Genesis 1: 3 Commentary

I may add here what Catherine Booth, the co-founder of the Salvation Army said about the Gospel; If it is not true, be done with it; if it is true act upon it”

By Jayant Christian (wrote 287 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/14/2010 06:29 am

Thanks Charles, I like the way you write, very frankly! I am glad to come to know that you at least accept that the gopsels are believable. Believe on Jesus just for the sake of what he is, and live!

By Jayant Christian (wrote 287 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/14/2010 06:26 am

Jayant, reason is a by-product of knowledge. If you place yourself between a mother grizzly and her cubs it would be quite reasonable for mama bear to pounce on you. But if she knew that you posed no harm to the cubs the reasonable thing for her to do would be to leave you alone.

Humans have gained a lot of knowledge since their thinking was dominated by religious writings like the Torah, the Rig-Veda, and the Greek mythological accounts. I was once on a night train in a valley north of Athens and, with darkness all around me, I witnessed a sudden stream of light in the sky far above. An early morning ray of the sun had just pierced the top of Mount Olimpus. It was an unforgettable sight. If this happened 3,000 years ago I would probably have found it reasonable to believe that Mount Olimpus was the abode of the sky god Zeus, as Greeks then did. But if I told you that even today I believe this to be true wouldn’t you find such a belief unreasonable?

Likewise the Bible has passages that must have made sense 3,000 years ago, but not today. When we admire a starlit night we now know (or should know!) that the lights we see are not lights that turn themselves on and off but lights that took millions of years to reach us – some a few million more years than others because stars are not of the same distance, nor are they of the same age. But according to the Bible all stars were created in a single day a mere 6,000 years ago. Obviously, this isn’t a belief that can satisfy my reasoning.

But if one excludes the first books of the Bible and get into more contemporary records it is reasonable to assume that much of what is written in the Bible is true. For example the Gospels are pretty much in agreement with one another and they are not contradicted by other historical records. They are therefore much more believable than some of the earlier accounts.

By Charles Fiott (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/13/2010 23:31 pm

Charles, I read you with interest, although with a firm faith in the Bible as the word of God, irespective of reason. You say that faith does not mean shutting oneself to reason.Do you find anything at all that satisfies your reason and therefore to believe it? Can we learn from you something reasonable and therefore beleivable from the Bible?

By Jayant Christian (wrote 287 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/13/2010 16:41 pm

Ok, Scott, here’s where I’m coming from. I was raised in a strict Christian family that demanded adherance to the Bible, but when I read the Bible I found out that some parts of it are out of whack. For example I can’t support the execution of gay people like the Bible wants us too. And I’m smart enough to realize that the creation story is no more realistic than the idea of Santa Claus climbing down my chimney. I hope you agree with me that faith doesn’t mean shutting oneself to reason.

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/8/2010 14:16 pm

Charles,

I haven’t read enough of your posts to know where you’re coming from, but your comment about stars and “biblical ignorance” is difficult to ignore. It seems you’re trying to discredit the biblical narrative in some way. Of course, that’s your perogative; however, just one point about your remark concerning the star falling to earth in Revelation 9. Do you not consider the personification of the “star” in vss. 1 and 2 to be a significant detail? In several biblical instances a star is used metaphorically for positions of power or authority having to do with rule and is vested in individuals; not gigantic fiery orbs in space.

By Scott Dale (wrote 496 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/8/2010 02:15 am

Re Post 77: I find interesting the comment that “Genesis is about the creation of the WORLD, our habitat”. Interesting because even though God created a seemingly infinite UNIVERSE the emphasis of the creation story is on us and on our own little habitat. The way Genesis is written makes you think that the stars are nothing but minute additions to our all-important world. There is no indication whatsoever how tremendously big they are or that they are millions of light years away. Mark Twain parodies such naïveté in an entertaining way, as in this quotation from Eve’s Diary: “When [the stars] first showed, last night, I tried to knock some down with a pole, but it didn’t reach, which astonished me.”

The biblical ignorance about stars persists through the very last book of the Bible. In the Book of Revelation John speaks of stars falling down as if they were a bunch of little lights barely beyond the reach of Eve’s pole. In one case (chapter 9) he even watches a star fall on Earth and then tells us that not even one tree was damaged by such a catastrophic (and impossible) event!

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/8/2010 00:50 am

Re. Post 82: Scott, I joined this debate because I had issues regarding the creation story, but the absence of Jesus was NOT one of them. I always knew that Jesus does not belong in the Old Testament, period. That’s why we have a New Testament!

So I was surprised when other contributors started putting Jesus in Genesis first by claiming him to be the light created in the first day and then by claiming his involvement in the Genesis story of creation. Neither of these claims made any sense to me and I believe I have now adequately countered both of them.

Now you can believe what you want. Faith does not require proof. But when you claim something that is untrue or untenable expect someone like me to jump in and set the record straight.

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/5/2010 23:30 pm

Charles,

The “liberty” I took to insert the name of Jesus was not liberty with the text. It was for the convenience of space. If you are going to question the veracity of just who these verses are talking about, I welcome you to do so and I’m sure we will have a lively debate; however, if you do I recommend that you do so at those specific verses and not on this thread.

To your point:

“The biblical story of creation simply does NOT have Jesus in it despite all your wishful thinking.”

Perhaps your point is accurate; however, the absence of something does not prove non-existence. I’m sure you’re aware that fundamentally, a negative can never be verified. I personally believe that Jesus shows up a number of times in the OT (but that’s a discussion for another time).

You also said:

“Jesus is totally absent from Genesis and from the entire Old Testament.”

Again I say; so what? It does not prove that he wasn’t involved. There is MUCH that is totally absent from the OT that we do not see until the NT. The Bible is an ever unfolding revelation of the eternal character and kingdom of God or it is nothing at all. There is MUCH glory that is yet to be revealed.

By Scott Dale (wrote 496 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/5/2010 20:03 pm

Brothers, the old testament is the precedence of the coming Christ…Everything that transpired or happened in the old testament pointing to the coming of the savior into the world. Although, His name was not even mentioned in the old Testament verbatim, He was with God and was God in the beginning…But i would agree with Charles that Christ is not the light that is mentioned in the Old testament. The earth was created for the delights of His Son..see below passage..

PROVERBS 8:22-31

The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.
I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.

When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water.

Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth:
While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world.

When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:
When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep:

When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth:
Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him;

Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men.

By ernie (wrote 5 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/5/2010 16:49 pm

Scott, in both your quotations (post 79) you took the liberty of inserting Jesus in parenthesis because Jesus is NOT in them. Neither John nor Paul tells us outright that Jesus was the creator. They intertwine God (the Father) and Jesus in the process, which makes a good case for the Trinity (well… two-thirds of it!) That is why I said that the only way to link Jesus to the creation is through the belief of the Trinity.

Please note that any mention of Jesus as the creator or co-creator comes solely in the New Testament. Jesus is totally absent from Genesis and from the entire Old Testament. The biblical story of creation simply does NOT have Jesus in it despite all your wishful thinking.

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/5/2010 14:05 pm

“The only way one could link Jesus with the story of creation is through the belief in the Trinity..” Post #78

Whether or not someone believes in the “Trinity” seems to have very little to do with the clear evidence of the following scriptures which declare that Jesus most certainly IS linked with the reality of the creation.

He (Jesus) was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. John 1:2-3

For by him (Jesus) all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. Col. 1:16-17

By Scott Dale (wrote 496 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/5/2010 04:18 am

As I said before, Jesus is nowhere to be found in the entire Old Testament. The only way one could link Jesus with the story of creation is through the belief in the Trinity, by which one could say that God the Father created everything and Jesus created everything and the Holy Spirit created everything. However, there is no Trinity in the Bible. Not in the Old Testament and not even in the new one.

Incidentally, nobody has come up with the suggestion that the light of creation had anything to do with the Holy Spirit!

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/5/2010 03:49 am

John/Tamara, Symbolically or spiritually speaking, Jesus is indeed the light of the World and in same manner, can be consider parallel to this event but this verse is creation and part of such is giving light since it was mentioned in V2 that “darkness is in the surface of the deep”. Jesus was not mentioned here but He was with God and He was God in the beginning (Jn 1:1-5).Jesus is not a created being. keep in mind that Genesis is about creation of the WORLD, our habitat, not the creation of Christ…

By ernie (wrote 5 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/4/2010 18:23 pm

Paul has in 2 Corithians 4:6 states that God hath shined in our hearts- the very God who had commanded the light to shine out of darkness. So a symbolical interpretation of light may be given in the case of Jesus as the light of the world, But Jesus is not the light that is talked about in Genesis 1. Well, Jesus is seen there as the Word of God in Genesis 1, (as personification).

By Jayant Christian (wrote 287 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/9/2010 17:00 pm

Yes, Tamara, I am afraid you and John are proposing a new religion. You say “Genesis 1:1-2 Distinctly refers to the creation of the earth and heaven and not the Light at this point. Genesis 1:3 states ‘Let there be Light or Light come Forth!!!’ And you continue to affirm that this light, or a capitalized Light, is Jesus. (Most versions of the Bible do NOT capitalize the word ‘light’, and NOBODY knows how it was written originally.)

Your words: “NOT THE LIGHT AT THIS POINT”. The light (Jesus, as you say) comes forth later, with the line “Let there be light”. So you are saying, insisting really, that Jesus was created. This goes against the most basic of Christian beliefs, i.e. that Jesus has no beginning and no end.

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/9/2010 04:26 am

Look at the verse again. Genesis 1:1 reads In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:1-2 Distinctly refers to the creation of the earth and heaven and not the Light at this point. Genesis 1:3 states” Let there be Light or Light come Forth!!! It should not read that It was Good rather (He) being Jesus was Good! Light is capitalized and in this case is a proper name indicating personification or ownership. Jesus is being proclaimed through out creation as the Light of the world and He is good! Jesus often refers to Himslef as the Light of the world. Light illuminates and darkness depraves mankind’s ability to become his true identity in Christ which is to become as light as Christ is the Light! Look at these scriptures. This is not a new religion, yet it is simply illumination within itself! I agree with John in his statement that Jesus was being proclaimed as the Light of the world from the earth’s beginning.

John 8:12

Jesus Is the Light of the World
12Then Jesus again spoke to them, saying, “(A)I am the Light of the world; (B)he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the Light of life.”

Cross references:
A.John 8:12 : John 1:4; 9:5; 12:35
B.John 8:12 : Matt 5:14

5″While I am in the world, I am (A)the Light of the world.”

Cross references:
A.John 9:5 : Matt 5:14; John 1:4; 8:12; 12:46

1 Peter 1:20

Listen to this passage
View commentary related to this passage

1 Peter 20 He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but(A) was made manifest(B) in the last times for the sake of you

Hebrews 1: 2 but(A) in these last days(B) he has spoken to us by(C) his Son, whom he appointed(D) the heir of all things,(E) through whom also he created(F) the world.

Hebrews 1: 8-10 But about the Son he says,

“Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever;
a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.
9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions
by anointing you with the oil of joy.”[e]

10 He also says, “In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands.

46″(A)I have come as Light into the world, so that everyone who believes in Me will not remain in darkness.

Cross references:
A.John 12:46 : John 1:4; 3:19; 8:12; 9:5; 12:35

By Tamara (wrote 1 Bible Commentary - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/9/2010 03:43 am

John, my point is that we know from the Bible what the light was, and it wasn’t Jesus (FYI Jesus was totally unknown thoughout the entire Old Testament). The Bible says: AND GOD CALLED THE LIGHT DAY. Now I don’t believe that Jesus was “Day”, but you can believe what you want.

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/3/2010 23:41 pm

Charles,

I have believed this since I read this verse. It has to be Jesus. Due to Gods Spirit was already hovering above the earth before it was offically formed. Then the light was called into place which would indicate that God has just introduced the Trinity before calling anything else into existance. The light which we refer to the sun was not called into existance until later. What else could it be?

John

By Johnny (wrote 8 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/3/2010 23:29 pm

Re post 70:

If Jesus was the light that was set apart from the darkness in Gen 1-4, that would mean that Jesus was created, i.e. he wouldn’t be eternal. I think that such a belief would constitute a new religion!

It would also mean that Jesus is synonymous with ‘daytime’ (”And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night…”) Another aberration!

In short, if you believe that Jesus is God then he can’t be the “day” or the “light” of Genesis.

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/3/2010 21:52 pm

I have not read all of the comments on this verse. In fact this is the first time I have been to this site. I am here because I am trying to figure out if Jesus could be the “light” that was set apart from the darkness. This set-apartness would correctly idntify the character of Christ, while proving that He was the first creation written about by Paul. Suprisingly, I find that “light” was created twice in the first chapter of Genesis. When Jesus was transformed in the NT, he was seen as light. I would love to hear your thoughts.

By Luke Oakes (wrote 1 Bible Commentary - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/3/2010 19:50 pm

“And God said”
God issued a command.

“Let there be light:”
The singular form of “light” implies a singular heavenly luminary.

“and there was light.”
God exercised authoritative control or power.

By Roland G. (wrote 1416 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 5/10/2010 01:44 am

Light means illumination in the hebrew. It does not mean colour.

By shawn (wrote 9 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 3/7/2010 05:08 am

Brian, I actually agree wholeheartedly with most of what you said in post 66 (is this a miracle?) Yes, you’re about possibilities and I’m about facts.

Possibilities are endless. Since everything is possible with God isn’t it also possible that he created the sun twice (in the first and in the fourth day, as the Bible indicates)? Or that he created the world twice? I’m not just making these up. The first Earth that God created did NOT rotate around the sun, so it obviously wasn’t the one that we’re living on today. So you can see I am basing this possibility on solid ground, if you excuse the pun. As you said, everything is possible with God. If you REALLY AND TRULY believe that God is all-powerful then you have to believe in ALL possibilities, not just the ones you come up with.

There are gazillion of possibilities. Every person in the world can make up his or her own possibilities. And many do. Which is why they don’t mean anything.

So maybe now you can understand why I stick with the facts.

It’s not a question of whether you believe or not. Everybody believes in something. The atheist believes that there’s no God. That’s a faith because it is not based on sience and cannot be proven, just like your faith and my faith cannot be proven either. Your faith is not more or less important that that of the Atheist or the Hindu or the Confucian or the Pagan.

Questioning your own faith or somebody else’s faith is a actually a sign of maturity. We would have fewer wars and more peace and happiness if we all learned how to question more and condemn less.

By Charles Fiott (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 1/13/2010 02:28 am

you know what charles you fail to miss my point every post.
It is about possiblity not about fact.
but you keep stating fact, which you cannot produce either.
It will only be speculation from any humans point of view.
You either believe it or you do not.
If you cannot accept that with God everything is possible, then it is a pointless discussion due to you limiting God’s power and making Him into just some simple almost a pagan type deity.
Hope you find the answer that will suit you but I cannot give you the answer nor will i ever agree with your stand about the sun being created first.
the light could have been a thousand things. I just stated color simply because its a possibilty. Energy is a possiblity.
But to you only a limited possiblities are logical and that seems to be human error.
The Jews were very strict when translating the bible.
In order to know what was really meant, one would have to get a hold of the original document that Moses wrote on and ask Moses himself or God Himself what they meant.
If anything the bible centers on Jesus Christ. He is the only light we really need to be looking at anyway.
He died for us so we were no longer seperated from God by sin. He is our redeemer. Now we can choose to believe Christ was the only begotten son of God or believe Jesus Christ was just another martyr or prophet or just a silly crazy guy.
I pray God helps you search for your answer but I will not longer respond to a redundant argument.
I see your point but it is almost like you cannot believe God IS powerful and with Him everything can be created.

By Brian (wrote 11 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 1/12/2010 22:33 pm

Brian, you are free to assume that the authors should have said “color” instead of “light”. Let me know if you ever find anyone who agrees.

But now you’re changing from “color” to “energy”. Energy makes more sense, but energy by itself does not sustain the growth of trees. You are fond to say that trees survived for only one day without sunlight, totally missing the point that they didn’t just survive the third day; they were CREATED on that day! But let me ask you once again to read Genesis 1:11-12:

11. Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so.
12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

Now does this seem like a one-day miracle to you, or an entire biological process?

God did not create all the plants we have today in a single day. If that were the case we would still be in Day 3 of creation because new species are still being created. So what God created was not a finite set of trees and fruits but a biological process. A process that would ensure the regeneration of trees and fruits for millions of years to come. A process that depends on the sun. So do you really think you’re being logical when you suggest that God created trees and fruits without the sun somehow and then changed the whole system the next day?

When logic fails you, you always resort to the “everything-is-possible-with God” line. Sure! But if the system of creating trees and fruits was subsequently changed then the creation of trees as we know them did not happen on the third day but at some point later!

Ponder!

And don’t forget that it’s not just trees that can’t exist without the sun. The world can’t either. The world doesn’t spin without the sun. It is with the sun that “there was evening and there was morning”. Or is this another one of “everything is possible with God” things!?

~Charles

By Charles Fiott (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 1/10/2010 14:16 pm

To follow up on this:
When God made the light he could of filled the void with a great light and once He had no need for the light any longer he used space to seperate the light to create the sun and the stars.
God did create elements which would mean He also created the unstable elements and gases that would just need oxygen to explode or what ever elements he decided to bring forth. since the sun is nothing but gases that are combusting then what i stated and the previous post stated could make sense that the light was either an explosion (the big bang) or the light was just one great white light that was then seperated to create the sun and the stars.
Now if you cannot see any logic to this, then i do not see any point of discussing this issue with you because then i will know for a fact that no matter what i type you will just simply disagree with me because you can.

By Brian (wrote 11 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 1/10/2010 05:18 am

Charles,
Since you cannot accept other possibilities then i see no point of contesting with your “logic”.
You find it logical the author errored on on the day the sun was created, but you do not find it logical that the translation of color was turned into light.
You do not seem to find it logical that light could have been energy as someone posted previously.
You do not seem to find it logical that since God is God that He can do what would seem impossible to us.
You do not seem to find it logical that plants can survive for 1 day without sunlight.
So it seems, to you, the only logical explanation is your own personal theory that the authore errored on the creation of the sun.
So if that is the case then what would that make you?
No matter what anyone ever post it seems your answer is the only answer to you because it is “logical”
Well based on your logic that you do not even follow, since the author errored only on the creation of the sun and not the translation of a word that means no other possibility is left in your mind.
So in your mind only you can be right.
Well when you show me your proof, since you love to state how all i have is suppositions, then i will agree with you without the sarcasm.
But until then you are just as guilty as me by just only assuming what MIGHT have happened not what actually happened.
I happen to find that light could have been energy very believable, simply because that is all light is when it comes down to it, just energy.
But that will probably be illogical to you.

By Brian (wrote 11 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 1/10/2010 05:05 am

Brian, you’re getting too agitated now. And, no, “dude”, I really don’t care if you agree with me or not. I’m just basing my opinions on logic and I wish you could debate me on logic instead of all your could-be-this and could-be-that. Sure everything “could have been” with God, but God made a world that consistently relies on the laws of physics and my logic tells me that it’s more correct to assume that the authors got it wrong than to assume that God got his own laws wrong.

You started post #57 with this sentence: “If you state that authors can make mistakes and God does not then you would have to concede that the author made the mistake of translating color to light.” You restated this type of faulty logic in post #59.

Ok, so let me use your logic for once (and, believe me! It’s only going to be this one time If the authors make mistakes then you have to concede that they made a mistake when they said that there is brightness in heaven.

See, Brian, this is how you think! I don’t think like that. I think like a human (as you have quite correctly accused me of). Apparently you think that thinking like a human is base. Well, Brian, I was created a human and I am happy to think and feel and act like one. Apparently you are a god and can’t understand lowly creatures like me!

By Charles Fiott (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 1/9/2010 13:03 pm

we as humans can create so much, look at our modern marvels. if you had pulled a human being from the early 19th century or even pres washington and told him that will be a device called a DROID that will speak to you and show you a live feed of video of anywhere in the world (Google earth for example) and also is able to have you contact anyone in the world even in china etc(you get the point with other high tech inventions) they will not believe you simply because the laws of common sense and science even back then will not support this claim in HIS time and to his possible knowledge, hell they are working on ionic transports of inanimate objects! Hovercrafts? Flying vehicles LOOK UP: M200G Volantor, Things that defy gravity and carry a human being on distances and refuel?

My point here is without the knowledge of how to, one cannot comprehend the facts to its fullist and would have to reject the idea of creating such things in that way or one would have to rely on belief untill that knowledge is revealed. I mean even the genius would simply theorize and experiment to prove a THEORY of the facts as to how to create or make, look at albert einstein! He theorized to the brinks of madness! Not comparing einstein to God or anything like that more like comparing one human to another to show a clear point. Maybe God has his own methods or devices to “create” that if he reveals would over power our simple minds even. I mean look what knowledge would do to masses of humans? Riots, panic, violence? Maybe the truth of how existence came about technically speaking is such powerful knowledge that it contains the truth of our own ending? Whether be is in a peaceful bedrest of oldage end or violent horrifying way?
Simply it could be an act of mercy, however the fact that our curious wandering minds need something so it was written in the simplest of ways” Let there be light” to spare us consequences of such knowledge? But then again in the afterlife our end will not matter if we are in heaven? Will it not? Then logically this knowledge maybe revealed to us. Yet our curious minds ponders such as this discussion overcomplicating simple truth and overanalyzing scriptures that were perhaps meant to be in that simple to the point way.

That is all.

By anonymous (wrote 1 Bible Commentary - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 1/9/2010 08:40 am