Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jayhawker Soule · 10-03-2002, 05:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:

You are not serious.

Note that this is from the person who willingly leaps from a reference to a few dozen Asiatic servants to a claim of epic proportions:

Quote:

The bonded Asiatics servants recorded in the various documents of the Thirteen Dynasty ... are to be identified with the "mixed multitude" of Asiatics who [therefore

- RD] eventually left Egypt under the leadership of Moses ...

... suggesting that Vanderzyden's criteria for "serious" is in serious doubt.

Who would have thought that the Egyptians might have non-Egyptian slaves and servants? Who would have thought that, centuries later, the authors of Exodus might have used names common to the folklore of the area (rather than, perhaps, names typical of of Norway or New Zealand)? It's just gotta be a miracle!

Oy Vey!

[ October 03, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]

Ted Hoffman · 10-03-2002, 06:22 AM

[ October 04, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]

Ted Hoffman · 10-03-2002, 06:28 AM

Vanderzyden: Please feel free to submit your comments and criticisms concerning this specific evidence as it relates directly to Exodus.

Intensity: Awright

Quote:

Wilbour's papyrus roll is dated to the reign of Sobekhotep III, the predecessor of Neferhotep I, and therefore the king who reigned in Egypt generation before the birth of Moses in the New Chronology.

So far you have stated that a king called Sobekhotep III ruled in the 13th dynasty.
You have not explained why the name Sobekhotep IV does not appear in the biblical narrative - didn't the writers know the Pharaoh's name? Nor how you have dated the birth of Moses.

Quote:

...The biblical narrative tells us that, prior to the birth of Moses, the Israelite population was subjugated by the native Egyptians and forced into slavery.

The biblical narrative also tells us that Moses struck a rock and it spewed water and that a talking bush was burning without being consumed by fire and that the Israelites spent 40 years without their clothes getting worn out. In short, what the biblical "narrative" says is of no probative value historically unless we want to choose only what we find plausible and ignore the rest. Is something historical merely because it is plausible?

Quote:

The recto [front] of the Brooklyn Papyrus contains a copy of a royal decree by Sobekhotep III which authorizes the transfer of ownership of a group of domestic slaves/servants (Egy. khenmu) to an estate in the Theban area.

So what? It doesn't prove that its referring to the Hebrew slaves. Domestic servants could also be Egyptians, or even Libyans, or Arabs.

Quote:

The verso [back of the papyrus] then contains a list of household servants which can probably be identified with the slave group mentioned on the recto. Analysis of the list of servants reveals that over fifty percent of the ninety-five names are Semitic in origin.

Probably? What? is this whole theory based on speculation? He is basing all this on "probably" NO concrete reason?

"Semitic" does not translate to "Hebrew" or "Israelite" does it?

What does Semitic mean anyway?
According to <a href="http://www.palestinechronicle.com/article.php?story=20011222155656933" target="_blank">This site</a>:

Quote:

According to the 2001 Macmillan Encyclopedia, Semites are "A group of peoples, including the Jews and Arabs, said in the Bible to be descended from Shem, Noah's eldest son. The Babylonians, Assyrians, Canaanites, and Phoenicians were ancient Semitic peoples."

The Catholic Encyclopedia offers a similar definition: "The Semitic peoples are divided into four chief Babylonian-Assyrian Semites (East Semites), Chanaanitic Semites, (West Semites), Aramaic Semites (North Semites), and Arabian Semites (South Semites). The most powerful branch of the Semitic group of peoples, are indigenous to Central and Northern Arabia, where even to-day the original character is most purely preserved."

Languages of the semites, according to both encylopedias, include Sumerian cuneiform (the first recorded writing), Canaanite, Aramaic, Hebrew, Arabic, Maltese, and Amharic, a language of Eritrea.

Based on the above definitions, there are some 22 million Jewish Semites and 270 million Arab, Maltese and Ethiopian Semites in the world today.

In summary, that whole passage provided by you above tells us NOTHING of importance in the context of this discussion.

Quote:

These foreign servants are each clearly designated as aamu-- the Egyptian term for "Asiatic". Their Egyptian names are also separately listed -- the names given to them by their owners. For example we read: "The Asiatic Dodihuatu, who is called Ankhuemhesut".

From the argument and reasons I have provided above, your failure to define exactly what you mean by semites makes your premise invalid [its too broad and all-inclusive - you might as well tell replace "semites" with non-Egyptians]. We also have Semites in Africa (some Ethiopians, Somalis [who are also in Kenya], Eritreans etc).

So, so far, you have argued NOTHING of importance.

Lets continue...

Quote:

These foreign servants are each clearly designated as aamu-- the Egyptian term for "Asiatic". Their Egyptian names are also separately listed -- the names given to them by their owners. For example we read: "The Asiatic Dodihuatu, who is called Ankhuemhesut".

You have made a HUGE leap from "semitic" to "asiatic" without explaining the basis by which you even "thought" they were "semitic" in the first place. There is no methodology here, just whims and poorly constructed conjectures without any basis.

So you are telling us that "Aamu" is the Egyptian term for Asiatic? What is the basis of this claim? I have come accross documents that do claim Ammu means Asiatic without having any evidence for that belief. In fact, I can demonstrate that Ammu was used frequently by Egyptians in contexts that cannot be translated to mean "asiatic":

According to Egyptian mythology, as per some creation myths, (unlike those of Hermopolis, and Heliopolis and Memphis, which state mankind was created from a mound), Egyptians were formed from the tears of Ra (the sun god and creator of the world). Then there were the Libyans who were formed through some similarly vague act, and the Aamu and the Nehesu were descended irregularly from Ra. as per A Guide to the Egyptian Collections .

Nothing there to beleive Aamu means asiatic.

In The Papyrus of Ani 240 BC, Ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead, Translated by E.A. Wallis Budge, we get the following passage <a href="http://www.aldokkan.com/religion/dead7.htm" target="_blank">from this site</a>:

Quote:

The gods who dwell in the sky descend the ropes [of thy Boat] when they see the Osiris Ani, whose word is truth, they ascribe praise unto him as unto Ra. The Osiris Ani is a Great Chief. [He] seeketh the Urrt Crown. His provisions are apportioned to him- the Osiris Ani, whose word is truth. [His] fate is strong from the exalted body of the Aamu gods, who are in the presence of Ra.

Would the Egyptians have beleived non-egyptian Gods (Aamu gods) dwelt in the presence of Ra? I dont think so. Would they have enslaved people whose gods were that close to Ra? not possible. They would have incurred the wrath of Aamu gods, or Ra's wrath.

So far, nothing to make us think Aamu means asiatic.

In the 16th Dynasty, Hyksos Kings 1650 - 1552 there was a king called Ammu (Aahotepre), who appears in the following chronology of Kings: Ahotep-Re, Wadjka-Re, Yamu, Aamu, Qar,Enka-Re.
Confirm from <a href="http://www.acraig.freeserve.co.uk/chronology2.htm" target="_blank">Chronology of Ancient Egypt </a>

Nothing to convince us Aamu means asiatic
<a href="http://www.zanzinet.org/h_arecord.html" target="_blank">ANCIENT RECORDS</a> says:

Quote:

W.H. Ingrams, quoting Rev. W.A. Crabtree, writes in his book - Zanzibar Its History and Its People that about four thousand years ago Arabs, known to the ancient Egyptians as "Aamu" and "Arapin", came to East Africa. Says Ingrams

"Some of these people wandered into the interior and some followed the coast. Those that went into the interior lost their nationality and became, claims Mr. Crabtree, the origin of the Hamites. The remainder were called Arabs."

The Egyptian word "Arapin" obviously means "Arabs", but is there not an intriguing connection between the ancient Egyptian word "Aamu" for Arabs, with the name of the island of "Amu", as the inhabitants call it, Lamu being merely a corruption of the Arabic "Al-amu"? About 1400 BC.

Now the author there there argues that Aamu meant arabic.

Vanderzeden, can you refer us to some old Egyptian texts that use the word aamu to mean asiatic? If you have none, what is the basis of this claim?

