The KJV Only & The Textus Receptus Only - a continuous thread
- Thread starter trofimus
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
He argues in this way:
1. The KJV is the only one true word of God.
2. Other translations are corrupted or even from the Evil one.
3. Jesus said that His sheep hear His voice and will not follow stranger. (i.e. this sheep will follow and hear the KJV, not other translations)
==> Conclusion: if somebody freely chooses a non-KJV translation for his/her daily use, its a sign that he/she is not a sheep of Christ
1. The KJV is the only one true word of God.
2. Other translations are corrupted or even from the Evil one.
3. Jesus said that His sheep hear His voice and will not follow stranger. (i.e. this sheep will follow and hear the KJV, not other translations)
==> Conclusion: if somebody freely chooses a non-KJV translation for his/her daily use, its a sign that he/she is not a sheep of Christ
I personally use and favor the KJV (AV)because of its beauty and literary character; but I do not ascribe to a KJV only doctrine. I believe that God has chosen to use imperfect men to convey His perfect Word to mankind.
I believe that all existing texts both in the original languages and in translation contain human error.
I believe that all translations (except those with an intentional doctrinal slant) are far more remarkable for their general agreement than for their occasional differences.
I believe that God superintends both the inspired writers and the various copists and translators to the extent that he does not allow human error to corrupt the intent of His Word.
I believe that the Bible, despite any human error it may contain, is the absolute standard of truth and anything that contradicts it is a lie or an error.
I believe that all existing texts both in the original languages and in translation contain human error.
I believe that all translations (except those with an intentional doctrinal slant) are far more remarkable for their general agreement than for their occasional differences.
I believe that God superintends both the inspired writers and the various copists and translators to the extent that he does not allow human error to corrupt the intent of His Word.
I believe that the Bible, despite any human error it may contain, is the absolute standard of truth and anything that contradicts it is a lie or an error.
The Textus Receptus:
There seem to be two schools of thought on how to determine the reliability of a Greek text.
1) Older texts are more reliable because they are older. This seems to be the assumption of Wescott and Hort, Nestle, and others.
2) The Older texts all come from Alexandria, where allegorical interpretation of Scripture was practiced. The Byzantine, Syriac, and Coptic texts come from places that practiced literal interpretation, and treated God's word with more respect.
I favor the second approach.
There seem to be two schools of thought on how to determine the reliability of a Greek text.
1) Older texts are more reliable because they are older. This seems to be the assumption of Wescott and Hort, Nestle, and others.
2) The Older texts all come from Alexandria, where allegorical interpretation of Scripture was practiced. The Byzantine, Syriac, and Coptic texts come from places that practiced literal interpretation, and treated God's word with more respect.
I favor the second approach.
I think these two "options" are made by the TR proponents. And are oversimplified.
Even though "manuscript from the 2nd century bears more authority than manuscript from the 14th century" is a significant rule for Nestlé Aland etc, all external and internal evidences are taken into consideration, this rule is not followed blindly everywhere.
The Textus Receptus is not a good representant of the Byzantine text, if you prefer the majority text view, you could find other majority text editions more useful (for example 1J5:7 and other TR errors are not there).
Even though "manuscript from the 2nd century bears more authority than manuscript from the 14th century" is a significant rule for Nestlé Aland etc, all external and internal evidences are taken into consideration, this rule is not followed blindly everywhere.
The Textus Receptus is not a good representant of the Byzantine text, if you prefer the majority text view, you could find other majority text editions more useful (for example 1J5:7 and other TR errors are not there).
I have a great love for the KJV but am by no means a KJVO. I love my Geneva Bible, Webster Bible which is basically the KJV put in more of an American English wording by Noah Webster in 1833. Also love the NKJV, Jubilee Bible and even the Amplified Bible. I would highly recommend any of these as I consider all to be based on the TR and Old Latin Vulgate. Although the Amplified is also based off the NA Text.
