Results 1 - 20 of 114
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: rabban Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | God is still speaking; what books? | Bible general Archive 3 | rabban | 191693 | ||
One book through which God constantly speaks is the book of Romans which must be seen as of prime importance. It commences by demonstrating in some depth that all men have sinned and come short of the glory of God (Roman 1.18-3.23). The result is that every mouth has been stopped, and the whole world is held accountable to God (Romans 3.19) It then describes how God has dealt with this problem by sending His own Son into the world to die for us so that our sin can be forgiven and we can be 'reckoned as righteous' in His sight. Thus in accordance with Romans 3.24, we can be 'reckoned as righteous by His grace as a gift through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, Whom God has set forth to be a propitiation through His blood, to be received by faith.' This means that God offers to all who will believe in Jesus Christ from the heart that: 1). He will act on our behalf by His unmerited compassion and love (His grace) - compare John 3.16) 2) He will in consequence of our believing 'account us as righteous' as a result of the redemption (deliverance by the payment of a price) that He wrought in Jesus Christ on the cross - compare Mark 10.45; 1 Peter 1.18-19. 3). As a result of the shedding of His blood on our behalf a means has been provided by which God's antipathy to our sin can be dealt with so that we are seen as acceptable in His sight (1 John 2.1-2), something which is to be received by faith alone. 4). And as a result of our believing in Him as our Saviour in this way 'There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus' (Romans 8.1.). This message is just as important for today as it ever was. So God is still speaking. |
||||||
2 | Stumpped by my son | Bible general Archive 3 | rabban | 191801 | ||
Hi You asked: "Statement of Fact: Christian peoples of the world claim that God's word tells them from before time began God set into motion the "Divine Plan." He knows the end from the beginning. He is all knowing, all powerful and everywhere. When praying, pray that God's will be done. Answer. We must distinguish between God's directive will and His permissive will. His directive will controls all things. His permissive will allows adjustments within His directive will. Questions? If God's will is the "Divine Plan" and has been in existence since before time began, how does praying help? Answer: Because we do not pray for God's divine plan to change, but we pray within God's divine plan as His children. God has not purposed everything we do. It is just that our lives are lived within His over all purpose. Question. What if what you're asking for in prayer is not God's will? Are christians so arrogant to want God to change his plan? Answer: If you ask for what is not within His directive will He will not respond to you. No one can change God's overall plan. It is arrogant to expect Him to do so. What they can do is seek adjustments within it. But even then they should be seeking to ensure that they only ask what is within His will. The Christian always prays, 'Your will be done'. Question: Does God enjoy hearing people whine, moan, grovel and beg for things they will not get? Answer. Actually Jesus taught that we should not pray like this 'This', He said, 'is the way the Gentiles pray (who do not know how to pray properly) See Matthew 6.7, 31-32. The Christian is to approach in faith, love and submission to Him as a child to his father in accordance with what is laid out in the Lord's prayer. Question: Does God delight in the monotonous pleadings, mumblings and cryings of people for things that he planned they would get anyway? Answer. God delights in all our prayers when we approach Him as our heavenly Father. Just as parents delight in their children's often unwise words. But what a sad world it would be if children never asked their parents for anything. Prayer is however supposed to be a means of communication, not a method of getting things out of God. Question: If the "Divine Plan" was developed by God and set in motion before time began, how can any kind of appeal through prayer alter God's will? Answer: No prayer can change God's divine plan. It can only cause changes within it. But even then we should be praying only for what we believe is His will. 'If we ask anything according to His will, He hears us,' (1 John 5.14). Thus our prayers should always be for what is in accord with His will. We can be sure that He will never act against His directive will whateve we pray for. |
||||||
3 | Stumpped by my son | Bible general Archive 3 | rabban | 191803 | ||
