by Bernard E. Northrup Th.D.


For years Gerardus D. Bouw has edited the "Bulletin of the Tychonian Society," a creationist publication which has insisted that the earth is the center of the universe. It is a position which insists that, rather than recognizing that the earth rotates on its axis before the sun, the center of our universe while it is in orbit around it, holding that the universe is within the firmament which rotates at immensely high speed around the earth. In his paper, "Massive Superstrings and the Firmament", (1) which he delivered in August, 19951 at the Sixth European Creationist Congress, Bouw seeks to develop a mathematical defense of his position, arguing from "mathematical logic." He is Professor of Math and Computer Science at Baldwin-Wallace College in Berea, Ohio. [Bouw maintains a web site The Association for Biblical Astronomy, ed.]


It is obvious from his paper that mathematics is his specialty rather than astronomy or the Bible. In the paper he presents his "firmament theory" which has been a major focus for him since 1977. In His "mathematical logic" he rejects the concept of space which was popular when I studied physics over 50 years ago and accepts the idea that the aether is an infinitely dense medium called a plenum. He does so for a reason which seems strange to me as a theologian. He says that " the last century the field of mathematical logic has shown that motion is possible in a plenum if the plenum is infinite in extent, eternal, and uncreated." (2).On the basis of the Word of God, which is my final authority, I cannot accept any one of these three elements, especially when he seeks to distinguish between the eternal plenum, which he equates with God, and the created universe. Indeed, he seems completely to contradict himself and the Word of God in this regard when he discusses the created universe. He says:

Recall that, according to mathematics, motion within a plenum is impossible if the plenum is created or finite in extent. At first glance this would appear to leave us only with the rare aether models such as the ill-fated luminiferous aether model, but is it possible that a created, finite medium could behave as a plenum to objects inside it? God would have to create that plenum so that the material bodies within it could not physically perceive that it is neither infinite nor eternal. In other words, such a created plenum could under no circumstances allow its finiteness to be noticed by the material in the universe. In particular, this means that material measurements could never be made to infinite precision; that the absolute properties of matter in space must be indeterminate. As long as that condition is met, bodies can move through that created plenum without hindrance...Furthermore, the created plenum, as is the case for the uncreated plenum, must allow motion only along closed or cyclical paths. In particular, such allowable paths would include rotational and revolutionary motions as well as waves; but perfectly straight-line (rectilinear) motion is not allowed. (3)


For one whose advanced mathematics barely enable him to meet the requirements of the Internal Revenue Service, this sounds like quite a bit of ivory tower gobbledeygook. It seems to me to be a thesis that is exceedingly difficult to prove except on paper. I will not attempt to dispute Bouw's math since that is not my field. But when Bouw turns to extract Scriptural statement from its linguistic and contextual settings in order to adapt it to fit the interpretation which he promotes, that is quite a different matter. He plainly demonstrates his inadequacies in the understanding and the handling of the clear import of Scripture.

For example, he says:

Now the key to identifying the created plenum is to recognize that there must be a space for it first. After the creation of the heaven (space) [parenthesis in original] and the earth, we find that there is mention of the creation of such a medium in the Holy Bible. God calls it the firmament, and inside it he set the sun, moon, and stars (Genesis 1:15,17). Since firmament is the God-chosen name for the created aether, we shall henceforth use it instead of the word aether. (4)

One should immediately recognize the logical leap in his words,

"After the creation of the heaven (space)..." and the fact that his interpretation scarcely is in alignment with Psalm 104:2. There the Psalmist, undoubtedly reading the flow of Genesis One when careful consideration to the flow of events in the Psalm is given The Psalmist speaks first of the Eternal Lord's creation of the heavens. As the Psalmist considers the successive events of the creation week he speaks of this first event as he views the Eternal Lord "...stretching out the heavens like a curtain..." It must be recognized that the Psalmist does not utilize the root RQ' (the letters RESH, QUOPH, AYIN) from which RAQIA', firmament in KJV, to describe the act of the Creator's stretching out the heavens.

Rather the Psalmist used the continuous action participle NOTEH from the verb root NTH. This Hebrew verb includes such meanings as "to stretch out, to extend and to spread out."

The participle and its clause properly could be translated timelessly as "...continually stretching out the heavens like a curtain." Such an interpretative translation would be made if the translator had made the decision that he must support the concept that the universe is continually expanding. On the other hand, in the light of the following context, the time of the action more likely should be treated as past be past. Then it would be translated "...having stretched out the heavens like a curtain." The use of the simile "like a curtain" scarcely suggests the creation of empty space. It implies that the heavenly bodies which are dispersed through the stellar heavens could be likened to the delicate, diaphanous texture of a fine curtain. Furthermore, it absolutely must be recognized that the Divine and human authors of Psalm 104 clearly recognized that this act of stretching out the stellar heavens like a curtain preceded the laying of the foundation of the earth in perfect accord with the order in Genesis 1:1.

It should be noted that Bouw's correct recognition that the Bible is the Word of God somehow has allowed him to speak of the word firmament as it is used by the translators in the King James Version to translate the Hebrew noun RAQIA' as "...the God-chosen name for the created aether..." It is obvious that he has not had enough to do with the translation of the original text even to know that the English King James Version is scarcely "the God-chosen translation which replaces the original languages."

He assumes that it is proper for the English reader fully to infuse a translation of the original languages with that which can only be ascribed to the Scriptures in the original languages. It is only in the original languages that one can be assured that the reader has before him the "God-chosen" words. Inspiration as defined in the Word of God relates to the work of the Holy Spirit, the Divine Author, as the human author was guided in his word choice by that Divine Author so that what he wrote was without error. It is regrettable but true that no translation can lay claim that the Word of God gives one the right to claim this "God-chosen" inspiration.

When Bouw speaks of the English translation of firmament, which is the key word at the base of his entire assumption concerning our universe, he fails to recognize how every translation falls short of being a perfect translation in so far as translator assumptions, misunderstandings and theological biases cause the translator to fail accurately to reproduce that intended by the Revelator, the Holy Spirit. As a result of the human factor which is altogether to fallible, the translator or translation team may fail to provide the reader with "God-chosen" words in the translation. Indeed, the major problem facing the reader of any translation is one which most readers do not even recognize. This is the fact that a translation can not help but contain "man-chosen" words which do not fully or accurately translate the meaning of a word in a particular context. After all, the context in which a word is used in any language affects the precise shade of meaning.

Bouw does not seem to recognize that an interpreter/translator's theological bias or even his failure fully to understand a text or a word can hinder his translation's attempt fully to convert the explicit meaning of the original language to another language. Having worked in the original languages for more than 45 years, I constantly have been faced with translator errors and inadequacies (in my own work as well) as I have compared English translations of the original languages. As a result I am very sensitive to this basic error in Bouw's approach to Scripture.


The Hebrew word RAQIA' is a word which can be applied to anything which has been spread out or extended. Fuerst, whose remarkable German lexicon which in translation somehow has become Davidson's, particularly examines the etymology of this root. I will quote from a number of his statements which demonstrate that interpreters (including Fuerst himself) have for centuries followed the ideas of the ancients in which "The RAQIA' was conceived to be solid; hence the Septuagint, Aquilla, Symmanchus and Theodotius used stereooma, the Vulgate used firmamentum ..and Luther used Veste, i.e.'firm vault.'" The Greeks also used sideereon and chalkeon. (5) It is obvious that the King James translators have followed that tradition and simply have transliterated the Latin firmamentum with which undoubtedly all of them were familiar.

Fuerst says that the organic root of RAQIA' has the "...fundamental signification to stretch, to extend, to spread out, to beat out..." He describes it as "Commonly to beat out thin, to expand by beating, a plate, to extend, to spread out..."

Thus as a verb it is found in Exodus 39:3 being used of the act of beating gold into thin plates which then was cut into thin wires and worked into the ephod of the high priest. In Isaiah 40:19 the verb describes the goldsmith in his work as a maker of idols as "...spreading it over with gold..." (6) In Numbers 16:38, 39 the root describes "the beating" of the censers of Korah's men into "broad plates for a covering of the altar" (Num.17:3,4 in Heb.). Fuerst has demonstrated that there has been a consistent failure of interpreters of the Scriptures down through the centuries to distinguish the atmospheric heavens from the stellar heavens. And Bouw follows in that train of interpreters who have not been careful to examine precisely how the word firmament is consistently used throughout Genesis One.


What do the contexts in which RAQIA' is found in Genesis One contribute to its meaning as used there? How does that context restrict the meaning of this noun? Is there a consistency in the way that the word is used in all of the contexts or does the writer clear indicate that a different sense of the word suddenly is being used? These are crucial questions which normally are ignored in favor of thinking of something that is "firm" because that seems to be the implication of the English translation. Yet the context which clearly defines the meaning for the word RAQIA' unmistakably uses the word to describe the space between the universal, preAdamic flood which covered the entire earth from immediately after its creation until the uplift of the great single continent in the third solar day of creation.

And God said: 'Let there be a RAQIA' in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. So God proceeded to make the RAQIA' and He caused a division between the waters which were down underneath the RAQIA' from the waters which were up over the top of the RAQIA'. Thus it came to be so.

That is to say that the RAQIA' is the space that is stretched out between the preAdamic universal sea and the canopy which provided the upper limits of the atmospheric space when God elevated those waters up over the top of "the stretched out expanse of the atmosphere."


There are three major Biblical interpretative errors in Bouw's brief statement, "Since firmament is the God-chosen name for the created aether, we shall henceforth use it instead of the word aether." It exemplifies the way that Bouw attempts to adapt Biblical revelation of what really happened in the creation to make it fit into the current thinking about "mathematical philosophy," This approach does not seem to me to be adequately described by the Bouw's repeated use of the term "mathematical logic"! Bouw like most creationists, exhibits anything but mathematical preciseness in his observance of the specific details of the creation when he turns to Scripture. Like the translators who continue to use firmament to translate RAQIA' in Genesis One, they carry the misunderstandings of past creationists as the final statement concerning the proper way to understand a Biblical context. The creationist must recognize that an actual series of events in the beginning of the creation is stated in Genesis 1:1. "In beginning [no article in the original] God created the heavens [dual] and the earth." Not only must the implication of the dual be recognized but the fact that there are two direct objects of the verb in this verse. The verse scarcely can be used as a summary of the entire event series which follows in chapter One. After all it is obvious from the rest of the chapter that earth is created nowhere else but in verse one for it exists from that point on. Indeed, in harmony with Genesis 1:2, Job 38:8-10 and Psalm 104:5-6, earth was created and then was universally covered with water immediately after its creation.

Creationists ignore this fact, apparently fearing that, if they recognize this universal, preAdamic flood, they will somehow be tainted with the gap theory's use of it in its wholly inadequate attempt to explain Genesis 1. But this demands that we recognize that the earth only could have been created in verse one. Neither is it possible to relegate the first of the two direct objects in this verse to the status of being a summary of events to follow later in the chapter since the creation out of nothingness (BARA') of both the heavens and the earth is modified by the same adverbial, prepositional phrase, "in beginning."

Furthermore, I find it difficult even to imagine a need for god to create space in which to place the heavens as Bouw describes it in his statement, "...after the creation of the heaven (space) [parenthesis in original] and the earth..."

The inclusion of "the heavens" as the first of the compound direct objects should alert the creationist to the very real possibility that the term "the heavens" actually is referring to the universe. And the precise description of the demarcation of the three solar days by "evening and morning" which is found in Genesis 1:5, 8 and 13 and Genesis 1:14-19 demands the recognition of what really happened in Genesis 1:1. The entire solar system, perhaps not functioning precisely as it does now, was in place by Genesis 1:2. I say it that way because the first rotational day of planet earth either began in verse one or in verse 3-5 as God began to thin the closely shrouding vapors on the surface of the first universal sea when He began the elevation of the canopy, a process that certainly was well on its way by Genesis 1:7-8. But the creationist most certainly must recognize the error of supplying the preposition "in" at the beginning of Exodus 20:11 by the King James Version. That produces an impossible statement which requires that earth be in rotation to produce the beginning of the first solar day even before the universe and the earth were created! What that text actually says is this: "For six days the Eternal Lord worked on the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that in them is..."

I believe that planet earth actually began its rotation in verses 4-5 to produce the first solar day of evening and morning. I may be wrong, however and rotation began when it was created. The first solar day on earth then would be observed by the Divine Observer, the Spirit of God, Who was on the surface. As the shrouding vapors (Job 38:4-10) began to be removed at the Creator's command and canopy elevation was initiated, the first light from the sun began to penetrate to the surface and produced before His eyes the first solar evening and morning under earth's rotation. Indeed, it may be that the initiation of rotation of the earth is a major factor in the elevation of the canopy to its place above the atmosphere. In any case, to return to the point at hand, the speed of earth's revolution on its polar axis may have been increasing on each of the solar days and finally regulated as a result of the command in Genesis 1:14. "And God said: Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and for years." It is possible that this speaks of the actual regulation of earth's relationship to the sun and moon so that the solar day became established (we assume) at 24 hours and the lunar month at approximately 36 days with the solar year and earth's orbit about the sun regulated to 360 days (according to the testimony of all ancient calendars). One of the areas of creation carelessness is the tendency to speak after the manner of a uniformitarian and insist that each of the days of creation were 24 hours long. At the same time and hand in hand with that insistence one usually hears that the sun which presently produces our 24 hour solar day did not even come into existence until the fourth day of creation.

Wherein then lies the problems with Bouw's thesis that the earth is the center of the universe and all of our solar system is rotating about it?

1. First of all there is in Bouw's position a misunderstanding of what happened in Genesis 1:1 and Psalm 104:2-5 here! As I have said, Genesis 1:1 absolutely is not talking about the creation of space in which the heavenly bodies eventually would be placed on the fourth day of creation. That idea is based upon one of the most commonly accepted areas of creationist carelessness, the idea that the sun, moon and stars were created in the fourth day of the creation week. That incorrect idea is based upon the interpreter's neglect of the fact that:

a. The termini of the first three solar days of the creation week are described in precisely the same way as are the next three days.

b. Both Genesis One and Psalm 104:2-5 are explicit in their requirement that we recognize that, apart from the creation of God's heavenly hosts, his ministers who observed His creation of the earth (Job 38:4-7), the universe and the earth are His first physical creations. Psalm 104:2-23 chronologically sets forth the event series, greatly amplifying our understanding of Genesis one when we discard the mistaken notion that this is a Psalm describing the Noahic flood. Psalm 104:2 speaks of the first physical creative act of God as "...having stretched out [a participle]the heavens like a curtain."

The participle here could have been translated "stretching out" as well, but the description of a series of past events the previous past participle seems to be more appropriate. And this event, as in Genesis 1:1, precedes the creation of the earth. "Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed forever" (Psa. 104:5). While multitudes of well meaning Bible students have struggled to find a means by which the first three days of the creation week are delineated by "evening and morning" apart from the creation of the sun in Genesis 1:1, both of these sources of information on the first stage of creation inescapably suggest that the sun actually existed from Genesis 1:1. How this is possible in the light of verses 14-19 will be explained later.

2. Here in the statement by Bouw is an Biblical error of staggering dimensions for he does not recognize the clear definition of the "firmament" or acknowledge that the word poorly translated by "firmament" has nothing whatsoever to do with celestial space in our universe or beyond. The Hebrew word RAQIA' which the King James Version translates by "firmament" explicitly is defined in Genesis 1:6-8. It is the atmospheric space which is stretched out between the preAdamic universal sea which existed from Genesis 1:2 to Genesis 1:9.

"Then God said: 'Let there be a space stretched out in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.' And God made the space stretched out and caused a division between the waters which were down underneath the space stretched out [there are three prepositions emphatically used here to limit the lower edge of the very limited space that is stretched out to the surface of the universal sea] from the waters which were up over the top of the space that was stretched out.[Again there are three prepositions which emphatically and inescapably limit their upper limits of the "firmament" to the bottom of the canopy.] And it came to be so. And God called the space that was stretched out 'heavens.' And the evening and the morning were the second day" (Gen. 1:6-8).

The space which is described here cannot possibly be referred to as the created aether of our universe. extending at least as far as the planet Pluto. It absolutely is limited in meaning to the space stretched out between the preAdamic universal sea and the water vapor canopy which God elevated above the sea to form the atmosphere. Bouw, in his statement about Genesis 1:15 and 17 that "...firmament is the God-chosen name for the created aether..." totally ignores this Biblical definition of the "firmament" and God's preparation of it as His preparation of the earth's atmosphere. I anticipate that he will say that God has used "earth" in two senses. Indeed that is so. Its use in Genesis 1:1and 2 has reference to the planet Earth. But when God abruptly elevates the great single continent of Genesis 1:9 out of the sea, He then explicitly reapplies and reuses the term in a new sense which He announces when it is restricted to that portion of the planet which was above sea level. "And God called the dry land Earth and the gathering together of the waters he called Seas..."

