Do Jehovah's Witnesses Deny Biblical Monotheism?
An Answer to Robert M. Bowman, Jr. and His Book Why You
Should Believe in the Trinity
By Mitchell Gray
Robert Bowman seems to believe that Jehovah's Witnesses deny
Biblical monotheism. He writes in his book, "It is therefore important to note
that the JWs flatly deny this most basic of biblical teachings" (Bowman 50).
This, then, raises a question: Do Jehovah's Witnesses really deny Biblical
monotheism? The answer is no, but Mr. Bowman would love nothing more than to
have his readers believe 'yes.' If anything Mr. Bowman and the host of other
Trinitarians are the ones that deny Biblical monotheism and express a form, a
branch of monotheism that did not exist in Bible times.
Bowman writes that although JWs "admit that there is only one Almighty God, they
claim that there are, in addition to that God, many creatures rightly recognized
in the Bible as 'gods'" and that JWs are really henotheistic (Bowman 50). Bowman
is guilty of two things: first, not understanding the difference between
Biblical monotheism and the monotheism he expouses, which I will explain
shortly, and of only having two distinctions for the word "god." Bowman believes
that there are only true G-god(s) and false G-god(s). In the true G-god(s)
category only one exhausts the requirements for being the True God, the God
worshipped by Jews and Christians. Then there are false G-god(s) of which belong
everything worshipped that does not fit in the True God category (Bowman 51).
Bowman claims that Jesus could not be "a god" without being a false God (Bowman
94). This is due to the fact that he fails to understand (1) Biblical
monotheism, (2) the Biblical meaning of the word 'god' and (3) the different
categories of true/false G-god(s). All of this will be clarified shortly.
We should begin by differentiating Biblical monotheism from the monotheism that
Bowman holds to. I have after a careful study come to the conclusion that there
are currently two forms of monotheism. There is Biblical monotheism and then
there is strict monotheism. Simply put Biblical monotheism is the belief in one
Almighty and Supreme God, but this allows for others to wear the title "god"
without actually being a false god. This differs from henotheism by the fact
that in henotheistic belief, one worships one Almighty God without denying the
existence of other Gods that can be worshipped. Henotheism should not be
confused with monotheism or polytheism (the worship of more than one god).
In Biblical monotheism one worships and serves only one Almighty God. There are
NO other gods that can be worshipped. There are, however, beings that can wear
the title of "god" but are not gods in toto. The Almighty God gives them (or
allows them) a position and measure of authority to do his will; act as his
agents (or simply rule with great power). Take, for example, the angels. They
can be called "gods" but are not worshipped as gods (Rev. 22:8-9). They have the
title "gods" bestowed upon them by the One Almighty God because they act as his
agents. They are (in)visible representatives of him. They deliver messages to
humans for Him. They exercise great power and authority, granted to them by the
Almighty God. They can kill, chastise, or punish anyone if they deem it
necessary (Luke 1:8-20; Acts 7:53; Heb. 2:2; Gen. 19:11).
Humans, likewise can be known as "gods." There are Biblical examples for all of
this (along with extra-Biblical) which I will present later. Bowman objects to
Biblical monotheism and subscribes instead to strict monotheism. Strict
monotheism is quite different than Biblical monotheism. Strict monotheism was
built by people that pushed for an ever stricter sense of definition of
monotheism than that which is defined in the Bible. I can only assume that it
was the early churches (or the later churches) way of battling heretics, those
such as the Gnostics and Marcions. As more ideas about the nature of God and his
relationship to Jesus surfaced, the Christians (and Jews) felt the need to
change the meaning of monotheism (consciously or subconsciously) to keep these
"heretical" ideas from entering Christian theology.
Strict monotheism is what abounds today. There can be only one God. No one can
wear the title "god" and if they do they are false gods. This view, though, was
not held by the Jews and early Christians.
In his book Mr. Bowman criticizes two examples JWs use to prove Biblical
monotheism; angels and humans. Bowman gives several reasons why he doesn't
believe angels or humans can be called "gods" in the Bible. We will discuss
these arguments of his in some detail. Although Bowman’s discussion begins with
angels, we will begin with humans.
The Biblical Usage of the Word 'God'
In the Bible the term "god" may represent one of three entities. It could
describe (1) the Almighty God, (2) a false god, or (3) a person/being that has
had power and authority given or allowed to them by the Almighty God. There are
only two categories that are worshipped: The Almighty God and the false idol
gods of the nations. Since only one can be the True God and be worshipped as
such, all other gods that are worshipped are false gods. Notice that they are
worshipped as gods, but because they are not the True God, they are false gods.
The other category is the "gods" that are not worshipped in any way. Then how
are they "gods" you might ask? It is true that in our modern usage of the term
"gods" we see it as a being that is given worship. However, this meaning has
developed according to the strict monotheistic view of who God is. It is not
true of ancient times though. In Bible times the term "god" could be applied to
anyone with great power and authority. Anyone, like a king, army leader, or even
a prophet could be called "a god." Most of the time (especially in the Hebrew
world) the person given the title of "god" was someone appointed by the Almighty
God to be his representative on earth. What keeps them from being false gods is
that they were not given worship and in many cases refused to be worshipped.
They did, however command great respect and authority. Therefore, Bowman only
confuses the issue when he restricts the term "god" to either the True God or a
false god.
I will now try to lend support to all that I have said in the preceding
paragraphs by documenting how humans and angels could be considered "gods"
without breaking with their historical Jewish monotheism. The same monotheism
which I describe as Biblical monotheism. I believe that the documented evidence
(Biblical and non-Biblical) that will be provided will demonstrate that the
Witnesses position is not a baseless one.
Humans Can Be 'Gods'
Bowman argues that humans cannot be "gods" in any shape or form. He writes that
the "bible explicitly denies that powerful men, such as kings and dictators and
military leaders are gods" (Bowman 55). Of course, this is based on Bowman's
misunderstanding of the Biblical usage of the word God.[1] To support his views,
Bowman criticizes instances where JWs see that humans are termed "gods." For
example, Bowman says that the interpretation of Psalms 82:6 by JWs is incorrect.
He claims that the human judges called elohim in this verse are really being
called "gods" only in irony. Bowman explains that "the judges called 'gods' in
Psalm 82 could not have been really gods, because the Bible denies that mighty
men or authoritative men are gods. . .more likely they are called 'gods' in
irony, to expose them as wicked judges" (Bowman 58). Is Mr. Bowman correct in
thinking this? Let us just examine Psalm 82 and test the soundness of his
interpretation.
I do not disagree with Bowman's assertion that the humans in this Psalm are
being called gods in a way that exposes them for their wickedness. This can be
seen by what God tells these judges in the second verse. He asked them how long
they will judge with injustice and partiality. Bowman uses this verse as a means
of "proving" his point, that they are "gods" in an ironic way. This, however,
does not fit with the context in which it appears.
God states to these "gods" that they should be the judges for the people in a
low estate and for those with little means. They should not allow the wicked to
trample and abuse those who have nothing, because they walk around in what God
calls "darkness" (vv. 3-5). It is likely that this darkness is a spiritual
darkness. It is the religious leaders that do the judging and therefore, because
they are wicked, do not teach the people the deeper things of God. However, this
does not mean that the judges are being called "gods" in irony. In verse six we
read: "I myself have said 'You are gods, and all of you are sons of the Most
High.'" God explicitly tells us (and them) that they are gods, given the
authority by the Almighty to pass judgment on others. This is seen by the
preceding verse that reveals that they are judging the people wrongly, using
their power incorrectly. It looks like they have gotten the big head, they have
become puffed up with pride. This could be the reason God next says, "surely you
will die just as men do, and like anyone of the princes you will fall!" (v. 7).
Apparently, they even believed that they would not die. More likely they viewed
themselves as having so much authority and power that death seemed so remote
that it would not affect them. These men have abused their power granted to them
by God Almighty and because of this the Psalmist says that God should stand up
and judge the earth in righteousness (v. 8). However, the conclusion is quite
different than Bowman's. Verse 6 emphatically says that these humans are "gods".
They are "gods" because the Almighty allows them to rule as his representatives
on earth. This is far from irony. They are "gods" who abused their power, and
because of this God will judge them with the same judgment they meted out (Matt.
7:1-2).
Whatever the reason, Bowman also fails to consider the example of Moses. He was
truly a righteous man and was called "God" by Almighty God in Exodus 7:1. Exodus
tells us that Moses was made "as God to Pharaoh"[2], and Moses acted as God to
Pharaoh by pronouncing judgment on him and the rest of Egypt. Surely Moses was
not called "God" in irony!
Returning to Psalm 82, there is further Scriptural evidence that Bowman’s views
are unsound. Jesus Christ pointed out to the religious leaders of his time that
they too where "gods" when they falsely charged him with claiming to be God
(John 10:33). In John 10:34 Jesus says, "Is it not written in you Law, 'I said:
"You are gods"?'" He then says that those were called gods but the Scriptures
came against them. They died just like ordinary men even though they believed
they were more than ordinary men. They died even though they had all of this
power bestowed upon them by God and Scripture. Christ was defending himself
against false accusations. He demonstrated that those religious leaders were
"gods," but they used their power incorrectly by abusing those in a lower
estate.
We can safely conclude, then, that humans can be called "gods." They are not
false gods because no worship is given to them. They are gods in the sense that
they have authority granted to them by God to act in his behalf. There is no
irony here in Psalm 82. They will be judged with the same judgment they handed
out to the people.
Bowman uses a number of Scriptures to support his contention that humans cannot
be considered gods in an unqualified sense. Although he did not consider a
number of relevant Scriptures, for now, we will concentrate one what he has
listed. He offers Ezekiel 28:2 as one proof that it is Biblically incorrect to
call men "gods" in respect for their authority. This verse, though, does not
imply what Bowman would like it to. In this chapter we read of the king of Tyre
who has seated himself in the throne of God. Ezekiel 28:2b has the king of Tyre
saying: "I am a god. In the seat of god I have seated myself, in the heart of
the open sea." The careful reader will quickly notice that the king of Tyre has
made himself a god. He placed himself in the seat of his god. He claimed to be
divinity. This is far from the humans who were granted the authority of God by
the Almighty. The king of Tyre has made himself a god in opposition to the True
God. He would, therefore be a false god, and not the "god" that has a title of
respect given to them.
Bowman, with his misunderstanding of the term "god" and Biblical monotheism has
mislead his readers, and has done so very successfully since his book was first
printed in 1989. Ezekiel 28:2 does not disprove the notion that humans can be
"gods" in title only. It disproves the notion that humans can make themselves
gods and not be false gods. The Almighty bestows the title and authority of
"god" on people that represent him. No one can give themselves the title "god,"
that can only come from the Almighty God himself.
Bowman asks his readers to compare Ezekiel example with Isaiah 31:3.
Unfortunately, Bowman has taken this verse completely out of context. He hopes
that his readers will read verse 3 in isolation from its immediate context.
However, a quick look at the context will show that this verse is speaking of
Israel seeking help in Egypt instead of Almighty God. Isaiah tells us that there
were some going to Egypt to help them defend themselves from attack because
Egypt was a mighty nation with many horses and chariots, well trained soldiers
and generals (vv. 1-2). They were the world power at that time, controlling
large amounts of land and welding great influence over other nations. But, they
are only human and can only do so much for Israel, while God is Almighty, all
powerful and stronger than all the nations combined. God tells Isaiah that he is
like a lion that will defend those who trust in him. The enemy might scream and
cry and puff themselves up and show their muscles but Jehovah will not back
down. He is not human and will never fear mortal man (vv. 4-5). This is far from
the "proof text" that Bowman offers to defuse the belief that humans cannot be
considered "gods."
The last text that Bowman uses is 2 Thessalonians 2:4. Again, a careful reading
of this verse shows that it is people that make themselves gods and who demand
worship. This is far from those who are granted authority by God and have this
honor placed upon them. We can see that Bowman really offers no proof that
humans cannot be considered "gods," as long as they wear that title in a manner
that is righteous and God has bestowed that title and authority upon them.
Can Angels Be 'Gods'?
Bowman also denies that angels could be considered "gods." Bowman gives some
reasons why he feels that angels cannot wear the title "god." Contrary to his
assertions, there is sound Biblical and extra-Biblical reasons for believing
that angels can be granted the title "god" by the Almighty. And, in Jewish minds
angels were a sort of non-worshipable "god."
We find support for this belief first in the Bible. If we turn to Psalm 8:5 we
read: "You also proceeded to make him [man] a little lower than the heavenly
beings" (NIV). The Hebrew word translated "heavenly beings" in the NIV is elohim.
Elohim literally means "gods" but it is clear that it is angels by the context.
Bowman, however, finds this difficult to believe. He offers another
interpretation of Psalm 8. He says that "it is questionable that in its original
context elohim in Psalm 8:5 should be understood to refer to angels and
translated 'gods' or 'godlike ones' [NWT]. This is because in context this Psalm
is speaking of man's place in creation" (Bowman 52). Bowman continues his
thought by explaining that Psalm 8 can be linked back to Genesis 1. Bowman
correctly notes that in Genesis 1 man was created in the image of elohim, or the
image of God. He then states, "This makes it quite reasonable to conclude that
in its own context Psalm 8:5 is meant to be understood as saying that man is a
little lower than God, not angels" (Bowman 52). But perhaps Bowman believes his
knowledge exceeds that of the Divinely inspired Apostle Paul, because he
directly contradicts Paul by this statement. If we look at Hebrews 2:6-7 we
read: "What is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for
him? You make him a little lower than the angels."
Perhaps Bowman is also unaware of the LXX rendering of this verse.[3] The LXX
uses the Greek word angelous (aggelouv) instead of the Greek word theos (god,
yeov) or theoi (gods, yeoi). In fact, even the Latin Vulgate uses the word
angelis instead of the Latin word for God. Therefore Bowman's assertions that
the context suggest that men are a little less than God is baseless, and in fact
unbiblical. We can outline this very clearly with Eccl. 3:19-21.
"For there is an eventuality as respects the sons of mankind and an eventuality
as respects the beast, and they have the same eventuality. As the one dies, so
the other dies; and they all have but one spirit, so that there is no
superiority of the man over the beast, for everything is vanity. All are going
to one place. They have all come to be from the dust, and they are all returning
to the dust. Who is there knowing the spirit of the sons of mankind, whether it
is ascending upward; and the spirit of the beast, whether it is descending
downward to the earth?" (Ecclesiastes 3:19-21 [NWT])
Can Bowman really believe that man, who is put on the same level as the beast of
the field, is just a "little lower than God"? Humans die just like animals, and
in fact, "there is no superiority of the man over the beast." Or, as Psalm
49:12: "And yet earthling man, though in honor, cannot keep lodging; he is
indeed comparable with the beast that have been destroyed." Humans are hardly a
"little lower than God" if they are compared to common beast of the field!
I should give Bowman the credit he deserves as a well respected authority in the
apologetic community. He does point out that the LXX rendition using angels
instead of gods. He correctly notes that because Paul quoted the LXX, that does
not mean that "the Septuagint rendering he [Paul] quoted [Heb. 2:7] was a
literal or accurate word-for-word translation of the Hebrew text" (Bowman 52).
This of course is true because angelous ("angels") hardly has the same meaning
as elohim ("God, gods"). It is commonly accepted that the LXX is not a literal
translation of the Hebrew text all of the time. The LXX, in many cases is more
of an interpretative translation. It does contain Jewish thought and Jewish
interpretation and therefore, in the minds of the Jewish scholars that made the
translation, the elohim of Ps. 8:5 were angels. It is good to note that these
Jews are the same Jews that believed the form of monotheism that Christianity
accepted. It is clear that these scholars did understand the angels to be elohim,
though in a subordinate nature, far less than God Almighty, and they chose to
make this clear in their translation. We will come back to the Jewish thinking
concerning angels and their stature as "gods" in one moment.
We should also point out that Paul was an inspired writer of many books of the
Bible. Therefore, even if Paul was quoting the LXX that still does not explain
away the fact that what Paul wrote was given to him by God himself. Bowman can
claim ‘this and show that’ but he cannot deny the fact that the author of
Hebrews was not inspired by God to write angels and that what was written did
not reflect the thoughts of God.
Bowman gives yet another reason why angels could not be called gods. "The Bible
flatly states that demonic spirits are not gods. . .Since demons are just as
much spirits and presumably just as much 'mighty ones' (though wicked) as the
angels, it follows that angels cannot be 'gods' by virtue of their being 'mighty
ones'" (Bowman 54). This is absolutely absurd!
Bowman tries to equate holy angels with evil, wicked demons! Simply being a
'mighty one' does not give you the right to wear the title "god." Only those who
have had that title bestowed upon them by God can be called "gods." Bowman is
completely off base by asserting that angels could not be called "gods" because
demons are not, not to mention the logical fallacy he commits by asserting it.
Angels and the Dead Sea Scrolls
As promised earlier we now will return to the Jewish thought about angels/gods.
This can best be illustrated by the use of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Dead Sea
Scrolls are one of the most important manuscript finds of the century. They have
completely changed the scholarly view of ancient Jewish belief and Bible
interpretation. They will also help us better understand how Biblical monotheism
is better and more accurate than the strict monotheism of today.
The reason for consulting the Dead Sea Scrolls is simple. The community that
prepared and preserved them is the Qumran community. These formed a religious
group known as the Essenes. The Essenes were one of the most influential
theological groups of their time. They were just as, if not more, influential as
the sects of the Pharisees and the Saducees that you read about in the Gospel
accounts, and because they were so influential to Jewish beliefs and traditions
and due to the age of the community, it is only wise to see how they viewed
angels.[4]
In one fragment labeled 4Q403 I i, 30-46 we read of the Song of the holocaust of
the Seventh Sabbath on the sixteenth of the month."[5] In this fragment we read
of how the angels are called the "high among all the gods of knowledge" and "the
holy ones of the 'gods' sanctify the King of glory," and the "Princes of the
praises of all the 'gods', praise the God of majestic praises" (Vermes 225). The
writer of this exhalation exhorts them to "celebrate all the celebrating gods
the King of majesty, for all the gods of knowledge celebrate his glory and all
the spirits of righteousness celebrate his truth" (ibid.). They are also called
"divine spirits" but the strongest proof we have for believing this author is
talking about angels is by what he writes next.
Praise him, divine spirits, praising for ever and ever the firmament of the
highest heavens, all...and its wall, all its structure, its shape. The spirits
of the holy of holies, the living 'gods', the spirits of eternal holiness above
all the holy ones...The divine spirits surround the dwelling of the King of
truth and righteousness; all its walls (Vermes 226).[6]
We can see that the author viewed angels as "gods." To him, there was nothing in
his very strict Jewish belief that angels could not be called "gods" and yet
compromise his monotheism. There is more in these fragments that can help us
understand monotheistic Jewish thought concerning angels. One fragment called
4Q405 19ABCD offers a great deal of help in this matter.
The figures of the 'gods' shall praise him, the most holy spirits...of glory;
the floor of the marvelous innermost chambers, the spirits of the eternal gods,
all...figures of the innermost chambers of the King, the spiritual works of the
marvelous firmament are purified with salt, spirits of knowledge, truth and
righteousness in holy of holies, forms of the living 'gods,' forms of the
illuminating spirits. All their works of art are marvelously linked, many-coloured
spirits, artistic figures of the 'gods,' engraved all around their glorious
bricks of splendour and majesty. All their works of art are living 'gods,' and
their artistic figures are holy angels. From beneath the marvelous inner most
chambers comes a sound of quiet silence: the 'gods' bless...(Vermes 228).
The author here describes the Most Holy chamber of the Temple. It was in this
chamber that the Ark of the Covenant was kept. This is where Jehovah dwelled
(symbolically). Everything in the Most Holy was made of the finest gold. The
Bible tells us that the Temple was ornamented with pictures of angels (1 Kings
6:27-32). Therefore, this description of the "gods" ministering to the Almighty
fits perfectly with the Bible. The curtain that separated the Holy from the Most
Holy even has pictures of angels ("gods") woven into it (2 Chron. 3:14).
In one fragment the author seems to be writing about the angels stationed before
God in heaven. This seems to be the best interpretation when you compare the
first line (and the rest of the fragment) to what was written in Job 1:6 and
2:1. In the fragment we read:
The 'gods' praise him when they take up their station, and all the spirits of
the clear firmament rejoice in his glory...when the gods of knowledge enter by
the doors of glory, and when the holy angels depart the realm, the entrance
doors and the gates of exit proclaim the glory of the King...the fear of the
King of 'gods' is awe-inspiring to all the 'gods,' and they undertake all his
commissions by virtue of his true order (Vermes 229).
This is not just the thought of one author, because in what is called The War
Rule[7] we read that "the host of warring 'gods' gird themselves for the Day of
Revenge" (1QMXV, Vermes 121). We also find in the fragment titled by Vermes as
The Song of Michael and the Just (4Q491 fr. II, Ma) an incomplete sentence that
says that there is "a throne of strength in the congregation of 'gods' so that
not a single king of old shall sit on it, neither shall their noble men...(Vermes
126). The one called Michael is also held as saying "I am reckoned with the
'gods' and my dwelling place is in the congregation of holiness" and "for I am
reckoned with the 'gods,' and my glory is with the sons of the King" (Vermes
126).
As we can see from the numerous Dead Sea Scrolls quotes, the ancient Jews really
had no problem with calling angels "gods." They recognized that angels were not
to be worshipped, that they received their power and authority from Almighty God
himself, and it is he that bestowed this title upon them. It cannot be claimed
that the Jews were not monotheistic, for, they were the epitome of a
monotheistic religion. They loathed any person or nation that worshipped more
than one god. They did, however, understand the difference between worshipping
something and giving something the respect it deserves. They worshipped God
Almighty, the Only True God. They rejected idols (most of the time) and others
who claimed to be gods and wanted worship as false gods. Yet at the same time
they recognized that angels represented God. They had the authority from God to
act as God in his place. They, therefore, rightly recognized them as "gods." A
title that gave them the honor and respect they commanded and deserved, but they
were also careful not to give worship to them. They knew that worship belonged
only to Jehovah. Bowman is therefore wrong by claiming that angels could not be
"gods."
Can Jesus Be Called 'a God'?
Despite Bowman’s knowledge and expertise, he makes another serious error in his
book. On page 54 of his book he writes that "even if angels were gods in some
positive sense, that would not explain in what sense Jesus Christ is called
"God," since he is not an angel—he is God's Son" (Bowman 54). The booklet makes
it clear how Jesus could be "a god" by stating: "Jesus has a position far higher
than angels, imperfect humans, or Satan...Because of his unique position in
relation to Jehovah, Jesus is a 'Mighty God'" (Should You 28). The booklet makes
it quite clear as to how Jesus could be considered "a god." It is because he
exercises all authority in heaven and on earth (Matt. 28:18). he is the King of
God's Kingdom (Rev. 11:15). He is Christ and lord. Prophet and Savior. The King
of kings and Lord of lords. Every knee in heaven bows to him and soon, every
knee on earth will bow to him (Phil. 2:10-11). Christ Jesus is the second
highest being in the universe. The second most powerful person in the entire
expanse of heaven and earth. That is why he can be considered "a god," but, he
is not The God. He is not Almighty God.
Conclusion
We can see, by the abundant evidence and many proofs that Jehovah's Witnesses
are not polytheistic, nor are they henotheistic. They subscribe to Biblical
monotheism, and not to the false, overly restrictive, strict monotheism that
Christendom subscribes to. Angels and certain humans can be considered "gods."
They can have great power bestowed upon them by the Almighty Jehovah God. Jesus
Christ can be considered "a god" without being a false god. One quick note
however. Bowman brings out that Satan is called the "god of this age" but says
that Witnesses have wrongly used this to show that others can be "gods" without
compromising Biblical monotheism. In this point he is correct. In 2 Corinthians
4:4 Satan is called a god but we would have to recognize that he is a false god
because he seeks worship for himself. Therefore, this example is not an
appropriate one for Jehovah’s Witnesses to employ to prove others can be "gods."
Endnotes:
1. Bowman's misunderstanding of the Biblical usage of the term "god" will be
discussed shortly.
2. The KJV says "a god" which would also fit with the translation in Ex. 7:1.3.
3. The Greek Septuagint. A very ancient translation of the Old Testament into
Greek.
4. The scrolls in the Dead Sea Scrolls contain the oldest existing manuscripts
of the Old Testament.
5. Vermes, Geza. The Dead Sea Scrolls in English. London: Penguin Books, 1990,
p. 225. Hereafter cited parenthetically as (Vermes xx).
6. The first ellipsis belongs to Vermes, the second is mine. Because of the age
of the Scrolls, some portions are missing or are too badly preserved to make
out. Therefore, the translator simply uses an ellipsis to show this.
7. Some call it "The War Scroll."
No portion of this document may be reproduced in any fashion. Be it in
printed matter, electronic or any other means. This is for the private use of
persons viewing it in the privacy of their own homes. No quotations are to be
made, nor any internet links made to this document unless express written
permission is given by the author.
|