Quote:

So, half of the domestic slaves of this Egyptian estate where Asiatics who had been given Egyptian names. What is more, when we study the actual appellations themselves we find that several are biblical names.

So first, before we examine the rest of your "statements", please establish that aamu means asiatic.

Quote:

(a) Thus we see at position 11 the name "Menahem" later recorded for the sixteenth king of Israel (743-738 BC);

(b) At 13, 14, 16, 22, and 67 we have variants of the tribal eponym "Issachar" the name of the two sons of Leah by Jacob;

(c) At 23 the name of the clan "Asher" occurs, named after its eponymous ancestor, the second son of Zilpah by Jacob;

Non sequitur! what have these got to do with asiatic (ammu)? You have made no connection between what you started with and what you are claiming now.

Its also very flippant of you to expect all that gibberish about "at 11,23,89,..." to mean jack to us given you have not provided us with a comprehensive background about what they are referring to.
Secondly what do you mean "variants of the tribal eponym 'Issachar'"? A variant can be and can mean anything.
You are using an unknown piece of evidence to make an argument which is fallacious and self-defeating.
If you mean to make an argument based on some shadowy brooklyn papyrus, you have a duty to furnish us with its relevant contents. Otherwise your argument is based on us beleiving what you say, which is simply not possible.

So please furnish us with the papyrus contents. You cant justifiably describe the front cover and back cover and then jump to making claims based on its contents to people who dont know its contents.
Its shoddy argumentation. Please be methodical and systematic.

Quote:

The Egyptian term Apiru, which as we have noted in the Amarna period has clear historical affinities with the biblical term "Hebrew" (Heb. sing. ibri pl. ibrim), also appears in the Brooklyn Papyrus. Thus we read "Apiru-Rishpu" at position 9.

If Apiru has clear historical affinities with the biblical term "Hebrew", what does that prove?
The Akkadian word pr and SAG.AZ is connected to the Apiru - does that mean the Egyptians enslaved the Akkadians?

So you have made no argument that clearly proves any enslavement of the Hebrews by the Egyptians.

Quote:

If the verso of the Brooklyn Papyrus is representative of a typical Egyptian estate in the mid Thirteenth Dynasty, then at least half the total servant population in Egypt at this time was of Syro-Palestinian origin.

"IF"? More speculation. No evidence.

Quote:

The great American philologist William Foxwell Albright long ago recognized that the names of these Asiatic people belong to the northwest-semitic language group which includes biblical Hebrew.

This is irrelevant, and he could have been wrong anyway. We need evidence.

Quote:

Bearing in mind that the Brooklyn Papyrus lists the domestic slaves of an Upper Egyptian estate, we may logically conclude that the Asiatics slave population in the North (Lower Egypt), and especially the delta nearest the Levant, would have been much larger and may have constituted the vast majority of the bonded workforce.

No basis for the "asiatic" claim.
And even if they were large? Does that transform them to Hebrews?
He is talking about populations and we are interested in IDENTITY.
Irrelevant.

Quote:

Other documents confirm that the size of the Asiatic community in Egypt at this time was significant. This state of affairs accords well with biblical tradition.

Which other documents?
The state of affairs does not clearly establish that Hebrews were enslaved in Egypt.

Quote:

But the Israelites were fruitful and prolific; they became so numerous and powerful that eventually the whole land was full of them [Exodus 1:7]

Any group of humankind can be described to have been "fruitful and prolific". This is a non-argument. Do Egyptian texts describe the Hebrews as "fruitful and prolific"?

Quote:

In the previous chapter I noted that an analysis of the graves at Tell ed-Daba has shown that there were more females than males in the burial population of Avaris. I suggested this could conceivably reflect the story of the culling of the Israelite males described in Exodus 1:15-22.

What is the basis of this argument? culling kills males? Or populations with culled males end up more female children than male children? It does not follow that if one culls some males, the population of females will grow. In fact, the general population will decrease (less men breeding), irrespective of sex.
This argument is not valid.

Quote:

Perhaps the most surprising circumstance associated with these Asiatic servants is that an Upper Egyptian official of the mid Thirteenth Dynasty should have had well over forty of them in his personal possession. If a comparable number of servants was to be found in every large Egyptian household, one wonders by what means such quantities of Asiatic serving people found their way into Egypt at this time and how they chanced to be available as domestic servants for private citizens. ... The ratio of women to men, which is here about three to one, might further suggest that they were the spoils of war taken during military campaigns on raids in which most of the local male population went down fighting. We know, however, of no large-scale Egyptian military operations in Western Asia at any time during the Middle Kingdom and certainly of none during the Thirteenth Dynasty."

Sounds logical, though irrelevant.

Quote:

... the reduction in the male Asiatic population is not due to a series of (unattested) wars in the north, but rather as a result of a deliberate policy on the part of the Egyptian state to reduce the perceived Israelite threat by means of male infanticide (as described in Exodus 1:15-22).

This is a self referencing argument. We are interested in establishing the historicity of the Exodus accounts, so we can't use Exodus as a historical reference.

So this argument is invalid because the premise is the conclusion: "The enslavement of the Hebrews by the Egyptians, as narrated in Exodus is historical because Exodus says the Hebrews were enslaved by the Egyptians"

Quote:

The origin of these foreigners is also explained: they entered Egypt in the years following the arrival of Jacob and his immediate bretheren into the land of Goshen. During their long sojourn these disparate Asiatic groups (which we could give the overall classification of "Hebrews/Habiru/Apiru"-- including the Israelites themselves) would gradually forge nationhood through the common burden of slavery under the late Thirteenth Dynasty Pharaohs.

Explained where? In Exodus?
If so, the argument fails for the above reasons.

Quote:

The bonded Asiatics servants recorded in the various documents of the Thirteen Dynasty (especially Papyrus Brooklyn 35.1446) are to be identified with the "mixed multitude" of Asiatics who eventually left Egypt under the leadership of Moses [Exodus 12:38].

This is a baseless conclusion. You have not demonstrated that there are indeed "bonded Asiatics servants recorded in the various documents of the Thirteen Dynasty".
Secondly you have not demonstrated that they left Egypt under particular conditions.
Its an invalid conclusion.

Quote:

The Israelite population, descended from Jacob, formed the major part of this group and a number of Hebrew/Israelite names can be recognized within the documents of this period.

What documents of this period? References? "Major" part of this group? What are these vague claims supposed to prove?

The arguments provided in your post DO NOT prove that the enslavement of the Hebrews by the Egyptians as described in Exodus is historical.

[ October 04, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]

Vanderzyden · 10-03-2002, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Intensity:
You have not explained why the name Sobekhotep IV does not appear in the biblical narrative - didnt the writers know the Pharaoh's name?

There are forty years between Moses' birth and his exile. How many kings do we have in that duration?

Quote:

Originally posted by Intensity:
In short, what the biblical "narrative" says is of no probative value historically unless we want to choose only what we find plausible and ignore the rest. Is something historical merely because it is plausible?

Thank you for your opinion. Perhaps you can provide justification.

Quote:

Originally posted by Intensity:
From the argument and reasons I have provided above, your failure to define exactly what you mean by semites makes your premise invalid [its too broad and all inclusive - you might as well tell replace "semites" with non-Egyptians]. We also have Semites in Africa (some Ethiopians, Somalis [who are also in Kenya], Eritreans etc).

You have not presented any argument whatsoever. Anyway, Semitic people originate from the Levant. Do you know what that is? If not, then perhaps you should go learn, as it is essential to the type of critique you are attempting.

I will stop here.

Perhaps your second reply will contain a refutation, substituting argumentation for assertions.

Vanderzyden

Jayhawker Soule · 10-04-2002, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:
You have not presented any argument whatsoever.

He has clearly demonstrated that your offering is little more than innuendo and non sequitur wrapped in apologetics. Your attempt to shift the burden of proof is disingenuous.

Quote:

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:
Anyway, Semitic people originate from the Levant. Do you know what that is? If not, then perhaps you should go learn, as it is essential to the type of critique you are attempting.

Actually, I believe these people originated in Arabia, an area not considered part of the Levant.

Quote:

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:
I will stop here.

That should no doubt save you a good deal of embarrassment.

[ October 04, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]

Ted Hoffman · 10-04-2002, 09:32 AM

Vanderzyden I will stop here <gasp! gasp!>

Intensity Please do. It's the logical thing to do when one hits a wall they can't go around or climb over.
Just let me know when you get your breath back. Then lets see you address my counter-arguments. Otherwise, you remain soundly thumped. Enjoy your recovery

[ October 04, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]

Vanderzyden · 10-04-2002, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt:
Actually, I believe these people originated in Arabia,

You "believe" ? On what basis?

Vanderzyden

Jayhawker Soule · 10-04-2002, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:

You "believe" ? On what basis?

I'm at work, so you have me at a bit of a disadvantage, but ...

Quote:

The tribes which inhabited these territories, and to some extent still inhabit them, show in language, traits, and character a sharply characterized individuality which separates them distinctly from other peoples. Their languages axe closely related to one another, not being almost independent branches of language, like the great groups of Indo-Germanic languages, but rather dialects of a single linguistic group. Physically, also, the Semitic form it is found in Arabia. Here also the phonetics and partly also the grammatical structure of the Semitic language, are most purely, as the vocabulary is most completely, preserved. From these as well as from other circumstances the conclusion has been drawn that Arabia should be considered the original home of the Semitic peoples.

- emphasis added; see <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13706a.htm" target="_blank">Semites - ORIGINAL HOME</a>

Quote:

Later the term came to include the following peoples: Arabs; the Akkadians of ancient Babylonia; the Assyrians; the Canaanites (including Amorites, Moabites, Edomites, Ammonites, and Phoenicians); the various Aramaean tribes (including Hebrews); and a considerable portion of the population of Ethiopia. These peoples are grouped under the term Semite, chiefly because their languages were found to be related, deriving presumably from a common tongue, Semitic. The Semites were largely nomadic pastoralists, although some settled in villages. At least as early as 2500 B.C., the Semites had begun to leave the Arabian peninsula in successive waves of migration that took them to Mesopotamia, the Mediterranean coast, and the Nile delta.

- emphasis added; see <a href="http://www.bartleby.com/65/se/Semite.html" target="_blank">Semite</a>

Quote:

In order to understand the impact of the various geographical movements of the early Semitic people, we have to understand that the accepted center for the Semitic race is central Arabia (Wright 8). The earliest recorded movement of the Semites was into Mesopotamia between 4000 and 2000 B.C. The Sumerians were already present in that part of the continent and they had established themselves as skilled farmers. The most important impact on the Semitic language up to this time, which occurred in Mesopotamia, was when the Babylonian Empire conquered the Sumerian civilization, and the marauders and warriors mixed their language with those Sumerians and Semites they conquered (O’Leary 8). Unlike what happened in Egypt with Arabic and Coptic, the Semitic language actually became the more accepted political and commercial form of communication in the new Babylonian Empire, but many dialects also resulted. It is interesting to speculate why the Semitic language or dialect was chosen as the accepted form of communication. Was it purely because there was so many of them or were the languages mutually intelligible and Semitic a simpler form?

- emphasis added; see <a href="http://humanities.byu.edu/classes/ling450ch/reports/semitic.html" target="_blank">The Semitic Language Family</a>

Quote:

These Sumerians were constantly at war with one another and other peoples, for water was a scarce and valuable resource. The result over time of these wars was the growth of larger city-states as the more powerful swallowed up the smaller city-states. Eventually, the Sumerians would have to battle another peoples, the Akkadians, who migrated up from the Arabian peninsula. The Akkadians were a Semitic people, that is, they spoke a Semitic language related to languages such as Hebrew and Arabic. When the two peoples clashed, the Sumerians gradually lost control over the city-states they had so brilliantly created and fell under the hegemony of the Akkadian kingdom which was based in Akkad, the city that was later to become Babylon.

emphasis added; see <a href="http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:c4jU31y3JUIC:www.wsu.edu/~dee/TEXT/meso.rtf+semite+arabian+peninsula&hl=en&ie=UTF-8" target="_blank">Mesopotamian History and People</a>

On what basis do you believe otherwise?

[ October 04, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]

Vanderzyden · 10-04-2002, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt:

On what basis do you believe otherwise?

[ October 04, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]

Well, the third paragraph of your very own <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13706a.htm" target="_blank">reference</a>:

Quote:

The great mountain-chains which begin at the Syro-Cilician boundary, and then curving towards the south-west extend to the Persian Gulf, separate on the north and east the territory of the Semites from that of the other peoples of Western Asia. It includes the Syro-Arabian plain with the civilized countries extending to the east and west and the Arabian Peninsula which joins it on the south. The lowlands to the east are formed by the Euphrates and the Tigris, and include the homes of two very ancient civilizations, in the north the rather undulating Mesopotamia, in the south the low Babylonian plain; the land extending to the west from the lower Euphrates is called Chaldea. These are the territories of the East Semitic tribes and states. On the west lies Northern Syria, then the Lebanon Mountains with the intervening Coelo-Syria, the oasis of Damascus, the seat of an ancient culture, the Hauran, and in the the midst of the desert the oasis of Palmyra (Tadmor). These territories were at a later period occupied principally by Aramaic tribes. The territory on the coast extending westwards from Lebanon, and Palestine, which joins it on the south, are the principal seats of the Chanaanitic Semites. The mountainous country to the east of Arabia and the Sinaitic peninsula extending to the west of Arabia, belong to Arabia proper, the territory of the South Semites.

The Levant is comprised of large region having
the Eastern Mediteranean as it western border. This covers all but the very last part of the last sentence in the above paragraph.

If this is your understanding of the Levant, then we are thinking the same thing.

Vanderzyden

Jayhawker Soule · 10-05-2002, 05:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:

Well, the third paragraph of your very own reference: ...

Actually, it's the fourth paragraph, found under the heading "TERRITORY", and addresses the territorial scope of the semitic peoples. It does not deal with origins. This is addressed in the following paragraph under the heading "ORIGINAL HOME".

Quote:

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:
The Levant is comprised of large region having the Eastern Mediteranean as it western border. This covers all but the very last part of the last sentence in the above paragraph.

You initially insisted: "..., Semitic people originate from the Levant." Given that ...

Quote:

The Levant is an approximate geographical term referring to an area roughly bounded by the Mediterranean Sea in the west, and the Zagros Mountains in the east. It generally does not include Asia Minor, the Caucasus Mountains, or any part of the Arabian Peninsula. The term "Levant" is derived from the Latin term levare (to rise), from levis ("light in weight"), and refers to the rising sun, which is the direction in which the region appears to lie from the perspective of Greek and Roman peoples. The term first began to appear in English in the 16th century, and is typically only used in conjunction with prehistoric or early historical references (similar to Mesopotamia, a territory the Levant includes), or when discussing the Crusades.

- emphasis added; see <a href="http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levant" target="_blank">Levant</a>

... are you now asserting that <ol type="A">[*]The Arabian Peninsula is part of the Levant, and/or[*]The semitic people originated elsewhere.[/list=a]and upon what evidence do you base this assertion?

Quote:

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:
If this is your understanding of the Levant, then we are thinking the same thing.

At issue is your understanding of the Levant noting, to quote a recent contributor to this thread:

"you know what that is? If not, then perhaps you should go learn, as it is essential to the type of critique you are attempting."

Feel free to reference the following <a href="http://www-oi.uchicago.edu/OI/INFO/MAP/SITE/ANE_Site_Maps.html" target="_blank">Maps</a>.

[ October 05, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]

10-03-2002, 06:22 AM	#32
Ted Hoffman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: "" Posts: 3,863	[ October 04, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]</p>

10-04-2002, 09:32 AM	#36
Ted Hoffman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: "" Posts: 3,863	Vanderzyden I will stop here <gasp! gasp!> Intensity Please do. It's the logical thing to do when one hits a wall they can't go around or climb over. Just let me know when you get your breath back. Then lets see you address my counter-arguments. Otherwise, you remain soundly thumped. Enjoy your recovery [ October 04, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.