jump to navigation

Genesis 1: What does it actually say? April 13, 2009

Posted by Ian in Religion.
Tags: ,
trackback

Christian creationists claim that genesis trumps science for an explanation of origins.  While the general claims of genesis are well known it has been a while since I sat down and actually read the thing so today I did just that.  All of genesis 1 is repeated below along with my commentary on a verse by verse basis.  Since all the versions of the bible seem to say similar things I chose the King James Version (taken from the bible gateway here) as the version to analyse.  Some scholars say the original texts are the only relevant ones, while others say that the most recent are the closest to gods intention.  The KJV sits right in the middle and seems to be quite commonly referred to.  Not being a biblical scholar I don’t have much more basis for my choice than that but ultimately it shouldn’t make much difference – the story is pretty much the same.

I have tried to approach this from the assumption that it might have validity and have tried to take genesis 1 in isolation to see what it says.  Of course apologists will point out that other parts of the bible add explanation or give more detail but given other parts were written at other times this would make genesis 1 a poorly written document.  Also I have ignored genesis 2 and it’s varying account of creation at this stage although the inconsistencies between the two is something I may look at later.  The purpose of this is simply to take genesis 1 at face value and see what it has to say, with a critical but hopefully not cynical point of view.  Also I don’t claim any of the discussion in this piece are new or innovative, but I made a point of not reading any reference material or criticisms of the bible while doing this so the comments are all mine.


GENESIS 1 

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Firstly there is a curious phrasing here – the beginning of what exactly?  There is no context to decide what this is the beginning of so the entire notion of first creation is cast into doubt – what if it refers to the beginning of the story rather than of everything?  Secondly what is meant by “the heaven” and “the earth”?  It is easy from our point of view to suppose “the heaven” includes the solar system, galaxies and the rest of the universe but we know the writers didn’t mean this because they had no idea these existed at the time. 

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

While obscurely written I presume, referencing verse 9, that the planet was completely covered in water at this time with no land above the water.  The significance of the face of the deep is anyone’s guess given there isn’t any light anywhere yet according to the story so darkness was everywhere anyway.  It does kind of imply the water was deep everywhere though. 

Also the sun and stars either don’t exist yet or there would be light so this also rather strongly suggests “the heaven” of verse one doesn’t refer to the universe at large but more likely the sky.   

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

This is a tricky one because light doesn’t really exist independently of other things – in fact in order for this to be true god would have to make the sun and the rest of it at this point.  I somehow doubt the creator of an entire universe of billions of stars would say nothing of the creation of a massive expanse of galaxies and just mention light.  Anyway it becomes apparent later on that this light has nothing to do with earth just yet. 

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

God doesn’t need to divide light from dark; dark is simply the absence of light.  Seems this was written from a poor understanding of light and probably refers to day and night rather than light and dark. 

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

I am not sure how god planned to account for being inside a closed up room during the day is that day or night?  Also the phrasing “evening and morning” is either chronologically backwards or we have changed our usage of the word “day”.  Also we now know that evening and morning is a relative term depending on where exactly on the earth you are – so when it is morning in London it is evening in Wellington.  Where was god exactly? 

6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

Now we discover in verse 8 that this firmament is called heaven.  It seems that god created heaven again on the second day and this seems a little odd.  

7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

So now there is a thing called heaven dividing water above heaven from water below heaven.  This is clearly intended as a physical barrier and strongly suggests heaven is a physical place rather than a spiritual one, and it is one we know today does not exist in the same form. 

8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

So day one he created the earth, the heaven, and light.  Day two he had an easier time of it and just created heaven?

9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

What “one place” would that be exactly?  And how would that land appear?  There is no mention of land rising up because the focus is entirely on the water which is “gathered together”.  Of course one could argue that making the land rise is a method of gathering water but that is a rather obscure way of describing a rather significant event.  Gravity means gathering water is not an easy task.

10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called the Seas: and God saw that it was good.

So to confirm, he creates the earth on the first day, then creates it again on the third day as something quite different?  Remember there was no dry land on the first day so there was no “earth” by this definition on day one.  The use of language here leaves something to be desired. 

11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

Firstly this shows no understanding of ecosystems whatsoever – plants need animals to survive, to provide a stable atmosphere, and to decompose dead matter to make soil.  They also need sunlight, and as we are about to discover, the sun doesn’t exist yet (although light apparently does).

12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Also I presume that other plants such as non-fruit trees, cacti, grains, and the rest of it that are not mentioned but make up large chunks of the flora are also made here?

13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

So now we have two different earths, a heaven made twice, light and some (or all) of the plants.  I note there is no mention of plants changing (or not changing) over time.

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

So having divided day from night previously, god decides to do it again.  Repetition is good for the soul I suppose.  It would be logical to assume the lights here are referring to stars (and supposedly the sun) which suggests that the light he created earlier is now superseded…  or we have twice as much light as we did before.  Also it suggests the stars are lights in the firmament and not giant fusion powered fireballs billions of kilometres away.  You’d think the difference would be something worth noting.

15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

The stars are there to give light upon the earth?  What about the light that is already there?

16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

We now know these two “lights” are the same, one direct and the other indirectly reflected off moon.  And also the stars now appear.  How are these different to the lights in the firmament?

17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

I see, so god created lights in the firmament and then created two greater lights and stars and put them there too.  The chronology here is very mixed up.  It would have made a lot more sense to just say “god made the sun, the moon and the stars and it was good” and be done with it!

18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

The light is already divided from darkness.

19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Now we have light created three times, the stars twice, heaven twice and we have two different earths…

20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

Reading between the lines this seems to say that water based life and birds were created on this day.  Incidentally the phrase “open firmament of heaven” is confusing given we have already figured out that the firmament is a physical place that represents separation of the waters above from the waters below.  I guess we take this to mean the “sky”.

21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

“Every living creature that moveth” apparently should say “every creature that moveth in water” or something to that effect considering the 6th day hasn’t occurred yet.  I am not sure if there is significance in the difference between “their kind” versus “his kind” – does this mean birds are made after god’s kind instead? 

22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

The water creature part makes sense here but the fowl (birds) part seems out of place.  Also the phrasing “in the earth” seems strange to me as well but we can assume it means on land.

23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

Now we have light created three times, the stars twice, heaven twice and two different earths occupied by sea creatures and birds.

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

The living creature here now means earth creatures as opposed to the previous day when it meant something different.  It is interesting that cattle is specifically mentioned – is there a reason for this?  These are all after “his” kind.

25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Now we see the cattle are now after “their” kind but the others are after “his” kind.  So can we conclude god’s kind is some sort of creeping bird-beast?

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Now suddenly the phrase “our” likeness sneaks into use – to whom does “our” refer to?  We also see here that man is to have dominion over everything else despite the fact that man knew little of his world at the time and that nature was doing a fair job of making life hard for people at the time.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

So we see here that men and women are now created to have dominion.  One would have to assume this meant more than one man/woman was created in the same way that the other creatures were made.  

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

The call for man to replenish the earth is an interesting one… replenish what exactly and how? 

29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

Strange phrasing but that aside, a warning about poisonous fruit for example might have been useful!  I gather “for meat” means “for food” otherwise this is a weird statement.

30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

This one is also confusing, is this saying using herbs on meat or as food?  Or is it saying that animals should eat plants?  What about the carnivores?

31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

And so the creation ends with everything in place. 


 

Without any other information except genesis 1, we have to admit this is a very short, low on detail, unconvincing description of what took place.  IT is far from a comprehensive technical description and it seems to me to rather closely reflect ancient man’s understanding of the world.  In other words it reads like it was written by men describing an event that they had no way of knowing anything about.  Even if the story is true (which of course I doubt) this account of it is weak and not very convincing or useful.  It reads to me like a poorly thought out pre-science just-so story and basing one’s interpretation of origins literally on it seems to me, for lack of a better word, plain silly.

As an aside, Michael Shermer’s revisitation of Genesis which I originally saw in Why Darwin Matters reads much better than the original (and is quite funny) – check it out here.

Advertisements

Comments»

1. ektachrome - April 14, 2009

Ian — Let me add to the confusion…

Verse 2 – “the earth was without form” – this doesn’t mean that the earth was round (spherical) does it? Could “earth” just refer to “matter” or the elements?

Verse 3 – “Let there be light” – what was there before light? Dark? No, that can’t be right…elsewhere the Bible says “God is light”…but if He had to create it…

I’m confused.

2. Dale Campbell - April 14, 2009

…OK, so whilst the above exercise (an atheist reading of ancient, poetic, philosophical/theological prose; and then – of all things – critiqing it for not being modern, technical and scientific!) is not completely useless, I certainly hope you won’t stop there, and will consult any of the many works on Genesis (in general) or chapter 1 (in particular). Heck nowadays, you can access a great deal online (i.e. – many commentaries are readable on books.google.com). Truly interested persons in what Genesis means can easily benefit from scholars who have given their entire lives to studying this book (i.e. commentary writers – both Jewish and Christian). Enjoy! 🙂

3. Ian - April 14, 2009

@ ektachrome

Good points and I am sure there are several more 🙂 It is a confusing chapter for sure.

@ Dale

If genesis is just ancient poetic philosophical/theological prose then I have no problem with it because then it is not very important in the grand scheme of things and can be largely ignored. Unfortunately many theists take it literally as a technical and scientific document and the point of this exercise was to look at genesis 1 from that perspective.

Regarding other people’s interpretations of genesis 1, I shouldn’t really need someone else to make interpretations for me in order for it to make sense – that would make for a pretty poor holy book!
Nonetheless if you have a good recommendation I’ll be happy to read it and follow up.

4. Dale Campbell - April 14, 2009

Ian,

If genesis is just ancient poetic philosophical/theological prose then I have no problem with it because then it is not very important in the grand scheme of things and can be largely ignored.

Nah, any poetic philosophical/theological text would still be quite important to any lover of poetry, philosophy and/or theology. In other words, a text need not be modern, technical and scientific to be valuable and even important. Benefiting from ANY text always increases with the more effort one puts in and the help recieved from others also seeking to benefit from the same text. Obvious, no?

Unfortunately many theists take it literally as a technical and scientific document and the point of this exercise was to look at genesis 1 from that perspective.

It’s (as usual) more complex than that. ‘Literal’ is a gradient. You’re musings above are perhaps the most literal I’ve ever seen – far more literal than even the most hard-core 6-day creationist. I dare say you favour this approach because with it, you are able to imagine all kinds of ‘contradictions’ and ‘problems’ that just simply aren’t there using other (and infinitely better – frankly) interpretive methods.

Regarding other people’s interpretations of genesis 1, I shouldn’t really need someone else to make interpretations for me in order for it to make sense – that would make for a pretty poor holy book!

Well then, it seems that you not only favour a highly (bewilderingly?) literal interpretation of the meaning in this text, but you also favour (or assume) a highly anti-natural, anti-rational, anti-human-understanding of the mechanisms involved in interpreting Scripture. In other words, you seem to assume that a “holy book” would not (ever!) be more aptly understood by making use of things like – say – textual/literary/rhetorical criticism, historical/cultural/socio-economic analysis, interpretive tradition, appreciation of canonical context, etc. Where did you get this unbreakable rule of how an understanding of a “holy book” can and cannot be gained?

Nonetheless if you have a good recommendation I’ll be happy to read it and follow up.

As I said earlier, if anyone is truly interested in understanding, then the relevant resources are not few in number and not hiding from anyone 🙂 It’s just a matter of whether or not you actually want to be satisfied with casual, 1-person, off-the-cuff, speculation – or if you actually want to properly work with the text.

5. Dale Campbell - April 14, 2009

In case you’re interested, Denver Seminary has a good bibliograpy (updated/revised each year!) of reliable works – their biblical bibliographies are respected by various institutions all over the world. The Old Testament bibliography is here (the link should take you to ‘commentaries by book’ section of the page), and New Testament here. Obviously the non-commentary books (histories, archaeologies, lexicons, sociological/anthropological studies, etc., etc.) are every bit as valuable as the commentaries, though the best commentators will be drawing on all of these resources, so they’re the best first port of call.

6. Ian - April 14, 2009

Nah, any poetic philosophical/theological text would still be quite important to any lover of poetry, philosophy and/or theology. In other words, a text need not be modern, technical and scientific to be valuable and even important.

I should have clarified what I meant by importance. Moby Dick is an important document but I wouldn’t use it to learn whale biology. Likewise it seems genesis 1 may be an important document but I wouldn’t use it to learn cosmology or biology.

Benefiting from ANY text always increases with the more effort one puts in and the help received from others also seeking to benefit from the same text. Obvious, no?

Indeed, but if it can’t at least somewhat stand on its own then the interpretation becomes more important than the text itself and you might as well ditch the text. Perhaps this is why there are young and old earth creationists with so many varying interpretations of this text.

You’re musings above are perhaps the most literal I’ve ever seen – far more literal than even the most hard-core 6-day creationist.

It says what it says…

I dare say you favour this approach because with it, you are able to imagine all kinds of ‘contradictions’ and ‘problems’ that just simply aren’t there using other (and infinitely better – frankly) interpretive methods.

I approached this with the intention of seeing what it actually says. Having said that, I’ll have to try this interpretative approach with my PhD superviser… excuse me sir, I interpreted my thesis quite differently to you but that’s okay because the actual words are infinitely less important than my interpretation of them 🙂 Sorry, don’t buy it: Genesis 1 says what it says.

Well then, it seems that you not only favour a highly (bewilderingly?) literal interpretation of the meaning in this text, but you also favour (or assume) a highly anti-natural, anti-rational, anti-human-understanding of the mechanisms involved in interpreting Scripture

How is reading the words anti-natural? Sure if I was to bring in the broader context I’d have to conclude it was just another bronze age creation myth made up by people that didn’t know any better, but if I did that you’d probably still be grumpy at me so I can’t win 😉

In other words, you seem to assume that a “holy book” would not (ever!) be more aptly understood by making use of things like – say – textual/literary/rhetorical criticism, historical/cultural/socio-economic analysis, interpretive tradition, appreciation of canonical context, etc.

I have no doubt I made some mistakes in reading the language but it is not a complex or long document yet it is riddled with, to put it lightly, strange ways of describing things.

Where did you get this unbreakable rule of how an understanding of a “holy book” can and cannot be gained?

It says what it says… If a book says the heavens were created twice, it says the heavens were created twice. No amount of interpretation can change the fact that it says that. A random question: who decides how to interpret scripture? It seems every person who picks up the bible does it a little differently. It certainly can’t tell you how within the scripture because that would be circular… most documents don’t have this problem, they say what they say and mean what they say.

I’ll have a look and see if any of those books listed on that rather comprehensive books list in the uni library and I’ll give one a go.

A question Dale: do you think genesis 1 is a literal account of what happened?

7. Dale Campbell - April 15, 2009

rather than quote bits and respond, I’ll just respond to a key concept: interpretation.

All reading requires interpretation. A basic reality of reading texts is that there is no such thing as a ‘straight’ or ‘un-biased’ reading of a text. We all have ideas about what a text should mean or does mean before we read it. In the many choices of what to highlight in your ‘commentary’, you are interpreting Genesis 1, not just saying ‘what it says’. If you wanted to say ‘what it says’, you would have just posted the text only. 🙂

Let me know how you go finding one of those other books. You’ll definitely find other points that the text is quite plainly saying. Among other things, you’ll be shown repeated words and their significance, the literary structure and what this means, and choice of words (‘greater’/’lesser’ light) in a polytheistic culture (‘sun’/’moon’ gods, etc.).

Do I think Genesis 1 is a literal account of what happened? No, I honestly don’t think the author/community that produced Genesis 1 was primarily concerned with anything at all like an accurate description of ‘the facts’ of the events of Creation. Rather, the author/community is wanting to distinguish monotheism from polytheism, establish the goodness of creation, and establish the place/role of human beings (under creator, over creation).

8. Ian - April 15, 2009

All reading requires interpretation. A basic reality of reading texts is that there is no such thing as a ’straight’ or ‘un-biased’ reading of a text

There are two levels of interpretation though. The first is interpreting the words and deriving meaning – i.e. determining what the text says and whether it is internally consistent and coherent – and the second involves taking a lot of external information and combining it with the text – i.e. developing one’s understanding of reality from the text. I was not trying to understand the origins of the world using genesis 1 in this exercise nor was I trying to understand god or anything else. I just wanted to know what genesis 1 had to say and whether it is internally consistent/coherent. It isn’t.

Regarding genesis 1 as a literal account, it seems we both come to the same conclusion albeit via different routes… 🙂

9. Dale Campbell - April 15, 2009

I’m not clear on your two “levels” of interpretation. I think it’s not so much an issue of “levels” (and certainly not only ‘two’ of them) as much as it is depth. One can have a ‘surface’ reading, an ‘in-depth’ reading or other degrees of depth. The key thing about interpretation, though (at all ‘levels’ or ‘degrees of depth’) is that it is the attempt to discern the meaning of a text. What you’ve done above with Genesis 1 is really is a good example of what is called “reader response”, which is a relatively new form of literary criticism. ‘reader response’ doesn’t concern itself with what the author(s) intended, or what the text might ‘mean’ today – it just is concerned with how a contemporary reader responds to the text. As I said in comment 1, this is not a completely useless exercise, but if you’re interested in actually trying to understand what the author(s) might have intended, or ‘what it means’, you’ll have to look at it in more ‘depth’. 🙂
And of course, all ‘depths’ of interpretation are all doing the work of deriving meaning – some just try harder than others.

10. Ian - April 15, 2009

Actually I think it really depends on the nature of the text. I think we agree on the nature of genesis 1 (allegorical or metaphorical, not a literal account) which then suggests an interpretative approach may be the only way to get what the author was on about. However to establish that, a literal word for word reading must be the first step surely?

If one were to pick up Newton’s Principia for example we would be able to stop at a literal interpretation and get what we need – it is a technical document that requires little additional information to make sense of it. It would not be necessary to adopt an interpretive approach to understand what it was saying.

11. Dale Campbell - April 15, 2009

There is no reading of any text that is totally free of interpretation. Even reading a ‘technical’ piece like Newton’s Principia (which I’m sadly unfamiliar with) would no doubt require understanding the meaning of each word/term used.

Words, are symbols pointing to and carrying meaning. In this sense, even ‘literal’ terms/words are ‘metaphors’ pointing beyond themselves to an idea/concept/etc. The meaning/idea/concept, etc. always has to be appreciated, discovered, or otherwise interpreted by way of the words/terms – even in ‘technical’ writings.

12. Ian - April 16, 2009

It is one thing to read a text, assign meaning to the words, and to interpret the results. That is often called reading and is pretty much what I did with genesis 1. To start attributing metaphorical or allegorical meanings is to accept the literal meaning is not the important part and that the author meant something else. This was the conclusion I came to with genesis 1.

For example if I said “energy is a function of distance, time and mass” you would read that, understand the words and interpret it to mean exactly what it says, there is no ambiguity here. It might be wrong (it isn’t lol) but the meaning is clear and there is no need to try and second guess my motives or even know anything about the author.

If I was to say “the world is a giant cinema, the lights come on and go off, and wondrous things pass out eyes in the moments of light” then you would realise that the meaning is not literal – because the word is manifestly not a giant cinema with lights. This is a poetic metaphor and each person will read something slightly different into it. You’ll never quite know what the author meant no matter how long you study the author or the surrounding text and it is wide open to honest misinterpretation as well.

Metaphors are important for communicating impressions and feelings. They are next to useless for communicating facts.

13. Dale - April 16, 2009

Just to persist with my ‘all words are (in some sense) metaphors’ point, “energy is a function of distance, time and mass” is only understood by people who have taken a science class. Each of those terms have to be interpreted. All of those words have other connotations other than the scientific connotations I’m assuming you’re implying. ‘function’ can mean an event like a ‘dinner function’, and ‘mass’ can mean a ‘catholic mass’ or a ‘mass choir/orchestra’. Put that sentence in certain parts of the world (i.e. those parts where English is barely understood), and you’ll see just how much interpretation it requires. 🙂

Metaphors are important for communicating impressions and feelings. They are next to useless for communicating facts.

technical language tries to say nothing more than the ‘facts’. poetic metaphor assumes the facts. Gen 1 is indeed assuming some facts (one creator God, not many / creation good, not corrupt / humans have unique role in the world / etc.), but they are not the facts you appear to desire from it (how precisely did the creation event take place?).

14. Ian - April 16, 2009

I knew I’d regret that energy example 😉 The missing element is not interpretation but definition. Once you are clear what each word means you can then unambiguously understand that sentence. The same is not true of the metaphor – you can know exactly what every word means and still be unclear about the overall meaning of the sentence.

I admit that I approached genesis 1 from the point of view of creationists telling me it is the answer to where we came from (which is how I introduced the post) and it is fairly clear to me that it fails in that regard. I never intended to claim it served no purpose whatsoever and it clearly serves a literary purpose for example.

15. Dale - April 16, 2009

The missing element is not interpretation but definition.

definition is a form of interpretation.

I never intended to claim it served no purpose whatsoever and it clearly serves a literary purpose for example.

yes, and as I pointed out in comments 2 & 4, a “poetic philosophical/theological text would still be quite important to any lover of poetry, philosophy and/or theology.” The philosophical/theological convictions of Genesis 1 are still held by monotheists today, for example.

16. berenike - November 7, 2009

Late, but still:

Try reading Augustine’s “De Genesi ad Litteram” (the incomplete literal commentary on Genesis) – there’re a couple of English editions in print. Might even be on Googlebooks, or on something like ccel.org. Of course, from the point of view of astronomy etc Augustine is working with superseded models, but his knowledge of ancient Near Eastern literature was probably not much wider than yours, nor did he know Hebrew or much Greek. He comes up with all the same sort of questions you have 🙂


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: