Six Day Creation? No Way!

dad · Aug 14, 2017

GUANO said:
The Feasts, rites, rituals and ceremonies are inspired prophecy concerning the entire history of the world. I obviously believe that God created the heavens and the earth, but the details around any of that don't particularly concern me nor are they important in my perspective. I'm more concerned with the language of prophecy itself and Genesis sets up the 'model' upon which all of the prophets use to convey their prophetic images.

Why not say the exact thing about specific days and seasons mentioned then? When Peter caught fish, why think they were actually fish? Why a real boat? How about the ark? The temple? To understand the 'language' of prophesy, one needs to believe it first. A virgin shall give birth to Messiah...was that a prophetic image? Bethlehem? Why pick on Genesis as the big candidate for spiritualizing away?

dad · Aug 14, 2017

KomatiiteBIF said:
Without understanding things like geology, people would not come to an understanding of an old earth simply based on scripture. Scripture just isn't written in a way which would clarify such a thing. People must be scientifically literate to understand God's creation of earth.

False. Did we have to be a doctor to understand a virgin would conceive?

KWCrazy · Aug 14, 2017

GUANO said:
The model that makes the most sense would be to translate 'yom' as an age/aeon rather than a day, and even when we break it down to earth-ages, we end up at a 2,160-year prophetic day, but a "galactic" 'day' is 250-million earth-years (the time it takes us to rotate all the way around the center of the milky way galaxy), and if we use that perspective, (7 days = 1.75 billion years).

You can make believe all you want, but given the verbiage of Genesis one there is no doubt in the minds of Hebrew scholars that the author intended to mean six individual solar days; not eons, not millennia. Six days. That is confirmed in Exodus 20:11.

I do believe that there were humans before 'adam and eve' and the scriptures in genesis support it.

No they don't.
Your statement is a flat out lie. You can't support it with Scripture.
1 Corinthians 15:
45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.
48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.
49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

Genesis 1:
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

dad · Aug 14, 2017

Tree of Life said:
About 35% of Scripture is poetry. This does not make it untrue, but it can affect the way that we interpret it. There are usually pretty clear signals that a text is a poem.

The Psalms is a book about Jesus, cover to cover. It is a poetic book also. The New Testament quotes it a lot for specific prophesy. In no way is it not specific or literal in prophesy just because it it called a poetic book. David fought battles, lusted after a woman. Real battles and a real woman.

pat34lee · Aug 14, 2017

OldWiseGuy said:
The physical evidence strongly indicates an old earth recently renewed on the surface (see Genesis One).

The gap theory is the easiest one to disprove.
Too many fossils from 'before' are too fragile to
have lived through the 'whatever happened' that
forced a new creation. Many would not survive
the flood either, making them post-flood fossils.

pat34lee · Aug 14, 2017

Another good proof of Adam and Eve being the first people.

Genesis 3:20
And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

GUANO · Aug 14, 2017

dad said:
Why not say the exact thing about specific days and seasons mentioned then? When Peter caught fish, why think they were actually fish? Why a real boat? How about the ark? The temple? To understand the 'language' of prophesy, one needs to believe it first. A virgin shall give birth to Messiah...was that a prophetic image? Bethlehem? Why pick on Genesis as the big candidate for spiritualizing away?

That's a good question. Most of the time you can clearly distinguish between a 'prophetic utterance' (often preceded by "thus sayeth the Lord" "on that night x had a vision") and a general narrative (such as Peter fishing). In the case of Genesis it's not that obvious which is why I'm pretty much open to anything in that regard. If we look at the logistics, at best, Genesis was penned in some form after the Exodus of ~2150 BCE, if we believe the accounts literally, we understand that Genesis was penned at _least_ 500-600 years after the flood but most likely much more, I believe the chronology is there in the books but I don't remember it. With that being said, I am assuming that the content of at least Genesis 1 & 2 came in part through a revelation of God to Aaron in the same way that prophetic utterances occur—God could have also preserved it through oral tradition, each of those methods are quite miraculous in themselves. There are also many who claim or suggest that the Torah was heavily modified in 600 BCE while in Captivity in Babylon—Jeremiah himself seems to elude to something of this nature.

Genesis is not something I'd like to 'spiritualize away'. The torah i find to be the most complex books in the Bible and there is certainly more there than any one person can take from it in a lifetime. What I have personally gotten from it was a cosmology which helps to understand biblical prophecy in general.

But as far as I know, the "firmament" isn't firm at all and there is no 'water' above it, and underneath the earth there is no water either, it's a land mass with water on top of it—which is the opposite of what Genesis says. Let's just all be happy that our interpretations of the Genesis creation do not make or break our salvation.

Oseas · Aug 14, 2017

Paul of Eugene OR said:
But the problem with saying you can't trust science is actually saying you can't trust God. Because science merely brings out what the stars, the rocks, and the genomes are telling us, and they were made directly by God.

The billions of years for the earth and the universe stand firmly established. Therefore, scripture must be understood in relation to those facts. Let me point to another fact about scripture.

Scripture over and over says the sun rose and set. It is described as moving across the sky. It is described as halting that motion at Joshua's command. This language is not poetic, it is literal.

Science has revealed the sun doesn't really do that, rather, the earth rotates as the cause of day and night. I can't bring myself to deny that science. Therefore, I re-interpret scripture about the sun rising and setting, and instead of clinging to a forced literal understanding, I allow the understanding that the writer was doing the best he knew as he wrote, and I see no problem allowing him to speak of the sun rising and setting.

It is my contention we can do the same with the age of the earth and the fact of evolution. It seems to me to be a better thing to do than to assert the scriptures are in error.

Its no use arguing against the science. The only way to do that is to first not understand it. Creationists demonstrate this over and over when they try to talk about science as they understand it.

Hi You wrote: >>>But the problem with saying you can't trust science is actually saying you can't trust God. Because science merely brings out what the stars, the rocks, and the genomes are telling us, and they were made directly by God.<<<

The problem is the literal interpretation of Scriptures, because the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. God is Spirit. See, the material things are figures of spiritual things. JESUS is unequaled in the use of material things to explain the spiritual things, as seen in the Gospels. For instance, heaven is not the physical space of the Universe (sky), but celestial regions in Christ (Eph.1:3) like the OT and NT. By the way, there are several heavens. 1st, 2nd, 3rd and heaven of the heavens. Woman in the Bible is a figure of the Church of Christ, and the Church is figured as the body of Christ. In Rev.12:1 we see a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the Sun, and the Moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars. The woman is the Church of Christ, the Sun is the Greater Light (it is the person of JESUS, the true Messiah) and the Moon is the lesser Light (the person of the Holy Spirit, the Comfort, the Paraclete), both mencioned in Gen.1:v.16, and the crown of twelve stars are te twelve Apostles of Christ. Do you see? The Sun, and the Moon, and the stars, has nothing to do with the physical celestial corps of sky.

You wrote: >>>The billions of years for the earth and the universe stand firmly established. Therefore, scripture must be understood in relation to those facts. Let me point to another fact about scripture.<<<
The science of men and their ability, need to evolve much more to know the age of the earth, I do not believe they will because the end of all things is at door. If I am not wrong, they have reached 14 to 15 billion years, perhaps because the capacity of their measuring instruments has reached its limit, ahahah. The age of the earth is much much more than this. By the way, God is from Eternity to Eternity, He has no beginning and no end, JESUS is the beginning and the end, the Alpha and the Omega.

You wrote: >>>Scripture over and over says the sun rose and set. It is described as moving across the sky. It is described as halting that motion at Joshua's command. This language is not poetic, it is literal. Science has revealed the sun doesn't really do that, rather, the earth rotates as the cause of day and night. I can't bring myself to deny that science. Therefore, I re-interpret scripture about the sun rising and setting, and instead of clinging to a forced literal understanding, I allow the understanding that the writer was doing the best he knew as he wrote, and I see no problem allowing him to speak of the sun rising and setting.<<<
Such a fact is very difficult to be understood by scientists as much as the resurrection of the dead, the multiplication of the loaves, the healing of lepers, lame, among others. By the way, death is the last enemy to be annihilated now in this beginning of the seventh and last millennium or last Day of the week of God, which is the Millennium of Christ or the Day of the Lord. Which of these things do you or the scientists think is more difficult to make happen? Tell me.

You wrote: >>>It is my contention we can do the same with the age of the earth and the fact of evolution. It seems to me to be a better thing to do than to assert the scriptures are in error. <<<
Again, the science of men and their ability, need to evolve much more to know the age of the earth. If I am not wrong, they have reached 14 to 15 billion years, perhaps because the capacity of their measuring instruments has reached its limit. The age of the earth is much much more than this. By the way, God is from Eternity to Eternity, He has no beginning and no end, JESUS is the beginning and the end, the Alpha and the Omega.

You wrote: >>>Its no use arguing against the science. The only way to do that is to first not understand it. <<<
We can say the same about Bible. The only way to do that is to first not understand it.

You wrote: >>>Creationists demonstrate this over and over when they try to talk about science as they understand it.<<<
What man knows the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knows no man, but the Spirit of God. My speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of Power, that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory.

GUANO · Aug 14, 2017

KWCrazy said:
You can make believe all you want, but given the verbiage of Genesis one there is no doubt in the minds of Hebrew scholars that the author intended to mean six individual solar days; not eons, not millennia. Six days. That is confirmed in Exodus 20:11.

Thanks for allowing me to speculate on things that have been speculated on for literally thousands of years.

But I think you meant: "there is no doubt in the minds of certain Hebrew scholars"... I'll leave it at that.

KWCrazy said:
Your statement is a flat out lie. You can't support it with Scripture.

Sure I can.

In Genesis 4 we see that Adam and Eve gave birth to their first 2 male children: Cain and Abel... Cain slew Abel, so now there are 2 human males in the whole world—the females omitted.

Cain says:
Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.

And the Lord said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.

Who is Cain worried about finding and killing him if his father is the only other male in existence—and one who doesn't condone murder? It doesn't specify whether he chose a 'sister-wife' or chose a partner from among the 'daughters of men'... More controversial statements—have at 'em.

GUANO · Aug 14, 2017

pat34lee said:
The gap theory is the easiest one to disprove.
Too many fossils from 'before' are too fragile to
have lived through the 'whatever happened' that
forced a new creation. Many would not survive
the flood either, making them post-flood fossils.

The formation of fossils require that the animal or carcass become instantly buried in 'mud' or some other catalyzing medium which would be expected in a big flood. Fossils don't form on the surface because the bones disintegrate. I'm not arguing for the 'gap' theory, just pointing that out.

dad · Aug 14, 2017

pat34lee said:
The gap theory is the easiest one to disprove.
Too many fossils from 'before' are too fragile to
have lived through the 'whatever happened' that
forced a new creation. Many would not survive
the flood either, making them post-flood fossils.

A cambrian layer fossil is post flood? I thought a flood was on the surface, what about rocks and fossils thousands of feet down?

dad · Aug 14, 2017

GUANO said:
That's a good question. Most of the time you can clearly distinguish between a 'prophetic utterance' (often preceded by "thus sayeth the Lord" "on that night x had a vision") and a general narrative (such as Peter fishing).

Yet so many prophesies about Jesus were not even known to be about Him till the New Testament pointed it out.

In the case of Genesis it's not that obvious which is why I'm pretty much open to anything in that regard.

It is offered as a record of creation of man and the world and the heavens. How it is hard to figure?

If we look at the logistics, at best, Genesis was penned in some form after the Exodus of ~2150 BCE, if we believe the accounts literally, we understand that Genesis was penned at _least_ 500-600 years after the flood but most likely much more, I believe the chronology is there in the books but I don't remember it.

Jesus chatted with Moses on the mountain, and also verified that Scripture was true as true ever could be. So Genesis is true. When God passed it on to the men He used to pen it doesn't matter at all.

With that being said, I am assuming that the content of at least Genesis 1 & 2 came in part through a revelation of God to Aaron in the same way that prophetic utterances occur—God could have also preserved it through oral tradition, each of those methods are quite miraculous in themselves.

Or on the mountain in the forty days...well 80 days! Who knows? It was verified as from God either way.

There are also many who claim or suggest that the Torah was heavily modified in 600 BCE while in Captivity in Babylon—Jeremiah himself seems to elude to something of this nature.

Jesus quoted it no? He was fooled?

But as far as I know, the "firmament" isn't firm at all

Depends what interpretation of the word we use.

extended surface (solid), expanse, firmament

expanse (flat as base, support)
firmament (of vault of heaven supporting waters above)
1. considered by Hebrews as solid and supporting 'waters' above

The bible doesn't say how 'Hebrews' thought of the expanse. It does say the stars were put in there. Looking up in the air at the moon, I would be surprised if people really thought the sky was metal.

and there is no 'water' above it,

Says who? You been to the far side of the universe beyond the stars?

and underneath the earth there is no water either,

There WAS. For all I know, there may still be, the reasons they say the interior is hot are debatable and based on very indirect evidence.

