Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9071 total)
532 online now:
AZPaul3, jar, kjsimons, Parasomnium, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Tangle, Tanypteryx (8 members, 524 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,033 Year: 4,145/6,534 Month: 359/900 Week: 65/150 Day: 38/27 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Reliable history in the Bible
Brian
Member (Idle past 4187 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 1 of 300 (373925)
01-03-2007 6:46 AM


I think it is time that certain people began to support their assertions about how reliable the history in the Bible actually is.

For example, we have jugs claiming that:

The bible is a historical document that's proven itself reliable for its historical value

Yet he has never once given an example of this alleged reliability!

Now don't get me wrong, I would argue that there is some real history in the Bible, but I would never claim that it proven itself reliable for its historical value when the fact of the matter is that almost every archaeological discovery has undermined the 'historical' narratives of the Bible.

Here's a wee challenge to anyone who maintains that the Bible is a reliable historical document, start at the begining of Genesis and work your way through the Bible and tick off just how many 'historical' events mentioned are supported (or even plausible) in an historical context.

Time to put up or shut up guys.

Brian.

Accuracy and inerrancy please mods.


Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by jar, posted 01-07-2007 5:52 PM Brian has taken no action
 Message 149 by trance-lik-state, posted 01-31-2007 6:18 PM Brian has taken no action
 Message 206 by 8upwidit2, posted 02-19-2007 8:21 AM Brian has taken no action
 Message 212 by meforevidence, posted 03-08-2007 4:34 PM Brian has replied
 Message 224 by meforevidence, posted 03-22-2007 11:13 PM Brian has taken no action
 Message 264 by Force, posted 09-17-2007 6:23 PM Brian has taken no action

AdminPhat
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 300 (373945)
01-03-2007 8:32 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Casey Powell 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 3 of 300 (374135)
01-03-2007 6:24 PM


How much do you want?
Judas's suicide has been confirmed due to Archaeological evidential support.

People still harp on the 1988 C-14 Dating of the Shroud of Turin that dated back to they "think" 1200 A.D. (only skeptics though), or perhaps older to the 1st century A.D. But in 1995, this was retested and determined to be in the 1st century, around the time of Jesus. Likely authentic. We also have the box of James which is also an Authentic find and displays Jesus's name (James the brother of Jesus himself). And Jesus's cross has also been uncovered. We have also determined that the Garden of Eden has been located. The Hittite Civilization is a verified fact from the Bible. There's a ton here that I could continue to go on and on about, including resources, and the accuracy of Josephus's account, and why it is true that he did in fact write the Testimonium Flavianum.

Edited by JesusFighter, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Brian, posted 01-03-2007 6:28 PM Casey Powell has taken no action
 Message 5 by DrJones*, posted 01-03-2007 6:38 PM Casey Powell has replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4187 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 4 of 300 (374137)
01-03-2007 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Casey Powell
01-03-2007 6:24 PM


Re: How much do you want?
As much as you can give me thanks.

however, I expect evidence of a far better quality that what you have posted.

You haven't actually supported a single thing you have claimed.

For example, what is the evidence for Judas' suicide?

Also, the ossuary of James has been proven to be a fake.

try picking one issue at a time and we can analyse it and then move on to another one.

Thanks.

Brian.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Casey Powell, posted 01-03-2007 6:24 PM Casey Powell has taken no action

DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2209
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 5 of 300 (374142)
01-03-2007 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Casey Powell
01-03-2007 6:24 PM


Jame's ossuary is fake
We also have the box of James which is also an Authentic find and displays Jesus's name (James the brother of Jesus himself)

While the ossuary itself is authentic (that is, it's not a modern recreation) , the inscription indentifying it as belonging to James is fake.


Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Casey Powell, posted 01-03-2007 6:24 PM Casey Powell has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Casey Powell, posted 01-03-2007 10:32 PM DrJones* has replied

Casey Powell 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 6 of 300 (374251)
01-03-2007 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by DrJones*
01-03-2007 6:38 PM


Re: Jame's ossuary is fake
halfway right. Part of the inscription is fake, the rest however, is not.

Conclusion
If the entire inscription on the ossuary is genuine, then somebody has to explain why there are two hands, two different scripts, two different social strata, two different levels of execution, two different levels of literacy, and two different carvers. They could also explain where the frame has gone.
The ossuary itself is undoubtedly genuine; the well-executed and formal first part of the inscription is a holographic original by a literate (and wealthy) survivor of Jacob bar Yosef, probably sometime during the Herodian period. The second part of the inscription bears the hallmarks of a fraudulent later addition, probably around the 3rd or 4th centuries, and is questionable to say the least

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Official_Report.htm

This means that the Yeshu brother of James (translated from Hebrew to English - Jacob means James) inscription is still accurate :). The Alexander inscriptions are the ones that are inaccurate!

Edited by JesusFighter, : No reason given.

Edited by JesusFighter, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by DrJones*, posted 01-03-2007 6:38 PM DrJones* has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by DrJones*, posted 01-03-2007 10:47 PM Casey Powell has replied

Casey Powell 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 7 of 300 (374252)
01-03-2007 10:35 PM


Shroud of Turin - not a fake
The Shroud of Turin was retested in 1993. Its findings:

Tests which were conducted in 1993 on a piece of first century fabric similar to the Shroud's now indicate that a fire the Shroud passed through in 1532 corrupted the October 1988 Carbon-14 dates that concluded the Shroud was not authentic. According to these recent tests, which were conducted by scientists at the University of Arizona and Russian scientists in Moscow, the 1988 Carbon-14 dates were some 1200 years in error. This dates the Shroud back to the first or second century.

http://www.direct.ca/trinity/shroud.html

Yay for Ionization!


Casey Powell 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 8 of 300 (374258)
01-03-2007 10:44 PM


HISTORICAL FINDINGS:

Historical findings have substantiated the traditional cross. One finding is a graffito1 dating to shortly after 200 A.D., taken from the walls of the Roman Palatine. It is a drawing of a crucified ass; a mockery of a Christian prisoner who worships Christ. The Romans were no doubt amused that Christians worshiped this Jesus whom they had crucified on a cross.

In June of 1968, bulldozers working north of Jerusalem accidentally laid bare tombs dating from the first century B.C. and the first century A.D. Greek archeologist Vasilius Tzaferis was instructed by the Israeli Department of Antiquities to carefully excavate these tombs. Subsequently one of the most exciting finds of recent times was unearthed - the first skeletal remains of a crucified man. The most significant factor is its dating to around the time of Christ. The skeleton was of a man named Yehohanan son of Chaggol, who had been crucified between the age of 24 and 28. Mr. Tzaferis wrote an article in the Jan/Feb. 1985 issue of the secular magazine Biblical Archaeology Review (BAR), and here are some of his comments regarding crucifixion in Jesus' time:

At the end of the first century B.C., the Romans adopted crucifixion as an official punishment for non-Romans for certain limited transgressions. Initially, it was employed not as a method of execution, but only as a punishment. Moreover, only slaves convicted of certain crimes were punished by crucifixion. During this early period, a wooden beam, known as a furca or patibulum was placed on the slave's neck and bound to his arms.

...When the procession arrived at the execution site, a vertical stake was fixed into the ground. Sometimes the victim was attached to the cross only with ropes. In such a case, the patibulum or crossbeam, to which the victim's arms were already bound, was simply affixed to the vertical beam; the victim's feet were then bound to the stake with a few turns of the rope.

If the victim was attached by nails, he was laid on the ground, with his shoulders on the crossbeam. His arms were held out and nailed to the two ends of the crossbeam, which was then raised and fixed on top of the vertical beam. The victim's feet were then nailed down against this vertical stake.

In order to prolong the agony, Roman executioners devised two instruments that would keep the victim alive on the cross for extended periods of time. One, known as a sedile, was a small seat attached to the front of the cross, about halfway down. This device provided some support for the victim's body and may explain the phrase used by the Romans, "to sit on the cross." Both Eraneus and Justin Martyr describe the cross of Jesus as having five extremities rather than four; the fifth was probably the sedile. (p. 48,49)

In a followup article on this archeological find in the Nov/Dec. issue of BAR, the statement is made:

According to the (Roman) literary sources, those condemned to crucifixion never carried the complete cross, despite the common belief to the contrary and despite the many modern re-enactments of Jesus' walk to Golgotha. Instead, only the crossbar was carried, while the upright was set in a permanent place where it was used for subsequent executions. As the first-century Jewish historian Josephus noted, wood was so scarce in Jerusalem during the first century A.D. that the Romans were forced to travel ten miles from Jerusalem to secure timber for their siege machinery. (p. 21)

Similar are the details mentioned under "Cross" in the New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology:

It is certain only that the Romans practised this form of execution. But is is most likely that the stauros had a transverse in the form of a crossbeam. Secular sources do not permit any conclusion to be drawn as to the precise form of the cross, as to whether it was the crux immissa (+) or crux commissa (T). As it was not very common to affix a titlos (superscription, loanword from the Lat. titulus), it does not necessarily follow that the cross had the form of a crux immissa.

There were two possible ways of erecting the stauros. The condemned man could be fastened to the cross lying on the ground at the place of execution, and so lifted up on the cross. Alternatively, it was probably usual to have the stake implanted in the ground before the execution. The victim was tied to the crosspiece, and was hoisted up with the horizontal beam and made fast to the vertical stake. As this was the simpler form of erection, and the carrying of the crossbeam (patibulum) was probably connected with the punishment for slaves, the crux commissa may be taken as the normal practice. The cross would probably have been not much higher than the height of a man. (Vol. 1, p. 392)

OTHER ARCHEOLOGICAL FINDS:

Aside from the most recent discoveries, there are a few others of interest we will note. Here is one involving a discovery in 1873:

In 1873 a famous French scholar, Charles Clermant-Ganneau, reported the discovery of a burial chamber or cave on the Mount of Olives. Inside were some 30 ossuaries (rectangular chests made of stone) in which skeletal remains were preserved after their bodies had disintegrated. . . . One (ossuary) had the name "Judah" associated with a cross with arms of equal length. Further, the name "Jesus" occurred three times, twice in association with a cross. . . .

It would be unlikely that Christian Jews would have been buried in that area after 135 A.D. since the Romans forbade Jews to enter Aelia Capitolina . . . after the second Jewish revolt. (from Ancient Times, Vol. 3, No. 1, July 1958, p. 3.)

In 1939 excavations at Herculaneum, the sister city of Pompeii (destroyed in 78 A.D. by volcano) produced a house where a wooden cross had been nailed to the wall of a room. According to Buried History, (Vol. 10, No. 1, March 1974 p. 15):

Below this (cross) was a cupboard with a step in front. This has considered to be in the shape of an ara or shrine, but could well have been used as a place of prayer. . . . If this interpretation is correct, and the excavators are strongly in favor of the Christian significance of symbol and furnishings, then here we have the example of an early house church.

In 1945 a family tomb was discovered in Jerusalem by Prof. E.L. Sukenik of the Museum of Jewish Antiquities of the Hebrew University. Prof. Sukenik is the world's leading authority on Jewish ossuaries. Note his findings:

Two of the ossuaries bear the name "Jesus" in Greek. . . . The second of these also has four large crosses drawn. . . . (Prof. Sukenik) concluded that the full inscriptions and the crosses were related, being expressions of grief at the crucifixion of Jesus, being written about that time. . . . Professor Sukenik points out . . . (that) the cross may represent a "pictorial expression of the crucifixion, tantamount to exclaiming `He was crucified!'" As the tomb is dated by pottery, lamps and the character of the letters used in the inscriptions--from the first century B.C. to not later than the middle of the first century A.D. this means that the inscriptions fall within two decades of the Crucifixion at the latest. (Ancient Times, Vol. 3, No. 1, July 1958, p. 35. See also Vol. 5, No. 3, March 1961, p. 13.)

http://www.freeminds.org/doctrine/cross.htm

There is some more hardcore information on Jesus here!


Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Brian, posted 01-04-2007 3:19 AM Casey Powell has taken no action
 Message 21 by ReverendDG, posted 01-04-2007 4:54 AM Casey Powell has taken no action
 Message 23 by Brian, posted 01-04-2007 8:14 AM Casey Powell has taken no action

DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2209
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 9 of 300 (374260)
01-03-2007 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Casey Powell
01-03-2007 10:32 PM


Re: Jame's ossuary is fake
This means that the Yeshu brother of James (translated from Hebrew to English - Jacob means James) inscription is still accurate

No your own source, says that the "Brother of Yeshua" part is a later addition.

The inscription is: Jacob son of Joseph brother of Joshua.

The second part of the inscription bears the hallmarks of a fraudulent later addition, probably around the 3rd or 4th centuries, and is questionable to say the least

This is in addition to the Israel Antiquities Authority determining that the whole inscription is fake.

Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.


Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Casey Powell, posted 01-03-2007 10:32 PM Casey Powell has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Casey Powell, posted 01-03-2007 10:50 PM DrJones* has replied

Casey Powell 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 10 of 300 (374261)
01-03-2007 10:50 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by DrJones*
01-03-2007 10:47 PM


Re: Jame's ossuary is fake
The 2nd inscription had something to do with Alexander, the son of Simon! Likely this was Simon of Cyrene.

The 1st inscription states: “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus,”

Jacob...the quote it is referring to as being authentic, is Hebrewic for James (from English).

My source is an Archaeological doctorate FYI.

We have also found the tomb of Joseph of Caiaphas, otherwise known as Jesus's tomb. It is completely empty!

Edited by JesusFighter, : No reason given.

Edited by JesusFighter, : No reason given.

Edited by JesusFighter, : No reason given.

Edited by JesusFighter, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by DrJones*, posted 01-03-2007 10:47 PM DrJones* has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by DrJones*, posted 01-03-2007 10:55 PM Casey Powell has replied

DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2209
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 11 of 300 (374263)
01-03-2007 10:55 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Casey Powell
01-03-2007 10:50 PM


Re: Jame's ossuary is fake
The 2nd inscription had something to do with Alexander, the son of Simon!
The 1st inscription states: “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus,”

In the link you provided the only inscription mentioned is the "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" one, as well no other website that I can find mentions the "alexander son of simon" on the same ossuary, please provide some evidence for this assertion

edited to add: Here is article about the "Alexander son of Simon" ossuary, but it is not the James' ossuary.

eta: And this is the original article on the Jame's ossuary, again no mention of an "Alexander son of Simon" inscription.

Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.

Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.

Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.


Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Casey Powell, posted 01-03-2007 10:50 PM Casey Powell has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Casey Powell, posted 01-03-2007 11:04 PM DrJones* has replied

Casey Powell 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 12 of 300 (374265)
01-03-2007 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by DrJones*
01-03-2007 10:55 PM


Re: Jame's ossuary is fake
Certainly.

http://www.bib-arch.org/ASecondLook/bswbASLsubpage.asp?PubID=BSBA&Volume=29&Issue=4&ArticleID=7&

The second Simon ossuary—the one that’s of main interest here—is inscribed in three places. The front bears a two-line inscription, possibly written in green chalk, that reads, “Alexander (son) of Simon.” Each name appears on its own line. The back of the ossuary contains a sloppily executed three-line inscription, the first line of which is clearly an error. It reads, “SimonAle.” Realizing his mistake, the engraver started over again, writing “Alexander” on the second line and “(son) of Simon” on the third.

http://www.bib-arch.org/ASecondLook/bswbASLsubpage.asp?PubID=BSBA&Volume=29&Issue=4&ArticleID=7&

Those are regarding the other 10 Ossuaries.
More information.

On your other concern:

The inscription is in two distinct parts. Below is the transcription by Ada Yardeni:

Y(QWBBRYWSP )XWW?Y#W(

(The question mark is on the form that has been stated to be a dalet but is an open question. See below. The second vav is actually a yod that has been inexpertly over-carved. The above is encoded in the Michigan-Claremont encoding for computer manipulation.)

The inscription has been translated as “Jacob son of Joseph brother of Joshua.”

Part one (Jacob son of Joseph) is written in a carefully executed and expertly-spaced *inscriptional* cursive -- including careful angles and added cuneiform wedges on the bets, the resh, and the yod.

It is in fact, James's actual box. The part in question, as is always the case (gee wonder why), is the Jesus part.
http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Official_Report.htm

A little ancey aren't we? Please slow down.

From your source: Whether James was a full brother, a half brother or a cousin of Jesus, the significance of the James bone box is not diminished. It likely held the remains of the leader of the early Church in Jerusalem, known in the Gospels as “James the brother of Jesus.” http://www.bib-arch.org/bswbOOossuaryarchive.asp?PubID=BSBA&Volume=28&Issue=6&ArticleID=1#BSBA280612

Also from your source:

The Ultimate Test of Authenticity
By Hershel Shanks
Sidebar to: Burial Box of James the Brother of Jesus
To forge the James inscription, a forger would need to be able to imitate Aramaic letter forms of the first century C.E. and also to avoid any errors in first-century Aramaic usage.
Before publishing the inscription, we showed it to Father Joseph Fitzmyer, formerly of the Catholic University of America and one of the world’s leading experts in first-century Aramaic and a pre-eminent Dead Sea Scroll editor (he edited a number of the Aramaic texts among the scrolls). Father Fitzmyer was troubled by the spelling in the James inscription of the word for “brother;” it is spelled aleph, het, waw and yod. In Hebrew it is spelled simply aleph het. Only after hundreds of years would the spelling on the James inscription appear in Aramaic, and then it would be plural, not singular.
However, after doing some research, Father Fitzmyer found the same spelling of “brother” in the Dead Sea Scroll known as the Genesis Apocryphon. In addition, he found another example in which the same form appeared—in an ossuary inscription in which the deceased was identified as someone’s brother, just as James is here. “I stand corrected,” said Father Fitzmyer.
Either a putative forger had to know first-century Aramaic better than Father Fitzmyer or the inscription is authentic.
To my mind this is one of the strongest arguments for the authenticity of the James inscription. http://www.bib-arch.org/bswbOOossuaryarchive.asp?PubID=BSBA&Volume=28&Issue=6&ArticleID=1#BSBA280612

Thats good enough to declare the whole thing authentic right there!

Edited by JesusFighter, : No reason given.

Edited by JesusFighter, : No reason given.

Edited by JesusFighter, : No reason given.

Edited by JesusFighter, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by DrJones*, posted 01-03-2007 10:55 PM DrJones* has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by DrJones*, posted 01-03-2007 11:08 PM Casey Powell has replied

DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2209
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 13 of 300 (374267)
01-03-2007 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Casey Powell
01-03-2007 11:04 PM


Re: Jame's ossuary is fake
The Alexander and the James' ossuary are Two seperate ossuaries. Your own links show this.

The ossuary (bone box) inscribed, “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus,” has become famous all over the world. There is another group of now nearly forgotten bone boxes, however, that are also very likely connected to Jesus. They very probably belonged to the family of Simon of Cyrene,

Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.


Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Casey Powell, posted 01-03-2007 11:04 PM Casey Powell has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Casey Powell, posted 01-03-2007 11:10 PM DrJones* has replied

Casey Powell 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 14 of 300 (374269)
01-03-2007 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by DrJones*
01-03-2007 11:08 PM


Re: Jame's ossuary is fake
Yes they are.

But, going with what this article presents in Linguistical/Hermeneutical fashion, your source would trump the opinion and any objection of the Archaeologist here. She herself said that it was about the script: One term on the list of sub-systems may appear odd; nevertheless, “prescribed” is correct. Scripts are tightly bound to a culture's identity. Scripts were a people's visual statement of independence and identification. 2

This last point cannot be emphasized strongly enough. Language does not identify a people: script does. When dealing with inter-ethnic texts, the script identifies a group within the larger context, not a koine. (Although commonly referred to, for example, as “bilingual inscriptions,” bi-ethnic is a more accurate designation.) http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Official_Report.htm

The author from this source has 2nd hand information. The author from the other source that agrees with the inscription has 1st hand information.

Edited by JesusFighter, : No reason given.

Edited by JesusFighter, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by DrJones*, posted 01-03-2007 11:08 PM DrJones* has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by DrJones*, posted 01-03-2007 11:12 PM Casey Powell has replied

DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2209
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 15 of 300 (374270)
01-03-2007 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Casey Powell
01-03-2007 11:10 PM


Re: Jame's ossuary is fake
Yes they are.

Then why did you try to claim that they were the same box back in message 10?
Your own link claims that the "brother of Yeshua" part of the inscription is fake (at the very least its from another time period), and the Israel Antiquities Authority claims that the whole of the inscription is fake.

edited to add: On re-reading this thread I just noticed that Casey Poweel/Jesus Fighter edited his some of previous comments after I had already responded to him. SO if anyone is wondering why I didn't respond to some of his arguements, it's because they weren't there the first time around.

Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.

Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.

Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.


Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Casey Powell, posted 01-03-2007 11:10 PM Casey Powell has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Casey Powell, posted 01-03-2007 11:17 PM DrJones* has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022