Chuck Missler
- Thread starter buddyt
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Good evening 88,
I also read and believe that. The same information regarding the angels, those son's of God, can be found in the Ethopic Enoch, but with much greater detail. Consider the following:
"Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, 2that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose."
"Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them."
"Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them to present himself before the LORD."
The son's of God in both verses in Job are referring to the angels. Likewise, In Gen.6:1, the son's of God, the angels, are those who took wives from the progeny of mankind.
That the angels defiled themselves, their offspring who became giants and all that the angels taught mankind, was the main reason for the flood.
Find yourself a copy of Ethiopic Enoch. Both Jesus and Jude quote from Enoch.
I also read and believe that. The same information regarding the angels, those son's of God, can be found in the Ethopic Enoch, but with much greater detail. Consider the following:
"Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, 2that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose."
"Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them."
"Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them to present himself before the LORD."
The son's of God in both verses in Job are referring to the angels. Likewise, In Gen.6:1, the son's of God, the angels, are those who took wives from the progeny of mankind.
That the angels defiled themselves, their offspring who became giants and all that the angels taught mankind, was the main reason for the flood.
Find yourself a copy of Ethiopic Enoch. Both Jesus and Jude quote from Enoch.
Hi Presidente: You said, if giants were born little and became large after birth a normal human could give birth to a giant. Well...don't know about that one, you are going totally against the laws of nature that God created. The idea that human woman gave birth to giants as a result of being with an angel does not come from the bible, it comes from the book of Enoch, and the giants were suppose to be 45 feet tall. The giants in the bible were said to have giant fathers and were around 10 feet tall. Angels and women did have offspring but they were(as expected) around normal size but with super human ability, like Hercules.
Let’s look at the verses you posted Job 1:6 “Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them.
Job 2:1 “Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the Lord.”
38:7 “When the morning stars sang together, And all the sons of God shouted for joy?”
These are clearly speaking of angels, let also look at Lucifer as one of the sons of God.
Isaiah 14:12 “How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!”
Unfortunately that’s the only Scripture on Lucifer, but I will agree he was one of the sons of God, Once he became satan he gave that up. Look at the verses in Job, “and satan came in among them” this separates him from the sons of God. 2:1 further separates him from the sons of God by adding that, “to present himself” Lucifer was part of the sons of God, but satan isn’t because of his fall. I agree the sons of God are angels that haven’t left their position of authority or have not sinned. That’s not the only reason I don’t interpret the sons of God in Genesis 6:2, 4 as angel. Because we are only talking about 11 verses that uses the term sons of God and they are all used for beings that are in fellowship with God.
What did God say at creation about procreation.
Genesis 1:24-25 “Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind”; and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.”
Let’s look at what does Jesus says about angels and procreation.
Luke 20:35-36 “But those who are counted worthy to attain that age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.”
Matthew 22:29-30 “Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven.”
What does Paul say about the earthly body and the heavenly body.
1 Corinthians 15:39-40 “For not all flesh is the same, but there is one kind for humans, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish.There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is of one kind, and the glory of the earthly is of another.”
It’s clear from Genesis 6:2 that the sons of God married.
Procreation is after it’s own kind, Jesus said that in the resurrection we will be like the angel. We will have heavenly bodies that can not have sex. It’s clear that the sons of God had sex with the women of earth, because there were children born to that union. What does Paul say about heavenly bodies and earthly bodies. That they are not the same kind, which would mean they can’t procreate according to the creation account. Just like animals can’t procreate with birds or birds with fish, because they are not of the same kind. Jesus said the angels do not marry or are they given in marriage, He said that after Genesis 6:2, I’m going to believe Jesus that angels do not marry or have ever been married. There are three witnesses that they don’t procreate. After the same kind, they are not given in marriage and heavenly bodies are different then earthly bodies
Someone mentioned mules, a donkey and a horse are from the same family or kind.
Here are the verses used to support the idea that these are angel that sinned. II Peter 2:4-6 “For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; and spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;”
They say that “and spared not the old world” are linked together with the angels that are reserved for judgement. The semicolon gives more pause with the and, so all of these are being used as examples of judgement. They further try to link them together in, Jude 1:6-7
“And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day—just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire,serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.”
They skip the period to end the sentence and run it together with “as Sodom and Gomorrha” then skip over, “and the cities about them” and go into “like manner giving themselves over to fornication” and “going after strange flesh”. When there is a clear separation of the angels and Sodom and Gorrohhra. It seems to me that “Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them” are the ones that gave themselves to fornication and went after strange flesh, which seems to mean beastiality. Jude clarifies why the angels were judged, because they left their “position of authority” and “proper dwelling”. They completely leave out verse 5 of Jude, which is how the example of judgement starts out. Where they make another mistake is the are saying that these angels fornicated with the women of the earth. How did they fornicate when they were married to the women? Watch the video, you'll see Chuck using this argument to support his interpretation of Genesis 6:2, 4 as angels, because they fornicated, which never happened, because the text says that they married the women.
Jude 1:5 “Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.”
Here’s how I interpret Genesis 6:4 “There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.”
When were the giants on the earth, “in those days” and “also afterward”, what days “when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men”, they had children who were these children? “Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.” Not the giants.
There’s my Scriptural bases for not believing that the sons of God in Genesis 6:2 , 4 are not angels.
Here’s something interesting Romans 10:13 “For “whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
Genesis 4:26 “And as for Seth, to him also a son was born; and he named him Enosh. Then men began to call on the name of the Lord.”
Since you brought up "false witness" I went a watched one of Chuck's videos on this subject. This is what he said about Genesis 6, "understanding this chapter is foundational to understanding most of the OT, as well as prophecy, it's not just the mystical chapters of early Genesis it is very foundational to understanding the rest of the Bible."
You can hear it for yourself. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0d3l2FEVmsk
Bladerunner you asked for Scripture, so I tried to give you what you wanted. God Bless
Job 2:1 “Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the Lord.”
38:7 “When the morning stars sang together, And all the sons of God shouted for joy?”
These are clearly speaking of angels, let also look at Lucifer as one of the sons of God.
Isaiah 14:12 “How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!”
Unfortunately that’s the only Scripture on Lucifer, but I will agree he was one of the sons of God, Once he became satan he gave that up. Look at the verses in Job, “and satan came in among them” this separates him from the sons of God. 2:1 further separates him from the sons of God by adding that, “to present himself” Lucifer was part of the sons of God, but satan isn’t because of his fall. I agree the sons of God are angels that haven’t left their position of authority or have not sinned. That’s not the only reason I don’t interpret the sons of God in Genesis 6:2, 4 as angel. Because we are only talking about 11 verses that uses the term sons of God and they are all used for beings that are in fellowship with God.
What did God say at creation about procreation.
Genesis 1:24-25 “Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind”; and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.”
Let’s look at what does Jesus says about angels and procreation.
Luke 20:35-36 “But those who are counted worthy to attain that age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.”
Matthew 22:29-30 “Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven.”
What does Paul say about the earthly body and the heavenly body.
1 Corinthians 15:39-40 “For not all flesh is the same, but there is one kind for humans, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish.There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is of one kind, and the glory of the earthly is of another.”
It’s clear from Genesis 6:2 that the sons of God married.
Procreation is after it’s own kind, Jesus said that in the resurrection we will be like the angel. We will have heavenly bodies that can not have sex. It’s clear that the sons of God had sex with the women of earth, because there were children born to that union. What does Paul say about heavenly bodies and earthly bodies. That they are not the same kind, which would mean they can’t procreate according to the creation account. Just like animals can’t procreate with birds or birds with fish, because they are not of the same kind. Jesus said the angels do not marry or are they given in marriage, He said that after Genesis 6:2, I’m going to believe Jesus that angels do not marry or have ever been married. There are three witnesses that they don’t procreate. After the same kind, they are not given in marriage and heavenly bodies are different then earthly bodies
Someone mentioned mules, a donkey and a horse are from the same family or kind.
Here are the verses used to support the idea that these are angel that sinned. II Peter 2:4-6 “For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; and spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;”
They say that “and spared not the old world” are linked together with the angels that are reserved for judgement. The semicolon gives more pause with the and, so all of these are being used as examples of judgement. They further try to link them together in, Jude 1:6-7
“And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day—just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire,serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.”
They skip the period to end the sentence and run it together with “as Sodom and Gomorrha” then skip over, “and the cities about them” and go into “like manner giving themselves over to fornication” and “going after strange flesh”. When there is a clear separation of the angels and Sodom and Gorrohhra. It seems to me that “Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them” are the ones that gave themselves to fornication and went after strange flesh, which seems to mean beastiality. Jude clarifies why the angels were judged, because they left their “position of authority” and “proper dwelling”. They completely leave out verse 5 of Jude, which is how the example of judgement starts out. Where they make another mistake is the are saying that these angels fornicated with the women of the earth. How did they fornicate when they were married to the women? Watch the video, you'll see Chuck using this argument to support his interpretation of Genesis 6:2, 4 as angels, because they fornicated, which never happened, because the text says that they married the women.
Jude 1:5 “Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.”
Here’s how I interpret Genesis 6:4 “There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.”
When were the giants on the earth, “in those days” and “also afterward”, what days “when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men”, they had children who were these children? “Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.” Not the giants.
There’s my Scriptural bases for not believing that the sons of God in Genesis 6:2 , 4 are not angels.
Here’s something interesting Romans 10:13 “For “whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
Genesis 4:26 “And as for Seth, to him also a son was born; and he named him Enosh. Then men began to call on the name of the Lord.”
Since you brought up "false witness" I went a watched one of Chuck's videos on this subject. This is what he said about Genesis 6, "understanding this chapter is foundational to understanding most of the OT, as well as prophecy, it's not just the mystical chapters of early Genesis it is very foundational to understanding the rest of the Bible."
You can hear it for yourself. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0d3l2FEVmsk
Bladerunner you asked for Scripture, so I tried to give you what you wanted. God Bless
The Book of Enoch available today is translated from a language of Ethiopia. I do not know if it is exactly the same book Jude referred to. I am not saying there were necessarily Mothra-sized human giants. I was just pointing out a flaw in the logic of the argument that a normal-sized mother couldn't give birth to a giant.
Samuel.....Samuel....Samuel...... when was the last time you read the Bible.... In Genesis 6:4..."There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."
The "Mighty Men of old, men of renown"....??.Alluding to Hercules??..... You see, the Bible itself also includes the culture of the times.
This set of words "also After that" refers to the Giants after the Flood. for God gives man around 120 years prior to the Flood that killed everything on land. Gen 6:3.
The "Mighty Men of old, men of renown"....??.Alluding to Hercules??..... You see, the Bible itself also includes the culture of the times.
This set of words "also After that" refers to the Giants after the Flood. for God gives man around 120 years prior to the Flood that killed everything on land. Gen 6:3.
C
This sounds like what the church Smyrna and the church of Philadelphia are Teaching. I have only found 1 Church of Smyrna. I never actually checked out Chuck Missler. But this is not new. People have been teaching this for 1000's of years. Things like the 3 world age's, The 8th day creation. Beguilement of eve. Adam not being the father of Cain. These are all things that Pastor Arnold and Dennis Murray have been teaching for the past 20 + years. I have been studying with them for i don't remember how many years. These are not new findings they have been rejected by the so called church. Maybe you want to check it out. Just go to www.shepherdschapel.com. Now that i think about it i don't remember ever running across a church of Philadelphia. ( maybe someday ). But then this stuff is only for Gods elect. OOPS i mean those who have eyes to see and ears to hear. Just remember who ever you choose to study with Look for 1 thing. That they teach you how to study so that you can find the answers for your self. That is the one thing that shepherds chapel has done for me. Never take any mans word for something to bible says. Its ok to mention something in a discussion and point it out. But there is a way to find answers for your self. From what i can tell chuck just points it out and expects us to take his word for it. But to be fair i have spent that much time with chuck. He may be doing the lords work. I am just saying be careful. If he is for Christ how can we be against him.
Peace and love be with you in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Peace and love be with you in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
C
The Book of Enoch is a good study for this time Period. Also i would like to mention that Christ said that things that went on in the days of Noa, So it shall be in the last days. I find it peculiar that we have hybrids and alien life forms and the such. In todays time. Must be a sign huh. The one thing that we can be glad of is that God has shortened the time to 5 1/2 Months. So we know the Giants won't have time to come about. Also do a youtube search for Nephillium You will see some stuff that is only talked about in the bible. Sorry i am getting carried away. I just love talking about the Bible. There is Nothing new under the Sun. What is done has all been done before. Ask God to remove your covering over your eyes. Remember to check me out. Don't take any mans word only Gods.
CompanionBibleFan,
A friend of mine was wondering whether the Arnold Murray stuff about Kenites was legit back in the 1990's. I listened to the tape, and of course it sounded kind of Neo-Nazi-esque to me, not being familiar with it. I ran my references, and his teachings didn't hold water. Moses' in-laws settled down in the Negev. Later, Saul had some of the Kenites get out of the area before his attack on some of Israel's enemies. Apparently, there were some non-friendly Kenite groups as well. Kenites in that area also became scribes. It is possible that the Kenite groups mentioned in Jeremiah were related to Moses' in-laws.
Murray pointed out a Jeremiah of Kenite lineage, saying Kenites like to imitate, and this wasn't Jeremiah the prophet. You'd think if he realized two people could be named Jeremiah, that there could be more than one Cain, and he would realize that the Kenites wouldn't be descended from the descendants of Cain who died in the flood.
In John 8, Jesus acknowledged his opponents are the seed of Abraham, but they did not do his deeds. They did the deeds of their father the Devil. He was talking about their spiritual father. Physically, they were the descendants of Abraham. Murray reinterpreted the Bible to be about a secret conspiracy of fake Jews, who were the physical offspring of Satan through Cain, taking over the Jewish leadership and hinting that they later became known as the Jews, replacing the true Israelites with demonic hybrids.
But the book of Jeremiah actually commends a group of Kenites and they receive a blessing from God.
The interpretation of the parable of the sower, with the seed being associated with 'sperm' of the Kenites is pretty gross, and just doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense that a tare would become wheat.
Anyway, that teaching of Arnold Murray just didn't line up with scripture. He also liked to take the Strong's concordance, a rather weak tool when it comes to digging into the Hebrew language, pick the one 'gloss' out of the list in the glossary that he could spin into his fantastic theory, and make an argument for it that way. This is not serious scholarship, and it is an easy way to spin a doctrinal argument for those unacquainted with the tools too study Greek and Hebrew.
One of my concerns with Shepherd's Chapel fans, though, is the attitude that seems to rub off of them. The Murray tape I heard displayed a contemptuous attitude toward those who disagreed with his wild misinterpretations of scripture. He labeled them as 'Biblically illiterate' with a contemptuous tone. This attitude seems to rub off on a number of his disciples. The contempt seems to blind some of them from openness to see what the scripture has to say on this matter.
I'll post this one message. If anyone wants to discuss it, it may go better in another thread, though I am not sure how much time I could commit. My knowledge of Murray's teaching is dated and limited mainly to that one topic.
A friend of mine was wondering whether the Arnold Murray stuff about Kenites was legit back in the 1990's. I listened to the tape, and of course it sounded kind of Neo-Nazi-esque to me, not being familiar with it. I ran my references, and his teachings didn't hold water. Moses' in-laws settled down in the Negev. Later, Saul had some of the Kenites get out of the area before his attack on some of Israel's enemies. Apparently, there were some non-friendly Kenite groups as well. Kenites in that area also became scribes. It is possible that the Kenite groups mentioned in Jeremiah were related to Moses' in-laws.
Murray pointed out a Jeremiah of Kenite lineage, saying Kenites like to imitate, and this wasn't Jeremiah the prophet. You'd think if he realized two people could be named Jeremiah, that there could be more than one Cain, and he would realize that the Kenites wouldn't be descended from the descendants of Cain who died in the flood.
In John 8, Jesus acknowledged his opponents are the seed of Abraham, but they did not do his deeds. They did the deeds of their father the Devil. He was talking about their spiritual father. Physically, they were the descendants of Abraham. Murray reinterpreted the Bible to be about a secret conspiracy of fake Jews, who were the physical offspring of Satan through Cain, taking over the Jewish leadership and hinting that they later became known as the Jews, replacing the true Israelites with demonic hybrids.
But the book of Jeremiah actually commends a group of Kenites and they receive a blessing from God.
The interpretation of the parable of the sower, with the seed being associated with 'sperm' of the Kenites is pretty gross, and just doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense that a tare would become wheat.
Anyway, that teaching of Arnold Murray just didn't line up with scripture. He also liked to take the Strong's concordance, a rather weak tool when it comes to digging into the Hebrew language, pick the one 'gloss' out of the list in the glossary that he could spin into his fantastic theory, and make an argument for it that way. This is not serious scholarship, and it is an easy way to spin a doctrinal argument for those unacquainted with the tools too study Greek and Hebrew.
One of my concerns with Shepherd's Chapel fans, though, is the attitude that seems to rub off of them. The Murray tape I heard displayed a contemptuous attitude toward those who disagreed with his wild misinterpretations of scripture. He labeled them as 'Biblically illiterate' with a contemptuous tone. This attitude seems to rub off on a number of his disciples. The contempt seems to blind some of them from openness to see what the scripture has to say on this matter.
I'll post this one message. If anyone wants to discuss it, it may go better in another thread, though I am not sure how much time I could commit. My knowledge of Murray's teaching is dated and limited mainly to that one topic.
hey guys?
Chuck Missler co-wrote a whole book about aliens.
https://www.amazon.ca/Alien-Encounters-Mark-Eastman-ebook/dp/B00C81V2ZQ <--- link
has anyone read it? he seems to be for the idea of alien encounters.
Chuck Missler co-wrote a whole book about aliens.
https://www.amazon.ca/Alien-Encounters-Mark-Eastman-ebook/dp/B00C81V2ZQ <--- link
has anyone read it? he seems to be for the idea of alien encounters.
Isn't this the "Chariots of the Gods" theory?
I also have no iron in this fire. But, I do not listen to radio or TV televangelists, let alone ones with heretical ideas like aliens having sex with women. That is just pure science fiction or fantasy, depending upon how you look at it. (I'm a long time SciFi fan, and sorry, I do NOT believe any of it!)
C
"I ran my references, and his teachings didn't hold water."
He also liked to take the Strong's concordance, a rather weak tool when it comes to digging into the Hebrew language, pick the one 'gloss' out of the list in the glossary that he could spin into his fantastic theory, and make an argument for it that way. This is not serious scholarship,
One of my concerns with Shepherd's Chapel fans, though, is the attitude that seems to rub off of them. The Murray tape I heard displayed a contemptuous attitude toward those who disagreed with his wild misinterpretations of scripture. He labeled them as 'Biblically illiterate' with a contemptuous tone. This attitude seems to rub off on a number of his disciples. The contempt seems to blind some of them from openness to see what the scripture has to say on this matter.
It's Funny how I got accused of doing exactly what you just did.
I pray that someday you will learn to rightly divide the word of God. Hang in there.
Makes a man stop and scratch his head.
Going to bed will be back tomorrow, good night.
He also liked to take the Strong's concordance, a rather weak tool when it comes to digging into the Hebrew language, pick the one 'gloss' out of the list in the glossary that he could spin into his fantastic theory, and make an argument for it that way. This is not serious scholarship,
One of my concerns with Shepherd's Chapel fans, though, is the attitude that seems to rub off of them. The Murray tape I heard displayed a contemptuous attitude toward those who disagreed with his wild misinterpretations of scripture. He labeled them as 'Biblically illiterate' with a contemptuous tone. This attitude seems to rub off on a number of his disciples. The contempt seems to blind some of them from openness to see what the scripture has to say on this matter.
It's Funny how I got accused of doing exactly what you just did.
I pray that someday you will learn to rightly divide the word of God. Hang in there.
Makes a man stop and scratch his head.
Going to bed will be back tomorrow, good night.