 Michael, you probably don't know about my background. For 21 years, I was a New Age teacher in full rebellion against God. And yet I thought, I thought it's all about being spiritual but not religious. And there's many holy books. Here's the question. Obviously, the Bible is God's word to us as Christians. Why the Bible? I mean, when we think we believe in the Bible, why the Bible say above, oh, I don't know, the Quran or the Bhagavad Gita or the Upanishads or any other quote-unquote holy books by the world's standards. What is it about the Bible? The Bible has the only message that makes sense of our predicament and its solution. If we are following any spiritual path, it's because we assume that there's either something wrong with us that needs to be corrected or that we need to improve spiritually. There's some imperfection and really a deep imperfection, if we're honest. So every other religion basically has the solution to our imperfection and our sin. It has the solution be us. So here we have a standard of perfection, of righteousness, of holiness, of bliss, whatever you want to call it, that we want to be one with. We want to belong with and belong to. And yet here we are being left with the proposition that, okay, now go solve that problem yourself. Right. It's just, it's incoherent on so many levels. Christianity is the only message that takes our situation seriously and says, look, let's be honest. You can't fix this yourself because you're the problem. So you need an external solution. And God has one specifically in mind. And that's when you get into the story of Jesus, the story of the incarnation. Again, how God has taken it upon himself to provide a means because he loves us to have us be with him. He doesn't just leave it there with us and say, well, I know what you want. I know you'd love to be part of the family and I like to have this and that. The other thing, good luck with that. Do the best you can. Again, knowing that we are inherently not that thing we want to belong to. Every other religion puts the onus on us and we're not capable. Christianity says no, the onus was on God and he showed his love to us through the work of Christ on the cross, that Christ agreed again to sacrifice himself on our behalf so that God and we in God could have a relationship again. It does not depend on us. Christianity, the only one that says that. Thank you for that very powerful and insightful answer. And I pray that really speaks to a lot of the listeners that I hope struggle with this question, especially if they don't know who Jesus is. I know one of your many areas of expertise is in the area of translation work. You've done, I saw something earlier, roughly a dozen ancient languages. And again, just to use myself as an example, I used to slam the Bible even though I actually never even read a Bible. And here's some of the rhetoric I would have. It's kind of the world. Well, it's man's interpretation of God's Word. It's been translated many different times. I mean, I can go down the line with all the lies of the world. But here's the question for those out there that are hung up on translation. Is that even something? Is that even an important question in the realm of the larger view of what you're trying to share an unseen realm? And that is even go deeper that try to imagine this being written at the time it was and who wrote it? Yeah, a lot of the rhetoric makes it sound like each succeeding translation. Well, one's translating the phone book, the other one's translating Home and Guard, the other one's translating Sports Illustrated. You know, they're not, you have a multitude of translations, but they're translating the same thing, the same document. If we were to take something like Dickens' Christmas Carol and you had 20 translations to that, they would largely be the same. They'd largely be completely comprehensible. We'd get the story. We wouldn't get, you know, we wouldn't have every detail of each translation agree with 100% you know, almost near omniscient precision, but we would get the story just fine. And so that this notion of the translation somehow renders a book incomprehensible is just nonsense. You know, that every translation has real strengths, every translation has some weaknesses. They all, I think, are quite capable of conveying the meaning of the text to us. Again, it may not be perfect. So I always suggest, hey, you use more than one. If you see it, you know, you come across something in a verse where you've got a wide apparent discrepancy and how it's rendered. Well, you know, something's going on there. That's where you need to drill down. There are good tools like the online tool, the net Bible, it'll actually tell you what translators struggle with here. It might be a manuscript difference. It might be a point of grammar that's ambiguous. And they just have to make a decision. But by and large, you know, any given English translation is going to adequately convey to you the content of scripture.