Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 2 of 15 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 12 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 300
  1. #21
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    9,471
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by non-croyant
    I apologize for confusing you with Apok. I am still adjusting to the indicators on this discussion forum.

    But, since you agree with Apok, I will point out that you don't even recognize the Greek language when you see it, but you imply that those who don't jump through the same Occam's-razor-violating hoops as you to excuse Biblical contradictions are guilty of "cursory" examination.

    Most "explanations" produced by apologists are sophistries of mediocre minds.
    No offense taken, being confused with Apok is a compliment. I must point out that I did recognize that the language you posted was Greek, because you had just stated such. I am not a moron. But I am also not multilingual. I see that you have an impressive vocabulary, and I hope to learn much from you in these forums. This can only be achieved, however, if you make your tone a bit less confrontational and insulting. Welcome to the ODN.

  2. #22
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    112
    Post Thanks / Like
    If you knew you knew me from Beliefnet you would recognize that I am pulling my punches.

    Do you at least get my point? We can each stand here pointing the finger at each other, accusing each other of looking at the case before us with bias, and I will admit to that fact wholeheartedly. Anyone who claims that he is unbaised is a liar.

    But, and this is important, don't poopoo my side by claiming that I haven't done my homework. I hardly think that someone who has bothered to learn a little bit about Biblical languages is treating the subject in a cursory manner.

    I hope you can see that claiming such is offensive in itself.

  3. #23
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    9,471
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by non-croyant
    If you knew you knew me from Beliefnet you would recognize that I am pulling my punches.

    Do you at least get my point? We can each stand here pointing the finger at each other, accusing each other of looking at the case before us with bias, and I will admit to that fact wholeheartedly. Anyone who claims that he is unbaised is a liar.

    But, and this is important, don't poopoo my side by claiming that I haven't done my homework. I hardly think that someone who has bothered to learn a little bit about Biblical languages is treating the subject in a cursory manner.

    I hope you can see that claiming such is offensive in itself.
    I agree that all people are biased, it is impossible not to be. I did not mean to imply whatsoever that you are unknowledgable about the Bible. I can already tell you have a good knowledge of Biblical languages. My point is from past experience, people who insist that the Bible has multiple contradictions are taking the quotes in question out of context.

  4. #24
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    112
    Post Thanks / Like
    My point is, from past experience, that many Christians will resort to the most elaborate sophistries to turn an obvious contradiction into an agreement.

  5. #25
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Kansas City, MO
    Posts
    1,331
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by KevinBrowning
    My point is from past experience, people who insist that the Bible has multiple contradictions are taking the quotes in question out of context.
    How is the Bible giving two different accounts for the end and death of Judas out of context? How are three resurrection stories not contradictory if the details differ from the others? You can only shoehorn "context" in to a degree before it is outright intellectual fraud.

    And it's good to see NC post again.
    Last edited by F1Fan; February 17th, 2004 at 06:15 PM. Reason: Goofed the html

  6. #26
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,394
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by non-croyant
    [If we had access to Greek (or Symbol) font this would appear correctly.]

    First identify the problem and then explain it away in the following passage from the NT:


    kai ote hggisan eiV ierosoluma kai hlqon eiV bhqfagh eiV to oroV twn elaiwn tote ihsouV apesteilen duo maqhtaV
    legwn autoiV poreuesqe eiV thn kwmhn thn katenanti umwn kai euqewV eurhsete onon dedemenhn kai pwlon met authV lusanteV agagete moi
    kai ean tiV umin eiph ti ereite oti o kurioV autwn creian ecei euquV de apostelei autouV
    touto de gegonen ina plhrwqh to rhqen dia tou profhtou legontoV
    eipate th qugatri siwn idou o basileuV sou ercetai soi prauV kai epibebhkwV epi onon kai epi pwlon uion upozugiou
    Boy did you pick the wrong apologist.

    While I'm no master of the language by any means, I am an active student of Hellenistic Greek and hermeneutics, and a firm believer in the grammatical-historical method of interpretation. I also (in my limited learning) am inclined to practice a more "Thraxian" pedagogical study.

    Now, on to your passage. It is the regurgitated (and popular) yet erroneous claim of "contradiction" of the colt and the foal.

    Matthew 21:1-7 < -- you left out vs 6 & 7. I added it to complete the scene.
    1 When they had approached Jerusalem and had come to Bethphage, at the Mount of Olives, then Jesus sent two disciples, 2 saying to them, "Go into the village opposite you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied there and a colt with her; untie them and bring them to Me. 3 "If anyone says anything to you, you shall say, `The Lord has need of them,' and immediately he will send them." 4 This took place to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet:

    5 "SAY TO THE DAUGHTER OF ZION, `BEHOLD YOUR KING IS COMING TO YOU, GENTLE, AND MOUNTED ON A DONKEY, EVEN ON A COLT, THE FOAL OF A BEAST OF BURDEN.'

    6 The disciples went and did just as Jesus had instructed them, 7 and brought the donkey and the colt, and laid their coats on them; and He sat on the coats.

    Matthew account tells us of Jesus' request of 2 disciples to go into a village and get 2 donkeys. But in mark and Luke, he tells the the 2 disciples to get just the colt. On the surface, seems problematic...however, it's not at all.

    Both animals were present in Jesus' entry into Jerusalem. There is no contradiction in the accounts because Mark and Luke mention just the colt (polos) and Mathew refers to the colt (polos, 21:5) and its mother. The passage is pointing out the literal fulfillment of the prophecy of Zechariah 9:9 which says,

    "Behold your king is coming to you . . . humble, and mounted on a donkey, even on a colt, the foal of a donkey."

    The Greek version of the OT uses the same word for colt (polos) a the NT passages. Matthew literally says that once the disciples placed their coats (garments) on the donkeys, Jesus sat on them (the garments that is).

    Matthew doesn't say that Jesus rode on both the mother and the colt. It merely states that Jesus sat on the garments that the disciples had placed on the donkeys. Most likely, they had placed some garments on the mother and others on the colt, and Jesus sat on those garments which were placed on the colt.

    The fact is, the text of Matthew simply does not say on which donkey Jesus sat. Mark and Luke focus on the colt on which Jesus rode, while Matthew mentions the presence of the colt's mother. Her presence may have been necessary because the colt was so young. Mark 11:2 says that no one had ridden on the colt, and that the colt would be taking a passenger through a noisy crowd (Mark 11:9). Perhaps the mother was brought along in order to be a calming influence upon her young. We don't know for sure what the reason is...but we do know for sure, there is no contradiction.

    IMO, εσείς διαμαρτύρομαι μεγαλόφωνος πολύςthou.

    Sorry, KB, thought you were someone else. You spolied my gimmick!
    Posting Greek text is not going to trap me up my friend.

    But, since you agree with Apok, I will point out that you don't even recognize the Greek language when you see it, but you imply that those who don't jump through the same Occam's-razor-violating hoops as you to excuse Biblical contradictions are guilty of "cursory" examination.

    Most "explanations" produced by apologists are sophistries of mediocre minds.

    But, and this is important, don't poopoo my side by claiming that I haven't done my homework. I hardly think that someone who has bothered to learn a little bit about Biblical languages is treating the subject in a cursory manner.
    It is not necessary to know Greek, to defend Christianity. The Bible has been reliably translated through the ages to our modern Bibles.

    If we follow your logic...only mechanics may speak of anything related to auto repair. Surely you do not agree with this. Do you?

    And I do "poopoo" your side for not doing your homework, if you honestly believe your objection here was a valid contradiction. If you honestly do believe so, I'd like to see your support. It is your claim that there exists a contradiction, the burden of proof lies upon you to prove it so.

    If however, it was merely a softball to serve the purpose of testing the batter, I would hope that you would acknowledge the homerun, and mark the scoreboard so.

    My point is, from past experience, that many Christians will resort to the most elaborate sophistries to turn an obvious contradiction into an agreement.
    Ahhh, perhaps you do honestly believe it is a valid contradiction. In which case, you'll have to support your claim. "Claimin' it, don't make it so."
    Last edited by Apokalupsis; February 17th, 2004 at 07:14 PM.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  7. #27
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    9,471
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by F1Fan
    How is the Bible giving two different accounts for the end and death of Judas out of context? How are three resurrection stories not contradictory if the details differ from the others? You can only shoehorn "context" in to a degree before it is outright intellectual fraud.

    And it's good to see NC post again.
    Would you please elaborate about what you are saying are different accounts of Judas Iscariot's death? Also, as Apok has said, the Bible is the Word of God filtered through the perceptions and writing styles of the writers. This is not saying that it is not the Word of God. It is just not a word-for-word dictation from the Almighty. When different Gospels have slightly different details, I see that as a verifier of the historical value of the Gospels, as witnesses do not see events identically. Different details, as long as they are not contradictory, but merely differing, are not an indicator that the Bible is not accurate and divinely inspired.

  8. #28
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,394
    Post Thanks / Like
    re: Judas. Another popular, but erroneous claim. Brief summary: There are 2 accounts...one that he hung himself, the other that he fell off a cliff. There's no contradiction. He hung himself from a tree overlooking a cliff, he (or the branch) fell from the weight on to the rocks below. It's telling the complete story, not a contradictory story. If we need to get into a much more detailed hermeneutic analysis, that's fine. But IMO, it's a rather silly claim for a contradiction.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  9. #29
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    112
    Post Thanks / Like

    Red face

    I can't help but call your explanation sophistry.

    Zechariah says one donkey, the author of Matthew, because he didn't understand the fundamental concept of apposition, says there were two when he retroactively fitted his "fulfillment" to OT prophecy. That's all the proof I need. "Contradiction" literally means "something said against." Saying there were two asses in a scenario when someone else says there was only one is a contradiction.

    It's all very simple if you don't insist on willfully dulling Occam's Razor.

    We could, of course, make it more complicated. I can claim:
    Matthew 21:1-5 is NOT a contradiction
    Proof: the author of Zechariah and the author of Matthew are not describing the same event.
    Of course, I would have to actually make the "proof" above a lemma and prove it first, but I think it is enough to make my stand on the matter known.

    If the burden is on the person who points out a contradiction to prove that it's a contradiction, why are you trying to prove that it isn't? I thought the burden wasn't on you.

    So you have studied some Greek. Are you self taught or did you study Greek in a formal setting? Have you studied Hebrew as well, and that in a formal setting?

  10. #30
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Kansas City, MO
    Posts
    1,331
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by KevinBrowning
    Would you please elaborate about what you are saying are different accounts of Judas Iscariot's death?
    It's a well known biblical problem. Matthew 27 and Acts 1. Did Judas hang himself, or "burst asunder in the midst". Whatever that is it doesn't sound like hanging. A clever guy could make it somewhat palatable. But a competent god shouldn't have allowed it to ever be a problem.

    Odd though, you didn't seem to disagree with the resurrection account dilemma.


    Also, as Apok has said, the Bible is the Word of God filtered through the perceptions and writing styles of the writers.
    More accurately, the Bible is CLAIMED to be the word of god. That god "filtered" is perhaps the best explanation that can account for errors, yet believers still claim it contains truth. But this is still a very serious concession. In one sense it might make the Bible seem accessible to humans to get at the "truth". But what is ignored is two glaring dilemmas. 1. That the Bible has built-in human faults, those being most evident in the contradictions, some of which are major. 2. Even if you read a true inspired bit, it is up to your best judgment to decide if it is, and there is no test for your judgment to verify; and consensus is not valid, as it has fallacy issues.

    Now you might mean passively inspired, which means humans did the work and thinking and writing, but were moved to their greatest moral resonance. But violent bits seem inconsistent with this. Or you could mean that god whispered the words in the ears of the writers, claiming god inspired with intention to what was created. What's odd is that I'm thinking more about this than you believers. I get the feeling you all might not take the Bible that seriously. Or at least you don't indicate thinking very deeply about it.


    This is not saying that it is not the Word of God. It is just not a word-for-word dictation from the Almighty. When different Gospels have slightly different details, I see that as a verifier of the historical value of the Gospels, as witnesses do not see events identically.
    You need to do better in justifying how god "filtered" ideas/truth through fallible beings, and it be called the word of god. The Bible is a very specific text. It includes parts of the Torah which are being used today to condemn and publicly humiliate human beings. This is a very, very serious thing, and you are defending it as the word of god. It is this same human effort of mind that justifies the use of the Bible for vengeful and harmful acts against your fellow human beings. So I hope you see the very crucial consequences of a claim that some may take for granted about the Bible. If you have deliberately admitted that human hands have had a part in the creation of this book, then you (and all believers) have a moral responsibility to concede the possibility any line being used against your brother or sister of being prejudiced, and demonstrative of human error. You owe it to your fellow human beings to give them the benefit of the doubt that the Bible might be in error. Any act that extends to demand conformity of others, who otherwise do not believe, may be an act more grievous against the Bible than non-belief itself.


    Different details, as long as they are not contradictory, but merely differing, are not an indicator that the Bible is not accurate and divinely inspired.
    So what does that mean? Poetry might be inspired, and true. Music may be inspired, and resonate with the spirit. Beethoven does it for me. And I almost always cry at the end of La Traviata, as Violeta is true sacrifice, and an expression of selfless love seldom seen. Yet you advocate a book that cannot coordinate its details?

    I'll concede that the Bible has parts that must be inspired poetry. But as a final truth to some god, I'm not convinced. Too many holes for a sound judgment from a discriminating mind. Plus, I have no motive to make a justification in trumping my judgment, and believe on what some call faith.
    Last edited by F1Fan; February 17th, 2004 at 07:56 PM. Reason: Clarity

  11. #31
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    112
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis
    But IMO, it's a rather silly claim for a contradiction.
    IMO, your explanation is utterly ridiculous.

    Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Judas hanged himself over the edge of a cliff.

    Now that you have made a claim, (that Judas committed suicide by hanging himself over the edge of a cliff) the burden of proof is on you.

  12. #32
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    112
    Post Thanks / Like
    The problem with apologists who try to explain away Biblical contradictions is that they make **** up that is not in the text.

    Sure, what you propose might resolve the contradiction, but if you can't back up your scenario from the source text then what is the point?

    I am reminded of Marvel's "no-prize," which to win True Believers would make up explanations to iron over "apparent" plot holes. Even though some of the explanations were quite ingenious, it's obvious that the Marvel fan was not supernaturally tapping into the comic writer's true intentions; he was explaining away the writer's oversight.

    Very much the same thing occurs where apologists are concerned.

  13. #33
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Kansas City, MO
    Posts
    1,331
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Apok
    re: Judas. Another popular, but erroneous claim. Brief summary: There are 2 accounts...one that he hung himself, the other that he fell off a cliff. There's no contradiction. He hung himself from a tree overlooking a cliff, he (or the branch) fell from the weight on to the rocks below.
    So there's a third account? I never heard of falling from a cliff.


    It's telling the complete story, not a contradictory story. If we need to get into a much more detailed hermeneutic analysis, that's fine. But IMO, it's a rather silly claim for a contradiction.
    Complete story? Hermeneutic analysis? What's silly is that a supposedly competent god can't inspire more clarity.

  14. #34
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,394
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by non-croyant
    I can't help but call your explanation sophistry.
    Well, there are 2 kinds of "critics". Those who prefer brief answers, and those who want a more analytical approach. You got the analytical approach.

    A brief answer would be that the accounts were complimentary. And as we see in verse 6-7, Jesus is riding on coats, that were placed upon the animals. Matthew never tells uss which animal Jesus rides upon. Mark and Luke do.

    "Contradiction" literally means "something said against." Saying there were two asses in a scenario when someone else says there was only one is a contradiction.
    A contradiction is not "something said against". It is a conjunction of any proposition and its negation. In logic, the law of noncontradiction states that A cannot be both A and non-A at the same time in the same sense.

    Neither Mark nor Luke state that only a colt exists. They focus upon the colt in their telling of the story, that is all.

    It's all very simple if you don't insist on willfully dulling Occam's Razor.
    See above re: 2 types of "critics".

    first, but I think it is enough to make my stand on the matter known.

    If the burden is on the person who points out a contradiction to prove that it's a contradiction, why are you trying to prove that it isn't? I thought the burden wasn't on you.
    It's not. Some sophisticated minds prefer a more indepth approach from a hermeneutical perspective. If you are going to critique something validly, you better know what it is you critique. Likewise, if you wish to defend a claim, or even refute, oft times it is necessary to present detail. Of course, it depends upon who the other party is and their preference of detail or brevity.

    So you have studied some Greek. Are you self taught or did you study Greek in a formal setting? Have you studied Hebrew as well, and that in a formal setting?
    A little of both. Grandfather taught Greek, took some in college, dabble in it now mainly through self teaching. I've also dabbled a bit in Hebrew, but focusing now on Greek. Plan to tackle Aramaic when time permits.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  15. #35
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    112
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis

    If we follow your logic...only mechanics may speak of anything related to auto repair. Surely you do not agree with this. Do you?
    No, I don't. I hold the 1st Amendment sacrosanct. However, a trained mechanic is going to know far more about automobiles than a soccer mom.

  16. #36
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    112
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis

    A contradiction is not "something said against".

    Parse the etymology of the word, linguist.

  17. #37
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    112
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis
    A brief answer would be that the accounts were complimentary.
    Do you mean "complementary"?

    Also, you have just made a claim. Prove it.

  18. #38
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,394
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by non-croyant
    The problem with apologists who try to explain away Biblical contradictions is that they make **** up that is not in the text.
    Good thing we have that filter on eh?

    Apologists don't need to "make anything up". Apologists study the whole picture, the actual event. What really took place. This is the same that is done in any historical work. For some reason, "critics" wish to apply a different criteria of textual criticism when it comes to the Bible. It's one of the most biased approaches a "critic" (and I do use quotes there as these sort I do not consider actual or objective critics) can take.

    Sure, what you propose might resolve the contradiction, but if you can't back up your scenario from the source text then what is the point?
    Because what is being challenged is a piece of history. And often times, the necessity of the historical backdrop is extremely relevant to what and why. To ignore this, is to ignore objectivity...it is the lack of critical thinking.

    IMO, your explanation is utterly ridiculous.

    Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Judas hanged himself over the edge of a cliff.

    Now that you have made a claim, (that Judas committed suicide by hanging himself over the edge of a cliff) the burden of proof is on you.
    Matthew 27:5
    And he cast down the pieces of silver into the sanctuary, and departed; and he went away and hanged himself.

    vs

    Acts 1:18
    “Now this man obtained a field with the reward of his iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.


    First, as scholar E.M. Zerr correctly pointed out:

    “they [the two passages in Matthew 27:5 and Acts 1:18—JD] should not be taken as a contradiction if it is possible for both to be true” (1952, Bible Commentary: New Testament

    Is this a possibility in the current case?

    Albert Barnes offered the following observation in regard to this alleged discrepancy:

    Matthew records the mode in which Judas attempted his death by hanging. Peter speaks of the result” (1998, Barnes’ Notes: The Gospels

    As Wayne Jackson noted:

    The language necessitates no conflict. Either he hanged himself from a very high place—with perhaps the rope breaking; or else, no one removed his body for a while, it eventually fell under its own weight, and the decomposing corpse burst open” (2000, p. 13, The Acts of the Apostles from Jerusalem to Rome).

    Similarly, J.W. Haley wrote:

    Neither of these statements excludes the other. Matthew does not deny that Judas, after hanging himself, fell and burst asunder; Luke does not assert that Judas did not hang himself prior to his fall. (1974, p. 349. Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible ).

    Haley continued by giving a possible scenario:

    Probably the circumstances are much as follows: Judas suspended himself from a tree on the brink of the precipice overhanging the valley of Himmon, and the limb or the rope gave way; and he fell and was mangled as described in Acts” (p. 349).

    Therefore, the verses actually supplement, rather than contradict each other. Matthew gives the method by which Judas carried out his own death, while Luke reports the end result.

    Cliffs aren't mentioned...but if the body fell, and it was a serious enough fall to result in the body opening up and spilling his guts, its quite logical to conclude that the fall was from a lengthy distance onto rocks below. While there may be other possibilities (very tall tree for instance), it in no way poses the problem of being a contradiction.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  19. #39
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,394
    Post Thanks / Like
    NC, please make use of the "edit" button. It is there for a reason.

    And yes, I meant "complementary", thank you for "policing the spelling".

    Also, you have just made a claim. Prove it.
    Already done in post #34. Please read the entire post prior to responding.

    Parse the etymology of the word, linguist.
    Lastly, this is not the place for games of semantics. If you would like some good logic sources, I'd be happy to oblige.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  20. #40
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Long Beach, CA, USA
    Posts
    1,065
    Post Thanks / Like
    I have a good question, can anybody explain the discrepency in why Joseph named Mary's son "Jesus/Yeshua" and not "Immanuel"?

    These are the verse's that im talking about.

    Isaiah 7:14
    Matthew 1:23

    I know that Jesus is the English translation of the Greek translation (Iesous) of the Hebrew name "Ye(ho)shua" which is in itself a variation of the name "Joshua". But Jesus is clearly named Jesus/Yeshua and not Immanuel.

    So what happened?
    Do or do not, there is no try. - Master Jedi Yoda
    He's Kermit on acid who happens to carry a big stick when pissed off. Big deal. - Apokalupsis
    Actually, didn't Frank Oz do Bert as well? We're cousins! - Withnail in reference to Bert and Yoda

 

 
Page 2 of 15 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 12 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •