Ishmael on Hagar's Shoulders?

admin · 08-29-09 6:47 am

I've started reading the Bible cover to cover and finished reading the story of Ishmael and Hagar this morning. This caught my attention:

"Early the next morning Abraham gave Hagar some food and a leather bag full of water. He put the child on her back and sent her away." Gen. 21:14-15, Good News Bible.

The reason this caught my attention is because a little simple math shows that Ishmael, at the time he was sent away with his mother, was at least 14. "How could a mother carry a 14-year old boy on her back!?" I thought to myself.

So, I googled "did hagar carry ishmael on her back?" and found this nice page which helped me make sense of the passage (my conclusion: probably a bad job on the part of the Good News Bible, but not entirely convinced yet). I think it deals quite well with the translation issues of this passage, so enjoy: http://www.answering-islam.org/BibleCom/gen21-14.html. Don't worry, I'm not Muslim.

By the way, I've been using the Good News Bible because I like the line drawings and the language, but I'm thinking of switching to the NRSV since I'm starting to doubt the Good News Bible's accuracy. On the other hand, sticking with the Good News Bible may force me to do a little extra research and gain more understanding about certain passages...

Ryan

(Message edited by admin on August 29, 2009)

billdljr · 08-29-09 9:28 am

I very much appreciate the information regarding Ishmael and Hagar. Thank you. Any more such discussion is always welcomed. This forum could really benefit from such informed posts.

Bill Diehl

billdljr · 08-29-09 9:47 am

Here are some of the basic, generally agreed upon, rules for interpreting the Bible. We printed these in a little booklet back in 1978, but they are still relevant today. If we can keep these suggestions in mind as we read the bible, many of the unorthodox interpretations that we see offered by some of the pentecostal and dispensational sects can be avoided by the informed student of the bible.

A Grasp of the Rules of Interpretation

We need to pay attention to five fundamental rules of Biblical hermeneutics:

1. The Old Testament must be interpreted by the New. Once we grasp the overall outline of the Bible and see that it is a progressive revelation, we will always look to see how the New Testament interprets the Old Testament. For instance, God promised Abraham a Seed which would bring a blessing to all nations. The New Testament interprets that Seed as Christ (Gal. 3:16). We are not to take the things of the old covenant and fabricate the meaning of them out of our own head. The New Testament interprets the meaning of the Passover, the offerings under the Law, the priestly ministry, etc.

The same principle applies to the handling of Old Testament prophecies. Those prophecies are not self-interpreting. Some people pride themselves that they can understand these prophecies if they simply take them "literally." And without consulting the interpretation of the New Testament, they arrive at all sorts of fantastic things which are supposed to happen in modern day Palestine. A prophecy may or may not be meant to be understood literally. For example, Isaiah declared that God would put a foundation stone in Zion, one that would support a building in time of wind and hail (Isa. 28:16). He does not say he means that the stone is a person. It is a veiled prophecy of Christ. We need the New Testament to interpret it for us. The same prophet speaks in terms of a highway building program in the desert to make a way for the King of Israel (Isa. 40:3, 4). Few would be foolish enough to see this being fulfilled in the freeways which the Israelis are now constructing in the new State of Israel. The New Testament authoritatively interprets the prophecy for us as meaning the mission of John the Baptist. Malachi 4:5 speaks of Elijah's coming before the day of the Lord. No intimation is given that it is not to be taken with strict literalness. When we read the New Testament, "Elijah" turns out to be John the Baptist.

The prophet Amos writes about the time when God would "raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen . . . and . . . build it as in the days of old." What does this mean? The rebuilding of Solomon's temple? The New Testament interprets it for us. This took place in the outpouring of the Spirit in the raising up of the Christian church (see Acts 15:16).

Not only does the New Testament show us how to interpret the prophecies of the Old Testament, but it shows us how to interpret the laws of the Old Testament. The New Testament shows us how the laws of ceremony have met their spiritual reality in the person and work of Christ. But not all the laws found in the Old Testament are ceremonial in nature. Some are moral, and their moral principles are perpetually binding. The apostle Paul refers to a number of them as a rule of life for Christians. The Sermon on the Mount interprets the moral precepts of the Ten Commandments and, instead of lessening their binding force, strengthens their demand for holiness (see Matt. 5:17-28). Jesus claimed the authority to interpret the law. When a dispute arose about proper observance of the Sabbath, He claimed His Lordship of the Sabbath (Mark 2:28) and interpreted the law to allow for works of mercy and necessity to be performed on the Sabbath.

All this goes to show how important it is that we allow the New Testament to interpret the Old Testament.

don · 08-29-09 11:40 am

On the other hand, sticking with the Good News Bible may force me to do a little extra research and gain more understanding about certain passages...

I have used the Good News Bible as a class devotional Bible each morning. I recall the "surprises" in reading were often. But, after checking out the passage from other sources, the GNB's reading was often quite reasonable.

Ryan, the sources you have linked provided insight into how complex translations can be and thus, how cautious we should be. :-)

Also, the ancients were just that, ancient; they weren't lacking in intelligence any more than we are today.

If a story seems contradictory, I remind myself of their intelligence and then wonder what is missing from my understanding. Why did it seem like a sensible story to them and it doesn't to us?

john8verse32 · 08-29-09 12:56 pm

The Sermon on the Mount interprets the moral precepts of the Ten Commandments

but there is a slight problem with the story of the Sermon on the mount:

its not even certain that the Sermon on the Mount was on the mount!!!

it was, according to Matt....

(KJV) Matthew 5:1 And seeing the multitudes, he went...UP..., ...UP... into a mountain:

and when he was set, his disciples came unto him: 2 And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying, 3 Blessed [are] the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

but Luke tells a diferent story:

KJV Luke 6:12 And it came to pass in those days, that he went out into a mountain to pray, and continued all night in prayer to God. 13 And when it was day, he called [unto him] his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles; ......

17 And he came ...DOWN... with them, and ...
.......stood in the PLAIN......

20 And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said, Blessed [be ye] poor: for yours is the kingdom of God. 21 Blessed [are ye] that hunger now: for ye shall be filled. Blessed [are ye] that weep now: for ye shall laugh. 22 Blessed are ye, etc, etc, etc....

on the mountain? or down in the plain?
why can't it be consistant if it is the divinely inspired, innerrant word by which we must live or God will burn us to death?

if we can't even keep the best of the best story consistant within the NT, is it any wonder that modern, educated people dismiss tales of talking snakes & donkeys, and the scientifically and philosophically questionable tales of God trying to kill Egypts innocent children to impress the Pharaoh, or our Loving, heavenly Father abdicating his celestial, paternal responsibilty, and capriciously deciding to kill everybody with a flood because the really hot women were hooking up with space aliens?

has anybody really read this passage and understood it?
(CEV) Genesis 6:1 More and more people were born, until finally they spread all over the earth. Some of their daughters were so beautiful that supernatural beings came down and married the ones they wanted. 3 Then the LORD said, "I won't let my life-giving breath remain in anyone forever. No one will live for more than one hundred twenty years."

4 The children of the supernatural beings who had married these women became famous heroes and warriors. They were called Nephilim and lived on the earth at that time and even later.

5 The LORD saw how bad the people on earth were and that everything they thought and planned was evil.
6 He was very sorry that he had made them,
7 and he said,

"I'll destroy every living creature on earth!

I'll wipe out people, animals, birds, and reptiles.

I'm sorry I ever made them." ---quote from our loving Hebrew God????

Literal truth? or a made up "parable", for educational, entertainment, and instructional purposes... prepared by superstitious, ignorant people to explain the flooding of coastlines as glaciers melted and the oceans rose.... told around the campfire to explain to Hebrew kids how important their family history was...and that their father was more powerful than Egypts father!!!

examples of one-ups-manship and how the writers of the hebrew Biography tried to show their importance in world history:

Noah saved the whole world from "40" days of rain... the figurative 40 representing largest number that two ignorant goat herders could count to on their combined fingers and toes.

Joseph Saved all of Egypt from 7 years of drought!!! the divine 7..based on the five visible planets lus the sun and moon, after which we get our days of the week.
Question: whycouldn't God have foreseen or modified the drought in Judea which forced Joseph's family to abandone their homeland for the waters of the Nile in the first place?
Why did God lead Olde Abe to a drought prone area in the first place? Why not tell him to have stayed at harren, next to the Euphrates, where there never has been a problem with lack of water?

Adam started it all...as a progenitor of the Isrealites...

Moses commanded millions of them for "40" yrs....{but left behind no evidence!!!}

Moses staff turned snake ate the Egyptian staff-turned snakes!!! another my father can beat your father example

the entire world revolved around David and Solomons "kingdoms"...even tho modern archeology shows they were just small, local fiefdoms.

entire nations cowered at the Hebrews feet..when they did what their God said to do...(except the neighbors histories do not seem to show this fear!!!)

maybe because that time that neither the Israelites nor their God could defeat the plains peoples who had iron chariots!!!

and as Ryan points out, Ishmael was really the first born son, and even today, according to Arab and past Jewish law, he shudda received the birthright, and should be the rightful inheritor of the holy land.

so the story of Sarah imploring Abe to kick Haggar and ishmael out into the desert with scarce rations to survive....

if God was leading this event, why couldn't He have foreseen all the problems this would cause down the road, and just divide things up with fair justice then?

either way, modern, educated people are turning away from a literal understanding of so much of what we all once took as literally and inerrantly, divinely inspired fact and history, when it is beginning to look as tho it was the slanted, self serving story of a small tribe of nomads looking for a homeland.

and instant access to all this information on the internet has accelerated the process of disbelief.

who ever had time in the past to filter thru EGW's books for the "problems"...now all it takes is to click on any one of dozens of non-official web sites!!! which the official web site tried to smother.....

and the web is replete with sites explaining thebible from all sorts of different viewpoints...
proving only that the message is way too incomplete and inconsistant to allow God to justify killing anybody for asking questions.

if it were all true, it should stand up to scrutiny.

if it doesn't, maybe it isn't.

and its too bad...I used to like the pot lucks.

george · 08-29-09 1:33 pm

Bill,
If the Sermon on the Mount "strengthens the demand for holiness" does it also legitimize and strengthens the demand for keeping, what we call, the "civil law" and every other type of law in the OT?

Notice, Jesus draws, not only from the "moral law" but also other OT laws in His Sermon on the Mount. The "eye for an eye" is not part of the "moral law" nor is the law about divorce. Beyond this, Jesus also sets up impossible demands such as "plucking out your eye if it offends you" and "cutting off your hand if it offends". We don't take much of what the sermon calls for literally. Nobody I know would walk two miles if a thug forces them to walk one mile. So again, we pick and choose - all within one sermon.

Any thoughts?

elaine · 08-29-09 2:20 pm

Gen. 21:14 (NASB) reads:

"So Abraham rose early in the morning, and took bread and a skin of water and gave them to Hagar putting them on her shoulder, and gave her the boy and sent her away."

Attempting to read literally, everything in the many Bible translations is an exercise in futility. When will we begin to realize that is an improper way to do so, and only that the translators were human, just as were all the Bible writers.

billdljr · 08-29-09 11:50 pm

Sirje,

It takes much discernment when we try to understand the meaning of this sermon. Rather than merely "pick and choose" let me suggest how we might find the real meaning of Christ here in the Sermon on the Mount.

When we state that the Lord is "strengthening the demand for holiness" we mean that He is raising the bar for perfect righteousness for mankind even higher than a mere cursory reading of the Ten Commandment would give us. In fact He is raising the bar so high that He finishes His discourse with the imperative command to "be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect".

Before we take a look at how we are to begin to obey His instructions in the Sermon on the Mount we must first see that the requirement for holiness for entering the kingdom of God is so high that no none of us has ever attained to the righteousness of the Law. All of us who listen to these words uttered by the Lord, including His apostles themselves, will be driven to exclaim, "Who then, Lord, can be saved?" Christ is here magnifying the Law in all of its righteous perfection to show its length and breadth and height of holiness. The Law of God is so holy that there is only One who can meet its righteous demands.

God Himself in the Person of the Lord Jesus has fulfilled all of this righteousness for us in His sinless life and atoning death upon the cross of Calvary. Thus, with man, salvation is impossible, but with God in Jesus Christ "all things are possible". It is only as we see the enormity of our guilt and how far short we fall from the glory of God that we can cry out to Christ, "Lord be merciful to me a sinner." The one who thus cries out will "go down to his house justified".

It is only the repentant forgiven believer in Christ as Savior and Lord who can then look upon the Law of God as a guide in the way of a holy life. Only the forgiven sinner can now look at the Law of God and say with David, "O how I love thy Law. It is my meditation day and night." Now we as born again believers we can begin to seek to fulfill the Law of God in our lives. This is Paul's message in Romans 8. Through the indwelling Holy Spirit the righteousness of the Law is written upon the fleshy tablets of our hearts and we begin to manifest obedience to the commandments of God.

However, no matter how obedient and loving we grow in Christ we must never forget that we are never sinless enough to stand before the judgment bar of God without the perfect righteousness of Christ to cover us, i.e., to be imputed, reckoned to us. We can only have confidence before God by His unmerited grace alone in Christ.

In saying that it is better to enter into life with only one eye or with only one hand, the Lord is showing us the desperate seriousness of sin and also the serious need to meet the demands of the Law of God in order to enter the Kingdom of God. Here He is showing us our absolutely hopeless situation in our lost condition. The only way to come to life eternal and enter the kingdom of God is through the one mediator between man and God, Jesus Christ the righteous. The Law commands us to not only cut off our hand and pluck out our eye but also to forfeit even life itself. So as the apostle Paul tells us, "The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

As we look at the Sermon on the Mount with this all in view, we can now try to figure out the details of what kind of life we Christians should be striving for.

In the sermon on the mount Christ is not contradicting Moses. Christ is showing the other side of the picture regarding righteousness which the Pharisees and the Sadducees had failed to grasp. Christ is magnifying the picture by showing us that we are not to always render an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth as the Jewish leaders insisted, but also we are to remember that there is a time to "turn the other cheek", a time to "go the second mile", a time to stay in a marriage and work it out, a time make a friend out of an enemy. There is a time to answer unjust demands by "giving your cloak also".

In other words He is calling us to not just abide merely by the letter of the Law but also to abide by the spirit of the Law. We are to allow mercy to be mingled with justice when mercy is called for.

Christ is not telling us that in all situations we are to become a doormat or a mere passivist in all situations. Too many Christian fail to see the “not only, but also” advice in the Sermon on the Mount and they thus think that they must always put up with outrageously unjust treatment, an abusive situation, or disrespectful treatment.

The mature follower of Christ is to use sanctified discernment to know when there is a time to turn the other cheek and not to turn the other cheek, when to bless your enemy and a time to resist your enemy, a time to forgive your neighbor and a time to "let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector. (Matthew 18:17).

This is how I would reply to your excellent observation.

Bill

george · 08-30-09 6:18 am

Bill,
OK, I"m on board with that. It sounded like you were saying earlier that this sermon "magnified the law" in the way traditional Adventism usually means it - namely to drive home the necessity to "keep" the law perfectly. I believe this sermon says just the opposite. Yes, it points out that the law needs to be kept perfectly by showing us the depths of the law, but also the fact that none of us are able to keep it just by keeping the letter of the law, as the Jews were doing and everybody else who thinks they are able to by merely trying harder.

As Des Ford points out, in one of his sermons, the Sermon on the Mount is followed directly by the story about the leper who was healed by Jesus. By juxtaposing these two stories, the writer is saying that it is just as impossible to keep the commandments Jesus spoke, as it is for a leper to heal himself - both requiring a touch from Jesus.

don · 08-30-09 4:27 pm

the writer is saying that it is just as impossible to keep the commandments Jesus spoke, as it is for a leper to heal himself - both requiring a touch from Jesus.

If the Ten commandments were not moral imperatives for the Christian, then the impossibility of keeping them would be irrelevant.

The early Christian Church quickly came to realize that the Mosaic system did not define their obligations to God and their fellow man as it used to. Here are two key points:

1) Physical circumcision ceased to be an obligation for the Christian faith community.

2) The high priest's role in settling disputes (see Deut. 17) gave way to the apostles' role. (See Acts 6 and 15)

The Christian Church as founded by Jesus and the apostles did not incorporate a role for official Judaism, even official "Biblical" Judaism. The Christian Church rose up on different structures.

(Message edited by Don on August 30, 2009)

elaine · 08-30-09 4:52 pm

Don, then why does the Adventist church return to the OT for its major doctrines:

The IJ--from Daniel
Sabbath--from the OT
Tithe--from the OT
Dietary laws--from the OT.

Reading the NT, which should be the last word for Christians, none of these are supported by it.

don · 08-30-09 5:20 pm

why does the Adventist church return to the OT for its major doctrines

The Christian Church, as revealed in the NT, retained a sacred regard for the Hebrew scriptures. The Adventist Church must continue its search for authenticity in the ministry of Jesus Christ and the apostles. Each generation must rediscover "the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus" (the Third Angel's message) for itself.

For example, as a youth, an Andrews University troupe brought a renewed interest in Jesus to our high school campus. The combination of student witness, guitars, the Living Bible, and prayer times enlivened the campus. Faith in Jesus is powerful on such a level, as is the quiet discovery of salvation.

Concerning the IJ, we forget that early Adventists found Biblical markers for the Judgment in the New Testament, as well, even in Revelation.

The Sabbath clearly had the support of Jesus as reported in the Gospels. Even tithe, receives a positive endorsement. The early Adventists considered the dietary laws to be health laws, they did not mimic Leviticus 11 in doing so. Adventists still don't follow Leviticus 11, even though on the surface it is assumed that we do.

Re: the New Testament. The NT is my last word, but it is not my only word. Bill's concept of interpreting all by means of the NT is solid ground, IMO.

elaine · 08-30-09 7:21 pm

What would be the health reasons for eating beef, but not eating horse meat; or that all insects "which walk on all fours" may be eaten.
And what possible health reasons are there for not eating pork any more than the modern knowledge that all "red meat" is better left at a minimum.

BTW, I will probably be teaching a class in vegetarian cooking for the local school district' adult community education. There is such a renewed interest and so much more information today about the benefits of a plant-based diet, both for health and eccology, that we will see if there's a good response.

I have been a life-long vegetarian, but the reasons given in Leviticus do not necessarily make health sense today. Many Europeans favor horse meat but no one has yet given the difference between that and beef. In those times, as goat-herders and not farmers (farming in the Sinai desert is a laugh!) meat had to make up a large portion of their diet and with continual burnt offerings there was always an abundant supply--even they said God loved the sweet savor of the roasting meat!

renie · 08-30-09 8:48 pm

Boy, Elaine....I hope your vegetarian class won't be vegan.

george · 08-30-09 9:17 pm

Don,
When Jesus gave that Sermon on the Mount He was talking to the Jews, first and foremost. He was concerned with the "whited sepulchers" of his day (of course we have them today as well), those who think that keeping the letter of the law will bring them salvation and have deluded themselves in thinking that those commandments can be kept to perfection - and then the end will come. Jesus' whole mission was to proclaim man's total bankruptcy and inability to pull himself up by his own boot straps; and to tell them the good news that they didn't need to despair because God had already provided for their salvation, nevertheless.

Jesus didn't simply parrot the list of commandments. He gave man an impossible task - to be perfect by giving more than anyone would or could give. None of us are able to love perfectly. As humans we have to always make the best out of a bad situation - would we lie or even kill under certain circumstances; would we steal; are we able to keep our priorities straight at all times; do our dreams at night go to places we would never go when awake; what about our motivations - are they always pure????

Jesus' message included the idea that we are unable to BE PERFECT, just as the lepers where unable to rid themselves of their curse and had to warn everyone as they walked the streets. The only hope for both groups is to encounter Jesus and submit to the cleansing he gives.

don · 08-30-09 10:08 pm

Many Europeans favor horse meat but no one has yet given the difference between that and beef.

I have yet to hear of trichinosis in Beef.

You may recall an earlier discussion of horse meat:

http://www.atomorrow.com/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?t pc=8&post=60718#POST60718

Jesus' message included the idea that we are unable to BE PERFECT, just as the lepers where unable to rid themselves of their curse and had to warn everyone as they walked the streets. The only hope for both groups is to encounter Jesus and submit to the cleansing he gives.

Lepers are in trouble and so are sinners. I don't accept that Jesus spoke to issues that have no practical application to my life. Be PERFECT can also be understood as be MATURE.

It is a goal to be aimed for. This does not take away from the theological truth that Jesus took my sins upon Himself and I am saved by Him.

But, His moral counsel is to be viewed as practical and liveable, IMO.

elaine · 08-30-09 11:23 pm

Renie, it will NOT be vegan, which I told the director. I use some eggs (usually egg beaters) and dairy products. I especially like Greek yogurt cheese as it has so many uses. A strict vegan diet risks insufficent B-12 and I would never recommend it.

Don, trichinosis was probably virulent during the time of Sinai, but when was the last time you heard of it in the U.S. Salmonella has been indicted in beef and chicken, both of which are "clean."

It is a rather new argument to say that the dietary laws given in the OT were for health reasons. They were given to keep the Jews separate from all the other idolatrous nations (didn't work so successfully). Not being able to eat unclean meat with unclean people was a guarantee to keep them separate and avoid intermarriage--again, that didn't work either.

don · 08-30-09 11:41 pm

They were given to keep the Jews separate from all the other idolatrous nations (didn't work so successfully).

I'm not convinced. There do seem to be some health components (or at least running parallel to health concepts) in Hebrew sacred law. Also, it has been stated before that the clean and unclean foods laws were to keep the people separate, but where is that reason given in the text?

Recently, I was intrigued to find that Vegan can involve more than just what one eats. Some people class themselves as Ethical Vegans.

elaine · 08-31-09 12:55 pm

All through the Bible, there was an emphasis on the Jews keeping separate from the idolatrous nations. What better way than to prevent the common Middle Eastern hospitality that always required sharing a meal. Modern scientists have found health reasons that were totally unknown when those Sinai rules were given. To read back into them is to distort their original meanings. We also know that leprosy is largely non-contagious, and that women's periods does not make them unclean. People had far less medical knowledge then and we shouldn't superimpose those ideas upon them.

Come out from her my people, and be separate, was not only preached then, but has been Adventism's refrain since its inception: do not partake of the world.

Some reasons are so obvious when studying Middle Eastern cultures, that only someone uninformed would even question. Remember Abraham inviting the three guests--it was, and still is the custom in those parts of the world that a host protects the foreigner or traveler with his very life--his honor depends on his hospitality.

Being unable to eat at another's table is the height of rejection. Read the NT to see the Jew's attitude toward eating with unclean gentiles or pagans. The were taught to be separate, and one of the most effective ways was in their refusal to eat either unclean foods or with unclean people--both had the same status.

Yes, there are ecological or ethical vegans. I will promote the ecological benefits of eating vegetarian which is well documented.

An old friend worked one summer in a meat packing house--which made him a life-long vegetarian seeing exactly how and where the meat was handled.

Adventists for Tomorrow

Announcement

#1 08-29-09 6:47 am

Ishmael on Hagar's Shoulders?

#2 08-29-09 9:28 am

Re: Ishmael on Hagar's Shoulders?

#3 08-29-09 9:47 am

Re: Ishmael on Hagar's Shoulders?

#4 08-29-09 11:40 am

Re: Ishmael on Hagar's Shoulders?

#5 08-29-09 12:56 pm

Re: Ishmael on Hagar's Shoulders?

#6 08-29-09 1:33 pm

Re: Ishmael on Hagar's Shoulders?

#7 08-29-09 2:20 pm

Re: Ishmael on Hagar's Shoulders?

#8 08-29-09 11:50 pm

Re: Ishmael on Hagar's Shoulders?

#9 08-30-09 6:18 am

Re: Ishmael on Hagar's Shoulders?

#10 08-30-09 4:27 pm

Re: Ishmael on Hagar's Shoulders?

#11 08-30-09 4:52 pm

Re: Ishmael on Hagar's Shoulders?

#12 08-30-09 5:20 pm

Re: Ishmael on Hagar's Shoulders?

#13 08-30-09 7:21 pm

Re: Ishmael on Hagar's Shoulders?

#14 08-30-09 8:48 pm

Re: Ishmael on Hagar's Shoulders?

#15 08-30-09 9:17 pm

Re: Ishmael on Hagar's Shoulders?

#16 08-30-09 10:08 pm

Re: Ishmael on Hagar's Shoulders?

#17 08-30-09 11:23 pm

Re: Ishmael on Hagar's Shoulders?

#18 08-30-09 11:41 pm

Re: Ishmael on Hagar's Shoulders?

#19 08-31-09 12:55 pm

Re: Ishmael on Hagar's Shoulders?

Board footer