Results 21 - 40 of 78
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: jonp Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | The fruit and leaves of the tree of life | Gen 2:9 | jonp | 184599 | ||
Hi Thank you Searcher for your kind advice. I was advised by the powers that be that there was no problem with putting my site in my details. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
22 | The fruit and leaves of the tree of life | Gen 2:9 | jonp | 184600 | ||
Hi Thank you Searcher for your kind advice. I was advised by the powers that be that there was no problem with putting my site in my details. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
23 | The fruit and leaves of the tree of life | Gen 2:9 | jonp | 184603 | ||
Hi Thank you Brad for your advice. I am sure you are trying to be helpful. It is however a little difficult to be brief when questions are asked which require detailed and complicated answers, and detailed back up from Scripture. Especially when I am then criticised for not explaining enough. With regard to forum rules and guidelines I consider that I have quite satisfactorily maintained them. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
24 | The fruit and leaves of the tree of life | Gen 2:9 | jonp | 184611 | ||
Hi Jeff, I note your comments. One problem, however, as I'm sure you will have appreciated if you have noted the people to whom I have directed replies, is that I have been bombarded with 'replies to your posting' to which in courtesy I have had to provide replies. I do not like to refuse an answer to someone who contacts me through the forum however difficult the question, indeed it would be wrong for me to do so. And I have received a constant stream of questions. With regard to angles I am sure you will be aware that different Biblical writers do write from different angles For example the authors of the former prophets strongly emphasise God as the first cause of everything, thus saying that God caused David to number Israel. The Chronicler looking from a different angle says that it was Satan who caused David to number Israel. The writer in Ecclesiastes takes up a very different angle from the Psalmists. Daniel approaches things from a different angle to the other prophets. The Gospel writers each approach the life of Jesus from a different angle. Paul undoubtedly writes from a very different angle to that of James. The book of Revelation writes from John's own particular visionary and apocalyptic angle. Thus in the midst of unity there is great diversity, which is a very good thing as the Scriptures are not just for Western minds or for scholars. Eastern minds will interpret them very differently from us, and so will the young. And each of us will see them differently as we advance in age and spiritual maturity. But that is the genius of the Scriptures. For they are greater than all of us. And even Dr Scofield did not comprehend them all as B B Warfield and Edward J Young among others pointed out :-)))). That is why the Scriptures can be read both by children and by greybeards and be helpful to both. And they are so spiritually deep and extensive in what they teach that every single one of us can only hope to grasp facets of the truth even after a lifetime of study. Thus each of us must inevitably approach things from the angle of the position we have reached, and the particular emphases with which we have been brought into contact. So I can't quite agree that there are no angles in Scripture, even if we ignore the different angles from which we approach them. They are deliberately written in order meet a diversity of needs, and to provide for growth in knowledge and understanding over long lives. The truth of Scripture is unchanging, but our intepretation of it is ever changing. And it will be a sad day for us when that ceases to be so. Not everyone will agree with what I put forward, any more than I agree with all that they put forward,but it is precisely because I back up my arguments with Scripture that they have to be so detailed. And I do not think you can genuinely accuse me of not focusing on the truth of God's word. With regard to my profile originally I only provided my email address and it was suggested to me that I should put in my website address. With all best wishes Jonp | ||||||
25 | The fruit and leaves of the tree of life | Gen 2:9 | jonp | 184636 | ||
Hi Brian, From the wording of your question I presume you would like me to reply. Your first question would require a long winded reply so I will leave it. Are we in a race in which we have been passed on the baton? See Hebrews 12.1-2 along with chapter 11. What happens to the sheep nations? If we accept Jesus answer to the question at face value they go immediately into everlasting life or everlasting punishment (Matthew 25.48). God has been reigning over the earth from the beginning of time (Psalm 22.28; 103.19; 93.1; 97.1; 99.1). Christ began reigning over the earth when He ascended into Heaaven and was enthroned (Acts 2.36; Ephesians 1.19-22). The souls of the departed began to reign over the earth when they died (Revelation 20.4). There is no suggestion anywhere that they reign ON the earth. Satan has been bound since Christ came and bound him (Mark 3.27 and parallels) and will continue to be so until he is let loose. We are the remnant of Israel over whom He reigns. |
||||||
26 | who was moses mother and dad | Num 26:59 | jonp | 184508 | ||
Hi Clearly Jochebed could not have been both the direct daughter of Levi and the direct mother of Moses. If she was then her age would have been around 400 years which would have been a little old for childbearing. And Amram died at 137. You can put SHE BORE in capital letters but it does not alter the fact that the Hebrew can indicate that she bore him through her descendants. I could put WHO WAS BORN TO LEVI in capital letters but again it would not alter the fact that the Hebrew can mean 'born to him through his descendants'. So we have to accept that we are not sure which it is. It is much the best not to be dogmatic about such things. This is made more complicated by the fact that in 1 Chronicles 6.1-2 we are told that the son of Levi was Kohath, and the son of Kohath was Amram, and the son of Amram was Moses. Again it is clear that this is unlikely to be the whole family tree covering 400 years. The normal way of seeing this would be that Levi was the patriarchal head, Kohath was the sub-tribal ancestor, and Amram the clan ancestor which would mean that he was the 'father' of Moses as his ancestor. Compare similarly 1 Chronicles 23.12-13. Recognising this is important if we are to reconcile the different genealogies. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
27 | who was moses mother and dad | Num 26:59 | jonp | 184553 | ||
Hi Steve, You will note that what I have done is put up possibilities, and explained the Hebrew. I have been very careful not to be dogmatic. But I must point out that 'the literal statements' are in Hebrew and that we must therefore ask ourselves how the people of Israel would have interpreted them, for the Scriptures were initially addressed to them. And there is no doubt that the people of Israel used 'bore' and 'begat' in a much wider sense than we do today, (as indeed did all the nations round about). It is of course possible that there were two Amrams, each of whom was married to a Jochebed. I have no quarrel with that as a possibility. And it widens the options. Thank you for mentioning it. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
28 | Amalekites show up in 1st sam 30:1..???? | 1 Sam 30:1 | jonp | 184511 | ||
Hi The Amalekites defeated by Saul were seemingly roving in the Sinai peninsula which explains the presence of the Kenites. The Amalekites in 1 Sam 30:1 were a different tribal grouping from those slaughtered in 1 Sam 15. It was the latter who had caused the trouble to Moses. Amalekites wandered over the whole of the Arabian peninsula as well as over the Sinai peninsula. We are not told where the base of operations was in 1 Sam 30, only the areas that they attacked. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
29 | origin of the devil | Ezek 28:13 | jonp | 184163 | ||
Hi The angelic court is detailed for example in 1 KIngs 22.19; Daniel 7.9-10. By the church I meant the infant church and I am basing it on what Satan did to Job's family, on Jude's warning in Jude 9, on Ephesians 6.10-18 which says that without the armour of God we cannot hope to stand against Him, and on the havoc wrought by Satan in Revelation 12.13-17 even though he was under restraint. The point was that without the Lord's protection and the armour of God we are helpless before him. By the grace of God we have both. That is why we survive in the face of his great power. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
30 | origin of the devil | Ezek 28:13 | jonp | 184177 | ||
Hi, Firstly may I say that I recognise that good Christians can quite genuinely have differences of opinion on various controversial subjects. And no subject is more controversial than this one. Thus I never seek to persuade people to turn from an established position (unless I feel it is totally unscriptural). However I do seek to answer questions and try to present a case which defends my answers, without falling out with those who disagree with me. I am assuming that your reply was in the nature of a question so I will seek to put my position. There are many good Christians who hold your position. I did myself consider it as a possibility. Isaiah 14 is especiallt alluring as it seems to fit in with other things said about Satan. But when I looked into it in more detail I felt that (rather reluctantly for there is nothing nicer than to think that we have solved a problem) it did not fit in with the facts. Firstly I would point out that 'Lucifer' means light bearer. And that was precisely the kind of name that Mesopotamian kings did claim for themselves. There are many examples archaeologically. And they certainly associated themselves with the stars. Furthermore they did make claims about ascending into heaven and sitting among the gods on the mountain in the north and being exalted above the stars. In fact they regularly made the most extraordinary claims. They had a very high opinion of themselves and it established their authority among their people. It also meant that people were less likely to rebel. After all you would not want to get in the bad books of someone so exalted. Thus there is nothing unlikely about a person making such claims in the time of Isaiah. Now you say that it is only up to verse 11 that refers to ancient kings. But I see nothing in the text which suggests a break at verse 11. Furthermore similar to what is said in verses 10-11 is said about 'the Light-bearer' in verses 16-20. But even more devastating for your view is that this 'so-called 'Light-bearer' descends into Sheol, the world of the grave. Satan is never said to die. And on top of this the dead kings say if him "Is this the man who made the worlds to tremble, who shook kingdoms, who made the world like a desert and overthrew its cities and did not allow his prisoners to go home". Now speaking of the kings of Babylon this is very apposite. They were precisely like this. On the other hand as a desciption of Satan it is just not on. And there are absolutely no reasons for separating verses 12-14 from the rest of the text. We must not treat Scripture as though we can just pick and choose, as I am sure when you think about it you will agree. With regard to the king of Tyre we do know that in the Tyrian temples they did try to emulate Paradise and had temple gardens which simulated Paradise. Thus this is precisely the kind of thing that a king of Tyre would claim on the basis of the then current mythology. You will note how totally different this Paradise is from Eden. This is a kingly Paradise not that of a working man. That was the difference between mythology and Biblical truth. Furthermore let me assure you that these kings had no difficulty in transporting themselves in their imagination wherever they liked. And the idea of creation ties in very well with myths about the beginning of things. Thus in my view both these descriptions fit precisely in with the ideas of those days.------------- with regard to the use of 'US' in Genesis 1. This was of course written before there were either Jews or Christians. And it forms the beginning of a long history which is careful to stress that there is only one God in opposition to the ideas of the polytheists. It would be totally out of character for a plural to be introduced speaking of God unless of course it was an intensive plural, a plural of grandeur . It is far more likely to have in mind the angelic court. After all some explanation is required for where the Cherubim in 3.24 came from. And as we know from the Tabernacle (and from Ezekiel and Revelation) the Cherubim were God's close companions. This is not a Jewish explanation. This is part of the original script. I do not of course deny for one moment that we can see the Triune God as included. But I very much fail to see how this New Testament idea could be introduced here by the writer deliberately. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
31 | origin of the devil | Ezek 28:13 | jonp | 184179 | ||
Hi Jeff. I had no intention of bringing up such a delicate question in order to cause controversy. I believe in the tri-unity of God like you do. And clearly the triune God was speaking in Genesis 1. But that is not the issue here. The issue here is why God said 'us'. We must ask, would a writer who was very concerned continually to stress the oneness of God (Deuteronomy 6.4-5; Exodus 20.3 - note the 'Me') be so careless as to use 'us' in a polytheistic world. It would immediately number him among the polytheists. And this is especially so as in a creation account we should expect to find some indication of where the Cherubim in 3.24 came from. So there is nothing unlikely in their being introduced here. Any early reader of this account would tend to read it like this. The alternative is that it is an intensive plural, a plural of grandeur. Moving on to your questions about God's image. We must ask, what is the image of God in man. It is surely 'that in man that makes him different from all other creatures'. It is the breath of life that God breathed in to man (Genesis 2.7). See Job 33.4. It is the spirit within man that can have contact with God and can worship God. And the angels have the same. Now in fact Genesis 1 says that man was created in 'the image of ha-elohim'. Now regularly ha-elohim means God. Ha-elohim always means God when it is used with a singular verb. But it can also mean 'heavenly beings' when used with a plural verb. Thus the spirit raised up by the witch of Endor that appeared to Saul was called 'one of the elohim' (1 Samuel 28.13). The angels are also called 'sons of the elohim' (bene ha-elohim) that is in most translations 'sons of God' (Job 1.6; 2.7; 38.7). This is a clear indication of 'the image of God' in the angels. They too could know God, worship God and love God. Something of the triune God is revealed in the Old Testament in that we have the Angel of the Lord and the Spirit of the Lord. But it is only with the coming of Jesus that the idea of the triune God is made apparent. In polytheistic days it was important first to establish the unity of the Godhead. For God is not three gods but One God in threeness of personality. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
32 | origin of the devil | Ezek 28:13 | jonp | 184180 | ||
Hi. The whole point of my statement was that it is only because the church is 'in Christ' that Satan cannot touch it. The reason that that little group of people survived was because they were under the protection of God in Christ. I have constantly pointed out that Satan must obey God's authority, and that Jesus had 'bound ' him. I cannot see how I can make it clearer that Satan is very much subsidiary to God, and can do absolutely nothing without God's permission. We cannot talk about God and Satan in the same breath. God is God and Satan is only one of 'the sons of the elohim' (Job 1-2). But that being said as a created being he is very powerful (Jude 9). We must therefore be thankful that our lives are hid with Christ in God' and have been transported into the kingdom of His beloved Son where all he can do shoot his arrows at us. I have dealt with the other part of your question in another posting. Perhaps you will look that up and then come back with any questions. I do not want to overheat the matter. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
33 | origin of the devil | Ezek 28:13 | jonp | 184203 | ||
Hi CDBJ, If you are happy with your own interpretation of the words then stick with it. Like you I seek to understand His words. But unlike Him we are all fallible. Of course the angelic court did not actually assist in the creation, for it immediately goes on to say that God did it. It was just an indication of the graciousness of God that He sought to bring them in on His plans, just like He does us. He worked together with them like He works together with us. He brought them in in this part of the creative work because they were going to be involved in it in the future. If you think it unusual that He would discuss His plans with the angels think how even more incredible it is that He discusses His plans with us. If you were all powerful and had at your command a myriad angels, would you trust you with the evangelisation of the world?. And yet He has. He could have done it on His own, but He works together with us. And why? So that we will benefit. So in my view in Genesis 1 He wanted His close servants to enjoy His creative work along with Him, for He had planned that they were to have their part in helping along the salvation of this vulnerable creature called man (Hebrews 1.14) and He wanted them in from the start. How often I have said to my children 'let us do this'. And then I have gone and done it. But the joy is that they then felt a part of it. They were doing it along with me, and theyhad an interest in it from then on. Consider how in 3.22 He says, 'Behold the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil.' Do you not think that that sounds more like a conversation with the angelic host? God wanted all His hosts to feel that they were a part of His plans. Of course the word elohim, when used of God, incorporates within it the idea of the unique make up of God (how careful though we must be when we talk about God as though we were able to understand Him). And yet He is also called El which is in the singular, but still includes the triune God. No human words can really describe Him. And we must recognise that our understanding of the triunity of God mainly comes about through Jesus. I think in fact that your final suggestion is a good one. God did not need to discuss it in Himself. Within His own being the whole thing had been already planned from start to finish. But consider the possibility that once He came to the part that the Cherubim, and the Seraphim and the angels were to have a part in He drew them into His plans. However, we must each see it as God reveals it in our hearts. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
34 | origin of the devil | Ezek 28:13 | jonp | 184204 | ||
Hi, I have just made another posting answering a question that arrived earlier than yours, but I will not just pass you on again. You might think I am trying to avoid you :-))) Perhaps we should first consider Geneis 3.22. Who did the 'us' include then? There it sounds far more likely to me that He is including moral beings who have seen for themselves the consequences of the fall of Satan and thus have come to the experience of 'knowing good and evil', than just a conversation with Himself. And this especially as He will then despatch the Cherubim to guard the way to the tree of life (3.24). I agree wholeheartedly that creation was His work, and His work alone. But I have often said to my children 'let us do this' when my intention was to do it myself, with the simple aim of drawing them in on my plans. Then they felt that they had a part in it. Thus to me God is drawing in to His plans the angels who in the future will have a duty to serve the heirs of salvation (Henbrews 1.14). They would recognise from this that it had been their charge from the beginning. After all if He can draw me in on His plans, how much more the angels who always do His bidding? But I have no wish to alter an entrenched position. I hold my view because 1) I cannot see how when God clearly purposes in the Old Testament to establish His oneness over against men's polytheistic ideas (Exodus 20.2; Deuteronomy 6.5-6) He would undermine the idea here. 2). Because no one who read these words from an Old Testament perspecive could possibly have seen it as referring to the triune God. 3). Because the revelation of the triunity of God is so important that while there are certainly hints in the Old Testament, it could not really be presented fully until the coming of Jesus without seeming to give a concession to polytheism. Best wishes Jonp |
||||||
35 | origin of the devil | Ezek 28:13 | jonp | 184206 | ||
Hi Jeff, A good principle in Scripture is to commence with what is clear, and then to move on to what is not clear, and finally to interpret what is not clear by what is clear. So much false teaching arises because people speculate on what is unclear without measuring it against what is clear, and then try to fit what is clear into it. Let us now apply this principle to the Genesis 1.26. Of course if this verse stood on its own we would not have too much to go on. But the Scriptures in fact do provide us with another similar verse where the issues are much clearer. If you turn to Genesis 3.22 you will find another reference to ‘us’. And in a similar way to 1.26 the ‘us’ remain unidentified. So by all laws of reasonable exegesis, being in the same general context, we must surely see it as referring to the same ‘us’. However I would suggest that in this example the situation is clearer. In 3.22 God says, ‘Behold the man has become like one of us knowing good and evil. And now lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat and live for ever --’ therefore the Lord sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to work the ground from which he was taken. He drove out the man, and at the east of the garden of Eden He placed the cherubim --- to guard the way to the tree of life.’ Here there is specifically a reference point for ‘us’. It is the Cherubim to whom He gave the task of preventing access to the tree of life. But we do not just have to rest on that connection, although it helps. We can also consider God’s words. Here a change has taken place in man. He has now begun ‘to know good and evil’, and the verb used suggests to know by experience. And furthermore by this he has become ‘like one of us’. Now we can of course argue that the triune God knows good and evil, having experienced it not in Himself, but in His wider creation. And that is true. But ‘like one of us’ here gives a decided suggestion of plurality far in excess of what we would expect to find in a book which emphasises the oneness of God, if God alone was in mind. Indeed if its reference is to God alone then it leaves itself wide open to being interpreted as signifying more than one God. And it would surely be a really strange way of speaking. For the Hebrew is very clear and specific. It is not ‘like us’ which could just possibly be explained as signifying the triunity of God, but ‘like ONE of us’. So we must ask, who else ‘knows good and evil’?. Clearly not someone in this world for up to this point good and evil were experientially unknown. Thus it makes us look to those beings who had seen for themselves what evil as evidenced in the behaviour of the sinister figure who lay behind the snake. They had seen Heaven rent by good and evil. Thus I would suggest to you that in this case the ‘us’ clearly has in mind those heavenly beings who surround the throne of God, including the Cherubim who are at each corner of His throne (note the cherubim on the Ark, which represents the throne of God, and the Cherubim who accompanied the throne of God in Ezekiel 1. See also the four living creatures in Revelation 4). And when we see its connection with the Cherubim in what follows the answer appears to be even more certain. But if this unusual and unexpected ‘us’ means the angelic hosts in 3.22 I personally do not see how it can mean any other in 1.26. That would be to make two mysteries, and to fail to accept the guidance of Scripture. For it is my experience that if we look carefully Scripture always explains itself. Thus we now come to Genesis 1.26 with a recognition that ‘us’ in the opening chapters of Genesis has in mind the heavenly court. But Genesis 1.27 makes clear that it was God Himself Who was involved in creating man, just as He alone created all things. Why then a reference to His court? I would suggest that the answer is because He wanted them to feel involved in what He was doing, for once He had done it He had a special purpose for them in it. They were to serve the heirs of salvation (Hebrews 1.14). And every now and again throughout the Old Testament and then throughout the New we find them performing those services. Who was it who guarded the prophets? Elisha’s answer was that it was the hosts of God (2 Kings 6.17). Compare also Joshua 5.14. Often as a father I have said to my children, ‘let us do this’, even though I know that it is I who am going to do it, simply because I want them to be involved in what I am doing. And it gives them a far greater interest in it. They feel as though they have a part in it. And that is what God wanted His court to feel. Thus to me this verse in 1.26 indicates the graciousness of the Creator in involving in His creation, those beings who surround His throne, so that they have an interest in what He is doing. For He wants them to be involved in it and to be interested in it and His final purpose is the unity of all things. Best wishes Jonp |
||||||
36 | origin of the devil | Ezek 28:13 | jonp | 184258 | ||
Hi Steve. May I say that I have no objection to entrenched positions. I have a number myself and two of them are concern for the glory of God and a recognition that Scripture is the sole authority for our knowledge of God as it shapes our inward awareness of God. But I am unable to agree that we should not use 'worldly' illustrations. I have often been blessed by a good 'worldly' illustration, and Jesus used them often. Perhaps my illustration could be interpreted in the wrong way. Unfortunately this is true of all illustrations. Someone will always pick up the wrong angle. It is even a problem for our Lord Himself. You only have to read commentaries on the parable of the Unjust Judge to realise that. The point behind my illustration was that when someone says 'let us --' it does not necessarily signify that all are going to take part in the action. Perhaps a better illustration might have been a committee. All the committee may be called on to back a proposal but it does not involve them all in the action. Quite regularly the proposer is left to carry out the action with the full agreement of the committee. (And please do not come back at me because you do not like the idea of God being on a committee :-))). It is simply the principle which is involved, not the fine details). And I am quite happy to exchange 'heavenly court' for 'heavenly companions' or heavenly escorts' or 'heavenly servants'. All I really wished to say was that God wanted to involve His heavenly servants in the same way as He seeks to involve us. There does not seem to me to be anything degrading about that. Indeed it appears to me to reveal infinite condescension and love. But I may be alone in this (although actually I am not as a vast number of commentatotors agree with me) but I really cannot see how 'the man has become like ONE OF US' can be seen as simply indicating the triunity of God. It would be exalting man to far too high a plain, especially as it was very much sinful man who was in question. I had not intended to say anything more on the subject, (although not for the reason that you gave), but thank you for giving me the opportunity just to add these final explanations Cordial best wishes Jonp | ||||||
37 | origin of the devil | Ezek 28:13 | jonp | 184307 | ||
Hi I'm afraid I must be a bit thick but I fail to see how the verses you have cited reveal the triunity of God. My answer would be 'Almighty God'. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
38 | origin of the devil | Ezek 28:13 | jonp | 184332 | ||
Hi stj Thank you for your previous note of support and your present note. With regard to Genesis 1.26 I had only cited it as an example. I am very happy for anyone who sees it in that way to take it as indicating the triunity of God as I said to CJBD. It is clearly a subject on which there is wide disagreement. In such a case it is only The Yorkshireman who said to his friend, "Only thee and me is right, and even thee's a bit wrong sometimes' who would argue about it. Dr Constable commenting on 1:26-27 puts it this way, "Us" is probably a plural of self-deliberation (cf. 11:7; Ps. 2:3), though possibly God was addressing His heavenly court (cf. Isa. 6:8). This word involves "in germ" the doctrine of the Trinity. However, we should not use it as a formal proof of the Trinity since this reference by itself does not prove that one God exists in three persons.77 "Although the Christian Trinity cannot be derived solely from the use of the plural, a plurality within the unity of the Godhead may be derived from the passage."78 The theological controversy in Moses' day was not between trinitarianism and unitarianism but between one self-existent, sovereign, merciful God and many limited, capricious, often immoral gods.79 Perhaps it is best if we leave it like that? Best wishes Jonp |
||||||
39 | origin of the devil | Ezek 28:13 | jonp | 184333 | ||
Hi Thank you for your contribution. Please see my note to stj just submitted with which I have signed off. I feel this is far too sensitive a subject for us to go into too deeply. (It is after all aired in a thousand commentaries). We are dealing with One Whose judgments are unsearchable and Whose ways are past finding out and I think it best to leave it in that way. I do of course believe in the doctrine of the triunity of God. It is not that that is in question. But when the seven blind men were 'looking' at an elephant each 'saw' something different. Theology is often like that and in some things we are all like blind men feeling in the dark. Best wishes Jonp, | ||||||
40 | origin of the devil | Ezek 28:13 | jonp | 184353 | ||
Hi Azure, Kung hey fat choi on the same basis. I lectured in Hong Kong for a few years and had good fellowship with the churches there. Do not be discouraged at having started a little late. For you it is but 'the third hour of the day' (Matthew 20.3). You still have much of the day before you in which you can serve the Master. What matters for us all, whether we start early or late is that we are faithful so that one day He will welcome us with the words, 'Well done my good and faithful servant'. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 ] Next > Last [4] >> |