The gap theory
teaches that there was an original creation (Genesis 1:1) and that as a result
of Lucifer’s rebellion and fall, the earth became chaos. The picture of
formlessness, emptiness, and darkness in Genesis 1:2 is allegedly a picture of
divine judgment, for God could not have originally created the earth this way.
Millions of years are said to have taken place between verses 1 and 2.
The gap theory
has a number of problems. For one thing, the grammar of Genesis 1:1-2 does not
allow for a gap. Verse 1 is an independent clause, and verse 2 is composed of
three circumstantial clauses (explaining the condition of or circumstances on
the earth when God began to create). There is no break between verses 1 and 2.
Grammatically, then, the gap theory just doesn’t fit.
The gap theory
also depends on the idea that the initial formlessness of the universe is an
indication of evil or judgment. However, the contexts of Job 26:7 and Isaiah
45:18 (cross-references to the Genesis creation account) do not support this idea.
Gap theorists also draw an artificial distinction between the Hebrew verbs bara’
(which they define as “create out of nothing”—Genesis 1:1) and ‘asah (which
they define as “refashion”—Genesis 1:7,16,25). A careful study of these two verbs
reveals that they are used interchangeably—the word ‘asah does not
mean “refashion.” Because of these and other factors, I do not give much
credence to the gap theory.
Were the days
mentioned in the creation account literal 24-hour days (Genesis 1:3—2:3)?
Some
theologians believe the days in the creation account were simply revelatory
days—that is, they were days during which God revealed the creation
scene to Moses. (Exodus 20:11, however, clearly contradicts this view.) Other
theologians believe each day in the creation account represents an age.
Justification for this view is found in Joel 2:31, which portrays a day as a
long period of time. Others believe the days in Genesis are literal solar days,
but they say each day was separated by a huge time gap. This allegedly accounts
for the apparent long geological ages that science has discovered. Finally,
some theologians believe the days of Genesis are literal solar days with no
time gap between them. This is my view. In support of this latter view, the Genesis
account makes reference to evening and morning, indicating that literal days
are meant (Genesis 1:5). Further, we read that God created the sun to rule the
day and the moon to rule the night, thus indicating solar days (verse 16).
Solar days also seem to be implied in Exodus 20:11 where we are told that “in
six days the Lord made heaven and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them,
but he rested on the seventh day.” Moreover, Hebrew scholars tell us that
whenever a number is used with the Hebrew word for day (yom), it
always refers to a literal solar day (no exceptions). Since God is said to have
created the universe in six days, literal solar days must be meant.
Are the “sons
of God” mentioned in Genesis 6:2 evil angels?
This is a
much-debated issue. A common view is that some evil angels cohabited with human
women. Supporting this position, the Septuagint manuscripts (that is,
manuscripts of an early Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament) have the
phrase “angels of God” instead of “sons of God.” This reveals that some of the
early Jews understood this phrase to be referring to angels. Also, the Hebrew
phrase for “sons of God” (or, more literally, “sons of Elohim”) is a phrase
that always refers to angels when used elsewhere in the Old Testament (see Job
1:6; 2:1; 38:7).
The “evil
angel” interpretation of Genesis 6 may give us a clue as to why some angels are
presently bound in prison and others are not (2 Peter 2:4). Some people argue
that if the holy angels can appear as human beings and even participate in
eating meals and doing good deeds (Genesis 18; Hebrews 13:2), is it not
possible that at one time some fallen angels took on a human appearance and
engaged in evil deeds?
If the “sons
of God” in Genesis 6:2 were not evil angels, then who could they have been?
Many
interpreters believe that some fallen angels possessed human men who then
cohabited with “the daughters of man.” This view has the merit of providing a
good explanation of how angels, who are bodiless
(Hebrews 1:14)
and genderless beings (Matthew 22:30), could cohabit with humans.
Another common
interpretation is that the phrase “sons of God” refers to the godly line of
Seth (the Redeemer’s line—Genesis 4:26) that intermingled with the godless line
of Cain. Gleason Archer suggests, “Instead of remaining true to God and loyal
to their spiritual heritage, they allowed themselves to be enticed by the
beauty of ungodly women who were ‘daughters of men’—that is, of the tradition
and example of Cain.”16 In support of this view is the fact that human beings
are sometimes called “sons” (Isaiah 43:6).
It is best not
to be dogmatic on Genesis 6:2.
Was the flood
of Genesis 6–8 a universal flood or a local flood?
I believe the
flood was more than likely universal. The waters climbed so high on the earth
that “all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered” (Genesis
7:19). They rose so greatly on the earth that they “prevailed above the mountains,
covering them fifteen cubits deep” (verse 20). (Fifteen cubits is more than
twenty feet.) The flood lasted some 377 days (nearly 54 weeks), indicating more
than just local flooding. The Bible also says that every living thing that moved
on the earth perished, thus indicating the universality of the flood (verses
21-23). Further, the universal view best explains the fact that there is a worldwide
distribution of diluvia deposits. A universal flood would also explain the
sudden death of many woolly mammoths frozen in Alaskan and Siberian ice.
Investigation shows that these animals died suddenly by choking or drowning and
not by freezing. Finally, many universal flood legends (more than 270) were
written by people of various religions and cultural backgrounds all over the world.
These people attribute the descent of all races to Noah.
What are we to
make of Joshua 10:12-14, which speaks of Joshua bidding the sun to stand still?
Scholars have
two primary suggestions as to how to interpret this passage. Some commentators
believe God may have just slowed down or stopped the normal rotation of the
earth so that Joshua’s forces were able to complete their victory over the
Amorites. Others suggest that God prolonged the daylight by some sort of
unusual refraction of the sun’s rays. This would have given Joshua and his men
more daylight hours but not necessarily more hours in the day.
Personally, I
think God stopped the earth’s rotation on its axis. Such a miracle poses no
problem for the Almighty God of the universe. Performing a mighty miracle
(stopping the earth’s rotation) is no more difficult for Him than performing a
minor miracle (withering a fig tree).
It is highly
revealing that the Amorites worshipped the sun and the moon as deities.
Apparently, then, the true God brought about the defeat of the Amorites through
the agency of their own supposed deities. This showed the utter futility of
their belief in false gods.
Does the
fossil evidence support or contradict evolution?
Billions of
fossils have been discovered virtually all over the world. Dinosaur graveyards
are scattered all around, located in such places as the Rockies, South Africa,
Central Asia, and Belgium. Fossils of marine invertebrates are found almost
everywhere. Fossils of ocean fish, mollusk shells, and even a whale have been discovered
on various mountains. With this abundance of evidence, one would expect that if
evolutionary theory were true, the fossil record would show a step-by-step progression
from simple life forms to increasingly complex life forms. However, the fossil
record actually shows that species throughout geologic history have remained
remarkably stable (not changing) for exceedingly long periods of time, and that
there was a sudden explosion of life forms during the Cambrian Age (the first
period of the Paleozoic Era). So astonishing is the explosion of life forms
during the Cambrian period that some refer to it as “biology’s big bang.” Many
of the animal types that appear in the Cambrian era continue to the present
day. An objective consideration of the Cambrian explosion reveals that there is
no evolutionary descent of life forms, and no slow modifications taking place
in life forms as a result of natural selection. The truth is that the
prevailing characteristic of fossil species is stasis—that is, there is
an absence of change in the fossils. Creationists therefore believe the fossil
evidence is more in line with their view than with evolutionary theory. The
intermediate fossils certainly show no transition of one species into another—for
example, a transition of a “primitive primate relative” into a human being—as one
would expect if evolution were true.
Are dinosaurs
mentioned in the Bible?
There is a good
possibility. For example, Job 40:15 tells us, “Behold, Behemoth, which I made
as I made you; he eats grass like an ox.” While some have claimed that the
behemoth must be either an elephant or a hippopotamus, verse 17 tells us that
“his tail” is “stiff like a cedar.” (Neither the elephant nor the hippopotamus
has such a giant tail.) Many have thus concluded that this sounds more like a
dinosaur. It may be that the behemoth is a brontosaurus or a similar
plant-eating dinosaur. Also, Job 41:1 asks, “Can you draw out Leviathan with a
fishhook or press down his tongue with a cord?” Many believe that the Leviathan
might be a marine dinosaur, or at least a very large crocodile. After all, it
is far too large to capture with a fishhook. So it must be a giant sea creature
of some sort.
Where does the
word Christian come from?
The word Christian
is used only three times in the New Testament— the most important of which
is Acts 11:26 (see also Acts 26:28 and 1 Peter 4:16). In Acts 11:26, we are
told simply and straightforwardly, “In Antioch the disciples were first called
Christians.” This would have been around AD 42, about a decade after Christ
died on the cross and was resurrected from the dead. What does the term mean? The
answer is found in the “ian” ending—for among the ancients this ending meant
“belonging to the party of.” “Herodians” belonged to the party of Herod.
“Caesarians” belonged to the party of Caesar. “Christians” belonged to Christ. And
Christians were loyal to Christ, just as the Herodians were loyal to Herod and
Caesarians were loyal to Caesar. The significance of the name Christian was
that these followers of Jesus were recognized as a distinct group. They were
seen as distinct from Judaism and as distinct from all other religions of the
ancient world. We might loosely translate the term Christians as “those
who belong to Christ,” “Christ-ones,” or perhaps “Christ-people.” They are
ones who follow the Christ.
What does
James 2:17,26 mean when it says that faith without works is dead?
Martin Luther
said it best: James 2 is not teaching that a person is saved by works. Rather a
person is “justified” (declared righteous before God) by faith alone, but not
by a faith that is alone. In other words, genuine faith will always result
in good works in the saved person’s life. James is writing to Jewish Christians
(“to the twelve tribes”—James 1:1) who were in danger of giving nothing but lip
service to Jesus. His intent, therefore, was to distinguish true faith from
false faith. He shows that true faith results in works, which become visible
evidences of faith’s invisible presence. In other words, good works are the “vital
signs” indicating that faith is alive. Apparently some of these Jewish Christians
had made a false claim of faith. James indicates that merely claiming to have
faith is not enough, for genuine faith is evidenced by works. As one scholar
put it, “Great claims may be made about a corpse that is supposed to have come
to life, but if it does not move, if there are no vital signs, no heartbeat, no
perceptible pulse, it is still dead. The false claims are silenced by the evidence.”
The fact is, apart from the spirit, the body is dead—it’s a lifeless corpse. By
analogy, apart from the evidence of good works, faith is dead. It is lifeless and
nonproductive. That is what James is teaching in this passage.
Some people
claim that Jesus is “one of many ways to God.” As witnesses of Christ, how can
we respond to this idea?
This line of
thinking tries to argue that all the leaders of the world religions were
pointing to the same God. This is not true, however. The reason we can say this
is that the leaders of the different world religions had different (and contradictory)
ideas about God.
Jesus taught
that there is only one God and that He is triune in nature (Matthew 28:19).
Muhammad taught that there is only one God, but that God cannot have a son, and
there is no Trinity. Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita (a Hindu scripture) indicated
he believed in a combination of polytheism (there are many gods) and pantheism
(all is God). Confucius believed in many gods. Zoroaster taught that both a
good god and a bad god exist. Buddha taught that the concept of God was
essentially irrelevant.1
Obviously,
these religious leaders are not pointing to the same God. If one is right, all
the others are wrong. If Jesus is right (and He is), then all the others
are wrong.
Jesus claimed
that what He said took precedence over all others. He said He is humanity’s only
means of coming into a relationship with God (John 14:6). This was
confirmed by those who followed Him (Acts 4:12; 1 Timothy 2:5). And Jesus warned
His followers about those who would try to set forth a different Christ
(Matthew 24:4-5).
Jesus is
totally unique. He proved the veracity of all He said by resurrecting from the
dead (Acts 17:31; Romans 1:4). None of the other leaders of the different world
religions did that.
Is purgatory a
biblical doctrine?
No. The
backdrop is that when Jesus died on the cross, He said “It is finished” (John
19:30). Jesus completed the work of redemption at the cross. In keeping with
this, Jesus in His high priestly prayer to the Father said, “I glorified you on
earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to do” (John 17:4). Hebrews
10:14 also tells us that “by a single offering he has perfected for all time
those who are being sanctified.” Therefore, those who believe in Christ are
“perfect for all time”—no further “purging” is necessary. Likewise, we are told
in 1 John 1:7 that “the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.”
Romans 8:1 says, “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in
Christ Jesus.” Such verses make the doctrine of purgatory impossible. Jesus
Himself purged all our sin at the cross.
What is
reincarnation?
The word reincarnation
literally means to “come again in the flesh.” The process of reincarnation continual
rebirths in human bodies— allegedly continues until the soul has reached a
state of perfection and merges back with its source (God or the “Universal
Soul”). One’s lot in life, according to those who believe in reincarnation, is
based on the law of karma. This law says that if bad things happen in one’s
life, this is an outworking of bad karma. If good things happen in one’s life,
this is an outworking of good karma. “Karma” refers to the “debt” a soul
accumulates because of good or bad actions committed during one’s life (or past
lives). If one accumulates good karma by performing good actions, he or she
will be reincarnated in a desirable state. If one accumulates bad karma, he or
she will be reincarnated in a less desirable state.
What are some
practical problems in believing in reincarnation?
The
salvation-by-works doctrine of reincarnation has many practical problems:
We must ask,
why does one get punished for something he or she cannot remember having done
in a previous life? If the purpose of karma is to rid humanity of its selfish
desires, then why hasn’t there been a noticeable improvement in human nature
after all the millennia of reincarnations? If reincarnation and the law of
karma are so beneficial on a practical level, then how do advocates of this
doctrine explain the immense and ever-worsening social and economic problems—including
widespread poverty, starvation, disease, and horrible suffering—in India, where
reincarnation has been systematically taught throughout its history?
Reincarnation
makes one socially passive. It teaches that one should not interfere with
someone else’s bad karma (bad circumstances). Also, reincarnation is
fatalistic. The law of karma guarantees that whatever we sow in the present
life, we will invariably reap in the next life. It works infallibly and
inexorably. There is no room for grace!
Reincarnation
offers little to look forward to. Absorption into Brahman (the Universal Soul)
has little appeal when compared to the possibility of living eternally with the
living and personal God (Revelation 22:1-5).
What are some
biblical problems with the doctrine of reincarnation?
In 2
Corinthians 5:8 the apostle Paul states, “We are of good courage, and we would
rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord.” At death, the
Christian immediately goes into the presence of the Lord, not into another
body. Unbelievers at death go to a place of suffering, not into another body
(Luke 16:19-31; see also 2 Peter 2:9).
Most
important, Hebrews 9:27 assures us that “it is appointed for man to die once,
and after that comes judgment.” Each human being lives once as a mortal
on the earth, dies once, and then faces judgment. No one has a
second chance by reincarnating into another body. For this reason, the apostle
Paul urged, “Now is the day of salvation” (2 Corinthians 6:2).
Is it okay for
Christians to practice meditation?
No and yes.
Allow me to explain.
Christians are
not to practice eastern forms of meditation. In eastern meditation, the primary
goal is to empty the mind so that one experiences a sense of oneness with all things.
Proponents of this type of meditation call this sense of oneness “cosmic
consciousness.” Most such proponents are pantheists—that is, they believe that
God is all and that all is God. Their worldview contradicts the biblical
distinction between God the Creator and His creatures (see Isaiah 44:6-8; Hebrews
2:6-8).
It is also
important to recognize that the kinds of altered states of consciousness
characteristic of eastern meditation can open one up to spiritual affliction
and deception by the powers of darkness. This alone should serve to dissuade
any Christian from participating in this type of meditation.
Having said
all this, we as Christians ought to practice meditation as defined in the
Bible. In this type of meditation, the individual believer objectively
contemplates and deeply reflects upon God’s Word (Psalm 1:2; 19:14; Joshua 1:8)
as well as His Person and faithfulness (Psalm 119; see also 19:14; 48:9; 77:12;
104:34; 143:5). There is no subjective emptying of the mind.
The Hebrew
word for meditate carries the idea of “murmuring.” It pictures an
individual reading and concentrating so intently on what he’s reading in
Scripture that his lips move as he reads. Such Christian meditation fills our
minds with godly wisdom and insight. Scripture affirms, “Blessed is the man…[whose]
delight is in the law of the Lord, and on his law he meditates day and night”
(Psalm 1:1-2).
Is it okay for
Christians to read horoscopes?
No. In fact,
it’s off-limits.
As a backdrop,
astrologers believe that humanity’s evolution goes through progressive cycles
corresponding to the signs of the zodiac. Each of these cycles allegedly lasts
between 2,000 and 2,400 years. It is believed that humanity is now moving from
the Piscean Age (the age of intellectual humankind) into the Aquarian Age (the
age of spiritual humankind).
Astrology can
be traced back to the religious practices of ancient Mesopotamia, Assyria, and
Egypt. It is a form of divination—an attempt to seek counsel or knowledge by
occultic means—that was very popular among the people of these nations. As such,
astrology (including reading horoscopes) is strictly off-limits for the
Christian.
In Isaiah 47,
we find a strong denunciation of astrologers and their craft. Verse 15
explicitly states that “they wander about each in his own direction,” and
“there is no one to save you.” The book of Daniel confirms that astrologers
lack true discernment, and that the only source of accurate revelation is God
Almighty (Daniel 2:2,10).
Understanding UFOs
Is it possible
that there is life on other planets?
I can’t be
dogmatic about this. But it seems to me that the absolute centrality of the
earth in Scripture might be one reason to question the claim of life on other
planets.
Though
atheistic scientists would scoff at this, Scripture points to the centrality of
the earth and gives us no hint that life exists elsewhere. To the naturalistic
astronomer, the earth is but an astronomical atom among the whirling
constellations, only a tiny speck of dust among the ocean of stars and planets
in the universe. It is just one of many planets in our small solar system, all
of which are in orbit around the sun.
But the earth
is nevertheless the center of God’s work of salvation in the universe. On it
the Highest presents Himself in solemn covenants and divine appearances. On
it the Son of God became man. On it stood the cross of the Redeemer
of the world. And on it—though indeed on the new earth, yet still on the
earth—will be at last the throne of God and the Lamb (Revelation 21:1-2; 22:3).
The centrality
of the earth is also evident in the creation account, for God created the earth
before He created the rest of the planets and stars. One possible reason for
this is that in this way God has emphasized the supreme importance of the earth
among all astronomical bodies in the universe. Despite its comparative
smallness of size, even among the nine planets, to say nothing of the stars
themselves, it is nonetheless absolutely unique in God’s eternal purposes.
What are some
of the natural explanations of UFO sightings?
Many UFO
sightings have a natural explanation. Sometimes military jets fly high in the
atmosphere. Sometimes sunrays reflect off of satellites floating around the
earth. Also, over 7,000 pieces of space junk are floating around the earth. If
the sunlight hits one of these objects in the right way, it could appear as a
UFO high in the atmosphere. There is also a phenomenon known as ball lighting
in which the lightning is oval-shaped, can hover above ground, can dart around the
sky at incredible speeds, and appear to be a bright-looking craft. Of course,
some sightings of UFOs may involve deliberate hoaxes (for example, there have
been many doctored photographs or videos of alleged flying saucers).
Do the
Scriptures teach that human beings are (or can become) “little gods”?
No. If it were
true that human beings are “little gods,” then one would expect them to display
qualities similar to those known to be true of God. This seems only logical.
However, when one compares the attributes of humankind with those of God, we
find more than ample testimony for the truth of Paul’s statement in Romans 3:23
that human beings “fall short of the glory of God.”
After all, God
is all-knowing (Isaiah 40:13-14), but man is limited in knowledge (Job 38:4).
God is all-powerful (Revelation 19:6), but man is weak (Hebrews 4:15). God is everywhere
present (Psalm 139:7-12), but man is confined to a single space at a time (John
1:50). God is holy (1 John 1:5), but even man’s “righteous” deeds are as filthy
garments before God (Isaiah 64:6). God is eternal (Psalm 90:2), but man was
created at a point in time (Genesis 1: 26-27). God is truth (John 14:6), but
man’s heart is deceitful above all else (Jeremiah 17:9).
God is
characterized by justice (Acts 17:31), but man is lawless (1 John 3:4; see also
Romans 3:23). God is love (Ephesians 2:4-5), but man is plagued with numerous
vices like jealousy and strife (1 Corinthians 3:3).
If man is a
god, one could never tell it by his attributes!
What does
Scripture say about drinking?
Drunkenness is
forbidden by God all throughout Scripture. It is simply not an option for the
Christian. In Ephesians 5:18, the apostle Paul explicitly instructs, “Do not
get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit.”
Paul is telling us to be controlled by the Spirit, not by wine.
While drinking
wine in moderation is permissible in Scripture (see John 2:9; 1 Timothy
3:3,8), many wine-drinking Christians today are wrongly assuming that what the
New Testament means by wine is identical to the wine used today. This, however,
is not correct.
Today’s wine
is by biblical definitions “strong drink.” What the New Testament meant by wine
was basically purified water. The beverage that was drunk in ancient times was
generally 20 parts water and one part wine. Twenty-to-one water is essentially
wine-flavored water. Sometimes in the ancient world they would go as strong as
one part water and one part wine—and this was considered strong wine.
Anyone who
drank wine unmixed was looked upon as a Scythian, a barbarian. So anyone who would
take wine unmixed, even the Greeks thought was a barbarian. That means the
Greeks would look at our culture today and say, “You Americans are barbarians—drinking
straight wine.”
Are there any
commandments in the Bible against smoking cigarettes?
No. But the
Scriptures do indicate that the Christian’s body is a temple of the Holy
Spirit, and as such, we should seek to glorify God in our body (1 Corinthians
6:19-20). Of course, this also applies to eating the right kind of food and
making sure we stay fit. Though smoking will not keep you out of heaven, it
will probably get you there much quicker. Another thing to keep in mind is that
your “secondhand smoke” might end up sending others into eternity— believers and
unbelievers—much earlier than otherwise would have occurred.
Is cremation
following death permissible for Christians?
In the Bible
cremation is portrayed only as an exceptional method of disposing of bodies.
Most often cremation took place in the midst of unusual circumstances. For
example, in 1 Samuel 31:11-12 we read about the “inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead”
(verse 11) who burned the corpses of Saul and his sons in order to prevent
desecration of their bodies at the hands of the Philistines.
We don’t find
cremation mentioned in the New Testament. Burial is the normal method.
Moreover, the church fathers preferred “the ancient and better custom of
burying in the earth.”1
But Scripture
contains no actual prohibition against cremation in its pages. And if a
Christian does get cremated, this poses no problem for God in resurrecting that
person’s body from the dead (1 Corinthians 15:42-44).
We read in 2
Corinthians 5:1, “We know that if the tent, which is our earthly home, is
destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in
the heavens.” It does not matter how our earthly “tent” (body) is destroyed; all
that matters is that God will raise it from the dead. Even those who are buried
eventually dissolve into dust and bones. So, regardless of whether we’re buried
or cremated, we can all look forward to a permanent resurrection body
that will never be subject to death and decay.
Is there a
case for self-defense in the Bible?
Yes. In fact,
self-defense may result in one of the greatest examples of human love. Jesus
said, “Greater love has no one than this, that someone lays down his life for
his friends” (John 15:13). When protecting one’s family or neighbor, a
Christian is unselfishly risking his or her life for the sake of others.
To not engage
in self-defense (or defense of others) is morally wrong. To allow murder to
take place when one could have prevented it is morally wrong. To permit a young
girl to be raped when one could have hindered it is an evil. To watch a child be
treated with cruelty without intervening is morally reprehensible. Not resisting
evil is an evil of omission (see James 4:17).
The principle
of self-defense is applicable on a broader scale to the concept of just wars and
selectivism. To not respond to a bully nation seeking to destroy or
injure a less powerful nation or group of people is to fail morally. This
principle is illustrated in Abraham’s battle against the kings of Genesis 14,
in which Abraham sought to rescue Lot from these unjust aggressors (see 1
Samuel 23:1).
When Paul’s
life was in great danger of being unjustly taken, he engaged in self-defense by
appealing to his Roman citizenship. He appealed to the military might and protection
of the Roman army (Acts 22:25-29). Nothing in the text indicates that Paul
thought anything wrong with such military defense.
(Note: Some of the
issues mentioned here can have a different responses in comparison to other
credible and reputed Christian books and apologetics websites. However, we need
to understand that many issues are of such nature that have no clear revelation
even within the Bible itself and hence some answers can make put us into
dilemma. Bible is itself word of God but it is not fact that it upholds every answers to our queries.)
For the book, please check the Christian Bidhyarthi Sangati facebook page.
No comments:
Post a Comment