• About Dr. Steven Anderson

TruthOnlyBible

~ About the Bible, Christianity, and current events

TruthOnlyBible

Category Archives: Apologetics

Identifying the Pharaoh of the exodus

27 Wednesday Mar 2019

Posted by Steven Anderson in Apologetics, Bible scholarship

≈ 10 Comments

Tags

Biblical archaeology

There are three different Pharaohs noted in the book of Exodus: that of 1:8, that of 2:15, and that of 5:1 et al. None of these Pharaohs is named, making their identification disputed. Some suggest that Moses intentionally decided not to name Pharaohs in order to snub these mighty kings who claimed to be gods on earth—although “Pharaoh” almost seems to function as a proper name in the Pentateuchal narratives.

Identifying the Pharaoh of the exodus necessitates following four paths of investigation, and seeing where all the data points line up. These paths of evidence include: (1) the date of the exodus according to the Bible; (2) the historical circumstances of the exodus according to the Bible; (3) the dates of reigning Pharaohs according to the chronology of ancient Egypt; and (4) the historical circumstances of ancient Egypt. Other evidence could also be added, such as for the date of the conquest of Canaan, but this additional evidence will be related to the four points just noted. To find the correct date, one must prioritize the biblical evidence, and allow this to inform one’s understanding of Egyptian history and chronology. Unfortunately, the most common evangelical identifications of the Pharaoh of the exodus make fundamental errors in their methodology, and ultimately place greater confidence in the claims of secular archaeologists than in the claims of Scripture.

The first common error is to suggest the Bible does not give a clear or reliable date for the exodus. A date and a Pharaoh of the exodus is then proposed by forming theories based on certain historical indicators in the biblical text in combination with the narrative of ancient Near Eastern history that is propounded by archaeologists who have an anti-biblical worldview and agenda. Scholars who commit this error hold that the exodus occurred sometime in the thirteenth century BC (ca. 1275 BC), within the conventional dates for the reign of Ramesses II (1290–1224 BC). This is based in part on the mention of the word “Rameses” (with two different spellings) twice in Exodus, which is likely associated with a city where Ramesses II conducted extensive construction work.[1] Perhaps just as important to these scholars are theories about the Israelite conquest and settlement of Canaan, and archaeological dates of occupational levels at sites in Canaan/Israel. However, these theories must dismiss in some way the clear statement in 1 Kings 6:1 that there were 480 years between the exodus and the second month of the fourth year of Solomon’s reign (cf. Judg 11:26). There is wide agreement among scholars that biblical and extrabiblical data can be combined to yield a date of 966 or 965 BC for the second month of the fourth year of Solomon’s reign. Counting backwards 480 years from this date places the exodus in 1446 or 1445 BC, and the thirteenth century BC date can be dismissed as incompatible with Scripture. It is important to note that scholars of this persuasion typically only accept certain historical indicators in the Bible—in this instance, the name “Rameses/Raamses,” while dismissing as “metaphorical” or inaccurate the many other indicators that don’t fit the theory. In essence, the identification of Ramesses II as the Pharaoh of the exodus is rooted in a low view of scriptural authority.[2]

Many evangelical scholars accept the 1446/1445 BC date for the exodus, but commit a second error which again results in a misidentification of the Pharaoh of the exodus. This is the error of accepting the secular (conventional) chronology of ancient Egypt, which either ignores or intentionally contradicts biblical chronological data and is instead based on an assumed evolutionary history of man. Simply matching a Pharaoh from this timeline with the biblical calendar date for the exodus results in the identification of Thutmose III (reigned ca. 1479–1426 BC in the conventional chronology) as the Pharaoh of the exodus. The problem is, the historical circumstances of Thutmose III’s reign in no way fit the biblical data for what happened at the time of the exodus. There is no evidence for a large population of Semitic slaves in Egypt at that time, nor is there any evidence for a collapse of Egyptian civilization due to the plagues and the destruction of Pharaoh and his army in the Red Sea (cf. Deut 11:4). In fact, if Thutmose III was the Pharaoh of the exodus, he and his army survived the Red Sea event quite nicely, for Thutmose III undertook vast campaigns of conquest and is considered by many scholars to have been the most powerful of all the Pharaohs (along with his powerful son and successor, Amenhotep II). Because of this incompatibility between the history of Thutmose III and the biblical history of the exodus, it is clear that the view that Thutmose III was the Pharaoh of the exodus, like the view that Ramesses II was the Pharaoh of the exodus, is another capitulation to the authority of secular archaeology over Scripture.

Although proponents of the Thutmose III view often claim faithful adherence to the biblical chronology, this is only the case for the statement in 1 Kings 6:1. These scholars actually argue strenuously against the chronology from the Deluge to Abraham that is presented in Genesis 11. Either major problems with the Hebrew text of that chapter are hypothesized, or else the historicity of its genealogy is dismissed altogether. This is because if Genesis 11 is accepted as literal, accurate history, adding up the numbers results in 2417 BC as the date when the Deluge ended, and approximately 2317 BC for the dispersion of the nations from Babylon (Babel), which means there was less than 900 years of history from the beginning of Egyptian civilization until the exodus from Egypt in 1446 BC. However, the common date given for the first king of the first dynasty of united Egypt is 3100 BC, with rulers of upper and lower Egypt preceding him as part of a prehistory which spans more than 2,000 years. Most Bible scholars assume that it is impossible to compress the events and rulers in the conventional chronology of Egypt into the far shorter biblical chronology, and as a result they assume that the genealogy of Genesis 11 is wrong in some way. Ultimately, they have more confidence in the claims of secular archaeologists than in the reliability of Scripture. Their firm belief in the accuracy of the conventional chronology of ancient Egypt is the reason why they stand by the identification of Thutmose III as the Pharaoh of the exodus in spite of the way in which the history of Egypt during his reign does not seem to allow for the events described in the book of Exodus. This view also runs into problems with finding archaeological evidence for the Israelite conquest of Canaan under Joshua, since archaeological sites in Canaan/Israel are dated in early periods by connecting them with contemporaneous periods of Egyptian history (Middle Bronze Age, Late Bronze Age, etc.).

Thus, in order to identify the Pharaoh of the exodus correctly, it is necessary to calculate the date of the exodus from the Bible (contra the Ramesses II theory), but this is not enough. It is also necessary to calculate Egyptian chronology according to the biblical timescale, and in accordance with biblical history (contra the Thutmose III theory). Specifically, it is necessary to look for evidence of a period in ancient Egypt that matches the biblical description of a large population of Semitic slaves living in the land of Goshen, followed by cataclysmic plagues and the abrupt departure of the Semitic population, followed by a collapse of Egyptian power. If this period is correctly identified, then the date of this period of Egyptian history can be established according to the biblical chronology, and earlier and subsequent Egyptian history can be filled in naturally according to the biblical timescale. The Pharaoh of the exodus will be one who is not succeeded by his firstborn son, and whose death marks a sudden collapse of Egyptian civilization.

The reality is that while dates in Egyptian chronology may be presented very dogmatically by modern scholars, the extrabiblical evidence for these dates is not at all clear-cut, and has been interpreted in many different ways. The proper way to construct a chronology of ancient Egypt is to use the Bible as one’s starting point, rather than Darwinian evolution. Guided by the Bible, scholars can place the rulers and events of Egyptian history into a chronological framework that fits both the biblical data and the extrabiblical archaeological and literary evidence. In fact, an agnostic scholar who views the Bible as largely historical, David Rohl, has done extensive work on a “new chronology” which shows that the most natural way to interpret the archaeology of ancient Egypt is in a way that fits biblical chronology and history. Rohl and others have shown that the picture of consecutive Egyptian dynasties that is often presented is much too oversimplified. Dynasties often overlapped; at times Egypt was divided into multiple parts, with four or even up to twelve kings reigning at the same time. There are also issues with interpreting Egyptian astronomical records in view of Egyptian calendar reforms. The result is a far shorter Egyptian chronology—one which comports with the biblical timescale. Further, since ancient Greek, Cypriot, Hittite, and Canaanite dates are dependent on Egyptian chronology, a compression of the conventional Egyptian chronology also results in a downward revision of the other chronologies. Rohl identifies the Pharaoh of the exodus with Dudimose, who reigned near the end of the 13th dynasty. In support of this, Rohl cites Manetho (quoted by Josephus), who calls the Pharaoh of the exodus “Tutimaeus” (= Dudimose?). In Rohl’s reconstruction, the 13th dynasty ended with the invasion of the Hyksos, whom he identifies with the biblical Amalekites (cf. Num 24:20). Rohl identifies the pre-Hyksos Asiatics who lived at Avaris in the land of Goshen as the Israelites. Rohl’s theory has much to commend itself, although he advocates the “short” Egyptian sojourn (215 years), in contradiction of Exodus 12:40-41.

As for Ramesses II, Rohl identifies him with the biblical “Shishak” who was king of Egypt near the end of Solomon’s reign (1 Kgs 11:40), and who successfully invaded Judah in the fifth year of Rehoboam (1 Kgs 14:25; 2 Chr 12:2-9). According to Rohl’s chronology, the reign of Ramesses II began around 979 BC, late in the period of David’s reign. Based on a Hittite cuneiform tablet which records a treaty made with Ramesses II, Rohl suggests that Ramesses II was known as “Shysha” in the ancient Near East, which becomes “Shishak” in the Bible. According to Rohl, a relief at Karnak temple depicts a battle which Ramesses II fought with Israelites/Judeans, in which the Israelites are depicted in chariots. Since the Israelites did not acquire chariots until the reign of David or Solomon, Rohl argues that this battle cannot predate the united monarchy period.

Building largely on the work of David Rohl and John Bimson, evangelical filmmaker Tim Mahoney has done an excellent job of presenting the archaeological evidence for the Israelites in Egypt in the documentary film Patterns of Evidence: Exodus. In this film, Mahony embarks on a personal search for archaeological evidence of Israel’s exodus from Egypt in response to challenges from archaeologists who deny that the exodus event ever happened. Mahoney finds that there is abundant archaeological evidence for the biblical account of the Israelites journeying to Egypt, becoming a great nation there, being enslaved, leaving in a dramatic exodus, and conquering Canaan some 40-45 years later. However, this evidence is not recognized by scholars who are committed to interpreting archaeological data within the conventional chronological framework, since the evidence is not from the right time period. Mahoney shows that it is entirely reasonable to compress the conventional chronology, resulting in the evidence for the Israelites living in Egypt lining up with the biblical chronology.

While there is still considerable work to be done to bring the conventional Egyptian chronology and history fully into conformity with biblical chronology and history, believers can rest assured that when the evidence is correctly understood, the Bible stands as written and does not need to be allegorized or modified to fit with archaeology. The common identifications of the Pharaoh of the exodus with Ramesses II or Thutmose III are not possible from a biblical standpoint, and also do not ultimately fit the archaeological data. It does seem that the Hyksos are the biblical Amalekites, and that they invaded the largely-defenseless Egypt and ruled the Egyptians for 400 years (until the time of Saul) in an act of divine judgment following the departure of the Israelites. As for Rohl’s identification of the last major pre-Hyksos Pharaoh as Dudimose, this seems less certain, and provides a subject for further investigation by Bible-believing Egyptologists.

Enjoy this content? Buy me a coffee.

[1] There are actually five references to Rameses/Raamses in the Pentateuch: “the land of Rameses” (Gen 47:11), the store-city of “Raamses” (different spelling – Exod 1:11), and the site of “Rameses” (Exod 12:37; Num 33:3, 5). Some scholars point to this as evidence that the Pentateuch was written during or after the reign of Ramesses II (a.k.a. “Ramses,” “Rameses”). However, such a supposition is unnecessary, as there are numerous other instances throughout the Pentateuch of original place names being substituted for later names by a later inspired “updater” (possibly Ezra—see the Introduction to the Pentateuch). These updates were made so that later readers could understand the referents of the original place names. While various explanations have been offered, most likely the references to “Rameses” or “Raamses” in the Pentateuch are to the great city of Pi-Ramesses, which was located next to and encompassed Tell el-Dab‘a (Avaris), the center of Israelite civilization in the land of Goshen. Pi-Ramesses was one of the largest cities in the ancient Near East, and therefore is most likely the site named in the biblical text. Since Pi-Ramesses (Pi = “house [of]”) was built or greatly expanded by Ramesses II and his father Seti I, the references to a land of Ramesses or a city of Ramesses in the biblical text can be considered an inspired update to the original text of the Pentateuch, which likely read “Avaris.”

[2] Evangelical scholars who identify Ramesses II as the Pharaoh of the exodus also typically follow many other naturalistic explanations of Old Testament history, such as for the ten plagues, the crossing of the Red Sea, the appearance of God on Mount Sinai, and the crossing of the Jordan River. Dates, census figures, and historical details are routinely explained away as some sort of metaphor or literary device. Although such scholars claim to believe the Bible, their real confidence usually rests in naturalistic theories of science and archaeology.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)

Like this:

Like Loading...

The virtue of faith

08 Wednesday Jul 2015

Posted by Steven Anderson in Apologetics, Theology

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

misguided faith, true faith, virtues

The word “faith” is used in many ways today. It is important to understand correctly what faith is, because the Bible is very clear that faith is a requirement for salvation (Eph 2:8; Heb 11:6). The faith which is necessary for salvation is, specifically, faith in God, in His Son, and in the Christian gospel. But the New Testament also uses the term “faith” in a broader sense, such as when Jesus admonished Peter for having little faith (Matt 14:31). Faith has two components: belief (intellectual) and trust (volitional). Faith is never a leap in the dark. It is rational trust.

It is common for people today to speak of misguided or false faith—that is, a belief/trust in the wrong thing. But the Bible presents faith as a virtue. Faith is listed among the fruits of the Spirit in Galatians 5:22-23. Faith is listed among the gifts of the Spirit in 1 Corinthians 12:9 (cf. 1 Cor 13:2). Faith is everywhere spoken of positively in the New Testament.

The classical virtues are often defined as a mean between two extremes, and faith may be defined as a mean between gullibility and skepticism. Faith, like love and joy, is always a virtue if exercised according to the proper sense of the term. There is therefore no such thing as misguided or false faith, properly speaking. One may have misplaced trust or false beliefs, but the English word “faith” traditionally was used solely to describe a virtue. Faith is always right, if it is true faith (cf. 2 Thess 3:2). Today, non-Christian religions are commonly called other “faiths,” but properly speaking they are other religions or cults. Their truth-claims are lies, and their followers are gullible, deceived, and depraved. They have no claim to the virtue of faith.

How does one avoid both gullibility and skepticism, and only place his faith in what is true and right? How does one know whether to be trusting or skeptical? The answer has to do with character and holiness. Every truth-claim that one is presented with is made by some person or group of people. If the person is honest, moral, upright, and holy in every respect, we ought to be inclined to believe the claims he makes. However, if the person has some character flaw, we ought to be skeptical or disbelieving, no matter how convincing he may sound. In the end, there is only One whom we may trust absolutely, and that is the One who is absolutely holy—namely, the triune God. What God says is to be believed without question, because it is impossible for God to lie or deceive or to be mistaken (Num 23:19; Tit 1:2; Heb 6:18). The Bible presents a moral standard that is higher, holier, truer, more pure, and more just than any human standard ever devised. The character of God’s people is qualitatively different than the character of unbelievers. This shows that the Bible is God’s Word, and that God is absolutely holy and trustworthy. What godly men say, we are to be inclined to believe, though we must compare what they say to what God has said as the ultimate standard. This is an important principle, which therefore bears repeating: faith is to be exercised in proportion to the character of the one making the claim, with all claims to be measured against the claims made by the triune God, who is the only perfectly trustworthy One. So how do you know whether to believe someone? You know on the basis of his character.

An illustration: in a court of law, if two witnesses tell different stories, the court examines the character of the witnesses. If one witness has a bad reputation and poor character, and the other witness has a good reputation and high character, the witness with the better character is trusted. When it comes to spiritual matters, the contrast could not be any clearer. God is holy, and the fruit of the Spirit is entirely good. Satan is evil, and he and his followers are entirely bad. So when Satan contradicts what God says, what should you do? Should you say, “Well, that sounds plausible—now I’m confused”? No way! Believe the Witness whose character is perfect, for He can be trusted to tell the truth.

In my next post, I will look more specifically at the rationality of faith–that is, the relationship between faith and reason.

Enjoy this content? Buy me a coffee.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)

Like this:

Like Loading...

The Sign of Jonah

04 Saturday Apr 2015

Posted by Steven Anderson in Apologetics, Easter

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

archeology, book of Jonah, Jonah, Nineveh, resurrection

What does the historicity of the Old Testament book of Jonah have to do with Easter? Quite a bit, actually. In Matthew 12:39-41, Jesus said, An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet: for as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the fish; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh shall stand up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and behold, a greater than Jonah is here.

Jonah was a sign to the people of Nineveh in that he came back from the dead in a sense—not literally, but after having spent three days under the ocean, in the stomach of a fish. In the context of this quotation from Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus is arguing that His resurrection would prove the unbelief of the Pharisees. The people of Nineveh repented at the sign of Jonah, but the Pharisees would not repent at the greater sign of the Son of man’s resurrection from the dead. But if there never was a Jonah who spent three days and three nights in the belly of a fish, and if he never did preach in Nineveh and lead the city to repentance, the comparison would be imaginary and would prove nothing about the Pharisees. And if Jonah wasn’t literally in the belly of a fish for three days, then maybe Jesus wasn’t literally in the grave for three days, either. Jesus’ assertion that “a greater One than Jonah is here” would also be an empty claim if Jonah never actually preached at Nineveh.

There are, however, strong reasons to believe in the historicity of both the prophet Jonah and the events in the biblical book which bears his name. The strongest reason is, of course, the fact that the book of Jonah is a part of inspired Scripture, as acknowledged by both the ancient Jews and the Lord Jesus Christ. The man Jonah is mentioned in another part of the Old Testament, in 2 Kings 14:25. The historical context in which Jonah is mentioned in 2 Kings 14:25 corresponds to a period of weakness and disorder in the Neo-Assyrian Empire, during which Jonah’s warning that Nineveh would be overthrown in forty days would have been particularly believable. During this period, there was a time in which the administrative control of the Assyrian king was reduced to “greater Nineveh,” which explains why Nineveh is the main focus of Jonah’s prophecies (rather than “Assyria”). There are good reasons to believe that when Nineveh is described as a journey of three days in breadth (Jonah 3:3), with 120,000 young children (Jonah 4:11), it is the district of Nineveh that is referenced, and not just that part of Nineveh enclosed by the city wall.

Many critics have also asserted that it is impossible for a man to survive for three days and three nights in the belly of a fish. While this fish is said to have been specially prepared by God (Jonah 1:17), it still was a real fish, and it really did swallow Jonah alive. The common idea that this fish was a whale is nowhere stated in Scripture; in fact, whales are very rare in the Mediterranean, and this was more likely a great white shark, which has a much slower metabolism than a whale. It is also important to realize that the term “three days and three nights” does not necessarily refer to a full 72-hour period, but only to parts of three days. “Day and night” is a Hebrew idiom for what we would call a “day.” Among other references to “day and night” in the Bible, Jesus said that His body would be buried for three days and three nights (Matt 12:40), yet He was buried late in the day on Friday and raised at early dawn on Sunday, a period of about 36 hours.

For more detailed argumentation regarding the historicity of the book of Jonah, see my new Kindle book, The Historicity of the Book of Jonah, and Why It Still Matters.

Enjoy this content? Buy me a coffee.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)

Like this:

Like Loading...

What does the Bible teach about hell and eternal punishment?

30 Thursday Oct 2014

Posted by Steven Anderson in Apologetics, Theology

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

eternal punishment, hell

I have published a short $2.99 Kindle ebook entitled The Bible’s Teaching on Endless Punishment, and Objections to It—just in time for Halloween. (No, you don’t need to own a Kindle device to read it—there are free Kindle readers for computers, tablets, and phones.) A few thoughts excerpted from the book:

  • The Bible describes three compartments in the underworld: Hades, the abyss, and the lake of fire. Most modern writers use the term “hell” when referring to any or all compartments of the underworld.
  • People who say that a loving God would not send people to hell generally also struggle to explain the existence of evil and suffering in the world in which we live. How can a loving God permit so much pain and wickedness in the world? This is a real problem for people who deny a literal hell because if justice is not served in this life then it is not served at all, and it obviously is not served in this life. God’s tolerance of evil in the world can only be explained if it is recognized that every sin will someday receive the punishment that it deserves.
  • People would not get upset about the Bible’s teaching on hell and eternal torment if there were no such thing in reality. If hell really were a ridiculous, fairy-tale concept, unbelievers would not care if some people accept the idea. The reason it bothers them is because they have an inner sense that it is real (Heb 2:15; 10:27).
  • Pastors who believe in annihilationism or universalism lose the ability to preach with authority. They can only make recommendations regarding what people should be doing, but can never say they must do it, and cannot prove that the way we live life has any eternal significance. One formerly universalist pastor says, “My religion was reduced to a self-help methodology, a happy way to cope with life. I became a moralist, a counselor, a two-bit pop psychologist” (David Hanson, The Art of Pastoring [Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1994], 85).
  • Objection: The New Testament reveals the love of God in Christ in a way that is incompatible with a doctrine of hell and eternal punishment. This is the official position of the Church of England. The problem with it is, the New Testament contains many more references to hell and eternal punishment than the Old Testament (234 out of the 260 chapters in the New Testament say something about judgment), and the majority of these New Testament references are statements made by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. Those who say that Jesus is too loving to send anybody to hell are selectively choosing to accept only those sayings of Jesus that they like, while rejecting or ignoring the ones they find offensive. The New Testament actually gives a much clearer and fuller revelation of the doctrine of hell and eternal punishment than the Old Testament, and it does so primarily through Jesus’ direct teaching. Also, the message of the gospel is that Jesus had to die for the sins of the world because sin demands punishment, and the only punishment that will satisfy the demands of justice is death. The cross is robbed of its purpose and significance if there is no such thing as a second death. If God does not give those who reject Christ’s atonement the same penalty for sin as was applied to His Son, then there never was any real need for a sacrificial death to atone for sin, and there is a real question as to the fairness of the cross itself.

This is objection #1 that I present in the book, but I believe the real objection is #7: The lake of fire is horrible and disturbing beyond comprehension, and I cannot accept a doctrine that is so appalling and awful. An even deeper objection lies behind this one—I like to sin, and I want to believe that I can get away with it. You can read my answer to these objections and more in the book.

Enjoy this content? Buy me a coffee.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)

Like this:

Like Loading...
Follow TruthOnlyBible on WordPress.com

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 216 other subscribers

Categories

  • Apologetics
  • Archaeology
  • Bible
  • Bible prophecy
  • Bible scholarship
  • Biblical languages
  • Books
  • Christmas
  • Church history
  • Creation
  • Current events
  • Easter
  • Ecclesiology
  • Evangelism
  • History
  • Missions
  • Practical theology
  • Theology

RSS links

  • RSS - Posts
  • RSS - Comments

Blog at WordPress.com.

  • Follow Following
    • TruthOnlyBible
    • Join 216 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • TruthOnlyBible
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
%d bloggers like this: