- This topic has 26 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Though not a big theme in the trilogy I’m writing, lying will probably come up several times. I hold that lying in ordinary circumstances, white lies, lying to get out of trouble…it’s all wrong. But what about lying in war? After all, we aren’t to murder, but killing in self-defense or in war is not a sin.
This is a topic that I’ve wavered back and forth on…is it right to lie during war, either to hide people, spy, or for any other reason? Or should we always tell the truth no matter the result. For the purpose of this discussion (and in light of my current, though tentatively held views), I am going to hold that lying in battle for reasons connected to the war is permissible. If you have other views (or simply want to debate from another view), I’d love to ‘argue it out’ to come to a better understanding of the subject and work out what is the most Biblical view.
INTJ - Inhumane. No-feelings. Terrible. Judgment and doom on everyone.
Hi Hope,
I can only think of two cases in the bible where people lied in war like situations. Granted, neither of these were strictly war situations, but to a degree they were. The first was when Rahab lied about the spies. The second was when King David fled from Saul to Ahimelech the priest. The first instance resulted in the escape of the spies, but the second in the murder of 85 priests by the order of King Saul. The most important thing to note though, is that in neither instance was the act commended. Rahab was commended for helping the spies, but not for the way in which she did so. Seeing therefore as there is no instance of lying in war being commended (at least not to my knowledge), I would hold that the original command, not to lie, would still stand even in a war situation. Lying in war is not the same as killing in war. With killing, there are two types of killing: killing and murder. Killing is any type of killing. Murder is killing which is against the law of God, and killing in battle is (at least if it is a just war) not in defiance against the laws of God. I understand that some would disagree with that, but that is a whole separate debate. Lying is different in that there is only one type. The bible (at least to my knowledge) does not differentiate between one type of lying and another. If you can find any examples in the bible of lying in war being commended or one type of lying being treated differently from another, please share that with me, but I know of no such instances. We also ought to remember that in war, God calls his people to high standards, higher standards than even many christians realize (See Deuteronomy 20).
Let us remember that there are three ways we can get around a tricky situation where we feel like we need to lie. We can either lie, employ a strategic way of saying nothing, or hope for a miracle. God can work through any of these methods, but if He wants us to use the lying method, don’t you think He would make that clear? If He want’s us to lie and we are convinced that we need to do something to get out of this tricky situation, but remember that God says not to lie, don’t you think He would make it clear that there is an exception? I know that some people think that certain goals are so important that they trump the command not to lie (Hiding Jews from Nazis for instance). Let us consider though, even though God would wan’t us to save the Jews, if we are put in a situation where we have to choose between lying and practically giving them away, we were placed there by the will of God. Now, if God’s word gives us governance for every area of our lives, which it does, then the law of not lying would apply to this area of our lives. Now one might say, “But then the Jews will be captured!” First of all, this is not absolutely true, it is just probably true, and don’t you think it is better do what is right and trust God then to do what is wrong and trust God? Secondly, even if they are captured, you have done what is right. God sometimes puts people through hard things, but this is according to his perfect plan. If the Nazis are going to kill them, then that is according to the perfect will of God. You told the truth. It was hard. It was best. They died. It was hard. It was best. Does that make sense?
This is an excellent topic to think through. Thanks for starting the discussion.
Daeus
🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢
I’ll have to think about what you said about lying in war and may reply later if I think of any objections (though you are probably right…what you said are along the lines of what I’ve been thinking). But there is one situation where I think it is necessary to lie, and that is while spying. David tells Hushai to lie to Absalom (2 Samuel 16-17) and Hushai does so, pretending his loyalties lie with Absalom and so defeats the counsel of Ahithophel.
Israel did employ spies and I find it hard to believe that they would have told anyone who asked who they were and what they were doing. Lying/deceiving is simply a part of spying, but it isn’t done for personal safety or gain. It’s common sense…while smuggling Bible over a hostile boarder, you trust God to get them through. But when you are intentionally exploring an enemy encampment, you can’t just tell everyone that ‘hey, I’m coming in here to see how strong you are and how to attack you’. Just your being there in disguise is a sort of deception. So, unless the Christian is to forego spying altogether, then they’ll have to lie to get the information they need.
INTJ - Inhumane. No-feelings. Terrible. Judgment and doom on everyone.
Daeus, you asked for other instances of lying in the Bible. I found one that you missed, and maybe it will shed some light on this. 2 Kings 10: 18-30. I do not pretend to have all the answers or even understand this perfectly myself, but I am seeking truth, and I believe one of the best ways to do so would be discussion. Here is the passage for those of you who don’t have a Bible near to hand.
‘Then Jehu gathered all the people together, and said to them, “Ahab served Baal a little, Jehu will serve him much. Now therefore, call to me all the prophets of Baal, all his servants, and all his priests. Let no one be missing, for I have a great sacrifice for Baal. Whoever is missing shall not live.” But Jehu acted deceptively, with the intent of destroying the worshipers of Baal. And Jehu said, “Proclaim a solemn assembly for Baal.” So they proclaimed it. Then Jehu sent throughout all Isreal; and all the worshipers of Baal came, so that there was not a man left who did not come. So they came into the temple of Baal, and the temple of Baal was full from one end to the other.
And he [Jehu] said to the one in charge of the wardrobe, “Bring out vestments for all the worshipers of Baal.” So he brought out vestments for them.
Then Jehu and Jehonadab the sons of Rechab went into the temple of Baal, and said to the worshipers of Baal, “Search and see that no servants of the Lord are here with you, but only the worshipers of Baal.”
So then went in to offer sacrifices and burnt offerings. Now Jehu had appointed for himself eighty men on the outside, and had said, “If any of the men whom I have brought into your hands escapes, it shall be his life for the life of the other.”
Now it happened, as soon as he had made an end of offering the burnt offering, that Jehu said to the guard and to the captains, “Go in and kill them; let no one come out!”
And they killed them with the edge of the sword… Thus Jehu destroyed Baal from Isreal….
And the Lord said to Jehu, “Because you have done well in doing what is right in My sight, and have done to the house of Ahab all that was in My heart, your sons shall sit on the throne of Isreal to the fourth generation.”Thanks for all the great feedback. Hope, I will respond to you first.
You bring up an interesting passage in 2 Samuel. This is one case of a man of faith spying. You make a good point that he did lie, but was it commended? I don’t think it ever was. If we were to accept everything any man of faith did in the bible, even when they were trying to do the right thing, we would have to accept some clearly unbiblical practices. The example of the spies in the promise land is another good case study. They were definitely spying. The assumption that they lied though is, well, just that, an assumption. They might have conducted their spying in any number of ways. Perhaps (with the exception of staying at Rahab’s house) they remained in the country side, hiding among the woods and sneaking out into the plains whenever they had the opportunity. They might have talked to only one or a few of the inhabitants on their way, and just snuck around the rest of the time. If they did have conversations with the inhabitants of the land, instead of lying, they might have threatened people to give them information and then tied them up and moved on to their next destination. At the end of the day we don’t know what they did, and that is why we should not base our theology of lying on it.
Now, Kate, in reply to your thoughts. That is a good point. Jehu did lie in a warish like situation and God did say, “You have done well in doing what is right in My sight.” This is only part of the verse though. As you already showed, He followed it immediately with, “And have done to the house of Ahab all that was in My heart.” In this context, It appears that God was limiting the subject of his praise to what Jehu did to the house of Ahab specifically, which was separate from what he did to the worshipers of Baal. Even if God had included that situation though, it would have only been a general commendation. God would have been saying, “it was good of you to get rid of those worshipers of Baal.” That is different from saying, “I like every single detail of how you handled getting rid of the worshipers of Ball.” Anyways this is a little arbitrary since God was not talking about what Jehu had done to the worshipers of Baal at all. Lest we think that Jehu must have been in the right since he was such a great guy, it says in the same chapter, “But Jehu did not carefully and wholeheartedly obey the law of the lord God of Israel.”
To sum up my responses to both of you, the passages you brought up might be taken as a commendation of lying under extreme circumstances, but I for one would rather base my practices on what I know the bible says rather than on what the bible might might be hinting at. There is one other point I forgot to make on my first post. Jesus himself said, “I am the truth.” It would seem therefore that anything outside of the truth would be outside of the will of God.
Hope you both find this helpful.
🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢
Yes, that’s how I was leaning when I read and typed out the passage, but I wanted to post it just in case I was missing something.
That being said, I do not agree that it is wrong to lie in war. Let’s think about it for a moment. Lying in war is not lying for your own personal gain or even on a personal level in any way. Yes, it is lying, but war is also killing, and we are commanded not to kill. We know that this commandment does not apply to war, because God condones war, while He condemns killing. While there is nowhere in the Bible where lying is specifically condoned under extraordinary circumstances (at least not that either of us three could think of) we still need to think through this carefully.
To lie in war is self defense. Or rather defense of those whom you are protecting by going to war, since if you lie in war, you are very unlikely to get away with it and will probably be hanged. Why do two nations go to war? There are any number of reasons we could cite, but regardless of reasons, once two nations enter into war their is no initiator or defendant. The titles of offense and defense are irrelevant, because both nations agreed (willingly or not) to enter into war. Now it is only about keeping the other army out of your country and protecting those who are trusting you at home. If you lie to further the war, you are lying in defense of your country and your family, which is the same as killing in defense of your country or family. If you tell the truth in war in a circumstance that would call for a falsehood or a miracle, chances are you just made it that much more likely that your country you went to war to protect will fall. If we take the argument that you should tell the truth anyway and trust for a miracle, why don’t we look at killing this way? With this argument you should just sit at home and let hostile armies overrun your family and all you hold dear, because God commands you shall not kill. Thus I believe lying in war is permissible, even necessary.
The example you used about the Jews, Daeus, I had a few questions about. This is a trickier discussion, but I do not believe it would have been right to tell the Nazis where the Jews were. What of the agreement you made with the Jews, spoken or unspoken, to protect them and give them shelter? They came to you seeking asylum, and you granted it to them, which in itself is a tacit agreement to a bargain. They trust you to protect them as you promised. Now if you tell the Nazis where they are, you are breaking a previous promise and making yourself a liar to the Jews. The standing promise should always take precedence. I myself am not sure what I would do under such circumstances. I hope I would have the strength and faith to simply refuse to say anything, and take whatever they did to me with a good grace because by my suffering I was protecting the Jews I had promised to protect, but never having been tried in that way I can only hope and pray.
Also, your point ‘God sometimes puts people through hard things, but this is according to his perfect plan. If the Nazis are going to kill them, then that is according to the perfect will of God. You told the truth. It was hard. It was best. They died. It was hard. It was best.’ seems to me a little fatalistic. Not that the argument for telling the truth is any less valid, but that the way you were looking at it, or the way it sounded like you were looking at it, seems somewhat fatalistic, as I said. I certainly agree that God does move in mysterious ways, and I would be the last person to dare presume to interpret His actions when He does not give reasons, but I would argue it is a little off, somehow, to look at everything that happens in this world as the perfect will of God. Yes, nothing can happen in this world that God does not permit (take the story of Job as a prime example) but God does not willfully oppress His creation or willfully curse us with death and destruction. I also believe firmly that God can and does step in directly and influence one thing or another that His will may be done (as in the case of the Jews rejecting Christ that the Gentiles might be saved) but I do not believe that everything that happens in this world is God’s perfect plan. It was we who fell, we who sinned, and God Who picked up the pieces. God did not will that we fall. He gave us a choice, because He wanted us to love Him of our own free will. He did not create us mindless puppets programmed to work out His plan without thinking. If that were so, grace and salvation have no meaning. Less than no meaning, for if God willed that Adam sin, then it was not man who fell. If Adam was obeying God’s will in eating the fruit which his wife gave him, then God willfully plunged mankind into death and disease and destruction, and the Cross has no meaning, because we did not need a Savior. There was no fall, and no sin, because God made Adam eat the very fruit which He commanded against previously. Does God contradict Himself? Does He say one thing and mean another? Of course not! If God willed that Adam eat of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil, and Adam was only fulfilling God’s perfect plan, then Adam did not sin. God Himself does not tempt. (And there is a scripture that says almost that exact things somewhere, but I have forgotten the reference). And thus there is no meaning in Christ’s sacrifice, because He was crucified for something that God the Father willed should happen, not something we in our absolute and utter folly had done, and needed saving from. I am aware that this discussion goes much deeper, but if you would take it up with me, I would enjoy discussing it with you. I really appreciate it when people are open and frank about their beliefs, and willing to defend them, even if I don’t agree with them.
“As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens the countenance of his friend.”A quick note: Our wifi is messing up, so I probably won’t be able to get back on this discussion for a few days. Just so you know…I’m not ignoring the topic I started and hope to get back on the forum by Tuesday night. 😉
INTJ - Inhumane. No-feelings. Terrible. Judgment and doom on everyone.
Okay, no problem. I know what it’s like to have weird, troublesome computers and bad connection!
At the library so I have wifi for a little bit! Anyway, morality in war. Like it’s been mentioned, people kill in war and it’s not considered murderer. Obviously this doesn’t mean you could kill anyone you wanted just because a war was on. Another of the ten commandments is ‘don’t steal’. In war, there is ‘spoil’ which is stealing or taking from the enemy…again, just because a war was going on wouldn’t make it right to break into a neighbor’s house and steal their stuff. And there is lying (actually, the 10 commandments say ‘don’t bear false witness…something I don’t think there would be an excuse for, war or no war.) If armies can kill and steal, why can’t they lie? Secrecy and deception is a big part of war.
As another, more general note, what makes something acceptable in war that wouldn’t be acceptable in peace? And where is the line drawn? Being immoral, for example, I would consider wrong no matter the situation…even if it was a way to try to get information. These aren’t questions you have to answer, though I wouldn’t mind discussing them. They are just thoughts that I wanted to share. 🙂
INTJ - Inhumane. No-feelings. Terrible. Judgment and doom on everyone.
For me, I believe the line would be drawn between what is right and wrong in war as soon as any act departed from self defense. Taking spoil is a necessary part of war if you are in a foreign country and desperately in need of supplies, but I would not defend it if it was simply for the sake of gathering ‘stuff’ that you could grow rich on or collect for when the war was over. ‘Steal’ only what you need to live and to continue the war, but do no oppress needlessly. And always, if it is possible, make retribution as far as you are able when the war is over.
Immorality under any circumstances I would not condone, even if it were a way of obtaining information. I balk even at torture, though that also seems to be pretty necessary in war. But again, it is self defense— you must have information, and if the person won’t give it to you, you risk sending your entire army and the nation for which you are fighting to their deaths. So torture— yes. But immorality— not necessary and definitely not right under any circumstances. There is no command in the Bible against torture, but the Bible repeatedly condemns immorality on no uncertain terms.
I think their are two kinds of war— holy war, as in the Crusades and the countless times God sent the Isrealites to wipe out a nation of idol-worshipers, and then the ‘normal’ kind of war— self defense, one nation trying to conquer another simply for the gaining of territory or some other mundane reason. But I do not believe there are separate codes for these two kinds of war, except maybe in this. Once the opposing nation is willing to offer a reasonable treaty of surrender, in ‘normal’ war you should always accept it assuming it is reasonable, and end the bloodshed as soon as possible. But in holy war, the Isrealites were repeatedly commanded to show no mercy, and leave no man, woman, child, or animal alive. Anyway… my two cents.One thought I have always had on war that ties in with your line of thinking somewhat is this question: is it better to be ruthless from the start and completely without mercy so that the war will end the sooner, or is it better to be as merciful as you can and risk having the war drag on for years and years and years, and in the end probably lose it because you were unwilling to be ruthless? It’s an interesting question.
Alright, I’m back. I’ll reply in order of the posts starting with Kate.
Seeing as you had so much to say, I will reply point by point to keep things as organized as possible.
Point 1: To lie in war is the same as to kill in war. It is acceptable by the same logic.
To this point I would have to disagree. While some translations say, “You shall not kill”, I believe the more obvious and consistent translation is, “You shall not murder”. Let me define murder just in case their is any misunderstanding about it. Murder is the unlawful killing of a person. If God had instructed us not to kill, and then had the Israelites go to war, God would have been indicating that necessity can alter morality in some cases. He told us not to murder though. Now, when He condoned war (at least in certain cases), He showed that killing in war is according to the law, for His word is law. Therefore killing in war is not an exception to the law, it is in total agreement with all the law. If God says, “Don’t murder” and again He says, “kill in battle” we know just by looking at a dictionary that God is not contradicting Himself. If however He says, “don’t lie” and again, “do lie” however, I see no other option but that He would be contradicting Himself (which is impossible).Point 2: To lie in war is self defense and therefore (as I assume you are saying) just.
To lie in war might be considered self defense, depending on how you define self defense. If it is to be considered self defense, then it is just, but I do not think that is a fair definition. Let us consider what is the biblical view of self defense. I could list several passages about physical self defense and its justice, but I know of none where any means of protecting one’s self or one’s own is justified. We may certainly say that lying in war has some similarities to self defense, but it is not the same thing. In everyday speech, self defense means shooting the guy who is trying to knock out your brains with a crowbar. Consider this argument which uses (as far as I can tell) the same logic. Humans are similar to apes. I would accept a submission by a human to enroll in college. Therefore I should accept a submission by an ape to enroll in college. I understand this example is exaggerated, but I am trying to make a point.By the way, I had to make the point that there is really only one reason nations go to war. See James 4:1-3.
Point 3: Sometimes if you tell the truth, terrible things might happen.
That is true, but as I have already pointed out, I find it best to base my actions on what I read in the bible, even if I feel like it is not the right thing to do. To quote Stonewall Jackson, “Duty is ours consequences are God’s.” This is not to say that I do not find this hard to accept, but I do find it correct.Point 4: Telling the truth in a situation like the example Nazi situation might force you to break a previous promise and thereby lie.
There are several ways to get around this dilemma. First of all, you should not have promised anything which might lead to you breaking your conscience. You might tell the Jews, “I will do my upmost for you, but you must accept that I am bound by my conscience and will not do such things as lie.” Furthermore, you need not tell the truth to avoid lying. If they ask you where they are, you could say nothing and force them to look themselves. It may be that the Jews are too well hidden for them. You could also slam the door in the germans’ face, bar it, and rush out the back door with the Jews and ride away hoping you will be able to evade your pursuers (albeit a desperate strategy). You could even pull out a gun and shoot the Germans before running away. These are just some ideas. They are not necessarily brilliant alternatives, but they are alternatives. Indeed, I definitely don’t think you should just say, “Oh yeah, don’t worry. I won’t lie, so let me show you exactly where they are.” Use some strategy.Point 5: Hoping for a miracle seems kind of unrealistic. After all, if we are to hope in a miracle to avoid lying, shouldn’t we hope in a miracle to avoid war?
First of all, I did not say that you should rely on a miracle, this is always something God might do if you refuse to lie and He doesn’t want you to experience the consequences you thought might occur from it, but we should not rely on it. The reason we do not stay at home during a war and hope for a miracle is because, first of all, killing in war is not morally wrong as I would argue lying is. Secondly, although God can certainly win a battle for us, it is His standard practice to allow us to fight for Him. We should be excited about this opportunity and not be lethargic.Point 6: (phrased from your perspective) Some of what you say sounds kind of fatalistic.
I can see your point, but that was not my intent. Allow me to explain the difference between what I believe and fatalism. Fatalism is the belief that whatever happens will happen and therefore I can do nothing about it. What I believe is that God has a plan for every detail of history, but He does not reveal that plan to me. He does however reveal to me his law. Therefore, the most I can do is keep His law and trust Him with the rest.Point 7: God has a plan, but it does not involve every last detail of history.
Ooh, what an inviting statement. The offer to discuss this statement’s validity is positively tantalizing, but I think I would do best to decline it. This is a subject on which everybody has an opinion, and generally a very strong opinion with millions of points to support their case. I fear that by taking this offer up, I might invite a general war of views with some of the missiles exchanged being not too seasoned with grace. I of course think that nobody here would purposely engage in such a warfare, but sometimes passion can cary you away, even good passion. Even if I did not have this concern, such a discussion would no doubt drag on for eons. This a discussion which, in my opinion, is generally best kept off line, or at least not on a forum.To Hope (mainly),
Taking spoils in war is not the same thing as stealing since the right to take the spoils is granted by God (Deuteronomy 20) and it is all His anyway. The issue of where to draw the line on morality in war is, to summarize it, exactly where the bible draws the line. The issue then is, where exactly does the bible draw the line. I will not go into detail on this issue, but for most of you questions, you can find the answer in Deuteronomy 20. Deuteronomy 20 is the chapter on the rules of just warfare. It lays things out pretty clearly.
I hope this helps and I hope I didn’t make any confusing typos.
🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢
Hi Kate,
I have to say that I agree with your comment (#4066). I would have said the same thing. Also, I think the best thing to do is to ask The Lord how to handle each individual situation.To Daeus…I understand what you are saying about murder/killing in war as well as stealing/taking spoil of war. So I guess what it comes down to is ‘is there any such differentiation between lying and something like spying’? Points for both sides about lying to protect someone else or for self-defense have been listed above. I, myself, do not know what I’d do in such a situation.
But spying is an act of war involving getting information about the other side…I suppose it is self-defense in a way. It could be scouting from a distance, killing a guard and slipping up to overhear a conversation, dressing up as an enemy soldier and marching into the enemy camp to get close to the opposing leaders…or setting up a spy ring like David did in Jerusalem. It’s an act of war and is expected and guarded against by both sides. Basically, my ‘argument’ is that spying isn’t the same as lying, but is rather a aspect of war that a Christian could participate in with a clear conscious.
Also, though it doesn’t have to do with spying, I thought it was interesting to note that God once used lying spirits to get Ahab to go to war so he (Ahab) would die. The passage doesn’t say if God used good or evil spirits, nor does it say that lying is right, but it’s interesting to see how God uses all things.
INTJ - Inhumane. No-feelings. Terrible. Judgment and doom on everyone.
Hello Hope,
I think there can be such a distinction. Granted many spies doubtless lie, but I don’t think this is a necessity of spying. Often times when a system (like spying) relies on something we might consider immoral, such as lying, it is not because it is necessary, but because it has become ingrained in the tradition of the practice. It is often possible to just change the approach and still get similar results. Even if sticking to a non lying policy will have a negative affect on the spying effort though (which I admit it might), I do not think it would be detrimental, only a minor hinderance. I do think though that such a corse is worth the cost.
Some might consider something like dressing up in an enemy uniform and slipping into their camp to gather information as deceit, and somewhat of a lie, but I would not go so far. I would consider it no more deceitful than hiding, the only difference being that with the uniform, the hiding is done openly.
🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢
Oh boy, and here I was thinking all along that we were mainly trying to determine whether spying was right, as it is a form of deception! Well, that clears up a lot. What other ways are there to lie in war? I can’t think of any off the top of my head.
Nevertheless, Daeus, some of the points you made above in your last really long comment (I am noticing all writers tend to be somewhat wordy… hm… I wonder why?) I do agree with, and some I would dispute, but I think we can agree to disagree.
And you’re right, now that I think about it. This probably is not the best place to start such a discussion. While I consider all things in life relevant to writing (what are we trying to portray, if not life?) this is after all a writing forum, and not a theological forum. Sorry about that.
Hope, that is an interesting thought about the lying spirits. I’m not sure what I think on that one quite yet.
And I think one of us above mentioned Rahab… I had a few thoughts on her. Maybe I’m echoing some things I’ve already said, but if she hadn’t sent the city watch out another way (ie. lied to them and gave them the wrong directions) they would have found the spies, and in all probability would have killed them instantly. Rahab was rewarded for hiding the spies, and protecting them, which she would not have been doing if she had told the watch the truth. Maybe this ties in, in a way, to the lying spirits— does God use people (or beings, if you can call a spirit a being) who have already been dabbling in wickedness (let’s not forget what sort of woman Rahab was) in situations where righteous people would be violating His laws? Does He permit unrighteous people to do what righteous people cannot, so that His will may be fulfilled? Somehow I don’t think so. God could have worked it out another way. He is God, after all, and nothing is impossible with Him. He could have guided the spies elsewhere, yet He chose to use a lying harlot to protect them. What do you guys think on this?And Daeus, I checked, and I didn’t find any confusing typos. Not even a ‘defiantly’. 🙂
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.