I've read about and heard this hypothesis before, and it was one of the things talked about in the Bible as literature class.
There are many points that are made in this hypothesis that are used to back it up, but many of them are false.
-None of the "doublets" contradict each other, and I can say this for a fact because we analyzed each of them, and no contradictions were found.
-Most of the "doublets" were from a character repeating the story to someone else, slight differences exist because it's an exact recording of what that person said rather than just a mere rendition.
-Yahweh and Elohim are both describing words to refer to God, another one that is used is Jehovah.
Each of these words simply describe God and are used interchangeably throughout the Torah, and they are also used interchangeably by the Jewish people today.
You'll notice that none of the statements made on that page are backed up in any way.
However, I've seen first hand the scriptures that they claim causes the theory to exist, and I can see how someone who knows nothing about Hebrew culture, or the Bible itself could come to such incorrect conclusions. Much like the examples given by Phredreeke were a result of ignorance on his part on how genealogy was recorded by the ancient Hebrews.
And now on to the example Phredreeke gave. The differences are due to the fact that in Genesis 17:15-17,, God is speaking to Abraham, but in Genesis 18:10-12,, a man from the group of 3 men is speaking to Abraham.
So of course there will be a difference, because the Bible is an exact recording of history, and this further suggests the accuracy and inspiration that the Bible is.
You'll also notice that all these other so-called "sections" from "different writers" have the same property. Each time a story is repeated in a different way, it is spoken by a different person in the actual text.
Thanks for bringing this up though, I was wondering when you would.
EDIT: and now to get to the rest of EE post
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] Correction, yet to show one that you approve.
Regardless of whether or not I approve shouldn't make a difference.
If it's really there then it'll speak for itself, but since it isn't...
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] You do realize that you are talking complete nonsense right?
I realized it when you said it the first time, which is why I pointed it out.
Basically if you believe in the God of the Bible, and you decide to pick in chose what *you* deem is correct, and incorrect then your religion is a joke.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] Yes there was, Phredreeke had a problem with the unnamed couple and you failed to give him a satisfying answer.
Phredreeke never replied to my or Boothman's statements. Are you Phredreeke too?
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] [...]Or will you show me a tree-diagram of cross references spanning hundreds of hundreds of years apart that actually shows that Darth Vader created the death star on day six?[...]
I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] If you hold a belief in a/the one true God like Abraham did you don't automatically have to believe in the bible. The bible is merely a book, written by human hands,
Who physically wrote it isn't as important as who authored it. It was God that spoke to many of the men who wrote about their experiences with God, the history of their people, and the experiences they had with Jesus (who is God manifest in the flesh).
Of course if you don't think that's very important to someone who wants to know that God they spoke about that's your problem, but just because someone wrote about my God doesn't change him in the least. And of course since it's the same God I believe in I'll gladly read about him, wouldn't you?
Apparently not, you'd rather live in your world were god can be whatever *you* imagine him to be. I'll give you a hint, my God actually exists.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] which claims to hold the truth about for instance a/the one true God, but that doesn't lend it any factual qualitees. So you don't have to tell people what they believe in, they usually know that for themselves.
They sure do, and I didn't tell anyone that, they already knew, I was just making sure you did.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] Supposedly Moses wrote that seeing as he wrote the 'Five books of Moses', but you will also find that the same people who tell you that will point out that any israelite could have added it after Moses death, but Moses is the sole author of it so he wrote it, but he isn't the sole author, though he is the sole author. (Note that I intended it to be confusing. This is what I mean by inconsistency, claiming two opposing truths at the same time)
Exactly, which is why I don't believe that. I believe God foretold Moses of his own death. And being God he can do that sort of thing.
Originally Posted by UrbanMonk I've read about and heard this hypothesis before, and it was one of the things talked about in the Bible as literature class.
There are many points that are made in this hypothesis that are used to back it up, but many of them are false.
-None of the "doublets" contradict each other, and I can say this for a fact because we analyzed each of them, and no contradictions were found.
Your analytical skills are quite questionable, so that really doesn't mean a thing. I tend to use a wide source of scholars when making absolute claims.
