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!

Who created Satan?

JohnDB said:
Here is a link about the first written languages .

It is from them that we understand contextual information about what the first readers of the Torah would be understanding from the text.

Which is why I am saying that the "serpent" in the Garden was not an actual snake or Satan in disguise but a metaphor for Adam and Eve's bad ideas.
Click to expand...
I believe it could be okay to say that the snake represented satan, or that it was a metaphor for satan - but not okay to say it was a metaphor for Adam and Eve's bad idea.

That could lead one to believe that satan doesn't really exist and that our bad ideas are what create all the evil we see in the world.

After all, where did their bad ideas come from?
They came from satan. He's real. He's the prince of the air. He's the principalities spoken of in
Ephesians 6:12.

Wondering
 
In the hebraic sense ha satan can be human, angelic or God Himself. The bad idea that comes to mind is yours and yours alone, to say otherwise would fly in the face of the dogma of freewill. Sometimes an adversary is sent to tempt you to follow through with your evil idea.

When God told king Cyrus that He created good and evil. In otherwords I think it can be said He created freewill. For you cannot have freewill unless you have knowledge of and are capable of making a choice between good and evil.
 
Last edited:
selihah said:
In the hebraic sense ha satan can be human, angelic or God Himself. The bad idea that comes to mind is yours and yours alone, to say otherwise would fly in the face of the dogma of freewill. Sometimes an adversary is sent to tempt you to follow through with your evil idea.

When God told king Cyrus that He created good and evil. In otherwords I think it can be said He created freewill. For you cannot have freewill unless you have knowledge of and are capable of making a choice between good and evil.
Click to expand...
So then did Adam and Eve have freewill before eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?
 
selihah said:
In the hebraic sense ha satan can be human, angelic or God Himself. The bad idea that comes to mind is yours and yours alone, to say otherwise would fly in the face of the dogma of freewill. Sometimes an adversary is sent to tempt you to follow through with your evil idea.

When God told king Cyrus that He created good and evil. In otherwords I think it can be said He created freewill. For you cannot have freewill unless you have knowledge of and are capable of making a choice between good and evil.
Click to expand...

There are no "freewill" choices available that free us from the obvious problem:

Romans 7:21
I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.

We can recognize this fact. We can hope to not be a pawn of this fact or be led by this fact.

But we can not "escape the fact."

Romans 11:32
For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

Disobedience is an adverse spirit:

Ephesians 2:
2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

In faith we learn to divide from this working. Not claim we don't have it to contend with. Eph. 6:11-12
 
WIP said:
So then did Adam and Eve have freewill before eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?
Click to expand...
Thanks WIP.
Also, if the sin nature did not enter UNTIL they ate,
WHAT made them eat the fruit?

Not really asking...
Just...

Wondering
 
selihah said:
In the hebraic sense ha satan can be human, angelic or God Himself. The bad idea that comes to mind is yours and yours alone, to say otherwise would fly in the face of the dogma of freewill. Sometimes an adversary is sent to tempt you to follow through with your evil idea.

When God told king Cyrus that He created good and evil. In otherwords I think it can be said He created freewill. For you cannot have freewill unless you have knowledge of and are capable of making a choice between good and evil.
Click to expand...
You're a good thinker Selihah, but not Christian.
That could mean anything.

So, the bad idea is mine and mine alone.
Where did it come from?

It's obvious that there's good and evil in the universe. It's a constant battle it seems.
Where did the good come from?
Where did the evil (bad) come from?

You mean it just exists?
Who or What made it?

Can something come from nothing?

Wondering
 
GENESIS 3
1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

Take verse 1 about the serpent being subtil, the word subtil says alot because that means sneaking and wise, therefore that serpent knew who to target and what to confront her with.

Now in the 6th verse Eve was the one the serpent targeted, why? Adam was the first to hear God say not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil but with Eve she had to hear it from Adam. In verse 3 we can see that Eve added to what was said to Adam by God therefore Eve took it on herself to add not touch it. The serpent knew Eve was the weakest in knowing exactly what God said so he targeted her. Now Adam would have not been so easily persuaded so there had to be a way to get to him and it ended up Eve was the one that would persuade Adam to eat on his own will. God had spent a lot of time with Adam before Eve was created because it says God walked with Adam in the cool of the day. It doesn't say anything about God spent one on one with Eve much. God must have left it up to Adam to teach Eve what she needed to know. That would mean that Eve may felt lacking in knowing things that Adam knew perhaps making her feel like she needed more since verse 6 tells us what caught her attention. After she took of the tree Adam must have seen the change in her and since she was a part of him and he knew God gave her to him how could he not take on his own choice of the fruit of the tree that Eve offered to him. To make this simpler: Adam was given a woman and the woman made Adam not feel alone God knowing this knew that eventually it would end up with Adam taking the fruit from Eve. Adam was actually the one who chose on his own without being beguiled or tricked to take of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Also we can see in verse 17 of Genesis 2 that God knew ahead of time they would eat from that tree and the only way they could gain a self will is for God to make a command not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. So God set up the circumstance (which by the way who else could but God) allowing room for them to make that choice.
Genesis 2
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Many preachers and leaders have claimed it wasn't meant for Adam and Eve to fall in the garden because they take where God said not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil as a way to push off their own unknowing of the whole matter so they don't have to explain to others something they don't have an answer for because they are too proud to say "I just don't know".

The whole thing shows how God set into order His plan but to explain in every detail would take a long time. These are just some things that can jump start others to searching it out. I know there are mysteries in the Bible that many often say "we won't know them until we get there" (there referring to heaven) and actually why would I need to wait until then when we are given a chance to know them before "we get there". It is all a matter of how much we want to seek out God.
 
Taniesh said:
GENESIS 3
1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

Take verse 1 about the serpent being subtil, the word subtil says alot because that means sneaking and wise, therefore that serpent knew who to target and what to confront her with.

Now in the 6th verse Eve was the one the serpent targeted, why? Adam was the first to hear God say not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil but with Eve she had to hear it from Adam. In verse 3 we can see that Eve added to what was said to Adam by God therefore Eve took it on herself to add not touch it. The serpent knew Eve was the weakest in knowing exactly what God said so he targeted her. Now Adam would have not been so easily persuaded so there had to be a way to get to him and it ended up Eve was the one that would persuade Adam to eat on his own will. God had spent a lot of time with Adam before Eve was created because it says God walked with Adam in the cool of the day. It doesn't say anything about God spent one on one with Eve much. God must have left it up to Adam to teach Eve what she needed to know. That would mean that Eve may felt lacking in knowing things that Adam knew perhaps making her feel like she needed more since verse 6 tells us what caught her attention. After she took of the tree Adam must have seen the change in her and since she was a part of him and he knew God gave her to him how could he not take on his own choice of the fruit of the tree that Eve offered to him. To make this simpler: Adam was given a woman and the woman made Adam not feel alone God knowing this knew that eventually it would end up with Adam taking the fruit from Eve. Adam was actually the one who chose on his own without being beguiled or tricked to take of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Also we can see in verse 17 of Genesis 2 that God knew ahead of time they would eat from that tree and the only way they could gain a self will is for God to make a command not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. So God set up the circumstance (which by the way who else could but God) allowing room for them to make that choice.
Genesis 2
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Many preachers and leaders have claimed it wasn't meant for Adam and Eve to fall in the garden because they take where God said not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil as a way to push off their own unknowing of the whole matter so they don't have to explain to others something they don't have an answer for because they are too proud to say "I just don't know".

The whole thing shows how God set into order His plan but to explain in every detail would take a long time. These are just some things that can jump start others to searching it out. I know there are mysteries in the Bible that many often say "we won't know them until we get there" (there referring to heaven) and actually why would I need to wait until then when we are given a chance to know them before "we get there". It is all a matter of how much we want to seek out God.
Click to expand...
You do understand of course that when read in Hebrew this section of Scripture your views expressed here would change.
Adam used Eve as a guinea pig...he was right there all along. Eve was there as well in those early morning hours meeting with God.

English language cannot fully retell a metaphoric language when translated "one word equals one word" which is often how it is done.
English word definitions don't match Hebrew word definitions...you can get close but often the nuances get lost with subtle differences making it practically impossible.
This isn't to say that the translators did a bad job...but just that English is the poorest receptor language to translate Hebrew into.
 
smaller said:
There are no "freewill" choices available that free us from the obvious problem:

Romans 7:21
I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.

We can recognize this fact. We can hope to not be a pawn of this fact or be led by this fact.

But we can not "escape the fact."

Romans 11:32
For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

Disobedience is an adverse spirit:

Ephesians 2:
2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

In faith we learn to divide from this working. Not claim we don't have it to contend with. Eph. 6:11-12
Click to expand...

The spirit that now works within the children of disobedience is sin.

It come from the law of sin and death.

Sin that spread to all mankind through Adam's transgression.

Thank God for Jesus Christ our Lord, who has set us free from the law of sin and death, for those who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit.

There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. Romans 8:1-2

Therefore submit to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you.
James 4:7

The spirit that works in the sons of disobedience, does not touch those who are born of God and keep themselves.

We know that whoever is born of God does not sin; but he who has been born of God keeps himself, and the wicked one does not touch him. 1 John 5:18

The wicked does not touch them.


JLB
 
JohnDB said:
You do understand of course that when read in Hebrew this section of Scripture your views expressed here would change.
Adam used Eve as a guinea pig...he was right there all along. Eve was there as well in those early morning hours meeting with God.

English language cannot fully retell a metaphoric language when translated "one word equals one word" which is often how it is done.
English word definitions don't match Hebrew word definitions...you can get close but often the nuances get lost with subtle differences making it practically impossible.
This isn't to say that the translators did a bad job...but just that English is the poorest receptor language to translate Hebrew into.
Click to expand...

JohnDB I only stick with the King James version Bible because going into other nationalities is too much confusion. Tyndale, Erasmus, Luther, etc. did all they could to get The Word of God into English and I do believe The Holy Spirit inspired all of those to bring about what we have today as the King James Bible. Going into greek, hebrew, etc would be like looking for a needle in 10 hay stacks. I put a whole lot of faith on The Holy Spirit will make sure I have what is needed to read scripture and so far the King James Version was given to us. So far what I have been taught has made complete and total sense and to go anywhere else to see if a word matches Hebrew or Greek etc. is a task that wasn't meant for me to do. I understand you do what you have to do but as for me I prefer simple. :cool
 
wondering said:
Taniesh,
The bible wasn't written with God's inspiration so we could make up our own stories as to what God thought or did.

Please provide scripture for your post no. 222.

Especially the part re God creating Lucifer so that he could be the opposition.
This disturbs me because I've been under the impression for many years that God is all-good.

Wondering
Click to expand...
Then your impression is wrong I guess. God has a temper, He got angry, and He poured out His wrath on people but that is after Centuries of love and patience. He is love though because I have felt His great love. People can be good and still have anger, a temper, and come to the end of their rope with others.

If you don't think the Bible is not God inspired then why do you say you are a Christian?
 
Taniesh said:
JohnDB I only stick with the King James version Bible because going into other nationalities is too much confusion. Tyndale, Erasmus, Luther, etc. did all they could to get The Word of God into English and I do believe The Holy Spirit inspired all of those to bring about what we have today as the King James Bible. Going into greek, hebrew, etc would be like looking for a needle in 10 hay stacks. I put a whole lot of faith on The Holy Spirit will make sure I have what is needed to read scripture and so far the King James Version was given to us. So far what I have been taught has made complete and total sense and to go anywhere else to see if a word matches Hebrew or Greek etc. is a task that wasn't meant for me to do. I understand you do what you have to do but as for me I prefer simple. :cool
Click to expand...
The forward in the 1611 King James Version is why I read so much and search the scriptures so hard and thoroughly.
(There are three versions of the KJV and at a guess you are using the last one by that name but the team that made it started a new one immediately after completing it but gave it another name)

And it has to do with understanding.
I wish to have a more gooder understanding of what God has said. Unfortunately politics has taken hold inside of Christiandom as well as in the secular world. It has caused some verses' translations to be made less than clear. Chapter numbers and verse numbers as well were placed to obscure some truths.

God's word is of extreme importance to me. Hermeneutics is my passion. God has seen fit to allow me the talents i have and I use them for this.

To me, Jesus is the bright Morning Star sitting at the right hand of God. Telling me that the long, scary night is over...The Day of the Lord is at hand...and ALL will be made right.
 
JohnDB said:
You do understand of course that when read in Hebrew this section of Scripture your views expressed here would change.
Adam used Eve as a guinea pig...he was right there all along. Eve was there as well in those early morning hours meeting with God.

English language cannot fully retell a metaphoric language when translated "one word equals one word" which is often how it is done.
English word definitions don't match Hebrew word definitions...you can get close but often the nuances get lost with subtle differences making it practically impossible.
This isn't to say that the translators did a bad job...but just that English is the poorest receptor language to translate Hebrew into.
Click to expand...
John,
Okay on above.
BUT
God made His Covenant with Adam, not with Eve.
(The Edenic Covenant).

Wondering
 
"O Lucifer, son of the morning" - The Sounding of an Alarm

By Floyd Nolen Jones.

In the King James Bible, Isaiah 14:12, 15 reads:

How are thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!
...Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell.

However, the New International Version pens:

How you have fallen from heaven O morning star, son of the dawn
...but you are brought down to the grave.

Indeed, the New American Standard and all the modern versions read almost exactly like the NIV (except the NKJV). Yet historically Isaiah 14 has been cited throughout the Church as the singular biography and identification of Lucifer.
In verse twelve of the King James, Lucifer is in heaven; in verse fifteen Satan is in hell, and the continuing context establishes that Lucifer and Satan are one and the same being. The new versions have removed the name "Lucifer" thereby eliminating the only reference to his true identity in the entire Bible – yet the change in these versions is not the result of translation from the Hebrew language.

The Hebrew here is helel, ben shachar, which translates "Lucifer, son of the morning" (as is found in all the old English translations written before 1611 when the KJB was published). The NIV, NASB et al. read as though the Hebrew was kokab shachar, ben shachar or "morning star, son of the dawn" (or "son of the morning"). But not only is the Hebrew word for star (kokab) nowhere to be found in the text, "morning" appears only once as given in the KJB – not twice as the modern versions indicate. Moreover, the word kokab is translated as "star" dozens of other times by the translators of these new "bibles". Their editors also know that kokab boqer is "morning star" for it appears in plural form in Job 38:7 (i.e., morning stars). Had the Lord intended "morning star" in Isaiah 14, He could have eliminated any confusion by repeating kokab boqer there. God's selection of helel (Hebrew for Lucifer) is unique as it appears nowhere else in the Old Testament.

Moreover, Revelation 22:16 (also Rev 2:28 and 2Peter 1:19) declares unequivocally that Jesus Christ is the "morning star" or "day star" (2Peter 1:19, cp. Luke 1:78; Mal. 4:2), meaning the sun – not the planet Venus.

I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the
churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

Thus it must be understood that the identification of Lucifer as being the morning star does not find its roots in the Hebrew O.T., but from classical mythology and witchcraft where he is connected with the planet Venus (the morning "star").

The wording in the modern versions reads such that it appears the fall recorded in Isaiah 14 is speaking of Jesus rather than Lucifer the Devil! The rendering of "morning star" in place of "Lucifer" in this passage must be seen by the Church as nothing less than the ultimate blasphemy. The NASV compounds its role as malefactor by placing 2Peter 1:19 in the reference next to Isaiah 14 thereby solidifying the impression that the passage refers to Christ Jesus rather than Satan. But Lucifer (helel) does not mean "morning star". It is Latin (from
lux or lucis = light, plus fero = to bring) meaning "bright one", "light bearer" or "light bringer". Due to the brightness of the planet Venus, from ancient times the word "Lucifer" (helel) has been associated in secular and/or pagan works with that heavenly body.

Among the modern versions, only the King James (and NKJV) gives proof that Lucifer is Satan. Without its testimony this central vital truth would soon be lost. This fact alone sets the King James Bible apart from and far above all modern would-be rivals. Truly, it is an achievement sui generis. Indeed, the older English versions (the 1560 Geneva etc.) also read "Lucifer".

The clarion has been faithfully and clearly sounded (1Cor.14:8). If the reader is not greatly alarmed by the above, it is pointless for him to continue reading. However, if concern has been aroused as to how this deception has been foisted not only upon the Christian Church, but on the general public as well – read on. The story lies before you.

This is an excerpt from Which Version is the Bible?, ©1996 Floyd Nolen Jones, Twelfth edition. All Rights Reserved. "This book may be freely reproduced in any form as long as it is not distributed for any material gain or profit; however, this book may not be published without written permission."

http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/jones-o-lucifer.html
 
IncredibleTransformation said:
Then your impression is wrong I guess. God has a temper, He got angry, and He poured out His wrath on people but that is after Centuries of love and patience. He is love though because I have felt His great love. People can be good and still have anger, a temper, and come to the end of their rope with others.

If you don't think the Bible is not God inspired then why do you say you are a Christian?
Click to expand...
IT
Post no. 222 belongs to Taniesh. Not you.
I'm expecting Taniesh to back up her ideas with scripture.
We're in Apologetics and Theology not the Lounge.

Which of my impressions is wrong?
Taniesh is putting forth ideas that ARE NOT IN THE BIBLE.

The only impressions I like to have are the ones that ARE BIBLICAL and can be supported by scripture.

Can YOU support with scripture post no. 222?

Wondering
 
turnorburn said:
"O Lucifer, son of the morning" - The Sounding of an Alarm

By Floyd Nolen Jones.

In the King James Bible, Isaiah 14:12, 15 reads:

How are thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!
...Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell.

However, the New International Version pens:

How you have fallen from heaven O morning star, son of the dawn
...but you are brought down to the grave.

Indeed, the New American Standard and all the modern versions read almost exactly like the NIV (except the NKJV). Yet historically Isaiah 14 has been cited throughout the Church as the singular biography and identification of Lucifer.
In verse twelve of the King James, Lucifer is in heaven; in verse fifteen Satan is in hell, and the continuing context establishes that Lucifer and Satan are one and the same being. The new versions have removed the name "Lucifer" thereby eliminating the only reference to his true identity in the entire Bible – yet the change in these versions is not the result of translation from the Hebrew language.

The Hebrew here is helel, ben shachar, which translates "Lucifer, son of the morning" (as is found in all the old English translations written before 1611 when the KJB was published). The NIV, NASB et al. read as though the Hebrew was kokab shachar, ben shachar or "morning star, son of the dawn" (or "son of the morning"). But not only is the Hebrew word for star (kokab) nowhere to be found in the text, "morning" appears only once as given in the KJB – not twice as the modern versions indicate. Moreover, the word kokab is translated as "star" dozens of other times by the translators of these new "bibles". Their editors also know that kokab boqer is "morning star" for it appears in plural form in Job 38:7 (i.e., morning stars). Had the Lord intended "morning star" in Isaiah 14, He could have eliminated any confusion by repeating kokab boqer there. God's selection of helel (Hebrew for Lucifer) is unique as it appears nowhere else in the Old Testament.

Moreover, Revelation 22:16 (also Rev 2:28 and 2Peter 1:19) declares unequivocally that Jesus Christ is the "morning star" or "day star" (2Peter 1:19, cp. Luke 1:78; Mal. 4:2), meaning the sun – not the planet Venus.

I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the
churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

Thus it must be understood that the identification of Lucifer as being the morning star does not find its roots in the Hebrew O.T., but from classical mythology and witchcraft where he is connected with the planet Venus (the morning "star").

The wording in the modern versions reads such that it appears the fall recorded in Isaiah 14 is speaking of Jesus rather than Lucifer the Devil! The rendering of "morning star" in place of "Lucifer" in this passage must be seen by the Church as nothing less than the ultimate blasphemy. The NASV compounds its role as malefactor by placing 2Peter 1:19 in the reference next to Isaiah 14 thereby solidifying the impression that the passage refers to Christ Jesus rather than Satan. But Lucifer (helel) does not mean "morning star". It is Latin (from
lux or lucis = light, plus fero = to bring) meaning "bright one", "light bearer" or "light bringer". Due to the brightness of the planet Venus, from ancient times the word "Lucifer" (helel) has been associated in secular and/or pagan works with that heavenly body.

Among the modern versions, only the King James (and NKJV) gives proof that Lucifer is Satan. Without its testimony this central vital truth would soon be lost. This fact alone sets the King James Bible apart from and far above all modern would-be rivals. Truly, it is an achievement sui generis. Indeed, the older English versions (the 1560 Geneva etc.) also read "Lucifer".

The clarion has been faithfully and clearly sounded (1Cor.14:8). If the reader is not greatly alarmed by the above, it is pointless for him to continue reading. However, if concern has been aroused as to how this deception has been foisted not only upon the Christian Church, but on the general public as well – read on. The story lies before you.

This is an excerpt from Which Version is the Bible?, ©1996 Floyd Nolen Jones, Twelfth edition. All Rights Reserved. "This book may be freely reproduced in any form as long as it is not distributed for any material gain or profit; however, this book may not be published without written permission."

http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/jones-o-lucifer.html
Click to expand...

TOB
You touched on the meaning of Lucis = Light.
We know that sometimes when translating some liberties were taken with words.
Also, the original was written with no paragraphs, sentences or punctuation marks, some small mistakes could have easily been made in dividing ideas. Lucifer could have easily come from Lucis.

I do trust the NASB alot and it's missing from there. (the name Lucifer)
It's also missing from the YLT.

Plus, the name is one issue but does not tell us why satan exists.
Although there are many ideas, as evidenced by this thread.

Wondering
(thanks for being so thorough, as usual)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top