Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Canaanite Psalms

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
    Your first source is not exactly good - no qualifications in the field, (Bachelor's degree in Ceramics) and cites dated scholarship....
    The first source quotes good sources, which are good in their own right. http://www.phoenicia.org/ugarbibl.html#ixzz3L7yE48uC
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
      So what? Paul used quotes from pagan poets too. Most of our beloved hymns are from bar tunes. I still don't see the problem with it. But I would not say a "considerable amount" was assimilated as pre-existing literature as much as divine names and praises were assimilated into the cultic worship of the Israelites to show the supremacy of the Israelite's God.
      This is different, and is not comparable to the Psalm being specifically polytheistic in many references, linguistically, stylistically, and the poetic verse of Canaanite literature, culture, and religion. The Israelites show of their supremacy of their God over other Gods comes later.
      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

      go with the flow the river knows . . .

      Frank

      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
        No response here of any substance, nor any references to support your case. My sources are specific and good, and I did acknowledge that there may be editing and additions.
        Its not just some editing and additions. There are whole sections that clearly indicate early monarchic origin, and whole sections that appear to be postexilic. The Psalms seem to be mishmash of writings that cover centuries. To say, definitively as you are doing, that the entire book of the Psalms is a Canaanite text with some later editing and additions is just completely off base. Nothing you've cited so far has supported that notion. And no matter how much googling you do, you won't find anything that supports that notion, because no one believes it but you.

        The problem is the earliest references to the Book of Psalms, poetic style, linguistics, descriptions of polytheistic beliefs remain reflecting Canaanite culture and known texts.
        No one here disagrees that the earliest references in the book of Psalms bare at least some Canaanite influence or similarity. What we disagree with is your contention that the entire book (minus a bit of editing) is Canaanite in origin. You've been dropping this bit of goofy wisdom all over the forums recently. I think its only within the course of this very thread that you've reexamined your assertion, and make adjustments to it by acknowledging that there was at least some editing that dates rather late. So we are making progress.

        I've noticed this about you and these sorts of topics. You'll read something interesting somewhere and come to all sorts of wild conclusions based on the little knowledge you've gained. You'll run around TWeb acting like an expert on said topic, with the good people of TWeb (both theists and nontheists) attempting to correct your misunderstandings, but stubborn as a mule you'll resist every effort to walk you back some. Eventually, you'll make small concessions here and there, but only after you've "done some research", which usually means flexing your Google-fu skills. You'll find that, yeah, based on this new Google research, maybe you didn't understand the topic as well as you thought you did, but that's about as far as it'll go. You are the very poster child of the phrase "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing".

        There are absolutely no known early Hebrew texts.
        I don't know why you keep saying this. The word "early" is of course subjective. Early compared to what? There are lots of early Hebrew texts. The earliest Hebrew text was recently discovered in 2008 at Khirbet Qeiyafa, its a shard piece that dates to the Davidic kingdom in the 10th century, and bears allusions to a number of Biblical passages. If we're talking strictly Biblical there's, of course, the Dead Sea Scrolls which date to about 200 BC, but the earliest is probably the Silver Scrolls of Ketef Hinnom that date back to about 600 BC. So obviously there are some early Hebrew texts. Its not like the Old Testament or the Hebrew language materialized out of nowhere one day.

        Actually I believe showmeproof would most likely support my case. Taking his name in vain without allowing him to speak for himself, is unethical, and does your case no good. I actually participated in his thread, and still have much of the old Tweb thread in files on my computer.
        Get a grip shunya. showmeproof is not Jesus Christ, and in no place have I taken his name in vain. Sheesh. I've participated in a number of threads with showmeproof as well. I know for a certainty that he will not agree with your overstatement that the Psalms are a Canaanite text. Certainly he'll agree that there is Canaanite influence, and perhaps even source material in some of its passages, but the book as a whole is not Canaanite.
        Last edited by Adrift; 12-07-2014, 11:10 AM.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
          Showmeproof was referenced as not supporting my view. The following directly quotes showmeproof as to who he believes the Hebrews were originally. Note highlighted.
          This does not support your contention that the Psalms are a Canaanite text. Assuming that the current scholarly speculation is true (that there was no Exodus, and that the Israelites were descended from Canaanites), well before the Psalms were composed, the Israelites identified themselves as a unique people. They didn't identify themselves as Canaanite when they wrote the Psalms. The Psalms are not a Canaanite text simply because there's speculation that the Israelites were Canaanites. The Psalms cover a number of different subjects directly pertaining to the post unified kingdom.

          You do realize that you're not revealing anything new here. right? I made a couple of threads on the Canaanite origins of the Israelites before the boards were wiped. Its not like I did not have this knowledge before I made the statement that I wish showmeproof was around to correct you on your overstatement.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Adrift View Post
            Its not just some editing and additions. There are whole sections that clearly indicate early monarchic origin, and whole sections that appear to be postexilic. The Psalms seem to be mishmash of writings that cover centuries. To say, definitively as you are doing, that the entire book of the Psalms is a Canaanite text with some later editing and additions is just completely off base. Nothing you've cited so far has supported that notion. And no matter how much googling you do, you won't find anything that supports that notion, because no one believes it but you.

            No one here disagrees that the earliest references in the book of Psalms bare at least some Canaanite influence or similarity. What we disagree with is your contention that the entire book (minus a bit of editing) is Canaanite in origin. You've been dropping this bit of goofy wisdom all over the forums recently. I think its only within the course of this very thread that you've reexamined your assertion, and make adjustments to it by acknowledging that there was at least some editing that dates rather late. So we are making progress.
            Early is not subjective, the dating of the Ugarite tablets is objective. There is absolutely no 'objective' evidence to support your case.

            References please. I did not say a few or some editing and additions. The bottom line is the entire Book of Psalms is written in the poetic verse of Canaanite writing. Still waiting for any references that would indicate anything other then a Canaanite document.





            I've noticed this about you and these sorts of topics. You'll read something interesting somewhere and come to all sorts of wild conclusions based on the little knowledge you've gained. You'll run around TWeb acting like an expert on said topic, with the good people of TWeb (both theists and nontheists) attempting to correct your misunderstandings, but stubborn as a mule you'll resist every effort to walk you back some. Eventually, you'll make small concessions here and there, but only after you've "done some research", which usually means flexing your Google-fu skills. You'll find that, yeah, based on this new Google research, maybe you didn't understand the topic as well as you thought you did, but that's about as far as it'll go. You are the very poster child of the phrase "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing".
            Your 'poster child problem' Absolutely no references to support your view, just name calling and unethically playing showmeproof against me, without allowing him to speak for himself. By the way I have his posts and you do not.



            I don't know why you keep saying this. The word "early" is of course subjective. Early compared to what? There are lots of early Hebrew texts. The earliest Hebrew text was recently discovered in 2008 at Khirbet Qeiyafa, its a shard piece that dates to the Davidic kingdom in the 10th century, and bears allusions to a number of Biblical passages. If we're talking strictly Biblical there's, of course, the Dead Sea Scrolls which date to about 200 BC, but the earliest is probably the Silver Scrolls of Ketef Hinnom that date back to about 600 BC. So obviously there are some early Hebrew texts. Its not like the Old Testament or the Hebrew language materialized out of nowhere one day.



            Get a grip shunya. showmeproof is not Jesus Christ, and in no place have I taken his name in vain. Sheesh. I've participated in a number of threads with showmeproof as well. I know for a certainty that he will not agree with your overstatement that the Psalms are a Canaanite text. Certainly he'll agree that there is Canaanite influence, and perhaps even source material in some of its passages, but the book as a whole is not Canaanite.
            Get a grip yourself. You misrepresented showmeproof by trying to play him against me without directly referencing him. I have his posts on my files. He directly considers Hebrews as originally Canaanite Hill tribes. If you wish reference showmeproof, cite him directly as I did and will.
            Last edited by shunyadragon; 12-07-2014, 12:05 PM.
            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

            go with the flow the river knows . . .

            Frank

            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
              Your 'poster child problem' Absolutely no references to support your view, just name calling and unethically playing showmeproof against me, without allowing him to speak for himself. By the way I have his posts and you do not.
              I need references to show that you're a poster child of a little knowledge is a dangerous thing? What are you talking about? And I'm not unethically playing showmeproof against you. What does that even mean? How could mentioning showmeproof be unethical. You're saying some really weird things here shunya. I don't care if you have is posts memorized. I know for a fact that he would not agree with your overstatement. showmeproof is a lot smarter than that.

              Get a grip yourself. You misrepresented showmeproof by trying to play him against me without directly referencing him. I have his posts on my files. He directly considers Hebrews as originally Canaanite Hill tribes. If you wish reference showmeproof, cite him directly as I did and will.
              Already covered this in my previous post. Assuming that the Israelites were descended from Canaanites, does not mean that everything they wrote was then Canaanite. They considered themselves a distinct people, with distinct practices, and surely ended up with a distinct history.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                I need references to show that you're a poster child of a little knowledge is a dangerous thing? What are you talking about? And I'm not unethically playing showmeproof against you. What does that even mean? How could mentioning showmeproof be unethical. You're saying some really weird things here shunya. I don't care if you have is posts memorized. I know for a fact that he would not agree with your overstatement. showmeproof is a lot smarter than that.
                YES! You need references instead of name calling. Again you refer to showmeproof without citing him. Here you did it again saying showmeproof needs to correct me. If you know a fact cite him, because it is unethical to do otherwise.

                Originally posted by adrift
                I imagine shunya read some posts by showmeproof at some point, and got the facts turned around in his head. Wish showmeproof was around to help correct him.


                Already covered this in my previous post. Assuming that the Israelites were descended from Canaanites, does not mean that everything they wrote was then Canaanite. They considered themselves a distinct people, with distinct practices, and surely ended up with a distinct history.
                You covered nothing with references, just assertions. There is no evidence that the Hebrews were a distinctive culture prior to ~500 to 600 BCE. Again, showmeproof considers ancient Hebrews as Canaanites, and not a distinctive culture nor society. They did not have their own distinctive written language until after ~600 - 500 BCE.

                If you refer to showmeproof, cite him directly. It is unethical to make third person references without citations. Show me where I contradict showmeproof with references.
                Last edited by shunyadragon; 12-07-2014, 01:05 PM.
                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                Frank

                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by showmeproof

                  #340
                  CONCLUSION
                  The Biblical verses provided above are the tip of the iceberg of many other direct parallels to the Canaanite Combat Myth. From Beginning to End, The Baal Cycle reigns supreme in the structure of the Jewish and Christian Historiography and Theology. Most certainly, inversions and twists to the Canaanite story occur leading to divergences with Canaanite theology, but the root, the structure, the foundation is Canaanite in origin. Do you have any doubt as to why YHWH was conflated with Baal in Israelite religion? Although YHWH retains most of the characteristics and titles of the Canaanite god EL and a great many of that of Baal, Satan metamorphoses from the adversary within the divine council into an amalgamation of the Enemies Yam, Leviathon, Athtar, Mot; cleverly bearing Baal’s name (Beelzebul, Beelzebub) creating this super enemy so as to usurp Baal’s deeds and demote his status; YHWH, in Israelite religion, is thus the only God left standing. One might ask, what happened to Asherah? See Proverbs 1-9 and the personification of Wisdom and her equation with the Tree of Life. Also, trace Asherah's imagery back into time in reverse order from the menorah as depicted in the Arch of Titus, the menorah's/lampstand's description in Exodus and 1 Kings, Pithos A from Kuntillet Arjud, Tanaach Cult Stand, the Lachish Ewer, and the pendants from Ugarit.
                  .
                  Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                  Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                  But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                  go with the flow the river knows . . .

                  Frank

                  I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                    YES! You need references instead of name calling. Again you refer to showmeproof without citing him. Here you did it again saying showmeproof needs to correct me. If you know a fact cite him, because it is unethical to do otherwise.







                    You covered nothing with references, just assertions. There is no evidence that the Hebrews were a distinctive culture prior to ~500 to 600 BCE. Again, showmeproof considers ancient Hebrews as Canaanites, and not a distinctive culture nor society. They did not have their own distinctive written language until after ~600 - 500 BCE.

                    If you refer to showmeproof, cite him directly. It is unethical to make third person references without citations. Show me where I contradict showmeproof with references.
                    Your request for references is silly Shunya. If you want a reference from a scholar that says "the Psalms are not a Canaanite text", you won't find it, because no one has ever contended that they are until you did.

                    John Day, a scholar who specializes in Canaanite myth and the Old Testament tells us in his book on the Psalms that "in broad terms one can say that there appears to be a predominance of pre-exilic psalms in the first two-thirds of the Psalter and of post-exilic psalms in the last third."

                    The psalms are divided into 5 main types: Hymns, Communal Laments (psalms that lament some public disaster, for example the destruction of the Jerusalem temple), Royal Psalms (psalms centring on the king), Individual Laments, and Individual Thanksgiving Psalms.

                    Day believes that Psalm 74 and 79 are related to the destruction of the temple in 586 BC. Psalm 126 also refers to the period after the 6th century BC. Psalm 80 may date from right before the fall of the Northern Kingdom. Psalm 78 dates no later than 722 BC. Psalm 105 and 106 are early post-exilic. Psalm 24 and Psalm 132 are pre-exilic. Psalm 93 is pre-exilic, but shows hints of an underlying Canaanite myth. etc.

                    As anyone can plainly see, it is far far too simplistic (or just absolutely wrong) to state the book of Psalms is a Canaanite text. The Psalms cover a period of writings that include 5 centuries or more.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                      As anyone can plainly see, it is far far too simplistic (or just absolutely wrong) to state the book of Psalms is a Canaanite text. The Psalms cover a period of writings that include 5 centuries or more.
                      I'll admit that I have not yet read the whole of this thread, but based on the sections which I have read, I'd have to say that I agree with this statement.

                      Saying "the Book of Psalms is a Canaanite text" seems just as naive and oversimplistic as would the claim that "the Book of Proverbs is an Egyptian text" based on the relationship of the Teaching of Amenemope to Proverbs 22; or the claim that "the Bible is a pre-exilic Jewish text" due to the fact that the Hebrew Scriptures contain pre-exilic Jewish material; or the claim that "The Magnificent Seven is a Japanese film" because it blatantly adapts material from Kurosawa's Seven Samurai.
                      "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
                      --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                        Your request for references is silly Shunya. If you want a reference from a scholar that says "the Psalms are not a Canaanite text", you won't find it, because no one has ever contended that they are until you did.

                        John Day, a scholar who specializes in Canaanite myth and the Old Testament tells us in his book on the Psalms that "in broad terms one can say that there appears to be a predominance of pre-exilic psalms in the first two-thirds of the Psalter and of post-exilic psalms in the last third."

                        The psalms are divided into 5 main types: Hymns, Communal Laments (psalms that lament some public disaster, for example the destruction of the Jerusalem temple), Royal Psalms (psalms centring on the king), Individual Laments, and Individual Thanksgiving Psalms.

                        Day believes that Psalm 74 and 79 are related to the destruction of the temple in 586 BC. Psalm 126 also refers to the period after the 6th century BC. Psalm 80 may date from right before the fall of the Northern Kingdom. Psalm 78 dates no later than 722 BC. Psalm 105 and 106 are early post-exilic. Psalm 24 and Psalm 132 are pre-exilic. Psalm 93 is pre-exilic, but shows hints of an underlying Canaanite myth. etc.
                        Here you have a scholar interpreting Psalms as prophetic text and absolutely nothing to do with the origins nor scholarly nature of the Book of Psalms itself. This prophetic interpretation of Psalms is really a stretch.

                        What I am waiting for is references that would verify that any significant part of the Book of Psalms is actually Hebrew in origin.

                        As anyone can plainly see, it is far far too simplistic (or just absolutely wrong) to state the book of Psalms is a Canaanite text. The Psalms cover a period of writings that include 5 centuries or more.
                        .

                        I have no references that 'anyone' is a scholar worth a citation
                        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                        go with the flow the river knows . . .

                        Frank

                        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Again, note highlighted . . .

                          3. From the Literature of Ugarit to the Literature of the Bible.

                          The style of writing discovered at Ugarit is known as alphabetic cuneiform. This is a unique blending of an alphabetic script (like Hebrew) and cuneiform (like Akkadian); thus it is a unique blending of two styles of writing. Most likely it came into being as cuneiform was passing from the scene and alphabetic scripts were making their rise. Ugaritic is thus a bridge from one to the other and very important in itself for the development of both.

                          One of the most, if perhaps not the most, important aspect of Ugaritic studies is the assistance it gives in correctly translating difficult Hebrew words and passages in the Old Testament. As a language develops the meaning of words changes or their meaning is lost altogether. This is also true of the Biblical text. But after the discovery of the Ugaritic texts we gained new information concerning the meaning of archaic words in the Hebrew text.

                          One example of this is found in Proverbs 26:23. In the Hebrew text Mygys Psk is divided just as it is here. This has caused commentators quite a bit of confusion over the centuries, for what does “silver lips” mean? The discovery of the Ugaritic texts has helped us to understand that the word was divided incorrectly by the Hebrew scribe (who was as unfamiliar as we are with what the words were supposed to mean). Instead of the two words above, the Ugaritic texts lead us to divide the two words as Mygysps k which means “like silver”. This makes eminently more sense in context than the word mistakenly divided by the Hebrew scribe who was unfamiliar with the second word; so he divided into two words which he did know even though it made no sense.

                          Another example occurs in Ps 89:20. Here the word rz( is usually translated “help” but the Ugaritic word “gzr” means “young man” and if Psalm 89:20 is translated this way it is clearly more meaningful.

                          Besides single words being illuminated by the Ugaritic texts, entire ideas or complexes of ideas have parallels in the literature. For example, in Proverbs 9:1-18 wisdom and folly are personified as women. This means that when the Hebrew wisdom teacher instructed his students on these matters, he was drawing on material that was commonly known in the Canaanite environment (for Ugarit was Canaanite). In point of fact, KTU 1,7 VI 2-45 is nearly identical to Proverbs 9:1ff. (The abbreviation KTU stands for “Keilalphabetische Texte aus Ugarit”, the standard collection of this material. The numbers are what we might call the chapter and verse). KTU 1.114:2-4 says-

                          hklh. sh. lqs. ilm. tlhmn

                          ilm w tstn. tstnyn ‘d sb’

                          trt. ‘d. skr. y’.db .yrh

                          “Eat, o Gods, and drink,

                          drink wine till you are sated,

                          Which is very similar to Proverbs 9:5;

                          “Come, eat of my food and drink wine that I have mixed”.

                          Ugaritic poetry is very similar to Biblical poetry and is therefore very useful in interpreting difficult poetic texts. In fact, Ugaritic literature (besides lists and the like) is composed completely in poetic metre. Biblical poetry follows Ugaritc poetry in form and function. There is parallelism, qinah metre, bi and tri colas, and all of the poetic tools found in the Bible are found at Ugarit. In short the Ugaritic materials have a great deal to contribute to our understanding of the Biblical materials; especially since they predate any of the Biblical texts.
                          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                          go with the flow the river knows . . .

                          Frank

                          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            I give up. Maybe someone else can talk sense into you.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                              This does not support your contention that the Psalms are a Canaanite text. Assuming that the current scholarly speculation is true (that there was no Exodus, and that the Israelites were descended from Canaanites), well before the Psalms were composed, the Israelites identified themselves as a unique people. They didn't identify themselves as Canaanite when they wrote the Psalms. The Psalms are not a Canaanite text simply because there's speculation that the Israelites were Canaanites. The Psalms cover a number of different subjects directly pertaining to the post unified kingdom.

                              You do realize that you're not revealing anything new here. right? I made a couple of threads on the Canaanite origins of the Israelites before the boards were wiped. Its not like I did not have this knowledge before I made the statement that I wish showmeproof was around to correct you on your overstatement.
                              I do not need to reveal anything new, since you are simply ignoring contemporary archeology and scholarship. There is no evidence that the Hebrews were a distinct culture and society prior to ~600 BCE. There is also no evidence that the Hebrews wrote the Book of Psalms. This is simply an assertion on your part, and in contradiction to the evidence cited by showmeproof.
                              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                              go with the flow the river knows . . .

                              Frank

                              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                                I give up. Maybe someone else can talk sense into you.
                                With a lack of references, sources to support your argument, and unethically misrepresenting showmeproof it is best you give up.
                                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                                Frank

                                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, 03-27-2024, 03:01 PM
                                39 responses
                                186 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                132 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                428 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                305 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
                                406 responses
                                2,517 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Working...
                                X