|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 5/25/2007 12:13:08 PM
|
|
|
Prado
Posts: 103
Joined: 5/12/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DadOf13
I have not attributed evil intent to the translators as you charge me.
That is quite unusual for KJVOers! But you have yet to identify any translation that qualifies as degrading Christ. You have ignored allegations that the KJV degrades Christ, potentially at least. Now you want to change the subject. It's no way to debate, is it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 5/25/2007 12:43:16 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1827
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
Slander is what has been done in some of the recent posts above . However, I made no statement saying that translators made an "...attempt to detract from the doctrine of Jesus' deity." If you attribute this to me, you are mistaken. I quote my statement again. "Some translations cast shadows of doubt upon this orthodox view by carelessly choosing a phrase that implies that Jesus was somehow less than equal with God." My statement is not in the least slanderous. I have not...
DadOf13,
You did. If the translation detracts from the deity of Christ, how is that not weakening his deity in the translation? You said "Some translations cast shadows of doubt upon this orthodox view by carelessly choosing a phrase that implies that Jesus was somehow less than equal with God." What would you call it if it is not a default accusation that the newer translations weaken the doctrine of Jesus' deity? Whether the slander is intentional or malicious, I am not prepared to say. But the charge that the deity of Jesus Christ is weakened in the newer translations is simply not true.
You might not want to say they did it intentionally, but you did say the result is that they weakened his deity.
quote:
I have not attributed evil intent to the translators as you charge me.
I seldom/to never address the motivations of individuals. And I have not addressed your motivations. Please calm down.quote:
Whether or not translators intend to degrade Christ's deity is not mine to judge. God will judge those issues. In my judgment, translators who choose to imply that Jesus needed to grasp for equality are not being faithful to the text or the context. This in my estimation is "careless".
It has been quite common for KJVO's to attribute intent in their comments on translations.quote:
I am also interested in your opinion of the Westcott and Hort methodology for textual criticism. Do you agree that their reasoning is sound? Is it not possible that some copiests chose to shorten, rather than lengthen the text? Is it unreasonable to consider that uninspired commentary upon the scriptures would make the text less understandable?
I cannot say. But one of the accusations that KJVOs make is that everyone is a follower of Westcott and Hort.
With regard to the brevity and more difficult reading, the belief is that scribes attempted to polish the Greek into a clearer reading. It is reasonable. I don't know if it is true.
_____________________________
Larry
Sure we're under the law, everybody knows that!
When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear. (Heb 10:13)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 5/25/2007 2:16:00 PM
|
|
|
DadOf13
Posts: 6
Joined: 3/28/2007
Status: offline
|
Larry,
I did not slander. I was not false or malicious. However, it seems that I have been lumped in with every KJV person who has been slanderous. Personally, I do not like it any more than you would like being lumped in with all the people who are abrasive and unkind while discussing their point that modern versions are superior to the KJV.
If you do not wish to make a judgment upon my motives, I respectfully ask you to retract your accusation. Slander carries with it malicious intent.
Also, I am speakig withing the context of the posts regarding Php. 2:6 when I state, "...carelessly choosing a phrase..." This is my opinion. I do not believe they took enough care in their translations regarding Php 2:6. If the text intends to teach that Jesus was not fully equal with God then I am wrong. However, if the text intends to teach that Jesus was fully equal with God in every way, and that He did not consider it an inappropriate act to be in that state, then I am correct.
That is why the manuscript evidence is the central issue. The correct interpretation must proceed from the correct manuscript. I believe the Majority Texts are correct.
The issue to me, is not whether or not other translations uphold the deity of Christ. It is whether or not they are faithful to translate appropriately.
Westcott and Hort are the chief engineers of the texts used for modern versions. If you read a modern version, whether or not you are followers of Westcott and Hort your Bible is heavily influenced by their theology and their principles of textual criticisms, which were inconsistent and based upon presuppositions.
In the context of a "debate" I do not think it inappropriate to cite my reasons for believing that the KJV is a faithful translation. Php 2:6 was selected as an example of one of cornerstones of orthodoxy that has not been, IMHO appropriately rendered in many modern versions.
As for calm, according to your avatar, it appears that you are the one who has been "rubbed the wrong way". If you think I am not calm it must be your own perception. I assure you, I am calm  .
Your brother in Christ,
Ron
_____________________________
John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 5/25/2007 2:31:19 PM
|
|
|
Prado
Posts: 103
Joined: 5/12/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DadOf13
Larry,
I did not slander. I was not false or malicious. However, it seems that I have been lumped in with every KJV person who has been slanderous. Personally, I do not like it any more than you would like being lumped in with all the people who are abrasive and unkind while discussing their point that modern versions are superior to the KJV.
If you do not wish to make a judgment upon my motives, I respectfully ask you to retract your accusation. Slander carries with it malicious intent.
Also, I am speakig withing the context of the posts regarding Php. 2:6 when I state, "...carelessly choosing a phrase..." This is my opinion. I do not believe they took enough care in their translations regarding Php 2:6.
Who didn't? Or was it a wild guess? Or is this more KJV propaganda that turns out to be fraudulent?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 5/25/2007 2:50:15 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1827
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
If you do not wish to make a judgment upon my motives, I respectfully ask you to retract your accusation. Slander carries with it malicious intent.
Sorry. I see no need to retract my statement. I have a dictionary too. I checked an online dictionary and my home dictionary (The Random House College Dictionary, Revised Edition, 1975). Neither one mentions intent with regard to the word slander. It may involve intent but it is not inherent to the use of the term.
Here is my other source,
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
quote:
If the text intends to teach that Jesus was not fully equal with God then I am wrong. However, if the text intends to teach that Jesus was fully equal with God in every way, and that He did not consider it an inappropriate act to be in that state, then I am correct.
What is the best choice of the wording of the text? Is the best choice the one that makes a stronger case for Jesus' deity or is the best choice the one that more accurately renders the meaning of the original?
It is my view that accuracy and faithfulness should be the goal of the translation. I think we agree there.
Notice that I presented John 1:18 as an example of where the newer translations rendered a text more in favor of Jesus' deity than the KJV. Were the KJV translator's guilty of "carelessness"? Were they opposed to the deity of Christ? The obvious answer should be a hearty "no." quote:
The issue to me, is not whether or not other translations uphold the deity of Christ. It is whether or not they are faithful to translate appropriately. Obviously we agree.quote:
If you read a modern version, whether or not you are followers of Westcott and Hort your Bible is heavily influenced by their theology and their principles of textual criticisms, which were inconsistent and based upon presuppositions.
Here is an example of slander. I don't know about their inconsistency. But modern translators are quite capable of independent thought. It is part and parcel with KJVOers to believe that modern translators think more of Westcott and Hort than they do of scholarship.
When you say that my Bible is "heavily influenced by their theology," that is slander, my friend, whatever your intent. I don't think you can support it except by fallacy and innuendo.quote:
As for calm, according to your avatar, it appears that you are the one who has been "rubbed the wrong way". If you think I am not calm it must be your own perception. I assure you, I am calm
What does my avatar have to do with it?
My request that you calm down was with regard to your belief that I ascribed intent to your words. Since, no where did I discuss your intent, and neither of my dictionary sources mention any inherent intent in connection with the use of the term slander, I see no reason to retract that.
_____________________________
Larry
Sure we're under the law, everybody knows that!
When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear. (Heb 10:13)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 5/25/2007 2:50:26 PM
|
|
|
Fritzpw_Admin
Posts: 7679
Joined: 2/28/2005
From: New Jersey
Status: online
|
The topic of this thread is NOT the status of another posters emotions.
Please get it on topic.
Please do not reply to this message within the Community.
Please email Community@salemwebnetwork.com with questions, comments, or concerns.
Please do not send me PMs regarding this message.
Messages which disregard the words in red will be removed without warning and the poster may also be banned.
_____________________________
Fritz
Senior Manager of Social Media
fritz@salemwebnetwork.com
Want to see my latest online project? Check out http://budurl.com/CWonFacebook
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 5/25/2007 5:48:32 PM
|
|
|
phyl2
Posts: 245
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
"Some translations cast shadows of doubt upon this orthodox view by carelessly choosing a phrase that implies that Jesus was somehow less than equal with God." My statement is not in the least slanderous. I have not attributed evil intent to the translators as you charge me. Whether or not translators intend to degrade Christ's deity is not mine to judge.
Maybe you have not attributed evil intent to the translators - but you HAVE attributed carelessness to them! This would be just as much slander as if you had attributed evil intent to them. From what I have read about the translating committees of many of the newer modern translations, NIV, NASB, NLT, ESV, etc, they were NOT careless, but translated carefully and prayerfully.
quote:
In my judgment, translators who choose to imply that Jesus needed to grasp for equality are not being faithful to the text or the context. This in my estimation is "careless".
Are you slandering them in this comment, or are you just careless with your words?
I can't think of a single translation that says that Jesus needed to "grasp FOR" equality. To grasp for something is different than grasping something. In grasping FOR something, one tries to gain something one does not have. When one grasps something, one holds on to something he already has. The modern translations all make it clear that Jesus did not see the need to grasp - hold on to - equality with God that He already had. He was willing to lay aside that equality - not His deity, but His equality - and take on the role of a servant in which He submitted Himself to His Father.
On the other hand, the KJV states that Jesus "thought it not robbery to be equal with God". This does not really say anything solid about His deity. So He didn't think it was robbery to be equal with God. That in itself does not prove that He was equal with God. After all, many shoplifters think that what they do is not robbery either, but it is in spite of what they think. Now, I understand what the KJV is saying here, so I am not confused by the KJV's translation. But, someone who doesn't understand can very easily misinterpret this verse as translated by the KJV.
quote:
Is it not possible that some copiests chose to shorten, rather than lengthen the text?
It is possible that copiests may have shortened the text, but I doubt that the manuscripts we have are those in which the copiests chose to shorten the text. Shortening can easily happen by accident. So can adding to the text, especially in cases where the text is so similar to another passage found elsewhere in the Bible.
The older manuscripts and the Alexandrian text is not more "complex". It is more simple in that fewer words are used. The Byzantine manuscripts are smoother and easier to understand because they have more words to make a fuller text. The style of Koine Greek had changed somewhat over the centuries to be a smoother language. A person studying Greek can see this when reading areas of the text that do not have the variant readings. This areas also are often not smooth.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 5/25/2007 9:06:19 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1827
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
Phyllis,
I don't know how the moderators would have us treat it. But I started a thread for the purpose of addressing the proper interpretation of the Phil. 2:6 text. I hope I have done the right thing.
_____________________________
Larry
Sure we're under the law, everybody knows that!
When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear. (Heb 10:13)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 5/25/2007 10:12:17 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1827
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ta_mosquito
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
Phyllis,
I don't know how the moderators would have us treat it. But I started a thread for the purpose of addressing the proper interpretation of the Phil. 2:6 text. I hope I have done the right thing.
We're good for now, unless it turns into a KJV vs. other debate in that thread. 
ta_mosquito,
I want to allow it to discuss the differences in translation, which by default might involve the best translation. But I felt like if we kept the main subject in the realm of Jesus' deity and the best means of translating it and with the most accuracy, then we could maintain some boundaries.
KJV as the best/worst might come up and I see no way around that. But if you know that I anticipate that from the outset and since I wrote the OP, you and any other moderators could help me keep to the spirit and letter of the TOS.
_____________________________
Larry
Sure we're under the law, everybody knows that!
When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear. (Heb 10:13)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 5/27/2007 8:55:49 PM
|
|
|
BelovedHandMaiden
Posts: 3992
Joined: 3/17/2007
From: Tennessee
Status: offline
|
Did you know that the NIV removes 63,625 words? Those are not simply the "thees and thous" that are removed. Here are 15 major words that are removed: Christ, Lord, Jesus, God, Godhead, Lucifer, devil, hell, heaven, damned, blood, salvation, Word of God, Word of the Lord, Lord Jesus Christ.
Since 1880, over 200 different translations have appeared. Time magazine writes..."... there is an unprecedented confusion of choices in Bibles." I Corinthians 14:33 clearly says, ... "God is not the author of confusion."
But Satan is! Satan knows if he can plant a seed of doubt and confusion in the word of God-- chances are that individual will never take God's word seriously! Most people believe the new versions are just "harmless" updating of words and made easier to understand. Nothing could be further from the truth. The new versions "take out" and "add" thousands of words. And, as with Eve, its all done very subtily. The average reader would never know the difference.
My dear friends, I haven't posted in awhile on this subject because it is so very controversial. I truly believe that all the different versions that have popped up, especially in the last century, are the work of Satan. He wants us to bicker and fight and be confused about the Word. Nothing makes him happier than to confuse and upset Christians.
If you insist on reading other versions, I will ask this of you. Please obtain a copy of the KJV and just compare what you are reading. You can even do it online. You do not have to accept my word. I am but a humble maiden who loves God.
_____________________________
The Rapture -- true separation of church and state.
<--So blessed!!!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 5/27/2007 9:18:26 PM
|
|
|
rosswell59
Posts: 1002
Joined: 3/25/2006
Status: offline
|
The various translations are really just an extension of the protestant movement which made scripture available to the masses in the first place. If you think 200 translations is confusing what about thousands of churches? I use the KJV most of the time but feel in no way constrained to it when another translation may be more suited to the occasion. I particularly prefer NKJV for new converts who might not be motivated enough to wrestle with the KJV. I find Darby more concise when I want to get down to specific words to determine the true meaning of a difficult passage. I almost always quote the KJV in discussions on CW though.
Yours in Christ,
Ross
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 5/27/2007 9:22:58 PM
|
|
|
ta_mosquito
Posts: 11495
Joined: 3/31/2005
From: from MN, now in Ontario :D
Status: offline
|
quote:
Did you know that the NIV removes 63,625 words? Those are not simply the "thees and thous" that are removed. Here are 15 major words that are removed: Christ, Lord, Jesus, God, Godhead, Lucifer, devil, hell, heaven, damned, blood, salvation, Word of God, Word of the Lord, Lord Jesus Christ.
Do you have a link to this, some sort of proof to back up this claim?
_____________________________
Tricia
"There's a fine line between being open-minded and empty-headed." ~Michael Coren
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 5/27/2007 9:43:50 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1827
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
Since 1880, over 200 different translations have appeared. Time magazine writes..."... there is an unprecedented confusion of choices in Bibles." I Corinthians 14:33 clearly says, ... "God is not the author of confusion."
People are confused about a great many things but that does not invalidate them. People are confused about the Trinity, salvation and other things. Generally, people get confused when false information is promulgated.quote:
The average reader would never know the difference.
If the average reader would never know the difference, then why should they be confused? There is the suggestion that those words are not in the newer versions but they are.
_____________________________
Larry
Sure we're under the law, everybody knows that!
When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear. (Heb 10:13)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 5/28/2007 11:00:40 AM
|
|
|
wintery
Posts: 1867
Joined: 2/1/2007
From: nw alabama
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
Generally, people get confused when false information is promulgated.
You that have been to a seminary or Bible college have a large advantage over others who, when hearing the KJVO claims, have no way to answer it without much study on their own. When they hear things like "phony Bibles" and "conspiracy", alarming words, and then have a mountain of KJVO material and websites to go through, not having a background of familiarity with texts and translating, it seems like there is something there. I was never KJVO but ran into the material and then spent about two years online just trying to understand the arguments--Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Tischendorf, Origen, Dean Burgon, Jack Chic; Uncials and miniscules, Alexandrian and Byzantine, fragments, vellum, papyrus, A, Aleph, B and more; copyrights, profits, corporations and translating committees; Westcott, Hort, Nestle-Aland, United Bible Societies, "text received by all", Majority text--and much more. It has to bewilder the average person.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 5/28/2007 12:06:27 PM
|
|
|
BelovedHandMaiden
Posts: 3992
Joined: 3/17/2007
From: Tennessee
Status: offline
|
www.av1611.com/kjvp
_____________________________
The Rapture -- true separation of church and state.
<--So blessed!!!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 5/28/2007 3:05:37 PM
|
|
|
wintery
Posts: 1867
Joined: 2/1/2007
From: nw alabama
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BelovedHandmaiden
www.av1611.com/kjvp
There must be a typo in your link, it doesn't work.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 5/28/2007 6:26:31 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1827
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wintery
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
Generally, people get confused when false information is promulgated.
You that have been to a seminary or Bible college have a large advantage over others who, when hearing the KJVO claims, have no way to answer it without much study on their own. When they hear things like "phony Bibles" and "conspiracy", alarming words, and then have a mountain of KJVO material and websites to go through, not having a background of familiarity with texts and translating, it seems like there is something there....
The pro-KJVO stuff was just getting started when I attended Bible college years ago. Most of the substantive stuff I read came years afterwards. What the Bible college did was supply the basics and basic knowledge of scripture. It helped me form a philosophical framework in order to learn Bible study better.
Most of the KJVOs that I met shot from the hip most of the time and reacted with an alarmist mentality that defied logic. It was obvious emotional, something that I have seen time and again.
If you will read some of Phyllis's stuff in some of the previous comment/posts, you will find that she is far and above more informed on this subject than I am. She is a mother of grown or nearly grown children and to my knowledge has never attended Bible college or seminary. If you want some tips on how someone without a high academic background can do good study, you might want to ask her. I have watched grow her from very small knowledge of this subject to knowledge that by far surpasses my own--considerably.
< Message edited by GrahamCracker -- 5/28/2007 7:02:46 PM >
_____________________________
Larry
Sure we're under the law, everybody knows that!
When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear. (Heb 10:13)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 5/28/2007 7:04:09 PM
|
|
|
vonzip2000
Posts: 10
Joined: 5/28/2007
Status: offline
|
I have to say that I was raised in a Baptist Church/School. KJV or nothing was the philosophy. I left the Christian fellowship and for many years never bothered to open the Bible becouse I COULD NOT UNDERSTAND IT!!!!! (Or much of it.)
Recently, the Holy Spirit directed me into a Christian book store and I needed a new Bible. I was crying and hurting so bad becouse I wanted to come back to the Lord and be able to actually read the Word of God without help from my pastor. After struggling for what seems like an eternity, I picked up the New Living Translation and felt like I had just commited a blaspheme against God. I have not cried in years, but here I was a total wreck. Thank the Lord the woman at the counter gave me words of encouragement and I took that Bible home and I havent stopped worshiping the Lord since. I now have a parrallel Bible with the KJV becouse it still has a place in my heart.
The new Bibles should be in all motels instead of the KJV so the lost can understand the Gospel!
My 2nd grader can read and understand her princess Bible we read togethor and that could not happen if she was reading KJV. Praise the Lord, thank you Lord for giving me another chance.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 5/28/2007 7:16:51 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1827
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
vonzip,
I can certainly understand how one can be guilt-tripped into avoiding legitimate Bible study for fear that it is against God. It was very difficult for me to break away from the KJV because a part of me had difficulty believing that God could be pleased with that.
_____________________________
Larry
Sure we're under the law, everybody knows that!
When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear. (Heb 10:13)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 5/28/2007 7:24:32 PM
|
|
|
nicole6598
Posts: 4074
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: vonzip2000
I have to say that I was raised in a Baptist Church/School. KJV or nothing was the philosophy. I left the Christian fellowship and for many years never bothered to open the Bible becouse I COULD NOT UNDERSTAND IT!!!!! (Or much of it.)
Recently, the Holy Spirit directed me into a Christian book store and I needed a new Bible. I was crying and hurting so bad becouse I wanted to come back to the Lord and be able to actually read the Word of God without help from my pastor. After struggling for what seems like an eternity, I picked up the New Living Translation and felt like I had just commited a blaspheme against God. I have not cried in years, but here I was a total wreck. Thank the Lord the woman at the counter gave me words of encouragement and I took that Bible home and I havent stopped worshiping the Lord since. I now have a parrallel Bible with the KJV becouse it still has a place in my heart.
The new Bibles should be in all motels instead of the KJV so the lost can understand the Gospel!
My 2nd grader can read and understand her princess Bible we read togethor and that could not happen if she was reading KJV. Praise the Lord, thank you Lord for giving me another chance.
AMEN!! that's wonderful that you have picked up the Bible again!! I too would not have read the Bible if I had to read from the KJ only. I thank God for my NIV and also that so many people can read the gospel in even simpler forms, including children and those with learning difficulties. That's what the danger is in only have "one version" you stop others from hearing the gospel.
_____________________________
Proud Aussie, Wife, Mother, Woman!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 5/28/2007 7:56:54 PM
|
|
|
vonzip2000
Posts: 10
Joined: 5/28/2007
Status: offline
|
Thank you mam for the kind words.
I must say one more thing. I am so sad that this is and has been an issue. I have heard so many people with such anger and bitterness. Fellow Christians that serve the Lord and are pre-occupied with this and my question is this.
What does God think? What does Satan think about this? I think I know the answer and it disturbs me very much.
God bless
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 6/9/2007 12:49:00 PM
|
|
|
BelovedHandMaiden
Posts: 3992
Joined: 3/17/2007
From: Tennessee
Status: offline
|
So sorry... working and not here much.
Try www.av1611.com and click on the link to the KJ pages.
_____________________________
The Rapture -- true separation of church and state.
<--So blessed!!!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 6/9/2007 12:54:57 PM
|
|
|
brotherbrian
Posts: 283
Joined: 3/6/2007
Status: offline
|
I can't believe this "debate" still has legs.
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
