Did God Rest In One Day?

Published on by D. G. Hart

Volume four of the Nicotine Theological Journal is now available at the back issues page. Here is a whiff, from the April number:

. . . [Morton] Smith’s study of John Murray is an example of how sabbatarian-creation logic fails. Murray understood as well as anyone the importance of creation for Sabbath-keeping: “The weekly sabbath is based on divine example,” he wrote in Principles of Conduct. “The divine mode of procedure in creation determines one of the basic cycles by which human life here on earth is regulated, namely, the weekly cycle.”

LET US CONCEDE, FOR argument’s sake, that Smith is right about Murray, and that the Scotsman “seem[ed] to have held to the 24-hour creation days.” (Smith acknowledges that this is not “expressly stated” in Murray.) So the world was created in 144 hours, according to Murray. Then what happened? “And he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he made.” But how long was the seventh day? Murray is very clear that that day was not twenty four hours. Here is more from Principles of Conduct: “In the realm of God’s activity in creating the heavens and the earth there were six days of creative activity and one day of rest. There is the strongest presumption in favor of the interpretation that this seventh day is not one that terminated at a certain point in history, but that the whole period of time subsequent to the end of the sixth day is the Sabbath rest alluded to in Genesis 2:2.”

From these citations we are forced to conclude that for Murray a literal six-plus-one creation sequence was unnecessary for the establishment of a literal six-plus-one Sabbath-keeping sequence. However symbolic God’s days were, Murray saw that creation was still revealed in such a way as to establish the weekly Sabbath as a creation ordinance. So the logic of Sabbath-creationism collapses. And if the seventh day is not literal, why do the first six days have to be?

Although Smith’s essay claims to survey American Presbyterian thought on creation, including the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, it is largely focused on recent PCA debates, and he neglects OPC reflection on the matter except to speculate on the views of Murray and Cornelius Van Til. This is unfortunate because he omits the 1968 resolution of the OPC’s Presbytery of Southern California (comprised of Murray’s and Van Til’s students), which we believe has not been surpassed as a summary of the biblical and confessional teaching on creation. We republish those eight affirmations in hopes that they will gain a greater reading:

1. The one true and living God existed alone in eternity, and beside Him there was no matter, energy, space or time.

2. The one true and living God, according to His Sovereign decree, determined to create, or make of nothing, the world and all things therein, whether visible or invisible.

3. God performed His creative work in six days. (We recognize different interpretations of the word “day” and do not feel that one interpretation is to be insisted upon to the exclusion of others.)

4. That no part of the universe nor any creature in it came into being by chance or by any power other than that of the Sovereign God.

5. That God created man, male and female, after His own image, and as God’s image bearer man possesses an immortal soul. Thus man is distinct from all other earthly creatures even though his body is composed of the elements of his environment.

6. That when God created man, it was God’s inbreathing that constituted man a living creature, and thus God did not impress His image upon some pre-existing living creature.

7. That the entire human family has descended from the first human pair, and, with the one exception of Christ, this descent has been by ordinary generation.

8. That man, when created by God, was holy. Then God entered into a covenant of works with the one man Adam. In the covenant Adam represented his posterity, and thus when he violated the requirement, all mankind, descending from him by ordinary generation, sinned in him and fell with him into an estate of sin.

CONTEMPORARY CRITICS OF these affirmations might charge them with sanctioning a “poetic” creation account. If so, it bears noting that, contrary to the slippery-slope fears of the Sabbath-creationists, neither Murray’s eternal Sabbath nor the presbytery’s interpretive openness have cultivated in the OPC, thirty years later, a “poetic Sabbath,” that is, observable decline in Sabbath-keeping. The lesson to be drawn, it seems, is this: if Sabbath-breaking is the ultimate concern of the watchdogs from Taylors, South Carolina, they had better look for causes elsewhere than in one’s interpretation of the days of Genesis one and two.

William Hayward Wilson

62 thoughts on “Did God Rest In One Day?”

  1. Hi, I hate to bring up old stuff, But back in 1965, a decade or so after Morton Smith and I were classmates @ WTS, he was a prof @ Bellhaven College, in Mississippi. I, wife and 3 sons lived in Spartanburg, SC. He was a strong anti Black fellow. I was a newly settled Yankee from NJ. My grampa’s grampa, Zachariah D. Morris, had been a captain in th Union army. Family reports (true?) passed down the report that ZD had been to Atlanta in 1864, 101 years before OBM got there. Never heard if he had matches. 🙂 Morton and I had serious “discussions” about slavery. Using the Tower of Babel’s dispersion, he said that any bringing the races together was against God’s will. Someone later helped change his mind. Lord was it I? 🙂 Love OBM

    Like

  4. Help! OBM web-klutz here. I wrote a comment re Morton Smith, my classmate @ WTS, early 1950s. Later wrote a note on another posted subject. Was included as # 20something comment. I noticed that DGH’s latest post was reworded a bit. My comment still not there? If I did something wrong, I can rewrite my comment including MHS? OBM

    Like

  5. “3. God performed His creative work in six days. (We recognize different interpretations of the word “day” and do not feel that one interpretation is to be insisted upon to the exclusion of others.)”

    Does this rule out Kline’s Framework approach to interpreting Gen1?

    “4. That no part of the universe nor any creature in it came into being by chance or by any power other than that of the Sovereign God.”

    Does this rule out quantum mechanics? Or do photons not count?

    “That the entire human family has descended from the first human pair…”
    This is a falsifiable (in principle – I’m not claiming that it has) empirical claim. IF (hypothetically speaking) the assertion that the entire human family has descended from a single human pair were falsified, what impact would that have on your theology? In such a scenario, is reformed soteriology salvageable?

    Like

  6. sdb, Doesn’t rule out Kline.

    If we aren’t descended from a single parent, it’s going to be harder for the secular world than for Christians. Without the unity of the human race, Hitler may make sense.

    Like

  7. Just to be a biblicist about it, the Bible has no “immortal soul”. Of course I am not questioning that the sovereign God is immortal, or that this God will give His justified elect immortality on the Day. But “soul” in Genesis 2 is body from dust plus breath/life from God. In other words, “souls” are persons.

    And these persons were not created immortal. Of course I am not denying that the wages of sin is death. Rather I am insisting on it. The only hope of sinners is if Christ died and rose again from the dead for these persons.

    All of which, I think, affirms Hart’s larger point: our hope is not that our creation but our redemption through Christ’s vicarious death for the elect.

    Like

  8. FTR, y’all may find it interesting that contrary to popular belief [i.e., the Inherit the Wind movie], although not rejecting them, Williams Jennings Bryan didn’t insist on literal days of creation. From the actual Scopes Trial transcript:

    Bryan: The fourth verse of the second chapter says: “These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth, when they were created in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,” the word “day” there in the very next chapter is used to describe a period. I do not see that there is any necessity for construing the words, “the evening and the morning,” as meaning necessarily a twenty-four-hour day, “in the day when the Lord made the heaven and the earth.”

    Darrow–Then, when the Bible said, for instance, “and God called the firmament heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day,” that does not necessarily mean twenty-four hours?
    Bryan–I do not think it necessarily does.
    Q–Do you think it does or does not?
    A–I know a great many think so.
    Q–What do you think?
    A–I do not think it does.
    Q–You think those were not literal days?
    A–I do not think they were twenty-four-hour days.
    Q–What do you think about it?
    A–That is my opinion–I do not know that my opinion is better on that subject than those who think it does.
    Q–You do not think that ?
    A–No. But I think it would be just as easy for the kind of God we believe in to make the earth in six days as in six years or in 6,000,000 years or in 600,000,000 years. I do not think it important whether we believe one or the other.

    An elegant reply, I think. A pity that history = movies and Bryan’s rep suffers for it.

    http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/day7.htm

    Like

  9. Darryl, sounds like you’re doing evolutionary biology without a license. Seldom does speciation happen via a first pair. Usually there’s an evolving population. The current view among “professionals” based on genetics is that the original population that gave rise to our species was 5000-10,000. All of us descended from this bottle-neck population but not from a single pair. But no fodder for Hitler in that view. Murray’s view of Genesis 2:7, you can preserve a historical Adam and Federal Headship with a view like Kidner proposes in his Tyndale Genesis commentary from 1960.

    Like

  10. Thanks for the clarification Darryl.

    My understanding is that the current consensus is that the human race was never smaller than about 10,000 people. I’m not sure that it has been demonstrated conclusively, so I would say that the hypothesis that the entire human family descended from a single pair is falsifiable in principle. Here is a non-technical discussion of that point from someone at Biologos:

    http://biologos.org/blog/understanding-evolution-mitochondrial-eve-y-chromosome-adam

    I seem to recall that there is also evidence that those of us descended from Europeans carry some neanderthal DNA in us as well…might explain the rantings of a certain pair of brothers!

    Like

  11. TVD,
    You might enjoy Ed Larson’s “Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America’s Continuing Debate Over Science and Religion”. It does a good job of debunking a lot of the myths that have grown up around the Scopes trial. Ron Numbers has also done some nice work in this regard. The collection of essays he edited, “Galileo Goes to Jail, and Other Myths about Science and Religion” has a few gems in it as well.

    Like

  12. Thx, SDB. I’d actually looked up the Scopes trial transcript for myself awhile back because I smelled a rat.

    I’m not a fundie or even an evangelical, and WJB is a mighty populaist liberal, which I’m not either. But what’s been missed over the past century is that he was arguing against the modernity that reduces man to his biology, of the type that led to eugenics, of the type that abolished metaphysics and now aims at religion.

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/monkeytrial/peopleevents/p_bryan.html

    As a young man, Bryan had been open-minded about the origins of man. But over the years he became convinced that Darwin’s theory was responsible for much that was wrong with the modern world. “The Darwinian theory represents man as reaching his present perfection by the operation of the law of hate,” Bryan said, “Evolution is the merciless law by which the strong crowd out and kill off the weak.” He believed that the Bible countered this merciless law with “the law of love.”

    Bryan was progressive in politics and a conservative in religion. According to biographer Lawrence Levine, “Bryan always mixed religion and politics. He couldn’t conceive of one without the other because religion to him was the basis of politics. Without religion there could be no desire to change in a positive way. Why should anyone want to do that?”

    Needless to say, my own interest is in this theo-philosophical-metaphysical area when it comes to politics, natural law and the dignity of the human person being the most viable argument against materialist/utilitarian modernity.

    So in this way, Bryan is my ally.

    Of course, there is a religious argument against such intellectualization, that salvation and accepting Christ comes via grace, etc. And if I understand my history right, it was the “Old Lights” who thought that the “enthusiasms” of emotional religious conversions simply didn’t last in the long term. The emotion wears off, the house is built on smoke.

    I think there’s something to that. OTOH, Charles Chauncey’s [in]famous dis of the First Great Awakening leaves little to love:

    “They are chiefly, indeed, young persons, sometimes lads, or rather
    boys; nay, women and girls, yea, Negroes, have taken upon them to do
    the business of preachers.”

    Yea, Negroes!

    Like

  13. “But over the years he became convinced that Darwin’s theory was responsible for much that was wrong with the modern world.”

    When dealing with questions of science isn’t it more important to just ask ourselves whether or not a theory is true?

    Ben Stein takes this approach in “Expelled”, linking Hitler to Darwin, and it’s kind of bogus. If Darwin was right and if non-theistic evolution is the way we all got here is what Hitler did really in any sense “wrong”? Who says it was wrong?

    Sit down with an atheist for an afternoon and you’ll realize how flimsy their justification for “right and wrong” is metaphysically.

    Like

  14. Tom – Of course, there is a religious argument against such intellectualization, that salvation and accepting Christ comes via grace, etc. And if I understand my history right, it was the “Old Lights” who thought that the “enthusiasms” of emotional religious conversions simply didn’t last in the long term. The emotion wears off, the house is built on smoke.

    I think there’s something to that.

    Erik – I knew you would start coming around.

    When Richard opens up his cannons on you, stand your ground.

    Like

  15. Erik – I knew you would start coming around. When Richard opens up his cannons on you, stand your ground.

    Oh, I’m still open on the question, Erik–human beings are not just intellection. In fact, if you can’t lie to yourself, who can you lie to?

    A law written on the human heart would certainly round things out a bit.

    I’m reminded of my dad’s observation about coaching Little League–the kids who could field well carried gloves; the kids who could hit carried bats. So too, the smarter types love parsing the texts, the “enthusiastic” types run the soup kitchens. So I don’t know, Erik.

