|Join Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / New|
Stats: 2,037,357 members, 4,363,396 topics. Date: Thursday, 19 July 2018 at 10:31 PM
|Re: The Historicity Of The Books Of The Bible - Reference: Daniel. by Martian(m): 10:31pm On Feb 26, 2012|
He is known alright. As a writer of science fiction. lmao WTF?
[b]Zecharia Sitchin, along with Erich von Däniken and Immanuel Velikovsky, make up the holy trinity of pseudohistorians. Each begins with the assumption that ancient myths are not myths but historical and scientific texts. Sitchin's claim to fame is announcing that he alone correctly reads ancient Sumerian clay tablets. [Of course, he didn't announce this by taking out an ad in the New York Times but by implying it with his "translations" that do not jibe with the work of legitimate scholars in the field.] If Sitchin is right, then all other scholars have misread these tablets, which, according to Sitchin, reveal that gods from another planet (Nibiru or Niburu, which orbits our Sun every 3,600 years) arrived on Earth some 450,000 years ago and created humans by genetic engineering of female apes. Niburu orbits beyond Pluto and is heated from within by radioactive decay, according to Sitchin. No other scientist has discovered that these descendants of gods blew themselves up with nuclear weapons some 4,000 years ago (The War of Gods and Men, p. 310).* Sitchin alone can look at a Sumerian tablet and see that it depicts a man being subjected to radiation. He alone knows how to correctly translate ancient terms allowing him to discover such things as that the ancients made rockets (ibid., p. 46).* Yet, he doesn't seem to know that the seasons are caused by the earth's tilt, not by its distance from the sun.[/b]
Each is a master at ignoring inconvenient facts, making mysteries where there were none before, and offering their alien hypotheses to solve the mysteries. Their works are very attractive to those who love a good mystery and are ignorant of the nature and limits of scientific knowledge. They are especially attractive to those who are ignorant of biblical and historical scholarship.
|Re: The Historicity Of The Books Of The Bible - Reference: Daniel. by Martian(m): 10:33pm On Feb 26, 2012|
I got another one for you Plaetton. L Ron Hubbard.
Knock yourself out.
|Re: The Historicity Of The Books Of The Bible - Reference: Daniel. by InesQor(m): 11:18pm On Feb 26, 2012|
About the genealogies, Matthew was simply following a Jewish tradition by naming the people that God "lined up" to bring forward Jesus. Not biologically or medically, but by tradition that's all. Do you think they didn't know that those names in the two genealogies were clashing? Lol
And for the thread, I have one or two questions.
What does history comprise of?
What makes a source of history credible or not; and what qualifies or disqualifies the Bible in that regard?
|Re: The Historicity Of The Books Of The Bible - Reference: Daniel. by Martian(m): 11:46pm On Feb 26, 2012|
The following core principles of source criticism were formulated by two Scandinavian historians, Olden-Jørgensen (1998) and Thurén (1997):
Human sources may be relics such as a fingerprint; or narratives such as a statement or a letter. Relics are more credible sources than narratives.
Any given source may be forged or corrupted. Strong indications of the originality of the source increase its reliability.
The closer a source is to the event which it purports to describe, the more one can trust it to give an accurate historical description of what actually happened.
A primary source is more reliable than a secondary source which is more reliable than a tertiary source, and so on.
If a number of independent sources contain the same message, the credibility of the message is strongly increased.
The tendency of a source is its motivation for providing some kind of bias. Tendencies should be minimized or supplemented with opposite motivations.
If it can be demonstrated that the witness or source has no direct interest in creating bias then the credibility of the message is increased.
Bernheim (1889) and Langlois & Seignobos (1898) proposed a seven-step procedure for source criticism in history:
1.If the sources all agree about an event, historians can consider the event proved.
2.However, majority does not rule; even if most sources relate events in one way, that version will not prevail unless it passes the test of critical textual analysis.
3.The source whose account can be confirmed by reference to outside authorities in some of its parts can be trusted in its entirety if it is impossible similarly to confirm the entire text.
4.When two sources disagree on a particular point, the historian will prefer the source with most "authority"—that is the source created by the expert or by the eyewitness.
5.Eyewitnesses are, in general, to be preferred especially in circumstances where the ordinary observer could have accurately reported what transpired and, more specifically, when they deal with facts known by most contemporaries.
6.If two independently created sources agree on a matter, the reliability of each is measurably enhanced.
7.When two sources disagree and there is no other means of evaluation, then historians take the source which seems to accord best with common sense.
External criticism: authenticity and provenance
Garraghan divides criticism into six inquiries
1.When was the source, written or unwritten, produced (date)?
2.Where was it produced (localization)?
3.By whom was it produced (authorship)?
4.From what pre-existing material was it produced (analysis)?
5.In what original form was it produced (integrity)?
6.What is the evidential value of its contents (credibility)?
[/b] The first four are known as higher criticism; the fifth, lower criticism; and, together, external criticism. The sixth and final inquiry about a source is called internal criticism.
R. J. Shafer offers this checklist for evaluating eyewitness testimony:
1.Is the real meaning of the statement different from its literal meaning? Are words used in senses not employed today? Is the statement meant to be ironic (i.e., mean other than it says)?
2.How well could the author observe the thing he reports? Were his senses equal to the observation? Was his physical location suitable to sight, hearing, touch? Did he have the proper social ability to observe: did he understand the language, have other expertise required (e.g., law, military); was he not being intimidated by his wife or the secret police?
3.How did the author report?, and what was his ability to do so? 1.Regarding his ability to report, was he biased? Did he have proper time for reporting? Proper place for reporting? Adequate recording instruments?
2.When did he report in relation to his observation? Soon? Much later? Fifty years is much later as most eyewitnesses are dead and those who remain may have forgotten relevant material.
3.What was the author's intention in reporting? For whom did he report? Would that audience be likely to require or suggest distortion to the author?
4.Are there additional clues to intended veracity? Was he indifferent on the subject reported, thus probably not intending distortion? Did he make statements damaging to himself, thus probably not seeking to distort? Did he give incidental or casual information, almost certainly not intended to mislead?
4.Do his statements seem inherently improbable: e.g., contrary to human nature, or in conflict with what we know?
5.Remember that some types of information are easier to observe and report on than others.
6.Are there inner contradictions in the document?[/b]
You can use them to judge the bible if you wish.
|Re: The Historicity Of The Books Of The Bible - Reference: Daniel. by jayriginal: 11:50pm On Feb 26, 2012|
DeepSight, sometimes you amaze me. I'd like to know how much you know about the Benin moat. That in itself is a staggering achievement for a civilization without modern tools, yet I've never heard allusions to "aliens".
Deep Sight:Many of your posts reek arrogance and I'm not trying to be mean.
If the christians would acknowledge that their bible and god are man made and not divine, the attack of the opposition would be blunted somewhat.
When someone claims his scripture is divinely inspired and therefore error free, you do not expect cheap mistakes to be made.
I would think that the "god" who made the world and wrote a book should know the difference between stars and meteorites.
Also, please avoid the thinking that the ancients were stupid people. We have stood on their knowledge to expand.
I think you need to learn some humility.
Take my post in good faith, I dont mean any offence.
|Re: The Historicity Of The Books Of The Bible - Reference: Daniel. by jayriginal: 12:03am On Feb 27, 2012|
|Re: The Historicity Of The Books Of The Bible - Reference: Daniel. by mazaje(m): 4:05am On Feb 27, 2012|
Before, the normal christian explanation for the conflicting genealogies was that one is the genealogy of Mary while the other is for Joseph, when they realize that the explanation holds no water at all they are now coming up with this as an explanation, eh?. . . .Shifting the goal post is what it is called. . . .No where does it state that Matthew was following any Jewish tradition, you only made the claim without providing any evidence. . .Which tradition was Luke following?. . . .
|Re: The Historicity Of The Books Of The Bible - Reference: Daniel. by DeepSight(m): 10:01am On Feb 27, 2012|
Jesus Christ. I'm just going to assume you did not read anything that I wrote. I honestly don't know how you can derive this understanding from what I wrote.
|Re: The Historicity Of The Books Of The Bible - Reference: Daniel. by jayriginal: 11:16am On Feb 27, 2012|
I did. If you didnt get my point, Im content to leave it at that. No offence intended.
|Re: The Historicity Of The Books Of The Bible - Reference: Daniel. by mrmayor(m): 12:14pm On Feb 27, 2012|
Sir, you're post is offensive being unfair, Deepsight is a decent guy, you can hardly accuse him of arrogance maybe using too many lawyer terms like "Aforementioned" and stuff like that,he holds his own, willing to listen and accept another's opinion and he is hardly rude.
|Re: The Historicity Of The Books Of The Bible - Reference: Daniel. by jayriginal: 1:18pm On Feb 27, 2012|
mrmayor:I cast no aspersions on his morals whatsoever. I already made it clear that I meant no offence and I hope non was taken.
My problem with DeepSight and where I complain of his "arrogance" is when he says certain things like he is the sole custodian of knowledge. Should a "christian" do that, it wont strike me as unusual.
DeepSight does not strike me as a tolerant person (from reading his posts). Sometimes I read his posts and feel there is barely concealed contempt therein.
Of course these are just my impressions and they do not stem from this thread alone.
On the positive side, DeepSight is not to be counted as one of the foul mouthed personalities here. Also, I have seen some humour in his posts which I always count as a good thing.
All being said and done, I'd like to lay this matter to rest. No need to derail the thread any further and certainly no need to court controversy.
Its my opinion and I may be wrong, but I mean no offense. I just mean to criticize fairly and help him improve (if thats possible).
|Re: The Historicity Of The Books Of The Bible - Reference: Daniel. by InesQor(m): 2:02pm On Feb 27, 2012|
Some study in gematria (Jewish numerology) and research into scriptures will give you the evidence you need.
Sir Isaac Newton wrote more about gematria and numbers in Scripture than he did about his theory of gravity.
Matthew manipulated his Toledoth (genealogy) to obtain a particular symmetrical structure in concordance with the gematria. The symmetry is symbolic and had more meaning to his FIRST audience, the Jews, than we who want to consider it literally today.
Matthew 1:17 says, "Thus there were fourteen generations; in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to Christ."
To obtain exactly 14 generations in each era, some names were added (e.g. tracing through women) and some dropped from the Teledoth (by using "begat", Matthew could mention a grandfather and skip right through to the grandson in order to have the exact symmetry he needed to make 14 times 3 = 42). It had to add up to forty-two in three (gematria: fullness and completion) groups. 42 is an important number because when divided by 12 (number of tribes of Israel), you get 3 and half, which is a prophetic number in the revelatory books of Daniel 12 and in Revelations.
The Hebrew gematria for David's name is 14 (double spiritual perfection), and he was also number 14 in the Toledoth. David's name appears 5 times in the Matthew genealogy, to show grace (Hebrew gematria for 5). Abraham is mentioned thrice to show fullness and completion.
Luke's record and Matthew's record between David and Joseph the husband of Mary, mother of Jesus differs essentially because of the teledoth manipulation in Matthew and also, beginning with David, Matthew traced the paternal line of descent through Solomon; while Luke traced the maternal line through Solomon’s brother, Nathan. Also, Matthew deliberately traced via Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba (the point to the Jews is that none is exempt from God's grace. Four women who were Gentiles or sinners and yet God used them to produce the lineage of the Messiah). And do not forget that in those days, there was a lot of inter-marriage between people, so the extended family tree can be quite convoluted.
It's deliberate, it's tradition, it's symbolic, and it's not a contradiction (otherwise it would have been corrected ages ago, in the early church days).
Romans 3:1-2 (Amplified Bible)
THEN WHAT advantage remains to the Jew? [How is he favored?] Or what is the value or benefit of circumcision? Much in every way. To begin with, to the Jews were entrusted the oracles (the brief communications, the intentions, the utterances) of God.
Everything was written that way in Matthew's genealogy for a particular reason, for the sake of the Jews. Luke, the doctor, on the other hand wrote for a non-Jew so he followed Joseph's biological line.
It is preposterous to ridicule what one does not understand just because one does not understand it.
|Re: The Historicity Of The Books Of The Bible - Reference: Daniel. by Martian(m): 3:08pm On Feb 27, 2012|
Quick appeal to authority there.
Well, Newton's legacy is the theory of gravity and we know it's real. gematria can only be used to manipulate "jewish" texts to align with the users view.
So if Luke was a physician 60 years after the fact, how was he able to write about the deeds of jesus. Was he an eye witness?
|Re: The Historicity Of The Books Of The Bible - Reference: Daniel. by Martian(m): 3:12pm On Feb 27, 2012|
Do the names of Jesus' disciples support the notion that he was the creation of some hellenized jews who were under Roman persecution?
1. Peter: (Greek: Petros meaning ‘Rock’) – Peter was one of the most prominent of the 12 disciples, a natural spokesperson and the leader of the early Christian church. His original Hebrew name was Simon, a common popular Hebrew name. Jesus gave him a name ‘Kephas‘, Aramaic name. John translated into it Greek ‘Petros‘ meaning Rock. (John 1:42 – “you will be called Cephas.”) Peter was native of Bethsaida (John 1:44), brother of Andrew, lived in a fishing town, Capernaum. (Mark 1:29) He was fisherman by occupation on the Sea of Galilee. He was married man. (Mark 1:30, 1 Cor 9:5)
2. John: (Meaning – God is gracious) John was originally the disciple of John the baptist (John 1:35), and he was introduced to Jesus in John 1:35-39. He was the brother of James and Son of Zebedee. He lived in Capernaum in Galilee, most probably native of Bethsaida. He was fisherman on the sea of Galilee with his brother and father. (Mark 1:19-20). He was one of the three disciples, closest to Jesus, with others being Peter and James.
3. James: (Greek Iakobos – the English word for Jacob meaning Israel or He Who Supplants His Brother). James was son of Zebedee (Mark 4:21), elder brother of John (Mat 17:1), by occupation, fisherman with his brother and father at the sea of Galilee, in partnership with Peter and Andrew. (Luke 5:10). He was the first disciple (apostle) to be martyred. (Acts 12:2)
4. Andrew: (Greek – Andreas, meaning ‘Manly’, man), brother of Simon Peter, son of Jonas, like his brother, lived in Capernaum, fisherman by occupation. He brought Peter his brother to Jesus. (John 1:25-42)
5. Philip: (Greek Philippos, meaning ‘Lover of horses’). He was a close friend of Andrew and Peter, a native of Bethsaida (John 1:44). Jesus called Philip near Bethany where John the baptist was preaching. (John 1:43) He persuaded and brought Nathaniel to Jesus. (John 1:45-51)
6. Bartholomew: (Greek – bartholomaios meaning Son of Talmai) He is mentioned in all four lists of the apostles. There is no other reference to him in the New testament. Nothing much is known about him.
7. Thomas: (Greek – Thomas from Aramaic – te’oma meaning ‘twin’) Also called ‘Didymus’ or ‘the Twin’ (John 11:16, 20:24, 21:2). When Jesus appeared to the the apostles after resurrection, Thomas was not present. Later on, when disciples told him, he could not believe them, until Jesus showed himself a week later. (John 20:24-29). His occupation is unknown.
8. Matthew: (Greek – maththaios - meaning ‘gift of Yahweh’) also called ‘levi’ (Mark 2:14, Luke 5:27). He was a tax collector by occupation. Jesus called him to be one of his disciples, when was was at a tax office. (Mat 9:9, Mark 2:14). He is ascribed as the author of Gospel according to Matthew.
9. James, the son of Alphaeus: one of the apostle of Christ. Nothing much is known about him.
10. Thaddaeus: He is mentioned in two of four lists of Jesus’ disciples. (Mat 10:3, Mark 3:18). The other two lists is also variously called him Jude of James, Jude Thaddaeus, Judas Thaddaeus or Lebbaeus. Nothing else is known about him apart from his names in two lists.
11. Simon the Zealot: Another disciple of Jesus. a member of a party later called ‘Zealots’ (Matthew 10:4, Mark 3:18)
12. Judas Iscariot: The disciple who betrayed Jesus. His last name ‘Iscariot’ is from Hebrew word ‘Ish Kerioth‘ meaning ‘a man from Kerioth’, a place in the south of Judah (Joshua 15:25). He was a treasurer of the group. (John 12:6, 13:29). After his betrayal of Jesus, he was grieved for his actions, and committed suicide. (Matthew 27:5). He is always mentioned last in the list of apostles.
Consider the dates attributed to the gospels and the politics of that era.
|Re: The Historicity Of The Books Of The Bible - Reference: Daniel. by Martian(m): 3:45pm On Feb 27, 2012|
The amount of gold on earth, if mined, will be enough to fill three Olympic sized swimming pool.Unless they had access to most of the gold on the world the golden statue probably only existed in Daniel's head. Unless plaetton's aliens brought the gold from planet X.
|Re: The Historicity Of The Books Of The Bible - Reference: Daniel. by DeepSight(m): 4:38pm On Feb 27, 2012|
^^^ Martian, you were not honest with my simple question when I asked as follows -
1. Are there any historical accuracies in the bible?
2. If so, how many/ what proportion?
You gave an answer that tends to suggest that perhaps only the mention of a few real places or so are real - and everything else is a work of fiction. This is extremely dishonest. The fact is that there are a great many historical accuracies - and you just dont want to admit that.
I am no bible apologist as you well know, but I should hope that I would never take things so far as to begin to suggest that virtually everything in there is false. That will be very dishonest.
At all events you need to place your comments in the specific context of my query in the OP - namely why do people seek to completely deny the existence of men such as Moses, Daniel and Jesus? Is this reasonable?
The issue is as simple as that. Let us not seek to draw out long-winded but irrelevant issues of general biblical innacuracies which no one is contesting.
|Re: The Historicity Of The Books Of The Bible - Reference: Daniel. by DeepSight(m): 5:38pm On Feb 27, 2012|
O, and as per Ancient Aliens, lets take that up in this new thread -
Am I not such a nice guy! See, i bought a brand new thread just for you, Martian!
|Re: The Historicity Of The Books Of The Bible - Reference: Daniel. by InesQor(m): 6:19pm On Feb 27, 2012|
Martian:Appeal to authority. Well, mea culpa; it was not my intention. The reason I mentioned that was to show mazaje that his accusation that "Christians are now coming up with some explanation" is wrong, because even Isaac Newton studied the gematria since way back, and has more works on it than on physics for instance (in case he is quick to ask "where is the evidence?" as he likes to do, he can google it now that I have told him).
Martian:This point of yours is a red herring. Luke never claimed to be an eye witness of Jesus' deeds.
|Re: The Historicity Of The Books Of The Bible - Reference: Daniel. by PA1982(f): 9:25pm On Feb 27, 2012|
Daniel can certainly be dismissed as a myth without any qualms.
Moses and Jesus?
But since we're on the subject, what was the name of the Pharaoh who's daughter drew Moses out of the Nile?
Or the Pharaoh who perished in the crossing of the Red Sea?
|Re: The Historicity Of The Books Of The Bible - Reference: Daniel. by FXKing2012(m): 10:03pm On Feb 27, 2012|
What the heck do u mean by this, pls dont even attempt to rewrite the Bible. . .ok I guess Daniel did not feature in that your Bible and thatz why its a myth to you.
|Re: The Historicity Of The Books Of The Bible - Reference: Daniel. by Martian(m): 10:49pm On Feb 27, 2012|
No, it's not. If he wasn't a disciple or eyewitness, where did he get all the stuff he wrote?
|Re: The Historicity Of The Books Of The Bible - Reference: Daniel. by Martian(m): 10:51pm On Feb 27, 2012|
|Re: The Historicity Of The Books Of The Bible - Reference: Daniel. by Martian(m): 11:05pm On Feb 27, 2012|
Look deep sight, maybe jesus, Moses and Daniel really did exist, no one can tell definitely. If we can get rid of the supernatural stuff(splitting the red sea, resurrection), then it's possible they existed.
Gilgamesh existed, but he never really slayed the "bull of heaven".
|Re: The Historicity Of The Books Of The Bible - Reference: Daniel. by InesQor(m): 11:07pm On Feb 27, 2012|
Who says one must be a disciple or an eyewitness to relate an account for someone else? This even makes no sense. Have you ever heard of a biography? Does the author of a biography necessarily have to be a[i] friend[/i] or an [i]eyewitness [/i]of the subject of the biography?
If indeed you are interested in Luke's sources, a simple google search will afford you the information.
But you may prefer to be spoon-fed. Here's the color coded Luke. Sources appear to be Q, Mark and some relatively and otherwise unknown source peculiar only to Luke http://religiousstudies.uncc.edu/people/jtabor/luke.html
|Re: The Historicity Of The Books Of The Bible - Reference: Daniel. by Martian(m): 11:15pm On Feb 27, 2012|
Look deep sight, maybe jesus, Moses and Daniel really did exist, no one can tell definitely. If we can get rid of the supernatural stuff(splitting the red sea, resurrection), then it's possible they existed.
Gilgamesh existed, but he never really slayed the "bull of heaven".
|Re: The Historicity Of The Books Of The Bible - Reference: Daniel. by Martian(m): 11:22pm On Feb 27, 2012|
I've heard of Q. I've also heard of J, but two letters don't tell us much, do they?
So how do we know if Luke's "biography" was authorized?
An authorized biography is written with the cooperation of family and heirs, or of the subject if alive.
|Re: The Historicity Of The Books Of The Bible - Reference: Daniel. by Martian(m): 11:24pm On Feb 27, 2012|
You mentioned Mark. Was he a disciple, eyewitness, unauthorized biographer, or authorized biographer?
|Re: The Historicity Of The Books Of The Bible - Reference: Daniel. by InesQor(m): 11:39pm On Feb 27, 2012|
Martian:I'm certain you know that the family and friends of the subject in this case were illiterate commoners who would communicate information via verbal tradition. In this light, there is no way for you to know what is "authorized" and what is not. Thanks to the lack of education among commoners, you can only accept the gospel. Or not. But when it is clear that other historians like Josephus corroborated Luke's content, then the onus is on you to also discredit Josephus (a secular historian who wrote without a religious bent) as well.
In most theological circles, Luke is considered one of the greatest historians ever, thanks to his attention to details on titles given to each person he named in Luke and Acts, names of people, names of locations, years, etc.
Martian:The gospel of Mark is, plainly speaking, an anonymous account. But it is believed to have been written by John Mark to Gentile Christians in Rome.
Among the most respected Biblical theologians and historians in the world, it is peer-reviewed and accepted that the Gospel of Mark is the oldest and most reliable gospel. Some even believe it might be the only original gospel, but that's their unverifiable opinion; just like those who disagree can't verify their opinions either.
|Re: The Historicity Of The Books Of The Bible - Reference: Daniel. by Martian(m): 12:45am On Feb 28, 2012|
Well, i'll rather not accept the information of "illiterate commoners" and Josephus' "corroboration" has always been in doubt. If you disagrre with that, you are being less than honest.
I'm sorry, but in "theological circles", up is down, right is left and the sky is really magenta.
Peer reviewed?? How can something be peer reviewed when no one is sure who wrote it. If it's the only original gospel, what does that make the rest. Forgeries? Copies?
According to tradition and early church fathers, the author is Mark the Evangelist, the companion of the apostle Peter. The gospel, however, appears to rely on several underlying sources, varying in form and in theology, and which tells against the tradition that the gospel was based on Peter's preaching. Various elements within the gospel, including the importance of the authority of Peter and the broadness of the basic theology, suggest that the author wrote in Syria or Palestine for a non-Jewish Christian community which had earlier absorbed the influence of pre-Pauline beliefs and then developed them further independent of Paul.
The Gospel According to Mark does not name its author. A 2nd century tradition ascribes it to Mark the Evangelist (also known as John Mark), the companion of Peter, on whose memories it is supposedly based. but the author's use of varied sources tells against the traditional account and according to the majority view the author is unknown.The gospel was written in Greek shortly after the destruction of the Second Temple in AD 70, possibly in Syria.
|Re: The Historicity Of The Books Of The Bible - Reference: Daniel. by PA1982(f): 8:01am On Feb 29, 2012|
I suggest you read your linked articles to the end, InesQor.
I see you didn't read to the end because here's the conclusion of the article:
Do you understand that? (My bolding, of course)
|Re: The Historicity Of The Books Of The Bible - Reference: Daniel. by FXKing2012(m): 9:27am On Feb 29, 2012|
What I truly love about PA1982 is that she takes time to painfully do her research and I respect (and perhaps even love) her for that, it shows she's not lazy and she's very willing to learn and teach.
|Re: The Historicity Of The Books Of The Bible - Reference: Daniel. by DeepSight(m): 12:11pm On Feb 29, 2012|
^ Why did you run away from the issue of Elijah and hot gbegiri in my Ancient Aliens thread?
|Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health |
religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket
Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2018 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 323