Waymarks 64
Report of Open Air Preaching
November 24th LUTON Town Centre. A man came and stood too close to me for my liking. He told me he was a Zimbabwean. He claimed, as he puffed cigarette smoke in my face, that he was a believer and had been helped by Jacob and Moses and a few others. I understood him to mean they had appeared physically and had helped him. I hoped he would soon go away as he seemed somewhat demented, and I was preaching close to where a policeman had been knifed to death by a schizophrenic not long ago.
At last he went, without incident, I am glad to say. And I preached on.
The Big Issue boy arrived and flashed his gold teeth at me. But I preached on.
I have wanted to write about Bill for some time. He is now no longer with us and so I give a little of his story. I met him first here in Luton Town Centre. He came and stood alongside me while I preached. I turned to speak to him and after a few minutes he warned me not to look up at the offices behind us.
“We are being watched.” He warned. The offices belong to Lloyds Bank.
He suffered from paranoia and had a persecution mania.
After several meetings in the open air, Bill asked if he could collect water from my house (He always carried water bottles with him) because “they” were poisoning his water supply.
Bill responded to the gospel with interest and eventually came to our Hall to hear the gospel.
He told us at the end that he was saved and asked for baptism. He was interviewed and gave a good reply so we arranged the baptism.
On the evening of the baptism we sat waiting for the meeting to start when he turned to me and told me he did not believe a word of anything we had taught him. I rose, pulled the plug in the baptistry, and started the meeting.
Bill was not the least bit moved by my response and asked if on the way home we could visit the Eddlesborough church cemetery where his mother was buried.
This church, built in the 13th Cent is on a hill and has been out of use for a very long time but the graveyard is open.
When we found his mother’s grave Bill became agitated.
He cried out that the body had been stolen. He knew this, he told me, because the ground had sunk a few inches. I pointed out to him that it was merely the earth settling above the coffin but he would not have it and began to get distressed.
Then he asked me to pray for his mother. I explained to him why I would not do this so he said he would himself pray for her soul.
At this I warned him I would immediately leave him but he began to pray.
It was dusk. The wind was blowing and clouds were scudding across the sky.
As I got to the Lynch Gate I turned and saw him silhouetted against the sky, his hands clasped in front of him; a gaunt figure with his raincoat flapping round him.
We took him home but I resolved henceforth to avoid him if at all possible. It wasn’t!
Sometimes we make mistakes but we take people at face value until we have a reason to do otherwise. We offered Bill friendship and help. He didn’t refuse it but he was too damaged to respond properly.
Many of those I meet while preaching in the street have deep personal problems. They are sad individuals but seem unable to respond to the gospel. They cannot grasp that salvation is the greatest blessing that any soul can enter into.
AV Verses Vindicated
Galatians 1: 15
But when it pleased God (o theos), who separated me from my mother’s womb….
“But when he who had set me apart before I was born….” ESV
The Westcott/Hort Greek Text has o theos bracketed.
The Net.Bible suggests that scribes would have no reason for omitting the words. The shorter reading, it is claimed by the critcs) is usually the correct one.
However, Net.Bible admits there is strong manuscript evidence for keeping o theos.
Colossians 3: 2
Set your affections phroneo) on things above,
“have your mind on the things that are above” JND
“keep your minds fixed on things there,” GNB
Our AV translators were well aware that phroneo can be translated mind (as well as several other English words). They knew also that if one’s desires and longings were not centred in heaven, the mind would never be set there.
The affections of the modern critics appear to be very much earth and self-centred.
Hebrews 1: 2
….by his Son….
“….in his Son….” RV
“….in the person of the Son….” JND
“….through his Son….” GNB
“….by his Son….” NIV
Adam Clarke, in his commentary, wrote,
By his Son. It is very remarkable that the pronoun autou, his, is not found in the text; nor is it found in any MS. or version. We should not therefore supply the pronoun as our translators have done; but simply read en uiw, BY A SON, or IN A SON….
We would not place too much reliance on Clarke’s works, seeing that he considered Christ to have a fallen nature.
Some preachers are telling us that “his” being in italics, should be omitted. This reduces the phrase to gibberish. The English language demands a pronoun, which our translators have supplied. The preachers will hasten to tell us that the omission adds quality to “Son” by emphasising His nature. Why have not the producers of our modern versions noted this necessity for omission? In fact, Greek is a highly reflexive language and therefore pronouns are frequently not needed.
There are at least twenty instances where a pronoun has been inserted in the Hebrew epistle. They are easily identified in the Authorized Version, being placed in italics, that the reader might understand the sense of the passage.
Sometimes, in a modern version where the italic pronoun has been removed, the meaning of the passage is changed. See Heb. 12: 2, The author and finisher of our faith (the body of doctrine we share) in AV Bible becomes in modern versions (personal) “faith” (the author and finisher of faith)— over which therefore we have no exercise. If Christ is the author and finisher of faith, then the believer cannot effect it.
Revelation 16: 5
….Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be…..
“Righteous art thou, which art and which wast, thou Holy One….” RV
“Just are you, O Holy One, who is and who was….” ESV
O Lord is omitted, and also and shalt be in modern versions. “Thou Holy One” is inserted in modern versions.
This is a favourite battle ground for the critics as there appears to be little manuscript evidence for the AV reading. However, Beza found Greek manuscript evidence and the AV translators plainly considered this to be the true reading.
We believe these men to be led of God in producing for us one definitive English Bible.
By the Way….
This year marks the 400th anniversary of the Authorized Version of the Holy Bible. The anniversary is being celebrated by various organisations. One we need to take note of with much caution is the King James Bible Trust.
This trust has Prince Charles as its patron. We need hardly make further comment! Charles is pagan in outlook and is a notorious adulterer. He has no love for the Scriptures. The vice patron is Richard Chartres, Bishop of London.
The trustees include several active members of Bible Society, an organisation dedicated to the destruction of the AV Bible.
The aims of the King James Bible Trust are;
- To promote the cultural importance of the KJB.
- To understand the politics of the KJB
- To illustrate Christianity’s hand in developing our society.
Events will be taking place at various locations during the year.
Richard Dawkins, Andrew Motion, and Patricia Routledge will be reading from the KJB on You Tube.
The aims of KJBT reveal its rejection of any spiritual significance or value to the Bible. It’s supernatural origin is treated with scorn. The “old” Bible is a glorious museum piece. Its worth is solely in its literary value, but it can be used now for political and social gain.
That Dawkins is giving his support to this endeavour is highly significant. He is the nation’s leading God-hater.
A 1611 AD Authorized Bible is being republished to celebrate the 400th anniversary. It is being reprinted “with all its original errors”. We think one purpose behind this is to cause doubt in the minds of present day Bible believers.
There were indeed many typological errors in the first edition. These were corrected and later many spellings were corrected and the use of u for v, and f for s in printing were changed.
There was never anything wrong with the text or its translation.
Go to You Tube and watch David Cloud on the History of the King James Bible if you want a reliable account.
□ We are told yet again “The King James Version is not perfect,” (M Sweetnam; How we got our Bible (10), Truth and Tidings). This statement is put out as a matter of fact and not as an opinion.
The words of Christ, found within this allegedly imperfect version, are Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. Matt. 5: 8. If Sweetnam is correct these words are cant and humbug. If they are the truth, Sweetnam is a liar and a deceiver. Or confused!. A perfect God, demanding perfect followers, yet cannot produce a perfect book!
But because God is perfect, He can work wonders with poor fallen but saved men and women. They can become perfect while living on this planet. They are complete spiritually, mentally, and morally. (so says Strong).
When a critic of God’s Book pours scorn on it, though he be mightily endowed in natural intelligence, and has a piece of paper signed by others similarly endowed to say he is an expert in this world’s intelligence, we who know the God of heaven, and walk with Him, know that He has given us an English Bible which is perfect. It is complete. There is nothing lacking down to its final jot and tittle that was not first settled in heaven.
If this is not so, I do not have a God I can trust. But having walked with Him for 55 years I have learned His faithfulness and competence to preserve His own word.
It is not difficult to determine where it is preserved.
□ Romans 16: 17, 18 urges us to mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.
The simple are good folk (literally they are “not bad”). They are not necessarily naïve, but they are innocent and unsuspecting. They believe they are in a safe community where they will not be infected with divisive material. Such are many of our brethren and sisters.
We have to take heed of the warnings in Scripture. Their inclusion indicates the danger. The earliest divisions were caused by the Judaisers who wanted to introduce some of the rituals of the ceremonial law into church life.
Seriously divisive men today try to foist depraved and perverted versions of the Bible on us. Others bring their Calvinistic errors into the assemblies of God’s people. Others want to bring in divorced and remarried persons, described by the Lord as adulterers and adulteresses.
We are to avoid these. We are not bidden to dialogue with them.
□ Revelationtv.com broadcast recently a debate on King James Bible Exclusivism. Dr J White spoke for modern versions and Dr J Moorman defended the KJB and its underlying text. What disturbed me was the ease with which White could lie on air. His attack convinced me yet further of the deceitfulness of so many who defend modern versions.
Dr Moorman said that Count Tischendorf found (pages of) the Codex Sinaiticus in a waste basket awaiting being put on the fire. This was refuted by White who said it was brought to Tischendorf on a cushion.
Tischendorf’’s own account is preserved for us:-
. It was at the foot of Mount Sinai, in the Convent of St. Catherine, that I discovered the pearl of all my researches. In visiting the library of the monastery, in the month of May, 1844, I perceived in the middle of the great hall a large and wide basket full of old parchments; and the librarian, who was a man of information, told me that two heaps of papers like these, mouldered by time, had been already committed to the flames. What was my surprise to find amid this heap of papers a considerable number of sheets of a copy of the Old Testament in Greek, which seemed to me to be one of the most ancient that I had ever seen.
This extract is taken from Constantin von Tischendorf, When Were Our Gospels Written? An Argument by Constantine Tischendorf. With a Narrative of the Discovery of the Sinaitic Manuscript (New York: American Tract Society, 1866).
(The whole can be downloaded foc by going to Google > Books and entering “Tischendorf When were our gospels written”)
More Lies and Forebodings from Truth and Tidings
The Text of the New Testament by Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman provides, in its earlier chapters, an excellent discussion of the production and transmission of the earliest copies of Scripture. Its later chapters, which discuss textual criticism, provide a clear account of the history and practice of the discipline. Some of the widely-accepted conclusions of textual criticism have been challenged by Eta Linnemann in Biblical Criticism on Trial. Her argument is complex, and heavily statistical and not, perhaps, for the faint of heart.—Truth and Tidings; January 2010; How we got our Bible; M Sweetnam
M Sweetnam is not aware, or does not wish his readers to know, that there are other critiques of Textual Criticism available which show this form of criticism to be corrupt.
Eta Linneman was a prominent advocate of TC until she was saved through the witness of one of her students. She then set about demolishing TC. (Her life’s work!) We note Sweetnam does not fault her findings, but he could also have mentioned Dr Jack Moorman, probably the world’s leading authority on the subject of manuscripts and the Received Text. We have also Dr D Cloud, and Dr D Waite and several more beside.
Metzger and Ehrman are unreliable sources for the believer. D Cloud wrote concerning these two:-
BRUCE METZGER believed Moses did not write the Pentateuch, Deuteronomy was not written until 700 years before Christ, the Old Testament is a mixture of “myth, legend, and history,” the record of the worldwide flood of Noah’s day is exaggerated, the book of Job is a folktale, the miracle accounts about Elijah and Elisha contain “legendary elements,” Isaiah was written by Isaiah plus two or three unknown men who wrote centuries later, the record of Jonah is a “legend,” Daniel does not contain supernatural prophecy, Paul did not write the Pastoral Epistles, Peter did not write 2 Peter, etc. All of these unbelieving lies can be found in the notes to the Reader’s Digest Condensed Bible, which were written by Metzger, and in the New Oxford Annotated Bible, of which Metzger is a co-editor.—Wayoflife.org
BART EHRMAN is the author of “God’s Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question--Why We Suffer.” Ehrman is a “biblical scholar” who rejected his fundamentalist roots for the deadly wilderness of agnosticism. Today he majors in criticizing the New Testament Christian faith even while pretending to respect it. Because of his unbelief, he has become something of a mainstream media darling. He has been interviewed on the History Channel, the Discovery Channel, National Public Radio, National Geographic, BBC, the Washington Post, CNN, and others.
Ehrman holds the chair of religious studies at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, where he is busy destroying any Christian faith his students might possess, and he has published many books tearing down the Bible for a wider audience.—Wayoflife.org
Double Talk. From Fred Tatford
1 "[We] should be eternally grateful to those valiant souls whom as the world was emerging out of the Dark Ages, risked life and limb to bring to mankind the word of God in [our] own tongue. Names such as John Wycliffe(1320-84) and Wm. Tyndale (1484-1536) whose translation efforts were responsible for the major portion of our present beloved Authorised Version, should still be remembered with joy, as we recall that it was such men as these heroes of the faith who paved the way for us today to have the Word of God so freely available....it appears to have been miraculously preserved and protected, despite all the bitter onslaughts of its enemies throughout the past 400 years." Is the Bible Reliable? 1 by Fredk. Tatford; Believer's Magazine; Jan.1981.
Until I came across this article recently, I had thought that the Preservation of Scripture was a doctrine totally untaught among the 'brethren'.
In the same article F.T. went on to say "Under the guise of scholarship, and latterly Humanism, we find a subtle move afoot to 'destroy the foundations' by a process of whittling away, or eroding the authority of the Word of God as represented in the old established version." Dr. Tatford was a one-time Director of the U.K. Atomic Energy Authority. Was somebody just about to call him a poor ignorant untaught clod?
1 Sadly, we discover that Fred was not so “pro-AV” as might be thought. I came across his little book recently and read this:
Unfortunately for the case of the critics, the Bible does not say that Jonah was swallowed by a whale. In Jonah 1: 17, it is said that God prepared a great fish (rendered in the Septuagint by the Greek word keetos—a sea monster) for the purpose, and in Matt. 12: 40, our Lord declared that Jonah was in the belly, not of a whale as stated in the Authorized Version, but of a sea monster (Greek word keetos).—p. 39.
I refer my readers to my AV Verses Vindicated; Matt.12: 40 for a refutation of this attack on Scripture.—
For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
Some do not like the idea of Jonah being swallowed by a whale. They have even suggested, quite falsely, that whales have never been known in the Mediterranean Sea. They think it was a great fish. The biggest fish, the whale shark, is incapable of swallowing anything but plankton.
ketos is found here only in the New Testament and scholars are unable to determine its derivation.. The literal translation of ketos is “sea monster” and the only sea monster known to man is the whale. Great fish” translated into Greek becomes megalo psari and this is not found in the Greek NT. The three Greek NT words for fish are optos, icthus, opsarion. None of these means whale or sea monster. It is better then, simply to believe the Bible
The whale is mentioned in Gen. 1:21, and God created great whales (tanniyn = land or sea monster), Job 7: 2, Am I a sea, or a whale and the same Hebrew word is found again in Ezek. 32: 2 Thou art as a whale.
We learn in Jonah 1:17 The Lord had prepared a great fish and in 2: 10 The Lord spoke unto the fish and it vomited out Jonah upon the dry ground. (dag= fish; often used collectively-Strong). No fish can swallow a man whole. The word dag is inclusive. Its first usage in Gen. 9: 2 reveals this. Three classes of creatures are mentioned; beasts of the earth, fowls of the air, and fishes of the sea. Whales therefore must fit into one of these three categories. Believers do not swallow the great lie of evolution so they know whales are categorized with the fishes of the sea.
(See online www.avbibleversesvindicated.blogspot.com )
Lying Talk. From Jack Hay
2 "It is generally accepted that the Revised Version is the more accurate translation by virtue of the fact that much earlier manuscripts were available to the revisers." How I study my Bible by Jack Hay; Believer's Magazine; Jan.'80.
Of course it never was "generally accepted..." And it was demonstrated long before 1980 that the perverted mss. used by the revisers were well enough known to the 1611 A.V. translators. I hope Jack has read Fred's article.! —Waymarks Aug.1995
Twenty years later, we find apostasy rampant among the Brethren. The Believer’s Magazine, a product of J Ritchie Ltd, is markedly hostile to the Authorized Bible.
What’s in a name? AV or KJV? Who was James anyway?
LAYING BARE THE EVIL (quoted in Berean Call)
"Some one, then, must undertake the ungracious task of probing and laying bare the evils of the age; for men must not be allowed to congratulate themselves that all is well. If others will not, he will.
If others shrink from the obloquy of such a work, he will not.... He loves his fellow-men too well. They may upbraid him; they may call him a misanthropist, or a prophet of evil; they may ascribe his warnings to the worst of motives, such as pride, or arrogance, or self-esteem, or malice, or envy; but he will give no heed to these unjust insinuations.
He will prefer being thus misunderstood and maligned, to allowing men to precipitate themselves upon a ruin which they see not. Rather than that they should perish, he will allow his own good name to be spoken against. He will risk every thing, even the hatred of brethren, rather than withhold the warning. If they give no heed to it, he has, at least, saved his own soul. If they do, he has saved both his own soul and theirs.”
-- Horatius Bonar (Scottish pastor, 1808-1889)
WAS THE KING JAMES BIBLE AUTHORIZED? By David Cloud
Was the King James Bible Authorized? This point has been debated aggressively, because no record of authorization has survived. (All of the documents from the Privy Council from 1600. 1613 were destroyed in the Whitehall fire of 1619.) Whether or not it was actually authorized by a king is not really important, of course, as there can be no doubt that God put His stamp of approval upon it, and that is what matters. But since this is a point that is debated, I will give four reasons why I am confident that it is proper to refer to the King James Bible as authorized,
ANSWER:
1. At the Hampton Court conference in 1604 King James I made a formal decision to approve the new translation for use in all the churches. It was done by royal order and under royal watchcare. It has never been explained to my satisfaction why this in itself does not constitute "authorization." William Barlow's report of the Hampton Court conference (Barlow was one of the KJV translators and was present at Hampton Court in 1604), stated that the decision was made by the king not only that a new translation would be made but also that it be "ratified by his Royal authority; and so his whole Church to be bound unto it, and none other" (Barlow, the Sum and Substance of the Conference, reprinted in Alfred Pollard, Records of the English Bible pp. 46, 47). Barlow's report was published with the king's approval.
2. The crown of England has held the copyright to the King James Bible from the beginning.
3. The title page to the first edition of the King James Bible stated, "Appointed to be read in Churches."
4 .In 1616 the king issued a command that only the King James Bible was to be printed in England. The King James Bible was printed by royal order was printed by authority of the Crown of England, and was appointed to be read in all the churches. I see n reason why this does not constitute formal “authorization” —The Bible Version Question/Answer Database; Way of Life Literature; 2005; P.132
For Love of the Bible By David Cloud -excerpt
We hold to the King James Bible because we reject modern textual criticism.
Consider some facts about modern textual criticism:
Textual criticism is the application of modern linguistic theories to the recovery of ancient documents. The theories of modern textual criticism were initially developed over a period of roughly 100 years from the late 1700s to the late 1800s. During that introductory period its popularity was limited to textual scholars, for the most part, while it was resisted by Bible believers in general. After the publication of the Westcott-Hort Greek New Testament in 1881, the theories of modern textual criticism quickly gained dominancy in the field of biblical scholarship.
Modern textual criticism was devised largely by men who treated the Bible as another book and who either did not believe in the doctrine of Bible preservation or refused to predicate their textual theories on this doctrine. Consider two examples. Karl Lachmann, the first textual critic to entirely reject the Received Text, was a "classical scholar" who approached the Bible in the same way that he approached ordinary classical books. Bruce Metzger, who says Lachmann is one of the most important names in the history of modern textual criticism, admits that Lachmann "ventured to apply to the New Testament the criteria that he had used in editing texts of the classics." (Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 1975, p. xxiii). Westcott and Hort, the editors of the influential Greek New Testament of 1881, operated under the following principle: "In matters of textual criticism the Bible is to be treated like any other ancient book. No special considerations are to be made concerning its claims of inspiration and preservation." (Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek, Introduction and Appendix, 1881).
Modern textual criticism claims that the Traditional Greek Text, the Text underlying the Reformation Bibles, is corrupt and has a special distaste for it. This was recognized in the 19th century by Presbyterian scholar Robert Dabney:
Their common traits may be said to be AN ALMOST CONTEMPTUOUS DISMISSAL OF THE RECEIVED TEXT, as unworthy not only of confidence, but almost of notice; the rejection of the great mass of the codices of the common text as recent and devoid of nearly all authority; and the settlement of the text by the testimony of a very few MSS. for which they claim a superior antiquity, with the support of a few fathers and versions, whom they are pleased to regard as judicious and trustworthy (Robert Dabney, Discussions: Evangelical and Theological, pp. 354, 55).
Westcott and Hort despised the Greek Received Text. Following is what F.J.A. Hort wrote in 1851, when he was only 23 years old and before he had developed his textual theories or done any serious research in this field: "I had no idea till the last few weeks of the importance of texts, having read so little Greek Testament, and dragged on with THE VILLAINOUS TEXTUS RECEPTUS...Think of THAT VILE TEXTUS RECEPTUS leaning entirely on late MSS.; it is a blessing there are such early ones." (Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, vol. 1, p. 211). Textual critic Ernest Colwell observed that Hort‘s goal was to dethrone the Received Text (Colwell, Scribal Habits in Early Papyri, The Bible in Modern Scholarship, Abingdon, 1965, p. 370). Wilbur Pickering observes: ―It appears that Hort did not arrive at his theory through unprejudiced intercourse with the facts.
Rather, he deliberately set out to construct a theory that would vindicate his preconceived animosity for the Received Text. (Identity of the New Testament Text, ch. 3). Note, too, that Hort was deceived into thinking that the Received Text leans "entirely on late manuscripts."
Bruce Metzger calls the TR "CORRUPT" and Christian people‘s love for it "SUPERSTITIOUS" (Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, 1968, p. 106). He further calls it "DEBASED" and "DISFIGURED" (Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 1975, xxi, xxiii)
This book can be obtained via wayoflife.org
Quote
From a prison visitor.
“Still waiting for an opportunity to take a Bible study in — Prison. I am back to
square one, having been approved by one chaplain, I have now been told that a new coordinating chaplain will need to give his permission when he takes up his position. But the
Lord’s timing is always right! So I will apply again and keep waiting.
Advice to this prison worker:
Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly. Ps.1:1
Dear Ron,
I just noticed in John Grant's article on Egypt in page 15 of Jan 2011 BM that he states that the Old Kingdom (which followed the Early DYnastic period) started in BC 2700.
That places it a few centuries before the Flood (following Ussher or other conservative bible-believing chronologists).
So how did he arrive at that?
Just wondering.
best wishes
S—
Dear S—
I suspect that JG has a copy of the rationalistic and evolutionary Chronological Study Bible, where we read on p.2, "Later pharaohs of the Old Kingdom, beginning about 2700 .C., became famous for their pyramids."
It is a great tragedy that men who purport to be leaders and teachers of God's people draw so freely from the wells of infidelity. I don't suppose more than one or two readers of BM were aware of this piece of nonsense. I must confess I hadn't bothered to read it. Thank you for alerting me.
kind regards,
Ron
(Answers in Genesis places the Flood in the year 2304 B.C. This is based on convincing evidence. The article in BM appears to lack anything spiritual).
"They Stand For Ever"
"These are archaic words," complains the modern lout,
"They're fusty and old-fashioned so we'll chop the whole lot out
And fill in with our modem terms, though sibylline and vague.
And boast we've got the blessing". (They're really struck with plague!)
It is a festering hatred for God's most holy word
That causes men to swoop on it like some polluted bird.
They snip and snatch and hack at it with venal-critic's pen.
But stands the Word unscathed. (And doomed, nefarious men.)
R.S.
“No Enemies”
You have no enemies, you say?
Alas, my friend, the boast is poor.
He who has mingled in the fray
Of duty, that the brave endure
Must have made foes, if you have none,
Small is the work that you have done.
You’ve hit no traitor on the hip,
You’ve dashed no cup from perjured lip,
You've never turned the wrong to right,
You've been a coward in the fight
Charles Mackay.
No comments:
Post a Comment