Results 61 - 80 of 1928
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Reformer Joe Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
61 | How inspired is the NAS Bible today? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 15490 | ||
The message is authoritative, not because it is inspired in its translation, but rather because it is translated from an inspired source. There is nothing miraculous about a translation. If I were to translate some other book, such as Don Quijote, from Spanish to English, how do I know that the text is authoritative? Because we have Spanish copies with which we can compare it The words may be different, but we can be confident that if I know Spanish and I know English, that my careful translation will be accurate to what Cervantes wrote. The same is true regarding Scripture. Scholars who know Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek and understand principles of translation can carefully create a new translation. Again, there is nothing supernatural about such a translation, but the fact that it is an accurate translation from an authoritative text makes us comfortable that what its Author had to say in Greek is so close to what we read in English as to bear the same authority. --Joe! |
||||||
62 | How inspired is the NAS Bible today? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 15493 | ||
Translation is not the same as commentary. Translation is a conveyance of one piece of text from one language to another, without any elaboration or change upon the ideas being conveyed. For example, if I spoke German, I could translate Hitler's speeches without making the slightest value judgment on what he had to say. My commentary of such speeches, however, would be a very different thing. Commentary is not just "here is what this says in English," but "here is what this says in English, and now here is what the author means by saying this." The thing that stops the "telephone game" is that we have 25,000 fragments of early manuscripts dating from the first few centuries, along with citations from the early church fathers which verify that the Bible we have now is not different from the one we had then. When people do translation, they do not begin with one English translation and bring about another. They go back to the reliable early manuscripts. Bible translation in its technique is nothing like the "telephone game," where once something is verbally said it is not repeated nor written down. --Joe! |
||||||
63 | For Joe. | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 16177 | ||
Yes, you are supposed to use your brains, which includes avoiding such statements as this: "The bottom line is you don't really know either because if you did then you would not have been so negative about me asking the question." The reason I do indeed know is that I HAVE read what Scripture has to say about it. God is uncreated. Period. No more speculation needed. The Bible declares that God has eternally existed and will eternally exist. I gave you a whole host of verses that support this. If you believe the Bible, you should know now, too. I never have claimed to know everything, but I certainly do make the "arrogant" claim to know SOMETHING, namely what God clearly and in no uncertain terms has revealed about Himself. The reason I have been so "negative" toward you, as you put it, is revealed by what you yourself have said: "However the bible I have not read it in its entirety. however I can But As A Child of God Limit My believes on Only the Bible." Whatever that second sentence is supposed to mean, the first one is perfectly clear: you are not only asking questions about God that are answered clearly in Scripture; but also you are instructing others on this forum to look at fallen, sinful humanity to discover the answers, rather than examining the Scriptures. If you cannot take correction, I apologize, but 2 Timothy 3:16 in my Bible tells me that correction is one thing that the Bible is for. I think it is you who are being prideful for not admitting your theological error here. I certainly do not know it all, but I am more than willing to let God's Word, in the hands of those who know it, be the instrument to correct me. --Joe! |
||||||
64 | For Joe. | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 16244 | ||
Corection is helping for those who will receive it. We do not learn anything about God outside of the Bible that is not already revealed in Scripture period. Your low opinion of the sufficiency of Scripture is the root of your confusion. I still agree that I do not know it all. You did read my post, didn't you? When people couldn't read they were at the mercy of the faulty and self-seeking interpretations of a religious hierarchy. It was spiritual bondage, not spiritual freedom. God is revealed in nature, yes. However, there is nothing new that nature tells us that the Bible doesn't already say. Bottom line: spiritual growth does not occur apart from the Scriptures, which is God's direct revelation of Himself. Want to know God's character, His nature, and His plans? Read the Bible! Want to know about human nature? Read the Bible! Want to know how to honor God? Read the Bible. Want to know how to pray more effectively and intelligently? You get the idea... Peeches, I do not despise you or look down on you as a human being, but it is simply WRONG for you to declare that the Bible which God gave us Himself is not enough for the believer. It is WRONG. It suggests that God somehow "dropped the ball" and forgot to tell us something that He wanted us to know. Furthermore, it is an insult to the Holy Spirit who inspired the Bible precisely so that we would know Him. He makes the book available to us, and you put it aside and think, Where can I find answers?" I implore you to look for spiritual truth not OUTSIDE the Bible, but within its pages. And that is a point of view most on this forum would heartily agree with. In Christ, Joe! |
||||||
65 | For Joe. | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 16248 | ||
Charis: I agree with what you say about the Bible, the church, and the Holy Spirit. I am sure that you agree, also, that the Bible is our tool for discerning whether it is truly the Spirit who is working. I also would bet that you believe that when a church and the Bible are at odds, it is most likely time to find another church. In other words, the Bible is our sole objective, immutable authority for knowing God. It requires the Spirit's teaching us (John 14:26), and faithful misisters proclaiming God's truth are definitely a gift from Him (thanks be to God for them!); but the whole Christian life for us in the post-apostolic age is centered in the completed canon. When I was referring to illiteracy and the unavailability of Scripture, I was referring to the Middle Ages and pre-Reformation Renaissance more than the early church. Certainly God has preserved His people throughout history, many of whom have very little access to Scriptual truth of any kind. But the Scriptural truth that they go get is what they cling to. Think of Chinese Christians who have one Bible for about every 500 believers. These are people who do not so casually put aside the Word of God. They THIRST after it in a way I have seen few believers in free countries thirst after it. They have the Spirit. They are congregated. But it is the Bible that makes the Christian growth complete. The problem that I am addressing however, is the notion that the Bible is "not enough" in some sense, that we must rely on other, outside sources for a complete knowledge of God. This leads to lots of errors on the part of the original poster, which mostly center around the apparent opinion that mankind is basically good and clearly reflects God's nature in our humanitarian deeds. "Good" deeds such as the rescue attempts in NYC, while they are helpful and are making a temporal difference in our world (and I DO support the efforts, so save the flames, onlookers!), also can be done from very humanistic, and God-dishonoring motives. It does not reflect the "innate goodness" of the human race, which you know the Bible denies (Romans 3:10-18). The Bible is the only thing we have which unmistakably conveys the nature of God, and looking at humanity as a whole without a knowledge of the Bible is the most ridiculous way of learning about God's character. But I am sure that I am speaking to the choir here... --Joe! |
||||||
66 | peace | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 16671 | ||
Peches: I really have no animosity toward you whatsoever, and as a gesture of peace I would love to send you a little book called "Why God's Word is All We Need" by Gene Edward Veith. It is only about 50 pages long, and if you email me your address, I would be happy to send it as a gift for you to read and perhaps understand why I have the view that the Bible is completely sufficient for us. My email is on my profile. In Christ, --Joe! |
||||||
67 | Possible Lockman Forum Improvements #2 | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 18065 | ||
I suppose my question would be, What is a neutral perspective? Once you start getting beyond the very basics of the Christian faith, we delve into areas that are incredibly shaped by one's theological perspective. Whether one is asking how can a loving, all-powerful God permit the terrorist attacks in New York City; or how (and even IF) he can be assured of his salvation, different traditions within Christianity will come into play. The answers will conflict at times. Should we all "agree to disagree," and in essence say that the answers do not really matter? Debate is something that has characterized the church from its very beginning. Without wrangling at the Council of Jerusalem recorded in the book of Acts, where would the Gentile believers be today? What about the Council of Nicaea in the fourth century, in which the historic Christian understanding of the Trinity was codified? Reasoned debate and discussion has led to most of the beliefs we cherish (or should cherish) today as followers of Christ. To avoid debate is to constantly wade in the shallow end of the pool, theologically speaking. I agree that repetition is not necessary in written discussion or debate, except in the case of summary or to particularly emphasize a point. However, to shun debate in order to falsely present a consensus on all issues is nothing less than deception. We debate, sometimes vigorously, not necessarily because we are contentious beings, but rather because the issues on this forum do bear a lot of importance. The online debate between Tim Moran and myself, for example (even though I think he is as wrong as he thinks I am), has served both to help me clarify my own thinking and understand the perspectives of others. My biggest complaint regarding debate is the way that soem conduct it. We are not engaged in a presentation of opinions or of theology with no clear Biblical basis. What irks me is that in debate here we see such a scarcity of actual references to the Word of God. I see a lot of "I believe this" or "I grew up under pastors who teach this" with little or no Scriptural support. When the debate turns to the Bible, often one of the debaters turns to ad hominem attacks rather than critiques of the theological perspective being put forward. If you do not like rigorous, in-depth discussion of the more profound questions raised here, that is fine. One is not forced to read the threads on here. However, unless the discussion is clearly not Bible-related or is obscene or inappropriate in some manner, let's all please realize that on unmoderated forums such as this, what we see here is par for the course. Feel free to debate with me on my point of view. My skin is thick enough to take it! :) --Joe! |
||||||
68 | Possible Lockman Forum Improvements #2 | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 18089 | ||
Ed: I think that there are very few seekers that frequent this virtual establishment. There is not going to be a consensus of opinion, no matter what. I have even been called an arrogant know-it-all here for holding to such radical ideas as the idea that God is uncreated and the sufficiency of Scripture to reveal God to humanity and justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. I think you misunderstood the rest of my post. I was actually agreeing with you that a "neutral summation" is impossible. I also am not keen on "agreeing to disagree," as you yourself can personally attest. There does come a time when a debate is exhausted, but is one person's annoyance the basis for terminating discussion? I hold that this forum is not primarily evangelical in nature, but exists primarioly to spur one another on...to challenge and edify fellow believers. What I was saying is that the inability to convince one another of our opinion should not be a deterrent to presenting ones view and (here's the key:) SUPPORTING IT WITH SCRIPTURE. If I had a dime for every time a person cried "foul" or attacked my motives or character when I asked a simple rebuttal question based on a Scripture passage, I could finance my own Bible translation! --Joe! |
||||||
69 | Possible Lockman Forum Improvements #2 | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 18090 | ||
Civility and FREE WILL?!? Here we go again... :) --Joe! |
||||||
70 | How do we know the Bible is the truth? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 18133 | ||
Steve: The Book of Mormon also says that it is true. Is it? --Joe! |
||||||
71 | How do we know the Bible is the truth? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 18136 | ||
It makes sense to me. You were not able to accept/realize the truth of the Bible until you were born again. Those who are not Christians suppress the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18). However, the Bible itself is truth even if 100 percent of humanity were to deny its truth. --Joe! |
||||||
72 | How do we know the Bible is the truth? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 18152 | ||
Steve: The first page of the Book of Mormon contains a "testimony of three witnesses" and a "testimony of eight witnesses" which claim that they themselves saw the plates from heaven from which Joseph Smith allegedly translated the Book of Mormon. In addition, the text itself makes the claim that what is written there is true. It is standard operating procedure for Mormon missionaries to ask potential converts to pray over the Book of Mormon to be convinced of its truth based on the following verse: "And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost." --Moroni 10:4 Another LDS document considered to be inerrant and inspired Scripture is Doctrine and Covenants, which states: "And again, I command thee that thou shalt not covet thine own property, but impart it freely to the printing of the Book of Mormon, which contains the truth and the word of God" --Doctrine and Covenants 19:26 Both of these claim that the Book of Mormon is true. I don't really understand how you seem to say that such a claim would be a test for truth anyway. If I wrote a book saying I created the universe and included the phrase, "all that is written here is truth," would that make it so? That was the original intent of my question. --Joe! P.S. Am I the first person to quote cult scripture here? There should be something like that on the Statistics page! :) |
||||||
73 | How do we know the Bible is the truth? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 18153 | ||
Lionstrong: I wasn't arguing that it is not VALID to point out that Scripture says that it is true. My argument was that a document's claim to be true is not a sufficient test of that document's truth. --Joe! |
||||||
74 | How do we know the Bible is the truth? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 18168 | ||
My point exactly! --Joe! |
||||||
75 | Possible Lockman Forum Improvements #2 | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 18193 | ||
Ed: No offense taken at the misreading. It happens! I certainly didn't think there was any malice there. You are also correct at the dangers of individuals doing the "maverick" interpretations with their Bibles. When the Protestant Reformation gave the Bible back to the laity, the Reformers certainly didn't consider that it would be a great idea for everyone to run off and figure everything out for themselves. God gave us the church (the church universal and invisible) so that TOGETHER we can correctly come to correct interpretations of the Bible. The notion of "private interpretation" simply meant that we do not rely on a religious hierarchy to tell us what God is saying to us. That is one of the great things about this forum. Despite the fact that we often rub each other the wrong way and will not come to a complete consensus on major (yet not salvific) issues, together with our different educational levels and perspectives and backgrounds we are learning about each other and from each other. Ever since God started saving Gentiles, there has been a lack of complete agreement on issues. Some of them, like the Judaizers, fell under the category of heresy. Others, like whether to eat this or that, did not place someone outside the brotherhood of Christ. In any case, our great God in his sovereign grace has preserved the bride of Christ despite our misunderstandings and imperfections and differences of opinion. This is who we are as a church. What better picture to paint for the newcomer to the forum than that one? --Joe! P.S. I do long for the time when we will stand together, glorified, and you all see things my way! :) |
||||||
76 | Christian Primer Terms? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 18211 | ||
Charis: Of course, I don't know your situation intimately, but have you considered that the lack of fruit may not be from a poor EXPLANATION of theology, but rather the way it is PROCLAIMED? What are the "tried and true" methods that you mention in your post that have been ineffective in stemming the decline in church membership? One thing I can tell you from the experiences I have here is that true revival is not likely to result from the "new wave of programs, etc." One thing that you know will work is the proclamation of God's Word (Romans 1:16-17). The proclamation of the Gospel, whether there are any beels, whistles, dramas, or whatever, is the ONLY thing that will be the means of convicting the Japanese of their sinfulness before a holy God and direct them to Jesus Christ as the only mediator between them and that God. I guess that rather than go on, I would like a better perspective of your situation. What do the Christian churches do to get the Word out to the Japanese, "to hit them where they live," so to speak? As Augustine put it, "Our souls are restless until they find their rest in Thee." No matter how much they suppress the truth, their souls are indeed restless, because they were created for relationship with God. I guess what I am wanting to learn in order to expand my knowledge of the situation is what have been the failed efforts in your experience? How would such traditional methods such as street preaching without "gimmicks" work? Tracts which speak of God's holiness and our sinfulness and need of repentance? What is the attitude of those who are going to church as far as proclaiming the Gospel to those in their spheres of influence. Revival will come when and where the Holy Spirit brings it about. The possibility exists that you may be doing everything right and they are rejecting the Gospel. However, the preaching of God's Word is the primary means that God uses to draw the elect to Himself. You are right that every nation has it's own situation in the particulars. But as human beings, we at the core all have the same situation. The obstacles may manifest themselves in different ways, but at the heart is the depravity of man, which only the regeneration by the Holy Spirit can overcome. Knowing the particulars in Japan's culture, how can you most effectively strike at the heart of their secularism and unbelief? Take a cue from Paul in Acts 17. In the meantime, I would love to know some of the particulars myself, so please share some specifics of your struggles so that we can learn more about the struggles of the church in Japan and how to pray effectively for you. --Joe! |
||||||
77 | Christian Primer Terms? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 18227 | ||
Charis: Thanks for sharing about the work habits of the Japanese. I had never even thought of that as an avenue for communicating God's truth. So many things come into play there for the Christian to address. Here are some that I can think of right off hand: 1. Gaining the whole world, and yet losing your soul (Matthew 16:26; Mark 8:36) 2. Biblical admonitions of raising one's child (too many references there to cite) 3. Christian marriage (1 Peter 3; Ephesians 5) 4. Counting all things as loss for the sake of Christ (Philippians 3). I would suspect that this would be quite a powerful one, since Saul was on the fact track to executive status when he met his Maker on the road to Damascus :) 5. Ecclesiastes. Need I say more? :) 6. And, of course, bringing it all back to God's holiness, our sin, judgment, and the Cross... You know without a doubt that the Bible stands completely contrary to the lifestyle of the Japanese middle class (in a different way than it does in the U.S., in many respects). What an opportunity you have to advocate the Christian "counterculture" there! What a marked difference those who are following Christ will make there! Perhaps a very effective approach would not be to try and find in-roads into the culture (blending Christianity ino the culture), but rather stressing it as a way of life completely contrary to the lifestyle of the Japanese world. This is certainly not going to cause those who will continue to love the world to embrace Christianity, but that is the idea, isn't it? First John in living, breathing, 3-D. And, as you can undoubtedly attest, a task for which only the Holy Spirit is equal... Thanks for sharing! --Joe! "For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, 'BUT THE RIGHTEOUS man SHALL LIVE BY FAITH.'" --Romans 1:16-17 |
||||||
78 | Christian Primer Terms? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 18314 | ||
Kalos: You wrote: "To repent ACTUALLY means *to change the way you think and act.* (It does NOT mean merely to feel badly about one's sins. Nor does it mean confession by itself. As a condition for salvation, repentance 'is a false addition to faith when understood as a *prerequisite,* requiring the cleansing of the life [first] in order to be saved' (Dr. Charles C. Ryrie, Ryrie Study Bible, Moody Press, 1978)." I found it interesting that you apporvingly quoted Ryrie's stance on what repentance is when you seem to stand with MacArthur and so many others who disagree with this view. The word "metanoia" (repentance) literally means "a change in thinking." I disagree that repentance itself is the change in actions; it is a change in attitude toward sin that will inevitably RESULT in a change of actions. I hold that repentance is a gift of God that accompanies saving faith. Ryrie and Zane Hodges and others actually hold to a very weak view of repentance which doesn't necessarily mean any change of life at all. Most historically have held that repentance is a component of all true conversion. In Eastern Europe and Russia and other places in the world, they will actually use the term "repent" to describe their conversion. Rather than saying, "I was saved at age 30," Christians in this part of the world will say "I repented at age 30." Ryrie and Hodges hold that people who are saved can go through their entire lives and not show the marks of true salvation. For Ryrie, the biblical idea of repentence is not only not a prerequisite; it isn't truly necessary at all! And, of course, that denies several Scriptures which emphatically state that repentance is a part of saving faith and that the Christian will exhibit a markedly different life than the unregenerate: Jeremiah 8:6 Ezekiel 18:30 Matthew 3:2-11; 11:21; 12:41 Mark 1:15 Luke 13:1-5; 15:1-10; 24:47 Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31 (who GRANTS repentance?); 11:18; 26:20 Romans 2:4-5 2 Corinthians 7:9-10; 12:21 2 Timothy 2:25 2 Peter 3:9 I have even heard people in the so-called "free-grace" vein go so far as to say that murderers can go on murdering, homosexuals can go on practicing homosexuality, thieves can go on stealing (and I would assume that cannibals could even go on eating), all without repentance and still be heaven bound because they have professed Jesus as their SAVIOR. What do Jesus and the apostles say? "So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit." Matthew 7:17-18 "Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad; for the tree is known by its fruit." Matthew 12:33 "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God." --1 Corinthians 6:9-10 "Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God." --Galatians 5:19-21 "Do not love the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world. The world is passing away, and also its lusts; but the one who does the will of God lives forever." 1 John 2:15-17 "Little children, make sure no one deceives you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous; the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil. No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother." --1 John 3:7-10 Sorry to belabor the point, but here inthe United States in particular is this evil notion that repentance and saving faith are mutually exclusive concepts. Repentance is not a work any more than intellectual belief in the facts of the Gospel is; hoever, repentance is inextricably linked to true, saving faith and will produce good fruit and the decrease of sin in the believer. --Joe! |
||||||
79 | Christian Primer Terms? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 18328 | ||
Kalos: Thanks for your reply. While I do not have a direct quote from Ryrie handy, this view is expressed clearly in his book "So Great Salvation" which I do not own but have read in its entirety. Basically, Ryrie's view seemed to be not that there would be NO fruit, but it would be possible for the believer in Christ to bear fruit that would never be detected by him or others. The way he put it in the book was merely that "some how, some way, in some fashion, some fruit would be produced." I am sorry I cannot give you a more precise quote at this time, but I will look into it and get back to you. It isn't a view that he is apologetic or cryptic about, in any case. The problem I have with the view is that it seems that we will know true believers by their fruit. The fruit is there to demonstrate the fitness of the tree to all who are in its presence. I agree that we are justified by faith alone. Where Ryrie differs from me and many others is exactly WHAT the nature of saving faith is. I hold that repentence is not a work, but the "other side of the coin" --turning from embracing ourselves and the world and turning to embrace Christ. I also see no indication that repentance in a Biblical sense is merely "changing one's mind about who Christ is." How does Ryrie support that with Scripture? Repentence always seems to be FROM sins and selfishness, never a solely intellectual exercise. One other thing: I would be interested to understand how you reconcile all of those verses I cited with Ryrie's view? Thanks again. Going to a wedding now. More later! --Joe! |
||||||
80 | Christian Primer Terms? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 18363 | ||
Kalos: I found the quote I was talking about in an online review of MacArthur's "Gospel According to Jesus" and Ryrie's "So Great Salvation," which itself was intended to be a rebuttal of MacArthur's work. The quote itself is found on page 45 of Ryrie's book. I would encourage you to read this review, as the problems I had with Ryrie's work are reflected quite well. After reading Ryrie's book, I was left wondering if he and I had ben reading the same book he was talking about. He takes MacArthur's statements out of context and tries to equate "Lordship Salvation" with legalistic works-righteousness, which it is not. In any case, here is the link to the review, which I hope many on this forum will take a glance at the following link, replacing the [TILDE] in the address with a tilde (the Spanish quiggly thing above the 'n" -- the forum won't let us include it in posts) http://www.rapidnet.com/[TILDE]jbeard/bdm/BookReviews/gospel.htm And again, the thing that bothers me the most about RYrie's view that a Christian does not necessarily ever exhibit a changed life are the statements found in 1 John, 1 Peter, Hebrews, James, etc., that place such emphasis on practical righteousness (not SINLESSNESS) as a mark of salvation. I grew up in churches that taught Ryrie's theology; it always seemed that pastors either avoid teaching extensively on these books or go to great links to say, "well, it seems that John was saying this, but what he REALLY meant was that." And that is no way to teach the Bible! --Joe! |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [97] >> |