Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A listing of the contradictions and errors in the bible.
Wordswordsman
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 158 (18757)
10-01-2002 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by John
10-01-2002 4:19 PM


quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WS: All I have to say about the earlier part of your post is that there is absolutely no reference to a third prophet, the only references being to either Christ or Elijah.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrong again. It seems to be a pattern. w_fortenbury has shown this claim to be false.
WS: He supported my case, not yours. He verified the object of the case, "that prophet" referring to a choice between Christ and Elijah, the prophecies definitely indicating Christ. John pointed them to the Christ, Jesus walking among them THEN, not hundreds of years later, a sand pirate named Muhammad.
quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The KJV rendering captures that, as determined by up to 70 scholars who made lifetime careers of studying the Scriptures.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, and these 70 scholars trump all the other scholars who disagree? That is hardly sporting. No comment upon having your arrogance called on the issue of the word 'nor'? No comment upon being shown to be full of blustering hot-air? You will continue to trumpet the KJV?
WS: I'll address that issue below. Meanwhile, yes, the KJV is my choice of most trusted Bible. Have you been to Translations ?
quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You apparently don't know the history of some of those modern translations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gee, in fact I do. The problem, as I see it, is that you've made the KJV sacrosanct. Any deviation is simply wrong, the sources be damned.
WS: Some of the most modern versions are in fact full of damnable verses. No such distortions in the KJV.
quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You failed to answer my question properly. You would properly look for the English "messiah" in the OT to find reference to the Greek "Christ".
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Right.... isn't that a clever ploy. Insist that Muhammed be named by name, yet Jesus can be named by a general term. You are missing the point.
WS: I don't think so. Jesus was clearly linked to the OT through his other name Emmanuel, and the many variations of Yeshua, Jehovah saves. The case for Muhammad is non-existent, with not one shred of reference to that name.
quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Since then the language has changed dramatically, but the technical grammatical rules remain the same.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You mean like not beginning a sentence with 'and'? Or putting 'neither' before 'nor'? This is crap. The language has changed since Kng James.
WS: Resitance is futile. This might smart a bit, finding you are completely wrong. Nothing has changed except for people not knowing the rules of grammar like they once did.
First, this from Bartleby.com:
"You should follow both conjunctions in either or (or neither nor ) constructions with parallel elements. If you follow either with a verb and an object, or must have a verb and an object as well. Thus you should say She can either take the examination offered to all applicants or ask for a personal interview but not She can take either the examination offered to all applicants or ask for a personal interview. Similarly, you should say You may have either the ring or the bracelet but not You may either have the ring or the bracelet."
From http://webster.commnet.edu/grammar/conjunctions.htm
"A frequently asked question about conjunctions is whether and or but can be used at the beginning of a sentence. This is what R.W. Burchfield has to say about this use of and:
There is a persistent belief that it is improper to begin a sentence with And, but this prohibition has been cheerfully ignored by standard authors from Anglo-Saxon times onwards. An initial And is a useful aid to writers as the narrative continues.
Authority: The New Fowler's Modern English Usage
edited by R.W. Burchfield. Clarendon Press: Oxford, England. 1996.
Used with the permission of Oxford University Press.
The same is true with the conjunction but. A sentence beginning with and or but will tend to draw attention to itself and its transitional function. Writers should examine such sentences with two questions in mind: (1) would the sentence and paragraph function just as well without the initial conjunction? (2) should the sentence in question be connected to the previous sentence? If the initial conjunction still seems appropriate, use it."
Now where were we?
Oh yes, John 1:25
And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?
I suggested that if there was a third object in there, the word "nor"
would have been required to qualify "neither" with an object other than "Christ" or "Elijah". There is no other object inferred or stated. Since only "neither" is used, it could only refer to the two stated objects, distinguishing between them. Got it straight?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by John, posted 10-01-2002 4:19 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by MartinM, posted 10-01-2002 9:42 PM Wordswordsman has not replied
 Message 96 by John, posted 10-02-2002 1:16 AM Wordswordsman has not replied

  
MartinM
Inactive Member


Message 92 of 158 (18771)
10-01-2002 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Wordswordsman
10-01-2002 7:20 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Wordswordsman:
yes, the KJV is my choice of most trusted Bible
Why trust a book that claims the Earth to be flat?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Wordswordsman, posted 10-01-2002 7:20 PM Wordswordsman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by nos482, posted 10-01-2002 10:02 PM MartinM has not replied
 Message 95 by peter borger, posted 10-02-2002 1:11 AM MartinM has not replied

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 93 of 158 (18772)
10-01-2002 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by MartinM
10-01-2002 9:42 PM


quote:
Originally posted by MartinM:
quote:
Originally posted by Wordswordsman:
yes, the KJV is my choice of most trusted Bible
Why trust a book that claims the Earth to be flat?

Plus, there are the many contradictions and errors in it as well, but he can explain those away with apologetic interpretations(READ: Lies, distortions, and spectulation). It is irrelevant if it is different in the so-called "original" manuscipts and scrolls since most Christians can neither read hebrew or have free access to them, nor are bible scholars.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by MartinM, posted 10-01-2002 9:42 PM MartinM has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Wordswordsman, posted 10-02-2002 7:39 AM nos482 has replied

  
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 94 of 158 (18788)
10-02-2002 12:33 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by RedVento
10-01-2002 12:33 PM


quote:
Originally posted by RedVento:
Allah is in fact a different name for Yahweh, the war god, kept in the ark of the covenant, released to destroy the enemies of the jews.
The same god who in the old testemant was not quite the nice old man portrayed by Jesus and the Renessaince.
Much like angels who were originally the messangers of god, or soldiers of god when needed. In fact Jacob got the name Isreal(wrestles with god) beause he wrestled with god's messanger.
If you would really like to get down to it, the argument can be made that both Islam and Christianity are both perversions of judiusm. Neither ascribing to the original covenants(such as circumsiscion) and Judiusm originally had no notion of hell or heaven. Our time was solely here on earth, serving our god(one of many).

short comment
Islam practises circumcision. Mine had.
back to this later...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by RedVento, posted 10-01-2002 12:33 PM RedVento has not replied

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7665 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 95 of 158 (18793)
10-02-2002 1:11 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by MartinM
10-01-2002 9:42 PM


Dear martin,
In the days the Bible was written mankind knew the earth was round. The Persians knew it, the Greeks knew it, and the writers of the bible knew it. (Some greek scholars even reasoned that the earth revolved around the sun). The only retarded who didn't know it were the mediaeval people in Western Europe who made a lot of false deductions.
best wishes
peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by MartinM, posted 10-01-2002 9:42 PM MartinM has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by nos482, posted 10-02-2002 7:52 AM peter borger has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 96 of 158 (18795)
10-02-2002 1:16 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Wordswordsman
10-01-2002 7:20 PM


quote:
WS: He supported my case, not yours. He verified the object of the case, "that prophet" referring to a choice between Christ and Elijah, the prophecies definitely indicating Christ. John pointed them to the Christ, Jesus walking among them THEN, not hundreds of years later, a sand pirate named Muhammad.
It is assumption on the part of Christians- and John-- that the prophet spoken of in the OT was Christ. He isn't named in the OT.
quote:
WS: Some of the most modern versions are in fact full of damnable verses. No such distortions in the KJV.
God forbid an accurate translation conflict with the KJV.
quote:
WS: I don't think so. Jesus was clearly linked to the OT through his other name Emmanuel, and the many variations of Yeshua, Jehovah saves.
Wishful thinking. Cut out the NT and you cannot discover the identity of Jesus.
quote:
The case for Muhammad is non-existent, with not one shred of reference to that name.
As the OT doesn't name names, any name will work just fine.
quote:
Nothing has changed except for people not knowing the rules of grammar like they once did.
LOL...........
Living languages change. A grammar book does not create a language. The people using it create the language. Grammar books codify it, and lag perpetually behind.
quote:
First, this from Bartleby.com:
This supports my point that the English we use is not that of the KJV.
You see, the KJV says 'nor' nor' 'neither' whereas proper english is 'neither... nor...'
quote:
I suggested that if there was a third object in there, the word "nor"
would have been required to qualify "neither" with an object other than "Christ" or "Elijah".

Or it happens to be written in a dialect with which you are not accustomed and it happen to be written somewhat poetically at that. Not to mention that most translations do not render the passage with the 'neither' You are resting a huge weight upon this particular translation.
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Wordswordsman, posted 10-01-2002 7:20 PM Wordswordsman has not replied

  
Wordswordsman
Inactive Member


Message 97 of 158 (18821)
10-02-2002 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by nos482
10-01-2002 10:02 PM


"Why trust a book that claims the Earth to be flat?"
---
"Plus, there are the many contradictions and errors in it as well, but he can explain those away with apologetic interpretations(READ: Lies, distortions, and spectulation). It is irrelevant if it is different in the so-called "original" manuscipts and scrolls since most Christians can neither read hebrew or have free access to them, nor are bible scholars."
WS: I issued a fair-play challenge to this fellow "Nos" who runs away like a scared rabbit, who has been exposed now as an accuser not willing to stand and take judgment. He needs to be judged in this life, that maybe he will avoid it in THE Judgment. I find this type of human flees with his list of false accusations to new places hoping to find gullible people who will be awe-struck at his "wisdom". He leaves a trail of shame.
I think his manner of accusation with no accountability is deplorable, not at all in sync with the good intentions of most of the people here. When I came by here and witnessed his blathering, I had to stop and deal with him. Now I find he "pleads the fifth" or whatever he's doing.
New Challenge with options.
1. Face your inward turmoil, admit you are confused, try to work this out. (the most graceful, honest solution)
2. Act like a man instead of a sissy girlyboy, and face me with on-topic replies. (takes a little knowledge and fortitude)
3. Simply admit yur error and ask to close the thread. (cop-out)
4. Drop out in total defeat, shamed, leaving the rest of us to clean up your mess. (nobody wants that)
There is no difference in the oldest known copies of manuscripts, and no known original letters. The Dead Sea Scrolls, which had been preserved a very long time, verify that what was already accepted as authentic copy was indeed authentic, not tampered with over the millennia. Nothing changed. The copiers were faithful.
It isn't necessary to read Hebrew to obtain the message of the Scriptures. To insist on that is the essence of gnosticism. In fact, Jews, Christians, and secular universities have offered online Hebrew courses (mostly free of charge), Hebrew lexicons abound (free, by subscroiption, and on CD for a fee), and there are many Bible helps and study textbooks in bookstores that confirm each other as to the Hebrew/Greek characters and wording, along with the word-for-word translations (leaving the reader to fill in to make cogent sentences)- all manner of helps available. I have learned all that is interesting, but doesn't reveal another gospel message. The scholars of the ages agree. The differences are language-oriented, being a problem of transmitting communication. THAT is not error or contradiction. One has but to read a passage in several versions, then study the differences according to the context around those passages (exegesis). Then, if a person concludes the Bible teaches the earth is flat, realize you have a problem with comprehension and get someone to teach you how to study the Bible. A person concluding from the Bible the earth is flat will also probably have difficulty using an encyclopedia or cookbook.
There is no statement in the Bible the earth is flat. As close as a person can get is reference to cardinal directions, which are communicated in flat-plane terms even now since people still can't think in terms of curvature of the earth. No cartographer or engineer today could have augmented the wording chosen in 1611 without destroying the actual intended messagesaround supposed statements the earth is flat. The term "four corners" of the earth simply stood for "north, east, south, and west", i.e., rising of the sun to setting, north star and across. It signified the width and height, the scope of something, like the land of Israel, or all of earth including that not seen but known is there.
The only problem with use of the Bible is the interpretations. Too many readers never get around to learning the rules of interpretation. They are easy to locate on the web, and most homiletics textbooks do a fine job of teaching how to derive proper sermons by proper interpretation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by nos482, posted 10-01-2002 10:02 PM nos482 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by nos482, posted 10-02-2002 7:53 AM Wordswordsman has not replied
 Message 104 by John, posted 10-02-2002 2:08 PM Wordswordsman has replied

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 98 of 158 (18822)
10-02-2002 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by peter borger
10-02-2002 1:11 AM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear martin,
In the days the Bible was written mankind knew the earth was round. The Persians knew it, the Greeks knew it, and the writers of the bible knew it. (Some greek scholars even reasoned that the earth revolved around the sun). The only retarded who didn't know it were the mediaeval people in Western Europe who made a lot of false deductions.
best wishes
peter

No one wrote the bible, it was put together from other sources and no they didn't know. No matter how high you go you can't see all of the Earth at once. These other cultures had been enlightened enough to see for themselves. That which was oppressed by Christianity wasn't.
[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-02-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by peter borger, posted 10-02-2002 1:11 AM peter borger has not replied

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 99 of 158 (18824)
10-02-2002 7:53 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by Wordswordsman
10-02-2002 7:39 AM


Hmmm, that smell has returned.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Wordswordsman, posted 10-02-2002 7:39 AM Wordswordsman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by MartinM, posted 10-02-2002 11:00 AM nos482 has replied

  
MartinM
Inactive Member


Message 100 of 158 (18842)
10-02-2002 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by nos482
10-02-2002 7:53 AM


Isaiah 40:22 "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth"
Sounds flat to me.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by nos482, posted 10-02-2002 7:53 AM nos482 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by nos482, posted 10-02-2002 11:17 AM MartinM has replied

  
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 101 of 158 (18846)
10-02-2002 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Wordswordsman
10-01-2002 3:30 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Wordswordsman:
"Got original texts?"
WS: Do you? How do you know what you have is "original" when your own cleric scholars dispute over that? It isn't necessary to referto any original texts. All the work is already done many times over. How many times must people pour over each word, bringing it into a modern language? You make the same case of clerics of old who refused to allow the Bible into the hands of average people, making it an intellectual exercise, couching it in Latin or French, allowing only portions let out in sermons. The fact is there is enough accuracy in translations to derive from them what the original message was.
"Then we can discuss some of this."
WS: Cop-out, pure and simple. Whatever version of Quran I get hold of will be denied, right?

I got mine. The Arabic text. I only use translations to explain them to the English-speaking audience here. I won't deny if you quote a verse AND its original text. Most Muslims know how to read Arabic; maybe not all are able to translate it, but we all agree that the Arabic text is the original revelation.
You participate in debating Muslims before. Has somebody pointed this to you before?
"Chikko mamtakeem, v'chulo MUCHAMADIM, ze DODEE v'ze RA'EE, bano Yarushalaym" [Hebrew transliteration of Shir Hashirim (Song of Songs) 5:16]
http://www.answering-christianity.com/song5_16.htm
There, Prophet Muhammad's name in a part of the Bible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Wordswordsman, posted 10-01-2002 3:30 PM Wordswordsman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Wordswordsman, posted 10-02-2002 11:55 PM Andya Primanda has replied
 Message 150 by solomon, posted 07-29-2003 12:59 PM Andya Primanda has not replied

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 102 of 158 (18847)
10-02-2002 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by MartinM
10-02-2002 11:00 AM


quote:
Originally posted by MartinM:
Isaiah 40:22 "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth"
Sounds flat to me.

The Earth is not a circle, it is a globe. A coin is a circle and it is flat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by MartinM, posted 10-02-2002 11:00 AM MartinM has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by MartinM, posted 10-02-2002 11:43 AM nos482 has not replied
 Message 106 by Wordswordsman, posted 10-03-2002 12:49 AM nos482 has replied

  
MartinM
Inactive Member


Message 103 of 158 (18853)
10-02-2002 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by nos482
10-02-2002 11:17 AM


quote:
Originally posted by nos482:
The Earth is not a circle, it is a globe. A coin is a circle and it is flat.
Precisely. Although, to be pedantic, a circle is one dimensional. The colloquial usage of circle is to mean disc, which is flat indeed. Well, OK, even a disc can be curved, but any way you look at it - it ain't quasispherical.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by nos482, posted 10-02-2002 11:17 AM nos482 has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 104 of 158 (18873)
10-02-2002 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Wordswordsman
10-02-2002 7:39 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Wordswordsman:
WS: I issued a fair-play challenge to this fellow "Nos" who runs away like a scared rabbit, who has been exposed now as an accuser not willing to stand and take judgment. He needs to be judged in this life, that maybe he will avoid it in THE Judgment. I find this type of human flees with his list of false accusations to new places hoping to find gullible people who will be awe-struck at his "wisdom". He leaves a trail of shame.
And here we agree my friend...
quote:
There is no difference in the oldest known copies of manuscripts, and no known original letters.
Would you mind naming those oldest known copies?
quote:
The Dead Sea Scrolls, which had been preserved a very long time, verify that what was already accepted as authentic copy was indeed authentic, not tampered with over the millennia.
As I understand it, there isn't a lot of overlap either so your conclusion that the copiers were faithful is questionable. At best, you can conclude that where the texts overlap the copiers can be shown to have been faithful.
quote:
It isn't necessary to read Hebrew to obtain the message of the Scriptures.
But it is necessary to read the original if you are going to quibble over turns of phrase and vocabulary, as you often do. Any translation is subject to the biases of the translator, as no two languages exist in a one to one relationship. Translation is not science.
quote:
To insist on that is the essence of gnosticism.
I don't follow. You are using a definition of Gnosticism I have not encountered.
quote:
A person concluding from the Bible the earth is flat will also probably have difficulty using an encyclopedia or cookbook.
There is no statement in the Bible the earth is flat.

I've noticed a few passages suggesting that the Earth is flat. There are numerous references to the Earth resting on pillars and/or being stable and unmoving. Heaven as well is described as resting on pillars.
quote:
As close as a person can get is reference to cardinal directions, which are communicated in flat-plane terms even now since people still can't think in terms of curvature of the earth.
Retrospectively this makes a lot of sense. That is, to modern ears it rings true. But considering that other cultures of the same region at that same time represented a flat Earth in much the same terms suggest that the Israelites as well believed in a flat Earth. You cannot cut them out of the context in which they lived and expect to analyze the religion properly.
quote:
Too many readers never get around to learning the rules of interpretation.
The rules of interpretation? Would those be the same rules used to evaluate other texts of ancient mythology?
I thought not.
quote:
They are easy to locate on the web, and most homiletics textbooks do a fine job of teaching how to derive proper sermons by proper interpretation.
... a fine job of teaching how to interpret passages according to the biases of the textbook's author.
wow.....
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Wordswordsman, posted 10-02-2002 7:39 AM Wordswordsman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Wordswordsman, posted 10-03-2002 1:30 AM John has replied

  
Wordswordsman
Inactive Member


Message 105 of 158 (18941)
10-02-2002 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Andya Primanda
10-02-2002 11:15 AM


quote:
You participate in debating Muslims before. Has somebody pointed this to you before?
Chikko mamtakeem, v'chulo MUCHAMADIM, ze DODEE v'ze RA'EE, bano Yarushalaym" [Hebrew transliteration of Shir Hashirim (Song of Songs) 5:16]
http://www.answering-christianity.com/song5_16.htm
There, Prophet Muhammad's name in a part of the Bible.
-----------------------------
WS: I doubt you will possibly find a Muslim claim about the Bible I've not seen already. This one is very easy to disprove. There are two major problems with taking single words out of context like that. First, and most simply, there is no way of following the dialog of Song chapters 5&6 with the intent of inserting Muhammad (for Heb. "Machmad") in the place of "altogether lovely". The story makes no sense whatsoever with that application. Here's a fine presentation about that at Create a Website | Tripod Web Hosting
Read it and weep.
While we all get a good hearty laugh at the uses of the alleged "name Muhammad" as found and used elsewhere 12 times in the Old Testament, let's look at this correctly, dividing the Word, in context.
Song 5:8-6:3
I charge you, O daughters of Jerusalem, if ye find my beloved, that ye tell him, that I am sick of love.
(Note): A good enough starting place, we find here the end of the Shulamite woman's dream. After telling her dream to the court ladies the Shulamite charged them that if they should see her shepherd lover they should tell him she was lovesick.
[9] What is thy beloved more than another beloved, O thou fairest among women? what is thy beloved more than another beloved, that thou dost so charge us?
(Note): The court ladies answer back. Was her beloved better than any other, even though the ladies admitted the Shulamite woman was the most beautiful of the court?
[10] My beloved is white and ruddy, the chiefest among ten thousand.
(Note): The Shulamite adds praise of her shepherd lover, describing a god-like man.
[11] His head is as the most fine gold, his locks are bushy, and black as a raven. [12] His eyes are as the eyes of doves by the rivers of waters, washed with milk, and fitly set. [13] His cheeks are as a bed of spices, as sweet flowers: his lips like lilies, dropping sweet smelling myrrh. [14] His hands are as gold rings set with the beryl: his belly is as bright ivory overlaid with sapphires. [15] His legs are as pillars of marble, set upon sockets of fine gold: his countenance is as Lebanon, excellent as the cedars. [16] His mouth is most sweet: yea, he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem."
(Note): This fellow, the shepherd, was no ordinary man, but is known to be the Christ (played out figuratively by Solomon), and the Shulamite woman represents the Bride of Christ (played out as the one being chosen to be "queen of queens"). Muhammad made no claims, nor have any been made of him that match the attributes of that Shepherd. Those words were written about 1,000 BC, recognized as being of the Messiah, not some unrepentent sand pirate born 14 centuries later.
[6:1] Whither is thy beloved gone, O thou fairest among women? whither is thy beloved turned aside? that we may seek him with thee. [2] My beloved is gone down into his garden, to the beds of spices, to feed in the gardens, and to gather lilies. [3] I am my beloved's, and my beloved is mine: he feedeth among the lilies."
(Note): Her description of the Shepherd was so vivid and extraordinary that she stirred a great desire among the court ladies (called "daughters of Jerusalem") to see him for themselves. They asked where he had gone so that they might seek him also.
Next claim:?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Andya Primanda, posted 10-02-2002 11:15 AM Andya Primanda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Andya Primanda, posted 10-03-2002 4:52 AM Wordswordsman 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