Bible Errancy Discussions.
If you want to see some experts debating Biblical Issues with Christians that think they know the Bible, then I would highly recommend getting on this email list: Internet Infidels Errancy Discussions. Bible believers come on all bragging and proud and leave with their heads down and their tails between their legs. None survive these bible experts. It is really interesting to see how ignorant most of these true believers really are. It seems as though ignorance is almost required to believe the Bible.
ii_errancy This is an email list for discussing the errancy of the Bible. Appropriate topics include infallibility, inspiration, contradictions, and harmonizations. The list moderator is Farrell Till and this is the same list which was formerly hosted by the Internet Infidels.
At 05:51 PM 3/17/03 -0600, you wrote:
>It's obvious that you have all these "so-called" discrepancies
>pre-arranged and you just insert someone's name at a certain place, which
>I gathered form the last one.
No, I don't have prearranged [notice how it's spelled] discrepancies. I
have files of discrepancies that I have saved over the years. I see no
need to reinvented the wheel each time I encounter a would-be apologist
like you, so I just find a discrepancy in my files and rewrite it to fit
the situation. I have many, many more, so get ready to be bombarded with
carefully detailed examples of inconsistencies and other discrepancies.
You are the one who contacted me with a challenge, so don't whine after I
have accepted the challenge and shown you what you boasted that I could not show you.
>Let me say that I didn't even read any of the previous e-mail's you just
>sent me, but deleted them.
What I sent to you were merely copies of my previous replies to your
sarcastic messages to me. I forwarded all of them to II_Errancy so that
the list members could read them prior to receiving our actual exchanges on
a discrepancy. I sent you a cc of each one so that you could see that I
was forwarding them to the Errancy list. Anyway, I would bet that you
would have a field day if I sent you a message that said that I was
deleting unread whatever messages you were sending me. I can imagine what kind of coward you would make me out to be.
That may give you an idea of what I think about you. Keep in mind that you
are the one who initiated this discussion.
>I wrote my last reply the way I did because it was going to be on your
>board. However, I haven't even looked at your site except for the home
>page of the site. I found my way to your picture and your story by another
>link elsewhere. Let me say that I could care a less about your foolish
So you are saying that it would be possible for you to be even more
indifferent toward my "foolish website" than you presently are?
Oh, no, no, I get it. You meant to say that you could NOT care less about
my foolish website. For an expert in Hebrew, you do have problems with
your native language, don't you?
At any rate, keep in mind that you contacted me. You started this. I
intend to finish it, so don't whine to me about whatever humiliations you
may suffer along the way.
>My intention was to debate with you, but I see that you like to hide
Oh, come now, big mouth, you have to know that if I wanted to hide, the
last thing I would want to do would be to take a debate before an audience
of 170 others. If I were afraid to debate you, I would make some excuse
about being too busy, and I certainly would keep any exchanges one-on-one
so that no one else would see the shellacking that you give me.
Are comments like this one typical of your critical thinking skills?
>If I receive any e-mail's [sic] by someone on your little web-site, I'll
>just delete them.
On the Errancy list the members pretty much leave the debating to the
participants. If, however, comments from others are posted, I will
redirect them to you. If you want to put your head in the sand and not
read them, that will be your decision to make.
By the way, "e-mail" is pluralized by just adding an "s." The apostrophe +
"s" is added to a root word to make it possessive. You do have problems
with your native language to be such an expert in Hebrew, don't you?
>This is not my purpose here. My sarcasim was based in part because of your hateful and arrogant e-mail's to me.
Your "sarcasim"? Oh, I see; you meant s-a-r-c-a-s-m. Yes, indeed, you do
have problems with your native language to be so expert in Hebrew.
Try to remember from now on that "e-mails," without the apostrophe is the
way to pluralize "e-mail." If you demonstrate a little more skill in
writing your native language, maybe people will find your claim of
expertise in Hebrew to be a little more credible.
>If you want a more civil debate, then be civil yourself.
You set the tone, big mouth. I was just replying to you in kind. Here is
your first message to me.
>I must say that you have exchanged the truth of God for a lie. I am a
>minister of the Lord's Church. It obvious that you did not study enough my
>friend. There is nothing you could show me that is wrong in your eyes,
>that I would have a correct answer for. Your ignorance is proved by your
Before that, we had had no contacts at all. I didn't even know you
existed, so if you want a civil debate, you are the one who needs to change
his tactics. I can do it either way. I can be civil, or I can match you
sarcasm for sarcasm. You decide.
>It's obvious that you have no understanding of Hebrew or Greek or this
>would not even be an issue for you.
Well, I am certainly no expert in either Hebrew or Greek, but I did study
both in college. As the debate progresses, I think you will find that I do
have at least a little competence in biblical languages. I have enough
competence to see that you are obviously no expert.
By the way, how was it obvious that I have no understanding of Greek? The
issue under discussion concerned an Old Testament passage that was written in Hebrew, so how were you able to determine from what I said about this passage that I have no understanding of Greek?
Is this statement another example of your critical thinking skills?
>You mentioned Genesis 38:1 again, using the same ignorant argument that
>you used last time.
Well, if the argument was ignorant, why didn't you show that it was? I can
certainly see now why you didn't want to agree to guidelines that prohibit
argumentation by assertion. If you couldn't assert, you would be up that
famous creek without a paddle, wouldn't you?
You assert that my argument is ignorant. Now let's see you SHOW that it
is, or do you even know the difference in asserting and showing?
>It's obvious from your first replys' to me that you did not know who you
>were dealing with.
There's no immodesty in your family, is there? You seem to have gotten it
all. Why don't you show everyone whom I am dealing with? You have a big
mouth, and you boast a lot, but you seem unable to produce any kind of
viable rebuttal to my arguments of discrepancy in Genesis 38. My, my, if
you can't explain this one, you really will be in trouble when we go on to
more difficult ones.
By the way, please try to learn how to pluralize nouns in English. You
seem to have the idea that they are pluralized by adding apostrophe + "s"
or "s" + apostrophe. "Reply" is pluralized by changing the final "y" to
"i" and then adding "es." If you knew diddly squat about English spelling,
you would know when to change final "y" to "i." This is done when a
consonant precedes the "y." Hence, "party" becomes "parties"; "berry"
becomes "berries"; "reply" becomes "replies." If a vowel precedes the "y,"
the word is pluralized by adding only "s," not apostrophe + "s," as in
monkeys, turkeys, valleys, etc.
Yes, indeed, you do have problems with your own native language to be such an expert in Hebrew, don't you?
By the way, Greg, how old are you? Have you finished high school yet? Are
you old enough to have a driver's license?
>Also, the WAW would apply to this situation if not all of it. I have only
>briefly skimmed over your so-called problem, but I see the same train of
>thought and foolishness that you are using.
Hmm, if you had just briefly skimmed over it, then how do you account for
this statement you made after receiving "Judah's Grandsons"?
>I have gotten your alleged contradiction about Judah's grandson, as you
>now know because of this reply e-mail. I must say, that you decided to
>send an easy one. Perhaps you want to test me and get a feel for my
>reasoning or you feel it's a challenge? I don't know, but I will work on
>my reply and send it to you soon. However, I must say that this is a
>grade-school discrepancy. I hope you do better in the future. Any first
>year Hebrew student could lick this one.
How were you able to determine that this was "an easy one" and just "a
grade-school discrepancy" that any "first-year Hebrew student could lick"
if you had just "skimmed over" it? You contradict yourself coming and
going, don't you?
As for whether the WAW applies to Genesis 38 or not, I have already
explained why it does apply. Genesis 38:1 begins with the WAW consecutive, which means that the writer's intention was sequential. The last verse of chapter 37 ends by saying that Joseph was sold to Potiphar in Egypt, and then the very next verse says, "And [waw consecutive] it came to pass AT THAT TIME that Judah departed from his brothers." Hence, Judah's departure from his brothers occurred sequentially AFTER Joseph had been sold to Potiphar in Egypt.
It is all there in the Hebrew text, Cudo, but you really don't know much,
if anything, about Hebrew, do you? You see, I'm used to high schoolers or
college students or amateur apologists coming along with their rantings
about, "You would understand this if you just knew Hebrew." They almost
always turn out to know virtually nothing about Hebrew.
If you really were as expert in Hebrew as you claim, Cudo, you would have
analyzed Genesis 38:1 linguistically to show that it meant in Hebrew what
you are claiming it meant, but you haven't done that, because (1) you don't
know Hebrew well enough to do it, and (2) you can't make the Hebrew text
mean what it didn't say.
>Look at Genesis 37:2 is says; "this then is the line of Jacob" the word
>for line or generation is 'Toledoth' at almost every point where that word
>occurs we will find a family tree, but not at this verse.
If you will check the Errancy archives, you will see that the issue of
"toledoth" was debated in detail when an amateur apologist named Joe Carter joined the list bragging about his expertise in Hebrew. His ignorance of the language was eventually exposed, and he suffered the embarrassment of having to admit that he had never actually studied the language.
I am familiar with the fact that "toledoth" usually introduced genealogies
or family trees, but as I will show below, that is irrelevant to the discrepancy that you are supposed to be explaining.
> Instead it jumpes to Joseph at the age of 17, we do not even know when,
> or where he was born!
It "jumpes"? Yes, indeed, you do have trouble with your native language to
be such an expert in Hebrew, don't you? Please pay attention in your
English classes this week.
Anyway, your last statement is absolutely amazing for someone who claims to be so expert in apologetics that he can explain any discrepancy that anyone wants to present to him.
Joseph was born to Rachel in Paddanaram, which is a biblical fact that even
a conscientious Sunday school pupil would know.
>Genesis 30:22 Then God remembered Rachel, and God heeded her and opened her womb.
>23 She conceived and bore a son, and said, "God has taken away my reproach";
>24 and she named him Joseph, saying, "May Yahweh add to me another son!"
The deal that Jacob had made with Rachel's father Laban was that he would
work seven years for the right to marry Rachel (Gen. 29:18-20). At the end
of those seven years, Laban deceived Jacob and gave his elder daughter Leah to him instead (29:23-25). Jacob then struck another deal with Laban to work seven more years to receive Rachel (29:27). Chapter 30 then recorded the duel of the handmaidens as Jacob began siring children all over Paddanaram. Jacob stayed with Laban for 20 years (Gen. 31:41), but Joseph was born after Jacob had completed 14 years of service to Laban
(31:41). Since Joseph was the last of Jacob's 12 children born in
Paddanaram, he would have been born somewhere between the end of Jacob's 14 years of service for the right to marry Rachel and the six additional years that he stayed to tend Laban's flocks. We know that Joseph was born before the six years of additional service began, because Jacob asked Laban for permission to leave after Joseph's birth.
>Genesis 30:25 WHEN RACHEL HAD BORNE JOSEPH, Jacob said to Laban, "Send me away, that I may go to my own home and country.
>26 Give me my wives and my children for whom I have served you, and let
>me go; for you know very well the service I have given you."
Hence, Joseph was born in Paddanaram around six years before Jacob left
there after having worked 20 years for Laban.
It is all recorded in Genesis 29-31, so it certainly isn't true that we
don't know "when or where" Joseph was born. You said above that it was
obvious that I didn't know who I was dealing with, and I am now forced to
admit that you are right. I had no idea that I was dealing with someone
who was so biblically ignorant that he didn't know that the Bible records
when and where Joseph was born.
Is this the kind of biblical expertise that we can expect from you as you
proceed to explain any discrepancy that I want to "throw" at you?
Come on, Greg, tell us what grade you are in.
>We only know he was a later child. We do not hear about his brother's
>birth here either, but we do in Genesis 35:22-27. So, here at least we do
>not know how much older Joseph's brothers are than him, nor do we know
>about their lives before him.
I think you meant to say that we do not know how much older Joseph's
brothers were than HE. You see, Greg, the verb "was" would be implied
after "he." I would think that someone as expert as you in Hebrew would
know something this simple about his own native language.
We do know some things about the lives of Joseph's brothers before Genesis
37. For example, we know that Simeon and Levi slaughtered the Hivites in
Genesis 34 after tricking the men into circumcising themselves. At any
rate, what the Bible records about them prior to Genesis 37 is immaterial,
because 37:2 says...
>Jacob. Joseph, being SEVENTEEN YEARS OLD, was shepherding the flock with
>his brothers; he was a helper to the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah, his
>father's wives; and Joseph brought a bad report of them to their father.
The text then goes on to record that the jealousy of Joseph's brothers led
them to plot against him and eventually sell him to the
Ishmaelite/Midianite (take your pick) caravan passing by. Thus, when
Joseph was 17, his brothers sold him into Egypt, and the Midianites then
sold him to Potiphar.The very next verse (38:1) says, "And [waw
consecutive] it came to pass AT THAT TIME that Judah departed from his
brothers." Hence, Judah departed from his brothers at the time that
Joseph's brothers sold him into Egypt.
That is the problem, Cudo, and you have done absolutely nothing yet to
>This suggest that the text may have been relocated, since in most
>occurrences of Toledoth a genealogy follows. That would have occurred
>before the middle ages when the Massoretes dealt with the text, as no text
>could have been changed during or after their time. There is no
>chronological or generational problem in this text in the least, as any
>first-year Hebrew student would know.
Any first-year Hebrew student? That would exclude you, wouldn't it,
Greg? At any rate, whether a genealogy followed "toledoth" in 37:2 is
irrelevant, because this verse, as I showed above, showed that Joseph was
17 at this time.
It is question time for you, Cudo. Yes or no, Joseph was 17 when his
brothers sold him into Egypt. If you say no, please justify your answer
with linguistic analysis of the text to show that he wasn't 17 but some
other age. Of course, I assume, perhaps incorrectly, that you have enough
sense to know that if you make Joseph older than 17 at this time, that
would make it even more difficult for you to resolve the problem.
Anyway, I was fascinated with what you said above about the possibility
that the text in 37:2 may have been "relocated." How do you reconcile that
with what you said in your first attempt to explain this problem?
>In light of this, let me say that liberal critical scholars have advocated
>that the Torah or Pentateuch was not written by Moses. They claim the
>Torah is a compilation of several authors, thus arguing their theory for
>doublets, parallel accounts, differences in writing styles, chronological
>problems, etc. This is known as the Documentary Hypothesis . The point of
>this is to prove that the bible is unreliable, which they haven't.
At that point in the debate, you were arguing that no tampering with the
text had been done as proposed by the Documentary Hypothesis, but now that
you have apparently had second thoughts about the quality of your first
"solution" to this problem, you are suggesting that alterations in the text
may have happened.
Consistency just isn't one of your virtues, is it, Greg?
>You would think that once a man was beaten he would give up?
Yes, I would, so why are you still here? Are you a masochist?
>I could do this for years with you!
Good, then I will be able to realize my goal of having the members of
II_Errancy see another biblical inerrantist postulate silly scenario after
silly scenario to "explain" biblical discrepancies.
Come on, Greg, tell us how old you are. What grade are you in?
>As I said, there's not one "so-called" bible discrepancy that I wouldn't
>have a logical and correct answer for.
Then when are we going to see your "logical and correct answer" for this
one? You talk a lot, but now it is time for you to make good on your
claims of apologetic expertise.
>You are still sending me grade-school discrepancies.
Well, actually, I have sent you only ONE discrepancy, Greg. Comments like
this give away your adolescence. We have seen it all before here, Greg, a
high schooler or college student who thinks he is going to come aboard and
put everyone in his place, and it turns out that all he can do is talk.
If this is a grade-school discrepancy, why can't you explain it?
>It's obvious that your understanding of scripture is very limited.
You mean like not knowing that the Bible tells us when and where Joseph was
>Only someone with no understanding of the Semitic language would even post such a reply.
Well, why don't you list for us your credentials in Semitic languages,
Greg? How many credit hours in Hebrew do you have? Where did you earn
these hours? You said "Semitic languages" [plural], so what other Semitic
languages have you studied? Any credits in Aramaic?
>To think the bible has discrepancies shows a very shallow understanding of
To think that the Bible has NO discrepancies in it is downright stupid, and
I am fully prepared to make you eat shoe leather for as long as you want to
argue that the Bible is inerrant. Since you said that you could do this
with me for years, I suppose you will be explaining discrepancies for years
to us, won't you? That's good, because most biblicists don't hang around
very long, but I am happy to hear that you are in this for the long haul.
>Should I post again Mr. Till and continue to embarrass you?
Oh, please do. May I suggest that you begin the embarrassment with a
sensible solution to the Genesis 38 problem?
At 10:11 PM 3/26/03 -0800, you wrote:
With my knowledge of the Semitic language and my knowledge of the alleged discrepancies that I have studied over the years I have found logical answers for them.
Yeah, right! You really demonstrated your knowledge of Semitic languages in your feeble attempt to reply to "Judah's Grandsons," didn't you? You were asked to tell us something about your background in Semitic languages, but you have met this request with silence. Which Semitic languages have you studied and where? How many credits do you have in Hebrew? How many in Aramaic or whatever other Semitic languages you have studied? The fact is that you are a big liar, Cudo. You have no real expertise in even Hebrew, because if you did, you would have analyzed the phrase "at that time" and shown that its meaning in Hebrew is not what I claimed in "Judah's Grandsons," but you didn't do that. You didn't do it, because you don't have the background in Hebrew to analyze anything. In other words, you are a liar. The same is true of your claim to expertise in biblical discrepancies. If you had any such expertise, you would have shown it. You shot off your mouth about how you could explain any discrepancy that I would send to you, and the very first one I sent has resulted in your humiliation. Now you are running for cover, as I knew you would do.
Not only have I done this,
When did you do it? You made an unsupported assertion that there are several examples of this Hebrew expression having been used in reference to events that had happened "several years earlier," but you have not responded to my challenge for you to present some of these examples. In a word, Cudo, you are just another biblicist whose mouth is bigger than his brain.
but archeology has also done this.
I am challenging you again to prove this assertion. The truth is that archaeology has confirmed the historical accuracy of SOME information in the Bible, but it has also confirmed that much of the history in the Bible was fictionalized. If you would care to affirm that archaeology has proven the inerrancy of the Bible, you will find me ready to skin you alive on this issue too.
As I've said, there's not one so-called bible discrepancy that I don't have a correct and logical answer for.
Then why couldn't you give a "correct and logical answer" for the discrepancy identified in "Judah's Grandsons"? You issued a challenge to me, which I accepted, so let's see if you will accept one from me. I challenge you to show me "logical and correct answers" to other detailed discrepancies that I have ready to send to you. Tell me that if I take the time to send them, you will reply point by point to them.
For me, when I studied these things it increased my faith all the more.
Un, huh, I have heard that before, but it seems that those who make this claim are never able to resolve discrepancies they are shown. Why don't you tell us why being skinned alive as you were in the "Judah's Grandsons" issue could possibly increase your faith?
Also, as I told you, I wanted to debate you, but you insisted on pasting the replies on your board.
Why would that bother you? If you were half as great as you claimed in your messages to me, why wouldn't you want to demonstrate that and give me a good shellacking before a wider audience than just one? The membership of II_Errancy was 188 the last time I checked. Why wouldn't you want to humiliate me before an audience of this size? The answer to the question is simple. You know that you are lying about your qualifications, and you now know that you are out of your league, so you are trying to get out as gracefully as you can; however, I remind you of something that you said in your feeble attempt to explain the discrepancy in "Judah's Grandsons." You would think that once a man was beaten he would give up? I could do this for years with you! So if you could do this for years with me, why are you running away? Don't you want to have fun? I will have to say that I agree with your first sentence above. It explains why you are giving up. You realize that you have been beaten, so you don't want to suffer any additional humiliation. The shame is that you just won't admit that you have been beaten. Instead, you lie by continuing to pretend that you have scored a victory. Why is that Christians lie so much, Cudo? We have asked that many times on the Errancy list. Do you have an explanation for it?
The point is, you cannot come up with or show me one alleged discrepancy that there isn't a logical answer for.
I have already shown you one discrepancy that you don't have a "logical answer for." The fact that you are now running away is a testimony to your failure. I challenged you above to agree to reply to other detailed discrepancies that I send to you, but after reading again your comment above, I have decided that I will send you another one anyway to see if your courage is as big as your mouth. If you don't reply to it, we will know that you realize you have been thrashed to pieces.
Obviously, you still think the bible is fallible with all evidence showing otherwise.
You bet I think the Bible is fallible. In fact, I don't just think it; I know it. If there is so much evidence showing "otherwise," why can't you present that evidence?
Only people with no understanding of the Semitic language and very shallow minded individuals would even believe that there are discrepancies anyway.
Still lying about your credentials in Semitic languages, are you? I will repeat my challenge for you to prove that you have such credentials. I think you are a liar.
For no one can examine the evidence thoroughly and come to a conclusion as you have, but just the opposite.
Then why are you running away? Why don't you stay and give me a good, thorough humiliation before an audience of 188?
Now, because of this, I have no intentions to debate with you.
I remind you that you are the one who contacted me first, and your first message to me contained the following boast. I must say that you have exchanged the truth of God for a lie. I am a minister of the Lord's Church. It obvious that you did not study enough my friend. **There is nothing you could show me that is wrong in your eyes, that I would have a correct answer for.** Your ignorance is proved by your actions. After I wrote to you to suggest that we discuss biblical discrepancies on II_Errancy, you sent me this reply. How about you and I debate right here my friend. Start talking because I'm listening. Apologetics is my specialty my friend. Everyone has to meet their match sometime, in this case you have met yours now! Come on, I'm waiting. Throw something out, you'll get a correct answer my friend. Not, some good sounding ignorant answer as you've given for (ALLEGED) discreprencies my friend. This is a battle you cannot win. However, my ears and eyes are waiting. If you are unwilling to debate me one-on-one, I'll take it as you're scared! That was mighty big talk from a "minister of the Lord's church," but after I threw just one example of a discrepancy at you, you folded and are now running away. It seems that the fellow who boasted that he was a specialist in apologetics, who could explain any discrepancy, has turned out to be just a quivering mass of chickenshit.
It will only expose your ignorance more, which I'm all for.
Well, if you are all for exposing my ignorance, why don't you expose it? Why are you running away after having bragged about how good you are in apologetics?
However, I want you to see that denouncing the faith and coming to the conclusion that the bible is untrustworthy is false.
Hmm, are you saying that running away and refusing to continue a debate that you instigated will cause me to see that "denouncing the faith and coming to the conclusion that the bible is untrustworthy is false"? I have been writing on and debating biblical inerrancy for decades, so just how is your folding and running away going to make me see that my position on biblical errancy is false? Are you so stupid that you just can't see that your running away will have the opposite effect by increasing my confidence that biblical inerrancy is indefensible? Do you idiots ever stop to think how your chickenshit excuses for running away sound? I have said many times that biblical inerrantists are their own worst enemies, and you are a classic example of this. Do you really think that any of the 188 members of this forum are going to say, "Well, Greg Cudo said that he could explain any discrepancy in the Bible, and now he is refusing to continue debating the subject, so that must mean that he is right, and the Bible is inerrant"?
However, if you will not except [sic] logical answers then your condemnation is deserved Mr. Till!
Didn't you mean "ACCEPT logical answers," Mr. expert in Semitic languages? When can I expect to see your "logical answer" to the discrepancy identified in "Judah's Grandsons"?
There's still time to repent and I'm here to help you if you change your mind or are sincere about a so-called discrepancy or discrepancies that you need help with.
Well, I will tell you the best way you can help me. Over the years, I have identified and catalogued various examples of biblical discrepancies. If you can give me "logical answers" to these examples, I will return to believing in biblical inerrancy, but you certainly aren't going to help me if you run away. I would think that a moron could understand that, but all you are doing is trying to rationalize your departure from the debate. You are apparently too dumb to realize how stupid your excuses sound.
You can say I'm a chicken or a coward or whatever you what, I don't care!
Sure, you care. You would give anything if you could face off with me and give me a good shellacking. I know the mentality of "ministers of the Lord's church," because if I understand you correctly, I used to be one of these. What you don't care to see is any further humiliation, and so you are turning tail to run and hide. What a pathetic specialist in apologetics you turned out to be.
I know you'll never "beat" me if that's what you want to call it.
Well, I have obviously beaten you already, and you obviously know it. That is why you are running. You don't want to suffer any more humiliation than you already have. Perhaps you will think twice before your shoot off your mouth again about your expertise in apologetics.
Therefore, all I can say to you is that I hope you put away your ignorance before it's to late.
I hope the same for you, but I have little hope that you will rise above your ignorance.
If not, then like I said, your condemnation is deserved.
Do you remember my challenge to prove that there is any such place as hell, which you warned me about earlier? That challenge still stands. Of course, you are too chickenshit to attempt to do this. What a pathetic wimp you are! Farrell Till Skepticism, Inc.
If you have anything you would like to
submit to this site, or any comments,
email me at:
Email The Painful Truth
The content of this site, including but not limited to the text and images herein and their arrangement, are copyright © 1997-2003 by The Painful Truth. All rights reserved.
Do not duplicate, copy or redistribute in any form without prior written consent.