NAA Interviews Kent Hovind

Introduction

If you’ve been reading the comics and commentary here at NAA, you’ll know I’m an unabashed creationist. (Yeah, I just said that out loud.) But not just a creationist — I’m one of those YECs — a Young Earth Creationist that the atheists and progressives love to loathe.

Now, there seems to be a sect of Christianity who, in an attempt to appear more “scientific” or “rational” or just “cool”, treat we creationists with utter contempt. They usually call themselves OEC — or Old Earth Creationists. To witness the contempt with which we’re held, go to any Old Earth creationist forum or blog. Authors of such sites often, though not always, treat atheists with more kindness and Christian love than we YECs. We’re seen like an unsightly zit on the face of Christianity. And OECs even say that our positions and presuppositions harm the faith and prevent people from coming to Jesus (!).

So imagine the pleasure I had in interviewing one of the most slandered and hated creationists in the world…

Kent Hovind.

He had been imprisoned for 9 years. (I’ll let the reader discover the facts of his case themselves.) If the fact that he has been imprisoned makes you uncomfortable, Christian, please don’t forget that large portions of the Bible were written from prison.

Here it is. The NAA micro-interview with Kent Hovind.


NAA Interviews Kent Hovind (2015/10/26)

(1) What do you think is wrong with mainstream Christianity in America?

KH – Persecution will purify the Church like he has done in every other country. We are too soft.

(2) Do you think that mainstream Christianity frowns down on creation and creationists? If so, why do you think that is?

KH – You have to define mainstream Christianity. If you mean the old line denominations like Baptists, etc… then I think Mainstream Christianity is on board with it.

(3) What would you say to those Christians who consider the creation/evolution debate as a side issue?

KH – I think they need to read their Bible. Jesus said the creation of Adam was the beginning. Was He lying?

(4) Does humor belong in Christian ministry and apologetics?

KH – Absolutely. Why did God make women? He loves humor.

(5) In addition to evangelism, what should Christians be occupying their time with right now and in the immediate future?

KH – Well, after you make spiritual babies you have to raise them. Evangelism is step 1 and teaching is step 2.

Advertisements

12 thoughts on “NAA Interviews Kent Hovind

  1. ” there seems to be a sect of Christianity who, in an attempt to appear more ‘scientific’ or ‘rational’ or just ‘cool’, treat we creationists with utter contempt.”

    I am not a YEC, and it’s not for any of these reasons. Instead, I think we should follow the evidence where it leads, and I believe that neither special nor natural revelation gives us YEC. That isn’t because I want to be rational, or cool; it’s because I am constantly in pursuit of truth and don’t find it in the YEC position.

    As far as contempt is concerned, witness almost any post from AiG, for example, on any Christian holding any other position. Contempt is not permissible in either direction, but it is certainly not a one-way street.

    Regarding the interview itself, I’d be genuinely interested to see what the adherence rate to YEC is is worldwide, not just in the U.S. and select other pockets. Even in the apologetics circles I run in, YEC is the minority position. I’m not saying it is worldwide–though I strongly suspect it is. That doesn’t mean YEC is wrong. I’m just inspired to ponder it by your interview.

    Hovind’s answer regarding creation/evolution as a side issue is curious, because it doesn’t seem to answer the question. How is Hovind understanding “side issue” here? How are you defining it?

    Regarding Adam and Eve being created in the beginning, I’ve already pointed out the inconsistency in literalist approaches to this. Jesus says “at the beginning of creation” when, if we are to take it literally (as YECs so often press), humans were not at the beginning of creation. So why is the text not taken 100% literally there, but it absolutely must be, according to YECs, taken 100% literally in other cases regarding creation? I still haven’t read a sound answer to this. Instead, YEC answers continue to qualify Jesus’ statement by saying that he is referencing creation in general–thus not reading him literally, despite needing a literal reading in order to make the charge against not YECs stand.

    Like

    • “Contempt is not permissible in either direction, but it is certainly not a one-way street.”

      Certainly it isn’t every OEC, as I noted by saying a sect.

      “I am not a YEC, and it’s not for any of these reasons.”

      The comments about OEC’s contempt for YECs wasn’t an attempt to explain why they were OECs, only my opinion about how that they try to distance themselves from us YECs in order to appear more scientific and rational. One example of this attitude can be seen in WLC, who has done much fine work. Once when WLC, whom you know is a OEC, was being interviewed on the Michael Coren, the host asked him specifically about the YEC position. He almost burst into laughing explaining that, to paraphrase, yes, there are people who believe in Young Earth Creationism. From what I remember he then quickly distanced himself from that (the host was a OEC too). (go to the 3:45 mark; an otherwise fine defense by WLC)

      “…I’d be genuinely interested to see what the adherence rate to YEC is is worldwide.”

      Here’s a reference for a start: Wikipedia: Creationism by country.

      And, from what I remember, the largest creationist organization is based in South Korea. Thanks for showing your wisdom again reminding us that the number of people accepting or rejecting a position doesn’t have any bearing on the truth of the claim.

      “Regarding Adam and Eve being created in the beginning, I’ve already pointed out the inconsistency in literalist approaches to this. Jesus says “at the beginning of creation” when, if we are to take it literally (as YECs so often press), humans were not at the beginning of creation. So why is the text not taken 100% literally there, but it absolutely must be, according to YECs, taken 100% literally in other cases regarding creation?”

      I remember you addressing that. And I also remember replying that the “beginning of creation” just means the period of time when God was creating. That is a literal reading, since that’s what this phrase and similar phrases throughout the New Testament imply. It doesn’t say “the first day of creation” And, to me, Jesus’ testimony about the time at which the first humans deals a death blow to the OEC position.

      “Hovind’s answer regarding creation/evolution as a side issue is curious, because it doesn’t seem to answer the question. How is Hovind understanding ‘side issue’ here? How are you defining it?”

      Side issue would just be that people who think, “Evolution vs. Creation?! That’s not important. Let’s love and help people…”

      I, too, wish Kent had elaborated more on his answers. I invited him to write as much or as little as he wanted, that’s what he gave me, so we’re stuck with these. :)

      Like

      • I agree that it is not every OEC, but those who do treat others with contempt (both YEC and OEC) should repent.

        Thanks for the link with creationism by country. I’d still be curious to see the actual #s. For example, one teacher using a creationist textbook in an entire country doesn’t give a very specific picture of creationism in that country (Romania).

        Your response to the quote from Jesus demonstrates the point I made above. Again, YECs seem totally willing to nuance the language, look to contemporary usage, and the like when it comes to things that either go against creationism (in order to shore up the defenses) or is a neutral topic; but then when it comes to applying the exact same care and nuance to, for example, the Genesis 1 creation account, that goes out the window. It must be not just literal but word-for-word verbatim literalism.

        You cite the Greek usage of the term and usage throughout the NT, but when it comes to the usage of days in other creation myths in the ANE context of the OT–when it comes to looking at the other passages which describe creation in three-tiered terms in the OT itself, etc. the same nuance does not apply. It’s just: here’s what the text says. It says day, ergo 24 hour day. But again, that same form of literalism simply is not applied across the Bible.

        I’m asking for equal standards to be applied in both cases. But they aren’t applied. Indeed, they cannot be. Equal standards must apply; should apply. But apparently they don’t. Nuance Jesus’ words in light of what we know? Sure, why not. Nuance the Genesis creation account? Never.

        Regarding creation as a side issue, I’m still not entirely sure what you mean. I would consider it a side issue because I believe that someone could be YEC, OEC, or anywhere along the continuum and still have saving faith in Christ Jesus our Lord. Does a view of creation matter? Yes. Is it on the same level of doctrines like the Incarnation and Trinity? Nope, not even close. Hence, side issue.

        Like

      • “Your response to the quote from Jesus demonstrates the point I made above. Again, YECs seem totally willing to nuance the language, look to contemporary usage, and the like when it comes to things that either go against creationism (in order to shore up the defenses) or is a neutral topic; but then when it comes to applying the exact same care and nuance to, for example, the Genesis 1 creation account, that goes out the window. It must be not just literal but word-for-word verbatim literalism.”

        I guess it depends on what we mean when we say “literal”. The hoop you want me to jump through it supra/ultra-literalistic. That’s not how I read the Bible. I understand reading the Bible literally as meaning “reading it the way it was intended, which I see evidenced by a particular writing’s style, content, and biblical authors’ use of it”. I read poetry understanding it to be poetry (with figurative language, etc.). I read historical narrative as historical narrative.

        “I’m asking for equal standards to be applied in both cases. But they aren’t applied.”

        In this particular case, the exactness of the words used doesn’t allow it. Genesis 1 says “([ordinal] number) + day”. Jesus says the phrase “beginning of creation”. One is specific and the other general. Interestingly, the Hebrew title for “Genesis”, בראשׁית (bereshit), means “in [the] beginning”.

        And speaking of Genesis…

        I take the Genesis 1 creation account literally, i.e. the way it appears to have been meant to be read — as an account of creation. It mentions days with ordinal numbers in a sequence (a triple threat). It lays out a process of creation that, were the days actually long periods of time, would be impossible (plants without sunlight, for example). Adam and Eve are literal people and every biblical author assumes their existence in real space-time. In fact, not surprisingly, the whole rest of the Bible depends on the literal / actual realness of the people and events recorded in Genesis. (That is probably the reason why it’s the first book in the Bible.)

        For what it’s worth I’ll mention that I’ve read Genesis in 3 languages (English, Mandarin, and Taiwanese) and from a linguist’s perspective, I can say that a translation of it is pretty straight-forward. No special language or terms. No tricky phrases. Simple, direct history is how the translators of the Chinese Union Bible read it and William Barclay, translator of the Taiwanese Bible.

        In contrast, what internal, biblical evidence does the OEC theory have to support its interpretation of Genesis 1 as figurative or allegorical? Why do OEC theories not attempt to explain the other 49 chapters of Genesis at allegorical / mythological / figurative? Why only Genesis 1?

        As a YEC, I stand on these:

        (1) All of the rest of the Bible assumes the historical nature of all of Genesis, even the first chapter.
        (2) No one ever attempts to explain the other 49 chapters of Genesis as mere allegories or figures of speech.
        (3) Jesus said that humans existed at the beginning of creation.

        Does a view of creation matter? Yes. Is it on the same level of doctrines like the Incarnation and Trinity? Nope, not even close. Hence, side issue.

        As for “side issue”, I didn’t explain it clearly enough. That’s my fault. I just meant that people see it as a side issue in evangelism. It’s not a salvation issue, I agree. But when it comes to evangelism, evolution is a major stumbling block to many people.

        Like

      • I hope I’m replying to the right part of the thread.

        You wrote: “It’s not a salvation issue, I agree. But when it comes to evangelism, evolution is a major stumbling block to many people.”

        I would say “according to whom,” but it is a stumbling block for many. My point would be that it need not be. For example, if someone thinks that all life evolved from a universal common ancestor, does that somehow mean that Jesus Christ did not die or rise from the dead? No. It doesn’t follow in any way. So I’m not all that sure of why it should be a stumbling block in evangelism at all.

        You wrote: “I guess it depends on what we mean when we say “literal”. The hoop you want me to jump through it supra/ultra-literalistic. That’s not how I read the Bible. I understand reading the Bible literally as meaning “reading it the way it was intended, which I see evidenced by a particular writing’s style, content, and biblical authors’ use of it”. ”

        That’s just it, the point I’m trying to make is that the way you’re reading the Bible assumes from the start that the YEC interpretation just is the way it was intended. But rather than acknowledging the broad ANE perspective which oftentimes uses days as creation language, refers to a three-tiered cosmology of heaven, earth, and seas, and the like, the assumption is that the text is plain and simple. But the reading is simplistic. Again, you say that it involves reading poetry as poetry and history as history. But rather than interacting with any kind of ancient historiographical methods or writings of myth, you write, “No special language or terms. No tricky phrases. Simple, direct history is how the translators of the Chinese Union Bible read it and William Barclay, translator of the Taiwanese Bible.” This is as though reading the Bible in modern English or Taiwanese or Chinese somehow gives insight into the actual background and cultural perspective of an inspired writer over 3000 years ago.

        21st century definitions of history are being imported on the text with no more acknowledgement than saying that it must be “simple, direct history.” But that cuts exactly against the initial statement that we should read it as it was intended with the original author. There’s no exploration of that there, just a blithe lack of even acknowledging that 3000 years gives an entirely different perspective on what is meant by writing history.

        I’m sorry this is so long, but the point needs to be made. I studied history in college, my bachelor’s degree is in Social Studies. I took classes on historiography. It is blatantly obvious that even 100 years ago history was taken to mean a different kind of reporting than we have now. 2000 years ago in the Gospels, it was also very different. That’s why we can have 4 different Gospels with sometimes 4 different accounts of a story and still affirm it as inerrant–the way they wrote history was different. The chronology was not as important, nor were the exact verbatim quotes.

        But again, none of this is even acknowledged. Instead, a quote-unquote literal reading of the text is endorsed because it somehow “must” be history and that type of history “must” match our own way of thinking about history. That is not at all reading the Bible in the intent of the original authors. It’s mapping our own expectations and even methods onto their text and hoping it fits.

        Again sorry this is so long–I’m breaking some of our rules regarding length of comment–but I wanted to be as clear as possible.

        Like

      • Hi, JW.

        Thanks for taking the time to leave a lengthy comment. I appreciate that.

        And I hear your point, which is: a “literal” reading ignores literary type and cultural norms regarding history and how it’s recorded by certain civilizations throughout history. Is that a fair summary of your point?

        The problem seems to be that although you have attacked my reading of the text, you didn’t answer my questions. So, again:

        What internal, biblical evidence does the OEC theory have to support its interpretation of Genesis 1 as figurative or allegorical or (insert whatever word you want here)? Why do OEC theories not attempt to explain the other 49 chapters of Genesis at allegorical / mythological / figurative? Why only Genesis 1?

        (Note: I don’t see any OT or NT author who assumes its mythological or otherwise. Correct me if I’m wrong.)

        But rather than interacting with any kind of ancient historiographical methods or writings of myth, you write, “No special language or terms. No tricky phrases. Simple, direct history is how the translators of the Chinese Union Bible read it and William Barclay, translator of the Taiwanese Bible.” This is as though reading the Bible in modern English or Taiwanese or Chinese somehow gives insight into the actual background and cultural perspective of an inspired writer over 3000 years ago.

        No, I didn’t think that reading those translations gave me insights into the background and cultural perspective of the inspired author. Fellow creationist A.E. Wilder-Smith once said (I’m paraphrasing): “If you really want to see if you understand something, try to explain it to someone in another language.” I only mentioned the translations because the duty of translators is to know the languages they’re working with and to know them well — and I look at their work to observe how they understand the text and what they did with it. The Chinese Union Version, for example, was the product of a diverse group of translators from different Protestant denominations, and they translated it in a straight, forward manner. Thomas Barclay’s Taiwanese translation is highly praised for accuracy and eloquence, and he, too, translates it in a straight, forward manner. So I, lowly educated man that I am (only two degrees), I come along and wonder, “How did these brilliant theologians and linguists working in committees understand the text?”

        And I respect your education, your intelligence, and your passion. I just ask that you return the favor. My site isn’t for long, drawn-out essays and articles in defense of the claims of Christianity. That’s part of the pun of the name. But I will say that Mandarin is my second language (still learning!), so I know this one thing: Chinese history is full of myths, as is my bookshelf. (In fact, the Journey West, the most famous fountain of myth and fantasy in Chinese, is a personal favorite of mine.) Genesis 1 doesn’t read like any near eastern myth, no far eastern myth for that matter; there’s no lavish language, not a wasted word; no improbable / impossible elements or numbers (like the Chinese myth of Pangu, where after being birthed from an egg after 18,000 years, he created the universe with an ax).

        If I might ask, we’re God inspiring an author to write the event(s) of creation in a literal account, what would He have to have said to convey that to readers?
        (ref. Exodus 20:11)

        As for evolution being a stumbling block, well, I rely on my own experiences talking with people on the subject and those of evangelists who report traveling to many areas of the world where people are resistant to anything related to the Bible because they think evolution (everything from nothing, apart from God or any intelligence) is already a proven, scientific fact. For what it’s worth, I’ll say that I have never met another creationist while living in the Far East. Every non-Taiwanese I’ve brought the subject up with has been hostile to it.

        But if you have time and think them worth answering, I’d be very interested in your response to the questions above.

        Like

      • You asked, “What internal, biblical evidence does the OEC theory have to support its interpretation of Genesis 1 as figurative or allegorical or (insert whatever word you want here)? Why do OEC theories not attempt to explain the other 49 chapters of Genesis at allegorical / mythological / figurative? Why only Genesis 1?”

        I’m not sure how to answer this without being extremely lengthy. Rather than going into that depth, I’ll just make a couple remarks. (Maybe I should write a blog post on this?) First, I’m not entirely sure what “OEC theories” you’re referencing here. You say “Why [is] only Genesis 1 [treated as allegorical/mythical/figurative]?” But I’m not sure I’m aware of any OEC who holds that only Genesis 1 is separate from the rest of the text. Genesis 1-11 is usually the unit that is debated.

        As far as internal biblical evidence, I’m glad you cited Exodus 20:11. You’ll note that it specifically references the broad ANE concept of a three tiered creation, “For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them…” So in this classic YEC proof text, YECs are basically pointing everyone to one of the clearest examples of the fact that Genesis–and the whole OT and most references in the NT as well–is ancient cosmology exactly in line with the rest of the ANE. We have the heavens, earth, and the sea referenced explicitly here (and in many other locations across the Bible). This is the same way the rest of the ANE world referred to the cosmos, as a three-tiered universe.

        Internal evidence? There you go, and in the YEC’s favorite proof text, to boot. How about in Genesis itself? Sure. First we have the clear parallel between Days 1-3 and 4-6, showing the various aspects of the creation (again, you can see the three-tiered universe here as well) set alongside their ordering and functions. So once more we have the background understanding from the ANE (along with polemic against that background as the cosmic bodies are unnamed) set alongside the ANE understanding of function as the purpose of creation.

        Kyle Greenwood and John Walton have excellent books examining the cosmos in their cultural settings, Stanley Jaki shows how Christian and Jewish interpretation of Genesis 1 has varied wildly with various cosmological assumptions, and there are others worth reading as well on this.

        The bottom line of all of this is that even the proof text you cite points to my point, not yours. The understanding of the cosmos as heavens, earth, and sea was the contextual, historical understanding at that time. When we dismiss that and try to force our assumptions onto the text, we’re asking questions of the text it is not intended to answer. “How old is the universe?” we ask the text. Yet there is no point in time given for the creation event. “How is a day?” yet there is evening and morning without the sun, and the very next chapter references all of creation as “the day.” These questions are not what the text is answering. Who made the universe? What functions do the various aspects of our universe have? Those are questions that the text answers.

        The YEC reading does not, cannot make contextual sense of the passage. Indeed, I think the vast majority of OEC readings do not and cannot either.

        Like

      • Thanks for replying, JW.

        The specific OEC theories I was referring to are:

        (1) Genesis 1 isn’t meant to be read as actual history.
        (2) Day doesn’t necessarily mean a 24-hour period of time, even when preceded by an ordinal and used in a sequence (!).

        It seems to me that OEC proponents over-emphasize similarities between Genesis 1 (and up to chapter 3) and ANE texts. The most common comparison is with Enuma Elish, as you well know. When I first heard the theory years ago, I was quick to get a copy. How disappointed I was when I saw that it was the critics’ imagination and not the text itself that created similarities!

        And even if we see parallels with the ANE concept of three-tiered creation, would we be surprised to find a similar / the same concept in the ancient Chinese literature? I mean, think about it: the sky, the earth, the ocean — pretty basic concepts. (I’ll check my Chinese mythology books for this, too.) If I find that it exists there, too, can we concede that the three-tiered creation concept is proof of only a common observation?

        Even if YECs concede that single similarity, there are vast differences between Genesis 1 and ANE writings. One example: (1) No flowery language. And is not flowery language a feature of ANE creation myths, etc.?

        And if you’ll concede that point, I’ll gladly concede your point that Genesis 1 doesn’t give us an age of the Earth — but that is why I quoted Jesus comment on the “beginning of creation”.

        PS – Can you give me the names of the books you referenced? Thanks!

        Like

      • You write, “And even if we see parallels with the ANE concept of three-tiered creation, would we be surprised to find a similar / the same concept in the ancient Chinese literature? I mean, think about it: the sky, the earth, the ocean — pretty basic concepts. (I’ll check my Chinese mythology books for this, too.) If I find that it exists there, too, can we concede that the three-tiered creation concept is proof of only a common observation?”

        No, this is exactly what I mean by reading modern assumptions back onto the texts. The three-tiered cosmology is pervasive throughout Scripture and speaks to the actual belief they had for what formed their cosmos, not to observation alone. As Kyle Greenwood put it, “First, whenever we find physical descriptions of the cosmos, it is described as three-tiered. Second, whenever we find… images or drawings of the cosmos, they are three-tiered. Third, nowhere… do we find the authors explaining their cosmology in any other terms besides the three-tiered system. Finally, we know that ancients thought of the cosmos in terms of the heavens, earth, and seas because eventually these ideas were challenged by Aristotle and Ptolemy, whose ideas were later challenged by Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler.” (“Scripture and Cosmology, p. 69–this is actually an upcoming “Sunday Quote” on my blog.)

        I concur. We need positive, textual evidence from the authors themselves showing that they were merely reporting phenomenologically, rather than stating their beliefs about the universe. We have no such evidence. Indeed, we have every reason to think that this just is what they thought of the cosmos. So no, I do not at all concede that this is “a common observation.” It was drawn from observation, yes, but it was also exactly how they believed the cosmos was composed. If you disagree, prove that from the text. Show me the places where the authors showed a different cosmology, or where they explained they were just speaking of what they saw, not of how the universe was actually composed.

        This is where the whole debate hinges: I think we actually do need to go back to the meaning of the texts in the cultural and historical context. That means we can’t force the text to meet our 21st century expectations. But those 21st century expectations are central to maintaining YEC and most forms of OEC as well.

        You write, “Even if YECs concede that single similarity, there are vast differences between Genesis 1 and ANE writings. One example: (1) No flowery language. And is not flowery language a feature of ANE creation myths, etc.?”

        “Flowery language” is a highly subjective term. I think Genesis 1 is beautiful and I’m not sure how it would not be flowery at all. Indeed, the references to humanity as made in the “image of God’ the way God simply speaks things into order and function and being, etc. These are all flowery. I’m not really sure what’s being said.

        You also keep referencing the simplicity of the language and the like. The problem is that simplicity of language does not mean simplicity of concept or of understanding. I have read simple explanations of Quantum Mechanics. I still don’t get it. Having a creation account addressed “simply”–whatever that is to mean–does not mean that there is not much more to it than that.

        Finally, regarding Jesus’ words again. I would note that I think my charge of “nuance” still stands. There is no balance between how YECs read his words there and how they read Genesis 1 (or indeed, how Genesis 2:4 explicitly says creation was ‘the day’).Yet a consistent hermeneutic would point to the divine condescension used by God to speak in terms the people of the time would understand. The proof text doesn’t work. It is not read consistently by YECs at all.

        The books I was referencing are Walton’s body of work, but mostly “Genesis 1 as ancient cosmology.” Stanley Jaki’s “Genesis 1 Through the Ages”. Greenwood’s aforementioned “Scripture and Cosmology.”

        Like

      • If I just might add: I think you’re right about the phrase “flower language” being too subjective. Last night, I almost went back and changed that word to “poetic”. I would hope that we both admit that Genesis 1 isn’t written as poetry, as seen in the rest of the OT.

        I still disagree with your insistence that YECs have an unbalanced reading. Context is key. When I read the phrase “beginning of creation”, I understand that phrase as meaning “general period of time when God was creating” because Jesus is talking to Jewish people and referring to the origin of man, meaning they would have referenced their previous knowledge of the events in Genesis 1 and understood the general period of time that He was talking about. And when I read the phrase “the day” in Genesis 2:4, again, the context defines the word for me as “a period of time” — there the word isn’t preceded by an ordinal number, nor is it in a sequence.

        But I’ve taken a lot of your time. Thanks for this and all the previous comments. Let me take time to research this out and those books you mentioned are definitely intriguing to me, especially the first two. Thanks!

        This has been the best discussion I’ve had in months. Thanks for being willing to defend your position and to take the time to critique mine.

        PS – I re-read the most famous Chinese record of origins and it, too, mentions the earth and sky and the origin of the waters on the earth. Although I read it in Mandarin, here is pretty much the same thing in English: Pan Gu.

        Like

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