Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Spiritual Death is Not Biblical
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


(1)
Message 76 of 281 (525111)
09-21-2009 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Dawn Bertot
09-21-2009 2:59 PM


Re: Dual Purpose
quote:
The other plain and simple statement in theses passages is that the soul, physical or otherwise "IT WILL DIE", since these people did not die and some lived nearly 1000 years, your contention that the plain and simple text must be observed falls to the ground.
What are you talking about? You're misrepresenting my answer. Don't take my answer concerning a specific verse and apply it to another. I don't see the people in Ezekiel's time living to nearly 1000 years.
quote:
It also demonstrates that there is another definition of the word death other than the one you offer. Unless youare prepared to demonstrate that in each instance God changed his mind or he lied.
I see, you're back to Adam and Eve. The definition of the word death is not mine. It came from the dictionary. I haven't claimed that every usage of the word translated as die or death indicates God changed his mind. Again, you're misrepresenting my position. If you have a specific verse other than the ones I mentioned, share it. We can discuss how the word death is used in the writing.
quote:
I have now presented another definition of the word death than purposed by yourself. Which means if we incorperate the rest of the scriptures, those both close to the Prohets and Torah, that we can get an overall BIBLICAL picture of Spiritual death.
What different meaning have you presented and concerning what verse?
quote:
You do not have right to set out what the scriptures have to say about a topic by isolating a faulty principle to a set of writings. Unless you are prepared to demonstrate that death in those passages does not mean Spiritual and that the rest of the BIBLICAL record is not Gods word.
I have already shown that death in the simple reading of the verses in the OP do not mean spiritual. Stating that the Bible is God's word does not change the simple reading of the text. Even you can't take away the simple reading of the text.
quote:
Your position is faulty, illogical, unscriptural and unwarrented from nearly every perspective.
So show me that my position (my real position) is unscriptural. Don't just say it.
quote:
This is called a 'Strawman' in argumentation, there are to many things you need to establish before hand to demonstrate that your OP is valid. This is not how argumentation works, that is the way you are proceeding
Fortunately for me my argument is not a strawman. You are the one misrepresenting my position and claiming victory.
I have asked you several times to stop putting false words in my "mouth". Please do not continue this behavior. It is very unseemly and unacceptable for someone who is arguing from a seemingly conservative Christian position.

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-21-2009 2:59 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-22-2009 4:00 AM purpledawn has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


(1)
Message 77 of 281 (525117)
09-21-2009 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Dawn Bertot
09-21-2009 11:04 AM


Re: Death
EMA writes:
Yes she would have thought that it was a god, but her contention and estimation notwithstanding, the scripture says it was Samuel who appeared in spirit form
so your belief has a contradiction. You just said :
"the key words always in Eccl are "under the sun", ie, "the dead know nothing under the sun", thier reward and memory are gone from the living. They are concious of nothing "under the sun"
according to Ecclesiaties and your estimation of it above, no one in the grave should be conscious of anything going on under the sun...or in the land of the living. Thats what Gods word says.
Yet you believe that 'Samuel' was conscious of what was going on under the sun, otherwise how could he have responded to anyone who called to him.?
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-21-2009 11:04 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-22-2009 2:19 AM Peg has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 78 of 281 (525169)
09-22-2009 2:19 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Peg
09-21-2009 7:10 PM


Re: Death
Peg writes:
Yet you believe that 'Samuel' was conscious of what was going on under the sun, otherwise how could he have responded to anyone who called to him.?
Come on Peg, theres a difference between someone calling him from earth and Samuel hearing them and God knowing what saul was doing and God dispatching him to Saul and the witch. God dispatched Elijah and Moses as well to the tranfiguration, regardless of if they knew anyother specifics of what was happening under the sun.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Peg, posted 09-21-2009 7:10 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Peg, posted 09-22-2009 7:29 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 79 of 281 (525172)
09-22-2009 4:00 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by purpledawn
09-21-2009 5:46 PM


Re: Dual Purpose
PD writes:
What are you talking about? You're misrepresenting my answer. Don't take my answer concerning a specific verse and apply it to another. I don't see the people in Ezekiel's time living to nearly 1000 years.
Who gives a rats behind how long they lived, thats not the point. the point is that you have demanded that we take a literal definition and explanation of the word death, which would demand that these people die instantly and immediately according to your strict and dogmatic interpretation.
Baring and ignoring such an interpretation, the text and commonsesnse demonsrtrates that they did not die, they continued to live, even when they sinned. this being the case we now have another example of how the word death can be interpreted, not to mention the fact that God can very well have Spiritual death in mind, seeing that the definition is only that of cessation from something, not necessarily limited to the physical body. that is your estimation of the word from the dictionary, not necessarily Gods meaning
The definition of the word death is not mine. It came from the dictionary. I haven't claimed that every usage of the word translated as die or death indicates God changed his mind. Again, you're misrepresenting my position. If you have a specific verse other than the ones I mentioned, share it. We can discuss how the word death is used in the writing.
What different meaning have you presented and concerning what verse?
By verse you mean in the torah and prophets and writings you mean only those, correct?
You have maintained that the meaning in Ezekiel can only mean immediate, physical cessation and extinction. These people like Adam and eve did not die immediatley, once they had sinned. The different meaning of the word die, is in the sense that they began to die, or God was speaking of another concept of death as indicated and explidicated by verses in the NT. The word death does not need to be preceeded by the word spiritual for God to have this in mind.
Next cessation of life does not have to mean only physical to God. But there in lies your problem you are limiting the definition of death or spiritual death to a group of books and you refuse to tell us what is inspired, what is not , what is Gods Word, what is not Gods Words. looking for a comprehensive definition of the word death from a Biblical perspective and narrowing it down to a few books then insisting this all the Bible has to say concerning death, is a STRAWMAN, or silly to say the least.
I have already shown that death in the simple reading of the verses in the OP do not mean spiritual. Stating that the Bible is God's word does not change the simple reading of the text. Even you can't take away the simple reading of the text.
Death, in the simple reading of the verses in the OP, only demonstrates that death is a cessation of life, it does not tell you what type of life or what God has in mind in the words.
Indicating that the Bible may be Gods word changes everything and makes everything clearer.
limiting Gods perspective of the word death and idea of death to a few books and a stict definition is building a strawman. Now watch this debating move, unless, you are prepared to say that only the Torah and Prophets are Gods Word. Is this what you are implying or directly stating?
Even you can't take away the simple reading of the text.
I dont need to take away the simple reading of the text, I agree with the simple reading of the text, it only implies cessation of life,, not what type God has in mind. Again you are viewing the text from mans perspective with mans finite understanding, unless you are prepared at this point to indicate that these are only the words of men. Are these the words of men or the words of God through men. All of this halts at an logical empass until you disclose your position on these matters.
Im not trying to controvert your thread, but somethings make no logical sense, until such things are revealed by those making the assertions. pieces of the puzzel are missing.
it doesnt matter to a hill of beans if you believe that some idea was a latter development, if I do not know with what reagrd you hold the Torah, Prophets, New testament or any other writing for that matter.
You made the assertion that spiritual death is not biblical, I have no idea what you mean by Biblical, other than your intimation to the Law and Prophets.
So show me that my position (my real position) is unscriptural. Don't just say it.
Simple enough, now remember this is Biblical accuracy forum correct, atleast that is what you indicated. That being the case, I would indicate that since you have not indicated that the NT is not the word of God, I am warrented in assuming it is also part of the Biblical record, and that while the word death means only cessation of life and does not indicate what type of life, the NT record makes clearer what is involved in the word death from Gods perspective.
You have not demonstrated that the definiton of death is limited to a physical property only, especially considering we are dealing with Gods word, concepts and ideas. you have not made clear or indicated whether the words in Ezekiel or Genesis are Gods words or mens words
Thirdly, your "position" as you put it is a totality of what you have asserted, indicated and implied, not what you choose to use later, or simply what is contained in the OP Since you will not indicate what you mean by Biblical, Gods words, Gods concepts, the totality of your assertions, indications and implications imply logical contradictions, when the totality of the BIBLICAL record is taken into consideration.
Fourth, indicating that a word carries a certain definition is not the same as showing that another concept is not taught or implied in the same source, especally when dealing with Godly, spiritual and esoteric concepts.
fifth. operating under the guidlines you have set out about definitions and plain and simple text interpretations, would actually contradict your ideas on the word death.
I have asked you several times to stop putting false words in my "mouth". Please do not continue this behavior. It is very unseemly and unacceptable for someone who is arguing from a seemingly conservative Christian position.
By all means please show me where i have done this. heck I am trying to get you to put words in your own mouth, ie, What is or is not Gods teaching on death? is it limited to the torah, prophets or what? your positon is illogical and a strawman until your propositon is stated cleary without ambiguity and evasion.
Let me put it to you this way PD. On can discuss what a certain people believed about a certain thing at any given time. And one can discuss what Spiritual death is, but to conjoin these two and insist that the only thing that matters is the Torah and Prophets and then INTIMATE that this is all the Biblical record has to offer is not logical or rational, not to mention unscriptural.
In other words when you join the two and draw a conclusion you have now formulated a certified argument, which requires more information on your part.
now watch I can do the samething you are doing. using you way of proceeding and your line of reasoning, I could conclude that the ancients were actually uninformed on the topic of death because they had a limited understanding of its meaning and usage, until New Testament times when the Holy Spirit illuminated our understanding about the word death and Spiritual death. For my discussion I choose to use only the NT and my conclusion to get a Biblical perspective on this topic. Now will that work, NO.
Even if you could demonstrate that death is only physical in certain verses (and you cannot)it would not remove the fact of Spiritual death overall, depending on what overall is. maybe you can help us with that point. My guess is that you will not, because you want the conversation slighted twords your contentions.
Here is a simple enough question, In your estimation, not the prophets or Torah, but yours, based on your studies overall, Is spiritual death real or not?
My prediction is that you will avoid answering the question as you do anything else that will make the thread make any sense.
You imply at times that the NT may not be the Word of God, by making the statement, that these ideas are latter developments, then you pretty much make certain that you believe it is not Gods word because you join the idea that Spiritual death is not Biblical. With these two implications I am warrented in proceeding that you PROBABLY do not consider it as Gods word.
Now, watch this, if it is not the discussion goes in another direction. If it is we now have another source to determine what the Biblical record is on death and whether Spiritual death is Biblical or not.
Do you see how argumentation works?
EAM
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by purpledawn, posted 09-21-2009 5:46 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by purpledawn, posted 09-22-2009 1:03 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


(1)
Message 80 of 281 (525212)
09-22-2009 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Dawn Bertot
09-22-2009 4:00 AM


EMA Cleanup
quote:
Who gives a rats behind how long they lived, thats not the point. the point is that you have demanded that we take a literal definition and explanation of the word death, which would demand that these people die instantly and immediately according to your strict and dogmatic interpretation.
This is a misrepresentation of what I've said concerning Genesis 2:17 and death. So there's 1.
In Message 25, I responded to your Message 23 with this statement: The word translated as die, means to kill. As the story progresses we see that God didn't kill them for their transgression and chose to throw them out of the Garden. Whether God lied or changed his mind is irrelevant. Adam and Eve were relocated and penalized; but they still had contact with God (Chapter 4), so they hadn't fallen out of favor with God. God even gave Eve a son to replace Abel.
I explained it again in Message 29 in a response to kbertsche. I stated: In the story God says that if they eat of the tree they will die. So death is the penalty for eating from the tree. If we were hearing the story for the first time, we might think the tree is poisonous, but once they eat of the tree we know that the tree isn't poisonous. So for Adam and Eve to die the day they eat, they would have to be killed. I think we have become so accustomed to the story that the drama is lost.
quote:
Baring and ignoring such an interpretation, the text and commonsesnse demonsrtrates that they did not die, they continued to live, even when they sinned. this being the case we now have another example of how the word death can be interpreted, not to mention the fact that God can very well have Spiritual death in mind, seeing that the definition is only that of cessation from something, not necessarily limited to the physical body. that is your estimation of the word from the dictionary, not necessarily Gods meaning
You said that in Message 28 also. But it doesn't hold water because you continued to misrepresent my position concerning the word death.
quote:
You have maintained that the meaning in Ezekiel can only mean immediate, physical cessation and extinction.
Another misrepresentation. This concerns Ezekiel 18:20. That's 2.
In Message 15, I stated: My contention is that Ezekiel meant the one who sins will pay the price for the sin, not the rest of his family. Real time penalty for real time sin. If you feel he meant spiritual death, please show evidence to support your position. BTW, you provided no evidence.
Again in Message 32, I stated: The word translated as soul is nephesh, which refers to a living being and the word translated as die is muwth which refers to physical death. Death is stated as the punishment for sin. According to Ezekiel, only the person who sins will be punished.
You even quoted it in Message 59.
The text doesn't provide info on how soon the penalty will follow and I didn't claim it did.
quote:
Next cessation of life does not have to mean only physical to God. But there in lies your problem you are limiting the definition of death or spiritual death to a group of books and you refuse to tell us what is inspired, what is not , what is Gods Word, what is not Gods Words. looking for a comprehensive definition of the word death from a Biblical perspective and narrowing it down to a few books then insisting this all the Bible has to say concerning death, is a STRAWMAN, or silly to say the least.
I'm not limiting the definition of death. The definition of death is already limited. I, a mere mortal, shouldn't have to tell you what books are inspired and which are God's word. If God is speaking of something other than physical death in the simple reading of a text provided, then show it. So far you've shown that later theology considers it other than physical.
As I explained in Message 1: In various discussions, the concept of spiritual death rises to help explain inconsistencies between Bible authors. These center around the word translated as die in the examples I provided. If you are unable to show me that the word translated as die in the OT refers to a spiritual death using the simple reading of the OT books, then I do feel it is a later concept projected backwards and doesn't reflect the simple reading of the text for the word die in the examples I provided.
I have not insisted this is all the Bible has to say. Another misrepresentation. That's 3.
In Message 10, I stated:My topic statement tells readers that I am focusing this topic on the OT prophets and the writers of the Torah (1st five books). (Admins like the topics narrowly focused.) In Message 43, I stated:
I made it very clear in Message 1, Message 6, and Message 10 that this discussion deals with the plain text of the Bible.
P'shat (Plain Text)
The p'shat is the plain, simple meaning of the text. The understanding of scripture in its natural, normal sense using the customary meanings of the word’s being used, literary style, historical and cultural setting, and context. The p'shat is the keystone of Scripture understanding. If we discard the p'shat we lose any real chance of an accurate understanding and we are no longer objectively deriving meaning from the Scriptures (exegesis), but subjectively reading meaning into the scriptures (eisogesis). The Talmud states that no passage loses its p'shat:
Talmud Shabbat 63a - Rabbi Kahana objected to Mar son of Rabbi Huna: But this refers to the words of the Torah? A verse cannot depart from its plain meaning, he replied.
Now if you don't believe one should study the simple meaning of the text or are incapable of comprehending the simple meaning of the text, you should not have taken part in this thread.
quote:
Death, in the simple reading of the verses in the OP, only demonstrates that death is a cessation of life, it does not tell you what type of life or what God has in mind in the words.
The first half is right, but the second half is wrong. They are quite clear what God had in mind. This discussion is not looking for hidden meanings.
quote:
Indicating that the Bible may be Gods word changes everything and makes everything clearer.
limiting Gods perspective of the word death and idea of death to a few books and a stict definition is building a strawman. Now watch this debating move, unless, you are prepared to say that only the Torah and Prophets are Gods Word. Is this what you are implying or directly stating?
My limits only limit you, they don't limit God. If you truly feel the words are inspired by God, then you should embrace the simple meaning and not be afraid of it.
quote:
I dont need to take away the simple reading of the text, I agree with the simple reading of the text, it only implies cessation of life,, not what type God has in mind.
Sure it did. The text was quite clear. Now that we know the simple text refers to a physical death and not a spiritual death.
quote:
Again you are viewing the text from mans perspective with mans finite understanding, unless you are prepared at this point to indicate that these are only the words of men.
As are you. Again, my personal position is irrelevant to the discussion. Just argue the position presented (the real position).
quote:
You made the assertion that spiritual death is not biblical, I have no idea what you mean by Biblical, other than your intimation to the Law and Prophets.
As I explained in Message 4, that is the title of the thread. The title is not the discussion. But as I explained to you in Message 10 Biblical means being in accord with the Bible. This discussion has been limited to specific books of the OT or Jewish Bible.
quote:
Simple enough, now remember this is Biblical accuracy forum correct, atleast that is what you indicated. That being the case, I would indicate that since you have not indicated that the NT is not the word of God, I am warrented in assuming it is also part of the Biblical record, and that while the word death means only cessation of life and does not indicate what type of life, the NT record makes clearer what is involved in the word death from Gods perspective.
You have not demonstrated that the definiton of death is limited to a physical property only, especially considering we are dealing with Gods word, concepts and ideas. you have not made clear or indicated whether the words in Ezekiel or Genesis are Gods words or mens words
Thirdly, your "position" as you put it is a totality of what you have asserted, indicated and implied, not what you choose to use later. Scince you will not indicate what you mean by Biblical, Gods words, Gods concepts, the totality of your assertions, indications and implications imply logical contradictions, when the totality of the BIBLICAL record is taken into consideration.
Fourth, indicating that a word carries a certain definition is not the same as showing that another concept is not taught or implied in the same source, especally when dealing with Godly, spiritual and esoteric concepts.
fifth. operating under the guidlines you have set out about definitions and plain and simple text interpretations, would actually contradict your ideas on the word death.
You're still just talking, not showing evidence that what you're saying is so. As I said in Message 10: Where you pull your information from for your argument is up to you, but if you bring up a later concept and apply it to the past; you also need to provide support as to how the plain text in the past says what you claim it says.
quote:
By all means please show me where i have done this. heck I am trying to get you to put words in your own mouth
There are 3 shown above, which pretty much reflects most of what you've been misrepresenting throughout the thread.
quote:
Even if you could demonstrate that death is only physical in certain verses (and you cannot)it would not remove the fact of Spiritual death overall, depending on what overall is. maybe you can help us with that point. My guess is that you will not, because you want the conversation slighted twords your contentions.
I have already demonstrated and you agreed (read quote above) that in the simple meaning of the text death refers to physical death in the verses I supplied.
quote:
Here is a simple enough question, In your estimation, not the prophets or Torah, but yours, based on your studies overall, Is spiritual death real or not?
My personal position is irrelevant to the discussion. The fact that you seem to need it is fascinating. Argue the position and not the person.
EMA, this is the last time I'm going to explain the topic, repeat myself, and respond to your off topic complaints. If you don't want to discuss the simple reading of the text, then don't participate. If you continue complaining and not addressing the topic or continue to get personal and not address the topic, I will call a moderator. The discussion needs to move forward and you seem to be stuck at the beginning.
To other participants: Please move the discussion forward.

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-22-2009 4:00 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-23-2009 3:22 AM purpledawn has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


(1)
Message 81 of 281 (525273)
09-22-2009 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Dawn Bertot
09-22-2009 2:19 AM


Re: Death
EMA writes:
Come on Peg, theres a difference between someone calling him from earth and Samuel hearing them and God knowing what saul was doing and God dispatching him to Saul and the witch. God dispatched
so you believe that after God had ordered the execution of all those who practiced in divination and false religion, God suddenly has a change of heart and is now cooperating with the witches and sorcerers?
surely you dont beleive that???
if you read the account you'll see that the writer says that God had abandoned Saul and would not speak with him...Saul was to be given into the hands of the philistines becuase he was unfaithful to God. This is why Saul went to the witch in the first place, it was becuase God refused to give him any information about the philistines.
EMA writes:
God dispatched Elijah and Moses as well to the tranfiguration, regardless of if they knew anyother specifics of what was happening under the sun.
the transfiguration is the most mistunderstood account in the whole bible. It was a vision and nothing more. Moses and Elijah prefigured Jesus Christ and his role as the deliver. When Jesus was on earth, he fulfilled all of the things spoken about him including the roles that Moses and Elijah performed.
the vision was to assure the apostles that Jesus was in the role of both Moses and elijah....the roles that prefigured the Messiah.
death is the opposite of life and once we are dead, thats it. Our spirit (breath) goes out, we go back to the ground...from dust you are and to dust you will return.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-22-2009 2:19 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-23-2009 2:12 AM Peg has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 82 of 281 (525344)
09-23-2009 2:12 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Peg
09-22-2009 7:29 PM


Re: Death
so you believe that after God had ordered the execution of all those who practiced in divination and false religion, God suddenly has a change of heart and is now cooperating with the witches and sorcerers?
surely you dont beleive that???
since God is God overall he has the right to choose the time and place of his messengers dispatch. You will notice that the witch ran out, which (witch )should have indicated to Saul, that her practice was a phony and that she knew she had not produced the situatiion, which would reinforce to her that she was a phony.
In this situation it actually produced an opposite effect to the witches practices, my guess is that she thought twice about doing anything of this nature again, she probably moved to something less dramatic, probably the psychic network. Man am I glad those ignorant commercials are gone, now if we could just get rid of the male enhancement ones life, would be good again. Liberals and thier agendas, they truely are repugnant people.
if you read the account you'll see that the writer says that God had abandoned Saul and would not speak with him...Saul was to be given into the hands of the philistines becuase he was unfaithful to God. This is why Saul went to the witch in the first place, it was becuase God refused to give him any information about the philistines.
God also, had refudsed Samson his powers, and separated himself from him during his capture, until such a time as he (God) thought it necessary to restore his presence and power to Samson. God Does things on his own time and according to his eternal purposes.
You and others here really should learn this simple principle and trust in God that knows what he is doing.
Again with the wicked King, he fianally made contact with him and said, through handwriting on the wall, "You have been weighed in the balance and found wanting".
In the same way this was Sauls final judgement (sentencing)here on earth, then he died
the transfiguration is the most mistunderstood account in the whole bible. It was a vision and nothing more. Moses and Elijah prefigured Jesus Christ and his role as the deliver. When Jesus was on earth, he fulfilled all of the things spoken about him including the roles that Moses and Elijah performed.
the vision was to assure the apostles that Jesus was in the role of both Moses and elijah....the roles that prefigured the Messiah.
I certainly agree with your estimation on the last part of your statement, but i most certainly do not agree with the idea that this was a vision. there is no reason to assume that it was, unless one has another doctrinal issue of the afterlife before they come to the transfiguation. the text says that Moses and Elijah appeared to gether with Christ, you are reading vision into the text.
in most places, the text will demonstrate that it was a vision or a dream, that is not the case here
death is the opposite of life and once we are dead, thats it. Our spirit (breath) goes out, we go back to the ground...from dust you are and to dust you will return.
"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him, shall not perish but have EVERLASTING life"
You believe what you want, Im going with (John)Jesus on this one
EAM
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Peg, posted 09-22-2009 7:29 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Peg, posted 09-24-2009 7:38 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 83 of 281 (525346)
09-23-2009 3:22 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by purpledawn
09-22-2009 1:03 PM


Re: EMA Cleanup
If you continue complaining and not addressing the topic or continue to get personal and not address the topic, I will call a moderator. The discussion needs to move forward and you seem to be stuck at the beginning.
If calling in a moderator is the only way I can get you to answer direct questions that relate directly to the assertions and contentions, them by all means, call one in.
My personal position is irrelevant to the discussion. The fact that you seem to need it is fascinating. Argue the position and not the person.
that is nonsensical, you cannot separate the position from the person, it came from your mind, its you making the assertions., ie "Spiritual death is not Biblical". did you say this or not?
If Spiritual death is not biblical and biblical means being in accord with the Bible, what gives you the right to limit the concept of spiritual death to certain books of the Bible.
I have already demonstrated and you agreed (read quote above) that in the simple meaning of the text death refers to physical death in the verses I supplied.
I have agreed that physical death is involved in the definition, not that it is limited to physical death only, that is your contention. however, even assuming this for argument sake (which I was doing), this does not translate to "Spiritual death is not Biblical". One is an estimation on your part, the other is a contention or assertion, that is NOT supported by your estimation or definition soley. therein lies your problem.
You have now moved forward by giving us a tenative definition of Biblical, "in accord with the Bible", your mistake however, and its a logical error, is making this statement about Biblical, then assuming you have a right to limit the definition and understanding of Spiritual death to a few books, when in fact in the common usage of the term, it would include numerous other books
Sure it did. The text was quite clear. Now that we know the simple text refers to a physical death and not a spiritual death.
again you are commiting a logical error, given your definition of Biblical. your estimation here and overall would not support the "in accord with the Bible", concept of death, Spiritual or otherwise. why not try taking a look at all the biblical perspective, unless you want to admit you dont believe the rest is from God.
My limits only limit you, they don't limit God. If you truly feel the words are inspired by God, then you should embrace the simple meaning and not be afraid of it.
Now that is some good advice. I tell you what I will do, Ill embrace the simple meaning, which I already said I do, IF, IF, you will agree to embrace the WHOLE of the BIBLICAL record on the teaching about death, in both the Old and the New. Agreed?
So now your desire is to limit the word Biblical to a single verse.
(Plain Text)
The p'shat is the plain, simple meaning of the text. The understanding of scripture in its natural, normal sense using the customary meanings of the word’s being used, literary style, historical and cultural setting, and context. The p'shat is the keystone of Scripture understanding. If we discard the p'shat we lose any real chance of an accurate understanding and we are no longer objectively deriving meaning from the Scriptures (exegesis), but subjectively reading meaning into the scriptures (eisogesis). The Talmud states that no passage loses its p'shat:
Talmud Shabbat 63a - Rabbi Kahana objected to Mar son of Rabbi Huna: But this refers to the words of the Torah? A verse cannot depart from its plain meaning, he replied.
Now if you don't believe one should study the simple meaning of the text or are incapable of comprehending the simple meaning of the text, you should not have taken part in this thread.
Word study is very essential, but the text, context and entirity of the biblical teaching will clarify exacally what God means by death. The quote above does not take this application of exegesis into account, or atleast it appears not to.
I'm not limiting the definition of death. The definition of death is already limited. I, a mere mortal, shouldn't have to tell you what books are inspired and which are God's word. If God is speaking of something other than physical death in the simple reading of a text provided, then show it. So far you've shown that later theology considers it other than physical.
the simple reading of the text provided, as you put it, is not all the Biblical record has to say about death, its only one application here again you seem to be implying non importance to later theology, assuming or insinuating that the previous is the only one that can be trusted. Am I correct?
Again a simple question. Is the torah, Prophets, Old Testament or New testament the Word of God in your estimation and in your view?
I made it very clear in Message 1, Message 6, and Message 10 that this discussion deals with the plain text of the Bible.
The Torah and the prophets are not the plain text of "THE ENTIRE BIBLE", also to extend this principle to include the topic or contention that Spiritual death is not Biblical, is something quite different. at this point you move past what a group of people believed in a few books or what the plain text of a few books state, to include material that does not support your positon on death, but which you refuse to acknowledge or incoorperate.
You can talk about whatever topic you want from any or afew books of the Bible and pretend that thats all it has to say and then pretend this is a valid way to proceed, but no thinking person would adopt such a method
at this point you may wish to either have me ejected or bring in a moderator. Anyway see you in the morning
EAM
Edited by AdminPD, : Fixed quote box

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by purpledawn, posted 09-22-2009 1:03 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by purpledawn, posted 09-23-2009 7:50 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


(1)
Message 84 of 281 (525379)
09-23-2009 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Dawn Bertot
09-23-2009 3:22 AM


Adam and Eve - Simple Reading
quote:
I dont need to take away the simple reading of the text, I agree with the simple reading of the text, it only implies cessation of life,, not what type God has in mind.
PurpleDawn writes:
Sure it did. The text was quite clear. Now that we know the simple text refers to a physical death and not a spiritual death.
again you are commiting a logical error, given your definition of Biblical. your estimation here and overall would not support the "in accord with the Bible", concept of death, Spiritual or otherwise. why not try taking a look at all the biblical perspective, unless you want to admit you dont believe the rest is from God.
Genesis 2:16-17
And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."
You have agreed that in the simple reading of the text, the word translated as die implies cessation of life. But you feel the simple reading doesn't imply what type of death.
The answer depends on whether the people of the time felt the spirit could die. If the spirit can't die, then the type of death is easy. God is speaking to Adam and saying that Adam will die if he eats from the tree. God is referring to a normal physical death. Since the spirit can't die, the word death would not be referring to the spirit.
If the spirit can die (as in cease to exist), then again the type is still easy. The body can't live without the spirit. In the OT the spirit is the breath within us. If the spirit dies, the body dies. So the result is still a physical death.
So in the simple reading of Genesis 2:17, God was referring to physical death when he told Adam he would die if he ate from the tree. Anyone listening to the story for the first time would also understand God to be speaking of physical death.
Now if spiritual death means separation or alienation of the soul from God, then the simple reading of the verse is not referring to spiritual death. God only speaks of death, not separation or alienation.

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-23-2009 3:22 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-23-2009 9:20 AM purpledawn has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 85 of 281 (525395)
09-23-2009 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by purpledawn
09-23-2009 7:50 AM


Re: Adam and Eve - Simple Reading
PD writes:
You have agreed that in the simple reading of the text, the word translated as die implies cessation of life. But you feel the simple reading doesn't imply what type of death.
The answer depends on whether the people of the time felt the spirit could die. If the spirit can't die, then the type of death is easy. God is speaking to Adam and saying that Adam will die if he eats from the tree. God is referring to a normal physical death. Since the spirit can't die, the word death would not be referring to the spirit.
If the spirit can die (as in cease to exist), then again the type is still easy. The body can't live without the spirit. In the OT the spirit is the breath within us. If the spirit dies, the body dies. So the result is still a physical death.
So in the simple reading of Genesis 2:17, God was referring to physical death when he told Adam he would die if he ate from the tree. Anyone listening to the story for the first time would also understand God to be speaking of physical death.
Now if spiritual death means separation or alienation of the soul from God, then the simple reading of the verse is not referring to spiritual death. God only speaks of death, not separation or alienation.
These paragraphs and this exegesis would be very good, except it is built on a faulty premise and that faulty premise is in line one of the second paragraph:
"the ANSWER DEPENDS on whether the people of the time FELT the Spirit could die"
You kidding right, I thought it would be what the totality of the Biblical account would be that determined what the definition of Spiritual death would be.
As I told you before, you are looking at things from a Human perspective. The rest of the paragraphs are therefore, of no effect, since you use the human perspective to decide whether the Spirit can die.
let me elaborate, however. You are exacally correct in assuming that the meaning includes physical death. one certainly would come away with that estimation. But, and thats a big Butt, as we move through the scriptures we begin to see something else emerge a concept of the afterlife, the expansion and explanation or the soul and Spirit and finally the fact that the soul or Spirit is more than the body and that it will go on forever., ie
"what shall it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses his own soul, or what shall he give in exchange for his soul"
Now these words would have no meaning if we are dead like rover, dead all over.
You may be absolutley correct, these people may have had a limited knowledge of what was involved in the matters of Soul and death, but gladly we have the entire Biblical account to clear up any confusion.
I still think that using just the Old testament though, your estimation is still incorrect and one could come away with an idea of soul apart from body and a type of death other than physical, that is a separation aspect and thats just using the Old testament.
Lets stick with the Adam and Eve scenerio for a minute. Since they didnt die, we may assume they would have lived forever, had they not eaten. This is a reasonable conclusion from the text. Now this item alone demonstrates that man being created in Gods image possess the ability to go on forever, unless sin gets in the way and blocks the avenue. The text indicates this, whether you believe the body and soul are one or not. this alone demonstrates that mans soul is more than breath, that is, there is something that cant simply disappear.
Even if God changed his mind, they eventually did die physically, which implies that they would not have, had they not eaten of the fruit. So the conclusion from the plain text is that they would have lived forever physically, which demonstrates that man has the potential to be immmortal, even physically, correct?
Question, if they had not eaten would they have lived forever? That is if we are going to go by what the plain text indicates.
A 'spiritual death' or separation is indicated by the fact that God removed this IMMORTAL PHYSICAL status and placed a condemnation on them from an earthly aspect as well. Now watch this, even if death is extinction (I dont believe it is)the immortal physical aspect of thier exisistence, IN A RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD was removed, that is they began to die physically, this alone is a type of Spiritual Death, Something was lost that they previously had
Conclusion, from this passage alone we can determine that death is more than physical, because the immortal aspect was removed, which removes it from the physical status. Would you agree with this assesment?
Fortunatley however, the rest of the Biblical record clarifies what might have been missing in anyones understanding., ie, that the soul even after physical death continues to exsist in some form, that experiences separation from God and eternal punishment. That is if we are going to consider the entire Biblical account.
Even if you dont believe this aspect, there was still a spiritual death as described above
So in the simple reading of Genesis 2:17, God was referring to physical death when he told Adam he would die if he ate from the tree. Anyone listening to the story for the first time would also understand God to be speaking of physical death.
So in the simple reading of the text, anyone listening to this statement made here and in other places about death would also understand that he is not really serious about death as a consequence to disobedience to his commands since Adam lived nearly 1000 years afterwards and nobody else that sins dies either.
So how can the first time reader in this place and others come away with only the idea of physical death. If they did not die, what type of physical death is under consideration?
Here is another question, if they had not eaten of thee tree of knowledge would they have lived forever? in other words was this breath of life as you describe it, initially eternal, that is what the plain reading of the text indicates, correct?
EAM
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by purpledawn, posted 09-23-2009 7:50 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by AdminModulous, posted 09-23-2009 6:11 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 89 by purpledawn, posted 09-24-2009 8:31 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
AdminModulous
Administrator
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


(1)
Message 86 of 281 (525555)
09-23-2009 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Dawn Bertot
09-23-2009 9:20 AM


A moderator steps in
Hi EMA,
I was reading the thread and thinking that things were going around in circles. This seemed to me to be due to a difference in understanding regarding what exactly is being debated which has lead to frustration. I noticed that you expressed this frustration more keenly in your posts.
So I'd first like to ask you to try and maintain an emotive distance in your debate. That isn't to say you can't express emotions, but try to separate your points and your frustrations because otherwise I fear it will only lead to further confusion and further frustration.
I was going to suggest you try taking a different course of argument in an effort to move the debate forwards, maybe revisiting the older issues later when new understandings have come about. However, you seem to have anticipated this in your latest post and it looks like you are trying to make your points in a different way, so that's good.
I know that you are eager to discuss the totality of the Christian Holy Bible, using later writings to interpret meaning of earlier writings. That is fine, and I understand the reasons for doing this. However, purpledawn stipulated that this topic was how the concept of spiritual death stems from the Greek writings - which she believes to have been influenced by Greek philosophy - and is a concept that is not plainly described in the Torah and the writings of the prophets.
If you think this approach is meaningless or nonsense, then attempting to debate is probably not going to be productive.
You complained that purpledawn was evading questions. I agree with purpledawn that the questions you seem to be demanding are irrelevant, but once again I understand why you think they are relevant.
So think about it like this: Imagine being an Israelite without access to all of the writings in the Christian canon. How would such a person come to the conclusion that the much discussed death verses in the Adam and Eve story meant 'spiritual death' rather than just plain 'death'? Is there something in the texts under discussion that suggests that God meant 'spiritual death'? That is to say, purpledawn's beliefs are not what is in question, but the beliefs of the early readers/earthly writers. Even if you believe that they did not have at their disposal enough of God's revelation to understand fully everything that was being revealed. Perhaps from this perspective, it might be easier for a meeting of minds to take place?
Now - it seems with your latest post, the one I am responding to, that you are putting forward something of a case in this avenue.
As such I think the debate still has the potential to advance in interesting directions. I merely stress the need for all to remain civil, whatever the disagreements may be. I'll be watching the thread's progress.
Normally I'd ask that you don't respond to a moderator's post. However, I appreciate that you might feel that my assessment is unfair or onesided. And that would be a fair thing to feel. If you feel there is some specific thing that you believe purpledawn can do to advance the debate, or any other moderator requests I will happily read your concerns.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-23-2009 9:20 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 87 of 281 (525666)
09-24-2009 7:38 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Dawn Bertot
09-23-2009 2:12 AM


Re: Death
EMA writes:
"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him, shall not perish but have EVERLASTING life"
You believe what you want, Im going with (John)Jesus on this one
yet you believe that when people die physically, they continue to live on in another form and therefore they already have everlasting life
why do they need Jesus?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-23-2009 2:12 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 88 of 281 (525668)
09-24-2009 7:53 AM


How would an Isrealite come to the conclusion that the much discussed death verses in the Adam and Eve story meant 'spiritual death' rather than just plain 'death'?
In Genesis it reads "For in the day of your eating from it you will positively die"
we know they died hundreds of years later according to Genesis, so right here is the answer
They died, not physically, but in another way on the day they ate from it.
what other way is there to die?
Ezekiel said that Isreal had become a pile of dead bones becauas they had been unfaithful to God....they were dead in Gods eyes because they left him spiritually. They still dwelt in the promised land, but they were not worshiping him, therefore they were 'spiritually' dead.
Adam and Eve chose to leave God too when they disobeyed him and therefore they were dead in a spiritual sense because they no longer lived according to Gods spirit, but chose their own path.
My conclusion is that 'spiritual death' is most definitely an OT concept.

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by purpledawn, posted 09-24-2009 11:13 AM Peg has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


(1)
Message 89 of 281 (525680)
09-24-2009 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Dawn Bertot
09-23-2009 9:20 AM


Re: Adam and Eve - Simple Reading
quote:
let me elaborate, however. You are exacally correct in assuming that the meaning includes physical death. one certainly would come away with that estimation. But, and thats a big Butt, as we move through the scriptures we begin to see something else emerge a concept of the afterlife, the expansion and explanation or the soul and Spirit and finally the fact that the soul or Spirit is more than the body and that it will go on forever., ie
I agree that the concepts of body and spirit changed over time. The Sadducees didn't believe in resurrection or that the spirit continued on even as a shadow. We just ceased to exist. (Their thoughts, not mine.) So even at the time of Jesus there were two very different thoughts on the subject of spirit and afterlife among the Jews and the Sadducees were very strict about sticking to what was written in the Torah or first five books. The Hellenistic period of Jewish history began about 332 BCE.
quote:
"what shall it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses his own soul, or what shall he give in exchange for his soul"
Mark 8:36 The word psuch, which is translated as soul, simply means life.
(3) By an easy transition the word comes to stand for the individual, personal life, the person, with two distinct shades of meaning which might best be indicated by the Latin anima and animus. As anima, "soul," the life inherent in the body, the animating principle in the blood is denoted (compare Dt 12:23,24, `Only be sure that thou eat not the blood: for the blood is the soul; and thou shalt not eat the soul with the flesh'). As animus, "mind," the center of our mental activities and passivities is indicated. Thus we read of `a hungry soul' (Ps 107:9), `a weary soul' (Jer 31:25), `a loathing soul' (Lev 26:11), `a thirsty soul' (Ps 42:2), `a grieved soul' (Job 30:25), `a loving soul' (Song 1:7), and many kindred expressions. Cremer has characterized this use of the word in a sentence: "Nephesh (soul) in man is the subject of personal life, whereof pneuma or ruach (spirit) is the principle" (Lexicon, under the word, 795).
The statement isn't referring to the afterlife.
quote:
Lets stick with the Adam and Eve scenerio for a minute. Since they didnt die, we may assume they would have lived forever, had they not eaten. This is a reasonable conclusion from the text. Now this item alone demonstrates that man being created in Gods image possess the ability to go on forever, unless sin gets in the way and blocks the avenue. The text indicates this, whether you believe the body and soul are one or not. this alone demonstrates that mans soul is more than breath, that is, there is something that cant simply disappear.
Even if God changed his mind, they eventually did die physically, which implies that they would not have, had they not eaten of the fruit. So the conclusion from the plain text is that they would have lived forever physically, which demonstrates that man has the potential to be immmortal, even physically, correct?
Question, if they had not eaten would they have lived forever? That is if we are going to go by what the plain text indicates.
Not without the tree of life. At the time the warning is given, the reader has no indication that A&E would live forever. The story does not imply that A&E knew about the tree of life. Only when we get to the deliberation stage where God divulges that they could partake of the tree of life and live forever do we see that they had that potential, if they knew about it. Instead of killing A&E God chose to separate them from the tree of life. The story doesn't provide enough information to determine if A&E knew about the tree of life and partook of it before the incident or not. The story does tell us that A&E were mortal. The tree of life would not have made a difference if they were already immortal. We can only conclude that they would have lived for ever if they were able to eat from the tree.
quote:
A 'spiritual death' or separation is indicated by the fact that God removed this IMMORTAL PHYSICAL status and placed a condemnation on them from an earthly aspect as well. Now watch this, even if death is extinction (I dont believe it is)the immortal physical aspect of thier exisistence, IN A RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD was removed, that is they began to die physically, this alone is a type of Spiritual Death, Something was lost that they previously had
Conclusion, from this passage alone we can determine that death is more than physical, because the immortal aspect was removed, which removes it from the physical status. Would you agree with this assesment?
No
quote:
Fortunatley however, the rest of the Biblical record clarifies what might have been missing in anyones understanding., ie, that the soul even after physical death continues to exsist in some form, that experiences separation from God and eternal punishment. That is if we are going to consider the entire Biblical account.
Even if you dont believe this aspect, there was still a spiritual death as described above
But this belief cannot be attached to the word translated as die in the simple reading of the text.
quote:
So in the simple reading of the text, anyone listening to this statement made here and in other places about death would also understand that he is not really serious about death as a consequence to disobedience to his commands since Adam lived nearly 1000 years afterwards and nobody else that sins dies either.
So how can the first time reader in this place and others come away with only the idea of physical death. If they did not die, what type of physical death is under consideration?
No, they would see a merciful God. Just physical death.
Edited by purpledawn, : Continuing response

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-23-2009 9:20 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-24-2009 1:52 PM purpledawn has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


(1)
Message 90 of 281 (525714)
09-24-2009 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Peg
09-24-2009 7:53 AM


Why can't God be considered merciful in the A&E story?
The story does not imply spiritual separation from God. They still had a relationship with God after they left the Garden.
In chapter 4 Eve said she had gotten a man from the Lord. In 4:25, Eve said God gave her another son to replace Abel. Although they suffered the penalty for their disobedience God was still with them.
You may view that as spiritual separation, but the text doesn't support the idea you've presented as removal of the Holy Spirit. The story doesn't mention the Holy Spirit at all.
quote:
Ezekiel said that Isreal had become a pile of dead bones becauas they had been unfaithful to God....they were dead in Gods eyes because they left him spiritually. They still dwelt in the promised land, but they were not worshiping him, therefore they were 'spiritually' dead.
Now you've stated that spiritual death deals with the removal of the Holy Spirit from the people. Now you are saying they left God spiritually. What do you mean by that? Just the worship practices? What in the text shows that all the Israelites weren't worshipping God?
quote:
Adam and Eve chose to leave God too when they disobeyed him and therefore they were dead in a spiritual sense because they no longer lived according to Gods spirit, but chose their own path.
They didn't choose to leave God. The warning wasn't if you eat you leave. The warning was that if you eat you die and the snake told them they wouldn't. Leaving wasn't a choice option for Eve at the time. Show me in the text that they weren't living according to God's spirit. They boys were making sacrifices to God. God gave Adam and Eve children. Adam and Eve are not described as doing anything else wrong in the story. Now they knew right from wrong.
quote:
My conclusion is that "spiritual death" is most definitely an OT concept.
But it isn't presented in the story. You're placing a Christian concept on a very old Hebrew story. Show me that the words express spiritual death.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Peg, posted 09-24-2009 7:53 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-25-2009 12:45 AM purpledawn has replied
 Message 93 by Peg, posted 09-25-2009 5:14 AM purpledawn 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