I would rather someone read from one of the above Translations. But each individuals should read from whatever Translation of the Scripture/Bible they feel lead by the Holy Spirit.
34). Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, ye are gods?
35). If he called them gods, unto whom the Word (Logos) of God (Theo) came and the scripture cannot be broken;
John 10:34-35
This passage seems to say the Word of God and Scripture are the same and can not be broken. While we see Peter speaking of the Logos in I Peter 1:23 but he concludes in I Peter 1:25 that the Word of God ( rhema) endures for ever.
In the Textus Receptus thru the Old Latin Vulgate, I see a Loving God leaving His followers a perfect love letter, Luke 1:1-4.
By the way Theophilus is easily translate as lover of God.
I would rather someone read from one of the above Translations. But each individuals should read from whatever Translation of the Scripture/Bible they feel lead by the Holy Spirit.
34). Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, ye are gods?
35). If he called them gods, unto whom the Word (Logos) of God (Theo) came and the scripture cannot be broken;
John 10:34-35
This passage seems to say the Word of God and Scripture are the same and can not be broken. While we see Peter speaking of the Logos in I Peter 1:23 but he concludes in I Peter 1:25 that the Word of God ( rhema) endures for ever.
In the Textus Receptus thru the Old Latin Vulgate, I see a Loving God leaving His followers a perfect love letter, Luke 1:1-4.
By the way Theophilus is easily translate as lover of God.
I have already addressed this elsewhere, but the so-called "Majority Text" of Hodges & Farstad is a BOGUS Majority Text, and others have carefully dilineated the reason why. We will never have a true Majority Text since all the manuscripts will never be properly collated. What we have in the TR should be totally satisfactory, since all the critical texts are founded on CORRUPT Greek Manuscripts (and that is factual).
When John 14:23-24 testify that those who loved Him will keep His words, that would stand to reason that the frequent use of His words would be worn out and requiring copies whereas the oldest document the most reliable argument would be evident that they did not love those words enough to wear them out that it needs recopying.
If those oldest manuscripts were found in the Alexandrian area or of its origin, then look at the practices of those monasteries where they were found. Fasting , meditation, and prayer could be all favored practices of Gnosticism to seek hidden or secret knowledge; hereby they refer to those practices than reading the written word. Why would they think like that? I can only assume since no one can really pin down what Gnosticism teaches for gaining secret knowledge.
Errant believers today thinks tongue that comes with no interpretation can be used for not only as a prayer by the Holy Spirit back to God but for self edification. Hence .. secret knowledge. I can just imagine all those gnostics back then as pre modern Pentecostals/Charismatics today. Even the recipients of the Toronto's Blessings said that they do not need the word of God any more; all they need is the Spirit.
And all modern Bibles do support tongues to be used without interpretation by way of Romans 8:26-27 even though in those very same modern Bibles, John 16:13 testifies that the Holy Spirit cannot use tongues for uttering His own intercessions which is why only the KJV has it right because in according to the Greek, even His groaning cannot be uttered.
The KJV is the only one that lines up the truth of John 16:13 in that Bible with Romans 8:26-27 that His intercessions are unspeakable and thus unutterable wherein Another has to know the mind of the Spirit to give His intercessions for Him to the Father, and that "Another" is the Son of God, the only Mediator between God and men as He is the One that searches our hearts as confirmed in scripture in Hebrews 4:12-16.
But.... even non tongue speakers cannot see the truth in His words as kept in the KJV of Romans 8:26-27 lining up with John 16:13. Truly, people are fainting for hearing the actual word of God for us to use as meat to discern good & evil by.
1 John 5:7 is actual part of scripture because you cannot make the witness of God greater then men's if there was only One Witness counted as coming from God in the context of the scripture. Verse 9 is proof that verse 7 belongs in 1 John 5.
1 John 5:[SUP]6 [/SUP]This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. [SUP]7 [/SUP]For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. [SUP]8 [/SUP]And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. [SUP]9 [/SUP]If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.
There are early extra-Biblical evidence that testified that 1 John 5:7 was originally a part of scripture. You discern with Him.
NTEB: Early Manuscript Evidence For Including 1 John 5:7
If those oldest manuscripts were found in the Alexandrian area or of its origin, then look at the practices of those monasteries where they were found. Fasting , meditation, and prayer could be all favored practices of Gnosticism to seek hidden or secret knowledge; hereby they refer to those practices than reading the written word. Why would they think like that? I can only assume since no one can really pin down what Gnosticism teaches for gaining secret knowledge.
Errant believers today thinks tongue that comes with no interpretation can be used for not only as a prayer by the Holy Spirit back to God but for self edification. Hence .. secret knowledge. I can just imagine all those gnostics back then as pre modern Pentecostals/Charismatics today. Even the recipients of the Toronto's Blessings said that they do not need the word of God any more; all they need is the Spirit.
And all modern Bibles do support tongues to be used without interpretation by way of Romans 8:26-27 even though in those very same modern Bibles, John 16:13 testifies that the Holy Spirit cannot use tongues for uttering His own intercessions which is why only the KJV has it right because in according to the Greek, even His groaning cannot be uttered.
The KJV is the only one that lines up the truth of John 16:13 in that Bible with Romans 8:26-27 that His intercessions are unspeakable and thus unutterable wherein Another has to know the mind of the Spirit to give His intercessions for Him to the Father, and that "Another" is the Son of God, the only Mediator between God and men as He is the One that searches our hearts as confirmed in scripture in Hebrews 4:12-16.
But.... even non tongue speakers cannot see the truth in His words as kept in the KJV of Romans 8:26-27 lining up with John 16:13. Truly, people are fainting for hearing the actual word of God for us to use as meat to discern good & evil by.
1 John 5:7 is actual part of scripture because you cannot make the witness of God greater then men's if there was only One Witness counted as coming from God in the context of the scripture. Verse 9 is proof that verse 7 belongs in 1 John 5.
1 John 5:[SUP]6 [/SUP]This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. [SUP]7 [/SUP]For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. [SUP]8 [/SUP]And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. [SUP]9 [/SUP]If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.
There are early extra-Biblical evidence that testified that 1 John 5:7 was originally a part of scripture. You discern with Him.
NTEB: Early Manuscript Evidence For Including 1 John 5:7
Enow,
You have brought up some very good points, and to reiterate what is bolded above, the only reason the ancient corrupt manuscripts survived is because they had been discarded by Christians and left untouched. As a matter of fact, Tischendorf found Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph) in a waste basket ready for kindling and rescued that corrupt manuscript as though it was something precious. Following that, he was so blinded to the truth that his critical text was almost exclusively based on Aleph. And all the other modern critics simply followed Westcott & Hort in elevating Aleph and B (Codex Vaticanus) to the status of "infallible".
You have referred to just a few Scriptures which have been corrupted, but one could go into verse after verse and passage after passage which has simply been EXPUNGED by the Gnostics. There are hundred of words which have been deliberately omitted, especially words which refer to "Jesus" or "Christ" or "Lord".
The real question is whether Christians in general want the absolute truth about this matter or not. In my experience, those who have believed the critics and accepted modern versions and critical texts simply do not want to hear the truth. One would think that Christians consistently want the truth, but the reality is that there are limits to what will be accepted and what will not.
Your reference to 1 John 5:7,8 is a good case in point. Both theologically and grammatically the absence of verse 7 makes absolutely no sense. We do not know why the Greeks scribes omitted this verse, but there is a mountain of evidence to prove that it was known among the churches and the Early Church Fathers. By the same token the critics will gladly accept any reading in Codex Vaticanus, even though it is not supported by any other manuscript! The omission of Matthew 6:13 (a very important verse) is a case in point.
You have brought up some very good points, and to reiterate what is bolded above, the only reason the ancient corrupt manuscripts survived is because they had been discarded by Christians and left untouched. As a matter of fact, Tischendorf found Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph) in a waste basket ready for kindling and rescued that corrupt manuscript as though it was something precious. Following that, he was so blinded to the truth that his critical text was almost exclusively based on Aleph. And all the other modern critics simply followed Westcott & Hort in elevating Aleph and B (Codex Vaticanus) to the status of "infallible".
You have referred to just a few Scriptures which have been corrupted, but one could go into verse after verse and passage after passage which has simply been EXPUNGED by the Gnostics. There are hundred of words which have been deliberately omitted, especially words which refer to "Jesus" or "Christ" or "Lord".
The real question is whether Christians in general want the absolute truth about this matter or not. In my experience, those who have believed the critics and accepted modern versions and critical texts simply do not want to hear the truth. One would think that Christians consistently want the truth, but the reality is that there are limits to what will be accepted and what will not.
Your reference to 1 John 5:7,8 is a good case in point. Both theologically and grammatically the absence of verse 7 makes absolutely no sense. We do not know why the Greeks scribes omitted this verse, but there is a mountain of evidence to prove that it was known among the churches and the Early Church Fathers. By the same token the critics will gladly accept any reading in Codex Vaticanus, even though it is not supported by any other manuscript! The omission of Matthew 6:13 (a very important verse) is a case in point.
Last edited:
Who said that the Catholics removed it? It is the Greek scribes who removed it. But you will find 1 john 5:7 in the Latin Vulgate as well as the Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible.
VULGATE
quia tres sunt qui testimonium dant in caelo, Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus. Et hi tres unum sunt.
DOUAY-RHEIMS
And there are Three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one.
VULGATE
quia tres sunt qui testimonium dant in caelo, Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus. Et hi tres unum sunt.
DOUAY-RHEIMS
And there are Three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one.
You are both completely overlooking two facts: first, Alexandria was home to faithful Christians as well as to false brothers, just as Antioch was; and second, the spread of Islam resulted in a great many churches being destroyed and with them, their contents. If a group of believers feared for the safety of their valuables, they could well have hidden them. Lack of use is not the only plausible reason for their survival.
In one sentence you claim, "no one can really pin down what Gnosticism teaches for gaining secret knowledge" and in the next you claim that prayer in the power of the Holy Spirit is about secret knowledge. Care to justify your massive leap of logic here? People who pray in tongues don't generally claim any secret knowledge by it, nor do they seek by illicit means to teach anything they've learned through such practice. I would strongly suggest that you do some homework on what the Gnostics did believe. Praying in tongues has nothing to do with it.
In one sentence you claim, "no one can really pin down what Gnosticism teaches for gaining secret knowledge" and in the next you claim that prayer in the power of the Holy Spirit is about secret knowledge. Care to justify your massive leap of logic here? People who pray in tongues don't generally claim any secret knowledge by it, nor do they seek by illicit means to teach anything they've learned through such practice. I would strongly suggest that you do some homework on what the Gnostics did believe. Praying in tongues has nothing to do with it.
"For there are three that testify," 1 John 5:7 NET
"For there are three that testify:" 1 John 5:7 ESV
"τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες," 1 John 5:7 SBL
"οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τω ουρανω ο πατηρ ο λογος και το αγιον πνευμα και ουτοι οι τρεις εν εισιν" 1 John 5:7 (Scrivener) TR 1894
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." 1 John 5:7 KJV
It is obvious which versions follow which Greek renderings, above. Even if you don't read Greek, it is very apparent by its length that KJV follows the TR (and a few other corrupted later manuscripts.)
Why corrupted?
First, the longer version is based on scribal additions, placed in the margins. The next generation appeared within the text, rather than as a margin note.
Second, the longer version does not appear in any of the writings of the early church fathers. This is important, because, except for a few disputed verses, all the other verses of the NT appear somewhere in the early church fathers. During the Arian controversy, concerning the deity of Christ in the 3rd century, all the NT verses were scoured for proof of the Trinity. The later, longer version would have provided definitive proof of the Trinity, and hence, the deity of Christ, but this verse did not exost in th 3rd century. (Certainly, proof of the Trinity is found throughout the NT, and foreshadowed in the OT, but NOT this verse!)
Third, if something suddenly appears in a 16th century version, was it removed by later scholars, such as Hort and Westcott and SBL, who could not find it in the first 15 centuries of Christianity, more or less, (Vulgate cl , arm mss, 2318, 221 vr, have it added,) or was it added later, then encoded in an English version which gained prominence for 4 centuries?
I'm sure the answer was that it was added much later, and the popularity of the KJV gave rise to many thinking it was in the original manuscripts.
The fact is, the so-called "majority" texts are the majority or there are more copies than other versions, because the Byzantine Empire kept its Greek, and monastic orders arose to copy the earlier versions. Monks copied copies or copied or copies, and transcribing errors appeared which were incorporated into the Greek manuscripts. There are many examples of notes in the margins, added by scribes, then being incorporated into the text in the next generation. I have seen photos of these notes in a Greek text book, then the next generation incorporating it. (See Kostenburger.)
As for the volume of Greek texts, if they belong to the same family, in fact, they are not really 200 manuscripts, (to throw out a number) but 1 manuscript of that generation, copied 200 times.
Further, the argument that the Alexandrian manuscripts are heretical is based on flimsy logic. Yes, SOME of the Alexandrians, like Arius were heretical. But the bishop of Alexandria, Athenasius opposed Arius, and took the whole debate to a church council in 325 AD. In fact, that church council affirmed the Trinity and the deity of Christ, using versions which do not include the spurious and much later addition which the KJV copied.
Just because there were heretics, that didn't make their manuscript heretical. Just as people come into CC all the time, declaring some heresy or other, using the KJV, that doesn't make the translation heretical. On the other hand, the New World translation of the JWs has actually changed the words of the Bible to say something it never said in any manuscript. That is a heretical version.
Finally, Erasmus upon whose Greek version the KJV is based, to a large part, did not want to put that spurious longer verse (1 John 5:7) into his translation. The Catholic Church demanded he keep it in, despite the total lack of manuscript evidence to support it. The RCC wanted it there, because it was an easy verse to support the Trinity. Erasmus was not allowed to publish his translation and have the Imprimatur approved seal in 1516. Another version was being prepared, he rushed his version to press early, getting more sales and obeying the RCCs dictum! Profit motive in a priest. (There were other errors and problems with his version, which the KJV also copied!)
PS I do totally believe in the Trinity, but I would never support my belief with the longer version!
There is a huge list of early Greek manuscripts that do not contain the longer verse, including, aleph; A; B; 048; 33; 81; 322; 323; 436; 945; 1067; 1175; 1241; 1243; 1292; 1409; 1505; 1611; 1735; 1739; 1846; 1881; 2138; 2298; 2344; 2464; Byz; it,p; vg ww, st; syr p h; cop sa, bo; arm mss; eth; geo; slav; Clement; Ps-Dionysus; Rebaptism; Ambrose; Augustine; Quodvultdeus; Facundus.
"For there are three that testify:" 1 John 5:7 ESV
"τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες," 1 John 5:7 SBL
"οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τω ουρανω ο πατηρ ο λογος και το αγιον πνευμα και ουτοι οι τρεις εν εισιν" 1 John 5:7 (Scrivener) TR 1894
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." 1 John 5:7 KJV
It is obvious which versions follow which Greek renderings, above. Even if you don't read Greek, it is very apparent by its length that KJV follows the TR (and a few other corrupted later manuscripts.)
Why corrupted?
First, the longer version is based on scribal additions, placed in the margins. The next generation appeared within the text, rather than as a margin note.
Second, the longer version does not appear in any of the writings of the early church fathers. This is important, because, except for a few disputed verses, all the other verses of the NT appear somewhere in the early church fathers. During the Arian controversy, concerning the deity of Christ in the 3rd century, all the NT verses were scoured for proof of the Trinity. The later, longer version would have provided definitive proof of the Trinity, and hence, the deity of Christ, but this verse did not exost in th 3rd century. (Certainly, proof of the Trinity is found throughout the NT, and foreshadowed in the OT, but NOT this verse!)
Third, if something suddenly appears in a 16th century version, was it removed by later scholars, such as Hort and Westcott and SBL, who could not find it in the first 15 centuries of Christianity, more or less, (Vulgate cl , arm mss, 2318, 221 vr, have it added,) or was it added later, then encoded in an English version which gained prominence for 4 centuries?
I'm sure the answer was that it was added much later, and the popularity of the KJV gave rise to many thinking it was in the original manuscripts.
The fact is, the so-called "majority" texts are the majority or there are more copies than other versions, because the Byzantine Empire kept its Greek, and monastic orders arose to copy the earlier versions. Monks copied copies or copied or copies, and transcribing errors appeared which were incorporated into the Greek manuscripts. There are many examples of notes in the margins, added by scribes, then being incorporated into the text in the next generation. I have seen photos of these notes in a Greek text book, then the next generation incorporating it. (See Kostenburger.)
As for the volume of Greek texts, if they belong to the same family, in fact, they are not really 200 manuscripts, (to throw out a number) but 1 manuscript of that generation, copied 200 times.
Further, the argument that the Alexandrian manuscripts are heretical is based on flimsy logic. Yes, SOME of the Alexandrians, like Arius were heretical. But the bishop of Alexandria, Athenasius opposed Arius, and took the whole debate to a church council in 325 AD. In fact, that church council affirmed the Trinity and the deity of Christ, using versions which do not include the spurious and much later addition which the KJV copied.
Just because there were heretics, that didn't make their manuscript heretical. Just as people come into CC all the time, declaring some heresy or other, using the KJV, that doesn't make the translation heretical. On the other hand, the New World translation of the JWs has actually changed the words of the Bible to say something it never said in any manuscript. That is a heretical version.
Finally, Erasmus upon whose Greek version the KJV is based, to a large part, did not want to put that spurious longer verse (1 John 5:7) into his translation. The Catholic Church demanded he keep it in, despite the total lack of manuscript evidence to support it. The RCC wanted it there, because it was an easy verse to support the Trinity. Erasmus was not allowed to publish his translation and have the Imprimatur approved seal in 1516. Another version was being prepared, he rushed his version to press early, getting more sales and obeying the RCCs dictum! Profit motive in a priest. (There were other errors and problems with his version, which the KJV also copied!)
PS I do totally believe in the Trinity, but I would never support my belief with the longer version!
There is a huge list of early Greek manuscripts that do not contain the longer verse, including, aleph; A; B; 048; 33; 81; 322; 323; 436; 945; 1067; 1175; 1241; 1243; 1292; 1409; 1505; 1611; 1735; 1739; 1846; 1881; 2138; 2298; 2344; 2464; Byz; it,p; vg ww, st; syr p h; cop sa, bo; arm mss; eth; geo; slav; Clement; Ps-Dionysus; Rebaptism; Ambrose; Augustine; Quodvultdeus; Facundus.
Why are there professing Christians today that deny the deity of Jesus Christ and the existence of the Triune God? Doesn't take much for the imaginations that what is going on today was going on back then too.
Some can speculate due to some of the heresy back then, but it really doesn't explain why the Eastern Orthodox omitted 1 John 5:7 as explained at this site;
Is it true that 1 John 5:7 is not in any Greek manuscript before the 1600s? If it is true, why is it in the King James Bible?
But it was done.
Some can speculate due to some of the heresy back then, but it really doesn't explain why the Eastern Orthodox omitted 1 John 5:7 as explained at this site;
Is it true that 1 John 5:7 is not in any Greek manuscript before the 1600s? If it is true, why is it in the King James Bible?
But it was done.