Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible

[Gurrato Alaien]

Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible


The Catholic church claims that the bible is inaccurate and cannot be taken as full truth.

Here is what the Catholic church have recently come out with. The church is saying it is not accurate, so seek the truth elsewhere.Seek the truth from Reliable, accurate sources.

Read this:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1811332,00.html


Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible

By Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent
THE hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church has published a teaching document instructing the faithful that some parts of the Bible are not actually true. NI_MPU('middle');
The Catholic bishops of England, Wales and Scotland are warning their five million worshippers, as well as any others drawn to the study of scripture, that they should not expect “total accuracy” from the Bible.

“We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision,” they say in The Gift of Scripture.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1811332,00.html

Comments please
peace

[rufioag]

I dont understand where they get the logic that certain verses are not true. I am not catholic nor agree with many of the catholic preachings. But what I did notice is this was stated as TRUE:

John xx,28

Proof of bodily resurrection

So Jesus rose from the dead...thats true in the Bible...so what does that mean? It means that the Christian faith is accurate! Also I noticed that the verse considered True and Untrue are all based on wether are not they should be taken literaly or figurativly. They say to take the resurrection as literal truth, meaning He did rise from the dead! I do not think you prove anything by posting this. I have said before that the Bible is 99.5% accurate as it relates to manuscipts from over 1500 years ago and that none of the inaccuracies even put a dent or a scratch on the legitimacy of the Christian faith.

[atiguhya padma]

I'd much rather trust a religion that acknowledges its fallacies and inaccuracies than one that went around claiming to be 100% proof.

Never trust a book, a dogma, or an ideology that doesn't admit it can be wrong.

[The Unnamable]

"The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also."

Mark Twain

[RobinHood3000]

I'm with atiguhya padma and Unnamable. The first mistake that people often make in discussing religion is to dig their heels in where they stand.

[Zippy]

I find it refreshing that a religion has stepped forward and admitted that its scriptures are not 100% accurate.

It is those people who believe absolutely in what is written and who refuse to admit fallibility which are the most alarming. This is what breeds fanaticism.

If you except the existance of God then you must accept that everything is in His hands. If you believe then you have to acknowledge that mistakes and inaccuracies in the scriptures are also the work of God. It does not mean that science or other religions and philosophies are wrong, but that God has planned it this way. There is a reason for it which will be revealled in the end.

Another point which I would raise is to ask the question of whether the spirit or the scripture is more important? Is it nobler to adhere to the exact word of the scriptures - the word of law - or to follow the spirit - the message which it is trying to convey?. Surely it is more important to love God, love your fellow human-beings and try to live a decent life, rather than to be bogged-down in the minutae? Words are open to interpretation after all.

[Shield&Sword]

It depend on your point of view.

If we believe a book come from God, and we believe that God doesnt mistake then his book must be without mistakes.
If a book relaited to God and have mistakes, then we can refuse that book, because if it contain one error then it contain changes made by man.

Beside if we believe that a book cant be true 100% even if it come from God, then how we can know words of God and words of man, and what if changes touch the basic of the religioun, and how much is the accuracy of the book 90%, 80% for sure not 100% then it can be refused. The theory say if a book is revealed from God then its 100% accurate becuase God doesnt mistake, it has no contraddictions, no historical errors, no added canceled verses, no bad language, no contraddiction with science and other things.

For sure the vangel that Jesus pbuh got was pure word of God, so and Turah that Moses pbuh got. But is the bibe that we have today is the same bible at time of Jesus pbuh and Moses pbuh, if one of the above things we find in nowadays bible then we can be sure its not what the prophets got.

[Scheherazade]

Reminder: This topic remains open with the faith that it will not turn into yet another 'whose religious book/religion is superior' debate. Any off topic references/posts which aim to diminish other religious views or to preach will be edited/deleted.

Here is a quote from The Name of the Rose, which, I thought, is quite relevant to our topic:
Books are not made to be believed, but to be subjected to inquiry. When we consider a book, we mustn't ask ourselves what it says but what it means...

[Shield&Sword]

The verses i posted were to respond the post that say he/she prefair to believe a book that admit its not 10% true than to be believe one that people claim its 100% right and has no mistakes. But i see it was edited. So i will say these things by my words.
In Holy Quran its written that if this book (the Holy Quran) is not from God then it will have many differents (contraddictions, mistakes). (We look on other books from this point).
Second thing that the Holy Quran challenge people to get even one surah or verse like it, and then it says you wont make this thing. When we look on orthodox book we see psalms 151, when we look on cahtolic orthodox we see apocrypha and daniel 14 and 13, when we look at protestant book we dont see apocrypha and we dont see daniel 13 and 14.

The verses i mentioned wasnt to show my book is better and yours is worst, my point was to respond the one who said he prefair the not 100% book, i dont know if its a new method to convince people.

[mono]

Interesting article, but I honestly wonder how the Catholic Church would suddenly change their minds so swiftly. Not desiring to insult anyone, I have always expressed some disbelief in certain passages of The Bible, not requiring specifics. I also had trouble following areas word-for-word, often considering them more as moral stories, or even as if certain events merely seemed perceived in seemingly strange ways, then, afterwards, corrupted by the thousands of translations.

[cuppajoe_9]

It has always been my position that taking ever word in a 2000+ year old book as the literal truth requires (no offense) a certain degree of insanity. Taking the entire bible literally would require one to believe that the sun goes around the earth and that the value of pi is 3.

[rufioag]

You may want to get ur facts straight but the Bible Never says that pi = 3. You are referring to 1 Kings 7:23 . What you must understand was that the measurements were from Brim to brim. Verse 26 of 1 Kings 7 says that the vessel in question had a brim which 'was wrought like the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies' (KJV), or a rim 'like the rim of a cup, like a lily blossom' (NIV), i.e. the brim or rim turned outward, suggesting the curvature of a lily. So if its brim to brim, then one can assume that it is 10 cubits but if we consider the actual diameter we can take 30 cubits/3.14 and equate 9.65 cubits which was the actual diameter. It is thus abundantly clear that the Bible does not defy geometry with regard to the value of pi, and in particular it does not say that pi equals 3.0. Skeptics who allege an inaccuracy are wrong, because they fail to take into account all the data. The Bible is reliable, and seeming discrepancies vanish on closer examination.

This was gathered from the link below that goes into more depth about this. This is a needed post.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i2/pi.asp

[bhekti]

Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible
The Catholic church claims that the bible is inaccurate and cannot be taken as full truth.
......
Comments please
peace

Mmmm... I see.

[bhekti]

“We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision,” they say in The Gift of Scripture.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1811332,00.html

Comments please
peace


Fiuuh, thank God then! For I think it's an insignificant task "to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision" because, as Paul Feyerabend says in his Against Method:

The idea that science can, and should, be run according to fixed and universal rules, is both unrealistic and pernicious. It is unrealistic, for it takes too simple a view of the talents of man and of the circumstances which encourage, or cause, their development. And it is pernicious, for the attempt to enforce the rules is bound to increase our professional qualifications at the expense of our humanity. In addition, the idea is detrimental to science, for it neglects the complex physical and historical conditions which influence scientific change. It makes our science less adaptable and more dogmatic: every methodological rule is associated with cosmological assumptions, so that using the rule we take it for granted that the assumptions are correct. Naive falsificationism takes it for granted that the laws of nature are manifest and not hidden beneath disturbances of considerable magnitude. Empiricism takes it for -ranted that sense experience is a better mirror of the world than pure thought. Praise of argument takes it for granted that the artifices of Reason give better results than the unchecked play of our emotions. Such assumptions may be perfectly plausible and even true. Still, one should occasionally put them to a test. Putting them to a test means that we stop using the methodology associated with them, start doing science in a different way and see what happens. Case studies such as those reported in the preceding chapters show that such tests occur all the time, and that they speak against the universal validity of any rule. All methodologies have their limitations and the only 'rule' that survives is 'anything goes'.

[cuppajoe_9]

rufioag:

I regret the error. However, the earth is not flat, it was not created 6000 years ago in six days, the sun does not travel around it, slavery is not ok, homosexuality is not reasonable grounds for execution, and when any part of the text is historically accurate, it is only by accident.

The Bible is allegorical. It's not a science text-book, it's not a history, it's a moral code, and I am very glad that the catholic church acknowledges this.

[rufioag]

You may believe what you wish though I do not know where you recieve these bias answers. If a thread exists to refute your answers I will post there with plenty of explanation. But each person is allowed his opinion.

But I will say this, do we not also use the term Four corners of the Earth today?

But this thread is not meant for a debate and I appreciate your comments towards the topic

[cuppajoe_9]

Can't say I've used the term Four Corners of the Earth lately, but you're proving my point. Not every single word in the bible is meant to be taken literally.

[Mililalil XXIV]

rufioag:

I regret the error. However, the earth is not flat, it was not created 6000 years ago in six days, the sun does not travel around it, slavery is not ok, homosexuality is not reasonable grounds for execution, and when any part of the text is historically accurate, it is only by accident.

The Bible is allegorical. It's not a science text-book, it's not a history, it's a moral code, and I am very glad that the catholic church acknowledges this.
Those that speak thus are small specks judging matters far beyond all human conclusion by the tests that must suffice for scientific investigation apart from GOD. You honestly only think that the world is at least such-and-such age. You don't actually sit on a mountain of your own tests, nor is much of what most men toil and moil in ever going in this lifetime to show forth to what degree it was either correct or erroneous.

Anyway, most Catholic Fathers in history accepted either that the world is a sphere, or that it more than likely was one. Even the ancient symbol held by Christian potentates was always a sphere in the right hand, as a symbol of the world, or part of it entrusted to their government. The day will certainly come when all fuzziness is clarified, and many proud hearts and vain minds will be startled.

The Catholic Hierarchy in Britain are over a remnant of Catholics there, that were nearly wiped out by the strong hand of protestantism. I believe their strange idea on Scripture is a biproduct of a survival mechanism they developed just short of ecclesial extinction. Many beaten down religious groups have shown signs of beginning to question the very essence they went through so much to hold onto. It is a sign of people that had absolutely no religious liberty for generations, not knowing how to express the liberty they are slowly feeling unthaw. I think it is quite sad to see them in such a state.

GOD is certainly capable of making HIS Witnesses reliable, and is HIMSELF incapable of error. What Zippy said about errors being allowed for a time has some merit to it, put into the right context. With or without the Bible, though, the HOLY SPIRIT is suffucient to make a person to know the Truth and to be set free by that only Truth. The Bible is a Divinely inspired Archive, not the LIVING GOD HIMSELF. Since GOD'S SPIRIT never errs, HIS allowing mistakes concerning Scripture at times serves not as a temptation, but as a test, to test one's direct dependance on the AUTHOR of Divine Writ.

I personally believe every Word uttered by the Mouth of GOD. HE has told me things my limits of personal knowledge misjudged as unlikely, but which were vindicated in time, and undeniable the whole time, in the depths of my Spirit. Once, while at work, I heard to pray that the then Pope (John Paul II) would land on his feet like a cat. Knowing in my Spirit that none other than GOD HIMSELF had commanded this Prayer of me, I prayed it, wondering what it could mean. Minutes later, amidst a restless feeling, a sense of something evil about to transpire, I heard to pray the same Prayer again. This time I thought that to pray this would make me a fool in the eyes of Angels, so I laid aside the thought with difficulty.

The next day, I entered a television room in the middle of a news report to the effect that John Paul had, the day before, fallen from a platform outside of a plane, and had landed on his forearm, so that he had to get stitches for the injury I should have prayed one more time against. My eyes filled with tears as I mentioned to my family why.

[cuppajoe_9]

Get down off your pulpit, Mil.

I know the universe is more than 6000 years old, because if I raise my eyes slightly, I can see stars that are more than 6000 light-years away. I know they are more than 6000 light-years away, because the method for determining this has been explained to me to my satisfaction. I will not explain in detail the method here because it would take a very long time, because I'm tired, and because I would have to recall my high-school trigonometry course. Suffice to say, the universe (and the earth) are definitely much older than 6000 years. To disagree with this convincingly, you would have to allege an enormous Evil Atheist Conspiracy, which does not exist, and by the way, if any members are reading this, next week's password is BLOWFISH.

[Mililalil XXIV]

There is no absolute reason one must conclude that GOD had to have begun everything at the present rate of radiation, and with heavenly bodies just beginning to radiate light that would not bridge across to us for light-years. If there was such a thing as a big bang - a thing both accepted and rejected by both atheists and deists - at what rate can we know precisely that it occurred at? Could things have slowed down. As things expanded further apart, the distance that light needed to travel from one body to another would increase, and, if a slowing down or settling occurred, this in conjunction with greater distances between heavenly bodies would make things take much longer now than before (speaking in terms of a theory, not an opinion).

With that in mind, consider this:
if, say, 6000 years ago, a big bang occurred, in which every single particle now existing throughout the whole of the universe, began compacted as one particle, then the next step, along the way, through a very fast projection of separating matter, would be the various points at which all this was still in close proximity to one another.

When did light begin? Sometime way after the big bang - or was it already present therein? If it came into being only some time later, when, how, and why? If it already was present at the moment of the commencement of the big bang, was it in some particles only? Wherein was it contained, released, etc.?

If, in that first micro-instant that the separating outcasts of that original compressed particle were still all in close proximity to one another, light was a present factor, might it not then be only reasonable to conclude that a communication of illumination between different bodies occurred first from this nearby position of each particle or fragment relative to all the others, and then, without a break in these ever lengthening bridges of light, the time it took for new light to arrive would now be lengthened, until some stars were even lost sight of? What I am saying is that the present arrangement was not always the present arrangement, as to distances between bodies, in the theory of the big bang. Does your knowledge you are satisfied you have take into account the tracing out of light from the alleged big bang's first arearrangement of all matter, throughout its resulting expansion to where things now lie today? There is a lot more to take stock of before being certain that something is not divinely inspired based on personal scientific opinion.

[mono]

Those that speak thus are small specks judging matters far beyond all human conclusion by the tests that must suffice for scientific investigation apart from GOD.
Science has actually proven many of the things that cuppajoe spoke of in his message. If many individuals from various countries of the world have visited the moon and spotted the earth as round, I would believe that over a theory of the world seeming flat by staring into the plane-like appearance of the ocean. Numerous astronomers have proven that the earth circumvents and rotates around the sun, even as far back as the 1600s.
Unfortunately, what voices incessantly divide religion from science, though they do not always appear so contradictory, soon enough lead to the elimination, or attempted elimination, of representatives of science, such as the execution of Galileo Galilei - indeed, a small speck factually judging matter, but not beyond the scope of a brilliant mind, which extended beyond his mere body.

[rufioag]

‘It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers ….’

Apologists dealing with this issue often cite Isaiah 40:22 with the explanation that Hebrew, having no specific word for sphere, may here indicate a spherical earth.

How can u describe a sphere if u have no word for it?

The English word "day" can mean more than one thing. It can refer to the 24-hour period of time that it takes for the earth to rotate on it's axis (i.e. "there are 24-hours in a day"). It can refer to the period of daylight between dawn and dusk (i.e. "it gets pretty hot during the day but it cools down a bit at night"). And it can refer to a unspecified period of time (i.e. "back in my Grandfather's day..."). Likewise, the Hebrew word "yom" (which translates into the English "day") can mean more than one thing. It is used to refer to a 24-hour period in Genesis 7:11. It is used to refer to the period of daylight between dawn and dusk in Genesis 1:16. And it is used to refer to an unspecified period of time in Genesis 2:4.


I also believe this, that we should take most of the Bible literally but there are cases to take the verses as figurativly.

[Mililalil XXIV]

Science has actually proven many of the things that cuppajoe spoke of in his message. If many individuals from various countries of the world have visited the moon and spotted the earth as round, I would believe that over a theory of the world seeming flat by staring into the plane-like appearance of the ocean. Numerous astronomers have proven that the earth circumvents and rotates around the sun, even as far back as the 1600s.
Unfortunately, what voices incessantly divide religion from science, though they do not always appear so contradictory, soon enough lead to the elimination, or attempted elimination, of representatives of science, such as the execution of Galileo Galilei - indeed, a small speck factually judging matter, but not beyond the scope of a brilliant mind, which extended beyond his mere body.
All of the things proven or disproven about the earth were representative theories of no one body of co-religionists. The ideas about an earthly centrality were things that scientists period were considering, and many Catholics were simply listening to the scientists of their day. Many non-Christian Hellenists and Roman neo-pagans had such ideas about astronomy, and many Catholics gave them the benefit of the doubt that in science they knew what they were talking about. Not all Catholics believed the same astronomical schemas. Galileo himself was a Catholic whose belief in the Transubstantiation of the Host in the Holy Eucharist in no way diminished due to his findings. What he said was not the problem in most Catholics' eyes, but the manner in which he ran ahead without sensitivity or regard to a collegiate approach, taking on a manner of debate that put others on a defensive, rather than drawing them in. Soon, as others caught up to him in their own check on his experiments' conclusions, to their own personal satisfaction, Catholics easily accepted his conclusions en masse, and we have never stopped apologizing for our appraoch with him ever since. People love to bloat the whole thing way out of the context of the sum total of all relevant particulars, and use it for a matrix pattern to superimpose over the whole scientific history of the Catholic Church.

You are right about the things you listed as proven - all the Catholic Church agrees, and the Bible in no way contradicts such things. It was other more difficult things to interpret out of potential scientific evidences which I said man is too small to be so cocky about, while presuming that a Divine Revelation ought to be anything less than grounds for confidence for the recipient. That kind of confidence is not pride, but to speak doubtfully of what one knows by GOD's aid is to belittle GOD and Truth. Even a Prophet though can know nothing beyond what has actually been revealed to him, and in this is a humble dependancy on GOD. On the other hand, apart from such sure Revelation, one is naive to take a mere man's word for anything without due investigation - including in science, which, being systematic thought, is phony if not one'e own (and who doesn't think through their very own thoughts?).

[cuppajoe_9]

Mil:

The speed of light in a vacuum is a constant.

Rufioag:

Could you please show me this mountain that Jesus could see all the kingdoms of the earth from? No? Well then we must accept that parts of the bible are metaphorical.

[Mililalil XXIV]

Never is the idea put forward that being atop a mountain made the kingdoms of the earth visible - for, even if the earth were a flat plain all around the mountain, the trees might block out much that could otherwise be seen, or clouds, etc. Certain mountains had names signifying visions or religious significance. Kings were often anointed atop high places. Visions were often seen in places removed from the city. I always had the sense that a supernatural being was showing JESUS all the kingdoms of the earth not by means of the mountain, but simply on the mountain, supernaturally.

Asd for saying that the speed of light is a constant:
1)what I mentioned wasn't in the mere context of the conditions of a vacuum in the most general occurrance;
2)there have been theories about time variations through space;
3)what do you know about the unique arrangement of matter in the big bang and of the internal interaction of that arrangement's constituents before the rearrangement of all things, in which context present vacuums now derive their peculiar properties? [Factors bearing on light, etc., that do not derive their properties from vacuuity, but only manifest them therein, may have been effected by some other unfolding effect of the big bang, and, as a seed goes through a particular process to become a much different plant, a certain potential for the present properties of all things may have been released through some monent/instant of all material principles effecting one another in such an original compressed state. Like I said, this is not an opinion, but something of a thought.]

[mono]

It was other more difficult things to interpret out of potential scientific evidences which I said man is too small to be so cocky about, while presuming that a Divine Revelation ought to be anything less than grounds for confidence for the recipient. That kind of confidence is not pride, but to speak doubtfully of what one knows by GOD's aid is to belittle GOD and Truth. Even a Prophet though can know nothing beyond what has actually been revealed to him, and in this is a humble dependancy on GOD.
Thank you for responding so quickly and so thoughtfully, Mil. You have a lot of interesting things to say worth reading.
The above passage, however, I would love for you to explain more. I have known very little science to necessary speak out of their bounds of what empirical evidence either proves (germ warfare, for example), or potentially proves (theories, such as the Big Bang, for example). How this research belittles any Supreme Being and 'truth,' if indeed some objective truth exists, I have difficult perceiving. With as much evidence capable of humankind, the vast studies of science have expanded into something attainable, and, indeed, as you said, something "revealed" to us for a reason. We cannot know what we do not know, yet if you claim that this seems contingent on a dependency on God, I continue having difficultly how what seems "revealed" to us somehow, additionally, "belittles" any Supreme Being or truth.
I do not necessarily disagree with you, but would love your feedback on further thoughts. Thanks in advance. :)

[Mililalil XXIV]

Thank you for your kind reply, Mono.
I am currently half eating, half typing, so I must come back to this thread to answer you at a moment that will serve offering a worthy reply.

[cuppajoe_9]

Mil:

Matthew 4:8 - Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them. (King James Version)

Or, if you prefer:

Matthew 4:8 - Again the devil took him up into a very high mountain, and shewed him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them. (Douay-Rheims Translation)

I am not saying that this particular piece of the bible is false, per se, I am saying that it is a metaphor, and therefore not literally true. (I personally suspect that the author of this particular passage believed that you could see the entire earth from a high enough mountain, but it is pure speculation, and not relevant). If this particular passage is not the literal truth, then we must accept that not every word in the book is meant to be taken literally.

As to the speed of light:

1) I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to get at here.
2) Wrong. Those are not theories, those are hypotheses. I imagine that you have been around the evolution 'debate' long enough to know the difference between a theory and a hypothesis. As it stands, the entire scientific community (the ones who need to know something about it) treats c as a constant.
3) I know absolutely nothing about that, but the stars formed a very long time after the big bang, so it's completely irrelevant in any case. (I can back up that statement, but it would take a great many words, and I'm starting to bore myself)

[Azazello]

"Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible"

Galileo must be having having a ball.

It's not news though. John Paul II touched on the subject in 1992

[Azazello]

Don't know what happened there. But take away one 'having' and add the following...

I personally don't believe in Bible. But what other people do with it is up to them. The only time it bothers me is when they use it to justify homicide or their prejudices.

S.

[rufioag]

If anyone uses Christianity to justify homicide or prejudice then I am pulled to strongly question if their faith is truly Christian. Christians live life in emulation of Jesus Christ and to glorify God. People are sinful. People do the wrong things. Those who say they are Christian do the wrong things but becuase one person who says, I am a Christian and then uses the Bible to codone sins against others, it is not inline with the teachings of Christ!

[cuppajoe_9]

So the Catholic church isn't christian?

The Spanish Inquisition
The Malleus Malleficarum
The Crusades

[Marcus]

Well, it certainly does not negate the entire work, even though some Bishops may question certain aspects. It also needs to be remembered that the Catholic Church is Rome, and as far as I know, Vatican Two is quite clear about the process of scriptural study and says nothing refuting the veracity of the text.:idea:

[Marcus]

This is nothing new, simply reworded a bit differently. The Church has never said that the Bible is a History Book, and that is clearly expressed in the documents of Vatican II. The fundamentalist teaching that everything happened just as described needs to be examineed a little more closely. There is a certain literary style that one can discern through studying the scriptures, and many worthy scholars (and devout and worthy Christians, I might add) have scoured those pages to squeeze every possible meaning from them.
There is truth there, for sure. and one has no need to plow through the smoky metaphors and doomsday language of Revelation to recover the warnings that are found in every scripture from Buddhism to Zoroastrianism. You can find it in Jeremiah, Isaiah, Esdras, and most of the prophets. You can pretty much figure out from the interaction between men and gods or God, what way things will go if we don't adhere to the laws that are written all around us. Science will call it action and reaction. Fundamentalists will call it Divine retribution. Hindus will point to the karmic wheel coming back around. But one thing is certain. We are destroying this planet and each other and whether we do it slowly or in a flash of a mushroom cloud, it is going to happen. And yes, it is in the Bible, but you don't have to take it seriously. You can ask any other holy man or woman from any faith persuasion and they will have someting similar to say about it. Just because it is a story book doesn't mean that it has nothing to teach. It is the wisdom of the elders passed on and contemplated and now it is your turn to join in the contemplation.
Shalom,
Marcus