Why does my God allow children to die? Is he evil?

[CG Didymus]

CG Didymus said : “I thought you used the word "depraved" also, but regardless here is the post I got that word "depraved" from.”

CG : In the flurry of posts that accompanied the suggestion that babies and infants sin and are morally depraved, it would have been easy to have become confused. The source of these descriptions, historically, is as follows. It was suggested by a poster that babies sin. Multiple posters grabbed a rope and were looking for a tree (I admit I sided with the lynching committee since I feel new infants have not yet sinned and are innocent of committing sin)

1) Ingledva responded : “Babies are obviously innocent!” post # 4044

2) Robin1 responded “No, babies are the most self centered beings in the universe. They sin constantly…. Post # 4045

This is where the quote regarding babies sinning originated. In response to Robin1s claim that babies “sin constantly, I then Robin1 to substantiate this theory.
3) Clear asked Robin1 : WHAT SINS WOULD A ONE MONTH-OLD BABY IN MY QUESTION HAVE BEEN COMMITTING?

It was in response to this question that JM2C quoted my question to Robin1 and then : :

4) JM2C quoted a version of Psalms 58:3 and said “No one is “INNOCENT”, all are born depraved.“ Post # 4094

This is the origin of “babies ‘sin constantly’ “ and “infants ‘are born depraved’ “ theories and quotes. I hope this makes the sources clear.

Good Journey CG Didymus

Clear
σεφυδρακτωω

I glad you're here keeping track. I'm glad you're pointing out things that are mistranslated also. It's amazing what a little word added in or subtracted can do.

 

[JM2C]

Moreover, if righteousness can be achieved through submission to the commandments outlined in the Torah, what possible benefit could Jesus’ death provide for mankind?

How do you atone for your sin if there is no high priest from the line of Aaron and no temple today?

Do you have high priest today that can atone for your sin, that can go in and out of the holiest place in the temple,

Heb 9:7 but into the second [Holiest Place] the high priest alone, once in the year, not without blood, which he offereth for himself, and for the errors of the people:

or just a regular priest to offer and sacrifice in the temple everyday?

None of those, the temple, the high priest from the tribe of Aaron, exist today anymore.

Heb 9:8 the Holy Spirit this signifying, that the way into the holy place hath not yet been made manifest, while the first tabernacle is yet standing;

While the temple was still standing, or the entire Levitical system was still in use, which is not anymore today, then people won’t have access to God anymore [no high priest, no temple, no access to God], but the good news is,

Heb 9:11 But Christ having come a high priest of the good things to come, through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation,
Heb 9:12 nor yet through the blood of goats and calves, but through his own blood, entered in once for all into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption.
Heb 9:13 For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling them that have been defiled, sanctify unto the cleanness of the flesh:
Heb 9:14 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish unto God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

Perfect Tabernacle?

Heb 8:5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shown to thee in the mount. -Read Exodus 25:40

The Lord Jesus Christ is my High Priest, not here on earth but, in a “more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation,”

In the Levitical system during Aaron’s time, the people do not have direct access to God, but only through high priest, but today Christians do have this direct access to God through the Lord Jesus Christ, our High Priest, not by the earthly tabernacle made by hands, but by the heavenly tabernacle where God is.

I don’t think that rabbi can even trace his genealogy, as to, who will be the high priest, that is, from the tribe of Aaron anymore.

As a Christian, I knew very little about Judaism -Their Religious System.

The Levitical system alone is so complicated that if one applies this system today, one would think, how they did it back then.

Just think about this, during the Lord Jesus Christ earthly ministry there were over a million animals sacrificed and offered in the temple.

How are you going to do that today? You cannot, because you do not have the high priest and priests in the line of Aaron and especially you do not have the temple.

Christians do not do this things, or in other words we do not practice this today because this Levitical system is not for Christians to know. It does not LITERALLY apply to Christianity.

You should read the Jerusalem Council about the Gentiles in Acts 15.

And this rabbi was saying something like,

what possible benefit could Jesus’ death provide for mankind?

Benefit?
Eph 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:

This is where I am getting my benefits 24x7, from “the heavenly places in Christ”

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

From what argument

You referred to robin1's post as "the word of God", no?

 

[JM2C]

You referred to robin1's post as "the word of God", no?

O!M!G!
Babies are as they are in order to survive.
They are not in any sense of the word sinning!

You opinion, a mere human, over God’s word?
What I meant is from “They are not in any sense of the word sinning!”
against God’s
Ps 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
Ps 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

Her opinion over God’s word and not Robin’s

 

[JM2C]

I glad you're here keeping track. I'm glad you're pointing out things that are mistranslated also. It's amazing what a little word added in or subtracted can do.

You have not answered my question yet. Were you and Clear born sinless or perfect as in without any sin at all? A simple Yes or No

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You opinion, a mere human, over God’s word?
What I meant is from “They are not in any sense of the word sinning!”
against God’s
Ps 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
Ps 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

Her opinion over God’s word and not Robin’s

Still, it's more like "my interpretation of what I assume to be God's word" than it is "God's word" directly.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You have not answered my question yet. Were you and Clear born sinless or perfect as in without any sin at all? A simple Yes or No

How are you defining "sin"?

Assuming it's something like "falling short of God's standard for us", if we're sinful right from the beginning, then doesn't this point to a problem with God? Why would God create a creation that he considers deficient?

 

[JM2C]

Every writing that was inspired by God is good for guidance. What you assume however is everything written in the Bible to have been inspired by God. That's not what it is saying.
You take it all in without any attempt at discernment because that is what you were taught to do.

Not really!

The word of God or my understanding of the word of God came to my understanding in fragments and not in formulated definition.

Fragmentary conceptualized knowledge and not formulated definition of the bible. Now, my fragmentary concept knowledge of the bible is what makes me a Christian. It is the same thing to anyone who reads the bible. My knowledge of the bible sets forth my understanding of the word “TRINITY”, for example, in fragments, or not all at once like you were suggesting here, that it came to me as a formulated definition or theology, or I was “taught to do” what I was doing ‘cause of this formulated theology that I must follow to become a Christian.


If I follow a systematic way or formulated theology, invented by the human mind, then your assumption, “that is what you were taught to do.” should be valid then, but I was not taught this way. IOW, knowledge of the bible did not come to me in just one segment, but in multiple fragments.

 

[Nakosis]

How are you defining "sin"?

Assuming it's something like "falling short of God's standard for us", if we're sinful right from the beginning, then doesn't this point to a problem with God? Why would God create a creation that he considers deficient?

How I see "sin" is in accepting something false as the the truth. This based on the idea of "missing the mark". In which case sin is a matter of ignorance not intent.

To say a baby is born into sin then simply means a baby is born into ignorance of the truth. Even born into ignorance of God. This is the same as some atheists claim.

In the OT it seems pretty clear that sin is a transgression of God's law. Still here, a child is born ignorant of God's law. They need to be taught.

Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
and in sin did my mother conceive me.
Behold, you delight in truth in the inward being,
and you teach me wisdom in the secret heart.

Unfortunately Paul, who's letter's are taken as prophecy, has a lot in his life to feel guilt for. His treatment of early Christians was an atrocity. He provides Original Sin as a means to excuse his actions. He could not have done otherwise because of Adam he was born a sinner. Paul's personal guilt becomes the guilt of all men. Paul's depravity is now the depravity of all men.

 

[JM2C]

Still, it's more like "my interpretation of what I assume to be God's word" than it is "God's word" directly.

The reason why I said “You opinion, a mere human, over God’s word? ” came from her opinion “They are not in any sense of the word sinning!”
Now, why did she say something like that?
Its because of these 2 verses, the word of God, and I am not just assuming that these were the words of God, but the very truth word of God.
Ps 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
Ps 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The reason why I said “You opinion, a mere human, over God’s word? ” came from her opinion “They are not in any sense of the word sinning!”
Now, why did she say something like that?
Its because of these 2 verses, the word of God, and I am not just assuming that these were the words of God, but the very truth word of God.

Oh - it's a *deeply held* assumption. Gotcha.

Ps 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
Ps 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

The first one just seems to say "my mother was sinning when she conceived me." I'm not sure how it's relevant.

The second one says that *the wicked* are born sinners. You seem to be making some big assumptions if you think this means that *everyone* are born sinners.

It still seems like you're trying to pass of human opinion as "the word of God".

 

[1robin]

There you go again - telling us it can only be translated one way, - which is wrong.


As you know Theos is also Divine, Divinity, Magistrates, etc.

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God - This sentence is not well translated; the original (Greek not displaying correctly for some reason - ING), κ. τ. λ. should be rendered: Every writing Divinely inspired is profitable for doctrine, etc. The particle και, and, is omitted by almost all the versions and many of the fathers, and certainly does not agree well with the text. The apostle is here, beyond all controversy, speaking of the writings of the Old Testament, which, because they came by Divine inspiration, he terms the Holy Scriptures, 2Ti_3:15; and it is of them alone that this passage is to be understood; and although all the New Testament came by as direct an inspiration as the Old, yet, as it was not collected at that time, not indeed complete, the apostle could have no reference to it." Clarke's Commentary on the Bible.


"All this is expressed in the original by one word - Theopneustos. This word occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. It properly means, God-inspired - from Θεός Theos, “God,” and πνέω pneō, “to breathe, to breathe out.” Barnes - Notes on the Bible.


Obviously it can be translated "Divine inspiration," or "Divinely inspired," as that is what the phrase means.



*

Are you talking to me? I did not say anything about there only being one way to translate anything. I have no idea why your adding to what I said about Theopneustos. Everything you said is exactly what I said. Divine inspiration has God as it's source, Divinely inspired is pretty much the same words and have God as their source, God breathed has God as it's source. What exactly are you intending to point out? What God reveals is profitable. Things do not get much simpler than that. I believe I interpreted correctly but your distinctions are without difference. They all imply the exact same thing.

 

[1robin]

I thought you used the word "depraved" also, but regardless here is the post I got that word "depraved" from.
Since Christians use the Hebrew Bible to prove their doctrines, I thought it would be nice to hear what a Jewish Rabbi has to say on the subject.

I use English words constantly as I am talking largely to an English counter part. It serves just fine until the semantic technicalities start to be relied on instead of the issue at hand. Then you (we) must go to the original words and proper biblical hermeneutics. I may use slave for the OT scriptures but I would know not to attach 19th century baggage to it. If you for your own reasons desired 19th century baggage to be smuggled in with the word "slave" then I have to back up and point out what the original wording was and what it means.

For the record I meant that babies included in the category children do not obey divine law perfectly. Depraved was not good word choice but I used it before I knew the emotional appeal to babies was going to take over every single post made by your side. No human ever born from his first breath meets God's perfect standard. In the case of children they are guilty but are not charged with guilt because of their lacking sufficient knowledge of moral law. No injustice, no harm, no foul, no reason to still be posting babies every other word.

 

[1robin]

The son curses fig trees for being out of season and his dad makes pacts based on removing excess skin off a primates d***. I don't think in Heaven there gonna be playing chess or there the Jeopardy types

I was actually hoping we could combine what Jesus said about ever lasting wine with the 72 virgins from Islam so Heaven could be like a cross between a bordello and Willy Wonka's chocolate factory but with wine in lieu of a chocolate river.

What? Heaven is not a matter of popular vote.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No, no, it's not me. I have to thank all the born-again Christians for inspiring me... in reverse. Actually, I wish I could be more like you, a truly skeptic thinker.

I can’t hold a candle to you. I love your method of posting.
But yes, I guess we should thank the born-agains also.

Oh, by the way, did you happen to catch 1Robin's post 4157. It's like the things I'm trying to say go right over his head. Which is kind of funny, if Christians only practiced the love, humility, and compassion called for in the NT, we probably would all believe.We'd be stupid not to believe. But that's not what we see. We see too many flawed, phoney, self-righteous people turning and twisting Bible verses into whatever kind of Christianity they like best. So the smart person should be like you and be very skeptical. After all, if they can't live it, and all they do is talk it, why should I believe it's real?

Exactly. And with all these slightly (or massively) different version of what this god supposedly wants from us, how is anyone supposed to make head or tails of any of it? This, along with what you’re saying tells me something isn’t quite right with it.

 

[Clear]

Ingledsva offered the following commentary by Dr. Clark :

“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God - This sentence is not well translated; the original (Greek not displaying correctly for some reason - ING), κ. τ. λ. should be rendered: Every writing Divinely inspired is profitable for doctrine, etc. The particle και, and, is omitted by almost all the versions and many of the fathers, and certainly does not agree well with the text. The apostle is here, beyond all controversy, speaking of the writings of the Old Testament, which, because they came by Divine inspiration, he terms the Holy Scriptures, 2Ti_3:15; and it is of them alone that this passage is to be understood; and although all the New Testament came by as direct an inspiration as the Old, yet, as it was not collected at that time, not indeed complete, the apostle could have no reference to it." Clarke's Commentary on the Bible.”



Forum Readers :

I like this reference that Ingledsva brought to us.

I think it is insightful for readers to come to the understanding that the meanings in biblical texts are not straight-forward, but are still tentative and change as we gain more context and data throughout our lives.

1) I agree with Dr. Clark that the text in 2 Tim 3:16 should be rendered differently than it’s found in the King James. But I think his rendering is clumsy.

Clark renders it : “Every writing divinely inspired is profitable…”
though I think : “Every divinely inspired writing is profitable…” is better.

The second version reads more logically and is more clear; more understandable and better reflects the way one speaks in vernacular english (and is thus a better translation).

Differences in word order is a common differences between Greek manuscripts, this is partly because word order is not as important in Greek as it is in English - perhaps Clark was thinking "in greek mode" when he rendered it...).


2) I disagree with Dr. Clark in his opinion that the Christian Paul, in vs 16 is simply referring to the Jewish Old Testament.

I think Paul is saying just what the sentence seems to be saying. “Every - divinely - inspired writing - is - profitable…”.

I believe Paul is purposefully contrasting the old testament (a specific set of writings) of verse 15 with EVERY writing (i.e. ANY writing that is inspired of God) in vs 16.

I believe that Paul is saying that it is not simply Old divinely inspired writings that have profit for learning, but that he is teaching that Divine Inspiration makes EVERY divinely inspired writing profitable.

This makes more sense in historical context. Many early Christians did NOT immediately accept the new letters and writings of the apostles as “holy scripture” on the same basis as they had accepted the Old Testament. For example, the apostolic Father (i.e. written when the writer could have known a living apostle) Bishop Ignatius says “For I heard some people say, “If I do not find it in the archives I do not believe it in the gospel.” And when I said to them, “It is written,” they answered me, “That is precisely the question.” But for me, the “archives” are Jesus Christ,...” (“the archives” are now called Old Testament) Ignatius to the Philadelphians 8:2.

This attitude that "old is better" is also reflected in other early Christian texts. For example, In the diary of Vibia Perpetua (a Christian Convert from paganism - approx. 200 a.d.), the writer describing the diary makes the same point, that is, that miracles and divine gifts are just as evidential in Perpetuas day as they were at the time of Christ. The antiquity of a revelation does not bestow any additional value to divine revelation.


Also, the references to the Holy Letters / Writings of verse 15 uses a significantly different term for the “writings”of vs 16. "Γραμματα" in verse 15 versus "γραφη" (Graphe) in vs 16. "Γραφε" was a much more generic term for many, many different types of “letters” and “writings” (If anyone wants examples from papyri, let me know).

These two verses are not both referring to the same set of divinely inspired writings. 15 seems to be referring to Old Testament writings (archives) and 16 is referring to the principle underlying the scriptures, i.e. divine inspiration, as the qualifying characteristic of “scripture”.

There are a few other reasons why I think Clark was incorrect, but they are less important than these.

Robin1 - I did not forget to reply, but have a few things to do before replying, also I am leaving for another city 330 miles distant in 2 hours and so may reply tonight or tomorrow. I am going to try to focus on agreements as far as I am able.

Clear.
σεφυφυακτζω

 

[JM2C]

Unfortunately Paul, who's letter's are taken as prophecy, has a lot in his life to feel guilt for. His treatment of early Christians was an atrocity.

Here is an example of God’s mercy and compassion.

Do you think Paul’s sin is any greater than anyone else, then and today?

No! not at all, ‘cause sin is sin, there is no degree of what a man can sin of, ‘cause all sins are the same in the eyes of the Almighty God, but Christians were forgiven of this sin and Ro 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

And here is one of the most beautiful verse a Christian could read in bible,

Ro 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Unfortunately Paul has a lot in his life to feel guilt for.

Not anymore according to that verse. If any man accuse Paul of that “atrocity” after he was forgiven by God, then there is another verse or two in Romans for that,

Ro 8:33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.
Ro 8:34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.

Men can condemn Paul with that “atrocity” but not in front of God ’because “It is God that justifieth” or found Paul “Not Guilty” and not men. That is why Christians can not be condemn with the same crime anymore by anyone.

It a court of law they call this double jeopardy.

Who can lay a charge against God’s elect or Paul‘s “atrocity”? The accuser. Who is the accuser?

Rev 12:10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.

Yeah, that’s right, Satan is the accuser of Christians.

 

[Nakosis]

Here is an example of God’s mercy and compassion.

Do you think Paul’s sin is any greater than anyone else, then and today?

No! not at all, ‘cause sin is sin, there is no degree of what a man can sin of, ‘cause all sins are the same in the eyes of the Almighty God, but Christians were forgiven of this sin and Ro 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

And here is one of the most beautiful verse a Christian could read in bible,

Ro 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Not anymore according to that verse. If any man accuse Paul of that “atrocity” after he was forgiven by God, then there is another verse or two in Romans for that,

Ro 8:33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.
Ro 8:34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.

Men can condemn Paul with that “atrocity” but not in front of God ’because “It is God that justifieth” or found Paul “Not Guilty” and not men. That is why Christians can not be condemn with the same crime anymore by anyone.

It a court of law they call this double jeopardy.

Who can lay a charge against God’s elect or Paul‘s “atrocity”? The accuser. Who is the accuser?

Rev 12:10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.

Yeah, that’s right, Satan is the accuser of Christians.

I've nothing personally against Paul. Most everyone I know have does things they regret. That they regret means they've understood they were in error.

The point is that Paul based his letters on his own experiences. Not something that should be accepted as God Breathed.

 

[JM2C]

The first one just seems to say "my mother was sinning when she conceived me." I'm not sure how it's relevant.

“I was shapen in iniquity” who was the “I” in that sentence? David

The second one says that *the wicked* are born sinners.
You seem to be making some big assumptions if you think this means that *everyone* are born sinners.
It still seems like you're trying to pass of human opinion as "the word of God".

I asked repeatedly and no one can answer a simple question. Does anyone here was born sinless? Yes or No.
My answer is No or I was not born sinless

 

[1robin]

Ingledsva offered the following commentary by Dr. Clark :

“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God - This sentence is not well translated; the original (Greek not displaying correctly for some reason - ING), κ. τ. λ. should be rendered: Every writing Divinely inspired is profitable for doctrine, etc. The particle και, and, is omitted by almost all the versions and many of the fathers, and certainly does not agree well with the text. The apostle is here, beyond all controversy, speaking of the writings of the Old Testament, which, because they came by Divine inspiration, he terms the Holy Scriptures, 2Ti_3:15; and it is of them alone that this passage is to be understood; and although all the New Testament came by as direct an inspiration as the Old, yet, as it was not collected at that time, not indeed complete, the apostle could have no reference to it." Clarke's Commentary on the Bible.”



Forum Readers :

I like this reference that Ingledsva brought to us.

I think it is insightful for readers to come to the understanding that the meanings in biblical texts are not straight-forward, but are still tentative and change as we gain more context and data throughout our lives.

1) I agree with Dr. Clark that the text in 2 Tim 3:16 should be rendered differently than it’s found in the King James. But I think his rendering is clumsy.

Clark renders it : “Every writing divinely inspired is profitable…”
though I think : “Every divinely inspired writing is profitable…” is better.

The second version reads more logically and is more clear; more understandable and better reflects the way one speaks in vernacular english (and is thus a better translation).

Differences in word order is a common differences between Greek manuscripts, this is partly because word order is not as important in Greek as it is in English - perhaps Clark was thinking "in greek mode" when he rendered it...).


2) I disagree with Dr. Clark in his opinion that the Christian Paul, in vs 16 is simply referring to the Jewish Old Testament.

I think Paul is saying just what the sentence seems to be saying. “Every - divinely - inspired writing - is - profitable…”.

I believe Paul is purposefully contrasting the old testament (a specific set of writings) of verse 15 with EVERY writing (i.e. ANY writing that is inspired of God) in vs 16.

I believe that Paul is saying that it is not simply Old divinely inspired writings that have profit for learning, but that he is teaching that Divine Inspiration makes EVERY divinely inspired writing profitable.

This makes more sense in historical context. Many early Christians did NOT immediately accept the new letters and writings of the apostles as “holy scripture” on the same basis as they had accepted the Old Testament. For example, the apostolic Father (i.e. written when the writer could have known a living apostle) Bishop Ignatius says “For I heard some people say, “If I do not find it in the archives I do not believe it in the gospel.” And when I said to them, “It is written,” they answered me, “That is precisely the question.” But for me, the “archives” are Jesus Christ,...” (“the archives” are now called Old Testament) Ignatius to the Philadelphians 8:2.

This attitude that "old is better" is also reflected in other early Christian texts. For example, In the diary of Vibia Perpetua (a Christian Convert from paganism - approx. 200 a.d.), the writer describing the diary makes the same point, that is, that miracles and divine gifts are just as evidential in Perpetuas day as they were at the time of Christ. The antiquity of a revelation does not bestow any additional value to divine revelation.


Also, the references to the Holy Letters / Writings of verse 15 uses a significantly different term for the “writings”of vs 16. Γραμματαin verse 15 versus γραφη(Graphe) in vs 16. Γραφε was a much more generic term for many, many different types of “letters” and “writings” (If anyone wants examples from papyri, let me know).

These two verses are not both referring to the same set of divinely inspired writings. 15 seems to be referring to Old Testament writings (archives) and 16 is referring to the principle underlying the scriptures, i.e. divine inspiration, as the qualifying characteristic of “scripture”.

There are a few other reasons why I think Clark was incorrect, but they are less important than these.

Robin1 - I did not forget to reply, but have a few things to do before replying, also I am leaving for another city 330 miles distant in 2 hours and so may reply tonight or tomorrow. I am going to try to focus on agreements as far as I am able.

Clear.
σεφυφυακτζω

Take your time, but please put 1ROBIN in large letters. Your posts are in depth and I have to read through them all in a hurry to see if it or part of it was intended for me. Thanks.