Very good point! I just want to know if u get to hang out with Schriner while ur at work???:smilewinkgrin:
-
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!
Who are the “sons of God” in Genesis 6:2,4?
- Thread starter Gabriel Elijah
- Start date
- Status
Very good point! I just want to know if u get to hang out with Schriner while ur at work???:smilewinkgrin:
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
The way it reads in the NAS is that the Nephilim were on the earth at that time "and afterward" when the "sons of God" came to the "daughters of men." That seems to me to indicate they were there prior to the event.
Since you know the Hebrew, why is the "and afterward" there if not to indicate the Nephilim were on the earth before the events with the "Sons of God" and "daughters of men"?
The Nephilim are indentified as mighty men. It seems logical to view this as the "mighty men" that were on the earth were corrupted by the intermarrying that occurred. Their sons were also "mighty men", but were currupted to do evil and wickedness.
That makes sense to me, given the context of the statement "and afterward".
It doesn't make sense that the "Nephilim" refer to "angel babies" since the event had not yet occurred.
peace to you
raying:
The way it reads in the NAS is that the Nephilim were on the earth at that time "and afterward" when the "sons of God" came to the "daughters of men." That seems to me to indicate they were there prior to the event.
Since you know the Hebrew, why is the "and afterward" there if not to indicate the Nephilim were on the earth before the events with the "Sons of God" and "daughters of men"?
The Nephilim are indentified as mighty men. It seems logical to view this as the "mighty men" that were on the earth were corrupted by the intermarrying that occurred. Their sons were also "mighty men", but were currupted to do evil and wickedness. That makes sense to me, given the context of the statement "and afterward".
It doesn't make sense that the "Nephilim" refer to "angel babies" since the event had not yet occurred.
peace to you
Well dear that is a really good question & 1 that men who are much better at Hebrew than myself are divided on. But the reason many give about the “and afterward” phrase was that the event is a continuing process. Ie their birth initially starts with the daughters of men & sons of God (the suggested meaning of "in those days") & they continue to be born as the daughters of men & sons of God continue to have them (suggsted meaning of "and afterward"). But like I said it is your very question that has led many to adopt the idea of only the men of renown being the children from the forbidden union. Causing them to believe that the Nephlim are not the mighty men of renown, but each being 2 distinct groups.
Last edited by a moderator:
Context, Context, Context
Remember the three primary rules of bible interpretation:
1. Context
2. Context
3. Context
Genesis chapter four describes the ungodly generation of Cain, while in chapter five we see the godly generation of Seth.
In Israel, separation was a vital part of the religious responsibility of those who truly worshipped God. What took place in chapter six was the breakdown in the separation which threatened the godly seed through whom Messiah was to be born. This breakdown was the cause of the flood which would follow.
Those who followed after the godliness of Seth, the Sons of God, saw those who followed after the godlessness of Cain, and allowed their animal lust to over rule their spiritual discernment, and took to themselves wives (common expression for human marriage in the OT) from the godless.
As is usually the case, the godly did not elevate the godless, but rather, the godless dragged the godly down to their level. This introduced apostasy into human kind, especially in the following generations, and this breakdown in separation was the root cause of the flood of Noah.
The ONLY cure for apostasy is the judgement of God.
Remember the three primary rules of bible interpretation:
1. Context
2. Context
3. Context
Genesis chapter four describes the ungodly generation of Cain, while in chapter five we see the godly generation of Seth.
In Israel, separation was a vital part of the religious responsibility of those who truly worshipped God. What took place in chapter six was the breakdown in the separation which threatened the godly seed through whom Messiah was to be born. This breakdown was the cause of the flood which would follow.
Those who followed after the godliness of Seth, the Sons of God, saw those who followed after the godlessness of Cain, and allowed their animal lust to over rule their spiritual discernment, and took to themselves wives (common expression for human marriage in the OT) from the godless.
As is usually the case, the godly did not elevate the godless, but rather, the godless dragged the godly down to their level. This introduced apostasy into human kind, especially in the following generations, and this breakdown in separation was the root cause of the flood of Noah.
The ONLY cure for apostasy is the judgement of God.
Thank u brother but I've already addressed why if context is ur answer that it cannot b a Cainite -Sethite interpretation--but I'll repost 4 u
Really-dear brother that’s ur best answer—is “the context”—well context proves they can not be Cainite women. Adham is a Hebrew generic term sometimes used to denote mankind as a whole (Gen 6:1). It is highly unlikely that adham is used in Genesis 6:1 to mean all mankind and then restricted to one particular family in the next verse (6:2). The reference to the “daughters of man” cannot be limited to the genealogy of Seth or Cain (based on context & original language)—they simply belong to the category of humans of the female gender. Since adham cannot be limited to Cainite women (due to the use of the Adham term in Gen 6:1 then again in 6:2)—there is no hint of this being Sethite-Cainite marriages—b/c adham (daughters of men) includes both Cainite & Sethite women. Further, the introductory phrase in Gn 6:1 is a Hebrew linguistic style of summarizing the last topic & moving to the next—at best (if any connection to the previous chapters at all)—context makes the daughters of man—Sethites, that is if we allow the original Hebrew language to actually be the context. And if context is desired—we have a new starting point (ie Gen 6:1) with human females (of an undefined class-ie Gen 6:2) intermingling with the Hebrew bene elohim. (Heb: sons of God)----—please show me any where in Hebrew literature or Scripture that the exact Hebrew bene elohim phrase ever refers to Sethites & I’ll say maybe—otherwise if u want context learn the original language, or use another proof point as ur foundational argument.
But thank u 4 ur input & I do love most of post personally t-cassidy—Merry Christmas!!:godisgood:
No, it is not my "best" answer in the sense of most exhaustive. It is my short answer, as in a synopsis of my in depth critical study of the issue over the past 35 years.
I don't recall saying it did. What I said was that it referred to those who "followed the way of Cain." That does not imply biological relationship.
Yes, we all know that, but the point was that the immediate preceding context delineates the division of mankind into the godly and the ungodly.
Again, I don't remember saying it only referred to a specific genetic relationship.
<sigh> I never claimed the phrase referred exclusively to the progeny of Seth. And, as long as we are asking questions, please show me anywhere in scripture that fallen angels are ever referred to as "sons of God."
As for your admonition to "learn the original language" - well, I leaned Hebrew 37 years ago, and taught it at the graduate and post graduate level for over 25 years.
And, in fact, the best of the Jewish Hebrew exegetes deny the "fallen angel" myth (which originated with the non-canonical "Book of Enoch") and, who do you believe is better at Hebrew exegesis? You, me, or a Hebrew speaking Jewish Rabbi?
And a merry Christmas to you too.
Actually dear brother the “best” rabbis that I’ve talked to go with the rules/judges (with the angel view 2nd—I’ve never even meet 1 that supports the Sethite view). And I’m very glad u “know” Hebrew—then u know why the language is a stumbling clock to the daughters of men being “Cainite”. I’ve already addressed several times how the bene elohim could b fallen angels but just 4 u—since I do respect ur will say it againNo, it is not my "best" answer in the sense of most exhaustive. It is my short answer, as in a synopsis of my in depth critical study of the issue over the past 35 years.I don't recall saying it did. What I said was that it referred to those who "followed the way of Cain." That does not imply biological relationship.Yes, we all know that, but the point was that the immediate preceding context delineates the division of mankind into the godly and the ungodly.Again, I don't remember saying it only referred to a specific genetic relationship. <sigh> I never claimed the phrase referred exclusively to the progeny of Seth. And, as long as we are asking questions, please show me anywhere in scripture that fallen angels are ever referred to as "sons of God."
As for your admonition to "learn the original language" - well, I leaned Hebrew 37 years ago, and taught it at the graduate and post graduate level for over 25 years.
And, in fact, the best of the Jewish Hebrew exegetes deny the "fallen angel" myth (which originated with the non-canonical "Book of Enoch") and, who do you believe is better at Hebrew exegesis? You, me, or a Hebrew speaking Jewish Rabbi?
And a merry Christmas to you too.
Here is an abbreviated answer 4 ya brother--
even if we limit the bene elohim term to holy angels, we have to remember that all fallen angels were at one time holy & would have been called bene elohim. This being said, this could have been when these particular angels rebelled against God (ie the time when these bene elohim became fallen—thus the term would have been appropriate for them). When it comes to the angelic revolt its not as clear cut as many imagine it. We know Satan fell by Gen 3—but we really are not told if other angels fell with him at his initial revolt, or if there was more than 1 angelic revolt (Even if we allow Rev 12 to be about Satan’s initial revolt it does not say when or how he influenced other angels to rebel.) Nevertheless even if these angels followed Satan in his initial rebellion & had fallen by Gen 3—they still are closer to the bene elohim term than Sethites b/c at one time they were holy or classified as bene elohim.
Further since ur a professor I’d ask u also respond to post 45 & 47-Thank u-Merry Christmas—I might b gone till tomorrow or the next day but I look forward to hearing you answer. This is a topic I changed several of my seminary professors minds on—so this will be fun—God Bless
The problems I have with the fallen angels view is three fold.
1. Jesus says angels are sexless and do not marry.
2. The context clearly tells us:
Now it came to pass, when men (not angels) began to multiply on the face of the earth…
…the sons of God saw the daughters of men…
…“My Spirit shall not strive with man…”
Those were the mighty men (not angels, or hybrids, men) who were of old, men of renown.
Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man (not angels, man) was great…
And the LORD was sorry that He had made man (not angels) on the earth…
So the LORD said, “I will destroy man…”
It seems to me that, if God was trying to stamp out the sin of angels cohabiting with man he failed miserably! After all, angels are immortal! The flood would not kill them nor stop their sin!
3. The law of creation "after its kind" would prevent conception in an angel/human mating.
1. Jesus says angels are sexless and do not marry.
2. The context clearly tells us:
Now it came to pass, when men (not angels) began to multiply on the face of the earth…
…the sons of God saw the daughters of men…
…“My Spirit shall not strive with man…”
Those were the mighty men (not angels, or hybrids, men) who were of old, men of renown.
Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man (not angels, man) was great…
And the LORD was sorry that He had made man (not angels) on the earth…
So the LORD said, “I will destroy man…”
It seems to me that, if God was trying to stamp out the sin of angels cohabiting with man he failed miserably! After all, angels are immortal! The flood would not kill them nor stop their sin!
3. The law of creation "after its kind" would prevent conception in an angel/human mating.
Please read post 47! I asked u 2 do this b4 u responded brother but I guess u didn't--b/c I adress this here
1 more thing he never says they are sexless or incapable of procreation--4 a proff Im suprised ud miss this-
I read it and don't understand why you address it. Just because one phrase is quoted from secular literature does not canonize the entire book the quote came from. Paul agreed with one point made by Cretin poets but that does not mean everything said by Cretin poets is gospel truth.
Also, "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven." Not genderless. Sexless. (My bad.) Jesus said it, I believe it.
And I can't help but notice you did not address any of the obvious references to the judgment on men, not on angels.
The appeal to myth was fairly common among some rabbinical schools of thought to avoid having to admit men are inherently fallen and sinful. It was much easier to blame it all on the devil, including blaming the flood on the devil rather than on the failure of God's people to obey His laws of separation.
I read it and don't understand why you address it. Just because one phrase is quoted from secular literature does not canonize the entire book the quote came from. Paul agreed with one point made by Cretin poets but that does not mean everything said by Cretin poets is gospel truth.
Also, "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven." Not genderless. Sexless. (My bad.) Jesus said it, I believe it.
And I can't help but notice you did not address any of the obvious references to the judgment on men, not on angels.
The appeal to myth was fairly common among some rabbinical schools of thought to avoid having to admit men are inherently fallen and sinful. It was much easier to blame it all on the devil, including blaming the flood on the devil rather than on the failure of God's people to obey His laws of separation.
Wow did u really read post 47 brother b/c actually I did address ur question!—the flood was for the punishment of man—a flood could not even impact angels b/c they cannot die! The focus of the Bible is on man (and His relationship to God) not angel they are only secondary (and as I showed there are many times in Scripture where the description of their role is limited & whats going on with them is not fully detailed until later n Scripture) As 4 the resurrection & Jesus quote—not being given in marriage has nothing what so ever to do with sex or gender—its about marriage & as u know cannot demonstrate the sexlessness or capability of sex of something. The point is there is no marriage in heaven & the verse has nothing to do with sexual capability. Further—no matter what role angels play—man is responsible 4 his own sin—no matter if he was enticed by angels---just look at Gen 3! So the focus on the flood 4 man sin is appropriate—b/c man deserved Gods wrath in this matter while angels received their own just do! I more thing r u suggesting bene elohim has to do with holiness? 4 a proff I'd be surprised if u r.
Last edited by a moderator:
T-cassidy dear brother—might I suggest you stop trying 2 counteract the angelic (fallen or the fall of these angels view) b/c I’ve seen all the supposed arguments & have the ability to counteract all of them! Instead, lay out in detail your own personal view (I assume it is godly people with ungodly people with no Sethite or Cainite connection)—which sounds like a suggestion worthy to be added to the Gen 6 debate. My goal of this thread is to find other possibilities to add to a writing I’m working on & it sounds like you have a good one. Yes—my mind is made up that angels some how fell & impacted the events b4 the flood—but my goal is to put every possible theory in a writing & let others see all the evidence (for every view) & make their minds up 4 themselves.
Last edited by a moderator:
I think you were referring to this post?
I am trying to understand your view posed here. I have not thoroughly read every post in this thread, so forgive me if I miss something. First, I am very unfamiliar with these outside sources you've listed. Quotes and dates would be very helpful "(cf 1 Enoch 6-19; Jubilees 4: 15, 22; 5: 1; Damascus Document 2: 17-19; 1QapGen 2: 1; Testament of Reuben 5: -7; Testament of Naphtali 3:5; 2 Barach 56: 10-14)".
Ok so these writings talk about the angels being locked in chains which is similar to Jude verse 6. Peter is listing separate events of God's judgment to be looked at separately to emphasize God's judgment.
2 Peter 2:4-8
2:4- Judgment on angels with no mercy due to their sin (No Gen. 6 connection)
2:5- Judgment on mankind during Noah's time ( connects to Gen 6)
2:6- Judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah (no Gen 6 connection)
Jude v.5-7 also shows God's judgment in 3 separate events
v.5- Judgment on Egypt (Exodus)
v.6- Judgment angels (unknown time or recording when they fell)
v.7- Judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah
At this time I am not making a clear connection to materializing angels in Genesis 6.
Please refer to my above account on 2 Peter. I can't see how you can group the angels to the fall of man in Noahs day without connecting Sodom and Gomorrah. Again, I may be wrong, but they are 3 different events of God's judgment. Apparently the angels all most likely fell before Adam did in the garden which is assumed but not given in detail.
I am not familiar with extra Biblical quotes so you will need to do some quote or linking along with explaining them further. If the New Testament audience is familiar with the Genesis 6 account and clearly knows that angels materialized I would be surprised. Again, I could use a little more detail please. Jude and Peter's audience were most likely understanding the basic message of their writings which were dealing with judgment on ungodly and sin. They all simply knew that angels fell and immediately under eternal judgment (the in chains part is tricky due to lack of explaining), people sinned in Noah's day and were destroyed, and Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed.
I am trying to understand your view posed here. I have not thoroughly read every post in this thread, so forgive me if I miss something. First, I am very unfamiliar with these outside sources you've listed. Quotes and dates would be very helpful "(cf 1 Enoch 6-19; Jubilees 4: 15, 22; 5: 1; Damascus Document 2: 17-19; 1QapGen 2: 1; Testament of Reuben 5: -7; Testament of Naphtali 3:5; 2 Barach 56: 10-14)".
Ok so these writings talk about the angels being locked in chains which is similar to Jude verse 6. Peter is listing separate events of God's judgment to be looked at separately to emphasize God's judgment.
2 Peter 2:4-8
2:4- Judgment on angels with no mercy due to their sin (No Gen. 6 connection)
2:5- Judgment on mankind during Noah's time ( connects to Gen 6)
2:6- Judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah (no Gen 6 connection)
Jude v.5-7 also shows God's judgment in 3 separate events
v.5- Judgment on Egypt (Exodus)
v.6- Judgment angels (unknown time or recording when they fell)
v.7- Judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah
At this time I am not making a clear connection to materializing angels in Genesis 6.
Please refer to my above account on 2 Peter. I can't see how you can group the angels to the fall of man in Noahs day without connecting Sodom and Gomorrah. Again, I may be wrong, but they are 3 different events of God's judgment. Apparently the angels all most likely fell before Adam did in the garden which is assumed but not given in detail.
I am not familiar with extra Biblical quotes so you will need to do some quote or linking along with explaining them further. If the New Testament audience is familiar with the Genesis 6 account and clearly knows that angels materialized I would be surprised. Again, I could use a little more detail please. Jude and Peter's audience were most likely understanding the basic message of their writings which were dealing with judgment on ungodly and sin. They all simply knew that angels fell and immediately under eternal judgment (the in chains part is tricky due to lack of explaining), people sinned in Noah's day and were destroyed, and Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed.
GE
Do you think those in Gen. could be thought of say like Legion in the NT accounts of the demon possessed man?
Could be a stretch to say through the genealogy in Luke to go back through the Seth line the son of Adam the son of God.
I do not have a set in stone opinion of this. I do believe we miss something in the word of God because of translators that have something to do with God, man, sin, women, sex, sexual morality, marriage and even birth and it started in the garden of Eden. It has to do with the relationship between God and man and I can not put my finger on it. I wish someone smarter than me would tackle this. I even think there could be something sexual about the eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Eve ate and she gave to her husband (Iysh) and he did eat and that bothers me.
Hope I did not go beyond the rules but let me know what you think.
Do you think those in Gen. could be thought of say like Legion in the NT accounts of the demon possessed man?
Could be a stretch to say through the genealogy in Luke to go back through the Seth line the son of Adam the son of God.
I do not have a set in stone opinion of this. I do believe we miss something in the word of God because of translators that have something to do with God, man, sin, women, sex, sexual morality, marriage and even birth and it started in the garden of Eden. It has to do with the relationship between God and man and I can not put my finger on it. I wish someone smarter than me would tackle this. I even think there could be something sexual about the eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Eve ate and she gave to her husband (Iysh) and he did eat and that bothers me.
Hope I did not go beyond the rules but let me know what you think.
A huge thing to notice when reading my reply in the following is to notice how I attempt to connect Genesis chapter 5 to Genesis 6:1-2.
I agree with the different usages of 'adam. It is clear that verse 1 is used for the entirety of mankind. In verse 2 you have the entirety of mankind split into 2 groups. God's chosen line verse the non-chosen line (offspring of Cain and Abel). Can you please explain why the author (Moses) would not split mankind into God's chosen? I find that to be a great explanation of the context of Genesis. Is not the entire book about God's bringing about His promised Messiah through a chosen people? Notice that Moses listed the descendants of Adam that build up to the corruption of mankind (chapter 5-6). Noah was following God's chosen descendants that Luke recorded in chapter 3 that end up leading to Jesus. Look:
Genesis 5:
v.3- Adam
v.3- Seth
v.6- Enosh
v.9- Kenan (or Cainan)
v.12- Mahalalel
v. 15- Jared
v. 18- Enoch
v. 21- Methuselah
v. 25- Lamech
v. 26- Noah
Notice that only the promised line "sons of God" (or people belonging to God's promised line) are mentioned and followed in chapter 5. Specifically in the chosen line, only righteous descendants who were chosen to carry the seed of Eve were mentioned and all the other sons of God's promised line are labeled "other children."
Now compare with Luke 3:36b-38.
Context is everything and it is almost definite that the "sons of God" are the chosen or elected lineage from Adam to Noah. Now the rest of mankind apart from the descendants of Seth "sons of God" are simply the descendants of Cain or "daughters of man", that is to say "men of the flesh" not "men of the promise" . Yet at that time all descendants from both lineages are living in sin and intermingling. All but Noah and 7 relatives were righteous. Later God preserved His promise in Gen. 3:15 through Noah's son Shem (Luke 3:36) and so on. This is the overarching context of Genesis and the Old Testament- Redemption. This is why I believe context is the greatest evidence that "sons of God" refers to Sethites or (God's chosen lineage, Luke 3) rather than angels or Nephilim.
Lastly the phrase "sons of God" is foreign to Mosaic writing and is not found in any of the 5 books. It's best explanation isn't from pulling terms from the book of Job or the prophets. The best is to understand it in the context of Genesis and from the New Testament teaching, other historical writing from the day. I will be interested to see what outside sources say about Genesis such as the book of Enoch you quoted.
This is interesting...
Last edited by a moderator:
A huge thing to notice when reading my reply in the following is to notice how I attempt to connect Genesis chapter 5 to Genesis 6:1-2.
I agree with the different usages of 'adam. It is clear that verse 1 is used for the entirety of mankind. In verse 2 you have the entirety of mankind split into 2 groups. God's chosen line verse the non-chosen line (offspring of Cain and Abel). Can you please explain why the author (Moses) would not split mankind into God's chosen? I find that to be a great explanation of the context of Genesis. Is not the entire book about God's bringing about His promised Messiah through a chosen people? Notice that Moses listed the descendants of Adam that build up to the corruption of mankind (chapter 5-6). Noah was following God's chosen descendants that Luke recorded in chapter 3 that end up leading to Jesus. Look:
Genesis 5:
v.3- Adam
v.3- Seth
v.6- Enosh
v.9- Kenan (or Cainan)
v.12- Mahalalel
v. 15- Jared
v. 18- Enoch
v. 21- Methuselah
v. 25- Lamech
v. 26- Noah
Notice that only the promised line "sons of God" (or people belonging to God's promised line) are mentioned and followed in chapter 5. Specifically in the chosen line, only righteous descendants who were chosen to carry the seed of Eve were mentioned and all the other sons of God's promised line are labeled "other children."
Now compare with Luke 3:36b-38.
Context is everything and it is almost definite that the "sons of God" are the chosen or elected lineage from Adam to Noah. Now the rest of mankind apart from the descendants of Seth "sons of God" are simply the descendants of Cain or "daughters of man", that is to say "men of the flesh" not "men of the promise" . Yet at that time all descendants from both lineages are living in sin and intermingling. All but Noah and 7 relatives were righteous. Later God preserved His promise in Gen. 3:15 through Noah's son Shem (Luke 3:36) and so on. This is the overarching context of Genesis and the Old Testament- Redemption. This is why I believe context is the greatest evidence that "sons of God" refers to Sethites or (God's chosen lineage, Luke 3) rather than angels or Nephilim.
Lastly the phrase "sons of God" is foreign to Mosaic writing and is not found in any of the 5 books. It's best explanation isn't from pulling terms from the book of Job or the prophets. The best is to understand it in the context of Genesis and from the New Testament teaching, other historical writing from the day. I will be interested to see what outside sources say about Genesis such as the book of Enoch you quoted.
This is interesting...
Since we are at TIME WHERE FAMILY IS MORE IMORTANT Than theology let me make it real simple__ the angelic view of Gen 6 has historical evidence based on the writings I posted---please show me another theory on gen 6 with historical evidenced that is not angelic compared to ur supposed theories! 2nd—wow—please did u really disprove post 45—very weak argument brother—do u even have the ability to read Hebrew! If not please admit so—bc ur argument has nothing 2 do with original language unless ur a Hebrew expert that can counteract the normal rules! Otherwise- please accept ur argument is weak b/c u have no plausible evidence! I’ll b back day after Christmas 2 c this response!
1. Yes family is important.
2. I don't have any historical quotes of the angelic view to help me out. that is why I asked you pollitely to quote and expound on them for me. My theory is a weak attempt to understand Genesis.
3. I'm sorry my argument is weak. Can you correct my weakness?
4. No I really wasn't trying to debunk your #45 post. I was responding to it based on my understanding of Genesis.
5. No I don't read Hebrew. If you can can you teach me why I'm wrong and show me how the language does not allow for my interpretation?
6. I don't see why my argument is weak because you haven't directly responded to my weak points. I admit that it is very possible that it is incorrect. As of right now, it is my view, and I have not been shown "clearly" that it is incorrect.
7. What do you mean by plausible evidence. Please give me some for the proper interpretation of Genesis 6:2.
Merry Christmas!
Enjoy the fam. I will when i wake up... it's 1AM... bad habits.. Thanks for your time
- Status