| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Robibnikoff" |
| Date: |
29 Jan 2005 06:09:14 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Prayer for Douglas E. Berry |
LOL! Looks like Gasbag is getting lazy! :)
"Jason Gastrich" <usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:AhGKd.152$BS.57@twister.socal.rr.com...
Please join me in prayer.
Dear Lord,
Save Doug's soul.
In Jesus' name, Amen.
Sincerely,
Jason Gastrich
--
---------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
| User: "George Peatty" |
|
| Title: Re: Prayer for Douglas E. Berry |
07 Feb 2005 04:54:35 PM |
|
|
Douglas Berry wrote:
Matthew 27:6-8 has the temple priests not wanting to put the blood
money back in the treasury, so they use it to buy a field to use as a
cemetary for foreigners. As a cenetary, it was called the Field of
Blood.
Acts 1:18 has Judas buying the field, blowing up, and that's why it's
called the Field of Blood.
For me, the issue hinges on one simple question: whose money was it?
If the money belonged to the priests after Judas returned it, then
you're right: there is a problem. It is a minor one, IMO, and not
one over which to lose a great deal of sleep, but it is a problem.
But, if in fact, "all sales are final," then the issue is irrelevant
whether Judas personally bought the field. There are modern
governmental regulations which empower an agent to act on an
individual's behalf, and confer legal status on those actions, as if
the one on whose behalf they were performed had done them himself.
Why is it so unreasonable that this situation applies here?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory A Greenman" |
|
| Title: Re: Prayer for Douglas E. Berry |
08 Feb 2005 12:22:36 AM |
|
|
In article <52sf01duv0vdii5rdm3ejfit581vtchqq3@4ax.com>, George
Peatty <pttyg47-1230@copper.net> declared...
Douglas Berry wrote:
Matthew 27:6-8 has the temple priests not wanting to put the blood
money back in the treasury, so they use it to buy a field to use as a
cemetary for foreigners. As a cenetary, it was called the Field of
Blood.
Acts 1:18 has Judas buying the field, blowing up, and that's why it's
called the Field of Blood.
For me, the issue hinges on one simple question: whose money was it?
If the money belonged to the priests after Judas returned it, then
you're right: there is a problem. It is a minor one, IMO, and not
one over which to lose a great deal of sleep, but it is a problem.
But, if in fact, "all sales are final," then the issue is irrelevant
whether Judas personally bought the field. There are modern
governmental regulations which empower an agent to act on an
individual's behalf, and confer legal status on those actions, as if
the one on whose behalf they were performed had done them himself.
Why is it so unreasonable that this situation applies here?
Because that's not what the bible says. If that's what really
happened, why didn't god say so in the bible? If he had done
that, then we wouldn't be discussing this "minor problem", we
could be discussing something of more importance.
The fact is, the bible contains two stories of what happened to
Judas after he betrayed jesus. Both authors were normal fallible
humans. They both wanted to tell how Judas failed to prophet from
his betrayal and, in fact, how it lead to his downfall. Beyond
that, there's no real common ground. If they were just different
tellings of the same story, there would be no need to harmonize
them. They'd be in harmony just exactly as the bible tells it
with no further explanation necessary.
--
Greg
----
greg -at- spencersoft -dot- com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Prayer for Douglas E. Berry |
07 Feb 2005 08:06:20 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 17:54:35 -0500, George Peatty
<pttyg47-1230@copper.net> said in alt.atheism:
For me, the issue hinges on one simple question: whose money was it?
Abandoned property wasn't the property of the person abandoning it.
There are modern
governmental regulations which empower an agent to act on an
individual's behalf, and confer legal status on those actions, as if
the one on whose behalf they were performed had done them himself.
Not unless the individual specifically requested that the agent do so.
Why is it so unreasonable that this situation applies here?
Because it's not the situation in the bible. Judas abandoned the
money so it wasn't his, he didn't authorize anyone to act as his
agent, so any field bought with the money wasn't his.
And the question still remains - how could he have died twice, which
is what the bible claims?
--
"religion did for *****, what Stonehenge did for rocks"
- The World Famous Tink
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs" |
|
| Title: Re: Prayer for Douglas E. Berry |
07 Feb 2005 08:44:04 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 17:54:35 -0500, George Peatty
<pttyg47-1230@copper.net> wrote:
Douglas Berry wrote:
Matthew 27:6-8 has the temple priests not wanting to put the blood
money back in the treasury, so they use it to buy a field to use as a
cemetary for foreigners. As a cenetary, it was called the Field of
Blood.
Acts 1:18 has Judas buying the field, blowing up, and that's why it's
called the Field of Blood.
For me, the issue hinges on one simple question: whose money was it?
If the money belonged to the priests after Judas returned it, then
you're right: there is a problem.
So there is a problem. He returned it. They took it. So it became
their money.
It is a minor one, IMO, and not
one over which to lose a great deal of sleep, but it is a problem.
For you, most certainly.
But, if in fact, "all sales are final," then the issue is irrelevant
whether Judas personally bought the field.
Only he didn't. The priests did.
There are modern
governmental regulations which empower an agent to act on an
individual's behalf, and confer legal status on those actions, as if
the one on whose behalf they were performed had done them himself.
Why is it so unreasonable that this situation applies here?
The unreasonability lies in the fact that Judas never -according to
the bible- empowered the priests to act on his behalf.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Davey" |
|
| Title: Re: Prayer for Douglas E. Berry |
03 Feb 2005 12:37:36 PM |
|
|
Uzytkownik "Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> napisal w
wiadomosci news:nom401tp9m74asij5oajo9mr9t6u4ivsg6@4ax.com...
On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 04:45:57 GMT, Bible Bob
<biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> drained his beer, leaned back in the
alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following
Matthew 27:5
And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and
went and hanged himself.
Acts 1:18
Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and
falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels
gushed out.
People say that there is an apparent contradiction in the above
passages because Matthew says that Judas hanged himself and Acts says
that he fell headlong, burst asunder in the midst, and his bowels
gushed out. Actually, the informtion in Acts supplements information
provided in Matthew. The story of the downfall of Judas begins in
Matthew and ends in Acts. But there is also valuable information
about Judas in the Gospels of Luke and John that must be understood.
A careful study of all the material available reveals that Judas
remained alive up to the ascension of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Forget how he died, I want to know what happened to the money!
Matthew 27:6-8 has the temple priests not wanting to put the blood
money back in the treasury, so they use it to buy a field to use as a
cemetary for foreigners. As a cenetary, it was called the Field of
Blood.
Acts 1:18 has Judas buying the field, blowing up, and that's why it's
called the Field of Blood.
That is a direct contradiction.
They wouldn't take back the money, but gave it back to Judas. Judas had the
money on him and was in a potter's field which he had arranged to buy with
the money - not because he wanted a potter's field, they are no better than
any other fields, in fact to be a potter you don't even need a field - but
because he had read Jeremiah and realised at this time that he was the son
of perdition, and was going to accept his punishment. Having waited in the
field for the potter to arrive with the deeds and to give him the money, he
was overwhelmed with the guilt he felt, and so he went into the highest
tree, put a rope around his neck, sliced his guts upoen from sternum to
pubic bone, as deep as he could, not caring about the pain, because he knew
he had sold the Lord of Creation and launched himself off the bough, so that
his guts went splat against the ground, making an atrocious mess, and his
blood covered the soil.
When the potter arrived he found what had happened and said I have sold the
field, but the man I have sold it to has committed suicide. I cannot profit
from this thing, what shall I do? And, all the Jews seeing what had
happened, and none wishing to profit from the terrible treachery and ensuing
suicide, did the old shabbes goy thing and planned to put the gentile
cemetary there.
I see the whole scenario from these two verses. Their apparent contradiction
is only so that the discerning can tell the broader picture from an economy
of words.
Uncle Davey
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bible Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Prayer for Douglas E. Berry |
03 Feb 2005 01:56:50 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 19:37:36 +0100, "Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com>
wrote:
Uzytkownik "Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> napisal w
wiadomosci news:nom401tp9m74asij5oajo9mr9t6u4ivsg6@4ax.com...
On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 04:45:57 GMT, Bible Bob
<biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> drained his beer, leaned back in the
alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following
Matthew 27:5
And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and
went and hanged himself.
Acts 1:18
Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and
falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels
gushed out.
People say that there is an apparent contradiction in the above
passages because Matthew says that Judas hanged himself and Acts says
that he fell headlong, burst asunder in the midst, and his bowels
gushed out. Actually, the informtion in Acts supplements information
provided in Matthew. The story of the downfall of Judas begins in
Matthew and ends in Acts. But there is also valuable information
about Judas in the Gospels of Luke and John that must be understood.
A careful study of all the material available reveals that Judas
remained alive up to the ascension of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Forget how he died, I want to know what happened to the money!
Matthew 27:6-8 has the temple priests not wanting to put the blood
money back in the treasury, so they use it to buy a field to use as a
cemetary for foreigners. As a cenetary, it was called the Field of
Blood.
Acts 1:18 has Judas buying the field, blowing up, and that's why it's
called the Field of Blood.
That is a direct contradiction.
They wouldn't take back the money, but gave it back to Judas. Judas had the
money on him and was in a potter's field which he had arranged to buy with
the money - not because he wanted a potter's field, they are no better than
any other fields, in fact to be a potter you don't even need a field - but
because he had read Jeremiah and realised at this time that he was the son
of perdition, and was going to accept his punishment. Having waited in the
field for the potter to arrive with the deeds and to give him the money, he
was overwhelmed with the guilt he felt, and so he went into the highest
tree, put a rope around his neck, sliced his guts upoen from sternum to
pubic bone, as deep as he could, not caring about the pain, because he knew
he had sold the Lord of Creation and launched himself off the bough, so that
his guts went splat against the ground, making an atrocious mess, and his
blood covered the soil.
When the potter arrived he found what had happened and said I have sold the
field, but the man I have sold it to has committed suicide. I cannot profit
from this thing, what shall I do? And, all the Jews seeing what had
happened, and none wishing to profit from the terrible treachery and ensuing
suicide, did the old shabbes goy thing and planned to put the gentile
cemetary there.
I see the whole scenario from these two verses. Their apparent contradiction
is only so that the discerning can tell the broader picture from an economy
of words.
Uncle Davey
Acts 1:18 does not say that he used the pieces of silver. If I
remember correctly, Judas was the disciple who carried the purse.
BB
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Davey" |
|
| Title: Re: Prayer for Douglas E. Berry |
04 Feb 2005 03:27:49 PM |
|
|
"Bible Bob" <biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> wrote in message
news:rd05011ac0ejaug1km7bhed4hhkk63lplk@4ax.com...
On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 19:37:36 +0100, "Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com>
wrote:
Uzytkownik "Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> napisal w
wiadomosci news:nom401tp9m74asij5oajo9mr9t6u4ivsg6@4ax.com...
On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 04:45:57 GMT, Bible Bob
<biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> drained his beer, leaned back in the
alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following
Matthew 27:5
And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and
went and hanged himself.
Acts 1:18
Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and
falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels
gushed out.
People say that there is an apparent contradiction in the above
passages because Matthew says that Judas hanged himself and Acts says
that he fell headlong, burst asunder in the midst, and his bowels
gushed out. Actually, the informtion in Acts supplements information
provided in Matthew. The story of the downfall of Judas begins in
Matthew and ends in Acts. But there is also valuable information
about Judas in the Gospels of Luke and John that must be understood.
A careful study of all the material available reveals that Judas
remained alive up to the ascension of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Forget how he died, I want to know what happened to the money!
Matthew 27:6-8 has the temple priests not wanting to put the blood
money back in the treasury, so they use it to buy a field to use as a
cemetary for foreigners. As a cenetary, it was called the Field of
Blood.
Acts 1:18 has Judas buying the field, blowing up, and that's why it's
called the Field of Blood.
That is a direct contradiction.
They wouldn't take back the money, but gave it back to Judas. Judas had
the
money on him and was in a potter's field which he had arranged to buy
with
the money - not because he wanted a potter's field, they are no better
than
any other fields, in fact to be a potter you don't even need a field -
but
because he had read Jeremiah and realised at this time that he was the
son
of perdition, and was going to accept his punishment. Having waited in
the
field for the potter to arrive with the deeds and to give him the money,
he
was overwhelmed with the guilt he felt, and so he went into the highest
tree, put a rope around his neck, sliced his guts upoen from sternum to
pubic bone, as deep as he could, not caring about the pain, because he
knew
he had sold the Lord of Creation and launched himself off the bough, so
that
his guts went splat against the ground, making an atrocious mess, and his
blood covered the soil.
When the potter arrived he found what had happened and said I have sold
the
field, but the man I have sold it to has committed suicide. I cannot
profit
from this thing, what shall I do? And, all the Jews seeing what had
happened, and none wishing to profit from the terrible treachery and
ensuing
suicide, did the old shabbes goy thing and planned to put the gentile
cemetary there.
I see the whole scenario from these two verses. Their apparent
contradiction
is only so that the discerning can tell the broader picture from an
economy
of words.
Uncle Davey
Acts 1:18 does not say that he used the pieces of silver. If I
remember correctly, Judas was the disciple who carried the purse.
BB
I expect that he still had the money with him as he died, and that is why
there is the ambiguity as to whether he bought the field or the priests did.
I expect he was in the process of completing the transaction, was
overwhelmed by remorse, and the potter needed to have the transaction
ratified by the priests, hence they also have a hand in it as it says in the
other place.
If you think of it that way, then there's no contradiction, but I'm not
going to be dogmatic as there could be other ways it could have happened
without Matthew and Acts contradicting.
Uncle Davey
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Prayer for Douglas E. Berry |
04 Feb 2005 03:53:06 PM |
|
|
Bible Bob wrote:
On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 19:37:36 +0100, "Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com>
wrote:
Matthew 27:5
And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and
went and hanged himself.
Acts 1:18
Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels
gushed out.
there.
Acts 1:18 does not say that he used the pieces of silver. If I
remember correctly, Judas was the disciple who carried the purse.
Acts says exactly that. Did you think nobody would notice if
you mistated the facts?
In AA, always check your statements before posting, because others
will indeed check you out afterwards.
Mistating this whenthe relevant verses are in the same post you are
quoting from is slipshod and careless.
--
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Prayer for Douglas E. Berry |
03 Feb 2005 01:37:34 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 04:45:57 GMT, Bible Bob
<biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> said in alt.atheism:
The conjunction "and" is not needed before "departed" and before
"hanged" unless something is to be emphasized. The verse would
normally read "And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple,
departed, and went hanged himself." Notice how the figure changes the
meaning of the passage.
Matthew 27:5
(1) And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple,
(2) and departed,
(3) and went
(4) and hanged himself.
It's:
(1) And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple,
(2) and departed,
(3) and went and hanged himself.
Notice the commas.
If this is the best you can do, your efforts aren't worth the
electrons it cost to produce them.
--
"I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want
you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good...Our
goal is a Christian nation. We have a Biblical duty, we are called by
God, to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want
pluralism."
-Randall Terry, Founder of Operation Rescue, The News-Sentinel, Fort
Wayne, Indiana, 8-16-93
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bible Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Prayer for Douglas E. Berry |
03 Feb 2005 09:25:14 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 07:37:34 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 04:45:57 GMT, Bible Bob
<biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> said in alt.atheism:
The conjunction "and" is not needed before "departed" and before
"hanged" unless something is to be emphasized. The verse would
normally read "And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple,
departed, and went hanged himself." Notice how the figure changes the
meaning of the passage.
Matthew 27:5
(1) And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple,
(2) and departed,
(3) and went
(4) and hanged himself.
It's:
(1) And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple,
(2) and departed,
(3) and went and hanged himself.
Notice the commas.
If this is the best you can do, your efforts aren't worth the
electrons it cost to produce them.
Al,
Bible 101. All book names, chapter and verse numbers, capitalization
and punctuation was added to the Bible by men. The manuscripts are
either all caps or all lower case letter with no spaces between words.
Figures of speech affect the Hebrew or Greek text and may or may not
be visible in English. Above, the conjunction and "kai" in the Greek
is used to separate for things. Polysyndeton is used hundreds of
times in the Bible. Example, Genesis 1 where "and" is used to make a
list of the 102 acts of God recorded there.
To demonstrate the danger of punctuation in the Bible.
Luke 23:43
And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be
with me in paradise.
There are no commas in the Greek. The editor who puts the comma
before "today" produces one denomination and the editor who puts the
comman after "today" produces another denomination (Catholic and
Protestant). Which is right? The word paradise refers to future
paradise spoken of in Revelation so that it Jesus is saying to the
malefactor I say unto theee today, shalth thou be with me in paradise.
In other words people don't go to heaven when the die. The stay dead
until the return of Christ and when they are raised or resurrected
(depending on the group) they live in paradise (Eden) which is on the
earth.
BB
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Prayer for Douglas E. Berry |
03 Feb 2005 05:00:43 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 15:25:14 GMT, Bible Bob
<biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> said in alt.atheism:
Bible 101. All book names, chapter and verse numbers, capitalization
and punctuation was added to the Bible by men.
You left out "words".
The manuscripts are
either all caps or all lower case letter with no spaces between words.
And you know this how? (Remember, we have no original manuscripts of
either testament, nor any written description.)
--
"I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want
you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good...Our
goal is a Christian nation. We have a Biblical duty, we are called by
God, to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want
pluralism."
-Randall Terry, Founder of Operation Rescue, The News-Sentinel, Fort
Wayne, Indiana, 8-16-93
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bible Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Prayer for Douglas E. Berry |
03 Feb 2005 08:43:19 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 23:00:43 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 15:25:14 GMT, Bible Bob
<biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> said in alt.atheism:
Bible 101. All book names, chapter and verse numbers, capitalization
and punctuation was added to the Bible by men.
You left out "words".
The manuscripts are
either all caps or all lower case letter with no spaces between words.
And you know this how? (Remember, we have no original manuscripts of
either testament, nor any written description.)
Books
BB
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Prayer for Douglas E. Berry |
03 Feb 2005 10:10:09 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 02:43:19 GMT, Bible Bob
<biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> said in alt.atheism:
On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 23:00:43 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 15:25:14 GMT, Bible Bob
<biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> said in alt.atheism:
Bible 101. All book names, chapter and verse numbers, capitalization
and punctuation was added to the Bible by men.
You left out "words".
The manuscripts are
either all caps or all lower case letter with no spaces between words.
And you know this how? (Remember, we have no original manuscripts of
either testament, nor any written description.)
Books
Such as? Those written at the time, remember. Those written later
were written by authors who knew no more than we know now.
--
"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is
a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the
crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due
to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious
indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility
corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of
nature and of our own being."
- Albert Einstein to Guy H. Raner Jr., Sept. 28, 1949, from article by
Michael R. Gilmore in Skeptic magazine, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1997
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Davey" |
|
| Title: Re: Prayer for Douglas E. Berry |
03 Feb 2005 12:05:06 PM |
|
|
Uzytkownik "Bible Bob" <biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> napisal w wiadomosci
news:0lf401pqbtgn205r55p8sm4vatt3spl4le@4ax.com...
On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 07:37:34 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 04:45:57 GMT, Bible Bob
<biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> said in alt.atheism:
The conjunction "and" is not needed before "departed" and before
"hanged" unless something is to be emphasized. The verse would
normally read "And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple,
departed, and went hanged himself." Notice how the figure changes the
meaning of the passage.
Matthew 27:5
(1) And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple,
(2) and departed,
(3) and went
(4) and hanged himself.
It's:
(1) And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple,
(2) and departed,
(3) and went and hanged himself.
Notice the commas.
If this is the best you can do, your efforts aren't worth the
electrons it cost to produce them.
Al,
Bible 101. All book names, chapter and verse numbers, capitalization
and punctuation was added to the Bible by men. The manuscripts are
either all caps or all lower case letter with no spaces between words.
Figures of speech affect the Hebrew or Greek text and may or may not
be visible in English. Above, the conjunction and "kai" in the Greek
is used to separate for things. Polysyndeton is used hundreds of
times in the Bible. Example, Genesis 1 where "and" is used to make a
list of the 102 acts of God recorded there.
To demonstrate the danger of punctuation in the Bible.
Luke 23:43
And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be
with me in paradise.
