UnderGround Forums
 

HolyGround >> Bible Version?


8/7/10 10:54 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Ridgeback
11 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/3/07
Posts: 19434
jotobo - 
Ridgeback - 
jotobo - I really struggle with bible versions. Its like you start one and there is a whole camp of people who tell you how satanic and evil and watered down it is.
Those people usually don't know what they are talking about and are trying to make the scriptures carry a burden they were never meant to carry (sola scriptura) so it is imperative they assign their chosen translation god-like qualities.  
 



So any of them are ok?

 No, more like some are better than others, but you have to be "wise as a serpent" about any version.  The language of the King James Version is great, but the KJV mixed up Sheol/Hades/Hell/Gehenna and completely changed how people view what comes after death.  Now the average American believes that the Bible teaches after death a person goes up to heaven with harps and pearly gates or down to hell where Satan rules.  

Then there are the commentary Bibles that do all kinds of damage.  The Scofield reference Bible actually teaches that the teachings of Jesus don't apply to Christians.  Not to mention all that rapture nonsense that no Christian believed before the 19th century.  It is very easy to get led astray by a bad translation or bad commentary.
8/7/10 8:11 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
DyingBreed
16 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/18/03
Posts: 13581
i love the nasb translation because it is supposedly the most literal translation from the greek/hebrew

but i just recently got introduced to the hcsb (holman christian standard bible) and i absolutely love it. it compares well to every other translation, including the new king james, and it flows so beautifully in its reading that it feels very rich and inspiring.

i was dedicated completely to the nasb, and still love it, but my new obsession (i collect bibles as a hobby) is the hcsb. i got the "apologetics study bible" because it seemed like a cool one, and was kinda bummed that the only translation it came in was the hcsb instead of nasb,but it is now my new fav.

anyone btw, know a more literal translation than the nasb by chance? like i said, i love collecting study bibles and have many translations, but not sure if i may have overlooked one.
8/9/10 6:10 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Sandy Pantz
123 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 2/4/07
Posts: 7805
Ridgeback - 
jotobo - 
Ridgeback - 
jotobo - I really struggle with bible versions. Its like you start one and there is a whole camp of people who tell you how satanic and evil and watered down it is.
Those people usually don't know what they are talking about and are trying to make the scriptures carry a burden they were never meant to carry (sola scriptura) so it is imperative they assign their chosen translation god-like qualities.  
 



So any of them are ok?

 No, more like some are better than others, but you have to be "wise as a serpent" about any version.  The language of the King James Version is great, but the KJV mixed up Sheol/Hades/Hell/Gehenna and completely changed how people view what comes after death.  Now the average American believes that the Bible teaches after death a person goes up to heaven with harps and pearly gates or down to hell where Satan rules.  

Then there are the commentary Bibles that do all kinds of damage.  The Scofield reference Bible actually teaches that the teachings of Jesus don't apply to Christians.  Not to mention all that rapture nonsense that no Christian believed before the 19th century.  It is very easy to get led astray by a bad translation or bad commentary.<br type="_moz" />


Do you use the Orthodox Study Bible? If so, do you think the commentary is good?
8/9/10 6:43 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Ridgeback
11 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/3/07
Posts: 19494
Sandy Pantz - 
Ridgeback - 
jotobo - 
Ridgeback - 
jotobo - I really struggle with bible versions. Its like you start one and there is a whole camp of people who tell you how satanic and evil and watered down it is.
Those people usually don't know what they are talking about and are trying to make the scriptures carry a burden they were never meant to carry (sola scriptura) so it is imperative they assign their chosen translation god-like qualities.  
 



So any of them are ok?

 No, more like some are better than others, but you have to be "wise as a serpent" about any version.  The language of the King James Version is great, but the KJV mixed up Sheol/Hades/Hell/Gehenna and completely changed how people view what comes after death.  Now the average American believes that the Bible teaches after death a person goes up to heaven with harps and pearly gates or down to hell where Satan rules.  

Then there are the commentary Bibles that do all kinds of damage.  The Scofield reference Bible actually teaches that the teachings of Jesus don't apply to Christians.  Not to mention all that rapture nonsense that no Christian believed before the 19th century.  It is very easy to get led astray by a bad translation or bad commentary.


Do you use the Orthodox Study Bible? If so, do you think the commentary is good?

 Yes I read it and the commentary is pretty good.  I wouldn't consider the commentary to be the final word on anything, but it is helpful.  It is nice to have an English translation of the Septuagint as well (although the NT part is the NKJV).  
8/9/10 11:58 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Juijitsuboxer
55 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 8168
DyingBreed - i love the nasb translation because it is supposedly the most literal translation from the greek/hebrew

but i just recently got introduced to the hcsb (holman christian standard bible) and i absolutely love it. it compares well to every other translation, including the new king james, and it flows so beautifully in its reading that it feels very rich and inspiring.

i was dedicated completely to the nasb, and still love it, but my new obsession (i collect bibles as a hobby) is the hcsb. i got the "apologetics study bible" because it seemed like a cool one, and was kinda bummed that the only translation it came in was the hcsb instead of nasb,but it is now my new fav.

anyone btw, know a more literal translation than the nasb by chance? like i said, i love collecting study bibles and have many translations, but not sure if i may have overlooked one.



I love the HCSB, very awesome read for the OT. I enjoy the NKJV New Testament better though. That is how I read the Bible, HCSB for OT and NKJV for NT.

Gotta love Smartphone Bibles with all the translations!
8/10/10 12:03 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Juijitsuboxer
55 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 8169
Ridgeback - 
Sandy Pantz - 
Ridgeback - 
jotobo - 
Ridgeback - 
jotobo - I really struggle with bible versions. Its like you start one and there is a whole camp of people who tell you how satanic and evil and watered down it is.
Those people usually don't know what they are talking about and are trying to make the scriptures carry a burden they were never meant to carry (sola scriptura) so it is imperative they assign their chosen translation god-like qualities.  
 



So any of them are ok?

 No, more like some are better than others, but you have to be "wise as a serpent" about any version.  The language of the King James Version is great, but the KJV mixed up Sheol/Hades/Hell/Gehenna and completely changed how people view what comes after death.  Now the average American believes that the Bible teaches after death a person goes up to heaven with harps and pearly gates or down to hell where Satan rules.  

Then there are the commentary Bibles that do all kinds of damage.  The Scofield reference Bible actually teaches that the teachings of Jesus don't apply to Christians.  Not to mention all that rapture nonsense that no Christian believed before the 19th century.  It is very easy to get led astray by a bad translation or bad commentary.<br type="_moz" />


Do you use the Orthodox Study Bible? If so, do you think the commentary is good?

 Yes I read it and the commentary is pretty good.  I wouldn't consider the commentary to be the final word on anything, but it is helpful.  It is nice to have an English translation of the Septuagint as well (although the NT part is the NKJV).  



How do you enjoy the Apocrypha/Deutrocannon in the Orthodox Study Bible? (not trying to disrespect you by calling those books by that title)
8/10/10 12:09 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Ridgeback
11 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/3/07
Posts: 19506
Juijitsuboxer - 
Ridgeback - 
Sandy Pantz - 
Ridgeback - 
jotobo - 
Ridgeback - 
jotobo - I really struggle with bible versions. Its like you start one and there is a whole camp of people who tell you how satanic and evil and watered down it is.
Those people usually don't know what they are talking about and are trying to make the scriptures carry a burden they were never meant to carry (sola scriptura) so it is imperative they assign their chosen translation god-like qualities.  
 



So any of them are ok?

 No, more like some are better than others, but you have to be "wise as a serpent" about any version.  The language of the King James Version is great, but the KJV mixed up Sheol/Hades/Hell/Gehenna and completely changed how people view what comes after death.  Now the average American believes that the Bible teaches after death a person goes up to heaven with harps and pearly gates or down to hell where Satan rules.  

Then there are the commentary Bibles that do all kinds of damage.  The Scofield reference Bible actually teaches that the teachings of Jesus don't apply to Christians.  Not to mention all that rapture nonsense that no Christian believed before the 19th century.  It is very easy to get led astray by a bad translation or bad commentary.


Do you use the Orthodox Study Bible? If so, do you think the commentary is good?

 Yes I read it and the commentary is pretty good.  I wouldn't consider the commentary to be the final word on anything, but it is helpful.  It is nice to have an English translation of the Septuagint as well (although the NT part is the NKJV).  



How do you enjoy the Apocrypha/Deutrocannon in the Orthodox Study Bible? (not trying to disrespect you by calling those books by that title)

 I haven't read all of them thoroughly, but I like the Wisdom of Solomon and Sirach.  If some fringe fundamentalists in the US who refuse medical treatment still had Sirach in their Bibles it would be a non-issue.  Most Protestants had no problem with these books.  They were mainly taken out to save money and then people who lost track of history lost track of them when the cost is negligible to include them.  
8/10/10 2:15 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Juijitsuboxer
55 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 8170
Ridgeback - 
Juijitsuboxer - 
Ridgeback - 
Sandy Pantz - 
Ridgeback - 
jotobo - 
Ridgeback - 
jotobo - I really struggle with bible versions. Its like you start one and there is a whole camp of people who tell you how satanic and evil and watered down it is.
Those people usually don't know what they are talking about and are trying to make the scriptures carry a burden they were never meant to carry (sola scriptura) so it is imperative they assign their chosen translation god-like qualities.  
 



So any of them are ok?

 No, more like some are better than others, but you have to be "wise as a serpent" about any version.  The language of the King James Version is great, but the KJV mixed up Sheol/Hades/Hell/Gehenna and completely changed how people view what comes after death.  Now the average American believes that the Bible teaches after death a person goes up to heaven with harps and pearly gates or down to hell where Satan rules.  

Then there are the commentary Bibles that do all kinds of damage.  The Scofield reference Bible actually teaches that the teachings of Jesus don't apply to Christians.  Not to mention all that rapture nonsense that no Christian believed before the 19th century.  It is very easy to get led astray by a bad translation or bad commentary.<br type="_moz" />


Do you use the Orthodox Study Bible? If so, do you think the commentary is good?

 Yes I read it and the commentary is pretty good.  I wouldn't consider the commentary to be the final word on anything, but it is helpful.  It is nice to have an English translation of the Septuagint as well (although the NT part is the NKJV).  



How do you enjoy the Apocrypha/Deutrocannon in the Orthodox Study Bible? (not trying to disrespect you by calling those books by that title)

 I haven't read all of them thoroughly, but I like the Wisdom of Solomon and Sirach.  If some fringe fundamentalists in the US who refuse medical treatment still had Sirach in their Bibles it would be a non-issue.  Most Protestants had no problem with these books.  They were mainly taken out to save money and then people who lost track of history lost track of them when the cost is negligible to include them.  



I am exploring the apocrypha. I like how they used to be included in a separate index section in the least, but am not sure about their inspiration as of yet....


Wisdom is awesome, I think it is great!

Wisdom 2

The second chapter of the Book of Wisdom (Wisdom 2) builds up to a prophecy of Christ’s passion.

First the ungodly men are described (Wis 1:16-2:9), followed by their plotting against the righteous man (2:10-20). The passage describes in detail the treatment of Jesus by the Jewish authorities.

The first indication for Christians that it is a prophecy of the Messiah is in verse 11. Where the RSV reads weak, the Greek has achrestos, a play on the title Christos.

Verse 12 is a quote of the LXX version of Is 3:10; Is 3:10 has been taken to refer to Jesus since the first-century Epistle of Barnabas.[8] On the whole, this treatment of the suffering of the righteous man is heavily indebted to Isaiah; particularly the fourth Suffering Servant song (Is 52:13-53:12).[9] Verse 13 uses pais (child, or servant), from Is 52:13. Verse 15 says his very sight is a burden, referencing Is 53:2. In verse 16 he calls God his father, which is thought to be based on a poor understanding of pais as in Is 52:13. Verse 18 is comparable to Is 42:1. Verse 19 makes reference to Is 53:7. A final reference to the Messiah is the righteous man’s “shameful death” in verse 20. This death has been identified with Jesus’ death on a cross, a cursed death hanging on a tree.

The Gospel of Matthew contains allusions to the Wisdom of Solomon. Parallels between Wisdom and Matthew include the theme of testing, and the mocking of a servant of God's claim to be protected by God.

Matthew's gospel teaches that Jesus is the suffering servant of God. Wis 2:17-18 (Let us see if his words are true, and let us test what will happen at the end of his life; for if the righteous man is God’s son, he will help him, and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries.) lent itself to Mt 27:43 (He trusts in God; let God deliver him now, if he desires him; for he said, ‘I am the Son of God.’”).[10]

8/10/10 2:23 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Juijitsuboxer
55 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 8171
Personification of Wisdom

There are found in the Book of Wisdom and other books of the wisdom literature to Wisdom as a personification with divine attributes. These have long been taken by Christian exegetes as references to Christ, who is called the wisdom of God by Paul the Apostle.

In chapter seven, Wisdom is said to be “the fashioner of all things” (v. 22). Because she fashions all things, is “an associate in his [God’s] works” (8:4), and is a “pure emanation of the glory of the Almighty” (7:25), Wisdom is eternal and one in being with the Father. Because Wisdom is God’s “creative agent”, she must be intimately identified with God himself.[5]

For Christians, the most definite indication that personified Wisdom refers to the Messiah is the paraphrasing of Wis 7:26 in Heb 1:3a.[6] Wis 7:26 says that “she is a reflection of eternal light, a spotless mirror of the working of God, and an image of his goodness.”

The author of Hebrews says of Christ: “He reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature, upholding the universe by his word of power.”


Furthermore, Wisdom speaks of personified Wisdom in a Trinitarian way at 9:17: “Who has learned your counsel, unless you have given wisdom and sent your holy spirit from on high?”.

The next verse says that salvation is an act of Wisdom. In Christianity salvation is an activity reserved for God, but it is here given to Wisdom, thus identifying them with one another.[7]
8/10/10 9:35 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
scaredy cat
52 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 187
If people are interested in translations and stuff, I'd recommend reading Misquoting Jesus by Bart D. Ehrman. Some people use it as an excuse to try and "debunk" Christianity but as an introduction to textual criticism for lay people it's very good.

I hope one day to learn Koine Greek, Biblical Hebrew, and Syriac/Aramaic but I think I'm going to start with Sahidic Coptic at some point in the next year.


One final suggestion. I've heard good things about The Restored New Testament translated by Willis Barnstone. Now it won't be everyone's cup of tea because he includes a few of the Gnostic Gospels (Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Mary, and the Gospel of Jusdas). I don't want to get into a debate over the Gnostic scriptures here.
One interesting thing about this version of the NT is that it is one of the fist translations to restore the original Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew names for people and places (eg Markos for Mark, Yeshua for Jesus), which I've been told gives it a very different feel. Like I say, I haven't read it but I'll post again when I've scored a copy.
10/6/10 4:07 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
shintothechin
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 4/17/07
Posts: 71
STICK WITH THE PERFECT AUTHORIZED VERSION!!!

Do some research on the other translations and you will be amazed how many less words there are and how the newer versions clearly have verses trying to omit the doctrine of the Trinity Godhead etc. The NIV is absolutely horrible, anything other than a King James is corrupt, and not the Word of God. Read the King James Code by Michael Hoggard for more info on the majesty of the King James and the importance of numbers in the Bible.
10/6/10 4:53 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
zealot66
12 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 11364
The king james only tirade really falls down in humiliation when looked at by bible scholars. sorry. 
10/6/10 4:58 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
toelocku
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 11/5/03
Posts: 3246
wat he said^. Rotherhams rulz best translation i've ever seen.
10/6/10 7:14 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Ridgeback
11 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/3/07
Posts: 20435
 There have been many imperfect versions of the Queen James Bible.  I like the translation from the point of view of English history and literature, but it isn't without many faults and flaws.  Plus the original translations included the so called "Apocrypha" so was it perfect with them in it or only after they were removed?  
10/7/10 3:25 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Juijitsuboxer
55 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 8233
Ridgeback -  There have been many imperfect versions of the Queen James Bible.  I like the translation from the point of view of English history and literature, but it isn't without many faults and flaws.  Plus the original translations included the so called "Apocrypha" so was it perfect with them in it or only after they were removed?  



Obviously the King James Only crowd need to get reading that apocrypha as it is THE WORD OF GOD TRANSLATED AND DROPPED ONTO THE EARTH FROM ANGELS. Oh wait, that is the Koran, never mind.

I like the Holman Christian Standard for OT, Sounds like the Orthodox Study Bible is great for the Apocrypha, and the New King James for the New Testament.

:-)
10/7/10 4:22 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
zealot66
12 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 11365
 For what its worth, I read the NKJV because of its familiarity and updated language. I know which verses are in q uestion and I have schematics of how the verses were included or excluded. Im not worried about it. To be serious in looking at a topic, I pull out my greek and brush up. Im not as fluent with the NT as I used to be but I can still use my tools to get all the grammar possible out of it. I hate to say it but if you dont know the grammar, using tools isnt really helpful. You'd be better served to read the commentaries of greek scholars on that passage than to try to decipher it yourself. 
10/11/10 4:44 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
shintothechin
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 4/17/07
Posts: 72
Revelation 22:19
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book.
10/11/10 8:06 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Lahi
2 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 7371
^^^So you would apply those words to the King James? What about where other translations have had access to better sources, and been more accurate?
10/11/10 8:30 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Lahi
2 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 7372
I don't know much about the KJV only debate, but why that particular translation, as oppossed to the ones before and after that were also done by Christians seeking the Spirit's guidance? Why do you believe God choose to act at that time and place to bless that particular English translation, but not any of the other ones? IIRC there were some good English ones done before it.

The other thing I'm curiuos is what others have asked about the Apocrypha; why is it no longer accepted by most of the KJV only people? Or is it?
10/11/10 9:12 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Ridgeback
11 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/3/07
Posts: 20534
 I hope KJV only people only read the 1611 version and not the significantly edited and modified version sold in bookstores today.  

As I said, it is a find translation, and King James was trying to stop the onslaught of bad translations filled with highly biased commentary (from Protestants that is), but it isn't special beyond that.  James was no saint and apparently had a penchant for buggering young boys.  I can't imagine where people think he got the power to authorize any translation.  If you want to be loyal to authenticity learn Hebrew and Greek and read in the original languages.
10/12/10 12:27 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
shintothechin
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 4/17/07
Posts: 73
Ps. 12:6
The words of the LORD [are] pure words: [as] silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

Now go to your 1611 KJV, and under "Rules to be Observed in the Translation of the Bible."
"1. The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the Truth of the original will permit."
"14. These translations to be used when they agree better with the Text than the Bishops Bible: Tindoll's, Matthews, Coverdale's, Whitchurch's, Geneva."

Bishop's Bible, Tindoll's, Matthews, Cloverdale's, Whitchurch's, Geneva, and King James!

7!
10/12/10 1:52 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Juijitsuboxer
55 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 8257
shintothechin - Revelation 22:19
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book.



Are all of you guys doomed since they took the following books out of the original King James Version?

Apocrypha of the King James Version


The modern printing of the Apocrypha as an anthology apart of the KJV translation of the Bible.
The English-language King James Version of 1611 followed the lead of the Luther Bible in using an inter-testamental section labelled "Books called Apocrypha", or just "Apocrypha" at the running page header. The section contains the following:[6]

1 Esdras (Vulgate 3 Esdras)
2 Esdras (Vulgate 4 Esdras)
Tobit
Judith
Rest of Esther (Vulgate Esther 10:4-16:24)
Wisdom
Ecclesiasticus (also known as Sirach)
Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremy (all part of Vulgate Baruch)
Song of the Three Children (Vulgate Daniel 3:24-90)
Story of Susanna (Vulgate Daniel 13)
The Idol Bel and the Dragon (Vulgate Daniel 14)
Prayer of Manasses
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees

Included in this list are those books of the Vulgate that were not in Luther's canon. These are the books most frequently referred to by the casual appellation "the Apocrypha". These same books are also listed in Article VI of the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England.[7] But despite being placed in the Apocrypha, in the table of lessons at the front of the King James Bible, these books are included under the Old Testament.
10/12/10 2:04 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Juijitsuboxer
55 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 8258
"But despite being placed in the Apocrypha, in the table of lessons at the front of the King James Bible, these books are included under the Old Testament."

Editing Error?
10/12/10 5:17 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
zealot66
12 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 11376
 I think its a mistake for people to look at translations as a 'guided by the holy spirit' thing. I'd prefer a scholar with no allegiances to christianity to put out a translation being faithful to the writers and express the greek in the common idiom. 

Turning the argument into a theological debate or who was more spirit filled is a mistake.
10/12/10 6:24 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
shintothechin
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 4/17/07
Posts: 74
OK have fun reading a 'bible' about a gender-neutral God, where the numbers in it are so scrambled, you will not get 99% of the typology

Reply Post

You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.