FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-30-2001, 07:59 PM   #41
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

First, thanks for the info on Humpty Dumpty. At the same time, I don't think it helped your point much.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Toto:

Nomad: Just because people wrote about Jesus, ascribing incredible things to him after He had died does not mean that he never lived. The evidence we have for His actual existence as a human being is as good as any we have for virtually any other ancient person. You realize, for example, that we have no testimony for the existence of Peter, Paul, any of the brothers of Jesus except James, or any other character in the NT except John the Baptist anywhere outside the Bible right? Yet do we accept that these people existed or not? If we do, then why? Because they did not have any miracles attributed to them?

Toto: You have it backwards. Just because people wrote stories about Jesus does not mean that he was a real person. I also have my doubts about the other characters in the Bible, especially the disciples. There appears to be more independent evidence for John the Baptist, but nobody is basing a religion on his existence. This whole argument has been overdone on other threads.</font>
Of course stories about a person does not automatically equal that person existed, but there are ways for an historian to test such things. Right now you appear to be totally clueless as to how this is done. My hope is that I can help you on that front.

Second point, John the Baptist is the focus of a religion. They are called Mandaeans, and they live and worship in parts of Iran and Iraq. That said, I am glad that you accept he existed. If I may ask, why do you believe this? Further, if the disciples didn’t exist, who was Paul talking about in his letters (see how much trouble you get in when you do not qualify your posts?)?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Nomad: This example has nothing to do with the way history was recorded in antiquity. Augustus was called the Son of God, and Julius Caesar was called divine. Vespasian was reported to have healed two men. Claudius was made a god. All of these people lived. So did Jesus.

Toto: All of those other people left behind evidence of their existence - coins with their pictures, monuments, documents by their own hand, or by contemporary enemies.</font>
So what? We have coins, statues and other artifacts with the pictures of gods on them. Surely you don’t think that they were historical persons. Further, how can you prove that these people actually wrote what is credited to them? Don’t be naďve Toto.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Nomad: A "null hypothesis" is the means by which we disprove or falsify a testable theory. The Jesus Mythers have no such test, and do not want one. Like you, then wish to deny the existence of a person only because so many important claims are made about Him, and being forced to admit that He lived would require them to believe that He was God, or that he was not God. . .

Toto: Okay, so it does come down to this - divinity. Many atheists are quite happy think that Jesus existed - it is such fun to stick the Christians with how far they have strayed. I do not need to deny Jesus' existence for any reason, and I do not deny it. I just find the argument that there was no historical Jesus interesting, possibly true, probably unknowable.</font>
So you think that Jesus is not historical because…?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">And if you are going to throw around terms like "null hypothesis", learn what they mean:

http://www.animatedsoftware.com/statglos/sgnullhy.htm

The null hypothesis is a term that statisticians often use to indicate the statistical hypothesis tested. The purpose of most statistical tests, is to determine if the obtained results provide a reason to reject the hypothesis that they are merely a product of chance factors. For example, . . .</font>
Right. We must have a means of falsifying the hypothesis in order to consider it to be a valid theory.

For example, here is what “null hypothesis” means to historians:

“Not only are his (E.P. Sanders) sub-hypothesis not operational, but he has no null-hypothesis. One of the agreed rules by which scholars present ideas concerning human behaviour is that they specify their hypotheses in such a way, so that if (Akenson’s emphasis) a given datum appears, then we all agree that the hypothesis is disproved. Also this “null hypothesis” is so framed that the scales are always weighted against any new idea, otherwise no-proof, no-datum, or “not proved” would be taken as permitting a new idea to float into the realm of accepted wisdom.”
(Donald H. Akenson, Saint Saul: A Skeleton Key to the Historical Jesus, [McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2000], pg. 48.)

While Akenson is talking here about Sanders’ effort to construct a plausible theory that a single Jewish faith (rather than many) existed prior to the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD, the principle with the mythers is the same. What we have from the Jesus Mythers is no “null hypothesis”. They have no means to falsify their claims, and accept the absence of proof of any claim as proof of their own claim. Thus, they can assert that “A” means “B” and we have no means to prove that they are wrong.

I will assume that you did not understand the operational methods of historians, Toto, but do not tell me that I do not understand a concept that you clearly know nothing about.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Toto: So using the term "null hypothesis" in this case is some kind of analogy, since we don't have statistics from am experiment. But the "null hypothesis" is usually the statement you are trying to disprove. We have gone around on this before.</font>
There is no null hypothesis with the mythers, and this is the whole point you appear to be missing. Each time their evidence is debunked, they can merely move the goalposts, or claim that it was not critical to their argument in any event. This is not good inquiry.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Nomad: Historians look for independent third party attestation, and also for the theory that best accounts for all of the historical events we believe have happened. The Jesus Myther cannot even begin to account for the historical record (starting with how Christianity got started in the first place). Accepting the reality that Jesus lived in early 1st Century Palestine makes explaining the events of that period in time much easier, and does not resort to the special pleading, arguments from silence and conspiracy theories needed to make the myth theory work.

Toto: We've all gone around this before, too. Atheists have no difficulty explaining the historical record without an historical Jesus, and without a vast conspiracy.</font>
Offer an historian that actually does this please. Better still, you do it, and show us how or why you have found such arguments to be valid, useful and convincing.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> You think it would be easier to explain history with Jesus - but it might also be easier if you accepted Mohammed, or Harvey the Invisible Rabbit working behind the scenes.</font>
By this do you mean that the evidence for Jesus or Mohammed is no better than it is for Harvey the Rabbit? Do you see how muddled your thinking is yet?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> You continue to misuse the term "special pleading", and you continue to ignore the fact that an argument from silence can be extremely effective.</font>
It appears that you do not know what this term means either. Nor do you understand how an argument from silence can quickly become a two edged sword. Typically it doesn’t prove much of anything though, but it sure excites the credulous.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Nomad: You, for example, have elected to reject all of the evidence that we have available to us, largely because miraculous claims are made about Jesus. On this basis, since the miraculous claims will always be a part of the historical record for Jesus, you must reject all of the evidence put forward regardless of its merit.

Toto: Nonsense. I have not rejected all of the evidence, unless you think that the Gospels are all of the evidence (if so, I might as well rest my case.) I just think that the evidence is very weak.</font>
You have yet to see my evidence, yet you have already rejected it Toto. This is known as prejudicial thinking. See how easy it is both to spot, and to demonstrate with someone like you? (BTW, what made you think that I had offered my evidence yet? Further what made you decide that it won’t be effective in convincing you?)

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Nomad: I already know that I cannot convince you. Luckily, I have prepared myself for that inevitability.

Toto: What does this mean?? How do you need to prepare?? Please don't do anything drastic.</font>
I won’t. I promise.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Toto the Cat

ps - do you assume I might be a she because I don't swear at you?</font>
No. Although Toto is the name of a small male dog in the Wizard of Oz, I have considered it to be gender neutral. I certainly did not mean to offend if you were insulted, but I do not want to mistake the identity of anyone on these boards. I apologize if you were offended.

Nomad

[This message has been edited by Nomad (edited April 30, 2001).]
 
Old 04-30-2001, 11:36 PM   #42
Toto
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Post

This is getting unproductive. You arguments wander around, include insults that I have decided not to respond to, and miss the point.

A good example of "no null hypothesis" was your thread on why the success of Christianity was unique. You posted an article that implied that the success of Christianity was evidence of its divine favor. The rest of the Board kept saying - well it was unique, but not evidence of divine intervention, so what is your point? And it seemed you never had a point.

On the contrary, Doherty has a null hypothesis: Jesus did not exist. You can evaluate any piece of evidence against that. I don't know what you mean by moving the goal posts - you keep saying that, but when did they move? When did you ever offer evidence that anyone agreed would prove Jesus' existence, and then find it rejected? You did offer evidence that Doherty had previously discussed and explained away, the Epistles and Josephus.

And are you actually stating that you have new evidence about the historical Jesus that no one has heard before?

You should probably just save it for Doherty. It's too late for me to continue.
Toto is offline  
Old 05-01-2001, 09:01 AM   #43
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Toto:

This is getting unproductive. You arguments wander around, include insults that I have decided not to respond to, and miss the point.</font>
Thanks for sticking it with me for so long Toto. I found it informative. I am sorry that you did not.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">A good example of "no null hypothesis" was your thread on why the success of Christianity was unique. You posted an article that implied that the success of Christianity was evidence of its divine favor. The rest of the Board kept saying - well it was unique, but not evidence of divine intervention, so what is your point? And it seemed you never had a point. </font>
Sometimes it takes a great deal of time to help the sceptics here understand what I am hoping to learn or achieve. They appear to assume that I am constantly trying to prove things, even when I am not, and even after I have repeatedly told them that I am not doing this. Sometimes I like to understand how the other half thinks (so to speak), and this appears to make many of them uncomfortable. I do not require anyone to post however, and if they do not want to talk about such things, that becomes their right, obviously.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">On the contrary, Doherty has a null hypothesis: Jesus did not exist.</font>
Actually, you are still not understanding the nature of a null hypothesis Toto. The null position is that we do not know if Jesus existed. Since we do have evidence that He did actually exist, it becomes a question of which positive claim do you find more credible. For Doherty, the evidence tells him that Jesus of Nazareth was a mythical construct. For the rest of the scholarly world the opposite is the truth. We will evaluate who's arguments are better, if and when Doherty comes here for the debate.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> You can evaluate any piece of evidence against that. I don't know what you mean by moving the goal posts - you keep saying that, but when did they move?</font>
The Jesus was a myth belief started over a hundred years ago, and each time the arguments used to prove this claim are debunked, someone shows up with a new spin on the evidence, reliant upon special pleading, circular reasoning and arguments from silence and conspiracies. Even after Doherty is debunked (as were Wells, Freke, Gandy, MacDonald et. al.), he or someone like him will step into the breach, move the goal posts, and claim yet again that the case is not yet proven.

Trust me on this one. Conspiracy theories die hard, and their adherants are a tenatious lot.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> When did you ever offer evidence that anyone agreed would prove Jesus' existence, and then find it rejected?</font>
First, who is "anyone"? Do you mean the mythers? I have already told you that no amount of evidence will convince most of them.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> You did offer evidence that Doherty had previously discussed and explained away, the Epistles and Josephus.</font>
I have given brief summaries of some of the arguments that refute his position. The fact that you continue to find his defences of his beliefs convincing, when no serious scholar in the world is equally convinced tells you nothing I suppose. We have the same problem with young earth creationists and conspiracy buffs the world over.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">And are you actually stating that you have new evidence about the historical Jesus that no one has heard before?</font>
First, I am stating that Doherty's explanations and arguments are so bad that almost no one that examines them with an open mind and a reasonable level of education on these questions would treat them as credible, let alone convincing. I also do have evidence that Doherty has not addressed at all, but will save that for if and when he shows up.

My question to you has been, and remains, why do you reject the arguments advanced by people far more knowledgeable about the Bible, ancient Greek, neo-platonic thought, Josephus, and the like than you or Doherty happen to be? Further, what would it take to convince you that Doherty is wrong?

Since you have consistantly refused to answer these questions, I have concluded that nothing will convince you of the mundane facts that Jesus lived, taught, founded a religion and died. Quite frankly, I don't know how to convince someone like you. My hope is that others will be more open to the arguments offered.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">You should probably just save it for Doherty. It's too late for me to continue.</font>
Fair enough. And I have.

Nomad
 
Old 05-01-2001, 09:47 AM   #44
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Sometimes it takes a great deal of time to help the sceptics here understand what I am hoping to learn or achieve. They appear to assume that I am constantly trying to prove things, even when I am not, and even after I have repeatedly told them that I am not doing this.

Some of us tend to be a bit suspicious Nomad. The possibility that a theist doesn't have an ulterior motive for seemingly innocent questions is sometimes hard to swallow. Experience has taught many of us that this seldom happens. More often than not we are confronted with "backdoor" evangelistic type questions that pussy foot around the real issue the theist wants to make.
 
Old 05-01-2001, 10:04 AM   #45
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by madmax2976:

Some of us tend to be a bit suspicious Nomad. The possibility that a theist doesn't have an ulterior motive for seemingly innocent questions is sometimes hard to swallow. Experience has taught many of us that this seldom happens. More often than not we are confronted with "backdoor" evangelistic type questions that pussy foot around the real issue the theist wants to make.</font>
Hi max

I understand exactly what you are saying, and why it makes sceptics cautious. At the same time, I hope that you can appreciate that sometimes a cigar really is a cigar, and I am genuinely interested in learning what and how sceptics think. I don't pretend to have all the answers to the questions I ask. But I like to ask them in any event. Sometimes I direct them at my fellow Christians. Sometimes I am asking a Jew, or a Muslim, or an atheist. I believe that I can learn in this fashion, and even if we (inevitably) do not agree about everything, at least I can take some new knowledge away with me, and if I have done my job as well, so can those with whom I converse.

Thanks for your patience, and for your honest replies.

Peace,

Nomad
 
Old 05-01-2001, 10:37 AM   #46
Toto
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
My question to you has been, and remains, why do you reject the arguments advanced by people far more knowledgeable about the Bible, ancient Greek, neo-platonic thought, Josephus, and the like than you or Doherty happen to be? Further, what would it take to convince you that Doherty is wrong?
</font>
Everyone has their experts. Why do you not accept someone like Richard Carrier as an expert? or MacDonald? or Robert Price? And you should not put me and Doherty in the same category - I am a rank amateur, he has a background in classics. He is convinced that Jesus never existed, I am not 100% convinced one way or the other.

I would be convinced that Doherty is wrong if there were good archeological evidence of Jesus' existence. I would strongly suspect that he is wrong if there were some official record by a neutral or hostile party dating from the time of his existence (like a Roman trial transcript, or the travelogue of a pagan visitor to Palestine who remarked on his ministry or his trial. I would suspect that Doherty is wrong if a non-partisan linguist with expertise in Koine Greek explained why Paul's words had to refer to a real person, with no spiritual meaning. (Doherty's argument on this seems reasonable to me, but I don't have the background to evaluate it.)

Your ideas about the null hypothesis are off the wall. If that is how historians use the term, it just shows that history is not a real science.

That's it for me on this thread. I will wait for the debate.
Toto is offline  
Old 05-01-2001, 01:15 PM   #47
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Alright, you're done on this thread, so I will just make a few points, then wrap up as well.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Toto:

Everyone has their experts.</font>
Here is problem number one. If you cannot differentiate between the best in the business, and the worst, we are in a pickle. YECers can quote from scientists, saying that evolution is bunk. Are their scientists "good" scientists? Is there any way for us laymen to tell?

If you won't take the arguments of a true scholar, then who can we use? (Just rhetorical questions BTW, I do not expect you to answer them).

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> Why do you not accept someone like Richard Carrier as an expert? or MacDonald? or Robert Price?</font>
Since I do accept that all of these men are experts, what is your question? Do I agree with them? No. Do I find their arguments convincing? Again, no. At the same time, I look at the arguments of competing scholars and compare the quality of their arguments against those of any other, and decide who makes the best case.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> And you should not put me and Doherty in the same category - I am a rank amateur, he has a background in classics. He is convinced that Jesus never existed, I am not 100% convinced one way or the other.</font>
In other words, you have started at the true "null position" in this debate. That is fine, but I do not understand your objection to being so identified.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">I would be convinced that Doherty is wrong if there were good archeological evidence of Jesus' existence.</font>
Since this is not going to happen (unless by some miracle the Shroud of Turin turns out to actually be legit), we can toss this criteria. Of course, it doesn't apply to 99% of the events in all of history in any event, so should not be given too much weight. Archeology tells us when and where (more or less) and a bit about the big "what happened" questions, but specific acts and the like will never be uncovered at such a remote date as 2000 years after the fact.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> I would strongly suspect that he is wrong if there were some official record by a neutral or hostile party dating from the time of his existence</font>
First, I have no idea why you would give credence to such a thing. If Josephus can be forged, then so can anyone else, especially a more or less unknown.

Second, the qualifier of neutral or hostile is interesting. I suppose that this means that any source friendly to Jesus must be rejected a priori. See my "Was Julius Caesar Assassinated" thread to see where that takes us.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> (like a Roman trial transcript, or the travelogue of a pagan visitor to Palestine who remarked on his ministry or his trial.</font>
If he says they are forgeries or Christian insertions can we discount them? (Rhetorical again)

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> I would suspect that Doherty is wrong if a non-partisan linguist with expertise in Koine Greek explained why Paul's words had to refer to a real person, with no spiritual meaning.</font>
What is the definition of "non-partison"? An atheist? A non-Christian? Are all Christians rejected as experts automatically? Why can't these Greek expressions have both common earthly, and spiritual meanings at the same time? (Rhetorical questions yet again).

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> (Doherty's argument on this seems reasonable to me, but I don't have the background to evaluate it.)</font>
Given that you have no expertise, and appear not to have read anyone else on the subject, it is curious that you find him reasonable and persuasive.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Your ideas about the null hypothesis are off the wall.</font>
Umm... these weren't my ideas Toto. That is why I quoted an expert in the field, and gave you a source to look it up. This is how history operates, and the fact that you do not like it is interesting, but I cannot change that.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> If that is how historians use the term, it just shows that history is not a real science.</font>
Again, given that you are not an expert in the field, I find it interesting that you are willing to make this judgement.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">That's it for me on this thread. I will wait for the debate.</font>
Fair enough. I'm looking forward to it as well. Doherty's activity on the Jesus Mystery Boards tells me that his time is becoming much freer than it was previously.

Nomad
 
Old 05-01-2001, 03:32 PM   #48
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Nomad,

If you don't mind me saying so, I am beginning to get slightly irritated by your constant comparison between 'Jesus-mythers' and YEC's. I don't think it is fair, and here's why.

The relevant data concerning Jesus is actually quite limited. Everybody has access to all of the same data. It doesn't take a lifetime to read through it all (no, I haven't). From that point on, the entire discussion is about different weighting and interpretation. Very quickly, opposing camps appear - for all kind of reasons, many of which I'm sure have little to do with the actual data but a lot with background and personalities. The constant appeal to 'authority' and 'experts' sounds hollow in these conditions.

Now, the Old-Earth vs. YEC debate is a very different kettle of fish. The amount of data is absolutely staggering - far too much for anyone to be familiar with even a tiny fraction of it. To participate in this debate, it is unavoidable to have to lean on the knowledge of others, who are familiar with data that one cannot hope to have access to oneself. Experts and appeal to authority are a absolute necessity to have a debate at all (but, according to the game rules, we only use experts and authorities who have gone through the peer review process.)

Although it may seem that YEC's are giving a different interpretation of the same data, and this may appear to be a similar situation as the Jesus debate, in actual fact they do something very different.

They abuse the unavoidable lack of other people's knowledge about the data by spinning. They selectively omit those datapoints that undermine their position; they zoom in on the ever-present noise rather than on the signal; they misuse scientific tools outside their range of applicability; they seldom if ever retract their falsehoods even when repeatedly shown wrong; in many cases they resort to ad hominems and character assassination. In short, they are frauds.

As far as I can tell, the Jesus-mythers do not use this approach.

You may not like their conclusions, but comparing them to frauds is pushing it too far, in my opinion. If you cannot reject their arguments by the rules of the game, be a man and say so, and live with the fact that the truth may never be established, rather than painting them in a corner.

fG
 
Old 05-01-2001, 03:45 PM   #49
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

No comparison is going to be perfect, but the comparison is very useful.

1. Both YECs and Jesus-Mythers are ideologically driven to their positions.

2. Both YECS and Jesus-Mythers ignore the overwhelming consensus of the experts in the relevant field of inquiry.

3. Both YECS and Jesus-Mythers ignore an substantial amount of evidence to the contrary.

4. Both YECS and Jesus-Mythers make money off of their "pop" books, which are not taken seriously be the academic community.

5. Both YECS and Jesus-Mythers allege that the established contrary consensus is a result of bias and academic peer pressure.
 
Old 05-01-2001, 05:13 PM   #50
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Layman:
No comparison is going to be perfect, but the comparison is very useful. </font>
The most relevant comparison is that neither are taken seriously by the majority of their 'peers'. We all probably have our own ideas about why this is so and perhaps the upcoming debate will help straighten this out.

Further similarities just don't hold up. It is true that YEC and Jesus-Mythers in some way occupy one edge of a continuum of thought.U nlike YEC, however, the views of Doherty have a tremendous amount in common with the views of many 'liberal' Bible scholars (in my humble uneducated opinion). I've been flipping through a variety of popular historical Jesus books (Crossan, Sanders, Meier) looking for the devastating proof that the Jesus-myth is a big fraud and it doesn't seem to be there. They all accept Markan priority, they all see a shared tradition in Matthew and Luke (Q), and they all delve into the social and religious thought of the day to try and make sense of the various ways of thinking that led to the Bible. They all agree that various things going on at the time heavily influenced what was later attributed to Jesus. The variety of beliefs about what Jesus did and didn't do within the 'majority' of scholars is so great that in some works, like Crossan, you barely see a Jesus at all.

Suggesting that Josephus was tampered with and that maybe those sayings were all attached to Jesus later and that Christianity had a lot in common with nearby Greek thought is not quite the same leap as suggesting that instead of 15 billions years old, the earth is really 6000 years old.

But perhaps I should stick to science. Before I get blasted by the Biblical scholars around here, maybe you could first confirm something for me.

Let's say I start with Doherty's view. I then question his analysis of Josephus and accept the 'reduced' testimonium, concluding that there was a man named Jesus who was crucified by Pilate, and inspired Christianity. I maintain, though, that the actual Jesus is almost completely unknowable, that the Q sayings were likely not his, that the further layers were all hugely embellished by the concerns of the later communities, and that Paul and others transferred a highly developed religious thought not initially inspired by Jesus onto Jesus. I maintain that Mark is largely a work of fiction that intended to tie together various traditions that became associated with Jesus.

Have I made the jump from YEC all the way to Neo-Darwinism?

By the way, the sarcasm is all in good fun. If you all convince me that Doherty's conclusion is bogus, you will have saved me from false beliefs and future ridicule, and who wants that?

[This message has been edited by PhysicsGuy (edited May 01, 2001).]
 
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:11 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.