Numbers 5 – Reading Note – Test for an Unfaithful Wife

  • Up till this point, those who were unclean had not been sent out of the camp. God now orders them to be sent out (5:1-4).

The Test for an Unfaithful Wife

I was once asked about the test for an unfaithful wife and had no answer. That is one of the reasons why a Christian should read the Bible through – so that we can know. Reading this passage for the umpteenth time, I saw several things I didn’t see before. First, a summary

In the passage, a woman whose husband suspects her of having cheated on him but had no admissible evidence to back it up would take her to the priest who would administer a test to find out if she really had been unfaithful. The test was simple. The priest would take some water, put a little dust from the tabernacle floor into it, then make the woman swear that she had not been unfaithful and then make her drink it. If she had been unfaithful, she would become barren (or her abdomen would swell and her thigh waste away, what whatever that means). If she had not been unfaithful, she would be fine.

Why do this?

Thinking about it, I can come up with certain reasons to make a law like that. The first would be to find and punish a sin that might be hidden so that the people remained pure before God.

There was also the issue of protecting the woman. If a man thought his wife had cheated on him but could not prove it, he could still treat her badly – maltreat her, punish her or even divorce her. This test would provide a way of vindicating innocent women and finding out guilty ones – safely. I heard from a reliable source that in the Code of Hammurabi (c. 1720 BC.), CH 132, women who were suspected of this type of infidelity were required to throw themselves into the Euphrates river–if they drown, they were guilty; if not, they were innocent (Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts, p. 171) and that in most cultures of this time, a man who suspected his wife of adultery could just kill her no questions asked1.

There is something to be noted about the water used for this ritual – there was nothing in it! It wasn’t some strange concoction. It was water, with a little dust from the tabernacle floor in it. This means that if anything happened to a woman after drinking it, it was not due to any ‘ingredients’ in it. She might get a slight stomach ache if she was the kind of woman who only drank natural spring water (which I doubt). It might also terrify her if she was guilty. If you are one of the secular-minded then you need not worry. On your view, no woman would have ever been convicted of adultery by this trial. For us Christians, it would mean that if the woman really was hurt, it was probably an act of God.


1. Women in the Law of Moses

Published by


I’m Tracy

15 thoughts on “Numbers 5 – Reading Note – Test for an Unfaithful Wife”

  1. The result of the test would – in the natural world – would be that a fertile woman would not be found guilty, but a barren woman would be removed from the society. Very effective, if the purpose of the theocracy was to increase fertility, as the Bible sometimes seems to suggest is the idea. Multiplying is very important to a nomadic tribe when it tries to conquer a land supposedly appointed to it by a god.

    There is of course the off-chance, that a woman might have presented symptoms of guilt simply because she was terrified and we may even assume that a guilty woman would react thus more easily than a not guilty one, but unless a god performed some form of miracle in every occasion, there is no way we may conclude this system only condemned the guilty, or that it saved the innocent. To me it seems just as arbitrary and random as the one you refferred in the law of Hammurabi.

    For some reason this law is not in use anymore. It has not been for centuries. Why did god not suply people with a nother sort of way to solve such problems, when this one became obsolete?

    1. Hi, Rautakyy
      I see you’re back. 🙂

      Here is the relevant passage:
      “But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— here the priest is to put the woman under this curse —“may the Lord cause you to become a curse among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells and your womb miscarries.”
      “‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it. ” Lev 5:20 – 22

      I read it in different versions just to be sure. The verse isn’t merely referring to barrenness as the consequence. I don’t really know what they mean by thigh wasting away and abdomen swelling but whatever it is, it is included. So, a woman not giving birth to anymore children wouldn’t necessarily show that she had been unfaithful. Of course, God would have to do it, seeing as there was nothing in the water as I previously pointed out.

      “For some reason this law is not in use anymore. It has not been for centuries. Why did god not suply people with a nother sort of way to solve such problems, when this one became obsolete?”

      I think this issue was an extremely important one back then. If the other nations gave husbands the license to kill wives they thought were being unfaithful. This would mean that the Israelites would want their own law for the situation and I doubt God wanted them to copy those around them. Also, an unfaithful wife was a bigger issue back then seeing as it was relevant to determining the paternity of children and stuff like that. i could probably think up a few other reasons but I don’t really know. He didn’t say.

  2. Well, semi nomadic people like the early Hebrew had many laws of segragation (like the laws about what to eat and what to wear) from other nations in their area. This might be one of those. To me it seems their entire idea of single god who is everywhere was a result of that and a logical one too. Did you know that very many nomadic people around the globe have these more or less monotheistic religions?

    In the antiquity it was the farmers who worshipped local gods. Gods of the sedentarirsts were local because they often derived from some particular ancestor to whom offerings were made to have a better harvest. Nomads were in constant danger to be accumulated by the sedentary cultures. In those when sedentarists moved from town to town, they would worship the equivelants of their own gods among the local gods where they had moved to. But since the nomads were on the move all the time they were under pressure to loose their own gods and could not carry heavy statues of their god. Hence such orders as “no craven images” make perfect sense. Especially to the theocracy, of these particular nomads, that wants to hold on to their power. But here I go on a tangent, sorry…

    I read the passage from my very old Finnish translation of the Bible and as far as the result of swelling stomach and withering hips it referred to, does indeed sound like it will not happen to any woman, wether they have been unfaithfull, or not. However, it continues that the faithfull woman will be fruitfull in the future (in Numeri: 5:28). To me that seems just as arbitrary means of judging this issue as testing wether, or not she can swim. Of course there is a slight propability, that she has caught a disease from her promiscuous behaviour, that causes the symptoms, or makes her barren, but not really a big one. Too small to make this law justifiable. But since to the believer there is the option, that a god causes the symptoms on a guilty wife and makes the not guilty fruitfull again (even if the hubbie is not, or chooses not to have intercourse out of spite, or simply to have an excuse to get rid of the wife), but then it is just as well possible that Marduk drowns the guilty woman, but teaches the not guilty wife to swim.

    I think the faithfullness of the wife was just as big issue throughout medieval times and beyond, as it was to the ancient Hebrew. Have we today outgrown this issue as a real problem?

    1. I would not dare say we have outgrown the problem of unfaithful wives, but I dare say we don’t live in a culture that turns a blind eye if a man strangles his wife because she was unfaithful. We are definitely very different from the Canaanites in that respect.

      verse 28 in my Bible reads, “If, however, the woman has not made herself impure, but is clean, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.”

      Not that she will have more children, but that she will be able to. That is not what determines whether she was guilty or not. What determines it was whether her hips wasted and her belly swelled as previously stated. If a woman did not display those symptoms, she was not guilty ala verses 20 -22.

      i like what you said about Marduk teaching the innocent woman to swim and drowning the guilty one. I imagine that if he existed that might indeed be the case. Of course, we Christians believe that all those gods, if they existed, were merely demons so Mardok might have existed in a sense, but as a demon I doubt he cared much about exonerating innocent women. 🙂

  3. Well, we have no way of determining wether the god of Abraham is more of a god than Marduk. Do we? 😉

    The fact that one is them is no longer worshipped may be evidence, that such a god did not exist, but the fact that the other one is still worshipped is not valid evidence, that such a god has ever existed either. Otherwise we would have to conclude that Krishna and Allah exist because they are worshipped even today.

    There is the demand for faith. But the Mesopotamian people had no particular reason to drop with Marduk and start worshipping the god of the Jews, and the Jews were not even asking them to. Why? Why was the god of Abraham so totally indifferent about all the other people?

    The difference of interpretation of the verse 28 may be the result of linguistic fallacy. My Finnish translation clearly implies that the impure woman will not be fertile again. Wich in turn suggests that the barren woman is actually guilty. However, if you are right and fertility is not an issue in determining the guilt of the woman, then why is it even mentioned? And further more, if you are indeed right, do you think god caused these rather impropable symptoms to any guilty wives? It seems like infidelity would be supported by this law, if not in spirit, but in practice anyway, if there was not a miracle for all the unfaithfull women. For the described symptoms to appear – if I understand them correctly, from either of the translations – need actually a miracle to happen. Something to break the natural course of the world. So, god used a lot of time to perform miracles to determine unfaithfull wives of the ancient Hebrews, but does not lift a finger to help the starving in Africa today? Does that paint a picture of an ethical entity? Or am I being somehow unfair?

    1. I don’t know if your first statement was tongue in cheek but I do think there is a way of determining if the God of the Bible is more of a God than those of the Canaanites. How could I be a Christian otherwise? I don’t think that the fact that they are no longer worshiped (if that is true) is good evidence but of course the fact that a god is worshiped does not mean he exists.

      What do you mean that he was indifferent to the other peoples? What about the people of Niniveh who God sent Jonah to in order to get them to repent or he would destroy them? What about Abimelek in Genesis 20? What about the 400 years he gave the canaanites to repent in Genesis 15:16? He listened to Abraham’s plea for Sodom and Gomorrah. I would say that there mere fact that he punished them for their wrongs showed that he gave some thought to them. Oh, but that’s beside the topic at hand. We’re supposed to be talking about the test for an unfaithful wife.

      There is no difference in our translations. Mine does indicate that the guilty woman will not be able to give birth. This is the result of the test.
      Guilty woman: Thigh wastes away, abdomen swells, cannot give birth
      Innocent woman: Thigh does not waste away, abdomen does not swell, can give birth.

      In the case of a woman whose thigh did not waste away and whose abdomen did not swell but who did not give birth to any more children, what would you say? That she was guilty by the test? I would say not because the text clearly says that if she was guilty, those things would happen to her. That’s what I meant when I said that those things were the test. Of course the test continues that the guilty woman would not be able to give birth and the innocent one will. My response was that it says she will be able to give birth, not that she will give birth. So in the case of the previously named woman, I would say that the fact that she had not given birth did not mean that she was barren and if she was, one would be hard pressed to show that it was as a result of the test, since she did not show the other symptoms. I think what we need is to find an instance and see how it was handled.

      Yes, I do think God would have to perform a miracle for the guilty women. How else would anything have happened to them? I doubt it would take God any time or effort to do it but I would not conclude that God is somehow immoral for not performing miracles in other situations in which they seem to be needed. I learned pretty early what good judgment he has as to where to interfere and where not to.

  4. Well, let me present my apologies for my earlier comment, that was a bit tongue in the cheek, like you noticed, but from my perspective the difference between Marduks worshippers and those who worship the god of Abraham, is that they both have faith in their own gods. There is very little evidence to show either is true. I mean, if any god wanted to be evident to people, why demand faith? But that is a rethorical question and a bit off topic. Sorry about that. 🙂

    About the test I would say that if there was no toxics in the temple water, the chances of the test showing a woman being unfaithfull (anyone suffering the described symptoms) are quite remote in the real world. Was the purpose of this law to protect women from jealous husbands regardless of wether they had been unfaithfull, or not? The ancient Hebrew believed a god would perform a miracle and prove a guilty woman by causing these symptoms, but we have no record of how well this indicator of guilt worked in practice, do we? Should we take it on faith, that a god actually performed miracles and indeed women who had been unfaithfull suffered the symptoms? It is a pretty big leap of faith. If they did not, how did that affect the jealosy of men and faithfullness of the women?

    If ever a woman went through these symptoms and was thus proven guilty. What then? Did she die of the symptoms (that is not described to happen in the Bible), or did the husband kill her? If that is true, then the comment about her becoming barren is totally pointless. If she survived the symptoms and was not killed by her husband, what happened to her then? And what happedned to her children? Was there a divorce, or did the couple get on even more miserable than before?

    I can not help the notion, that perhaps after the law was originally set and no-one ever showed the expected symptoms, they later decided to add the part about the woman becoming barren, so that at least some women could be shown to be guilty by that extra measure. And at the same time they conviniently decided to remove the barren women from the society effectively. Remember there is much about these parts of the Bible where the theocrasy gets pride for the nation growing, though they also seem to be constantly engaged in a war of attrition, extermination and “lebensraum”. So, fertility was a big issue for them. The Bible was not written overnight after all, and we have very little actual knowledge about such things like wich verses are the very originals and wich are added only a couple of years later, like it could have been in this case.

    If there actually is a god, and that particular deity was prepared to make a miracle on every incident a woman was being suspected of unfaithfullness, why not perform a miracle every time a woman (or a man) was being unfaithfull and reveal it to all people involved? That would have prevented unnecessary jealosy and suspicion, sinse if this was the case, all could be rest assured, that unfaithfullness will be revealed by a god. For what purpose was the suspicion part in between the actual act and the judgement at the temple for? Was it only to serve the clever women who knew how to have affairs outside marriage, while their husbands never suspected anything?

    Killing someone for being unfaithfull happens all the time around the world, but that does not make it ethical. It is not fair. It is extremely cruel to satisfy the jealosy of a nother person by ending a nother persons life. I am sure you agree with me on this? 🙂

    I have no such experience, nor have I ever seen any evidence, that an omnipotent god was acting responsibly about the world. Most of the miracles people claim this, or that god performed, serve no actual, serious and real needs people have (like helping out victims of natural catastrophies, famon, or violence). There are stories of alledgedly miraculous healings from serious diseases, but since those are such a minority in comparrison to all the sick people who ask for divine help in their predicament, these alledged miracles do not make very convincing case in the world of medicine where we do not yet know every cause and effect. In fact, if these are actual results of an omnipotent god helping out some of the sick people, it raises the question, why did that god only choose to help these very few? Why did all the other seriously ill people not get help? To me it seems the miracles are all just hearsay stories. Have you ever witnessed a miracle?

    Once again I wrote an essay answer, but I hope you enjoyed it and it was not a complete waste of time? 🙂

    1. Once again, I’ll have to pick out the important parts of your comment and leave out the rest. I’m sure you’ll forgive me.

      1. As we both agree, there were no toxins in the water so God would have to perform a miracle to show which woman was innocent and which was guilty. You are right in saying that it is an enormous leap to believe he actually did, but it is a leap for you, not for me. I already believe that God exists, that the Bible is his word and that his word is true. Therefore, when the text says that God would show which woman was guilty and which was not, I am supposed to believe it. Not to believe would mean cognitive dissonance.

      You, on the other hand, don’t believe in God or the truthfulness of his word so I don;t expect you to believe this either. For you to believe that God performed miracles when you don’t even believe that he exists would be laughable.

      2. Anything could have happened to the woman after she was proven guilty. If her husband killed her, it would be murder of course. He might divorce her, or forgive her or just ignore her. I don’t know. Her punishment, as the text says, is the shame she would have to endure when everyone sees what she was guilty of.

      3. “…from my perspective the difference between Marduks worshippers and those who worship the god of Abraham, is that they both have faith in their own gods. There is very little evidence to show either is true. I mean, if any god wanted to be evident to people, why demand faith?”

      Today is a really busy day for me so I’ll just quote from someone who had the time to write something about faith in the Bible. I agree with his assessment as far as I’ve studied it. Whether or not you think that if God wanted to be evident to people, he would still require faith depends on what you think faith is. I am sure that you are aware that it has various definitions. According to the article, Christian faith has three components:

      1. Notitia: This is the basic informational foundation of our faith. It is best expressed by the word content. Faith, according to the Reformers must have content. You cannot have faith in nothing. There must be some referential propositional truth to which the faith points. The proposition “Christ rose from the grave,” for example, is a necessary information base that Christians must have.

      2. Assensus: This is the assent or confidence that we have that the notitia is correct. Here we assent to the information affirming it to be true. This involves evidence which leads to the conviction of the truthfulness of the proposition. According to the Reformers, to have knowledge of the proposition is not enough. We must, to some degree, be convicted that it is indeed true. This involves intellectual assent and persuasion based upon critical thought. While notitia claims “Christ rose from the grave,” assensus takes the next step and says, “I am persuaded to believe that Christ rose from the grave.”

      But these two alone are not enough according to the Reformers. As one person has said, these two only qualify you to be a demon for the demons both have the right information (Jesus rose from the grave) and are convicted of its truthfulness. One aspect still remains.

      3. Fiducia: This is the “resting” in the information based upon a conviction of its truthfulness. Fiducia is best expressed by the English word “trust.” We have the information, we are persuaded of its truthfulness, now we have to trust in it. Christ died for our sins (notitia). I believe that Christ died for my sins (notitia + assensus). I place my trust in Christ to save me (fiducia). Fiducia is the personal subjective act of the will to take the final step. It is important to note that while fiducia goes beyond or transcends the intellect, it is built upon its foundation.

      That is faith in the Christian sense and God can demand that faith while providing us with evidence because that faith requires evidence.

      You can read the rest of the article here:

      I strongly recommend that you read it if you wish to keep talking about faith, evidence and how Christianity can be true. There’s more here:

      I hope this is helpful to you I’m sorry I couldn’t do more. I hope you have a wonderful day.

  5. You nicely sum up our conversation, exept that I do not think your faith is “laughable”. It is a serious matter indeed. How we form our values is allways serious. My apologies, if I have at some point taken a little light hearted, or humorous aspect. My intention has at no point been to make fun of your faith, or religion. I am merely curious about how you see these things.

    Religions in the ancient world were all mysteries. They were all based on myths and faith was all about “credo in absurdum”. There were so many mysteries in the world and nature around them, that this was natural. In ancient antiquity of the Mediterranean scientific research took giant leaps and their scientists started to understand their environment as the physical world with natural order and not as a playingfield of spirits, gods and demons. As a result, rationalism was born. But at the same time monotheism based on myth and faith in the unobservable took politically over the mediterranean civilization, with high promises of better world in the afterlife, right after the soon coming end of days, to the subjects of the slave economy of the Roman empire. What followed was the so called Dark Ages. During those centuries within Christendom arose slowly a new interrest to the achievements of the antiquity. The rational perception of the world instead of the mystical one reappeared and caused a reform inside Christianity. The demand for the faith to be based on reason and not to blind obidience of the church. The results were devastating not only in resulting wars of religion and fanatic actions the zealots engaged in, but in that some people came to think there actually are no rational reasons for faith in the supernatural, or at least not in any interpretation of any particular religion. The idea of freedom of religion became a necessity since Christendom was suddenly divided into thousands of fragments that would have been doomed as heretics during the centuries before. The enlightenment philosophy was thus born. And as a result agnostics and atheists started to appear in public, and since there was no longer one unified church as a political superpower, they were not burned as heretics no more. And the world keeps turning.

    In my view people have every right to have faith, without evidence, with bad evidence, with evidence they think is good, or not to have faith at all. All are equal in my world. 🙂 I see no evidence for faith, but I do not doubt you do. I am a bit interrested in what is the evidence you see, and did you have faith first and evidence after, or vice versa? However, you have no obligation, none what so ever, to reply this, and besides it is totally off topic.

    1. I don’t know what to think of your comment because I don’t really understand it.You seem to be suggesting that rationality was not an original component of the Christian faith before the dark ages. I would contend that rationality was a component of the Christian faith right from its inception. The apostles did not have blind faith (which I assume is what you meant by ‘faith’) in Jesus’ resurrection. They claimed to have seen him. They used this as evidence when they preached. You can argue that they hallucinated, but that is not blind faith.

      You can always say that the accounts in the gospels, acts and epistles are not true, either, but my point is that the appeal to evidence and rationality is in them and they precede the dark ages. Take this quote from 2 Peter 16 – 18
      “We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.” We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.”

      It is not saying that we have no evidence fro Jesus’ second coming and so must have blind faith. Rather it says that there were people who were eyewitnesses of it.
      Paul’s letter to the Romans also says that we have evidence for God’s existence and nature which is accessible to everybody. (Romans 1: 18 – 20). The writer of John makes the same assertion in John 3: 16 – 20. If the appeal to evidence is in the Bible which precedes the dark ages, then Christianity cannot have been originally based on blind faith.

      As for what evidence I think there is for God, I’m sure you’ve heard of several of them. There’s the evidence from the beginning of the universe used in the Kalam cosmological argument, the evidence from the existence of the universe used in Leibnizian cosmological argument, the evidence from the fine tuning of the cosmos used in the teleological argument, the evidence from Jesus’ life, person and resurrection and my personal favorite, the evidence from plain old logic used in the Ontological argument. There’s others. You can get a better list here:

      As for whether I believed before I found evidence, I can’t remember much about my childhood. I know I used to believe in God because of how much he answered our prayers (i.e. that was evidence enough for me) when I was much much younger but I don’t know which came first – the evidence or the belief. Some people say that children naturally have an intuition into the existence of God. That is, they look at the world around them and think that it must have been created by someone (which is evidence and would support the Christian idea that God’s existence is something that can be plainly seen in the universe). But I don’t really remember. You lose these things over time.

      As for your question being off-topic, don’t worry. I figured we were done talking about tests for unfaithful women when you started giving me a history of Christian reasoning. 🙂

  6. I think there are far more simplier naturalistic explanations as to what the apostoles thought they were wittnessing. In their time medical science was not very well evolved. People did not know about such things as a coma. Jesus was said to be on the cross a lot shorter time than people were supposed to be there. The crucifixion usually lasted for days and we have historical record of people who were taken down and survived the treatment. Jesus was alledgedly this unemployed carpenter in his prime. I know he was said to have been beaten before the crucifixion, though to this story there are hardly any eyewitnesses and that could excuse the possibility that he could have died, but it does by far not rule out the possibility that he did not. A crucifixion was meant to be a very long and painfull death.

    If we take the gospels as eyewittness stories Jesus was stabbed in the side just prior to taking down and though the wittnesses said he had died he still bled from the spearwound. Dead men do not bleed. Also we do not know all the details, only what our wittnesses reveal to us or even what they knew about the incident. There is no record about the reasons why the Romans took Jesus down. Their commander had allready washed his hands on the incident and thought it was a political murder. The Romans were no too keen on killing him. Instead they had this policy of divide and conquer, that they deliberately set political and religious rivals within the nations under their rule against each other. They supported the weaker party, so it became dependant of the imperium. It is even more plausible that someone had bribed the Romans to take Jesus down before he died, than that a miracle of resurrection happened and that the temple curtain split.

    The officer in charge is reported to have said, that Jesus was truly a son of god, but since Jews were not allowed in the Roman military this man was a pantheist or a polytheist. Stories of sons of gods were in abundance in the many cultures of the Roman empire and even the idea that they tend to resurrect was not uncommon (think about Angels, Osiris, Horus, Hercules and even Alexander the great). In Jewish tradition however “son of god” most often meant someone exeptionally loyal to god, not the flesh and blood of a god, like in the polytheist religions all around the empire. It seems that in this respect Christianity is an example of mixing of religious concepts of the people who came to worship this new deity.

    As to eyewittness stories and their reliability, think about all the people today who seem to be convinced, that they have been abducted by aliens. They have nothing to gain from making such wild claims, and often enough they will be ridiculed and even abused because of their claims. Do you believe these eyewittnesses as readily as you would believe some eyewitness stories we are not even sure were written by these alledged eyewitnesses. One of them claims not only that Jesus resurrected, but that the dead were raising en masse from their graves in Jerusalem on the day of the crucifixion of Jesus. None of the others or any historical record mentions of such an extraordinary event. It sets those eyewittness stories under suspicion, now does it not?

    It is very hard to apply rational thinking to issues of the supernatural, because the supernatural tends to avoid logic and allways avoids testability. For some reason gods are all equally invisible and not evident to all of us. Some people claim to have had direct contact, but because allmost every god has such adherents, it really does not support any of them as long as they are mutually exclusive. They do demand faith, though. All of them. None of them appear to us all, do they? Why is it when a person claims he/she can hear the voice of this or that god in their head, we usually think the person is in dire need of psychiatrical help? Who are we to say, that a person who claims a god told him to do murder was not so engaged by a god?

    The cosmological arguments have very little to do with any specific god. They are claims for the existance of a demiurgi. And they are not convincing. There is no point, nor do I have the time to point out all their flaws here, but just so you know I have read them and was not impressed. They work if a person really wants them to work as evidence and not at all, if you are skeptical.

    May I propose a nother kind of approach to the topic issue? 😉 Why did the god of ancient Isralites not set such a law, that womens emancipation in a society would have been obvious and implemented right away? Why would there be a separate law to judge an unfaithfull wife and an unfaithfull husband? What purpose would that serve other than cultural relativism? Are we not equal regardless of our gender?

    1. I thought we were done talking. Why are you still asking questions? You’re like me, I see. I can never quite let an issue drop. I think I’ll write a post about this. How does that sound?

  7. Hahaha! 🙂 You propably have seen this allready, but it fits here:

    You write a separate post about it. That sounds good. I will certainly read it, but I doubt if I have the time to comment it in the near future. Maybe later…

    All good things to you. 🙂

    1. I’m taking it piece by piece. I figured that if I write lots of posts, you only have the time to comment on a few of them so you won’t inundate me with responses. 🙂

      I have a few posts up:

      in that order. You should probably subscribe if you want to keep up with the posts.

What did you think of my post?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s