|
Author
|
Topic: Creation According to Genesis: One Account or Two?
|
PaulK
Member Posts: 17825 Joined: 01-10-2003 Member Rating: 2.2
|
|
Message 61 of 98 (757003)
05-01-2015 3:28 PM
|
Reply to: Message 54 by NoNukes
05-01-2015 11:11 AM
|
|
quote:
Let's be explicit about what's required here. All that is needed is for Adam and Eve to be created on the sixth day.
No, that is not all. You need time for the events of the sixth day prior to the creation of man. You need time for the events between the creation of Adam and the creation of Eve. That's a pretty tight fit.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 54 by NoNukes, posted 05-01-2015 11:11 AM | | NoNukes has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 64 by NoNukes, posted 05-01-2015 3:44 PM | | PaulK has replied |
|
PaulK
Member Posts: 17825 Joined: 01-10-2003 Member Rating: 2.2
|
|
|
Message 62 of 98 (757006)
05-01-2015 3:30 PM
|
Reply to: Message 56 by NoNukes
05-01-2015 2:00 PM
|
|
quote:
A quote mine is a statement ripped out of context to deceive
Exactly.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 56 by NoNukes, posted 05-01-2015 2:00 PM | | NoNukes has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 65 by NoNukes, posted 05-01-2015 3:48 PM | | PaulK has replied |
|
NoNukes
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 63 of 98 (757007)
05-01-2015 3:40 PM
|
Reply to: Message 59 by PaulK
05-01-2015 3:25 PM
|
|
Except that we know that it did persuade you to reject the NIV translation. I don't reject the NIV translation. I have instead argued that even rejecting it does not settle the question. I don't have any problem with the NIV translation, but I don't know for sure that it is correct.
It serves the truth of the text. Of accurately representing the words of Genesis, of the intent of the story. Perhaps I am not clear. Who says that the intent of the story is to say that God created the very first animals on earth in response to man needing a companion and why is that interpretation correct. Is it tradition that we can rely on? Or can we just call the NIV 'liberal' and dismiss it? Or do we go by what fundies say? Or must we rely on Sailhamer? Some translations support what Sailhamer insists on, and other translations do not. The difference seems to hinge on the translation of the tense of verbs that may or may not even be discernible in the original language. In an argument about which text to accept, it is not a useful argument to insist on the rationale in one text and then attack the other translation as not supporting that rationale; at least not absent some reason for doing so. And this reason:
It serves the truth of the text. Of accurately representing the words of Genesis is entirely circular. You don't have any way to discern the truth of the text other than by reading the text in front of you. Or at least I don't see any real argument that you can do so. In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with the NIV translation on this point.
Je Suis Charlie Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 59 by PaulK, posted 05-01-2015 3:25 PM | | PaulK has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 66 by PaulK, posted 05-01-2015 4:00 PM | | NoNukes has not replied |
|
NoNukes
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 64 of 98 (757009)
05-01-2015 3:44 PM
|
Reply to: Message 61 by PaulK
05-01-2015 3:28 PM
|
|
You need time for the events of the sixth day prior to the creation of man. You need time for the events between the creation of Adam and the creation of Eve. All the time I require for the events between the creations of Adam and Eve is the period of one 'Day'. And if the events in 2:4 -2:19 are simply 'garden tales" with exception of stuff that is said to have happened before man was created, those exceptions are events could have happened on any other Day including ones consistent with Chapter 1.
Je Suis Charlie Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 61 by PaulK, posted 05-01-2015 3:28 PM | | PaulK has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 67 by PaulK, posted 05-01-2015 4:06 PM | | NoNukes has not replied |
|
NoNukes
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 65 of 98 (757010)
05-01-2015 3:48 PM
|
Reply to: Message 62 by PaulK
05-01-2015 3:30 PM
|
|
NoNukes writes: A quote mine is a statement ripped out of context to deceive And yet even after my invitation to point to a deception or something misleading, you do not do so. So, what does the quote say or imply about Sailhamer that is incorrect?
Je Suis Charlie Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 62 by PaulK, posted 05-01-2015 3:30 PM | | PaulK has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 68 by PaulK, posted 05-01-2015 4:07 PM | | NoNukes has replied |
|
PaulK
Member Posts: 17825 Joined: 01-10-2003 Member Rating: 2.2
|
|
|
Message 66 of 98 (757011)
05-01-2015 4:00 PM
|
Reply to: Message 63 by NoNukes
05-01-2015 3:40 PM
|
|
quote:
I don't reject the NIV translation. I have instead argued that even rejecting it does not settle the question. I don't have any problem with the NIV translation, but I don't know for sure that it is correct.
And yet, your answer to Sailhamer's argument rejected the NIV translation. I don't know why you find it so hard to admit to this fact. Even if you're embarassed by your original mistake, to carry on repeating it only makes things worse.
quote:
Perhaps I am not clear. Who says that the intent of the story is to say that God created the very first animals on earth in response to man needing a companion and why is that interpretation correct. Is it tradition that we can rely on? Or can we just call the NIV 'liberal' and dismiss it? Or do we go by what fundies say? Or must we rely on Sailhamer
The most important reason is what the text does NOT say. The second story does not mention any earlier creation of animals, does not give any reason why a second creation would be necessary or desirable, does not explain which animals were created first and which second or why. Assuming an earlier creation adds an extraneous element to the story, so to be true to the story as written, we should not do it.
quote:
In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with the NIV translation on this point.
Then how do you answer Sailhamer's argument ? How can animals be created in response to Gods declaration of the need of a helper for Adam if every single one of them was created beforehand as the NIV would have it ? Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 63 by NoNukes, posted 05-01-2015 3:40 PM | | NoNukes has not replied |
|
PaulK
Member Posts: 17825 Joined: 01-10-2003 Member Rating: 2.2
|
|
|
Message 67 of 98 (757012)
05-01-2015 4:06 PM
|
Reply to: Message 64 by NoNukes
05-01-2015 3:44 PM
|
|
quote:
All the time I require for the events between the creations of Adam and Eve is the period of one 'Day
Less than that, as I gave pointed out.
quote:
And if the events in 2:4 -2:19 are simply 'garden tales" with exception of stuff that is said to have happened before man was created, those exceptions are events could have happened on any other Day including ones consistent with Chapter 1.
Of course every event that occurs after 2:7 and before 2:21 happens between the creation of Adam and Eve.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 64 by NoNukes, posted 05-01-2015 3:44 PM | | NoNukes has not replied |
|
PaulK
Member Posts: 17825 Joined: 01-10-2003 Member Rating: 2.2
|
|
|
Message 68 of 98 (757013)
05-01-2015 4:07 PM
|
Reply to: Message 65 by NoNukes
05-01-2015 3:48 PM
|
|
quote:
And yet even after my invitation to point to a deception or something misleading, you do not do so
As I said, it is unworthy of discussion.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 65 by NoNukes, posted 05-01-2015 3:48 PM | | NoNukes has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 70 by NoNukes, posted 05-02-2015 3:25 AM | | PaulK has not replied |
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 69 of 98 (757015)
05-01-2015 4:59 PM
|
Reply to: Message 60 by NoNukes
05-01-2015 3:27 PM
|
|
Re: The Pluperfect in 2:8?
My question for you would be why you would insist any particular tense over another when tense is ambiguous. (Favoring one tense is a matter of preference but insisting is something different) It seems to me that choices of tense generate different and viable translations. I don't know how ambiguous tense really is, but I understand that there is no tense/aspectual difference between the verbs that begin vv. 2:6—8 and 2:19, which makes me strongly suspicious of any translation that introduces such a distinction as it does not exist in the original text. When I consider this along with the information on the waw-consecutive (see arachnophilia's post that I quoted in Message 58 and his link to the Wikipedia article), a translation that describes each event as happening after the one before it seems the most likely. When I consider both of these things along with the analysis of the plot that certainly requires Man to be created before the animals and plants, a strict chronological reading is, to a high degree of probability (close to 100%), the only sensible way to read the passage. We can add to this, interestingly, the fact that the authors of the second account used a method of indicating actions previously completed: the verb 'form' at the end of 2:8 is written in the perfect and so properly translated "had formed". If 2:19 was intended by the authors to read "had formed", as in 'previously completed', it could have been easily indicated. Likewise with the verb 'plant' in 2:8. In summary: - All the verbs in question are in the same tense/aspect and so translating them into the same tense/aspect in English seems reasonable,
- The waw-consecutive indicates that the events of each verse take place after the events described in the verses before,
- The plot of the story requires Man to be created before plants and before animals, and
- The authors had means of indicating events completed prior to the events in consideration if, indeed, that was the story they were trying to tell, but they did not avail themselves of these means.
Taken together, these points support the KJV (and similar) translation and not the NIV (and similar) translation. Ball's all yours if you still think otherwise. Edited by Jon, : No reason given.
Love your enemies!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 60 by NoNukes, posted 05-01-2015 3:27 PM | | NoNukes has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 71 by NoNukes, posted 05-02-2015 3:28 AM | | Jon has replied |
|
NoNukes
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 70 of 98 (757048)
05-02-2015 3:25 AM
|
Reply to: Message 68 by PaulK
05-01-2015 4:07 PM
|
|
As I said, it is unworthy of discussion.
Your tactic here is to trash me and then refuse to back up your accusation. It appears that you really cannot identify anything misleading in the quote I provided. You cannot identify any context which would provide any different reading to the part that I provided. Not appreciated. I suppose my recourse is to provide additional support.
Je Suis Charlie Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 68 by PaulK, posted 05-01-2015 4:07 PM | | PaulK has not replied |
|
NoNukes
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 71 of 98 (757049)
05-02-2015 3:28 AM
|
Reply to: Message 69 by Jon
05-01-2015 4:59 PM
|
|
Re: The Pluperfect in 2:8?
I don't know how ambiguous tense really is, but I understand that there is no tense/aspectual difference between the verbs that begin vv. 2:6—8 and 2:19, Isn't this ambiguity or lack of it exactly the detail that we ought to be discussing? Sailhamer designates the NIV translation 'questionable'. Is that really all that we're going to say on the issue?
When I consider this along with the information on the waw-consecutive (see arachnophilia's post that I quoted in Message 58 and his link to the Wikipedia article), a translation that describes each event as happening after the one before it seems the most likely. I understand that this is your conclusion. But how do you get there? Drag some of the post into the discussion, please so I can at least have some idea of what to address. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Je Suis Charlie Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 69 by Jon, posted 05-01-2015 4:59 PM | | Jon has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 72 by Jon, posted 05-02-2015 10:26 AM | | NoNukes has replied |
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 72 of 98 (757058)
05-02-2015 10:26 AM
|
Reply to: Message 71 by NoNukes
05-02-2015 3:28 AM
|
|
Re: The Pluperfect in 2:8?
Isn't this ambiguity or lack of it exactly the detail that we ought to be discussing? And I did discuss it, in three of my points. Here they are again: - All the verbs in question are in the same tense/aspect and so translating them into the same tense/aspect in English seems reasonable,
- The waw-consecutive indicates that the events of each verse take place after the events described in the verses before, and
- The authors had means of indicating events completed prior to the events in consideration if, indeed, that was the story they were trying to tell, but they did not avail themselves of these means.
Sailhamer designates the NIV translation 'questionable'. I'm not going to defend Sailhammer.
Is that really all that we're going to say on the issue? What I'm going to say on the issue is what I've already said... and what you haven't responded to.
Drag some of the post into the discussion, please so I can at least have some idea of what to address. I quoted the whole thing in this thread; just follow the links. Here's the waw-consecutive: ו And here's arachnophilia's quote of the text from Gen 2:4—25 (which you can find a link to in Message 58): .אֵלֶּה תוֹלְדוֹת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְהָאָרֶץ, בְּהִבָּרְאָם: בְּיוֹם, עֲשׂוֹת יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים--אֶרֶץ וְשָׁמָיִם
.וְכֹל שִׂיחַ הַשָּׂדֶה, טֶרֶם יִהְיֶה בָאָרֶץ, וְכָל-עֵשֶׂב הַשָּׂדֶה, טֶרֶם יִצְמָח: כִּי לֹא הִמְטִיר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים, עַל-הָאָרֶץ, וְאָדָם אַיִן, לַעֲבֹד אֶת-הָאֲדָמָה
. וְאֵד, יַעֲלֶה מִן-הָאָרֶץ, וְהִשְׁקָה, אֶת-כָּל-פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה
.וַיִּיצֶר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים אֶת-הָאָדָם, עָפָר מִן-הָאֲדָמָה, וַיִּפַּח בְּאַפָּיו, נִשְׁמַת חַיִּים; וַיְהִי הָאָדָם, לְנֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה
. וַיִּטַּע יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים, גַּן-בְּעֵדֶן--מִקֶּדֶם; וַיָּשֶׂם שָׁם, אֶת-הָאָדָם אֲשֶׁר יָצָר
.וַיַּצְמַח יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים, מִן-הָאֲדָמָה, כָּל-עֵץ נֶחְמָד לְמַרְאֶה, וְטוֹב לְמַאֲכָל--וְעֵץ הַחַיִּים, בְּתוֹךְ הַגָּן, וְעֵץ, הַדַּעַת טוֹב וָרָע
.וְנָהָר יֹצֵא מֵעֵדֶן, לְהַשְׁקוֹת אֶת-הַגָּן; וּמִשָּׁם, יִפָּרֵד, וְהָיָה, לְאַרְבָּעָה רָאשִׁים
.שֵׁם הָאֶחָד, פִּישׁוֹן--הוּא הַסֹּבֵב, אֵת כָּל-אֶרֶץ הַחֲוִילָה, אֲשֶׁר-שָׁם, הַזָּהָב
.וּזְהַב הָאָרֶץ הַהִוא, טוֹב; שָׁם הַבְּדֹלַח, וְאֶבֶן הַשֹּׁהַם
.וְשֵׁם-הַנָּהָר הַשֵּׁנִי, גִּיחוֹן--הוּא הַסּוֹבֵב, אֵת כָּל-אֶרֶץ כּוּשׁ
.וְשֵׁם הַנָּהָר הַשְּׁלִישִׁי חִדֶּקֶל, הוּא הַהֹלֵךְ קִדְמַת אַשּׁוּר; וְהַנָּהָר הָרְבִיעִי, הוּא פְרָת
.וַיִּקַּח יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים, אֶת-הָאָדָם; וַיַּנִּחֵהוּ בְגַן-עֵדֶן, לְעָבְדָהּ וּלְשָׁמְרָהּ
. וַיְצַו יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים, עַל-הָאָדָם לֵאמֹר: מִכֹּל עֵץ-הַגָּן, אָכֹל תֹּאכֵל
.וּמֵעֵץ, הַדַּעַת טוֹב וָרָע--לֹא תֹאכַל, מִמֶּנּוּ: כִּי, בְּיוֹם אֲכָלְךָ מִמֶּנּוּ--מוֹת תָּמוּת
.וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים, לֹא-טוֹב הֱיוֹת הָאָדָם לְבַדּוֹ; אֶעֱשֶׂה-לּוֹ עֵזֶר, כְּנֶגְדּוֹ
.וַיִּצֶר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים מִן-הָאֲדָמָה, כָּל-חַיַּת הַשָּׂדֶה וְאֵת כָּל-עוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם, וַיָּבֵא אֶל-הָאָדָם, לִרְאוֹת מַה-יִּקְרָא-לוֹ; וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר יִקְרָא-לוֹ הָאָדָם נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה, הוּא שְׁמוֹ
.וַיִּקְרָא הָאָדָם שֵׁמוֹת, לְכָל-הַבְּהֵמָה וּלְעוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם, וּלְכֹל, חַיַּת הַשָּׂדֶה; וּלְאָדָם, לֹא-מָצָא עֵזֶר כְּנֶגְדּוֹ
.וַיַּפֵּל יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים תַּרְדֵּמָה עַל-הָאָדָם, וַיִּישָׁן; וַיִּקַּח, אַחַת מִצַּלְעֹתָיו, וַיִּסְגֹּר בָּשָׂר, תַּחְתֶּנָּה
.וַיִּבֶן יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים אֶת-הַצֵּלָע אֲשֶׁר-לָקַח מִן-הָאָדָם, לְאִשָּׁה; וַיְבִאֶהָ, אֶל-הָאָדָם
.וַיֹּאמֶר, הָאָדָם, זֹאת הַפַּעַם עֶצֶם מֵעֲצָמַי, וּבָשָׂר מִבְּשָׂרִי; לְזֹאת יִקָּרֵא אִשָּׁה, כִּי מֵאִישׁ לֻקְחָה-זֹּאת
.עַל-כֵּן, יַעֲזָב-אִישׁ, אֶת-אָבִיו, וְאֶת-אִמּוֹ; וְדָבַק בְּאִשְׁתּוֹ, וְהָיוּ לְבָשָׂר אֶחָד
.וַיִּהְיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם עֲרוּמִּים, הָאָדָם וְאִשְׁתּוֹ; וְלֹא, יִתְבֹּשָׁשׁוּ He posted it one verse per line, so all you have to do is count down to find the verses in question. Do you see the waw-consecutive at the beginning of each line? If not, look closer. So here again I've given my reasons to favor the KJV rendition of these verbs. It's time for you to give your reasons for favoring the NIV rendition. If you aren't planning on doing that in your next post, then, please, don't waste your time writing it or my time making me read it.
Love your enemies!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 71 by NoNukes, posted 05-02-2015 3:28 AM | | NoNukes has replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.6
|
|
|
Message 73 of 98 (757064)
05-02-2015 12:01 PM
|
Reply to: Message 10 by Jon
04-25-2015 9:41 AM
|
|
Creation of animals
Hi Jon,
Jon writes: Okay, so let's start with an easy one. In the first story God makes all the animals first (over two separate days) and then makes man and woman together afterwards. In the second story YHWH the bumbling idiot makes man, can't figure out what companion he would prefer and is thus prompted to create and introduce to him every creature on earth; realizing that man wants nothing to do with puppy dogs and armadillos, he makes woman as a companion.
That's only one of the contradictions. After having our say on this one, we can move on to others. Jon let me make some statements to begin with. I believe in a literal interpretation of the Hebrew text. I believe there are two different stories in Genesis chapter 1 and 2. I believe in a literal 3 creation events in the 2 chapters. The first creation event was in Genesis 1:1 and many things took place and began to exist in that day. Day meaning light period as defined by God in Genesis 1:5, when He called the light day. The second creation event took place in Genesis 1:21 when God created the sea creature to swallow Jonah. The third creation event took place in Genesis 1:27 when God created mankind male and female. The story in chapter 1 verse 2 through chapter 2 verse 3 is not connected to verse 1. Genesis 2:4 says:
quote:
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,
Since I believe in a literal translation the events that follow this verse must take place in the same day the heavens and the earth began to exist. Under your first account you have God creating all the animals. That is incorrect as He only created a specific creature. Everything else was called forth in the verses you mentioned from the water. Notice in 1:21 the winged fowl was called forth from the water. In Genesis 2:19 the fowl of the air was formed from the the ground. On the next day (sixth day) God called forth a lot of creatures from the from the earth after their kind. Why did you separate man and woman being created under your first account? God created mankind male and female in Genesis 1:27. Under account 2 you have man created which the text nowhere says he was created. It says he was formed from the dust of the ground. This man was formed from the dust of the ground and became a living being before any other life form was formed. Under account 2 you have animals created which the text nowhere says they were created. It says they were formed out of the ground. The animals and fowl as well as many other creatures was formed from the ground. Genesis 2:19. Under account 2 you have YHWH creating woman in Genesis 2:21-22. The text nowhere says the woman was created. It says YHWH took a rib from man and formed (cloned) a woman from that rib. So actually you have not presented a contradiction. You have only presented evidence that Genesis chapter 1 and chapter 2 are two different stories of 2 completely different events taking place. God Bless,
"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 10 by Jon, posted 04-25-2015 9:41 AM | | Jon has seen this message but not replied |
|
NoNukes
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 74 of 98 (757065)
05-02-2015 1:11 PM
|
Reply to: Message 72 by Jon
05-02-2015 10:26 AM
|
|
Re: The Pluperfect in 2:8?
All the verbs in question are in the same tense/aspect and so translating them into the same tense/aspect in English seems reasonable If the language does not contain a way to indicate the pluperfect, then it is not reasonable to assume that you can tell when using the pluperfect in a translation is incorrect.
I'm not going to defend Sailhammer. You don't need to. But if Sailhamer could have ruled out the use of the pluperfect this would certainly be a good place to have done so. Perhaps it is not possible to do that.
If not, look closer. Cute. I understand your position. I don't find it persuasive for the reasons I gave above.
Just follow the links I'm not going to do that. I'll respond to portions of the discussion that I see you endorse by dragging the arguments here and commenting on them yourself. Besides my lack of desire to argue with you by link, presenting your argument in that way is against the forum rules anyway. And for perfectly good reason. I appreciate your stepping up the level of discourse in your posts. In return I'm going to drop the condescension. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Je Suis Charlie Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 72 by Jon, posted 05-02-2015 10:26 AM | | Jon has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 75 by Jon, posted 05-02-2015 3:24 PM | | NoNukes has not replied | | | Message 76 by ICANT, posted 05-03-2015 8:48 AM | | NoNukes has not replied |
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 75 of 98 (757075)
05-02-2015 3:24 PM
|
Reply to: Message 74 by NoNukes
05-02-2015 1:11 PM
|
|
Re: The Pluperfect in 2:8?
Ball's still in your court anytime you're ready to play.
Love your enemies!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 74 by NoNukes, posted 05-02-2015 1:11 PM | | NoNukes has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2