Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 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: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Textual Discrepancies & How They Could Impact Christianity
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 31 of 93 (588262)
10-23-2010 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by jaywill
10-22-2010 11:03 PM


Re: Original Autographs
quote:
What would you call His experience of resisting temptation in the wilderness in Luke 4:1-13 ?
My comment was concerning Gethsemane; but the in the verses you present, the author doesn't depict suffering.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by jaywill, posted 10-22-2010 11:03 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by jaywill, posted 10-23-2010 3:08 PM purpledawn has replied
 Message 33 by jar, posted 10-23-2010 3:19 PM purpledawn has seen this message but not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 32 of 93 (588292)
10-23-2010 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by purpledawn
10-23-2010 8:34 AM


Re: Original Autographs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- jaywill:
What would you call His experience of resisting temptation in the wilderness in Luke 4:1-13 ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
purpledawn:
My comment was concerning Gethsemane; but the in the verses you present, the author doesn't depict suffering.
This comment sounded to me as if you were refering to all of Luke's Gospel:
The author of Luke doesn't really present a suffering servant.
As for the wilderness temptation ? I don't know what kind of bias would enfluence a reader to understand that to go without food for 40 days in a desert did not involve some suffering.
This is skeptical bias gone wild.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by purpledawn, posted 10-23-2010 8:34 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by purpledawn, posted 10-23-2010 6:38 PM jaywill has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 33 of 93 (588294)
10-23-2010 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by purpledawn
10-23-2010 8:34 AM


Re: Original Autographs
It is also important to understand fasting as it was practiced then in the Judaic community (and in much of modern Judaism on fast days). Fasting as described in Luke 4 would have meant eating nothing between sunup and sundown. It would NOT mean going 40 days without any food. It would also have meant limiting what was eaten to a meal in the evening and one again before sunup.
To often today we read the texts from today's perspective and NOT from the perspective of a Jew living at the time it was written.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by purpledawn, posted 10-23-2010 8:34 AM purpledawn has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by jaywill, posted 10-24-2010 8:44 AM jar has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 34 of 93 (588318)
10-23-2010 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by jaywill
10-23-2010 3:08 PM


Re: Original Autographs
quote:
As for the wilderness temptation ? I don't know what kind of bias would enfluence a reader to understand that to go without food for 40 days in a desert did not involve some suffering.
You're not listening. The author didn't depict Jesus as suffering. He just says Jesus was tempted by the devil and he ate nothing during those days, and at the end of them he was hungry. No words described suffering.
Jar already commented on how fasting was carried out in ancient Judaism.

The Savior said There is no sin, but it is you who make sin when you do the things that are like the nature of adultery, which is called sin. --Gospel of Mary

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by jaywill, posted 10-23-2010 3:08 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by jaywill, posted 10-24-2010 8:10 AM purpledawn has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 35 of 93 (588336)
10-24-2010 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by purpledawn
10-23-2010 6:38 PM


Re: Original Autographs
You're not listening. The author didn't depict Jesus as suffering. He just says Jesus was tempted by the devil and he ate nothing during those days, and at the end of them he was hungry. No words described suffering.
A simple person can see two things in every Gospel.
1.) Jesus was a servant.
2.) Jesus suffered.
So Jesus was a suffering servant.
It is not a complicated theological treatise. The simple and opened minded can see it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by purpledawn, posted 10-23-2010 6:38 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by purpledawn, posted 10-24-2010 11:08 AM jaywill has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 36 of 93 (588337)
10-24-2010 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by jar
10-23-2010 3:19 PM


Re: Original Autographs
It is also important to understand fasting as it was practiced then in the Judaic community (and in much of modern Judaism on fast days). Fasting as described in Luke 4 would have meant eating nothing between sunup and sundown. It would NOT mean going 40 days without any food. It would also have meant limiting what was eaten to a meal in the evening and one again before sunup.
To often today we read the texts from today's perspective and NOT from the perspective of a Jew living at the time it was written.
That may be some nice cultural information. However, it is no way proves that that was the kind of fast Jesus had.
Elijah went 40 days without food. Only ONE small meal sustained him for that length of time.
"And the angel of Jehovah ... Rise up and eat, for the journey is too great for you. And he rose up and ate and drank, and he went in the strength of that food forty days and forty nights to Horeb the mount of God." (1 Kings 19:7,8)
That was complete fast of 40 days. Now the ministry of the Son of God was more vital then the ministry of Elijah the prophet. I don't think the fast of Jesus should have been less "miraculous" or less extraordinary then that of Elijah the prophet.
So while knowing tid bits about Hebrew culture is good, I would not grasp at your info to devalue the exceptional and perhaps miraculous introduction of Christ's ministry, which introduction was with a 40 day fast.
Besides, why would it be tempting to Jesus to turn stones into bread if He knew that after sundown He would get something to eat ?
Where was the food that He was going to eat after sundown? Did it say that He took forty days of "after sundown" supplies with Him ?
Besides you directly contradict that Luke 4:2 says:
"And He did not eat anything in those days, and when they were concluded, He became hungry."
Did you see that? "He did not eat ANYTHING in those days ..."
He was sustained by His enjoyment of the word of God. His heart and mind were totally occupied with the word and promises of God:
"And Jesus answered him, It is written, Man shall not live on bread alone."
The rest of the quote is that man shall live on everything that proceeds from the mouth of God. That portion of the quotation from (I believe) Deuteronomy 28, is supplied in Matthew's Gospel.
In John's Gospel we see Jesus was expected to eat for they were all without food. Jesus said to His disciples that He had food to eat of which they did not know.
His inward spiritual character was so strong that He sustained even His physical strength with His moment by moment enjoyment of His Father.
Jesus took quite literally what had been said by Job in Job 23:12 -
"As for the commandment of His lips, I have not turned back from it; I have treasured the words of His mouth more than my apportioned food."
Christ was more than Job. And Christ was more than Elijah.
I have no problem believing that He ate nothing at all in those days as Luke tells us plainly.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by jar, posted 10-23-2010 3:19 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by jar, posted 10-24-2010 9:54 AM jaywill has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 37 of 93 (588342)
10-24-2010 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by jaywill
10-24-2010 8:44 AM


Re: Original Autographs
I have absolutely no doubt that you believe in the stories, the God and even the Christ that you create.
However a Jew of the period would understand that 40 is one of the magic numbers, like 3 and 7 and 12 and so was symbolic. A Jew of the period would understand the custom of fasting and that the terms "during those days" meant that the fasting rules were observed during the period.
And became hungry does not indicate suffering.
Which returns us to the topic.
The issue with textual discrepancies is partly due to the fact that most Christians are ignorant of Judaism. Jesus was not a Christian, he was a Jew. The different books of the Bible were not written by Christians, but primarily by Jews, Jews with a basic cultural mythos that is missing in modern Christians.
That ignorance of the basics let's you pull stuff out of context like your quote from Job and truly believe that it really applies to the Luke desert narrative.
And that is the second great issue of textual discrepancies.
Christianity created "a Bible". They sat down in committee a few hundred years after Jesus death and made one of the biggest changes in how the holy texts would be viewed, they went beyond canonization and created a BOOK.
For the Jews, things were and still are scrolls. Each is a separate story by a separate author meant to address a separate issue.
Christianity and committees, human editors, redactors took those separate stories and forced them into a new creation, a Bible, one book and over time that attitude has evolved into thinking that there is but one story.
That act alone totally changed the way the scriptures were viewed so that today, many Christians see the Bible as one story and not the anthology of anthologies it really is.
Edited by jar, : stil appalin spallin

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by jaywill, posted 10-24-2010 8:44 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by iano, posted 10-25-2010 2:39 PM jar has replied
 Message 42 by jaywill, posted 10-25-2010 11:25 PM jar has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 38 of 93 (588354)
10-24-2010 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by jaywill
10-24-2010 8:10 AM


Suffering
quote:
A simple person can see two things in every Gospel.
1.) Jesus was a servant.
2.) Jesus suffered.
So Jesus was a suffering servant.
It is not a complicated theological treatise. The simple and opened minded can see it.
We aren't talking about every gospel. We're talking about Luke. In the verses you shared the author did not depict suffering. By suffering I assume you mean issues like physical pain and/or mental anguish. If it is otherwise, please explain. The added text concerning Gethsemane depicts mental anguish. Without it, no mental anguish is perceived.
Yes, Christians today conflate the gospels to create yet another gospel.
It would make an interesting thread to see if each gospel does actually depict Jesus as a servant and if each gospel does depict Jesus a suffering depending on what one feels suffering means.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by jaywill, posted 10-24-2010 8:10 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by jaywill, posted 10-25-2010 10:29 PM purpledawn has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 39 of 93 (588421)
10-25-2010 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by jar
10-24-2010 9:54 AM


Re: Original Autographs
Jar writes:
However a Jew of the period would understand that 40 is one of the magic numbers, like 3 and 7 and 12 and so was symbolic.
So, how did Jews of the time differentiate between the magical application of a number and the literal application? For instance, if I said to someone then that I was going to come and visit with them in 3 days should they do as you do here and shoot for symbolic touch - or should they set about preparing a room?
Or to put it another way. If Jesus fasted for an actual "fourty days" without eating an actual "anything", how would that be described?
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by jar, posted 10-24-2010 9:54 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by jar, posted 10-25-2010 3:00 PM iano has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 40 of 93 (588423)
10-25-2010 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by iano
10-25-2010 2:39 PM


Re: Original Autographs
They likely used common sense and base it on how well they knew you. For example, I have a brother that if he said he would b coming in three days I'd say "Neat", but I certainly wouldn't make any preparations.
His behavior is kinda like Jesus' when Jesus said he's be right back.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by iano, posted 10-25-2010 2:39 PM iano has seen this message but not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 41 of 93 (588479)
10-25-2010 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by purpledawn
10-24-2010 11:08 AM


Re: Suffering
We aren't talking about every gospel. We're talking about Luke. In the verses you shared the author did not depict suffering. By suffering I assume you mean issues like physical pain and/or mental anguish. If it is otherwise, please explain. The added text concerning Gethsemane depicts mental anguish. Without it, no mental anguish is perceived.
Yes, Christians today conflate the gospels to create yet another gospel.
It would make an interesting thread to see if each gospel does actually depict Jesus as a servant and if each gospel does depict Jesus a suffering depending on what one feels suffering means.
Some ancient manuscripts do not include Luke 22:43,44. I don't know how big of an issue this is to any except skeptics like yourself.
Considering other passages of Luke, a suffering servant is still present. I gave you examples already.
The parable of the vineyard owner's son being murdered and cast out of the vineyard by the vinedressors (Luke 20:9-19).
Now the reason I say this is a suffering servant teaching because the Messiah is not depicted here as coming in with victorious conquest but rather being rejected by those His own people. The Messiah that most of the Jews were expecting, a reigning and victorious military champion.
The parable is that the head stone was rejected by the builders. And the vinedressors killed the heir out of jealousy and to get the inheritance for themselves. Ie. a rejected and slain servant of God.
The idea of a rejected and executed Messiah, one who comes to DIE, was not the typical Jewish Messianic expectation. As such it can be classified as a "Suffering Servant" view of a Jewish Messiah.
You are putting your emphasis on how much the suffering is discribed, whether mental or physical, what have you. That is beside the point. As long as you have a teaching from Jesus of a REJECTED King of Israel, you have the classic "Suffering Servant" paradoxical view of the Messianic promise.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by purpledawn, posted 10-24-2010 11:08 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by purpledawn, posted 10-26-2010 8:06 AM jaywill has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 42 of 93 (588481)
10-25-2010 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by jar
10-24-2010 9:54 AM


Re: Original Autographs
I have absolutely no doubt that you believe in the stories, the God and even the Christ that you create.
Concerning the 40 day fast, what I believe is simply what Luke wrote. He ate NOTHING in those days.
"And He did not eat anything in those days, and when they were concluded, He became hungry." (Luke 4:2)
Luke says He did not eat anything. You say He ate something. I'll go with what Luke wrote.
However a Jew of the period would understand that 40 is one of the magic numbers, like 3 and 7 and 12 and so was symbolic.
That is very nice. But " ... He did not eat anything in those days. " Whether it was 3, 7, 12, 18, 24, 40, 42, 144. He did not eat anything in those days.
Now I think the meaning verse 2 is that in those days, He did not eat anything. And Luke is writing primarily for the Gentiles. And he is not sloppy, but rather says:
"It seemed good to me also, having carefully investigated all things from the first ..." (Luke 1:3)
w of the period would understand the custom of fasting and that the terms "during those days" meant that the fasting rules were observed during the period.
Where did He get after sundown food in the wilderness ?
The Devil could have just as easily tempted Him to eat BEFORE the customary time. That would have been just as much a violation of His fast. The Devil didn't do that - tempt Jesus to start eating mid day before sundown.
Your case is not that strong.
And became hungry does not indicate suffering.
All the more devastating to your case. So how do you know He ate after sundown everyday, if He did not become hungry until the 40 days were ended ?
Which returns us to the topic.
The issue with textual discrepancies is partly due to the fact that most Christians are ignorant of Judaism.
That's interesting. It doesn't, however, establish your agenda to read He ate something when it says He didn't.
Jesus was not a Christian, he was a Jew.
We might say that Jesus was not a Christian. Then again we might say that Jesus is the only Christian really.
I think the latter is more accurate. Jesus is really THE ONLY Christian. All real Christian believers are living IN Him. And I don't mean sentimentally. "For me to LIVE is Christ" said Paul.
The different books of the Bible were not written by Christians, but primarily by Jews, Jews with a basic cultural mythos that is missing in modern Christians.
You are grasping at the mythos to bulster up your skeptical rejection of the Gospels. That is probably your only interest in this mythos. That is how can it give you a rational to disbelieve what the Gospels say about Jesus Christ.
That ignorance of the basics let's you pull stuff out of context like your quote from Job and truly believe that it really applies to the Luke desert narrative.
It applies for the simple reason that all the positive patriarchs and persons of faith in the Old Testament were only leading up to Christ. He is the climax of these partially spendid men of God.
That is at least the teaching of Jesus Himself. And I regard it as valid. He taught that He is the greater David, the greater Jonah, the greater Solomon. By way of extension this means that all the foregoring heros of faith were previews of the One Who alone was totally pleasing to the Father, the Son.
And that is the second great issue of textual discrepancies.
Christianity created "a Bible". They sat down in committee a few hundred years after Jesus death and made one of the biggest changes in how the holy texts would be viewed, they went beyond canonization and created a BOOK.
For the Jews, things were and still are scrolls. Each is a separate story by a separate author meant to address a separate issue.
Christianity and committees, human editors, redactors took those separate stories and forced them into a new creation, a Bible, one book and over time that attitude has evolved into thinking that there is but one story.
That act alone totally changed the way the scriptures were viewed so that today, many Christians see the Bible as one story and not the anthology of anthologies it really is.
This is your conspiracy theory.
I wonder what you would expect a Book from God to be. Perhaps you feel that because it has human writers and human copyists it cannot be the product of the Divine Being.
Perhaps you would expect a book by God to come floating down with wings and a golden glow about it.
No, there are human authors with their styles. There are human copyists, with there little errors. Still we have an ADAQUATE communication from God to man in the Holy Bible.
God is wise enough to oversee these matters that you find tale tells signs of a purely human product.
Either you are an atheist who believes no God exists who ever inspired a Book, or you are some kind of thiest who hold superstitious ideas about what a Book from God to man should be like.
Tell me. Do you feel a real communication from God to man should be textural critical proof ? It should not have been copied, perhaps ? There should be one autograph, perhaps.
I do not regard this human interaction as signs that the Bible is not inspired by God. Given man's tendency to worship physical relics, I can understand that God would allow the autographs to pass out of man's grasp.
If we had the autorgraph of the Gospel of Luke, it would probably be being kissed, bowed down to, and an superstitious relic of idolatry. Man is like that.
So I think God in His wisdom only allowed copies to exist. And there are so many more than any other ancient writing.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by jar, posted 10-24-2010 9:54 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Omnivorous, posted 10-25-2010 11:49 PM jaywill has replied
 Message 44 by jar, posted 10-25-2010 11:54 PM jaywill has replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 43 of 93 (588484)
10-25-2010 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by jaywill
10-25-2010 11:25 PM


Re: Original Autographs
jaywill writes:
We see you.
Is that an accusation of satanic associations or something like?
I was debating someone a few weeks back. Out of the blue, he compared my reasoning to Lucifer's, said "I see you"--and quit the debate.
I don't have any snarky follow-up for any reply you might wish to make, jaywill; I'm honestly curious. The phrase seems recently to be used like a form of "Get thee behind me, Satan!"
Is that right?

Dost thou prate, rogue?
-Cassio
Real things always push back.
-William James

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by jaywill, posted 10-25-2010 11:25 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by jaywill, posted 10-26-2010 5:54 AM Omnivorous has replied
 Message 47 by iano, posted 10-26-2010 7:29 AM Omnivorous has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 44 of 93 (588485)
10-25-2010 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by jaywill
10-25-2010 11:25 PM


Re: Original Autographs
Yawn.
The story is meant as epic, it is a symbolic tale that describes HUMAN traits, being tempted and resisting temptation. It was not meant as a literal event.
I don't reject the gospels, just the interpretations of SOME chapters of Club Christian.
It applies for the simple reason that all the positive patriarchs and persons of faith in the Old Testament were only leading up to Christ. He is the climax of these partially spendid men of God.
That is YOUR interpretation. There is no indication though that Job or any other Old Testament book was written referring to Jesus. What is seen is that the authors of the New Testament often used quotemines from earlier writers just as you do by taking stuff out of context.
This is your conspiracy theory.
I wonder what you would expect a Book from God to be. Perhaps you feel that because it has human writers and human copyists it cannot be the product of the Divine Being.
Perhaps you would expect a book by God to come floating down with wings and a golden glow about it.
Well, no, I would not expect that. In fact that would be more likely a carny trick.
I have never presented a conspiracy theory or think there ever was some conspiracy. Instead there have just been humans and committees that have acted based on their own needs and desires.
Tell me. Do you feel a real communication from God to man should be textural critical proof ?
Huh?
Please don't misunderstand me in relation to inspiration. I believe many folk have been inspired by GOD, Mohammad is a great example; then there is Frost and Darwin and Mark Twain and the Reverend Dodgson, and Mendel and Lematre and Mencken and White and Mill and Russell and Popper and Lao Tzu and Confucius and Mencius and ...
The question in the end though is "How do you know it is from GOD?"

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by jaywill, posted 10-25-2010 11:25 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by jaywill, posted 10-26-2010 7:04 AM jar has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 45 of 93 (588493)
10-26-2010 5:54 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Omnivorous
10-25-2010 11:49 PM


Re: Original Autographs
Is that an accusation of satanic associations or something like?
I was debating someone a few weeks back. Out of the blue, he compared my reasoning to Lucifer's, said "I see you"--and quit the debate.
I don't have any snarky follow-up for any reply you might wish to make, jaywill; I'm honestly curious. The phrase seems recently to be used like a form of "Get thee behind me, Satan!"
Is that right?
The comment "We see you" written by me maybe is not that helpful. I will erase it. Your objection is accepted. However, I have said it before and have not used it to "close" any debating.
The point I make is that the subtlety of boasting in supposedly more accurate knowledge of things like Jewish customs, Roman politics, etc., does not mean jar has good reasons for his contradicting the New Testament.
This kind of thing has been argued both ways. Many of your Jewish Christians go through great lengths, in their more intimate knowledge of the culture, to argue FOR the gospel's authenticity.
For example Zola Levitt would be likely to match and exceed jar's insights into Jewish culture. But Zola Levitt would arrive at opposite conclusions.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Omnivorous, posted 10-25-2010 11:49 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Omnivorous, posted 10-26-2010 9:03 AM jaywill 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