Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
27 online now:
CosmicChimp, PaulK (2 members, 25 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume: Total: 861,822 Year: 16,858/19,786 Month: 983/2,598 Week: 229/251 Day: 0/58 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Sodom and Lot, historicity and plausibility of Genesis 19
Brian
Member (Idle past 3217 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 1 of 213 (188183)
02-24-2005 3:42 PM


This is a continuation of my discussion with wmscott from HERE

I would welcome other input on the historicity and theology of the Sodom account. For example, what was Sodom's sin?

So a basic discussion of the reliabililty of the Sodom episode in Genesis 19.

Meanwhile, from wmscott....

I have already posted on why I think that they had. Lot had no young children, both of his daughters were of marriageable age. As to why he didn't leave, both of this daughters were engaged to local men and his wife clearly didn't want to leave. He was probably faced with the choice of staying or possibly having to leave his family behind in Sodom.

But surely this can apply to other families as well then, and not just Lot’s? Why couldn’t old Abram from number 46 be forced to stay?

As for Lot’s wife not wanting to leave, since when did women have equal rights in the ancient near east?

My argument that there may have been no young children at the time of it's destruction, is speculation on my part, but so is the reverse, we are not told clearly one way or the other.

So my hypothetical question is a valid one if the only objection against it is speculative.

"What! Do YOU not know that unrighteous persons will not inherit God's kingdom? Do not be misled. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men," (1 Corinthians 6:9)
(Leviticus 20:13) "'And when a man lies down with a male the same as one lies down with a woman, both of them have done a detestable thing. They should be put to death without fail. Their own blood is upon them."
(Romans 1:27) "and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full recompense, which was due for their error."

I’ll take that as a yes then.

Because you obviously need too. I was referring to the fact that the book existed, which proved your agruemnt false, that there was 'no' evidence of the destruction of Sodom.

But it doesn’t prove my argument false at all. All this proves is that there is a book whose authors *believe* they have evidence……., not the same thing as there being any.

Anyway, there are books written by cranks all the time that do not contain the evidence that they think they do. Have you any idea how many books have been written claiming to have evidence of a worldwide Flood, and we all know how well that turkey has been cooked?

Why not summarise the ‘evidence’ for people to examine, it is a discussion board after all, not a book club.

. It has been a while since I read it, but the gist of it was that the destruction occurred just as described in the Bible, there is plenty of geological evidence for it, but they did not find the city sites and the geologic events are believed to have occurred earlier than the biblical date given in the Bible.

You don’t really know anything about archaeology do you?

How on earth is this evidence for the destruction of Sodom? They didn’t find the site and the geologic events occurred earlier than the Bible claims, yet this supports there being a Sodom?

I would say this is pretty strong evidence AGAINST there being a Sodom and how it was destroyed.

Oh, and in archaeology, no theory is ever proven, so even IF a city called Sodom was found and it was destroyed as per biblical text fashion, it doesn’t follow that God was involved or angels or that anything else in the tale is true.

Can't be counted as righteous ether however. Young children in the Bible are sometimes lumped in with their parents, and sometimes they are not.

This is what I am asking you, why is a baby considered wicked? I just want to know why your flavour of Christianity would believe this.

That was no one except for Lot.

So why were his wife and daughters saved?

We are know blaming them for Lot’s disgusting behaviour, so God knew what they would do in the future and allowed them to live yet killed babies who would be bad, bit of a double standards guys old Yahweh isn’t He?

Christianity isn’t an easy faith to justify is it?

Think about it, he offered his daughters to a gang of homosexuals, knowing that their future husbands were in the crowd, and that two angels were behind him in the house.

Their future husbands were homosexuals, how does that work?

Also, he didn't bring his daughters out with him when he stepped out into the night by himself to face the mob, and closed the door behind himself and stood in front of it and blocked the door with his body. He showed that he was willing to risk his own daughters to protect Jehovah's angels, angels which he knew could have destroyed the whole town in a blink of an eye.

As far as Lot knew the guys could have said “okay bring the ho’s out”.

You don't understand the culture, he never intended any harm to come to his daughters, this was a cultural mind game.

How do you know this?

He couldn't impose on his guests by directly asking them to intervene, and as host he had to protect them. Lot fulfilled both requirements of his culture and succeeded in getting the angels to intervene without asking them to.

Both requirements? You are required to offer your daughter’s up for gang rape instead of offending a stranger? You’re making it up as you go along.

You are confusing righteousness with perfection, righteous people are not perfect and still sin.

But there is no one that is righteous according to my Bibles.

Romans 3:9-11

What shall we conclude then? Are we any better? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. 10As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one;

And poor Job,
14 "What is man, that he could be pure,
or one born of woman, that he could be righteous?
15 If God places no trust in his holy ones,
if even the heavens are not pure in his eyes,
16 how much less man, who is vile and corrupt,
who drinks up evil like water!

If you bother to read the account, Lot's daughters got him drunk and took advantage of him. (Genesis 19:35)

Don’t you just hate when that happens?

"So they repeatedly gave their father wine to drink during that night also; then the younger got up and lay down with him, but he did not know when she lay down and when she got up."

And he didn’t remember that in the morning, so he slept with the other daughter the next night? How believable is that?
Have you ever been that drunk that you cannot remember sleeping with a woman? I think if I was that drunk I wouldn’t be able to!

Maybe Lot was getting a bit old by this point in time, and wasn't that aware of how much he was drinking, and then got date raped by his own daughters.

Date raped, what a classic!

This is good stuff.

If Lot had approved of his daughters family planning efforts, they wouldn't have needed to get him drunk to carry out their nefarious plan.

Here was I thinking that these stories were made up to give the Moabites and the Ammonites a notorious origin.

What seems more plausible to you?

The rest of the post is basically saying that Lot was righteous because he treated his daughter’s pieces of meat.

Oh, and that you can be seen as righteous by God is you ‘date rape’ your dad.

Hey, it is your faith, enjoy.

Brian.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Lammy, posted 02-24-2005 11:52 PM Brian has not yet responded
 Message 4 by arachnophilia, posted 02-25-2005 12:33 AM Brian has not yet responded
 Message 13 by wmscott, posted 02-25-2005 5:47 PM Brian has not yet responded

  
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 213 (188293)
02-24-2005 10:26 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Lammy
Member
Posts: 3611
From: Chicago
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 3 of 213 (188306)
02-24-2005 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Brian
02-24-2005 3:42 PM


I think you meant this post by wmscott

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Brian, posted 02-24-2005 3:42 PM Brian has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 236 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 4 of 213 (188312)
02-25-2005 12:33 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Brian
02-24-2005 3:42 PM


For example, what was Sodom's sin?

inhospitality to guests.

you can find thousands of other similar tales around the world. one in every nearby culture, for sure. in fact, there's even another (less famous) identicaly story elsewhere in the bible.

anywho. sodom appears to have possibly been based on a real place. but of course the story and the archeaology don't line up. (for one, the best candidate for a "real sodom" was destroyed with its neighbor in a war)

This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 02-25-2005 00:33 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Brian, posted 02-24-2005 3:42 PM Brian has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by contracycle, posted 02-25-2005 5:46 AM arachnophilia has responded

contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 213 (188391)
02-25-2005 5:46 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by arachnophilia
02-25-2005 12:33 AM


That doesn't seem likely to me, arachnophilia. Hospitality is certainly a very important virtue in these societies, but usually as a property of personal, rather than institutional, reputation. I'm not sure it would have made sense to those people to think of a city as being inhospitable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by arachnophilia, posted 02-25-2005 12:33 AM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Brian, posted 02-25-2005 6:02 AM contracycle has not yet responded
 Message 7 by arachnophilia, posted 02-25-2005 9:26 AM contracycle has responded
 Message 16 by Rrhain, posted 02-26-2005 1:42 AM contracycle has not yet responded

Brian
Member (Idle past 3217 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 6 of 213 (188395)
02-25-2005 6:02 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by contracycle
02-25-2005 5:46 AM


Hi Contra,

I think that most biblical references to Sodom actually supports Arach's stance.

Ezekiel identifies Sodom's sin as pride and lack of care for the poor and needy:

Ezekiel 16:49

'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.

The most numerous contexts of the references to Sodom in the Bible suggest that it was for violating the ancient code of hospitality to strangers! Even Jesus said this in Luke 10:10-12

But when you enter a town and are not welcomed, go into its streets and say, 11‘Even the dust of your town that sticks to our feet we wipe off against you. Yet be sure of this: The kingdom of God is near.’ 12I tell you, it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom than for that town.

Isaiah 3; relates to inhospitality too, as does 13:19, and Jeremiah 23:14.

And among the prophets of Jerusalem I have seen something horrible: They commit adultery and live a lie. They strengthen the hands of evildoers, so that no one turns from his wickedness. They are all like Sodom to me; the people of Jerusalem are like Gomorrah

But, many people equate Sodom's sin with homosexuality, which doesn't really appear to be supported by the biblical texts.

Brian.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by contracycle, posted 02-25-2005 5:46 AM contracycle has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by arachnophilia, posted 02-25-2005 9:27 AM Brian has not yet responded
 Message 14 by wmscott, posted 02-25-2005 5:51 PM Brian has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 236 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 7 of 213 (188442)
02-25-2005 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by contracycle
02-25-2005 5:46 AM


what brian said is exactly right.

Hospitality is certainly a very important virtue in these societies, but usually as a property of personal, rather than institutional, reputation.

today, yes. several thousand years ago, no. it's well documented that nearly every ancient society care about hospitality as a whole. even if this were an isolated case, you would not have a point due to multiple references provided above.

however, it's not an isolated case. there are literally thousands of ancient myths where two gods (or angels) disguise themselves as men, and visit a town or city that doesn't accept them and is generally mean. but one resident takes them in, feeds them, protects them, etc. he is rewarded, and the rest of the city punished. it's an archetypal myth. very, very common.

so yes, it's quite clear the hospitality was a big issue, on the societal level. people just didn't think in terms of personal morality, and i think the bible will show this. it's not until jesus shows up that we're even introduced to the idea of a personal god.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by contracycle, posted 02-25-2005 5:46 AM contracycle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by custard, posted 02-25-2005 9:37 AM arachnophilia has responded
 Message 15 by doctrbill, posted 02-25-2005 9:06 PM arachnophilia has responded
 Message 28 by contracycle, posted 02-28-2005 10:14 AM arachnophilia has responded

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 236 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 8 of 213 (188444)
02-25-2005 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Brian
02-25-2005 6:02 AM


I think that most biblical references to Sodom actually supports Arach's stance.

you sound suprised. :P


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Brian, posted 02-25-2005 6:02 AM Brian has not yet responded

custard
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 213 (188454)
02-25-2005 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by arachnophilia
02-25-2005 9:26 AM


however, it's not an isolated case. there are literally thousands of ancient myths where two gods (or angels) disguise themselves as men, and visit a town or city that doesn't accept them and is generally mean. but one resident takes them in, feeds them, protects them, etc. he is rewarded, and the rest of the city punished. it's an archetypal myth. very, very common.

Yep, the Iliad is another example of this theme but one where the guest betrays the host. Paris absolutely violates the host-guest relationship by stealing Menelaus' wife and all Troy gets to suffer.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by arachnophilia, posted 02-25-2005 9:26 AM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by arachnophilia, posted 02-25-2005 9:47 AM custard has not yet responded

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 236 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 10 of 213 (188458)
02-25-2005 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by custard
02-25-2005 9:37 AM


precisely. although, i was speaking strictly of exactly IDENTICAL myths, but it's more example of how the theme was very important.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by custard, posted 02-25-2005 9:37 AM custard has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by jar, posted 02-25-2005 9:54 AM arachnophilia has responded

jar
Member
Posts: 31276
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 11 of 213 (188463)
02-25-2005 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by arachnophilia
02-25-2005 9:47 AM


I believe we need to remember that the rules of hospitality were pretty close to the only effective peacekeeping method available at the time. There were armies for city-state conflicts but nothing similar to a police force for other disputes. Instead, elaborate sets of rules governing person to person conduct filled that role.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by arachnophilia, posted 02-25-2005 9:47 AM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by arachnophilia, posted 02-25-2005 9:57 AM jar has not yet responded

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 236 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 12 of 213 (188465)
02-25-2005 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by jar
02-25-2005 9:54 AM


exactly. it's grossly incorrect to read the story of sodom out of that context.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by jar, posted 02-25-2005 9:54 AM jar has not yet responded

wmscott
Member (Idle past 4506 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 13 of 213 (188560)
02-25-2005 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Brian
02-24-2005 3:42 PM


Dear Brain;

So my hypothetical question is a valid one if the only objection against it is speculative.

As a hypothetical question, yes it is valid, but we don't know for sure one way or the other.

But it doesn't prove my argument false at all. All this proves is that there is a book whose authors *believe* they have evidence……., not the same thing as there being any.
Anyway, there are books written by cranks all the time that do not contain the evidence that they think they do.

I guess not being a reader of books, the publisher's name didn't mean any thing to you. The evidence is geological and is not disputed. Mind you, this is not archaeological evidence, but geologic evidence that the destructive event described in the Bible happened. (You should have been able to deduce that much from the sub title)

"an outburst of smoke and rain of sulfurous fire reportedly accompanied the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19:24, 28). These material are interpreted as products of light fractions of hydrocarbons escaping from underground reservoirs and igniting upon reaching the surface. Presence of heavier hydrocarbons in the Dead Sea sub-surface is proved by numerous seepages as well as by the tar pits described in Genesis 14:10. Source rocks for these gases, oil and asphalt are in bituminous marls and limestones of late Cretaceous Period buried within the graben as well as the organic matter in overlying sediments of the Dead Sea Group (Figure 6.1 Top; Clapp, 1936; Nissenbaum and Goldberg, 1980; Rullkotter, Spiro and Nissenbaum, 1985; Tannenbaum and Aizenshtat, 1985; Aizenshtat, Mileslaviski, and Tannenbaum, 1986). The 'hydrocarbon fraction' could have been cracked and released from its source rocks because of beep burial and geothermal heating beneath the 6- to 10-km thickness of sediments of the Tertiary to Recent dead Sea Group. Asphalts probably were released near the margins of the graben and oils close to the axis where the sediments were thicker and the temperature higher. rejuvenated faulting associated with the Sodom and Gomorrah earthquake would have opened numerous channels for sudden escape of hydrocarbons, allowing much larger outburst and fires."
"The Destruction of Sodom, Gomorrah, and Jericho; Geological, Climatological, and Archaeological Background" David Neev, K.O. Emery, Oxford University Press, 1995. Pages 140-141.

What we have here is that the destruction occurred, what hasn't been found was the target, but if destroyed ruins of the right age are found, you would have everything. Who knows, maybe someday the destroyed city sites will be found. I find the fact that the destruction matches the description in the Bible very compelling, it is like finding evidence of the Flood and merely arguing over the lack of finding the remains of flood victims.

This is what I am asking you, why is a baby considered wicked?
It can't be, it also can't be considered righteous ether, since it hasn't done anything one way or the other.

Their future husbands were homosexuals, how does that work?

The term for it is bisexual.

So why were his wife and daughters saved?

Possibly only because they were Lot's family, or maybe they at the time had a righteous standing as well in God's eye. But considering Lot's wife only made it to outside the city, maybe not by much. There is also the factor of who they were going to marry, Lot who was 'tormented' by the lawless deeds of the people, never would have knowingly chosen such men as son-in-laws. These men were probably picked by Lot's wife or the daughters themselves, which finding such men acceptable would imply a lack of a love of righteousness, since a righteous person hates wickedness.

You are required to offer your daughter's up for gang rape instead of offending a stranger? You're making it up as you go along.

No, Lot wasn't required to make the offer of his daughters, but he was required to protect his guests at all costs. We find in the simular case, basically same offer was made to protect the guest. (Judges 19:23-24) "At that the owner of the house went on out to them and said to them: "No, my brothers, do not do anything wrong, please, since this man has come into my house. Do not commit this disgraceful folly. Here are my virgin daughter and his concubine. Let me bring them out, please, and YOU rape them and do to them what is good in YOUR eyes. But to this man YOU must not do this disgraceful, foolish thing." In that era, when you were a guest, you came under the host's protection. You may have heard references to this in old books, or in old movies, where the guests are said to be under the protection of the host's roof etc. A host was required to protect his guests.

But there is no one that is righteous according to my Bibles. Romans 3:9-11 . . . "There is no one righteous, not even one;

At Romans 3:9-11 Paul is talking about inherited sin, in this sense no one is righteous since we are all descended from Adam and are hence all born in sin. (Ecclesiastes 7:20) "For there is no man righteous in the earth that keeps doing good and does not sin." This is the use of the term 'righteousness' in the absolute sense of being totally free of sin. While other verses in the Bible use the term righteousness in a lesser sense, for sinful men who do their very best to do what is right, and hence are 'righteous' in that sense. (Genesis 6:9) "Noah was a righteous man." Now Noah wasn't righteous by the standard of Romans 3:9-11 because he wasn't free of sin, but he was righteous in the lesser sense of a sinful man doing his best to serve God.

Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Brian, posted 02-24-2005 3:42 PM Brian has not yet responded

  
wmscott
Member (Idle past 4506 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 14 of 213 (188562)
02-25-2005 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Brian
02-25-2005 6:02 AM


The reason for the destruction of Sodom was;
Dear Brain;

Ezekiel identifies Sodom's sin as pride and lack of care for the poor and needy:
Ezekiel 16:49 'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.'

No he doesn't, he isn't talking about Sodom, he is using 'Sodom' as a name for the kingdom of Judah. (Ezekiel 16:46) "'And your older sister is Sa·mar´i·a herself with her dependent towns, who is dwelling on your left, and your sister younger than you, who is dwelling on your right, is Sod´om with her dependent towns." Always check the context. In the verse you cited, Sodom is used as a symbol of total destruction by God, you can find this same usage in quite a number of verses through out the Bible. The arrogance and unconcern are the sins of Judah, not Sodom. The reason why Sodom was destroyed is stated in Jude.

(Jude 7) "Sod´om and Go·mor´rah and the cities about them, after they in the same manner as the foregoing ones had committed fornication excessively and gone out after flesh for unnatural use, are placed before [us] as a [warning] example by undergoing the judicial punishment of everlasting fire."

The reason for the destruction of Sodom was; 'committed fornication excessively and gone out after flesh for unnatural use', not because of their inhospitality.

The most numerous contexts of the references to Sodom in the Bible suggest that it was for violating the ancient code of hospitality to strangers! Even Jesus said this in Luke 10:10-12
But when you enter a town and are not welcomed, go into its streets and say, 11'Even the dust of your town that sticks to our feet we wipe off against you. Yet be sure of this: The kingdom of God is near.' 12I tell you, it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom than for that town.

If you read verse one in this chapter, this is when Jesus sent out the seventy to preach. It wasn't the failure to offer hospitality that the people would be condemned for, it was the reason why they didn't offer it, they were rejecting the message that Jesus' followers were bringing them. The message was that Jesus was the messiah, it was their rejection of that, which would condemn them. The term 'Sodom' here is once again used as an example of God's complete destruction of the wicked.
Isaiah 3; relates to inhospitality too, as does 13:19, and Jeremiah 23:14.

Let's take a look and see.
(Isaiah 3:9) . . .The very expression of their faces actually testifies against them, and of their sin like that of Sod´om they do tell. They have not hidden [it]. Woe to their soul! For they have dealt out to themselves calamity.
(Isaiah 13:19) . . .And Babylon, the decoration of kingdoms, the beauty of the pride of the Chal·de´ans, must become as when God overthrew Sod´om and Go·mor´rah.
(Jeremiah 23:14) . . .And in the prophets of Jerusalem I have seen horrible things, committing adultery and walking in falsehood; and they have strengthened the hands of evildoers in order that they should not return, each one from his own badness. To me all of them have become like Sod´om, and the inhabitants of her like Go·mor´rah."

No mention of inhospitality in any of these verses or surrounding context. In Isaiah 3:9 Sodom is used as an example of extreme sinfulness. At Isaiah 13:19 Sodom is used as an example of complete destruction. At Jeremiah 23:14, Sodom is used as an example of extreme sinfulness.

Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Brian, posted 02-25-2005 6:02 AM Brian has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by macaroniandcheese, posted 03-05-2005 11:43 AM wmscott has not yet responded
 Message 45 by ramoss, posted 03-07-2005 10:16 AM wmscott has not yet responded

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 1023 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 15 of 213 (188600)
02-25-2005 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by arachnophilia
02-25-2005 9:26 AM


Arachnophilia writes:

there are literally thousands of ancient myths where two gods (or angels) disguise themselves as men, and visit a town or city that doesn't accept them and is generally mean. but one resident takes them in, feeds them, protects them, etc. he is rewarded, and the rest of the city punished. it's an archetypal myth. very, very common.

This is the first I have heard of such. Can you direct me to a few of the "thousands"?

db


Theology is the science of Dominion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by arachnophilia, posted 02-25-2005 9:26 AM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by christian atheist, posted 02-26-2005 2:26 AM doctrbill has not yet responded
 Message 20 by custard, posted 02-26-2005 3:53 AM doctrbill has not yet responded
 Message 23 by arachnophilia, posted 02-26-2005 4:46 AM doctrbill has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019