Any announcement that there is a reapplication and reuse of the term "firmament," "the atmosphere") in Genesis 1:15, 17 absolutely never appears. The term means precisely that as defined in Genesis 1:6-8, "the atmosphere." That this is true that there has been no re-definition of the term RAQIA', "the atmosphere," is shown by the fact that God commands concerning the bird life which He created on the fifth day (i.e. immediately after His use of the term "the firmament" or "the atmosphere" in verses 15 and 17), that the birds should ' in the expanse of the firmament of the heavens (i.e. the atmosphere.'"

Indeed, Bouw strongly suggests by his statement that "firmament" is the God-chosen name for the created aether..." that he as a mathematician has not investigated the original text of the Old Testament sufficiently to recognize that all translations of the Bible, none excepted, suffer the theological bias and the lack of understanding of the original text which allows their misunderstanding and biases to be passed on to the readers without warning. That is to say that every version which is dominated by amillennial theologian translators will suffer damage in prophetic passages where the passage appears to contradict their misguided eschatological interpretations inherited from and which dutifully following Augustinian modification. They fail to recognize that Augustine's eschatological position was developed to escape the odium which the Roman government saw in the preacher announcing that the little land of Israel would rise again and one day, under their Messiah, would rule the world. To preach that which so clearly is taught in the Bible well could have resulted in a death sentence from Rome. And those grave clothes of the early developing Roman Catholic church still are worn in the pulpit preaching of the third of the Bible which is prophetic.

But here in Genesis One the problem is somewhat different. It is the fact that a great procession of interpreters, who did not understand the original text or what that text was revealing, have made pronouncements concerning the events and order of events which specifically are revealed in the Scriptures concerning earth's early events. One of the major problems of creationists is that, rather than researching the physical and Biblical evidence for themselves, they rather blindly accept and continue to use the errors of their predecessors and give their pronouncements precedence over the authoritative statement of the Word of God. Bouw has done precisely that when he has used "firmament," the poor translation of RAQIA', to apply to the space of our universe. And he apparently is announcing by his statement, "Since firmament is the God-chosen name for the created aether..." that he holds that the King James Version alone, of all of the translations in the world, is an inspired translation.

I can only hope that those who heard Bouw's presentation recognized that all of his remarkable leaps of logic as he attempted to establish that a rotational period of 2 days for the universe had the goal of proving to others that our sun is not the center of our universe but rather the earth. The entire approach is an attempt to establish a geocentric universe.

His calculations (6) were designed to demonstrate that his failure to demonstrate that the universe rotated every "solar" day was inconsequential. After calculating an angular velocity for the universe giving him a rotational period of two days, he again makes a great logical jump and presumes on the "firmament" saying:

Since Genesis 1 and other scriptures associate a rotation period of one day to the firmament, [Oh? To the firmament or to the earth?] can we assume that this two day period is actually one day? The answer is yes. Although the numbers work out to twice that, considering the uncertainties of the above estimates for the mass of the universe and its size, the match of the rotational period of the universe at a day is phenomenal! (7) It seems remarkable to me that "mathematical logic" proceeds so efficiently on the footwork of assumptions and great logical jumps!

3. Thirdly, there is a massive failure in Bouw's approach to Scripture. He fails to observe what the Scriptures actually are saying and clearly are meaning but uses it to support his thesis. What Genesis 1:14-9 actually says, although rarely translated so, is this:

"Then God said: 'Let there be lights in the expanse of the atmosphere of the heavens to cause a division between the day and the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and for years. And let them be for lights in the expanse of the atmosphere of the heavens to cause to give light upon the earth:' and it came to be so. For God made two great lights; the greater light to rule over the day and the lesser light to rule over the night and the stars also. [There is no verb with 'the stars.' The verb was supplied by the King James translators. I conclude that the Hebrew word for 'The stars' is governed by the infinitive 'to rule' in the phrase 'to rule the night']. And God appointed them [For this governmental use of the verb ROOT NATHAN compare its unmistakable use in Genesis 41:41 by Pharaoh as he made Joseph the second over the kingdom]. in the expanse of the atmosphere of the heavens to give light upon the earth and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. And the evening and morning were the fourth day.

But what does this mean? How could the sun and moon be in the atmosphere?

"Impossible!" you will say. Yes, that would be impossible. But that is not what this text says. There is communication here between members of the Godhead in which One member directs another member, Who is the primary agent in creation, Christ, concerning the placing of lights in the atmosphere to govern mankind's activities on earth. Obviously these lights in the expanse of the atmosphere of the heavens (where the birds fly in Genesis 1:20) are not the sun and moon even though the passage has been so interpreted so many thousands of times. The old adage, "Fifty thousand Frenchmen can't be wrong!" already has been disproven more than once to say the least. We must remember the physical situation on earth from the second day until the Noahic flood.

There was a large amount of water, probably in the form of water vapor, elevated up over the top of the atmosphere during that extended period of time. The effect of that upon the earth is recognizable throughout the entire Paleozoic "era," a time of earth's history which records in the deposits of the Noahic flood left as it began, became universal, stabilized and began its retreat. The Paleozoic deposits display the evidence that before this universal flood the climate had been stable worldwide. Individual fossil families can be found worldwide in these deposits providing clear indication of a universal climate in the period from Adam to Noah.

What does this mean with reference to Genesis 1:14-19? It means that the canopy was not merely a band about the equator but that its water vapors extended entirely around the earth. That means that Adam most likely never once directly saw the sun or the moon in the stellar heavens because of this great, globe encircling layer of water vapor which was above the atmosphere. All that he saw during the daytime to guide him in recognizing the approximate time of day was a brilliant spot on the bottom of the canopy, a sun dog "in the firmament, i.e. in the stretched out expanse of the atmosphere which lay under the canopy. All that he saw as the moon's dimmer, reflected light shined through the vapors of the canopy was a moon dog. By observing these atmospheric representations of the heavenly bodies which had been present from Genesis 1:1, he and all of his descendants through the day that the Lord shut the door of the ark recognized the times and seasons, the days and the years. It is fascinating to notice in Josephus testimony that mankind almost immediately after the Noahic flood began worshiping the freshly exposed heavenly bodies.

Surely someone will object that I obviously am ignoring the testimony of Genesis 1:16 concerning his creation of the stars on the fourth day. The objection grows out of another example of creation carelessness, a type which occurs when one builds doctrine upon a translation without checking its accuracy in the original text. Many translations have followed the KJV error of inserting a verb so that the text says: "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also." The text actually concludes: "...and the lesser light to rule the night and the stars also." While the stars rarely if ever could have been visible before the Noahic flood, the text nonetheless states the truth which is still true that the moon is the dominant light surpassing all other lights of the night even today. I say that Bouw fails to understand just what the revelatory text actually is saying in Genesis 1:14-19 and that his attempt to transfer the firmament, the stretched out space of the atmosphere between the sea and the canopy to be the space of the universe simply ignores context. "And God called the "firmament" of the heavens [i.e. the stretched out space of the atmospheric heavens] Gen. 1:8). "...and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open "firmament of the heavens," [i.e. the stretched out space of the atmosphere]


The fact that the uses of "firmament" or "the stretched out space of the heavens" in Genesis 1;15 and 17 are bracketed by very clear explanations that this word refers to the atmospheric heavens removes the major pillar from beneath the geocentric explanation of our universe. It categorizes the presentation of a geocentric universe with other wild ideas which have arisen through improper exegesis. The discarding of the theory from future creation conferences will remove one of the obstacles which seeking naturalists find standing in the way of their recognizing that the Word of God actually is a fully trustworthy testimony of precisely that which happened in earth's earlier event series.


1. Bouw, Gerardus D., "Massive Superstrings and the Firmament," pp. 11-20 in Sixth European Creationist Congress. Evangelical College, Amersfoort, August 16-19, 1995.

2 ._______, p. 11.

3. _______. Ibid.

4._______, p. 13.

7. Bouw, pp. 16-17.

8. _______, p. 17.

Redding, California, 10/95

Back to Lambert Dolphin's Library