Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Sincerely inquiring about the Protestant faith? Welcome to Christforums the Christian Protestant community forums. You'll first need to register in order to join our community. Create or respond to threads on your favorite topics and subjects. Registration takes less than a minute, it's simple, fast, and free! Enjoy the fellowship! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Christian Fellowship Community Forums

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.
Sign in to follow this  
William

Which Interpretation is Right?

Recommended Posts

Staff

R.C. Sproul

 

There are so many different interpretations of what the Bible is saying. How do I know which one is right?

 

That’s a problem that plagues all of us. There are some theoretical things we can say about it, but I’d rather spend time on the practical.

 

The Roman Catholic Church believes that one function of the church is to be the authorized interpreter of Scripture. They believe that not only do we have an infallible Bible but we also have an infallible interpretation of the Bible. That somewhat ameliorates the problem, although it doesn’t eliminate it altogether. You still have those of us who have to interpret the infallible interpretations of the Bible. Sooner or later it gets down to those of us who are not infallible to sort it out. We have this dilemma because there are hosts of differences in interpretations of what the popes say and of what the church councils say, just as there are hosts of different interpretations of what the Bible says.

 

Some people almost despair, saying that “if the theologians can’t agree on this, how am I, a simple Christian, going to be able to understand who’s telling me the truth?”

 

We find these same differences of opinion in medicine. One doctor says you need an operation, and the other doctor says you don’t. How will I find out which doctor is telling me the truth? I’m betting my life on which doctor I trust at this point. It’s troublesome to have experts differ on important matters, and these matters of biblical interpretation are far more important than whether or not I need my appendix out. What do you do when you have a case like that with variant opinions rendered by physicians? You go to a third physician. You try to investigate, try to look at their credentials to see who has the best training, who’s the most reliable doctor; then you listen to the case that the doctor presents for his position and judge which you are persuaded is more cogent. I’d say the same thing goes with differences of biblical interpretations.

 

The first thing I want to know is, Who’s giving the interpretation? Is he educated? I turn on the television and see all kinds of teaching going on from television preachers who, quite frankly, simply are not trained in technical theology or biblical studies. They don’t have the academic qualifications. I know that people without academic qualifications can have a sound interpretation of the Bible, but they’re not as likely to be as accurate as those who have spent years and years of careful research and disciplined training in order to deal with the difficult matters of biblical interpretation.

 

The Bible is an open book for everybody, and everybody has a fair shot of coming up with whatever they want to find in it. We’ve got to see the credentials of the teachers. Not only that, but we don’t want to rely on just one person’s opinion. That’s why when it comes to a biblical interpretation, I often counsel people to check as many sound sources as they can and then not just contemporary sources, but the great minds, the recognized minds of Christian history. It’s amazing to me the tremendous amount of agreement there is among Augustine, Aquinas, Anselm, Luther, Calvin, and Edwards—the recognized titans of church history. I always consult those because they’re the best. If you want to know something, go to the pros.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest problem with people interpreting the Bible is that they bring baggage with them and try to interpret the Bible to support what they believed before they read the Bible.

 

The Roman Catholic Church and Mary's perpetual virginity is one example. The Bible says Mary was married (and, so had marital duty, as Paul explained). That she was a virgin "until" Jesus was born (thus, this verse cannot be used to support that Mary was a virgin after the birth, and implicitly she was no longer a virgin) . That Jesus was born (Catholics claim Jesus wasn't actually born, as that would spoil Mary's vaginal canal). That he had brothers and sisters (not cousins). On the other side, for a doctrine that the Catholic Church holds so high, perpetual virginity is screamingly absent from scripture.

 

So, what's a Catholic to do? They plead against the plain and redundant reading of the Bible, until the Bible is so meaningless that their non-biblical doctrine can stand. Sorry to pick on Catholics,but Protestants do this just as much as Catholics, but without the excuse of trying to reconcile the Bible with church authority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Roman Catholic Church believes that one function of the church is to be the authorized interpreter of Scripture. They believe that not only do we have an infallible Bible but we also have an infallible interpretation of the Bible. That somewhat ameliorates the problem, although it doesn’t eliminate it altogether. You still have those of us who have to interpret the infallible interpretations of the Bible. Sooner or later it gets down to those of us who are not infallible to sort it out. We have this dilemma because there are hosts of differences in interpretations of what the popes say and of what the church councils say, just as there are hosts of different interpretations of what the Bible says.

 

"We have this dilemma because there are hosts of differences in interpretations of what the popes say and of what the church councils say"

 

Really? And on what evidence is that statement made?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Bible says Mary was married

 

And where does the Bible say that Mary was married?

 

It says she was betrothed (Mt 1:18) but where is the mention of a wedding?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which interpretation is right? None of them, if they are interpretations. The correct Bible is one that is a direct translation from the original tongues, such as the Geneva and KJV for example. Many "Bibles" are not really Biblical at all but are paraphrased versions of translations, which makes them opinionated interpretations, such as the "Living Bible". Catholic or not, we are not to interpret the Bible... any of us. No Human. Not the pope, not laymen, not noooobody.

 

The Bible interprets itself. That is what it means when it says to "rightly divide the word of truth". It is not given of any private interpretation, so it is not meant to be privately interpreted either. "Holy men spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost," So believers are to study the Bible by the teachings of the Holy Ghost - 2 John 2:26. The Bible teaches all this, so anyone who disagrees with this disagrees with the Bible, not me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff

 

"We have this dilemma because there are hosts of differences in interpretations of what the popes say and of what the church councils say"

 

Really? And on what evidence is that statement made?

 

You can begin by viewing 29-33 minutes into the 1st video:

 

History and Theology of Calvinism

 

God bless,

William

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And where does the Bible say that Mary was married?

 

It says she was betrothed (Mt 1:18) but where is the mention of a wedding?

 

Betrothed is simply an unconsummated marriage. The same chapter of your verse reference also calls Mary his wife and Joseph her husband. It says Joseph had decided to divorce Mary. It calls Joseph Jesus' father. It shows they were living together. Each these things require that Mary and Joseph be married.

 

An argument from Catholics to show Mary was a perpetual virgin is the fact that Mary asserts her virginity while married to Joseph. Given that they were married, why was she still a virgin unless she made a vow of virginity? But, the chapter you have already pointed to says "before they came together" implying that their abstinence was not permanent and not because of a vow. Likewise, another verse mentions her virginity "until" Jesus was born, showing that Mary made no such vow.

 

It's much more reasonable to believe that the angel visited Mary immediately after the wedding, before the had a chance to consummate the marriage. If the angel's visit was any later, there are other reasons, for more mundane and plausible than a vow of virginity, why they might not have consummated the marriage right away. Why would someone who made a vow of virginity get betrothed?

 

They were married and Mary gave up her virginity, or at least her status is none of our concern, after the birth of Jesus. Period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Almost period. Something more to add: Mark 6:2-4. Jesus undoubtedly had brothers and sisters--not cousins or figurative language. He had brothers and sisters. If you had never been in an RCC, Bede, you would know this to be true. But I've read posting where you allow the church to interpret these as anything but Jesus' brothers and sisters. Look at the Greek. adelphos, like Philadelphia... brotherly love and adelphe - sisters, feminine of adelphos. They are literally Jesus' brothers (James, Joses, and Simon) and sisters, unnamed. Anyone teaching any differently is teaching false doctrine.

 

One of the hardest things for humans to do is accept correction because of our pride. God hates pride. Don't let it get the best of you. Believe the Bible more than man, even the pope. Remember 1 John 2:26-27.

Edited by Stratcat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Which interpretation is right? None of them, if they are interpretations. The correct Bible is one that is a direct translation from the original tongues, such as the Geneva and KJV for example. Many "Bibles" are not really Biblical at all but are paraphrased versions of translations, which makes them opinionated interpretations, such as the "Living Bible". Catholic or not, we are not to interpret the Bible... any of us. No Human. Not the pope, not laymen, not noooobody.

 

The Bible interprets itself. That is what it means when it says to "rightly divide the word of truth". It is not given of any private interpretation, so it is not meant to be privately interpreted either. "Holy men spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost," So believers are to study the Bible by the teachings of the Holy Ghost - 2 John 2:26. The Bible teaches all this, so anyone who disagrees with this disagrees with the Bible, not me.

 

 

All translations are interpretations because there are not exact one for one meanings between words in different langiages. Also words have multiple meanings and choosing the appropriate one is interpretation. It's true though that some translations are more paraphrases.

 

The Bible does not interpret itself. Interpretation requires a mind to think and decide what a text means, taking into account the context in which the text is found.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cornelius, Stratcat,

 

As I'm already discussing Mary's perpetual viginity in the "When Did It All Go Wrong" thread, I'll respond to your points there rather than derail this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bede, please read 1 John 2:26. 2 John was a typo. You best understand that the Bible is spiritual, not of natural carnal understanding. This is why when God converts us, we are able to understand the Bible at a spiritual level. Those that do are generally like-minded in agreement with the Bible.

 

Also, your comments on translations being paraphrase due to having more than one meaning doesn't wash. If it did, the Bible would be useless and so would all churches. In fact, that is the argument that unbelievers and atheists use. Further, there are no multiple meanings for brothers and sisters when referring to Jesus' family in post #8. Only one meaning each for brothers and sisters. You and your church place Mary at the level of God, or divine, which is idolatry. There is only one Holy Father, one divine, and that is God himself, and only God. Pastors and priests shouldn't even be called "Reverend", for as it is written, "Reverend is His name."

 

You are placing a man above the Bible when you believe God gives the pope revelation outside of Scripture. You are degrading the Scripture by not believing that God sees to it that translations into other languages is protected to be accurate in at least one version. God protects His word in any language. The knowledge of God is passed down from generation to generation by the Holy Ghost teaching the Scriptures, not by one man issuing papal bulls and so forth. I am not being derogatory, as the pope's announcements of revelations are called papal bulls in the church, and I've read some in an RCC monthly called The Word Among Us. Most disagreeable.

 

Sorry, but you sound like you don't believe in the Bible as the inspired, inerrant word of God. You place what your church says above what the Bible says. Therefore, the RCC has no standard to go by other than just listening to the pope. Now you see why the Reformation took place. It literally unchained the Bible from the pulpit in the middle ages by a man named John Wycliffe, who was burned at the stake for getting the Bible into the hands of the people, where it belongs. There was more than Martin Luther who headed up the Reformation, God bless them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bede, please read 1 John 2:26. 2 John was a typo. You best understand that the Bible is spiritual, not of natural carnal understanding. This is why when God converts us, we are able to understand the Bible at a spiritual level. Those that do are generally like-minded in agreement with the Bible.

 

Simply not true Stratcat.

 

Also, your comments on translations being paraphrase due to having more than one meaning doesn't wash. If it did, the Bible would be useless and so would all churches. In fact, that is the argument that unbelievers and atheists use.

 

I didn't say translations were paraphrase as due to having more that one meaning. They were two different points

 

1. Some translations are more paraphrase than translation. I was agreeing with you there

 

2. Words in a language often do not have one to one correlation with another language. And words often have more than one meaning.

 

The Concise Oxford English Dictionary has twenty eight different meaning of 'call' as a vern and eighteen as a noun. To translate a particular usage you would have to make a decision as to exactly which usage is meant.

 

It's the same in any language, for example there are four different words in Greek that are translated as love in English.

 

Deciding which meaning is intended is interpretation

 

You are placing a man above the Bible when you believe God gives the pope revelation outside of Scripture. You are degrading the Scripture by not believing that God sees to it that translations into other languages is protected to be accurate in at least one version. God protects His word in any language. The knowledge of God is passed down from generation to generation by the Holy Ghost teaching the Scriptures, not by one man issuing papal bulls and so forth. I am not being derogatory, as the pope's announcements of revelations are called papal bulls in the church, and I've read some in an RCC monthly called The Word Among Us. Most disagreeable.

 

Just Catholic bashing and displaying your ignorance. Not very edifying.

 

Further, there are no multiple meanings for brothers and sisters when referring to Jesus' family in post #8. Only one meaning each for brothers and sisters. You and your church place Mary at the level of God, or divine, which is idolatry. There is only one Holy Father, one divine, and that is God himself, and only God. Pastors and priests shouldn't even be called "Reverend", for as it is written, "Reverend is His name."

 

More off-topic Catholic bashing

 

Sorry, but you sound like you don't believe in the Bible as the inspired, inerrant word of God.

 

Well you are wrong. I do believe the Bible is the insprired word of God

.

You place what your church says above what the Bible says.

 

No I don't. I might place it above your personal and fallible interpretation of the Bible.

 

Therefore, the RCC has no standard to go by other than just listening to the pope.

 

Rubbish.

 

Now you see why the Reformation took place. It literally unchained the Bible from the pulpit in the middle ages by a man named John Wycliffe, who was burned at the stake for getting the Bible into the hands of the people

 

More rubbish. It didn't literally unchain the Bible from the pulpit. John Wycliffe was a heretic, as was martin Luther.

 

 

 

Edited by Bede

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
More rubbish. It didn't literally unchain the Bible from the pulpit. John Wycliffe was a heretic, as was martin Luther.

 

According to which standard Bede, the Papistry or Scripture?

 

God bless,

William

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Per your last comment, therein lies our trouble. The previous quotes you make are just contradiction, and I am not bashing, though I knew you'd take it that way. Google The Word Among Us and see for yourself the claims your pope is making that supposedly come from God. I state Scripture with obvious meaning and you call it my fallible interpretation. When things get to that mentality, they go nowhere. You trust what Francis says but don't trust the Holy Spirit to teach you from the Bible. A personal relationship with God requires us knowing who He is from the Spirit and the Bible. Without that personal relationship, we are not saved. Your church breaks into and short-circuits that relationship using church hierarchy.You bash Protestants then accuse us of doing the same to RCC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

According to which standard Bede, the Papistry or Scripture?

 

God bless,

William

 

Which one - chaining Bibles or Wycliffe being a heretic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Per your last comment, therein lies our trouble. The previous quotes you make are just contradiction, and I am not bashing, though I knew you'd take it that way. Google The Word Among Us and see for yourself the claims your pope is making that supposedly come from God.

 

Let's have specifics please.

 

I state Scripture with obvious meaning and you call it my fallible interpretation. When things get to that mentality, they go nowhere.

 

You said to me "You place what your church says above what the Bible says." Where is that specifically in the Bible?

 

You trust what Francis says but don't trust the Holy Spirit to teach you from the Bible.

 

That may be your opinion. I trust in Jesus' promises that he will lead the Church into all truth, so that when it teaches something infallibly I believe it is true.

 

Sorry to be blunt, but should I trust your opinions?

 

A personal relationship with God requires us knowing who He is from the Spirit and the Bible.

 

No it doesn't An illiterate person can have a personal relationship with God.

 

Without that personal relationship, we are not saved.

 

Salvation brings us into a personal relationship with God.

 

Your church breaks into and short-circuits that relationship using church hierarchy.You bash Protestants then accuse us of doing the same to RCC.

 

Wrong again

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now you see why the Reformation took place. It literally unchained the Bible from the pulpit

 

Stratcat,

 

Q. Do you know who ordered Bibles to be chained to pulpits?

A. It was Protestant Henry VIII

 

Q. Do you know who passed a law banning the ownership of Tyndale's Bible (among others)?

A. It was the English Protestant Parliament in 1543

 

Q. Do you know whom banned the reading of scripture by "women… artificers, prentices, journeymen, serving men of the degrees of yeomen or under, husbandmen or labourers."?

A. It was the English Protestant Parliament in 1543

 

Q. Do you know what was the penalty for persistent clerical offenders against this Act of 1543?

A. Being burned!

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
comments on translations being paraphrase due to having more than one meaning doesn't wash.

 

All translations are paraphrases. There simply does not exist words and grammar with identical meaning between languages, especially between more distant languages. The difference between what we think of as a literal translation vs. a paraphrase is simply degree of paraphrase. I want a translation where the translators tried very hard hard not to inject their own opinions, like the KJV and ESV, but it's unavoidable. Consider the KJV where it's completely normal for the translators to translate the same Greek word into a half-dozen different English words, in a half-dozen different verses. Show me a word that the KJV translators only translated only one way, and I'll you a word that is probably only used once in the Greek source (outside of proper names). Remember the English Google translation of John 3:16 from Korean, which I posted?

 

The Bible isn't useless. We do have God's word in Greek and Hebrew copies, not translations. We need preachers educated in Hebrew and especially Greek. Serious Bible study often involves examining the Greek words behind the translation. The translator can know the one single meaning of a Greek word, but if there's no exact English word with the exact same meaning for which to translate the word, he'll have to choose between several close words. That choice will be influenced by the doctrinal baggage he brings.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you are describing is needed is called a lexicon, and the many translators of the KJV were well aware of it. The lexicon picks up on the idiosyncrasies of language translation. The KJV and Geneva are translations, though not in entirety. Where the KJV uses italics is where the translators could not find or use a direct word translation for the Greek or Hebrew so they put what is a continuity word in italics to indicate this.

 

God says we are taught by the Holy Spirit so we are taught by the Holy Spirit, if we are believers. 1 John 2:26! This means all believers, not just preachers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Where the KJV uses italics is where the translators could not find or use a direct word translation for the Greek or Hebrew so they put what is a continuity word in italics to indicate this.

 

The KJV uses italics to indicate words added by the translator. It's not that there's no direct word in the English, it's that there's no word at all in the original.

 

Consider: Psalm 3:8

1) Salvation unto the LORD: thy blessing is upon thy people. Selah.

2) Salvation belongeth unto the LORD: thy blessing is upon thy people. Selah

 

The word for "salvation", the first word, is translated as salvation, help, deliverance, health, saving, or welfare, depending on the judgement of the KJV translator.

 

"Belongeth" is arbitrarily added, but it is italicized to warn the reader.

 

The phrase "unto the" is added by the translators for grammatical reasons, but isn't italicized.

 

"LORD" is a substitute word for the four-letter name of God, but it isn't italicized (but, it is in all caps).

 

"Thy" is added by the translators for grammatical reasons, but it isn't italicized.

 

The word for "blessing" is translated blessing,present, liberal, pools, depending on the judgement of the KJV translator.

 

"Is upon thy" is added by translators for grammatical reasons, but isn't italicized.

 

The word for "people" is translated as people, nation, folk, ammi, men, or each, depending on the judgement of the translator.

 

"Selah" is untranslated.

 

The above is only the tip of the paraphrasing iceberg of that verse.

 

 

God says we are taught by the Holy Spirit so we are taught by the Holy Spirit, if we are believers. 1 John 2:26! This means all believers, not just preachers.

 

Any believer could be on Mars, without access to a Bible or other Christians, and the Holy Spirit would give him everything he needs to know. "Need" is the keyword. But, it's nice to know more than you need to know. No Christian needs to know that the KJV added "belongeth" to Psalm 3:8, but it's nice to know, for anyone interested. No Christian needs to read Psalm 3:8 to be saved, but it's nice to read.

 

It's also good to remember that the New Testament's use of "all" and "everything" doesn't have meaning as extensive as the English words. Here again that is proved by the fact that Paul is teaching us that we "don't need to be taught", and the Bible is full of evidence that God wants us taught by other men.

 

In context, Paul is talking about false teachers. A Christian open to the Holy Spirit should detect false teachings (not not necessarily false details).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In your first paragraphs, I agree with some of what you say regarding italics.

 

The last paragraphs of your post I vehemently disagree with. Where did these "other men" get their doctrine, if not from the Bible? And if from the Bible, we as laymen can also learn by the Holy Ghost from the Bible. I experienced this the day I was saved and ever since. How are we to know who teaches falsely unless we know the Bible from the Holy Spirit whom we can trust, for we do not otherwise know whom we can trust to point out false doctrine and teach the truth.

 

Only by God can we know the truth and test the spirits to see if they be of God or the devil. By your logic, none of the Bible is any good, taking it out to the degree you do. My atheist son tells me the same things you do to put down the Bible. You are subtly putting down the accuracy of the Bible, and our ability to understand it by trusting God. You don't trust God to be your teacher. "Trust in the Lord with all thine heart and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge Him and He will direct thy paths." Or don't you believe this, for if not, you don't believe in the Bible as the word of God. He protects His word so that every nation, kindred, tongue and people can be taught of the Lord by the Lord, sometimes through true believing teachers. God warns us not to heap to ourselves teachers, having itching ears... and the only way to keep that in line is to know who is a phony and who is real, and the only way to do that is by trusting God to first be our teacher and the Bible to be His truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wycliffe's views are rather difficult to discern after 600 years because not a lot of his writings or those of his contemporary supporters and critics has survived. The Encyclopaedia Britannica says:

Assessment

 

It is no wonder that such a controversial figure produced—and still produces—a wide variety of reactions. The monks and friars retaliated, immediately and fiercely, against his denunciations of them, but such criticism grew less as the Reformation approached. Most of Wycliffe’s post-Reformation, Protestant biographers see him as the first Reformer, fighting almost alone the hosts of medieval wickedness. There has now been a reaction to this, and some modern scholars have attacked this view as the delusion of uncritical admirers. The question “Which is the real John Wycliffe?” is almost certainly unanswerable after 600 years.

 

I think the encyclopaedia got it right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah disagree with #20. Y'all should understand th' workins o' th' Holy Ghost. He is our teacher, comforter, prays with us, is our seal of salvation, helps us to test the spirits (teachings of men). He has the final word. He gives us the understandings of the spirituality of Scriptures, as to what they mean, rightly dividing the word of truth (the Bible interpreting itself). It does not strike one as odd as to where the scholars and preachers get their truth? Is it the Holy Ghost or Satan? How would one know without blindly accepting what they tell and how would one know without being able to test the spirits? This lack of relying on the Holy Spirit is where cults come from, or do we dare say that by relying on Him causes cults.

 

I haven't read the Geneva Bible, but according to what I've heard, it is good. I trust the KJV. I do not trust the modern translations. I read much of the NIV while reading the KJV and didn't care which I'd pick. I was lead to the KJV, I believe by God, as my main study Bible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ah disagree with #20. Y'all should understand th' workins o' th' Holy Ghost. He is our teacher, comforter, prays with us, is our seal of salvation, helps us to test the spirits (teachings of men). He has the final word. He gives us the understandings of the spirituality of Scriptures, as to what they mean, rightly dividing the word of truth (the Bible interpreting itself). It does not strike one as odd as to where the scholars and preachers get their truth? Is it the Holy Ghost or Satan?

 

Where protestant scholars and preachers get their "truth" from is anybody's guess. The Catholic Church got it from Jesus who guaranteed that it will not stray from those truths and sends his Spirit to ensure that. Protestants hold multitudinous conflicting doctrines that cannot come from the Holy Spirit. Why would the Holy Spirit teach different groups different doctrines?

 

BTW scripture does not interpret itself. Any interpreting takes thinking and a mind to think with. When you say "scripture interprets itself" I suspect you mean that you (a thinking person) uses one piece of scripture to interpret another. That is valid but don't pretend it is scripture interpreting itself when it is actually you doing the interpreting.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...