Question concerning the sheep

The original Hebrew sir. The passage you quoted was originally written in Hebrew. Someone translated it into Greek then into Latin then into English. Do you think the Israelites spoke and wrote English when the scripture was originally written?
Regardless, we don't have the original text no one does. It takes a lot of hubris to think that you have a better translation than modern day scholars. Are u one of them? Care to cough up your peer reviewed translation?
 
Regardless, we don't have the original text no one does.
So what did the first translators translate from?
It takes a lot of hubris to think that you have a better translation than modern day scholars.
It takes a lot of hubris to think that there is no original text for the translators to translate from.
Are u one of them?
I never made that claim. And neither are you one of them so what is your point?
Care to cough up your peer reviewed translation?
Care to cough up what text your translators translated from?
 
So what did the first translators translate from?
What ever they translated from, no one has that text.
It takes a lot of hubris to think that there is no original text
There are no original text.
for the translators to translate from.
The issue isn't that we don't have the original text, we don't. The issue here is that you seem to think there is a better translation what we already have. And while you flap your hubris, I have yet to see what you think improves on what we all have access to.

So, go ahead. I'll remove your ignore tag so I don't miss it. I am so looking forward to you producing this new and improved translation.
I never made that claim.
It was a question, not an accusation and you failed to answer the question so I'll ask it again. Are u a scholar?
And neither are you one
LOL. How do you know that? You are making allegations that you can't possibly know, the same as apparently knowing anyone has access to the original text that no one can possibly have.
so what is your point?
My point is no one has the original text so, I have to assume you have something better and more modern, but I'm not seeing any evidence of it. No alternate translation that is newer and peer reviewed that opposes the actual recent scholarship peer reviews translations that we do have and have offered.

The problem I find in this forum is the repeated accusation against current translations in English. If you have a problem with the translations we have now, take it up with those who are producing English translations. The claim that the original text is better is soly a smoke screen. There is literally nothing there.

On that note, there are better translations of certain passages but I have yet to see any of you produce them. Talk is cheap.

Care to cough up what text your translators translated from?
Whatever the ESV uses.
 
Who are you claiming were the "first translators"?
Those people made the first translations from Greek to English and Hebrew to English sir. Are you seriously asking that question? Do you believe David and Asaph wrote their Psalms in English?
Then what "original text" are you referring to
The Greek and Hebrew text which were used to translate into English of course. They are called manuscripts.
--and where is that translation?
There are many translations, which one are you referring to? Why are you making silly arguments if you don't know these things?
 
What ever they translated from, no one has that text.
You are funny. If no one has the text that they first translated from then there is no proof that the scripture was translated from another language.
There are no original text.
Then there is no proof that the bible that you are reading is the word of God given to the children of Israel, or any proof that the NT epistles were written by followers of Jesus. You are digging a pit for yourself with that argument.
The issue isn't that we don't have the original text, we don't.
So you are saying that men just made up the bible from their imagination?
The issue here is that you seem to think there is a better translation what we already have.
In that case, no one would be saved with those other translations. If men were saved reading the old translations why was there a need for a new translation? Are you saying that men are getting dumber?
And while you flap your hubris, I have yet to see what you think improves on what we all have access to.
You are not making any sense...You are the one who is putting confidence in a new and improved version. You seem to be making the claim that the version that you support is the perfect version.
So, go ahead. I'll remove your ignore tag so I don't miss it. I am so looking forward to you producing this new and improved translation.
Well according to you there are three. You posted from three versions that are, as you say new and improved. According to your argument, it simply cannot get better than those therefore they must be perfect.
It was a question, not an accusation and you failed to answer the question so I'll ask it again. Are u a scholar?
Nope, scholars are not perfect, are they? The translations that you reject, were they not translated by scholars? Don't scholars disagree with each other? Your question is a silly one because you are not a scholar either. And you don't agree with all scholars.
LOL. How do you know that? You are making allegations that you can't possibly know, the same as apparently knowing anyone has access to the original text that no one can possibly have.
The fact that you don't know there must be original manuscripts in order to make translations. You cannot make a new translation of English from what has already been translated into English.
My point is no one has the original text so,
So what are they translating from sir?
I have to assume you have something better and more modern, but I'm not seeing any evidence of it.
Better and more modern than what? The translation is about accuracy and maintaining context.
No alternate translation that is newer and peer reviewed that opposes the actual recent scholarship peer reviews translations that we do have and have offered.
What did your translators translate from sir? Do they have a copy of the original text? If not what are they translating?
The problem I find in this forum is the repeated accusation against current translations in English.
That is your problem you found it deal with it.
If you have a problem with the translations we have now, take it up with those who are producing English translations.
To what end? There are lexicons and dictionaries. People who are set in their ways because they believe they are scholars are somewhat like the followers of the emperor in the story of the emperor's new clothes.
The claim that the original text is better is soly a smoke screen.
You are funny, I told you it is not about better. The original text is what the author actually wrote. How can any translation be better?
There is literally nothing there.
Just because you cannot see does not mean there is nothing there.
On that note, there are better translations of certain passages but I have yet to see any of you produce them. Talk is cheap.
You are yet to affirm that your translators use original Greek or Hebrew texts if they don't then it is not translation.
Whatever the ESV uses.
Your translators translated from English to English? LoL
 
