Announcement

Collapse

Biblical Languages 301 Guidelines

This is where we come to delve into the biblical text. Theology is not our foremost thought, but we realize it is something that will be dealt with in nearly every conversation. Feel free to use the original languages to make your point (meaning Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic). This is an exegetical discussion area, so please limit topics to purely biblical ones.

This is not the section for debates between theists and atheists. While a theistic viewpoint is not required for discussion in this area, discussion does presuppose a respect for the integrity of the Biblical text (or the willingness to accept such a presupposition for discussion purposes) and a respect for the integrity of the faith of others and a lack of an agenda to undermine the faith of others.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

ὁ Λόγος

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
    All right, but it is a use of constructio ad sensum.

    No, because you have now agreed that τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας is appositional to ἐκεῖνος; in other words you're [unwittingly] conceding that it cannot also be it's antecedent. So you now agree with me (and with Daniel Wallace, et al., inadvertently ) that "τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας" is NOT the postcedent of ἐκεῖνος. Dr. Wallace would say, and I would agree that ὁ Παράκλητος (in verse 7) rather is the antecedent of ἐκεῖνος in verse 13, John Chapter 16.

    ------


    Well, how about here?

    Source: Ephesians: A Handbook on the Greek Text, by William Larkin

    A construction that follows the sense of the expression rather than strict grammatical rules.

    © Copyright Original Source

    Once again this is not a Greek grammar textbook. But more importantly, the person making this sort of statement is not being careful with his words. Why not acquire a proper understanding of what constructio ad sensum is instead of trying to justify a poor definition of it ?

    It's like arguing that the following English statement is "technically ungrammatical" because the pronoun ("it") refers to it's antecedent by "natural" gender, i.e. by ad sensum construction :

    " The Ship made it's maiden voyage on the 5th of this month."


    Not at all! "The Life appeared" makes it clear that John means the person, of Jesus.

    Blessings,
    Lee
    Don't you understand that your grammatical argument (that "the Word of life" is the postcedent of ὃ) mitigates against such an understanding?

    I suggest that you stop using Greek grammar to make your arguments, for your own good, because you do not understand your own grammatical arguments.
    Last edited by Unitarian101; 08-14-2020, 08:11 PM.

    Comment


    • #62
      Look at the following Greek sentences:

      ἡ ναῦς εἶδόν καλὸν ἐστιν

      The ship which I saw is good.

      καλή ἐστιν ἡ ναῦς ἣν εἶδόν

      The ship which I saw is good.

      In the first one I used ad sensum construction (notice even with the adjective), but in the second sentence I used grammatical agreement between noun and pronoun and also the adjective. Both sentences are equally grammatical . To say otherwise is ignorance and foolishness.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Unitarian101 View Post
        No, because you have now agreed that τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας is appositional to ἐκεῖνος; in other words you're [unwittingly] conceding that it cannot also be it's antecedent. So you now agree with me (and with Daniel Wallace, et al., inadvertently ) that "τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας" is NOT the postcedent of ἐκεῖνος. Dr. Wallace would say, and I would agree that ὁ Παράκλητος (in verse 7) rather is the antecedent of ἐκεῖνος in verse 13, John Chapter 16.
        But it can still be a constructio ad sensum.

        Again this is not a Greek grammar textbook. But more importantly, the person making this sort of statement is not being careful with his words. Why not acquire a proper understanding of what constructio ad sensum is instead of trying to justify a poor definition of it ?
        Three poor definitions of it? I found three definitions of constructio ad sensum that you disagree with, and I think you are the one who is mistaken.

        Don't you understand that your grammatical argument (that "the Word of life" is the postcedent of ὃ) mitigates against such an understanding?
        It shows that ὃ refers to a person! And I don't think it's grammatically a postcedent, strictly speaking, so much as it's logically defining what ὃ refers to. And you have yet to address my point that "the life appeared" makes it clear that all along John has been talking about a person.

        Source: New American Commentary

        The NIV rendering focuses on the object of proclamation and the text’s ultimately personal referent (the “Word of life,” i.e., the preincarnate Christ, instead of “the word of life,” i.e., the gospel message). Although it is possible to take the object of proclamation as the gospel, the balance of the evidence favors a reference to the preincarnate Christ.

        Daniel L. Akin, 1, 2, 3 John, vol. 38, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001), 51.

        © Copyright Original Source



        Blessings,
        Lee
        "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
          But it can still be a constructio ad sensum.

          No, because a substantive can either be oppositional or else be the postcedent of the pronoun. It can't be both.


          Three poor definitions of it? I found three definitions of constructio ad sensum that you disagree with, and I think you are the one who is mistaken.
          Zero definitions from a Greek grammar.


          It shows that ὃ refers to a person! And I don't think it's grammatically a postcedent, strictly speaking, so much as it's logically defining what ὃ refers to. And you have yet to address my point that "the life appeared" makes it clear that all along John has been talking about a person.
          Then the pronoun would not have been ὃ (neuter) but ὅς (masculine).

          -----

          Source: New American Commentary

          The NIV rendering focuses on the object of proclamation and the text’s ultimately personal referent (the “Word of life,” i.e., the preincarnate Christ, instead of “the word of life,” i.e., the gospel message). Although it is possible to take the object of proclamation as the gospel, the balance of the evidence favors a reference to the preincarnate Christ.

          Daniel L. Akin, 1, 2, 3 John, vol. 38, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001), 51.

          © Copyright Original Source



          Blessings,
          Lee
          This resource does not agree with you that "the Word of life" is the postcedent of ὃ nor does it make a grammatical argument. It's not worth much.

          Comment


          • #65
            Would someone proficient like to argue the grammar of this verse (1 John 1:1) with me ?

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Unitarian101 View Post
              No, because a substantive can either be oppositional or else be the postcedent of the pronoun. It can't be both.
              But an appositional phrase can still be a constructio ad sensum.

              Zero definitions from a Greek grammar.
              I gave you quotes from a commentary, a Greek NT handbook, and a dictionary, if you reject these, your love for the truth would seem to be lacking.

              Then the pronoun would not have been ὃ (neuter) but ὅς (masculine).
              But again, grammar is not the be-all and end-all of meaning, the quote from the New American Commentary shows that "the life", and "what was from the beginning," refer to Christ.

              This resource does not agree with you that "the Word of life" is the postcedent of ὃ nor does it make a grammatical argument. It's not worth much.
              So, you only accept commentaries, and Biblical handbooks, and dictionaries that agree with you?

              Blessings,
              Lee
              "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                But an appositional phrase can still be a constructio ad sensum.
                No, constructio ad sensum happens when there is an incongruity between the gender of a pronoun and the gender of the substantive to which it refers, that is, when a pronoun refers to it's antecedent / postcedent by natural rather than by it's grammatical gender. When two substantives are in apposition on the other hand, the second substantive just reiterates the first, that is, it serves to identify the other in a different way. There is no such thing as ad sensum in such a construction. To argue otherwise displays an ignorance of what it means for two substantives to be in apposition. On another note, for the Greek geeks reading this, ἐκεῖνος rarely refers forward (Smyth 1257) -- that is, it is rarely (if ever) a postcedent.


                I gave you quotes from a commentary, a Greek NT handbook, and a dictionary, if you reject these, your love for the truth would seem to be lacking.
                Red above is not a grammar text book . The author of that document claims to be doing grammatical analysis of certain verses of the book of Ephesians, that's it. Unfortunately he does not even know to define constructio ad sensum properly or carefully, which does not bode well for his knowledge of Greek grammar.


                But again, grammar is not the be-all and end-all of meaning, the quote from the New American Commentary shows that "the life", and "what was from the beginning," refer to Christ.
                Then admit that your assertion is not based upon the grammar of the verse but on other considerations. Retract your ungrammatical assertion that "the Word of life" is the postcedent of ὃ because this claim contradicts your assertion that "the Word of life" here is a person.


                So, you only accept commentaries, and Biblical handbooks, and dictionaries that agree with you?

                Blessings,
                Lee
                No, I just reject poor "scholarship." All three of your resources incorrectly / imprecisely define constructio ad sensum.
                Last edited by Unitarian101; 08-16-2020, 01:57 PM.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Unitarian101 View Post
                  No, constructio ad sensum happens when there is an incongruity between the gender of a pronoun and the gender of the substantive to which it refers, that is, when a pronoun refers to it's antecedent / postcedent by natural rather than by it's grammatical gender. When two substantives are in apposition on the other hand, the second substantive just reiterates the first, that is, it serves to identify the other in a different way. There is no such thing as ad sensum in such a construction. To argue otherwise displays an ignorance of what it means for two substantives to be in apposition. On another note, for the Greek geeks reading this, ἐκεῖνος rarely refers forward (Smyth 1257) -- that is, it is rarely (if ever) a postcedent.
                  Yet note that Wallace lists such instances as debatably constructio ad sensum ("Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics", p. 331ff), and lists Young's Greek grammar as supporting that view ("Intermediate Greek", p. 78). I must state here that Wallace concludes that these instances of ἐκεῖνος are not ad sensum, however.

                  Red above is not a grammar text book . The author of that document claims to be doing grammatical analysis of certain verses of the book of Ephesians, that's it. Unfortunately he does not even know to define constructio ad sensum properly or carefully, which does not bode well for his knowledge of Greek grammar.
                  Here is Wallace:

                  Source: Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p.330

                  A small group of demonstrative pronouns involve a natural agreement with their antecedents that overrides strict grammatical concord. As such, they are illustrations of constructions according to sense (constructio ad sensum). This natural agreement may involve gender, or much more rarely, number. Frequently, the agreement is conceptual only, since the pronoun refers to a phrase or clause rather than a noun or other substantive.

                  © Copyright Original Source



                  Then admit that your assertion is not based upon the grammar of the verse but on other considerations. Retract your ungrammatical assertion that "the Word of life" is the postcedent of ὃ because this claim contradicts your assertion that "the Word of life" here is a person.
                  But I have not claimed that "the Word of life" is the grammatical postcedent of ὃ.

                  No, I just reject poor "scholarship." All three of your resources incorrectly / imprecisely define constructio ad sensum.
                  Maybe we can hear from Robertson, then?

                  Source: A Grammar of the NT, p. 410

                  Fluctuations in Gender. The whole matter is difficult, for substantives have two sorts of gender, natural and grammatical. The two do not always agree. The apparent violations of the rules of gender can generally be explained by the conflict of these two points of view with the additional observation that the grammatical gender of some words changed or was never firmly settled. All the constructions according to sense are due to analogy (Middleton in Syntax, p. 39).

                  © Copyright Original Source



                  Blessings,
                  Lee
                  "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                    Yet note that Wallace lists such instances as debatably constructio ad sensum ("Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics", p. 331ff), and lists Young's Greek grammar as supporting that view ("Intermediate Greek", p. 78).

                    But those who subscribe to such a view do not also assert that at John 16:13 ὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας is appositional to ἐκεῖνος. You really are bluffing here, not knowing most of what you are reading or asserting about the Greek grammar of the verses being discussed, to your own condemnation.




                    I must state here that Wallace concludes that these instances of ἐκεῖνος are not ad sensum, however.
                    Correct!


                    Here is Wallace:

                    Source: Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p.330

                    A small group of demonstrative pronouns involve a natural agreement with their antecedents that overrides strict grammatical concord. As such, they are illustrations of constructions according to sense (constructio ad sensum). This natural agreement may involve gender, or much more rarely, number. Frequently, the agreement is conceptual only, since the pronoun refers to a phrase or clause rather than a noun or other substantive.

                    © Copyright Original Source

                    Do you see him saying anywhere in the above write-up that a sentence with an ad sensum construction is an ungrammatical Greek sentence ?

                    But I have not claimed that "the Word of life" is the grammatical postcedent of ὃ.
                    Don't know what that means. You have however said "the Word of life is the postcedent of ὃ." Do you not understand what your own words are saying ? With red above you are saying that ὃ is referring to "the Word of life" by it's natural / actual gender. In other words, you are arguing that the actual gender of ὃ in 1 John 1:1 is neuter; in other words you are saying "the Word of life" here is NOT a person / personal but rather is a something. You need to retract the statement in red above, because you really do not believe it.

                    Maybe we can hear from Robertson, then?

                    Source: A Grammar of the NT, p. 410

                    Fluctuations in Gender. The whole matter is difficult, for substantives have two sorts of gender, natural and grammatical. The two do not always agree. The apparent violations of the rules of gender can generally be explained by the conflict of these two points of view with the additional observation that the grammatical gender of some words changed or was never firmly settled. All the constructions according to sense are due to analogy (Middleton in Syntax, p. 39).

                    © Copyright Original Source



                    Blessings,
                    Lee
                    Do you see him saying anywhere in the above write-up that a sentence with an ad sensum construction is an ungrammatical Greek sentence ?

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      An "ungrammatical sentence" is a sequence of words that do not conform to the rules of syntax . In other words, such sentences violate the syntactic rules of grammar.

                      So for instance the following would be ungrammatical sentences --

                      "The boy are riding the bicycle."

                      "The school close in one hour."

                      etc.

                      But neither of the following is an ungrammatical sentence:

                      "The ship left port early this morning. It looked to be in good shape."

                      "The ship left port early this morning. She looked to be in good shape."

                      Both sentences are grammatical. Why ? Because there is a rule of grammar (especially in Koine) allowing for the word "ship" to be referred to by either it's grammatical or else it's actual gender. This sort of construction is much more evident in Koine Greek sentences, unlike English, where most substantives retained their grammatical gender. There is a rule of grammar in Greek called "constructio ad sensum."
                      Last edited by Unitarian101; 08-16-2020, 04:24 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Unitarian101 View Post
                        But those who subscribe to such a view do not also assert that at John 16:13 ὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας is appositional to ἐκεῖνος.
                        Source: Baker NT Commentary

                        Though the word for Spirit is neuter in the original, the pronoun which refers to this Spirit is masculine. Hence, it is clear that the Spirit is thought of as a person.

                        © Copyright Original Source


                        I think this goes to the heart of what your view is, the Spirit is shown to be a person by the use of a masculine pronoun.

                        Do you see him saying anywhere in the above write-up that a sentence with an ad sensum construction is an ungrammatical Greek sentence ?
                        "A small group of demonstrative pronouns involve a natural agreement with their antecedents that overrides strict grammatical concord."

                        So yes, it's ungrammatical.

                        Don't know what that means. You have however said "the Word of life is the postcedent of ὃ."
                        I said you could argue that, but I would not assert it unequivocally.

                        ... in other words you are saying "the Word of life" here is NOT a person / personal but rather is a something.
                        No, rather what ὃ refers to is not an object, but is rather a person. And you have yet to respond to my point that "the life appeared" shows clearly that a person is in view, the person of Jesus.

                        Do you see him saying anywhere in the above write-up that a sentence with an ad sensum construction is an ungrammatical Greek sentence ?
                        "The apparent violations of the rules of gender can generally be explained by the conflict of these two points of view...", so yes, it's ungrammatical.

                        Blessings,
                        Lee
                        "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                          Source: Baker NT Commentary

                          Though the word for Spirit is neuter in the original, the pronoun which refers to this Spirit is masculine. Hence, it is clear that the Spirit is thought of as a person.

                          © Copyright Original Source


                          I think this goes to the heart of what your view is, the Spirit is shown to be a person by the use of a masculine pronoun.

                          The masculine pronoun is actually not referring to the Spirit (i.e. to τὸ Πνεῦμα, a neuter noun) in verse 13, but to the Helper (i.e. to ὁ Παράκλητος , a masculine noun) in verse 7. So there is infact no ad sensum construction here as some Trinitarians (usually not grammarians) hope. Wallace agrees with me on this score, even though he is a Trinitarian and would very much like the masculine pronoun ( ἐκεῖνος) in verse 13 to be referring to τὸ Πνεῦμα. But he is wise and honest enough to realize that the grammar actually does not allow for that.

                          "A small group of demonstrative pronouns involve a natural agreement with their antecedents that overrides strict grammatical concord."

                          So yes, it's ungrammatical.
                          At this point I must fault your English reading comprehension and also your ignorance of the basics of Koine grammar . That statement is saying that natural agreement with an antecedent overrides "strict grammatical concord" (that is, between a noun and a pronoun), not that natural agreement results in an ungrammatical Greek sentence. As you know, there are two types of gender agreement between pronouns and their antecedents in Koine, -- (1) grammatical gender agreement and (2) natural gender agreement. "Strict grammatical concord" happens when a pronoun refers to it's antecedent or it's post cedent by grammatical gender, i.e. by (1) above. Ad sensum agreement occurs when a pronoun refers to it's antecedent or else to it's postcedent by natural (rather than by it's grammatical) gender, i.e. by (2) above. Neither (1) nor (2) results in an ungrammatical Greek sentence.




                          I said you could argue that, but I would not assert it unequivocally.
                          Did you not unequivocally assert that the postcedent of Ὃ in 1 John 1:1 is τῆς ζωῆς ("the Life") ?



                          No, rather what ὃ refers to is not an object, but is rather a person. And you have yet to respond to my point that "the life appeared" shows clearly that a person is in view, the person of Jesus.
                          Then you have to retract your earlier assertion that the postcedent of ὃ is τῆς ζωῆς. Ignorance coupled with an unwillingness to retract your contradictory / false assertions do not bode well for you. Just to give you a heads up, no one that I have read on this issue asserts that "the Life" is the postedent of ὃ in 1 John 1:1. And if someone does, they most certainly do not claim to be a Trinitarians at the same time.

                          "The apparent violations of the rules of gender can generally be explained by the conflict of these two points of view...", so yes, it's ungrammatical.

                          Blessings,
                          Lee
                          "Apparent violations" not "violations." The operative word there is "apparent."

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Unitarian101 View Post
                            The masculine pronoun is actually not referring to the Spirit (i.e. to τὸ Πνεῦμα, a neuter noun) in verse 13, but to the Helper (i.e. to ὁ Παράκλητος , a masculine noun) in verse 7. So there is infact no ad sensum construction here as some Trinitarians (usually not grammarians) hope. Wallace agrees with me on this score, even though he is a Trinitarian and would very much like the masculine pronoun ( ἐκεῖνος) in verse 13 to be referring to τὸ Πνεῦμα. But he is wise and honest enough to realize that the grammar actually does not allow for that.
                            In any case, clearly ὁ Παράκλητος and ἐκεῖνος and τὸ Πνεῦμα all refer to the same person in the passage!

                            "Strict grammatical concord" happens when a pronoun refers to it's antecedent or it's post cedent by grammatical gender, i.e. by (1) above. Ad sensum agreement occurs when a pronoun refers to it's antecedent or else to it's postcedent by natural (rather than by it's grammatical) gender, i.e. by (2) above. Neither (1) nor (2) results in an ungrammatical Greek sentence.
                            What would the opposite of "strict grammatical concord" be? "Non-strict grammatical concord"? No, "ungrammatical concord".

                            Did you not unequivocally assert that the postcedent of Ὃ in 1 John 1:1 is τῆς ζωῆς ("the Life") ?
                            No, I did not.

                            "Apparent violations" not "violations." The operative word there is "apparent."
                            The rule is that there be concord, so no concord would be a violation of the rule, whether apparent or not.

                            And you have yet to respond to my point that "the life appeared" shows clearly that a person is in view, the person of Jesus.

                            Blessings,
                            Lee
                            "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                              In any case, clearly ὁ Παράκλητος and ἐκεῖνος and τὸ Πνεῦμα all refer to the same person in the passage!
                              Ofcourse they all denote the same X [ i.e. denote the same thing or person]. The point however is that the antecedent or "referent" of ἐκεῖνος is not τὸ Πνεῦμα but rather it is ὁ Παράκλητος, hence there is no ad sensum construction in this verse. The problem here is with your utter ignorance of Greek grammar and of grammatical terminology , hence your continual spewing of boneheaded comments .



                              What would the opposite of "strict grammatical concord" be? "Non-strict grammatical concord"? No, "ungrammatical concord".
                              Yo, the writer's claim is not that the sentence itself does not accord strictly with Greek grammar but that the pronoun does not accord with it's antecedent's grammatical gender, in other words it accords rather with it's antecedent's natural gender.


                              No, I did not.
                              You have asserted in this thread that the postcedent of Ὃ in 1 John 1:1 is τῆς ζωῆς . That is a pretty unequivocal assertion. Do you want me to show you where you made this assertion ?


                              The rule is that there be concord, so no concord would be a violation of the rule, whether apparent or not.
                              My goodness. There is no rule of Greek grammar which asserts that there has to be concord between the grammatical gender of a pronoun and that of it's antecedent. Just the reverse holds true in the case of constructio ad sensum, which is a rule of Greek grammar.

                              And you have yet to respond to my point that "the life appeared" shows clearly that a person is in view, the person of Jesus.

                              Blessings,
                              Lee

                              This issue has nothing to do with the grammar. That is why I ignored it. The reason the apostle is able to say that the Life appeared is because it became a human being. It is after it has become a human being that it is deemed a person. The context and the grammar shows this.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Unitarian101 View Post
                                Ofcourse they all denote the same X [ i.e. denote the same thing or person]. The point however is that the antecedent or "referent" of ἐκεῖνος is not τὸ Πνεῦμα but rather it is ὁ Παράκλητος, hence there is no ad sensum construction in this verse. The problem here is with your utter ignorance of Greek grammar and of grammatical terminology , hence your continual spewing of boneheaded comments .
                                According to Baker NT Commentary, there is a grammatical incongruity in this passage. This is not ignorance of Greek, nor boneheaded. And indeed, each element refers to the same person, and similarly in 1 John 1.

                                You have asserted in this thread that the postcedent of Ὃ in 1 John 1:1 is τῆς ζωῆς . That is a pretty unequivocal assertion. Do you want me to show you where you made this assertion ?
                                Yes, you can show me.

                                This issue has nothing to do with the grammar. That is why I ignored it. The reason the apostle is able to say that the Life appeared is because it became a human being. It is after it has become a human being that it is deemed a person. The context and the grammar shows this.
                                How is it that the Holy Spirit is deemed a person, then, in John 14-16, without any incarnation?

                                Blessings,
                                Lee
                                "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X