Biblical inerrancy

[felix]

There have been doubts about the proper translation of this sentence, but the translations, King James and the American Standard, make no material difference in the meaning.

The two Versions give the point in the difference of translation. One says: "All scripture" (the Old Testament Scripture), that had made Timothy wise unto salvation, "is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable." The other says: "Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable."

They both declare the Scriptures of God that had gone before were profitable to the man of God: Him who believed in Christ Jesus, for teaching. The same thing is in the following: "Now these things happened unto them by way of example; and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages are come." 1 Cor 10:11.

for teaching,—The man of God can find teaching and example, warning and instruction in God's dealings with the Jewish people to help him in every temptation and trial through which he is called to pass.

for reproof,—For reproving mistakes and wrongs in ourselves and others.

for correction,—The Scripture is perceived as the rule of faith, convicting of error and guiding to truth.

for instruction which is in righteousness:—The Scripture teaches by guiding and inspiring the soul in holiness and right living. These instructions are given as in accordance with the will of God as revealed through Christ Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

No matter how you translate or what translations you use, it doesn't say Scripture is God's Word.

 

[BornAgain]

No matter how you translate or what translations you use, it doesn't say Scripture is God's Word.

What is it then?

 

[felix]

What is it then?

It is inspiration of God or inspired of God NOT Word of God.

The Word became Flesh not papyri or paper.

 

[BornAgain]

No matter how you translate or what translations you use, it doesn't say Scripture is God's Word.

I just read your post #115 on your take on the Bible. How I translate what you said is that the Bible brainwashes people by reading the Old & NT.

 

[BornAgain]

It is inspiration of God or inspired of God NOT Word of God.

The Word became Flesh not papyri or paper.

I am going to do more research on this before I can respond. Thank you for your replies...

 

[stovebolts]

It is inspiration of God or inspired of God NOT Word of God.

The Word became Flesh not papyri or paper.

Wow Felix,

What do you make of this passage?

Acts 4:31 And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness.

How about this one?

Ephesians 6:17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:

And what is truth? Where can it be found?
2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

My personal favorite:
Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

 

[felix]

I just read your post #115 on your take on the Bible. How I translate what you said is that the Bible brainwashes people by reading the Old & NT.

What I said: I think most are brainwashed that OT and NT is scripture and it is God's Word.

Yes, many today are brainwashed that Scripture includes NT as well and the combined OT and NT is scripture which is also exalted as God's Word.

Scripture includes only the following:
1. Law of Moses - (5 books of Moses)
2. Psalms
3. All prophets (includes major and minor prophets).

You can ignore the rest because, Christ did not refer them as Scripture.

Sadly, many follow the Jewish canon by the Jewish priests who crucified Christ, whom Christ referred as leaven, brood or vipers, serpents, white washed tombs etc, and we today reject Christ's sayings on this matter and follow the Jews for what is referred as Scripture.

Christ's reference to Scripture detailing even the books on it predates all canons , who is the ultimate authority on this matter.

 

[felix]

Wow Felix,

What do you make of this passage?

Acts 4:31 And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness.

How about this one?

Ephesians 6:17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:

And what is truth? Where can it be found?
2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

My personal favorite:
Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

None of the verses you referred actually say that scripture is the word of God.

John 5:38-40 But you do not have His word abiding in you, because whom He sent, Him you do not believe. You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.

In the above passage, Christ clearly differentiated that His Word is different from Scriptures. Scribes and Pharisees followed Scriptures to it's very word but they don't have His Word in them.

Hence, in Christ's own words, His Word is not the Scripture.

Also from your favorite verse,
Heb 4:12-13 For the word of God [is] living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart and there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things [are] naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we [must give] account.

When did Scripture became a male and had eyes ?

 

[By Grace]

I am going to do more research on this before I can respond. Thank you for your replies...

From an unpublished book I wrote

Just how trustworthy is the Bible? This has been one of me great issues of this century. Is the Bible inerrant (meaning no errors), or is it merely an infallible (perfect) guide in matters of faith and practice? (meaning that what it says about spiritual truths is true, but there may be errors in science, geography, and history) While there are unbiblical views that reject the authority of the Word altogether or say that it becomes God’s Word as you experience it, the above stated views are the center of the debate.


On the left side is the neo evangelical position, and on the right is the evangelical position

NEO-EVANGELICAL............................ EVANGELICAL
[FONT=&quot]True in whole, but not all parts.[/FONT]........................ [FONT=&quot]True in whole parts.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]True spiritually, but not always historically..............................[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]True spiritually and historically[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]True morally, but not always scientifically.......................................[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]True morally and Scientifically[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]True in intention, but not in all affirmation[/FONT]........................ [FONT=&quot]True in intention and all affirmations[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Bible is infallible, not inerrant...................................[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]Bible is infallible and inerrant[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Bible is God’s instrument of revelation.[/FONT]........................... [FONT=&quot]Bible is intrinsically a revelation.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Bible is God’s record of revelation.[/FONT] .............................. [FONT=&quot]Bible is intrinsically a revelation.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]God speaks through the words of the Bible.[/FONT].................................... [FONT=&quot]God speaks in the words of the Bible.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Human language is inadequate to communicate God....................................................[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]Human language is adequate but not exhaustive.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Much of higher criticism may be accepted...........................................[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]None of higher criticism is accepted.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Faith is opposed to reason.[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]...................................................Faith is not opposed to reason.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][1][/FONT]
NOTE: The term “higher criticism” refers to a school of thought begun in the late 1800’s in Germany that has evolved into a theology stating that Moses did not write the Pentateuch, and that there are two (or three) different people who write the book of Isaiah. Essentially the term “higher” refers to the degree of complexity one uses to look at Scriptures. Granted, there are some Scriptural difficulties in the original texts that have differing interpretations, but acknowledging them, and trying to explain them in such a way to not take away the divine authorship of Scripture is the function of lower criticism.

Why is this chart an important part of apologetics? It demonstrates that one view is an appeasement policy, and the other is an apologetic policy. That is, one position gives up ground to accommodate the human mind, making it superior to God, while the other position takes God at His word, and begins from there.

[FONT=&quot][1][/FONT]Geisler, N. L., & Brooks, R. M. (1990). When skeptics ask (Page 146). Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books.




My apologies for not having the chart come out well



​

 

[Webb]

Hello Grace

I have appreciated your posts. I take the position on the right side of the chart and hopefully understand correctly you do as well.

God bless

 

[BornAgain]

From an unpublished book I wrote

Just how trustworthy is the Bible? This has been one of me great issues of this century. Is the Bible inerrant (meaning no errors), or is it merely an infallible (perfect) guide in matters of faith and practice? (meaning that what it says about spiritual truths is true, but there may be errors in science, geography, and history) While there are unbiblical views that reject the authority of the Word altogether or say that it becomes God’s Word as you experience it, the above stated views are the center of the debate.


On the left side is the neo evangelical position, and on the right is the evangelical position

NEO-EVANGELICAL............................ EVANGELICAL
[FONT=&quot]True in whole, but not all parts.[/FONT]........................ [FONT=&quot]True in whole parts.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]True spiritually, but not always historically..............................[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]True spiritually and historically[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]True morally, but not always scientifically.......................................[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]True morally and Scientifically[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]True in intention, but not in all affirmation[/FONT]........................ [FONT=&quot]True in intention and all affirmations[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Bible is infallible, not inerrant...................................[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]Bible is infallible and inerrant[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Bible is God’s instrument of revelation.[/FONT]........................... [FONT=&quot]Bible is intrinsically a revelation.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Bible is God’s record of revelation.[/FONT] .............................. [FONT=&quot]Bible is intrinsically a revelation.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]God speaks through the words of the Bible.[/FONT].................................... [FONT=&quot]God speaks in the words of the Bible.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Human language is inadequate to communicate God....................................................[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]Human language is adequate but not exhaustive.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Much of higher criticism may be accepted...........................................[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]None of higher criticism is accepted.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Faith is opposed to reason.[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]...................................................Faith is not opposed to reason.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][1][/FONT]
NOTE: The term “higher criticism†refers to a school of thought begun in the late 1800’s in Germany that has evolved into a theology stating that Moses did not write the Pentateuch, and that there are two (or three) different people who write the book of Isaiah. Essentially the term “higher†refers to the degree of complexity one uses to look at Scriptures. Granted, there are some Scriptural difficulties in the original texts that have differing interpretations, but acknowledging them, and trying to explain them in such a way to not take away the divine authorship of Scripture is the function of lower criticism.

Why is this chart an important part of apologetics? It demonstrates that one view is an appeasement policy, and the other is an apologetic policy. That is, one position gives up ground to accommodate the human mind, making it superior to God, while the other position takes God at His word, and begins from there.

[FONT=&quot][1][/FONT]Geisler, N. L., & Brooks, R. M. (1990). When skeptics ask (Page 146). Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books.




My apologies for not having the chart come out well



​

Your chart is just fine and I would say I am on the right. I also like reading your posts, you have made me realize I have much to learn and I thank you for taking the time to explain this to me, factually and without argument. It is refreshing...

 

[By Grace]

Hello Grace I have appreciated your posts. I take the position on the right side of the chart and hopefully understand correctly you do as well. God bless

This also goes to Born Again


Thank you both for your comments, and the glory goes only and always to God.

FYI I chose my username to remind me how I am saved, persevered, and how I will see Jesus face-to-face. (I could not use the user name "Humble". It was taken! )

 

[felix]

From an unpublished book I wrote

Just how trustworthy is the Bible? This has been one of me great issues of this century. Is the Bible inerrant (meaning no errors), or is it merely an infallible (perfect) guide in matters of faith and practice? (meaning that what it says about spiritual truths is true, but there may be errors in science, geography, and history) While there are unbiblical views that reject the authority of the Word altogether or say that it becomes God’s Word as you experience it, the above stated views are the center of the debate.


On the left side is the neo evangelical position, and on the right is the evangelical position

You did not define what you consider as Scripture.

Jesus Christ .................................................................Law, Psalms, Prophets (Luke 24:44-45)
Before Council of Jamnia ...............................................OT and deuterocanonical books, e.g., LXXE
After Council of Jamnia .................................................OT
Irenaeus.......................................................................OT + NT but excluding (Philemon, Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 3 John and Jude)
Origen of Alexandria......................................................OT + NT but excluding (Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Revelation)
Canon of Trent..............................................................OT + deuterocanonical books + NT
Lutheran (personal) canon..............................................OT but excluding (Book of Esther) + NT but excluding (Jude, James, Hebrews, and Revelation)

So, before even going into "neo-evangelical" or "evangelical" position, define Bible and the canon you are referring to.

Also, 2/3 of all NT letters and gospels quote from LXXE and not Masoretic, yet we actively reject deuterocanonical books which are a part of LXXE. This is why, we need to consider ONLY what Christ mentioned as Scripture and the rest are good for learning and understanding better.

 

[By Grace]

You did not define what you consider as Scripture.

<SNIP>
So, before even going into "neo-evangelical" or "evangelical" position, define Bible and the canon you are referring to.

Also, 2/3 of all NT letters and gospels quote from LXXE and not Masoretic, yet we actively reject deuterocanonical books which are a part of LXXE. This is why, we need to consider ONLY what Christ mentioned as Scripture and the rest are good for learning and understanding better.

Are you trying to say that there are different standards for what is Scripture?

Please explain your understanding of "deuterocanonical" It breaks down as "second canon" and the only time it is used is by liberal theologians who are pontificating about a "second Isaiah" thus the term "deutero-Isaiah".
From what you posted, I am wondering if you support the documentary hypothesis?

FYI the Septuagint is abbreviated LXX becaus it was done by a committee of seventy rabbis who knew Greek. There is no E in the Roman numbering system

 

[felix]

Are you trying to say that there are different standards for what is Scripture?

Please explain your understanding of "deuterocanonical" It breaks down as "second canon" and the only time it is used is by liberal theologians who are pontificating about a "second Isaiah" thus the term "deutero-Isaiah".
From what you posted, I am wondering if you support the documentary hypothesis?

Deuterocanonical texts are a part of LXX it was never excluded anytime.

I don't have to even worry about "documentary hypothesis" or any other theories because, someone greater who is Christ Himself have referred the "existing" first 5 books of Moses as law.

 

[By Grace]

Deuterocanonical texts are a part of LXX it was never excluded anytime.

I don't have to even worry about "documentary hypothesis" or any other theories because, someone greater who is Christ Himself have referred the "existing" first 5 books of Moses as law.

Are you trying to say that there are different standards for what is Scripture?
You did not address that.

g'day, mate!
gotta retire

 

[felix]

Are you trying to say that there are different standards for what is Scripture?
You did not address that.

g'day, mate!
gotta retire

There is only one Scripture that which is referred by Christ which includes Law, Psalms, Prophets.

 

[BornAgain]

Matthew 5:18-19 (KJV)
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Here Jesus says again his attitude toward the law and the prophets. "Till heaven and earth pass away" is another way of saying that "the law or the prophets" shall not pass away until all are fulfilled in the minutest detail.

The law shall last till the new order of things is brought into force; the prophets shall stand until their predictions become history. "Jot" is for the Hebrew letter "jod," which is the smallest letter in the Hebrew alphabet. "Tittle" is the little bend or point which serves to distinguish certain Hebrew letters of similar appearance.

The Jews were familiar with the expression used by Jesus. Everything else may change, but the word of God expressed by either "the law" or "the prophets" must stand until it has accomplished that which God intended. All shall stand "till all things be accomplished."

Some make a distinction between "fulfilled" and "accomplished." They are not the same words in the original. Jesus meant to say that the law should remain in full force until it shall have accomplished that which God intended it to accomplish. The law seems to have had a twofold termination, a negative and a positive; negatively, it terminated with the old Jewish nation; positively, it is realized in the new and spiritual kingdom, which Jesus inaugurated.

19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments. The Greek word here for "break" is generally translated "loose" and carries with it the idea of freeing from restraints, as in Mark 1:7, Luke 13:15, Luke 19:30-31, John 11:44. The idea seems to be that anyone who should loosen the authority or obligation of even the "least commandments" should be condemned. Not the one who would destroy the commandment, but the one who should violate it by loosening its obligations on anyone.

The one who should do this should be called "least in the kingdom of heaven." The man who would break what he considered one of the least commandments of God under one dispensation would be proportionately disobedient under another dispensation, and hence would sustain the wrong attitude toward the authority of God. "Least" may refer to the same as "one jot or one tittle" in verse eighteen; it means that no one has authority to violate in the minutest detail any of the commands of God.

But whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. Jesus puts doing before teaching. This is the proper order, these are the two great things one can do. He can keep all of God's commandments and teach others to keep them, or he can disobey them himself and encourage others to disobey them.

To relax the obligation of law either by example is not the way to attain eminence in piety ourselves, or to promote it in others. It is bad to do wrong, but it is worse if in addition we teach others to do wrong. The one who breaks the commandment of God will be held in contempt by all the loyal subjects of the kingdom of God, but one who obeys the commandments of God shall be held in honor by the ones who are loyal subjects of his kingdom.

This breaking of the commandment seems to be willful, since connected with it was the teaching of others to set aside the law. It means the same that James meant when he said, "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is become guilty of all." James 2:10.

Our fidelity to God is tested as easily in literal things as in great ones. rather, nothing is little where God's authority is at stake.

 

[felix]

Matthew 5:18-19 (KJV)
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Here Jesus says again his attitude toward the law and the prophets. "Till heaven and earth pass away" is another way of saying that "the law or the prophets" shall not pass away until all are fulfilled in the minutest detail.

The law shall last till the new order of things is brought into force; the prophets shall stand until their predictions become history. "Jot" is for the Hebrew letter "jod," which is the smallest letter in the Hebrew alphabet. "Tittle" is the little bend or point which serves to distinguish certain Hebrew letters of similar appearance.

The Jews were familiar with the expression used by Jesus. Everything else may change, but the word of God expressed by either "the law" or "the prophets" must stand until it has accomplished that which God intended. All shall stand "till all things be accomplished."

Some make a distinction between "fulfilled" and "accomplished." They are not the same words in the original. Jesus meant to say that the law should remain in full force until it shall have accomplished that which God intended it to accomplish. The law seems to have had a twofold termination, a negative and a positive; negatively, it terminated with the old Jewish nation; positively, it is realized in the new and spiritual kingdom, which Jesus inaugurated.

19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments. The Greek word here for "break" is generally translated "loose" and carries with it the idea of freeing from restraints, as in Mark 1:7, Luke 13:15, Luke 19:30-31, John 11:44. The idea seems to be that anyone who should loosen the authority or obligation of even the "least commandments" should be condemned. Not the one who would destroy the commandment, but the one who should violate it by loosening its obligations on anyone.

The one who should do this should be called "least in the kingdom of heaven." The man who would break what he considered one of the least commandments of God under one dispensation would be proportionately disobedient under another dispensation, and hence would sustain the wrong attitude toward the authority of God. "Least" may refer to the same as "one jot or one tittle" in verse eighteen; it means that no one has authority to violate in the minutest detail any of the commands of God.

But whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. Jesus puts doing before teaching. This is the proper order, these are the two great things one can do. He can keep all of God's commandments and teach others to keep them, or he can disobey them himself and encourage others to disobey them.

To relax the obligation of law either by example is not the way to attain eminence in piety ourselves, or to promote it in others. It is bad to do wrong, but it is worse if in addition we teach others to do wrong. The one who breaks the commandment of God will be held in contempt by all the loyal subjects of the kingdom of God, but one who obeys the commandments of God shall be held in honor by the ones who are loyal subjects of his kingdom.

This breaking of the commandment seems to be willful, since connected with it was the teaching of others to set aside the law. It means the same that James meant when he said, "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is become guilty of all." James 2:10.

Our fidelity to God is tested as easily in literal things as in great ones. rather, nothing is little where God's authority is at stake.

Matt 5:18-19 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches [them,] he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.


However, none of "these commandments" mentioned by Christ are actually from the law of Moses

• Matt 5:20 For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds [the] [righteousness] of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.
• Matt 5:22 But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, 'Raca!' shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be in danger of hell fire.
• Matt 5:28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
• Matt 5:32 But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.
• Matt 5:34 But I say to you, do not swear at all: neither by heaven, for it is God's throne;
• Matt 5:39 But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.
• Matt 5:44 But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you,

(I think I already mentioned this else where)

 

[By Grace]

[There is only one Scripture that which is referred by Christ which includes Law, Psalms, Prophets

.
QUOTE=felix;736858]Matt 5:18-19 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches [them,] he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.


However, none of "these commandments" mentioned by Christ are actually from the law of Moses
<SNIP>

(I think I already mentioned this else where)

Originally Posted by By Grace
Are you trying to say that there are different standards for what is Scripture?
You did not address that.

I will not ask the SAME question thrice.

From your evasive answers above it is clear that you are creating non-standard views of Scripture.

For example when you are quoiting from the Sermon on the Mount, you are taking a hyper literalistic approach. You need to take the CONTEXT and the words into consideration. Who was the audience? Jews steepedi n the 10 Commandments and who were bullied by the self-righteous Pharisees.

What you exclude from the quotes is significant because that gives a context for Jesus saying as He did. The reason context is so vital is that any verse ripped from its context becomes a pretext. Your cherry picking is not an exception to that rule.

There are two major significances to the entire passage. The most obvious one is the "you have heard it said... (referring to the 10 commandments) but I say unto you..." passages. Jesus is asserting His authority above the 10 C as well as the onerous rules of the Pharisees. In doing so, He is skewering the Pharisees who tithed on the spices, but neglected the intent of the Law-- a schoolmaster unto righteousness. The intent of the Pharisees was to come as close to breaking the 10 Cs as possible without actually breaking them. Jesus was addressing the exceptions based on the 10Cs. So while He did not quote exactly any particular Commandment directly, He was addressing the fallacies of the Pharisees circumvention of the Commandments by making clarifications of them.

The second purpose for the passage is where you may not fully understand it: He was upholding the 10Cs, not replacing them.

From where did this stuff come, mate? I ask because the stuff is certainly a cult-like and unorthodox view of Scriptures. I do NOT think that it is a result of you spending too much time in the hot outback this time of year without a hat

Shalom