This doctrine of "CONTEXT" is really getting to me. I am all for looking at things in proper context, but it seems many use it as a license to rewrite clear scriptures to mean something other than what is obvious. Case in point with "All men": most ETers say "all men" doesn't really mean all men - we have to look at the context. Therefore verses like 1 Tim 2:4 and 1 Tim 4:10 don't preach universal salvation. They say "all men" rarely means literally all men.
I would like to take this in a different direction. We know ALL MEN sin, correct? Oh REALLY? What verse says ALL MEN sin? Did you look into the context of who the "all men" was? All rarely means all.
So here is the experiment. I will look at different verses that allegedly "prove" all men are sinners, then I will look at the context to prove that all men don't really sin. Help me out tentmakers! Throw your best "proof-texts" at me and I will show you what the context really says. (BTW I fully expect to fail eventually, but I am interested in how far this context twisting can be stretched).
--
Let me start off with an easy one:
Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned
Yes sin entered the world. But does "world" mean literally all men? I think not. See Adam brought sin into the world, and many men are sinners, but not ALL.
Is this really talking about all men? Have all men really sinned? Well did Jesus sin? Jesus was a man right? So at least we must conceed all is not really the entire all. Who else is left out of the "all men" - How about newborns, just seconds old. Have they sinned? I don't think so. How about those who are not ungodly (verse 6) - if you are not ungodly, then you are godly, and you haven't sinned. Check Romans 5:6. It tells us who Christ died for: Christ died for the UNGODLY. He didn't die for the Godly, because they have no sins. Verse 7 says as much. Look at verse 14: Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned... WOW did you see that? SOME HAD NOT SINNED! How can all men be all men then?
Look at verse 15 and verse 19 for clarification. Clearly it is only many who have sinned, likewise it is the same many that Christ died for. Only many sinned, and Christ died for those same many, because Christ died for the ungodly.
So who is the "all men" that have sinned really talking about? First, as I have shown, it is not all, it is only many. It is specifically the ungodly. But which ungodly? We must continue to look at the context.
Who is Paul talking to here?
Romans 5:8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners
Who is the "us"? Who is the "we" who are "sinners"? Clearly the context is Paul talking to Romans in a letter. Paul is talking about himself and the Romans. More specifically, Paul is talking about himself and the churches in Rome.
In this context, it is only them who are the sinners - the churches in Rome! They are the ungodly Paul is referring to. Yes there are other sinners in the world too. But can this chapter be shown as proof that all men have sinned? I don't think so. You would have to ignore the context.
--
I can't believe I wrote something that absurd, yet in a strange twisted way - it makes sense? Now the challenge is out: show me a verse you think "proves" all men are sinners, and I will demonstrate using "CONTEXT" that you are "incorrect". ALSO Please don't confuse my ramblings here for the truth!
I hope to show that this doctrine of "CONTEXT" is really just a doctrine of "WORD TWISTING".
CHALLENGE ON! :Sparkletooth:
There are a lot of smart people on carm that would like to read this.... :laughing7:
As you wrote Jesus was no sinner. He was the savior. Therefore not all can be saved because that would mean Jesus came to save Himself too.
Eze 18:4 "Behold, all souls are Mine; The soul of the father As well as the soul of the son is Mine; The soul who sins shall die.
cant think of one person who has sinned that didnt die.
chuckt
Quote from: chuckt on June 17, 2009, 06:24:11 PM
Eze 18:4 "Behold, all souls are Mine; The soul of the father As well as the soul of the son is Mine; The soul who sins shall die.
cant think of one person who has sinned that didnt die.
chuckt
Hmm, thats a good one euty, but you underestimate the DOCTRINE OF CONTEXT! MWHUAHAHAHA (evil laugh).
Let me see where to begin...
Actually I think this one is refuted fairly easily. Yes all people die. But I did show previously in Romans 5:14 (Yes I know this is "out of context") that Death reigned over men, "
even over those who had not sinned".
So what is Eze 18 talking about? It says the soul that sins dies. Quite true. But what about the rest? It doesn't say. Based on Romans 5:14, we must conclude the following: The soul that doesn't sin - it also dies!
So while I agree that all people die, it doesn't necessarily prove all men sin.
--
Your first mistake was assuming you are dealing with a rational mind... :winkgrin:
Romans 5:19
For as through the disobedience of the one man, the many were constituted sinners: so also through the obedience of the one, shall the many be constituted righteous.
Don't the scriptures say Jesus became sin?
Perhaps flesh, itself, is the sin.
I think 100 man are many man. So the many means 100 men. 200 tops.
Quoteeven over those who had not sinned
why did you stop there??
Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned
according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
:happy3:
God told adam...dying YE SHALL DIE...... adam was already dieing physically, the norm at that time was to live till 1000 yrs adam died at 730, in that day 1000 is as a day, leaving 70.
euty...er um...chuckt
Quote from: chuckt on June 17, 2009, 07:02:05 PM
Quoteeven over those who had not sinned
why did you stop there??
Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
Because that doesn't help with the context! :happy3:
Next verse please...
Quote from: Beloved Servant on June 17, 2009, 06:56:02 PM
Don't the scriptures say Jesus became sin?
Perhaps flesh, itself, is the sin.
What you say sounds plausible. But I need chapter and verse # so I can check the context :winkgrin:
Quote from: legoman on June 17, 2009, 07:03:35 PM
Quote from: chuckt on June 17, 2009, 07:02:05 PM
Quoteeven over those who had not sinned
why did you stop there??
Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
Because that doesn't help with the context! :happy3:
Next verse please...
that was quick i was modifying:
God told adam...dying YE SHALL DIE...... adam was already dieing physically, the norm at that time was to live till 1000 yrs adam died at 730, in that day 1000 is as a day, leaving 70.
euty...er um...chuckt
i cant post on this thread it reminds me of carm :mshock: :laughing7:
Jb 1:8 So Yahweh said to Satan, Have you set your heart on My servant Job? For there is no one like him on the earth, a man flawless and upright, fearing Elohim and withdrawing from evil.
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on June 17, 2009, 07:06:49 PM
Jb 1:8 So Yahweh said to Satan, Have you set your heart on My servant Job? For there is no one like him on the earth, a man flawless and upright, fearing Elohim and withdrawing from evil.
Good point Paul. Proof that it is possible that there can be a man who is sinless (flawless)!
Quote from: chuckt on June 17, 2009, 07:04:54 PM
i cant post on this thread it reminds me of carm :mshock: :laughing7:
No problem :laughing7: (if you notice I haven't posted at CARM much lately).
Anyway, I'm surprised no one has brought up Romans 3:10 yet. There's a lot of CONTEXT there I can
rewrite meaning with dig into :laughing7:
Quote from: legoman on June 17, 2009, 07:14:30 PM
Quote from: chuckt on June 17, 2009, 07:04:54 PM
i cant post on this thread it reminds me of carm :mshock: :laughing7:
No problem :laughing7: (if you notice I haven't posted at CARM much lately).
Anyway, I'm surprised no one has brought up Romans 3:10 yet. There's a lot of CONTEXT there I can rewrite meaning with dig into :laughing7:
Or we can just say the bible is contradictory and can't be trusted. ;)
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on June 17, 2009, 07:29:17 PM
Or we can just say the bible is contradictory and can't be trusted. ;)
Perhaps this whole thread is just a bit silly. But I've actually had conversations like this with ETers. Check out my thread at pychen's xanga blog if you want to see an exercise in frustration.
His main point so far has been that "every knee bowing and every tongue swearing allegiance" in Isaiah 45:23 is not really talking about everyone - because we have to look at the CONTEXT. He contends its only really Israel that does this and thus only Israel is saved - that is what the context shows.
THEN Why does it say "every knee bows" instead of "all Israel bows"?
Of course I made the mistake in assuming I am dealing with a rational mind....
Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
2 Corinthians 5:21 (Young's Literal Translation)
21 for him who did not know sin, in our behalf He did make sin, that we may become the righteousness of God in him.
Quote from: legoman on June 17, 2009, 07:37:53 PM
Perhaps this whole thread is just a bit silly. But I've actually had conversations like this with ETers. Check out my thread at pychen's xanga blog if you want to see an exercise in frustration.
Not silly, but the arguments of context then become who's context is correct. My typical responce is that there is no scriptural declaration that obligates me to agree with their context in the first place.
Quote from: Beloved Servant on June 17, 2009, 07:38:21 PM
Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
2 Corinthians 5:21 (Young's Literal Translation)
21 for him who did not know sin, in our behalf He did make sin, that we may become the righteousness of God in him.
Alright, let the context twisting begin. Actually I'm not sure how much longer I can keep this up without losing my sanity...
First, the oldest trick in the book. Who is this letter to? The CORINTHIANS! There is your context! Paul is talking to the Corinthians, so when He refers to "our sins" He means only specifically the Corinthians.
Verse 20 refers to God reconciling the "world". Clearly this doesn't mean everyone because we already know some people don't sin. He merely means, throughout the world, there are some sinners, and God will reconcile those sinners. Not everyone will be or even needs to be reconciled. Only the sinners (who are not everyone).
So there is your context for verse 21. Christ became sin on behalf of "
us" - namely the Corinthians, but also sinners throughout the world.
Again, no proof that everyone sins.
Peace... isn't it fun what you can come up with when words change meaning?
Hey Legoman!
good twisting!
Funny thing though, when I read what you did I get an awful feeling in the pit of my stomach.
That stuff just doesn't "agree with me."
Quote from: legoman on June 17, 2009, 05:46:09 PM
This doctrine of "CONTEXT" is really getting to me. I am all for looking at things in proper context, but it seems many use it as a license to rewrite clear scriptures to mean something other than what is obvious. Case in point with "All men": most ETers say "all men" doesn't really mean all men - we have to look at the context. Therefore verses like 1 Tim 2:4 and 1 Tim 4:10 don't preach universal salvation. They say "all men" rarely means literally all men.
I would like to take this in a different direction. We know ALL MEN sin, correct? Oh REALLY? What verse says ALL MEN sin? Did you look into the context of who the "all men" was? All rarely means all.
So here is the experiment. I will look at different verses that allegedly "prove" all men are sinners, then I will look at the context to prove that all men don't really sin. Help me out tentmakers! Throw your best "proof-texts" at me and I will show you what the context really says. (BTW I fully expect to fail eventually, but I am interested in how far this context twisting can be stretched).
--
Let me start off with an easy one:
Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned
Yes sin entered the world. But does "world" mean literally all men? I think not. See Adam brought sin into the world, and many men are sinners, but not ALL.
Is this really talking about all men? Have all men really sinned? Well did Jesus sin? Jesus was a man right? So at least we must conceed all is not really the entire all. Who else is left out of the "all men" - How about newborns, just seconds old. Have they sinned? I don't think so. How about those who are not ungodly (verse 6) - if you are not ungodly, then you are godly, and you haven't sinned. Check Romans 5:6. It tells us who Christ died for: Christ died for the UNGODLY. He didn't die for the Godly, because they have no sins. Verse 7 says as much. Look at verse 14: Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned... WOW did you see that? SOME HAD NOT SINNED! How can all men be all men then?
Look at verse 15 and verse 19 for clarification. Clearly it is only many who have sinned, likewise it is the same many that Christ died for. Only many sinned, and Christ died for those same many, because Christ died for the ungodly.
So who is the "all men" that have sinned really talking about? First, as I have shown, it is not all, it is only many. It is specifically the ungodly. But which ungodly? We must continue to look at the context.
Who is Paul talking to here?
Romans 5:8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners
Who is the "us"? Who is the "we" who are "sinners"? Clearly the context is Paul talking to Romans in a letter. Paul is talking about himself and the Romans. More specifically, Paul is talking about himself and the churches in Rome.
In this context, it is only them who are the sinners - the churches in Rome! They are the ungodly Paul is referring to. Yes there are other sinners in the world too. But can this chapter be shown as proof that all men have sinned? I don't think so. You would have to ignore the context.
--
I can't believe I wrote something that absurd, yet in a strange twisted way - it makes sense? Now the challenge is out: show me a verse you think "proves" all men are sinners, and I will demonstrate using "CONTEXT" that you are "incorrect". ALSO Please don't confuse my ramblings here for the truth!
I hope to show that this doctrine of "CONTEXT" is really just a doctrine of "WORD TWISTING".
CHALLENGE ON! :Sparkletooth:
:laughing7:
Congratulations; with that example, you've just become a calvinist!
There are good points to be made here. However, an extreme one way or another, if that's all it is, an extreme, IMO is not good. Neither are.
Anyone can twist just about anything. IMO, it's the heart, the understanding, and the twisting that's the problem, not PROPER context. There are a lot of bad doctors...doesn't mean medicine is evil so I'll never go to a doctor again. Word twisting and context are not necessarily the same things. Just because it can be misused, doesn't mean it's bad. People misuse the Word of God. Does that make the Word bad?
IMO, NOT using PROPER context can be just as damaging as using IMPROPER context. One can twist either way, and I've seen it done...both extremes. Reminds me of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. As long as we're reasoning, let's be reasonable please.
Paul's statement (which in and of itself, I'm not picking at) "Or we can just say the bible is contradictory and can't be trusted. ;)" can be argued if using either "dishonest" method...no context, or twisted-misused-for-my-own-purposes context.
IMO, if someone's misusing context (and as Paul says, sometimes that's debatable) why not reason over PROPER meaning, useage, OVERALL context of scripture, rather than just jumping into another inaccurate extreme? My :2c:.
Quote from: Beloved Servant on June 17, 2009, 09:22:46 PM
Hey Legoman!
good twisting!
Funny thing though, when I read what you did I get an awful feeling in the pit of my stomach.
That stuff just doesn't "agree with me."
I was feeling the same thing as I wrote it. Thus why I don't think I will continue with this much longer...
Quote from: Doc on June 17, 2009, 09:23:49 PM
Quote from: legoman on June 17, 2009, 05:46:09 PM
This doctrine of "CONTEXT" is really getting to me. I am all for looking at things in proper context, but it seems many use it as a license to rewrite clear scriptures to mean something other than what is obvious. Case in point with "All men": most ETers say "all men" doesn't really mean all men - we have to look at the context. Therefore verses like 1 Tim 2:4 and 1 Tim 4:10 don't preach universal salvation. They say "all men" rarely means literally all men.
I would like to take this in a different direction. We know ALL MEN sin, correct? Oh REALLY? What verse says ALL MEN sin? Did you look into the context of who the "all men" was? All rarely means all.
So here is the experiment. I will look at different verses that allegedly "prove" all men are sinners, then I will look at the context to prove that all men don't really sin. Help me out tentmakers! Throw your best "proof-texts" at me and I will show you what the context really says. (BTW I fully expect to fail eventually, but I am interested in how far this context twisting can be stretched).
--
Let me start off with an easy one:
Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned
Yes sin entered the world. But does "world" mean literally all men? I think not. See Adam brought sin into the world, and many men are sinners, but not ALL.
Is this really talking about all men? Have all men really sinned? Well did Jesus sin? Jesus was a man right? So at least we must conceed all is not really the entire all. Who else is left out of the "all men" - How about newborns, just seconds old. Have they sinned? I don't think so. How about those who are not ungodly (verse 6) - if you are not ungodly, then you are godly, and you haven't sinned. Check Romans 5:6. It tells us who Christ died for: Christ died for the UNGODLY. He didn't die for the Godly, because they have no sins. Verse 7 says as much. Look at verse 14: Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned... WOW did you see that? SOME HAD NOT SINNED! How can all men be all men then?
Look at verse 15 and verse 19 for clarification. Clearly it is only many who have sinned, likewise it is the same many that Christ died for. Only many sinned, and Christ died for those same many, because Christ died for the ungodly.
So who is the "all men" that have sinned really talking about? First, as I have shown, it is not all, it is only many. It is specifically the ungodly. But which ungodly? We must continue to look at the context.
Who is Paul talking to here?
Romans 5:8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners
Who is the "us"? Who is the "we" who are "sinners"? Clearly the context is Paul talking to Romans in a letter. Paul is talking about himself and the Romans. More specifically, Paul is talking about himself and the churches in Rome.
In this context, it is only them who are the sinners - the churches in Rome! They are the ungodly Paul is referring to. Yes there are other sinners in the world too. But can this chapter be shown as proof that all men have sinned? I don't think so. You would have to ignore the context.
--
I can't believe I wrote something that absurd, yet in a strange twisted way - it makes sense? Now the challenge is out: show me a verse you think "proves" all men are sinners, and I will demonstrate using "CONTEXT" that you are "incorrect". ALSO Please don't confuse my ramblings here for the truth!
I hope to show that this doctrine of "CONTEXT" is really just a doctrine of "WORD TWISTING".
CHALLENGE ON! :Sparkletooth:
:laughing7:
Congratulations; with that example, you've just become a calvinist!
Oh dear, what have I become...
LOL actually as I was writing it I was sort of thinking this still has a UR message.
Hey not everyone is a sinner, so not everyone needs a savior (only those who sinned)! And Christ came to save only the sinners. The rest are ok as they are, don't need saving, so everyone is happy! Yay we still got UR!
LOL I know it is twisted... please forgive me.
Quote from: jabcat on June 17, 2009, 09:27:21 PM
There are good points to be made here. However, an extreme one way or another, if that's all it is, an extreme, IMO is not good. Neither are.
Anyone can twist just about anything. IMO, it's the heart, the understanding, and the twisting that's the problem, not PROPER context. There are a lot of bad doctors...doesn't mean medicine is evil so I'll never go to a doctor again. Word twisting and context are not necessarily the same things. Just because it can be misused, doesn't mean it's bad. People misuse the Word of God. Does that make the Word bad?
IMO, NOT using PROPER context can be just as damaging as using IMPROPER context. One can twist either way, and I've seen it done...both extremes. Reminds me of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. As long as we're reasoning, let's be reasonable please.
Paul's statement (which in and of itself, I'm not picking at) "Or we can just say the bible is contradictory and can't be trusted. ;)" can be argued if using either "dishonest" method...no context, or twisted-misused-for-my-own-purposes context.
IMO, if someone's misusing context (and as Paul says, sometimes that's debatable) why not reason over PROPER meaning, useage, OVERALL context of scripture, rather than just jumping into another inaccurate extreme? My :2c:.
Agreed. To summarize, as I said in the other thread: twisting the words of a scripture, and then calling it "context", is just plain wrong.
I think this (and the other) thread have helped me immensely as I now know how to answer better when someone says you are taking things out of context.
Simply: context is necessary to understand the passage, but should not be abused to change the meaning of words.
Legoman
Context is the only way to read the Bible. But the Bible being the Bible creates a bit of a multi-level aspect to that contextual issue. But context is the only way to read the Bible, even if it makes you do what everybody in the Bible tells you to do, which is to study to show yourself approved as a workman that needeth not to be ashamed. There's the issue of context within the frame-work of the whole epistle of the New Testament that you're reading from, context from the issue of the whole Body of Jesus' teachings and particularly after the Cross as would be interpreted for us by Luke and Paul since they wrote the most in/of the New Testament. And then there's the issue of from the perspective of how such and such further elaborates or is held in check by the Covenants of the Bible under consideration, and the Character of God. Just depends on how deep of an issue we're talking with how far you need to go with context. It's true that 353 passages regarding the Universal Restoration of themselves don't establish the Universal Restoration.
You need all of the supporting texts with regards to the character of God, His unchanging Purpose, the Unity of His Person and His Purpose, His Wisdom and Power to see His purpose carried out, His ability to have thoughts that wouldn't be the thoughts of the carnal [vengeful] mind, and every other thing that's consistent with the whole of His Creation, His design for His Creation, and His holiness and intent for obedience and holiness for all. Helps to know, as Paula White would say that "God's original intention is His final decision." If you want to make a doctrine for the futility of man, then you've established ET conclusively. If you want to make a doctrine for the obliteration of consciousness upon physical death, then you've established ET conclusively. But if His intent was His image ruling and reigning in additional demensions of space and time as His very own family, then you've gone a long way towards proving the Universal Restoration -- although, then it's a matter of finding out whether God governs Creation as a fallen tyrant or as the Father of worlds we've yet to discover and fellowship with in the Covenant of His Blood.
Amen, Martin. That's why sometimes I say things like "deeper layers" of scripture and the WHOLE context of scripture. Evil and/or blinded hearts can play nasty tricks with the Word of God, whether using context or rejecting it. Context isn't the problem, it's the evil and/or blinded hearts doing the twisting. But "be not deceived..God will not be mocked".
I agree with a lot of what Martin says. The issue with context is not to pit one context against another, it is to demonstrate the hope that is within us and explain that this is the only context I am going to study from and leave it at that.
I responded once to the assertion that "God does not impose his will upon us" the first words out of someones mouth when I pointed out a verse like John 6:44 that makes that line of reasoning questionable was indeed as we are discussing here..... "thats out of context" "your twisting scripture"
Thats when I responded with what I have said, I am not going to argue against their context, but I am not twisting scripture from the context that God corrects those he loves, so if he corrects those he loves then John 6:44 is not out of context with that aspect of things.
Just like a figurative and literal context for the word aionios, even some UR people disagree with me, but that's ok, I simply am not bound by another persons context in the first place.
Good point Martin. The contexts are multi-leveled.
The ETer starts with a very large "global" context - some people will go to hell for eternity. Then every other verse in the bible has to be modified to fit in with this context.
Thus, if you don't believe in eternal torment, you automatically are taking the universalism verses out of context (from the point of view of the ETer).
The URer starts from the other direction. The overall "global" context is that God will save everyone. Then every verse is viewed as fitting in with that context.
The trick is seeing which view has no contradictions, or "context adjustments" - A.K.A. rewriting plain meaning of scriptures.
Amen Paul...Amen lego. As always, the problem's not the Word...the problem is me. (But God's fixing us :bigGrin:).
QuoteNo problem :laughing7: (if you notice I haven't posted at CARM much lately).
yes you have left me stranded :grin:
Quote from: chuckt on June 18, 2009, 12:45:37 PM
QuoteNo problem :laughing7: (if you notice I haven't posted at CARM much lately).
yes you have left me stranded :grin:
Sorry about that. It is frustrating over there. Apart from the obvious "no universalism" rule, I find it interesting the responses you get about "UR" themes. Quite often you just get completely ignored, or you get the same old tired lines - No God won't override our free will, or No, God will only save whom He wants, blah blah blah.
Every A vs. C argument rehashed over and over and over and over and over and over again while the lone UR voice is ignored.
Did you read my thread about "All the ends of the earth" being saved? I got maybe 2 responses from Calvies, pretty much the main theme was completely ignored. No one cared about the possibilities of what those verses were saying. Possibly the rules are too stifling there, I don't know.
Later,
Legoman
Quote from: WhiteWings on June 17, 2009, 06:56:44 PM
I think 100 man are many man. So the many means 100 men. 200 tops.
"MANY" is a matter of perspective and relativity...
Numbers are a matter of perspective and relative to the scenario...
10 or even 5 men can be considered "many men"... try
fighting TEN or FIVE MEN at once! :mshock:
Or keeping track of 5 or 10 young children at once (by yourself), walking down a busy street... :heat:
On the other hand... The word "MANY" could be easily applied to 5,000 (which by themselves can be considered many), but in a comparitive CONTEXT of FIVE BILLION that "5K number" shrinks to almost NOTHING, and a lesser term must be applied to it... like, ...FEW!
How about TIME? ...10 seconds isn't very much time when you are taking a 200 question test --- or when trying to complete running 1500 meters --- or changing a transmission in a car... etc...
But see how
MUCH TIME 10 seconds
IS in the context of accidently placing your finger on a STOVE BURNER --- or when that car falls off its jack and upon YOUR CHEST --- or your mother-in-law who has already been visiting for a month stays TEN more SECONDS! (jus kidn' about the last one! :laughing7: ...maybe! :pointlaugh:)
Scenario's often change the perspective and relativities of NUMBERS, within the experience...
...willieH :boogie: