Beleivers NEVER think things through because they are convinced they cannot be wrong.

Lets examine your facile excuse. You say errors are to be expected in the form of additions and omissions and mis-statements and "clarifications" by people who would have no idea what they were clarifying. YET you insist without substantiation that the "core details" were not additions or mis-statements and the really core statements were not omitted and their meanings did not change though clarification.

How did you test this hypothesis?

Please provide the details of your testing methodology and the results.

Cutting to the chase you have never tested what you said and there is no way to test what you said. So why did you bother saying it? Who told you this and why did you believe them? Why did you want to believe whoever told you this?

However you invoke the primitive superstition of gods communicating in dreams and visions. Why did you do that? Do you not have a modern education? Do you not know charlatans are always having dreams and visions? That ALL the ancient gods did the same? Again there is no way to test the rather insane claim that these dreams and visions were intrinsically different from other dreams and visions.

Again I ask why you invoke patent nonsense which you clearly have not thought through in a discussion where you puport to be participating in a rational discussion?

 

caposkia wrote:

no, a number discrepancy does not discredit an occurrence.  There are many natural disasters and/or tramatic events that have cost many lives including the holllocaust and earthquakes where the number mentioned is general and is not known for sure.  Does this mean that those events never actually happened?  Of course not.  The story as told still happened whether it was 300, 3000, or 3,000,000.  In Exodus to be honest, who cares how many it was?  If it happened, it happened

Of course the numbers matter as Joshua's genocidal hordes require the millions. No millions then no Joshua, no conquest, nothing. Joshua and all the subsequest stories fall apart for lack of numbers.

As to the numbers if they are not as stated then the bible contains lies. If one claims exaggeration then there is no limit to exaggeration sucih as Moses claiming the gods told him to do it. Such as the existence of Moses. Such as the creation of the Torah, Passover and the rest as exaggeration. Once you introduce lies even by calling them exaggerations there is no way to put that genie back in the bottle. All is open to question with NO WAY to distinguish between them. If you wish to preserve Joshua and all that follows then you must preserve the three million.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

The existence of Nebuchadnezzar can be and has been constructed from archaeology. So also was the entire history of ancient Egypt and of course found totally contradictory to the bible descriptions of it.

except for everything that has been presented to me from atheists so far.[//quote]

Are you unaware of extensive inscriptions and tablets regarding Nebuxx on ruins matching the inscriptions? Are you unaware of no incriptions or tablets mentioning Solomon?

Quote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

There has been so much digging in bibleland that percentagewise it is the most dug place in all the world. Digging by real and biblical archaeologists, looters, road builders, construction workers that there is no place left to dig where something "revolutionary" might be found.

except for the locations discussed during the Joshua segment

Perhaps you are aware of papers in archaeological journals I have missed. I have only come across such things in biblical arkie magazines such as BAR which cannot be published in real journals. Could you list of few of these papers?

Quote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

That said there is no way to take that archaeology and do, as has been done for Egypt, reconstruct a history of the region which is closer than a light year to the bible stories. The archaeology does in fact show there was no literate culture there until after the arrival of the Greeks and then nearly a century after. There was no one who could have written and preserved the bible stories. There was no literate culture to have produced them until essentially the 2nd c. BC.

which is why any story that took place before has clear indications that it was written at a later time.

That would cover all of them.

Quote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

In the 2nd c. BC there is no reason to assume using an old name from Babylon in creating an entertaining story of historical fiction would not be used. It is interesting that you would choose that name as Daniel is one of the books than can be definitely dated to the mid 2nd c. BC as when it was created. Obviously that name was written into the fanciful tale of "captivity" in Babylon.

There's no reason to assume anything else either then.  People just did not exist... except for the writers at the time who had nothing better to do than to write fiction for entertainment.  

Too many people have the wrong view of history, focusing on what little there is instead of how much has been lost. Looking at our history is like looking into a bottomless, dark hole in the ground with a few small, narrow clefts and natural bridges extending across the chasm in weird and abrupt formations that often end in mid-air. This is what survived of history. The hole itself is all that has been lost. To assume the few surviving historical records are absolutely accurate is foolish. In my own lifetime I've seen revisionist history at work plenty of times. It is unlikely to be a new practice. Only historical records that have corresponding claims in other historical records can truly be granted a modicum of reality. The more corresponding records there are, the more likely the records are true. No corresponding claims mean the record can be dismissed. Maybe it's true, but more probably not.

The key details Buffy TVS, Angel, Star Trek, Babylon 5, Star Wars, Supernatural and a host of other fictional tales are the same. Also the entire body of jewish biblical stories going back around a thousand years in bible style do the same thing. Similarly the core details of the Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Inidan and Chinese gods are repeated. I fail to see how that has anything to do with establishing authenticity. Perhaps you could explain.

The question was HOW did you test it.

We know nothing about the people who read the stories as they left no records of substance. The religion of the people is not the religion of the priests. From the records about the priests there were at least three factions in the 1st c. AD differing in very fundamental issues such as the existence of an afterlife. As to the NT it is clearly a record of an imminent return of Jesus. Obviously they got that wrong. It is the height of foolishness to think the only sources were so wrong on such a fundamental issue should be considered correct on anything else. But in any event their core belief was wrong albeit consistent.

In light of the above please provide the details of your testing methodology.

I have simply been reading your claims and you have never referred to any tests you conducted to verify the things you say are indeed facts. Just in case I asked you but rather than play the game I jumped to the obvious. As you have never tested any of your beliefs you stating them here is no more worth the effort than writing them down and then burning them. Why do you bother? You might as well say you believe in a million gods as both are nothing but your personal beliefs.

A consistency between people shows only the same cultural exposure. The people cannot be independent witnesses. What we know is true today is that people who claim dreams and visions are charlatans. That charlatans copy what has worked is hardly surprising. If you believe they are different that is amusing but of no interest beyond what it reveals about you. That you have not tested the validity of any of them shows nothing more than you will believe without verification. That is neither a mature nor rational trait.

Who or what ever this PJTS is has no intellgence to insult if it believes without verification.

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Cap,

I'm still waiting on your comments to 1 Kings 15 & 2 Chronicles 13-16

I'm working on the next chapters up to Ahab. Will post it soon  after your comments on post 790.

 

sorry.  Life got busy... dont' know how I missed it, but I'll reply on it now.  

As far as the links you've provided and the details you've described, I really don't have much to say on the topic.  You've covered it well.  I can see your take that the dating issues make you doubt as well as the people number.  Doesn't 1,000,000 sound like an awfully round number to be accurate?  So far, this consistent with issues we've discussed in the past.  Of course it wouldn't be a million, but the idea is the army was large.  

As far as the dating, even your article link doesn't completely discredit the story despite the 200 year difference:

"This negates the identification of the Great Wall as the fortification erected at Mizpah by King Asa, who ruled from

911-870 BCE, that is, in the early Iron IIA"

offering the possibility of it happening later.  The basic gist, exact dating of scripture is unlikely.  I said that from the start.  That is not unusual for a writing of that time.  No part of the article completely discredits the account from actually happening in history.  In fact, it justifies that if dating were adjusted accordingly, it was absolutely possible.  The dating we discover today most likely is more accurate than an ancient writer from thousands of years ago would have been able to conclude simply by word of mouth as most history was portrayed at the time.

Finkelstein did a painstaking detailed explanation of why this was not Asa and could not have been, thus discrediting the account in 1 Kings. On pp 26-27 he details that the stories were likely corrupted by the time it was written and gives sufficient evidence that it was more likely to have been Jehoash not Asa. That this is not what was told in the story once more shows the erroneous content was prevalent in the writing and that it was not trustworthy or accurate in the regard to events. That is the whole point here, that the writers used oral storytales and morphed them to fit into their current views in order to promote the"past glorious days" which never were.

So, all in all the 1 Kings account is not correct nor trustworthy.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Finkelstein did a painstaking detailed explanation of why this was not Asa and could not have been, thus discrediting the account in 1 Kings. On pp 26-27 he details that the stories were likely corrupted by the time it was written and gives sufficient evidence that it was more likely to have been Jehoash not Asa. That this is not what was told in the story once more shows the erroneous content was prevalent in the writing and that it was not trustworthy or accurate in the regard to events. That is the whole point here, that the writers used oral storytales and morphed them to fit into their current views in order to promote the"past glorious days" which never were.

So, all in all the 1 Kings account is not correct nor trustworthy.

I'm curious then.  Who does Finkelstein say were the Judean kings from 1000 B.C. going forward?  or were there none?

In discussions with Caposkia on his thread regarding his recommended book (New Atheist Crusaders) we have mutually agreed to open a discussion on the OT discussing reality versus myth for stories in the OT. My position is that the OT is largely myths and legends with little basis in reality. There may be stories that may be considered literature as Rook has suggested though it still incorporates myths and legends as well in my opinion. The intent is to examine major stories and discuss the mythical components versus the interpretations by Christians and Jews that these events were real. Caposkia has indicated in many of his posts that he agrees that some of the stories are reality based and in those areas I'm interested in understanding his reasoning or any other believer for acceptance versus others where he does not consider them to be. It may be there are a few where we may find agreement as to a story being a myth or it being real though my inclination is little more is reality based other than kingdoms existed in Palestine that were called Israel and Judah and they interacted with other nations in some fashion.

Since the basis of Christian beliefs started with creation and the fall of man we'll begin there and attempt to progress through Genesis in some sort of logical order sort of like Sunday School for those of you that went. I’m not particularly concerned about each little bit of belief in these stories but I’m more interested in the mythology aspects. We could for pages argue over original sin or free will but that isn’t even necessary in my opinion as the text discredits itself with blatant assertions and impossibilities. Instead consider for example Eve is created in one version from Adam’s rib which can be directly compared to the Sumerian goddess of the rib called Nin-ti which Ninhursag gave birth to heal the god Enki. Other comparisons can be made to the Sumerian paradise called Dilmun to the Garden of Eden as well. These stories predate the OT by thousands of years and tell the tale of the ancient Annuna gods that supposedly created the world. Visit www-etcsl.orient.ox.ac.uk/# for more information and some of the translated stories, click on corpus content by number or category.

In order for salvation through Christ from our supposed sins against the God the events of Genesis must have occurred in some fashion. If the Genesis stories are largely mythical or they are simply a parable then this basis is poorly founded and weakens the entire structure of Christian belief. Caposkia claims I error at square one because I don't acknowledge a spiritual world. I suggest that he and other followers error by accepting that which there is no detectable basis. This is done by interpreting parables and myths by the ancients to be more than inadequate understanding by unknowing people that looked for an answer to why things were in the world they observed.

In Genesis 1 is the supposed creation of the world by God. In this account illogical explanations start immediately with the description of the Earth being without form and darkness was upon it. Light is then created and explained as day and night. Next God molded his creation into better detail by creating Heaven above meaning the sky and waters on the earth. He then caused dry land to appear calling it the Earth and the waters the Seas. On this same day he created vegetation with the requirement that it bring forth after its kind by duplication through seeds. The following day he created the heavenly bodies to divide day from night and to be signs for seasons and for years. He made the great light to rule the day and the lesser light the night as well as all the stars. On the 5th day he created all the life in the seas and air with the requirement they reproduce after their own kind. The 6th day he created all the land animals including man both male and female. The gods in this case made man after their image as male and female in their own likeness. He commanded them to multiply and replenish the earth.

Problems start with this account immediately. The Earth according to science is leftover material from the forming of our star, the Sun. This material would have been a glowing mass of molten material. The land in any event would emerge first before water could exist as a liquid upon it due to the extreme heat.  Light would already exist in the form of the Sun which according to current science is not as old as other stars in our galaxy not to mention in the Universe. The account mentions that day and night were made but this is not so except for a local event on the planet. An object not on the Earth would have no such condition or a different form of night and day. The account further errors in claiming the Sun, Moon, and stars were all formed following the creation of the Earth. In theories of planet formulation the star is formed first and planets afterwords. In the case of the moon multiple theories occur though not one where it zapped into the Universe suddenly. The statement that the heavenly bodies were created for signs and seasons is more evidence of a legend. The other planets and stars are purposeful in ways that aid in life existing or continuing to do so on Earth. Jupiter for example is a great big vacuum cleaner sucking into its gravitational field all sorts of debris that could eradicate life on Earth. Is this then a design by the god or just part of the situation that helped to allow life to progress as it did on the Earth? The observation of specific planets or stars in specific areas of the sky is just that, an observation no more and not placed there by a god to indicate the change of seasons.

One can also see some similarity between Genesis 1 and the Egyptian creation myth Ra and the serpent, see http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Resources/StudTxts/raSerpnt.html . In this myth Ra is the first on the scene and he creates all the creatures himself doing so before he made the wind or the rain. Ra does not create man but the gods he created gave birth to the people of Egypt who multiplied and flourished.

Some Jewish sects as well as Catholic belief allow for evolution to have been the method for creation of life on Earth. This however is in contradiction to Genesis in that all vegetation and animals were to reproduce only after their own kind. If this is so, then evolution is not compatible with the creation story. Simply put the life could not alter and produce different versions not after its kind. Since obvious examples exist for variation in species such as evolution even as simple as fish in caves without eyes or color versus those that are in streams outside there is obvious adaption thus discrediting this part of Genesis as myth.

The creation of man in Genesis 1 also suggests multiple gods as man was created in their likeness male and female thus following Canaanite gods such as Yahweh and his Asherah or Ba'al and Athirat that may be a reflection of an older tradition from either Egypt or Sumer. Genesis 2 on the other hand has a slightly different version from a variant I'll discuss in a later post.

I consider Genesis 1 to be a myth, legend or a parable based on all the problems discussed with basis in ancient stories from Sumer and Egypt. I leave it to Caposkia and other believers to indicate where they accept parts of Genesis 1 as reality and to indicate their reasoning if they do so.

Old Seer wrote:

There's two interpretations of the book-which do you want to use. All this was covered in all my posts.

You have dropped by with 1 liners before, such as post #768

Old Seer wrote:

In the general conversations thread. OS

You assume I bothered to read your posts, you also assume I found anything useful in them.

Your strange discussion in Old Seer's Corner was nothing of interest to me, so I did not bother with comments in it.

What is it you want to discuss?

I'm not of the mind to go back to the beginning of this thread and start over and discuss Genesis again from go.

If you have something useful to add do so, one liners don't gain my attention much.

The question is which book do you mean? If it is the OT you mean, there are many interpretations of it, not just 2. And there are many books in it, some may be intermixed with some myth, history, and storytelling. Not one single interpretation approach covers it all.

A few of them are:

1-Literal - fundalmentalist approach - historical

2-Figurative - analogy - parables

3-Storytelling - fictional

4-Mythological - legendary

There were people who lived in the area we call Palestine. There were cities. There were kings. They were invaded. They were dominated. Others don't support the storytelling as given in the OT. Neither does archealogy.

Given that, I could just say the book is myth and storytelling in general and be done. I have instead been open to discussing the events given book by book. If you wish to join that discussion do so.

Old Seer wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

There's two interpretations of the book-which do you want to use. All this was covered in all my posts.

You have dropped by with 1 liners before, such as post #768

Old Seer wrote:

In the general conversations thread. OS

You assume I bothered to read your posts, you also assume I found anything useful in them.

Your strange discussion in Old Seer's Corner was nothing of interest to me, so I did not bother with comments in it.

What is it you want to discuss?

I'm not of the mind to go back to the beginning of this thread and start over and discuss Genesis again from go.

If you have something useful to add do so, one liners don't gain my attention much.

The question is which book do you mean? If it is the OT you mean, there are many interpretations of it, not just 2. And there are many books in it, some may be intermixed with some myth, history, and storytelling. Not one single interpretation approach covers it all.

A few of them are:

1-Literal - fundalmentalist approach - historical

2-Figurative - analogy - parables

3-Storytelling - fictional

4-Mythological - legendary

There were people who lived in the area we call Palestine. There were cities. There were kings. They were invaded. They were dominated. Others don't support the storytelling as given in the OT. Neither does archealogy.

Given that, I could just say the book is myth and storytelling in general and be done. I have instead been open to discussing the events given book by book. If you wish to join that discussion do so.

You have your opinions. How many times are you guys going to go over this kind of thing on the bible. If you haven't settled it by now you're never going to. What's it been so far ---100 years. It's another exercise in futility which Atheist claim that anyone Else's input is an excesses in futility. So---carry on, I'll watch from a distance and see another no gainer and contemplate how you call each other stupid. But that's not my opinion. So, all you want is to listen to each other and condemn any other input and come out the other end without a result, only 2 months from now someone will start it all over again. The OT is nothing more then Hebrew history. They are entitles to their own are they not. Just because it's not sanctioned by a government does mean it's not valid. Why not ask the Israelis--it's their book.

Agreed. It is utterly futile to argue facts with someone who proudly claims they have faith in magic.

 

You have your opinions.

How many times are you guys going to go over this kind of thing on the bible. If you haven't settled it by now you're never going to.

What's it been so far ---100 years.

It's another exercise in futility which Atheist claim that anyone Else's input is an excesses in futility.

So---carry on, I'll watch from a distance and see another no gainer and contemplate how you call each other stupid.

But that's not my opinion. So, all you want is to listen to each other and condemn any other input and come out the other end without a result, only 2 months from now someone will start it all over again.

The OT is nothing more then Hebrew history.

They are entitles to their own are they not. Just because it's not sanctioned by a government does mean it's not valid. Why not ask the Israelis--it's their book.

offering the possibility of it happening later.  The basic gist, exact dating of scripture is unlikely.  I said that from the start.  That is not unusual for a writing of that time.  No part of the article completely discredits the account from actually happening in history.  In fact, it justifies that if dating were adjusted accordingly, it was absolutely possible.  The dating we discover today most likely is more accurate than an ancient writer from thousands of years ago would have been able to conclude simply by word of mouth as most history was portrayed at the time.

I'm curious then.  Who does Finkelstein say were the Judean kings from 1000 B.C. going forward?  or were there none?

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

You have your opinions.

Yep.

I like PCs not Apple. I like Rock, Heavy metal, alternative, Pop etc but despise Country. I like GM cars not Ford.

Old Seer wrote:

How many times are you guys going to go over this kind of thing on the bible. If you haven't settled it by now you're never going to.

As many times as it takes. If y'all haven't got the message out by now, why does your side still go door to door preaching about the Jesus. I'll stop when your side stops.

Old Seer wrote:

What's it been so far ---100 years.

I'm not that old.

Old Seer wrote:

It's another exercise in futility which Atheist claim that anyone Else's input is an excesses in futility.

Not always. I don't buy the god thing as promoted and taught by Christians and Muslims. Jews are another story. I'm more than willing to discuss the only physical evidence available, aka The Bible, which is what this is about. The thread drifts into dogma on occassion, but one expects that with believers. Arguing the faith thing is not the point of this thread.

Why is Enki not a possibility for the one true god? The writing about him is several thousand years older than the Abe god, and we have many originals for the Annuaki gods as well. Why your version of a god?

Old Seer wrote:

So---carry on, I'll watch from a distance and see another no gainer and contemplate how you call each other stupid.

Cap and I have more respect for each other than that. No name calling has gone on between us - read the thread.

Old Seer wrote:

But that's not my opinion. So, all you want is to listen to each other and condemn any other input and come out the other end without a result, only 2 months from now someone will start it all over again.

Ask Cap how useful my background, research and study has been for him. This thread has been active for over 3 years, it will probably continue for 3 more. We are discussing things on a mutually respectful level. Converting the other is not the point.

As to input from you, all you gave were 1 liners in this thread, no more.

Old Seer wrote:

The OT is nothing more then Hebrew history.

Nice assertion, can you prove it's all history.

Old Seer wrote:

They are entitles to their own are they not. Just because it's not sanctioned by a government does mean it's not valid. Why not ask the Israelis--it's their book.

The Israeli's are not all Jews for one, for two they are split up in understanding just like the 100s of Christian denominations on their interpretations, understanding and acceptance.

I'm aware the Hebrew Bible came from the area between Egypt and Syria - possibly only Alexandria - ask A_nony_Mouse about Made in Alexanderia in one of his threads  - he says the Greek is the original created in the 2nd century BCE - see his threads if you want to play with him.

I'm merely trying to be helpful. It's what the document says that is important, not who, or validity or anything as such. What does it mean, is what is important.  I'm merely trying to put things on the track that we did if it's useful. It's not archeology or history that makes the book important. We didn't care about all the wheres and whyfors and whodids. My beginning post was stated as intent to help---but that is so---from what and who's perspective of things needs to be used to progress to a result.  The same as =--which beaker or test tube shall we use to do the experiment in. Prerequisites must be decided. But, I apologize if I've mismanaged my input, so I will withdraw from this thread and let it be. 

caposkia wrote:

 As we go through, I still do homework on everything we've covered up to this point.  I don't remember if we talked about Pepy II or the Egyptian Admonitions.  The papayrus in posession has had some difficulty in dating, but it seems that Egyptologists are split as far as it being evidence of the Exodus.  

Just a random thought if you wanted to discuss it.  

He reigned supposedly 2284 BCE - 2184 BCE, far to early to have anything to do with the Exodus tale. According to the Biblical story tales Abe had yet to leave Mesopotamia at this point in time.

Th Egyptian Admonitions were likely written 400 years after Pepy II at best guess - see http://archive.org/details/admonitionsofegy00gard and - http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/texts/ipuwer.htm

The 1st link is to a book by Alan Henderson Gardiner titled - " The admonitions of an Egyptian sage from a hieratic papyrus in Leiden(Pap. Leiden 344 recto)" It is FREE online.

I would generally subscribe to the position that this papyrus is relevant to the Hyskos invasion, though it may be others such as the Libyans or the Bedouins.

I have obviously not read all of Gardiners book as of yet.

What is it that you see here that is relevant to the Exodus, specify either page from Gardiner or the section from the other link.

I like PCs not Apple. I like Rock, Heavy metal, alternative, Pop etc but despise Country. I like GM cars not Ford.

You are making assertions about events in history. You are making assertions about the way people back then viewed things. They are merely assertions which unsurprisingly happen to promote your position. HOWEVER mere assertion is insufficient. If you say they viewed things in a different way then you have to test that idea BEFORE using it. How do you test your claims?

 

How can you be unaware that the only record from any priest in the 1st c. AD is Josephus? And as there is no Jesus save in what all but the most whacko agree is a forgery in his writing and as there is nothing said about any change in any event, how could you not know there is nothing to research?

                             ...............have you ever considered commenting on other posts at this site.   Your insights and opinions could so easily be of importance to other on going discussions, speak up and help out other arguments.   

 

I have purchased it.  I remember.  Understand I've been quite busy and though I have purchased it, I am working 2 jobs, raising my kid and trying to finish a cert course.  It doesn't leave much time for casual reading.  

i had to purchase this book.  It seems most atheists live by it despite any faults that have been brought up along the way on its author.

caposkia wrote:

I have purchased it.  I remember.  Understand I've been quite busy and though I have purchased it, I am working 2 jobs, raising my kid and trying to finish a cert course.  It doesn't leave much time for casual reading.  

i had to purchase this book.  It seems most atheists live by it despite any faults that have been brought up along the way on its author.

I agree with busy.

First off there was the election. I now live in swing state Colorado so I've been inundated with ads and door to door campaigning.

And of course we all are now defying the Feds since we finally legalized pot for recreational use not just medical. This takes effect in 60 days or less. Not that I smoke right now, but I have before and I was planning on getting a medical card as I get older and all my years of pushing my body to its limits catch up. Anyway, it should be fun to watch the Feds scramble to address us rebels in Colorado as well as those in Washington state.

 

Then I started to upgrade my computer even further than it was. I originally built it in 2011.

I had a Intel I7 quad with hyperthreading with an Asus P7P55D-E-LX board already with 8 GB of memory.

I added 8 GB more memory. I also have lots of power hungry drives as well as a Nvidia video card that eats power so then I had to upgrade the power supply to 1000W because it would on ocassion give me a BSOD as it went into current limit.

I have been trying to Install a new 256 GB Samsung 840 pro SSD for the last 4 days. Finally got it to work last night. It is a Sata 3 or 6 GB which the motherboard supports. I had issues shrinking my C drive from 1 TB to 256 GB because I had system files that were unmoveable. Nothing is unmoveable given time and understanding. I finally found a way to move them and shrink it.

And I also had to take a bunch of Tax courses to renew my Tax preparer certification with the IRS before the end of the year.

So, yeah I know busy.

I will respond to your posts and continue forward in the next few days assuming no new issues crop up on my computer.

Whenever one alters a computer that is stable one always risks pushing the limits to far. So far 24 hours no new problems. But you never know.

PJTS