Kent Hovind (yes, that Kent Hovind). Since his release from prison, Kent has been leveraging YouTube to uncritically gush over the works of Gail Riplinger. I watched each broadcast, but eventually became so frustrated with his/their misinformation that I had to begin responding.

Well, my responses caught Kent’s attention, and before long I was banned. Yes, banned. Kent once threatened to throttle my comments on YouTube; this never happened. Almost immediately afterwards, my posts became visible to me, and me alone.

Kent Issues a Challenge

In spite of his decision to block me, Kent has called me out in a recent video:

“Jonathan (I assume you’re still watching), did God tell Noah to ‘come into the ark’, or ‘go into the ark’? I would just like an answer to that one question.”

— Kent Hovind, 2016-02-23 YouTube broadcast at 29:30

Kent claims, once again, that there is a crucial difference between the King James Bible, and the modern “perversions” (his words, obviously). For the record, lets look at the contrasting renderings:

English Standard Version (source)
Then the Lord said to Noah, Go into the ark, you and all your household, for I have seen that you are righteous before me in this generation.

King James Version (source)
And the Lord said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.

The distinction here is with God being inside the Ark, in the KJV, while being outside the Ark, in the English Standard Version (and others). So which is it? Coming or going, Noah?

God’s Perspective

Normally, I wouldn’t spend much time on this type of issue. Theologically, nothing here is at stake. The Bible teaches the omnipresence of God. His eyes are in all places; no secret place can hide you from the God who fills Heaven and Earth (Jeremiah 23:24).

Given God’s absolute omnipresence, He is both within the Ark, and without. It’s proper for Him to say “come in,” and “go in,” given His unique perspective. Consider the record in Genesis 19:24 where God destroys Sodom and Gomorrah:

King James Version
Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven;

So the Lord is on the Earth calling down fire and brimstone from the Lord out of heaven. So where is the Lord? In heaven, or in Earth? Is the Lord sending judgment, or calling judgment? The question is flawed.

One thing that frustrates me is how King James Onlyists, and Kent in particular, pretend that these types of variant readings are part of a larger ploy to attack God in the modern “perversions” (again, his words). To test the consistency of their claim, I’ve made a habit of first checking earlier English translations to see how they rendered these passages:

Wycliffe (1382) “Enter thou and all thine house into the ship…”
Tyndale (1530) “goo in to the arcke both thou and all thy houssold…”
Matthew’s (1537) “Go in to the arcke; both thou and all thy household…”
Geneva (1599) “Enter thou and all thine house into the Ark…”

(Wycliffe and Geneva on BibleGateway)

Was Wycliffe trying to damage God’s Word? Tyndale, the originator of many famous Authorized Version passages, rendered the text “go”. Even the Geneva, stemming also from the Textus Receptus, rendered it without a reference point; “Enter thou…into the Ark.” There is no conspiracy, Kent.

And Finally, a bit of Hebrew

I fully expect Kent to check-out at this point (or maybe try and push one of Riplinger’s books), but for those of you who are interested in actually studying a matter out, we can briefly look to see which word is in question, and how else the King James Version translates it.

According to an online Hebrew Lexicon, the term used here is bow’. Now, I don’t speak, read, or comprehend Hebrew, but thanks to the many people who do, I don’t need to. A cursory glance at a couple of online resources shows the semantic range of this word:

בּוֹא bôwʼ, bo; a primitive root; to go or come

According to Strongs, this word appears 2,577 times, and with the following renderings:

come (1,435x), bring (487x), … in (233x), enter (125x), go (123x), carry (17x), …down (23x), pass (13x), …out (12x), misc (109x).

Conclusion

I feel pretty content with what we’ve learned here. I still feel it was an unnecessary journey, but I learned a couple of things along the way and am better for it. So whether you’re coming, or going, I wish you godspeed in your continued study of His Word.