ha‘almah harah: "a young woman is pregnant"

[gnostic]

Ac 2:34 For David ascended not into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
Ac 2:35 Till I make thine enemies the footstool of thy feet.
Mt 22:43 He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying,
Mt 22:44 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?
Both Peter and the Lord Jesus Christ quoted David from the Septuagint.
These are written and documented in the New Testament. What else do you need?

That whoever wrote Acts and a gospel (traditionally attributed to Luke and Matthew) can quote from Greek sources of Psalms, doesn't prove that David wrote those verses (and chapters) of Psalms.

Like FranklinMichaelV.3 and Jayhawker had written, David didn't write some or most, if not all, of the chapters of Psalms. There were and are disputes of whether David wrote every individual chapters to Psalms. Some showed evidences that they were written later...lot later than David's reign.

 

[Nonconformist]

Psalms 110 does not have Lord and Lord in it like the KJV and the Church's LXX, there are two different Hebrew words and the one is never translated as Lord in the KJV except for Psalms 110, why is that?

Hi Fletch, that was really an awesome piece of research and knowledge of ancient history. You did a very good job.

The words LORD and master in Hebrew are Adonai/LORD and adoni/master.

Therefore, Psalm 110:1 should read like this:
Ps 110:1 The LORD said unto my master, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

And not like as KJV or ASV
Ps 110:1 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

Big difference between these two translations or versions, wasn’t it?

How do we prove which version was the right one?

Dead Sea Scrolls is, one, if not the most treasured findings that one could ever find. It clears all controversies between the ancient Hebrew text to OG/Septuagint to the New Testament to the Masoretic text and today’s different versions of the bible, the OT and the NT.
One of the copies and not a translation/interpretation of DSS is the Isaiah 21:16 where it says, in the DSS version, Isaiah 21:16 DSS VERSION: For thus has the LORD/ADNY/Hebrew/DSS Version said to me, Within a year, according to the years of a hireling, and all the glory of Kedar shall fail;
Here Isaiah was talking about “ADNY/YHWH” as God.
Now, what is the difference between the “ADNY/Isaiah 21:16-DSS VERSION” and “ADONAI/LORD/Psalms 110:1-JPS-MT JewishVersion” and “adoni/master/Psalms 110:1-JPS-MT JewishVersion”?
The translator. Who did the translating? The Masoretes known for the Masoretic text.
Remember, before they found the DSS in 1947/8, the Masoretic text been around for almost 900 to 1000 years AD. IOW: If one needs to correct the Masoretic Text, one needs to see the DSS. DSS and Septuagint should agree with each other, but not with the MT.
The fact that the LXX was not made all at once is plain by the unevenness of its character. Some parts, e.g., the Pentateuch, are a rather literal and accurate translation of the Hebrew text. Other books, such as 1 and 2 Samuel, differ greatly from the Masoretic Text (our present Hebrew Bible). Recent finds at Qumran ("The Dead Sea Scrolls") include a Hebrew MS of Samuel whose text seems very close to the LXX of this book.
I forgot who wrote this:
In the Early Christian Church, the presumption that the Septuagint was translated by Jews before the era of Christ, and that the Septuagint at certain places gives itself more to a christological interpretation than 2nd-century Hebrew texts was taken as evidence that "Jews" had changed the Hebrew text in a way that made them less christological.
For example, Irenaeus [202 AD] concerning Isaiah 7:14: The Septuagint clearly writes of a virgin that shall conceive. While the Hebrew text was, according to Irenaeus, at that time interpreted by Theodotion and Aquila (both proselytes of the Jewish faith) as a young woman that shall conceive. According to Irenaeus, the Ebionites used this to claim that Joseph was the (biological) father of Jesus. From Irenaeus' point of view that was pure heresy, facilitated by (late) anti-Christian alterations of the scripture in Hebrew, as evident by the older, pre-Christian, Septuagint.
When Jerome undertook the revision of the Old Latin translations of the Septuagint, he checked the Septuagint against the Hebrew texts that were then available. He broke with church tradition and translated most of the Old Testament of his Vulgate from Hebrew rather than Greek.

If you compare the “ADNY/DSS-Isaiah 21:16” to “ADONAI/LORD/Psalms 110:1/JPS/MTJV” and “adoni/master/Psalms 110:1/JPS/MT Jewish Version”, you will see that the DSS does not have the VOWEL POINTS.
IOW AGAIN, in the original Ancient Hebrew text/Septuagint/DSS there were no “ADONAI/LORD AND adoni/master” but ONLY THE WORD “ADNY” without the vowel points.
Therefore, base on the Ancient Hebrew text/Septuagint/OG/DSS and not from the JPS Masoretic text-Aquila and Theodotion‘s translations-interpretations, Psalms 110:1 should read without the vowel points,
The Lord (YHWH) says to my Lord (ADNY), Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.
Both the “LORD/YHWH” and the “LORD/ADNY” are the same or are one or UNITED.

Adam Clarke, an 18th Century Anglican Scholar, makes it clear that the work of the Masoretes is, in reality, a commentary which has been integrated into the body of Scripture. However, Clarke points out that the Hebrew of the Masoretic Text (Masoretic Hebrew) is quite different from the Hebrew of the Patriarchs, (Ancient Hebrew) in which Old Covenant Scripture was originally written.
In the General Preface of his commentary on the Scripture, published in 1810, Clarke writes:
"The Masorets were the most extensive Jewish commentators which that nation could ever boast. The system of punctuation, probably invented by them, is a continual gloss on the Law and the Prophets; their vowel points, and prosaic and metrical accents, &c., give every word to which they are affixed a peculiar kind of meaning, which in their simple state, multitudes of them can by no means bear. The vowel points alone add whole conjugations to the language. This system is one of the most artificial, particular, and extensive comments ever written on the Word of God; for there is not one word in the Bible that is not the subject of a particular gloss through its influence. This school is supposed to have commenced about 450 years before our Lord, and to have extended down to AD1030. Some think it did not commence before the 5th century A.D."
Even without adding to, deleting from, or changing a single letter of the Ancient Hebrew manuscripts of Scripture, pointing gave the Masorete power to dramatically change the meaning of almost any given passage of Scripture, for the prerogative of selecting vowels, is, to a large extent, the prerogative of selecting words! As a crude example, consider how the meaning of an English sentence might be changed by substitution of the word "poor" for the word "pure" – a substitution which may be effected by a simple change of vowels.

 

[Nonconformist]

PART 2

Clarke appears to be one of the few commentators who have seen fully the significance of the Masoretic Text – namely, that it is a new "version" of the Scripture, written in a new language. Obviously, Hebrew Scholars have been aware of this fact. They should have called attention to the difference between Ancient Hebrew and the language of the Masoretes, and should have differentiated the two, by use of names such as Ancient Hebrew and Masoretic Hebrew. However, the majority of Hebrew scholars are "Jewish", and thus cannot be expected to be objective and candid regarding such a matter.

By saying that the Aquila‘s, Symmachus‘, and Theodotion‘s, and even Jerome’s translations of the Septuagint-OG were far more accurate than the Septuagint-OG itself is like saying that parts or the whole New Testament never existed, or Jesus as the Christ of God Himself did not really existed at all, or the whole New Testament is nothing but fictions or lies.
My question is, why Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, and even Jerome -ALL PRO JEWISH- after a Century or two AD, needed or even bother to translate the Septuagint-OG, and based these translations on the existing Hebrew text at that time [1st-2nd CE] and not from the Ancient Hebrew [300 BCE] that was used to translate to Greek-Septuagint-OG, in the first place if Jesus as the Christ of God and the New Testament did not really existed at all?
For the simple reason, these translations were in fact nothing but their own [PRO JEWISH] interpretations of the Septuagint-OG, BECAUSE this, the Septuagint-OG, proved that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God in the New Testament that we are using today, and that was the reason for all these translations and interpretations.
Therefore, by translating-interpreting by these people, Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, and even Jerome, could somehow disprove from their [PRO JEWISH] translations-interpretations that the Septuagint-OG was not really what it was saying about who Jesus really is, the Christ of God, the Son of living God, and even the apostles’ writings, and now the New Testament.
The funny thing is, people today are saying the words “Old Testament” as if there is a "New Testament" but actually never believe that it -NT- really existed at all.
If we really think hard, when the 72 Jews were translating the ancient Hebrew text in the 3rd-1st Century BC they were not influence or thinking about Christianity, or the New Testament, or the apostles writings. They were not bias on anything during the writings.
After the apostles proved from the OG-Septuagint that Jesus is the Christ only then the Jews started making comparisons by making their own translations-interpretations by means of translating and interpreting the Hebrew text [NOT THE ANCIENT HEBREW TEXT] at that time [1st to 5th CE] and not from the Ancient Hebrew were the Septuagint/OG was based on.
The Jews in the 1st CENTURY AD knew about the apostles writings known today as the New Testament. They knew that these, the apostles’ writings, were proof from the Septuagint/OG that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of living God.
When the 72 Jews translated the Ancient Hebrew text to Greek-Septuagint-OG-LXX, the Jews started using these translations right away and for almost 200 years BC they were not complaining about these translations at all.
“The Jews of Alexandria, on hearing the Law read in Greek-SEPTUAGINT, request copies and lay a curse on anyone who would change the translation.”
They gave up on the Septuagint/OG in the 1st CENTURY CE, because Christian Jews and Gentiles were using it as their bible, and they, THE Jews, made their own translations-interpretations, but they were not like the 72 Jews who were un-prejudice or influence by any group. Their [Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, and even Jerome] translations/interpretations were influence or pressured by the Septuagint-OG-LXX.
If one really think this hardly enough one would ask why they need to translate and interpret the Septuagint-OG-LXX into another Greek translation-interpretation if there was no motive or intention to change the Septuagint-OG-LXX to begin with.
Why they need to change the OG-Septuagint?
They, the Jews, and Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, and even Jerome saw the Lord Jesus Christ in the Septuagint-OG-LXX.
it’s all about denying the Lord Jesus Christ from the Septuagint-OG-LXX that were proven by the apostles and nothing else.
The New Testament today is like the Septuagint-OG-LXX back in the 1st CENTURY AD or even earlier. We see lots of false translations/interpretations of the NT. Like the Septuagint-OG-LXX the Jews and these semi hybrid Christians and even atheists today were challenging the apostles’ writings, the NT.
Why they need to change the New Testament?
They, the Jews, these semi hybrid Christians, and everyone who thinks
they knew more than the apostles’ saw the same as were Jews saw in the 1st CENTURY AD, and that is the Lord Jesus Christ in the NT proven from the Septuagint-OG-LXX.

People are trying to disprove the New Testament, that according to them it does not exist at all, by means of changing the meaning of words written in the Old Testament. Why change the meaning of the words written in the O.T. if the New Testament is nothing but a hoax or did not exist at all?

Chasing a ghost? Creating their own fear/monster.

Mt 28:12 And when they were assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel, they gave much money unto the soldiers,
Mt 28:13 saying, Say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept.
Mt 28:14 And if this come to the governor's ears, we will persuade him, and rid you of care.
Mt 28:15 So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying was spread abroad among the Jews, and continueth until this day.

EMPTY TOMB THEORY
Matthew offers this section as the origin of the "widely circulated" Jewish explanation for the empty tomb, still common in the days of Justin Martyr.

BTW who is Uri Yoseph?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Clarke appears to be one of the few commentators who have seen fully the significance of the Masoretic Text – namely, that it is a new "version" of the Scripture, written in a new language.

New version as compared to what?

Obviously, Hebrew Scholars have been aware of this fact.

Which "Hebrew Scholars" did you have in mind?

They should have called attention to the difference between Ancient Hebrew and the language of the Masoretes, ...

Such as?

However, the majority of Hebrew scholars are "Jewish", and thus cannot be expected to be objective and candid regarding such a matter.

What a piece of pompous antisemitic drivel.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Put ...

"Adam Clarke, an 18th Century Anglican Scholar, makes it clear that the work of the Masoretes is, in reality, a commentary which has been integrated into the body of Scripture."​

... and you'll find that this antisemitic crap has been regurgitated for years ...

 

[Fletch]

Nonconformist,

You are claiming that because the DSS scrolls have no vowel points, that the translation then somehow agrees with today's Christian LXX translation and is against the Masoretic?

That is hilarious, surely you jest?

Why don't you simply say you do not accept the Masoretic text? The Isaiah scroll backed up the Masoretic text, even Isaiah 7:14 has almah and not the the Hebrew word for virgin, bethulah.

Even without printed vowel points, th rdr mst stll sppl vwls t th txt whn rdng t.

Since this is not a Ps110 thread, I will stop.

Fletch

PS Who is Uri Yosef?

A friend, here is a link to his papers that I forgot to add to that last post.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

That is hilarious, surely you jest?

It is not 'hilarious.' It is ignorant in the extreme.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Who was this prophet talking to David that was talking about Solomon?
Are you saying that king Solomon was the one sitting at the right hand of God in Psalm 110:1?
You gonna have a hard time debating this with the Jews

No I"m saying that the prophecy that Nathan gave to David in 2 Samuel 7:12-16 is related to Solomon not Jesus. I have seen the attempt to say that it's talking about both but the line about sin clearly points out that it's not talking about Jesus.

 

[CG Didymus]

... Masoretic Text – namely, that it is a new "version" of the Scripture, written in a new language. Obviously, Hebrew Scholars have been aware of this fact. They should have called attention to the difference between Ancient Hebrew and the language of the Masoretes, and should have differentiated the two, by use of names such as Ancient Hebrew and Masoretic Hebrew. However, the majority of Hebrew scholars are "Jewish", and thus cannot be expected to be objective and candid regarding such a matter.

So the ancient Hebrews said that God spoke with them and God had them write some things down, and most Christians agree that those things were true. But now, the Masoretes changed the words to suit their beliefs? Jewish scholars know this but can't be trusted to be "objective" or "candid"? I thought they meticulously copied and rechecked their work to make sure the scrolls were perfect? But when we talk about biases, who among the Christians has it right? The Catholics, JW's, Mormons, Pentacostals? Yet still I hear Christians swear that God has preserved his Word intact?

So in the original, original, the perfect one, is ha'almah harah even in there? Or, does it say something like: "King Ahaz, you're a no good king and to prove it a young girl, who is still a virgin, is going to give birth to the Son of God in 700 years. Who, by the way, will also be the Messiah and, by the way, is also God himself. But don't expect him to fulfill the prophecies about restoring the kingdom. That won't happen until he comes back a second time."

Unless it says something like that then Christians still have a problem forcing this verse into a prophesy about Jesus. So what did the ancient Hebrew scrolls say?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So in the original, original, the perfect one, ...

Which, by the way, is to be found where?

 

[gnostic]

Hi Fletch, that was really an awesome piece of research and knowledge of ancient history. You did a very good job.

The words LORD and master in Hebrew are Adonai/LORD and adoni/master.

Therefore, Psalm 110:1 should read like this:
Ps 110:1 The LORD said unto my master, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

And not like as KJV or ASV
Ps 110:1 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

Big difference between these two translations or versions, wasn’t it?

How do we prove which version was the right one?

Dead Sea Scrolls is, one, if not the most treasured findings that one could ever find. It clears all controversies between the ancient Hebrew text to OG/Septuagint to the New Testament to the Masoretic text and today’s different versions of the bible, the OT and the NT.

How does that help us?

DSS doesn't have Psalms 110, so there is no possible way to compare DSS to KJV or ASV, to show accuracy of one to another.

And you are forgetting, or perhaps that you don't know, that the DSS may show that there are some differences concerning with Masoretic Text, but they are also showed identical wordings and context in other areas.

Just as DSS have differences and similarities to the Masoretic Text, so it (DSS) does with the Septuagint, just as there are similarities and differences between the Septuagint and Masoretic Text.

And let's face the hard cold facts, the large majority of translations of the Hebrew scriptures (Jewish Tanakh or Christian Old Testament) involved with the KJV translation, the Masoretic Text was the main source, but the KJV translators did supplement certain passages with the Greek sources.

Most of KJV sources for the Old Testament that relied on the Septuagint, mainly come it reliance on the New Testament quotes, because Paul, Matthew, Luke and other NT authors had relied on the Greek sources instead of the Hebrew sources, because most of these authors probably couldn't read Hebrew, because Hebrew was no longer the common language.

Only those with specialized skills, such as scribes, scholars, historians, and priesthood knew how to comfortably read and write Hebrew.

If you relied on the KJV translation, then you should know that KJV bible owe it more to the Hebrew Masoretic Text than to the Greek Septuagint Bible.

But getting back to my points. Psalms 110 is missing in the DSS, so we can't compare which, if any, the Septuagint or the Masoretic Text is more accurate.

Now unless we have something older written in Hebrew that predate both DSS and Septuagint (and of course, the Masoretic Text), we have no real way to determine which is the original context to Psalms 110:1.

And none of these, help us in any way, to determine if David was the original author to the chapter 110 of Psalms.

I still don't see how the NT authors of Matthew 22 and Acts 2 quoting Psalms 110:1 prove your points that Septuagint is more accurate.

There are other areas that the DSS disagree with the Septuagint.

Unfortunately, DSS is not complete in many of the scrolls. Some parts of them are lost, so comparison isn't possible, such as Psalms 110.

I wished they have complete scrolls of Genesis, because I would love to compare DSS against both Masoretic and Septuagint, especially the genealogy in Genesis 5 and Genesis 11:10-32. Only 2 verses survive Genesis 5, and Genesis 11 is completely lost. I would like to see how much DSS agree or disagree with the number of years in MT and Septuagint.

Like I said only 2 verses, survived in Genesis 5 - 5:13-14 -

13 * And] Kenan [lived eight hundred and forty years after he became the father of Mahalalel, and had other sons and daughters. 14 * So all the days of Kenan were nine hundred and ten years, and he died.]

This is the Septuagint translation from NETS (the New English Translation of the Septuagint) of 3 verses (including the DSS missing 5:12):

12 And Kainan lived on hundred seventy years and became the father of Maleleel. 13 And Kainan lived after he became father of Maleleel seven hundred and forty years and had sons and daughters. 14 all the days of Kainan amounted to nine hundred ten years, and he died.

Now most English translations are based on Masoretic Text, even including KJV. It would seem that you favor KJV, so I have including this translation as well as that of NJPS (the New Jewish Publication Society translation to the Tanakh.

12 And Cainan lived seventy years and begat Mahalaleel:

13 And Cainan lived after he begat Mahalaleel eight hundred and forty years, and begat sons and daughters:

14 And all the days of Cainan were nine hundred and ten years: and he died.

12 When Kenan had lived 70 years, he begot Mahalalel. 13 After the birth of Mahalalel, Kenan lived 840 years and begot sons and daughters. 14 All the days of Kenan came to 910 years; then he died.

The reasons why I show you all these quote from Genesis 5 is that you were so ready to dismiss the Masoretic Text in favor of the Septuagint.

Since both KJV and NJPS based their respective translations on the Masoretic Text for their Genesis genealogy, the number of years that Kenen/Kainan/Cainan lived after Mahalalel's birth.

All of them may say Kenan died at age 910. But only the Septuagint say that Kenan/Kainan was 170 when his son was born, and lived another 740 years afterward.

The Masoretic Text (found in KJV, NJPS, NRSV, NIV), on the other hand, say that Kenan lived another 840 years after Mahalalel's/Mahalaleel's birth, and the Masoretic Text say that Kenan was 70 when his son was born.

These figures in Masoretic Text are in agreement with DSS of Genesis 5:13-14. Like I said before verse 12 is missing in DSS. However, we can deduce Kainan's age to be 70, by simple arithmetic: 910 - 840 = 70 years.

But this topic is really about Isaiah 7:!4, not Genesis 5 or Psalms 110.

Looking at the current translation of Isaiah 7:14 from DSS, we have this translation:

14 Look, the young woman has conceived and is bearing a son, and his name will be Immanuel.

Now compared this with NJPS translation of the Tanakh, we have:

14 Look, the young woman is with child and about to give birth to a son. Let her name him Immanuel.

Both DSS and NJPS (hence Masoretic Text) have translated ha'almah to "the young woman", not "a virgin" (like in KJV).

And DSS has been translated harah to "has conceived", while harah was translated to "is with child". Both means the young woman was PRESENTLY pregnant.

When Isaiah was talking to Ahaz, she was probably present in Ahaz's court, when the king to "look", there is a pregnant woman.

Other occurrences of harah can be found in the KJV translations to be presently pregnant - hence "with child" - in Genesis 16:11 ("thou art with child", Exodus 21:22 ("woman with child"), Jeremiah 31:8 ("woman with child").

In Hebrew הָרֶה or harah is a feminine adjective, so it is equivalent to English adjective word - "pregnant".

Unfortunately, I only have transliteration of 7:14 from the Masoretic Text. I have not seen the transliteration from the DSS, because it would be interesting to compare the two transliteration.

PS Please note that any quote of the translation to DSS, come from the book, titled The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

And none of these, help us in any way, to determine if David was the original author to the chapter 110 of Psalms.

Why would one think so? Attribution is far from reliable evidence.

 

[gnostic]

Why would one think so? Attribution is far from reliable evidence.

true

I didn't say David was the author. I am just saying that there are no way to determine David to be the author, attribution or not.

 

[CG Didymus]

Which, by the way, is to be found where?

I think Nonconformist has a copy. Or, if not, he has the original memorized in his head.

 

[gnostic]

I think Nonconformist has a copy. Or, if not, he has the original memorized in his head.

I've gotta get myself a copy then.

 

[CG Didymus]

I've gotta get myself a copy then.

Sincerly could lend you his.

But seriously, if you and I had a vision of what the "truth" is and wrote a book, how relevant would that be thousands of years later? Can't we take the "truths" of the people before us and sort out the good stuff and leave off the bad? Like taking things too literally? What did Jesus want us to do? What is the crux of the Law? Love God and love your neighbor. The rest is fluff.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I think Nonconformist has a copy.

Damn! And I was hoping to bid on it on eBay.

 

[Nonconformist]

So in the original, original, the perfect one, is ha'almah harah even in there? Or, does it say something like: "King Ahaz, you're a no good king and to prove it a young girl, who is still a virgin, is going to give birth to the Son of God in 700 years. Who, by the way, will also be the Messiah and, by the way, is also God himself. But don't expect him to fulfill the prophecies about restoring the kingdom. That won't happen until he comes back a second time."
Unless it says something like that then Christians still have a problem forcing this verse into a prophesy about Jesus. So what did the ancient Hebrew scrolls say?

Who do you think is the Emmanuel in Isaiah’s 7:14?

So the ancient Hebrews said that God spoke with them and God had them write some things down, and most Christians agree that those things were true.

I was talking about the Ancient Hebrew bible, not the Masoretic text, as the source of the 72 Jewish translator that translated this Ancient Hebrew bible into the Greek version known as the Septuagint/OG/LXX. The Jews were using this Greek/Septuagint/OG/LXX version for almost 200 years BCE and during that time there were no Christians yet. Timeline is very important when translating or studying ancient history.

No I"m saying that the prophecy that Nathan gave to David in 2 Samuel 7:12-16 is related to Solomon not Jesus. I have seen the attempt to say that it's talking about both but the line about sin clearly points out that it's not talking about Jesus.

Are we still in Psalm 110:1?

When Isaiah was talking to Ahaz, she was probably present in Ahaz's court, when the king to "look", there is a pregnant woman.

I am certain that the Immanuel is the same person as Maher-shalal-hash-baz in Isaiah 8:1-3, because of the similar sign (8:4) being given to child:

“Certain” is definite while “probably” is probably certain or definite or not at all unless you are talking two different pregnant women here.

 

[Nonconformist]

I think Nonconformist has a copy. Or, if not, he has the original memorized in his head.

I'm sorry if I offended you or anyone else here. I can not go down to this kind of level. if you have any knowledge at all about this topic its better if you share it so we can learn something from each other. We can trade insults all day long but where is that gonna take us?

 

[Nonconformist]

Damn! And I was hoping to bid on it on eBay.

Wow! You know when I first saw your medals and the numbers of your posts I was in awe and said to myself that this man is a learned man to have those medals.