Apostolic Friends Forum
Tab Menu 1
Go Back   Apostolic Friends Forum > The Fellowship Hall > Fellowship Hall
Facebook

Notices

Fellowship Hall The place to go for Fellowship & Fun!


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #781  
Old 07-18-2018, 02:00 PM
Costeon Costeon is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 385
Re: Uncut Hair and the Nazirite Vow for Women

Quote:
Originally Posted by rdp View Post
UBS, A Handbook for Greek NT Translators: To be shorn, literally "cut-her-hair" in Greek, probably referred to a regular trimming of her hair.
So I've been reading the UBS Handbook that you have used so often in this thread. As I've said before about excerpts, it's always interesting to read the source from which an excerpt has been taken.

First, UBS does not support your view overall, that Paul is speaking of long uncut hair throughout. The authors support the view that Paul is referring to a cloth head covering and also that Paul is arguing that a women's covering of long hair indicates she should also be covered with this cloth head covering.

"In this verse [v. 4] Paul is probably referring to a garment hanging down from the head and covering the hair and the upper part of the body, rather than the face" (p. 215).

"Unveiled: in some cultures there will already be specific words for pieces of cloth and other material which women normally wear over their heads in religious gatherings. It would be good to use such words here" (p. 215).

"The argument of verse 5b is not immediately clear, but there is no doubt about the meaning of the words. Paul probably means that by giving women a natural covering for their heads, God intends that women should give their heads a further covering when they pray or speak God's message" (p. 216).

"As we noted in verse 4, the garment which RSV calls a veil probably covered the shoulders as well as the hair" (p. 216).

Second, it's unfortunate that they're somewhat inconsistent and sloppy with their language. It creates ambiguity. They can write, "but there is no doubt about the meaning of the words," but without a break follow that with, "Paul probably means . . . " Is there "no doubt" or is it "probably"?

They note, "She should cut off her hair" "seems to imply that the woman herself cuts her hair. In verse 5 the implication is that someone else did the cutting" (p. 216). They use the the simple "cut" and "cutting" for both "cut off her hair" and "shaven." Which would seem to show they mean something quite different from just a trim when they say "cut."

But right after this ambiguous use of "cut" and "cutting," as you have noted before, they write "To be shorn, literally cut-her-hair in Greek, probably referred to a regular trimming of her hair."

It's not hard to use terms consistently to avoid confusion. It's unfortunate that they didn't do that here.

It's also unfortunate that they provide no evidence for this last "probably referred to a regular trimming of her hair." We have seen that there are no other actual examples in BDAG or L&N that only mean a simple hair cut or trim, but rather they involve shearing off the hair. And as of yet, no one in this thread has produced an example themselves that clearly only refers to a hair cut or trimming. We have seen how the other lexicons mentioned in this thread involve cutting off the hair short. So this is a "probably" with no support given for it.

Since this premier lexical resource that you have relied on so much says that Paul is talking about a cloth head covering, and since you don't teach that, are you going to say it's good in this one sentence where they support your view but overall it's no good since they don't support you overall?
Reply With Quote
  #782  
Old 07-18-2018, 02:33 PM
Amanah's Avatar
Amanah Amanah is offline
One Thing-Phil 3:13-14


 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Sebastian, FL
Posts: 6,513
Re: Uncut Hair and the Nazirite Vow for Women

Interesting article on head covering

My purpose in writing this article is not to cause controversy and division in the church. But I think it is a shame that so many of even the best churches–churches that center on Jesus Christ, the Cross, man’s inability and God’s sovereignty in salvation–have missed the opportunity to obey a New Testament command with, as we shall see, such beautiful meaning. I hope to encourage the reintroduction of a practice that is soundly Scriptural.
This topic is addressed in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. The method of this article will be to expound these verses. In doing so, I do not intend to interrupt the simple exposition I am going to give by quoting what so-and-so’s opinion was about head coverings. Nevertheless, before starting the exposition, I believe it will be helpful to note that there are at least seven common viewpoints promulgated concerning these verses. They are:
  • Viewpoint 1: The head covering of 1 Corinthians 11:2-13 was a covering in addition to the hair (addressed in verses 14-15), is still to be worn today, and is to be worn all the time. This is the belief of Mennonites and some other groups.
  • Viewpoint 2: Paul, in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, was dealing with a cultural issue that applied only to his time, and, perhaps, only to the Corinthian church.
  • Viewpoint 3: The head covering was a matter of modest dress. Like the view above, what is at issue is a social custom. In Paul’s day, it was immodest for a woman to have her head uncovered. Because such standards change in time and place, western women do not need to wear a head covering today because it is not an essential part of dressing modestly in our society.
  • Viewpoint 4: Paul is only addressing proper hair length. The covering for women is long hair. Men are to have no covering (short hair).
  • Viewpoint 5: As he explains in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, women are to be silent in church. So, in 1 Corinthians 11:2-6, Paul is saying that women can say public prayers and prophesy outside of church as long as they cover their heads.
  • Viewpoint 6: These verses are really only the beginning of a rebuke Paul is making about the conduct of women in the Corinthian church. The remarks continue in chapter 14, verses 34 and 35. What Paul is really saying, according to this theory, is something like this: Shame on you, Corinthian church! You have let your women speak in public without covering their heads. This shamed you in front of the surrounding community. What’s more, you should not have let them speak in public in the first place. Women are to be silent in church. According to this view, Paul spent fifteen verses explaining the proper use of head coverings in chapter 11 only to say in two verses in chapter 14 that it is all unnecessary because the women are to remain silent anyway and, therefore, do not need head coverings.
  • Viewpoint 7: The head covering of 1 Corinthians 11:2-13 was a covering in addition to the hair (addressed in verses 14-15), is still to be worn by Christian women today, and is to be worn during times of public worship. Paul’s instructions for the covering of the woman’s head and the uncovering of the man’s head during worship were not based on the custom of the times but on the Scriptures.

https://www.wordofhisgrace.org/wp/women-headcovering/

Last edited by Amanah; 07-18-2018 at 02:36 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #783  
Old 07-18-2018, 04:36 PM
Esaias's Avatar
Esaias Esaias is offline
Happily "off the chain"


 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Zion aka TEXAS
Posts: 17,346
Re: Uncut Hair and the Nazirite Vow for Women

Quote:
Originally Posted by good samaritan View Post
I have friends that were a part of a church that practiced head coverings. We had bible studies with them and the lady said she felt bound. Every time she prayed she felt she most go get something to cover her head. I seen her point, but it does seem that 1 Cor. 11 includes a veil.
I'm sure we can find, somewhere, a lady who feels "bound" or otherwise restricted or is unhappy with having to have long hair. Not sure where we might find such a woman (probably hanging around AFF?) but I'm sure such a one could be found...


__________________
Visit the Apostolic House Church YouTube Channel!

Instead of google, use www.yandex.com


Biblical Worship - free pdf http://www.pdf-archive.com/2016/02/21/biblicalworship4/

Conditional immortality proven - http://www.robertwr.com/

Reply With Quote
  #784  
Old 07-18-2018, 04:55 PM
Esaias's Avatar
Esaias Esaias is offline
Happily "off the chain"


 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Zion aka TEXAS
Posts: 17,346
Re: Uncut Hair and the Nazirite Vow for Women

Quote:
Originally Posted by good samaritan View Post
Would the veil that is described in 1 Cor. 11 mean something that would cover the entirety of the head or do you think Paul was refering to a little hair piece scarf? Certainly a scarf would hardly go noticed, but if all the commandment in 1 Cor. 11 is just another "to do" to check off then that is fine. I think that the commandments of God has more weight then that and have purpose.
The Scriptures do not actually specify the cut or style of the head covering. Just as they do not specify the melody or style of music to be used when singing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. Yet, both are commanded to be done.

Therefore we see here a principle in operation: One of general command and specific liberty.

We are commanded to sing to one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, yet no melodies, tunes, or even style of music is specified. Therefore, the melodies are up to us. That melodies must be used, is a clear and necessary inference from the general command. But the lack of specificity creates another clear and necessary inference: we must determine ourselves the melodies to be used.

But there's more!

Some melodies are more appropriate ("expedient") than others. A hardcore thrash metal head banging melody (!) simply does not seem expedient for the purpose of singing psalms and hymns in praise to God in the corporate assembly. Other melodies and styles of music are more appropriate. Each church, and indeed each singer (who brings a "solo" song for the edification of the whole assembly) must determine the melodies and style of music that is most suitable to expressing praise to God and which most satisfactorily helps fulfill the command.

So it is with clothing in general. Women are to wear modest apparel, but the specific style or cut, color, etc is not specified. Thus, there is a certain amount of liberty given with which we must make our own determinations. While the Lord holds our hand through this valley dim, we are not to always be nursing infants who cannot walk ourselves, seeing as He gives us strength and wisdom.

And so it is with the headcovering. A specific style, cut, color, material, etc is not specified. So there is liberty from church to church, culture to culture, and individual to individual. And yet we should also use wisdom in our liberty.

The purpose of the head covering is "religious", and therefore the head covering should reflect that purpose. Wearing a ball cap with your favorite team's name emblazoned on it hardly seems suited to that purpose. Not saying that such wouldn't "work in a pinch", but that hardly seems fitted to the purpose.

So a head covering should be of such a nature that indicates or at least implies a religious, spiritual purpose as opposed to a wholly secular purpose.

Furthermore, it should be something that covers the head. How much is not actually stated in the text, but a little sash with a bow or ribbon tied across the head hardly seems fitting for the purpose of being a "head COVERING". A veil, scarf, or even a hat covers the head much more suitably than a thin riband of cloth or lace.

It also should probably not be translucent. If it is "see through" then does it REALLY cover anything? The purpose of covering is so that which is covered is not "seen", therefore the head covering should be opaque.

It should be "down the head", meaning a kalumna hanging down on the head. Thus a hat perched high up on top, which does not give the appearance of "covering DOWN the head", seems to be somewhat askew of the purpose given in Scripture. Therefore, it would seem a veil or scarf or some other covering (including a bonnet, cap, etc) that at least indicates a "covering DOWN of the head" would be more appropriate.

I do not see that Scripture requires every square inch of the head to be covered, nor every strand of hair to be covered. (It is, after all, a HEAD covering not a HAIR covering, the hair is covered via the head being covered.) While the more may be the merrier, I do not see this as a blanket command for any particular style of head covering. While it is my opinion that the typical Amish or Mennonite cap only barely meets the Scriptural requirements, I would never say to such a woman that she is "uncovered". A scarf or veil on the head that "covers down" the head, rather than a mere cap that covers the BACK of the head, seems to be more along the lines of what Scripture is teaching.

In summary, the Scripture does not specify exactly the style or cut or color or even size of the head covering, only that the head be covered for worship (whether corporate or private), and like many other commands in Scripture is a general command, leaving the specifics up to the believers.
__________________
Visit the Apostolic House Church YouTube Channel!

Instead of google, use www.yandex.com


Biblical Worship - free pdf http://www.pdf-archive.com/2016/02/21/biblicalworship4/

Conditional immortality proven - http://www.robertwr.com/

Reply With Quote
  #785  
Old 07-18-2018, 05:47 PM
rdp rdp is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,544
Re: Uncut Hair and the Nazirite Vow for Women

Quote:
Originally Posted by Costeon View Post
First, UBS does not support your view overall, that Paul is speaking of long uncut hair throughout. The authors support the view that Paul is referring to a cloth head covering and also that Paul is arguing that a women's covering of long hair indicates she should also be covered with this cloth head covering.

"In this verse [v. 4] Paul is probably referring to a garment hanging down from the head and covering the hair and the upper part of the body, rather than the face" (p. 215).

"Unveiled: in some cultures there will already be specific words for pieces of cloth and other material which women normally wear over their heads in religious gatherings. It would be good to use such words here" (p. 215).

"The argument of verse 5b is not immediately clear, but there is no doubt about the meaning of the words. Paul probably means that by giving women a natural covering for their heads, God intends that women should give their heads a further covering when they pray or speak God's message" (p. 216).

"As we noted in verse 4, the garment which RSV calls a veil probably covered the shoulders as well as the hair" (p. 216).

Second, it's unfortunate that they're somewhat inconsistent and sloppy with their language. It creates ambiguity. They can write, "but there is no doubt about the meaning of the words," but without a break follow that with, "Paul probably means . . . " Is there "no doubt" or is it "probably"?

They note, "She should cut off her hair" "seems to imply that the woman herself cuts her hair. In verse 5 the implication is that someone else did the cutting" (p. 216). They use the the simple "cut" and "cutting" for both "cut off her hair" and "shaven." Which would seem to show they mean something quite different from just a trim when they say "cut."

But right after this ambiguous use of "cut" and "cutting," as you have noted before, they write "To be shorn, literally cut-her-hair in Greek, probably referred to a regular trimming of her hair."

It's not hard to use terms consistently to avoid confusion. It's unfortunate that they didn't do that here.

It's also unfortunate that they provide no evidence for this last "probably referred to a regular trimming of her hair." We have seen that there are no other actual examples in BDAG or L&N that only mean a simple hair cut or trim, but rather they involve shearing off the hair. And as of yet, no one in this thread has produced an example themselves that clearly only refers to a hair cut or trimming. We have seen how the other lexicons mentioned in this thread involve cutting off the hair short. So this is a "probably" with no support given for it.

Since this premier lexical resource that you have relied on so much says that Paul is talking about a cloth head covering, and since you don't teach that, are you going to say it's good in this one sentence where they support your view but overall it's no good since they don't support you overall?
*First, as I have stated innumerable times on here already, I will not just sit here and chase every rabbit trail that y'all concoct in an attempt to feign victory - esp. when you flatly refuse to answer my direct questions in any meaningful fashion (or any other fashion for that matter).

*Second, I have quoted UBS's "literal" definition of this Greek verb as it appears in 11.6 over and over and over...and over. I already told you many times on this thread that they further explicate the phrase "cut off" as "literally, to-cut-her-hair." This has been my point all along: Y'all think that this phrase "cut off" supports your position, but, here these linguists offer the "literal" meaning of this expression as simply to cut the hair, and equally state that in all likelihood this refers to "trimming" of the hair by the lady in I Cor. 11.6. And, I have stated repeatedly that anything other than "literal" meanings according to immediate contexts is mere theological interpretation, which I am not interested in.

*Third, you have appealed to Thayer's lexicon in this thread, but, using your own stated criteria above, "are you going to say it's good in this one sentence where they support your view but overall it's no good since they don't support you overall?" Do you now equally deny the deity of Jesus Christ, His second return to earth, teach baptism for the dead along with your own quoted resource of Joseph Thayer (and no, that's not a "red herring" - it's consistency)? See how that works?

*For example, BDAG (as already pointed out) comments on the noun "form" (μορφῇ) in Phil. 2.6 as explicating "the preexistent Christ" in eternity-past. Do you also accept their theological assertions here? I'm thinking not.

*So, once again, I have to point out (for some odd reason) that there is a difference in theology and the "literally" inspired original languages of God's Word. The cloth veil issue is an entirely different issue than the hair-cutting discussion, which I have already directed y'all's attention to the debate w. Bro. Weatherly where he effectively deals w. this issue (Hayes had contacted me about doing this debate, but, was simply not interested).

*In summary, once again it seems that any grammatical source quoted that militates against your position you go to work on to render ineffective (e.g., NIDNTTE, BDAG, Bauer, Louw-Nida, UBS, ALGNT, etc.). The bottom line is that we have yet another tremendous committee of professional linguists who state that the "literal" meaning of this verb in 11.6 defines as "to-cut-her-hair" - and then these same linguists affirm that this most likely refers to "trimming" of her hair. Case closed .

*Back a little later tonight.
__________________
Rare is the Individual Found who is Genuinely in Search of Biblical Truth.

Last edited by rdp; 07-18-2018 at 05:52 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #786  
Old 07-18-2018, 08:17 PM
rdp rdp is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,544
Re: Uncut Hair and the Nazirite Vow for Women

*Or, should we assume that you endorse every aspect of your own selected quote below (?):

Quote:
Originally Posted by Costeon View Post
Another quote from another article: "We all know that men always prefer a girl with long flowing hair. . . . Many women fear the rejection and displeasure of their life partner if they go for a shorter hair length. . . . But when a girl or a woman finally decides to cut her hair, it means she is also cutting off her fear. . . . She is confident that she will rock even with her short hair style."
*Should we now conclude that your obvious approval of some of this source demands your "overall" endorsement? Or, as you have charged, it's "good in the places where they support your view, but overall it's no good since they don't support your overall position?"
__________________
Rare is the Individual Found who is Genuinely in Search of Biblical Truth.

Last edited by rdp; 07-18-2018 at 08:21 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #787  
Old 07-19-2018, 12:33 PM
Costeon Costeon is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 385
Re: Uncut Hair and the Nazirite Vow for Women

[QUOTE=rdp;1541185]

The point of my post is to show that every time one of your resources is closely examined, it reveals that you have selectively quoted them and have left out the choice parts that undermine your overall position. The analysis of BDAG has shown this as well as with your "Hebraic" resources.

Quote:
*Second, I have quoted UBS's "literal" definition of this Greek verb as it appears in 11.6 over and over and over...and over. I already told you many times on this thread that they further explicate the phrase "cut off" as "literally, to-cut-her-hair." This has been my point all along: Y'all think that this phrase "cut off" supports your position, but, here these linguists offer the "literal" meaning of this expression as simply to cut the hair, and equally state that in all likelihood this refers to "trimming" of the hair by the lady in I Cor. 11.6. And, I have stated repeatedly that anything other than "literal" meanings according to immediate contexts is mere theological interpretation, which I am not interested in.
And I pointed out how they are inconsistent in their usage and create ambiguity. Unfortunately for you, all your resources and all your arguments are ambiguous. So again, just line up the other passages from the Bible that clearly teach uncut hair, and all this ambiguity can be eliminated. You never have done this and never will because there aren't any other passages and you know it.

As far as "cut off" goes, when you compare the translations that say "cut off" to those that say "cut off short" "shear off," and those that include footnotes explaining what they mean by "cut" or "cut off" etc., it's clear how all these translations are understanding the semantic range of this verb--not to trim but something that involves significantly removing the hair.

Regarding the "literal meanings," you are rejecting what UBS says is the meaning of the words for "covered" and you reject what BDAG explicitly says about what covered (katakalupto) means for 1 Cor 11.6ab: "cover oneself w. a veil, abs. . . . 1 Cor 11:6ab."

Quote:
*Third, you have appealed to Thayer's lexicon in this thread, but, using your own stated criteria above, "are you going to say it's good in this one sentence where they support your view but overall it's no good since they don't support you overall?" Do you now equally deny the deity of Jesus Christ, His second return to earth, teach baptism for the dead along with your own quoted resource of Joseph Thayer (and no, that's not a "red herring" - it's consistency)? See how that works?
If I had never mentioned Thayer it would have had zero effect on my overall argument. You know this is true. If you don't, you're being obtuse. Anybody who has carefully read this thread will see that you are twisting my use of Thayer. I mentioned it as the last of a group of three lexicons (along with LSJ and Abbott-Smith, which are both highly regarded) that all had the same definition. Of course, you have not shown how Thayer is defective here by showing how the papyri discoveries that were made after the publication of his work affected the understanding of keiro. They didn't.

But, I formally withdraw my one-time mention of Thayer. I amend that one post to just note what LSJ and Abbot-Smith say. There, now you can quit bringing it up.

Quote:
*For example, BDAG (as already pointed out) comments on the noun "form" (μορφῇ) in Phil. 2.6 as explicating "the preexistent Christ" in eternity-past. Do you also accept their theological assertions here? I'm thinking not.

*So, once again, I have to point out (for some odd reason) that there is a difference in theology and the "literally" inspired original languages of God's Word. The cloth veil issue is an entirely different issue than the hair-cutting discussion, which I have already directed y'all's attention to the debate w. Bro. Weatherly where he effectively deals w. this issue (Hayes had contacted me about doing this debate, but, was simply not interested).
It is not different. BDAG simply defines katakalupto as being covered with a veil. UBS, being a commentary, gives the meaning in expanded form. So you're stuck with rejecting the plain words of these preeminent NT Greek lexicographers on the basic definition.

Quote:
*In summary, once again it seems that any grammatical source quoted that militates against your position you go to work on to render ineffective (e.g., NIDNTTE, BDAG, Bauer, Louw-Nida, UBS, ALGNT, etc.). The bottom line is that we have yet another tremendous committee of professional linguists who state that the "literal" meaning of this verb in 11.6 defines as "to-cut-her-hair" - and then these same linguists affirm that this most likely refers to "trimming" of her hair. Case closed .
Once again, it has been shown that you cherry pick your resources when they support you and conveniently leave out the parts that show they would not support your position.

Why don't you post all your resources with screen shots so we can see for ourselves?
Reply With Quote
  #788  
Old 07-19-2018, 12:47 PM
Costeon Costeon is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 385
Re: Uncut Hair and the Nazirite Vow for Women

Quote:
Originally Posted by rdp View Post
*Or, should we assume that you endorse every aspect of your own selected quote below (?):

*Should we now conclude that your obvious approval of some of this source demands your "overall" endorsement? Or, as you have charged, it's "good in the places where they support your view, but overall it's no good since they don't support your overall position?"
lol! I explicitly said I didn't endorse everything in the articles I posted. I posted them to prove a singular point, which they did. Esaias had first suggested that when non-Apostolics say that a woman "cut" her hair they don't mean just to trim. They mean a significant cutting. I posted those articles as examples of this usage.

You have put so much weight on UBS in your argument, because it it the only one that mentions "trim." You are in the position now of having to say that UBS is correct regarding keiro but incorrect regarding katakalupto.
Reply With Quote
  #789  
Old 07-19-2018, 11:05 PM
rdp rdp is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,544
Re: Uncut Hair and the Nazirite Vow for Women

Quote:
Originally Posted by Costeon View Post
lol! I explicitly said I didn't endorse everything in the articles I posted. I posted them to prove a singular point, which they did.
*Ahhh yes, Costeon's typical double standards and attempts to spin away from the natural ramifications of his hand-picked resources. "LOL" indeed !

*The only thing your sources "proved" is that your position leads to how the woman on your source looks here (this is your selected source ): http://bibleandjewishstudies.net/



Quote:
Originally Posted by Costeon View Post
Esaias had first suggested that when non-Apostolics say that a woman "cut" her hair they don't mean just to trim. They mean a significant cutting. I posted those articles as examples of this usage.
*Yes, and what fine "examples" they were of your position !

Quote:
Originally Posted by Costeon View Post
You have put so much weight on UBS in your argument, because it it the only one that mentions "trim." You are in the position now of having to say that UBS is correct regarding keiro but incorrect regarding katakalupto.
*I am in absolutely no other position than UBS's "literal" definition of "to-cut-her-hair" and their direct assertion that this verb most likely refers to "trimming" of hair. I know you despise these professional linguist's definition of this Greek verb since it utterly destroys your eisegesis, but this "literal" definition will still be there after you're finished wearing out your erasers on it .
__________________
Rare is the Individual Found who is Genuinely in Search of Biblical Truth.
Reply With Quote
  #790  
Old 07-19-2018, 11:46 PM
1ofthechosen's Avatar
1ofthechosen 1ofthechosen is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 1,986
Re: Uncut Hair and the Nazirite Vow for Women

Quote:
Originally Posted by rdp View Post
*The only thing your sources "proved" is that your position leads to how the woman on your source looks here (this is your selected source ): http://bibleandjewishstudies.net/[/FONT][/COLOR]
Lol!
__________________
Proverbs 24:24-25"He that saith unto the wicked, Thou art righteous; him shall the people curse, nations shall abhor him: [25] But to them that rebuke him shall be delight, and a good blessing shall come upon them."

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCml...GfzdAfhWLzbz1A
This is a One God, Holy Ghost Filled, Tongue Talkin', Jesus Name channel where it's all in Him!
Apostolic Truth! His Truth Is Marching On!
SUBSCRIBE to my channel!!

Last edited by 1ofthechosen; 07-19-2018 at 11:52 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Uncut Hair consapente89 Fellowship Hall 131 04-13-2018 06:04 AM
Uncut Hair kclee4jc Fellowship Hall 193 01-10-2016 01:13 AM

 
User Infomation
Your Avatar

Latest Threads
- by n david
- by n david
- by Amanah

Help Support AFF!

Advertisement




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.