There are no commas in the Greek. The editor who puts the comma
before "today" produces one denomination and the editor who puts the
comman after "today" produces another denomination (Catholic and
Protestant). Which is right? The word paradise refers to future
paradise spoken of in Revelation so that it Jesus is saying to the
malefactor I say unto theee today, shalth thou be with me in paradise.
I don't think so, because
1.Christ often uses the phrase "verily, verily I say unto thee" and follows
it with what he means
2.Why the redundancy of telling him that He is speaking that day. Obviously
he knew which day He was speaking to him. Was it Christ's purpose to comfort
the dying penitent or to treat him like an imbecile?
3. Greek does not delay adverbs to the ends of clauses as English does,
moreover, certain rules apply to the the order of adverbs and adverbial
phrases, which you would break if you understand the phrase "kai eipen auto
o iesous amen lego soi semeron met emou ese en to paradeiso" the way you are
trying to parse it.
4. The future tense isn't even given here, but a present form 'ese', and we
only can infer the future from the context of 'semeron', and so if you more
'semeron' to the main clause you are left with something that doesn't make
sense, namely that he was already in heaven as he was in that excruciating
pain, this thief on the cross, and
5. None of the numerous independently translated main versions of the Bible
into any language I know have taken your view, unless they were previously
doctrinally motivated to reinterpret. You may say that human wisdom is not
what matters in theology, and I only put this argument last, but still one
is generally on a sticky wicket when one's views are so removed from those
of so many other believing people.
In other words people don't go to heaven when the die. The stay dead
until the return of Christ and when they are raised or resurrected
(depending on the group) they live in paradise (Eden) which is on the
earth.
BB
I should guard against taking the run of created time too literally on the
other side of the grave.
Now is the day of our salvation, now is the accepted time. Eternity may have
a time equivalent, but we haven't experienced what it is, and arguments over
the experience of the dead up to the end of created time are futile. They
are no longer in the system. Asking how a dead person experiences the time
continuum as we experience and measure it is like asking a pet goldfish what
it spent its money on. Different systems entirely. This is one of the
reasons Christ was always brief in His visits here after the resurrection,
and when He was here was walking through doors, going up on clouds, etc, and
also how the post resurrection Christ was manifest so many times in the Old
Testament. Even time travel is within the scope of the resurrection body,
but when the other resurrection bodies appear the whole system of our time
and space will be wound up.
Uncle Davey
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bible Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Prayer for Douglas E. Berry |
03 Feb 2005 01:53:02 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 19:05:06 +0100, "Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com>
wrote:
Uzytkownik "Bible Bob" <biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> napisal w wiadomosci
news:0lf401pqbtgn205r55p8sm4vatt3spl4le@4ax.com...
On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 07:37:34 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 04:45:57 GMT, Bible Bob
<biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> said in alt.atheism:
The conjunction "and" is not needed before "departed" and before
"hanged" unless something is to be emphasized. The verse would
normally read "And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple,
departed, and went hanged himself." Notice how the figure changes the
meaning of the passage.
Matthew 27:5
(1) And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple,
(2) and departed,
(3) and went
(4) and hanged himself.
It's:
(1) And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple,
(2) and departed,
(3) and went and hanged himself.
Notice the commas.
If this is the best you can do, your efforts aren't worth the
electrons it cost to produce them.
Al,
Bible 101. All book names, chapter and verse numbers, capitalization
and punctuation was added to the Bible by men. The manuscripts are
either all caps or all lower case letter with no spaces between words.
Figures of speech affect the Hebrew or Greek text and may or may not
be visible in English. Above, the conjunction and "kai" in the Greek
is used to separate for things. Polysyndeton is used hundreds of
times in the Bible. Example, Genesis 1 where "and" is used to make a
list of the 102 acts of God recorded there.
To demonstrate the danger of punctuation in the Bible.
Luke 23:43
And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be
with me in paradise.
There are no commas in the Greek. The editor who puts the comma
before "today" produces one denomination and the editor who puts the
comman after "today" produces another denomination (Catholic and
Protestant). Which is right? The word paradise refers to future
paradise spoken of in Revelation so that it Jesus is saying to the
malefactor I say unto theee today, shalth thou be with me in paradise.
I don't think so, because
1.Christ often uses the phrase "verily, verily I say unto thee" and follows
it with what he means
2.Why the redundancy of telling him that He is speaking that day. Obviously
he knew which day He was speaking to him. Was it Christ's purpose to comfort
the dying penitent or to treat him like an imbecile?
3. Greek does not delay adverbs to the ends of clauses as English does,
moreover, certain rules apply to the the order of adverbs and adverbial
phrases, which you would break if you understand the phrase "kai eipen auto
o iesous amen lego soi semeron met emou ese en to paradeiso" the way you are
trying to parse it.
4. The future tense isn't even given here, but a present form 'ese', and we
only can infer the future from the context of 'semeron', and so if you more
'semeron' to the main clause you are left with something that doesn't make
sense, namely that he was already in heaven as he was in that excruciating
pain, this thief on the cross, and
5. None of the numerous independently translated main versions of the Bible
into any language I know have taken your view, unless they were previously
doctrinally motivated to reinterpret. You may say that human wisdom is not
what matters in theology, and I only put this argument last, but still one
is generally on a sticky wicket when one's views are so removed from those
of so many other believing people.
Truesdale, Tregelles, and Alford omit "o insous" and read "he said".
They also offer soi lego in lieu of lego soi..
The verb "to say" when followed by "hoti" introduces the very words of
what is said and answers to our quotation marks. So here in the
absence of "hoti" (that), there may be a doubt to the actual words
included in the dependent clause. In the absence of the word "hoti"
the meaning of "today" must be determined by the context. The context
speaks of a place and points to a future time from the then present
time.
And he said to him verily say I to thee today with me thou shalt be
with me in paradise.
In any case "thou shalt be" or "shalt thou be" points to the future.
With from "meta" shows association and companionship with to indicate
the presence of both at the prescribed place. The prescibed place is
"the paradise." Notice the article, "the paradise." Paradise is
always a place on the earth and the grave is not paradise. Christ
came to minister to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, but was
rejected. His kingdom is not fulfilled until the events spoken of in
Revelation taken place. The other two usages of paradise are in
Corinthians and Revelation.
2 Corinthians 12:4
How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words,
which it is not lawful for a man to utter.
"He was caught up" from "harpazo" can be translated "he was caught
away." The preposition "into" is translated from the accusative "eis"
which shows horizontal motion from one point to a distant object. So
the carrying away was on a horizontal rather than vertical plane and
doing so points to both a diferent place and time because "eis"
indicates the travel from point a to point b which includes the idea
of time.
Revelation 2:7
He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the
churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of
life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.
Paradise means a garden, specifically the second Eden. Both the first
and second Eden - the Garden of God - are on the earth. One existed
in time past and the other exists in time future.
Revelation 22:2
In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river,
[was there] the tree of life, which bare twelve [manner of] fruits,
[and] yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree [were]
for the healing of the nations.
Revelation 22:14
Blessed [are] they that do his commandments, that they may have right
to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
The original tree of life was in the Garden of God, Eden.
Genesis 3:24
So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of
Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep
the way of the tree of life.
It's pretty simple really. God gets what he wants. God wanted a
family. He created, formed, and made man and put man where He wanted
man to live. Eden provided man access to the tree that produces life.
Man lost that access and would need to regain that access in orer for
God to have His family. God's plan is going to come to pass in time.
Man will once again live where God wanted man to live and man will
regain access to the tree of life.
The Author of the Word spoke to humans using words and grammar that
communicated His will to them. So he was pretty up on how words
should be used and arranged. Punctuation did not appear until the
ninth century in the Latin versions and some cursives. The RCC
influence required the placement of the comma before today.
However, the Hebrew Idiom is also a key. Sometimes it inlcudes "hoti"
and soemtimes it does not.
with hoti
Mark 14:30
And Jesus saith unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That [hoti] this
day, [even] in this night, before the ***** crow twice, thou shalt deny
me thrice.
without hoti
Luke 22:34
And he said, I tell thee, Peter, the ***** shall not crow this day,
before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me.
So in Luke 23:43 Jesus said I say to you this very present day thou
shalt be in the future with me in paradise.
In other words people don't go to heaven when the die. The stay dead
until the return of Christ and when they are raised or resurrected
(depending on the group) they live in paradise (Eden) which is on the
earth.
BB
I should guard against taking the run of created time too literally on the
other side of the grave.
Now is the day of our salvation, now is the accepted time. Eternity may have
a time equivalent, but we haven't experienced what it is, and arguments over
the experience of the dead up to the end of created time are futile. They
are no longer in the system. Asking how a dead person experiences the time
continuum as we experience and measure it is like asking a pet goldfish what
it spent its money on. Different systems entirely. This is one of the
reasons Christ was always brief in His visits here after the resurrection,
and when He was here was walking through doors, going up on clouds, etc, and
also how the post resurrection Christ was manifest so many times in the Old
Testament. Even time travel is within the scope of the resurrection body,
but when the other resurrection bodies appear the whole system of our time
and space will be wound up.
Well, with regard to dead people -
Ecclesiastes 9:4
For to him that is joined to all the living there is hope: for a
living dog is better than a dead lion.
Ecclesiastes 9:5
For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any
thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is
forgotten.
Ecclesiastes 9:6
Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished;
neither have they any more a portion for ever in any [thing] that is
done under the sun.
There is no consciousness in the grave and thus no passage of time.
from the dead persons point of view.
The time travel part has no basis in scripture that I am aware of.
The coming of Jesus is foretold in the OT, but there is no record of
his physical presence that I am aware of; not could there be if he
were to be the fulfillment of the Genesis prophecy.
He is foretold as the "offspring" (Heb. tsemach) of God in the OT.
Each of the four Gospels show his fullment of the four different
aspects of his earthly ministry. In Zechariah 9:9 He is Jehovah's
King and in Jeremiah 23:5,6 and 33:15 he is the righeous branch of
David. In Matthew he comes as king, the heir apparent of David, but
is rejected by the people of the kingdom who chose the son of Satan
(Aramiac of Barsabbas) over the son of God.
Mark presents him as Jehovah's servant foretold in Is 42:1 and Zec
3:8..
Luke presents him as Jehivah's man foretold in Zec 6:12 and John
presents him as Jehovah's son as foretold in Isa 40:9.
There is no indication that I know of in the Bible where anyone
travels into the past. In the NT we have people caught away into the
future, but even that is in the form of visions.
Uncle Davey
BB
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Prayer for Douglas E. Berry |
31 Jan 2005 12:05:32 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 07:48:15 GMT, Bible Bob
<biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> drained his beer, leaned back in the
alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 06:21:57 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
Mr Berry,
May I ask a question?
When you were a child, did you go to church? If so which flavor and
until how old?
I was raised a nominal Catholic. By the time I was eight, I was
already questioning many of the illogical assumptions made by the
Church.
The dagger in the heart was Santa Claus. Once I deduced that Santa
was a myth, and that people in Greece had actually believed what we
now thought of as myth, then it was a short leap to accepting that the
Judeo-Christian beliefs were just more myths.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bible Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Prayer for Douglas E. Berry |
31 Jan 2005 08:26:28 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 18:05:32 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 07:48:15 GMT, Bible Bob
<biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> drained his beer, leaned back in the
alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 06:21:57 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
Mr Berry,
May I ask a question?
When you were a child, did you go to church? If so which flavor and
until how old?
I was raised a nominal Catholic. By the time I was eight, I was
already questioning many of the illogical assumptions made by the
Church.
The dagger in the heart was Santa Claus. Once I deduced that Santa
was a myth, and that people in Greece had actually believed what we
now thought of as myth, then it was a short leap to accepting that the
Judeo-Christian beliefs were just more myths.
Thank you.
I guess that "illogical assumptions" would be a turn off, especially
when a person who goes to church is usually looking for truth. I was
raised a baptist and ran into the same problem you did. Preachers
preaching fire and brimstone and not living what they preached caused
me a lot of problems. Lucky for me, I ran into an honest baptist
pastor when I moved to Kentucky who told me that he did not know all
the answers - he was a very well educated man. His admission took a
lot of pressure off of me at a time when I was really confused and
discouraged.
BB
BB
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Prayer for Douglas E. Berry |
02 Feb 2005 12:19:12 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 07:48:15 GMT, Bible Bob
<biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> said in alt.atheism:
Why the question? I suspect that many atheists went to church when
they were young and that they may have been turned off by what they
saw and heard. If that is true, then I was wondering which
denominations produced the most atheists.
Not in my case. I was never indoctrinated. I was born not believing
and never saw any reason to change. By the age of 6 I already
couldn't believe that adults took this "god" thing seriously.
--
"I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children for their
numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held responsible; in my opinion,
only His nonexistence could excuse Him."
-A. Einstein (Letter to Edgar Meyer, Jan. 2, 1915)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Prayer for Douglas E. Berry |
02 Feb 2005 06:24:36 AM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:o4s001tb8dg3g9ktsu96toon1dauu7mne9@4ax.com...
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 07:48:15 GMT, Bible Bob
<biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> said in alt.atheism:
Why the question? I suspect that many atheists went to church when
they were young and that they may have been turned off by what they
saw and heard. If that is true, then I was wondering which
denominations produced the most atheists.
Not in my case. I was never indoctrinated. I was born not believing
and never saw any reason to change. By the age of 6 I already
couldn't believe that adults took this "god" thing seriously.
<chuckle> A man after my own heart. Sounds exactly like my upbringing :)
--
---------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Prayer for Douglas E. Berry |
02 Feb 2005 05:17:20 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 07:24:36 -0500, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> said in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:o4s001tb8dg3g9ktsu96toon1dauu7mne9@4ax.com...
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 07:48:15 GMT, Bible Bob
<biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> said in alt.atheism:
Why the question? I suspect that many atheists went to church when
they were young and that they may have been turned off by what they
saw and heard. If that is true, then I was wondering which
denominations produced the most atheists.
Not in my case. I was never indoctrinated. I was born not believing
and never saw any reason to change. By the age of 6 I already
couldn't believe that adults took this "god" thing seriously.
<chuckle> A man after my own heart. Sounds exactly like my upbringing :)
That would make us co-religionists, wouldn't it? (Or
co-non-religionists?)
--
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of
themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
- Bertrand Russell
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs" |
|
| Title: Re: Prayer for Douglas E. Berry |
01 Feb 2005 03:18:00 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 07:48:15 GMT, Bible Bob
<biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> wrote:
Mr Berry,
I'm Mr. Flachs. Mind if I answer your question?
When you were a child, did you go to church?
Yes.
If so which flavor and until how old?
RCC, until I was about 30.
Why the question? I suspect that many atheists went to church when
they were young and that they may have been turned off by what they
saw and heard. If that is true, then I was wondering which
denominations produced the most atheists.
I don't think that matters a lot anyway. What would it proof? This or
that denomination being the better one?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "pensul" |
|
| Title: Re: Prayer for Douglas E. Berry |
31 Jan 2005 05:25:29 PM |
|
|
["Followup-To:" header set to alt.atheism.]
Why the question? I suspect that many atheists went to church when
they were young and that they may have been turned off by what they
saw and heard. If that is true, then I was wondering which
denominations produced the most atheists.
Atheists are not turned off by theists. Theists do not have the burden of
proving that they are theists, neither do they cease being theists if their
statements are not understood. They do have the burden, like everyone else, of
backing up their statements with evidence, and if the evidence is lacking, it
means that the theist lacks the evidence, not that those he is addressing lack
evidence of or belief in theism. Thus atheism is really only applicable to a
theist, because only one who knows and believes the claims of theism can tell
what a-theism or non-theism is. The same could be said of agnostics in relation
to gnosis. Atheists are really disaffected gnostics, but because they can't
come up with a catchy phrase like agnosis, ( which is ridiculous ), they've
thought up atheism, which sounds like a belief but really isn't; this describes
accurately what they resent about gnosis. Briefly, they wish to be organized
like a religion in order to fight religion, but lack the vocabulary to do so.
Therefore, the word "atheist" really only describes a particular point of view
of theists which indicates their ignorance of the evidence of theism, not
theists themselves.
--
"The world of existence is an emanation of the merciful attribute of God."
Abdul-Baha
http://www.costarricense.cr/pagina/ernobe
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: Prayer for Douglas E. Berry |
01 Feb 2005 09:25:03 AM |
|
|
On 31 Jan 2005 23:25:29 GMT, pensul <royspensul@yahoo.com> wrote:
Briefly, they wish to be organized
like a religion in order to fight religion, but lack the vocabulary to do so.
That's because what the government classifies about religion is that
there is a view about the supernatural. Atheism is a view on religion,
the view that they don't have a belief in gods. Atheism is not
secular. It concerns religion. Atheism requires as much protection
as any religion and is specifically mentioned often in constitutional
law as requiring the same protection.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Peatty" |
|
| Title: Re: Prayer for Douglas E. Berry |
31 Jan 2005 09:03:44 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 06:21:57 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
Well, I was about ready to convert; but after this insult I'm staying
an atheist.
Dude, lying is a sin .. even for atheists ..
Since I don't recognize the concept of sin, no biggie.
And I think most people recognize humor when they see it.
Yeah, too bad you missed it here .. <g>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Prayer for Douglas E. Berry |
30 Jan 2005 07:37:34 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 13:45:58 -0500, George Peatty
<pttyg47-1230@copper.net> said in alt.atheism:
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 04:40:17 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
Well, I was about ready to convert; but after this insult I'm staying
an atheist.
Dude, lying is a sin .. even for atheists ..
"Sin" only applies to Christians. Outside Christianity it's an
undefined 3-letter word.
--
"To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains
premature today."
- Isaac Asimov
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam" |
|
| Title: Re: Prayer for Douglas E. Berry |
30 Jan 2005 07:48:39 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 13:45:58 -0500, George Peatty
<pttyg47-1230@copper.net> said in alt.atheism:
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 04:40:17 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
Well, I was about ready to convert; but after this insult I'm staying
an atheist.
Dude, lying is a sin .. even for atheists ..
"Sin" only applies to Christians. Outside Christianity it's an
undefined 3-letter word.
some sort of serial number?
--
Sam
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Peatty" |
|
| Title: Re: Prayer for Douglas E. Berry |
31 Jan 2005 09:02:15 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 01:37:34 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
Well, I was about ready to convert; but after this insult I'm staying
an atheist.
Dude, lying is a sin .. even for atheists ..
"Sin" only applies to Christians. Outside Christianity it's an
undefined 3-letter word.
For *all* have sinned and come short of the glory of God ..
.
|
|
|
| User: "David" |
|
| Title: Re: Prayer for Douglas E. Berry |
31 Jan 2005 09:26:25 AM |
|
|
George Peatty wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 01:37:34 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
Well, I was about ready to convert; but after this insult I'm
staying
an atheist.
Dude, lying is a sin .. even for atheists ..
"Sin" only applies to Christians. Outside Christianity it's an
undefined 3-letter word.
For *all* have sinned and come short of the glory of God ..
According to YOUR theology, as Davey frequently reminds us, and even if
you don't properly attribute Romans 3 which, by the way, does not
contain even the alleged words of Jesus.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Prayer for Douglas E. Berry |
01 Feb 2005 12:14:09 PM |
|
|
George Peatty wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 01:37:34 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
Well, I was about ready to convert; but after this insult I'm
staying
an atheist.
Dude, lying is a sin .. even for atheists ..
"Sin" only applies to Christians. Outside Christianity it's an
undefined 3-letter word.
For *all* have sinned and come short of the glory of God ..
I dunno.
My grandpa the preacher man said this a *lot, but he himself came
pretty close. I do believe he would have wiped out whole nations of
people, and felt righteous about it, if only he had been able.
The spirit was willing but the flesh was weak, you might say.
He also hated sex, women, and papists. So he came pretty close to the
glory of God.
Kermit
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Prayer for Douglas E. Berry |
01 Feb 2005 01:51:28 PM |
|
|
On 1 Feb 2005 10:14:09 -0800, said in
alt.atheism:
My grandpa the preacher man
[snip]
He also hated sex, women
But evidently not enough to prevent him from becoming your grandpa. :)
--
"If we really know Truth, we do not fear hearing falsehoods or half-truths; if we are not sure of the truth - we shudder and try to shout down every utterance." - A. J. Mims
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
