Results 41 - 60 of 787
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Radioman2 Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
41 | PROVE ME: God's challenge to tithers | Bible general Archive 2 | Radioman2 | 102947 | ||
capemimi: You write: "From these tithes you must give the LORD's portion to Aaron the priest." It is not clear to me how we are to do this, since there is a new priesthood, one that is not according to the order of Aaron. Hebrews 7:11-14 (ESV) Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron? [12] For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well. [13] For the one of whom these things are spoken belonged to another tribe, from which no one has ever served at the altar. [14] For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. Grace to you, Radioman2 |
||||||
42 | Holy Spirit question on mysterious ways | Bible general Archive 2 | Radioman2 | 103909 | ||
EdB: Thank you for getting to the heart of the matter (regarding the original question) and providing us with this factual information. As I said earlier regarding the exact wording that the questioner asked about, it's either in the Bible or it isn't. If it can't be found in any concordance, it's because it simply is not in the Bible. Moreover the original question was not: Where is this concept found in the Bible? It was: Where does it SAY in the Bible: 'the Holy Spirit moves in mysterious ways?' We know what the Bible means by what it SAYS. Grace to you, Radioman2 |
||||||
43 | Holy Spirit question on mysterious ways | Bible general Archive 2 | Radioman2 | 103939 | ||
Ray: Yes, I am enjoying the conversation. :-) Grace to you, Radioman2 |
||||||
44 | The choice to abstain from alcohol | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 77068 | ||
It has been my experience and observation on this forum that a Note posted as a Note and not addressed to any particular thread often (usually?) goes unnoticed. Further, it seems that in order to receive a response to one's primary post, it is often necessary to post it as a Question. And if one's "Question" is addressed to a post in an existing thread, it is even more likely that it will receive a response. I see no point in posting a Note only to have it buried in the archives. |
||||||
45 | Is the NWT more reliable than the NASB? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 78108 | ||
'Examining Translations with Jehovah's Witnesses by Rachel D. Ramer' '(Note: numbers that appear in in the following text are footnote numbers. To read the footnotes, see www.equip.org/free/DJ511.htm) ' Would you trust a medical doctor who, in the name of humility, refused to reveal where he or she went to medical school? Of course not. So why do Jehovah's Witnesses trust the "translators" of the New World Translation (NWT) who are so "humble" that the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society won't reveal their names or credentials? In technical fields such as medicine, engineering, and translating, lack of training can cause physical - or spiritual - death. Displaying credentials is not pride, but accountability. ' Nevertheless, Jehovah's Witnesses read in the foreword of NWT (1984 edition) these seemingly comforting words: "It is a very responsible thing to translate the Holy Scriptures from their original languages of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek into modern speech....The translators of this work, who fear and love the Divine Author of the Holy Scriptures, feel toward Him a special responsibility to transmit his thoughts and declarations as accurately as possible." ' With such a statement, why should Jehovah's Witnesses question their translation? Yet, observant Christians can help them do just that. ' Although it is essential for translators to know the languages they are translating, this doesn't mean we have to know Greek or Hebrew to catch the differences in translations. Simple observation can be powerful. 'Observing the Difference ' Jehovah's Witnesses will often refer to NWT's John 17:3, "This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ" (emphasis added). In response, say to the Jehovah's Witnesses, "That sounds different to me." Then read the verse in a credible translation such as the King James Version (KJV), the New International Version (NIV), or the New American Standard Bible (NASB), all with a close variation of "that they may know You." Read all three if the Witnesses doubt the consistency. Mere agreement among translations bears weight. ' Discuss the difference between knowing a friend or taking in knowledge of someone, like studying Abraham Lincoln. Then read Jesus' words in John 5:39-40: "You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life" (NIV). ' In NWT's Matthew 10:32-33, Jesus says, "Everyone, then, that confesses union with me before men, I will also confess union with him before my Father," instead of "confesses me before men." This takes the emphasis off of Jesus and puts it on something Jesus represents. Witnesses will insist there is no difference. Ask them what it means to confess Jesus - what is its purpose? It is primarily to acknowledge who He is - not what He stands for - the very issue the Watchtower wishes to cloud! 'Only the Context Knows for Sure ' When two visiting Witnesses emphasized the importance of the name Jehovah, they brought to my attention the verse: "Everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved" (Rom. 10:13, NWT). I responded, "I've read that the Old Testament word for Yahweh or Jehovah is never used in the New Testament1 Why would your translation say 'Jehovah'?" ' "It's only common sense," one answered, "to use the name Jehovah since this is a quote from the Old Testament referring to Jehovah" (see Joel 2:32). ' "Except," I countered, "in Romans, Paul was just referring to the 'Lord Jesus' specifically. When he used the term "Lord" in verse 13, he meant Jesus. He knew he was quoting the Old Testament. He was equating Jesus with Jehovah." ' Most Jehovah's Witnesses are fooled by their organization's use of Greek lexicons or expository dictionaries. William Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words was appealed to 52 times in their encyclopedia, Insights on the Scriptures, even though Vine strongly disagreed with their teachings.2 From sources such as these the Watchtower can sometimes obtain an altered wording for a critical passage and feel justified.' (To read the rest of the article, see www.equip.org/free/DJ511.htm) |
||||||
46 | Is the NWT more reliable than the NASB? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 78112 | ||
The New World Translation Dr. Julius R. Mantey was a first-rate scholar who studied Greek for more than 65 years. He was well known for A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, which he co-authored with Dr. H. E. Dana. The following is a discussion that took place between Dr. Martin and Dr. Mantey on the Jehovah’s Witnesses New World Translation. (...) Dr. Martin: I don’t know whether you’re aware of it, but there is not a single Greek scholar in the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. I did everything I could to find out the names of the translating committee of the NWT, and the Watchtower wouldn’t tell me a thing. Finally, an ex-JW who knew the committee members personally told me who they were, and the men on that committee could not read New Testament Greek; nor could they read Hebrew; nor did they have any knowledge of systematic theology — except what they had learned from the Watchtower. Only one of them had been to college, and he had dropped out after a year. He briefly studied the biblical languages while there. Dr. Mantey: He was born in Greece, wasn’t he? Dr. Martin: Yes, he read modern Greek, and I met him when I visited the Watchtower. I asked him to read John 1:1 in the Greek and then said, “How would you translate it?” He said: “Well, ‘the word was a god.”’ I said: “What is the subject of the sentence?” He just looked at me. So I repeated. “What is the subject of the sentence?” He didn’t know. This was the only person in the Watchtower to read Greek and he didn’t know the subject of the sentence in John 1:1. And these were the people who wrote back to you and said their opinion was as good as yours. Dr. Mantey: That’s right. Dr. Martin: Often we find JW publications quoting scholars. Do they quote these people in context? Dr. Mantey: No. They use this device to fool people into thinking that scholars agree with the JWs. Out of all the Greek professors, grammarians, and commentators they have quoted, only one (a Unitarian) agreed that ‘The word was a god.” Dr. Martin: You have been quoted as saying that the translators of the NWT are “diabolical deceivers.” Dr. Mantey: Yes. The translation is deceptive, and I believe it’s a terrible thing for a person to be deceived and go into eternity lost, forever lost because somebody deliberately misled him by distorting the Scripture! Dr. Martin: What would you say to a JW who was looking for the truth? Dr. Mantey: I would advise him to get a translation other than the NWT, because ninety-nine percent of the scholars of the world who know Greek and who have helped translate the Bible are in disagreement with the JWs. People who are looking for the truth ought to know what the majority of the scholars really believe. They should not allow themselves to be misled by the JWs and end up in hell. (www.equip.org/search/) These words were excerpted from the tape, "Martin and Mantey on the New World Translation" It is available from CRI. |
||||||
47 | Is the NWT more reliable than the NASB? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 78116 | ||
Yes, you did say the NASB. No, you did not say NAB in any other post except this one. The post to which I am replying, ID# 78111, is the only one you have made today that contains "NAB". - - - - - - - - - - Further searching has revealed that you NEVER used the word "NAB" in anything you have posted, except for ID# 78111. |
||||||
48 | Is the NWT more reliable than the NASB? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 78120 | ||
New World Translation (Jehovah's Witnesses) The following quotes are taken from language scholars who study the Greek language of the New Testament and are offering their opinions as to the validity of John 1:1. "...the Word was a god." John 1:1 (New World Translation) Dr. Paul L. Kaufman of Portland, Oregon: "The Jehovah's Witnesses people evidence an abysmal ignorance of the basic tenets of Greek grammar in their mistranslation of John 1:1." Dr. Charles L. Feinberg of La Mirada, California: "I can assure you that the rendering which the Jehovah's Witnesses give John 1:1 is not held by any reputable Greek scholar." Dr. James L. Boyer of Winona Lake, Indiana: "I have never heard of, or read of any Greek Scholar who would have agreed to the interpretation of this verse insisted upon by the Jehovah's Witnesses...I have never encountered one of them who had any knowledge of the Greek language." Dr. Walter R. Martin (who does not teach Greek but has studied the language): "The translation...'a god' instead of 'God' is erroneous and unsupported by any good Greek scholarship, ancient or contemporary and is a translation rejected by all recognized scholars of the Greek language may of whom are not even Christians, and cannot fairly be said to be biased in favor of the orthodox contention." Dr. J. R. Mantey (who is quoted on pages 1158-1159 of the Witnesses own Kingdom interlinear Translation): "A shocking mistranslation." "Obsolete and incorrect." "It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 'The Word was a god.'" Dr. Bruce M. Metzger of Princeton (Professor of New Testament Language and Literature): "A frightful mistranslation." "Erroneous" and "pernicious" "reprehensible" "If the Jehovah's Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists." Dr. Samuel J. Mikolaski of Zurich, Switzerland: "This anarthrous (used without the article) construction does not mean what the indefinite article 'a' means in English. It is monstrous to translate the phrase 'the Word was a god.'" Dr. William Barclay of the University of Glasgow, Scotland: "The deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New testament translations. John 1:1 is translated: '...the Word was a god, ' a translation which is grammatically impossible...It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest." Dr. F. F. Bruce of the University of Manchester, England: "Much is made by Arian amateur grammarians of the omission of the definite article with 'God' in the phrase 'And the Word was God.' Such an omission is common with nouns in a predicative construction...'a god' would be totally indefensible." [Barclay and Bruce are generally regarded as Great Britain's leading Greek scholars. Both have New Testament translations in print!] Dr. Ernest C. Colwell of the University of Chicago: "A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb...this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas. 'My Lord and my God.' - John 20:28" Dr. Phillip B. Harner of Heidelberg College: "The verb preceding an anarthrous predicate, would probably mean that the LOGOS was 'a god' or a divine being of some kind, belonging to the general category of THEOS but as a distinct being from HO THEOS. In the form that John actually uses, the word "THEOS" is places at the beginning for emphasis." Dr. J. Johnson of California State University, Long Beach: "No justification whatsoever for translating THEOS EN HO LOGOS as 'the Word was a god.' There is no syntactical parallel to Acts 28:6 where there is a statement in indirect discourse; John 1:1 is direct....I am neither a Christian nor a Trinitarian." (http://www.soulright.com/nwt.html ) |
||||||
49 | Is the NWT more reliable than the NASB? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 78126 | ||
John 17:3 and the Only True God "And this is eternal life, that they may know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent," (John 17:3, NASB). The Jehovah's Witnesses, among others, cite John 17:3 as a proof text to deny the Trinity and claim that Jesus Christ is not God. They reason is that if Jesus were God, then He would not have called the Father, "the only true God." If the Father is the only true God, then it must require that Jesus cannot be God. First of all, it is not proper to make a theological doctrine out of one verse. Of this the Jehovah's Witnesses are sometimes guilty. Nevertheless, they do tend to take one or two verses on a subject and use them to interpret all the others. Instead of getting a balanced position, they arrive at an interpretation that is in agreement with their theological position. This is called "proof-texting" and is something the Jehovah's Witnesses do frequently. Second, the context of Jesus' comment was that He was speaking as a man to His God. Remember, Jesus is both God and man, second person of the Trinity, the word made flesh (John 1:1,14). Since He was both divine and man, as a man He would naturally, and properly say that His Father was the only True God. He was not denying His own divinity, but affirming the Trueness of God as was done in the OT: “And now, O Lord our God, deliver us from his hand that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that Thou alone, Lord, art God,” (Isaiah 37:20). The truth is that Jesus was a man made under the Law (Gal. 4:4) and as a man He would be subject to God. Only in this case, Jesus was subject to the Father. That is why Jesus called the Father the only true God. But it is not a phrase that excludes Christ for Christ Himself said "Before Abraham was, I am" (John 8:58) and did not deny being called God by Thomas in John 20:28. Third, John 17:3 must be examined in the light of the totality of scripture. We see that Jesus is called God in John 1:1,14; 8:58; 20:28; Col. 2:9; Heb. 1:8. Therefore, John 17:3 cannot be interpreted in a way that disagrees with other scriptures. Of course, some people simply state that John 17:3 cannot allow for Jesus being God. But the simple fact is that Jesus is called God by God and others. Therefore, the whole of scripture must be harmonized. Fourth, this verse reflects the sonship of Jesus. The Father and the Son have a unique relationship. Jesus is the eternal Son. The terms Father and Son denote a relationship which is why God is called the God of the Son in 2 Cor. 11:31. Fifth, if we are to be consistent using the Jehovah's Witness logic that the Father is the only true God, then the following verses present a problem -- if we use their logic. "For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ," (Jude 4, NASB). Does this mean that the Father is not our Master and Lord? Of course not. Yet, Jesus is called our only Master and Lord. "There was the true light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man. 10He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him," (John 1:9-10). Here we see Jesus being called the true light. Does this mean that the Father is not the true light? If not, then we have both the Son and the Father being the true light. "And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone," (Mark 10:18, NASB). Does this verse mean that Jesus is not good? Jesus said only God was good. Then, if we use the Jehovah's Witness logic, Jesus is not good. Of course, that doesn't make any sense. “I, even I, am the Lord [YHW]; And there is no savior besides Me," (Isaiah 43:11). We know that Jesus is the Savior. Again, according to Witness logic, Jesus could not be the Savior since the Bible tells us that YHWH is the only Savior. "Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, “I, the Lord [YHWH], am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by Myself, And spreading out the earth all alone,'" (Isaiah 44:24, NASB). According to John 1:3 and Col. 1:16-17 Jesus made all things. With JW logic would have a problem. Col. 1:16-17 says, "For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created by Him and for Him. 17And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together," (NASB). As we can see, we cannot simply make a doctrine out of one verse. To do so is to invite error and it only serves to use the Bible to validate preconceived ideas about doctrine. (http://www.carm.org/jw/John17_3.htm) |
||||||
50 | Does any body knows the 12 names of God | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 78667 | ||
'Let's take a look at one quote from the Watchtower. '"From time to time, there have arisen from among the ranks of Jehovah's people those, who, like the original Satan, have adopted an independent, faultfinding attitude...They say that it is sufficient to read the Bible exclusively, either alone or in small groups at home. But, strangely, through such ‘Bible reading,' they have reverted right back to the apostate doctrines that commentaries by Christendom's clergy were teaching 100 years ago..." (The Watchtower, August 15, 1981, p. 29). 'The Watchtower says that the Trinity, the deity of Christ, and the physical resurrection of Christ are all false doctrines. Yet, the Watchtower says that if you read the Bible by itself you will end up believing these doctrines. In other words, if you read the Bible by itself, then you will become a Trinitarian, believe that Jesus is God, and believe that Jesus rose from the dead physically. Why is that? Could it be because the Bible teaches these things? So I ask the Jehovah's Witnesses, what is it in the Bible that would lead someone to this conclusion? Again, what is in the Bible that reading it by itself would lead you to believe in the Trinity, the deity of Christ, and His physical resurrection? This quote from the Watchtower is proof that it is teaching contrary to the natural reading of the Bible and that it is controlling the beliefs of those who follow it. To see the Watchtower quote in context, go to: (http://www.carm.org/jw/bibletrinity.htm) |
||||||
51 | Does any body knows the 12 names of God | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 78702 | ||
You write: "Last but not lest, Acts 2:21; And everyone who calls on the name of JEHOVAH will be saved." As it is translated here, this statement is not true. It is false. It is a lie. In the Greek, Acts 2:21 does not say "Jevhovah." What is says is: NASB Acts 2:21 'AND IT SHALL BE THAT EVERYONE WHO CALLS ON THE NAME OF THE LORD (Greek KURIOS, Strong's #2962) WILL BE SAVED.' |
||||||
52 | Does any body knows the 12 names of God | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 78703 | ||
Nice try, trying to put words into God's mouth. Why does the New World Translation insert the word Jehovah in the New Testament when there are absolutely no Greek manuscripts that have it in there? Isn’t this playing with the text? |
||||||
53 | What exactly must a person to be saved? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 79505 | ||
Face value interpretation You write: "However, I feel that we must take nothing at face value. Then we along with the holy spirit will know what is right." - - - - - - - - - - "The text of Scripture can be understood when taken at FACE VALUE, making allowances for obvious figures of speech, near/far interpretations, its context, and comparative passages of Scripture that harmonize with it, without contradiction." 'By employing a FACE VALUE method of interpretation, the reader of Scripture attempts to discover the normal, natural, customary sense of the text as it was intended by the Author/author (God/human) at the time that it was written. (...) 'TWO CONDITIONS FOR INTERPRETATION '1) Understand that we are working with English translations of texts originally written in other languages. '2) Scripture never contradicts Scripture. 'FIVE PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION '1) Seek to discover the Author/author's intended meaning. '2) All Scripture is to be taken in its proper context be it words, phrases, passages, chapters, books,etc. Remember, "a text taken out of context is a pretext." '3) All Scripture is to be compared with other Scripture. "The best interpreter of Scripture is other Scripture," said Martin Luther. '4) Determine the literal reference of figures of speech. '5) Recognize that many passages of Scripture, in both Testaments, have both near and far implications and applications. 'The text of Scripture can be understood when taken at FACE VALUE, making allowances for obvious figures of speech, near/far interpretations, its context, and comparative passages of Scripture that harmonize with it, without contradiction. '"Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, handling accurately the word of truth." (2 Timothy 2:15)' (http://www.solagroup.org/) (Emphasis added) |
||||||
54 | What exactly must a person to be saved? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 79570 | ||
That you yourself neither study nor believe in studying is quite apparent from reading your postings. But I suppose one who cannot read with comprehension would find it difficult to study. | ||||||
55 | What exactly must a person to be saved? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 79589 | ||
Never let anyone tell you that you are not saved unless and until you go before an altar and "profess [yourself] to Jesus Christ". Public confession is a false addition to faith in Jesus Christ, which is stated as the single condition for salvation in the NT (John 1:12; Acts 16:31). "Confession is a normal result of being saved, though it may also accompany the initial act of believing. Nowhere is public confession required. In this connection, prayer may be helpful in clinching a decision, but it is not in itself a requirement for salvation" (Ryrie Study Bible, Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Moody Press, 1976, 1978). Once again we are not saved by surrender, baptism, repentance, or public confession. Neither does our prayer save us. |
||||||
56 | What exactly must a person to be saved? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 79679 | ||
Apparently nothing that others say means anything to you. My humble opinion is that you are misunderstanding all that others have tried to explain to you. Maybe you could try harder to understand it. |
||||||
57 | When did God change "mode" of baptism? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 80130 | ||
Romans 6:4 'Whether the mode of baptism by immersion be alluded to in this verse, as a kind of symbolical burial and resurrection, does not seem to us of much consequence. Many interpreters think it is, and it may be so. But as it is not clear that baptism in apostolic times was exclusively by immersion so sprinkling and washing are indifferently used in the New Testament to express the cleansing efficacy of the blood of Jesus. And just as the woman with the issue of blood got virtue out of Christ by simply touching Him, so the essence of baptism seems to lie in the simple contact of the element (water) with the body, symbolizing living contact with Christ crucified; the mode and extent of suffusion being indifferent and variable with climate and circumstances.' Brown, David, D.D. "Commentary on Romans 6". "Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible". (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/JamiesonFaussetBrown) |
||||||
58 | why do we sin when sin has no mastery? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 80770 | ||
"Paul said he crucified the flesh daily." I wonder WHERE (book, chapter and verse) it says that. |
||||||
59 | Is your modern translation corrupt? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 80777 | ||
You write: "I think all translations lead us wrongly." How helpful your statement is! How edifying and uplifting. Consider the following: "...the claims of KJV Only advocates are liable to deeply trouble many Christians, even to the point of causing them to question the reliability and usefulness of their NIV or NASB Bibles. When believers are wrongly led to doubt the integrity of the translation they have used for years, Christian scholars have a responsibility to set the record straight." ((www.equip.org/free/DK115.htm) IS YOUR MODERN TRANSLATION CORRUPT? Answering the Allegations of KJV Only Advocates) Troubling Christians and creating doubt regarding the Bible -- which gifts of the Spirit are in operation here? 'Is there any weight to the charges being made against the manuscripts used by modern translations? Should one distrust modern translations? Those are the questions we must answer' (www.equip.org/free/DK115.htm) . You assertion that "all translations lead us wrongly" answers nothing. Before you give us the benefit of more unproven accusations, you would do well to read this entire article. Go to (www.equip.org/free/DK115.htm) IS YOUR MODERN TRANSLATION CORRUPT? Answering the Allegations of KJV Only Advocates |
||||||
60 | why do we sin when sin has no mastery? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 80780 | ||
You write: "We must choose to crucify the flesh daily." Yet Paul writes in (NASB) Galatians 2:20 "I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me." "I HAVE BEEN CRUCIFIED" -- not "I crucify the flesh DAILY." "I HAVE BEEN CRUCIFIED" (past tense). Again, writing in (NASB) Colossians 3:3 Paul says: "For you have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God." "You have died" -- not "you ought to die." "HAVE DIED" (past tense). NASB Romans 6:11 Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus. AMPLIFIED Romans 6:11 Even so consider yourselves also dead to sin and your relation to it broken, but alive to God [living in unbroken fellowship with Him] in Christ Jesus. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [40] >> |