Creationists, what's up with two creation stories?

shernren · Jan 17, 2008

theFijian said:
^^ Hooray for engaging with contemporary culture!

Meh. The Lord of the Rings used to be the preserve of nerds. Now it's been swallowed up by the terrible homogenization of pop culture.

busterdog · Jan 17, 2008

shernren said:
Meh. The Lord of the Rings used to be the preserve of nerds. Now it's been swallowed up by the terrible homogenization of pop culture.

The movie doesn't count. Pop culture can have it. But, I am glad somebody gave it a go. Its better than nothing.

The book is choppy at times, possibly rushed at the end, may have a couple of lacunae here and there. But, the characters are drawn with world-class artistry. The dialogue is excellent -- a major test for writers, since most of them can't write it well. The overall plot is just full of powerful, but just out of reach symbolism (a very good thing), but despite all the symbolism, you never feel that you've heard it before (like Narnia). This is a major piece of art.

If you haven't read it, get the Tolkien Reader, which I think is a collection of short stories. One story is "Leaf by Niggle", which is about a painter who never finishes his opus. Tells you something about the book, I think.

There is also a neat dragon story in there "Farmer Giles of Ham" which is a lot of fun and good to read out loud.

(Guess that makes me a nerd. Its a fair cop. Oops, I did it again. Britney, however, is not a nerd.)

busterdog · Jan 17, 2008

gluadys said:
For the reason Assyrian gave, I would disagree with the use of the pluperfect.

For the rest of the argument, I would agree that viewing chapter 2 in light of chapter 1, there is logical sense in what he is saying. It is a perfectly sensible way to reconcile the different orders.

But logical sense is still not literal sense.

A reconciliation of a contradiction is an admission that literally there is a contradiction. Otherwise there would be no need of a reconciliation.

Furthermore it is an admission that the resolution of the contradiction requires understanding at least one pole of the contradiction non-literally.

Which raises the question: which pole of the contradiction is to be de-literalised? Why this one and not the other?

And:

Why not de-literalise both?

As I understand it, sequence is generally evidence of either narrative or poetic intent. OK. I take it that is what you mean by "pole". That is fine. That means you need some 'splainin. Whenever you need some 'splainin, your case for a narrative surface text is going to be less obvious and open to argument.

At least in the way that the translation works in King James, I take the text to be pretty clear about its intentions. In Gen 2:2-2:3, you have a conclusion of the seven day cycle, ending with a period of rest. Further, you have a conceptual boundary established by an announced purpose: God rested and similarly sanctified the seventh day.

The nature of rest is passed over quite frequently in modern theology. It used to be that we imaned robot helpers would create a modern Potlatch where we worked about 25 hours a week and did lots of resting. Instead, as I think a Presidential candidate said in New Hampshire about two election cycles ago, "we have created x million new jobs in this economy, " while some waitress was heard on camera to respond, "Yes, and I have three of them."

Entering my rest is an essential component of what the salvation of Israel to be. Analogously, the failure to keep the sabbath was a premise for the period of exile as discussed in Daniel. Note the nature of Adam's curse: nonrest. Note the nature of profitable work:

Psa 127:1 Except the LORD build the house, they labour in vain that build it: except the LORD keep the city, the watchman waketh [but] in vain.

Physics students and lawyers are used to doing for themselves and prevailing by vigor. It is easy to miss the importance or rest.

The point is, the seven day narrative has a logical organization based on purpose and a natural conclusion. It is about work and rest and how to count them. Now, the purpose of God's supremacy and creative role is another organizing purpose that applies, even if you are less enamoured of the seven day thing. The latter we agree on.

There is no way that we can get around conceding that purpose is an organizing principal for narrative. I don't doubt that this gives non-literalists the ground to emphasize purpose above literal meaning. I understand that that is just the way it is. I will concede the point.

Gen. 2:4 is clearly a new thesis or subthesis. "These are the generations...." There is a new purpose. The text self-consciously announces a new beginning for the narrative. Must that necessarily be a new or different story by a new writer? Scotishfury has taken the liberal line on this hook line and sinker and says it must be a different fragment inserted from another source. I understand how that argument is built it has some logic. The only thing however I see that can possibly require that conclusion is the conviction that its all myth anyway because couldn't have done it in 7 days. The text itself just doesn't supply that.

Gen. 2:4 clearly begins an exposition of how it was that things grew. It is about how God took what he had created and caused their generation or growth. Now, the phrase generations announces a similar break later in the text in describing the line of Adam. (Note: these human generations co-existed mostly until we approach the flood. "Generations" does not require death. It is about growth.)

The other translation issues others have dealt with successfully above.

busterdog · Jan 17, 2008

ArcticFox said:
This discussion brings to my remembrance very vividly why I stopped posting on these forums for nearly half a year. Debate is healthy and good, but the content of these forums is often of the most despicable and shameful content; that, my friends, isn't even taking into consideration that we are proposing ourselves as Christians.

I'm not convinced there are two creation accounts, and not convinced that there is any reconciling necessary. Arguing against a problem I don't think even exists is difficult, would you not agree?

I will excuse myself from this bickering now. Carry on if you must, but at least pretend to be Christian when you do it.

In the ultimate sense of things, one of us is very right and one of us is very wrong. If either the TEs or the YECs has miscontrued the Word, they are deserving of severe judgment, absent the grace of God. So, I see where you are coming from.

One thing this thread does do is it shows two sides giving ground where it is logically appropriate and not insisting on a position out of fear of concession.

Yes, it is difficult to argue against a problem that doesn't exist. The hardest legal arguments are those that respond to something fundamentally out of left field, since the legislature in writing laws usually doesn't see the need to address what would seem to be obvious. There you have to "reinvent the wheel" so to speak. Not easy.

However, it is possible to learn by doing the exercise, particularly where both sides are exchanging.

I would also suggest that your post suggests that one should simply receive from the Lord in order to understand. Contrary to my post above, I am working to earn an understanding and concession through intellectual brawn. Ironically, I suggested above that this is a bad idea. (And, no, I am not afraid to give certain TE posters straight lines.) It seems that there two different tracks. The Holy Spirit alone is a better track. Is this your suggestion?

gluadys · Jan 17, 2008

busterdog said:
As I understand it, sequence is generally evidence of either narrative or poetic intent.

"Narrative" and "poetic" are not mutually exclusive. Have you never read "narrative poems"? So, it is not an either-or intent.

OK. I take it that is what you mean by "pole".

No, by "pole" in this context, I meant the two options given us by the contradiction in sequence, if we understand them both to be--as they appear to be--chronological sequences.

That is fine. That means you need some 'splainin. Whenever you need some 'splainin, your case for a narrative surface text is going to be less obvious and open to argument.

Exactly. 'splainin is what we do when we decide that one or both sequences is not what it literally appears to be: a chronological sequence.

In Gen 2:2-2:3, you have a conclusion of the seven day cycle, ending with a period of rest. Further, you have a conceptual boundary established by an announced purpose: God rested and similarly sanctified the seventh day.

The point is, the seven day narrative has a logical organization based on purpose and a natural conclusion.

Absolutely. Sabbath theology is a very important factor in the arrangement of the first story. And as you say this is a "logical" purpose. So we are already getting beyond the "literal" narrative.

There is no way that we can get around conceding that purpose is an organizing principal for narrative.

Agreed.

Gen. 2:4 is clearly a new thesis or subthesis. "These are the generations...." There is a new purpose. The text self-consciously announces a new beginning for the narrative. Must that necessarily be a new or different story by a new writer?

It was recognized millennia ago that it is a separate story that on the face of it tells a different story of creation. Theses to reconcile these stories go back long before modern times. That it is also by a different writer comes from the analyses that gave us the documentary hypothesis. No need to go into the details of that. I find it a compelling argument well-grounded in the evidence.

btw the term "new" assumes that the author of the second story--whether the same or different--was deliberately following on from the first story. But this is brought about by the redactor's choice, not by either author. What we think of as the second story was written two to four centuries before the "first" story and without benefit of any knowledge of the first story. The second story is also of the type that probably existed in oral tradition long before it was written. So we can think of it as having an independent history that long precedes the appearance of the first story. IOW, the author of the second story was not, in his own mind, "self-consciously announcing a new beginning" in contrast to the earlier narrative. He was simply telling a story. The announcement comes from the redactor who places it as a link between the stories and not from either author.

The only thing however I see that can possibly require that conclusion is the conviction that its all myth anyway because couldn't have done it in 7 days.

Oh, wow, not at all! The question of what is possible doesn't enter into it at all.

The text itself just doesn't supply that.

Yes it does. Not in terms of the plot outlines of each text, but in terms of the narrative form, choice of terminology, theological focus, and linguistic form of the Hebrew (by this I mean that the Hebrew of Genesis 1:1-2:3 stands in relation to the Hebrew of Genesis 2:4ff much as the English of today stands in relationship to Elizabethan English; it is clearly a later form of Hebrew) and the way these characteristics carry over into the rest of the Torah as it comes from these two authors. There is no way a single author could so consistently write as if he were two different writers over such a large body of work. One might get away with such an assertion if we confine our attention to just the creation stories, but we get the same sort of thing again in the Flood story, in many other doublets and even where they don't cover the same topics, we still get a consistency of style, focus, theme and theology that places one set of texts with one author and the other with another author.

Gen. 2:4 clearly begins an exposition of how it was that things grew.

No, it is about how things were made. "made" and "formed" are the verbs used consistently throughout the text:

"made the earth and the heavens"
"formed man"
"planted a garden ---made to grow every tree"
"formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air"
"made [the rib] into a woman".

To change the focus from "made/formed" to subsequent growth is moving away from the literal meaning of the text. It may or may not be sound exposition, but it is not based on the literal sense of the narrative.

busterdog · Jan 17, 2008

gluadys said:
"Narrative" and "poetic" are not mutually exclusive. Have you never read "narrative poems"? So, it is not an either-or intent.

Click to expand...

You know what I mean.

No, by "pole" in this context, I meant the two options given us by the contradiction in sequence, if we understand them both to be--as they appear to be--chronological sequences.

Click to expand...

I thought I said that.

Exactly. 'splainin is what we do when we decide that one or both sequences is not what it literally appears to be: a chronological sequence.

Click to expand...

I thought i said that.

Oh, wow, not at all! The question of what is possible doesn't enter into it at all.

Click to expand...

Somehow or other Fury must look out side the text to come to his conclusion. I just can't see how the text can possibly "compel" his conclusion. I see how you can argue it "allows" his conclusion, but that makes it clear that we are working the realm of man's logic and not necessarily the intent of the author (God). Begging the question, which is acknowledged.

Assyrian · Jan 17, 2008

theFijian said:
^^ Hooray for engaging with contemporary culture!

Harry Potter as a Christ figure next? Or is it too soon?

busterdog · Jan 17, 2008

Assyrian said:
Harry Potter as a Christ figure next? Or is it too soon?

Sadly, its been done.

That's the problem with metaphors. Thus, the need for narrative.

The inerrant position is that the idea of Tammuz and Semiramis as a story of virgin birth and life from the dead is an attempt to co-opt the metaphor itself. Having preceded the real Christ by what, 2,500 years or so (?), we would have to figure that there was a prophecy of the Christ that was at least available to someone, if not satan himself, and the attempt was made to innoculate the population against the real incarnation. (And to give grounds for the position that Jesus was a literary iteration of the model originated in Babylonian.)

The logical problem of the inerrant position is admitted -- at least to the extent that it must be judged by human logic. I appreciate Artic Fox questioning why we should even bother. But, we do. Spending any more time fleshing out the conspiratorial grounds for the story of Tammuz is probably pointless here an now. We could try, though.

But, as you can see from the story of Tammuz, there are ideas that are repellant simply because we limit ourselves metaphor. One could say that Jesus was not divine, but just another story, perhaps even a slight improvement. The logic allows that conclusion. Most here don't want that. But, reasoning against that position on literary grounds alone is difficult.

People can also say that witchcraft is really just like accepting salvation through Jesus. Both are magical in a way. So, why not Harry Potter. Again, reasoning on literary grounds alone is difficult. It can be done, but human reason rarely is going to find that compelling on logical grounds alone. Usually there must be more -- a better grip on the whole of the Bible, the Holy Spirit, prayer and fasting, yada yada. Obviously TEs, like YECs, avail themselves of the historical witness of Jesus. Once we go there, however, why do we still remain so confident that the OT prophecy is an iteration of Babylonian religion?

gluadys · Jan 17, 2008

busterdog said:
gluadys said:

I thought i said that.

Click to expand...

You did. Hence my response affirming what you said.

Somehow or other Fury must look out side the text to come to his conclusion. I just can't see how the text can possibly "compel" his conclusion.

Click to expand...

Which conclusion are you talking about?

He has said nothing about any impossibility of creation in 7 days.

The contradiction in the text is in the text, not outside it. It has long been a focus of explanations aimed at a reconciliation of the apparent contradiction.

That seems to leave the reference to the documentary thesis. But this too is based on the text, though in a different way than you are thinking of.

This, I expect, is where your difficulty lies. "Text" includes much more than a sequence of words conveying information. A text has structure. It has the characteristics of a genre. It includes imagery, motifs, and themes. It uses a characteristic language, both in its social (historical) form and in the idiosyncratic individual use of its resources by the author.

These are all grist for the mill of literary and linguistic analysis. And it is in this kind of reading of the text that some of us find the documentary thesis compelling. But please realize that this is all still a reading of the text and does not require going outside the text.

I see how you can argue it "allows" his conclusion, but that makes it clear that we are working the realm of man's logic and not necessarily the intent of the author (God).

Click to expand...

All exegesis and all hermeneutical approaches, including yours, "work the realm of man's [sic] logic" in pursuit of the author's intent and of God's intent.

How else do you come to an understanding of what the intent is?

shernren · Jan 17, 2008

busterdog said:
Gen. 2:4 clearly begins an exposition of how it was that things grew. It is about how God took what he had created and caused their generation or growth.

Oh, you'd be surprised when you read who caused their generation or growth:

When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up--for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground, and a mist was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground-- then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.
(Genesis 2:5-7 ESV)

(emphases added)

You would have thought it would be natural for the land to be barren if it was, y'know, 72-hours-old spanking new. Why did the author feel like he had to invoke the fact that there were no famers as an explanation for barrenness?

busterdog · Jan 17, 2008

shernren said:
You would have thought it would be natural for the land to be barren if it was, y'know, 72-hours-old spanking new. Why did the author feel like he had to invoke the fact that there were no famers as an explanation for barrenness?

I don't understand. Well, since Genesis was apparently written at the time of Moses, isn't explaining the growth of a garden going to require a little editorial note?

I think you are saying that discussing farmers at this point implies there would be farmers (plural) pre-fall. I see the implication (as opposed to an express reference to pre-fall farming). A question is presented by the text that requires an answer on the basis of worldview: 1. inerrancy and the context of the whole literal word; 2. evolution and the existence of "pre-Adamic" men. Either way, we are talking about an implied meaning of the text, not a requirement of the plain meaning.

TexasSky · Jan 17, 2008

The answer is, you are looking at a careless and inaccurate translation.

In the Hebrew language, context determines tense. Many translations of the bible try for "word for word" translation, and "miss" such things as contextual tense.

In Genesis 1, the order is laid out to show that Adam and Eve were formed first.

In Genesis 2,the word that your bible has translated as will, implying future tense, is properly translated as "had formed," or "having formed," both past tense.

Jews, familiar with Hebrew, and reading Hebrew, never saw a contradicition because they understood this about tense.

People translating from Hebrew, to Latin, to English are much more likely to make the "will" vs "having" error.

People translating straight from Hebrew to English dont' make that error.

theFijian · Jan 17, 2008

Assyrian said:
Harry Potter as a Christ figure next? Or is it too soon?

Things can obviously be taken too far, but since Paul chose to quote greek poetry to the greeks I don't see a problem.

Scotishfury09 · Jan 17, 2008

TexasSky said:
The answer is, you are looking at a careless and inaccurate translation.

In the Hebrew language, context determines tense. Many translations of the bible try for "word for word" translation, and "miss" such things as contextual tense.

In Genesis 1, the order is laid out to show that Adam and Eve were formed first.

In Genesis 2,the word that your bible has translated as will, implying future tense, is properly translated as "had formed," or "having formed," both past tense.

Jews, familiar with Hebrew, and reading Hebrew, never saw a contradicition because they understood this about tense.

People translating from Hebrew, to Latin, to English are much more likely to make the "will" vs "having" error.

People translating straight from Hebrew to English dont' make that error.

I'm not entirely sure you are talking about the same verb we are. The only one translated as "will" could not possibly be translated as "had formed", but I refer you to Assyrian's post earlier about the pluperfect tense. Also, the only english version that is translated from Latin is the KJV, and I don't know many TEs that use the KJV as their primary reference for scripture.

The NASB is translated straight from the Hebrew and translates the verbs as will make and formed, so just going from Hebrew to English isn't the problem.

busterdog · Jan 17, 2008

Scotishfury09 said:
I urge Creationists to explain to me how they can justify two completely different accounts of creation.

First creation story - Genesis 1:1-2:4a
Second creation story - Genesis 2:4b-25

In the first creation story birds and sea creatures are made on the fifth day. Land animals are made first on the sixth day, then Human beings.
In the second creation story God forms man from the dust and decides he needs a helper so he forms all of the animals and brings them to Adam.

Then the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him." Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.
Genesis 2:18-19 (NASB)

When were animals created? Before or after humans?

I think the onus remains with you for the reasons cited above.

You are implying a historical sequence that the text doesn't supply. The text supplies a sequence of presentation only. More than that is only implied.

We have talked amply about language and purpose and organizing principles. Clearly and without any reasonable doubt, sequence may imply a temporal relationship, but sequence alone cannot require that in its surface text. In Gen. 1, the sequence is augmented by parallel construction and continuity of purpose or intent. And it says, "on day one." (Or at least King James does)

What you imply is not crazy, but it is also not required. I suggest you get clear about the difference between an implied meaning and the surface text. One is arguable, the other isn't.

Purpose is evident in the images used. "Out of the ground" is evidently quite distinct from "out of man". You say its a different story. There is a good case to be made for, same story, different purpose.

And why are you using Jerome or Latin terms to address a Hebrew tense? "[SIZE=-1]Those who believe that the stars were formed before Day 4 make a point from Hebrew syntax. Hebrew does not have a specific way of communicating a pluperfect ..." http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=pluperfect+hebrew&btnG=Google+Search[/SIZE]

gluadys · Jan 17, 2008

busterdog said:
You are implying a historical sequence that the text doesn't supply. The text supplies a sequence of presentation only. More than that is only implied.

Is that not also a legitimate way to understand the 6 days of Genesis 1? As a sequence of presentation only?

Scotishfury09 · Jan 17, 2008

busterdog said:
I think the onus remains with you for the reasons cited above.

You are implying a historical sequence that the text doesn't supply. The text supplies a sequence of presentation only. More than that is only implied.

We have talked amply about language and purpose and organizing principles. Clearly and without any reasonable doubt, sequence may imply a temporal relationship, but sequence alone cannot require that in its surface text. In Gen. 1, the sequence is augmented by parallel construction and continuity of purpose or intent. And it says, "on day one." (Or at least King James does)

What you imply is not crazy, but it is also not required. I suggest you get clear about the difference between an implied meaning and the surface text. One is arguable, the other isn't.

Purpose is evident in the images used. "Out of the ground" is evidently quite distinct from "out of man". You say its a different story. There is a good case to be made for, same story, different purpose.

And why are you using Jerome or Latin terms to address a Hebrew tense? "[SIZE=-1]Those who believe that the stars were formed before Day 4 make a point from Hebrew syntax. Hebrew does not have a specific way of communicating a pluperfect ..." http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=pluperfect+hebrew&btnG=Google+Search[/SIZE]

Busterdog, I'm not entirely sure you've been paying attention to the most recent posts.

To clarify, Jerome wrote the Latin Vulgate. The KJV was translated form Jerome's Latin Vulgate. I typically use the NASB as that is the most accurate translation I've come across (at least in regards to Greek. I don't know enough about Hebrew to make a judgment, but the Greek to English is very good), and the NIV because it's also a good translation, but uses more modern language. You have used the KJV; the only translation that was taken from the Latin Vulgate. You are the one using Jerome, not me.

Now that that is cleared up...

Although I still think there are multiple differences between the two passages that are problematic to creationists, this might not be the best case for it. The more I look at the ellipses of verses 10-14 the more I can see the parallelism.

The writer of this account first talks about the garden and then realizes s/he should talk about where the garden is.

The writer tells where the garden is by talking about the well-known rivers that made up its borders and then dives back into the story.

It looks like this could be the same thing. God has made man and placed him in the garden. God realizes that man needs a helper. The writer realizes s/he needs to explain that God created the animals, so s/he does so. God creates the animals out of the ground in a like manner that He created man. Then the writer explains that God brought the animals to man, but they weren't suited to be his mate, and so God creates woman.

Even though the first mention of the garden is not in its formation like the animals, it is still understood that the borders of the garden were not created at that specific moment, but rather the writer is explaining what the borders are. Likewise, the writer explain how the animals were made, because that's what is important.

Once again, I still think there are a plethora of other problems with the two accounts, but I now realize that this one probably isn't the best to use. And yes, shernren, I realize this is essentially what you were already saying. I apologize for any previous bashing to either side.

LittleLambofJesus · Jan 17, 2008

I do have a question. I like to use word for word from the Hebrew and the break between vs 3 and 4 is awkward here. Take out the verse number 4 and it would say "to make these generations". Has this been brought up yet? Thanks

3 And 'Elohiym is hallowing <ath> Day of the Seventh. And He is hallowing him, that in him He ceases/shabath from all work of Him which 'Elohiym creates, to make these generations of...........

http://www.scripture4all.org/

Genesis 2:1 And the heavens and the land are being finished and all hosts of them.

2 And 'Elohiym is finishing in Day, the Seventh, work of Him which He makes. And He is ceasing/shabath in day of the seventh from all of work of Him which He makes

3 And 'Elohiym is hallowing <ath> Day of the Seventh. And He is hallowing him, that in him He ceases/shabath from all work of Him which 'Elohiym creates, to make......

4 ........these generations /towl@dah of the heavens and the land, in to be creating them, in [a] day YHWH 'Elohiym to make land and heavens.

Scotishfury09 · Jan 17, 2008

LittleLambofJesus said:
I do have a question. I like to use word for word from the Hebrew and the break between vs 3 and 4 is awkward here. Take out the verse number 4 and it would say "to make these generations". Has this been brought up yet? Thanks

3 And 'Elohiym is hallowing <ath> Day of the Seventh. And He is hallowing him, that in him He ceases/shabath from all work of Him which 'Elohiym creates, to make these generations of...........

http://www.scripture4all.org/

Genesis 2:1 And the heavens and the land are being finished and all hosts of them.

2 And 'Elohiym is finishing in Day, the Seventh, work of Him which He makes. And He is ceasing/shabath in day of the seventh from all of work of Him which He makes

3 And 'Elohiym is hallowing <ath> Day of the Seventh. And He is hallowing him, that in him He ceases/shabath from all work of Him which 'Elohiym creates, to make......

4 ........these generations /towl@dah of the heavens and the land, in to be creating them, in [a] day YHWH 'Elohiym to make land and heavens.

The phrase "and these are the generations of..." happens quite frequently in Genesis. I think v. 4 is definitely supposed to be there.

LittleLambofJesus · Jan 17, 2008

Scotishfury09 said:
The phrase "and these are the generations of..." happens quite frequently in Genesis. I think v. 4 is definitely supposed to be there.

Hi and thanks for the reply.
The problem is, there is no "and" in the Hebrew which, as we know, is formed unto the word it is associated with, just like the article. In the greek of course they are seperate words. Will look at it again and have you looked at the Hebrew with this interlinear? Thoughts?

http://www.scripture4all.org/

Creationists, what's up with two creation stories?

you are not reading this.

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Legend

Senior Veteran

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

Senior Veteran

Legend

you are not reading this.

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

G.R.O.S.S. Dictator-For-Life

Senior Veteran

Legend

G.R.O.S.S. Dictator-For-Life

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

G.R.O.S.S. Dictator-For-Life

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency