Logical and Dialectical Reasoning in Scripture

bbyrd009 · Dec 13, 2017

"dying, you will die"

"unless a grain of wheat falls to the ground (@VictoryinJesus)
and dies, it will not produce a crop"

whoa--i mean woe, i guess--is dying a good thing or a bad thing?

Stranger · Dec 13, 2017

bbyrd009 said:
It is important to understand that as a Westerner, your thought processes are vastly different from those who have been raised to reason dialectically, as the Jewish writers were:

"...Dialectical reasoning is actually opposed to formal logic in many ways.

Western Logic Versus Eastern Dialecticism
Aristotle placed at the foundations of logical thought the following three propositions.
1. Identity: A = A. Whatever is, is. A is itself and not some other thing.
2. Noncontradiction: A and not A can't both be the case. Nothing can both be and not be. A proposition and its opposite can't both be true.
3. Excluded middle: Everything must either be or not be. A or not A can be true but not something in between.

Modern Westerners accept these propositions (but Easterners do not)...
...three principles underlie Eastern dialecticism. Notice I didn't say "propositions..." the term "proposition" has much too formal a ring for what is a generalized stance toward the world rather than a set of ironclad rules.

1. Principle of change:
Reality is a process of change.
What is currently true will shortly be false.
2. Principle of contradiction:
Contradiction is the dynamic underlying change.
Because change is constant, contradiction is constant.
3. Principle of relationships (or holism):
The whole is more than the sum of its parts.
Parts are meaningful only in relation to the whole...

These principles are intimately linked...
The principles also imply another important tenet of Eastern thought, which is the insistence on finding the "middle way" between extreme propositions...
...and Talmudic scholars developed it over the next two millennia and more.

"Mindware" Richard E. Nisbett, pp. 224-5

Oh..gee..the Jewish writers. The ones that rejected Christ...because they were so 'reasonable'. No thanks.

Western logic...based on the influence of Christianity...(1 Cor. 2:7).

So, why is it so important for me to understand the thought processes of the Jews and West when those of the Jews led them to reject their own Messiah?

Stranger

bbyrd009 · Dec 14, 2017

Stranger said:
Oh..gee..the Jewish writers. The ones that rejected Christ...because they were so 'reasonable'.

ha well the nation rejected Christ, but the writers must be the ones who wrote it down for us to read, right. Iow the writers could not write what they could not see. The writers of Torah are the ones who wrote down the prophecies about Christ, and even prophesied the rejection, so your perception there begs a question, right

Stranger said:
So, why is it so important for me to understand the thought processes of the Jews and West when those of the Jews led them to reject their own Messiah?

bc those Jews you refer to, the nation at large, had by and large accepted Logical, "Greek" thought, and were no longer Dialectic thinkers, as the writers even in Christ's day were, evidenced by some of the Sanhedrin's acceptance of Christ, imo, and even directly referred to NT, more than once

It is easy to judge "the Jews" for rejecting Christ, forgetting that most ppl reject Him today as well, right

bbyrd009 · Dec 14, 2017

@Stranger

Stranger · Dec 14, 2017

bbyrd009 said:
ha well the nation rejected Christ, but the writers must be the ones who wrote it down for us to read, right. Iow the writers could not write what they could not see. The writers of Torah are the ones who wrote down the prophecies about Christ, and even prophesied the rejection, so your perception there begs a question, right

bc those Jews you refer to, the nation at large, had by and large accepted Logical, "Greek" thought, and were no longer Dialectic thinkers, as the writers even in Christ's day were, evidenced by some of the Sanhedrin's acceptance of Christ, imo, and even directly referred to NT, more than once

It is easy to judge "the Jews" for rejecting Christ, forgetting that most ppl reject Him today as well, right

The Jewish writers of the Bible wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Any other 'jewish writers' are irrelevant. We who have the Holy Ghost receive those things that were written by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.