Statement of Fact: Christian peoples of the world claim that God's word tells them God's "Divine Plan" includes free will. Each and every man has the free will to choose everlasting life or everlasting hell fire. Questions? If all has been determined in the "Divine Plan" from before time began, where is the free will to change and be spared from the torment of hell fire? Answer. God has built within His overall plan the right for us to use our free will within His restraints. We are free for example not to repent and believe. We are free even to challenge Him - many do. But if we do so we must take the consequences. But of course we can only do these things within His overall plan. We cannot interfere with that. Question: If man is given two choices, eternal life through Jesus Christ or eternal hell fire by rejection, where is that person's free will to choose Buddah, Mohamed or to remain neutral? Where is that man's freedom of choice to decide not to choose? Where is his free will? If I stand on a bridge looking down into the ravine below I am free to choose whether I will jump off the bridge or not. The fact that the consequences are not very pleasant does not take away my free will. It simply demonstrates to me what the sensible thing to do is. |
||||||
4 | Stumpped by my son | Bible general Archive 3 | rabban | 191806 | ||
Hi Statement of Fact: Christian peoples of the world claim that God's word tells them that God created the sun on the fourth day of creation. Questions? How is is possible to have three cycles of morning and evening before the creation of the sun? How is it possible that God would create light on the first day of creation when he didn't create the sun until the fourth day? Doesn't everyone know that light comes from the sun and without the sun we cannot have a morning or an evening? Since the sun is 1.3 million times larger than the earth why didn't God inform the bible writers of its importance to life on earth? ANSWER. Scroll back and see my answer on 8.8.07 at 11.08 am. |
||||||
5 | Stumpped by my son | Bible general Archive 3 | rabban | 191841 | ||
Hi Speaking as a neutral may I say that I do not agree that Doc has assailed your character or used invective. I think if you look back and see how many times you have mentioned Boyle in your postings you might be surprised. I think that what Doc is trying to say is that the purpose of the forum is not in order to promote Boyle's theology but in order to expound the Scriptures. I have no doubt that that was not your intention but that is how it has turned out. May I lovingly suggest that if you have a point to make from Scripture please do so. But we are really not interested in Boyle's Law. :-))) In Him . |
||||||
6 | Is there a Theological name for this? | NT general Archive 1 | rabban | 191269 | ||
Biblical Christian? :-)))) | ||||||
7 | What's Pastor's Responsibility? | NT general Archive 1 | rabban | 191458 | ||
Hi May I just add to the excellent advice given 1 Corinthians 3.6-15; 4.1-5; 9.16-23; 13; 2 Corinthians 4.1-2, 7-15; 10.12-13. |
||||||
8 | TWO GREAT LIGHTS. CREATED ON WHAT DAY | Gen 1:16 | rabban | 191727 | ||
Hi, The first important thing when reading the creation account (the meaning of which is widely debated) is to notice exactly what the account does and does not say, whatever our view on it may be. The first thing to notice is that there are only three acts of creation (bara - creation out of nothing)). The first is the creation of heaven and earth. 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.' (Genesis 1.1) The second is the creation of living ceatures. 'So God created the great sea creatures, and every living creature that moves with which the water swarm, according to their kind ----' (Genesis 1.21). The third is the creation of man. 'So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him, male and female He created them' (Genesis 1.27). Apart from those three cases the account speaks of things as either 'made, fashioned' or 'brought forth'. In these cases we may assume that previous material is used. The second thing to note is that Hebrew verbs are not specific as to tense. They do not strictly have a past tense or a future tense. They have a complete or definite tense, and an incomplete or indefinite tense (loosely called the 'perfect' and 'imperfect' although strictly they are not). That is why the prophets can use the definite tense about the future. It is because as it is what God is going to do it is definite, and there is no doubt about it (loosely called the prophetic perfect, but it is not). In other words Hebrew verbs are vague as to time. Especially important is it to notice that there is no pluperfect. The Hebrew cannot speak of what God HAD done. He uses the same tense for that as he would for any other past action. I stress this because it is relevant to your question. If you read the account carefully God's main purpose on the fourth day was not to create the great lights, but to utilise them for controlling the times and the seasons. They were brought into play to separate the day from the night (on earth) and to be for portents (the prophets often use them as portents), and for seasons, and for days, and for years. From now on they were to give light upon the earth. Then we read, 'and God made the two great lights --- and he made the stars also'. Now if we translate 'had made', which is quite legitimate, then it would be referring back to verse 1 where God created 'light'. After all the sun and moon are important givers of light. Some see the first day as also including the creation of the heavens and the earth. Others see verse 1 as a general heading. The Hebrews were more concerned that God had done it rather than when He did it. This helps us to understand the pattern of the account. Initially God creates the heavens, and on the first day creates light. On the fourth day, He brings the lights into use for man's benefit. On the second day He makes the waters below and the atmosphere, and on the fifth day he makes the creatures that live in the water below and the atmosphere (sea mammals, fish and birds). On the third day He produces vegetation, and on the sixth day the animals and man who will make use of the vegetation. So we could argue that God made these 'lights when He first created the heavens and the earth, or when He called forth light, and that what is described in verse 4 is how He brought them into use for the benefit of earth (and of course for the benefit of man). Others, however, see them as 'made' (not 'created') on the fourth day. The interpretation I will leave to you. It is, however, important to do it noticing the nuances of the languages, nuances which are clearly intended. In Him |
||||||
9 | exodus 33;23 | Exodus | rabban | 191543 | ||
Hi, My view on this is that we need to see what it was that God was going to reveal. Moses had asked to 'see His ways that he might know Him'. He wanted to know what God was going to do. Then he grew bolder and asked, 'Show me your glory.' God's reply was, 'I will make all My goodness pass before you and will proclaim the name of the LORD before you.' There is no promise of a bodily presence. He is to see His glory and goodness. Up to this point Moses had always 'seen' God in the cloud. Now the promise was that he would be able to see the glory of God unveiled, but only as it were the tail end. For no man could see Him in the fullness of His glory and live. The language is anthropomorphic. We can compare how Isaiah saw the glory of the LORD 'high and lifted up', although in His case the Temple was filled with smoke (Isaiah 6). Note that with all the descriptiveness there is no attempt to describe God. And compare how Ezekiel saw the glory of the LORD, 'on the likeness of the throne was the likeness of the appearance of a man on it above, and I saw as the colour of amber, as the appearance of fire within it round about, from the appearance of His loins and upwards, and from the appearance of His loins and downwards I saw as it were the appearance of fire, and there was brightness round about Him. As the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud on the day of rain, so was the appearance of the brightness round about. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD.' It will be noted that while powerful the description is vague. He was describing the indescribable.'The likeness of' indicates how difficult he is finding it to discover the exact words with which to describe Him, and note also the repetition of 'the appearance of'. He gained the impression of a man and yet not a man. Rather the appearance of fire, and glory, spoken of in terms of a heavenly storm (note the rainbow). We need not speculate on exactly what of God was revealed in either case, only to recognise His utter glory. To speak of a pre-incarnate spiritual body of Christ appears to me almost to suggest that God is not One being. I think that it is to tread on dangerous ground. Can we so separate God? (It was a different matter once Christ had become man, then He did have a separate body in His manhood). Because God sometimes chose to take the appearance of a man e.g. with Abraham before His dealings with Lot (Genesis 18-19) and with Jacob at Peniel (Genesis 32), and in the appearance of 'the Angel of the LORD' this does not justify us in thinking that God is normally so limited. (Remember they are not considered to have 'seen His face'even though Jacob thought of it in that way, otherwise they would not have been alive). As Jesus declared so clearly, 'God is Spirit' (John 4.24). But He manifests Himself in different ways. |
||||||
10 | Did God really speak the Ten commandment | Exodus | rabban | 191591 | ||
Hi In Exodus 20.1 you will find that it says "And God spoke all these words saying." And then he gave them the essence of the Sinaitic covenant which included the ten words from God, what you call the ten commandments. Thus it is clear that God did 'speak the ten commandments'. This covenant in Exodus 20.1-17 is in the format of a Suzerainty treaty similar to those which were made in the time of Moses. A suzerainty treaty was a treaty between an overlord and the people whom he had 'come to help' because they were in bondage. That was always how conquerors described their activities. But in God's case it was genuinely so It begins with a description of the Overlord 'I am the LORD (YHWH) your God'. That is then followed by what He has done for them, 'Who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage'. That is then followed by the Overlord's requirements, in this case the 'ten words'. You will note that once the ten words have been given the accompanying phenomena terrify the people as His words have also clearly done and they ask that they might not have to listen to Him again (verse 19). In future they want Moses to receive God's words rather than receiving them themselves. In verse 22 God confirms to the people through Moses, 'You have seen yourselves that I have talked with you from Heaven.' In Deuteronomy 4.12 we read, 'then the LORD spoke to you out of the midst of the fire. You heard the sound of words but saw no form. There was only a voice, and He declared to you His covenant,which He commanded you to perform, even the ten words'. Compare Deuteronomy 5.4, 'Moses said to them, " The LORD spoke with you face to face at the mountain ". Again in Deuteronomy 5.22 says, 'These words the LORD spoke to all your assembly at the mountain out of the midst of the fire, the cloud and the thick darkness, with a loud voice, and He added no more" And it was when they had heard His voice that they asked that they might be spared from hearing it again (Deuteronomy 5.23-27). Thus it is constantly emphasised that they actually hear His words for themselves In Him |
||||||
11 | What does "saw" mean? | Ex 24:10 | rabban | 191756 | ||
I am not convinced that ayth before a noun means that it refers to a corporeal being. There is no hint of it in any of my ancient Hebrew lexicons or ancient Hebrew grammars. In ancient Hebrew ayth simply points to a definite object, whether corporeal or not. Perhaps you could cite your authority for the statement that it always refers to a corporeal Being from a RECENT authoritative and recognised scholarly source. I would be very interested to know of it. (I am not talking about modern Hebrew usage which is irrelevant for ancient Hebrew) 'Seeing God' can cover a number of situations Abraham saw, ate and chatted with God in Genesis 18. Jacob actually wrestled with God in person (Gen 32). In both cases God had taken to Himself a human body. In neither case is there any reason for suggesting that it was with the Son of God. There is no reason to think that before He became man the Son was in any way more viewable or approachable than the Father. It is purely supposition on our part. Moses saw God in a burning bush. The Israelites saw God in the pillar of fire at nights. The whole people saw God when 'the appearance of the glory of the LORD was like a devouring fire on the top of the mount in the eyse of the children of Israel' (Exodus 24.17). But note references to the cloud. Some saw God as the Angel of the LORD (Gen 16; 21; etc). The Angel of the LORD is a manifesation of the LORD. We are not told anything else. Why should He necessarily be the Son? (It is not strictly correct to speak of 'Jesus - Joshua' before the incarnation. 'Jesus' was 'God made man'). Thus 'seeing' the God of Israel was not something new. And in my Bible there is no mention of a corporeal form, any more than there was in the vision of Isaiah 6. The reference to 'under His feet as it were --' may simply indicate 'below whatever they did see of Him'. There are no grounds for necessarily taking literally references to God's arms, hands or feet. They are regularly metaphors. He may have taken on a human form but it does not say so. They may simply have seen 'the appearance of fire' But what none of them had apparently seen was 'His glory' (Exodus 33.18). That was always veiled, either by a human form or by a cloud and smoke, or by some other means (God reveals as much of Himself as He wishes). Clearly we are intended to see that this manifestation to Moses in chapter 33 was like no other. Of course seeing God is never a sin. It is God who chooses whether we see Him or not. It is just that seeing God is so everwhelming that in the fullnes of His glory no human flesh could stand the sight. Dwelling in light which no man can approach to, Whom no man has seen, nor can see' (1 Timothy 6.16). And this applies to both Father and Son in the fullness of their glory. |
||||||
12 | IS ELOHEIM JESUS? | Ex 24:10 | rabban | 191774 | ||
Hi Talmid, The first important thing to note is that YHWH equals ELOHIM. The terms are interchangeable. The plural form elohim is a plural of intensity depicting God's greatness and majesty. It is used with a singular verb. YHWH is God's Name. As you know the watchword of Israel was, 'Hear, O Israel, YHWH our God, YHWH is One.' (Deuteronomy 6.5) YHWH is thus the One Name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Matthew 28.19). It is the name given to Jesus in His manhood when He was raised and restored to the glory which He had had with the Father before the world was (John 17.5)and 'given the Name above every Name' which is of course YHWH. He was declared to be KURIOS (which is the Greek term used for YHWH). Yeshua is the name given to God's Son when He came into the world as man. Strictly it does not apply to the pre-incarnate Son although we can do so loosely. His name Yeshua was given to Him when He was born a man (Matthew 1.21). So we cannot and must not say that YHWH equals the Father. Yeshua is also YHWH. The reason from the change from YHWH to Elohim and back was for a twofold reason. 1). Because Moses wanted to bring out that it was the God of Israel that they were seeing before them and having a communion meal with, and secondly in order to bring out the difference between when YHWH was dealing with Moses, and when God was dealing with Israel (compare similarly Exod. 19.24 with 20.1; 20.20, 21 with 20.22). It is very important to be careful when dealing with the question of the Triune God With all best wishes Rabban The Spirit is both the Spirit of YHWH and the Spirit of Elohim. As I have pointed out ayth (eth) is the sign of the definite object. In English we can tell the subject from the object by word order, but in Hebrew that is not so. The object may come before the verb. So it is depicted by putting ayth in front of it. It indicates nothing more than that. It certainly does not indicate that the reference is to God the Son. Prior to His icarnation Jesus did not have a corporeal body. |
||||||
13 | IS ELOHEIM JESUS? | Ex 24:10 | rabban | 191775 | ||
Hi Talmid, The first important thing to note is that YHWH equals ELOHIM. The terms are interchangeable. The plural form elohim is a plural of intensity depicting God's greatness and majesty. It is used with a singular verb. YHWH is God's Name. As you know the watchword of Israel was, 'Hear, O Israel, YHWH our God, YHWH is One.' (Deuteronomy 6.5) YHWH is thus the One Name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Matthew 28.19). It is the name given to Jesus in His manhood when He was raised and restored to the glory which He had had with the Father before the world was (John 17.5)and 'given the Name above every Name' which is of course YHWH. He was declared to be KURIOS (which is the Greek term used for YHWH). Yeshua is the name given to God's Son when He came into the world as man. Strictly it does not apply to the pre-incarnate Son although we can do so loosely. His name Yeshua was given to Him when He was born a man (Matthew 1.21). So we cannot and must not say that YHWH equals the Father. Yeshua is also YHWH. The reason from the change from YHWH to Elohim and back was for a twofold reason. 1). Because Moses wanted to bring out that it was the God of Israel that they were seeing before them and having a communion meal with, and secondly in order to bring out the difference between when YHWH was dealing with Moses, and when God was dealing with Israel (compare similarly Exod. 19.24 with 20.1; 20.20, 21 with 20.22). It is very important to be careful when dealing with the question of the Triune God With all best wishes Rabban The Spirit is both the Spirit of YHWH and the Spirit of Elohim. As I have pointed out ayth (eth) is the sign of the definite object. In English we can tell the subject from the object by word order, but in Hebrew that is not so. The object may come before the verb. So it is depicted by putting ayth in front of it. It indicates nothing more than that. It certainly does not indicate that the reference is to God the Son. Prior to His icarnation Jesus did not have a corporeal body. |
||||||
14 | IS ELOHEIM JESUS? | Ex 24:10 | rabban | 191776 | ||
Hi Talmid, The first important thing to note is that YHWH equals ELOHIM. The terms are interchangeable. The plural form elohim is a plural of intensity depicting God's greatness and majesty. It is used with a singular verb. YHWH is God's Name. As you know the watchword of Israel was, 'Hear, O Israel, YHWH our God, YHWH is One.' (Deuteronomy 6.5) YHWH is thus the One Name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Matthew 28.19). It is the name given to Jesus in His manhood when He was raised and restored to the glory which He had had with the Father before the world was (John 17.5)and 'given the Name above every Name' which is of course YHWH. He was declared to be KURIOS (which is the Greek term used for YHWH). Yeshua is the name given to God's Son when He came into the world as man. Strictly it does not apply to the pre-incarnate Son although we can do so loosely. His name Yeshua was given to Him when He was born a man (Matthew 1.21). So we cannot and must not say that YHWH equals the Father. Yeshua is also YHWH. The reason from the change from YHWH to Elohim and back was for a twofold reason. 1). Because Moses wanted to bring out that it was the God of Israel that they were seeing before them and having a communion meal with. 2). In order to bring out the difference between when YHWH was dealing with Moses, and when God was dealing with Israel (compare similarly Exod. 19.24 with 20.1; 20.20, 21 with 20.22). The Spirit is both the Spirit of YHWH and the Spirit of Elohim. As I have pointed out ayth (eth) is the sign of the definite object. In English we can tell the subject from the object by word order, but in Hebrew that is not so. The object may come before the verb. So it is depicted by putting ayth in front of it. It indicates nothing more than that. It certainly does not indicate that the reference is to God the Son. Prior to His incarnation Jesus did not have a corporeal body. It is very important to be careful when dealing with the question of the Triune God With all best wishes Rabban |
||||||
15 | IS ELOHEIM JESUS? | Ex 24:10 | rabban | 191777 | ||
Sorry about the triplication. I do not know how it happened. I only clicked once :-(( | ||||||
16 | IS ELOHEIM JESUS? | Ex 24:10 | rabban | 191797 | ||
Hi Mark, Thank you for your note. You will note that I said YHWH is ELOHIM. using capitals. The point was in order to indicate that it was Elohim when used of God, that is, with a singular verb. But you are of course correct. elohim used with a plural verb is used of both gods and angels (sons of the elohim) and even of an apparition. However when used with a singular verb of God He is YHWH. In Him |
||||||
17 | IS ELOHEIM JESUS? | Ex 24:10 | rabban | 191798 | ||
Hi Mark, Thank you for your note. You will note that I said YHWH is ELOHIM. using capitals. The point was in order to indicate that it was Elohim when used of God, that is, with a singular verb. But you are of course correct. elohim used with a plural verb is used of both gods and angels (sons of the elohim) and even of an apparition. However when used with a singular verb of God He is YHWH. In Him |
||||||
18 | Does YHWH equals ELOHIM? | Ex 24:10 | rabban | 191800 | ||
Hi, This actually demonstrates that when Elohim is used with a singular verb it is always speaking of YHWH. YHWH is YHWH ELOHIM. YHWH is His Name. ELOHIM is His title. Compare, 'You shall say to the children of Israel, "YHWH the God of your fathers --- has sent me to you. This is My Name for ever ---' (Exodus 3.15). (You cannot say 'the YHWH of Israel' because YHWH is His Namw). YHWH was the Elohim of Israel. The Elohim of Israel was YHWH. Each is the other. |
||||||
19 | Colors - Tabernacle/High Priest | Ex 25:3 | rabban | 191665 | ||
The idea may well be because each symbolises the approach to God. In the case of the Tabernacle we commence with the linen, followed by the colours of the veil within the Holy Place, then the gold of the Ark of the Covenant (this is roughly speaking for the whole is much more complicated in reality as you will appreciate. There is for example gold in the Holy Place, and the veil includes linen). In the case of the High Priest he is approaching God first through the white of his inner garments, then through the colours of the outer garment, then through the gold on the breastpouch and tiara. From purity to divine royalty through the heavenly and the blood (?). In Him. |
||||||
20 | Colors - Tabernacle/High Priest | Ex 25:3 | rabban | 191673 | ||
Hi Doc, I understand that you have to keep a careful watch but may I gently suggest that you are exaggerating the situation slightly? :-))) I hardly 'interpreted the majority of symbol'. That white linen represents the imputed righteousness (purity) of the saints we know from Revelation 7.14. In 19.8 it represents the righteousnesses of the saints. We can also compare how the pure angels appeared in white. So I think that that is justification enough to see the white as indicating purity and righteousness. All were fit to enter Heaven. Clearly the white linen therefore 'represented' the priests as 'fitted' to enter the Holy Place. That gold in one way or another represents the divine kingship we know from the fact of the deterioration from gold, through silver to bronze in The Tabernacle. It can hardly be seen as indicating anything else unless we ignore all significance of the symbols. The nearer things came to God the more they contained gold. Especially as the mercy seat, the divine throne as many consider it to be, is of gold. Thus the gold told them that they were approaching God These two interpretations I consider to be cast iron (if gold can be cast iron :-)))) ) I certainly do not see them as speculation. With regard to the two colours I put a question mark after them to indicate that the possible interpretations were speculative. That hardly 'implies authority'. But they were clearly intended to indicate something, even if only glory and beauty. Of course had I gone into greater detail your criticism might have been valid, and as a general warning is justified. But I do not consider that I went outside the bounds of sola Scriptura at all. However thank you for your thought In Him. |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ] Next > Last [6] >> |