Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Who are the “sons of God” in Genesis 6?


Recommended Posts

  • Members

I'm mildly curious, if we are so sure that "sons of God" in Genesis 6 has to be human and cannot be angels, then who are the "sons of God" in Job 1, 2 and 38?

If the "sons of God in Job are angels and cannot be human, then what is going on in Genesis 6?

If "sons of God" refers to saved people, then why would humans in Genesis 6 be called such, since one cannot be saved without the blood of Christ, which didn't exist at that time?

Why was no one else in the entire Old Testament called the "son of God"? Why was Ezekiel called "son of man" repeatedly and not ever "son of God"? Was he not saved, but the men in Genesis 6 were? Why was the next human to be called a "son of God" actually Jesus, and then after that those who were truly born again? John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name

How does a "godly"person procreating with an "ungodly" person result in physiological anomalies? Why don't we see it today with saints marrying unbelievers?

Why does Genesis 6 point out that Noah "was perfect (nothing deleted or added) in his generations(bloodlines)"?

If Noah did have an ancestor that was simply a human from Cain's line, why would it have even mattered? It never did after that. See Rehab, Ruth et al

If man sinned, and thus God promised in Genesis 3:15 that he would send a messiah as a man, born of a human woman, why would Satan not begin to immediately try to taint all of the bloodlines coming from women in order to ultimately stop the source of his demise? Why would God not see this plan, cradle the untainted seed protectively in an ark while he washes the earth clean of the poison that would eventually spread unchecked to kill the promise?

Why, if we read that angels can, at will, take on physical abilities of a human (they eat, they fight, they drag by force reluctant women out of Sodom), do we discount that they might can actually take on all abilities? They ARE always referred to as males, which is a sex. And we are created a little lower than the angels. Yes, we are told that the angels do not marry in heaven, but since when is marriage automatically and always a part of sex, and  sex automatically part-and-partial to marriage? They are two different things.

I'm not in any way troubled by someone's beliefs on this issue. I don't want any heartburn or stress over it, and I don't want you to have any over it either :). But it looks to me like the study regarding this particular question has been a little ...shallow. So I'm just mildly curious.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 hour ago, weary warrior said:

How does a "godly"person procreating with an "ungodly" person result in physiological anomalies? Why don't we see it today with saints marrying unbelievers?

WW, if I may ask...what "physiological anomalies" are you referring to? All that I see that the Bible says is that their children became mighty men of old...men of renown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 hour ago, No Nicolaitans said:

WW, if I may ask...what "physiological anomalies" are you referring to? All that I see that the Bible says is that their children became mighty men of old...men of renown.

"Ge 6:4 - ¶ There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."

NN, I think that, to me, one of the greatest mistakes we often make in interpreting scripture is that we read the English incorrectly. We will read it as though it were written in the order, style and grammatical structure of modern, European authors of a western civilization. But it was not. As I read this verse and understand it, it is as thus (I hope you will forgive my audacity in re-wording scripture) "In those days, and also in the days after that, there were giants in the land when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men. These giants became mighty men of old, men of renown." The oriental, near-eastern way of writing. No, I am not discounting the placement of the semi-colon nor the commas. The KJV translation is always perfect, and this includes all punctuation. This then is what I see the punctuation rendering for us, but now placed in a familiar western order of speaking.

So, the "physiological anomalies" were men whose physical presence, power and deeds were drastic enough to warrant direct notice and reference in scripture, and were clearly attributed in the same scripture as being a direct result of the physical reality of who their parents were, whatever that reality may prove to be. The one thing pointed out about their parents, to give a reason for this mighty renown, is their two separate, independent, genetic lines. And having parents whose genetic line are only differentiated by  two opposing spiritual views does not answer to this. A spiritual problem has a spiritual answer. A physical problem, however has a physical answer.

Again, it's all good. There's no problem that some will not see it this way. But NOT seeing it this way just creates more questions for me than it answers, especially when the passage is carefully studied in the light of all other rightly-divided scripture. 

Thank's for the question, Brother.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
5 hours ago, weary warrior said:

"Ge 6:4 - ¶ There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."

NN, I think that, to me, one of the greatest mistakes we often make in interpreting scripture is that we read the English incorrectly. We will read it as though it were written in the order, style and grammatical structure of modern, European authors of a western civilization. But it was not. As I read this verse and understand it, it is as thus (I hope you will forgive my audacity in re-wording scripture) "In those days, and also in the days after that, there were giants in the land when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men. These giants became mighty men of old, men of renown." The oriental, near-eastern way of writing. No, I am not discounting the placement of the semi-colon nor the commas. The KJV translation is always perfect, and this includes all punctuation. This then is what I see the punctuation rendering for us, but now placed in a familiar western order of speaking.

So, the "physiological anomalies" were men whose physical presence, power and deeds were drastic enough to warrant direct notice and reference in scripture, and were clearly attributed in the same scripture as being a direct result of the physical reality of who their parents were, whatever that reality may prove to be. The one thing pointed out about their parents, to give a reason for this mighty renown, is their two separate, independent, genetic lines. And having parents whose genetic line are only differentiated by  two opposing spiritual views does not answer to this. A spiritual problem has a spiritual answer. A physical problem, however has a physical answer.

Again, it's all good. There's no problem that some will not see it this way. But NOT seeing it this way just creates more questions for me than it answers, especially when the passage is carefully studied in the light of all other rightly-divided scripture. 

Thank's for the question, Brother.

Okay. Thank you for explaining further.

As I read both the scripture and your re-wording of it, the giants were already in existence at the time; in which, the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men and bare children to them. Therefore, I don't see how the children born from the two groups could be the giants.

I will drop this now. Thank you for your Christian attitude in answering my original question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
7 hours ago, weary warrior said:

"Ge 6:4 - ¶ There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."

NN, I think that, to me, one of the greatest mistakes we often make in interpreting scripture is that we read the English incorrectly. We will read it as though it were written in the order, style and grammatical structure of modern, European authors of a western civilization. But it was not. As I read this verse and understand it, it is as thus (I hope you will forgive my audacity in re-wording scripture) "In those days, and also in the days after that, there were giants in the land when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men. These giants became mighty men of old, men of renown."

Well, dear brother, I for one CANNOT forgive your audacity in "re-wording Scripture."

Furthermore, the entire rest of your argument thereafter is founded upon your willingness to so reword Scripture.  As such, I am compelled to reject it.

 

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Gen 1:11-12
(11)  And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
(12)  And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:21
(21)  And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:25
(25)  And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
 

The Bible establishes that creatures will bring forth "after his kind", and that is what we see consistently throughout creation.

Animals bring forth after their kind, plants bring forth after their own kind.

Even in labs today they cannot force things to bring forth another kind.

God said it clearly - it is not possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I said that I would drop it, but I guess I lied. Forgive me. I've been pondering the questions asked by WW, and since no one else has answered, here are my thoughts...

14 hours ago, weary warrior said:

I'm mildly curious, if we are so sure that "sons of God" in Genesis 6 has to be human and cannot be angels, then who are the "sons of God" in Job 1, 2 and 38?

While I've certainly entertained the idea that those sons of God in Job were angels, there's nothing definitive in Job describing them as such. In Job 38, there is the reference to both "morning stars" (often commonly interpreted to be angels) and "sons of God" (also commonly interpreted to be angels) in the same verse. If that's the case...that both refer to angels...then the angels and the angels were there (?).

14 hours ago, weary warrior said:

If "sons of God" refers to saved people, then why would humans in Genesis 6 be called such, since one cannot be saved without the blood of Christ, which didn't exist at that time?

Christ was foretold before Genesis 6. I believe salvation has always been, is today, and always will be given freely by grace through faith...apart from any works/deeds/law-keeping/etc...regardless of which "dispensation" existed, exists, or will exist. (I'm not trying to get into a dispensation debate. Christ is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world). They were called sons of God, because that's who they were.

15 hours ago, weary warrior said:

Why was no one else in the entire Old Testament called the "son of God"? Why was Ezekiel called "son of man" repeatedly and not ever "son of God"? Was he not saved, but the men in Genesis 6 were? Why was the next human to be called a "son of God" actually Jesus, and then after that those who were truly born again? John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name

As I mentioned, the bible isn't definitive (in my understanding) of exactly who the sons of God were in the Old Testament. The first human to be called the son of God wasn't the Lord Jesus Christ; it was Adam...one might find a reference to Christ being referred to as the son of God early in one of the Gospels; however, the Bible definitively states that the very first man who ever lived was the son of God...

Luke 3:38
Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

...as such, at this time, I can only conclude that "sons of God" are men...whether alive bodily and saved...or dead bodily but spiritually alive in Christ.

15 hours ago, weary warrior said:

How does a "godly"person procreating with an "ungodly" person result in physiological anomalies? Why don't we see it today with saints marrying unbelievers?

In my understanding, it didn't. Their children became mighty men of old...men of renown.

Was Goliath a fallen angel/human mix? Were his brothers? Were the other sons of Gath who were called giants also fallen angel/human hybrids? Was Og? All of these men lived after the flood.

One can be a mighty man and a man of renown without being a giant. Alexander the Great, George Washington, Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin, goodness...I would imagine if you asked anyone who Donald Trump was, they would have an answer. Why? They may not have followed the news, and they may not be able to give you an accurate answer about him; however, he has become a mighty man...a man of renown, and they can tell you something about him.

15 hours ago, weary warrior said:

Why does Genesis 6 point out that Noah "was perfect (nothing deleted or added) in his generations(bloodlines)"?

I don't understand where you get "bloodlines" as the interpretation for "generations"?

When you responded to my original question, you respectfully included the following prerequisite...

"one of the greatest mistakes we often make in interpreting scripture is that we read the English incorrectly."

...I also think that we often make the mistake of applying modern-day meanings to words that were written in the 1600's...many of which have changed meaning over the centuries. What did the word "perfect" mean in 1611?

15 hours ago, weary warrior said:

If Noah did have an ancestor that was simply a human from Cain's line, why would it have even mattered? It never did after that. See Rehab, Ruth et al

Sorry...I don't follow you on this.

15 hours ago, weary warrior said:

If man sinned, and thus God promised in Genesis 3:15 that he would send a messiah as a man, born of a human woman, why would Satan not begin to immediately try to taint all of the bloodlines coming from women in order to ultimately stop the source of his demise? Why would God not see this plan, cradle the untainted seed protectively in an ark while he washes the earth clean of the poison that would eventually spread unchecked to kill the promise?

Because...

Genesis 6:5
And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

The flood was about mankind's wickedness and evil...not angels. I would respectfully and humbly assert that to assume a Satanic plot of stopping the Messianic bloodline is an extra-biblical assumption with no biblical evidence.

After Joseph, Pharaoh did a lot of dirty business toward the Israelites, but that was toward the Israelites...not the Messiah. He was trying to do population control. The only definitive proof (that I'm aware of) that we have of an actual attempt to stop Christ in the Bible is found in Matthew 2; in which, Herod had all of the male children killed (who were two years old and under).

Why did God save Noah and his family?

Genesis 6:8-9
8   But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.
9   These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.

He found grace and was just.

16 hours ago, weary warrior said:

Why, if we read that angels can, at will, take on physical abilities of a human (they eat, they fight, they drag by force reluctant women out of Sodom),

Everything that you've described here was done by holy angels who served God.

16 hours ago, weary warrior said:

do we discount that they might can actually take on all abilities?

No. I would respectfully and humbly say that we would assume it...without real biblical evidence.

16 hours ago, weary warrior said:

They ARE always referred to as males, which is a sex.

True.

16 hours ago, weary warrior said:

Yes, we are told that the angels do not marry in heaven, but since when is marriage automatically and always a part of sex, and  sex automatically part-and-partial to marriage?

God "married" the first two humans, and told them...

Genesis 1:27-28
27   So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28   And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

From this, it would appear to me that sex (as originally intended by God) was "part-and-partial" to marriage.

However, sex isn't automatically part-and-partial to marriage in this sin-stricken world that we live in, because of man's sin nature. Sin has twisted it into something other than the wonderful joy and closeness that God intended to exist between a husband and wife. Sex outside of marriage always brings baggage and always brings remorse of some kind.

Many married couples no longer enjoy the intimacy of marriage...because of sin. Pride and selfishness take over and drives a wedge between couples. She won't be intimate, because he won't _______ , or he does _______ . He won't be intimate, because she won't _______ , or she does _______ . It's all sin. It's all due to sin. It's all an effect of living in a sin-cursed world and not allowing Christ to live through us.

WW, I didn't mean any of this as an attack on you. In fact, I thank you for stirring my interest and taking my mind off of my troubles for a while.

In closing, I leave these last few thoughts...

The giants were already living and existed when the sons of God came unto the daughters of men, married them, and had children.

The flood was a judgment upon mankind...not fallen angels, nor their offspring with human wives.

Giants lived and existed after the flood. How did this happen if the angels (who are chained up until judgment day as given in Jude) were the ones who produced the giants?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
14 hours ago, weary warrior said:

"Ge 6:4 - ¶ There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."

NN, I think that, to me, one of the greatest mistakes we often make in interpreting scripture is that we read the English incorrectly. We will read it as though it were written in the order, style and grammatical structure of modern, European authors of a western civilization. But it was not. As I read this verse and understand it, it is as thus (I hope you will forgive my audacity in re-wording scripture) "In those days, and also in the days after that, there were giants in the land when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men. These giants became mighty men of old, men of renown." The oriental, near-eastern way of writing. No, I am not discounting the placement of the semi-colon nor the commas. The KJV translation is always perfect, and this includes all punctuation. This then is what I see the punctuation rendering for us, but now placed in a familiar western order of speaking.

So, the "physiological anomalies" were men whose physical presence, power and deeds were drastic enough to warrant direct notice and reference in scripture, and were clearly attributed in the same scripture as being a direct result of the physical reality of who their parents were, whatever that reality may prove to be. The one thing pointed out about their parents, to give a reason for this mighty renown, is their two separate, independent, genetic lines. And having parents whose genetic line are only differentiated by  two opposing spiritual views does not answer to this. A spiritual problem has a spiritual answer. A physical problem, however has a physical answer.

Again, it's all good. There's no problem that some will not see it this way. But NOT seeing it this way just creates more questions for me than it answers, especially when the passage is carefully studied in the light of all other rightly-divided scripture. 

Thank's for the question, Brother.

Hi weary warrior,

Had you considered that `blood` is the key here. Angels do not have blood only humans. As God said - the life is in the blood. Man made of the earth has blood and our Lord partook of the same. (Heb. 2: 14) However angels fallen or holy were never created with blood and thus have no power to pass on life.

regards, Marilyn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

"Ge 6:4 - ¶ There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."

 

"There were giants in the earth...."  this states a situation

"in those days"....denotes the time period

The fact that the first statement is followed by a semicolon means the first statement is related to the second.

 The second statement begins with "and also after that"

But "after that" cannot mean "at a later time" because the WHOLE STORY is taking place "in those days"

Therefore, the phrase "after that" , instead of meaning "later in time", means that the second state of events are an  "imitation of" or happening "as a result of" or "because of" he The existence of "giants"  https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/after

The first part of Genesis 6. is describing Genesis 5, are you with me?

Let's take Methuselah for instance: Brother Methuselah, the grandfather of Noah,  was a direct ancestor in the lineage of Christ(see Luke chapter 3) and he was a believer; a "son of God". So, if Methuselah lived 969 years and "begat sons and daughters", he was still around when his family had multiplied into the thousands, possibly the millions. Brother Methuselah's family was a "superpower". The whole "tribe" were "mighty men" and a force to be reckoned with in a world full of "giants" and "violence". Brother Methuselah was "backslid" and "conformed to this world". Still saved, but backslid because he married a lost woman(most likely multiple lost women). 

By contrast, his grandson Noah, was "perfect in his generations". In other words, Noah had ONE(numero uno) wife and he "begat" all three of his sons by her alone,  she was no doubt a beleiver so he was not "unequally yoked".  Brother Noah "generated" perfectly, God's way..

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
8 hours ago, heartstrings said:

"Ge 6:4 - ¶ There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."

 

"There were giants in the earth...."  this states a situation

Agreed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Sorry, I messed up on the post above.

14 hours ago, heartstrings said:

"Ge 6:4 - ¶ There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."

 

"There were giants in the earth...."  this states a situation

Agreed.

14 hours ago, heartstrings said:

"in those days"....denotes the time period

Agreed.

14 hours ago, heartstrings said:

The fact that the first statement is followed by a semicolon means the first statement is related to the second.

Agreed. And that relationship is grammatically indicated by the phrase, "and also after that."

14 hours ago, heartstrings said:

The second statement begins with "and also after that"

But "after that" cannot mean "at a later time" because the WHOLE STORY is taking place "in those days."

Disagreed. "After that" certainly CAN mean "at a later time," it is just necessary to understand what is the correct antecedent for the pronoun "that" in order to understand correctly "after" (at a later time than) WHAT.

14 hours ago, heartstrings said:

Therefore, the phrase "after that" , instead of meaning "later in time", means that the second state of events are an  "imitation of" or happening "as a result of" or "because of" he The existence of "giants"  https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/after

 Actually, the phrase "and also after that" precisely communicates two connection to the statement before it.  First, the phrase "and also" indicates that the following information occurred in addition to the preceding information ALSO during the same general time period "in those days."  Second, the phrase "after that" indicates that the event of following information occurred AFTER the event of the preceding information ALSO within that same general time period of "those days."  As such, the event of the following information CANNOT be the cause for the event of the preceding information.  It is grammatically possible that the event of the preceding information MAY have been the cause of the event of the following information, but it is NOT grammatically possible for the event of the following information to be the cause for the event of the preceding information.

Indeed, even your claim for "after that" to mean "as a result of" or "because of" indicates the ORDER of the events -- first, the event of the giants, second, the event of the mighty men.

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
grammar and spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
23 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Well, dear brother, I for one CANNOT forgive your audacity in "re-wording Scripture."

Furthermore, the entire rest of your argument thereafter is founded upon your willingness to so reword Scripture.  As such, I am compelled to reject it.

 

Things like this are why I say you need to write a book on hermaneutics and the importance of English grammar when studying the scriptures. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

NN, thank you for actually going through the verses and providing your view of their meaning. I appreciate it.

For all that answered, thank you for your courtesy. As I said, I have no desire for conflict, just wanted to add the other side to be looked at. It is enough.

Would you not admit that your interpretation of this subject rests largely what you are personally willing to accept or deny regarding physiological make up of angels, what the physically are and are not, what they can and cannot do? Yet, these views are not derived from scripture, science or personal experience. All we have from scripture is the following...

Angels and man were both created by God

Angels and man both have eternal souls

Angels and man both have free will

Angels and man can both question God

Angels and man are both capable of pride, rebellion, hatred etc

Angels and man are both damned for eternity in hell for their sin

Angels and man are both called men

Angels and man both can eat, can fight, can wrestle, can kill etc.

Man was made "a little lower than the angels" - Think about that for a minute

Just how dissimilar are men and angels really? "Angel" means "messenger". In scripture, men are called angels, and angels are called men. Where do you see in scripture that angels don't have blood? It doesn't say either way. Where are we told in scripture that we are so different we cant cross over? If a zebra can mate with a donkey (I've seen it), if a lion can mate with a tiger (I've seen it), if a wolf can mate with a coyote (I've seen it), where do you see in scripture that angels are NOT "after our kind"? Now, the crosses that I mentioned above should not have happened, they were abnormal, and resulted in physiological anomalies. But they happened. 

No other creation of God shares all of these attributes with us. Only man and ..."messenger".

Why do demons in the new testament want a body so desperately? If they cant have a human, they will beg to be allowed to enter pigs! Could it be that you miss worse what you've had, and has been taken away from you?

:sorry: 

Are you pulling your hair out yet?!? Gnashing your teeth?!? Screaming at me through your computer?!? Good. If you are even trying to answer these questions honestly with scripture, then you are thinking and stretching a little. :think_smiley_11: My iron is sharpening your iron a little. It's my job. :laugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
28 minutes ago, weary warrior said:

Are you pulling your hair out yet?!? Gnashing your teeth?!? Screaming at me through your computer?!? Good. If you are even trying to answer these questions honestly with scripture, then you are thinking and stretching a little. :think_smiley_11: My iron is sharpening your iron a little. It's my job. :laugh:

Brother Weary Warrior,

I "liked" your posting above especially for this comment of conclusion. Such we certainly need.  Now, I will acknowledge (as per your "shallow" Bible study comment in an even earlier posting) that I have engaged in very little actual Bible study IN THIS THREAD discussion on the subject.  However, it is rare for anyone to accuse me of shallow Bible study in my actual, personal studies.  In fact, when I actually post my studies, it is much more often for others to accuse me of being too detailed, too thorough, too extensive, too educated, too informational, etc.  However, as far as actually engaging with such detail and depth in this actual thread discussion, I simply am not certain that I have the time do so adequately.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

My first mistake when I joined your forums was not reading the current content. By mistake I created a forum topic

““Who was the true author of Genesis?” and then I found this forum. My mistake, I hope my new forum covering the same topic does not distract others from posting here.

Can I cut and paste the question I was asking there to here instead?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...