Should Christian women wear head scarves?

SayaOtonashi

Newbie
May 19, 2012
1,960
81
USA
✟19,181.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Like I said before in my post the Greek used for uncover is not a noun but adj so its not talking about a veil and like I said before corthians didn't wear veils women wore they head up and if women wore they hair down it was shameful. Like at statues . Like I said before Paul said at the end her hair give her covering. Is uncovered is an adj so it can't be talking about an a actual covering. One in the new testment but not old there is no law only oral and even then Jewish law stated a women must not have loosen hair. So you can't said they it applies if there haven't been pervious passages .
 
Upvote 0

SayaOtonashi

Newbie
May 19, 2012
1,960
81
USA
✟19,181.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
So did men already keep their hair short in Jerusalem because nothing about that is mentioned there?

And if this is a command that must be followed in all times and places, then are you as willing to follow all of the scriptural commands to New Testament churches to minute detail?

Expect I repeat Irasel Jewish man and woman would protect the nazative vow is growing their hair and cutting it off to sacrifice to god. However that was not the case in Corthians for men had long hair were in cults for Aphrodite was both genders. So because of that men cut their in Corthians yet this was not a Problem is Irasel. Men had long hair in Iseral but the custom was not true for corthians because long hair at that time correct with feminine. Samuel had long hair but no way was he feminine but corthians would think it was



http://studyholiness.com/doc/Culture_blog.pdf
 
Upvote 0

SayaOtonashi

Newbie
May 19, 2012
1,960
81
USA
✟19,181.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Here is the Jewish law

This practice takes many different forms: hats, scarves, and wigs all cover and reveal different lengths of hair. Many women only don the traditional covering when entering or praying in a synagogue, and still others have rejected hair covering altogether. What is the basis for this Jewish practice, and what are some of the legal and social reasons for its variations?
The Sources

woman-head-covering.jpg

Woman praying at Western Wall

The origin of the tradition lies in the Sotah ritual, a ceremony described in the Bible that tests the fidelity of a woman accused of adultery. According to the Torah, the priest uncovers or unbraids the accused woman's hair as part of the humiliation that precedes the ceremony (Numbers 5:18). From this, the Talmud (Ketuboth 72) concludes that under normal circumstances hair covering is a biblical requirement for women.

The Mishnah in Ketuboth (7:6), however, implies that hair covering is not an obligation of biblical origin. It discusses behaviors that are grounds for divorce such as, "appearing in public with loose hair, weaving in the marketplace, and talking to any man" and calls these violations of Dat Yehudit, which means Jewish rule, as opposed to Dat Moshe, Mosaic rule. This categorization suggests that hair covering is not an absolute obligation originating from Moses at Sinai, but rather is a standard of modesty that was defined by the Jewish community.
 
Upvote 0

SayaOtonashi

Newbie
May 19, 2012
1,960
81
USA
✟19,181.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
appearing in public with loose hair. See this states that loose hair was the problem in the O.T and not a biblical requirement. When did bound they hair up but they coverd up for modesty not for biblical requirement meaning loosening hair is also the problem
 
Upvote 0

BlackSepulcher

Well-Known Member
Mar 27, 2013
454
18
✟685.00
Faith
Catholic
I think women in modern kosher-themed clothing is sophisticated and attractive.

Exhibit A:
img_1389.jpg


I like that, it is a mark of self-respect and modesty, and a girl can still be beautiful.

The Bible simply tells a truth that is inconvenient to some, and it's that dressing promiscuously only has one purpose, and it's not a Godly one.
 
Upvote 0

BlackSepulcher

Well-Known Member
Mar 27, 2013
454
18
✟685.00
Faith
Catholic
http://www.synagoguechm.com/articles/Kippas.pdf. Wouldn't you said modestry is what in your community,culture or traditions? What ever beings attention to you is bad if it causes lust.

In Shariah and Leviticus law, perhaps.

But Christianity is a religion to the masses. It in itself is designed to be compatible to any culture, including ones where outward appearance factors into one's lifestyle.

That is the reason Christianity dominates world religion. Put Judaism or Islam in that steed, and Law has to be entirely invoked. Quite simply, it is a humane and graceful religion, and the laws of Christianity are written in our hearts.
 
Upvote 0

Butch5

Newbie
Supporter
Apr 7, 2012
8,932
767
62
Homer Georgia
Visit site
✟308,497.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Like I said before in my post the Greek used for uncover is not a noun but adj so its not talking about a veil and like I said before corthians didn't wear veils women wore they head up and if women wore they hair down it was shameful. Like at statues . Like I said before Paul said at the end her hair give her covering. Is uncovered is an adj so it can't be talking about an a actual covering. One in the new testment but not old there is no law only oral and even then Jewish law stated a women must not have loosen hair. So you can't said they it applies if there haven't been pervious passages .

The passage is speaking of a veil. If a woman is not veiled then she is the same as the man who is not covered. His whole argument is based on the woman having submission to God's order. In the order the woman and the man are not the same thus one is covered and one is not. The covering has been the historical understanding from the beginning, that is the reason for Paul's admonition. Here is Tertullian writing just over a hundred years after Paul on this issue.

Chapter 8.—The Argument E Contrario.

The contraries, at all events, of all these (considerations) effect that a man is not to cover his head: to wit, because he has not by nature been gifted with excess of hair; because to be shaven or shorn is not shameful to him; because it was not on his account that the angels transgressed; because his Head is Christ. Accordingly, since the apostle is treating of man and woman—why the latter ought to be veiled, but the former not—it is apparent why he has been silent as to the virgin; allowing, to wit, the virgin to be understood in the woman by the self-same reason by which he forbore to name the boy as implied in the man; embracing the whole order of either sex in the names proper (to each) of woman and man. So likewise Adam, while still intact, is surnamed in Genesis man: “She shall be called,” says he, “woman, because she hath been taken from her own man.” Thus was Adam a man before nuptial intercourse, in like manner as Eve a woman. On either side the apostle has made his sentence apply with sufficient plainness to the universal species of each sex; and briefly and fully, with so well-appointed a definition, he says, “ Every woman.” What is “every,” but of every class, of every order, of every condition, of every dignity, of every age?—if, (as is the case), “every” means total and entire, and in none of its parts defective. But the virgin is withal a part of the woman. Equally, too, with regard to not veiling the man, he says “every.” Behold two diverse names, Man and woman—“every one” in each case: two laws, mutually distinctive; on the one hand (a law) of veiling, on the other (a law) of baring. Therefore, if the fact that it is said “every man” makes it plain that the name of man is common even to him who is not yet a man, a stripling male; (if), moreover, since the name is common according to nature, the law of not veiling him who among men is a virgin is common too according to discipline: why is it that it is not consequently prejudged that, woman being named, every woman-virgin is similarly comprised in the fellowship of the name, so as to be comprised too in the community of the law? If a virgin is not a woman, neither is a stripling a man. If the virgin is not covered on the plea that she is not a woman, let the stripling be covered on the plea that he is not a man. Let identity of virginity, share equality of indulgence. As virgins are not compelled to be veiled, so let boys not be bidden to be unveiled. Why do we partly acknowledge the definition of the apostle, as absolute with regard to “every man,” without entering upon disquisitions as to why he has not withal named the boy; but partly prevaricate, though it is equally absolute with regard to “every woman? ””If any,” he says, “is contentious, we have not such a custom, nor (has) the Church of God.” He shows that there had been some contention about this point; for the extinction whereof he uses the whole compendiousness (of language): not naming the virgin, on the one hand, in order to show that there is to be no doubt about her veiling; and, on the other hand, naming “every woman,” whereas he would have named the virgin (had the question been confined to her). So, too, did the Corinthians themselves understand him. In fact, at this day the Corinthians do veil their virgins. What the apostles taught, their disciples approve.

Early Church Fathers - – Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Writings of the Fathers Down To A.D. 325.

Tertullian is dealing with the question, should only married women be veiled or should virgins also be veiled. Look at his conclusion, the Corinthian church understood Paul to be teaching that both married and unmarried women were to be veiled.

If you are interested in a deeper look into what Tertullian said on this issue I would suggest his "On the Veiling of Virgins". What's important here is that Tertullian is telling us what was practiced in his day by the Christian churches.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,140
20,187
US
✟1,441,679.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Paul speaks of the natural way things were, that the women had long hair and the men short.

Most African women have naturally short hair--and that's the only circumstance on earth that "nature" has anything to do keeping hair short for either males or females. Everywhere else, "nature" will allow both male and female hair to grow long.

Roman men wore their hair short, Jews did not.

And most pastors in America would eat dirt before they would encourage their congregations to give according to Acts 2, Acts 4, or 2 Corinthians 8...so much for keeping to the scripture.
 
Upvote 0

Butch5

Newbie
Supporter
Apr 7, 2012
8,932
767
62
Homer Georgia
Visit site
✟308,497.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Many African women have naturally short hair.

Roman men wore their hair short, Jews did not.

And most pastors in America would eat dirt before they would encourage their congregations to give according to Acts 2, Acts 4, or 2 Corinthians 8...so much for keeping to the scripture.

That's irrelevant. If Christians don't keep Christ's commands it does not negate those commands.
 
Upvote 0

MarkRohfrietsch

Unapologetic Apologist
Supporter
Dec 8, 2007
30,381
5,253
✟817,053.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
I think women in modern kosher-themed clothing is sophisticated and attractive.

Exhibit A:
img_1389.jpg


I like that, it is a mark of self-respect and modesty, and a girl can still be beautiful.

The Bible simply tells a truth that is inconvenient to some, and it's that dressing promiscuously only has one purpose, and it's not a Godly one.

All women are beautiful!
 
Upvote 0

SayaOtonashi

Newbie
May 19, 2012
1,960
81
USA
✟19,181.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Yes but there is not law in the bible and Jewish law clearly stand it was not a biblical requirement. Also Paul was Jewish and know Jewish men wore head covering but since this is not the custom and since men in Corinthians were in an cult that wore long hair and wore head covering this is what he was speaking of. Kata is a verb it can't be translate as a veil. Akata is a adj. perblion which in an actual word for veil is used to describe a woman hair is her covering
 
Upvote 0

SayaOtonashi

Newbie
May 19, 2012
1,960
81
USA
✟19,181.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
you do know the word for woman also is translate as wife to and married women only wore veiling. Also this is a Jewish tradition the church just copy. Also Jewish Law was before church fathers and Jewish law clearly shoes it was not a biblical regiment. Even didn't wear a head covering. Once again men grow they hair you just forget that fact? Nazative Vow. Women they hair along with men. They grew they hair for a length of time but than cut it off.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

SayaOtonashi

Newbie
May 19, 2012
1,960
81
USA
✟19,181.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Eve was not covered. Also the Greek clearly states Adam and Eve were equal. Married Women only wore head covering

The origin of the tradition lies in the Sotah ritual, a ceremony described in the Bible that tests the fidelity of a woman accused of adultery. According to the Torah, the priest uncovers or unbraids the accused woman's hair as part of the humiliation that precedes the ceremony (Numbers 5:18). From this, the Talmud (Ketuboth 72) concludes that under normal circumstances hair covering is a biblical requirement for women.

The Mishnah in Ketuboth (7:6), however, implies that hair covering is not an obligation of biblical origin. It discusses behaviors that are grounds for divorce such as, "appearing in public with loose hair, weaving in the marketplace, and talking to any man" and calls these violations of Dat Yehudit, which means Jewish rule, as opposed to Dat Moshe, Mosaic rule. This categorization suggests that hair covering is not an absolute obligation originating from Moses at Sinai, but rather is a standard of modesty that was defined by the Jewish community


Ezar Kenedgo means equal to

EZER

The role of woman as 'helper' to man in Genesis 2:18 has often been taken to mean a kind of domestic servitude and female inferiority. The term 'help-mate' is a mishearing of the AV phrase, "an help meet for him" and was used in Darby's 1884 translation, "a helpmate, his like". It is NOT a subordinate term as it is also used of God in the majority of its occurrences, (e.g., Psalm 70:5; 121:1-2) "...From where comes my help? My help comes from the Lord...". The older English term "meet", meant "appropriate" or "corresponding to".) Most translations render her (women) to be a ‘helper’ by these translations. (RSB, AB, NKJV, JB, NIV, Coverdale, Message, WEB) However perplexing these modern translations appear in uniformity, the customary translation of the two words ‘ezer k-negdo as “helper fitting him” is almost certainly wrong.

The Hebrew is )zr 'ezer, as in 'eben-ezer, 'stone of help' or Ezra 'help'. The LXX, Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament, uses the word bohqos boêthos (Strong's 998) to translate 'ezer. Of its 45 uses, boêthos is used 42 times to refer to help from a stronger one, from a more secure or strengthened position, without need of reciprocal help. This strengthens the idea of 'help' as equal or superior rather than inferior. The possible root behind 'ezer may have been either '-z-r "to rescue, save" (as the Ugaritic) and or 'g-z-r meaning "to be strong". The Hebrew letter ghain probably, like Arabic, having previously had two forms implying two roots that may have later got confused when just one Phoenician sign served for both letters. The use of the root verb )zr 'âzar (Strong's 5826) in the Old Testament extends to some 80 occasions, generally of military aid, help from a position of supply or strength. Although the noun is also used of military aid (e.g., Isaiah 30:5; Ezekial 12:14; Hosea 13:9), it does not always imply a victorious intervention or superior assistance. On one occasion it is paralleled with terms for salvation and support (Isaiah 63:5) in the sense of one being leant.F1 In many of the passages it is used in parallelism to words that clearly denote strength or power. Examples are Deut 33;26 and Deut 33:29 etc.

A survey of 'ezer's 20 or so uses reveals strong contexts and parallel terms for might or power, not one of service or slavery. A better and new translation: "I will make a power/strength corresponding to/equal to man." A relationship of equals. In short, it should be suggested that we translate Genesis 2:18 as “I will make a power [or strength] corresponding [and equal] to man.” F.F. Bruce says and Freedman even suggests on the basis of later Hebrew that the second word in the Hebrew expression found in the verse should be rendered ‘equal to him.’ Heightened in Genesis 2:23 where the phrase “ bone of my bones” has an idiomatic sense of “one of us” or in effect “our equal” or “corresponding sameness.”


KENEGDO

The last part of v.18 reads literally as "I will make him for him a helper as in front of him." The phrase 'as in front of him', kenegdô, occurs only here and in v.20, and suggests correspondence, with the new creation (woman) being neither inferior nor superior, but equal. The substantive, negdo, means 'that which is conspicuous, in full view of, in front of', the related noun, nagid, means a 'ruler' or 'prince', and the verb, nagad, means to 'declare, tell, expound, reveal, announce' (interesting in the light of the denial of women teachers by some) or 'go ahead'. This last one suggests 'achievement, pioneering, risk and deliberate thrust into the unknown'.

Thus anyone attempting to use v.18 to put women down or dismiss their ministry is in danger of having the Hebrew words thrown back at them as rather suggesting woman's superiority, ability to declare, teach, expound and reveal, and to be a pioneering leader out in front! In Rabbinic Hebrew, kenegdô is translated as 'corresponding to'. Gretchen Gabelein Hull coins the helpful phrase of woman as "'completer', not his competitor."

Genesis 1:26-28 should be taken as an a priori interpreter of 2:18, as it precedes it, and both are pre-Fall statements. Here, dominion, image, and blessing are conferred upon man, but the text continues, 'let them have dominion ...', 'them' could conceivably refer to all 'male-kind' or the generic inclusive term, 'man-kind'. Since, literally speaking, only Adam and Eve then existed, and the creative blessing to 'go forth and multiply' needed to be spoken over the first couple in order to put the rest of us here on this planet, it would suggest that the 'them' referred to is Adam and Eve. Indeed 1:27-28 elucidates: "male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion ..."
Thus, as Galatians 3:28 ("there is neither male nor female, all are one in Christ") interprets the other New Testament statements of Paul, so Genesis 1:28 interprets other Old Testament statements, for Scripture must interpret Scripture.
The idea of joint dominion as joint heirs is not alien to the rest of the Bible. In the Old Testament women could inherit in the absence of male heirs, and 1 Peter 3:7 speaks of "being heirs together of the grace of life."
 
Upvote 0

SayaOtonashi

Newbie
May 19, 2012
1,960
81
USA
✟19,181.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
The Nazirite/Nazarite vow is taken by individuals who have voluntarily dedicated themselves to God. The vow is a decision, action, and desire on the part of people whose desire is to yield themselves to God completely. By definition, the Hebrew word nazir, simply means “to be separated or consecrated.” The Nazirite vow, which appears in Numbers 6:1-21, has five features. It is voluntary, can be done by either men or women, has a specific time frame, has specific requirements and restrictions, and at its conclusion a sacrifice is offered.

First, the individual enters into this vow voluntarily. The Bible says, "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'If a man or woman wants to make a special vow, a vow of separation to the LORD as a Nazirite’” (Numbers 6:2). This shows that it is individuals who take the initiative to consecrate themselves to the Lord. There is no divine command involved. While generally done by the individual by his own choice, two individuals in the Old Testament, and one in the New Testament, were presented to God by their parents. Samuel and Samson in the Old Testament, (1 Samuel 2:8-28; Judges 13:1-5), and John the Baptist in the New Testament received the Nazirite vow from birth (Luke 1:13-17).

Second, both men and women could participate in this vow, as Numbers 6:2 indicates, “a man or woman.” The Nazirite vow was often taken by men and women alike purely for personal reasons, such as thanksgiving for recovery from illness or for the birth of a child. However, under the Mosaic law, the vow or oath of a single woman could be rescinded by her father, and that of a married woman by her husband (Numbers 30).

Third, the vow had a specific time frame, a beginning and an end as these two statements indicate: “Throughout the period of his separation he is consecrated to the LORD... Now this is the law for the Nazirite when the period of his separation is over” (Numbers 6:8, 13a). So, the Nazirite vow usually had both a beginning and an end.

Fourth, there were specific guidelines and restrictions involved with the Nazirite vow. Three guidelines are given to the Nazirite. Numbers 6:3-7 tells us that he/she was to abstain from wine or any fermented drink, nor was the Nazirite to drink grape juice or eat grapes or raisins, not even the seeds or skins. Next, the Nazirite was not to cut his hair for the length of the vow. Last, he was not to go near a dead body, because that would make him ceremonially unclean. Even if a member of his immediate family died, he was not to go near the corpse.

Numbers 6:13-20 shows the procedure to follow to complete the vow. A sacrifice was made (vv.13-17), the candidate’s hair was cut and put on the altar, and the priest did the final task of completing the sacrificial process, which ended the vow (v. 20). This section concludes with the statement, “This is the law of the Nazirite who vows his offering to the LORD in accordance with his separation, in addition to whatever else he can afford. He must fulfill the vow he has made, according to the law of the Nazirite”(6:21).

Although the Nazirite vow is an Old Testament concept, there is a New Testament parallel to the Nazirite vow. In Romans 12:1-2 Paul states, “Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual act of worship. Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.” For Christians, the ancient Nazirite vow symbolizes the need to be separate from this world, a holy people consecrated to God (2 Timothy 1:9; 1 Peter 1:15).


 
Upvote 0

SayaOtonashi

Newbie
May 19, 2012
1,960
81
USA
✟19,181.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Scriptures he’s found comparing akatakaluptos from verse 5 (rendered ‘uncovered’ in English) to the same word in the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Hebrew Tanakh or OT) which is used in Leviticus 13:45. The Hebrew word for ‘loosened hair,’ a sign that a leper was unclean, is translated as akatakaluptos.
45“As for the leper who has the infection, his clothes shall be torn, and the hair of his head shall be uncovered, and he shall cover his mustache and cry, ‘Unclean! Unclean!’ (Leviticus 13:45 NASB95, underline added)
Since the word akatakaluptos in this verse means ‘hair down,’ then in the context of 1 Corinthians 11 it probably means the same thing. Its opposite, katakalupto, most probably means ‘hair up’ or ‘bound hair.’ To help confirm this, in Numbers 5:18 there is a related word (of the kalupto variety - apokalupei) in reference to a woman having to ‘loosen her hair’ (let it down) before drinking of the water of bitterness. This indicates a cultural norm of having it up. Tim also points out that there is a specific word for ‘bareheaded’ in Greek (perhaps he’s thinking of a word like gumnokapalos), and that in his opinion it is likely that Paul would have used this word if he was talking about the difference between a cloth covering and hair. There are also other specific words for cloth coverings such as skepasma (4629) meaning ‘raiment’ and translated in 1 Timothy 6:8 as ‘covering,’ and epikaluma (1942) meaning ‘a covering or veil’ used in 1 Peter 2:16. If Paul had wanted to be specific about a cloth for a covering, a number of good words were available.




Also PAulc ould have used epikaluma for veil or
skepasma.




There are at least three problems with this understanding. The first is that katakalupto is not a noun (a thing) but a verb (an action). Primarily, the word is referring to the action of covering (or uncovering) rather than the covering itself. The second is that his own logic gets in the way of his interpretation; because if a woman’s hair is given to her ‘for’ or ‘instead’ of a prayer shawl (as he would like us to translate it in verse 15) the clear meaning is still that her hair is the cover. The third problem is that he wants us to limit peribolahyon to a particular type of garment (like a prayer shawl), when the word actually means ‘something thrown around’ or ‘wrapper’ or ‘veil.’ If we limit the word to anything, it would most likely be limited to ‘veil’ (Morford’s quote above notwithstanding) in which case the verse would read ‘given to her instead of a wrapper’ or ‘veil’ which teaches exactly the opposite of what Mr. Botkin wants us to see.

The use of the concordance is not guaranteed to give a person the real meaning of a word or verse. At times it only complicates the understanding, depending on how it’s used. One short article I read, by a person named Bo Williams titled ‘Definitions-Peribolaion,’ is based on the assumption that the meaning of peribolahyon is uncertain, due to only being used once in 1 Corinthians 11 and once in Hebrews 1:12. Because of this unsupported assumption, the author translates the word back into the Hebrew leboosh (Strong’s number 3830) because Hebrews 1:12 is part of a quote from Psalm 102:25-27 (which is where leboosh is translated in the Septuagint by peripolahyon). Then, the author translates from the Hebrew leboosh back into Greek and comes up with a different word meaning ‘vesture’ or ‘undergarment’ (himatismos) based on John 19:23. This supposedly clears up the confusion!

I don’t know about you, but it certainly doesn’t clear it up for me. Most translators will tell you that trying to translate back and forth in a limited fashion like this only complicates the translating, and does not generally help. If Williams had only looked for related or root words some confusion might have been avoided. For instance, peribolahyon is Strong’s number 4018, while Strong’s number 4016 (two places before 4018 in the concordance) is periballo meaning ‘clothed’ or ‘arrayed’ (used 24 times) and is probably the root word for peribolahyon. People like Williams should also see that the Greek of verse 15 has “her hair is given to her anti peribolahyon.” ‘Anti’ is the same as the word used for ‘anti-Christ’ meaning ‘instead-of Christ.’ So a woman’s hair is clearly given “instead of a wrap or veil.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums