• **Notifications**: Notifications can be dismissed by clicking on the "x" on the righthand side of the notice.
  • **New Style**: You can now change style options. Click on the paintbrush at the bottom of this page.
  • **Donations**: If the Lord leads you please consider helping with monthly costs and up keep on our Forum. Click on the Donate link In the top menu bar. Thanks
  • **New Blog section**: There is now a blog section. Check it out near the Private Debates forum or click on the Blog link in the top menu bar.
  • Welcome Visitors! Join us and be blessed while fellowshipping and celebrating our Glorious Salvation In Christ Jesus.

A Reddit member asks about theistic evolution

Very hard to follow.
The nouns in 1:2 are quite physical: land, water, darkness, possibly wind. The Spirit is not. Those thing are already there, and all that the author deals with. So most of Gen 1 is about the person's physical world.

Sorry, my bad - went off on a wrong tangent.

The pertinent point of what happens on Day 1 is that there is a way to mark 24 hour: a person could have seen a star at twilight, 3-4 times in a row before the local objects would have overpowered. The physicality of Day 1 is not local, but arrives from physical things elsewhere.

I'd love to have list of brightest stars in order of brightness for the ancient near east sky.

The pertinent point is that the light on Day 1 is called Day and Day is separated from Night. You can't dodge that by talking about a 24 hour marker.

You can see a list of 100 stars in order of magnitude here. Sorry I can't tell you which ones would have been visible in the ancient near eastern sky but you can probably work it out.
 
There is a 'unity of knowledge', but OE advocates find it hard to square their OE views with the genealogies found in Scripture which support YE.

But that might be because the genealogies actually support a YC or a YCW (young, creation, week), but not necessarily a young earth. As you may know from reading other posts here, I am actively in search of the distance believed to exist immediately after the conventional Big Bang to our system, expressed of course, in LYs.

Why? Because the nearest option for starlight arriving on earth on Day 1 (my view) is just over 4 years. That is, the submerged earth fragment from the 'spreading out' of Job, Psalms, Isaiah, is sitting there in 1:2 for that long. On Day 1, a general light appears (notice the place is so dark in 1:2 that there is not even starlight reflecting off the water). But it is only enough for a person to be able to mark a 24 hour spin. It is definitely not daylight; there is none til Day 4.

"Prism" (above) has pointed out that Centauri would not be seen from the north hemisphere, making Bernard the next option, 6 years away. But again the question rests on whether that is enough of a marker. There is also the question of tectonic movement. Ps 104 tells us God lifted the land up and drained off the water, that his voice made it go away, referring to creation. There may have been twisting and changing of positions, just as in the cataclysm.

Of course, you can just shortcut to the supernatural route and say that everything that happened is supernatural and there is no point in looking. But 1:2 gives us a combination, instead. It has the Spirit brooding over earth (the same verb used for hens over eggs) and gives us 2 empirical features: the submerged earth/land, and the utter darkness on that same water. This drastically reduces the options for light sources on Day 1, but it definitely makes the earth the POV of the passage.
 
Sorry, my bad - went off on a wrong tangent.



The pertinent point is that the light on Day 1 is called Day and Day is separated from Night. You can't dodge that by talking about a 24 hour marker.

You can see a list of 100 stars in order of magnitude here. Sorry I can't tell you which ones would have been visible in the ancient near eastern sky but you can probably work it out.

Thanks for the list!

On Day 1, he's saying the time period is a day and that night (his starting point) began with that marker. On each of the days, it starts when "And God said, Let..." Then there is the 'daytime' (without daylight) and then the marker shows again starting the 2nd day.

He may have been referring to more starlight than just a single marker, too. Which is why I don't finalize this; there may be some hundreds of years, or at least the distinct recognition of the band of the Milky Way in the sky, before saying Day 1 was marked. If I recall correctly, it is considered to be 1000 LY thick x 100,000 LY in diameter. My range for arriving light is thus 6--1000 LY at present.
 
Last edited:
But that might be because the genealogies actually support a YC or a YCW (young, creation, week), but not necessarily a young earth. As you may know from reading other posts here, I am actively in search of the distance believed to exist immediately after the conventional Big Bang to our system, expressed of course, in LYs.
OK sorry, I'll bow out then, not believing the BB has anything to do with historical-biblical-reality. (in the world I live)
 
Thanks for the list!

On Day 1, he's saying the time period is a day and that night (his starting point) began with that marker.

No, again He calls the Light 'Day', not starlight, and not a marker for a 24 hour period, but 'Day'. You have to address that. There is no way that God could call any light from a star (except the sun) 'Day' and use it to separate out 'Day' from 'Night'. You are trying to twist Scripture to meet your own understanding.

On each of the days, it starts when "And God said, Let..." Then there is the 'daytime' (without daylight) and then the marker shows again starting the 2nd day.
No, Day 1 calls the light 'Day'. So there is most definitely daytime.

He may have been referring to more starlight than just a single marker, too. Which is why I don't finalize this; there may be some hundreds of years, or at least the distinct recognition of the band of the Milky Way in the sky, before saying Day 1 was marked. If I recall correctly, it is considered to be 1000 LY thick x 100,000 LY in diameter. My range for arriving light is thus 6--1000 LY at present.

You can add as many stars as you like, and as much of a time period as you like, but it still won't fit what the text says.
 
OK sorry, I'll bow out then, not believing the BB has anything to do with historical-biblical-reality. (in the world I live)

By conventional BB I mean as they view it not me. I'm referring to the spreading out of Job, Psalms, Isaiah, which I do not think is on Day 4 (my exegetical arguments are elsewhere) and was actually prior to 1:2, resulting in the already-existing conditions found during 1:2. That is why my time frame is way shorter (between 6LY and 1000LY because of the distance to Bernard and of the width of the Milky Way).

I ask people frequently to answer logically: if there is no biological life before Day 4, what difference does some lifeless time make before Day 1 of our local system? I have asked for 6 months here and elsewhere without any objection.

I assure you I am in the Biblically-real world. But I cannot see 1:2 without seeing actual physical pre-existing conditions, just as Rebekkah's backstory in ch 26 (having an uncle, being beautiful, being a virgin) are all things existing for some time before the action of ch 26, yes? I try to think like a detective explaining a bullet-hole in a kitchen wall.
 
No, again He calls the Light 'Day', not starlight, and not a marker for a 24 hour period, but 'Day'. You have to address that. There is no way that God could call any light from a star (except the sun) 'Day' and use it to separate out 'Day' from 'Night'. You are trying to twist Scripture to meet your own understanding.


No, Day 1 calls the light 'Day'. So there is most definitely daytime.



You can add as many stars as you like, and as much of a time period as you like, but it still won't fit what the text says.
re what the text says
Oh, really? Then you have explained the light some how. What is that explanation? I hope it is not the fantasy of 'shekinah' or God's presence or 'a glow' or somesuch. I won't pay attention, because the text is not in the symbolic category.
 
No, again He calls the Light 'Day', not starlight, and not a marker for a 24 hour period, but 'Day'. You have to address that. There is no way that God could call any light from a star (except the sun) 'Day' and use it to separate out 'Day' from 'Night'. You are trying to twist Scripture to meet your own understanding.


No, Day 1 calls the light 'Day'. So there is most definitely daytime.



You can add as many stars as you like, and as much of a time period as you like, but it still won't fit what the text says.

re the starlight marking day
the 'shama' has been mentioned, but is not going to appear until day 4. So its not them. The 'kavov' will be tagged along as an afterthought when they are mentioned. But that is not necessarily when they are made, because the two are extremely different. You would never used 'spreading out' for the placing/setting of the 'shama.'

As an example of there not being any light, we have lots of darkness where I live, yet a meeting may still start 'in the morning' in absolute dark, in the winter. The text means the rotation defined the day. It took some light but obviously not as much as would show on Day 4. What is your source for the light on Day 1? What are the options?

As Boorstin shows, the Hebrew method had a rational basis that some of the other time-keeping systems did not, because of this. It became based on the new moon's appearance, but the language of what is going on in Day 1 is the same on the question of timekeeping.
 
No, again He calls the Light 'Day', not starlight, and not a marker for a 24 hour period, but 'Day'. You have to address that. There is no way that God could call any light from a star (except the sun) 'Day' and use it to separate out 'Day' from 'Night'. You are trying to twist Scripture to meet your own understanding.


No, Day 1 calls the light 'Day'. So there is most definitely daytime.



You can add as many stars as you like, and as much of a time period as you like, but it still won't fit what the text says.


re there is no way
Yes there is a way: the spreading out was before the local system was placed/set.
 
No, again He calls the Light 'Day', not starlight, and not a marker for a 24 hour period, but 'Day'. You have to address that. There is no way that God could call any light from a star (except the sun) 'Day' and use it to separate out 'Day' from 'Night'. You are trying to twist Scripture to meet your own understanding.


No, Day 1 calls the light 'Day'. So there is most definitely daytime.



You can add as many stars as you like, and as much of a time period as you like, but it still won't fit what the text says.


re daytime
Yes there was daytime on Days 1-3, without much light, certainly not what we would call daylight. The marker was the start of each of 1-3. That marker was the start of each of 3 days, because God placed/set our familiar system on Day 4.

Perhaps here is a good question for you: if Day 4 is going to say that the local objects are going to mark days, weeks, seasons, why wouldn't the Day 1, which we already know is marking 24 hours (supposing you are correct that it is not a distant star), be thought of the same way? And if so, why would it not be a distant star?

Night shift:
Since all days start with God doing something by verbal command, to start the day, and the evening is the start of the day, all creation week 'work' was done at night. Are you thinking that there was more light during the day part of Day 1, because that is not what the pattern of the text is. Because of this point, I'm inclined to think these 3 days had a sprinkling of starlight coming in, but that there was one that marked the 1st. If I was drawing a storyboard for these days, it would show it that way. After all, our 'view' is only as good as our storyboard drawing.
 
re what the text says
Oh, really? Then you have explained the light some how. What is that explanation? I hope it is not the fantasy of 'shekinah' or God's presence or 'a glow' or somesuch. I won't pay attention, because the text is not in the symbolic category.

I have explained the ancient near eastern belief that the sun was not responsible for the daylight (as the light of day appears before the sun comes up on the horizon). I do not believe it was the 'shekinah'. The text says light and calls it day. You are trying to ascribe something physical from our modern worldview to explain it. But that was not their worldview. God communicated with them in terms they understood.

This isn't symbolic - they really believed it.

Sorry, I will have to address your others posts later, after work.
 
re the starlight marking day
the 'shama' has been mentioned, but is not going to appear until day 4. So its not them. The 'kavov' will be tagged along as an afterthought when they are mentioned. But that is not necessarily when they are made, because the two are extremely different. You would never used 'spreading out' for the placing/setting of the 'shama.'

As an example of there not being any light, we have lots of darkness where I live, yet a meeting may still start 'in the morning' in absolute dark, in the winter. The text means the rotation defined the day. It took some light but obviously not as much as would show on Day 4. What is your source for the light on Day 1? What are the options?

The text is very clear what the situation is, Light is called Day and Day and Night are separated.
We not talking about the rotation of the earth. Te ancients had no concept of the earth being a sphere or of it rotating on its axis.
You make assumptions when you say Day 1 light was not as much as Day 4.
See post above (#191) for an explantation of the light.

As Boorstin shows, the Hebrew method had a rational basis that some of the other time-keeping systems did not, because of this. It became based on the new moon's appearance, but the language of what is going on in Day 1 is the same on the question of timekeeping.

Day 1 is about the separation of Day and Night. Day 4 is about the rulers of the Day and Night and their function.
 
re daytime
Yes there was daytime on Days 1-3, without much light, certainly not what we would call daylight.

And yet God called it 'Day'. So perhaps it is your assumption that there wasn't much light.

The marker was the start of each of 1-3. That marker was the start of each of 3 days, because God placed/set our familiar system on Day 4.

God assigned functions to the lights in the sky on Day 4.

Perhaps here is a good question for you: if Day 4 is going to say that the local objects are going to mark days, weeks, seasons, why wouldn't the Day 1, which we already know is marking 24 hours (supposing you are correct that it is not a distant star), be thought of the same way? And if so, why would it not be a distant star?

You are the one talking about markers on Day 1, not me. As I have said, on Day 1, God separated the Light from the Darkness and called the Light Day. It cannot possibly be a distant star because we cannot in any way call the distant starlight the light of Day.

Night shift:
Since all days start with God doing something by verbal command, to start the day, and the evening is the start of the day, all creation week 'work' was done at night.

You really do twist the text in the most bizarre ways. There is no reason to assume the 'work' was done during the night. The text says "and there was evening and morning the X day. And then God said ..." Doesn't that suggest that He finished the 'work' by the evening and then started again in the morning - just like the ancient Israelites would do?

Are you thinking that there was more light during the day part of Day 1, because that is not what the pattern of the text is.

Huh? No, the light on Day 1 is normal daylight, just like we have today.

Because of this point, I'm inclined to think these 3 days had a sprinkling of starlight coming in, but that there was one that marked the 1st. If I was drawing a storyboard for these days, it would show it that way. After all, our 'view' is only as good as our storyboard drawing.

If you were drawing a storyboard for Genesis 1 you need to make sure you understand the cosmic geography of the ancient near east - a flat earth with waters below and the raqia (possibly sitting on top of mountains) holding back the waters above and on which the sun, moon and stars travelled and above which was heaven. This is their understanding - a three-tiered cosmos, which is mentioned all the way through the Bible - the heavens above, the earth beneath and the waters under the earth or the underworld. It is this ancient understanding of the cosmos that we see clearly in Genesis 1.
 
And yet God called it 'Day'. So perhaps it is your assumption that there wasn't much light.

Hi I would offer Christ is considered the day star

2 Peter 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts

Christ who is Light is also Love and is Spirit (three things) And not that he can only create light temporally .

Using the Sun and Moon used in parables to represent the glory of the Father and reflected glory His bride

He Introduced his invisible presence ."Let there be God as Light" camera action .Showtime. .And "it was very good".

The first three days three denoting the end of a matter.

Three days His presence( day star) .Three nights he hid himself . Preparing the food and oxygen for day six .

His presence, heat source before the Sun . . Photosynthesis

God moved upon the face of the moving living waters. Not face of ice.
 
Hi I would offer Christ is considered the day star

2 Peter 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts

Christ who is Light is also Love and is Spirit (three things) And not that he can only create light temporally .

Using the Sun and Moon used in parables to represent the glory of the Father and reflected glory His bride

He Introduced his invisible presence ."Let there be God as Light" camera action .Showtime. .And "it was very good".

You could possibly consider whether that is the case, especially in light of John's Gospel "the light shines in the darkness and the darkness has not over come it." But you could also consider it the other way - the light in Genesis 1 gives way to the darkness of night, which Christ does not do. Something to think about.

The first three days three denoting the end of a matter.

Three days His presence( day star) .Three nights he hid himself . Preparing the food and oxygen for day six .

His presence, heat source before the Sun . . Photosynthesis

But then to turn back to bringing in modern science into Genesis 1 is not right. That is our worldview, not theirs.

God moved upon the face of the moving living waters. Not face of ice.

The face of the deep was a symbol of chaos/disorder - an environment where nothing could thrive. So I do not agree with referring to it as living waters. It is not referred as that in Scripture and it does not fit the context of the passage.
 
You could possibly consider whether that is the case, especially in light of John's Gospel "the light shines in the darkness and the darkness has not over come it." But you could also consider it the other way - the light in Genesis 1 gives way to the darkness of night, which Christ does not do. Something to think about.

Thanks

I would think the light in John is the gospel . Men as darkness have not understood it.

2 Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

Psalm 119:130 The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple.

But then to turn back to bringing in modern science into Genesis 1 is not right. That is our worldview, not theirs.
Christ who is Light will turn back his presence as the literal light like the first three days .This time in the new heaven and earth will be no darkness a night

Revelation21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof .And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there.

The face of the deep was a symbol of chaos/disorder - an environment where nothing could thrive. So I do not agree with referring to it as living waters. It is not referred as that in Scripture and it does not fit the context of the passage.

Living moving waters represents the gospel .Waters represent the pouring out of the of Christ Holy Spirit

Revelation 7:17King James Version17 For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation 7&version=KJV
The Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. Made possible because of the heat of the gospel .Otherwise frozen solid no revelations

If not for the heat revealed in the wedding parable there is no speech of Christ Living water not froze .


Psalm 19King James Version The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun, Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race. His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.
 
And yet God called it 'Day'. So perhaps it is your assumption that there wasn't much light.



God assigned functions to the lights in the sky on Day 4.



You are the one talking about markers on Day 1, not me. As I have said, on Day 1, God separated the Light from the Darkness and called the Light Day. It cannot possibly be a distant star because we cannot in any way call the distant starlight the light of Day.



You really do twist the text in the most bizarre ways. There is no reason to assume the 'work' was done during the night. The text says "and there was evening and morning the X day. And then God said ..." Doesn't that suggest that He finished the 'work' by the evening and then started again in the morning - just like the ancient Israelites would do?



Huh? No, the light on Day 1 is normal daylight, just like we have today.



If you were drawing a storyboard for Genesis 1 you need to make sure you understand the cosmic geography of the ancient near east - a flat earth with waters below and the raqia (possibly sitting on top of mountains) holding back the waters above and on which the sun, moon and stars travelled and above which was heaven. This is their understanding - a three-tiered cosmos, which is mentioned all the way through the Bible - the heavens above, the earth beneath and the waters under the earth or the underworld. It is this ancient understanding of the cosmos that we see clearly in Genesis 1.

I have to depart on this. My understanding is different on the kavov. They knew the kavov was outside our local system. Those stars did not provide communication like the shama-radiant until Abraham, and then it was not the content about Christ but the tally of the descendants by faith.

Within the shama-raqia, there are parallels to the ancients, but the verbal text itself do not have those. The only way you can class the thing with later neighbors is to ignore the verbal custody and make the text an original writing by Moses apart from the recitation custody. But There are way too many particulars that date back to first-hand verbal recitation.

In other words you would be doing to the text what Strauss-Eliot did to the Gospels in the 1800s, post-dating all sources as invention later.

But as the curators for the British Museum said about Gen 1-11 in the James-Griffith study ‘Tracing history Through Genesis’ (YouTube), the other neighbor accounts are defective attempts to copy the original.
 
And yet God called it 'Day'. So perhaps it is your assumption that there wasn't much light.



God assigned functions to the lights in the sky on Day 4.



You are the one talking about markers on Day 1, not me. As I have said, on Day 1, God separated the Light from the Darkness and called the Light Day. It cannot possibly be a distant star because we cannot in any way call the distant starlight the light of Day.



You really do twist the text in the most bizarre ways. There is no reason to assume the 'work' was done during the night. The text says "and there was evening and morning the X day. And then God said ..." Doesn't that suggest that He finished the 'work' by the evening and then started again in the morning - just like the ancient Israelites would do?



Huh? No, the light on Day 1 is normal daylight, just like we have today.



If you were drawing a storyboard for Genesis 1 you need to make sure you understand the cosmic geography of the ancient near east - a flat earth with waters below and the raqia (possibly sitting on top of mountains) holding back the waters above and on which the sun, moon and stars travelled and above which was heaven. This is their understanding - a three-tiered cosmos, which is mentioned all the way through the Bible - the heavens above, the earth beneath and the waters under the earth or the underworld. It is this ancient understanding of the cosmos that we see clearly in Genesis 1.

God called the time period Day but not the light. Day 4 is not redundant. Nothing needed sunlight until day on Day 4. The vegetation only had one dark night before sunlight.

Between an invented light Day 1 and starlight, I believe the rational route is starlight. Its arrival matches 3 things In the text if earth is kept as the POV:
1, the utter darkness of 1:2, no starlight bouncing off the deep
2, the minimal light needed to designate an evening start of days 1-3. It’s from a few distant stars.
3, the near omission of the distant stars in 14-17 after obvious primary attention to our system. Objects that moved frequent enough to communicate signs were also part of Shama-raqia. Kavov did not. Then 2000 years later, the kavov also have message about the tally of the Seed of Abraham, not the message. The message of the gospel dates back to lines in ch 3 and 4. There is even a birth where Eve thinks she has given birth to the Seed—the Lord. And for a while men did call on the Lord—expressed need for the redemption of this Seed, which is Christ. But the population widely did not, ch 6.

Thanks for your interactions. I will write an article on the integrity of the Seed message from the early generations. How it was kept intact.
 
God called the time period Day but not the light. Day 4 is not redundant. Nothing needed sunlight until day on Day 4. The vegetation only had one dark night before sunlight.

Between an invented light Day 1 and starlight, I believe the rational route is starlight. Its arrival matches 3 things In the text if earth is kept as the POV:
1, the utter darkness of 1:2, no starlight bouncing off the deep
2, the minimal light needed to designate an evening start of days 1-3. It’s from a few distant stars.
3, the near omission of the distant stars in 14-17 after obvious primary attention to our system. Objects that moved frequent enough to communicate signs were also part of Shama-raqia. Kavov did not. Then 2000 years later, the kavov also have message about the tally of the Seed of Abraham, not the message. The message of the gospel dates back to lines in ch 3 and 4. There is even a birth where Eve thinks she has given birth to the Seed—the Lord. And for a while men did call on the Lord—expressed need for the redemption of this Seed, which is Christ. But the population widely did not, ch 6.

Thanks for your interactions. I will write an article on the integrity of the Seed message from the early generations. How it was kept intact.

I would offer.

Believers cannot know Christ after the rudiments of this world the temporal seen. He cannot be found in a science laboratory or telescope

That is the foundation of paganism . . .a oral tradition of dying mankind . "Out of sight out of mind". no vision of faith Christ labor of His love. as it is written.

Why use words most are not familiar with ? Shama-raqia. Kavov

The only 'beginning' that concerns us-are the living supernatural words of Christ's a work of faith belief. A labor of His love accorded to the law of faith "let there be" and its testimony "was good"

Some say he had already created angles a fake word. before Genesis.1. . . .taking away the Christians Abba's glory as Emanuel. Christ in us.

I would think. No such thing a creation of angels . A fake word coined many years after the finishing of cannon.

It takes away the authority of Christ and gives it to make believe creation. Rather than Christ in us working to both reveal his will and empower us to do it. It becomes a legion of angels. Some use thier imagination and say for a instance . How many angels can dance on the head of a pin ?

Beware of the legions of disembodied spirit gods. that today some call patron saints, as angels.

It would seem God who introduces himself as the light of his glory. Departed on day three finding pride in the dark as night heart of Lucifer.

For twelve hours Christ would reveal his glory and twelve hours as night hide himself. Preparing for day four, mankind , oxygen, heat and food.

In the new heaven and earth the light of his glorious (let there be) will return sevenfold, as the light of seven days. No more night to represent evil

Revaltion 21: 23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof. And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it. And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there.

Isaiah 30:26 Moreover the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold, as the light of seven days, in the day that the Lord bindeth up the breach of his people, and healeth the stroke of their wound.

Psalm 139:12 Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to thee.
 
God called the time period Day but not the light.

I beg to differ:
God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. Genesis 1:5
 
Back
Top