Meaning, it doesn't matter who wrote it as long as they were inspired by God. And then, all who are of God will receive it.

Stranger

bbyrd009 · Dec 15, 2017

Stranger said:
The Jewish writers of the Bible wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

i certainly agree, but that does not limit them to a certain way of thinking. Oriental ppl just think differently, reason differently than us, who are so intimately fam with the Hegelian Dialectic that we cannot imagine anything other than being either the winner or the loser in a matter; overlooking that we do not have to even play the hand that we are dealt. Folding is after all an option irl, no matter what ppl tell us

Stranger said:
Any other 'jewish writers' are irrelevant.

so why bring them up? guess i missed something?

Stranger said:
We who have the Holy Ghost receive those things that were written by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.

"thank you, God, that i am like the rest of men" wadr, no offense, but i cannot say that anymore w/o feeling proud i guess

Stranger said:
Meaning, it doesn't matter who wrote it as long as they were inspired by God.

Word up, but i see no 'Holy Bible' written anywhere, do you?

Stranger said:
And then, all who are of God will receive it.

if only we limited translators to this concept, huh

OzSpen · Dec 16, 2017

Stranger said:
The Jewish writers of the Bible wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Any other 'jewish writers' are irrelevant. We who have the Holy Ghost receive those things that were written by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.

Meaning, it doesn't matter who wrote it as long as they were inspired by God. And then, all who are of God will receive it.

Stranger

Stranger,

Try telling that to a person who has doubts about the reliability of the Bible, particularly those who have been to university and have been challenged by professors in class.

You can try this on them: 'We who have the Holy Ghost receive those things that were written by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost'. It won't hold water and you are unlikely to get a discussion to progress, based on your mystical internal response.

By the way, why are you using the old fashioned language of 'Holy Ghost' when 'Ghost' has so many bad connotations today?

The Greek, pneuma, means 'spirit' and not 'ghost'. See Arndt & Gingrich's Greek lexicon, pneu`ma.

Oz

Stranger · Dec 16, 2017

OzSpen said:
Stranger,

Try telling that to a person who has doubts about the reliability of the Bible, particularly those who have been to university and have been challenged by professors in class.

You can try this on them: 'We who have the Holy Ghost receive those things that were written by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost'. It won't hold water and you are unlikely to get a discussion to progress, based on your mystical internal response.

By the way, why are you using the old fashioned language of 'Holy Ghost' when 'Ghost' has so many bad connotations today?

The Greek, pneuma, means 'spirit' and not 'ghost'. See Arndt & Gingrich's Greek lexicon, pneu`ma.

Oz

Of course the Bible is foolishness to many in the world. That is to be expected. And of course you measure your conversation according to the person or people you are talking to. But as for my 'mystical internal response', you cannot get away from the supernaturalness of the Bible and the believer. God is supernatural, the Bible is supernatural, and the believer is supernatural being born of God. So even if I am talking to doubters or university professors I make sure this is known. If they reject it, they reject it.

I use the word 'Spirit' quite often. I use the KJV so am used to 'Holy Ghost', so use it at times also.

Stranger

OzSpen · Dec 16, 2017

Stranger said:
Of course the Bible is foolishness to many in the world. That is to be expected. And of course you measure your conversation according to the person or people you are talking to. But as for my 'mystical internal response', you cannot get away from the supernaturalness of the Bible and the believer. God is supernatural, the Bible is supernatural, and the believer is supernatural being born of God. So even if I am talking to doubters or university professors I make sure this is known. If they reject it, they reject it.

I use the word 'Spirit' quite often. I use the KJV so am used to 'Holy Ghost', so use it at times also.

Stranger

You still deal with mystical internal experiences that are not verifiable. You say it is by the inspiration of God within you but you gave no criteria for me to discern is it is God within you or the demons within. Experiences, in my view, will not satisfy people who are searching for authenticity in life.

Because you use the KJV and Holy Ghost is the translation, that makes it a 1611 model or 1769 revision. Much more research has been done on the meaning of pneuma and it doesn't mean 'ghost'. Do you read the 1611 edition of the KJV?

Is this the version of the 1611 KJV of John 3:10-18 that you read?

10 Iesus answered, and saide vnto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?

11 Uerely, verely I say vnto thee, We speake that we doe know, and testifie that wee haue seene; and yee receiue not our witnesse.

12 If I haue tolde you earthly things, and ye beleeue not: how shall ye beleeue if I tell you of heauenly things?

13 And no man hath ascended vp to heauen, but hee that came downe from heauen, euen the Sonne of man which is in heauen.

14 ¶ And as Moses lifted vp the serpent in the wildernesse: euen so must the Sonne of man be lifted vp:

15 That whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue eternall life.

16 ¶ For God so loued þe world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life.

17 For God sent not his Sonne into the world to condemne the world: but that the world through him might be saued.

18 ¶ He that beleeueth on him, is not condemned: but hee that beleeueth not, is condemned already, because hee hath not beleeued in the Name of the onely begotten Sonne of God.

AND, if you support the 1611 KJV, you'll include the Apocrypha.

Oz

Stranger · Dec 16, 2017

OzSpen said:
You still deal with mystical internal experiences that are not verifiable. You say it is by the inspiration of God within you but you gave no criteria for me to discern is it is God within you or the demons within. Experiences, in my view, will not satisfy people who are searching for authenticity in life.

Because you use the KJV and Holy Ghost is the translation, that makes it a 1611 model or 1769 revision. Much more research has been done on the meaning of pneuma and it doesn't mean 'ghost'. Do you read the 1611 edition of the KJV?

Is this the version of the 1611 KJV of John 3:10-18 that you read?

10 Iesus answered, and saide vnto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?

11 Uerely, verely I say vnto thee, We speake that we doe know, and testifie that wee haue seene; and yee receiue not our witnesse.

12 If I haue tolde you earthly things, and ye beleeue not: how shall ye beleeue if I tell you of heauenly things?

13 And no man hath ascended vp to heauen, but hee that came downe from heauen, euen the Sonne of man which is in heauen.

14 ¶ And as Moses lifted vp the serpent in the wildernesse: euen so must the Sonne of man be lifted vp:

15 That whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue eternall life.

16 ¶ For God so loued þe world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life.

17 For God sent not his Sonne into the world to condemne the world: but that the world through him might be saued.

18 ¶ He that beleeueth on him, is not condemned: but hee that beleeueth not, is condemned already, because hee hath not beleeued in the Name of the onely begotten Sonne of God.

AND, if you support the 1611 KJV, you'll include the Apocrypha.

Oz

God never said I needed to verify the internal experience. He did say his sheep know His voice. (John 10:3) And that they don't know the voice of strangers. (John 10:5)

He also said, (John 7:16-17) "...My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself." And what is the 'will of God' for man to do? (John 6:40) "And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life:...." So the believer knows...cause he is a believer and has the Spirit of God in him.

So, if I talk to a doubter or college professor, I just tell them all about Jesus Christ. About the new birth and eternal life. If they have questions, I will try to answer, but not to prove what I am saying is true. I let the Holy Ghost do that. And He does a much better job. Again, if they reject it, they reject it.

Like I said, I use the King James Version. I believe it is the best version. No, I don't need to include the Apocrypha, as the Apocrypha was never considered part of the inspired Scripture. It was in several Protestant Bibles but as a separate section from the inspired Scripture. Over time it was removed altogether.

Stranger

bbyrd009 · Dec 16, 2017

OzSpen said:
You still deal with mystical internal experiences that are not verifiable.

The Power of Myth is great for this, has changed many ppls lives i guess. Sounds like your fam already tho
Joseph Campbell And The Power Of Myth : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

wow, starts right away, no bs

OzSpen · Dec 16, 2017

Stranger said:
God never said I needed to verify the internal experience. (John 10:5)

Stranger,

He most certainly DID say there was a need to verify:

Here it relates to prophecy: 'Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said' (1 Cor 14:29 NIV).
Here the 'word of truth': 'Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth' (2 Tim 2:15 NIV).
ALL CHRISTIANS are to check out/verify what every preacher proclaims: 'Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true' (Acts 17:11 NIV).

So, if I talk to a doubter or college professor, I just tell them all about Jesus Christ. About the new birth and eternal life. If they have questions, I will try to answer, but not to prove what I am saying is true. I let the Holy Ghost do that. And He does a much better job. Again, if they reject it, they reject it.

That's not what Scripture tells us to do:

'But in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense [apologia] to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect' (1 Pet 3:15 ESV).

Christians have a requirement, 'always', to make an apologetic (a defense) when we are asked about the hope we have. Of course we proclaim the Gospel and it is God who saves by His Spirit. However, that requires Christians to make a defense - an apologetic - for the Christian faith.

You seem to have added your own views to what the Bible says.

You didn't answer what I wrote about the KJV.

Oz

bbyrd009 · Dec 16, 2017

OzSpen said:
Of course we proclaim the Gospel

ha, well...so we say, anyway. We say that as we proclaim our standing in Law, imo, ...

OzSpen said:
However, that requires Christians to make a defense - an apologetic - for the Christian faith.

we are told to be prepared, not "we are required to make a defense" wadr.
That would be a new law
1 Peter 3:15 Lexicon: but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence;

my point being that a proselytizer ignores this instruction basically, even as they attempt to, um, enforce it, ya ya, enforce it.
Certainly with good intentions, don't get me wrong.

hmm; how many times a day do you think "i have a requirement to do here?"
if i may ask, ty

still like about 50 or something for me lol

Stranger · Dec 16, 2017

OzSpen said:
Stranger,

He most certainly DID say there was a need to verify:

Here it relates to prophecy: 'Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said' (1 Cor 14:29 NIV).

Here the 'word of truth': 'Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth' (2 Tim 2:15 NIV).

ALL CHRISTIANS are to check out/verify what every preacher proclaims: 'Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true' (Acts 17:11 NIV).

That's not what Scripture tells us to do:

'But in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense [apologia] to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect' (1 Pet 3:15 ESV).

Christians have a requirement, 'always', to make an apologetic (a defense) when we are asked about the hope we have. Of course we proclaim the Gospel and it is God who saves by His Spirit. However, that requires Christians to make a defense - an apologetic - for the Christian faith.

You seem to have added your own views to what the Bible says.

You didn't answer what I wrote about the KJV.

Oz

Your argument has been against 'mystical experiences that are not verifiable'. This was brought about by my saying the Spirit of God in the believer recognizes what is written of God. But now in your last post, nothing is said of this 'mystical experience'.

Concerning (1 Cor. 14:29), "Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge." This has to do with the order and use of the gifts within the Body of Christ. Has nothing to do with speaking to 'doubters' or 'unbelieving college professors'. So how does this apply?

Concerning (2 Tim. 2:15), "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. " Great verse. Which means when I address doubters or unbelieving college professors, I can tell them of the supernatural God, and His Word and the supernatural work of being born-again. This doesn't change what I tell them.

Concerning (Acts 17:11), where do you get the idea that I encourage not studying the Scriptures? We are to study the Scriptures. And when one comes saying certain things, and my spirit is troubled by what he says, it won't take long before it is seen that what he says is contrary to Scripture.

Concerning (1 Peter 3:15), "But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear." I agree. This is what we should do as believers. That doesn't mean I don't change the basis of the story. I tell them of the supernatural God. The supernatural Bible. The supernatural believer because he is literally born of God. And I am always willing to answer any questions others may have.

In other words, I don't need to 'verify' that I am born-again. I speak as one who is 'born-again'. I don't need to 'verify' that I speak from the Spirit of God, I just speak as one who has the Spirit of God. I don't mind giving a defense for the Christian faith. But that is never based on me having to prove to the non-believer that this is so. I don't have to prove anything. I just say what I know to be true and let the Holy Ghost do the rest.

I did answer you concerning the King James Version. What is the problem?

Stranger

OzSpen · Dec 17, 2017

Stranger said:
Your argument has been against 'mystical experiences that are not verifiable'. This was brought about by my saying the Spirit of God in the believer recognizes what is written of God. But now in your last post, nothing is said of this 'mystical experience'.

Concerning (1 Cor. 14:29), "Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge." This has to do with the order and use of the gifts within the Body of Christ. Has nothing to do with speaking to 'doubters' or 'unbelieving college professors'. So how does this apply?

Concerning (2 Tim. 2:15), "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. " Great verse. Which means when I address doubters or unbelieving college professors, I can tell them of the supernatural God, and His Word and the supernatural work of being born-again. This doesn't change what I tell them.

Concerning (Acts 17:11), where do you get the idea that I encourage not studying the Scriptures? We are to study the Scriptures. And when one comes saying certain things, and my spirit is troubled by what he says, it won't take long before it is seen that what he says is contrary to Scripture.

Concerning (1 Peter 3:15), "But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear." I agree. This is what we should do as believers. That doesn't mean I don't change the basis of the story. I tell them of the supernatural God. The supernatural Bible. The supernatural believer because he is literally born of God. And I am always willing to answer any questions others may have.

In other words, I don't need to 'verify' that I am born-again. I speak as one who is 'born-again'. I don't need to 'verify' that I speak from the Spirit of God, I just speak as one who has the Spirit of God. I don't mind giving a defense for the Christian faith. But that is never based on me having to prove to the non-believer that this is so. I don't have to prove anything. I just say what I know to be true and let the Holy Ghost do the rest.

I did answer you concerning the King James Version. What is the problem?

Stranger

The problem is that you do not address the issues I raised that deal with the topic of the OP: 'Logical and dialectical reasoning in Scripture'.

Stranger · Dec 17, 2017

OzSpen said:
The problem is that you do not address the issues I raised that deal with the topic of the OP: 'Logical and dialectical reasoning in Scripture'.

I did address the issues of logical and dialectical reasoning in Scripture. You said in post #74,

OzSpen said:
DP,

That's not true with testing of an hypothesis relating to history. There cannot be 'real proof' of my 'own witness' of Jesus' life, death and resurrection because I was not there in person in the first century to provide my own witness.

I was not in Australia in 1770 to witness Captain James Cook sail up the east coast of what was to be known as Australia.

Testing of historical hypotheses leads to a probable result, not a certain solution as if one had truthful eyewitnesses in the present.

Oz

It is your statements here that are not true. The Bible is full of history, but is not a history book. Just like the Bible is full of science, but is not a science book. It is a miraculous book, written by God, for the people of God, concerning their redemption. (2 Tim. 3:16-17) The Holy Spirit is involved in its creation and is involved in our witnessing of its contents.

Those who are born-again are most certainly 'real proof' of Jesus life, death, and resurrection. They know it and testify to it. That same Spirit that raised Christ from the dead is in them also and did the same for them.

Your 'logical or dialectical' reasoning is not needed. The believer simply witnesses what he knows to be true. The Holy Ghost will honor that and use that witness, no matter how in depth or simple it may be. The Bible is a supernatural Book. Our witness is a supernatural witness. Any method of the worlds reasoning to arrive at it's truth or to convince others is empty.

If you note the persecution of Christians in the past and in our day, you will see that their witness is quite powerful. The world doesn't need their 'dialectical or logical' reasoning to know Jesus is real. Because we identify with Jesus Christ is enough. Thus the world still wants to silence us.

Stranger

OzSpen · Dec 17, 2017

Stranger said:
Your 'logical or dialectical' reasoning is not needed.

Don't you understand the association of logic with writing logical sentences? If I didn't believe in the use of logic, I wouldn't be able to read any of your statements.

Sentences communicate information from the writer to the reader. Correct grammar and syntax ensure that the information is conveyed unambiguously. Grammar establishes certain rules for writing and speech; syntax involves the order and relationship of the words in the sentence. Grammar is the electronic wiring that makes the telephone work. You cannot connect any wire to any other wire and expect that the machine will work. Similarly, you cannot put words in any order in the sentence and expect the sentence to communicate.

Grammar and syntax have a logic- if the reader is to understand the meaning of the sentence then that logic has to be followed. Note that we can ask questions of every word in a correct sentence, and we can find the answer to that question in the sentence....

So, good editing means checking that all the parts of the sentence say something precisely and clearly: that is, the words conform to the logic of the sentence.

If the writing is not logical, then the reader will not be convinced of the logic of the analysis (emphasis added, source).

I give up trying to help you understand the place of logic in understanding Scripture and any other writing, including your own posts on this forum.

Oz

Stranger · Dec 17, 2017

OzSpen said:
Don't you understand the association of logic with writing logical sentences? If I didn't believe in the use of logic, I wouldn't be able to read any of your statements.

Sentences communicate information from the writer to the reader. Correct grammar and syntax ensure that the information is conveyed unambiguously. Grammar establishes certain rules for writing and speech; syntax involves the order and relationship of the words in the sentence. Grammar is the electronic wiring that makes the telephone work. You cannot connect any wire to any other wire and expect that the machine will work. Similarly, you cannot put words in any order in the sentence and expect the sentence to communicate.

Grammar and syntax have a logic- if the reader is to understand the meaning of the sentence then that logic has to be followed. Note that we can ask questions of every word in a correct sentence, and we can find the answer to that question in the sentence....

So, good editing means checking that all the parts of the sentence say something precisely and clearly: that is, the words conform to the logic of the sentence.

If the writing is not logical, then the reader will not be convinced of the logic of the analysis (emphasis added, source).

I give up trying to help you understand the place of logic in understanding Scripture and any other writing, including your own posts on this forum.
View attachment 1480
Oz

Understand, we are not talking about writing logical sentences. I can write logical sentences when giving the gospel of Jesus Christ. But, it will not be accepted by those of the world which you first described. Why? Not because it isn't logical, but because they have no interest in and don't want it.

You were talking first about proving that which you proclaimed about Jesus Christ. To which I said, I don't need to prove the historical accuracy of the Bible. I just proclaim the message and let the Holy Ghost do the rest.

I appreciate it, but...I didn't ask for your help.

Stranger

bbyrd009 · Dec 18, 2017

Stranger said:
I can write logical sentences when giving the gospel of Jesus Christ. But, it will not be accepted by those of the world which you first described. Why? Not because it isn't logical, but because they have no interest in and don't want it.

"Good News! If you don't do ezackly as i say you're goin ta hail!"

lol

bbyrd009 · Dec 18, 2017

OzSpen said:
Similarly, you cannot put words in any order in the sentence and expect the sentence to communicate.

Grammar and syntax have a logic- if the reader is to understand the meaning of the sentence then that logic has to be followed. Note that we can ask questions of every word in a correct sentence, and we can find the answer to that question in the sentence....

So, good editing means checking that all the parts of the sentence say something precisely and clearly: that is, the words conform to the logic of the sentence.

If the writing is not logical, then the reader will not be convinced of the logic of the analysis (emphasis added, source).

nice, ok, now just please tell me the meaning of the following sentence, and we can proceed from there:

"Stay here for the present."

Logical and Dialectical Reasoning in Scripture

Groper

Well-Known Member

Groper

Groper

Well-Known Member

Groper

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Groper

Well-Known Member

Groper

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Groper

Groper

Similar threads