'Some still living' disproves literal truth of the bible

Wrong. Unless you answer my question which I posed first before these tangents, I'm not going any further. Its annoying that I had to ask you over eight posts before you would even respond to the issue.I'm not getting into a debate as to the reasons it could be Zechariah from the OT. There isnt any evidence either way. I know all the apologist arguments and they even admit there isnt any evidence either way.Even if you could prove it was, its a moot point. We are discussing "this generation". The argument could be read either way regarding if its the people just in front of those in the past. You have zero evidence "this generation" in Matthew 23 inludes everyone from the past though. But the kicker, is that Matthew 23 gives no indication of future generations. Matthew 23 can only mean those in the past and those in front of Jesus or just those in front of Jesus. There isnt ANY indication whatsover that Jesus is speaking of those in the future. So your entire argument, as usual, is a strawman. Also, showing Matthew 23 includes those in the past, does not mean Matthew 24 also does, nor does Matthew 23 show it refers to anyone in the future.Your entire premise is faulty. Just bc Jesus COULD have meant others besides those in front of him, does not autmatically mean Matthew 24 does also. Hence CONTEXT.This is exactly why I want you to answer my question first.Also, regarding Luke. It matters not what the differnt styles are...its the same story. Luke is quite clear "this generation" means only those standing in front of him. Matthew is telling the same story. Unless you wish to admit Luke was wrong.But as I stated, we were discussing Matthew 24. Once you answer my question, there isnt any need to bring Matthew 23 into this.Now, I'll ask again.What are the signs for in Matthew 24?It gets quite tedious that you keep bouncing around, avoiding key issues.Please, answer my question. If you do not wish to. So be it.You can stick your head in the sand and continue with someone else.Thanks.Edited by hERICtic, : No reason given.Edited by hERICtic, : No reason given.

When hERICtic doesn't like something in the Scripture he likes to deny that it is Scripture. He didn't like Second Peter so he charges it with being a forgery. He doesn't like Matthew 23:35 about "Zechariah the son of Barachiah" so he makes a move to exclude that from Scripture also.At first glance it seems "Zechariah the son of Barachiah" is a mistake. After all the Jewish Bible at the time was laid out in different order from today's Christian "Old Testament". We might assume that Matthew meant Zechariah ben Jehoiada (2 Chronicles 24:20-22). Unlike the Christian Old Testament whose last OT book is Malachi the Jewish Bible of Matthew's day had Second Chronicles as its last book. Whereas Christians refer to Genesis to Revelation as the full sweep of God's word the Jews of Matthew's day would say Genesis to Chronicles to indicate their version of the full scope of God's word.This is how Matthew would have been familar with the lay out of the Hebrew Bible: Because their last in thier order was Chronicles some people think that Jesus must have meant Abel to Zechariah the son of Jehoiahda of the book of Chronicles.Many scholars however do not believe that Jesus was refering to Zechariah ben Jehoiada but as it says "Zechariah the son of Barachiah " (Zechariah 1:1) . "In the eighth month, in the second year of Darius, the word of Jehovah came to Zechariah the prophet, the son of Berechiah, the son of Iddo ..." (Zech .1:1) It is a fact that the Bible itself tells us nothing about how Zechariah the son of Barachiah died. That does not mean that Zechariah the son of Barachiah could NOT have been murdered in a similar manner as Zechariah ben Jehoiada.There are thirty Zechariahs in the Old Testament. Many prophets and priests were murdered by their persecutors. It should not be thought impossible that more than one Zechariah was murdered. And it is not clear that the locations within the temple complex referred to by Matthew and Chronicles were identical.It is suspected by some that Jesus was refering to another Zechariah. And though the Hebrew Scruptures tell us nothing about how Zechariah the son of Barachiah died, Jesus could have had information from non-canonical material on Jewish history telling them so.Jesus could have refered to some extra-biblical material in His discussions with other 1st century Jews. We are not confined to finding it in the OT text--it would be perfectly natural to find such material.In the case of Jesus' assertion that Zechariah son of Barachiah was killed in the same way as Zechariah son of Jehoiada we actually have several strands of extra-biblical material that suggest/support this.David H. Stern mentions two: "Josephus speaks of Zechariah the son of Barach as having been killed in the temple, and Targum Yonatan assigns the same kind of death to Zechariah the prophet." In his book The Historical Reliability of the Gospels by Craig Blomberg , Blomberg writes: "The fact that some rabbinic traditions (e.g. the Targum to La. 2:20 and the Midrash Rabbah on Ec. 3:16) also refer to Zechariah the prophet as being killed in the temple make the suggestion very attractive that Jesus is following extra-biblical tradition here. The coincidence of having two Zechariahs killed in a similar way leads many Jewish commentators to reject their traditions as also confused with error, but the coincidence is certainly not that impossible. After all, there are thirty Zechariahs in the Old Testament, prophets and priests were not infrequently murdered by their rivals, and it is not clear that the locations within the temple complex referred to by Matthew and Chronicles were identical." Heretic writes: Zechariah 1:1 says "Zechariah the son of Berechiah" .It is understandable and probable that if Jesus meant His condemnation to have the force that ("you have killed all the prophets up to now") it would have the strongest impact if the last martyrdom would have been the most recent and most explicit witness to Him. Zechariah the son of Barachiah would have served that purpose very well.Why? Because that prophet spoke of the "30 pieces of silver", by which God's Messiah was betrayed. He also prophesied about "your king comes on a donkey" and "the pierced YHWH" passages of Zechariah 12:10. These were the preachings of a prophet much latter than Zechariah ben Jehoiada of Second Chronicles.So the fact that the OT does not tell us how Zechariah the son of Barachiah died is not an insurmountable problem to Matt. 23:35.Glenn Miller writes about the span of Abel to Zechariah the son of Barachiah rather than the historically former Zechariah: I will attend to Heretic's quotation of Luke 11:47 in another post.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Well Jay, you're proving as dishonest as the next apologist.As I stated, your rant has nothing to do with the topic. I even stated to you that there isnt a concrete solution and what do you do? You go on and give an entire post....which isnt a solutiuon. In fact, I even stated that your apologist sites cover this and ADMIT there isnt any evidence either way.http://www.tektonics.org/lp/matt2335.htmlBut as usual, you have a point to prove....which again, is off tangent and out of context.I did err though. I said the OT does not say Zechariah is the son of Berechiah. I should have said the OT does not say Zechairah the son of Berechiah was killed in the temple.But as usual, you gloss over the main point. Its NOT IN the earliest manuscripts. I have stated this already and as usual you ignore it. Only Zechariah is. So we do NOT know which Zechariah. I even gave you the benefit of the doubt and SAID it was the one you wish it to be. It changes nothing.But again, another moot point. Your posts usually do this.Same with Peter. Most scholars admit its a forgery. BUT...I even said lets assume its the same author. What does it still say?That the end times were to occur during HIS time line! 1 Peter states this crytal clear!How many people now have stated that when you debate you are out of context, using scripture which has nothing to do with the debate?You throw so much scripture out, confusing the situation, that the initial debate gets bogged down.Its obvious you do not wish to engage in any type of honest debate. I asked you with at least 9 posts what are the signs for before you would even state that you'll EVENTUALLY get to that. There is a reason you havent. You're building the biggest strawman (which you do nearly every post) that you're once again trying to confuse the subject.Matthew 23 uses "this generation" in one of two ways. To include those in the present (of Jesus) or those in the past and present. The future is not included.So again, its a moot point.Here is the bottom line.Every word used to describe the end times denotes it is to arrive fast.Be it "quickly", "soon", "near","at the door", "nearby"," to not tarry" etc....As usual, the apologist has to change the meanings of the words.Paul addresses his books to a SPECIFIC audience. He includes "you' and "we" which again denotes a time frame in which Jesus will return. During his time line.Only an apologist can change the audience to mean something else.Jesus in Revelation states when he returns he will being angels and reward mankind.Matthew 16 states this exactly AND adds there will be some alive when speaking to his disciples in front of him that will witness the event.Only an apologist can twist this to mean something else.Jesus tells his disciples to flee from town to town preaching about Jesus...and that they will NOT be able to get to the last town in Israel before he returns.Only an apologist can twist this to mean something else.Matthew 25, Jesus tells the high priest he will witness his return.Only an apologist can twist this to mean something else.Notice a pattern? Notice all the posts, you are jumping back and forth trying to change what the Bible states?The Bible never seems to mean anything it says.If Jesus returned during their lifetime.....and I said that part of the Bible is false, that there isnt any indication he would, you'd scream bloody murder and use every single piece of scripture I did to show he was to return during their lifetime. You would accuse me of being a liar if I used all the excuses you did.If Jesus returned during their lifetime and I said that part was added bc "soon" really means "far off", that "nearby" means "far away', that "quickly" means "slowly" you'd think I was nuts.Yet thats exactly what you did.Then you grabbed the word "delay" which apparently you do not know the meaning of...bc somehow you think this means 2000 years in the future. "Delay' can mean anytime frame, so again ANOTHER moot point by you.You're twisting scripture bc you cannot accept its an utter failure.Then there is the damning Matthew 24. Anyone with any simple reading comprehension can see Jesus plans on returning during their lifetime.I will not continue any further (perhaps you do not wish to either with me, thats ok) until you address the key issue of this entire debate.WHAT ARE THE SIGNS FOR?

What was dishonest about what I wrote about Zechariah the son of Barachiah?I did not even go to tektonics.org. You assumed that.The source that I did use I gave credit to. At least I mentioned the name Glenn Miller. And his website "The Christian Think Tank" is not Tekton Education and Apologetics Ministries, James Patrick Holding. He may have a link to it. But I did not use it.Furthermore, the webstite that you insinuate me of using said that there were 6 possible solutions to the Zechariah the son of Barachiah issue. One of the possible solutions, JPH says, is that the Zechariah in question is unknown.So where is my dishonesty ?I did not even use that webstite. And the website I used said that there were more than 6 possible solutions to the issue. I proposed what Miller considers as the best among them.I have the right to propose the better among a number of possible solutions. I have explicit permission from Glenn Miller to quote his website.Using anyone's material is not necessarily a wholesale endorsement of everything written by that person. I in fact may NOT agree with everything else an apologist writes.So where is the dishonesty ? Or is it that you think ALL Christians who defend their faith against the skeptical are "dishonest" on general principle ?At any rate if you cannot point out the dishonesty the proper thing to do would be to retract your accusation that I am being dishonest.As for the subject of SIGNS. I can't yet dedicate my time to it because I refuse to allow certain faulty concepts proposed by you to go unspoken to.And I am quite a few posts behind dealing with those points I believe merit reply. For this reason it is better that we do not continue as a dialogue but just make our points third person style. But you can do what you want.I have not finished writing about the moral generation. When I have then possibly I can give dedicated attention to the issue of signs.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.

hERICtic devotes three points to Zechariah ben Barachiah. When I take time to reply, he says its moot.He brought it up. If it were such a moot point he could have not brought it up. At any rate now I will deal with the second section of his post. Question:Will the opposers of the past who killed Abel and the other righteous persons up to Zechariah be absolved from guilt ?Will only the contemporary generation be punished for the murders of those people and the PAST generations be excused ?When it says in Luke " In order that the blood of all the prophets which has been poured out from the foundation of the world may be required of this generation " did Jesus mean that the PAST generations would not be held responsible ?I say of course not. Cain will still have to answer to God for the murder of Abel. Therefore "this generation" is a perjorative term expressing that the current audience is in a negative moral solidarity with Cain and all the other OT persecutors. The current audience is the epitome of a long negative attitude which reaches back across chronological boundaries.Jesus could not have meant that RATHER THAN Cain being held responsible the current audience would be instead. Rather He must have meant that they ALL together will be held responsible.So "this generation" the negative qualitative group of Israel's leaders who have resisted the prophets over many chronological boundaries.In Matthew 23 immediately after the sentence "Truly, I say to you, All these things shall come upon this generation" Jesus speaks of His past attempts to shelter Jerusalem: Practically in the next breath Jesus turns from the phrase "this generation" to "you would not" speaking to Jerusalem the city WHO IN THE PAST and over various chronological boundaries, would not be sheltered by God.(Jesus is God incarnated)Therefore I submit that "this generation" in verse 36 and "you" in verse 37 indicate a moral generation of the religious leaders against God. Time limit is not the restrictive. The solidarity of their negative attitude over different life spans is the issue.Now consider the logic here. If Jesus was saying that ALL.... ALL of the guilt because of past persecutions would be placed upon the current chronological generation, then NONE of it would be placed on past chronological generations. That would mean for example the CAIN would be absolved from all guilt. And all retibution owed CAIN would instead be put on the current chronological generation.I don't think that makes sense. And I don't think that would be the proper way to understand "Truly I say to you, All these things will come upon this generation" (Matt. 23:36) or the Lukian version "Yes, I tell you, it will be required of this generation." (Luke 11:51) But if Cain is held responsible ALONG with the latter and modern day Cain like persecutors, then together they share a negative solidarity expressed as a moral generation which knows no specific time limits.In the futue God will send more prophets and apostles, and "some of them they will kill and persecute" (Luke 11:49) or Matthew's version "Some of them YOU will kill and crucify, etc." (Matt. 23:34). There is no good reason to believe that after 70 AD there would be no divine retribution against similar opposition to His servants. The word "YOU" in Matthew 23:34 implies these future persecutors are of the same generation. The behavior was in the past. The behavior is in the present. And the behavior will continue into the future. "This generation" is best understood there as a moral generation.The entire Old Testament testifies pretty strongly that the persecutors of the past prophets were not absolved if they did not repent. There is no reason to believe that Israel of Jerusalem was absolved of her unrepented of crimes and that God was waiting for the chronological age of Jesus to do so. That would not makes sense in light of the Babylonian captivity or other disciplinary actions God took on Israel.Furthermore, in Acts Peter speaking to the Jewish leaders exhorts them to "be saved from this perverse generation" (Acts 2:40).Would Peter mean that they should be saved from being contemporary people ? How could they do that ? But by repenting and believing in the Messiah whom the leaders had opposed they COULD be saved from the moral generation.And that is what happend to 3,000 on one occasion and 5,000 on another. They came into the new covenant church life as Christians and were saved from the perverse moral generation of Messiah opposing religious leaders.Now if hERICtic protests that this is all jumping around or not the point, just remember, HE is the one saying there is NO other understanding of "this generation" in the New Testament except chronological. So this post is NOT beside the point.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.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

You never responded to my post as to why you think 2 Peter is a forgery. Maybe it's because you can point to nothing in 2 Peter that disagrees with what he wrote in 1 Peter, or with what any of the other wrtiers of the New Covenant wrote.I've found that most Bible scholars such as those you are referring to treat the Bible like a book of rescipes, endlessly disecting the correctness of words of the rescipe, but never entering into the purpose of the Bible rescipe which is to "eat the words" so that they become eternal life to you.When Peter said "the end of all things is at hand" (1 Pet 4:7), Peter was saying that God's purpose in creating the universe, placing man on planet earth, and the end of God's purpose for creating man was at hand - the redemption of man from his sins through the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. God has been in the "end of all things" redemption business for 2000 years, and the final end time events according to Zech 14 are soon to take place."The Lord will be king over all the earth" (Zech 14:9}. If one does not recognize Jesus as Lord by choice now, there will be no choice then!

This is an exaggeration.Out of the 51 verses in Matthew 24 the words only appear in verses 32 and 33. You have to read through 31 verses before you see those words. "But learn the parable from the fig tree: As soon as its branch has become tender and puts forth it leaves, you know that the summer is NEAR.

​

So also you, when you see all these things, know that it is near, at the doors." (Matt. 24:32,33)There is a sense of urgency in verses 3 - 31.
But a sense of urgency is not a prediction as to time.You read 28 verses before you are told that a event B comes "immediately" after an event A. "Immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.

​

And at that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribles of the land will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory" (vs 29,30)We are told that IMMEDIATLY after an A there will follow a B.We are not told how much time elapses between the verbal warnings of Jesus and event A. The closeness of B to A only is expressed. The closeness of the Son of Man appearing to the end of the tribulation is indicated.How long it will be TO the tribulation is not given.There are a few passages telling the disciples in essence not to prematurely expect the end. These passages contain phrases like: "... beginning of the birth pangs, (v.8)
... but the end is not yet. " (v.6) We are told that the end comes after the gospel of the kingdom is preached to the whole inhabited earth (v.14)[/b]We are not told that that will take a short time or a long time.We are not told that immediately after Jesus speaks tribulation like no other commences. We are not told when it begins.Out of 51 verses I could only find 2 which mentioned "near" and "at the doors". Following this there are yet another 21 verses (v. 35 through 51). And the tone of all those verses is that because the disciples are IGNORANT or precisely WHEN the second coming of Christ is to occur they must therefore be prudent, vigilant, and ready.My conclusion:I have no problem seeing that the apostles themselves expected and hoped that the second coming would be in thier lifetimes.All indications I see from their writings reveal that this did not stop them from preparing their followers for the contingency that He might NOT come before they died. And there is absolutely no sense of the lessening of their enthusiam.Personally, I think the integrity of Jesus Christ is above questioning. If there is a discrepency between His teachings and the facts as we see them, I choose the position that His integrity is beyond reproach and the problem must be on the side of our interpretation of His teachings.Skeptics have the right to assume that the problem is rather on the side of Christ's teachings. And you can trust in a failed prophecy concept if you wish.I see too many other evidences that allow for the understanding of a delay in His second coming. It is not insignificant to me that not only was the word delayed used in His teaching but there is a prophecy of the termination of it in the book which most thoroughly expounds on last things, the book of Revelation: The book of Revelation is even more dedicated to eschatology then the book of Matthew. I have to consider all that is written on the matter. I don't care if this is seen as "jumping around".Probably the most deciding factor is how the word "generation" should be interpreted in Matthew 24:34.I see a perjorative expression, qualitative in nature rather than chronological.In Psalm 12:5-8 we see the wicked persecuting the righteous. And then the Psalmist says "Thou, O Lord, will keep them [the righteous] Thou wilt preserve him from this generation forever. The wicked strut about on every side, when vileness is exalted among the sons of men." I believe that both in Matthew 24:34 an in Psalm 12:5-9 "this generation" is not ised to mean "all people who are NOW alive". Nor is the meaning "all people in this forty year period". Rather it means "the wicked" who afflict the righteous. The issue extends over chronological lines. Therefore it is to be preserved from it "forever", ie. as long as it is needed.The matter is spiritual and moral rather than chronological.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Two points:1) Let me know when you're done with your strawman and plan on addressing my question regarding what the signs are for. 2) I never said they were all in Matthew. Any author who describes the end times in the NT uses terminology which means its happening very soon. ALL OF THEM.Edited by hERICtic, : No reason given.

The question of what signs are for was answered by me in message 333 about 20 posts ago when I wrote: Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Hi John10:10,You wrote to hERICtic this: I would have to review this contraversy over 2 Peter. However, I don't think pushing it out of the NT canon will do anything for hERICtic's cause.The passages I used from 2 Peter saying "Do not let this one thing escape you, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years and a thousand years like one day" (3:8) is a reference anyway to Psalm 90:4. The truth of God still stands. Maybe hERICtic will now have to charge Psalm 90 with being a forgery too, to get rid of the truth.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I don't think you would be able to back that up. All teachings concerning the coming of Christ are in fact NOT all along the line of it being soon.But the "soon" is a more of a subjective matter of how wisely one utilizes TIME.For example, you hERICtic know that one day your life will come to an end. You are obviously an adult and have by now this realization.Tell us, is your death coming "soon" or is it a long way off ?Think of it. All your plans will come to an end. All your dreams will come to an end. You will be stopped in your tracks concerning whatever endevours you are pursuing. It is all coming to a termination one day. Whatever mark you have made in life will be set forever as it is.Is that day coming "soon" or is that day a long long way off ?I wager that how "soon" you consider the day of your death to be coming has much to do with your appreciation of how to use the TIME that you have now.It is much the same with Christ's second coming. Probably most people, when He comes, will think He came TOO soon rather than too late. It depends a great deal on how they used the available time they have.And it is for this reason that the parables AFTER Matthew 24 were given by the Lord Jesus teaching His followers the wise use of the time that they have to be prudent, watchful and ready to meet the Lord.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Jay,This really is absurd. How many times have I asked you now abou the SIGNS IN MATTHEW 24?You answered using Revelation.
You answered in John.Now, are either of those Matthew 24?I'll ask again. Is this the 15th time now?What are the signs FOR in Matthew 24?
Jesus gives a long list of signs....What are the signs FOR in Matthew 24?

2) I never said they were all in Matthew. Any author who describes the end times in the NT uses terminology which means its happening very soon. ALL OF THEM. I did back it up. I gave over twenty verses which states the same terminology. The only way you can get around this is by changing the meaning of the word.You're not an idiot Jay. Do NOT tell me when they speak of the end times and they use the terms:QUICKLY.
NEAR.
NEARBY.
AT THE DOOR.
SOON.
AT HAND.
TIME IS SHORT.
LAST DAYS.
A LITTLE WHILE............that the idea conveyed was that its upon them. You are trying to make god out to be deceptive and/or confusing.If the end times were thousands of years later, any author could have stated its "far off", "not close", "slowly" etc... and the idea would have been easily conveyed that it would a long time before the end times are coming and the return of Jesus.But NOT one of those terms is used. NOTHING is used to show far off. Nothing.Now, those are just the terms, they have been repeated quite a bit. I may even be missing a few.So please do not tell me that those terms do not mean the end times are far off. In any other situation, if I asked you what those words mean, you'd agree with me.Lets assume for the sake of argument that Jesus really believed he was returning right away and not thousands of years later...Do those terms I gave back up his belief?The ONLY reason you're saying they mean something other than their meaning is bc you CANNOT have it any other way. If you take those words for what they mean, then Jesus and his followers were wrong or lied.Edited by hERICtic, : No reason given.Edited by hERICtic, : No reason given.

I did respond. I stated it has nothing to do with me. I said BIBLICAL SCHOLARS have called it a forgery. Second, I even added even if its not a forgery it backs up 1 Peter quite nicely in the respect that they both claim the end times are near. I even addressed you by stating if you wish to ignore that most Biblical scholars consider it a fraud, thats fine. Why? As I stated a few times (you do have a habit of ignoring evidence when presented to you) that 1 Peter also believed the end times were near.1 Peter 1: 20He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.1 Peter 4: 7The end of all things is near.As I stated, Peter believed the end times were upon him.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'll say it again. Notice how I have to repeat everything? Also notice, how you once again do not understand context. In fact, I think I have accused you this nearly every post (you butchred Matthew 23 which I will get to once you address what the signs are for) and backed it up everytime with evidence.1) It does not matter if 2 Peter is a forgery or not. If its the same author, then you still have the same problem. 1 Peter thinks the end time are upon him.2) The scripture you use, I gave you two Christian sites which explain in detail that it does not mean what you think it does.
It is not saying a day IS a thousand years, its says a day is LIKE a thouands years. Peter is saying trust god, remain faithful, he will return.

I wonder if you are losing it.I discuss signs in Matthew 24 and you respond that you didn't mean JUST Matthew 24. Now you seem to be saying the opposite "JUST Matthew 24".I lost a post also. I labored an hour verse by verse on the 51 verses of Matthew 24 to examine them which included the words "soon" or "nearby" etc.Well, like you, in a split second I erased that post accidently. Then I gave you the abbreviated summary under the heading "Signs".Your reply in essence "I DIDN'T SAY JUST MATTHEW 24 !".
Now you're back to insisting "JUST MATTHEW 24!" All, that is ALL of the teachings in the New Testament on the second coming of Christ do not all stress "soon". Many do. All do not.The Bible is more balanced then you want to be. You want it to be a caricature and lopsided.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.