Saying Farewell to the ESV

When I first was introduced to the ESV, I was very impressed by it. I had grown up using the NASB and hadn’t ever been very fond of the NIV. So, I was pleased by a new “word-for-word” translation option. The translation was smooth and fairly easy to read. It also appeared to be the preferred translation for many books, websites, churches, etc.

My husband and I eagerly purchased Reformation Study Bibles, downloaded the ESV Study Bible on our Nooks, and started using the ESV as our default translation on the YouVersion Bible app. When our oldest two boys joined the church as communing members, we presented them with their own ESV Reformation Study Bibles with their names engraved on the covers.

When I was researching Eternal Subordination of the Son (ESS), I discovered that the ESV Study Bible’s notes strongly advocate for ESS. This shouldn’t have been too surprising since Dr. Wayne Grudem was the editor for the Study Bible and is one of the leading proponents of ESS. After discovering that Dr. Grudem was on the oversight committee for the ESV translation, I was uncertain, but I knew he was just one man among many on the committee. I hadn’t noticed any real problems in the translation itself.

Last September, however, Crossway announced that they had made new changes to the text and that those changes would be the last ones made. The ESV text would be permanent as of 2016. While it might be a poor decision to determine that you’ll never need to update a translation, I really didn’t have any objection to that part of Crossway’s statement. What was much, much more concerning to me was a couple of the new changes that were now going to be permanently set in stone:

Permanent Text (2016) ESV Text (2011)
Genesis 3:16
Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you. Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.
Genesis 4:7
Its desire is contrary to you, but you must rule over it. Its desire is for you, but you must rule over it.

In making these changes, the ESV had decided to change the translation of Genesis 3:16 and 4:7 to reflect a particular interpretation of the passages. I plan to write more soon on the origin and history of this interpretation, but for now I’ll just summarize my concerns using an excerpt from an article by Wendy Alsup and Hannah Anderson:

In the height of the battle against feminism in the 1970s, Susan Fohproposedthat the similarity between 3:16 and 4:7 was that a woman’s desire toward a man was similar to sin’s desire to destroy Cain. It was, dare we say, contrary to him. This connection is problematic for many reasons, including the fact that the language of Genesis 4:7 is unclear and may actually refer to Abel’s good desire toward Cain.**

Worse, from an interpretive standpoint, Foh used the confusing and obscure text of Genesis 4 to project something backonto the clearer Hebrew in Genesis 3. In contrast, a straightforward chronological reading of Genesis 1-4 actually affirms the lexical definition of the preposition ‘el as “for” or “toward.”  In terms of the fall, the woman’s desire for children, her desire for her husband, and the man’s efforts at cultivating the ground are all good things to be pursued in fulfillment of the Creation Mandate; but post-Fall, these good desires are thwarted with painful consequences. Just as the man’s desire to produce fruit from the ground is rewarded with sweat and pain, a woman’s desire to produce children from her own body is rewarded with sweat and pain. Just as the man turns to his attention to the earth looking for fruitful relationship, a woman turns toward (not away from) a man seeking fruitful relationship. (We will explore this more in Part 3.)

The only way translators can justify rendering ‘el as “contrary” is to assume something negative about the womans desire based on the use of desire in Genesis 4:7-8. But such a novel change relies solely on commentary, not on accepted definitions to the Hebrew ‘el. (emphasis original)

They go on to explain why this translation has bad implications:

Our first concern about the latest rendering of Genesis 3:16 is that it does not fit the larger rhetorical frame of the passage. It implies a sinful motivation for the woman’s desire rather than describing the broken context in which she finds herself. It also disrupts the parallelism of the text. God speaks to the woman about how the Fall affects her. He then speaks to the man about how the Fall affects him. Rendering 3:16 as “your desire shall be contrary to your husband” injects a statement about the woman’s nature when there is no corresponding statement about the man’s nature in terms of his work. We believe there is no parallel statement because Genesis 3:16 should not be read as an indictment of the woman’s desire.

As we discussed in Part 2, you can only arrive at a negative reading of the woman’s desire if you read negativity back into the passage from Genesis 4:7-8. But such a reading is highly prejudicial because it implies that the woman’s desires by their very existence are contrary to her husband. Because the rest of the passage is read as a statement of fact about this post-Fall world, the sentence “your desires shall be contrary to your husband” will also be read as a statement of fact. The rhetorical affect is to create suspicion around every desire that a woman has.

After a flurry of articles and blog posts, Crossway announced that the 2016 ESV text would not be permanent. While many were relieved to read this, some of us noted that nothing was said about the controversial change to Genesis 3:16 and 4:7. Would that be changed? To date, nothing has been said regarding changing these passages back. I know that published text takes time to be changed. As such, I expected that the ESV Bibles published last year would reflect the “contrary to” translation. And they do. This includes the big six-volume ESV Reader’s Bible.

I had hoped that maybe the online versions could be and would be changed. But so far, they haven’t. The current edition of the ESV on the ESV.org website gives this translation for Genesis 3:16:

To the woman he said, “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you.” (Genesis 3:16 ESV)

The same is true for the major online Bible websites that offer multiple translations. The 2016 edition of the ESV with “contrary to” is the one in use.

I found this very discouraging. But it wasn’t the only reason I had for changing translations. In the Trinity debate this summer and the aftermath this fall, one of the discussions was over the interpretation of “monogenes.” Is it “only begotten” as the older English translations have it? Should it be “only,” “one and only,” “unique” as most of the recent translations, including the ESV, have it?

Lee Irons wrote to argue for “only begotten” as the preferred translation and many seem to be in agreement now. I’m glad for that. How many of us have memorized John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, He gave His only begotten Son …”? Somehow it doesn’t sound quite right “For God so loved the world, He gave His one and only Son …”. Granted that’s mostly personal preference, but there is a strong theological truth missing when we leave out the “only begotten.”

Between the “contrary to” in Genesis 3 and 4 and the missing “only begotten” in the New Testament passages, my husband and I decided that the ESV wasn’t the translation we wanted to use as a family. To be clear, we’re not dogmatic about it. Our church and many of our friends still use the ESV, we aren’t complaining about it or demanding change. But for our own devotions individually and as a family, we’ve decided to switch to the New American Standard (NASB). We have four main reasons for doing so.

  1. The NASB translates monogenes as “only begotten.” Given the Trinity debate this summer, I see the benefit in reinforcing this fundamental truth that Jesus is the only begotten of the Father.

For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. (John 3:16 NASB)

2. The NASB does not translate Genesis 3:16 and 4:7 to say “contrary to.” In fact, I really like the way the NASB translates the passage. Especially the “yet”:

To the woman He said, “I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you.” (Genesis 3:16 NASB)

3. As you can see in the NASB and ESV verses quoted here, the NASB capitalizes the divine pronouns whereas the ESV does not. While it isn’t necessary, it is something I prefer. I find it helps keep track in a passage on who is talking.

4. In all translations, it’s necessary to add words at times. This is true in any translation from one language to another. What I appreciate about the NASB is that it tells you when words have been added by italicizing them. This allows the reader to consider how the translators have added things for clarity. It also is very transparent. The reader knows what words aren’t actually there in the original language.

A good example can be found in Ephesians 5:21-22:

and be subject to one another in the fear of Christ. Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. (Ephesians 5:21-22 NASB)

I thought it was interesting to note that in verse 22, “be subject” has been added so that the sentence makes sense. Considering that there is much discussion about what connection there should be between verses 21 and 22, I think it worth noting that verse 22 follows on referring to verse 21 in the original Greek. The literal translation is: “Wives, to your own husbands, as to the Lord.” Without verse 21, verse 22 just wouldn’t make sense. Knowing which words have been added can enhance Bible study.

So for these various reasons my husband and I have switched from the ESV to the NASB. I know that the NASB, or any other translation, is not without problems. But for now, we are content with our decision. Now, to find someone to put a new binding on my old NASB. More than twenty years of backpacks, college retreats, and Bible study has left it being held together with tape. Maybe for my birthday …

20170125_16075020170125_16081920170125_160854

32 thoughts on “Saying Farewell to the ESV

  1. puritangirl says:

    Sad that it’s come to this. I was also dismayed about the new Gen. 3:16 rendering and I’ve more or less reached the same decision. Only I’m not leaving the ESV entirely; I will continue to use those copies I have that were published before 2016. I just won’t be buying any copies with the 2016 text. That doesn’t take care of the monogenes issue, but that by itself isn’t enough for me to stop using Bibles that were gifts or have good study notes and have the language I’m used to.

    I’m not going as far as you and your family, but I don’t blame you at all. I also won’t even be recommending the ESV to people unless and until Crossway announces they’ve reverted to the old rendering of the Gen. 3 and 4 passages. Which I don’t think is all that likely…

  2. exegete77 says:

    Thanks for your thoughts and reasoning for changing to NAS. I have never been a fan of ESV. I had submitted translation suggestions since 2001, but never acknowledged or accepted. Add John 20:23 as a bad translation (and NIV does the same).

    I began using NAS in 1978. Of course in seminary Greek NT and Hebrew OT were primary. But over the years, for English translations NAS is still my first choice.

  3. Richard Zuelch says:

    Even in the pre-2016 edition of 2011, there are marginal notes at Genesis 3.16 and 4.7 which say, “Or, ‘against'”. Just off the top of my head, I’m thinking that the translation committee didn’t make the change for theological reasons (Grudem’s not the only one on the committee, after all) but, possibly, for reasons having to do with the usage of the particular Hebrew word. Just a guess. I like the ESV. At my age (64), I don’t plan to change translations again.

      • Richard Zuelch says:

        Yes, I understand you’re not trying to get me (or anyone) to abandon the ESV. Not to worry. That article you linked to is interesting. So, maybe the trajectory is Susan Foh – Wayne Grudem – ESV translation committee. Well, maybe Grudem will re-assess what Foh said and get the translation committee to (eventually) change its mind about those two Genesis passages. But, as you or someone wrote, this could take a long time (lead time for publishing, etc.).

        By the way, the NASB was the first translation I read when I got saved (1980), but I never cared for it’s woodenness. Unfortunately, the NIV only gets dragged further to the political Left with each new “revision.” No one translation is perfect, and we just have to do the best we can. Excellent website, by the way!

      • hebrewsdnt says:

        Rachel, I am not sure if you mean that אל never means “against” or never means “contrary to,” but, in the former case, it clearly can take the notion of “against.” Here are some examples:

        Genesis 4:8 Cain told Abel his brother. And it came about when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against [אל] Abel his brother and killed him.

        Numbers 32:14 “Now behold, you have risen up in your fathers’ place, a brood of sinful men, to add still more to the burning anger of the LORD against [אל] Israel.

        Jeremiah 21:13 “Behold, I am against [אל] you, O valley dweller, O rocky plain,” declares the LORD, “You men who say, ‘Who will come down against us? Or who will enter into our habitations?’

        Ezekiel 38:3 and say, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD, “Behold, I am against [אל] you, O Gog, prince of Rosh, Meshech and Tubal.

        I agree that “contrary to” is a questionable translation. I wrote on this topic a while back, and it may be of some interest to you:

        https://neurosciencelinguisticsandhebrew.wordpress.com/2016/09/19/on-the-new-esv-translation-of-genesis-316/

        As an addendum, I mentioned Sam Powell in the article, and he has came over to my blog and clarified, and I don’t think we are that far off, so, make sure you read his comments in the comments section. Other than that, my concern is the interpretation of *headship* as what is crucial here, rather than *sin* being the big issue. The desire to dominate other people is a sinful desire, but that is what happens now after the fall. In fact, you can see that if you continue to read through Genesis. The infighting within human relationships and power for domination is something that is all over the book. The point of Genesis 4:7 is that this is not just something that happens in marriage. It happens in *all* human relationships. That is the state we are in due to the fall, and that is why we need to have gospel centered relationships.

        Also, while there are many people who are taking Lee Irons’ work on “only begotten” as definitive, I am studying morphology right now, and I am really concerned that he is not taking into account certain fine distinctions that are essential to morphology. In fact, this whole emphasis on morphology deeply concerns me, as I don’t think that morphology is the key to the meaning of monogenes. I think it is an issue of lexical semantics more so than morphology. I have not commented on it because I am waiting for the book Retrieving Eternal Generation to come out, as Irons has said that his full argument will be contained in that book. Sadly, I have not even seen it on Amazon yet. Maybe he will address my concerns with his use of morphology in that article, and maybe he will not. We will see.

        Also, one other issue that Voddie Baucham brought to my attention is Psalm 127:5

        Psalm 127:5 How blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them; They will not be ashamed When they speak with their enemies in the gate. [NASB]

        Psalm 127:5 Blessed is the man who fills his quiver with them! He shall not be put to shame when he speaks with his enemies in the gate. [ESV]

        Notice how the NASB translates as a passive [How blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them] while the ESV translates as an active [Blessed is the man who fills his quiver with them]. Baucham tries to settle the issue by saying that מלא is a piel stem, and the piel stem is active. However, the issue is not the stem of the verb. The issue is the fact that מלא [fills] is a third person masculine singular verb, and can take any third person masculine singular subject. The problem is, the whole first portion of this Psalm has been about Yhwh’s provision. “Unless the Lord builds a house…” etc. Even the second portion of the Psalm starts, “Behold, children are an inheritance from the Lord, and the fruit of the womb is a reward” with the obvious assumption that it is a reward *from Yhwh.* Since Yhwh is a third person masculine singular noun, it could *also* be the subject of מלא. Hence, the question is whether you have:

        Blessed is the man who fills his quiver with them

        or

        Blessed is the man whose quiver he [Yhwh] fills with them

        The latter would obviously be more consistent with the context “unless the Lord builds a house” and even “children are an inheritance from Yhwh.” However, translations such as the NASB have translated it as a passive to leave it open as to who the subject is. Baucham runs right through that like a freight train running behind schedule.

        In fact, while that is the reason Baucham prefers the ESV to the NASB, that is one of the reasons I prefer the NASB to the ESV. The NASB is simply more careful about things like that.

      • Barbara Roberts says:

        Thanks so much HebrewsDNT for your Feb 2 comment. 🙂 I always appreciate your careful scholarship.

        What is your view of Mackintosh’s 2016 paper on the meaning of ‘teshuqua’ ?

      • hebrewsdnt says:

        Barbara,

        Thanks for pointing that article by Mackintosh out. I was not aware of it. I was able to obtain a copy and read through it, and I think one of the problems that I have is the reliance on ancient translations. Ancient translations can often misunderstand the Hebrew. You see, for example, the Septuagint translating דֶֹבֶר [pestilence] as λογος meaning “word.” The reason is that one of the Hebrew words for “word” is דָבָר, and, at one point in time, there were no vowels in Hebrew. It would have read simply as דבר. If the translator is not aware that there is are vowels that can be added so the word means “pestilence” or “word,” and is only aware of the meaning “word,” he will, inadvertently, make a mistake. And you can see that with rare words as well. It is partially because words change in their meaning over time, and partly because, if the word is rare enough, the translator will have to guess at the meaning of the term if he doesn’t know what the meaning is. The other problem that I see is that Mackintosh is using sources from just before and after the time of Christ. That certainly tells us what people living in those time periods thought the word meant [if his interpretation of those translations is right], and gives us a Jewish tradition in and after the time of Christ. However, that tells us nothing about what the author in the Late Bronze Age meant by the use of the term. It only gives us a possible interpretation. Also, a number of ancient translations get meanings of individual words by looking at other occurrences of the term. That is not wrong in and of itself, but one must beware of the fact that words can have different semantic fields. You don’t beat a rug in the same way you beat someone at chess. You don’t run to the store in the same way you run a computer program. Words across these semantic fields can have analogical meanings, such as good desire and malicious desire. In fact, Mackintosh himself falls into that trap when he says that the meaning “desire” works in Genesis 3 and in Song of Songs 7, but not in Genesis 4. The idea that the translators could be thinking along the same lines as him is not unlikely. However, if there is a different but analogous meaning in the semantic fields dealing with sin and love, then the argument would be irrelevant. Also, while I agree that it is unlikely that תּֽשׁוּקָה is an error for שׁוּב, it is also possible that those translations *thought* that it was, or, at very least, that it came from שׁוּב. That would explain the “turning” aspect of all of the translations he cites, without having to posit the notion of “devotion” in the meaning of תּֽשׁוּקָה. Now, one could argue that those translations are right, but that would require some argument that actually interacts with the linguistic evidence from Hebrew itself. The problem at this point is the paucity of evidence. “Desire” seems to me to be the most likely rendering, as it has survived into Modern Hebrew. However, even there you have problems, because it is not necessarily true that Modern Hebrew uses the same meanings as Biblical Hebrew since words can change in their meanings. And, in around 3000 years, that is entirely likely. However, that is the best we got at this point, except for a possible Arabic cognate that would require ignoring the fact that when Northwest Semitic languages like Hebrew have the ʃ sound, it is usually represented as s in Biblical Hebrew, and vice versa. There are exceptions to this. However, it is also possible that exceptions are loanwords, and not cognates.

        All in all, while Mackintosh’s article is interesting, there are still too many problems both in the handling of the translations, as well as in the linguistic evidence itself to abandon the notion of “desire.” And, as I pointed out, it is not necessary as long as one follows the argument of Genesis that sin is the problem, and not some vague notion of headship.

  4. Dorah A. K. says:

    I always enjoy and am greatly enriched by your analytical posts, Rachel. You’ve written on this topic before and when I had a chance to find a brand new NASB at a used bookstore (irony intended) I pounced on it and began comparing it with my old ESV. I’m finding some of the differences to be quite illuminating, adding to my understanding of the text. Perhaps a reason not to get “stuck” on a particular translation. But I agree with you that aside from suspect theological aims, there’s no good reason for the ESV (2016) to deviate from its previous translation.

  5. Michelle says:

    Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this. I have been similarly struggling with translations, and have gone back and forth for a while now between the NASB and ESV. I started out with the NIV when I became a Christian in 1999, but the changes that have happened over the years have turned me away from it.

    The most recent changes to the ESV were just as distasteful to me as the original dust-up that happened when the NIV translators released the TNIV. I was encouraged when they retreated from their decision to make it “permanent”, but have become less so as the months go back without any effort to revert back to the previous translations of Gen. 3:16 and 4:7. I’ve grown tired of translation preference being a political decision. It should not be so. But, I will likely make the switch back the NASB as well.

  6. exegete77 says:

    Another text to compare between NAS and ESV is Matthew 18:18. Difference in how to translate future perfect passive.

    NAS Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.

    ESV Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

  7. Timothy Joseph says:

    Rachel,
    Regardless, of what Irons may have said, which I read and found lacking, the consensus in actual Greek scholarship, Mounce, BDAG, etc is the monogenes does not have any relationship to sonship except by context. The word means one who is unique, special, or one of a kind. In John 3:16 it is this relationship between monogenes and uiou (son) that gives us the translation Only/Unique Son. In John 1:18, where the best manuscripts have monogenes Theos the NET, translates, properly, The Only One (monogenes), Himself God,

    Tim

  8. Barbara Roberts says:

    Rachel, Wendy & Hannah and Ps Sam Powell all focused a fair bit on the preposition ‘el in Genesis 3:16 and 4:7 — how ‘el usually means “for” or “toward” so the ESV translators were unwarranted in giving it the connotation of “against” or “contrary to”.

    I certainly agree with you and others who think that the 2016 ESV changes to those verses was politically driven and needs to be challenged.

    But I’m a tad disappointed that in this post you have not mentioned the discussion of the meaning of the word “teshuqua” and the very important paper which came out in 2016 about the meaning of that word. Have you read the paper? “The Meaning of Hebrew תשׁוקה,” Journal of Semitic Studies 61 (2016):365-387. The author of the paper, Andrew A. Macintosh did a thorough study of the word תְּשׁוּקָה (teshûqâ) and came to an interesting conclusion.

    His conclusion: “In summary, I conclude that ‘desire’ is not a proper rendering of the Hebrew word תְּשׁוּקָה in the Hebrew Bible or in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Rather, on the evidence of comparative philology and of the ancient versions, ‘concern, preoccupation, (single-minded) devotion, focus’, appears to be more likely.”

    I hope before finalising your future post you read Macintosh’s paper (email me if you need help to read it). I am of the opinion that the Hebrew word teshuqua is much more critical to this understanding Genesis 3:16 and 4:7 than the Hebrew preposition ‘el. And any discussion of this topic which focuses on ‘el is not going to untie the gordian knot.

    I also hope you read or re-read my post — The Woman’s Desire in Genesis 3:16 — let’s be consistent with the context and with actual life.
    https://cryingoutforjustice.com/2016/04/17/the-womans-desire-in-genesis-316-lets-be-consistent-with-the-context-and-with-actual-life-pt-2-of-2/

  9. RevCharles ROBERTS says:

    Although I share your concerns about the changes to these ESV texts, for me, at least, the NASB is not the best alternative. It has a distinct premillennial bias in some places (Matt 24 for example) and word quality is, as one early critic of the NASB noted, “English as never spoken anywhere.” If I was going to switch to another formal equivalent translation it would be either the NKJV or the old RSV.

  10. Barbara Roberts says:

    Like Rachel, I’m going to stop using the ESV as my regular bible.
    In choosing what version I’ll switch to, one of the things I’ll be taking into account is how the version translates Malachi 2:16. The rendering of that verse is not my only criteria, but it’s one of them.

    So far as I am aware, only the Holman, the ESV and the 2011 NIV get that verse right.
    See here: https://cryingoutforjustice.com/2013/10/24/god-hates-divorce-not-always/

    • Timothy Joseph says:

      Barbara,
      Interesting that a translation of a passage which requires changing the second half of the verse from a first person to a third for no reason other than not liking what it actually reads, is the translation you like and in your opinion is the correct one, hmmmm! Could it be that all the other groups of translators got it right and you just don’t agree with what it says? In fact, two of the translations you listed as ‘getting it right’ list I hate divorce as another acceptable reading.

      Tim

      • Barbara Roberts says:

        Timothy Joseph, either you didn’t bother to read my post carefully, or you are accusing me falsely.

        The verb ‘hates’ in the Hebrew of Malachi 2:16 is THIRD person, not first person. So the translations that have altered it to first person (“I hate divorce”) are the ones that have made a change without warrant.

        I deny that my view arises from what I personally do or don’t like. Your argument is not just with me and you are wrong to make me out as a rebellious voice in the wilderness going against all the rest like a lone cowgirl. The ESV, the HCSB and the 2011 NIV all render that verse as meaning the divorcing husband is the one doing the hating. And what a version says in its footnotes probably indicates that only a minority of the translation committee preferred the footnoted rendering.

      • Barbara Roberts says:

        Furthermore, Timothy, when researching for my book “Not Under Bondage,” I discovered articles by many Hebrew scholars who said that the word ‘hates’ in Malachi 2:16 is third person masculine singular (he hates), and there was no justification in rendering it in the first person (I hate).

        I quoted all those scholars in an appendix in my book.

  11. Sue M. says:

    Fascinating that some of you have problems with the latest version of the ESV. My denomination, the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA), recently adopted it as the official translation for the lectionary (the three-year cycle of Scripture readings for weekly Saturday night/Sunday services). It’s also the official translation for daily Scripture readings as well. The previous translation was the NRSV.

    Of course, members can use any translation they want for personal Bible study or in small groups. My own small group has been using the NIV and has no plans to change.

  12. Barbara Roberts says:

    I’ve switched to the NASB and am very happy with my decision. While I believe the NASB gets Malachi 2:16 wrong, I am confident about how that verse *should* be rendered, so when I read it Malachi 2:16 in the NASB I will just let if wash off like duck-water.

    I’m enjoying the NASB’s use of italics to indicate where that the Hebrew or Greek didn’t contain words but they had to be added for English syntax. That use of italics is something I was very used to when my main bible was the KJV, so it’s no trouble for me when the NASB does it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s