Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Your favourite Bible absurdity
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 1 of 159 (37202)
04-17-2003 7:23 AM


Most of us know that the Bible was written for relatively uneducated people who lived in a prescientific age. The Bible has some excellent literature within it, epic poems, exciting myths, one or two catchy songs, and even some erotica for those that are that way inclined.
But within this wonderful tapestry lies some extremely funny verses, some that are so absurd that you really do need to laugh.
For me personally, the Bible absurdity that I like best is Exodus 17:14
"Then the LORD said to Moses, "Write this on a scroll as something to be remembered and make sure that Joshua hears it, because I will completely blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven."
I would hazard a guess and claim that the only place that the vast majority of people have heard of Amalek is actually in the Bible!
So our mighty Lord has made sure that the memory of Amalek is in fact guaranteed to live forever, in God's inspired book!
What is your favourite bible absurdity?

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Percy, posted 04-17-2003 10:24 AM Brian has not replied
 Message 3 by Quetzal, posted 04-17-2003 10:45 AM Brian has not replied
 Message 7 by Paul, posted 04-17-2003 1:59 PM Brian has replied
 Message 14 by Coragyps, posted 04-17-2003 4:11 PM Brian has not replied
 Message 55 by Autocatalysis, posted 06-01-2003 11:34 PM Brian has not replied
 Message 74 by mike the wiz, posted 06-22-2003 5:48 PM Brian has not replied
 Message 126 by NoBody, posted 12-04-2003 8:05 PM Brian has not replied
 Message 130 by Buzsaw, posted 03-24-2004 8:32 AM Brian has replied
 Message 139 by ateuphall, posted 03-25-2004 1:36 PM Brian has replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 21 of 159 (37262)
04-18-2003 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Paul
04-17-2003 1:59 PM


Hardly an absurdity BJ. Stick with me now and get your bible out :-)
Blot Out: 1. To make obscure, insignificant, inconsequential.
2. Wipe out, Destroy.
So I get my Bible out and where do I find the definition of 'Blot out'? And which one do I use for this reference?
This verse taken literally and in context is very easy to understand. What is the "memory" of Amalek ? Quite simply him and his descendents. The Amalekites referred to here were the descendents of Amalek: son of Eliphaz: son of Esau and Adah (Gen.36:1-12).
I disagree, taken literally this verse means that the Lord will 'utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven.'
Now to do this the Lord not only has to wipe out all the decsnedants but also has to wipe out any references to what Amalek has done. He hasn't done this. To 'destroy' the memory of someone you have to wipe out all signs of him.
To 'destroy' the 'remembrance'of him you have to eradicate everyone that could 'remember' him.
Amalek lead his people into this aggresive(then came Amalek Ex.17:8), brutal, and cowardly(Dt.25:17-19) attack on Isreal. It was for this attack that God cut this people off.
No more cowardly then the many atrocities commited by YHWH.
This "blotting out" has been fulfilled, as there are no people on earth today known as or called the Amalekites. Ex.17:16 tells us how this was accomplished, done through war with all his generations. This war was carried on by Ehud (Judg.3:13-15): Barak (Judg.5:14): Gideon (Judg.6:3): Saul (1Sam.15): Samuel (1Sam.15:32-33): David (1Sam.27:8;30:1-17; 2Sam.8:12): and finally completed by the Simeonites in the time of Hezekiah (1Chr. 4:42-43).
Really, do you have proof that there ever were people known as the Amalekites? How do you know that there are not descendants that are known by a different name? Is it reasonable to assume that not a single Amalekite left the tribe and settled in another region, or inter-married with another tribe? Also, why did it take YHWH over 400 years to wipe them out? (if they did exist of course)
These Amalekites were of course a branch of the Edomites(all being descendents of Esau-Edom, who of course was the brother of Jacob-Isreal). The history of the Edomites is one of many wars with Isreal, and quite unique in that the two nations started with Esau and Jacob, them being brothers. The Edomites were in fact a more advanced and stronger people(having Dukes and Kings Gen. 36) than the Isrealites at one point. Yet King David completely defeated them and made them subject to Isreal for approx. 150 years (2Sam.8:14), this of course being prophesied in Gen.25:23. In the Millenium, which is to come, the Edomites of that day will again be ruled by Isreal (Ps.60:8-10: Isa.11:14; 63:1; Amos 9:12).
All this, of course, without a single external shred of evidence!
What proof do you have that the Edomites ever had any battles with the Israelites, what proof do you have that there ever was a King David? You are using a fairytale book to support the fairy tales that are written in it.
The rest of the post is just a summary of more bible mythology with no support from any external sources.
In this case "Memory" = Amalek and his descendents.
I disagree, in this case 'memory' = everything associted with Amalek. IMHO of course.
Indeed he has. That being to never forget that Rebellion, Idolatry, and a lack of fear of God, will at some point bring a provoked and invited sentence upon ones life unless there is spiritual change. "John 3:16"
This is excellent and summarises Christianity, and the teachings of Jesus very well. Essentially it says this, 'if you do not believe my fairy stories then you are to be prepared to have a loving God cast you into hell'. Well this may have been convincing enough for uneducated peasants centuries ago, and it is even convincing for anyone who goes through the cerebral bypass known as being 'born again', but for 'normal' people, this is no more than a threat on a level with 'if you stand on a crack in the pavement then you will break your mummy's dishes'.
The threat of a revengeful God means absolutely nothing, God is absent from the universe, He only exists in the delusions of ex drug addicts, ex alcoholics, brain washed chldren and people who need the 'comfort blanket' of eternal life.
Anyway, your explanation of 'memory' does make some sense, as some apologetics often do, but on closer inspection it is nothning more that a desperate clutch at a straw.
Best Wishes.
Brian.
PS. Pleased to meet you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Paul, posted 04-17-2003 1:59 PM Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by sagg, posted 04-18-2003 10:38 AM Brian has replied
 Message 40 by Paul, posted 04-18-2003 2:28 PM Brian has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 29 of 159 (37271)
04-18-2003 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by sagg
04-18-2003 10:38 AM


That's an arrogant statement if I've ever heard one.
No more arrogant than claiming that your God is the one true one.
So you don't think people far smarter than yourself, more knowledgeable in science, philosophy, art, music, history, etc. have believed in God?
Where did i say that? I would be crazy to believe that, stil doesnt mean there's a God though. I wasn't having a cheap shot at God, I was having a cheap and deseved shot at christiaity and Jesus!
Dont you think that there are many people smarter than yourself, more knowledgeable at science, philosophy, art, music, history etc, that don't believe in God, or worse, that believe that Allah is God. Your plea to authority is pointless.
It's happened on more than one occasion where skeptic scientist have set out to dissprove God, and wind up converting in the process because of the evidence they find for him.
Has it, who and where?
I also believe that the opposite can happen.
I hope you can suck your pride back up and admit this was a cheap shot. You can't discredit the belief of millions of people, many of them as smart or smarter than you, because of what your own little mind supposes to understand.
Why not, this is what hunndreds of millions of christians do everyday, they discredit, or try to, discredit everyone that disagrees with them.
Really though, you do owe an apology. Just because you don't believe something doesn't mean you are right, or give you the power to discredit others' beliefs - which have just as much room for validity as your own.
I owe no one an apology, I have done nothing wrong. The belief in God, becasue it has never been proven and has no good evidence, is invalid.
BTW - the Bible doesn't say people are condemned to Hell because of God's revenge, people make that decision for themselves. Actually, all people are condemned to Hell, because we all choose against God. It is by God's GRACE that some are SAVED FROM HELL. So, your little emotional spat runeth over in errors...
Make up your mind, are we condemned to hell or not?
Dress it up anyway you want, God condemns people because his jealous nature cannot abide any of his creation realising that he is a joke.
God's grace, dont make me laugh. Look at the christian salvic myth. God makes a mistake and blames us for it! Oh and to make things ok again between his creation and himself he requires that his son be tortured and murdered! You really need to be incloud cuckoo land to swallow this nonsense.
A God who makes people especially to see them suffer in hell is a horrendous belief. God, who must know everything, knows that many more people will reject Jesus than will accpet him, so does he try and understand and be a loving father? No he casts them into the pit.
Try being a bit more critical of your Book, take of the rose tinted specs and see what an abomination on mankind that Jesus and christianity has been.
Brian.
PS, I am not ranting, I am a very placid person

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by sagg, posted 04-18-2003 10:38 AM sagg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by sagg, posted 04-18-2003 11:58 AM Brian has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 47 of 159 (37310)
04-19-2003 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by sagg
04-18-2003 1:06 PM


I will post this for sagg because the chances are he/she will be lurking.
Firstly, I never directed a single ‘insult’ directly at you. I simply stated my belief that anyone who believes in God is a nut, and that anyone who takes the biblical ‘fall of man’ myth, lives in cloud cuckoo land. You took this personally. I never attached it to you. The first post wasn’t even addressed to you! Why is no other Christian at the site spitting out their dummy and going in a huff. If you do not want to debate with me just say so, there are many more here who you could debate with.
Obviously, this is not a place for rational discussion, so I will withdrawl from this site. Again, Brian attacks the intellect of believers, saying they have to be Cuckoo.
Everything I have said is rational, belief in God as portrayed in the Bible is irrational, I suggest that you read some of writings from the various schools of bible criticism that were given freedom to express themselves after the Enlightenment.
I would read Reimarus, Colenso, and Strauss, if I were you and get a bit of background knowledge of Bible criticism.
You are the one going on about how each one of us is entitled to our beliefs and that they are all equally valid, yet my belief that someone who believes in God has had a cerebral bypass and that anyone who swallows the Christian salvic myth lives in cloud cuckoo land is offensive to you. It may be offensive but I am entitled to believe it according to your own statement.
If you think I am not allowed to believe something because it is offensive to Christians then ask yourself how offensive Christianity and Bible inerrancy is to other people. The Bible asks us to believe all sorts of impossibilities and it is nothing less than an insult to our intelligence to take these things literally.
How can anyone belief that the world was flooded 4400 yeas ago without a single shred of proof, and the concept itself is so ludicrous, when we look at it objectively, that to ask us to accept the Flood myth as a real event is to assume that we are of very low intelligence, and that is insulting.
This is absurd, and childish.
No, this is rational and based on years of study and observation.
of course a lot of Christians are arrogant and make harsh judgements.
I would say that to be arrogant and to make harsh judements means that they are not Christians.
If you bothered to read my posts, I do say they I admit I could be wrong in my beliefs. I never claimed exclusively that my God is the only God. I BLIEVE He is the one and only true God, but I'm not saying that is a fact. It is a faith statement.
So you are not a Christian then, to have these doubts means that you have not accepted Jesus in your heart and that you haven’t been ‘born again’. There is still time to save you
Thank you for you closed minds, presummptions, and all.
You assume that you are the first person that has come here with these wild claims. I have arrived at my conclusions through having an open mind and through years of study. My belief that theists and Bible inerrantists have some serious psychological problems is not the product of a closed mind. It may appear closed to you because I cannot be bothered going over the same tired old chestnuts everytime a new poster arrives here.
All of you are to prideful to admit you could be wrong, and resort to bashing someone's intelligence if they believe other than you.
Way to go.
Grow up. Good bye.
If any credible evidence is ever presented then maybe I would admit that I could be wrong, but as the debate stands, there is nothing credible to consider.
I think that the reason you are going isn’t because of my ‘insults’ it is because you know that you are unable to defend your fantasy through rational debate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by sagg, posted 04-18-2003 1:06 PM sagg has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by truthlover, posted 05-06-2003 12:44 AM Brian has replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 48 of 159 (37311)
04-19-2003 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Coragyps
04-18-2003 8:13 PM


Hi
The authors say their findings argue strongly for the historicity of Solomon.
Could you quickly summarise why they believe the historisity of solomon is supported?
Many Thanks
Brian

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Coragyps, posted 04-18-2003 8:13 PM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Coragyps, posted 04-19-2003 11:09 AM Brian has replied
 Message 56 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 06-02-2003 7:39 AM Brian has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 50 of 159 (37378)
04-20-2003 4:37 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Coragyps
04-19-2003 11:09 AM


Many thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Coragyps, posted 04-19-2003 11:09 AM Coragyps has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 52 of 159 (39062)
05-06-2003 4:57 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by truthlover
05-06-2003 12:44 AM


Hi, thank you for your reply.
Your choice of examples was very interesting to me. I have trouble seeing how it is "offensive" to have someone ask you to believe something that is absurd.
I think that telling people that they must take the Bible literally is an insult to their intelligence and I find that offensive. For example, I have pointed out to many Christians that the 70 people that went into Egypt could not possibly multiply into 2.5 million people in 430 years, you would not believe the contortions they perform to explain that one. So in order to take these verses literally I have to ignore every shred of evidence to the contrary, why should I do this? I find it offensive that I am, in a way, being bullied into ignoring common sense.
This does lead to your point about Hell, because invariably when I point out these absurdities the Christian reminds me of the day of judgement. So not only do I have to swallow all sorts of fairytales, I have to answer to Jesus for my stance before he lobs me into the pit.
I also think that literalists, or at least the ones I have been involved with, really need to take some courses in biblical studies. They will find that many of the narratives in the Bible need to be interpreted and cannot be taken at face value. A literal reading of the Bible doesn’t necessarily say that the universe is 6000 years old, or that the entire Earth was flooded, or that Adam literally lived to be 930 years old. But these people seem to either be too lazy or too dense to be bothered studying their scriptures in detail.
I think most people, trying to make your point, would have used the fact that literalists believe you deserve to bake in endless torment in a lake of fire as punishment for the heinous crime of not seeing any evidence for their beliefs. Being told that you are so evil that you deserve eternal torture seems a lot more offensive than being nagged about believing something you see as absurd.
Yes of course this is offensive too, but it is the reasons why I am going to Hell that I find offensive, not just the end product. I believe that anyone who says this has to justify their conclusions and they have to explain each individual reason for damnation. Now (in simple terms) these people are telling me that I have to believe that the first woman ate a fruit and God totally overreacted and kicked her and her partner out of Eden. He then decides that the whole of mankind will pay for her mistake but in a moment of regret he decides that mankind can do something to make everything all right again. What is the deal then, say sorry and promise not to do it again, get grounded for a week? No, we have to torture and crucify his son! Now to ask me to take this literally is insulting, it demands that I ignore my common sense and ignore everything I have learned as a person. So, in a way I agree with you to some extent, but I also find the reasons why I am going to Hell offensive to my intelligence.
I honestly believe that people who force a literal reading of the Bible onto others are not Christians. They seem to forget that telling people that they are going to hell is not their job. Sure they can spread the Gospel, and the consequences of ignoring it, but I don't remember the good news saying that they have to rant and rave and condemn people who question the validity of the Gospel.
These people may be surprised to know that their approach only puts more distance between the unbeliever and Christ. Do I really want to convert to Christianity if the end product means that I am going to be one of these raving lunatics?
What are these people going to say to Jesus at Judgement Day when He asks them why they drove so many people furthee away from his flock?
Anyway, thanks for the reply, I reckon that people just find different things offensive, maybe I am a little bit more sensitive than the average person.
Best Wishes
Brian.
------------------
Remembering events that never happened is a dangerous thing!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by truthlover, posted 05-06-2003 12:44 AM truthlover has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 62 of 159 (42067)
06-04-2003 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Conspirator
06-03-2003 4:44 PM


. An all-powerful being can create a great tree from a mustard seed because it's all-powerful.
A mustard seed is all powerful ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Conspirator, posted 06-03-2003 4:44 PM Conspirator has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 75 of 159 (43668)
06-22-2003 6:48 PM


Have you been drinking Mike, or are you filled with the brain numbing Holy Spirit?
------------------
Remembering events that never happened is a dangerous thing!

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by IrishRockhound, posted 06-23-2003 9:33 AM Brian has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 100 of 159 (43960)
06-24-2003 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Itachi Uchiha
06-24-2003 1:30 PM


hi jazz
Jesus is morre real than that monkey man or missing link thing. you can check outside the bible for the existence of jesus and there is evidence and a lot of it. If jesus is real so must have moses,abraham, adam, and the creation. Jesus is a witness of creation and im afraid theres no witness of evolution
There's so many logical fallacies in this paragraph that I don't know where to start.
Fact number one: There is no contemporary references to Jesus.
Fact number two: Even the New Testament references are not contemporary.
Fact Number Three: 'If jesus is real so must have moses,abraham, adam, and the creation', this is a non sequitur. For example, it is a fact that there was a Muhammad, therefore there must be an Allah, you agree?
Fact Number four: Creation is unproven.
Fact number five: Evolution is witnessed every day in science labs.
Oh while we are on the subject, can you provide evidence that the biblical characters known as Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, the great Moses, Joshua, the wonderful Saul, the amazing King David, and Solomon were actually historical characters.
Following your logic, if Jesus was real then so is everything else in the Bible, so what if you discover that these people are fictional, will you then think that Jesus is fictional?
Best Wishes
Brian.
------------------
Remembering events that never happened is a dangerous thing!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Itachi Uchiha, posted 06-24-2003 1:30 PM Itachi Uchiha has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Autocatalysis, posted 06-24-2003 11:32 PM Brian has replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 107 of 159 (44111)
06-25-2003 7:55 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Autocatalysis
06-24-2003 11:32 PM


LOL was it the same one as our friends worship?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Autocatalysis, posted 06-24-2003 11:32 PM Autocatalysis has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 109 of 159 (44117)
06-25-2003 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by nator
06-25-2003 8:30 AM


HI schrafinator,
I'm sorry, but the Bible as a whole does not provide anything close to, "2+2=4". It is very ambiguous and quite open to interpretation because of this ambiguity. Add to that that the many clear errors and contradictions and, well, 2+2 starts to add up to 6 3/4.
I am sure it also teaches that 1+1+1 = 3 !

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by nator, posted 06-25-2003 8:30 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by joz, posted 06-25-2003 9:33 AM Brian has not replied
 Message 114 by John, posted 06-26-2003 10:55 PM Brian has replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 115 of 159 (44425)
06-27-2003 5:17 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by John
06-26-2003 10:55 PM


LOL yeah you are correct !
Now you know why I stick to theo and archaeology and very seldom get involved in this complicated science stuff

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by John, posted 06-26-2003 10:55 PM John has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 121 of 159 (69715)
11-28-2003 1:34 PM


I think I may have a new favourite:
In Genesis 20 we have a second example of Abraham pimping out Sarah in order to accumulate some slaves and animals. Abraham had already pimped out Sara to the pharaoh in Genesis 12 of course. Although these may be different versions of the same event, no matter.
The absurdity is when you look at what the text claims happened:
Apparently Abraham has had to say that Sarah is his sister because if word got out that she was his wife then he may be killed by jealous men who would want to marry her.
Well, when news that she was Abrahams sister got to Abimelech he sent for her and took her into his palace.
God appears to Abimelech in a dream
Genesis 20:3-7 But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him, "Indeed you are a dead man because of the woman whom you have taken, for she is a man's wife."
But Abimelech had not come near her; and he said, "Lord, will You slay a righteous nation also? Did he not say to me, "She is my sister'? And she, even she herself said, "He is my brother.' In the integrity of my heart and innocence of my hands I have done this."
And God said to him in a dream, "Yes, I know that you did this in the integrity of your heart. For I also withheld you from sinning against Me; therefore I did not let you touch her. Now therefore, restore the man's wife; for he is a prophet, and he will pray for you and you shall live. But if you do not restore her, know that you shall surely die, you and all who are yours."
The text claims that Abimelech has taken Sarah when she is already married. This certainly implies that he finds her very attractive, has perhaps even married her, He certainly wanted to have sex with her and it was only because God had stopped him that he never achieved this.
What is absurd about this, well not a lot really until you read
Genesis 17:17: Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear?
Icky or what? Lusting after a ninety year old chick!
Perhaps this is just a retelling of an older story, the first version, in Genesis 12, is a little more plausible becasue we do not know Sarah's age. In that version she also has married the Pharaoh, so she more than likely had sex with him, and we don't know that Sarah is Abraham's sister in this version either.
So perhaps the editor Genesis 20 has tried to remove some of the more upsetting features of Genesis 12: He removes the stigma of the patriarch's wife sleeping with another man, he removes the lie that Abraham tells in chapt. 12 by informing us that Sarah is indeed his sister. He doesn't remove the fact that Abraham thought of his wife simply as a possession to do with what he wanted, including pimping her out for a very good profit.
He must have really loved that woman, and what an example to all of us this good prophet of God sets.
Brian

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Phat, posted 01-18-2004 3:36 PM Brian has not replied
 Message 132 by Amlodhi, posted 03-24-2004 4:42 PM Brian has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 123 of 159 (69736)
11-28-2003 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by joshua221
11-28-2003 5:18 PM


You do not see anything absurd about lusting after a 90 year old woman?
You do not see anything absurd about wanting a 90 year old woman so much that it takes God to stop you?
You do not see anything absurd about a king who has the choice of any woman in the land lusting after a 90 year old woman.
You do not see anything absurd in pimping out your wife, not once but twice?
Of course, you wouldn't, however if it was in the Quran you'd be peeing yourself laughing
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by joshua221, posted 11-28-2003 5:18 PM joshua221 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by NosyNed, posted 11-28-2003 7:02 PM Brian has replied
 Message 128 by joshua221, posted 03-23-2004 8:14 PM Brian 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