What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

As it Was In The Days Of Noah...

Edward said:
Mingle
ערב
‛ărab
ar-ab'
(Chaldee); corresponding to H6148; to commingle: - mingle (self), mix./(Strongs)

Mingle (H6148)
ערב
‛ârab
aw-rab'
A primitive root; to braid, that is, intermix; technically to traffic (as if by barter); also to give or be security (as a kind of exchange): - engage, (inter-) meddle (with), mingle (self), mortgage, occupy, give pledges, be (-come, put in) surety, undertake./(Strongs)
Click to expand...

I know, that's my point. It can be used in several different ways.. It's only how the word "mingle" ( or any other word, for that matter) is used in context do we know how the author is using the word.
 
chessman said:
I know, that's my point. It can be used in several different ways.. It's only how the word "mingle" ( or any other word, for that matter) is used in context do we know how the author is using the word.
Click to expand...

But in context that they would mortgage themselves with the seed of men would not make sense.
 
Edward said:
The term translated "the Sons of God" is, in the Hebrew, B'nai HaElohim, "Sons of Elohim," which is a term consistently used in the Old Testament for angels, and it is never used of believers in the Old Testament. It was so understood by the ancient rabbinical sources, by the Septuagint translators in the 3rd century before Christ, and by the early church fathers.
Click to expand...

Correction - certain translators have not translated it that way. The translators were not speaking from the throne of God, were they? Is that what you believe now? I don't think you've gone that far.

I would agree that the term is translated as "angels" in what? Four places? Deuteronomy 32:8 Also mentions "sons of Israel" bÿney yisra'el (בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל) which is translated as the "people of Israel" in the HCSB and "heavenly court" in the NLT and "heavenly assembly" in the NET Bible. The fact that the translators were consistent while translating does not preclude their error. The context of a couple of the cross-references does indicate angels but does not preclude (as you incorrectly suggest) the interpretation of human sons.

Edward, you've stood and spoke for the 'ancient rabbinical sources'. Have you done your homework or have you only considered those sources that agree with you? It seems to me that your view is becoming less balanced over time. Please also consider this, a quote from WIKI (pardon the length you'll need to click to expand):

Traditionalists and philosophers of Judaism[29] in the Middle Ages[30] typically practiced rational theology. They rejected any belief in rebel or fallen angels since evil was considered abstract. Rabbinic sources, most notably the Targum, state that the "sons of God" who married the daughters of men were merely human beings of exalted social station.[31] They have also been considered as pagan royalty[1] or members of nobility[32] who, out of lust, married women from the general population. Other variations of this interpretation define these "sons of God" as tyrannical Ancient Near Eastern kings who were honored as divine rulers, engaging in polygamous behavior.[1] No matter the variation in views, the primary concept by Jewish rationalists is that the "sons of God" were of human origin.[31]

Most notable Jewish writers in support for the view of human "sons of God" were Saadia, Rashi, Lekah Tob, Midrash Aggada, Joseph Bekor Shor, Abraham ibn Ezra,Maimonides, David Kimhi, Nahmanides, Hizkuni, Bahya Ashur, Gersonides,[33] Shimeon ben Yochai and Hillel ben Samuel.[34]

ibn Ezra reasoned that the "sons of God" were men who possessed divine power, by means of astrological knowledge, able to beget children of unusual size and strength.[32]

Jewish commentator Isaac Abrabanel considered the aggadot on Genesis 6 to have referred to some secret doctrine and was not to be taken literally. Abrabanel later joined Nahmanides, and Levi ben Gerson in promoting the concept that the "sons of God" were the older generations who were closer to physical perfection, as Adam and Eve were perfect. Though there are variations of this view, the primary idea was that Adam and Eve's perfect attributes were passed down from generation to generation. However, as each generation passed, their perfect physical attributes diminished. Thus, the early generations were mightier than the succeeding ones. The physical decline of the younger generations continued until the Flood, to the point that their days were numbered as stated in Genesis 6:3. It was immoral for the older generations to consort with the younger generations, whereby puny women begot unusually large children. Nephilim was even considered a stature.[27]

Jewish philosophic preachers such as Jacob Anatoli and Isaac Arama viewed the groups and events in Genesis 6:1-4 as an allegory, primarily for the sin of lust that declined man's higher nature.[35]
Click to expand...

Early Christian writers such as Justin Martyr, Eusebius, Clement of Alexandria, Origen and Commodianus have held the view that the "sons of God" in Genesis 6:1-4 were fallen angels who engaged in unnatural union with human women, resulting in the begetting of the Nephilim.

Perhaps the translators were influenced by their belief? That being the case, you have failed to show any conclusive Scriptural support for the view you hold. To be fair, that same thing may also be said of me.

I agree with Chopper.
 
Edward said:
I can not find any passages in the Old Testament where the term is used of believers. Do you have a reference to any? I've looked and looked. I'm ready willing and able to be corrected here with scripture, brother. :)
Click to expand...
The circular reasoning:
  • Since Genesis 6 means "angles" it can't ever mean humans.
  • Since Job 1 means "angels" it can't ever be used to mean humans.
  • Since Job 38 means "angels" it can't ever mean humans.
  • Since Psalms 29 means "angels" it (the phrase "sons of God") can't ever be used to mean humans.
If we conclusively define the term "sons of God" as angelic beings how then may we, as humans, be considered His sons?

If indeed you are willing to be corrected I would thank you for accepting correction. Please do no longer consider all "ancient Rabbinic sources" as if they were universally in agreement with your conclusion. Also, it may be wise to admit that yours is not the final authority on the subject. As I've said in the past, you're free to believe what you want, Edward. I would like to be given that same consideration especially while trying to maintain a balanced perspective here.

Cordially,
Sparrowhawke
 
Edward said:
But in context that they would mortgage themselves with the seed of men would not make sense.
Click to expand...
Hello Edward,

Here is another verse that you can use to solidify your doctrine. It often gets overlooked.

Now a thing was secretly brought to me, and mine ear received a little thereof. In thoughts from the visions of the night, when deep sleep falleth on men, Fear came upon me, and trembling, which made all my bones to shake. Then a spirit passed before my face; the hair of my flesh stood up: It stood still, but I could not discern the form thereof: an image was before mine eyes, there was silence, and I heard a voice, saying, Shall mortal man be more just than God? shall a man be more pure than his maker? Behold, he put no trust in his servants; and his angels he charged with folly: – Job 4:13-18.

The word "folly" is used to describe "sexual Sins."

And Dinah the daughter of Leah, which she bare unto Jacob, went out to see the daughters of the land. And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the country, saw her, he took her, and lay with her, and defiled her… And the sons of Jacob came out of the field when they heard it: and the men were grieved, and they were very wroth, because he had wrought folly in Israel in lying with Jacob’s daughter: which thing ought not to be done. – Genesis 34:1-2, 7.

Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you. – Deuteronomy 22:21.

And it came to pass after this, that Absalom the son of David had a fair sister, whose name was Tamar; and Amnon the son of David loved her. And Amnon was so vexed, that he fell sick for his sister Tamar; for she was a virgin; and Amnon thought it hard for him to do anything to her… And when she had brought them unto him to eat, he took hold of her, and said unto her, Come lie with me, my sister. And she answered him, Nay, my brother, do not force me; for no such thing ought to be done in Israel: do not thou this folly. – 2 Samuel 13:1-2. 11-12.

In Job 4:18 the septuagint says "He perceives perverseness in His Angels." Giving even more confirmation that the angels of Jude and 2 Pet are details for the punishment of their "folly" or sexual sins.
 
Sparrowhawke: Edward, you've stood and spoke for the 'ancient rabbinical sources'. Have you done your homework or have you only considered those sources that agree with you? It seems to me that your view is becoming less balanced over time.
Click to expand...

Oh, I do consider all of the sources and read their writings with an open mind. I don't have to be right. I want to be right and to have the truth. That I stood for the ancient rabbinical sources was actually done with the intent to establish and show the fact that Enoch was considered canon for a very long time. But that I agree with some rabbinical source at any point does not necessarily mean that I have to agree with every rabbi everywhere, does it? I think it is significant that they used to consider Enoch canon. Is being balanced, being politically correct? I do not think that I need to be politically correct, I just seek the truth of the matter, and of course at some point, the truth will take a different path than balance or political correctness.

I am doing homework on this, and do not shy away from any of it. That would be counter-productive. I have not seen anything which would preclude my present thoughts and beliefs on the issue however. It would have to make sense, and have scriptural support. But to only grasp on anything which would agree with present beliefs or leanings would be a folly and not honest study. I do not do that because I like to be right, no matter my preconceived or presently held leanings. I have been corrected before, and am not too prideful to be corrected again. It must mesh with scripture though, absolutely. At some point, the truth will "click" because such is the nature of truth. The opposition to my leanings that have been presented thus far, have in no way clicked for me. Conversely, I have "proven" nothing and freely admit this. This is why we are tossing it around and presenting different perspectives and so forth. A good thing. I do think that you have perhaps the wrong idea about where I am at on this issue, and perhaps assuming wrongly how I am thinking on the matter. You have presented to me some more material which I take as a homework assignment and must read and sift through to fully consider the potential truths and ramifications of the material, and I thank you for that. I don't have any work to do today (yet) so will do at least some of this today. Be blessed brother.
 
Sparrowhawke said:
The circular reasoning:
  • Since Genesis 6 means "angles" it can't ever mean humans.
  • Since Job 1 means "angels" it can't ever be used to mean humans.
  • Since Job 38 means "angels" it can't ever mean humans.
  • Since Psalms 29 means "angels" it (the phrase "sons of God") can't ever be used to mean humans.
If we conclusively define the term "sons of God" as angelic beings how then may we, as humans, be considered His sons?

If indeed you are willing to be corrected I would thank you for accepting correction. Please do no longer consider all "ancient Rabbinic sources" as if they were universally in agreement with your conclusion. Also, it may be wise to admit that yours is not the final authority on the subject. As I've said in the past, you're free to believe what you want, Edward. I would like to be given that same consideration especially while trying to maintain a balanced perspective here.

Cordially,
Sparrowhawke
Click to expand...

You are presenting "absolutes" here as if I have taken this position, when in fact I have not, and I have even asked if there is known scriptures in the OT that would show a reference to the term "sons of God" wherein it was used in reference to flesh believers. I am unsure why you would conclude that I have taken an absolutes position when I am asking questions?

The term "Sons of God" as used in the OT translates in the Strongs Concordance as the B'nai HaElohim, which seems to be fairly conclusive in its definition as defined in the Concordance. But why would that mean that the term could never ever be used in reference to humans, and where in scripture that the term is used of humans, does that usage actually go to the specific B'nai HaElohim definition in the Concordance? We don't know and pursue it. I ask questions brother. I am not teaching or presenting anything as facts. Please keep this in mind as you read my posts.
 
Edward said:
I have not seen anything which would preclude my present thoughts and beliefs on the issue however. It would have to make sense, and have scriptural support. But to only grasp on anything which would agree with present beliefs or leanings would be a folly and not honest study.
Click to expand...
A small portion of my post #29 was this:
chessman said:
In Genesis 6: Somebody (“Sons of God” and “Daughters of man”, TBD if human or demonic or combination thereof): Saw something good/delightful/attractive (even though it was forbidden) and took it anyway and got punished for it.
And what punishment did “they” receive for the sin “they” performed?
Gen 6:3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh:
So in Gen 6, we are pretty much told the punishment for the sin was to ‘man’.
Click to expand...
How about that one little point? Would that bit of reasoning seem to you to contradict your current belief?
 
chessman said:
A small portion of my post #29 was this:

How about that one little point? Would that bit of reasoning seem to you to contradict your current belief?
Click to expand...

Not really. I do not say that men were not evil and did not bear punishment and destruction for the evil through the flood, but the (alleged) fallen angels which trifled with the earthly women received punishment of a greater degree than man for if it were not by them teaching mankind how to make war and cast spells and all sorts of stuff, mankind would not have been as evil as they were at the time. A reference to the fallen angels and their punishment can be found in Jude 6-7

Jude1:6-7
6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire./(KJV)

In the book of Enoch, it goes into greater detail of the punishment of the fallen angels, but I will not post any of it here for it is not considered canon anymore and would not be well received, but the reference in Jude seems to refer to this specific situation and is in fact widely held by some to be so in the circles which hold the belief that these occurrences did take place. I am not making this up as I go along or anything, I have simply come across this line of belief and am exploring the possibility of it being true. I ask no one to take my word for anything or to change their own beliefs, I simply ask questions and seek the truth. Others have perhaps studied these things more than I.

It does sort of make sense to me that there may have been something more going on than man simply being evil himself at the time. Perhaps if that were so...look at the world now...Whoa. We better buy life jackets if it was only man's evil, lol.
 
Edward said:
…but the (alleged) fallen angels which trifled with the earthly women received punishment of a greater degree than man for if it.
Click to expand...
Well, I agree that fallen angel punishment can be found elsewhere in Scripture. BUT (and it’s a big but), not in the Gen 6 text they didn’t. Clearly, angels received zero punishment in Gen 6. That’s my point.

And furthermore, where does the text say fallen angels trifled with earthly women in Gen 6? It says “When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them…”
No demon breeding there.
“
And they took as their wives any they chose.”
[Which of course the “they” here is the Sons of God phrase you allege means demons. Only if you presuppose “sons of God” means fallen angels, can you say they “trifled” with women. But that’s the point we’ve been making to you. You are using circular reasoning to “justify” your private conclusion.]

And it says:
“when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them.”
[which would have been a perfect place for Moses to have said ‘and they bore ½ breed children to them’, if that’s what he meant. He DOES NOT.]

And it says:
“5 The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.”
[which would have, once again, been a perfect place for Moses to have recorded the Lord seeing not just man’s wickedness but the demon’s as well. Note, that if “the Sons of God” was the entity doing evil (which they were, right there in the very preceding verse) then this text tells you the wickedness was OF MAN = Sons of God = taking any wife they chose. Oh, but I forgot, you say “Sons of God” means demons.]

What's the saying in crime investigation? Follow the money. Follow the punishment here.

[Edited by staff]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Let's watch the personal comments please.

2.4: No Trolling. Do not make an inflammatory remark just to get a response. Address issues not personalities. Respect where people are in their spiritual walk, and respect all others in general. Respect where others are in their spiritual walk, do not disrupt the flow of discussion or act in a way that affects others negatively including when debating doctrinal issues, in the defense of the Christian faith, and in offering unwelcome spiritual advice.
 
chessman said:
Well, I agree that fallen angel punishment can be found elsewhere in Scripture. BUT (and it’s a big but), not in the Gen 6 text they didn’t. Clearly, angels received zero punishment in Gen 6. That’s my point.

And furthermore, where does the text say fallen angels trifled with earthly women in Gen 6? It says “When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them…”
No demon breeding there.
“
And they took as their wives any they chose.”
[Which of course the “they” here is the Sons of God phrase you allege means demons. Only if you presuppose “sons of God” means fallen angels, can you say they “trifled” with women. But that’s the point we’ve been making to you. You are using circular reasoning to “justify” your private conclusion.]

And it says:
“when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them.”
[which would have been a perfect place for Moses to have said ‘and they bore ½ breed children to them’, if that’s what he meant. He DOES NOT.]

And it says:
“5 The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.”
[which would have, once again, been a perfect place for Moses to have recorded the Lord seeing not just man’s wickedness but the demon’s as well. Note, that if “the Sons of God” was the entity doing evil (which they were, right there in the very preceding verse) then this text tells you the wickedness was OF MAN = Sons of God = taking any wife they chose. Oh, but I forgot, you say “Sons of God” means demons.]

What's the saying in crime investigation? Follow the money. Follow the punishment here.

[Edited by staff]
Click to expand...

No, brother I have not alleged that they were demons. The word never exited my fingertips. No one can really agree on what the term "Sons of God" mean in the passage, so I am going by the scripture and the Concordance and it's definitions. I am not making anything up. I do not think I am using circular reasoning, I will show you how I am coming to the definition which at this time how I am using it. Ok?

Genesis 6:4 "Sons of God" taken to Strongs Concordance reads like this directly:

The Sons (H1121)
בּן
bên
bane
From H1129; a son (as a builder of the family name), in the widest sense (of literal and figurative relationship, including grandson, subject, nation, quality or condition, etc., (like H1, H251, etc.): - + afflicted, age, [Ahoh-] [Ammon-] [Hachmon-] [Lev-]ite, [anoint-]ed one, appointed to, (+) arrow, [Assyr-] [Babylon-] [Egypt-] [Grec-]ian, one born, bough, branch, breed, + (young) bullock, + (young) calf, X came up in, child, colt, X common, X corn, daughter, X of first, + firstborn, foal, + very fruitful, + postage, X in, + kid, + lamb, (+) man, meet, + mighty, + nephew, old, (+) people, + rebel, + robber, X servant born, X soldier, son, + spark, + steward, + stranger, X surely, them of, + tumultuous one, + valiant[-est], whelp, worthy, young (one), youth./(Strongs as used through E-Sword)

of God (H430)
אלהים
'ĕlôhı̂ym
el-o-heem'
Plural of H433; gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative: - angels, X exceeding, God (gods) (-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty./(Strongs/E-Sword)

As compared to a reference from the New Testament of "Sons of God" when speaking of believers;

John 1:12
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:/(KJV)

the sons (G5043)
τέκνον
teknon
tek'-non
From the base of G5098; a child (as produced): - child, daughter, son./(Strongs/E-Sword)

of God (G2316)
θεός
theos
theh'-os
Of uncertain affinity; a deity, especially (with G3588) the supreme Divinity; figuratively a magistrate; by Hebraism very: - X exceeding, God, god [-ly, -ward]./(Strongs/E-Sword)

It would seem clear that sons has essentially the same meaning. The term "of God" would seem to be quite different and has no mention of Angels or anything of the sort in it's Greek definition. It's talking about different things. This is straight out of scripture and the Concordance brothers and sisters. This is no conjecture. Am I missing something here? I am trying to get a handle on this and understand it, and in no way am I saying believe me, or learn this, I am asking questions. The term apparently can not be agreed upon, and yet, it is almost as if some are taking the position that I am to disregard what I am reading for a mans conjecture. I am asking questions, and am getting the vibe that people are getting offended. For questions! I don't understand that.

I also went to Job 1 and read about when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord etc., and it took me to exactly the same definition(s) in the Hebrew that it did in Genesis 6. Exactly. Now no man or noble from earth went before the Lord to ask permission to torment Job. These were angelic beings. I stand ready to be competently corrected if I am wrong.
 
gr8grace3 said:
2 Pet 2:4-5~~4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned,but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness,reserved for judgment;5 and did not spare the ancient world,but preserved Noah,a preacher of righteousness,with seven others,when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly;

Peter seems to add judgement to the angels at the time of the flood.
Click to expand...

That's right, He did. I have read that before but it escaped me at the moment I needed it. Thank you gr8grace3.

:thumbsup
 
gr8grace3 said:
2 Pet 2:4-5~~4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned,but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness,reserved for judgment;5 and did not spare the ancient world,but preserved Noah,a preacher of righteousness,with seven others,when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly;

Peter seems to add judgement to the angels at the time of the flood.
Click to expand...

I agree. However, what sins were they judged for? Sex with women that produced offspring? It's not in the text. Only if you assume Sons of God means fallen angels in Gen 6, is their sin a sin of sex with women. I just showed were the sin in Gen 6, was man's sin.
 
chessman said:
I agree. However, what sins were they judged for? Sex with women that produced offspring? It's not in the text. Only if you assume Sons of God means fallen angels in Gen 6, is their sin a sin of sex with women. I just showed were the sin in Gen 6, was man's sin.
Click to expand...
I agree with you, It was mans sin. And they were judged for it. But I believe that it was WAY more sinister than "Just for man"

The term translated "the Sons of God" is, in the Hebrew, B'nai HaElohim, "Sons of Elohim," which is a term consistently used in the Old Testament for angels,4 and it is never used of believers in the Old Testament.

Who do you believe "the sons of God" are in Gen 6? I believe they were fallen angels.
 
Sparrowhawke said:
The circular reasoning:
  • Since Genesis 6 means "angles" it can't ever mean humans.
  • Since Job 1 means "angels" it can't ever be used to mean humans.
  • Since Job 38 means "angels" it can't ever mean humans.
  • Since Psalms 29 means "angels" it (the phrase "sons of God") can't ever be used to mean humans.
If we conclusively define the term "sons of God" as angelic beings how then may we, as humans, be considered His sons?

If indeed you are willing to be corrected I would thank you for accepting correction. Please do no longer consider all "ancient Rabbinic sources" as if they were universally in agreement with your conclusion. Also, it may be wise to admit that yours is not the final authority on the subject. As I've said in the past, you're free to believe what you want, Edward. I would like to be given that same consideration especially while trying to maintain a balanced perspective here.

Cordially,
Sparrowhawke
Click to expand...
The term "sons of God" Is not the term that is in Question. It is The term B'nai HaElohim.And that term is never used In the OT as human believers. It consistently is used to refer to Angels.

The solid reasoning is......Since it always refers to Angels in the OT. One can't force Humans into it.
 
Edward said:
Not really. I do not say that men were not evil and did not bear punishment and destruction for the evil through the flood, but the (alleged) fallen angels which trifled with the earthly women received punishment of a greater degree than man for if it were not by them teaching mankind how to make war and cast spells and all sorts of stuff, mankind would not have been as evil as they were at the time. A reference to the fallen angels and their punishment can be found in Jude 6-7

Jude1:6-7
6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire./(KJV)

In the book of Enoch, it goes into greater detail of the punishment of the fallen angels, but I will not post any of it here for it is not considered canon anymore and would not be well received, but the reference in Jude seems to refer to this specific situation and is in fact widely held by some to be so in the circles which hold the belief that these occurrences did take place. I am not making this up as I go along or anything, I have simply come across this line of belief and am exploring the possibility of it being true. I ask no one to take my word for anything or to change their own beliefs, I simply ask questions and seek the truth. Others have perhaps studied these things more than I.

It does sort of make sense to me that there may have been something more going on than man simply being evil himself at the time. Perhaps if that were so...look at the world now...Whoa. We better buy life jackets if it was only man's evil, lol.
Click to expand...
Don't ever let anyone tell you " YOU CAN"T USE THAT!" Enoch may not be scripture, but whoever it was, was a man of God. We have always had men of God that were to be teachers to the masses. We can use Enoch and use the word of God to verify what He taught.On the Angels, The book of Enoch seems to line up with the word.

Everyday we have posts that quote famous pastors and theologians. Enoch was well known to the ancients, A teacher?

several almost complete copies of The Book of Enoch in Aramaic were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, and it is clear that whoever collected the scrolls considered it a vitally important text. The dead sea scrolls are used by most Christians to "bolster" the validity of the Bible. And whoever put together all the writings in the dead sea scrolls included Enoch. Maybe not scripture, but possibly a very wise teacher!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top