Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Did God say it, or did you say it?
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 106 of 127 (549615)
03-09-2010 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by Peg
03-08-2010 9:43 PM


No Sure Thing
quote:
under the same inspiration, paul wrote
"All scripture is inspired of God" 2 Timothy 3:16
in the words of the prophets over and over we read
"And the word of Jehovah came to me" and besides that we see a multitude of passages where God is the one speaking.
You feel inspiration is directed (to influence, move, or guide by divine or supernatural inspiration), I don't (to exert an animating, enlivening, or exalting influence on: was particularly inspired by the Romanticists).
You follow tradition that 2 Timothy was written by Paul. I don't.
How do we know which the writer meant? The writer doesn't claim that God directed his writing. The NT wasn't compiled and wouldn't have been considered Holy Scripture at the time.
I included the prophets in my statement. Those are the ones who claim God told them such and such.
Yes, there are a lot of passages where God is speaking and this is where you and I differ. I understand the writing of stories and you don't seem to when it comes to the Bible. I understand Job as fiction, I don't feel you do. There are Christian fiction books that have God speaking.
So if we are to stick with context, we have to take various styles of literature into consideration.
quote:
Did Daniel understand the prophecy he had written. No, he clearly stated as much.
Yes the author of the Book of Daniel understood what he wrote.
Jewish Encyclopedia
Stories undoubtedly existed of a person by the name of Daniel, who was known to Ezekiel as a wise man. Tradition then ascribed to this wise man all the traits which Israel could attribute to its heroes. He was exalted as the pattern of piety and faithfulness; and it may also have been said that he interpreted dreams, read cryptograms, and foreshadowed the beginning of the Messianic kingdom. In any case his name may have played the same rle in literature as that of Solomon or that of Enoch; and as one author ascribed his book, "Koheleth," to Solomon, so another author may have made Daniel responsible for his. As to the origin of his prophecies, it would probably be unjust to say that they were inventions. They may have been suggested by the author's enthusiastic study of the past history of God's people. He utilized the past to unlock the future. This is evident from ix. 2, where the author says that he had paid attention to the prophecy of Jeremiah concerning the seventy years, which prophecy became the basis for a new prophecy. This shows that the author was merely a disciple of the Prophets, one who reproduced the prophecies of his masters. His book, indeed, is not included in the section Nebiim.
IMO, you're misreading what the character of Daniel didn't understand.
quote:
i would challenge you to present a doctrine which you believe to fit all 4 aspects so we can test it. personally i believe that if one of 4 fails, then so does the doctrine.
I don't have a doctrine. I read the text. You would need a new thread to continue that issue.
You've stated in Message 104 that we don't fully understand what was meant and then state:
Peg writes:
God has shed light on his will to a selected few just as he did in ancient times thru ones such as Noah, Moses, the kings & the Prophets.... and as he did 2,000 years ago thru Jesus and the early christians.
'we' dont all simply understand the scriptures due to our own knowledge and reasoning abilities. Understanding comes thru the channel God chooses, always has and always will.
So how do we know who the selected few are?
As I said before, Christian preachers teach all along that spectrum from your position to mine. How do we know who is one of the selected few?
What I do on this board is debate against doctrine that I feel contradicts the simple reading of the Bible authors, is not in harmony with God's will and purpose as presented by the Bible authors, is taken out of context, and mutilates the original meaning of the words as they are used in the text.
Some of those battles are against your position, so obviously the 4 point test doesn't work.
There are various means of interpretation from simple reading to mystical.
We still have no way to know, without a doubt, that we understand what the ancient writers meant. We have everything from educated guesses to fantasy.
There is no "sure thing".

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Peg, posted 03-08-2010 9:43 PM Peg has not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 107 of 127 (549635)
03-09-2010 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by purpledawn
03-08-2010 8:21 AM


Re: Address the Topic
quote:
It doesn't matter how long a day is. The point of the topic questions deal with how do you or teachers know what you are saying is correct or is what God meant?
Message 1
How does a teacher of religion know (and they should know because they *are* teaching this as the truth to people) that the non-literal interpretation of creation is actually what God meant and not just what the teacher *thinks* God *meant* to say?
Sure you can cross-reference, and that's what we saw in the 6 Day example in the other thread (cross references to both ancient language and modern science), but how do you know you are cross-referencing the correct material/evidence?
quote:
You're making a conclusion concerning the A&E story, which supposedly originated long before the Priestly writer wrote Genesis 1.
How do you know that what you are saying is what God meant and not just what preachers think it means?
How do you know that what you are saying is what the Priestly writer meant and not just what preachers think it means?
These stories belong to a different culture and dead languages. We have lost the slang, humor, idioms, and the substance of their lives. We're all guessing, IMO.
I agree that our goal is to try to understand what the original authors meant. And I agree that we can never know this perfectly. But I see no reason to "throw in the towel" and relegate it all to guesswork. By studying the language, history, and culture, we can come closer to understanding what would have been meant. In the last century we have discovered new information about Babylonian, Mesopotamian, and Egyptian creation stories, and these can help us to understand the thinking and the context of Genesis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by purpledawn, posted 03-08-2010 8:21 AM purpledawn has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 108 of 127 (549717)
03-10-2010 2:10 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by hERICtic
03-09-2010 6:56 AM


Re: actually...it's not that simple
hERICtic writes:
Unless I misspoke, I stated that any time evening and morning are used, it refers to a day was we know it. I'm not sure how your "12" hour reference helps your case whatsover. Its even less time than what I claim. Its would still be 6 increments of daylight as per Genesis when the world was created. But as I have shown you, "day" can mean daylight or 24 hours.
because from 6pm - 6am (evening to morning or morning to evening) the number of hours are only 12.
For some reason you are still counting them as 24. How do you get 24???
If the genesis account says 'and their came to be evening and morning a 1st/2nd/3rd day' then what happened to the other 12 hours of each of these days? They've gone missing becaues the text doesnt say there came to be 'evening and evening' which would be 24 hours...it says 'evening & morning' which is only 12 hours.
IOW, the 'day' in genesis is not a literal 24 hours as you keep trying to assert.
hERICtic writes:
Only to you. You need it to be. The point is EVERY time evening and morning are mentioned, it refers to a day as we know it.
the Yom does not have to mean 24 hours though. Genesis itself shows this. you said that my question about eve being created on the same day as adam was moot, but in fact it is not.
The story implies that Adam lived for a length of time before eve was created...yet she was also created on the 6th day. So how can this be? If he lived alone for long enough to name all the animals and begin to feel lonely, surely this was longer then a few hours. This must have been several years at least.
but it was still on the 6th day. Obviously the story implies that the 6th day was much longer then 24hours.
hERICtic writes:
If the days were billions of years, then Adam and Eve were created at the END of creation. Scripture states the beginning.
This contradicts the words of Jesus:
"But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female" (Mark 10:6).
you have taken Jesus out of context here. The beginning of creation was the universe, the planets and stars ,also the only begotten son and the angels... not adam and eve. So you've simply misread this verse. Jesus is not saying that the very first thing God created was Adam and Eve...even the genesis account does not say this, so you are contradicting genesis which means you've got the wrong interpretation of Jesus words. Really he is just refering to the human creation here, nothing more.
You could read it like this
"From the beginning of mankinds creation, he made them male and female"
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : Off Topic

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by hERICtic, posted 03-09-2010 6:56 AM hERICtic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by hERICtic, posted 03-10-2010 7:14 PM Peg has not replied

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 109 of 127 (549729)
03-10-2010 7:24 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by hERICtic
03-09-2010 6:56 AM


Off Topic
You are off topic. As I said in Message 92: This thread is not to discuss the meaning of the words or how long a day was. Please read the OP questions again and adjust accordingly.
You are continuing to argue the meaning of the words. Peg and I were not.
Take the discussion of Yom to the thread that sparked this thread. Define literal vs non-literal
Please direct any comments concerning this Administrative msg to the Report discussion problems here: No.2 thread.
Any response in this thread will receive a 24 hour suspension.
Thank you Purple
AdminPD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by hERICtic, posted 03-09-2010 6:56 AM hERICtic has not replied

  
hERICtic
Member (Idle past 4516 days)
Posts: 371
Joined: 08-18-2009


Message 110 of 127 (549773)
03-10-2010 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Peg
03-10-2010 2:10 AM


Re: actually...it's not that simple
Peg, would you like to further this discussion here: Define literal vs non-literal?
Not sure how you have all this time, you're all over the place! If you wish to continue, let me know. Copy and paste your last post I guess and we'll go from there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Peg, posted 03-10-2010 2:10 AM Peg has not replied

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3861 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 111 of 127 (550216)
03-13-2010 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Peg
03-05-2010 11:55 PM


Re: actually...it's not that simple
the difference is that there was a 'need' to create adam instantly....tell me why an eternal God would need to create anything instantly...he has all the time in the world to do what he wants.
Peg, umm...did you mean to say two wildly contradicting things in the same paragraph, one sentence after another?
Anyway, just to make sure, I'm not arguing for my pet point of view, just playing devil's advocate here because I'm not sure about the consistency you treat different levels of magic with; apparently God (obviously) didn't create the universe and the world in six actual days, yet you still see the creation of Adam as being instantaneous - you have no problems with saying that god had a "need" to create Adam magically instantly, but didn't have a need to create the universe magically and instantly? and yet you still say "tell me why an eternal God would need to create anything instantly" and don't apparently see a problem with this.
I'm not saying you can't be right, I'm just questioning the reasoning behind it.
If I have you wrong, and your god uses the big bang and inflationary cosmology, natural selection and evolution, genetics and geology to create a universe by guiding or sustaining the laws, then you'll need to be a bit clearer - right now you seem to be fine with magic on a small enough scale, but against it on larger acts, yet still call god omnipotent if not omnimax.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Peg, posted 03-05-2010 11:55 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Peg, posted 03-13-2010 4:37 PM greyseal has replied

  
Kapyong
Member (Idle past 3442 days)
Posts: 344
Joined: 05-22-2003


Message 112 of 127 (550223)
03-13-2010 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Peg
03-08-2010 9:43 PM


Re: Context or Not
Gday
Peg writes:
under the same inspiration, paul wrote
"All scripture is inspired of God" 2 Timothy 3:16
Christians love to quote this passage as if it proves the Bible is inpired, but there are several serious problems with this passage :
2 Tim 3:16 is ambiguous
The meaning of 2 Tim 3:16 is ambiguous in the Greek because the "is" is not found in Greek.
Here is Young's literal translation, which hedges it's bets by including "is" not found in the original :
16 every Writing ('is') God-breathed, and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for setting aright, for instruction that ('is') in righteousness,
Here is the literal translation without the fudged "is" :
16 every Writing God-breathed, and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for setting aright, for instruction that in righteousness,
Here is what essay on bible.org says about the variant translation :
"Such a translation is possible, but not required. Actually either translation can claim to be accurate. Both translations have to supply the word is since it does not appear in the original."
5. The Bible: The Inspired Revelation of God | Bible.org
Some Bible versions do have the variant :
(2 Tim 3:16 REB) All inspired scripture has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, or for reformation of manners and discipline in right living,
(2 Tim 3:16 Lamsa) All scripture written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness;
(2 Tim 3:16 NEB) Every inspired scripture has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, or for reformation of manners and discipline in right living,
(2 Tim 3:16 ASV) Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness.
(2 Tim 3:16 YLT) every Writing [is] God-breathed, and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for setting aright, for instruction that [is] in righteousness,
(2 Tim 3:16 Darby) Every scripture [is] divinely inspired, and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for correction, for instruction in righteousness;
(2 Tim 3:16 WYC) For all scripture inspired of God is profitable to teach, to reprove, to chastise, [for] to learn in rightwiseness,
(2 Tim 3:16 Douay-Rheims) All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice:
(2 Tim 3:16 Webster's) All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
(2 Tim 3:16 Inspired Version) And all scripture given by inspiration of God, is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness;
(2 Tim 3:16 Brown and Comfort Interlinear) ALL SCRIPTURE [IS] GOD-BREATHED AND USEFUL FOR TEACHING, FOR REPROOF, FOR CORRECTION FOR TRAINING IN RIGHTEOUSNESS,
GNT's note at 2 Timothy 3:16 that gives "Every scripture inspired by God is also useful" as a valid translation (and one that implies that not all scripture is inspired).
Note that apologists never quote this version of the translation, because it doesn't say what they want it to.
New Testament didn't exist when Timothy was written
It is basic Christian history that the NT did not exist when Timothy was written. Timothy was written in early-mid 2nd century (mid 1st according to Christian stories though) But the NT did not exist as a collection until 4th century.
Timothy could not possibly have been cailling ITSELF "scripture" as it was being written, could it ?
Timothy is a forged letter
It is a well known consensus of NT scholars that the Pastorals were forged letters, not by Paul. You can read some details here as to why :
2 Timothy
An excerpt follows :
2 Timothy is one of the three epistles known collectively as the pastorals (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus). They were not included in Marcion's canon of ten epistles assembled c. 140 CE. Against Wallace, there is no certain quotation of these epistles before Irenaeus c. 170 CE.
Norman Perrin summarises four reasons that have lead critical scholarship to regard the pastorals as inauthentic (The New Testament: An Introduction, pp. 264-5):
Vocabulary. While statistics are not always as meaningful as they may seem, of 848 words (excluding proper names) found in the Pastorals, 306 are not in the remainder of the Pauline corpus, even including the deutero-Pauline 2 Thessalonians, Colossians, and Ephesians. Of these 306 words, 175 do not occur elsewhere in the New Testament, while 211 are part of the general vocabulary of Christian writers of the second century. Indeed, the vocabulary of the Pastorals is closer to that of popular Hellenistic philosophy than it is to the vocabulary of Paul or the deutero-Pauline letters. Furthermore, the Pastorals use Pauline words ina non-Pauline sense: dikaios in Paul means "righteous" and here means "upright"; pistis, "faith, " has become "the body of Christian faith"; and so on.
Literary [myspace]style[/myspace]. Paul writes a characteristically dynamic Greek, with dramatic arguments, emotional outbursts, and the introduction of real or imaginary opponents and partners in dialogue. The Pastorals are in a quiet meditative [myspace]style[/myspace], far more characteristic of Hebrews or 1 Peter, or even of literary Hellenistic Greek in general, than of the Corinthian correspondence or of Romans, to say nothing of Galatians.
The situation of the apostle implied in the letters. Paul's situation as envisaged in the Pastorals can in no way be fitted into any reconstruction of Paul's life and work as we know it from the other letters or can deduce it from the Acts of the Apostles. If Paul wrote these letters, then he must have been released from his first Roman imprisonment and have traveled in the West. But such meager tradition as we have seems to be more a deduction of what must have happened from his plans as detailed in Romans than a reflection of known historical reality.
The letters as reflecting the characteristics of emergent Catholocism. The arguments presented above are forceful, but a last consideration is overwhelming, namely that, together with 2 Peter, the Pastorals are of all the texts in the New Testament the most distinctive representatives of the emphases of emergent Catholocism. The apostle Paul could no more have written the Pastorals than the apostle Peter could have written 2 Peter.
K.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Peg, posted 03-08-2010 9:43 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Peg, posted 03-13-2010 4:48 PM Kapyong has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 113 of 127 (550225)
03-13-2010 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by greyseal
03-13-2010 3:18 PM


Re: actually...it's not that simple
greyseal writes:
Peg, umm...did you mean to say two wildly contradicting things in the same paragraph, one sentence after another?
i know that looks contradictory, but in the context of the discussion, its not really.
The universe is not a living creature like Adam (and i'll include the animal creation here too)
The universe could have been created slowly over time becaues its simply the bringing together to matter. But, unless you believe God used evolution, how could he have done so with living creatures considering living creatures require all their parts to be working for life to exist. This is why I said that he must have created Adam instantaneously, but the universe and the earth over long periods of time.
btw, this is just my own opinion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by greyseal, posted 03-13-2010 3:18 PM greyseal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by greyseal, posted 03-16-2010 8:40 AM Peg has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 114 of 127 (550226)
03-13-2010 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Kapyong
03-13-2010 4:25 PM


Re: Context or Not
Hi Kapyong,
i noticed your bible.org are focusing on the word 'is'
really they should be focusing on the greek expression 'god-breathed'
This is an expression similar to one found at Psalms 33:6 "by the word of God the heavens themselves were made, and by the spirit [or breath] of his mouth all their army.
Paul was saying that the holy scriptures (yes he was refering to the OT) were 'God-Breathed' this means that God brought them into existence thru his spirit in the same way he brought the universe into existence. So they are not the work simply of men, but were directed works by God.
God is the arcitect, men are simply the laborers.
Now i dont beleive the critics who claim Paul did not write the books of timothy, or that they were written in the 2nd century, so im not going to comment on that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Kapyong, posted 03-13-2010 4:25 PM Kapyong has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Kapyong, posted 03-18-2010 5:49 PM Peg has not replied

  
killinghurts
Member (Idle past 4993 days)
Posts: 150
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 115 of 127 (550336)
03-14-2010 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Peg
03-09-2010 3:25 AM


Re: Context or Not
"Peg" writes:
'We' dont.
God has shed light on his will to a selected few just as he did in ancient times thru ones such as Noah, Moses, the kings & the Prophets.... and as he did 2,000 years ago thru Jesus and the early christians.
'we' dont all simply understand the scriptures due to our own knowledge and reasoning abilities. Understanding comes thru the channel God chooses, always has and always will.
So you admit that no one person knows the absolute truth, and to tell someone otherwise is a lie.
Do you find it strange when religions claim "the truth", when in your own words, you have described it as unattainable due to our own reasoning and knowledge?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Peg, posted 03-09-2010 3:25 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Peg, posted 03-15-2010 1:26 AM killinghurts has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 116 of 127 (550351)
03-15-2010 1:26 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by killinghurts
03-14-2010 9:09 PM


Re: Context or Not
killinghurts writes:
So you admit that no one person knows the absolute truth, and to tell someone otherwise is a lie.
Do you find it strange when religions claim "the truth", when in your own words, you have described it as unattainable due to our own reasoning and knowledge?
i certainly didnt describe it as unattainable.
If you get your water from a clean source, the water will be clean. If you get your water from a dirty source, it will be dirty.
God always provides an avenue to understanding. You just have to find the avenue he uses.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by killinghurts, posted 03-14-2010 9:09 PM killinghurts has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by killinghurts, posted 03-15-2010 11:16 PM Peg has replied

  
killinghurts
Member (Idle past 4993 days)
Posts: 150
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 117 of 127 (550517)
03-15-2010 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Peg
03-15-2010 1:26 AM


Re: Context or Not
"Peg" writes:
i certainly didnt describe it as unattainable.
You certainly did, unless I have misinterpreted the following:
"Peg" writes:
we' dont all simply understand the scriptures due to our own knowledge and reasoning abilities.
..?
"Peg" writes:
If you get your water from a clean source, the water will be clean. If you get your water from a dirty source, it will be dirty.
Okay, I'll play along with your riddle -> How do you know the water source is clean?
Edited by killinghurts, : context

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Peg, posted 03-15-2010 1:26 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Peg, posted 03-16-2010 12:31 AM killinghurts has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 118 of 127 (550521)
03-16-2010 12:31 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by killinghurts
03-15-2010 11:16 PM


Re: Context or Not
killinghurts writes:
How do you know the water source is clean?
you test it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by killinghurts, posted 03-15-2010 11:16 PM killinghurts has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by killinghurts, posted 03-16-2010 1:18 AM Peg has replied

  
killinghurts
Member (Idle past 4993 days)
Posts: 150
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 119 of 127 (550527)
03-16-2010 1:18 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Peg
03-16-2010 12:31 AM


Re: Context or Not
Excellent.
Now getting back to what the riddle actually means...
How do we test the understanding (given by humans) is actually what God meant?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Peg, posted 03-16-2010 12:31 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Peg, posted 03-16-2010 3:37 AM killinghurts has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 120 of 127 (550533)
03-16-2010 3:37 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by killinghurts
03-16-2010 1:18 AM


Re: Context or Not
killinghurts writes:
How do we test the understanding (given by humans) is actually what God meant?
You study the bible, you find out what its message is, you learn what Gods purpose is. Then, based on your understanding thus far you consider any teachings/doctrines in light of the original meaning of the language used, you compare that to the context of the passage, you corroborate that with other passages that discuss the same subject and after doing all that you should be able to determine if the teaching you've learnt is true or not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by killinghurts, posted 03-16-2010 1:18 AM killinghurts has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Theodoric, posted 03-16-2010 11:16 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 124 by killinghurts, posted 03-17-2010 9:07 PM Peg has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024