Hello pastor David, I'm a day behind watching this I've been under the weather. Happy to see you in the familiar digs. May God bless you and your team. The reaching out and loving care you all dedicate yourselves so wonderfully. Honored to be listening to you. Thank you
Braid, cut , dye, shave, perm, relax, silk press, lock, hot comb, straighten, weave, sew in, clip in, possibilities are endless Hence she is called a woman 😮
As a black woman I can absolutely tell you that braided hair is still being overdone and worn in the church. Braiding is done with different color hairs, wigs hanging all the way to the bottox, braids done in over the top styles and piercings all over the face and not to mention exorbitant tattoos in places on the body that forces them to wear dresses that are short enough or naked enough to show the tattoos. All of which shout ‘look at me!!!!’ Of course to do or not to do these things depends on the spirituality of the individual. A lady who has just accepted Christ might do all of this in ignorance but as her spiritual growth increases it is natural to shed these behaviors and do it gladly. Should I judge a lady who adorns herself like this year after year while attending church regularly? I will leave all judgement to God but……..Also stiletto heels and short tight dresses and skirts are all included. Also in my personal life whatever I wear outside church I would feel just as comfortable wearing to church. I aim for modesty and pleasing God and my husband at all times which also pleases me.
Thank you for answering my question about Communion! I did completely agree with him that he shouldn’t take it. I do plan to show him the video tonight. And I do appreciate what you said directly to him. I think maybe he needs to hear that from someone besides me. Thank you!
Bible never forbid women braiding their hair. God never forbid braiding of hair. Preaching that people should not neglect inner beauty of good character and not just have external beauty doesnot mean external beauty or beutification is forbidden or sinful
One reason I am a mid tribulation premillennialist, is that it is the LEAST believed position. Also, it happens as Paul says in Thessalonians, "at the last trumpet". So, please don't believe as I do. The fewer mid tribs the more likely I will never get to finish this sent
The reason we that study the festivals of the Lord believe He's coming for us on A Rosh HaShana, Feast of Trumpets, is that that is the only festival when "no man knows the day or the hour." It has to be a precise sighting of the New Moon to begin the festival, the New Year. It goes for two days for that reason, that they don't know the exact day or hour, just as it says about when the rapture will happen. Seven years later, He returns on Yom Kippur, the Day of Judgment. He died on Passover, was buried on Unleavened Bread, rose again on Firstfruits, sent His Holy Spirit on Shavuot (weeks) or Pentecost. The 8th day of the festival of Sukkot, or Tabernacles, is called Shemeni Atzeret.. It is actually connected to Sukkot, but also a separate holiday. The next day, Simchat Torah, is called Rejoicing in the Torah, one which day we believe Jesus was born. Study the festivals. They tell of Him and God's plan for the world.
You do not keep the shabbat to be saved but because you are saved. If you are saved you want already to leave in the kingdom of God and in his kingdom you will keep the shabbat and even observe the new moon, read Isaiah 65/66
Maybe you could teach on Numbers 5 also and the double standards between male and female sexuality and right and wrong (polygamy, "ethnic cleansing" justified rape, etc.) differences between male and female "rules" in the Bible. Few if any preachers address these. I've never heard any preacher discuss Numbers 5. They do prefer to harp on women's subordination to men, keeping their mouths shut, submission to men, etc. Few also will go so far as to talk about how Paul says women are saved (through childbearing) and not as men are saved. The misogyny and condescension of women is rampant throughout the Bible. They are always treated as second class and have no status other than as an animal or other possession. Their only purpose of existence was to serve men, bear them children, etc.. If their husband died they had to marry their brothers-in-law, to try to get pregnant, and if they still didn't get pregnant, they had to try to get pregnant with their father-in-law. That's really borderline incestuous. In fact many Bible scholars claim Seth and Cain had to have married their sisters. Of course no sisters are mentioned. Even Mary's value was just her maternal ability to produce Jesus. And just about everything He said to her was backtalk. Even as a young child, when they were searching for him and found Him at the Temple, He basically sassed her. And again at the wedding where He turned water into wine. It's strange that the curse on Eve passed on to all women for eternity. Yet even in pagan courts today, it is considered unjust to pay the price for someone else's crimes. The curse of pain in childbearing and the shame of menstruation was put on all women, thousands of years in advance, before they were even born. The misogyny and sexism is from cover to cover.
As far as Bailey’s question… I’m not sure what branch of Pentecostal her family is, but I was a member of the UPC for years, and United Pentecostal do believe Jesus is God. They do believe 3 in 1 but different than we do. Instead of believing Father, Son and Holy Spirit as 3 persons of the Godhead, they believe 1 God presents Himself 3 different ways and that one God’s name is Jesus. They believe that when Jesus said I come in my Father’s name, that means the 1 God’s name is Jesus. This is why when they baptize, instead of saying I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, they say I baptize you in the name of Jesus. They also base that on the scriptures Acts 19:3-5.
And if you research, when King James had the Catholics and Protestants come together with the best interpreters of Greek and Hebrew to put together his version, you'll find the Catholics changed the baptism to Father , Son, Holy Ghost. It's always been in Jesus name. They admit it in their own books. By the time the kjv was published, the Catholic Church had been around about a thousand years. So they slipped that in. That's why there is so much confusion.
@@apostolicengineer8251 Any idea what John said when he baptized people? I ask because of the scripture I posted above when Paul told the believers to go back and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ to receive the Holy Ghost after they said they were baptized unto John’s baptism.
@@janeecejjf2001 ha, don't know. But John baptized to repentance, as Paul said in Acts 19. But once the church was born on the day of Pentecost in Acts chapter 2 unto this day, it's in Jesus name.
Jesus is God, read mat 28:19 and find ur answer in acts 2:4 onwards there is no word like trinity in the Hible, it was started by Roman catholic church
Thanks to you all for your support of these Q&A's! Here are some links to resources mentioned in this week's stream: 📘 "Full Surrender" by Dr. J Edwin Orr a.co/d/7vRPqHx 📺 The Red Heifer & The Work of Jesus Christ ua-cam.com/video/2mUrxpNikeI/v-deo.html ⚔JOSHUA - Pastor David's new verse-by-verse series has begun! New episodes each Wednesday! ua-cam.com/play/PL_QIfO0mxbX5rodxvbJ49ShEQJOFnsVi5.html 🔎📖 Use the search function on the Enduring Word website to dig deeper into the thousands of pages of free Bible commentary, in 10+ languages: enduringword.com/ 📘 Standing in Grace / Firmes En La Gracia / Ich Stehe Auf Gnade - David Guzik's personal work extolling the wonder and power of God's grace in the life of believers: a.co/d/gaaQyta 📱 Download the Enduring Word app for free today! iPhone: apple.co/3X1sryZ Android: bit.ly/3ixdC8f 📖 Blue Letter Bible www.blueletterbible.org
You said God killed an animal to clothe Adam and Eve. No. Where does it say that? You're adding to the word there. There was no physical death until Cain killed Abel. God gave them SKIN. What were they clothed with before they sinned? Light. Just as Jesus showed the three disciples on the Mount of Transfiguration. That light was gone. We don't know what they looked like before or after, but it was so horrible that they tried to hide it. God gave them skin.
Please refrain from displays of vain self-righteousness and from flippant accusations - Pastor David *has not* and does not add anything to the Word of God. You claim that "There was no physical death until Cain killed Abel," which is patently and obviously false - we see, at the very beginning of Genesis 4, in verses 4-5, that "Abel also brought of the *firstborn of his flock* and *of their fat.* And the Lord respected Abel *and his offering,* [5] but He did not respect Cain and *his offering.* And Cain was very angry, and his countenance fell." ...Is your understanding that somehow Abel's *offering* of the firstborn of the flock and of their fat was somehow an offering of completely live animals? ...And that "their fat" (of the flock) was received...how exactly? Was it taken out via liposuction? Or surgically extracted, so that the sheep of the flock from which the fat was taken were all still alive and well? Surely not: the Offerings of Abel were all sacrifices, achieved through physical death, _well_ before Cain murdered Abel. But to return to your wild accusation that Pst. David is "adding words," and your assumptions regarding the skin they were clothed with, Gen 3:21 in the Biblical Hebrew reads: "And made Yahweh God for Adam and his wife tunics of skin and clothed them." Meaning, God *did not simply add human skin* to Adam and Eve, like they lacked skin until that point - it is not as if their organs were held in only by "light" before this. They had human skin, they were formerly clothed in light, and then when sin entered the world, it is commonly understood by theologians and preachers such as Charles Spurgeon and H.C. Leupold that a sacrifice needed to be made to atone for that first, crucial, original sin. And, it is not as though Adam and Eve would have rightly sacrificed the animal that required to make those skins, lest it should invite the speculation that Man himself could by his own works atone for his own sins - no no no. By having God initiate a sacrifice for this atonement, we see His plan beautifully bookended by this first necessary sacrifice by God, and God's ultimate sacrifice through His own Son, Christ Jesus as the second Adam. To make it even MORE clear: the verse says God *made* the skins, and they were *tunics of skin* (not merely human "skin" itself, meaning the skins provided were worn just *as tunics are worn,* for the purposes of *clothing* them. Additionally, were you more familiar with the Hebrew of the Old Testament, you would know that the Hebrew word for skin used in Genesis 3:21, "or" (ע֖וֹר) is the word used for *both* normal "skin" as you misunderstand it to be in this instance, and for "animal skin," - meaning the same word skin is nearly _just as often translated "hide", "leather" and "skins/animal skins."_ Even more so, when we look to determine which of these 2 senses of the word is understood to be used here in Gen 3:21, the overwhelming consensus holds that *it is indeed the latter* (meaning 'skin' in terms of a hide, leather, or animal skins). Not only that, though - as if the verb tense: God "made," the words "tunics of...," and the clear indication of skins meaning "animal skins" weren't all already enough evidence that Pastor David has added Nothing to the word of God (making it clear that it is in fact you yourself who is engaging in speculation and assumptions regarding God's word), there is still *another argument* to show that God quite likely carried out a sacrifice Himself to provide these skins. See the bold portions within this relevant entry in Strong's concordance regarding the Hebrew word "or" (ע֖וֹר) in question: "(ע֖וֹר) [2] hide of animals (44 t.), *always* (except Job 40:31) *after skinning:* Genesis 27:16 (J); *of sacrifice victims* Exodus 29:14; Leviticus 4:11 5t. (all P); *prepared for use* (by some process of tanning, compare Now Archaeology i. 242), sometimes = leather: *material of garments Genesis 3:21 (J),* girdle 2 Kings 1:8, any article Leviticus 11:32; Leviticus 13:48 ff Numbers 31:20 (P); covering of tabernacle Exodus 25:5 (twice in verse) + 10 t. Exodus 26; Exodus 35; Exodus 36; Exodus 39, of ark, sacred utensils, etc., Numbers 4:6 5t. Numbers 4.. (end quote) ...So, when the Hebrew word "or" (ע֖וֹר) is shown to be used in the sense of animal skins or hides, the most prevalent associated understanding is that, in fact, the animal skins were provided (1) always after skinning, and were most often (2) *obtained via sacrifice,* and/or (3) prepared for use via tanning. The explicit mention of Genesis 3:21 here shows it is understood in such contexts. In conclusion, we have ZERO reason to believe that Adam & Eve DIDN'T HAVE human skin for this. Yes, they were clothed in light before they were clothed in animal skin. But when the light was revoked, they did not receive skin, they receive something that CLOTHED them as tunics would, namely: Clothing. So, based on all of the above evidence, and on actually studying & understanding the work of scholars in the original Hebrew, we can avoid bizarre leaps in logic, and can also refrain from accusing Pastors of adding to the Word of God - a sad insult meant only to bolster one's own ego and prior assumptions, which is made only by those who are more eager to flaunt their presumptions than in actually pursuing and perceiving the plain truth of God's word. - Enduring Word Team
Richard Dreyfuss teaches us wisdom. 🤗
Hello pastor David, I'm a day behind watching this I've been under the weather. Happy to see you in the familiar digs. May God bless you and your team. The reaching out and loving care you all dedicate yourselves so wonderfully. Honored to be listening to you. Thank you
Braid, cut , dye, shave, perm, relax, silk press, lock, hot comb, straighten, weave, sew in, clip in, possibilities are endless
Hence she is called a woman 😮
Thank you for this ministry Pastor Guzik. I am built up in my faith by it. God bless you and your family.
Thank you so much
God bless you for conveying God's truth to us.
Speedwell,TN and I missed it live but so thankful for everything you do !!will be praying !!
You are my go to guy. I have numerous commentaries and you by far exceed them all. May God richly bless. I use the eSword app.
May our Lord richly bless you and your ministry for answering this big controversial question for us.I appreciate it a lot.❤❤❤❤❤
As a black woman I can absolutely tell you that braided hair is still being overdone and worn in the church. Braiding is done with different color hairs, wigs hanging all the way to the bottox, braids done in over the top styles and piercings all over the face and not to mention exorbitant tattoos in places on the body that forces them to wear dresses that are short enough or naked enough to show the tattoos. All of which shout ‘look at me!!!!’ Of course to do or not to do these things depends on the spirituality of the individual. A lady who has just accepted Christ might do all of this in ignorance but as her spiritual growth increases it is natural to shed these behaviors and do it gladly. Should I judge a lady who adorns herself like this year after year while attending church regularly? I will leave all judgement to God but……..Also stiletto heels and short tight dresses and skirts are all included. Also in my personal life whatever I wear outside church I would feel just as comfortable wearing to church. I aim for modesty and pleasing God and my husband at all times which also pleases me.
Thank you for answering my question about Communion! I did completely agree with him that he shouldn’t take it. I do plan to show him the video tonight. And I do appreciate what you said directly to him. I think maybe he needs to hear that from someone besides me. Thank you!
Bible never forbid women braiding their hair.
God never forbid braiding of hair.
Preaching that people should not neglect inner beauty of good character and not just have external beauty doesnot mean external beauty or beutification is forbidden or sinful
I was going to Salvation Army Church and they asked me to please remove my earrings for Sunday and Wednesday Services . ... 1997-2010 ...
Just now getting to start listening and I just want to say I'm so excited to be feed😊
One reason I am a mid tribulation premillennialist, is that it is the LEAST believed position. Also, it happens as Paul says in Thessalonians, "at the last trumpet". So, please don't believe as I do. The fewer mid tribs the more likely I will never get to finish this sent
😂
The cars people drive to church to show them off.
The reason we that study the festivals of the Lord believe He's coming for us on A Rosh HaShana, Feast of Trumpets, is that that is the only festival when "no man knows the day or the hour." It has to be a precise sighting of the New Moon to begin the festival, the New Year. It goes for two days for that reason, that they don't know the exact day or hour, just as it says about when the rapture will happen. Seven years later, He returns on Yom Kippur, the Day of Judgment. He died on Passover, was buried on Unleavened Bread, rose again on Firstfruits, sent His Holy Spirit on Shavuot (weeks) or Pentecost. The 8th day of the festival of Sukkot, or Tabernacles, is called Shemeni Atzeret.. It is actually connected to Sukkot, but also a separate holiday. The next day, Simchat Torah, is called Rejoicing in the Torah, one which day we believe Jesus was born. Study the festivals. They tell of Him and God's plan for the world.
Very interesting!
The fact that a Christian would have a concern over braided hair explains how a church can lose the meaning of Christian.
Salvation is not in hair, food, drink, new moon , sabbaths
Let no man ( and I do mean male)
Judge you Precious sister in Christ
You do not keep the shabbat to be saved but because you are saved. If you are saved you want already to leave in the kingdom of God and in his kingdom you will keep the shabbat and even observe the new moon, read Isaiah 65/66
No one here said it was. Pastor Guzik explained the scripture well.
Maybe you could teach on Numbers 5 also and the double standards between male and female sexuality and right and wrong (polygamy, "ethnic cleansing" justified rape, etc.) differences between male and female "rules" in the Bible.
Few if any preachers address these. I've never heard any preacher discuss Numbers 5. They do prefer to harp on women's subordination to men, keeping their mouths shut, submission to men, etc. Few also will go so far as to talk about how Paul says women are saved (through childbearing) and not as men are saved. The misogyny and condescension of women is rampant throughout the Bible. They are always treated as second class and have no status other than as an animal or other possession. Their only purpose of existence was to serve men, bear them children, etc.. If their husband died they had to marry their brothers-in-law, to try to get pregnant, and if they still didn't get pregnant, they had to try to get pregnant with their father-in-law. That's really borderline incestuous. In fact many Bible scholars claim Seth and Cain had to have married their sisters. Of course no sisters are mentioned. Even Mary's value was just her maternal ability to produce Jesus. And just about everything He said to her was backtalk. Even as a young child, when they were searching for him and found Him at the Temple, He basically sassed her. And again at the wedding where He turned water into wine.
It's strange that the curse on Eve passed on to all women for eternity. Yet even in pagan courts today, it is considered unjust to pay the price for someone else's crimes. The curse of pain in childbearing and the shame of menstruation was put on all women, thousands of years in advance, before they were even born. The misogyny and sexism is from cover to cover.
Do we even care that under that law women weren't supposed to have braided hair?
Please translate your commentaries in Urdu for Pakistani Christians. Thank you
We know exactly who is asking
Not a woman
With hair like the locusts Rev:9:8
As far as Bailey’s question… I’m not sure what branch of Pentecostal her family is, but I was a member of the UPC for years, and United Pentecostal do believe Jesus is God. They do believe 3 in 1 but different than we do. Instead of believing Father, Son and Holy Spirit as 3 persons of the Godhead, they believe 1 God presents Himself 3 different ways and that one God’s name is Jesus. They believe that when Jesus said I come in my Father’s name, that means the 1 God’s name is Jesus. This is why when they baptize, instead of saying I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, they say I baptize you in the name of Jesus. They also base that on the scriptures Acts 19:3-5.
And if you research, when King James had the Catholics and Protestants come together with the best interpreters of Greek and Hebrew to put together his version, you'll find the Catholics changed the baptism to Father , Son, Holy Ghost. It's always been in Jesus name. They admit it in their own books. By the time the kjv was published, the Catholic Church had been around about a thousand years. So they slipped that in. That's why there is so much confusion.
@@apostolicengineer8251
Any idea what John said when he baptized people? I ask because of the scripture I posted above when Paul told the believers to go back and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ to receive the Holy Ghost after they said they were baptized unto John’s baptism.
@@janeecejjf2001 ha, don't know. But John baptized to repentance, as Paul said in Acts 19. But once the church was born on the day of Pentecost in Acts chapter 2 unto this day, it's in Jesus name.
Jesus is God, read mat 28:19 and find ur answer in acts 2:4 onwards there is no word like trinity in the Hible, it was started by Roman catholic church
Thanks to you all for your support of these Q&A's! Here are some links to resources mentioned in this week's stream:
📘 "Full Surrender" by Dr. J Edwin Orr
a.co/d/7vRPqHx
📺 The Red Heifer & The Work of Jesus Christ
ua-cam.com/video/2mUrxpNikeI/v-deo.html
⚔JOSHUA - Pastor David's new verse-by-verse series has begun! New episodes each Wednesday!
ua-cam.com/play/PL_QIfO0mxbX5rodxvbJ49ShEQJOFnsVi5.html
🔎📖 Use the search function on the Enduring Word website to dig deeper into the thousands of pages of free Bible commentary, in 10+ languages: enduringword.com/
📘 Standing in Grace / Firmes En La Gracia / Ich Stehe Auf Gnade - David Guzik's personal work extolling the wonder and power of God's grace in the life of believers: a.co/d/gaaQyta
📱 Download the Enduring Word app for free today!
iPhone: apple.co/3X1sryZ Android: bit.ly/3ixdC8f
📖 Blue Letter Bible www.blueletterbible.org
Really.??
You said God killed an animal to clothe Adam and Eve. No. Where does it say that? You're adding to the word there. There was no physical death until Cain killed Abel. God gave them SKIN. What were they clothed with before they sinned? Light. Just as Jesus showed the three disciples on the Mount of Transfiguration. That light was gone. We don't know what they looked like before or after, but it was so horrible that they tried to hide it. God gave them skin.
Please refrain from displays of vain self-righteousness and from flippant accusations - Pastor David *has not* and does not add anything to the Word of God.
You claim that "There was no physical death until Cain killed Abel," which is patently and obviously false - we see, at the very beginning of Genesis 4, in verses 4-5, that "Abel also brought of the *firstborn of his flock* and *of their fat.* And the Lord respected Abel *and his offering,* [5] but He did not respect Cain and *his offering.* And Cain was very angry, and his countenance fell."
...Is your understanding that somehow Abel's *offering* of the firstborn of the flock and of their fat was somehow an offering of completely live animals? ...And that "their fat" (of the flock) was received...how exactly? Was it taken out via liposuction? Or surgically extracted, so that the sheep of the flock from which the fat was taken were all still alive and well? Surely not: the Offerings of Abel were all sacrifices, achieved through physical death, _well_ before Cain murdered Abel.
But to return to your wild accusation that Pst. David is "adding words," and your assumptions regarding the skin they were clothed with, Gen 3:21 in the Biblical Hebrew reads: "And made Yahweh God for Adam and his wife tunics of skin and clothed them."
Meaning, God *did not simply add human skin* to Adam and Eve, like they lacked skin until that point - it is not as if their organs were held in only by "light" before this. They had human skin, they were formerly clothed in light, and then when sin entered the world, it is commonly understood by theologians and preachers such as Charles Spurgeon and H.C. Leupold that a sacrifice needed to be made to atone for that first, crucial, original sin.
And, it is not as though Adam and Eve would have rightly sacrificed the animal that required to make those skins, lest it should invite the speculation that Man himself could by his own works atone for his own sins - no no no. By having God initiate a sacrifice for this atonement, we see His plan beautifully bookended by this first necessary sacrifice by God, and God's ultimate sacrifice through His own Son, Christ Jesus as the second Adam.
To make it even MORE clear: the verse says God *made* the skins, and they were *tunics of skin* (not merely human "skin" itself, meaning the skins provided were worn just *as tunics are worn,* for the purposes of *clothing* them.
Additionally, were you more familiar with the Hebrew of the Old Testament, you would know that the Hebrew word for skin used in Genesis 3:21, "or" (ע֖וֹר) is the word used for *both* normal "skin" as you misunderstand it to be in this instance, and for "animal skin," - meaning the same word skin is nearly _just as often translated "hide", "leather" and "skins/animal skins."_
Even more so, when we look to determine which of these 2 senses of the word is understood to be used here in Gen 3:21, the overwhelming consensus holds that *it is indeed the latter* (meaning 'skin' in terms of a hide, leather, or animal skins).
Not only that, though - as if the verb tense: God "made," the words "tunics of...," and the clear indication of skins meaning "animal skins" weren't all already enough evidence that Pastor David has added Nothing to the word of God (making it clear that it is in fact you yourself who is engaging in speculation and assumptions regarding God's word), there is still *another argument* to show that God quite likely carried out a sacrifice Himself to provide these skins.
See the bold portions within this relevant entry in Strong's concordance regarding the Hebrew word "or" (ע֖וֹר) in question:
"(ע֖וֹר) [2] hide of animals (44 t.), *always* (except Job 40:31) *after skinning:* Genesis 27:16 (J); *of sacrifice victims* Exodus 29:14; Leviticus 4:11 5t. (all P); *prepared for use* (by some process of tanning, compare Now Archaeology i. 242), sometimes = leather: *material of garments Genesis 3:21 (J),* girdle 2 Kings 1:8, any article Leviticus 11:32; Leviticus 13:48 ff Numbers 31:20 (P); covering of tabernacle Exodus 25:5 (twice in verse) + 10 t. Exodus 26; Exodus 35; Exodus 36; Exodus 39, of ark, sacred utensils, etc., Numbers 4:6 5t. Numbers 4..
(end quote)
...So, when the Hebrew word "or" (ע֖וֹר) is shown to be used in the sense of animal skins or hides, the most prevalent associated understanding is that, in fact, the animal skins were provided (1) always after skinning, and were most often (2) *obtained via sacrifice,* and/or (3) prepared for use via tanning. The explicit mention of Genesis 3:21 here shows it is understood in such contexts.
In conclusion, we have ZERO reason to believe that Adam & Eve DIDN'T HAVE human skin for this. Yes, they were clothed in light before they were clothed in animal skin. But when the light was revoked, they did not receive skin, they receive something that CLOTHED them as tunics would, namely: Clothing.
So, based on all of the above evidence, and on actually studying & understanding the work of scholars in the original Hebrew, we can avoid bizarre leaps in logic, and can also refrain from accusing Pastors of adding to the Word of God - a sad insult meant only to bolster one's own ego and prior assumptions, which is made only by those who are more eager to flaunt their presumptions than in actually pursuing and perceiving the plain truth of God's word.
- Enduring Word Team