Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by patman View Post
    Yes, it could have went differently, but contradicting the prophecy sometimes happens...

    This is going to be a longer post. Please read it very carefully and think about it for a few days. You should understand that prophecy is there to inspire righteousness, it is not meant to be be 100% accurate. Accuracy was never God's intent for prophecy.

    Are you familiar with the book of Daniel? There a lot of prophecies that you can track dead on, including many that involve the Messiah. But some of those didn't come to pass.

    Daniel 9
    25 “ Know therefore and understand,
    That from the going forth of the command
    To restore and build Jerusalem
    Until Messiah the Prince,
    There shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks;


    The command to restore and rebuild Jerusalem was made by Cyrus in 457 BC.

    The "week" represents 7 years.

    7 x 7 = 49. 7 x 62 = 434. 434 + 49 = 483. This leads us to conclude that 483 years would pass from the command until the Messiah. As mentioned that took place in 457 BC. To find out when the prophecy is to be fullfilled, we have to "count backwards" (because years in BC go down, not up), so for lack of a better way 457 BC + 483 years is 457 - 483 and that is -26 orrr 26 AD.

    My math is ball park, it does not take into account the Jewish calendar, leap years, and other considerations, but you can see how a quick figuring of the years gets us so close to the year Jesus was crucified (32 AD). For a compelling calculation of how this prophecy was fulfilled to the day, click here and look up the 70 weeks question.

    I said all that to say this. The second part of the prophecy was not fulfilled. If you read further in Daniel 9, there is another week that something very interesting happens:

    Daniel 9
    26 “ And after the sixty-two weeks
    Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself;
    And the people of the prince who is to come
    Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.
    The end of it shall be with a flood,
    And till the end of the war desolations are determined.
    27 Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week;

    So after Messiah is cut off, a prince was supposed to come, and he was going to establish a covenant for 1 week, or 7 years. After that, the end was to come.

    I must now back track a little. I started in the middle of the prophecy. It mentioned 7 weeks and 62 weeks. That makes 69 weeks. This final week makes 70 weeks.

    Daniel 9
    24 “ Seventy weeks[a] are determined
    For your people and for your holy city,
    To finish the transgression,
    To make an end of[] sins,
    To make reconciliation for iniquity,
    To bring in everlasting righteousness,
    To seal up vision and prophecy,
    And to anoint the Most Holy.

    You can see that the intent was that all this happen in order. No gaps, no leaps. 7 years after Jesus was "cut off" this "prince" was supposed to make war and then the end would come, and not only that, no more transgression or sin, everlasting righteousness, sealing up of prophecy.

    What really happened? Well, we still sin, more prophecy was added to the Bible in the book of revelation and we are still here 2000 years later.

    Not convienced that this was supposed to happen right after Jesus was crucified? Jesus tells his disciples the end was coming "soon," well 2000+ years is not soon. Jesus meant soon as in sooon. As in their generation.

    Mark 9:1
    And He said to them, “Assuredly, I say to you that there are some standing here who will not taste death till they see the kingdom of God present with power.

    He wasn't talking about the transfiguration. He was talking about the full power of the kingdom of God present on earth in power.

    Matthew 16:28
    Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”

    He told his disciples to watch for the abomination of desolation spoken of in the very same chapter of daniel, in the very same prophecy I am telling you about. Remember, the abomination is to take place in that final week, and here Jesus is telling his disciples they would see it happen:

    Mark 13
    14 “So when you see the ‘abomination of desolation,’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not” (let the reader understand), “then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.

    Jesus is telling his closest disciples what they are going to experience. They, the 12, will be persecuted, they, the 12, will see the abomination.

    Then later in the chapter, Jesus says it ever so clearly:

    Mark 13
    30 Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place.

    But it didn't happen. That last week never came to be. Why? Because the way things were going, God had to change the plan.

    Mark 13
    10 And the gospel must first be preached to all the nations.

    Israel was supposed to preach the gospel to the entire world, and be persecuted by it. But as we can see from the present state of Israel, they never did embrace the gospel, they certainly didn't preach it.

    So God went straight to the Gentiles through Paul as another way to get them to turn back to them.

    Romans 11:11 I say then, have they[Israel] stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles.

    In going to the Gentiles, and having to wait on Israel to agree to be a part of his kingdom, God has choose to wait. He changed the outcome of a carefully planned out prophecy for their sake, to make them righteous before he returns.

    I hope you can see that God doesn't use prophecy as an "See, I told you so," but rather, "This is my plan if you do this or that," instead. The future is not settled, this allows God to be dynamic, but still concise with his plan to save the world through prophecy.
    I understand what you are saying, Patman.
    However, I don't see where the prophecy of Daniel failed at all.
    All of the OT prophecies were absent of the "church age".

    Messiah was cut off after 69 weeks.
    The people of the prince that shall come destroyed the city and temple in 70ad.There's an obvious gap between the 69th and 70th, else how could the temple be destroyed in Daniel 9:26 and the prince that shall come defile the temple in Daniel 9:27?

    There are hundreds of OT prophecies of Israel's fall (early acts), their dispersion (70ad) and their regathering for the last week (future)...see Luke 21.
    Originally posted by Interplanner
    They can't compete with a real writer and grammar scholar
    Originally posted by Interplanner
    You're too literal to get it.
    Originally posted by Interplanner
    The New Covenant preceded the Old Covenant.

    Comment


    • #92
      AMR,

      How about crafting an argument against the Open Theist's position on atonement rather than something that you or some other Calvinist has made up out of whole cloth?

      I am not, in any way whatsoever, an Arminian, suggesting otherwise is either ignorance or a lie.

      I do not, in neither quality nor quantity, limit the value of the Christ's death on the cross.

      I do not, in any way, believe that I saved myself, nor that anyone else is capable of the same saying otherwise is a game of semantics played by those who aren't interested in engaging the Open View on its merits but rather in winning the emotional allegiance of the weak minded who like the theological status quo more than the truth.

      Basically your entire post is one enormous waste of time aside from the portions of it that delineate your own position as no one here is an Arminian and this thread is not about Arminianism but rather the Open View, which very simply is not the same thing. I can defeat the Arminian position quicker and easier than you can and do so with more logical coherence in that I'm not undermining my own position in doing so as you would be. If anything Arminianism is nothing more than a subset of and reaction too Calvinism. Open Theism has nothing to do with either of them.

      Resting in Him,
      Clete
      Last edited by Clete; June 11th, 2007, 09:30 AM.
      sigpic
      "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by patman View Post


        You were the one who butted in, Nang... If you don't care what I have to say, why should you expect me to read your post? It only seems fair.

        Don't worry, tho, maybe someone else will read it.

        I feel silly to have to tell you that my sensitivities are just fine... I could tell you were real concerned, but don't worry, there is no need to shoot you

        My reply to you was just my impression of your attitude here. You are the one reading emotions into it

        It's unfortunate really that Nang has decided to come here to be nothing but an obtuse nuisance. She is really quite knowledgeable about Calvinist doctrine and could, if she wanted to, contribute to an interesting debate that would be worthwhile to not only read but participate in. As it is, however, she is just an obnoxious moron who's posts are literally worthless. She is not only an embarrassment to herself and to Calvinism but the whole of Christianity and is a terrific example of everything that is bad about internet discussion forums. The only redeeming quality is that her irrational yammering serves, without response from us, to do more harm to the Calvinist position than any of us could ever do on our own.

        Resting in Him,
        Clete
        sigpic
        "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by Nang

          It was stated
          (faith precedes regeneration; regeneration does not precede faith
          To which you replied, "Not so. A sinner dead in transgressions must first be spiritually resurrected to new life (regenerated) before he can see (believe, comprehend) the kingdom of God. (John 3:3)

          Otherwise, one teaches that God resurrects the spiritually dead, according to their work of faith (belief and repentance), prior to even having the Holy Spirit . . .supposedly achieved in the putrid flesh somehow. Impossible!"
          This is a fallacy. I use to believe that but it is just not true. God saves no one against their will. It argues against evangelism in any form. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. The 'word' spoken of here is the spoken or written word and not Christ. Why in the same passage does it not also say, "And how shall they believe if they are not heard and how shall they hear without a preacher," I do not know why God choose man to be the proclaimer of the word, it would be much more efficient to do as you say and arbitrarily save regardless of a person's status. God was not looking for efficiency but to honor His own word when He gave man the dominion of the earth and thereby the ability to choose his own course freely. Not only must a man choose to believe, he must also choose to deliver the message. It is true that God gives understanding at the deliverance of the message but it is man who must choose to to receive it. It is after a man has choose to receive that God births within the individual a hole spirit and makes the person a new creation. It is this holy spirit that loves and knows God and whose desire it is to have the body do the will of God that was not present before. The mind is constantly being trained by the spirit and the new man is constrained by the love of God to do what is right. Yes, the body can grieve the holy spirit by choosing not to obey but in the end the body will learn to obey the spirit. That which is wrought in god cannot be undone by any power know to God or man and that includes the will of the unregenerate flesh born of man which we inhabit. It is for this reason that Jesus came, that the work of the devil might be destroyed. There is therefore now no condemnation to those in Christ Jesus! Why? Because they walk in the life of the spirit of God and not the death to which man was born.
          Galatians 5:13 ¶For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.

          The borrower is slave to the linder. What makes this country think it is rich and free?

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by SaulToPaul View Post
            I understand what you are saying, Patman.
            However, I don't see where the prophecy of Daniel failed at all.
            All of the OT prophecies were absent of the "church age".

            Messiah was cut off after 69 weeks.
            The people of the prince that shall come destroyed the city and temple in 70ad.There's an obvious gap between the 69th and 70th, else how could the temple be destroyed in Daniel 9:26 and the prince that shall come defile the temple in Daniel 9:27?

            There are hundreds of OT prophecies of Israel's fall (early acts), their dispersion (70ad) and their regathering for the last week (future)...see Luke 21.
            Perhaps "fail" is the wrong word. "Changed" is a better word. You must see that it changed from my last post, even Jesus said he was supposed to return with the kingdom in its full glory in that generation and some wouldn't die until they saw that happen.

            There was a defiant change, because the original prophecy didn't happen as Daniel and Jesus said it would. Even the fall of the Temple in 70 AD is a good 20 years off from the 7 years that was to follow.

            If God never lies, and the prophecy can change, then God wouldn't look into the future and knowingly tell us the prophecy would happen one way it was really going to change. To me, this shows that God doesn't look into the future.
            - Changing wineskins, at last.

            - iPhone's Coolest Bible/, Touch Bible.

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by patman View Post
              Perhaps "fail" is the wrong word. "Changed" is a better word. You must see that it changed from my last post, even Jesus said he was supposed to return with the kingdom in its full glory in that generation and some wouldn't die until they saw that happen.

              There was a defiant change, because the original prophecy didn't happen as Daniel and Jesus said it would. Even the fall of the Temple in 70 AD is a good 20 years off from the 7 years that was to follow.

              If God never lies, and the prophecy can change, then God wouldn't look into the future and knowingly tell us the prophecy would happen one way it was really going to change. To me, this shows that God doesn't look into the future.
              No offense, Patman, but it seems to be pretty slippery slope to go back into
              God's unchanging Word and say God had to change his plans on the fly.

              Paul makes it clear that God had planned the dispensation of the grace of God from
              before the foundation of the world. How could that have been God's Plan B when
              Israel rejected their Messiah?

              By the way, I'm not a Calvinist...just uncertain about some of the OV ideas.
              Originally posted by Interplanner
              They can't compete with a real writer and grammar scholar
              Originally posted by Interplanner
              You're too literal to get it.
              Originally posted by Interplanner
              The New Covenant preceded the Old Covenant.

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by SOTK View Post
                What really gets me about OV (one of many things actually) is the seemingly contradictory belief that God knows some things about the future but not all. And before all of you OV Apologists start jumping all over me with the "strawman" accusations, I want to state that in the years I've been on TOL, I've yet to really a witness an adequate and logical explanation of this.
                SOTK did you read godrulz post #89?

                I think he answered your objection perfectly. You may not agree with it but do you at least understand what he is saying?
                Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
                TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by SaulToPaul View Post
                  Paul makes it clear that God had planned the dispensation of the grace of God from
                  before the foundation of the world. How could that have been God's Plan B when
                  Israel rejected their Messiah?
                  You don't think that Plan A was to setup the kingdom here on earth through the nation of Israel???

                  As a dispensationalist I would think this would be a cornerstone in your theology.
                  Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
                  TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by Lonster View Post
                    Rom 9:10 Not only that, but when Rebekah had conceived children by one man,22 our ancestor Isaac —
                    Rom 9:11 even before they were born or had done anything good or bad (so that God's purpose in election would stand, not by works but by his calling) —
                    Rom 9:12 it was said to her, "The older will serve the younger,"
                    Rom 9:13 just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."
                    Rom 9:14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice with God? Absolutely not!
                    Rom 9:15 For he says to Moses: "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."

                    Mal 1:2 GOD said, "I love you." You replied, "Really? How have you loved us?" "Look at history" (this is GOD's answer). "Look at how differently I've treated you, Jacob, from Esau: I loved Jacob
                    Mal 1:3 and hated Esau. I reduced pretentious Esau to a molehill, turned his whole country into a ghost town."
                    When Scripture quotes itself, it's useful to find the source...
                    Mala 1:1 The oracle of the word of the Lord to Israel through Malachi. 2 "I have loved you," says the Lord. But you say, "How have You loved us?" "[Was] not Esau Jacob's brother?" declares the Lord. "Yet I have loved Jacob ; 3 but I have hated Esau, and I have made his mountains a desolation and [appointed] his inheritance for the jackals of the wilderness." 4 Though Edom says, "We have been beaten down, but we will return and build up the ruins"; thus says the Lord of hosts, "They may build, but I will tear down; and [men] will call them the wicked territory, and the people toward whom the Lord is indignant forever." 5 Your eyes will see this and you will say, "The Lord be magnified beyond the border of Israel!"

                    Malachai is ostensibly the LAST prophet before the intertestamental period, after the exile, and a thousand yeard after Jacob died. This is NOT speaking of the individuals Jacob and Esau, but of Israel and Edom, the nations for which these two are the fathers.

                    So, no, God did not specifically HATE Esau as an individual from birth. Jacob was simply the one chosen to be the one through whom the promise to Abraham (and Adam) would be fulfilled.

                    Can we finally put this to rest?

                    Muz
                    I don't care how systematic your theology is, until you show me how biblical it is.

                    2 Tim 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Knight View Post
                      You don't think that Plan A was to setup the kingdom here on earth through the nation of Israel???

                      As a dispensationalist I would think this would be a cornerstone in your theology.
                      Not necessarily, because Christ had to die and be raised first and foremost.

                      The whole Plan A and Plan B doesn't really make a lot of sense to me...I believe
                      God only had one plan and it's unfolding perfectly.
                      Originally posted by Interplanner
                      They can't compete with a real writer and grammar scholar
                      Originally posted by Interplanner
                      You're too literal to get it.
                      Originally posted by Interplanner
                      The New Covenant preceded the Old Covenant.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by SaulToPaul View Post
                        Not necessarily, because Christ had to die and be raised first and foremost.

                        The whole Plan A and Plan B doesn't really make a lot of sense to me...I believe
                        God only had one plan and it's unfolding perfectly.
                        I thing scriptures and Christ's own words speak for themselves.

                        Let me ask you, why do you believe in Plan A only? What tells you to do that?
                        - Changing wineskins, at last.

                        - iPhone's Coolest Bible/, Touch Bible.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by patman View Post
                          Well, thats just it, God never cleared out the land. Some of those people are still around today.

                          And it is a lie to say you'd give my your bike if I can pick it up knowing I can't. And it is furthermore wrong if you slapped me after I found out I can't pick it up. You are setting me up to strive and fail and then get punished for it. There is so much wrong with the implications given to God under the Settled Theology. I wish you could see them.
                          That is not what happened. They began by fullfilling the covenant. It is when they 'stopped' keeping God's commands that the covenant was broken. They indeed began removing people from their land. It was not a lie.

                          Your cookie and my motorcycle analogies have no bearing on ability or not. The offer is genuine even if you cannot do it. Bets like this happen all the time, "That horse cannot win, this team will take the regionals. If I was uncanny in the way I chose winners/losers, you'd accuse me of insider trading or bribery. If God answers our prayers in righteousness, the accusation of Him 'cheating' does not stand. He set the groundwork. Those without Him will not be answered. God answers the prayers of a righteous man. All this to say regardless of how you see it, God does not cheat or lie in nonOV perspective. You are trying to equivocate a mistruth and/or 'cheating' from someone else's viewpoint, and it is a faulty assumption. Your view tries to redeem God from a position where He cannot be impinged, but the fault here is not God's position, but the way you are looking at His guilt association. This is the problem point. You would not be a reliable unbiased jury member in this court case because you are seeing evidence, but not able to discern the innocence. The verdict is passed too quickly "guilty." God is not impinged, there are unseen variables you are not admitting as evidence. We have tried to show them but they are not allowed in your court.
                          My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
                          Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
                          Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
                          Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
                          No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
                          Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

                          ? Yep

                          Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

                          ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

                          Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by SaulToPaul View Post
                            No offense, Patman, but it seems to be pretty slippery slope to go back into
                            God's unchanging Word and say God had to change his plans on the fly.

                            Paul makes it clear that God had planned the dispensation of the grace of God from
                            before the foundation of the world. How could that have been God's Plan B when
                            Israel rejected their Messiah?

                            By the way, I'm not a Calvinist...just uncertain about some of the OV ideas.
                            I seem to have missed this post..

                            That is not the plan B I am speaking of. Plan B was when it happened, now that it would happened. 7 Years after Jesus, the kingdom was supposed to happen, this is just how it was to happen but didn't.

                            As for God "changing his word," God reserves the right to do that:

                            Jeremiah 18:7-10
                            7 The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, 8 if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. 9 And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, 10 if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it.

                            Prophecy is to get people to change, not to reveal the settled future.
                            - Changing wineskins, at last.

                            - iPhone's Coolest Bible/, Touch Bible.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by patman View Post
                              I thing scriptures and Christ's own words speak for themselves.

                              Let me ask you, why do you believe in Plan A only? What tells you to do that?
                              Well, the Kingdom of Heaven as in Matthew could not come into being
                              until the Kingdom of God was prepared.

                              In other words, how could the Twelve sit on twelve thrones forever ruling the twelve tribes of Israel in the Kingom of Heaven in flesh and blood bodies without first having taken up their cross, died, and be resurrected into the Kingdom of God?

                              Atleast to me, it's clear that God knew the majority of Israel would reject Christ.
                              He would save a remnant of Jews as his kingdom of priests, they would suffer persectuion, die. Then, the dispensation of Grace planned before the foundation of the world would take place. Then, the final week of Daniel, the 2nd coming, and
                              the Kingdom of Heaven for 1,000 years with the resurrected priesthood ruling
                              the natural Israelites and natural Gentiles who inherit the kingdom prepared for
                              them from the foundation of the world.
                              Originally posted by Interplanner
                              They can't compete with a real writer and grammar scholar
                              Originally posted by Interplanner
                              You're too literal to get it.
                              Originally posted by Interplanner
                              The New Covenant preceded the Old Covenant.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by themuzicman View Post
                                When Scripture quotes itself, it's useful to find the source...
                                Mala 1:1 The oracle of the word of the Lord to Israel through Malachi. 2 "I have loved you," says the Lord. But you say, "How have You loved us?" "[Was] not Esau Jacob's brother?" declares the Lord. "Yet I have loved Jacob ; 3 but I have hated Esau, and I have made his mountains a desolation and [appointed] his inheritance for the jackals of the wilderness." 4 Though Edom says, "We have been beaten down, but we will return and build up the ruins"; thus says the Lord of hosts, "They may build, but I will tear down; and [men] will call them the wicked territory, and the people toward whom the Lord is indignant forever." 5 Your eyes will see this and you will say, "The Lord be magnified beyond the border of Israel!"

                                Malachai is ostensibly the LAST prophet before the intertestamental period, after the exile, and a thousand yeard after Jacob died. This is NOT speaking of the individuals Jacob and Esau, but of Israel and Edom, the nations for which these two are the fathers.

                                So, no, God did not specifically HATE Esau as an individual from birth. Jacob was simply the one chosen to be the one through whom the promise to Abraham (and Adam) would be fulfilled.

                                Can we finally put this to rest?

                                Muz
                                Thanks for jumping into this, it might help to get an approach from one more, as this is becoming a convolution of meaning, so please feel free to bring any clarity to perspective if something hits you.
                                But...
                                You are going off of what Clete said. I'm the one who originally said this. To read my first statement and not read the rest of what I said after is a contextual error. You guys have agreed with my position, but failure to read has led you both down a faulty trail of misunderstanding.

                                What I'm failing to see after this, however, is how qualitative vs. quantitative attributes can be prioritized. I'm still in the process of looking up the scriptures but so far I'm not seeing this as a truth in proposition. I do not believe we can place any of God's attributes over and above another. I cannot make this chart.

                                In Him

                                Lon
                                My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
                                Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
                                Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
                                Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
                                No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
                                Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

                                ? Yep

                                Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

                                ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

                                Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X