Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Questions of Reliability and/or Authorship
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 3 of 321 (473114)
06-27-2008 2:11 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by autumnman
06-26-2008 8:31 PM


AM writes
“Translated” is the operative word here. “Translations” of ancient texts do not necessarily convey in an accurate fashion what the Source Text is conveying. Let’s use the word “Transmitted” meaning, “copied”, then I will be in agreement with you.
That is tenable, but I simple think if you figure in providence and intervention, in conjuntion with the unity of theme and teaching it becomes even more acceptable and believable.
Again, when it comes to doing an honest translation of these ancient document the Religious Doctrine adhered to by the translator should be put aside so that the Source Text can receive an unbiased attention to detail. Supernatural intervention and providence may well have been part of the original composition thousands of years ago? But so what, if translators are altering what the text actually conveys so to make the text say what is expected by their current Religious Doctrine? What you end up with is the word of the current Religious Doctrine conveyed by the current translator. But you are most certainly not getting an unbiased expression of “The Word of God.”
Think about it.
I have, and I have given all the evidence as to why I dont agree, for the reasons already indicated earlier. But I think a discussion may still be possible. As one writer puts it:
Quote:
EVIDENCE OF RELIABLE BIBLE TRANSMISSION
The Old Testament
The Dead Sea Scrolls make up one of the greatest archaeological discoveries of all times. In 1947, a number of ancient documents were found by accident in a cave on the northwest side of the Dead Sea. This collection of documents, which has become known as the Dead Sea Scrolls, was comprised of old leather and papyrus scrolls and fragments that had been rolled up in earthen jars for centuries. From 1949 to 1956, hundreds of Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts and a few Greek fragments were found in surrounding caves, and are believed by scholars to have been written between 200 B.C. and the first half of the first century A.D. Some of the manuscripts were of Jewish apocryphal and pseudepigraphal writings (e.g., 1 Enoch, Tobit, and Jubilees); others often are grouped together as “ascetic” writings (miscellaneous books of rules, poetry, commentary, etc.). The most notable and pertinent group of documents found in the caves of Qumran near the Dead Sea is the collection of Old Testament books. Every book from the Hebrew Bible was accounted for among the scrolls except the book of Esther.
One of the caves where the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered
The Dead Sea Scrolls serve as strong evidence for the integrity of the Old Testament text. Prior to 1947, the earliest known Old Testament manuscripts went back only to about A.D. 1000. With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Bible scholars have been able to compare the present day text with the text from more than 2,000 years ago. Textual critics have found that these ancient copies of Old Testament books are amazingly similar to the Massoretic text. Indeed, they serve as proof that the Old Testament text has been transmitted faithfully through the centuries. As Rene Paché concluded: “Since it can be demonstrated that the text of the Old Testament was accurately transmitted for the last 2,000 years, one may reasonably suppose that it had been so transmitted from the beginning” (1971, p. 191). What’s more, if copies of the Old Testament in the first century were sufficiently accurate for Jesus and the apostles to quote them and teach from them, and we possess Old Testament manuscripts that date back to (or before) the time of Christ, then Christians should feel extremely confident about the condition of the Old Testament in the 21st century”at least as confident as was Jesus (cf. Matthew 22:31). Eric Lyons, 'Apologeticspress.org'., Inspired writings and compotent copyist.
Inspired Writers and Competent Copyists - Apologetics Press
Contradictions analyzed:
When we look at the contradictions which Muslims point out we find that many of these errors are not errors at all but either a misunderstanding of the context or nothing more then copyist mistakes. The former can easily be explained, while the latter need a little more attention. It is quite clear that the books of the Old Testament were written between the 17th and the 5th century BC on the only parchments available at that time, pieces of Papyrus, which decayed rather quickly, and so needed continual copying. We now know that much of the Old Testament was copied by hand for 3,000 years, while the New Testament was copied for another 1,400 years, in isolated communities in different lands and on different continents, yet they still remain basically unchanged.
Today many older manuscripts have been found which we can use to corroborate those earlier manuscripts. In fact we have an enormous collection of manuscripts available to which we can go to corroborate the textual credibility of our current document. Concerning the New Testament manuscripts (MSS) we have in our possession 5,300 Greek manuscripts or fragments thereof, 10,000 Latin Vulgate manuscripts and at least 9,300 other early translations. In all we now have more than 24,000 manuscript copies or portions of the New Testament from which to use! Obviously this gives us much more material with which to delineate any variant verses which may exist. Where there is a variant reading, these have been identified and expunged and noted as footnotes on the relevant pages of the texts. In no way does this imply any defects with our Bible (as found in the original autographs).
Christians readily admit, however, that there have been 'scribal errors' in the copies of the Old and New Testament. It is beyond the capability of anyone to avoid any and every slip of the pen in copying page after page from any book, sacred or secular. Yet we may be sure that the original manuscript (better known as autograph) of each book of the Bible, being directly inspired by God, was free from all error. Those originals, however, because of the early date of their inception no longer exist.
The individuals responsible for the copying (scribes or copyists) were prone to making two types of scribal errors, well known and documented by those expert in the field of manuscript analysis. One concerned the spelling of proper names (especially unfamiliar foreign names), and the other had to do with numbers. The fact that it is mainly these type of errors in evidence gives credence to the argument for copyist errors. If indeed the originals were in contradiction, we would see evidence of this within the content of the stories themselves. (Archer 1982:221-222)
What is important to remember, however, is that no well-attested variation in the manuscript copies that have come down to us alter any doctrine of the Bible. To this extent, at least, the Holy Spirit has exercised a restraining influence in superintending the transmission of the text.
Since God has nowhere promised an inerrant transmission of Scripture, it is necessary to affirm that only the autographic text of the original documents were inspired. For that reason it is essential that we maintain an ongoing textual criticism as a means of detecting any slips that may have crept into the text in the course of its transmission. The verdict of this science, however, is that the Hebrew and Greek text appears to be amazingly well preserved, so that we are amply justified in affirming, with the Westminster Confession, a singular providence of God in this matter and in declaring that the authority of Scripture is in no way jeopardized by the fact that the copies we possess are not entirely error-free.
Similarly, no translation is or can be perfect, and all translations are an additional step away from the autograph. Yet the verdict of linguistic science is that English-speaking Christians, at least, are exceedingly well served in these days with a host of excellent translations and have no cause for hesitating to conclude that the true Word of God is within their reach. Indeed, in view of the frequent repetition in Scripture of the main matters with which it deals and also of the Holy Spirit's constant witness to and through the Word, no serious translation of Holy Scripture will so destroy its meaning as to render it unable to make its reader "wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 3:15)"., Jay Smith, '101 Clear contradictions inthe Bible, Cleared Up'
Debate Topics: Apologetic
Of course the Biblical-New Hebrew Kethib Text is still in existence. Above I shared with you the Masoretic Kethib and the Samaritan Kethib.
Forgive me I thought the 9th century masoretic text was the oldest Hebrew manuscripts we possessed. Are the above complete or are they fragmnets?
If the vowel pointing of the Masoretic Text is questioned, then all translations based on that vowel pointing is being questioned. That is not a bad thing. All translations of the Kethib need to be questioned, for they all cannot be “correct”. Do you see what I am saying? Deciding what “interpretive translation” is in fact “the Word of God” will depend upon the Religious Doctrine adhered to by the person doing the deciding.
There is not a world-wide consensus regarding what “interpretive translation” of the Kethib constitutes “the Word of God.” That is a fact!
I agree to some extent, but simply knowing the "vowel points" are inaccurate demonstrates alot about what we do know and posses. All of the translations only need to be interpreted in conjuction with what is known and demonstratable.
You are taking my words out of context, but I really do not care. The point is, the various Religious Doctrines conveyed in the Scriptures after the Eden Narrative do not alter the actual Kethib of the Hebrew Eden Narrative. I come at the Kethib Eden Narrative as if I do not know what it is “supposed” to say, but rather I study the Kethib Eden Narrative to learn what it actually may be conveying. If what it actually conveys confirms a particular Religious Doctrine, I will be happy with that. If what the Kethib Eden Narrative turns out not to support any existing Religious Doctrine, I will be happy with that too.
Do you see the difference?
I can only go by what you tell me, if I misrepresented you you are free to explain. Ironically your bias here is all to obvious. you start out with the preconcieved idea that "everyone" else has an agenda or doctrine to defend, this is simply not the case.
Is this the above quote you are referring to?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is very difficult for any scholar who embraces a certain religious doctrine to translate a source text in a manner that does not conform to his or her religious doctrine.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a quote from the “Adam Clark” article you shared:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, the majority of Hebrew scholars are "Jewish", and thus cannot be expected to be objective and candid regarding such a matter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How is it that he is saying anything different that what I conveyed.
Because "difficulty is not impossibility. Your statements seem to indirectly imply that all start with some religious agenda, therefore cannot be trusted. Most of these scholars or translators would not agree with your usage of the Interpres application and the extreme way you employ it. Translation, word usage, context and even a little common sense, must be employed.
As an indication of this you imply or directly state at times the rest of the scriptures cannot be used to interpret that which is contained in the Hebrew Eden narrative, because this would imply doctrinal agenda. Question, how would we know that any part of the Eden narrative supports any other part, or that any particular word could support or corrborate another? If it is necessary to interpret every word, word for word literallyand the context can have no real bearing,or word usage can only be taken literally all the time, then the narrative itself would start to contradict itself.
Both are not mentioned in the same verse. Furthermore, there are a vast number of “unrealistic” or “riddle-like” passages woven throughout the Hebrew Eden Narrative, which point to the fact that the Hebrew Eden Narrative was composed in a manner that does not lend itself to being interpreted as a “prosaic historical account.” If the Hebrew Eden narrative is not a prosaic literary description of an actual historical event, and it is also not a folktale or myth, then the only other option, as far as I can see, it that the Hebrew Eden Narrative is a “poetic/proverbial wisdom text.
Getting back to the “wet” and “dry” ground passage:
Gen. 2:5 states that no plants or herbs are growing because God has not yet caused rain to fall upon the earth.
Gen. 2:6 then describes a mist ascending from the dry-ground and in turn irrigating the entire face of the ground.
Gen. 2:7 then describes God “forming?” the human archetype of dry-dust from the newly irrigated ground.
That is simply what the Kethib Hebrew Text conveys. If you wish to perceive the Kethib Hebrew Text as the “Word of God”, then that is what the “Word of God” conveys.
Since there were no verse designations in the original my point is the same.
My friend the words, "which would point to the fact that the Hebrew Eden narrative was.......", are a preconcieved idea and a religous agenda. you are starting with the agenda that there is simply no way that the "unrealistic" things that happened could not have happened. Just a point of interest here.
That is simply what the Kethib Hebrew Text conveys. If you wish to perceive the Kethib Hebrew Text as the “Word of God”, then that is what the “Word of God” conveys.
Yes of course but what I was indicating was that the verbage does not need to absolutly lend itself to unrealistic, figurative and untenable usage and application. My friend the whole Bible is repleat with the so-called unrealistic, atleast from a humanistic standpoint.
Maybe as we now get closer to the actual translation of the narrative in "simple english" initially, please, we can begin to see its content and what its conveying. I have a tendency to believe some of your interpretations are there, butthey are secondary to the primary meanings. Lets see however, if the "simple" translation will help u s initially. Perhaps others will jump in that can evaluate you usage of the Hebrew.
More in a minute.
D Bertot
Edited by bertot, 06-27-2008 12:47 AM: No reason given.
Edited by bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by autumnman, posted 06-26-2008 8:31 PM autumnman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by autumnman, posted 06-27-2008 12:58 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 5 of 321 (473197)
06-27-2008 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by autumnman
06-27-2008 12:58 PM


Re: Transmit, Translate, Interpret
Whats up there Crab A.. and Grippy Gus, I will get to your latest nonsense in a while, ha ha. In the meantime maybe you could start on a english, exact translation wih no inserts of any kind, to get us started.
D Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by autumnman, posted 06-27-2008 12:58 PM autumnman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by autumnman, posted 06-27-2008 5:44 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 7 of 321 (473209)
06-27-2008 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by autumnman
06-27-2008 5:44 PM


Re: Transmit, Translate, Interpret
The following is “A” English translation of Gen. 2:4 thru 7 employing the most common usage of the bound morphemes, words, and verbal clauses according to the BDB, Gesenius, and Brill Lexicons of the Old Testament, and the Hebrew grammar as described in Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar and Davidson’s Analytical Hebrew Lexicon.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2:4 these human generations the heavens and the earth as they are created at time he makes yhwh God earth and heavens.
2:5 then all plants the field before they be in earth and all herbage the field not yet they sprout for not he cause it to rain yhwh God upon the earth and humanity was not to work the ground.
2:6 but a mist it ascends from the earth and irrigates the whole surface the ground.
2:7 then he devises yhwh God the human species dust from the ground and he breathes in its noses breath of mortal life and it becomes the human species in regard to a breathing animal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, perhaps we can discuss what the Kethib Eden Narrative Text might be conveying in these first four verses.
I still need to respond to you previous post first but thanks for this at present, I am anxious to see what the rest of the narrative conveys and reveals. I have got to get some things done, going to a movie and other things, but as always you will get reponses from me to anything you have stated. It may be very late again, I do that thing where I stay up till 3 or 4 then get up about 7:30 or eight. I know it will take its toll someday, probably in the form of a stroke or aneurysm, but Ill sleep when I am dead.
So while you waiting go milk a cow, play with your sheep and certainly do not commit "equine desertion", do you know what that is?
D Bertot
Edited by bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by autumnman, posted 06-27-2008 5:44 PM autumnman has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 8 of 321 (473281)
06-28-2008 1:40 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by autumnman
06-27-2008 12:58 PM


Re: Transmit, Translate, Interpret
Rene, states: we possess Old Testament manuscripts that date back to (or before) the time of Christ. Being in possession of Old Testament Kethib Hebrew manuscripts is one thing; translating these Kethib Hebrew manuscripts is quite another.
In the article above, regarding the Masoretic Kethib Hebrew Text, the very specific term “transmitted” is employed three times in a row. Now here is a quote I made on the previous thread, post # 302:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Translated” is the operative word here. “Translations” of ancient texts do not necessarily convey in an accurate fashion what the Source Text is conveying. Let’s use the word “Transmitted” meaning, “copied”, then I will be in agreement with you.
The expression "necessarily convey" is a very ambiguous expression in this context. As the arthors of these articles are pointiing out, this is not he case in relationship to the scriptures. The main point of these articles is that one CAN have "confidence that it was both translated and transmitted with the smallest of minute errors over the years. Making some kind of play on words like "transmitted" and "translation", is a weak attempt to avoid the force of the evidence and argumnet being made here. Again, all the ancient manuscripts including the DSS demonstrate this point, as you have indicated yourself. "necessarily convey" is a complaint not a valid argument.
I have no “bias” because I do not “start out with the preconceived idea that ”everyone’ else has an agenda or doctrine to defend’. I start out by interpres translating the Kethib Source Hebrew Text. Then I compare the various interpres translations that may or may not work in the Kethib Source Hebrew Text to the expositor translations performed by other scholars. That is how I perform my research. What the Kethib Source Hebrew Text conveys is what the Text conveys. It is as simple as that.
Indicating as you have numerous times now that scholars and the average person brings to the text thier preconcieved ideas or doctrinal views is most certainly a bias from your perspective. You apply to yourself some sort of "complete objectivity", when approaching the texts, but for others this is not possible because thier interpretations do not agree wtih yours and this ofcourse must be due to thier doctrinal backgrounds, not thier objectivity in the matter. Is this not the issue you have set out in the previous posts, both directly and indirectly? here is a quote from you below:
AM writes
It is very difficult for any scholar who embraces a certain religious doctrine to translate a source text in a manner that does not conform to his or her religious doctrine.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AM wrote: Is this the above quote you are referring to? quote:------------------------------------------------------------------
It is very difficult for any scholar who embraces a certain religious doctrine to translate a source text in a manner that does not conform to his or her religious doctrine.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a quote from the “Adam Clark” article you shared:
quote:------------------------------------------------------------------
However, the majority of Hebrew scholars are "Jewish", and thus cannot be expected to be objective and candid regarding such a matter.-----------------------------------------------------------------
How is it that he is saying anything different that what I conveyed.
Again, and I guess you paid no attention to what i said in this connection. Simply because "some" individuals cannot be objective does not mean alot were not. Further, objectivity can be obtained from the existing ancient manuscripts that we do possess
Thankfully, it was not "only" Jewish scholars that were involved in this process, which would lend to a greater possibility of objectivity in this connection. The quotes you are highlighting here were not meant to be understood to the extent that you are applying them.
Finally, you are dismissing the very real possibility of guidance and intervention in the overall process. It is not unreasonable or unrealistic to believe that, A God, you believe in would and could accomplish this task. I know you are tired of hearing this concept, but the iorny is that both reality (physical universe) and the evidence indicate the very real possibilty of this category.
I do not apply the interpres method of translation in an “extreme way.” I first and foremost translate the Hebrew Kethib Source Text. Then, after the Hebrew Kethib Source Text is interpres translated, then and only then, do I begin the “interpretation” of the Hebrew Kethib Source Text. During this exegetical/interpretive process is where “narrative context” and “a little common sense” is employed. This exegetical/interpretive process is not employed during the interpres translation of the Hebrew Kethib Source Text.
That is as clear, concise, and honest as I can explain the method I employ when translating the Hebrew Kethib Source Text into English. I hope you might finally understand.
I appreciate you attempts here to avoid an obvious flaw in what you say above and what you have indicated in ealier posts. But this simply will not work. The exigetical or interprative process is actually incorperated with and during any interpres method. In context and with the correct translation of words one could easily see and understand at the same time ,that damp or wet ground does not necessarily imply "at the same time" as the dry ground (dust)that was used to form man, in the same time frame. If however, one immediatley concludes that there must be a contradiction here, they simply have not left an extreme form of the interpres method and employed any other form of interpretation. See what I mean.
It is not necessary to see it as poetic to avoid a contradiction that does not exist in the first place.
The rest of the Scriptures can be used to interpret the Kethib Hebrew Eden Narrative when the common usage of a Hebrew term or terminology is trying to be established. But attempting to employ the context of the rest of the Old and New Testaments to force the Kethib Hebrew Eden Narrative to fit Rabbinic Judaism or Pauline Christianity does nothing but treat the Kethib Hebrew Eden Narrative in the same fashion as the Masoretic Hebrew Scholars who added the vowel points, vocalization marks and punctuation to the Kethib Hebrew Source Text in the 6th to the 9th centuries CE. Remember what Adam Clark said above:
Notice the obvious assumptions in the above statements. You indirectly imply that he Eden "narrative" must be older than any of the rest of the Pentatuch, which it is not. Rememberthe question I asked you at another point. Has the Eden narrative ever been discovered "apart" from the book of Genesis, answer NO. You assume that the rest of the scriptures must be interpreted by the Eden narrative and not vis versa.
The immediate problem you are faced with here is that the author of the Eden narrative is also the author of the rest of the Pentatuch. That same author would bethe best "interpreter" of what the Eden narrative was or was not. He however,indicates himself that it was a real story. In Exodus 20:8-11 and many other chapter and verses that could be brought to bare on this contention.
Your insurmountable task in this connection is to disconnect the Narrative from the its AUTHOR, the first five books of Moses, the rest of the OT scriptures, the NT scriptures, Jesus Christ, most if not all BC and AD Jews and Christians that believed it as it is set out in the rest of the OT, every OT Prophet, King, Priest and Judge. Knock yourself out.
2:7 then he devises yhwh God the human species dust from the ground and he breathes in its noses breath of mortal life and it becomes the human species in regard to a breathing animal.
Thank you for this easy to read translation and I really mean that.
Ok the name Adam is not mentioned, will however, the rest of the narrative translated this way indicate that these may have very well been actual people (first two people), as a result of the rest of the narrative and its story?
Now, perhaps we can discuss what the Kethib Eden Narrative Text might be conveying in these first four verses.
By all means proceed.
Off the topic however, I started to ask you this on memorial day but forgot. It has always perplexed me why D-day was conducted in broad daylight for the beach landings, which made the troops sitting ducks. Would it not have been better at night to avoid such a shooting gallery. I thought I remembered you saying you were a Veteran. Maybe you or someone else could provide a answer, thanks
D Bertot
Edited by bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by autumnman, posted 06-27-2008 12:58 PM autumnman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by autumnman, posted 06-28-2008 10:59 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 10 of 321 (473342)
06-28-2008 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by autumnman
06-28-2008 10:59 AM


Re: Transmit, Translate, Interpret
bertot wrote:
The expression "necessarily convey" is a very ambiguous expression in this context. As the arthors of these articles are pointiing out, this is not he case in relationship to the scriptures. The main point of these articles is that one CAN have "confidence that it was both translated and transmitted with the smallest of minute errors over the years.
That is not what I am reading in the article. Again I quote the article:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EVIDENCE OF RELIABLE BIBLE TRANSMISSION
The Old Testament: Textual critics have found that these ancient copies of Old Testament books are amazingly similar to the Masoretic text. Indeed, they serve as proof that the Old Testament text has been transmitted faithfully through the centuries. As Rene Paché concluded: “Since it can be demonstrated that the text of the Old Testament was accurately transmitted for the last 2,000 years, one may reasonably suppose that it had been so transmitted from the beginning” (1971, p. 191).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with the article. I disagree with you. And where in the article is the expression “necessarily convey” employed? I’m going to go back up to post #3 and read it again. If I find the clause “necessarily convey” I’ll let you know. Well, the clause “necessarily convey” is not in the article, so I guess it is a quote of mine. There is nothing ambiguous about the clause “necessarily convey”.
However, I must tell you, you are wearing me down and out. If you want to claim that the English terms “translated” and “transmitted” are synonymous, that is fine, but I can not continue a conversation with someone who does not even acknowledge the definitions of the English words I am employing.
You, my friend, can believe anything that makes you feel good, right or righteous. I really do not care.
You my friend are a unbelievably arrogant person. I never said that the words translated and transmitted are synonymus. I was simply saying that they are not in contradiction with each other. that the authors of these articles are conveying that we can "have confidence in the fact that we have for all intents and purposes what was originally written". What do the words: "Since it can be demonstrated that the text of the Old Testament was accurately transmitted for the last 2,000 years, one may reasonably suppose that it had been so transmitted from the beginning” (1971, p. 191).", mean to you.
Only a person wishing to distort the truth and reality, would try and ignore this point.
How in the world my friend can you agree with the article but not with me, I also agree with the import of his argument, thats why I posted it. Here are the definitions of Translated and transmitted, both if the words are incorrperated with eachother , and they over lap each other, so as to not be completly distinguished from eachother. In other words they are not in opposition to each other as you are indirectly indicating.
trans·la·tion Audio Help /trænsle‘n, trænz-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[trans-ley-shuhn, tranz-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
-noun 1. the rendering of something into another language or into one's own from another language.
2. a version of such a rendering: a new translation of Plato.
3. change or conversion to another form, appearance, etc.; transformation: a swift translation of thought into action.
4. the act or process of translating.
5. the state of being translated.
6. Mechanics. motion in which all particles of a body move with the same velocity along parallel paths.
7. Telegraphy. the retransmitting or forwarding of a message, as by relay.
8. Mathematics. a. a function obtained from a given function by adding the same constant to each value of the variable of the given function and moving the graph of the function a constant distance to the right or left.
b. a transformation in which every point of a geometric figure is moved the same distance in the same direction.
9. Genetics. the process by which a messenger RNA molecule specifies the linear sequence of amino acids on a ribosome for protein synthesis.
Compare genetic code.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Origin: 1300-50; < L trnsltin- (s. of trnslti) a transferring, equiv. to trnslt(us) (see translate) + -in- -ion; r. ME translacioun < AF < L, as above]
”Related forms
trans·la·tion·al, adjective
trans·la·tion·al·ly, adverb
”Synonyms 2. Translation, paraphrase, version refer to a rewording of something. A translation is a rendering of the same ideas in a different language from the original: a translation from Greek into English. A paraphrase is a free rendering of the sense of a passage in other words, usually in the same language: a paraphrase of a poem. A version is a translation, esp. of the Bible, or else an account of something illustrating a particular point of view: the Douay Version.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
trans·mit Audio Help /trænsmt, trænz-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[trans-mit, tranz-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, -mit·ted, -mit·ting.
-verb (used with object) 1. to send or forward, as to a recipient or destination; dispatch; convey.
2. to communicate, as information or news.
3. to pass or spread (disease, infection, etc.) to another.
4. to pass on (a genetic characteristic) from parent to offspring: The mother transmitted her red hair to her daughter.
5. Physics. a. to cause (light, heat, sound, etc.) to pass through a medium.
b. to convey or pass along (an impulse, force, motion, etc.).
c. to permit (light, heat, etc.) to pass through: Glass transmits light.
6. Radio and Television. to emit (electromagnetic waves).
-verb (used without object) 7. to send a signal by wire, radio, or television waves.
8. to pass on a right or obligation to heirs or descendants.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Origin: 1350-1400; ME transmitten < L trnsmittere to send across, equiv. to trns- trans- + mittere to send]
”Related forms
trans·mit·ta·ble, trans·mit·ti·ble, adjective
”Synonyms 1. transfer, remit. 2. bear. See carry.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.
transmit
To learn more about transmit visit Britannica.com
© 2008 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This trans·mit Audio Help (trns-mt', trnz-) Pronunciation Key
v. trans·mit·ted, trans·mit·ting, trans·mits
v. tr.
To send from one person, thing, or place to another; convey. See Synonyms at convey, send1.
To cause to spread; pass on: transmit an infection.
To impart or convey to others by heredity or inheritance; hand down.
To pass along (news or information); communicate.
Electronics To send (a signal), as by wire or radio.
Physics To cause (a disturbance) to propagate through a medium.
To convey (force or energy) from one part of a mechanism to another.
v. intr.
To send out a signal.
[Middle English transmitten, from Latin trnsmittere : trns-, trans- + mittere, to send.]
trans·mit'ta·ble adj.
(Download Now or Buy the Book) The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Online Etymology Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
transmit
c.1400, from L. transmittere "send across, transfer, pass on," from trans- "across" + mittere "to send." Transmitter "apparatus for receiving radio signals" is first attested 1934.
Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper
WordNet - Cite This Source - Share This transmit
verb
1. transfer to another; "communicate a disease" [syn: convey]
2. transmit or serve as the medium for transmission; "Sound carries well over water"; "The airwaves carry the sound"; "Many metals conduct heat" [syn: impart]
3. broadcast over the airwaves, as in radio or television; "We cannot air this X-rated song" [syn: air]
4. send from one person or place to another; "transmit a message"
WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.
Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary (Beta Version) - Cite This Source - Share This
transmit1 [tr—nzmit] verb ” past tense, past participle transmitted
to pass on
Example: He transmitted the message; Insects can transmit disease. Arabic: ’’’’’’’’
Chinese (Simplified): ’‘
Chinese (Traditional): ’‘
Czech: pedat; penést
Danish: overfre
Dutch: overbrengen
Estonian: edasi andma
Finnish: levitt
French: transmettre
German: bermitteln,-tragen
Greek: , ,
Hungarian: átad
Icelandic: senda (áfram); breia t
Italian: trasmettere
Japanese:
Korean: , (‘)
Lithuanian: perduoti, perneti
Polish: przekazywa, przenosi
Portuguese (Brazil): transmitir
Portuguese (Portugal): transmitir
Romanian: a transmite, a difuza
Russian: ‘; ‘
Spanish: transmitir
Swedish: vidarebefordra, verfra
Turkish: yaymak, geirmek
transmit2 [tr—nzmit] verb
to send out (radio or television signals, programmes etc)
Example: The programme will be transmitted at 5.00 p.m. Arabic: ’’‘’’‘’’ ‘‘’’‘‘’’’’’‘’
Chinese (Simplified): ‘‘’
Chinese (Traditional): ‘’
Czech: vysílat
Danish: transmittere
Dutch: uitzenden
Estonian: le kandma
Finnish: lhett
French: transmettre
German: senden
Greek:
Hungarian: kzvetít
Icelandic: senda t
Italian: trasmettere
Japanese:
Korean:
Lithuanian: perduoti, transliuoti
Polish: nadawa
Portuguese (Brazil): transmitir
Portuguese (Portugal): transmitir
Romanian: a transmite
Russian: ‘
Spanish: transmitir
Swedish: snda
Turkish: yaynlamak
See also: transmission, transmitter
Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary (Beta Version), © 2000-2006 K Dictionaries Ltd.
American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
trans·mit (trns-mt, trnz-)
v. trans·mit·ted, trans·mit·ting, trans·mits
To send from one person, thing, or place to another; convey.
To cause to spread; pass on.
To impart or convey to others by heredity or inheritance; hand down.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
trans·mitta·ble adj.
The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary
Copyright © 2002, 2001, 1995 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
Main Entry: trans·mit
Pronunciation: tran(t)s-'mit, tranz-
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Forms: trans·mit·ted; trans·mit·ting
: to pass, transfer, or convey from one person or place to another: as a : to pass or convey by heredity b : to convey (infection) abroad or to another c : to cause (energy) to be conveyed through space or a medium
Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law - Cite This Source - Share This
Main Entry: trans·mit
Pronunciation: tranz-'mit, trans-
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Forms: trans·mit·ted; trans·mit·ting
1 : to send or convey from one person or place to another
2 : to transfer esp. by inheritance ”trans·mit·ta·ble /-'mi-t&-b&l/ adjective ”trans·mit·tal /-'mit-&l/ noun
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
Transmit
Trans*mis"sion\, n. [L. transmissio; cf. F. transmission. See Transmit.]
1. The act of transmitting, or the state of being transmitted; as, the transmission of letters, writings, papers, news, and the like, from one country to another; the transmission of rights, titles, or privileges, from father to son, or from one generation to another.
2. (Law) The right possessed by an heir or legatee of transmitting to his successor or successors any inheritance, legacy, right, or privilege, to which he is entitled, even if he should die without enjoying or exercising it. Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
Transmit
Trans*mit"\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Transmitted; p. pr. & vb. n. Transmitting.] [L. transmittere, transmissum; trans across, over + mittere to send: cf. F. transmettre. See Missile.]
1. To cause to pass over or through; to communicate by sending; to send from one person or place to another; to pass on or down as by inheritance; as, to transmit a memorial; to transmit dispatches; to transmit money, or bills of exchange, from one country to another.
The ancientest fathers must be next removed, as Clement of Alexandria, and that Eusebian book of evangelic preparation, transmitting our ears through a hoard of heathenish obscenities to receive the gospel. --Milton.
The scepter of that kingdom continued to be transmitted in the dynasty of Castile. --Prescott.
2. To suffer to pass through; as, glass transmits light; metals transmit, or conduct, electricity. Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
View results from: Dictionary | Thesaurus | Encyclopedia | All Reference | the Web
Somehing translated can be something transmitted, something transmitted can be something Translated. The words compliment eachother they dont contradict eachother.
Again I never said the words Necessarily Convey were in the article, I said that they were not an argumentbut a complaint.
Bertotwrites: By all means proceed.
AM writes:You already know what the text says, so I will not waste my time.
The reason you will not waste your time is because you know the rest of the text will demonstrate the point that it could be understood as a literal story. This is why you only posted 4 verses initially. you did not come to debate, you came with an agenda, if that agenda is contradicted, you through a fit and say things like "like I dont really care what you believe" and "I dont want to talk to you anymore".
Have it your way my petty friend.
D Bertot
Edited by bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by autumnman, posted 06-28-2008 10:59 AM autumnman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Dawn Bertot, posted 06-28-2008 2:22 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 11 of 321 (473358)
06-28-2008 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Dawn Bertot
06-28-2008 12:16 PM


Re: Transmit, Translate, Interpret
Have it your way my petty friend.
Oh I was just kidding cry baby, go ahead and start your thesis
Going to work talk to you in a while
D Bertot
Edited by bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Dawn Bertot, posted 06-28-2008 12:16 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 12 of 321 (473407)
06-29-2008 1:03 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by autumnman
06-28-2008 10:59 AM


Re: Transmit, Translate, Interpret
AM writes
What constitutes a Reliable Source Hebrew Text? And what translation of a particular Hebrew Text might be regarded as “The Word of God”?
The Samaritan Pentateuch as compared to the Masoretic Hebrew Torah present variations in the Kethib {letter} consonantal Text. Which Kethib Hebrew Text is the most accurate and/or reliable? Is the Alexandrian-Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures equal in content and authority to either the Samaritan Pentateuch or the Masoretic Kethib Hebrew Torah, Prophesies & Scriptures?
These are the focal questions this thread would like to explore from as many points of view as might be afforded: Scholarly, Religious, Linguistic, Historical, etc.
These were some of the comments that constituted the primary paragraphs of this initial opening thread. If indeed, as stated in the first and third paragraphs, we might explore both what constitues "the Word of God" from a "scholarly and "religious" points of view, why then, is the aspect of both the divine and the possibility of intervention never seriously considered. It is difficult to discuss the "religious" implications and what might constitute "Gods Word", when the these concepts are suppressed and never really given a chance in the context of this discussion or the texts (scriptures) under consideration.
Lets approach this a little more logically and a little less emotionally. As we interpret the Hebrew Eden narrative, many theological and spiritual concepts will emerge. The question will arise, How and what will we do with these direct and indirect conclusions. Will they have applications in the real word? After we apply them to the real world, does the application stop there, or can they have any significance to the eternal world.
Is there anyway to determine that its author was inspired to these correct conclusions, other than his own obsrvations and experiences to the physical world.
Do the concepts that emerge, the existence of God, the creation of the physical universe, the creation of man and his endowment with creativity only have application to and limited to his physical existence?
Probably the greatest question to consider is, do the clearly spiritual concepts have application to an after life? Do they express an indication of the after life or spiritual existence in your view?
When all of the things are pondered and considered would not the indication of intervention of necessity be involved to some extent?
Fom a completly personal standpoint, what do you gain from the translation and application of the Hebrew Eden narrative?
This could get the conversation started in the right direction.
D Bertot
D Bertot
Edited by bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by autumnman, posted 06-28-2008 10:59 AM autumnman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by autumnman, posted 06-29-2008 12:24 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 14 of 321 (473486)
06-30-2008 3:15 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by autumnman
06-29-2008 12:24 PM


Re: Transmit, Translate, Interpret
It is very late and I will try and get to this post in the morning,thanks for the reply.
D Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by autumnman, posted 06-29-2008 12:24 PM autumnman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by autumnman, posted 06-30-2008 7:12 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 16 of 321 (473542)
06-30-2008 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by autumnman
06-30-2008 7:12 AM


Re: Transmit, Translate, Interpret
AM sorry I am not ignoring you, just one of those days. Should be able to get to your last two posts this evening.
D Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by autumnman, posted 06-30-2008 7:12 AM autumnman has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 18 of 321 (473590)
07-01-2008 2:02 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by autumnman
06-30-2008 7:12 AM


Re: Transmit, Translate, Interpret
AM I was going to respond to post 13, but as I look at it very closely it appears we have discussed the points you made several times before and I am sure they will come up again and again, atleast I hope so.
I am content to let you proceed with your premise in conjunction with the verses you have translated.
It appears that "ICANT" has started the ball rolling, as I hoped he would, as he has knowledge of the Hebrew and I clearly do not.
At any rate, proceed with your premises and we will jump in.
D Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by autumnman, posted 06-30-2008 7:12 AM autumnman has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 20 of 321 (473620)
07-01-2008 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by autumnman
07-01-2008 10:43 AM


Re: Transmit, Translate, Interpret
AM while we are waiting for ICANTs response you are free to proceed with your primese and conclusions from these translated verses, or are you wanting to translate the whole narrative first, either is fine with me.
D Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by autumnman, posted 07-01-2008 10:43 AM autumnman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by autumnman, posted 07-01-2008 12:07 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 31 of 321 (473702)
07-02-2008 2:29 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by ICANT
07-01-2008 11:03 PM


Re: Death
To ICANT and AM,
I think this is exacally what we were looking for at this point. Thank you ICANT for stepping up to the plate with the Hebrew imput and other information. I know AM appreciates it as well. I think I will set back and observe this discussion until such time as I see an appropriate time to jump in. This is a very interesting discussion so far, especially the way you two are approaching it. Outstanding!!
D Bertot
Edited by bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by ICANT, posted 07-01-2008 11:03 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 39 of 321 (473806)
07-03-2008 1:04 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by autumnman
07-02-2008 6:29 PM


Re: MT
I think I have found a spot here where I could interject a questions in this discussion by you two very talented fellows. Given the idea that you (AM) believe this is "mostly" figurative and poetic and ICANT has forceabley argued that it could be a very real story and real setting here on earth, would it not follow that the same author of the narrative (Moses)and the rest of book of Genesis percieved and contemplated as a real actual story? In other words the rest of the book and author dont appear to think it was simply a Hebrew wisdom poem, with no basis of actuality regarding Adam and Eve, etc. Who would be in a better position to determine its literary content than the author himself (Pentatuch).
Why would God set up angels to block the entrance to a place where they could not get back to anyway. Assuming Eden is not on earth and they were banished to earth.
Do you think Eden is the same place Jody Foster went to in Contact?., Ha Ha
Dont spend alot of time on this, because I do not want to interrupt you fellows dialouge, as I am enjoying it greatly. Sometimes it just takes two people with such knowledge of things to make it flow like a river, very good stuff fellas.
D Bertot
Edited by bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by autumnman, posted 07-02-2008 6:29 PM autumnman has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 44 of 321 (473932)
07-03-2008 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by autumnman
07-03-2008 3:09 PM


Re: Questions
ICANT writes: New heaven, New earth, New Jerusalem, river of life, with the tree of life on both sides.
Yep sounds like it is on earth to me.
AM writes:
I know you are reading all of Revelation as if it is literally describing actual events that will truly come to pass some day. I do not read Revelation in that supernatural-oriented, mystical fashion. If your interpretation of the Revelation Text is in fact correct, what we are discussing really amounts to naught, nothing, zip. When Jesus finally returns I will surely go into the lake of fire, and you will be able to enjoy life with your God without the likes of me to clutter up a perfect world.
Really AM be serious here. Are we to assume that YOU and YOU alone have the right to decide what should be taken literally or figurative in passages. There is no reason to assume that REV 21, could not be considered as literal at some point in the future. You have a nact for setting up what you want as literal and figurative and assuming that all should consider as such because you translated a word here or there. It takes more than the translation of a word to determine the literal or figurative nature of a verse or context.
Simply because you do not like or find contradictory, from your perspective the idea of Hell, does not make it not real. One can certainly percieve these concepts and interpretations of words as literal or figurative, but as I said it takes the rest of the word of God to determine the validy and literal or figurative standpoints.
Example, when ICANT asked you where paradise (Eden)was you immediatley qouted Rev 2:7. Now from your perspective you automatically set this up as a literal place, even if it encompasses the whole of God (everything and everywhere), so to speak.
However, when ICANT quotes REV 21, you immediatley chastise him for considering it as literal. Why the double standard here and where did you get the idea that only you should decide what is literal and figuraive?
If your interpretation of the Revelation Text is in fact correct, what we are discussing really amounts to naught, nothing, zip. When Jesus finally returns I will surely go into the lake of fire, and you will be able to enjoy life with your God without the likes of me to clutter up a perfect world.
Why would the literalness of Rev amount to nothing, naught and Zip? Why would where you spend eternity have anything to do with the "value" of the text. This quote seems to emotionally charged with no logical sense behind it.
D Bertot
Edited by bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by autumnman, posted 07-03-2008 3:09 PM autumnman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by autumnman, posted 07-03-2008 7:27 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 47 of 321 (473955)
07-03-2008 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by autumnman
07-03-2008 7:27 PM


Re: Questions
ICANT writes: So since the man was put in Eden to keep the trees and plants and grasses and etc. He was not on the planet earth.
So are you saying Eden was on some other planet?
AM writes:
Some other realm is more like it. Perhaps God’s abode and Eden are one and the same. At least that is what is indicated to me.
AM writes:Give me a break here, my friend. I did not set Eden up as a “literal” place. You must have misread what I wrote.
How did I misrepresent you, both of these statements are your words. It sure looks as though you believe it to be a literal place, or am I mistaken again?
bertot, my friend: I am sharing with you my personal opinion. I don’t have the right to decide anything for anyone else. So you disagree with me. Wow! That’s a revelation.
You represented a possible figurative statement in In Rev 2:7 as literal (atleast from your perspective), then chastised ICANT for doing the same. This is all I was saying.
Bertot writes: One can certainly percieve these concepts and interpretations of words as literal or figurative, but as I said it takes the rest of the word of God to determine the validy and literal or figurative standpoints.
AM writes: If that is how you comprehend all of these separate yet canonized text, then that is your personal prerogative. Good for you. If that works for you, then go for it. I will rarely if ever agree with that mystical interpretation of these ancient Hebrew and Greek texts. But that should come as no surprise by now.
You did not understand what I was saying here. The context, setting and story, archeological facts, history and other information can determine whether the text should be literal or figurative. For example, when we see the expression, "the moon was turned to blood" or "the stars fell from the sky", we can pretty much believe and "know" that it should be figurative. I really dont know anybody that would take those statements as literal, do you? Other passages are not as obvious and could be understood either way.
Would not the interpretation you gave Rev 2:7 be mystical and really unidentifiable any real sense?
Bertot writes:
Why would the literalness of Rev amount to nothing, naught and Zip? Why would where you spend eternity have anything to do with the "value" of the text. This quote seems to emotionally charged with no logical sense behind it.
AM writes:
My personal opinion is that the NT Book of Revelation is not a literal account of things that are to come to pass. That is my personal opinion. If I am wrong it appears as though when Jesus finally returns he is going to cast me right into the lake of fire. I guess we’ll find out when all that comes to pass.
All the best, Ger
The question I asked above was how would your personal belief about the text and you going to Hell in a hand basket, make the text as Naught, nill and Zip?
So, show me Hell and then Hell will be real. Better yet, ask you God to show me Hell, and while He’s doing so maybe he can clear up this thing about Him being kind to the unthankful and the evil.
In the Warren-Matson debate on the existence of God. Dr Warren told Matson that God loved even him. Matson said, " Ill keep that in mind when I lift my eyes in torment"
Again you were misunderstanding what i was saying. I was only pointing out that Hell has the very real possibilty of being real and shouldnot be dismissed as figurative, simply because someone percieves that way. Do you understand now?
D Bertot
Edited by bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by autumnman, posted 07-03-2008 7:27 PM autumnman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by autumnman, posted 07-03-2008 11:19 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 50 by ICANT, posted 07-04-2008 12:19 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024