Personalities in the Bible
by Dan Seagren
Anon The Tower of Babel Nimrod Hunter or Emperor? Arpachshad A Name Only a Mother Could Love Lot Pragmatist or Opportunist? Lot's Daughters Bargaining Chips? Lot's Wife Inquisitive or Disobedient? Abraham A Friend of God Sarah Pulling Roots and Moving On Previous Personalities
For More Personalities
Index to All Personalities
Anon: The Tower of Babel Genesis 11:1-9
Remember good olí what'shisname? Since we donít know who was the architect or builder of the ill-fated Tower of Babel, weíll call him Anon. The descendants of Noah scattered widely, fought for territorial rights, developed dialects and often had little in common with each other.
God had often been kept alive in their thinking yet Godís image could be distorted easily and readily in sundry ways. It happens in the best of families (as well as the worst). As the tribes dispersed, multiplied and replenished the earth, they also did the opposite: they stayed close together. This was for various reasons including safety and commonalties such as ethnics, language, mores, customs, jobs, marriage, family and religion.
For centuries, yes, millennia, most people were not urbanities. Villages, small towns and rural living dominated the landscape with few exceptions. However, as we well know, the 20th century has changed all that with mega cities spreading their wings worldwide: New York, Los Angeles, Mexico City, Tokyo, Manila and many others.
Whether Genesis 11 is an editorial interlude or not we really do not know. Although the Bible more or less follows a chronological order, there are exceptions, The book of Job might well have been placed here as well, chronologically, but thatís beside the point. My high school friend, Ed Reese, has taken years to produce the Reese Chronological Bible and even Eddie no doubt had to make some arbitrary, difficult decisions.
Genesis 11 used that same expression said of the flood: "now the whole world had one language and a common speech." All right, letís not quibble over the difference between the whole geographical world or the known world or between language and common speech. Prose often enjoys this kind of repetitious emphasis not dissimilar to a distinguished former college president who often remarked that it was a great, tremendous day. What is striking is the fact that this particular episode indicates that some of these people saw the handwriting on the wall. They were being disbursed and could someday become anonymous. Nobodies.
Their solution was to them ingenious. "Let us build a city with a tower (ziggurat?) that will reach to the heavens." God, who read their minds, saw the absurdity of overcrowding and the even worse folly of trying to become an equal with God or even His replacement. To thwart this, God simply confused their language so they couldnít understand each other. Those who could understand each other drifted off together and the tower was left unfinished.
How long it took for Noahís descendants to drift from their moorings we cannot say any easier than how far the flood actually spread or how long it took for Noahís vineyard to produce a wine that was almost lethal.
Therefore we must thank Mr. Anonymous, whoever he was, for this intriguing interlude in the progress of humankind. God did intervene, personally, as He confronted Adam and Eve in the garden, as He banished Cain into the life of a fugitive, as He gave specific instructions to Noah and then stopped Mr. Anon in his tracks.
What can we learn from this? That God can and does intervene but does so sporadically with discretion. That living in a sheltered eden could become boring, even unfulfilling over time. That crowding too many into solitary confines does not adequately utilize the wide open spaces created for us (my wife and I recently visited five national parks and once again marveled at these gorgeous wide open spaces). That even the best of intentions like wine tasting can be ruinous. That crime does not pay (Cain). That pride precedes a fall. And That our heritage is rich and blessed are they who learn from the past.
return to top
Nimrod: Hunter or Emperor? Genesis 10:8,9
Why do people name their children such memorable, fascinating and meaningful names as well as those that are bizarre, uncommon, even weird? Nimrod is generally understood today to mean rebel which seems a strange, even mean-spirited name for a child. However, there seems to be evidence that his original Hamitic name was not Nimrod but Nimrod might have originated from another language such as Sumerian.
It happens. A child could be christened John Paul but go through life as Micky, a nickname that stuck. I remember a childhood playmate who was dubbed Humble by his peers because he was anything but humble. At any rate, Nimrod deserves a place in our treasury of personalities.
We probably know more about Nimrod from non-biblical sources but the Genesis account is both laudatory as well as critical. It appears that he was both a hunter and a warrior but he was more than that. He was apparently the founder of two great sovereignties with their well-known principal cities, Babylon and Nineveh. Both were applauded for their magnificence as well as their degeneracy. Indeed, Babylon became a synonym for debauchery and Nineveh is a household name thanks to Jonah.
A lesson for us to learn is that we rarely know the ultimate outcome of our lives. Nimrod probably had no idea how important Babylonia and Assyria would become. How much can be attributed to the warrior-founder we do not know. If Nimrod were in rebellion to God as some say, he certainly was a catalyst to the evil, violence and ruthlessness of those early city-states and their subsequent notoriety.
I have had friends who have become successful professionals who have carved out of their busy careers time to go hunting. Not occasionally but regularly, sometimes two or three times a year. Their wives remain at home while the boys go after pheasant or deer, or even other more exotic animals. Their schedule planned long in advance is considered sacred barring illness or calamity.
Why the allure? Probably because when they were quite young they tagged along with their father when he went hunting and learned the trade from him or a big brother. It unlikely was an acquired trait as a seasoned adult although that is possible. I have never been a hunter, probably because my father was not a hunter. There was never a gun in the house or a trophy mounted on the wall or specimens in the freezer or a target on the back fence...
Nimrod was probably the grandson of Ham, the son of Cush (at times a generation or more could be skipped in the reported lineage). We know that Cush was an ancient name given to a segment of Africa contingent to the Red Sea and Egypt and Cush was also the name of an ancient city as well as a adversary to King David.
Fortunately for us, we donít have many details on numerous personalities in the Bible otherwise our Scriptures would be many volumes rather than a manageable book.
Even so, we are rewarded with many pages of history and biography some of which is editorialized while much is in short supply. This often forces us to read into these personalities more than we ought (or less than we should). At best, it whets our appetite and we wish we had more information without the excess baggage. Yet we know we canít have one without the other.
Nimrod is one of those characters about whom we wish we knew more. Did he tire of hunting and turn to politics, establishing cities and states, running them with force and cunning like a hunter? Was he a rebel, a ringleader in the Babel fiasco who tried to play god with both men and beast or was he a masterful persuasionist who ruled effectively with finesse and charisma? Whatever, we dare not underestimate the power of a single individual, ancient or contemporary.
return to top
Arpachshad: A Name Only a Mother Could Love: Genesis 11:10
I donít know what Arpachshad (or Arphaxad) means much less how to pronounce it. Why then single it out? For most of us, ethnic names are often difficult to understand, pronounce and spell and that goes for all of us. I happen to be of Swedish descent but we didnít name either of our children Swedish names. Scott and Laurie were named primarily because we liked those names, and their spelling. Their middle names, however, had family meaning: Robert (from a grandfather) and Lee (after an uncle). But where my middle name, Robert, came from, I do not know.
There are many names most of us wouldnít choose for a child Iím sure: Shelah, Eber (I have a good friend with this name, however), Peleg, Reu, Nahor, Terah (from Shem); or Cush, Seba, Havilah, Sabtah, Raamah, Sabteca (from Ham); or Gomer (not of TV fame), Ashkenez, Riphath, Togarmah (from Japheth). Each name had a special meaning, at least to the parents, and each child was special as well. Enough said except to remind ourselves not to snicker at a name, or even worse, at the one who bears a name we find unusual.
Something was happening now that the flood was over and life was getting on. People were not living as long and were becoming parents earlier, generally speaking (Sarah and Abraham were exceptions along with a few others). Shem was one hundred when his firstborn arrived but son Arpachshad was only thirty-five when his son was born. His son was only thirty and his grandson was thirty-two when he became a father. Longevity was closing in on more modern standards. Before long, seventy was considered a substantial age with only so many who made it that far.
At the turn of our century, longevity was pegged at a ripe old forty-seven years of age. No doubt it had been locked in for many centuries, perhaps even millennia. At the end of the 20th century, human longevity had increased to the mid seventies, higher for women than men. This was a century when great inroads were made in conquering childhood diseases so more children lived into adulthood. Some of the killer diseases had also been arrested which pushed longevity considerably higher than it had been before. Health improvements, diet and hygiene also played a big role.
Interestingly, weíre told that a person who reached the age of seventy in the year 1900 had just about the same number of years remaining, on average, as a person who reached seventy in AD 2000. And just today I read in our newspaper (June 2000) that two-thirds of all persons who have ever reached the age of sixty-five are living today. If true, that certainly boggles the mind.
If it is true that Biblically speaking Moses was the first likely person able to record history (he had the education necessary to read and write), he either obtained his information directly from a divine source or from oral tradition (families that kept their lineage and basic facts in an ongoing memory bank). To believe that oral tradition is unlikely or implausible, there are peoples living today who can attest to the oral skills of their kin which defies the imagination.
Therefore, when the writer indicates that Shem was one hundred when he became a father and that his son was only thirty-five, we are getting incredible detail that normally would have been lost within a generation or two under normal circumstances. I still remember a cartoon of an irate man holding a young bat-wielding child as he pounds on the door of a neighbor. A man appears surrounded by a brood of children yells over his shoulder, "Do we have one named Eddie?"
Even though we are often inundated and mystified by names, places and happenings, there is a tendency to make every jot and tittle have significance as well as an inclination to disregard anything not easily explained. So, when Eber was thirty-four, he had a son named Peleg [but] he had more children and died at the age of four hundred sixty-four, Iím not sure why this is included except that it lends considerable weight to its authenticity. Eber, Peleg, Reu . . .then Abram.
return to top
Lot: Pragmatist or Opportunist? Genesis 13:5-11
Lot, Abramís nephew, joined Abram on his journey from Haran to Caanan (Palestine). Abram was obedient to Godís call and was promised both land and descendants even though he had no children and both he and his wife were beyond child-bearing years. No sooner than Lot and Abram with their livestock and servants reached Caanan, they were met with a deadly famine forcing them to journey on to Egypt where food was available.
If Abramís faith were wavering there is good reason for it. A promise is a promise and in good faith he left all the comforts of Ur for Haran (where his father died) and then into the unknown. Ur, lying between the Euphrates and Tigris Rivers, was a great and prosperous city, highly cultured with many modern amenities. To leave an advanced civilization behind for the life of a nomad would be unthinkable for many. Why Lot went along is uncertain.
What is quite clear is that God wanted Abram removed from the idolatrous environment of Chaldea, promising him a blessing that defied imagination (everyone on earth will be blessed because of you).
After some misadventures in Egypt, Abram and Lot returned to Caanan. Abram was very wealthy in cattle, silver and gold. Lot also had his cattle, sheep and goats and before long there was enmity between Abramís and Lotís herdsmen. There wasnít enough pasture for both which caused Abram to suggest that they split up, giving Lot his choice of the land. Lot chose the very fertile Jordan Valley where he set up his tents close to the infamous city of Sodom. Lot literally jumped from the frying pan into the fire, forsaking one godless place in the Chaldees for another dubious dwelling place.
Whether Lotís greed consumed him or the intrigues of Sodom lured him we do not know. It didnít take long before the warring tribes fought with the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah who fled for their lives. Their cities were plundered along with Lot, his family and his possessions. When word of this reached Abram, he set off with his servants who doubled as warriors, won a great victory and set Lot and everyone else who had been captured free.
Apparently Lot hadnít learned his lesson. Instead of living in tents near Sodom, he moved into the city where he lived as a normal citizen in this den of iniquity along with his daughters and their beloved. Word traveled about the evil of those cities causing the Lord to investigate. It was at this time that Abram pleaded for his nephew, indirectly and the city of Sodom, directly. Abram said to the Lord, "You wouldnít destroy the city if there were fifty righteous people in it, would You?"
Abram then plead even more earnestly as he lowered his sights: forty-five, forty, thirty, twenty and his last bargaining chip, ten righteous people. God said He would spare the city for ten righteous residents and Abram begged no more. Sodom had undoubtedly reached the wickedness intolerance level and the city was destroyed with its inhabitants.
Lot was still reluctant to leave and left only after the angels took them by the hand and led them out of the city. Some people seemingly are slow learners, or reluctant. Lot failed to realize how sinful this environment was, that his daughters were caught up with local men who probably were no different than the others, that his wife would disregard the admonition not to look back does does say something about how evil can slowly seep into our lives.
Lot is an interesting character, not a whole lot unlike others who have riches to spare, who do not hesitate to take care of themselves, who are willing to follow a leader, who must be dramatically rescued and who still donít seem to get the message. We should pity Lot and those like him everywhere.
return to top
Lotís Daughters: Bargaining Chips?
When my daughter Laurie discovered that I was going to pen a series on Personalities in the Bible, she gave me a book she had heard about: The Harlot by the Side of the Road: Forbidden Tales of the Bible, by Jonathan Kirsch, a lawyer and book critic for the Los Angeles Times. Kirsch, a longtime Bible student became interested in this topic while reading the Genesis account to his already media-wise son at five. If Kirsch would lower his voice or pause too long, his son would sit up in bed and demand, indignantly: "What are you leaving out?"
Although neither Laurie or I would agree with everything in the book, Kirsch has done us a favor by bringing to the fore tales that have been shrugged off, forbidden, amended or explained away. The Old Testament in particular is amazingly candid, even blunt in its illuminating sketches and is no respecter of persons whether it is King David or Lot, Abraham or Dinah.
Lot was caught between a rock and a hard place. Two male strangers arrived at the gates of Sodom. Hospitality for the descendants of Noah and Abraham was never to be taken lightly. Lot, who was sitting at the gateway as men folk were prone to do, insisted that the two men go to his home with him. Reluctantly they followed him home. Later, the men and boys who had seen these strangers enter Lotís house raised a ruckus outside his home demanding that Lot release these visitors so they could engage in sex with them.
This is homosexuality in its most blatant exhibition. There is considerable discourse today about homosexuality, both sense and nonsense, but nothing I know of approaches this scene in ancient Sodom. Personally, I doubt Sodom was destroyed simply because its men were homosexual; it was destroyed because its inhabitants were grossly wicked. It is true that sexual relations outside of marriage (fornication and adultery), sodomy (sex with animals) and same-sex sex is prohibited in the Bible but often explained away in ever-widening circles.
Lot tried to reason with the mob to no avail. Finally, he said they could have his two daughters who had never been married. You can take them and do anything you want with them but donít harm these men. They are guests in my home. When the men forced their way past Lot to take the visitors by force, the strangers (actually, angels) pulled Lot inside, then struck the crowd blind saying, "The Lord has heard terrible things about Sodom and has sent us here to destroy the city" (Genesis 19:12).
Real questions arise here. Did Lot actually value his guests above his daughters? It certainly sounds that way. Did Lot realize prior to that moment that these strangers were in fact angels? Was he entertaining angels unaware? Was he scared out of his wits, momentarily mad? What were his daughters thinking? Could they believe their own father would toss them to the wolves? Was their mother in the bedroom on her knees praying or hiding under the bed?
Simply because this episode is included in the Bible means there is something important here. For us, at this moment, it is to think soberly about our own behavior in both desperate and normal situations. Do we entertain angels unaware? Do we value highly our unmarried daughters? Are we concerned with the character of men our daughters are engaged to marry? (remember, there were fewer than ten righteous people in Sodom). Do we continue to surround ourselves with a Sodom-like ambience letting its depravity seep in? Do we rationalize our behavior by pleading moments of temporary insanity or a short-lived carnality?
Lot presumably had a lot going for him but much was forfeited by his behavior. His choice to settle near Sodom, eventually moving in, and then dragged away screaming and kicking in spite of the dire consequences of lingering shows what a grip society can get on a person, yea, even on his whole family.
return to top
Lotís Wife: Inquisitive or Disobedient?
Genesis 19: 12-36
Many wives are known as their husbandís spouse and fewer husbands are known because of a prominent wife. Yet each of us craves an identity of our own not dependent upon the fame (or shame) of a spouse. Lotís wife is not known by name but she sure has gone down in history as the one who looked back and turned into a pillar of salt. What a way to achieve fame.
In her defense, she probably had fallen in love with Sodom, her home and her daughters. She may have been pleased that they were both engaged to local lads but may have fostered doubts about their character. She would have had good reason to do so, particularly if they were locals. However, they may have been the offspring of some of Lotís servants or hired hands which might also give Mrs. Lot some concern.
We do know that Lot was told to round up his entire family so they could join him in the exodus. The prospective sons-in-law laughed (scoffed?) and refused to join the pilgrimage. Lotís wife was dragging her heels and didnít make a move until the visitors literally dragged them out of Sodom and set them on the escape route admonishing them to move straight ahead and not to look back.
Why she looked back is mere speculation on our part. No doubt she heard and even felt the disaster that was occurring, probably even seeing flashes of lightning and smelled the pungent odor of the frightening devastation by fire and brimstone. Did she attempt to turn back only to be pushed ahead by her terrified husband or the celestial guides sent to escort them to safety? Or, did she simply peek over her shoulder? Did she defiantly ignore the pleas of her daughters, the stern rebuke of her husband and the intense cautioning of strangers? Maybe.
The result was frightening. As she stopped to look back, she might have been blinded by the intense sight, absorbing some death rays of the falling brimstone which slowly suffocated her. The winds of the desert then mercifully mummified her body with billowing salt. Who knows how it happened, or really, why. Divine justice does not always move this quickly.
Lot and his daughters trudged on not daring to look back until they were safe. Safe? Well, they escaped the destruction of Sodom, yes, but they paid dearly for their safety. At best it was an exodus from Sin City but probably not a complete break. We often count on trauma to radically change our attitudes and behavior when often it does neither.
How long Lot and his daughters were vagabonds is unknown. Lot didnít feel safe in the village where they sought refuge and moved on into a cave in the hill country. There, away from harmís way, they survived. One day his older daughter talked to her sister reminding her that their father was getting old, and there were no available men around for them to perpetuate the family line. Their plan was not only desperate but dubious. They would get their father drunk and then sleep with him. Both daughters in turn did so and became pregnant, preserving the lineage of their father through two sons, Moab (may mean from my father) and Benammi (son of my relative). Each founded a nation: the Moabites and Ammonites who ironically were often at odds with other descendants of Abram, particularly the tribes of Judah and Israel.
Now we must speculate again. What if Lotís wife, their mother, had not looked back? Would this have happened? Would she have mothered an alternative plan? Would she suggest they return to Abram to find husbands for their daughters? Lotís wife, pathetic figure that she became, might have saved the day. Who really knows? It does suggest that there can be a real void created in the absence of a mother. Single parenthood as this episode reveals is not a modern innovation. How Lot managed as an ersatz father weíll never know or if he ever did play that role. When the Bible gets candid, and at times it is exceedingly blunt, we may not be able to unravel all the nuances but we can learn invaluable lessons that otherwise might be overlooked.return to topAbraham: A Friend of God Genesis 20; James 1:23
According to some scholars, everything before Abraham is pre-history. In other words, they cannot be certain that anyone mentioned before Abraham actually lived, attributing this to folklore, legend, myth, hearsay, questionable oral tradition, etc. There may be good reasons for thinking this way but personally, I like to think of Adam and Eve, Cain and Able, Noah, Nimrod and Peleg as living personalities. Even so, letís not belabor the point. As we have already seen, these "pre-historical" personalities are so vivid, so credible we must learn from them even though we donít have all the facts, or even all the facts verified.
Abram (high or exalted father) was given a new name (Genesis 17). Abraham (father of a multitude) was assigned as God promised that he would become a father of nations and a multitude of people, literally innumerable, as the sands of the sea. Pages could be devoted to Abraham but due to our self-imposed limitation (a single page), we can only highlight events in his life which lead to Jamesí declaration that Abraham was a Friend of God (James 2:23).
In a sense, all believers are friends of God, some closer than others. Yet, Abraham was singled out specially as a Friend of God, an entitlement apparently reserved for a few designated individuals. There are various levels of relationships ranging from an obedient servant (as seen in a soldierís loyalty), a disciple (one who learns), an apostle (one who goes forth) to friend (someone who occupies a very special place in the heart of God).
There is no doubt that Abraham has gone down in favorably in history, from simple Sunday School lessons for children to critical assessments for scholars. Abraham was a man of great faith and obedience. He exercised patience when in his aging years God promised him a son. He was unusually magnanimous toward his nephew Lot who was taken in by Abrahamís father when his brother, Lotís father, died. When Abrahamís father died, Abraham assumed responsibility for Lot, inviting him to join him on his pilgrimage. He took pity on him more than once rescuing him from ignominy and kept a discreet distance between the two and their families and servants.
On the other hand, Abrahamís life was cluttered with imprudence. He seemed to trudge off to offer his son Isaac without a fight as God tested not only his faith, he underscored the savagery of human sacrifice. We donít fault Abraham although we may cringe at his naiveté or (blind obedience?). Abraham on at least two occasions misrepresented his wife as his sister in order to save his skin. Still, with his wealth and militant power (his well-trained servant-fighters defeated the kings who had taken Lot captive), this lack of confidence does seem rather wimpish.
Abraham also mistreated his paternal son, by banishing his mother and Ishmael to the fierce desolation of the desert. Both he and his wife laughed (incredulous or ludicrous?) when God told them they would have a son, that Abraham would be the father of many nations. In pleading for Lotís sake and the people of Sodom, Abraham finally quit bargaining when it became impertinent, more heedless than compassionate.
Sarah died and Abraham remarried in his old age yet had six more sons with Keturah. Before he died, he gave gifts to his six sons and sent them to live in the east far removed from his son Isaac. He also gave gifts to the sons of Ishmael but when he died he bequeathed everything to Isaac. We probably canít fault him for this but there does seem to be some inequity, or favoritism, even though Isaac was the heir apparent.
All this shows that God forgives, doesnít hold grudges, and uses humans who are less than perfect to do His will and to be His friends. Abraham goes down in history as a great man, blemishes and all, which ought to be an encouragement to the rest of us. God honors faith and obedience, yes, but also discerns doubt and fear, stiff-neckedness and incompetency, yet loves us anyway.
return to top
Sarah: Pulling Roots and Moving On Gen. 11:31, 12:5
When Barbara and I were married, we jokingly made a pact: Where he leads me I will follow/What she feeds me I will swallow.
As we make our pilgrimage through life (41 years and still going strong), this poetic stanza has been more truth than fiction. We have meandered throughout our wedded life to ministries in Los Angeles, Chicago, Minneapolis, Berkeley, Stockholm (Sweden), Muskegon (Michigan), Mexico City and Santa Barbara (California). Upon retirement (both of us), we made Phoenix our home. Many, if not most, of these moves have been soul-searching and at times heart-wrenching.
After settling in, making new friends, establishing a home, watching the children adjust, it often becomes difficult to leave. This cycle can be repeated over and over again with varying results. Saying goodbye, pulling roots, journeying into the unknown is both traumatic and adventuresome.
Sarah must had had many of these same feelings. The biblical accounts depict her as the submissive wife of Abraham with only occasional glimpses of her personally. Apparently she went along with Abraham from the magnificent Ur to Haran where they settled for awhile. Then they moved on to Caanan with their nephew, Lot, accompanying them. Famine caused them to continue on to Egypt where Abraham, who feared that he might be expendable if someone in authority wanted his beautiful wife, caused him to call Sarah his sister.
This probably wasnít a total fabrication in that she was the daughter of Abrahamís father but not the daughter of Abrahamís mother. That would make her his half-sister. Some feel that Sarah was actually the daughter of Abrahamís brother who died before his father who may have adopted her. If so, then Sarah was Abrahamís niece. This reminds us of that popular song of yesterday, Iím My Own Grandpa.
Whatever, she was Abrahamís wife but without a child and lived for years after giving birth was a possibility. She lived before modern times when childbearing has been extended (although I had a parishioner over fifty years ago who at the age of forty-eight gave birth to a daughter).
Abrahamís premonition was correct as Pharaoh did take Sarah away to add to his harem. However, Abrahamís God plagued the ruler so much that he returned her untouched. This happened again but God intervened in a dream and King Abimelech restored her to her husband. What went through Sarahís heart and soul we can only guess. Undoubtedly she would have yearned for the luxuries of Ur rather than endure the trauma of her new land.
When Sarah could not give her husband a child, she prevailed upon her handmaiden, Hagar, to become a surrogate mother which she did and Ishmael was born. Then Sarah, well advanced in years, amazingly gave birth to Isaac but this did not bode well for the two women and their sons so Sarah banished the mother and her son into the unforgiving desert.
Giving birth can be one of the most exhilarating experiences or it can be an awkward, regrettable moment in the lives of those involved. Sarahís joy in the miraculous birth promised earlier but severely doubted by both parents should have it seems been enough to assuage any rivalry or jealousy between Ishmael and Isaac or between Hagar and Sarah.
Marriage is seldom easy and compromises, adjustments and dialogs, even trialogs (if we may coin that word) are necessary. Sarah was submissive, dutiful, resourceful and could be abrasive and disrespectful (she laughed when she overheard the promise of motherhood). Modern marriages may at times be complex but Sarah would say that life has always been complicated. 7/2000
return to top
For More Personalities