You'll notice that none of the statements made on that page are backed up in any way.
However, I've seen first hand the scriptures that they claim causes the theory to exist, and I can see how someone who knows nothing about Hebrew culture, or the Bible itself could come to such incorrect conclusions.
The page is not the author of the hypothesis, it merely gives a good description of it, and also point you in different directions if you wish to check it out more thouroughly. And again, your academic claims are as thin as air, so I'd rather put my money on the real scholars. But by all means, keep believing that you are superior to the rest of the world.
[...]the Bible is an exact recording of history, and this further suggests the accuracy and inspiration that the Bible is.
That's quite the bold claim, do you realize that?
Regardless of whether or not I approve shouldn't make a difference.
If it's really there then it'll speak for itself, but since it isn't...
Well, at least those sentences shows that you are aware of your own ignoring of facts.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] You do realize that you are talking complete nonsense right?
I realized it when you said it the first time, [...]
Well, that's a relief.
Apparently not, you'd rather live in your world were god can be whatever *you* imagine him to be. I'll give you a hint, my God actually exists.
Once again, a bold statement. And I don't understand why you keep talking about me and what I suppossedly think.
They sure do, and I didn't tell anyone that, they already knew, I was just making sure you did.
Come on, are these kind of pot-shots the best argumentation you are capable of?
Why do you bother fuzzing around so much instead of replying to the main point of my post which took up about 70% of it? You really come across as a little confused to say the least.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] Your analytical skills are quite questionable, so that really doesn't mean a thing. I tend to use a wide source of scholars when making absolute claims.
My analytical skills will be questionable to you as long as I don't agree with you I've come to realize, so your opinion is worthless.
However for your info these scriptures weren't analyzed by me in particular as they were analyzed by my professors who have a doctorates in philosophy and literature, but of course you don't want to believe this since you've put so much faith in your silly theories, so you prolly won't be rationally honest with yourself.
More scholars agree with us than those that don't.
This hypothesis has been proven false multiple times, and it's rather old.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] The page is not the author of the hypothesis, it merely gives a good description of it, and also point you in different directions if you wish to check it out more thouroughly.
Even the description contains inaccuracies, shows how valid this hypothesis is doesn't it?
And besides, those problems with the theory I pointed out are true, care to prove me wrong?
-None of the "doublets" contradict each other.
-Most (or all, I don't remember an example where they weren't) of the "doublets" were from a character repeating the story to someone else, slight differences exist because it's an exact recording of what that person said rather than just a mere rendition.
-Yahweh and Elohim are both describing words to refer to God, another one that is used is Jehovah.
Each of these words simply describe God and are used interchangeably throughout the Torah, and they are also used interchangeably by the Jewish people today.
-All these other so-called "sections" from "different writers" have the same property. Each time a story is repeated in a different way, it is spoken by a different person in the actual text.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] That's quite the bold claim, do you realize that?
It's as true as it is bold. As I've said before, history, archeology, and true science backs it up.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] Well, at least those sentences shows that you are aware of your own ignoring of facts.
Surly there are facts that I'm not aware of in this world, and I'm sure the same is true for you. However you have yet to state any facts about the Bible, or back up your silly claims.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE]
Originally Posted by UrbanMonk
Apparently not, you'd rather live in your world were god can be whatever *you* imagine him to be. I'll give you a hint, my God actually exists.
Once again, a bold statement. And I don't understand why you keep talking about me and what I suppossedly[sic] think.
And it's truth is reveled when you claim that
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] Everything in the bible doesn't have to be true for it to be helpful.
but yet you seem to think that other things aren't. You picking and choosing what you like and what you don't like is a prime example of that type of thinking.
"[...]but of course you don't want to believe this since you've put so much faith in your silly theories, so you prolly won't be rationally honest with yourself."
To put it plain, right back at ya.
You seem to be under the impression that you know me and what I think, believe etc.. However, I wouldn't give a rat's tail if the DH was proven completely and utterly wrong. On the contrary, it would be interesting to know who(in pluralis) actually authored the Torah if DH is wrong.
You see my good fiend, DH being wrong does not equal you being right.
The only thing that would prove is that DH is not the correct hypothesis in this case.
"More scholars agree with us than those that don't."
Just because that line cracks me up everytime I try and read it, I'd <3 to see what you base that on. And it's nice to see that you've adopted a healthy 'us against them' mentality.
"Even the description contains inaccuracies, shows how valid this hypothesis is doesn't it?"
Actually no, but it's nice to see you try.
"And besides, those problems with the theory I pointed out are true, care to prove me wrong?"
No, I'm not into that. However, you could always try and actually prove some of your claims without quoting the bible.
"It's as true as it is bold. As I've said before, history, archeology, and true science backs it up."
No, creationist 'science' backs it up.
"And it's truth is reveled when you claim that"
I believe all forum viewers would like to know how you mean. I know I do!
"but yet you seem to think that other things aren't. You picking and choosing what you like and what you don't like is a prime example of that type of thinking."
I'm sorry, you lost me. I get that you dislike people picking and choosing from the bible, but what are you rambling on about? I seriously can't understand what you are trying to convey.
And I know it makes you feel special, but please, lay off with the sics.
Firstly, your own posts would be littered with them.
Secondly, I think people understand the text without your grammatical crusade.
Thirdly, you do realize that you are communicating with people of other languages than your own, so it really just makes you look like a grammar-rascist anyways.
Fourthly, it's so unbelievably pretentious to sic people in an internet forum so it makes it awfully hard to try and take you seriously. Even more so than it already is.
//EE
(by the way, you still haven't replied to my post about the unnamed couple, is it really that hard to whip up something?)
EDIT:
I just want to make something clear. I wouldn't have a problem with your beliefs if you didn't prance about, throwing around your absolutisms, claiming science backs them up. Your problem is that you can't separate faith and critical analysis. I can, and do, separate my faith from my critical analysis. So does most other posters in this thread. That is why what I personally believe is irrelevant.
Faith is one thing.
Fact is another.
If you're lucky, your faith tend to overlap the facts. If they don't, that doesn't mean anything, cause it's your own beliefs, and in your heart they should outweigh your doubts. However, that does not mean that your own beliefs are more true than the facts, they are simply your personal beliefs, so it's not ok to go around and spread lies based on your personal beliefs just because you can't stand the outlook of the facts.
If your statements were not backed up with God-told-me-so's and The-Bible-says-so's, but with unbiased sources, no one would have a problem with your arguments. You'd might even get someone to actually listen to you if you approached them in a professional, academical way instead of a medievil preaching manner.
Can you understand what I'm talking about?
I'm quite sick of having to spend this much time arguing with a brickwall, and would much rather see this thread evolve into something more meaningful than UrbanMonk vs Everyone. The only reason I even bother with you is cause apparently, at least two other posters in this thread believe your claims on science are true. I would really like for them to stop listening to your irrational absolutisms and actually research these things for themselves, and hopefully they'd realize that people like yourself are decieving them. Resulting in this world being spared two more fanatics.
One can only hold a personal opinion on the subject. Absolutisms in either way are just unneccessary and often quite insulting.
In my opinion, the only accurate way of expressing it, is that according to the findings of natural science using the scientific method and the current paradigm there are no evidence pointing in the direction of the existance of a 'supernatural entity'(however you define that) conforming to man's view of a so called 'god' in our universe.
urbanmonk seriously keep your thoughts to yourself you are only ruining this thread.
And eternalman, who agreed with him ? I don't think anyone here is dumb enough to take him seriously, let alone agree with his "views".
Also someone please delete the posts that emurom character made, if we wanted lame trolling attempts we'd call gamester.
Thanks for the link phredreeke btw, I'll have a look.
To play the devil's advocate, this is probably where the belief that Moses wrote the Torah stems from.
Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee.
Deuteronomy 31:26
Now UrbanMonk is gonna disagree with me, but even if we take the bible for absolute truth this doesn't mean Moses wrote the entire Torah, he could just have written part of it. Or it could be an entirely different text, that was lost along with the ark when the babylonians destroyed Jerusalem in the 6th century BC.
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
@Johnny Look: Well, true, I can't say I know they agree with his views, but dubbing him "Defender of the Faith" in appreciative terms with trophies kinda' implies it.
And to any admin considering locking this due to trolling, please just delete unuseful posts like the above instead.
@emurom: We all have opinions on charismatic christian meetings, however, simply posting vids like that without using it to convey a further message simply equates to trolling, which we don't want here.
I'll return on the subject of the Torah a bit later!
Sorry for the double-post again, but it would be quite downletting to see my edit dissipate due to any further posts made.
So.
The reason why I asked about sources for believing in the mosaic authorship of the Torah is due to an interesting read in The Secular Bible by Jaques Berlinerblau.
For anyone intent on dismissing it on the grounds of J.B not being credible: He holds two seperate PhD's, Ancient Near Eastern Languages and Literatures, New York University and Sociology, The New School of Social Research. He is currently an Associate Professor and Director of the Program for Jewish Civilization at the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University.
He is proficient in reading, speaking and writing Hebrew.
In his book, he points to a fact that is well known, but not widely known. Namely that the Hebrew Bible never states that Moses wrote the five books accredited with his name i.e the five books of Moses.
What it does do is make reference to a wide range of (to quote J.B)"ambiguous, shifting and maddeningly imbricated terms" such as "Torah", "the Book of Moses", "the Torah of Moses", "Book of the Torah of Moses", "Book of the Torah of Elohim" and "Torah of Yahweh" to name a handful.
It is only later, in postbiblical times, that many commentators and scribes make the two overlapping assumptions;
1.) The word "Torah" equates to the stretch of five documents that runs from Genesis to Deuteronomy.
2.) That Moses was the author of "Torah"(i.e the five books)
Surmise no.1 is not at all clear. J.B gives an example from Genesis 26:5 were Yahweh expresses to Isaac his appreciation for Abraham who had kept "My commandments, My Laws and My Torah(plural)."
What Torah?
If the word Torah does indeed refer to the first five books in their entirety, how could Abraham(his death is reported in Genesis 25:8 ) faithfully have observed the forthcoming "Torah" contained in the remainder of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy?
For surmise no.2 J.B quotes the biblicist Joseph Blenkinsopp; "Here and there in the Pentateuch Moses is said to have written certain things, including laws and the vow to expatriate the Amalekites, but nowhere is it affirmed that the Pentateuch was authored by Moses, or indeed by anyone else. One would therefore think that what calls for an explanation is not why most people stopped believing in the dogma of Mosaic authorship, but rather why anyone believed it in the first place."
So once again, forgive me for misinforming you all with my statement; "Supposedly Moses wrote that seeing as he wrote the 'Five books of Moses'"
I'm sure UrbanMonk will rush to the task of explaining why all this is complete BS (mind you, he took a Bible lit class at uni) but I can really recommend Jaques Berlinerblau and especially his book The Secular Bible to anyone interested in seeing the current dichotonomy of atheists contra believers, examplified by UrbanMonk and our trolling emurom, evolved into something more fruitful.
This has to be my favorite troll. Have some food troll!
I remember watching that video, it's astounding that those people actually think they're decent human beings. It's people like that that makes progress so difficult.
It reminds me of this song,
How far did we did we get when religion was in complete control? We had a flat world, night was a blanket and stars were holes poked in it, lightning meant god was pissed, the crusades and the dark ages. Right, humanity was better off then. Since Science has become more accepted we know better how the world works, life expectancy is up, and most dull repetitive tasks have been automated, allowing humans to create and explore more. Unfortunately, since religion, politics, culture and money still have a firm foundation in society we have to still have to worry about a mass excess of waste, racism, wage slaves, scarcity and power hungry douchebags.
Which makes me want to go off on an insane rant because I'm really pissed at some news I heard recently, brought to you by your neighborhood "Christian soldier" trying to do good by forcing everyone else to think exactly like them.
You can say what you want, but the only thing that has EVER stood in the way of equal rights has been religion and the fact that it brings people up to believe that certain people are unfavorable in the eyes of their religion and it also brings people up to believe they should be squeamish and ashamed of natural bodily functions.
It's happened with almost every non-white race in America since it started (Blacks, Native Americans, the Japanese during WWII), it's happening recently with Athiests and Gays, and if you think any of these were bad (which most of these groups are "accepted" and it is a terrible crime to discriminate against any of them), you should take the time to look at how the world treats transsexuals.
When it comes to transsexuals, most people's opinions of them is the goofy caricature that is typically portrayed in the media (blatantly male in a skanky outfit and clown make-up), but most people don't understand exactly what a transsexual is. When you have a fetus, no one starts with a particular pair of genitals. At some point there is some brain development that determines the fetus to be male or female, and at some point afterwards a signal is to be shot down to determine what genitalia to make the gonad into. With most people, this signal is just fine, but with a small percentage of people, the incorrect signal is sent (and even rarer, two signals are sent, creating an inter-sexed individual). This is one of the theories of how transsexualism occurs. When it comes to a male and female child from there, there is no physical difference with the exception of the genitalia until puberty occurs and the secondary sex characteristics begin to develop.
Despite the fact that this is a birth defect, it is treated like the worst kind of abomination, and many are treated as if they were inhuman. It is commonly referred to as a severe mental illness, when in fact it only causes severe mental illness if left untreated, things like severe depression, anxiety and panic disorders. On top of that, transsexuals have about a 5x higher rate of suicide than the average human being. It is still considered perfectly fine in society to fire, humiliate, assault, torture, rape and even murder a transsexual. There are many transsexuals who have been murdered, the killer goes free and the victim is labeled as "an unknown transsexual" or "an unknown man wearing dress". When it comes to one of these people telling their friends and family about their condition, a majority will be disowned, their friends will stop talking to them and in certain cases will be attacked or even killed.
When it comes to telling the people they work for, most of the time they will be fired on the spot, and they can't do a damn thing about it. In most states Gender Identity is not protected when it comes to employees and tenants, and even if it was, most judges will and have thrown the cases out. There is a reason why a majority of transsexuals are prostitutes or go into porn (where they are demeaned and labeled as "shemales" "he-shes" and "chicks with dicks"), it's because most of them have nowhere else to go, they either have to keep it a secret and suffer, go though their transition and suffer, maybe get lucky, and if any of them do manage to complete their transition, most of them will leave that world behind out of fear and not help any other people trying to transition.
When it comes to the LGBT (Lesbians, Gays, Bixsexuals and Transgender) the "T" is pretty much just tacked on, most of the LGBT could care less about Transsexuals, since society hates them so much, any potential legislation raised for their rights is thrown out simply because of that "T" at the end. And honestly, it's not even right to toss the "T" in there, since Transsexualism has nothing to do with sexuality, it is completely separate. On top of that, all of them get their pride week and junk and it's all happy and crap, guess what the Transsexuals get? The Transsexual Day of Remembrance, a somber day where they list all the transsexuals who died that year, and the people they list didn't die of old age or from an accident, these are people who were murdered for being a transsexual. This year actually has doubled from last year, but even though it's nice for these people to have a day, it's not exactly a big celebration, is it?
Most of this "hate" has to do with the law in the old testament that says it is a sin for a man to wear womens clothing and a women to wear mens clothing. This law had to do with War, as women could not fight in a War, men would try to dodge going into battle by wearing womens clothing, and on the other side, a woman might put on mens clothing to be able to fight in war. Despite all this, didn't Jesus do away with the old law? If all this were so bad, don't you think Jesus would've said something about it? The other part had to do with mutilating your body. When a transsexual transitions, most (not all) might take hormones of the opposite sex, by doing so will put them into almost a second puberty (unless they catch it before puberty which is most favorable, in that case just a single puberty) and they will begin to develop many of the opposite sex's characteristics with the exception of skeletal structure and vocal chords in male to female transitions. Male to Female transitions might elect to have breast augmentation if the breasts do not develop enough, a tracheal shave to cut down the Adam's apple, plastic surgery in the face to cut down the masculine features of the face, and electrolysis to permanently remove the hair from the face and chest. In the case of Female to Males, the will have top surgery to reduce the size of the breasts and might have hair implanted on their face and chest. After at least a year of living as the opposite sex and at least 2 referrals from psychologists they can go through Sex Reassignment surgery, which is the part everyone has a big freaking problem with. In the case of MTFs, the genitals are inverted to create a cavity, most of the sensitive tissue is also used and the surgery is sophisticated enough to form a complete working set of female genitals, with the exception of the ovaries (so for you guys out there, dating a post-op female is fantastic since you don't have to worry about her getting pregnant or have to deal with PMS). With FTM, the surgery isn't as sophisticated, it can be done and the formed male genitals is sensitive and I believe can also achieve erections, but the won't necessarily be very pretty or have even a decent length or girth, which is sadly why most Female to Male transitions don't opt for the surgery. With all that said, why would you tell someone who has survived their transition and is finally happy for once in their life that they have made a horrible mistake and they have mutilated themselves? Sounds like a dick move to me.
Sorry, I get passionate about this. I have been helping many of these people recover for quite sometime, and just recently a lot of really good legislature that might finally get these people help in the workplace was stopped, guess who pushed for it to stop? Bitchy fucking ignorant douchebag Christians who claimed (with no evidence) that having transsexuals around children was dangerous. Because every transsexual is a pedophile and an axe murderer or buffalo bill (which if they had been paying attention wasn't really a transsexual, but just really screwed up, oh yeah and HE'S A FICTIONAL CHARACTER). That legislature also included the Gays, Lesbians and Bisexuals, and guess what they said? "We don't have a problem with them, it's the transsexuals we are worried about". In other words "It's not socially expectable to hate those people, but since it's still okay to discriminate against them, they're going to be our scapegoat!". These are the same group of "family" oriented Christians that were speaking out against desegregation claiming it was dangerous to let those uppity black folk hang around their white children.
With all this shit happening, it's a wonder that any non-white, any women, any homosexual or transsexual would still want to be religious. Keep in mind, these people hate you, have hated you (or at the very least are secretly disgusted by you) and were rather you be dead based on their shoddy interpretation of their 2000 year old desert scribblings.
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
Originally Posted by HorrendousGames
You can say what you want, but the only thing that has EVER stood in the way of equal rights has been religion and the fact that it brings people up to believe that certain people are unfavorable in the eyes of their religion and it also brings people up to believe they should be squeamish and ashamed of natural bodily functions.
It's a humongous generalization, but I see your point and I mostly agree with it. Though, I'd personally put the focus on how distortion of ideas, practiced through group control through human history, (among other things) tend to lead to such results.
When it comes to the LGBT (Lesbians, Gays, Bixsexuals and Transgender)[...], any potential legislation raised for their rights is thrown out simply because of that "T" at the end.
I totally agree on the hypocracy shown towards LGBT individuals contra others. I'm happy to say that I live in a country were LGBT individuals equal rights is very prominent(both in legislation and reality) in contrast to most other countries.
Despite all this, didn't Jesus do away with the old law?
Not per se. He specifically pointed out that he had not come to do destroy the law, but to fulfill it. One can see it as a revision. Though, since Jesus didn't sit down bespectacled and write a book of the law, followers were forced to interpret laws through his life and action so to speak, technically boiling down to subjective, agreed upon, interpretations.
(so for you guys out there, dating a post-op female is fantastic since you don't have to worry about her getting pregnant or have to deal with PMS)
With all this shit happening, it's a wonder that any non-white, any women, any homosexual or transsexual would still want to be religious. Keep in mind, these people hate you, have hated you (or at the very least are secretly disgusted by you) and were rather you be dead based on their shoddy interpretation of their 2000 year old desert scribblings.
It's important to remember that it's not a polemic. The examples of religious views you gave are akin to fundamentalists, and rest assured that the absolute majority of religious people(I'm tempted to say only fundamentalists constitute the rest) strongly disagree with fundamentalist religious beliefs, and are equally occupied with seeing fundamentalism not having power in public areas like legislation.
Cudos to your active support of a vulnerable group in society.
Advertisement
Post Reply
Edited by UrbanMonk