Those people made the first translations from Greek to English and Hebrew to English sir.

What specific translations are you referring to? Where can I access it?

The Greek and Hebrew text which were used to translate into English of course. They are called manuscripts.

And what specific texts are you referring to? Those manuscripts have a name or something to identify them.

There are many translations, which one are you referring to?

That's what I am asking you--what translation are you referring to here? What "original text"?

Newbirth said: It takes a lot of hubris to think that there is no original text for the translators to translate from.
 
What specific translations are you referring to? Where can I access it?
Do that on your own time...the issue here is the original text to which you said there is none. Please explain what text your translators translated.
And what specific texts are you referring to?
That would be Manuscripts of the Torah and epistles written by the followers of Jesus.
Those manuscripts have a name or something to identify them.
You should look up qumran caves
That's what I am asking you--what translation are you referring to here?
Those before what you posted
What "original text"?
Manuscripts in Hebrew and Greek
Newbirth said: It takes a lot of hubris to think that there is no original text for the translators to translate from.
So tell us what your translators are translating if not original Hebrew or Greek texts.
 
You are funny.
You are funny.
If no one has the text that they first translated from then there is no proof that the scripture was translated from another language.
There's no proof that the text they have is the original. In fact, there is proof that the text we have has been changed. Have you ever heard of the Dead Sea scrolls? Those are older that the documents we have and yet they are different. Further, there is clear evidence that Old Testament was heavily redacted in order to hide certain controversial doctrines.

And while you and I might be funny, the facts aren't.
Then there is no proof that the bible that you are reading is the word of God given to the children of Israel, or any proof that the NT epistles were written by followers of Jesus. You are digging a pit for yourself with that argument.
There is proof that what we now have, both Old and New Testament, did not come from the original documents. We can tell that just by testing the date of the material the text was written on. If the material can only be dated to 300AD, then it can't be the original. Someone copied it from somewhere because Paul was long dead by 300AD.
So you are saying that men just made up the bible from their imagination?
No. That's not what I'm saying at all. I'll repeat what I'm saying: "We don't have any original material from any of the Bible's books". That's what I'm saying.
In that case, no one would be saved with those other translations.
While that is possible, I think it's a pretty far, perhaps too far, of a stretch of the imagination. No. I don't think that's what happened, but I do think that while copying to other manuscripts there were mistakes made, some intentional, some unintentional. We'll never know because we don't have the orignals anywhere. No one does.
You are not making any sense...You are the one who is putting confidence in a new and improved version. You seem to be making the claim that the version that you support is the perfect version.
That has been stretched too far as well. I have made no such claim, but I sense that you will soon change the subject because you (possibly??) have realized that you don't know what you're talking about.
Well according to you there are three. You posted from three versions that are, as you say new and improved.
I think you are confusing me with someone else. I'm waiting for you to post the new and improved translations with evidence that shows they are newer and more "improved". If you don't have them, let me know so I can put you back on ignore.
Nope, scholars are not perfect, are they?
Well, then you can't possibly argue with scholars then, can you? You, like all the rest of us here, have to deal with the English translations scholars have provided us. Making a reference that I don't know how to translate from the source is irrelevant. Somebody already has. I only need to be able to read English.
The translations that you reject, were they not translated by scholars?
Again, you must be referring to someone else. I'm happy with the translations we have. The most recent scholarly translations and general consensus on Ps 82 is that those beings are gods in a council of gods and are not humans. Do you have something newer and more improved?
The translations that you reject, were they not translated by scholars? Don't scholars disagree with each other?
Yes. They were translated by scholars. And I accept their scholarship. Some scholars disagree, but on this point, the general consensus is that those beings in Ps 82 are neither false gods nor are they human. The fact that Jesus used Ps 82 validates them. It does not validate the consensus. You have to draw your own conclusions (you will anyway regardless of opposing evidence). I tend to agree with the scholarly consensus. They certainly weren't human judges as God called them sons of the Most High, all of them. That term has never been used for human judges.

Luke 1:32, it is used specifically in connection with Jesus Christ
Deut 32:8, it is used to describe the gods of all other nations, 70 of them singling out one of them as being the God of Israel
Mark 5:7. Luke 8:28, it refers to Christ - spoken of by a devil being cast out
Luke 6:35, it refers to those who follow Christ
Luke 1:35, refers to Christ - spoken of by an angel

If we look at a similar term, sons of God - already we know that Jesus was a son of God
Luke 3:38, Adam was a son of God
1 John 5:10,13,20, Eph 4:13, Rev 2:18 uses that phrase to identify Jesus
1 John 4:15, directly connects the phrase "Jesus is the Son of God"
as does Mark 1:1, "Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God"
Gen 6:4, mystery men, who they are is any ones guess but they sure aren't human judges
Luke 1:32, refers to Jesus, Nathanael called it before Peter did
Rom 1:4 connects the phrase with Jesus
Luke 4:41, demons calling Jesus the Son of God
1 John 5:12, refers to Jesus or his gospel
Rom 8:14 refers to the followers of Christ (also not human judges)
Heb 10:29 uses the phrase to refer to Jesus' teachings
Heb 7:3 connects the priesthood or those who have it, resembling Jesus (termed Son of God)
John 11:4, Jesus referring to himself as the Son of God
1 John 3:8, refers to Jesus, one of the reasons he was born
Matt 26:63, during the illegal tribunal, the courts, demanding he self-identify as the Son of God
Luke 4:9, the devil, challenging him if he is the Son of God
John 5:25, the voice of Jesus, the son of God preaching to the dead
John 10:36, Jesus, calling himself, "I am the Son of God"
Luke 1:35, An angel announcing the birth of Jesus as the Son of God
Job 38:7, all the sons of God shouted for joy...

None of these refer to human judges. I see three classes of people where these titles are used, maybe 4.
1. Jesus Christ
2. Those who follow Jesus Christ
3. mystery beings that dwell somewhere other than this earth
4. Melchizedek priesthood holders.

No human judges. If we can accept that we all lived in the presence of God before we were born, then those mystery beings, the ones in Job and Psalms and even loosely the ones in Genesis, those beings are us, dwelling in the presence of God prior to our mortal birth, and those who follow Christ are same being after they have been born. They remain sons of God so long as they follow Christ. We remain sons so long as we keep the covenant, but lose our inheritance when we break the covenant. If this is true, it's pretty obvious we all followed Christ before we were born. But those who seek self-gratification and esteem themselves above others (the very problem Ps 82 discusses) will fall and their fall will cause others to fall. This is the doctrine of the church. We all sat in that council. Most of us discard it and choose to walk our own way. Ps 82 is the way. It's written to every mortal person regardless of their religious affiliation. Cornelius practiced pure religion and God noticed. Ps 82 teaches the purpose of life and how to live in it. It expresses pure religion without saying it.
 
You are funny.
was that an echo?
There's no proof that the text they have is the original.
If you don't believe they are from an original then you don't believe them to be true.
In fact, there is proof that the text we have has been changed.
Then why are you arguing about something that you don't believe to have an original, so what was it changed from?
Have you ever heard of the Dead Sea scrolls? Those are older that the documents we have and yet they are different. Further, there is clear evidence that Old Testament was heavily redacted in order to hide certain controversial doctrines.
How are the dead sea scrolls different? If they are why do you still believe what was changed?
And while you and I might be funny, the facts aren't.
I am not being funny. But is seems you are making the extra effort to be. You are claiming that the NT was redacted, but redacted from what? You are claiming there is no original.
There is proof that what we now have, both Old and New Testament, did not come from the original documents.
Since you have proof of this then you must have the original to verify...
We can tell that just by testing the date of the material the text was written on.
You are really trying to be funny. When one says original one is not speaking of the first piece of material the text was written on, one is referring to the original words. Original words can be copied a million times. Have you no understanding?
If the material can only be dated to 300AD, then it can't be the original. Someone copied it from somewhere because Paul was long dead by 300AD.
So you just exposed your ignorance.
No. That's not what I'm saying at all. I'll repeat what I'm saying: "We don't have any original material from any of the Bible's books". That's what I'm saying.
Then that exposes your ignorance. the scripture is not material it is written on the scripture are written words. Materials can be destroyed therefore it is wise to make copies of the original words.
While that is possible, I think it's a pretty far, perhaps too far, of a stretch of the imagination. No. I don't think that's what happened, but I do think that while copying to other manuscripts there were mistakes made, some intentional, some unintentional.
Then you have trust issues.
We'll never know because we don't have the orignals anywhere. No one does.
In that case, you are being hypocritical. You are claiming to believe something that you don't believe to be true but arguing that it is true.
That has been stretched too far as well. I have made no such claim, but I sense that you will soon change the subject because you (possibly??) have realized that you don't know what you're talking about.
You are saying that you believe no one knows if the words that you are arguing about are true or if they have a correct original copy yet you are defending it to be true. How does that make sense? Make it make sense.
I think you are confusing me with someone else.
I hope not
I'm waiting for you to post the new and improved translations with evidence that shows they are newer and more "improved".
I made no such claim. Why are you waiting for something that I never claimed to have?
If you don't have them, let me know so I can put you back on ignore.
Show me where I said I have them, if you can't then put yourself on ignore.
Well, then you can't possibly argue with scholars then, can you?
I can argue with anyone. You should speak for yourself as to what you can and cannot do. It makes yu look silly trying to dictate what others can and cannot do.
You, like all the rest of us here, have to deal with the English translations scholars have provided us. Making a reference that I don't know how to translate from the source is irrelevant. Somebody already has. I only need to be able to read English.
 
con't

Then don't argue with someone who uses the tools available to investigate further. Since you can read English and there are many English translations that differ from one another how do you determine which is the correct one? Enee mineee mynee moe?
Again, you must be referring to someone else. I'm happy with the translations we have.
I am responding to you. You responded to my post.
The most recent scholarly translations and general consensus on Ps 82 is that those beings are gods in a council of gods and are not humans. Do you have something newer and more improved?
What were they translating from? You don't believe the text they translated from is from an original copy. So according to your understanding, they would not be translating from a valid source. Every Hebrew source says Elohim. Moses was an Elohim and God calls men Elohim. Further to that the scripture says there is one true God. Which I suppose you may not believe since according to you there is no original source.
Yes. They were translated by scholars. And I accept their scholarship. Some scholars disagree, but on this point, the general consensus is that those beings in Ps 82 are neither false gods nor are they human.
the scribes and Pharisees of Jesus' day were a general consensus. I am telling you that Elohim means mighty one. When it comes to believers there is only one God, the father.
The fact that Jesus used Ps 82 validates them.
Correct, however, Jesus understands Elohims to be mighty ones, not other Gods...
John 10:34
Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
It does not validate the consensus.
But you support the consensus. It follows that you are following and support what is not validated.
You have to draw your own conclusions (you will anyway regardless of opposing evidence).
That is not the way we are instructed to follow the scripture.
1 Corinthians 1:10
Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

I tend to agree with the scholarly consensus. They certainly weren't human judges as God called them sons of the Most High, all of them. That term has never been used for human judges.
I never argued that they were humans. My argument is the word Elohim refers to mighty ones, men and also Idols, It can also refer to God himself.You have chosen to believe that that passage is referring to them as Gods like the father. To which the scripture is clear there is only one of him.
Luke 1:32, it is used specifically in connection with Jesus Christ
Deut 32:8, it is used to describe the gods of all other nations, 70 of them singling out one of them as being the God of Israel
Mark 5:7. Luke 8:28, it refers to Christ - spoken of by a devil being cast out
Luke 6:35, it refers to those who follow Christ
Luke 1:35, refers to Christ - spoken of by an angel

If we look at a similar term, sons of God - already we know that Jesus was a son of God
Luke 3:38, Adam was a son of God
1 John 5:10,13,20, Eph 4:13, Rev 2:18 uses that phrase to identify Jesus
1 John 4:15, directly connects the phrase "Jesus is the Son of God"
as does Mark 1:1, "Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God"
Gen 6:4, mystery men, who they are is any ones guess but they sure aren't human judges
Luke 1:32, refers to Jesus, Nathanael called it before Peter did
Rom 1:4 connects the phrase with Jesus
Luke 4:41, demons calling Jesus the Son of God
1 John 5:12, refers to Jesus or his gospel
Rom 8:14 refers to the followers of Christ (also not human judges)
Heb 10:29 uses the phrase to refer to Jesus' teachings
Heb 7:3 connects the priesthood or those who have it, resembling Jesus (termed Son of God)
John 11:4, Jesus referring to himself as the Son of God
1 John 3:8, refers to Jesus, one of the reasons he was born
Matt 26:63, during the illegal tribunal, the courts, demanding he self-identify as the Son of God
Luke 4:9, the devil, challenging him if he is the Son of God
John 5:25, the voice of Jesus, the son of God preaching to the dead
John 10:36, Jesus, calling himself, "I am the Son of God"
Luke 1:35, An angel announcing the birth of Jesus as the Son of God
Job 38:7, all the sons of God shouted for joy...

None of these refer to human judges. I see three classes of people where these titles are used, maybe 4.
1. Jesus Christ
2. Those who follow Jesus Christ
3. mystery beings that dwell somewhere other than this earth
4. Melchizedek priesthood holders.
You are arguing against an argument that I never made.
No human judges.
I never claimed they were human judges.
If we can accept that we all lived in the presence of God before we were born, then those mystery beings, the ones in Job and Psalms and even loosely the ones in Genesis, those beings are us, dwelling in the presence of God prior to our mortal birth, and those who follow Christ are same being after they have been born.
That is foolishness. Based on what scripture are you saying that ? Shouldn't we all speak the same thing?
They remain sons of God so long as they follow Christ. We remain sons so long as we keep the covenant, but lose our inheritance when we break the covenant. If this is true,
You make up a story and then say if this is true? What kind of spirit are you following?
it's pretty obvious we all followed Christ before we were born.
Which one of the apostles or prophets said that?
But those who seek self-gratification and esteem themselves above others (the very problem Ps 82 discusses) will fall and their fall will cause others to fall. This is the doctrine of the church.
Which church? Please show where the apostles taught that.
We all sat in that council.
Where does the scripture say that? You said "if it is true" then you go about bandying about with it as if it is truth.
Most of us discard it and choose to walk our own way. Ps 82 is the way. It's written to every mortal person regardless of their religious affiliation. Cornelius practiced pure religion and God noticed. Ps 82 teaches the purpose of life and how to live in it. It expresses pure religion without saying it.
So why is that not written in the scripture? Oh that is why you do not believe there is any original scripture,. You are writing your own original scripture. Please put me on ignore as you suggested.
 
con't

Then don't argue with someone who uses the tools available to investigate further. Since you can read English and there are many English translations that differ from one another how do you determine which is the correct one? Enee mineee mynee moe?

I am responding to you. You responded to my post.

What were they translating from? You don't believe the text they translated from is from an original copy. So according to your understanding, they would not be translating from a valid source. Every Hebrew source says Elohim. Moses was an Elohim and God calls men Elohim. Further to that the scripture says there is one true God. Which I suppose you may not believe since according to you there is no original source.

the scribes and Pharisees of Jesus' day were a general consensus. I am telling you that Elohim means mighty one. When it comes to believers there is only one God, the father.

Correct, however, Jesus understands Elohims to be mighty ones, not other Gods...
John 10:34
Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

But you support the consensus. It follows that you are following and support what is not validated.

That is not the way we are instructed to follow the scripture.
1 Corinthians 1:10
Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.


I never argued that they were humans. My argument is the word Elohim refers to mighty ones, men and also Idols, It can also refer to God himself.You have chosen to believe that that passage is referring to them as Gods like the father. To which the scripture is clear there is only one of him.

You are arguing against an argument that I never made.

I never claimed they were human judges.

That is foolishness. Based on what scripture are you saying that ? Shouldn't we all speak the same thing?

You make up a story and then say if this is true? What kind of spirit are you following?

Which one of the apostles or prophets said that?

Which church? Please show where the apostles taught that.

Where does the scripture say that? You said "if it is true" then you go about bandying about with it as if it is truth.

So why is that not written in the scripture? Oh that is why you do not believe there is any original scripture,. You are writing your own original scripture. Please put me on ignore as you suggested.
Just listening to you and find your evidence is lacking and weak... how about some sources to proof your point...
 
Just listening to you and find your evidence is lacking and weak... how about some sources to proof your point...
the evidence is the scripture and the source is the scripture. If you can show exactly which evidence is lacking and weak, please list them out.
 
yea. The problem is, we don't have any original text, none whatsoever.
Then no scripture is valid. You lack understanding. Is a copy of your birth certificate the original text? Please tell us what the first translation into English translated from. When you figure it out that would be the original text.
 
And Newbirth hasn't been able to produce any.
I did not claim to make the first translation did I. If you are saying there was no original Greek text to translate the NT from. How did the translators arrive at translating anything? If you are saying there is no Septuagint to translate the OT from Greek please explain where the translators got their text to translate into English..
 
the evidence is the scripture and the source is the scripture. If you can show exactly which evidence is lacking and weak, please list them out.
That's correct, the Scriptures prove our doctrine... thx. By the way the Dead Sea Scrolls unravel the original language of the Bible they are possibly the oldest Bible manuscripts.


It is important to remember, though, that LDS doctrines and practices paralleling some of the ideas found in the Dead Sea Scrolls were in fact brought forth by Joseph Smith long before the discovery of those ancient documents. The witness of the Holy Ghost and the study of latter-day revelation teach us that Joseph Smith was not simply a lucky forecaster. He was the Lord’s prophet of the Restoration in this final dispensation before the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, the true Messiah.

By Andrew C. Skinner

Dean of Religious Education, Brigham Young University
 
Last edited:
I did not claim to make the first translation did I.

The point was not about you making any translation--but rather--about the original text--as the posts show:

brotherofJared said: yea. The problem is, we don't have any original text, none whatsoever.

dberrie2020 said: And Newbirth hasn't been able to produce any.

So, again--what "original text" have you to present to us--as an autograph?

If you are saying there was no original Greek text to translate the NT from.

All Greek texts are translations themselves.

How did the translators arrive at translating anything?

What translations are you referring to--which was translated from an autograph?

If you are saying there is no Septuagint to translate the OT from Greek ....

The Septuagint is a translation, therefore, not the autograph.

please explain where the translators got their text to translate into English..

From other translations. All we have is translations, no autographs. That's why your claim does not carry the weight of proof.
 
That's correct, the Scriptures prove our doctrine... thx.
No, it does not. You are just making a claim. Your statement shows that your doctrine is not the scripture.
By the way the Dead Sea Scrolls unravel the original language of the Bible they are possibly the oldest Bible manuscripts.
Jesus already unraveled the scriptures to those who believe. The fact that you had to wait on the DSS to unravel the original shows that it was not unraveled to your leaders before the DSS was discovered.
It is important to remember, though, that LDS doctrines and practices paralleling some of the ideas found in the Dead Sea Scrolls were in fact brought forth by Joseph Smith long before the discovery of those ancient documents. The witness of the Holy Ghost and the study of latter-day revelation teach us that Joseph Smith was not simply a lucky forecaster. He was the Lord’s prophet of the Restoration in this final dispensation before the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, the true Messiah.
By Andrew C. Skinner

Dean of Religious Education, Brigham Young University
Again your words prove that LDS doctrine is not the scripture. They only parallel some of the ideas.
 
Back
Top