Acts 13:48

Theo1689

Well-known member
A poster called @shroom, who denies the Trinity, as well as the omnipotence and omniscience of God, is apparently part of a congregation that uses the "REV" and an associated commentary.

I happened to look up a particular verse in his "preferred" translation:


Acts 13:48 Now when the Gentiles heard this,
they began rejoicing and glorified the word of the Lord,
and as many as believed
were
at that time appointed to life in the age to come. (REV)

What a complete TERRIBLE and DISHONEST translation!

Let's look at it directly compared to the underlying Greek:

Acts 13:48 Now when the Gentiles heard this,
Acts 13:48 ἀκούοντα δὲ τὰ ἔθνη

they began rejoicing and glorified the word of the Lord,
............ ἔχαιρον ...... καὶ ἐδόξαζον τὸν λόγον τοῦ κυρίου

and as many as believed
καὶ ἐπίστευσαν ὅσοι
were at that time appointed to life in the age to come. (REV)
ἦσαν ................... τεταγμένοι εἰς ζωὴν .... αἰώνιον·

There is absolutely NO BASIS for adding "at that time" in the verse, according to the Greek. The ending is less significant, but "aionion" means "eternal", or "everlasting", not "age to come".

But the big problem here is that this verse is PERVERTED to make it look like being appointed to eternal life is CAUSED by, or the result of, "believing".

The FACT of the matter is that the main verb is "believed", not "appointed to life". "Appointed" is a perfect participle, not a main verb. This is why all the accurate translations render it:

"as many as were appointed to eternal life believed."

"... and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed." (ESV)
"... and all who had been appointed for eternal life believed." (NET)
"... and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed." (NASB)
"... and all who had been appointed to eternal life believed." (HCSB)

The fact of the matter is that "tetagmenoi" is a perfect participle, meaning completed past action with enduring effects into the present. "episteusan" is aorist, which is the undefined past tense. That means that being "appointed" occurs PRIOR to believing.

They believed BECAUSE they were appoined to do so.
Further, "appointed" is in the PASSIVE voice, it was something that happens TO them. The perverted translation of the REV would have people ACTIVELY appointing themselves by "choosing to believe", which is NOT what the text says.
 
For the sake of interest, I'd like to see @SavedByTheLord 's opinion of the REV compared to the KJV:

Acts 13:48 ... and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed. (KJV)
Acts 13:48 ... and as many as believed were at that time appointed to life in the age to come. (REV)
 
A poster called @shroom, who denies the Trinity, as well as the omnipotence and omniscience of God, is apparently part of a congregation that uses the "REV" and an associated commentary.

I happened to look up a particular verse in his "preferred" translation:


Acts 13:48 Now when the Gentiles heard this,
they began rejoicing and glorified the word of the Lord,
and as many as believed
were
at that time appointed to life in the age to come. (REV)

What a complete TERRIBLE and DISHONEST translation!

Let's look at it directly compared to the underlying Greek:

Acts 13:48 Now when the Gentiles heard this,
Acts 13:48 ἀκούοντα δὲ τὰ ἔθνη

they began rejoicing and glorified the word of the Lord,
............ ἔχαιρον ...... καὶ ἐδόξαζον τὸν λόγον τοῦ κυρίου

and as many as believed
καὶ ἐπίστευσαν ὅσοι
were at that time appointed to life in the age to come. (REV)
ἦσαν ................... τεταγμένοι εἰς ζωὴν .... αἰώνιον·

There is absolutely NO BASIS for adding "at that time" in the verse, according to the Greek. The ending is less significant, but "aionion" means "eternal", or "everlasting", not "age to come".

But the big problem here is that this verse is PERVERTED to make it look like being appointed to eternal life is CAUSED by, or the result of, "believing".

The FACT of the matter is that the main verb is "believed", not "appointed to life". "Appointed" is a perfect participle, not a main verb. This is why all the accurate translations render it:

"as many as were appointed to eternal life believed."

"... and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed." (ESV)
"... and all who had been appointed for eternal life believed." (NET)
"... and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed." (NASB)
"... and all who had been appointed to eternal life believed." (HCSB)

The fact of the matter is that "tetagmenoi" is a perfect participle, meaning completed past action with enduring effects into the present. "episteusan" is aorist, which is the undefined past tense. That means that being "appointed" occurs PRIOR to believing.

They believed BECAUSE they were appoined to do so.
Further, "appointed" is in the PASSIVE voice, it was something that happens TO them. The perverted translation of the REV would have people ACTIVELY appointing themselves by "choosing to believe", which is NOT what the text says.
You might enjoy reading the REV commentary for that verse: https://www.revisedenglishversion.com/Acts/13/48
 
For the sake of interest, I'd like to see @SavedByTheLord 's opinion of the REV compared to the KJV:

Acts 13:48 ... and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed. (KJV)
Acts 13:48 ... and as many as believed were at that time appointed to life in the age to come. (REV)
He’s KJVO. What do you think he’ll say? :)
 
A poster called @shroom, who denies the Trinity, as well as the omnipotence and omniscience of God, is apparently part of a congregation that uses the "REV" and an associated commentary.

I happened to look up a particular verse in his "preferred" translation:


Acts 13:48 Now when the Gentiles heard this,
they began rejoicing and glorified the word of the Lord,
and as many as believed
were
at that time appointed to life in the age to come. (REV)

What a complete TERRIBLE and DISHONEST translation!

Let's look at it directly compared to the underlying Greek:

Acts 13:48 Now when the Gentiles heard this,
Acts 13:48 ἀκούοντα δὲ τὰ ἔθνη

they began rejoicing and glorified the word of the Lord,
............ ἔχαιρον ...... καὶ ἐδόξαζον τὸν λόγον τοῦ κυρίου

and as many as believed
καὶ ἐπίστευσαν ὅσοι
were at that time appointed to life in the age to come. (REV)
ἦσαν ................... τεταγμένοι εἰς ζωὴν .... αἰώνιον·

There is absolutely NO BASIS for adding "at that time" in the verse, according to the Greek. The ending is less significant, but "aionion" means "eternal", or "everlasting", not "age to come".

But the big problem here is that this verse is PERVERTED to make it look like being appointed to eternal life is CAUSED by, or the result of, "believing".

The FACT of the matter is that the main verb is "believed", not "appointed to life". "Appointed" is a perfect participle, not a main verb. This is why all the accurate translations render it:

"as many as were appointed to eternal life believed."

"... and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed." (ESV)
"... and all who had been appointed for eternal life believed." (NET)
"... and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed." (NASB)
"... and all who had been appointed to eternal life believed." (HCSB)

The fact of the matter is that "tetagmenoi" is a perfect participle, meaning completed past action with enduring effects into the present. "episteusan" is aorist, which is the undefined past tense. That means that being "appointed" occurs PRIOR to believing.

They believed BECAUSE they were appoined to do so.
Further, "appointed" is in the PASSIVE voice, it was something that happens TO them. The perverted translation of the REV would have people ACTIVELY appointing themselves by "choosing to believe", which is NOT what the text says.

First for the Jew, then the Gentile. That is what Paul was appointed to do.

Now go and read what happened. Yeah that's what happened.

And I said, ‘What shall I do, Lord?’ And the Lord said to me, ‘Get up and go on into Damascus, and there you will be told of all that has been appointed for you to do.’ Acts 22:10

Now don't forget to keep yourself as confused as possible. Creedal idols need to be served, right?
 
I’m impressed.

Thanks for your opinion.

Okay, so @shroom seems to think the garbage commentary in the REV is "inerrant" and the best thing since sliced bread.

So let's talk about it.

"and at issue in the verse is the way to understand the Greek pluperfect periphrastic participle in the verse. ... Together the verb and the participle make the pluperfect periphrastic participle, which in the REV is translated “were at that time appointed.”
The first issue is that the author of the commentary has no clue as to the meaning or usage of the "pluperfect". So let's review some tenses.

imperfect - a past tense with continuous action, an action which has not been completed yet (eg. "were walking").​
perfect - a past tense which describes an action that had already been completed in the past (eg. "have walked").​
pluperfect - a past tense which describes an action that has been completed, but is thrown further back in time, denoting completion in the past (eg. "had walked")​

This commentary wants to claim that "believed" and "appointed" were "concurrent" in time, which is ignorant at best, and dishonest at worst. But the motive is painfully obvious, since the entire commentary is clearly and obviously "anti-Calvinist", so the purpose of the commentary is NOT to determine the meaning of the verse, but instead to try to argue against the Calvinist view.

So there is absolutely NO basis for changing the time frame to, "at that time appointed".

"The scholars are divided as to the correct translation and interpretation of the Greek, and that division is usually based on their theology and the way they approach the text."

For the most part, the commentary makes worthless refeferences to unnamed, "the scholars", or, "some scholars", without any citations whatsoever. But the commentary seems to summarily dismiss any interpretation they don't like on bias ("based on their theology").

"The Greek verb tetagmenoi has a large semantic range that includes “to put in order, to arrange, to appoint, to ordain (in the sense of “appoint to a position”). A. T. Robertson writes about tetagmenoi, and says it is the “paraphrastic past perfect indicative of tassō, a military term, ‘to place in orderly arrangement.’ The word ‘ordain’ is not the best translation here. ‘Appointed,’ as Hackett shows, is better. The Jews here had voluntarily rejected the word of God. On the other side were those Gentiles who gladly accepted what the Jews had rejected, not all the Gentiles."​

Now this is a great piece of dishonesty. Here the commentator is quoting A.T. Robertson from his "Word Pictures of the New Testament". But he doesn't quote the whole thing. Take note of the portion the commentator OMITS:

"By no manner of legerdemain can it be made to mean “those who believe were appointed.” It was saving faith that was exercised only by those who were appointed unto eternal life, who were ranged on the side of eternal life, who were thus revealed as the subjects of God’s grace by the stand that they took on this day for the Lord. It was a great day for the kingdom of God."​
-- A.T. Robertson, "Word Pictures", Acts 13:48​
So the VERY source that the commentator uses to defend the REV rendering explicitly REJECTS the rendering of believing causes the appointing. Again, the commentator of this text has absolutely NO INTEREST in truth or integrity, and is perfectly content quoting sources which contradict his view. How sad.

"Although many scholars who believe in free will have used the middle voice to get around this seemingly Calvinistic passage, the evidence indicates that there is a better way to understand the Greek text in a way that supports human free will."​

So here the commentator exposes his bias. He's not so much interested in determining the correct understanding of the verse, his goal is to try to reconcile it with this view on "free will". Since "free will" isn't even mentioned here, it shouldn't even be part of the discussion.

"This better understanding comes about when we realize that a pluperfect periphrastic participle almost universally occurs at the same time as the main verb. Thus, in this case, the “appointing” happens at the same time as the “believing,”
So we've already seen that trying to make the "appointing" concurrent with "believing" not only ignores the meaning of the pluperfect tense, but A.T. Robertson has arleady denied that the appointing is based on prior believing.

"unlike the way that Calvinists understand this verse as referring to the “appointing” happening before the creation of the world. Many Calvinist scholars believe the “appointing” happened in eternity past and the “believing” happened when Paul and Barnabas shared the word of the Lord. But this is simply not the normal use of the pluperfect periphrastic construction."

So again, the commentator isn't interested in the true understanding of the verse, but simply in arguing against the "Calvinist" view. Why would that even be relevant, unless the Calvinist view were correct?

(to be continued...)
 
(continuing...)

"What the pluperfect periphrastic does is give the background or state of the main verb at that given time. There are a number of examples in the New Testament of the pluperfect periphrastic being used that way."

Then the commentator tries to support his bankrupt view by referring to other examples of the "pluperfect periphraistic participle". I'm not sure why he drops the term, "participle" above,

1. "Mark 6:52: The REV translation is: “for they had not gained any insight from the miracle of the loaves, but their hearts were hardened.” The periphrastic participle translated “were hardened” is ēn…pepōrōmenē (ἦν αὐτῶν ἡ καρδία πεπωρωμένη)."

Okay... Their hearts had been hardened (pluperfect, completed action far in the past), which is why they did not understand about the loaves.

2. "Acts 9:33: The REV translation is, “And there he [Peter] found a certain man named Aeneas, who had been laid on his bed for eight years, because he was paralyzed.” The periphrastic participle translated “was paralyzed” is ēn paralelumenos (ἦν παραλελυμένος)."
Aeneas "had been paralyzed (pluperfect, completed action far in the past, resulting in him being bedridden. Is this really that difficult to understand?

Peter found him.

3. "Acts 4:31: The translation in the REV is, “the place in which they were gathered together was shaken.” The periphrastic participle translated “were gathered” is ēsan sunēgmenoi(ἦσαν συνηγμένοι). The aorist verb “was shaken” is describing the action, while “were gathered” is the periphrastic participle that describes the background or state during which the shaking occurred.
Yes, they had been gathering together in a place (pluperfect), and then it was shaken. Or would you interpret it as them choosing to gather in a place that was ALREADY shaking?! Seriously?!
"Galatians 4:3: The translation in the REV is, “So we also, when we were minors, were enslaved by the elemental spirits of the world.” The periphrastic participle translated “were enslaved” is ēmetha dedoulōmenoi (ἤμεθα δεδουλωμένοι). The main verb is “were” in the phrase “were children.” The pluperfect periphrastic participle describes their state when they were children, i.e., that they were enslaved. The verb is not making the point that the people had been enslaved in the past, but only that they were enslaved when they were children."

"The verb is not making the poin that the people had been enslaved in the past". This is nothing but a bald denial. The poster doesn't WANT the pluperfect to mean pluperfect. The poster doesn't WANT the pluperfect tense to refer to a completed past action relative to the time of the account.

"The normal use of the pluperfect periphrastic is to denote a state which existed in the past—the people “were appointed”—with implication of a prior occurrence which produced it—the people believed."

This is simply false. The normal use of the pluperfect is to denote the state which existed in the past PRIOR to another stated action happening.

But let's say the commentator is correct.

Robertson has arleady denied that our appointment comes as a "result" of our believing.

Are we to assume that the reason Aeneas was paralzyzed was because he stayed in bed? Seriously?!

Are we to assume that the reason they gathered at the place was because it was shaking? Seriously?!

Just go back and read the proffered examples. Does the text give a reason why Aeneas was paralyzed? No. Does the text give a reason why the land was shaking? No. Does the text give a reason why they were appointed? No.

"Stephen Levinsohn agrees, saying that when a pluperfect periphrastic occurs, they are usually “portrayed as an ongoing state (which results from a completed event).” In this case, some of the Gentiles listening to Paul were appointed to everlasting life because they believed."
Not sure who Stephen Levinsohn is, or why we should blindly accept his opinions. This is the logical fallacy of "appeal to authority", and is ripe for people simply cherry-picking the "scholars" who agree with their view, which is NOT the right way to study Scripture.

The quote attributed to him is certainly correct (in red, above), but what follows is NOT in quotes, and seems to be dishonestly attributed to him. At any rate, it is already refuted by Robertson.

"What is the prior instance that produced their being appointed to everlasting life? Their belief. They believed and then were appointed to everlasting life."

Well, Robertson already refuted this opinion. And the assertion ignores the temporal order of the pluperfect construction.

"Thankfully, in this case, we have help in the interpretation of this verse in the immediate context, which is Acts 13:46, the translation of which is quite clear."

Yes, this is a common argument, however unfortunately for you, it is a bankrupt argument. Acts 13:46 and 13:48 are NOT parallel passages, so you can't project the meaning of one onto the other.

13:46 Since you thrust it aside and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life,
- different verb ("judge")​
- verb is active (Jews are doing the judging);​
- presence of the reciprocal pronoun ("yourselves")​
- statement is in 2nd person​

13:48 and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.
- different verb ("appointed")​
- verb is passive (God is doing the appointing);​
- absence of reciprocal pronoun;​
- statement is in the 3rd person;​
 
(continuing...)

"What the pluperfect periphrastic does is give the background or state of the main verb at that given time. There are a number of examples in the New Testament of the pluperfect periphrastic being used that way."

Then the commentator tries to support his bankrupt view by referring to other examples of the "pluperfect periphraistic participle". I'm not sure why he drops the term, "participle" above,

1. "Mark 6:52: The REV translation is: “for they had not gained any insight from the miracle of the loaves, but their hearts were hardened.” The periphrastic participle translated “were hardened” is ēn…pepōrōmenē (ἦν αὐτῶν ἡ καρδία πεπωρωμένη)."

Okay... Their hearts had been hardened (pluperfect, completed action far in the past), which is why they did not understand about the loaves.

2. "Acts 9:33: The REV translation is, “And there he [Peter] found a certain man named Aeneas, who had been laid on his bed for eight years, because he was paralyzed.” The periphrastic participle translated “was paralyzed” is ēn paralelumenos (ἦν παραλελυμένος)."
Aeneas "had been paralyzed (pluperfect, completed action far in the past, resulting in him being bedridden. Is this really that difficult to understand?

Peter found him.

3. "Acts 4:31: The translation in the REV is, “the place in which they were gathered together was shaken.” The periphrastic participle translated “were gathered” is ēsan sunēgmenoi(ἦσαν συνηγμένοι). The aorist verb “was shaken” is describing the action, while “were gathered” is the periphrastic participle that describes the background or state during which the shaking occurred.
Yes, they had been gathering together in a place (pluperfect), and then it was shaken. Or would you interpret it as them choosing to gather in a place that was ALREADY shaking?! Seriously?!
"Galatians 4:3: The translation in the REV is, “So we also, when we were minors, were enslaved by the elemental spirits of the world.” The periphrastic participle translated “were enslaved” is ēmetha dedoulōmenoi (ἤμεθα δεδουλωμένοι). The main verb is “were” in the phrase “were children.” The pluperfect periphrastic participle describes their state when they were children, i.e., that they were enslaved. The verb is not making the point that the people had been enslaved in the past, but only that they were enslaved when they were children."

"The verb is not making the poin that the people had been enslaved in the past". This is nothing but a bald denial. The poster doesn't WANT the pluperfect to mean pluperfect. The poster doesn't WANT the pluperfect tense to refer to a completed past action relative to the time of the account.

"The normal use of the pluperfect periphrastic is to denote a state which existed in the past—the people “were appointed”—with implication of a prior occurrence which produced it—the people believed."

This is simply false. The normal use of the pluperfect is to denote the state which existed in the past PRIOR to another stated action happening.

But let's say the commentator is correct.

Robertson has arleady denied that our appointment comes as a "result" of our believing.

Are we to assume that the reason Aeneas was paralzyzed was because he stayed in bed? Seriously?!

Are we to assume that the reason they gathered at the place was because it was shaking? Seriously?!

Just go back and read the proffered examples. Does the text give a reason why Aeneas was paralyzed? No. Does the text give a reason why the land was shaking? No. Does the text give a reason why they were appointed? No.

"Stephen Levinsohn agrees, saying that when a pluperfect periphrastic occurs, they are usually “portrayed as an ongoing state (which results from a completed event).” In this case, some of the Gentiles listening to Paul were appointed to everlasting life because they believed."
Not sure who Stephen Levinsohn is, or why we should blindly accept his opinions. This is the logical fallacy of "appeal to authority", and is ripe for people simply cherry-picking the "scholars" who agree with their view, which is NOT the right way to study Scripture.

The quote attributed to him is certainly correct (in red, above), but what follows is NOT in quotes, and seems to be dishonestly attributed to him. At any rate, it is already refuted by Robertson.

"What is the prior instance that produced their being appointed to everlasting life? Their belief. They believed and then were appointed to everlasting life."

Well, Robertson already refuted this opinion. And the assertion ignores the temporal order of the pluperfect construction.
"Thankfully, in this case, we have help in the interpretation of this verse in the immediate context, which is Acts 13:46, the translation of which is quite clear."

Yes, this is a common argument, however unfortunately for you, it is a bankrupt argument. Acts 13:46 and 13:48 are NOT parallel passages, so you can't project the meaning of one onto the other.

13:46 Since you thrust it aside and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life,
- different verb ("judge")​
- verb is active (Jews are doing the judging);​
- presence of the reciprocal pronoun ("yourselves")​
- statement is in 2nd person​

13:48 and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.
- different verb ("appointed")​
- verb is passive (God is doing the appointing);​
- absence of reciprocal pronoun;​
- statement is in the 3rd person;​

It amazes me how you can so utterly confuse such simple things and turn the sublimely simple into a mess like the above.
 
So then why do you direct people to such a worthless and error-ridden commentary?
I don't believe it is worthless and error-ridden.

You're a Calvinist. A very outspoken Calvinist. You would find errors in anything that contradicts or speaks against Calvinism.
 
I don't believe it is worthless and error-ridden.

Then why can't you address my refutations of the worthelss commentary?

You're a Calvinist. A very outspoken Calvinist. You would find errors in anything that contradicts or speaks against Calvinism.

This is a perfect example of why your commentary is worthless.
Like you, the commentary is hopelessly biased.
You simply ASSUME, 'If it supports Calvinism, then it MUST be wrong", but that is fallacious, since it begs the question.

I didn't bring up a "Calvinist" asserrtion even ONCE in my comments. I simply addressed the Biblical text.
 
Then why can't you address my refutations
I do not know Greek well enough to do so.

This is a perfect example of why your commentary is worthless.
Thanks again for your opinion.

Like you, the commentary is hopelessly biased.
You are hopelessly biased towards Calvinism.

You simply ASSUME, 'If it supports Calvinism, then it MUST be wrong", but that is fallacious, since it begs the question.
Well, since Calvinism is a false theology, do the math.

I didn't bring up a "Calvinist" asserrtion even ONCE in my comments. I simply addressed the Biblical text.
...from your Calvinist worldview.
 
I do not know Greek well enough to do so.

Then you have no reason to trust your own commentary, do you?

You are hopelessly biased towards Calvinism.

Worthless ad hominem.
I am hopelessly biased towards the CORRECT UNDERSTANDING OF THE BIBLE.

If the Bible teaches Calvinism, how is that my problem?
Do you not see how worthless an accusation you are making here?

Well, since Calvinism is a false theology,

Prove it.

Oh wait...
You can't address Rom. 8:28-30...
You can't address Rom. 9:11-24...
You can't address Rom. Eph. 1:4-11...
You can't address John 8:34...
You can't address Rom. 6:16-18...
You can't address Eph. 2:1...
You can't address Col. 2:13...
You can't address John 6:44...
You can't address Rom. 8:7-8...
You can't address 1 Cor. 2:14...
You can't address John 1:13...
You can't address Rom. 9:11-13...
You can't address Acts 13:48...
You can't address John 10:26-30...
You can't address Gen. 50:20...
You can't address Isa. 10:5-7...
You can't address Acts 4:27-28...

...from your Calvinist worldview.

... which came from THE BIBLE.
How is that my problem?
 
Then you have no reason to trust your own commentary, do you?



Worthless ad hominem.
I am hopelessly biased towards the CORRECT UNDERSTANDING OF THE BIBLE.

If the Bible teaches Calvinism, how is that my problem?
Do you not see how worthless an accusation you are making here?



Prove it.

Oh wait...
You can't address Rom. 8:28-30...
You can't address Rom. 9:11-24...
You can't address Rom. Eph. 1:4-11...
You can't address John 8:34...
You can't address Rom. 6:16-18...
You can't address Eph. 2:1...
You can't address Col. 2:13...
You can't address John 6:44...
You can't address Rom. 8:7-8...
You can't address 1 Cor. 2:14...
You can't address John 1:13...
You can't address Rom. 9:11-13...
You can't address Acts 13:48...
You can't address John 10:26-30...
You can't address Gen. 50:20...
You can't address Isa. 10:5-7...
You can't address Acts 4:27-28...



... which came from THE BIBLE.
How is that my problem?
I know when to walk away, Theo.

No matter what I said, no matter what scholar I quoted, no matter what argument I made, you would not agree.

You are convinced that Calvinism is the "CORRECT UNDERSTANDING OF THE BIBLE." I can't change that.
However, I am convinced that one day God will.

See you next time around. Maybe.
 
I know when to walk away, Theo.

Yes, you walk away (or run) when you can't defend your worthless claims.

No matter what I said, no matter what scholar I quoted, no matter what argument I made, you would not agree.

Only because I value truth.
And you clearly don't.

You are convinced that Calvinism is the "CORRECT UNDERSTANDING OF THE BIBLE." I can't change that.

If the Bible didn't teach Calvinism, you most certainly would be able to.

However, I am convinced that one day God will.

And you are wrong.
And frankly, it's getting really annoying for you to waste everyone's time "boasting" about how "correct" you are, when you refuse to even defend your bankrupt claims.

If you're not wiling to defend your bankrupt claims, then just shut up already.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top