Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I do think that the argument against scripture that one error throws the whole thing into question would be unwarranted were it not for the claims of inerrancy made by many. That exposes the vulnerability that if it's wrong in one respect then it's not inerrant; game over unless you want to let go of inerrancy. To the extent I would mount such an argument, I'd have inerrancy in mind. But I do not think that you are an inerrantist, if memory serves.
At any rate with regards to Josephus, is your position then that in some regards he is confused / wrong and/or unreliable, and in others he's fine?
Yes
Quote:
If yes then my next question logically would be, what is your criteria for rejecting particular things?
As hopefully you seen in the Joazar issue Josephus was all over the map, thus I actually just used his own words as the criteria there and a list of high priests. Thus in my opinion Josephus is not reliable concerning Joazar.
I also use other historical writings, archeology, astrology etc. and a little common sense. For instance Josephus says that Archelaus took part in fighting those of the rebellion and took prisoner the eldest of 4 brothers. Yet Josephus also says Archelaus was in Rome at the time of this rebellion. Common sense tells me that Archelaus cannot be in 2 places at the same time. Thus something is obviously wrong there.
I do think that the argument against scripture that one error throws the whole thing into question would be unwarranted were it not for the claims of inerrancy made by many. That exposes the vulnerability that if it's wrong in one respect then it's not inerrant; game over unless you want to let go of inerrancy. To the extent I would mount such an argument, I'd have inerrancy in mind. But I do not think that you are an inerrantist, if memory serves.
If you are asking me if I believe the bible is the infallible, unadulterated word of God, no I do not. I believe men wrote what they believed and sometime got it wrong. It also has many interpolations in it and error also. Jeremiah and Ezekiel in the Mazorite text is longer then the text of the Septuagint, so either the one had scripture deleted or one had scripture added to them. Either way they cannot both be the unadulterated word of God.
Orosius, VI.22 and VII.2. states this about the registration and oath
"[Augustus] ordered that a census be taken of each province everywhere and that all men be enrolled...This is the earliest and most famous public acknowledgment which marked Caesar as the first of all men and the Romans as lords of the world, a published list of all men entered individually...This first and greatest census was taken, since in this one name of Caesar all the peoples of the great nations took oath, and at the same time, through the participation in the census, were made a part of one society"
As to BCE 1 I will put together why I see it at that date. Possibly tomorrow.
Look forward to seeing it. Now I have looked at your argument for the Augustan loyalty oath rather than the Roman tax census as being the 'Registration' that Luke has in his gospel.
Note that Acts speaks of the the revolt of Judas the Galilean in the time of the Registration (apographes) and that event, on all the history we have, is when the Romans took over.
Luke's nativity also talks of a registration of all the (Roman) world and Joseph also it says, went to his own city. As you say, Luke says that Joseph went to Bethlehem because of his Davidic lineage. But the oft quoted Egyptian census document makes it clear that 'own city' was where you lived and worked and not the ancestral city, and you registered for your household and they did not need to turn up with you to register.
Now this means that taking Luke and Acts together, the 'Registration' is more linked to the Roman census and the revolt of Judas than it is to any Oath of loyalty, which moreover doesn't read (from the inscriptions) like a head -count but an assembly in Market-place or a Temple or some other community centre and all swear together. So it looks less like a head -count than the Roman tax, which was indupitably a head count. Add to that the mention of Quirinus as in being charge of Syria at the time and blow me if that isn't just when he was bossing Syria - at the time of the Roman take over.
So why is that Roman census -tax (with the Judas revolt) not the first, obvious and reasonable choice for the 'registration' that Luke is talking about?
The only answer is not that history demands that it be backdated to 1 BC on the grounds that the Lunar eclipse was a bit better than the one in 4 BC or that Josephus didn't know whether Joazar was sacked by Herod or by Archelaus being used a s a pretext for shifting the dating of the Roman Tax, which actually does nothing to solve the problem. The answer is the need to move the census from the time of Roman Judea to Herodian Judea, and if not by backdating the Roman tax, then by relating it to a different event - the oath -taking.
But as I showed, the 'history' strongly indicates the Roman census as first choice. In order to make it the oathtaking, you have to fiddle Quirinus as the one hegemnoneuticing Syria as some kind of Augustan factotum at a time when Saturnius or Varus was actually bossing Syria. You have to try to force a head count on what was a sort of loyalty rally with show of hands and 'Yea!' to make it look like Luke's people going to their own city (not ancestral city, despite what Luke says) to sign on, and you refer to the '6,000' figure as indicating a counting of ballots when the 6,000 were fined for refusing to vote.
And you try to use the wife of Pherorus paying the imposed fine as somehow being proof that each Pharisee was somehow listed and numbered, when she woud have just stumped up the fine in one lump.
Can you get why I do not see this as following the historical and gospel clues to where they lead, because where they lead is to the Roman tax census rather than the loyalty oath. That you must reinterpret and introduce all sorts of entities that are not justified by what history says about that oath - Quirinus or a head -count - suggests that you are interpreting what the history (and gospels) appear to say to make them say something else. Which is ok if there is good reason, but there isn't, here.
So why are you leading the history where you want it to go? Obviously because you do not like Luke's registration being the Roman tax census, and no; I do not believe that history demands that you reject it for some Herodian event, but the desire to reconcile Luke with Matthew.
So when you say that isn't the reason, no, I don't believe you.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 12-08-2016 at 06:00 AM..
Reason: a "t" here, a "u" there...
As hopefully you seen in the Joazar issue Josephus was all over the map, thus I actually just used his own words as the criteria there and a list of high priests. Thus in my opinion Josephus is not reliable concerning Joazar.
I also use other historical writings, archeology, astrology etc. and a little common sense. For instance Josephus says that Archelaus took part in fighting those of the rebellion and took prisoner the eldest of 4 brothers. Yet Josephus also says Archelaus was in Rome at the time of this rebellion. Common sense tells me that Archelaus cannot be in 2 places at the same time. Thus something is obviously wrong there.
I'm looking into that, and it would be handy if you gave the chapters.
In the meantime, you will be pleased to know that I think I have solved the problem of the sacking of Joazar. The passages below show that Herod got rid of Matthias and appointed Joazar. After Herod's death, the people asked Archelaus to dismiss the priest that Herod had made (Joazar) and he agreed to it, but said that all these actions should wait until he had been confirmed in his kingship by Caesar. Thus he did not dismiss Joazar before he left for Rome, but after he came back, and that because he thought he was implicated in the revolts that broke out when he had left for Rome. Thus, while the problem of the reappointment remains, that seems to clear Josephus of being in contradiction regarding the first term of Joazar's office. What do you think of that?
"There was one Judas, the son of Saripheus, and Matthias, the son of Margalothus, two of the most eloquent men among the Jews, and the most celebrated interpreters of the Jewish laws, and men well beloved by the people, because of their education of their youth;
Herod had caused such things to be made which were contrary to the law, of which he was accused by Judas and Matthias; for the king had erected over the great gate of the temple a large golden eagle, of great value, and had dedicated it to the temple. Now the law forbids those that propose to live according to it, to erect images or representations of any living creature. So these wise men persuaded [their scholars] to pull down the golden eagle; But as for Herod, he dealt more mildly with others [of the assembly] but he deprived Matthias of the high priesthood, as in part an occasion of this action, and made Joazar, who was Matthias's wife's brother, high priest in his stead
Herod deprived this Matthias of the high priesthood, and burnt the other Matthias, who had raised the sedition, with his companions, alive. And that very night there was an eclipse of the moon.
They lamented Matthias, and those that were slain with him by Herod, who had not any respect paid them by a funeral mourning, out of the fear men were in of that man; they were those who had been condemned for pulling down the golden eagle. The people made a great clamor and lamentation hereupon, and cast out some reproaches against the king also, as if that tended to alleviate the miseries of the deceased. The people assembled together, and desired of Archelaus, that, in way of revenge on their account, he would inflict punishment on those who had been honored by Herod; and that, in the first and principal place, he would deprive that high priest whom Herod had made, and would choose one more agreeable to the law, and of greater purity, to officiate as high priest. This was granted by Archelaus, although he was mightily offended at their importunity, because he proposed to himself to go to Rome immediately to look after Caesar's determination about him.
However, he sent the general of his forces to use persuasions, and to tell them that the death which was inflicted on their friends was according to the law; and to represent to them that their petitions about these things were carried to a great height of injury to him; that the time was not now proper for such petitions, but required their unanimity until such time as he should be established in the government by the consent of Caesar, and should then be come back to them; for that he would then consult with them in common concerning the purport of their petitions; but that they ought at present to be quiet, lest they should seem seditious persons." (Antiquities)
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 12-08-2016 at 05:47 AM..
Look forward to seeing it. Now I have looked at your argument for the Augustan loyalty oath rather than the Roman tax census as being the 'Registration' that Luke has in his gospel.
Note that Acts speaks of the the revolt of Judas the Galilean in the time of the Registration (apographes) and that event, on all the history we have, is when the Romans took over.
What? Do you think there was only one Judas? so it has to be the Judas of AD/6. What about the Judas of the eagle issue? Or What about Judas the son of Ezekias who was part of the other 10,000 disorders?
Quote:
Luke's nativity also talks of a registration of all the (Roman) world and Joseph also it says, went to his own city. As you say, Luke says that Joseph went to Bethlehem because of his Davidic lineage. But the oft quoted Egyptian census document makes it clear that 'own city' was where you lived and worked and not the ancestral city, and you registered for your household and they did not need to turn up with you to register.
Please supply the quote of what exactly the this Egyptian document says.
Is it perhaps the Egyptian census of 104 CE that states that any everyone was to return to their own district?
"since registration by household is imminent, it is necessary to notify all who for any reason are absent from their districts to return to their own homes that they may carry out the ordinary business of registration....
Quote:
Now this means that taking Luke and Acts together, the 'Registration' is more linked to the Roman census and the revolt of Judas than it is to any Oath of loyalty, which moreover doesn't read (from the inscriptions) like a head -count but an assembly in Market-place or a Temple or some other community centre and all swear together. So it looks less like a head -count than the Roman tax, which was indupitably a head count. Add to that the mention of Quirinus as in being charge of Syria at the time and blow me if that isn't just when he was bossing Syria - at the time of the Roman take over.
Orosius, VI.22 and VII.2. states this about the registration and oath
"[Augustus] ordered that a census be taken of each province everywhere and that all men be enrolled...This is the earliest and most famous public acknowledgmentwhich marked Caesar as the first of all men and the Romans as lords of the world, a published list of all men entered individually...This first and greatest census was taken, since in this one name of Caesar all the peoples of the great nations took oath, and at the same time, through the participation in the census, were made a part of one society"
Thus when you take ALL (and I stress ALL) the historical writingswe can actually piece together what took place. Which in about 3BCE there was a registration of ALL the people, those outside of their district were to go home in order to participate in this registration.
Now if you look at the census in AD/6 absolutely nothing is said about the citizens having to go to their own district and nothing about a head count. All the information about a head count comes from the registration of Augustus silver Jubilee which without doubt was proclaimed in 3BCE.
Quote:
So why is that Roman census -tax (with the Judas revolt) not the first, obvious and reasonable choice for the 'registration' that Luke is talking about?
The only answer is not that history demands that it be backdated to 1 BC on the grounds that the Lunar eclipse was a bit better than the one in 4 BC or that Josephus didn't know whether Joazar was sacked by Herod or by Archelaus being used a s a pretext for shifting the dating of the Roman Tax, which actually does nothing to solve the problem. The answer is the need to move the census from the time of Roman Judea to Herodian Judea, and if not by backdating the Roman tax, then by relating it to a different event - the oath -taking.
It has nothing to do with backdating or shifting anything it has to do with the historical evidence. As I already pointed out the taxing in AD/6 says NOTHING about any head count or nothing about people going to their own district. ALL the information we have on what you call a head count comes from Augustus silver Jubilee.
Quote:
But as I showed, the 'history' strongly indicates the Roman census as first choice. In order to make it the oathtaking, you have to fiddle Quirinus as the one hegemnoneuticing Syria as some kind of Augustan factotum at a time when Saturnius or Varus was actually bossing Syria. You have to try to force a head count on what was a sort of loyalty rally with show of hands and 'Yea!' to make it look like Luke's people going to their own city (not ancestral city, despite what Luke says) to sign on, and you refer to the '6,000' figure as indicating a counting of ballots when the 6,000 were fined for refusing to vote.
And you try to use the wife of Pherorus paying the imposed fine as somehow being proof that each Pharisee was somehow listed and numbered, when she woud have just stumped up the fine in one lump.
No fiddling required. All one has to do is look at the historical evidence about Augustus silver Jubilee and the answer is in plain sight.
Quote:
Can you get why I do not see this as following the historical and gospel clues to where they lead, because where they lead is to the Roman tax census rather than the loyalty oath. That you must reinterpret and introduce all sorts of entities that are not justified by what history says about that oath - Quirinus or a head -count - suggests that you are interpreting what the history (and gospels) appear to say to make them say something else. Which is ok if there is good reason, but there isn't, here.
There is no reinterpretation needed all one has to do is read what Josephus states about Cryenius and all the position he held before he became governor of Judea. What do you think in all the other titles Cyrenius held he did absolutely nothing?
Just what do you think part of the job of a Roman senator was?
Quote:
So why are you leading the history where you want it to go? Obviously because you do not like Luke's registration being the Roman tax census, and no; I do not believe that history demands that you reject it for some Herodian event, but the desire to reconcile Luke with Matthew.
So when you say that isn't the reason, no, I don't believe you.
While you can call me a liar all you like Trans. IMO you do so to gain support from other atheists concerning your thesis. One who is trying to prove a thesis of their own is the more likely candidate for the person who is trying to make history fit where they want it to fit then one who is not trying to prove a thesis.
One thing you might want to into account about me Trans before you call me a liar again is that if I was trying to make the gospels fit the evidence; why do I tell Christians about the interpolations and error in the bibles? and why did I tell you that if there were discrepancies between Luke and Matthew I would lean towards what Luke says as he is a historian so I hold him to a higher standard?
That should tell you something about me and my approach to the bible Trans, it just remains to be seen whether it will or not. Until then if you need to call me a liar to gain support for your thesis go ahead, when all else fails call your opponent and liar.
I'm looking into that, and it would be handy if you gave the chapters.
In the meantime, you will be pleased to know that I think I have solved the problem of the sacking of Joazar. The passages below show that Herod got rid of Matthias and appointed Joazar. After Herod's death, the people asked Archelaus to dismiss the priest that Herod had made (Joazar) and he agreed to it, but said that all these actions should wait until he had been confirmed in his kingship by Caesar. Thus he did not dismiss Joazar before he left for Rome, but after he came back, and that because he thought he was implicated in the revolts that broke out when he had left for Rome. Thus, while the problem of the reappointment remains, that seems to clear Josephus of being in contradiction regarding the first term of Joazar's office. What do you think of that?
"There was one Judas, the son of Saripheus, and Matthias, the son of Margalothus, two of the most eloquent men among the Jews, and the most celebrated interpreters of the Jewish laws, and men well beloved by the people, because of their education of their youth;
Herod had caused such things to be made which were contrary to the law, of which he was accused by Judas and Matthias; for the king had erected over the great gate of the temple a large golden eagle, of great value, and had dedicated it to the temple. Now the law forbids those that propose to live according to it, to erect images or representations of any living creature. So these wise men persuaded [their scholars] to pull down the golden eagle; But as for Herod, he dealt more mildly with others [of the assembly] but he deprived Matthias of the high priesthood, as in part an occasion of this action, and made Joazar, who was Matthias's wife's brother, high priest in his stead
Herod deprived this Matthias of the high priesthood, and burnt the other Matthias, who had raised the sedition, with his companions, alive. And that very night there was an eclipse of the moon.
They lamented Matthias, and those that were slain with him by Herod, who had not any respect paid them by a funeral mourning, out of the fear men were in of that man; they were those who had been condemned for pulling down the golden eagle. The people made a great clamor and lamentation hereupon, and cast out some reproaches against the king also, as if that tended to alleviate the miseries of the deceased. The people assembled together, and desired of Archelaus, that, in way of revenge on their account, he would inflict punishment on those who had been honored by Herod; and that, in the first and principal place, he would deprive that high priest whom Herod had made, and would choose one more agreeable to the law, and of greater purity, to officiate as high priest. This was granted by Archelaus, although he was mightily offended at their importunity, because he proposed to himself to go to Rome immediately to look after Caesar's determination about him.
However, he sent the general of his forces to use persuasions, and to tell them that the death which was inflicted on their friends was according to the law; and to represent to them that their petitions about these things were carried to a great height of injury to him; that the time was not now proper for such petitions, but required their unanimity until such time as he should be established in the government by the consent of Caesar, and should then be come back to them; for that he would then consult with them in common concerning the purport of their petitions; but that they ought at present to be quiet, lest they should seem seditious persons." (Antiquities)
How does that solve the problem of Joazar? That if correct, and I have my doubts because concerning Joazar Josephus says Achelaus granted their request. (highlighted in blue). because the people wanted that to happen in the first and principal place. However even if you are correct in this one instance concerning Joazar it still leaves the issue of a traitor to Archelaus being raised again by Archelaus to the priesthood. A highly unlikely scenario, especially as Josephus only mentions the Joazar was made high priest ONCE and that in the days of Herod the great. I would also think that a traitor being made high priest would have been noteworthy, yet Josephus says nothing about it.
How does that solve the problem of Joazar? That if correct, and I have my doubts because concerning Joazar Josephus says Achelaus granted their request. (highlighted in blue). because the people wanted that to happen in the first and principal place. However even if you are correct in this one instance concerning Joazar it still leaves the issue of a traitor to Archelaus being raised again by Archelaus to the priesthood. A highly unlikely scenario, especially as Josephus only mentions the Joazar was made high priest ONCE and that in the days of Herod the great. I would also think that a traitor being made high priest would have been noteworthy, yet Josephus says nothing about it.
Reading through chapters 8-10 ut seems that Archelaus granted their request but later put them off by saying that Matthias and co. got what they deserved and all such 'petitions' should wait until he had his rulership confirmed by Caesar. Since the removal of Joazar was when he came back, it looks to me like he left Joazar alone until he returned and deposed him on suspicion of involvement in the rebellions that broke out while he was away. So there is no reason to think that Josephus was contradicting himself, let alone 'mis-dating' or 'being all over the map'. Since he seems pretty reliable, he deserves some credit for saying that Joazar was removed by Rome when they took over Judea. He doesn't say how he got re-appointed, and presumably doesn't know. The circumstances of the High priestship after the rebellions is pretty sketchy.
But guessing about what I agree is a puzzle is pointless, and is no reason to discredit Josephus in what he reports.
Do you have the chapters relating to the matters of Archelaus fighting in the rebellion and taking prisoners? I've been looking through, but haven't found it yet. And I still would like to know your case for putting Herod's death in 1 BC.
Josephus states that in the very night Herod died there was an eclipse of the moon.
Josephus then gives an account of the events that followed Herod death; his funeral, and Archelaus rise to the throne before the Passover. Thus the events recorded by Josephus are associated with the annual Jewish fast; which only occurs in the 4th,5th,7th and 10th months.
This becomes a problem for those who believe that Herod died in 4BCE; as the eclipse of 4 BCE was in March 12/13 which is the 12th month. Thus the 4 BCE eclipse does not correlate with any of the Jewish fasts.
Another problem with the 4 BCE eclipse is that the 4BCE eclipse would not likely have been noticed.
Justin Schove in his book Chronology of Eclipses and Comets states:
"We find that the overall partial p-type [such as occurred on March 12/13, 4 B.C.] eclipses of Oppolzer were never noticed, and even the annular r-type were often missed. Most of the early records [such as Josephus] relate to eclipses THAT WERE TOTAL, either at the place of observation or within a few hundred miles of the track of totality.....Total eclipses are rare; at any one place the average is three times in a millennium..." (1984, p. x).
Schove then goes on to say:
"....[concerning partial eclipses] Such eclipses are more frequent than is usually supposed, for they occur about once every 2 1/2 years at any given location. However, the loss of light is smaller than heavy clouds would produce and partial eclipses usually passed unnoticed by the astronomically-unsophisticated chronicler....Astronomers, and those who have been forewarned, MAY notice an eclipse of magnitude 0.70 [70%] if they see it in a reflection, at sunset or through thin cloud or haze....The average person notices a thin solar crescent of a solar eclipse only when the magnitude reaches 0.99 [99%]" (ibid., p. xv).
Thus we can see those that believe the eclipse of 4BCE is the eclipse Josephus was referring to have some big problems to deal with.
But what about the eclipse of 1 BCE?
In 1 BCE on January 9/10 a total eclipse of the moon happened.
This eclipse of January 9/10 fell on Tebeth 14 which is in the 10 month; which is one of the Jewish fest months and was about 10 weeks before the Passover. Thus fits perfectly with the eclipse Josephus mentions.
Justin Schove in his book Chronology of Eclipses and Comets states:
"Total eclipses are RARE; at any one place the average is three times in a millennium" (1984, p. x). This, in itself, would have been a good reason for Josephus to mention this particular eclipse -- it would have been a momentous event in that part of the country, which everybody would have seen and commented on.
Theodor Oppolozer's Canon of Eclipses states
The eclipse of January 9/10, 1 B.C. is listed as eclipse #1,860 in (Dover, New York, 1962). That eclipse, according to John Pratt (Ph. D in Astronomy), was listed as total for 51 minutes near midnight and centered over 15 degrees east longitude -- which is perfect for having been observed in Jerusalem.
With this information in hand we can easily see that the eclipse of 4BCE is not the one Josephus mentioned and the eclipse in 1 BCE fit quite nicely with what Josephus states.
Conclusion: The only eclipse that fits the criteria of what Josephus states is the eclipse of 1 BCE. This eclipse not only was visible to the human eye it also happened during the Jewish fest days and was perfectly visible from Jerusalem. Thus Herod died in 1BCE.
Reading through chapters 8-10 ut seems that Archelaus granted their request but later put them off by saying that Matthias and co. got what they deserved and all such 'petitions' should wait until he had his rulership confirmed by Caesar. Since the removal of Joazar was when he came back, it looks to me like he left Joazar alone until he returned and deposed him on suspicion of involvement in the rebellions that broke out while he was away. So there is no reason to think that Josephus was contradicting himself, let alone 'mis-dating' or 'being all over the map'. Since he seems pretty reliable, he deserves some credit for saying that Joazar was removed by Rome when they took over Judea. He doesn't say how he got re-appointed, and presumably doesn't know. The circumstances of the High priestship after the rebellions is pretty sketchy.
I read it this way
In order to appease the people Archelaus granted them their fist and principal request in hopes that that would appease them and that they would have to wait until he got back from Rome in order for him to address their other concerns.
Quote:
But guessing about what I agree is a puzzle is pointless, and is no reason to discredit Josephus in what he reports.
I beg to differ for the reasons I already gave.
Quote:
Do you have the chapters relating to the matters of Archelaus fighting in the rebellion and taking prisoners? I've been looking through, but haven't found it yet. And I still would like to know your case for putting Herod's death in 1 BC.
Josephus states in Ant.17.9.7 that Archeluas who had fallen at Caesar feet was raised up by Caesar.
Josephus then goes on to say in Ant.17.10.1 that before these things were brought to a settlement Archelaus mother fell ill and Varus sent letters to inform Caesar that AFTER Archelaus set sail the whole nation was in a tumult.
Josephus goes on to tell of the rebellions that broke out during this time and in Ant.17.10.7 Josephus states that Archelaus took the eldest of 4 brothers prisoner
Josephus states that in the very night Herod died there was an eclipse of the moon.
Josephus then gives an account of the events that followed Herod death; his funeral, and Archelaus rise to the throne before the Passover. Thus the events recorded by Josephus are associated with the annual Jewish fast; which only occurs in the 4th,5th,7th and 10th months.
This becomes a problem for those who believe that Herod died in 4BCE; as the eclipse of 4 BCE was in March 12/13 which is the 12th month. Thus the 4 BCE eclipse does not correlate with any of the Jewish fasts.
Oh look! Josephus has become reliable again!
When pneuma wants a historical Jesus, Josephus is a reliable and trustworthy historian.
When Josephus debunks pneuma census, pneuma thinks Josephus can't be trusted.
When pneuma wants to change the date of Herod's death, Josephus becomes reliable again.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
