Mark

Kay,

Please direct me to anywhere on the CBMW site that saids women are only saved by works. Here is what you said

” A works salvation/sanctification for women only? The cruelty of that is monumental and blasphemous to our Holy Savior! But this is what many at CBMW teach! A works salvation for women in ‘roles’. It is like spitting on our Savior not to mention cruel to those Christian sisters who have not been able to bear children”

If this is true i will stand up and say they are wrong to deny justification by faith alone- but please direct me to where you see this. Thanks

Another quick comment,

Interestingly doing more research for ‘kephale’ i found that many conservative evangelicals of the past accepted ‘source’ as the meaning of ‘kephale’ in 1 Cor 11, BUT didn’t deny that men were still in authority over women.
The premise of taking the meanig source AND denying male leadership has only really come about with the rise of feminism. I thought that was interesting?

Cheryl,

Have you now changed your view from saying they couldn’t speak His name to now they could, but the full revelation of what that meant didn’t come until Exodus 3? If so, i am glad that you are now accepting one conservative approach to reconciling this problem.

Dave,

I do not deny that ‘kephale’ could be understood as source. The problem i have is with people who deny it couldn’t be understood as superiority over. From the research i have done, both are legitimate translations for ‘kephale’, and so ultimately the context is the deciding factor. That is why i am persistent that Cheryl agrees to post my paper before i give my opinion of the context. Until people accept the superiority over was an acceptable meaning in Paul’s day the discussion will never proceed. Do you deny Dave that kephale could mean superiority over?

Cheryl first of all look at my post #241 and then im sure you will see relevant bible passage that show that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob all call God LORD, not to mention all the other people, the slave, Laban etc. Once you look at this then we can talk more otherwise we will never get anywhere.

I really do appreciate you Cheryl, you are chalenging. I am sorry for questioning your motives, please forgive me. I am passionate about the word of God and im sure you know its hard not to lose control sometimes.

Please do consider the problems with some of your views regarding Genesis. In terms of my Exegesis of 1 Corinthians 11 perhaps you post my paper first, so people can see that superiority over was is a possible translation for kephale. Once peole can admit to that then perhaps we can get somewhere in relation to how it fits the context. If people are never willing to accept that it was a possible translation then how can i expect people to give my exegesis a fair hearing?

That is an english dictionary, not a proper tanslation of how ‘kephale’ is used in it’s various formats, ie in relation to people, metaphorically, literally. So perhaps you are the one not interested in the truth. If you can show me one instance where ‘kephale’ is used between people and it is not understood authoritatively i would be most intereseted, then perhaps my view would change. At the momont i’m just going with the evidence that is there.

I have to say one more thing since you commented Cheryl

“Exo 6:3 and I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as God Almighty, but by My name, LORD, I did not make Myself known to them.”

Did i not show earlier that Abraham and Jacob both refer to God as LORD. How could God make such a comment if he did reveal his name to them? You have in no way answered my question. Ignore your comment about Eve and deal with this. Did God reveal his name to these men or not? If he did how coulde he say what he said to Moses? If he didn’t how if we read what they say as literally there words, can they be calling God LORD. There is a mistake here in your view Cheryl and it makes God a liar. Can you please reconcile this for me? The only way this can be possible is two ways.
1. You believe God lied to Moses.
2. You admit that Moses is using the name he knew of God in writing his historical record.

I need to go do some stuff, so ill be back later. I hope Cheryl you can answer some of my questions by then. I look forward to your explanations

Cheryl,

is it source or origin…which one? These are different translations remember. I know some might say they are synonomous but i disagree.
Also in what way is Christ the ‘source’ of man? Is this identical with woman being the ‘source’ of man? If so are you saying that man was created out of Christ. If God is the’ source’ of Christ, in what way? Is Christ created out of GOd the same way as Eve was out of Adam, therefore making Christ a created being.
You see source doesnt fit the context because it actually means different things depending on the relationship, do you really think Paul would use ‘kephale’ in quick succession like that and actually have it mean different things?

Let me say i see all words s scripture as accurate because they are a God’s words. THis doesn’t mean though that the gospels are jesus exact words nor are the speeches in acts the exact words etc. What is recorded is what god wants us to have…therefore with eve we have what God wants us to have but we don’t have to see them as eve’s exact words.

Cheryl, nice attempt to dodge my question. Can you please answer whether God DID reveal his name to EVe and the others and thus God was a liar in Exodus 6:3 or is there something else going on here?

By the way i agree with what you said about inspriration…they are completely trustworthy….but are they Jesus exact words like you are claiming these are Eve’s exact words? Can you please answer this

Kay,

Is Paul documenting history. Is he writing after the events have passed? It’s a total different genre so needs to be looked at differently. After all who finished the book of Deutoronomy since t records MOses being dead…surely couldn’t have been moses? Let’s start looking at things properly without the egalitarian blinkers on…i’m getting less and less convinced that people are seeking the ‘truth’ and not reading with prejudice.

I am not given Moses leeway. THe fact is simple, he writes after he knows YAHWEH so he uses that name for GOd all thorugh Genesis. So when it is not there with the serpent and Eve we need to think why not? Nor do i appreciate being acused of ignoring things. UNlike some i simply look at the bigger picutre to understand the smaller picture…its called reading the bible properly. If we only focus on one samll word or phrase without understanding in realtion to the rest of the bible we get in trouble, ie the egalitarian view. You and argue all you want why Paul didn’t use certain words but the fact is he used the ones he did. Kephale does have authority…cased closed…do some proper research before making silly comments.

Kay and CHeryl answer this…did God lie in Exodus 6:3- your view said he did…thats a big problem. If we cant get this right how do we expect to get Gen 1-3 right?

OK let me say a few things…
Cheryl,

I very much appreciate your trust in the Spirit, but we must alsways keep in mind the auhtor’s intent/purpose/culture of their writings. What i find amazing aswell is that Moses wrote Genesis for the Hebrews, yet it is now for us also. God uses humans to fulfill his Will and that included writing the word.
Now let me probe you a bit further. You have not answered my question whether you see the gospel writers as writing Jesus’ exact words. And im sure you realise if you say yes to this, then the question arises…so why are the recordings so different even of the same accounts. Who is more trustworthy, Luke or Matthew? You see the problem? They are not identical so which one is TRULY Jesus words. I too agree that the spirit helped them remember, but i also relaise that the nitended audience of Matthew is not the intended audience of Mark. THe emphasis of MAtthew is not the same emphasis as Mark. We need to understand all this to get a better grasp on the writings. ALthough the wording and strucutres are different, there is no contradiction in them, they are simply writing as different human men to different human audiences. For example Luke is writing to Theophilus so he can be certain of the things he knows about Jesus. Matthew has a Jewish audience in mind and that is why his book is filled with OT prophecies. Do you understand what i am trying to say? Does not this also help to understand the context? And i know with your view on 1 Cor 14 you heavily rely on the outer Jewish context, so why are you ignoring it with Moses?
Also why is Moses calling God YAHWEH all through Genesis? Do you still believe that God lied to Moses about revealing his name? How could he reveal it to Eve, then to Moses then to Abraham (Gen 14:22) and Sarah (Gen 16:2)even Abraham’s slave (Gen 24:12) and Issac (26:22) in Jacobs vision God even calls himself LORD to Jacob (Gen28:13) and Rachel (Gen 30:24) and Labab (Gen 30:27) again Jacob (Gen 30:30)and on i could go… are you beginning to see the problem i have wiht your view? Did God or didn’t God reveal his name to moses? Is Exodus 6:3 true or not?

Kay,

Let me answer briefly about 1 TIm and 1 Cor 11. As with any exegesis we need to be able to see what principles are binding and what are cultural- this is always going to be difficult. But think about this, in both these passages what is Pauls reasoning? In both he uses Genesis to show why he wants thinks done in that cultural time. So then we can see that Paul uses Genesis to show why are a woman should not teach and not be in authority. We are then able to say that no these things are not just culturally binding like a head covering is. He is using scripture for his argument.
If Paul is only concerned with a cultural issue, why is he using the Creation account for his argument?

Cheryl, i agree 100% with the following…

“I believe that one must first be able to exegete the passage first and show in the context the meaning that you put on the word or sentence or verse.”

BUt i would also add for myself, the specific culture of the writer. The time when the document was written. The other cultural backdrops- for example with Moses, what is similar/dissimilar with other Ancient Near Eastern sources. All these types of things also help us determine the purpose for writing, the intended audience etc. Let me give a quick example- it is interesting to see other ANE ‘creation’ accounts and compare them to the Hebrew account. It helps to show the backdrop of the culture and why certain things are said/emphasised which might otherwise be missed or mis-understood by alone looking at the passage.

In terms of context and theology, covenant theology is the context of the OT writings. They are writing as God’s chosen people in a covenant with Him It is all about instruction about how to live properly in that covenant. That is why i see it as so important.

I’m glad we agree on the inerrancy of the word. I’m glad you also see that to read the ‘red letters’ as literally Jesus exact words is not necessary. Thus you can see why i don’t necessarily have to see Eve’s words as the ‘exact’ words that she spoke. Both Moses and the gospel writers are recording history after the events. It is still under the inspiration of the Spirit and the word is still authoritative and inerrant. God inspired these words that are recorded to be His revealed word, and i hope you can see that i am no means a liberal for seeing it this way- i have a very strong view of scripture.

Now in relation to your videos. I appreciated them very much. I found them very helpful in understanding your position on certain things. However, it think i have heard all of those arguments before at various times in different conversations, so i would probably say No, that there wasn’t anything in them i haven’t worked through before. Actually the last video i probably found the most helpful for me- running through the various ‘two witnesses’ stuff- i haven’t looked into that much so thanks for that one.
So i guess you want my jury verdict? Is Eve guilty of sinning before the fall- my answer is definately not. Does your interpretation of Gen convince me- no it doesn’t. Does your interpretation of th priesthood amd 1 Tim convince, again no it doesn’t. But i still enjoyed listening to them.
A quick side note- i like the way you Canadians say ‘about’. I noticed you say it the same as Don Carson-is he Canadian aswell?

To be honest Cheryl i don’t even really know how to define ‘cobba’. Thats the problem with Aussie jargon-it doesn’t really make much sense. But i guess the closest words might be mate, buddy, pal, friend- something along those lines 🙂

Also, im not familiar with ‘noodle’ but i think i get the gist of what your saying…good one cobba 🙂

Cheryl,

your obviously misunderstanding me from your comments. In terms of covenantal theology it is extremely important, particular if one is going to argue from texts based upon such theology i.e priesthood.

Can i ask you one question. In relation to the gospels do you think the ‘red letters’ i.e Jesus’ words are his actual literal words? So for example when Mark quoted Jesus in 1:38 this is exactly what Jesus said. Likewise do you see the speeches/sermons recorded in Acts as the actual words spoken by Peter or Stephen or Paul etc? Ok that was a couple of questions.

I bet by the time i write this something else has posted up. Its near impossible to keep up.

Cheryl,

i never accused YOU of being untrustworthy. In fact i asked if you deliberaterly or not mis-quoted them. From your response i would obviously say it was undeliberate. My reasoning was this, if it is a misquote the information is untrustworthy. PLease dont think i think your untrustworthy, far from it. I think your wrong on alot of things, but untrustworhty- definately not

Dave,
I’m still not following with the commandments line? I’m not sure what you are trying to say in regards to Genesis.

Cheryl,
I appreciate your lengthy resposes and i also appreciate your willingness to be shown where you were wrong. I think you were a bit sneaky though now saying Eve was somehow like Mary after Jesus return being revealed something special- or being trusted or what ever you were trying to say there. Interestingly Noah also calls God Yahweh in 9:26
“Blessed be the LORD, the God of Shem…”

Let me explain a little how i understand this and the reference with Eve calling God LORD in Gen 4. If i’m reading you right, you are saying now after i have corrected you that God somehow also revealed his name to Eve before Moses. IF we take this line of reasoning we also find he revealed himself to Noah aswell. I don’t think God did that, let’s say i don’t read it that literary.

Think about this. When was the ‘torah’ written? Moses wrote it after God had revealed his name to Moses. Now you rightly pointed out earlier that God had never revealed his name before then, so what’s going on here? Did God lie? I don’t think so. I think Moses the author of these books is simply using the name Yahweh revealed to him and inserting it into the text that he is writing, so that we have references to Yahweh before Yahweh is even revealed. I think this makes much more logical sense. Moses is simply using the name he knows when under the inspiration of the spirit is writing Genesis, therefore he can rightly insert it into the text.

Now about Eve. I’m not charging her with sin before the fall. I believe the bible here that sin entered once they ate the fruit. So what am i to make of the verse in Proverbs that talks about adding to Gods words.
First of all we need to differentiate which words. Is it God’s actual spoken words? Is it his written words? Is it Jesus since he is called the word? If i understand the OT properly and perhaps i don’t, but all the OT writings, including Proverbs need to be understood within the covenantal framework. What is the covenantal framework? Obeying God’s commands and live- disobey and be exiled basically? Therefore i think that proverbs here is referencing the written word of God, the ‘torah’ as this is the covenantally revealed ‘word of God’. In fact we get the same warning at the end of Revelation.
But i guess the question is, is this plausible? You might say no, but i think it is. For example in Romans 2 Paul differentiates between those who are under the law (torah) and those who are not. Those under the law are judged according to the law, those not under the law are not judged according to the law because they didn’t have the law. They are still held accountable because they are sinners and hae God’s glory revealed in creation, but they are not judged according to the law.
Now if proverbs is to be understood covenantally, it is referencing the law (torah). This written law is God’s revelation and cannot be added to. But people prior to the law being given were not obligated to the law, how could they be. Therefore Adam and Eve are not under the obligation of torah and we should not read covenantal conditions into the genesis account. Hope this makes sense.
So i see Eve as being described by the writer of Genesis, giving subtle grammatical hints at what was about to happen. She did not add to the word of God in terms of the proverbs verse because that must be understood covenantally. She was deceived by the serpent and led into sin. I do not see this as though women are somehow more easily deceived or anything like that. Eve simply chose to listen to her own desire rather than God’s.

Let me make one last point. I DO NOT SEE THE CHURCH AS ONLY A BUILDING. Is that clear enough for everybody. And also Cheryl, how can i be a traditionalist and a liberal. BY definition liberals reject tradition????

Lin,

I’m assuming you dis-agree with me about Cheryl mis-quoting CBMW? You seem to wash this off by saying ‘who knows what they teach’ essentially. I’m not surprised really.

But let’s be honest, one cannot argue as Cheryl did in the video if she was wrong to begin with. That’s the truth of the matter. If she did mis-quote them, and im still waiting to here what Cheryl thinks about this, her argument is invalid and essentially untrustworthy.

If people really are interested in the ‘truth’ perhaps lets try and be honest when we make mistakes.

Dave ,
I think it is natural to assume Adam told Eve because we only have 1 account where God commands anything in regards to not eating from the tree of knowledge. Perhaps God did speak to Eve about it at another time, but there is no biblical record of that, so im more comfortable going with what’s there. Your second question seems abit silly really. Of course God can talk to his ‘daughter’ too. There is just no record of it, so why are we saying He did.

I’m assuming your refering to Exodus 20, and Deut 5, but i’m not really sure what you are suggesting/asking? Can you clarify?

I see that your also swerving the grammatical issues of Cheryl’s in the early chapters of Genesis. Can you explain how you see these chapters?

So pinklight,

so essentially you are saying that the command we have recorded given to Adam by God doesn’t really count, because at some other time which is not recorded, God gave them both another command which was similar to the first but with all this extra stuff? Is this what you are saying? I’m not sure whether Cheryl thinks this new command was given to both or to just Eve, perhaps she can comment? Therefore you don’t need to reconcile the differences? Why do we even bother having the command given to Adam with such a view? I think you need to better than this to reconcile your view. You have not discussed why Yahweh is dropped by the serpent and Eve, nor have you discussed the grammer of the double verbs which are used for emphasis.

This whole argument is based on theories of some conversation we do not even have recorded

Lin,
Regarding your post # 169, remember that what i am saying is that i think Cheryl mis-quoted the CBMW. IF you don’t agree with me show me how she didn’t. If she has mis-quoted them, then her argument has failed from the beginning.
You might think my view needs a Talmud, but all i am saying is this. Women should not teach in the gathered assemblies, it should be the resposiblilty of the pastor/elders who are to be men according to scripture. Seems pretty straight forward really.

About your comment #170, i have already said that i don’t think the prophecying here should be considered the same as teaching. In fact the bible separates them as different spiritual gifts, and no my church doesn’t perform like that. We don’t have people prophecying and speaking in toungues because no one is gifted that way, but still the Corinthians did, and Paul is describing orderly worship conduct for the assembly when gathered together.

Now about Genesis 1, i am not ignoring it. God did speak to both of them about what they could eat. Chapter 2 however reveals what they can’t eat. Chapter 2 is almost a zoomed in version of the creation account of humanity. We only have recorded that God spoke to Adam about what not to eat, so i’m following the bible here. It is most natural to assume Adam passed on the information to Eve. If Eve was given a ‘seperate’ command where is it recorded in the bible? Why is her command such a distortion from the one God gave to Adam? Anyone who supports Cheryl’s view here needs to reconcile these things.

Pinklight,

If you really believe what you are saying it is contradictory. Why, because what Eve saids, is not actually what God said to Adam-it is different. So we cannot claim an argument on the plural ‘you’ because the supposed 2 seperate commands given to Adam and Eve are actually different.
So if Eve is saying that God said these things to her about both of them, how can that be. This is not what God told Adam. So if you stick to this argument you are actually saying Eve lied by telling the serpent that God had said these things to Adam aswell, and thus she is sinful before the fall.

I think the greater weight of evidence lies in the ‘traditonal’ understanding of this scripture. The writer is subtly showing us how it was the Eve became deceived.

Cheryl,

Just another point for you to consider in reation to Yahweh not being in Eve’s language.

You commented

“As far as Yahweh God, the serpent nor Eve could have used the term or else God was a liar. He said:

Exo 6:3 and I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as God Almighty, but by My name, LORD, I did not make Myself known to them.

No one knew the name YAHWEH until much later when God revealed it. If the serpent and Eve had quoted that Divine name then the worldly would have known him and the patriarchs would have known Him by this name. And then God would have been a liar. But the truth of the matter is that God didn’t reveal His name and if it was in the early part of Genesis it would have been an inaccurate addition”

Lets look at Gen 4 right after the fall. Let’s focus on verse 1 where Eve commented on Yahweh.

“She said, “With the help of the LORD(YHWH) i have brought forth a man.””

How do you attempt to get around this one? Is not Eve calling God Yahweh, the very name not given till Moses. According to your comment above God must be a liar! Perhaps you need to take a closer look at your position here on Genesis and dismiss the notion that Eve was given a seperate command that scripture does not record. The weight of biblical evidence is against you.

sorry pressed enter accidently

…continuing on “He (serpent) saids “you will surely not die!” (3:4; note that the serpent uses the double verb when the woman does not). This is the lie from the beginning that Jesus refers to in John 8:44…She sees that the tree is “desirable”- the hebrew term used in the Ten Commandments of coveting (Ex 20:17).” ‘Revolutions in Worldview pg. 56-57’

Cheryl, do you really think that the hebrew grammar can actually support your view? The conversation between Eve and the serpent gives us a worldview into the situation. There are subtle hints of her early distortion of the word of God.

Let me share with you something a great Anglican man shared with me over here. “If you come across a ‘new’ teaching you’ve either been revealed to something no-one else has ever seen or more likely the teaching is wrong”. Unfortunately i feel your teaching here falls in the later category.

Also you must be the first person to ever call me a liberal…interesting?

Cheryl,

Just cam across some interesting information while do some study for a philosophy exam…thought you might be intereseted and could comment. It is in regards to Eve’s conversation with the serpent.

“First, she exaggerates the prohibition. God never commanded that they not touch the fruit (3:3). Second, she omits the name of the tree, that is, the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Third, she adds to the commandment by giving the location of the tree “in the middle of the garden”. Fourth, the woman minimizes the penalty by saying “lest you die”, when in fact God had said “you shall surely die” (there is a double verb in Hebrew not present in the woman’s statement). And, finally, she minimizes her privileges by proclaiming “we may eat” of the fruit of the trees; God had said that they “may eat freely” from the trees (again a double verb appears for emphasis).”

continuing on “He (serpent) saids “you will surely not die!” (3:4; note that the serpent uses the double v

Pinklight,

you brought up another good point. Eve saw it as desirable for gaining wisdom. She is listening to the lies of the serpent, edging closer to him and falling further from God. All before she even eats the fruit and becomes a ‘sinner’.

Now video 5,
Who exactly is the prosecution- JW or CBMW or both? That’s a side interest.

Now the first thing to note is in Acts 18 it is ‘they’ who explain to Apollos. I’m sure you don’t dispute that Cheryl but your video very much emphasised that it was Priscilla.

The second thing I want to comment on has to do with the CBMW quote you used. I can’t speak entirely for them but I’m not sure if you understood it properly. You entirely missed that the restriction is on the ‘ministry’ of the woman. They are not to teach a man doctrine or to exercise authority over a man IN A CHURCH. This is significant Cheryl; in fact it actually supports my view for understanding this passage. I felt you either missed this or dismissed this and focused on the ‘anytime, anyplace’ stuff without realising the context of their quote is in relation to the church. Now if I am correct in assuming they are looking at 1 Timothy in the church situation, then your whole argument against it with Priscilla falls to pieces, because you have mis-quoted from the beginning. But is this what CBMW were saying, am I quoting them right or is Cheryl quoting them right? From ‘Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood’ pages 69-70

“When Paul says in 1 Timothy 2:12, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent,” we do not understand him to mean an absolute prohibition (what you call a law here Cheryl) of all teaching by women…Then, of course, there is Priscilla at Aquila’s side correcting Apollos…If Paul did not have every conceivable form of teaching and learning in mind, what did he mean? Along with the fact that the setting here is the church assembly for prayer and teaching (1 Timothy 2:8-10; 3:15), the best clue is the coupling of “teaching’ with “having authority over men.” We would say that the teaching inappropriate for a woman is the teaching of men in settings or ways that dishonour the calling of men to bear the primary responsibility for teaching and leadership. This primary responsibility is to be carried by the pastors or elders.”

So I really do think you mis-quoted them. Therefore your whole approach seems wrong. If you quote them wrong to begin with, your argument is hardly trustworthy nor persuasive. The whole approach to find a law in the Old Testament was not even relevant because they were not citing for such a law. So the question I pose it this Cheryl, Did you deliberately mis-quote them and pull small words out of the larger context or was it accidental?

OK video 4…

I agree with you Cheryl regarding the Greek grammar. The JW’s are quite silly really to assume such a case as that. It seems quite evident they read alot of things very literally.

But concerning the second point in the video i disagree. We need to keep in mind that Moses is writing this not Adam or Eve. He is writing for the Hebrews insprired by the Spirit to show them the origins of the world and the fall. Be careful not to read things to literally. Who were your anonymous quotes from by the way Cheryl? I do think Eve added to God’s word, but i do not think it was a sin nor was she a liar, because scripture testifies to her being ‘decieved’ at the fall. What i see in this passage is this.
1. Moses, the writer of Genesis, when writing chapter 3 introduces some very subtle hints in the text. For example, the serpent refers to Yahweh as ‘God’ not ‘LORD God’. Why does the writer do this? Equally interesting is that Eve does the same thing? Is this a hint form the writer that Eve is beginning to listen to the serpent rather than the “LORD God’?
2. She also adds “and you must not touch it”. Another subtle hint that Eve is further leaning toward the serpent rather than God.
3. The serpent tells her she will not surely die, and so then she eats and then becomes sinful, despite being decieved by the serpent.

I think this is the writers subtle hint to show us what happened in the garden, how Eve followed the serpent rather than God. She did add to the words of God, but under the deceptive influence and conversation with the serpent.

Why would God give them the same command in chapter 1, but then give Adam and Eve seperate ones in chapters 2 and 3. In fact where does it even tell us that God commanded Eve anything about the tree of knowledge- it isn’t there?

So Cheryl im sorry, but i must disagree on this point, although i do agree on the earlier Greek grammar issue with ‘anthropos’ and the masculine gender. I would really like you to consider why YHWH is dropped by the serpent and Eve in this passage a bit more rather than just dismissing it.

“In chapter 2 God spoke to Adam directly and told him that he could eat the fruit from any tree except for one.

One of the new things is in chapter 1 when God spoke to both Adam and Eve, He gave the additional information that they could eat from every plant on the face of the earth that had that yields seeds in addition to the fruit from the trees that yielded seeds. He did not say these things to Adam originally but added these things when they were together.”

I still don’t understand your position, but i will watch the video.