Coming to Terms With Old Testament Cosmology

[Risingtide]

Hello, I'm interested in your approaches in reconciling the cosmology that is written about in Genesis with your understanding of modern cosmology. Does anyone here have a book or video they have found to be helpful in helping you find answers that aid in your faith and confidence. I understand that our scriptural canon is not a science book, but didn't the writers write to explain a reality including physical reality?

Edited January 4, 2022 by Risingtide
correcting misspelling

[The Nehor]

We have little idea of what the people who were “shown” the creation of the Earth saw. Maybe if we put an expert on planetology in one of those visions they would describe it in a more congruous way. I don’t know if that would make it more accurate. If someone comes along later and flips the board with new understanding it would seemingly discredit that vision as superstitious nonsense.

[MrShorty]

22 minutes ago, Risingtide said:

Hello, I'm interested in your approaches in reconciling the cosmology that is written about in Genesis with your understanding of modern cosmology

If I understand the concepts correctly, this is what some (like Ben Spackman) call "concordism" -- the idea that the cosmology of scripture and the cosmology of science must somehow be reconciled. Personally, before I try to answer the question of how to reconcile Biblical cosmology and modern cosmology, I find myself asking IF the two cosmologies need to be reconciled.

[Chum]

1 minute ago, MrShorty said:

If I understand the concepts correctly, this is what some (like Ben Spackman) call "concordism" -- the idea that the cosmology of scripture and the cosmology of science must somehow be reconciled. Personally, before I try to answer the question of how to reconcile Biblical cosmology and modern cosmology, I find myself asking IF the two cosmologies need to be reconciled.

We have a crap ton of time to sort thru it. Demands for prompt reconciliation are attempts to control others.

[Chum]

36 minutes ago, Risingtide said:

Hello, I'm interested in your approaches in reconciling the cosmology that is written about in Genesis with your understanding of modern cosmology. Does anyone here have a book or video they have found to be helpful in helping you find answers that aid in your faith and confidence. I understand that our scriptural canon is not a science book, but didn't the writers write to explain a reality including physical reality?

I have an entire library dedicated to exactly that.

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, Chum said:

I have an entire library dedicated to exactly that.

Perfect

[JustAnAustralian]

 

45 minutes ago, Risingtide said:

I understand that our scriptural canon is not a science book, but didn't the writers write to explain a reality including physical reality?

Scripture is written according to the way the authors understood things.

An ancient Israelite would describe the earth and it's creation based on how they thought things were (e.g. your dome diagram). They would have no concept of continents. Meteor impacts would be stars falling from the sky. The sun, stars, planets (if they had a concept of them) were moving in the sky around a fixed earth. The earth wasn't an oblate spheroid that orbited around the sun and rotated etc.

They couldn't write about astrophysics and planetary formation because the language and concepts didn't even exist.

[bluebell]

I think it helps to try to ask, "how does this relate to the gospel or to my relationship with God?"

Because God probably isn't spending a lot of time giving astronomy lessons.  He uses the physical world to teach us more about Him, in ways that we can understand based on our cultural relationship with those physical things.

[MrShorty]

12 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

Scripture is written according to the way the authors understood things.

An ancient Israelite would describe the earth and it's creation based on how they thought things wer

I get this. Do we apply it equally to Joseph Smith? I often find myself encountering cosmological ideas that we trace to Joseph Smith and observe that those ideas fit better into 18th and 19th century ideas, when so many of our modern sciences were yet unbroached or in their infancy. For example, the ideas that "matter/element is eternal" and "creation is organizing disorganized matter" seem to fit very well into a Newtonian, static, eternally existing universe, but feel somewhat foreign to the Big Bang universe that has a definite beginning. The ideas that would push the age of the Earth from mere thousands of years to billions were just getting started in the 19th century. Atomic theory that undergirds our understanding of matter was also in its infancy. Not to mention the idea that some of the nebula we could see were really their own galaxy "island universes" was a 20th century idea.

I guess what I'm getting at is, while it is easy to say that stone age/bronze age cosmologies permeate our sacred texts, do we apply the same thing to modern prophets like Joseph Smith? Is there value in reminding ourselves that all prophets -- even modern prophets from recent times -- were influenced by the world they lived in? How do we get better at separating eternal truth from the temporarily true stuff rooted in flawed understandings of the universe? How do we recognize within ourselves the "truths" that we cling to that are really reflections of the culture we live in?

[Risingtide]

13 hours ago, bluebell said:

I think it helps to try to ask, "how does this relate to the gospel or to my relationship with God?"

Because God probably isn't spending a lot of time giving astronomy lessons.  He uses the physical world to teach us more about Him, in ways that we can understand based on our cultural relationship with those physical things.

Maybe I have my definitions in disarray, but I have thought Genesis to be a part of the gospel. It's not the moral laws taught by Jesus or the Atonement, but still an important part of the gospel. It appears that Moses's account in Genesis  relied in part upon speculations common in that age instead of revelation. Is that a fair judgement? 

[bluebell]

28 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I get this. Do we apply it equally to Joseph Smith? I often find myself encountering cosmological ideas that we trace to Joseph Smith and observe that those ideas fit better into 18th and 19th century ideas, when so many of our modern sciences were yet unbroached or in their infancy. For example, the ideas that "matter/element is eternal" and "creation is organizing disorganized matter" seem to fit very well into a Newtonian, static, eternally existing universe, but feel somewhat foreign to the Big Bang universe that has a definite beginning. The ideas that would push the age of the Earth from mere thousands of years to billions were just getting started in the 19th century. Atomic theory that undergirds our understanding of matter was also in its infancy. Not to mention the idea that some of the nebula we could see were really their own galaxy "island universes" was a 20th century idea.

I guess what I'm getting at is, while it is easy to say that stone age/bronze age cosmologies permeate our sacred texts, do we apply the same thing to modern prophets like Joseph Smith? Is there value in reminding ourselves that all prophets -- even modern prophets from recent times -- were influenced by the world they lived in? How do we get better at separating eternal truth from the temporarily true stuff rooted in flawed understandings of the universe? How do we recognize within ourselves the "truths" that we cling to that are really reflections of the culture we live in?

I was just thinking about this as well.

In the podcast I was listening to on last Sunday's Come Follow Me lesson, the guest speaker was an egyptologist who explained that though the astronomy in Abraham isn't (maybe he said probably isn't, I don't remember) correct as far as astronomy goes, it works perfectly with how the Egyptians viewed the world.  And that God wasn't interested in teaching astronomy, only in using some of its aspects to teach gospel truth.  The egyptologist (who is a member who is a professor, teaches religion classes, and has a bunch of accolades but I don't remember his name off of the top of my head) said that this is what God does.  He uses the culture of the time to teach about the gospel so that His students can understand it in a framework that makes sense to them.

So yeah.  If this is how God dealt with Abraham and other prophets, why do we assume that He didn't do this with JS?  Not that the science is flat out wrong, but just not exactly correct or is incredibly simple, because teaching the science wasn't the point?

 

 

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, Risingtide said:

Maybe I have my definitions in disarray, but I have thought Genesis to be a part of the gospel. It's not the moral laws taught by Jesus or the Atonement, but still an important part of the gospel. It appears that Moses's account in Genesis  relied in part upon speculations common in that age instead of revelation. Is that a fair judgement? 

Yes, I agree, Genesis is part of the gospel.  What I'm referring to is that the way that the creation is presented in Genesis, or Moses, or Abraham, isn't necessarily 'scientifically' accurate, because teaching the science behind the creation wasn't the point of those chapters of scriptures.

So they could still very much be revelation, but revelation that used faulty or common speculations of the day, to accomplish its goal.

(And, there could also just be some speculations added in as well.)  

[Risingtide]

14 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

 

Scripture is written according to the way the authors understood things.

An ancient Israelite would describe the earth and it's creation based on how they thought things were (e.g. your dome diagram). They would have no concept of continents. Meteor impacts would be stars falling from the sky. The sun, stars, planets (if they had a concept of them) were moving in the sky around a fixed earth. The earth wasn't an oblate spheroid that orbited around the sun and rotated etc.

They couldn't write about astrophysics and planetary formation because the language and concepts didn't even exist.

Hi JAA, thanks for your response. What you wrote seems very reasonable. My views on are in flux, seeing more speculation and less revelation in balance in Genesis. 

[Risingtide]

19 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Yes, I agree, Genesis is part of the gospel.  What I'm referring to is that the way that the creation is presented in Genesis, or Moses, or Abraham, isn't necessarily 'scientifically' accurate, because teaching the science behind the creation wasn't the point of those chapters of scriptures.

So they could still very much be revelation, but revelation that used faulty or common speculations of the day, to accomplish its goal.

(And, there could also just be some speculations added in as well.)  

Thank you bluebell. Yours is a useful perspective. The cosmological explanations found in Genesis are an example of "less is more" , but maybe it was helpful to provide details to questions common in that age to move people to faith, even if it creates some doubts in later times. 

[CV75]

15 hours ago, Risingtide said:

Hello, I'm interested in your approaches in reconciling the cosmology that is written about in Genesis with your understanding of modern cosmology. Does anyone here have a book or video they have found to be helpful in helping you find answers that aid in your faith and confidence. I understand that our scriptural canon is not a science book, but didn't the writers write to explain a reality including physical reality?

From this year's CFM manual: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/come-follow-me-for-individuals-and-families-old-testament-2022/01-thoughts?lang=eng

 

[Risingtide]

15 hours ago, MrShorty said:

If I understand the concepts correctly, this is what some (like Ben Spackman) call "concordism" -- the idea that the cosmology of scripture and the cosmology of science must somehow be reconciled. Personally, before I try to answer the question of how to reconcile Biblical cosmology and modern cosmology, I find myself asking IF the two cosmologies need to be reconciled.

Hi MrShorty, before posting yesterday on this topic I listened to a FAIR podcast featuring Ben Spackman on this topic. I haven't yet digested the concepts. I'll listen to it again today, but I think it may take more than that podcast. Thanks for your answer to my question.

[rodheadlee]

15 minutes ago, Risingtide said:

Thank you bluebell. Yours is a useful perspective. The cosmological explanations found in Genesis are an example of "less is more" , but maybe it was helpful to provide details to questions common in that age to move people to faith, even if it creates some doubts in later times. 

An interesting thing is that I was reading a nonfiction description of the creation of the Universe after the Big Bang by Avi Loeb and it fit a section of Genesis perfectly. 

[Risingtide]

9 minutes ago, CV75 said:

From this year's CFM manual: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/come-follow-me-for-individuals-and-families-old-testament-2022/01-thoughts?lang=eng

 

Thanks CV75. that was helpful.

[Olmec Donald]

5 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I get this. Do we apply it equally to Joseph Smith? I often find myself encountering cosmological ideas that we trace to Joseph Smith and observe that those ideas fit better into 18th and 19th century ideas, when so many of our modern sciences were yet unbroached or in their infancy. For example, the ideas that "matter/element is eternal" and "creation is organizing disorganized matter" seem to fit very well into a Newtonian, static, eternally existing universe, but feel somewhat foreign to the Big Bang universe that has a definite beginning. The ideas that would push the age of the Earth from mere thousands of years to billions were just getting started in the 19th century. Atomic theory that undergirds our understanding of matter was also in its infancy. Not to mention the idea that some of the nebula we could see were really their own galaxy "island universes" was a 20th century idea.

I guess what I'm getting at is, while it is easy to say that stone age/bronze age cosmologies permeate our sacred texts, do we apply the same thing to modern prophets like Joseph Smith? Is there value in reminding ourselves that all prophets -- even modern prophets from recent times -- were influenced by the world they lived in? How do we get better at separating eternal truth from the temporarily true stuff rooted in flawed understandings of the universe? How do we recognize within ourselves the "truths" that we cling to that are really reflections of the culture we live in?

I agree with you, but can't help noticing that Joseph Smith may have been in the ballpark on time dilation:

According to Joseph Smith, on the planet Kolob, the planet nearest where God dwells, there is apparently time dilation such that one day on Kolob is equal to a thousand years on Earth (Abraham 3:2-4).  Assuming that time dilation is caused by proximity to an extremely powerful gravitational source, one possible implication is that Kolob is near a very massive black hole. 

My understanding is that time comes to a standstill at the event horizon of a black hole (not sure what happens to time beyond the event horizon), and we see this sort of extreme time dilation in the description of the place where God dwells (near Kolob) in D&C 130:7:

"A globe like a sea of glass and fire, where all things... are manifest, past, present, and future"

(The term "globe" might even be used to describe the event horizon surrounding a black hole, whether seen from within or without.) 

The implication seems to be that God dwells in a place with what we might call extreme time dilation effects, and those effects extend at least to the nearest planet, but presumably because of the distance they are less extreme there.  This seems to me like it could be a description of time dilation effects caused by a massive black hole, to a rough first approximation.  (Setting aside other possible implications of this interpretation for now.)

Or maybe this is just me reading a nineteenth century document through a late twentieth century lens.  

Edited January 4, 2022 by Olmec Donald

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, Risingtide said:

Thank you bluebell. Yours is a useful perspective. The cosmological explanations found in Genesis are an example of "less is more" , but maybe it was helpful to provide details to questions common in that age to move people to faith, even if it creates some doubts in later times. 

I strongly suggest listening to this podcast, as it talks about the very things that you have questions about and it's been incredibly helpful to me.  There are two parts and they are both over and hour but, if you can listen to the first 20 or so minutes of part one, I think you'll find it very interesting.

If you don't want to do youtube you can also find it on most podcast apps (like apple), under Follow Him--Hank Smith and John Bytheway, Genesis 1-3, Moses 2-3, Abraham 4-5.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

19 hours ago, Risingtide said:

Hello, I'm interested in your approaches in reconciling the cosmology that is written about in Genesis with your understanding of modern cosmology. Does anyone here have a book or video they have found to be helpful in helping you find answers that aid in your faith and confidence. I understand that our scriptural canon is not a science book, but didn't the writers write to explain a reality including physical reality?....................

A number of scholars share the view expressed by your illustration:

John R. Roberts, “The Biblical Cosmos is Three-Tiered—No Question,” Academia Letters, 44 (2020), online at https://doi.org/10.20935/AL44 , and at https://www.academia.edu/44795980/The_Biblical_Cosmos_is_Three_Tiered_No_Question?email_work_card=view-paper ,
"In this paper, I demonstrate that the biblical cosmos is depicted as being three-tiered with heaven above, the earth below and the underworld/deep beneath the earth. The basic structureis heaven above and earth below (Gen 1.1) surrounded by the cosmic waters (Gen 1.2, 7.11,8.2)"

I also dealt with a related question posed by someone at Quora: “Does the Hebrew word ‘רקיע’ (firmament, expanse, space, vault) denote a solid dome of some kind? I wanted to know whether the Hebrew word רקיע rāqîa‘, or ‘firmament’ in the KJV, denotes a solid dome over the earth.” Quora, Oct 30, 2019, online at https://qr.ae/TV8IMD .  You may recognize that as the Book of Abraham word Raukeeyang.  See also the BioLogos Forum piece on the same word: https://discourse.biologos.org/t/is-the-raqia-solid-or-not/38812 .

A female scientist, Leslie A. Wickman, has much more far-reaching views on the nature of the universe: “Does the Big Bang breakthrough offer proof of God?” CNN, Mar 20, 2014, http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/03/20/does-the-big-bang-breakthrough-offer-proof-of-god/ .

Quote

(CNN) The remarkable discovery, announced this week, of ripples in the space-time fabric of the universe rocked the world of science – and the world of religion.

Touted as evidence for inflation (a faster-than-the-speed-of-light expansion of our universe), the new discovery of traces of gravity waves affirms scientific concepts in the fields of cosmology, general relativity, and particle physics.

The new discovery also has significant implications for the Judeo-Christian worldview, offering strong support for biblical beliefs.

Here's how.

The prevalent theory of cosmic origins prior to the Big Bang theory was the “Steady State,” which argued that the universe has always existed, without a beginning that necessitated a cause.

However, this new evidence strongly suggests that there was a beginning to our universe.

If the universe did indeed have a beginning, by the simple logic of cause and effect, there had to be an agent – separate and apart from the effect – that caused it.

That sounds a lot like Genesis 1:1 to me: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth.”

So this latest discovery is good news for us believers, as it adds scientific support to the idea that the universe was caused – or created – by something or someone outside it and not dependent on it.

Atheist-turned-agnostic astronomer Fred Hoyle, who coined the term “Big Bang,” famously stated, “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics."

As Hoyle saw it, the Big Bang was not a chaotic explosion, but rather a very highly ordered event – one that could not have occurred by random chance.

We also need to remember that God reveals himself both through scripture and creation. The challenge is in seeing how they fit together. A better understanding of each can inform our understanding of the other.

......................................

 

Edited January 4, 2022 by Robert F. Smith

[Nofear]

I'd recommend this article: "And I Saw the Stars".

I generally follow the basic rules when I try to understand the scriptures and the Gospel:

• There are things that ancient prophets could not have possibly known (e.g. black holes, quasars, brown dwarfs, etc.)
• There are things latter-day prophets (or pretty much anybody) do not understand (e.g. quantum mechanics).
• God sometimes helps us understand spiritual truths within the context of the physical understanding we have--whether or not that physical understanding is technically correct.

5 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I often find myself encountering cosmological ideas that we trace to Joseph Smith and observe that those ideas fit better into 18th and 19th century ideas, when so many of our modern sciences were yet unbroached or in their infancy. For example, the ideas that "matter/element is eternal" and "creation is organizing disorganized matter" seem to fit very well into a Newtonian, static, eternally existing universe, but feel somewhat foreign to the Big Bang universe that has a definite beginning. The ideas that would push the age of the Earth from mere thousands of years to billions were just getting started in the 19th century. Atomic theory that undergirds our understanding of matter was also in its infancy. Not to mention the idea that some of the nebula we could see were really their own galaxy "island universes" was a 20th century idea.

I guess what I'm getting at is, while it is easy to say that stone age/bronze age cosmologies permeate our sacred texts, do we apply the same thing to modern prophets like Joseph Smith? Is there value in reminding ourselves that all prophets -- even modern prophets from recent times -- were influenced by the world they lived in? How do we get better at separating eternal truth from the temporarily true stuff rooted in flawed understandings of the universe? How do we recognize within ourselves the "truths" that we cling to that are really reflections of the culture we live in?

As per my rules above, the short answer is yes, we should assume the context of the physical understanding of modern prophets just as we do today. And we should apply the same rules to ourselves. I am absolutely confident that some of the things I believe (both secular and religious) are wrong. I really don't know what they are but I recognize that they must be. And that's ok. The primary purpose of our mortality is not for us to learn deep scientific truths about physical reality (though, that is a really good thing to do). It is to become better and more Christlike by partaking of the Atonement. Newtonian mechanics is wrong. But it valuable at a certain level and that's why colleges still teach it to students. How do I separate eternal truth from the temporary, flawed stuff. I don't. I going to pretty much assume that everything mortal I learn is "through a glass, darkly".

The lesson I take away from Galileo was not that he was anti-Church (he put his daughter in a nunnery) but he objected to the premature marriage of a flawed science with their (flawed) theology. While my theology informs my scientific understanding and my scientific understanding informs my theology I take the position that both understandings are imperfect and thus cannot be dogmatic about most things.

 

PS: The Big Bang does not describe the "beginning" of the universe. A popular idea, even among scientists, but an incorrect one nonetheless.

 

[Risingtide]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

I strongly suggest listening to this podcast, as it talks about the very things that you have questions about and it's been incredibly helpful to me.  There are two parts and they are both over and hour but, if you can listen to the first 20 or so minutes of part one, I think you'll find it very interesting.

If you don't want to do youtube you can also find it on most podcast apps (like apple), under Follow Him--Hank Smith and John Bytheway, Genesis 1-3, Moses 2-3, Abraham 4-5.

 

Thank you bluebell, I listened to part one. It was helpful. I've also found Ben Spackman's website to be a helpful resource on these questions of mine. Thanks again.

[Risingtide]

18 hours ago, Nofear said:

I'd recommend this article: "And I Saw the Stars".

I generally follow the basic rules when I try to understand the scriptures and the Gospel:

• There are things that ancient prophets could not have possibly known (e.g. black holes, quasars, brown dwarfs, etc.)
• There are things latter-day prophets (or pretty much anybody) do not understand (e.g. quantum mechanics).
• God sometimes helps us understand spiritual truths within the context of the physical understanding we have--whether or not that physical understanding is technically correct.

As per my rules above, the short answer is yes, we should assume the context of the physical understanding of modern prophets just as we do today. And we should apply the same rules to ourselves. I am absolutely confident that some of the things I believe (both secular and religious) are wrong. I really don't know what they are but I recognize that they must be. And that's ok. The primary purpose of our mortality is not for us to learn deep scientific truths about physical reality (though, that is a really good thing to do). It is to become better and more Christlike by partaking of the Atonement. Newtonian mechanics is wrong. But it valuable at a certain level and that's why colleges still teach it to students. How do I separate eternal truth from the temporary, flawed stuff. I don't. I going to pretty much assume that everything mortal I learn is "through a glass, darkly".

The lesson I take away from Galileo was not that he was anti-Church (he put his daughter in a nunnery) but he objected to the premature marriage of a flawed science with their (flawed) theology. While my theology informs my scientific understanding and my scientific understanding informs my theology I take the position that both understandings are imperfect and thus cannot be dogmatic about most things.

 

PS: The Big Bang does not describe the "beginning" of the universe. A popular idea, even among scientists, but an incorrect one nonetheless.

 

Thank you Nofear, I look forward to reading those articles you've given me links to. This study is changing the way I view God's relationship and mankind and prophecy. Hopefully it will lead to a stronger more durable faith.

[Kevin Christensen]

I'm also very fond of "And I Saw the Stars."  An essay by Nibley on The Three Facsimilies of the Book of Abraham" referenced Hamlet's Mill by de Santillana and Von Dechund, on ancient (not primitive) astronomy.  So I got and plowed through Hamlet's Mill. Then some time after that read Anthony Hutchinson's Dialogue essay on the different creation accounts.  While pondering his illustration of "the Hebrew Cosmos", I had a thought come, "Where have I seen something like this before?" and remembered a passage in Hamlet's Mill.  It explains that:

In ancient astronomy “ the earth was the ideal plane laid through the ecliptic.
Half the zodiac (northern band, reaching from vernal to autumn equinox) as “dry land.”
Half the zodiac (southern arc) as “waters below.”
“Flat earth applies to the band of the zodiac through which the planets move.”
The equinoxes and the solstices make up the four pillars or corners of the earth.

In connection with that system, Hamlet's Mill also says:
 

Quote

 "...the determinative sign for 'heart' often figures as the plumb line coming from a well-known astronomical surveying device. the merkhet [Lit. the "informer,"] that which causes to know!. Evidently 'heart' is same thing very specific, as it were the 'center of gravity.' And this may lead in quite another direction. The Arabs preserved a name far Canopus--besides calling the star Kalb at-teiman ('heart of the south'):
Suhail el wetn, 'Canopus Ponderosus, the heavy-weighting Canopus," i.e., "Canopus was the weight at the end of the plumb-line...(p. 73) by means of which this depth [of the universe] was measured." (p.271) 
Of all the stars it alone was taken for static, exempted from the Precession" (p. 269, N. 16). 
Hence it is "the primordial star. 'presented under the form of an Egg that contained all the things that were to be born...caIled 'l'etoile immobile'. It is near the Great Cloud which marks the South Pole of the ecliptic, and is NOT to be sought in the North." (p.269). 
 

This sort of thing suggests to me that beneath and behind that diagram of "The Hebrew Cosmos" is something else, and that something else also seems to me to be beneath and behind what is in our Book of Abraham.  I wrote an essay on this for Dialogue, a long time ago. Not so incidentally, Facsimile 2 has symbols that point to the transition between the ram and the bull in the days of Abraham, which, indicates a connection to the precession, and Canopus/Qalb as the star that dominates all others.

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V24N03_123.pdf

And about 12 years ago, I did a Fireside on Kolob, drawing on the essays by Nibley, Peterson, Gee, Barker and others.

Kevin Barney once reported an exchange he had with Margaret Barker, concerning his essay on Joseph Smith's translation of Genesis during which she said, "The key to everything is in what is missing from Genesis."

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited January 5, 2022 by Kevin Christensen