Donations for the month of December


We have received a total of "$25" in donations towards our goal of $175.


Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Search

Member Spotlight
Pilgrim
Pilgrim
NH, USA
Posts: 13,853
Joined: April 2001
Show All Member Profiles 
Forum Statistics
Forums30
Topics7,105
Posts52,626
Members951
Most Online523
Jan 14th, 2020
Top Posters(All Time)
Pilgrim 13,853
Tom 3,896
chestnutmare 3,043
J_Edwards 2,615
Wes 1,856
John_C 1,803
RJ_ 1,582
MarieP 1,579
gotribe 1,060
Top Posters(30 Days)
Tom 11
Recent Posts
Worship in the Covid19 age
by ATulipNotADaisy. Wed Dec 02, 2020 9:43 PM
Counted Righteous In Christ ~ R.C. Sproul
by Rick Bates. Wed Dec 02, 2020 9:35 AM
A Direct Threat to Christian Education
by Tom. Sun Nov 29, 2020 6:06 PM
An Accusation against Amil
by Tom. Tue Nov 24, 2020 4:47 PM
Dr. Jay Adams
by Tom. Wed Nov 18, 2020 8:53 PM
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Hop To
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Re: Praying for the Dead (Purgatory) [Re: Young Catholic] #36772
Thu Jun 21, 2007 11:20 PM
Thu Jun 21, 2007 11:20 PM
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
Virginia
CovenantInBlood Offline
Persnickety Presbyterian
CovenantInBlood  Offline
Persnickety Presbyterian

Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
Virginia
Quote
I would also point out that the Catholic Church has recended the doctrine of Limbo.


As far as I know it's still a permitted opinion, despite some sensational news stories over a year ago. The point is that these sorts of opinions, having no scriptural warrant and so many being directly contrary to scripture, have proliferated within the Catholic Church because Rome does not stand on Scripture alone as the infallible word of God.


Kyle

I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
Re: Praying for the Dead (Purgatory) [Re: CovenantInBlood] #36773
Fri Jun 22, 2007 10:26 AM
Fri Jun 22, 2007 10:26 AM
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 37
NC
Young Catholic Offline
Newbie
Young Catholic  Offline
Newbie
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 37
NC
Quote
having no scriptural warrant


There are many teachings both Catholic and Protestant that are Extra-Biblical

Quote

because Rome does not stand on Scripture alone as the infallible word of God.


Quote
This Holy Bible is like no other book, because no other book has God for its principal author
-Father Jaime Pazat De Lys (A very conservative priest)

While you won't find anyone reasonable in Rome who would say the original Bible isn't inerrant as it is the word of God inspired through the blessed writers- Rome is weary to proclaim that all Bibles are infallible for one simple reasons- translations.

Hebrew -> Greek -> Latin -> German -> English -> tons of translations (NIV, NKJV, LB, NASB...etc)

The question begs itself: were the translators of the Bible through all these stages given the inspiration and blessing of God? Rome doesn't think so- especially with such bibles as the NIV (My priest jokingly calls it the Nearly Inspired Version) which has come under attack by many biblical scholars (both protestant and catholic) for some questionable translations. Things get lost in translation- that's quite easy to accept, especially being a Latin student- and you can't except for some versions to be infallible. The "Modern" NIV version that briefly came out that made the bible politically correct comes to mind (they refer to God as he/she, say human kind, etc...) <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/Banghead.gif" alt="" />

Also, a less subtle change came from the translation from the Vulgate to German by Martin Luther when he added the word "Alone" to "Being therefore justified by faith"
That's a pretty big change right there.

Last edited by Young Catholic; Fri Jun 22, 2007 10:28 AM.

Gloria Patri et Filii et Spiritu Sancti, Amen!

"For I know the thoughts that I think towards you, saith the Lord, thoughts of peace, and not of affliction, to give you an end and patience. "
Re: Praying for the Dead (Purgatory) [Re: Young Catholic] #36774
Sat Jun 23, 2007 1:18 AM
Sat Jun 23, 2007 1:18 AM
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
Virginia
CovenantInBlood Offline
Persnickety Presbyterian
CovenantInBlood  Offline
Persnickety Presbyterian

Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
Virginia
Quote
There are many teachings both Catholic and Protestant that are Extra-Biblical


I am well aware. But two things: 1) I am not, nor is this board, a generalized version of Protestantism; and 2) we were discussing specifically Catholic doctrines, and a specifically Catholic problem which is related to the Roman Church's dogmatic foundations.

Quote
While you won't find anyone reasonable in Rome who would say the original Bible isn't inerrant as it is the word of God inspired through the blessed writers- Rome is weary to proclaim that all Bibles are infallible for one simple reasons- translations.


Kinda like the Mormons. But the real problem for Rome is not one of Bible translations, it's one of dogmatic foundations on patristic, conciliar, and papal theology and traditions.

Quote
Hebrew -> Greek -> Latin -> German -> English -> tons of translations (NIV, NKJV, LB, NASB...etc)


Many modern "translations" are no such thing. But those that are actually translations, such as the NASB, aren't translating Hebrew to Greek to Latin to German to English. They're translating Hebrew to English and Greek to English (using the LXX and early Vulgate for comparison). There are certainly places where English rendering can be challenged, but we're not leagues and leagues away from the original texts. Faithful modern translations contain the same word of God, and it is only prevarication to say otherwise -- as though semantic barriers between languages were so thick they could never be overcome to any significant degree. Honestly, does Rome treat the early church fathers the same way? "Well, we can't be entirely sure that this is really what they meant because something is always lost in translation, you know."

Quote
Also, a less subtle change came from the translation from the Vulgate to German by Martin Luther when he added the word "Alone" to "Being therefore justified by faith"
That's a pretty big change right there.


More a gloss than a mistranslation. But Martin Luther's translation is not the issue.


Kyle

I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
Re: Praying for the Dead (Purgatory) [Re: Young Catholic] #36775
Sat Jun 23, 2007 6:19 AM
Sat Jun 23, 2007 6:19 AM
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,803
Mississippi Gulf Coast
John_C Offline

Permanent Resident
John_C  Offline

Permanent Resident
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,803
Mississippi Gulf Coast
YC,

Just want to speak of this.

Quote
Young Catholic said:
Quote
This Holy Bible is like no other book, because no other book has God for its principal author
-Father Jaime Pazat De Lys (A very conservative priest)

While you won't find anyone reasonable in Rome who would say the original Bible isn't inerrant as it is the word of God inspired through the blessed writers- Rome is weary to proclaim that all Bibles are infallible for one simple reasons- translations.


What did Pazat meant by using the phrase "God for its principal author"? Who are the less prinicipal authors of Scripture?

It appears as if that is a partial inerrantist position without the argument of failed translations.


John Chaney

"having been firmly rooted and now being built up in Him and established in your faith . . ." Colossians 2:7
Re: Praying for the Dead (Purgatory) [Re: Young Catholic] #36776
Sat Jun 23, 2007 11:02 AM
Sat Jun 23, 2007 11:02 AM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,853
NH, USA
Pilgrim Online content

Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Online Content

Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,853
NH, USA
Quote
Young Catholic said:
Also, a less subtle change came from the translation from the Vulgate to German by Martin Luther when he added the word "Alone" to "Being therefore justified by faith"
That's a pretty big change right there.

[Linked Image] The subject is "Praying for the dead".

However, to answer your erroneous conclusion re: Luther's "alone" with the perhaps impetus to have you start a new thread, Luther simply stated what the Scripture is teaching. For, how else would one render Paul's statements, e.g.:


Galatians 2:16 (ASV) "yet knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we believed on Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the law: because by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified."

Galatians 3:22-24 (ASV) "But the scriptures shut up all things under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. But before faith came, we were kept in ward under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. So that the law is become our tutor [to bring us] unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith."

Romans 3:21-26 (ASV) "But now apart from the law a righteousness of God hath been manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ unto all them that believe; for there is no distinction; for all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God; being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: whom God set forth [to be] a propitiation, through faith, in his blood, to show his righteousness because of the passing over of the sins done aforetime, in the forbearance of God; for the showing, [I say], of his righteousness at this present season: that he might himself be just, and the justifier of him that hath faith in Jesus. . . (28) We reckon therefore that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law."


In all of Paul's writings, he contrasts faith vs. works of the law and consistently shows that salvation is by faith (alone), i.e., faith and nothing else (alone). Thus, Luther didn't add to the Scriptures by insisting that salvation is by faith alone. He was simply stating what the Scriptures incontrovertibly teach.

Again, IF you are of the mind to discuss/debate "Sola Fide", then please start a new thread in the Theology Forum. [Linked Image]

In His grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Re: Praying for the Dead (Purgatory) [Re: CovenantInBlood] #36777
Sat Jun 23, 2007 1:19 PM
Sat Jun 23, 2007 1:19 PM
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 37
NC
Young Catholic Offline
Newbie
Young Catholic  Offline
Newbie
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 37
NC
Quote
What did Pazat meant by using the phrase "God for its principal author"? Who are the less prinicipal authors of Scripture?

It appears as if that is a partial inerrantist position without the argument of failed translations.


His meaning here is to point out that the scriptures were inspired by God and to proclaim that the Bible is God's Word.

Quote
Honestly, does Rome treat the early church fathers the same way?


Not at all- most of the Church Fathers spoke in latin- a tounge very familiar to the Roman Church.

Quote
But the real problem for Rome is not one of Bible translations, it's one of dogmatic foundations on patristic, conciliar, and papal theology and traditions.


That's a terrible claim to make about the Roman Church. If you were talking about the Mideval church- I might let you off with such a generalization- but the modern Church- no. While there are obviously some conservative factions in Rome (what denomination doesn't have such factions?) the problem is not politically and traditionally. The Catholic Church does not have problems with modern translations as long as they are accurate translations. In fact, the Bible I have with me now is the NAB (CE).

Quote
More a gloss than a mistranslation. But Martin Luther's translation is not the issue.


I am merely reminding people of the fact that translators are always free to add their own thoughts about the passage and do not always stick to just translating the text.


Gloria Patri et Filii et Spiritu Sancti, Amen!

"For I know the thoughts that I think towards you, saith the Lord, thoughts of peace, and not of affliction, to give you an end and patience. "
Re: Praying for the Dead (Purgatory) [Re: Young Catholic] #36778
Sat Jun 23, 2007 2:01 PM
Sat Jun 23, 2007 2:01 PM
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
Virginia
CovenantInBlood Offline
Persnickety Presbyterian
CovenantInBlood  Offline
Persnickety Presbyterian

Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
Virginia
Quote
Young Catholic said:
Quote
Honestly, does Rome treat the early church fathers the same way?


Not at all- most of the Church Fathers spoke in latin- a tounge very familiar to the Roman Church.


So I presume all of the scholars in the Roman Church speak Latin as their native tongue and nothing is "lost in translation"? The Greek Orthodox claim that, because they still speak Greek, they alone are capable of properly understanding the New Testament and Septuagint.

Quote
Quote
But the real problem for Rome is not one of Bible translations, it's one of dogmatic foundations on patristic, conciliar, and papal theology and traditions.


That's a terrible claim to make about the Roman Church. If you were talking about the Mideval church- I might let you off with such a generalization- but the modern Church- no. While there are obviously some conservative factions in Rome (what denomination doesn't have such factions?) the problem is not politically and traditionally.


What's terrible about it? Vatican II was a council. John Paul II was, and Benedict XVI is, a pope. And certainly patristic theology is still influential. But the dogmatic foundations of the Roman Church are not Scripture; Scripture is mostly filtered through a thick haze of Magisterium.

Quote
The Catholic Church does not have problems with modern translations as long as they are accurate translations. In fact, the Bible I have with me now is the NAB (CE).


Like I said, the Roman Church's problem is not Bible translations.

Quote
I am merely reminding people of the fact that translators are always free to add their own thoughts about the passage and do not always stick to just translating the text.


No, what you were doing was implicitly undermining the trustworthniness of translations of the Bible in general.


Kyle

I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
Re: Praying for the Dead (Purgatory) [Re: CovenantInBlood] #36779
Sat Jun 23, 2007 2:41 PM
Sat Jun 23, 2007 2:41 PM
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 37
NC
Young Catholic Offline
Newbie
Young Catholic  Offline
Newbie
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 37
NC
Quote
So I presume all of the scholars in the Roman Church speak Latin as their native tongue and nothing is "lost in translation"? The Greek Orthodox claim that, because they still speak Greek, they alone are capable of properly understanding the New Testament and Septuagint


Anyone who can read a language can obviously better understand the meaning of the text in that language than someone who is reading it from a translator.

Quote
What's terrible about it? Vatican II was a council. John Paul II was, and Benedict XVI is, a pope. And certainly patristic theology is still influential. But the dogmatic foundations of the Roman Church are not Scripture; Scripture is mostly filtered through a thick haze of Magisterium.


I suppose then your respective denomination is built solely on scripture? I doubt it- there are practically no denominations that have solely-biblical ideals for one simple reason- the Bible doesn't tell us everything nor was it meant to.


Quote
No, what you were doing was implicitly undermining the trustworthniness of translations of the Bible in general.


Not at all- my point was a counter-point to your comment that was made about my observation about Martin Luther. My point is that it is important to remember the individual's goal in translation- his motives, bias, etc. No one can deny that quite a few translations have had things added to them to advocate their theological view.

As with any literary work- we must remember the bias of the person translating/writing the work. Sometimes, there is little bias, sometimes there is great bias. We should always remember that when we read. (Sire addresses this issue in wonderful detail in his book "How to Read Slowly")

Last edited by Young Catholic; Sat Jun 23, 2007 2:42 PM.

Gloria Patri et Filii et Spiritu Sancti, Amen!

"For I know the thoughts that I think towards you, saith the Lord, thoughts of peace, and not of affliction, to give you an end and patience. "
Re: Praying for the Dead (Purgatory) [Re: Young Catholic] #36780
Sun Jun 24, 2007 10:10 PM
Sun Jun 24, 2007 10:10 PM
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
Virginia
CovenantInBlood Offline
Persnickety Presbyterian
CovenantInBlood  Offline
Persnickety Presbyterian

Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
Virginia
Quote
Young Catholic said:
Anyone who can read a language can obviously better understand the meaning of the text in that language than someone who is reading it from a translator.


That doesn't automatically make the work of translation less reliable. And if the Bible is to be available to everyone, either everyone must learn to read Ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek, or the texts must be translated.

Quote
I suppose then your respective denomination is built solely on scripture? I doubt it- there are practically no denominations that have solely-biblical ideals for one simple reason- the Bible doesn't tell us everything nor was it meant to.


The rules of faith and the practice of religion are derived from Scripture primarily and foundationally. There are subordinate documents that are used as summaries of biblical doctrine, but the Bible is always the first authority. There is nothing set up on par with Scripture, not any tradition or magisterium.

Quote
Quote
No, what you were doing was implicitly undermining the trustworthniness of translations of the Bible in general.


Not at all- my point was a counter-point to your comment that was made about my observation about Martin Luther. My point is that it is important to remember the individual's goal in translation- his motives, bias, etc. No one can deny that quite a few translations have had things added to them to advocate their theological view.


Which was a supporting argument in favor of your view that we can't hold translations of Scripture as actually communicating the word of God (thus implicitly undermining the trustworthiness of translations in general).


Kyle

I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
Re: Praying for the Dead (Purgatory) [Re: CovenantInBlood] #36781
Mon Jun 25, 2007 11:42 AM
Mon Jun 25, 2007 11:42 AM
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 37
NC
Young Catholic Offline
Newbie
Young Catholic  Offline
Newbie
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 37
NC
Quote
That doesn't automatically make the work of translation less reliable. And if the Bible is to be available to everyone, either everyone must learn to read Ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek, or the texts must be translated.


Indeed- my point is that one must obviously be careful about what translations they use- there are obviously more reliable translations than others.

Quote
Which was a supporting argument in favor of your view that we can't hold translations of Scripture as actually communicating the word of God (thus implicitly undermining the trustworthiness of translations in general).


My point is that we must be careful to make sure that the translations of the scriptures we are reading are accurate.


Gloria Patri et Filii et Spiritu Sancti, Amen!

"For I know the thoughts that I think towards you, saith the Lord, thoughts of peace, and not of affliction, to give you an end and patience. "
Re: Praying for the Dead (Purgatory) [Re: Young Catholic] #36782
Mon Jun 25, 2007 12:39 PM
Mon Jun 25, 2007 12:39 PM
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,856
Northwest Indiana, USA
Wes Offline
Needs to get a Life
Wes  Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,856
Northwest Indiana, USA
Quote
Young Catholic said:

My point is that we must be careful to make sure that the translations of the scriptures we are reading are accurate.


How do you as a Roman Catholic understand a verse like 2 Peter 1:20?

"knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation,"

Based on this verse I seem to remember that the Catholic church has taught that laymen shouldn't try to interpret Scripture for himself but rather rely on a Priest to explain it to him. Has that changed?


Wes


When I survey the wondrous cross on which the Prince of Glory died, my richest gain I count but loss and pour contempt on all my pride. - Isaac Watts
Re: Praying for the Dead (Purgatory) [Re: Young Catholic] #36783
Mon Jun 25, 2007 1:04 PM
Mon Jun 25, 2007 1:04 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,853
NH, USA
Pilgrim Online content

Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Online Content

Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,853
NH, USA
Quote
Young Catholic said:
Anyone who can read a language can obviously better understand the meaning of the text in that language than someone who is reading it from a translator.

Not necessarily! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/nono.gif" alt="" /> How many people do you know that have been born in, let's say the United States, where the accepted language is English but who have little grasp of English compared to a foreigner who immigrates to the States, learns the language and consequently has a far better grasp of English grammar than the natural born individual?

Secondly, case and point... when I studied Koine Greek there was an exchange student in the class from Greece. Doubtless his native language was Greek but I tell you, he had to study nearly as much as we English-speaking men because Koine Greek grammar is decidedly different than Modern Greek and the vocabulary was also different.

Lastly, since there are no individuals current alive who lived during the 1st century and spoke Koine Greek, Aramaic and ancient Hebrew, all translators are forced to learn those languages before taking upon the task of translating them. I am more than confident that my Greek professors were as fluent in that language than those who had mastered the language in the 1st century. Thus their translations of the sacred text can be relied up to be accurate.

Quote
Young Catholic said:
My point is that it is important to remember the individual's goal in translation- his motives, bias, etc. No one can deny that quite a few translations have had things added to them to advocate their theological view.

Most of us here would have no argument with this statement. Many of us, myself especially reject the validity of ANY and ALL translations which are based upon "Dynamic Equivalence" methodology. I will accept as a starting point only those translations which are based upon "Formal Equivalence". And from there, those translations can be scrutinized as to "bias", translator "liberty", etc.

But again..... this is [Linked Image] Thus, IF you wish to further this topic of the reliability of translations, methodology of translation, divine inspiration, the authority of Scripture, etc., etc..... please start a new thread relevant to what it is you wish to pursue. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In His grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Re: Praying for the Dead (Purgatory) [Re: Wes] #36784
Mon Jun 25, 2007 1:57 PM
Mon Jun 25, 2007 1:57 PM
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 37
NC
Young Catholic Offline
Newbie
Young Catholic  Offline
Newbie
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 37
NC
The context of this, in my personal opinion and may not represent the view of the Roman Catholic Church (I believe all those disclaimers are good enough <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bigglasses.gif" alt="" /> ), is that the verse you mention seems to be talking about the fact that those who wrote the Bible did not write it so under personal inspiration, rather through the inspiration of God and through his Holy Spirit. So all the interpretation of Biblical properties is from the Spirit- not the writer.

Last edited by Young Catholic; Mon Jun 25, 2007 1:58 PM.

Gloria Patri et Filii et Spiritu Sancti, Amen!

"For I know the thoughts that I think towards you, saith the Lord, thoughts of peace, and not of affliction, to give you an end and patience. "
Re: Praying for the Dead (Purgatory) [Re: Young Catholic] #36785
Thu Jul 12, 2007 12:49 PM
Thu Jul 12, 2007 12:49 PM
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 17
maine
J
jaf Offline
Plebeian
jaf  Offline
Plebeian
J
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 17
maine
Young Catholic,
With regard to infants who have died going to heaven, I would direct you to II Samuel 12,when David's infant son born out of his adulterous relationship to Bathsheba dies, In vs. 23 David being God's elect says "I shall go to him,(where?)but he will not return to me." I think this clearly states(at least in this case) that an infant that dies will be in heaven. Quite possibly all infants who die are indeed God's elect.
In regard to scripture being corrupted by men in translation. I pose this question, is not the Sovereign God of all the universe able to preserve His word against such corruption? The answer to that is a resounding YES.

Re: Praying for the Dead (Purgatory) [Re: jaf] #36786
Thu Jul 12, 2007 2:02 PM
Thu Jul 12, 2007 2:02 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,853
NH, USA
Pilgrim Online content

Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Online Content

Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,853
NH, USA
Quote
jaf said:
With regard to infants who have died going to heaven, I would direct you to II Samuel 12,when David's infant son born out of his adulterous relationship to Bathsheba dies, In vs. 23 David being God's elect says "I shall go to him,(where?)but he will not return to me." I think this clearly states(at least in this case) that an infant that dies will be in heaven. Quite possibly all infants who die are indeed God's elect.

Hi jaf! [Linked Image]

I for one among many would have to disagree with your assumptions concerning the interpretation of II Sam 12. To be sure there is nothing in that passage which speaks directly to the matter of the salvation of the dead child. May I suggest that David was not implying (at best) that the child was in heaven, but rather he was referring to the fact that the child was in the grave to which he too would eventually go and from which the child would not return. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/Ponder.gif" alt="" />

There has been much discussion/debate on this subject on this Board alone, never mind throughout history. Doubtless, there never will be universal agreement on the subject, if for no other reason than it is a very emotional one. My response is not meant to further the debate, since I have written more than enough on my view here already, but rather to address the exegesis of the passage itself and to offer another possible and plausible interpretation. [Linked Image]

In His grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3

Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 64 guests, and 134 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
tomatoetom, tulsaep, PaulOR, godrulez, Wood
951 Registered Users
Shout Box
December
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31
Today's Birthdays
No Birthdays
Popular Topics(Views)
1,169,651 Gospel truth
Page Time: 0.059s Queries: 16 (0.003s) Memory: 3.0053 MB (Peak: 3.3140 MB) Zlib enabled. Server Time: 2020-12-03 19:27:06 UTC