<<<How nonsensical can it get?>>>

[vooks]

Re:
you are quite right, Peter made his second errand AFTER the angels had spoken to the woman (in Luke 24:3 further).

I must go check on my mistake. I can’t say more before I have checked. So for now, I’m going to have a look . . .

Thank you Gerhard. It takes humility to admit mistakes. Look at what you wrote

2) “Earliest morning- darkness”, just after midnight, “the two women” (variant – the two Marys), “and certain others with them”, for the first time, “came to the sepulchre, bringing the spices they had prepared”. (Lk24:1) “They returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things to the eleven and to all the rest.” (“Then Peter stood up and ran to the tomb; and bending low over, he saw the linen clothes. He went back, wandering by himself about that what had happened.” (Lk24:9-12) Cf. John's account in 20:1-10. I can't say Luke talks of another visit by Peter, but it seems true because Luke doesn't mention John.)

3) These women to make sure, a second time came to the tomb “very early before sunrise”. (Mk16:2)

4) Mary from after the others had fled in fear (Mk16:8) “had had stood without at the grave” (Jn20:11). At the time a gardener should begin work, about sunrise, Jesus “early … first appeared to Mary”. (Mk16:9)

5) Soon after – after they a third time have visited the tomb and “the angel explained” to them what had happened during the Resurrection – Jesus appears to the other women “as they wen

You place Peter's second trip somewhere near #2 AFTER the women report to the eleven yet the Angels show up on the third visit to the tomb by the women in #5

The essence of this is, there is not a trip by women to the tomb where angels never appear and you have been busy reconstructing one up there in #2.

Was there really an 'angel-less' trip to the tomb by the women?
Why would women who have just seen an empty tomb, been told that Jesus is resurrected by Angels make another trip to the tomb armed with spices again a few hours later?

Read Wenham again. I had a copy but once my house flooded and the book was destroyed. I wept bitterly but the seeds of harmony had been sown.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Here is my synopsis . . .

Luke 24:10
It was Mary Magdalene and Joanna
Ehsan de heh Magdalehneh Maria kai Iohanna

and Mary of James and other women with them
kai Maria heh Iakohbou kai hai loipai sun autais

which told these things unto the disciples.
elegon pros tous apostolous tauta.
11
And their words seemed to them as
Kai ephanehsan enohpion autohn hohsei

idle tales, and they believed them not.
lehpos ta rehmata tauta, kai ehpistoun autais. [Cf. Mark 16:8.]
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
7. Peter has another look

Luke 24:24
And certain of them which were with us went to the sepulchre
Kai apehlthon tines tohn sun hehmin epi ta mnehmeion

and found it even so as the women had said:
kai heuron houtohs kathohs kai hai gunaikes eipon:

but him they saw not.
auton de ouk eidon.
24:12
Then arose Peter, and ran unto the sepulchre;
Ho de Petros anastas edramen epi to mnehmeion

and stooping down, he beheld the linen clothes laid by themselves,
kai parakupsas blepei ta othonia keimena mona,

and departed, wondering in himself
Kai apehlthen pros auton heauthaumadzohn

at that which was come to pass.
to gegonos.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8. Women return to “see again”

Mark 16:2
And very early in the morning the First Day of the week
Kai lian proh-i tehi Miai tohn sabbatohn

they came upon the sepulchre
erchontai epi to mnehma

at the rising of the sun.
anateilantos tou hehliou.
3
And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away
Kai elegon pros heautas, Tis apokulisei hehmin ·


I think, Vooks, it is your identifying the visit in Luke 24 before Peter went the second time to the tomb, with the visit in Mark 16:2-8, the visit the women made and they all had left again except Mary who had stood after at the grave which causes the confusion.

The times GIVEN for each of the women's visits, clarifies everything.

All the women went together (three of them) "carrying their spices prepared and ready" to anoint the body THEY THOUGHT WAS STILL THERE in Luke 24, "orthrou batheohs" which is right after midnight morning.

These women returned and told the men where they were all together. (Not where Mary told Peter and John only of the stone.)
In Luke the women are told by the angles Jesus had raised / was raised / rose / is resurrected.
They go and tell and "astonish" the men where they were all together in the City.

Peter goes to the grave at this stage, by himself and returns puzzled as ever.

"Very early before sunrise", 3, 4, 5 a.m.? Mark 16:2-8 the women "check / measure up again" (the 'ana-' Verbs) everything they already had seen. The angel sternly rebukes the women for not believing and they flee from the tomb and keep total silence.

But Mary had had stood after at the sepulchre in John 20:11!

But once you’ve identified Mark’s <trip> with Luke’s <trip>, you’re lost! Not even Peter’s <trip> can make sense or fit in anywhere.

I'm sure that is where you are making the mistake, Vooks.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Thank you Gerhard. It takes humility to admit mistakes. Look at what you wrote

2) “Earliest morning- darkness”, just after midnight, “the two women” (variant – the two Marys), “and certain others with them”, for the first time, “came to the sepulchre, bringing the spices they had prepared”. (Lk24:1) “They returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things to the eleven and to all the rest.” (“Then Peter stood up and ran to the tomb; and bending low over, he saw the linen clothes. He went back, wandering by himself about that what had happened.” (Lk24:9-12) Cf. John's account in 20:1-10. I can't say Luke talks of another visit by Peter, but it seems true because Luke doesn't mention John.)

You place Peter's second trip somewhere near #2 AFTER the women report to the eleven yet the Angels show up on the third visit to the tomb by the women in #5

The essence of this is, there is not a trip by women to the tomb where angels never appear and you have been busy reconstructing one up there in #2.

Was there really an 'angel-less' trip to the tomb by the women?
Why would women who have just seen an empty tomb, been told that Jesus is resurrected by Angels make another trip to the tomb armed with spices again a few hours later?

Read Wenham again. I had a copy but once my house flooded and the book was destroyed. I wept bitterly but the seeds of harmony had been sown.

Ah, thank you Vooks, I have now seen where I indeed made a mistake. I was wrong when I described Peter's second <trip> TO the tomb as slow and while meditating. In fact I contradicted Luke and myself. I completely missed this. His return <trip> though was slow and while he wondered about the angels and the women's news of the risen Jesus.

Next time I'll be more careful to improvise on what "IS WRITTEN"!

 

[vooks]

Here is my synopsis . . .

Luke 24:10
It was Mary Magdalene and Joanna
Ehsan de heh Magdalehneh Maria kai Iohanna

and Mary of James and other women with them
kai Maria heh Iakohbou kai hai loipai sun autais

which told these things unto the disciples.
elegon pros tous apostolous tauta.
11
And their words seemed to them as
Kai ephanehsan enohpion autohn hohsei

idle tales, and they believed them not.
lehpos ta rehmata tauta, kai ehpistoun autais. [Cf. Mark 16:8.]
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
7. Peter has another look

Luke 24:24
And certain of them which were with us went to the sepulchre
Kai apehlthon tines tohn sun hehmin epi ta mnehmeion

and found it even so as the women had said:
kai heuron houtohs kathohs kai hai gunaikes eipon:

but him they saw not.
auton de ouk eidon.
24:12
Then arose Peter, and ran unto the sepulchre;
Ho de Petros anastas edramen epi to mnehmeion

and stooping down, he beheld the linen clothes laid by themselves,
kai parakupsas blepei ta othonia keimena mona,

and departed, wondering in himself
Kai apehlthen pros auton heauthaumadzohn

at that which was come to pass.
to gegonos.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8. Women return to “see again”

Mark 16:2
And very early in the morning the First Day of the week
Kai lian proh-i tehi Miai tohn sabbatohn

they came upon the sepulchre
erchontai epi to mnehma

at the rising of the sun.
anateilantos tou hehliou.
3
And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away
Kai elegon pros heautas, Tis apokulisei hehmin ·


I think, Vooks, it is your identifying the visit in Luke 24 before Peter went the second time to the tomb, with the visit in Mark 16:2-8, the visit the women made and they all had left again except Mary who had stood after at the grave which causes the confusion.

The times GIVEN for each of the women's visits, clarifies everything.

All the women went together (three of them) "carrying their spices prepared and ready" to anoint the body THEY THOUGHT WAS STILL THERE in Luke 24, "orthrou batheohs" which is right after midnight morning.

These women returned and told the men where they were all together. (Not where Mary told Peter and John only of the stone.)
In Luke the women are told by the angles Jesus had raised / was raised / rose / is resurrected.
They go and tell and "astonish" the men where they were all together in the City.

Peter goes to the grave at this stage, by himself and returns puzzled as ever.

"Very early before sunrise", 3, 4, 5 a.m.? Mark 16:2-8 the women "check / measure up again" (the 'ana-' Verbs) everything they already had seen. The angel sternly rebukes the women for not believing and they flee from the tomb and keep total silence.

But Mary had had stood after at the sepulchre in John 20:11!

But once you’ve identified Mark’s <trip> with Luke’s <trip>, you’re lost! Not even Peter’s <trip> can make sense or fit in anywhere.

I'm sure that is where you are making the mistake, Vooks.

Gerhard,
One thing at a time.
The harmony attempts end up being a hopeless exercise when you have two competing attempts. That's why I have been asking for yours. Let's continue looking at it

 

[vooks]

Ah, thank you Vooks, I have now seen where I indeed made a mistake. I was wrong when I described Peter's second <trip> TO the tomb as slow and while meditating. In fact I contradicted Luke and myself. I completely missed this. His return <trip> though was slow and while he wondered about the angels and the women's news of the risen Jesus.

Next time I'll be more careful to improvise on what "IS WRITTEN"!

Gerhard,
Is your mistake in describing Peter?
I have no problem whatsoever with that. My question was on your claim of an angel-less visit to the tomb by women in #2. Do you still insist that the women in your #2 had not seen Angels?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

The essence of this is, there is not a trip by women to the tomb where angels never appear and you have been busy reconstructing one up there in #2.

Was there really an 'angel-less' trip to the tomb by the women?

Re:
<<<The essence of this is, there is not a trip by women to the tomb where angels never appear and you have been busy reconstructing one up there in #2.>>>

Yes, where more than one woman—Mary Magdalene included—visited the tomb and actually went into the tomb there were angels or was an angel:
Luke 24—two angels outside surprising the women as they came out of the tomb; and Mark 16—one angel “at the right”—carefully observed inside “sitting” on an already familiar place.

And where Mary by herself having “had had stood after / stayed behind”, “at the tomb and stooped over and peeped inside and spoke to them. There were two angels inside the tomb sitting where the body was laid down.

Where at last the women came to the tomb while Mary was no longer among them because the Lord already had appeared to her early on the First Day of the week, an “angel explained to them and told that Jesus was resurrected, and they for joy ran to tell his disciples, Jesus met them, while the angel must have felt great for the honour he received to be the messenger of Glad Tidings.

But where it was Mary on her own who “comes UNTO the tomb” viz. “is on her way to the tomb, sees the stone cast away, runs back”, no angels are seen or mentioned.

Also where Peter and John ran to the tomb, and after several hours Peter again hastened to the tomb, no angels are mentioned because no angels were there.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Why would women who have just seen an empty tomb, been told that Jesus is resurrected by Angels make another trip to the tomb armed with spices again a few hours later?

Read Wenham again. I had a copy but once my house flooded and the book was destroyed. I wept bitterly but the seeds of harmony had been sown.

One woman—Mary—have just seen an OPENED tomb, in actual fact a stone cast away from the tomb. Next thing which happened wasn’t she <<<been told that Jesus is resurrected>>>. Next thing was she running back and telling Peter and John of what she saw.

Next <trip> was Peter and John’s—no angels near.

Next thing Mary did, was a few hours later , when she and the other Mary—“the two women and others with them—, made another trip to the tomb armed with spices>>>

You asked, Vooks, <<<Why would women who have just seen an empty tomb, been told that Jesus is resurrected by Angels make another trip to the tomb armed with spices again a few hours later?>>>

Well, you have also answered your own question, Vooks! It isn’t possible they could just have seen an empty tomb, and been told that Jesus is resurrected by Angels. That’s why the women make their first trip collectively. It was <<another trip>> for Mary Magdalene, yes—, but for the whole group, Luke 24:1-3 was their first trip to the tomb. The women made this <trip> because Mary must have told them that she saw the tomb was opened somehow she KNEW NOT. Therefore the body should be in the tomb still; how would anyone know it wasn’t there still? So let’s go and see for ourselves! And off they went, <<armed with spices>> to anoint the body they were convinced was in the tomb still— opened or not opened, Mary! How would you know Mary, if it’s not in the tomb, still?! And Mary eagerly would agree with the others, wouldn’t she?

I would have posted my Wenham for you if I haven’t just two weeks ago given all my books to the University. But Wenham holds to the single visit at the tomb and Resurrection together explanation--- the most futile method to understanding the so-called “Easter Enigmas”.

Ja, the theory is as old as Tradition itself … and as falling short of comprehensibility as . . . who knows what . . . I have read Wenham and studied it at least a dozen times over, and couldn’t catch its drift, what understand its genealogical detail and other stuff everything and anything but the PLAIN SCRIPTURES!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

idiotic glib
Your Greek is horrendous but not as sick as your logic. Be wise, quit flossing your illiteracy and stick to the Truth
Matthew 28:2-6 (KJV)
rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it. 3 His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow: 4 And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men. 5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. 6 He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay

Am not disputing whether he dragged, kicked or commanded to stone to move. Am saying the stone was not a mile away from the tomb for these reasons;
1. He rolled it
2. He sat on it
3. He spoke to the women
4.In #1 to #3 he is quite near the tomb enough to say, 'he is not HERE'. 'Here' is where the angel was. 'Here' is where the body OUGHT to have been. 'Here' is at the tomb not a mile away.

Withdraw that statement and apologize and repent for reading your fantasies into the Holy Scriptures.

Or explain what sane man believes the angel kicks a stone a mile away, flies/runs and sits on it, then returns to the tomb running/flying and addresses the women.

Principles A and B

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Gerhard,
One thing at a time.
The harmony attempts end up being a hopeless exercise when you have two competing attempts. That's why I have been asking for yours. Let's continue looking at it

I do not understand you, sorry. I have given you the only <<harmony>> possible --that of the Scriptures verbatim.

 

[vooks]

Gerhard,
You are digressing and avoiding my question for reasons known best to yourself;
You said

2) “Earliest morning- darkness”, just after midnight, “the two women” (variant – the two Marys), “and certain others with them”, for the first time, “came to the sepulchre, bringing the spices they had prepared”. (Lk24:1) “They returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things to the eleven and to all the rest.” (“Then Peter stood up and ran to the tomb; and bending low over, he saw the linen clothes. He went back, wandering by himself about that what had happened.” (Lk24:9-12) Cf. John's account in 20:1-10. I can't say Luke talks of another visit by Peter, but it seems true because Luke doesn't mention John.) .......

..5) Soon after – after they a third time have visited the tomb and “the angel explained” to them what had happened during the Resurrection – Jesus appears to the other women “as they went to tell his disciples”. (Mt28:5, 9)

So there were no angels on trip #2 which means all the women reported to the eleven was an empty tomb. Your angels show up on the third trip by the women, trip #5. Do you still stand by this?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Gerhard,
Is your mistake in describing Peter?
I have no problem whatsoever with that. My question was on your claim of an angel-less visit to the tomb by women in #2. Do you still insist that the women in your #2 had not seen Angels?

I do not claim <#2> was <<an angel-less visit to the tomb by women>> --<<... women>>.
<#2> was an <<angel-less visit to the tomb>> by "Mary Magdalene" on her own, who "comes unto / approaches / nears (Singular) the tomb, sees (Singular) the stone ... runs (Singular) back".

Where do you read in my <#2> --Mary's approach to the tomb when it still was dusk-- of another woman?
I have all the way <insisted> Mary acted alone.

 

[vooks]

I do not claim <#2> was <<an angel-less visit to the tomb by women>> --<<... women>>.

<#2> was an <<angel-less visit to the tomb>> by "Mary Magdalene" on her own, who "comes unto / approaches / nears (Singular) the tomb, sees (Singular) the stone ... runs (Singular) back".
Where do you read in my <#2> --Mary's approach to the tomb when it still was dusk-- of another woman?
I have all the way <insisted> Mary acted alone.

You are confusing your own account. #1 is where Mary visits the tomb alone and runs back to Peter and John. Look at your #2;

2) “Earliest morning- darkness”, just after midnight, “the two women” (variant – the two Marys), “and certain others with them”, for the first time, “came to the sepulchre, bringing the spices they had prepared”. (Lk24:1) “They returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things to the eleven and to all the rest.” (“Then Peter stood up and ran to the tomb; and bending low over, he saw the linen clothes. He went back, wandering by himself about that what had happened.” (Lk24:9-12) Cf. John's account in 20:1-10. I can't say Luke talks of another visit by Peter, but it seems true because Luke doesn't mention John.)

DID ANGELS APPEAR TO THE WOMEN DURING THIS TRIP?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

You place Peter's second trip somewhere near #2 AFTER the women report to the eleven yet the Angels show up on the third visit to the tomb by the women in #5

Therefore (see post before) No, The Scriptures place <<Peter's second trip>> after <#. . . . I see now Vooks, what is going on which causes the anarchy here.

Please know that I gave TWO sets of visits.

There is the synopsis of the (bare) Scriptures titled "TEN visits at the tomb"--- the comprehensive one, which includes all mentions of human activity at the tomb, that of the males as well. (Not only the women's visits.) The long list includes all the women's visits whether collectively or Mary's two alone visits in <#4> and <#9>(the first appearance). Men are not in the 'CONDENSED' list at all.

In the "CONDENSED" list, I give the women's visits only.
In this list Luke 24:1-3 is <#2>, but in the synopsis Luke 24:1-3 is <#6>.
I did not include Peter's second and alone visit in the CONDENSED list. But you will find it in <#7> in the Ten Visits synoptic list.

I hope this clarifies the difficulty you have encountered as follows, <<<...somewhere near #2 AFTER the women report to the eleven yet the Angels show up on the third visit to the tomb by the women in #5>>>.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

You are confusing your own account. #1 is where Mary visits the tomb alone and runs back to Peter and John. Look at your #2;

DID ANGELS APPEAR TO THE WOMEN DURING THIS TRIP?

So now I can answer your question, dear Vooks. Thank God. Yes, in Luke 24:1-10 there were two angels--verse 4 on, re-recorded in 23b.

Luke 24 was the women's first collective visit and Mary Magdalene's second, realised, <trip> to the tomb and her first entry into the tomb.

 

[vooks]

So now I can answer your question, dear Vooks. Thank God. Yes, in Luke 24:1-10 there were two angels--verse 4 on, re-recorded in 23b.

Luke 24 was the women's first collective visit and Mary Magdalene's second, realised, <trip> to the tomb and her first entry into the tomb.

Gerhard,
I believe you should work on your communication. What is clear to you is hodgepodge to everyone.

I had asked for a brief chronology of the visits to the tomb. Something like this;
1. Mary Magdalene visits the tomb alone and returns to tell of a missing body to Peter and John
2. Peter and John dash to the tomb and find it empty
3. Some women visit the tomb and finding it empty they return and share this with the 11
4. Mary Magdalene returns.....and gets Josephus and Clement and a female angel tells them Jesus rose last week......


Kindly do this WITHOUT Greek or verses. Just a simple narrative. You will fill us in on the details as we move on

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Gerhard,
I believe you should work on your communication. What is clear to you is hodgepodge to everyone.

I had asked for a brief chronology of the visits to the tomb. Something like this;
1. Mary Magdalene visits the tomb alone and returns to tell of a missing body to Peter and John
2. Peter and John dash to the tomb and find it empty
3. Some women visit the tomb and finding it empty they return and share this with the 11
4. Mary Magdalene returns.....and gets Josephus and Clement and a female angel tells them Jesus rose last week......

Kindly do this WITHOUT Greek or verses. Just a simple narrative. You will fill us in on the details as we move on

If I would do what you are asking for, I would have to just repeat your example, <<Something like this>>. I’d have to compromise and just hand you back what you gave me. Klug!

I shall have to compromise as follows . . .

<<<1. Mary Magdalene visits the tomb alone and returns to tell of a missing body to Peter and John>>>

That is your story, not John’s. Instead the truth is just what IS written in John 20:1-3.
Now until you can QUOTE verbatim in John 20:1-3 <<Mary Magdalene visits the tomb>>, I can’t oblige.
And until you can QUOTE verbatim from John 20:1-3 <<Mary Magdalene returns to tell of a missing body>>, how can I believe you?!
Ek’s nie onder ’n hoender uitgebroei nie.

I told you before your acting the clown is dismal.

 

[vooks]

If I would do what you are asking for, I would have to just repeat your example, <<Something like this>>. I’d have to compromise and just hand you back what you gave me. Klug!

I shall have to compromise as follows . . .

<<<1. Mary Magdalene visits the tomb alone and returns to tell of a missing body to Peter and John>>>

That is your story, not John’s. Instead the truth is just what IS written in John 20:1-3.
Now until you can QUOTE verbatim in John 20:1-3 <<Mary Magdalene visits the tomb>>, I can’t oblige.
And until you can QUOTE verbatim from John 20:1-3 <<Mary Magdalene returns to tell of a missing body>>, how can I believe you?!
Ek’s nie onder ’n hoender uitgebroei nie.

I told you before your acting the clown is dismal.

Gerhard
Your narrative would be a starting point. My example was just what I have in mind NOT my harmonization. I could have said Elijah and Samson visited the tomb. So stop making meat out of it.....

Get us your brief narrative. No verses, no Greek

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Gerhard
Your narrative would be a starting point. My example was just what I have in mind NOT my harmonization. I could have said Elijah and Samson visited the tomb. So stop making meat out of it.....

Get us your brief narrative. No verses, no Greek

I'm sorry I cannot do that. For me, it's Scriptures as far as possible -- <verses>, and preferably Greek verses.

I am also not able to improve on the two <harmonizations> I have placed in this discussion, the synopsis of the 4 Gospels and the women's visits condensed from the synopsis. The synopsis is COMPLETE and contains every word and verse in all the Gospels at the relevant <verses>.

It is yours, Vooks, against the Scriptures' OWN <harmonization>. And they CLASH!

 

[vooks]

I'm sorry I cannot do that.

Why won't you do that?

For me, it's Scriptures as far as possible -- <verses>, and preferably Greek verses.

There are no scriptures that talk of a stone hurled miles away from the tomb for starters. You have utter disregard for scriptures. But that's not the point. Start with a narrative, no scriptures and no Greek.

From your narrative, we can examine scriptures to see if it adds up. But when you start pasting a mishmash hodgepodge that makes sense ONLY to yourself, nobody can question it. Not because it is accurate but because it is easier to decipher hieroglyphics that your posts.

I am also not able to improve on the two <harmonizations> I have placed in this discussion,

nobody wants you to improve, we seek you to present your harmonization in a legible fashion and not ramblings of a mad fool.

As it is, your posts don't make sense to ANYBODY here

the synopsis of the 4 Gospels and the women's visits condensed from the synopsis. The synopsis is COMPLETE and contains every word and verse in all the Gospels at the relevant <verses>.

It is yours, Vooks, against the Scriptures' OWN <harmonization>. And they CLASH!

START with a simple narrative.
You will substantiate as we proceed. It is a statement of your belief.
The only reason you are on this forum is because you imagine you have something WORTH sharing with the world. You are not communicating anything as it were.

So once again, START with a brief statement of your harmonization. Unless of course you don't believe it can stand scrutiny. It only makes sense to you , your alters,your imaginary debaters and of course your poor wife!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Why won't you do that?

There are no scriptures that talk of a stone hurled miles away from the tomb for starters. You have utter disregard for scriptures. But that's not the point. Start with a narrative, no scriptures and no Greek.

From your narrative, we can examine scriptures to see if it adds up. But when you start pasting a mishmash hodgepodge that makes sense ONLY to yourself, nobody can question it. Not because it is accurate but because it is easier to decipher hieroglyphics that your posts.


nobody wants you to improve, we seek you to present your harmonization in a legible fashion and not ramblings of a mad fool.

As it is, your posts don't make sense to ANYBODY here



START with a simple narrative.
You will substantiate as we proceed. It is a statement of your belief.
The only reason you are on this forum is because you imagine you have something WORTH sharing with the world. You are not communicating anything as it were.

So once again, START with a brief statement of your harmonization. Unless of course you don't believe it can stand scrutiny. It only makes sense to you , your alters,your imaginary debaters and of course your poor wife!

Hello Josheb

Buy buy, Josheb!!!!!


PS
Luckily I didn't send you Wenham