A friend asked me the other day to repeat my opinion, which he'd heard me give at one time, about an alleged discrepancy between Mark's and Luke's location of the feeding of the five thousand.
Here's how that concern about a discrepancy arises. Luke 9:10-12 says that the feeding of the five thousand took place near the town of Bethsaida. (It didn't take place in Bethsaida, because it was a deserted place, as verse 12 says. Some text families explicitly say in verse 10 that they went to a deserted area associated with the town of Bethsaida.) Here's a map of the region around the Sea of Galilee in the time of Christ. As you can see, Bethsaida is roughly on the northeast of the Sea of Galilee. (Yes, I'm aware that there is an archeological controversy about precisely which tell represents the location of Biblical Bethsaida. No, that doesn't affect the present discussion, because the archeological candidates are all pretty darned close together, and none of them is on the west side of the Sea of Galilee.)
Mark 6:45 says that after the feeding of the five thousand Jesus told his disciples to get into a boat and go ahead of him to the other side "to Bethsaida" (as it is usually translated).
From Mark 6:45 taken in isolation, one would naturally conclude that the feeding of the five thousand took place on, in some sense, the opposite side of the Sea of Galilee from Bethsaida--hence, on the west or northwest side. After all, Jesus is telling them to go away from the location of the feeding to the other side, and the narrator is calling this direction away from the feeding "to Bethsaida." Right?
It is from this phrase "to Bethsaida," using the Greek preposition "pros," that the entire idea of a discrepancy between Mark and Luke arises.
So as not to keep the reader in suspense, I will now float two relatively simple possible harmonizations concerning the phrase "pros Bethsaidan." First possibility: "Pros" should be translated here as "over against" rather than "to." This is a possible translation of the preposition. In this case, the narrator in Mark is saying that they were going to the other side which was "over against" (i.e. opposite) Bethsaida--exactly consonant with Luke's statement about the location of the feeding near Bethsaida. Second possibility: "Pros" should be translated with a more common meaning of "toward," but the feeding took place in a deserted area somewhat to the east of Bethsaida itself, so that they would pass Bethsaida as they crossed back over to the other side, going west. Hence, they might have been sent back to the other side (that is, to the region of Capernaum) and in the process traveled "toward Bethsaida."
But wait, there's more!
Much more. The reader, especially a reader impatient with harmonization in the gospels, might well sigh and say that one would consider those readings of "pros Bethsaidan" only if one were committed a priori to inerrancy, or only if one were deeply uncomfortable with contradictions in the gospels, or something to that effect. Why not just say that either Mark or Luke made a mistake?
At this point I want to emphasize the importance of considering the positive case for the reliability of the gospels and placing alleged contradictions against that backdrop. Too much focus on alleged contradictions and on possible resolutions, or even on despair of resolutions, can create a major "can't see the forest for the trees" problem. As it turns out, the location of the feeding of the five thousand, so far from being an embarrassment to the advocate of the reliability of the gospels, is a point that confirms the reliability of the gospels.
There are two undesigned coincidences related to the location of the feeding that confirm Luke's statement that it occurred near Bethsaida. I'll give them briefly, because I have more to say beyond this, but briefly, here they are:
Both Matthew (11:20ff) and Luke (10:13ff) record Jesus, in a completely different passage, calling down woe upon Bethsaida, saying that its inhabitants ignored "mighty works" done there and did not repent. But none of the gospels records anything else, other than the feeding of the five thousand, that could plausibly be regarded as a "mighty work" that the inhabitants of Bethsaida should have known about. Interestingly, the gospels record not only the feeding of the five thousand on that day but also healings among the crowd (see Luke 9:11). Hence, the feeding of the five thousand and the healings connected with it explain the "woes" against Bethsaida. (I note in passing that it is implausible that Luke engineered this deliberately within his own gospel, for the "woe" passage also mentions mighty works done in Chorazin, but Luke records no mighty work done in Chorazin at all.)
The other undesigned coincidence connected with the location of the feeding is the "Why ask Philip?" coincidence that some of my readers may have heard in talks given by my husband or others who present the argument from undesigned coincidences. John 6:5 states that Jesus asked Philip, specifically, where they can buy bread for the crowd. John never says that the feeding took place near Bethsaida. That statement is found only in Luke. But John does say elsewhere (1:44, 12:21) that Philip was from Bethsaida. This rather neatly explains Jesus' question specifically to Philip as to where bread could be purchased for the crowd.
So Luke's location of the feeding near Bethsaida, rather than on the other side of the Sea of Galilee away from Bethsaida, is independently confirmed, as well as the other details connected with those undesigned coincidences (Jesus' calling down woe on Bethsaida, Philip's home town, the fact that Jesus asked Philip where they could buy bread), and the location of the feeding thus supports the reliability of the gospels rather than undermining it.
But wait, there's more!
John's gospel also supports the conclusion that the location of the feeding was somewhere on the east side of the Sea of Galilee. John 6:16-17 says that, after the feeding of the five thousand, the disciples got into a boat and "started across the sea to Capernaum." The word translated "to" there is "eis" which can be translated in a variety of ways, including "toward." Capernaum is on the northwest side of the Sea of Galilee, so if they were going from east to west, away from the vicinity of Bethsaida on the northeast, they would indeed be going toward Capernaum.
But wait, there's more!
The very idea that Mark places the feeding of the five thousand in a different location from Luke is, as I mentioned above, based solely on the phrase "pros Bethsaidan," used for the direction the disciples were sent by boat after the feeding. If one gets a larger picture within Mark, one actually finds evidence that fits with the placement of the feeding on the northeast side of the Sea of Galilee rather than on the northwest side. This evidence confirms Luke's location of the feeding and would create a problem within Mark itself if we insisted on interpreting "pros Bethsaidan" to mean that the feeding took place on the northwest side of the Sea of Galilee. Hence it is misguided to say that Mark places the feeding in a location different from Luke's.
The first bit of evidence to this effect, not very strong in itself but suggestive, arises in another undesigned coincidence. Mark 6:31 says that Jesus and his disciples were bothered by crowds "coming and going" prior to the feeding of the five thousand and that Jesus suggested that they go away somewhere. The phrase "coming and going" suggests that these were not merely crowds following Jesus, specifically, but that there was some kind of bustle where they were. This fits with the statement in John 6:4 that the Feast of Passover was near at hand, especially if Jesus and the disciples were in or near Capernaum, a major hub. If they left Capernaum in a boat and went away, then they might well have gone along the top of the Sea of Galilee and landed somewhere in the vicinity of Bethsaida, just as Luke says.
But wait, there's more! (I've saved the best for last.)
Mark itself tells us where the disciples ended up when they landed on the other side--that is, the "other side" from where the feeding of the five thousand took place, the "other side" to which Jesus sent them after the feeding of the five thousand (Mark 6:45), the "other side" about which there was supposedly a discrepancy between Mark and Luke.
When they had crossed over, they came to land at Gennesaret and moored to the shore. (Mark 6:53)
So when they had crossed over to the other side, they landed at Gennesaret. Look at the map. Where is Gennesaret? (And by the way, the location of Gennesaret is independently known. It doesn't depend on some specific interpretation of this passage.) It's on the northwest side of the Sea of Galilee! It's also within a stone's throw of Capernaum. In other words, it's not on the same side as Bethsaida. It's approximately where we would expect the disciples to end up if they went away in the boat from the vicinity of Bethsaida, where Luke says the feeding took place, going (in general terms) toward Capernaum, as John says, across the top of the Sea of Galilee, and landed on the other side--going from the northeast to the northwest shore.
If we were to interpret "pros Bethsaidan" in Mark 6:45 to mean that the feeding took place on the same side of the Sea of Galilee as Capernaum and Genessaret and that they crossed over afterwards in a boat to Bethsaida, we would have an apparent conflict within Mark with verse 6:53, which says that when they crossed over they landed at Gennesaret.
So Mark doesn't "place" the feeding of the five thousand on the west side of the Sea of Galilee after all.
This means that we have reason within Mark itself for reading "pros Bethsaidan" in one of the ways suggested above. This does not solely arise from a desire to harmonize Mark and Luke or Mark and John. Independent evidence from multiple gospels, including Mark, consistently points to approximately the same location for the feeding of the five thousand, with the single phrase "pros Bethsaidan" in Mark being the only outlier. Hence, it is entirely rational to translate or interpret that one phrase in a way that is consistent with multiple, independent lines of other evidence. By doing so, we get a unified picture that makes sense of all of the evidence.
So far from being strained, this procedure is a careful, tough-minded way of making use of evidence and seeing if there is a reasonable picture that can explain all of it. This doesn't always work. Sometimes there may be an intransigent bit of evidence that just doesn't fit in with the rest, and there's nothing wrong with admitting as much when it happens.
But it's unfortunate that sometimes we get a picture of apparent biblical discrepancies that leaves out some evidence and hence that gives a skewed view. Even relatively conservative interpreters may sometimes feel mired in a slough of despond, slogging through discrepancies and trying to pull themselves out. Or, to change the metaphor, may feel bothered to death by claimed discrepancies like an attacking cloud of midges. It could be tempting to think that one is breaking free of that feeling by not attempting harmonization at all, by coming to disdain it. But that is not a correct evidential approach, even when we simply think of the gospels as historical documents. It is entirely common for different witness testimonies to have apparent discrepancies. Sometimes these are real, but surprisingly often they are merely apparent, and the real picture of what occurred fits both accounts when more is known.
In the present case, any casting of the issue as, "There seem to be a lot of discrepancies surrounding the geography of the feeding of the five thousand" or "Mark appears to place the feeding of the five thousand in a different location from Luke" is, frankly, incorrect. Hence it contributes unnecessarily to that feeling of being mired in or pestered by nuisance discrepancies. But in fact, there aren't a lot of apparent discrepancies surrounding the geography of the feeding of the five thousand. There is a unified picture of it as occurring on the northeast of the Sea of Galilee with one outlying phrase in one gospel. Mark and Luke do not appear to place the event in two different locations. Nor do Mark and John. Rather, Mark itself has a geographical indicator that places the feeding on the east side (namely, that afterwards they went over to the other side and landed at Genessaret) and another geographical indicator (the outlying phrase "pros Bethsaidan") that could be interpreted to place it on the west side. So Mark's own gospel contains evidence that is consonant with the united evidence of Luke, John, and with undesigned coincidences between and among them (one involving Matthew as well), placing the feeding on the northeast side.
It is a little ironic that I am saying all of this, since I am open in principle to saying that there may in fact be places where a gospel author got some minor detail wrong. I even have candidates for such places in my own mind. In no way does my livelihood depend upon signing a statement subscribing to inerrancy. But I also think that the gospels are very, very reliable, that real witness testimony turns out to be reconcilable often when at first it appears to be irreconcilable, and that harmonization should be given a good shot before one concludes that there is an actual error. That, I believe, is not piety but merely responsible scholarship. The exciting thing is how often, when one gets a bigger picture, one finds oneself freed from that heavy sense of "so many problems," because one sees alleged discrepancies against a wider background of evidence for reliability. Sometimes, as in the present case, that wider background even helps to explain some particular alleged discrepancy. This is, to my mind, a much healthier approach than either a) becoming highly cavalier about saying that some gospel author was wrong or confused, b) becoming highly negative about harmonization, and/or c) turning to highly dubious claims of "literary device" according to which gospel authors deliberately changed details for the sake of some literary or theological effect.
None of that does justice to the real-life texture of the texts as historical memoirs.
Cross-posted
Comments (20)
Interesting and edifying post.
It is annoying to see "harmonization" viewed as something that only desperate inerrantists do. Harmonization is natural and is simply a tool for understanding independent accounts. Yes, there are desperate harmonizations or attempted harmonizations that strain credulity, but almost all of the alleged gospel discrepancies can be harmonized nicely, without resorting to wildly implausible scenarios.
These sorts of posts are why I read at this site. Selfishly, I'd love to see more.
Posted by Joe Lightfoot | August 16, 2016 4:29 PM
Hi Lydia, You may have heard of NT scholar, Mark Goodacre, who is well known for his expertise concerning The Synoptic Problem and who recently contributed to a new book from Baker Academic, The Synoptic Problem: Four Views, along with Craig Evans (an Evangelical), and others http://bakerpublishinggroup.com/books/the-synoptic-problem/348491 Two other Evangelicals, Blomberg and Stein, gave the book positive blurbs as well. Goodacre has also appeared on the Evangelical podcast, Deeper Waters: https://youtu.be/eT8biF6Y-mk
That being said, please note that a point I made concerning the feeding story in Luke (compared w/ Mark and Matthew's versions) is something I read in one of Goodacre's most quoted papers--considered essential reading for those who follow The Synoptic Problem. His paper is titled, "Fatigue in the Synoptics" New Testament Studies 44 (1998), and the passage in question is this one, to quote Goodacre:
The best example of the phenomenon, though, is Luke's version of the Feeding of the Five Thousand (Matt 14.13-21 // Mark 6.30-44 // Luke 9.10-17). In spite of, or perhaps because of, the familiarity of the story, a feature in Luke's account is sometimes [51] missed. (21) Mark says that the disciples go away with Jesus into a desert place (eiV erhmon topon, Mark 6.31). Luke, however, resets the scene in 'a city (poliV) called Bethsaida'. (22) This then causes all sorts of problems when Luke goes on to agree with Mark:
Mark 6.35b-36: 'And when the hour was already becoming late, his disciples having approached him were saying, "This is a desert place (erhmoV estin o topoV) and already the hour is late; send them away so that they may go into the surrounding country and villages to buy something for themselves to eat."'
Luke 9.12: 'And the day began to draw in and the twelve having approached him said, "Send away the crowd, so that they may go into the surrounding villages and countryside to lodge and find provisions because we are here in a desert place (wde en erhmw topw esmen)."'
The adjective used by both Mark and Luke is erhmoV, lonely, desolate, abandoned. Clearly it is nonsense to say 'we are here in a desolate place' when in the Lucan setting they are not. After all, if the crowd were in a city, they would not need to go to the surrounding villages and countryside to find food and lodging. (23) Further, since in Bethsaida food and lodging ought to be close to hand, Luke's comment that the day was drawing to a close lacks any relevance and, consequently, the feeding lacks the immediate motive that it has in Mark. In short, by relocating the Feeding of the Five Thousand, without being able to sustain the new setting with its fresh implications throughout, Luke has spoilt the story. (24)
On several occasions, then, an evangelist's faithfulness to his source at one point has apparently led his account into difficulties at other points. These six examples all seem to point clearly to Marcan priority...
That is what Goodacre wrote.
Posted by edwardtbabinski | August 24, 2016 12:42 AM
Hi Lydia,
Has my comment and your reply been deleted? I rec'd email notification that you had responded to it. But I don't see it tonight as I look at the comments on your post.
Posted by edwardtbabinski | August 24, 2016 1:01 AM
I published and replied at my personal blog this morning.
Posted by Lydia | August 24, 2016 10:09 AM
Here's another irreconcilable contradiction. We know from Markan priority and the two-source hypothesis (scholarly consensus) that Matthew and Luke used Mark as their main source.
Mark 16:7
But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’”
Matthew 28:10 reaffirms this prediction.
Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me.”
Now watch how Luke deliberately alters the prediction!
Luke 24:6
He is not here; he has risen! Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee: ‘The Son of Man must be delivered over to the hands of sinners, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.’ ”
Luke has replaced the angel's prediction of an appearance in Galilee with a mention of Jesus' past teaching in Galilee.
Luke leaves no room for any Galilean appearances because he has the disciples stay in Jerusalem until Pentecost.
Luke 24:46-49
He told them, “This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.”
So Luke rewrites history by deliberately replacing the Galilean appearances tradition with appearances beginning in and ending only in Jerusalem. Neat huh?
Posted by bob | August 30, 2016 4:58 PM
Er! Bob. There may be superficial difficulties to work out but hardly irreconcilable. If one text is silent and the other not can they be said to be in "contraDICTION"? If a text is silent it is "dict-ing" nothing. So it cannot by definition "contradict".
Posted by Paul | September 6, 2016 1:55 PM
Oh so the disciples just disobeyed Jesus and didn't "stay in the city" as commanded? Gosh, you'd think they'd listen to someone who just came back from the dead...
Posted by Bob | September 8, 2016 9:01 AM
Acts 1 (written by the same author as Luke) makes it clear that Jesus appeared over a much longer time period and places (Acts 1:4) a command to remain in Jerusalem at an indefinite point within that time period "while staying with them." This could of course have been after they had met him in Galilee and much closer to the ascension. And their behavior after the ascension as recorded in Acts fits with this interpretation as well, for it was after the ascension that they stuck together and devoted themselves to prayer. Luke 24 is obviously compressed and doesn't "have" things happen at highly particular times. It's unclear whether this compression occurred because Luke was running out of scroll or because at the time he wrote that book he simply hadn't gotten particular times for particular events, or perhaps both. Acts 1 corrects any accidental impression that may have been given by Luke 24 that these events and sayings all took place within an extremely short period of time.
Posted by Lydia | September 8, 2016 9:55 AM
Luke gives no evidence for any Galilean appearances and his intent to write them out is clear since he deliberately alters the angel's prediction at the tomb in Lk. 24:6. We know he had access to Mark and he changes what the angel or "young man" predicts in Mark and contradicts Matthew. The events narrated in Luke 24 give no indication that more than a day has passed. Acts gives no evidence for any Galilean appearances either but instead sticks with the original command: “Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about." - Acts 1:4.
If Jesus really was on earth for 40 days providing "many proofs" then it's strange that only Acts mentions that. Clearly, the "40 days" was a theological construct, not a reference to actual history.
Posted by bob | September 8, 2016 6:50 PM
How are the group appearances of Jesus to the first Christians any different from the group appearances of the angel Moroni to the first Mormons?
https://lutherwasnotbornagaincom.wordpress.com/2017/03/21/shocking-parallels-between-mormonism-and-early-christianity/
Posted by gary | March 28, 2017 11:44 PM
Probably most relevant is that the tomb was empty. Beyond that, the quality of the appearances differ between the Mormons and the Disciples, as well as the context they occur in, as well as the number of appearances and the various beliefs of those experiencing them (seer stones, folk magic, spiritual vision). I'm sure more can be added, and more can be said.
Posted by Sean K. | March 29, 2017 7:34 AM
I meant to add that, whereas the tomb was empty, what evidence is there apart from the claims of Joseph and Co. That an angel appeared to them?
Posted by Sean | March 29, 2017 7:35 AM
Also, the Mormon witnesses aren't as unanimous an persistent in affirming that they or the others saw, for example, the Golden plates. (Which they saw in their second sight anyway, not actual sight.)
Posted by Sean | March 29, 2017 7:41 AM
Thanks, Sean. I probably won't let Gary threadjack this into a general discussion of Mormonism, but you're on the right track. As a matter of fact, there is no evidence that the Mormon "witnesses" actually saw the plates directly. Joseph Smith wrapped them up in his frock and told them he couldn't show them to them with their own eyes. They also did not have the same immediate expectation of danger and persecution as the disciples.
Posted by Lydia | March 29, 2017 9:39 AM
Hi guys,
I'm not a Mormon, so I'm not interested in discussing the Mormon appearances per se, but I don't see a big difference between the Mormon appearance claims and the ORIGINAL Christian appearance claims. What do I mean by "original"?
If you believe that the detailed appearance claims in the four Gospels are 100% historically accurate descriptions of real events, then of course the Mormon appearance claims and the Christian appearance claims have nothing in common. But I think Christians are hard pressed to prove that the four very discrepant Gospel accounts are historically accurate descriptions of the same supernatural event. After all, the modern consensus of New Testament scholars is that eyewitnesses did NOT write the Gospels. So it is completely possible that the Empty Tomb story was invented by the author of Mark, whose Gospel originally had no appearance claims, and then the later authors simply added(invented) appearance stories, each with his own twists and turns, to the very gripping Empty Tomb pericope. It is fascinating literature, but whether it is historical is anyone's guess.
If we look at the Early Creed in First Corinthians 15 which many scholars believe is the earliest account of appearance claims, what do we see: No physical descriptions of the appearances whatsoever! For all we know, the earliest Christians saw exactly what the author of Acts says that Paul saw: a bright light. And that's it. And that is not too different from what the Mormon witnesses claim to have initially seen: bright light.
It is very probable that in both cases, very superstitious, hyper-religious people misperceived something very natural as a supernatural phenomenon...and the rest as they say...is history.
Posted by gary | March 29, 2017 3:58 PM
I think a strong argument can be made that these are *what the alleged witnesses claimed*. You can then argue about whether they were lying or hallucinating or what. Good luck with that. The claims themselves are much different from the claims of the original Mormon missionaries.
"Very discrepant." Meh. Skeptics are always knocking themselves out to make things "very discrepant." It's a big mishmash of, chiefly, arguments from silence, making the accounts say things they didn't say, and maybe a few trivial discrepancies. Nothing that lies outside the *norm* for truthful witness accounts in normal life.
Actually, not "completely possible" if that's supposed to mean something more than "logically possible." By the way, it really, really looks like the ending of Mark was lost. So all this argument from silence baloney sausage that Mark's gospel has no appearances is just more forced attempts to create contradictions.
No, actually. All four gospels show strong signs of being either by eyewitnesses or by those in close touch with eyewitnesses. So it's not anyone's guess. It has a good claim to be what the disciples claimed.
Unlike others, I do not bow down in worship at, nor even remotely defer to, the "modern consensus of New Testament scholars." In fact, I think the field of New Testament studies is so badly screwed up that we owe its consensus pretty much zero deference. Even less than zero, if possible.
And that, boyz and girlz, is why I don't do Minimal Facts apologetics. Thank you so much for proving my point.
http://whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2015/02/minimal_facts_are_not_enough.html
Posted by Lydia | March 29, 2017 6:22 PM
So the experts are all wrong and you are right, is that your position? Do you use that logic when it comes to your health? The safety of modern modes of transportation? Weather forecasts? Scientific discoveries??
Imagine if everyone in society followed that logic. Scary.
Rejecting expert opinion is very dangerous unless you happen to be an expert in the field in question yourself. Our advanced, complex, industrial society is depends on respecting expert opinion; most educated people in our society would consider a society in which expert opinion is rejected and important decisions are made based on each person's personal, non-expert opinion as very foolish.
So are you an expert? Do you have a Ph.D. in New Testament studies? If not, I suggest you think twice before joining the fundamentalist herd in their disdain of educated experts.
Posted by gary | March 29, 2017 8:37 PM
I'm sorry, but that isn't an argument. It's sheer, bullying appeal to credentialism. I have arguments (and could tout my own credentials, for that matter, in the evaluation of argument and evidence, and show how those credentials are relevant to seeing and avoiding the pathologies of New Testament studies), but I have a strong feeling that it would be a violation of Matthew 7:6 for me to take the time and trouble to give any of that to you. So I suggest you bag it.
Posted by Lydia | March 29, 2017 8:55 PM
Ok. Got it. You are comfortable and confident with your minority/fringe positions.
But you do admit that my original claim is very plausible if the majority of experts is correct that the Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses: The original Christians may have only seen bright lights which they perceived to be Jesus, no different than the original Mormons saw bright lights which they perceived to be an angel.
Posted by gary | March 29, 2017 11:57 PM
Actually, I have no idea if the original Mormons saw bright lights. If they had, I'd be wondering where the bright lights came from. And no, I don't grant your interpretation of "seen" even in the creed in I Corinthians 15, which is why I shouldn't be *quite* so snarky about the minimal facts case, because it's only when people like you come along and do silly things with the straightforward assertion that James, Cephas, et. al. saw Jesus that one gets such a ridiculous conclusion. Even the "experts" are all over the map on what the disciples experienced, and while no doubt one couldn't get a majority who would say that they claimed to have eaten fish with him, I doubt that one would get a majority who would say that they experienced a mere light, either. Indeed, it's astonishing the speed with which you have moved from "majority of experts" to something akin to, "Only kookballs on the fringe sans NT credentials think the disciples claimed to any concrete, clear, interactive experiences with Jesus at all." Which is not true either. Indeed, the state of the discipline is that it is deeply fractured along these very lines (a sign of ideological issues rather than technical ones lying behind the disagreements), and as William Lane Craig has pointed out, the distaste for the physicality of the resurrection accounts in the gospels is not the outcome of any technical argument but rather appears to be the result of an anti-supernatural bias. I couldn't have said it better myself.
But at this point, I think you've threadjacked long enough.
Posted by Lydia | March 30, 2017 12:04 AM