I’m simply applying King James Only standards to the 1611 KJV vs modern KJVs(source)

Advertisements
Comments
  1. Mark says:

    Ok, I’m not sure what to do about this. I feel a little sick. Do you believe in the pre-trib rapture? Are you a-millennial, post millennial? Are you Jewish? I agree 100% with you about Driscoll by the way.

  2. Mark,

    Hope you get to feeling better.

    I believe in a Pretribulation Rapture, but I understand the other points of view. Personally, I don’t get into this debate because I think it’s counter productive. I had rather spend the time spreading the Gospel and warning the sheep about false teachers/doctrines. To be honest, I have not put too much thought into this issue and right now I have no plans to spend many months researching it right now.

    I am a Reformed Christian. If I had to accept a label, then I would be called a Calvinist. I reject all forms of works based salvation.

    Are you a King James onlyist?

  3. Mark says:

    I fell a little better, I found that although my faith in the KJV was disturbed a little bit, my faith in Christ my Saviour is still safe and sound.@1:46 which edition has the change? Both say 1611KJV.

  4. Mark says:

    You can delete those last comments if you like. I should have read that it 1769

  5. Mark,

    When you are up to it, please explain what you mean by your faith in the KJV. If you are coming out of King James Onlyism, then I fully understand how hard this can be. I was a hard core KJVOist from 1993-2002. I got lured into this ideology when I was saved in 1993, and coming from an agnostic background, I fell face first into this movement because of the way it was presented to me. In the late 1990’s, I ordered a reprint of the 1611 KJV thinking that it was the same as my Oxford KJV. To make a long story short, I went against the advice of my former IFB KJVO pastor and I started a deep study of the 1611KJV I owned. From the late 1990’s to early 2001, I struggled to remain a KJVOist. I sought the help of every big name KJVOist only to run into evasion, spin, attacks, and being completely ignored. King James Only sounds good in a sermon or a book, but when it is looked at from the perspective of historic fact, it fails miserably to stand without distorting the truth.

    If you have any questions then feel free to ask me.

    In Christ,

    David J

  6. Mark says:

    I am doing some research about it. I have been aware of the various changes done by book publishers which I don’t approve of, but the alterations from the universites was new to me.

    Now, I assume that you are still a Textus Receptus believer.

  7. Mark says:

    NASB 2 Sam 8 4 David captured from him 1,700 horsemen and 20,000 foot soldiers; and David hamstrung the chariot horses, but reserved enough of them for 100 chariots.

    NASB 1 Chr 18:4 . 4 David took from him 1,000 chariots and 7,000 horsemen and 20,000 foot soldiers, and David hamstrung all the chariot horses, but reserved enough of them for 100 chariots.

    Things that are different are not the same. I am working on some answers from the KJV for you David.

    And I agree that the single most important purpose we have today is to “preach” the Gospel to the lost.

  8. Mark,

    May I suggest looking into textual difficulties found with the various text(Textus Receptus, Majority Test, and Critical Text). You will find your answers there about problem verses like 2 Sam 8:4 and 1 Chr 18:4. These problems exist and no one knows for certain why outside of scribal errors. Even the masters of the OT:the Jews, do not have a conclusive answers concerning these passages. I feel this type of study would serve you much better than simply copying problem verses from one translation and then comparing it to another. Now some KJVO authors like Sam Gipp, etc. have tried to explain away the problems found in these passages, but they depend on guess work and adding to the text in order to come to their conclusions.

    The most important thing in your example is the David took chariots, horsemen, soldiers and fought. No matter if we pull these passages from the GNV, KJV, NASB, NKJV, KJ21, TMB, or NIV, the truth found within these passages is preserved no matter if the numbers vary some. The same holds true with many passages because of the language barriers. Even the 1611 KJV translators understood this fact and they thought it important enough to address it in “To the Reader” found in the 1611KJV:

    THE TRANSLATORS TO THE READER.

    Preface to the King James Version 1611

    Some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the margin, lest the authority of the Scriptures for deciding of controversies by that show of uncertainty, should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgment not to be sound in this point. For though, “whatsoever things are necessary are manifest,” as S. Chrysostom saith, [S. Chrysost. in II. Thess. cap. 2.] and as S. Augustine, “In those things that are plainly set down in the Scriptures, all such matters are found that concern Faith, Hope, and Charity.” [S. Aug. 2. de doctr. Christ. cap. 9.] Yet for all that it cannot be dissembled, that partly to exercise and whet our wits, partly to wean the curious from the loathing of them for their everywhere plainness, partly also to stir up our devotion to crave the assistance of God’s spirit by prayer, and lastly, that we might be forward to seek aid of our brethren by conference, and never scorn those that be not in all respects so complete as they should be, being to seek in many things ourselves, it hath pleased God in his divine providence, here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation, (for in such it hath been vouched that the Scriptures are plain) but in matters of less moment, that fearfulness would better beseem us than confidence, and if we will resolve upon modesty with S. Augustine, (though not in this same case altogether, yet upon the same ground) Melius est debitare de occultis, quam litigare de incertis, [S. Aug li. S. de Genes. ad liter. cap. 5.] “it is better to make doubt of those things which are secret, than to strive about those things that are uncertain.” There be many words in the Scriptures, which be never found there but once, (having neither brother or neighbor, as the Hebrews speak) so that we cannot be holpen by conference of places. Again, there be many rare names of certain birds, beasts and precious stones, etc. concerning the Hebrews themselves are so divided among themselves for judgment, that they may seem to have defined this or that, rather because they would say something, than because they were sure of that which they said, as S. Jerome somewhere saith of the Septuagint. Now in such a case, doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident: so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption. Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: [S. Aug. 2. de doctr. Christian. cap. 14.] so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded. We know that Sixtus Quintus expressly forbiddeth, that any variety of readings of their vulgar edition, should be put in the margin, [Sixtus 5. praef. Bibliae.] (which though it be not altogether the same thing to that we have in hand, yet it looketh that way)but we think he hath not all of his own side his favorers, for this conceit. They that are wise, had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other. If they were sure that their high Priest had all laws shut up in his breast, as Paul the Second bragged, [Plat. in Paulo secundo.] and that he were as free from error by special privilege, as the Dictators of Rome were made by law inviolable, it were another matter; then his word were an Oracle, his opinion a decision. But the eyes of the world are now open, God be thanked, and have been a great while, they find that he is subject to the same affections and infirmities that others be, that his skin is penetrable, and therefore so much as he proveth, not as much as he claimeth, they grant and embrace.

    The KJV translators understood that problem verses like you listed existed and they admitted that some things they did not know what it meant because of languages, dialects, and time barriers.

  9. Mark says:

    To use anything other than from the Majority Text is irresponsible, the same goes with the Septuagint. I don’t even bother listening to arguments for the contrary.

    Concerning the “problem” verses, I was simply pointing out that the same (actually different) discrepancies exist in other translations. While in your video, you presented the “problems” as being exclusive to the KJV. Obviously the different accounts are from the Hebrew.

    I am sure you are aware of the various legitimate reasons changes were made in the KJV, so I am not going to address any of them. I did reconsider my stance on the KJV and am close to giving you an answer.

    I will give an answer from the KJV according to my faith in KJV why I believe the KJV is the pure word of God.

  10. Mark,

    That is fine, but just for your information as you consider your stand and reasons behind your stance, you might want to dig deep into the men who translated the KJV and how they felt about the Septuagint:

    THE TRANSLATORS TO THE READER.

    Preface to the King James Version 1611

    But it is high time to leave them, and to show in brief what we proposed to ourselves, and what course we held in this our perusal and survey of the Bible. Truly (good Christian Reader) we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one, (for then the imputation of Sixtus had been true in some sort, that our people had been fed with gall of Dragons instead of wine, with whey instead of milk:) but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavor, that our mark. To that purpose there were many chosen, that were greater in other men’s eyes than in their own, and that sought the truth rather than their own praise. Again, they came or were thought to come to the work, not exercendi causa (as one saith) but exercitati, that is, learned, not to learn: For the chief overseer and [NOTE: Greek letters omitted] under his Majesty, to whom not only we, but also our whole Church was much bound, knew by his wisdom, which thing also Nazianzen taught so long ago, that it is a preposterous order to teach first and to learn after, yea that [NOTE: Greek letters omitted] to learn and practice together, is neither commendable for the workman, nor safe for the work. [Idem in Apologet.] Therefore such were thought upon, as could say modestly with Saint Jerome, Et Hebreaeum Sermonem ex parte didicimus, et in Latino pene ab ipsis incunabulis etc. detriti sumus. “Both we have learned the Hebrew tongue in part, and in the Latin we have been exercised almost from our very cradle.” S. Jerome maketh no mention of the Greek tongue, wherein yet he did excel, because he translated not the old Testament out of Greek, but out of Hebrew. And in what sort did these assemble? In the trust of their own knowledge, or of their sharpness of wit, or deepness of judgment, as it were in an arm of flesh? At no hand. They trusted in him that hath the key of David, opening and no man shutting; they prayed to the Lord the Father of our Lord, to the effect that S. Augustine did; “O let thy Scriptures be my pure delight, let me not be deceived in them, neither let me deceive by them.” [S. Aug. lib. II. Confess. cap. 2.] In this confidence, and with this devotion did they assemble together; not too many, lest one should trouble another; and yet many, lest many things haply might escape them. If you ask what they had before them, truly it was the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, the Greek of the New. These are the two golden pipes, or rather conduits, where-through the olive branches empty themselves into the gold. Saint Augustine calleth them precedent, or original tongues; [S. August. 3. de doctr. c. 3. etc.] Saint Jerome, fountains. [S. Jerome. ad Suniam et Fretel.] The same Saint Jerome affirmeth, [S. Jerome. ad Lucinium, Dist. 9 ut veterum.] and Gratian hath not spared to put it into his Decree, That “as the credit of the old Books” (he meaneth of the Old Testament) “is to be tried by the Hebrew Volumes, so of the New by the Greek tongue,” he meaneth by the original Greek. If truth be tried by these tongues, then whence should a Translation be made, but out of them? These tongues therefore, the Scriptures we say in those tongues, we set before us to translate, being the tongues wherein God was pleased to speak to his Church by the Prophets and Apostles. Neither did we run over the work with that posting haste that the Septuagint did, if that be true which is reported of them, that they finished it in 72 days; [Joseph. Antiq. lib. 12.] neither were we barred or hindered from going over it again, having once done it, like S. Jerome, if that be true which himself reporteth, that he could no sooner write anything, but presently it was caught from him, and published, and he could not have leave to mend it: [S. Jerome. ad Pammac. pro libr. advers. Iovinian.] neither, to be short, were we the first that fell in hand with translating the Scripture into English, and consequently destitute of former helps, as it is written of Origen, that he was the first in a manner, that put his hand to write Commentaries upon the Scriptures, [Sophoc. in Elect.] and therefore no marvel, if he overshot himself many times. None of these things: the work hath not been huddled up in 72 days, but hath cost the workmen, as light as it seemeth, the pains of twice seven times seventy two days and more: matters of such weight and consequence are to be speeded with maturity: for in a business of movement a man feareth not the blame of convenient slackness. [S. Chrysost. in II. Thess. cap. 2.] Neither did we think much to consult the Translators or Commentators, Chaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek or Latin, no nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch; neither did we disdain to revise that which we had done, and to bring back to the anvil that which we had hammered: but having and using as great helps as were needful, and fearing no reproach for slowness, nor coveting praise for expedition, we have at length, through the good hand of the Lord upon us, brought the work to that pass that you see.

    ” There be many words in the Scriptures, which be never found there but once, (having neither brother or neighbor, as the Hebrews speak) so that we cannot be holpen by conference of places. Again, there be many rare names of certain birds, beasts and precious stones, etc. concerning the Hebrews themselves are so divided among themselves for judgment, that they may seem to have defined this or that, rather because they would say something, than because they were sure of that which they said, as S. Jerome somewhere saith of the Septuagint. Now in such a case, doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident: so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption. Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: [S. Aug. 2. de doctr. Christian. cap. 14.] so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded. We know that Sixtus Quintus expressly forbiddeth, that any variety of readings of their vulgar edition, should be put in the margin, [Sixtus 5. praef. Bibliae.] (which though it be not altogether the same thing to that we have in hand, yet it looketh that way) but we think he hath not all of his own side his favorers, for this conceit. They that are wise, had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other. If they were sure that their high Priest had all laws shut up in his breast, as Paul the Second bragged, [Plat. in Paulo secundo.] and that he were as free from error by special privilege, as the Dictators of Rome were made by law inviolable, it were another matter; then his word were an Oracle, his opinion a decision. But the eyes of the world are now open, God be thanked, and have been a great while, they find that he is subject to the same affections and infirmities that others be, that his skin is penetrable, and therefore so much as he proveth, not as much as he claimeth, they grant and embrace.

    Where the 1611 translators irresponsible when they included this in the 1611KJV?

    Acts 13:18 – “according to the Sept. [Septuagint] and so Chrysost.”

    I’m simply taking the advice of the men who translated the KJV in that I read, research, and study a variety of translations just like they advised us to do around 400 years ago.

    When trying to defend KJVOism, you must take into account the 1611KJV and the writings of the men who translated it.

    I’m just giving you some facts to ponder as we discuss this issue.

  11. Mark says:

    They didn’t hold it in too high regard when the said “Neither did we run over the work with that posting haste that the Septuagint did, if that be true which is reported of them, that they finished it in seventy two days; neither were we barred or hindered from going over it again, having once done it, like St. Hierome,……”

  12. Mark says:

    Do your other versions deliver as prophetic and poetic a dissertation as the one below when combining Chapters 15:1-8 from Ezekiel and John as done below?

    When reading the following please take the time to analyze the deep theological metaphoric implications. This is truly Jesus Christ speaking in the Bible speaking to Israel:

    • Ezekiel 15: 1 And the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
    • John 15: 1 I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.
    • Ezekiel 15: 2 Son of man, What is the vine tree more than any tree, or than a branch which is among the trees of the forest?
    • John 15: 2 Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.
    • Ezekiel 15: 3 Shall wood be taken thereof to do any work? or will men take a pin of it to hang any vessel thereon?
    • John 15: 3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.
    • Ezekiel 15: 4 Behold, it is cast into the fire for fuel; the fire devoureth both the ends of it, and the midst of it is burned. Is it meet for any work?
    • John 15: 4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.
    • Ezekiel 15: 5 Behold, when it was whole, it was meet for no work: how much less shall it be meet yet for [any] work, when the fire hath devoured it, and it is burned?
    • John 15: 5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.
    • Ezekiel 15: 6 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; As the vine tree among the trees of the forest, which I have given to the fire for fuel, so will I give the inhabitants of Jerusalem.
    • John 15: 6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.
    • Ezekiel 15: 7 And I will set my face against them; they shall go out from one fire, and another fire shall devour them; and ye shall know that I am the LORD, when I set my face against them.
    • John 15: 7 If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.
    • Ezekiel 15: 8 And I will make the land desolate, because they have committed a trespass, saith the Lord GOD.
    • John 15: 8 Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples.

  13. While the poetic language of the KJV is beautiful, it does nothing to prove that the KJV is the best English translation. These types of defenses are subjective at best. I could easily substitute the Geneva Bible(1560) or the NASB(95) and get the same feeling of “deep theological metaphoric implications“.

    The subject here is not how we feel when we read a translation, but tangible evidence to prove KJV onlyism. Since KJV only is taught by KJVOist, the burden of proof rest upon those who believe this to provide the Scriptural support for this dogma. Saying “I feel” or “I prayed about it” is not evidence. Listing comparisons as proof is not evidence either because I can easily do the same thing to conclude NASB only or Geneva Bible only if I chose to do so.

    I’ve been debating this issue since for about 10 years now. The most important questions have never been answered by any KJVOist:

    Where is the Scriptural support for KJVOism that is only applicable to the KJV?

    Which KJV is perfect?

    What happened in 1611 to cause an imperfect KJV to be created that contained the Book of the Apocrypha and other errors found in the 1611? Is our Lord powerful enough to move over these men, but yet He fails miserable to move over a printer?

    The bottom line is that without double standards, KJVOism falls flat. Mark, when you said that it was irresponsible to use anything other than the MT, that let me know that you knew nothing about the 1611 and the translators of the KJV. This my friend, is a classic example of a double standard. Instead of admitting that the translators did in fact reference the Sept in the marginal notes as a tool to be studied, you just ignored this by citing They didn’t hold it in too high regard when the said “Neither did we run over the work with that posting haste that the Septuagint did, if that be true which is reported of them, that they finished it in seventy two days; neither were we barred or hindered from going over it again, having once done it, like St. Hierome,……” Even though they did not hold it in what we would consider high regard, they thought it important enough to reference it and put the Books of the Apocrypha in the KJV. These facts cannot be easily dismissed and ignored.

    Mark, I refuse to go around and around with listing charts, list of comparisons, etc. Where is the proof? Where is the proof that does not contradict itself when the 1611 KJV comes into the picture?

    In my blog Why King James Only? Part One you will find a word chart that is pro-KJV only vs. NASB, and another that is pro-NASB vs. KJV. My point is that these types(pro-KJV only) of tactics prove nothing but personal preference and tactics like is pro-NASB vs. KJV only serve to expose King James Only advocated double standards. Neither chart proves anything but minor manuscript differences that amount to nothing when the whole is taken into perspective.(Again, this is the same advice the 1611 translators gave us when they told us that a variety of translations is good to study).

    The really hard question for any King James only defender is where was the perfect Word of God in English before the current KJV? Why was it changed? Obviously, KJV only advocates cannot pick the 1611 as perfect because to do so would admit 1.) the current KJV’s are imperfect 2.) the God blessed the Books of the Apocrypha as canon. There is no way for a KJV only advocate to slide around these questions without exposing themselves as inconsistent.

  14. Mark says:

    You know why the Apocrypha was in the 1611 David, and you know that it wasn’t determined to be scripture. Why do you include this with your argument? Don’t think you’re going to hook me with your highmined scholarly brain.

    Webster’s 1828 Dictionary:
    APOC’RYPHA, n. [Gr. from, to conceal.]-Literally such things as are not published; but in an appropriate sense, books whose authors are not known; whose authenticity, as inspired writings, is not admitted, and which are therefore not considered a part of the sacred canon of the scripture. When the Jews published their sacred books, they called them canonical and divine; such as they did not publish, were called apocryphal. The apocryphal books are received by the Romish Church as canonical, but not by Protestants.

    Please allow me a few more comments before you block me from your site and get bored of my comments. I have a final thesis to rebut your claims, though it is from a simpler less “educated” position.

  15. Mark,

    When one resorts to name calling then they have already lost the debate.

    I am done discussing this with you because it is evident that you are not interested in the facts at the moment. My hope is that you will think about the references I gave you and ponder your position for a while before posting here again.

    As for blocking you, that will not happen unless you violate my simple rules listed in Rules and contact info.

    Thank you for your time,

    In Christ,

    David J Horn

  16. Mark says:

    Actually you began with defaming my character when you stated I know nothing about the 1611 KJV David. I can take a few jabs if you can.

    Apparently neither of us has answered the others’ questions at all.

  17. My point was if you knew about the 1611 KJV, then you would have known about the Sept reference in the marginal notes and To the Reader. I simply provided the evidence to support my claim, therefore no character defaming was done. My purpose was to give you the tools to research your stance, because as a former KJVOist, I know that it will help you in the future. I refuse to discuss this any longer with you. Please feel free to post here in the future, but at the moment I do not have the time to run in circles as you evade my evidence and ignore my valid questions about your beliefs.

  18. Mark says:

    The FACT that there are only marginal notes, proves that the Septuagint was questionable.

  19. John says:

    For 400 years the KJV has been tested and proven. This translation of God’s word has produced much good fruit and continues to do so. I will not dismissed all the other translations like the (1995)NASB or NKJV, though I am somewhat skeptical of some of the changes. I sometimes feel like it has more to do with the arrogance of men than genuine interest. They boast about their understanding of the original languages as if that gives them some kind of special insight into the scriptures that no one else has. This to me is very dangerous because it gives these so call scholars with PHD’s the appearance of superiority. This seems to contradict what the Lord Jesus said in Luke 10:21 in both the NAS and KJV. God also reveals things to those that might not have ever stepped foot in a seminary or bible college. Any bible scholar who isn’t genuinely born again and filled with the Holy Spirit and obeying God’s word is merely an informer and nothing more. We have to many people that know about Christ, I want to hear from someone who intimately knows the Lord Jesus.

  20. PeterAV says:

    David pukes out.”When one resorts to name calling then they have already lost the debate.”
    So Jesus lost eh you old fox, Hypocrite, viper!
    You don’t even have biblical standards. You have nothing but your own selfish oppinions. Period!!!

  21. PeterAV,

    It’s seems your fruit is shining for all to see who reads this board. Why must you be so hateful and confrontational?

    • Rob H says:

      Hateful and confrontational? Surely those whoare so opposed to the Biblical idea that GOD HAS PRESERVED HIS WORD- as HE SAID- are the the ones who are ‘hateful and confrontational’?

  22. Alan says:

    I don’t think Mr. Ruckman is going to comment on your effeminate page again. By the way Joseph, get a haircut.

  23. I find it interesting that you ignore the beam(Matthew 7:1-5) in your eye(which is the heretic Ruckman) as you set about to attack me based on a legalist interpretation of 1 Corinthians. You guys are so predictable! I guess that John the Baptist would not be welcomed at your church because of the way he dressed, his long hair, and bushy beard BUT a foaming at the mouth false prophet like Ruckman is welcomed.

    What I find amusing is how these types of legalist are quick to tell a man to get a haircut, but are ever so silent when it comes to the women of the church. I have seen many times in the south, these firey “manly” preachers calling people like me all kinds of names, while ignoring the women with bobbed hair(1 Corinthians 11:5-6 ) and braided hair(1 Timothy 2:9). I guess the women are exempt from this legalistic hypocrisy for some reason!

    As if I need to explain my self to you Alen, or should I say Mark, or whoever you decide to be, I will gladly accept your legalistic attacks in order to give my hair to children with cancer/burned victims. I have done Locks of Love for almost 20 years and I will continue to do so for as long as I can. So go ahead and fire away…oh my there is pink on that website!

    BTW,
    Mark Alan
    theindignitary@hotmail.com
    50.135.114.227

    I know this is you. You really need to get the bitterness out of your heart and repent. It’s a cancer that will eat you from the inside out. It’s dishonest for you to keep posting here under different names and IP’s when I asked you to stop. We disagree, get over it please.

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