The Future of Inerrancy

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. We’ve gone through the ICBI statement and having done that now, I think it’s time that we really talked about the future of Inerrancy. Where do we see the doctrine going?

My commenter, Bryan, from last night says that there are further commentaries on the statement and more and more evangelicals explaining what is meant. There can be no denial of this and definitely, an exhaustive look at this point would be highly difficult. It would be like studying the Nicene Creed. Since it’s been written, there have been several works on it and on orthodox Christology. Creeds are meant to be simple statements that can be remembered, but they don’t really give arguments. That’s not their point.

ICBI is not really a creed however. It is a statement. Of course, we don’t expect it to be exhaustive. However, as I said at the start, this was put together in a 3-day period and should not be the final statement, just like Nicea was not the final statement on orthodox Christology. If anything, the Geisler/Licona debate has shown us that we need more.

I do have a concern that some people are going to avoid Inerrancy altogether. Some of them are not going to join societies now since they fear that they will be the next targets in a hunt. If you check the blogosphere, you can see that this is already going on.

Thus, while I have no doubt Geisler thinks he is saving Inerrancy for the next generation, I believe he is in fact killing it. It is not just Inerrancy that is being killed, but evangelicalism.

Now don’t misunderstand me on this. If the Bible is Inerrant, and I believe that it is, that will last regardless of what anyone does. If the Bible is Inerrant, it is inerrant whether we believe it or not. Thus, what Geisler is doing cannot make the Bible to be errant.

However, if it comes down to Inerrancy being the same as literalism, then you will find several people ready to say “No. I’m not an Inerrantist.” Say it enough over time and soon enough it will be commonplace so much so that people will just take it to mean that the Bible has errors.

How will this kill Evangelicalism? Just take a look at what’s going on in the blogosphere again. Evangelicalism is already taking hits as most atheists are seeing that Mike Licona is a real NT scholar, even though they disagree with his claims, and they do not see Geisler as one, which is true. Geisler’s degrees are in philosophy. They are not in New Testament studies. That’s nothing to disregard Geisler in that sense. However, is Geisler’s name really taken seriously in the world of NT scholarship as a sound authority? The answer is no. Mike Licona’s name is however.

So what does the unbelieving world see? A non-expert telling an expert that he needs to get in line with the party. It’s not about if Licona’s explanation is right or wrong. It’s about getting in line. Now yes, Geisler has given reasons for thinking Licona is wrong, but these reasons are not proving persuasive to NT scholars. Note that the people who have been siding with Geisler are not NT scholars. The people who have been siding with Licona quite often are.

The unbelieving world sees this and says “See? You can’t be objective in evangelicalism. You have to come in line with what the higher institutions say. Why should we trust the claim that the Bible is Inerrant when we know that people have to say that apparently in order to keep their jobs?”

To an extent, they’re right too.

So now Licona could come out and say “I believe the text is literal” and yet an atheist could say “We’ve seen the debate! We know why you are saying that! You’re saying it because you have to! If you deny that it is literal, then you’re going to be cast out by your crowd!” Fortunately, Licona has stuck by his position. He won’t say something unless he believes that it is true. IF he is convinced, he’ll change his mind. Charges of him denying Inerrancy and dehistoricizing the text do not work. You cannot dehistoricize a text that was not meant to be seen as literal and if it was not meant to be seen as literal, it is not a denial of Inerrancy to say that it is not literal. I’m not saying it is apocalyptic. I’m just saying that if Licona’s right, he’s not doing anything that is a denial of Inerrancy. Even if his view is wrong, he’s not denying Inerrancy as long as he’s convinced his view could very well be right.

In fact, if this is the way that Inerrancy is being guarded, then it makes Inerrancy look weak. Take for instance the creation-evolution debate. Those on the creationist side often point to how evolutionists can say they don’t want both theories taught in schools as cowardice on their part and that the ones who is open to seeing both sides is the one who is really sure of his view.

I think there’s some truth to that.

But this is what is going on here. It is saying that we will not allow this other view to be considered. It goes against the traditional view and we’re going to stick with the traditional view. It won’t matter about further studies in the New Testament or the social context. The evidence cannot say otherwise.

But if it does say otherwise, it’s not just Geisler with egg on his face. It’s evangelicalism and then, Christianity.

A better approach for Geisler would have been to tell Licona that he’s allowed to put forward his hypothesis, but if he wants to argue that claim, well there are some strong questions that he has to answer. That’s the way it should be for anyone challenging something that has generally always been understood a certain way. When you bring forward a new idea, it’s up to you to answer the claims and show why your answer is superior.

That only makes it more fun.

What would be the result? Licona would have to dig in his heels and work really hard in order to show his idea was probable and worthy of further research. Geisler sits back and asks the questions. If Licona’s view is true, then we are fortunate that we have a new way of looking at the NT and we can see what else we can study. If Geisler’s is true, well we know something that didn’t work and we have more information on the passage overall. Of course, it could always be the case that years down the road someone will resurrect the discussion again (Pardon the terrible pun) and look for more evidence that has been uncovered since the first debate.

This position holds that if one believes their side is true, they will not have any fear researching it. If all one cares about is truth, they also will not have any fear researching it. Why? Because truth is all that matters and truth is not decided a priori but a posteriori. If all you care about is truth and you research and find your view is wrong, that’s fine to you. You’ve done your homework and you’re better off than when you started.

The constant claims to recant only make this look like an Inquisition when it should be an inquiry. Also note some charges such as the idea that if one text is apocalyptic, then all will be, including 1 Corinthians 15 and the resurrection of Jesus.

It would have been nice if those making such a claim had noted that Licona wrote over 600 pages showing why the resurrection of Jesus is not apocalyptic. Thus, for him, not all resurrections are apocalyptic. He says the way to differentiate is by doing research.

As for 1 Cor. 15, that’s a resurrection at the final judgment and not in history. It’s not part of a narrative account of the NT then and would not be read as apocalyptic but rather as doctrine. Of course, there are apocalyptic themes with the final judgment, but that is not saying that there is no real final judgment. There are no doubt apocalyptic ideas connected with the resurrection, but that does not mean there is no resurrection.

It has been claimed that the enemies of Christ have been handed a powerful weapon. Indeed they have! That powerful weapon however is not from Licona. That powerful weapon is from the side that is telling Licona to recant. The powerful weapon is evidence that supposedly evangelicalism is against the investigation of evidence, free inquiry, and the pursuit of truth without begging the question.

This has also happened to one who is really still putting forward his foot in the scholarly world. He is new compared to others, and now the message is sent to others that they could be the next targets if they put forward a contrary idea. The message the unbelievers get then is “Evangelicals are not allowed to put forward contrary ideas, thus you cannot really say that their arguments are the ones they believe because of hard research. They believe them because they have to.”

What new scholar would want to be the target of a hunt by Geisler? Or Mohler? Or anyone else for that matter?

Of course, several of them would salivate over the chance of being challenged. Imagine putting forward a new resurrection hypothesis and being challenged by Gary Habermas. Imagine putting forward a new look at the Kalam argument and being challenged by William Lane Craig. Anyone in that position would be awfully nervous of course about facing such an expert, but would also be able to say “I’m doing enough to be taken seriously by this guy and if my argument can stand up to this, it is going somewhere!” It will be a welcome challenge.

The future of Inerrancy and evangelicalism should be based on a pursuit of truth and not living out of fear.

So what happens here? Our great hope can be that Geisler will finally offer an olive branch to Licona. Licona has already said that he would be ready to embrace him, forgive him, and be as if nothing happened. He should be willing to support a bright scholar making a powerful foray into the field of NT apologetics.

This must be an action that is done instead of something buried under the rug. There are still people noticing that the Ergun Caner debate may have ended, but they have not seen anything from Geisler on it even though he still has some questions to answer about his involvement in the issue. In the age of the internet, this becomes tougher and tougher. Some stories may be forgotten, but on the internet, once something is public, it is public. Once Geisler wrote an open letter, the genie was out of the bottle and was not going back in.

To not give an olive branch would only be seen as pride. Already, one can see on Geisler’s facebook page and on the blogosphere that Geisler’s stock is dropping and people are losing respect fast. The way to gain that respect is to be able to bite the proverbial bullet. It needs to be realized that this debate has caused great harm to Licona, his family, to evangelicalism, and in the long term to Christianity.

We also need to take a look at ICBI again and see what we can do to refine it, and this time we need more than just pastors by and large. We need people who are actually skilled in criticism of the New Testament. We need everyone who is signing that document to be a verified scholar in the field. We need long debate over the issue.

One of the great fears is that this will be something that will eventually lead to belief in an old-earth or a young-earth being essential to Inerrancy, or belief in Preterism or Dispensationalism being essential to Inerrancy. Naturally, not everyone will be pleased, but these could be the people we don’t need to please as they’ve already equated their interpretation with Inerrancy.

I still think the simplest statement would be that the Bible is without error in all that it teaches. So what does it teach? Well Inerrancy can’t tell you that. That is for you to find out based on doing your study. Inerrancy just tells you that when you find out that that is what the Bible teaches, it is true. It is so true you can stake your eternal salvation on it.

And indeed you do.

So where do we go? That’s not for me to decide. That’s for others to decide who are witnessing this debate taking place and for those who are participating in it. Right now, both sides need to be moving towards reconciliation and both sides need to be reaching for that. This can be a chance for evangelicals to show that they are interested in truth. They are against witch hunts and arguing by force. Let us seek the truth and may not one side win out, but may truth simply win out, and rather than asking if the truth is on our side, let us see if we are on the side of truth.

We shall continue next time.

Advertisements

Tags: , , ,

22 Responses to “The Future of Inerrancy”

  1. Bryan Says:

    If you are so certain that Geisler is destroying evangelicalism, why don’t you just meet with him personally? It seems like the writing of blogs is the easy way out.

    You go to SES and he lives just down the road. Go meet with him and settle YOUR differences. A man of true conviction would do so, regardless if you think he has not to either Licona or yourself. You are responsible for yourself not others. That would seem to be a much better approach.

  2. j Says:

    Geisler never takes down his attacks, which are publicly posted. Thank you for taking the time to record these thoughts for those who would study this later.

    Unfortunately, there seems to be no good way to publicly support Licona (who needs public support) without publicly declaring that Geisler may be more than a little bit off here. Again. A brilliant man, an earnest follower of Christ with a real and deep passion for truth and for evangelism, and a 40+ year history of making concrete stands on gray issues – some of which he had to flip on later.

  3. apologianick Says:

    Thank you. It is a shame that this has happened. Geisler’s doing a whole lot more harm.

  4. Bryan Says:

    Again, I’m left without an answer to my question:

    Why don’t you just go and meet with him personally?

    You go to the school he founded and obviously you two live fairly close to each other.

  5. apologianick Says:

    Only because I see no reason it would do any good.

  6. Bryan Says:

    I think it would do some good to meet with him. If you really think that Geisler is the destruction of evangelicalism. That’s quite a claim there. I think that is such a bold claim that it definitely warrants that you go and meet with him face to face. If you can say it in a blog and not in person, that is a very cowardly approach. If not in person, send him a personal email or phone call. I think it is do unto others as though you would have done unto yourself, Matt. 18, and so forth. Until then, you might want to consider the motives of putting these types of claims online.

    Again, this is YOUR responsibility regardless of how you think he has acted. If you expect him to come to you or Licona you cannot control that. You are only in control of what YOU do, and frankly, these types of comments should be made face to face before you put them online for all to see.

    You did say: Thus, while I have no doubt Geisler thinks he is saving Inerrancy for the next generation, I believe he is in fact killing it. It is not just Inerrancy that is being killed, but evangelicalism.

  7. Bryan Says:

    You have also said:

    Right now, both sides need to be moving towards reconciliation and both sides need to be reaching for that. This can be a chance for evangelicals to show that they are interested in truth.

    Furthermore:

    They are against witch hunts and arguing by force. Let us seek the truth and may not one side win out, but may truth simply win out, and rather than asking if the truth is on our side, let us see if we are on the side of truth.

    We are just asking for you to now extend that hand of reconciliation. Which means you should go meet face-to-face. Anything less is contrary to the teachings of the Bible everyone here claims to affirm. You do want to be on the side of truth, and the side of truth calls for reconciliation.

  8. Bryan Says:

    You have also said:

    The future of Inerrancy and evangelicalism should be based on a pursuit of truth and not living out of fear.

    To not give an olive branch would only be seen as pride.

    Seems like YOU need to move forward by attempting to reconcile, regardless of what he does….

  9. rey Says:

    “If the Bible is Inerrant, and I believe that it is….”

    What’s interesting to me about his comment is how this relaters to your other post Is The Bible Simple To Understand? All the arguments you offer there against the Bible being simple to understand are really arguments against inerrancy.

    There you take John 3:16 and make it complicated to prove the Bible hard to understand, but what you prove it that John 3:16 is inaccurate.

    For example:

    “His Only Begotten Son.” What does this mean?…Are there not others who are called sons of God? Isn’t Adam a son of God? Aren’t angels sons of God? Weren’t the kings of Israel and Judah considered to be sons of God?

    So, Jesus is not God’s only begotten Son, since God has other sons. Indeed, we could latch on to a passage in the New Testament calling Jesus God’s firstborn and compare it with Hosea 11:1 or with the passage in Exodus that Hosea is referring to, where God instructs Moses to say to Pharaoh “ISRAEL IS MY FIRSTBORN SON; let my son go that he may serve me” which Hosea alludes to in saying “When ISRAEL was young, I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.”

    By this, we can show two things: (1) Jesus is NOT God’s firstborn, for Israel is. (2) Matthew is DEAD WRONG when he claims that Hosea 11:1 is a “prophecy” about Jesus being taken into Egypt as a baby; it is in fact an allusion to the book of Exodus when Moses told Pharoah that God said “ISRAEL IS MY FIRSTBORN SON; let my son go that he may serve me.”

    So, what you used to disprove perspicuity actually disproves inerrancy. To put it another way, the reason why the scriptures are not perspicuous is because they are not inerrant.

    Another one:

    “Believes.” Does this refer to having intellectual assent? How can this be since we are told that the demons believe and tremble?

    Again, you have simply proven that a contradiction exists, and therefore the Bible is not inerrant. Because we find that some passages teach justification by faith alone — especially Romans 4 — whereas others, especially James 2, teach that faith alone is NOT sufficient. Of course I realize that apologists have created all sorts of subterfuge to get around these types of problems — but that subterfuge can only work in isolated incidents. When one adds together all the contradictions in a large pot and tries to deal with them all at once, one begins to see the subterfuge for exactly what it is.

  10. apologianick Says:

    @Rey. Oh my. So simplistic indeed.

    No. Having others sons does not mean one Son is not the only begotten Son. Perhaps you should look up some on what the term “Only Begotten” means. It says something specific about the nature of Jesus in relation to His Father.

    As for Hosea 11:1, please. This is called pesher. It’s Matthew showing that Jesus is the new Israel and the first few chapters of Matthew have much of a repeat of the history of Israel. This kind of interpretation was perfectly acceptable in the time of Christ and does not violate Inerrancy, unless you have in mind that the Bible must be written in 21st century American style.

    As for Romans 4 and James 2, the Reformers all agreed that faith alone justifies, and they also all agreed that the faith that justifies is never alone. That’s the point of James 2. It’s not discussing justification before God but before men and how you can tell that someone is justified. The only way one shows one is justified is by works.

  11. reyjacobs Says:

    You can call it pesher or midrash or whatever you want, but all these terms are just fancy ways of saying ‘misinterpretation of the text which reinterprets it to mean something it doesn’t mean; something wholly foreign to its meaning.’ As such, by definition, midrash cannot be inerrant; midrash = misinterpretation. And what applies to ancient midrash applies to the midrash of the Reformers as well; it has no bearing on the actual meaning of the texts. It is nothing but contorting the text to make it means something it was never intended to mean.

  12. apologianick Says:

    No. Not from a 1st century perspective. Matthew is writing entirely in a legitimate way according to his 1st century contemporaries and that is the only standard he has to measure up to. Your wanting to avoid that is just a symptom of typical 21st century lazy thinking.

  13. reyjacobs Says:

    Actually, if first century thinking found misuse of scripture legitimate, then it is not 21st century thinking that is the lazy one. But can you really characterize the thinking of a whole century–any century–as if its all the same? To say that Matthew’s misuse of Hosea 11:1 was entirely legitimate to his 1st century contemporaries is to say something wholly ridiculous. If Luke found this way of using scripture to be wholly legitimate, why doesn’t he use Hosea 11:1 that way? He does away with the baby Jesus into Egypt motif altogether.

    But here is the real question. If you admit that in actuality Hosea 11:1 is not a prophecy of Jesus–its just being used that way according to “1st century” thinking–then what of the story of Jesus being taken down to Egypt to hide from Herod? Is this historical truth, or just more “1st century” thinking?

    Luke’s chronology leaves no time for it, since 40 days after Jesus’ birth, his parents take him to Jerusalem, make the sacrifices for Mary’s cleansing, and immediately leave and return to Nazareth. They DO NOT stay in Bethlehem a couple more years as in Matthew. Therefore, in Luke, the wise men can’t come and see Jesus in Bethelem when he is 2 1/2 or so, as in Matthew. Therefore, in Luke, Herod cannot sent to have all the infants in Bethlehem killed in an attempt to kill Jesus. Therefore, in Luke, no angel warns Joseph to take Jesus to Egypt and hide. Therefore, in Luke, Jesus is never in Egypt and is not called back from it. And therefore, in Luke, the return to Nazareth is not characterized as a fulfillment of a non-existent prophecy “he shall be called a Nazarene” for in Luke they RETURN to Nazareth which is Joseph’s hometown–they do not go there for the first time as in Matthew.

    Typically proponents of inerrancy view both stories as historically true. Somehow Matthew is right that Bethlehem is Joseph and Mary’s hometown, that they stay there for 2 years after Jesus birth, go to Egypt, come back, and then go to Nazareth for the first time — and yet, Luke is also somehow true, that Nazareth is their hometown, they leave for Bethlehem, are there only 40 days after Jesus birth, go to Jerusalem, make sacrifices, then return post-haste to Nazareth — both are absolutely 100% historical somehow — that’s traditional inerrancy.

    But your equivacable inerrancy is hard to pin down. What does inerrancy mean if you admit that Matthew is misusing and twisting the Old Testament prophecies — only to say “but it was legitimate to do that back then” — how do you call this inerrancy except by equivocation?

  14. apologianick Says:

    More question-begging. You’re still assuming 1st century methods were wrong, but you’ve given no basis other than 21st century methods.

    Also, I do not see the family staying a couple more years. I go with Ken Miller’s reasoning where it is the case that the family of Joseph was a family of great honor being in the lineage of David and thus stayed at the house of family, but the room that was not there was a real guest room for them to sleep in. Instead, they slept in the same room the animals sleep in and that is where Jesus was born. Shortly afterwards, the wise men come from across the Jordan and seek Jesus and when Herod gives sufficient time and finds that they are not coming back. While the family may be living in Nazareth, it could be someone in Bethlehem, since there was family there, could tell the Romans that the family lives in Nazareth, so the family goes to Egypt to be safe. For all we know, the Bethlehem slaughter could have been the first of many searches for the young Messiah. It is after Herod dies that Jesus and his family go back up to Nazareth and remain.

    This is a plausible account and it holds to both accounts being historical and is based better in a Middle Eastern perspective.

  15. reyjacobs Says:

    “More question-begging. You’re still assuming 1st century methods were wrong, but you’ve given no basis other than 21st century methods.”

    LOL. Someone else has quoted some ‘expert’ at me who says “But only an inerrant critic can expect to prove that the Bible errs.” I suppose your view is the same. But as I said to him, that’s the sort of wooly headed thinking that would make a person try to be part of every religion at once since this means that God has left us incapable of determining the truth. How–after all–if we must accept such misuses of scripture as is done in Matthew 2 with respect to Hosea 11–can we fault the Koran? When the Koran makes very bad use of the OT, how can I say that Mohammed was using invalid interpretative methods? If I am somehow on shaky ground in using my God-given logic (which is what you are saying) then I must accept that the Koran is inerrant too! How do I know that 7th century thinking wasn’t superior to my own. Sure the Koran reads like it was written by an illiterate rube–but maybe in reality I’m the illiterate rube and all my fancy learning is as nothing before the Holy prophet! GIVE ME A FREAKING BREAK! This is the epitome of lazy thinking, and its not surprising that a Calvinist engages in exactly the same lazy thinking as Muslims.

  16. apologianick Says:

    Hi. Would you care to give an actual response to what was said, or do you just want to rant about the Bible not being 21st century like some small child again?

  17. reyjacobs Says:

    “While the family may be living in Nazareth, it could be someone in Bethlehem, since there was family there, could tell the Romans that the family lives in Nazareth, so the family goes to Egypt to be safe.”

    This fanciful thinking doesn’t explain why when Joseph returns from Egypt the text of Matthew says that Joseph was afraid of Herod’s son Archlaeus, and therefore took the family to Nazareth — it seems Joseph believes that in Nazareth he will be beyond the reach of the Herods — it is also clear that the only reason in Matthew for his going to Nazareth is because it is perceived as being outside Archlaeus’ jurisdiction.

    But be that as it may–the inconsistency between Matthew and Luke is only a secondary point. It is clear that Hosea 11:1 is being misused. I only mention how Luke differs from Matthew because it shows that Luke found something wrong about Matthew’s use of Hosea 11:1 and thus this is not a case of 21 century thinking vs 1st century thinking but of Matthew’s misuse of scripture versus reality.

    “Would you care to give an actual response to what was said, or do you just want to rant about the Bible not being 21st century like some small child again?”

    Oh, I’m sorry Mamoud. I didn’t get down on my knees and kiss the Koran and praise “7th century thinking” above logical thinking. How wrong of me!

  18. Nick Peters Says:

    ReyRey: This fanciful thinking doesn’t explain why when Joseph returns from Egypt the text of Matthew says that Joseph was afraid of Herod’s son Archlaeus, and therefore took the family to Nazareth — it seems Joseph believes that in Nazareth he will be beyond the reach of the Herods — it is also clear that the only reason in Matthew for his going to Nazareth is because it is perceived as being outside Archlaeus’ jurisdiction.

    Reply: Correct. Jesus would be away from Herod then but still living in Judea. Bloody Herod was dead, but who knew if the new Herod would be the same?

    ReyRey But be that as it may–the inconsistency between Matthew and Luke is only a secondary point. It is clear that Hosea 11:1 is being misused. I only mention how Luke differs from Matthew because it shows that Luke found something wrong about Matthew’s use of Hosea 11:1 and thus this is not a case of 21 century thinking vs 1st century thinking but of Matthew’s misuse of scripture versus reality.

    Reply: No. Luke doesn’t say anything about Egypt and that does not spell contradiction. That is an inference that is not necessary. Also, there is no misuse. Pesher interpretation was alive and well and demonstrated in the Qumran community. For the Hebrews, the prophetic word was always active and could be being fulfilled in their time just as much as at the time of the prophet. Matthew knew out of Egypt, God called Israel, his son, but then say Jesus as the true Israel who was also the Son called out of Egypt.

    ReyRey: Oh, I’m sorry Mamoud. I didn’t get down on my knees and kiss the Koran and praise “7th century thinking” above logical thinking. How wrong of me!

    Reply: You’re confusing being ignorant of scholarly material with being rational. Actually, if you want to read the Koran, yes, you should judge it by the methods of its own time as well and see how it measures up. I have no problem with that. Why should the 21st century be the loci of all thought?

  19. reyjacobs Says:

    “Actually, if you want to read the Koran, yes, you should judge it by the methods of its own time as well and see how it measures up. I have no problem with that.”

    That’s just absolutely insane. And you idiots wonder why your position is losing so much ground. You are moronic relics who don’t mind proclaiming a book written by a caveman to be inerrant if it meets cavemen standards. Wow. With ‘hell being a place where there is no reason’ I think you’ll fit right in.

  20. apologianick Says:

    Good grief! No wonder you have a hard time reading a 1st century document. You have a hard enough time reading someone in the 21st century. Who said the text is Inerrant because it meets the standards of the time? I don’t know anyone who uses that definition of Inerrancy! Inerrancy is a conclusion that is reached by a study of the text and part of the study of the text is literary study and literary study involves the literary conventions of the time.

    Perhaps if you actually did some study on something other than reading, say, the latest new atheist book over and over, you might come up with a real objection someday.

  21. fogbeültetés Says:

    fogbeültetés…

    […]The Future of Inerrancy « Deeper Waters[…]…

  22. Links – September 2, 2013 | Bob's Recommended Web Resources Says:

    […] 7)   Here are several posts on subject of Scripture. The first is a George Barna Group survey of the attitudes of Americans toward the Bible. The other two are posts on the relevance of the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture. Thought-provoking. Post 1 and Post 2. […]

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


%d bloggers like this: