"except" for fornication - a Matthew 19:9 revisit

nolidad · Aug 5, 2020

PeterDona said:
I may get you wrong, but I will react to what I believe you say here.
If really Jesus went around declaring a new or hidden teaching, that would in my view contain an enormous problem as to his credibility. Especially given the setting of Matthew 19:3-12, where it is the pharisees desiring to hear his view on marriage based on the law of Moses.

It was not Jesus view on marriage or divorce that is the issue, but it is the issue of divorce and remarriage that is the issue.

nolidad · Aug 5, 2020

PeterDona said:
Ok that was quite a long post you made, so I will answer in 2 separate posts.

First, concerning Hermas. Are you referring to this quote:
""I charge you," said he, "to guard your chastity, and let no thought enter your heart of another man's wife, or of fornication, or of similar iniquities; for by doing this you commit a great sin. But if you always remember your own wife, you will never sin. For if this thought enter your heart, then you will sin; and if, in like manner,you think other wicked thoughts, you commit sin. For this thought is great sin in a servant of God. But if any one commit this wicked deed, he works death for himself. Attend, therefore, and refrain from this thought; for where purity dwells, there iniquity ought not to enter the heart of a righteous man." I said to him, "Sir, permit me to ask you a few questions.""Say on," said he. And I said to him, "Sir, if any one has a wife who trusts in the Lord, and if he detect her in adultery, does the man sin if he continue to live with her?" And he said to me, "As long as he remains ignorant of her sin, the husband commits no transgression in living with her. But if the husband know that his wife has gone astray, and if the woman does not repent, but persists in her fornication, and yet the husband continues to live with her, he also is guilty of her crime, and a sharer in her adultery." And I said to him, "What then, sir, is the husband to do, if his wife continue in her vicious practices?" And he said, "The husband should put her away, and remain by himself. But if he put his wife away and marry another, he also commits adultery." And I said to him, "What if the woman put away should repent, and wish to return to her husband: shall she not be taken back by her husband?" And he said to me, "Assuredly. If the husband do not take her back, he sins, and brings a great sin upon himself; for he ought to take back the sinner who has repented...In this matter man and woman are to be treated exactly in the same way.–The Shepherd 4:1-10. (I copied it from this paper https://marriagedivorce.com/pdf/Restoration-of-Christian-Marriage.pdf)

Now, nolidad, it is your stated interpretation that remarriage is only not permitted because it blocks repentance. I will put forward something different.

What I see in this passage is something that we never hear about today. What if the wife persists in sex outside marriage? The husband is still one flesh with her, and therefore one body. So he is partaking in her sin - and he has to separate from her as long as she commits this sin. So far does the one flesh principle go. I believe this is a reiteration of the passage 1 Cor 6:16, where Paul talks about being joined to an harlot. I believe that 1 Cor 6:16 talks about being married to an harlot, but I have until now not met many folks who agree with me on that. And the reason for my interpretation is exactly that I read stuff like Hermas. You do know that at one time Shepherd of Hermas was part of the Bible?

So in my interpretation, this just goes to show how seriously the early Church took the principle of one-flesh.

1. This is not the passage I was referring to.
2. I agree marriage is a sacred covenannt.
3. It should not be dissolved with ease.
4. But immorality, death and leaving for the faith are allowances for remarriage.

The issue is not divorce, but remarriage!

Death always allowed remarriage, Jesus added it fro immorality and Paul under the influence of ther Holy spirit added if an unbelieving spouse leaves due to the faith.

PeterDona · Aug 5, 2020

nolidad said:
It was not Jesus view on marriage or divorce that is the issue, but it is the issue of divorce and remarriage that is the issue.

Yes, the pharisees asked Jesus about "if it is lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause", which is a question with clear reference to Deuteronomy 24:1-4, but Jesus uses the opportunity to start with Genesis and give the full picture in 19:5-6.

PeterDona · Aug 5, 2020

nolidad said:
1. This is not the passage I was referring to.
2. I agree marriage is a sacred covenannt.
3. It should not be dissolved with ease.
4. But immorality, death and leaving for the faith are allowances for remarriage.

The issue is not divorce, but remarriage!

Death always allowed remarriage, Jesus added it fro immorality and Paul under the influence of ther Holy spirit added if an unbelieving spouse leaves due to the faith.

Post Scripture to support your opinion, and I will be willing to continue the dialogue.
The exception for immorality is only in the Old Testament, and regards a virgin betrothed, if she proves to be no virgin - Deuteronomy 22:13-21.
I have proven sufficiently in this thread that Matthew 19:9 can not be taken as an argument for an exception for immorality.

nolidad · Aug 5, 2020

PeterDona said:
What greek lexicon are you using? I use this version of Strongs: https://www.amazon.com/Strongs-Expanded-Exhaustive-Concordance-Supersaver/dp/1418542377
"epi, a primary preposition properly meaning superimposition (of time, place, order etc) i.e. over, upon, With the dative case this preposition has meanings like "on" etc. And I believe that "inappropriate contenteia" which is a feminine noun is either nominative or dative case, likely dative.
To cut a long story short, this lexicon lists both "because of" and "over" as possible translations, so that in itself is not so decisive.

However, if really Jesus intended an exception pure and simple, why not just use "parektos" as in Matthew 5:32. Why this more elaborate structure of words?

Strongs is a good primer, but I use blue letter bible, bible hub, Esword and several linguistic on line studies that go beyind the base definition of a word and gfo into its construct which is the critical issue in greek. For example, a verb can have up to 580 endings which all nuance or radically change the base strongs definition. So we need to know how th everb is constructed in the passage to get a better understanding of what exactly and not just generally being said.

PeterDona · Aug 5, 2020

nolidad said:
Strongs is a good primer, but I use blue letter bible, bible hub, Esword and several linguistic on line studies that go beyind the base definition of a word and gfo into its construct which is the critical issue in greek. For example, a verb can have up to 580 endings which all nuance or radically change the base strongs definition. So we need to know how th everb is constructed in the passage to get a better understanding of what exactly and not just generally being said.

I would be curious to know those linguistic studies and stuff, if it has relevance to this topic.

nolidad · Aug 6, 2020

PeterDona said:
Post Scripture to support your opinion, and I will be willing to continue the dialogue.
The exception for immorality is only in the Old Testament, and regards a virgin betrothed, if she proves to be no virgin - Deuteronomy 22:13-21.
I have proven sufficiently in this thread that Matthew 19:9 can not be taken as an argument for an exception for immorality.

Sorry but Matthew 19:9 is a clear text that remarriage after divorce is allowed for immorality.

As for death?

Romans 7:2-3
King James Version
2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.

3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

As for the unbelieving spouse leaves due to the fatih?

1 Corinthians 7:10-16
King James Version
10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:

11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.

13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.

14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.

16 For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?

Bondage being douloo which means to place on in service to. If an unbeliever departs, the believer is no longer bound! But free from that bond!

nolidad · Aug 6, 2020

PeterDona said:
I would be curious to know those linguistic studies and stuff, if it has relevance to this topic.

Bible hub online does a great job of showing that the "except or fornication is a negative clause which is an exemption. Once again because "me" is a negative and is not modified by "akomi kai" (which would cause the reading to be "and not even for fornication), So the word except is added . It doesn't alter the meaning of teh passage one iota but just simply makes it a smoother read in english.

nolidad · Aug 6, 2020

PeterDona said:
Yes, the pharisees asked Jesus about "if it is lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause", which is a question with clear reference to Deuteronomy 24:1-4, but Jesus uses the opportunity to start with Genesis and give the full picture in 19:5-6.

Correct! divorce is allowed by god for many reasons due to teh hardness of our hearts, but remarriage which was allowed for many reasons in Rabbinic and Pharasaic Judiasm was not drawn down to !.

For the Church God gave Paul two more as I showed previously.

Der Alte · Aug 6, 2020

PeterDona said:
(1) to be precise, the clause in Matthew 19:9 is "mey epi inappropriate contenteia", where the "epi" means "over" rather than "for".
(2) you bring forward a very interesting point about Matthew 5:32. If Jesus had intended an "except" also in Matthew 19:9, why not simply use "parektos" which explicitly means "except"?
(3) since then we do have an "except" in Matthew 5:32, how is this verse then to be understood.
"but I say to you, that whosoever divorces his wife except for inappropriate contenteia, causes her to commit adultery"
My personal belief is that "causes" in that sentence is a legal term, which means that God will hold that man responsible for the adultery of his wife except if he divorces her on the ground of inappropriate contenteia.
Again in the context of the verse, two bible passages are in play, namely Deuteronomy 24:1-4 and Deuteronomy 22:13-21, or to say it like that, such is my interpretation. When Jesus says, "you have heard" he is referring to a ruling in rabbinic teaching, and when Jesus says "but I say to you" he is pointing back to the correct interpretation of the Bible. We know from Matthew 19:8 that Jesus pretty much discredits the rabbinic understanding of Deuteronomy 24:1-4, but actually this verse retains some of the meaning of Deuteronomy 24:4, namely that "he has caused her to defile herself", so this "caused" seems to be found and validated in the new testament.
(4) thanks for your kind words. I also enjoy the discussion

…..Greek is now, and for 2000+ years has been, the language of the Eastern Greek Orthodox church. Who, better than the native Greek speaking* scholars who translated the “literal” Greek Eastern Orthodox Bible [EOB], know the correct meaning of Greek words,

* "native Greek speaking means Greek is their mother tongue not a language they studied as an adult.
Matthew 19:9 I tell you that whoever divorces his wife (except for reason of sexual immorality) and marries another commits adultery; <and he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”>
Cleenewerck, L. (Ed.). (2011). The Eastern/Greek Orthodox Bible: New Testament (Mt 19:9). Laurent A. Cleenewerck.

https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/books/or...tament-(The-Eastern-Greek-Orthodox-Bible).pdf
The Eastern/Greek Orthodox Bible EOB—New Testament 96 can be viewed or D/L at the above link. For any doubts/questions about the EOB version please read the 200 page preface which documents the extensive Greek scholarship supporting this translation.

Kilk1 · Aug 6, 2020

Thanks for the reply.

PeterDona said:
(1) to be precise, the clause in Matthew 19:9 is "mey epi inappropriate contenteia", where the "epi" means "over" rather than "for".

To clarify, my version translates epi as "for," so I went with that wording.

PeterDona said:
(2) you bring forward a very interesting point about Matthew 5:32. If Jesus had intended an "except" also in Matthew 19:9, why not simply use "parektos" which explicitly means "except"?

The Greek phrase in Matthew 19:9 is ei me. It appears that "if not" and "except" are interchangeable, having the same meaning. Notice that ei me means "if not, except, but" and that "if not" and "except" are both listed as definition I. (They aren't considered two separate definitions, in other words.)

Therefore, it looks like ei me also means "except," making it a synonym of parektos. What do you think?

PeterDona said:
(3) since then we do have an "except" in Matthew 5:32, how is this verse then to be understood.
"but I say to you, that whosoever divorces his wife except for inappropriate contenteia, causes her to commit adultery"
My personal belief is that "causes" in that sentence is a legal term, which means that God will hold that man responsible for the adultery of his wife except if he divorces her on the ground of inappropriate contenteia.

Again in the context of the verse, two bible passages are in play, namely Deuteronomy 24:1-4 and Deuteronomy 22:13-21, or to say it like that, such is my interpretation. When Jesus says, "you have heard" he is referring to a ruling in rabbinic teaching, and when Jesus says "but I say to you" he is pointing back to the correct interpretation of the Bible. We know from Matthew 19:8 that Jesus pretty much discredits the rabbinic understanding of Deuteronomy 24:1-4, but actually this verse retains some of the meaning of Deuteronomy 24:4, namely that "he has caused her to defile herself", so this "caused" seems to be found and validated in the new testament.

I'm not sure that Matthew 5:32 is stating the correct interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Rather, it appears to be separate teaching similar to Matthew 19:9. After all, under Mosaic law, you wouldn't divorce your wife for fornication; you'd execute her (Deuteronomy 22:13-24), making a fornication exception for divorce unnecessary.

PeterDona said:
(4) thanks for your kind words. I also enjoy the discussion

And thank you for your kind words.

Eloy Craft · Aug 6, 2020

Adultery doesn't break the matrimonial bond. If it did then divorce wouldn't create adulterers. God renews the bond even after His bride played the harlot. God has mercy on her and renews their bond as it was in her youth. Paul say's he wants to present the bride spotless and wrinkle free. Unless there is an obstacle that can't be removed, aren't Christian husbands called to Christ like love?

love?

PeterDona · Aug 8, 2020

nolidad said:
Sorry but Matthew 19:9 is a clear text that remarriage after divorce is allowed for immorality.

This whole thread has been about that Matthew 19:9 is NOT an "exception". So why do you keep on insisting?

In my view, we have to take it from SCRIPTURE, not traditions of men. Even if all the translations translated it wrongly, which not all do, then when the greek says "mey epi inappropriate contenteia" rather than "ei mey epi inappropriate contenteia", then we do NOT have an exception.

"ei mey epi" can be translated "except", and the same would go for "ean mey epi", but to state it simply, that is not what the greek text says. The greek text says "mey epi inappropriate contenteia".

Here is some research from a friend into the meaning of "mey epi". My friend is a scholar, a PhD, so at least some scholarship is to be expected
A search result : Search Results for “reasons me epi” – Learning from God's Word
Reasons Mὴ Eπὶ (Mh Epi or Mē Epi) Should Not Be Translated “Except For” (Mt. 19:9)
Reasons Mὴ Eπὶ (Mh Epi or Mē Epi) Should Not Be Translated “Except For” (Mt. 19:9)
What Does “Except” Mean in Mt. 19:9?
What Does “Except” Mean in Mt. 19:9?
Digging Deeper into MH EPI (Mt. 19:9) and How “the Church Fathers” Understood Marriage
Digging Deeper into MH EPI (Mt. 19:9) and How “the Church Fathers” Understood Marriage

PeterDona · Aug 8, 2020

Eloy Craft said:
Adultery doesn't break the matrimonial bond. If it did then divorce wouldn't create adulterers. God renews the bond even after His bride played the harlot. God has mercy on her and renews their bond as it was in her youth. Paul say's he wants to present the bride spotless and wrinkle free. Unless there is an obstacle that can't be removed, aren't Christian husbands called to Christ like love?

Yes

Adultery is not a grounds for divorce - adultery is a grounds for forgiveness

Carl Emerson · Aug 8, 2020

And if forgiveness is refused by an unbelieving partner - what then?

Der Alte · Aug 8, 2020

PeterDona said:
This whole thread has been about that Matthew 19:9 is NOT an "exception". So why do you keep on insisting?
In my view, we have to take it from SCRIPTURE, not traditions of men. Even if all the translations translated it wrongly, which not all do, then when the greek says "mey epi inappropriate contenteia" rather than "ei mey epi inappropriate contenteia", then we do NOT have an exception.
"ei mey epi" can be translated "except", and the same would go for "ean mey epi", but to state it simply, that is not what the greek text says. The greek text says "mey epi inappropriate contenteia".
Here is some research from a friend into the meaning of "mey epi". My friend is a scholar, a PhD, so at least some scholarship is to be expected
A search result : Search Results for “reasons me epi” – Learning from God's Word
Reasons Mὴ Eπὶ (Mh Epi or Mē Epi) Should Not Be Translated “Except For” (Mt. 19:9)
Reasons Mὴ Eπὶ (Mh Epi or Mē Epi) Should Not Be Translated “Except For” (Mt. 19:9)
What Does “Except” Mean in Mt. 19:9?
What Does “Except” Mean in Mt. 19:9?
Digging Deeper into MH EPI (Mt. 19:9) and How “the Church Fathers” Understood Marriage
Digging Deeper into MH EPI (Mt. 19:9) and How “the Church Fathers” Understood Marriage

…..Previously posted this thread. And OBTW this has never been refuted. Scholars giving a different interpretation does not disprove this post.
... Greek is now, and for 2000+ years has been, the language of the Eastern Greek Orthodox church. Who, better than the native Greek speaking* scholars who translated the “literal” Greek Eastern Orthodox Bible [EOB], know the correct meaning of Greek words,

* "native Greek speaking means Greek is their mother tongue not a language they studied as an adult.
Matthew 19:9 I tell you that whoever divorces his wife (except for reason of sexual immorality) and marries another commits adultery; <and he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”>
Cleenewerck, L. (Ed.). (2011). The Eastern/Greek Orthodox Bible: New Testament (Mt 19:9). Laurent A. Cleenewerck.

https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/books/or...tament-(The-Eastern-Greek-Orthodox-Bible).pdf
The Eastern/Greek Orthodox Bible EOB—New Testament 96 can be viewed or D/L at the above link. For any doubts/questions about the EOB version please read the 200 page preface which documents the extensive Greek scholarship supporting this translation.

Carl Emerson · Aug 8, 2020

Eloy Craft said:
Adultery doesn't break the matrimonial bond. If it did then divorce wouldn't create adulterers. God renews the bond even after His bride played the harlot. God has mercy on her and renews their bond as it was in her youth. Paul say's he wants to present the bride spotless and wrinkle free. Unless there is an obstacle that can't be removed, aren't Christian husbands called to Christ like love?

Yes but what options are left for the believer when this is refused - and the unbeliever cohabits with another partner and files for divorce?

nolidad · Aug 8, 2020

PeterDona said:
This whole thread has been about that Matthew 19:9 is NOT an "exception". So why do you keep on insisting?

In my view, we have to take it from SCRIPTURE, not traditions of men. Even if all the translations translated it wrongly, which not all do, then when the greek says "mey epi inappropriate contenteia" rather than "ei mey epi inappropriate contenteia", then we do NOT have an exception.

"ei mey epi" can be translated "except", and the same would go for "ean mey epi", but to state it simply, that is not what the greek text says. The greek text says "mey epi inappropriate contenteia".

Here is some research from a friend into the meaning of "mey epi". My friend is a scholar, a PhD, so at least some scholarship is to be expected
A search result : Search Results for “reasons me epi” – Learning from God's Word
Reasons Mὴ Eπὶ (Mh Epi or Mē Epi) Should Not Be Translated “Except For” (Mt. 19:9)
Reasons Mὴ Eπὶ (Mh Epi or Mē Epi) Should Not Be Translated “Except For” (Mt. 19:9)
What Does “Except” Mean in Mt. 19:9?
What Does “Except” Mean in Mt. 19:9?
Digging Deeper into MH EPI (Mt. 19:9) and How “the Church Fathers” Understood Marriage
Digging Deeper into MH EPI (Mt. 19:9) and How “the Church Fathers” Understood Marriage

Incorrect! Let us look at your contention and remove "ei". Then the passage reads

"9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."

"mey" is a negative preposition!

Strong’s Definitions G3756 expresses an absolute denial); (adverb) not, (conjunction) lest; also (as an interrogative implying a negative answer (whereas G3756 expects an affirmative one)) whether:—any but (that), G3362, G3363, G3364, G3372, G3373, G3375, G3378.
Thayer's Greek Lexicon [?](Jump to Scripture Index)
STRONGS NT 3361: μή
μή, the Sept. for אַל, אַיִן, אֵין, a particle of negation, which differs from οὐ (which is always an adverb) in that οὐ denies the thing itself (or to speak technically, denies simply, absolutely, categorically, directly, objectively), but μή denies the thought of the thing, or the thing according to the judgment, opinion, will, purpose, preference, of someone (hence, as we say technically, indirectly, hypothetically, subjectively). This distinction holds also of the compounds οὐδείς, μηδείς, οὐκέτι, μηκέτι, etc. But μή is either an adverb of negation, not (Latin non, ne); or a conjunction, that... not, lest (Latin ne); or an interrogative particle (Latin num) (i. e. (generally) implying a neg. ans.; in indirect question, whether not (suggesting apprehension)). Cf. Herm. ad Vig. § 267, p. 802ff; Matthiae, § 608; Alexander Buttmann (1873) Gram. § 148 (cf. Alex. Alexander Buttmann (1873) N. T. Gr., p. 344 (296ff)); Kühner, ii. § 512f, p. 739ff; (Jelf, § 738ff); Rost § 135; Winer's § 55, 56; F. Franke, De particulis negantibus (two commentaries) Rintel. 1832f; G. F. Gayler, Particularum Graeci sermonis negativarum accurata disputatio, etc. Tub. 1836; E. Prüfer, De μή et οὐ particulis epitome. Vratisl. 1836; (Gildersleeve in American Jour. of Philol. vol. i. no. i., p. 45ff; Jebb in Vincent and Dickson's Handbook to Modern Greek, 2nd edition, Appendix, § 82ff).

So to read this correctly it would be, Whosever shall put away his wife , not for fornication, and shall......

Translating this negative prepostion to english requires two ways to do so, the addition of a but "but not for fornication" or turning it to a positive by saying except for fornication! Thayers Lexicon goes into much greater depth than I posted here. "Mey" is an absolute negative so it means fornication is not included . That is the grammar by every greek expert I have ever seen. The English translations for the most part are not hard word for word translation, but word for word grammatical translations simply becuase the greek is clumsy in the English due to differing grammatic rules.

PeterDona · Aug 8, 2020

nolidad said:
Translating this negative prepostion to english requires two ways to do so, the addition of a but "but not for fornication" or turning it to a positive by saying except for fornication!

Well there you have it in one sentence of yours. We want this to make sense, and we need to add a word to the text to do so! I think, with all intellectual honesty, you can see how that will not work.

My proposition has been the whole time, that "not over fornication" is a legal term, regarding those new kinds of divorces using Deuteronomy 24:1-4, where the discussion was simply what is this "matter of nakedness"? Is it "any cause" or is it "only for adultery" (2 different rabbinic schools). And Jesus shocks them by saying, that any divorce using Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is invalid !

For another example of a legal term used in the gospel of Matthew, go to Matthew 5:32
But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, CAUSETH her to commit adultery.
Now this is a direct quote from Deuteronomy 24:4, where the "she has been defiled" actually should be rendered "she has been caused (by him) to defile herself". And we can see that in Deuteronomy 24:4 it is used in a legal sense, and likewise here Jesus uses it as a legal term, so that whosoever divorces his wife (except when she is already committing adultery) will be held responsible for causing her to commit adultery. So the divorcing husband cannot claim himself to be blame-free, if she then later commits adultery.

OK enough about legal terms.

Concerning copying and pasting, it can become tiresome to read through something, that you probably may not even have considered yourself. This quote from Strong's Greek: 3361. μή (mé) -- not, that...not, lest (used for qualified negation), can you please only post what you want to say? The issue of relevance is at stake here. What do you want to say with that lengthy quote? Otherwise, just post the link, and I can read it for myself.

PeterDona · Aug 8, 2020

Der Alte said:
For any doubts/questions about the EOB version please read the 200 page preface which documents the extensive Greek scholarship supporting this translation.

Again the question of relevance in communication. You have posted this "the greek speaking people must be the authority" I think at least 3 times now, and I think it is such a loose argument that I did not bother to answer it. Sorry, that may sound arrogant, but with a lot already going on in the thread, one has to pick his focus.

I suggest that YOU read the 200 page preface, link to it, and then explain exactly what is in there that you find relevant for our conversation / discussion. That way we will all be better edified.

All the best wishes

"except" for fornication - a Matthew 19:9 revisit

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

This is me about 1 yr. old.

Well-Known Member

Myth only points, Truth happened!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

This is me about 1 yr. old.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads