Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ice Cream > Marriage

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Re: Ice Cream > Marriage

    There won't be any Sun, because He will be our Light.
    There won't be any marriage between us because He will be our Groom.
    Says there won't be an ocean anymore either.

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: Ice Cream > Marriage

      Originally posted by awestruckchild View Post
      There won't be any Sun, because He will be our Light.
      There won't be any marriage between us because He will be our Groom.
      Says there won't be an ocean anymore either.
      1. What Revelation says is that there will be no NEED for the sun, or a lamp. Nowhere does it say there will be no sun. What it is saying is that we will no longer need God's creation to sustain us.

      2. The Bible doesn't explicitly say there will be no marriage. It says none will be (future tense) given away in marriage.

      3. Maybe no sea, but I'll wager the river of life isn't some small stream.
      Those who seek God with all their heart will find Him and be given sight. Those who seek their own agenda will remain blind.

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: Ice Cream > Marriage

        Originally posted by Aviyah View Post
        God said that Adam was alone - and given that he wasn't literally alone (God was with him as were animals), "alone" must have meant something deeper. Adam was alone because he didn't have a mate... and this is proven when God creates one person (Eve) and afterwards the "not good" becomes "very good." Adam was not "alone" because there were no other humans in general - otherwise God would have simply created more humans in general.
        The point I don't think you are quite getting is why God would change the "not good" to "very good", and what limitations there are on "very good."
        Additionally you aren't noticing what God did with ALL of creation. He didn't create a multiplicity of one type of bird, but gave the type of bird the ability to multiply. IOW within the type was the possibility for more. Not only was there the possibility for more, but God commanded it.
        This is also true for Mankind. God didn't need to create multiple men and women, because within the Man and Woman was the capability to have a multiplication. This is what God does. He plants things within us that should then grow and spread. We see this throughout the Bible.

        So, again, how is it that lack of marriage in perfection pre-fall is "not good", yet it becomes "good" post-resurrection?
        It isn't the lack of marriage which is "not good", it is the lack of growth and deepening of relationship and everything else that marriage brings which was "not good." Do you see the difference - it is what marriage brings which was missing and so led to the statement. The question therefore is does being the Bride of Christ and having countless Brothers and Sisters meet that preFall need?

        Surely God created more than 1 single celled organism, or more than 1 tree, or more than 1 ant?
        Actually God didn't seem to create more of a creature than was needed of each type. We see that confirmed in the Flood account where ONLY a pair is needed to enter the ark, which shows the original state. So more than one tree, but potentially only a pair of each type. More than one ant, but maybe only one queen and mate. The command was for the birds, the fish etc. to multiply and so fill the seas and the air, highlighting that God didn't make them having filled the air.
        God makes us with potential to grow, to become more. This is true of us and was true for them. They weren't a finished item, but a beginning item, but their beginning was very good.

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: Ice Cream > Marriage

          Originally posted by Vakeros View Post
          The point I don't think you are quite getting is why God would change the "not good" to "very good", and what limitations there are on "very good."
          Not good = Adam alone.
          Very good = Adam not alone (married to Eve).

          He didn't create a multiplicity of one type of bird,
          Where does it say that?

          It isn't the lack of marriage which is "not good", it is the lack of growth and deepening of relationship and everything else that marriage brings which was "not good." Do you see the difference - it is what marriage brings which was missing and so led to the statement.
          This doesn't change the fact that the solution was marriage and not another random human or group of humans.

          The question therefore is does being the Bride of Christ and having countless Brothers and Sisters meet that preFall need?
          No, because we will not be married to each other.

          Actually God didn't seem to create more of a creature than was needed of each type.
          Well you said God didn't create brothers and sisters for any other species, which can't be true (1 blade of grass? 1 amoeba?) unless you know of any verse which says this.

          We see that confirmed in the Flood account
          The Flood took place after the fall, so the model cannot be compared. Plus Noah brought more than a single pair for most species.

          They weren't a finished item, but a beginning item, but their beginning was very good.
          You're looking at the general picture, but I am concerned with the individual. Adam's individual problem was solved with a solution specific to him.
          「耶和華聖潔無比,獨一無二,沒有磐石像我們的上帝。
          撒母耳記上 (1 Samuel) 2:2

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: Ice Cream > Marriage

            Originally posted by Aviyah View Post
            Since we will still be able to eat in the afterlife (apparently for enjoyment rather than survival), yet won't have marriages, then apparently marriage is one of the least important things in life compared to desserts?
            Mindless babble like this is why I have a hard time posting or visiting Bible Forums these days. It's sad really, because there was a time that I thought this was all about the Lord.
            Psalm 19:14
            Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O Lord, my strength, and my redeemer.
            sigpic

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: Ice Cream > Marriage

              Originally posted by andrew_no_one View Post
              Mindless babble like this is why I have a hard time posting or visiting Bible Forums these days. It's sad really, because there was a time that I thought this was all about the Lord.
              Have you read the thread? My posts are hardly mindless and I often have difficult questions which I cannot resolve without the help of the community.
              「耶和華聖潔無比,獨一無二,沒有磐石像我們的上帝。
              撒母耳記上 (1 Samuel) 2:2

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: Ice Cream > Marriage

                Originally posted by Aviyah View Post
                Not good = Adam alone.
                Very good = Adam not alone (married to Eve).
                You are correct.

                Where does it say that?
                Genesis 1 and 2 and repeated in Gen 6:
                Gen 1:11 And God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth." And it was so.
                Gen 1:12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
                Trees and plants according to their kind - this isn't necessarily restricted to a single example, but rather points to an example of each kind.

                Gen 1:20 And God said, "Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens."
                Gen 1:21 So God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

                If you stopped reading here you might assume that the waters are swarming and full. However the next verse shows that this isn't the case.
                Gen 1:22 And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth."
                It is a blessing rather than a command, but it shows that the waters and the air wasn't full.

                Gen 1:24 And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds—livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds." And it was so.
                Again the creation is of creatures according to their kinds - not multiples of a kind. Do you see the difference?

                Gen 2:9 And out of the ground the LORD God made to spring up every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

                Here we get a specific collection which springs up fully grown in Eden, a duplicate of the kinds that existed in the earth.

                Gen 2:19 Now out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.

                Here we have one of each kind being brought to the Man where he names it. This again speaks of only one of each kind being made.

                I accept that it isn't specifically stated that God made ONLY a pair of each kind, however each passage is highly suggestive of this and added to what God states for Noah seems pretty conclusive. What is also definite is that God didn't make multiple humans, but ONLY two, so that shows that in God's mind, two was sufficient for a multiplication.

                This doesn't change the fact that the solution was marriage and not another random human or group of humans.
                The thing you do is limit what the solution means as if marriage is the END of the solution. It isn't, it is the START of the solution. Notice God didn't say "It is perfect". IOW marriage was the starting point of the solution, which leads to NOT a random human or random group of humans, but actually a specific human and related group of humans.

                No, because we will not be married to each other.
                Two points as have been noted:
                1) We will be married to Him.
                2) What is the PURPOSE of marriage? The central purpose is relationship - this is then expanded through procreation and family. If the central PURPOSE is met and also the family aspect, then the need is not only met but taken further.

                The real question you are asking is - as marriage is an exclusive intimate relationship with one other person, is that the model which is removed? The answer seems to be yes in terms of exclusivity. The intimacy will be moved from a more physical to a closer entwining of souls, rooted in true love.

                Well you said God didn't create brothers and sisters for any other species, which can't be true (1 blade of grass? 1 amoeba?) unless you know of any verse which says this.
                The Bible speaks clearly of God creating sufficient to allow procreation and He then states it as a blessing. Thus 1 blade of grass is insufficient - however He did specifically make the Garden of Eden as a separate work.

                The Flood took place after the fall, so the model cannot be compared. Plus Noah brought more than a single pair for most species.
                The model can be compared because IF a single pair is enough post Fall (post Flood) then it would be sufficient pre Fall (pre Flood). Noah didn't bring more than a single pair for most species.

                Gen 6:19 And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every sort into the ark to keep them alive with you. They shall be male and female.
                Gen 6:20 Of the birds according to their kinds, and of the animals according to their kinds, of every creeping thing of the ground, according to its kind, two of every sort shall come in to you to keep them alive.

                This pretty much states only two of every kind.

                Gen 7:2 Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and his mate, and a pair of the animals that are not clean, the male and his mate,
                Gen 7:3 and seven pairs of the birds of the heavens also, male and female, to keep their offspring alive on the face of all the earth.

                Notice this might be the part you are thinking of, but this only applies to clean animals (and thus only clean birds) and NOT every type of animal or bird, otherwise it would be a contradiction.

                You're looking at the general picture, but I am concerned with the individual. Adam's individual problem was solved with a solution specific to him.
                The solution for the individual is also the solution for everyone. The Man was the first and we are shown that how God dealt with him is a model for all people, just as Jesus was the second Man and so the new model. As an aside notice that Jesus didn't marry anyone.
                You are also stating though a general requirement with regards to marriage. You aren't asking only about the first Man.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: Ice Cream > Marriage

                  Originally posted by Vakeros View Post
                  The thing you do is limit what the solution means as if marriage is the END of the solution. It isn't, it is the START of the solution. Notice God didn't say "It is perfect". IOW marriage was the starting point of the solution, which leads to NOT a random human or random group of humans, but actually a specific human and related group of humans.
                  Marriage was not the beginning of a solution, because the "not good" ended after Day 6 - not after Adam & Eve had enough children. Again, Adam's problem was solved instantaneously, not over time as you suggest.

                  Two points as have been noted:
                  1) We will be married to Him.
                  We will not be individually married to the same person. The Bride of Christ is a metaphor for the collective saved being united with God. We are not each literal brides of Christ because that would imply God will be in a polygamist relationship - 50% of which is homosexual.

                  2) What is the PURPOSE of marriage? The central purpose is relationship - this is then expanded through procreation and family.
                  The purpose of marriage is not to have the same relationship with all other humans nor procreate with everyone of the opposite sex. If Adam & Eve never sinned, I doubt God would revoke their marital status or the status of others given that their relationship with family/friends would not be imperfect. If God never planned to have marriage in eternity, why did He create it in the first place? All of your arguments would be more effective if God created marriage after the Fall - but since He installed it prior to sin, evidently the plan was for two individuals to be married forever.

                  If the central PURPOSE is met and also the family aspect, then the need is not only met but taken further.
                  Where does the Bible say this? Where does the Bible actually say anything which has been put forward so far (that we will have a love for everyone equivalent to marriage)?

                  The solution for the individual is also the solution for everyone.
                  I don't want to be married to Eve in the garden of Eden, how is Adam's personal solution a solution for everyone?

                  As an aside notice that Jesus didn't marry anyone.
                  Jesus was/is the only human who is also God. I'm not sure how that would work unless there was a human goddess (there's not).
                  「耶和華聖潔無比,獨一無二,沒有磐石像我們的上帝。
                  撒母耳記上 (1 Samuel) 2:2

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: Ice Cream > Marriage

                    Originally posted by Aviyah View Post
                    Have you read the thread? My posts are hardly mindless and I often have difficult questions which I cannot resolve without the help of the community.
                    I agree. You have good questions and your counter arguments are well considered.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: Ice Cream > Marriage

                      Originally posted by Aviyah View Post
                      Marriage was not the beginning of a solution, because the "not good" ended after Day 6 - not after Adam & Eve had enough children. Again, Adam's problem was solved instantaneously, not over time as you suggest.
                      Here is where we have to disagree. Bringing the Woman to the Man was the solution. However it wasn't the End of the solution. IOW Very good is better than not good, but it isn't as good as "extremely good." I keep saying this, but I don't think you are grasping my point - and I can't think a better way to rephrase it.
                      When we are a child we think like a child, when we grow up we put childish things behind us.
                      The solution of the Woman for the Man meant that Man was no longer alone, so it was no longer "not good". In fact it now became "very good", but that "very good" was NOT simply speaking of that moment in time, but of God's plan contained within. Their is growth within the solution. There is more within the "very good" than simply a Woman.

                      We will not be individually married to the same person. The Bride of Christ is a metaphor for the collective saved being united with God. We are not each literal brides of Christ because that would imply God will be in a polygamist relationship - 50% of which is homosexual.
                      Though that is true, it doesn't stop being a reality that I am / will be married to the Bread of Life. That I will be married to the Way, the Truth, and the Life. That I will be married to the Vine.

                      The purpose of marriage is not to have the same relationship with all other humans nor procreate with everyone of the opposite sex. If Adam & Eve never sinned, I doubt God would revoke their marital status or the status of others given that their relationship with family/friends would not be imperfect. If God never planned to have marriage in eternity, why did He create it in the first place? All of your arguments would be more effective if God created marriage after the Fall - but since He installed it prior to sin, evidently the plan was for two individuals to be married forever.
                      What does marriage speak of? This is the heart of the question and thus the answer. You see it as exclusive between two people. An answer is that it can be inclusive, which you reject. Another answer is that it is collective, which you accept on the one hand, but then reject on the other as the Man and Woman weren't in a collective marriage - though as they sinned, we don't know if that would have become the case.

                      Where does the Bible say this? Where does the Bible actually say anything which has been put forward so far (that we will have a love for everyone equivalent to marriage)?
                      What is the Biblical definition of love in a marriage? Surely it is supposed to be found within the church. Submission, esteeming the other, laying your life down for one another as He did for us.

                      I don't want to be married to Eve in the garden of Eden, how is Adam's personal solution a solution for everyone?
                      You won't be married to Eve or Adam. The point is HOW did God solve Adam's need? Will He extract ribs from us all? No I don't think so - IOW it isn't the mechanics of what He did, but the purpose of what He did. How He made the relationship between them, How He changed what is not good to being very good. How He removed the aloneness.

                      Jesus was/is the only human who is also God. I'm not sure how that would work unless there was a human goddess (there's not).
                      And? The point is that not being married isn't an issue. IOW there is no requirement to be married in order NOT to be alone. God could have made multiple people, but decided that one more was enough. That through that one more then anyone else who would be alone, would no longer need to be.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: Ice Cream > Marriage

                        Originally posted by Vakeros View Post
                        Here is where we have to disagree. Bringing the Woman to the Man was the solution.
                        Bringing woman to the man was the completion of Adam's solution; any suggestion otherwise is based on conjecture and not what is actually stated in Genesis. God told them to multiply after Adam was no longer alone. And if Adam's aloneness was based on sheer number of humans, it doesn't make sense why God would eliminate the not good upon the creation of one special human. God's own words suggest that Eve was the solution and not the beginning of one:

                        "It is not good that the man should be alone, I will make a helper fit for him."

                        I will make (God plans to solve the problem by making something)...
                        A helper (singular not plural)...
                        Fit for him (specifically designed for Adam, not everyone).

                        "That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh."

                        The solution of Eve is why we have marriage today, not other humans.

                        IOW Very good is better than not good, but it isn't as good as "extremely good."
                        Okay, well in that case "extremely good" isn't as good as "immensely good." This is just subjectivity that I don't find relevant, TBH.

                        Though that is true...
                        You believe God is a polygamist and homosexual???

                        What does marriage speak of? This is the heart of the question and thus the answer. You see it as exclusive between two people. An answer is that it can be inclusive, which you reject.
                        I don't see evidence that marriage includes more than one man and one woman in a union sponsored by God.

                        The point is HOW did God solve Adam's need?
                        By giving him a wife specific for him. Anything beyond this is speculation, right, because this is what the text says?

                        IOW there is no requirement to be married in order NOT to be alone.
                        Then why did God create marriage before sin? The implication is that marriage would have been eternal if Adam never sinned.
                        「耶和華聖潔無比,獨一無二,沒有磐石像我們的上帝。
                        撒母耳記上 (1 Samuel) 2:2

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: Ice Cream > Marriage

                          Originally posted by Aviyah View Post
                          Bringing woman to the man was the completion of Adam's solution; any suggestion otherwise is based on conjecture and not what is actually stated in Genesis. God told them to multiply after Adam was no longer alone. And if Adam's aloneness was based on sheer number of humans, it doesn't make sense why God would eliminate the not good upon the creation of one special human. God's own words suggest that Eve was the solution and not the beginning of one:

                          "It is not good that the man should be alone, I will make a helper fit for him."

                          I will make (God plans to solve the problem by making something)...
                          A helper (singular not plural)...
                          Fit for him (specifically designed for Adam, not everyone).

                          "That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh."

                          The solution of Eve is why we have marriage today, not other humans.
                          No bringing the WOman to the Man wasn't the completion of the solution, unless you consider not good to very good as completion firstly. And also if you don't think them actually being together is the solution. IOW simply bringing the Woman to the Man wasn't the completion. It was the possibility for the Woman and the Man to LIVE in unity and NOT in aloneness that was the completion of the solution. What you do is make the marriage service equal the marriage. It doesn't. The marriage service holds the promise, the potential and the ability to say the two are now one, but it is the consummation DAY by DAY, with all its reality that is the fulfilment. Do you get what I am saying?

                          Okay, well in that case "extremely good" isn't as good as "immensely good." This is just subjectivity that I don't find relevant, TBH.
                          No problem with honesty, but my point is that God had more in store for the Man and the Woman than just "very good". The question is can God improve good? Yes He did, He had very good. Can God improve "very good" therefore is a crucial question, because if He can't then "very good" is what we should expect - but if He can and will then we maybe need to apprehend what His improvement is.

                          You believe God is a polygamist and homosexual???
                          Does the Father love the Son? Does He love Himself? So He is autosexual and homosexual. The problem is you are using postFall understanding and applying to a preFall / postRedemption picture. You are wrapping your ideas within a naturalistic response.

                          I don't see evidence that marriage includes more than one man and one woman in a union sponsored by God.
                          Nor do I.

                          By giving him a wife specific for him. Anything beyond this is speculation, right, because this is what the text says?
                          No, it isn't simply speculation. To limit the solution to being simply about "marriage" and NOT about the relationship within the marriage is where the emphasis differs. It isn't the institution, but the relationship that is key. The ability to give oneself for another person and to receive this in return.

                          Then why did God create marriage before sin? The implication is that marriage would have been eternal if Adam never sinned.
                          But the implication isn't that everyone would be married. Let's assume for a moment that they didn't sin, do you think they would remain childless?
                          So if we agree they would have children, do you think each son would have a complimentary daughter? This is speculation, but what we see is that NONE of the sons nor any of the daughters would be alone even if they never married. It is ONLY the first Man who was alone. As soon as there was another person then he was no longer alone.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: Ice Cream > Marriage

                            Originally posted by Vakeros View Post
                            No bringing the WOman to the Man wasn't the completion of the solution,
                            Okay, well I don't see any evidence to the contrary.

                            No problem with honesty, but my point is that God had more in store for the Man and the Woman than just "very good".
                            The point is not what God had in store, the point is what was the solution to the "not good." The solution was Eve, not random humans.

                            Does the Father love the Son? Does He love Himself? So He is autosexual and homosexual.
                            So why is homosexuality wrong if God Himself is?

                            But the implication isn't that everyone would be married.
                            How do you know that, and where does the text say this? Sounds like you're basing your opinion on your own opinion. If anything, Eden implies the original idea was for everyone to have their own counterpart.
                            「耶和華聖潔無比,獨一無二,沒有磐石像我們的上帝。
                            撒母耳記上 (1 Samuel) 2:2

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: Ice Cream > Marriage

                              Originally posted by Aviyah View Post
                              Okay, well I don't see any evidence to the contrary.
                              The evidence is in the nature of God and what He did. The evidence is in God's way of stating what the blessing is - did you catch it? Was it simply for Man and Woman to be alone forever? No it wasn't. This is why I highlight it is the start of the solution and is the reason why God says it is very good.
                              A similar example is when Jesus says "It is finished" on the cross. Was everything finished? No it wasn't. However NOW that He had completed what He came to do, the solution to the problem is available and just needs to be applied. The Woman through living with the Man in relationship is the application of the solution. If the Woman went away and left the Man, would that be very good? No, because then the Man would be alone. There is plenty of evidence throughout scripture - it isn't a question of God stating every single par of it in one go.

                              The point is not what God had in store, the point is what was the solution to the "not good." The solution was Eve, not random humans.
                              Firstly it isn't random humans - they are family.
                              Secondly, Eve wasn't the solution - the Woman was. By stating Eve you actually are stating more strongly my case - for she was the mother of the living.
                              Thirdly, the Woman simply being created, or even being brought to the Man wasn't the solution. It was there completeness together, them being in the image of God

                              Gen 1:26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."
                              Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
                              Gen 1:28 And God blessed them. And God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth."
                              Gen 1:29 And God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food.
                              Gen 1:30 And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food." And it was so.
                              Gen 1:31 And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

                              Note that the statement isn't ONLY in reference to Man and Woman - but rather in reference to EVERYTHING He had made.

                              This statement doesn't occur in Gen 2. So bringing the Woman to the man simply removes the "not good" of being alone. However it is the totality of what God did, the potential and the reality that was very good.

                              So why is homosexuality wrong if God Himself is?
                              Why is incest? It is wrong, yet God made the Man and Woman to have children who would commit incest.
                              Why also is homosexuality wrong? It is wrong because God says so, and why does He say so? What does Paul write? This moves into another area which probably requires another thread - though I am sure it has been debated before. Pure AGAPE homosexuality is different to impure worldly homosexuality.
                              Why is nakedness? Is this purely a term for sinfulness? Read the story in Genesis. It wasn't wrong until they sinned.
                              Not sure if you want to move the thread onto discussing this.

                              How do you know that, and where does the text say this? Sounds like you're basing your opinion on your own opinion. If anything, Eden implies the original idea was for everyone to have their own counterpart.
                              No Eden doesn't imply that. It is in fact a dangerous and subversive idea. Why do I say that? Simply because Man is made in God's image and so is Woman. A person can be whole and complete without being married. There is no specific "other". No one AFTER the Man had a rib removed to create a Woman. No one else has that same bond - yet we are ALL of the same family. We all are of Adam and Eve. We are no longer the only people on the entire earth. Therefore the "alone" part is no longer true as it was for the Man BEFORE the Woman.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: Ice Cream > Marriage

                                Originally posted by Vakeros View Post
                                Does the Father love the Son? Does He love Himself? So He is autosexual and homosexual. The problem is you are using postFall understanding and applying to a preFall / postRedemption picture. You are wrapping your ideas within a naturalistic response.
                                ... What?

                                Love has nothing to do with sex. What kind of craziness are you speaking of?
                                John 10 (KJV)
                                27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
                                28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
                                29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X