Oseas · Aug 14, 2017

Tree of Life said:
It appears that light is created on the first day.

No, the case in this first Day of God's Plan is not about creation of light, but the manifestation of the Light, when God said "Let there be light and there was light", because God is Light and in Him is no darkness at all. God is from Eternity to Eternity, God is Light, so the Light is from Eternity to Eternity in God. By the way, if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleans us from all sin.

Oseas · Aug 14, 2017

buzuxi02 said:
In the "Beginning" God created Heaven and Earth. 'The beginning' didn't start till the second day.

(1John1:1) That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;

John1:1to4
1 In the beginning (in JESUS) was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning (in JESUS) with God.
3 All things were made by him (by JESUS); and without him (without JESUS) was not any thing made that was made.
4 In Him (in JESUS) was life; and the life was the light of men. (God is light. JESUS is the light that came into the world, sent by God the Father, ie the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth..)

Oseas · Aug 14, 2017

buzuxi02 said:
In the "Beginning" God created Heaven and Earth. 'The beginning' didn't start till the second day.

That is your literal interpretation. In the beginning (in JESUS) God created heaven and earth.
1John 1:1 - That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
John 1:1&5
1 - In the beginning (in JESUS) was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning (in JESUS) with God.
3 All things were made by him (by JESUS); and without him (without JESUS) was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him (in JESUS) was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
LET THERE BE LIGHT.

Paul of Eugene OR · Aug 14, 2017

Oseas said:
You wrote: >>>The billions of years for the earth and the universe stand firmly established. Therefore, scripture must be understood in relation to those facts. Let me point to another fact about scripture.<<<
The science of men and their ability, need to evolve much more to know the age of the earth, I do not believe they will because the end of all things is at door. If I am not wrong, they have reached 14 to 15 billion years, perhaps because the capacity of their measuring instruments has reached its limit, ahahah
. . . . .

Such a post shows you have no idea how the age of the universe and the age of the earth are determined.

OldWiseGuy · Aug 14, 2017

GUANO said:
But as far as I know, the "firmament" isn't firm at all and there is no 'water' above it, and underneath the earth there is no water either, it's a land mass with water on top of it—which is the opposite of what Genesis says. Let's just all be happy that our interpretations of the Genesis creation do not make or break our salvation.

The 'firmament' is indeed firm, as it has mass. The clouds are the 'waters above'. The 'fountains of the great deep' are just that, the structure that holds the seas. Genesis nails it.

GUANO · Aug 15, 2017

dad said:
Yet so many prophesies about Jesus were not even known to be about Him till the New Testament pointed it out.

many are not known until fulfilled, and even then many deny.

dad said:
It is offered as a record of creation of man and the world and the heavens. How it is hard to figure?

I agree. But it's just so hard for me I guess.

dad said:
Jesus chatted with Moses on the mountain, and also verified that Scripture was true as true ever could be. So Genesis is true. When God passed it on to the men He used to pen it doesn't matter at all.

Jesus neither confirmed nor denied what they saw at all, nor did He say anything about talking to Moses or Elijah—nor does the scripture say anything about him 'chatting about the authenticity of the Torah' during that event. It was a vision that was seen by Peter, James, and John and the vision was for them and their faith—with the fact of it being on a mountain side there would have been many witnesses if it were not a vision. Let's not even get into that.

dad said:
Or on the mountain in the forty days...well 80 days! Who knows? It was verified as from God either way.

I'm not denying the authenticity of the Word of God—I just tend to separate fact from truth.

dad said:
Jesus quoted it no? He was fooled?

He quoted 2 verses from Genesis. It doesn't mean everything written is literal fact but again, i'm completely open to it being literal fact—it just doesn't 'do anything' for me in the context.

dad said:
Depends what interpretation of the word we use.

extended surface (solid), expanse, firmament

expanse (flat as base, support)

firmament (of vault of heaven supporting waters above)

considered by Hebrews as solid and supporting 'waters' above

The bible doesn't say how 'Hebrews' thought of the expanse. It does say the stars were put in there. Looking up in the air at the moon, I would be surprised if people really thought the sky was metal.
Says who? You been to the far side of the universe beyond the stars?
There WAS. For all I know, there may still be, the reasons they say the interior is hot are debatable and based on very indirect evidence.

The firmament is specifically referencing the fixed constellations, as opposed to the 'luminaries' (planets) that aren't 'stuck' to the firmament but wander of their own accord (seemingly). The firmament is often described in the bible as a tent.

You can descend a couple miles in the deepest mine gold mine on earth (South Africa), the miners work in temps in excess of 150 degrees. It's hot down there even just a little ways down. Anyways, I don't think we're getting anywhere but good conversation regardless =)

Oseas · Aug 15, 2017

KWCrazy said:
Lucifer was an archangel and was by no means the ruler of heaven. He was a deceiver cast out of Heaven with a third of the angles before the creation of our universe.
>>>Lucifer was an archangel and was by no means the ruler of heaven. He was a deceiver cast out of Heaven with a third of the angles before the creation of our universe.<<<

The old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, who is also the red dragon which is showed in Rev. 12:v.3-4, he will be bound now in this beginning of the first century of the seventh and last millennium or seventh and last Day of God's week, for a thousand years, he will be cast into the bottomless pit, and will be shut and a seal will be set upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled. This will not be a magic operation, but a battle against him.
Furthermore, the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, the are in everlasting chains under darkness unto this Judgment of this great Day, the seventh and last Day of the week of God, that is the Day of the Lord.

>>>The only possible gap is that in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was without form and void, and darkness was on the face of the deep. This means that the earth began in a gaseous state then cooled to solid on the first day as God separated the light from the darkness; meaning that something.... the planet itself... blocked the light. The planet in rotation made the evening and the morning; the first day of creation. This is called the beginning. But what begins? Certainly our world and our solar system. The sun, moon and stars were created, presumably from the entity known as "light" on day four. So the starts which would be used for seasons and for navigation were created then. Does this mean the creation of our galaxy, or of all galaxies? That is not specifically defined. One can look up into the night sky and see stars with which to navigate and tell seasons, but other galaxies are too far away for any of that.<<<
Sorry, your interpretation of Scriptures is literally materialist Remember: The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. God is Spirit. What man knows the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knows no man, but the Spirit of God.

>>>Adam and Eve were the first man and woman created. Were they the only ones created? These questions seem to have no answers in the Scriptures. While asking them is in no way offensive, to proclaim that these are truths without confirmation from the Scriptures would be false doctrine.<<<
Oh no, there was a population in the garden of Edem. The Garden was ruled by a Cherub and there were myriad of angels, which rebbelled against God and they lost their celestial nature. Where were you when God laid the foundations of the earth, when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

>>> The Word doesn't tell us everything, but it tells us that our world was created in six days.<<<
Of what world are you speaking? Have you never read? The worlds(plural) were framed by the Word of God, so that things which are seen WERE NOT MADE of things which do appear. Seems you are in great darkness.

>>>I must tell that in Genesis 1:1, waters verily are “peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues” and not H2O, the Spirit of God did not move upon H2O. Later you will understand better this mystery in the message. You need to keep your opinion as your opinion unless you can provided definitive proof of the veracity of your contention. I have my own ideas, but I don't present them as factual.<<<
In truth the Spirit of God does not move upon H2O. Waters verily are “peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues”, said the angel of the Lord to John.

>>>However, it was Christ, not God who walked and talked with Adam. It was Christ who had to look for Adam for nothing is hidden from the father. We know this because nobody could see the face of God and live. So the Father communicates with man thought the Son; Jesus Christ. When God speaks it is a booming voice; first to Moses and then to those who witnessed Christs' baptism. "This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased.<<<
God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Has in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he has appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the WORLDS (PLURAL); Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high: Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

buzuxi02 · Aug 15, 2017

Oseas said:
That is your literal interpretation. In the beginning (in JESUS) God created heaven and earth.
1John 1:1 - That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
John 1:1&5
1 - In the beginning (in JESUS) was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning (in JESUS) with God.
3 All things were made by him (by JESUS); and without him (without JESUS) was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him (in JESUS) was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
LET THERE BE LIGHT.

I have always tended to interpret the first day as a revelation of the Triune God. You have God, the only begotten Light, and the water and Spirit (John 7:38-39).
And the first day was also called the eighth day and even cannotations of the eternal day in early christianity.

Six Day Creation? No Way!

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

Newbie

Undefeated!

Messianic

Messianic

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Finally Old Enough

Wake me when it's soup.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency