The 'Battle for the Bible'

Roger Olson on “When did evangelicalism start to go wrong (right)?

The Battle for the Bible launched an evangelical heresy-hunt that reached epic proportions within just a few years.  …  One by one, evangelical and Baptist denominations and institutions imposed inerrancy statements on their employees and faculties.  Fuller is one evangelical seminary that did not give in to the pressure, although Fuller faculty members had to publish numerous defenses of their belief in the authority of Scripture to fight off the barbarians at the gates.  (I call them that because many of inerrancy’s advocates behaved like barbarians.  They were not interested in dialogue or understanding others’ actual views; they used the word “inerrancy” like a cudgel to beat up on people.)

Peter Rollins on “How to Cut Up the Bible Without Anyone Noticing

There have been various attempts by the liberal tradition within Christianity to remove parts of the Bible that they don’t agree with (e.g. the Jefferson Bible), something that conservative Christians have vehemently attacked. However the truth is that the conservative Christians simply engage in a different, more clandestine, form of deletion. One that doesn’t require physically cutting up the text: they do the cutting internally.

Stay in touch with the Slacktivist on Facebook:

What if we learned about the Bible from the people who got it right?
Give us Barsabbas
A generation which knew not Joseph
Relitigating the Golden Rule
  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    First!

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_GVT7C7S6IP2OC44PFUZGAJ4OBM JohnK

    Is it possible to really ‘tarnish’ an abomination? It’s sort of like
    smearing fecal matter onto a turd you found on the sidewalk, isn’t it? It’s dumb and kind of gross but you’re not really doing that much damage to it.

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    Is it possible to really ‘tarnish’ an abomination? It’s sort of like 
    smearing fecal matter onto a turd you found on the sidewalk, isn’t it? It’s dumb and kind of gross but you’re not really doing that much damage to it.

    I think it more like spitting in the petri dish that you are growing disgusting mold in.  I mean, yeah, you do not make it any more or less disgusting, but you cannot really be as trustworthy about the results of the experiment.  

    Yes, it is disgusting mold that causes lung disease when its spores are inhaled, but it needs to be studied and understood to find a way to proof against it.

  • FangsFirst

    That is exactly why it makes me sad. I would have liked to have a place to go “Ah, so THAT’S what they think about that…”
    Without any faked nonsense added. Oh well…

  • Anonymous

    What turns it from sad to hilarious is that Schlafly himself can’t seem to distinguish the trolls’ undermining attempts from his own beliefs.  There’s a point where you’re so far gone that you really have no one to blame but yourself.

  • Randall M

    That is the point of Poe’s Law, though: you can’t make a religious satire on the internet that someone, somewhere, doesn’t already hold as truth.  Your satire will be indistinguishable from someone’s actual belief.

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    That is the point of Poe’s Law, though: you can’t make a religious satire on the internet that someone, somewhere, doesn’t already hold as truth.  Your satire will be indistinguishable from someone’s actual belief.

    That is true, but several of the people Andrew has trusted have come out as being trolls in there just to Poe him (and of course subsequently banned after their reveal.)  He knows that they are trolls, making ludicrous statements to expose how loony his world view is, but even after seeing that right in front of him he fails to see any kind of connection or prompt any re-examination on his part.  

    That is what I find sad about it.  

  • Anonymous

     Do you have references to some specific instances?  Because I’d kind of love to see them. 

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    Do you have references to some specific instances?  Because I’d kind of love to see them.

    Some of the confessed ones are users like “Bugler”, “Auld Nick”, “Richard”, “SSchultz”, and “JacobB”.  

  • Consumer Unit 5012
    Do you have references to some specific instances?  Because I’d kind of love to see them.

    Some of the confessed ones are users like “Bugler”, “Auld Nick”, “Richard”, “SSchultz”, and “JacobB”.

    And _possibly_ “TK”.

    You’ll have to look them up on RationalWiki, though, since they’ve been rather thoroughly memory-holed on Conservapedia proper. (If North Korea tried to duplicated Wikipedia, it’d look like Conservapedia – just replace “Reagan” with “Kim Il-sung”.

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    You’ll have to look them up on RationalWiki, though, since they’ve been rather thoroughly memory-holed on Conservapedia proper. (If North Korea tried to duplicated Wikipedia, it’d look like Conservapedia – just replace “Reagan” with “Kim Il-sung”.

    Fortunately, RationalWiki keeps a record of the redactions that Conservapedia does to ensure that the lulz of their wingnuttery is preserved for posterity.  

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    You’ll have to look them up on RationalWiki, though, since they’ve been rather thoroughly memory-holed on Conservapedia proper. (If North Korea tried to duplicated Wikipedia, it’d look like Conservapedia – just replace “Reagan” with “Kim Il-sung”.

    Fortunately, RationalWiki keeps a record of the redactions that Conservapedia does to ensure that the lulz of their wingnuttery is preserved for posterity.  

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Eddy-Ohlms/1729860863 Eddy Ohlms

    Hmm, now there’s an unsettling thought. One must wonder what bizarre alternative universe a North Korean wikipedia would present us with.

  • Anonymous

    My favorite Conservapedia thing after the Conservative Bible is the section on why you should marry a conservative. There are an assortment of glurgey stories to illustrate how failure to do this may destroy your life.

    My favorite after THAT is the part about the invisible hand of marriage. It’s like the hand of the market, except with marriage.

    And after that, the article on Einstein, where they can’t quite bring themselves to approve of relativity, because they seem to think it has something to do with moral relativism.

  • Anonymous

    And after that, the article on Einstein, where they can’t quite bring
    themselves to approve of relativity, because they seem to think it has
    something to do with moral relativism.

    This is actually my favorite Conservapedia thing because it makes me laugh so hard every time.

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    And after that, the article on Einstein, where they can’t quite bring themselves to approve of relativity, because they seem to think it has something to do with moral relativism.

    The “marry a conservative” and “invisible hand of marriage” seem like pretty transparent Poe trolling, but as I understand it the disbelief in Einsteinian relativity thing is actually pure Andrew.  Which is especially odd as he was trained as an electrical engineer and this is the kind of thing he should have been taught in year-one of the necessary education.  There are some applied engineering uses of it for which relativity is necessary.  Even Andrew’s brother Roger (himself no fan of liberal conspiracies against moral absolutism) tried to call him out on that.  

  • Anonymous

    The “marry a conservative” and “invisible hand of marriage” seem like pretty transparent Poe trolling,

    They do, except they’ve been up there for years, and widely mocked, and yet, no one removes them. Which makes me wonder if, regardless of the motivation of those who wrote them, Schlafly like them.

  • Anonymous

    If I weren’t a feminist before, Andrew Schlafly would be enough to make me one.  His mother was is anti-feminist and she spawned this worthless sad sack.  I’m tempted to do the complete opposite of everything his mother did just to avoid such a fate, just to be on the safe side.

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    If I weren’t a feminist before, Andrew Schlafly would be enough to make me one.  His mother was is anti-feminist and she spawned this worthless sad sack.  I’m tempted to do the complete opposite of everything his mother did just to avoid such a fate, just to be on the safe side.

    With due respect to Phillis Schlafly, if she was crossing the street in front of my car, I am uncertain if I could bring myself to hit the brakes.  I do not want to wish injury to an old woman, but damnit, she is a vigorously twisted old cretin and the world would have been better off if she had not been in it.  

    I would prefer to change her heart than see her harmed, but I have serious doubts she even has a heart to begin with.  

  • Dea Syria

    I just looked at. The notes to the first chapter of genesis actually insist on the existence of the Loch Ness Monster. That seems a new pitch of insanity, even for Andy.

  • Matri

    Whuaa..?

    *squints* Uhm, too small to see.

  • Anonymous

    Of course, most of Conservapedia’s most prolific editors are actually Poe trolls, so the resultant work would be a bit tarnished. Which is kind of a pity, as the final result of such true beliefs would have been fascinating, in a morbid, bloody, car accident kind of way.

    When you start a project like “The Conservative Bible”, you are pretty much putting in a catflap for trolls. “Free-market parables”. That was my favorite.

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    First!

  • http://transformingseminarian.blogspot.com Mark Baker-Wright

    To be clear about Fuller.  We used to have an “inerrancy statement” that all professors had to sign on to in order to teach here.  I won’t swear to it being a requirement from the very beginning in the late 40’s, but certainly not long after.  It was our faculty’s realization that such a statement was untenable, and our move from “inerrancy” to “infallibility” (our current standard) that actually started the “Battle for the Bible” in the first place (the author of the book The Battle for the Bible, Harold Lindsell, was one of the very first professors at Fuller, and he left upon coming to believe that Fuller was departing from what he considered to be biblical orthodoxy).

  • http://transformingseminarian.blogspot.com Mark Baker-Wright

    Just found a reference to Fuller’s original Statement of Faith.  It was indeed written a few years after Fuller’s founding: http://apprising.org/2011/05/27/innerrancy-of-scripture-and-fuller-theological-seminary/

  • Anonymous

    Wonder what would happen if someone tried a Burroughs-style cut-up of the Bible.  Actually, I’d be surprised if that hasn’t been done before.

  • http://transformingseminarian.blogspot.com Mark Baker-Wright

    Well, it’s not quite what you’re talking about, but Jim Wallis (founder of Sojourners) tells a story of a time when he and some friends physically cut out every instance of the Bible saying something about poverty, just so they could show how little of the Bible would be left without such concerns.

  • Anonymous

    Isn’t that what Darby and Scofield did?

  • Anonymous

    Isn’t that what Darby and Scofield did?

  • Anonymous

    My Harry Potter-esque brain-mood keeps wanting to read this as “The Battle for the Beater’s Bible”.

  • Anonymous

    my Harry potter-esque brain went to the first law of magic:

    “Tamper with the deepest mysteries – the source of life, the essence of self – only if prepared for consequences of the most extreme and dangerous kind”

    Well I guess that there are similarities between cutting a bible in to read only pieces and making a horcrux.

    (my inner fanboy is strong today)

  • http://www.aqualgidus.org/ Michael Chui

    Look, if you can make a horcrux out of a diary, you could just as easily make one out of a Bible. Or a rosary. Or a crucifix.

    Maybe this explains car fishes…

  • Anonymous

    well the bible warns a lot against false idols.

  • Anonymous

    The Bible has ironically become and idol itself, for some people.  There is no other religion that I know of where one book is expected to be the entirety of all the religion, forever, with no further input.

  • Anonymous

    My scoutmaster held a similar opinion of fundies. “I worship God,” he’d say, “Not some old book.”

  • Hawker40

    @banancat:disqus “The Bible has ironically become and idol itself, for some people. There is no other religion that I know of where one book is expected to be the entirety of all the religion, forever, with no further input.”

    I have been told by a RTC that God himself cannot come down from Heaven and point out an error in the Bible, because the Bible is God’s word, and God cannot lie, therefor there is no error for God to point out.  And since God cannot lie, he would not point out an error where none exists.
    In other words (I paraphrased), The Bible is more powerful than God.

  • Hawker40

    @banancat:disqus “The Bible has ironically become and idol itself, for some people. There is no other religion that I know of where one book is expected to be the entirety of all the religion, forever, with no further input.”

    I have been told by a RTC that God himself cannot come down from Heaven and point out an error in the Bible, because the Bible is God’s word, and God cannot lie, therefor there is no error for God to point out.  And since God cannot lie, he would not point out an error where none exists.
    In other words (I paraphrased), The Bible is more powerful than God.

  • Randall M

    Maybe this explains car fishes…

    I read this as “Maybe this explains car fetishes“, which caused a very different image to come to mind . . .

  • Rikalous

    I read this as “Maybe this explains car fetishes“, which caused a very different image to come to mind . . .

    “Fetish” can also mean “an object regarded with awe as being the embodiment or habitation of a potent spirit or as having magical potency.” So a car fetish could be something like the Love Bug. Er, that sounded less suggestive in my head. 

  • Anonymous

    Maybe this explains car fishes…

    Speaking of car fishes, yesterday my sister was wearing a T-shirt from the Catholic sports camp she went to. It has the fish on it. This is the first I’m aware of the fish being a Catholic thing as well as a Protestant thing.

  • Hawker40

    The Catholic Church has always been into the fish symbol.  Peter was a fisherman, and founded the Catholic Church… go to a church, look at the stained glass windows, one of them will have the fish.
    (Putting the fish on the car, not so much.

  • Green Eggs and Ham

    Inerrancy gives you a document free of controversy in regards to editing, redacting and tampering.  Nothing more.

    The problem is that inerrant is equated with true.  “The Bible is inerrant; therefore, it is true.”  

    Truth does not follow from inerrancy without at least a very large number intervening premises,  if at all.

  • Anonymous

    I am EXTREMELY confused by what you’re trying to say, Fred. Are you saying that inerrancy is a new thing? That it was not always held by a group of Christians from the time of Christ? (who himself believed in the inviolate nature of God’s word as said in Matthew 5:18, crack open your Bibles, careful of the dust) Are you saying that God lies? Are you saying that words which God speaks into the world through the Holy Spirit can become lies? God’s word is NOT subject to entropy and sin. It is perfect and absolute, now pray this moment so your eyes will be opened to the nature of your deception.

  • Evilkate

    Do some research into the Koine Greek word “Malakoi” – and how the translation / interpretation of that word has changed over time. Just one word but there are quite a few others. However, one is enough.

    If one word change alter in translation, to mean something beyond it’s intent, then inerrancy is not present.

    Okay, I’ll save you the research – but feel free to follow it up and prove what I say is as ‘untrue’ as you wish. Just be vigorous and open to anything you find.

    So. What does it mean in Koine Greek? – quite simply, it means “soft” in a specific context …. and the other references we have, in literature that has survived to this day (quite a lot of it), highlight that context … that of a slur against those who do not apply critical thought. That is, a reference to the ‘soft’ intellectual rigour of someone. Greek academics threw it around as an insult quite often.

    It appears in Corinthians (You’ll know it with the cues provided below). For a long time, the Catholic Church based much of their prohibition against masturbation on it. They changed that view around mid-last-century, after much theological debate.

    In most current translations, it reads as ‘effeminate’ – and is often used as evidence of the evils of being an effeminate male, in any way and ‘male’ who trangresses gender boundaries – aka Transgender folk and crossdressers and so on.

    So was the original text in error? – or the texts after translation? – or are they all correct by some outstanding exercise of logic?

    If that isn’t enough for you, hey, I can offer some very interesting insights into the etymology of the words ‘sin’ and ‘evil’ – and where they arose in the Aramaic. Hint, they wer metaphors that, if taken in their original contexts, offer quite interesting insights into both forgiveness and judgement.

  • Mark Z.

    A reading from the Proverbs of Solomon:

    Never argue with a fool. Whether he laughs or rages, there will be no peace.

    Here ends the lesson.

  • Anonymous

    Your concern is noted.

  • Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

    Hey Mono/Guest, life’s rough and people get hurt. Deal with it.

  • Evilkate

    I kind of like 2 Peter 3:16

    “As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.”

    But the entire section of 2 Peter 3 is worth a read. This epistle was Peter addressing Paul.

    So a writer in the bible talks about the dangers of errancy of another writer … hrmmmm ?

  • http://outshine-the-sun.blogspot.com/ Andrew G.

     But the entire section of 2 Peter 3 is worth a read. This epistle was Peter addressing Paul.

    Actually, it was somebody fraudulently claiming to be Peter, addressing Paul.

    Forged Petrine writings were pretty common in the early second century; there’s at least one gospel, three apocalypses, four ‘Acts of Peter’ and at least one additional letter on top of the two accepted epistles, and this is just counting the ones we know about. In most cases in the development of the canon, the criterion used to determine whether such a document was genuine was whether what it said was considered theologically sound.

  • Evilkate

    I agree that there are issues there, however, once the door of ‘theologicaly sound’ is opened in becomes even more difficult to argue innerancy.

    Sound by whose judgement? – Sound across all denominations? A good number of items that made it into the bible are suspect by the judgement of soundness. Furthermore, there are whole gospels that did not gain entry … pretty much due to value judgements, dressed up as ‘sound theology.’

    As for the issue of what was written by whom and when – that’s a whole new realm of uncertainty. There was a tradition of many disparate writers writing ‘as someone else’ and it was not considered fraud at the time.

    But, even if we do not argue over these points, if I cede all ground and leave that argument aside, let me ask a few questions :)

    I don’t know your religious background, but assume, for this query, that you are Christian and that a close friend or a family member comes to you with important news. They say that they have converted to Hinduism and want you to come with them, as – in their words – it is an amazing faith and they want to share its wonders with you.

    How do you respond? How does the bible say you should respond?

    If you know the answers to those, then you know that either the bible is in error on this point, or pretty much most Christians fail for obey the clear ‘proper response’ outlined therein.

    Considering that most Literalists argue strongly for the case of innerancy, then they fail to follow the Word as written. No?

  • http://outshine-the-sun.blogspot.com/ Andrew G.

    As for the issue of what was written by whom and when – that’s a whole new realm of uncertainty. There was a tradition of many disparate writers writing ‘as someone else’ and it was not considered fraud at the time.

    That is false – it is certainly true that forgery was widespread, but the evidence is that it was considered fraud. Even the early Christian leaders knew there were many forged books around and wished to exclude them; the only problem is that they used the content to distinguish the authorship.

    For example the Gospel of Peter was initially accepted and widely used because it was believed to have been written by the disciple Peter; and when it was eventually ruled to be a forgery and suppressed, the determination that Peter didn’t actually write it was based on the fact that it supported a heretical position (doceticism) and therefore could not be authentic, not on any independent evidence of its authorship or forgery.

    (The “pseudepigraphy wasn’t considered fraud” line seems to be spread by apologists who can’t stand the idea that the NT contains so many outright lies about authorship. 2 Peter is one of the more extreme examples in that it explicitly claims to be written by the disciple Peter, but the evidence is overwhelming that it post-dates Peter’s supposed death.)

  • Evilkate

    To repeat …

    But, even if we do not argue over these points, if I cede all ground and
    leave that argument aside, let me ask a few questions :)

    So way to ignore the rest of my post – haggle over points I’ve already said can be argued many ways. Maybe now you can address what I wrote, in my previous post, after the above quoted text?

  • http://outshine-the-sun.blogspot.com/ Andrew G.

    So way to ignore the rest of my post – haggle over points I’ve already
    said can be argued many ways. Maybe now you can address what I wrote, in
    my previous post, after the above quoted text?

    I don’t think it’s a particularly interesting point – yes, the Bible prescribes (Deuteronomy 13:6-10) the immediate slaying of any friend or relative who does what you suggested; but it’s no news that “literalists” have managed to ignore this and many other things they dislike or find impractical. Being an atheist I have no reason to defend their position.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t know your religious background, but assume, for this query, that
    you are Christian and that a close friend or a family member comes to
    you with important news. They say that they have converted to Hinduism
    and want you to come with them, as – in their words – it is an amazing
    faith and they want to share its wonders with you.

    How do you respond? How does the bible say you should respond?

    I was raised pretty conservative Christian with some heavy-duty Biblical focus (to the point of bibliolatry, indeed), but I’m not sure what you’re looking for with the question “how does the bible say you should respond?” Coan I cheat and ask for the answer?

  • Anonymous

    The text appears to be adducing Paul as support for the writer’s claims, not addressed to Paul. And the “unlearned and unstable” are evidently people who fail to understand what Paul was talking about. It’s not indicated that they are writers. And it would in any case be odd for a writer, especially one pretending to be Peter, to refer to Paul, of all people, as “unlearned.”

    That said, if the writer of 2 Peter thinks Paul’s epistles are prone to misunderstandings, it says something about moderns who assume they can read the material with precious little of the local knowledge even an unlearned person would have had at the time.

  • Evilkate

    Gotta get used to the general well-informedness of folks here. Even though I’ve been reading along for a few years, starting at the old address, it’s something else to actually get involved in the comment back-and-forth :)

    It was supposed to go along a few possible paths:

    1A) Someone argues that those writings in the name of Peter are generally agreed not to be from the ‘actual’ Peter

    1B) I point out there are similar questions about some items attributed to John.

    1C) We arrive at a point where people are generally agreed that ‘some’ of the writings attributed to various authors are actually not theirs.

    1D) Ergo – claims to innerancy cannot be founded, given the Bible appears to attribute various writings to authors who did not write them.

    Or

    2A) Someone points out what you have eloquently outlined in your first paragraph.

    2B) I retort with your 2nd paragraph or the basic premise thereof.

    2C) Ergo – claims to innerancy cannot be founded, given interpretation is complex and can vary depending on the interpretors’ knowledge and background.

    OR

    3A) Someone does the research, or asks about the Aramaic origins of the terms ‘Sin’ and ‘Evil’ alluded to in my earlier post.

    3B) We have an interesting discussion about archery, missing the mark, missing the target, and how those views conflict with several claims in the Bible, which even conflicts with itself  across points on this matter.

    3C) Ergo – claims to innerancy cannot be founded, given translations alter meanings along with cultural and social variations over time.

    and there was a 4th stream, but kinda pointless – if you don’t get the maligned magnificence of my cunning log-term plan.

    Or at least it would have been in many forums … but no – not here. Here people have to keep skipping ahead and stuff. *lol*

    Thank you all. Firstly for a lesson in humility and secondly for a space occupied by so many people that can think critically, and who don’t confuse critical thought with criticism.

    I hope I didn’t seem too condescending to anyone – apologies if I did – I’m just very used to having to lead people though the forest to get to the “Clearing of point X” before heading onward to the next clearing.

    I shall stop doing that at once as I can see that, here, it is redundant. Which is not something I’ll be complaining about! :D

    Yay *does the happy ferret dancings*

  • Anonymous

    A brilliant plan, Evilkate. Or rather, a brilliant series of multifaceted plans. (Memo to self: do not play chess with Evilkate.)

    So, since you’ve offered, yes, please, may we have 3A? Could you explain about the Aramaic origins and development of the terms for “sin” and “evil”? (Or rather, the origins and development of the Aramaic terms for “sin” and “evil”?) I know the Greek hamartia, but, I, for one, am a little Aramaic-poor, so to speak. Which is to say, I know it is a Semitic language, closely related to Hebrew, spoken by Jesus, and, …. I’m out.

  • Evilkate

    *lol* – rather a not so brilliant plan, in the company of some many quite brilliant commentors :P

    As for the sin/evil material – on the other side of some sleep. Should have gone to beddles hours ago, but had inspirational code moment … and a long night of code later, it works. Yay for code :)

    PS: to those who understand the reference … I hate race-conditions.

    Ninis :)

  • Anonymous

    “They were not interested in dialogue or understanding others’ actual
    views; they used the word “inerrancy” like a cudgel to beat up on
    people.”

    From Leonard Bernstein’s Mass, over 40 years ago:

    “God made us the boss,
    God gave us the cross,We turned it into a swordTo spread the Word of the LordWe use his holy decreesTo do whatever we pleaseAnd it was good, yeah! And it was good, yeah!And it was GOD DAMN GOOD!”That’s just the way it is, some things will never change.

  • Jim Daniel

    First let me say that I understand that “inerrancy” is a basic Article of Faith to many Evangelicals.  That is, something that ‘will not be questioned’.  Therefore to question “inerrancy” is to lead to a crises of faith for them.  That said….

    When I engage an Evangelical in a talk, and the discussion comes around to “inerrancy” of the bible I can never resist asking “Which bible?” and we ‘always’ end up with the bible their church uses (such as “The Living Bible”).  When asked how that particular bible was chosen, it is always the ‘Church’ authority such as the founder, or elders with no explanation on why given or asked for.   

    In one of these encounters with an Evangelical he quite patiently, an proudly I thought, explained that the authors of the “Bible” had been divinely ‘guided’ to correct all of the errors that the ‘devil’ had caused to be in all earlier Bibles and therefor this Bible (his) was never wrong.  It was from this ‘revelation’ that I concluded that “inerrancy” of ‘their’ bible was & is an Article of Faith.

    From then on I decided that if this, to me, Quixotic belief did not lead them to cause any “hurt nor harm” I could not in good conscience, nor stay true to my understanding of Jesus’ teachings, challenge this belief.  At best I would lead them into a Crises of Faith or worse into a more dogmatic denial.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X