1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Micah 5:2 Did the Son have an origen? ESV, NIV error

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Will J. Kinney, Jan 21, 2004.

Top Posters
Page 1 of 2
  1. Will J. Kinney

    Will J. Kinney Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    759
    Likes Received:
    8
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Micah 5:2 and Hebrews 2:11

    Some modern versions undermine and attack the eternal deity of the only begotten Son of God. Can you prove from the King James Bible that the Lord Jesus Christ had a beginning or an origin? No. Can you prove from the NIV, RSV, ESV, or the JW bibles that He had an origin? Yes.

    Micah 5:2 "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; WHOSE GOINGS FORTH have been of old, FROM EVERLASTING."

    John Gill comments on the traditional, Trinitarian exposition of this verse and the meaning of the phrase "whose goings forth have been...from everlasting."

    John Gill - "whose goings forth have been of old, from everlasting; which is said of him, not because his extraction was from David, who lived many ages before him; for admitting he was "in him, in his loins," as to his human nature, so long ago, yet his "goings forth" were not from thence: nor because he was prophesied of and promised very early, as he was from the beginning of the world; but neither a prophecy nor promise of him can be called his "going forth"; which was only foretold and spoken of, but not in actual being; nor because it was decreed from eternity that he should come forth from Bethlehem, or be born there in time; for this is saying no more than what might be said of everyone that was to be born in Bethlehem, and was born there: nor is this to be understood of his manifestations or appearances in a human form to the patriarchs, in the several ages of time; since to these, as to other of the above things, the phrase "from everlasting" cannot be ascribed."

    "As commonly interpreted - his eternal generation and sonship, the only begotten of the Father, of the same nature with him, and a distinct person from him; the eternal Word that went forth from him, and was with him from eternity, and is truly God. The phrases are expressive of the eternity of his divine nature and person; so as the former part of the text sets forth his human birth, this his divine generation; So Eliezer produces this to prove the name of the Messiah before the world was, whose "goings forth were from everlasting, when as yet the world was not created."

    Jamieson, Faussett and Brown likewise explain: "goings forth . . . from everlasting--The plain antithesis of this clause, to "come forth out of thee" (from Beth-lehem), shows that the eternal generation of the Son is meant. The terms convey the strongest assertion of infinite duration of which the Hebrew language is capable (compare Psalm 90:2, Proverbs 8:22) Messiah's generation as man coming forth unto God to do His will on earth is from Beth-lehem; but as Son of God, His goings forth are from everlasting."


    John Wesley tersely remarks: "Going forth - Whose generation, as he is the Son of God, equal with his father, is eternal."

    Matthew Henry says: " How the Messiah is here described. It is he that is to be ruler in Israel, whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. Here we have, (1.) His existence from eternity, as God: his goings forth, or emanations, as the going forth of the beams from the sun, were, or have been, of old, from everlasting, which is so signal a description of Christ's eternal generation, or his going forth as the Son of God, begotten of his Father before all worlds, that this prophecy must belong only to him, and could never be verified of any other. It certainly speaks of a going forth that was now past, and must here be taken in the strictest sense (the same with Ps. 90:2, From everlasting to everlasting thou are God), and can be applied to no other than to him who was able to say, Before Abraham was, I am, Jn. 8:58."

    The King James Holy Bible - Micah 5:2 "But thou Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; WHOSE GOINGS FORTH have been of old, FROM EVERLASTING."

    This is the reading - "whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting" - found in the KJB, NKJV, Bishop's Bible, Coverdale's Bible, the Geneva Bible, the Revised Version, American Standard Version, the Hebrew Names Version, Webster's, the KJV 21st Century Version, and the Third Millenium Bible.

    NASB - "But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Too little to be among the clans of Judah, From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity."

    The RSV, NRSV, and 2001 ESV "But you, O Bethlehem Eph'rathah, who are little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose ORIGEN is from of old, FROM ANCIENT DAYS."

    The NIV - "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose ORIGENS are from of old, FROM ANCIENT TIMES."

    The Jehovah Witness version, called the New World Translation, says, "whose ORIGIN is from early times, from the days of time indefinite."

    Why do the NIV, RSV, ESV and the JW bibles say “origin”? Christ did not have an origen or a beginning, but He Himself is the beginning, the source of all that exists. Revelation 22:13 tells us, “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.” Compare these words spoken by the Lord Jesus Christ with those found in Isaiah 44:6, “Thus saith the LORD, the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.”

    The JW’s teach that Christ is not eternal God, but rather the first created being, and less by nature than God the Father. The true word of God says, "whose GOINGS FORTH have been from of old, FROM EVERLASTING." Remember, Christ said: "I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world."

    The KJB says his goings forth are from everlasting. Yet the NIV, RSV, ESV say his origin is from ancient times. Ancient times may be long, long ago, but it is not the same as everlasting.

    The Hebrew word olam can be translated as “ancient” when applied to created things or people as it is in Psalm 22:28, “Remove not the ancient landmark”, or as in Isaiah 44:7, “since I appointed the ancient people”, but when the word is applied to God, it is rendered as “everlasting” as in Psalm 90:2, “from everlasting to everlasting Thou art God.”

    The NIV concordance shows that they have translated this word as “everlasting” 60 times, as eternal or eternity 8 times, as “forever” 202 times, but as “from ancient times” only twice - one of them here in Micah 5:2 where they apply it to our Lord and Redeemer!

    Does the Son of God have an "origen"? Another example found in the Revised Standard Version and the 2001 English Standard Version.

    Hebrews 2:11-12 "For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified ARE ALL OF ONE: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee."

    John Gill - "all of one: they are both of one God and Father, Christ's God is their God, and his Father is their Father; they are of one body, Christ is the head, and they are members; they are of one covenant, Christ is the surety, Mediator, and messenger of it, and they share in all its blessings and promises; they are of one man, Adam, Christ is a Son of Adam, though not by ordinary generation, they descend from him in the common way; they are all of one nature, of one blood; Christ has took part of the same flesh and blood with them."

    Jamieson, Faussett and Brown - "of one--Father, God, as He is Father of His spiritual human sons, Christ the Head and elder Brother, and His believing people, the members of the body and family. "Of one" is not "of one father Adam," or "Abraham," as BENGEL and others suppose. For the Saviour's participation in the lowness of our humanity is not mentioned till Hebrews 2:12, and then as a consequence of what precedes. Christ's Sonship (by generation) in relation to God is reflected in the sonship (by adoption) of His brethren."

    Matthew Henry - " Now Christ, who is the agent in this work of sanctification, and Christians, who are the recipient subjects, are all of one. How? They are all of one heavenly Father, and that is God. God is the Father of Christ by eternal generation and by miraculous conception, of Christians by adoption and regeneration."

    Hebrews 2:11 "For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified ARE ALL OF ONE; for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren."

    So read all Greek texts as well as the King James Bible, the NKJV, TMB, KJV 21, Revised Version, American Standard Version, Darby, Young's, Webster's, Tyndale and the Geneva Bible.

    NASB - "For both He who sanctifies and those who are sanctified are all FROM ONE FATHER; for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brethren," (Note: the word "Father" is not found in any text, but it does fit the context though it limits the scope of meaning.)

    NIV - "Both the one who makes men holy and those who are made holy are OF THE SAME FAMILY. So JESUS is not ashamed to call them brothers." (Note: Again, there are no words in any text for "the same family", nor for "Jesus", and the NIV severely limits the scope of meaning, but at least it doesn't teach what we find in the RSV, ESV.)

    RSV, NRSV, ESV - "For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified HAVE ALL ONE ORIGEN. That is why he is not ashamed to call them brethren," Now, we are back again to the idea of Christ, the Son of God, having an origen - just like the RSV, and the 2001 ESV teach in Micah 5:2.

    This is just one of several theological doctrines that have been twisted and changed in most modern versions. Contrary to what we are often told, the "message" is not always the same.

    Will Kinney
     
    #1 Will J. Kinney, Jan 21, 2004
  2. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    YEt another place where you should have done your homework before spouting off in here.

    Micah 5:2 "But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Too little to be among the clans of Judah, From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity."

    Micah 5:2 "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times."

    The word "origins" (NIV; goings forth, NASB) probably is a reference to his being in teh davidic line. That would be most normal since it is referring to a king and his right to rule. "From old" means that his family (the davidic line) has been ruling for 300 years. Most lexicons prefer this view. It may mean "goings forth" as a reference to theophanies. To translate it as origins is not unorthodox. It is in fact correct, if you actually take the time to study rather than spouting off with the benefit of knowing what you are talking about.

    Ancient times vs. eternity -- In Micah 7:14, an almost identical phrase is used. There, it cannot mean eternity. It means a long time ago. Same thing in Amos 9:11. Clearly, "ancient times" can be a reference to the days of King David, the ruler. BTW, your NIV stats on translation of this word are very misleading. Get out your Kohlenberger and Swanson again and try a second time. This time, tell all the ways it translates the word. It gives quite a different picture than you have given here.

    So what does Micah 5:2 in the NIV actually say??? It prophesies that from Bethelehem will come a king who is in the line of David. Does anyone really want to argue that is not orthodox??? Of course not. To do so would be heresy.

    This is yet another place where understanding the issues prevents the kind of foolishness found in the opening post. To charge that the MVs attack the deity or eternality of Christ will be a foolish and blasphemous charge against the word of God every time it is made. It is simply false.

    Will, if you would spend as much time studying the facts and learning as you do creating these long, obnoxious posts, you would be much better off.
     
    #2 Pastor Larry, Jan 21, 2004
  3. aefting

    aefting New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    874
    Likes Received:
    0
    Micah 5:2 is one place where I feel that the ESV translators really blew it. I don’t have a problem with “from ancient days” because the Hebrew expression often means that. However, the Hebr. motsah should be translated “goings forth.” This term is not used often in the OT. The only other time is 2 Kings 10:27, where the idea of “goings forth” is also appropriate. In the Micah context, however, there seems to be a deliberate play on words based on the idea of bringing forth (seen best in the KJV):

    yet out of thee shall he come forth (5:2)
    whose goings forth have been from of old (5:2)
    until the time that she which travaileth hath brought forth (5:3)

    In the first two examples from 5:2, the terms used are derivatives of the Hebr. yasa. Not only does “origin” obscure this rhetorical feature, but it can also give people the wrong impression about Christ. Sure, you can interpret “origin” in an orthodox manner but I think the better understanding is that the One who is to be born in Bethlehem has had goings forth in Theophanies since ancient times.

    What’s unfortunate about the ESV’s use of “origin” rather than “goings forth” is the fact that the translators were deliberately trying to undo the liberal, non-Messianic OT translations that were found in the RSV. The “famous” BibSac article of 1953 (http://www.bible-researcher.com/rsv-bibsac.html) highlights Micah 5:2 as an example this bias. I just don’t understand why the ESV translators left it alone.

    In spite of this passage, and a few others, I believe that the ESV is an excellent translation. I use it everyday.

    Andy
     
    #3 aefting, Jan 21, 2004
  4. Charles Meadows

    Charles Meadows New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    1
    Will,

    I'd agree the NIV and NASB don't really do it justice here in terms of elegance. But was it the intent of the MV translators to UNDERMINE the deity of Christ? I don't think so. That's a stretch. 'olam definitely has the connotation of forever. Goings forth (motsa-ah) means ancestral origin. The "from old" here is derived from the verb "qaDAM" - to be early, to be eastward, to be primordial. The old Aramaic q'dam means to be before.

    It's quite cleat that this means to show that Messiah's origin is "before time" in a sense. As such no English word for "origin" really does it justice. I'm fine with "origin" - but the KJV definitely has it better with "everlasting" compared to "ancient" which is an inferior word choice.
     
    #4 Charles Meadows, Jan 21, 2004
  5. BrianT

    BrianT New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    Good replies everyone. Although I dislike "origin" and "origins" because they are so easily misinterpreted (as Will has done), I would also point out that "whose origins" does not necessarily mean the start of existence for that person, but can also mean a beginning of an action that person does. I started my car to go to work, I started a new project at work today, I initiated a purchase transaction with a friend, etc. These "origins" or "goings forth" belong to me, they are mine, and similarly Christ's origins (his beginning of actions) have been going since very ancient times, even from eternity.

    Side note: the only other time this Hebrew word appears in the OT, is in 2 Kings 10:27, where it is combined with another word. Most other versions translate it "latrine" or "public toilet" or similar, but the KJV translates it "draught house" (which I understand to mean like a saloon or a bar). So I have two questions:

    1. what etymology connection does this have with "goings forth" / "origins" from Micah 5:2?

    2. Why do most translations read "latrine" (which makes sense contextually), but the KJV says "draught house" (which is completely different and doesn't seem to fit as well)?

    Brian
     
    #5 BrianT, Jan 21, 2004
  6. Charles Meadows

    Charles Meadows New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    1
    The root here is "yatsAH" - going out. This is in its Qal form used to describe the Exodus. MotsAH I believe is a Hophal participle and is used as an noun. It means a going forth - or even a spring of water. Motsa AH is the feminine form of this noun and it is a place where a stream goes forth (in a latrine) - really!! [​IMG]
     
    #6 Charles Meadows, Jan 21, 2004
  7. skanwmatos

    skanwmatos New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    Brian, if you will check the Oxford English Dictionary you will see that "draught" has an archaic meaning of "sewer" and "draught-house" is what we would call a "privy" or "outhouse" today. So all the versions are saying the same thing. [​IMG]
     
    #7 skanwmatos, Jan 21, 2004
  8. tinytim

    tinytim <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
     
    #8 tinytim, Jan 22, 2004
  9. tinytim

    tinytim <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    Brian, if you will check the Oxford English Dictionary you will see that "draught" has an archaic meaning of "sewer" and "draught-house" is what we would call a "privy" or "outhouse" today. So all the versions are saying the same thing. [​IMG] </font>[/QUOTE]And without a dictionary you wouldn't have known what the KJV means.

    If God wanted us to have to use a dictionary everytime we read the Word of God he should have put one in it. Oops.. some copyrighted bibles do!
     
    #9 tinytim, Jan 22, 2004
  10. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,285
    Likes Received:
    507
    Faith:
    Baptist
    LOL [​IMG]

    In my neighborhood, a "draught house" would be called a tavern or bar.
     
    #10 Dr. Bob, Jan 22, 2004
  11. skanwmatos

    skanwmatos New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    Since when do Baptist worship ignorance?
     
    #11 skanwmatos, Jan 22, 2004
  12. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,285
    Likes Received:
    507
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Oh, Skan, that's way too easy . . . We're on a thread about KJV [​IMG]
     
    #12 Dr. Bob, Jan 22, 2004
  13. Will J. Kinney

    Will J. Kinney Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    759
    Likes Received:
    8
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Larry Posts: "The word "origins" (NIV; goings forth, NASB) probably is a reference to his being in teh davidic line. That would be most normal since it is referring to a king and his right to rule. "From old" means that his family (the davidic line) has been ruling for 300 years. Most lexicons prefer this view. It may mean "goings forth" as a reference to theophanies. To translate it as origins is not unorthodox. It is in fact correct, if you actually take the time to study rather than spouting off with the benefit of knowing what you are talking about."


    Larry, did you actually read what John Gill said? He refutes your lame arguments. If the word "origens" as you said " probably is a reference to his being in teh davidic line", then why didn't God just come out and say it ? - "whose ancestry is from ancient times"

    The first major translation to change "goings forth" to "origen" was the RSV, and it was put out by liberal theologians who did not believe in the deity of Christ. Neither do the JWs and they use this verse with "origen" as a proof text that Christ was created. His origen would be His beginning.

    I thought you were a NASB guy. So what happened with them? Didn't they go to the same seminaries and learn the same stuff? Why did they get it right and come out with a very different meaning than the RSV, NIV?

    The NIV, ESV rendering of this verse clearly lends itself to a heretical interpretation, whereas the KJB does not. The KJB correctly portrays both natures of this God/man who would rule Israel. The niv does not.

    I have even brought up this verse to guys that are modern, whatever, bible of the month types, like you, and they at least had the integrity to admit the NIV gives an unfortunate rendering of this verse.


    Will K
     
    #13 Will J. Kinney, Jan 22, 2004
  14. Will J. Kinney

    Will J. Kinney Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    759
    Likes Received:
    8
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Side note: the only other time this Hebrew word appears in the OT, is in 2 Kings 10:27, where it is combined with another word. Most other versions translate it "latrine" or "public toilet" or similar, but the KJV translates it "draught house" (which I understand to mean like a saloon or a bar). So I have two questions:
    1. what etymology connection does this have with "goings forth" / "origins" from Micah 5:2?
    2. Why do most translations read "latrine" (which makes sense contextually), but the KJV says "draught house" (which is completely different and doesn't seem to fit as well)?
    Brian


    Hi Brian, a draught house is an old word for a latrine. Not only does the KJB use "draught house" (pronounced draft house) but so also do Young's, Darby, Websters, the 1917 JPS Jewish translation, the Revised Version and the American Standard Version.

    If you think about it, it is not hard to see the relationship between "goings forth" and sitting on a toilet.

    The one that blew it here is the nkjv with "refuse dump".

    Will
     
    #14 Will J. Kinney, Jan 22, 2004
  15. Will J. Kinney

    Will J. Kinney Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    759
    Likes Received:
    8
    Faith:
    Baptist
    posted January 22, 2004 02:13 AM                          
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    quote:
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Originally posted by tinytim:
    And without a dictionary you wouldn't have known what the KJV means. If God wanted us to have to use a dictionary everytime we read the Word of God he should have put one in it.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    LOL
    In my neighborhood, a "draught house" would be called a tavern or bar.


    Well, in my neighborhood, if we talk about the "origen" of something or someone, we are talking about their beginning or their creation.

    Will K
     
    #15 Will J. Kinney, Jan 22, 2004
  16. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    My lame arguments are made by people who are scholars in the OT language of this century. My lame arguments points to one fact ... that neither reading is unorthodox and that neither compromises the deity of Christ.

    The determination swings on what you think the author is saying. If he is arguing that the king born in Bethlehem is of Davidic line, then the NIV makes perfect sense. If he is arguing that the king born is God, then the NASB and KJV make perfect sense. Both are correct.

    If he is referring to the deity of Christ, why didn't he just come right out and say "Christ is God"? You see, this kind of argument is useless. He said what he did because he said it.

    I preach from the NASB. I use a variety of translations because my loyalty is to the word of God.

    here are all kinds of translations in teh KJV that lend themselves to a heretical interpretation. I don't see you foaming at the mouth over that. You know why? Because you are inconsistent. You don't want to apply the same standard to the KJV as you do to every other version.

    Maybe they, like you, didn't bother to think through the issues to understand what was actually being said. Maybe they were operating off the false premise that you are. Who knows.


    Even if you assume that "goings forth" is a better translation, it would lead to the question of "goings forth" from what?? And what do you say? What, in long ages ago, did Christ "go forth" from??? You can't say "theophanies" because theophanies are not from eternity. They started in time. The reality that Christ did not "go forth" from anything in ancient times. He has always been. This verse testifies very clearly to the kingly right of Jesus to rule.

    You are making a mountain out of a molehill on this one. Move on ... study harder and deal with real issues ...
     
    #16 Pastor Larry, Jan 22, 2004
  17. Precepts

    Precepts New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    LOL [​IMG]

    In my neighborhood, a "draught house" would be called a tavern or bar.     </font>[/QUOTE]Yeah, a sewer in every sense of the word. :rolleyes:
     
    #17 Precepts, Jan 22, 2004
  18. Precepts

    Precepts New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks for helping to confirm my stand against the niv,Larry. You just blew the niv to smithereens with that staement! :D

    n.i.v. does take away from the deity of Christ! You even admitted it. [​IMG]
     
    #18 Precepts, Jan 22, 2004
  19. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks for helping to confirm my stand against the niv,Larry. You just blew the niv to smithereens with that staement! :D

    n.i.v. does take away from the deity of Christ! You even admitted it. [​IMG]     </font>[/QUOTE]What are you reading??? I didn't say anyting of the sort and you know it. The NIV does not take away from the deity of Christ. Let's take a little closer look.

    I said the question is "what you think the author is saying." That is far different than saying "What is a true statement?" Christ is God and the NIV clearly affirms that. For you to say otherwise is either lack of knowledge on your part or deliberate untruthfulness. Neither is acceptable.

    If the author is saying that Christ is from teh line of David, he is not saying that he is not God. That is patently clear from the context of Micah and the context of my words.

    You need to be more careful with your posts in this forum. This attempt from you was wholly inappropriate and unacceptable.
     
    #19 Pastor Larry, Jan 22, 2004
  20. skanwmatos

    skanwmatos New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    My point was, of course, that every bible contains words that are not commonly used in every day discussion and often require a dictionary to properly understand the meaning, but for some reason only the KJV is attacked as being hard to understand when I suggested a dictionary could dispel much of the confusion. There is a long list of words found in the RSV, NASB, NIV, etc., which are just as difficult as those found in the KJV but nobody seems to mind if we look those words up in the dictionary. And that, to me, is more evidence of a double standard being applied.
     
    #20 skanwmatos, Jan 22, 2004
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 1 of 2
Loading...