    Like

  16. “But over the years [Bryan] became convinced that Darwin’s theory was responsible for much that was wrong with the modern world.”

    When dealing with questions of science isn’t it more important to just ask ourselves whether or not a theory is true?

    Well, “scientism,” or materialism or utilitarianism, whathaveyou, is offered as “neutral” reason, but of course they’re anything but value-free, anything but neutral.

    Peter Singer is an entirely reasonable man. Therein lies the most terrible truth of all.

    Like

  17. Tom,

    Two good points by you:

    (1) I’m reminded of my dad’s observation about coaching Little League–the kids who could field well carried gloves; the kids who could hit carried bats. So too, the smarter types love parsing the texts, the “enthusiastic” types run the soup kitchens. So I don’t know, Erik.

    That’s why as “Reformed intellectuals” we also need to seek to be good (practical) churchmen. I think I see Hart doing this.

    (2) Well, “scientism,” or materialism or utilitarianism, whathaveyou, is offered as “neutral” reason, but of course they’re anything but value-free, anything but neutral.

    Very true. Too many secularists rule out the supernatural a priori.

    Like

  18. Thankfully I don’t think people I worship with would recognize the persona I have here. I don’t take the stuff I talk about here to the average church member and beat them over the head with it. No one has to talk about the stuff we talk about here to be a faithful Reformed church member. This is extra credit stuff for people who are so inclined to talk about it.

    Like

  19. TVD: Well, “scientism,” or materialism or utilitarianism, whathaveyou, is offered as “neutral” reason, but of course they’re anything but value-free, anything but neutral.

    RS: A direct hit.

    TVD: Peter Singer is an entirely reasonable man. Therein lies the most terrible truth of all.

    RS: Another direct hit. He is also a very nice man in terms of manners. I wonder if he will still push for euthanasia when he is just a few years older. His views on being able to put to death infants (yes, that have been born) are of no real danger to him. But euthanasia is knocking on his door since he was born in 1946. But maybe since he is at Princeton the OPC will stick up for him.

    Like

  20. He now regrets it, but MHS taught at RTS in early days that the length of days was not an issue of orthodoxy or test of Biblcal fidelity. He also referenced Young that length of days cannot be determined by Biblical use of yom.

    Like

  21. @ Bob Morris: I think it is unfair to label MHS as “anti-black.” He was and my still be a segregationist, but that is something different from anti-black.

    Like

  24. “He was and my still be a segregationist, but that is something different from anti-black.”

    I generally show people my love and acceptance by telling them that I would feel better if they were not anywhere near me. As long as they’re somewhere separate, but equal, that’s good for me.

    You’ve got to be kidding.

    Have you not watched “The Wire”?

    Like

  25. TVD and RS,

    “TVD: Well, “scientism,” or materialism or utilitarianism, whathaveyou, is offered as “neutral” reason, but of course they’re anything but value-free, anything but neutral.

    RS: A direct hit.”

    After Thomas Kuhn (not to mention Immanuel Kant) almost every contemporary philosophy of science rejects the idea of neutral or value-free reason. Dutch Christians like Cornelius Van Til did not pioneer nor popularize the problem of presuppositions. Credit goes to Germans like Fichte and Jews like Kuhn. Without German idealism and Jewish skepticism Christian culturalists would have so little resources. If you want to score a direct hit on a bunch of pop atheists like Hitchens (Impersonal Universe Rest His Soul) or Dawkins fine, cheer away. But be careful, natural law arguments burn in the Dutch oven almost as fast as the Enlightenment.

    Like

  26. After Thomas Kuhn (not to mention Immanuel Kant) almost every contemporary philosophy of science rejects the idea of neutral or value-free reason.

    By all means, you have the floor, bro. “The greatest good for the greatest number” is a “value” {although it’s really math].

    I wouldn’t deny Peter Singer has values. They just scare the piss out of me.

    Like

  27. WJW: After Thomas Kuhn (not to mention Immanuel Kant) almost every contemporary philosophy of science rejects the idea of neutral or value-free reason.

    RS: Which is quite a bit different than the way scientists view themselves and the public view scientists.

    WJW: Christians like Cornelius Van Til did not pioneer nor popularize the problem of presuppositions. Credit goes to Germans like Fichte and Jews like Kuhn. Without German idealism and Jewish skepticism Christian culturalists would have so little resources.

    RS: I suppose they would be stuck with the sword of the Spirit and the power of God. I see what you are saying.

    WJW: If you want to score a direct hit on a bunch of pop atheists like Hitchens (Impersonal Universe Rest His Soul) or Dawkins fine, cheer away. But be careful, natural law arguments burn in the Dutch oven almost as fast as the Enlightenment.

    RS: Within the realm of daily life this value-free reason is spread across the educational centers in our land. Scientists are viewed as objective people doing experiments not caring where their experiments take them. Though Hitchens and Dawkins may be what you call pop atheists, they are far more known than Thomas Kuhn. I was able to attend a lecture by Dawkins which was attended by several thousand. He received several standing ovations for his anti-God statments. Indeed he is horrible at philosophy and some say not so great at biology, but he has the ear of a lot more people than Thomas Kuhn.

    Like

  28. @Eric Charter: I do not agree with MHS. Nor does he agree with my racial views and practice. But, there is a difference between a principled segregationism – the belief that the races are intended by God not to intermingle, which is what I believe he held – and being anti-black. As I said, he was and may still be a segregationist, but he was not and I would think is anti-black. The kind of segregationism he believed was common not only in the American South but in many countries including Britain after abolition and the Amerian North after emancipation.

    Like

  30. TVD,

    “I wouldn’t deny Peter Singer has values. They just scare the piss out of me.”

    Yep. They should. I’m just saying the champions of “neutral reason” have been slipping in historical credibility for a long while. Hegel, Verdun, and Birkenau, did not help. Some Christian reformed types get real excited when they discover this and start yelling words like “antithesis!” and “impossibility of the contrary!” In their understandable excitement they often fail to acknowledge that 1. Reason still works. 2. People, even non-Christians, primarily non-Christians, have used reason and science for good and bad, kind of like language or politics. 3. Christians have benefitted from non-Christian scientific achievement–even Darwin. I’m just not convinced a scientist has to acknowledge the Trinity or the Lordship of Christ every time he or she steps in a lab to be credible for Christians. We don’t expect as much of other professions, and those who say they do usually move West like Joseph Smith, settle in places like Idaho, claim to be speaking for the “real” reformed theology that everyone else has missed, and build small (very small) empires on clever turns of phrase and the gullibility of disenchanted Baptists wandering in the desert. TVD, do not fall into this. You are way too So. Cal. smooth.

    Like

  31. RS,

    “Though Hitchens and Dawkins may be what you call pop atheists, they are far more known than Thomas Kuhn”

    True that. They also make (or made) a heck of a lot more money largely because so many evangelical types form lines around the buildings where they speak and spend hard-earned money that could go toward tithing on their books. Pop-atheists eat well and drink even better primarily because of angry scared evangelicals and disenchanted 19 year old college sophomores.

    Like

  33. Kuhn’s work (“The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”) will most likely be remembered long after Dawkins & Hitchens have been forgotten, though, which is what really counts. “Pop” anything is by definition here today & gone tomorrow, which is a reason why we all might spend more time on our vocations and less on blogs. With that notion, I bid you adieu.

    Like

  34. WJW: True that. They also make (or made) a heck of a lot more money largely because so many evangelical types form lines around the buildings where they speak and spend hard-earned money that could go toward tithing on their books. Pop-atheists eat well and drink even better primarily because of angry scared evangelicals and disenchanted 19 year old college sophomores.

    RS: There is a lot of money in atheism, evangelicalism, and in 2K authors these days.

    Like

  35. I’m just saying the champions of “neutral reason” have been slipping in historical credibility for a long while.

    What is science? What is social “science?” How are they compatible with values? Who decides A>B?

    My modern liberal friends tell me that nobody’s a “relativist” anymore. Oh, really. What do you call it now?

    “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life…”

    Like

  37. TVD,

    “What is science?”
    Kuhn: Answer depends on where you are situated historically.

    “What is social “science?”
    For the most part nonsense with a few worthy gems tucked in here and there.

    “How are they compatible with values?”
    Depends on what you mean by values–i.e. see Philosophy and/or Theology. All scientists, secular or otherwise, do their job according to a set methodology that requires a lot of peer review. Not sure scraping bacteria from a petrie dish calls for the Te Deum.

    “Who decides A>B?”
    God. But a scientist doesn’t have to answer that question to get on with his or her work.

    “My modern liberal friends tell me that nobody’s a “relativist” anymore. Oh, really. What do you call it now?”

    My modern liberal friends are full of wine and paxil. I call it the human condition.

    Like

  41. The case against women’s ordination is biblical. The case for segregation is….

    It’s a free country, which means segregationists are free to favor segregation and I am free to heap shame upon them.

    I’m kind of starting to sound like Richard on this one, aren’t I?

    I can’t figure out SC88 either.

    Like

  44. I love this satire from 4:3

    THE SECOND ELEMENT THAT IS needed, if we are to reach a happy solution of this problem, is a clear insight into the main issues of modern Christianity with a sense of penitent shame that the Christian church should be quarreling over little matters when the world is dying of great needs. If,
    during the culture war, as American aborturaries perform 1.5 million “procedures” per year, and at times all seemed lost, you chanced to hear two men in an altercation about some minor
    matter of sectarian denominationalism, could you restrain your indignation?
    You said, “What can you do with folks like this who, in the face of colossal
    issues, play with the tiddledywinks and peccadillos of religion?” So now, when from the terrific questions of this generation one is called away by the noise of this confessional controversy….

    mark: Restraint? I can’t understand why you don’t shut up and listen to my issues which are essential, since it’s obvious that your issues are non-essential. That’s why we need to separate from all separatists, exclude all those who would exclude, and form gospel coalitions with which the fundies won’t even want to join…

    Like

  45. 4:2–We at the NTJ are unsure of what a poetic Sabbath is, but we confess that it sounds appealing to us

    mark: and it’s that “we” which sounds so appealing to “us” tontos. And which makes “us” so curious about the future of the NTJ. Same old “we”? Additions? Subtractions? Discontinuity? Aging is not a synonym for reform.

    Like

  46. 4:1–Evangelicals evaluate liberals in remarkably similar terms: if someone is a moral and decent Christian he can’t be a liberal or apostate. This line of reasoning is especially evident when
    contemporary Reformed believers conclude that a liberal must have a character on the degenerate order … because any decent person (who doesn’t beat his wife, gives to the poor, picks up trash) must be a conservative. In other words liberals are scoundrels. (Which is the flip side of the modernist argument against conservatives – fundamentalists are unAmerican. Talk about ad hominem.)

    Like

  47. @ Bob Morris,

    You write that Morton Smith later changed his mind on segregation. Has he written something publicly saying this and explaining it? If so, could you please point me to it?

    Like

  49. The second-and-third party comments about MHS may be accurate, and reflect a common attitude about the cultural divide of half-a century ago.

    But since no one has referenced an “in-print,” outstanding statement, I wonder what anyone here is doing demanding an in-print retraction?

    What I’m seeing is MHS criticized for taking a strong theological stance (too strong?), which is then being translated into a bad-character evaluation. But that’s OK, I guess, because he was a “backward Southern white-elitist” 60 years ago when he was in his twenties. So, clearly his views on Creation are a product of his octogenarian myopia.

    Like

  52. Hey Mort,
    You know you have to run the gauntlet of PC rehabilitation around here. Take your lumps boy! Then, maybe we’ll give YOU as seat on the back of the bus! Haw Haw Haw!

    Like

  55. Erik, was Paul a racist when he called Cretans “liars” and more?

    I’m not defending segregation or slavery or racism. I am concerned about making arguments that come back to boomerang on you.

    Like

  56. D.G. – I’m not defending segregation or slavery or racism

    You better not be or DTM will run with it.

    The man can be a segregationist if he wants, I’m just saying it’s a dumb way to go through life. I think being a revivalist, a theonomist, or a Reformed convert to Catholicism is a dumb way to go through life, too, but I’m not trying to ban the practices.

    I’m an equal opportunity criticizer of crackpots on all parts of the Reformed ideological spectrum.

    I figured out what SC88 means. There’s a hint in an article in NTJ 3.4.

    Like

  60. Erik : I figured out what SC88 means. There’s a hint in an article in NTJ 3.4.

    Could it just as easily be LC154?

    Like

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.