Well, this is a very significant day for the obvious reason that the Legacy Standard Bible translation is finished. Does that feel like an accomplishment? Are you getting some sleep? I think one thing that could be said is to do this entire translation in a year is just really unheard of.

The second thing that can be said is I don't know that there's ever been a translation done by one faculty. And I think that would almost be required if you were going to do it in a year because you couldn't be fighting theological battles along the way and come to consensus.

So I see the Lord's hand in this. So it's a wondrous thing the Lord has done in His providence. And then as I was saying earlier, the fact that we were given the privilege to do this from the Lachman Foundation, who have the rights to the NAS, and they let us put our hands and hearts and minds on that most honorable translation and make changes.

That was very generous on the part of the Lachman Foundation. What stands out in my mind is the common theology among all of us and the common commitment that we were going to translate with authorial intent. We were not thinking of the reader. We were thinking of the writer.

I don't know that you would have expected years ago that this would have ever been done. You'd have been a part of it, but the Lord knew who He needed. And I just thank you and commend you. And I've seen the Lord's hand in this clearly. And I think we're about to see not just His hand in the process, but His hand in the usefulness of this.

And you've gotten a lot of feedback from outside readers, right? What number of people, just give me a general number, of people have been reading the translation as you've been working on it outside this group? Yeah, we're looking at an approximate range between 50 to 80 people outside of this group reading the translation.

And they would be qualified by being skilled at handling the Word of God in the original languages. So you're getting not just a lay opinion, but you're getting a scholastic reading and opinion. So that played a role in the finished product. But it passed inspection by all of us, right?

That's right. So that's just wonderful. The past six months or so has been spent primarily on the Old Testament. What can readers expect when they see the Old Testament, they begin to read it? What's going to make this different? What's going to set it apart from other translations? Maybe I'd ask you, Joe, since you're kind of the Hebrew point man.

Yeah, the past six months have been just terrific. And Abner and I worked on it very intensively together. But I think that the philosophy of translation goes across the board, New Testament and Old Testament. And so I think that when we think about the way that we translated the Old Testament, we sought to be literal, to be consistent, to be precise.

And so in the end, when you look at the entire product, you're looking at a refined accuracy. NASB was great, but you're looking at something that was refined and where those elements, consistency, precision, those were intensified in this translation. And you can think about an example maybe from Exodus.

Consistency is something that we've talked about a lot. But I think the other side of the coin is that we try to distinguish words in English that were different even in Hebrew. And so you think about the narrative of the Exodus, and we know that God hardened Pharaoh's heart and that Pharaoh hardened his own heart.

And we remember the word hardened very familiarly for us because it appears so many times. But in the Hebrew, there are different words for the word hardened. And so we sought to bring that difference out when we translated it. And so you have God hardening Pharaoh's heart with firmness.

And then you have God hardening Pharaoh's heart with stiffness, just like the stiff-necked people that we're familiar with. And you have God hardening Pharaoh's heart with strength. And all of those are differences that bring out the fact that Pharaoh's heart was hardened from different perspectives. So it was really hard from various elements.

So it sort of brings out the progression in the hardening of his heart. Yes. It brings out the progression as well as the wholeness of the hardening that Pharaoh had towards the people of Israel. So if you think about the firmness, God hardened Pharaoh's heart with firmness, it's like a rock that you can't penetrate and that you can't move.

You think about the hardening with stiffness, it's like he's set in his ways and he's moving in a certain direction just like the stiff-necked people. You think about the hardening with strength, and that's his proactive intent to be determined to move into a certain direction no matter what happens, no matter what the consequences are.

So you get this element of emphasis by seeing the difference of the hardening that he experiences. And we would say that every word was inspired by the Holy Spirit. So the Holy Spirit was communicating something in those different Hebrew words that hasn't up to this point showed up in an English translation.

That's exactly right. And I think seeing this difference brings out exactly what the Holy Spirit intended within the text. And we also, I think, would be doing well to answer this question. How much of the NAS that you started with did you find that was good and accurate and could be retained as opposed to how much new in the Old Testament?

I think overall NASB is a great translation. It's a solid translation, which made it easy for us to work with because we appreciate it. You mentioned that. Absolutely. Going back to the original language. Yeah. So everything we didn't change, it's actually our seal of saying, "We affirm this. This is correct.

This is good." And the tweaks that we made, the alterations that we made only enhanced consistency and accuracy. Another one that I think of is in Isaiah where we are familiar with Isaiah 6 that the Lord is on the throne high and lifted up. And throughout Isaiah, that pairing of words is used.

But it is used in a way to show that people are not high and lifted up. They have eyes that are high and lifted up, but God will lower them. They have a heart that is high and lifted up, but God will humble them. In Isaiah, there's only one who is high and lifted up, and that's God on the throne, and then the servant.

Isaiah 52. Isaiah 52. Yeah. And so having the consistency of the language of high and lifted up throughout Isaiah demonstrates that in the end, though people want to be high and lifted up, there is only one, and that is God and His Son. So those are the kinds of things we try to bring out with consistency.

And for expositors, which all of us should be, because preaching the Word of God is what we're called to do, this is critically important, because you can't explain the Word of God unless you have it, and you have it accurately, which is exactly what we've endeavored to do. The reading of it, is it fair to say, will sound a lot like the NAS?

Oh, yeah. So people who've been familiar with the NAS, it's not going to be a big jump, not like even going to the ESV or back to the King James or the RSV. They're going to feel the familiarity of this. It feels very much like an NAS thing. And I think that's a big thing, Paul, because as a preacher who has preached from the NAS for years, I couldn't shift to something that was too different, or I'd be quoting things from one translation and reading things from another, and never the twain would meet in my mind.

So I think that's a question that's going to come up a lot. I've preached from the NAS for years. Can I make the shift? I know a pastor down in Florida who has already made the shift and has ordered the LSB in the form that it's available now, New Testament Psalms and Proverbs, and he's got it for his entire congregation, and he's preaching from it.

And he's made that shift, and he's absolutely enthusiastic and excited about the shift. I can think back, when I came out of seminary, it was at the time that I came from seminary that the NAS first appeared. I graduated in '64, and there was a version of the NAS sometime around that time, then later the '77 and then later the '95.

But the guys that were teaching me, Dr. Feinberg and Dr. Thomas, were the main guys on the Old and the New Testament. So I had always used basically the King James, and I was used to it because I'd memorized it growing up, and I wondered if I could make the shift, and obviously it was right at the time that I came to Grace I started preaching from the King James and made that shift early on in my ministry.

I only say that to say you can do it even when it's a little more difficult. This will not be that difficult. - Yeah, people say to me, "Oh, it just reads like the NASB." And they think that that's some kind of derogatory statement, and I think of it as our greatest victory because it affirms what the NASB is, and it's our affirmation that you can trust your Bible translation.

And it takes a lot of work to make changes in a way where it still sounds exactly like the New American Standard. And as we've already said, if there is a change, it's for a reason. There's a reason behind that, not just a preference issue, but we're trying to justify something in that way.

- Sometimes you guys actually jumped back past the '95, back to the '77, and back to the '71, and picked up a previous original translation, so you were faithful to the original translation. I mean, there are examples of that that you can think of? - Yeah, the simplest one is in Mark with the conjunctions.

So one of the things that a lot of people responded to, I was surprised, and in a pleasant way, is they said, "Put the conjunctions back in, in the Gospels, and in the epistles of the New Testament." In the '95, I tried to smooth things out by removing certain conjunctions.

And we know that Mark is characteristic, or a characteristic of Mark is the repetition of conjunctions. It's a fast-moving narrative. And the irony is that we talk about and immediately, and immediately, and immediately, and oftentimes in the New American Standard, the and might not even be there. So we put those things back in, so that we're going back to the '77.

- I mean, that's the integrity of this translation. So when you delivered this to various readers, give me some examples of where they may have come back to you and said, "We think this could be better done this way," or, "We think you need to think about this." Obviously, you told me one time on a single weekend, you had been given as many as 1,500 suggested changes.

- That's right. - And I'm knowing you, I'm sure you went through all 1,500 of them. So how did you decide, did you re-inject the discussion back into the committee? - Oftentimes, sometimes a suggestion was a typographical error, and I knew everyone was going to say, "Yes, you should spell that word correctly," so I didn't need to ask them.

But there were times where either we knew that the person didn't have the whole context, and if they had the footnote, or if they had the whole context of what we were doing throughout the entire Bible, they would have come to a different conclusion. But there were other times where, and a significant amount, where we needed to have a broader discussion, and so I would give the whole team a list of, "Here are all the questions, and please write down your comments," and they would faithfully, every morning, do so, and we would compile that and figure out a decision together.

- And I think there's an example that comes, which actually came from a Hebrew scholar. He said, "How come you guys don't translate the expression cut the covenant as cut the covenant, and you typically translate it as make the covenant?" Which is what all of the other translations do, as far as I know.

And so we talked about it, and we thought, "Well, people understand if we translate cut the covenant as cut the covenant," which is exactly what the Hebrew has, and so we thought about English expressions, "You cut a deal," and so we thought, "Okay, we could actually use that and introduce it into the translation," and so we did.

But it also has theological and exegetical implications. You see the image of cutting the animals and then walking through the animals, and it's used in contexts where that image is of cutting the covenant, and you get to Jeremiah 34, for example, and there the language of cutting the covenant and cutting the calf in two, and then walking through that calf as part of the commitment that you're making to the covenant is all within the same verse.

- Like Abraham in the book of Genesis. - It's exactly, you get that image in Genesis 15, you get the same language in Jeremiah 34, 18, but the scholar said, "Use the same language that the Hebrew has," and so we did, and it worked. - Yeah, and it really, it solidifies the theological implications.

There are even wordplay, David and Jonathan cut a covenant with each other, and the idea is we are going to cut a covenant so that my offspring will not be cut off, and you can hear the pairing of that language there. It would be lost in translation if we didn't do that.

So reviewers had a lot of helpful and insightful comments. - But it's also the integrity of the translation because that's what it says. So when I was a student in seminary, Dr. Robert Thomas was the translator in the New Testament. The question comes, can you share one or two principles of translation that he taught some of you?

- I think we said Dr. Thomas' middle name was Precision, and I think that's something that he really impressed upon me as a student was to be very, very precise, to account for every feature of the Greek text, and he wouldn't allow you to come in below that standard, and so I think that was very important, and I think he shared some lessons about where he thought the New American Standard really shined as he translated it, and kind of the word-for-word correspondence, making sure people had basically the Greek text in their language, and that kind of philosophy I thought was very, very helpful in how we do our philosophy here.

- Yeah, he started out his college days at Georgia Tech, and he was an engineering major. He had that kind of engineering mind, and precision was really important to him. - Yeah, I think an example of that, I think, coming from Dr. Thomas' investment in us, but I'm thinking of 1 Peter, one of those words is fear, that many translations stay away from, because it has certain negative implications, and I was comparing the New Testament, the NASB rather, with the LSB, and sometimes the word is always phobos, it's always fear, multiple times, but sometimes it's respect, respectful, reverent, but the root word is the same, and to soften some of the implications, for example, when the women are expected to be respectful to their husbands, and so instead of putting fear there, even though fear really implies directed towards God, and a fear for God, this is how you interact with your unbelieving husband in 1 Peter 3.

So we went all the way back, instead of the consistency, the precision of the original text is fear, but I also think beyond just the immediate passage, you go through the whole book, and it says, okay, if the context is persecution, you need to live in a certain way that demonstrates your respect for God, and your fear for God, more than fear for man, who can harm you, and remember who you're ultimately to fear.

Yeah, and I think in doing that, you also expand the meaning of fear. It can be explained as respect, but it's a component of what it is to fear God. You love God, you fear Him who can destroy both soul and body in hell, Luke 12. That's different than coming to Him for comfort, but all of that is embodied within what the Bible would say is a correct fear of God, which is the beginning of all wisdom.

So yeah, sticking with the purest translation, as you have done, I think is the key gift that this translation gives, and that's why I'm kind of pushed on the idea that probably 90% of this LSB will be like the NAS. But the 10% is really significant, and it was grappling with that.

Can you give us some other illustrations of where a literal translation helps the expositor, where without that literal translation, somebody who didn't know the original would not be able to get to the correct interpretation? I think this even goes back to what we were just saying about Dr. Thomas, about precision and about literalness, and it not only relates to things that seem theologically significant, but to words that seem completely simple.

And you can think about the word temple in the Old Testament, the way that it's translated. You see it appearing all throughout the Old Testament, and you go to Ezekiel, you see that God's glory departs from the temple in Ezekiel 10, and you understand what that means. But when you read Ezekiel 10 in Hebrew, it says that God's glory departs from the house of Yahweh.

And so the word temple actually is the house of God from which His glory departs. And then you think about that word in light of the entire Old Testament, you remember what was David doing? He was building a house of God, a house for God, for God to dwell in, because he said, I already dwell in a house, I've built a house for myself.

But God doesn't have a house to dwell in. When Solomon builds the temple, he is actually building a house for God. When the exiles return and they're rebuilding the temple, they're actually rebuilding the house for God, for Him to dwell in. And so you see this simple literal translation, which we have in the Legacy Standard Translation, but you see the word for temple or literally for house in Ezekiel 10, because it represents God's presence as it did from the very beginning until Ezekiel 10, when God's presence departs.

And if you go to the latter part of Ezekiel where it describes God's, the new temple, it also is the house of Yahweh in which God will dwell. Another example I think of is in Isaiah, again, it's the word council and the nation's council and the king has counsel and there's counselors and all of that is maintained in the Legacy Standard Bible.

But in other translations, it might be they have advice, they make plans, they come up with schemes, but we maintain council, council, council all the way through because of the infamous passage, the famous passage, I should say, which is that our Lord is the wonderful counselor. And the reminder is kings will counsel, nations will counsel.

There will be counsel taken amongst many advisors, but there is one wonderful counselor and his counsel is that which stands and overcomes all other kinds of counsel. And so it's those kinds of things where, again, an English reader might not be able to make the connection because it is a little bit hidden with the translation.

We've tried to bring that out. - Yeah. I think word plays, especially, are really helpful to try to help the reader see the authorial intent. One instance that I can think of is boasting in Romans. Romans has this idea of boasting oftentimes has a negative connotation, right? You can't boast in your works, boasting in the law, that faith excludes boasting.

And yet in chapter five, you have this kind of cool connection, I think, a really helpful connection, and that is oftentimes it's translated rejoice or exult. And we decided to continue the same terminology and use boasting. So in Romans five, we boast in the hope, and we boast in our afflictions, and we boast in what God has done for us.

And so I think that helps the reader just in those five chapters follow this flow of thought that says, "We don't boast in and of ourselves. We don't boast in people. We boast in God and what He has done." So that allows the term "boast" to be something good if you're boasting for the right thing.

Yep. That's right. But again, all of this comes back to the whole point of doing this, and that is to get back to the original. And I think people listening to this conversation have to be saying, "Well, why didn't other translators do this?" Because not doing this has obscured these things.

So what you all have done is you've unwrapped some packages that have been wrapped up, and now they're unwrapped. Is this the kind of thing that the reader will be able to pick up just in reading the text? Yeah, I would say so. I think it's not just seeing the consistency that we've talked about a few times now.

It'll pick up. I'm spending some time in 1 Peter these days, and so it's fresh on my mind, but I think of the word "conduct." We consistently translate it on the strophe as "conduct." But in the previous translation you have behavior, you have way of life, and you have conduct as well.

But when you see conduct in various contexts, so the context of always be walking or live your life in a way, so make sure your conduct is always out of view for God. Even in your relationship with employers, or in your relationship in the household, or in your relationship with unbelievers when you evangelize, 1 Peter 3 for example.

The word "conduct" keeps appearing in multiple contexts in the book to show that there's a consistent approach to your life, and that it always is to be excellent and God-honoring and done in the fear of God. So I think anybody who sits down and reads, I would say, a book in one sitting or multiple sittings, if they pay attention, they'll see that there's this repeated term, and hopefully they'll pause and reflect, "Okay, if this is the same idea here, then maybe God expects a consistent conduct out of me in every single context." One of the things that you do if you're a writer, at least what I've done through my whole life of ministry and writing, is keep a thesaurus handy so that I don't use the same word all the time, but I'm not inspired.

So a translator doesn't need a thesaurus. You don't want to be looking for another word, that's what you're saying. It's almost the opposite principle. Yeah, it's the opposite. You want to get the thesaurus out of there. I don't want to overstate this, but this simplifies. It takes unnecessary complexity out of it, because if words are different, people assume concepts are different.

If words are the same, then the concept is the same. So that is a huge, huge gift. I was going to say, I think part of our exegetical method is to make sure that we pay attention to repetition. So if there's repetition of the same word, whether it's in the same verse or in the same paragraph, for us it's a big deal.

So that's where the preacher comes into the picture and says, "I need to explain to you why somebody would say, 'Don't fear their fear.'" Why would you repeat the same word? It almost doesn't make any sense in the English, but it's because it's a quotation from the Old Testament, literally.

And now he's trying to say, "Pay attention that the only person you should fear is God, not any humans." And so I do think, answering your previous question, Pastor John, that there's an element where the preacher has to get into the picture and say, "Okay, let me explain why it's the same term as opposed to a synonym." Well, yeah, Will, I'm sorry.

John, you asked if—can the English reader of the LSB pick up on the differences in the Greek? And I thought right away of James 2:14. The LSB says, "What use is it, my brothers, if someone says that he has faith, and faith does not have the article there, but he has no works?" And then it says, "Can that faith save him?" That second faith has the article in front of it.

It's referring back to the kind of faith that does not have any works. So I think we're correct in saying, "Can that faith—can the faith that I've just spoken of that has no works save him?" And the rhetorical answer is, "No, that kind of faith can't save him." Rather than asking the question, "Can faith save him?" Because that confuses—yeah.

That's right. That's why there's such a dilemma over that passage and why Luther threw it away. Because faith does save us, but that kind of faith that I've just said that has not accompanied my works. So I think the reader can pick up on that. You know, my least favorite thing to do as a preacher is to fix the translation.

Do I hear an amen? Yeah. Amen. Absolutely. Yes. Because it makes you—the people listening thinking, "Okay, can I trust this?" Right. Well, of course. If you keep correcting it— And the further the translation gets from the original, the more you're fixing the translation. And to fix the translation is to create suspicion and maybe doubt.

So just on a personal note, how has this year-long exercise impacted your personal life, apart from irritating your kids and messing with your schedule? What is the personal impact of this intensity toward the Word of God for a year? I just think it's rewarding, you know, as I think through just even being on the team with these men has been humbling.

And I think through—like, I feel like I'm always learning with them, a constant student, I guess, if you will. And so I just think from a personal standpoint, just that learning experience and growing and knowing the Word more in depth and being appreciative of the translators before us and then also even these men here and the insights that they would bring.

And I just—sometimes in our meetings, when we would meet during the COVID shutdown, I was just like a kid in a candy shop. Like it was just—it was so much fun to be a part and to glean from that. And so I think that's one part. And the other thing, too, as I think through it is that it's just a blessing to be a part of something that, Lord willing, outlasts all of us, that impacts the church.

But that's, you know, from my personal standpoint. Yeah, for me, it was reassurance to trust the Word of God. Because the deeper you go in grammar, the more reaffirmed you are in your faith and trust that this is God's Word. It's not just man's. Yeah, the only way you could come up with the idea that the Bible is open to any interpretation, as you hear the naive people say, or that the Bible is too complex to understand is when you don't understand it, when you don't read it.

But the deeper you go, the more cohesive it becomes, right? It just gets tighter and tighter and tighter, and all the loose ends disappear. Yeah, walking away from this project, I just think, even what we talked about earlier, the consistency across the Testaments, what you just said, it gets tighter and tighter.

You walk away thinking this is God's Word, and I believe it, and I trust it, and I hope to have that same emotional, I would say, response after a year of study for the rest of my life, that nothing will undermine that trust. Well, with the exception of Will and myself, you guys are going to have to figure out something else to do the rest of your life, because you've been to the mountain, right?

You're like Moses, you got it. You came down the hill, the glory's on your face, so what am I going to do now to get this people in line? John, you took the words out of my mouth. I was just about to say, John and I can say, "Now, what are two old guys going to find something fresh in this?" and I can say, "Yes." Just the impact of the word Yahweh on my Bible reading now, there's a good shock value to that.

No question. One of the questions that I was thinking about is, "Am I ever going to preach from this?" And just a while ago, I preached on Psalm 19, and you guys know Psalm 119, verses one to six. It's about Elohim, God. Heaven was declared the glory of God.

Then there's a shift in verses seven and following to Yahweh. The natural creation of Elohim is spoken about, but the supernatural revelation in God's Word is Yahweh, and reading that, there's a shock value to it. I mean, yes, I think I could understand the law of the Lord, all capitals, but it reminds me that this is God's covenant name, and these are God's covenant scriptures, and I appreciated that so much.

- And this Yahweh name is his personal intimate name, and he wants you to know him that way. Not as some category of being that gets a title, but of a person. - Yeah, I think for myself, and this just echoes what everybody has said, the way I would describe it is, we as believers, we don't know the depth and the breadth of verbal plenary inspiration, but when you come out of a project like this, you realize the intentionality behind everything, things that often we might take for granted or just say, "Oh, it's coincidental." It's not, because we've had to struggle and wrestle through it, and in the end, we realize, no, there were deliberate choices, and everything was a deliberate choice, and it all matters, and there are just great moments of devotion.

I was remembering when I was translating Daniel 11 through 12, and the Hebrew word, which means to stand, is used throughout that chapter, and it talks about how the king of the north will stand, and the king of the south will not be able to stand against somebody, and the word stand, and stand, and stand, and how they cannot stand is said over and over and over, and then in Daniel 12, in the end, Michael, the angel of God, stands for his people, because he stands before his God, and now you know who stands in the end.

And I just read that, and seeing the consistency, I just worshipped, because it was so powerful to understand the thrust of this passage based on the consistency of the word choice. And I think that's what makes the Legacy Standard readable, is because people can hear the repetition, and it stitches everything together in a cohesive whole, and that's what people have said makes the text so much more sensible to them, because they see how it fits together, and they see the theology.

It's powerful. - Is there value in reading it out loud? - Yeah. - I find, even by myself, that reading the Scripture out loud is a blessing. It's almost like it's not just a meditation, it's speaking to me, even though it's my own voice. - Well, I think you're employing another sense, just seeing the word, but you're hearing it by your own voice, and perhaps then we're just more aware of how that word is working together.

- But I think also, when you're just reading it silently, you don't pronounce those words like stand, stand, stand, stand, you just kind of flow by, but when you say it, and I've noticed that I've been reading the Legacy Standard Psalms on Sunday morning, and it's very quiet, and what you said, Will, is true, there's kind of a stun that hits them when you say Yahweh, they're not used to that, but it gives them a whole new sense of God.

Do you have any particular things that you do differently with poetry or narrative? - I think people think, oh, narratives are just easy, they're just a story. That's true, they are a story, they have a plot, they have characters, and it's all historically true because it's inspired and inerrant, but stories are complicated, and bringing that out is hard.

So one of the books that I think Joe and I struggled the most was Ruth, not because the Hebrew's difficult, but to capture everything that's going on in the narrative with the consistency of it, it can be tricky. The beginning, it says, "May Yahweh grant you, give you blessing, give you this," and it's a wish, it's a prayer, and then in the end, "And Yahweh has given these things," and so there's this symmetry, what you prayed for, now you receive, and there's even language of gathering, there's different kinds of language throughout Ruth, and to get all of that symmetrical so people can see the contrast and the buildup, it's difficult.

Esther was another one. Esther, okay, Ruth and Esther, they're very hard, 'cause Esther has this great irony that comes out. How do you have, it begins with the king of a pagan land, it ends with Mordecai as a ruler. There's just this huge reversal that takes place, and you see it.

There's an edict that goes out and is reversed, and then in the end, there's an edict that goes out that is going to be reversed, and there's even this word, I think we translated "reached out," and so it reached Esther's turn to go before the king, it reached her time to appear, it reached, it reached, it reached, you have reached royalty for such a time as this, and then when she appears before the king, she reaches out to touch the scepter.

So there is this providential unfolding that happens surrounding this word. But now it sounds easy, but to figure out a word that kind of stitches all those things together. - Coming up with "reach out." - Yeah, yeah, yeah, it was hard. But that's the richness of a narrative under the inspiration of the Spirit, and there's a theology in it.

It's a great theology of providence. - So there's some challenges there. Well, again, profound gratitude, and the world is going to discover this translation soon, and to move them as fast as we can, we're going to have Shepherd's Conference in March, March 9 through 11, 2022, and at that Shepherd's Conference, there will be the premier edition of the entire Bible given as a gift to every person who's there, and so you will have the original autographs of the LSB, first edition, if you're a part of the Shepherd's Conference.

So that's when we know it'll be ready to go, and then there'll be different formats, but we'll make sure that we introduce it and feature it at the Shepherd's Conference, and we'll also major on emphasizing the glory of the Word of God. God, Psalm 138, 2, says He's exalted His Word equal to His name, and so that'll be the theme of Shepherd's Conference.

- Amen. - Amen. - Amen. - Amen.