Results 961 - 980 of 1309
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Radioman2 Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
961 | what scripture is balderdash? | 1 Cor 15:3 | Radioman2 | 83022 | ||
No Scripture is balderdash. | ||||||
962 | Jesus cast into hell?? | 1 Cor 15:3 | Radioman2 | 83024 | ||
Hank: Yes, I have noticed. In fact, I've been noticing it for the past 26 months. I wonder: is the consistency of inconsistency a virtue? Maybe it is in the doublespeak world of Copeland. Radioman2 |
||||||
963 | Jesus cast into hell?? | 1 Cor 15:3 | Radioman2 | 83030 | ||
Hank: Nothing could ever create a theological problem for WOF disciples, the reason being that, properly understood, they have no theology. It would appear that WOF followers never were persuaded of their beliefs by sound scriptural evidence, but rather by the charisma and oratorical skills of their prophets. Otherwise, why is it that when one challenges them to provide scriptural support, they don't have any? All they can do is attack the character of those who de-bunk WOF doctrine. Radioman2 |
||||||
964 | Posting a privilege, not a right | 1 Cor 16:14 | Radioman2 | 82737 | ||
Posting is a privilege [A friendly reminder to us all: Posting to the forum is not a right; it is a privilege. To abuse it is to lose it. Following are Lockman's guidelines for posting.] 'About Postings 'Postings should be biblically based and whenever possible include supporting Bible references. 'Postings are not to be intended as a personal attack on the authority of the Bible or on other users of this forum. 'They are not to be submitted as an effort to foster divisiveness, ill-will, dissension or disruptions to this forum. 'Pushing ones own personal and denominational views 'Please limit, to the best of your ability, the known denominational biases that produce potential strife and undue conflict. 'Please avoid interjecting obvious denominational biases, especially when urged by peers to cease. Otherwise, it becomes a battle of wills, and only tears down morale and causes division. 'If we are notified that this situation is occurring we will review it and act as necessary.' (http://www.studybibleforum.com/about.php) Have a nice day! :-) |
||||||
965 | Posting is a privilege, not a right | 1 Cor 16:14 | Radioman2 | 82738 | ||
Did you know...? Posting is a privilege, not a right. [A friendly reminder to us all: Posting to the forum is not a right; it is a privilege. To abuse it is to lose it. Following are Lockman's guidelines for posting.] 'About Postings 'Postings should be biblically based and whenever possible include supporting Bible references. 'Postings are not to be intended as a personal attack on the authority of the Bible or on other users of this forum. 'They are not to be submitted as an effort to foster divisiveness, ill-will, dissension or disruptions to this forum. 'Pushing ones own personal and denominational views 'Please limit, to the best of your ability, the known denominational biases that produce potential strife and undue conflict. 'Please avoid interjecting obvious denominational biases, especially when urged by peers to cease. Otherwise, it becomes a battle of wills, and only tears down morale and causes division. 'If we are notified that this situation is occurring we will review it and act as necessary.' (http://www.studybibleforum.com/about.php) Have a nice day! :-) |
||||||
966 | Posting is a privilege, not a right | 1 Cor 16:14 | Radioman2 | 82860 | ||
Thank you for removing Lockman's guidelines for posting. We wouldn't want them to remain where just anyone might read and heed them, now would we? | ||||||
967 | Posting is a privilege, not a right | 1 Cor 16:14 | Radioman2 | 82862 | ||
Everyone may see them, but not everyone abides by them. Many, in fact, post as though they had never heard of them. This thread is not about judging each other. It's about reading and heeding Lockman's guidelines for posting. By the way, the Question I posted was not a duplicate post in that it was posted AS A QUESTION only once. The other time it was posted AS A NOTE. I hope that this thread itself will not foster divisiveness, ill-will, dissension or disruptions to this forum. I will say no more. |
||||||
968 | Posting a privilege, not a right | 1 Cor 16:14 | Radioman2 | 83310 | ||
inmyheart: Regarding my previous post, ID# 82737, you write: I took the time to review the Terms of Use and found no statement "Posting to the forum is not a right; it is a privilege. To abuse it is to lose it." You are absolutely correct. :-) But if you'll take another look at that post of mine, you will note there are no quotation marks around those two sentences. The quotation marks begin at the next paragraph, where the Lockman Foundation is directly quoted. Thank you for writing. I appreciate you. Grace and peace, Radioman2 P.S. If anyone feels I have violated the Terms of Use, they are free to file an abuse report in regard to my post(s). |
||||||
969 | How Do You Know Christianity Is True? | 2 Corinthians | Radioman2 | 83169 | ||
How Do You Know Christianity Is True? "I believe Christianity is true because Jesus said it was." ____________________ "...one who has given more consideration to the full body of Jesus' teachings in the context of the language, culture, and thinking of the time is more likely to give an accurate interpretation than someone who has given no thought whatsoever to it and is simply plucking sayings out of the sky hoping that it will substantiate his own point of view." ____________________ 'What is the simplest, most direct way-- without sacrificing the compelling nature of an argument--to answer this question: Why do I believe that Christianity is true?...my answer "I believe Christianity is true because Jesus said it was." (...) 'If people are willing to quote Jesus as somebody who is an authority, doesn't it seem to make sense to be careful to quote not just Jesus' words, but Jesus' ideas. We can't just pluck statements that Jesus made out of context to support our point of view. We under gird our point of view by referring back to Jesus as an authority, but that only works if we accurately understand what Jesus had to say. The only way we can do so is by studying the teachings of Jesus in some kind of systematic fashion. It's mystifying to me that so many people who quote Jesus in this fashion have not the slightest idea of what Jesus was all about and what He taught. ____________________ "Who are you to say? That is just your own interpretation." ___________________ 'When you appeal to Jesus' authority like that, the rejoinder you might get--and this represents the liability in presenting this kind of argument--is something like this: "Who are you to say? That is just your own interpretation." It's an effective parry unless you know how to deal with it because this objection misses the point entirely. My response is this: "I am no one to say. That's the point. I am not speaking about spiritual things on my own authority. I am deferring to Jesus. I am not asking you to listen to my view of the truth. Jesus is the one who is the expert, so let's listen to Him." 'What about the issue of it being your own interpretation? That is why we have to look closely at what Jesus said. I've studied Him for twenty some years. I've studied His teachings carefully. That doesn't mean that I necessarily understand everything accurately. However it strikes me that one who has given more consideration to the full body of Jesus' teachings in the context of the language, culture, and thinking of the time is more likely to give an accurate interpretation than someone who has given no thought whatsoever to it and is simply plucking sayings out of the sky hoping that it will substantiate his own point of view. 'This brings us, by the way, to the goal of interpretation. The goal of interpretation is not to invent ideas that I can put into Jesus' mouth and then call it my interpretation. The goal of interpretation is to figure out what Jesus meant since He is the authority, not I. 'This, by the way, is where the argument turns into a liability--not for me, since I've clarified now what we are trying to accomplish with interpretation and who the authority is, but it turns it into a liability for the objector. The reason is because Jesus' teaching is not all that hard. It certainly is not as hard as people make it out to be. It just takes a little attention. 'Quite frankly, the real problem is that much of what Jesus taught is not only obvious, but so deeply offensive to the modern mind, that only the most benign and general of His teachings and moral principles can be seized upon without much threat. People who make these kinds of statements never seize on statements of the woes and judgment that will fall on those who reject Him and don't believe Him. Rather, they seize things like "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Or, "You must have the faith of a child to enter the Kingdom of God." Or, "The Kingdom of God is within you." All this kind of mysterious, gentle, easy-going ideas that don't make a strong challenge to your moral choices.' _____________ How Do You Know Christianity Is True? by Gregory Koukl To read more go to: (www.str.org/free/commentaries/index.htm) |
||||||
970 | Tongues?Ecstatic Utterances or Languages | 2 Corinthians | Radioman2 | 83585 | ||
1 Corinthians 13:1 *tongues...of angels.* The apostle was writing in general hypothetical terms. There is no biblical teaching of any special angelic language that people could learn to speak. If one asserts that there is such a teaching in the Bible, then the burden of proof is upon the one making the assertion. If one can back up their assertion with a CLEAR verse of Scripture, then they should do so. |
||||||
971 | Tongues?Ecstatic Utterances or Languages | 2 Corinthians | Radioman2 | 83589 | ||
The burden of proof is still on you. One cannot prove the negative. What passage of Scripture could one quote to prove that a teaching is NOT in the Bible? On the other hand, if a teaching IS in the Bible, just show us the book, show us the chapter, show us the verse. I say again: The apostle was writing in general HYPOTHETICAL terms. There is NO BIBLICAL TEACHING of any special angelic language that people could learn to speak. (1 Corinthians 13:1 *tongues...of angels.*) Hypothetical. "IF I speak with the tongues of men and of angels..." IF! |
||||||
972 | Tongues?Ecstatic Utterances or Languages | 2 Corinthians | Radioman2 | 83596 | ||
Gracefull: In all sincerity, I agree with you when you write: "I do not have 'proof' that tongues of angels do exist and are available to us." That's basically what I've been saying, i.e., "there is no biblical teaching of any special angelic language that people could learn to speak." I do appreciate you and your reply. I appreciate your courtesy and many of the points you've made since you started posting to this forum. It is not my intention to be quarrelsome nor to attack you. I submit the following for your consideration. Not saying this is the final word on the subject, merely asking you to consider it. Grace and peace to you, Radioman2 :-) - - - - - - - - - - - - - "the tongues of men and of[a] angels," '(a) A very earnest amplifying of the matter, as if he said, "IF THERE WERE ANY TONGUES OF ANGELS, and I had them, and did not use them to the benefit of my neighbour, it would be nothing else except a vain and prattling type of babbling."' (The 1599 Geneva Study Bible. Emphasis added.) (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/GenevaStudyBible/) - - - - - - - - - - - - - 'and of angels; 'not that angels have tongues in a proper sense, or speak any vocal language, in an audible voice, with articulate sounds; for they are spirits immaterial and incorporeal; though they have an intellectual speech, by which they celebrate the perfections and praises of God, and can discourse with one another, and communicate their minds to each other; see (Isaiah 6:3) (Daniel 8:13). ( . . . ) '[The apostle refers to] the speech of angels, when they have assumed human bodies, and have in them spoke with an audible voice, in articulate sounds; of which we have many instances, both in the Old Testament and the New, wherein they have conversed with divers persons, as Hagar, Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Manoah and his wife, the Virgin Mary, Zechariah, and others; 'unless by the tongues of angels should be meant the most eloquent speech, and most excellent of languages; or if there can be thought to be any tongue that exceeds that of men, which, IF ANGELS SPOKE, they would make use of. Just as the face of angels is used, to express the greatest glory and beauty of the face, or countenance, (Acts 6:15) and angels' bread is used for the most excellent food, (Psalms 78:25) . . .' (John Gill's Exposition of the Bible. Emphasis added. This is not the full quote. I've condensed/edited it due to space limitations. To read more go to: http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/GillsExpositionoftheBible/) |
||||||
973 | Tongues?Ecstatic Utterances or Languages | 2 Corinthians | Radioman2 | 83609 | ||
Gracefull: I do believe that the gifts of the Spirit, including the gift of tongues, are still in operation today. I do NOT believe in the cessation of the gifts of the Spirit. I also believe and practice what it says in 1 Corinthians 14:39-40: NASB 1 Corinthians 14 39 Therefore, my brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak in tongues. 40 But all things must be done properly and in an orderly manner. NIV 1 Corinthians 14 39 Therefore, my brothers, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. 40 But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way. Grace and peace, Radioman2 |
||||||
974 | 2 Corinthians- What is 'suffering' | 2 Cor 1:5 | Radioman2 | 80560 | ||
suffer -- 1 : to endure death, PAIN, or distress 3 : to be subject to DISABILITY or HANDICAP suffer defined Main Entry: suf·fer Function: verb Inflected Form(s): suf·fered; suf·fer·ing transitive senses 1 a : to submit to or be forced to endure (suffer martyrdom) b : to feel keenly : labor under (suffer thirst) 2 : UNDERGO, EXPERIENCE 3 : to put up with especially as inevitable or unavoidable 4 : to allow especially by reason of indifference (the eagle suffers little birds to sing -- Shakespeare) intransitive senses 1 : to endure death, pain, or distress 2 : to sustain loss or damage 3 : to be subject to disability or handicap synonym see BEAR - suf·fer·able adjective - suf·fer·able·ness noun - suf·fer·ably /-blE/ adverb - suf·fer·er noun (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary) |
||||||
975 | 2 Corinthians- What is 'suffering' | 2 Cor 1:5 | Radioman2 | 80561 | ||
'Where is Paul’s “word of faith” and “positive confession”?' - - - - - - - - - - 'Another case in point is that God allowed affliction to come upon Paul, not answering his prayer for deliverance, so that Paul would not become too high minded as a result of the visions and revelations he had (2 Corinthians 12:7-10). [Frederick] Price’s response to this passage, which is typical of the movement, is: “Now that was Paul’s estimate of the situation. God didn’t tell him that He gave him that to keep him humble, but Paul was a man who was prone to brag and boast. Therefore he took it upon himself to believe all of this that was coming upon him was going to help him to stay humble.”[3] 'In this statement we find a disturbing lack of concern for the authority of the inspired authors of Scripture. There is nothing within the context of this passage to qualify this statement of Paul’s as being merely his own, possibly errant, opinion. Paul makes the statement with the full authority that, by virtue of inspiration, was rightfully his. If by our human rationalizing that Paul was one prone to boast (which finds no basis in Scripture), we have the freedom to dismiss his declaration in verse 7 as being misguided, then we may also dismiss anything else he said that does not fit into our doctrinal scheme. Once this happens, our basis of trust in the Scripture become effectively undermined. However, we find that Paul derived this estimate of the situation from the Lord’s answer to his prayers: “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is perfected in weakness” (verse 9). 'Paul learned to be content with this abiding affliction, for the Lord taught him that at the very moment that he was weakest in himself, the power of the Lord would be most evident through him, bringing glory to God rather than Paul (verses 9, 10). This lesson desperately needs to be learned by many who are being influenced by the false unlimited healing/prosperity doctrines today. 'Affliction can certainly be a tool for good in God’s hands. In Psalm 119 we read the following: 'Verse 67: Before I was afflicted I went astray, but now I keep Thy word. 'Verse 91: It is good for me that I was afflicted, that I may learn Thy statutes 'Verse 75: I know, O LORD, that Thy judgments are righteous, and that in faithfulness Thou hast afflicted me. 'There have been times, even in the Bible, when God’s people have had to accept and live with illness. Rather than telling him to “claim his healing,” Paul gave medicinal advice to Timothy: “No longer drink water exclusively, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and frequent ailments” (1 Timothy 5:23). 'This verse should have special significance to all who think the Bible supports some of the extreme teachings of our day. Where is Paul’s “word of faith” and “positive confession”? By giving medicinal advice, and telling Timothy he has frequent ailments (thus acknowledging their ongoing existence rather than “speaking healing into being”) Paul is completely out of line with the current wind of doctrine.* As Kenneth Hagin puts it” “People confess their lack and build up a sense of lack in themselves. As they confess these things, these lacks gain ascendancy in their lives.”[4]' [1] Price, Frederick K. C., Is Healing For All? Harrison House, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 1976, 9. [2] Ibid., 10. [3] Ibid., 12. [4] Hagin, Kenneth E., Right and Wrong Thinking, Kenneth Hagin Evangelistic Association, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 24 (http://www.equip.org/free/DH018.htm) |
||||||
976 | 2 Corinthians- What is 'suffering' | 2 Cor 1:5 | Radioman2 | 80694 | ||
Joe: Thanks for pointing out once again the error of WOF teaching. Actually nothing ever could create a theological problem for WOF disciples, the reason being that, properly understood, they have no theology. It would appear that WOF followers never were persuaded of their beliefs by sound scriptural evidence, but rather by the charisma and oratorical skills of their prophets. Otherwise, why is it that when one challenges them to provide scriptural support, they don't have any? All they can do is attack the character of those who de-bunk WOF doctrine. By the way, opponents of WOF doctrine need not and do not attack the character of WOF preachers and prophets. Opponents of WOF have scriptural evidence to prove what they assert. The only one who launches ad hominem attacks are the defenders of WOF. Radioman2 |
||||||
977 | Is there no place for romance in Heaven? | 2 Cor 5:8 | Radioman2 | 83998 | ||
AMPLIFIED Deuteronomy 29:29 The secret things belong unto the Lord our God, but the things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all of the words of this law. AMPLIFIED Isaiah 55:8 For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways, says the Lord. NIV 1 Corinthians 2:9-10 However, as it is written: "No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him" -- but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit. AMPLIFIED 1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural, nonspiritual man does not accept or welcome or admit into his heart the gifts and teachings and revelations of the Spirit of God, for they are folly (meaningless nonsense) to him; and he is incapable of knowing them [of progressively recognizing, understanding, and becoming better acquainted with them] because they are spiritually discerned and estimated and appreciated. |
||||||
978 | Judgement of deacons and teachers | 2 Cor 5:10 | Radioman2 | 84105 | ||
Teachers will incur a stricter judgment. NASB James 3:1 Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment. AMPLIFIED James 3:1 NOT MANY [of you] should become teachers (self-constituted censors and reprovers of others), my brethren, for you know that we [teachers] will be judged by a higher standard and with greater severity [than other people; thus we assume the greater accountability and the more condemnation]. |
||||||
979 | Did Jesus die spiritually? | 2 Cor 5:21 | Radioman2 | 83243 | ||
Spiritual death denies Christ's deity - - - - - - - - - - - - - 'The "spiritual death of Christ" teaching entails an implicit denial of Christ's deity and, in turn, of the Trinity.' - - - - - - - - - - - - - "Jesus was not dragged into hell by Satan, but instead committed His spirit to the Father (Luke 23:46) and went directly to paradise (v. 43). " - - - - - - - - - - - - - SPIRITUAL DEATH AND REBIRTH IN HELL: The Teachings of Kenneth Copeland [Note: Numbers in text are footnote numbers. To read footnotes providing reference sources for this article, go to: (www.equip.org/free/DC755-2.htm)] 'When it comes to defining the Atonement, Copeland says, "It wasn't a physical death on the cross that paid the price for sin...anybody can do that."63 Jesus supposedly "put Himself into the hands of Satan when He went to that cross, and took that same nature that Adam did [when he sinned]."64 Copeland is here referring to the nature of Satan, as God pronounced that "Adam would die spiritually - that he would take on the nature of Satan which is spiritual death."65 He adds that "the day that Jesus was crucified, God's life, that eternal energy that was His from birth, moved out of Him and He accepted the very nature of death itself."66 'During an alleged conversation with Copeland, Jesus is said to have remarked, "It was a sign of Satan that was hanging on the cross....I accepted, in my own spirit, spiritual death; and the light was turned off."67 We are told that Jesus "had to give up His righteousness"68 and "accepted the sin nature of Satan."69 'Contrary to the teaching that Christ underwent a change of nature (into a satanic being), the Bible depicts Jesus as having an immutable divine nature (Heb. 13:8; cf. Mal. 3:6). Moreover, in saying that "spiritual death means separation from the life of God,"70 Copeland tacitly admits that Jesus completely lost His deity. For, as we noted earlier, Copeland defines the "life of God" as "the unseen force that makes God, God." However, Scripture declares that God is eternal and unchanging and thus never ceases to be God. The Father says of Christ, "But you remain the same, and your years will never end" (Heb. 1:12). 'Finally, the notion of Jesus being overtaken by "the very nature of death" is contradicted by Jesus' claim that He has "life in Himself" (John 5:26; cf. 1:4), is "the resurrection and the life" (11:25), and is "the way, the truth, and the life" (14:6). The "spiritual death of Christ" teaching entails an implicit denial of Christ's deity and, in turn, of the Trinity. 'Still, Copeland insists "Satan conquered Jesus on the Cross and took His spirit to the dark regions of hell" (emphasis in original).71 Copeland's description of Christ's ordeal in hell is nothing short of chilling: "He [Jesus] allowed the devil to drag Him into the depths of hell....He allowed Himself to come under Satan's control...every demon in hell came down on Him to annihilate Him....They tortured Him beyond anything anybody had ever conceived. For three days He suffered everything there is to suffer."72 'The situation seemed hopeless, as Jesus' "emaciated, poured out, little, wormy spirit is down in the bottom of that thing; and the devil thinks he's got Him destroyed."73 However, Copeland explains that "Satan fell into the trap. He took Him [Jesus] into hell illegally. He carried Him in there [when] He did not sin."74 God found the opening He needed: "That Word of the living God went down into that pit of destruction and charged the spirit of Jesus with resurrection power! Suddenly His twisted, death-wracked spirit began to fill out and come back to life....Jesus was born again - the firstborn from the dead the Word calls Him - and He whipped the devil in his own backyard."75 'Copeland's account, vivid though it may be, is not in the Bible. It misuses the phrase "firstborn from the dead" (Col. 1:18) to bolster the "born again Jesus" doctrine. Actually, the term "firstborn" (Greek: prototokos) primarily denotes primacy, headship, and preeminence. And the phrase itself points to Christ's supremacy "over all creation" (v. 15) in general and those who will be raised from the dead in particular (alluding to Christ's bodily resurrection - not some spiritual resuscitation in hell). 'Moreover, Jesus was not dragged into hell by Satan, but instead committed His spirit to the Father (Luke 23:46) and went directly to paradise (v. 43). Nor was He tortured by a host of demons; He triumphed "over them by the cross" (Col. 2:15). Jesus paid for humanity's sin in full (Greek: tetelestai) at the cross (John 19:30) - not by becoming a satanic being, but through His physical sacrifice (Heb. 10:10; Col. 1:22). ____________________ To read more, including extensive footnotes, go to: (www.equip.org/free/DC755-2.htm) |
||||||
980 | Where did the Holy Spirit go? | 2 Cor 5:21 | Radioman2 | 83422 | ||
If Jesus is God, then why did He say the Father was greater than He? "You heard that I said to you, ‘I go away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I'" (John 14:28). Jesus said the Father was greater than He not because Jesus is not God, but because Jesus was also a man and as a man he was in a lower position. He was ". . . made for a little while lower than the angels . . ." (Heb. 2:9). Also in Phil. 2:5-8, it says that Jesus "emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men . . ." Jesus has two natures. Jesus was not denying that He was God. He was merely acknowledging the fact that He was also a man. Jesus is both God and man. As a man, he was in a lesser position than the Father. He had added to Himself human nature (Col. 2:9). He became a man to die for people. A comparison can be found in the marriage relationship. Biblically, a husband is greater in position and authority than his wife. But, he is no different in nature and he is not better than she. They share the same nature, being human, and they work together by love. So, Jesus was not denying that He was God. He was simply acknowledging that He was also a man and as a man, he was subject to the laws of God so that He might redeem those who were under the law; namely, sinners (Gal. 4:4-5). For further reading please see the two natures of Jesus. (../doctrine/2natures.htm) SCRIPTURES QUOTED: Phil. 2:5-8, "Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross." Col. 2:9, "For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form," Gal. 4:4-5, "But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, in order that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons." Heb. 2:9, "But we do see Him who has been made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone." (www.carm.org/witnesses.htm) |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 ] Next > Last [66] >> |