Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8927 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-23-2019 9:25 PM
26 online now:
AZPaul3, JonF, RAZD (3 members, 23 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,348 Year: 15,384/19,786 Month: 2,107/3,058 Week: 481/404 Day: 85/63 Hour: 1/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
45
6
78
...
19NextFF
Author Topic:   The Nonsense of Revelation 13 Economics
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15328
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 76 of 274 (586093)
10-11-2010 1:51 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Buzsaw
10-10-2010 8:06 PM


Re: Revelations and Prophecy
quote:

There are things yet to be completed before Armageddon and the 2nd advent of Jesus etc. Armageddon, the finality of the end times when Jerusalem is invaded are in the relative near future; most likely within the next 40 years; likely sooner than later.

By which you mean that even you know that there's a lot more that has to happen before you can say that the time really is close. And if it doesn't happen, so much for your 40 years.

quote:

All that needs to be observed for the Buz take on these prophecies is a continuation of the progression of corroborating events as prophecied;

Of course, you're short on real corroboration so that makes your "next 40 years" prediction look even sillier.

quote:

progression towards one world monetary marks and numbers

There's no significant progress towards that and it isn't even mentioned in the Bible as shown in this thread. So even if it was happening it wouldn't count.

quote:

progression of hostility towards Israel (that is after a prophesied 3 1/2 year truce)


That doesn't seem to have progressed much since the 1940's - witness the peace deals with Egypt, Jordan and Syria.
And correct me if I'm wrong but the 3 1/2 year truce is from Daniel, not Revelation. Which is a whole other can of worms.

quote:

progression towards persecution of Christian (i.e. the great tribulation),

That doesn't seem to be happening much either. So there are some places where Christians undergo persecution. And there are other places, like the U.S., where their idea of "persecution" is not having special rights. It hardly compares to the times of the Roman persecutions - around the time that the Revelation was written.
So all you have is speculation that things are going to get much worse than they are

quote:

progression of the expansion and rise of Islam, continued dimishment of the Wester powers

None of which is mentioned in the Bible at all. You won't find any mention of the U.S. or Western European states or Islam.

quote:

and the increase of powers via a Russian, European and Islam block nation alliance emerging into the final superpowers ever increasing their allied domination of the UN global beast/final Gentile global empire.

More stuff that just isn't in the Bible.

In other words must of your corroboration is just - as I said - your twisted reading of the Bible agreeing with your twisted fantasies.

OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein. Address only topic related comments, if there are any.
AdminPD

Edited by AdminPD, : Warning


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Buzsaw, posted 10-10-2010 8:06 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15328
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 77 of 274 (586094)
10-11-2010 2:12 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Buzsaw
10-10-2010 10:31 PM


Re: More examples below. (or above)
quote:

Perhaps sometime you will understand that in order to figure out any given Biblical prophecy study entails all corroborating prophecies related to what is being studied. Scripture interprets scripture.

Says the guy who relies on taking little pieces of prophecies out of their immediate context to claim fulfillments.

So why don't you include Daniel 8:22-23 which tells us that the "end times" will take place in the "latter days" of the Diadochi Kingdoms ?

Why do you ignore the differences between Luke's version of the Olivet discourse and the version found in Mark and Matthew ? Or the fact that Luke places the Tribulation before the fall of Jerusalem ?

quote:

By isolating any prophetic book of the Biblical prophecies you will never come to the correct understanding. That's why novices like Jar, you and some others don't get it right. You're wading in the shallows when you need to be swimming in the deep to engage in prophecy debates.

Then just taking bits of pieces out of context is going to be even worse, so I guess that you don't even reach novice status. I suppose that explains why you get things wrong all the time. And all the nonsense you try to add to the Bible doesn't help. You've been caught at it time and time again, do you really think that you are going to get away with it this time ?

OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD

Edited by AdminPD, : Warning


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Buzsaw, posted 10-10-2010 10:31 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 78 of 274 (586115)
10-11-2010 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by jar
10-10-2010 10:32 PM


Re: More on the likely reality of Revelation
Hi jar,

jar writes:

Only if you accept the late date or that the prophecies were not for the immediate period. Even if the later date is accepted everything in Revelation is still almost 2000 years in the past.

Why wouldn't I accept the late date?

The evidence requires the late date.

jar writes:

In case you missed it...

I did not miss it.

What is soon or the time being near for you is one thing because you are a human limited by time.

Soon and near to an eternal being can be thousands of years.

What is the arguement long day people use oh "a thousand years is the same as a day with the Lord".

jar writes:

Remember an even more likely explanation is that Revelation is just all failed prophecy.

Why is it more likely?

If you care to start another thread and put forth all the failed prophecies you believe exist in Revelation we could discuss those and those fulfilled and those yet to be fulfilled.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by jar, posted 10-10-2010 10:32 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by jar, posted 10-11-2010 11:29 AM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 85 by Nimrod, posted 10-12-2010 1:49 AM ICANT has not yet responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


(1)
Message 79 of 274 (586117)
10-11-2010 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Nij
10-11-2010 1:40 AM


Re: Mark
Hi Nij,

Nij writes:

Seems I keep arriving too late or too early.

Jar's already pointed it out; the mark is the "name or number" of the Beast.

jar has asserted the mark is the name or number of the beast.

Firstly name and number can not be the same thing. A number is not a name, it is a number.

There is no place in the Greek text that gives a definition of the mark nor is there any place in chapter 13 that links it to the name or the number of the Beast.

So when you state what the mark is you are simply asserting what you think it is or repeating what someone elese has said they think it is.

If you disagree and believe the Greek text does give a definition of what the mark is, please present your evidence. I presented mine to jar in an earlier post.

Nij writes:

The mark is used to grant permission. Hence it is a permission or licensing system.

How can you determine what the mark is used for?

It is in the hand or forehead not on the hand or the forehead.

So how do you know what it is?

The only way the mark can be in the hand or forehead is if it is an implant of some kind.

I would assume it is something of the order of the radio chip that was added to all credit cards that have been issued since 2000. If you have one on your person and walk close to a receiver it reads all your information instantly if the card is not shielded.

Now this is just a wild guess on my part.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Nij, posted 10-11-2010 1:40 AM Nij has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by PaulK, posted 10-11-2010 10:26 AM ICANT has responded
 Message 81 by Modulous, posted 10-11-2010 10:48 AM ICANT has responded
 Message 86 by Nij, posted 10-12-2010 2:05 AM ICANT has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15328
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 80 of 274 (586120)
10-11-2010 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by ICANT
10-11-2010 10:18 AM


Re: Mark
quote:

jar has asserted the mark is the name or number of the beast.

Firstly name and number can not be the same thing. A number is not a name, it is a number.

There is no place in the Greek text that gives a definition of the mark nor is there any place in chapter 13 that links it to the name or the number of the Beast.


I guess that you missed verse 17.


17 and he provides that no one will be able to buy or to sell, except the one who has the mark, either the name of the beast or the number of his name.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by ICANT, posted 10-11-2010 10:18 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by ICANT, posted 10-11-2010 10:59 AM PaulK has responded

    
Modulous
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 81 of 274 (586123)
10-11-2010 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by ICANT
10-11-2010 10:18 AM


Re: Mark
The only way the mark can be in the hand or forehead is if it is an implant of some kind.

Like a tattoo, perhaps.

But in which Greek copy is the word 'en' used rather than 'epi'?

That is to say where does it imply the Mark is endodermal rather than epidermal? The copy I have access to uses 'epi'.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by ICANT, posted 10-11-2010 10:18 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Nimrod, posted 10-12-2010 2:19 AM Modulous has acknowledged this reply
 Message 89 by ICANT, posted 11-04-2010 3:30 PM Modulous has responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 82 of 274 (586124)
10-11-2010 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by PaulK
10-11-2010 10:26 AM


Re: Mark
Hi Paul,

PaulK writes:

I guess that you missed verse 17.

No I didn't miss verse 17.

Verse 17 does not give a definition of the mark of verse 16. It simply add two other things that can be added to the mark.

ἤ is a disjunctive conjunction and when placed between mark and name means either one or the other. When between name and number means either one or the other.

The problem is that the mark must be in the hand or in the forehead.

How would you put the mark, name or number in the hand or in the forehead?

You could put them on the hand or forehead.

You could put them on the surface of the palm of the hand and it would be considered by most as in the hand as long as it was closed.

The only way you could put any of them in the forehead would be by way of an implant. So I assume the hand would require the same application to satisfy the text.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by PaulK, posted 10-11-2010 10:26 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by PaulK, posted 10-11-2010 11:27 AM ICANT has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15328
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 83 of 274 (586127)
10-11-2010 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by ICANT
10-11-2010 10:59 AM


Re: Mark
quote:

Verse 17 does not give a definition of the mark of verse 16. It simply add two other things that can be added to the mark.

ἤ is a disjunctive conjunction and when placed between mark and name means either one or the other. When between name and number means either one or the other.


Clearly the translators of the NASB (which I quoted) disagree with you. Perhaps you should take it up with them ?

quote:

The problem is that the mark must be in the hand or in the forehead.

How would you put the mark, name or number in the hand or in the forehead?


I suspect that you are confused by archaic English. More modern translations use "on".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by ICANT, posted 10-11-2010 10:59 AM ICANT has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 31192
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 84 of 274 (586128)
10-11-2010 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by ICANT
10-11-2010 9:57 AM


Re: More on the likely reality of Revelation
ICANT writes:

Why wouldn't I accept the late date?

The evidence requires the late date.

As I said, even with the late date it is still talking about stuff that happened nearly 2000 years ago.

ICANT writes:

In case you missed it...

I did not miss it.

What is soon or the time being near for you is one thing because you are a human limited by time.

Soon and near to an eternal being can be thousands of years.

What is the arguement long day people use oh "a thousand years is the same as a day with the Lord".

Which is still irrelevant and just shows that you have no understanding of the function of a Biblical Prophet.

Prophecy is always immediate. The prophet is carrying a message from God to a people. It is a telegram, a dope slap, an immediate warning.

It is not about things that will happen thousands of years in the future unless the God is an idiot and totally incompetent.

For God to give the author of Revelation a message to write down for the use of people still in our future, is just stupid.

ICANT writes:

Why is it more likely?

If you care to start another thread and put forth all the failed prophecies you believe exist in Revelation we could discuss those and those fulfilled and those yet to be fulfilled.

It's a short list. I know of NO fulfilled Biblical Prophecy.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by ICANT, posted 10-11-2010 9:57 AM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Nimrod
Member (Idle past 3147 days)
Posts: 277
Joined: 06-22-2006


Message 85 of 274 (586226)
10-12-2010 1:49 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by ICANT
10-11-2010 9:57 AM


Re: More on the likely reality of Revelation
quote:

ICANT
Why wouldn't I accept the late date?

The evidence requires the late date.


Leading scholars like F.F. Bruce (for sure) and I think also N.T. Wright date REvelation before 70 A.D./CE.

Hank Hanegraaff (The Aopcalypse Code) showed how many current fundamentalists show hypocricy when they accept the majority of scholars on their shaky date(ie. c100 CE) for Revelation yet they reject the more solid date (not that Hanegraaff accepts it) for putting Mark at 65-75 AD and the other gospels post 70 AD.I forget exactly what he said but he responded to a quote showing LaHaye mockingly saying something like "not a scholar in the world would place Revelation before 70 AD".

quote:

ICANT
What is soon or the time being near for you is one thing because you are a human limited by time.

Soon and near to an eternal being can be thousands of years.

What is the arguement long day people use oh "a thousand years is the same as a day with the Lord".


Hanegraaff also showed the hypocricy in LaHaye taking some prophecies that say "soon" to be much much later(like 2000-2500 years or so), yet taking verses that describe something a longer time off as taking place much sooner.I forgot the example but his book is the best (not that there have been many attempts) at responding to much of the current prophecy craze among Christians.

There have been about 1000 books promoting 20th/21st century prophecy fulfillment (one couldnt count the endless video presentations, sermons, t.v. shows, promoting the 20th/21st century prophecy fulfillment) yet the amount of books responding are very very scant (my memory might be failing me but at the time the Hanegraaff book is all I can really remember though I can think of magazine/journal type publications that have good responces to loud echo chamber of "21st prophecy fulfillment").

I plan on starting a prophecy thread once I get speaking software.It will be the mother(infact a single post could have over 100,000 words) of all threads in text, but I intend to quote extensively the leading prophecy experts (their books,study bibles, tape series, videos, televisions shows, plus journal articles) then I will respond(using more quotes from a variety of sources including their own) and show that they are nearly 100% wrong in every wild claim they make.

I already have notes which refer me to the books I intend to quote plus I have jotted down endless quotes already in pencil.

The Hanegraaff book was actually pretty good at quoting LaHaye and then using sources to refute him.I even learned of a few sources I didnt know existed plus some of his sourced quotes will be useful for me.I was amazed at what a good book it was. I tend to find books by fundamentalists to be nearly worthless (except as a way of seeing how they misuse data and play fast and loose with the facts), but this was a good one.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by ICANT, posted 10-11-2010 9:57 AM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Nij
Member (Idle past 3120 days)
Posts: 239
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-20-2010


Message 86 of 274 (586229)
10-12-2010 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by ICANT
10-11-2010 10:18 AM


Re: Mark
Firstly name and number can not be the same thing. A number is not a name, it is a number

"... and letters are not names, they are letters."
It is not only the thing itself, but how we use that thing which determines what we would call it. Typically a number is not used as a name, but that does not mean numbers cannot be used as names. If a number is used to identify you and you are called that number in common usage, then that number is your name, And thus yes, they can be the same thing.
One-nil.

There is no place in the Greek text that gives a definition of the mark nor is there any place in chapter 13 that links it to the name or the number of the Beast.

So when you state what the mark is you are simply asserting what you think it is or repeating what someone elese has said they think it is.

If you disagree and believe the Greek text does give a definition of what the mark is, please present your evidence. I presented mine to jar in an earlier post


I assumed evidence was provided to back the assertion that the mark was the number or the name. Silly me I should have checked that jar could support his claims before resting my own case on them.
Oh wait, it was.

[quote=jar in message 1, the OP]16He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead,
17so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name.
emphasis added.
So yes, the mark is related to the name and number. The mark is the name or number.
Two-nil.



How can you determine what the mark is used for?

Because the Bible tells us what it is for: only people with the mark can buy or sell. It is identifying the members of a specific group, being those who have permission to buy and sell (and more widely, we can infer that this is also the group of people who worship the other fella).

It is in the hand or forehead not on the hand or the forehead.
So how do you know what it is?

The only way the mark can be in the hand or forehead is if it is an implant of some kind.

I would assume it is something of the order of the radio chip that was added to all credit cards that have been issued since 2000. If you have one on your person and walk close to a receiver it reads all your information instantly if the card is not shielded.


As above, we know what it is because the text tells us such; it is "the name of the Beast or the number of his name".
Later on we are informed that the number is 666. The name is not included for obvious reasons, both of these as I explained earlier.

Tattoos and piercings are considered "in" the body part they are, well, in. And that's if you only want to take a literal interpretation as of course you do.
If one considers other uses of the word 'in' then the verse could easily refer to a piece of paper with permission written on it, held "in the hand", just as authorised documents we have now include a signature and stamp or seal, and just as would have been the case in the period Revelations was written.
Three-nil.

Once again:
It is not a mark to be traded (nor representative of something that can be traded). It is only present to grant permission; it is not there as any form of currency. Therefore it is not part of a monetary system.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by ICANT, posted 10-11-2010 10:18 AM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Nimrod
Member (Idle past 3147 days)
Posts: 277
Joined: 06-22-2006


Message 87 of 274 (586230)
10-12-2010 2:19 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Modulous
10-11-2010 10:48 AM


A point to make.
quote:

ICANT
The only way the mark can be in the hand or forehead is if it is an implant of some kind.

Modulous
Like a tattoo, perhaps.

But in which Greek copy is the word 'en' used rather than 'epi'?

That is to say where does it imply the Mark is endodermal rather than epidermal? The copy I have access to uses 'epi'.


Im not sure if anyone will appreciate it but you made quite a good post.

I was just recently reading a thread where Buzsaw was using the "textus receptus" verses "the Alexandrian manuscript" as somehow relevant to what manuscripts Genesis translations were based on.

See it here (posts 13 and 25)!
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?control=msg&m=580717

I know we all make mistakes but there are several clues in his entire post(especially 25) show that he was indeed ignorant of the basic fact that the textus receptus is the Greek New Testament text the King James used.(there are far more errors in his post but Ill leave it at that)

In the same thread, ICANT said(post #29)

quote:

ICANT
Adam is an English word and did not exist until the English language existed.

Adam is not a Hebrew word.


He/She went on to make an argument that since Hebrew lacked vowels, the rendering should be a literal "ADM" translation of the Hebrew consonants.However,Aleph actually isnt an "A" though the Greeks used it(which they got from from the Phoenicians) to represent an A vowel that they didnt have a letter for.So ICANT clearly didnt know what he/she was talking about.(Aleph does often have an "a" vowel after it, but the fact that the "a" in Adam is a vowel would destroy whatever argument was trying to be made)

Also, Adam *IS* a Hebrew word even if the vowels werent written down in biblical times.One can see how the word is spelled in other languages (ie.Sumerian-ADAMA) to see the proper pronuciation/spelling plus Hebrew was used over a long period of time beyond biblical times.

Somehow, I dont think your knowledge of Greek will impress these two.

But your point was fantastic.

OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD

Edited by Nimrod, : No reason given.

Edited by AdminPD, : Warning


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Modulous, posted 10-11-2010 10:48 AM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

    
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 103 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 88 of 274 (586239)
10-12-2010 4:31 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by jar
10-09-2010 6:13 PM


jar writes:

quote:
So is there any support for the claim that Revelations 13 contains ANY prophecy related to some future monetary system?

Well, let's assume that it does.

The right hand? Please. For the vast majority of the world, you'd want it on the left hand. Sure, in the UK and many other Commonwealth countries, Japan, southwest Africa, and Oceania would want it on the right, but everywhere else would want the universal mark on the left hand.

Why?

Because we drive on the right side of the road. Thus, your left arm is the one that gets stuck out the window, not your right.

How incredible that they got it wrong.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jar, posted 10-09-2010 6:13 PM jar has not yet responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 89 of 274 (589806)
11-04-2010 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Modulous
10-11-2010 10:48 AM


Re: Mark
Hi Mod,

Sorry it took so long to get back to you, Had some problems and things that had to be attended too.

Modulous writes:

Like a tattoo, perhaps.

Very possible.

But isn't a tatoo in the skin and appears on the skin?

Modulous writes:

That is to say where does it imply the Mark is endodermal rather than epidermal? The copy I have access to uses 'epi'.

Are you inplying that 'epi' is only translated as on?

Are you implying that 'en' is only translated as in?

Both are translated as on and in. The translation is determined by the construction of the sentence in which they appear.

Since this is not the place for a Greek class I will belabor the point no further.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Modulous, posted 10-11-2010 10:48 AM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Modulous, posted 11-04-2010 7:51 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Modulous
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 90 of 274 (589858)
11-04-2010 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by ICANT
11-04-2010 3:30 PM


Re: Mark
Sorry it took so long to get back to you, Had some problems and things that had to be attended too.

No worries. This place isn't a duty

Very possible.

But isn't a tatoo in the skin and appears on the skin?

It's under the top layer of skin, on top of the lower levels of skin.

Are you inplying that 'epi' is only translated as on?

Are you implying that 'en' is only translated as in?

Both are translated as on and in. The translation is determined by the construction of the sentence in which they appear.

Indeed. For instance, if I am holding the Bible, in English we'd say I had a Bible in my hand. But in Greek that might imply that Bible was inside my hands which is crazy (my veins are inside my hands, but the Bible is just sat against my hands). So in that case they might use the 'next to, upon, against' word which is epi 'epi', but this would be translated to 'in', in English. (Nice three syllable repetition there)

Since this is not the place for a Greek class I will belabor the point no further.

Surely, since this is a thread discussing the finer points of a Greek manuscript, there is no better place?

So, what is it about the wording that implies it is under the skin, implanted into that hand, rather than on top of or against the hand?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by ICANT, posted 11-04-2010 3:30 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
45
6
78
...
19NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019